A Feminist Argues With Me: I See the Distinction Between Releasing Lies and Seeking Truth

From An Email Exchange About Not Blaming While Blaming And Denying What Is In Order To Seek The Truth

mural de oaxaca. musíca: regina spektor — machine.

Prologue

This essay continues my examination into the absolute malevolent lie that is feminism. Feminism, I have been surprised, even shocked to learn, has been just a singular wave of misandry and anti-family and anti-society sentiment and intention. What I saw, and as many also see, as feminist overreach today, is not that: it is simply the fruit of the feminist tree that began at least with Mary Wollstonecraft in the late 1700s. And more distinctly with the early feminist manifesto The Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1848.

A feminist friend’s email pushback provided the impetus that exposed two great feminist lies and, by chance/ synchronicity, the difference between the truth seeker and the lie see-er.

Introduction

I received an email Tuesday, October 7th, from a feminist friend who practices a spiritual life. We talk and correspond regularly, and so she has received from me my recent revelations on the malevolence of feminism. And, as has been my experience with women more so than with men, the idea that the foundations, intentions and practices of feminism are malevolent is anathema to her. And she blames men, 1000s of years of women being oppressed by men, for the goodness that feminism has given because it has shaken off that oppression.

And, of course, to many of us looking at that statement, we see a kind of weird denial of truth: if men were oppressive the way she described, and since men have superior strength, feminism could not have come into being, ever. Feminism simply could not have happened without men not being oppressive. Feminism only exists at the ‘grace’ of men’s largesse. That might be a positive spin. Reality might be that feminism came to be because enough beta males didn’t fight women about it to become feminists hoping that that way they could procreate with at least those women before they died.

Either way, feminism exists because of men letting or even encouraging it to happen. And I find myself laughing at that irony: feminism is fundamentally misandry and has its life because the men didn’t use their oppressive might to stop it or, later on after its societal metastasis, to expunge it. Life really does have a wicked sense of humour.

I think my friend’s recent email may have been sparked by my response to her, during a conversation earlier, blaming the Chinese practice of foot binding on men. I said, paraphrased from memory, ‘It was the women who bound the feet of their daughters, not the men. And likewise in Africa, it is the mothers who mutilate the genitals of their daughters. It isn’t the men. Men have no interest in these things from women. It is for women that women do these kinds of practices.’

Link to Substack Video

A Feminist Argues With Me: I See the Distinction Between Releasing Lies and Seeking Truth — Video

---

Link to Soundcloud Audio

Essay Playlists:

Spotify

YouTube Talk

YouTube Music

---

🙏 If this essay gives you some pleasure, and/or an ‘aha’, extend our human intimacy and become a paid subscriber.

Or click on the coffee if you would like to buy me a coffee:

All the best with what is changing. Everything changes. Peace, respect, love and exuberant joy. 🙏

Do You Think Women Are Crazy?

I don’t remember her reply when I spoke. Some surprise, I think. However she wrote a reply:

what shocked me lately the most coming from you:

your comment that foot binding was “done” by the women to the women: yes, that’s factually true. (the men would not have been ‘allowed’ to do it) AND have you never heard that the powerful ones send their underlings to do the “dirty work” for them? do you not know that it was the men who created the idea that small feet for women (not men) were ‘beautiful.’ (three inch golden lilies). the women with bound feet could hardly walk and were in pain, and that made them more dependent, not powerful, and “beautiful.” (if this idea was not enforced by men the women would have had nothing to do with it.) do you think women are crazy?§

and you repeated the nonsense about cutting women’s genitals in africa and the middle east. if the men did not say they wouldn’t marry women who were not cut, it wouldn’t be happening. an all women society would not be imagining these horrors.

§Well, to be honest, I do think that women tend to craziness, at least a little. Why? Because generally, not all, not all, women refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, nor do they demand other women to be accountable for their actions; they deny reality and evidence; and evade responsibility by blaming something or someone else, especially men, in this age of hyper-feminism. Note: I may be biased because I was raised by a narcissistic mother. And her mother was an evangelical-like hypocrite. And I spent 37 years with a woman whose OCD and other ‘strange’ thoughts and narcissistic behaviours make foot binding and genital mutilation not out of the ball park of craziness. For some information on my mother, see

Dear Terry: Epistle #2 To A Dead Mother

Freud and Kinsey are Dead! I’ll Manga Out the Inflated Penis’s Envy of Edie’s Puss.

---

And I’m not the only one who has seen the strangeness of women. After an extended consultation with a truck driver, his wife and daughter verbally assaulted his doctor:

This outburst by the two women left me visibly shaken and terribly upset. My calm composure was momentarily shattered.

The gentleman profusely apologised for his wife’s and daughter’s behaviour, attributing it to the “strange behaviour of women.” (A Day in the Life of a Doctor: The Emotional Toll of Dealing with Intransigence: The challenges of a frontline doctor by Dr Ev Rapiti, Jun 29, 2025.

We of the male persuasion understand that scene to a degree most women do not seem capable of doing. (I experienced it often with my ex.) To we mere men women often appear to be in denial of what many females say and do; they will ask for and get the very thing that they don’t really want; and they are in denial of reality in astounding ways. And there are many examples of this kind of craziness in all areas of life. A fun series of such denials of reality are laughingly shared in YouTube: they are of highly trained female martial artists who boast that they can beat any man — then get knocked to the ground often by even average men, not necessarily even ones who are well trained. Insane Men vs Women Fights - When Guys Fight Back. Some few of the highly trained bigger women have been known to defeat some smaller men with only some training. Yahoo equality!

Since having begun researching feminism I have seen this denial of fact and logic frequently when women, especially avowed feminists, debate men. When I looked for examples on YouTube, this one about a woman running for governor of California stood out: Democrat Katie Porter Has A HUGE MELTDOWN On CBS Because Of This?! This isn’t ‘cherry picked’! It is pretty much an example of women being crazy. And later, while looking for something else, an even funnier look at this woman’s crazy behaviour and illogic came into my feed: New Videos Emerge of Katie Porter TRASHING Her Staff and Shocking Reports of Abuse, with Walter Kirn. And a last one: What HAPPENS When WOMEN Try To Do A Man’s Job?

Optional Viewing:

Note: Viewer discretion is advised because the amount and degree of craziness may trigger depression. These are not really cherry picked because they represent a minuscule fraction of the ‘Karens’. (Note: there men-Karens as a sub-category. And they are tiny sub-set of the female ‘Karens’.)

Crazy is as cray cray does, a sampler: Florida Woman Attacks Elderly Man Over MAGA Hat — Then Fights Police; Ex-Porter staffer reveals SHOCKING new details on candidate’s alleged bullying; When GOOD Cops Humiliate The Ass Out Of Higher Authority’s Children. Lefties Losing It: Joy Reid Unleashed.

Synchronicity Joke — Kind of Funny, Maybe, Perhaps In a Limited Way On An Off Day

39:42 [GY] You know why women are so like mad or crazy around men? It is because all men are basically stupid — Rev. Gyokei Yokoyama, of Sozenji Buddhist Temple in Montebello, California. Buddhist Priest Joins Jesse! (# 209), by The Fallen State, 5 Mar 2021.

Now for a ‘cherry pick’, simply because it is so off the charts funny-sad: a feminist argued that it is better for children to be raised in a single female parent family. Why? Because the chances are significantly higher that children having only a mother will drop out of school, struggle with drugs and alcohol abuse, go to prison and have mental health issues than will those children being raised by a single father. The feminist’s closing argument on why that poor outcome of single mothering is a net good is because the difficulties given to those children are a gift! It gives them a better opportunity to become stronger people after they recover from their hardships than the softer lives of children with only a father.

And an instant synchronicity. I opened YouTube to go to my feminism playlist to get that Andrew Wilson debate and link it here. When I opened YouTube to my homepage, I saw this, the cover page of a video with Pearl Davis and Andrew Wilson: Andrew Wilson & Pearl Discussing Podcasters Crowder/Owens, Feminism, Marriage, 304 and Degenerates! by What About My Argument?!, 6 Oct 2025.

{{[Andrew Wilson & Pearl Discussing Podcasters Crowder/Owens, Feminism, Marriage, 304 and Degenerates!]}}

Now back to the feminist defending her claim, against Andrew Wilson, that children having bad outcomes with female-only parents is a net good. When I started to watch it again, there is also the typical denial of female personal responsibility for actions and the typical denial of factual evidence. Amazin’! See Andrew Wilson EDUCATES Feminist Degen until She SPAGS, by Christine Grace Smith, 5 Jul 2024.

{{[Andrew Wilson EDUCATES Feminist Degen until She SPAGS.]}}

And likely the typical feminist will argue that those are only anecdotes — while citing their own anecdotes as proof of their tropes — as did my correspondent. And the typical feminist refuses to look for counter examples. Perhaps there is an intuitive awareness that once one starts looking, the anecdotes of crazy are, at this time of social media, practically infinite. And is there something like the 80-20 distribution of female to male crazy that Shoe0nHead sees with liberals celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination? (Details of that are below.) My own experience, for now, is likely 90-10, but my sample is too small.

Speaking of Crazy Horrible — Foot Binding

Enough of crazy modern women: now to foot binding. Or is that actually an example of crazier women? I did some research and quickly found confirmation of my statement that it is women who did the foot binding, and that it wasn’t because the evil patriarchal men forced them to do it. Yup, more confirmation that women are crazy.

Is this a modern version of foot binding? I’ve seen women wearing stilettos on the distorted, distended, cobbled and broken sidewalks of Oaxaca. Now if that isn’t crazy, nothing is! And perhaps wearing those kind of shoes could be considered not all that different from foot binding: from what I’ve been told, with extended use these ‘foot-bindings’ for the perception of contemporary beauty and sexual allure are painful and deform the wearer’s feet. From my perspective, the only difference between this self-inflicted foot injury-for-allure practice and foot binding is that the women are doing it to themselves, not their daughters. Hmmmmm.

Music: John Prine — Ain’t Hurtin’ Nobody.

Why Footbinding Persisted in China for a Millennium: Despite the pain, millions of Chinese women stood firm in their devotion to the tradition by Amanda Foreman, February 2015.

Foot-binding is said to have been inspired by a tenth-century court dancer named Yao Niang who bound her feet into the shape of a new moon. She entranced Emperor Li Yu by dancing on her toes inside a six-foot golden lotus festooned with ribbons and precious stones. In addition to altering the shape of the foot, the practice also produced a particular sort of gait that relied on the thigh and buttock muscles for support. From the start, foot-binding was imbued with erotic overtones. Gradually, other court ladies — with money, time and a void to fill — took up foot-binding, making it a status symbol among the elite.

Now most of the female feminists, who are almost completely ignorant of what men really want, might argue, perhaps even have argued like my friend did, that it was the men who made them do it. Nope. That kind of thing is not core to what men want in a good relationship with a real woman. Women wear these kinds of things, and do those kinds of things, because of female-vs-female competition. Men are pretty content having sex with most every women, and at the same time have pretty strict standards about the women with whom they are to sire their children. Foot-binding, plastic surgery, over applied make-up, stilettos and a profuse use of hair product are not within the categories required in either case, and particulalyr not for the woman men want to wed. Those things are lies women tell themselves that they have convinced themselves, independent of men, will make them attractive to men. See What men desire in a relationship, most women don’t understand, by emilywking, 17 Jul 2024.

{{[What men desire in a relationship, most women don’t understand]}}

Or see Black Chicks Were SHOCKED After Learning Why Men DON’T Date Them! by MyronGainesX, 3 May 2025.

And when men tell women what they want, women refuse to believe it. For example, there is a myth promulgated, evangelised, demanded of woman by feminists that women are to get a career for liberation in order to get a high valued man. See Woke Chick FOUND OUT Why Men DON’T Care About Their Careers! by FreshandFit Clips, 23 Apr 2025.

Female Genital Mutilation Bad! Male Genital Mutilation Good!

Before I begin with FGM, why is it that MGM is something most feminists — not all, not all, not all — do not talk about except in derisive or dismissive language, often with a denigrated comparison to the horrible patriarchy that is the source of FGM? Another truly laughable illogic: is not MGM also a result of so-called male patriarchy, by feminist logic? Ahhhhh! Feminist deflections: it can’t be that because in that case it is men who are harming boys. So the women harming girls is — because the men make them do it. Got it.

So the lives of boys and men are dismissible because victimisers are not actual human with feelings. Or, since boys are to become rapists they are simply getting what they deserve before they become rapists. Few say that MGM is a valid concern despite being expressed by male rights activists. And frequently women who express their concern for men about this and other male societal oppressions are attacked with the intent to destroy the traitor. See the experience of Cassie Jaye: MEETING THE ENEMY A feminist comes to terms with the Men’s Rights movement | Cassie Jaye | TEDxMarin, by TEDx Talks, 18 Oct 2017.

{{[MEETING THE ENEMY A feminist comes to terms with the Men’s Rights movement | Cassie Jaye | TEDxMarin.]}}

I was able to confirm that FGM is done almost exclusively by women, because women consider men doing it to be unclean and dirty. (Okay, kind of laughed at that: even where feminism isn’t de rigeuer, men are dirty.) I was surprised to learn that the wealthier families choose to get one of the several different varieties of FGM done in hospitals with surgeons! It isn’t just ignorant tribal people who mutilate their daughters! Modern women choose it for their daughters with, presumably, full awareness of freedom of choice and agency. It is a stretch of the most deluded feminist to blame this on men.

Like with foot binding, for most societies doing FGM — and it is far far more widespread than just Africa — it is considered as proper as MGM! Some use the same argument as is done to justify MGM: cleanliness. The long and short is that for whatever reason, and the origins of it are vague and possibly pre-Egyptian — there are Egyptian mummies with mutilated genitals, for example — FGM is a cultural preference that all participate in for sanitary, cultural and ritualist reasons.

There is no conclusive evidence to indicate where female circumcision first originated and how it was initially performed. Circumcised females have been discovered among the mummies of ancient Egyptians. Herodotus, the Greek historian, found the Egyptians practicing male and female circumcision when he visited their country around the middle of the fifth century B.C. A Greek papyrus in the British Museum, dated 163 B.C., refers to operations performed on girls in Memphis at the age when they received their dowries. Strabo, the Greek geographer, also reported circumcision of girls as a custom he found when visiting Egypt in 25 B.C. (Hosken, 1982). Female Circumcision in Africa: An Overview. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2014.

It seems that both FGM and MGM are not horrors of the demonic patriarchal power that overwhelms the weak and victimised women! It is an ancient practice that is well entrenched in the society and considered by most, men and women, as a morally good and important right of passage into adulthood.

Circumcision, though painful and unpleasant is looked upon as a joyous occasion. It is the rebirth of a new era and a step into adulthood for girls and boys in the African culture. For the Abagussi in Kenya, circumcision confirms the acceptance of one into their community and “remains a key feature of their physical, social, cultural, and emotional structures” (Gwako, 1995, p. 337), (Female Circumcision in Africa by B. L. Lisbon, p2-3).

And

For the Okiek women, being able to have this ritual rite performed brings prestige, honour and resources not to the individual but to the community as a whole. For women, fertility may be seen as central to the survival of the group and when the rituals of female circumcision are not performed, the whole culture will be undermined (Grimes, 2000). Circumcision is a communal venture for some African women and it unifies them within their culture. Among the Okiek, girls’ initiation includes excision serving as “the primary context in which women come together as a group, constituting a ritual community and a forum for social critique…” (Grimes, 2000, p. 297, Female Circumcision in Africa by B. L. Lisbon, p9.)

Is it about men having absolute control over women? Nope, it appears that that isn’t necessarily the case.

In Sudan, for example, the Sudanese women may go through re-infibulation (resewing of the vagina to make it smaller again) after each child birth. Though Westerners feel re-infibulation is done out of devotion to the husband (to maintain his happiness) and prevention of sexual infidelity, Oboler begs to differ when she writes, “In many societies with clitoridectomy, wives’ sexual infidelity is common. So, clitoridectomy does not prevent adultery, contrary to the Western interpretation” (Oboler, 2007, p14; Female Circumcision in Africa by B. L. Lisbon, p 2).

FGM and MGM are cultural traditions. As such, like stopping MGM, the pressure of the culture keeps it alive and well. And those who question its validity and viability are often mocked. Hmmmm. Who are we to descry FGM if we are content with MGM as a cultural norm? And critics of the practice are often scorned and can be vilified. Oh! Right. We in the west are feminists with its inherent moral superiority! So obvious.

The marxist oversimplification of culture and society as victim and victimiser is absolutely false. Society is complex and marxist oversimplifications, including the feminist cants and tropes, create delusion and social destruction by denying complexity. The women doing the FGM do not see the practice as victimising their daughters, exactly in the same way that ‘progressive’ western families mutilating their sons’ genitals are not seen victimising them. Really, what is the difference, ethically? Of course, the physical risks, dangers and debilitation for the females is significantly more profound to females than it is to males, so I am not minimising that. And oopsies have happened and do happen that destroy a boy’s genitalia, too. Yet if feminism is about ethically creating equality, how can they not be hypocrites to descry the cultural practice of FGM and concomitantly ignore those of MGM? It’s not about equality, obviously.

In Sierra Leone, the Kailahun women feel that female circumcision as a rite of passage is a valuable part of their culture and it makes them better wives, and helps to maintain their cultural balance. One woman says, “We have inherited this culture over 100 years ago and it has made us women be responsible housewives to our husbands.” Still another woman, a teacher, said: “We love [FGM] as a culture in the past, today and tomorrow” (Alexander, 2010). (p10.)

…

Among the Mandinka, excision is said to remove masculinity from a girl, her male twin “head” (or penis), and the parallel male circumcision is supposed to remove a boy’s female twin, “soul” (or vulva/flesh) (Ahmadu, 2006). (p12.)

…

Conclusion

In communities practicing female circumcision there is truly no place for a woman who has not undergone the ritual. Most African societies have norms governing the need and relevance for female circumcision and it is the responsibility of the woman’s relatives to enforce compliance. This act is not done primarily for the individual women — though it does transition her from childhood to womanhood — but it also connects and bonds communities together, in their quest for extensions in kinship. This can aid communities in becoming stronger in numbers and it helps in maintaining kinship ties in some African cultures (Female Circumcision in Africa by B. L. Lisbon, p13).

Of course this is unlikely to convince the avowed marxist-feminists from changing their cant that FGM is the evidence of the evil oppressive patriarchy. As my correspondent said to me, stop blaming feminists (by which she seems to mean strictly women) for the evil that women do: everything wrong with society is always men’s fault and never the women’s.

For example, from the correspondence:

of course men and women are both part of all the problems! but just because women are made to do the dirty work doesn’t mean they are the ones behind it. it means they are less powerful in the society.

See the sneaky bait and switch? So funny that feminists and many women do this kind of word dance. Followed by, of course the deflection:

let’s stop the blame and complain game!

Is her claim that women are less powerful in the society than men valid? I will address who dominates the standards of societal culture, men or women, a bit later, because foot binding and FGM (and MGM) are cultural, not patriarchal per se.

A Curiosity, Perhaps An Example of Feminism-Directed Censorship?

In my search for articles on FGM, there was a relative paucity, including a few that were feminist cants. I looked at half a dozen or so. The one I cited from above was a good overview of all those I found not contaminated by the marxist-feminist victim-victimiser delusional dualism drone.

There was one whose title really caught my attention. It is hiding beyond a paywall at The Atlantic on-line magazine. After my sister taught me a simple trick to get around the paywall, I was sadly disappointed. The bold title opened into a short empty shell of an article. I wondered if it had been edited down to be less confrontational to feminism than the title suggested. So I spent an hour or more seeing if I could find the smoking gun. I found just one, with pretty close to a smoking gun. Here is the title of The Atlantic article:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised: An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure, by Olga Khazan, April 8, 2015.

The supplied article makes zero mention of the misconception that men force FGM. In fact, it has almost nothing that I would qualify as a cogent statement of misconception about anything substantive on FGM. (Note: I did not find the article in various wayback sites.)

The nearly smoking gun was buried in an article written by someone with English as a second language. Here is the ‘interesting’ bit:

As an explanation, I focused on the findings of Shell Duncan, an anthropology professor at the University of Washington, who is the foreign activist challenged with challenging FGM. She is an activist looking to accomplish behavioural change for FGM, but she emphasises that, firstly, socio-cultural dynamics are to be understood without condemning them, or calling them barbaric because that leads to a [marxist] oversimplification of the issue [footnote, 7:5, 431]. She underlines this issue as:

Discussions of the cultural context of female genital cutting, in both the academic and activist literatures, as well as in popular media, often describe the practices as an ‘entrenched’ and ‘deeply rooted’ tradition, practiced for thousands of years in parts of Africa. Much of the existing literature conveniently overlooks the dynamic cultural, political and historical contexts of the various types of genital cutting performed by different actors in widely varying contexts.

Therefore, she has started to qualitatively research in Africa why FGM still continues. One important reason, which I choose to focus on as an explanation to her findings, is that she participated with observation as well as with interviews. Through participant observation, which I consider to be a reliable way to conduct a general law survey because it is known to the people who are talking about it, but which is unknown to us. She gave an interview about her findings to Olga Khazan from the Atlantic Journal [footnote, 2, 253]. She alleges that there is a misunderstanding about FGM. It is [commonly] thought [especially by feminists] that FGM is the result of men forcing women. However, she says, based on her experiences with them, that the women are also enthusiastic towards FGM. She attended a FGM ceremony before the wedding, and she observed that women are also willing. At one point she wanted to give a codeine tablet (some kind of morphine) to relieve the pain for the bride. But the bride hadn’t wanted it and added: “You don’t understand, this is not our way. And if I didn’t do that, I wouldn’t be a woman now” [footnote]. Duncan had also observed that after the practice of FGM, the bride was proud even, and that she started to dance. And Duncan remarks that for the woman it showed that she has the maturity to face the hardship that is coming as a woman [footnote]. Duncan had also questioned how a mother could give consent for daughter to receive FGM. She explained that if her daughter doesn’t get cut, she will not be accepted socially and will live with negative social pressure.

Discussions of the cultural context of female genital cutting, in both the academic and activist literatures, as well as in popular media, often describe the practice as an ‘entrenched’ and ‘deeply rooted’ tradition, practiced for thousands of years in parts of Africa [and many parts of the Middle East, Asia and Malaysia]. Much of the existing literature conveniently overlooks the dynamic cultural, political and historical contexts of the various types of genital cutting performed by different actors in widely varying contexts (Explanation & Interpretation on Munz’s Perspective on What Is The Motivation Beyond Female Genital Cutting (FGC) [Changed here to FGM — Female Genital Mutilation] by İlknur Alev; slightly edited to correct the English with my emphasis).

Censorship to Keep Lies of Feminism Hidden?

In the above the terse and silly Atlantic article appears to be yet another example of censorship to bias out of discourse the malevolence of some female behaviours. I am strongly suspicion of the widespread presence of female-feminist-centric censorship because of other encounters of how subtle that censorship is. This seems to be a good example because there is a scholarly paper that references to The Atlantic article. And that article no longer contains the references that the paper seems to refer to.

And a stand-out example for me was when, from a ‘recovery from a narcissistic parent’ masterclass, I learned about Darrell Hammond of Saturday Night Live. He struggled for decades with mental illness that lead to frequent hospitalisations. He made a documentary about his recovery called Cracked Up. The more than a dozen reviews and write ups that I read about his documentary do not include that it was his mother who was the source of his illness: every item I read generically blamed the family or softly inferred that it was his father who had hurt him. The narrative of the ubiquitous good of mother was saved — bad mothers are not allowed in feminised gyno-centric society! For more links and details on my encounter of that see

Dogged Dogma Dogmatism Perception Nuance Pt 2

When Gautama Woke Up Was His First Thought ‘OMG, Where Am I Now?’ Or ‘Who Are You, Really?’)

---

Where else has there been a weird kind of blindness or turning away from the reality of the devouring feminine? The retelling and downplaying of evil women in fairy tales and mythology. There are many images, ancient and less so, of the deadly and malevolent nature of the unbalanced feminine, called by Jungians, the devouring mother. See The Devouring Mother – Carl Jung’s Most Terrifying Truth. And perhaps one of the most important books to read to help us understand the place and power of the female in society, in order to help extract us from our being blind to being alive within a hidden gynarchy, is The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype by Erich Neumann.

Neumann shows how the feminine has been represented as goddess, monster, gate, pillar, tree, moon, sun, vessel, and every animal from snakes to birds. Neumann discerns a universal experience of the maternal as both nurturing and fearsome, … (from description.)

Medusa, sirens, Cinderella’s step-mother and step-sisters, the hag of Hansel and Gretel who cooked and ate children, the Beauty Queen in Snow White, Baba Yaga, and… How have we become blind to the base humanity of women within whom, like men, evil can be and is embodied and expressed in such things as foot binding, FGM and more? And how is it that that potential for malevolence and evil that has been accurately depicted in myth and fairytale has magically dropped out of sight in the age of feminism? For example, female nurses, women, held the infants killed by the 1930s German eugenists — men and women together being evil. How is it we even censor our memories of the horrific brutality women, equal with men, have engaged in? Oh. Yes. I forgot. The men made the women do it. For example:

Canada’s most notorious female inmate, Karla Homolka, was secretly spirited from prison on Monday after serving [only] 12 years for the rapes, torture and murders of three teenage girls, including that of her little sister, authorities confirmed.

… Homolka told the court and psychiatrists she was a battered wife who took part in the rapes and murders to protect herself and her family.

Months after prosecutors made the deal, however, [her husband] Bernardo’s attorneys handed over homemade videotapes by the couple that indicated Homolka was a willing participant.

…

Homolka became the symbol of evil in Canada in 1993 when she was convicted of [only] manslaughter for her role in the kidnappings, rapes, sexual torture and murders of Ontario teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. She was also convicted in the 1990 death of her 15-year-old sister, Tammy, who died choking on her own vomit on Christmas Eve after Homolka held a drug-soaked cloth over her mouth while both she and her husband raped her (Freed Serial Killer Says She’s Not Dangerous, NBCNews, July 4, 2005).

Lies Women Tell Themselves About Men — Synchronistic Contemporary Examples of PostPartum Self-Inflicted Misogyny as Social Destruction

See Women Are Wrong About What Men Really Want | Episode 76 by Brett Cooper, 15 Oct 2025.

{{[In Women Are Wrong About What Men Really Want | Episode 76 by Brett Cooper, 15 Oct 2025]}}

Cooper talks about a 20million views viral X in which a woman claims that men do not find postpartum women attractive. Shame on you disgusting men! Cooper read the comment section to reveal more lies women tell each other:

10:47 When I was scrolling through the comment section, as I do, it was the women who were agreeing with this. The [women] were crapping on men and the [women] were also saying that they were the ones who found postpartum bodies scary or unattractive. And it was the men that were denying it.

Now, for a lot of you, this probably is not shocking in the slightest, especially if you are a woman, if you have been around groups of women, if you understand gender relations, how women treat themselves or others. Because women are our own harshest critics.

That is something I have actually talked about a lot because many feminists like to point the finger at men and say, “You’ve done this to me. You made me have to be skinny. You did all of this.” When actually, it’s other women. Women are the ones who pressure other women to go get plastic surgery, who make them feel insecure, who say that you need to be skinny or look a certain way. Nine times out of 10, it is women who are doing that and not men.

Is this in fact one of the lies women tell each other to keep more women out of the gene pool, as evolutionary behaviour psychologist Dani Sulikowski claims? Sulikowski argues that one of the deepest aggressive biological evolutionary drives in the female is to ensure that her genes survive into the future. To help that along the female has an unconscious strategy that she makes manifest by ‘tricking’ other women into remaining childless. In other words, they lie to each other about what are good and bad mating and dating strategies. Hmmmm. Really?!

It rings true and is worth checking out. It seems to me that it goes a long way to explain a lot — not all — intra-female destructive behaviours, many of which I have seen and have had female co-workers tell me about. And who would rather throw sand in their eyes than work with the poisoned environments women-only spaces create. My paraphrase.

Watch:

Female Psychology & The End of Empires | with Dr. Dani Sulikowski , by Benjamin A Boyce. 12 Aug 2025.

{{[Female Psychology & The End of Empires | with Dr. Dani Sulikowski ]}}

And/or watch:

Hidden Payoff of Civilizational Ruin - Dr. Dani Sulikowski, DemystifySci #360 by The DemystifySci Podcast, 31 Aug 2025.

I shared Sulikowski with my sister. Sulikowski was new to her and my sister agreed with the fundamentals of Sulikowski’s argument — and at the same time my sister made a couple of strong points that add nuance to Sulikowski’s main thesis. For example, to what extent has this destructive mating behaviour become dominant because currently accepted mother-infant practices shatter mother-child bonding beginning with birth? If the mimetic requirements between child and mother are broken at the time of birth with medical intervention, separation, vaccination practices, etc. to what extent will this rift translate to broken social behaviours?

What may support both Sulikowski’s argument and my sister’s question is: to what extent has the expansion of relative wealth throughout the culture, including the destructive medical and psychological child-birthing and rearing practices that now include pretty much everyone and not just the wealthy, contributed to this societally-destructive behaviour?

Fascinating stuff! Please tell me in the comments if there is another ‘logical’ explanation for women’s use of this kind of weird anti-pregnancy shaming lie and, as feminists — both men and women — often do, at the same time create yet another lie and shamelessly put the blame for the first lie onto men.

And if this is a lie, it begs the question: where do the lies of women against men stop? The #metoo movement has largely collapsed into ignominy as more and more evidence of the lies women tell to get money, children and or destroy men is now well established. The recent high profile Johnny Depp/ Amber Heard and Harvey Weinstein cases being the most publicised examples. There are thousands of ‘normal’ men who have been put into this situation by women who lie.

I Suspect that Women More Strongly Create and Shift Societal Cultural Norms than Do Men

My correspondent assumed casually that it was men that forced their victims to victimise their daughters with foot binding and genital mutilation. As I had suspected at the time when I had triggered her by stating that women do the nasty deed, nope, it wasn’t the men. Men didn’t force women to wear corsets or to cut out their ribs. And today, men do not force women to bind their feet in poor fitting and maladapted shoes or overly tight skirts and dresses that by design limit or even cripple women’s ability to walk. Men did not set that culturally accepted behaviour in women. And yet female feminists frequently blame men for that.

And one of the great logical fallacies that feminists have absolutely not addressed, as far as I have found, is the following source of cognitive dissonance: since, by their definition, women are the morally superior human, who were (and still are) bound by brutish men with ball and chain to the home as caregivers and mothers to the men’s children, how is it that these mothers have been unable to raise sons who do not become the brutal rapists and warmongers they condescendingly and with unimpeachable moral rectitude descry?

And, at the same time, do not the children raised by mothers become those who set the society’s future dynamics? On whom, the boy or the girl, will the mother be most influential? Well, it would seem not the boys, because they make war not peace. So the female is the one who will for generations set standards of beauty, fashion and family practices and priorities, including the bulk, 85%, of all consumer purchases. Men largely ignore these social priorities, go out and work, and play and dip into social requirements in order to find sex and/or a wife with whom to make a family. And even here, woman have the power of choice and so it is women who set that stage. (Jordan Peterson has described how the power of the female to choose the male accelerated human evolution by weeding out the lesser-thans. The genes of most men who have lived died with them.)

We can see that being staged now, especially since feminist crazy women with great excitement publicly and frequently shame men in social media. Men are turning away from women. It is the women who created that cultural change, not the men. Women removed chivalry, not men. And much more. Here is an explanation of why men have changed their dating culture with women: it is simply a ‘rational’ response to women’s ‘natural’ neurotic words and behaviours that feminism has energised into toxicity. See: Why Men are Walking Away From Women by Christine Grace Smith, 18 Sept 2025.

{{[Why Men are Walking Away From Women by Christine Grace Smith, 18 Sept 2025.]}}

That video is an excellent description of the female trait of neuroticism. What does that mean? Before I address that, here is another example of a dark female behaviour that feminism has denied and censored out of media, news, and school: the celebration by progressives of the public death of Charlie Kirk. The very funny and sharp social and political commentator, Shoe0nHead made the following observation:

10:13 Also, I’m going to be the one to point it out because of course I am. I saw nobody else do it. Why are most of them women? Most of the people celebrating [the assassination of Charlie Kirk] are women. Like, it’s it’s a good like 80-20 ratio all over the internet. What is going on, ladies?

Basically, the whole country is shook because last year they realised how many people would celebrate the murder of a president. And this year they realised how many people would celebrate the murder of them. At the end of the day, this is all the inevitable conclusion of the Punch a Nazi thing from like 2017.

Do you guys remember that? We always knew it was a slippery slope. That’s why we were against it. And they always say this dumb shit like, um, ‘If you don’t want to be called a Nazi, stop being a Nazi’. Even a congressman from my state, New York, was like, ‘Oh, if you want to stop being called a fascist, uh, you should stop being a fascist.’ Yeah, that’s great. Except you’ve called everyone and their mother a fascist and a Nazi for the past like 15 years (These People Are Sick by Shoe0nHead 18 Sept 2025).

I read the following in a comment on her post:

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy. — George Orwell, 1984

And this is not without precedent. The Knitting Women Of The French Guillotine Executions, sat and knitted, and cheered, as the heads of the aristocracy were separated from their bodies. Women were also brutal participants in torturing and killing men, women and children during the protestant-catholic conflicts in 16th century France. (See How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer by Sarah Bakewell, passim.)

Short Digression — More on Human Personality Traits, With A Quick Look at the Female’s

There are many scientific references to the human characteristics. Now after decades of study from many directions and from around the world, there has come to be a broad world consensus that covers all cultures: it is called The Big Five Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality. (See, for example, The Big Five Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality by Annabelle G.Y. Lim, March 20, 2025.)

Or simply, The Big Five model. They are:

1. Conscientiousness – impulsive, disorganized vs. disciplined, careful

2. Agreeableness – suspicious, uncooperative vs. trusting, helpful

3. Neuroticism – calm, confident vs. anxious, pessimistic

4. Openness to Experience – prefers routine, practical vs. imaginative, spontaneous

5. Extraversion – reserved, thoughtful vs. sociable, fun-loving

Two have steadily shown females scoring significantly higher than men tend to score. The first is ‘agreeableness’, a scale that ranges between suspicious, uncooperative vs. trusting, helpful. The second is ‘neuroticism’, which scales between ‘calm, confident vs. anxious, pessimistic’.

In combination, do the agreeable and neurotic characteristics or traits explain some of these odd female self-destructive behaviours that they blame on men? Beyond the above examples, there are more recent examples of female-centric neurotic behaviours. They include anorexia nervosa, bulimia, OCD, cutting, and suicide pacts. These behaviours are more prevalent with women than they are with men, which is consistent with women tending to score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism: they more strongly want to be accepted into group behaviour and become more easily neurotic.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness comprises traits relating to altruism, such as empathy and kindness. Agreeableness involves the tendency toward cooperation, maintenance of social harmony, and consideration of the concerns of others (as opposed to exploitation or victimisation of others). Women consistently score higher than men on Agreeableness and related measures, such as tender-mindedness (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001).

Neuroticism

Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism as measured at the Big Five trait level, as well as on most facets of Neuroticism included in a common measure of the Big Five, the NEO-PI-R (Costa et al., 2001). Additionally, women also score higher than men on related measures not designed specifically to measure the Big Five, such as indices of anxiety (Feingold, 1994) and low self-esteem (Kling et al., 1999). The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility (Costa et al., 2001) (Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five by Yanna J Weisberg, Colin G DeYoung, Jacob B Hirsh; my emphasis).

Bonus Video Clip — Does It Suit Society that People Measurably Prone to Being Agreeable with a Bent Towards Neurotic Emotionality, Vote? A Woman’s Opinion.

30:41 … [women’s legislation is] just terrible. [Giving women the vote was] the worst thing that ever happened to our country. And also it is pulling moms out of their homes. Yes, it really has destroyed our country. — Lauren Witzke. (Former Senate Candidate Lauren Witzke Joins Jesse! (Ep. 402), by The Fallen State, 25 Apr 2025. (Video-link set to start at ‘voting’ time.)

{{[Former Senate Candidate Lauren Witzke Joins Jesse! (Ep. 402)]}}

Back to Culture Being Set More by Women than Men — What About the Effects of Feminism?

By inference Witzke describes how contemporary culture through the legislature is being set by women. Of course, in this ‘legislative’ sense, men are acquiescing with the process. And again, they are taking their cue from the women on how the society is going to make itself manifest. And, per Witske and others, women are destroying it.

Even the development of feminism itself, is of course, perhaps the most profound evidence of the power of women to shape cultural norms and trends, including changing laws, fashion, sexual promiscuity, intersexual relationships, family dynamics and more.

And more recently it includes joyfully mutilating the genitals of children far more brutally than the FGM that feminists descry as an acme example of male patriarchy.

Is this not an example of toxic matriarchy? Oops! Of course not, this female doctor who promotes the genital mutilation of children as a good thing is surely a victim of patriarchy! See as an example: Matt Walsh Revisits His ‘What Is A Woman?’ Interview With Dr. Forcier, by Matt Walsh, 3 Jun 2022:

{{[ Matt Walsh Revisits His ‘What Is A Woman?’ Interview With Dr. Forcier, Matt Walsh 3 Jun 2022.]}}

This complex array of evidence is likely not conclusive proof that women are the more significant players in cultural shifts. (I find it convincing.) And yet, at the very least, women are certainly not just the victims of the evil patriarchy that is ruthlessly serving the base and hedonistic desires of men. Women are equally hedonistic. (Even more so than men? Hmmmmm.)

A Clash of Process: Truth Seeking and Acquisition vs Lie Seeing and Clearing

Short recap: My correspondent expressed her distress that I would dare to blame feminism for the evil I see it has done. She was ‘shocked’ when I asserted that women mutilate themselves and their daughters. Later she assured me that she acknowledges that women in fact do the nasty, but only because men forced them to do it.

and you repeated the nonsense about cutting women’s genitals in africa and the middle east. if the men did not say they wouldn’t marry women who were not cut, it wouldn’t be happening. [feminist trope-lie.] an all women society would not be imagining these horrors. [denies real world old and new history in macro and micro examples, a tiny bit of which I have included in this essay.]

She asserted that my research has resulted in my becoming a complaining blamer of women only — I blame neither women nor men. I am doing my best to remove the lies by observing and describing what is.

She pointed out that we are talking past each other. Well, we certainly are because she continues to remain blind to the feminism’s evil by claiming, as proof of the goodness that it has done, one-of anecdotes — while simultaneously denying the validity of the evidence I present while continuing to blame men as horrible oppressors of women for millenia.

Then comes the deflection that sparked my truth-of-the-lie epiphany:

come check out gene keys. it’s a lot more good for your health than the people you are watching and listening to.

In our various conversations she expresses hope that I will take up Gene Keys with her. It sounds like a fine system to guide people towards internal truth of Self. In fact, the elegance of it and that it includes the I Ching, would likely have drawn me to it 15 or 20 years ago. Today I turn to my body with with my PS-RAP (Psyche-Somatic Body Awareness Process) and ask ‘Yea’ or ‘Nay’ to Gene Keys. ‘Nay,’ is the continued response.

Her heartfelt advocacy for me to stop looking at the lies and turn to truth-seeking with Gene Keys was the flint that would spark a shard of light inside of me that began to glow then shine on perhaps why I continue, with strong health and with trusting PS-RAP, to continue my researches with ‘the [less healthy] people I am watching’ — currently primarily, not solely, feminism — instead of doing ‘healthier’ stuff like Gene Keys.

The stone to the flint was her very mild criticism of the Oct 6th episode of Candace Owens’s investigation into the Charlie Kirk public 'execution’. TPUSA Wants Us To Stop Asking Questions About 9/10?! | Candace Ep 248 (04:00). About that episode, my correspondent wrote:

i just watched monday’s show with candace. / all she did today was talk about micro-lies. / i haven’t found her progressing on the case (my emphasis).

How did this innocuous statement become the stone that would give to the flint the spark of insight? The spark was that I loved that Owens focused on the micro-lies. Well, doh, hasn’t that been what this substack has become for a substantive amount of time? Beginning with the convid lie, of course.

These apparently disparate pair of ideas burbled around for a while, before the aha moment. The first connection was with my examination, in detail, of the soul killing effect of the death by a thousand (micro)-lies being done daily with our use of the words have to and should. See:

Spell Breaking Language-Keys to Unlock Language Locks

Unseen, We Live Bully Stockholm Syndrome And Other Oddities of Being Alive in a Miss-Spelled See of Words

---

My investigation into feminism is, ultimately, an apocalyptic process, ie it is the uncovering of the micro- and the macro-lies of feminism in order to see them. Once seen I can, perhaps Gautama Buddha-like, say to them ‘I see you — let us have tea.’ And thus without blame or anger or resentment or resistance to their presence, I come to know perfectly that they are simply mara — delusion. Once I see the delusions with stoic indifference and equanimity — and a cup of Oaxaca café, not tea for me these days — they lose all power and, puff, like a cigar’s smoke ring, their intangibility is recognised and they effortlessly dissipate from my system. And out of their dissolution back to nothing, truth is revealed with increasing clarity. Every lie scrubbed is revealing and polishing the truth.

To See The Lie Is To Reveal The Truth. Is It Really That Simple?

And the aha was that I had, somewhere in some time in my recent past, unknowingly transformed from being a truth-seeker to a lie-see-er. Wow! I didn’t see when that transition happened. Maybe it was with the faked Apollo moon landing, when I discovered that the purpose of the lie is to keep us separated from the truth. See

The Apollo Moon Landing Didn't Happen. It is a Big Lie — So What? (Rev 2)

Why This Is A Big Deal, Although Maybe Not For The Reasons You Think: What Means The Creation of a False Idol?

---

What an interesting distinction. For certain I spent at least forty years of my life seeking the truth through a myriad of paths — books, Buddhism, Jungian psychology, dream work, university, Constructive Living and most recently Yoga!

Now I want to see the lie to let loose and burnish to a shine the truth of which I am comprised. Truth is no longer out there to be grasped at, to be chased after, to be sought: it is here, now, hidden by the macro- and micro-lies. This is what my correspondent’s very slight frustration with Candace’s micro-lie episode made clear to me. Wow! I am no longer seeking that which I don’t have: I have the truth, am the truth, and my current efforts are to clear away the tarnish and detritus that I have collected and/or allowed to dull its shine. Amazin’! Muchas Gracias.

And since my correspondent is a Sannyasin Osho-ite, and because I have been impressed by the few talks I’ve read by Osho, I had the thought that Osho was certain to have said something similar. Voilà. This internet thing as a tool is so fantastic! And not only did I find what I was looking for, it had a small lovely Buddha synchronicity: my answer arrived in Chapter 6 of Osho’s book This Very Body the Buddha.

This Very Body the Buddha Osho Talks. Music: Linda Ronstadt — Heartbeats Accelerating.

His description of the difference between seeking the truth and clearing the lie is identical to my realised experience. Double amazing! And Osho’s talk is very beautiful! So here it is:

A man’s true life is the way in which he puts off [of himself] the lie imposed by others on him. Stripped, naked, natural, he is what he is. This is a matter of being and not of becoming. The lie cannot become the truth; the personality cannot become your soul. There is no way to make the nonessential the essential. The nonessential remains nonessential and the essential remains essential, they are not convertible. And striving toward truth is nothing but creating more confusion. The truth is not to be achieved — it cannot be achieved, it is already the case. Only the lie is to be dropped.

All aims and ends and ideals and goals and ideologies, religions and systems of improvement and betterment, are lies. Beware of them. Recognise the fact that as you are, you are a lie, manipulated, cultivated by others. Striving after truth is a distraction and a postponement. It is the lie’s way to hide. See the lie, look deep into the lie of your personality because to see the lie is to cease to lie. No longer to lie is to seek no more for any truth — there is no need. The moment the lie disappears, truth is there in all its beauty and radiance. In the seeing of the lie it disappears and what is left is the truth.

To see the lie of striving after truth is to fall into an eternal silence. A stillness comes when you see the lie of your personality; there is nothing more to do.

Hence the stillness - what can you do?

Just the other night a sannyasin was saying, “What can I do? Whatever I do, I fail. What can I do?” There is nothing really to be done. Doing is not going to help, doing will be again the same rut. Only being is going to transform you, not doing. So when one fails again and again and again, only then does the insight arise that “Doing is never going to lead me anywhere.” The day that sword has hit you — doing is not going to lead me anywhere — what will you do? Nothing is left to do.

In your utter helplessness — the surrender and silence and stillness. This is the silence that transforms, not the silence that somehow you impose upon yourself by repeating a mantra or doing TM; that is not the real silence, it is a created silence. Any silence that you manage to create will belong to the personality. It will not be of much use, it will not go deeper than that — how can your doing go deeper than you? When you have utterly failed, when you have seen your ultimate failure and you have seen that there is no possibility and no hope for you to succeed, what will you do in that silence? You will just be there.

All has stopped. The mind no longer spins any thoughts.

And in that very moment the door opens. That silence is being, that silence is buddha.

This stillness is not the opposite of action; it is not brought about by will or by withdrawal from the world. One cannot withdraw from the world, one is the world. The want to escape keeps us imprisoned — because the wish to be without desire is still desire, and the will to be still is disturbance. You cannot will your silence, the will is the base of all disturbance. [In order to be calm the will is] to disappear. You can only see into the futility of it. Doing, willing, improving, bettering yourself, achieving, reaching — all these words are just projections of the lie.

When the lie has been seen in its totality — [that is] the illumination, the enlightenment (The Living Body Buddha, Ch 6; my emphasis.)

Buddhist Synchronicity Continuation and Bridge

I took a break from writing this to talk with my correspondent. Then to eat something in order to cushion my stomach for strong medication to help clear uric acid out from my foot. I turned to YouTube and it would seem its ears heard me mention Gautama Buddha because there was a feed to Jesse Lee Peterson talking with a Buddhist Priest Rev. Gyokei Yokoyama:

Laughing Buddha; Rev. Gyokei Yokoyama, of Sozenji Buddhist Temple; Jesse Lee Peterson. Music: Nellie McKay — Sari.

And with that synchronicity nudging me, I will end this journey to an epiphany/ enlightenment with a stop into the 10 Oxherding Pictures (introductory link). Before the break I wavered between including them or not on this already long foray. I thought to include them because as this enlightenment came into my awareness, I had a new understanding of the 10 Oxherding Pictures (linked to nice tr. by John Daido Loori and Kazuaki Tanahashi), sometimes called the 10 Bulls. Now for my version of the tale. LoL! There I go again, daring to re-tell the sacred texts.

1. I awake to my having lost something, something important. I remember what seems now to have been impossible to forget. How had I forgotten it for so long? Where is my ox? Nowhere to be seen, nowhere heard. I seek it without stopping. It is nowhere to be found. The days are a blur and empty of memory. Exhausted, each night I fall asleep. Is it lost forever? I wonder if I had ever had it. My dreams are troubled.

2. One day I felt a particular heaviness. I almost did not leave my bed. Yet I did. And I resumed the search. What? Did I hear something? Yes! I become excited and my heart races so loudly that I cannot hear it anymore. I rush towards the last rustling without luck. It is gone, as if a ghost. I stumble and fall to my knees by a river. My hands cover my eyes, crying. After a time I uncover them, blink them open. I see tracks! I follow them high up the mountain side. It is still unseen. I slow my pace and begin to notice the sounds of birds and insects. The sky is blue and the sun appears to dance behind white clouds. I wake from a quiet dream in the middle of the night under a starry sky. Sleep does not return.

3. The sun rises and so do I. Where am I? It is as if the landscape changed during the night. For a moment the ox is forgotten. What to do? I turn around and begin to walk without certainty down the mountain. I hear something behind me. I jump, turn mid-step and trip. I tumble and roll. When I stop, I sit and assess my self. The trail is lost. I see and feel some scrapes and I touch my cheek to discover warm blood. What’s that? Was that a horn and a nose? Yes! I jump up, step towards the ox and immediately trip and fall face down.

4. I get up, sure the ox is gone. No! It is there. Is it looking at me? Daring me, I irrationally sense. So, hesitantly, I move with my rope, certain that it will move away. It pulls into its mouth some grass and chews contentedly. I pass the loop of my rope over its head. Does it smile, before effortlessly moving away dragging me behind it as if I am a toy? A toy with burning hands. My rope is long and I fall away from the ox. I am as if nothing to it. All I know to do is to hang on.

5. I have begun to earn its respect. On occasion. I keep up my effort with stronger and stronger hands arms shoulders. That has taken a long time and dedication. Diligence and patience. How to tame an ox? I learn the importance of timing and respect. Trust. We begin to walk together. At first side by side and then with me in front. From time to time, it feels like I might be leading.

6. Now the rope is unnecessary. For a time I lead — it allows me to lead. However I am lost, still. I don’t worry. I smell flowers and drink from small rivulets. I lay under sun or under the shade of trees. The ox stays with me. One day I reach up to grab a high branch. It is too high. I bring the bull to the spot and climb onto its back. Ahhh. I sit, set the plucked flower down between the ox’s horns, pull out my flute and playfully play, at first without proper tune or melody. The ox easily walks me home.

7. I am home, really home. It is familiar and yet new as if reborn in an intangible way. I play and dance with garden chores and sing as I chop wood to feed the stove and to cook food. I relax looking skyward, sound my flute’s sweet melody into the blue and the white clouds. In the shack the ox rope gets dusty and the spiders rest in it. What is it for, now? I wonder.

8. What? I am forgotten with having forgotten my name, rope, ox, all. The sky has grown empty. Moving and not moving are without differentiation. A poem, without form reforms and folds back wrong-sidedly. The flute floats away carrying with it the sound of being silent. Past and future are no more, only now is known and I accord with the all of it.

9. I am at source, am source. I am sourceless, resting in the shack that keeps neither wind nor rain nor flowers nor birds nor bugs out. Without sight, hearing and feeling, I am one with them. Nothing more is demanded. I hear the water streaming its endlessness effortlessly.

10. Without arriving there, I find myself in the market place. My clothes are thin and torn, covered in seeds and thistles, stains and mud. I pass unnoticed, although some children pause to look at me. Noise surrounds me: bird chatter, talking voices and laughter, high voiced argument and banter, children’s play-giggles and shrieks and dogs barking after them, a susurrus of wind with the leaves. A smile, more than my smile, fills my face and the sky grows brighter and softer; the flowers glow stronger and richer; the water chortles sweeter and cooler.

Closing

And so I have come to this conclusion, a pause before I continue to see and reveal, with coffee, the lies hiding within me and the culture that I am co-creating with liars, seekers of truth, and people walking in the moment as god-in-body where the present moment naturally, effortlessly is.

And so, I thank my friend’s pushback for helping me clarify this awareness in my Self:

The believed lie is the thing that separates us from living truth, and truth is without words and is this body which is now, can only be now.

---

The end. Thank you for reading.

Song of the Essay

John Prine — Quit Hollerin’ At Me

John Prine — Quit Hollerin’ At Me

🙏 If this essay gave you some pleasure, and/or an ‘aha’, extend our human intimacy and become a paid subscriber.

Or click on the coffee if you would like to buy me a coffee:

All the best with what is changing. Everything changes. Peace, respect, love and exuberant joy. 🙏

---

Essay Playlists:

Spotify

YouTube Talk

YouTube Music

Request for Financial Help

In July of 2024 I had unexpected pacemaker surgery that cleaned out my savings.

I requested donations to help me through the pinch. I had anticipated that my immediate threat of insolvency would be cleared before the end of the year. That did not happen as my residency status is continuing to protract seemingly interminably and I am legally disallowed from working until that is confirmed officially. Although I my important interview with the immigration agent late last month! That is considered an important milestone, suggesting the end is nigh.

If you are in a position to help and would like to, you can check out the details of that in

Spiritual Rebirth After a Surgery Bottoms Me Out in Two Ways

---

Or, I offer a 48 hr personalised life changing upgrade your life course that includes elements of the principles of yoga, breath, Jungian psychology, somatic body awareness practices, zen and/or koan meditation practices, examination of food and body cleansing process — all customised by your for you with me as guide. Please DM me if this interests you, and I will respond with testimonials and price.

We are living the Bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! All the best with what is changing. Everything changes! With peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.

🙏❤️🧘‍♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘‍♂️❤️🙏