A potential question for your blog

Greetings James,

Thank you for posting my art on your site a ways back. I'm glad you enjoyed the art enough to do so.

I do appreciate your musings on life & society and I appreciate your anecdotes that you share in your interviews (such as with the Myth of the 20th Century guys. How the frack did they even FIND you?)

Anyway, I have a question for you to consider answering on your blog. Which is as follows

....

Given your knowledge about so-called "Ancient History", would you care to comment on or elaborate on the difference between the Matriarchal societies of the Pre-Dynastic era as opposed to the Patriarchal Dynastic era (that we collectively occupy at present). Is one system better than the other? Can we or even should we, collectively speaking, go back to a more Matriarchal society? OR is the collective strife we see all the time on the News, just a byproduct of living in these mega-societies of centralized power, which given my own understanding of History, look good on paper but not so much in actuality.

Warmest regards,

Craig.

artofcraigs

The Myth of the 20th Century guys found me through Kevin Michael Grace and the Rebel Yell podcasts, prompted, I think, by GodsOwnPrototype and Alex Nicholson, who unfortunately hijacked that plane and crashed it.

Your general understanding of history is right on.

Craig, I like your suspicion that ancient history is not so ancient, because I have come more and more to suspect that Plato, Robert E. Howard and others were correct to postulate cyclic rise and fall of civilization, history simply being the surviving inquiry into the story of our most recent human civilization.

First, our idea of matriarchal is completed screwed, in that modern humans regard any power sharing arrangement between men and women in society as matriarchal. That is the most patriarchal twist one could apply to the ideal of a balanced society. It seems you are referring to the postmodern contention that societies before civilization established masculine dominated hierarchies were matriarchal, which is a standard anthropological contention and has been since the 1970s.

For counterpoints I suggest two excellent works:

War before Civilization by Heeley of Keeley [the book is no longer in my possession]

The Truth About Primitive Life by Theodore J. Kaczynski

In both works anarcho-primitivist claims of evidence of a once peace loving, kumbaya matriarchy are utterly demolished and shown for the social engineering support lies that they are.

In my book, Take Me to Your Breeder, I do conduct a survey of prehistoric and historic societies in which women had privileges which might make them the envy of modern feminists though none of these societies were matriarchies as we are given to understand it. I have found zero evidence for the existence of a matriarchal society, ruled exclusively by women, other than the mythical amazons. I have made a case for a true historic amazon tribe in my book By the Wine Dark Sea, written as screenplay support for a work by feminist sci-fi author V. J. Waks.

Permit me to outline the trajectory of the misconception:

According to modern thinking, once balanced Mankind, a hunting gathering society in which, typically, women have far more sexual and economic freedom and power than in male-dominated civilized hierarchies [in which women exist primarily as slaves, with the marriage contract often representing the purchase or sale of the woman, depending on the society] the act of planting, of farming, of settling down, ushered in an age of female dominated river valley proto-civilizations. These paradises, are, as Kascinsky notes, possibly sublimated forms of the Garden of Eden myth, were [if they existed, for which evidence is absent] then conquered by male-dominated herding societies, ushering in untold ages of rule at the point of the penis, eventually leading to enlightenment about a hundred years ago and the age of women's suffrage, which is still conceived of as a phase of the masculine dynasty.

This theory is inferred from ancient religion, in which, it seems, in the archeological record, that the paleolithic huntsmen is replaced by the Mesolithic Venus, leading to a Neolithic goddess worshipping society, which is blissfully successful until the herders, the patriarchal cattle abductors, defile the sacred river valleys and take over. Hence, the historical period—defined as the masculine dynastic hierarchy period, begins with male sky gods over female fertility gods, in the pimple-sized modern mind inferring that a race of female queens was crushed by a race of male kings.

What actually happened?

Hunter gatherer societies drifted to the left and the right, the left being majority farming, supplemented by hunting, the right being majority herding, supplemented by hunting.

In the farming setting the goddess is more important than the god. However, the female is not. In a society built on surpluses, naked force is the rule. Aztec, Mayan and Inca society are perfect examples of highly predatory, male-dominated societies based almost entirely on a surplus of vegetable food, based, in other words, on the Goddess concept. Furthermore, women suffer terribly in grain-based societies, spending most of their time on their knees grinding corn and developing terrible osthio-arthritis.

In the meantime, the relative freedom of the hunting-gathering woman is made even better by the herding society, which, while ruled by men, as it is predatory on the face, leaves the women in charge of the camp for extended periods. Mongols and Huns and Skythians [the husbands of the Amazons] all had female figures of great importance, from Atilla's witch to Mongol regents. Herding is an amplification of hunting, a form of delayed gratification animal farming based on mass hunting which preserves meet on the hoof.

When the few brutes who squat on top of a farming civilization are called upon to defend against the nomad horde, they always lose. Hence, the rise of mixed-means civilization under patriarchal dynasties from China to Europe, ruled by a hierarchy of horsemen who hold exclusive hunting and warrior rights, served by a mass of slaves, whose only lordship is the proximate terrorization of their wives, these being the girls not beautiful enough to be taken as concubines by the horse lords.

Nowhere in history is a true matriarchy found, only in the human mind does it exist. The closest was Minoan Crete, a nation of priestess-dominated temple-cities, which nevertheless had kings, kings that it seems were manipulated and ritually disposed of by the priestesses who used wine and opium, rodeos and boxing to control the men. The problem with matriarchies, when they have arisen, and they will again, is that the female ruler suffers the fate of the Arab sultans of Egypt, who bought an army of Turkish slave-warriors and ended up being deposed by their own heavily armed slaves.

Even when priest kings ruled at the knee of the goddess, even when queens ruled on earth, even when Mary birthed the Son of God, the lot of women in virtually every human civilization has been the lot of a slave. Civilization is nothing but power and when things get rough, even if the fist of power has been covered in a glove of pink velvet, that glove is coming off and some swinging dick is going to fist fuck the body feministic that is ever the body politic. Only under barbarism do women have a consistent power-sharing arrangement with men, one that varies from brutally one-sided to perfectly balanced. Under primitive civilization, the lot of women is a nightmare and as technology increases to ease the burdens of the slave class, a class to which all women belong by birth, does Woman's lot improve, until one day she is handed the ethereal reigns of conceptual power and told that she knows best—and at that point it is assured that those who hold the naked fist of power stand brutally in the wings waiting for Queen Bo Peep to morph into Medusa.

So Craig, the problem is that women have a better quality of life, in psychological terms, because it always sucks to be weak, in decentralized, small scale societies and that men too have a better quality of life in such societies because they are relatively stronger in relation to that society. Centralized societies are never centralized in effect, only in concept, being in fact pyramidal, not centrifical. I would remind that all societies that we think of as matriarchal were either patriarchies less unbalanced than our own or balanced societies in which men and women shared decision-making. I would further remind that we no longer live in a patriarchy, but rather in its fading shadow. Patriarchy is advanced as a negative concept by all government institutions, which ought to tell us that we are living in a posthuman society, with the genderless SYSTEM and its most ardent agents the only benefactors. Why else would the crusading cause of our age be transgenderism?

Yes, emasculation is a SYSTEM initiative, but just a first step.

The white race has been slated for extinction not to free the other races from its terrible rule as is stated, but because it is the race which has toppled more systems than other races, and since the eradication of all racial distinction is an overt system goal, then the SYSTEM targets the most dangerous race first, just as it targets the most dangerous gender first, in its methodical and ever-expanding quest to eradicate human distinction, for only then can posthuman society enter its Garden of Eden.

A Crackpot Podcast Listener Who Does Heroic Sketches