Predictive History - The Story of "Civilization", "Secret History", "Game Theory" and more - Civilization #4: The Paradise Lost of Marija Gimbutas

Episode Date: October 7, 2025

Civilization #4: The Paradise Lost of Marija Gimbutas

Okay, so the story so far is that 200,000 years ago, we humans, homo sapiens, we were born in Africa. And then about 50,000 years ago, because of climate change, we started to spread around the world, okay? We went into Europe, then into Asia, then we crossed the Bering Strait into North. America and South America, then Asia went to Australia, okay? And 50,000 years ago, there's about a million of us all around the world. And the argument that I'm making you, that I've made to you in this class is that from the very beginning we were religious, okay? We know from the Ice HK paintings, we know because of place like Kobletepe and kind of

Hoyak, that we had a religious belief that told us who we are and what we're doing here. And as we discussed in class, this religious belief is animistic, meaning we believe that we all come from one source, the mother goddess, and we are all the children of the mother goddess, including animals, plants.

And because of this, we were a very compassionate people, people that were egalitarian. There was no difference between men and women. That was peaceful. We were violent. There was some violence, but we didn't really fight wars, okay? And we were artistic. We celebrated the mother goddess through paintings and through artwork, okay?

And another question then is, if we were like this for most of human history, How is it that today we have war, private property, and patriarchy where men make all the rules and women have little agency and power? And so this week I will explain to you how this happened. Okay? So in today's class, we will discuss really the height of this civilization. and this is what the anthropologist Maria Gambottas called Old Europe. Okay? So to begin the story, I want to tell you what we discovered in terms of linguistics.

So for many hundreds of years, many people have speculated that maybe English, German, Greek, Latin, all came from the same language that's been lost to us. This is language we call Proto-Indo-European. And through decades of science research, linguists have been able to conclusively prove that all these languages that we speak in Europe, okay? all come on the same mother language, the first language. But not only that, but also Iranian and Indian, Hindi, all come from Proto-Indo-European. So the question, so, okay, does that make sense to you guys?

So we know this because there are many words that sound the same in many languages, okay? So for example, father, In English, it's father, right? But in Latin, it's Patar. That's where we get the word paternity, okay? From the father. Greek, Pataris, Persian, Padar, Hindi, in India, Pita, okay?

So the word father seems to come from just one word in all these different languages. Then you look at the word mother, okay? Mother, Matar, Matara, Madar, Mat, also sounds very similar. So again, for 100 years, people have speculated that there was just one language. And if you look at this map, okay, so for example, the English word for two, okay, the number two, you can draw a schematic that shows you how all these languages, the word two, derived just from one word, d'wa, okay? So, linguists have been able to piece together this proto-Indo-European language.

We've also been able to figure out how this language spread, okay? So there are two hypotheses, either the language spread from Turkey, Anatolia, or from Ukraine, okay? Basically Russia. And we know it spread all around the world, okay? basically all of Europe and including Iran and India okay so this is the first language of all these language language that we speak today in most of Asia and all of Europe okay so any questions so far all right now the problem for

linguists is how do you piece together the language okay because this language is lost to us. Okay, sorry. So this language is lost to us. And so what linguists did, okay, and this is a very slow process is they basically looked at all the words that seem to come from the same word in different languages. What they discovered is that there are certain words

that are distinct to the first language. So words like, bow, cow, ox, ram, eel, lamb, lamb pig piglet sour milk why curds field dog sheer wool textiles scratch plow oxen yolk yoke grain shaft furrow wrestling grinding pesto households okay what do you guys notice about these words you see patterns in these words what patterns do you see in these words what patterns do you see in these words. Okay, so what these words tell us is the culture and lifestyle of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Okay, does that make sense? So from these words, we're able to figure out four things about the proto-Indo-Europeans. The first thing is that unlike other cultures, these people have a word for wheel. In fact, they have five different words for wheel. And what this tells us is that is, us what we can guess that these people whoever they are they invented the wheel okay doesn't make sense because they have words for wheels and other cultures don't okay so they were the first invent the wheel second is that they have words for dairy products okay cow milk and this is important why do you guys know why this is important why is this strange yes okay so they were raising livestock

okay okay what makes it strange is that for most of human history we were lactose intolerant meaning we did not have the ability to drink milk so these people not only did they might invent the wheel but they but they changed their system biological system so that they became lactose tolerant they now have the capacity to drink milk okay does that make sense so wherever these people are are the first people to drink cow milk Okay, the second characteristic, sorry, the third characteristic is they really don't have that many agricultural terms, okay? So maybe they farmed, but they weren't focused on farming, okay?

Whereas other cultures were focused on farming. That's the third thing. The fourth thing is they have words for horse, and this is important because this tells us that they were first to domesticate the horse, meaning that they could control the horse. This is important because throughout history, horses, if they see a human, they run away, because that's the best way to survive. If you see someone coming, you run away. This is what we call excitability.

Horses are excited. So it took thousand years for these people, the proto-Indo-Europeans, to domesticate horse which means they could ride the horse. It doesn't make sense. So we don't know who these people were, but based on their language, we're able to guess four things. So this is a theory.

Now what's interesting is that archaeologists start to dig up things, and they start to discover the language were right. By sign of language, the language had four hypotheses. four hypotheses and the archaeologists were able to provide evidence this is true okay the most exciting thing is that for the past five to ten years advances in genetics DNA technology we've been able to look at the DNA of these skeletons and we've been able to confirm a lot

of these hypotheses okay does that make sense so what I'm what I'm telling you is for the longest time we guess that the proto-Indo-Europeans existed but now we have conclusive scientific evidence that they did exist and who they were okay does that make sense all right so wheels okay so again they have five five different words for wheels and we're able to know from the archaeological evidence the wheels were invented about 35 BC okay in this area okay basically Russia and because wheels are part of proto-Indo-European then this language whoever starts us first speak it must have been

speaking in after 3500 BC okay does that make sense all right there are that many agricultural terms in proto-Indo-European okay we have a lot of words for milk okay to milk sour milk buttermilk cheese cow okay so whoever these people were dairy products were a very important part of their culture and their diet this is DNA DNA evidence that shows us that these people who if we call the Yamaya okay these people called the Yanaya they were able to develop hormones that allowed them to be lactose tolerant okay in about 4,500 BCE very few people could drink milk and by the

time of the Yanaya about a thousand years later they could basically all drink milk and because they could drink milk what happens to their body can you guys know what's the difference if you drink milk exactly okay so we know from the evidence that these people are taller than everyone else in fact these people because they drink milk and they eat a lot of protein they were on average 20 centimeters taller than farmers okay doesn't make sense you guys okay yeah go ahead okay okay okay okay so the drink the milk we drink today is very different for the milk that they drink before you understand the milk they drank before

came from cows that were raised in grassland so it's all natural the milk we drink today comes from cows that are raised in factories and we inject a lot of drugs and hormones into these cows did you understand no no no no if you drink milk a lot your bones will be healthier and you'll grow taller okay that that's just that's biological evidence okay doesn't make sense but the milk we drink today We put a lot of chemicals into the milk, and the sourcing of the milk is from factories, okay? And the reason why is we want to make the milk cheaper, but it's worse for you, okay? So in other words, if you really want to be healthy, what you should do is go buy a cow and drink from that cow.

Okay, do you understand? All right? Okay. So are we clear? Okay. All right. Now, what's really important is. interesting is the domestication of the horse, okay?

So again, there's a gene in the horse for accessibility, okay? Basically, the horse is programmed to run away if it sees danger, a human being. And it took us about 3,000 years, okay? So 5,500 BC to 20,200 BC to domesticate the horse, because it's very hard to make horses not run away when there's danger. It doesn't make sense. So this is a very long process, but they were able to accomplish it.

The further evidence for the domestication of a horse is we've been able to dig up skeletons, okay? And what we see is the skeletons of the ania are different from other skeletons, and it's because they ride horses, okay? That changes the curvature of the skeleton. Does it make sense, guys?

Okay? So the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Eventually, they were able to put all the pieces together, okay? They were able to put the horse and the wheel together. And as such, they create the wagon. The wagon meant they could move from place to place. And they became what we call nomadic pasturists, pasturiless, okay?

So have you guys been to Mongolia? Have you guys been to Mongolia? Do you mean? Yeah, same, okay? But you see the way they make a living is they have like cows and sheep, right? And they take the cows and the sheep from place to eat the grass, right? And they're able to do that because they're able to put all the belongings into a wagon and move from place to place. Does that make sense?

So these are the people who were the first speakers of proto-Indo-European. And eventually, they're able to spread their language all around the world, okay? From Europe to India to Iran. Okay, doesn't make sense, guys. Now the question is, okay, we're able to confirm that these people actually existed, and we are able to confirm that they, um, did spread the language around the world. Now the question the debate is, how do they do so?

Okay? And there's two sides to the argument. The first side, the first side believes these people were conquerors, okay? So think Genghis Khan and the Mongols. They went around, they were able to spread their language by conquering other people. Okay? So think Genghis Khan and the Mongols. Mongols, think of the European conquest of North and South America, where the English and the

Spanish and the French went to North and South America and eradicated the local population. So that's the first belief. The second belief is that it was not violent, okay? It was just cultural diffusion, meaning I came to your country or your village and I was able to influence you. you and convince you that my language is superior, okay? So we call this cultural diffusion. So think of English, where, okay, China has not been conquered by the West,

but we want to learn English because we think that learning English will give us more life opportunities. Does that make sense? So there's two such of the debate, either one of conquest or one of cultural diffusion. And this debate went on for a lot of. for a long time. Okay? And for most of the time, we believed it was cultural diffusion.

But now, for the past five, ten years, we have overwhelming DNA evidence that it was in fact conquest. It was a genocide. It was a violent conquest. And this is what I will show you next class. But in today's class, what I will show you is the Europe before the conquest.

Okay, does that make sense? Okay? And then next class, we will look at how Europe was conquered and how Europe was changed because of the conquest. Okay, any questions so far? Okay, so, so, so there's a good question. Okay, the question is, what's the difference between conquest and diffusion? Okay?

The answer is this. if I conquer you, I eradicate your genes. I kill you, okay? Therefore, your genes do not come into the present day. Whereas if it's diffusion, your genes are still around. Does that make sense? Okay? So what I will show you next class is, sorry, a lot of these genes have been eradicated.

Therefore, it must have been a violent conquest. Does it make sense? Okay. All right, so let's now look at Europe before the conquest. And a lot of what we know about Europe comes from a very famous anthropologist. Her name is Maria Gambattas, okay? And we'll be spending a lot of time today talking about her theories. But what we know is, okay, remember the Ice Age and about 12,000 years ago, okay?

the planet is warming which allows for agriculture. We also know that agriculture started in Anatolia Turkey and in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, okay? Basically this region and the reason why is this place was the first to warm up but also had better soil than other places, okay? So they discovered farming in this region. And in about 6500 BCE, agriculture start to spread around the world, okay? To Europe and then over to England. Okay, does that make sense, guys? Okay.

Another question then is, what propelled this migration from Anatolia to Europe? Can you guys guess? What would propel this migration? Hmm? Okay. A good guess is war, okay? But we don't have any evidence of war around this time. What's another explanation?

Why people wouldn't move. Exactly, thank you, climate change, okay? The weather became a lot cooler during this time, make it harder for people to farm, okay? Also, they've been farming for a long time in this area, which meant that the soil, the soil, is longer as good as before, okay? So you had these massive migrations of families

into Europe because Europe at this time, it was becoming, the weather was becoming a lot warmer, which allowed people to start to grow agriculture in this area, okay? So in about 6,500 BCE, people start to move from Anatolia into this area. And because they were moving, they brought with them their religion, okay?

Remember like the religion of Gobletepe and kind of Holyak is one of the, mother goddess giving life to everything okay and because of that we know that the people in this area were mainly egalitarian peaceful and artistic okay does that make sense okay what will study next class is that there are two massive migrations into Europe all caused by climate change the first migration are farmers okay the second migration are pastoralists and what I will show you next class is that we will look at the DNA evidence okay so if you look at the

DNA of people today what you will see is that about 4500 BCE most people in Europe their genes were a mix of farmers who came from Anatolia as well as hunter-gatherers who were there originally okay does that make sense but then after 3,000 BCE you have this green come in okay and the green are the yamaya okay the proto-Indo Europeans and so I will show you this next class okay but I want you guys to understand what happened okay does that make sense okay so again this is a map of the migration okay so agriculture was started in about 9,000

in BCE in the Near East, Turkey, Anatolia, as well as Israel, Syria, Jordan. Then it's spread from about 7,000 to Europe, okay? And then the purple is the Yamaya people, okay? Who believe were from Ukraine in the steps, and they spread around the world. Next class, we'll discuss who the Yamaya were and how they conquered the world, okay?

But at first, I want to look at the farmers who built Europe before the conquest of the Eamaya. So again, Maria Gumbutas, who is an anthropologist originally from Lutherania, but who worked at Harvard and UCLA, she's done decades of research into old Europe, okay? And her conclusion is, that old Europe was conquered by the Yanaya people.

And this is what we know as the Kergen hypothesis. So let me explain what the Kergan hypothesis is. We know the burials of the farmers is very different from the burials of the Yanaya people. The major difference is this. The people who are farmers are buried together. Okay? But the people of the Anaya, they're buried alone. Not only are they buried alone, but they're buried with weapons and with cattle and horses. So what we can guess from this, okay? We don't have evidence, but what we can guess from this is that the farmers were people who did not have property and who were egalitarian, okay, and who were peaceful because they didn't have any weapons. And the anire was the complete opposite, okay?

These were warriors who believed in private property and which was male-dominated. Does that make sense? So this is what we refer to as the Kirkland hypothesis. And for the longest time, this is something that Maria Gumbattes argued. And she was laughed at. Why would she laugh at? Why would people laugh at her?

She's saying like, okay, before these Yemeni came to Europe, Europe was a place that was basically governed by a woman. And it was artistic, and it was peaceful, and it was egalitarian. Why would people laugh at her? Yeah, they don't believe in her, why? Excuse me? Yeah, first of all, in universities,

it's the men who are professors, right? It's a man who are scholars. So there are many men who are like, there's no way woman can be in charge. They're idiots, okay? Why would women be in charge? They're stupid, they're useless. It's men who are always in charge, okay?

That's one reason why they laugh at her. What's another reason? Why they would laugh at her? There are also a lot of people who believe, like, people are violent. We've had wars always, okay? The idea, like, for like, thousand years, Europe was peaceful,

can't be true because people are violent. Humans are meant to go to war against each other. The third reason why people would laugh at her is we think that we are motivated by money. Right? If you don't have money, then why would you do anything? Does that make sense? So Maria Gumbotas had this radical idea

that challenge the way that men saw the world. For men, men have always been in charge, there's always been wars, and there's always been wealth and money to motivate people to work hard, okay? And that's what men believe. And Mary Gumbart said, no, that's not true. For thousands of years, from 6,500 BC, until about 2,500 BC, 4,000 years before they were conquered, Europe was ruled by women, and because of that, Europe was peaceful, egalitarian, and artistic. So this is a radical idea. And again, what I will show you next class is this idea that was laughed at for decades

has now been confirmed by DNA evidence, meaning that this has been proven true by science, okay? Doesn't make sense. Okay, so let's look at what Merikumbattus said. And she's written quite a few books. These are two of our most famous. The language of the goddess and the civilization of the goddess. So her main theory is that Europe at that time,

their main belief is in a mother goddess, who gives life to everything, okay? And so what she did was she went and she dug up their graves to look at their art, and she studied their language, their language and their cultural practice, okay? Does it make sense? Any questions so far?

Okay. So this is from the civilization of the goddess, and we'll read this together, okay? And so this is her main argument about old Europe at that time. The goddess in our manifestations was a symbol of the unity of all life in nature, okay? So we are all connected together. Animals, trees, humans, we're all connected together, okay?

We're all one thing. all one big family. Her power was in water and stone, in tomb and cave, in animals, and birds, snakes, and fish, hills, trees, and flowers. Hence the holistic and mythopoic perception of all the sacredness and mystery of all there is on earth. So everything in the world is sacred because it is blessed by the mother goddess. If there's a mosquito, don't kill that mosquito. it is has the energy of the of the mother goddess okay if you are walking on a if you're

walking and you see a bird a small bird pick it up and put and and heal it okay because that comes from the mother goddess okay does that make sense this culture took deep the light in the natural wonders of this world its people did not produce lethal weapons or build forth in in acceptable places as their successors did even when they were acquainted with metallurgy, okay? So in other words, they had the technology to make weapons. They had technology to build forts and make war, but they chose not to.

Does that make sense? Okay? These people purposely chose not to commit violence against other people. Instead, they built magnificent tombs shrines and temples, comfortable house in moderately sized villages, and created superb pottery and sculptures. This was a long,

lasting period of remarkable creativity and stability and age free of strife. Their culture was a culture of art. It doesn't make sense. They spent all their time and energy in producing art to celebrate the mother goddess and to celebrate nature and to celebrate themselves. Okay. And this was remarkably peaceful and stable. Does that make sense, guys? Okay, any question so far?

Okay. What was amazing about this culture is they invented writing. Now for the longest time we believe that the Samarians, which we will discuss later on the Samarians who lived in Iraq We believe they discovered Writing. And we discovered that writing came about for economic purposes. Okay, so for example If you are in Samaria and you need you need to build a temple, okay? What you do is you create writing So for example, okay, here's a play and I say this So, this is writing, right?

What does this mean, it means like these two people, this family of two, will get two bushes of wheat and two baskets of bread for their work today. Does that make sense? So we thought that for the longest time, people created writing because, or for economic purposes, in order to have an economy. But what Marie Gumbattis has discovered is, no. we actually created writing before for religious purposes okay so for example if I have a painting okay and it goes like this okay so like this what I'm saying is

the mother goddess blesses this sculpture with her life and with the abundance of water in nature okay does that make sense so writing is a way to communicate with the mother goddess it's a way to make divine and sacred our art does it make sense guys okay so these people are so frustrated they invented writing okay now I want to go over some of the cultural differences between that culture and our culture to show how stark the differences okay so for example in today's culture we think of snake we think of danger right we've been taught that snakes are dangerous but in this culture the

snake was a symbol of life energy and regeneration because you know snakes can shed their skin right a most benevolent non-evil creature okay so that's one major difference another major difference between our culture and their culture is in today's world we think that white is good black is bad right and we can't imagine that black is good white is bad right but in their culture that's exactly what they believe okay black did not mean death or the underworld it was a color of fertility the color of damp caves and rich soil of the womb of the goddess where life begins what on the other hand was the color of death of

bones okay does that make sense so back then for most of him here of human history, we thought that white was bad because it symbolized death and black was good because it symbolized life. And we can't possibly imagine that today, right? The last thing I want to talk about, and this is actually the most controversial thing is back then for most of human history, women had power an agency, okay? What I mean by that is back then, Owen's body was her body.

She could choose to do whatever she wants with her body. Doesn't make sense. In today's world, if you get married, right, if a woman gets married, then we assume the woman's body belongs to the husband. Only the husband can sleep with her. It doesn't make sense. But for most of human history, this was not true, okay? All right, so you look at sexual taboos today, okay?

What do we have sexual taboos to shame woman into proper behavior, okay? So for example, okay, if a man sleeps with a thousand women, we think, great, he's a stud, he's good looking, he's rich, he's tall, he's a stud, right? But hey, if a woman sleeps with a thousand men, she's a slut, she's a bad person, she has no ethical, she lacks,

ethics she lacks morality she's a she has no character therefore we must avoid her okay why does this make any illogical sense why is this true guys why is this true okay yeah exactly we don't we have this okay we have this prejudice because men are considered superior to woman and therefore men want to control woman and the best way to do that is by controlling the woman's body it doesn't make sense okay so this is just a cultural prejudice. There's no biological evidence this is true, okay? All right, so we have a lot of evidence that women want sexual agency, okay? Women won't have sex. There's something wrong of that. Okay, so for example, we look at monkeys, racist monkeys, and females will aggressively

seek males out for sex, okay? So it's the females that are proactive. You also look at Bonobo's monkeys, okay? In Bonobos monkeys, it's interesting because the females are in charge. The females have sex with each other. Why? Why do have sex with each other? Well, females have sex with each other? What's the purpose of that? Unity, right? Does it make sense? Unity, to get along, to cooperate better, okay? And then they will also have sex with males, but they initiate the sex, okay?

There are some cultures where it's the female that will initiate the sex with the male, okay? All right, so at Harvard and UCLA, they discovered, okay, the moment they discovered the plow, agriculture, these societies have lower levels of female participation in politics in the labor force, okay? Meaning like before where men and women did the same work, both have the same political power. But once men showed that they could contribute more society, men start to have more power, okay?

Does that make sense? So in other words, differences between men and women are not biological constructs, okay? They are cultural constructs. And for most of human history, men and women were equal. Okay, any questions so far? Okay, so the idea of black and white, it's a, like white is good, black is bad, it's a recent construct, okay? It comes with the idea of race. Okay? And race was invented about 200 years ago. Why? because Europe was going on conquering the world, and they needed to justify why they were doing this. And the theory is, because we're superior people.

Our race is better than your race. Does that make sense? So race is a recent cultural construct, and it was to justify imperialism, the conquest of other people for no reason. Doesn't make sense. So all of this is recent, okay? There's a really fun book called Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan, okay?

And what he argues is that for most of human history, women had sexual agency, and they had multiple sexual partners. And one piece of evidence is this. Gorillas, right? They're the biggest primates. They're huge, right? What turns out, their penises, when fully erect, is only, 4 centimeters, okay? Men, who are a lot smaller than gorillas,

when erect, they are at least almost four times as big as the gorilla penises, okay? So the question then is, why is this the case? And one theory is that when women have multiple sexual partners, the man with the bigger penis will spread his gene forward does that make sense guys okay and so this is a this is evidence like for most of human history women have

had multiple sexual partners okay okay okay so even when women had women had partners, okay, a husband, they still had sexual partners. Okay? And in some societies, women have many husbands, usually brothers together, okay? All right, let me ask you this question. Why did they do this? Right? Because we've been taught this. We've been taught, okay, we exist to spread our genes, right? You understand? So if I marry someone, Only if I'm sure that the offspring, the children are mine, will I work hard to ensure that the children are fed and raised properly and educated. Does that make sense? So we've been taught for a long time that we first care about our genes.

Okay. That's why men want to have as many wives and children as possible, and women want to find the wealthiest husband. But before most of human history, this was not true. Why? Why, guys? Okay, so it has to do the idea of religion. Okay? So the first thing is that we all come from the mother goddess.

We're all equal, right? So it doesn't matter if my, if, it doesn't matter if it's my son or my friend's son. They're all the children of the mother goddess, and therefore I have responsibility to protect the children okay does that make sense so there was no concept of individual there's only a concept of community okay that's the first thing second thing is they really didn't understand genes okay they didn't understand like okay a child has 50% genes from the mother 50% genes from the father okay How they understood was, okay, you have the woman, she gives life, the man gives energy.

Does that make sense? Therefore what? If you believe this, then what? If the mother gives life, the man gives energy, what? What? Right? But how would you get better energy? more men, right?

You understand? If men are giving you energy, the more men you have sex with, the more energy you have. Doesn't make sense. So, the evidence is, if you look at the people in millenniae, okay? They believe that cement provided energy.

And so you need a lot of semen. Okay? So what would happen is that when a woman married a husband, what happened is the members of the husband's family would come and have sex with her that very night in order to get as much energy as possible from the family. Does it make sense, guys? Okay?

Any questions so far? I know this is controversial, but I'm just trying to show you how our cultural beliefs is radically different from the cultural beliefs of people in the past. Okay? Doesn't make sense? Okay. So one last piece of... evidence is this when you don't know who your who's when the when the

people don't know who the father is everyone has a responsibility to protect the child it doesn't make sense to you guys okay so the story is this Christian missionary he goes into a village and he finds people just sleeping with each other okay there's no marriage there's no husband wife people just sleeping with each other and the priest says to them you people are shameless and one of the villagers replies you have no sense you French people love only your own children but we all love all the children of our tribe okay you understand so having multiple sexual partners is a way to build community for everyone

If you're a small community, okay, maybe 15, 20 people, it makes sense to make sure that everyone loves each other and everyone will protect all the children. Does it make sense, guys? Right. So let me tell you a story to illustrate this fact. We know that in World War II, okay, in World War II, American pilots, okay? What they were doing for what what they were doing is they were sleeping with each other's wife Doesn't make sense the reason why they were doing this is American pilots were more likely to die in war than any other soldiers Does that make sense guys therefore you slept with the wife of your colleagues

in order to ensure that if you died, they would protect your children. Because there's a good chance you would die in war, okay? You were afraid that if I died, who's going to look after my wife and who's going to look after my children? And the way you build intimacy in community is by sleeping with each other's wife. So you became one big family.

Okay? Doesn't make sense, guys. Any questions so far? I know this is controversial. I know this is hard to understand, okay? But we have evidence that for for most of human history woman had sexual agency and power and sex was a way to build community, okay? Doesn't make sense? Yeah? Okay, that's a great question, okay? So the question is, is this backwards or is it primitive? Okay? And what I want to show you this semester is that, okay, guys, there's no such concept as backward and primitive, okay? The reason why we care about sex more than any other people is the idea of private property, okay?

Private property. So, for example, if I have a wife, I do have a wife, okay? we have three kids okay I want my three kids to inherit the money right but if my wife goes sleep with other people then who gets the private property so in other words we have the idea of sex as shameful because we live in a private we live in a patriarchy okay doesn't make sense right okay sorry um let let me explain some more later on okay all right let's move on all right so I want to conclude with this idea I want to conclude Maria Gumbotas argued that old Europe was ruled by women or a woman

were part of the political class and because of that Europe at that time was more peaceful and more stable than at any other time in its history doesn't make sense so another question then is why would women as a political class be more effective than men as a political class? And there are three reasons. The first reason is women are more willing to cooperate and collaborate. It doesn't make sense. So men are competitive. We like status.

We like power. But women are much more humble. So, women are much more likely to compromise and collaborate than men are. Does that make sense, guys? Okay? So if you, if men are in control, the men want all the power. But if women are in control, then women are much more within sheer power with men. Does that make sense?

The other thing is, let's just say like your community gets to be a lot of people. in conflict with another community. Well, what would happen is the women leaders of your community would get together with the women leaders of that community and you could quickly negotiate a compromise. But men are competitive, they like status, they like faiths. So it's much more likely that when men start to negotiate, it becomes violent. Does that make sense? Okay, so that's one thing that women are better at.

Women are better at collaborating and compromising. That's the first thing. Second thing is that women have more emotional intelligence. Doesn't make sense, guys? Meaning like men care about rules, right? Women care more about you as a person. Therefore, women are much better at managing people. Doesn't make sense.

Doesn't make sense. Okay? The third thing is that men can use violence to coerce other people, right? Women are not as physically strong as men, therefore they have other strategies for controlling men. And the two main strategies are gossip, okay? Basically talking about you behind your back, which forces you to conform, but also sex. Okay?

So if the woman spread sex evenly among the men, the men have no reason to fight. And if someone, the men doesn't think bad against community, the woman can choose to not have sex with this man, okay? As a way to punish him. But this is all very subtle and non-violent, meet ways of forcing people to conform to the rules of the society, okay?

Okay? Does that make sense? Any questions? This is confusing to you guys, right? Okay? So let's conclude, okay? Before the conquest of the Yamaya, all Europe was a peaceful egalized society, okay?

And a lot of the reason why is that women were given higher status in society. So it was women who made the rules who were the political class in society. And because of that, women are able to use nonviolent ways to control society, making society much more peaceful and stable. Does that make sense, guys? Any questions?

Excuse me? Okay, okay. So the question then, the question is, if people are not violent, how do you control society, okay? And so the way you can control people is by the idea of shame. Okay. Because everyone wants to get a law, okay? All right, so, all right, here's a fun experiment.

Okay, here's a fun experiment. What you guys can do is every time you walk the hallways and you see a person, wearing red like like a girl wearing red you tell her you look fantastic okay I guarantee women like two weeks all the girls in the school will be wearing red doesn't make sense so you're controlling people but you're not using violence you're using the idea of gossip shame and flattery and that's what women do really well you understand okay does that does that answer your your your question okay any more questions yeah so you don't have to use violence you can you can

also use flattery okay right any more questions okay so um next class what we'll do is we'll look at the yemnaya people okay because the yenai people are violent they love war their patriarchy and they have private property. The question then is, okay, how do they come about? What's their origin story? And why were they so successful in conquering old Europe? Okay, so that's the story we will look at next class.