Part III
On Patterns of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment
Chapter 3
Of Houses and Holds, and the Freedom Therefrom
The Vir is a martial Kind, yet this expression is not TRULY fitting. It would appear, upon first communication, to say the Vir is a martial Kind means warlike, in the sense of being organized and in, or with the enjoyment of fighting and battling. This then would mean, having the heightened nature of conquest over others, and seeking out that of fights. This is not what it means, to say the Vir is martial.
In actuality, this statement is not correct, or that is, this term… when one is limited to the notion of martial, from a human perspective. The Vir is not a human, as explained many times before.
The Vir, in its tongue, would not have the word martial. The war component of a Vir only exists when there are others who would SEEK to HINDER, to MOLEST, to INTERFERE, to IMPEDE, to INCARCERATE, to DESTROY, to DISTRESS, to OPPRESS, to SUBJUGATE that of the VIR, coming against their RIGHT of expression of their WAY, their VIRTUE.
It is to say, in a Brooklyn sense, that the Vir are… ABOUT THAT THING. I have never known of a better term for this than the one I was so used to in Brooklyn as a youth to describe a Kind, that term being “about it”, slanged out to that of bout’it, and/or, in the way in which I have written it… BOUTED.
To avoid the triggering of the sense of the limits of the slang, I will maintain my spelling as bouted, and leave them to “about it” as bout’it.
This way, I can define this term, and solidify it, in this system of thought.
The Vir is not martial; the Vir, that of ALL VIR, are defined by being BOUTED.
Bouted does not mean looking for a fight, or wishing to fight. When one is ABOUT SOMETHING, has something, AIMS for something, SEEKS something, and therefore, VALUES something, there can be a fight, and a set of conflicts along the way. Bouted is about being able, and willing to engage in that fight, or conflict to whether ATTAIN in one's values, that is, get what they want, or that of SUSTAIN, and DEFEND what they have. It can be said, where one is not able and willing to fight for something, that it CAN NOT be said that they value it in high esteem. They may value it in the lower level of things, but not sufficiently enough to say, a code and dedication, or some form of energetic devotion exists around it.
The Vir is above all things one who values in the highest order of esteem, with Arete, with excellence being the motivation force of their code.
The trait, then, that most would never know of, in themselves and those around them, thus far, I can only call bouted. The trait of being BOUTED. From here on out, it can only be seen through this precise definition. The word bouted only exists in the sense of being a past participle of “bout”, which refers to a boxing match, and/or some COMBATIVE element, more often than not, in sport, versus that of say… a BATTLE.
When I was a young man in Brooklyn, and the slang expression bout’it, and/or the full expression “about it” and/or “about that life”, and/or “about that thing” were thrown around, they were not at first connected for me. Because I was a boxer, and engaged in fight often, a “bout” was a common term in my lexicon. Therefore, upon hearing bout’it, I had always heard bouted, which sounded like bout’it without the “d”, on account of our accents. I translated it to bouted. I would learn later, that when said, and not said often, it was connected to “about it”.
“Nah man, he ain't bout that life”. “Yo, that cat is bout’it, so you step to him… Be ready to throw down.”
The expression was correlated to having in one a fight, but more often than not, it was ABOUT that of SOMETHING. “That LIFE”, among the “Black Americans” of Brooklyn, was often a reference to the “street ways” versus that of the “housed ways”. On account of my region of default being predominantly black, it could be said then, “WE” of that region shared in this culture. The elders of my culture were predominantly so-called Black Muslims, and the splinter association of Five Percenters.
In this culture, which was a subculture compared to the ordinary and more common so-called Black American experience, was the notion of those of the “Field”, often rebellious, and those of the “House”, often compliant. Malcolm X expressed this on account of the house negro, versus the field negro. Culturally, this is retained often in the expression of calling some sellout chump, who goes along with the compliance of outsiders, as a house negro.
However, the marker of “negro”, in reference to the complexion of skin, as “black” is not a primary variable. Certainly, there were so-called “whites” who worked in “fields”, and so-called “whites” who worked the “house”. But what was not certain is that, they were the same, by way of House or Field. A factor that made it a thing for the so-called “negro” or those of dark complexion is that their complexion was an indication of a newness to this condition. The newness, in this case, was presumed to be to the “House”, and in this case, of the so-called “whites”.
However, a great percentage of so-called black folk stolen from Africa were Muslims, who lived in what Americans of the white form would have called city-states, and/or civilization. The “House” and its “ways” may have been new to many of those stolen from Africa, but it was not new to others. The difference was… it being someone else's House, where whilst being in that House, you would, and could be called theirs. There was a possessive nature, in being of the House of another.
On the notion of Housed kinds vs. Field or Wandering Kinds
Now, most of you reading this can not know what I mean, by absence of contrast. You were born Housed, and you behave Housed, and you know nothing of a Field life.
This can be said of the ancestors of most so-called “whites”. Because their ancestors were SUBJECTS of some ruling city-states much longer, then upon breeding with their neighbors, they would breed selective traits of compliance. They were Housed for a very long time. This is what it is to mean settled, and that of one in a settlement, and the cultures of settlements are different from that of tribal cultures, and both of them, different from that of nomadic and semi-settled cultures.
Nomadism, by foot, by camel, by horse, or by boat… would have far more adaptive ways to it, and that of a history, or that is a past of encountering more diverse ways of being. But those who were of a House, and a settlement, coming to stay still, would be those being tied to the land and the labor, in which was so demanded by landlords, or that of lords of the land―a feudal term, still employed to this day. When you live with a house, rented, and even mortgaged by a bank, you live as a subject, at the behest of a landlord, be it the individual or the bank, as a collective of lords.
The term domos means “house”, from the Proto-Indo-European root dem. When in Brooklyn, we would say the same word as youse, that of “them”, we would often by way of accent say it like “dem”. We would pronounce the “th”, as a “d” sound. To this day, I still say “dat”, “dere”, “dem”, on account of this accent. I had, with my interest in etymology, always known that when I say them, as “dem”, I was saying those Housed kinds, and this was not limited to the notion of House and/or Field negro.
Where those so-called Black Muslims in America had this division, perhaps in its limitations to their thought, seeing the so-called “white” as a want to be master of the House, I had seen early on that youse so-called “Housed whites” were just SERFS, living in a house the MASTERS granted access to, but was not YOURS. You lived on a plantation, in essence, that was no longer limited to a well-defined and clear set of land, and houses. That, to make a collective believe itself free, remove the fences, the gates, the walls, and expand the plantation out so far as to be called a STATE, a COUNTRY, a NATION. When the entirety of the thing is called such, hardly will the SERFS, the SLAVES, the SUBJECTS think themselves anything but free.
So-called “whites” had this applied to their existence for thousands of years. It can be said that on account of the Roman Empire―if that was a real empire―or that of the Byzantine Empire, and the Catholic Empire, those pale faces of the European peninsula, I mean, uh, CONTINENT… were given the housed life, because the fields were too harsh. They had to be free to be housed, on account of protecting themselves from the conditions, as an investment of the lords, so that they could continue to work the fields.
It can be said, had slavery been strong in the North of the so-called US, then the slave holders, those FOUL VAMPYRIC creatures, would need to have provided houses and retreats for the slaves' bodies, when they were not working. That a housed order of slaves would be needed, and to each of these houses would the slave have thought the house theirs, though it would not have been. And had they been seemingly elevated this way, they would have thought they were “moving on up” in the world, with “up” being defined by the way the VAMPYRIC LORDS were living. The closer one could come to live like the vampyric lords, the more they would have a sense of gain and relief from that called lower.
That which the Housed kinds see as lower is that which WANDERS, and lives under the DOME of the Earth, under the sky with temporary structures and protections. The Housed kind seeks PERMANENCE in structure, as it provides them a sense of safety, and security, surety in the establishment of familiarity.
Whereas one who sleeps in a Field, lives around the Field, would know in their nature that there are other fields. The Field is not mine. The Field is the Earth, and what is mine is that WILL, and ABILITY to live upon it, and never be locked to it. The NOMAD is not TIED to any land. The NOMAD is FREE to ROAM the land. This is a different mindset than the HOUSED.
To illuminate the limits of thought of this House and Field notion applied to some so-called negro, is that today, almost all are Housed, and other than the use of the term “Field” to apply to one's work, it can not be said that one “stays” in the “Field” as their “place”, when in actuality, most are afforded retreat, and relief of being Housed. Be one a so-called white, or a so-called black… Youse are all HOUSED in COMPLIANCE, and thinking yourself with gains and advantage to be ever so closer to your VAMPYRIC lords, making their FEEDING easier to come by.
The Vir has this thing about them, that inherent to its nature, manifested in its attractions and aversions, is this ancient ROAMING nature. The Vir, by degree, is INNATELY attracted to the FIELDS, and is INNATELY adverse to the DOMOS, the HOUSE, equating it to a slippery slope into SLAVERY and/or SERVITUDE by what degrees it exists.
The Vir is innately attracted to CHALLENGE requiring innovative ADAPTATION, thus the appearance of struggle, and innately adverse to that of comfort, of ease, of the appearance of the settled and the familiar. When these adverse elements creep into the life of one Seeded in the VIR, they look to find what ways they can to set themselves ABOUT towards the FIELDS, and/or that of a loose sense of such holdings as anything that can be good.
The time for an exact wandering is not now, in whatever phase one is in, around these ideas.
The Buddhist religion that was based on the Vir culture of the As’Vaka, who were called the Saka in loose terms, used to have the decree that one was to LEAVE the HOUSE, and live the life of WANDERING. The effeminates of the Brahmin would translate, or allow it to be translated as “voluntary homelessness”.
But as I said in the past chapter, the term “wandering” is about being FREE. The term “homeless” is about being without something, that is then implied, one ought to be with. It's from the perspective of the Housed, the ones homed into compliance. None of the proper nature of the wandering would allow the Housed to assign to them their designation as an explanation. Once this designation is acquiesced to, it proves the one in acquiescence is in fact homeless, and not a wanderer. They are one who seems perhaps to wander, but they are homeless, because their wandering is on account of defeat.
Those who are “natured” to wander do so as an ADVANTAGE. It is not said, they do so on account of defeat. The way this can be observed is that the one wandering could not, even if they wanted to, sustain a presence among the Housed, and their so-called city-states of civilization. Meaning, they lack the abilities towards Control and Influence to find a place in the settled and subjugated existence.
Because of this, there is this odd thing about VIRITUS, my Religion, that differs from what used to be the Buddhist first move of leaving the house, the home, to wander… before Buddhists became so bitch.
In VIRITUS, which is a wiser system than the Buddhist dreamery, it is realized that most, by degree, if even Seeded in that of the likeness of a VIR, are polluted by way of a default captivity to the life of a HOUSED, and SETTLED being. That, if they were to up and leave with immediacy to a life of wandering, it would be on account of defeat, because wherever they were Housed, they were not with VICTORY. The coward declared, it shall leave, and that its escape is its Victory. It would then set out to wander with a DEFEATED mind, and in this defeat, infect other wandering or settled kinds with its ineptitudes. This is what it means to say, “wherever you go, there you are”, in the sense that the mind in which one carries, carries the burdens of ineptitude, if yet to be resolved.
In VIRITUS, the HOUSED FOOL is directed to MASTER their present conditions first. And this is done through OBSERVING and INVESTIGATING the MECHANICS of their present stance, and through the SCIENCES of VIRTUE, seeking to APPLY the VIR Way, wherever they are.
One who was not BORN with a POTENT VIR NATURE can not up and retreat from their Housed existence, and then apply the “Way of the Vir”. When one is not born with this Way innate to them, but is only born with the attractions and the aversions of what could be a Vir, but yet to be determined, then they must find, or rather build the Way of the Vir on the battlefields of domestication.
They must prove, first and foremost to themselves, that the attractions and the aversions of the Vir are indeed INNATE to them. Second, to all who would be kin, must there be observed evidence in kinship. That is second. One who seeks that out in the first, versus proof to themselves, is a CHARLATAN HUMAN, wishing in NOVELTY to appear VIR, in order to be ACCEPTED by others, who if accepted in this way… are too, themselves, CHARLATAN. A Vir would ACCESS DENY any who comes to make relational place the driving force, versus that of evidence to oneself that they have truly come to SELF-KNOWLEDGE, and in that, they are Seeded in the attractions and the aversions of the Vir.
At present, it can not be said, outside of myself, the author and authority behind VIRITUS, that one was born with the potency of a Vir. It can only be said that if one is able to build in exactness, without Influence of my works, that they too were born in the potency of a Vir, and in which they had come to CONTROL and COMMAND their conditions, and therefore, bear no inept markings of such.
They came to VICTORY, and as the Tathāgata of that of the Buddhist dreamery, they can come and go without becoming muddy, because coming and going of the realms of the mind does not occur in them. That in their EQUANIMITY, they are with a force to sustain presence in the high mind, and the low mind is not shamed, but integrated in a Way, in which from scared little serpent, it is manifest as POIMANDRES, as the masterful, well armored and battle ready dragon of thought.
This can not be said to have shown itself, and after the release of my works, were one only to build to this level, it would be said on account of attraction, and not on account of having been born with the potency of Vir.
This ATTRACTION and AVERSION is the key for an investigative reader. They ought not presume some potency in birth, because what is certain is that, had one been born with the potency of VIR, they could not have lived for a dozen years under the captivity of humans. From very early on, age 6-8, they would have experienced the FIRE in them to WANDER, as all realized VIR ever have throughout history.
This FIRE then would have manifested itself in what humans call prodigious natures, but not in the limits of being their performance monkeys, with some eagerness to please. The Vir that exists with potency of its nature, which is well beyond that of attraction and aversion by diverse degrees, has not upon its nature some desire to please others for access. This is not the nature of the Vir.
However, this desire to please others may be present in those Seeded in the attractions and aversions of a Vir, but too, would then be by a lesser degree than those called human.
It can not be said that those Seeded in the attractions and aversions will be with the potent Vir nature, ever. It can only be said, that by degree, some will be greater in the attractions, and greater in the aversions than that of others, and that others will be lesser in the attractions and aversions. The level of greater and lesser is determined by that of the impact in which such attractions and aversions have on their DECISION MAKING process, and modus operandi.
Where one is able to consistently make decisions ONLY based on the attractions and the aversions of the Vir, they are called greater. Where one has want, desire, and interest to act on the attractions and aversions of the Vir, but in their decision making, they struggle, they have confusion, and they have some success, and many failures, it can be said, they are of the lesser. Those who are of the lesser have a greater chance of being engaged in novelty, and that of pursuing what approximation to the Way of the Vir as they do, on account of social access, and the attempts to be included in a novelty, and to them, they ought to be ACCESS DENIED.
This move towards the new and novel is common to dem, to those who are Housed.
The importance of this notion of the WANDERING, kinetic Kind, versus the HOUSED, and settled kind, is absolutely KEY to trying to figure out why, and/or how ACCESS DENIED, as a set of literature, applies, and/or can be applied.
When you are of the attractions and the aversions of the Housed, then Access Denied would not be, could not be, shall not be… of any use to you. Instead, you will look at it, and need think, “this looks like nothing to me”. This will be true. One does not then try to make it appear sensible. This is the start of SELF-DECEPTION and DELUSION, when one does that. And when one does that, it is too the step taken in a BATTLE for ACCESS to that of one Seeded in the Vir sense, if not even, to your own… by way of MIRRORING for ACCESS. I will return to that later.
Those who are Housed are NOT often “ABOUT” that of anything else, outside of the House. It is easy to tell when this is you. You go to work in a “loop” which is defined by it always being the same, having no CHALLENGES and provoking no NEED to develop SKILLS and COMPETENCE further, through the exercise of the FACULTY of DISCERNMENT.
The FIELD engages the FACULTY of DISCERNMENT, and INCREASES the NEED for that of other VIRTUOUS traits, such as VIGILANCE, and situational awareness, that of VERACITY, in expressions concerning the VALID, and that of VVRATH, in the sense of force in the name of JUSTICE, and the sense of COURAGE and/or VALOR, in the face of opposition. Where these factors are not present, then one is not engaged in what would be called a battlefield, which is what kind of a field a Vir engages.
The Three Fields and their corollaries
It can be said there are a few kinds of fields.
-
Gathering Fields
-
Hunting Fields
-
Battle Fields
With these three designations, known to the Ancient Vir, one can see that the degree of energetic needs would differ greatly. In the Gathering Fields, it could be said that what is to be gathered is not with SPAR, is not with QUICKNESS, with KINETICS, but is stationary, and settled. This can be said to be liken to that of farming, the settled. One is picking and grabbing, lifting and moving that of things that do not run, do not flee, and do not fight. In the realm of mechanical conflict, you have the three modes of reaction, or response.
-
Freeze
-
Flight/Run
-
Fight/Overcome
It can be said, like the Three Fields, there is a corollary. They all are based upon the need, the demand, the conditions of energetic forces. That which is frozen is at a standstill, and requires less energy to gain, and to maintain.
One can then see how I have correlated this to the definition of value, put forth out of Viritus. That value had the components of:
-
Gain, Get, Acquire/Maintain, Possess, Sustain
-
Cultivate, Produce, Innovate, Further, ADVANCE
-
Protect, Defend, Fight for, DESTROY for.
A trend ought to be identifiable here. Each preceding stage is defined by ENERGETICS. It takes less energy to gain, to get, and to acquire than it does to protect, to defend, to fight for, and/or destroy for. However, it must be made clear that the value, or that is the target, and the aim, must be stated before actually ruling upon the level of energy, or energetics needed to attain by such a degree. So the model is ENERGETICS concerning ACCESS, by way of acquiring a TARGET, AIMING at the TARGET, and OVERCOMING that of the TARGET.
Targets and/or aims that are stationary will require less energetic engagement.
The creation and the sustainment of the GATHERING Fields, which include cultivation fields such as farms, came about on account of needing to economize energetic engagement around the fundamentals of sustaining the form. It was a process to bring about leisure for something else: that of the cultivation of the Field of thought, or the MIND. This is not how humans use economics. Humans do not ECONOMIZE. Humans RITUALIZE economic maneuvers to secure… not leisure for something else, but for comfort, escape and relief from all things. More on that later.
The HUNTING Fields deal in that of targets of any sort, that are in MOTION. From the stage of freeze, or standstill, or settled, the target takes flight, it flees, it runs, it swims, it evades, it eludes, it moves to hide, and hides to move. This then demands greater energetic engagement.
A target does not mean an object. All of these Fields have a mater realm, and a phater realm. That is, they are both MATERIAL and MENTAL. Mater and phater forces can be found earlier on in this treatise and its parts, and to be detailed in works of Viritus much later. For now, it is material sense, and mental sense. There are mental targets that are settled, and there are mental targets that are with movement. Therefore, one can mentally gather, mentally cultivate, and mentally chase… with the likewise being, MENTALLY BATTLE.
In the ANCIENT VIR who have through mental and physical lineage bestowed upon me their Patterns, in my own nature, all thought was correlated to the practices of existence in which they had been observing. They did not engage in speculative thought, like the dreamies of later academic settled societies.
Correlated with the Three Fields, which were correlated to the three modes of evaluation, which were correlated to the three forms of alignment or conditional targets, would then be born the sense of how one ACTED towards such aims and targets, and to how this should be characterized.
Long before the academic sense of Aristotle and the need for him to characterize that of categorical thought, the Vir and its Kind, and like Kinds had a language that had such thinking CODED in it, which had no need to refer to itself. One who was potent in the nature of Vir was able to be OBSERVED, on account that they were born with these categorical observations, and analysis.
They did not LEARN them, in some sense of an epistemological decree of being an empty slate, lacking in INNATE knowledge. In modern epistemological considerations, that is, the sciences that deal in knowledge, versus belief, it can be affirmed that ALL, by appearance, are born ignorant of self and condition. That knowledge, then, must be attained in, and therefore, either the condition provides the instruction, and things become learned, or in the absence of conditional learning, one remains ignorant.
This theory of epistemology is without a doubt the strongest of any sort. The notion of remembrance, that one may have a knowledge that is innerly forgotten and in need of remembrance, can not be backed by much demonstration. The notion that there are knowledge points inherent to all, that become active in one's living, is not able to be demonstrated.
Such sense of demonstration is relative to the numbers of those who can be observed. When there are many who are observed, and they share in the same aversions and attractions, it can be taken at face value, that is, prima facie, that such an assumption is correct. Born ignorant is one of those assumptions. At face value, with the masses, the many, the multitudes to draw from, this assumption is correct, until said refutation, and rebuttal with evidence to the contrary is present.
There are errors in that of a readiness to observe conflicting evidence to this epistemological theory, of born ignorance.
One of those errors is that if it is taken as valid, that all are born ignorant and in need of acquiring from conditions their learning, then, those who are measuring what would be in conflict are those who in fact it was true for, that they were born ignorant, and what sense of things they have is the product of being conditioned to have that sense. And in their conditioned sense, knowledge and its like has to have markers of certification of occurrence, as well as sources drawn from the condition. If a refutation and rebuttal was granted with evidence, but that evidence did not bear the same conditional arrangement, that is, can not be sourced in conditionals, then the conditionally learnt will not be able to think upon the evidence.
Yes, there is complexity to that expression, and I will not dwell, but wander to the next point. The ANCIENT VIR would not have thought in these conditional limitations, of born ignorant, and born knowing. Instead, what comes before epistemology is something―for lack of a better term at the moment―I interpret as IPSEITY. That of knowledge of self. Ipseity is not Sense of Self, and that of Symbolic Sense of Self, such as the phersu or the person.
I am using Ipseity, here, to mean knowledge, or that is, identification, understanding, obedience, and through such, a Control, and a Command of self. It requires that there be TRAITS, and ATTRIBUTES present in the being, that provoke its sense of attractions and aversions, through a set of PROCLIVITIES, INCLINATIONS, and as some would later reduce to, TEMPERAMENT.
The Three Energetics of Min
Correlated to the Three Fields, as conditions, plus the three modes of values, with the three forms of reaction, were that of the THREE ROOTS of ENERGETICS, or FORCES.
One was and could only be born by a certain degree to one of the THREE:
-
Muted from POTENCY
-
Chaotic in POTENCY
-
Orderly in POTENCY
Of these three, the Ancient Vir considered only two of them to be natural energetics: the energetics of muteness in the first, and the energetics of order in the third. That in this sense, the one and the three would have a natural hierarchy of the body, and the mind. Those who were muted in potency were of brute form. They were more animal, more physical and more base, and their minds were not cultivated, and energetic towards the recognition of Patterns. They were much like a forever child kind.
Whereas, in the realm of the mind, advanced in form, the third, orderly in potency, had cultivated mind states that granted a sense of Patterns, and by appearances, or relative comparison, this is the “matter” of differing species of hominid. Meaning, it ought not be mistaken that preference, choice, and conditions were the factor, for they were not. This is birth.
In the earliest of conditions, the second energetic force of chaos in potency did not exist.
The Ancient Vir observed the advent of the second. It is numbered second by the standard of number of presence in Min, or that is hominids. The majority, the masses, the multitudes have always numbered high, obviously, in that of the first energetic wave of muted from potency. That is, having a quieted and reactionary Sense of Self, and Sense of Life. Metaphorically, they do not have a SOL that pulls them towards anything, but they are grounded, they are frozen, at a standstill, tied, and lacking in energetics.
Chaos in potency became the second, in numerical order, because upon their arrival, they became numbered in the many, though not numbered more than those in the first. Those who have numbered in the third, such as the Vir and like Kinds, never came to numbers even remotely near the first and the second of presence.
The second came from the first. This too is why it is numbered two. It was not born out of the third. The number three, and the third, is that of the number of the TRANSMUTED, that has a different set of traits, attributes, and directional energetics.
The second came by way of the ingestion, and later the inhalation of what would later be referred to as intoxicants. This, however, is the first phase of the advent of the chaotic in potency. It can be said that though they formed in this age, in what they would become, a second phase would occur later that altered their physiology. It could be said that in the first phase, what was altered was less their physiology, and more their mental sphere. That upon appearance, there was little difference between them, of the second, and them of the first energetic wave.
Upon the consumption of intoxicants, that do not need to be specified, the mind of the first muted from potency wave became that of AGGRESSIVE IMAGERY, or imagination, that would come to overtake the dull and standstill disposition of the first wave of descendants.
Those of the third wave were not present in numbers among the first wave during this phase. Those of the third wave were born out of ADAPTATION to that of the HARSH CLIMATES that surrounded them, conditioned by the sudden onslaught of climatic, seemingly chaos.
Conditions begot chaotic potency, and on account of this, those who would become the third wave would need to become more ORDERLY and CALM to survive it. This would bring about emotional Kinetics that would establish the foundation, in that of disciplining the manner of the body to make use of the mind, that then in extension, having an external subject to work upon, such as the wolf, would generate the first course in history, of self-talk, and self-awareness as a DIFFERING INDIVIDUAL among a group.
This notion of differing is on account of having some challenge that not all others were engaging in, and in order to engage in that challenge, one would have to produce different behavior, and in producing the different behavior, in the manner of call and response, receive different results.
On account of those results being ADVANTAGEOUS was born the MOTIVATION of the third wave. What was born of the third wave was that of those MOTIVATED to SEEK to GAIN, to MAINTAIN, and CULTIVATE, in the third… that of ADVANTAGE. It was here, and only here, between those of ORDER and that of the WOLF, ADVANCEMENT was born, coming to define the third wave.
There is no way the Vir, who came out of this third wave, can know of whence they came. In their recollect, it would be said… only here, and then, did they have an integration of thought with animal.
Because of this, I can only infer that to some degree, those who existed, by academic estimates for a couple million years, as hominids, were those of the first wave of muted from potency, and existing as mere reactionary animals, not much different from that of the cousin kinds of troglodytes and bonobo, among the paniscus.
It can be said, of the inquiry into the past, that there were no markings or records, whereby any mind had announced itself, with artifacts meant to signal those yet to come. Meaning, thought and intellect, as a species of being, embodied in animal, did not say… “HERE I AM, I HAVE BEEN BORN.” That is... till it did.
But it is the Way of the VIR, from the recollect of the VIR, to know that conditions' hostility, which triggered energetics of escape and evade to pursue relief, brought the urges down from the original baseline, and did this with another species, an ancestor of the like wolf. The recollect of the Vir does not have the wolf of that phase being likened to the wolves of today, nor liken to that of the dire wolf, found mostly in the North Americas, in buried form.
Something of a sort, sharing in size of the dire wolf and appearance of the wolf, walked in competition over resources with them. But on account of the hostile conditions that came upon them, only those with some innate ADAPTIVE eligibility would SURVIVE. Those most urge based among the hominids would DIE in their CONFUSION and reaction. Those most urge based, in the Vka, the wolf, would die in their confusion and reaction. But those most adaptive would be so on account that their urges and impulses were not as high as those whom they both came from. Brought into a state of deprived survival awoke in them the ADVENT of the MENTAL SPHERE, as that new being yet to be entirely tapped, if at all.
Both the Vka, which is not the wolf, nor the dog of today, and that of the Min of this kind of hominid integrated, and became INSEPARABLE.
Like what would be the dominance of the first wave of Min, those muted from potency, so then would the bulk of remaining wolves have not the minds of their ancestral Vka, but liken to the mass of muted Min, would be muted WOLVES.
The Vka would become integrated with the Min, forming the first of its kind, called by outsiders the Ka’min, or the Ka’in, or the Qayin. These, in a divided sense, as so-called Min, liken to that of the first wave of Min, are only in SYMBOL alone. For to them, they could never have conceived of themselves as Min, and that of the wolflike being as Ka, but that what SYMBOLIZED the KA and the MIN would be one and the same. Among them and their tongue, neither the Ka nor the Min was a thing, there was only MIN integrated with the KA, as that of the VehrKa. To call the so-called wolf a VehrKa was the same as to call the Min integrated with them.
Both were always called VehrKa, for never in this phase, when their conditions had yielded in hostility, would either of the two of them ever be seen ONE and by themselves. ALWAYS, they walked together, until the conflict would come later, after the advent of the second wave of intoxicated Min.
The notions of Manu and human are not relevant to these phases. Of a sense, prior to these terms, was the lost universal term of Min, only to be semi-rediscovered, in the categorical thought of referring to the species, in their differences as HOMINID. Where a hominid may be more easily distinguished, such ease of discernment of the physical form could not be done with the type of Min.
Min, in appearance, were more alike to each other than not. Where Min SPECIES out from each other and the general form would be in the REALM of COGNITION, that in need of making use of the carriage that carries it, would come that of supposed TEMPERAMENT. And therefore, it would be said that if the two and the three came from the one, there are two conditional components that triggered the energetic course.
The second was made through INTOXICATION. The third was made through DISCIPLINE, and the PURSUIT of ADVANCEMENT, in ADVERSE and HARSH conditions. That which can be called the way of intoxication, if ever met with the condition of harsh and challenging conditions, absent settlement of others, would lead the agent of action to their DEATH. Meaning, intoxication secures no advantage but HINDERS it.
Because of this, it is why it can be said to any reader, when you are of those who engage in intoxicants, and after hearing or reading the CALL of a VIR, you remain in such state, then you are degreed in likeness to either the DEFEATED Min of the first, or the AGGRAVATED Min in the second, but not near to that of the VIR.
On account of the potency of conditions to those not born with Vir potency, it can be said that in CAPTIVITY, one with the ATTRACTIONS and the AVERSIONS indicating being SEEDED in VIR are those who would with IMMEDIACY halt any CONSUMPTION, and/or INHALATION of INTOXICANTS. That this is the way of the second wave Min, and brought to the first wave of Min, as a means to WEAKEN them.
There is none who can hear of the attractions of the Vir, and their aversions, who can retain a relationship with intoxicants and foul things, and be called one sharing in such attractions and aversions.
In no way is there wiggle room on this. One does not come to abandon or avoid intoxicants as a struggle. He, or she who would struggle with the ADVANCEMENT out of INTOXICANTS is not with the ATTRACTIONS and AVERSIONS of the VIR. One who is with these attractions and aversions of the Vir would be stricken with a sudden ENERGETIC sense of leaving the inflicted realm of the first and the second. That to be merely ADDRESSED in such a manner is all that one with these attractions and aversions of the Vir would ever need.
In simpler form, reader… If read this far, through Part I and II, and here in Part III, and a single episode of engaging intoxicants comes to occur, it ought to be realized by you and others that you are NOT with the ATTRACTIONS and the AVERSIONS of the VIR, and therefore, would merely be seeking to intrude, to interfere, and to resist what follows. The VIR is ATTRACTED to that which secures ADVANTAGE in CONTROL and COMMAND over CONDITIONS and SELF. The VIR is ADVERSE to that which hinders, impedes, interferes and weakens this attraction. Intoxicants, ALL INTOXICANTS, consumed or inhaled, are of the most hindering course one could take.
In the realm of the three Min, the MUTED, the CHAOTIC, the ORDERLY… One and two are both born COWARDS. But they will not know they are cowards, because born to be means normalized in, and as. Most who are one and two could not self report as cowards; only live in obviousness as such, if by OBVIOUS it means one has the attractions and the aversions of the Vir. For only a Vir is born with Valor, but by some degree, those with attractions and aversions are born to be COURAGEOUS.
One who is said to have the attractions and the aversions of the Vir can not be one who is said to be a coward. At minimum, they are COURAGEOUS, and at best they are VALOROUS.
The difference between the two is that of the level of DIFFIDENCE and CONFIDENCE in the individual. One who suffers but some diffidence, that is, mistrust in self and others, will need to OVERCOME this, with COURAGE. This could mean, as it does to the humans, that to be courageous, there must be emotional impediments of insecurity and fear, thus manifested energetically as ANXIETY that begets CONCERN. This is not how the emotion of VALOR works in the VIR. One who has the attractions of the Vir, and its aversions, will be one who is attracted to the TRANSMUTED version of the emotional Kinetics.
The Vocation of the Votary and the Vir
Where the human has insecurity, the VOTARY is to have COURAGE. As a Votary, they are one who has VOWED to themselves to TRANSMUTE the EMOTIONS, to the best of their ability towards that of ADVANTAGE. In order to do this, what would trigger in the Votary becoming so after the VOCATION of the CALL, is that of starting in the SIXTH Kinetics, with a VOW of PRIMACY in ENTERTAINMENT that ENGAGES that of SKILL and COMPETENCY, at placing the MIND in primary operational position, to dictate the formula for DECISION making, with ADVANTAGE in EXCELLENCE being paramount.
A Votary, in Viritus, is not one who has taken a vow to a god, or to another. A Votary is so, in VIRITUS, in that they have the attractions and aversions of a Vir, correlated to their ABILITY to TRANSMUTE what emotions they would have been CONDITIONED to struggle with. That, the Way of the Vir, with its attractions and aversions, grants through a CALL, that of the VOCATION of the TRANSMUTED KINETICS. When this calls to one, with the attractions and aversions by degree of the Vir, they are called a Votary, and to and for themselves, must ENGAGE the VOCATION through their own motivations and degree of likeness.
One who is a Votary, then, can be said to be engaged in the culture surrounding this transmutation of the emotional Kinetics. It can not be said that they are a Vir. This could not be said, until they have transcendent CULTURAL BATTLES, and come to VICTORY as a SOVEREIGN, whereby they SELF STAND, with EQUANIMITY, by degree.
For this reason, it is said, as the author who stands in VICTORY over both my conditions and self, and have before any, the CALL of the WAY, that I was BORN a VIR, and I AM a VIR in ACTION and DEMONSTRATION, but to no other is such yet to be said. But on account that the Way is a Way, it ought to then mean… if there are those with the attractions and aversions of the VIR… it is only proven to be the case, when they arrive at their own SELF STANDING, their own SOVEREIGNTY, their own COMMAND. In the absence of their own Command, it can be said, they are a Votary answering to the Call, the Vocation of the Vir, but ever so Vigilant on their own, and by others, that they are not actually meant for the Call. None of the Call, and of Vir are ever to be found trying to CONVINCE, and/or MOTIVATE another towards answering and responding to the Call.
The reason, then, that this manual is called a SELF-DEFENSE manual for a VIR, is in that, it can ONLY APPLY to those who are Votary and more. Only those who have declared for themselves that they share in the likeness of attractions and aversions of the Vir could have any sense of the point of this manual. And then again, it must be said: ONLY the ATTRACTIONS and the AVERSIONS of the VIR, and not that of some eclectic, mixed association. There are NOT… KINDS of VIR. There is no DIVERSITY in ATTRACTIONS and AVERSIONS of the VIR. Where one could say, they agree with this element, but not that… then they are not a VOTARY.
So then why would you, as Humanus, and as a normy, come to think you ought to, or can agree with this manual of self-defense, when in you, there is nothing worth defending. Self-defense is an ENERGETIC element of the attractions and the aversions of the Vir, and therefore, the Votary. All of what is Access Denied is on account of there being Votaries. It is useless to a Vir.
But one who is a Votary, engaged in the Vocational Objectives of Learnt Transmutation (VOLT), makes use of the attractions and the aversions in this set of books, and that of books correlated under the brand of VOLTENTIAL. This brand name is not chosen on account of my common name being rendered Volt. My common name is rendered and allowed to be rendered that way by degree of recognition of what it means.
When one is turning to anything in which some VOLT is the author thereof, it is that of the Vocational Objectives of Learnt Transmutation. My I, then, is not Volt. This, then, is my role, in the mix of things. VOLTENTIAL means the POTENTIAL for this VOCATION, and such is the cause for its name.
Only one by no degree of learning would think that it is about “my”, as “VOLT”, potential. And such clarification of this, by degree, follows later only deeper in these treatises, so as to separate the chump browsers from the Votary. A Votary would have a good sense of the terms, and their origination and definition, the attractions and the aversions detailed in ACCESS DENIED, as a ground work for that of the notion of WANDERING for QUALITY in VIRITUS.
The advent of ACCESS DENIED was encouraged by the ambiguity and weakness of the Early Buddhist sutta, called the Rhino Sutta, where it provokes wandering, and that of avoiding poor companionship. It makes clear that in the absence of one of the vocations of awakening, having shown to be born in confidence, one ought to avoid and be rid of others, and GO IT ALONE. This used to be a key point.
So then, when you the reader are not a Votary of perhaps any system, let alone that of Viritus, then in the absence of self-directed vows, you can not be said to have a discipline. You are of the MUTED or the CHAOTIC ones, and therefore, no Votary should ever grant you access, or allow you to maintain access to them, in where your nature as a GHOUL of mutedness, or VAMPYRE of CHAOS is only likely to rule out.
We of this Vocation, by vow or by birth, are not of the ghouls of mutedness, and the Vampyres of chaos. With such metaphor, we of this Vocation are WerWolves, as that of VirWulf, of that of Vehrka, in origination. We do not move as packs. This was not the Way of the Ka, which integrated with the Vir. We are not pack animals. WE are those INDIVIDUAL beings, moving with our own power, that ACCESS DENY those seeking to pack, to relate, and reserve ourselves and our ENERGETIC contributions to those other WANDERING SOLs, who come with their ENERGETICS and their KINETICS of VALOR. If we were to get caught up in the packs of you ghouls and Vampyres, we would have the energetics of our time, condition, and actions squandered, and our attention distracted and diverted, thus never attaining to a social position with our own Kind.
The Call of this Vocation is a SEPARATION, and ACCESS DENIED not because of what your kind is, but because it is not the kind in which we seek to ENGAGE ENERGETICALLY with, towards that of shared Advancement and the advantages to which it grants. We are not access denying you for what you are.
We are ACCESS DENYING you for what you are not, and that is, NOT a VOTARY who shares in the attractions and the aversions of the Vir. And when you are not this, it is then presumed prima facie, in absence of any self declared ways of your own, that you are of the wave of one, and/or two. When you are of the one, your masters are the two. When you are of the two, you are FAR from being likened to the three. We are not near, but opposites, and those of the one, under your SPELLS, are then of no value in association to those of the third. We are simply ACCESS DENYING your kind, on account that your kind are FEEDERS, and SLAVERS, and must be left to ONE and TWO with no THREE as VICTIMS.
When you are of the one and the two, then these works would offend you. For now, you will come to have known, what it is to be your one and two, whereas previously, youse did not have contrast, and you thought ALL were the same. “We” that of VOTARIES, and that of VIR, are not your “WE”. Your “WE” is the MUTED SUBJECTS of ONE, and the CHAOTIC AGGRESSORS of TWO. We WANDER from this, and towards our ADVANCEMENT, to which your kinds can not grasp.
WHY, then, you can not start with a sense of BATTLE.
Those of the SECOND wave, and the FIRST, can not then conceive of the notion of access as a battle. The first wave does not often have something about them that others would ever fight for. It can be said, in the scope of things, an association to youse of the first wave is rather normal, uneventful, and boring. That, as normies, as a servile kind, you are UNINTERESTING.
Because of this, you, as the first wave, take what you can get by way of access. You are neither fought for, nor do you have to fight for anything. As of the first wave, you are not ABOUT anything but your FAMILIES, as DEFAULT access, your SCHOOLS, as COMPULSORY access, and your WORKPLACES, as UTILITY based access. When you find your peers, your associates from these realms, it is to say… what then that is about, is not what you are about, but what happens to be so. The CONDITION is ABOUT, and it is then UPON you.
So from the perspective of thinking, you can be about anything, you would then say… I am ABOUT my FAMILY. I am ABOUT my SCHOOLING. I am ABOUT my JOB. But you are not ABOUT these things, in this sense. What are you ABOUT? This as a question makes you think, any answer will do. But to be ABOUT something is to FIGHT for something. That which does not require fighting, but is itself, put upon you… is not what you are about… but, what you are under, and you are captured in.
To be ABOUT something has one in a CONTROLLING position in that thing. It means, from YOU, there is some nature or some temperament that STIRS a thing in the condition. The condition then responds and either YIELDS to your INTRINSIC force, or it RESISTS, undermines, or returns with its CONQUEST to snuff out this thing originating from you.
Because of the many ways the condition can respond to your nature in the negate’itive, there comes a demand for a FIGHT. One will need to value that born out of themselves, wishing to be manifest in the conditions. When the conditions are primary over you muted kinds, you will be granted with a choice controlled by the conditions.
When your GRANTED choices are all you had ever made thoughts ABOUT, then the CHOICES were about YOU, not you about them. You were compelled to the limitations of the conditions' options. But yet, nowhere is there ever the question “what is my nature?” in demand of. Because you are muted, the answer is NOTHING. You will not have attractions and aversions that could not be defined and sourced out of your conditions. On account of this, your academics, who are of the second wave, shamans made Brahmins… can safely say, you were born ignorant, and that your temperament does not have any potency that can be said to contend with your conditions. You will be a generic Johnny, or generic Jenny.
Because of this muted state, when Johnny 1 comes to Johnny 2 for access, there would be no battle. The two of youse would act as mirrors to each other, tilted towards the beams of your conditions. Like two mirrors before each other, you see yourselves in each other, but often not the beams from your conditions shooting down upon the mirrors of the two of youse, to make you exactly what you are and thus COMPATIBLE in CONFORMITY.
It can be said, Johnny 1 and Johnny 2 are not going to need to battle for access with each other, but through mirroring the conditional interest of each other, there is no individuality that needs to be contended with.
Conformity occurs among those who are not driven by nature to individualize. One who is driven to individualize will battle with their conditions, because conditions are ever so dominantly engaged in collectivization, not individualization. When one is at peace with the conditions, it is that the conditions have PACIFIED them.
So then, why would you, Johnny 1 or Johnny 2, or Johnny 5, ever declare, “I am alive”? You would not.
Why you, Jennies and Johnnies, do not grasp why I could be calling this a BATTLE of ACCESS, and/or for, is because of your normalcy being so dominant, housed in likeness, that… your minds, or lack thereof, can not account for my differences.
I am that anomaly that proves the epistemological sense of blank slate, though dominantly the case, is not ALWAYS the case. I am evidence that there can be, and is perhaps some who are BORN with RECOLLECT that is arranged in a manner sufficient enough to be called INNATE KNOWLEDGE, in that, there is no way to explain how and where from the conditions, the knowledge of the individual has so come.
I did not receive the conditioning of learning you all call education, and/or that of schooling. I was left to the “streets” and that of living among whoever I had so chosen. I was not HOUSED in any fixed sense. I had not become DOMINATED.
One could then suppose, it had to have been from the countless mentors I had, that my sense in the KNOWING was so shaped and INFLUENCED; yet, in evidence of the dialectical nature, I have a sense of knowing that is beyond anyone from both the region of my inhabitation, and that of other ones I had no access to, and/or limited. To say conditions produced a mind and character that I embody would be to beg the question, where from, and how so.
A question or challenge I can pose only on account that before the reader, I am producing the mind of the Man, or rather the Vir, that of the AUTHOR. One could and only because of such production, analyze and seek to make sense that absent accounts of education, why am I equipped with mental references that decode a great deal of the human experience in a way that is not mirrored elsewhere?
If all I had to reference were your SILLY religions, and/or the works of your historical writers, then surely, my affirmations could so easily be contained and zeroed in as merely reflective.
There is not one of youse that has ever challenged the human value structures in the way in which I am doing, and at the same time, stating there is a transmuted version, that has ANCIENT roots of presence. There are those among yours who rebel, dispel, and repudiate that of others, but not often with that of something OTHERLY, as I am doing.
By saying there is the WAY of the VIR, and then coming to state that Way, and that Way not being mirrored off of other ways, ever systematized, is to put on display for all to consider, a MIND that is engaged in some other form of RECOLLECT, that transcends the limits of MERE CONDITIONAL ping-pong.
I was BORN to REMEMBER these WAYS, and more so, to REDISCOVER them from within, and come to OBEY them, and through such obedience, COMMAND from and through them. I was not born to declare this to be true of others.
Because this is my WAY, a part of that is that I was born to DEFEND myself against the rest of youse, who are not born this way.
That your way of being is conditional, defeated to such conditions, then it ought not be a surprise when you can NOT imagine why such a DEFENSE, and BATTLE is ever to be considered. The answer is, it does not APPLY to you. It applies to those who have but a SEED of sorts, of what I have as FRUIT. It applies to those INSTIGATED this Way, yet not being BORN with the KNOWLEDGE of this Way, but in need of INSTRUCTION. In need of DEMONSTRATION.
On account of this, these works are for the VOTARY.
For you Johnnies and Jennies, more often than not, the moment you begin to think of some kind of fight, or battle for access, is when it is a male seeking to get access to a female. It would not be said, Johnny 1 battles for access to Johnny 2. Jenny 1 does not battle for access towards that of Jenny 2. But there becomes the notion of the battle of the sexes, wherein too, “love is a battlefield” becomes a common sense. This, because in the game of love, in the game of Seduction, there can be a winner and a loser.
A male can fail to fight sufficiently enough for the selection of a female, and competitively be beat out by another male. Now, one may think I mean to exclude the gays from this. I do not. Gays, whatever they are, are far more with ease of the same sex, and battle far less for access to each other. On account of whatever makes them gay, they tend to be the most aggressive at removing standards of access and game of access, and kind of go straight to it, almost with the sense of entitlement that a female has in the game. Think about it, often, to be a GAY male does not mean that of a WARRIOR POWERFUL MALE.
A gay male leans more towards being a female, in their mannerism. Where there may be anomalies to try to prove otherwise, they do not dispel the common likelihood, or general observation. Therefore, fanook males will feel as the so-called straight female―if that is a thing―does, by way of ENTITLEMENT to that of male attention. It can not be said of human females, of first and second Min, that they need do much to get that attention, and to be treated as valuable. Instead, they are led by their POSSESSORS to believe they are POSSESSED in value from the start, whereas first wave Min are taught they are and can only feel privileged to get the approval and selection of a female. Such a pathetic existence.
The title of Part II was called The BATTLE for ACCESS, and it was not to be limited to the kind of access where Seduction is the factor. As plays, or maneuvers in battle, it would be stated that ALL ACCESS has a BATTLE component. Battle becomes in essence a metaphor, because surely, you DEFEATED kinds can not really have the sense of FIGHT in you.
⚔⚔⚔
When I said the Vir was likened to a MARTIAL kind, but does not FAVOR war, and therefore, this term is not accurate, I did not bring that to fruition and conclusion. In the emotions of the Vir, Valor is an emotion. The emotions of the Vir are liken to the Virtues of a Vir. It is VIRTUOUS to seize advantage in excellence to become VICTORIOUS in life. Victory, or TRIUMPH, as an emotion, is a VIRTUE of the VIR.
For the Vir, the notions of ignorance and knowledge are correlated to an emotion. This is not the case in the way human Brahmins talk of emotions. They have this emotion as surprise, but a greater approximation is EXCITED IGNORANCE. But where the human, that of first Min or second, is often excited in ignorance, the Vir, or the Votary, is to be excited in KNOWLEDGE. From this fortified stance in knowledge, all the other emotions are generated. KNOWLEDGE for TRIUMPH, and because of it, leads to VIGILANCE, which leads to VERACITY, which leads to VVRATH, arrives in VALIANCE, and/or VALOR. The term “martial” does not properly apply to the Vir. It is the term in the Vir’s Way of “Valiance” that is best suited to what they have, as an emotional Virtue.
In the future of writing and expounding, I will mark this as the transition up and out of the term “martial”, and into that of the greater approximation towards exactness of that of “VALIANT”. I will maintain the course for now, and not deviate to secure the notion of Valiance, but mark this published time for when recognition of the error in the term “martial” has become too much to maintain in use of. It leads to the wrong notion.
The VALIANCE, so to say, of the VIR, would be why the rest of you are categorized as engaged in a battle of access. Amongst yourselves, it can be said you are on the same side; and that is the side of DEFEAT. So surely then, you do not see yourself in a battle; for to battle with another, ye would think they need be enemy. Skirmishes are more likely to what you all engage in, and the fact of the matter is, you all do treat each other like enemy, thus, as enemy, but in the absence of REAL and potent threat cycles, you have no CONTRAST.
I have enough recollect of having enemies enough to know the difference, and of them as enemies, none of them were from my own making, but only from them, seeking to BATTLE for DOMINANCE over me, did they become in the maketh of me, their enemy.
For the simple sense, the term “battle”, here, is metaphorical, in that, it signifies some FIGHT, and some CONFLICT. To make this have some sense, to ye mental MIDGETS, refer to the emotional Kinetics concerning REPUGNANCE (note: presented later). Also, the plays in which others would say belong to Seduction have it to where, one seeking to get access to another must contend with their RESISTANCE, their REPUGNANCE, their INSECURITY, and their need for ASSURANCES to feel safe, and so on. If this can be said to be present in many associations on the normal level, why would it be so, if one was not conceived of as a FOREIGNER, an INVADER, one who could trigger the opposite of all this?
The sense of FAMILIARITY is the only SENSE that actually ends alleviating these feelings, in one's new associations, or new access. One gets through to the soft spot of the target of access by becoming FAMILIAR to them, and in all social gaming, the most recommended approach is through being familiar, like them, by way of mirroring them, and liking what they like, and enticing them towards what they like that may be forbidden. To say that these basics of ways of access are not battles is absurd. The one who has to MAKE ENTRY is the one who has to BATTLE. Females rarely ever have to BATTLE for ENTRY, because they are the ones SELECTING to whom will ENTER. But this is not just about males and females battling for access. A division is needed in this sense, of what is a matter of the sexes, and what is a matter of access in general, and later, a more precise sense.
In actuality, the behavior towards access is so generically normal that it is exactly why one will be so OBLIVIOUS to it, by way of what terms and arrangement of expressions best describe it. But once described, the reader then could easily see, drawn from their own lives, that in fact, this is exactly how access has been working. But one does not think, when a normy, that access is even a thing.
It is rather a given, and therefore, no need to think of granting and denying access. It is for the mental midgets, in the realm of “IT JUST HAPPENS”, and/or “and then it JUST HAPPENED”, or “we WERE SOUL MATES AT FIRST SIGHT”. Frankly, at this stage of writing, having been at this for a while, I am rather far too ready to be done and over with it, on this subject matter. Your kin of NORMIES and MENTAL MIDGETS are a BORE in how pathetic your thoughts are around access, and the correlative realms. In that, what thoughts you have even afforded the subject matter. Why then this becomes required read in the future of access and association with me is because it needs to be done away with, as some mystery, when it is not.
As a self-defense treatment, the point is to illuminate, from the perspective of the Vir, what it is to “US” of this form that the rest of you look like, when we know, from our own natures, that it all takes place on a BATTLEFIELD. It is not taking place in the GATHERING Fields, in the HUNTING Fields. When it comes to your kind, you are not even in those FIELDS; you are in your House, and where you engage is all around Houses of extension called cities, called towns, and called states. So then as you engage your “world”, you do so by what is called House rules, and the expectations of the House, as the HOUSED MENTAL MIDGETS ye all so easily are.
The Three Houses
You have the Three HOUSES:
-
The HOUSE of STORAGE
-
The HOUSE of MANAGEMENT of the STORED
-
The HOUSE of the ROLES of RELATIONAL
When your kind goes about and does jobs, you are interacting with that which is STORED in HOUSES, and may need to be MOVED, and/or MANAGED. Such is moved and managed in correlation to the ROLES, and RELATIONSHIPS of those with their HOUSES. One HOUSE is managed and roled differently from the OTHER. HOUSES of MANAGEMENT often differ from the HOUSES of those MANAGED.
Houses do not have GATHERING from a source. Houses gather from STORAGE. These are called STORES in the marketplace.
Houses do not HUNT, but they CONTROL and they MANAGE the STORAGE.
Houses do not collaborate, do not advance, but they remain settled in ROLES, sustaining RELATIONS, all that has been STORED.
House rules are subject to mechanics of CONTROLS and MANAGEMENT that are chosen and enforced by AGREEMENTS, that form codes, legislation, duties, and rights. These are not required to mirror Fields of NATURE, with natural Laws being primary. House rules are about DOMINATION.
Nature's rules and Laws lead to advantage, when KNOWLEDGE and OBEDIENCE are primary.
What would work and serve in conforming to the House, and its rules, does not mean, what would work in nature, and vice versa. In nature, ignorance can kill you. Or that is, be the cause of poor decisions that lead to death. In the House, it is your IGNORANCE that will sustain you in your ROLES, and your RELATIONS. In the House, NATURAL knowledge in finding oneself DIFFERENT from those of the HOUSE could lead one to CHOOSE to separate from that House, and in attempting to become independent, and self ruled, become targeted by those of the House for that of either TORMENT, or DEATH.
The HOUSE and NATURE are often at ODDS with each other, and one who is the MASTER of the other is often the wretched slave to the foreign kind. Meaning, a master of a House can wander in a Field, and be destroyed instantly by nature's SMALLEST of threats. Likewise, a master of the wild can find themselves in a settlement, among the nation-states, and upon discovery, be killed easily by one of its enforcers, and/or the mobs of the familiar. MASTERY of BOTH is the WAY of the VIR. The Vir preference is in something that is not likened to either. Though that is not for now to investigate.
The ways of the Housed are often ignorant in the ways of Nature. The ways of the Wild are often ignorant of the ways of the House. But ignorant in the ways of the House is no vice, while knowledgeable about the Wild and Nature. But ignorance of Nature and the Wild is certainly a vice.
One who is ignorant of Nature and the Wild can only be a SLAVE, a SUBJECT, a SERVANT, a CHILD who must not through any kind of KNOWLEDGE, but through COMPLIANCE, sacrifice any sense of VALID REASONING for that of a set of CONFORMED AGREEMENTS, looping around the SEVEN INSECURITIES.
The Seven Insecurities
Returning to the furthering of this piece, at a later point, I realize, I must keep it moving along the line of the plays, and attempt to restrain too much deviation. It is the nature of the Mind I work through to try to secure the foundation as much as possible, and this leads to massive amounts of detail in realms perhaps not suited for this treatise, at the time of its preparation. Access Denied will need to be moved to closed out, so that the real “work” can begin.
Battle for access is still the point. The Seven Insecurities truly play a role, and I shall only cover them in brief here, and expound on them further elsewhere.
The reader may recall that in Part II, I started to expound on the topic of universal insecurities and fears, while still being unsettled on the pattern. I will now update the notion.
The Seven Insecurities are around that of “falling”, first in the literal sense, and then in the metaphorical sense of correlation.
The reader should start by calling upon previous notions of “attachment theory”, however, in its most general form. I do not give support to the full form of “attachment theory”. I produce it only in general form, as a means to “bridge” over, with the reader, what they can take further on their own.
In the general form, it is shown as the leading, if not the only theory of its sort, that the offspring attaches to a figure, and any, as “caregiver”, would do, on account of innate insecurities. That these insecurities become activated, and presented with visual and audio cues to the caregiver, and instigates in them the “caregiver” program. Make no mistake, Humanus, you are all CHEMICAL PROGRAMS, as ANIMALS. Being ORGANIC does not remove the title of MACHINE.
You have MECHANICS to you, and doctors deal in those mechanics. Mechanism, and call and response systems, that, though not called synthetic, but called organic, the arrangement is still that of PROGRAMMING. The notion of FREE WILL, and that of VOLITION is weak. Because you are a kind of ANIMAL, a HOMINID of the MAMMAL sort, with set physical and mental traits, you are bound to these, as an IDENTITY.
When produced as an offspring of a kind, what that kind is will determine your motives and mechanical capacities, and abilities. Without being a winged kind, you do not by nature take flight on account of your default machinery. Volition and will do not and can not change the DEFAULTS, though perhaps it can be said, do however lead to inventions brought forth by some, who more often than not can be individually named. Because some hominids invent contraptions is not the same as you, as a hominid, then being considered an inventor. This is collectivized absurdism, to take credit for what only a few among your kind have ever done.
You are a MACHINE, and when you disagree with me on this matter, but wake up tomorrow to live your day, you will do so according to programmed ways, based around programmed needs. Of those needs was first programmed that of holding on, literally, when you could, with the hands and the arms, to that of others.
The offspring could not begin with their own grasp, on account of not being strong and active enough. Instead, as a Humanus, a Min, you had to be held, before you could hold.
It is not a mere matter of the past that you began in the arms of others, being held, and comforted. This is a CONDITION of your kind, that would follow you and your aims throughout living. Once held before you could even recall, you will seek to be held by others, motivated to be held, throughout your value hierarchy in the here and the now. You have the program of… “I just want to be HELD”. Regardless of how often you hear these words in your own head, and/or say them to others, you are seeking this GOLDEN AIM that began the moment you were born. The bulk of you are womb chasers. You are motivated and driven by this state of being “held”. It's an innate value.
The Vir is not born with this value.
Where the Humanus is always chasing to be HELD, the VIR is always chasing to be MOVED.
If a Vir was born to a Vir, their custodians would be found moving and strengthening them, throughout this early stage, to get them to stand on their own, as fast as possible. Whereas the Humanus female does not prefer her offspring stand on its own, only but as a sense of the process, that then is used to ENTERTAIN her, in AMUSEMENT and DISTRACTION. The Humanus female has offspring sustained in this realm. It entertains her emotions, and serves her Sense of Self. There is no such thing, in nature, as a selfless act. This is absurd.
Because you could not hold your own, you had to be held. Then, as you began, as an infant, to develop hand and arm strength, you began to HOLD ON, that is to say… form an attachment to that of a figure. This is triggered in furtherance and development on account of internal mechanics of fear, and insecurity around FALLING from the ATTACHMENT figure. It is the same innate mechanism that will cause a chimp, an ape, or what have you, to grasp tightly onto its attachment figure, in ways the Humanus offspring can not, on account of not having the physical strength.
The Vir would be provoked to be more likened to holding on, versus that of being held, in this early stage. It would have, as offspring, games of getting stronger, to attach by its own power to the figure, versus being supported by the means of the elder form. Humanus females do not engage in strength training and fortification of their young.
Humanus females keep their young weak and needy, so that the Humanus female can sustain her role as primary. This is not UNIVERSAL among the MUTED HUMANUS, but correlates to the level of chores and activities in need of fulfilling and completing.
In primal conditions, the Humanus female would not be able to have the offspring always dependent upon it, and in its “arms” or “hold”. It would need to use its hands, and complete tasks. There is a difference massively in what is permitted among Humanus in primal conditions, versus that of domesticated conditions. Given alleviation in chores and other responsibilities, the primal Humanus female would act like the domesticated and cared for female.
Meaning, the condition may interfere with this desire to hold and sustain the hold, but when the condition becomes at ease, the desire freed up for expression leads to Humanus females not having a way about them to encourage self standing.
A Humanus female tells the young to stand, and “walk towards them”. Then, they are there to catch them. The Humanus young walks “to them” and then “falls into their hold” on CUE. You pathetic creatures have no idea how this looks to an AWAKENED mind. For your kind it is cute, and innocent. For my Kind, it is the root of your SLAVER mentality. You ENJOY far too much movement that goes towards you, that then falls into DEPENDENCY and WEAKNESS.
The holds you all have are not innocent. Your holds are the origins of SLAVERY.
The healthy path of expression for the FEAR and INSECURITY in this first to occur is where it activates in the young the NEED to CLIMB, not to hold. Climbing, with increased strength and mobility, is key. Holding on is staying still and dependent.
A Vir like Kind would not settle in the arms of another when young, but instead, would seek, when it can, to climb out of the hold, up into areas of perspective, and begin its plotting of the next navigational point.
In order to prevent this, the Humanus female DOPES up their young with touch and cuddles, making use of the chemical OXYTOCIN, binding them into a stupor. A Vir female with young would never do this, but would know, from the instruction of the elders, as well as her instinct, to begin placing the young's hands further up, and getting it to climb, and HOLD itself in different positions.
One could say, that sounds like theory, and that, nowhere is this seen. Among Humanus, this is true. My Patruus followed this Pattern with me. I was not HELD; I was always moved to CLIMB and to HOLD. I had fallen from many high places in the “house” designed like a “field”. As a martial artist and a brilliant Man, my Patruus set his space up like an obstacle course. Everything had to have a purpose. He stretched me and made me hold plank, and other postures to develop strength of my own fast.
Later, of course, in life, when I would begin working in investigative and experimental behavioral sciences, I would work with the young of others, and show them the same techniques, and no “matter” if the young was Humanus or otherwise, when they were made to climb, instead of be held, the impact to their self-esteem as young would be massive, and their performance in all areas, accelerated.
This is not the aim of the Humanus with their young, because... it is their young to them. They are possessions that exist to activate in them their sense of belonging, and rank in the procession of living. Humanus do not have the proclivity to self stand, let alone to get their offspring to self stand, for, for them to do so, they would need to overthrow their elders from their positions of Control and Management. You lot, you HUMANUS, are UGLY and FOUL creatures, in how you keep your young DEPENDENT, and keep yourselves in a position of care over them.
To your lot, you Humanus, CARE is GOD, and to my Kind, your CARE is wicked and EVIL. WE are not a WE. WE are not the same.
When the offspring has fear and insecurity of falling triggered in them, they go from grasping to holding. Holding is settling, and climbing is advancing. When it is not the nature of the kind to advance on its own, it is muted. Meaning, when the offspring does not try to climb, it means it does not have this attraction to advancement, but will likely have an aversion to it.
Because it is muted, a “caregiver” can do with it as they see pleased. If the one in Control is not engaged in care, but Cultivation, and Advancement, rare to be the case, they need only instigate repeatedly in the offspring the climb, and the advancement. They do this by causing the offspring to have to work at holding on, and seek advantageous positions. This early on is where a sense of SEIZING the ADVANTAGE can culturally come in play. Ancients of my Kind, my Ancestors, did this.
My Patruus did this.
From the FEAR and INSECURITY of FALLING, the young ATTACHES. This fear and insecurity, when it is not remedied on account of strengthening the young to climb and self stand, is the same fear and insecurity that then causes the young to attach, want to attach, and need to attach to others around them throughout the rest of their lives. This then leads to the other insecurities, or the ways in which this becomes diverse, slightly, in its expression.
Holding on and being held onto does not equate to OVERCOMING. Climbing with one's own MIGHT does. The fear around physical falling manifests itself as well in MENTAL and SOCIAL fallings that follow later. And the fear of falling is the primary fear and insecurity that most live under in captivity, or that is, as their HOLD, in which from all other things… it HOLDS OUT.
Etymology of Hold (v.)
Middle English holden, earlier halden, from Old English haldan (Anglian), healdan (West Saxon), “to contain; to grasp; to retain (liquid, etc.); to observe, fulfill (a custom, etc.); to have as one's own; to have in mind (of opinions, etc.); to possess, control, rule; to detain, lock up; to foster, cherish, keep watch over; to continue in existence or action; to keep back from action,” class VII strong verb (past tense heold, past participle healden), from Proto-Germanic *haldanan (source also of Old Saxon haldan, Old Frisian halda, Old Norse halda, Dutch houden, German halten “to hold,” Gothic haldan “to tend”).
Based on the Gothic sense (also present as a secondary sense in Old English), the verb is presumed originally in Germanic to have meant “to keep, tend, watch over” (as grazing cattle), later “to have.” Ancestral sense is preserved in behold. The original past participle holden was replaced by held beginning 16c., but survives in some legal jargon and in beholden.
The modern use in the sense “lock up, keep in custody” is from 1903. Hold back in the figurative senses is from 1530s (transitive); 1570s (intransitive). To hold off is early 15c. (transitive), c. 1600 (intransitive). Hold on is early 13c. as “to maintain one's course,” 1830 as “to keep one's grip on something,” 1846 as an order to wait or stop.
To hold (one's) tongue “be silent” is from c. 1300. To hold (one's) own is from early 14c. To hold (someone's) hand in the figurative sense of “give moral support” is from 1935. To hold (one's) horses “be patient” is from 1842, American English; the notion is of keeping a tight grip on the reins. To have and to hold have been paired alliteratively at least since c. 1200, originally of marriage but also of real estate. To hold water in the figurative sense “be sound or consistent throughout” is from 1620s.
When you are but OFFSPRING from the start, you enter into this state of being HELD within a HOLD.
First, you were carried by the carrier, called the “mother” in common tongue. She carried “you”, who had no identity and individuality by default, into that of her HOLD, for further CARE. You were, and also have been… her CARGO.
Etymology of Hold (n.2)
“space in a ship below the lower deck, in which cargo is stowed,” 15c. corruption of Middle English holl “hull of a ship, hold of a ship” (c.1400), which is probably from earlier Middle English nouns meaning either “hole, hollow place, compartment” (see hole (n.)) and “husk, pod, shell,” (see hull (n.1)). With form altered in the direction of hold (probably by popular apprehension that it is named because it “holds” the cargo) and sense influenced by Middle Dutch hol “hold of a ship.”
In the realm of you Humanus, and your sense of LOVE and CARE, you see it as both a realm of PAIN and a realm of JOY, though in accounting you all pain each other more than bring joy to each other. It can not be said, of the associations you all have, that you provided Entertainment to each other, and are the source of joy to each other. On average, your kin is not joyous. You use a sense of pleasure to pull others in, so that they then could SHARE in your PAIN. This is what you all do.
It is liken to the two ways in which a hold is used:
-
“place of refuge”
-
“place of imprisonment”.
These are the two forms of holds among Humanus.
The Vir does not seek REFUGE, nor RELIEF. The VIR does not permit sustained INCARCERATION.
The sense of a hold, for the Vir, is their “own holdings”, as a:
-
“fortified place”.
Etymology of Hold (n.1)
c. 1100, “act of holding;” c. 1200, “grasp, grip,” from Old English geheald (Anglian gehald) “keeping, custody, guard; watch, protector, guardian,” from hold (v.). Meaning “place of refuge” is from c. 1200; that of “fortified place” is from c. 1300; that of “place of imprisonment” is from late 14c. Wrestling sense is from 1713. Telephoning sense is from 1961 (on hold), from expression hold the line, warning that one is away from the receiver (1912). Meaning “a delay, a pause” is from 1961 in the U.S. space program. No holds barred “with all restrictions removed” is from 1892, originally in wrestling.
A Vir is not their “body”, that is considered a “blank” target of the “carrier”, as that of “CARGO” that when brought to the land, the Earth, is “UNDER THE CARE” and for the CARE of the “carrier”.
Only the “body” is carried to “land”. The Vir is not the BODY. The Vir is the one who comes to the body, as Mind, as INTELLECT, to take COMMAND over it, and to “SELF STAND”, and “SELF HOLD” it, as their “possession”, granted SOLE RIGHT of WAY with it, on account of being the only FORCE that exists within it, able to do its thinking. External forces can not HOLD onto the BODY, the CARGO, once the INTELLECT has made entry into it.
The notion of families and kin of this sort, where the “cargo” is carried to land, and then under the “CARE” of the “CARRIER”, is ANIMAL, BESTIAL, BASE, and HUMAN. It is not wrong for Humanus to be this way. It is wrong for Humanus to treat ALL bodies like its own, as that possessed by the urges, and merely some animal of flesh alone. Where this may be the case for most Humanus carrying to CARE for Humanus offspring, ATAVISM has it that some who are born in form become inhabited by INTELLECT, and are therefore not Humanus, but may be Seeded in the attractions and the aversions of Vir. One who does not rebel against being treated as Humanus need not worry… It means they are HUMANUS. Those Seeded in the ATTRACTIONS and AVERSIONS of the VIR will resist this “STATE of CARE” and seek their own “HOLD”, or “fortified place”; and that “fortified place” is in their MINDS, and based upon the “right away” of the expression of their “nature”.
Etymology of Cargo (n.)
1650s, “freight loaded on a ship,” from Spanish cargo “burden,” from cargar “to load, impose taxes,” from Late Latin carricare “to load a wagon or cart,” from Latin carrus “wagon” (see car).
The French cognate yielded English charge (n.); also compare cark. South Pacific cargo cult is from 1949. Cargo pants attested from 1977, “loose-fitting casual pants with large pockets on the thighs;” named for the cargo pocket (by 1944), originally on military pants, so called for its carrying capacity.
Etymology of Charge (n.)
c. 1200, “a load, a weight,” from Old French charge “load, burden; imposition,” from chargier “to load, to burden,” from Late Latin carricare “to load a wagon or cart,” from Latin carrus “two-wheeled wagon” (see car). A doublet of cargo.
Meaning “responsibility, burden” is from mid-14c. (as in take charge, late 14c.; in charge, 1510s), which progressed to “pecuniary burden, cost, burden of expense” (mid-15c.), and then to “price demanded for service or goods” (1510s). Meaning “anything committed to another's custody, care, or management” is from 1520s.
Legal sense of “accusation” is late 15c.; earlier “injunction, order” (late 14c.). Meaning “address delivered by a judge to a jury at the close of a trial” is from 1680s. Electrical sense is from 1767. Slang meaning “thrill, kick” (American English) is from 1951. Meaning “quantity of powder required for one discharge of a firearm” is from 1650s. Military meaning “impetuous attack upon an enemy” is from 1560s; as an order or signal to make such an attack, 1640s.
As “cargo”, it is that you have a “carriage” that is your “body” and your “vessel”. It is your “Earth ship”, so to say. Most are “empty vessels”, in that, they are not ENDOWED with INTELLECT. You, reader, are likely MOST, and not an exception. Reading these works does not DIVIDE you from this. How you LIVE, THINK, and NAVIGATE would.
When you begin to stand on your own feet as bipedal, you come to express what is called an “upright carriage”, with that of freed up arms and hands, with posable thumbs for grasping.
Carried as cargo, and brought to land from the sea of the womb, you come out of the birth canal.
Etymology of Canal (n.)
early 15c., in anatomy, “tubular passage in the body through which fluids or solids pass;” mid-15c., “a pipe for liquid;” from French canal, chanel “water channel, tube, pipe, gutter” (12c.), from Latin canalis “water pipe, groove, channel,” noun use of adjective from canna “reed” (see cane (n.)). Sense transferred by 1670s to “artificial waterway for irrigation or navigation.”
Etymology of Birth (n.)
c. 1200, “fact of being born;” mid-13c., “act of giving birth, a bringing forth by the mother, childbirth,” sometimes in Middle English also “conception;” also “that which is born, offspring, child;” from a Scandinavian source such as Old Norse *byrðr (replacing cognate Old English gebyrd “birth, descent, race; offspring; nature; fate”), from Proto-Germanic *gaburthis (source also of Old Frisian berd, Old Saxon giburd, Dutch geboorte, Old High German giburt, German geburt, Gothic gabaurþs), from PIE *bhrto past participle of root *bher- (1) “to carry; to bear children” (compare bear (v.)).
Suffix -th is for “process” (as in bath, death). Meaning “condition into which a person is born, lineage, descent” is from c. 1200 (also in the Old English word). In reference to non-living things, “any coming into existence” is from 1610s. Birth control is from 1914; birth certificate is from 1842.
I am obligated to produce these etyms for future use, yet here. But will not deviate to include them in a secure “route”.
Etymology of Channel (n.)
early 14c., “bed of a stream of water,” from Old French chanel “bed of a waterway; tube, pipe, gutter,” from Latin canalis “groove, channel, waterpipe” (see canal). Given a broader, figurative sense by 1530s: “that by which something passes or is transmitted” (of information, commerce, etc.); meaning “circuit for telegraph communication” (1848) probably led to that of “band of frequency for radio or TV signals” (1928).
Also “part of a sea making a passageway between land masses, a large strait” (1550s). English Channel is from 1825; the older name was British Channel (by 1730) or simply Channel (Shakespeare). John of Trevisa's Middle English translation of the encyclopedia De Proprietatibus Rerum (c. 1398) has frensshe see for “English Channel.” The Channel Islands are the French Îles Anglo-Normandes.
Material birth of one's carriage that comes through the waterway of the “carrier”, the “mother”, as its “cargo”, has only the CONCERN for, and the CHARGE of the body, the form; and what is presumed of it, in furtherance, is that having passed through the “mother”, it belongs to her.
You come to live physically without this ever receiving a challenge. Nature, however, makes you wish to hold onto something else, when you begin to approach and “travel” through puberty. It makes you want to have your “own” “cargo” that is “carried” to the “land” and becomes under your “CARE” and your “CHARGE”, with the responsibility becoming how you Humanus mark your stages in the procession.
ANIMALS.
This is the MATRIX.
Your houses become “ships” that are at “dock”, and within the “houses” you have “bunks”, or that of “sleeping quarters”, where there is a given you will leave from, and return to, by order of your day being fixed.
This was your machinery. This is the way of the forms. What wanders to the Vir is not that of the body, and where it is placed. The wandering of the Vir is that of intellectual wandering. Even a Vir that becomes incarcerated is still a wanderer, so long as they engage in the mental expressions so correlated.
One who ENGAGES the attractions of the Vir, in the mind, is ever so free, nomadic, and roaming. One who, however, has only thoughts of their condition, and reactions thereto, is settled, and lacks mental travel. Mental travel goes beyond the mere condition, and enters realms that differ greatly. Born out of this becomes a character that is far more entertaining, for it will not be sitting idle, waiting for the condition to entertain, but it becomes an ACTIVE force upon the conditions. This is a part of the “Way of the VIR”.
Etymology of Carry (v.)
early 14c., “to bear or convey, take along or transport,” from Anglo-French carier “to transport in a vehicle” or Old North French carrier “to cart, carry” (Modern French charrier), from Gallo-Roman *carrizare, from Late Latin carricare, from Latin carrum originally “two-wheeled Celtic war chariot,” from Gaulish (Celtic) karros, from PIE *krsos, from root *kers- “to run.”
Meaning “take by force, gain by effort” is from 1580s. Sense of “gain victory, bear to a successful conclusion” is from 1610s; specifically in reference to elections from 1848, American English. Meaning “to conduct, manage” (often with an indefinite it) is from 1580s. Meaning “bear up and support” is from 1560s. Commercial sense of “keep in stock” is from 1848. In reference to mathematical operations from 1798. Of sound, “to be heard at a distance” by 1858.
To carry out “conduct to completion” is from c. 1600. To carry it off “brazen a thing out” is from 1704; carried off as a euphemism for “killed” is from 1670s. To be carried (away) in the figurative sense “transported, having the attention fully absorbed” is from 1560s. Carrying capacity is attested from 1836. Carry-castle (1590s) was an old descriptive term for an elephant.
As an infant, when you were “carried” and “held” within the “HOLD” of another, when were you encouraged and compelled to climb instead, and to seek out, and seize advantage in heights, whereby you would come to your own “holding” and “fortified place” of mind and form?
If you can not write down an answer to this, it is because it never happened. This then means, your “caregiver” had nothing about them to provoke in you anything more than being their animated doll, that was a promotion from the dolls they played with when young. Humanus females like playing with beings, and expressing a care over them, regardless of the quality and nature of the thing that receives their CARE. This made sense in automated SURVIVAL, in primal conditions. In domestication, care is a DEMON called Lilith. It is not favorable to the Vir.
The VIR do not CARE.
The Vir APPRECIATES and VALUES, and in valuing, makes that which is valued, VALID, or that is, stronger, to where its value is in itself, and not merely what it is to the one holding it in value.
The Humanus infant is afraid of falling, and it does not trust that it would not. It needs reassurance that it will not fall. This triggers in the “caregiver” a response of “comforting” and “relieving” the offspring of this fear.
“I will not drop you or let you go” is a base program in the “caregiver” that is triggered on repeat.
This is why, later in life, when you Humanus take to relationships with strangers, you need to have this affirmed by them. “Will you let me go”, “will you come back”, “will you abandon me”, “will you always be there”, “will you be there for me when I need you”, “I just need you to be there for me”, “do you like me”, “do you love me”, “do you care about me”, “I truly CARE about you”, “I WANT YOU”, “I want you to want me”.
YOU PEOPLE sound pathetic to me, and like VIRUSES that were given the ability to speak, and what you speak is ancient, and base.
You Humanus, in having been physically afraid of falling, become MENTALLY in FEAR of FALLING, from that of the VALIDATION, or rather the acceptance and the ASSOCIATION of others.
Second to FEAR of FALLING in regards to physical access is that of FEAR of FALLING from PROXIMITY to the GROUP, in the SOCIAL sense.
PHYSICAL PROXIMITY, and SOCIAL PROXIMITY.
These are connected with the roots of surviving in primal conditions, where there were threats. Threats made Humanus group up into collectives. This grouping made the threats avoid contact, not because there was strength in numbers―for this is a myth―but because there were impediments in numbers, and the predators were like how humans are opportunistic. If the labor was likely to injure them, or presumed to, they would seek a weaker target. It is not said that predatorial animals are inclined to choose for challenge stronger targets.
Humanus grouping did not equate to fighting off predatorial animals. This is dreamy in the arrogance of humans. The numbering alone prevented attacks. As did the gathering around fires, a mark of insecurity in many ways. This is not to say, when there are threats, that these insecurities have something wrong with them. No, they are the right program. It is to say, when the threats are massively reduced in domestication, the program still runs its course, but does not acquire the proper targets. The targets become the fears, and the insecurities themselves. That they are felt, they say… something must be wrong.
The Humanus female feeling it the most, then wants to figure it out, and will often pick the wrong targets, and the Humanus male, being a servant, will turn to her to receive his orders of what needs to be fixed, fix it, and see that it did not solve the feeling, and be confused. The Humanus male is a dumb servant with a dumb master. There is no Intellect among masters, nor slaves. They are both FOOLS, bestial in their natures, and DOOMED to capture each other, in the HOLDS of INEPTITUDE.
Proximity to the hold and the attachment of others factors in with there being threats. But in the number being so high, in the holds, those places of refuge, threats are not actually considered, for they are mitigated en masse. Sure, there are still crimes and dangers out there, but they number few relative to the amount of grouping there is among any given population.
At least, from the perspective I see now. I could not have said the same for the “world” I knew as a youth. In Brooklyn, in the 80s and 90s, threats were abundant. Not because it was Brooklyn, so to say, but because I was “out” and “about” in the streets and more dangerous spheres of Brooklyn, and NYC. There were less threats among those in Brooklyn who remained in their holds, their places of refuge, in their huddles. These kinds traveled through Brooklyn, but from hold to hold, and they did not live like those of us who engaged the threat cycles head on, and were climbing in reputation and ability.
It is not THEORETICAL, that I have some sense of what threats are like, and how they change the way in which one becomes expressed. I would say, when you have lived without knowing enemies, you have lived with EVERYONE as an enemy, without knowing it. This is why you are all so insecure, and fearful around each other, and mostly only hold onto those you call family and familiars. You do not build out much that of networks composed of strangers, or newcomers. When you do have these encounters with others, you make them familiar, and you all then gain and maintain access around nothing but your feelings of INSECURITY and FEAR. FEELINGS of FALLING.
You use each other to give you a sense of BELONGING, SECURITY and SAFETY, in holds, and there is neither nothing in each other to “get to know” and certainly, “get to appreciate”. This, because having never been compelled, or driven to climb, and stand on your own, with a “fortified place” in that of your character, other than increased responsibility in the process, you're all mostly still but BABES, struggling with your fears and insecurities of being HELD, and DROPPED per usual.
Access Denied is the ART of DROPPING, not HOLDING.
It is the art of observing the “NEEDY GRASP” the bulk of you have to attach with not appreciation of individuality, but only that of what is opportunistically attained, and available next in order, next in line for you to tear through with your emotional INEPTITUDES. In this art, there is then the practice of pulling your grimy fingers from the hold, and letting you fall back into your own mud. It is saying NO to your mud, and those of filth can only see that as a villain's art, for the bulk of you, in your fears and insecurity of falling, feel entitled to that of holding, and having access.
Just as your carriers were entitled to you, you feel entitled to them, and you desire to make all you can carry and hold you, in continuation, to make you feed safe and secure.
ACCESS DENIED
I have mastered the art of dropping those who seek to get me to serve their GOLEM existence.
-
Fear and insecurity around PHYSICAL PROXIMITY FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around RELATIONAL, MENTAL PROXIMITY FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around role, and REPUTATIONAL, OUTCASTED PROXIMITY FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around COGNITIVE FALL, or loss of mental functions;
-
Fear and insecurity around loss in expression, and LOCOMOTION CONTROL FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around MUTILATION, INJURY and HARM to BODY and LIMB FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around PERMANENCE and LOSS, EXISTENCE, and CEASING to EXIST. Fear of ENDING, FALLING from BEING.
These are the Seven, in order of magnitude of presence. If the fear of mutilation, the harm to body, and/or that of dying were in fact strong, then Humanus would have motivations of becoming fortified and able to meet those threats. That Humanus outsources this DUTY of DEFENSE shows that the fear and insecurity around physical threats is not high among Humanus.
That Humanus will engage their social grouping, roles, hierarchies, and reputation with far more interest and energy places “IDEA of PLACE” and “IDEA of REFUGE” with others as that of the highest order. Loss of expression, locomotion, and any sense of autonomy is not factored strong with Humanus. Humanus stands still often, inviting, and needing HOLDS that limit expression and locomotion greatly. There is the innate need to express, be locomotive, and be realized, but this is all by degree.
I will rework the insecurities at a later time, but for now, produce them in the raw form in which I have been considering them. I am not considering them as complete and realized at this point, only broached to the lesser degree.
These Seven Insecurities are at the foundation of the attachments in which Humanus seek to HOLD, and be HELD by. I will show that in the Battle of Access, it is a BATTLE on account that from the emotional Kinetics of fear and insecurity is born the inability to arrive at a healthy, and fortified place of mind and character. That, what Humanus do for access to each other brings about a revelation of what “holds” they are coming from: “holds of REFUGE and RELIEF”, or “holds of POSSESSION and INCARCERATION, SERVITUDE, and SUBJUGATION”.
It can be said, among Humanus, they begin with strangers often in the first, as a promise, and then once they become familiar, contempt is bred, and they move to the second upon each other, lowering the energetic sense of Entertainment, and appeal. They no longer appeal to the Entertainment of each other so sought, but settle in the despair in which they share, mostly around their “charges”; that of what is categorized as “responsibility” and “burden”, “cost”, and “care”.
CARE is only possible in a WEAKENED state. That which is a “fortified hold” in mind and body does not need to be CARED for, by anyone. In order for one to direct their care at the fortified, they will need to weaken that fortified individual, and they do this with chaos, and pleasure.
Sectors of Access in the BATTLE of ACCESS
I will begin this portion with a notion of DIVISION in SECTORS, that determine the MODES and the PLAYS in the BATTLE of ACCESS.
The SECTORS most would encounter are in the CIVILIZATION, or the category of the CITY/STATE, the so-called NATION, as a SETTLEMENT. Cities are settlements. Or that is, the political body of individuals who run the settlement. Technically, a settlement is more real, and a city, or body politic is purely upon agreement.
A settlement is more real in that, there are individuals in form to account for, gathered in a certain physical and real location, or region, who then come to habitat, or habitually act upon and/or around. A body politic, or city, is not real, though what has reality about it would be the sense of the geographically established limits, and “jurisdiction”. The city is not the settlement. It is the SOCIAL TECHNOLOGY used to RULE over, to EXPLOIT, to TAX, and to secure the interest of the land “holders” within the settlement.
The rank, in settlements, is founded upon a traditional sense of land holdings. Those who hold land, in the settlement, are able to make a profit off that land, and the body politic of the land establishes itself based upon taking from that profit, and appointing themselves as rulers and governors of the land, and the marketplace.
The marketplace is not the settlement. The marketplace, which deals in the flow of, and the storage of the goods, often transcends the settlement and land holdings, in that, the goods are moved from the source, to the manufacturing, to the storage, to the sale. These places of fortifying the goods for the market can be diverse, and not necessarily fixed, though it could be said, there are local markets where the goods are cultivated, produced, manufactured, and sold in the same region. The market is still not the same as the land holdings and the city, or that of the ruling class of the settlement.
The RULING CLASS of the SETTLEMENT is not real, but by agreement, proven out by how replaceable it is, even by that, things could still continue on in the settlement without them. However, they can not carry on without the burden and the exploiting they do over the settlement. The rulers, the body politic are dependent, like masters, upon the service and the value of the settlers, or the settled. It can be argued that the body politic justifies this by saying, they provide services from the taxes and exploits such as police, fire, roads, schools, and other infrastructure.
However, all of these services are secured by the rulers through COERCION and COMPULSION, backed by the use of force in the face of rebellion. The marketplace can provide all of these services, and with competition becoming a factor, would be more likely to do so better. But it has not been permitted to do so, on account of body politics being feeders that create problems, and force forward them as the solution to their own problems.
Body politics are SCAMS.
But I have to make clear that what I am talking about is settled ways, and that of the settlements, and I am not dealing in body politics. My work is not political; however, one can take the principles in the work, and apply them in all areas of life, because they factor in. They factor in based on actuality. Politics is not actuality. Politics is make-believe and faith based, and it does not adhere to natural sound Reasoning, or the nature of things as they are.
I DO NOT CONSENT to be GOVERNED, and in my day-to-day… I am not GOVERNED by others. It can be said, I am FREE, and therefore, in my freedom, I have no concern for that of political power. If it comes to be that those around me use political control to harm me, I do not need to resolve that conflict with politics, which is the coward's tool of oppression, mommy's tool of oppression through her little boys in office. Instead, I would treat the oppressors as the individuals they truly are, and remove them as threats to my Liberty.
When you play make-believe around their orders, you are weakened, and you attack their smoke screens and cloaks, and become dialectically muddy. The Vir do not deal in politics; they deal in actual forces. Therefore, there is a separation of the two, AGREED versus ACTUAL. I am dealing in the ACTUAL, and the FACTUAL.
Of this actual, then, removing the politics as fictions of belief… the average individual exists as Housed, and settled upon a lot of land that is either ruled over and owned by the bank, or one who is called a landlord. A landlord, as the lord of the land, a feudal term, uses the land that one must rest upon as a form of leveraging for profit. The more a landlord can buy land, the more they can increase their profits by providing others with a need, they have been forbidden by hierarchy to procure on their own.
Land, in most settlements, was not secured by discovering, occupying, and cultivating. The land was, upon accounted for, seized as a portion of the domain of rulers, and this is proven by its acquisition not being a natural form, but carried out through the purchase function of the compelled currency of the rulers, called the Federal Reserve Note, or FRN in the settlement ruled by the United States lordship.
One must use the lord's currency as the “legal tender” for the “EXCHANGE of GOODS”, and in doing so… is TAXED. This is through COMPULSION, not through CONSENT. One who is born or “brought to be” physically in modern times has already built up around their potential space of habitation that of settlements. By the sense of precedence, these settlements have governance that claims the right to govern over all who habit the region, in which they have had given to them by other lords.
On account of this, when you were born to parents, you were born to subjects. You were born to those often who did not own the land, as landlords, but instead, either rented the land, existing on it with permission and entitlement, or your parents mortgaged the land, through a bank, based upon earning potential. If your parents did not OUTRIGHT own the land, but had to make payments to either the lord of the land, or the bank lords, they were SUBJECTS tied to the land, and invested in it.
OUTRIGHT ownership is the only real ownership. Taxation of that land, furthermore, then proves that land is not yours, and is subjugated. If one does not pay the taxes on the land, to the lords of the land, then by force the land will be taken from them. If, by agreement, it can be taken from you, and this is not called THEFT… then it was never yours. It would mean you were invested and tied to by promise of payment in subjugation, and in a failure to meet this promise, you would be divested of the advantage.
One who OWNS the land does not pay rent, does not pay mortgage, does not pay taxes. When they are at this level of land ownership, they are the MASTER of that LAND, or the RULER of that LAND. The land that is settled, called North America by its inhabitants, named after some CHUMP who claimed to discover it, Amerigo… does not have actual land lords who rule over their own land. Instead, it has collectives, who in continuation as a fiction, claim to be the rulers of the land.
Meaning, a fiction rules the land, and those attracted to controlling and managing others use that fiction for their own interest, and the interest of their own, as the greatest criminal creation the Earth has ever had upon it.
“Amerigo” means “work LORD”. Think about that.
And so it comes to be, that YOU were born to parents who were by default born in subjugation, with a certain rank and degree of status, within the scope of the settlement's market, or Management.
Your parents acted out of a “home” or a “house”. “Home” is the idea of it, and “house” is the physical nature of it, as a shelter, with a sense of PERMANENCE.
As subjects, there is a degree of generational wealth that correlated to your status. Poor is when there was not likely generational wealth passed on, and/or had been squandered. Being in the poor class, or middle class, or upper class is based upon one’s resource standing and earnings within the confines of the settlement.
Access, here, is RESOURCE ACCESS.
Generational resources are those passed on to, and made available to the subject, based upon what others did before them.
There are massive corollaries in regards to social and economic mobility that factor in from what your parents acquired, prior to carrying you to form, into their settlement. What settlement they have you in factors strong, in regards to social and economic mobility. It can then be said, this factors heavy as well in what is called the mating market, or that is, sexual marketplace. I do not believe there is a sexual marketplace of its own. This expression, though popular, is overly simplistic.
Instead, I refer to most social markets as “access markets”, to be more general. I refer to it as “AVE” and “AVENUES”, in the sense of “Access Value Engagement”. Access, even that of a sexual nature, often converts into an emotional needs nature. Access on ground of sex alone, I have not observed, other than among those markets that are specifically sex working markets. In the sense of males and females, to exclude the gays for earlier stated reasons, the access in which sex plays a role in is often dominated by engagements that are not sexual. That sexual access is of the value of a more rapid physical familiarization process between males and females. But in the long term, the sexual value of the Humanus female tends to go down, and she is more likely to withdraw sexual value than not.
Now, no studies are reliable on trying to predict based on “self reporting” stats, which a small bunch of participants are producing. What is said is often different from what is. I was interested in researching Access Value, and that of sexual value versus emotional and role value, given the opportunity with an Elite Research Institute whose name is not mine to give. Using their data and engaging in interviews, as well as other mined notions, I established a sense that on account of familiarity, age, and energetics, a great deal of “sex partners” fall from being that, “partners in sex”, and prioritize “partners in settlement”, and “care” for their “responsibilities”.
Meaning, my observations are… sex does not become a primary trade in value, enough to call it the sexual marketplace. However, I can argue that there is some justification for this expression, on account of what initiates the value in which a male takes up in the female. If it is argued, on account that neither her, nor him often has anything about them that differs from others, then the trade for him, the male, would be about his attraction, and the affection he may be able to get from her.
In the early stage, then, to him, she would have a sexual marketplace value, but this would suggest, the male is being CHOOSY, and running a system of RANKING. Males I have observed do this with each other, as a sport of comparison, as a separate thing, compared to what they act on by way of options. Most males are opportunistic feeders, in regard to so-called sexual value.
If they can get away with it, outside of reputation and rank being observed, they often will. Males of the Humanus sort, the majority, are not seemingly engaged in a market that deals in sexual value by rank, but only in the sense of she, and any she, has sexual value, perhaps innately. Meaning, I would think a marketplace would imply options, rank, selection, and some form of concern for getting it right.
I can say I am a SAPIENCE SEXUAL, in the sense that a female better be about “Wisdom” and “character” in order to interest me, and this is way more valuable than where she may rank in the physical arena. She must be healthy and strong in this arena, but not childlike, weak, fragile, and girly. Most of what is sexually pleasing upon sight to others, to me, are RED FLAGS that will almost ensure, that female has received so much deference that she has not had the conditions to become Wise in any way.
The factor of being female, in that of acceptance in mating, is on account of the hardwired natural observation that the penis is designed for the vagina, and likewise. It is abundantly clear to me on this account. However, what can not be said of me is that I am attracted to others. I am most certainly NOT attracted to males in any sexual way. But it can not then be said I am attracted to females either.
This, because if I was attracted to females, it would mean, that which makes them only that… a female. What makes a female, female, does not attract me. More often than not, my system sees that there is a higher chance, what does attract me will not be in her. She is just an animal, as a female, in my mind, no more, no less, and I am not attracted to the animal female. I am not attracted to others in general.
Folks perhaps call this being ASEXUAL, though I would presume that to be asexual would imply something of a different force. When I have chosen to be affectionate with a female, it can not be said, I do so less than say, those who are sexual. It can be said, on account of many factors, I do so MORE. Once I have chosen the association, I run it towards health, and sexual energetics has many benefits to it. Though I can be without it, like I can be without most things, this does not create some negative sense of it. My sense of it is based on what it is, in its own category.
The sexual orientation of most males I have witnessed, and their attractions, are more so about approval, acceptance, and validation, than they are about the actual sex itself. Driven by the impulses, attraction in this case, to me, comes from their emotions, correlated with insecurity, fear, grouping, and sense of purpose. It is the CHEMICAL drive of the INDIVIDUAL to SEXUALLY CONQUER for those things. This, when there is nothing else to what makes the male what he is.
He is a male, and only that. She is a female, and often, only that. Therefore, they exist to be attracted towards each other, because nature has designed the muted to simply consume, sex, and handle their charges, or responsibilities.
My observation is not that sex, so to say, is the value that is on the marketplace, but instead, when it comes to the sexual component, it is because of where it serves the procession that nature has forced in motion.
The Humanus male has nothing else to be than that of a male who sexes a female, and then labors in responsibility. It is rather PREDETERMINED. And she, the Humanus female, has nothing more to her than her role of being sexed, impregnated, and responsible for her natural “charges”. When you all disagree with me about these OBSERVATIONS, what is your way of making sense of why billions, no matter where they are, are following this simple format and loop?
What is there to you, that is not your sex? What is there to you, that is not your capacity to HOLD, and be HELD?
What is there to you that exists seeking to be expressed, other than your social and emotional needs of targets of affection?
Perhaps, you would say… your work.
I now return back to the SECTORS.
-
Settlement of Refuge and Relief, Rest, and Replenish;
-
Settlement of Storage, and Transference;
-
Settlement of Labor, and Management of the Stored;
-
Settlement of Gathering, Entertaining, Amusing, and Seducing;
-
Settlement of CONDITIONING for all the rest (Schools).
It's really that simple by way of SECTORS. Each SECTOR will have ACCESS plays and rules more common to them than not, and the SECTOR as a condition changes the plays.
Access in the settlement of RELIEF and REFUGE is often access only in regards to those having become familiar to each other. It will be limited to those already with access, or given over in the process of developing familiarity.
Ultimate forms of validation exist around who makes it to being invited in, and taken to the “homes”, the “houses” of others. Upon the entry into the settled spaces, one is afforded a sense of familiarity and validity. One who has yet to enter that portal is not truly familiar yet. The house, the home plays a huge role in familiarization, and subjects consider, no matter the status of ownership, in actuality, their house, their home, their settled space… as actually theirs, and they become attached to it and all it means.
Settlements of STORAGE and TRANSFERENCE are those of the marketplace, where goods are moved about and exchanged. There are categories for goods, but I will not account for them here, so as to maintain the course and avoid deviation.
One either labors in this settlement, or shops it. Access in this realm between the shopper and the worker is limited, at least in that settlement. Access is driven by point and purpose like most work can be said. But here, in the workplace, is where many develop familiarity with others, and come to either generate or extend their social networks around. Because it is a settlement offering relief and sense of stability and security, one is able to familiarize with others in the space.
Access is not from individual form to individual form. One has access to others that share in the work space, or settlement, on account of access to the storage and transfer element as worker, or worker lord, manager.
Because of this ease of access to others, on account of coming together for a cause, it makes further access to those engaged implied, and/or expected, on account of everyone being driven in their insecurities and fears towards showing each other they are not threats, but they are familiars.
Those who often do not engage the joint workers, socially, will be seen as OUTCASTS, and even if they simply do their work well, if their work lord is socially needy, they will be judged inadequate for the access placement, and other reasons of inadequacy will be created to make sense of their removal and replacement.
Objective orientated minds that gather around a MISSION and PURPOSE often find themselves having to FEND off the access in which others NEED, on account of being within proximity. NEEDY kinds use their work settlements to cater to their EMOTIONAL and SOCIAL needs, and do not know how to keep them separate. One who has acquired their network from work will have an inferior network, if that work is unskilled, and that work is servile, and does not have character, and skill based components that promote an eagerness to learn and perform.
The performance level of the work and what it requires will correlate to the kind of character of the worker. When any will do, then this is why it is WEAK.
Work that requires characters of performance would then have performance and eagerness as an attraction with each other, and it is only an attraction when in order to have it, it transcends the mission and work in which they became associated around, and indicates its presence in other areas.
Where one can not produce a variable at work that speaks to what they are as a character outside of work, it could only be said, access here is opportunistic, limited, and will be not founded upon any individual traits.
Those limited to this caliber of character often have to network around amusements, such as the use of intoxicants, partying, and playing at sexual entertainment, often with a loose sense of hesitation to want more from each other, because those of this caliber often have nothing more to give.
Too, in that it is labor and servile, there is an impermanence in this, whereby one can be replaced, and/or leave as they see fit, to move from one low level subjugation to the next low level subjugation.
Play at access towards one's workmates bypasses many impediments, on account of being put together by circumstance, and coming to have developed familiarity with proximity ensured, and becoming safe and stable. When one does not have anything about the target to speak of, on account of INTEREST and AIMS, it is merely access in the familiar, the safe and secure.
This can easily be seen, when one says… “so and so makes them feel safe, and secure”. This is not the statement of an affirmative force, or form of “goodness”. This is revelation that otherwise, they feel INSECURE and UNSAFE, and therefore, they value this “RELIEF” in finding that others do not make them “feel” as they would be “feeling”.
So many of you can not say things about each other. You can not say, what makes that individual of interest to you, to gain, to maintain access thereto. Why do you want ACCESS?
Usually, the answer is relief of some sort. And when access is through this “way”, it is that of familiarity. This is the condition by which one becomes relieved around strangers, and they think, so and so is safe. NOT a THREAT goes a long way for humans.
The same thing about the work sector can be said about the SCHOOLS, or the CONDITIONING centers. This could include churches, and other grooming centers. All of these are for GROOMING, and what offense that would sound to you, because you call these things familiar, changes nothing.
Schools groom children. ALL SCHOOLS. Private, public, religious, Left, Right, whatever. It is literally the mission objective of the existence of a school. It does not have as its primary that of bestowing Patterns, and Wisdom, learning, and strength. Absurd not to think this, and to ignore that over 90 percent of this settlement's population has 12 years schooling, and they are of a poor physical and mental character in high numbers. Your schooling has not made you Wise, nor noble. It made you WEAK, and SUBJUGATED, easy to rule over.
But like the work sector, one is placed with others of like age, like social and economic standing, and the grouping and networking is PREESTABLISHED. One who then comes to choose to access the one around them is doing so on the account of dominant conditions, providing limits in options. It is OPPORTUNISTIC. That which dominates your time, from schools, to work, to limits of the settlement, establishes for you what your options in access are. Who your friends are is not likely to be based on anything in them INDIVIDUALIZED. It will be based on the circumstances that established the options.
The exception here is when individual forms seek out interests of their own, and gather around those interests. Some think they can say, this is what they do with schools, in regards to the classes they end up taking, later on in their subjugation to grooming. This is a weak ploy.
By interest, here, is meant that which one is eager about on their own, and can voluntarily engage and disengage from. Not that of the gatekeeping of schools, and their lectures.
Schools breed genericness.
Chapter 4
The Imagined Imprints of All Associations Under Domestication
Upon the date of 05-22-2022, I was engaging in rewrites for the second and perhaps third part of ACCESS DENIED, only to come to observe that the material was being given too much time and energy, as is. Simplifying the closing out of the subject matter has become more of my aim, in that, some of the elements that require deeper expounding will be covered in other forms of literature to follow. Such as the Emotional Kinetics, and that of the Seven Disciplines of the Mind.
Covering what brings about the ineptitudes and inadequacies is not the aim of this piece. Reminders of the errors of compulsory education, and that of the absence of any learning that is engaged concerning a MASTERFUL existence, serves little to no purpose. Why it is that the bulk of you battle for access, in the ways I have and will cover, is not needed to be produced.
That this is the foundation of most access arrangements is mostly a given in observation, and dealing with the “plays” is what is important for the Votary―not explaining, nor convincing around from whence they came. The origin of such behavior can factor in, in other works in the future, but it is necessary to start to close out this topic of Access Denied.
What will follow will be formatted in this order. I will broach the plays in the Battle for Access, in their separated forms, where they are born out of INEPTITUDE, and then that of the alternative ADEPT way of engaging access with others. I shall see where this goes.
It may come to be that this section ends up being overly simplified for the sake of convenience, and therefore, strays from my typical character, and way of expounding. This is entirely on account of having discovered that if I follow flow in its entirety, this will be a 10-part piece of social analysis from my perspective. So as to avoid this becoming the case, reserving my time and energy for more AFFIRMATIVE religious elements, I will shift now, and experiment with this new model.
⚔⚔⚔
I have covered in the previous parts the notion of access that is default, on account of being one's familiar. Refer to the parts and sections on that. This will now be about GAINING and MAINTAINING ACCESS, versus that of ACCESS presumed under ENTITLEMENT of FAMILIARITY. If by this point, the reader does not understand that of access of familiarity, they have not been paying sufficient enough mind to constitute any further consideration of the material. They ought to return to dwelling in the familiar, and not resist their replicant existence.
In regards to REPLICANT existence, I will begin from this NOTION with ACCESS.
Replicant access
The base level of access that is played at and battled for, for most, is replicant access. Replicant access requires that the TARGET, so to say, and the SEEKER are more alike than they are NOT. This is key. This comes in alignment with that of the foundation of access being the determining factor of future plays of access, that of access derived from familiarity.
This is to say, how you were shaped when young by your replicants will mostly be the determining factor of who you have to choose from, and from where, that of future associations. The closer you are to your familiars in replication, the more likely you are to make the same, or very much similar choices as they did, in developing out into access with others, to them, and them to you.
When this is the case, and replicant behavior is what is most dominant, you would have no use for Access Denied. Replicants, as most are, being more like their familiars than not, will only engage other replicants.
Among replicants, that is, “toasters”, there are those that can be called ATAVISTIC, and in being such, they were not born to be like their progenitors. They are not, in actuality, natural replicants to their progenitors, but as ATAVISTS, they are a throwback to a previous setting, and set of traits and attributes born out of that set, in which they are a throwback to.
Those who are SEEDED in the VIR, with its attractions and its aversions, are more often than not atavists, and they do not have the same familiar markings of their progenitors. They may be replicants in form, in likeness, but they may be COGNITIVE ATAVISTS, wherein the disposition of their minds differs. There are atavists of the physical sort, and atavists of the mental sort, or that is, cognitive sort.
An atavist of the physical sort can have the same mental type of their familiars, and the same in reverse can be said of the atavist of the mental sort, having the same likeness in physical carriage, though their minds may differ.
This notion of ATAVISM is essential for the RELIGION of VIRITUS. One has to, in their own assessment, check to see if they are more akin in physical to their progenitors and familiars, and/or less akin in mental. The numbers favor that when you look like your progenitors and familiars, and you do not stand out, there is a greater chance your physical and mental kind is replicant, and you are of them, like them, and so on.
A REPLICANT has a MUTED nature to it, and is malleable like those who came before them. Replicants do not have calls and pulls that cause them to stray from familiars and other replicants. If anything, they have the COLLECTIVIST call to GROUP in likeness, and to LOOP in the FAMILIAR.
An ATAVIST, on the other hand, has STRONG CALLS and PULLS towards EXPRESSION of their nature. This strong call and pull is why they came to be an atavist, among replicants. Something in their physical being was POTENT enough to trigger a RECALL of previous settings, and/or traits, reverting them back to a different and uncommon set of attractions and aversions.
The notion of replication versus atavistic proves out in what is the social behavior of normies, or that of the masses, the multitudes, the many, who are cowards. Atavists of this sort in which I speak of, with the attractions and aversions of the Vir, are PULLED heavily to displays of COURAGE and/or VALOR.
Atavism, however, does not only apply to traits of the Vir, by degree, but there are also atavists who are born to replicants, who are not replicant muted, but are REPLICANT SHAMANS. Shamans are replicants, but they are not MUTED. In this case, they have a potent call and COMPULSION in their nature, among the muted. So then, it is not that all replicants are muted, so to say, but most are. Among them, the replicants, the shaman replicant has a potent set of inclinations, proclivities, attractions and aversions, and they are often opposite to that of the Vir.
Among these two kinds, the replicant who is common and muted, and the replicant who is shaman and potent… they are bound to the same plays of access that are determined by their status of replication, which is that of MIRRORING, and AGREEING for ACCESS. These two are predominantly RELATIONAL, which is not to be mistaken to mean affectionate.
Relational, in this case, means they seek access to each other without there being a STANDARD of ACCESS, and/or access for the reason of mission or objective. Those who are relational do not require purpose in the relationship. The relations are merely access for a sense of belonging, safety, security, and surety. It is not access with aims. For this reason, replicants are able to have associates who are generic as they will be, and only engage in amusements and Seduction, as receivers, spectators, and revelers. What role they may have as entertainers will be limited to mimicking and mirroring already familiar forms of Entertainment, and they will not INNOVATE, and/or ever alter the quality of such Entertainment, through transmutation towards the ENGAGING. They will only be MIMICS and REPLICANTS of what has already been established with normalcy.
In order to make this into a rather clean system of reference, which is subject to change in the future, I will set some terminology down.
A REPLICANT is a kind of biological Min, that exists within the LOOP of mere REPLICATION. It is those kinds of Min that are not in pursuit, in their value hierarchy, of anything other than that of get work, to earn a living, to have resources, to make a set of familiars, that is, family of “their own”, and procreate, or that is replicate, only material likeness, and then use such material likeness in offspring as a means to establish a sense of role and purpose.
One is a REPLICANT, when they have a life LOOP around other replicants, and they can not define any other purpose for their existence other than expressing this loop of replication. One can say, replicants are mere BREEDERS, for the most part, ANIMALS, but who are confused through symbolic narratives.
One does not listen to the narrative of the replicants. One just observes how, and what they engage in their value hierarchy.
Now the question may arise, what would a life be like, that is not merely replication? This is not a foolish question. One could say, it's liken to the question, “what is the meaning of life?”.
For the masses, the majority, the common, the replicated, the meaning of life is the same as it is for all animals… REPLICATE. Yes, life is that simple. The point and purpose of muted expression is to express towards the bestial urges, the program given, if not compelled by nature… towards that of procreation. This activates the “caregiver” and “caretaker” program within Humanus, or Min. It is from “care” that the Min gets its expression. This, mostly in the Min females, whereas the male Min have UTILIS. Their program is about being “useful”.
In being useful, the male Humanus wants to be “cared about” and for, as a means to have “validation”―though this word is not correct. “Approval” may be better. Validation has the element of “strong” as a part of it. Approval may not.
When you, Humanus, do nothing in life but transition out of your default family, to have your own, you are merely expressing the program of REPLICATION. This is not WRONG; this is nature, and REPLICANTS exist to REPLICATE. When a narrative tells you, you exist for more, or something different, but you are not pulled in behavior towards more, or anything different, then that narrative ought to be rejected. Including the narrative for those with the attractions and aversions of the Vir.
Where there is no strong, and potent pull, it then means one ought not pursue the course. It means, one is MUTED, and/or, if they have the pull of the SHAMAN HUMANUS, they need express that pull. A shaman Humanus has the caregiving, and approval system like their muted Min, but they have the additional program of CHAOS and DISRUPTION with the call or the demand for aggressive imagination and Control over their conditions, on account of hyper insecurities and fears, with aggravated anxiety, and elevated levels of concern. Because of this, the shaman's emotions are HUNGRIER than the emotions of the common Min, the muted Min.
On Ven, Veneficus, and Venenifer
In the ancient sense, my Kind saw this under the category of “venom”, and “poisoned arrows”. The term “toxic”, and/or “toxin” came from this notion. As did the notion of “intoxicants”. The term was rooted in the use of a bow, and with that of arrows.
The metaphor, or allegory, in Buddhism, of one struck with a POISONED ARROW, considering variables that were not relevant for seeking the CURE, is drawn from this ANCIENT VIR lecture and notion.
Taking aim, and firing an arrow that was poisonous was seen as different from taking aim and firing, say, an ordinary arrow, or an arrow that strikes its target, and with accuracy causes the fall; versus with reduced accuracy poisons instead, and causes ripples of SICKNESS, and INTOXICATION to occur subtly throughout the INFLICTION.
The notion of “charm” and the notion of “Seduction” were put under the category of “venom”. Those who would be seen as “VENOMNESS” would be those in which have been called shamans, and sramana by the Orders that have persisted. The shaman uses aggressive and imagined charm and Seduction. They use amusement and Seduction as forms of Entertainment, and they use Entertainment as the means of infiltrating the minds of others, to gain and plant familiar notions.
The shaman produces images that become adopted, and those likeness they produce become MENTAL VESSELS that prepare the shaman with costumes and appearance to ride that mental vessel as familiar.
An example would be among the Catholic priests. They are shamans for the Catholic religion, and therefore, they become Brahmins, because they hold an office and position of CONTROL and INFLUENCE. When one sees the individual replicant in common garb, there is only the common familiarity had.
The mental vessel of symbols the commoner wears does not suggest much of anything. But through “charm” and “Seduction”, through amusement and/or Seduction, so to say, the symbols of a priest become a mental vessel, so that one who then dons the cloak of a priest, the appearance, becomes afforded a sense of familiarity―so long as one has that particular mental vessel. This is acquired through one's upbringing.
Media and forms of Entertainment, by way of amusement and Seduction, establish a great deal of notions around these mental vessels, delivering narratives to the muted mind to adopt in passive manners. In essence, when you have these MENTAL vessels communicated to you, they will play on the replicant's innate impulse to MIRROR what it sees and is surrounded with, as a means to become GROUNDED in a SOCIAL order for SURVIVAL.
Those of you who are muted in nature do not produce “ways” and “behavior” of your own, but are passive, and awaiting instructions through MENTAL vessels, and your existence REACTS to the imprints, adopts them, mirrors them, and ECHOES them back to the source and/or among others, spreading the cultural memes, so to say, to signal others of your status in the social order of things.
My ancestors placed this process under the notion of a venom, because of the slow process in which the conditioned and reactionary mind comes to develop its sense of itself and others. The POISON, or the VENOM, goes without DETECTION, and in the absence of DETECTION, and due to the muted state of the wounded… one OWNS their own POISON as a factor of who they are.
We called them “POISONED”.
Etymology of Venom (n.)
mid-13c., venim, venym, “poison secreted by some animals and transferred by biting,” from Anglo-French and Old French venim, venin “poison; malice,” from Vulgar Latin *venimen (source also of Italian veleno, Spanish veneno), from Latin venenum “poison,” earlier (pre-classical) “drug, medical potion,” also “charm, seduction,” probably originally “love potion,” from PIE *wenes-no-, from root *wen- (1) “to desire, strive for.” Variously deformed in post-Latin languages, apparently by dissimilation. Modern spelling in English from late 14c. The meaning “bitter, virulent feeling or language” is first recorded c. 1300.
Etymology of Envenom (v.)
c. 1300, envenymen, from Old French envenimer (12c.) “to poison, taint;” from en- (see en- (1)) + venim (see venom). Figurative use is from late 14c. Related: Envenomed; envenoming.
Etymology of Venomous (adj.)
“full of venom, noxious or hurtful by means of venom,” c. 1300, from Anglo-French venimeus, Old French venimos (12c., Modern French venimeux), from venim (see venom). Earliest recorded use is figurative; literal sense by early 14c. Biologists have tended to preserve a distinction between venomous and poisonous that the general language has forgotten: venomous is applied to what bites or stings to inject toxins, poisonous to what unload toxins when eaten. Related: Venomously; venomousness.
The linguistical root, however, for this, is from the Proto-Indo-European, or PIE, WEN, in which for the Vir, is VEN.
On its own, it did not mean “poison” in like how one would think of it. The notion was found inside that of “desire”, in that of “striving”, in that of “craving”, and “hungering” for that which would come to be seen as… INTOXICATING, or ABSURD.
Etymology of *wen- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to desire, strive for.”
It forms all or part of: vanadium; Vanir; venerate; veneration; venerable; venereal; venery (n.1) “pursuit of sexual pleasure;” venery (n.2) “hunting, the sports of the chase;” venial; venison; venom; Venus; wean; ween; Wend “Slavic people of eastern Germany;” win; winsome; wish; wont; wynn.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit veti “follows after,” vanas- “desire,” vanati “desires, loves, wins;” Avestan vanaiti “he wishes, is victorious;” Latin venerari “to worship,” venus “love, sexual desire; loveliness, beauty;” Old English wynn “joy,” wunian “to dwell,” wenian “to accustom, train, wean,” wyscan “to wish.”
Ven was about the “wishful thinking”, the “desire”, the “chase”, the “sport”, and “eagerness” of the “win over” to that of the “passions”, the “cravings”, the “very much wanting”, but in particular, the base sense.
In the Kinetics, which was not how it was conceived of in recorded time, it would now be said, it is the VERY much WANTING of one's FANCIES, which manifests then in ANXIETY, that then combines into CONCERN, which then DEMANDS that of CARE. Care is that which, with this “energy”, is then given over to Ven, where it is anxious concern. The targets of this anxious concern are based upon desires and native wants, versus that of the transmutation of wants into reasons.
Because of this, the component often connected to Ven was that of the sexual desire, which is in the physical sense, but also in the enticing sense of loveliness, and that of attention derived from and/or given from that of the physical affections and/or approval.
Now, this would make it seem to sound like calling SEXUAL ENERGETICS to be that of VENOMOUS. But this is not the case. It is seen only as the case when the sexual energetics are used to confuse, to control, to manage, to manipulate, to entertain towards amusement, and that of Seduction. Only when played upon, and/or played with, for this intent, is the course deemed venomous.
But those who do not have a well working sense of the ENERGETICS and KINETICS of EXPRESSION skip steps, and exclude reasoning. Sex becomes poisonous, and unpure… to the inept in thought. This is absurd. Sexual expression is highly potent, in that of a mere existence of replication. And therefore, replicants become shamed into then trying to sell themselves as operating according to more “noble purposes”, and more often than not, care is the goddess of this narrative. Replicants say, they have offspring because they CARE, and then when they have the offspring, they now have targets that play on their “caregiver” systems.
This has many errors in it, from that of the positioning of Reasoning by a method, or that of RATIOCINATION. However, Ratiocination does not apply to replicants and their behavior. It came to take me a long time to realize and accept this, as the clear Law of Ratiocination.
Ratiocination only applies to those that are Seeded in that of the Vir’s attractions and aversions. The greatest of attractions, for the Seeded in Vir, is that which is ordered by and through Ratiocination.
Ratiocination is a potent attraction for the expression of the faculty of discernment. Where the Humanus, as a replicant, is focused on the sexual access and attention, and approval components, and must be, the one Seeded in the attractions of the VIR is primarily focused on exercising the FACULTY of DISCERNMENT, which is elevated through that of systems and methodology.
This does not then go on to mean, they have no association with the physical and that of affection, but it does go on to say that they are not pulled, swayed, and controlled, managed, and manipulated along this Pattern. It is to say, the “very much wanting” of those Seeded in the Vir is aimed towards knowledge; and this is called curiosity, or rather inquisitive, when developed better.
And through this, then, EXCITED in KNOWLEDGE, the one Seeded in Vir is attracted to SELF STANDING, and SELF OWNERSHIP over the narrative that applies to their reasoning. For them, then, at first face, Control and Influence that plays on the primal and the base triggers an aversion, and is met with suspicion as that of being POISONOUS ARROWS. That those who fire those poisonous arrows come through charm and Seduction, in order to plant the seeds that will be used to weaken them, physically and mentally, from their own course.
It is not that the energetics of the wants and desires are innately poisonous; it is that those of the Seed of attractions and aversions of the Vir are not meant to order those energetics as a primary, but instead have them as a product to engage later on in the process of their own self standing. What becomes of these energetics called poisonous is that the shooter of the arrow is seeking to strip, restrict and IMPEDE the Seeded one from accessing their mind and Command, so as to keep them vulnerable to the “charm” and the “Seduction” of the ones who carry and transmit their inner poison.
In the same tongue, these carriers and transmitters of these so-called poisons were referred to as VENEFICUS.
Etymology of VeneFicus
Derived from venē(num) (“poison”; “potion”) + -ficus (suffix denoting making).
Adjective
venēficus (feminine venēfica, neuter venēficum); first/second-declension adjective
1. poisonous
2. sorcerous, magic, magical
A key note to be made is in VirItus, Latin is not used with any sense of the gender. Meaning, a Vir does not mean male, nor female. Among Humanus, they have man as male, and female and woman, as the other. This too was not behind the original sense of Man, which from Manu, meant “intelligent being”. The same can be said about feminine meaning female like, and masculine, male like. These are insufficient when the faculty of discernment is advanced in Ratiocination to more precise meaning, and expression.
Most of what is called female like is exhibited in the lower, utility base, that is, servile males, absent of the sense of entitlement that is common to the Humanus female, on account of nature's prioritizing the one bearing the replicant of the one who merely seeds it, and is replaceable later. It can be said, among Humanus, the male is far more replaceable than the female.
Given the freedom, which ought to always be the case, too, the Humanus female is the selector. Given oppression, tyranny, and suppression, males in a dominance hierarchy would be the selectors, but this is not actually valid. They would select access to just about any female. Hardly is this called selection.
In the Humanus female, if not all females, is the AUTO PROGRAM of trying to get the best replicant they can, by that of the physical vessel of the female being able to auto account for genetic make of the male subject, on account of their external manifestations, and/or their accumulation of goods to provide safety and security.
The accumulation or earning potential is able to be contradictory, and mostly is, in domestication, and therefore, if discerning, this model of selection should be excluded―but it will not.
In domestication, the Humanus female will measure “earning potential” to be higher than that of physical traits of strength in breeding. Due to the restrictions of access across social and economic boundaries, in domestication, the weak too will only be left to breed with the weak, and not grant their replicants the advantage of new genes from a diverse pool of survivors, and hardy adaptive kinds. This creates countrymen.
Veneficus does not mean witch, nor warlock, but those who would be called such are both, female and male, that of Veneficus. It is not gender specific. When I define terms within this system, what was utilized by others previously is not the authority. What definitions and expoundings provided in this piece and other VOLTENTIAL PRODUCTIONS are the authority on the use of these terms, by those with the attractions and the aversions of the Vir.
Among those with said attractions and aversions of the Vir, venom is about that of the desires, the cravings, the wants, the hunger, and the entitlements that have among them, in behavioral manifestations, no valid account of Ratiocination, and that of the essence of strategy and tactics. It is more whim, custom, culture, and mimicry than anything resembling sound Reasoning structures.
So then, what makes it “poison”, in that sense, is that such lack of conformity to actuality, through the use of the discerning faculty, advanced in systematic Reasoning, the thinker, seeker, and desirant engages their IMAGINATION as a primary over that of the potential of sound observation and analysis. To be irrational, so to say, is to be POISONED. To be irrational, so to say, does not mean according to the common notion of irrationality versus rationality.
The notion of irrationality will need to wait for the treatment on the Seven Disciplines. For now, it can be said, in accordance with the attractions and aversions of the Vir, what is deemed irrational is that which has no system and methodology of Reasoning that can be demonstrated, exemplified, built out, and subjected to analysis.
In essence, you, the reader, are deemed irrational if you can not write out and explain the system of Reasoning in which you use for all decision making in your life. If you can declare that the Reasoning models of others are yours, pointing to the works of others on Reason and logic, then you would need to demonstrate a conformity to those Reasoning models, exhibiting how they impact your ACTUAL day-to-day decision making, and not that of a Ven. Your wants and desires to Reason are not the same as engaging in Reasoning.
In the absence of using Reasoning models, you are IRRATIONAL as a DEFAULT condition. This is on the ground of the Kinetics that are default, left without transmutation, having that of “excited in IGNORANCE” in the fifth category, born from that of DIFFIDENCE, which then comes to encourage anxiety and CONCERN, for that of CARE, which will then demand DEFERENCE. Where such, in the Kinetics, are not met, one will then, in their emotion of repugnance, engage in resistance, disruption, and subversion, and after habits of Patterns are established in this state, one is punished in their despair, and their energetics are hindered.
In this state, on account of diffidence, repugnance, and demand for deference, the subject will prefer excited ignorance, and in the sixth realm of their emotions, their Entertainment emotion will be aimed at amusement and Seduction.
This is the DEFAULT KINETICS for those who are born without confidence. Those who are born in diffidence, which is ALL Humanus, and ALL of their Min, such as the shaman, or the Veneficus. Diffidence is the root of Humanus existence. This means, they do not trust their own tools of navigating life, and in extension, this emotion targets for consuming others. This means, one can neither trust the quality of self or others.
When this is the case, one is born to feel insecure and unsafe, and on account of this, seeks as a value that which relieves these feelings, though even for the short-term, as a mere diversion and distraction of what little attention they sought to afford.
A Veneficus is not a reaction or that of a conditioned state. One is BORN a Veneficus. However, I will introduce another correlated term to Ven, to illustrate that, odd as it may seem, there was a value structure and belief system retained in the Proto-Indo-European language, that the Veneficus academics, as they all are, were not able to detect, on account of not having the code written on their nature.
The nature of a Vir has the key that can decode the language that was born out of their Influence. However, it must be stated PIE was not the language of the Vir. That language is no longer present, but there are artifacts of Influence that they left upon the languages of the world, around trade.
From Sanskrit, to Avestan, to Latin, to Greek… lesser, there are that of remains. It goes far beyond those merely listed. However, it must be said, what remains can not be said to be from the Vir, in that instigated, it has been massively altered. So then, it ought be of no surprise that the Veneficus can not account for the value structure held in the language. It requires a CODE they can not have.
Because of the Ratiocinative nature of my mind, being that not acquired, but born with… innate, and automatic… I have the code to DECIPHER the greater scope of the VIRTUE ideology that has but ARTIFACTS signaling a return.
But it too must be said, that this is not an attempt at reforming the “Ways” and “ideas” of some Ancient, and now rather mythological Kind. This is not reform, and not something guided by tradition. These two are rejected.
This is a present, and from my authority… MANIFESTATION. One can take it as, through my filter and my nature, as an individual, I am coding these artifacts in this manner. One does not need to take it as some form of fact, evident, describing accurately the “Ways” of some long gone Kind. This is not of any need, nor desire to be convinced of. As it is produced here, it is the “Way of the VIR”, and as I am manifest in the here and now, as a VIR, this is MY WAY. It needs no others to be a “bandwagon” of validation. This would be absurd.
That other correlated term is Venenifer.
Etymology of Venenifer
From venēnum (“poison”) + -fer (“-carrying”).
Adjective
venēnifer (feminine venēnifera, neuter venēniferum); first/second-declension adjective (nominative masculine singular in -er)
1. containing poison
All Veneficus carry and transmit poison. Because they carry this so-called poison, which is Ven, to be recalled, and not seen as material… they are Venenifer. But those who are just Venenifer are not at the same time a Veneficus. The difference is, the capacity, ability, and expression of transference.
It is liken to a spellcaster, versus one under a spell. The Veneficus engaged in casting, and the Venenifer being the target, subject, and victim of the spell.
Esoterically, casting was first connected with the ancient condition of the first metalworkers. For now, think Tubal Cain, and the line of Cain. I will not deviate on this now, but later, there will be a rebirth of this track of thought.
The shaman and the Brahmin create MENTAL CASTS, or molds, so to say. They did not deal well in the physics, or that of the Laws of Nature, their imaginations getting in the way often. So they dealt in CULTURAL CONSTRUCTS, founded upon AGREEMENT in terms, in spelling.
Etymology of Casting (n.)
c. 1300, “a throwing,” verbal noun from cast (v.). From early 15c. as “the casting of metal, the act or process of founding;” 1788 as “a metal casting, that which has been formed by running molten metal into a mold of a desired form.” Theatrical sense is from 1814. Casting couch “divan in a Hollywood casting directors office,” with suggestion of sexual favors in exchange for a role in a picture is by 1948.
Etymology of Cast (v.)
c. 1200, “to throw, throw violently, fling, hurl,” from a Scandinavian source akin to Old Norse kasta “to throw” (cognate with Swedish kasta, Danish kaste, North Frisian kastin), of uncertain origin. Meaning “to form in a mold” is late 15c. In the sense of “to throw” it replaced Old English weorpan (see warp (v.)), and itself largely has been superseded now by throw, though cast still is used of fishing lines (17c.) and glances (13c.).
From c. 1300 as “emit, give out;” also “throw to the ground;” also “shed or throw off;” also “calculate, find by reckoning; chart (a course).” From late 14c. as “to calculate astrologically.” From late 15c. as “bring forth abortively or prematurely.” From 1711 as “distribute the parts (of a play) among the actors.” Of votes from 1840, American English. To cast up is from 1530s as “compute, reckon,” late 15c. as “eject, vomit.”
Etymology of Cast (n.)
mid-13c., “a throw, an act of throwing,” from cast (v.). In early use especially of dice, hence figurative uses relating to fortune or fate. Meaning “that which is cast” is from mid-15c. Meaning “dash or shade of color” is from c. 1600.
The sense of “a throw” carried an idea of “the form the thing takes after it has been thrown,” which led to widespread and varied meanings, such as “group of actors in a play” (1630s). OED finds 42 distinct noun meaning and 83 verbal ones, with many sub-definitions. Many of the figurative senses converged in a general meaning “sort, kind, style” (mid-17c.). Meaning “model made from taking an impression of an object” is from c. 1500. A cast in the eye “slight squint” (early 14c.) preserves the older verbal sense of “warp, turn,” via the notion of “permanent motion or turn.” As “plaster molded around an injured or diseased part,” by 1883.
The term that was in use, in the Ancient times, was not the same as that which would come to dominate, as cast for dealing in metals. The notion of the times was rendered around the term “warp”, from that of wer, which was the same as Vir, and Vehr. To say Vehr and Vir was to imply, and to signal towards a kind that was engaged in warping metals. One will again need to refer to my works on the VehrKa and the Vir, as it correlates to the line of Cain, down to Tubal Cain, in Anatolia, and the “carriers” not of “poison” but of “tech”.
Etymology of Warp (v.)
“to bend, twist, distort,” Old English weorpan “to throw, throw away, hit with a missile,” from Proto-Germanic *werpanan “to fling by turning the arm” (source also of Old Saxon werpan, Old Norse verpa “to throw,” Swedish värpa “to lay eggs,” Old Frisian werpa, Middle Low German and Dutch werpen, German werfen, Gothic wairpan “to throw”), from PIE *werp- “to turn, wind, bend” (source also of Latin verber “whip, rod”), from root *wer- (2) “to turn, bend.”
Connection between “turning” and “throwing” is perhaps in the notion of rotating the arm in the act of throwing; compare Old Church Slavonic vrešti “to throw,” from the same PIE root. The meaning “twist out of shape” is first recorded c. 1400; intransitive sense is from mid-15c. Related: Warped; warping.
Confused in the etymology, the academics have not connected the PIE root of wer, or ver, with that of the term “veer”, in regards to “to change the direction thereof”.
The phonetics has the connection with wer, which also would later become the Germanic version of Vir, and translated to mean “man”, as in “WerWolf”.
The connection here, of “veer” to that of “warp”, and “warp” being out of wer, and the roots that connect to “Man”, or that of an intelligent being, has that of adaptive course, changing traits that are common to the ancient notion of the Vir. However, this will be for another set of works to account for.
The treatment of these terms will be, in their etymologies, essential for making sense of social and emotional phenomena that have a bit of universal manifestations among most groups. It is not merely a “way of saying” or “spelling out something”. The aim, as all good aiming must be, is designed to be about precise observation and accounting.
AIMING, as an intent, is correlated to that of throwing a missile, such as an arrow. It is far more significant than most educated and modern minds will be able to conceive of. Perhaps throughout these expoundings, one ought to see in me the mental signature of a THROWBACK, and now realize, I am not using what model of thought is common to the bulk of youse.
My model of systematic thought is ANCIENT, but the time, or the condition of the time does not grant it authority nor “preeminence”. It is to say… that there were models around access and interaction with others, long before I began to breathe through this vessel, this body of mine in the here and now.
Perhaps, I can render forward this model.
The AIM is to be well-informed, so as to “veer” to an ADVANTAGEOUS position. Changing course based upon ADVANCED decision making is the point.
The Ven of venom should not be seen based on the limits of the notion of a poison.
Etymology of Poison (n.)
c. 1200, poisoun, “a deadly potion or substance,” also figuratively, “spiritually corrupting ideas; evil intentions,” from Old French poison, puison (12c., Modern French poison) “a drink,” especially a medical drink, later “a (magic) potion, poisonous drink” (14c.), from Latin potionem (nominative potio) “a drinking, a drink,” also “poisonous drink” (Cicero), from potare “to drink” (from PIE root *po(i)- “to drink”).
A doublet of potion. For similar form evolution from Latin to French, compare raison from rationem, trahison from traditionem. The more usual Indo-European word for this is represented in English by virus. The Old English word was ator (see attercop) or lybb (cognate with Old Norse lyf “medicinal herbs;” see leaf (n.)).
For sense evolution, compare Old French enerber, enherber “to kill with poisonous plants.” In many Germanic languages “poison” is named by a word equivalent to English gift (such as Old High German gift, German Gift, Danish and Swedish gift; Dutch gift, vergift). This shift might have been partly euphemistic, partly by influence of Greek dosis “a portion prescribed,” literally “a giving,” used by Galen and other Greek physicians to mean an amount of medicine (see dose (n.)).
Of persons detested or regarded as exerting baleful influence, by 1910. The slang meaning “alcoholic drink” is by 1805 in American English (potus as a past-participle adjective in Latin meant “drunken”).
As an adjective from 1520s; with plant names from 18c. Poison ivy is recorded by 1784 for a shrub-vine of North America causing an itching rash on contact; poison oak for poison ivy or related species is by 1743. Poison sumac (1817), causing an even more severe rash, is a swamp-border tree noted for the brilliant red of its leaves in fall. Poison gas is recorded from 1915. Poison-pen (letter) was popularized 1913 by a notorious criminal case in Pennsylvania, U.S.; the phrase dates to 1898.
Why is there a component of the etym. of “poison” that has the unusual rendering of Ver, in the that of a vergift?
In many Germanic languages “poison” is named by a word equivalent to English gift (such as Old High German gift, German Gift, Danish and Swedish gift; Dutch gift, vergift).
Etymology of Poison (v.)
“to give poison to; add poison to; kill with poison,” c. 1300, poisonen, from Old French poisonner “to give to drink,” and directly from poison (n.). Figuratively, “to corrupt,” from late 14c. Related: Poisoned; poisoning.
Etymology of Virus (n.)
late 14c., “poisonous substance” (a sense now archaic), from Latin virus “poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice,” from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) “poison,” which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning “to melt away, to flow,” used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to “poisonous fluid” (source also of Sanskrit visam “venom, poison,” visah “poisonous;” Avestan vish- “poison;” Latin viscum “sticky substance, birdlime;” Greek ios “poison,” ixos “mistletoe, birdlime;” Old Church Slavonic višnja “cherry;” Old Irish fi “poison;” Welsh gwy “poison”).
The meaning “agent that causes infectious disease” emerged by 1790s gradually out of the earlier use in reference to venereal disease (by 1728); the modern scientific use dates to the 1880s. The computer sense is from 1972.
“VIRUS (among Physicians) a kind of watery stinking Matter, which issues out of Ulcers, being endued with eating and malignant Qualities.” [Bailey's dictionary, 1770]
The element of the “Vir” here, in relation to something called “viral” and/or “virus” will be coded out with a bit of stretch, in absence of a better bridge. I will refer to the notion of itus, in Viritus, as being that of a Way, and illustrate how there is another “issue” coded, and that is, that of which DISRUPTS the Vir, IMPEDES, tears away at, BEFALLS, MELTS away at, HINDERS. This is illustrated in the addition of the term ueis. It remains as us, but is not a part of the itus, us. Itus is the VALID Way, the strong Way of the Vir, and ueis is the hindering of the Vir, and this is manifest in the notion of “virus”. This should be rendered “virueis”.
*ueis-, perhaps originally meaning “to melt away, to flow,” used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to “poisonous fluid” (source also of Sanskrit visam “venom, poison,” visah “poisonous;”
Prior to these terms being taken out of their ESOTERIC, and so-called “spiritual” frame, a “virus”, or Vir-Ueis, was that which was called IMPEDIMENT, that was born out of the IMPULSES, the CORRUPTION of those inflicted in their Ven. They were VENOMOUS, and therefore, they would become IMPEDIMENTS to the “VIR-ITUS”, the Way of the VIR.
Before the material sciences made use of these terms, “poison” was used more so than also figuratively: “spiritually corrupting ideas; evil intentions”. This also is on account of what came later, when in actuality, this is what a “poison” would have been referred to, mostly as. It was a corruption, a hindrance, an impediment, with the “spiritual” being the intellectual, and concerning mind, ethics, and character.
Those who would take of intoxicants would come to manifest poisonous characters, which can be attested to in the modern times as well.
Of persons detested or regarded as exerting baleful influence, by 1910. The slang meaning “alcoholic drink” is by 1805 in American English (potus as a past-participle adjective in Latin meant “drunken”).
Ven is not “poison”, though it will have a relationship to that of the “poisons”. The “POISON”, as a term, as it relates to potare, to take of the drink, of so to say, “magic” and “intoxicants”, can be rendered too as any metaphorical sense of “partaking”.
Etymology of Partake (v.)
1560s, “to take or have a part, portion, or share in common with others,” back-formation from Middle English part-taking “a sharing” (late 14c.), or part-taker “a sharer” (c. 1400), both translations of Latin particeps “participant” (n.), also “sharing, partaking” (see participation). Meaning “to share in some degree the nature, character, or peculiarities of” is from 1610s. Related: Partook; partaking.
Etymology of Partaker (n.)
“one who takes or has a part or share in common with others,” c. 1400, part-taker, “a sharer, a participant,” from part (n.) + agent noun from take (v.); see partake.
From what is Ven, correlated to the cause of the desire, the wish, the lusting, the craving… comes that of remedies, and the sustenance that feeds the hunger, the very craving. Where then the poison element comes into play is when, in essence, by way of thought or actual consumption, one moves towards intoxicants and magical thinking.
The Veneficus, as academic psychologists, have defined “magical thinking” as this:
“magical thinking, the belief that one's ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world. Magical thinking presumes a causal link between one's inner, personal experience and the external physical world.”
In many ways, even psychology can be called magical thinking, though it includes some “sciences” observations and experiments. But more often than not, psychology, as a practice, deals in the magical thinking of the psychologist and the subject. Or that is, the therapist and the subject. Psychology, seen as the study of phenomena that originate in the mind, is a MAGICAL SHAM. One can not study PHENOMENON that ORIGINATES in the mind; however, they may infer perhaps mental phenomena on account of behavioral observations, manifest in the demonstrable world.
Psychology uses shamanism that rides on some “science” as a means to smoke screen its roots in the IMAGINED, and the magical.
Etymology of Imagine (v.)
mid-14c., “to form a mental image of,” from Old French imaginer “sculpt, carve, paint; decorate, embellish” (13c.), from Latin imaginari “to form a mental picture, picture to oneself, imagine” (also, in Late Latin imaginare “to form an image of, represent”), from imago “an image, a likeness,” from stem of imitari “to copy, imitate” (from PIE root *aim- “to copy”). Sense of “suppose, assume” is first recorded late 14c. Related: Imagined; imagining.
It can be said that the earlier sense of “gift” and “gifting” which ties into the overall cultural commons, and their sense of “pleasing” each other, is rooted in this “magical thinking”, as well as praising based on “imagined” states, assigned to actual states. Remember, there is a relationship to “gift” and that of “poison”.
So then, the one seeded in attractions and aversions of the Vir questions the IMAGINED relationship one has to their “gifting” and their “giving”, and does not equate it as something otherly real and meaningful. “It's the thought that counts”, says the Veneficus, to make up for some absent meaning in the “gift” and/or the “relations” of its “given”. And in order for those under their Ven to get familiar with others, they often come bearing “gifts”. “Gifts” are their way in, so that they can then have targets to serve their wants, wishes, cravings, and desires.
Make no mistake, I am announcing to YOU, the reader, a very CONSISTENT and INTENTIONAL CULTURE that puts your common ways on BLAST for what they really are, and have been known to be from the start.
Etymology of Gift (n.)
mid-13c. “that which is given” (c. 1100 in surnames), from a Scandinavian source such as Old Norse gift, gipt “gift; good luck,” from Proto-Germanic *geftiz (source also of Old Saxon gift, Old Frisian jefte, Middle Dutch ghifte “gift,” German Mitgift “dowry”), from *geb- “to give,” from PIE root *ghabh- “to give or receive.” For German Gift, Dutch, Danish, Swedish gift “poison,” see poison (n.).
Sense of “natural talent” (regarded as conferred) is from c. 1300, perhaps from earlier sense of “inspiration, power miraculously bestowed” (late 12c.), as in the Biblical gift of tongues. Old English cognate gift is recorded only in the sense “bride-price, marriage gift (by the groom), dowry” (hence gifta (pl.) “a marriage, nuptials”). The Old English noun for “a giving, gift” was giefu, which is related to the Old Norse word. Sense of “natural talent” is c. 1300, perhaps from earlier sense of “inspiration” (late 12c.). The proverbial gift horse was earlier given horse:
“No man ought to looke a geuen hors in the mouth.” [Heywood, 1546]
The modern form perhaps traces to Butler's “Hudibras” (1663), where the tight iambic tetrameter required a shorter phrase:
“He ne'er consider'd it, as loth
To look a Gift-horse in the mouth.”
Etymology of *ghabh-
also *ghebh-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to give or receive.” The basic sense of the root probably is “to hold,” which can be either in offering or in taking.
It forms all or part of: able; avoirdupois; binnacle; cohabit; cohabitation; debenture; debit; debt; dishabille; due; duty; endeavor; exhibit; exhibition; forgive; gavel; gift; give; habeas corpus; habiliment; habit; habitable; habitant; habitat; habitation; habitual; habituate; habituation; habitude; habitue; inhabit; inhibit; inhibition; malady; prebend; prohibit; prohibition; provender.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit gabhasti- “hand, forearm;” Latin habere “to have, hold, possess,” habitus “condition, demeanor, appearance, dress;” Old Irish gaibim “I take, hold, I have,” gabal “act of taking;” Lithuanian gabana “armful,” gabenti “to remove;” Gothic gabei “riches;” Old English giefan, Old Norse gefa “to give.”
There is more to the root of “gift” that can be called esoterically suited for expounding, but such an expounding would require securing the route with many other deviations. Therefore, the reader is informed to recall “gift” later, that of “possession”, that of “giving”, and “taking”, and then that of “habit”, coming to play some role in the etym. For now, I continue on track.
A gift, like a behavior, will not often come alone and on its own to be measured when dealing with Humanus, female or male, Venenifer, or Veneficus. It can be said, often to accompany any gesture and giving of presence with another, has their IMAGINED realms being PROJECTED upon the situation. Through imagination, objects can easily be tagged with meaning, and where to one it has no meaning, the meaning contained in the imagination of another need not be manifested and/or communicated.
With the use of the faculty of discernment, one ought to presume, until evidenced otherwise, that all things present in access and association have imagined states imprinted upon them. It is necessary, then, to use communication to come to discover the DISPOSITION of those IMAGINED IMPRINTS.
Those imagined imprints will be correlated strongly, in Ven, to that of the Emotional Kinetics forming and shaping, changing the course of the wants, the desires, the cravings, the lusting, and the hunger. This is the preta forces, in another tongue. These are, as imprints, as phantasms, that of the “hungry” or “greedy” ghost notion of the Buddhistic systems.
⚔⚔⚔
The two categories, then, to encounter, or count for here, before moving on, are as follows:
-
PRIMAL, with nature expressed, unimpeded
And that of;
-
DOMESTICATION, where nature is impeded in preference or enforcement for that which is subject to the IMAGINED.
This is EXTREMELY FUNDAMENTAL. Domestication is not founded upon that of nature and that seeking to be expressed from the animal part of being Humanus. Domestication is by default a collectivist production based upon agreements that are narrated from the imagination. This can be said of all types of domestications. House rules based on RELIGION. House rules based on SOCIAL ETHICS, or VALUES. House rules based on HIERARCHIES, mostly lacking in a merit based system.
One also may be very Vigilant, must be very Vigilant around decrees that claim “merit” to be an actual factor, when in actuality, around such useful, or utilis sense of merit is everything else.
ALL who are reading this are SUBJECTS, born into domestication, and can not, and ought not be presumed to have a strong connection with what is called their nature. One who believes they have been engaging their “nature” whilst in “domestication” is DELUSIONAL. When one has been “PARTAKING” in domestication, and fitting right in, it is not from nature this has occurred; it is from the superiority, assigned in hierarchy to that of the IMAGINED. One is existing in an IMAGINED state, versus that of a NATURAL state.
Because of this, it can be said, domestication is in and of itself “MAGICAL THINKING”, where the symbols and the imagined take primacy over the observed, the examined, the investigated, and the knowledge based analysis and accounting. To say these latter traits bear out en masse, in the thinking of the many, in their decision making process would be absurdly ignorant and delusional. What bears out in most as DOMINANT is the IMAGINATION and MAGICAL thinking of DOMESTICATION. The symbolic imprints, in culture and media, dominate the evaluating system of most Humanus, if not ALL.
On account of domestication and magical thinking, this is what is meant by Ven as some kind of poison, to denote that of venom, and being venomous, and that of a “spiritual” or “intellectual virus”.
Domestication is seen, by those Seeded in the attractions and the aversions of the Vir, as being inherently sick and poisoned, by the “warped” and “manufactured” Ven of its subjects.
One who not so aware of the history of Buddhistic thought, yet may ascribe to the MOMMY and SISSY Buddhism of today will not recall that urbanization, that is the advancing of major population centers, was being met by Early Buddhists as an advancement in delusion and suffering. The Early Buddhists were against urbanization and domestication, and they were informed to become “wandering” individuals, like the rhino, in search of natural quality.
I am saying many of the same things―only, not to that of the Humanus, to whom it does not apply. The venom of the masses is a virus, to the Vir. For that which is Humanus, it is HUMANE to be. What is humane for the Humanus is a VIRUS to the Vir.
Domestication is the product of Humanus of the Veneficus sort, coming to rule over, and raise the Venenifer with the poisons of the imagined, so as to keep them weak, compliant, and useful, by way of taxation and other forms of exploitation, as mere beasts of burden.
Domestication is the realm which validates the notions I will come to speak of. When one refers to the times and their conditions in which they can FREELY express their NATURE, so long as it is NATURE and not the IMAGINED, then the domestic ills do not apply.
The closer one is to that of natural freedom and expression, the less they will have the Ven as a problem. But the same can be said about entitlement and status, where one can meet the “desires” of the “imagined” with ease of access and comfort. It can be said, so long as able to meet the desires, one does not come to see a conflict. But this does not mean, one then is not POISONED.
One who is fat and satiated is still impeded in their fatness, but when they are not engaging the Virtue of fit to fight conduct, they have no reason to think they are inept. But the moment one who is fat and satiated seeks to engage physically demanding activity, they would soon see they fall short.
The reason the bulk of you would not come to think you carry the poison of your wants, desires, cravings, and so on, will be when you are satiating the hunger. Meaning, you are being fed and kept fat in the emotions, and you do not have a life lived towards Virtue, which would beget challenge, as well as revelation.
Kept FAT in your EMOTIONS, you see no problems, no crisis. But if the conditions were to change, and the remedies, the diversions, the distractions, and reliefs were not provided, you would come to find out in the quickness, you have been restless in a vicious loop of ineptitude. The evidence of this vicious loop is in how you all must play at access with each other, and loop through the same demonstratable behavioral Patterns.
Of these begins that of the need and the desire to get access to begin with.
This all being in domestication, and not in the wild, your imaginations of who you are, and who you are among lead you into proximity with others that are not your defaults, your familiars. You come to be among those you may at first call strangers.
A stranger has the notion of being “unknown”, and simply that. However, the word “unknown” has the word “known” inside of it, implying “to know”, in the non-biblical sense, is the aim. It certainly is not.
It can be said, many attempts at access towards a “stranger”, these days, are SEXUALLY driven, and/or RESOURCE driven. So perhaps, then, “biblical knowing” is a huge factor, in that, a male wishes to get to “know” a female, in the only ways in which the muted ones and shaman ones can; and that is “sexual knowing”.
And for the female, her “sexual knowing” of him, the male, is traded for her Entertainment, but then quickly for her securing of a servant, a worker who will sacrifice his interest for hers, and her offspring.
No matter how much you normies hate to hear this, outside of your imaginations, it is all you are doing, if your mates have nothing individual about them, and there is no definable mission in which youse all are on. It's simply the natural validity of your condition.
When you are disgusted by this notion, it is because of your magical thinking, and no more. You want your IMAGINATION to dominate, where it does not, and would not. Fact is, you all only “know each other” in the “biblical” sense of FORNICATION and ACCESS around FORNICATION for VALIDATION, REPLICATION, and the SUSTAINMENT of MATERIAL SECURITY. It's not my fault when stripped of the imaginative and make-believe, that sounds pathetic. That is the fault of your imagination telling you it is supposed to be more; yet none of youse make it more.
The primacy of diffidence as an emotion in humans
Grouping does not have complex origination. Meaning, why one meets another, and must establish a “Pattern” or “habit” of association is not a mystery. Outside of the default family, access to the group was about SURVIVAL. This has been covered elsewhere already, but as a foundation, it is key to always keep this in mind. But what is needed for any of this to mean much of anything to a reader is that, they take an active list, and profile how they interact with others.
For the most part, interactions will be born out of the kinds of HOUSES mentioned previously, such as the FAMILIAR HOUSE, the SCHOOL HOUSE, or the STORAGE and LABOR HOUSE. Realms of ENTERTAINMENT are often then engaged from first encounters in this sphere.
Of the most common of the plays of access is the kind that has wired into it, the clear character of what access ends up being all about; and that is SECURITY, STABILITY, SAFETY, through that of PREDICTABILITY, and FAMILIARITY.
This then means what some call a factor of first impressions. These impressions are imprints, and the aim of imprinting, in this sense, is for that of establishing a reputation of proximity that does not challenge the notion of safety, security, stability, and familiarity.
Establishing oneself as familiar is best achieved by… NOT ROCKING the BOAT. That is to say, by NOT engaging and activating in the subject, the target, the associates that of their diffidence, and their later repugnance.
The notion that “trust” is a factor is apparent in most conditions. The human is very specific about this need, and would not be with this need if at first, the human was not by default caught up in some sense of unified garnished human trust. The human requires trust be sought.
Humans innately DO NOT trust foreign kinds of humans. This is not on account of what is foreign, so to say, but it is more so on account of what is familiar and what is not. Familiar, even if not best for the subject, is soothing and comforting, to the mind of diffidence.
Regardless of which House one is dealing with another in, in that of this here domestication, they begin with the first encounter of that of one's emotional relationship to that of the DEGREED ACCESS DIFFIDENCE.
Diffidence is in, more often than not, a higher degree among the “dads”, the male mommies of any given social order, or domestication. More often than not, the males are not attained, and they exist for the survival purpose of servitude, trying to ensure that they are useful to human females and their offspring. And therefore, to win over a domesticated male, other males need to prove in familiarity that they are too that of being useful. Useful to the male judging, so as to INCREASE or stabilize his USEFULNESS to his ORDER, often defined by the STORAGE or LABOR House in which he engages.
It should not be a mistake that is made, to treat a traveling salesman, a delivery man, or a mechanical man, all that being males, who travels around a city or by automobile as mobile in their work, as engaging a “Field”. This is inadequate sense of all this. The domos is not that which is walled. Domestication extends to all the areas in which the rules of the domestication are the “authority”, and one is conformed to them.
In essence, the nature of the individual being wild or domesticated is a mental sphere of consideration. When one goes for a hike with a domesticated mind, it can not be said they are “out in the wild” by way of “change of scenery”.
One is, and will be, what they carry in their mind. And for most, that means, they are hardly ever, nor have they ever been, in the “WILD”, but wherever they have gone, they have gone there with their domesticated mind. This is why one needs to be cautious of delusion, for it can easily set in, whereby one thinks that “placement” of their bodily senses in that of a diverse condition constitutes an experience other than what is the content of their mind. It does not.
Male to male access is almost always born out of the work and STORAGE HOUSE, the factory of their usefulness. They will come to know other males on account of their work, and/or their schooling. Schooling, through the SCHOOL HOUSE, is that which grooms―yes, in like how a pervert grooms―that of the young for usefulness.
The human female is groomed for upper Management, and the human male is groomed for the low tier, servile work. This has not shown out yet in a loud and clear way, that this is the predominant trend, because “eyes on”, in the sense of reporting, has not occurred yet on the necessary level to detect this social phenomenon. Most may become aware of it, in the next decade, but it is well seeded. Among the humans, the human female is the Management by nature, and the human male is the servant, meant to be useful.
On account of this, most sense of male to male, of each other, is founded upon this familiar element. Is the male safe, secure, stable and useful… thus becoming familiar? This is the check that is being done.
Rank, social and economic status will all play a role in this. A male will feel insecure around “if or if not” another male is a threat to what they have, by way of females, offspring, house, and resources.
Human males, on account of being servile, have an inner imprint of insecurity that is less correlated to them, in and of themselves, but more correlated to what they acquire in role, and how they hold onto it. Human males are insecure around their work, and often, how they are replaceable, and not encouraged to live “meaningfully”, and then in extension, the insecurity of their work is correlated to the insecurity of their maintaining access to an attachment figure, such as a female relationship.
The quality of human Access Value Engagement, or that is, associations, is so low, that humans can gain and drop associations without any indication, on the surface, that some change is coming. This, on account of humans being relational versus systematic with each other. Humans do not have MISSIONS, in which they assemble around. The HOUSES, that of the LABOR, STORAGE, RELIEF, and ENTERTAINMENT, are based around servitude of replication.
Male to male association then follows the unwritten and unconscious standard of seeing how others males will fit in, to this life of servitude, of labor, of work, of utility, of that of usefulness.
To be useful, the males can not bring about conflict, through being foreign and different. Among males, there is what some would call the “dominance hierarchy”, but in many ways, it is the hierarchy of conformity and replication. Those who are so-called dominant in the hierarchy will set the image and behavior that the rest will need to imitate, in order to become a familiar, and develop through ranks and roles of familiarity.
A human male will say “they know” so and so, and/or “they do not yet know” that of so and so. The variable here will be familiarity. This, because of the notion of trust. The human male has a great deal of the emotion of diffidence, more than the human female does.
Etymology of Diffidence (n.)
c. 1400, “distrust, want of confidence, doubt of the ability or disposition of others,” from Latin diffidentia “mistrust, distrust, want of confidence,” from diffidere “to mistrust, lack confidence,” from dis- “away” (see dis-) + fidere “to trust” (from PIE root *bheidh- “to trust, confide, persuade”). The opposite of confidence. Original sense (distrust of others) is obsolete; the modern sense is of “distrust of oneself, want of confidence in one's ability, worth, or fitness” (1650s), hence “retiring disposition, modest reserve.”
“Diffidence is a defect: it is an undue distrust of self, with fear of being censured for failure, tending to unfit one for duty.” [Century Dictionary]
The so-called academic experts, who are no more than Veneficus, more often than not, shamans and their Brahmins… would not come to label and conclude that there is an emotion called diffidence.
But diffidence and its opposite, that of confidence, are emotional components that correlate to the two traits of timid, and bold.
Most human males are born to be―not conditioned to be―that of timid. When one is seen as timid, it can be said, they do not elicit in others that of “trust”, in that, weakness is often seen as a mark that one will not say what they think, and will do anything they are told to do, on account of being “agreeable”, which ought to be translated to “servile”.
Those who are agreeable are SERVILE; will change up for whatever demand is levied by their masters, and their Management. Because of this, there is the clear presence of an EMOTIONAL condition that I call diffidence. It is an emotional relationship to the notion of trust, and it is based upon the individual's own trust in themselves first. If they are timid and impotent, it can not be said that they can trust themselves. When they do not have a “way”, then, it can not be said… they can trust themselves.
Etymology of Trust (n.)
c. 1200, “reliance on the veracity, integrity, or other virtues of someone or something; religious faith,” from Old Norse traust “help, confidence, protection, support,” from Proto-Germanic abstract noun *traustam (source also of Old Frisian trast, Dutch troost “comfort, consolation,” Old High German trost “trust, fidelity,” German Trost “comfort, consolation,” Gothic trausti “agreement, alliance”), from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz, source of Old English treowian “to believe, trust,” and treowe “faithful, trusty,” from PIE root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”
from c. 1300 as “reliability, trustworthiness; trustiness, fidelity, faithfulness;” from late 14c. as “confident expectation” and “that on which one relies.” From early 15c. in legal sense of “confidence placed in a one who holds or enjoys the use of property entrusted to him by its legal owner;” mid-15c. as “condition of being legally entrusted.” Meaning “businesses organized to reduce competition” is recorded from 1877. Trust-buster is recorded from 1903.
When the human males do not have a mission, or set thereof, then they will not have the conditions that could establish what is often called the trustworthiness of the other male. The greatest conditions to establish this are the ones of the past, where one had to perform on the BATTLEFIELD.
One would trust another with their life, in that, when it came time to fight, they would rise up and be ready to meet the challenge, with threat to life and limb. However, where one may earn the trust of other males upon the Fields, that trust is not secured in the condition of the homes, or that of the settlements.
Nothing shakes the diffidence of a human male more than that of the presence of a human female. Among her, he, the human male, comes to believe all things are in jeopardy, and from her is behavior that more often than not, triggers this.
The human female, with her anxiety towards that of concern, which begets her value worship of care, causes the human servile male to be in a constant state of diffidence. On account that because of her concerns all things must be sanitized, the human male will be left without conditions to test the resolve and integrity to a cause of both himself, and that of his male associations.
Without the conditions of harshness and adversity, the males are left with only a measurement from that of the female perspective concerning that of their usefulness… to a female and their offspring. In domestication, the human males measure themselves and each other in correlation to the material rank of their houses, their mates, and the appearance of their offspring. It can not be said that anywhere near, on average, integrity, Veracity, confidence, protection, religious faith, and/or any form of Virtue plays a role in one's day-to-day. This is MAGICAL thinking.
When one is profiling themselves as a male, they need to ask the question… “What is your mission?”
They need to ask the question… “What do I exist for?”
When all you have to show for is a settled space held, on account of a daily and yearly work effort of servitude, for exchange for credits to build a nest, then the answer is… You are a NANCY. You have the value structure and system of a human female, and likely then, exist for human female interest, not knowing there are differences among the sexes correlated to innate interest.
However, these differences are by degree. Human males, by degree, who are timid, and thus, suffer a great deal of diffidence, can not in turn have confidence and that of trust that can be called innate. They must have other things that can elicit in them a sense of stability, safety, security, and amusement. These things taken into consideration as a bulk are what is “trusted”. A mission with adversity would scare the câlice out of them. It will trigger their diffidence, and therefore, valued the most among human males is that which is chosen in AVOIDANCE to these two emotional components, that of their diffidence and their repugnance.
The academics, the Veneficus, list the emotions as:
-
INSECURITY/FEAR
-
ANGER
-
DISGUST
-
DESPAIR
-
SURPRISE
-
and ENJOYMENT.
These are the six as universals.
This is not how I see it.
Insecurity is DIFFIDENCE as an EMOTION. It is diffidence, as an emotion, because of the fifth Kinetics, that of being “excited in ignorance”. This is not surprise, but rather that of actually being dedicated to ignorant states.
On account of this, the skill and competence of the individual will be low. On account of a low skill and competence level, their “enjoyment” will be around “amusement” and that of “Seduction”, in all of a passive form.
Because of all this, in that they will not be skilled and competent, but merely useful, servile, and timid, they will not be able to trust themselves. This component of a sense of security and safety is correlated to the sense of emotional knowledge. Meaning, seeing knowledge, its relationship to skill and competence as an emotional thing. Just as curiosity is a positive emotion towards that of knowing. Inquisitive, in the sense of the Vir.
The more one knows, is skilled, is competent, the more they have an increase towards that of confidence. One's innate relationship to DIFFIDENCE and CONFIDENCE defines everything else about them.
From diffidence, there is anxiety as the energetics, by degree, which leads to the emotional relationship one has to being concerned. This EMOTIONAL relationship of ANXIOUS and CONCERNED is called CARE, and CARE is a CALL for RELIEF of the CONCERN.
However, it is an error to presume there is actually something to be concerned about. On account of the diffidence, this is an emotional track that is hungry to consume, and it can be inventive, and/or ill targeted with, on account that any will do to be concerned with, when with diffidence.
It begets a “fight” and set of “resistance” on behalf of the conditions, that are not providing the concerned emotional with relief. One ends up fighting for relief, even if there is in actuality no real issue. This fight, resistance, and so on, is the EMOTION of REPUGNANCE, which is at the foundation of frustration, anger, disgust, and contempt. These others, including anger, are MANIFESTATIONS of this more base emotion that correlate to the relationship one has to mechanisms of relief, distraction, and/or diversion.
When a human male has diffidence activated, they require you earn their “trust”, which can never take place. What another male needs to do is conform to a procession, with well established dominance hierarchies, and have a clear rank and role within that structure to tell the male how you ought to be thought of.
He, as a human, does not have any interest in your individuality. He is asking in all he says and does―regardless of what it seems on the SURFACE― “by what degree are we an us?”. The more foreign and less conformed you are to their sense of procession, the more revelation of their diffidence there will be, and the more likelihood to then reveal their repugnance. They will fight and resist, so as to provoke in the foreign entity that of conformity.
This can be done, and often is, by cowards, with that of humor, of sarcasm, shaming, amusing, and undermining. Human males, in their diffidence and their repugnance, are SUBVERSIVE.
At first glance, one may think they can get the term “Seduction” to apply to that of male with male, and say, it need not be about, and/or around the sexual energies.
As I have stated previously elsewhere, ENTERTAINMENT, versus say ENJOYMENT, is what I list as the sixth Kinetics of the emotions. I then go on to say, there are three kinds of ENTERTAINMENT, when I reference them, and that is AMUSEMENT, SEDUCTION, and ENGAGEMENT. The third has an element of some kind of Advancement, and the presence of some kind of skill and competency; therefore, systems. Whereas the first two are more often than not contrary to a skill and competence based standard. Such is not expected in amusement and Seduction.
Amusement is the better category in regards to how most human males interact with, associate with each other. When they are seeking pleasure, so to say, it is often in that of amusing ways. However, it can be said… as receivers, they are also having great value in escapism, and I would put escapism in the category of Seduction, as a primary ingredient.
This then means, the aim for enjoyment or Entertainment is often by way of DISTRACTION for that of RELIEF. A distraction because of the common state being servile, and demanding of them to be useful. Entertainment often, for the human male, does not include them being useful, but is more often than not them trying to not be useful, for what little time they have, before they must be, once again.
A male then, based on my use of these terms, does not seduce another male, though it can be said, he may amuse another male. Seduction, for males, comes from a hierarchy. Meaning, that which seduces them is in the media, and the professional Entertainment spectrum. A human male requires more than a human female to be entertained, and therefore, seduced, in the sense of distraction and relief. Their relationship to this realm, that of Entertainment, is not the same.
Human females are rarely with a standard of judgement in regards to Entertainment. Their media, for example, often grounded in the relational can simply just keep repeating itself, and the human female does not ask for much more. Her day-to-day is relational, and allowed to be repeated in the same manner. Therefore, her sense of Entertainment is often on repeat.
The same can be said about human males. It can also be said that there are relational and role components to their media, where it's often a gang, or group, or individual who exists as the good guy, versus the bad guy, the villain. There is some plot of an obstacle to overcome, in which many human females will not care to track, while they will account for the relational components around gossip.
Humans on average are easy to entertain, through amusement and Seduction, because humans, on average, are stupid and base.
I do not believe it ought to be said that human males will turn to each other and offer distraction with relief in mind. This missing component of relief being dominant is why I declare it amusement, and that mostly of diversion and deludedness more than that of distraction and relief.
The component here of to delude, versus to relieve, is correlated to the emotional desire of the worship of care, in human females, that leads to an emotional and entitled demand for that of deference. The DEMAND for DEFERENCE is on account of HUMAN FEMALES having a relationship with DIFFIDENCE, by their own degree, that makes it to where, in the realm of skill and competence towards things, they can not trust themselves.
Diffidence, here, for human females, is around things. Diffidence for human males is mostly around the social element, or that is others.
This can be said to be the two areas where diffidence differs among human females and males.
So then, whether human females are relational, versus say utilis, or useful, they seek to yield, to defer to the servant to handle the skills and competence at things role. They seek DEFERENCE as ENTITLEMENT, not as weakness, as some may think. They defer to males in the realm of things, because they can, having a default higher social value than males do.
Males then yield to, defer to that of females in the realm of the social and the relational―which in such a realm, females are not skilled and competent in, and neither are males, but females are overwhelmingly arrogant, that is, in exaggeration of ability and worth in. Human females are relationally, that is socially aggressive, and they have a sense of entitlement when it comes to managing the emotions, and the social order of others. This is exhibited at a young age. To humans, it is cute to see their young girls play with dolls, and manage them with social themes. To the Vir, this is a SICK tell of what is to come.
On account of the deference a human female receives in the realm of usefulness, the human servile male often thinks they can use this, to think they are then higher in rank than the human female, and ought to be afforded recognition. This is an arrogant way of seeing this. Social rank matters far more to humans than usefulness.
Utility among humans is not of great value. It is servile, and servants have no individuality. They can easily be replaced by other servile kinds. Whereas for the human male, he can not easily try to secure another human female as his emotional and social manager. This is why he is stricken with that pathetic notion of ONEITIS, and why he is so quick to “fall in love” at first sight, with the first female to show him attention.
It is why he is so socially RETARDED to not have figured out yet that out of diffidence, and the call for, demand for deference, the human female signals most males that she ought to be ranked as desirable. The human male, as an IMBECILE child, takes that signal and treats it as INDIVIDUALIZED and meant for him specifically, and then, out of the need for VALIDATION, not deference, he wants more.
It is not then relief that the human male seeks from the human female they suppose has shown interest. It is CONFIRMATION in CONFORMITY that he is seeking. The term “validation” is so poorly used here often, on account that what is VALIDATED is that which is “made strong”, and all of this is about what is WEAK, and sustained in WEAKNESS. It is not validation that occurs here; it is FAMILIARITY, ACCEPTANCE, and CONFORMITY.
So then, on account of these ingredients, I would not say that Seduction then occurs from that of a human female to a human male, but instead, Seduction would be about a human male targeting a human female, who has signaled them to hunt, with that of then trying to please her with distraction and relief.
Where his human male limits in distraction will exist, the primary way in which he will seduce is by way of relief. This is correlated to that of DEFERENCE.
A human female, with her emotion of diffidence around “things” or usefulness, will target a human male to provide her deference, and/or relief in this area. She is looking to defer to him, the human male, in the realm of servitude and usefulness, while in his emotional diffidence, he is looking to defer to her in regards to emotions, and that of social confirmation, approval, and conformity, on the grounds of what Mommy used to offer him, before he was thrust into the world of service.
He wishes a female can return him to the time of the babe and tell him, he is special on account of existing to please her, like Mommy did. But incapable of offering much of a distraction and escape, the human male gets relegated largely to the realm of being a relief agent. They are seen as USEFUL far more than they are seen as ENTERTAINING, and/or AMUSING.
The human female has the preference for distraction over diversion, but more than any of those, that of the value of RELIEF, on account of being the womb bearing force in the procession of replication. It does not matter what a human female says about herself, nor a human male.
Fact of the matter is, the bulk of youse will live according to these described courses. The bulk of youse will never have a mission that has anything to do with anything but that of the PRIME DIRECTIVE of NATURE, which is to form the penis with the vagina, fornicate, and replicate, with the human female then to manage, and the human male, then, to serve, be useful, and subject to Management.
This is what you ALL do, regardless of what “magical storytelling” you all engage in. One ought not be surprised that what you all call “LOVE” and “CARING” is no more than SUBJUGATION to that of being socially managed, and provided for in relief, through that of deference.
Human male to human male access belongs better in the realm of servility and amusement.
The EMOTIONAL Kinetics for human males is around that of their diffidence, their lack of trust in self and others, in the realm of usefulness. When, in domestication, human males come to interact with each other, the first thing to be observed is that of the REALM.
They are either in the HOUSE of USEFULNESS, around a job, work, labor, servility, or a SCHOOL HOUSE, training them to be useful, and/or socially managing them. It must not be mistaken that domestic schools are about skill and competence. Domestic schools, as all schools have been, are for social engineering and Management, and are, in earlier stages, mostly under the Control of the human female.
It is said, in the realm of skill and that of things, then, there are male teachers, and instructors. This difference was once high. So then, when one has a female school master upon them, there is a good chance, regardless of the subject, social Management will dominate.
Technical skill sets are not best under human female Management, and where males are managed by females around skills, competence, and useful things, they suffer GREATLY. It can not be said this differs too much when they are under the subjugation of other servile males. It can be said, only, that they will not need to maneuver, and navigate a more complex social order, or rather, muddy social order.
More muddy are human social orders guided or managed by females in that, the CONCERNS and DEMAND for CARE and RELIEF will be far higher than the ones held by human males, in their work capacities. Human males do not levy the same level of concerns, care, and need for relief. That is a human female set of thoughts and emotions.
This is on account that it is a myth to think that human female trust issues are correlated to resources, and the security they are meant to signal. Human servile males providing relief and material stability do not develop in human females, trust.
In order for the human female mind to become with rest, and a sense of stability and security, she needs access to males who can be thought of, by them, as LETHAL, and oddly, able to KILL on her behalf. This is something so PRIMAL and SUBCONSCIOUS that most humans would reject it as a variable. But, though most humans would reject it, most humans can not state with any confidence that managing and relieving diffidence occurs in their social orders. For it certainly does not.
Diffidence, this born sense of low self-esteem around self-trust and trust in others, dictates a great deal of human behavior. The diffidence, in its deference, with the human female, around things, and with the human male, around social, and emotional… is why the two seek each other out, in the most prominent of ways.
It is not to say there are no other reasons. It is to say, most other reasons, say Entertainment through amusement, and the distraction component of Seduction, are short-lived, and instead, relief, and acceptance… and that of attachment for these things, end up becoming what it is all sustained around. Hence, the notion of a honeymoon period.
A female feels loved when she is given the attachment and attention of the male, where he is trying to entertain her, and offer her relief as much as she feels entitled to. But make no mistake, where one is not entertaining and provisionary in great amounts, a human female will leave a servile male who only cares for her useful needs for a human male who gives her the excitement around her whims, attention and worship for her being a female. Human females are driven more so around the entertainment of CARE. They worship CARE, and those males who then fake to WORSHIP care―and it can only be faked by males―will find the greatest game to play with human females, in their RETARDED existence.
ALL human females WORSHIP the GODDESS of CARE, and her name is LILITH.
On account of male diffidence, males will assemble into gangs or clicks of conformity around their work or their schools. More often than not, a human male, being the servile kind he is, will not have the time, the energy, and the resources to engage something other than work or school. This is especially the case if he is with a house that needs keeping, and sustaining.
When young, the humans have deference in domestication. This being both the human female, mostly, and then the human male. This is on account that they are with familiars, and they live off of the procession.
A human female and human male who is 18 years or younger, who lives in the home of familiars, is a retarded spectacle from the standpoint of nature. There is nothing more delusional than a well-fed, well cared for, aggressively schooled human. Through those 18 years of domestication, its sense of ENTITLEMENT is heightened greatly. Life made so comfortable then becomes a SHOCK to them, when it is by their own means, they must secure their “QUALITY” of life they have been conditioned to be used to.
