A Little Joke That Made Men Into Fools
A little story here. You know god is essentially male,though some want to make god female. You might have heard of the word "patriarchal" or the man as head. A woman is matriarchal, but that comes from the latin "materia". What we call material, or everything that exists is material. So all of creation, the sun, moon, earth, animals, people are material,or arise out of what is created from the mother---the female..
Patria is land that is owned, or our word property. Property is merely taking control of the materia.
patria potestas, (Latin: “power of a father”), in Roman family law, power that the male head of a family exercised over his children and his more remote descendants in the male line, whatever their age, as well as over those brought into the family by adoption. This power meant originally not only that he had control over the persons of his children, amounting even to a right to inflict capital punishment, but that he alone had any rights in private law. Thus, acquisitions of a child became the property of the father. The father might allow a child (as he might a slave) certain property to treat as his own, but in the eye of the law it continued to belong to the father.
Patria potestas ceased normally only with the death of the father; but the father might voluntarily free the child by emancipation, and a daughter ceased to be under the father’s potestas if upon her marriage she came under her husband’s manus (q.v.), a corresponding power of husband over wife.
By classical times, the father’s power of life and death had shrunk to that of light punishment, and sons could keep as their own what they earned as soldiers (peculium castrense). By Justinian’s day (527–565), the rules of peculium castrense were extended to many sorts of professional earnings; and in other acquisitions, such as property inherited from the mother, the father’s rights were reduced to a life interest.--Britannica
These notions of belonging can be connected to ethnic and territorial names, as in “Francia” or “Gallia”, but also to social and political abstractions, such as “populus”, “gens”, and “regnum”. Instead of focusing on a single notion of belonging like that of “Francia orientalis”, and assuming that its use in our time period indicates the existence of a solid feeling of “East Frankish identity”, we seek to contextualise individual uses of such words: by whom was a given notion of belonging used, and why in that particular situation?
One word that has often been connected to the supposed inception of nation states in the tenth century is that of patria. Before the 1960s, some scholars tried to read a kind of “proto-nationalism” in Carolingian and tenth-century uses of this word..Such an approach potentially disguises uses of patria that were inherently local in meaning, yet at the same time possessed political currency and functioned as important notions of belonging. Enter Ratherius of Verona. Born in the late ninth century in the city of Liege or its vicinity, he would become one of the most prolific writers of his time. He was deposed from his bishopric three times, and from that of Liege once, living large periods of his life in exile. His career ended in the late 960s, after he seemingly fell out of favour with then Emperor Otto I. Lacking the support of the emperor against the increasingly rebellious Veronese clergy and powerful local counts, he was deposed from Verona as an old man one final time in 968. Ratherius’ self-identification does not revolve around a particular ethnonym or geographically-defined realm, but is indebted to a much more local notion of nativa patria, one’s “native land”. This is most clearly shown by a single turbulent episode in Rather’s career during the 950s. Ratherius had lost the bishopric of Verona in the 930s, and then spent several years in exile. His attempts at regaining the see of Verona were unfruitful, but in 953 his fortune took a change for the better: in that year, the see of Liege lost its bishop, and Ratherius managed to acquire it through his connections to Bruno, the brother of King Otto I. His luck was, however, short lived: in 955 he was again expelled, having fallen victim to political intrigue and, perhaps, also his own uncompromising temperament. Just after being forcibly ejected from the bishopric of Liege, Ratherius wrote down that the “people of my native country (populus nativae patriae), joined to me by the kinship of neighbourliness” had been “deprived of the office of their bishop. To Ratherius, his deposition from the see of Liege was made all the more perverse because of his personal belonging to the city and its inhabitants, the populus. His invocation of the nativa patria in the context of a high-level Church conflict suggests that this concept also held at least some political currency, and was not mere empty rhetoric. Yet unlike many earlier Carolingian authors like Alcuin, who could praise Charlemagne as a “pater patriae” or “father of the fatherland” and call on their rulers to defend the patria against foreign aggression, Ratherius does not connect the term patria to a kingdom or ruler. At those places in his works where he provides a context for the term, it is connected either to kinship, the see of Liege, or both.
A strikingly similar use of patria can be read in a letter sent to Ratherius by Everaclus, bishop of Liege between 959 and 971. Everaclus sent his letter at the very end of Ratherius’ career, in 968. In it, Everaclus invites Ratherius to visit his homeland, the nativa patria. He writes exultantly that this patria will welcome Ratherius with open arms, and that all belonging to both the secular and churchly orders of the city asked for his return. –Beyond nation-building: “patria” and belonging in the tenth century
May 16, 2017Jelle WassenaarResearch Blog,
So the patria is the property and to be the patria is authority of the property. I have written before that what we call "wife" (basically a woman has become the property of the man, comes from old english word "wif". Wif ment human, not female human, just human. There was no comparable word for males, they were only part-human, and if called anything, animal-human. The word used was not a particular type of animal, but would properly be better described as "beast". A type of frankenstein human, not an actual human.
Men however wanted to become fully human, or some did, so they overthrew the woman. As woman became the property of man, the man took control of societies; but unfortunately for men they can't create materia. So they invented materials they could own; weapons of war first; all the way to computers which became the only material of men's creation that they could own since they couldn't create any material.