|
Hollywood vs. History
Myth-legend-history, this is the progression that has befallen Homer’s Troy. Homer’s Troy was long thought to be pure myth and has slowly moved through legend to become history in our lifetime. This should have had the effect of making the stories of the classics come alive again, or be at least reappraised with these new facts in mind. By reappraised I mean in that events that are said to have taken place in the stories are most probably connected to something that really happened, and that despite these events being passed on from storyteller to storyteller these events are less likely to have lost as much of their truth as first thought in modern times. We know that pagan goddesses & gods aren’t real, but the actions taken by these goddesses & gods in these stories are likely to have directly corresponded to real events.
Throughout the English-speaking and European world the study of the classics has engaged the greatest minds of many ages, including among others the Founding Fathers of the US. If in the past these old Greek and Roman stories didn’t reflect on real events with any clear barring, they should have still reflect heavily on us, our souls, and or our sense of honor. Yet on top of these important basic influences they are coming to have much more of a real influence on the historical record, with the relatively modern discovery of the real Troy.
There are so many direct comparisons to modern times that one can use the classics in so many ways, but there is one theme I wish to center on here in Part-2 of this 6 part series. That being the mother of all the Gods religion, that was if not the first religion was the one before all more clearly recorded ones. I intend to use the information we have to make an educated thesis as to the possible old matriarchy roots that most certainly existed at this time before the rise of patriarchal religions.
The reason for Homer’s Troy’s change from myth to history actually came about because the city was discovered by a mere novice businessman (Heinrich Schliemann) on Asian Minor (present day Turkey). I, also being a novice, can’t help but feel I’m in the same boat, or even more so at least at the start, for I won’t be submitting such a clear undeniable archeological dig as evidence here, and therefore am on much much shakier ground.
Hollywood history for men (I use the term “history” in its loosest possible sense) distorts history for its PC agendas, and of course to get teenage boys’ cash with a little, or a lot of, T & A. Many scholars quibble on the slightest differences in their scholastic pursuits, with others in the field, as many of the population and movie scriptwriters neither read or understand their work- nor care if Hollywood places it on its head. We as men are meant to be jolly that at least they are dealing with the 300 Spartans or Troy in a movie again (I guess), and we are not meant to quibble with the massive changes of history. Eye candy is great, yes, but what about the historical mind candy?
If such historians are asked to give any input on movie scripts they must be keen to hobnob with the movie big shots for the story lines are ghastly lacking in real history. The big studios still must want to cover their bases with men, so concerned with history, and so by merely announcing the input of some historians, they thereby seem to both increase the historically interest of people concern with these issues, as they at the same time more truly desire to change it for their PC agendas, and or, money.
In the past these adaptations, it could be argued, did little for most thought these old stories where really more fiction themselves than real history. So the modern movie scriptwriters, it could have been argued, were carrying on this tradition, of sorts. Yet with Troy being found, and the story’s connection to facts, this must turn us to thinking that the old storytellers of the past did not distort stories as they do so readily now, though this is unlikely to turn down the noses of the Hollywood dream makers much. Maybe in honor of the Gods these storytellers of the past felt they best not distort or suffer the Gods' wrath!
Only in the past did Hollywood treat carefully the Christian religious stories, though now they pursuit even this kind of distortion with reckless abandon. So as I stubble through my connecting of the dots could you please keep these facts in minds, as some may claim that I am expanding the meanings of information more than it warrants. Better to expand a theory in the search truth than to stay silent as others destroy with warrant less abandonment old religions, classic stories and history to make a buck and preach their PC agenda in yet another way (as if there weren’t enough fake methods from these quarters already to push their desires).
The power of those in entertainment to be our first in line teachers of our western history wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t show on so many occasions to hate it, and the white men who lived it, admired it and recorded it. With all the powerful methods available for studios to teach distorted history, it is really an unfair fight in the extreme. Since many of these people claim to hate brutes in life, why do they act as indirect brutes? I fail to see the purpose of the subtlety, except to deceive. How can a young person with little real history under their beats then watch movies that are bound to remain in some young person’s mind far beyond what they might have read by taking a classics course that is no longer needed to get you into any profession anymore. Are not words, pictures, sound effects, an audience cheers and even the candy & popcorn eaten not bound to reinforce the message much stronger than an old longwinded classic book and a teacher who is outgunned in F/X? You know the answer! Sure it is only a movie, but it is placed against an old dry book with its very odd sentences to read.
So we must accept respectable modern historians are completely outgunned and it is now an exercise in a complete opposite contrast to the stories on the screen. On screen the hero for the new agenda is the underdog, and the force for tradition is the overwhelming dark bad powerful force trying to keep boring old tradition in play. The irony never escapes me, but seems to do so with younger people who are concerned with eye-candy and emotional-candy over brain-candy. I dwell too long on our predicament, let me put sword to metal and begin an attempt to use western classic culture to better effect.
Stoning the Matriarchal Age
She doth play with their minds and demanded they castrate themselves in worship of her. This does sound like a great movie for this day and age, doesn’t it? Sex, violence and a powerful woman as queen/goddess! Yet it won’t make the screen until HN or another MRA gets a studio of their own to go up against the big boys, even if the history-for all intensive purposes- is true.
From the Stone Age period to the birth of the West in the Greco-Roman period (and the rise the masculine religions of the Greeks, Romans, Jew and later Muslims) it was thought that women were magical. It was not known that men had any part in bringing children into the world. The list of some kind of Mother Goddesses in this chaotic period is very long with: Jord for the Norse, Danu for the Irish, Don for the Welsh; yet all over Europe you had some name for the Mother of all Gods in some local tongue. The habit of turning a queen or king into a goddess or god was common in these very little recorded ages and even after it. Alexander the Great thought he was a God and so did most, to many, of the people at the time. This is what drove the Jews up the wall for they thought it blasphemous to do this.
Whatever the roots of the beginning of the Mother of all the Gods many women arose to be the priestesses of the religion and they had some striking rituals.
The Maenads religion, and the Roman version of it later, had female worshippers of Dionysus the Greek god of mystery, wine and intoxication, and the Roman god Bacchus. The word literally translates as "raving ones". They were known as wild, insane women who could not be reasoned with. The mysteries of Dionysus inspired the women to ecstatic (hysteria) frenzy; they indulged in copious amounts of violence, bloodletting, sexual activity, self-intoxication, and mutilation. They were usually pictured as crowned with vine leaves, clothed in fawnskins and carrying the thyrsus and dancing with wild abandon. -Wikipedia
Well sounds not very different to some of the modern Lesbian raves and other trendy youthful raves I’ve heard of. The rise of woman’s power has seen a reemergence of such ways, though again I am hard pressed to connect it to women bringing up youth on their own.
Men of my generation have had nothing but a non-stop string of rhetoric on how we, as men, are responsible for our ancestors oppression of women and other more genuine minorities (women being a majority if you care to count numbers).
There is a best of both worlds agenda that you will hear in the rhetoric if you listen carefully to the feminists. It goes on how women at one time did rule, but then men had come and distorted this better period to take us to the present terrible rule by men. For the record I do believe women were more in charge in the Stone/Matriarchal Age. This may be the reason such societies were so primitive, and why we have so little information on them, for they had more talk than write. As writing was a new thing back then and not very fashionable at all.
There are many nations that had this religion of women, or some offshoot of it, and it never really went away until the Judeo-Christian rise, followed by the Muslim’s arrival on the scene. In the Far East patriarchal Confucian ideas allowed China to become the ever-constant force it has been in the world too.
Yet in our own world we still see some up front woman religions on the TV, like the Witchet form lately. Though not anything of a threat they once were, directly, it is the indirect effect on our mainstay religions that is so astounding. Astonishing by way of the fact that none but a few have stood in the way of the onslaught, and few of the males still in these churches seem to care at all for the changes. It is amazing because no one dares connect these changes on our patriarchal religions by women’s nature, obsession with mysticism and their general solipsistic ways. If some dare to identify this influence it is said in the most bend over backwards ways to be endlessly obsessed with politeness in the now very common chivalrous tone of, “They’re only women.” So you have the asinine psychotic pattern of being chivalrous as you boast you are treating women as equals?? You cannot be both, and be either!
In the ancient cultures all around the Mediterranean (that we have some better knowledge of) we see many reports like the earlier provided report of women led religions. We use the word cults, and the general pagan term, as a hold over from the time when our dominant religions did dominate. If a religion is the most popular in its time and is found everywhere at the time is it not a religion, and not a cult? I understand the need for modern followers to distant their religion from other religions, but why does the true historian treat things so?
The Mother of the Gods religion was said to have greatly influenced the earlier quoted version of Dionysus (Greek) or Bacchus (Roman version), for it is said that she took care of this youthful young man, nursed him back to health, taught him, and later affected him on becoming a God in his own right. This mother of all the gods had many names, but we will use the one that we have the most knowledge of, and she is called Cybele. Yet we could call her Devi, Kybele, Khubele, Cybebe, Kybebe, Kubaba, Gubaba, Kupapa, Agdistis, Mater Deum Magna, Rhen, Gaia, Demeter, Dodona, Jord, Danu & Don. Have I missed any? I’m sure I have. Having so many names must be part of the effeminate way- or maybe just simply the problems with language translation over many cultures. I’ll let you decide, but what is important is how these goddesses have the same basic outline.
I apologize for those modern faculty members who make their carriers splitting hairs on subtle academic papers and driving these difference into huge fundamental difference worthy of great attention. Some or all of these mother of the gods religions may have developed differently and had different natures, based on the women and men involved with their propagation, yet one of the important points I wish to make in this work is just that effeminates are indirectly evasive by nature and that universities have become effeminate places where overall history is frowned upon and positions gained by subtle dividing and sub-dividing (until the cows go home) the major themes of history and other subjects. And it is known amongst MRAs at least, that women are known dividers from the inside of groups they belong to, as a matter of simple course. So deconstruct as you must, but please note that you may be playing out your effeminate nature by deconstructing the trees despite the forest.
Centering onto the smallest of players in history and their mere non-acted upon ideas, and then magnify them into false large important historical players that leave real players forgotten in our text books is not honorable, among other things. And following up on the already stated fact of letting modern movies, boarding on the absurd, fill the gap may be fun and profitable but this is not honorable or historical either. History has become almost another fictional literature class in this effeminate world of the matriarchal way. History isn’t often clear-cut, but is there any need to distort it knowingly for PC? Surely there were troubled persons of the past who did so, yet do we need not continue this vein still today in the open, with pathetic rationalizations?
Yet there is still more in our focus for we must look at the mangina (effeminate men) and their religions of the ancient times too, for these religions were on the gowntail of Cybele too (as we will see). The best version of this is to be found in Cybele’s son Attis. Like the other religions the Attis religion was spread all over the Mediterranean World (and beyond) at that time, and probably transferred between tribes, via trade, word of mouth, or conquest. Some have argued that Saint Paul, who grew up in the hot bed of Cybele and Attis territory, used this to distort the Nazarenes followers of Jesus Christ. He was surely not the first or the last, but he surely has been the most successful.
Now in Egypt, the most advanced in religious concerns, there seems the starting of the dominance of male gods and also the first monotheistic God. The Greeks have stories of the Phoenician capturing 2 Egyptian priestesses and selling one as a slave to Libya and one to the Hellitenistic peoples in Greece. This could explain the rise of so many gods in Greek mythology and answer why male ones come into being there so strongly. For the Earth Mother or Mother of the Gods was still there in Greek history first too, via the Cretan Snake Goddess version no doubt, which undoubtedly arrived from the Ionian coast of present day Turkey (where St. Paul came from). The fact that there might have been wars between the mainland Greeks and those on Crete, when Crete was the dominate power during the Minoan period, is the first example for the possible growth of the dislike from the male centered culture of the Greeks to those of the eastern female lead cultures, and their goddesses with snakes modal found everywhere around the Aegean. Possibly this gave the impetus to the rise of the Medusa story, as I will assert. Yet there is much more evidence to this assertion of Eastern antipathy, that is a constant amongst the Greeks to those deeper inland peoples on Asia Minor. Even today the rivalry has been built upon this with the Greeks and Turks really still in total distrust of one another. The Greeks have tended to have this constant distrust of these Easterners longer (than vise-versa) and have a steady record of bashing Eastern effeminacy, even when the massive Persian invasions was breathing down their necks and coming to destroy them. Where did this come from?
Today many historians mention this constant thread as merely being Greek men’s bluster, male bravado, or machismos. This is very unhistorical to dismiss this constant thread so often, and in a way falling at the feet of the feminist’s rhetoric of today as others no doubt did to Cybele in the past. Why would smart historians not investigate these claims with a more open mind? Or why pass over it so matter of fact? Is there no idea of present male culture to compare their claims to, or is it not PC to go into these issues as a whole? Well it would seem so, to date, for we have a bit of a no-fly-zone around anyone looking at such issues, but we will not do so here at HN.
Modern science has recently traced the mystical genes back to a female ancestor, and this accounts for women’s larger concern for faith and mysticism over theology, philosophy and legalism. For I have yet to hear of a highly regarded women philosopher (outside of feminist circles). Ayn Rand seems to be the best I can think of, but she wrote fiction and few women know or like her work enough to learn it. Yet the numbers of mystical women who claim to be the queen of Egypt in their former lives is very common- for I’m sure the readers has met a few of these before. In all cultures of the past one can imagine women with both these genes and their better story telling qualities becoming the central part of any tribe. Women are renown for better communicating skills, so it isn’t much of a jump to see older wiser women in all Stone Age societies being either in the central leadership, or playing some part or dominate role in influencing leadership up until the male religions put a strong sanction on this.
What is most important to us is what these effeminates, who desired such positions, were like? Were they rewarded for their ambition in mystical storytelling by survival and with breeding rights that allow such womanly genes to be brought to our present time to influence us for good or ill? Or not?
*-Military Take Overs Leave Women's Power Less Affected, so Why Fight
When tribes were defeated by foreign male armies, these male-lead armies were obviously much less likely to kill women, and even less likely to murder well dressed, well fed, and more likely perfumed and groomed priestesses. It is worthy of note that the Greeks didn’t even kill all the Amazonian leaders, despite being their warring enemies at the time. And as said before the Phoenicians sold 2 Egyptian priestesses, even with the Phoenicians having differnet Gods, as one can see by studying the Carthageans. On top of these known natures and discovered genetics there was the simple lust issue in males to spare the bronze sword, and there were commonplace superstitious reasons too (passed on by these female set of genes, or in culture proper) to not kill a religious priestess. Men that may have been agnostic would be likely to not risk the fact that their enemies’ God might come down on them for killing their enemy’s witch or just inflame the enemy not yet totally made submissive. You can see this in the Phoenicians taking of Egyptian priestesses, the fact that they were sellable as slaves and thus made profit, as a further motive to keep any mystical mother of all the gods (Cybele-like) goddess worshipers alive and breeding. For at this stage in any take over these women would be all too submissive (and or filled with hysterics to make them seem to be possessed and thus scary in their hysteria).
We have temple girls of the later period being said to be virgins, yet this is in Greece and Rome times, and in early discussions with the Egyptians we find the people of the Nile being confused when ask by Greeks as to Egyptian virgins, for they had no such chastity on their younger women and knew not a virgin anywhere around them (just like today in our own world). So this may be the patriarchal societies again reacting to Eastern influences in opposition, as later the Muslims did in taking up the ways of traditional nomadic men as opposed the whore of Babylon's ways.
Traditional Harmony a Bust
Effeminates taken in such hostile circumstance would need to bide their time to pull strings later, and this points to another common tradition of sending brides to the husband’s side of the family, where women needed to adapt by performing well and not breaking the ties of the male side of the family. Men are slower to make alliances, while women have many attributes to warm them to strangers.
Women had likely been kidnapped in pre-matriarchal ages from neighboring tribes too for shortages in female folk, and as nature’s way to avoid inner breeding too much. This could account for much of this submissive-aggressive behavior. Yet at what point do women need to turn off this behavior and become something greater than their instincts? This excusing instincts and rationalized fears continues completely in our present day, as if personal responsibility and logic are but some fad. There will always be, it would seem, something to fear and therefore an opt out of behaving more bravery & honorably for effeminates (we are talking of real dangerous situations here not dramatized ones).
Well for our part men haven’t had honorable women at the top of any priority of characteristics list when we go looking for a wife, whether we have had much of a choice given our heavily horny state and the female presentation of hiding all her wrinkles (which is another story not to be covered here) I really don't know.
Women are well adapted to avoid direct power assertion at first meetings with others of possible direct acting characteristics, especially when not on their own territory and with strangers. But just as they show little of their obsession at this first opening period, they then later overdue it in the other extreme in string pulling when they are at ease in their endlessly adjusted nests.
This effect on the string-pulling obsession was minimalized on the taking of brides to the male side of the family (like in old India), for any new family disharmony would be laid very quickly at the new female arrival’s feet. The matriarch power on the male side of the family would insist the new female take her place below her, and keep an eye on her string pulling (and in effect keep both occupied), thus sparing families the full effects of female leadership through indirect action. It is interesting to note that in modern Japan the first thing modern Japanese women insist on is in changing the long tradition of living with the male’s parents, and Japanese men have been measurably isolated from support because of this, as wives then insist their husbands put their wives ahead of their jobs too.
Once again this shows older traditions having hidden benefits to the family’s harmony. Mennonite and Amish communities do this sending of wives to the husband’s family as well even today. Having the males come over to the other family would have lead to up front direct conflicts, as other males born to the female side of a marriage would expect the male to be a lower rank for reasons other than true strengths, as the new males would need to establish loyalty to them first. This would discourage males staying around, as they would up and leave, for marriage would be even more unappealing to males than it usually is. An overall lesson completely lost on our modern politicians.
Females remaining in their own families would know all the characters and be able to pull strings right off the bat leaving the new husband to sit on his obvious skills and leave the new wife to warm him to others, or leave him under her thumb as he would likely be a bull in a China shop in the new families domain. Most modern women, that I’m aware of, get their new husbands to live closer to their kin than the other way around, just as wives and girlfriends tend to succeed in getting a husbands friends to depart from his life with endless calls of, “He isn’t very mature.” Which is in fact only an effeminate version of maturity in the end. This kind of maturity means it is usually fear based and short term in concerns. A husbands friend, for example, is unlikely to make silly small talk with ones friend's wife well (thus being pathetic to effeminate eyes, especially if he has no boy toy good looks), but is more likely to risk his neck if the family is ever attacked from criminals, and he is still around.
Female leadership in the family and state is much more friendly to outside elements, due to their unknown and dangerous elements, for the only way for this unknown element to be brought to heel is to befriend. Thus the stranger must be treated better than the familiar. The familiar breeds contempt maxim is much more to women’s nature. Lion-like men are much more the opposite of this and thus can only be truly abused by familiars in the day-to-day affairs of their lives, for they must honorably treat those who have earn loyalty better than unknowns for this is only logical and honorable. The more men embrace the effeminate way the more the culture destroys itself as all outside cultures and people are made more interesting and even better, and treated thus. One’s own culture is not all fashionably new, open to interpretation, and has not all of logical constraints of patriarchal legalism (which means debating & arguing with other direct males as to the meaning of them). The effeminate construct and preference is to divide familiars and submit to the dangerous unknowns elements, for this let's them survive and gain power over the less flexible honorable to familiars types. The recent arrival of altrusim, it could be argued, is the small > big false rationalization of effeminate ways. The new and fashionable trumps tradition in all effeminates circles that I've seen, because it allows women to indirectly go about changing the directly debated male positions that women are incapable of, to dateas a whole, to work out as a sex. Even Victorian women changed their styles often enough. If the traditions are bad, then this can advance a culture. Yet if the culture is better than the new fad, or even great to the new evil fad, then undermining the old takes on a evil act of unsurpassed dishonor.
Now are the Western English speaking peoples traditions in need of a total upheaval, or is the instinctive pull of effeminates to undermine Western traditions evil? Was it a mistake for western men to help destroy fascism & communism, build democracy fully, build the rule of law fully, build patriarchal religions, insist on a traditional family and develop science to the extent that western English speaking peoples have, or not?
Altruism in education is just such an effeminate way glorified. Hence saving people in Africa is much more important than not bad mouthing familiars behind their backs. A normal simple man would feel it better to get his own house in order, then the neighborhood, after that his town followed by the province leading to the state, and finally the world at large, with real hard nosed successful traditional methods (that are tried and tested) leading the way.
The female way would be best described with feathering her own nest first (undermine the nest’s likeability to the husband in this quest), and next to deal with her endless fears when they appear in her solipsistic world, which includes those that magically appear on the TV. Then with this done a female will move on to something farthest a field in the mystic or fashionable realm (which can have the veneer of science by being transferred to the now common new humanistic world religion of today). Say for example in the idea of saving cute seals from male hunters, over say ugly lizards, is more important than other issues, as aggressive dogs are gassed (sorry put to sleep) at the local SPCA at the end of the street. Funds wasted at the UN are for a good cause, don't you know, and the familiars in their own home, on the same street, in the same community are here to be competed with indirectly as the Joneses have a new car and their mother didn't talk to you nicely the other week.
There is so much more room to make things up this way with the new and fashionable, when you go along with the riding of the foreign & fashionable express. Long established local & provincial issues, with all their ambitious males with all their logic, their knowledge of history and drive to win, upset her as it does her get-togethers when tea & coffee talk goes to issues like business, politics, war and much more. Better to push ones views on these issues via the gossiping indirect use of words than to do so at polite performing functions?
Corruption Indirectus
Surely there were male priests around in the past too, but they seem to not have been good trading material, or didn’t allow themselves to become trading material. For the Phoenicians, in the well-recorded event stated earlier, it seems they passed on male priests as selling objects (being a possible sexual object seems to have kept one alive to live another day). Women were treated as objects yes, but men were expected to die for the objects. The Persians, who later took on the Greeks, were very successful in that they didn’t demand upon their captured territorial peoples that they abandon their native religions. This led to the problems in the Ionian coast and the Athenians support for a revolt there later. Such kinds of takeovers insured such priestesses and offspring survive to pass on their ways and personalities. For Machiavelli stated, quite rightly, upon taking power it is the old members from the old system that are often the best at getting ones actions moved through as they are in the most vulnerable position in the new take over and want to prove some kind of limited and short term loyalty. While old hands from your own side often feel they deserve something and can delay effective actions by their expectations to receive rewards for all the hard work upon gaining power. So passive-aggressive behaviors could be ingrained in the priestly class from the earliest of times. The step of priests & priestesses from their role to bureaucrats is a small one too. The old Roman bureaucrats became the Franks religious and bureaucratic class in France, when the Franks took over the former Roman Gaulic province, which suggests this can go both ways.
These systems of basic influence in governance in this period, as a whole, were not a permanent system and were likely always in flux, with women priestesses sometimes playing a lesser role, and upon not dying in battle they could rise up again to gain power in the void. In retaking the reins of power their claims of any state losses could be laid at the feet of males leaders who had failed in not heeding her teachings, with 20/20 hindsight not being much known as a rhetorical weapon in such times as they are now. There is likely to have been an intense dislike by such mystical women towards the uncontrollable males in their time too, as our own, for their inability to be made to come to heal always posed a threat to the effeminates endless fears. Again they must be undermined indirectly to be controlled.
With one practicing indirect dishonest behavior it is a real fear to have justice be brought to bear on such sinners, and you can see this in the many who claim to want to let sleeping dogs lie. As can be seen in the fact that after the communist fall our lack of hunting down persons for a new set of Nuremberg trails. Or as to those who said an Ice Age is coming and we should heat things up 20 years ago. Or as in life time prisoners sentenced in fact to only 15-20 years?
The chattering classes are playing a part in the many lies of communism, and really don’t want to be called to account for their evil deeds either, so its best to stop things before they get started by objecting to the trial of others (and thus appear only concerned with social harmony and not appear to be concerned with self, yet again). While past trials, against communists, must be attacked endless over Gulags where millions died (Hollywood has yet to make a movie about any of the Russian Gulags, said by many to have had more deaths than the Nazis by far).
Direct conflicts, revenge taking can have the highest risks to those who do everything in their power to keep things polite, indirect and with lot’s of happy talk on the surface. Regardless of the priestess class in the Stone Age unlikely having total control over a tribe, this doesn’t mean they didn’t have the largest and longest lasting effect. The first stage of any successful state was and is first and foremost a leader who has his laws followed efficiently, before such laws could become a standard over time, given way to more democratic leadership. Stone Age Matriarchy didn’t have this, as everything was best left vague and mystical and subject to change. Better to just follow what the priestess says this moment than try and understand a “goddess or god.” Thus the common woman’s right to change her mind. Who are you to second-guess the household Goddess' thinking? The acceptance of this idea can be seen in smart mangina husbands of today. These men tell their sons, “If you were smart you would do as I and say, Yes dear!” How many of these wild boys then go MGTOW with such dads is unknown, but I would say most to many?
Our present day Iraq problem shows that order trumps democracy. The whole role of indirect power is to use the plausible deniability to both pull strings and deny they are pulling them, when it becomes dangerous and things need doing. In Iraq the Americans are trying to use soft measures of winning heart and minds (love) over using effective fear. Machiavelli warned us of this too, in saying it is better for you to be feared than loved. Yet for many women they want to be loved so they can instill fear later, and thus are pushing leadership to win hearts and minds first as they hope to instill court ordered feminist law in the Muslim World later with gradualism. Even though many women are not supporting the war (as compared to men) and not fighting on the frontlines (in any way similar in numbers as men have done), and not even keeping the home front covered (as returning Dear Johns find their kids, home and rights gone upon returning home from the frontlines, because their wives needed someone to talk to and fulfill her goddess needs to be catered to). Women say don’t inflame Muslims feelings, yet we still must appease the effeminate matriarchy as the President says, “Look we have girls schools, women politicians in Iraq etc.” Well we can only go so far with not madding the insurgents to not kill our male soldiers, it would seem.
Indirect power is now so acceptable in our own time that the effeminates desire to treat our worst enemies better (rationalized to remove the hotbeds of terrorism) is in overdrive. We must befriend and stop the breeding grounds of terrorism, while we take soldiers kids away while they are occupied with issues a tad more important. I can see how the rationality for carrier diplomats, bureaucrats, and effeminates work, but I can also see how patriarchal religions pulled down the matriarchal statues of the past and burned witches too. One only needs to see how soldiers are treated upon return from Vietnam and Iraq and know we are in a matriarchal state. Honor bellows direct revenge here, and the fact that it took men losing their own kids for MRAs to rise above their rationalized selfish Ayn Rand streak is very telling of the hole we are in.
Once the enemy in Iraq wins the conflict by fear (whether by Sunni insurgent or Shia state police) the population will have their hearts and minds won later by those who take power as the communists did in Vietnam. The best course of action for both sides is to calm things down and await for the Americans to leave and then instill fear in full.
When others say we should have marched on Berlin in WWI, it was not to walk down Kaiser street and give candy to German kids, build schools for girls, undermine the local religion so that we can get more important votes back home! It was to do as the Romans said of the Germans, “Knock them down, and when they get up knock them down again and again and again, and when they surrender in spirit you take your foot off their throat.” The Russians did this for us in WWII by instilling fear on the personal level.
Now do we need to rape, murder and steal to instill this fear? No, but the long list of methods that effeminates find distasteful is only likely to instill confidence in the other side, as we fumble with matriarchal sensibilities. We still fight wars with kit gloves and little understanding of history and its lessons. We are still thrilled with new gadgets for they keep us playing the indirect game, and there may come a day when they trump all, but the list of fox-leaders who have claimed lion-like ideas are no longer necessary fill the graves of the political no-man’s-land.
We can only look to the later male religions’ total vivid rage at such effeminate religions in the past to match MRAs anger today. The state backs up women, because the state hates men that don’t follow its rules too. It doesn’t matter that the rules are getting corrupted by the day, for these leaders have given their souls to the corruption, all be it in gradual form and in accordance to accepted norms and legally covered. Thus laws for small things must be brought to bear over bigger crimes and corruption. The corrupt leadership still wants the population being lion like in their honesty, but the population has become like those in leadership by the school of hard knocks.
Cultural Marxism, it has been argued by many, is a religion (as when the old Eastern European states had communist icons paraded down the streets instead of the old orthodox ones). In my book Honor vs. the Amazonian World I argued that too much direct conflict and too little direct conflict is bad for honorable men. So here I must state the reverse that too much indirect conflict and too little indirect conflict is not good for fox-like personalities who have their root in the female characteristics. It is rare to almost impossible to find a man who will admit they act this effeminate way, and those who practice it talk always of mystic ideas as a kind of verbal camouflage, or go on about how bad lion-like ways are (thus avoiding all of the evils done in roughly equal measure by such effeminate leadership).
Gather & Farm vs. Hunting & Spoils
So we have briefly looked at the religious means for some kinds of women to prosper, and now we will look at the economic or culture means. Here we also have a continuation of the male/female divide, and yet here we have a bias towards the gathering & farming ways too. Nature saw fit to allow hunting and spoils to be had, but not for modern effeminates, who tend to strongly glamorize what women did in gathering and farming, to again find fault in hunting and spoils. This is done by the connecting of hunting to war, violence and killing. I won’t go into defending war, but again it is the absence of women from the direct hunt which is more telling.
We live is a society that seems unconcerned with looking under the hood (or bonnet) of so many issues that we are left with warm fuzzy words that sound good on the outside and no one dares to look over what lies underneath. In so many discussions with effeminates they so cling to issues simply because they are grounded in some cloud-like unarguable positions. Examples of which are as follows: to undertake said position for the sake of the kids, motherhood, peace, compassion, tolerance, understanding, love, romance and following ones dreams etc. A person who must talk of issues by spending time to study or use logic is forced into the unenviable position of having to attack these things, for the other persons puts them out as a kind of shield to protect all their positions, no matter how inappropriate. This is now common rhetoric, and is ritualized in the legal profession, and has grinded common purpose to a stop and no matter what you may want to talk about someone is bound to bring these terms up (possible in slightly different versions) out of the blue to simply say if you don’t agree with the speaker you are against the kids, motherhood, peace, compassion, tolerance, understanding, love, romance and following ones dreams etc. In being left in the effeminate field of play we should recognize it for what it is, and not convince ourselves otherwise.
Gathering
Gathering was and is more open to uncooperative behavior, if you really think about it. When gatherers come back to the cave, they would show everyone their haul, and everyone would be happy, not knowing that the best parts could have been eaten. If gatherers were seen eating, while gathering, they could simply claim to be testing to see if the food was poisonous, ripe or claim to be removing the seed covers and so on. Women have been the professional takers of resources from the beginning (at times rightly argued as needing to be passed on to kids). Yet with the birthrate falling we still have these distortions unfairly set to hand over wealth to effeminates. Gathering (in shopping form) has replaced proper gathering and has continue to awaken the underlining genetic compulsions to take for one self as one claims to be doing so for the children, family, neighborhood, state and even the economy, next it will be for the mystic universe!
Despite these glorious titles thrown at gathers it is still just gatherers greedily taking for themselves at the expense of everyone else, just as much as for the group. As visa card debt hits the kids future, families future, neighbourhoods future, states future and economic world future. Can we spend some money and save other amounts and still not be an anti-free trader?
As a priestess of the past the ability to demand that they get fed first is only the likely extension of the corruption of gathering. It was safer to gather in groups, so one needed to stay close, while at the same time made it available for one to eat the best fruit one could for oneself. What better environment to develop guile with familars? The direct justice enforcers were absent hunting and thus women ways must have run amuck at gatherings, for the older men and children were less likely to, due much as Beowulf points to. Men developed guile with the outside more, animals and other tribes.
Hunting & Spoils
Hunting, like war, is centered on the spoils and must be divided by who risked the most, and who did not, so risk taken and specialty skills in play make men accept unequal dividing of spoils. Any hunting leader can distorted this more fair practice, but he risks those doing the most taking of risks taking his position of power away from him for every distortion of the spoils. We think of war spoils from the position of those having it taken away from, which often could have been peoples who demanded others to go and fight for all while they avoided the risks! A good example we hear about this is when the Slavs of the Russian Steppes call for the Rus of Sweden to come and rule them. Why not rule and fight yourself farmers? Maybe communism's was successful in Russia first for the same underlining reason, because the peasants still wanted there role glorified, and the fighters role made bad as communism says nothing of the fighters (aside as acting on the will of the peasants). Swedish Rus were replaced by Communist Rus.
Yet a leader leading a group to success and dividing the spoils up fairly made all trust him even more solidly. At least much more than those back at the cave telling stories about the Gods and how we should give them food in the back of the cave (close to where they sleep, funny enough) or suffer no successful hunting in the future.
This hunting and dividing of spoils are why men led and lead, for it is strength built upon strength. Men don’t lead because they are only physically stronger, it because they share the risk, are inventive, know how to plan and don't make judgments based on so many endless fears. Compared with gathering, which only involves the memory to find all the right spots, right plants, right season and whether the food is ripe or good to eat, it is much smaller in scale in preventing corruption, and it is amazing no one has brought it up more often. The pure woman in her garden is still built on shit it would seem.
In the process of dividing the carcass we see the need for a leader, not a bureaucrat. Some get more and some less (good profit incentive). Even in Inuit and other cultures the liver goes to the high-ranking person, or most successful hunter of the day. In fact with nomadic peoples, where gathering and farming are less common, there seems a stronger acceptance of leadership, and less tolerance of deeds of theft from inside the tribe (if severity of punishment is to be our guide). Outside the tribe was another matter all together, and hence nomadic tribal warfare sounds all very male. Loyalty first to familiars, and distrust of strangers is a very male trait. Women are fearful of strangers and can often lock all the doors several times before convincing themselves they might be safe. The more out of the nest and with unfamiliars, in isolation and in front of strangers, the more you will see the performance of bending over backwards for strangers and barking at familiars.
In farming communities this loyalty was undermined by those who ruled people herd-like and demanded their share. Here then for the effeminates the lords are strangers too and are dangerous and must be appeased, and familiars can be treated less well off, if need be (which undoubtedly became the only course on many occasions for the survival at any cost effeminate). Roaming bands of criminals in and around the forced farming and gathering communities were likely filled with men who left the peasant life and saw its fenced in corruption for what it was, or because they were on the lamb.
It is harder to steal cattle from inside ones own grassland nomadic tribe, and the spring seasons (with the few plants to supplement the diet) are short and have very low offerings. So gathering or farming women (who do less work than the males at almost all times) are of less worth than hard working loyal wives of nomadic stock who will deal with the carcass, milking and such like. This could be another reason for the conflict outside the tribe over the conflict inside, with both cultures. Corruption is accepted in such domesticated cultures for everyone knows this happens (as the far off leaders come and take part of the crop) and so they don’t object to leaders who do so (for fear). Abuse of this taking of the leadership tax, or leaders cut or virgin girl handed over, usually brings on the mob and revolt when abused, which cultures like China have had to deal with much more than the raiding barbarians, who usually attacked only at the outskirts of their empire most of the time. Yet these inner revolts failed almost always and so killed off the unruly elements, and left the passive-aggressive ones alive and groveling. This is also shown in the reluctance of farmers to give sons and support to the army to defend them for they have less loyalty to the distant corrupt official than the hetman of the nomadic tribe whose rules were clear and acted upon often within sight of all.
The threat from inside the tribe always fixated the leadership of China and older regimes, like effeminates centering on affairs in their own sphere. Modern men suffer exactly the same as the state doesn't like its male population in the exact same way, and treats them worse than real outlaws and foreign enemies because they are familiar and pose more of a threat to their power because they are not misbehaving, as compared to others, and thus can replace them. Bad boys are given weaker sentencing because they are official no longer electable, economic rivals, and are much less fathering material for women long term.
Less effeminate men are too focused on threats outside their home and are blindsided by attacks from inside their fold, for nature has made this warring from inside a no go. For they can so easily end up like Ivan the Terrible killing his single son to the throne if he lets his rage go, or understand that to have all hot heads dead or marginalized, when their enemy comes a calling, is no plus. The more you marginalize these men the more they act as mercenaries MGTOW (as they rightly should as the society doesn't like them, persecutes them, especially outside of times of war), and violates its own terms of justice in their cases - more often than it will ever readily admit as it sponges off them something fierce with lions' less tax savy ways. For it is men who are the backbone of revolutions, the muscle of the revolutions, and the brains of revolution, as women tend to only be the nervous system or supply system of revolutions. Civil Wars are over taxation and wealth transfers from men to the state.
As stated gathering and farming is much more open to eating as you work. Which leads to some taking a bigger cut than others, which makes it more acceptable. Maybe you have seen a few welfare types protesting on occasion, or in TV interviews who are a tad fat (or have a pack of smokes puffing away). They seem unable to tighten the belt in one area in their quest to survive, even as the kids look skinny. The times I 've seen single mothers in this physical state is just too common to count.
All such persons just wish to be the one doing the dividing and taxing. There are more games to be played in such key gathering positions, with all relatively doing equal levels of work, for there is less concern for rewarding harder and dangerous work, because there is less of a way in noting bigger efforts in gathered crops and in their future as bureaucrats. At farm meals I’ve seen the men get bigger meals and get served first as they do more work and need more energy. While in the cities it is ladies and gentlemen posing & posturing with small portions given to the ladies first (as they are equal now) of rich tasting items, so that women can taste a little of everything but not get fat, or at least binge later when everyone one isn’t watching. How much more polite they are in the cities?? As a normal man I dread the French restaurants (phony farts) for I must eat hard French bread for the portions are so small, or spend a lot in buying many small portions of things that are over worked (to many spices, sauces and herbs as if the more you place the more you score) and thus need to fill the table with courses to fill oneself. Thus breaking another effeminate rule by embarrassingly having a normal male appetite (and eating now instead of later bingeing like many women do in private. In North American culture, which was influenced by Eastern European farmer ideas, letting anyone leave still hungry from your home was very bad. Huge portions are the result of this. Japanese traditional cuisine is like that of the French, with small portions for women to taste, but not wolf down a lot. Yet the appreciation of simple tastes is much better in Japan.
As for work, men do their bigger workload and women do theirs. In fact those who protested having a bigger share than others were likely directly killed off in feudal times, thus encouraging stealing indirectly or hiding some of the crop from the state, as the Kulaks did with the communists.
Cowboys are a bit of a cross here for they are like nomadic stock, for women rarely can or want to do the really hard labor work on horseback all day, and are more prone to riding is shows for shorter periods. This is despite woman being able to hold their own in horse-riding (as the Amazonians did). Farming of the past needed many skills (like an understanding of manure, irrigation, timing of harvests), but what we are discussing here is leadership under such systems and the ability for corruption. A man can run a farm honorably and not try to enforce his ways with the authorities out of his concern for many reasonable rationalizations. We confuse western farmers and their individualism with Asian or European farmers, where they were treated as peasants and developed accordingly. Our farmers didn't like it in these other accepting societies, and voted with their feet. Even today many European and Asian people are leaving their nations to escape the over taxation, as farmers left to escape in the past.
The Highlanders of Scotland roamed with cattle in this way, as the Lowlanders were looked down upon for their corrupt ways too. Here too we are much closer to our own time and even in Europe, and yet we see in this example the same distrust in the small isolated regions of Scotland. As the Highlander/ Lowlander split was and is still very real.
Taking from the Plate
Food offerings to Goddesses & Gods is a common thread we can see even today in many cultures. Surely we know it is and was meant for the Gods, but often such food could be taken into the inner sanctums, or simply disappear from the alter with the claim the Goddess or God had taken it in times of short food supply. The whole idea of giving the head of the faith their share, to continue their concerns of the Goddesses and Gods, could have been a corruption from the beginning. In the case of Jezebel, of Bible fame, she took spoils from the plate in front of all and encouraged her clique to do the same. She is said to have done this as she claimed to be a prophetess. Which means as one close to mystic gods she was entitled to it!?
Since with so many ceremonies and outfits to wear it is unlikely the original religious leaders could have hoped to continue to farm like others and have the time to do other things, so they needed to get support before it all got organized. Before more stable times one could make giving to the organized religion a standard process, by which tributes were assured for the Gods and their spokespersons. In Egypt the political intrigues connected with who gets what share of what food stock is well recorded in detail. All these religions had better lifestyles on the backs of farmers. Some kind of pan handling surely happened at the beginning, but this would have made these religious classes occupation less attractive at the beginning for men & women of ambition, and thus more appealing to the better snivelers. Therefore there must have been larger offerings to allow religious types time to do the contemplating of the goddesses' desires, which at the beginning was very interestingly human-like (for the Gods I mean). They must have thus eaten such offering, and insisted that the God’s offering be given before others, who may be starving, for the fact that they were staving (it could have been argued) was because the Gods were unhappy! “So give the offerings and feed the Gods to end ones suffering, or suffer more by their hands”, would surely have been the argument. Priestesses and priests needed to be fed I guess!
We only look at the sins of the patriarchal Catholic Church and not rest any blame on those that came before them, which would have included matriarchal priestesses galore. Only they would likely have been accepted as unable to go hunt, gather, farm and also deal with the Gods without weakening the tribe in real terms! Old people were in short supply in this brutal world and would have been slowed down with all kinds of ailments, while moderately older women with no hunting injuries had a much better chance to have the option and mystic genes & insights to fill this questionably needed role. In Egypt the hunting was undoubtedly less, due to the narrow region around the Nile, and real hunting was set often for the Pharaohs, as they were the hunters of the original dynasties who probably fit this role as with other societies.
Men die earlier in greater numbers and this is probably why slightly more males are born in nature too, for they were expected to succeed or die as the riskier sex. The success of religions as a secure way to prosper can be seen as the beginning of successful effeminate leadership. This is because there is little to no risk to be such a mystic person, and the idea of being close to the Gods promises to satisfy the effeminate need to constantly deal with their endless fears.
We can see how lion-type males developed by their direct nature, yet fox-type characters needed to be genetically developed over millennia too, for they didn’t come out of thick air either. Such characters, I will assert here, went from gathering to priestesses to bureaucrats and possible back again (official in title or simply a courtesan in the temple).
Yet in their success lies the problems for our future. For the line to these effeminate ways is longer and more likely to survive, as nature says to men, "Ignore these effeminate traits to have kids." While most religions ask men to become women-like in relation to God (bow to God and be second to the Godesss). Are those that are ready to bow and be two faced likely in all institutions to rise over those who will not? So in other words should not this submission be then made a model for all if it is close to some ideal for so many? Does one need to be effeminate (celibate, lover of children & above the facts of life) in the quest to be closer to God(s)?
The need for warrior males to marry into these higher levels of leadership assured them even more that their lines of character traits will be overwhelmed by the survival at any cost sex or class. Warriors are a weaker genetic line in numbers in comparison to the safe sex, and thus can be lost, if wasted. This is one reason why empires are so unstable.
How so? You need more proof. Well in predators groups they are more exposed to changes is environment too. Since they eat meat they must be in fewer numbers than the herbivores to survive. Lower stocks of prey means fewer stocks to hunt when times are tough. There is greater pressure on predators to improve or move back to being omnivores. Herbivores are the least vulnerable for they need only plants and not other animals to eat, and when plants go everything is about gone. Men are closer to the predator, and thus have more pressure to adapt and take greater risk. For a man without protein loses his size and brain size, and thus power and spirit to fully fill his role in such times of crisis. Women are more herbivores or omnivores in their diet, and thus have less need to hunt or work in groups effectively. This is why men have adapted in so many more ways to being larger, stronger, faster, smarter etc.
This is not hard or special to see for this is the traditional view of men, but it is in our looking at women that we lack seeing what has got them through to today. This is new; for it was in the Victorian age we were very set on this course to seeing woman as pure and unsullied. Which was in fact what we wanted them to be, instead of what they are. Young healthy pure women that would bring up the children properly was what we wanted them to be, and they in turn wanted to get men, and so obliged with many performing as instructed by older lady matriarchs, who may have remembered times when life was harder, brutish, and short. Many PC counseling books talk about role changing and skip the part of why Victorian women didn’t have to do chores as the servants and nannies did it like the Helots of old Sparta. So oppressed were they that they had so much time to ask for more rights, as the kids were in boarding schools!
Once the threat is gone, from outside the state, all is but forgotten in what is needed in men and the embracing of the polite, subtle and effeminate ways will not rest until all fears are removed from the methods of social contacts.
In so many of these Stone Age cultures the Goddess was the queen and the queen was the Goddess, so why would she not take from that offered to her with good measure? All these small corruptions of gathering, farming, and now offerings points to an insurance policy for such women's genes being passed on to future generations, with more time to weave webs over those working the fields or hunting further a field.
This more stable priestess genetic line could have increased the tendencies for children to take up the indirectness of the female side, along with mother’s instruction (with their endless emotional concerns for their offspring allowing them to make male offspring mommas’ boys, as dad was too busy with the kingdom or work). This increased odds magnified the survival of kids genetic line being passed on to, for it is better to be taught some skills than have no influence at all, with father death in hunt or battle.
So we see this mystical gene both being an advantage at this early time and also increasing the chances of getting a role in religious leadership- via this dominate role in the affairs of any tribes or state. With no need to fight for power directly many ambitious women had a low risk way to the top levels of power in times of high violence and risk. Even when men entered such professions they are much less likely to survive changes of power or regimes. So good looks and submissive-aggressiveness are hallmarks of success for mystic effeminates in religion, and thus answers why it is so strong in women and gays even today. In this way we can really call it the Stoning Matriarchal Age.
|
