Chapter Three – Learning To Kill

There is one big hurdle for women ruling the world and that is warfare. It has been suggested that warfare was the main reason why the last matriarchal age ended. Because matriarchal societies didn’t fight each other and so had no reason to have weapons of war and train men to use them. So a small band of men from a patriarchal tribe with weapons, could easy conquer peaceful matriarchal communities.

The archaeologist Marija Gimbutas claims that the matriarchal towns and cities were conquered by violent patriarchal tribes from the North. Though how these tribes became patriarchal is not known but it might be something to do with hunting. In hunter/gather tribes that have been studied in modern times it has been observed that most of the food for the tribe was gathered by the women. Hunting by men only made up a small proportion of the food that the tribe obtained. 

But this wasn’t the case the further people moved into Northern colder climates because of the shorter growing seasons, hunting became increasingly important. Then when people moved into the Arctic circle the only food available was meat. This means that the male hunters had higher status in the tribe than women whom had little or no chance to gather any food. 

This then means that many northern tribes were probably the first ones to become patriarchal. (Though this is not true of all Northern tribes, the The Saami, reindeer herders of Lapland are still matriarchal). So it might have been these tribes that invaded peaceful matriarchal settlements further South whom had no means of defending themselves. Hunting animals would mean these hunters not only had the weapons to kill, but also the expertise in using them. And being use to killing animals means that killing people wasn’t a lot different. 

Recently Marija Gimbutas theories have been supported by DNA evidence. In New Scientist magazine in 2019 there was an article called, “Story of most murderous people of all time revealed in ancient DNA” it went on to say, “Starting 5000 years ago, the Yamnaya embarked on a violent conquest of Europe. Now genetic analysis tells their tale for the first time.”

This story was then taken up by newspapers like the Daily Express and Daily Mail as it was a sensational story as it suggested that these Yamnaya people conquered the whole of Europe killing all the men and bred with the women. Many people didn’t like this story, probably because it supported Marija Gimbutas theories but also because they found it too incredible and looked for different interpretations for the DNA evidence. 

Certainly this didn’t happen overnight as it happened over a period of hundreds of years. So if these Yamnaya men were conquering Europe why didn’t the people being conquered organise and defend themselves from this attack? The reason might be is that when women dominate men they can turn them into loving and caring people, but in so doing, make them totally defenceless when dealing with violent men. 

Warfare could also be a big problem for any future matriarchal society. If at a future date matriarchy became popular and nearly every country in the world had matriarchal governments, then in theory we would have no need for warfare. This is because matriarchal governments are unlikely to attack each other and will settle any disputes by talking to each other. So because of this, the military of matriarchal countries will be neglected and might go as far as complete disarmament. 

The big problem with this, is that if there are a few patriarchal countries left in the world. Or all countries have matriarchal governments but a small band of men stage a patriarchal revolution in one of them. Then this patriarchal country can arm itself and go out and conquer a defenceless world. Bringing back a new patriarchal age. 

So what can matriarchy do about this? We can find the answer in femdom. Femdom fantasies and desires is that it is not just about female domination where a men obey women. It is also about sadistic women who spank, cane, torture and humiliate men. So why would men have desires like this? It may be to do with the macho culture we live in.

The big problem for female domination is that any men who allows women to dominate them will be labelled as wimps by other men. But strangely this wouldn’t be the case if the man is whipped or tortured by dominatrix. So femdom men might be laughed at, for being kinky perverts but less likely to be called wimps if they voluntary suffer pain and humiliation in the hands of a dominatrix. The same can be said of Jesus Christ. The big problem Christians have with him is that he is too, “meek and mild”. Yes, he comes across as a really nice guy who wants to help everyone, but he also seen as a wimp, who was incapable of standing up for himself. But what saves him from this stigma is the way he was crucified. 

When he was betrayed by Judas Iscariot he knew what was going to happen. Then when the solders came to arrest him, unlike his disciples he didn’t try to run away. He then made no attempt to defend himself against the accusations of the priests and allowed himself to be humiliated whipped, tortured, He was then forced to carry his own cross to the execution site and finally was nailed to it. Strangely, this gives him some sort of street credibility as he was able to endure pain and humiliation without complaint. 

We see this with the tattoo culture where many men try to look tough by having a large numbers of very visible tattoos over their bodies. The reason for this, is that having a tattoo is a long painful process. So again it is the endurance of pain that gives people a tough image. Though it could also be called masochism as it is lot different to a femdom man who pays a dominatrix to torture him in her dungeon. The only difference is that the man who is tattooed has the visible marks to prove his toughness or masochism depending on how you want to see it. 

For many men the macho image is just an act. Men know this and say about other men, “Oh he’s just acting, tough”. So everyone knows that the macho image is just a pretence, but men still use it as a form of defence against the aggression of other men. If a man can look tough and macho, the thinking is, that you are far less likely to be picked on and assaulted by other men. Male animals do the same, before they fight they attempt to intimidate each other by trying to look as big and strong as they can. And in many cases it works, as one of the animals will back down, with this show of strength and give way to the other animal. 

Some people became addicted to tattoos and have them cover nearly every part of their bodies. So how is a man who is addicted to tattoos different to a man who pays a dominatrix to inflict pain onto him? The whole culture of tattoos and body piercings is linked to sadomasochism. Although many women also have lots of tattoo and piercings so they also want to look tough as well. 

Where do these ideas come from? It could come from military training. In the past soldiers had to endure great hardship as they had to march long distances to fight an enemy carrying his weapons, clothes and food. He also had to sleep out in the open as only the officers had tents. So a man who could endure great hardship without complaint, would be seen as a good soldier. Up until the 20th century, far more soldiers died of disease, cold, exposure and starvation than were killed on the battlefield.

But the purpose of a soldier is to kill the enemy and if you watch too many Hollywood films you would be forgiven for thinking that men are natural born killers. Because what you see in films is heroes and villains killing other people as casually as swatting a fly. They may even sometimes joke about it. What is very rarely portrayed is how difficult it is for people to kill other people and the mental stress that killing can cause. This is a secret that the military doesn’t like to make public, and that is most men are reluctant killers and have to be trained to kill. 

This was explained in a book called, “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. He explained that at the end of World War II, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall had a team of researchers study what soldiers did in battle. They decided to interview all the returning troops to see if they could learn anything from their experiences. What they discovered was that only 15-20% of American combat soldiers admitted to firing their weapons at the enemy. The majority claimed they deliberately shot over the heads of the opposing side. Though 2% of those interview also said they enjoyed killing the enemy troops.

This is not unusual, as this has been a problem in many other wars. Even Fredrick The Great reported that he had  problems getting his Prussian troops to shoot to kill. While Officers in the First World War had to patrol the trenches with drawn swords to coerce their troops to aim their rifles at the enemy and not over their heads. Officers also had to stand over men firing machine guns to make sure they fired at the enemy and not deliberately miss.

After the Battle of Gettysburg 27,574 muskets were picked up from the battlefield, 90% of which were still loaded. While 6,000 contained up to ten rounds in them. It seems that the soldiers of these weapons were only pretending to fire their weapons and kept on reloading shots down the unfired musket barrels. This all presents a very different picture to the nature of men and what we all image war to be like. It suggests that success in war, depended on how many psychopaths you have in your army.

Japan ranks with Southern Ireland and Switzerland as being of the most non-violent and crime-free countries in the  world. Yet in the Second World War, Japanese soldiers were even worse than the German and Russian troops in becoming brutal killers, So what did the Japanese military do to turn their troops into killing machines? When Japanese young men first join the army, on the first day they were beaten up by older soldiers. Then after a year of training they were then ordered to beat up the new recruits coming into the army. So this was the beginning of their brutalisation. 

Then when Japan fought China in the 1930s they had many Chinese prisoners of war. The Chinese were used as live dummies in bayonet practise or publicly executed while the Japanese troops where made to cheer this. Then afterwards they were given a the best meal the Japanese military could supply and the use of ‘comfort girls’. The idea was to associate in the minds of the Japanese troops, the killing of the enemy with pleasure. This form of training was so effective it resulted in the infamous Nanjing Massacre, where the Japanese soldiers got out of control and it was estimated that hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians were raped and murdered. 

Even the Nazis had problem getting German soldier to kill. When it was decided to murder all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and anyone else they didn’t like in concentration  camps. The first idea was to simply take a number of them into a forest and shoot them. But this caused so much mental stress to the soldiers ordered to do this, that they had to abandon doing this. This is why they had to use gas chambers because the killing was out of sight. 

This is also why the military uses firing squads to execute soldiers as they know that most soldiers will aim to miss. But in a squad of a dozen men or more men at least one might be a psychopath who will shoot to kill. Many times the person who is executed is blindfolded but this is not for the sake of the person being executed but for the soldiers who are firing at him, as they don’t want to look him into his eyes before shooting him. 

After WW2 when the USA military realised that they had a problem with the reluctance of their troops to kill, they turned to Behaviourism and something called Operant conditioning. All they did was to replace bullseye targets with images of real people. They would then try and act out what would happen in a battlefield with targets suddenly popping up and the solder was required to shoot at it quickly before it disappeared again. Then on a real life battlefield they would do as they were trained but this time kill real people. But as this was a split second trained reflex, the troops didn’t have time to think about what they were doing. By this method the USA military has greatly increased its kill rate by as much as 90%.

The problem with this, is that in modern warfare, what the military doesn’t like to talk about, is that in any conflict, more soldiers fighting in them commit suicide afterwards, than die in battle. During the Falklands war 250 British servicemen lost their lives. 20 years after the war 265 men who saw action during the war have since committed suicide. This is true of many more wars but it is hard to get exact figures because the military tries to keep his a secret. This is even worse if the soldier sees the person he has shot at close range. So by using Behaviourism the modern military has solved the problem of soldiers not wanting to kill the enemy. But many soldiers who do this, can’t live with themselves afterwards and too many of them commit suicide. 

In the past they had other methods train men to kill, the main one being hunting. Ancient knights were encouraged to hunt animals as the frequent killing of animals desensitised people to killing, so that killing people is just the next step. As previously mentioned, this might be why the Northern tribes that invaded the peaceful matriarchal communities were so effective. Hunting helped made them merciless killers. 

It also makes sense of why in many battles in military history small armies defeat much larger ones. If the smaller army has better trained its men to kill without mercy, and the men in the larger army are reluctant to kill, then the smaller army will have a big advantage. An example of this is the famous Battle of Thermopylae where 300 spartan soldiers held up the advance of a vast Persian army for seven days before they were outflanked by an Persian attack from the rear. 

Another point is that if you do brutalise your soldiers they find life so miserable that they no longer care if they live or die. So you can end up with extremely brave soldiers as they no longer value their own lives. Some ancient culture used human sacrifice, the most well known is the Aztecs of South America. Although the official reason for human sacrifice was to appease an angry god, it also had other purposes. With the public witnessing these sacrifices it desensitised them to the act of killing, which helps teach the young men of the community how to kill in battle. It was also a threat, showing how cruel and ruthless the rulers were and what would happen to anyone who disobeys them. 

It seems that military training is responsible for many racial attitudes our our societies. When two countries go to war, the soldiers on each side are taught to hate each other so they will more likely kill soldiers deemed as the enemy. If the enemy is of a different ethic race or skin colour that would be used in teaching their soldiers to hate. The problem is that when the war is over, the soldiers still remember the hateful things they have been taught to think. So they will carry these attitudes back to their communities and teach it to their children. By this means these attitudes can last generations. The last time the British and French fought each other was in the Napoleon wars that ended in 1815. Yet there is still a strong animosity between many French and British people today, over 200 years later. 

A lot is made of the Nazi’s telling their troops they were the master race and therefore superior to everyone else. But again this indoctrination helped make it easier for German troops to kill their enemies or commit genocide. Because they regarded the people they killed as being inferior to them. It is crazy thinking like this, that is created by warfare and the need to teach men to kill. 

The reason why armies indoctrinate soldiers to hate their enemies was shown at the Christmas truce of 1914 between the British and German soldiers. On Christmas Eve both sides in the trenches sang Christmas carols and could clearly hear each other. Then on Christmas morning some German soldiers came out of their trenches and called out, “Merry Christmas” to the British troops. 

After awhile some British troops did the same and both sides met on no-man’s-land and began talking to each other and exchanged gifts. On one place along the line the British and German soldiers even organized a football game. In their conversations with each other the soldiers on each side made the staggering discovery that they were exactly the same as each other. They even found out that the reasons they were told they were fighting the war, was exactly the same. The military propaganda on both sides had told them they were fighting for freedom.

The officers on both sides then had real problems in getting their soldiers to go back into their trenches and continue the fight. But unfortunately, they somehow managed to do this because in the end men are still obedient to those in authority. This happen at the beginning of the war with new  recruits and so they hadn’t been properly indoctrinated long enough to hate the enemy. 

So this is why many patriarchal societies encourage boys to be cruel and nasty to each other. Caning and beatings was normal in many schools until near the end of the 20th century, in the belief it will, “toughen them up”. Which means the boys becoming brutalised and end up becoming ‘good’ soldiers on the battlefield and kill without mercy. Nowadays, many boys are learning to kill through, violent films they see on TV and “shoot them up” video games. 

The result of boyhood brutalisation can be seen with Hitler who was beaten frequently by this father. In the First World War he fought in the trenches and suffering from shell shock or post traumatic stress disorder. This would have normally been a personal tragedy but he became the dictator of a powerful country like Germany. Where he then had the power to express all his hate, anger and neurosis by starting another world war and a campaign of genocide. 

The other most infamous despotic leader of the 20th century Joseph Stalin also had an appalling childhood he was frequently beaten by his alcoholic father then later by monks when he studied to become a priest. He also end up a brutal dictator of another powerful country like Russia who suffered from paranoia. This normally would only be a personal problem but because of his position of power it resulted in the deaths of millions of people as he would have frequent purges of people he feared were plotting against him. 

The patriarchal sex war against women has also created sexism as men are told that women are ‘weak’ and ‘too emotional’ and need to be ruled by men. An extreme case of this is the ‘honour’ killings in the Islamic world. According to Islamic customs, a woman would ‘dishonour’ a man by contradicting him or not obeying him or not adhering to Islamic customs. The only way he can restore his ‘honour’ is by killing her. This custom is off course is a powerful weapon to oppress women. 

The Turkish Journalist Ayse Onal investigated what effects ‘honour’ killing had on the men who did  them, and wrote a book about it called, “Honour Killing: Stories of Men Who Killed.” She discovered they also felt they were victims of this custom. Many told her they were duped by their community into their actions. This was because after the killing, they weren’t celebrated as a heroes, but as murderers and were often shunned their families and community. 

One man she met who was convicted of killing his own mother, told her he now wanted to hold workshops to discourage other young men from doing what he did. She discovered that many of these men who kill are very regretful for the crimes they had committed and want to persuaded other men not to do what they did, but are not listened to. Another man told Onal, who gave in to community pressure to kill his sister. "It's easy for women's charities and the EU to say 'stop killing' from afar, but people will not stop. If you live in our neighbourhoods, you would kill. We have to change our neighbourhoods, otherwise we will keep on killing."

She began to investigate this subject when in 2004 she heard of a terrible incident where a young pregnant woman and her lover were stoned to death by their townspeople. She wrote about the men who did this saying. “Who are they, how do they think, how can I understand their terrible motivations? This was when I realized I have to look at the men's side. It was this that brought it to  my attention.”

What this again shows is that men are so submissive that they can be made to murder their own mothers. As Ayse Onal makes clear in her book, none of these men wanted to do these terrible things but all gave in to social pressure. They are forced by the customs and traditions of Islam to be cruel sexist men. Again this shows this is not their normal behaviour if they have to be persuaded and forced into killing. So the problem is not with the common man, because like women, they are also victims of the patriarchal system. The problem is with the alpha men who invented these rules and customs and the alpha men who keep them going to retain their power. 

If given a choice many men would prefer to live in a matriarchal society than a brutal patriarchal society where they are put under pressure to kill their female relatives. It is also shocking is that even knowing that disobeying men and Islamic customs, will result in their deaths, have failed to stop women doing this. The killings still goes on because women are not submissive and are still willing to speak out, at the risk of their lives. 

The feminist author Germaine Greer realised this and explained in a interview, that she was once asked by her publisher permission to translate her book, “The Female Eunuch” into Arabic. She admitted she didn’t want her publisher to do this, as she feared women in Islamic countries might be murdered for reading her book, Which she knew, many would do this. There is not only feminism in Islamic countries but femdom as well, but off course the men and women who practise this, have to keep it a strict secret. 

The patriarchal rulers didn’t want men going back to worshipping and obeying women so they did everything they could to teach them to hate and despise women. But according to official history women have never ruled the world. So if this is true, why does patriarchal ruler put so much effort into oppressing women? If women were naturally submissive as they claimed they were, they wouldn’t need customs like ‘honour’ killings to keep them in their place. 

In history the more militaristic a society becomes, the more likely it will oppress women. The exception to this is, was Sparta in Ancient Greece. It’s soldiers had a formidable reputation on the battlefield and yet its women had more rights, freedom and better education than any other Greek state. Because of this, Aristotle was critical of Sparta, and claimed that men were ruled by strong and independent women, unlike in the rest of Greece. He also criticized Spartan women for their wealth and even claim that Sparta had become a gynocracy. 

Unfortunately, the freedoms that Sparta women had, worked against them in the long term. As we see today where women are educated and have rights, like we see in most Western countries. The birth rate becomes stable or even declines. This is because when most women have rights about how many children they want, they generally are content with having no more than two children. This is a good thing in a overpopulated world, but no good if you are a military power. 

In other Greek states like Athens, women had no rights over their own bodies. The laws and customs were designed so women were forced to produce a child every year. So you had laws where a woman couldn’t refuse sex from her husband, or practise any form of birth control and there was no penality for a man raping a woman. There was even a ban on oral sex, because a woman could satisfy her husband sexually by this method, without getting pregnant. 

As the result, the population of other Greek states increased while the population of Sparta became smaller. Even though they were encouraging their women to have more children. So in spite of the fearsome reputation of its soldiers they declined as a major power in Greece as their population decreased and were finally conquered by the Romans. This is another reason why we live in a patriarchal age, because extreme patriarchal governments can force women to have more children than they want, against their will. And so have larger armies of young men in which to conquer other countries. 

This is still a threat in modern times In 2006 Colonel Gaddaft the then leader of Libya said. "We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

And the Algerian leader Houari Boumediene at the United Nation also said in 1974.

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” 

Years ago this wouldn’t have been a problem for European countries because the Roman Catholic Church also banned birth control and told women it was a sin for them to refuse their husbands sex. So many Roman Catholics had very large families as did members of other Christian sects. But with the rise of feminism all this changed and all Christian sects could no longer stop women from practising birth control. 

But what can stop Islam taking over Europe and perhaps North America is that Islamic immigrants are influenced by Western culture and laws which gives women more freedom. So it is not so easy to get away with ‘honour’ killings in Western countries as the men doing it, can be sent to jail for a long time. Islamic women are also more able to run away from home to escape arranged marriages and live like Western women. Therefore it is much more difficult for Islam to control women in Western countries. Also with the internet Islamic people became exposed to decadent Western influences like feminism and femdom.

Perhaps in the future if women were once again to rule the world. Although they wouldn’t want to have standing armies of young men who are taught to be killers, they know that banning all weapons and soldiers would leave them open to attack from patriarchy. So to counter this, armies can be set up along femdom lines. Certainly femdom men would be more than happy to die for any matriarchal society.

There are always women who are willing to become dominatrixes and are willing to go along with any masochist desires femdom men have. So these women can become like dominatrix officers of this army. This means the soldiers can then be brutalised in the same way patriarchal soldiers are. It has been noted that military training does have sadistic elements to it where sergeants shout abuse at soldiers and bully them, to make them ‘tough’. So there are women who will be willing to do this. They can also be taught to kill through Operant conditioning which is probably better, than to teach soldier how to kill through learning how to hate the enemy. 

Another point is that warfare is becoming increasingly mechanical and remote. Since the 1930s whole cities have been destroy by aerial bombing where the pilots don’t see the effects the bombs they drop on the civilians below. The same is true for long range artillery and rockets. The USA is making unmanned aircraft while the Russians is now experimenting with unmanned tanks. As the result we could end up fighting wars using computers and robots. 

So this means a future matriarchal society would be able to defend itself from any warlike patriarchal society. The last matriarchal age came to an end because women didn’t know how to deal with violent men and all the devious tricks of patriarchal rulers. Now we have a whole history of the patriarchal age and all the techniques alpha men used to control the majority of men. If women can learn from this, then they can rule the world again and made sure that alpha men do not gain power again. 

Bibliography

Story of most murderous people of all time revealed in ancient DNA - Colin Barras – New Scientist 27 March 2019

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman

The Truth About Killing, (A documentary film by Dr Martin Brookes)

Our Own Worst Enemy - Norman F. Dixon

For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence – Alice Miller

Honour Killing: Stories of Men Who Killed - Ayse Onal

The Female Eunuch -  Germaine Greer

Spartan Women - Sarah B. Pomeroy