Personally, I don't think it's enough to simply mention the words "Royal Society" in your comment to justify rampant and grotesque speculation concerning a totally off-topic nightmare past scenario. This is just my opinion and if it offends anyone, then so be it.
This obsession with human animal farming, castration, cannibalism and sexual perversion strikes me as more of a desensitisation exercise for a programmed future - a 'reset' if you like - rather than having any value as an accurate assessment of our past. Obviously there have always been and still very much are, elements in society who practise such behaviour and who would like to see it become the 'norm'. Maybe at this point I'll mention The Royal Society as being one of those elements in order to make it look like I'm staying on topic.
Let me give three personal counterexamples.
1. When I was born, a doctor ablated a piece of skin from the tip of my dewy infant penis with a scalpel. If I had been able, between screams of pain, to ask him why the f*ck he was slicing my foreskin off, he would have said, "for hygienic reasons, little buddy". Well, when my teeth get dirty, I just brush them, I don't have them extracted. The real reason he mutilated me, of course, is because the practice is a cultural inheritance from deep antiquity (supposedly Egypt although that might be fake) that blindly persists to our day. The old-timers practiced circumcision to commemorate a "new covenant" with the gods in which outright castration would be abolished and circumcision would take its place as a reminder not to get too uppity, because at any moment the gods might reverse their decision and take the whole thing back.
2. When my father was a teenager, he received a letter from his owners instructing him to report to a state-sponsored trauma-based mind control center where his head was shaved and advanced scientific brainwashing techniques were used on him in order to override his natural aversion to murder (see "On Killing" by Dave Grossman). He was then sent to a foreign country to burn villages down and massacre strangers as part of an occult sacrifice ritual directed by warlock Heinrich Kissinger and his tranny "wife". He returned a psychologically wrecked man who could only hold himself together thanks to the work addiction that had been inculcated in his generational cohort using televised propaganda. Between thirty and forty percent of the income he generated through his entrained "work" (slavery) addiction was taken from him by his owners in the form of taxes. After consulting actuarial tables to identify the most cost-efficient moment at which he could be decommissioned, they abandoned their now-obsolete drone unit to his own devices. Without some kind of externally assigned task carried out indirectly in the service of usury, he is more or less unable psychologically to deal with retirement: he was programmed to kill and to work, not to enjoy himself. But that's not their problem.
3. Most of the women I have known well enough to discuss such issues with, and many of the men, were f*cked by local amateur pedos as children. The psychological sequelae of such traumas are crippling. The only explanation I can come up with for the dismaying ubiquity of this perversion, the desire for which is exclusively learned by experiencing it oneself as a child, is that it is a cultural atavism whose echo continues to resonate. It came from somewhere outside of us. In other words, pederasty must once have been open, banal, nearly universal, and recent, considering the otherwise inexplicable momentum it still has.
I might also bring up the more general absurdity of a world in which we are processed through gussied up carceral institutions ("schools") nearly from birth and then expected to "work" forty hours a week. In France, a once-enlightened society currently under heavy occult attack, the word for work, which is
travail, is derived from the Latin word
tripalium, which is an instrument of torture. Tripalia don't operate themselves. Torturers operate them.
That bears repeating: the single activity that we spend the most time doing owes its name to a torture instrument.
For all these reasons I disagree
strongly with what you say here. Our hideous past shapes our lives in ways that are so massive that we have no choice but to conceal it from ourselves under amnesic walls to this day. This tells me we haven't been free for very long, and still haven't figured out how to abandon our entrained sadomasochism, which is protected by repression. Undo the repression, break the mechanism by which trauma is transmitted generationally.
There is always a risk that the liberating act of lifting this repression can veer imperceptibly into a ghoulish pleasure taken in revisiting our desensitization and deriving sadomasochistic masturbatory enjoyment from its contemplation. You are correct to point this out.
Changing gears.
The themes being discussed here offer a possible angle for the solution of another historical mystery. Why is Abrahamic religion so closely associated with patriarchy and paganism with matriarchy (with Judaism, supposedly the first monotheism, retaining characteristics of both)? Hypothesis: before monotheism, men were regularly castrated and women were kept as breeding stock. Offspring were identified, not with names per se, but with batch labels derived from the mother. The name of the father, which during the entire Christian era (I mean the one that ended in Europe in the 60's) was an important guarantee of social legitimacy ("bastard" was a real insult), may therefore have been a cherished symbolic relic of the transition to a new system, where men were first allowed to have (1) property (2) testicles (3) wives (4) children and (5) names. Last names appeared for the first time in history around the Renaissance. Judaism's retention of matrilineal descent might therefore be an archaism dating from the castration era. This offers us a possible solution to another (little) mystery, namely the Orthodox Jewish practice of having sex through a hole in a sheet. Is this a throwback to a period when reproduction was anonymized in order to prevent any kind of paternal feelings from developing in the breeding studs? Was circumcision, and the otherwise inexplicable pride it generates in those who have undergone it (something Freud puzzled over) a mark that "this phallus has been authorized and approved for breeding purposes"? Judaism appears to be a real deep-freezer for so many of these ancient customs. Here we see again that the Brave New World Order of Huxley with its numbered batches of modified children is really just a return to an old system that was usurped by architecture-based monotheism (more below).
@usselo , you focus primarily on Britain and tentatively date this transition to the late 17th century.
@Jef Demolder , you focus primarily on the continent and situate the great transition earlier. You are both more familiar with primary sources from the period than I am. A perhaps too-facile suggestion: was England cut off by a natural cataclysm and therefore not "reset" with cathedral-based proto-Christianity in place of IHASFEMR until later than the continent? Did "perfidious Albion" emerge as the dominant vector for colonialism/exploitative mercantilism/deceitful diplomacy/occultism/proto-Zionism/usury etc. in the 18th century because IHASFEMR had persisted there for centuries longer than on the continent, allowing a greater infrastructure of evil to take root, one which was never really Christianized? (Could something similar be said for even-more-sinister Switzerland, also isolated behind giant mountains?) Was the King James Bible with its black and white "morality for dummies" the programming handbook for the masses and Shakespeare ("subtle advanced gray-zone morality") the handbook for the elites? Isn't Britain still a society in which the gulf between the heirs of Shakespeare and the benighted prole masses is more extreme than elsewhere in Western Europe, suggesting a more recent artificial separation?
The most important diagnostic distinction in psychoanalysis is between people who have a fundamentally psychotic as opposed to a fundamentally neurotic psychic structure. I am massively oversimplifying, but psychosis is heavily associated with the mother whereas neurosis is associated with the father. Psychosis is more archaic, which again suggests that the institution of fatherhood is a recent cultural development. Let me add as well, in a nod to the OP, that clinical work with neurotics always entails pulling back the veil on the idealized father and his institutions and revealing that they always derive their "objective" authority from a founding act of enunciation, one which never fully frees itself from its contingent origins.
If Christianity was indeed conceived in Europe in the last five hundred years as a feat of social engineering, we need a new explanation for why the Old Testament was included in the Bible. What is its function? Was it included because (1) the people needed a romanced "before" story to cover up the (much worse) real before? Was it also included (2) to fabricate a backstory for the visible presence of the magician/diplomat/banker/lawyer Reset administrator caste and explain why they were exempt from Christian morality in general and the prohibition on usury in particular (a necessity inasmuch as all governments, fathers, Royal Societies, etc. are in the complicated-to-explain position of simultaneously being above/outside the Law AND grounding the Law)?
Idea: was the father added last to the virgin/son dyad we still see everywhere and transformed into the trinity, with the original mother goddess abstracted to the status of "Holy Spirit" to streamline theology?
I have the impression that there are two very different types of matriarchy or goddess-worship that have become conflated over time.
1. The matriarchy described above which derives from stock breeding practices.
2. A mystical symbolic matriarchy linked with dolmens and cathedrals.
At some point in time the two were confused. Were these two social orders separated in time, in space, or both?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TlRLrk6kug&list=PLlDBMvp9Z6I4Z-4Hjl_Eqr1T-3J4XjgvA&index=3
In Part Three of Aewar's "Labyrinth of the Lost Guild" series, he cites a passage from Louis Charpentier's book, "Mysteries of the Cathedral of Chartres" that caused me to have a Eureka! moment. Charpentier claims that the dolmens we see all over Europe...
...were originally buried to create artificial underground chambers with rock walls. He claims that the cathedral of Chartres as well as perhaps all other Gothic cathedrals were built over such ancient artificial caves. He claims that there was once a statue of a Black Madonna holding a child in this underground chamber. Aewar suggests these dolmens were intentionally buried to channel telluric currents to the cavity. Of course! This is why we have mounds everywhere. The ground covering the chambers and the rivers next to or underneath them were their power sources. Aewar cites Charpentier as saying something about how certain fortunate pilgrims to the cathedral experienced a Great Illumination. What was the Great Illumination? Well, working from the research compiled at the following thread:
Temples and Churches as Radio Frequency Receivers
...perhaps the Great Illumination was the "summoning" of some kind of intelligent ball plasmoid "energy source". Did the ball plasmoid form in the "womb" of the buried chamber and then rise up through the stone waveguide architecture of the cathedral to manifest above the altar? Did the cathedral "hold it in place" and somehow allow it to be tapped? Was this process anthropomorphized as the "Earth Mother" giving birth to the "Divine Son/Sun"?
(I haven't watched parts 4-6 yet, so maybe Aewar beat me to this idea already.)
In the thread linked to above, another technique for summoning some kind of divine presence is discussed, namely ritual sacrifice. I am perhaps not the only person here who has great difficulty articulating (1) the beauty of the cathedrals and the "pro-human" wisdom that emanates from them and (2) the hideous practice of sacrifice that is associated with their precursors, the dolmens.
This leads me to a very speculative hypothesis.
Is the architecture of cathedrals a technological innovation which allowed humans to summon "God" without sacrifice?
Is it "easier" to summon some kind of counterspatial entity with blood and a rough-hewn rock than it is to summon one using singing, underground rivers, and giant stone cavity resonators that take dozens of years to build?
Were the alchemists people who figured out (or were taught) a way to gain access to a counterspatial energy source without needing sacrifice?
Was witchcraft banned after the construction of the cathedrals to stop people from summoning their own nasty moonshine deities with blood and force them to do it the "clean" way? Are the cathedrals the machines that allowed humans to evolve?
Was the Eucharist conceived as a "trick" to lure pagans into the church and wean them from real sacrifice? Was the Old Testament kept in the Bible to trick the same skeptical blood-addicted people into believing that the new God (Christ) was the heir of the old gods (amalgamated into "Yahweh") when in fact they had nothing in common? Kind of like fast food restaurants today try to lure people into abandoning beef and eating soy protein by shaping it into a patty and calling it a hamburger? Or by calling a liquid derived from grains "oat
milk" instead of "oat drink"? They can't just abandon the old format and start selling tubes of soy or insect paste because no one would buy it...
The occult elites appear to be crazy about Egypt and the Isis/Osiris/Horus myth in which a goddess gives birth to a divine son after being fertilized by a dead (sacrificed) god via a golden dildo (symbolized by all these obelisks in their power centers). Compare that to Christianity, in which the goddess is fertilized by the Holy Spirit directly, with no need for a sacrifice. Was the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus grafted on later as a corruption of an original cathedral allegory in which no death was necessary for "God" to be born?
Can we explain the tension between two types of social organization that still exists today, one "Satanic" and based on sacrifice, hierarchy, exploitation, egoism, and the murder of Osiris, and the other, based on sublimation, collective participation, and the immanence of the Holy Spirit, as a simple relic of two competing technologies that both offered access to some kind of necessary counterspatial energy source? Kind of like "dirty" fossil fuel-based power versus "clean" aether power?
Did the bad guys win because it's simply more resource-efficient to enter into contact with "God" using blood (cheap) than using cathedrals (expensive)?
@Jef Demolder , you suggest somewhere that Christianity was a parting gift from the departing gods to help humanity evolve. Was the Catholic liturgy in its original form nothing but the instruction manual for the operation of the cathedral hardware? Did Protestantism emerge only after the hardware broke?
This would offer an elegant solution to the strangely contradictory status of goddess worship, which has two irreconcilable faces, one ugly (Kali), one beautiful (Mary). The goddess was two different things to two different traditions, and the distinction became blurred over time.
@feralimal , mods, I know I have gone way off-reservation here. All this probably belongs somewhere else, either at IHASFEMR or at my own thread linked to above. If so I am happy to move it.
