StoneWall

STONEWALLING AND COMMUNITY

Preface

I write from the perception of a counsellor concerned with the impact social engineering employed to divide-and-control which creates an imbalance in society, resulting in the destruction of community, to provide leverage for further exploitation of individuals. If you are an individual this is directly relevant to you.


“Gray Rock” is a technique promoted by fifth-wave feminists * following third-wave principles.

third wave is anti-male, female supremacy strategies.

fourth wave feminism is a rejection of fem-dom and a focus on female related issues.

fifth wave is use of technological communication to manipulate society on a 1-1 and small group basis. This is precisely how cults work. It offers the manipulator a chance to interfere and retreat with no responsibility. It is an ideal situation for Narcissists to enjoy their methods for empowerment-by-control-and-destruction.

Popular within the contemporary communications technology community is the dynamic between Narcissist and Empath. A cultural terminology has emerged expressing our life situations in these terms and it is a method of indoctrination for the purpose of agenda based manipulation. This does not mean there are not cases where it is relevant and useful. It has also unveiled the scope by which manipulation is occurring throughout society to reprogram people to become less empathic and more narcissistic in their behaviour toward each other. Most especially this is aimed at encouraging females to resent males, playing on the foundation of gender based division.

Personally I believe that genders are complimentary, and phrases such as “battle of the sexes” encourage sexism and division. Communities thrive best where there is harmony, not division. The complimentary gender is 50% of the people on this planet. That is unlikely to change simply because of a personal prejudice and encouragement from hardline extremists using com-tech to brainwash a generation.

#GenderlessEquality is not the same thing at all as trans-gender.



Stonewalling And Community


Narcissistic Method

Stonewalling somebody without explaining to them why they are being stonewalled is a method used by narcissists to protect themselves against those who they perceive as narcissists. The result is the target (the one being stonewalled) does not know why the stonewaller is doing it, and assumes them either to be acting irrationally or to be manipulated into acting on misinformation as an attempt to socially isolate the target as a part of a victimisation campaign (Hate Crime by proxy).

Whatever affront the target did to the person doing the stonewalling, is going to be repeated endlessly until somebody points it out to them that a specific aspect of their behaviour was wrong. NB it is not the person, it is the behaviour - these are two distinct and different entities as is taught in childcare. All of us have a social duty and a duty to self to continually improve our behaviour with relation to other people. It helps vastly more when we are aware what behaviour is perceived as wrong, than it does when the target does not know at all.

A person who has been stonewalled with no concept of why, is going to be confused, offended and will not be able to work on improving themselves or recognizing where they might need to improve - if at all.

Anybody encouraging stonewalling with no explanation is actively divide-and-control, is attempting to control the one doing the stonewalling. An intelligent person (A) would question why person B is encouraging them to avoid person C and to put both person A and C into this position.

If you Stonewall somebody for no apparent reason - you are the sociopath.


Alternatively:


Empathic Method

Stonewalling somebody after explaining why they are being stonewalled is a method used by empaths concerned with improving the social conditions we all experience. It establishes a dynamic by which healing can develop and progress can be made within the community. The target can work on the problem because the target knows what the problem is. It also exposes where stonewalling is a reaction to misperception or as result of manipulation of the stonewaller by a third party.

If the target (the person being stonewalled) asks “Why am I being stonewalled” this immediately indicates that the target does not understand and cares enough to want to fix the situation.



StoneWall As Abuse Tactic

Stonewalling is an abusive technique. If you need time out from your relationship, you state that you need time out. If the partner ignores that then stonewalling may become necessary. Stonewalling is the abrupt and final end of a relationship.

To stonewall somebody for a perceived sleight without explaining the problem or for no serious reason at all is the methodology of a narcissist who has decided to drop one of their sources of energy (“supply”). There is only one reason a narcissist would do this; self protection, to avoid exposure. Discredition of the threat is a standard reaction. "I had to stonewall him/her poor me!" solicits sympathy by way of securing new supply. 

A full exploration of how humans use each other as sources of energy can be found in The Games People Play by Dr Eric Berne. Make it the next book you read. It is easy to understand the principles and strategies which develop for purpose of energy supply. It is as relevant today as ever, although the use of modern communications technologies has given us a different arena and the emergence of different strategies (see fifth-wave feminism).



My Experience of StoneWall

I have both stonewalled people and been stonewalled by them. The Block function on facebook is stonewalling. It is useful to avoid any unwanted attention from abusers. People who I have been stonewalled by, who later explained their justification for doing so fall into three categories:

- genuinely had a good reason (fortunately I have had very few of these if any)
- was/is playing control games which I have challenged/exposed, so has stonewalled me as attempt to cover it up (including labelling me as an abuser to justify their own abusive actions)
- was manipulated by a third party who sought to disable their support network of which I was included by persuading them I was a threat.


When you weigh up these three reasons, these are the questions you need to ask when stonewalling a person. Why am I stonewalling this person? And; Is the right thing to do for myself, the target and society at large, to explain to the person why they are being stonewalled?


PostScript

A genuine healer heals the whole, holistically, rather than isolating components. You only cut out a cancer if it is definitely identified as a cancer and not a support. Most people are in real life situations which involve elements of both - we are beyond Disney Princess Syndrome which is a meme used for leverage. This is symptomatic of the society we live in as much as it is symptomatic of the cPTSD so many of us have as a result of trauma from the society we live in.

The Positivist Agenda is to create no more trauma and to heal that we have suffered, for the benefit of individual and community. Society is your enemy, Community is your friend. Community is holistic and non-exclusive. When it becomes so, it is no longer community, it is a sub-culture of Society. This is the only rational Humanistic approach we can take toward healing ourselves and others without harbouring fear and hatred toward specific individuals. We all know that fear and hatred are toxic.

Q. Who gains from fear and hatred?
A. Those who exploit others for personal gain.

See also:

Energy Games

AuthorityAbuse
BitchPack

Abraxus

“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.

Equity vs Equality

The Age of Feminism DOES NOT WORK any better than did the mythic Age of Male Principle (if indeed there ever was such a thing).

As children we are taught about EQUALITY. We are taught to respect, expect and demand, equality. Equality is the concept of achieving and maintaining a Balance by light of Fairness.

As Adults, with maturity, we learn about EQUITY. Equity is what this post is about.

Be aware that the goal of Equality to achieve and maintain Balance is the guiding principle which is why we are taught about it first. It is the end result goal, however we are all Unique and Different which is why in practical life, Equity is necessary to achieve Equality. To achieve and maintain Balance, we must accept the differences and find ways to resolve them.

Here is an example of why Equity is superior to Equality.

Imagine the See-Saw of Balance. There is a plank on the horizontal plane and holding it up, in the middle of it, is a triangle shaped wedge. The plank has a measurement grid painted on it, measuring from one to one hundred. It has fifty in the exact center. These are percentages. The apex of the wedge points to the measurement grid on the plank. By moving the wedge, we can see what percentage of the plank is to one side and what percentage of the plank is to the other side. The plank represents Equality. The wedge represents Equity. On one end of the plank, is my side and on the other end of the plank, is your side.

Equality measures at fifty percent to maintain fair balance.

Now we are going to explore Equity.

I have a Brick. You have an Elephant. This is because we are not born Equal at the start, although we are attempting to achieve and maintain Balance.

The Equality Approach (50% / 50%)
I place my brick on the plank (the balance grid), and you place your elephant on the plank (the balance grid). What happens?
The see-saw, our measurement grid, falls apart when we keep the balance set to fifty percent of the plank for each person. The brick flies up into the air and lands someplace else while the elephant falls to the ground. Is it practical? No, it is not. The balance of fifty percent each has failed. Equality has failed.

The Equity Approach (90% 10%)
We move the wedge. We move the wedge to compensate for the inherent natural imbalance. We move the wedge so that there is now 90% of the plank on one side, and 10% of the plank on the other. Now when we put the elephant on the 10% side and the brick on the 90% side, the Balance is achieved. The plank remains horizontal. And yet; one person has 90% and the other person has 10% of the plank. Is that Equal? No it is not. Is it practical? Yes, it is. Is it Equitable? Yes it is.

We can clearly see here that Equality is about Theoretical Fairness, while Equity is about Practicality to Achieve Balance (but not necessarily to Maintain Balance, we shall explore that next). The end result is that Equity is more closer to the goal of Equality, than is simple Equality.

Maintaining Balance.
Equity is Temporary and requires regular Review. The Balance is always shifting. We return to our see-saw measurement system several weeks later only to find that it has lost a lot of weight, and is now the size of a peanut. The brick has not changed its size.
To maintain Balance, we need to make another adjustment, placing the wedge not at 90% / 10% but now at 20% / 80%. We need to review the situation on a regular basis. Practicality must be maintained to decide how regularly reviews are necessary.

If you wish to understand the underlaying system used by early Masons (before it became a religion) and used by the Courts of Law And Order, then you must first understand why they rely on Equity as opposed to Equality.


3-Step System Achieving For Social Equity:
1. Determine and Recognize Individual Needs and Differences.
2. Use (1) to establish where the Wedge needs to be.
3. Establish time period for next Review.


Further Thoughts:
The big question is which is superior between the Principle and the Contract ? Does a meeting of minds or a written contract over-ride the Principles of Equality and Equity, or is it the other way around? At this stage it becomes a matter of discourse on Ethics.

Example; Because of Usury, there is not enough stuff in the world to repay the debt that the people living in this world owe to the paperwork fiction of a corporation called the Usury Banks, and there never will be. The global debt is not only permanent, for ever but it is also increasing continuously. The Usury Banks depend on paperwork contract to maintain this imbalanced, inequitable situation. Either a change in policy or the demise, of usury based civilization, are the only possible solutions to this dilemma.