The women of this time are more powerful than the men.
Some argue they’re not.
Some argue they always were.
Some just argue.
As we go into Age of Aquarius consciousness,
the last dying breathe of the traditional old school Masculine has left its epitaph
as guidance for the world beyond its colonial, empirical reach.
For this alone it is worth paying attention.
The words, graven in its own stone slab, say this:
“the divine feminine is divine not because she is fe’male but because she is feminine.”
The most powerful healing energy we know of
is about to have its resurgence
to reign for a cycle of 2500 years.
Its qualities are not those of the toxic masculine wearing a dress or a fe’male body.
As coven gather openly under sun and moon and eave and arch to celebrate and rightly so, to open portals of energy, gentle, peaceful, intuitive, caring, loving, kind, we all of us do well to remember not to become that thing we fear and hate, which held us under conquest and control, conformed us to its rigid domination through punishment and cruelty.
Those are not the ways to heal the ills.
The way of harmony is the way of seeking balance in all things.
The way of energy is the way of water. To make the connection with its earthing.
To soothe gradually any jagged sharpness into care worn tenderness.
The celebration of femininity.
There is a thing, because of the nature of balance.
Women will recognise its value something men have known forever.
The absolute fundamental importance of accepting accountability.
To self and to others.
This is necessary.
The harsh lessons women will have to go through to learn this will test femininity at all levels.
It will happen at an accelerated rate compared with the last cycles,
emotional collective Pisces and before that stubborn sensual Taurus.
prompt “squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes, roughly humanoid in shape with pointed ears, sharpened teeth and grimy skin, horribly corrupted, with dirty yellow to dark brown skin” ai art, it rejected ‘slanted eyed’ against platform safety policy
Tolkiens Orcs
Internet is full of a description Tolkien put in a private letter, now released publicly, describing Orcs to have slant eyes. This is perceived by some as Tolkien being racist against peoples who have slanted eyes. Which is ridiculous. My cat has slant eyes, that is not racism. He was describing something specific. Look at Tolkiens illustrations of the dragon Smaug. It also has slanted eyes. That’s what he was describing. An aesthetic.
What I did not find available on the internet is how Tolkien described Orcs in the manuscript of Lord of the Rings itself. I find this peculiar given it should be the go-to resource on how Orcs are described in Lord of the Rings.
It has been quite some time since I read it. First at the age of eleven and again in my late twenties. From memory, which is about as good as Radagasts, I recall Tolkien having mentioned something about Orcs being sallow, pallid-skinned and of hollowed, degenerated form.
By the same way Tolkien never once mentioned Elves to have pointy ears, we can assume he was not describing the Warhammer Orcs and Elves which came much later.
Sallow, degenerated, pallid, because they are undernourished and inbred, living as animals without animal intuition.
Tolkien got me thinking at age 11 about how people could not read for most of history, how the assumption most people had semblance of sustainable culture is ridiculous.
The Grendel is not a story about a rare incident. The Grendel is a story about the others who were not taught to speak, to count, who were shunned and had no civilized ways. They did not built huts, harvest crops for thatch, they couldn’t hunt with a bow or start fire because such things were beyond their ability to fathom.
They had emotion untamed by living with other people in a community. They were wild, feral, sometimes hunting in packs or preying on one another. Sometimes they killed each other for food if they could find no worms or berry’s. Or out of anger or lust. The wild peoples were not a unified tribe. They were descendants of outcasts born in a lair to parents with no clothing or tools, no human ways whatsoever.
That’s most of us for most of human history. Most of your ancestors. What we call history began at the very recent end of a long succession of that. There were still people living that way during the medieval era only a handful of generations ago. Possibly there still are even today, somewhere in the world.
And toward to the future, if we are not careful to sustain the very best of what we already have achieved by way of knowledge and the cultures which sustain it.
What wisdom is worth saving for those to come? What wisdom do we have? As individuals who pass before passing it forward? None. As communities listening to the voices of the wise and sharing of their ways? A small number contrasted against billions who haven’t yet.
The importance of kingship and governance to hold together a sustainable civilization that even our small and dwindling wisdom may be passed to the next generation and beyond.
The necessity of colonial schools to educate us with a common frame of reference that should yet another catastrophe strike, the survivors will at very least know how to make soap, weave clothes and rope and baskets, spark fire and plant seeds for vegetables and trees.
Tolkiens Orcs were those who did not know how to do such things, though could raise an arm to wield a weapon and they could raid.
The armies of Mordor consisted of scavengers, imbeciles, bullied into swelling the ranks and awed at the might of what can be achieved through working together to the best of their actual ability.
Tolkiens Orcs were not monsters, they were men, women and children who had never benefited from development of the mind, of the heart, of any cultural values beyond immediate need and survival. Golem at least is a step up from them, is arguably the best of them.
When I read Lord of the Rings as a child I had already seen green-skinned, red-eyed Orcs on television, a machine which had not existed during Tolkiens lifetime until his later years. I was conscious to read Middle Earth free of influence of what I had seen on tv.
To read it for what it was, what the words described and not how other peoples imagination were infecting my mind to misperceive the words.
Middle Earth was populated by gangly outcasts unfit for civilised folks to teach the warmth of companionship, living in primal fear and need. The symbols of the rural agricultural Shire, the Stately Home of Elrond and the ancient Elves and so many ruins of fallen Human empire.
Northern lands where nobody much mentions and nobody but Rangers and Dwarves ever visit. The kingdom of Gondor and Rohan is the highest culture amongst Humans.
A handful of hyper-educated folk stand out, labeled as Wizards who read and write and gather histories into towers to keep them safe. Protecting their zones with the magical they alone have the burden to protect. Such the responsibility of wisdom which the irresponsible care nothing for, to such extent they seek actively to destroy it.
Mordor represents many things. Callous and destructive hatred from those who lust for power without any patience to develop accountability. Anger against those of a higher power who seek only peace and sustainability. Those who know forgiveness, gentleness, foresight, caring. Those raised by ideals to better the world or at least to not worsen it. By what merits this is accomplished.
Here, we are not going into root cause issues of why women have abandonment issues. A general response is to invoke the phrase ‘daddy issues’ without checking the accuracy, relevance and validity of the term.
Instead, we are going into assessing what she can do about it from her situation.
This basically is summarised by one word, ‘acceptance’ which is another way of expressing ‘deciding’, and the multiple choices of specifically what it is she accepts which defines what she has decided.
Or, by not accepting, by not deciding; which is perhaps delusional because the situation continues to exist with the same specific range of options, whether she accepts that or not.
Postponing of accepting is postponing of making a decision which world she is actively energising, creating, for herself and for other people involved and encountered. That space is typically unhealthy for others dragged into it to empower the indecisiveness.
Is it that she wants for someone else to decide for her?
Who?
Her man, other men, the mixed gender community or the exclusively female community?
Let us get back to simplicity of the core options.
Overcoming abandonment issues.
The options:
1 Acceptance of the one man. Monamory/Monomory, mono-game.
2 Acceptance of having no men at all. Celibacy, nun (‘none’), or lesbianism.
3 Acceptance of a sequential string of men, repeating the same situation with different men. Polyamory, mono-game.
There are no other options.
This lifestyle decision regarding to whom she has partnership is integral to her approach of facing abandonment issues. She has only three choices regarding who has the control of deciding how to define the situation.
1 Putting the man in control of abandoning her, or not.
2 Putting herself in control of abandoning the current man, or not.
3 A blur of both.
It is a matter of trust and faith.
This is why females ‘test’ men continuously which is exhausting for both parties, especially the man. Whatever criteria is required for her to trust him sufficiently that she stop testing him is not something women openly discuss with men, lest men use it as leverage to manipulate women. There is a cloud of confusion over communication, resulting in mistrust in this matter.
What strategies have men and women discovered and developed which work best in bringing cross-board understanding of how best to achieve a harmony with this matter?
Discuss this with your partner/s.
The logic inherent in pure language.
Mon - one
Poly - many
Amory - affection (love)
Game - strategy (sub-Dom power exchanges, the see-saw of attaining balance or exploiting, usury)
Monogamy is not dedication to one person, it is dedication to one strategy.
Polygamy is not dedication to one person, it is dedication to multiple strategies.
Very often people use the word monogamy where what they mean by it is mono-amory (‘one love’). It is possible to have a mono-amorous (one-love) relationship with polygamous strategies on that one person.
This is why we must question what does a person mean when they say ‘monogamy’ for purpose of clarification in communication and comprehension to avoid living “in the darkness of misperception”.
Know this from experience of a relationship where the partner insisted on monogamy, she was not talking about being exclusively dedicated to only the one partner. She employed various different approaches to interacting with that partner always for controlling purposes on the basis of dealing with her own abandonment issues. Culturally this is recognised as symptomatic narcissism due to it being covert manipulation.
The excuse ‘I did not know because I used the word to mean something different than what you thought it means’ is no excuse to justify non-accountability for consequences of behaviour.
Culturally, monogamy means exclusive to person. If a person says they are exclusive (monogamous) they are explaining their own preference for their own behaviour. Stating what you are is in no way an agreement nor any accord of the person you are stating it to, that they must behave the same way. Working by assumption and implication is to live in "the darkness of misperception."
Be aware how for this analysis, sequential-monogamy is considered a form of polygamy. Especially so where the same relationship pattern is repeated with concurrent partnerships. Therefore ‘monogamy’ is an incorrect term to describe the dynamic as it relates to strategy, not to individuals. Loyalty would be a better term to use.
“Fleshlights are amazing. They detox men from their nasty bitch ex. Empower men by being always willing. They do what a perfect woman does.”Rachel Bree
A woman who is always willing is respected more than any other. A woman who turns sex into a transactional power game is a problem. It is that simple.
Yet it is a founding principle of female empowerment which has resulted in the conflict of modern society. The role of the male is to bring stability to this by providing structure for order.
We are biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual. To work with our bodies needs in a healthy way is regarded by some cultures as divine. The bodies needs for health and healthy living is to not fight against these things and repress them.
For men, this is deep rooted. As far as understanding abandonment anxiety is concerned, this is a core aspect affecting it from the male perspective of having to deal with what makes men tick.
I do not know if it is exactly the same for women. I have attempted to discuss this with many different women. Some of whom I have had sexual relationships and some of whom it was platonic and/or professional. My findings are as follows.
Women with whom I have attempted to discuss this with and who have acknowledged it could be, also happen to be more sexually willing to please men.
Women who absolutely shout down any such discussion at all, also happen to exhibit the most severe dysfunctional behaviour and antisocial personality disorders. To such women sex is either a non-entity or is transactional.
This is revealing. There is an association between the female ability for open communication and the female willingness to gratefully satisfy a man’s horniness on his terms.
Those who reject, those who welcome. The criteria for this should be assessed (further study report).
When the provision of sex to a partner becomes a matter of trade it is not a marriage, it is a business contract.
This was an original definition of the word marriage before the medieval concept of courtly love, courting suitors, and the formal contract of a marriage before consummation on the wedding night.
The consummation which is the wedding, the ‘joining together as one’. The marriage is the ongoing intention to always return to that union as soon as possible, to always be within its light. To consummate as often as possible.
An engagement is a dedication to an intended goal. All of the stages of this delaying of instant gratification are the elevation of female empowerment to create a space within which she can accept, study, learn to yield to and learn to control her man, even as he grooms her to be his bride, his bridge, his connection to the bliss.
An engagement is for her, a time required for her to come to terms with how she must behave to empower the marriage. Which at its core is quite simply is to always yield to him sexually.
This is the historical perspective. Of course a marriage, any partnership involves factors outside of the bedroom. The practicalities of living together as archetypal people as well as the practicalities and needs of the unique individuals involved.
We need to understand what this is all about to put into perspective the impact of modernism and feminism has had on the medieval culture which we inherited and what was its original intended purpose.
We need to be aware of this to recognise how far we have deviated from it and to see its wisdom and merits as much as any flaws we may perceive from the modern way of thinking.
What has happened is the purity of marriage in creating lasting, functional relationships has been corrupted and is now being replaced by what is described as a modern marriage.
A modern marriage is one wherein she has more power to behave as if she is not married but he is still expected to bring to her all of the benefits of marriage, including those of the courtship period of proving his worth by providing and supporting for her.
He must maintain this even after his having proved it which creates a situation of mistrust and insecurity because non-acceptance of his having been tested. The tests become ongoing. This is perhaps a necessary adaptation to the compromises of modernity.
This transition began in the latter medieval period, before the discovery of gunpowder. We see how far the roots of the female empowerment movement go in terms of time and how deep they go in to the bedroom in terms of affecting the sanctity of the pure relationship between man and wife who have sworn a divine oath to serve one another by bringing one another harmony.
The women’s rights movements that a woman is not merely a sex object has for our generation and culture destroyed this awareness of what it is required to make relationships stable in the historic sense.
A woman who gives her man sex is respected for doing so. A woman who makes it difficult for him is going to lose him to the women who do give it to him.
Men need sex. It’s a biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual driving factor of their existence. It is how God and nature made them. To question whether it is spiritual in essence is to question both the divine masculine and sacred sexuality. These items are aspirations of successful people.
Broken men suppress their own need for sex. A woman who breaks her man is an unhealthy woman as much as a man who breaks his woman is an unhealthy man. Broken women suppress their men’s need for sex. Broken men either don’t take it or take it by force.
Why do people behave in a dysfunctional, oppressive way to suppress and repress sexuality?
It serves only one entity; the depopulation agenda. The death cult uses divide and control. It is colonial. It is no surprise how even our marriages are colonies of the death cult. Our minds have been programmed as its agents.
What is the answer to liberate ourselves from that?
