Part I
The Open Letter
CONCLUSION
Voltential : Access Denied is a multipart piece that was designed at first to be an “open letter” of sorts, that could be used by others to engage these “social practices”, and the values around them. Most of Part I was written in a recent week, causing many changes to have to occur. If not divided up into parts, Access Denied would number more than a thousand pages. The plan, then, is to have 3 parts to it, with the written material for the other parts already existing and simply needing to undergo editing and arrangement. Because of this manner in preparing and releasing these pieces, chapters and portions will at times have a clearly different format than what has previously followed, and/or shall follow. For this reason, one must see the portions as “essay like” in many ways, as for the writer, that of myself, there is a set “Way” of the “Flow” once I get it going, and I do not dictate what the outcome will be. It's a “let it happen” way of being.
Because these works were to be rendered into book format, I began to consider having a set of “Ways” to open each part, and a “Way” to close out the part... As the subject matter, or that is, its “Patterns” are not closed out... But just beginning. This conclusion is one of those experimental attempts. With this conclusion on the first part, Eli, the editor, had rightfully stated, “It could be its own book”. This is how much of what is said, “this Way” is. It can have its own standalone “Way” of being expounded. This oddity is because the information that is being expounded upon, correlates to a wide array of information that is being prepared for a future expression. The “Patterns” are vast, and the role in which I play in expounding on them is that of putting it in “ways of expression” that could secure a “future route”, in essence. So where some things may not have been given the amount of expounding that they should have been given, it is because this is just the start, and the crucial, or primary elements need to be initiated, be perhaps naked for some time, as further works then come forward to either make greater sense of the primaries, or even augment them and update them on the account of the “System” being FURTHERED, and that is “ADVANCED”, with new considered data points. All of this is subject to change, but not contradiction. The subject to change is because the information is unfolding in real time, and there will be of course some element that has not yet unfolded to me, and because of this, it does not act as an augmenting element. When it unfolds to me, it could cause an entirely different direction and system. Because of this, the reader needs to always remember that this is all experimental and investigative, and not meant to be treated as some “awakened” end conclusion of some sorts. It is not. Anyone looking for some gospel needs to leave my works alone. It is not what they are. They are explorative, and inquisitive, with there being many things known with a degree of certainty, and many things still rather speculative only in the sense that... There are many things to be seen.
The conclusion here will therefore have a set of propositions that previously I had been calling “cheats”. Calling them cheats was because they get right to the point, and for those who know the rest, it helps make things faster in recall and reference. As a conclusion, it must be noted... It is concluding Part I, and not concluding the patterns. They do not have conclusions. It's simply the experimental way in which I am attempting to “wrap things up”; for the Way in which the Flow works... things do not get wrapped up. They are not supposed to be. So this is merely a function of having the appearance of being a book, to which none of these etchings truly are. They are formed up and out of the Flow, and as such, a book is merely a tool to capture the Flow, and hardly can it ever be truly said to be subject to capture. All of what is ever “etched” and/or “spoken” would be inferior to the essence that is at the foundation of such considerations. Hence why any expounding or expressing of any sort ought to be treated lightly, and not so seriously, and certainly not as some absolute set of decorations to be solidified.
If there is anything most important to Part I, it is that of getting the discourse opening and underway. That is to say, the starting of a “conversation”... not with others, but one's self―to one's self is the aim. That being said... I conclude.
The question and answer format is to bring it all into a format that allows for a simpler consideration of the points. It also aids to show that there are no variants in the way to say, and to think of these points. Where one does not match this level of detail, in their sense of the material, it is the evidence needed for why one is not to represent these ideas, and speak on their behalf, but instead, to let the primary source do it. There will be more “cheat sheets” like this in the future.
Starting Proposition
All thoughts, all actions, all research, all investigations are all geared towards to SERVE
“one’s Decision Making Process”.
Question : What is the aim of the “Decision Making Process”, the (DMP)?
Answer : To advance in one’s Control and Command over that of their conditions and self.
Question : What is the purpose for an advancement in Control and Command over these sectors of conditions, and self?
Answer : To avoid a life of defeat and to live (vita) a “Life of Victory”.
Question : What is the “Life of Victory”?
Answer : A Life of Discipline, in deliberation, guided by valid Reasoning, that begets SKILL, begets COMPETENCY, begets MASTERY, that are all aimed in quality towards that of success and the emotion that is related to such a course : the emotion of that of Pride/Triumph.
Question : What is “Pride/Triumph”?
Answer : The emotion of Victory is Pride/Triumph, and this emotion is generated out of the 6th kinetics of the “Primary Emotional Engagement Kinetics” or PEEK. The 6th kinetics is enjoyment/pleasure as an emotion, and it follows in order of likelihood the 5 kinetics of :
-Fear/Insecurity;
-Anger/Helplessness;
-Disgust/Displeasure;
-Despair/Defeat;
-Surprise/Ignorance;
-Enjoyment/Pleasure.
The 6th kinetics is enjoyment/pleasure, and Pride/Triumph is born out of a TRANSMUTATION of this kinetics. In the absence of transmutation, all the kinetics from first to last are defined in order by the first, fear/insecurity, and this is statistically DEFAULT to the masses of hominids, be them human or otherwise. All under the category of human begin their PEEK in fear/insecurity, and therefore, their Sense of Self is in low esteem.
Transmutation of the 6th kinetics is carried out through the “Three Duties”.
Question : What are the Three Duties?
Answer : The Three Duties are referred to as “the Duties for bestowing Patterns”, or that of the “bestowment of Wisdom”. This is referred to, by those in the known, as “Phater”.
They are :
1. Maintain (that of a healthy and fortified body, and mind);
2. Cultivate (that of the mental faculties, the Reasoning faculties, the ethical faculties)
3. Protect (that of the body and the mind, for the Reason of that of Cultivation)
Duties 1 and 3 serve the point and purpose of Duty 2, to Cultivate. The Aim of the Cultivation is that of being towards AUTONOMY, INTELLIGENCE, and SELF-DEFENSE. The end result of the honoring of the Three Duties is that of the product of one who now has the Three Duties as their Duties, for the self, and/or, in extension, to bestow upon others. One becomes “self-regulated”, thus called “examined” and “Disciplined”, and in accordance with Wisdom, thus called “Wise”.
A product of the Three Duties, found in the Second, is that of the development of SKILL and COMPETENCE at thought, action, and utility, aimed towards “securing” VICTORIES, and this is the route for transmuting the 6th kinetics, that is enjoyment/pleasure, into that of the “attained” kinetics of Equanimity, which then begets Triumph as the emotion related to Pride.
The term Joy, in this system, is to be read as Triumph as an emotion, and to be attained, one must possess and make use of SKILLS, and be COMPETENT, engaged in CHALLENGE, RISK, and ADVANCEMENT towards CONQUEST over that of their CONDITIONS and SELF; therefore, correlating these expressions and the path of TRANSMUTATION.
Question : What is the kinetics?
Answer : Kinetics is a term that means motion. In this discourse, the motion referred to is the direction of e-motions. The primaries are the 6 listed above. A direction that is the common direction is that it begins in the first kinetics of fear/insecurity. When kinetics 1 is foundational, anger/helplessness will follow when the individual has a reduced state of Control and Command over their conditions, and self. This is never written self first, because by default, one's Sense of Self, if born in the common kinetics, is dictated by the condition/collective. Therefore, resolving the conditions, or that is CONTROLLING the conditions, is the first aim of a skilled set of TACTICS, and/or, for some, STRATEGIC sense. Therefore, as stated previously, the skills, competency, and Mastery are dictated by what informs one’s Decision Making Process, at advancing in Control and Command over conditions and self.
Skills, competency, and Mastery not guided by this aim are not the topic, nor the focus of this set of Kinetics Awareness. One does not say “What informs my Decision Making Process?” and then equates it to how they commonly live. The sentence would be incomplete, and they would be a charlatan. This Kinetics Awareness is about the transmutation of the 6th kinetics. For this to occur, the other 5 kinetics can not be a part of the movement/motion of “transmutation”. Therefore, the kinetics is reversed to that of a triumphant emotional body. The transmuted direction is its own kinetics. Without transmutation, carried out by one's ancestors, and/or one's own efforts in the here and now, there is no second kinetics, but only the default one, starting and based in fear/insecurity. In the absence of skilled and competent Control over one's conditions, they become angered in being helpless, which is to say... Not a PRIMARY in the Control mechanics over their conditions.
From this default kinetics, the individual from anger and helplessness is impotent, and this develops disgust, as they will be displeased in their helplessness, powerlessness, ineptitude, and impotence, and disgust will be what they have for the conditions, and/or others in their conditions. When none of these are transmuted, and/or “pleased” and “comforted” by degree, one then succumbs to despair, which is the life of defeat; and in this defeat is their disgust, is their anger, is their fear/insecurities, and having no relationship to skill and competency, of the Three Duties never bestowed… They need surprise as an emotion before they can get to enjoyment. This means ignorance and external stimulation to excite. Surprise is “excite through ignorance and the absence of vigilance”. Enjoyment/pleasure, founded upon these kinetics, is then about answering to the feelings that preceded it. One enjoys, or takes pleasure in that which deals with their despair, their disgust, their anger, and their fears. This is called the first, and DEFAULT kinetics, and it is the emotional cycle of ALL HUMANS; but it is NOT the emotional cycle of the Vir, a term that applies to the focus of this kinetics that deals in transmutation into “Triumph” as an emotion, and that of the Three Duties being the cause for this “Triumph”.
In the Three Duties is a set of tactics, founded upon a Strategy of Victory, and the Victory is in VIRTUE. Therefore, the Aim is EXCELLENCE IN ALL. As the Aim, this requires skill, challenge, advancement, and competency. When this becomes primary, one can not use their kinetics, their emotional direction from 1-6, in the default way stated. The use of these kinetics in the Decision Making Process, the DMP, results in reaffirming the kinetics of defeat.
The Vir, and/or would-be Vir, is one who does not have an innate pull towards suffering, as a life of defeat is, but has an overwhelming attraction towards TRIUMPH, towards VICTORY. This means, they were not born in doubt, and by degree, feeling as much as that of the default sense of fear, and insecurity. This is not to say fearless entirely, or secure entirely. This is to say, not enough fear/insecurity to pressure that of their Decision Making Process. The degree of the kinetics is all considered by its impact on the DMP. Where one can engage their DMP through this attraction, and the default kinetics do not move them often... Then they are said to have been born with confidence, as an emotion, and this emotion of confidence is the needed SEED to be able to ATTAIN in the emotion of Triumph/Pride. This then means, most were not born with the capacity and/or ability to become a realized Vir, and that in the absence of this attraction, one is to disengage from any of this material, and return to the realm where the default kinetics is managed, and refer to their tactics, and practices.
The Vir is defined by moving through a set of tactics, and a strategy defined by the Three Duties and their Disciplines, defined elsewhere, towards, in AIMING, that of transmuting the kinetics into the position of Triumph, acquired through living skillfully, with EXCELLENCE IN ALL, and with the utmost Valor to express and DEFEND such from impediments.
The Vir is defined in their kinetics by EQUANIMITY, which is not acquired by staying still. It is acquired through a potent motion, a kinetics of :
-TRIUMPH/PRIDE (through Skill, Competency, Mastery, and Victories);
-Knowledge based EXCITEMENT/VITALITY;
-Knowledge based VIGILANCE;
-Knowledge based VERACITY/EXPRESSION;
-Knowledge based VIGOR in the face of injustice/WRATH;
-Knowledge based COURAGE/VALOR.
All of these are collapsed into the kinetics of VICTORY, and the kinetics of Victory is called VERTU, which is the root term for Virtue. Therefore, this is the Kinetics of Vertu, a systematic approach to the transmutation of the emotions, guided by that of Excellence and the ADVANCEMENT of one's CONTROL and COMMAND over CONDITIONS and SELF.
The Vir, using this system of values, partakes in the emotions of Victory, the kinetics of Victory, and because these can only be attained individually, and by one's own efforts, there is a WAR on a social level. This is to say, the commons, the masses, the multitudes have mostly, if not all, that of the kinetics of defeat, and because of this, in their fear, their insecurity, their anger, their disgust, their despair, they can not, and will not seek to advance in their Control and Command over their conditions and self. Instead, they seek to control and command the conditions of others and their Sense of Self, so as to find a role for the controlled, to be subject to pleasing their kinetics of defeat.
This is to say, because humans, who the majority are, and the Vir are hominids―but the Vir is not a human―they begin their attachments, in infancy, around the default kinetics of fear/insecurity, they then “attach” to others, to help them feel, not be, that of secure/safe. The target of this attachment becomes a part of a role to fulfill this need, and the target often themselves has the same attachment needs, and needs to provide for the dependent, so that it can feel safe and secure, through that of role placement, and completion.
Question : Why do you say the kinetics of defeat are default in the masses, the majority, the multitudes, the commons, and that of humans?
Answer : The kinetics of defeat would not be kinetics of defeat if humans were in conditions that were primal, where there were threat cycles, and resource scarcity. Nature does not work this way. There would be kinetics of survival and success, if the conditions were primal. The conditions in which one is reading this, and/or associated with me in, are NOT that of primal conditions. The conditions are that of domestication. In the conditions of that of domestication, what would be successful kinetics at survival are successful kinetics at subjugation, oppression, external control, external manipulation, and conformity to the will and the desires of culture creators and their allies, in controlling factions. This is to say, the default sense of human collectivism, once used for survival, is now the very WEAPON a controlling few, including mommies, can use against their young and their dependents.
The primary purpose for attachment figures in primal conditions was to need the feeling of insecurity and fear to promote in other “materially matured humans” the feeling and the desire to provide for, and protect. The human animal has infants, in their fear and insecurity, triggering provision and protection, but for most, “protection” is not the correct term... But instead, the more correct term is “possession”. “Provision and possession” is the default state, and to “possess”, one must do what they can to maintain a hold, and this can not be called “protection”, because most humans will never focus on skills and competency to DO BATTLE against intrusive forces. That humans will outsource “protection” to armed gangs of the city/state proves that it is not innate to humans to be “protective”. When one trains to protect, equips to protect, and values this in action, it can be said it might be innate. However, often even then, it is not innate, but culturally induced. The way to determine this, is the one culturally in protection will not be elite in protective ways, and they will meet only the minimum sense of this, in order to receive “role notification”. This means they may be in a “protective role”, but they are not naturally “protective”.
The loose form of “attachment theory” is the most supported, and this does not validate it because it is prevailing. It is after all a theory, because the realm is about “consciousness” and “motivation”, which is not materially concrete to be moved to Law. However, there are no arguments for another primary set of emotions guiding an infant that is other than fear and insecurity. But when the academics write this, because they are of the kinetics of defeat, they say “need for security and safety”, and avoid then pointing out the obvious... That there would be no need to feel secure and/or safe without first feeling insecure and unsafe. Then, via sound Reasoning, the primary motive of humans, today, can be observed with a great deal of data, far more collected than at any other time. With this data, there is absolutely no way to conclude that on average and among the masses, the other kinetic route is present. It is unavoidable that most human interactions, engagements, and access development are founded in neediness, and that are around the fear and insecurity that were innate to them as infants, because the Societies Advanced by the Majorities do not have a cultural, a traditional, a ritual relationship to the Three Duties. And therefore, there is not a “Phater” element of SAM, but there is a subjugating element around fear and insecurity. If this was not true, “adults” in age would not have a pair of individuals they still call Mommy and Daddy, and see in these roles. No Vir has a mommy and a daddy. Human roles are not secured through skill and competency; they are secured through the value of familiarity, and the value of familiarity is a value held because of fear and insecurity, just like how collectivism is based on fear and insecurity.
A Vir becomes differed from the masses and the multitudes in that in their lives, skill and competency are required in all associations. Whereas humans despise these requirements, and skirt them wherever they can in mass, and the majority of cultures, if not all, are not skill and innovation based, and do not favor triumphant characters, but despise them. Humans favor sacrifice, and sacrifice is to be had to make humans feel safe and secure, in thinking there are others to do what they are not willing or caring to do, which is put your arse on the line. Human is synonymous with being a coward. The human sense of a hero is one who serves the security and the fears of others through their sacrifices. This is not a hero, or that is, a valuable individual to the Vir; this is a CHUMP. Instead of fighting for the word to be different, then let this be said. Heroes are chumps, because they are sacrificial and servile, and this is the only qualifier they have. They are not courageous; they are compliant and with a low self value, compared to those they put themselves at risk for.
Human infants are not born by DEFAULT with love. The term “love” does not mean some beautiful thing, appreciated. Love is based in fear and insecurity, and one who is “loved” is one who “makes the other feel that of safe and secure and/or appreciated”. If one makes you feel appreciated, and you value them because of that, you have low self-esteem, you have low self appreciation, and being in need of another to “comfort” this is born out of fear and insecurity. Every so-called human praise of the emotions can not escape this condition : they can all be backtracked to it. The only kind of emotion that will not be tracked back to fear, insecurity, anger, disgust, and despair, is an emotion based on confidence, based in productivity, based in skill, competence, and Victory, and that is the emotion of “Pride/Triumph”, that is a Joy, a confidence built upon successes. No success―or that is a relationship in habit to success―no relationship to Pride. Habit is the key here. Not a Victory every now and then. It is one who does not have a relationship with defeat. Use the 80/20. More often than not, one targets a gain that requires skill, acquires the skill, and uses it to overcome the target, and seize the advantage. Take one month of your life, and ask the question, “Does this sound like something I have at least one month presence in, or something that has happened possibly only a few times in my life?”. If you do not have this in a month, you live a life of defeat. It's a habitual relationship with Victory, not some perceived feeling of little victories, that are in fact just you having entitlements secured in some affect or another.
If skill was not present in the Victory, and it was something anyone else would do and get the same results easily, it is not the kind of Victory I am talking about.
Only those who live a life based on skill and competency could possibly consider they are no longer an infant. But this does not mean professional life. This means the whole life. Many will appear as victors in their professions, and then head back to their homes and among their peers and be chumps, having no sense of a skilled association being primary with others. Few have standards of association outside of the “value” of familiarity. Profession is not how one measures this. Whole life is how it is measured.
When whole life is considered, there are at present some who are “about” that Vir Way, but not those who could be called “Vir”... Yet. Being about that Way will lead to benefits in their Control and Command, and few will be attracted to that, because those with a kinetics of defeat would get defeated if they tried to apply any tactics of this Vir Way. And those who try the tactics and secure a Victory are those who by their own efforts, and their own innate Sense of Self match the “Way”.
At no point,is the infant, in their insecurity and fear, being told here to OVERCOME this. If, no matter what you do, that kinetic cycle impacts your decision making, and you do not have a strong attraction to an enjoyment through skill, competence, and Victory, then leave all this alone. You will be an enemy to it, because the kinetics of defeat are poisonous; and that is why the commons, and one proven to be of it, and not in accordance with the Vir Ways or tactics is called a “Venenifer”, which means “one who is poisoned”, in this context. The “poison” is the emotional body under the kinetics of defeat. One can not be an ally until this matter is resolved, and one of these kinetics will always be the enemy of the Vir, because the Vir does not comfort their fears and insecurities, but by their very nature, the Vir stimulates those emotions in those around them with the kinetics of defeat. And what makes this kinetic poisonous is that it causes the human to then act against the Vir, as if the Vir is against them, or has done something wrong, even if all the Vir does is autonomous, and an individual, and not upon, around, or for a collective. The ones with the kinetics of defeat suffer the “crack of access”, and what this term means is like how a crackhead experiences paranoia when intoxicated, and thinks all are against them, they then justify attacks, so does the bulk of humans, though not to the same extreme, however, when near to a Vir. They presume the Vir is a threat to them, and as cowards, they use passive aggression, and coward manipulation to try to “bring them down a notch”, to “humble them” through “humility”, through shame, through dismissive and petty behavioral displays. Because of this, one who maintains associations with those dominant in the kinetics of defeat could hardly be referred to as being “About that Way” of that of the “Vir”. They are not compatible emotional kinetics.
Because of the skill element, the competence element, the tactics and strategy element, the number one faculty of the mind and character to the Vir is the Rational faculty, and therefore, their eagerness, that devotion to the aim towards Reason is their RELIGION. REASON is the RELIGION of the Vir, for it is at the foundation, as a faculty, one of discernment, to attaining in all the areas, and without it, they will not attain Victory. This is not a human devotion. Semblances of reason, to humans, exist in utility around resources and comfort, not in living and in character. That of reason, with a lower case r, has only the place of a servile role for humans, and they betray their servant where they can, because roles means the individual substance is not the primary factor. Serving the “role” is the factor, and humans associate with humans based on the “role” of safety/security, and that of provision in resources, which correlates to the first, the safety/security. Therefore, much judgment of worth is around “earnings”, and the fact that males, females, families and society are centered around material resources, and that status is correlated to earnings, proves the point : it's all founded in insecurity and fear, and this will be the cause of decision making that secures defeat, and therefore, displeasure.
Question : What is meant by role?
Answer : The notion of “role” in this “Way” is specific. It is about the difference between collectivism and that of individualism. Viritus is the main title of this Way, and Vertu is the main essence of Viritus. And Vertu is the essence of Excellence in ALL that one thinks, all that one speaks, and all that one does. Arete is the single term for this trait. Arete, as the pursuit of Excellence in All, leads to Vertu, that of the Virtue of All being Excellent, and Viritus is that “Way” that guides towards this set of aims. Because of this criteria and aim, Viritus and all that is related is individualistic, and all aims are by one's own efforts, and are carried out from within one's own eagerness to learn and know (curiosity), and one's need to be aggressive, bold, courageous, and desirous of skilled and competent autonomy. When one is with these aims and these attractions, they will stand out as an individual, and more often than not, compared to the members of the collective, they will have a greater quality in mind, speech, and action, a greater quality in character. They would have, attaining through these aims, INDIVIDUALIZATION, which can only occur through MASTERY. In the absence of Mastery―that can be in anything―one has not this thing called individualization, but instead, is a collective unit... Liken to being in a hive mind. This hive mind is called SAM, the Society Advanced by the Majority, but can also have the term society interchanged with that of Symbols, becoming the Symbols Advanced by the Majority. Other ways to alter this first term of Society, to have clarification with this “SAM” notion, is that of “Sense” Advanced by the Majority, “Structure” Advanced by the Majority, “Security” Advanced by the Majority, and so on. The key here is Advanced by the Majority, and this will be ALL majorities, or collectives, even in “groups” that see themselves as apart. These “groups”, even if a subculture, will have their collective setting the “Sense”, the “Symbols”, the “Security”, and the “Structure”.
The first SAM is the “house”, where the family or that of the familiars are the collective, and the primary “Sense”, “Structure”, and “Security” setter is the “matriarch”, or that is the mater role. The mater is “one who ties another to the material”, and the “material” means, the “chemical body”, the “emotions”, the kinetics of being CORPOREAL... That is, with physical form, body, substance, and physics. Physics is the “Law of Nature”, or the “Law of Identity”, with this meaning that ALL THINGS have traits and attributes that are innate to them, and these traits and attributes make up the identity of the thing. Nature―or life―is these traits and attributes, by degree, seeking to be EXPRESSED. Mater is the force that is called “the Earth force”, or the “ground force”, or the “force of the soil”, and it is a force of dependence, a force of passivity, a force of timidness, a force that is risk-averse, a force that demands deference. The mater force is not male, nor is it female; however, in humans, the mater force has a greater degree in its females. To add a number for reference to this degree, think of it as 60 female, 40 male. Therefore, the mater force, by degree, is not that great of a difference on average in males or females, but, combined with conditions of acceptance, of tolerance, and actual deference, the behavioral conclusion of this difference can be vast. A female with the mater force is called a “mommy”, a “mother”, and a male with the mater force is called a daddy, a da, and mistakenly... a “father”. Mother and father are terms for roles, liken to that of brother, sister, uncle, and grandparents.
However, the term “Father” is from that of “Phater”, of pater, and means “one who bestows Patterns”, and this role is rarely ever engaged. Humans do not have biological “Fathers”, as a part of their stock. A human can not be a “Father”, because a human innately is insecure and with fear, and is prone to the kinetics of defeat. Only a Vir can be an actual “Father”, or “one who bestows Patterns”―and the Patterns correlate to the Seven Disciplines of thought and character, and this includes and requires WAR. The Patterns include the Three Duties, and upon completion of bestowing these, “Father” is realized. In the absence of bestowing these, no “Father” is present.
Humans, however, in their insecurity and fear, engage each other in roles, not in their individuality, and this is often because one does not have individuality that could be expressed. One is more often than not a replicant of SAM, the collective, and thinks careless and indeliberate thoughts, correlated to SAM's replicant sense of the kinetics of defeat. One who is a “replicant”, in this sense, lacks individuality, and they would make this evident if questioned or observed, and having no set of tactics and strategy that can be defined and elaborated upon. In the absence of definition and expression of mind entities, that of thought, that of deliberation, discernment, and expounding... One is not to be believed to be “individualized” and “actual”, but is instead presumed statistically to be a replicant that lacks self-awareness, and is “automated”, and thus, an “automaton”. Such is the condition for the majority, and this condition is unknown to those in it.
A role, then, is founded upon the kinetics of defeat, whereby the role exists to answer to a feeling stirred in the kinetics. One can call this an emotional need, born out of the “matrix”, or that is, the “mother's womb”, as this term matrix means. It is BORN TO MATERIAL, that is key here, with the term matrix, and this material is the kinetics and its cycle, which in primal conditions was designed for SURVIVAL in THREAT CYCLES, and resource scarcity, and therefore, a sound system of automation. However, in domestication, these kinetics are turned against the “machine” and the “material”, and enslave it to bestial urges that are counterproductive, and lead to DEFEAT. The human stock maintains its sense of roles as a means to SURVIVE, acquire and maintain resources, and secure against threats; however, those in the roles are caught up in a narrated existence, one of imagination over nature, and often, can not serve, domestically, in the way the roles were naturally intended.
For example, of the human stock, the male component is supposed to have strong drives to provide and protect, and because of this, humans see fathers, or that is, their daddies, as “protective”, and use this term... However, if Daddy, which is a role, has no means of self-defense, no war sense, no combative sense, no skills at fighting and defending, and no valuing of tools to aid in this... THEY CAN NOT BE A PROTECTOR. A want to be so is conditional, not natural. Instead, they are not “protective”; they are “POSSESSIVE”. Protection, here, is not defined by domestic conditions, but is about PRIMAL conditions, when resources were scarce, and where there were ACTUAL THREATS in the conditions, and the threat was physical, not social and political. These latter two are the product of domestication. Domesticated products are not registered by the inner observer of the human stock, that is to say, the subconscious mind, and it is this subconscious, or this urge based mind that gives rise to the self-esteem. It is from here that the registry of “protector” or “possessor” is made. Regardless of the imaginative narrative of wants, desires, and wishes in the so-called conscious realm, the facts and the actual will register in the automated kinetic cycle, and the reward and punishment will be dished out upon the self-esteem, the Sense of Self of the individual. Hell and/or Heaven is in your self-esteem.
This will be a reference to follow about the “little green man”, or one's “lizard” later.
Roles were around resource management, often carried out by the “mother” (mama), and resource provision and protection, often carried out by the “dad”, the “tata”, the “dada”. The term “Father” was not used by the commons. This term is esoteric, as is even the term “mother”. The way in which the commons once spoke and thought was based on words easy to utter by their imbecile children, in that the children of commons are often imbecile―as the commons who guide them tend in the same way. To be common is not an economic expression, but refers to the quality of one's thinking. The common quality is “mental midgetry”, is small and petty thought centered around the kinetics of defeat, the emotions born out of fear, out of insecurity, out of dependency, to which it remains even after maturation of form.
From here on out, it needs to be known that mama and dada are both of the mater force, which too is the common force, and the term “Father” is being partitioned off as rarely if ever used accurately. The commons do not have “Fathers”, and because of this, the commons do not deal in “Patterns”, or that is Wisdom and deliberation through discernment. And because of this, the commons are referred to as “human”; whereas in ancient times, the Vir was referred to as the “Aristoi”, and this is because they were characterized by Excellence, and what was “noble” and “mighty”, and never was this divorced from arms, from a martial essence, but ever so, throughout ancient times, Virtue and Arete were connected to martial prowess and courage, not that of the commons―to whom none of these traits would ever be Rationally attributed to. The commons have “mamas and papas” because the commons are children. And in domestication, when one is of the “age of majority”, and yet they reference a female and male as a “Mama/Mother”, and a male as a “Papa/Dad”, then it is evidence that in the quality of their thought, they are still an infant/child. None who have the Three Duties bestowed upon them, thus Patterns, remain in a “roled” relationship; but all are patterned in individuality, and therefore, come to discern the value and quality of individuals. Therefore, in their own individualization, they see others as collective automatons, or as individualized themselves. One who is NOT individualized can NOT see and detect the individualization of others, and consequently, their sense of others is limited to being about their role.
But do not get it mistaken... A malcontent will say this and that about others, wishing themselves be individualized; however, never actually being so themselves. So they will be observed easily as one who only negates, and never has something of Excellence affirmed. They will say “them” alone, and think they are not of “them” when they are.
For humans, a stock that is not the same as the “Fathered”, the Vir and their martial pursuit of Excellence, there are NO individuals, and no individuality; there are only ROLES, and ROLES are defined by SERVITUDE. What is being served in a role is the emotions, and in this case, the kinetics of defeat, which can also be called the kinetics of insecurity, and therefore, the aim of this servitude is “Sense of Security”, and as one sees, this comes back to the acronym SOS, like Sense of Self. And so, it can be referenced with ease. A “Sense of Security” and “Safety” is inherent to the DEFAULT kinetics of the human stock. Because of this default setting and relationship to roles, humans are innately SERVILE, as well as innately in DEMAND of SERVICE from others. Because humans are innately servile, and in demand of service, and the roles are defined in relationship to these traits... It is why I say that :
“All humans are SLAVERS”... ALL HUMANS, and that
“A Vir is not a human”.
As slavers, here, what is meant is that of constantly trying to subjugate all and each other to a Role of Servitude, or ROS. Humans, in their kinetics of insecurity, are driven to serve this insecurity, to comfort it, by looking to others not as what they might be INDIVIDUALLY, but instead, in the DEPENDENT and needy way of seeing how that other could SERVE their EMOTIONAL ineptitude.
How they can be comforted and served, by having another―and almost any will do―in that ROLE?
The three primary roles are :
Management, Provision, and Protection.
The role of Management is about managing the emotions, the kinetics of the dependent, and this can occur through expression, entertainment, comforting, kindness, compassion, niceties, support, encouragement, and so on. Management is also about time, about energy, about effort, about direction, about roles, and that of the second role, resources. Management is the relational role that is more social than substance. It is management of roles and their relationship to other roles, and resources as they relate to being divided up among the roles. This is often driven by the mater forces, and dominated by the human female, as the human male has often been roled and relegated into the “Provision” role, whether they have an innate proclivity for this, or not. Innate proclivity versus conditioned will have its own Q and A to follow.
When the human stock is born, it is born with the kinetics of insecurity, which is from 1-6, the Primary Emotional Engagement Kinetics, or the PEEK. The Vir is, however, born with the PEAK, and they phonetically sound the same. This is the “Primary Emotional Advancement Kinetics”. The Advancement element is a factor of advancing in one's Control and Command over their conditions and self. The PEAK, spelled like reaching the “peak” of a mountain, or the top, is the transmutation of the emotions, as previously stated. When this has yet to occur, but is under way, it can be said, the “Venator”, the “hunter”, the one seeking to be a Vir is seeking to reach “their PEAK”, and hence, “PEAK Performance”. The PEEK of humans is correlated to the eyes, in that humans look around like “deer”, like “prey”, constantly anxious, fearful, and insecure, and it can be seen in where and how humans use their eyes. Humans use their eyes to indicate “safety check smiles”, or chimping; use their eyes to cry; use their eyes for surprise; and use their eyes for their anger; and to look around sarcastically, and in disgust; and use their eyes to spy to see if their lies are succeeding. Humans and their eyes show their social predatorial nature, and by predatorial, it is meant from a Vir's perspective, in that humans, ALL humans, are slavers, and looking to enslave all others to a Role of Servitude, designated by a want of comfort and provision, correlated to their PEEK, their “Primary Emotional Engagement Kinetics”, the “kinetics of insecurity”.
When you were born to the human stock, in which high probability would suggest, there was not mind to discern placement. This is to say, you did not have individuality, independence, nor autonomy. You were subject to physics, the Law of Nature, and in that Law, your physical machine, the body, the form, the carriage, had to come through a female member of the stock, and a material birth occurred. Your sensitivity or lack of sensitivity to oxytocin would be the chemical bonding agent, acted upon in order to “make you feel safe and secure”, and the key here is feel, and the feeling in no way had to do with actually being secure or safe. This is the first indicator that emotions are not products of actuality, but are products of conditioning, and because they were designed based on primal conditions, the emotions under domestication, being unsuited, can not be trusted as a Source of Sensing, or one's SOS. One's Source of Sensing has been obstructed by the “Management role” that has created narratives of social existence that contradict the natural or innate state of the stock.
In order for the “Management role” to prevail, the “manager” needs to acquire their status through DEFAULT relations, associations, and access. The default Management roles are based on nature's default states. You have, in nature, the often paired progenitors―among humans, the mama and the papa.
The value establishing their “Management roles” is called “precedence”. This is to say, what makes them “large and in charge” is only that they came before the one who follows after. In the work force, this is called “seniority”, and “one doing their time”, where they will then say they have “worked hard and long”, by comparison, and therefore, they are deserving of the role of management. Management is CONTROL.
The one who works harder and longer with “those who follow after”, that of posterity, is the mama. She had the direct managerial role in the life of the FA, the Follow After. The preceding kind, the progenitors, the Preceding Access, or PA, are not both Management by role. The papa is often in the Provision and Protection role, while the mama is in the Control, the Management role. She manages the “house”, which is the “settled space” or the “settlement”, whereas in the past, in the primal times, the “field” contrasted with the house, and was guided by nomadic conditions of primal hunting and battling. Settlements, houses were seen as places of safety and security, and the fields were places of risk, and danger.
Because the mama and the papa merely preceded the FA, the infant was by default to be MANAGED and CONTROLLED as itself a purpose and resource. The resource, here, is that thing to trigger and to bring to expression the innate passion to manage and control, which is in EVERY human female, and exacerbated in them further when they have produced offspring from their wombs, making them intolerable to any sense of FREEDOM from Management and Control. A mama and a papa are not in their roles of Management and Provision on account of some standard of proof in ability or quality. Quality has no role in the securing of Management and Provision roles among humans. PRECEDENCE is the only variable of ROLE position here, for that of the managed and that of the manager; that of the dependent and that of the dependee.
When you followed after the preceding entities, that makes them a mama and a papa, which is what they had been being prepared for throughout their servile existence, by those who preceded them, and held position of authority over their life, merely based on that value.
One does not become a FA who has somehow chosen and applied a standard to the determination that a mama and a papa ought to be their Mama and their Papa. This was default. And because of this, you will not have a “sense” to see the entities in those ROLES as INDIVIDUALS, especially if they are not able to be discerned from the rest. Meaning, if they have a great deal of individualized traits, that might then make them able to be seen as individuals, but often, this will be only in appearance, when in actuality they do as, and live as the collective around them, in their roles to that collective―which is their collective for the same reason they are your managers : that of precedence. All governments and institutions made by humans, to which they all are, have authority solely on precedence, and not the demand of standard and proof of competency. Because this is the nature of ALL ACCESS in your world, you will have all the reasons, then, to not have a relationship with a strategic and tactical sense of measuring quality by a standard, as primary. Had this been a part of your being, you would have had to reject all those orders, merely in roled positions on account of precedence. That which is valued only because of precedence is then secured by the other human value that follows, and that is familiarity, with the preceding elements. One will value not based on quality, standards, and some Reasoned measurement, but instead, that which comes to them by authority of precedence will then establish itself among and upon them, and once familiar, comforting insecurity and fear, the entity will be BOUND, or binding to the familiar, and that is “possessed” as their familiar, which will then elevate the status of the entities over others. The valuing of roles―which humans are limited to―is the valuing of PRECEDENCE and FAMILIARITY.
These two values do not exist for the Vir, but are instead fallacies, or errors in Reasoning.
Mama is mama because she preceded child, and it is not because she gave birth to the child. Attachment theory expounds on this with clarity. A child, an infant will come to attach to anything that is the source of making it feel secure and safe, and “provide” for it. This can be an artificial entity, such as a bot, and does not require organic composition. There is NO SPECIAL BOND between a mama and her child. Not naturally. There is the greater chance that a mama will chemically enslave a child to worship her, to show her deference, and to obey her, only in that she has precedence, and she has the time and the access to bond in greater familiarity. Romantic notions of these things are a myth. Any who would have had the same access and ability to affect the offspring would have had the same level of bondage.
When one follows after the preceding forces, and then becomes “bonded” and “familiarized”, this is the “Pattern” called “being family”, and the “family bonds”, and so on. To a would-be Vir and Vir, these are not appealing notions. These are notions that are equivalent to talking about slaves and masters. The difference with slavery is the preceding force is not using the targeted entities to serve their emotional needs of roles, but using them to serve their emotional needs around fear and insecurity of resources. Offspring is enslaved by their mama to fill her emotional connection to the ROLE of Management mama, and enslaved by the papa to fill his needs of thinking he is a “provider” and a “protector”, when in these areas, he will often not amount to much, and certainly, will not be “protective”, as humans arrogantly call their own―but will be “possessive”, as it truly is. Only one who is trained, skilled, and equipped for protection can be called a Protector.
The true roles are Management (Control to serve), Provision (Provide to serve), and Protection (Possess to serve). All of the human roles are about servitude. Offspring would not be produced without the passion, the impulse, the emotional need of the mama to “possess” a thing that gives her a sense of purpose; and that purpose is the mama role, and that is why females, as they get older, will play “mama” to younger more attractive females. While they may enjoy their youthful bodies, the “mama” will manage for them their thoughts, often getting them to doubt themselves, and controlling their sense of the world and others. It's all about CONTROL, and those who have Control in their own conditions and lives have a relationship with Control to know that. Those who do not have a relationship definable with Control will then be oblivious to how others exert control over them, a control they often exert without deliberation and quality, but born out of these three roles.
The roles are either strongly conditioned, or strongly innate to the individual. This will differ by degree. The way to tell is in the earning level, and the amount of skill present.
One who manages (controls to serve), but has not ADVANCED in any SKILLFUL way, or towards a MISSION, or set of OBJECTIVES, is one who merely controls on impulse, sense of purpose, and role, conditionally, in the absence of anything in them that is potent by degree, and seeking to express. They will be mommies, more than mothers, and mothers, more than instructors. It is rare for human females to be anything more than mamas, condemning their offspring to the life of an animate organic stuffed animal to fulfill their emotional needs, as a default and conditioned worshiper―which can then be shown, when with the girls, they will then grow up trying to find others in their lives to serve in the same role they saw Mommy get others to serve. TO SERVE is the SHOUT that comes out of human ways. TO SERVE, and see your servitude as wonderful and beautiful.
A female human will have the drive to control, but not the drive to Control skillfully. Skillful Control is often NOT needed in the house and the settlement. Fields require skillful Control and navigation. In city/states, the professions tend to be in the settlement, and therefore, are carried out in the same Manner of Mediocrity, MOM ways. They will not have levied the demand of skill, of competence, of Excellence. In the fields, failure to have these standards could result in loss of life, or loss of territory and possessions, to which possession, in order to serve, is the description of the human values.
A male who is conditioned to Provide will be shown to not have the INNATE proclivities of PROVISION. This is shown in how much they seek to skillfully earn. A human male that is born to be a provider will have the innate drive to be so through skill, challenge, and greater gains. They would be those who do not find themselves stuck in servility with only upward momentum judged by seniority. They do not do their time of hard work. Providers are opportunistic, and fortuitous. They will see opportunities where others do not, and they will pounce on them in order to get greater gains. Servile work is not the work of a provider. In the lesser degree, Provision for the commons, carried out by males, is their payment for “access”. Meaning, the male provides in the way they can in order to possess, or have access to the female and the offspring, to serve their insecurities and fear of being needed and roled in the familiar. The order of difference is a provider will not be doing it for access, which would be a given, because the female will be trying to get, and maintain access to them. They have options in access to females and offspring, because they are earners. Human common males do not have the earnings to have options, and because of this, they will use Provision as payment for access, and those females with them are just one step above prostitution of a natural sense, with the only difference being agreements―hardly honored―and the changes and/or likelihood of offspring to follow, and be in need of Provision. For a human female, her having offspring with a male is a way of tying that male to a status of Provision for a longer period, the period of providing for the young, which in order to be fulfilled, she too much be provided for. Offspring are the source of social and resource security, and possession for human females, and the romantic sense of all this is the source of delusion in human orders―to which all human orders are inflicted with delusions about why they do as they do.
A role is about serving these emotional needs, and Sense of Self and Sense of Life needs, that are too generated by a role one is in naturally of themselves. The difference here is genus and species. The genus is the general category, like say, human, and then they are divided up into kinds, such as male and female, and among them are general motives and behaviors that will be shared, more universally than not, but not in the absolute. What makes one special is when they are a species in their behavior, where they differ from the “general”. Most do not differ, and therefore, they are the same species, and as such, live based on traits that are not individualized. One who is individualized will be one who is not confined to mere roles and trying to exist in them, but is one who has something potent in them seeking to be expressed, as a species of difference.
Human is a species of hominid, and exists around roles, in the mind, with precedence and familiarity as primary values of access.
Vir is a species of hominid, and exists around Reasoned systems of strategy and tactics, with the drive to advance in their Control and Command over their conditions and self, and with that Command, Command it towards that of Virtue, which becomes the pattern that begets, in the emotional form, Equanimity, Joy, delight, and that of Triumph/Pride, which then feeds the motivation towards even more of the same patterns.
To not value precedence and familiarity is to NOT BE HUMAN.
Precedence and familiarity are the cause of roles, and they are based on fear and insecurity, and the product of such is DEFERENCE, or that of yielding, of deferring. Humans are defined by a constant demand for deference, and this is because they are led by fear and insecurity, and do not innately believe they can strive for and attain in quality of thought, speech, and action. The insecure demands that others yield and refrain from judgement, and the result of this is an inadequate and inept existence.
The Vir does not place a value on precedence. A Vir demands a thing be Virtuous and Excellent, and where a thing is not this, it will in no way have access, especially on a level of Control and influence. A Vir does not BOND, a Vir SELF STANDS, and when others do the same, they STAND IN ALLIANCE with each other. They are not with; they are beside.
The hardest trait of a Vir that differs drastically from that of human, the commons, is that the Vir is not “role relational”.
One will not grasp this easily and when they think they do, it means they have likely gotten it wrong. Relational is what humans are. Objective, in the sense of having objectives in the primary position, is what the Vir is about. One can say they are primarily goal and objective driven, mission determined, and principle guided, and often, this means roled individuals are not able to sustain with them.
Because objective is an often perverted term, in the sense of not used properly or soundly... A new term is needed. Rather than relational, one would say “systematic”. One is systematic, if and only if they have a “drive”, an “impulse” to bring systems not merely to their profession, but to all they do. This can be said to be Patterns and the equation. A Vir deals in Patterns and their need to be present as a plan for living. A “plan for living” is a strategy of living, and the principles of the strategy will then determine the disposition of the tactics. This is what it means to say a Vir is first tactical, and when advanced and realized, then strategic―and being with a strategic life is the aim of the Vir. This is not achieved by seeing others in and as roles as a primary. Roles have utility in the secondary, but a sense of the individual is needed first and foremost.
Because of roles, and them being primary, the human favors unconditional access. Access is what they, human, mean when they say “love”. Love means “attachment”, and attachment is motivated in humans by fear and insecurity. This is not to be shamed, so to say, because the judgment is directional. Where a Vir is not to be guided in their decision making by fear and insecurity, it does not mean one ought to seek to abolish such emotions. These emotions, if present by any degree, can not be negated, and therefore, no attempts should be made to. If one has these emotions in a prominent position, and therefore, impacting at all times their decision making, THEY ARE A HUMAN. If one has them to the lesser degree, to where fear and insecurity do not play a role in their Decision Making Process, then they may be―simply may be―suited to the Vir's life. One who struggles with the impact of fear and insecurity on their Decision Making Process is NOT a Vir, nor ought they think themselves such, or that they ought to be. This way of thinking does not have a shame in what one is, as a conclusion. Those who would then shame themselves for not being this ideal are the source of that shame, and this Way is not the source... Though it will be thought to be.
The point, here, is that the Vir uses roles only as utility, and Vir is NOT a ROLE. Humans deal in roles as a primary.
In addition to the previous roles will be added the role motivations. In simple, they can be defined with the sacred three categorical thought to guide.
Control and Management;
Servility and Provision;
Possession and Protection.
Question : What are three primary motives behind SEEKING to GAIN and MAINTAIN ACCESS to others?
Answer : As stated in previous portions, the primary motives for access are correlated to the infant state in that of humans. Infant humans―which most humans, no matter their age, are―are motivated by INNATE, not acquired, states of fear and insecurity. One can refer to the core sense of attachment theory to take this further; however, my agreement with this fact in observation is not that of an agreement in whole with that theory. This portion is not “theory”, though the whole of their set of propositions might be. This is observable fact that ALL HUMANS begin in their motivations of access in fear and insecurity, as infants. However, this will be by degree. By degree is important, because this is how you will measure yourself in this degree of being human, or this degree of possibility of being Vir.
The cheat here is easy in self-assessment.
Do you struggle with fear and insecurity? Are you socially intimidated easily by others, and do you seek approval of others? Most would need to say yes to this question, and therefore, be not surprised : yes means you are human by degree, and not a Vir in need of self-actualization. Let me be clear. To struggle with these things is the clearest sign one is a human. A human can learn about the tactics of a Vir to enhance performance in life, and therefore, the rest of this could still be of use. But all others, those who may be actually meant for the Vir life, must LISTEN and GRASP hard this cheat, this notion.
A human can not be strategic, and can not be Virtuous, and can not be ethical, because ALL HUMANS are COWARDS. ALL HUMANS are slavers. Eventually, the human using the tactics of a Vir will use them to “conquer” others, not themselves, and this will be noticeable, because they will need attention and approval from others around these Ways, will not be self-driven, motivated, and self-sustained. They will be on the surface overly emphatic about the “Ways”, and this is the mark of a subversive who would eventually betray the Ways. Humans can not be Vir, but humans will have the motivations of the “Three” (Control, Serve, Possess) to align somewhat with the tactics, as they can not see strategy, and they will make use of the tactics to have their way expressed. They will then, as they do, try to convince others of not being human. But in their lives, they will only show a partial use of the tactics. A Vir is not partial. A Vir is an EXTREMIST in the WAY. They are with potent kinetics in the Way, and therefore, the Way comes to be shown in all they do. One who is partial, a here and there “tactician” of sorts, is a human masquerading, and they can not sustain.
One of the cheats I use to separate human from Vir would-be is I back off, provide no motivation, and go solitude, to see if that individual will self-motivate towards any strategies, tactics, and preparations for War. When I then 0bserve almost all the time the individual will sit idle, doing hardly anything, waiting to be led and told, motivated externally, and given requirements. This is the mark of a muted human who is subject to conditions, and has no inner drives.
When they see me remove the influences, they then think I am not about that “Way”, but they do not realize, ever, that the “Way” of the Vir is not the “Way” of my kind. My kind does not need it. My kind is not harmed in idleness, and my kind is not unexpressed, is not repressed, is not in need of actualizing, but is actualized. Therefore, my kind can be “still”, because the motion, the kinetics of my kind is inner, and not visible to humans.
The human then will think “we” have become idle, because I have removed myself as a source of motivation. I began to do this in the last decade only, because prior, had been providing a great deal of motivation to others, and I had observed, their fluctuations were correlated to what I was doing. When I was on mission, doing my thing, they would go idle and not be a part of any “Way”, and then when I would give them attention and guide in the “Way”, they would be very motivated. This leads to false affirmations, and if one does not check it, then they will be misled in the observed. What one does through their own efforts is the FACT of their CONDITION. NOT what one does when they are motivated by a SUPER ENERGY SOURCE, such as myself.
Therefore, as a part of Access Denied, is the practice of REMOVING ONESELF FROM THE EQUATION.
The primary motives are stationed around insecurity and fear, and the pursuit is to feel, not be, that of safe and secure, and/or to be entertained in the feelings of insecurity and fear. This is to say, entertainment that brings excitement can occur around triggering these fears and these insecurities. It is a myth that humans avoid pain and seek pleasure. Humans often dwell in pain states, reinforce pain states, and seek out pain as a sign that is easy to acquire that they are living. However, a “pained existence” is one that is death, not life; and defeat is death. This is what it means to “live a dead life”, to be the “walking dead”, the “animated corpse”. In the absence of self actualization, one is not living, though one may be with breath and animated. Animals are not alive in the intellectual sense. A Vir is the first step of coming to life, because a Vir, not a human, can be, and will be actualized in and through the Intellect. And this only occurs in strategic and tactical living, the only evidence of consciousness. Where one does not have a set of definable and deliberate strategies and tactics at living, they are not proven to be a Vir; they are truly assumed human, which is merely a chimp cursed with abstract thought as a requirement.
This is not me “dehumanizing” those who have seek to ENSLAVE, as all humans do. This is me humanizing humans. To be human is to be an insecure, fearful... Slaver.
Because of the insecurities and the fear, and their innate state, humans develop their ROLES of ACCESS with others, accordingly.
The first motivation and the third motivation, like the Three Duties, serve the second. This is what it means to say, the 1 and the 3 serve the 2.
The first is Control and Management. It serves the second, which is Servility and Provision. The third is Possession and Protection.
In the human realm, two of these are the characteristic duties of its males, and what gives them a sense of purpose. The male is said to be of the roles
Provider;
Protector.
Most human males, by degree, do not do this. Most human males DO NOT have the drive to Provide, but they “honor”, or that is, they obey the ROLE only, not the nature of that of “Provision”, and when this is the case, there are two categories for “Provision”, which is a resource based role :
-Servile;
-Earnest.
The genus is SERVE and PROVIDE.
The two species of such are SERVILE and EARNEST.
Earnest is defined as “resulting from or showing sincere and intense conviction.”
Earnest is chosen as an English term here because it also has in it the phonetics of “earn”. However, the two do not share in their etymologies.
Earnest (n.)
“portion of something given or done in advance as a pledge,” early 15c., with unetymological -t- (perhaps from influence of the other earnest), from Middle English ernes (c. 1200), “a pledge or promise;” often “a foretaste of what is to follow;” also (early 13c.) “sum of money as a pledge to secure a purchase or bind a bargain (earnest-money); from Old French erres and directly from Latin arra, probably from Phoenician or another Semitic language (compare Hebrew 'eravon “a pledge”). Sometimes in Middle English as erness, suggesting it was perceived as er “early” + -ness.
Earnest (adj.)
“serious or grave in speech or action,” early 14c., ernest, from Old English eornoste (adj.) “zealous, serious,” or from Old English noun eornost “seriousness, serious intent” (surviving only in the phrase in earnest), from Proto-Germanic *er-n-os-ti- (source also of Old Saxon ernust, Old Frisian ernst, Old High German arnust “seriousness, firmness, struggle,” German Ernst “seriousness;” Gothic arniba “safely, securely;” Old Norse ern “able, vigorous,” jarna “fight, combat”), perhaps from PIE root *er- (1) “to move, set in motion.” The proper name Ernest (literally “resolute”) is from the same root. Related: Earnestness.
Earnestly (adv.)
“in an earnest manner, warmly, zealously,” Old English eornostlice; see earnest (adj.) + -ly (2).
However, the term “earn” has the history as follows :
Earn (v.)
Old English earnian “deserve, earn, merit, labor for, win, get a reward for labor,” from Proto-Germanic *aznon “do harvest work, serve” (source also of Old Frisian esna “reward, pay”), denominative verb from *azno “labor” especially “field labor” (source of Old Norse önn “work in the field,” Old High German arnon “to reap”), from PIE root *es-en- “harvest, fall” (source also of Old High German aren “harvest, crop,” German Ernte “harvest,” Old English ern “harvest,” Gothic asans “harvest, summer,” Old Church Slavonic jeseni, Russian osen, Old Prussian assanis “autumn”). Also from the same root are Gothic asneis, Old High German esni “hired laborer, day laborer,” Old English esne “serf, laborer, man.” Related: Earned; earning.
The cheat to take note of in the etym. of “earn” is that the “earnings” were in “fields” more often, and not in “houses” or in a “settlement” sense.
To “earn a living” had to do with “fields”, be them cultivating fields, be them gathering fields, or be them hunting fields, or be them battlefields. The human male sense is the “field sense”, and this too is why provisions were gained from fields. A provider was not one merely who purchased from a grocery store. Using a medium of exchange for goods has distanced human males from field relations to goods. Of course, not everyone lives the same, but to repeat, my work is for the industrial world, which subjugates minds in comfort and ease. My work is not for farmers, and those living in lower industrious nations. Someone else will need to address their condition, other than myself.
Servile and Earnest are the species of relationship to “Provision”.
Most human males are not “providers” in the true sense of this term. This is why earning is related to this term. Most, more so than not, I shall say 80 percent of males, are not high earners, in their given construct. Most males work for average, and earn barely enough to solo care for a family. They are to be found more so in servile roles, or service roles, and living a day-to-day life that does not mirror the nature of fields, where risk and reward were often factors. Where the risks are low, it is not “fields”; it is the “settlement”. And with the low risk comes as well the low reward. High risk fields often require more skill, proficiency and courage, and therefore, yield a higher reward.
It is the way of the house, the way of the settlement to be about securing the feelings of its human females, and therefore, safety becomes a culture.
The cheat here is to realize, securing the feelings of others, that is “making others feel safe and secure”, is not the Way of the Vir, be them of the male sexual chemical body, or the female sexual chemical body. The easiest indication of a male and female being human is when they produce actions of seeking, actions of sustaining, actions of serving the interest of fear and insecurity, and on a day-to-day, these actions are carried out by almost ALL of the hominid populations.
Therefore, the cheat to recall is that a Vir might be mythological. I myself only know that my kind exists in me, even if I am the only one present. I have plenty of evidence that they once existed in numbers. But that intermediary stage of the Vir has only but presence in the past evidence, and hardly any evidence in the present to support the possibility of any significant amount of numbers to Pattern in importance.
Therefore, when one makes all this seem easily applicable to themselves, it is a very good chance a charlatan human is at play, seeking to use its “charms”, if they exist, to gain access to others. Caution and vigilance must be present here. Caution is not fear; it's Reasoned, and only a human would get the two mistaken as being one and the same.
The fear and insecurity is strongly correlated to resources. Resources are the easiest material way, which is the dominant way, to bring a sense of that of safety and security. If the question is asked... SAFETY AND SECURITY IN WHAT? This is the ultimate answer.
The feeling of safety and security is in that of “resource standing”, and any human who says their life has more to it than that of resource acquisition, that of resource management, and that of sustaining resource loops is a delusional romantic, or is a deceiver and liar. They will give a narrative of their values in absence of this obvious fact, and try to pass that off as viable and actual, but here is the CHEAT to pay close attention to.
DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT HUMANS SAY.
There is that joke, “how can you tell a Lawyer is lying?”, to which the punch line is, “his mouth is moving”. This is not a lawyer thing. This is a human thing. The common expression in the industries that deal in deception detection is not whether one is lying, for this is often treated as a given, to some degree, but why, and what the impact would be.
Self reflect. On Friday, make a list of everything you have done since last Sunday. A real list. Do not rely on memory, recall, and fantasies. Record. In that list... What did you do that was not about resources, and in your entertainment category, that of the 6th emotion of enjoyment, what kind of enjoyment was it? Did that enjoyment include others, and did you need to have a relationship to resources to get that access, and sustain that access to those others? In that enjoyment of others, are you arranged around resources, or can resources be entirely removed as a factor? Furthermore, list what you have done since Sunday, on this Friday, that would be an ACTION that could lead to a ADVANCEMENT, or that of a leveling up. Write down what that advancement was, and how, in the long term, it was an investment.
Think about this simple set of reflections, and when you sit down, realize the “cheat”. If you do not write, and you do not map out your thinking, and you just think your thinking, it is hardly definable and deliberate, and you will not be on guard around your own delusions.
You would not dare write these things down for another to view, and nor would they, because when challenged to do the same... they can not do it either, and this ineptitude that is shared makes you, and others like you feel secure and safe, on the ground of the value of the familiar.
The cheat for not being a mere “looper” living a servile existence is that of preparing to do battle. Anything one would do to prepare for battle would be leveling up, or getting ready to. Bringing the form to good health, endurance, and strength, and then bringing the mind towards the Intellect, through tactics and strategy. Bringing the mind towards advancing in Control and Command over conditions and self. In this cheat, the key is this. What advances that leads you towards self-reliance and independence, and this is strongly correlated to the resource realm. One needs greater resource acquisition for a greater Game of Life.
It is not that a greater Game of Life is needed for all kinds. Human kinds do not have a drive for a greater Game of Life. This is why to be human is to loop...
And let me solve a great mystery. The infinity sign in the tarot cards is not about some magic of goodness. The infinity sign is the sign of the loop the dunce of the majority is stuck in, and the Magi grasps its mechanics, and moves to Control its code.
Loopers have no drive to deviate from their course. Humans are loopers, and therefore, they will not have anything listed from Sunday, they have done to advance in their Control and Command. Making money is not this. Making money to be an entrepreneur and to invest in one's self and cause could be, but is not necessarily this. Resources are very important, and primary.
The Sage, which none of you are, can live the life of solitude. Humans can not live a life of solitude. Those who seem like they can often do so from defeat, and they do not acquire a great Joy of Equanimity and kinetics. They are simply waiting to physically die, as they were already mentally dead. The Sage would not live in solitude because solitude is of value. They live in solitude where there is no quality in association with others to be had. They do not “settle” for less, they demand the BEST, and this of themselves, not others. But in demanding the best of oneself, this requires expression, and among others, the best of oneself leads to being a target, and that is why humans, in their fear, conform.
The Vir is not the Sage. The Vir is a degree of potency that all Sages, to-be Sages have. No Sage is a Sage while at the same time being pacified, and without martial traits. In the absence of martial traits, one is not before a Sage; they are before a shaman, and the shaman uses things the Sage has produced for their predatorial expression of seeking access to others. The shaman hijacks the Reasoning of the Sage to hook the unsuspected.
The Sage can intellectually exist in a low resource condition, because the Sage has Equanimity, and an internal fire. The Vir, like the human, can not exist in a “blessed manner” in the absence of resource independence. Resource independence is absolutely necessary for expressing the “fight”, and living in and for principles and Virtue, but not at the cost of harm and conquest over others. The relationship a Vir is to have to resources is founded first upon primal skills and proficiency, which when exercised, beget sustainability, which when expressed, and because of the first, can withstand disruptions, war time―and therefore, is the only fortified form of potency. Prosperity is usually not founded upon sustainability and that of primal connections. Prosperity is weak, because it is often founded upon the faulty foundation of precedence, and familiarity. When this is the case, as it is for the industrial nations, it is proven by how the bulk of its populations do not have primal and sustainable skills, but exist solely in the state of “prosperity of precedence”, where others who came before them built their existence, and it is sustained in belief, mostly. Yet, in the ignorance of the masses, their shared consciousness is one of fear and insecurity. IGNORANCE is the primary source of fear and insecurity, and humans do not have a drive in them to cure ignorance, but instead, they fight to secure their ignorance. To a human, everyone else is stupid, and somehow, they are exempt from this judgement.
I do not play this game of delusion. I say, and say again to you humans who encounter my work... You are the masses, and in your inability to deliberate and define your own maps of thought, you are the stupid, the mental midget, the idiot, the simpleton. You are the masses.
If you are not fit to fight physically... You are the masses.
If you are not fit to Reason... You are the masses.
If you lack Control and Command over your conditions... You are the masses.
If you lack Control and Command over the content of your own mind... You are the masses.
If you are not mighty, but you are common, you are “basic”, then you are the masses.
You have been lied to your whole lives, and you have been the source of the looping of the lies.
You have castes among you, and when you do not realize this, it can mean only one thing : you are of the “common caste”. Those of uncommon caste know they are in a caste that is natural, and inescapable. The dumb, dull, unmotivated masses are called the common servile class. The merchants are often managers of the servile commons. The administrators of the commons are more often than not the shamans : your politicians, your priests, your media. And that once power caste of Vir has not been upon this Earth for the last six thousand years, because your shamans throw the commons at them to destroy them, for you, humans, FEAR the Noble and the Beautiful.
When you are of the commons, the multitudes, the masses, your “Provision” element, in motivations, will be low. You will not “work” to gain funds that you then save, and/or invest in a strategy. Instead, you will be characterized by working for funds or a medium of exchange to sustain a loop, a “Looping Actionary Cowardly Kinetics”. The cheat, here, as all the acronyms are, is “LACK”. One who is in this loop, where actions are cowardly taken, and this is the motion, or the kinetics, can easily be referred to as a LACKEY.
It is a trick of mine, when assisting others in mapping, to often connect terms with phonetic likeness, for easier recall. Lack and lackey is one who is lacking. However, the etymology, the history and origin of the terms do not seem to be the same. But with this said, where it is said that the term's origin is unknown, but then one of them is known, if the essence seems related, it may be then that there is a discovery in possible origins being the same. “Lack” has unknown origins; however, “lackey” seems not to. I would say, perhaps they are related. But they do not need to be. Once I deliberate upon them, in this system, then they are related.
Lack (n.)
c. 1300, “absence, want; shortage, deficiency,” not found in Old English, of uncertain origin. Perhaps it is from an unrecorded Old English *lac, or else borrowed from Middle Dutch lak “deficiency, fault;” in either case probably from Proto-Germanic *lek- (source also of Old Frisian lek “disadvantage, damage,” Old Norse lakr “lacking” (in quality), “deficient” (in weight)), from PIE *leg- (2) “to dribble, trickle” (see leak (v.)). Middle English also had lackless “without blame or fault.”
Lack (v.)
“be wanting or deficient” (intransitive), late 12c., perhaps from Middle Dutch laken “to be wanting,” from lak (n.) “deficiency, fault,” or an unrecorded native cognate word (see lack (n.)). Transitive sense “be in want of” is from early 13c. Related: Lacked; lacking.
To lack is primarily and generally to be without, that which is lacked being generally some one thing, and a thing which is desirable, although generally not necessary or very important. [Century Dictionary]
When one considers this term, what then is perhaps lacking?
The cheat, here, is where I was previously, with the term “earnest” and that has the notion of “sincerity”, the notion of “zealousness”, the notion of “zeal”, and that of a “drive”, “serious”, that of “grave”, a SERIOUS INTENT.
Those who are servile will remain in this loop, often blaming the “system”, but evidence is plenty to show, if determined, and if sincere, and if zealous, and with serious intent, one wishes to take more Control and Command of their life, or at least their resources, this “system” rewards such earnestness, even though it may require a long-term strategy, which too, may require some apparent losses along the way, in order to secure gains in the future. Humans are short sided. They see security and safety in the loop, in the now and the short, so they do not have the vigilance to SECURE a QUALITY FUTURE. They believe compliance and conformity in the now secures their future. They do not add the variables of quality, advancement, and gain. They do not “level up” their status.
This then means something is LACKING : that which has been stated under the subcategory of Provision I call Earnest, versus servile. A servant, often called a “footman”, a “pedestrian”, versus horse rider, manservant, was once called a LACKEY. What were they lacking, in order for me to compare the two terms? All of which I have said above, but mostly and simply that of DRIVE to be more. That of DARING to be more. That of PROTECTING what they are, so they could be more than what they presently are; their ADVANCED version.
It is a common belief among the commons that the downtrodden are there because some elite or others have chosen to put them there, and keep them there. Though this is valid, when considering all the systems of Control, and that such systems exist to maintain order among the castes, what is also valid, and what makes such soft systems possible, is that those it works on are timid, are inept, are LACKING in some DRIVE, or some POTENCY, some IMPULSE, some DISPOSITION, some PROCLIVITIES that could counter those systems; that could buck those systems; that could RESIST those systems; that could OVERCOME, which is to say CONQUER one's CONDITIONS.
This is a variable of natural and innate traits and attributes. One who is earnest is not so because of conditions. Neither is one who is servile. These two traits are internal, are innate, are default traits, but how they become expressed, and/or repressed is strongly related to the conditions, and how they play out. But one who was born to be earnest can not remain in a servile loop for long. They would have their mind's eye set on advancing their conditions―and though a Sage is forbidden by the internal Law to enslave and to subjugate, it is unfortunate that Vir and those other less potent groups do not have the same forbiddance innate to them, but instead, they must learn of the Law and be held to it.
Those who would be of the fullest stock or kin of Vir would internally forsake the very notion of slavery and subjugation, loving their own Liberty for Virtue so dear, that any thought of violating it in another would be akin to self violation. However, this stock, this kin, this kind in its fullest can not exist in modern times, where the present inhabitants of Earth, as hominids, are fusions of multiple kinds, and lack the potency of kind that was common in ancestral days. This is to say, present hominids, especially humans, are extremely diluted in their innate potencies.
Were I not an atavist, having the traits of my kin, my ancestors, I would not know this, for I would not have contrast and comparison. I am a full stock, a full kind, a potent kind, not partial and not fused. I am as if my ancestors had me as their offspring, NOT as if moderns gave me birth. I am born of the “past” conditions, not the present conditions. For the “geeks”, I am born a natural birth, not one in the matrix, the mother's womb.
Lackey has its roots in :
Lack·ey, noun
a servant, especially a liveried footman or manservant.
Lackey (n.)
1520s, “footman, running footman, valet,” from French laquais “foot soldier, footman, servant” (15c.), a word of unknown origin; perhaps from Old Provençal lacai, from lecai “glutton, covetous,” from lecar “to lick.” The alternative etymology is that it comes via Old French laquay, from Catalan alacay, from Arabic al-qadi “the judge.” Yet another guess traces it through Spanish lacayo, from Italian lacchè, from Modern Greek oulakes, from Turkish ulak “runner, courier.” This suits the original sense better, but OED says Italian lacchè is from French. Sense of “servile follower” appeared 1580s. As a political term of abuse it dates from 1939 in communist jargon.
Of course, I am not a communist, for I am not a collectivist, and though they may have used this among their pejorative attacks, the communists no longer use this, because they use soft language of tolerance to disarm.
When I think of and use the term “lackey”, here, I use it in regards to what one is lacking. It is not the pejorative sense of the Chinese “running dog”, or an “animal”, a “beast” with the sense that beasts are lower. This is not my Way. Though the Chinese may think ill of dogs and wolves, I do not. Not because I have been raised among the Americans―though I am not one―but because my ancestors were instrumental in the taming of the wolf for collaboration. Taming of the wolf for collaboration is not the same as domesticating the wolf or the dog for emotional needs, or best friend needs, as humans have. Humans do not collaborate much with dogs, minus a few of them in their professions. Humans have dogs like a child has a stuffed animal. They have them for emotional needs of insecurity, of fear, of control, of comfort.
When a human has a dog, that dog is cute and useless. It sits around and has no expression of its “working traits”, and may be a breed that has no innate potent traits to begin with. It can just move about, like a dumb child. When a Vir has a dog, it is always a dog that has potent traits at a Duty, a function, a purpose, like a hunting dog, a bay dog, or one more primal and exact. And the Vir then has the Duty to liberate in collaboration this expression in that dog. If one does not have the Duty to get that dog expressed in its nature, it is because it is a human who uses the life of the dog, like they do with other humans, to serve their petty emotional needs.
No honorable and noble intelligent being seeks out a collaborative animal for emotional needs, but this too is because they do not seek out the human animal to fulfill these needs either. That is the key. Show me a hominid with a dog, and I will prove to you, you are all SLAVERS. You subjugate other forms of locomotive beings for consumption, mostly founded on desire, not nutrition, and you subjugate other animals for your emotional needs, just as you all subjugate each other for such.
It is in this context, that I use the term lackey. One who is servile, and when servile, too, demands service in others. Humans are by default lackeys, and because of this, some of them, the small few, will have more control of the greater number : a lackey that is a shaman. All of the human kinds are lacking, and what they are lacking is in VIRTUE.
A human could not think for a single moment how the mere presence of a domestic dog is a major indication they LACK in Virtue, and they are SLAVERS. This, because―and let this be a cheat―humans have so much subjugation as a part of their norm, it is called “their love”. To which then gives the clear REASON for : don’t you dare LOVE ME... No thank you... I'm good.
Though there should not be shame in a human finding out what makes it human, with insecurity and fear, it is impossible for the human to not meet such realizations with shame. I do not help in this, in calling it all slavery and subjugation, but as the title of this document makes clear... These terms and the way they are presented are in a SELF-DEFENSE MANUAL. In order for others to be able to DEFEND their own innate traits from the rest of you who all need to “love” to subjugate, they must have a DEFENSIVE tone. It must not be sugarcoated.
A provider, in the general sense, is mostly a servant. One who is EARNEST, in the sense in which I am using it, would act differently around Provisions.
The most common of providers, the lackey male of humans, is able to be easily detected for why they would differ from the “Earnest”. The lackey works in the loop, and they will daily seek to “maintain” and “manage” what they already have, not take chances in an investment that has RISK. So what they were doing last year, they will be doing for the next decade, and with the small gains they may have, it will be because they “put in the time”. It will be because they are now the “preceding authority”. They have been here, and will have been here the longest. As they age beside their labor, they will feel elder like, and authoritative. To say “look what I have done”, they will need to point to “cars”, “houses”, “furniture” “decorations”, and “shinies”, or that is “toys”. Possessions. But here is the cheat... The LACKEY is and always has been a SERF, and their interest is and always is contained in a single home. A lackey does not come to acquire a network of “homes”, where they could ever pool together joint earnings to make a big move in collaboration. A lackey does not collaborate. They may attend outings with others, but not for collaboration. They will do the bare minimum, having no drive, and with these others, they will have no strategies or tactics in motion. It will be only lackeys with lackeys, no matter how well they will dress. Lackeys sharing the lackeys' delight with each other, the beer, for only a lackey deals in intoxicants. They can be rich, but it would matter not. Only a lackey lives the life they need to escape from. Only a lackey thinks thoughts that they do not need to protect. To engage in intoxicants, to drink alcohol, or to get high is to prove that one is not protective over a Pattern of thinking that is advanced. Those with daily advanced Patterns of thought would never partake in substances that interfere with advanced thought. Those who decree, they have advanced thought, and they drink and get high are those who have never come even close to advanced Patterned thought. Without this, one is innately doing all they do in service to others. For only those with advanced, developed, and ethical Patterns, adepts, could then become “Protectors”―for “Protection” differs from possession. Lackeys are not providers by nature. Lackeys are servants by condition, and for what they serve in their houses, for that they can not go beyond their houses is often some great revelation of ineptitude. Meaning, their offspring will be mental midgets. Their spouses will be mental midgets, and their network of company, their companions too, will be mental midgets, all confirmed in one simple cheat of observation... THEY HAVE NO COLLABORATIVE STRATEGY.
What makes the 10 to 20 percent different from the commons of 80 percent is that they are earnest. And in being earnest, they collaborate with others, earnestly. Because they collaborate with others, they benefit themselves and the others, and this has the impact of enriching the “fields” for all earnestly able to play in the “fields”―to which the commons can not, as their fear and their insecurities work at causing each other to undermine each other.
The Earnest can overstand the sense of :
Each one reach one. Each one teach one.
Of course, I am not a communist, for I am not a collectivist, and though they may have used this among their pejorative attacks, the communists no longer use this, because they use soft language of tolerance to disarm.
Humans and the commons only understand, only stand under dog eat dog, and undermine where you can, for “I am about mine”, and “mine is this house of mental midgets that gives me my only sense of existence”. “Day comes and I rise, and in that day I labor to provide for what?” The lackey provides for their family who is theirs, possessed under fear and insecurity. They do not and can not be “Protectors”, because they can not, and do not protect their own minds, and advance their own worth, becoming worthy of self-defense and “Protection”. A lackey “possesses”. Most of what you all refer to as a protective nature is not protective at all. It is possessive. You know this is the case, with... one simple cheat.
Take last year, from reading this. How many times did you, and/or so and so… have a day dedicated to ADVANCING in the ability to handle threats of all sorts? One week, out of 52 weeks, in a whole year? Not even that. One who has a Protective nature is proven and only proven by having a martial life, where it is weekly that they are engaging some martial development. The rest of you, the lackeys, outsource Protection to law enforcement, to military, and to securities. Those who outsource are those who are role based.
Buying a gun and spending a couple weeks a year shooting is not martial; it's sporty. There are many toy boys today, who buy tacti-cool, but have no sense of being tactical. How do you know they are toy boys? They will not be able to assemble a fighting force in any way. They do not exist as an individual in a fighting force. They will not even have one that is a single “battle buddy”, who could trust them with their life.
Bare minimum, to be a fighting force, it takes two, and on average, males prove―unless the military laid the foundation for them―that they can not buy their toys and then come together with another toy boy and push each other to drill battle buddy tactics, and skills.
If you, as an individual, can not meet your nation's military standards, which are low in the greater picture, then hardly can you say you have Protective elements innate to you. If you are not “fit to fight”, you are not Protective. If you are not learnt in fight, you are not Protective; you are POSSESSIVE, and likely, you are POSSESSIVE as a SERVANT, and the roles of Provision and Protection, in your life, are in name and romance alone, to hide the fact that in actuality, you are a lackey serving and possessing the greatest excuse to live a COWARD'S life, and that is precedence obedience, familiarity through family, all based in insecurity, fear, and low self-esteem.
The Earnest would never be “settled” with Controlling, serving, and possessing a “home”, a “house”, and a “family”. The earnest would understand risk and reward. The Earnest would understand what it takes to win, and part of that would be in that... One needs a band, one needs a gang, one needs a tribe, one needs organization, one needs hierarchy, and most of all, all of these need to conform to a sound set of tactics and strategies able to be deliberated upon, and defined. In the absence of this, one is not earnest, they are just servile. Every band of Earnest Men are of their own, their own government, their own military, their own police force, and their own producers of their values.
The social game of the servile possessor, who calls themselves Provider and Protector, is that of securing what they got, not advancing towards something better. What they usually have is nothing an earnest individual would ever consider worth fighting for, even though the masses share in the same low quality existence. An Earnest Provider would require that all they deal with are value added. They would not keep others dependent on them. This is a weakness. An Earnest Protector would require all around them, associated with them, too, be Protectors, capable and able, fit to fight and willing to fight, for this affords the greatest protection. Proof that the individual is neither an Earnest Provider, nor an Earnest Protector is that which they serve, and that which they possess, and sustain can not serve and sustain itself. It needs them. And it only will remain in need of them if the one dependent upon needs to be dependent upon, so they have excuse for their life of “playing it safe” and being a coward.
Even the most elite “Fighters” of your nation's military are exposed to be lackeys, when you see them “housed” once again, and ruled by a nation of little girl managers.
In the three roles of motivation, human females are motivated in access to human males under the innate sense the male serves these two roles of Provider and Protector, even though a human female rarely would ever see that their males of the commons are ever “Protectors”. Human females may be the reason for this cultural lie that males among the commons are Providers and Protectors. They know Protection is outsourced, and they could care less, because if it was on the males, it would still be outsourced. No Vir would ever consort with a female who shows no motivation to self stand in her own Provision, and her own Protection. Vir do not favor little girls. They favor battle buddies, and the male and female setup among Vir is just that : she, as a mate or associate, just like he, has to be fit to fight, and willing to fight. Where this is not the case, it is a realm of lackeys. The example of what could be Vir among your elite only shows when that elite Fighter refuses to leave his “loved ones” weak, and his female and her offspring have all been taken through a martial path. Where a so-called elite Fighter has not done this, he is only martial in the field as a job, and not martial in nature, and his life. He is SERVILE, and likely returns to the same house of dopes who screech GIMME GIMME GIMME, and I say this not from a distance. I have been around far too many elite nation-state Fighters, been to their homes, and seen them among their familiars and those who precede them. It is two different performances. Rock solid slicing and dicing in the field, or mostly training iterations, and in the house, reduced to the boys they were once under mommy rule. To handle this, they meet with their other male comrades and booze, so they can turn off their inner judge, that they know tells them, “YOU are not supposed to be this FEEBLE at life... YOU are supposed to be all-around ELITE”, though no one has ever been there to show them how. Over time, a Fighting stock gets massively reduced, and eventually, all the Fighting folk, male and female, of a nation-state are little boys and little girls, soft and sweet, that foreign nations laugh at, as they do right now, seeing the woke military of the so-called United States of America. Elite now is not the same as what elite was, in the late 90s and early 2000s―and elite in 10 years is going to be behind what standard was, in previous generations. Elite means better obedient, and able to eat and suffer more poop pies than the next man, and rarely if ever translates over into the field.
Someone who serves in a profession at war is not a Vir. They are often simply the more less fortunate lackeys of the nation-state, who were trained to think SERVICE is noble. It's not. Merely wearing a uniform―which I have worn many―has led lackeys to think it automates valor, and that others claiming association by lying are then “stealing valor”. That is chump human role-play. Any who has extensively known this nation's Fighting forces, internally, would not characterize their experience as predominantly valor full, nor even half. Their tales are of mental midgets commanding in ways that would cost lives, and that of the incest of institutional training, where stupid breeds stupid. Those who screech “valor” are those little kids who may have told far too many stories of others to civilians who have no sense of what military life is really.
The cheat, here, is that if you think your military Fighting force has Vir, you are greatly mistaken. There may be those who have the nature to be, of a Vir, perhaps even more than the commons, but in the military, such a nature would never be allowed to prevail. The military is seeking the mommy-stamped, like most civilized sectors, and the offspring called soldiers are run to be weak, not strong.
Human females begin with the fear and the insecurity around their form, that is, their bodies. Not appearances, but attention based. Human females do not primarily attract attention for “sexual access” to others. That comes after the primary of securing attention, as a means of securing a role as the source of validation to a male's Sense of Self. The more attention females get from males, the greater the sense of being in a “secure” network. This too is why, if foreign raiders came against familiar males and replaced them, instantly, the human female would repeat the same attention seeking behavior. It is primarily driven for attachment reasons, and the attachment figure, for females, are “figures” in the plural, and their aim, instinctively, is to bring about their role as the attachment figure. A human male does not have a drive to be an attachment figure. A human male has the drive to be attached.
These two differing chemical drives determine the status in value of male and female sexes among humans. Males have the singular drive to “attach”, and that is to a “mommy figure”, or the sense thereof. Females have the drive to “attach to a daddy figure”, but also the drive to be an “attachment”, to be at the center of the attention of the “daddies”, the males. Because she has these two drives, and she has increased insecurity and fear around attachments, she is more socially aggressive, and she plays a duality based game that the human male is mostly oblivious to. This is the reason why human males are possessive over females. It is a myth that human males are selective. Human males, in essence, fall for whatever female is in their targeting spectrum, and accessible. Some call this oneitis.
It shows why human males are weakened by human females. The presence of a female makes human males less, in the sense of willing and able to fight. However, in the presence of a female, there is a possessiveness that could look like Protectiveness, and a weak and fragile male could be observed to buck up and enter into an appearance of Protection, but he will do so even if not able to “Protect”, proving possession is the true factor. He would do so even if his defense posture led to his destruction. This makes males and their oddness to risk, and stupidity inferior in the “survival game” to human females. Nature has made human females to be of greater value among the sexes than human males. Human males not knowing this, and being dependent upon for the needs of a female, also receive the romantic verbiage of the female by way of praise, that their value is in Providing and Protecting.
When asked, “who do you provide for?”, the lackey says “family”. When the same question of the Vir is asked, they reply with, “my war band, which too provides for me”. And family would be a secondary to that, and its members would be one and the same. When the lackey is asked what do they Protect, they say family, but they do so only because their “family” is under the Protection of the state. If the state was not the source of Protection, and a threat arose, the lackey would show they could not honor this role of Protection, and the fact of the matter is, only the human males believe this hype, and the reason why their human females do not respect them is because they all know you are all chumps, and you are not dangerous and able to protect. A female would never RESPECT a male who is not DANGEROUS.
Most will not grasp this notion of being dangerous. It does not mean what most would think, in that they do not have this trait. It is a Virtuous trait to possess, but not for this treatise to address with greater clarity... For this is Part I of many parts.
The role for the human female to the human male is “validation” of their value. Human males do not have a self-sustained value of themselves. They have a collective correlated value. A human male values themselves based on the mirrored value in a human female. This is why for human males, it is harder for them in “breakups” than it is for human females, often able and ready to choose another to move onto. Hardly should a human little girl be taken serious when she speaks of heartbreaks. She will show the same level of attachment to the heartbreak she does when she watches a film. It's theatrical. But a human male will commit suicide after breakups, and will have their whole Sense of Self thrown into disarray.
Only a small percentage of males do not form attachments to human females. This could be based on natural birth, or it could be the cause of a less controlling, less overbearing mother in their development. If you are mommy-stamped, it is the oxytocin stamp, and it means too much time was spent with mommies, in the house or schools, and therefore, in a male body, you are driven by female stimulation and structure. Every young male I meet these days has the mommy stamp, and I have not seen a Free male, able to be a male without permission in a long time, if not since Brooklyn, and before the turn of the century.
The attachment a male forms to the role of the female is that she is “management”, and this seems like a supporting role, but it is not. The first “management” expectation the male has, but does not know he has, is she needs to tell him what to “feel”, like his mommy did. She needs to “manage” and “maintain” his emotional states, that he, with his low self-esteem and conditioning, believes he is “not in tune with”. Females propagating this narrative are nothing but disruptive. Males have been taught as if there are emotions they are supposed to feel that females only seem to know about. They then need the females to guide them. This is like someone writing a scientific manual about unicorns, and then demanding some adventurer capture one in the wild.
The cheat, here, is that it's like how slight autistic folk are taught they need to be more relational, and some emotional, is brutalizing their Sense of Self, because they were not born with that unicorn program. Males are being emotionally brutalized by mommies and the females to follow, because they are being taught the emotions of unicorns, and they can never live up to the presence of those emotions, in actuality. Females managing the emotions of males leads to sick males. Females are not able to manage emotions; to which all observations point to, on average, not in absolute, females are RULED BY THEIR EMOTIONS―but it is a mistake to think “males are not”, and that they are ruled by Reason.
CHEAT : Males are near to as emotional as females, and indeed ruled by their emotions. The difference is that males are not permitted to use their emotions as an excuse for bad behavior, and they are held to stricter social requirements. In order to compensate for the absence of deference in this area, males use their emotions in more subversive and undermining ways, trying to make it seem related to the goals, objectives, and relationship to resources. Males lash out with their emotions in more covert ways, and these males, more so, are referred to as “bitch males”. Males, human males, are emotional, and it is because of this that they betray each other and undermine each other, any chance they get, just like Mommy did to Daddy, in front of them. Only, they do it with a smile, a joke, and the appearance of it being about something else, other than their Sense of Self, and status. Contemptuous, displeased, malcontent males have the worse of Mommy in them, and the cowardice of Daddy.
Human males, Delusional Under Domestication, DUDs, do not have the needed deference to be upfront about the pettiness of their emotions. However, that is changing as more females manage more male emotional bodies, and have the male pretending at the presence of their emotional unicorn, as a means to get the access to the female. The way you can know a male is a boy and has the stamp of Mommy, is that he is NICE, and nice is ignorant, foolish and stupid. Nice is synonymous with mental midgetry, and being a “simp”, or that is... a simpleton.
Question : What is the character of “female management” of male emotions?
Answer : The moment a female preaches to you “vulnerability”, she is trying to manage your “emotions”, and for males, often, “vulnerability” is their unicorn. A lackey will serve her and engage in these talks. It is interesting how a male can for so long think everything is going well with himself and his success, only to later need to find out from a female that he is inadequate, and now, somehow has something wrong with him, things only the shaman human female seems to be aware of... and have some drive to fix in him. This is how most males will be managed by females. First, it will be the mommies managing them, as no males will have come to do so. Therefore, where did the male get managed towards those more akin to his “sex”? He did not get managed by things akin to his chemical makeup as a male; he was managed by his mommy, and there should then be no surprise when males want to be “females” to capture the unicorn Mommy told them about, and the unicorn other girls tell males about, that they somehow can not find.
Female mystery to males is because they are stooges of females. Men, Vir, the competent and the Adept, do not see a mystery; they see a charlatan, and most females, just like most males, are charlatans. The commons are charlatans, and this is why they are so miserable.
The first role is management, and it is of the emotions, and the Sense of Self of the male. When this “service” is provided for that male, the female is motivated to provide it in exchange for “safety and security” in resources. Not Protection. It is a myth that a female's interest in most of her male interest would have this expectation. Boys can not provide protection, and oblivious to threats, a female can not detect one until it is right in her face. Human females have no trait of vigilance, and neither do human males. Humans are not vigilant creatures... Humans are dull and stupid, and that is why they do not have drives to prepare for threats, and their Sense of Safety and Security does not require evidence, only the feeling of being so.
In exchange for managing his emotions for him, because he is a DOPE, and has been trained to chase the unicorn by mommy, she requires he “makes a living for both of them”, to which she will help him do so, and be his drive to do so, where he lacks these things in himself. Many males have become high earners not by their own motivations, but because of the motivations of the female managing them. When not self-driven, they are driven by her towards suffering, to which they declare, they are the luckiest man in the world to have such a wonderful spouse, for without her, none of what he thinks he has, would he. And this, too, is often valid. This is the one with appearance of earning, and thus appearing Earnest, but he is not Earnest. He is a chump who was driven hard by a more demanding mommy/mate, and he is merely servile. This would be proven in how he made gains, and what happened to him after the divorce.
When the human male makes gains in resources, it is the role of the human female to manage it, as well as the meaning of it. A male then moves to rest, only... This is not permitted among domestic human females, for they do not see, nor care about what was needed for the resources, and she holds, too, he must share in the “house duties”. When both engage the labor forces, this makes sense, in that they share in all of it, but even as she pulls back out of the labor force to have children, such an expectation would remain, and her excuse at continuing living in ineptitude will now be offspring, and the burden these mental midget females need to remind everyone of, and often. Too, this is his excuse for being a taxpaying coward who will take no risk in life. I have a “family”. Yes you do. You possess that very desirable thing to the weak, to make sense of just why they are cowards.
Where then the male is servile in provisions, the human female has the natural role of managing the provisions. Protection is not a true role that has ever existed among the commons, and the very notion of it is leftover from the ancient caste of the martial. Oddly, and it is odd, the Americans of a more rural sense seem to try to have this role as a factor, hence the favor shown in firearms. But no overweight bumpkin is a “Protective force” merely because he can fire a rifle. Combat with a gun is about “maneuvering”, and being in the right position, the right angle, with the right amount of speed, at the right moment, to which many adult human males, can never fulfill. Having a gun does not make you a Protector; it makes you a resource for newly acquired weapons by a more primal raider. You are their toy store when they come, to which they would exclaim, “Thank you for holding onto these things for me till I arrived, but now I am here, step aside!”.
The same roles can be said about mother to daughter, to son, to daddy, and daddy to daughter, and daddy to son. Daddy even looks to his daughter to manage his emotions, to which she will, and even around 4, play him like a harp and laugh at his stupidity. I literally told a little girl that I saw what she did, and she laughed at me in recognition of getting caught, and the daddy was oblivious. To be sure, I asked her to describe what I saw, and she laughed, and said it exact... She gets him to “do things for her”.
He needs her, the daughter, and the mommy, to help him make sense of his repressed emotional states, and both of them are programmed by nature to do just that, but in the interest of creating servants for their own emotional needs, and feelings of insecurity and fear. The son, however, is not looked at as an emotional manager; he is looked at by the daddy through his own failure. “We”, to the daddy, “are failures, servile, and do not amount to much”. This is the way among the commons, and regardless of what charlatan speech is produced from their mouths, their behavior reveals this. The daddy managed by mommy is proven in that the son will not know much of what had ever come out of his mouth that was meaningful, other than “be responsible my son”. “To whom?” is never asked. “Be responsible to the women, my son, for they are the ones with the plan and know what is going on... And we be fools, without them”. And this is all it amounts to, on display with these stooges moving about, never allowed to have their own interest, but serving the interest always of others.
But like the wonderful Lauryn Hill said with her lyrics :
“You just lost one”,
But only, I was never lost to all this, but I was never had to this. Never had, because I was born naturally with the needed defenses to not be the stooge of others. I was born with written on my Nature…
ACCESS DENIED.
This concludes Part I of Access Denied.
