"Before Writing Was Invented" - Contributed by MONARCH Survivor 'Howl'
5.1.25 | **Trigger warnings for incest, slavery, and dark truths
**Trigger warnings for incest, slavery, & dark truths
I would like to briefly tell you something, that is difficult to verify in any books, although if you search sincerely, you might find the evidence clearly for yourself. So, by all means, I encourage one to do their own research and not blindly accept every word as absolute truth. But I can still assure you this is to the best of my recollection and past research.
Do you know about society before writing? Do you know the first 'job' invented? There are various myths, legends, and religions who had different views of early mankind, which will be absent from what I'll be referencing as it predates writing and cultures who've relied upon it to carry their messages across time. I also, won't be starting from the 'very beginning' but instead the precise approximation of the events occurring while writing was coming into common use.
Before patrilineal-based societies, much of the world was predominantly matrilineal.
The "Shaman" in truth originated as a role once held more exclusively by 'women'.
When females were cast out of the temples, removed from leadership roles & 'see-er' roles, the original 'connection to god' was diluted for all humanity by those who intended to reform all connections with 'spirit/god'.
Thus, a 'power shift' was occurring and oppression had clearly already begun, not for simply the dualistic approach of patrilineal vs matrilineal, that is just a 'matter of fact' that just isn't taught to most people in public school history class, or a rigged college, and other so-called institutions of learning. So, most people would get stuck arguing which of these three things came first. I am going to propose the most logical order, based on everything we can know, both written and passed on in time via other methods.
As the written word had come into existence, the world was now thrust into a matrilineal view. the leaders of the past, all the women were to be erased from monument and temple, any association with divinity really… I won't just keep naming stuff forever as a list… Now having been cast from the highest places down to the lowest places, some women conceived an idea to beguile and use this exploitative system against the males in their society. & it is clear that somehow there was a simultaneous arrangement made, spoken or not, with the masonic mindset which had come to dominate the world with the written word to be valued over the spiritual and non-materialistic aspects of 'god/spirit'. It is a known historical fact that writing was invented by the builders and architects of the 'ancient world'. The master masons, of literal masonry. the inventors of math, written language, this is where history has clearly marked as its origin point.
In order to build cities, it has been proven, the men of that time did not labor in deadly conditions in order to use coin for nightly mead (it’s like beer) regardless of how many times fake academics would try to feed us this as an excuse for where money and human slavery came from. No, it is clear, the former temple priestess would potentially take up the prototype job of prostitution. That is maybe a weird word to use, what I mean is that, some priestess would still offer unsanctioned connection to the divine, and as more and more time would pass this became seen as an exchange of sex for money, but I want to point out that while it is clear that these events did very apparently happen, it does not mean that is how it always was or that it was this way (we might think of it today), it's another belief that some researches hold. about how widespread it was or was not.
So, what is 'the first job'? is it the master builder and inventor of the written language that would be widely used by mankind for hundreds or thousands of years? Perhaps… Is it the laborer? Is it the unpaid temple priestesses?
If we have society shift towards 'male centricism'-based systems, (again, I'm not saying every part of either is full good or bad, balance would likely have been a healthier choice instead of the polarized dualism) it makes sense that 'a smarter male' (or group!) influenced 'the less smart males' to build on their behalf, to take the danger upon themselves.. And if we are all being real, we already know that no male was convinced he should live a life of serving someone else, with no incentive. People will scream, 'it was beer', and reject all the evidence which contradicts such an absurdity. Now if I told you that males went along with 'the rat race' in order to make coin that they could then spend 'on a woman' (in some capacity, we can be a bit innocent about it) that makes a LOT more sense than the idea that 'men did it for the beer'.
Another note is that, while clearly some males did have strong negative sentiment and feeling towards females, I see that it is also very down-played that humanity had very recently begun to move away from matrilineal-based societies & it is reasonable to expect that would not be entirely erased within a single generation, with no residuals.
Well, to some this may sound similar to what others have already argued… I just skipped the big conflict of 'the gender wars' and didn't want to make this longer with a breakdown on the grander follies of matrilineal societies of humanity’s pre-written history, that is still our past. Really, I want to explain another of the first 3-4 or 5 'jobs', being the bard.
The bard, where did it come from, and why so soon?
As cities first began, each their own humble beginnings, bards were already filling the streets with song of merriment or rebellion and angst.
Some women, now outcast from temple roles, would take to the streets, and bring the word of God and humanity to us all through 'art'.
Now, it is true that the more time passed, the more male bards one may have found permitted to perform in public places. Not arguing that. It is however very logical that while some females may have resorted to 'proto prostitution', I have little doubt that for a time women tried to survive the deadly labor pits of early construction/masonry. & it is logical that some women with knowledge from a temple or knowledge passed onto them by a family member, etc., would be amongst the very first bards. Eventually other oppressed individuals such as males who realized that society was not built for fairness or widespread benefit, would have reasonably too begun to take up bardic traditions.
Music is something that transcends writing and language and math, it is that 'creative' or 'feminine' hemisphere of the human brain. however, there is a union of forces, masculine and feminine come together, in the bardic tradition. Music does not have one common language to claim ownership or more accurately, creatorship. I think most would take an easier route and change the argument entirely in order to try and devalue it to themselves, by saying something about music being re-invented by all cultures around the world or something that is more a subjective answer than a truly objective one. I'm showing you, music already existed, and the tradition of the bards began within an estimate 100 years from females being exiled from their former proto-shaman role within the temples. even trying to destroy the evidence of history, before it was written, we still can be almost verifiably certain that these things did happen within a reasonable amount of timeframe. None of this is 'really a stretch', if one is sincere about the scientific methodology.
So, what was this, bardic tradition? Well, oral traditions were long standing prior to 'the invention of writing'. & since written history tells us of bacchanalian/Dionysian depravities, are we really expected to believe those people 'didn't have music'?? like, yeah right. It seems clearly evident that even if we say that no physical instruments existed, humans, especially temple priestesses, very likely would have sung songs, even if they were improvisational and personal rather than purely formulaic as in modern times. The human voice, after all, does harmonize with musical instruments, as if the physical wooden objects are fashioned to be little (inanimate) people who mimic our own voices, via tones.
Why have I described (part of) the early outline of our entire historical civilization?
Some have tried to simplify the world and the situation we all live in, maybe saying that there are only two types of people in the world… the one wearing a boot, and the one wearing the boot stamped onto their face. & sure, if we look at the early male jobs, the master mason and the humbled servant, then sure you could see that archetype or stereotype playing out sometimes, too frequently in my opinion, but anyway… Clearly, humanity is more now than it was long ago, but are there still lessons we could learn here? I would say that is so.
So, why the heck did I want to talk about bards… like, what is so great about it. it's just a performance artist, right? well, in a lot of history, sometimes that was very much the case. but early on, nah, it was something a person did because they were compelled, not because of obligation. Each bard is likely to have their own unique spin or approach with things, of course, but at their core, the bard is there as a WARNING, not to feed themselves and avoid starvation. This was, at one point in early forgotten records of written history, a big problem for the system at large… the bard would call out injustices, would rally the spirits of their families and fellow tribes, or whatever you call a proto-city-state-man/woman, without so much of a mouthful. the bard, knew truth, justice and divinity passed via oral tradition, despite it being banned. since it was not written anywhere, the ban could be applied subjectively, but where is the evidence if no physical writing exists to incriminate oneself?
Many 'patriarchs', and 'matriarchs' alike, would come to demand standardization for musicians.
Make it harder for others to find/hear/see/experience any real truth.
Some roman rulers had used straw to dampen the streets so that the bards' songs could no longer carry any meaningful distance.
This limited music even more exclusively towards those rich in 'coins', either by forcing controversial bards out of arenas and preventing them to using stages for meaningful conduction. the relegation of music, was for nobody's benefit except those who ruled over the rest of us.
It has been a long battle throughout history, and like almost any tradition, it can be corrupted or even more hidden away with the increasing passages of time.
Such an old tradition, in its original form, is most certainly all but completely lost to time. Right? Perhaps, if growth makes it now become into something new...
I can tell you that, in many ways, it does live on, even if the messages got passed along differently from one artist to another. Some are connected to the spirit and can open their minds and continue to expand their own perspectives.
I can even confidently say that it does live on in inspirations of other media, albeit may well not be obvious to someone who hasn't taken up that path and walked down that road for themselves. However, it is a small part of the principle of Heaven, and it is a power that is free to us all to claim as our birthright. Art can be enhanced by extreme darkness or light, if they are true or even to a lesser extent if they are false. If a Shakespearean may believe that 'Fair is foul and foul is fair', what more power could an artist hold with the true heavenly energies on their side? Some will stop with Decarter and say, 'they think, therefore they are', and nevermore deeper shall they descend within to the most inner places of the self, places beyond the ego or arrogance attached to our character personage upon the stage of life. A self-transcendence where one can temporarily become one with everything, feel and know things from others, by spiritual means that cannot fit a narrow label or the box of a definition. To truly glimpse infinity, one has to forsake the box and our attachments with fitting ourselves into it. Perhaps one may learn to let go and find nirvana and leave existence by choice, but I personally can't let myself go in true peace and abandon the world to forms of suffering I find objectively 'unjust'. I know that many layers deep within me, beyond the ego everyone sees to the one far deeper within, I don't want to leave, even if a lot of me does want to, (now using the word 'want', already losing huge accuracy trying to convey with language) I can't fully allow myself to 'let go' and rationalize deep down, from all I know, that I'm not here to try and help make life better for others. Because I know, in ways I won't even attempt to describe… that I care about what happens, even after I'm gone and no part of it is likely to benefit me. For me, I don't want a statue, or to be remembered via a genetic legacy or some other way of 'making a mark on the world', like, I understand that nobody typically wants to be forgotten… but if you saw the world through my lens, where people wonder why there are no more Einsteins and Nick Tesla’s anymore, and the fact that they are still asking that question and have not found the answer yet, is startling to me. the society we live in, forbids such people from existing, and writes whatever they want about them after they are dead. Why would I want to be immortalized by liars? It's kind of like pissing on the actual image of me, as who I was as a person and how I lived, etc. It would be a mockery of my life to try and commemorate me as an icon or a symbol, unless you happened to know that I only did stuff like that 'ironically' as a joke to point out how absurd most 'normal' things really are. if you stop and think about it, be open to wonder, ask questions, see where it might take you. If it’s important, you'll keep searching and spirit/God will open the door and show you the answers you may seek after.
Some have attributed the bardic traditions, to a niche and covert form of Luciferianism. Sometimes to goddess worship, or science/'witchcraft'. Perhaps now one can see how knowledge has been kept secret, for both noble and dishonorable intentions, and most likely this was already occurring as the first cities were being built and tribes moved away from smaller communities into larger communities. Still dehumanized by the way, just a different way.
So, will I skip past 'the gender wars' that happened before writing? Well, it wasn't a focal point of what I wanted to communicate today, but for clarity I can summarize it pretty well.
Before writing, way before it, a lot of tribes would have veneration of their tribal elders, especially the female members. And before I do tell the disfunction, I would prefer to stress that not 'every tribe' specifically had this same problem, or to the same extent as the bad examples. But the important thing to understand is that the majority of the world, was run by women before it was run by men. Or a cooperative effort. Matriarchal societies were the least common, essentially 'new' just prior to the dawning of 'writing' masonry and 'cities'... and oh also, while it was at one point in the past such a big problem that males all over the world overthrew the females who ruled over them, there were also tribes that continued honoring the female members of their society/culture, and even those also who persisted with a more balanced venerative approach.
So, what was the problem humanity found itself facing at one point? Well, all over the world, many towns/tribes were very small and would have regular open orgies… why I mentioned the Bacchanalian/Dionysian stuff earlier. not all that stuff was 'done away with', as liars calling themselves experts might lead one to believe. Things did likely change, and yet, a lot of those older 'traditions' really did try to 'hold on' or subvert one another. Regardless, humanity was for a time 'enjoying orgies' until people realized that there was no way to determine who the father was. and it was socially acceptable for a mother to have, been with, her own son in many of those cultures, it was not acceptable however for a father to do that to their own daughter. I don't really have time to point out the type of 'two-tier society' it was, because there were fluxuations and some differences, place to place, but it was a worldwide problem.
Now you know as much, or likely quite a bit 'more' than the average person who might belong to a modern cult or variant (offshoot/sect) that is loosely 'a branch' of some ancient tradition of 'feminism' or goddess worship. Before the woes that men would bring to the world, as the defacto leaders, it was female leaders that also exploited the masses for the benefit of themself or a few. Before humanity had kings or masculine ideas of 'god', humanity had a goddess. but regardless of the title or word or definition we attach to a concept.. 'god' is something that each and all of us can have a relationship with, as individuals and eventually as reflections as how we treat those around us, beit community family or can we offer compassion wider. 'god' wants us all to grow, even though we will fall into eras of darkness or false lights, the love is still burning within the hearts of every living being. nothing can ever take that away, it is part of what makes you a living creature. as even things you may consider 'without life' are not purposeless by default. The energy is not lost, as it keeps a cause and effect.
There was a fear of 'goddess worship', because there was real concern of negative things happening if society just returned to the last bad system that wasn't working. Does this mean everything about 'goddess worship' was automatically bad, no, but back then that was what the oppressed male leaders at that time apparently decided. I think it's clear from thousands of years away, that decision seems based on fear. not a totally irational fear, but one inflated beyond its original point of reason. (aka normalization)
Also, I can't stress this point enough, 'god' is known by many names to people of various tongues. the world over has always held separate ever changing ideas about 'god' and the relationship of humanity with a true divine source. and with 'goddesses' it is little different. many names, different ideals or personifications placed upon them, different but also the same. but, getting a little deep talking about the divine masculine and divine feminine, the other manifestations of these energies and their levels of spiritual (re)union.
So is the 'bardic' 'spirit' feminine? I think it will depend upon whom you ask the question. it could be the big two, divine masculine and feminine, but you also got things like, the son, the brother, the daughter, the sister, etc.. although most religions tend to keep it to a trinity or potentially less manifestations or relationships we have with one another and ourselves, and the mysterious spirit within and surrounding all of us. (Mother Maiden Crone) However I would say that there is very high likelihood of appreciation and respect/fear of the feminine power. Even if it is probably harder to detect today, hidden with the use of the masculine energies that seem to impose their will upon the feminine forces. but, that is really only scratching the surface, or a half-truth at best.
The world today, one is not permitted to say who the ruler is, if you are actually right about it. But to avoid confusion, it is both males and females, and often secret people who do not rule without a proxy or puppet to carry out their commands. The world is not bad because males or females are inherintly terrible leaders. The world is problematic because 'a few' have exploited 'the many' who will trust 'the few' to lead them 'justly', despite the travesity of this fallacy.
Now that you know the truth, do you feel compelled to do anything with it? That is how I would describe 'the bardic ways' in my own words, so regard the subjectivity where it is, and cross verify all I asserted to be evident or objective truth and see for yourself. This is a paraphrasing of many stories combined, and a few in particular that came together to form a more complete picture. So you could find large chunks of similar information if you research, but it's not going to be found in one book or something. doesn't work that way. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Well wishes to you and yours in all your future endeavors.
I returned with a few more details that I attempted to prevent becoming a focal point of the overall topic. But since we are talking about history, a part that is not always simple to verify, I can offer some more information. So earlier I had mentioned about some matriarchs taking their own sons, that it was typically not frowned upon at that time period, apparently. I did intend to clarify this is a manifestation of one of the imbalances of that time. that it is one of multiple extremes, and it is difficult to suggest how widespread of prevalent it was at the time, only for sure we know it was bad enough for a gender war to break out, essentially. In some tribes, it could have been common for 4 (or more, hypothetical) matriarchs to have multiple husbands. & their child still might not belong to any of their 'husbands' (colloquilism, it wasn't called that, it was different, pre-marriage concept). However there were other groups that had literal army of men. And depending on the tribe or the time frame in specific to a cult, some of the men were likely castrated in order to force their submission to the goddess/es will. In modern times a monk vowing chastity to a temple, was a later substitution to remove the castration rituals. I also wanted to be clear, the ritual infant murder was also very evidently a thing after these townwide orgies where everyone knows everyone. Because back then, the idea of 'incest' was not the same idea we would view it or define it in our 'modern day'. it is apparent that some would still have 'incest' or forbidden relationships that the community deemed unacceptable, and for a multitude of other bad reasons, would choose to ritually murder the offspring if for some reason it was dissatisfactory.
While it would also seem apparent that some of the matriarchs with armies of men, would have those army turn against them... it is also reasonable to presume that other, former-matriarchs, would be taken to a safe place to re-strategize a new life plan. From the beginning, even if often in secret, matriarchs and former matriarchs could have had impacts that may forever remain hidden from the world. Some matriarchs apparently teamed up with patriarchs in order to monopolize a system of control over everyone else. & in contrast, it is reasonable to presume that some former matriarchs would have tried a more cooperative approach to teaming up with 'the males' and working closer to 'equal terms', even if that is the sort of information which would be closely hidden and could look very different of our 'more modern' notion of such concepts.
Humanity had some dark moments in our past, our forefathers and foremothers have carried over 'generational abuse' and psychological issues that the public is basically forbidden from even knowing about the problems in the first place. A clever person might start to see other patterns from this information, that are likely connected in some way. Perhaps you might begin to notice how many myths or religious alegories contained attacks directed at socities of their past. Almost as if humanity all has dad and mom issues that we don't really have a clear full story about how it all happened. My hope is that by understanding the past, we might move forward and find ways to not repeat some of the same mistakes. re-branding or changing the default leaders by something as arbitrary as gender difference, this is the game they have us all trapped within. it's not one gender against some other, that is very much in the past, even if the old war is alive for some today. There are men who hate women, and women who hate men, but today they are not the majority, but they are often in the 'financially wealthy' category if they are 'important pawns' in the stage that has been set before us all today. The dark god and dark goddess worshipers still do exist, and with prudence one can sort that also the true god/goddess are also coming to light in this world. Some may come to see these as, false light & dark, and the true light & dark that are balanced and harmonized in their divine unity. But it's not my objective to insist how others should see things.
Within each or all of us, is the potential for light and darkness, or a false light and false darkness. Where do you see humanity is, along our healing journey, from pains still unresolved from many generations now past? Could bringing this to the consciousness of humanity aid in our own, or wider reaching, healing?
-Howl
Watch Howl’s Podcast on ‘The Imagination’ here:
