The suppression and repression of our sexuality is one of the biggest problems humankind is currently suffering from. According to my research we’ve been dealing with this problem for many thousands of years now. The root cause of most of the problems — even the seemingly unrelated ones — that we’re dealing with in societies around the world can be traced back to sexual suppression and repression.

The brilliant Dr. Sigmund Freud, a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, was the first to use the term sexual repression widely and one of the first to recognize that sexual repression is the primary psychological problem humankind is suffering from. Freud correctly observed throughout his research that sexual suppression and repression starting from early childhood were the cause of neurosis (mental illness) that would eventually express itself in adulthood, causing many of the problems we’re dealing with in societies around the world. 1

Freud established the natural sexual drives (or instincts) as the primary motivating forces of human life. He believed that people repressed their strong sexual drives in order to meet the constraints imposed on them by “civilized” life. And note that I put the word “civilized” between quotes, because as you’ll eventually come to understand, we’re very far from civilized and the written and unwritten rules (“laws” and “culture”) in societies around the world in fact keep us from becoming truly civilized. 2

One of Freud’s best students, the equally as brilliant but far more courageous Dr. Wilhelm Reich, took Freud’s research even further, going where even Freud was too afraid to go. 3 Whereas Freud would eventually argue that culture should take precedence and that human sexuality should be adapted to the wishes of society, Reich took the opposite view. Reich argued that we have to “revamp our whole way of thinking, so we don’t think from the standpoint of the state and the culture, but from the standpoint of what people need and what they suffer from” and “arrange our social institutions accordingly.”

Reich’s view was a saner one — one where nature (or the universal order) took precedence over rules invented by humans. These often arbitrary, contradicting and completely stupid rules (“laws”) are made up by whatever ruling class is in charge in a given society, and can differ depending on the geographical location and the period of time you happen to be living in. This makes no sense, of course, because like Muammar al Qaddafi remarked in “The Green Book,” “the human being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same everywhere,” so the same “natural laws are applicable to all.” For example, today a 13 year old person is allowed to consent to having sex in Japan, but if that same person were living in India, that would be “illegal” according to the local artificial “laws.” This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because physically and mentally the person is the same regardless of their geographical location. That’s why Qaddafi came to the same conclusion as Reich, stating that “any ruling system must be made subservient to natural laws, not the reverse.4 Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founding fathers, also made a similar remark in the past when he said that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” 5

The fact that we do see all kinds of contradicting and conflicting rules that attempt to regulate human sexuality in societies around the world is a clear indication that these rules don’t exist to benefit the individual, but instead exist in service of a small elite who want to control, manipulate and enslave every individual in society. These rules are a direct attack on the (sexual) freedom of every individual in society. And as I will discuss in more detail later, this has been the purpose of sexual suppression and repression from the very beginning going back to ancient times.

If we’re ever going to create a better and sustainable human society on Earth for the long term, we’re going to have to finally start tackling the root causes of the problems we’re dealing with instead of fighting the symptoms. And based on my research so far, there simply isn’t a bigger root cause that we have to tackle than the suppression and repression of our sexuality; this problem goes to the very foundation and core of everything humanity is suffering from today. Like I wrote before in my post “Everything in Life is about Sex,” liberating our sexuality is going to be the final frontier in our quest towards absolute freedom; it will set us all free and usher in the Golden Age we’ve all been waiting for. It’s therefore no coincidence that this is also going to be the hardest, most complicated, and for many the most terrifying problem that we’re going to have to face and eventually solve.

What is sexual suppression / repression?

Before I go any further it’s very important to first define what I mean by sexual suppression and repression, especially because definitions of various terms seem to vary quite often depending on your audience or environment. First let’s look at the definitions I’ll be using for the words suppression and repression:

Suppression: The conscious inhibition of memories, impulses, or desires.

Repression: The action or process of suppressing memories, impulses, or desires so that they remain unconscious.

The very important difference between the above two definitions is that suppression is conscious, while repression is unconscious. The definitions for sexual suppression and sexual repression then become:

Sexual suppression: The conscious inhibition of natural sexual desires.

Sexual repression: The action or process of suppressing natural sexual desires so that they remain unconscious.

Based on the above definitions, when a person is suppressing their sexuality they’re aware of their sexual desires and are aware of the fact that they’re suppressing them. But in the case of sexual repression, the suppression of their sexuality goes even deeper because then they aren’t aware of their sexual desires anymore and don’t even realize that they’re suppressing them!

So sexual repression is a more advanced form of sexual suppression, and also a lot more dangerous for the person suffering from it. Consider that if you aren’t aware that you’re suffering from a problem, it becomes so much more difficult to do something about it.

Anything that blocks or prevents an individual from freely expressing their sexuality causes sexual suppression. And anything that blocks or prevents an individual from freely expressing their sexuality, to such a great degree that they even become unaware of it, causes sexual repression.

Origins of sexual suppression / repression

That humanity is suffering from sexual suppression and repression practically everywhere on Earth is a fact, but where exactly did it come from? In search for an answer to that question, my research took me back many thousands of years ago to humanity’s ancient past. As it turns out there are quite a few sources of information that have been passed on throughout the millennia in different cultures that mention how humanity was “created” and then divided based on their sexuality.

It’s very important to understand that although these stories differ in the small details, there’s a broad narrative that’s basically the same and can be found in all of them. We need to focus on the broad narrative for now, and leave the details to be sorted out eventually as we find more sources of information that can shed more light on what exactly took place back then.

Examining the broad narrative throughout these stories, it becomes clear that many thousands of years ago planet Earth was visited by a technologically advanced race of extraterrestrial beings who came from space (“the heavens”) to Earth. This is what we find if we take a look at the earliest written records that we currently have of human civilization — the ancient Mesopotamian texts written by the Sumerians on clay tablets dating back thousands of years ago. Zecharia Sitchin has done extensive research on this subject which you can find in his book series “The Earth Chronicles.” According to the Sumerians, who were documenting (scientific) knowledge and historic events for their own and future generations, these beings were called the Anunnaki, meaning “those who from the heavens to Earth came.” The Anunnaki came to Earth to mine gold and possibly also other metals.

We can find a similar narrative in South Africa, passed on over the generations among initiated Zulu diviners or sangomas. One of those sangomas, Credo Mutwa, shared the story that was passed on to him in an interview with David Icke a few years ago. In that interview Mutwa mentions that many thousands of years ago beings came out of the sky in large golden orbs; they were called the Chitauri and they came to Earth to mine metals such as silver, copper and gold.

According to both Sitchin and Mutwa these beings would eventually become known to humankind as the “gods.” And I hope that you immediately start to see the link with the gods from all the “mythologies” and religions that we have in societies around the world. This is where it all comes from. There was nothing supernatural about these gods, and they were certainly not all mighty or perfect (far from it, in fact). They were biological beings just like us, but were in possession of very advanced technology. And like one of the most popular adages formulated by author Arthur C. Clarke tells us, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” So it’s easy to understand how humans living back then might attribute the advanced technological capabilities of the gods to supernatural powers.

The Sumerian texts go on to explain that after a while the Anunnaki started having issues with their workers who complained that the labor (working in the mines) was too hard for them. After a mutiny by the Anunnaki workers, the Anunnaki commanders in charge of the mission on Earth then decided that a solution was to create a new being — a slave species — that could “carry the toil of the gods.” 6 They then “created” the human race — by lots of trial and error — via genetic engineering. And note that I put the word created between quotes, because contrary to later claims and misunderstanding, they didn’t create the human race from scratch. When they arrived on Earth humans already existed in some form. Researchers such as Sitchin and Lloyd Pye have speculated that the species of humans existing back then was Homo Erectus.

The Anunnaki took this already existing human species on Earth and modified it to create Homo Sapiens and much later Homo Sapiens Sapiens (which would explain the “sudden appearance” of Homo Sapiens on Earth that scientists can’t explain based on theories of evolution alone). 7 What the Anunnaki probably did, according to Sitchin in his book “Genesis Revisited,” is mix their own DNA with that of Homo Erectus in order to give it a boost in evolution so that it could understand orders and use tools to do the mining work. As Sitchin further explains based on the Sumerian writings, the first few versions of humans that the Anunnaki “created” couldn’t reproduce; reproduction was something that they added much later.

Mutwa also mentions something similar in his version of the story where he says that when the Chitauri arrived on Earth, humans were androgynous beings (having both sexes in one). They were later deceived by the Chitauri and were split into two sexes — male and female — which caused a lot of trouble and made them unhappy because they became incomplete and couldn’t experience love anymore. This is of course exactly what the Chitauri wanted, because now they could more easily conquer and enslave the frustrated and weakened humans. They told the humans after the split, “If you serve us you wretched human beings, we are going to make you into gods.” When the humans complained that they were too unhappy, they were taught how to make love (have sex) by the Chitauri, but this never truly solved anything (and how could it, because they remained divided, incomplete and thus imperfect, even though the Chitauri deceptively told them after the split into two sexes that “now they were perfect”). In addition, humans were allowed to have sex only in so far that it didn’t have any impact on their work in the mines and on the production of metals. When production declined because humans were too busy having sex, new measures were introduced by the Chitauri promoting sexual suppression.

Interestingly there’s a similar narrative in Plato’s work “The Symposium” where he has Aristophanes present a story about soul mates. According to that story, there were first 3 genders of humans: male, female and androgynous. Because they rebelled and posed too great a threat to the gods, instead of the gods destroying them (because the gods didn’t want to deprive themselves of their worship and sacrifices and needed them as slaves), humans were split by the god Zeus into two bodies, thus making them incomplete, weakening them and putting them in utter misery in search for their other half. When Zeus later saw that they became too unhappy (to the point of being destroyed) because of the ancient longing to return to their original nature, he came up with a plan to enable them to have sex and procreate. Note that this still kept the humans in a weakened state; it only allowed them to feel complete for a very brief period during the sex, and not permanently as was the case in the beginning before they were divided. It’s said that when the two halves find each other they “are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy,” they would melt into one another, feel unified and would know no greater joy than that. This is probably because they would feel complete and whole again — especially spiritually — and consequently would be able to experience inner peace and love. This would be the “very expression of their ancient need.”

We find a similar narrative in yet another ancient story known as “The Prophecy of the Eagle and the Condor” told by elders and shamans from the native people living in the Americas and Amazon (such as the Incas). Basically it is said that thousands of years ago, the human race was divided into two groups: a masculine group represented by the Eagle, and a feminine group represented by the Condor. This division would be the cause of many problems within the human race and around the world. However, it was foretold that a time would come when the Eagle and the Condor would get the opportunity to get back together again and fly together in the sky as equals bringing balance and peace. It would be a time of spiritual reunion, when the sacred masculine and the sacred feminine would be connected again, and the human race would connect back with nature. It’s interesting to note that the very influential Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung had also predicted that in the future “man will be ‘divinized'” when the great majority of human beings attain an inner harmonization between the masculine and the feminine facets of the psyche. 8

And finally, a similar narrative can be found again in the bible — the book upon which the Judeo-Christian religions are based. 9 In the first chapter of the book of Genesis we find the creation story — the 6 days of creation where the heavens, the Earth, plants, animals and finally humans are created by the gods. 10 In Genesis 1:27 we read that when the gods created the humans, they were created both male and female; “He created them male and female.” Note that it doesn’t explicitly mention that humans were created male and female individually or separately. So there’s a good chance that humans were originally created as androgynous beings, having both male and female sexes in one, similar to Mutwa’s story mentioned above. Also note that humans weren’t told by these gods to serve or worship them; they were simply told in Genesis 1:28 to have dominion over the Earth.

The first creation story ends in chapter 1 of the book of Genesis, and in the beginning of chapter 2 we are again told that the first creation has completed. But now something strange happens: right after the first creation story has ended, another creation story begins in Genesis 2:4. And whereas in the first creation story the original Hebrew text speaks of the “elohim” (“gods”) who created humans, this second creation story speaks of other gods named “yhwh” in Hebrew, often referred to as Yahweh or Jehovah, which is usually translated as “the LORD.” If “yhwh” were also the gods responsible for creation in Genesis 1, then it would have made sense to also include the name there. But this is not the case, so it’s clear that those were different gods. The sequence in which the plants, animals and humans are created by “yhwh” in this second creation story is also different. And whereas the first creation story tells us that humans were created male and female simultaneously and at once, we find a different situation in the second creation story where humans were first created, and then separated into females much later. And note that if the females were created out of a “rib” taken out of the humans who were first created, then this could mean that those humans must have had the female genes and functionality in them from the beginning, probably making them androgynous.

We’re also told in chapter 2 of the book of Genesis that when “yhwh” created humans, they did so because “there was no man [adam; אָדָם] to work the ground” (Genesis 2:5). And in Genesis 2:15 we read that “the Lord [yhwh; ‏יהוה‎] God [elohim; אֱלֹהִים] took the man [adam; אָדָם] and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it.” So we see that humans were created by these gods specifically to work for them and serve them as slaves on their land.

Then we’re told that the reason why humans were eventually split into females later is because “yhwh” wanted to make a “helper” for the man; in Genesis 2:18 it says, “I will make a helper [ezer; עֵזֶר] as his complement [neged; נֶגֶד].” Now pay special attention to the Hebrew word “neged;” it’s translated as “complement” but it actually means “against” or “opposite” or “contrary to.” So it’s clear that the female was not created to be equal to the man, but as a helper and his opposite, thus being inferior to the man and pitted against him. The purpose of this split in sexuality becomes clear: to create polarization and tension between men and women, so that it would be difficult for them to connect and get intimate with one another. This would allow for sexual energy to build up in their bodies without an easy way for it to be released, providing a constant source of sexual tension and energy to tap into. This can be compared to creating an electric dipole which is needed to create an energy charge between two points which can then be harnessed to do work in a controlled discharge.

By dividing the humans and creating this constant sexual polarization and tension between men and women that couldn’t easily be released, the gods were able to manipulate them to do the work for them. This was especially needed to motivate the humans who would otherwise be very difficult to tame and control. 11 So when it comes to the word “helper” [ezer; עֵזֶר], it’s important to understand that women were not created to help men with doing their work; women were created to help motivate the men to do the work that they would otherwise refuse to do. The gods understood that men and women would naturally want to get back together after the split, so they created a situation whereby men would have to do work for them in order to make that happen. Sigmund Freud referred to the diversion and harnessing of sexual energy for different purposes as sublimation and was acutely aware of the fact that “civilization,” as we’ve known it for thousands of years, is founded on the basis of sexual repression.

Note that after the split of the sexes, humans were still allowed to walk around naked; according to Genesis 2:25 “both the man and his wife were naked, yet felt no shame.” So they still had a substantial amount of sexual freedom.

But even the above mentioned division and inequality based on their sexuality would later prove not to be enough to keep the humans obedient. It appears from the text in Genesis 3 that humans, even though they were told to stay away from knowledge so that they would remain docile slaves, were gaining too much knowledge (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) with the help of the “serpent” 12 and were disobeying “yhwh.” If they continued to gain knowledge the humans would soon be as wise as the gods and wouldn’t allow themselves to be enslaved anymore. So “yhwh” stepped up the sexual suppression a couple of notches by increasing the polarization and tension between men and women even more. From then on, according to Genesis 3:16, women wouldn’t just be helpers anymore, but men would rule over women while women would paradoxically desire those same men who were commanding them around and treating them as mere property.

In Genesis 3:16 “yhwh” minced no words in telling women that they would intensify women’s pain and anguish during procreation. And this is, in fact, exactly what we see throughout history where women have consistently been the primary target of sexual suppression and repression, and as a result have suffered the consequences far more than men. 13 Although men also suffered the consequences of sexual suppression and repression directly and indirectly, they were somewhat spared in order for them to be able to do the work and function as slaves. The women were used against the men to motivate and manipulate them to do the work required of them, and this still goes on today as I will discuss in more detail later.

The fact that the gods had intensified the sexual suppression among the humans is also evident from Genesis 3:21, “The Lord [yhwh; ‏יהוה‎] God [elohim; אֱלֹהִים] made clothing out of skins for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.” The purpose of clothes in this case was to promote and increase sexual inhibition, thus reducing sexual freedom and creating even more sexual tension between men and women. This would later be taken to extreme levels, requiring especially women to completely cover themselves with their clothes in public, as we can still see today for example in Islamic cultures.

Whereas the gods in Genesis 1 had told humans to take dominion over the Earth and to “be fruitful, multiply” and “fill the earth,” the gods in Genesis 3 had promoted human sexuality to the ultimate sin — from then on to be known as mankind’s “original sin.” As Carl Jung observed, “The arch-sin the Catholic Church is ever after is sexuality, and the ideal par excellence virginity, which puts a definite stop to life.” 14 Virginity is the “ideal par excellence” because it means maximum sexual suppression.

With human sexuality and lust having been demonized, life was about to get very difficult for humans, and the world would eventually become a very dangerous place to live in.

Summary

In case you haven’t quite been able to follow the broad narrative throughout all of the sources I discussed above, let me summarize it for you again briefly.

Many thousands of years ago a technologically advanced race of extraterrestrial beings came to planet Earth to mine metals — primarily gold, which is where our obsession with gold comes from. Because the work was too hard for them, they eventually “created” humankind to serve them and work for them as their slaves. Humans were told to obey them as gods or else suffer the (often severe) consequences. When humankind refused to do the work and posed too great a threat to them, the gods implemented “divide and conquer” strategies at various levels, starting at the most fundamental level of the sexes. Later they would introduce additional measures to keep further dividing and weakening the humans. 15 However, as all of the sources show, human sexuality was their fundamental and primary attack vector. You have to understand that when it comes to “divide and conquer” strategies, nothing can divide the human race more than when you do it at the level of the sexes; it divides the human race at the very core of its existence, creating disharmony, pitting one half of humans against the other in a constant internal struggle, preventing them from easily connecting and satisfying their most fundamental biological drives, further preventing them from finding inner peace and strength, consequently weakening the human race at the very foundation. This made it much easier for the gods to control, manipulate and enslave the humans.

At this point it’s not yet decisively clear to me if the human species that existed before the arrival of the gods were androgynous or if they were already split up into two sexes. Certainly some of the sources discussed above claim that they were androgynous before the gods manipulated them, and if that was the case, it would make a lot of sense. 16 However, for the purposes of this article series it’s not of much significance whether (1) an androgynous human species was physically divided into two sexes, or (2) if two already existing sexes living back then in harmony were divided using artificial social constructs (i.e. via “culture” and “civilization”), or (3) possibly both of the above options. What’s important to take away for now is that the human race was fundamentally attacked and divided, mentally and physically, via their sexuality.

Over time the gods’ policies of sexual suppression and repression would be enforced through “commandments” and “laws” that they would hand down to humans — first directly, and later indirectly through their appointed kings, prophets and religious leaders. 17 Thus sexual suppression and repression became the foundation on which “culture” and “civilization” as we know them today were built, seeping into every aspect of human life.

Footnotes

  1. 1^From “Sigmund Freud: Psychoanalysis and Sexual Repression”:

    Freud taught that sexual repression was the chief psychological problem of mankind. He surmised that repression and constriction of sexual behavior in youth would become manifest in adulthood. Where Western society (often under the guise of “Christian morality”) had long treated sex as a taboo subject and covered over both normal and abnormal sexual behavior as “sin” — or at least shameful — there had been great neglect of appropriate help and correction. Freud was able to persuade his opponents and admirers alike that sexual repression was rampant, unhealthy, and the indirect cause of much crime, illness and woe.

  2. 2^In fact, based on my own research I can state with 100% certainty that all individuals in our current societies around the world are psychopaths, differing only in the degree in which they suffer from mental damage inflicted upon them starting from early childhood. As we grow up we’re transformed by society into dangerous psychopaths and are led on to believe that this psychopathic behavior is what’s to be considered as being “civilized.” If being civilized means to be well-mannered, enlightened and in an advanced state of development, then we are indeed still far from it. Don’t take my word for it; just take a good look around you in the world we live in right now.
  3. 3^Although Freud initially came to the right conclusion, namely that sexual repression was the root cause of neuroses (mental illnesses) and many problems in society, he later changed his views (at least in public) because he came under attack. You have to understand that back in the early 1900s, it was very difficult and even dangerous to talk about sexuality openly, let alone suggesting that suppressing it was causing a lot of damage in society. Even today, depending on where you live on Earth, certain subjects are taboo and in extreme cases can get you prosecuted, jailed and even killed.

    In his books Wilhelm Reich remarked how they faced great opposition and had to take great care to talk about sex in a very clinical manner, or else they would not be able to research the subject. And we know how much Reich himself risked — to the point of getting his research destroyed, books burned and dying in jail — in order to promote his theories about sexuality, which were founded upon Freud’s initial theories.

    Reich describes in his book “The Sexual Revolution” why Freud had to be careful and why Freud eventually changed his public views in order to get his theories accepted:

    […] the substitution of repression by condemnation and renunciation seems to ward off a threatening specter which caused grave uneasiness when Freud disclosed his first unequivocal findings that sexual repression not only causes sickness but also renders people incapable of work and culture. The world was up in arms because his theory seemed to threaten morality and ethics, and it accused Freud of preaching, nolens volens, a form of “living out” which was a menace to culture, and so on. Freud’s alleged antimoralism was one of the strongest weapons of his early opponents. His original assurances that he affirmed “culture” and that his discoveries did not endanger it had left little impression, as was shown by the countless references to Freud’s “pansexualism.” The specter receded only when the theory of renunciation was established. Then hostility was partly replaced by acceptance; for as long as the instinctual drives were not acted out, it did not matter, from the cultural viewpoint, whether the mechanism of instinctual renunciation or that of repression played the role of Cerberus who would not allow the shadows of the netherworld to rise to the surface. One could even register progress, namely, from the unconscious repression of evil to the voluntary relinquishment of instinctual gratification. Since ethics is not asexual but fights off sexual temptations, all parties arrived at a meeting of minds, and the proscribed psychoanalysis itself became culturally acceptable—unfortunately, by “instinct renunciation,” i.e., by renouncing its own theory of the instincts.

    Based on my own research so far, it seems that instead of holding on to his initial beliefs in public and risk having his sexual theories rejected, Freud chose to essentially lie and tell the public what they wanted to hear, so that he could still get an important message across about human sexuality. As I found from a conversation Freud had with Carl Jung, Freud was very worried about his sexual theories losing against the “black tide of occultism.” In other words, Freud was worried that the important knowledge that he had uncovered about human sexuality, which could benefit humankind, would get buried and lost again if he stuck to his initial public views. So he chose to make his sexual theories culturally acceptable — even though that introduced an internal contradiction as Reich correctly observed — while still being able to get his knowledge out to the masses.

  4. 4^As Muammar al-Qaddafi writes in his book “The Green Book”:

    The laws of the dictatorial instruments of government have replaced the natural laws, i.e., positive law has replaced natural law. Consequently, ethical standards have become confused. The human being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same everywhere. Because of this fact, natural laws are applicable to all. However, constitutions as conventional laws do not perceive human beings equally. This view has no justification, except for the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument of government, be it an individual, an assembly, a class or a party. The abrogation of natural laws from human societies and their replacement by conventional laws is the fundamental danger that threatens freedom. Any ruling system must be made subservient to natural laws, not the reverse.

  5. 5^Thomas Jefferson, “Rights of British America,” 1774.
  6. 6^As Zecharia Sitchin writes in his book “The 12th Planet”:

    The very terms by which the Sumerians and Akkadians called “Man” bespoke his status and purpose: He was a lulu (“primitive”), a lulu amelu (“primitive worker”), an awihim (“laborer”). That Man was created to be a servant of the gods did not strike the ancient peoples as a peculiar idea at all. In biblical times, the deity was “Lord,” “Sovereign,” “King,” “Ruler,” “Master.” The term that is commonly translated as “worship” was in fact avod (“work”). Ancient and biblical Man did not “worship” his god; he worked for him. No sooner had the biblical Deity, like the gods in Sumerian accounts, created Man, than he planted a garden and assigned Man to work there: And the Lord God took the “Man” and placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and to tend it.

  7. 7^Regarding the sudden appearance of Homo Sapiens, Susan J. Lanyon concludes the following in a paper titled “A “Sudden Appearance” model for the Evolution of Human Cognition and Language”:

    I have proposed that the archaeological and paleontological record does not support theories that argue for gradual change for the evolution of the hominin clade. Rather, we see the “Sudden Appearance” of the first hominins around 6-7 million years ago due to a neotenous mutation of an ancestral ape, followed by an astonishing stasis in bodily form and brain size for at least 4 million years when the first stone tools appear. We then find the sudden appearance of H. erectus who again shows little variability in either physiology or tool technology for 2.5 million years. It has been shown that any variability in all of these ancestral hominins is no more than we find today among modern humans. The final sudden appearance produced anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens), which emerged in Africa around 120,000 years ago with the cognitive architecture to support an extraordinary array of symbolic behaviour not seen before in any ancestral species. I therefore contend that arguments belonging to Jackendoff and Pinker, that claim that our mind and language faculty are highly modularised due to the gradual accretion of functionally specific components, which have evolved gradually over evolutionary time, are not tenable.

    A genetic upgrade by extraterrestrial beings (via genetic engineering) might explain the sudden appearance of Homo Sapiens, as Zecharia Sitchin argues in his book “The 12th Planet”:

    As we showed at the very beginning of this book, modern scientists have come to question the simple theories. Evolution can explain the general course of events that caused life and life’s forms to develop on Earth, from the simplest one-celled creature to Man. But evolution cannot account for the appearance of Homo sapiens, which happened virtually overnight in terms of the millions of years evolution requires, and with no evidence of earlier stages that would indicate a gradual change from Homo erectus. The hominid of the genus Homo is a product of evolution. But Homo sapiens is the product of some sudden, revolutionary event. He appeared inexplicably some 300,000 years ago, millions of years too soon. The scholars have no explanation. But we do. The Sumerian and Babylonian texts do. The Old Testament does. Homo sapiens — modern Man — was brought about by the ancient gods.

    Author Lloyd Pye has also done research in this area, and you can find the details in his book “Everything You Know Is Wrong, Book One: Human Origins.” You can also find several of his presentations on YouTube; the one below is a good start.

  8. 8^As Chris H. Hardy mentions in her book “DNA of the Gods”:

    To get back to Jung: In predicting that “man will be ‘divinized,’” he was clearly referring to a leap in consciousness for the whole of humanity (and I see this leap already in process right now). As I was able to piece together from several of his books, he predicted that the great majority of human beings were going to attain not only an inner harmonization between the masculine and the feminine facets of the psyche but also a harmonization between the ego and the Self (the individual Spirit or soul). This would lead to the co-creation of a transpersonal and collective field of consciousness at the planetary level—what I call the planetary semantic field, and what Teilhard de Chardin called the Point Omega in which the ensemble of minds (the noosphere) would be like one giant consciousness (yet without any loss of individual freedom and specificity).

  9. 9^Unless otherwise noted, all bible verses are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) translation (online reference).
  10. 10^Note that I mentioned the plural word “gods,” because contrary to what most translations of the bible want us to believe, the original Hebrew version of the text uses the word “elohim; אֱלֹהִים” meaning “gods,” which is plural for the word “eloah” meaning “god.” There wasn’t one god; there were a group of gods. As I explained in my post “Yahweh the Barbarian” these misleading translations are done to make the Judeo-Christian religions seem like monotheistic religions.

    A similar problem exists with the translation of the Hebrew word “adam; אָדָם” which is sometimes translated as “mankind” or “man” in the plural sense, and sometimes in the singular sense as “man” or even a specific person named “Adam.” However, seeing as how the gods created humans to work for them on their land it makes no sense that they would create a single man, and later a single woman, to do all the work. So the word “adam; אָדָם” is probably also mostly used in the plural sense to denote a group of humans. Certainly this would make sense considering the other sources of the creation story — especially the Sumerian version — discussed above, that speak of humans (plural) being created.

    Based on the above, when I translated the original Hebrew text from Genesis 1:27 it became:

    They created gods together the humans [in] their image. [In] image [of] gods created together them. Male and female created them all.

    And Genesis 5:1-2 became:

    This [is] book [of] birth humans. When created gods humans [in] image [of] gods created them all. Male and female created them. Blessed them called [their] name humans when created them.

  11. 11^Zecharia Sitchin mentions in his book “The 12th Planet” that the original human species that existed on Earth when the Anunnaki arrived would have to be modified in order to tame them and make them a “docile beast of work”:

    Then, faced with the need for manpower, resolved to obtain a Primitive Worker, the Nefilim saw a ready-made solution: to domesticate a suitable animal. […] The “animal” was available — but Homo erectus posed a problem. On the one hand, he was too intelligent and wild to become simply a docile beast of work. […] He needed enough cleverness and understanding to be an obedient and useful amelu — a serf. […] So the problem was posed to Ea; who saw the answer at once: to “imprint” the image of the gods on the being that already existed.

  12. 12^The “serpent” mentioned in Genesis 2 might be the gods mentioned in Genesis 1 who originally “created” humankind. It seems that after the gods from Genesis 2 manipulated and enslaved humankind, the gods from Genesis 1 tried to enlighten the humans and get them out of their enslavement. As Zecharia Sitchin mentions in his book “The 12th Planet”:

    As the Sumerian texts recorded the course of human events, Enki as a rule emerges as Mankind’s protagonist, Enlil as its strict discipliner if not outright antagonist. The role of a deity wishing to keep the new humans sexually suppressed, and of a deity willing and capable of bestowing on Mankind the fruit of “knowing,” fit Enlil and Enki perfectly.

    The gods of Genesis 1 might have been those aligned with the Sumerian god Enki, while the gods of Genesis 2 might have been those aligned with the Sumerian god Enlil. And note that the symbol of the Sumerian god Enki was the serpent; I discuss this in more detail in my post on “The All Seeing Eye.”

  13. 13^Not only were women denied their sexuality, but they were reduced to mere property to be traded and sold; they were nothing more than slaves and in extreme cases “beasts of burden.” I discuss the details in the footnotes of my post “Why getting married is a very bad idea.” As Chris H. Hardy mentions in her book “DNA of the Gods”:

    By way of a faulty logic referring to the authoritative texts, but mainly brought about by males’ pride and biased assumptions, women were customarily denied autonomy, studies, professional or vocational activity, authority, important social roles (apart from “spouse of . . .”), and, worst of all, they were deprived of incentives and opportunities to develop their mental, psychic, and even physical capacities.

    But beyond these social, artistic, and intellectual blinkers imposed upon women (and reflected back on men as well), there was a deeper spiritual issue: The Woman couldn’t relate anymore to her own deep sacredness, the inner presence of the divine Spirit, the cosmic consciousness, and, more damaging yet, she could no more be a witness and a bearer of light, a priestess and a hierophant. She was denied the appropriation of her own quest for wisdom and the Spirit. We are talking about millennia of oppression, of dire suffering, of surrendering and acceptance of fate, that polluted the feminine psyche and insidiously led her to self-denial, lack of confidence, and sometimes even helplessness or mental illness.

    When it comes to mental illness, I can state, based on my own research and experience, that (often severe) mental illness has always been one of the consequences of sexual suppression and repression in women — much more so than in men. The details can be found in my “Understanding Women” article series. Wilhelm Reich came to similar conclusions based on his own research, as he mentions in his book “The Function of the Orgasm”:

    Of the hundreds of cases which I observed and treated in the course of several years of extensive and intensive work, there was not a single woman who did not have a vaginal orgastic disturbance. […] The disturbance of the ability to experience genital gratification, to experience, that is, the most natural of what is natural, proved to be a symptom which was always present in women and seldom absent in men. The severity of every form of psychic illness is directly related to the severity of the genital disturbance.

  14. 14^C.G. Jung, “The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings,” 1977. And of course, it’s not just the Catholic Church that demonizes sexuality or lust; we find this in all religions because they all have one common ancient source.
  15. 15^As time went on humans were not only divided and weakened based on their sexuality, but the gods kept introducing other measures in order to create even more division and hardship among the humans. For example, we see in the bible in Genesis 3:17-18 that the environment on Earth was also made hostile for the humans, “The ground is cursed because of you. […] It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.” This may be one of the reasons why humans and animals were later forced to start eating meat because food on the land became scarce. Not to mention the plagues that were constantly introduced, unleashing viruses, insects and other dangerous animals on the humans.

    Later when the humans still managed to become threatening to the gods again, the gods further divided humans based on their language (Genesis 11). Physical differences (races) may also have been introduced in order to keep humans divided. Also important to keep in mind is that the gods may also have reduced or limited humankind’s mental capacity. For example, remains have been found of humans who had bigger skulls than we have today; for details check out Brien Foerster’s book “Elongated Skulls Of Peru And Bolivia: The Path Of Viracocha.”

  16. 16^The fact that the human species might originally have been androgynous makes sense if you consider the fundamental principle of the universe where everything (including all organisms) is a fractal representation of the whole; so if the universe is all one (thus having both the male and female sex/functionality in one), then any subdivision of the universe would also have the same characteristics — unless it gets tampered with.

    And this is also what we see when we look at the fundamental building block of biological organisms, namely the cell. It all started with unicellular organisms, that were whole and complete (essentially having both sexes in one) and could multiply all on their own (asexual reproduction). It would make no sense for them to split up by themselves into male and female cells and organisms during their evolution, because this would make them incomplete and dependent on others for their survival. It would have been a downgrade. Having both sexes (all the necessary functionality for reproduction) in one self contained unit that is capable of multiplying on its own (such as we see in most plants) is much more robust and better guarantees the continuation of life.

    So the question is, why were the fundamental reproductive/sexual functionalities eventually divided? We’ve seen the answer discussed above: sexual manipulation for the purpose of weakening the organism. Now you may ask, if the gods wanted to weaken and enslave humans, why do we also see a division of the sexes in other organisms on Earth? The answer is that it was done to create and maintain the illusion and deception of duality. If human beings were the only organisms that were split up into male and female sexes, it would seem strange and they might have started asking some important questions a lot sooner. However, if much of their immediate environment in nature also exhibited the same characteristics, they would more easily accept it as being the norm — the way things are in nature — making it much more difficult for them to realize the extent of the deception, their manipulation, and their enslavement.

  17. 17^At the very beginning the gods were present on Earth and directly managed their ongoing operations including their human slaves. There were no intermediaries between the human population and the gods. But as the human population grew the gods retreated more to the background and appointed kings on Earth that would manage their slaves for them and see to it that their orders were being followed. This is where the “divine right of kings” comes from; according to the Sumerians, kingship was handed down by the gods (see the “Sumerian King List”). The gods’ authority over the humans was then enforced on Earth through their chosen kings and prophets. You can imagine that retreating to the background and pulling the strings from there provided the gods with an additional level of security and protection from revolts by the humans. But there may also have been other (additional) reasons for why the gods eventually retreated to the background, and Zecharia Sitchin discusses these in his books.

    When the humans would refuse to follow orders and rebelled, or started straying away too far from what was acceptable to the gods, the gods would often intervene themselves by using powerful weapons to wipe out whole tribes of humans or sending plagues and other disasters. There are many examples of these in the bible. Another tactic they would use is to play out human tribes against each other, for example by sending one tribe to attack and destroy another in order to teach them a lesson. Examples of this can also be found in the bible.

    And it’s important to note that much later humans would copy this behavior from the gods. For example, we’ve had a similar situation in the past where continents were being colonized and the colonialists were at first physically present to manage their affairs and their slaves in the colonies. After a while the colonists and owners of the plantations would appoint chosen individuals from among the slaves to manage their affairs and the other slaves on the plantations. Much later the owners of the plantations would often not even be physically present anymore, but would stay abroad in their own countries while they left the appointed slaves — the “officials” — to manage the plantations in the colonies. In this way the owners lived in security and safety, shielded from revolts that would often take place on the plantations (it would just be the slaves fighting against each other). And this is the purpose of the “officials” in the governments of today; they’re nothing more than puppets — themselves slaves — who have to see to it that the orders of the plantation owners are followed (countries of today are simply huge plantations). When government “officials” side with the people (the rest of the slaves), they are either assassinated or are forced to step down (through political and economic pressure) and are replaced by other slaves loyal to the plantation owners. In extreme cases other countries are played out against them and used to attack them until they fall back in line with the wishes of the plantation owners.

    So we see that even after thousands of years, very little has changed in this regard.