From The Seven Great Janyati:

One frequently hears comments to the effect that “the once-popular theory of ancient matriarchy has now been discredited by scholars”. The truth behind this statement is simply this. Scholars have declared, rightly, that there is no evidence that earlier civilisations were actually ruled by women. This is perfectly true, for there are no written records extant for these periods (which constitute a length of history many times greater than the whole era of patriarchy) and it is impossible to be certain what their social institutions were. What is quite clear is that in their iconography they were almost exclusively feminine-oriented.

The modern scholar takes it as axiomatic that female rule is inherently unlikely (this from people who otherwise argue that the differences between men and women are purely “socially conditioned”, and therefore ought logically to believe that a different set of “conditioning” would produce a different social order) and that the burden of proof rests with those who claim that female rule ever existed. “If it cannot be proved, we may assume it did not exist as it is, after all, most improbable” is the unspoken “scholarly” assumption behind this, which is quickly expanded to “the theory of matriarchy has been discredited by scholars” in less rigorous contexts.

Knowing what we do of the way traditional peoples always organise their social activities and institutions in imitation of (in the words of the great anthropologist Mircea Eliade) “Those things first done by the gods”, we should say that the very distinction between iconography, religion and social organisation is a purely modern one that only a rajasic-era mind could conceive of. Feminine-dominated iconography, for any traditional people, must imply a feminine-dominated society. In our view the burden of proof rests heavily upon the anti-matriarchy school. The existence of matriarchy is by far the most probable and reasonable hypothesis until and unless someone comes up with a shred of evidence against it.

Be that as it may, the existence of female-ruled civilisations is in no way necessary to the arguments of Deanic or Aristasian philosophy (Aristasians, in fact, have little real interest in Tellurian social order and certainly do not advocate matriarchy for Iron-Age Telluria). That society before “patriarchy” was feminine-oriented culturally and spiritually is beyond question. In the first part of the 20th Century, Ananda Coomaraswamy wrote:

[Our present civilisation stems from] a common cultural inheritance throughout an area extending from Mesopotamia to Egypt and the Ganges to the Mediterranean, [founded upon] the worship of the Great Mother.

Many thousands of discoveries made since that time have all served to confirm and amplify Dr. Coomaraswamy’s statement.

Miss Tricia asked:

But Aristasians say femininity is not socially conditioned so what is your view on ancient matriarchy? If femininity isn’t socially conditioned isn’t subordination part of women’s nature?

Miss Sushuri Novaryana replied:

Aristasians believe that femininity is a natural quality inherent in women which entails a quite different psychology and way of thought. This, although it is “controversial” in the Pit, is quite unquestionably proven by modern science.

We go further, however, and believe that femininity is a universal quality more fundamental than masculinity and that it was naturally the dominant principle in earlier ages. Only with the Kali Yuga and the dominance of the masculine principle does patriarchy come about.

In essence, femininity is natural, not conditioned. A feminine-centred society is equally natural. Just as the human brain is naturally feminine until it is (in the case of men) masculinised by male hormones, so human society is naturally feminine-centred until it is masculinised by the influence of the last and lowest of the world-ages – Kali Yuga or the Age of Iron.

Advertisements