Angels with wings all about the Christmas tree – that’s what we normally think about when the word “angel” comes up. In New Age culture we speak about Guardian Angels,
those entities which we hope will guide us the right way and give us the right results when we engage in “positive thinking” and “affirmations”. Scientifically oriented people who don’t believe in any God and are proud of their atheistic beliefs (!) make fun of any idea which could remind them of religion and their own cultural religious background.
You might be somewhere in between: believing in the existence of angels and dismissing the very idea as rubbish, as many of we educated people of the 21st century do. But maybe we are looking in the wrong place when asking the question if ANGELS exist. We didn’t find the answers in the old ways of thinking, but what if we follow new ideas as a basis for our questions?
Until recently science and religion seemed to be in complete disagreement about reality. Religious ideas were dismissed as totally irrational and unscientific. This is actually true, but nonetheless they are as real as scientific findings.
From Integral Theory we know that the difference between the two fields lies in their perspectives from which they address reality. Religion starts from interiority and the subjective experience, while science starts from the exterior and the objective view on things. For centuries both areas tried to cancel the right of the other to exist, but today we know that they are the two sides of the same coin – and a coin cannot exist with only one side as much we may try to get rid of the other.
The Marriage of Science and Religion
Coming to the point: The marriage of science and religion can happen for instance with the topic of ANGELS
“The Physics of Angels”, a book by the theologian Matthew Fox and the scientist Rupert Sheldrake, is offering an astonishing and very reasonable new view on the existence of angels. It reconciles the latent gap in our understanding and allows us to speak again about those metaphysical beings which made us too uncomfortable to mention for a long time.
Both authors discuss old writings on angels. To me very inspiring the discussion of quotes from Thomas Aquinas where the description of the properties of angels are compared a lot to those of photons, to light, which has been a metaphor for religious experiences for ages.
What if the light of which religions and spiritual people talk about is not a metaphor, but real? Here is a little teaser from my understanding of the book: “An angel is in a place by acting there. Angels act in one place at a time. When they act in different places then there is no lapse of time in between”. Rupert Sheldrake tries on the idea that “angels” are “fields”. Photons are localized through their actions and a photon is not material, it has no body. It is discontinuous in its actions and the tendency to act in one place or the other can be predicted only by probability. It can be in one place now and in another instantaneously, with no time elapsing according to Einstein.
There are more things between heaven and earth than we are used to believe.
I am not very versed in physics so as to explain this exhaustively in a short blog post. I just wanted to give you an example for the amazing correspondence of observation between entities which we have habitually believed to be of completely different natures. I highly recommend reading the book yourself and see if your atheistic or fundamentalist scientific beliefs get challenged – as well as your romantic religious ideas, whichever might be true for you.
You will experience a huge “AHA!” and become a mentor for the reconciliation of mind, spirit and body. This seems to be necessary to overcome the present crisis in the world and to come to an understanding of the limitation of our own worldviews and those of others. And may that create the necessary humility to become able to address our problems from new and more enlightened perspectives!
In these weird times of chaos and totalitarian tendencies in the world, some timely questions came up for me on Quora. Answering them I felt back into those times when I lived in freedom surrounded by a totalitarian communist country and my question came up ever more pressingly: Why Do People Ignore History – And why do we risk to fall into the same horrible mistakes? How can the radical left today be so insensitive to what their ideals REALLY create? My generation still experienced it in Germany and our parents’ generation can tell you what right wing totalitarianism feels like. Both are devastating and murderous – and we are directly steering towards abandoning our freedoms for totalitarian human-despising ideas.
Below I want to share with you my answers to the questions:
What was the main reason for the Berlin Wall?
What were the differences between east and west Berlin during the period of the Berlin wall?
What was the main reason for the Berlin Wall?
So why was the wall built? It definitely was not a wall like the one in Israel or the planned Trump wall along the Mexican border. Those are designed to protect the country from the influx of foreigners. Not so the Berlin wall. It was built to keep the people inside their own country, to keep them in the prison of an totalitarian state.
In the months before the wall was built, an increasing number of people had been leaving East Germany every day by walking through the “Brandenburger Tor” – as my ex-husband did as a teenager with his mother and brother, carrying with them only a bag with their most important belongings. The East was losing not only the best brains, as another commenter says, but virtually everyone who anticipated the future to come and were courageous enough to leave everything behind. They came from all over the country to Berlin, trains overcrowded with people eager to leave the east.
Blatant differences within Berlin
In the time when the wall was built the difference between East and West was already so striking that a blockage was needed because otherwise soon there would have been a state with nobody living there – and that obviously was not acceptable to the regime. The country couldn’t offer anything attractive to their people which would inspire them to stay (see my answer to the difference between East and West Berlin below.)
An end to the mass flight from East to West
The wall was built in only a few days, and the flow of people escaping increased tremendously in these last days – until they were trapped by the solid wall and the “security strip” alongside. In the beginning many people still could overcome the wall, jump from the windows of houses right on the border line or swim through the river but very soon these possibilities were brutally controlled by walling up the windows, by guns and self-detonating bombs. Many people lost their lives when they tried to escape after the wall was built and the wall became the symbol of a totalitarian state which is ready to use utmost brutality against their people who want to be free.
A fence all around the East
In the same time all East Germany was surrounded by a strong fence and self-shooting facilities which would kill people when they tried to climb over the fence. An uncultivated open area near the fence called “the death strip” was created everywhere in order to see any movement of whatever came near the border from the innumerable watch towers. People trying to escape were brutally killed. I used to live about 10km from the border in my youth in West Germany, and we often went to the border to see the “progress”. At the beginning we still could wave to people over there, later they were moved away to houses further from the border.
Deception is part of the evil
In order to fool people from inside the country who thought they might escape by climbing the fence at the border, all geographic maps available in East Germany were falsified: the streets and villages in the border regions were wrongly inserted into the map and only people who lived in the area of 10 km from the border-fence (I am not sure how many km, maybe more) were allowed to be in or even enter into this “special zone”.
It is hardly imaginable for people who are used to living in a Western democratic country that this was the reality, and even more difficult to feel into what suffering the regime caused to their people.
What were the differences between east and west in Berlin during the period of the Berlin wall?
I lived in West Berlin from 1972 to 1984 as a (West German) university student. Life in the West of the city was very particular, you could find everything, culture and nature. Cultural experiments all over the place, experimental theatres etc. alongside with traditional rituals like the Christmas market in the (then) centre at the ruin of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche. It was exciting and rich, vibrating and colorful. An optimistic response for the fact that we were surrounded by the East.
A fascinating City
In West Berlin you could get everywhere with public transport – although sometimes with 20 minutes or more waiting in a freezing night, and you could bike on extra lanes. And if you had a car it was pretty easy to get everywhere – except to the east part, obviously.
Two underground lines passed under the East territory and it was ghostly when the train slowed down at the closed stations. There was dimmed light and armed police wandering around. I was always happy to come out on the other side again. It was a dark feeling of danger and oppression, also when we went from West Berlin by the mandatory and guarded highways to West Germany, which we did very often.
Visits in East Berlin for Theatre Performances
Several times a year we went to East Berlin, mainly for attending theatres. There was the famous Brecht Theatre “Am Schiffbauerdamm” and the “Komische Oper” with its artistic director Felsenstein who experimented with a new style of opera in which the singers were really actors and not just standing around singing as had been normal in the past.
What other contributors on Quora said was accurate: West Berlin was shiny and tried to show up as a brillant city while East Berlin was grey and monumental in the “new center”with the ugly expression of socialist art and architecture.
The deception tactic of communist states
In those times all money was directed to the capital to give the impression to foreign visitors that East Berlin was a thriving city – and East Germany a normal country. That it was certainly not so and you could see it in many ways: the full supermarket in East Berlin with dozens of shelfs of THE EXACTLY SAME product (!!), the strange atmosphere everywhere, including in the almost non-existent restaurants or in the cafés where you were treated like sheep, The big Dom (= main cathedral) without the vault and with pigeons living in it and only a few meters from the main “tourist” areas: houses which were about to fall apart and full of projectile holes in their facades.
It was worse in other parts of East Germany
It was not easy to visit other parts of East Germany for “normal” people. I had relatives in Leipzig (Lipsia) and, from a certain time on, western residents of areas close to the east German border were allowed to go there for a visit and sometimes we could meet them there for a day. Better don’t ask what it took to get a visa and the procedures at the border!
I knew also Leipzig from several visits, a major city further south, and the difference to East Berlin was enormous. Let alone small cities or villages. You must have seen it to really get a feel how communism has destroyed everything. When I visited Albania in the early 90’s I knew already from East Germany how things look like in such a country. But Albania, then, was a huge shock, and East Berlin and East Germany seemed to me a paradise in comparison to Albania. The poverty and destruction was unbelievable – and, from what I am hearing the same now is going on in North Korea, even maybe worse, although WORSE is really hard to imagine when we are used to our 21st century civilisation.
Coming back to East Berlin.
Every time we went there was connected with fear: You and your car were controlled thoroughly, both ways, in and out. It could take an hour or more and you never knew if you would be back home that evening because they could find something or invent something to keep you as a prisoner. (It happened to a friend of mine who, after a year or so, was BOUGHT back into freedom by our government).
The Money Game – The Real Reason Why Tourists Were “Welcome” in the East
Every time when you entered East Berlin you had to pay quite a sum for the visa and you had to exchange money 1:1 (although the real value was around 1:4) which, additionally, was hard to spend in one day only as there was hardly anything to buy which you would also want to buy. I myself bought musical scores, whatever they had, not knowing if I ever would use them. Those I actually needed were not available with 95% probability.
Weird Rules to Keep You in Fear
You had to spend all the East money before going back to the West – as if anybody wanted the cheap and worthless aluminum coins on our side of the city! You could get into trouble if you had forgotten to get rid of the east-money before entering the control section.
Totalitarian regimes create an intolerable climate! Anyways, I came to assemble quite a library of musical scores which, later on, I actually used and was happy about that as they cost much more in the West – and still do today.
Summary: It is no joke to be in a totalitarian police state, not as a visitor and not at all as a resident.
Observing present revivals of totalitarian movements on the right AND on the left make me fear that the lesson of 20th century communism and its bloody and oppressive impact on millions of people has been already forgotten – and people who promote neo-communist ideas haven’t learned anything from history. Ignoring history brings the risk that our societies fall back into the same horrible mistakes of the 20th century. What comes out are not situations in which ANYONE wants to live, except the very few who are in power!
So, please, don’t adhere to totalitarian movements which see only black and white! That in itself is the beginning of totalitarianism.
PS: Today Berlin is unrecognisable. I went through the streets, on foot and on bike and it was difficult to even find the places where the wall closed away the other half of the city. There are some spaces where the location of the previous wall is marked and very few rests of the wall for memory. It has become a different city, but the on where I lived for 12 years is still very alive in my memory
A friend recommended to me that I watch the movie “Zeitgeist” – and that’s why I feel the need to write about it. Just to let you know right away: as useful as it might be in some people’s eyes, – and maybe 10 years ago it was somewhat useful – it is a perfect expression of the “green meme”, attempting to spread information but not noticing its own strong bias in doing so. (Note: My article is based on the evolution of consciousness as outlined by Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics)
So let’s go through the chapters:
The dismissal of Christianity
The first part of the movie is a rant on religion, on CHRISTIANITY alone and in the common “Green” way of thinking: everything in ancient times was right and better. This is the first fundamental error of the authors of the film, and the second one reveals their total ignorance about the nature and purpose of religions. At length we hear that Christianity has “copied and pasted” the stories from previous civilizations. So what? YES, the underlying archetypes from the very beginning onward have developed according to the human experience on earth – and there is not much difference anywhere in the world. The outer expression might be different, but the inner experience is very much the same for all humans: fear, love, anger, all emotions which lead to specific behaviors like caring for children or murdering someone who doesn’t belong to the group.
Thank God, the power of somewhat institutionalized religions was able to tame the brutal force and power of individuals and thus allowed the survival of the species “homo sapiens”. This was the task of religions at a certain level of our development. It still would be a useful resource albeit in a positively transformed way for our advanced civilizations, while in its traditional form it would be very necessary in all those regions of the world which are still dominated by tribalism and egocentric violence. Christianity is the only religion which talks about love and service to others, so it would be the right sort of religion in our violent world.
In case you are caught within the idea that all religion is rubbish and Christianity especially: I can understand that, I was there too, when I exchanged Christianity for the “belief” in Science which, unfortunately, more often than not is just a disguised form of religion which has thrown out the window the ethical-moral component, and history altogether, to the detriment of the world. (If you want to learn about the wisdom of the archetypal stories transmitted in the Bible, do watch the “Biblical Story Series” by Dr. Jordan Peterson).
The achievements of Christianity for the world
So much for the statement of the movie that all evil comes from Christianity. No, it doesn’t! All good comes from there, it has allowed the Good, the True and the Beautiful to develop into what the Western world has become. Do you really expect that reality can be reduced to ONLY GOOD? In a world based in duality you cannot have the one without the other, the good without the bad. And when you throw the baby out with the bathwater only because not everything was good during the times when Christianity was dominant in our world, then you are part of the destructive forces which pursue the idea of perfectionism and demolish everything which is not perfect. That, inevitably, leads to total destruction of what evolution has created in such a long time and with such a tremendous effort in going ahead and finding a practical way.
Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem! And the movie, unfortunately, is part of the problem and doesn’t offer a pathway to solutions.
The second part of the movie:
The destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Also here: what is intended as “good” by debunking the official story ends up by increasing the confusion and manipulation of beliefs. Too bad.
The movie makers doubt that a fire caused by airplane fuel can bring down these huge buildings. Right. We use Kerosene for heating our houses and we are glad that the Kerosene (which is used by airplane engines) doesn’t melt our furnace. So the story of the fires bringing down thousands of tons of iron and steel is just incredibly stupid and everyone would understand that it is not possible if they hadn’t been indoctrinated to NOT seeing what was really going on.
And here the legitimacy of the movie ends:
Further down the road it is bringing up ideas, suggesting connections and causes. It assumes that certain things happened or did not happen, but they don’t offer any trustworthy evidence. The authors accuse the state officials of manipulation and of hiding the real stories, yes, I agree. But the filmmakers themselves use the same means: manipulation and persuasion of those who watch. The audience is pressed into believing an unfounded conspiracy theory. Without solid proof for what you state you only increase the confusion – and actually the fear of the people who, in consequence, can see now all sorts of mean forces around them. Is this the real reason for the film? To help manipulate the “advanced” people into being fearful sheep when they find the movie in search of different explanations? I hope not, but the way the movie is made actually allows this suspicion to arise.
Steven Jones and Cold Fusion.
The film shows a short clip with Steven Jones, who became famous for his “proof” of “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. He obviously is one of the most manipulative and evil forces in the whole story – and not only here.
How many of you know that he forced a decision-making panel of scientist to break the neck of honest scientists (Fleischman and Pons) who had discovered what was called “cold fusion”? They were not only ridiculed, but…. Like many other people working in the field of “Free Energy” they were menaced and their careers destroyed. They were fortunate enough to not be killed like many other lesser known pioneers in the field.
Only 20 years later finally “Cold Fusion” was admitted to be REAL – and even has an entry in Wikipedia, Oh wonder! But still this is not a topic which is allowed to be publicly discussed or researched. I just heard that a scientist in Naples, Italy, who had discovered cold fusion with his team had to disappear from the world and his traces are lost. ( I cannot prove this, but I wouldn’t be surprised that the suppression of people who know how to create free energy is a worldwide phenomena.)
Steven Jones knew perfectly well that the World Trade Center was not tumbled down to earth by thermite but pulverised into dust– by the abuse of what is called COLD FUSION (or a similar free energy phenomenon), the existence of which he had so eagerly fought against with unethical means. And this person is presented as an expert in the movie! This makes me doubt the legitimacy of the other sources brought forth.
Where Did The Towers Go?
In the same year as the movie, a comprehensive scientific study about 9/11 came out which thoroughly contradicts all the given stories, including those stated in the movie, by pure scientific research on what really happened – or better on what did NOT happen. The book by Dr.Judy Wood: “Where Did The Towers Go?” shows the impossibility of what is told in the stories by watching closely and drawing logical conclusions, not just unfounded ideas like everywhere else. How come that nobody knows about that book and the talks Dr. Wood has given? How come that only few institutions invite her to talk? Why do people prefer to jump on the train of easy stories and blaming without knowing the facts?
That’s why I think that the movie is really not helpful in bringing the truth to the world, but it is another means to obscure the facts and fill people with fake news and fears.
The third part of the movie: Money and Bankers
This last part of the film is about the money system, the corruption and greed and all of that. I don’t want to go deeply into that, I am for sure not an expert in economics. But I do believe that much of what is said is true.
Why do you show that with all the vehemence of accusation so extensively in the video? To totally destroy people’s trust in their countries, in their lives, in their possibilities to lead a meaningful life? This is definitely not a good idea.
This movie is promoting victimism.
“THEY” are doing all the bad things to “US” who are poor and have no power. This is not a helpful message at all!
Show ideas and pathways that people can do in their private life and in their communities to create a better world!
Big silence about that in the movie – which increases my suspicion that its intent is to collaborate with those forces they seemingly are blaming, that they are contributing to the problem instead of becoming a part of the solution.
Movies which try to bring more truth and facts to the broad public are needed and helpful. If a movie really contributes to find solutions to the problem or if it is just increasing the negative state of mind of the audience depends on the knowledge, wisdom and integrity of the originators and producers. Still, in the “Zeitgeist” of our present time, you can make more money with negative excitement and fear than with truth and facts. No wonder that this film is using the old methods under a new and seemingly righteous banner. Too bad.
So what is the solution? – Maybe the only solution?
Each of us has to check in with ourselves and discover our tendency to avoid, to press the easy button, to believe sensational news and to not dig deeper to find out what is really going on.
We have the responsibility, everyone of us, to grow out of our limited patterns of thought and behavior and to stand up for the truth as we perceive it by deep introspection.
We might be wrong sometimes. Then we need the courage to course-correct and, again, not to hide behind a facade and lose our integrity.
It is NOT the bad society or the bad bankers or whoever does evil to us. We ourselves are part of the evil and promote it when we haven’t seen inside ourselves our own proclivity for evil – alongside with all the beautiful traits. Society is built by people like you and me. And every society is a reflection of single people forming it.
DON’T EXPECT SOCIETY TO CHANGE! Change yourself and you will change your society! Clean up your own “house” before you break down the one which “others” have spoiled!
PS: The featured image was taken as a screenshot of a moment in the youtube video of a presentation by Dr. Judy Wood
“Me too”, the movement of this year which opens the world’s consciousness about the abuse of the power of men towards women in our “patriarchy” (which is a NoNo word, a symbol of oppression !?). This is a good thing, for sure. I hear men saying that they, only now, can really feel for themselves how it must be for women to suffer from sexual aggression. Before, they just “knew” it, now it becomes embodied. Hurrah! This would be a very good outcome of the accusation series, if it opened men’s ideas and compassion to what it means to live in a female body.
But then STOP here!
First of all the whole campaign happens in the Western world where women, for many decades, have all the possibilities to lead a self-directed and autonomous life. We don’t have any religion which forces us to succumb to men, as it is still the case in many countries of the world or their immigrant population in the Western world. Who talks about those women? Nobody. And they cannot stand up and blame the men in their society without undergoing severe danger. So why is all the blame and accusation directed to powerful men in the Western world alone as if sexual aggression was the norm here and only here?
There is hardly any adult woman who hasn’t experienced a situation of sexual harassment or even violence in their lives. What about boys? Maybe not all of them have experienced sexual harassment, but harassment or violence of all other sorts for sure. What makes the sexual violence so different from all the other forms?
Is it because generally women have less physical strength than men and therefore are less able to defend themselves? To say that is certainly not politically correct as there are University Professors who claim in public television that “there are no biological differences between men and women”, coming from an equality/equity movement which seems to ignore even their own personal experience, let alone scientific facts.
Who cares about really oppressed women in this world?
In many countries of the world women are not allowed to go out into the public without a male accompaniment – to protect the woman. Maybe. From what? From aggressive males in the society, from violating the social codes and bring dishonour on the family? From living their own ideas about life? Who in the western World complains about PATRIARCHY where it is really at home? I don’t hear any outcry and solidarity with women who really have no rights for an autonomous and self determined life. But alone the poor Western women are the victims of this bad thing called Patriarchy. Come on!
Yes, there was a time when, also in the Western world, women couldn‘t freely decide about their own life and what to do or not to do and they sought out marriage as a safe haven to survive in exchange for giving up certain personal freedoms. But now?
We have all the freedoms we need. It is up to us if we use them or not – and also HOW to use them.
Women are choosing – believe it or not
It is an old story that women from a lower social rank try to “marry up” and men regularly “marry down”. Many stories are told about the nurse who succeeds to marry the doctor. But a female doctor marrying a male nurse or a truck driver? That doesn’t seem to be the case very often and is somehow not acceptable socially. Why?
Women still are the ones to have children and it is a biological and evolutionary necessity that women try to get the “best” fathers for their offsprings – whatever is valued as “the best” in a given society. If you, woman, had the choice to have a child from a super intelligent and wise man or from a vagabond or criminal: what would you chose? You make a choice according to your values and there is a hierarchy of values if you are aware of it or not. And don’t tell me that, because you reject hierarchies, you consciously would chose to have a sperm injection from a convicted mass murderer instead of from a Nobel Prize winner! There is a clear hierarchy operating in a woman’s mind when choosing a mate!
Patriarchy is hierarchy and status – so what?
And here we come to the reason why, today, so many people hate patriarchy: because it is organised in a hierarchical manner. There are people who have better jobs, live in better places, are smarter or otherwise privileged over others and that is considered BAD. But, honestly, if you woman have the choice between two lovers and future father of your children: wouldn’t you aim for the one who has more status and more money and all of that? Don’t pretend that you would prefer the one who leads a miserable life in a slum with no food and no hygiene. So you are perfectly aware that your actions are guided by hierarchical values – while you complain about their existence at the same time. Think a little more about that before you open your mouth again in wild accusations.
So back to sexual harassment by powerful men.
As I said before, this was a normal thing in previous stages of societal development in the Western World and it is still the case in many other countries of the world. It definitely happens that some men abuse their power for their sexual or psychological self-esteem. But
WHAT IF MEN DIDN’T FIND A WOMAN TO BE HARASSED?
How do women ALLOW men to harass them?
Women accuse men and hide in the victim role. But what did THEY do to allow the harassment happen? When did they give away their genuine feminine power? And when, if not most of the time, they indulged in exercising the very ancient expression of female power? What do they think that would happen in a man when they show up with super short pants, hardly covered breasts and seductive ways of moving? He probably responds like the animal part in humans responds: with being sexually attracted. HAHA! Now he is caught in the web of his biology and things proceed as they proceed.
At any moment both, the man AND the women, have the CHOICE to say STOP in one way or the other. If you are an actress and you really want to get the big role than the “normal” way has always been to get the attention of the producer or whoever in charge and you both traded the issue. Women traded – and still do – sexuality in one form or other much more frequently than the feminist warriors want to admit – or any woman who now cries out about the perpetrator men who have made them suffer.
Be honest, woman: you will find at least one episode in your life where you got advantage for the fact that you are a woman which was granted to you by a man whom you manipulated into that.
It is so deeply ingrained in women’s history that most of the women don’t even notice when their behavior is manipulative towards men, in the same way that men often have no idea how their behavior can be understood as violence.
Power and Empowerment
Life is about empowerment and power. To say that we need to make some very important distinctions: Today the word “POWER” has become a synonym of “abuse” and “morally unacceptable”. This doesn’t justify the dismissal of power all together. “POWER OVER” is completely different than “POWER FOR”. People, men and women alike, can exercise power over others by reducing them to a sort of slaves. Thankfully this use of power is stigmatised and hopefully will be overcome soon with new structures of co-creation and communication – if people grow up sufficiently to be able to live in this different way.
What we certainly need is PERSONAL POWER to be and do what is right for us to do. Without our personal power we are transforming ourselves into the slaves where others can dominate us. There is no abuser if there is nothing or nobody to abuse. When we are embracing our personal power – which fundamentally consists in saying NO or YES in the right moment and really meaning it – we cannot be abused in the way of the present accusations. Somewhere along the line all those women who claim to have been sexually abused by men with whom they had a personal social contact have given up their personal power and chosen to be the victim, probably for good reasons. Even if the man is “guilty” 95% in a specific situation, but there is no woman who couldn’t detect these 5% or more of her own contribution to what she declares “abuse”. Being the victim and abdication of personal responsibility seems to be the easier way: all guilt and shame to the other. But at the long run those women have missed the chance to be truly free from their own conditionings and somewhere inside they perfectly know their own complicity in the ancient game between humans especially of different sex.
The evolution of Patriarchy
So “Patriarchy” is a name for a period in human history which is evolving like everything else. It is not to be blamed for all our personal shortcomings in the evolution of our personal self and of our societies – which are formed by people like you and me and not by some malevolent entity. If you and I discover shortcomings than it is our duty to bring them forth in the most possible unbiased way and to collaborate without shaming and blaming to create a better future for ALL of us.