Antagonism Against Matriarchy – Also re Why War is Wrong, It’s Only for Making Money! – & Also re Anti-Feminists, Anti Female

Empowerment Fake Women

 

We start with William Bond:   Hi Everyone

 

From what I have read South East Asia is the last place on the planet where we had matriarchies. India was one a matriarchal country but was invaded by the Muslims. Southern India held out until India was taken over by the British who undermined matriarchal rule in India. Indonesia was also matriarchy but Muslim Arab traders began promote the Islamic religion in Indonesia and turned most of Indonesia into a patriarchal country. 

 

Japan and Taiwan were also matriarchal, but both countries were invaded by patriarchal Chinese settlers or immigrants who took over both of these countries. The original inhabitants of Japan and Taiwan were very tall people and some have survived in Taiwan and in Northern Japan. The Philippines were again matriarchal but were conquered by the Spanish. Magellan the first European to sail to the Philippines was killed by a tribe, whom the Spanish claimed were giants. 

 

Indo-China is also reported to have been matriarchal but was changed to patriarchy by influence from China which repetitively failed to conquer the Indo-Chinese countries. 

 

The last Matriarchal hold-outs still exist in South-East Asia. Like The Mosuo of China, The Khasi and The Garo people of North East India,  The Kerala state of Southern India. The Minangkabau of Sumatra in Indonesia, The Ryukyu islands of Japan and The The Nagovisi tribe of South Bougainville island of New Guinea     William

 

Hi Pete

I have wondered why the whole concept of Matriarchy has been suppressed for a long time. I saw this in the book “The First Sex” by Elizabeth Gould Davis back in the 1970s. Feminists criticized the book because she dare mention matriarchy. Then later Marija Gimbutas was heavily criticized for the same reason. 

 

I think the reason why Matriarchy is criticized and suppressed is because patriarchy fears it. It should be obvious that men do a terrible job in ruling our world, but they get away with it, because as they will tell you, there is no alternative. But there is and that is Matriarchy. 

 

Patriarchy used to fear feminism but have now found ways to manage it. They tell female politicians they have to act and behave like men if they want power and female politicians go along with this. So this can be used as an argument against Matriarchy as patriarchy can say, “women are just as bad as men”. 

 

Women are told the lie that love and compassionate are a weakness. But that is not true, because the people desperately want to be ruled by compassionate and caring rulers. Which will never happen under patriarchal rule. Only nurturing women can provide this type of leadership. So if the people are given the choice of a loving Matriarchal government or a uncaring and corrupt patriarchal government they will always choose Matriarchy. So patriarchy has to make sure the people are never given that choice.      William

 

Rasa says: To even DISCUSS Matriarchy makes people think about it.  Patriarchs don’t want anyone to even THINK ABOUT IT.  If people thought about it many of them would wonder if it’s a good alternative, many would want to see it tried.  So remove the subject from the table is what they want to do – Matriarchy never existed, they want us to believe, it does not exist & it cannot be.

 

They are SCARED TO DEATH of women.   Rasa

 

 

Pete Jackson:    Indeed, that is very true, Rasa and William.  Them denying the existence of Matriarchy also functions as a form of gaslighting as well, to deliberately mess with Women’s heads.  Worse, sometimes they even deny that patriarchy ever existed either, even worse gaslighting.

 

 

From Rasa:   Thanks Pete.  What does Gaslighting mean?  Like Charles Boyer in ‘Gaslight’ making Ingrid Bergman think she’s crazy?

 

I think I’ll name one of my Matriarchal books ‘What Men are Afraid of”

 

Men are afraid of women getting together for sisterhood

 

Men are afraid of women’s INDEPENDANCE

 

Men are afraid of women thinking logically for themselves – not listening to them or obeying their precepts

 

Men are afraid of women LEAVING them

 

Men are afraid of women’s FAITH, CONFIDENCE, VIRTUES, believing in their own God their own way rather than being told who & what God is, what God wants, how to believe, how to behave

 

Men are afraid of women having meetings, talking to each other, getting together:  Sisterhood.  In sisterhood there is power.

 

So all of the above is discouraged in Patriarchy.

 

What they want is:

 

Women’s obedience

 

Women’s FEAR of them

 

Women’s confusion as to history & facts

 

Women not to know or understand their real agenda, how evil it is

 

Women to be weak, passive & not fight back

 

Women to surrender the mgmt of their children to them although they do not have the best interests of kids at heart

 

Women to serve them like Steppford wives / slaves

 

Women to be loyal & faithful like a dog

 

Women to adore, admire them, & build them up

 

Women to do what they the men want, not to interfere, just stand out of the way & do background work

 

Women to keep SILENT re issues such as Patriarchy, Matriarchy, why it is – the gender war – the history of it or anything of it

 

Pete: I’d like you to explain re war. I know it is to MAKE MONEY in general. In the ancient days it was easy to explain. They attacked other peoples to get everything they had, their land, their resources, animals, women – anything of value. Then they turned the inhabitants into work slaves & breeding slaves.

 

But the way Gen. Smedley explains it, it’s like corporations making money every time we make war with someone.

 

Could you give us more insights on that? To the average person – like myself – who knows little of politics, how does this corporations making money in war work? I know vaguely but would like to get your insights. For instance, I know, say one company produces airplanes, they make money. The chemical companies produced Agent Orange, they sprayed the jungles of Vietnam, giving everyone cancer, they made money. All that is purchased to run an army, the producers make money.

 

Do you have some better, more insightful & precise way of explaining it?               Rasa

 

From Pete Jackson:

Gaslighting in today’s lingo is indeed derived from the film of the same name.  Broadly defined, it is when someone makes someone else question or doubt their own reality, make someone think they are going crazy, or otherwise invalidate their experience.  

 

As for war, what Maj. Gen Smedley Butler said was bang on the money, and not much has really changed since he wrote that in 1935.  At least not changed for the better.  Since then, the cancer of the mercenary-industrial complex (what I like to call the military-industrial complex) has only metastasized many times larger since then, failing to heed President Eisenhower’s famous warning as he was leaving office.  It has become even more big business, as so much of the military’s functions have been outsourced to private defense contractors (i.e. mercenaries) like KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, Dyncorp/CSC, Raytheon, etc.  And that’s to say nothing of the weapons manufacturers who quite literally make a KILLING on all of this.

 

And yet, it still hasn’t unambiguously won a single hot war since WWII, except for Grenada.  Korea was a stalemate, Vietnam was a loss in the end, Afghanistan was a loss in the end, and Iraq, including the first Gulf War, had ambiguous results at best.  All wars since WWII except Grenada were thus varying degrees of stalemate, loss, or temporary Pyrrhic victory at best.  And the Cold War, which we won, was of course by definition not a hot war (though it clearly gave rise to several hot proxy wars all the same).

 

Lots of corporations directly and indirectly make money from this war racket.     Best of luck,  Pete

 

Rasa: Excellent rendition. Thanks Pete

 

William Bond says:   I think the idea that men have no interest in older women is a myth. Yes, there are many men who prefer younger women and that seems to be acceptable. But for some reason it is unacceptable for men to desire older women even though many men have these desires.   William

 

Rasa says: We went through this William many times.  The Patriarchy doesn’t want young men to be INFLUENCED by older or experienced, authoritative {to some degree} women.  They want to put OLD WOMEN OUT TO PASTURE, not give them any platform to influence the youth, as then, it will be their agenda, not men’s.  Old women do not want to send young men into war to kill & be killed, for example.

 

From Ajax the Great:

Viva La….Counterrevolution? Why “Reactionary Feminism” Is An Anachronistic Oxymoron That Will NOT Help Women

Some on the interwebs are recently claiming that a “sexual counterrevolution” is afoot, one that is ostensibly led by Women on both sides of the Atlantic (USA and UK) who are fed up with the sexual revolution as it were.  From Mary Harrington (who apparently coined the term, as well as the term “reactionary feminism” with which she herself identifies) to Louise Perry to Christine Emba to Katherine Dee to Evie Magazine to a few others, including some men as well, there does appear to be a trend back towards sex-negativity, or at least against the perceived excesses of sexual liberation.

The sexual revolution, like the industrial revolution, was a mixed bag overall.  Contrary to what some believe, it was neither an unalloyed good nor an unmitigated evil.  But overall, it was on balance a good thing I think.  Yes, even for Women too.  If anything, it is still unfinished to this day.  It is not a simple case of “men won and Women lost”, just like the industrial revolution was not merely a simple case of “bourgeoisie (capitalist class) won and proletariat (working class) lost”.  Sexual liberation does NOT need to be a zero-sum game at all.  Only the male-defined sexuality of patriarchy is truly a zero-sum game, which has existed long before the sexual revolution.  Female-defined sexuality is not.

 

Rasa says: I am asking Mother God to help me with this, as I am somewhat out of my depth, but I rely on Mother God’s help to understand it all. And so, Mother God, why are these women against the ‘sexual revolution?’ I think this revolution happened with women rising up, gaining some empowerment. So why are these women against it?

 

Mother God: These women are SABOTEURS or traitors to the cause, the way during Hitler’s time, traitor Jews turned in other Jews. They hope to gain some applause & benefits from patriarchs for turning against other women, propping up Patriarchy. They don’t care about human beings & their plight, they only care about themselves & their immediate life, & making some sort of fanfare for themselves – gaining approval & notoriety from the systems that is in power.

 

Ajax continues:   As for the idea that there should be some sort of counterrevolution, as author Louise Perry advocates in The Case Against The Sexual Revolution, well, some good rebuttals from many different angles can be found here, here, and here.  Even Christine Emba’s new book, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation (the thesis of which is neither  new nor particularly provocative) can be criticized here, here, and here as well.  These rebuttals for both, all written by Women, are far, far better than anything I could ever write.  And while these two authors occasionally make some decent points here and there, they are both quite heavy on problems and light on solutions.  Emba’s solutions are far too vague and anodyne, while Perry’s are far too retro (if not extremely non-starters as well), to even be considered solutions.  

 

But truly the only real solution is the one that these authors don’t seem to consider:  MATRIARCHY.  It’s like they are afraid to even utter the word, or something.  Not surprising, of course, given how utterly infantilizing and agency-denying some of their arguments are to Women in general.

 

It is true what they say that mere consent should be the floor, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics.  No argument from me there.  Even most sex-positive feminists would agree as well.  What Emba in particular calls “radical empathy” is also crucial, as well as respect, honesty, and basic human decency/dignity, of course.  But beyond that, their arguments really start to coast into confusion if not utter incoherence overall.  And the relatively short shrift they give to non-heterosexual folks (both Women and men), who they barely even acknowledge at all, also does the reader a serious disservice as well.

 

Rasa with Mother God says: Yes, it’s a Patriarchal thing to beat up on people for sex, for their sexual choice if it’s different, for their sexual behavior between consenting adults. So they are simply betraying the empowerment of women & endorsing Patriarchy.

 

But back to Mary Harrington.  Her brand of “reactionary feminism” takes it a step further and apparently wants to roll back not only the sexual revolution, but also the industrial revolution as well, and possibly even the Enlightenment too.  The 1950s is apparently not traditional enough for her, as she quite literally seems to prefer….the 1450s.  (Riddle me this:  If that time period was so great, then why all the peasant revolts, in which revolutionary Women, eventually persecuted as “witches”, played an outsized role?)  She is really quite the anti-modernist, it seems, and the title of her upcoming book, Feminism Against Progress, kinda says it all.  She comes dangerously close to sounding just like the Neoreactionary movement at times.  Oh, and she also denies that patriarchy ever even existed either.  Thus, her vague “solutions” would essentially preclude the only real solution of Matriarchy as well.  And yet she calls herself a feminist, go figure!

 

Rasa with Mother God says: This woman is gaslighting {you taught me this term Ajax!} She doesn’t MAKE SENSE so she is in sync with Patriarchs, who also don’t ‘make sense’ unless you know they are trying to enslave women.

 

Ajax continues: (To be fair, Harrington is not the first person to ever criticize the notion of “progress” either.  Christopher Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn, also wrote a sort-of sequel, Civilized to Death:  The Price of Progress, in which he also criticizes the unquestioned notion of progress, albeit from a different and clearly sex-positive angle, and with VERY different solutions compared to the reactionaries.  I triple-dog dare Harrington to debate him, lol.  But much like Lynn Saxon, author of an unconvincing rebuttal titled Sex at Dusk, she would probably just resort to cad-shaming and other ad hominem attacks.)

 

Rasa with Mother God says: We, the ‘Three Musketeers of Matriarchy’ – know & agree that the sex issue is CRUCIAL to female empowerment & Matriarchy. When women gain sexual freedom, they gain everything, because 99% or so of the male domination principle is to control women’s sexual behavior. Once that is freed up, game over for men. So of course these evil women would rant on the issue of sex, going backward instead of forward. This would hurt the cause of women & humanity; it would be against God, as God wants female empowerment & Matriarchy. Why would She be rendering human males EXTINCT?

 

Ajax continues: Oh, and finally, one of her most ridiculous articles ever is literally titled, “Middle Aged Women Don’t Want Sex”, and presumably that applies to Crones as well.  Somehow that sounds a bit like projection perhaps?  And besides, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has clearly and famously debunked this utterly specious notion to be not only inaccurate, but almost a full 180 degrees wrong as well.

 

Rasa with Mother God says: All women want sex, young & old. It’s time to recognize that old women appreciate sex as much as anyone else does & they should have the right to use their bodies for pleasure. That is an important principle.

 

Ajax continues:   Thus, so-called reactionary feminism occupies that awkward space between where extreme sex-negative radical feminism and extreme sex-negative anti-feminism meet per Horseshoe Theory.  Much like how the far left and far right become dangerously close to each other as well.  It is essentially the worst of both extreme worlds, and its pied pipers should really be avoided like the plague and not discussed further.  Except insofar as sunlight is the best disinfectant, of course.

 

 

UPDATE:  Oh, and about those revolutionary Women of the 15th century, eventually persecuted as “witches”, did you know that many of them believed in and practiced communal living and even (gasp) free love?  You know, the same things that are absolutely anathema to those self-proclaimed “reactionary feminists” discussed above?  According to the actual feminist Sylvia Federici, they apparently did.  So far from being the granddaughters of the “witches” they couldn’t burn, today’s reactionaries are more like the granddaughters, or at least ideological descendants, of the sellout Women who collaborated with the witch-hunters and threw their sisters under the bus.  That is true not just for these reactionaries, but also for all slut-shamers, SWERFs, forced-birthers, victim-blamers, and rape apologists as well–all of which being just a very short walk away from one another.

 

Rasa with Mother God says: Sexual liberty for women is crucial. We need to work on this issue strongly – we are. But hope to leave behind a legacy where the sisters & good brothers behind us, continue to work on it.

 

More from Ajax the Great, after I said a couple remarks:

 

Thank you, Rasa. Very well-said overall.  These “reactionary feminist” women that I referred to, are not even really academics or pundits, they are one-trick-pony ideological hacks at best.  They are actually worse than the academics IMHO.  And they are clearly NOT of God, no matter how much they may pretend to be.  They are probably the most dangerous one of all, as their agenda (if it gains traction) would literally set Women back decades if not centuries, and sabotage any hope of Matriarchy occurring in the near future.

 

Rasa with Mother God says: They are dangerous if anyone believes their agenda & lies – but fortunately intelligent people will know they are nuts. We have made some progress & going backward, saying it’s right to go backward, is not going to fool too many people these days.

 

Ajax continues: To be fair, I am willing to give one of them, Christine Emba, the benefit of the doubt as merely being a bit confused about things given her background, and her heart may very well be in the right place overall even if she ends up being incorrect in many ways.  I may not agree with a lot of what she says, of course, but she does not seem to be cut from quite the same cloth as the rest of the ones I mentioned, and she is otherwise at least somewhat progressive.  As for the rest of them?   They can all go take a long walk off a short pier.

 

Mary Harrington is the worst, and Louise Perry is almost as bad.  Anti-feminist wolves in sheep’s clothing, basically.  Snakes in the grass, the lot of them.  They are worse than even the demonic Phyllis Schlafly, since with the latter at least you knew where you stood with her.

 

And Lynn Saxon? While I don’t know much about her, years ago she was the one whose only two books she ever wrote were to “debunk” and cast aspersions on Christopher Ryan’s “Sex at Dawn”, and later to cast bonobos and bonobo research in a bad light in “The Naked Bonobo”.  She is apparently nothing but a professional troll with an axe to grind against anything even remotely resembling sexual liberation, though I am not sure about how she identifies politically.  She literally wrote nothing else, ever.  That really says something.  Reminds me of Derek Freeman making it his life’s mission to discredit Margaret Mead’s “Coming of Age in Samoa”, also (not coincidentally) about indigenous sexual freedom.

 

Rasa with Mother God says: Anyone with two brain cells will not take her seriously, given she only wrote those kind of books, lol.

 

Rasa continues: This article speaks of things I know little about. I don’t know these women & have not read their books. But I know these TYPES of women & don’t want to WASTE MY TIME & ENERGY studying them, because they are saying such NEGATIVES – I just want to stay away from them cluttering my mind. However, since you read them & DEBUNKED them I’m very grateful & I’ll try as best I can, to interject my remarks within your great insights, then I will post it on my site & later a Matriarchal book.

 

I do have a copy of Sex at Dawn, agree with it totally, think it’s a really important book affirming our position.  That I do know.  In fact, Dr. Dale Glaebach years ago called me on the phone to tell me about this book, how great it was, urged me to read it, so that’s why I’m aware of it.  It confirms & affirms our position on sexuality, bonobos, & all of that.