A taboo guards a secret, a bad and dangerous secret.
At the times of the great traumas, our ancestors were as infants are now. The terrible conditions they endured they felt personally as threats to their lives. They didn’t understand that nature is impartial, and believed that nature had intended to kill them. But our ancestors survived. We may understand that they felt defiant, that they were afraid of arousing nature to greater fury, that nature would kill them. It is a tangle of emotions, of feelings, of fear, terror, and our ancestors passed the tangle on down through the ages. They felt that nature had wanted to kill them, but they had defied nature and survived.
(I do not know, of course, if the other animals feel the same about nature, but observation shows us that the other animals perceive human beings as a threat to their survival.)
Traumatised human beings, particularly infants, believe that they themselves have caused the trauma. This is not a rational belief; it is a feeling, a strong feeling which feels true.
Our ancestors felt nature wanted to kill them, because they had done something wrong; they felt that nature didn’t want them, that they didn’t belong. They felt that survival was defiance. They felt unwanted and that they shouldn’t be here.
Our ancestors surrounded this uncomfortable feeling with a wall of taboos, which must never be discussed. Our ancestors felt that they must keep the secret of nature’s anger with them: they must never mention that nature didn’t want them.
We have inherited this tangle of feelings, this taboo, this supposed ‘crime’ which caused the traumatising event and the secret of ‘defiance’ in surviving. And we may recognise that this taboo underlies many of our perverse behaviours and odd beliefs.
Very many human beings compensate for the ghastly feeling of being unwanted by amassing things, money, land, children, power, fame and fortune. ‘I am rich and powerful. I am important, which proves I am wanted,’ ‘Millions of people like me on twitter, therefore I am wanted,’ and so on.
Traditionally, the rich despise the poor. ‘I am rich and important, you are poor and unimportant; I am wanted, you are not wanted.’ And the rich then allow themselves to believe that the poor deserve their poverty and their status of being unwanted.
Of course, the rich fear the poor, as if poverty were catching. Even now in London where Afro-Caribbeans have lived alongside white people for several generations, even now some middle class white people are afraid of working class black people. Such middle class white people have probably only met middle class black people, and seem to believe that working class black people must be poor and therefore dangerous.
And then there is over compensation. It is likely that Mrs Merkel may have been desperately anxious not to behave like a Nazi when she invited a million refugees to come to Germany. Though her motive was good, it is unfortunate that she didn’t ask her people what they thought of this proposal. One effect of large numbers of refugees into Germany has been that some of the poorer Germans have had to give up their homes, as has been reported to me. This has been done in London for generations; I have a number of first hand reports and have been told of other incidents. The liberal left-of-centre politicians simply do not ask themselves what will be the effect of their well-motivated policies and it is the working class who suffer. And political correctness has ensured that those who suffer may not complain; or if they do complain they will be branded as ‘racist’.
It is different in America, where Africans were forcibly removed from their own homes to be slaves to white masters. But the effects of well-intentioned liberal policies have been very similar in America as in Europe. We must learn that it is wrong to give attention to one sector of a community or nation, at the cost of another sector of a community or nation. Human beings need work, food, a roof over our heads and clothes on our backs. And we need freedom of speech. Political correctness repressed freedom of speech, probably more severely in the USA than here in the UK - in the US the white liberal conscience was queasy with memories of slavery - now we have reports that the lid is off, and with the use of the net some very nasty stuff is breaking out. It must be forty years ago that George Frankl warned that we cannot legislate for tolerance; people cannot be forced to be tolerant. Deprive people of the basic necessities, including free speech, and they will become angry; they will feel helpless, frustrated and angry.
The effect of the ancient phylogenic trauma, the terrible secret that humanity is unwanted and should not be here - that effect is devastating psychologically. Human beings are tragically prone to feeling unwanted; and it is tragic that we make conditions which re-enforce that feeling of being unwanted. We do re-enact the traumatic events, and the effects of those traumatic events, and we must learn to see what we are doing.
And all this is why I so strongly advocate the one child family. The first child feels rejected by the reality of the second, the second feels rejected by the reality of the third and so on to the last. The youngest does not feel rejected by the birth of the next baby, but the youngest feels rejected by the older children. Every child feels rejected, feels unwanted, and right there in the family, the ancient taboo is re-enforced. We feel unwanted.
—-
Earlier today, I lay down to rest, and a feeling of exhausted resignation came to me. I wouldn’t mention it, but it seems important because I was confronted by the feeling and thought that there may be nothing after this. And I felt almost resigned to that possibility. Frankl told us that the energy released seeks form, but did not say - because he cannot have known - that individual consciousness survives.
I know that four individuals have acknowledged me after they had died, including Frankl marvellously, so I have reason to suppose that individual consciousness does survive, in some cases. But I cannot know that my individual consciousness will survive; and I am afraid, as so many people are. But it’s a kind of tease, the fear is part of the ancient taboos. I must think about it some more, because it is important.
‘Secrets’ 2
Internet trolls spitting their venom very likely see themselves as genuine defenders of free speech. Adults, and children, hate to be told what they may or may not say. Not everyone is ladies and gentlemen, and not everyone wants to be ladies and gentlemen, but individuals want to be able to speak freely.
The daughters will support the father. This is a ‘secret’ hiding in plain sight. Who will Cinderella support, the wicked step mother or the weak but kindly king? To the child, the mother has the power of the queen on the chess board, and for many individuals it is terrifying to be subject to such power. And, of course, the Ugly Sisters do not see themselves as ugly, they see themselves as vulnerable; and the chess queen acts in defence of the king.
It’s all there, all there to be recognised, analysed and understood. And so many dimensions, as many dimensions as there are individuals, though there are coalitions among individuals.
The best one may do is one’s best; play one’s part as well as one can; and recognise that oneself is merely a small part of a large and fractured entirety.
‘Secrets’ 3
Let us discuss the proposition that women do not trust women.
The rule of the matriarchs ended with the thaw which followed the last major ice age. Conditions changed severely. The matriarchs were in charge and were seen as and believed themselves to be responsible. We may understand that the matriarchs became desperate, and we may rationally speculate that the matriarchs instituted harsh rules as they tried to turn back the waters.
In the Biblical story of Noah, we may recognise that God spoke to Noah in the voice of the wife of Noah. The wife of Noah was the mother of three sons all of whom were married, and she was therefore a matriarch, but she was appalled by and unwilling to accept the conditions imposed by the matriarchs. She and her family fled and survived.
Others survived, and we may recognise that all were severely traumatised. They suffered - as the species still suffers - what we now label post traumatic disorder. Our ancestors believed that the matriarchs had brought disaster upon them, the matriarchs were blamed and could not now be trusted.
There is a dilemma for a loving, strong minded and intelligent woman such as the wife of Noah. She is a matriarch, she has protected her husband and children, but we may speculate that she begins to fear herself. With the example of matriarchal behaviour, she fears that she will behave in a similar way and bring disaster on her beloved family. She does not trust other women, but she is a woman and cannot quite trust herself.
With the collapse of the matriarchy, and the feeling of being untrustworthy as a woman, by common consent, the men took charge. Patriarchy came into being when the matriarchy collapsed. The women could not trust themselves and could not trust each other; and we may say that they hid behind their menfolk.
One of the conditions of patriarchy is that women must more or less submit to the men. In the atmosphere of great distrust of the female principle, women may have been willing to submit to the men and it is possible that patriarchy might have been successful. But there are so many obstacles to success. In the first place patriarchy is highly unnatural; women carry and give birth to the children; it is the women who nurture and teach the children, and in this one aspect, though women feel powerless, they have the greatest of all powers. Women still have that power, but the power has gone underground
And in the second place, men do not understand women. Men know that they do not understand women; men constantly say that they do not understand women, and yet men claim power over women, and to some extent, women still allow men that power.
From my point of view it is appalling that anyone would have or would want to have power over anyone else; and it is appalling to me that anyone would want to be ruled. I find the hierarchy extremely distasteful. But in the crisis of the thaw, the matriarchy collapsed and was replaced by patriarchy. If men had a better understanding of women, patriarchy might have been more successful, humanity might have a chance of recovery, the patriarchy might be temporary, and might be followed by a more balanced system.
Men judge women from a male perspective. Let us take for instance the matter of sexual pleasure. Human nature is fundamentally good, and we may therefore recognise that most men sincerely want their wife to enjoy sex. We may understand that there is a ‘secret’ myth that all a man must do is to break the hymen and then the woman will be free to enjoy sex just as well as he does. Such naivety.
We may understand that the ‘secret’ myth that breaking the hymen releases the female to enjoy sexual pleasure has foundation in ancient reality. However, the effects of the long succession of phylogenic traumas has severely restricted the ability of women to enjoy their sexuality. It is necessary that women understand themselves better, and that men understand women better. Mr Putin has claimed that Russian prostitutes are the best in the world. Perhaps the Russian prostitutes will teach Russian men a better understanding of women, and we may hope that this new learning will spread throughout the world.
George Frankl wanted to release the libido, the joyous creative libido of humanity. A better understanding of human female sexuality will help to release the libido of humanity.
The Secret 4
We are loving. That used to be a huge and closely guarded secret. But George Frankl proved that human nature is fundamentally good, all babies are born good and loving.
You and me and all of us, we are loving. We belong in this world, in the loving universe.