Writings On Man, Masculinty And The Emerging Patriarchal Renaissance

Patriarchy Is A Choice - Choose It Or Lose It

Maximus Decimus Meridius | January 8, 2017 | 16 minute read

Contrary to what many believe, patriarchy is not inevitable and has not been 'forever'. Far from man-as-leader being the default mode of societal operation, patriarchy as a way of social organization of humanity is barely in its infancy.

That's right, infancy, and already showing signs of SIDS - sudden infant death syndrome.

To understand why, we are going to have to go back in time, waaaaaaaaaay back, to understand why patriarchy is on such a rocky precipice in the 21st century.

Before getting started, I want to first acknowledge the artist who painted that incredible image of Moses receiving the 10 Commandments. His name is Arnold Friberg and he did a lot of the conceptual art work for Cecil B Demille's epic film which needs no introduction. Check out that link for a brief introduction and more of his amazing art work.

The inevitability of patriarchy is a common theme in the patriarchal renaissance that is emerging in The West, but I would like to suggest that something is only inevitable if it is chosen and made to be so. It feels good to puff out our manly chests and believe that in time, feminism will simply disappear, that we need not pay all that much attention to it.

The belief that patriarchy is inevitable is premised on the history of the institution by Steven Goldberg in a book he wrote back in the 1970s. Goldberg points to history and biology and attempts to show that all civilizations / societies / tribes have been founded and dominated by men. I wish I had a copy of Goldberg's book for reference, but I feel safe in saying that he did not go far enough back in time. The error made here is simple and one feminists make all the time: if men are at the top, it must be a patriarchy.

A male in a position of authority does not a patriarchy make.

If you are going to define patriarchy solely by the notion that a "man is in charge," then I would suggest you have a very, very superficial understanding of patriarchy.

This guy...

Was once the most powerful 'man' in the world, leading the most powerful nation in the world. If the definition of a patriarchy is a man at the top holding power, then Obama was at the pinnacle of patriarchal power in America when he was President. It was a 'patriarchy' that was rejected, with prejudice, by the American people with the election of a very different man, Donald J Trump.

When Obama was in office, there was another man on the world stage that he did not have a very good relationship with. A man getting a lot of attention then and even more now.

Vladimir Putin.

Hmmm... quite the contrast. You can tell a lot about a man from the books he reads, but even more from ones he has written himself. Obama wrote eloquently about bullshit hope and con-artist change. Or did he? The cover says "forward by?" But he retains full authorship of the book. Why would someone need to declare they have written the forward to their own book?

The first half of this book, apparently written by campaign staffers, attempts to spell out what "Barackism" has to offer. In other words, it's his program statement through the words of his staffers.

Review by Andre M on Amazon.com

Contrast this murky authorship to Putin who clearly contributes in shared authorship to a respected treatise on the fundamentals of a martial art that was created by Jigoro Kano to improve the esteem and physical well being of young boys.

This is why it is the height of delusion to believe that patriarchy is defined as men in positions of power who dominate socially / politically. And doubly delusional to believe that our biological superiority ensures patriarchy is inevitable. One of the above men is a Man, capital M, and a patriarch. The other is most definitely not.

I highlight these two men to illustrate more clearly the true definition of patriarchy.

Patriarchy is not only about men in power. It is about men in power who adhere to truth and justice.

Without truth and justice, you do not have a patriarchy. Period. Obama will go down in history as the most corrupt and lying US President whose every word and action was to subvert justice and bury the truth, not uphold them.

I have done a lot of research on patriarchy. I wanted to find its true origins, not the feminist lies and obfuscation of the past 60 plus years. I wanted to find and discover for myself whether or not there was a patriarchal revolution in the past and if so, why it happened and what came before it. That journey led me far back in time, to a time long before recorded civilization, to pre-history and earlier.

In her book The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why An Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future, Cynthia Eller sets out to warn against feminists pushing to define, discover and prove a goddess / matriarchal past to pre-history. She believes the existence of a matriarchal past sets the feminist movement back by distorting the truth of man's historical domination over women. If a matriarchal past can be proven, it will set a precedent of distortion in the feminist narrative that "patriarchy and men were always dominant" and will undermine feminist progress toward bringing about a progressive change in gender relations that is more equitable. Eller is right to want to overlook a matriarchal past because the truth of such a past is not very flattering.

In short, Eller's argument is: we don't need to know the truth or falsehood about history, we just need to change things because they should be changed.

I am not making this up. This is the opening quote to her book.

The real political question... as old as political philosophy... [is] when we should endorse the ennobling lie... We... need to show not that... [these lies] are falsehoods but [that] they are useless falsehoods at best or - at worst - dangerous one.

Kwame Anthony Appiah

We don't need to prove or disprove a lie in search for the truth, only decide if the lie is helping or hindering one's cause. The "ennobling lie", if it supports our 'theory' of 'patriarchal oppression', should not just be allowed to exist, but actively promoted and made gospel truth.

Truth - is nothing short of a disease amongst feminists and liberals.

Ironically, it is the very concept of truth that gave birth to patriarchy. What I learned in my research of the past was that Cynthia Eller was right to fear the discovery of history: in the past, humanity lived under a goddess matriarchy. Descent was traced through the female line and men, for the most part, were irrelevant to society apart from defence and hunting. This can also be seen as the case throughout the animal kingdom which is for mammals, primarily matriarchal. From chimps and apes to lions and elephants, the males are there for sex and defence of territory only, the women rule the social roost.

“Divinity in human form is usually portrayed as a goddess; a god plays an inferior role. Some scenes suggest a mystic union between deity and worshipper, others depict fertility rites.”

Lord William Taylour, The Mycenaeans, pg. 43

To put this into archeological perspective, here is an impression of a ring from that gold mine of in-the-dirt evidence of a once glorious and peaceful civilization under the Mother Goddess. This is just one of many artifacts that Lord Taylor, and many of his peers (men and women), used to conclude the dominance of female worship in ancient Minoan and Mycenaean society.

“... the dominant deity is female, flanked by lions. She faces a male who is probably a god rather than a worshipper. They may be a divine couple.”

Nanno Marinatos, Minoan and Mycenaean Civilizations(essay), Ancient Religions, pg. 207

Note the twisting of concepts with words.

The male figure is not worshipping the goddess, despite the body language being one of clear attention and salute to an authority figure who is clearly being portrayed as one. Marinatos also claims the male figure to be a god and implies a power sharing relationship, but provides absolutely no evidence or argument to back up this claim. She simply states it and expects you to believe it. Finally, she suggests the figures could be a couple (i.e. a 'union'), one in which they are partners with no hint of power or domination over the other, in theory of course, and again, with no supporting evidence or argument for this claim. This ring, if you can believe it, is spun by feminists to prove that men and women were equal in Minoan society under the goddess. Of course, this is so evidently not the case it is absurd to even suggest it, but feminists will try after all, believing in the "ennobling lie," so what else could we expect.

It is precisely this clear evidence of female rule / worship of a goddess, and acknowledged by most experts as being a pre-patriarchal society, that Eller wants to distance feminism from.

For if it can be proven that women ruled, that means they held power over the whole of society, not just men. And as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and especially so when a woman is in possession of it.

The scenes on artifacts from Minoan Create are a treasure trove of a pre-patriarchal culture. That's right, the time BEFORE men came to build and rule societies and civlizations. The very society in fact that preceded patriarchal Greek culture. Throughout her essay, Marinatos tries to claim that the evidence shows men ruling alongside women. But is this the case? Let's take a look at a few more rings and seals.

It looks pretty clear to me who is in charge, right up to that last ring. The one with the dude that finally raises what looks like to me, gasp, a finger of protest!!! Notice as well the male figure is for the first time bigger than the goddess and more masculine (the other males are clearly more frail and effeminate in portrayal). The goddess is also clearly in a less powerful position of unquestioned authority that the other rings/seals depict. Is this upstart male challenging the Mother Goddess? Or are the two equal-but-man-subservient figures merely having a mutual and respectful "animated discussion" to use Marinatos' own words.

Let's take a look at one more final ring shall we?

Yes... here it is. The man himself, lording his masculine power and domination over all of humanity. Or not? It is very hard to tell what these rings and seals mean or depict. We have no written records, or scant at best, to know precisely what these images and symbols mean.

What is clear however, beyond a shadow of doubt, is that women played a very powerful role, a religious one, and thus also a political and power role in society.

In the matriarchal past, fertility was all consuming. Conception of human life was not understood and thus wholly and completely within the realm of the feminine, the woman's domain. After all, it was women who brought new human life into the world, not men. When you have the power to create life, does that not entitle you to authority over the tribe, the one you created?

It is clear from the historical record I have reviewed that there was a transition in society, a slow one, from a matriarchal organization where women ruled to the slow assumption of power and authority by men under a patriarchy. Patriarchy emerged because man was denied any power or leadership role in society. He was denied it because, well, man had no power over creation - that is creation of human life. When you are not the CREATOR of life, you do not have POWER over it. If you don't have power over life, you don't have a say in the running of the tribe either.

Thus, under the goddess, all bowed to the female, especially the men.

And just what did the enthroned goddess want of her subordinate (but also equal remember) male slave / king / son / partner / dog / insert-whatever-feminist-bullshit-you-want-here? I quote at length Cynthia Eller.

According to the Selk'nam myth, women originally "ruled over men without mercy." The men did all the hunting, but also all the child-tending and domestic work, while the women met in private in the Hain, a large hut where they lived apart from the men, to deliberate on and resolve important social matters.

Despite the men being physically larger and armed with hunting weapons, the women kept them subjugated by impersonating demons and spirits. In these disguises, they visited the village during ceremonies, frightening and punishing men who threatened to get out of line. The women periodically ordered the men to deliver meat to them to satiate the demon' voracious appetites. The men did as they were told and the women feasted on the meat and laughed "with malice at the men's incredible naivete and stupidity."

Cynthia Eller, The Myth Of Patriarchal Prehistory, pg. 176

If that sounds familiar, that's because it is.

I hate to break it to you guys, but men have never been the rulers of human society for the most of human history. It has always been women, going back tens of thousands of years in pre-pre-history until one man finally put his foot down and said enough was enough. And by man, I don't mean the psychopaths these goddesses most likely hooked up with. I think I can safely say that the model we see emerging in our elite today, and throughout history, is a collusion among powerful females to control psychopathic males to subjugate all of humanity, but that is straying a little of topic.

The man that put his foot down to start patriarchy was just a normal guy who simply got fed up with the status quo and would not take it anymore.

That man, along with other men, chose to form another kind of society, one where men had the leading voice of authority, where women submitted to his way or the highway, and where a commitment to truth and justice was held as the highest ideal.

The radical change to a patriarchal model of society came about by choice.

Men, en masse, deciding to take power away from women because it was obvious they were not capable of weilding power for the benefit of not just men, but ALL the members of the tribe. And believe me, it took a long time. All one has to do is look to the bloody and brutal transition depicted in Greek myth. Men chose to bring the goddess low because it was clear that living under her brought only tyranny and oppression, to everyone.

But she could not have done it alone. This is about the only aspect of history Goldberg got right. Yes, men may have been in positions of power, but initially, they were only given that power under the authority of the goddess. Thus, the men that obeyed the commands and edicts of women were given power alongside her majesty, the Goddess. Those men that did not obey, well... I think it is safe to say that even while men took the reigns of power, they had to pay a lot, and I mean a lot, of lip service to "the godess." In pagan times, you simply could not just outright dismiss the all mighty, life giving (an death dealing) power of the goddess. Hence, we seen in the Greek record and much of pagan Europe a very long road to wide acceptance of male authority. If took a man called Jesus Christ to truly bring an end to pagan goddess worship and this is why Christianity is the most evil religion on earth to feminists and liberals.

In the 21st century, once again free men of The West are all feeling the effects of bucking the current Mother Goddess and giving her the middle finger. We free men can also see our greatest enemy is not women and feminists, but other subservient men!!! Just as it would have been under true goddess worshipping paganism; all women gain power through men being subservient to them. Goldberg's claim all tribes / societies in history have been dominated by men is a half-truth that covers the lie. Yes, men may have had power and authority, but it was always conditional on paying homage and lip service to the goddess. The further back in history you go, the more female goddesses you find, not male gods. And what men you might find in positions of power are very likely not men at all.

To suggest that men have always ruled is false.

That patriarchy is inevitable is also a lie.

The truth is - patriarchy is a choice. A choice for truth and justice about beliefs, values and how the world works.

Whatever the specifics and allowing for exceptions, make no mistake - the patriarchal revolution was a conscious choice.




Patriarchy emerged to assert the truth and justice of male paternity - of fatherhood - and thus man's leading role in society.

A leading role because, men simply walked with the theory the goddess lorded over them from the beginning of human history, recorded or not. With the discovery of agriculture was the discovery of the seed - the seed that came from man to create human life. If men provided the seed from which children came into the world, it was only natural for them to thus take over the role of creation, of life, from the goddess. Which led to the battle of the sexes depicted in the Greek myths and the eventual supplantation of gods over goddesses to, finally, one God over all.

Hence Moses and the 10 Commandments. The foundation for patriarchal rule of law for the entire western world.

And all of this - all of this history of struggle and conflict between the sexes - because of a fight over belief about who truly creates life, man or woman, and thus who should make the rules by which humanity should be guided thus being said creator.

Patriarchy is far from inevitable.

It is a choice, and men are starting to choose it again and for the very same reasons our patriarchal forefathers did.

Truth and justice. Liberty.