By applying a neo-Foucouldian lens to a systems discourse it’s easy to trace the setbacks and impingements caused by neo-cons and other critical analysts of a certain stripe. It can be seen, therefore, that more investigation is wanting in this department, but, on the other hand, its corollary is true too, namely that the talk and feedback loop has increased the vivacity of grassroots initiatives, and plans are coming along steadily to bring about the fundamental change from the ground up. Quite literally, fruit is bound for harvest as indispensable momentum has been gained in this and in other related and interrelated fields. Incidentally, a retrospective glance at historically bypassed alternatives to the accepted narratives and viewpoints is a vital reconstruction that adds definitively to the wider scope, as mitigating and transcending the accepted biases is is required or we are hopelessly lacking completion. It is necessary, therefore, to bring up the rear, as it were, and ensure that this crucial aspect doesn’t dwindle. The strength of current bonds, agreements, and cross lateral academic joint suppositions depends upon the intrinsic strength of this arrived at result of reflexive academia.

We cannot possibly move forward until the above is understood. Now, looking ahead, the socio-political, geo-military, and cross-cultural implications and ramifications are diverse, severe, and need to be critically unpacked from multiple standpoints. First, through a polyrhythmatic intra-religious  duality we can see that these are less interdependent than we think at first glance, and moreover that these interrelations form a complex and multifaceted reality whose nature and being can only be ascertained first by comparing its neo-Marxist elements against its third wave feminist heritage. Where they are aligned will be indicative of the overall meritocratic veracity with which its grounded in, whereas the differences will be instructive if we consider the ramifications of other fields against what is surely a fascinating discrepancy. But this is only the beginning.

The real challenge will be unpacking the intertwined an variable complexities of the innards of each category against the conclusions reached from a wide variety of alternate studies. This, therefore, will rally together a diversity of related fields, visions, and studies to produce an overwhelming harmony that will shine a useful light on these and other related subjects. This multiplicity of studies, fields, and categories is the only way to increase clarity and lucidity. The last thing we want is inaccessible conclusions due to muddled manifestations of research which, however fixed and steadfast, are obscure to those without the necessary means for the necessary means for higher education. In this vaunted realm, the personal is political, not so much because it’s an intrinsic part of the latter but because the former is the overarching focal point of study of this womanifesto, and relegating human rights to a back seat role is unduly punishing it to the dismay of future generations of the silent majority.

There’s still more. If we care about the children at all, we need to bring in a parallel from other related fields of study, and hyper-critical lenses which can be applied post-modernly without fusing the various aspects together, so long as the correlations aren’t primary in nature, and, and this is especially crucial, so long as they derive intrinsically from the whole and not just reached for inductively from superficially diagnosing its outer aspects. It’s one of the great misfortunes that this ineluctable modality is frequently cited with poor accuracy, and what ends up happening is greatly unfortunate in that the misalignment between the primary and tertiary aspects increases this gulf rather than narrows it. The main thing, however, is that studies perpetuate the dominant aspects of what they reach for without sacrificing its lower depths.

In terms of the colonial imperialist sphere, there’s much to contend with, and it doesn’t take a careful ear to hear the supersonic high end beams of conservative misappropriation. It must be looked at piecemeal first, then as a whole. In this way, the repugnant goings on of the dominant hierarchal higher ups can be understood in both scope and inner structure, and from both an internal and external position. This is what’s key here, as without this the mode will be little understood, and the false and misleading appearance of real knowledge can have unintended consequences in other interrelated fields.

Can anything be understood in isolation, or isn’t it true that it’s opposite must be taken into account with it? Mirror causality is crucial or else this severance presents an ungraspable chasm which puts the veracity of the original claim into great and insurmountable doubt. It’s an understatement to say the rich complexities of this mode of thought is highly disagreeable, deceptive and incomplete as they are, and to the rescue we bring a progressive diagnostic litmus test in order to fully vitiate the solemnity of the issue at hand. It’s impossible to bring the full tapestry of being without congruent tertiary aspects, however harmonizing may prove to be difficult, surmising impossible, but the fuller, broader test requires these values be procured without delay in order to vindicate the thoroughness with which its cognitively ascertained. In simpler terms, one thing and its opposite must be seen from the same lens, the same terms, and then flipped and inverted if we are to understand it all. The economic implications can’t be cut off of this examination, as they are inevitably intertwined; obviously, their exchange is a give and take where reciprocity correlates positively with the opposite of the backward sub section. To bypass this, we’ll need transcendental analyses from a dialectic of global studies.

If we are to reach a fair, equitable and progressive place, we ignore these findings at our peril.