Part II

The Battle of Access

Chapter 4

Myth Busting Seduction

Escapism and deference are at the roots of the “plays” in which humans use to “seduce” each other. Where Seduction means to lead astray, in practice and in consideration, it actually comes to mean to distract, provide relief, deference and pleasure, more than often with one being in a servile role, and the other in a served role as the target of Seduction. Rare is it that both feel the need to seduce. Because of this, Seduction is often seen as male targeting a female for access; however, this, as said before, is not entirely accurate, if accurate at all.

Seduction is effeminate. By this, the poor term feminine seems connected, where one would consider masculine and feminine as a dichotomy. It would be to think that Seduction is the way in which females behave in relationship to Control mechanics, Management mechanics, and Manipulation mechanics. However, this is not actually the case. Though human females will use “plays” to be pleasing and agreeable, they do not often engage in “seductive” plays. They do not often engage in “plays” of distraction and relief, but instead, human females, who are all needy little girls of all ages, will take a passive position of being entitled to the notion that by DEFAULT, they are the source of pleasure, as they are the source of selection, and all others then need to “seduce”, or that is, offer them… DISTRACTION AND RELIEF. Their role in the seductive game is to be targeted and to be served by one who is by default valued lower, the moment they treat the female as the “prize”, as some would say.

It is an error as well to flip the notion, if one does not agree with nature's clear assignment of the human female as the prize in the social game between males and females. Meaning, some males will come to conclude that she is not the prize, but that he is the prize… and ought to act like it. Both are wrong. In the Ways of nature, the only kind that can be called valid and certain, the human female is the “prize” to the human male, and the human male is not the prize to the human female. He is, to her, the “given”, and his role is to give, and not necessarily receive, past the initial process of selection. Making money, having a stable job, and being an “earner” and “servant” capable and able does not make you, the male, a prize. No matter what level you attain in, human females will remain the selective force in the game of Seduction for humans.

In the game of mating, human females are the selective force, and regardless of the material success and social status of a human male, a far more INFERIOR “statused” female could still be, and is likely to be in a position of selection, with them graveling at their feet hoping to be selected. Though this is pathetic to my Kind, who takes no prize in mere material, but prizes Patterns, it is, however, still the Order and prevalence of nature here that is at “play”, and not that of some decisions or some opinions or individual desires of the humans whom it “plays”.

Seduction, in most forms, is not tactical nor strategic. Seduction, in most forms, is petty, and it is petty because it is base, small, simple, and therefore, foolish to presume a manual of tactics and/or plays is needed, and when acquired enhances one's quality of relationship to the “Game”. It does not do this, because the plays at the core of Seduction do not and can not exist for a healthy, strong, independent individual, but instead can only exist for little girls, getting what they want in their fear and insecurity, and the servitude of little boys, no matter how old in form. Seduction is for little girls, and Seduction is the demand for attention and deference in which the majority of human females so desire. Human males, not being afforded the same amount of deference, chase the human female as the model of attained, in that, she is attained in deference.

Being emotionally disgruntled and displeased in life, the human mental midget male, to which most of you are, needs to go to the female with the hope to share in, with her, that very true prize of this entire process… deference, which is attained through having a distraction and sense of relief. To the inept human male, the human female is the ultimate distraction. The human female, to the human inept male, is the ultimate form of relief, and to get ACCESS to her, he needs to entertain her, and make her feel a sense of “security” with him. He needs to begin, as all effeminates need to, with that of “sense of security”, which is at the CORE of one's Sense Of Self.

The interactions with males with other males, at work, do not have the Seduction category as a factor, because of the absence of the pleasure mechanics. Instead, what would be often called Seduction in these realms is that of Control, Management, and Manipulation. Conditions where it is male with male do not often have the variables of Seduction or Engagement present. However, the term effeminate is used in place for now―absent a better term―to denote that it is not actually a female or male thing, but a common thing shared among the sexes. They both seek deference where they can, whereas the collectives that prevail automatically give deference to its females, and levy greater demand of sacrifice on its males, who are ever so easily willing to surrender up, on account that nature has made for them the prize of female acceptance.

Pathetic to my Kind, but the standard to that of humans, who in numbers, number mostly effeminates, thus making the notion of feminine to mean female like rather foolish. For though it is easier for a female to be “effeminate”, that is conditional. Where males have the same conditions of effeminacy, they easily engage in its ways, and often have no inner nature telling them to be otherwise. It would be a grave error to presume any notion of masculinity ought to be the aim of the common human male. This is why male like and female like is absurd. It's more so incompetent and competent, unskilled and skilled, inept and adept, negative or affirmative. And in these categories, when the masses are counted, they share in their ineptitudes, their negationary, dismissive, and undermining natures, and therefore, en masse, are called effeminates. They are in actuality simply COWARDS.

But to open this matter with the aim to close it, I will now transition into simpler forms.

This is the way of COWARDS, and almost every female and male I have ever met is in my eyes living the life of a COWARD, in defeat, and ruled by their fears and their insecurities, to which, where one disagrees with me, it would only be because they have never lived a Victorious life. For one who lives a Victorious life, and only one of such living, would have the contrast to look at all others, and be able to detect just what kind of DEFEAT all this actually is. In this breakdown of SEDUCTION that follows, I will have now come to honor my DUTY to expound with others on this subject.

For the first time then, in Access Denied, Part II, The Battle of Access, all who have ever represented my ideas on the subject in the past, and have done so incorrectly and/or subversively, will now be DISARMED. Instead, with this source, others will be able to check my sense and notion, against those perhaps they only had access to.

As a self-defense manual, this section aids in my DEFENSE against you COWARDS, you CHARLATANS, you USURPERS in that easily, YOU and not me can be revealed to be the subject and source of seductive plays, and that never in my life have I actually engaged in Seduction, though all of my life I have been a MASTER of knowing just what it is, and how it is carried out. And knowing how it is, and how it is carried out, KNOW THIS… I see you, and what you do, and what you want… and I have always seen you, and knew what was governing your petty behavior.

As I say, THE JIG is up. What to take from the following “plays” being expounded on is this.

STOP.

Do not try to play me, and lead me astray. Do not try to hoodwink me, to bamboozle me, to con me. Here in this self-defense manual, I am proving dialectically that I know how it works, and because in the past I would prove that to others, they concluded that such knowledge was evidence of such things being how I play. Only one who lacks Intellect would ever conclude that SEDUCTION is the proper category to label my interactive practices. I act in and through Command, and never have I sought to be selected by another, and to lead another astray, and/or into escapism. Never in my life have I had some sense that another was the prize. That is relational.

THE PRIZE… to my kind, is PATTERNS; is the MISSION, and its set of OBJECTIVES. I, as an individual, am not to be a PRIZE to anyone. I, as an individual, am not relational. None would ever be a PRIZE to me. The MISSION is the PRIZE, and with others, that prize, a glorious one, can be shared in association with. Humans can not engage objectives and missions as a primary, but only as a utility to serve their relational needs. Because of this, to humans, they use the conditions and the objectives for one simple thing: to gain access to each other, in which, from insecurity and fear, is the ultimate prize.

This is how you all gain ACCESS to each other. This is how you all “play” foolishly, and the plays all rely upon ineptitude, fear, and insecurity.

How the social hunter comes to embody a role of one who offers “security”

By default, humans, those hominids who think of themselves as lowly, are born with a false sense of security. Humans are by default insecure, and this, because by default afraid, and they tend to have “impostor syndrome”, where a part of the low self-esteem is they do not actually believe their own hype, but they must guard over it, and try to get you to believe it. This is all from insecurity. The “false sense of security” is already present, because security is a part of the last degree, the most potent degree of value, and it is skipped by this social predatorial society.

Again, value is based on actions of seeking to:

Gain;

Maintain;

Cultivate;

Sustain and/or Defend.

Security belongs to this last degree of valuing, the most potent. However, most are not engaged in actions of cultivation, which is necessary to have something worth “securing”, or that is, sustaining and/or defending. Most stop at the second degree of valuing, and that is “maintaining”. This term could mean maintenance, in the sense of mechanical, and keeping something active; however, it is more general than that. It does not imply a skillful means to maintain. One can have maintaining as mere seeking to maintain or possess access, but not through a standard or criteria. However, one could be in place possessed, as most of what is society, maintaining a set of acts serving to maintain the status quo, and things as they are familiar.

Because most have not learned skills of cultivation, most do not have individual value, and in the absence of this individual value, no sense of self-defense. The very act of reading this piece is for self-defense, and it will be useless to any who does not engage in the cultivation of their individuality by becoming of value to themselves, and advancing Control and Command over their conditions and self. They will have nothing worth defending.

Only one who has reached this level of valuing can understand this. Those who only come to valuing by “gain” and “maintain” of the most general form will ALWAYS suffer insecurity. But this insecurity is rather odd. It is not an insecurity so much around material goods. It is an insecurity that is around their own esteem, and being found out in being an impostor, in relationship to how they think others think about them, and about how well they think they match what roles they are in. They are always in fear because they are ignorant, and they make up for this fear, or mask it in arrogance, which can only be sustained in delusion. Those who lack potency in mind and character by default will have this sense of insecurity. And because of this, they are vulnerable to temporary relief, in this sense of being “secure”.

The insecure will always need to be reassured, and because it is flighty, it is impermanent, the social hunter opportunistically will come to embody a role of one who offers “security”. Most sense of “security” will be resource oriented, but then there is the sense of a secure access to the individual. Many fear they will lose the one they have come to attach themselves to. And they will give off many nonverbal cues, as well as verbal cues of their fear around this loss. They do this to provoke the other to assure them of the security of the association.

However, in doing such securing, one is also having to make it look authentic, and eventually, when doing this, they come to actually secure this access―but the false sense of it is not false, because access will soon be lost. What is false is that the individual is not a harm, is not guided by some possessive ways. This is about one's approach, that is why manuals teach “approach indirectly”. It means that when one takes the direct approach, what will tend to occur is too much individuality, which tends to frighten those stuck in roles and the common narratives of familiarity. It is a warning to not instigate in them defenses.

One must come and approach them with some familiarity. This way, they will be disarmed, without defenses―but they never even had those to begin with. The direct approach says what you want, and why, and it creates stirring of the already present fear, because the “victim” does not have a premade script to handle a direct approach. A cowardly and defeated life is all about misdirection and indirection. To come direct is to shake that.

On the flip side, this then is the means of self-defense. That is to say, to guard one's self, only if worthy of guarding, one could form the preference for the direct approach. So then when others are using indirection as a means to exploit and gain access, it will not have your own indirection to hide among. You see, these plays of access only work when the victim is familiar and is prepared with a scripted response. The one most skilled in indirection will be successful, because it is a great deal of mud.

But those who self stand do not do so with indirection. They do so by being direct, and by having cleared mud. Those cowards who need to use indirection are then exposed in contrast to the Departed being direct. Say what you mean, and mean what you say, and forsake this need of security.

Security in this sense is not self-defense. To create a false sense of security means that of disarming one's target, and tending to their emotions of insecurity by coming at them as a friend, as a familiar, and not as a foe, or some challenging force.

In Access Denied, this is not “our” Way. Access Denied is about bringing and being attracted to challenges that develop skillful Ways. It is not about “feeling secure”; in fact, it is recommended that one abandons this sense altogether, and seeks the uncertain, seeks defeat, and seeks adversity as a means to challenge one to have to develop their skills.

“We” do not move to create a false sense of security, because “we” do not deal in this sense. The objective of the Departed is that of becoming skilled at living. When one aims to do this and acquires the skills, they will not be contending with the sense of security, because they will have the knowledge of “Ways”. Knowledge takes the place of these “feelings” and removes the mud. This is key. Those who come to these degrees of knowledge and practice become “born in confidence”, and confidence is the opposite of insecurity, and therefore, never would a Departed or a Commando seek to create a sense of false security. “We” are not about security, but “we” are about confidence, and it is confidence through skill. Managers and workplaces, all kinds of human controlled spheres not only violate this false sense of security often, but they make sure that you know you are replaceable, and that your life is in their hands. They keep you afraid of losing your place.

Because they do this, the social hunter tries the opposite, always letting you know just how secure your place is with them. No association is secure; the ones that seem like they are will be the ones that lack any meaning and challenge. This is why most will revert back to familiars in their life, because these mediocre and unchallenging associations are the closest thing to “secured access” one can have. It is this access that the inept need security around. They need to believe that others believe their hype, that they are not impostors, and they need to believe that deference will stay in place so that they can go living ignorant, living arrogant, and delusional.

Anxiety is why ALL Seduction requires a distraction and a relief

In the last chapter, marking and targeting was exposed as unlikely―though yes, certainly possible, and it does occur. The next character of approach and reception in Seduction is all about insecurities and fear. You disagree?

Are you nervous when you try to get access to another?

Most would say yes.

Are you nervous and/or a bit anxious when you are on the receiving end, having signaled the male they can try to get access? Most would say yes. If you are nervous and anxious, is that because of “feeling” strong, with pride potent and well expressed?

No.

That is not how that works. The emotions of “nervous” and “anxious” are born out of fear and insecurity, you just do not say that, when you say… “I am nervous”, and/or someone makes you nervous, and/or something is making you anxious. You do not announce right away what ought to be obvious: that you are not “secure” in your feelings about what is happening.

I list fear and insecurity at the foundation of the human Kinetics. Second comes anger. However, I almost wish to replace anger with anxious, and have anger as an offshoot. But because I am trying to not deviate too far from some academic decrees and agreements, more approachability, I leave it for now.

If most were anxious and it was pointed out, they would be quicker to agree with that, more so than they agree with being ANGRY. They would often say, in defense, that they are not angry, because they have a sense of the clear version of that, when they act out. So many struggle with anger as the second in the Kinetics. They would say, “but I am not often angered”. But they would not say the same so easily, if it was replaced with “anxious”. They would perhaps agree with the notion that many things make them anxious, and that anxiety indeed may plague them. Know this: if you get high, it's because otherwise you would be anxious. You're fighting the second of the Kinetics, and it confirms the first. Because anxiety is born out of FEAR and INSECURITY.

Etymology of Anxiety (n.)

1520s, “apprehension caused by danger, misfortune, or error, uneasiness of mind respecting some uncertainty, a restless dread of some evil,” from Latin anxietatem (nominative anxietas) “anguish, anxiety, solicitude,” noun of quality from anxius “uneasy, troubled in mind” (see anxious).

Sometimes considered a pathological condition (1660s); psychiatric use dates to 1904. Age of Anxiety is from Auden's poem (1947). For “anxiety, distress,” Old English had angsumnes, Middle English anxumnesse.

On repeat, I will say… Always remind yourself, and/or seek what evidence you need in me, that I am one of those fellas who can read body language to the highest of degrees. If you have read this far, well into Part II, and are still in doubt about my sense of others, then you are one of those mental midgets who can not discern. As part of my reading of others, with a very high literacy, I can see their emotions, as some would say… not only upon their sleeves, but all over their face, their shoulders, their hips, and their feet. I see what you are actually feeling, even if you do not have an awareness of it.

Aware is something I am certain is not present, in most of the human population. I have observed absolutely no data to lead me to believe for the slightest second that someone before me ought to be presumed self-aware. This notion, in fiction, that it would be the distinguishing factor between an organic human and a synthetic AI, or Artificial Intelligence, is absurd. It is arrogant, and often quite humorously betrayed, as human writers and fiction writers use as the basis of awareness that of emotionalism, which is actually evident, especially to any “intelligence”, is that of a chemical program to which the recipient of the chemical instigators rarely shows any Control over, but is often well under the Control thereof.

In simple terms, the human awareness, in fiction, is connected to human emotionality and not Intellect. And the AI is not aware, because it is not emotional. This is arrogantly delusional, and it is also what “religion” and “spiritualism” is for most humans. It is emotionalism, cloaked in magical wands, and delusion.

Anxiety has its traits of being about “fear and insecurity” concerning that of uncertainties, potential threats, potential dangers, and the restlessness that accompanies a certain degree of absence of Control.

Meaning, where one has Control and Command, their degree of fear and insecurity would be so low, though still present, to where it does not have an impact on their decision making. However, the presence of anxiety, which is always born out of the first, of fear and insecurity, is strongly correlated to the clear degree of fear and insecurity being so much, that one is anxious, and in this state, without a doubt, and certain I am… their entire decision making process, as well as their personality, is dictated by these very states.

Anxious individuals, which is most when before a challenge, are dictated in their “ways” by fear and insecurity. As such, anxiety―perhaps the second emotion of the human Kinetics, versus the kind of anxiety expressed, anger―is why ALL Seduction, and ALL escapism requires a distraction and a relief in regards to FEAR and INSECURITY. With FEAR and INSECURITY, one needs to turn to anxiety and see that this is often about the absence of any certainty in a thing, and/or oneself. That UNCERTAINTY is rather the mark of, as well as the cause of insecurity and fear.

The bulk of the so-called American population, to whom I mostly generalize and refer to, are with uneasy, and troubled minds. This is the mark of the 1. Fear and Insecurity and 2. Anxiety.

Anger is produced when one's anxiety meets that of a clear and obvious absence of Control, and thus it becomes anxiety asserted. This is all anger truly is. And the reason why most will say, perhaps, they do not get angry or show anger… is because more often than not, they are defeated and cowardly, and to show anger, and to be angry in clear forms would jeopardize the certainty they have in their social and economic orders.

Therefore, instead, it is anxiety that becomes amplified, as they have no means to challenge the Control mechanics of their realm. Anger comes forward often when an inept individual in their anxiety, too, thinks they ought to have, or can have more Control. And because this is not common for females, because they often have the deference of Control by default, then only in one's private setting, do they see the female get angry and express it. Whereas in public, the human female can be anxious, and deference is rendered. And instead of being angry to assert Control, she, in her anxiety, “acts nice”; and “nice” is a product of fear and insecurity, and to Access Denied and the Viritus system of thought that regulates and aims it…

Nice is a Vice.

A male will be anxious, and this, combined with aggression, will cause him to display anger and frustration more easily, when faced with uncertainty, and that of Control questions. And because most human males will be inept, and lack Control over their lives, and certainly the homes they are servants to, they will move from the second Kinetics of anxiety, through short stages of anger expression, and then on to the third Kinetics of disgust. When they arrive at disgust, it is the mark of incompetence, and ineptitude, and only one who lacks Control and Command will arrive at disgust, and then quickly find themselves in the 4th of the Kinetics, engaged in despair, and worse, when captured there for long, in extension… malcontent, a disease that plagues many human males.

Note:

The list of Kinetics here is from the early stages of development, and kept in this treatise so the reader and/or listener can observe the “Reasonings” as they were unfolding, to refine the list and its order.

The certainty of servility as a motive that drives every human RELATIONSHIP

In order to ESCAPE all this, the human male needs a mark and a target that offers distraction and relief. They turn to two things for this. They turn first to the more certain route of WORK, and SERVITUDE. This distracts them, and offers them certainty in supply.

Then, when this does not offer enough distraction and relief, if they can... they turn to RELATIONAL, and try to find themselves a mommy to Control their minds of despair, to distract them, and give them relief. This is less certain for human males than servility as a course. And because of servility as a course being with certainty, what they have to offer human females in exchange for their value of providing attention, distraction, and relief to the human male, they give them their certain servitude, and nature has so fitted male to be the servant to the female, and the female to be ever so ready to receive such servitude, because she is motivated by the desire for deference and ease…

And such deference and ease requires a master servant relationship, to which every sign of male and female relationship in the United States of America, among its few hundred millions, confirms this. That no matter how “powerful” a male seems, in the certainty of their work, they are always uncertain and always inferior in the presence of the human female who will establish rarely any certainty in anything of her own.

Her ability to acquire certainty, in any sense, requires she locks in a human male who has a degree of certainty. Since his degree of certainty will be established only around his work, the human female then has to measure the male, and his value of certainty too… based on his work, thus revealing why it is important for a female on her own to ask a male who is on his own, what does he do for a living. This is the reasoning behind this question. “What certainty, oh male, do you have to offer me, for outside my Mommy and Daddy, and social network, I can not supply myself with any of my own certainties.” And to this, the male responds with the servile answer, that “I have this certainty in work, and this certainty in the sense of offspring, and to these things, I can serve ye.”

What, human females, does your male provide you with, other than, certainly, they are certain about their servility in some stable workforce, and they are certainly able to provide for you and your offspring, in such an uncertain world?

What, human males, does the female you belong to, provide you, other than you have a false sense of certainty that when you come home from your certain servile existence, she would be there to offer you relief and attention, and appreciation for what servitude of certainty you provide?

A false sense of certainty, proven by the divorce rates of America, and how in that according to the numbers of 2015, 70 percent of divorces are instigated by the females who often have certain servility, yet such a certainty clearly does not cut it.

What is more often than not lacking in certainty, and why females will initiate divorce well in and past the 70 percent likelihood is the other form of ENTERTAINMENT that all females need, and no male needs, nor can they get from a female, and that is SEDUCTION.

A human female who is not seduced, but has the certainty of a servile male who appears to provide even in the highest form, will, when she safely can… turn on and leave that servile male with the desire to be seduced. Being seduced will mean far more to a human female who has the level of appearance that warrants Seduction than that of mere servile certainty. This is increased even more if that human female has a support network of certain servility, and she is not entirely dependent upon that human male. Where she is dependent on that human male for their servile certainty, she will maintain a safe course, and only then does she actually appear faithful; just as a human male who has few options, because he does not signal a valuable servile certainty, will appear faithful, because he lacks options.

Human females who have networks of certain support will require more Entertainment by way of Seduction. Human males who have more certainty in access to females will require more Entertainment from females, but not by way of Seduction, but by ways of the erotica, though I do not know if that is the right term. In essence, a male with options needs a certain power player, entertaining and interesting female, not one that is plagued with insecurities and needs to be seduced. And so I continue with that notion that all Seduction relies on distraction and relief around that of uncertainties, and thus, insecurity and fear.

When you all meet each other, especially you little boys and girls, no matter how old you are, there is something universal occurring. The male is trying to convince the female that he is the right choice. It is rarely, very rarely the other way around, and it is about time that gets said explicitly, when everyone should have observations in their lives to back that up.

It's the same when the male goes for certain servility at a job. It is the one seeking to be the servant, and to have that servility that has to appeal to the selecting force. The mark of servility is certainly revealed this way. When you need to appeal for selection, you are the inferior, and you are the servant. When you need to gain seniority to then be the selecting force, in the certainty of work, you are still a servile creature; you just now serve in selection, but you will now feel like the master. Because of this, you will demand from your inferiors servility, and expect it to be blind, and the only justification for why you are now the selector, as a male, is you did your time, and you are older, and more certain, more reliable than those yet to have proven the certainty of their servility.

You have observed in all of your life that a human female does not need to wait, or age towards the certainty of servility in others. Because of deference, induced by nature, she is afforded such servility her entire life. Little four-year-old girls have grown males serving their interest, and few of them will ever see a disruption in this servile network, and that is why they so easily freak out, when some uncertainty comes their way.

For human females, the demand for certainty is so high, but so well met that it appears no demand is even present. And this is because no demand is ever truly needed, because the system is matriarchal, and certainly is not patriarchal. Some work “fields” are patriarchal, and the patriarch is as stated before: all about the certainty of servility proven by inferiors to those who have merely outlasted in servility, and gained in seniority a selective position to control the comings and goings of others, based on the certainty of their servility. Because of both of these formulaic relationships to servility, it is why I call ALL HUMANS, slavers. Because the certainty of servility as a motive drives every RELATIONSHIP, and every SYSTEM humans have primary influence over.

Nothing is more certain in servility than that of a SLAVE. Except that is not true. A SLAVE could, though rare, rebel and take back their sense of freedom, had they ever tasted it. But do you know who will never dream of freedom and independence? Human females and human males, who are driven towards access to others, for certainty of relationship. The human males will be the slaves, and shamed into thinking somehow that is noble.

There is an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where on a certain planet, the females were in charge, and the males were short, and servile. It was like Next Gen did a thought experiment, hypothetical, with a switch being done. Only, it supposes that in the “real” history of Earth, males once ruled females, like in how the females ruled the males in the show. However, never has this been real, and in every household among the commons ever to exist, the household was run by the female, and hardly any have an experience of observation to the contrary―yet everyone continues with the same delusion and lie, that history has evidence of male dominance, somewhere.

You mental midgets have used the elite few of Control carriers by force, such as kings and despots, and their small courts of controllers, as somehow representative of the commoner's experience in life. No commoner has ever lived in a male dominated social order, and house. It's absurd.

In fact, if commoners had common a male dominated house, all commoners would be driven towards skill, competence, Control, and Command, and there would be no commons. Commons exist because of the great demand, out of nature, of females for deference and certainty, and no greater certainty is able to be secured than that of MEDIOCRITY. Mommies are the main source of a common, and if there were any “MEN” among domestic humans, there would be no commons, and excellence would override certainty. For what is certainly not certain is excellence. But what is certainly certain is deference, and impotence.

Because of the human Kinetics of 1. Fear and Insecurity, which begets 2. Anxiety and/or anger… when youse are “getting to know each other”, this is a sham. You are not getting to know each other. The human female little girl is interviewing the little human boy, in order to see what kind of certainties they can offer in servitude to the little girl, trained her whole life, and made by nature to think she is entitled to such. Indeed, by nature, she is entitled to such, and in need of such, because nature is about the primary directive of animals replicating genetic code.

Because this is valid, and the way of nature, one may then think, practices around it are validated. They are not. Because humans have impulses that do not have potency and certainty to them, and must make choices, in the absence of a clear and compelled path, this NATURAL element and order hurts humans.

Humans, because of hypersociability, have created MYTHS and narratives around mating, and relationships that obscure what is naturally taking place, and instead, replace it with a fictional and fairy tale. That is what youse are doing when you say “getting to know each other”. This is fiction, and fantasy. Neither cares to know the other, on an individual level, for the other is likely not an individual, and likely neither are you.

Instead, the bulk of you are mere replicants, and the decorations you use to “get to know each other” are not relevant to the interaction. “What certainties can you provide in “servitude” is the underlying program behind every female selection. For the little human boys, no matter their age, the underlying program is “can you be my Mommy, and bring me back to the days when I had deference, like you still do?”.

To which, if I am wrong... Why is it that the honeymoon selection period of males and females has the males elated, and feeling like a child, a boy, with no worries in life, only then for the certainty of their servility to kick in later, and that deference period, where he was tolerated for what he was, is over. Now, what he was is not good enough, and for the human little girl female of all ages, the WORK BEGINS, and she is fixed on increasing his certainty and servility based on these fictions and ideas she has in her head.

You all call it the honeymoon period, and joke in your ineptitudes all over the place. You can deny the narrative I pose, but not the actual traits and behavior. And when you deny my explanation, you likely can not provide an alternative. You merely say nay, because you need distraction and relief, and in your own personal life, you are statistically the very coward and dupe I illuminate so well about. So instead of facing this certainty, I must be the weirdo because I see it for what it is, and I do not buy into the common con that somehow, you servile kinds are engaged in noble servitude. You can not conceal your pathetic existence from me.

All observations any could have about the mating and selection process confirm these things. Do you think you can read a book about Seduction, and have it say anywhere that you ought to appeal to the CHAMPION within everyone?

Of course not.

You would think to yourself, but I am not a Champion, and none whom I have that would select me, or that I can select as a female, appears to have any resemblance to any notion of Champion. It's all chumps faced with chumps, trying to find the most certain servile chump each could.

And all advice based on all observable behavior is that when you are before the one seeking to select you, you have to APPEAL to their insecurities and their fears, their lack of certainty, their plenty of doubt. And males before females receive their doubts, in the form of what the industry calls the “shit test”. However, it is not this, and to call it this will lead to an inability to Control what is occurring. Males love calling these “shit tests”, and planning for them, and responding in ways that other males suggested. It's silly. It's projection to call them shit tests, and when you call them that, it is why you feel like shit when you fail, more than achieve. They are certainty tests for insecurity and fear, as aforementioned.

They are measuring how certain your servility to their interest would be, and the bulk of you fail, because the bulk of you males are effeminate little sallies who do not know through contrast, how to be otherwise. You fail, because you are not certain often in anything. You have been kept uncertain by being made to serve the needs of certainty of others. When you are serving the needs of certainty of others, you focus on what they say they are uncertain about, and you try to come up with solutions. You are ignorant that this uncertainty is an emotion, born out of anxiety, fear, and insecurity. So you do not have the sense that what the target claimed to be the cause of uncertainty is a charade.

“Let me serve you and reassure you of my certainty of servility.” Chump.

You can not make a little girl, who is 10-15-20-25 to 40 ever feel certain. Nature programmed human females to never be certain. In primitive conditions, in which human biology was shaped, hardly anything was ever CERTAIN. So any false sense of certainty was easily dismissed. So when you try to make a female feel certain and/or secure, it is not that you are engaging in a false sense, by trick and play; it is that any sense of certainty and security for a human female is default treated as false, and lacking in potency.

Humans, male and female, are heterotrophs. As such, they were adapted and designed to never be “satiable”, and that can be translated, poorly, to mean “PLEASED”. To be pleased requires a degree of certainty. In the absence of nature operating with certainties, such need to be pleased would rarely be achieved. Therefore, any focus on pleasing others, and appealing to their need for certainty, out of insecurity and fear, is both wasteful and irrational, and to which no Champion can ever attain. Any decision and/or action carried out with these aims begets a cycle of stupidity that causes and reinforces suffering.

If you are a human male, and somehow you can surprisingly think tactically, then hear this… Stop trying to appeal to certainty, because the moment you do, to a human female who “feels” much more than knows anything, such certainty can not be met… then your attempts are not really seductive, because they will not really be entertaining past the novel stage.

This is why, when a human female has the option, she will be seduced by a “bad boy”, because what makes a “bad boy” appealing is that there is no myth of “certainty”, and “bad boys” are not “bad boys” if they appeal to certainty. A “bad boy” often does not live a life of “certainty”, and therefore, to a human female that could attract a bad boy, that being the qualifier, she finds them to be the most “real” and “honest” part of life. Females know that they can not “feel” certain about anything, other than they can never feel certain about anything. They just will not tell the certainly servile male that the certainty of their servility does not serve certainty for the “female”.

Your certainty of servility makes you a mere replicant that will lose the needy attention of a female, who can find that common trait in almost every male. She may tell you to be like every male, to feed that need for certainty that can never be satiated, but if you are tactical, it would be best for you to never listen to what a human female, nor a human male says, and refer to the underlying drives foretold in this here piece. Do NOT LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING. En masse, certainty of servility is the only certainty. Anything not certainly born out of this certainty should certainly not be trusted as certain, but instead, as a CON.

Because youse will be engaging each other based on insecurity and fear, it makes the notion of choice, of target, best situated around an option that has the greatest amount of fear and insecurity, and thus dissatisfaction in life. That is the key element to why the so-called “experts” writers, and often inadequate presenters will say you have some choice in the selection. This, because they would tell you to go after those most dissatisfied, who have this emptiness, in which you could come to provide for.

Because of this, in the realm of Seduction, it is a given that one who is pleased, is satisfied, is in Control and Command in life, and thus, proud, joyous and Triumphant, CAN NOT BE SEDUCED. So if you want to be seduced, and you praise those who seduce you, and you want to seduce others, then one thing is for certain… You are a chump who is empty, and you need others to serve that emptiness where they can. Seduction is for chumps.

I was walking this time, with some folk who did not know of me at all, but knew the one I was walking with. A street vagrant started walking towards the group of sallies I was with, and I was the only one who noticed them coming, so I made eye contact with them, as I do, and when they were about to open their mouths, obviously in demand of something... I said “NO”, before they could even speak.

“NO?”, he said.

“Yes, I said NO.”

“But I did not even ask anything”, he replied.

The sallies were stunned. They were not aware of anything, because they are sallies, and they have lived a life of deference, half of them females, and the other half, male boys who have known nothing but an effeminate existence. These were not my Kind, and beyond that day, I would have no further interaction. It was a fluke.

I said to the vagrant, “go about your business, the answer is no. No one is going to give you anything, and you have nothing to offer.”

He saw in my face that he was not going to get an ordinary interaction with me, and did just that. Went about his business.

The others were offended and asked me why I said no, when he did not even ask for anything. I gave them the wake up call, that all of this is scripted. It is all known before it happens, while it is happening, and when it will happen again, and by who. There is nothing to figure out here, if you have been playing life long enough.

But when, like them, you are not playing life, everything to their inept minds is a surprise. Surprise, in Ashland Oregon, a young vagrant who is high is going to come out around a corner and ask you for money. Absolute replicant behavior normal to the environment, but SURPRISE… Sallies do not see it coming, and have a planned response.

What is my point?

I do not have some ineptitude that can be served by giving some vagrant something I have acquired through skill and competency, while they live the effeminate life of deference, and disease.

They are not value added to my existence. I do not have some emptiness that gets served in being “NICE”, and I certainly am not nice. You do not come to me expecting me to do something for you, a stranger to me, or even known to me, when you are not in any way value added. The answer is no. But those of you who are empty, insecure, fearful, and uncertain, you are also ignorant, and everything is a SURPRISE, that just pops out. If it was not a surprise to you, you would have the demand to have a “WAY” of handling it. Deference demands ignorance, and in ignorance, the fifth emotion of humans comes forward, SURPRISE.

And a sense of Entertainment then relies on it, and Seduction relies on ignorant mental midget, dissatisfied marks.

This is why this part of the book exists. To be accused of being seductive and seducing is absurd. I do not appeal to the insecurities, the fears, the anxiety of uncertainties of others. This is needed for it to be Seduction. But because you all deal in these things with each other, see each other as burden transfer units, you do not know another way, and thus how to see what “Way” is operational.

You all relate with each other around fear and insecurity, and you have disdain for anyone who comes along with a relationship to certainty. I am not defined in character by uncertainties. Do I seem to write with uncertainty? No.

Nor do I think in such limits, and behave in such limits. I think based on, and act on that which is far more certain than not, and to this, it is called knowledgeable thinking, and skilled actions. And without a relationship to certainty, one can not have a relationship to knowledge, but will only be stuck in beliefs and opinions. And when this is the case, it is the beliefs and opinions of uncertain imbeciles, to which Seduction is then wielded to Entertain. I Entertain no such thing.

When you stand before my Kind, your uncertainties and insecurities are not welcomed. You are a chump, and anyone who lets you broadcast this, and demand certain servility is a chump as well, and if they have read this book, behave this way… yet utter these words of mine, they are worse than a chump; they are a charlatan.

The mechanics of desire and attraction

This term “desire” will have encounters throughout this treatise for many reasons. Though not of the six base emotions of;

Fear;
Anger;
Disgust;
Sadness;
Surprise;
Enjoyment;

Note:

Use these six for now, for this chapter. But take note, they have been refined and revised with later expoundings as...

Diffidence
Anxiety
Repugnance
Disgust
Despair
Favored Uncertainty
Entertainment via Amusement, Seduction, Engagement.

Because of the amount of development occurring in real time, previous notions must be kept to exhibit the Pattern unfoldment. The reader needs to remain “unattached”. This is not a fixed science. This is dialectical investigation. It must be FREE for ADVANCEMENT.

Desire has the emotional elements of a few of these. This, of course, is the case for most things expressed. It is not that all expressions must come from a single emotion, but more often than not, there is a fusion at play.

When one is doing their thinking, it should not be some casual and passive set of mental motions. One ought to dig to the deep. This is what one does when they are marked with “curiosity”, that eagerness to want to know, and to learn.

In many ways, I can move on to say that curiosity, having eagerness in it, is the expression of a kind of “desire”, but is not to be mistaken as the same. But in this reasoning track, what I am trying to say is that both share in impulse and are emotionally driven. However, eagerness is towards something, as very much wanting, and it may be the other way around that desire comes from it, versus eagerness sharing the root of desire. Desire has the element of “very much wanting”, but perhaps only in appearance, and not so much in actuality. It would seem to be the level of “wanting”, but not so much on the level to say very much wanting.

Like most things I will expound upon, they ought to be seen to be by degrees of their potency: a little, a lot, some, and many, potent and impotent, inept and adept... ALL by degree.

It is these degrees of the presence of things that then sum up the proclivities, the inclinations, and the nature of one's individuality. It is not that the traits and attributes are unique to the individual. It is that by degree, their expression is a unique formula. How they are compounded is not the same, but such differs itself. What makes me, me, Ta’ir, is that of the chemical electrical signals, in their degrees, being summed up, combined with the cognitive character I have, by its cognitive degrees, with both of these two character realms making each possible, and unified.

Desire is called a craving, or yearning. A verbal noun from “crave”, it means a “vehement or urgent desire”.

Etymology of Desire (n.)

c. 1300, “a craving or yearning; an emotion directed toward attainment or possession of an object; sensual appetite, physical desire, lust,” from Old French desir, from desirer (see desire (v.)). Meaning “that which is longed for” is from mid-14c.

As previously defined often, I have “values” as that which one seeks to:

Gain;
Maintain;
Cultivate;
Sustain and/or Defend.

Note:

Gain and Maintain are numbered the same. It is actually three.

Gain and/or Maintain
Cultivate
Defend and/or Protect.

Some begin with things, and do not need to gain them. So many do not Gain, but start in Maintain. This is the difference between the commons, and that of performers. Commons often exist to “maintain” and they do not make “gains”. What “gains” they might make are common on account of being because of “precedence” in the “procession”, being next in line, and having done their time. So their “gains” correlate to their age in the “society”, and/or how long they have been doing something, such as “seniority”. This is not “gaining”, but this is being “rewarded” for “maintaining”.

The numerical order I have presented here is the degree of evaluation and that of value: in order for the fourth degree to be a thing, the previous degrees must be stacked before it. But there is also a point of stoppage in the flow of valuing. To gain does not mean through an “eagerness”. This is not implied. Many will seek that which is convenient, that which is easy to seek, and often, that which is a given in which one may be entitled to, and/or have had secured for them by others and their Society Advanced by the Majority.

The first degree of valuing is demonstrated in the individual seeking to “gain”. Either this pursuit is because of themselves or that of others; either this pursuit is compulsory or voluntary. It can be said that no “matter” the cause of the seeking or the pursuing, that it would be presumed that in what one does are their desires on display. Now, that would be the “matter” and not the “Pattern”, for Patterns have been expounded on previously, and in them, there is the notion that most of what one may do within SAM is carried out under compulsion, and compulsory conditions.

So then it is often stated as a Pattern that “you have to do the things you do not want to, so you can do the things you want to”. Therefore, not all things valued in actions are valued as a desire. All things sought after with one's actions are their values, or better called, Sense of Worth, regardless of their desires and their motives. In examining the values of oneself and others, it is not the “mind”, the words, or the intent inferred that matters, nor Patterns, in truth. It is all about this “seeking”, with the demonstration of the list above at play.

Note:

Do not be attached to the term “value”. Value implies in “strength”, in “Validus”. This term is misused in the commons. “Worth” is better than “value” and even then, it falls short. Humanus in actuality does not have “values”, because “Validus” is not the standard. They have cravings, desires, and that which comes to be possessed. But the term “value” can not be REFORMED in my works. It is too overly used for that. Validus, then, is different from value.

Because one is seeking to gain something, it does not mean they desire it. But it does mean they value it, though the why may not be known. There are many motives behind values, but one is not to try to speculate on this until first recognizing the values and the Patterns around them being sought. Therefore, the order of observation and investigation here is not to focus on the words of the “actors” and their decrees of intent and motivation. The actions and that which can be observed outside of their dictates are in first order, and what ought to Pattern in importance.

Because of this, eagerness that then begets curiosity can easily be confused with desire, that is, a craving or yearning that is not so to say curiosity, but is this other thing I have stated previously: possession.

It would not be common for a reader to see me write, or a listener hear me say much about my own desires. This is because, for the most part, I do not crave―at least, not by a degree that places it significantly at the root of my motives, my intentions, and then the actions I carry out. Now, this is the worded presentation of my value system, and its motives. But an observer, again, would not take to my expressions as the fact of my values. An individual character will demonstrate in how it values a value system founded on cravings, or a value system based on other forms of motives. Where craving is a driving factor, it will not be in one area alone, and then the other areas are somehow free of craving. It will be that where one can observe demonstrated cravings in potency, then too, they will be the driving force in perhaps most of what becomes the sum of the individual, their character.

One can not argue that a drug addict, which is so on account of cravings, is free from being characterized in other observed ways correlated to those cravings for drugs; that what is related to these cravings will then control the rest of their lives with massive potency. So much, that the personality of those with higher impulses, higher cravings tends to be easily identifiable by those not of the same condition.

And therefore, those who crave and are directed by these higher levels of impulse tend to be less free from their own electrical and chemical, their emotional bodies dictates. They are a prisoner of their form, and can not be Commanders. So this is not to say I lack desire, but what is certainly on display in how I live, think, and behave, is that desire is so low in me, that it does not play a determining factor in my decision making process. This is the key qualifier here. I do not do what can be called “desired”, but instead I obey my nature, and do as it “Commands”. And in doing as it “Commands”, I have been a Commander.

The craving and the yearning are declared emotional at their base, and directed towards attainment and possession, or rather or one or the other, often towards that of an object. This is why it can be said, and often is, “the object of one's desire”. To this can be said, the object becomes a target. In addition, desire comes to mean sensual appetite, physical desire, lust. It becomes that which is longed for.

Where the primary emotional motives are at play, they beget the craving and yearning to possess an object, through more often than not a physical appetite, and lust. Why?

This question is not answered in the meaning of the term, but instead, must have its answers inferred through inductive and deductive reasoning. One is not to be first concerned with the why, but instead, first and foremost take note of the presence of the desire as the driving force. But when one has had their decision making process often driven by the “automated” forms of desire, then one is not equipped with the terms and reasoning about this ever so present emotional force. It becomes so common to one's existence that it is neither present nor absent, it JUST IS. And that which JUST IS often mostly goes without examination by those who it JUST IS for. It becomes invisible and it becomes this through being the norm. It is, as I repeat often, the fish who cannot detect water, it being all-pervasive.

In the first degree of valuing, it is often that, that which one fights to gain that is not of compulsion by that of external forces, is instead by compulsion of their desires; and therefore, how this is detected in demonstration, or inferred as the cause is in the manifestation in how one seeks to gain. When possessiveness is present, and it is emotion towards the object or the target, and there are no qualities of the target other than being a target to see as a cause of pursuit, then it is “gain” in its lesser degree; it is “possessive gain”.

What often makes this the lesser degree in evaluation of “gain” is in that for the most part, the target is not selected for its individuality. The target is often selected as the “object of desire” for opportunistic reasons, from guaranteed access to seek, and/or from ease, and/or, and most often, for vulnerabilities. The target could have had all kinds of individuality to it, and this does not matter, nor Pattern in importance.

The desire, the craving and yearning, the lust must have a target. This comes first. It is all about the order of evaluation. It is not that the target comes along and is within itself worthy of valuing. This is how individuality would work, and that of a mind with standards behind its decision making, and then a target becoming so, having met these standards. But this is not how desire compels. Desire being about impulse, it needs a target, that is, an object of desire to “possess”. As an impulse, as a craving and yearning, it is at the root of one's “seeking”. One scans, through impulse, options, and from those options, what could be targeted, and then, what can be attained and possessed to feed the craving and the yearning, to satisfy it.

This is why one would need to be a fool to think that most of what is desired being driven by the sexual appetite is some form of selection process that evaluates the “object”, or the target coming to be possessed.

The same can be said by the “appetite” for a human female to be a mother. She will desire this, and the “object” that is produced as offspring then becomes her possession. It did not have individuality, or anything about it to be valued. It was originally “non-existent”.

What is, and was desired by the human female is all the other emotions, and physical forms of expression that all then lead to the desire to be “worshiped”, as the human female will break the individuality and its potential in offspring, so that that offspring will provide her with her cravings and yearnings being satisfied.

The same can be said for the “human daddy”. Because it can not develop a value hierarchy based outside cravings, it needs to “gain” a dependent as a means to justify its cowardly existence, served in labor and in continuation of being merely orientated by servitude, and that of escape. Human males rarely deal in desire, and more often than not, live lives based on duty and obligation, under compulsion and servitude.

Myth busting #1

Human males are after SEX in human females, and the female needs to be ATTRACTIVE.

Human females are after mere “Providers” in males, and the male needs to be ATTRACTIVE.

This is the first myth to destroy. A human male showing you ATTENTION as a human female has nothing to do with you as an INDIVIDUAL, because chances are, you are NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. You are in actuality… just a female little girl, and he, in actuality, is just a male little boy, and in each other, it is roles you all seek.

If you are the little boy, and she is showing you attention, she could care less about any individuality in you, because there likely is none. You are a male, and she is seeking your attention, that you will give freely as a servant in need of a master… and she is seeking it to FEEL safe around you, and the smiles, and the flirtation does not mean you are attractive, and it has anything to do with you. Most of the time, the female attention given and sought has nothing to do with SEX, and has everything to do with SAFETY.

A human male sees SEX as the ultimate CURRENCY for SAFETY. ACCESS to SEX, for the human male, gives them the fastest sense of SECURE in nature, and the PRIME DIRECTIVE. For a human female, that nature programs to outlast and survive the human male, PROVISION is the greater CURRENCY.

A human female will never value the sex of a human male more than the PROVISIONS, or that is the resources a human male can provide. When humans are mating and being sexual at a young age, this seems not to be the factor. Entertainment in distraction and relief are more dominant. This, because the human female is taken care of by a mommy and a daddy, and her provisions are by them. When these are no longer the providers, the human male is expected to be, and where yes, trashy folk with less Access Value Engagement will engage each other seemingly outside of resource concern, this is, and only is because they lack ACCESS to higher earners than those around them. They will then often be more sexual, have more children, and often not have the PROVISIONARY level to take care of those children well. The mark of a poor kind is more often than not demonstrated in the amount of children they have.

There is a correlation in this. Those with more resources who tend to be better managed in life have less children, either one or two, but hardly more. Those who are poorly managed in life tend to have more children, two plus, with three or four.

A human female will be far more attracted to resources than she will the SEX and the ATTRACTION of the male. This is not to say, there is no sense of attraction in these areas. Only a mental midget concludes this from what I have said. You are not ready to have this conversation if that is the takeaway. I am speaking of a hierarchy of values.

A human male's hierarchy of values with a new female is as follows.

A human male is seeking to ATTACH to any human female upon sight and opportunity with the;

1st: Being that of ATTACHMENT for that of having their EMOTIONS MANAGED, and their role as a human male VALIDATED through SERVITUDE and PLEASING of that of the target female or females, often including their mothers.

2nd: In addition to the management of their emotions, and being VALIDATED as SERVING and PLEASING, SEXUAL ACCESS will be the clearest of their currencies, in order to make them FEEL that of SAFE AND SECURE in a role.

Note: to clarify… Validation, for humans, means validate that one is “safe and secure” in a “relation” to another, with sustained access. When the term validation is often used by others, they do not know what is being validated. Because of the human Kinetics being born out of fear and insecurity, what is being validated, or instigated is then a sense of SAFETY and SECURITY, and this is achieved in ENTERTAINMENT―to which both provide each other―that offers DISTRACTION and RELIEF. This is why the honeymoon phase often has the two being isolated from others, in their own “world” and set adrift, living out a “fantasy” that then ends, and resources take the primary stage of mattering the most; this, because it is the number one priority of the human female.

The human female hierarchy of values in association with the human male is;

1st : That of seeking ATTENTION from almost all males, as a means to prioritize FEELINGS of SAFETY and SECURITY, in relationship to physical and resources.

A male could be a threat to her males. A male would not be seen as a threat to her. This is a myth that females FEEL in danger around males, at least in the overly domesticated industrial nations. Female safety is the number one priority in industrial settlements, not male safety. In settlements more primal, a female could be in more danger from males. However, I am dealing with and in, and about industrial settlements that are managed by females and their effeminate mates, and/or sons.

Note: A human male who makes a human female feel safe and secure does not do so mostly because they can protect. This is a MYTH. The most common sense of safety and security a human female gets from a male is found in that to them, he is a little boy who requires them to manage their emotions, and that little boy can easily be emotionally punked by them, and poses no real threat, and instead, is a little boy seeking to serve mommy, and their plays are the same plays they learned from mommies, as they watched their mommies manage the emotions of everyone.

Safety and security among most human males in industrial settlements is easily acquired because the human males are inept, unskilled, without Control and Command, and/or not DANGEROUS in any way. Human male Children of Ineptitude are “SAFE” to human females, because their MOMMIES have stamped them with docility, timidness, and in having managed their emotions, because they can not manage their own, they managed them into a state of pettiness, of subversiveness, and malcontent.

This is what you get when you let little girls who can not manage their own emotions manage your emotions as a little boy, for in which you will always be, in the absence of your own Control and Command. The same can be said for females who turn to other females for Management. It's the worse thing anyone seeking a healthy and noble life can do… Seek Management by little girls.

2nd: Is that of safety and security in extension to the first, by the acquisition of a servile male who will be a Provider, while they ready for Nature's Prime Directive of producing offspring, to give them the greatest excuse in demand of DEFERENCE in life. I am a mommy. The level of expectation for PROVISION, in RESOURCES from a male, will be based upon what kind of males and their earning status the female has access to.

A human female who is born economically poor, but is “good-looking” can get the attention from a higher earning male, and she can be socially and economically promoted, and he could care less about her provisionary status. Human males do not care about your college degree, and your job. This means nothing to them.

Myth busting #2

A human female who is attractive gets more attention than a human female who is not.

A human female who is attractive seems to get more male attention, but this is not true, from the direction of the male. A human female who has been taught she is counted among the attractive will go on to exhibit different behavior. She will elicit through more smiles, and more plays on your physical attraction, and because of this, more males will see her signaling for attention and then feel able to give her it easier, because she will play with the attention more than a less attractive female will be secure in doing.

It is not that the males are giving her more attention because she is attractive. If males are not given signals that say they can seek and give attention by the so-called attractive female, then they will often be too intimidated to seek to SERVE and PLEASE her, and try to gain ACCESS to her. But if she has been taught she is attractive, or she “knows” or rather thinks she is attractive, she will increase her level of signaling through plays for attention, and she is what some call an ATTENTION WHORE. The human male has no Control over any of this. It is the human female who signals the ATTENTION and ENCOURAGES it.

Myth busting #3

Being an ATTRACTIVE female means LOOKING GOOD.

No it does not. Being an attractive female starts with “thinking you look good” and “acting like you look good”, and because of this, there are many females with “attractive” attitudes, that no matter how they look, because they think they look good, even delusionally, they will then signal males to seek their attention and access, and they will get that attention and access.

It all comes down to thinking you look good and are attractive, and then acting like you think that. Because these thoughts, when they are real, lead to actions that trigger in the female the signaling of the male to chase. A female with low self-esteem who is not “rocking” what she has will not send to the male the same amount of signaling that they can chase, and therefore, she will not be chased as much.

The human male is waiting to be signaled by ANY FEMALE to chase, and as long as they have the opportunity, the access, and the signal from the female… they WILL ALWAYS CHASE THAT FEMALE and seek access. The human male does not care about how the human female looks, MOSTLY.

3rd in the human female hierarchy of value in association with a human male, is a male for ENTERTAINMENT.

I will recap, since I deviated.

1st: That of feeling SAFE and SECURE around the male, either by them being a little SIMP, passive, timid, docile little boy no matter their age and able to be emotionally managed by them, and/or, in the more rare case… the male is a DANGEROUS male, but in getting their attention, they have that male PROTECT over them. If that dangerous male is not RESOURCED, and the human female is not RESOURCED or PROVIDED for by others, then she will have him see her as a little sister, and he is friend zoned as a PROTECTOR, as only dangerous kinds can actually PROTECT.

Safe little boys do not PROTECT; they PROVIDE, and the first thing to PROVIDE for is the FEELING of SAFETY and SECURITY, and make no mistake, this is more valuable than material PROVISIONS to a human female, and a primary motive for attention seeking and signaling. When a young human female is provided for, either on her own, or through “parents” when young, she will find the DANGEROUS male to be most ENTERTAINING and attractive, and therefore, seek them for Entertainment, and pay them SEXUAL and ATTENTIONAL currency, making them FEEL like they have a bunny to protect. But for BREEDING, females do not want DANGEROUS males. For genes, yes, but care and safety... no.

2nd: That of resource security, in that she can have a “settlement” of her own in order to engage Nature's primary objective, and REPLICATE through breeding OFFSPRING, that will then serve her emotional needs as a default worshiper, and a greater innate tool for the demand of more DEFERENCE in life. A human male who can serve this aim is seen by human females as a HIGH VALUE MALE. He does not matter as an INDIVIDUAL. What he can do for her matters.

The 3rd value is that of ENTERTAINMENT.

Remember, a young female who is being provided for has a young girl hierarchy that differs until she is on her own, which most females NEVER truly are. They are almost always continuously supported in their networks, which differ from males. A young girl in the home wants the first value and the third value the most. They want to feel SAFE and SECURE, and then they want to be ENTERTAINED.

For this reason, when young, they can get with DANGEROUS men to feel PROTECTED and SERVED, and to be most ENTERTAINED. The 2nd value is served here by their parents, and when this changes, or they can not serve the growing demand of the young girl, and she is out of the house, the 1st and the 2nd value will dominate her motives, with the 3rd then coming in.

Human female hierarchy of value in association with a human male:

Feelings of Security, Safety, and stability in being Served;
Resource stability, with deference, provided for (Entitlement);
Entertainment;
Sex.

Human male hierarchy of value in association with a human female:

Feelings of Security, Safety, and Stability in that of Serving
Sex as Validation
Entertainment

Yes, that is it for males, three not four, with the first and the third being where there is more likeness than not. Males do not care about the resource stability of a female in their second, but they do care about SERVING the female for their first, and often, incapable of being dangerous, and thus making the female “FEEL” safe in the first, they are left with serving her second.

For human females, sex comes in number four, in the hierarchy of values for those with an average human female chemical body.

One is not to think of these values being standalone. They are in relation to each other, and because of each other. For the human female chemical body, her hierarchy of values is established around the womb, regardless of what she thinks about that.

A human female will find far more satisfaction in life around that of the hierarchy of values centered around the womb than any other proposed hierarchy of values. A female Vir would not. A female Vir would not find the human hierarchy of values suited to their nature, as a female Vir, liken to all Vir, is mission orientated, objective orientated, and purpose driven, and they do not have the Nature's Prime Directive or NPD as their purpose.

Conditions do not change the hierarchy of values, but they do determine which stage in the value one may be in because of a previous value being met, and not in need of servicing at the time.

This is why I stated, when a human female is young, and in the house of her familiars, and has her resources secured by them, she will have a different approach to the first value, and the third. If a young female girl is cared for in the home, and she thinks she is attractive, she then would have a stronger interest for dangerous males than she would docile males. This is due to her resources not being a factor in their fun, which is that of the third value being engaged, that of Entertainment.

A resourced little girl will NOT understand danger and threats, and the “dangerous” boys, often nowhere near dangerous, are not seen as dangerous, so to say… but instead, as ENTERTAINING, and often “desired by others”, and therefore, she then has her desires conformed and orientated more often than not to “group think”, as human females are left with the group and their ways, more than human males are, where they may often be in competitive fields, where competence and the degree of differences in others are more noticeable.

When one is in a realm of competence, even if only professionally, one drifts from group think ever so slightly, in that the group is not able to be held up as actual when there is a standard now that others can be measured to and found wanting.

Human girls, which is what almost all human females are, no matter their age, often are not in “social spheres” where competence and standard is a factor, but instead, getting along, and working together in the same mediocrity is the focus. Relational versus systematic.

When a human girl is going through her hierarchy at a young age and under the care of her progenitors, she can move past the second and even first sense of values, because she will have a delusional relationship with these two. She will be HOUSED, and because of this, she will have a sense of security and safety correlated to the HOUSED state she comes from.

This will breed in her an arrogance that was once uncommon to this planet, that she would then bring into her adult life, so-called, with her, and increase the amount of sense of entitlement she has to have at bare minimum the same resource standing she did from her home. The less she came from, the more appreciative she would be. The more she came from, the more displeased she will be when she needs to now find a male to serve her on that level, at the same time, trying to have him serve her as entertaining as well. More often than not, one can not get both a servant and an entertainer, and therefore, many settle for just a servant, and find their Entertainment elsewhere.

When resource security is present on display, the young girl is then looking for Entertainment, and because of this, she will, if she thinks she is attractive, be attracted to the more “outgoing” males, and they are the best this society can do, to seem to have dangerous males―but certainly they are not dangerous in the real sense. Athletes give off the sense of “toughness”, and that is often the best a coddled society can do for “dangerous”, as sports ought to simulate war, if they are to be worth a damn.

When that young, naive, overly supported little girl goes off to college, that sphere is not much different, unless now, she needs to have a “job”. But jobs waiting for females are often orientated in relational and social ways of ease, with tasks that can be routinely repeated without risk, and whether or not a female does a job well or not will matter little; the same with the little boy in the same job, because their jobs will not have much consequences for poor engagement. Every kind of job can be measured. What are the risks when doing the job, and what is the reward? What kind of problem solving does the job have, and what is the cost to solving the problem inadequately, and/or not at all? How many solve its problems, versus how many do not need to?

If ever there is a question about a “meaningful” job, so to say, there is this. In doing the job, does it grant you access to an atmosphere that “speaks to you”, say outdoors, or say out on the sea, or say up in the air, or at the center of a bustling city of Entertainment, or in a field where you are left to your own thoughts, and preferred isolation. Meaning, what is the value first and foremost of the atmosphere?

There are professions alone, and/or jobs alone that are rewarding simply for what kind of atmosphere they grant access to.

Then, the question is, what of the tasks speaks to you for it to be meaningful? Are the tasks challenging? Do the tasks themselves have a reward in their quality, consequences in their quality, or do you just “put in the time”?

Putting in the time, with all the rest not mattering much… is often the sign of a “job” that does not have “task” that provides meaning. Atmosphere may, and one may find out how to pull out meaning somewhere else connected with the “job”, but this they must do, and be aware of. Do not find meaning in the task; find meaning in some self-assigned challenge in regards to quality and outcome. One has to be the source of meaning, and this is best. Some jobs make that easier than others. Some jobs make that near impossible. I am not saying, delusionally make something seem meaningful.

I gave you a list of the human female and male value hierarchy. Here is mine:

Karuna game, game of Virtue, collaboration;
Expression of Virtue, of excellence;
Well-being, physical health, fit to fight, to do battle;
Battle;
Equanimity, immovable, potent Kinetics;
Scorched earth, impermanence, conditional flux;
Entertainment, attraction in the noble, the analytical, the Vigilant, the Vital;
Resources, for sustainment, for operation, for continuation, for physical well-being

That is the simple list. Notice on my list of values, in the innate sense, not chosen sense, SEX is not on that list. Little boys and girls are not on that list. Safety, security, and stability... is not on that list. Consider your list, which is the human female and male, regardless of what you think, and consider my list, and then realize why you get me so wrong. The things you see have nothing to do with me. I DO NOT want you for your ATTENTION, your APPROVAL, your APPRAISAL, and I do not PRIZE you as some source of my well-being.

I DO NOT have the NEED to FEEL secure and safe, in SERVICE to others. That is not a part of my nature. I do not NEED sex for validation of the first; I do not NEED sex at all. Sex to me is Entertainment of a low degree. It would never make the list of values for me. It's equal to a pleasurable meal, a pleasurable film, a pleasurable act of simplicity. It is one of many activities that can be engaged for merely Entertainment. It is not MEANINGFUL; it is not SPIRITUAL; it is not SACRED.

That does not mean that there is no version of it that could be, but that version of sex, where something else could be happening, could only happen if both participants are Commanders, and/or one, at minimum, is more than that, and then, they are making it happen. But that borders the experiential, and does not have a demonstrative nature worth divulging. Any who claim they know sex that way, and yet, they are chumps in all parts of life, are fraudulent. Like all energy, sex uses the source energy as well. Therefore, like all transmutation of the energies, there would then be a transmutative version of sexual activities. But too, like “intoxicants”, if one is exposed to that kind of sex, it would reduce them and cause them harm if exposed for too long, and not driven towards a Command of their own. It then can be said to be acceptable to be exposed only in short, to see that there is a different version, as a means to instigate the search thereof, or more so the advancement thereof, but in that being the case, COMMAND is not gained through SEXUAL practices.

But humans and those held in captivity have been sexually repressed, and because of this, there is a strong correlation with sex and freedom for humans, and those who would be Manu, a Vespillo, but held in captivity. And so then arise “sexual liberation” techniques, that more often than not fall very short of doing anything more than entertaining one's bestial nature, and making one more addicted to the sources of the sexual expression.

Any who ritualizes sex, and places it in the foreground of values, treating it in high esteem, is a charlatan. If there is a magical way of doing sex, it is not because of sex, but because of a freedom from the need for, and attachment thereto, that of sex. There is no “magic” and “power” in “attachments”, and that of “needs”, and that of “drives”. The power is, and the “magic” could only, ever be… in that of COMMAND.

And where one puts their own Command forward for too long on a condition others are Entertaining, it could cause them HARM, if not regulated and restrained. When one then gets a taste of that Command, and comes to wonder why it has gone as fast as it came, that is the reason. It is because that which instigates a move towards one's own Command is not that of always being under the Command of one with a Command. The one with the Command has to remove their Command, from others, or else that other will be impeded in their advancement to a Command.

One who would seem to be the Commander, always in Command, with others always Commanded, is NO COMMANDER at all. This is what teachers are, and want to be. This is what gurus are, and want to be. These are charlatans, and before them will be little inept children, looking to them to be led, to be Controlled, Managed, Manipulated and Seduced, and the evidence this is what they sought will be in that, this is all they have ever found… and therefore, think there is all that could be found.

In the past I was unable to inform all around me about these things. It takes way more to say than one has the time, desire, and energy to do in person. It is liberating for then a book to follow, that calls out all the ineptitude, so that now, when one engages in it, and say, I say, “here, you are doing this and that”, and one is confused, and not aware of what I am saying, they can be dismissed and Denied Access solely on the account that they have not conducted the needed studies to have any worthy access to me. I will not be telling everyone these things from scratch. It's what the book is for.

When you are a little girl who wants to be served, in your insecurity, your fears…

ACCESS DENIED.

You are a little boy who wants to serve me, thinking you are the source of securing my sense and validating me…

ACCESS DENIED

You little girls then want some guidance in a resource world of stability and security from me…

ACCESS DENIED

You little boys want me to attract the ladies, and me to guide you to get sexual validation…

ACCESS DENIED

You little girls want me to Entertain you with my dangerous persona, and offer you excitement…

ACCESS DENIED

You little boys want me to ENTERTAIN you, in that of acting like “we” are a “we” versus a “them”, and “we” are dangerous...

ACCESS DENIED

You little girls want me to sex you as valuable, validate your sex via intercourse, and appear then to be bonded to you…

ACCESS DENIED

You base creatures have your wants and your needs, from your hierarchy of values, innate to you, so you can only then assume, I must be governed by the same systems. I am not. I am telling you in these books that what you are looking for in me, that is not of me…

ACCESS DENIED

Myth busting #4

In seduction, the human male is the targeter, the chaser, and the mark is the human female.

When one MARKS another for any SOCIALIZING, male or female, the elements of the human social value hierarchy will be at play naturally, in the absence of a DELIBERATE and DEFINABLE SYSTEM. Thus, if asked, and unable to provide a standard of association, that is clear, and expounded upon, ONE IS CERTAINLY engaging in these plays, either poorly, or with some FAMILIARITY.

NONE OF THESE PLAYS ARE SKILL BASED. Familiarity and nature are the determining factors, as is the needed INGREDIENT of DEFERENCE. This is why mostly, the chaser, the targeter, so to say, appears to be the male, and the mark appears to be the female, or the effeminate.

This, however, is a myth. With males and females, the female has to mark the male, and give subtle, and covert signals to tell them they can GAME, they can socialize. A male who does not receive this “selection” from a female will not “play”, and will feel discouraged and lacking in “confidence”.

This proves, from the default state, that a CHUMP is who it pertains to. A male who is not a chump could care less of the selective process of a female, and when she determines she does not have his free attention, she will then mark him more overtly, thinking she needs to give selection and permission more aggressively. A chump will then think she is attracted to him, and NOT be aware of the constant FEMALE need for ATTENTION out of safety and security needs in ATTACHMENT, and thus surrounding herself with as many dupes and chumps as possible to increase odds.

It's a game of nature, and no one should ever presume that some female or male naturally knows these things, and acts on knowledge. That would be absurd. This is natural program that runs without awareness.

If you're a female and you have male friends, in your orbit, you have been doing this. ALWAYS. Never is this not the case. Females and males are not collaborative if they are not WARRIORS. If they are in a settlement, and they are domestics, then a female surrounds herself with males to do things for her. ALWAYS. It could be Entertainment, resource, or, and rarely, protection. Who that male is will not matter. It's a role, and they are replaceable.

But Seduction is not just males targeting females. But let me be clear, females do not need to seduce males. Females select males, and males need to give them the attention they want, for them to permit further access.

Some males, females need to seduce. Those males are males who are higher earners in the resource realm, and therefore, and mostly because of this, they have access to more female options, and they do not need to “hunt” or to “target” based on opportunity.

Because of this, a female would need to “seduce” them, in order to “lead them astray” from the options they already have, thus making herself a competitive option, to which only females with a certain degree of physical value will be able to do. Any female who then mocks them for this, is almost always a female who can not do it themselves, because their physical value is low comparatively, and they only have options with lower statused males.

When females get past the wall, they often start the nonsense about how looks should not matter, and there is more to a female than their looks, and a male should see that. This is game that is played by uglies, and wall hitters. The natural market has removed them from having options, and this is nature. So they need to make their ideologies match, to somehow shaman their way back on some market. Do not fall for this.

For the sake of clarity, I do not wish to use Sexual Marketplace Value, or SMV, as a thing. Others ask me about this often, and it's not accurate. SEX is not the primary value in a social marketplace, as was covered above.

This is proven by how males will marry and remain ATTACHED to females who withdraw the sexual component, or make it more scarce, and in that, the folk belief around marriage is sex goes away, and the male becomes an additional child to the female, a provider, a servant, a mere resource, and bank card provider. You can say this folk belief is a stereotype not grounded in “truth”, but all the numbers that could be used would show you where it's not “true” it is an “anomaly”. Males make most of the money, and females spend most of the money they do not make. This is economic facts.

ATTACHMENT is the primary value on the social marketplace. One then needs to discover what the nature of the attachment is. Because of this, and observing the usefulness of acronyms, I have AVE, which is Access Value Engagement, in the place of SMV. They do not mean the same thing. Access is a given. Why one is trying to gain, and/or maintain access is not a given, and I would say sex is not the primary. It would be, if it was called SEXUAL marketplace.

Calling it this also allows the manosphere kinds to remove the admittance, if they know, of something they would otherwise see as weak in them. And that is, they are not nature's primary in a relationship; the female is. When they seek out attachment to a female, it is not proven it is for her giving him sex, which biologically he is motivated towards, but in actuality he is seeking a female to SERVE, and to have his emotions managed by, like Mommy did. Mommy has determined the way he will see females. Mommy managed him when he was a physical child, and now that he is only a mental child and physical adult, he needs a new mommy to manage him, his emotions, and his resources that he will gladly labor day in and day out for, so that the new mommy could tell him his worth, to which he is confused about.

In actuality, a human male―and this is the only kind Seduction applies to―needs a female that he can SERVE even more so than SEX, though while serving her, he will forever want that in return. However, if he does not receive sex as a payment, this does not mean he will move on and not serve her. He will serve her, because that is the primary urge based sense of a human male, the only kind of males this pertains to.

And too, any female to serve will often do, when he is not one who has a Potency of Provision, or PoP, to his steps. When he has PoP to his step, this will be proven in being a higher earner, and as such, he will have more options to attract in females to serve, and only then, can he be selective; and only then, will selection of “beauty” be more of a factor concerning appearance and social status, where often it will be about the appearance of a better, but in actuality, he could care less. This is the meaning of “trophy wife”, because her appearance is more about, when of a higher social status, showing it, by having a higher in physical appearance mate. On the side, he can, and will have a bunch of uglies who may be a bit more freaky in the froth.

Males will often be found satellited to females who are of a greater appearance than the female they have access to, to which she then will fear, and be insecure around, realizing that that male wants the planet female they satellite, but she has more options, hence being able to satellite them.

Females who have an orbit with males in it are females who are the most needy for attention. Unless they are the rare tomboy, the best of females, able to do male things, they will be the girly girls reminding the males of a fun and carefree youth, when they were in mommies Management, which many of them will still be as they have aged. The girl next door is allowed to still be carefree when she is older, mostly because females, human that is, receive a great deal of deference, social support, and family support, while human males are expected to suck it up, and enter into the workforce and often work the worse of jobs to make themselves useful where they can.

“Make yourself useful” can be said to a human male, but would be an insult and grave mistake to ever be said to a human female. Instead, she believes she was born with value, and therefore, could never answer the question “What do you bring to the table?”, but instead, will be insulted, and reveal her arrogance, as well as the dismissive narcissism when she says “I am the table”, meaning, the value, and all because of her vagina, booty, and sexual enticement that may not be sustained once the chump male has been pulled in.

Little boys hang around little girls. ALWAYS. A male who has female friends, and they hang out, is only a CHUMP male. A Champion male would not have a female friend that they have not already had sex with. This is not because of the human sense of all this. It's natural for Champion males to have sex with females for many reasons, that a non Champion, a chump, could not understand. One of those reasons is barriers. A human female is not the same around Champions, as she is with chumps. She knows she does not have an innate value to her.

When you as a chump act like she does, and she lets you, she knows you are a chump, because she does not believe it herself. She, because she has been kept inept with deference her whole life, is not about anything that could make her “feel worth”, so she ALWAYS will have low self-esteem, same as a male who has nothing to “be about”, for only in being “about something” does skill and competence occur, and relationship with pride develops, thus establishing worth.

For human males, this can not be done. Human males can not have pride, but they can have arrogance marked by displeasure and malcontent. Because of this deference, where human males are allowed to vomit displeasures and malcontent, they do not then portray themselves as valuable. A human female, if she has options, will not hang out with, and be around a little boy, who feels low self-esteem.

She would instead, in the name of provision, seek out a more confident, and more dangerous male, getting what she needs from him, and only him. A human female, little ass girl, who has many males around her, has low self-esteem, and none of those males will be dangerous and high earners. She has them orbiting until she only accidentally finds “the one”, who will be the one for only a short time, till they then show they are not dangerous and secure in themselves, and she gets them to revert to the boy their mommy knows.

When you are a human male, and a human female little girl, no matter their age, gets you to open up so she can manage your emotions, and has you vulnerable as a blessing, you are a chump, and she now knows you are a chump. Only a chump needs others to manage their emotions, and only a chump has vulnerabilities.

This is the difference in why the ones who are more attractive as females like the so-called dangerous seeming “bad boys”. They like them because a “bad boy” does not let “little girls” manage their emotions, and promote vulnerability. A “bad boy” can not exist, if he was overly mommied. Mommy stamped are the good little boys, where in this culture, it's actually a statement… “Be Mommy's good little boy and do this and/or that, will you?” Bad boys are the ones who were like, “hell no, do it yourself woman, I got somewhere to be”. But good boys had nowhere to be, but with Mommy. So then, when they age, and they take to little girls, as they only can, they want somewhere to be, and it's there, and therefore, her, like they were for Mommy, a “good little boy, doing this and that for her”.

Attractive females like the “bad boy”, because the “bad boy” does not treat her like she is the best thing to happen to them, on account that she has some looks. Bad boys attract the lookers easily enough, and they do not do it like a little good boy. They do it without trying because they could care less that some looker has looked their way, because... lookers look their way. When it's normalized, it does not have the same power the chump is looking for.

The chump wants anyone to look their way, looker or not. Because of this, the chump is a little girl boy. Because they experience the same need for attention a little girl has. This is what makes them effeminate. This does not mean they dress effeminate, speak effeminate, or give off effeminate sense. They are effeminate because they need and want attention from any and all places. Just like an insecure little girl.

Bad boys, for the lack of better categorical clarification right now, could care less who is looking. They are “on to something”, and that “something” and “motion” often makes others wish to “play” for that of excitement and that of adventure, and that of flirting with danger. Attractive females are not so subjectively, but they do not know this, and neither do you Brahmins.

What makes a female attractive to dangerous kinds is that, that female too can be dangerous, so she has a strong body, determination, and energy behind her that others find sassy. She is not some timid, meek little bunny in some corner looking down and giggling to get you, the chump male to approach. That is why the attractive ones do not get approached.

There are more chumps than there are attractive females and dangerous males. Though they may approach a female, they do not need to; she will come over and want to partake in what they are doing. This is not the same as pretty. Pretty is often seen as such, because of their childlike posture and look, like it's innocent and harmless, and easy to Control. It's weakness. Pretty is pathetic.

An attractive female, and an attractive male is not subjective in NATURE. The primary trait is around SURVIVABILITY of REPLICANTS, or offspring that can be produced, and therefore, those who can be noble with prudence, and have the physical force, and wit to conquer their conditions, are ATTRACTIVE, and this has a mark of BEAUTY attached to it, so that beauties can find each other, mate and produce offspring with the selected traits. Nature determines what is beautiful, and nature has determined the most beautiful thing there could be on its planet is WARRIORS, and if you are not fit to fight, and have wit for fight… you are not and will not be beautiful.

You will be a little boy, and little girl that others will exploit and conquer, because they will not have observed you have done so. You will need subjugators, and be a subject, because in your existence will be all refusal and escape from personal responsibility born out of strength, endurance, and insight. And you will all become one huddle fest, with little girls surrounded by little boys, and those little girls in their low self-esteem will have little boys under their Management, which can only beget a social network of inept children, under the most earthling depravities there are.

A male who has the ability to be a Champion, or is one, does not merely have sex with females because of the want of sex. They are often Champions because they are not with the want on the level the little boy is. They have a worth that is less urge based. Sex, then, with females, will sometimes be about “securing” that female's “fears” and Sense of Self, she correlates with physical access. That many females, when they meet a Champion, will not “feel” as if they have earned the access, or are “worthy”, because they have little to nothing to add to the life of a Champion.

The Champion will get them past this impediment often, by getting the sex out of the way, so that the physical bridge has occurred, and now, it can be about being about things. Power couples know this. They know that the physical petty elements once conquered open up so much more. They do not emphasize the physical connection, like the commons do. They become “about something” in collaboration, and this is of the greatest value.

A fella the other day was talking to me about how sex is meaningful, and spiritual, and so on. I had to stop him, and tell him to keep that shaman câlice to himself, unless he is ready for me to refute it. Sex is not magical, and when called spiritual, it proves the spiritualists are materialist. Sex is material, as are the emotions around it, and so on. Those who spiritualize sex are predators. Those who spiritualize emotions are predators. Predators are materialist. They have nothing in them that is “magical” in mind, and therefore, they are never “about” anything other than access to the emotions and the bodies of others; and therefore, if they see others engaged in the body, they will need only presume it's for the same reasons of ineptitude that motivate them.

Most of the relationship that others have to sex is about their fears and their insecurities. It's about being reassured, comforted, and elated. Little around sex is NOT petty. Most is petty, and that is why commoners can easily engage in sex, make bad decisions, and be replaceable. Because the fact of the matter is, most females have little to offer anyone else but that of a role with a family, and a sexual role for a male, and then wonders why he will serve her displeased only, when she stops being sexual as much, once she has locked him in. She will then be displeased at his level of servitude, when she has removed her only value.

The oddity is that human utterance from delusional females, that “I gave you children, is that not enough for you?”. But the children were for her, and hers, and so say the courts more than otherwise. She had children because of nature, and most males could go without children other than the chumps of the chumps, who need more entitled masters to serve, feeling it is a given they ought to be.

On being desirable by others

Houses are no more than males as servants to females and their offspring. This is natural, and my observation in calling it a pathetic natural is only due to me being in accord with my own nature, and my nature being a deviation from Nature's Prime Directive. In being the best version of what I am, I am free. I am not repressed. In being one who has developed intrinsic value, as well as charisma, I have no need for resources and/or notoriety in order to attract females, which nature would have me inclined to do; however, I am not hyper sexual, and I can go years in celibacy, so to say, or that is, countenance, and not care for any craving or yearning that is of the sexual appetite.

I have a low sexual appetite by default in life, but I have a high sense of enjoyment in all things I do, so where not contradictory to all other things, I will engage in sex for enjoyment, and it is not an enjoyment that can ever compete with what I get from expressing my innate traits towards perfection. I will never enjoy sex more than I ever enjoy writing, enjoy fighting, enjoy challenges and skillful expression. These will always be before this, and because of this one simple difference in what I am, I can never “feel” low self-esteem.

This very low Sense of Self that most experience is correlated to their desires, those cravings or yearnings that compel them to pursue a “target”, an “object” that is then expected to satisfy those cravings. When one does not get this met, they measure themselves as failed hunters, when they are a male.

Human females, on the other hand, being the selectors, can always find some servile male to “target” and to pull in, and can then drop them for another anytime they see fit, being hypergamous. It is insecurity and fear in options that makes females think so low of themselves. More often than not, human females think they deserve better than what they have as options, not because they have worked at being “higher”, but because nature has made human females target up, because the objective is deference and the securing of the space for offspring. So targeting upward gives them a sense of “better than what they have had”. Plus, it raises their social hierarchy among other females, and in their sense, secured their access to alternative males having been raised up in status.

When one's “target” raises the human female to an additional rank, she increases the odds of finding a new target that is much higher.

Now, when human females and males think I am being harsh, then you are not reading my tone right. This, to me, is science. This is not me saying something negative like “how dare they”. You would be a fool to think I am suggesting something is wrong with this. I have observed a great deal of individuals in my life, and what I do not observe among the commons is human heterosexual males making themselves the object of desire.

If I do not observe human males making themselves the object of desire, why then would I think human females should desire them beyond anything but their notoriety and their resource standing?

At the same time, I do not see human females making themselves more than the body they were born with, other than trying to “target” the right male to elevate them a notch or two from the default starting point. This is what you are all doing. It is not something to be ashamed about. It is something to take note of, to recognize, and then take Control over. This is my point.

Instead of being a “chump” ass male who thinks you deserve to be “selected” by a female and respected by males for some wack values... take Control. When you know what “bodied” females, with no mystery to them, are looking for, and they are your “targets” because nature has condemned you to this norm, then get their attention. It's too easy in actuality.

Human females only want a few things from the start. They want you to notice them, and this does not mean they notice you much, or care about you. It does not mean they find you desirable.

It is a survival tactic for a female to be seen, and to be liked. This, because she has no intention of holding her own and self standing. Human females are collectivist. They need to stand with a group, and they need to know you are of that group, and not a threat. So they elicit your attention if you are equal, or greater to them in the social order. If you are below them, they will not elicit your attention.

Because of my standing in nature as potent, if I dress well and walk well, human females, on average, wish to get my attention. I do not give it to them, because on average, they are way below my interest in anyone, not just females. I look for “fight” and “intensity” in those I interact with. I am an elitist, not in regards to wealth, or status in society; I am an elitist in regards to how individuals ought to treat themselves. So little girls who are clearly over mommied and daddied look pathetic to me, and that is most females.

So when they need to get my attention because they are insecure and fearful, and need to get little girl on like they do to daddy and others, I have no time for that nonsense. I will not make them “feel secure”, as the previous tactic states. This only needs to be done to a child, if you too are so low in your Sense of Self and worth that you need to target a “child”. And by child, I do not mean physical age here, but I am speaking about their mental sense.

I had far more mental sense by the age of 9 than most of you will ever have, especially when you pass the age of 32-35 yet to habituate a method of Virtue. Many of you will come to pass this age wall, and then live the rest of your lives habitually stupid and unattained. If you are past this “wall” already, male or female, then you will only be reading this treatise because someone is using it to defend themselves against you. Once past this wall without habituating Virtue, and ending in a servile existence, one can not adopt these Ways, but only perhaps on the surface, and a little.

It is not to say, one can not pursue the tactics found herein, once uncovered, which they have yet to be; but it is to say, you will not incorporate the tactics accurately and into a sound character, for your brain will be too tightly wired to allow remapping. Because of this, at this wall or passing it, you will be easily displeased and malcontent, and you will know this is the case, because my words will be bothering you, even if you keep on with them. It will be that if you are at this “wall” or past it, you probably were looking to be displeased with my words before even reading them, looking to be displeased with me, which is why you will never have access to me.

I overstand these elements all too well, and will not be the victim, or the target of someone's displeasure. In the past, I barely allowed this for long. In the present, I do not allow it even in the slightest. When I see others moving towards displeasure, it's all about “Access Denied”.

This is not a Vigilance nor a safeguard that can exist in a collectivist, certainly not in one born to be just that. For by default, one who is born to be a collectivist is born with fear and insecurity common to their nature, potent to their nature.

All collectivism is born out of fear and insecurity. These two ingredients are needed for there to be collectivism. So then when the ideology is such on display, these primary emotional foundations can be supposed. Certainly, it is not joy that gives rise to collectivism. Grouping around joy will only be done if there is something worth enjoying, and I do not speak of the enjoyment of vice here, but instead, that unique enjoyment of Virtue through that of the pursuit of excellence.

Being desirable by others is not a part of the Access Denied tactics. Being with high esteem, self-worth, and self standing is. “We” say câlice to group measurements. It's about the individual, not the external assessment; however, because there is a tie to the individual, to social structures, and reality, these values of high self-esteem, self-worth and self standing will be desired and appealing to others, but not most. It would be a myth to think that these are of value to many, when many are easy to categorize by simply observing society. These may be values in the narratives of such, existing only as propagations, while in their actions, none of this exists. Do not listen to the words. Look for signs of high self-esteem. Look for signs of self-worth, and self standing.

When one seeks to appear to be an object of desire, this does not mean worthy of desire, and this very notion of even being worthy would place you as INFERIOR to the thing judging.

Some humorous moments have occurred throughout my life, mostly when I was practicing my own standing, and being so-called “celibate”―though this was not what was. I did not need to try to be celibate, or abstain from interest in sex, and the sexual marketplace. I have to actively push to have interest or be curious in this area, otherwise, in just doing me, which I have a whole lot to do, the sexual marketplace just does not matter. This is my nature, and not something that I am saying should be the case for others, and most. I was born not valuing the sexual marketplace.

In California, where I went at age 25, after my contract with the DOD was up, I was living in college areas, which in California, that was like everywhere for me, and perhaps even now it's the same. So it also means Liberals, and those with a socialist and all-inclusive mentality, conditioned into the populace, and based on my observation, akin to the nature of most.

Previously, for the last eight years, I had not been in any conditions like these. I was in what some may call “hostile” and nonpermissive environments, but that is oversimplifying. College girls in California were aggressively targeting me, on account of my looks, my accent, and perhaps some desire for trouble, as it is not hard for one to see me as the “bad boy”―only, they read that all wrong in me, and then get blasted with the Warrior Philosopher.

I experienced a great deal of “negging” attempts, when I would not placate, smile, try to be cute and nice to these little girls. They would then try to make me “feel” less, because they felt like they were being rejected, and this is the last resort to get you to try to get them to measure you up, and approve of you. However, by nature, I would combat their attempts at “negging”, that is, trying to negate you, and reduce your Sense of Self... by telling them what they were, and what they were doing. Human behavior has been a study of mine, all of my life as literate.

When I would fire back on them, many of them for the first time were encountering a “male” that did not behave like their sissy daddies, and their sissy classmate males, who were all trained to seek the approval of the female sex, and yield to their measurements of ineptitude.

Brooklyn did not work that way for most of those I had known. Females, in Brooklyn―that is, street Brooklyn―came at you often because you were making a name for yourself, and you were seen as strong, not some weak little bunny to coddle.

When seeing me fire back and shut down their techniques, they would then turn and try to get me by appealing to me, and they thought that meant softening up, smiling more, and in conversations, agreeing with me―all things I saw right through, and found pathetic.

It's easy to not be concerned about the sexual marketplace when your standards are high, and most options are chumps, and easily found rather pathetic and inept, which is the case for most of you little girls, no matter your age, to someone like me. You are not impressive because you are a female. Why then would I need you to desire, that is, crave and yearn for me? Why should this petty evaluation Pattern in importance to me?

It does not. It requires me to be the right victim for it to matter. It requires me to be insecure, fearful, inadequate, and so on. What comes to occur with the application of this “maneuver” of appearing to be desirable by others, promoted by writers on so-called “Seduction”, is the discovery a male must make about desire. This “tactic”, like the rest of them, are mostly for males. They are telling males how to be “effeminate” and to think like an “effeminate”, which most males and females are, with the difference being, females innately play most of these maneuvers, and males tend to be oblivious to them. I doubt any female reading this pathetic “maneuver” about appearing to be an object of desire would think this requires much thought for her to do.

A male does not look at a female, and say... “oh, her value is higher because others are showing they desire her”. No, he is instantly desiring a female, and mostly, any who gives him attention will do. Human males are looking for permission to “strike”, and this is why then the rest of their lives are lived in defeat and cowardice.

A human female needs a human male to be validated by their social status. They need to see how others respond to the male, and where they place him. This can be said as well with a female watching a male around the children of others to see how they are towards children, how they might be under her domain, as it is always her domain in actuality.

A male then having an entourage will have a hierarchy with it. If they are skilled males, then they will take turns and find ways to promote other members when they are all before a target. A male “alpha” will not do this. They will try to maintain the appearance of head at all times, and therefore, they often do not make good leaders in the long run, when mission is the objective. And before you are those dopes who say, the alpha beta thing does not apply to wolves nor humans, and this was an error, STOP. I am not implying humans have innate traits that get them to hold these positions. They are all “roles”, and they are dynamic and interchangeable.

I have been used in experiments in the past, without being told, by an Elite Research Institute, whose name is not mine to give, so I will call them ERI. My relationship with them started when I was young, and they were investigating me and my peculiarities. I would be invited to things, and be in social conditions that were being watched without participants noticing. In order to make good use of me, I had to be in far more social encounters that were not a study, than those that were, and I was socially active throughout my life with ERI. Also, after I was in these scenarios, I would become the observer on the other end, giving my breakdowns about human behavior.

I was in many scenarios that were about “alpha males” and “beta males”, or that of social hierarchies and tactics, and the discerning traits. So much, that to have some little boy schooled, and some little girl having been schooled, trying to tell me these chimp and wolf factors are not present and can not be used for prediction is absurd and arrogant on their behalf. Shut it till it works right.

I would be in these rooms watching what the observers were watching, that of social dynamics, and they would report later how funny it was to watch me watch. And then to see what I would do. These events, had they been made public, would show more about me than others can grasp on their own. When I see social hierarchies with loud and aggressive males forming, I do not join in. I sit, as the outsider. I do not seek to get male or female approval, ever, but those who suffer from this condition common to most would only presume that what I do, my expressions, are for this very aim, to appear to be an object of desire, and through triangles. I watch as others do this, and then when the males have a female added, boy does it get “retarded” fast, and that is exactly why, though females can be in combat, they should not be mixed with combat, or war fighter males. They will underperform, because nature made them “retarded” socially, by comparison.

A female looks to how other males rank up with their group, and based on what she thinks her sexual marketplace value is, or rather “feels” it is, without thinking about all this, she will target the one that is above her marketplace rank, but not too far to not achieve. And the insecurity of the male will cause him to target below his rank, and nature plays its game without your awareness, and certainly without your permission. Mostly without these things.

It all still comes down to insecurity. Those who are enjoying themselves will naturally attract those who like to enjoy themselves. When this happens, a group enjoying themselves should not have a clear social hierarchy. For this to occur, often, undermining needs to occur, as well as targeting. A healthy association that is based around enjoyment leads to joy; and therefore, when cultivation of values occurs, success occurs, and this leads to pride. And where this is present, males will not undermine other males, and this is uncommon, because of the absence of the two additional degrees of value: cultivation, and defense of the cultivated.

Females often need to see this insecure form of social hierarchies among males to make the signals easy to detect. Because of this, insecure males will help them, by more aggressively asserting what they think their rank is. To one who knows what they are seeing, and is Intellect over animal, this is all nasty and pathetic.

It is also the reason I do not grant insecure males sustained access to me, for they will try to undermine and subvert my Ways and conduct. I do not tolerate this, because I have value. When you tolerate it, it is easy to do so, because you have no value to a degree worthy of cultivating and defending. When you are this insecure male negating and undermining other males by impulse, it too is because you do not know what it is like to cultivate and defend a value. You are not value added, then, but you are a disruptive force, and “Access Denied” should follow.

It can not follow from those who are themselves the same, lacking in value and self standing. Those who are self standing will “feel” wrath towards those seeking to undermine them. Even in the realm of “deception” at times, but not always, a genuine “angered” defensive response is the mark that someone is telling the truth, and felt offended, versus one who has no standard of value and measurement, and does not get defensive.

When asked, “why are you defensive?”, and you then yield, you are a chump. Instead, have something worthy of defending, and respond with, “because you are a subversive and seeking to undermine me, and I have a value worth defending. If you were not attacking and subverting, I would not need to defend. That you are doing this, and you say I am defensive proves the point. You want me to be defenseless, and you can bug off...”

ACCESS DENIED

Myth busting #5

Human males are not relational.

There are two categories to keep in mind one has to ask when they profile an individual. Is that individual about;

Others (relational);

Things (systems).

Some have used this in the way to say;

Empaths, or Empathic;

Systematic.

Lefty social scientists―which is rather redundant to say, as they are almost all Left leaning, because the Left has the most prominent amount of attraction to shamans, and infrastructure for their Brahmins―ran a study on “egalitarian” societies and Europe, where there was in essence state sponsored forced control over “equal access” to opportunity, which is wonderful, but with an attempt to control the outcome, which is delusional and coercive.

They failed at controlling the desired outcome, because their own study showed that when measuring and accounting for professional choices, females and males were choosing the professions they always had had… that shamans said were being chosen previously on account of females being restricted. All the data now shows this was never true. Not that there were no barriers or restrictions. Those existed, but that given the freedom to choose, and access, and even more so, massive cultural campaigns to promote STEM among females, there was no change―if in fact, perhaps a greater increase in sex orientated decision making.

Males often choose things―unless they are effeminate, which many males in the industrial world are―and females often choose others, or relational and social jobs over things, unless they are masculine, or affirmative, to which perhaps many females have either become through conditioning, or may be of the Warrior type. But this latter is not present in numbers to change the studies.

On average, males choose things as targets, and females choose others, relationally as targets, and because of these choices, there is less risk, and therefore, less reward in social jobs as there is in jobs about things, where it means acquiring or caring for things, where risk is increased with an equivalent reward, thus explaining the mythological pay gap, that does not often take into account these differences.

What, may you ask, does this have to do with Seduction?

Everything. SEDUCTION is not in the category of things, now is it?

It's in the category of relations, in the category of others.

If males are more inclined towards targeting things, and females, inclined to target others, and you are all TARGETING something… Then who will have a greater sense of Seduction, males or females?

I have worked with a lot of females in my Journey, more than I have with males. I get along with females better than males, for this simple reason.

It is a MYTH, what I have stated the study has concluded on. Males would seem to not be targeting and being about the RELATIONAL, but this is a myth. Males are SERVILE, human males that is, and they need the RELATIONAL, but they need someone to manage it. They seek ACCESS and ATTACHMENT to FEMALES of the human sort, to manage the RELATIONAL. Males are not RELATIONAL in a MANAGEMENT framework. But this is not to be mistaken to think they are not RELATIONAL.

Human females have the master position among humans as Management. This then means they have the Control position, and that is why to say females are controlling is a given, but it is a negative to ever say a male is controlling. Often, the male who is controlling is controlling themselves, and the female who is driven to control him, and manage him, is not permitted to… So he is “stubborn”, “defensive”, and “resistant”. This, the very dismissive attacks proves, the one making the claims against the other can only do so, because they are trying to “have their way” as a related couple. Who would say I am stubborn, but one who is trying to push something on me?

Who would say I am defensive, other than one trying to attack me?

Who would say I am resistant, other than one trying to control me?

Who, but females, say this about the opposite sex more often than not?

How often can the male say this about the female? Say, she won't let him control her. She is stubborn and he is always trying to tell her something. She is defensive, because he attacks often?

No, males rarely do this, though there are some. Mostly, these attacks are one directional. The male is attacked with these dismissive traits, as a means to be marked for obedience training, and where it fails, he was controlling and stubborn. This is not to say, that there are none of those possessive types out there who are overly controlling a female. It is to say, this is not among the commons, and the small amount of characterizing of the real presence allows for females to make up tales of female oppression.

That in these days, females consider themselves “marginalized”, is utterly absurd. The amount of Humanus females having “Control” and “Influence” is the only thing on level to be called a “born privilege”, and perhaps even a “ruling caste” among the Americans. Absurd when you hear such tales, one does not stop to say… If it was true, you would not have the podium to say it is true. The very fact that it is mainstream and coming out of every university girl's mouth, almost every, proves it's not true. It's the mark of the ultimate entitlement, and females in human societies have always been entitled; and oppression of females has only happened at the hands of effeminates who held high Control status in the society, and were in elite numbers, and not representative of the commons. Among the commons, females have not been oppressed more than the masses of laboring in despair males, who did not build infrastructures because of eagerness, motivation and innovation, but because their worlds were designed for them to work.

Females manage;

Males serve.

This is not malicious. This is nature, and it's all around the prime directive of replication in offspring. And when humans live in this loop, their rulers manage them as beasts of burden, and they have in their ideology a long standing, and accurate culture that this is the limit of humans.

It needs to be made clear that I do not disagree with your shamans and Brahmins about the temperament of the commons. I am in agreement; the only difference is, I am a Warrior Sage, so I tell you what I think about you, while your shamans and their Brahmins conceal it.

Your shamans and your Brahmans, males and females, are effeminates. Because of this, among their males is the same inclination common to ALL human females, to manage the resources and the emotions of beast of burden servile human males. Because of this, they can be found to choose the same professions, only the ones that are high earning are exclusive to the shamans and their Brahmins.

They are not themselves beast of burden. They believe they answer to a higher emotional call, that they call spiritualism, in many different facets. A shaman wants to be chosen, and so they make their ideologies choose them, and promote them to the right to manage others. Every people having been around the marketplace and the conquest lines have the same seeds. They can be seeded in the shaman, seeded in the Vir―though this is rare, and shaman is not―or they can be seeded as a brute, a timid, docile Earthling.

Shamans are Earthlings. They worship the Earth, and they believe at the same time a magical one is here, side by side, and they use the emotions as the tools to “feel” this “otherly realm”, and they call it “spiritual”, but it's actually chemical and mental poison, that only those not of the commons and the shamans, would detect as so.

High performance is of the mind, and the shamans are gatekeepers of academia, and because of this, they seem to be of the mind... but they are not. They use academia for a social experiment, and Management of the culture. Academics is about culture creatives, and Management, not the Intellect. In the name of SCIENCE is the same. Shamans and Brahmins control the sciences, as professions, for Management and governance, which is why the STATE is the primary source of funding and granting for the sciences.

In tech, social tech dominates for the same reason. It seems tech and systems based, but all of these are mere utility for social Management, culture creatives, emotional Management, and Control for exploitation.

Whenever hearing mental midgets promote social ways, and emotional ways, think about it, “When I see it all this way so described, how then can I take what their kind says as anything but poisonous?” Even if you are not my Kind, but you are paying attention to my description of my Kind, realizing, at least, I think this so much… then if you can grasp we are not all the same, then you ought to realize how your kind is poisonous to my Kind, and you can only claim my Kind is wrong for not granting access to your poison.

I will never be against your kind. Your kind only knows how to be an adversary to others, because you are ALL, if human, slavers, and in the Christian dichotomy, your Gods are Satans, in the plural, and you call your Gods the GODS of LOVE, and you are correct, because LOVE is the tool of SLAVERY and SUBJUGATION, and let me be the first writer to tell you this… LOVE is VICIOUS, is a VICE, is POISON, and in the name of LOVE, you all have caused far more harm than any who has ever promoted some kind of hate, to which I do not. I am not about love; I am about TRIUMPH over my conditions and self, and it pains your kind to hear, it has nothing to do with you, and I am not going to be your adversary, against you; I am going to be for me, and my Kind.

Part II

The Battle of Access

On this page

Chapter 4

Myth Busting Seduction

STOP.

How the social hunter comes to embody a role of one who offers “security”

Anxiety is why ALL Seduction requires a distraction and a relief

Etymology of Anxiety (n.)

1520s, “apprehension caused by danger, misfortune, or error, uneasiness of mind respecting some uncertainty, a restless dread of some evil,” from Latin anxietatem (nominative anxietas) “anguish, anxiety, solicitude,” noun of quality from anxius “uneasy, troubled in mind” (see anxious).

Sometimes considered a pathological condition (1660s); psychiatric use dates to 1904. Age of Anxiety is from Auden's poem (1947). For “anxiety, distress,” Old English had angsumnes, Middle English anxumnesse.

Nice is a Vice.

Note:

The list of Kinetics here is from the early stages of development, and kept in this treatise so the reader and/or listener can observe the “Reasonings” as they were unfolding, to refine the list and its order.

The certainty of servility as a motive that drives every human RELATIONSHIP

The mechanics of desire and attraction

Note:

Use these six for now, for this chapter. But take note, they have been refined and revised with later expoundings as...

Diffidence

Anxiety

Repugnance

Disgust

Despair

Favored Uncertainty

Entertainment via Amusement, Seduction, Engagement.

Because of the amount of development occurring in real time, previous notions must be kept to exhibit the Pattern unfoldment. The reader needs to remain “unattached”. This is not a fixed science. This is dialectical investigation. It must be FREE for ADVANCEMENT.

Etymology of Desire (n.)

c. 1300, “a craving or yearning; an emotion directed toward attainment or possession of an object; sensual appetite, physical desire, lust,” from Old French desir, from desirer (see desire (v.)). Meaning “that which is longed for” is from mid-14c.

Note:

Gain and Maintain are numbered the same. It is actually three.

Gain and/or Maintain

Cultivate

Defend and/or Protect.

​

Note:

Myth busting #1

Human males are after SEX in human females, and the female needs to be ATTRACTIVE.

Human females are after mere “Providers” in males, and the male needs to be ATTRACTIVE.

Myth busting #2

A human female who is attractive gets more attention than a human female who is not.

Myth busting #3

Being an ATTRACTIVE female means LOOKING GOOD.

ACCESS DENIED

Myth busting #4

In seduction, the human male is the targeter, the chaser, and the mark is the human female.

On being desirable by others

ACCESS DENIED

Myth busting #5

Human males are not relational.

Continue to Chapter 5