Part II
The Battle of Access
Chapter 3
Emotional Kinetics of the Battle of Access
Now, I said I had another tale to tell as an example, and some pages ago, I brought up the trip to Hawaii. This being stream, or flow writing, it needs to go where it goes, and I can care less if minds are turned away from this form of dictation. Go and turn away. It is not for you. Though, if remaining, ask thyself why? Is it then for you? Not necessarily.
I spent 21 days with this fella as his personal consultant. By packs we moved around Kauai, with some nights spent at resorts to re-up and re-orientate, and mix the experiences. It was all about performance enhancement, a skill area that I have consulted in professionally throughout the past.
The short version of the lesson was simple: be strong and powerful on your own, and “do not HUNT!”. That when you HUNT your own mind and conquer, all that would be worth HUNTING will come to you. In your power, in essence, nothing else is POWER. It all becomes petty. He could not grasp this, and when he saw that the island was bending to my “will”, he could only presume it was doing so because I made it “bend”, not that it “bent itself” my way. So then, I flipped the switch, and told him to then “hunt” and do as I was doing. When he did what he thought I was doing, he created an adverse presence that shut down and turned others away. He thought he knew what I was doing, but he did not, and in 21 days, combined with years of having been exposed to me, he had nothing to take away, because he was not right for the things I showed.
I did not yet cross this realm of exposing others who sought it out. Meaning, he was one of two individuals that would be the last investigations to figure out how to answer these questions constantly brought to me. He was a shaman charlatan, trying to walk like a “Warrior”. The two can not exist in the same presence.
He had spent 21 days in a new place, not having one day of cowardice at living, because such is not possible around me. So when he returned to the house and the wife, he figured he was no longer a coward, and of course, always blamed her for his cowardice.
The first night, I found him scolding and directing her at their kitchen counter, about all the things she needed to implement, and why. From her point of view, these were not his words, because she knew the truth: her husband is not “in charge”, he is a coward, and she “bends” him. So she started to play with him and show interest, knowing better than him the long game, that when I was gone, he would revert and lose motivation, and be reduced to the “truth”.
Only, what she could not realize is that what he was saying and doing was the opposite of what I showed and communicated. I immediately approached and asked him why he was telling her what to do, and making it about her.
You see people, this is how inept, incompetent, and insecure people get down. This is not what I guide in. It is simple, I “preach”:
ONLY DO YOU, and DO NOT try to get others to be you, and DO YOUR THING. I also do NOT preach to leave others, get divorced, and separate. This is what you all do. I preach “do you” and make NO compromises, and DO NOT demand compromise and sacrifice of others; assist others to DO THEM, and then get out of their way. This is what he heard me say, and show. What he brought back to his cage, the house, was him trying to mix it in what “I do” and “I say”, and because I did not counsel her, of course she would think this was me.
After I destroyed his attempt to pass off his words and actions as if they were the point of the last 21 days, he had no excuse. He wanted Control over her, because she had default Control over him. He wanted to overthrow Mommy, and thought I had provided this. I do not. I do not guide others in overthrowing mommies and daddies; I guide others out of being Children of Ineptitude, if and only if by their own efforts and nature, this is even supposed to happen. Most are always supposed to be Children of Ineptitude, and this is why, when you are of an “out of house age”, you still call those two Mommy and Daddy, with variants, and use language like a child, and a subject. Then in extension, your relationship is the same with the state, and you use your “violent vote”, as all votes are, to vote in a presumed better mommy and daddy to run the state, and like inept mommies and daddies, they do just that; and some then want to overthrow them as the bad Children of Ineptitude, and others want to support them as the good Children of Ineptitude.
This is what you all do. This is not what I do. This is not a part of what I preach and demonstrate.
But you can not see past your predatorial child that you made, who returns to you and tries to pass off their inept fused ways with my words, as if they have something to do with me. They do not.
If you are learning of me, and have some telling you what I am about, then they are your “predators”. Anyone having read my works and knowing of me, and being sincere in association, knows that you DO NOT DO THIS. Instead, they either say nothing; or if they think things can speak to your nature, they tell you where to look by your own efforts; or in the case of this self-defense manual, they have told you about it so that your delusions can be smashed by my Vajra. It means you have come at them in so many scripted and expected ways, that “We”, those not playing your enslavement, have a single source ready for defense.
Then, through this, there is a “script”, in many ways, to combat your script, and why this will Pattern in importance is because “We”, those valuing Liberty, valuing Arete, and Virtue, need to STOP helping you with your MUD.
This is the point and purpose that motivates me to write and publish. It will not be making me money. You can be sure of that. There is no way I would ever be a bestseller, or read by many. If I was read by many, then many of them are predators trying to find out how what I have said can be used to entice others into their base ways, insecurities, fears, and need to embellish their Sense of Self. This is why, again, if you hear it from their mouth and about me... then you have your charlatan. You have someone before you who is not truly associated, and you should make it known that you did more than them, read the works, and that the works expose how to detect these kinds.
When they put forth the script in response to your mud, they will say, here is the scripted response to your script, and perhaps alert you to the absence of skill in your ability to manipulate, to seduce, and to gain and/or maintain access to them. Prior to the release of this manual, many had to write in their own words responses to the mud of others. Prior to the release of this manual, any of those who did that... returned back to their houses and returned back to the familiar. There are but a handful of individuals in this world that have not returned, and of those, most of their interactions with me have not been in flesh, but by email and communication of the written word.
Those of you who know of the “returned” who knew me in flesh, you got your “predator” back, and they failed to possess and to own me. For many, I am the ultimate challenge. I, that individual that appears to stay to his own, and those liking the challenge say, they will get me to sacrifice my Ways for them. Never has this, or can this occur. As predators, they marked me, and I knew this. So then I would tell them, and teach them what they did unskillfully, and for the most part, lead them to being more skilled, with self-defense being the point, but they will then return more capable of controlling and manipulating you, house morons. And how would they have returned? Well, as predators, they would admit they were wrong for leaving their familiars, and say they were “under some spell of a charismatic”, and “the thoughts were not their own”. And because the familiars never had access to me, they will have only what their returned predator shapes. And that returned will never have been seen as someone who was “on the hunt”, and “hunting that great whale”. No, they are the victims. But you all never stop to ask yourself, how did they maintain access?
You will not ask this... because you believe if they were prey targeted by a social predator, then that predator had to be engaged in maintaining access to them, doing all they could to keep the association. Well, this would be the norm, because it is also what all you do to each other. It is also why you value sacrifice. Sacrifice, both demanded and given, is just how access is maintained.
You would have never heard that I was against sacrifice, and against compromise. You will never have heard that why they failed to maintain access to me is because I always remain accurate to my nature, and no one can get me to shift; also, that they were not required to maintain access with me, and at all times were told to be where they are supposed to be. No one who returns does so after denying me access. If they have returned to you and your inept society, it is because they lost access to me. If they lost access to me, then that would imply I was not trying to maintain access to them. Otherwise, no one would ever leave from my guidance. Not once has this ever occurred in my life, and you inept children will then accuse me of being manipulative and arrogant for even stating such.
I cut off access, and I deny access. After all, that is the very topic of this piece. Now, I will not go into details about past associates who were close enough to “Pattern” with value. Whenever I speak of someone as an example, these are those who were “snakes” from the start, never allowed authentic access, and kept at bay for a reason. But those having been mentored in depth, I would never speak ill of. When they return to you familiars, they have to manipulate you, and it only makes sense, then, and now, for me to be their Azazel, their scapegoat. This is what I am to you “norms”. And I do not use this demon's name lightly. I have literally been characterized as Azazel by groups that in taking to this, tried to cause me harm. I will not travel to the deep with this one, but I bring it up to point out that of course, your returned predator has blamed their departing on me, when they come to lose access to me. And here is something they do not tell you… I actually taught them to do that.
Everyone who associates with me, based upon learning, is reminded of the impermanence around association with me. That I am always going to be and do me, and this means, by statistics, eventually, they will need to go their own way, and too, that this is a good thing, because when close to me, they are under my glow, as well as protection. That efforts with me, to be on point, are too easy. That because of me, and being in proximity, success is more common than failure, and failure is a better teacher. This too is why, as you chumps have not been told, I tell the “Departing” to not cut ties, and instead, redefine and state to others who they are, or at least, think they are. I say to give others a chance to respond to you the way you think you should be treated. That if they are not injurious, then why cut them off? Ask who they are, profile them, and explain to yourself what value they are of to you. You norms are the testing and experimental ground I preach others ought to make use of. They can not do this when they quickly get rid of you, which, let me tell you, EVERYONE moves to do RIGHT AWAY, without this ever being “my Way”.
I am not the source of that ENERGY you see to GET RID of YOU!
That was already in them, for the reasons of your social orders, and its betrayal of their natures. I am the source of the motivation for them to experiment with you, and to profile you, and to hold their own among you, and then when you all are exposed for being the predators you are, the real Departed actually departs only from those of you who were despicable and aggressive, and there was no value worth preserving. For those who respond well to the individual coming to their own, and then taking up developmental activities with them, they develop a more meaningful association than the previous one, founded upon familiarity in the mediocre.
Had this cowardly male not tried to force ways on his wife, but just lived strong daily as he was shown, he would have been an example to her, in how she could do the same. That too, she is not to compromise, she is not to sacrifice, but instead, needs her own value, and to demand a standard for her condition. Neither of them wanted to be free or strong, but they wanted excuses to fail, and revert.
After making it clear to this fella that he was too cowardly for what I am about, and that I was causing him harm by allowing him access to me, I cut him off, and went my way, no longer to communicate.
I did not fight over his mind and character. To me, he did not have one. He did not cut off access, but you bet he was ready to turn me into Azazel when it came time to apologize to the wife. I am his Azazel, as I am likely to be yours, as the one who will eventually revert back. I do not seek to keep any of you, for most of you prove always to be simply predators looking for a challenge, and you can not come near to conquest over me. Because of this, it had to be, “you freed yourself from my conquest over you”. That câlice is rather hilarious. Here is why.
I do exactly what I say I will. I do not shift in beliefs, or come up with some absurd route of changes. I am so clear in my Ways, I can write this piece about it, systematically and well-defined. I do not speak differently from this. I do not guide others differently from this. It is the written version of the things I say and show over and over again; yet to even those predators who sought me out, most of it will come as a surprise to them. “I do not remember that”, they may say, and then as is even done in front of me, say I was about the opposite.
Why?
In order for those “reverts” to have maintained access to me... what did they have to do that you are all familiar with? The answer is simple: conform and be agreeable. Surely, I did not keep those around me who were there to tell me I was wrong, or there to tell me there was “another way”, or that they were my teachers and guides, or that they have no value for what “I kick”. This means your returned predator, the “revert”, had to tell me everything they thought I wanted to hear. Where did they learn that from?
This is not what I preach. I do not tell others what I think they want to hear. If I did, I certainly could not write this piece. I certainly could not live as I do. This is not my Way. So then could I have them merely agreeing with me with words, to maintain access to me, and perhaps, not know this? Of course I knew this, and more so, I also called them out on it all the time, asking for what actions were true to their nature, and being sure they realized, it needs to be about them. If they then turn and lie, and deceive, staying associated with me, when I am blunt and straightforward, who is the predator and manipulator here? Your “revert” is. But you all can not see this. You can not see it, because it is exactly the nature of your upbringing. Tell Mommy and Daddy what they want to hear, so we can then get what we want. Tell Mary and Marky what they want to hear, so we can, in the mating game, get what we want.
Your Maries and Markies of ineptitude
Mary is trained to attract Marky, because these days, it's not needed for Mary to try to attract Mary, because homosexuality, if anything, is not a sexual marketplace with the same mating standards. A Mary looking for a Mary just needs to say so. But for a Mary to get a Marky, that requires more. He has more needs to be met; needs to be treated like a man, only at first, though he is Mommy's inept little boy, and most Maries know this. But she knows he needs to think otherwise for her to get what she wants: security, stability, and a house. He wants to feel like a man, and one better than his daddy. Because if Marky is better than his daddy, he has achieved. He knows how Mommy, I mean, Mary, should be treated; and how does he know? Well, Mary Mommy taught little Marky how to be a man. How a Mommy makes a man is a mystery, but not for now to resolve.
Mary entices Marky easily. She makes Marky hunt. Marky thinks he chose his target, and thinks he is on the hunt. He is oblivious that first, he had to wait to be selected by Mary, and then, when given the subtle signs, the mating game could begin. No male is hunting a female who has not given them permission to hunt. But males are the ones seen as predators in the game of mating. Females who fall for a fool, abusive, or worthless, whatever the case, were “innocence” led astray, of course only to those inept and ignorant, delusional commons. Not to those who know better through observation and experimentation.
Marky is attracted to me, because females are attracted to me, and other males will hesitate to mess with me, and in extension, them, on account of me being dangerous. Maries are attracted to me, because I offer challenge, I do not waiver, and they have been through too many of Mommy's Markies who, like cowardice boys, blame females for their cowardice, the cause, even though females just bring about revelation.
That is a part of the challenge for Mary to try to con me, so that she could be the one to “reveal” that I am a boy, and not a Man, and when this occurs, everyone gets to rest assured that when you are not with a “real Man”, it is not your fault... You can say, “it is because there are no real Men anymore”. All your Maries try this with me, and the only way they can get access to try this is to use deception, and fake an interest in what I do. I will never try to get them, and certainly not through faking an interest. I have no fake interest. In fact, I tell your Markies and your Maries when exactly they are talking about, or being about something I have no interest in. I am one of those individuals who can truly refute the claim, “in life, we all have to do things we do not want to”. Je m'en câlice, this ain't me. And your Maries and your Markies learn that fast. And when they learn that, they can not use the same deceptions of trying to get me to compromise and to sacrifice. They have but few options.
In order to maintain access to me, for whatever their motives are, they need to either be about what I do, or in refutation of what I do. Meaning, those who pose a challenge to what I do have Entertainment value to me, and so long as they put up a joyous “fight”, I maintain some association. But these kinds are rare, and often far more entertaining than your timid Markies and Maries of ineptitude. You do not train them to offer refutation and dispute. So they are left only with conforming in order to maintain access to me. But whatever their motives are, they are the ones that are seeking access to me.
I am not motivated to access others, and this is proven by the multiple times in my life that I try to leave society alone, and go live somewhere quiet and away, to simply do me. Many will meet me during these times. I am with a backpack in the woods, or moving in the streets, or in a library with my computer, working. It is your Markies and Maries that then approach and begin their inept games of access, and often around these inept games, they become made aware that I am a Master of these “plays”, and I show them how they can improve. I show them because without skill, your Markies and Maries are boring. I wish to be entertained, if interrupted. An interruption to my direction without Entertainment in exchange is an offense.
The first thing I do with your Markies and your Maries is teach them about Seduction and so-called power. I teach them about what you call “Manipulation” as normies, and do all over the place, while accusing others as a form of smoke screen. I do this motivated by Entertainment, and for another reason. Every Marky and every Mary that comes to me to try to “play” me, which is everyone, will eventually fail, and run back to Normyvale. When they do so, they have to be better off than they were when they came. This is my “value added” policy. Now, once back with you, they may bad-mouth me, but on the side, they should be showing some better Control and Influence than they did when they previously met me. But you will only know this as far as your own ability at Control and Influence. If you are some inept fool, by far, it would first be surprising that you were able to read this far, some 100 pages into this book, and therefore, just as surprising if you even could catch their development.
Too, when they learn about these things from interacting with me, something else is born out of prudence. Let me explain.
You imbecile “parents” were not engaged in overt lessons with your Marky and Mary about Seduction, about Manipulation, about power, and about Control. If you were, it would be commonplace, and the compositions published by Robert Greene, The 48 laws of Power, and The Art of Seduction would not be New York bestsellers. For me, the crowd I knew when young, they would have no need for these books, for “we” knew the sources, and unlike Robert Greene, “we” lived the plays in some form or another. Some “form or another” is key here, I will so return.
Instead, you use no skill, but just default parental Manipulation on your young. They were never armed, nor allowed to fight back against your arbitrary demands. You were “parents” and they were “children”. To you, nature prepared them for obedience, but in actuality, nature prepared them to overthrow you―you were just too stupid to observe that. In reality, you had to “submit” them to your order, and without skill, you did so in ways they would then model their own relationship with Manipulation off of. They would become inept around Seduction, like you, inept around power, around Control, and that of Manipulation. In addition, they would become, as you would praise, vulnerable to those more accustomed to plays and their tactics. You, as I have said... made victims.
Now, if there was a school curriculum on Seduction and power, teaching them when they were seven, you and your like would have surely overthrown this. Now, you do not mind that they teach your young that they are all racist and homophobic, even before having any sense that these things are issues, but if they taught your young how unskilled you were, and what kind of Manipulations you ran on them, well then you would lose Control over your petty kingdoms, your houses. The same can be said about the female, or rather the feminist reaction to “pickup artists”, which I am not, and those who write about “the game”, and so explaining the “sexual marketplace value”. Those daring to enter these realms get accused of being evil, a bit of Azazels themselves, not for inventing the game, but for describing its mechanics to those previously oblivious, mostly males, to the way in which the “plays” are performed.
Effeminates need their targets to be vulnerable. Only a predator would ever praise vulnerability, for surely, this makes for better “game”, or prey. What someone does learn when they learn about the mechanics of Seduction and of power, of Control and Manipulation is first and mostly only that there is a “game”―though yes, as I have said, a mini-game by comparison. Most of them who read the works can not increase their Control in the game, but now, they know there is one. The inept will feel victimized and lied to their whole lives; the noble will get armed, and capable.
For the most part, this is the first step one takes in getting access to me. They can not have access to me, in any meaningful way, without learning these two things.
I call out your Markies and your Maries of ineptitude. I show them how they “hunted me”. Know this, if you know a “revert”, surely they will not think it good for them for you to be reading me. They will not think it good that I am about to give you something better than I gave them; a written guide that can be referenced, that also will show how instead of Control and Influence the way I promote it, the “revert” brought the Manipulation born out of ineptitude, that all your houses, schools, and political realms use so poorly. In essence, “reverts” better be cautious in what they say about me after this publication, because others will be able to research what I say and what I actually promote, and then compare it to what others claim and exhibit, that is born out of their nature, and not my own.
Rarely does something like this occur. Instead, one who originates systems is replaced by an impostor, who is altered to match the needs of the familiar and to be less threatening, or in the case of the Azazel comparison, is demonized―for providing what? Demonized for providing “armaments” and “weapons of war”. This is what I do, hence the accusation and name calling. I produce content that arms individuals towards greater Control and Influence, and when this was originally done only orally, it was inferior, and others could alter it. After this, that will be made more difficult.
You will not be the only source of characterization. One could surely call this piece a deception, and the writer a deceiver. By all means do so, but in reading this piece to its end, you will enter a more demanding realm for that accusation. You will, for the first time perhaps, be introduced to the “real” nature of deception and its sources, and now be able to discern about its application. In the end, if one still remains of the thought that I am a deceiver, then it would beg the question… towards what aim?
Some could and would say that the act of blatant honesty is in fact a form of deception, and though Seduction may be right here, deception it could not be. And even then, that many are seduced by honesty would beg the question, what do you know of that term, and how, when knowing its means, has “truth” ever led anyone astray? And if indeed truth can lead one astray, is not then the “astray” that of being from falsehoods? And then is not the one accusing the “truth sayer” of Seduction in the bad, the same one then trying to preserve falsehood, and ignorance?
I have never known this, through observation and experimentation, to NOT be the case. ALWAYS, those who accuse me of deception, of Seduction, and of Manipulation never know that, though all of this could be called true, except deception, for I do not violate the Laws of Identity, calling a thing what it is not... In two of three being true, what do I do are they a part of? My accusers never know that answer. Those of you “departing” face the same ignorance. They do not know what you have learned, and will. They do not know what you are being “led astray” from, and what “treason” has attracted you. They know or “feel” one simple thing: they are losing access to you, and they do not like this, and they want, for whatever motives, to “maintain access”, and in the absence of attractive value, they are only left with trying to pervert and warn, disrupt the image of that which has attracted you, and in order to do that, in their ignorance, they have to color it only in the ways they can, by calling it things typical to social disruptions.
The same fella I spoke of previously, whom I accompanied to Hawaii for counseling, would take advantage of the pandemic that would occur in 2020 as a means to re-establish contact. I had not been in communication with them for some time before that, and I allowed for access, though only brief. To try to win me over, he did as most of you do, begin with trying to say “you were right”, and in this case, that he was a “coward” at living. Now, he wanted to know what the plan was.
But myself and those around me were not making plans based on the pandemic, we were making plans on living Martial Lives of Intelligence. That was the objective; not existing in reaction to what others were doing.
He wanted to talk conspiracy theories, and just echo what others were saying about the event. He wanted to hug and carry on in soft ways, and all of this was halted real fast, as I informed him of the “strict discipline” I am engaging, as well as others most associated. I made it clear to him, he is seen as a shaman, and is best suited to seek out shaman things, and to stop trying to fuse them with the Warrior things which I promote. He was in essence “denied access” once more, because he was trying to deceive his way into association with others whom he did not match in character.
His attempts at Seduction failed, and one of the main reasons it failed was because he is never in a state of authenticity. Meaning, as one who is “played”, but thinks he is a “player”, he is always “gaming”, or that is, running a con. Because he is always in a state of trying to please and seduce, he ends up being shady. This is a sign when one is unskilled, and being unskilled in Seduction while constantly trying to seduce is worse than having no sense or intent to seduce. This is the key. Most of you try petty ways of Seduction, and you are horrible at it, and because of this, you are shady, and you become a bore. You are observed by others trying to “run game”, and your “game” is weak. However, because your “marks” or your targets too are ignorant and weak in this area, you still maintain access. But you are thinking you gained access, and maintain access through skill of Seduction.
This is a delusion. You gained and maintained access to who you have access to, because they too gained and sought to maintain access to you. Meaning, it is without a standard. Your access is default, opportunistic, mediocre, and based on deference. It is not acquired through skill, and it is the point and purpose of Access Denied to state that cultural and intellectual requirement of skill being at the foreground.
What I am about to do is remove a mystery. Meaning, for most who do not know me, they will only have a sense of me, perhaps based on what others, who too, do not know me, have said about me. Rare is it that anyone can say much about themselves. However, the written word is just that, offering this “power” up for expression.
Until this point, till this expounding has occurred, I do not believe a single individual has truly grasped what kind of a “relationship” I have to the notion of “Seduction”, to the notion of “power”, and to the notion of “war”.
Yet still, with this source becoming available, who would then dare even read it, to try to understand the mind of the individual that they all will most certainly pass judgement on?
In a society that says “I do not judge” and “thou shall not judge”, it is amazing in just how much of the judgement, be it poor as it is, I must contend with. I rarely see anyone honoring their romantic decrees. This is why I make it clear: observe the behavior, place little importance on what is said.
With that being a point repeated, I will try, as I broach these subjects, to expound on behavior as well, and not get tied up into theory. This means, some contextual reference will be needed.
Let's bust a move
First, one must start with the MARKING, or the TARGETING.
There is the skilled and aware targeting, of males and females, and there is the mostly unskilled, and unaware targeting of males and females.
For human males, in actuality, they do not have “standards” or “concern” for the kind of female they can get access to. Any WILL DO. This seems to not be the case only when that female is a female their male associates may come to know of, and judge their status based on. When the male can be with a female that others do not see them with, and judge them based on, the fact is… Any and all, or rather most will do.
Males tend to “target” and “mark” unconsciously, more than consciously. They will mark the first female that enters their targeting zone, that is, that they have access to, and she will be “the one”, and this is often called “oneitis”. If the FEMALE then gives them the subtle signals that she could be approached, that male will then think they have initiated the “motion”, the “kinetics” of “Seduction”, or rather, that of seeking to “PLEASE” and “SERVE”.
The number one issue for human males, when they are UNSKILLED―as most are―is that they do not have, nor can they make use of the KNOWLEDGE that based on nature, human females who are inept and childlike, as most of them are, will solicit attention, and signal for the want of ATTENTION from MOST MALES, and that this is NOT SELECTION, and this is not the MARK of ATTRACTION.
When an unskilled, and ignorant human male then receives apparent attention from a female, they will automatically think―because they want to think―they have been SELECTED, and for the most part, THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE. Because of this, the human male will then give attention, and seek to serve and please that female to gain that of further access, with sex seeming to be the aim, but this is too a “distraction”. A human male will use sex as the quickest way to become confirmed in selection, but this is not the PRIMARY, and that is a MYTH where it is stated that it is.
Evidence this is a myth is that more often than not, but not ALWAYS, human females will reduce their level of sexual appeasement of the male, and he will fall into the obvious and clear position of SERVANT in the PROVISION role. When the sex is reduced, which he NEEDS for VALIDATION, it will prove that something else validates him more, and that is being in the ROLE, selected for SERVITUDE, and PROVISION. He will be displeased in this role, but human males are bred to accept a life that is displeasing, to tolerate it, to endure it, and to toil. This is to say, human males were designed through breeding timid Children of Ineptitude to be compliant SLAVES.
If SEX was the primary motive of the human male, MARRIAGE would mostly be done away with, and males would not form RELATIONSHIPS with females, because relationships with females, human females that is, by human males does not benefit the human male like it does the human female. They serve her interest. So then it has to be wondered, and better, examined and asked then, what benefit, if not sustained sexual access, is the human male getting in a “relationship” with a human female?
The answer is, validation that permits deference, whereby the human male has a TARGET for what they have a true proclivity towards, and that is SERVITUDE. The deference here, that the male receives in a relationship with a human female, is that she will manage their emotions, and she will manage their excuses for a life of COWARDICE. Distraction and relief are the two social traits to remember here, that are ENTERTAINED in relationships. The human male has a female target, and later her offspring, as a means to now distract them from any trouble in finding a purpose for themselves. Others as one's purpose is the excuse that is best to be a COWARD at living. Selfless is the ways of cowards, and the VIR does not prize selflessness. It is a vice, not a Virtue.
It is a proven VICE even for that of humans, because in that humans promote it as a VIRTUE, there is only one of the sexes who is actually required to try to live up to it, and that is the human male. There is no selfless practice among human females. It is not SELFLESS for them to bear offspring. That all serves their selves, and Sense Of Life. It is not SELFLESS for them to do things for human males, as they will only do so much as needed to maintain their SERVANTS in SERVITUDE. Preaching selflessness is directional. It only comes from those seeking servants to serve them, in their SELF, and in order for one to do this, they must be “led astray”, and they must have that HORSE of SELF, and COMMAND removed, and be crippled to the feet, unable to travel far, but hobbled in servitude to some domestic female.
When a Vir hears “selfless”, there is one thing that is made very clear… The one promoting it is a SLAVER, or is a STOOGE of SLAVERS. Make no mistake, a stooge is a slaver as well, they will just be so to the lesser degree of quality of servitude. For a stooge often to have servants, they are limited to relationships, that of “spouse” and that of “offspring”. These will be the ones who are demanded to be selfless, to serve their emotions, and their roles.
When you are a female, and you are a human female, know this… You have been born to be the MASTER among the sexes, and because of this, YOU WILL GET OTHERS to SERVE YOU. This is what you are doing when you seek ATTENTION from MALES; and discernment and their INDIVIDUALITY, which most will not have, can not have anything to do with it.
Born out of insecurity and fear, a human female, who is always a little girl in her head, solicits attention from ALL males they can, as a means to remove them from the sense of being a threat, and potential harm to them. For feelings of safety, females give you little boy human males ATTENTION.
The signaling is not primarily SEXUAL. Sex, however, is the currency that can and will be used for SAFETY and SECURITY.
From Nature's Prime Directive point of view, sex is the primary, because sex serves the primary directive of replicating the species, and this is the aim of nature. But nature did not install this in clarity for humans to pursue as the primary. Instead, humans, like other animals, were given other forms of motivational program. The first and the foremost, in order to replicate the species, is that of survival and safety. This is to say, before there could be sex as a primary, there needs to be SURVIVAL, and then SURVIVAL for ACCESS, for that of SEX, and REPLICATION.
Because of this, the motivations for ATTACHMENT to others are primarily based around the fear and insecurity that is triggered, to move towards a safe and secure condition for breeding, and this is the motive of ALL HUMANS. That then, it begins in fear and insecurity, it means the primary, or starting motives are the pursuit of safety and security, as and only as a “sense” that does not require “actualization”.
When a male then needs a female, and all human males need a female… they first and foremost need that female to feel safe and secure, in that of being able to “settle and breed”. A human male can be “friend zoned” by a human inept female, and he can remain content in the “feeling” of safety and security of ACCESS to her, in that she will manage these emotions for him. Because of this, it is a common play for human females to punish the emotional body of human males quite easily, in order to get them to serve their interest better. You can not disrupt the emotional body of someone who is their own Controller and Commander. Only a human male who is emotionally managed by another can then have their emotions moved by others.
“You made me feel this, and/or that” is the mark of a chump, and Child of Ineptitude. It does not mean only the displeasing elements, but also… even that of being pleased by the individual. When one can and will make you “feel” based on their actions, and their Management, you are a chump, and ALL humans, male and female, are CHUMPS, who do not have Control and Command over their EMOTIONAL body.
A human female, being the primary source of emotional Management in the life of a human male, will use the “you made me feel this way” as a means to manage the human male, in getting them to stop doing displeasing things, and start pleasing the way the human female THINKS she wishes to be pleased, to which she has no idea how she ought to be pleased, and therefore, as the one managing this affair, she can only do so poorly, and can never actually lead the human male to please her. She will be displeased in life, because she was born ARROGANT thinking she knows what she NEEDS and WANTS, based on how she FEELS, and she has no idea what those FEELINGS mean, just like the human male has no idea what the FEELINGS are that drive his need to be SERVILE, and to PLEASE others.
These EMOTIONAL states, all born out of FEAR and INSECURITY to serve SURVIVAL for breeding, are mysteries to humans, and in these being mysteries, humans make up fantasy narratives instead to describe their motives, and they call it LOVE, they call it ATTRACTION, and they claim it is towards BEAUTY. This is the human lie around ATTACHMENTS and ACCESS. Humans DO NOT FIND WORTH IN BEAUTY; their sense of worth is about DISTRACTIONS and RELIEF from their INSECURITIES and their FEARS, that then make them FEEL that of SAFE and SECURE, in a well-defined ROLE and set of EXPECTATIONS, that make decision making for them resolved and SCRIPTED, so they can be free from their own thoughts, and that of ever having to have COURAGE about that of “SOMETHING”.
The human male will target any female they can for these feelings, and he will only lie to himself and her later, after the targeting already began. It will then be because she was beautiful, even if she is ugly. Only then, and after then, will it be… she was funny, and/or made him feel good, and this and that. None of these things exist when the targeting first occurred.
Humans need to only be challenged with this as the question. What started your targeting?
Humans, being inept, ignorant, arrogant, and delusional, will think, and perhaps say… But I was not TARGETING. Yes you are, and were. The second you direct your mind on someone, you are targeting. All socializing is TARGETING. When you can not realize this, you then can not have any Control about who you TARGET and why.
My Kind, for example, the Ratient, not the Vir, does not target individuals. Instead, my Kind targets the condition. But humans can not exercise conditional, or situational awareness. Humans are RELATIONAL, so they target each other, and can only target each other. The Ratient can and will target the condition. So let's say you meet me, and you do not know anything about me. You will be in the condition that I have sciences for. What then is the first thing I target a condition for?
The first thing I target a condition for is ENTERTAINMENT. Not to be mistaken for PLEASURE. I do not seek pleasure from conditions. Entertainment does not mean in this sense “pleasing” as synonymous. I am not a pleasure seeking kind. I can often be entertained by, and perhaps more so by some struggle, some challenge, some obstacle, that then leads to EXPRESSION of problem solving, innovation, and ingenuity. Humans seek to get others to please them, and others are often the source of displeasure. Only those who seek for others to please them will then be displeased. There can not be one without the other. The contrasting forces are always a part of the same essence. Hot and cold are a part of the character of temperature, and that of the energetic and friction levels of the entity. Contrasting is the friction level, and the vibratory nature of the being, leading to hot or cold. But they are under the same realm, and conceptually this is the temperature of the thing.
So then, pleased and displeased is the hot and cold temperature of one's access, more so relationally, versus say conditionally.
A Ratient, my Kind―to which I have only observed a handful of in existence―does not seek out, and have use for others being pleasing to them. That which is enjoyment, not pleasure, thus, joy, thus, Triumph, is internally derived by the Ratient. They are the source of their own Triumph, their own pride, and it is not conditional, and therefore, they can not be moved by the pleasing and displeasing dispositions of others. Those, however, who are displeasing, will often be so on grounds of some injustice, and therefore, they may seem to move the Ratient, because WRATH will come forward, and dispel them. This is not the displeasing force, displeasing the Ratient. This is a factor of injustice, and that of being about what is noble and excellent, and eradicating, destroying, and removing that which is an impediment for the prosperity of expression in a thing. This is CONDITIONAL, not RELATIONAL, but to one who aims to please, but often displeases, it will, and can only seem relational, because one of such a nature, a human, is never truly about Control and Command over CONDITIONS. They are about CONTROL over RELATIONS.
My Kind, the RATIENT, let me say this LOUD and CLEAR…
IS NOT RELATIONAL.
My Kind, the Ratient, sees individual beings as a part of a condition, and a part of Controlling that condition is making that condition serve the interest of Entertainment, which for the Ratient is not composed of the ESCAPISM traits of DISTRACTION and RELIEF. This is not the way in which a Ratient, and subcategorically a Vir, is to be ENTERTAINED.
Entertainment, for the Vir, and in extension the Ratient, which is a born type, not an acquired type, is joy through expressing that of noble and Commanding traits. Entertainment is for expression of the noble, and for that of advancing the noble.
When one deals with humans, as most are surely not Vir, the stats and the proper assumption of character of Entertainment is not this. It is for escapism, for that of distraction and relief, and this will be proven by how the “entertainment” controls their thoughts, and they have been relieved of doing any thinking, to which they will show in their lives they are ever so displeased with. Humans seek pleasure in distraction and relief, and the number one thing a human tries to be relieved of is the Intellect, is Reasoning, is standards that demand skill, competence, and mastery. A human wants nothing more than to remain a petty little chimp, in a confused state by the natural accidental fart of the advent of abstract thought. Through abstract thought, having to use and think in terms of symbols, humans are forever confused, and for humans, confusion is one of the tools they use for deference, and to get others who are less confused to serve them. Confusion is a play at deference.
The notion of targets and victims being with choice in the “matter” and engaged in “intentional play”
This section was to be about that of the notion taught in “Seduction manuals” and by so-called “players”, of that of “choosing the right mark”, that of “choosing the right victim”, and/or that of “choosing the right target”, expressions that can be found all throughout works of “social Manipulation”, of “social engineering”, of “Seduction”, of even “salesmanship”.
The elements on those themes were read by me in the first passing of the book in edit phase, and I was able to quickly witness, as did the editor, the Sauvageonne, that they were not written in a state of flow.
This has been observed here and there, when it comes to my expoundings on the “Plays of Access” and their “Battles”, in that, what was clear in writing those pieces, and/or those points, was that of how much I have no actual “interest” in doing so. Meaning to say, flow is often activated in the realm of the “Patterns” needing to be “bestowed” so to say, versus that of cleaning up the MUD of others. Discourse and/or expoundings on that of plays of ACCESS are rather ELEMENTARY and banal to me, and the mud of others as such PLAYS are not permitted in my own present living. Neither carried out by me, nor allowed to be carried out by others. It appeared in the written piece, as if I was quickly just trying to get past these notions, and get them done, and therefore, there was slight resistance. That is unacceptable for that which can be called my work.
Because of this being unacceptable, a new edition of some of the plays will be mixed in with the old editions, and the old editions will be retained for reference purposes, as a means to exemplify how this process of expounding works.
The editor, the Sauvageonne, Eli, had chosen that the title for Part II ought to be that of the “Battle of”, and/or for “Access”, and the “Plays at Access” in these “Battles”. To me, that was a clear guideline of how flow ought to then make use of, and put forward the Patterns. Perhaps, previously, not enough of the battle notions were present. They are the most accurate notions to have in this sense, for as the etymologies of most of the terms show, there was a “war” element in the origins of the terms, such as “Seduction”, such as “to mark” an enemy, and certainly then, that of “one's victim”. It is after all said, in Access Denied, that one of the primary notions one must agree upon, to truly find value in these expoundings, is that of:
LIFE, ALL OF LIFE, is that of WAR.
And therefore, to MASTER that of LIFE, one must be a WARRIOR, and in this sense, that is ONE who has mastered the tactics and the strategies of ADVANCING in that of CONTROL and COMMAND over their CONDITIONS, and themselves.
Therefore, it is said, there are two paths… A life, most common, of that of a LIFE OF DEFEAT; and the least common, and rare kind of living of that of a LIFE OF VICTORY.
In expoundings on the “plays of access”, “plays of Seduction”, “plays of influencing”, “plays of running a con”, and so on, I am left with that which has been asserted throughout the ages by others, of how one ought to “PLAY”. These assertions then are what I refer to as MUD, and in the past when I would expound on these assertions to others, they would convert my clear intent of doing so to arm them in self-defense, as that of instead being the intent to assert such mud, with me as the source. Because they themselves had not encountered the classical works, and/or “traditional” pieces in this “realm”, they had only me as the source, and therefore, tied the assertions to my character, as if I had been recommending the use of the “plays”, the “moves”, the “maneuvers”, to which I certainly was never doing.
My Aim has always been to illuminate these “ways” of “playing” so that one could catch the tricks and catch the behavior, so as NOT TO BE that of VULNERABLE to it. But when those who had been at the receiving end of my expoundings were the foul kinds in need of playing on the VULNERABILITIES of others, they ignored my actual intent, and simply converted my expoundings into WEAPONS they could use to gain, and/or maintain ACCESS to others. Often, this too is why quickly I would ACCESS DENY them, and send them on their way, seeing with ultimate clarity that when woken up to their way of playing, it did not bring out a more noble nature, but instead, revealed them to be the dead beings to which they are, in need of getting others to serve them.
There are many who have a Noble nature, that had to learn for social survival that of “playing” others, in order to avoid themselves being the “played”. And not KNOWING better, they were left with the use of the tools of others, who themselves were not of NOBLE disposition. This is to be expected. But once a “better”, rather, a Noble Way is presented to them in how to be, it can be, and is said, they have NOW heard the CALL; and in hearing the CALL, it would be the CALL for their Noble nature to be brought forth, and the ending of such a foul way of gaining and maintaining access to others.
But in hearing the CALL, and one remaining in motion with the plays that follow, in the Battle of ACCESS, it is because they were not of a NOBLE nature, and now this is clear. But those who are not of a NOBLE nature would NEVER be able to see that during the whole interaction, interactions that can no longer occur, I was in fact behaving in regards to the Call of the Noble elements, not their foul elements. Having to work with others in person, and from scratch every time was not economical. It meant, I had to CALL, and wait to see if the individual was right for the CALL.
This will never occur again. This, because now, there are these pieces of literature to put forth the CALL, and therefore, one who steps forward with the presumption of being NOBLE would be able to be tested right away, and more often than not, easily found to be ignoble, and rather FOUL, in a prison of possession of their inept EMOTIONS. Thus, allowing me to quickly say, this Call is certainly not one for you, obvious in your inability from the start to realize, the NOBLE do not BATTLE for ACCESS, and do not PLAY at ACCESS to others; instead, the NOBLE is all about the SELF, and CONTROLLING and COMMANDING their own ACCESS to it, and the ACCESS in which others would seek to BATTLE for.
Those who play towards, for, and/or against others are NOT NOBLE; they are ignoble, and they are FOUL creatures, even in that they number the MAJORITY. The MAJORITY, the MASSES, the MANY, the MULTITUDES are FOUL creatures, and yes, they are able to be observed in a DAY-to-DAY sphere, engaged in these battles of access gained, and/or MAINTAINED, and where too, YOU can be observed engaged in these “WAYS”, you too are but a FOUL BEING. HUMANS, all HUMANS, are FOUL creatures from the point of view, and from the VALUE hierarchy of the VIR.
A human ought not see these Ways, these plays, these battles of access as foul. A human ought not see itself as foul, but instead, ought to see “WE”, the “VIR”, as the ones who are foul. This is natural. It is all a “matter” of “perspective”, in that the nature of the being doing the JUDGEMENT is doing it from their own VALUE hierarchy. A human is not supposed to use the value hierarchy of the Vir to run their judgement, and all throughout these works, I have been expounding on what is the value hierarchy of humans, versus what is the value hierarchy of the Vir.
But then there are those foul readers and participants who want ACCESS to this writer, this Vir, and perhaps associated Vir, and to get this access, and/or to maintain it, they would attempt to mirror and mimic the value hierarchy of a Vir, and speak of others as humans, and do so with MALCONTENT, as a means to signal ALLIANCE. This is a foul behavior that is easy to detect, and the way it is most easily detected, is by coming to have learned of the plays, and the “Battles of Access” so that each interaction can be measured appropriately, or rather taken proper ACCOUNT of via RATIOCINATIVE means.
When this particular essay is presented in chapter form, it may seem to have a different tone, fit well, and/or seem to not fit so well… all based on the flow of the whole. However, a part of this process of expounding is that of producing updates, even in real time, so that the reader too can observe that this is not some fixed system that does not know itself, and when it ought to be ADVANCED.
Every time an essay has been completed, it often has elements of ADVANCEMENT that will then be applied in a future expounding of the very same “subject matter” and/or its “Patterns”. The reader, if NOBLE, will observe that the writer comes to say things much better, or more ADVANCED, after, and only after, they had first broached the subject Pattern in the inferior form. To begin is to begin first in an INFERIOR state, and then through the expoundings, have the state of KNOWLEDGE and coverage ADVANCE towards that of a GREATER Control and COMMAND. What was also observed in the first pass is that, a starting cheat sheet on the Six Emotional Kinetics would be needed, so that the reader comes to learn that there has already been ADVANCEMENTS, and therefore, changes in this realm, and they ought not develop “attachments” to the notions.
That said, this new edition to the “Plays” and the “Battles” at “Access” will proceed, and be weaved into the previous edition.
Battle Access Control Kinetics
(BACK)
When those of a FOUL and IGNOBLE nature seek access to the NOBLE and the VIRTUOUS, they are met with ACCESS DENIED. ACCESS DENIED is that of BACK OFF you chump. The VIRTUOUS is turning off your “Plays” at “Battle for ACCESS” through that of CONTROL KINETICS.
CONTROL
MANAGEMENT
MANIPULATION
SEDUCTION
These are the components of HOLDING ONE BACK. These are the components of POSSESSING ONE BACK. These are the components of HAVING ONE'S BACK.
After Access Denied has been being expounded upon over the year, a great deal of further revelations were made, by way of CATEGORICAL thought. This is why there is the notion of “plays” as they are, as well as “access” being a factor of a set of “battles” therein, and therefor.
These categories expanded would not make themselves known in the early stages of the writing, but in that now, at the time of this essay, more than 1500 pages are being edited by Eli the Sauvageonne, I am able to look back at the inferior state, and provide an update, in real time, before the publishing of Part II.
A part of that update would be as follows.
This chapter, and perhaps the following ones, are about plays of access, and also the BATTLE therein. However, the term “Seduction” is often used, because there is quite the assertion by other writers, and mud inflicted thinkers that Seduction is in actuality occurring. That is, there are “players” in their “mini-games” at “access” using that of “plays”, or arrogantly stated that of “maneuvers” in “SEDUCING”. I do aim to dispel this arrogant and DELUSIONAL set of affirmations, so that one is well armed and well armored, enough to not fall for this “battle” over one's mind, and one's accessibility.
Access is the most ancient of, shall I say, themes. It could be said to be HARDWIRED and PRIMARY. It is absolutely necessary for survival, for fitness, and for competition. All this meaning to say, or to expound, is that… access is not a question, nor is it an option. Access is a given that one will need access to others, want access to others, crave that of access to others, and prioritize in their decision making… access to that of others. So much of a primary, and so much of a hardwired ANCIENT THEME, that very little thought is needed, on the conscious level, for one to be engaged in, to see this theme carried out, and determine just about ALL of what can be called YOUR values, in your value hierarchy. The term “allocentric” covers this theme well, and it is about being ALL ABOUT others, or centered around others, if you will. In your life, lived, not thought, this value hierarchy will prove out. It will prove out that you are indeed living ALLOCENTRICALLY, with that of CONCERN for others, and where you fit in to the SCHEME, more than THEME of things.
For the moment, in this stage of expounding on access, I have this hierarchy of categories I am using.
There is that of Control, that of Management, that of Manipulation, and then that of the kinds of Entertainment.
Why this is a hierarchy is that the one that follows the first, the second, and the third, and so on, requires ingredients of the one in procession, the preceding element. Management requires Control; and Manipulation requires Management and Control; and Entertainment, no matter its kind, will have Manipulation, Management, and Control as ingredients.
Neither of these terms, Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment, are NEGATIVE. All four, as they are rendered here, are NEUTRAL, and they are a GIVEN, and there is absolutely NO ONE with an abstract thinking mind who does not have these components in every part of their associations. Meaning, if these are negative or positive, then it is to say, that then defines the access, and the association. But they are neither one of these two, but instead, are neutral. How they are wielded and expressed, the HOW, is what will determine, based on one's value hierarchy, the elements of negative and positive, or that is, desired and or undesired, favored or without favor. That these components are present, ALWAYS, is not subject to opinion nor perspective. They are GUARANTEED to be present, in all elements of ACCESS, and ASSOCIATION.
When you, the reader, ALL OF YOU―so dare not think I do not mean YOU―look upon these terms of Control, Management, Manipulation, and/or Entertainment, and you have a negative or positive sense of them, but no sense of them as neutral, then it means you are under the Control, the Management, the Manipulation, and Entertainment of OTHERS, or some other. This then has shaped your FEELINGS around these terms.
When you are under the Control, the Management, the Manipulation, and Entertainment of others who are exerting such in a foul manner, then you will FEEL a foul sense of these terms. When you are yourself exerting these components in a foul manner, you will have the feelings of these components being foul―too, the flip side can be stated.
One who has a relationship with these components under skilled and noble exertion, may FEEL then a positive relationship with the terms. But negative or positive, and not neutral, means you are not the one who has a direct association with Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment. Instead, it means you are the SUBJECT of the expression, representation, exertion, exercise, and use thereof, of these components from another, and/or others. Therefore, you are DEPENDENT upon their NATURE and disposition as the determining factor.
It can be asserted that because you all mostly have a foul sense of these terms, Control, Management, Manipulation, with Entertainment being the exception… you are a SUBJECT, dominated. Those then who DOMINATE you, or have you under their RULE… would avoid in their decorative speech, language, and “persuasions”, that of using these terms to trigger in you the dormant emotions of INSECURITY, of REPUGNANCE, and so on. For to have these components referenced in association or access would trigger your desire in the emotions to fight, to resist, to rebel, to undermine that of your repugnance in being displeased and easily so.
Instead of using these terms, there is the advent of “attraction” as a term. There is the advent of “Seduction” as a term. There is the advent of “to impress” as a term. There is the advent of the expression “to please”, and the advent of “to influence”, and the advent of “to inspire”, “to encourage”, “to motivate”, and so on. There is the advent of “to love”, to “care for”, “to worry”, “to cherish”, and many, many more flowery ways… that all have the components of Control, of Management, of Manipulation, and Entertainment, but concealed in the FANCY of the absurd imagination of wishful Children of INEPTITUDE.
YOU, the reader, have been trained, indoctrinated, and CONDITIONED to FEEL negative about the components in terms I here mention, because in FEELING this way, you develop an aversion to the terms, and then that of their connected terms, that bring KNOWLEDGE, and bring CONTROL to your actual living. In order to STOP you from having your own Control, from Managing yourself, from Manipulating your own sense of things, and the variable of your being, and being a SOURCE of Entertainment, rather the target, your CONTROLLERS gave you an ill sense of all these things, as they could come from you, with you at the center. Allocentric in condition, you have been forced to see these things as beyond you, outside of you, and coming from others, other than you. Because of this CONDITIONING, conditionally, it becomes true. But... is it supposed to be true by NATURE?
For most, the many, the multitudes, the masses, it seems by nature, you were not born to be your own CONTROLLERS, your own MANAGERS, your own MAN, as the term Manipulation comes from. Instead, it seems most of youse were born to be SERVILE, to be MUTED, and to be SUBJECT to the molding of your collectives. It would not be UNIVERSAL to say, one must become the CONTROLLER and the COMMANDER of their own existence, for when it comes to humans, in their clear difficulties to even attempt this, it is proven, they would not be meant for it. But this, is exactly what is UNIVERSAL to that of the VIR, and there is no such thing as a VIR in the absence of being under one's own CONTROL, Management, and thus, ONE'S OWN MAN, and the source of their own Entertainment.
A human was born, rather bred to be SERVILE and SACRIFICIAL to their COLLECTIVE, and though this is a defeated existence, and foul existence from the form of Vir, humans themselves ought not see it this way, and ought not chase out of NOVELTY, or AMUSEMENT, that of the hierarchy of values put forth by this Vir, for those would-be Vir, and likely to be seeded in Vir. It's for the Vir, not you humans, and when you need to consume this material with the target of your repugnance, where you then have something to resist, it is evidence you are a human seeking access, and ought not to, for truly, you will be caught, and ACCESS DENIED.
Control, Management, and Manipulation are the components that when they trigger a negative sense in you every time they are encountered, and the Call of this piece does not change that, it means, as the SUBJECT of others, thus feeling oppressed, you would then too be quick, on behalf of SAM, to blame such feelings on this work, and try to engage in emotional resistance to it. There is absolutely no reason for a human sure of their humanity to be engaged in these works. The only reason that would be there will not be VALID, and will be FOUL, and that is, to have a target to OPPOSE, to SUBVERT, and to INFILTRATE for access out of the cry of needing to belong to something that seems to OPPOSE almost everything else. That is not what this is… that is YOU, and you, then, are not meant for this “Way”.
The components of Control, Management, and Manipulation will be expounded upon in later chapters. Seduction, though it has all these components, is a SUBCATEGORY of the fourth component of Entertainment. This then too is why the term “play” makes sense, as this is a term that is strongly connected to the other form of Entertainment called AMUSEMENT. Seduction is not a subcategory of Amusement, and they are not the same thing, though access and association can have a fusion and mixture of kinds.
Where most think they are engaged in Seduction, it is often not the case. It is more so that what level, moment to moment of expression and interaction falls into categories such as Control, Management, and/or Manipulation. SEDUCTION is carried out for pleasure; so then when one is not PLEASED, but is under the cold element of being DISPLEASED, and thorough into CHAOS, this is no longer Seduction, but falls down the hierarchy of the foul, and into their relationship with their FOUL notion of MANIPULATION.
When a foul character is “playing you” and you are in despair, or they trigger in you anger, frustration, concern, and the demand for CARE, then the foul character is using their form of MANIPULATION, not SEDUCTION. The absence of the PLEASURE and the ENTERTAINMENT is the clear sign of this. Most of the time, one only received the entertaining level, in the beginning of the “courting”, or that is, the “Battle for ACCESS”, and then this fades, and the rest is about FOUL MANIPULATION, about FOUL MANAGEMENT, and FOUL CONTROL over each other, or often, one more expressed in their foulness over the other.
In just about every classical piece on Seduction, and/or Influence I have ever encountered, as well as modern discourse on the subject… what is more so at “play” than not is that of FOUL Manipulation, Management, and Control. Not these components in their neutral sense.
When these components are considered neutral, it is only in their level of consideration. Once someone, and/or others use the components, THEY CAN NOT BE NEUTRAL. In use, or that is applied, in regards to one's self, and/or towards others, they lose their ability to be neutral, and now they will either be ineptly applied, or adeptly. Unskillfully, or skillfully. Pathetically, or masterfully; ignoble, or noble. In deference, or demand; in diffidence, or in confidence.
NEVER when APPLIED, are they NEUTRAL. Because of this, it is difficult for most who rely on example and forsake definition to skillfully attain to the noble application of these components. Too, when one is not born inclined to be noble, they can not then develop a relationship to these components in an noble way. Meaning, it is not about choice. Born in diffidence, and/or confidence will be the strong determining factor of what kind of relationship one will have with these components, and/or could have, as a capacity.
Most are born with diffidence, a mis “trust” or “confidence” for themselves and for others, as an emotional condition of insecurity. Because of this, there will be the emotional mistrust, or absence of confidence in all Patterns of these components. One will not realize, when with emotional diffidence, that the EMOTION is primary, and colors the relationship.
Instead, emotionals, plagued and possessed by their emotions, presume that the external forces, beyond their CONTROL, their MANAGEMENT, and their MANIPULATION, are the source of triggers bringing about these emotional states. I reject this as the proper order, and AFFIRM that you normies have these emotions innate to you and they are looking to be expressed in a manner liken to CONSUMPTION, and therefore, IN NEED of TARGETS of CONSUMPTION, and EXPRESSION, and almost any target will do.
This defines the nature of my use of the term “target” in that declared arrogant notion that one “chooses the RIGHT target” of their “Seduction” or “Plays at Access”. In actuality and in application, one often chooses the most VULNERABLE, one chooses based on OPPORTUNITY, and that of EASE of ACCESSIBILITY. This, because the emotion is IN NEED of a target and just about any will do, when done in ease.
The components of Entertainment
Entertainment, as the fourth component, has three subcomponents:
-
Amusement
-
Seduction
-
Engagement/Advancement
The second subcomponent of SEDUCTION has that of the primary ingredient of ESCAPISM for PLEASURE. Escapism has the two primary ingredients of being about DISTRACTION and RELIEF.
The point and purpose of categorical thought is that in the terms, there are relationships meant to be conjured up when uttered or signed. So wherever one often sees something about DISTRACTION for pleasure, they then know that is the category of Seduction and its plays. When one sees something was carried out with RELIEF in pleasure as the factor, then too, this is about ESCAPISM for pleasure, and therefore, SEDUCTION. Pleasure is a key component of Seduction. AMUSEMENT, though for Entertainment, does not necessarily mean for pleasure.
ENGAGEMENT―which has to do with Entertainment about Advancement, often then engaging the faculty of DISCERNMENT is key, with tactics and strategy as a component―does not mean for pleasure either. Engagement often will have something that needs to be OVERCOME, CONQUERED, ADVANCED past, thus having CHALLENGES and ADVERSITY as COMPONENTS. These can seem DISPLEASING in and of themselves, and as HARDSHIPS, though it could be said, the process of overcoming them is what brings pleasure.
This kind of pleasure, then, can be called PRIDE, and that of the emotion of TRIUMPH. It will not be, even if these pleasures are present, that the Engagement was pleasing, but instead, the Engagement could be ADVERSE, CHALLENGING, and TUMULTUOUS, but where in the ENGAGED individual they acquire to these PLEASING states, it is them, themselves, that were the source of the pleasurable evaluation; not the Engagement. Because of this, ENGAGING Entertainment can be massively DISPLEASING for most, which it will be, and to those who find pleasure in it, it is because they find pleasure in their own being, and therefore, are marked as those BORN IN CONFIDENCE, and having that of a high sense of their worth―relative, and only in relative sense to that of those of the human sort, innately with a low sense, and that of DIFFIDENCE as an emotion.
To the one pleased in the emotions of PRIDE, and TRIUMPH, gained through skilled success in overcoming, they DO NOT have a sense of high worth, because that is relative. Instead, they have a sense of right worth, to themselves; sound worth to themselves. They have a Sense of Self unobstructed, and unimpeded.
When one is seen as having a Sense of Self relative to others, in a hierarchy, thus dependent on the rank and status of others, that individual is insecure, and can not have authentic PRIDE, JOY, and TRIUMPH. Such emotions require independence from comparison, and rarely can humans grasp these emotions, and where humans are presumed to have these emotions, it will be relative to those they are often competing to overthrow.
Joy that is in appearance, acquired through “beating”, through “winning” over that of another, is not joy; it is excited repugnance, and this is the nature of sports that require an OPPONENT. This is not the kind of JOY, PRIDE, and TRIUMPH spoken of in relation to the VIR. The Vir is not competitive, and is not allocentric. The Vir does not take pride in overthrowing, destroying, beating, and outcompeting others… that is a human thing.
The components of Entertainment, itself the fourth component, are ALL correlated to the emotional Kinetics of the individual.
Escapism, where distraction and relief is needed, can not be said to be a part of a Triumphant Kinetics in emotion. It is needed only for those with a burden, a pain, a suffering, an issue that is considered inept. Those who are TRIUMPHANT do not, and can not favor that of ESCAPISM, nor can they that of AMUSEMENT. Amusement has the two components of DIVERSION, and DELUDEDness. The term “DELUDED” has a component relationship to the term “DELUSION”, but they are not the same. Habitual states of amusement lead to DELUSION, because of the component state of to DELUDE being in that of amusement.
Though there is likeness in application, the distraction of escapism is not the same thing as the DIVERSION of AMUSEMENT. There are differences that make them not of the same component. Neither is RELIEF and its pursuit the same as that of “to delude”; however, often, it can be seen that to SEDUCE someone out of a state of grief and despair, one may use components of AMUSEMENT, and DIVERT and DELUDE concerning the “matters” that have them inflicted. Knowing the components in all situations, and having recalled the proper category is key to an accurate read of the situation. That, where something may have begun in the SEDUCTION of ENTERTAINMENT, it may shift into the AMUSEMENT of ENTERTAINMENT. These two can be used together for desired results, by those who are FOUL.
The component of ENGAGEMENT with Entertainment does not use Seduction, with its ESCAPISM, and it does not use amusement. These are not components that can be mixed with the ENGAGEMENT forms of ENTERTAINMENT.
With clarity, when it is from a Vir that the VALUE of ENTERTAINMENT is stated as the first and foremost value of association with others, it is the form or the component of Entertainment that is ENGAGEMENT for ADVANCEMENT.
The Vir does not speak of Seduction, with its escapism, and then that of amusement as being forms of Entertainment in which it values. These are VICES, not VIRTUES of ENTERTAINMENT to the VIR.
Because of this, the categorical hierarchy of the Vir―which differs from the human―valuing in these components is that of:
Control (one’s own conditions and self)
Manage (one’s own conditions and self)
Manipulate (one’s own conditions and self)
Entertain (one’s own conditions and self)
Engage (one’s own conditions and self)
Advance through (one’s own conditions and self)
The human's hierarchy is CONCERNING these components, and it differs. By “concerning” here, versus “valuing” in, it means, humans RELATE to these components, with their INSECURITY, their DIFFIDENCE, their ANXIETY, and their CONCERN, thus requiring to be CARED for, by others, and having TARGETS of their CARE. Care here, has the two components of ANXIETY, and CONCERN. The difference with the Vir is the Vir VALUES, with INTENTION and DELIBERATION, and in their values, which are not concerns, they have EQUANIMITY. One can not have EQUANIMITY and CONCERN. Therefore, one with EQUANIMITY… can not, will not, does not… CARE. One with Equanimity has a deliberate value hierarchy, with a VITALITY, a VIGOR, a VIGILANCE, and VALOR in ENGAGING and ADVANCING through said values.
Because of the human condition, with its insecurity, its diffidence, its anxiety, concern, and care factors… all of these components are EMOTIONALLY infected, and FOULED. A human CAN NOT have a Virtuous relationship to these components. NO HUMAN. A human can choose to tactically engage Virtues of these components, but all who are Vir know that given the conditions to revert to their foul nature, they will. That, one can not mistake the tactical engagement of Virtues as a nature suited to Virtue. Those only engaged in Virtue tactically will also be those likely to eventually betray Virtue. Humans ought to be tactically Virtuous, but humans ought not be evaluated as VIRTUOUS, ever.
When a human engages these components, Vigilance states, a Vir must always realize the human has a foul sense of them.
The Human's foul sense of these components has them:
Control (that of conditions of others, and others, with servile aims)
Manage (that of conditions of others, and others, with servile aims)
Manipulate (that of conditions of others, and others, with servile aims)
Entertain (deriving from others, or giving towards other, with servile aims)
Seduce (that of others, providing distraction and relief for access)
Amuse (that of others and self, in order to hide and shield from detection)
Subvert (that of others, in the name of diffidence)
Undermine (that of others, in the name of diffidence)
Humans run this course. When they are observed TACTICALLY running this course in the name of VIRTUE, those who are not of Virtue will fall for the tactics. Those who are of Virtue know these ways, plays, and traits, and therefore, will observe the tactical engagement is fouled by the human's innate proclivities. They are more often than not, but not always, running the TACTICS of VIRTUE as a smoke screen to AVERT attention from their base natures, operating in the smoke, in the shadows, in the dark. When tactics of Virtue lead to agreeableness, and have an avoidance of CONFLICT, do not appear to be a “battle”, then it is a human who is running the tactics.
All tactics of the Vir are BATTLE sensed, and will inherently produce conflict among humans. Absence of CONFLICT is evidence of DECEPTION. This factor being only accountable when it comes to Vir, with humans. A Vir with a Vir would have no need for any of these variables to even be expressed. A Vir can not CONFLICT with a VIR. A human is only conflicting with other humans, and such conflicting is because of the components above, and the allocentric nature of the human. It is about others, and rarely about itself.
Because of this, humans will appoint foul members of their species who do not appear able and skilled at controlling, managing, and manipulating, or entertaining their own conditions and self, yet now, as descendants of Seth… appointed to take Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment, securing certain frames of mind OVER THAT OF OTHERS, to whom they come to rule.
Among humans, there is no prerequisite that to RULE others, one must first be a MASTER of SELF rule, for any who is a master of self rule certainly would refrain from being RULED by others, or to allow others to seek to RULE them. It is very human, in these components, to be about and over others, and rarely about and over one's self, and because of this, humans… that is… ALL HUMANS, are innately SLAVERS, and therefore, can not even identify what the primary components of enslavement even are; and the first component of slavery is not brutality, but instead, that of the LOVE, the CONCERN, the CARE, the POSSESSION of that with authority in the PROCESSION only on account of PRECEDENCE and FAMILIARITY. To this, is the foundation of ALL further sense forms of SLAVERY. Without these components, there would be no slavery. Slavery is not the product of WAR ENERGY. Where WAR energy prevails, there would be no SLAVERY.
Ignorance as an excuse
In these components of access I have produced above is born the notion then of what could be meant by “mark”, “target”, and “victim”.
I will begin first by dismissing an ARROGANCE that is instigated by writers and promoters of ways, sciences, and arts of Seduction.
They teach their readers, arrogantly, that the reader is given an advanced status by having their book of “plays”, of “maneuvers”, of so-called “tactics” and/or “strategies”, to which none of these things are.
The reader rarely, if ever, gains an advantage from reading these works, exhibited in how even their writers are often still but CHUMPS, saying what has been said often, and incapable of application themselves.
The way to please you, as a writer, has the writer telling you that their works will ADVANCE you, and them alone. That, with these secrets, these tricks, these plays, hidden and esoteric, you shall be elevated above the rest, and become the “ULTIMATE PLAYER”. If you thought I was doing the same, let me dispel this ignorance. EVERYWHERE, I make it clearly stated that on average, and with the high numbers in its favor, MOST who read my works, the works are NOT written for.
Most who read me will be of a FOUL nature, but that nature would have been called NORMAL, AVERAGE, and therefore, can not be called foul by others, in that others share in the same nature. Because of this, the dumb reader, in their mental midgetry, would need suppose that certainly, them being NORMAL, it can not be them who I CALL FOUL. It is them, it is YOU who I am calling FOUL. I am calling all who are normal a normalized FOUL creature. I am saying any who do not share in the same value hierarchy as my Kind are perceived of by my Kind as a FOUL kind, with no exception. You reading these works does not convert you from FOUL to VIRTUOUS.
It could even be said, so far, I have yet to even make Virtue in and of itself a clear thing. But this is not the aim of this treatise. That is for future projects. This treatise is about ACCESS DENIED, and to those whom it is denying access to are those foul creatures who run these plays, even in such IGNORANT and unskilled ways, or that of SKILLED, and quite tricky with. It is saying, if you run these plays that will follow in expounding, yes, you are foul, and it is saying that if you can not accurately define all the plays you run around access, then you are under the CONTROL of SAM, and running its plays, and these are those plays. You being IGNORANT to this does not change you from FOUL to INNOCENT. There is no such thing as INNOCENCE. That is a MYTH.
The Warrior Way is not “FORGIVE them FATHER, for they know not what they do”. This is only acceptable when what they do is not AGAINST you. But where the IGNORANT acts on another in harm, born out of their IGNORANCE, it ought to be, “DESTROY them FATHER, for in NOT KNOWING what they DO, they DO HARM”.
Their ignorance in that they are harming others, and how, has to do with the fallacy of “caring” about “intent”. I do not commit this erroneous thought. Harm is harm, knowingly or ignorantly, and far more harm is caused ignorantly than knowingly, and a forgiveness of such ignorance is an error, because it would require a forgiveness and a forgetfulness of that of harm itself, and its link. Your IGNORANCE does not CONVERT you into INNOCENCE. Your ignorance is why you are foul. Ignorance is the start of foulness, but to this I do not mean simple ignorance of merely not knowing. I speak of the ignorance that is fused with DIFFIDENCE, and the DEMAND for that of DEFERENCE. Most are not ignorant, merely for not knowing that of something qualified.
Most are ignorant in an excited and pleasing way, where they will act to sustain their ignorance, to be ignorant, to desire ignorance, and this is exactly what Seduction, what escapism, what amusement play upon, for, and through… One's DESIRE and WISH to be IGNORANT. It is that one does not trust in themselves the ability to KNOW, and does not TRUST in others that to be in the KNOWN is even a real thing. Ignorance is not merely without knowledge or knowing, less it be qualified in saying ignorance of this and that.
Surely, there are things I do not know, and therefore, I am ignorant of, but this is not “ignorance”. Ignorance is about NOT KNOWING what you OUGHT TO KNOW.
If this is the way to have a sense of ignorance, then this is the reason why I am to be called a Sage. For I am one who knows all that I am supposed to know, in order to have Control and Command over my conditions and my self. A Sage is not one who knows all that can be known. They are one who KNOWS all that they are supposed to know. A Fool is one who knows there is much they do not know, and they set out to know. A Magi is one who sets out to know, and comes to know, but not necessarily what they ought to know. They come to know how to know, how to be knowing, the means. The Hermit, as the Sage, is the one once a Fool, once a Magi, who has well discovered what they ought to know, and knows it, and how oddly that which ought to be KNOWN is quite simple, causing the stripping BACK all the nonsense the IGNORANT focus upon. One is more often than not ignorant, because that which they believe they know is the opposite of what they need to know. To be ignorant is to have no Virtuous relationship with the very component of gnosis, of KNOWLEDGE. It is not merely that there is “something” and “anything” that one does not know.
Yes, it can certainly be said, for EVERYONE there is certainly something they are ignorant of, without knowledge of. This, however, does not make one IGNORANT. This is the trap of the mental midgets, that only works on mental midgets. One is only in need of KNOWING what they OUGHT to know, and this is exactly why so many of you are IGNORANT, even when you have master's degrees in some knowledge field or science. You are IGNORANT, because with all your gate kept degrees, you have never LEARNED to know what you OUGHT to KNOW.
My literature is certainly about those things I hold one ought to know, and even more so, a demonstration, by way of mere glimpses, in that which I know that I ought to know, and therefore, can transmit with expoundings, dialectically proven to be in the known.
Let them who can hear, hear, see… see, and them who can not… be forgotten.
Access Denied.
One does not say, they become in the known for having READ some “Way”, and merely determining if they agree with it, or they do not. A qualifier for the notion of knowledge, in the epistemology of the “Way of the VIR”, is that knowledge is only knowledge if APPLIED. A certain kind of knowledge that goes about without application and use is the kind called SPECULATIVE of sorts, THEORETICAL of sorts, and rather… that which one merely imagines, but does not REALIZE.
Most notions of knowledge, where there is little experience around it by way of application, are mere imaginatives, that may be called knowledge in only that they are factual and actual in their description of “actuality”. To the Vir, this is not the notion of knowledge, but accurate belief. Knowledge begins with application, experience, and is more “intimate”, so to say. Because this is not the common sense of the term, some say an “intimate knowledge” of a thing, to distinguish the difference. Or they say, a “knowledge based on experience”, versus a presumed, and theoretical sense of knowing.
For the Vir, this need to distinguish does not exist with additives to the word knowledge. Instead, the Vir simply thinks, what you all call knowledge is merely entertained beliefs with degrees of certainty, either affirmed in and by others, or merely demonstrated in some simple form, with no intimacy involved, whereby one has such “knowns” as a part of their lives. It would never be agreed upon, with the Vir, that one can have KNOWLEDGE, and live IGNORANTLY. What one has, in this case, is mere BELIEF, with a muted nature that warrants no degree of DIVINE portrayal. To the Vir, knowledge is a religious term, because the DIVINE faculty of RATIOCINATION relies on the common faculty of DISCERNMENT, and that FACULTY is best ADVANCED and expressed with the use of KNOWLEDGE, not the common use, and limits of mere BELIEF.
It would be rather a quick retard of the commons to say, “marking”, to say “targeting”, and to say… “having victims” is not a part of the way one “associates” and has “access” in the gain or maintain fashion. One would say, this is something else other than what they are engaged in, as they are engaged not in any deliberate “ways”, but simply familiar ways, based on procession in precedence. This aim to retard the notions would be about this excited in ignorance emotion of being human. A human is RETARDED, relative to that of a Vir.
It is RETARDED to be led by precedence and FAMILIARITY, and to have no ACTIVE and DELIBERATE use of the faculty of DISCERNMENT. Because of this, writers will trigger in the reader, in realms of Seduction, both their DIFFIDENCE and their REPUGNANCE, by using the terms “mark”, “target”, and that of a “VICTIM”. These terms speak to the hidden sense one has of their behavior.
A week or so ago, I met the new property manager for the building that houses the TOC, or the Tactical Operations Command Center that I work out of, where I am writing from right now. It is not normal for interaction with anyone in this building. “We” have no need for them, nor them for us. But this new manager was a young lady having just received her license to manage property, and she was put in place on account of the previous manager having a different working role with the building and other businesses under its roof. In other words, he was not managing, but for me, there was nothing that needed to truly be managed that was not managed by those whom it pertains to. I manage the TOC, and if there is something to MANAGE about the BUILDING, sure, that is on them.
Myself and my associate, Apache, were walking out the door when we met her, and she was there to express Management over the conditions of others, through testing to see if her “keys” for the offices worked. If we had not seen her, she would have tried her key on “our door” without permission, thinking she had some right of access, to which she does not. But because we met in passing, she informed us of this “desire” and then appeared to ask. “Appeared to ask” permission, though with the arrogance of supposing entitlement.
I responded quickly with, “yeah, that won't work, your key will not fit our lock, because we have advanced locks with biometrics that do not use keys”, and that, access to the office would only be by appointment, if as manager of the property, she needed to inspect to ensure we were not fouling up the space. It was made clear that OUR office is secure, and our valuables would not be accessible to others; only us.
This caught her off guard, hearing my elaborate Access Denied, and more so, how I carried myself in confidence, and how her title of “property manager” did not place her in a “hierarchy” in which I would identify with. Her “role” shaped her mind to think all of what is the property, she had Control, Management, Manipulation, and yes, Entertainment around. Entertainment, because there was PLEASURE in her SENSE of her ROLE, and that PLEASURE was connected to an enhanced sense of CONTROL over something. This brings those with a foul sense of the component pleasure. They are pleased easily in being in Control over something, and that something is often an OTHER. Before me, what she was not in CONTROL over was her emotions. She was not in Control over her, but she did do a descent job of catching that, and trying to manage that. But she was not in Control, and thus ready to be told NO, and this caused her limbic system to betray her, showing me her insecurities, and her feelings of INADEQUACY.
Her face had her emotions all over it. She had her INSECURITY on display for me. She then had her ANXIETY, her CONCERN, and her CARE for her CONCERNS on her face, to me. She had her DISPLEASURE on her face, and she had a slight touch of her REPUGNANCE, her resistance surface, that she finally then caught the STREAM at, and like all inepts, she tried to CLOAK it with a SMILE and laugh, which itself offers a RELIEF to some extent in the emotion. Because these were words over behavior or action, it was easier for her to get relief. It was not an ANCIENT emotion SCHEME that she was feeling, but merely a social, and conditional one, able to move past.
The building is under her Management, and the TOC being in the building would then seem to be, to her small mind, subject to her Management. She experienced a disruption in this belief. Before it, she “KNEW” the whole building was to be managed by her. Now, what she knew was shown to be a BELIEF that had been countered. Countered by the clear boundary that the TOC is under my Control and Management, as it ought to be, not hers. It is in fact what is paid for, in that of renting. Renting is ownership, with a limit. It is not full ownership, but it is an ownership that is determined by contract, with a limit of time and space applied.
But this is not the actual point of the tale. Every time I have an experience with others able to be there to witness, we engage in the Entertainment value of analyzing the situation. Knowledge, for the Vir, is in the Entertainment, Engagement, Advancement hierarchy of the components. We break down what was observed, what was missed, and what skills and competency are needed to ADVANCE in, to increase situational awareness, and thus, Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment of the CONDITIONS, not of others.
Apache had, from his point of view, that I must have profiled the “manager” and given her a response suited to her profile, thus having her as a factor of my own expressions. This is an allocentric point of view, and many males have this. They think about the “female” or “male” they are talking to, and try to fashion what they think is the “appropriate” way to interact. This is called RELATIONAL by me. A relational approach, where you have “concern” and “care” for the participants. There is your sense of you in the engagement, and your sense of them, no “matter” how limited.
THIS… is not what I DO. When one truly knows me, which Apache never has, they will have observed that I have an entirely different Way, and that is, in actuality, it is I who has a Way, and those who are RELATIONAL have NO WAY. It is a Way when what it does is produce the same behavior by a standard, that is known and deliberate, and that answers to just about any variant of that kind of encounter.
In other words, I could CARE LESS, or rather, NOT AT ALL, about “her” in the discourse, because to me, there was no “her”. There was SAM, acting though her, like SAMAEL acts through its kind. My WAY accounts for SAM, and until one before me is observed to be INDIVIDUALIZED, I would never erroneously presume, they ought to be treated as an INDIVIDUAL. In fact, an INDIVIDUAL, when treated like SAM, would be proven by CONFLICT to refute the treatment, thus defining themselves in deliberation, and in their WAY. When you do not have a DEFINABLE way, you are NOT an INDIVIDUAL. When you run a system, or set of “ways” you can not DEFINE and DELIBERATE on, it means you are of, and from, and through SAM, the SOCIETY, and its SYMBOLS ADVANCED by your MAJORITY.
Your MAJORITY is key here. It may not be of the majority to be a skater boy or girl, but there is a majority among skater boys and skater girls, and they are identified by their shared CULTURAL memes, or units. So this means, SUBCULTURES have a MAJORITY, and this is proven by being able to “label” even fragments of social orders with shared traits, even those in their repugnance, looking to rebel against labels, seeking to HIDE.
To “mark”, to “target”, or to have as a helpless “victim” this female manager is not nefarious. You all would have done this, and part of marking her, would have been as “manager” over the property, and thus, in a hierarchy of Control, and Management. You do not manage the property outside the portion you rent, and mostly, you, in your diffidence, will not even feel more of a manager over that, than she is over the whole. Therefore, you will FEEL less, in the hierarchy, as well as, obviously, in the hierarchy to begin with. To “know your mark” is before you can “choose your mark”. To “know your mark” is to know their “markings” and this has to do with their “traits”, their “roles”, their “relations”. The difference here, in what most of you do, is, you do not analyze, or come to know the “markings”; you passively receive them.
When she said she was the “property manager”, she passively believed this means something to me, as a “mark” or a “mark of status”, and she was prepared passively to be received with such. But she, like most of you, did not “know her mark”, and in this case, I was marked. She knew I was “marked” as a “renter” who has a space in the building, and she had no other “marker”. “We” all are “marks” because we all have markers, and making us the mark is not “us” in actuality, but the mark of another is the “character” one has of another, either in accuracy or inaccurate. You also are not limited to the only mark that can be called known.
Where you do not know the INDIVIDUAL, you mark them with FAMILIAR and presumed marks to fill in the blanks. It is a mark for me to be a male. It is a mark for me to have pale complexion. It is a mark for me to be taller than the average, at 5’11, versus average or shorter. It is a mark for me to be robust, versus slender, versus fat, or other. All of these things are MARKS, and when you all observe each other, and you do not have a “Way” or a system of “profiling”, then you receive these marks passively, and what your mind does is fill the Xs, or the blanks with FAMILIAR presumptions.
In what is familiar, and in her ignorance of me as the INDIVIDUAL I clearly am, she could not expect or predict that I would be someone who would say… “We changed the locks, have a secure space, and you will not be granted access of your own, but must set an appointment.” In her passive mind, the mark she had for herself of the “highest” in Control of the building was removed, and she was “surprisingly” undermined, and reduced in her marking of STATUS. In regards to that single office, I am now marked its manager, and this was not what she wanted in her choice of career. She wanted the HIGHEST MARK in the Management.
Neither Apache, nor anyone else for that matter, would have interacted with her in the same manner as I did. But the presumption would be that because I had authority in the encounter, I must have “won her over”, or “knew the right things to say to her”. It had to be that my words, moves, and “plays” were tailored for her, and they were magically victorious, where others would have certainly failed, in inciting conflict, to which on the surface, there was not.
But what others do not know, because it is quite normal, is that this is the behavior of an INFERIOR, someone of a lower “mark”, a “lower rank”.
One who is of a “higher rank”, a “higher mark”, so to say… does not actually need to CARE about your feelings, what you think about yourself, and what you think about them. But most of you have never transitioned through social hierarchies, and had contrast between them, and yours. Most of you are of a low birth, born to servile parents, be them servile in whatever they be. So as you all move among each other, you have to treat other servile kinds with the same insecurities and concern. They make you anxious.
This female was marked as a female. For Apache and other males, this would mean inherently, knowingly or not, she would trigger in them ANXIETY, like how they have around other females. This is evidence of being of a lower status, a status that was acquired through the relationship of a son and a MOMMY. Boys who are mommy stamped come to have markings that are clear, and other females who would be mommies themselves can see these markings. They will unknowingly take a higher “mark” or “status” with these males, and this will instigate in the nonverbal displays a condition of anxiety, and set of INSECURITIES.
This young lady would be considered by most males to be attractive. So then, this will make them lowering themselves even more, if she is, in the sexual marketplace, of a higher value than where they are. So then, they are marked lower now in the sexual marketplace as is she. Now, of course, I call this a part of AVE, or Access Value Engagement, and it is not actually a sexual thing, though that is a component. It's an access thing. If a male thinks, he can not access a female, he will become agreeable and pleasing, and seek validation from her, and these markings will be clear, very clear. He has marked her “higher in status” than him, and when he does that, she then “marks him lower” in status than her. This is all occurring automatically, born out of Emotional Ancient Schemes of Engagement. This is out of EASE.
This young lady did not have SECURITY in how she had marked herself throughout her life. I was not communicating to her like those marked lower than her. I was not communicating to her like a mommy stamped, that is, mommy marked little boy.
For those males who are these things in actuality, they would have to try not to appear this way, and do something knowingly different, which they struggle with. Because of this, when they see me do KNOWINGLY different things, they presume I have merely done what they can not. I have acted in the right way to “one-up” or to “overtake” in the DOMINANCE HIERARCHY. So then, it would seem, I have PLAYED my way to the TOP.
What most could never be aware of, is that, I did not change my behavior at all. I was ACCURATE to my actual STATUS. I am not ABOVE that female. I AM NOT A PART of her SCHEMA, her HIERARCHY, her SOCIAL ORDER. And because of this, her mind subconsciously marks me as an INVADER, as a NOMAD, as a DANGEROUS and POTENT male. In words, these men would be spoken ill of, when marked, but in being spoken ill of, in actions, they are marked as far higher in status than that female, and all the males she knows.
I do not determine what to say, and how to say it based on who it is said to. One who has experienced me with an open set of eyes would see that I am consistent in speaking my “Ways” from me, and for me, and leaving others to theirs. I am consistently me, but most are not paying attention, so they do not see me, because they can not see INDIVIDUALS, because they are not INDIVIDUALS. They are the mark of others, in their image, carrying on in the cares of others, for others, allocentric.
I do not have a mommy's mark that I have had to overcome. I was raised and mentored by FATHERS, one of them even being a female Father. My Kind does not have mommies, and therefore, we are marked differently, as FOREIGNERS, and we naturally trigger in others their ineptitudes, their insecurity, their diffidence and their repugnance, if those are the kind who have no seed that can be advanced. The ones seeded for advancement meet my Kind with curiosity, naturally recognize my Kind as those who can advance them, if they yield to the guidance, and through their own efforts instigate and investigate the WAYS.
When you are inflicted with diffidence, because you trust neither yourself and therefore, no others, and this causes you to resist the Patterns that come out of my Kind, then you are a human who needs to leave the Vir alone, and stop battling for access.
For the average individual, a notion, as well as any question around “targeting”, “marking”, and “victimizing”… so to say, does not become produced in their own minds. Meaning, the average, the commons, do not think along the line of these terms, and of what they would, could, and ought to mean. The average individual, the common individual is in fact themselves MARKED by commonness in the very absence of these ideas. The absence of these ideas marks one as a commoner, a servant, a subject, a CHUMP, and one who is being PLAYED by someone or many others.
Those who used to become exposed to me, in flesh, would quickly learn this position of mine. You need to KNOW about the realms of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Seduction. If you do not know about these realms, you are VULNERABLE to what occurs in them, which is that of SUBJUGATION. In the name of self-defense, I would then, in the past, move to illuminate these ways, but in flesh… not be armed sufficiently enough, with the right amount of time and resources, to make these realms truly understood.
The point and purpose of this Part of Access Denied is to bring a change to that level of readiness, advancing in readiness to do battle in these realms. Too, this then comes to mean that NONE should have access to me, who have not yet been exposed, and have come to a proficient and useful sense of this readiness in these realms. This way, it is not presumed that one is well aware of my stance or posture when they have access, but it is GUARANTEED, and therefore, for any to accuse me of subjugation in these realms would be a clear indicator that they have not done their research, and they speak from their own projections of inadequacies, and their own schemes needed to FEED their all CONSUMING emotional Kinetics of DEFEAT.
On the flip side, this part too tells you the reader―and that means ALL OF YOU, so do not think you are the exception; it is with no exception―that I am observing you through this SCHEMA, these THEMES, these SYSTEMS of observation, watching everything you DO, knowingly or ignorantly, and measuring it by these standards.
Armed with Part II, it is being said, this too, YOU, as the reader, must now do. You must analyze all the “motions” you make in life around access, and when you think these do not apply to your motions, you are DELUSIONAL, and you will DECEIVE, and this will be OBVIOUS.
Rooted in ignorance and its defense
The seductive works of writers may tell you, when you read their works, that you are to “choose” that of the “right”... “targets”, “marks”, “victims”, and that this is at the foundation of “running game”, and being a “player”. At the foundation, because then, it will dictate the way in which you are supposed to play. But then, when it comes time to try at this, one finds often quickly, especially without knowledge of self, that those whom they would “target”, would “mark”, are those simply in front of them, that is, granted an opportunity to.
There are a small few who actually go to the “right conditions” to find the right “marks” for their certain set of objectives, their wants, their wishes, their needs to be met. In the past, these were often called CON-men, with the root being in CONFIDENCE men, and then with some, slightly different types, often called “swindlers”.
When you actually set out with the intent to “choose” a “target” and a “mark”, it would beg the question… how were you able to actually make this transition?
Why would I ask this question?
In actuality, it would have to be the most massive transition you have ever made in life. This ability to actually engage in targeting and marking, intentionally, for access goes against EVERYTHING your SOCIETY ADVANCED by the MAJORITY has taught you. In fact, it is because it is everything against SAM, that those who know how to do it, are in actuality able to be successful. If it was the common theme, it would not be as successful.
The common theme, on the other hand, is exactly what brings about the VICTIMS, for those who can “CHOOSE” by way of “targeting” and “marking” for that of access, for whatever that access is to be used for.
You begin with everything telling you that INTENT is MANIPULATION, and you have begun with this term “Manipulation” being that of a VICE, or a NEGATIVE notion. You have been taught to see the term, and the notion of CALCULATING as a sin as well. You hear this in such phrases as “over calculating” or “too calculating” or “cold calculation”, and how what the SAM, or the Society Advanced by the Majority, seems to think is the most honest and authentic forms of access, be it in friendship, in romance, in work, or otherwise, are those engaged through IGNORANCE. Those that arise out of spontaneity, almost to that of surprise.
EXCITED IGNORANCE is the emotion that is needed for the average and the common to believe what they have “going on” is the real thing. If it seems that what is “going on” was actually planned, and brought about knowingly, it seems manipulative, and well… it is. But, why is it that Manipulation then, is NEGATIVE, and not on the flip side, exactly what everyone should be doing, knowingly, and here is the flip… OPENLY?
The reason why Manipulation gets its bad wrap is because a part of this notion that you are “choosing” that of the “right target”, and that of the “right victim”, is because it has to lead to “INDIRECTION” and that of “DECEPTION”. Meaning, if you get “caught” doing it, it will come off as “manipulating”, as “calculated”, as “planned”, and this is not permitted in your SAM, or rather, the SAM that you belong to.
Because one “targets”, one would “mark” another, they already begin with INTENT to have access. If they do not enter into a mode of concealing this, and readying up a deceptive scheme, then others will feel that of INADEQUATE and INSECURE around them. These are the two emotions provoked with mental midgets around those who are more intelligent and or more capable than them. They need to be put at ease, in essence, by those more aware than them, behaving as if they are just as UNAWARE, and INNOCENT, with innocence here being ignorance.
This IGNORANCE game is the key to almost all associations, all access, and just why so many of you are suffering. With the need for these ingredients… you are all handicapped.
Because YOU ALL lack skill, awareness, competence, and individual value―for all these things have been kept from you by your SAM, and your SAM breeds ineptitude―you have to have the scheme of IGNORANCE to HIDE behind and protect you from the judgement of others.
Those who exist in realms where KNOWLEDGE and AWARENESS rule through have higher demands at performance levied upon them. Your entertainment, in the media, may show you fictionalized version of lives where there is RISK and REWARD correlated to PERFORMANCE, but ask yourself, where in your day-to-day is this a thing?
If you do not live a life where performance matters, or that is “Patterns in importance”, then you are able to run the ignorance schema. Not only able, but practically required to. Now, in the professions some have that are called skilled―often mechanical more than skilled, but that is alright for now―you are expected, and only expected, to perform mechanically the tasks, and the objectives at hand. When it is mechanical, it is not skilled. These are not the same thing. Skill, perhaps written about elsewhere, and/or later from this piece… is about the presence of the faculty of discernment. This means, it is active when one HAS TO DISCERN; and therefore, is faced with options, where whatever is a part of the decision making process, it can go in diverse directions, where some options are better than others; and one, therefore, has to make choices and use discernment to find the better route.
The difference, in mechanics, is that the better route, or rather the traditional route is primacy, taught and required to CONFORM with. When one deals with machines, so to say, the imagination, creativity, and problem solving are not often primary, but rather one's interaction is fixed. There is a well spelled out―or there ought to be―way in which one interacts with the machine, troubleshoots its errors, and gets it back into its utilis, or that is useful state, in motion. In other words, mechanics has a loop to it, that requires very little DISCERNMENT, and is solely based on FAMILIARITY.
Discernment leads to familiarity in the most base sense, and skill is not merely discernment. It is discernment that is used to bring about a more ADVANCED condition than the familiar; it is doing things well beyond their mere original mechanical standing. In essence, it is SKILL when one is ADVANCING it, beyond what it already was, and/or normally is… for others, in its default mechanical state. It is not skill when one learns a system, familiarized with it, and does exactly what the system requires, and anyone can pretty much do the same. That is merely the mechanics of the system, engaged in familiarity.
This is not to belittle mechanics. It is essential to understand the mechanics, the machinery of all things, including that of the biological sort, in that of human emotions and behavior. These are MECHANICS. But skill in this realm is not about merely knowing the mechanics; but it is about using the mechanics, engaged in discernment, to engage an art of use of said knowledge, and/or familiarity. Skill comes about through that of an obedience to the mechanics and the machinery, its possessed identity, that then leads through discernment into that of a Reasoned use for said states, with advancement as the aim. In the absence of ADVANCING a thing, skill, no matter how the masses use it… is not a factor. Skill is about advanced thought, and advanced thought is in how a thing, or condition can be advanced by the use of artistic discernment. One can easily identify the mechanical life, versus the skilled life. If you have a routine, where you can do the mechanical task day in, and day out, shooting the same errors here and there, then you are mechanical, only, and not engaging in a realm that REQUIRES SKILL.
The onset of the notion of choosing that of the right, target, mark, and/or victim begets NOT the notion that skill will play a role, but perhaps that mechanics may be a factor.
Etymology of Machine (n.)
1540s, “structure of any kind,” from Middle French machine “device, contrivance,” from Latin machina “machine, engine, military machine; device, trick; instrument” (source also of Spanish maquina, Italian macchina), from Greek makhana, Doric variant of Attic mēkhanē “device, tool, machine;” also “contrivance, cunning,” traditionally (Watkins) from PIE *magh-ana- “that which enables,” from root *magh- “to be able, have power.” But Beekes, on formal grounds, objects to the connection to words in Germanic and Slavic. He finds the Greek word isolated and is convinced that it is Pre-Greek.
Main modern sense of “device made of moving parts for applying mechanical power” (1670s) probably grew out of mid-17c. senses of “apparatus, appliance” and “military siege-tower.” It gradually came to be applied to an apparatus that works without the strength or skill of the workman.
From 17c.-19c. also “a vehicle; a stage- or mail-coach; a ship,” and, from 1901, “a motor-car.” Also in late 19c. slang the word was used for both “penis” and “vagina,” one of the few so honored.
The political sense “a strict organization of the working members of a political party to secure a predominating influence for themselves and their associates” is U.S. slang, attested by 1876. Machine age, a time notable for the extensive use of mechanical devices, is attested by 1882, though there is this:
“The idea of remodelling society at public meetings is one of the least reasonable which ever entered the mind of an agitator: and the notion that the relations of the sexes can be re-arranged and finally disposed of by preamble and resolution, is one of the latest, as it should have been the last, vagary of a machine age.” [“The Literary World,” Nov. 1, 1851]
Machine for living(in) “house” translates Le Corbusier's machine à habiter (1923).
Etymology of Machine (v.)
mid-15c., “decide, resolve,” from Old French and Latin usages, from Latin machina “machine, engine, military machine; device, trick; instrument,” from Greek makhana, Doric variant of Attic mēkhanē “device, tool; contrivance, cunning” (see machine (n.)). Meaning “to apply machinery to, to make or form on or by the aid of a machine” is from 1878. Related: Machined; machining.
Etymology of Machinery (n.)
1680s; from machine (n.) + -ery. Originally theatrical, “devices for creating stage effects” (which also was a sense of Greek mēkhanē); meaning “machines or parts of machines considered collectively,” is attested from 1731. Transferred meaning “any complex system of (non-mechanical) means to carry on a particular work” is by 1770. Middle English had machinament “a contrivance” (early 15c.).
Etymology of Mechanism (n.)
1660s, “the structure of a machine, engine, or other contrivance for controlling or utilizing natural forces,” from Modern Latin mechanismus, from Greek mēkhanē “machine, instrument, device” (see machine (n.)). Sense of “a mechanical contrivance or agency of any kind” is from 1670s.
There is an essence in terms, that is able to be discovered by the root in which they all stem. What exactly, are we dealing in?
This is what the root resolves. The root for these terms is magh-, a Proto-Indo-European root meaning “TO BE ABLE, have POWER”.
Etymology of *magh-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to be able, have power.” It forms all or part of: dismay; deus ex machina; may (v.1) “am able;” might (n.) “bodily strength, power;” main; machine; mechanic; mechanism; mechano-; mage; magi; magic.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit mahan “great;” Greek mēkhanē “device, means,” mekhos, makhos “means, instrument;” Old Church Slavonic mošti, Russian moč' “can, be able;” Old English mæg “I can,” Gothic mag “can, is able,” Old High German magan, Old Norse magn “power, might.”
Etymology of Magi (n.)
-
1200, “skilled magicians, astrologers,” from Latin magi, plural of magus “magician, learned magician,” from Greek magos, a word used for the Persian learned and priestly class as portrayed in the Bible (said by ancient historians to have been originally the name of a Median tribe), from Old Persian magush “magician” (see magic). Also, in Christian history, the “wise men” who, according to Matthew, came from the east to Jerusalem to do homage to the newborn Christ (late 14c.). Related: Magian.
Etymology of Magic (n.)
late 14c., magike, “art of influencing or predicting events and producing marvels using hidden natural forces,” also “supernatural art,” especially the art of controlling the actions of spiritual or superhuman beings; from Old French magique “magic; magical,” from Late Latin magice “sorcery, magic,” from Greek magike (presumably with tekhnē “art”), fem. of magikos “magical,” from magos “one of the members of the learned and priestly class,” from Old Persian magush, which is possibly from PIE root *magh- “to be able, have power.”
The transferred sense of “legerdemain, optical illusion, etc.” is from 1811. It displaced Old English wiccecræft (see witch); also drycræft, from dry “magician,” from Irish drui “priest, magician” (see Druid). Natural magic in the Middle Ages was that which did not involve the agency of personal spirits; it was considered more or less legitimate, not sinful, and involved much that would be explained scientifically as the manipulation of natural forces.
A reader may be wondering, why in the world have I included the etymologies of “Magi”, of “magic”, here above, that connected with the root of magh-?
A Magi is a MECHANIC, one who deals in MACHINERY, and its MECHANISM, but a part of the ancient scheme of things had the priest concealing, and deceiving around the mechanics in which things operate, so that they could GAIN and MAINTAIN that of CONTROL. What they had, which is Control, is what you commons misguided in misdirection and indirection call that of POWER, which means POTENT ABILITY. The priests and those of superstitious bearing do not have potent ability, do not have any power, but in misdirection, indirection, deception, and concealment, they bring about DISMAY.
Those who are priests, who are Brahmins, who are your shamans, in media, in politics, in schooling, all ruling, EXMAGARE Humanus… that is, “divest of POWER and ABILITY” that of those whom are their subjects… YOU.
Etymology of Dismay (v.)
c. 1300, dismaien, “become or be alarmed, upset, or frightened; to confound, break down the courage of by danger or difficulty or fear of calamity, fill with despairing apprehension;” perhaps formed in Anglo-French or Middle English from dis-, here probably intensive (see dis-), + amaien, esmaien, from Old French esmaier “to trouble, disturb.”
This is from Vulgar Latin *exmagare “divest of power or ability” (source of Italian smagare “to weaken, dismay, discourage”), from ex- (see ex-) + Proto-Germanic *magan “to be able” (source also of Old High German magen “to be powerful or able”), from PIE root *magh- “to be able, have power.”
There also was an Old French *desmaier (attested only in past participle dismaye), from de-, intensive prefix, + Old French esmaier, which also might be the source of the Middle English word. Spanish desmayer “to be dispirited” is a loan word from Old French. Related: Dismayed; dismaying.
Etymology of May (v.1)
Old English mæg “am able” (infinitive magan, past tense meahte, mihte), from Proto-Germanic root *mag-, infinitive *maganan (Old Frisian mei/muga/machte “have power, may;” Old Saxon mag/mugan/mahte; Middle Dutch mach/moghen/mohte; Dutch mag/mogen/mocht; Old High German mag/magan/mahta; German mag/mögen/mochte; Old Norse ma/mega/matte; Gothic mag/magan/mahte “to be able”), from PIE root *magh- “to be able, have power.” A present-preterit verb (with can, shall, etc.). Also used in Old English as a “auxiliary of prediction.”
In the emotional Kinetics of DEFEAT, it all begins with INSECURITY. One can say, there is FEAR here, however, the type of fear in which you inepts are able to detect is the kind that is often around that in the fifth Kinetics, that of surprise, as I render it “excited in ignorance”. This is to say, when you get startled by surprise around some unknown, some potential danger, threat, or “calamity”, you all see this as FEAR. So one could argue, on the surface, it is not that it ALL begins in FEAR, and insecurity, because, you all can say… but you are not AFRAID, for nothing exciting your IGNORANCE has you so excited. FEAR to you all is an EXCITED state, not a DEFAULT state.
Presumed of fear is that there are five or six universal modes of it, in everyone.
First is the fear of FALLING that was innate to the infant, and this fear is perhaps at the base of the attachment component.
This fear is perhaps a part of the universal fear, brought about by nature, of one's extinction, not to be mistaken for “fear of death”. This is not as much a universal as that of some subconscious sense of EXTINCTION, or ceasing to exist, almost with immediacy. Falling over a ledge has this sense of both. Fear of falling, from when an infant, causing one to GRASP with what they had, by way of Control, and perhaps power, and then that of not stepping over an edge, towards one's extinction.
The next is perhaps fear of excommunicare, whereby one is said to be “put out of the COMMUNITY”, or that of “out of communication”. One is “indicted”, so to say, among “one's own” for “behavior” that gets them “excluded”, gets them “cut off”.
This fear above is then perhaps, or certainly correlated with the fear around one's PHERSU and its REPUTATION, as some may say… its INTEGRITY. A fear of being ill known by others, or ill thought of by others, in one's character, one's phersu.
-
Fear of falling;
-
Fear of extinction;
-
Fear of mutilation, bodily harm;
-
Fear of impeded locomotion and expression;
-
Fear of excommunicare;
-
Fear of ill report, loss in integrity or standing of one's phersu/character. Shame, humiliation, disapproval, sense of “worthiness” to others, allocentric.
I am not settled on this notion of the universal fears, or insecurities yet… but will use the SCHEME, or the MACHINERY above for now, to bring about analytical and systematic thought of this approach.
These can be called insecurities as well as fears, and as insecurities, they do not require being EXCITED, like most may believe their states of fear must be, to be called that. It can be said you are INSECURE about:
-
Falling from ATTACHMENTS, and holdings;
-
Falling from EXISTING, persisting;
-
Falling from use of, or safety of LIFE and LIMB, and that of your BODY;
-
Falling from PHYSICAL EXPRESSION, and “autonomy” in form, locomotion, and action;
-
Falling from the GRACE, the ACCEPTANCE of others, and being ALONE;
-
Falling in CHARACTER in the sense in which others have of you, and that of incurring their tactics of SHAME, and silencing.
If the reader disagrees with me, when I say ALL Seduction begins in insecurities and ineptitudes, they then need to first say what is it they mean by “Seduction”. They need to prepare the answer to that question. They need to define what word they are using, if they reject my definition.
So you start with… “I reject your definition of the term 'Seduction', and instead, believe it ought to be replaced with this definition”. But if you accept the definition and description of Seduction, and still disagree, then you need to resolve if these “fears”, or rather these “insecurities” play a primary role in how Seduction is in ACTUALITY carried out. Also, even the notions of “love” and “care”. The six insecurities above are at the core of ALL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. The language that is used by humans does not conceal this. If I am using the English language, and adhering to semi standard forms of its use, and it all says this… what then, other than mere INSECURITY and IGNORANCE, would be at the root of someone, and/or others thinking they could disagree with these expoundings?
The MACHINE is the HUMAN. The MACHINERY is the HUMAN EMOTIONS. Shamans and their Brahmins are easy to detect. They make all these things seem mysteries, and spiritual, beyond knowing, and subject only to FEELING, therefore, they INDUCE that of DISMAY, that of exmagare.
IGNORANCE is a RELIGION to HUMANS, and when it is propagated, such propagation is carried out as a means to “divest power and/or ability” in that of the individual, and this is done so that the shaman and their Brahmins hold that of CONTROL over the MACHINERY. Shamans and Brahmins NEVER, and CAN NEVER have POWER, or that of potent ability. They can only play at Control, and in divesting YOU of power and ability, have you as their subjects.
They have done this by teaching you that INNOCENCE is on account of IGNORANCE, and so you try throughout your life to remain ignorant, so as to not be seen as a threat by others, or one who strays from the group.
Ignorance is the best form of relief, for the insecurities above. Ignorance in whose grasp you ought to be in, means someone, and anyone will do… will have held you, and will hold you, and keep you from falling.
Ignorance of the life to live; you can live DEFEATED, so long as this merely means living, and not DYING, or ceasing to exist.
Ignorance of when to be with risk, and when to avoid; having nothing to fight for, for you know nothing worth fighting for, has you avoiding all risk to your form, other than the slow harm you cause in habits.
Ignorance in any sense of EVALUATING a group, and the value thereof, and/or any value having been created from yourself, has you surrendering all your judgement to the appeal of the group, the favor of the group, thus making you a SLAVE in mind to collectivism.
Ignorance about where to move, how to move, what to express, where to express, has you without expression, all in the FEAR that if you express, others will shut it down. So instead, you have nothing worth shutting down by others, because you have nothing worth expressing.
Ignorance in the sense of character, and that of ETHICS, your sole standard is that you ought not fall out of the grace of others, and be sure to be pleasing, for as a collective mental midget, there is no sense of you, your character, your persona, that is INDEPENDENT―but all of it is about who you are… TO THAT OF OTHERS. When they would judge ill of you, would be for you to think yourself ill, in what areas they judge. To think yourself good, you need to think yourself good with that of those who do the measurement from their own insecurities. You are a slave to what others think of you, because you can not think of yourself on your own, as an individual.
It's all rooted in IGNORANCE and its DEFENSE.
You all hide behind your ignorance, and if you make “moves” and/or “maneuver” and/or “play” with any sense of being skilled and competent, you would fear, or that is, be insecure about getting caught. Because of these insecurities, there is no way you can make a transition from “played”, to “player”. You can speak as a “player” and pretend, but in actuality, these INSECURITIES make it to where the very foundation of “taking Control” does not occur, for in order for you to “take Control”, you would need to conflict with your Controllers, and if you think you do not have Controllers, that is your well guarded ignorance speaking. It's the same ignorance that would be used by you to think you are FREE, and that you are making choices. It's the same ignorance, when excited, that makes you ARROGANT, and when the two are combined… makes you DELUSIONAL.
The number one answer someone gives when they are caught doing something that another perhaps did not like, or would not have liked to have occurred, is… “I DID NOT KNOW”. This does not mean, the one caught was lying, or that they should have known better.
Often there is this presumption that most are lying when they did something, got caught and say they “do not know”, or “did not know”. Most would not think that ignorance is praiseworthy, but in their behavior and daily living, it is treated with such hidden praise. The deception is that knowledge is of value. The deception is that skill and competence means something, to the commons. It DOES NOT.
The deception is in promoting that one behaves knowledgeably, as they say “knowledge is power”.
Knowledge is not power, and knowledge is not prominent and prized. “They” are saying, in actuality, education can lead to more Control over your conditions―which will be, because it grants greater rank and status to Control others.
The real expression is… EDUCATION is CONTROL; not knowledge is power.
And that education divests you of actual power and ability, but instead replaces this with the procession, where one is appointed over others, in due time, and Control is secured through this. Through precedence, procession, and familiarity, and this is, more often than not, NOT SUBJECT TO KNOWLEDGE.
Education is about verifying, and securing one's social rank with others. It is an investment from the collective, to ensure that only the “right ones are let in”.
When you bow to education, you are bowing to the collective, and saying, you are not a threat, but you are THEIRS.
In order for you to do this, you have to secretly and subconsciously BETRAY KNOWLEDGE, and FAVOR IGNORANCE. This, because what is often the subject of a science, or branch of knowing, would contradict that of human behavior, and organization. It is because of the innate insecurities that if humans have to choose the way of knowledge, and such puts them at risk in the manner of the six base insecurities, that humans will fall to the six, and reject knowledge. What then is presumed to be knowledge is based on your status in the CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, and MANIPULATION spheres. The higher up you are, the more “in the known” you are presumed to be. Those who are lower can not choose knowledge that would contradict what “those in the known” say. Instead, those lower would need to choose ignorance in dealing with their hierarchies, so as not to CHALLENGE, and CONFLICT with those above them.
In all “fields” I have ever observed, and all “hierarchies” I have ever observed, “knowledge” or “in the known” was not “REAL”. It was all based upon what “RANK” the individual had “INVESTED” in them.
I had committed to, at a very young age, to “speaking KNOWLEDGE” regardless of the rank of the individual. I learned how to say what I know regardless, but to not push it. I say, I know this about that, that, and this, but that… more often than not, things are more complicated than that. That the “known” or that based on knowledge, with humans, is not always the “way” it is supposed to be. I knew from a very young age that ignorance was far more important to humans, and that knowledge among humans was a smoke screen.
Humans work hard to be sure that others accept them, in actuality, and do not come to SEE things about each other that are ACTUAL, but instead, only that which is desired to be BELIEVED. Humans, and most of you readers, being human, have no evidence in your lives of ever valuing knowledge, and barely anything you can say you do daily has knowledge as a primary. You have ignorance as a primary, and you are engaged in precedence, procession, and familiarity as the values of your loops, and no more.
It is not that when one is “caught” and they say, “they did not know”, that it is a lie; that in actuality, they perhaps knew better. No, it is likely true, THEY DID NOT KNOW. It is also likely TRUE that they, and everyone else, made sure in their daily lives, they WOULD NOT KNOW. Meaning, ignorance is well sought after, and the number one reason why ignorance is so valuable is because it is the primary mark of innocence, born out of the character of the little girl, in which all you effeminates wish to have the status of.
For a human male to be ignorant of things, especially common things, is because he was raised by an ignorant little girl, called a mommy, and he will prize her “innocence” and “ignorance” and hope to receive the same worship she has. Innocence among humans is not about, and never has been about VIRTUOUS behavior. Innocence among humans is about INEPTITUDE and not appearing threatening.
When you all would claim that you do not mark each other, that you do not target each other, and make each other victims… it is not because you KNOW what these things are. It is because in actuality, yes, you are all IGNORANT to what these things are, and therefore, should never be taken as a valid source of information, in the way you self report. You will always hide behind your ignorance, and when you are caught targeting, caught marking, caught victimizing… you will always say, “BUT I DID NOT MEAN TO”, and, “BUT I DID NOT KNOW.”
Yes, this is likely true. But I agree with the legal decree that ignorance of the law is no excuse; however, do not get it mistaken. I mean THE LAW, and not that of legislation, which certainly your Controllers keep you ignorant of. You go about daily ignorant of so many things, and that is why you need to employ others to act on your behalf in all manners. Why do you have politicians? Why do you have policemen? Why do you have entertainers? Have educators? And so on.
Why… You have all these things because these are the things you are IGNORANT of. You are IGNORANT at state craft, so those seemingly KNOWN here, run it over you. You are IGNORANT of self-defense, and the right and the means thereof, so you have policemen, considered in the KNOWN here. You are IGNORANT of Ipseity, of self, ignorant of epistemology, of logic, of pedagogy, and therefore, you have “teachers” in “schools” who are supposedly in the known here. You have so many others, doing so many other things for you, all because, you refuse to KNOW HOW to do these things for yourself. WHY… almost everything about your life is carrying on with the sense that SOMEONE knows what they are DOING, and “that ain't you”, and it is “those someones” who decide everything about your life.
And that a part of the insecurities, the six mentioned, is all with DIFFIDENCE, means, in that you do not trust yourself, you certainly then do not trust the so-called “knowers”, who are no more than Controllers in your lives. With your diffidence, where you emotionally have a mistrust of self, you were easily “DIVESTED of any power and ability”, thus existing in DISMAY, which lays the foundation for your DESPAIR, which guarantees you have no POWER, nor any ABILITY to make any moves in life. The secret you think no one ever thinks about, concerning you… is that you are absolutely NOT a part of your own life, but that you are entirely moving from one Control mechanism to another, just waiting for the procession to run its course, where as a familiar, you shall eventually be the preceding member, and given a default position of Control. You all just WAIT, and outlast those who came before you, so that you can Control those who have come after you. It's pathetic, and it's very HUMAN.
One who would be suited to “play”, and therefore, then “choose” that of the “right” so-called target, mark, and/or victim is one who was always doing it… and therefore, well acquainted with the DO. They may then find Entertainment in the notion, “YOU” are that of a “PLAYER” who can “choose” that of the “right” “mark”, “target”, or “victim”. They would find it entertaining, because in saying “they have been doing this, as is”, now, perhaps the “how” can become better informed.
However, the “how” being better informed, in the case of targeting and marking for access, is the how of the mechanics of ineptitude that prevail among the commons. And a part of that “access” is to “keep them ignorant” and use “misdirection” and “indirection” in your approach―all based on the CLEAR and OBVIOUS foundation in the six insecurities, that a “target”, that a “mark”, that a “victim” is one who would have their insecurities easily triggered if they see you thinking, plotting, calculating, scheming, and so on. All because they have been forbidden from ever showing this, and they are too, too ignorant in how it all works, and have had others Controlling them from the start.
Just like one has to be already engaged in some “play” to have “choice”, so then does the one getting “played” have to have already come from the “caste” of the “played”. The one who then plays them further, so to say, is not the one who had “made them a VICTIM”; they are the ones who played them previously, who have prepped them to be a victim, have made them a victim, and that is YOUR FAMILIARS, who in having been played their whole lives, have EXMAGARE, moving through them onto you, as a product of SAM’s ways, where too, in you, ye shall be DIVESTED of any POWER, ABILITY, and CONTROL; for others having PRECEDED you have RANKS established in the PROCESSIONS, that you have the sole responsibility to defer to, and in deferring to it, it obliges, and shows you a DEFERENCE around your ignorance and ineptitudes in return, as these things make you “unthreatening”.
“Choosing” in these decrees is absurd. The REAL secret is… most, and almost all… ARE VICTIMS, and they are victims of the say battle of access, and because of this, YOU too, likely a victim, are not making victims, are not targeting and marking, beyond what you have been permitted to. In actuality, because you are all victims, the most effective motion, in knowing this, is to just get access to everyone, no matter who they are, and when you do this… you can be selective later, having increased your opportunity. Even when I was young, in a “player culture” such as the “NYC Black American culture” and its subcomponents, there was no “playing” towards a “right target”; there was the “Wisdom” that “everyone is a target”, and “why make enemies, if you can make friends”, and so on. It can be said, this requires charisma, and those who are charismatic, in not aiming at some “target”, they transcend the mini-game of access, in that, it is them, which everyone seeks access to.
I, myself, would refuse to adhere to some notion of “targeting” and “marking” others. Oddly, it would become my “profession” to gain access to that of networks that the “nation-state” needed eyes on, in a foreign and international sphere. They would take me through training courses, and instruction on how to do it, even though I was recruited for my talents in having already done it, and having ins. This was my value from the start. Everything their instructors taught based on academic gibberish was for CHUMPS, and those chumps could only satellite the networks looking to be infiltrated.
I would get recognition of failure at their “plays”, while their chump candidates would be successful. One would seem to think, then, that I should not have become chosen in the field, but all this was just a formality. I was chosen before this process, not because of it, and through it, like the rest of the candidates. I was chosen, because I was a charismatic who could get others to come to me for access, not, me try to get access to them.
Every successful infiltration I had to networks was accomplished by just showing up, and “playing the condition”, and oddly, “playing the condition” based on who I actually WAS, and not based on DECEPTION. I played myself, or that is “through my self”, and though the “marks” were chosen by the “nation-state”, I knew not to mark them, but to MARK the CONDITIONS they were in, and be of value. One can say, this was INDIRECTION, and there is professional validity to that. Instead of going direct at them, I went direct at the condition, and this was indirectly about them. Yes, I know these ways, and my life once depended on me engaging them, with a profound sense of them. The same can be said in the private sector where I would infiltrate cults, for the extraction of individuals, and/or for intel.
Now, where I am from, this sounds like “snitching”, because it's working for the “nation-state” and/or some private interest. NEVER in my life was I ever used by the “nation-state” to rat out, or to SNITCH on those whom I had a previous arrangement, agreement with, association with, code with, standing with, honor with. I have NEVER betrayed another who was afforded my HONOR. But what also needs to be said about that, because this “Patterns” in importance to me, is that I also developed a system of ALERTING others, to how I COULD NOT BE, and SHOULD NOT BE a mark, or a target of the need for TRUST. That instead, caution is praised, and they can leave me out of things that require trust, to which all of them would then ignore in practice, and include me in everything. That was on them, as I have never “played” at securing trust, or some sense of honor, with ANYONE in my life.
From an early age, I preached IMPERMANENCE, and I preached SELFISHNESS. I have never been with the personality that one “befriends” and seeks “confidence” and “stability” in. I made it a point to “vanish” strategically from the company of others, often, so that they would be INDEPENDENT of me, and not see me as a part of their “realm” with a fixed role.
I remember a mentor who was the first to say to me that “familiarity breeds CONTEMPT”. He said to me, “DO NOT ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE to others. They will praise you, at the same time as DEVALUING you, because you are easy to get, and to have. DO NOT be easy to GET, and to HAVE to NO ONE”, he would go on to say.
Few had access to this fella, and he held a lot under his Control and his Influence, and he had never seen the inside of the can for more than a few days. He kept himself out of the spheres of Control and Influence of others, and made sure I knew how that worked. I was often his eyes, his ears, as well as his mouth, when having to deal beyond his secured spheres. To him, placing me with these experiences to learn from, I was very grateful to, and without that, I would not have been prepared for what would come later, with that of the need for me to be involved in the networks of others, in and around the way in which they were run. Too, I would become of value to them in the counsel I could render, assisting others in setting up secure networks and operations.
My role was not to WEAKEN even those chosen as TARGETS, but to STRENGTHEN them, while still maintaining an in. Those who only weaken others will not get far with those who prefer strength, and therefore, weakness is not the tool of infiltration of the strong often fortified. One must themselves CONTRIBUTE towards strength to deal in these forms of infiltration.
Up until the release of these pieces of literature, I had never shared with others the means, the “Ways”, and the “how”, or even that of the role of being an infiltrator of networks.
It was not until 2018 that I was done doing this, and finally retired. Because of this, I had to keep this part of my life hidden, which is not the same thing as lying, and deceiving. I kept it hidden by telling the “truth”, and that “truth” was, and always had been… IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, that of my past, and what I DO.
On the flip side, one would say, well… the lie and the deception is occurring in the now, trying to get others with your books, to think you were involved in some “cloak and dagger” living. This is not unreasonable for one to accuse of. So then it would beg the question, how would I answer to such an accusation?
My answer is as simple as it always has been… Who the câlice are you?
Only someone who is INFERIOR, and in need of others to be convinced of their persona, their character, their phersu, would need to convince. Those who defend themselves against accusations that they engage in deception and misdirection, are those likely doing just that, and often unskillfully, so they get caught here and there, and they have to make up for that. It means, they painted themselves as something else. Let me get this straight, I write a manual about deception, and its underlying motives, about Seduction, and its underlying motives, and I affirm a past around these things… and then one might say… “he is probably lying about that?”
Right… So my sense of these things, made evident in a manual, was acquired HOW?
“Well”, one could say… “from reading”. Alright then, and what books, then, would that be, that you would turn to in order to think on, and produce something of equal expounding? What books am I in agreement with, and vouching for? Who says the same in what I am saying about all these things?
This is not me saying it does not exist anywhere else, but this is me affirming in potency to say, I do not know of it existing in this form, anywhere else, but that in Access Denied, that being said, which based on my observation and experiences, has never been said in a close to likeness in shape and form. Said in other ways, perhaps, by certain degrees in likeness, but as a whole, it would beg the question… What kind of “Man” could think to say all these things to any who could simply read him, and does the mere presentation itself bring some sense of certainty to the kind of mind “he” is likely “wielding”, and in that certainty, begs the question… “What the hell has he been doing for these 43 years?”
Not only what have I been doing, but also, how is it, I have been able to do it, and yet still, I have made it this far and I am known by no one?
I was always the youngest one in the realms I was in. I was raised among elders, and when later I would go on to engage outside of my default settings, it was too among elders. This then goes to reason that I am not old enough to have some minimal exposure around these claims, but no more than that. There should be no one left who could find issue with that. But too, because of this, it would all be limited hearsay, to which my response would be… SO?
For me, that is a good thing. Evidence of me, and my past, and existence, would not be a GOOD thing, in the way things are these days. Far too many, in their COMFORTS, in their sanitized presence, and ARROGANCE, judge the past based on their present. Many do not know about how things used to be, and what was “NEEDED to be DONE”, and because of this, it is far better to be presumed a liar, and exist only based on hearsay, than it is to have actual data that delusional modern thinkers could use against you.
However, too, there is another trick here. I have forever in my life practiced the notion that one's past is more so an ACCOUNT of REACTIONARY variables, where they likely had less Control in the scheme of things, that they ought to have acquired when they come more into their OWN. In essence, I, or my “me” is based on the “POTENCY” of my “POWER” and my “ABILITIES”, and that which I have had the most “CONTROL” over for the LONGEST of times. This means, anything called “me” whilst in SERVICE to others was the “REACTIONARY” me, and no, I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for that “me”.
One who says, naively and ignorantly, that “one must take responsibility for everything in their life” must answer to one simple question that blows them up as an IMBECILE.
Would you say a slave, or a even a child is responsible for all that had happened to them, and what they did, in reacting to those happenings, or would you say… it was all conducted under that of duress?
When one does something UNDER DURESS, are they RESPONSIBLE for it?
When one acts on behalf of a master, as their servant… is the act that of their master, or the acts of a servant? When a lawyer defends a client, when the lawyer fails in the defense, should they too get the same judgement as their client?
Responsibility is a simple thing to simple folk, who live as mere peasants, as servants, as more often than not PRIVILEGED and PROTECTED kinds, who have never had a day in their lives gone by out of the NORM.
It is normies who would think to challenge that the odd words that come out of this writer's mouth, and/or from his hands… would be the product of one of their own, a normy only; otherwise, one who is a liar and deceiver weaving a tale that nothing in their normy lives could ever have them doing with such POTENCY.
Would one writing a piece on DECEPTION, on CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, MANIPULATION, and SEDUCTION be right to be presumed rather EQUIPPED and CAPABLE of using it? Sure, right to presume, but an error is in there as well. One only need to examine those having written about social Manipulation, to find most of them are nowhere near good at it. More often than not, they have used the works of others to advance their sense of it, and the evidence of this “from others” position is in that, they can not dare to say more, and to use the faculty of DISCERNMENT to build a map through the ideas. Instead, they have to refer to EXAMPLES, history, stories from the well-known, and rest on the ignorance of their audience in having some intimate relationship to the “subject matter” or that of “Patterns”.
With my works, it is not that they could be EVIDENT of anything claimed about the past. If I did things the way they were supposed to be done, then my past is well hidden and ought to be. Fortunately, my whole RELIGION, my whole PHILOSOPHY, and VALUE system is about NOT NEEDING the past, but being FREE from it, and ACTIONARY, DELIBERATE, and ETHICAL, or that is VIRTUOUS in the present.
Because of this, there can be no issue with doubts one would have about the past, shortly referenced here and there in my works. But one would be a FOOL to not observe in the present, that right now, before thee, I am doing what I have said in the past, if not even on a more… rather esoteric level than previously done.
This is to say, what a man does in the present certainly can say something about “what he may have done in the past”, and because of this principle, being likely an accurate one, I do today what I do, founded upon what I have done in the past―which I have used to inform me in gaining greater knowledge, which is a divine attempt of mine, that can then be used to advise my division making in the PRESENT.
As a present weirdo, it would be easy for two things to occur. Boring, and rather DIFFIDENT normies would use me as a TARGET of their MISTRUST in themselves and others, and therefore, a source of fuel for their DOUBTS in all things, or, as a normy, would use as a form of ENTERTAINMENT, in ENTERTAINING the possibility of what I say is “true”, and therefore, has more to follow.
Both normies would not get access. I do not speak of the past to elicit access and interest in the present. I speak, in what little I do, of it as a means to get it SAID AND DONE, and to be said NO MORE. This then means, it would be easy to spot a normy, who having supposedly read thousands of words written by me, makes those vary rare points a thing of interest. Ah, behold, a normy looking to consume some access around diffidence. Same could be said around the normy who then asks for more. More of past talk and stories, because in the thousands of useful things said about access, all they could hear was what Entertaining access could be had. Too, they are now exposed, and they are worthless. There can be no error in any detection that has a normy consuming with diffidence, or a normy consuming with interest of Entertainment and amusement. Both are UNDESIRABLES in the realms I speak of.
Controlling the narrative allows me to set this trap, and where one would say, then, I should not have admitted it, for surely then, there are those who can now “play around it”... I would say this… There aren't. The freaky element of these emotional needs are in that, those subject to them can not help themselves. It's a SCRIPT, as many of the warnings I put forth are around. I have already experienced so many marking me and targeting me, even after having the first book part to refer to, where the book did not alter their emotional needs, and displays at all. They continued SCRIPTED, and without any break from SAM. Too, they were ACCESS DENIED, after a few days of testing with Q and A.
No, by stating the tricks, the traps, the warnings, one does not then avoid them, when they seek access, because in order to avoid them, they would need to be about something else, in association with the work. That something else, that is not about DIFFIDENCE and that of REPUGNANCE, is either ENTERTAINMENT as SEDUCTION and AMUSEMENT, or for ADVANCEMENT. The first two are the likely forms of association, but are proven easily.
The third one is very difficult for an individual to prove. They would have to show that the material, rather the Patterns, did indeed advance their thinking and behaving, which is highly unlikely to have occurred. Therefore, on average, just about anyone who interacts with this system and seeks access to it, and/or me, is likely to be found out to be in it for the wrong reasons, warned against in the works. They are likely seeking it out for the stated reasons. And these are the ones then who would be caught up in that which can elicit diffidence and/or amusement. The second one asks a question and shows an interest in this system, they will say around what. The first thing they point out shows what they are about.
A mental midget who felt emotionally inept all his life was challenged to say what stood out to him in Part I, and the only thing he said, was… me calling out the shamans in New Hampshire. Out of all the things said, in the part, this one means perhaps the lowest of all things. But what it does do, is show that the messages mattering the most to him, unable to be integrated and Patterned, are the ones that show diffidence in theme, a mistrust, and in essence, adversarial sense to others. The same, then, could be said, would be hidden in his own nature, towards how he could potentially be in interaction with me and/or the system. That is inferior, weak, inept, and exactly what a whimpering little tit is about. The same can be said about how the males tested kept pointing out how the schools are why they are ignorant, and incapable. Excuses for why, with learning as a thing now, they have done so poorly, and continue to. That is the whimpering little tit theme.
The works were not for them, in the sense of, to be of use. But the works are about them, and others like them, in that, for the ones it applies to, I have set up traps everywhere to weed out those whimpering little tits of DESPAIR and INEPTITUDE, looking to consume in DIFFIDENCE, and/or AMUSEMENT of this novelty.
The same is said about every little seed of the past I have planted. Those seeds have a poison in them, for those who would make me their enemy of their diffidence, and/or their need for amusement.
There is no WAY for me to know if I am able to convey to a reader just how DEEP I have taken social engineering, concerning the mechanics of Control, Management, Manipulation, Entertainment, with its subgroups of Seduction, Amusement, and Advancement. All I can do is expound, and then selfishly use this model as a means to defend myself against those who would seek access to me, for whatever their reason. The only acceptable reason to access this system of thought, yes, a religion, and that of me, is in the ADVANCEMENT element of ENTERTAINMENT.
In essence, that even being targeted and marked as a manipulator with negative connotation, a con man, a cult leader, or anything of these targeting and marking, it ought to beg the question… If this is of my nature, not yours, why then would it be that your kin needs to learn these things from me, and you have never learnt it, nor bestowed it upon them, to ready them for the possibility that “my” Kind exists out here, able to do this?
Why is it, the villain has marked them for learning these things, and is doing a “tell-all” of some sorts? If you are the heroes, and the good people, why are you not preparing them with defenses against these things?
Right, because… YOU ARE IGNORANT, and when you catch me doing it… I must be doing it because only evil and manipulative kinds would speak about such things, and how they work. To you IGNORAMUS, there is nothing in this warranting self-defense.
So then, why, if I am the evil genius villain of Manipulation, would I ALSO be creating a condition that calls out the “Manipulation” and “Seduction” and is designed to DO AWAY with it, and screen it out?
Perhaps the ones who would ignorantly target and mark me would say, it is because… that itself is seductive, like a counter Seduction, and that is my game.
Sure, but I would then say… No, ignorant mental midgets… That is exactly what being ENTERTAINED in the ADVANCE sense means. Entertaining does not mean seducing, even though your ignorant kind is mostly only entertained in those two arenas, that of Seduction and that of amusement.
You can only mark me with these two, because in your ignorance, you have certainly been divested of any power, and ability that is attained through a form of advancement, that is encouraged through a form of Entertainment.
You chumps are so small that the light of my expoundings hurts your little infant eyes, as if seeing the Sun for the first time. So in your insecurities, you need to grab on to your ineptitudes and attachments as hard as you can, and try not to FALL, and look to your sides, to those in your social networks, who neither trust themselves, nor trust you, but lie to you in that they do, on a daily basis. You all know you are lying to each other, and what makes me a “good mark” for the diffidence and repugnance you all have, is that I can be observed to be FOREIGN, connected to no kinds, being a mere PHANTASM moving in and out of networks everywhere I go, belonging to none of them, and locked in to no one.
One who is not seen with CHAINS could never be trusted by those with so many of their own. To trust me, why… you would need me to be in chains too, hammering away in the same labor that brings you all such misery. But because I am not in chains, you slaves have no choice but to think, I must be one of those wicked masters, Controlling, Managing, and Manipulating others to serve me. This, because you slaves can only see masters, and you can not even see yourself as slaves. Just like your masters, who too are slaves, can never see masters, but only slaves. You both suffer the same infliction, and that infliction is;
From your very start you have been DIVESTED of any POWER and ABILITY at living, you are DISMAYED, EXMAGARE, and the thing you fear the most is that there are those rare beings out there who are MAGI, who know the mechanics, and its mechanism, and they just might say something, so whenever you all can, you mark them for destruction.
You bitch ass mental midgets ought to be thankful that I am not a master, looking to conquer you all in your petty existence. If I was a conqueror of humans, or others, I would do away with you all, and replace you with robots.
Your IGNORANCE is what your ARMOR is composed of, and because of this, it is a pathetic armor, that when it is put forth, to protect you from KNOWLEDGE, it falls apart revealing the tag of its production… that of MADE IN CHINA.
Targeting and marking… you do it every day, regardless of your ignorance.
Conquest code, and targeting
One can say, there is some validity to that of “choosing” that of the “right target”, so long as a qualifier follows. In the realm of the “mating market” or “sexual marketplace”, where the word Seduction is often limited, this so-called “choice” would be more delusional than not. However, to think of targeting only in this context would bring about the missing out on an in-depth analysis of one of the most innate and automated things about being alive.
All VALUES and VALUING require that of TARGETING. Every time you look at something, move towards something, seek something, want something, act towards something, you are, and MUST be… TARGETING.
Etymology of Target (n.)
c. 1300, “shield,” diminutive of late Old English targe, from Old French targe “light shield” (12c.), from Frankish *targa “shield,” from Proto-Germanic *targ- (source also of Old High German zarga “edging, border,” German zarge “border, edge, frame,” Old English targe, Old Norse targa “shield, buckler”), perhaps originally “edge of a shield.” Meaning “round object to be aimed at in shooting” first recorded 1757, originally in archery, perhaps suggested by the concentric circles in both. Target-practice is from 1801. Target audience is by 1951; early reference is to Cold War psychological warfare.
If the reader goes through all the etymology I have provided in the lexicon I am using, they should notice the clear core relation of many of these terms, in that, they are mostly that of… WAR terms.
The common use of the term “target”, outside the roots in that of an actual “aimed” at, and “fired” at object and/or individual, is that of:
A level, or situation that you intend to ACHIEVE.
To direct advertising, criticism, or a product at SOMEONE.
To direct an ACTION, advertising, or a product at a particular person or group.
INTENT has a strong place in the sense of this term. So it would be presumed that targeting is that of deliberate and intentional; however, there is that which can be called an INNATE TARGETING SYSTEM inside everyone, and this is observable in “what” is universally valued, from the species.
As a heterotroph, for example, you must target external sustenance for your own survival. That is, you must have targets of consumption in order to keep your machine, your body, in motion.
MUST HAVE is key here, whether you remember this or not.
The six insecurities above create a great deal of must do, in order to relieve the insecurity.
To avoid extinction you must eat food, and drink fluids. MUST is key here.
The same thing can be said around the other insecurities. When one fears FALLING out of TOUCH, or out of REACH of others, they MUST exhibit behavior that SECURES their place in the GROUP. They must SEEK to GAIN, and/or MAINTAIN ACCESS.
In order to seek to gain, and/or maintain access to others, the group, and one's reputation, they must “overcome” elements of their condition. Another word for overcoming is that of conquest.
Etymology of Conquest (n.)
early 14c., “the defeat of an adversary;” mid-14c., “subjugation or conquering by an armed force,” from Old French conquest “acquisition” (Modern French conquête, and Old French conqueste “conquest, acquisition” (Modern French conquête), also from Medieval Latin conquistus, conquista, all ultimately from the past participle of Vulgar Latin *conquaerere “to search for, procure by effort, win” (see conquer). From late 14c. with specific reference to the acquisition of power in England by William Duke of Normandy.
The Degrees of Conquest are:
-
Conquered, defeated, subjugated;
-
Resistance, rebellion, undermining, subversion, sabotage;
-
Seeking, acquiring, attaining, gaining, and maintaining;
-
Advancing, overcoming, defeating, victory, subjugating.
Conquest, used as a term, mostly accounts for the final stage of acquisition and victory, versus the stages that impact others. However, Conquest Code is to account for all these stages.
Most of you do not, and would not use the term “conquest”, because you are CONQUERED, DEFEATED, and SUBJUGATED… which is proven by the emotions you are prone to. You do not LIVE as if you are Victorious. Your life is plagued by insecurities and ineptitudes, because of your defeat, and this brings forth your anxiety, your concern, and need for care. When relief is not provided, you then become displeased, become repugnant, become disgusted with others and the conditions. This disgust, born out of repugnance, makes you then resistant, disruptive, rebellious, subversive, and prone to undermine, and sabotage yourself and others. This is all because you LIVE a LIFE of DEFEAT, of being SUBJUGATED, of being CONQUERED.
What makes this condition of conquered and defeated well hidden is that you do not have experiences in your life, where you observed someone or a group moving to conquer you, and your group. You have not seen the Code go through its phases, and this is all because… YOU WERE BORN DEFEATED. That is to say, your group, your parents, and their parents were likely already defeated, and subjugated, and therefore, the when and the how, conquest over them occurred, is well done and over with… The spoils and the plunders of the past victory are enjoyed today by those who rule, based on precedence in the procession, and that of familiarity.
The Conquest Code, then, is based on the most common status, in the conquest cycle, and that is subjugated, that is oppressed, that is defeated… and to say conquered.
Evidence in one's defeat and subjugation, or being conquered, is in that, the individual and/or the group will have no sense of conquest, and therefore, can not be observed DESTROYING their ADVERSARIES, the ones who have them subjugated, and moving towards that of their own conquest, their OWN acquisitions, gains, advances, and victories. In essence, the defeated obey, get in line in the procession, and live a life like that of all those around them. They will call themselves free, but they certainly will not say… they are engaged in CONQUEST.
Rebellions and revolutions, resistance, and self-defense are often the first stages of individuals and/or groups seeking to either CONQUER their ADVERSARY, or in the rare case, CONQUER their own CONDITIONS, and SELF. This RARE element of conquest is the kind that the Vir engages in. The Vir does not seek to fight, and/or to conquer others, but instead, conquers its conditions and its self, and where others seek to subjugate them, and conquer them, the Vir will defeat them, NEVER submitting, and NEVER living a life of defeat, and subjugation.
The human, with its repugnance, will be displeased in its state of defeat and subjugation, and predictably, it will often turn on others in the procession, and thwart any fight they have in them, keeping everyone down, and suppressed. Those who would shine would find themselves the TARGET of the EMOTIONS of DEFEATED humans, with the emotions of diffidence and repugnance largely at play.
The primary and base emotional Kinetics are not emotions that others and conditions trigger in you, and then cause to come forward. This is backwards. The more accurate way to see the emotional Kinetics is through the Conquest Code. When you are constantly feeling negative states, or Kinetics, such as insecurity, anxiety, concern, care, frustration, anger, diffidence, repugnance, disgust, despair, and excited ignorance, it is because you are DEFEATED, and you are SUBJUGATED, and the life you live is not being treated as YOUR life to be lived, with a “Way”, but instead, ALLOCENTRICALLY, you have a life that is lived for others, and about others… in SACRIFICE, and in SERVICE. Because of this, there is the innate human feeling of being lowly, and that is exactly what being human is. Servile, sacrificial, with low self-esteem, low worth, and subjugated by others. Human means defeated, and subjugated to the forces of the Earth, and those priests who rule over the minds of those settled in their excited ignorance and confusion.
Your emotions are APPETITES.
Etymology of Appetite (n.)
c. 1300, “craving for food,” from Anglo-French appetit, Old French apetit “appetite, desire, eagerness” (13c., Modern French appétit), from Latin appetitus “appetite, longing,” literally “desire toward,” from appetitus, past participle of appetere “to long for, desire; strive for, grasp at,” from ad “to” (see ad-) + petere “go to, seek out,” from PIE root *pet- “to rush, to fly.”
Formerly with of or to, now with for. Of other desires or cravings, from late 14c. As an adjective, “characterized by appetite,” OED and Century Dictionary list appetitious (1650s) and appetitual (1610s) as obsolete, but appetitive (1570s) continues.
The emotions as an appetite have, for each base or primary emotion, that which is being desired by way of DISTRACTION, RELIEF, or ADVANCEMENT.
The emotion is the source of the craving, the desiring, the pursuit, which all amounts to emotional evaluations, or valuing. That which is often valued on account of the emotions will tend to differ greatly than that valued, by way of the FACULTY of discernment and DELIBERATE and METHODICAL Reasoning.
For each of the emotions, there are those things that can be engaged to give them what they crave, to satiate, even though shortly, their appetite.
The emotion is felt, even in the slightest and most automatic form, and this triggers the petere, that is, the rush to seek; the urge to seek; the passion to seek, and when such is much, or great, it is called an “EAGERNESS”, which takes the form of the emotion of ANXIETY, or CURIOSITY, depending on the energies use.
When the eagerness is directed at LEARNING and KNOWING, it begets the TRACK of ADVANCEMENT of CONQUEST. When the eagerness, as an energy, is not used this way, it becomes IDLE, and in DIFFIDENCE, turns on itself, begetting ANXIETY; which when not relieved, begets CONCERN; which then begets the demand for, or display of CARE. This is the ORIGIN of CARE, which is then the ORIGIN of LOVE, which is POSSESSED in CARE.
During petere, there is the desire, the want, the need, for a response that is FAVORABLE. To petere, or that of appetite, is the call with the need for the response. Satiation is the response that is being sought. The EMOTIONAL need NEEDS to be SATIATED, and when it is, this provides RELIEF from the seeking, the pursuit, the craving... but for all Min, or that is hominids, who are heterotrophs, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be SATIATED beyond short spurts. Satiation is impermanent, and therefore, it can be said… one can never sustain that of satisfaction, but they must keep repeating that of petere, that of seeking to consume on behalf of the emotions, seeking satisfaction, and its relief. It becomes the cycle of consumption.
This CYCLE of CONSUMPTION, seeking, gaining, satiated, unsatiated, repeat, is a part of the animal machinery of ALL HOMINIDS, who are ALL characterized as HETEROTROPH.
This dependence, this reliance, this compulsion to serve the form, the body, the machinery of that of ANIMAL existence is the SOURCE of the INSECURITIES. The HUNGER, the CRAVING produces the MOTION, the KINETICS… for SECURING, or that is RELIEVING the states of HUNGER.
These forces of petere were called by my Ancestors preta forces. The Buddhists would preserve these notions in a feeble form, as that of the “hungry ghost” of their traditions.
The hungry ghost of Buddhism would not be limited to the notion of the emotions, the forces that seek to consume, but mixed with the shamanistic, indigenous and simple and superstitious kinds, it would become bastardized to match their beliefs in wandering spirits, and the dead.
In Viritus, when preta forces are discussed, in no way, shape, or form is it in reference to the way the Buddhists, the indigs of the lands where Buddhism was commercially spread, teach it. It is not Viritus that is taking the notion of preta forces from Buddhism, but it is Buddhism that had APPROPRIATED cultural notions from the SAKA, and transformed them to match the “ways” of those they were MARKETING them to. What I am providing here will be, for the first time, rendered as that of the ANCIENT STRUCTURAL SCHEMES that predated or preceded even the notion of the Saka, who were themselves only of the CULTURE of these Ways, and only a small percentage of them, less than 15 percent, were VIR.
Preta was about APPETITE.
PRETA FORCES
Etymology of Appetizing (adj.)
“exciting desire or hunger,” 1650s, from appetite on model of present-participle adjective forms in -ing.
Etymology of Appetize (v.)
“make hungry, give an appetite to,” 1782 (implied in appetized), irregularly formed (on model of verbs in -ize) from appetite, or else a back-formation from appetizing. The French word is appétissant. “In Fr. only the pples. are found; and in English the simple vb. is perhaps only colloquial” [OED].
The Proto-Indo-European root, here, gives the core sense of the term. It is pet-.
Etymology of *pet-
Also petə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to rush, to fly."
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit pattram “wing, feather, leaf,” patara- “flying, fleeting;” Hittite pittar “wing;” Greek piptein “o fall,” potamos “river, rushing water,” pteron, pteryx “feather, wing,” ptilon “soft feathers, down, plume;” Latin petere “to attack, assail; seek, strive after; ask for, beg; demand, require,” penna “feather, wing;” Old Norse fjöðr, Old English feðer “feather;” Old Church Slavonic pero “feather;” Old Welsh eterin “bird.”
The Latin term vespa, which is often translated as “wasp” and “waspy”, is connected, though not evident in its connection, via the available sources. It is vespa that is at the root of Vespillo, as a term that is used in Viritus, with both the exoteric sense, and the esoteric sense expounded upon.
The shamans and their Brahmins, who would retain “lessons” around these variables introduced by those foreign to their shaman ways―and in fact, in forbiddance of them―would take the terms, and alter them to match the needs of their local subjugated, simple minded folk.
The term “preta” would be born out of the invention of a local etym., in Sanskrit, to become the meaning of “departed”, “deceased”, a “dead person”, and said to be from pra-ita, which literally means “gone forth”, “departed”. This would come to mean locally, any “dead person” in the actual sense, or literal sense, and more narrowly, a ghost, or evil being.
They then report that it was Buddhism that adopted the term, from local beliefs.
This, however, is absurd, and inventive, but I am not here to defend, or to reform Buddhism, but certainly, as stated in Niō Zen, Beyond Sissy Buddhism, I aim to liberate Bodhi from Buddhism, and this is the awakened sense of the terms.
Surely, “dead person” and “the dead” is something that applies to those who are “superstitious” and not those who “know better”.
I have opted to use more Latinized terms, because of a more utilis based preservation of words, dealing with them far more effectively than those of the East, who have more of a “Earth” sense, versus “Solar” sense of language.
Too, being that English is the primary language I use in my habitat, it is best to keep it more near than not. But this demonstration in etymology, though perhaps not able to secure the route entirely, shows far too much likeness to be simply ignored.
Too, this part explains more deeply what the term Vespillo means, in that of Viritus, in that, surely a reader ought to be seeing that I choose terms that can say one lesser thing, one moment, and one greater thing, later.
Vespillo, as a term, is from vespa, which has the word “wasp” or “winged” insect as a factor, and not that of “death” or the “dead”―yes, the term Vespillo was used for an “UNDERTAKER” or “one who buries the dead”.
Noun
vespillō m (genitive vespillōnis); third declension
An undertaker who buries paupers.
A ghoul, grave robber.
Paupers are clear here, more so than merely the dead; but “buries the POOR”. This notion of the “the poor” will not be treated here, but there is an expounding that will occur to those in whom it applies to, elsewhere.
But too, in the definition of Vespillo, there is the GHOUL, and then, there are those who ROB that of the GRAVES, or that is, those who ROB the DEAD, or that is, EXPLOIT the DEAD.
The notion of “the dead” and that of a “ghoul”, a “ghost”, an “evil spirit” is shared in this term “Vespillo”, with that of the “preta” term. Too, in Viritus, there is this expression “the Departed”, or those “who are departing”, and this is not a Vespillo, but this is one who is BECOMING a Vespillo. One who is departing is one who is upon “SEEKING”, presumed to be seeking as a GHOUL, or as a PRETA, because what they are having to advance through is that of the “hungry emotions”, the “cravings” and the “base” elements of their “earthly” existence, or “animal existence”.
Therefore, by degree, one is a preta, when they are departing, and it is said, they are leaving the life of the dead, which is the defeated, and subjugated life, and their leaving is marked by their CONQUEST through that of ADVANCING, sparring towards that of CONTROL and COMMAND over their CONDITIONS, dead conditions, and SELF, dead self.
A Vespillo is a term of rank of advancement, of conquest, whereby one has buried the dead in them. One has buried their ghoul, their defeated self, and now lives through conquest over condition and self, in that of Victory.
The Proto-Indo-European root of pet is pret. In its meaning of “to rush”, and “to fly”, it is also connected to the term “Tyr”, as it would become rooted in a different system.
It forms all or part of: accipiter; appetence; appetite; apterous; apteryx; archaeopteryx; asymptote; centripetal; Coleoptera; compete; competent; eurypterid; feather; helicopter; hippopotamus; Hymenoptera; impetigo; impetuous; impetus; iopterous; Lepidoptera; ornithopter; panache; panne; pen (n.1) "writing implement;" pennon; peripeteia; perpetual; perpetuity; petition; petulance; petulant; pin; pinion; pinnacle; pinnate; pinniped; potamo-; potamology; propitiation; propitious; ptero-; pterodactyl; ptomaine; ptosis; repeat; symptom.
However, I must stray from this course, so as to not divert from the original path too much.
What makes one “dead” is that of being “DEAD to oneself” and this is the state of EXCITED IGNORANCE. When one is “dead” to themselves, they are the “dead” among the “dead”, for only the “dead” secure a place among the “dead”, and therefore, excited ignorance, with company, is that of society, or SAM. When one is “dead”, they are easily EXPLOITED, and their CONDITION is the GRAVE. Those who exploit them are also dead, and they are GHOULS, and GRAVE ROBBERS.
Where one is EXPLOITED, they are in the GRAVE, which is a LIFE of DEFEAT and SUBJUGATION. It is evidence of being the DEAD, and AMONG the DEAD. Where one is to end being exploited is that of CONQUEST, towards LIVING.
The cause of death is that of the APPETITE of the EMOTIONS, while engaged in DOMESTICATION. The domos, the house, is the grave, where one rests their bed, with the belief and the desire of PERMANENCE, with the most permanent kind of resting place, being… one's GRAVE. One who is well bedded, once used to be said by the nomads, as… sleeping in their grave. The vampyre, with its immortality, does not sleep in a bed, which is impermanent, but sleeps in a COFFIN, the more PERMANENT, or longer lasting of resting places.
The Vir did not make PERMANENCE around BEDDING, nor HOUSING, for the very reason of not being the dead. They were wandering, not as hungry ghosts, but as conquering ghosts.
When dead to oneself, this is marked by that of being a target of exploit, and IGNORANT to such. When one is dead to oneself, they can not use the FACULTY of DISCERNMENT, in order to ENGAGE that of DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL living, but instead, dead, they must run on an automatic system of craving, and the machinery of this, with its MECHANISM, is the electric chemical character of the EMOTIONAL KINETICS. When the EMOTIONS define the MOTION, it is called… ANIMATED DEAD existence. One is merely a “ghost”, a “ghoul” in motion, to feed. Pascere appetite. To FEED their appetite.
The emotions, at the base, are not the result of one's conditions, but it is from the conditions that one gets their feeding of the emotions. This is why the conditions must be CONTROLLED, and COMMANDED, in CORRELATION to what must be fed, by way of the emotions, and how. This means, one must use an INTENTIONAL and DELIBERATE system of TARGETING VALUES, for if they do not, the AUTOMATED, ghostly systems take over, and set the actor on a DEAD COURSE of CONSUMPTION. An automaton is one who follows their cravings, is subjugated by them, and thus, dead to themselves, looping about in pain and misery. This is most of you, but without contrast, you do not know any better.
The emotion of insecurity breeds the emotion of diffidence, where one does not trust the security of themselves, nor the security of others. Because of this, it needs to CONSUME, it needs to FEED on that which provides a sense of security, which is felt by way of SIGNALED RELIEF, in which ALL ACCESS is based upon. All access to others, in which humans seek to “feed” on, is about relief in insecurity. The only other option, or route, is when one is the SOURCE of their OWN SECURITIES, and in by being such, one is not merely secure, for this is an error; but one is lethal, is capable, is competent, or that is able to fly on their own. Able to rush on their own, to charge, to fight, to defend… on their OWN.
One does not become their own source of the sense of security, but instead one realizes security is impermanent, whereas CONQUEST is IMMORTAL, and actions of conquest through advancing continuously in Control and Command over one's conditions and self never has an end… but always rewards the moment with the sense of Triumph. With the sense of Triumph, one will not, and can not FEEL INSECURE. It is not that they are secure; it is now that security is not a factor… CONQUEST is, and more often than not, the more one engages towards Command, the more insecure, the more unstable, the more chaotic seeming, their life would be. Yet with such a vibrant, and vital motion, they become IMMOVABLE, with EQUANIMITY. An Equanimity attained through having a massive force of movement TOWARDS, and along a “Way”. For the Vir, this is their “Way”, the “WAY of the VIR”, that of VIRITUS.
Reader, dare I say… One who is uneducated, such as myself, ought to source their sense of things. But when one can not show to others how they have so arrived, what then would this mean, if too, where they have arrived is so foreign to where others have arrived?
I should not have a grasp of some hidden religion, in the most ancient of tongues, the Proto-Indo-European tongue. Yet I do have such a grasp.
This whole time, I have called Viritus that of my religion, the “Way” of that of the “Vir”. Vir perhaps elsewhere was first used as Vehrka, which would later be the root for “wolf”, and has the ka element for “dog”, or “wolf” later to be retained. But here, with the wolf, is the origination of the notion of “Man”, or that is, the “intelligent being with the wolf”, being called that of Vehr, which is obviously the same as Vir. But then, I say “Way” and say it often.
Why then is this religion called Viritus?
In the word “preta”, the locals said it is the combination of two terms: pra-ita, to mean “gone forth” and/or “departed”, and they saw it as a “DEAD person”. This is liken to those who are the collective, saying “one is dead to us” and/or “dead to me”. “They”, those “preta” are “dead to us” and they have “departed”, and/or “gone forth”.
Of the insecurities expressed above, being “DEAD” to one's group is under that of being EXCOMMUNICARE, and is a great fear, a great insecurity. One of the others is the loss in one's integrity, in reputation.
Etymology of Reputation (n.)
mid-14c., reputacioun, “credit, good reputation, esteem;” late 14c. in the general sense of “opinion, estimation,” good or bad; from Old French reputation, reputacion, and directly from Latin reputationem (nominative reputatio) “a reckoning, consideration, a thinking over,” noun of action from past-participle stem of reputare “reflect upon, reckon, count over.”
This is from re-, here perhaps “repeatedly” (see re-), + putare “to judge, suppose, believe, suspect,” originally “to clean, trim, prune” (from PIE root *pau- (2) “to cut, strike, stamp”).
One who is of the many, the multitudes, the familiar, fears, is CONSUMED in the INSECURITY that the group, the collective would strike them, would stamp them out, would cut ties with them, trim and prune them from the flock.
One fears, is insecure around ceasing to exist among others, more often than they are some ready fear, or insecurity around ceasing to exist in whole. Some, if not many, choose to die in whole, when they have first died, or have been cut away from their familiars. Access, and being accessed is way more important to HUMANS than often, even that of living and dying, where they rather die in form, than be alone.
This is not the WAY of the VIR.
Ita, in Sanskrit, said to be the joint form with pra making preta is:
Ita (इत).—p. p. [i-kta]
1) gone to; रुचिरं कमनीयत रागमित
2) Returned.
3) Obtained.
4) Remembered.
5) Attended by; स खलु तुरगैः सप्तभिरितः.
-tam 1 Course, mode of going.
2) A way.
3) Knowledge.
In Latin there is itus:
itus m (genitive itūs); fourth declension
1) A going, departure.
2) A gait.
3) The right of way, right to travel.
The Proto-Indo-European core, here, comes to that of:
Verb
eō (present infinitive īre, perfect active iī or īvī, supine itum); irregular conjugation, irregular
1) (intransitive) (to move oneself): I go, I move (myself) (any kind of animate or inanimate motion: walk, ride, sail, fly, etc.)
obviam ire alicui ― to meet someone, encounter someone
Synonyms: adeo, ambulō, baetō, bētō, pergo, gradior, īnferō, vādō, obeo
Rōmānī īte domum!―Romans, go home!
Rōmānī iērunt domum.―The Romans have gone home.
2) (to move forward in space or time): I advance, I proceed, I progress; I go
forth, I move forward, I move onward
Synonyms: prōcēdō, prōdeō, prōgredior
3) (to continue to move oneself as before): I proceed; I carry on, I go on, I keep going, I move along, I move on
4) (to occur resultantly): I happen as a consequence: I result, I follow
5) (with the supine): I make-ready for an action: I prepare, I set about
6) (in periphrastic constructions), (suggesting intent with futurity): I aim, I intend, I mean
7) (law) I go over to the opposing opinion or other side in voting: I accede, I cross over
8) (business) I go for; I am sold at (a certain price) (confer vēneō)
VIRITUS is the “Right of WAY”, the “Right to TRAVEL”, the “Right to MOVE” the “Right to ADVANCE”, the Way of that of being a “VIR”, a descendant of the Vehrka, living from, and out of one's Kind, which is not liken to the kind of the collective, of others, to whom the Vir has no insecurities around ACCESS with. The Vir is that kind that can WALK ALONE, be ALONE, and where there is no RIGHT companions, it chooses to be alone. It has no craving for access to others. This, is not its “WAY”.
VIRITUS is the “Way of the VIR”.
Vespillo may be one with only the culture, but this would be strict. Not one who is of some of it, and not all of it. The culture of the Vir is the “Law of its being” and therefore, one who is not ACCORDANT to such a LAW can never be said to be of its culture. Rare is it, one could honor its CULTURE, if not of its NATURE, but instead, becomes a burden around it.
Back to the emotions, and that of targeting.
The emotions, as FORCES, have to have TARGETS of SATIATION, of DISTRACTION of relief, but they are seen as ghosts, because YOU, the one they are noisy among, are so used to the NOISE that you can not hear it, and identify it. Instead, you say “I” and “ME” and “MINE”, which are mostly about how you FEEL, and therefore, your Sense of Life, born out of the collective, and your Sense of Self, born out of the same. These, then, become your “ghosts” that go without detection. They become your GHOULS as EMOTIONS, because of your EXCITED IGNORANCE around them.
When you are defeated, and you are ignorant, your energy of eagerness becomes ANXIETY.
When you are VICTORIOUS, and you are KNOWLEDGEABLE, your energy of EAGERNESS becomes CURIOSITY.
A relationship to KNOWLEDGE begets a further CRAVING for KNOWLEDGE.
The first is that of the path of a ghoul.
The second is that of the path of a MAGI, looking to Control the machine and its MECHANISM.
This first step of how one “SPENDS”, or “directs”, and what one “TARGETS” with and from their ENERGETIC, or that is, their EMOTIONAL body, determines all that follows from it.
When one takes the route of energy, of eagerness towards curiosity, they begin to TRANSMUTE the other emotions, once the path is HABIT. This habit is the habit needed for Virtue. HABIT, here, is key―not here and there.
When one remains wasted and DEAD, in their ENERGY, and it is without KNOWLEDGEABLE DIRECTION, it becomes anxiety. This then breeds INSECURITY in one's “TRUST” or “CONFIDENCE” in SELF, which extends to OTHERS. This is called DIFFIDENCE.
The emotion of diffidence requires the CONSUMPTION, the FEEDING, on that of MARKERS that elicit the sense of trust.
Those who crave, hunger for, seek to consume, in the word, and ways of “trust”, are those who are inflicted by the ghoul of diffidence.
They will try to “feed” on something outside of them, like a vampyre, to get this sense of trust.
Etymology of Trust (n.)
c. 1200, “reliance on the veracity, integrity, or other virtues of someone or something; religious faith,” from Old Norse traust “help, confidence, protection, support,” from Proto-Germanic abstract noun *traustam (source also of Old Frisian trast, Dutch troost “comfort, consolation,” Old High German trost “trust, fidelity,” German Trost “comfort, consolation,” Gothic trausti “agreement, alliance”), from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz, source of Old English treowian “to believe, trust,” and treowe “faithful, trusty,” from PIE root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”
from c. 1300 as “reliability, trustworthiness; trustiness, fidelity, faithfulness;” from late 14c. as “confident expectation” and “that on which one relies.” From early 15c. in legal sense of “confidence placed in a one who holds or enjoys the use of property entrusted to him by its legal owner;” mid-15c. as “condition of being legally entrusted.” Meaning “businesses organized to reduce competition” is recorded from 1877. Trust-buster is recorded from 1903.
The first description in the etym. is a deception. It has nothing to do with Veracity, with Virtues. The essence is “confidence”, is “help”, is “protection” and “support” drawn from others, and not internally created. It is about “comfort” and “consolation”.
The emotion, the ghoul of diffidence, where one has none of these things internally, makes them have to “feed” on others for some sense of it. But when one does not have CONFIDENCE in themselves, when one can NOT PROTECT themselves, and one is not SELF-SUPPORTING... then they can not measure, accept, and appreciate it, from and in those who do have these things. They become GREEDY ghouls, because they can not tell when enough is enough, or when something is secured, when something is protected, and when something is supported.
Their diffidence, having them unable to trust the self, has them unable to trust others, and because of this, they need, they desire, they crave, they demand from others constant displays, and servitude resting on the theme, the ancient scheme, of that of trust.
“Assurance” and “reassurance” is a better set of terms for this “hunger” and “feed”. But for now, I will keep this as stated.
Anyone who centers their mind and actions around trust is someone who CAN NOT be TRUSTED. They do not trust themselves, and no matter what you do to try to make them feel secure, they can not feel this way. The emotion, the ghoul of diffidence, prevents this.
When you too, suffer this ghoul, this emotion of diffidence, then too, no one sees in you confidence, sees in you a supported and protected status. Instead, they will CRAVE to feed on the TRUST you can not provide, and you do not know that you can not PROVIDE it; while at the same time, you will seek to FEED on their TRUST… only to be left STARVING.
When individuals use the term “trust”, and they make their access to each other around this… then the ghoul of diffidence is circling the graves. Someone robbed you of self-trust, divested you of this power and ability, and CONTINUES to.
The notion of trust, that of confidence, that of support, that of protection, is not one to be sought after in one's conditions. One has to―and can only―work on that of “trust” that starts with, and ends with, and in THEMSELVES. One does not seek to trust others, when they are healthy. One does not seek trust at all. One becomes confident, and one does not become confident by trying to be confident. This is the mark of the ghoul of diffidence. One becomes confident by using their energy, their eagerness towards the TARGET of KNOWLEDGE, of SKILL, of COMPETENCY, learning to FLY well. When one is flying well, confidence is a PRODUCT… not a TARGET.
When one has the product of flying well, that of confidence, one would never think of trust as something that needs to be sought, and found. Only those under the ghoul of diffidence have their graves robbed, and feel insecure, the opposite of confidence. One who needs to be trusted, and to trust others, is one who can not FLY well, if not at all. They are those seeking to be SUPPORTED, PROTECTED, and SERVED, whilst in their GRAVES… constantly exploited, and robbed of any sense of VICTORY.
Diffidence is an emotion. One will say that, “no, it is that others let me down”. “Others, who betray me”. “Others, who hurt me”. “Others, who need to earn my TRUST, but fail to”. Those with diffidence plaguing them will think, it is CONDITIONS, that bring about their mistrust in self and in others. That conditions confirm the “feeling”, which, in actuality, it will… so long as everyone encountered suffers the same ghoul of diffidence.
One who is MARKED with DIFFIDENCE is MARKED with a HUNGER that can be MANIPULATED through plays of access, in the battle for access where one seeks to make them feel that of safe and secure, able to be “trusted”. To feed the ghoul of diffidence, the meal, is that of feeding insecurities, and being SUPPORTING, being POSSESSIVE, while calling it PROTECTIVE, and ensuring access is sustained. Making one feel like they BELONG, and that they have a PLACE, is that of SECURING the GRAVE for further EXPLOITATION.
Etymology of Marked (adj.)
“having a mark,” Old English gemearcodan (see mark (v.)). Meaning “clearly defined, easy to distinguish” (pronounced as two syllables) is from 1795. Related: Markedly. Marked man “one who is watched with hostile intent” is from 1769.
Etymology of Mark (v.)
“to put a mark on,” Old English mearcian (West Saxon), merciga (Anglian) “to trace out boundaries;” in late Old English “make a mark or marks on,” from Proto-Germanic *markojan (source also of Old Norse merkja, Old Saxon markon “appoint, observe, remark,” Old Frisian merkia, Old High German marchon “to limit, plan out,” German merken “to mark, note,” Middle Dutch and Dutch merken “to set a mark on”), from the root of mark (n.1).
Influenced by the Scandinavian cognates. Meaning “to have a mark” is from c. 1400; that of “to notice, observe” is late 14c. Figurative sense of “designate as if by placing a mark on,” hence “to destine,” is from late Old English. Meaning “be a noteworthy feature of” is by 1660s. To mark time (1833) is from military drill, originally “move the feet as if marching but remain in place.”
The verbs in Romanic are from the nouns, which are early borrowings from Germanic: Old French merchier “to mark, note, stamp, brand,” French marquer “to mark,” Spanish marcar, Italian marcare.
Etymology of Mark (n.1)
“trace, impression,” Old English mearc (West Saxon), merc (Mercian) “boundary, limit; sign, landmark,” from Proto-Germanic *markō (source also of Old Norse merki “boundary, sign,” mörk “forest,” which often marked a frontier; Old Frisian merke, Gothic marka “boundary, frontier,” Dutch merk “mark, brand,” German Mark “boundary, boundary land”), from PIE root *merg- “boundary, border.” Influenced by, and partly from, Scandinavian cognates. The Germanic word was borrowed widely and early in Romanic (compare marque; march (n.2), marquis).
The primary sense “boundary” had evolved by Old English through “pillar, post, etc. as a sign of a boundary,” through “a sign in general,” then to “impression or trace forming a sign.” Meaning “any visible trace or impression” is recorded by c. 1200. Meaning “a cross or other character made by an illiterate person as a signature” is from late Old English. Sense of “line drawn to indicate the starting point of a race” (as in on your marks..., which is by 1890) is attested by 1887.
The Middle English sense of “target” (c. 1200) is the notion in marksman and slang sense “victim of a swindle” (1883). The notion of “sign, token” is behind the meaning “a characteristic property, a distinctive feature” (1520s), also that of “numerical award given by a teacher” (by 1829). To make (one's) mark “attain distinction” is by 1847.
In medieval England and in Germany, “a tract of land held in common by a community,” hence Mark of Brandenburg, etc.
Here, one comes to have, in the realm of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Seduction, the best sense of TARGET and MARK, as they are interchangeable.
“The Middle English sense of 'target' (c. 1200) is the notion in marksman and slang sense 'victim of a swindle' (1883). The notion of 'sign, token' is behind the meaning 'a characteristic property, a distinctive feature' (1520s), also that of 'numerical award given by a teacher' (by 1829). To make (one's) mark 'attain distinction' is by 1847.”
One who is targeting and MARKING is looking at the SUBJECT, and coming to PLOT out a sense of their MARKERS, their TRAITS, that would make them VULNERABLE to that of a SWINDLE.
Etymology of Swindler (n.)
1774, from German Schwindler “giddy person, extravagant speculator, cheat,” from schwindeln “to be giddy, act extravagantly, swindle,” from Old High German swintilon “be giddy,” frequentative form of swintan “to languish, disappear;” cognate with Old English swindan, and probably with swima “dizziness.” Said to have been introduced in London by German Jews c. 1762.
Etymology of Swindle (v.)
1782, back-formation from swindler “cheater.” Related: Swindled; swindling. As a noun, “act of swindling,” from 1833.
Etymology of Scam
1963, noun (“trick, ruse, swindle, cheat”) and verb (“to trick or swindle, perpetrate a fraud”), U.S. slang, a carnival term, of unknown origin. Perhaps related to 19c. British slang scamp “cheater, swindler” (see scamp (n.)).
Etymology of Con (n.1, adv.)
“negation; in the negative; the arguments, arguers, or voters against a proposal” (mainly in pro and con), 1570s, short for Latin contra “against” (see contra (prep., adv.)). Compare pro (n.2).
Etymology of Con (adj.)
“swindling,” 1889 (in con man), American English, from confidence man (1849), from the many scams in which the victim is induced to hand over money as a token of confidence. Confidence with a sense of “assurance based on insufficient grounds” dates from 1590s. Con artist is attested by 1910.
Etymology of Con (v.1)
“to guide a ship, give orders for the steering of a ship,” 1620s, from French conduire “to conduct, lead, guide” (10c.), from Latin conducere “to lead or bring together, contribute, serve,” from com “with, together” (see com-) + ducere “to lead” (from PIE root *deuk- “to lead”). As a noun, “action or post of steering a ship,” 1825. Related: Conned; conning. Conning tower “dome-shaped pilot house of an ironclad warship or submarine” is attested from 1865.
Etymology of Con (v.3)
“to study, get to know, peruse carefully,” c. 1200, cunnen, “make an attempt, try or seek to do,” from Old English cunnian “to know” (see can (v.1)). Related: Conned; conning.
Etymology of Con (n.2)
a slang or colloquial shortening of various nouns beginning in con-, such as, from the 19th century, confidant, conundrum, conformist, convict, contract, and from the 20th century, conductor, conservative.
All being corollary to that of CONFIDENCE, thus far stated often.
Etymology of Confidence (n.)
c. 1400, “assurance or belief in the good will, veracity, etc. of another,” from Old French confidence or directly from Latin confidentia, from confidentem (nominative confidens) “firmly trusting, bold,” present participle of confidere “to have full trust or reliance,” from assimilated form of com, here perhaps an intensive prefix (see com-), + fidere “to trust” (from PIE root *bheidh- “to trust, confide, persuade”).
From mid-15c. as “reliance on one's own powers, resources, or circumstances, self-assurance.” Meaning “certainty of a proposition or assertion, sureness with regard to a fact” is from 1550s. Meaning “a secret, a private communication” is from 1590s. The connection with swindling (see con (adj.)) dates to mid-19c. and comes from the notion of the false “trustworthiness” which is the key to the game.
You may have read over those etymologies, thinking, there was no need to think about them. Go back. Do not read this way with my works. They were presented for a REASON.
There was an expression, around me, growing up in Brooklyn: “What kind of CON you trying to RUN on me?”
And/or: “Do not try to CON me”.
“Do not run a CON on me”.
If you have never uttered these words upon another, having caught them trying to CON you, it is because you have never caught someone trying to CON YOU, and therefore, you have ONLY ever been CONNED by others.
One may think to say… “But wait… perhaps it means 'I' do not live in a 'world' where there are 'cons' at play. Perhaps 'I' have been living in an 'honest' and 'trustworthy' world, while you, mista writer, lived in that different world of con men, and untrustworthy vagrants, and therefore, likely are one yourself.”
Ah, yes… this of course then not explaining why, you can be so plagued with the GHOUL of DIFFIDENCE, neither trusting yourself, that is, having confidence in yourself, or others. If you come from a “world” of “trustworthy” kinds, then, surely, you would be “very trusting”, and therefore, surely, that “trusting of others” means a “trust” in yourself. Surely, you would be yourself “trustworthy”, but, how are you both this, and lacking in CONFIDENCE, insecure, at the same time?
Shut your mouth FOOL… you mental midget who has not been paying any attention. You have been CONNED from the start of your existence.
Does this mean I am the “anti con man”?
No, I am a CON MAN.
“What kind of CON?”
Etymology of Con (v.1)
“to guide a ship, give orders for the steering of a ship,” 1620s, from French conduire “to conduct, lead, guide” (10c.), from Latin conducere “to lead or bring together, contribute, serve,” from com “with, together” (see com-) + ducere “to lead” (from PIE root *deuk- “to lead”). As a noun, “action or post of steering a ship,” 1825. Related: Conned; conning. Conning tower “dome-shaped pilot house of an ironclad warship or submarine” is attested from 1865.
The SHIP is, and always has been, my own form, my own VESSEL, under my CONTROL, and my COMMAND, that when “together” with others, I certainly have not surrendered, in MISTRUST of my own STEERING, thus seeking to DEFER to the STEERING of others.
Me being a CON MAN, steering my own SHIP, along my own WAY… does not mean I AM YOUR CON MAN. I am not seeking to get you to have confidence, to trust that of my steering, because I AM NOT, and never have been STEERING your CÂLICE of a BOAT.
But are you the COMMANDER of your ship? Are you STEERING your boat? Are you a TRAVELER? Are you “DEPARTING” from your “BIRTH”, or are you, as they say, “CRADLE to the GRAVE”, almost IMMEDIATELY so?
Where have you steered yourself?
Did you steer yourself to your family, or did nature steer you there?
Did you steer yourself to the geographical location of your ORIGINATION, or did nature steer you there?
Did you steer who you would become associated with, from familiars in the house, to familiars nearby, in their houses?
Did you, for the first 18 years of your life, steer yourself, or did your familiars steer you?
You steer yourself into the SCHOOLS? You steer yourself into how you dress up, and who you UNDRESS for?
You STEER yourself anywhere within this SOCIETY ADVANCED in SYMBOLS, through the MAJORITY?
What the hell kind of role have you ever had, in taking CHARGE and STEERING your life?
Why, the reason you all would think I am trying to steer your boat, for you, and over you, is because you have never steered your boat. SOMEONE has always been STEERING you, but through DIVESTING you of POWER and ABILITY, which is the character of a boat… which then means, you have never even DEPARTED, by boat. You have been RESTLESS in your GRAVE, and it is everything around the GRAVE that comes and goes that is being STEERED by those PRIVATEERS out there, exploiting and robbing you, from CRADLE to the GRAVE, which you moved so fast from, never realizing it.
You can not think, I am trying to steer you, if you are at the HELM doing the steering. You can only think I am trying to steer you if that role of STEERING has never been in your “HANDS”; therefore, meaning, you ain't never become a MAN, MANIPULATING your own course through life, but instead, ever so in captivity as a DEAD HUMAN, be ye female or male.
Yeah, I am a CON man, who is in COMMAND, CONFIDENTLY of his own BOAT, his own SHIP, with the RIGHT of TRAVEL, and the RIGHT of WAY, in this life, guided by and through the VIRTUES of being a VIR, that of the WAY of the VIR, that of VIRITUS. I steer and COMMAND from and through this WAY, and DO NOT GET IT MISTAKEN… that has NOT CÂLICE to do with you and your GRAVE you think is a BOAT. It's not.
Not all CONFIDENCE had by a MAN is CONFIDENCE being pushed onto others.
From mid-15c. as “reliance on one's own powers, resources, or circumstances, self-assurance.” Meaning “certainty of a proposition or assertion, sureness with regard to a fact” is from 1550s. Meaning “a secret, a private communication” is from 1590s. The connection with swindling (see con (adj.)) dates to mid-19c. and comes from the notion of the false “trustworthiness” which is the key to the game.
The way you can tell if someone is running the kind of con that relies on “false trustworthiness” is simple: they need you, and try to get you to “trust” them, even if they do not, and you do not… even trust yourself.
This is what YOU all do. I never try to get others to trust me, but instead, make it quite clear that… I am SELFISH, I am the VILLAIN, I am about MY WAY, for me, and any seeking to be about the same, must EARN through being like in the same, not earn in trust of being the same. I rely on my CONFIDENCE, not yours. And when it comes down to others who do not have CONFIDENCE in themselves, seeking to have CONFIDENCE in me in replacement thereof… Why, I answer with ACCESS DENIED.
It is YOU all who mark me in confidence, while I mark you in DIFFIDENCE. Do not get it mistaken. When I mark you in diffidence, it can not be said that I then seek to trust you, and have you trust me. This would be ABSURD. For under the ghoul of diffidence, in your graves, you can neither trust yourselves, nor others, because you do not know how to navigate the seas you have never been upon. You have never existed in a realm where anyone, including yourself, was skilled enough, competent enough at living, to be deserving of the CONFIDENCE of any. You have NO RELATIONSHIP with CONFIDENCE, and that is why you need to CRAVE, why you HUNGER for, and you SEEK out that which in feeding, you presume… will give you satiation.
You all target me, because of my mark of “SELF-RELIANT CONFIDENCE”, and I am the WereWolf, the Vehrka, you vampyres in your diffidence wish to FEED on. You wish to FEED on, and off of my CONFIDENCE. In order to do this, you need to treat me favorably to get and maintain ACCESS to me, and therefore, you need to go with my confidence, and see it as something directed at you. It is not, and it never has been. You were FEEDING, and feeding has been halted, with Access Denied. I shall never have my CONFIDENCE be the supper of others, ever again.
Confidence is a mark, just like diffidence is a mark. Those with the mark of confidence get called the con man, and get seen as the swindler, as one who has diffidence can not tell the difference. One who can not tell the difference can not think of one having REAL, and ACTUAL self-reliant CONFIDENCE… because they themselves do not, and may not be able to. Therefore, All CONFIDENCE is treated as ARROGANCE, and he who appears to have it is SWINDLING with it as their TOOL. One does not stop to think that the only way one can swindle with confidence as their tool, is if others VALUE the consumption, and feeding on confidence, because they do not have any of their own. The con man who is using a false sense of “trustworthiness” can only do so, because you all are STARVING for what CONFIDENCE is, and you have no idea how to discern between authentic confidence, and that of entertaining and amusing forms of confidence. You get played by con men, only because all of you are running a CON, and you just do not realize it.
Con (v.3)
“to study, get to know, peruse carefully,” c. 1200, cunnen, “make an attempt, try or seek to do,” from Old English cunnian “to know” (see can (v.1)). Related: Conned; conning.
Every time you all target each other for that of access, what is the number one way you begin?
Why… You “get to know” that of each other, and you do so “CARE-fully”, that is “full of care”. You get to know each other, full of CARE, which is proven by how “ANXIOUS” and “CONCERNED” you all are, around “getting to know each other” and coming to be “known by others”. The presence of these GHOULS, anxious and concerned, proves the presence of the GHOUL of DIFFIDENCE. For, if not with the ghoul of diffidence, one would not be getting to know others CARE-FULLY. The CAREFULness of you all getting to know each other, to study each other, where “attempts” are made, with “trials at doing”... are all the mark of a CON.
It becomes a SWINDLE when there are “false promises” and there are “giddy” displays of “value”.
Etymology of Giddy (adj.)
Old English gidig, variant of gydig “insane, mad, stupid,” perhaps literally “possessed (by a spirit),” if it is from Proto-Germanic *gud-iga- “possessed by a god,” from *gudam “god” (see god (n.)) + *-ig “possessed.” Meaning “having a confused, swimming sensation” is from 1560s (compare sense evolution of dizzy). Meaning “elated” is from 1540s. Related: Giddily; giddiness.
Etymology of Giddiness (n.)
late 13c., "thoughtless folly, flightiness," from giddy + -ness. Meaning "dizziness, vertigo" is from late 14c.
Etymology of Giddily (adv.)
mid-13c. “madly, foolishly, in a flighty or foolish manner,” from giddy + -ly (2). Meaning “dizzily” is by 1729.
Etymology of Swindler (n.)
1774, from German Schwindler “giddy person, extravagant speculator, cheat,” from schwindeln “to be giddy, act extravagantly, swindle,” from Old High German swintilon “be giddy,” frequentative form of swintan “to languish, disappear;” cognate with Old English swindan, and probably with swima “dizziness.” Said to have been introduced in London by German Jews c. 1762.
Why… how many of youse, especially BOYS and GIRLS, are marked with GIDDINESS, especially when you are seeking
“to study, get to know, peruse carefully,” c. 1200, cunnen, “make an attempt, try or seek to do,” from Old English cunnian “to know” (see can (v.1)). Related: Conned; conning.
How many of you are “marked” with “giddiness”?
I am not marked as giddy. I am not seen as “mad”, as “foolish”, as “flighty”. Insane, stupid, and possessed are not those things others declare, I bear the marks thereof. But in most of you, it's exactly how you behave. Why?
Who has taught you all, STEERED you all, CONNED you all into behaving this way? And then how is it, when I say you have been DIVESTED of POWER and ABILITY, you would not think so rapidly that in the absence of these two marks, you are left with giddy and amused, stupid and inept, and without any confident and competent Commander at the helm?
Who is CONNING you, is DIVESTING you of POWER and ABILITY? How am I the one running the con, when I am all about power and ability, less it be the ghoul of diffidence must lead one to think… “Well… YOU mista writer/speaker, are not really about those things. You, mista, aim to DIVEST me of my power and my ability, through running a con, getting me confident in you.”
What POWER, what ABILITIES, what relationship to CONFIDENCE, and what VALUE? You ain't got any of these things. When you do not have any of these things… and you say someone is running a con to “divest” you of these things, and/or to make them their own… Who then is running the con? It would seem like… YOU ARE. You would need others to TRUST that you have worth, but you know you do not. That would be a FALSE TRUST.
Let me tell you reader, and/or listener, what con prevails the most in this SAM, this Symbolic Society Advanced through the Majority, and that is the con between females and males, that almost all ghoulish females run.
The term “swindler”, is so…
“swindling,” 1889 (in con man), American English, from confidence man (1849), from the many scams in which the victim is induced to hand over money as a token of confidence. Confidence with a sense of “assurance based on insufficient grounds” dates from 1590s. Con artist is attested by 1910.
How many males in society have to bring “home”, that is the “graveyard”, resources, money, and gains in order to prove their confidence in a female? Yeah, you do not want to face this question… of course not. But here it is.
70 percent of divorces in the US are initiated by females in the marriage. Now, make no mistake, I DO NOT believe in marriage. It's not real, but it is some kind of contract, and it serves the interest of females, not males. But that contract, whatever it means, numerically becomes violated, mostly, overwhelmingly by the females in the contract, not the males. Now marriage is going down, so divorce is as well.
Marriage is a CON, all of it. The very notion of a marriage being conducted is to increase the confidence that the one contracted with is going to stick around. BAM!
Dispute that, and say marriage is not a con. If the marriage is supposed to elicit confidence by way of contract that the parties will stay together, with security, and then 70 percent of the divorces are initiated by females, and therefore, the numbers say, marriage is not secure… then how is it, you could conclude that marriage is not a “false sense of trustworthiness”?
The numbers say… you should not, as a male, TRUST, or that is, have CONFIDENCE that the marriage contract would secure your access to that female. First, that itself is GHOULISH. Only chumps need marriage, outside of the political and social status use of the contract. Meaning, in the realm of high performance earners, marriage is the mark of “confidence” others use to say you are stable, have things to “take care” of, to “support”, to “protect”, rather “possess”, and therefore, what realm you “earn” in, and can expect you would be motivated to earn more.
So in higher realms of earnings, divorce rates are lower. Meaning, low earners divorce more than high earners. This is a correlation. This means, because females initiate divorce overwhelmingly, the more earnings there are, around the female, mostly carried out by the male, the more “trustworthy”, the more “confidence” there is… that the marriage contract will be “honored”.
Listen, or that is, read me carefully here. How is marriage, then, not a SWINDLE from a female to a male?
“swindling,” 1889 (in con man), American English, from confidence man (1849), from the many scams in which the victim is induced to hand over money as a token of confidence.
A so-called con man is not common. This, because “earners” are likely to get conned out of their earnings. Can you say to me, or anyone, that a con man cons the earnings of others, more often than a wife who initiates divorce?
You can, if in your EXCITED IGNORANCE you do not know the numbers. The numbers are clear… If you are an earner, with value of the material form, you not only are more likely to be conned by a female through the con of marriage, it is almost certain you will, have been, or are about to be.
But it is more certain that as a lower earner, barely an earner in an EARNEST sense, you will be CONNED by MARRIAGE more, because you were not able to secure the necessary “money” or resources to keep the con active, and she needs to move onto a new one.
You humans and your ways that are normal are GHOULISH, and this is what I think of you RETARDS as you have in the past tried to define me, or mark me, in my self-reliant confidence, as the con man, running a con on you. You CHUMPS are not con men in the real sense, but certainly, you are SWINDLERS. This, you all have the mark of.
Marriage is for swindlers, and so long as you have the “money”, the “earnings” to keep the swindle active, you will have lower divorce rates, or swindle separation. But those of you marked by low “earnings”, you will likely get divorced, and because nature made you retards produce offspring to make sense of your COWARDICE at a defeated life, you will enter into “CUSTODY” disputes, and find yourself “CUT OFF” and “SLICED OUT” of the “in group”, which for you may be worse than “extinction”, even become the trigger for “self removal”, for “suicide”―all because you would not have caught in time that domestication itself is the biggest swindle there is, and NATURE DIVESTED you of the power and ability to overcome it, to CONQUER it.
To conquer nature, in order to not be swindled by domestication, you have to first come to KNOW, with your ENERGY of EAGERNESS, and in coming to know, to OBEY and find ACCORDANCE with the KNOWN, and then, through such OBEDIENCE, working from and through NATURE, come to your OWN COMMAND.
I do not try to get you to be marked in confidence, that you can do this. Instead, I am telling you, the reader, and the listener, that your chances of success at this Way are worse than your chances of keeping the swindle of marriage and group identity active. Meaning, you ought not be confident in this Way being met for you. It is highly likely it is not, and when you get the sense I am seeking to get your confidence… it's because you do not have any to give. It is you, instead, who is likely looking to FEED on my confidence, and in your DIFFIDENCE, ignorantly getting ready to call me the con man. You're the swindler trying to feed on my confidence, and I SEE YOU.
Choosing the “right” target, and mark does not tell you why you must, and will seek out, that is pursue others, target and mark others. Because you will be ignorant of the need for the emotions to consume certain markers… you will not know how to STEER your sense of the markers. You and your relationship to markers will be subject to the markers you have, that they are ignorantly encountering, all by chance, and all through opportunity, and that which presents ease.
The notion of marriage above shows this.
Say a female does not earn her own life, but depends on you for that earning. She will need her “TRUST”, her DIFFIDENCE to be fed by a higher earning male. But say you are not an earner as a male. Then the marker is clear. Marriage will be a CON, because it will not secure the association. The association, for the most part, can not be secured by any other way.
If a female is her own earner, do not get it mistaken. This does not mean, you can then not be an earner. She will still measure the male and her sense of security, in her diffidence, based on these markers. In order for this not to be the case, the male would need to be a massive entertainer, able to keep her excited in thought and activity, and if this is not massive, and he is typical, normal, and average, then he will be without trust, in his ineptitudes and his ability to secure, protect, and support anything.
Now, it is not only the earnings that keep this swindle alive. Often, even with high earnings, if a human male is not providing the female with Entertainment and social value, she will still end the swindle, and move on to a new one, only this time, thanks to the state, her mommy, she will take some of those male earned earnings with her, to stand upon. This is what the SWINDLE of marriage provides females. Perhaps males thought in the past, it secured the female in their lives. That too, is ghoulish. Be not then surprised that now, what it secures is the female's access to the male's earnings, even after she has removed all the behaviors of giddiness that got her there.
Yes, read that with clarity. Listen with clarity. The evidence it is a swindle is because both of you began in the HONEYMOON period with ENTERTAINMENT and AMUSEMENT as a factor. You SEDUCED each other, in that, you both engaged in DISTRACTION and RELIEF, but energetically, your level of engagement was not authentic. Eventually, your authentic energy levels kicked in, especially hers, and no longer do you get the giddy side of her, that she used to cloak her arrogance, her ignorance, her demand for deference… and diffidence, but now, through her demands levied, they are all governed by insecurities and diffidence, that the male then needs to provide a distraction and/or relief for, and rarely if ever, the other way around.
Evidence of how you all swindle each other is everywhere. Giddiness and amusement is in most of you… and it is the EVIDENCE, you are all SWINDLERS. I have cut out of my life all of those who are giddy about amusement, about distraction and relief. This means, they can not mark me with these things, and seek to feed their ghouls with what I have, that of the MARK of CONFIDENCE.
I would never say I am not a con man, because I am a CONFIDENT MAN. But no one can ever justifiably say I am a swindler.
I do not even have a taste for money. It can be said, I am quite allergic to it, and I have a strong preference for simplicity. I can play with money, but never would I let it dictate my life. Yet, all of you are so insecure and diffident around that of money, resources, the graves you all call houses, and the GRAVEyards you all call cities. In your insecurities, it must be that my confidence is fraudulent. Little did you know, that one day, I would call you GHOULS out, and ready this self-defense manual to stop others from controlling the narrative from their ghostly ignorant, and hungry minds. I am not your food, VAMPS, move on…
ACCESS DENIED.
Females and males mark each other without knowing, or knowingly all the time. Males mark males, and females mark females. You are all MARKING each other, and this is UNAVOIDABLE. You do not CHOOSE to MARK each other, or who you will MARK for your CON, those you will “study, get to know, peruse carefully”.
Why… You are taking what you can get, that was put in place by the character of your condition, a character that is all based around resource acquisition and maintenance. Access to resources because of security for the females, and for the male's access to her, as a symbol, as an attachment, to provide relief in your insecurities around “falling”, that is being “dropped”, being “cut out” and “struck from the group”.
How often does a female lose her network, never able to return to it to be cared for?
One would never have thought about that, but there is a greater chance a male can be strongly cut off, hell, sent to prisons, than there is a female would ever find herself on her own. Females have their insecurities around resources, but almost always can SWINDLE a male, with the promise of being their network, their CARING form… and with ease. However, the human male has to fight often, and serve heavily that of the collective, in sacrifice to secure for themselves the network that holds them as their CHUMPS, defeated and exploited in their GRAVES.
You all have all kinds of markings upon you that say exactly what you exist for, for others, and the reason why you knew nothing about targeting and marking is because you are the TARGET of others, the MARK of others, and you do not do any of your own TARGETING and MARKING, because this would not be a divestment, but an ADVANCEMENT, and divested in power and ability, one of those primary powers and abilities is the ability and the power to DISCERN, to mark, and to aim, that is TARGET, things based on their markings. YOU have been too busy, and kept busy being GIDDY, swindling each other for resources, and/or affection, to keep your ghoulish emotions fed.
The ghoul of diffidence needs, craves, wants, desires TRUST, but can never have it, in the self, or others. It makes itself known in the CRAVING that begets the DECLARATIONS of it as a value. Loud decrees of value in a thing means the thing has not been attained. Only those of DIFFIDENCE attract and sustain others in DIFFIDENCE. Those in CONFIDENCE attract and sustain with others too in CONFIDENCE.
Confidence itself is not sought. Those who seek it do not have it, and in seeking it, will not find it. Confidence is a product of competence, of skill, of knowledge, advancing and steering one's own course.
The next ghoul that is born out of diffidence is that of DISPLEASURE, that of not “getting what one wants”, or that of “no relief” for the previous demanding ghouls.
Relief is key here. When an emotion, a ghoul is fed, it becomes relieved. It becomes COMFORTABLE. This relief is short-lived and the cycle of feeding would need to be started back up again. When you seem to not be expressing the ghoulish form of your insecurities, it is because something is making you have a sense of relief, called a SENSE of SECURITY. When you do not have a system that can be used to measure ACTUAL security of the states, through discernment and reasoning on, then you can only have a SENSE of the state. When SUBJECT only to the SENSIBLE, then you're able to easily be misled. You have no standard to measure, and to value. You simply FEEL this way or that.
The evidence you are dealing only in the sensible is that you loop through the emotional Kinetics. You have relief one moment, craving the next. When conditions are favorable to the emotions, the cravings seem short, because the relief comes fast. This is what it means to be emotionally pleased, and with deference, that is, where one's conditions yield, or defer to one's emotions as the superior.
A constant state of relief is what comfort is. When one is in this state, they are divested of power, and ability, because power and ability would bring them out of this state, and instigate CHALLENGE and OVERCOMING. Any sign of this direction, in those suffering diffidence, will instigate the revelation of the other insecurities, or ineptitudes, in which the subject aims to avoid, and thus, remain with ease, with comfort, with no motion towards conflict. They say they avoid conflict. They say “they do not like conflict”. They say “there is no need for conflict”, and so on. They are CHUMPS.
When the energy and eagerness does not go by way of curiosity, but to anxiety and diffidence, the diffidence interferes with the ability to be “pleased” in the sense of “relieved”. By what degree it is determines how much “food” or “relief” is needed, to “feed” the “feeling”. When the diffidence does not factor heavy, then when one shows their concerns, their care needs to another, and the other reciprocates with care, then this brings relief to the inflicted. More often than not, without the need to signal the NEED to FEED, one is FED CARE automatically in the condition. The condition is marked by that of care. It is a CARING condition, whether one needs to feed on care, or not. Therefore, one becomes OVERFED in CARE. This is key. When one becomes OVERFED in CARE, they will not observe the ghouls that are hungry in them… such as that of their anxiety, their concern, and their diffidence, because these ghouls are over satiated with care. They are smothered in care. So they are made dull, they are made quiet, they are in a carb slump, and without conflict.
KEPT FAT and QUIET with CARE, in that of a condition of care. A condition of care can not be sustained without DIVESTING those in the condition of POWER and ABILITY, because their power and ability, if had, would lead to MOMENTUM, and movement that would disturb those fat and quiet in care. It brings too much stimuli, and can cause conflict. Conditions of care are marked by the elimination of conflict, and the suppression, repression, subjugation of those things that would stir deviation.
In the expression, “familiarity”, which is the condition of care, “breeds contempt”, it is because the familiar condition is not relieving these emotional ghouls, but only DRUGGING them. The drugs wear off, and the addicted to care will need more and more over time, as they have become too used to the care, and constant state thereof. The addicted to care become sensitive to anything that reveals their ineptitudes. They become restless in their state of care. They become DISPLEASED in their state of care. They become DISGUSTED, because of the REPUGNANCE of care.
Care forbids pugnare, that is, fight. Because of this one enters a state of DESPAIR, where they will not have a sparring with the condition's character, but they would be without speed, without fight, without advancement, without skill, and challenge. They will have no movement, in their state of care, because that could lead them out of the state and into the unknown, the wild, the dangerous. One fights, with repugnance and disgust, scorn and contempt, against that which would wake them out of the slumber of care, which keeps them dull and stupid, mommy's good girl, and good little boy.
Repugnance, after diffidence, requires food for consumption. The ghoul of repugnance is not that of seeking to be pleased. It occurs when one can not be pleased, has not received relief in the other phases, and degrees of their emotional ghouls. It is the ghoul that needs to RESIST, that needs to be DEFENSIVE, that needs to DOUBT, and needs to UNDERMINE, with its DISGUST. It needs a target that is marked with something that can be “fought against” with “REPUGNANCE”.
To others inflicted with the same ghouls, they think that the way to serve displeasure is through being pleasing. So in them is activated, mostly human males, that of their servile mechanism. But the repugnance is not seeking relief; it is seeking consumption of marks that can feed it by being accessible through resistance, chaos, disruption, rebellion, and subversion.
It is an emotion that is already there. It is not an emotion, like any of the emotions, that came about because of the conditions. The conditions may not have provided the right “food” for earlier relief, but the ghoulish emotion aims to run its course, by degree, either way. It is a process that seeks to be expressed, and it is a demand levied on the condition and those in the condition. If the condition does not distract, does not relieve, does not divert, or delude the feeling, then it amps up into the later stages by relative degree.
One does not become angry, if relief leaves them at frustrated. One does not become frustrated, if the relief left them at concerns cared for. One does not become concerned, if relief was provided for their anxiety. These are all stages by degree correlated with the potency of the ghoul of these emotions, and the condition's ability to provide relief. A set of ghouls only because of domestication, whereas in primal nature, they would not be ghouls, but they would be well expressed navigational tools that are automated to make SURVIVAL enhanced.
When one is before another who easily comes to resist and to undermine, and to rebel against a thing said, a thing thought, a thing done… more often than not, they are before the ghoul of repugnance, and the one the ghoul is acting through is possessed by it, and ought not be thought of as a FREE AGENT, or individual. When the ghoul is present, it has its names, and there are the “ways” of dealing with this ghoul.
One who is repugnant is trying to lower the status of their target, by getting their target to serve their cravings for trust, and obedience. They come to NEG, or seek to NEGATE their TARGET, and this is EMOTIONAL, and any sense of a LOGISTICAL approach to their resistance and subversiveness seeking to SOLVE their problems, reveals to their inner ghoul, that indeed, the one before them is inferior, is ignorant like them, and ought not be trusted… like them. Through repugnance being answered to, tolerated, and permitted, DIFFIDENCE as a previous ghoul is affirmed in its status.
Repugnance as a ghoul is often used to slow down or halt the FIGHT in those who may be CONFIDENT, or poorly trying to be. Meaning, if one is not in despair, but they have energy, motion, and direction, the ghoul of repugnance needs to feed on that momentum. This is why those considered attractive in personality are those often who are “about something”, and in being about something, they are moving towards something. The repugnant ghoul wishes to feed on this momentum, not by getting its own, not by going in the same direction, but by resisting, impeding, undermining, and thwarting the Kinetics of advancement.
The emotion, like all the emotions, needs to CONSUME, needs to FEED. When one then thinks to end the emotion through solving what manifests itself in terms, in symbols, by way of problem communicated, they will be met with a great deal of errors, because that was the SWINDLE. The aim of the emotion was that it consumes its opposite.
-
INSECURITY consumes COURAGE and/or VALOR, does not become it.
-
ANXIETY consumes EAGERNESS, does not become it.
-
CONCERN consumes CURIOSITY, it does not become it.
-
REPUGNANCE and DISGUST consume VIGOR and VITALITY, do not become them.
-
DESPAIR consumes VIGILANCE, VERACITY, and ADVANCEMENT, it does not become them.
-
EXCITED IGNORANCE consumes that of KNOWLEDGE and CERTAINTY, it does not become them.
-
SEDUCTION and AMUSEMENT, as forms of ENTERTAINMENT, consume and impede ADVANCEMENT, they do not become it.
The emotions of the ghouls, which most are, are not seeking to be transmuted; they are seeking to PREY on, to FEED on, to CONSUME what is the opposite, found in others, and this is called the forces of negation, versus the forces of affirmation. That which is affirmed becomes the food of that which must negate, and ghouls exist as emotionally driven forces of negation, which ought not be mistaken for that of regulation of the affirmed carried out through sound reasoning.
The targeting system in most, almost in all, does not require anything of its targets bartering the right marks. It requires access so that the emotions seeking to consume will simply try to the laws of averages, and find something by way of its needs to consume. The mark, as an individual, does not in actuality play a role. This, because individuals are not common, but the one before the needy one, with their cravings, has markings that show for the most part, they are FAMILIAR, and they are an element of a COLLECTIVE, and therefore, like the HUNGRY GHOST doing the so-called targeting, they are all INFERIOR, and engaged in INFERIOR feeding.
Because of this, in actuality, for targeting and marking, ANY WILL DO, and mostly, ANY DOES DO. It is in CONQUEST over others, that it is, in actuality, that of VAMPYRIC feeding on the emotions of others, to keep the hungry ghouls relieved, satiated, fat and dull. YOU ALL feed on each other's EMOTIONS, and you shape the conditions to normalize this feeding, so that those who perhaps ought not be your food, would not know better.
Dare it be said, that KNOWING other life forms with locomotion should not feed me, is perhaps too, the start of realizing, I ought not be the food of others. But where you feed on other locomotive forms, it ought not be of any surprise that others like you, feeders, will too feed off of you. You're all aiming to be FED, and you could be discerning less about what you feed on… and what feeds on you. Ghouls, the lot of you.
The mystery is not so much about “choosing the right mark”, or “choosing the right target”, or if anything, “dealing with the right individual”... But nah, it's more about conditions than anything else. That is why, if one was truly to “chase the right marks”, and/or “targets”, to do so, THEY NEED TO CHANGE THEIR CONDITIONS.
In any given scheme of things, in any given conditions, it is the conditions that have marked the marks, that have subjugated the marks; and their markings are only markings so much as what the conditions make possible to exist. When one comes to know the conditions, they come to know the markings, the imprints, the impressions in which the conditions maketh upon the marked, the subject.
One's markings, more often than not, are that of subjugation to a specified and knowable condition.
However, in addition to this, and of great primary importance, is that, there is the nature of the individual. There is what has been with them from the start, innate, default, which can be called a set of inclinations, set of proclivities, and naturally derived aversions, and attractions. One's natural character that inclineth them this way and that, and in which when freedom is amplified, will dictate more about them than any condition.
The more potent the condition, the greater the subject, and their assigned markings. This is called REPRESSION of one's nature. This is called OPPRESSION, in one's condition. The more there is FREEDOM in one's condition, the more their nature, their innate character can be, and will be shown.
NEVER, ever, NEVER… think you can know someone who is oppressed, suppressed, repressed, unexpressed. You can not KNOW them, because they can not BE THEM. They are MARKED, and more often than not, their markings are that of anxious, concerned, in need of care and to care, not to be trusted, and unable to trust, diffident, and thus, engaged in a fight that is innate to them, a fight where their REPUGNANCE, their resistance, and their undermining of others defines them, and leads them to INACTION, passivity, and SUBTERFUGE, to hide, through settlement, their ineptitudes, that have led them into their DESPAIR.
In such despair, knowing that all knowing would reveal them to others as inept, they reject knowing, and they get excited instead, in that of ignorance. And in this EXCITED IGNORANCE, they seek to be SEDUCED, and to SEDUCE―if only they could, which most can not―and when all that fails, they are left with MERE AMUSEMENTS, having a life well deluded, divested of any power and ability, thus, seeking DIVERSION, seeking DISTRACTION, seeking RELIEF, for their DEAD existence.
Ain't none of you choosing MARKS… The LOT of you are MARKS, and what you are mostly MARKED with is DEATH. You are DEAD to yourself, that is, ignorant to yourself, and in this ignorant DEATH, you can never stand before another, and be called LIVING AMONG THEM, for LIFE is not a requirement. Raise your arms, and hold them out in front of you, and just chant the chants that ring out in your conditions, echoing the mental midgetry about, as you are MARKED in INEPTITUDE.
Those who come to believe the deception of choosing marks, targets, and victims by deliberation will certainly NOT come to see, that all of that which can be MARKED, has been MARKED, and one is MARKED into their associations, AIMED for the benefit of others, to which, allocentrially, none receive ACTUAL good, ACTUAL benefit.
I do not guide others through this lie. I do not teach others, preach to others, push upon others this notion of a “choice”, and that of “targeting”.
Any who would ever say I have was a MARK, who suffering the targeting and exploitation of others, could only see me, and others likewise the source of their own INEPTITUDES.
Why… I say stop dealing with the MARKERS of others, even thinking, they are anything more than a SUBJECT, like yourself. I say, study, and learn, GET TO KNOW your own MARKINGS, and ask yourself… What made me a mark?
Why am I the TARGET of others?
If they TARGET me, why?
What do I have, that they WANT?
What do they have, that I want?
You see, or maybe you do not… this is called CALCULATED, when you ask these questions, and investigate your own mind, and the mind of others. Those who have you marked for IGNORANCE and EXPLOITATION do not want you CALCULATING, because calculation, and the mathematics of living, when all added up… lead to LIBERTY, SELF-RELIANCE, and SELF-DETERMINATION, and these are all bad traits to be possessed by a slave.
You need to be emotionally movable, and subject to the emotional whims of others. So long as you remain little retarded girls and boys, your retarded mommies and daddies will have playthings. Do not get it mistaken; you do not have one set of mommies and daddies, but instead, your Symbolic Society Advanced by and through the Majority is all about the MASTER mommies, and SERVILE daddies. Your condition is marked in this way, and that is why when “marked” for “targeting” by others… they do not need to know of some individual sense of who you are, or think you are.
It is not likely you are an individual. YOU, all of you. It is likely you are a collective mess, with its markings, and when one is in the right conditions to play in that condition with greater move sets… they then have not CHOSEN you to be the MARK, and the TARGET; it's simply resolved out of mystery that the CONDITIONS made you all that for them.
Your conditions built you, like a machine, brought you forth, with program, to operate in and on the condition in specified ways. Your CONDITIONAL BUILD is mixed with your NATURAL BUILD, and most of you do not have conditions that conflict with your nature; you are where you are supposed to be. These books, then, are not for youse. These books are for those who have conditions that assert too much Control, and in doing so, stiffens some natural build inside them trying to be expressed. In order to be expressed… that DEPARTING member of the collective needs to get the collective to FALL BACK, to BACK OFF, and to PISS OFF, and that is exactly what ACCESS DENIED is for.
ACCESS DENIED is not about telling you and showing you which kind of marks, and targets to chase, and get access to. Those who still play at access to others have no place in ACCESS DENIED. Access, in ACCESS DENIED, has one target for access… and that is the SELF. It's all about finding out what that build is, that is natural, versus what that build is which is conditional, and bringing the conditions to be favorable, and under one's CONTROL and COMMAND to serve the natural build. It's about the wolf not saying sorry for being a WOLF, every time the lame ass sheep whines, when it expresses itself. ACCESS DENIED is about SEPARATION. YOU BE YOU, I'LL BE ME. You get yours, I'll get mine, and this is only in conflict, when you come for mine without my permission, for it is against MY LAW to come for yours. The only one who could ever have an issue with what I am expounding on are the ones who have MARKED YOU as a SUBJECT and DECLARE in their BEHAVIOR, that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE YOURS, SEPARATE from THEIRS. You are not allowed to OWN you. They have MARKED you as theirs. You can't choose marks… because you are already a “bitch ass mark” to begin with.
ACCESS DENIED is not about others being marks. Access Denied is about putting an END to those conditional markings, in which others have compelled, and instead MARKING yourself, with that which is based on your NATURAL BUILD. It's about being the one to BUILD your own TEMPLE of existence, and stop living in the SLAVE QUARTERS, talking about how your Mastas been good to you.
What will follow by chapters, is all about how NOT TO BE A MARK, and exactly how, you are being MARKED. So pay attention if you can afford it. But if you are too broke to afford to pay attention, then take your ass back to the common centers, and SHOP there instead, in ineptitude.
