The Spanking Gene
or
The Autistic and the Blade Twelve
It’s Mother and Child, Picasso, 1901, from Pablopicasso.org.
Eisler shows a pattern, that as a society moves towards war, that it attacks its own, the women, the partnership sorts, that we see waves of social misogyny, followed by some bloody war, again and again. I argue with their explanation as always, but I too see a pattern of people simply getting worse and worse with each other – beginning with spanking and police – until some massive social meltdown, a war or a world war.
Same pattern, almost the same causes, but one detail, children, and the epigenetics of spanking never does make it into modern, normal people’s thinking. Next I spend some time trying to show that much of what we see as political lying and gaslighting likely comes down to neurotype, one type’s lie is another type’s best guess, making examples of the capitalist’s inability to correctly describe the communism they despise. I repeat some stuff about spanking, more theory.
The Patterns of the Past: Glyany and History
This opens with the Dynamic Change stuff, describing Partnership life as a sometimes Attractor in a dynamic bunch of systems, and I glazed over a little as always, but it goes to cycles, to explaining some ebb and flow in what I am trying to call a steady drift – but it’s good, I have something cyclic going on too, maybe these cycles are not a total mismatch with mine, maybe we’re still talking about the same thing.
.
Chapter Ten
The Patterns of the Past: Glyany and History
“The “Feminine” as a Force in History”
There’s been a lot of talk about how the Dominator state, the church etc., “had to suppress the Partnership side in order to maintain primacy and control,” but, this lacks Neurotype rather utterly, doesn’t it?
Are we sure they are all that self-aware?
Are we sure it’s not a matter of genetics and Neurotype and the Dominator sorts simply do not see or grasp the other mindset or simply grasp their own too well? Again, let’s ask them: they don’t say they fear the equality of Partnership or collectivism, they call it another form of Domination. Right? Like the capitalist authoritarians call the collectivist experiments, “dictatorships?” Yes, some ended up as that, but it isn’t what collectivism MEANS and still that’s how the Dominator sorts talk about it, as though it’s what it means, authoritarianism, despite the descriptive appellatives, right?
If it’s a war of brain types and ideologies, the majority don’t seem to be aware that they’re fighting it, I mean they know they’re fighting but they don’t seem to know who the enemy is, they’re sure the Partnership sorts are just more Dominators, it’s some shadow of themselves they’re battling. Of course, when the Dominators try to build a collectivist state, that’s how it’s going to go.
They’re “wrong,” about the words or the intentions or something, definitions, but they’re not “wrong,” that dictatorships are what they get, are they?
On the same vector, they don’t “fear women,” they call them weak, not fear-inspiring enough – they fear some consequence from other Dominators for having allowed any weakness into their midst, is what it is. These always sound like gaslighting lies, when they blame the weak for their war stance, victim blaming BS, but again, there is no room for Neurodiversity at all in that view, in that view, we must be necessarily All the Same for all these to simply be cynical lies.
It hurts me terribly to say that, not going to lie, but it’s only fair, I’m here trying to destroy all your comfortable myths, there’s no good reason I should escape unhurt. That one did it, no fooling.
Somehow both things have to be true, they are lies that they are able to believe. Trivers says those are the best sorts of lies, the ones you find a way to believe, because then you look for all the world like you’re telling the truth.
I think? A lot of them just really do not see an alternative, they haven’t evolved to see the sense in the Partnership side. As in the “communist dictatorship,” example – ought to be an oxymoron, but is the normal term in America – if we suggest a less competitive model, they don’t think you are trying to help them, they just think you’re competing with them and their system.
The otherness, the competition is built into their brains and you cannot offer them an alternative to their built in, bottom line, all else is by definition, simply competition. I’m sorry, this is bleeding in from my personal life, once they decide you’re Other, you cannot help them, cannot talk to them, it is all just you competing, fighting with them. Offer them healthcare, they fight you. Once they decide you are Not Them, loving them is an evil lie they will not tolerate and will fight you for, I swear to God. But your reasoning’s bottom line – that’s got to be a neurology matter, right?
It’s always odd reading what was “necessary to do,” in history, it never sounds right. Always makes me go looking for a reason they didn’t find.
This wasn’t just an example. It is exactly the natural, Partnership communism that Graeber says ruled the world until about five thousand years ago, and you could pretty much replace “Communism,” with “Partnership,” and see the same response, they don’t argue against the sharing, they call it its opposite, another no sharing dictatorship and argue against that strawman instead. You know every capitalist calls all things collectivist – all as rich as the next, healthcare for all – another, even worse dictatorship. Are all billion of them getting the dispatches, telling us their identical lies from some warehouse?
Or is it even worse, that they really believe their talk, it actually makes sense to them, somehow? I’m sorry to tell you. When pressed, in other contexts, they will confess that “nobody knows anything,” confirming a thing I said already, I think, that the violence is a made-up meaning, an attempt to impose some meaning, having lost the partnership one.
“Somehow,” is of course, Neurotype. Oxymoron to you, common sense to me, seriously, and vice versa for something else. Seriously. Magic. A whole other level of code between us and the world.
Back to the book, sorry.
Eisler makes a great case in this section that everything the Church was passionate about killing was some kind of Partnership or female movement, listing, “ . . . the Troubadours, the Cathars, the Baghards, and the various minor sects which preached a chaste love? . . .”
Haha. “Baghards.”
.
Chapter Ten
The Patterns of the Past: Glyany and History
“History Repeats Itself”
This section lists a number of Partnership movements, women’s movements and times when they did indeed move society in a partnership direction, followed by a reactionary bunch of male propaganda followed by a violent putdown of said movement and often enough an overshoot into a war, when the patriarchy reasserts itself, it celebrates with a war or something.
Again, it’s all interpreted under the regime of how the different forms, how the Dominators deal with the relationship between men and women, and again, that’s only the supposed primary relationship in Dominator world, we are supposed to be speaking from Partnership, where the primary relationship is mother to child.
It is the destruction of that relationship, mother to child, parent to child, that precipitates the rest, not the establishment of anything else after that fact. That’s what I’m trying to say with this project, I think. The Spanking Gene tore the family, and so the world apart: not the way the people who say that today say it, not like the Parental Rights people who say that but are protecting the very violence and authoritarianism that tore us apart and tears us apart to this day.
The Parental Rights people are the voice of the Spanking Gene, calling from the KurgishTM steppes and they will never be finished their demolition project.
You need it all to understand why, epigenetics and Neurotype, history and prehistory, because we are not bred to understand why automatically anymore and again, it’s far too much, but that’s the first point, a little less about what this disaster did to the Mother and a little more about what it did to the Child, because evolution.
.
Chapter Ten
The Patterns of the Past: Glyany and History
“Women as a Force in History”
Eisler open here asking with so many great starts, why is this matter not studied more, the paradigms that we vacillate between, and I think I just said, it’s Neurotype, because they think they already understand it, or they already understand it as much as their neurology needs to. They speak again of a new history that isn’t missing half of humanity, and again I must insert, if childhood isn’t in it still, theirs is still in a large way, missing all of humanity.
It finishes with Charles Fourier’s version of the one about how “ . . . the degree of emancipation of women is an index of the degree of a society’s imagination,” but somebody else said “the degree with which the least of them,” and really, pick any marginalized group, each one is an index, because we are not measuring anything about the victim, we are using them to measure the degree of Dominator dominance, and really, they do it to everyone, because it’s part of them, their neurology to do that, not part of you and your gender that they do it to you in particular.
This message was for Autistics too: it’s not “about,” any marginalized group, it’s about all this pathological marginalization going on.
.
Chapter Ten
The Patterns of the Past: Glyany and History
“The Female Ethos”
This section would seem to prove the previous statistic, we can to a great degree track the existence of Partnership minds by tracking women’s freedom and influence in the world. Again, they are mostly not the same women from the Goddess’ Neolithic world, but from modern male rule to modern female rule would absolutely be a move in the right direction, and something we could maybe wrap our heads around a little.
I do think we might need to take a few steps in that direction before anybody starts to share my worries about spanking, perhaps. It might be a way to start.
.
Chapter Ten
The Patterns of the Past: Glyany and History
“The End of the Line”
As we have all felt since at least the invention of the atomic bomb, the world is at a precipice, while the progressives of the world reach for ever greater heights, the fascists are on the march again, this is the concern here, this chapter detailed a pattern of rising rhetoric that begins against women and all things nice and soft and ends in a war, and the next war could well be the last one.
I hate to tell Eisler from the 80s, but it seems that nuclear weapons only deter nuclear war, and when pressed, this modern human would rather put up with a lot of conventional war rather than exercise that particular deterrent. So far, World War Three looks like World War Two, but with elon’s satellites.
But yes, still, always this precipice, it seems. I see some such cycle also.
Jeff
Aug. 16th., 2024
The Spanking Gene 