The Sacrificial/Saviour Gods
If
we accept the matriarchal theory, which goes: In the past there was
once a peaceful and caring matriarchal age that worshipped the Great
Mother. In this age women ruled society and men never questioned
this rule. Then women began to allow men more freedom but this went
too far and men abused this this and ended up taking over and ruling
society through violence.
Clearly
if we look at the history of the last four or five thousand years we
can see clearly that men have made a terrible job at ruling the
world. Men's answer to all problems has been aggression and
violence, which has created a world of wars, genocide, poverty, fear,
hatred and suffering. This was clearly seen two to three thousand
years ago at the time of the saviour gods when there was still
knowledge of the ancient matriarchal past.
At
that time there must have been a large number of people who wanted
the world to return to matriarchy and the worship of the Great
Mother. But what was preventing this, was violent and aggressive
men.
What
is clear is that the ancient religion were totally female dominated
religions, but then these women allowed men power and some of these
men took advantage and brought into being the patriarchal age.
The
sacrificial/saviour god religions where probably an attempt to create
female domination religions in ancient times. It is of interest that
all these sacrificial/saviour god religions were also called Mystery
religions.
Now
in all Mystery religions there is an outer and inner mystery, where
all knowledge of the inner mysteries is unknown except of an
initiated few. In the earlier Mystery plays the saviour god
sacrificed themselves to The Great Mother. For instance, in the
Nordic mythology, Loki, one of their oldest Gods, was sacrificed to
the Goddess Skadi. While even in the Jesus story, his crucifixion is
witnessed by the three Marys. Who probably represented in earlier
times the Triple Goddesses.
Jesus
is also called a king and this may be about a very ancient tradition
where the king is sacrifice. It seems in the matriarchal past only
queens could rule but she had consort kings. These were mostly young
men, and if the queen grew tired of him then he was sacrificed for
the fertility of the land. Why this happened might be because a
deposed king may be angry at his lost of power and status and stir up
trouble for the Queen. Or he might be executed because he began to
abuse his power, and tried to undermine or disobey the Queen. So the
sacrifice of kings had a long tradition until with the rise of
patriarchy and kings became too powerful to allow themselves to be
sacrificed.
For
this reason, the tradition of the sacrificing the king may have
happened as matriarchy was declining. In a true matriarchal society
men would not expect to have any power, and so a Queen could have
many lovers with no fear that these men will want to take away her
powers. As it would have been unthinkable in those days, that a male
could, depose a queen and rule in her place. But with the rise of
patriarchy, then queens may find themselves with lovers with strong
political ambitions. So the only way to deal with them, was to have
them executed, or threaten them with execution and claim it was a
sacrifice.
This
type of sacrifice probably wasn't voluntary, but in the savoir god
tradition it was. It was made very clear in the Bible that Jesus
made no attempt to resist himself being crucified. So from this we
have to ask the question how can the voluntary sacrifice of the
god-man to the Great Mother, save us all?
The
problem for people living near any patriarchal society who attempted
to set up a matriarchal society of love and harmony, would be quickly
conquered by violent men, who were only interested in loot and
enslaving the population. So it would be clear that the cause of all
the wars, violence, poverty and suffering was these selfish and
violent men.
We
know from history that the Amazons did for a while attempt to fight
fire with fire and fight back. But this clearly wasn't the answer
because by becoming violent yourself you become exactly like the
people you are fighting against. In other words the only way Amazons
could be free was to become as aggressive, ruthless and violence as
the men they fought. The Amazons failed to stop the rising tide of
patriarchy, probably because women were unable to become as brutal
and ruthless as men.
Now
Femdom could be the solution for this problem. In military history
there has been many cases where a small army of soldier have defeated
far larger armies. The most famous was the Battle of Thermopylae when
300 Spartans stopped a very large Persian army.
It
is mostly claim that this can only happen because the small army was
better trained, but that is not the only the only reason for this. A
group of psychopaths who have no qualms about killing people is going
to have a big advantage in a battle again ordinary men who don’t
like the thought of killing others.
We
know a big problem for any military is forcing troops to kill others
and they normally do this by brutalising them. This is of course
going to be a big problem for any loving and caring Matriarchal
society because men will not be brutalised enough to want to kill
other men in a war and so will be easy defeated in any military
conflict.
The
answer to this problem might be Femdom, where men have masochistic
desires for sadistic women. Most women don’t like whipping or
torturing men but as we see in the Femdom scene there are some women
who are happy to do this. So women like this can become officers in
any matriarchal army and brutalise their male troops in the way any
patriarchal army does. So they will be able fight and kill the men of
any patriarchal army trying to invade them.
Unfortunately,
as far as we know we didn’t have femdom in ancient times, or if we
did no-one thought of using it, to brutalise troops. Instead women
decided on a different strategy and attempted to reform these violent
men. To do this they gave them a vision of what a caring and loving
world would be like and explaining to them this is only possible if
men are willing to sacrifice yourself to the Great Mother. So a
story was created about a drama of heroic sacrifice, of a God-man
sacrificing himself for the good of the world.
To
some degree this seems to of been successful because all over Europe
and the Middle East there were saviour god religions. So it seems
many men were willing to sacrifice themselves to the Goddess in these
Mystery religions. Unfortunately, these religions became victims of
their own success, because patriarchal leaders who had no interested
in sacrificing themselves, saw these religions as a threat to their
power and set about either destroying them or taking them over.
It
is of interest that early Christianity was very popular among the
slaves of the Roman empire. This would make sense as many
matriarchal societies where victims of the conquering Romans, so
there would be a tradition of the worship of the Mother Goddess among
the slaves. For this reason they would be very sympathetic to a
saviour god religion like early Christianity.
In
the 3th century AD, Rome found itself with three large Saviour God
religions. The largest was the Egyptian religion of the Goddess Isis
and her saviour god Osiris. Then there were two other the Christians
and another based on the saviour God Mithras.
Isis raising Osiris from the dead |
Attempts
by the Roman ruling elite to stamp out these saviour god religions,
was at first unsuccessful. They were unsuccessful in destroying
Christianity, while the Isis religion was popular in the Roman
military so this could cause a civil war if they attempted this.
So
the ruling elite instead attempted to promote a religion based on
another saviour god Mithras, as it was the religion they preferred
but this didn't receive enough support from the people. So in the end
they decided that if you can't beat them join them. They clearly
didn’t want a Goddess religion like the the Isis religion and so
Christianity became the final choice.
The
Roman rulers simply hijacked the Christian religion and changed it to
make it acceptable to them. They then set about destroying the
religion of Isis were able to convert people in this religion to
Christianity because both religions were similar.
But
they also destroyed Christian sects like the Egyptian Gnostics that
refused follow the type of Christianity put forward by the Roman
elite. The actual teachings of Jesus like, "loving your
neighbour", "turning the other cheek" was quickly
ignored as the Roman rulers and became more interested in the
religion of Judaism and promoted this, rather than what was taught by
the early Christian Church.
The
promotion of Judaism was the opposite to what many early Gnostic
Christians taught, as they referred to the Jewish Jehovah god as the
Demiurge and claimed he was a evil god from whom Jesus came to save
humankind. The original New Testament was suppose to be an attack on
the Old Testament and the patriarchal religion of Judaism, but this
was soon changed to endorsing it.
Another
big change was that many of the saviour god religions promoted sexual
freedom. We can see this is the religions of Dionysus and Bacchus
where many of the famous Roman orgies were Bacchus festivals.
Sexual
freedom at the time benefited wealthy women. This was because if
women had a sexual licence to have sex with whoever they liked, then
no one could say for sure whom were the fathers of their children and
so, rich and powerful men had little idea who were their sons. This
meant that inheritance of wealth and power could only come down the
female line. Meaning that, a large amount of wealth and power stayed
in the hands of women.
It
seems that early Christianity was also an orgiastic religion of free
love, before it became a state religion. To promote the power of
men, Christianity was changed to have strict marriage laws where it
became a sin to have sex outside of marriage. (Though this only
applied to women and not men). The idea being that rich and powerful
men now knew whom their sons were and could pass their wealth and
power down the male line, preventing it getting into the hands of
women.
Then
Christianity as a state religion and later the Moslems set about
destroying all knowledge of the ancient religion of the Great Mother.
With this knowledge finally forgotten by the common people, they
were then able to put forward the idea that Jesus sacrificed himself
to an angry god to appease him. Rather then the idea, that all men
need to sacrifice themselves to the Great Mother, and to women,
before we can have a peaceful matriarchal world once again.
Perhaps
the mystery religions of the past were a few thousand years before
their time. They were trying to promote a vision of a peaceful and
loving world in a very violent age. Today in the 21st century we see
in the West at least a different attitude to violent men. It is far
less acceptable for Western rulers to go out and conquer other
countries, (though it still goes on, as we saw in the recent Iraq and
Afghanistan wars). And it is far less acceptable for them to rule
through fear and intimation. Western rulers today are forced to
listen to the needs and desires of the common people and even respect
the views and opinions of minorities.
So
perhaps the sacrificial/saviour god image within Christianity acted
as a Trojan Horse for the patriarchal age. On the collective
unconscious level it created a archetype that has influenced all men
in Christian countries for the last two thousand years. So that the
idea of voluntary sacrifice has become acceptable to men which is
starting to bear fruit in the last hundred years. It is interesting
that feminism has progressed in Christian countries where men allow
women to demand equal rights. This is in stark contrast in Islam
countries where feminist women are beaten up, put into jail, and
murdered by being stoned and beheaded.
In
contrast, we have seen in Christian countries Jesus like men, in
Hippies of the 1960s where men have tried to practise peace and love.
Or ideas of the "new man" where men stay at home to look
after the house and family while his wife goes out to work. In its
more extreme form, we have the concept of Femdom where women totally
dominate men. So are these men very much in tune with the archetypal
sacrificial/saviour god? Clearly if all men are strongly influenced
by this powerful archetypal it will save the world from violence,
wars and suffering.
Although
Christianity has mostly ignored the teachings of Jesus and have
concentrated more on the Old Testament god of judgement and fear, the
symbols of a sacrificial Jesus are seen in all Churches. Also, the
Great Mother is represented in Roman Catholic Churches in the
disguise of the Virgin Mary. So even though many Christian priests
have only paid lip-service to the teachings of Jesus and the drama of
his betrayal and crucifixion, this is still taught. These symbols,
dramas and teachings have been unconsciously influencing men in
Christian Counties ever since Christianity became a state religion.
So
although in the short term the attempt by matriarchal women to create
a submissive saviour god in the past seems like a failure. The
popularity of the sacrificial drama of Jesus Christ has brought about
an archetypal change in men, which will allow men to surrender
themselves to women and bring about a new matriarchal age. After
all, it is in Christian countries where we see the rise in feminism
during the 20th century and more recently the beginnings of Female
Domination. The concept of the sacrificial god, does seem to be
working on minds of men to allow themselves to tune into this
powerful archetype.
Although
for us to have peaceful Matriarchal societies we also need an army
with female officers using femdom methods to train their troops again
any invading patriarchal army.
William, what you say is very insightful and brilliant overall. You really shed some serious light on something that was "hiding in plain sight" all along but few were able to see and even fewer would willingly say out loud.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder though about that part where you say we will need "an army with female officers using femdom methods to train their troops again any invading patriarchal army." What would be your counterargument to someone arguing that such a strategy would backfire, namely that such men would become more dangerous and/or "top from the bottom" and run the risk of mutiny?