jesusthespun5

Bachofen further notes: �The religious consecration of motherhood is the foundation of this whole [matriarchal] stage of life ... at the festival of Ceres neither father nor son might be named, lest the pure mystery of the mother might be desecrated by any memory of masculinity, marriage, or father right. All Demetrian ordinances bear the character of sanctitas [sacredness inherent in the maternal]. This sanctitas lies in the inviolability of motherhood, in which the law has its foundation.� (Myth and Mother Right, p. 196.) The unexamined -- and unexaminable -- deification of motherhood in modern America is a direct recapitulation of the matriarchates.

At every quadrivium, at every convergence of four roads � Rome�s favorite sites for crucifixion � Jesus stood and spoke against vengeance, by which he meant the infection of emerging masculine social constructs with talion/matriarchal toxins. Knowing that talion had been wrongly conserved in Roman jurisprudence and consciousness, and that it was poisoning the potential of the developing patriarchies, Jesus admonished that vengeance must be left to higher powers, as humans are not sufficiently wise to understand �good� and �evil,� much less to punish it with torture, caging and murder. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord."

When Jesus was arguing for brotherhood and for love of the Father, he was advocating an original, radical form of masculinity, a form which no longer partook of the negative, or unconscious, elements of the past paradigm. He sought to break humanity�s addiction to what Erich Neumann calls the Terrible Mother, the negative aspects of femininity. Jesus foresaw that reliance on relational systems which excluded the unattached masculine � Camille Paglia�s pure male outcast -- and juridical and social systems which relied on vengeance, especially in �protection� of the feminine, would lead humanity down the collective psychosis called the �nightmare of history� from which Joyce -- and each of us still -- stuggles to awaken.

The masculinity -- both collective and personal -- envisioned by Jesus was much different from the shell that now exists. Jesus sought, advocated, and achieved partnership with the feminine -- not covert servitude to it. As exemplified by the Magdalene, he did not hesitate to praise and elevate the feminine based upon merit. Likewise, he rejected submission to the Toxic King, to the inferior masculine Powers that rule the world along with their weak sisters. Jesus understood that sisterhood reinforces the prison walls, while brotherhood demolishes them. The American Prison Industrial Complex of the past thirty years is an unfortunate case in point.

Far from restriction to minor transitional cultures, Bachofen notes that what he terms the Amazonian or Dionysian form of matriarchy �... is a universal phenomenon ... not based on the special physical or historical circumstances of any particular people, but on conditions that are characteristic of all human existence. Amazonian phenomena ... may be found from Central Asia to the Occident, fom the Scythian north to West Africa; beyond the ocean they are no less numerous and no less certain; and even in times very close to our own Amazonianism has been observed, accompanied by the same acts of bloody vengeance against the male sex. (Myth and Mother Right, p. 196, emphasis added.) Amazonian is now called feminism.

Why all the carping by Jesus about brotherhood? What did this amazing being know about brotherhood that the world did not, and still doesn�t? Why did Jesus see brotherhood as the linchpin to reforming not only Judaic society, but all the cultures of the world, and all Creation down to the quark?

Human organization, generation, and cultural evolution, are driven by strife between males, competing for the favor of females. Civilization, dating at least from the beginning of the modern historical period (circa 3000 B.C.E., with agriculture appearing about 9,000 B.C.E.), results from the pitting of male against male, with the female either choosing, or being chosen by, the �winner.� In antiquity, these confrontations were not sublimated. Males fought to the death for sexual and social status.

The victor becomes the new Year King, the tyrant, the bossman, standing at the pinnacle of the male hierarchical pyramid, above all the �losers.� The �best� � the strongest, most brutal, and most cunning � survive, and reproduce, and the �losers� are enslaved or perish. However, it is these �losers� who build, and maintain, all modern historical civilizations. Civilization arises from the carefully-orchestrated instillation of agony and frustration into the male, from the manipulation of male libido, especially of the sexual aspects of libido. The more modern and complex the civilization, the more diverse the strategies for pitting male against male, and the more diverse the tactics for siphoning off male energy to produce the products and forms of civilization. Power, for example, is often set in place of female sexual favor as enticement for the male to sacrifice his personal well-being, often within contexts of competition with other males, of which war is the chief example.