Tuesday, 9 February 2016


“It further goes to prove what those guys have been saying all along; the women always back the women, regardless of truth, decency and equality.”

“They have to. The underground womens movement went a lot further than people generally are aware. Women can take people out through discrimination campaigns, and they do. People who know about this, mostly females, are afraid of it happening to them,. So they conform to the agenda. They believe it is normal and at some levels, necessary.”

“What agenda?”

“That you even have to ask that revealed exactly what I am talking about. Either you know and are lying to appear innocent in the public image, instead of being all that you are and honest with it; or you genuinely do to know there is a female supremacist agenda called total female domination of society.”

“So what do you propose we all do about it?”

“I propose that we remind those women in relative positions of assumed authority who are perpetrating this thing upon society, primarily that it always fails; this is not the first time in history we have gotten to this stage. I remind them that it fails because it is not the successful way for humans to be cohabiting peacefully. And secondarily I remind them that the method by which it fails is usually, as history has showed us, a backlash of such extent that the history books are re-written to keep it out of the public memory. This is why the official records are hidden from the public.”

“What happened last time?”

“Men had enough and went on a bitch-cull. The public histories call it witch-burning and blame it on religious fervour, viewing the whole thing in terms of religious context. The truth is that is merely a smokescreen; rather than directly addressing the point-blank truth of the matter, that it is an ongoing gender-war. Basically half the population organised a widespread rebellion against female domination and raped and killed all of the ones who had pissed them off throughout the years. Of course it was covered up except for the few places where memory of it became the roots of the myth that we historically lived in a male dominated society, used as a lever first for equal rights for women, which in practical terms they already had, and then for female supremacy. It goes around in cycles, one gender perpetuating a myth by which the other gender is stereotyped. Usually these cycles last several hundred years.”

“What about societies that overcome gender stereotype and bias?”

“Most people are of that category, most of the time. Those who recognise the gender differences are natural and that they compliment each other, balance each other, only when they are relating functionally which by definition means through certain attitudes and ways of respecting and behaving toward one another. Addressing all of the needs of both genders from the obvious to the intimate. A better education level is required, and better communication.”

“And an effort to overcome frustrations and anger with the other gender for having a different view.”

“Exactly. It is the third view, the dance of genders, the balance itself which requires agreement of both genders to conform to, which is the purpose. We do not have to turn it in to a religion nor system of laws although historically both those systems have developed, and been exploited. It does exist as a social creed however. That is what we should be focussed on; the only way to establish and maintain gender-mutual advantage in a functional society.”

“I can see a problem with so many people already being programmed to have preconceptions.”

“It is a stumbling block, sure. The one important factor is that both gender of children should co-exist and be raised by both gender of adults, toward the desired result of gender-mutuality. What we have is a mix-mash of religious and legal concepts and creeds all contradicting each other and essentially, contradicting the purpose of achieving that social harmony.”

“What of homosexuality and bisexuality?”

“It all has an acceptable place, the purpose of gender mutuality is not to discriminate against any particular sexual-orientation. The purpose is however to divert away from extremism and back toward a more balanced, accepting, harmony-focussed core concept. It is about social-hermaphrodism rather than social-androgyny or social-polarisation.”

“And should be done non-religiously and non-legally?”

“It would help. Although historically the advanced groups who did go on to achieve relative levels of respected greatness developed systems of identifying key concepts as deities. The Templars worshipped a hermaphroditic deity called Abraxus who was the balanced male and female aspects. They applied it more to their own individual selves much as in Jungian anima and animus, rather more than to project it outward onto society as a social structure. It is however the recognised deity who already exists and resides over these issues. Some associate it with the word Abracadabra which means ‘opening of magick’ and suchlike. An ancient African concept predating our written histories. You can see from that, for how long these issues have been occurring.”

“You would have us implement this into our daily routines as a society, a culture?”

“I would have people decide for themselves rather than feel pressured into conforming to any given set of concepts. Which is exactly my point about the fear with which women have from other women, at this time in history; peer pressure to work toward the gender ... i mean the agenda of female supremacy.”

“Do you not believe it is the same for male gender?”

“I am from a culture where it is one way, being influenced by a mass immigration of a different culture where it is another way. The female-supremacy culture has persuaded everybody that it is itself a male dominated culture because that gives the controllers an edge in social control, conscripting a new generation of believers to its aims and agenda. All very clever until you see through it for what it is. The immigration culture from the outside does appear to be a male dominated culture due to their legal and religious system, the one founded upon the other. As I already stated; legal and religious systems are a mistake, a diversion away from the real issue, which is the gender war. We cannot end the gender war until we address these issues with no fear of discrimination and persecution by other members of any part of our multi-cultural society.”

“So we would be better doing away with religion and legislation for the meantime until such point as we can resolve the more powerful concern.”

“For the immediate conversation until we leave this room, if all present are agreed, I believe we have a divine right to do so.”

“That is a very powerful claim of rights. Is anybody here opposed to it?”

“I oppose to it on the basis that were we all to be living in such way as to claim that right at anytime, for it to be recognised by external forces or not, be they legal or religious authorities. Were we to be living that way, it would make it possible also for a gang to claim such right and victimise a person. With regard to this being a gender issue, it would disempower the individual, minority gender from the will of the larger group within an enclosed space. This could lead to gender discrimination.”

“You are correct and you are also working from a position of fear of gender discrimination. The factor of peer-pressure. You are afraid that for example a gang would force a minority into acting against their will, or some worse crime.”

“That is exactly what I am intimating.”

“An exquisite choice of words there also. Yes, such a gathering would have to have the agreement of all present members with no restrictions as to gender, age, racial and cultural background. The agreement that between that group of people they would be living by a new system by which human equality is encouraged and nurtured consciously. I would suggest that any person or group who strayed far from that focus would be requested to leave or the meeting would be closed.”

“There is a word which becomes important; consent of the individual.”

“Informed consent of the individual. Everybody must be of the same understanding and agree to work toward that purpose.”

“So basically you have invented a new cult here. This is how they always start; with the best of intention to address the major social issues of the time, which are usually the same social issues in various guises throughout history. And the next thing which happens, is that some type of hierarchy system is establish to cause difference between a minor faction of the group and the majority of them. As soon as that happens the original purpose of equality has fallen apart.”

“Then let us not do that. let us call this thing by a new name and leave it at that.”

“People will naturally find their own natural names for it. Although it would help greatly if we use the same word multi-culturally throughout, and it not to be a words which already has associations with existing creeds and philosophies.”

“Any suggestions?”
Everybody in attendance agreed that in the English language we could pencil in and call it the obvious, 'Peoplism', until a better term is suggested, except for that term already being in use referring to something else; and that in Islam the word Islam already exists for that purpose although it does already have too many existing connotations associated with it to be used with respect of what we are trying to achieve here. Namely, avoiding bias and control groups. 

"Avoiding Bias Cliques. ABC. I like that. It resonates with Abraxus." 

"Using the pre-existing term in its originally intended context, does seem to make a lot of sense." 

It was as far as we got in the first meeting.

No comments:

Post a Comment