There is this widespread belief with regards to prehistoric men, which claims that they have always been aggressive and dominant, that it is ‘in their genes’ to be that way and that this is reflected on cave paintings as well as in utensils and rests found. However, other cave paintings as well as utensils, imagery and rests found, of which the public at large don’t have any knowledge, point at the evidence that not in all prehistoric tribes men were aggressive and dominant. In fact, it seems that ONLY A FEW prehistoric tribes, mainly located in the North, showed the development of these traits in males, which later engendered the ‘male dominance’ present at the root of the Original Lie.

Neolithic findings by Soviet scientists in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, and the Western Ukraine as well as those findings in some sites in France, Spain, Crete, Cyprus, Thera, Sardinia, Sicily and Malta, also prove to mirror the findings of the rests discovered in the oldest city ever found.

The site that has turned out to be the oldest city ever discovered, called Catal Huyuk (Anatolia, Turkey) and which goes back over 9,000 years, has no rests of fortifications, or any weapons of war, neither signs of violence committed on people buried in graves, and the imagery found is mainly feminine. The Turkish Government closed the site down for thirty years and the academic world has ignored these findings almost in its totality. It is widely supported, amongst academia, the view that civilization was created by tribal wars, hence their need to create fortifications and weaponry.

In the excavation of the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan, going back to 7,000 years, again archaeologists could find no signs of violence or weapons of war. This was a very advanced civilization, with running water to all homes, and even a sewage system. The planning of these towns and cities was far in advance of the Egyptian and Roman cities thousands of years later and only comparable to those in the 19th century in the western world. There were no rests of any large palace for a ruler, or even rich and poor houses; it was an egalitarian society.

In Caral, Peru, the oldest city ever discovered in South America, going back to 5,000 years, not one sign or rest indicative of violence of any kind has been found either, but rests of trading goods have been found, which suggests that these cities were in contact with other peaceful tribes and cities all over South America.

Overall, what archaeologists have discovered suggests that in the Stone Age we were not savage brutes as speculated, but were in fact peace loving people for whom there were no divisions between male and female, not dominance or power of one over the other, and thus no other division: this is reflected in the archaeological findings of the aforementioned oldest cities.

Under true equality, both men and women seemed to share equal power and respect, as well as carry out activities in accordance to their individual capabilities as human beings, which enabled the tribes to be fed and attended for thousands of years and which enabled the first civilizations to flourish and thrive as societies in peace with others. That was the case until non egalitarian (‘male dominance’) tribes and societies invaded them and the Original Lie spread in order to preserve the rupture of the respectful and equal relationship between men and women: ‘Divide and conquer’. And so as the first relationship on earth was broken far and wide, and the first great illusion of division created and spread, the conquering of all minds and with that, of all human beings, was guaranteed to last. This has prevailed until today. In fact, today the division, regardless of what it may seem under the ‘false equality’, is more exacerbated than ever, using old tools such as force (war/violence), superstition, religion and new tools, like the media and the internet for the continued wide and far reaching propagation of the old ones. What, that women and men are nowadays ‘equal’? Sure… They are equally enslaved to the industrial, corporative, warfare and political machines, in adopting the male stereotype, that is, created by the Original Lie. Both the male and female stereotypes were created under the Original Lie.

True equality was never about women behaving like the stereotype of men created by the Original Lie and neither by adopting the female stereotype also created by it, both created in order to maintain the illusion of division and thus preserve this fundamental division. True equality was about men and women behaving and treating each other as equal human beings, rich complex individuals sharing identical basic psychological and mental capabilities and emotional and physical needs, being capable of both equal and complementary tasks as well as being complimentary in their particular physiques.

By the way, going back to prehistoric life, the mating process of prehistoric men in which they supposedly hit women on the head and dragged them by their hair in order to satisfy their also supposedly natural voracious male sexual appetite, is a total myth created in the 19th Century. No evidence and even remote suggestion of this has ever been found on any site at all, nowhere in the world.

Also, going forward in chronological order, it has been supported by many and famous academics throughout history, starting with J.J Bachofen (19th Century) and continuing with Jung, Marx, Engels, Briffault, Gimbutas, Harrison, Murray and Rudgley, amongst others, that the called ‘Golden Age’, in which true equality was predominant, and for which there are also references in the first ancient Taoist and Greek scriptures, did exist, although their work or thoughts about this have been consistently blocked from ever reaching the knowledge of the public at large, having been kept within academic circles or dealt with modest distribution and even more modest or nonexistent publicity.

The supporters of the Original Lie will always be far happier with and make sure that the ‘aliens theory’ visiting our ancestors and teaching them how to build the pyramids seemingly out of nowhere, is considered far more palatable than the actual and true conspiracy that the Original Lie entails.


The Original Lie’s main focus was and is the division between men and women, and this division is achieved through the stereotyping of their characters, abilities, capabilities, desires, motivations and overall psychological makeup. The majority of religions, superstitions and even most ‘scientific studies’ provide plenty of support with their doctrines and theories for the definition of this stereotyping, going as far as, in the case of scientific studies, of considering these stereotypes as genetic facts. But, if these were ‘genetic facts’, how is it explained that our ancestors didn’t show this stereotyping, as we have found out by the aforementioned archaeological rests? A growing number of scientists are challenging now the pseudo-science of “neurosexism” as they’ve called it, as well as many other scientists, amongst them quantum physicists and even some biologists, who are suggesting that our mind, in the events of profoundly ingrained beliefs, trauma and prolonged and intense fear, can actually alter, override and reprogram our biological responses, and even our DNA, all of which is inadvertently providing a scientific frame of support on the findings of these archaeological rests, which, in any case, speak by themselves. These archaeological findings and their implications, curiously, haven’t been shared with the public by the mainstream media. And why haven’t they been shared by the mainstream media? Because the media is the last player in ensuring that these stereotypes are increasingly exaggerated, as Ludi Valentine, anti-cuts activist and sexual educator describes very clearly on this paragraph:

More recently, a relationship industry has appeared around what I’ll call the Mars-Venus myth. Gender differences are exaggerated in the media to reinforce the popular belief that communication between genders is impossible without guidance. External insight and expertise are marketed as essential for heterosexual fulfillment and partnership. In practice, much of this involves teaching heterosexual women to sell themselves to men. It’s also interesting to note the heavy use of economic terms in the dating scene: people speak of ‘being in the market’, of ‘getting’ a partner, ‘keeping’ them and ‘upgrading’ if they can. A glance at a magazine shelf will show a dozen different ways to market these myths. Nuts, Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health and Good Housekeeping all sell heterosexual fulfillment in various ways to people of different ages and social classes.’


How do we reinforce the defined male and female stereotyping in the work space and professional arenas, where both men and women now share that space and those categories, in a way that women either have to choose to adopt the male stereotype in order to be ‘successful’ and ‘liked by their female colleagues’, or the female stereotype in order to not be seen ‘as a threat’ and ‘liked by their male colleagues’?

Easy: with SEX (intimacy); the stereotyping in areas where the stereotyping is interchangeable or apparently more fluid, sex plays the fundamental factor in order to maintain the psychological stereotyping and thus the division between men and women. How is this done through sex? By the objectification and hypersexualisation and oversexualisation expanded by both media and pornography.


Sexualisation occurs when

– a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

– a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

– a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for

independent action and decision making; and/or

– sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualisation.

DEFINITION OF SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION: the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure. Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.

DEFINITION OF SELF-OBJECTIFICATION: when we see ourselves as an OBJECT first and a person (a being who is enough simply by BEING) second; seeing yourself through someone else’s eyes & allowing that to colour (or cause you to lose completely) your perspective on yourself.

DEFINITION OF HYPER-SEXUALISE: To make extremely sexual; to accentuate the sexuality of.

DEFINITION OF OVERSEXED: Having or showing an excessive sexual appetite or interest in sexual matters.

Through several decades, both the media and pornography have managed to establish a homogenization of ‘the standards of beauty’ and ‘the behavioural patterns’ specific for the obtaining of the statuses of ‘attractiveness’ and ‘desirability’ clearly defined for the male and female, respectively. Statuses which they also propose as vital determinants in the achievement of ‘success, power and emotional, psychological and sexual fulfillment’ for both men and women. In the case of media the profiteering target has always been most predominantly female, especially in the form of those resources and products that the media offer through their advertisers so women can fit the ‘beauty canons’ they propose, and thus achieve the notions of attractiveness and desirability they also define and promise (Main source of financing for media: advertising; also: governments. But who finances candidates?: Companies and corporations. And how do companies and corporations get their products and services sold to the mass public with an also ample margin?: By advertising through mainstream media. Same goes for most of the entertainment content provided through these channels). However, in recent times, men are also being bombarded with these same messages, with the same goal of exploiting them for profit.


Previous post

There is no more story.

Next post


Syl R. Martin

Syl R. Martin

Writer, designer, multimedia experimenter, dreamer, doer. | Likes: Singing in private | Dislikes: Singing in public

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *