One of the most vexing questions about the origin of patriarchy is how did men take over in the first place, if Women are the superior gender and were already in power to begin with in the last Matriarchal age? And the question is not merely academic, as the answer will at least partially inform us on how to prevent men from taking over again in the future. History may not always repeat itself exactly, of course, but it does rhyme nonetheless.
Some theorists would say that was because Women were too lenient with men and allowed them too much freedom ("give them an inch, and they take a mile") while others say the opposite, that Women were too harsh and strict and did not allow men enough freedom, so they rebelled ("forbidden fruit" or "reactance theory"). (Note also the parallels with today's discourse about teenagers and young adults, as this foreshadows the rest of this article.) Still others, such as Riane Eisler and many others in the Goddess Movement, put forth the Kurgan theory, namely that a few patriarchal cultures formed in central Asia and the Arabian peninsula, and violently conquered their peaceful Matriarchal neighbors and eventually the world. These cultures, called Kurgans, were semi-literate or illiterate nomadic sheepherders who really had no culture of their own, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was rewarded in their culture. This theory orginated from anthropologist Marija Gimbutas, and makes a great deal of sense. But it does not fully explain how those cultures came to be patriarchal in the first place, except for the fact that aggression is wittingly or unwittingly rewarded in nomadic pastoral societies, and men are generally more aggressive and competitive than Women.
I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's most recent book "The End of Patriarchy", I inadvertently discovered a similarly-titled book by Claudio Naranjo, titled, "The End of Patriarchy: And the Dawning of a Tri-une Society", which led me to a new theory on the matter. And while I don't agree with everything that Naranjo says, he does make some good points nonetheless. He posits that young people were the ones in charge in the Paleolithic age, then Women were in charge in the Neolithic age, and then men took over in the Bronze Age and remained in power since. And as the title implies, he looks forward to the end of patriarchy and the beginning of a new, "tri-une" society that combines the best of all three past ages, with women, men, and children all being equally valued members of society. While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy a bit too short and often mischaracterizes what it really is, and I also think that the best way that his tri-une society or something like it can be created is with Women in charge.
But one thing is certain. Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of young people) can theoretically exist without patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist without adultism. To wit, men would never have been able to disempower women as much as they did if young people had not been thoroughly disempowered first by adults of both primary genders (even if done more so by men). Kind of like how the rich would never have been able to torpedo the middle class as they did from Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't also helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus. That is my latest insight after coming across the work of Naranjo. After all, it took thousands of years to remove Women from power and subjugate them, and it looks like adultism was one of men's secret weapons to accomplish this nefarious and perfidious act.
Thus patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist movement that is not on board with the youth-rights movement as well is indeed a major intersectionality fail. Much like how brocialists and manarchists are towards Women, and how White Feminists (TM) are towards people of color. The entire edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail.
Without youth rights, children and young people are essentially treated as "un-persons", and what results is what I call the Great Cosmic Custody Battle between the toxic authoritarians on both sides of patriarchy vs. reverse patriarchy. And as long as that battle continues, so too will patriarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny.
So let's finally smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday! What better time than now?
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Who's Afraid Of An Aging Population? (Updated for 2020)
I had long wondered why so many men, especially the elites, are terrified that our overall population is (gasp!) aging. It is not just because they fear that their economic Ponzi scheme of necrotic growth for the sake of growth will unravel, though that is clearly part of it as well. No, I think that their real fear is that the Crones (i.e. Women over age 50 or so) will have an *unprecedented* level of power due to relative strength in numbers, and thus so will Women in general. That is because Women are living longer than ever before, as well as having fewer kids. And the men are getting scared. Hence the recent push to whittle away Women's reproductive rights, eventually including most if not all birth control as well.
Additionally, with birthrates declining over time, and each new generation thus slightly smaller than then previous one, that effectively means that there will be fewer younger Women relative to slightly older men, giving younger Women that much more bargaining power in the dating market despite an overall surplus of Women in general. Thus by the 2030s, Women will get the best of both worlds, and be even more empowered as a result of such demographic trends.
(Note that this also means that statistically more younger men will be "mentored" by older Women in that regard as per the laws of supply and demand, which would also help further accelerate the transition to Matriarchy as well.)
Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population? Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are essentially overblown. In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per Woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population. Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe. Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks. And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare.
Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION. Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life. While technology (and Monetary Sovereignty) can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation. And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so. According to the best evidence, the best ways to accomplish this is 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is the MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise). Seriously.
Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.
So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5? Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long. Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective. Well, the answer to that, again, is increased Female empowerment. We see that European countries with greater Female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for Mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece. Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per Woman.
The proof is clearly in the pudding.
Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight. But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time. And honestly, it can't happen soon enough. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact.
As the great Marianne Williamson once said, at this juncture of history we are now at the "menopause" of humanity, in which what we really need is fewer babies, and more wisdom.
In other words, VIVE LA FEMME! Let the planetary healing begin!
Additionally, with birthrates declining over time, and each new generation thus slightly smaller than then previous one, that effectively means that there will be fewer younger Women relative to slightly older men, giving younger Women that much more bargaining power in the dating market despite an overall surplus of Women in general. Thus by the 2030s, Women will get the best of both worlds, and be even more empowered as a result of such demographic trends.
(Note that this also means that statistically more younger men will be "mentored" by older Women in that regard as per the laws of supply and demand, which would also help further accelerate the transition to Matriarchy as well.)
Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population? Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are essentially overblown. In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per Woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population. Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe. Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks. And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare.
Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION. Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life. While technology (and Monetary Sovereignty) can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation. And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so. According to the best evidence, the best ways to accomplish this is 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is the MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise). Seriously.
Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.
So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5? Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long. Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective. Well, the answer to that, again, is increased Female empowerment. We see that European countries with greater Female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for Mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece. Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per Woman.
The proof is clearly in the pudding.
Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight. But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time. And honestly, it can't happen soon enough. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact.
As the great Marianne Williamson once said, at this juncture of history we are now at the "menopause" of humanity, in which what we really need is fewer babies, and more wisdom.
In other words, VIVE LA FEMME! Let the planetary healing begin!
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is
Author Yuri Alexandrovich wrote a great article recently for Medium, in which he articulates something that we all intuitively know (but often don't want to say out loud) about the patriarchy and how to end it. After first establishing that patriarchy is inherently evil (and thus cannot be redeemed), he then goes on about what holds it all together. This thing that holds the entire construct all together is its sine qua non and thus is it's own Achilles' heel, and that thing is control of female sexuality, and the primary tool used to control that is slut-shaming. That is, the shaming of Women for expressing their sexuality in the way they choose. And thus the "kill switch" is to put an end to the practice of slut-shaming.
Wait, what? There is still slut-shaming in 2020? Absolutely. It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there. The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition. And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.
(That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.)
As Yuri Alexandrovich himself says:
In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function. That is how the oligarchs control the serfs. And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance. The analogy should be apparent now.
Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later. And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy. That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.
One thing needs to be clear. As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well. The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period. And that is true for both Women and men, by the way. Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things. Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for. The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well.
Put simply: Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.
So what are we waiting for? Kill Switch Engage! Let the planetary healing begin!
Wait, what? There is still slut-shaming in 2020? Absolutely. It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there. The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition. And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.
(That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.)
As Yuri Alexandrovich himself says:
So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:
NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality). As I have noted before, the suppression of Women's sexuality was not entirely about maintaining control over the male bloodline (though that was originally a major part of it), but more generally about power and control over Women directly, as well as over other men indirectly via artificial scarcity.
In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function. That is how the oligarchs control the serfs. And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance. The analogy should be apparent now.
Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later. And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy. That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.
One thing needs to be clear. As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well. The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period. And that is true for both Women and men, by the way. Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things. Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for. The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well.
Put simply: Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.
So what are we waiting for? Kill Switch Engage! Let the planetary healing begin!
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
How Long Do We Have To Save The Planet? Spoiler Alert: Not Very
It's now 2020. According to the world's leading scientists who are now virtually unanimous about this: time is running out to save the planet from the converging catastrophes (especially climate change) threatening it's (and our own) very survival. We have at most eleven years left to fix climate change specifically, to say nothing of all the other crises (deforeststion, desertification, pollution, etc.) which brings us to 2030, most likely a very pivotal year.
I don’t know about you, the readers, but I really do NOT trust men to save this world. The past 7000 years or so is evidence enough. Thus, as per my prediction that I made several years ago, Women would need to take over by 2030 at the latest if we are to have any hope at all.
Of course, I am specifically talking about a political takeover, particularly in the Western world. That needs to happen as soon as possible. The spiritual side of things, on the other hand, will likely take several generations to complete, as Guru Rasa von Werder has noted before. Not perfect, of course, but if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.
What better time than now?
I don’t know about you, the readers, but I really do NOT trust men to save this world. The past 7000 years or so is evidence enough. Thus, as per my prediction that I made several years ago, Women would need to take over by 2030 at the latest if we are to have any hope at all.
Of course, I am specifically talking about a political takeover, particularly in the Western world. That needs to happen as soon as possible. The spiritual side of things, on the other hand, will likely take several generations to complete, as Guru Rasa von Werder has noted before. Not perfect, of course, but if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.
What better time than now?
Sunday, December 8, 2019
Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Guarantee for All, Yesterday (Re-post)
I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all. At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely. To wit:
In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top. So why aren't we doing this yesterday? Because that would make far too much sense. To quote Buckminster Fuller:
- First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women". Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all. Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking. As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do: underpaid, and unpaid. While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women. Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree. It is indeed LONG overdue.
- Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women. When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall. And this will only increase in the near future. This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later. Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions: 1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money. Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.
- A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy. No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God. It's simply a basic human right, period. And it would be far less costly in the long run.
- As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology. And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you. And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.
- Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem. And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
- We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
- With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
- Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin. Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life. And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way.
- Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve. This is over and above the effects of poverty alone. And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty. (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
- We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to. Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like. A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
- And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts". What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard. And that needs to change. Yesterday. The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place. A UBI will make the transition much smoother and peaceful.
In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top. So why aren't we doing this yesterday? Because that would make far too much sense. To quote Buckminster Fuller:
We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate." And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life. Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless. Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society. So what are we waiting for?
Sunday, December 1, 2019
The "Anti-Mary" Exposed? (Spoiler Alert: Just Look In The Mirror)
It seems that the perennial anti-feminist backlash is rife these days, as one can see it most everywhere today. This backlash is always strongest when Women seem to be winning the gender war against patriarchy. As I had noted in a previous post, there have been several anti-feminist Women who have done more harm to the cause of feminism and Matriarchy than any man could ever hope to do.
But it seems a more subtle yet effective attack from another angle can also be added to this list as well. While I really do not want to give her any sort of publicity, a female conservative Catholic "scholar" by the name of Carrie Gress has apparently written a book called The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity. And this book is in dire need of a serious debunking, even more than when I debunked Mark Regnerus' own verbal defecation.
Like the concept of the Antichrist, Gress claims that there is a demonic spirit called the "Anti-Mary" that first reared its head in the late 1960s via the second-wave feminist movement. She calls it the "Anti-Mary" in that she believes it is diametrically opposed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, in Gress' view, the entire feminist movement, the pro-choice movement, birth control, the pursuit of personal happiness (for Women, that is), divorce, gay rights and gay marriage, the Goddess Movement, and the "occult" are all manifestations of that same spirit (peppered with the obligatory references to Lilith and Jezebel, of course). And according to her, there is a small group of elite Women controlling society from behind the scenes since the late 1960s that she ironically calls "The Matriarchy" (which paradoxically demeans and opposes motherhood, go figure), thus the book essentially becomes its very own parody. And she blames this so-called "Anti-Mary" (read: feminism) for essential all of modern society's ills today, and believes that Women are more miserable than ever as a result, or at least less happy now than they were in the so-called "good old days" before the 1960s. Riiiight.
In other words, she apparently wants to go back to a time of rigid and dehumanizing gender roles when Women had no real civil and human rights and were essentially treated as brood mares at best. Because that is exactly what happens when Women are denied their reproductive rights to decide when or whether to have children, and when Women's sexuality is repressed and controlled by men, the church, the state, or all of the above. While she would never say such blunt words out loud, she certainly implies them in an Orwellian fashion (where freedom is slavery and vice-versa).
Remember, even the supposedly "kinder and gentler" patriarchy of "third way" Catholic Distributism is still patriarchy, and thus cannot be redeemed. And no amount of disingenuous zero-sum thinking can turn a Big Lie into the truth, or turn enforced motherhood into liberation.
And of course anyone familiar with the Goddess Movement would almost instantly recognize the patriarchal splitting of the Great Mother archetype into the Good Mother (Mary) and the Terrible Mother (Lilith/Jezebel) archetypes in Gress's writing. Which is of course, neither novel nor inspiring.
There is a lot to unpack here, a pack of lies mixed with just enough truth to confuse and misdirect the gullible, but I can assure you that while it takes a real leap of logic to actually believe such fatuous and facile arguments wholesale, her thesis will nonetheless actually resonate with numerous disaffected Women who are looking for a scapegoat for the problems of the modern world, and her words will certainly tickle the ears of anyone who does not immediately respond with rage and vomiting. Her thesis reeks of internalized misogyny, albeit in a shiny and pretty wrapper, and there seems to be no shortage of that, as so many Women seem to be socialized to be their own worst enemy even today.
Having the GALL to try to openly pit the Blessed Virgin Mary against feminism and Matriarchy and the Goddess Movement (i.e. effectively against Mother God Herself!) is nothing short of blasphemy, and ironically exposes who the real "Anti-Mary" actually is: traitorous anti-feminist Women who side (and collaborate) with the demonic patriarchy.
QED
But it seems a more subtle yet effective attack from another angle can also be added to this list as well. While I really do not want to give her any sort of publicity, a female conservative Catholic "scholar" by the name of Carrie Gress has apparently written a book called The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity. And this book is in dire need of a serious debunking, even more than when I debunked Mark Regnerus' own verbal defecation.
Like the concept of the Antichrist, Gress claims that there is a demonic spirit called the "Anti-Mary" that first reared its head in the late 1960s via the second-wave feminist movement. She calls it the "Anti-Mary" in that she believes it is diametrically opposed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, in Gress' view, the entire feminist movement, the pro-choice movement, birth control, the pursuit of personal happiness (for Women, that is), divorce, gay rights and gay marriage, the Goddess Movement, and the "occult" are all manifestations of that same spirit (peppered with the obligatory references to Lilith and Jezebel, of course). And according to her, there is a small group of elite Women controlling society from behind the scenes since the late 1960s that she ironically calls "The Matriarchy" (which paradoxically demeans and opposes motherhood, go figure), thus the book essentially becomes its very own parody. And she blames this so-called "Anti-Mary" (read: feminism) for essential all of modern society's ills today, and believes that Women are more miserable than ever as a result, or at least less happy now than they were in the so-called "good old days" before the 1960s. Riiiight.
In other words, she apparently wants to go back to a time of rigid and dehumanizing gender roles when Women had no real civil and human rights and were essentially treated as brood mares at best. Because that is exactly what happens when Women are denied their reproductive rights to decide when or whether to have children, and when Women's sexuality is repressed and controlled by men, the church, the state, or all of the above. While she would never say such blunt words out loud, she certainly implies them in an Orwellian fashion (where freedom is slavery and vice-versa).
Remember, even the supposedly "kinder and gentler" patriarchy of "third way" Catholic Distributism is still patriarchy, and thus cannot be redeemed. And no amount of disingenuous zero-sum thinking can turn a Big Lie into the truth, or turn enforced motherhood into liberation.
And of course anyone familiar with the Goddess Movement would almost instantly recognize the patriarchal splitting of the Great Mother archetype into the Good Mother (Mary) and the Terrible Mother (Lilith/Jezebel) archetypes in Gress's writing. Which is of course, neither novel nor inspiring.
There is a lot to unpack here, a pack of lies mixed with just enough truth to confuse and misdirect the gullible, but I can assure you that while it takes a real leap of logic to actually believe such fatuous and facile arguments wholesale, her thesis will nonetheless actually resonate with numerous disaffected Women who are looking for a scapegoat for the problems of the modern world, and her words will certainly tickle the ears of anyone who does not immediately respond with rage and vomiting. Her thesis reeks of internalized misogyny, albeit in a shiny and pretty wrapper, and there seems to be no shortage of that, as so many Women seem to be socialized to be their own worst enemy even today.
Having the GALL to try to openly pit the Blessed Virgin Mary against feminism and Matriarchy and the Goddess Movement (i.e. effectively against Mother God Herself!) is nothing short of blasphemy, and ironically exposes who the real "Anti-Mary" actually is: traitorous anti-feminist Women who side (and collaborate) with the demonic patriarchy.
QED
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Why Do Cold-Blooded Psychopaths Rule Our World?
It seems that these days, and indeed for as long as anyone can remember, psychopaths and sociopaths (the former are born, the latter are made) have long been grossly overrepresented in positions of power. The higher the echelons of the power hierarchy, the greater prevalence of psychopaths/sociopaths there are. And it seems to have only gotten that much worse in recent decades in fact, and more global as well.
(Garden-variety psychopath, knife optional)
So why is that? The answer, it seems, is patriarchy. The following article from 2014 is a conversation between the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and great author William Bond, originally published on Rasa's Embodiment of God website. (My interspersed comments, as Ajax the Great, are in red.)
AJAX THE GREAT: Absolutely true indeed. Truer words were never spoken.
RASA: LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, Women are rising, while men are falling away and falling apart, and have been so for a while now.
RASA SAYS: THIS BEGS, FOR ME, A NEW DEFINITION OF “MASCULINE.” I POSIT AS A MASCULINE MAN, FOR INSTANCE, SAINT REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. THERE WAS A REAL MAN, WHO RISKED HIS LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS, AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS JESUS DID. I READ HIS BOOK “THE STRENGTH TO LOVE,” WHICH WAS ABOUT LOVING THOSE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY BOMB YOUR HOUSE. HE KNEW THE MEANING OF LOVE, HE WAS STRONG. THAT’S A REAL MAN, OR A REAL WOMAN. BULLIES ARE NOT REAL MEN, THEY ARE COWARDS, THEY ARE WEAK, CRUEL, AND THEY WILL BE REMOVED AWAY LIKE “THE CHAFF WHICH THE WIND BLOWETH AWAY”. THEY ARE ALL BLUFF AND BLUSTER, BUT IN ETERNAL LIFE, THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE EXCEPT BURNING IN HELL.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, bullies have what is now known as "toxic masculinity", which is detrimental to everyone, and they are also cowards. They are certainly not real men!
We can see this in the way male animals behave in the rutting season. Every spring animals like bulls, rams and stags fight each other for dominance and access to females. In these fights the winner takes all, the biggest and strongest males gain access to all females, while the weaker ones get zero. A successful stag is not only bigger and stronger, but aggressive, ruthless and selfish. Sharing with other stags is not an option; there can be only one winner who takes everything for himself.
RASA SAYS: YES, INDEED, GOOD ANALOGY. HOWEVER, I TAKE NOTE THAT ANIMALS KILL BY THEIR INSTINCT, TAKE HAREMS THROUGH VIOLENCE, BUT THERE IT ENDS. HUMAN MALES ARE NOT ANIMALISTIC, BUT “SUBHUMAN,” AS THEY NOT ONLY FOLLOW INSTINCTS BUT THEY ARE SENSELESSLY SADISTIC. ANIMALS DO NOT RAPE TINY ONE DAY OLD BABIES (AND MANY ARE KILLED) OR SMALL INFANTS….THEY DO NOT PLAN MURDER, THEY DO NOT DO “GENOCIDES.” THEY DO NOT, IN ORDER TO GAIN PLUNDER, WIPE OUT THOUSANDS OR HOPE TO MURDER MILLIONS. THEY DO NOT USE THEIR MINDS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SUCH AS ATOM BOMBS, INVENTION OF AIDS PUT SECRETLY INTO VACCINES; THEY DO NOT PLAN TO MICROCHIP MILLIONS AND USE THEM AS SLAVES, THEY DO NOT CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH OVENS READY TO EVAPORATE PEOPLE AT 2,500 DEGREES. THEY DO NOT SKIN OTHER ANIMALS ALIVE TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PELTS. THEY DO NOT PLAN FRANKENSTEIN CROPS LIKE GMO’S NOR DO THEY PLAN TO MAKE HEALTHY FOODS ILLEGAL. HUMAN MALES HAVE TAKEN THIS INSTINCT TO THE POINT OF DEMONIC SUCH AS HAS NEVER EXISTED – THAT IS WHY MOTHER GOD IS RENDERING HUMAN MALES EXTINCT.
AJAX SAYS: Very well-said, Rasa. Indeed, sub-human or demonic is the best way to describe such evil and sadistic behavior that goes way, way beyond natural instincts. And even many of those who are not so extreme are still willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre.
We see the same in patriarchal societies. The vast majority of the wealth and power of any country is possessed by a small minority of people. Like rutting stags, the winner takes all, while the losers, the poor, get “the crumbs from the rich man’s table”. Men, also like stags, are violent, because the boundaries of any country are decided by war. For this reason, all countries have to have a strong military against invasion.
AJAX SAYS: There are in fact more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to have a decent standard of living, yet poverty and extreme inequality remain. Why? Patriarchy features winner-take-all economics, and reverse Robin Hood economics. Rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class until there are only two classes left: master, and serf. And plenty of violence and war, which enriches the oligarchs.
In contrast, as the late great Buckminster Fuller once noted, the feminine paradigm of leadership would reject men's outdated, inane, and insane self-fulfilling prophecy that war and scarcity are somehow inevitable.
Until then, mechaninzation is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites--most of them MEN.
RASA: IT IS A PATTERN. UNTIL AND UNLESS WOMEN TAKE OVER COMPLETELY THIS WILL GO ON AS IF BUT HALF THE WORLD IS PATRIARCHAL, THE OTHER HALF HAS TO HAVE ARMIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEIR VIOLENCE.
AJAX SAYS: Very true. Certainly, abolishing the military entirely would be very naive and foolish so long as other countries remain patriarchal and maintain their own militaries. Though in the USA, we can certainly downsize by cutting our "defense" spending in half and we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world. Because currently it is not used so much for defense, as it is wars of aggression for plunder and empire, to enrich the psychopathic oligarchs at the top. See "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, truly a must-read for everyone.
In any patriarchal society – where men dominate – we have the rule of force, aggression and violence. If “masculine” people rule our world, then off course it is going to be a brutal where “might is right”. If we want a loving, caring world, then the only way to achieve this is to be ruled by loving and nurturing women.
The abuse of women and children is going to happen because they are smaller and weaker than fully grown men. Men use can use their greater size and strength to get what they want from smaller and weaker people. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud hinted at this in his Oedipus complex theory, where the son wants to kill his own father, and possess his mother. The actual reason for this is probably that the son was being abused by the father and hates him. He also wants to protect his mother from abuse by the father, but Freud wasn’t allowed to say this. The tragedy of this is that the son, when he grows up, is likely to treat his own wife and children in exactly the same way.
Freud did write a paper on the physical and sexual abuse children suffered by their fathers and other male relations, but this paper was censored. To save his career, Freud no longer posited the theories but only hinted at them. Since then, things have changed with the rise of feminism. Women are now able to assert themselves and take more control over the children. As the result, men who beat their wives and physically/sexually abuse their children can now be sent to prison. As women gained power, children were protected from male abuse.
RASA SAYS: EXCELLENT POINT. UNTIL WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, THEY ARE LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO. WHEN WOMEN GO TO THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS POLITICIZED AGAINST THEM, IN FAVOR OF MEN. I HAVE BEEN THEIR VICTIM. WHEN A WOMAN IS RAPED, THEY BLAME THE WOMAN. WHEN A CHILD IS RAPED, THEY REALLY DON’T CARE. IF ALL THE MEN WHO RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE PUT INTO PRISON, PROBABLY HALF OF ALL MALES WOULD BE INCARCERATED. MALES STICK UP FOR OTHER MALES. THE MALE POLICE PERSUADE WOMEN TO DROP CHARGES. MALE DA’S WON’T PROSECUTE CRIMINALS FOR INJURING OR RAPING WOMEN – IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE. THIS IS CHANGING, BUT IT STILL EXISTS. IN MANY COUNTRIES, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS. THEY ARE SLAVES AND THEY ARE SAVAGED. LOOK AT THE THEOCRATIC MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE STATISTICS PROVE WOMEN ARE RISING, MEN ARE FALLING. BUT IT IS THE WESTERN WOMEN THAT ARE RISING, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE REST OF THE WOMEN IN OPPRESSED COUNTRIES. IT WILL TAKE TIME. WE WILL DO IT.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, having male leaders in charge of prosecuting male violence against Women and children, is like the fox guarding the henhouse. The "good ol' boy" network is all too real, as is the victim-blaming mentality. Things are slowly but surely improving in that regard, with significant declines in rape, domestic violence, and child abuse statistics since the early 1990s, but we still have a very long way to go before we are anywhere close to a truly "civilized" society. Women really need to take over. Yesterday.
The more males dominate a country, the more violent it becomes, as women, children and other men suffer violence, rape and abuse. In such a brutal world we end up with psychopaths running everything, as they are the most vicious and brutal.
An example of this would be Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003. He became the leader as being a psychopath and had no qualms about killing or torturing people. In the eyes of many this made him a strong leader. In fact, people now claim that the people of Iraq suffer more from violence, since he was deposed by the USA, than while he was in power. This is because without a strong brutal leader, in this extreme patriarchal county, law and order has broken down. The whole of history is full of leaders like this, who take power and hold on to it, through violence and brutality.
Unfortunately, psychopaths not only exist in extreme patriarchal countries but in more moderate, democratic countries. In their book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”, by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert Hare, Ph.D. They point that in business, psychopaths are far more likely to be successful. The reason is that they have the ‘right’ qualities to succeed in a male dominated world. To quote. –
“Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”
This doesn’t only apply to businessmen; you only have to look at successful politicians to see the same thing. A politician in a patriarchal system has to be able to appear on TV and tell lies without any hint of shame or embarrassment. This means that being a psychopath is a big advantage in patriarchal politics.
Men off course invent all sorts of excuses to justify why we live in a world of injustice and violence. Patriarchal religions like to blame the Devil for all the harm men do. The big problem with this idea is that if God has created everything, then he made the Devil as well. So why would God make a person like the Devil, who opposes him? Religion also tries to blame women as well, in spite of the fact women are far less violent and far more caring than men.
RASA SAYS: MY OPINION OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN IS THE ORIGIN IS MEN, IT COMES FROM THEIR PSYCHE, THEIR ID. THEY HAVE UNLEASHED THE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF DEMONS ON THIS PLANET. IT COMES FROM THEIR LOWER CHAKRAS AND INSTINCTS. BUT THEY ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS, THEY ARE SUBHUMAN, AS I ALREADY SAID. IT IS NOT ALIENS, IT’S HUMAN MEN. IF IT WAS ALIENS, WOMEN MIGHT BE AFFECTED – BUT THEY ARE NOT. WHY ONLY MEN? THE ALIENS ARE THE FALL GUY, THE EXCUSE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE. THEY TRY TO USE ANIMALS AS EXCUSES, THAT WE ARE VIOLENT AS THEY ARE. BUT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS ARE THE BONOBOS.
AJAX SAYS: That makes sense. According to Paul Levy and Jack D. Forbes, it is the "wetiko" mind-virus, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. Essentially the same thing as Satan and demons.
CONSIDER THAT, WILLIAM BOND. INDEED THERE ARE BULLS AND STAGS. BUT OUR GENEOLOGY IS CLOSEST TO BONOBOS. THEY ARE MATRIARCHAL, THEY ARE HORNY, FRIENDLY, THEY SOLVE ALL CONFLICTS BY TOUCHING AND FEELING. THE MOTHERS RULE THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY, AND THEY ARE STRONG, AND THEY POSTURE, BUT THERE IS NO WAR. WHEN MALES INTIMIDATE FEMALES, THEY ARE MOBBED AND PREVENTED BY SEVERAL FEMALES, THEY CANNOT DOMINATE.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, "make love, not war" is essentially how the bonobos live. That, and like the Robin Morgan quote, "sisterhood is powerful". We can really learn a lot from them.
Science tries to justify men’s selfishness and violence onto “evolution”. They claim that the violence of male animals is “survival of the fittest”; where the strongest and fittest males get to breed the next generation of animals. They totally ignore the female’s role in evolution. The fact is that the mother gives birth and cares for the young, and this is a far more important role in the survival of any species, than what males do.
RASA SAYS: WHAT A BRILLIANT POINT WILLIAM HAS MADE, THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT MEN, AS MEN WANT US TO BELIEVE. THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEMALE WITH HER OFFSPRING IS MORE IMPORTANT!
AJAX SAYS: Brilliant indeed, as usual, William! You really hit the proverbial nail on the head. Even Darwin himself was apparently not a Social Darwinist at all.
Conspiracy theories try to blame secret societies like the Freemasons, the Illuminati or even alien reptiles for the ills of our world. The rich tend to blame the poor and the poor blame the rich, but few people will acknowledge the fact that as it is men who are ruling our world, then the problem must be male rulers.
RASA SAYS: ABSOLUTE LOGIC, ONCE AGAIN, OF WILLIAM BOND.
AJAX SAYS: BINGO. Psychopaths/sociopaths are completely ruthless since they have no conscience, and since the patriarchal paradigm rewards ruthlessness and aggression, then psychopaths/sociopaths will be the ones who inevitably rise to the top under male rule.
It must be obvious that any system that puts psychopaths in leadership positions is a bad arrangement. Yet, this is what patriarchy does all the time. Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and this is not a real problem if they are kept under control. Unfortunately, when men rule our world the most violent, aggressive or devious men end up in positions of power.
RASA SAYS: SURE, IF WILLIAM BOND OR JESUS CHRIST RULED OUR SOCIETY WE’D HAVE A PEACEFUL AND LOVING WORLD.
AJAX SAYS: True. And Ajax the Great as well.
Patriarchy also breeds psychopaths. It has been discovered that many psychopaths had appalling childhoods. A case in point would be Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein – all of whom were beaten mercilessly as children. Extreme patriarchal cultures encourage this, as they claim that abuse, “toughens up” boys and turns them into ‘real men’. Certainly turning a man into a psychopath makes him a good soldier, as he can kill without mercy. A more ordinary man is not such a good soldier, as he has qualms about killing the ‘enemy.’
AJAX SAYS: So very true, William! And you can add Pol Pot to that list (by his ruthless teachers) as well. It seems that "beating the devil out of 'em" is really more like beating the devil INTO 'em, which is what the sinister agenda of the demonic patriarchy really wants to do to turn boys, and thus men, into cannon fodder and "Good Germans" at best, and subhuman demonic zombie killers at worst, to do the bidding of the psychopathic oligarchs at the top.
RASA SAYS: GOOD POINT. BEING BRUTAL AND VIOLENT TOWARD MEN MAKES THEM SO, AND THEREFORE, OUR WORLD ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE THROUGH ALL MEDIA; GLORIFIES IT. THEY HAVE EXCUSES FOR THIS AS “ENTERTAINMENT,” AND “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” BUT IT’S MORE THAN THAT. THEY WANT TO BREED DEMONS – MEN WITH NO FEELINGS WHO KILL WITHOUT MERCY.
If we do not want to be ruled by psychopaths then the obvious solution is for women to rule our world. It is known that psychopaths can be created by extreme abuse, and in a patriarchal society where women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male, they are far more likely to suffer abuse of all kinds. Yet, in-spite of this, there are still far less female psychopaths then male.
RASA SAYS: ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT I FIRST HEARD FROM WILLIAM BOND. THE SAME ABUSE/VIOLENCE ON WOMEN DOES NOT ENGENDER THE SAME REACTION FROM WOMEN AS IT DOES MEN. IT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAIN, THE INSTINCT. WOMEN HAVE A STRONGER INSTINCT TO GIVE LIFE, MEN LESS SO; THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS SO THEY HAVE MORE VIOLENT TENDENCIES; BUT THESE MUST BE TEMPERED AND GUIDED RIGHTLY, NOT RUN AMUCK.
AJAX SAYS: I am not sure how much of this is nature versus nurture, but I would hazard a guess that it is a mixture of both. Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.
So it makes sense for us to be ruled by caring and nurturing females rather than aggressive males. We can see all over the world the more women are oppressed the more violent societies become. But in countries where women are empowered society is peaceful. When women are powerful, everyone benefits – bear in mind how brutal men are to other males. Abusive fathers appear in elite families as well as poor – men such as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam were brutalized.
The only way to overcome all these problems is to have women take over. It is true, there are caring men, but the psychos rise to the top — What psychopaths do is take acting lessons in how to appear loving and caring, then they are elected.
AJAX SAYS: So true. For thousands of years, the "good guys" have proven wholly incapable of defeating the bad guys on their own. If us fellas could do it, we would have already done it long ago. Even when a particularly notorious mass-murdering genocidal dictator like Hitler was defeated, that was achieved with the help of another, equally evil dictator, Stalin, who only gained strength afterwards and subsequently turned against the Allies after we no longer had a common enemy in the Nazis. Only Women can truly defeat all of the bad guys for good.
RASA SAYS: YOU CAN SEE LIARS ON TOP OF ALL GOVERNMENTS PRETENDING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR LIES. IT HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIES. TAKE KIND HEROD TELLING THE MAGI TO LET HIM KNOW WHERE JESUS IS BORN SO HE TOO, CAN GO WORSHIP HIM. THEN HEROD SENDS OUT HIS SOLDIERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWO. HE EVEN DUPED THE WOMEN TO BRING THE CHILDREN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS SO THEY COULD BE FETED – THEY BROUGHT THEM ALL DECKED OUT IN GARLANDS OF FLOWERS, WHERE THE SOLDIERS STABBED AND SPEARED THEM TO DEATH. AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HEROD AND ALL THESE MALE LEADERS WHO KILL SO MANY PEOPLE? THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE EVENTUALLY BUT USUALLY ON EARTH, THEY, LIKE THE GODFATHER, DIE OF OLD AGE. BUT THE INNOCENT ARE KILLED. SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE ON EARTH, CERTAINLY DOESN’T EXIST IN A PATRIARCHAL WORLD.
AJAX SAYS: They give with one hand, and they take with the other. And they take plenty of lives in the process.
Yes, there are ruthless and deceiving women as well, but not in the same numbers as men. Women have a powerful maternal instinct and once this instinct is activated then she not only wants to love and care for children of her own, she has the same desire to care for other people’s children, to look after the sick, old people and animals. If we look at violence, we find that men commit over 99% of all acts of violence. The reason is that because as women bring life to our world and want to nurture it, so it is harder for women to be cruel and uncaring for others than with men.
The competitive and aggressive instincts of men make them totally unsuitable to rule our world; they instigate conflict, war and injustice. The maternal/ nurturing instincts of women enable them to run the family and the world – A world ruled by women would be fair, loving and caring.
by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14
RASA SAYS: LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Can I get an AMEN? So very true indeed. We are all ruled by an oligarchy of a few hundred to a few thousand cold-blooded psychopaths and sociopaths at the top. And that is the logical conclusion of patriarchy, basically. Worse, even if they are deposed, these evil villainaire rulers will ultimately return if we don't stamp out the conditions that cause such evil to rise to power in the first place. Thus the better half of humanity, Women, must rise up and take over once and for all, Goddess willing. Only then will there ever be true peace on Earth.
What better time than now?
(Garden-variety psychopath, knife optional)
So why is that? The answer, it seems, is patriarchy. The following article from 2014 is a conversation between the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and great author William Bond, originally published on Rasa's Embodiment of God website. (My interspersed comments, as Ajax the Great, are in red.)
PSYCHOPATH PATRIARCHAL LEADERS by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14
If we want to understand why we live in a world of conflict — wars, violence, abuse, poverty and suffering, then we have to go back to basics. What is undisputed is that men rule our world and have done so for thousands of years. Male-rule is what feminists call patriarchy – masculine rule – and masculinity (as defined in our present society) is aggression, force, violence and intimidation.AJAX THE GREAT: Absolutely true indeed. Truer words were never spoken.
RASA: LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, Women are rising, while men are falling away and falling apart, and have been so for a while now.
RASA SAYS: THIS BEGS, FOR ME, A NEW DEFINITION OF “MASCULINE.” I POSIT AS A MASCULINE MAN, FOR INSTANCE, SAINT REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. THERE WAS A REAL MAN, WHO RISKED HIS LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS, AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS JESUS DID. I READ HIS BOOK “THE STRENGTH TO LOVE,” WHICH WAS ABOUT LOVING THOSE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY BOMB YOUR HOUSE. HE KNEW THE MEANING OF LOVE, HE WAS STRONG. THAT’S A REAL MAN, OR A REAL WOMAN. BULLIES ARE NOT REAL MEN, THEY ARE COWARDS, THEY ARE WEAK, CRUEL, AND THEY WILL BE REMOVED AWAY LIKE “THE CHAFF WHICH THE WIND BLOWETH AWAY”. THEY ARE ALL BLUFF AND BLUSTER, BUT IN ETERNAL LIFE, THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE EXCEPT BURNING IN HELL.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, bullies have what is now known as "toxic masculinity", which is detrimental to everyone, and they are also cowards. They are certainly not real men!
We can see this in the way male animals behave in the rutting season. Every spring animals like bulls, rams and stags fight each other for dominance and access to females. In these fights the winner takes all, the biggest and strongest males gain access to all females, while the weaker ones get zero. A successful stag is not only bigger and stronger, but aggressive, ruthless and selfish. Sharing with other stags is not an option; there can be only one winner who takes everything for himself.
RASA SAYS: YES, INDEED, GOOD ANALOGY. HOWEVER, I TAKE NOTE THAT ANIMALS KILL BY THEIR INSTINCT, TAKE HAREMS THROUGH VIOLENCE, BUT THERE IT ENDS. HUMAN MALES ARE NOT ANIMALISTIC, BUT “SUBHUMAN,” AS THEY NOT ONLY FOLLOW INSTINCTS BUT THEY ARE SENSELESSLY SADISTIC. ANIMALS DO NOT RAPE TINY ONE DAY OLD BABIES (AND MANY ARE KILLED) OR SMALL INFANTS….THEY DO NOT PLAN MURDER, THEY DO NOT DO “GENOCIDES.” THEY DO NOT, IN ORDER TO GAIN PLUNDER, WIPE OUT THOUSANDS OR HOPE TO MURDER MILLIONS. THEY DO NOT USE THEIR MINDS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SUCH AS ATOM BOMBS, INVENTION OF AIDS PUT SECRETLY INTO VACCINES; THEY DO NOT PLAN TO MICROCHIP MILLIONS AND USE THEM AS SLAVES, THEY DO NOT CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH OVENS READY TO EVAPORATE PEOPLE AT 2,500 DEGREES. THEY DO NOT SKIN OTHER ANIMALS ALIVE TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PELTS. THEY DO NOT PLAN FRANKENSTEIN CROPS LIKE GMO’S NOR DO THEY PLAN TO MAKE HEALTHY FOODS ILLEGAL. HUMAN MALES HAVE TAKEN THIS INSTINCT TO THE POINT OF DEMONIC SUCH AS HAS NEVER EXISTED – THAT IS WHY MOTHER GOD IS RENDERING HUMAN MALES EXTINCT.
AJAX SAYS: Very well-said, Rasa. Indeed, sub-human or demonic is the best way to describe such evil and sadistic behavior that goes way, way beyond natural instincts. And even many of those who are not so extreme are still willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre.
We see the same in patriarchal societies. The vast majority of the wealth and power of any country is possessed by a small minority of people. Like rutting stags, the winner takes all, while the losers, the poor, get “the crumbs from the rich man’s table”. Men, also like stags, are violent, because the boundaries of any country are decided by war. For this reason, all countries have to have a strong military against invasion.
AJAX SAYS: There are in fact more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to have a decent standard of living, yet poverty and extreme inequality remain. Why? Patriarchy features winner-take-all economics, and reverse Robin Hood economics. Rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class until there are only two classes left: master, and serf. And plenty of violence and war, which enriches the oligarchs.
In contrast, as the late great Buckminster Fuller once noted, the feminine paradigm of leadership would reject men's outdated, inane, and insane self-fulfilling prophecy that war and scarcity are somehow inevitable.
Until then, mechaninzation is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites--most of them MEN.
RASA: IT IS A PATTERN. UNTIL AND UNLESS WOMEN TAKE OVER COMPLETELY THIS WILL GO ON AS IF BUT HALF THE WORLD IS PATRIARCHAL, THE OTHER HALF HAS TO HAVE ARMIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEIR VIOLENCE.
AJAX SAYS: Very true. Certainly, abolishing the military entirely would be very naive and foolish so long as other countries remain patriarchal and maintain their own militaries. Though in the USA, we can certainly downsize by cutting our "defense" spending in half and we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world. Because currently it is not used so much for defense, as it is wars of aggression for plunder and empire, to enrich the psychopathic oligarchs at the top. See "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, truly a must-read for everyone.
In any patriarchal society – where men dominate – we have the rule of force, aggression and violence. If “masculine” people rule our world, then off course it is going to be a brutal where “might is right”. If we want a loving, caring world, then the only way to achieve this is to be ruled by loving and nurturing women.
The abuse of women and children is going to happen because they are smaller and weaker than fully grown men. Men use can use their greater size and strength to get what they want from smaller and weaker people. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud hinted at this in his Oedipus complex theory, where the son wants to kill his own father, and possess his mother. The actual reason for this is probably that the son was being abused by the father and hates him. He also wants to protect his mother from abuse by the father, but Freud wasn’t allowed to say this. The tragedy of this is that the son, when he grows up, is likely to treat his own wife and children in exactly the same way.
Freud did write a paper on the physical and sexual abuse children suffered by their fathers and other male relations, but this paper was censored. To save his career, Freud no longer posited the theories but only hinted at them. Since then, things have changed with the rise of feminism. Women are now able to assert themselves and take more control over the children. As the result, men who beat their wives and physically/sexually abuse their children can now be sent to prison. As women gained power, children were protected from male abuse.
RASA SAYS: EXCELLENT POINT. UNTIL WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, THEY ARE LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO. WHEN WOMEN GO TO THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS POLITICIZED AGAINST THEM, IN FAVOR OF MEN. I HAVE BEEN THEIR VICTIM. WHEN A WOMAN IS RAPED, THEY BLAME THE WOMAN. WHEN A CHILD IS RAPED, THEY REALLY DON’T CARE. IF ALL THE MEN WHO RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE PUT INTO PRISON, PROBABLY HALF OF ALL MALES WOULD BE INCARCERATED. MALES STICK UP FOR OTHER MALES. THE MALE POLICE PERSUADE WOMEN TO DROP CHARGES. MALE DA’S WON’T PROSECUTE CRIMINALS FOR INJURING OR RAPING WOMEN – IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE. THIS IS CHANGING, BUT IT STILL EXISTS. IN MANY COUNTRIES, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS. THEY ARE SLAVES AND THEY ARE SAVAGED. LOOK AT THE THEOCRATIC MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE STATISTICS PROVE WOMEN ARE RISING, MEN ARE FALLING. BUT IT IS THE WESTERN WOMEN THAT ARE RISING, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE REST OF THE WOMEN IN OPPRESSED COUNTRIES. IT WILL TAKE TIME. WE WILL DO IT.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, having male leaders in charge of prosecuting male violence against Women and children, is like the fox guarding the henhouse. The "good ol' boy" network is all too real, as is the victim-blaming mentality. Things are slowly but surely improving in that regard, with significant declines in rape, domestic violence, and child abuse statistics since the early 1990s, but we still have a very long way to go before we are anywhere close to a truly "civilized" society. Women really need to take over. Yesterday.
The more males dominate a country, the more violent it becomes, as women, children and other men suffer violence, rape and abuse. In such a brutal world we end up with psychopaths running everything, as they are the most vicious and brutal.
An example of this would be Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003. He became the leader as being a psychopath and had no qualms about killing or torturing people. In the eyes of many this made him a strong leader. In fact, people now claim that the people of Iraq suffer more from violence, since he was deposed by the USA, than while he was in power. This is because without a strong brutal leader, in this extreme patriarchal county, law and order has broken down. The whole of history is full of leaders like this, who take power and hold on to it, through violence and brutality.
Unfortunately, psychopaths not only exist in extreme patriarchal countries but in more moderate, democratic countries. In their book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”, by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert Hare, Ph.D. They point that in business, psychopaths are far more likely to be successful. The reason is that they have the ‘right’ qualities to succeed in a male dominated world. To quote. –
“Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”
This doesn’t only apply to businessmen; you only have to look at successful politicians to see the same thing. A politician in a patriarchal system has to be able to appear on TV and tell lies without any hint of shame or embarrassment. This means that being a psychopath is a big advantage in patriarchal politics.
Men off course invent all sorts of excuses to justify why we live in a world of injustice and violence. Patriarchal religions like to blame the Devil for all the harm men do. The big problem with this idea is that if God has created everything, then he made the Devil as well. So why would God make a person like the Devil, who opposes him? Religion also tries to blame women as well, in spite of the fact women are far less violent and far more caring than men.
RASA SAYS: MY OPINION OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN IS THE ORIGIN IS MEN, IT COMES FROM THEIR PSYCHE, THEIR ID. THEY HAVE UNLEASHED THE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF DEMONS ON THIS PLANET. IT COMES FROM THEIR LOWER CHAKRAS AND INSTINCTS. BUT THEY ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS, THEY ARE SUBHUMAN, AS I ALREADY SAID. IT IS NOT ALIENS, IT’S HUMAN MEN. IF IT WAS ALIENS, WOMEN MIGHT BE AFFECTED – BUT THEY ARE NOT. WHY ONLY MEN? THE ALIENS ARE THE FALL GUY, THE EXCUSE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE. THEY TRY TO USE ANIMALS AS EXCUSES, THAT WE ARE VIOLENT AS THEY ARE. BUT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS ARE THE BONOBOS.
AJAX SAYS: That makes sense. According to Paul Levy and Jack D. Forbes, it is the "wetiko" mind-virus, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. Essentially the same thing as Satan and demons.
CONSIDER THAT, WILLIAM BOND. INDEED THERE ARE BULLS AND STAGS. BUT OUR GENEOLOGY IS CLOSEST TO BONOBOS. THEY ARE MATRIARCHAL, THEY ARE HORNY, FRIENDLY, THEY SOLVE ALL CONFLICTS BY TOUCHING AND FEELING. THE MOTHERS RULE THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY, AND THEY ARE STRONG, AND THEY POSTURE, BUT THERE IS NO WAR. WHEN MALES INTIMIDATE FEMALES, THEY ARE MOBBED AND PREVENTED BY SEVERAL FEMALES, THEY CANNOT DOMINATE.
AJAX SAYS: Indeed, "make love, not war" is essentially how the bonobos live. That, and like the Robin Morgan quote, "sisterhood is powerful". We can really learn a lot from them.
Science tries to justify men’s selfishness and violence onto “evolution”. They claim that the violence of male animals is “survival of the fittest”; where the strongest and fittest males get to breed the next generation of animals. They totally ignore the female’s role in evolution. The fact is that the mother gives birth and cares for the young, and this is a far more important role in the survival of any species, than what males do.
RASA SAYS: WHAT A BRILLIANT POINT WILLIAM HAS MADE, THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT MEN, AS MEN WANT US TO BELIEVE. THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEMALE WITH HER OFFSPRING IS MORE IMPORTANT!
AJAX SAYS: Brilliant indeed, as usual, William! You really hit the proverbial nail on the head. Even Darwin himself was apparently not a Social Darwinist at all.
Conspiracy theories try to blame secret societies like the Freemasons, the Illuminati or even alien reptiles for the ills of our world. The rich tend to blame the poor and the poor blame the rich, but few people will acknowledge the fact that as it is men who are ruling our world, then the problem must be male rulers.
RASA SAYS: ABSOLUTE LOGIC, ONCE AGAIN, OF WILLIAM BOND.
AJAX SAYS: BINGO. Psychopaths/sociopaths are completely ruthless since they have no conscience, and since the patriarchal paradigm rewards ruthlessness and aggression, then psychopaths/sociopaths will be the ones who inevitably rise to the top under male rule.
It must be obvious that any system that puts psychopaths in leadership positions is a bad arrangement. Yet, this is what patriarchy does all the time. Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and this is not a real problem if they are kept under control. Unfortunately, when men rule our world the most violent, aggressive or devious men end up in positions of power.
RASA SAYS: SURE, IF WILLIAM BOND OR JESUS CHRIST RULED OUR SOCIETY WE’D HAVE A PEACEFUL AND LOVING WORLD.
AJAX SAYS: True. And Ajax the Great as well.
Patriarchy also breeds psychopaths. It has been discovered that many psychopaths had appalling childhoods. A case in point would be Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein – all of whom were beaten mercilessly as children. Extreme patriarchal cultures encourage this, as they claim that abuse, “toughens up” boys and turns them into ‘real men’. Certainly turning a man into a psychopath makes him a good soldier, as he can kill without mercy. A more ordinary man is not such a good soldier, as he has qualms about killing the ‘enemy.’
AJAX SAYS: So very true, William! And you can add Pol Pot to that list (by his ruthless teachers) as well. It seems that "beating the devil out of 'em" is really more like beating the devil INTO 'em, which is what the sinister agenda of the demonic patriarchy really wants to do to turn boys, and thus men, into cannon fodder and "Good Germans" at best, and subhuman demonic zombie killers at worst, to do the bidding of the psychopathic oligarchs at the top.
RASA SAYS: GOOD POINT. BEING BRUTAL AND VIOLENT TOWARD MEN MAKES THEM SO, AND THEREFORE, OUR WORLD ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE THROUGH ALL MEDIA; GLORIFIES IT. THEY HAVE EXCUSES FOR THIS AS “ENTERTAINMENT,” AND “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” BUT IT’S MORE THAN THAT. THEY WANT TO BREED DEMONS – MEN WITH NO FEELINGS WHO KILL WITHOUT MERCY.
If we do not want to be ruled by psychopaths then the obvious solution is for women to rule our world. It is known that psychopaths can be created by extreme abuse, and in a patriarchal society where women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male, they are far more likely to suffer abuse of all kinds. Yet, in-spite of this, there are still far less female psychopaths then male.
RASA SAYS: ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT I FIRST HEARD FROM WILLIAM BOND. THE SAME ABUSE/VIOLENCE ON WOMEN DOES NOT ENGENDER THE SAME REACTION FROM WOMEN AS IT DOES MEN. IT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAIN, THE INSTINCT. WOMEN HAVE A STRONGER INSTINCT TO GIVE LIFE, MEN LESS SO; THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS SO THEY HAVE MORE VIOLENT TENDENCIES; BUT THESE MUST BE TEMPERED AND GUIDED RIGHTLY, NOT RUN AMUCK.
AJAX SAYS: I am not sure how much of this is nature versus nurture, but I would hazard a guess that it is a mixture of both. Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.
So it makes sense for us to be ruled by caring and nurturing females rather than aggressive males. We can see all over the world the more women are oppressed the more violent societies become. But in countries where women are empowered society is peaceful. When women are powerful, everyone benefits – bear in mind how brutal men are to other males. Abusive fathers appear in elite families as well as poor – men such as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam were brutalized.
The only way to overcome all these problems is to have women take over. It is true, there are caring men, but the psychos rise to the top — What psychopaths do is take acting lessons in how to appear loving and caring, then they are elected.
AJAX SAYS: So true. For thousands of years, the "good guys" have proven wholly incapable of defeating the bad guys on their own. If us fellas could do it, we would have already done it long ago. Even when a particularly notorious mass-murdering genocidal dictator like Hitler was defeated, that was achieved with the help of another, equally evil dictator, Stalin, who only gained strength afterwards and subsequently turned against the Allies after we no longer had a common enemy in the Nazis. Only Women can truly defeat all of the bad guys for good.
RASA SAYS: YOU CAN SEE LIARS ON TOP OF ALL GOVERNMENTS PRETENDING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR LIES. IT HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIES. TAKE KIND HEROD TELLING THE MAGI TO LET HIM KNOW WHERE JESUS IS BORN SO HE TOO, CAN GO WORSHIP HIM. THEN HEROD SENDS OUT HIS SOLDIERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWO. HE EVEN DUPED THE WOMEN TO BRING THE CHILDREN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS SO THEY COULD BE FETED – THEY BROUGHT THEM ALL DECKED OUT IN GARLANDS OF FLOWERS, WHERE THE SOLDIERS STABBED AND SPEARED THEM TO DEATH. AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HEROD AND ALL THESE MALE LEADERS WHO KILL SO MANY PEOPLE? THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE EVENTUALLY BUT USUALLY ON EARTH, THEY, LIKE THE GODFATHER, DIE OF OLD AGE. BUT THE INNOCENT ARE KILLED. SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE ON EARTH, CERTAINLY DOESN’T EXIST IN A PATRIARCHAL WORLD.
AJAX SAYS: They give with one hand, and they take with the other. And they take plenty of lives in the process.
Yes, there are ruthless and deceiving women as well, but not in the same numbers as men. Women have a powerful maternal instinct and once this instinct is activated then she not only wants to love and care for children of her own, she has the same desire to care for other people’s children, to look after the sick, old people and animals. If we look at violence, we find that men commit over 99% of all acts of violence. The reason is that because as women bring life to our world and want to nurture it, so it is harder for women to be cruel and uncaring for others than with men.
The competitive and aggressive instincts of men make them totally unsuitable to rule our world; they instigate conflict, war and injustice. The maternal/ nurturing instincts of women enable them to run the family and the world – A world ruled by women would be fair, loving and caring.
by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14
RASA SAYS: LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Can I get an AMEN? So very true indeed. We are all ruled by an oligarchy of a few hundred to a few thousand cold-blooded psychopaths and sociopaths at the top. And that is the logical conclusion of patriarchy, basically. Worse, even if they are deposed, these evil villainaire rulers will ultimately return if we don't stamp out the conditions that cause such evil to rise to power in the first place. Thus the better half of humanity, Women, must rise up and take over once and for all, Goddess willing. Only then will there ever be true peace on Earth.
What better time than now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)