Guest Post

THE TEMPLATE OF MANKIND

(The following guest blog was submitted by Ms. K.M., and I think it's very fitting to begin this week's blogs with it.)

 

Drummed into our little heads over the last 70 years is the mantra that all embyos are "female" and specific action en utero is necessary to create a male.    Something about this assertion never sat well, but I could never specifically identify why it was so, just an intuition, that this particular story was yet to be told.

In that light we can thank our friends at the American Association for the Advancement of Science for bringing us a new "wrinkle" in the folds of embryonic development and the culture war.    In a September article, the Journal Science published a paper describing some curious new developments in the fantastically complex symphonies required to provide differentiation of the sexes.

A protein called COUP-TFII is necessary to eliminate male reproductive tissue from female mouse embryos, researchers report in the Aug. 18 Science. For decades, females have been considered the “default” sex in mammals. The new research overturns that idea, showing that making female reproductive organs is an active process that involves dismantling a primitive male tissue called the Wolffian duct.

In males, the Wolffian duct develops into the parts needed to ejaculate sperm, including the epididymis, vas deferens and seminal vesicles. In females, a similar embryonic tissue called the Müllerian duct develops into the fallopian tubes, uterus and vagina. Both duct tissues are present in early embryos. (Science: Vol. 192 No. 4, September 16, 2017, p. 10)

Most of us can perceive that a vast cultural push is underway to "back seat" and perhaps ultimately neutralize traditional masculinity.   Don't get me wrong.  There is a serious need for reformation of traditional masculinity, and it is this need that perhaps drives the agenda of shaping that process, perhaps for other ends.   The technocrats use the need for reform to enact an agenda of replacing masculinity with something else, call it "transhumanist neo-semi-masculinity."   In a paranoid moment, one could wonder why the urgency to suppress masculinity and maleness?  That's a subject for another time.

The point of bringing this to your attention is found in the ancient texts, which describes our immediately preceding branch of Genus Homo as possessing both masculine and feminine, male and female characteristics.   Taking a deeper look at the work just published in Science, it becomes clear that both the male and female zygotes contain the prototypical tissues for development into either physical sex.

Some seventy years ago, Alfred Jost discovered and published a study that male zygotes produce hormones that suppress the development of primary female sexual characteristics.   As patriarchal science presumed that all medical research, using males, would apply equally to females; and it follows of course that no one bothered to check out how female zygote development functioned.  It was just presumed that the process would be similar.  And it turns out that it is not similar.  It is however, highly analogous.  Let me explain.

It turns out that regardless of which X or Y chromosome is present in the fetus, mutual methods of curtailing development of primary sex characteristics are present in embryos of either sex.  So the template of mankind is nearly identical in males and females, and it is specific coding that is necessary to run the "female program" or the "male program."  Interestingly, this reality can easily explain XY persons with female sex characteristics, and vice versa.

In other words, the information in Genesis Chapter 2 or the verses of other cultures are correct at a level deeper than just what religionists might expect.  Some Talmudic and Patristic glosses of Genesis describes the first Adam as being an androgyne.  And of course, the developing human is now shown to be an androgyne whose development is 'stunted' by programs that mirror one another to produce a desired outcome.

So, we have another scientific verification of the correctness of ancient knowledge.  What was formerly just a kooky story is now a notion with scientific prescience.   After the fall of mankind, dissemination of knowledge ceased, and like Irish monks preserving civilization in the form of a library during the dark ages, we have merely snippets of information today in irreplaceable narratives of the distant past that we call "sacred" because if they are lost, then the notions of High Antiquity are lost with them.   One is reminded of the novel, "A Canticle for Leibowitz."

The more we learn, the more like science fiction ancient texts are perceived.

12 thoughts on “THE TEMPLATE OF MANKIND”

  1. The ancient parable of the androgynous Ur state of man and our subsequent division into male and female, only to be reunited as one by marriage, is a simplistic and fundamentally flawed reading of what the Ancients were truly describing. It has nothing to do with the initial sex of the human embryo (though the latest findings are interesting though not surprising), nor does it have anything to do with the idea that the original androgyne is made whole again by the act of heterosexual marriage. That is a simplistic, saccharine gloss on the entire question. What the parable of the loss of wholeness/oneness describes is the conscious mind being riven from the unconscious, or what we call today the subconscious, and the two finally being reunited through Work upon the self.

    The union or marriage is of the conscious with the subconscious. This is an integral part of self actualization, freeing the subconscious from its prison. This appears in myth as the story of Psyche and Cupid, where Psyche (the soul) is literally imprisoned in the underworld, to be liberated by Eros/Cupid, god of love.

    Male/female = conscious/subconscious, and their union/liberation is the true sacred marriage, the resurrection of and completion of the soul. The lightness of being, if you will, which is not at all unbearable — yet another perversion of the true path.

    Now, why it was necessary to imprison half of mankind’s consciousness, labeling it the subconscious, and who exactly is responsible for this, is an even more interesting and pertinent set of questions.

      1. In Tolkien-saga, the Ents had lost their tree wives. It is an Inkling joke. One has to be a tree to get the point.

        How does one think like a tree? Well, rise and transcend to become one. There is no mystery to Green Man.

        Britons produce Christ & Green Man. They go together. Both speak Old Entish.

  2. Madam Em,

    A superb and worthy guest post–my compliments. Bringing in Leibowitz for your coup-de-grace on the willing reader is a diabolically delightful segue into lines of speculation such as Followers of Horus, Templars, Watchers, etc.

    In terms of an agenda to replace masculinity, the broader area of which I have devoted some thought and writing to, I believe the answer(s) you seek can be found in the domain of the late Christopher Lasch’s 1979 classic “The Culture of Narcissism.” Following Lasch’s principles, one then applies them to Gerald Schoenewolf’s neo-Freudian concept of gender narcissism. (Apology for all the “name dropping.”)

    In our culture of narcissism, both masculinity AND femininity are narcissistic and need reform.

    Beyond Leibowitz, if we pursue the narcissism thesis (and this is an excellent framework upon which to ground broader alternative thought), one can see hints of Asimov’s Foundation trilogy in the making. The movement to destroy/replace masculinity that you note is part of the gender narcissistic psychosocial quantum mechanics that underly the rise and fall of civilizations.

    1. I hate the world, so I refuse to shine on it. Give me clouds. Feedback loop of Echo is annoying. Why is she always rippling when I am peppling the pond???
      Yours truly,
      Narcissus

  3. Moreover, the fall is ongoing. It was not a one time event. We keep on descending from the inner to the outer, from quality to quantity, from essence to substance, from unity to separation/multiplicity…

    After the apocalypse, it begins again from the highest.

  4. Welcome to the socialized engineering FREAK show
    [sponsored by your corporate fascist media oligopolies]
    Looks like the only ones that are going to be strutting across the global stage with their junk intact are those orchestrating the mass castration.
    THE ancient texts are full of truths;
    just finding the key transcription perspective
    that is unbiased towards one’s mindset
    is the conundrum.

  5. Adam is a “function”, to terminate and resettle a kingdom elsewhere. There have been many pioneering Adams. Purity of blood is to be of the same “branch”.

    Europeans left mindless for the New World and lost roots. Female intuition is a survival instinct, whereas feminism is a death wish. Only children play games.

    Why do not the mindless and rootless understand, that one is bound by blood to terminate transgression upon holy ground? Cultural genome of the Runes explains that.

    Nothing is forgotten: https://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/oci.pdf

  6. While I do not question the science behind this discovery, I find it incredibly fortuitous that it was made just in time to support the current agenda of diverse “sexes” and “toxic masculinity” being pushed in the West. This will be used as another nail in the coffin of the nuclear family and as another method of reducing the population by supporting the current “weirdness” regarding sexuality.
    There is little doubt that there has always existed a very small percentage of the population which has had this differentiation go awry during fetal development for whatever reason. The question I have is will this small percentage be augmented now through the use of technology in order to reduce population expansion and further accelerate the current “weirdness”.
    Never let a good crisis or scientific discovery go to waste.

    1. My 17 yr.old son and I were discussing the current freak show and weirdness progression today. His take was very similar to yours WD. Pop control, don’t reproduce- all the agenda 21 program tentacles and all. They understand and the numbers are growing despite daily reports and programs.

  7. Kelly Em, what a great article! Including the title, with a possible ‘play’ on R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. (You are probably responsible for me not getting much sleep tonight, with an overactive brain. *grin*)

    In one sense, having the ‘sacred documents’ relating what is just-now, cutting-edge biological research is logical. Those documents were probably (originally) written just-after the Anunnaki civil war, when the ‘gods’ went off-planet, underground, or just withdrew from public view. The ‘orphaned’ priest class likely wrote down the ‘data’ (just like the Irish monks) to preserve what they could for posterity. Many millennia later, we have what remains of those much-edited scripts. Broad agreement would be expected, except where too much ‘butchering’ of source-material took place. We need to find a truly-ancient monastery or library! (Maybe, this is the ‘deep’ reason for the wars in Iraq and Syria, homeland of the ancient Sumerians.)

    Along that line, Sumerian cuneiform tablets relate that early Adamic humans were ‘sterile’, i.e., unable to procreate. Only later was baby-making incorporated into the next model, likely due to Anunnaki females getting tired of being perpetual wombs. So, were the Wolffian ducts and the Müllerian ducts present in the early models, only compromised? (With humans looking much like today’s humans, just not fertile.) Or, was there simply NO ‘primitive male tissue’ and/or ’embryonic female tissue’ embedded in the early models? (With humans looking like an asexual species, even with ‘semi’ male or female chromosomes.) Interesting!

    (With both ‘avenues’ of male/female development wide-open in the latest research, it therefore cascades-out into WHAT makes the ‘decision’ for a particular sex or sexual characteristics. It will be interesting to see if that turns out to be mere ‘random chance’ or a function of what an incoming-entity [soul] desires.)

Comments are closed.