The author of "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" John M. Allegro, is a linguistic scientist. He studied the 9000 year-old Sumerian language. In his book he shows us how the Amanita muscaria, a mushroom resembling the erect penis, becomes the basis for naming the phallus as Creator god. The men ingesting the hallucinogenic powder of the mushroom had the sense of having huge and powerful erections, a sign that the penis was life-giving and thus divine.
Allegro shows us how the penis came to be worshiped as god. In meticulous and precise steps he shows the names made for the phallic-looking mushroom embedded in the names of the penis as "Creator god." The mushroom with its hallucinogenic quality was the motivation to describe and glorify the erect penis as God. The names created belief in the sacred penis.
The meticulous and precise steps Allegro shows in how the names of the mushroom were embedded in the names of the divine phallus become a little tiresome if one is not a linguist. But in persisting one learns that most religions are based on the same phallic beginnings. The beginnings of "religion" and consequent religions are firmly planted in the names for the Amanita muscaria, the phallic looking mushroom. What is astounding is that these ideas still hold sway. In the form of belief.
According to Allegro, whoever believes in god believes in a giant penis in the sky raining down its sacred semen through ejaculation at orgasm.
In this blog I show some of the more modern names that bear this out. In language even today, penis, mind and Creator still hold in language, god-like.
My book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code,1996, Knowledge Ideas & Trends, Manchester CT lists thousands of names and symbols embedding male bias, that the male, the penis-possessor, is the mind of the species. A greater division of the species could not have been invented.
See www.louisegoueffic.com
Friday, 28 June 2013
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Feme and fact
Evolution brought about two members in our species with the abilities to make and use speech. This is a fact we have to work with.
'One' developing speech - man - alone has him create a monolithic linear false rail-in-the-sky imposing male divinity due to the high value placed on male genitals established by the Lords of patriarchy eons ago. John Allegro shows us in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross how the names for the male genitals coined 9000 years ago by the Sumerians are embedded in the names of most "gods" worshiped today.
The gender that is 'not male' in our species has the same abilities as the male to make and use names. This is another fact we have to work with.
Long ago then this gender named herself (like we can suppose man named himself.)
She did. She named herself fem and her gender feme.
"Fem" was put into disuse by the patriarchal decreed name (wo) +man. "Feme" was changed in the 13th century by a male poet who wanted his lines to rhyme changed feme to fe +male. Male and female created He (God) him (man) ... belief in the myth of Adam's rib helping to make it stick.
Fact: sapiens consist of fem and man. This fact has not changed since evolution.
'One' developing speech - man - alone has him create a monolithic linear false rail-in-the-sky imposing male divinity due to the high value placed on male genitals established by the Lords of patriarchy eons ago. John Allegro shows us in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross how the names for the male genitals coined 9000 years ago by the Sumerians are embedded in the names of most "gods" worshiped today.
The gender that is 'not male' in our species has the same abilities as the male to make and use names. This is another fact we have to work with.
Long ago then this gender named herself (like we can suppose man named himself.)
She did. She named herself fem and her gender feme.
"Fem" was put into disuse by the patriarchal decreed name (wo) +man. "Feme" was changed in the 13th century by a male poet who wanted his lines to rhyme changed feme to fe +male. Male and female created He (God) him (man) ... belief in the myth of Adam's rib helping to make it stick.
Fact: sapiens consist of fem and man. This fact has not changed since evolution.
Monday, 24 June 2013
The speech-making and speech-using species
The most basic creative act that distinguishes our species from all other animal species is our ability to make 'speech items' to name all the things that make up our reality, from tree, run, see, sky to radar and everything in between. We are a speech-making species like bees are a honey-making species, like sheep are a wool-making species, etc.
It is a FACT that there are two in our species like there are two in most animal species. The two means that BOTH evolved with the same ability to make speech. This means that BOTH must be at the speech-making table to develop language.
Patriarchy did not want this to be the case. To achieve calling the species "mankind" it had to impose that the two genders were men, man and 'wo' +man. FACT: we are not both men.
FACT: we are both speech-makers. This helps us to re-establish what the ancients saw in our "speech-making" distinction. They saw that it made us wise, wise in the sense of knowing what exists in our reality - because we fulfilled the requirements to name the existents in our reality. And the more one knew about reality, the more wise one was.
So they named this 'knowledge-of-reality' sapient, it is linked to the acts: to know, to see, to taste, to feel, to touch, etc. As a species we are sapiens.
Fact: We never stopped being sapiens. All born into the speech-making species are sapiens.
It is a FACT that there are two in our species like there are two in most animal species. The two means that BOTH evolved with the same ability to make speech. This means that BOTH must be at the speech-making table to develop language.
Patriarchy did not want this to be the case. To achieve calling the species "mankind" it had to impose that the two genders were men, man and 'wo' +man. FACT: we are not both men.
FACT: we are both speech-makers. This helps us to re-establish what the ancients saw in our "speech-making" distinction. They saw that it made us wise, wise in the sense of knowing what exists in our reality - because we fulfilled the requirements to name the existents in our reality. And the more one knew about reality, the more wise one was.
So they named this 'knowledge-of-reality' sapient, it is linked to the acts: to know, to see, to taste, to feel, to touch, etc. As a species we are sapiens.
Fact: We never stopped being sapiens. All born into the speech-making species are sapiens.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
The WORD of God
Patriarchy knew the power of language to guarantee their power and control forever. Who controls the language controls the mind.
"Virschippe" Latin, pays tribute to elite males who took control of the masses for fame, status and wealth. Vir is the name of the male being in Latin.
Vir is pronounced /wir/ - like vine - wine.
There is a finite number of sounds to which meanings can be given. Making speech is/was not an easy task. So formulas make use of root or base morphemes. For example, s_ng, where_ is any vowel, made sing, sang, sung and the noun song.
Vir -> wir -> wer, man, Anglo Saxon, -> wor, -> war. These are extensively used in English today. Werewolves are no longer believed in. But virschippe is very much with us today as worship. When one says, Let us worship God he or she is saying "Let us manship God."
"Thus the lamentation ceremonies were intended to rejuvenate the dormant penis of the fertility deity." John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross, page 84
Like v -> w, the letter p -> b. "Verpa" Latin, means penis. As we see in blog 4, semen is the word of God. Spermatozoa is heavenly rain. Verpa, Latin -> verbe, French, verb, Eng. "Le verbe de dieux" alludes to the penis/semen/word of God. Wor ->Wor +d.
The formula w_r is widely used in English. Wor - worth, worthy, worship are everyday symbols covertly praising male power. Patriarchy made sure through language that elite males in power would be seen as "the way it is", "normal", due to their genital similarity with god which they themselves established through phallic-based names.
"Virschippe" Latin, pays tribute to elite males who took control of the masses for fame, status and wealth. Vir is the name of the male being in Latin.
Vir is pronounced /wir/ - like vine - wine.
There is a finite number of sounds to which meanings can be given. Making speech is/was not an easy task. So formulas make use of root or base morphemes. For example, s_ng, where_ is any vowel, made sing, sang, sung and the noun song.
Vir -> wir -> wer, man, Anglo Saxon, -> wor, -> war. These are extensively used in English today. Werewolves are no longer believed in. But virschippe is very much with us today as worship. When one says, Let us worship God he or she is saying "Let us manship God."
"Thus the lamentation ceremonies were intended to rejuvenate the dormant penis of the fertility deity." John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross, page 84
Like v -> w, the letter p -> b. "Verpa" Latin, means penis. As we see in blog 4, semen is the word of God. Spermatozoa is heavenly rain. Verpa, Latin -> verbe, French, verb, Eng. "Le verbe de dieux" alludes to the penis/semen/word of God. Wor ->Wor +d.
The formula w_r is widely used in English. Wor - worth, worthy, worship are everyday symbols covertly praising male power. Patriarchy made sure through language that elite males in power would be seen as "the way it is", "normal", due to their genital similarity with god which they themselves established through phallic-based names.
Monday, 17 June 2013
The Talents in some Genitals
"The god expressed his seed from heaven as a mighty penis ejaculating sperm at orgasm." John Allegro, page 28, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.
There are symbols we use today stating that the male genitals possess super powers, powers to act as mind.
1 the testicles
Patriarchs wanting power would cradle their testicles in their hands to show they were telling the truth. From this came the symbol "testify." Also "to test". And from these "testament." The bible is made up of two testaments. One could say that this reflects the two testicles.
2 semen
Emissions from the penis are called seminal emissions. One can write 'seminal' books, have 'seminal' thoughts about a subject, and do 'seminal' work. To study god one goes to a seminary, the base morpheme of which is semen.
Older symbols that influenced thinking, philosophy, psychology and sociology;
spermaticos logos, L., spermaticoi logoi, Gr. the sperm as word, (logos - word)
penes - in the possession or power of, penetrate
mentula- L., male sexual organs, vowel variation in mentul - mental
(cf sing, sang, sung is vowel variation in s_ng formula)
cephalic, husband as head
See Chapter 6, The Genitals of Speech in my book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code, 1996, Knowledge Ideas and Trends, Manchester CT, revised in 2010 and published by Sapien Books, Ontario. Visit www.sapienbooks.ca
There are symbols we use today stating that the male genitals possess super powers, powers to act as mind.
1 the testicles
Patriarchs wanting power would cradle their testicles in their hands to show they were telling the truth. From this came the symbol "testify." Also "to test". And from these "testament." The bible is made up of two testaments. One could say that this reflects the two testicles.
2 semen
Emissions from the penis are called seminal emissions. One can write 'seminal' books, have 'seminal' thoughts about a subject, and do 'seminal' work. To study god one goes to a seminary, the base morpheme of which is semen.
Older symbols that influenced thinking, philosophy, psychology and sociology;
spermaticos logos, L., spermaticoi logoi, Gr. the sperm as word, (logos - word)
penes - in the possession or power of, penetrate
mentula- L., male sexual organs, vowel variation in mentul - mental
(cf sing, sang, sung is vowel variation in s_ng formula)
cephalic, husband as head
See Chapter 6, The Genitals of Speech in my book, Breaking the Patriarchal Code, 1996, Knowledge Ideas and Trends, Manchester CT, revised in 2010 and published by Sapien Books, Ontario. Visit www.sapienbooks.ca
Saturday, 15 June 2013
More of the same
In one of the blogs we see the sounds 'wo' and 'hu' added to man as rightful names as if this could magically change man, male being, to include an "opposite", to wit, a not-male 'man'.
The 3 names carrying the name man made things appear to be "the way it is." The names containing the name man appear to give coherence; the belief that the sexes were both 'men' was easy to impose. As 'both men' it was easy to believe this to be truth and then go on to believe that this belief was therefore, also knowledge.
The repetition of 'man' in all the names created belief in "man."
Moreover there is one more item in this group of names that works effectively in "adding evidence" that the genders are both men.
Long before patriarchy became entrenched as the power of elite males entitled to grasp power for themselves in slavery and feudalism in the world
3 the other gender had called herself feme.
A poet in the 13th century was writing a poem when a line in his couplet ended with male. Rhyme being almost absolutely necessary at this time, he saw that 'feme' did not rhyme in his next line. So he changed feme to fe +male. To this day we believe the feme gender and feme sex to be 'female'! The absence of the knowledge of this cheating and deception helps belief in 'man.' Absent information is sometimes as important as the information given.
The belief today is that the species consists of 2 men of opposite sexes, man, male and wo +man, fe +male (but not male), both also hu +man.
"I regard belief as a form of brain damage." Robert Anton Wilson
The 3 names carrying the name man made things appear to be "the way it is." The names containing the name man appear to give coherence; the belief that the sexes were both 'men' was easy to impose. As 'both men' it was easy to believe this to be truth and then go on to believe that this belief was therefore, also knowledge.
The repetition of 'man' in all the names created belief in "man."
Moreover there is one more item in this group of names that works effectively in "adding evidence" that the genders are both men.
Long before patriarchy became entrenched as the power of elite males entitled to grasp power for themselves in slavery and feudalism in the world
3 the other gender had called herself feme.
A poet in the 13th century was writing a poem when a line in his couplet ended with male. Rhyme being almost absolutely necessary at this time, he saw that 'feme' did not rhyme in his next line. So he changed feme to fe +male. To this day we believe the feme gender and feme sex to be 'female'! The absence of the knowledge of this cheating and deception helps belief in 'man.' Absent information is sometimes as important as the information given.
The belief today is that the species consists of 2 men of opposite sexes, man, male and wo +man, fe +male (but not male), both also hu +man.
"I regard belief as a form of brain damage." Robert Anton Wilson
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Sounds added to 'man' embed bias
At the centre of the belief in "mankind" is the premise:
2 man consists of man and woman, as human.
Since we saw in blog 2 that, 1 male 'part is the whole' of the species it was easy to pass off sounds like "wo" and "hu" added to man to embed bias and get away with it.
Do the sounds 'wo' and 'hu' change man male to man, not male? To test this simply imagine you have a bias for figs. You express this bias by naming the apple an apfig. (ap from ap/ple) Does adding 'ap' to fig change what the fig is in reality?
From this test then we see that 'wo' and 'hu' do not change man, male. 'Wo' and 'hu' are sounds. Sounds cannot change man being male into man being not-male. In all these names man means male. The embedding of man using 'wo' and 'hu' reinforces (male) part is the whole species as "mankind."
The embedding of man in names shows us that the attitude towards deception and falsehoods is not wrong when one wants power. Man as both part and whole, wo +man, a not-male man, and hu +man, two men of "opposite" sexes make the thesis "mankind" appear to be correct. As a set they appear coherent and people believe them to be knowledge. All the while it is belief in a seemingly coherent set of falsehoods using the same common name 'man.'
Allegro shows us with impeccable skills his linguistic knowledge of the 9000 year-old Sumerian script by showing us step by step the streamlined strategy of inventing names for the sacred phallus and adding these to make God (as phallus) prominent in names. He shows us that it is a long development of tactical moves putting into practice the embedding of phallic bias into the concept of Creator/god to make the strategy appear seamless and thus quite invisible to the ordinary thinking being. The phallic bias raises male being as possessing divinity in being male.
Man as species, wo +man and hu +man all mean man, male. This set of names does not reflect the reality of our species.
2 man consists of man and woman, as human.
Since we saw in blog 2 that, 1 male 'part is the whole' of the species it was easy to pass off sounds like "wo" and "hu" added to man to embed bias and get away with it.
Do the sounds 'wo' and 'hu' change man male to man, not male? To test this simply imagine you have a bias for figs. You express this bias by naming the apple an apfig. (ap from ap/ple) Does adding 'ap' to fig change what the fig is in reality?
From this test then we see that 'wo' and 'hu' do not change man, male. 'Wo' and 'hu' are sounds. Sounds cannot change man being male into man being not-male. In all these names man means male. The embedding of man using 'wo' and 'hu' reinforces (male) part is the whole species as "mankind."
The embedding of man in names shows us that the attitude towards deception and falsehoods is not wrong when one wants power. Man as both part and whole, wo +man, a not-male man, and hu +man, two men of "opposite" sexes make the thesis "mankind" appear to be correct. As a set they appear coherent and people believe them to be knowledge. All the while it is belief in a seemingly coherent set of falsehoods using the same common name 'man.'
Allegro shows us with impeccable skills his linguistic knowledge of the 9000 year-old Sumerian script by showing us step by step the streamlined strategy of inventing names for the sacred phallus and adding these to make God (as phallus) prominent in names. He shows us that it is a long development of tactical moves putting into practice the embedding of phallic bias into the concept of Creator/god to make the strategy appear seamless and thus quite invisible to the ordinary thinking being. The phallic bias raises male being as possessing divinity in being male.
Man as species, wo +man and hu +man all mean man, male. This set of names does not reflect the reality of our species.
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Phallic Bias in Common Names
John Allegro in his book The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross looks into the 9000 year-old language of Sumeria in which the phallus became the basis of being god. This is established in making items of speech naming the phallus Creator and thus sacred.
My work in language is about modern language. I go back 4000 years when many concepts and ideas had already been given names. As I see the situation now, modern language follows from the ancient Sumerian language Allegro describes.
I start with the names used for the genders and the species as a whole. They are widely known because they are still widely used.
1 Our species is called "mankind."
God being phallic in basis and people having to believe in God, belief became the way to express moral behavior. Seeking out facts and developing knowledge is put down as "pride of mind." Today belief is held in higher esteem than (real) knowledge. This has done great harm to our species.
That "our species is mankind" is universal belief.
Is it knowledge? Facts are the basis of knowledge. Putting facts together using logic is how we develop knowledge.
Fact: Being man in reality entails only being male.
Belief then in "our species is mankind" means the half that is male is the species. You have to believe half (male) is the whole of the species as well as believe that man is the (correct) name.
One can test the fact that "being man in reality only entails being male" by asking the question: can one be a not-male man? Would a not-male being be a 'man'?
It is evident then, that our species is 'mankind' is phallic bias imposed through belief. Bias leads to lies and falsehoods. This bias can be traced to the Sumerian language as John Allegro shows in The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross.
Louise Goueffic
My work in language is about modern language. I go back 4000 years when many concepts and ideas had already been given names. As I see the situation now, modern language follows from the ancient Sumerian language Allegro describes.
I start with the names used for the genders and the species as a whole. They are widely known because they are still widely used.
1 Our species is called "mankind."
God being phallic in basis and people having to believe in God, belief became the way to express moral behavior. Seeking out facts and developing knowledge is put down as "pride of mind." Today belief is held in higher esteem than (real) knowledge. This has done great harm to our species.
That "our species is mankind" is universal belief.
Is it knowledge? Facts are the basis of knowledge. Putting facts together using logic is how we develop knowledge.
Fact: Being man in reality entails only being male.
Belief then in "our species is mankind" means the half that is male is the species. You have to believe half (male) is the whole of the species as well as believe that man is the (correct) name.
One can test the fact that "being man in reality only entails being male" by asking the question: can one be a not-male man? Would a not-male being be a 'man'?
It is evident then, that our species is 'mankind' is phallic bias imposed through belief. Bias leads to lies and falsehoods. This bias can be traced to the Sumerian language as John Allegro shows in The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross.
Louise Goueffic
In the beginning is the penis. Therefore semen is the Word of God.
"Quite simply, the reasoning of the early theologians seems to have been as follows: since rain makes the crops grow it must contain within it the seed of life. In human beings this is spermatozoa, ejected from the penis at orgasm. Therefore it followed that rain is simply heavenly semen, the all-powerful creator God," Page 20, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John M. Allegro.
Those who believe in and worship God worship a giant penis in the sky raining down its semen at orgasm. Allegro shows that the Word (of God) is God's spermatozoa.
No one religion can be studied in isolation. All stem from asking about the origin of life, and how to survive in this life.
John M. Allegro is a linguistic scientist. He went into the 9000-year-old Sumerian language. He traces the concept of god through a slow process of changes in language through the centuries. He shows how the god-making activity in speech-making stayed true to the importance of the phallus as Creator, that almost all gods of almost all religions stand on the same phallic foundation.
In this blog I will look at the language we use today that supports Allegro's thesis.
Louise Goueffic
"Quite simply, the reasoning of the early theologians seems to have been as follows: since rain makes the crops grow it must contain within it the seed of life. In human beings this is spermatozoa, ejected from the penis at orgasm. Therefore it followed that rain is simply heavenly semen, the all-powerful creator God," Page 20, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John M. Allegro.
Those who believe in and worship God worship a giant penis in the sky raining down its semen at orgasm. Allegro shows that the Word (of God) is God's spermatozoa.
No one religion can be studied in isolation. All stem from asking about the origin of life, and how to survive in this life.
John M. Allegro is a linguistic scientist. He went into the 9000-year-old Sumerian language. He traces the concept of god through a slow process of changes in language through the centuries. He shows how the god-making activity in speech-making stayed true to the importance of the phallus as Creator, that almost all gods of almost all religions stand on the same phallic foundation.
In this blog I will look at the language we use today that supports Allegro's thesis.
Louise Goueffic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)