Monday, May 11, 2009

Love, whazat...!? (from a male perspective)

A friend of mine used to play live a song he wrote about child-abuse,
the title & chorus going: "...YOUR LOVE IS EVIL..." I thought that
was pure genius, to hit the nail like that.

Yeah, some love, some 'love', some LOVE, and some love kinda weird
and backwards, like "evil" (EVOL" -love, in reverse-), controlling or
possessing or dominating. Some -more than one would fathom- have
a love here & there, just to play games. Some are sick to the point of
needing to abuse another person to feel "love" for them.

I was told there's 3 kinds of "making love" (sex); fucking, having sex,
and making love. It gets peculiarly hard to try to have 'em all at the
same time, with just 1 partner. Fucking is related to penis size, the
bigger the more of it you get. Having sex is related to how successful
a man is; the bigger the wallet, the house, the car, or your fame is,
the more of it you get.

When you are in a relationship, the object is to try to fool yourself
that every time you have sex, you are "making love". In reality,
most of times it is just plain old mating with a lot of strings attached.
Women have for the most part transformed modern day relationships
into a "Bidding Process", no different than getting awarded the design
or construction of a City Hall or an important project. Women view all
males as potential Bidders, she the prize.

It is appalling how many of marriages fall under the latter, i.e. just an
ending of a long & complex series of Bidding-Processes. I said modern
day; in India (et al), marriages are most often simply "arranged", by
the parents and families, that is -even at very young age-. Plain old
Business-As-Usual; yet our occidental "more advanced" forms of
engaging in relationships and marriage, are but thinly-disguised
forms of the same, by & large a Woman sells herself under a contract
to a Man who will provide/protect her.

The '60's changed this, but that was.... er... rather short-lived. By the
time the 80's reeled in, relationships more than ever regressed to the
Sale-Contract mindset, after an often protracted and bizarre Bidding
Process. The music, the dance, the drinks, the dating, the partying,
the wining & dining and so forth, mere Aggiornamento, decoration,
make-believe foreplay for the business transaction. I once heard it
that therefore the most crucial question a woman should ask herself
is about Prostitution and its many camouflaged shapes.

The current cynicism of our present day "Post-Everything" era, in
a quite uncanny way reflects the bottom-end rotten deal of it all. At
least in the 90's "No Dick Is Big Enough" meant a sort of Conformism
to the fact that most men are not well-endowed (genitalia wise). A
similar Conformism was found regarding the precarious income of
most men (literally not well endowed, financially), or their lack of any
claim-to-fame. You know, not everybody is the stereotypical front
singer or quintessential "every-girl-wants-me" drummer in a rock
'n roll band.

Thus in the end, any male with say a dick shorter that 12", becomes
a less-than-ideal mate (go figure what your standard 6" dick makes
you, normal buddy -reality check !?-); women of course will publicly
proclaim "size is not it", but we all know that's one really big pious lie.

See, the problem with this "Bidding Process" mentality embedded
in the female psyche like a Trojan-Horse virus software program, is
that it takes quite a long time to get debugged and re-programmed.
Translation: many relationships, marriages, etc. Back in the day
when I was in college a wiseguy used to tell me: "Chris, women
before 13 and after 43". No, he was not a pedophile, it was a
wisecrack about this "Mid-Phase" most women seem to go through,
like a long long long trainwreck, through a series of illusory stations.

When I questioned him in a more serious tone, he offered a simple
pragmatic piece of data; "Women don't love you, they either want
you or need you". Then he would add: "Now before they're 13 and
after they're 43, there might be a reasonable chance they might
actually love "YOU" for real, for what you are, not your dick, your
wallet, your car, your house, your claim-to-fame, or what have you.

Back then I considered him a Misogynist; strange thing is he truly
loved women. Much later on I began to understand was he tried to
convey to me, that the problem women have regarding the True-
Love issue, is a Humankind problem, manifesting in women, just
like other Humankind problems manifest in Men. And we humans
being so defensive, females typically will counterattack by claiming
it is men who don't love at all, quite the propaganda.

As some comedians put it, we males don't seem to get aroused a bit
by the surroundings & all the external irrelevant stuff. We absolutely
don't give a rat's ass whether she's rich or totally destitute, successful
at what she does or nor, what kind of car she drives and what kind of
house she lives in, we are just as pleased fucking her (or loving her
all the same) over a cardboard box at the end of an alley. We men,

Welcome to the 21st century, now "No Dick Is Big Enough" is replaced
by the usual "All Men Are Dickheads"; if you excel at something now
females taunt you with a "You Think You're Hot Shit, ..don't ya...?",
if you have a lot of class they will call you Boring, if you have a lot of
money they will drop you with a sneer -"I want someone sensitive
& deep"-, if you are indeed sensitive & deep they will quickly point
that they value humor & adventure over all that crap ("You know,
a little danger turns me on"), if you sport short hair they will quickly
add you're too straight, if you have long hair then they will make it
very clear that "Long Hair Turns Me Off", if you talk a lot they will
say you're too imposing, and if you keep it quiet & simple they will
snap with a "Men Don't Know How To Talk & Listen", if you carry
normal interest you'll be dull, if you show true eclecticism and fringe
interest you'll be labeled "scary", etc etc etc.

The 3rd Millennia in heterosexual relationships, is best defined by the
famous last line of Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game" song: "... Nobody
loves no one". The amount of convoluted and often totally paranoid
rationales & explanations concocted in order to justify NOT LOVING,
is staggeringly apalling.

There is a fixed-line already prepared for every Exit-Strategy. We
the human species have become a walking encyclopedia of pretexts
to avoid true loving, for every possible scenario. And women of all,
have been particularly 'Cognitive-Dissonant' in this context.

Many conspiracy researchers have long espoused that whom they
view as the "illuminati elite" ruling the planet, have enacted a quite
insidious Sexual Social Engineering programme, which goal they claim
is to produce dramatic behavioural changes that seek to divide Men
& Women, often by stimulating "UNBALANCED MALE & FEMALE
ENERGIES", while suppressing the Balanced Alchemy of both. In their
view, the end-result is a highly slanted and aggressive towards the
other gender type of personality, heavily promoted through hype &
fashion via the mass-media as social-conditioner, no different than
brainwash. These researchers are often quick to point out that the
often bizarre episodes of en-masse "instantly transformed into gay"
syndrome, is a clear evidence of such. Their contention is that when
bisexual or gay orientation behaves more like an infectious epidemic
rather than as an Internal Natural Predisposition, it is because it is a
virus -a psychic virus, that is- (just to mention one syndrome).

It helps to heed grandma's words: "You Got Givers & You Got Takers",
amen. I find it extremely disconcerting, how so many people when
thinking/talking about Love they just mean BEING LOVED, seldom
just LOVING.

A noble soul such as the late George Harrison, when he sang "Give
Me Love" did not mean a female loving him, but God giving him the
gift of of loving others.

I consider this the crux of the entire issue; females by the most part
have compiled long Shopping-Lists on who their very ideal Prince
Charming could be like, that are not just too demanding but often
totally contradictory in the requirements; for ex. they will write in
a dating website profile that they desire someone spiritual, only to
add a minimum high income. Or that they desire someone (using
various expressions) who is quite the ace in bed, yet they also add
that they want a monogamous partner, or that they will not consider
anyone under 6 ft tall (Tom Cruise, Sting, etc, you are discarded...)
yet at the same time they say are seeking someone sensitive and not
overpowering. Reading female profile pages in any dating website is
the most illuminating experience in this topic (I strongly recommend
women to read them), the Shopping-Lists are almost demented, and
utterly devoid of any basic consistency. We all know a guy with a gun
will try to kill many prey, just as a man with a big schlong and lots of
talent in bed has developed both with the very intention of exercising
it with as many as possible -thus no monogamy, duh...-, etc etc etc.

It is particularly in-your-face evident what is truly happening; when
females compile these unreal Shopping-Lists, they are in reality just
setting the ground for IMPOSSIBILITY; no male can possibly meet
the requirements, thus... Love... will... never... happen, by definition.

Thus they will settle for less; comedians often joke about this saying
that you the "chosen man", are always No. 3 or 4 in their "Ideal List"
of "Bidders" -if not even lower in the order...!?-. No wonder females
will NEVER be happy with their male, and males will always end up
confessing to their buddies that they can't figure out women at all.
It is a universally accepted secret amongst males, that "No one knows
what women want". An insightful dude I once met added: "Neither
God nor the Devil -much less themselves-, really know what they
want, at all...!?".

Keep in mind the title of this post is "Love, whazat...?"; I am not here
to psychoanalyze the genders, but to reflect on... L-O-V-E. Elusive
as True-Love is, it certainly has become an almost socially banned
human experience, through the social engineering experiments clearly
at play, affecting mostly women to a peculiar high degree.

I've heard quite a few times females reacting to love by assuming a
"I don't want to become so vulnerable" posture. This trend
is specially disturbing; if for ex. you read Dan Winter's research on
the Wave Fractals of Love, you'll get acquainted with his conclusion
that when Waves/Vibes reach a geometrical disposition such that
they reach "Infinite Embedding" by either fractally reproducing
with the minimum interference either Inwards or Outwards, then
that is the origin of Life & Love, when the INFINITELY SHAREABLE
wave DISSOLVES ALL WALLS (destructive interference, illusion of
separation, materialization of isolation), as well as Electrical charge
and Gravity, the ability to steer Dna through the Beyond-The-Speed
of Light wormholes.

In other words, Winter's research is strikingly clear in evidencing that
Love is Total Transparency, Total Shareability, the disposition where
there is no Wall/Protection, where maximum expansion/implosion
is the same as Total Vulnerability; this is the "Great Hint", that by
thinking in such terms as VULNERABILITY & SECURITY, many
females have been programmed NOT TO BE ABLE TO EMBED THE
LOVE WAVE, the wave becomes infinitely powerful precisely at the
moment of total vulnerability. (Please do read this entire paragraph
in green as many times as you need, until you totally get it).

The engineering through millennia of females as "weak in need of the
male for protection & security", is a clever subliminal way of clearly
disengaging them of the Power of the Love Wave. It is the proof
that females have been oppressed, not merely by outward type of
inequalities, but by "Deep-Within" psychological-construct tampering.

Ying & Yang have been deliberately corrupted to imply a different
meaning; originally Ying & Yang meant In/Out, just as you breathe
in/out. This is the reason Yoga utilizes breathing techniques, to make
you become aware of what for ex Dan Winter (to use the same ref.)
calls "Turning the Inside Out, making the Outside look/become the
Inside"; that's how you LOVE, by taking "inside" somebody on the
"outside", making him/her your own inside, that's how EMPATHY is
produced, by feeling "inside" what others "outside" are feeling. And
viceversa, then you want to give outside what you feel inside.

True Ying & Yang then, is but THE BREATHING In/Out OF LOVE
ITSELF, the way the infinitely recursive Love Wave both Implodes
(towards the Self as isolation) as well as Expands (towards the Other
as shareability). Ying & Yang are not "genders", but In/Out postures
& energies implied and necessary to the ALCHEMY OF THE UNION.
This In/Out essence is manifested in a material fractal, in the image
of bodily sex, expressing the In/Out symbiosis "in act". When you
achieve True Loving (as opposed to just Wanting To Be Loved) then
even the Dna itself reconfigures In/Out like a hyper-dimensional
Mobius Strip, acquiring higher-strands, by resonating fractality.

This Love-Wisdom as the Origin of Life and all its manifestations,
has been concealed and detached from the Ying & Yang discourse,
and Male & Female are thought of illusory "opposites" or
"opposames". Through the "opposames" template, women for
ex. are compelled to dress and behave like men (let's start with
the pants as a teaser, then onwards...). If the male's main 'virtues'
are to prove external material physical requirements, how could
"Ying & Yang / Inside & Outside ever become One in Alchemy...?

By thinking consciously or subconsciously in these requirements, the
females engaging obsessively in such will never be able to attain the
Ying & Yang alchemy, they will be doomed & trapped in the walls &
limitations of their one-sided gender. Thus they feel "disempowered".

This is how male dominating secret societies have fundamentally
taken away the alchemical powers from women. And by and large
most women still persist in pursuing their either overt or subliminal
Shopping-List agenda when mating; good teeth & a square jaw & firm
buttocks & broad shoulders are a sign of the strongest genes for their
offspring, yet have nothing to do with True-Love and its inherent Dna
activating Alchemical Powers of higher transformative effect. So yes,
they will indeed get the best genetic offspring -physically so-, but
their Higher-Strand Dna disempowered condition will never change!?

And most women will go on firmly subconsciously believing they made
the "best business", when they chose the worst. We all have seen
women in scores going through life always believing themselves
to be the real winners, to have the upper hand, they "deceive" men
simulating weakness and such, but the truth is they are thinking in
OUTER terms, unable to compute the Ying & Yang true alchemical
powers, underlying the Male/Female symbiosis, only activated under
the most "vulnerable" Love Wave possible. There is no greater prison
than believing we are free when we are in an invisible cage, or that
we have won when we landed the worst deal in fine-print. Males
have let women think they are being oh-so clever cunning master
manipulators, because this preserves the illusion that cages them.

Make a mental list of how many films have you watched, that portray
a love story where the man is poor. Answer: none. In practically every
case, the ideal man to "love" just... happens... to be a... millionaire.
This is one of the myriad of ways how females are programed to
effect the erroneous mental Shopping-List as a pre-requisite ANOMIA
trait (Anomia the condition of being routinely overpowered by fear),
which completely deactivates their Dna at the moment of choosing a
loved one, erecting an inner wall as an interference cancelling the
Love Wave -this inner interference wall the cage that jails them-.

Millionaire, Prince Charming, Knight in Shining Armour, Famous Man,
etc, are all EXTERNAL FIGURES that carry the trojan programme for
an IMPOSSIBLE TRUE-LOVE relationship, because the archetypes
implied by the figures do not "internalize" anything at all, the Ying &
Yang alchemy averted. These are long-term trans-generational
modes of psychic (or even astral) programming, carried after many
centuries or millenia in the genetic chromosomes themselves.

So now we are witness to some women who lead the pack so to speak,
beginning to decisively REJECT THE MALE ARCHETYPE they have
been obsessively/compulsively CHOOSING for millennia. The first
stage of this is directing blame towards "all" men, not realizing this
only reflects their truly lousy choices of men in the past. Suddenly
the fixed-option for the best-brute is cast in doubt, and more & more
women begin to feel they need a different archetype of male. This is
because intuitively they KNOW the condition they have been in, and
that CHANGE is in the making. These are the women that are at
the forefront of liberation & ascension, provided they have been able
to detach themselves from the REACTIONARY MODE of "Hating
All Men" all the same -or the fake & false lesbian tendencies that
hide this reactionary hatred-. This hatred of course is an even more
insidious mode of interference for the embedability of the Ying &
Yang alchemical Love Wave, preventing Dna resonance (I am not
speaking of the truly natural lesbian, which is a different topic and
theme altogether).
Watch 2nd video on page, titled "Dan Stars '09", for Dan Winter ref.

No comments: