Matriarchy to Patriarchy in the Neolithic and the Y-Chromosome Bottleneck

axj

The Living Force
It seems to be a good idea to start a new thread on this rather mind-blowing topic discussed in the latest session:

(seek10) If time permits, I have a question. In chromosomal studies, there's a phenomenon known as the Y-chromosome bottleneck. During this period, it is estimated that for every 17 females, there was only one male who left descendants. This event is believed to have occurred around 5000 BCE, although the exact timing varies. What factors might have contributed to this genetic anomaly?
--
"bottleneck in Y-chromosome lineages surfacing within the Younger Dryas boundary that in contrast to demographic reconstructions based on mtDNA, strongly indicated an accelerated differential between males to females, rising from a previous 1 male to every 3.5 females to 1 male for every 8 females by 8,000 BC and a staggering 17 females per single male by 5,000 BC, before as dramatically falling back in ratio to where we stand now with near parity of global birth rates." THE ONCE AND FUTURE SKY GOD? – From Göbekli Tepe to The Zodiac – and Beyond…' THE ONCE AND FUTURE SKY GOD? – From Göbekli Tepe to The Zodiac – and Beyond…

(L) Well, seek10, you ought to be able to figure out why there's a bottleneck in Y-chromosome! A bunch of people died! Especially in the Younger Dryas boundary, for crying all night! It accelerated.

(seek10) The anomaly seems to result from a disproportionately high rate of male mortality.

(L) Yeah, right. Okay... One male to every 3.5 females, to one male for every eight females by 8000 BC and a staggering 17 females per single male by 5000 BC. Near parity of global birth rates. Okay. Okay, it is obviously not simply cataclysmic activity.

(Andromeda) It's a long period of time.

(L) Yeah, that covers a long period of time, so... Well, what was the reason there?

A: Notice that there were matriarchies in that window of time.

Q: (L) Yeah, so...

(Joe) So they sent all the men to die...

A: Consider the divide between men and women now.

Q: (L) So are you suggesting that maybe during those times, women became angry at men, because they thought men had been responsible for bringing down the wrath of the gods on them?

A: Close.

Q: (L) And they formed matriarchies and began to suppress men in some way, because they blamed them for all the problems?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Was that in fact the cause of the problems?

A: Partly, sure.

Q: (Joe) What happened to all the men?

A: Often massacred.

Q: (Joe) By who?

(Niall) By the women?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) No...

(Niall) What are we talking about, Amazons? Men are stronger...

(L) Well, maybe the legend of the Amazons came from something like this.

A: Yes

Q: (L) And what about the legends of the women turning against their husbands? And there are Greek stories about... Who was it, the sons of.. who was it? Egyptus and the Sons of the Greeks or something. And they had all these men and married all these women, and then they were unhappy about it. The women were unhappy about it, and they were given a signal or something. They all killed their husbands in the night. I think they were like the 50 sons of Egyptus and the 50 sons of... Somebody look it up. But, okay.


(seek10) Could the current suppression of women be seen as a form of karmic rebound?

(L) What now?

(seek10) Well, in some areas, women seem to play a somewhat diminished role. Could this be part of a karmic rebalancing act?

A: Partly.

Q: (Joe) Hang on, we must be talking about some very different types of women from 5,000 years ago, or in 5000 BC, because the idea that women in general could massacre men if men didn't want them to, doesn't fit.

(Niall) Well, how? Yeah.

(L) Are you saying that there were libtard women back then?

A: Close. [laughter]

Q: (L) Don't laugh!

(Joe) That still doesn't make any sense.

(Chu) Well, they could have used poisons and stuff...

(L) Think of all the stories in the myths about it! They came from somewhere!

(Joe) Who did? The myths?

(L) Yeah!

(Joe) But are we talking about women who are physically stronger than men in 5000 BC?

A: No.

Q: (Joe) So why did men allow women who were physically weaker than them to massacre them?

(L) Read the myths. It'll tell you how. I mean, consider the story of Judith and Holofernes in the Bible. She waited until he was asleep, and put a tent peg against the side of his head, and hit it with a hammer. I mean, women have all kinds of ways.


(Joe) Yeah, of course.

(L) They don't have to be stronger than men.

(Joe) Well, they said "massacre".

(L) Well "massacre" doesn't mean that they necessarily were in a battle. So, am I on the right track here?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Was there any hyperdimensional manipulation about this?

A: That's the crux of the matter. Just as it is today.

Q: (Joe) So there were matriarchies at the time that propagandized that men were the cause of all ills. And maybe to some extent they were, but not totally. And then they just basically... That's crazy. Well, I suppose you're talking about a lot fewer people, even though it's eight to one or 17 to one, you're talking about small groups, right?

(L) Right.

(Niall) But it's so pervasive that it shows up in...

(Chu) the DNA.

(Niall) Yeah, the genetic records.

(Joe) Yeah, but it's still small numbers compared to today, if you transpose it to 8 billion people.

(L) Yeah, but think also about the whole Zoroastrian thing. They were having all the raids, the cattle raids and all that kind of stuff. And then the poor, peaceful cow wasn't able to provide milk and cheese for the farmers. So everything was all messed up. So just read, what's her name? What's her name, Approaching Infinity?

(Tuatha de Danaan) Settegast, isn't it?

(L) Yes, Mary Settegast.

(Joe) There's an Irish myth about the Brown Bull... Queen Maeve and her husband were definitely in a... she was the queen and he was...

(Niall) Number two.

(Joe) Yeah. But he had more possessions than her. Well, they were equal in possessions, except that he had a magnificent brown bull and she didn't have one. So she went on a war, with a war party...

(L) See? You got a myth right there. Okay, seek10, are you happy?

(seek10) Yeah, that makes sense. Agriculture is generally believed to have begun around 7000 to 6000 BCE, though some suggest it may have started even earlier—possibly before the Younger Dryas. If we go with the assumption that agriculture began around 7000 BCE, does that imply that women were primarily responsible for agriculture at that time?"

A: Mostly.

Q: (seek10) This whole idea that agriculture led to surplus, which then allowed people to go to war and so on, doesn't seem entirely accurate.

(L) Yeah. It's almost like they were doing agriculture so they would have food to eat, so they didn't have to go out hunting. Because they didn't have any men around to do the hunting, and whatever.

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay.

(seek10) Thank you, Laura.

Just to recap the Y-Chromosome bottleneck findings - there have been at least three independent studies that confirmed its existence during the Holocene, even though their estimates on when exactly it happened in what parts of the world differ by thousands of years (5000 BC in Europe or 2100 BC?):

(1) By analysing mitochondrial and Y chromosome sequences in more than 300 contemporary human populations worldwide, Karmin et al. highlighted that the male effective population size of these populations (estimated from the paternally transmitted Y chromosome) underwent a severe bottleneck around 5000 years ago. This remarkable decrease was not observed for the female effective population size estimated from the maternally transmitted mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

(2) These results were further supported by a study on 26 human populations from the 1000 Genomes Project, which found evidence for a similar bottleneck of male effective population size.

(3) Similarly, Batini et al. analysed genetic diversity from 17 populations from Europe and the Near East, and showed similar Y chromosome pattern.

The estimated timeframe of this bottleneck varies between world regions, ranging from 8300 BP in the Near East to 1400 BP in Siberia, and was estimated to 5000 BP in Europe according to Karmin et al. using a mutation rate of 0.74 × 10−9 mutations/bp/year for the Y chromosome. Using a slightly higher mutation rate (1.0 × 10−9 mutations/bp/year), Batini et al. estimated more recent dates for this bottleneck (ranging from 4200 to 2100 BP for the Near Eastern and European populations).

Patrilineal segmentary systems provide a peaceful explanation for the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck - Nature Communications

Here are some of the graphs from the first study (Karmin et al.) to highlight the possible timeframe and extent of the bottleneck:

First, it seems to have slowly begun at around 20,000 BC, increased through the Younger Dryas cataclysm and peaked at around 5000 BC (global average), before falling rapidly down and normalizing:
9..jpg

Secondly, these three graphs show that this bottleneck was truly more or less global (first two graphs) and apparently happened thousands of years apart in different parts of the world (final graph):

8..jpg
10..jpg

7.jpg
MAJOR QUESTIONS

I did some research from several angles over the last week trying to find evidence or possible answers to the following questions:

1. What can possibly explain that the Y-Chromosome bottleneck happened pretty much everywhere in the world, though up to several thousand years apart? It just doesn't does seem to make sense that matriarchical killing of men would peak at very different times all around the world.

2. Is there evidence for a mass killing of men by matriarchical societies at the time of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck?

3. What caused the rapid normalization after the peak of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck?

Doing this research gave me a much clearer picture of the neolithic times when agriculture just began to spread. I will try to structure my findings in a logical way, highlighting the best, most surprising or even bizarre findings. I focused on Europe to a large degree because I am most familiar with it and admittedly did not go very deep, mostly using Wikipedia summaries.


THE THREE ANCESTOR GROUPS OF ALL EUROPEANS

First of all, it is good to know that European prehistory (and ancestry) is basically based on three different groups:

1) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who first inhabited Europe during the Ice Age and then spread to all of Europe
2) Neolithic farmers who moved in from Anatolia starting around 7000 BC on two routes: one major group going along the Mediterranean coasts and islands up to France and Britain, while another major farmer group spread basically along the Danube river and then also to the rest of Europe
3) Indo-European steppe herders moved in large numbers to Europe at a later date, apparently around 4000-2000 BC (mostly male migration in this case)


TWO MAJOR DIE-OFFS IN EUROPE AFTER THE YOUNGER DRYAS

The first die-off in Europe started around 5000 BC after the first population explosion due to farming:
With some exceptions, population levels rose rapidly at the beginning of the Neolithic until they reached the carrying capacity. This was followed by a population crash of "enormous magnitude" after 5000 BC, with levels remaining low during the next 1,500 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe
Note that this population crash around 5000 BC happened at the same time as the peak and then quick reversal of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck.

The second die-off in Europe happened during the Bronze Age around 3200 BC, apparently due to a climatic catastrophe:
Beginning around 3200 BC, the Earth's climate became colder and drier than it had ever been since the end of the last Ice age, resulting in the worst drought in the history of Europe since the beginning of agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni–Trypillia_culture

The 5000 BC die-off has left horrific evidence of a lot of violence between different groups, even up to mass ritual cannibalism in places like Herxheim. Some research shows that plague may have played a role in the die-off too.

The earliest agriculture may have started during the Ice Age, but why did it not spread then? Was the much larger amount of megafauna before the Younger Dryas cataclysm a major reason for no agriculture? Or is the evidence of Atlantean agriculture being suppressed?

Grinin dates the beginning of the agricultural revolution within the interval 12,000 to 9,000 BP, though in some cases the first cultivated plants or domesticated animals' bones are even of a more ancient age of 14–15 thousand years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution


INFANTICIDE WAS EXTREMELY COMMON

One thing I did not realize and that is quite shocking is that killing of newborn babies was widely accepted and practiced in many ancient cultures (a notable exception being Ancient Egypt, interestingly enough, and then all the Abrahamic religions). For the most part, apparently babies were just left to die from exposure and this was treated as a sort of abortion before abortions were possible.

According to various estimates, 15% to 50% of all babies were killed in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (during Ice Age and until the Bronze Age):

Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Pre-Islamic Arabia, early modern Europe, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans.

Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are more likely to commit infanticide. In the special case of neonaticide (murder in the first 24 hours of life), mothers account for almost all the perpetrators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide


EARLY FARMING WAS DONE MOSTLY BY WOMEN

It seems very well established now that women did most of the farming in the first farming societies. There is even research that shows that female upper body strength back then was on average the same as that of world class athletes today:

Recent research suggests that early Neolithic farmers were significantly influenced by women, who played a central role in agricultural activities.

A 2017 study analyzing prehistoric bones from the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages found that women engaged in consistent, repetitive, and difficult manual labor, challenging the long-held belief that they were primarily responsible for domestic work. The study revealed that women's upper body strength was comparable to that of modern elite female athletes, indicating that they performed heavy labor such as digging, hoeing, and hauling.

Additionally, the Transfarmation Project highlights that prehistoric farms were "manned" primarily by women, with women being responsible for the lion's share of farming responsibilities in early agricultural societies. The Transfarmation Project emphasizes that women were the original pioneers of farming, with historical evidence showing their critical contributions to early agricultural societies.

https://www.science.org/content/article/strong-women-did-lot-heavy-lifting-ancient-farming-societies


Y-CHROMOSOME STABILIZATION FROM THE STEPPES? (INDO-EUROPEAN HERDERS)

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that the reversal of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck and quick normalization was largely due to the large-scale migration of indo-european herders from the steppes. Not only were these apparently mostly migrating males, but they also seem to have brought the concept of monogamy with them - which was not all that common before that.

The Yamnaya migrations from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into temperate Europe changed the course of history: they brought not only a new language, but also new ideas about how society was organized around small monogamous families with individual ownership to animals and land. This new society became the foundation for the Bronze Age, and for the way European societies continued to develop to the present.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170404084429.htm
Recent anthropological data suggest that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has been in place for only the last 10,000 years. Genetic evidence has demonstrated that a greater proportion of men began contributing to the genetic pool between 5,000–10,000 years ago (i.e., there was an increase in women reproducing with different men rather than multiple women reproducing with the same man), which suggests that reproductive monogamy became more common at that time. This would correspond to the Neolithic agricultural revolution. [...]

However, there was a temporary but sharp decrease in the ratio during the start of the Neolithic resolution, where the average man with modern descendants had children with 17 women (circa 8,000 years ago). Given the dramatic cultural shifts towards sedentary agriculture at the time, this is speculated to represent a dramatic change from a community-based society towards the hoarding of power and resources more consistent with a harem model; however, the rapid movement back towards 4.5 women per man after this dip, accompanied by evidence for the move towards monogamy as the agricultural revolution progressed, may suggest a dramatic, unknown factor such as catastrophic male mortality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

The last sentence points out that explaining the Y-Chromosome bottleneck with the "harem model" or the theory that some men fathered children with 17 women on average while all other men had no children cannot explain why this suddenly stopped and reversed. The only other explanation is that there was catastrophic male mortality, possibly in the choice of which children were allowed to live.

The Soviet archaelogist Marija Gimbutas is one of the most famour proponents of the theory that the patriarchical indo-european steppe herders destroyed the matriarchical early farming societies. Today many seem to challenge that view, though her Kurgan hypothesis that the indo-europeans originated in the Ukrainian steppes has been completely accepted today:

Gimbutas thought the Copper Age ended when invaders from the east swept into the region around 4000 BC. The newcomers were “patriarchal, stratified … mobile, and war oriented”—everything the people of the Copper Age weren’t. They spoke Indo-European, the ancient tongue that forms the basis for English, Gaelic, Russian, and many other languages. The new arrivals put their stamp on Europe, and wiped out the goddess worship of the Copper Age in the process.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/trav...thsonian-journeys-travel-quarterly-180958733/

BIZARRE SOCIETIES IN THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS

There is some rather bizarre evidence about what society and families were like in the earliest settlements like Aşıklı Höyük (8200 BC) in Anatolia:
The male population had individuals up to the age of 55–57 years of age, while the majority of females died between the ages of 20 and 25. The skeletal remains of these women show spinal deformities indicating that they had to carry heavy loads. This does not itself prove that there was a division of labour between the sexes. The fact that the men seem to have outlived the women might be interpreted as sign that the women were subject to more strenuous physical labour than their male counterparts.

Children represent 37.8% of the deceased, with 43.7% mortality within a year of birth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aşıklı_Höyük
So in the earliest settlements men lived into their 50s while women died in their 20s. Child mortality was also extremely high, with half of the children dying within a year of birth (on purpose?).

Again, there seem to be a couple possible explanations: either the men ruled and let the women do all the hard work, working them to death basically. Or maybe only a few men were allowed to live in order to father a lot of children with different women, who all died in their 20s.


EVIDENCE FOR MATRIARCHY IN THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS

Çatalhöyük in Anatolia, also one of the earliest settlements (7500 BC to 5600 BC), shows some evidence for matriarchy, a lack of family structures as we know them and an apparent preference for girls over boys:

The site—Çatalhöyük—has long been critical for researchers seeking to understand what the first agricultural and sedentary societies looked like. Now, DNA from the humans buried there suggests these early farmers organized their families along the mother’s side, researchers report today in Science. In the settlement’s later phases, households were made up of genetically unrelated children and adults, indications people practiced widespread adoption or fostering.

Among the adult burials, “the females seem to be associated with the house,” says Mehmet Somel, a geneticist at the Middle East Technical University who led the study. Men, meanwhile, moved in from elsewhere in the settlement—a pattern known as matrilocality.

Other archaeological evidence adds to the picture. Female children, for example, tended to be buried with more grave goods, such as beads and pottery. “Young girls were treated very differently from young boys,” says Ian Hodder, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Stanford University and co-author of the new paper. “They were buried with lots more artifacts,” he says–five times as many on average.

Over the more than 1000 years that Çatalhöyük was occupied, burial practices changed. In the settlement’s later phases, people interred in the same house weren’t necessarily close genetic relatives. But chemical signatures in their bones showed that they shared the same diet, suggesting perhaps that unrelated babies were nursed by the same group of women.

It’s a hint that their concept of what makes a family wasn’t limited to blood relatives. “The assumption was always that people buried in the same house were genetically related,” says Sabina Cveček, an anthropologist at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Austrian Academy of Sciences who was not part of the research team.

A widespread system of fostering or adoption, for example, could be evidence that some form of egalitarianism prevailed at Çatalhöyük. “You’re giving out your children to other people all the time and sharing everything,” Hodder says.

https://www.science.org/content/article/stone-age-farmers-households-passed-mother-daughter


FEMALE GODDESS FIGURINES IN ALL EARLY FARMING SETTLEMENTS

This is a more well-known topic that has been discussed a lot as a possible indication of a matriarchal society and religion:

In 4500 bc, before the first cities were built in Mesopotamia and Egypt, Old Europe was among the most sophisticated and technologically advanced places in the world. At its peak, about 5000–3500 bc, Old Europe was developing many of the political, technological, and ideological signs of "civilization". Some Old European villages grew to citylike sizes, larger than the earliest cities of Mesopotamia

Female "goddess" figurines, found in almost every settlement, have triggered intense debates about the ritual and political power of women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology)

Some interesting insights into the sexless and female figurines specifically from research at Çatalhöyük:

These sexless humanoid figurines seem to have been predominantly made of stone, and disappear after level VI. From that level onwards clay figurines with the marks of females are almost exclusively found.

Many of the humanoid figurines are headless. These heads may have been deliberately broken as a means of ending their potency. This can be deduced from the fact that many of the headless figurines were made of stone, suggesting that the heads did not accidentally break off, but were consciously removed. (p. 156)

https://www.academia.edu/597391/Dür...n_Nederlands_Instituut_voor_het_Nabije_Oosten

This is it for now. I may add more analysis and thoughts on the initial three major questions I shared above. The first one seems most problematic: What was the world-wide cause of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck, thousands of years apart in different regions?

Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
 
Just a speculation theory for brainstorming purpose. What if they were doing genetic selection as instructed by 4D STS and implemented by power structures that were present at the time across the world, who then used ideologies (just as they are today) to further the 4D STS agenda.

The agenda which might have been multifold. 1) to select for a specific genetic profile and/or to eradicate a specific genetic profile in the populations of humans across the globe 2) attempt of keeping the number of men at low and controllable level during those specific periods for a specific purpose.

I mean it does seem like genetic experiment. Keep only certain males alive and used them to spread their genetic profile and keep most of the females alive and use them as incubators till they most fertile years (like the age of 25) or till they die from strain (multiple consecutive pregnancies and physical work which they had to participate in cause of lack of male numbers).

If that is correct I wonder what ideology they used to brainwash people of those times to go along with it! 😲
 
Regarding 4D STS manipulation, one thing I noticed is that both the indo-europeans and their patriarchy system apparently originated in Ukraine - where according to the C's there is that infamous portal mountain near today's Kiev.

Unless the patriarchy ideas first emerged in the Near East or Middle East - Palestine also has similar portals apparently - and then spread to the steppe herders in Ukraine.

It is also true that iniitially the indo-europeans who were spreading to Europe and many other places probably brought more balance by removing the apparently male-genociding matriarchical systems of the time. The quick normalization from the extreme Y-Chromosome bottleneck seems to be evidence of that.

Though just like in the last half a century or so, that initial restoration of more balance then gave way to the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction towards extreme patriarchy.
 
Regarding 4D STS manipulation, one thing I noticed is that both the indo-europeans and their patriarchy system apparently originated in Ukraine - where according to the C's there is that infamous portal mountain near today's Kiev.

Unless the patriarchy ideas first emerged in the Near East or Middle East - Palestine also has similar portals apparently - and then spread to the steppe herders in Ukraine.

It is also true that iniitially the indo-europeans who were spreading to Europe and many other places probably brought more balance by removing the apparently male-genociding matriarchical systems of the time. The quick normalization from the extreme Y-Chromosome bottleneck seems to be evidence of that.

Though just like in the last half a century or so, that initial restoration of more balance then gave way to the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction towards extreme patriarchy.
Or maybe 'benevolent patriarchical structures' have always been and are the natural (and untempered by brainwashing from 4D STS origin) byproduct od the relationships of men and women with each other and with life, in this 3D STS reality we are living in.
If that's the case, then patriarchy wasn't invented per say, but simply is a manifastation of the natural order of things (of the 'free market of life').

(L) Yeah, right. Okay... One male to every 3.5 females, to one male for every eight females by 8000 BC and a staggering 17 females per single male by 5000 BC. Near parity of global birth rates. Okay. Okay, it is obviously not simply cataclysmic activity.

(Andromeda) It's a long period of time.

(L) Yeah, that covers a long period of time, so... Well, what was the reason there?

A: Notice that there were matriarchies in that window of time.

Q: (L) Yeah, so...

(Joe) So they sent all the men to die...

A: Consider the divide between men and women now.
Notice that what can be described as 'complete chaos or falling appart of the normal functioning of life/society' was during matriarchies.

And Cs are pointing to the divide between men and women now and the hyperdimensional manipulation now same as then. So I theorize that just like the brainwashing campaigns of today (feminism, 'equality', down with the patriarchy etc.), that purposely target men in order to drain them of their power/energy/resource or in short to weaken them, and to 'weaponize' women against men, similar campaigns have been executed in the end times of the past civilisations (like the title of on thread says "weaponizing women to destroy men"), e.g. men have been weakened and the power has been artificially transfered from them to women (brainwashing and laws), and then the civilisation collapsed and then disasters arrived.

And then in the post disaster periods, similar ideologies might have been used to usher in the matriarchies (and disasters might have been used as justification for the destruction of men, and for whatever was done if something was done, with the selection of the newborns- a theory). And what kind of men would allow themselves to be conquered and massacred by women? Exactly, the weak men, that have previously been weakened by the 4D STS inspired 'down with the patriarchy' programming campaign that likely purposefully disempowered men and overempowered women, and programmed both (to end that society).

Notice that matriarchies didn't stand a chance against natural and thus strong patriarchical tribes, same as native americans didn't stand a chance against the europaeans.

Just look at the places that shout 'down with the patriarchy' the loudest and notice correlation with the degeneracy and general character weakness of both genders.
 
Or maybe 'benevolent patriarchical structures' have always been and are the natural (and untempered by brainwashing from 4D STS origin) byproduct od the relationships of men and women with each other and with life, in this 3D STS reality we are living in.
Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that balance between the sexes is the natural state that is preferable to either of the two sexes dominating and controlling the other? It seems that you let your anger prevent you from looking at the bigger picture.

Let's just agree to disagree on this. No need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
 
Or maybe 'benevolent patriarchical structures' have always been and are the natural (and untempered by brainwashing from 4D STS origin) byproduct od the relationships of men and women with each other and with life, in this 3D STS reality we are living in.
If that's the case, then patriarchy wasn't invented per say, but simply is a manifastation of the natural order of things (of the 'free market of life').
Not going against or into your belief displayed on the Forum recently, but just pointing out sort of a glaring contradiction in the paragraph quoted above:
If you inhabit a STS realm, you are 'by definition' a part of STS hierarchy. Being a part of STS hierarchy, again 'by definition', makes you a subject to manipulation and "tampering" by those 'above' you in that hierarchy. And that seems to be the natural order of things in the STS realm that we are in, as you say.
FWIW.
 
Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that balance between the sexes is the natural state that is preferable to either of the two sexes dominating and controlling the other? It seems that you let your anger prevent you from looking at the bigger picture.

Let's just agree to disagree on this. No need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Yes and that question can be asked to Cs perhaps.

Not going against or into your belief displayed on the Forum recently, but just pointing out sort of a glaring contradiction in the paragraph quoted above:
If you inhabit a STS realm, you are 'by definition' a part of STS hierarchy. Being a part of STS hierarchy, again 'by definition', makes you a subject to manipulation and "tampering" by those 'above' you in that hierarchy. And that seems to be the natural order of things in the STS realm that we are in, as you say.
FWIW.
Yes but men in power versus women in power doesn't equal the same. Remember that even tho half or so people are souled, men and women are different in this reality. And that 'equality' agenda is a psyop.
 
Yes but men in power versus women in power doesn't equal the same. Remember that even tho half or so people are souled, men and women are different in this reality. And that 'equality' agenda is a psyop.
Not being "equal" does not translate into having the right to be in power over somebody or something, like men in power over women or vice versa. The very notion of "being in power" seems to have a strong STS flavour.

Maybe "being responsible" according to knowledge and awareness levels obtained, where somebody is on the learning spiral/curve, might be more suitable 'labeling', like in case where the elders are more responsible than, and in a way can be responsible for, the youngsters in a community.

In that sense, responsibility in principle does not have anything to do with sex/gender, and neither does "power", OSIT. Focusing only on the sex/gender which should be in power over the other, seems like falling for a classic divide at impera tactic or division sowing by those of the STS orientation higher up in that hierarchy.
 
Any comments or suggestions are welcome.

If I may, I’d be so relieved to share the few pieces of this fascinating mosaic of “the battle of the sexes” that I’ve found, and although it’s considerably more involved, and not as cut and dried as we’ve been led to believe”believe” it IS a fascinating subject.

Your opening post is very well done, @axj, if I may add. You’ve pulled a thread and gotten a lot of relevant info, even though your main source has been good Ol’ Wikipedia!

First of all, I’ve got a book to share that “may” fill in a few spots.
The author is Elisha Daeva, and her first book is called “Before War”, she’s just about finished the second.

A bit of her background, from her website:
“Elisha is an interdisciplinary thinker who has been researching social inequality for almost thirty years.
Her degree is in Human Biology from Stanford, a multidisciplinary combination of anthropology, psychology and biology.
After working for four years in neuroscience at UCLA, the politics and sexism drove her out of academia.
Since then she’s collected data across disciplines to interpret it for the public, reading every book, article, and paper she could find on the rise of dominance in the Bronze Age.
She’s travelled the world, visiting matrilineal cultures and searching museums for clues to our ancient past.”

Here’s a bit about the book, Before War:

[…]”For readers of Sapiens and The Dawn of Everything, this is about another way that our European ancestors lived, without violence, sexual shame, or social inequality. It’s the story of a story that was buried and re-discovered again and again, and is once again being told, thanks to the new science of genetics. It’s the story of the first rape, genocide and colonization in 3500 BCE, and of the peaceful, egalitarian people who lived before. It’s about the most controversial academic debate of all time, which has raged for 250 years. It’s a funny, sexy take on some heavy topics.

It’s not about blaming men. It’s about standing together against an institution that harms us all.

Are you interested in your Eurasian ancestors, in the truth about our ancient past, or in the origins of social inequality? Do you want practical solutions for how we can save the world, or how you can heal from harmful belief systems? It’s time for a paradigm shift!”

The link: https://beforewar.com/

This next bit of data that I’ve mulled over, is the “how and why” regarding the whole planetary population become polarized and traumatized into harming each other, and One sex dominating the other.
Q: (L) Also, there was a supernova that became the Crab Nebula, which occurred 5,000 years ago, yet was not seen on earth, until 900 years ago, which happens to be exactly the time period I have been looking at as having been a turning point where seeds were planted that are now bearing fruit. Can you tell us if this supernova that was seen 900 years ago, were there effects from the Supernova that contributed to this state of affairs at the culmination of the Dark Ages, the creation of the Templars and so forth. What were the effects of this supernova that was seen 900 years ago?

A: Excitation of base liquid molecules.

Q: (L) Did this have a physiological effect, or genetic, DNA effect on people?

A: Slight.

Q: (L) What were the pronounced effects that one would have been able to note. That is microscopic...

A: Growth.

Q: (L) Growth in what sense? Growth and change in the size of people?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Growth in a psychological or mental sense?

A: Close.

Q: (L) What kind of growth specifically?

A: Both.
To me, it looks like the C’s were being purposely evasive, with “close” answers.
Q: (L) At the time of that particular supernova, 5,000 years ago, were there any superluminal effects that were felt instantly?

A: Maybe, research and correlate.
Yup, “maybe”, and the research is showing DNA can be changed in an instant during photonic bombardments, light can and IS a tool of change.
Q: (L) Was the Great Pyramid at Giza built and lined up to supernova?

A: Part of the picture.

Q: (L) Were these supernova that occurred at the time of the construction, or that were expected to occur at some point in the future?

A: Both.

Q: (L) Are supernova in any sense cyclical?

A: In a sense requiring higher senses.

Q: (L) Do supernova create portals to other universes?

A: The doors may be redirected.

Q: (L) Does any of this supernova business have anything to do with the constellation Leo?

A: In a way.

Q: (L) In what way?

A: Through geometric configuration.

Q: (L) What do you mean 'through geometric configuration?'

A: Status of Trine.
Three, we’ve seen this come up so many times.

Q: (L) You mentioned the importance of the Horsehead Nebula in relation to the symbol of the Knight. What is the significance of the Horsehead Nebula?

A: Keep up your search, as you are near.

Q: (L) What would be the effect of cosmic rays emitted by a supernova that is in some proximity to the earth on the human body?

A: Genetic splice of strand.
Splice of strand…truncated DNA happens when spliced.
Q: (L) How close would a supernova have to be to have this effect?

A: 2000 light years.

Q: (L) So that either of these stars in Orion that are potential supernova prospects could have this effect since they are approximately 1500 light years away?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Are we talking about effects that propagate with the speed of light, or effects that are superluminal and instantaneous?

A: Both, and slower as well.

Q: (L) What would be the effect that would be instantaneous?

A: Lesser.

Q: (A) Now this supernova that is supposed to explode soon, will it be soon in the sense of our SEEING it, that is the arrival of the light from this, or soon in the instantaneous sense?

A: Optically.

Q: (L) So, this supernova must have already occurred?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And where did this supernova take place?

A: No dice, baby!

Q: (L) What clue can I follow to determine which star it is?

A: Instincts.

Q: (A) But, if it already occurred, then this means that the instantaneous effects have already been felt, even if it was lesser than the optical effects. It must have been recorded by anomalous changes in genes? (L) Is that true?

A: Close.

Q: (L) So what, in the records, should we be looking for?

A: Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines.

Q: (L) In other words, the usurpation of the blood lines?

A: Close.

Q: (L) What is aphelion of the companion star of our solar system?

A: Not yet, as you need more understanding of those cycles that you so keenly allude to. And on that note, good night.



End of Session
I’ll have to leave it here, I do have more references and will post more when I get time.
 
Here’s a bit about the book, Before War:

[…]”For readers of Sapiens and The Dawn of Everything, this is about another way that our European ancestors lived, without violence, sexual shame, or social inequality. It’s the story of a story that was buried and re-discovered again and again, and is once again being told, thanks to the new science of genetics. It’s the story of the first rape, genocide and colonization in 3500 BCE, and of the peaceful, egalitarian people who lived before.
According to the C's, that is not true. Her book seems to contain the usual feminist "matriarchy good, patriarchy bad" narrative. How can a matriarchical society that apparently genocided males be "peaceful", "egalitarian" or "without violence"?
 
According to the C's, that is not true. Her book seems to contain the usual feminist "matriarchy good, patriarchy bad" narrative. How can a matriarchical society that apparently genocided males be "peaceful", "egalitarian" or "without violence"?
Sure, based on this latest bombshell from the C’s, and without taking the context of civilization of 5,000 years ago into account, it would be easy to dismiss. Read further down in the session that I quoted. I suspect it indicates that our entire species was genetically spliced and the psychopathic tendencies became rampantly apparent.
But then, what do I know, I’m just an observer and clue follower.
 
And what kind of men would allow themselves to be conquered and massacred by women? Exactly, the weak men, that have previously been weakened by the 4D STS inspired 'down with the patriarchy' programming campaign that likely purposefully disempowered men and over empowered women, and programmed both (to end that society).

Well the patriarchy did kind of "kill the goddess" and put us on a way too materialistic trajectory as described below.

So, consider the following:

- homosexuals are part of the distributuion bell of normal humans and exhibit some specific features.

- initially these features helped them to perform, as individuals, shaman duties (connection with the unseen, specific sensitivity,...) and other duties for the tribe

- later on in History, they were the high priests directly in contact with the goddess (some writings report the priests emulating some goddess features, even self-castration, etc.)

- later still, when the concept of divine king emerged, the Eunuchs, celibate emasculated men, were the only males to be allowed to interact with the queen who was the embodiment of the goddess. (We would see this as a demotion and a step on the way to losing the proper place in society.

- when the patriarchal system erased the goddess, the shaman/priest in contact with the divine feminine had lost their function within society. Their specific traits were no longer being used for such creative / useful function, and thus progressively morphed into more caricatural and physical based behaviors: emulation of the physical traits of women (use of female clothes and make up, homosexuality for the sake of sex and little else...)

In the end, ironically, the ones who had the highest potential to establish a human-cosmic connection - RECEIVERS but NOT SENDERS - were manipulated to adopt a lifestyle (gay couple) that would totally inhibit this potential.
But the liberal response against the patriarchy kind of just kills the goddess some more.
 
Well the patriarchy did kind of "kill the goddess" and put us on a way too materialistic trajectory as described below.

Or maybe it just replaced a 4D STS inspired fertility cult created for the genetic selection purposes. Possibly for preparation of the genetic pool in the early stages of the current cycle of civilization (e.g. post Atlantis). The perfect time to do it.
Notice that most of the 'goddess' figurines are heavily focused on the female body parts related to function of fertility. Why obsession with fertility and female heavy society with only few select males. Breeding (genetic selection) cult is a possibility. You would think that divine goddess would have more to offer than that.


Prishtina_Goddess_on_the_Throne_(cropped).jpg
And weakening of men was likely done prior to those practices in order to prevent resistence. Similar to what has been done in our times.
Just an idea. I like entertaining unusual ideas. Prove me wrong.

But the liberal response against the patriarchy kind of just kills the goddess some more.
It actually is 'killing' God, killing logos (which is masculine).
 
Last edited:
Notice that most of the 'goddess' figurines are heavily focused on the female body parts related to function of fertility. Why obsession with fertility and female heavy society with only few select males. Breeding (genetic selection) cult is a possibility. You would think that divine goddess would have more to offer than that.
It could be in some cases, but in others the idea of fertility can be intertwined with a philosophy linked to a cosmos-nature that provides sustenance and abundance for its children.
It actually is 'killing' God, killing logos (which is masculine).
In their subjective vision they see it this way, but God-the universe has an important part of a feminine-creative character, so ultimately what John G. says is fulfilled.

I think the issue isn't so simple or linear. It's true that due to biological differences, men may be more motivated in greater numbers to take on positions of high responsibility or leadership. This doesn't seem to pose many problems in and of itself, if the purpose that drives these men is ultimately service. Rather, the problems stem from the establishment in society of a vision and philosophy increasingly oriented toward self-service, domination, and exclusion of the feminine side (and therefore the positive concepts associated with it).

We also have to take into account hyperdimensional manipulation and the ponerological cycle (psychopathy occurs more frequently in the masculine side, so a patriarchy should be more susceptible to infestation and social degradation if things are allowed to take their natural course without further intervention). We also have details like this:
November 6, 1994
Q: (L) Now, I was just reading in "Bringers of the Dawn" about male energy and female energy and it says: "We have said that the male vibration will transform in a very short period of time. We will not tell you why or how because some of you will consider it to be entirely too ominous, however, we will say that as the waves continue to come there will be a unilateral rising of consciousness within the population. At a certain point, when men are in the deepest point of mastering feeling, the feeling center will be activated. This will either occur gently or it will be blown wide open." What will be "entirely too ominous?"

A: Energy redirection.

Q: (L) Energy direction is going to happen and that is what you are saying is the ominous thing here?

A: Overview.

Q: (L) Well, what does energy direction specifically mean? What kind of energy?

A: Sexual.

Q: (L) And this is going to be the ominous event that would frighten people?

A: Repercussions.

Q: (L) What are the repercussions?

A: Many.

Q: (L) Could you tell us some of them?

A: First you must figure out answer to number one.

Q: (L) Well, sexual energy "redirected"; does this mean women will stop having sex with men?

A: Not exactly.

Q: (L) Am I close?

A: Yes. Men will lose most of their drive in favor of more spiritual pursuits. It is the sex drive that is at the root of most of the historical aggression and lack of feeling on the part of the male.
April 8, 2000
Q: Was it this male dominated religion that contributed to the destruction of Kantek?

A: No.

Q: Okay, when they were on their home planet, why did they develop a masculine religion as opposed to a feminine one, considering the fact that women are the source of life, in certain terms?

A: In your density, masculinism/feminish is essentially a roll of "the dice." Remember, at higher levels gender is nonexistent.

Q: Well, the problem I am having here is this: the masculine religion is monotheistic, essentially.

A: In your references.

Q: Was the older masculine religion polytheistic?

A: Going off the track.

Q: The Aryans always thought they were better than everybody else...

A: They were more advanced than the company they found themselves amongst.

Q: But then, as far as I can tell, the Hebrew monotheism is also derived from the Aryan, monotheistic, male dominated religion. It then "fathered" Christianity, and that has been the whole patriarchal, kill-em-all and let God sort-em-out war mongering thing under which we have lived for over 2000 years. This is the Western, European mind... it came from the Aryans, from the North; it was the so-called "civilizing" influence in nearly every respect that you can track. The cohesiveness and dominance of this type of thinking was able to civilize, but then civilization involves dominance, killing, war, territory, the Hitler scene, the whole nine yards. All of this is antithetical to all that you promote as far as being desirable. Yet, you have said that you were in contact with the Northern Peoples for millennia. Yes, Cassiopeia is a Northern Constellation, and probably figured in the early myths of these peoples in ways we cannot know, but the whole thing is that they represent all that is STS.

A: But so do you, so then why did we contact you?

Q: Well. I don't buy into that whole monotheistic, dominator, war-mongering, make everybody conform to one way of thinking head trip!

A: So, you think all individuals conformed then, or is it the soul that counts in the final analysis?

Q: Okay, obviously all individuals are different, and some did not conform then, either.

A: And neither do you.

Q: Point taken. I am just having a hard time with this. I wish you would just tell me! Who interacted with these Aryans to give them this male-dominated, monotheistic idea that they then sought to impose on every other human being on the planet - and are STILL trying!

A: Interactions were transdensity.
Here we have certain problems associated with "the masculine," and I bet the second case where transdensity interactions are mentioned were of a STS nature.
In fact, I see it as possible that the end of certain matriarchal societies was partly brought about by aggression by patriarchal societies that were unable to resist the spoils of war they could obtain.

It matters little in and of itself whether a society is a matriarchy or a patriarchy. The establishment or decline of these here on Earth apparently responds to maximizing suffering, and when one fails to fulfill this purpose, it seems to be replaced by its counterpart, thus prolonging the cycle.

So to answer your question, it may be that "a patriarchy" is beneficial—it functions well enough here on Earth and is enhanced for the better if philosophies associated with service to others predominate in that society.

But I don't know; a matriarchy that adheres to that orientation could also function well.
What's more, in a fourth-density society that seeks to orient itself toward service to others, the social configuration and its needs may change enough for these terms to become obsolete and inadequate.
 
Back
Top Bottom