Skip to main content

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.

In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.

Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love their kin, and their children, understand others who love.  So it's excruciating to think of  "leaders" whose sole ambition is death and killing. 

We call those who murder, psychopaths. We put them in prison if we can. So why do free men join white supremacy movements, become homophobic, misogynist, Islamaphobic, anti-semites? Why does mainstream media promote their propaganda?

In the deep recess of our sub-conscious minds do we know that machismo  is fundamentally anti-life? Or do we feel compelled to deny it? Rather than allow that thought to fully develop do we rush to find new ideologies to believe in and follow? Is politics  simply a way we invest our imaginations in the hope we can find a way through the heart of darkness? 

Centuries of civilization have created a deepening rift between what we feel and how we learn to adjust to society.  Hate is the drug that will keep us desensitized against our own neural substrate. Technology sterilizes the shadows within that we cannot deal with.

How can a man who still has connection to his inner voice believe he is superior by assaulting, harassing or raping women? How can men who love life go out and shoot those he has never met before?

The answer is - he can't without the consistent mass media brainwashing that intentionally separates him from the organic lineage of humanity. 

Patriarchy must create a dissociated world with brutal rules to replace our own sensual knowing with hierarchies of otherness. We become perpetually confused and conflicted between love and hate. 

Women and men must take responsibility for the human society we live in. We are beginning to learn the power we have through inquiry and compassion. Which is very scary to those hollowed out beings who have invested their lives in controlling the masses.


Popular posts from this blog

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…