No frills

We’re conditioned to manipulate men into picking us to be loved. We exert influence to be noticed and recognized. Everything rides on someone else acknowledging what is stored within us but for which we don’t have a means of genuine expression.

I think this is why women act territorial over their men when the men flirt or have full-blown affairs with another woman. The other woman challenges the ‘main chick’ and rivals her influence over the man. It becomes less about the relationship and more about an overt kind of power: manipulation through illusion.

Illusion of what? Well, by embodying everything we pick up through non-verbal cues and pattern recognition that the man yearns for. We offer to become his crutch to bolster his ego. Anything to make him see that we’re the right choice. It’s no wonder then that consumerism and exploitation of women go hand in hand. It’s a macrocosmic representation of what we are conditioned to do in order to be chosen (consumed, bought).

The problem is, a relationship that came into fruition through convincing will always be dysfunctional unless the woman frees herself from the codependency and self-pity that is often used to avoid taking responsibility for oneself. Unless a woman is herself unconditionally, expecting no compensation or reward from the man for simply being her, she’ll forever be a subordinate to his ego and hold an auxiliary position in the relationship. She’ll be viewed as part of the service industry ; he’ll feel he maintains her existence. To some extent it’s true. When you give someone the role of being a mule for your inner expressions and self hood, you communicate that you’re not able to function without them. So while your contribution to his life is complementary, his contribution to yours is absolutely fundamental because you haven’t learnt to contain all of yourself within yourself. Your very safety lies in the hands of others. When the stakes are that high, you’ll tap dance and perform until you evaporate.

This donkey won’t save your day

How is it that when the protection of black women comes at the expense of a black man’s reputation, the black woman is AUTOMATICALLY discredited and thrown under the bus when black women are too ready to cape for black men? Black lives matter is a movement created by black women in response to the oppression and persecution of primarily black men and boys.

I’m disappointed by the culture’s tepid reaction to the rape case. I really am. It’s the same circular arguments when it comes to black women. It’s like people don’t WANT to believe the hurt and tragedy of a black woman, so that’s why it’s so easy to take a pseudo objective stance as if now people are so concerned about legality and absolute truth. The doubt in black women becomes apparent in times when there’s ambiguity involved. What’s NOT ambiguous is the proven track record of CTG and at the very LEAST stick his irresponsible and reckless behaviour to him instead of immediately deferring to withholding judgment. In wait for what? The proof is in the pudding. You just need to look for the consistency in the context to discern the validity of this. Black women can have their experiences and feelings validated without that necessitating blame or prosecution of someone.

I’m not advocating for saying Charlamagne absolutely did it. But at least acknowledge what’s irrefutably true and have empathy for the countless victimized women who are watching this play out in the public and are internalizing the public’s attitudes. What will the complete truth contribute when we don’t even acknowledge the truth that already is obvious?

And it does black men no good to evade accountability in favour of getting ahead or getting white people money. White men are accruing their karma plus interest and you don’t want to be in the same boat as them when the iceberg comes for them. So don’t obscure the moral waters in the name of progress. If financial progress and career advancements did anything substantial, the presence of millionaire and billionaire black entertainers, CEOs, athletes, entrepreneurs etc, would have changed the overall structure of black America. But it hasn’t. It absolutely hasn’t. If anything it’s created morally dubious people who’ve lost touch with their spirit and culture. So.

When the means is assigned a meaning

The purpose of the man is to serve, as this is the embodiment of the divine masculine. Serving through providing for his family, protecting, building, fighting, carrying, leading, teaching etc.

But when what he does became more important than who he is as a being, then he became a servant of the provision and forced the woman to serve him if she wanted to be nurtured and loved by him. Yes, really! Inverse dynamics is a hallmark of diabolical forces. The woman was the nurturer and now she’s serving her body and life force in order to get some validation and security back from the man and society.

The divine feminine isn’t materialistic at all. The divine feminine is aligned with the soul and spiritual, so where do you surmise this leaves this energy in the modern woman? Nowhere because she’s not grounded in her own body. She’s on edge, ready to up and leave at the drop of a hat, ready to adapt to the chaos out there in order to be noticed. Instead of nurturing the heart she’s out here serving the egos. She’s lost touch with the cosmos inside of her. She’s lost trust in her true power.

Forget this town

You can’t connect to God fully if you’re not balanced within.

If you’re too much in your mind (distorted masculine energy) you tend to fall into seeking power and security so much that you identify with the divine. This is what tripped Iblees up. If you’re too passive and loathe being on your own or expressing your individuality (distorted feminine energy) you tend to fall into codependency which may lead you into all kinds of shirk by attaching your heart to others, seeking their protection or nurture or guidance or purpose or validation – all of which only emanates from the divine.

No more posts.