Part II
The Battle of Access
Chapter 6
On Control, Management, Manipulation, and Seduction
Seduction can not be “grasped” without the grasping of Control, Management, and Manipulation. These three modes will be present in Seduction, as too they would be, and need be present in Command. This is why in the “Way of the Vir”, it is said Control and Command over one's conditions and self is the aim of informed decision making.
First, I will put the etyms. in order, and in their simple form.
Etymology of Control (v.)
early 15c., countrollen, “to check the accuracy of, verify; to regulate,” from Anglo-French contreroller “exert authority,” from Medieval Latin contrarotulus “a counter, register,” from Latin contra “against” (see contra) + rotulus, diminutive of rota “wheel” (see roll (n.)). The word apparently comes from a medieval method of checking accounts by a duplicate register.
Control's primary essence is “regulation”, and what is occurring in the state of “Control” is that of “checking” and “verifying” that something is in “accordance” with a “rule” or a set of “expectations” and/or “methods”. A “duplicate registry”, at the root, means checked against something that is in essence already established. It is not Control by “whim” that is at the root, because in the ancient times, no one would have dared to praise “whim”. However, as I will show, whim is a huge factor in Seduction, and in the “way of girls”.
But when you hear or read Control, “regulation through a rule”, a “way” of some sort is its essence, and CONTROL is used to check the “accuracy”, to “verify”, to “regulate” the relationship of the presented with the “expectation”.
Etymology of Regulate (v.)
early 15c., regulaten, “adjust by rule, method, or control,” from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare “to control by rule, direct,” from Latin regula “rule, straight piece of wood” (from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule”).
Meaning “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s. Sense of “adjust (a clock, etc.) with reference to a standard of accuracy” is by 1660s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
The word “or” here is important. “Adjustment” too will be used in further expoundings. What is the “rule” and what are the “plays” or actions taken for “adjustment”?
Method is another option, other than RULE.
METHOD is what REGULATES, and is essential to the WAY OF THE VIR, and not that of RULE. Rule, Method, or Control. Methodical Control is the kind of Control that is meant in the Way of the Vir, when it is said “to have CONTROL and COMMAND”.
To regulate is to “Control by rule”, to direct, thus… to lead. The latter use, to say “govern by restrictions”, will become important. Essential terms then, here, are Control, regulate, rule, direct, lead, and to restrict. In addition, adjust, and that of the far from likely methodical.
These are essential to Control, but with the “or”, for that of methodical as the means of Control, and regulation. Method as a form of regulation is uncommon. Rule would be the most common.
Etymology of Rule (n.)
c. 1200, “principle or maxim governing conduct, formula to which conduct must be conformed” from Old French riule, Norman reule “rule, custom, (religious) order” (in Modern French partially re-Latinized as règle), from Vulgar Latin *regula, from Latin regula “straight stick, bar, ruler;” figuratively “a pattern, a model,” related to regere “to rule, straighten, guide” (from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule”).
By mid-14c. as “control, government, sway, dominion.” The meaning “regulation governing play of a game, etc.” is from 1690s; the phrase rules of the game is by 1787. To bend the rules “interpret leniently, overlook infringement” is by 1680s.
The meaning “strip with a straight edge used for making straight lines or measuring” is from mid-14c. Typography sense of “thin strip cut type-high and used for printing continuous lines” is attested from 1680s. Rule of law “supremacy of impartial and well-defined laws to any individual's power” is from 1883. Rule of the road in reference to the fixed customs, formerly much varying from country to country, which regulate the sides to be taken by vehicles in passing each other, is by 1805.
Rule is about “conforming” to a “standard” and/or an “expectation” that is meant to be the “formula” that “guides”, that leads, that directs, that “straightens”. The “straightened path” is the well-trodden one, governed by rules.
Human females (versus human males) are RULE conformists in the absolute. They rarely break the rules, and they aggressively remind, and enforce the rules, and it is through the rules that one is often led, and what this often presents are those who come to grasp how to make the rules give them what they want, over others. Rule and rules are a big issue, and I shall come back to that later.
Etymology of Rule (v.)
c. 1200, “to control, guide, direct, make conform to a pattern,” from Old French riuler “impose rule,” from Latin regulare “to control by rule, direct,” from Latin regula “rule, straight piece of wood,” from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule.”
The legal sense “establish by decision, lay down authoritatively” is recorded from early 15c. The meaning “mark with parallel straight lines” (with or as with the aid of a ruler) is from 1590s. The slang intransitive sense of “dominate all” is by 1975. “Rule Britannia,” patriotic song, is from 1740. Related: Ruled; ruling.
For most then, when it is said, by rule or by method, as the contrasting force… it is that rule, and rules are used to “control, guide, direct, regulate”, and especially “MAKE CONFORM to a PATTERN”―and this is exactly why thinking of PATTERNS, and having PATTERNS bestowed is so significant, worthy of having signals around.
ALL OF THIS… IS ABOUT AUTHORITY.
Etymology of Authority (n.)
c. 1200, autorite, auctorite “authoritative passage or statement, book or quotation that settles an argument, passage from Scripture,” from Old French autorité, auctorité “authority, prestige, right, permission, dignity, gravity; the Scriptures” (12c.; Modern French autorité), from Latin auctoritatem (nominative auctoritas) “invention, advice, opinion, influence, command,” from auctor “master, leader, author” (see author (n.)). Usually spelled with a -c- in English before 16c., when the letter was dropped in imitation of French, then with a -th-, probably by influence of authentic.
From c. 1300 in the general sense “legal validity,” also “authoritative book; authoritative doctrine” (opposed to reason or experience); “author whose statements are regarded as correct.” From mid-14c. as “right to rule or command, power to enforce obedience, power or right to command or act.”
In Middle English also “power derived from good reputation; power to convince people, capacity for inspiring trust.” From c. 1400 as “official sanction, authorization.” Meaning “persons in authority” is from 1610s; Authorities “those in charge, those with police powers” is recorded from mid-19c.
A VIR HAS THEIR OWN AUTHORITY,
granted through the METHODS, not the RULES, of the VIR. A human has NO AUTHORITY over themselves, and therefore, asserts authority over others through rules, which they demand conformity in, and use Control as that to regulate the accuracy, and to verify the CONFORMITY. Conforming is essential to humans, NOT that of PERFORMING.
Etymology of Conformity (n.)
early 15c., conformyte, conformite, “similarity, correspondence in form or manner,” from Old French conformité (14c.), from Late Latin conformitatem (nominative conformitas), from conformis “similar in shape,” from conformare “to fashion, to form, to shape; educate; modify,” from assimilated form of com “together” (see con-) + formare “to form” (see form (v.)). Meaning “action in accordance with some standard” is from late 15c.; that of “adherence to the Church of England” is from 1620s. Modern spelling is from 17c.
Associations, relationships, and access begin with the “plays at conforming”, and that which is the dominant rule to conform to… is established by the “straight rule” of that of FEMALE INTEREST, and it is not mere STEREOTYPE that human females will try to “FIX” human males… to a set of “RULES”, which they will hold them to. They then Control the human male, with the aim of CONFORMING the human male to that set of RULES, to which the HUMAN male often retardedly is unaware of. Human females conform, and rarely perform. Human males conform, and rarely perform. The Vir is not about conformity through, or in, but about performing through, in, and from.
Performing is about “advancing”, about going forward…
Etymology of *per- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root forming prepositions, etc., meaning “forward,” and, by extension, “in front of, before, first, chief, toward, near, against,” etc.
However, advancing and forward is not the only option, for the use of this term. It has that something is “followed” and being “employed” for the INTENT of a COURSE OF ACTION. It has something that is PRACTICED.
To perform is to CARRY into effect, fulfill, discharge, and to carry out what is demanded or REQUIRED. To PERFORM is centered around “TO ACCOMPLISH” or that of “ACCOMPLISHMENT”. It is also rooted in the notion of “PROVISION”, as to fornir, to PROVIDE.
Performo is “TO FORM THOROUGHLY, to FORM”, and it is a mistake to think to CONFORM and to PERFORM are one and the same.
In Control, Management, Manipulation, and Seduction, it would be an error to think that “SOMETHING” is behind the “FORM” in which one is to COOPERATE, to COLLABORATE, to COME TOGETHER in, to establish the “together” of CON-. The CON, that which one is directed to have CONFIDENCE around, is that a system, an institution, a standard, and a “way” is the primary, and others are “together around it”. This is DELUSIONAL. To “CON” in actual practice, and what is “brought forward” is in that of the RELATIONAL of “coming together”, of “being together”, with ANOTHER and/or OTHERS, and the RULE is RELATIONAL. The RULE is not based on a STANDARD, that could and would exist for the INDIVIDUAL.
Here is the DEEP and DARK SECRET that you shall ignore. THE RULE in which one is CONFORMING to is not one of ADVANCEMENT, of ACCOMPLISHMENT, of that of PERFORMANCE. The RULE in which one is CONFORMING to… is that of the
RELATIONAL RULE,
Versus
METHODICAL RULE.
Humans conform to RELATIONAL Rules, and the “something”, that which could be called the “doing”, is mere utility. That which is accomplished by HUMAN males is PROVISION in the most conformed and mediocre sense. That which is ACCOMPLISHED by human females is nothing more than CONFORMING human males to the RELATIONAL RULE, and the RELATIONAL RULE is the RULE that is then used to GOVERN all into CONFORMITY. The RELATIONAL RULE is based upon the insecurity, the fears, the attachments, the anxiety, the frustration, the disgust, the despair, the ignorance, surprise, and Entertainment of HUMANS.
The RELATIONAL RULE is OPPRESSIVE to a VIR. It is HARM to a VIR.
The RELATIONAL RULE is about SERVITUDE, SACRIFICE… and is the basis for why I say… ALL HUMANS ARE SLAVERS AND SLAVES. This, because all HUMANS are CONFORMED by the innate disposition of their females to the RELATIONAL RULE, and any other standards, methods, and “ways” are a far secondary utility to this one.
Therefore, when humans assert Control, Management, and Manipulation, and for Entertainment, that of Seduction, it is because of, and defined in character by... the RELATIONAL RULE.
When a Vir asserts CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, and MANIPULATION, and for Entertainment ENGAGEMENT, it is because of, and defined in CHARACTER by… the METHODICAL RULE.
In the RELATIONAL RULE, the demand in “togetherness” is the demand for the surrendering, the relinquishing, the prevention and the “retarding” of that of “AUTHORITY”, to which collectively NONE ARE TO HAVE. It is NEGATION.
In the METHODICAL RULE, the DEMAND, the DUTY is INDIVIDUALISTIC, and is the DEMAND for performing, for ADVANCING in one's CONTROL and COMMAND towards their OWN SECURED and COMPLETED, achieved and accomplished…
AUTHORITY.
Which is wielded over THEMSELVES, and not others.
The WAY of the METHODICAL RULE is CONQUEST OVER SELF, and NOT… CONQUEST over others. It is the WAY OF THE AFFIRMED.
The WAY of the RELATIONAL RULE is the WAY OF THE NEGATED.
CONFORMING, or coming together to go forward would not be negationary, if it was about “SOMETHING”, and it would lead to ACCOMPLISHMENTS and COMPLETION. But this is not what conforming is, in actuality. Conforming, in actuality, is about COLLECTIVISM and RELATIONAL togetherness, not OBJECTIVE and MISSION togetherness.
The WAY of the VIR is INDIVIDUALISTIC, not COLLECTIVIST. However, the WAY OF THE VIR holds in high esteem a togetherness not in RELATION, but a TOGETHERNESS, an ALLIANCE, a GANG, a UNITY in that of “Thee METHOD”. Thee WAY of the VIR always means, and shall always mean THE METHOD OF THE VIR, and where then others meet is in that WAY, and that METHOD, in which they are not CONFORMED to, but they are PERFORMING or ADVANCING up, and through, within, and around, towards that of a CONTROL and a COMMAND over their CONDITIONS and SELF, that then comes to beget their AUTHORITY.
One is not born with AUTHORITY; one must PATTERN in AUTHORITY, and the notion of PATTERN is opposite the NOTION of “to matter” or “mater”. CONFORMITY is MATER in its construct, as “together” is not in forward, but is into the past, and into the EARTH, where one is STATIONARY, traditional, customary, and in SERVICE.
CONFORMITY is MATER;
PERFORMANCE is PHATER.
The VIR is of the FATHER;
The VIR is of the Pater;
The VIR is of the PHATER.
And PHATER is WISDOM, and the WISDOM is the FATHER of all FATHERS, and in the absence of WISDOM, there is no FATHER; there is only the mother, the mater, the WOMB of Worship. This is the WOW in which the human female has over her human males. It is the WOW, the WOMB OF WORSHIP that will CONFORM them to the MATERIAL, and the MATERIAL is the PATHOS, the emotional body, the CHEMICAL body, which is directed in humans by their fear, and insecurity, that provokes their need for ATTACHMENT figures to provide DISTRACTION and RELIEF from these emotions; which when not met well, leads to their ANXIETY, FRUSTRATION and/or ANGER; and when they are expressed in this… their disgust; and when they are habitual in this DISGUST, their despair; and when they are in need of greater distraction, they need their ignorance excited in surprise and novelty; for then, and only then, shall they have pleasure, and enjoyment.
A human does not have, and can not have joy. They have enjoyment. Joy of any potent noteworthy sense can only be found in PERFORMANCE, not CONFORMITY. Joy can only be acquired through SUCCESS, through completion, through accomplishment, and the reward is called PRIDE. Humans are against PRIDE, because PRIDE is INDIVIDUALISTIC.
Human FEMALES are not, and can not be driven INDIVIDUALISTICALLY to affirm or to attain. Human females will aggressively, more than their males, achieve only for recognition, if others are watching, and therefore, do not set out to complete or to accomplish that which no other would, or could see; that which only something in themselves would see, and have pride around. Human females CONFORM well, come together well with others, and all the standards, and mediums of “courses of action” mean nothing, and can never mean anything to them.
The same can be said about human males to a lesser degree than their female kind. A human male, however, can enjoy, can accomplish, and complete things that have nothing to do with others. Human males can have hobbies that others can not see, but the human males that do just might not be human after all. It is rare among human males to have a hobby. It is common among human males to have a profession, and in that profession, the human male wants, and needs the mommies of their world to recognize that they are a “Provider”, and this to them is “going forward”, and the only relationship to “performance” they may have. But in this “have”, they have nothing for, and because of… themselves. They are to have that which can be used to demonstrate their “CARE”, the CONFORMED standard that human females rule their males through, and make them the STUPID SERVANTS that they are en masse.
A male who may think themselves HUMAN, who can go forward, achieve, complete, advance, and have PRIDE in that which no other needs to, or could recognize, is unlikely a HUMAN MALE.
For it is more likely, they are held in CAPTIVITY to humans. The same can be said about a FEMALE. If that FEMALE can do things for themselves in the absence of CONFORMING relationally to others, then it is highly unlikely she is a HUMAN FEMALE after all.
It is that those who have this MARK of Inner Light, in no need of the RELATIONAL RULE, are likely seeded in their ancestry to be Manu, no matter no material concern for what REGION of origination their Ancestors hailed from, for so long as there was trade, migration, conquest, and communication, the Seed of the Manu could have been present, in many realized forms. Of those realized forms, that of Performance through the Method is what they all come together in.
There is only ONE FACULTY that has ever manifested itself in a UNIVERSAL Way that others have been able to approach no “matter” their region of origination, and no matter what Relational Rules they began with. That one FACULTY is, and only has been the RATIONAL FACULTY, or that of the RATIOCINATIVE FACULTY, by degree that is not held in common, but differs per INDIVIDUAL. Only REASON, and the LIFE SCIENCES―not the physical sciences―unite, whereas the EMOTIONALITY of the RELATIONAL RULE, with its fear, insecurity, attachments, anxiety, frustration, anger, disgust, despair and ignorant surprise, only DIVIDES. To cope with the DIVISIVE nature of the emotional body of humans, humans use CONTROL, use MANAGEMENT, use MANIPULATION, and SEDUCTION…
ONLY FOR CONFORMITY.
CONFORMITY to that of the RELATIONAL RULE, which requires that all individuals MUTE any individual traits they have in order to make the HUMAN FEMALES…
FEEL, not be… that of SAFE and SECURE, that of a distraction and a relief from their emotions, with the best of the distraction being ENTERTAINMENT and PROVISION.
Males and females who unite in REASONED METHOD, with its DEMAND for a set of ADVANCING OBJECTIVES and MISSIONS towards INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITY…
ARE NOT HUMAN.
They would be seeded in VIR, and/or Manu to ever ignite, or perform in this direction, and that seeded state, by degree, is only proven through their own self-motivated aims to do what no other might ever even see; and for it to be seen and known by others is unnecessary. It is done for one's own AUTHORITY, and PERFORMANCE, and the PRACTICE would take place even if alone on an island, where no other could see. All done for others to see is RELATIONAL; and HUMANS, when out of sight, are disgusting creatures.
RELATIONAL RULES ARE ALL BASED ON DECEPTION.
To the VIR and the Way, the METHOD of the VIR, deception is only acceptable when used against one's ENEMIES. Therefore, when one is deceiving another, no “matter” what you consciously think about them, and think you think, you are patterned in deception with them, and therefore, you are treating them like an enemy, and you are, therefore, an ENEMY.
Minus a couple here and there, everyone I have ever known has treated me like an ENEMY, and therefore, they were an “ENEMY”. They were not “my enemy”. There is the Way of being an ENEMY, without being another's ENEMY. An ENEMY is one who is against themselves, and therefore, can only be against others. This does not mean, then, another must relate to you as an ENEMY. Even though I am allowed to DECEIVE anyone who is against themselves, to do so would be to behave as an ENEMY to them. Instead, I choose to tell those who would be ENEMIES exactly what I think, because the number one way to remove ENEMIES, and to defeat them, is to say their name, and tell them about themselves to their face.
Because I am extremely talented and skilled at detecting when another lacks “confidence” with their own thoughts and decrees, thus likely to be deceiving, I see and know when all of you are lying. But they are the level of lies you have told yourself often enough, and have excused, that to you they are not lies. To you they are only lies if deep enough to get caught and have consequences. So you dismiss them as lies. To me, they do not have this DEFERENCE.
In order for you all to CONFORM to RELATIONAL RULE… You all must LIE and DECEIVE each other. Because you humans, female and male, are all insecure, fearful, anxious, and concerned with this anxiety, you believe you must fashion an idea version of yourself, and sell each other on that, instead of what you really are: an afraid and insecure child looking to attach to others, demanding they serve you in distraction and relief of your emotions. Humans, by default, are ESCAPIST, and that is why ESCAPISM, either through labor and servitude, or ENTERTAINMENT and COMPLACENCY, is universal among humans.
You're a childish and FOOLISH kind of beings, all of your LOT. You are what would be… a RETARDED man, if only a MAN was ever at the root of your ancestry, to which I mostly doubt.
Control, then, has these two modes:
-
Conformity and regulation based on RELATIONAL. This will have Provision, servitude, status, and rank as primaries… all around insecurity, and fear, the Kinetics that follow.
-
Method and regulation based on PERFORMANCE. This will have Advancement, Self Standing, Individualism, Pride as primaries, around Confidence, Vitality, Vigor, Vigilance, Valiance, and Valor. All tied, not relationally, but methodically, by a standard.
To say Control, Management, and Manipulation is not to say which MODE is in motion. By examining the traits of the condition, one must determine which one they CONFORM or REGULATE from.
QUESTION: Is this conditional mode that of RELATIONAL at its base, or PERFORMANCE based?
One then checks with this questioning the degree and/or potency of CONTROL, and where it draws its AUTHORITY. Is the AUTHORITY up and out of an INDIVIDUAL, or is it up and out of an institution, an organization of a collective, its rules, its customs, and its traditions?
Is it a legitimate authority?
From Control, and identifying its mode comes the administration of that Control, through that of “MANAGEMENT”, seemingly the same, as they are all connected by degree.
Etymology of Manage (v.)
1560s, “to handle, train, or direct” (a horse), from the now-obsolete noun manage “the handling or training of a horse; horsemanship” (see manege, which is a modern revival of it), from Old French manège “horsemanship,” from Italian maneggio, from maneggiare “to handle, touch,” especially “to control a horse,” which ultimately from Latin noun manus “hand” (from PIE root *man- (2) “hand”).
Extended sense of “control or direct by administrative ability” any sort of business is by 1570s; meaning “to wield (a tool or object) by hand” is from 1580s. Meaning “effect by effort” (hence “succeed in accomplishing”) is by 1732. Intransitive sense of “get by, carry on affairs” is suggested by 1650s, in frequent use from mid-19c. Related: Managed; managing. Managed economy was used by 1933.
“Manage literally implies handling, and hence primarily belongs to smaller concerns, on which one may at all times keep his hand: as, to manage a house; to manage a theater. Its essential idea is that of constant attention to details: as, only a combination of great abilities with a genius for industry can manage the affairs of an empire.” [Century Dictionary]
To manage is almost always certain, it is of others, and things. One can be said to “manage their own affairs” and too, this is condition.
It is the CONDITION that is MANAGED, and the same can be said about CONTROL. One who must seek to CONTROL themselves, never truly will. CONTROL over one's self is either present, or it is not, and certainly for humans, IT IS NOT. Humans have no CONTROL over SELF. Humans have no MANAGEMENT over SELF. Humans exert CONTROL and MANAGEMENT over others, by way of HIERARCHIES.
The most Controlling of others is the human female at the top. Make no mistake, humans on average have matriarchs, and the small few in RISKY endeavors have the mere appearance of a patriarch; however, HUMAN males are bent on overthrowing each other, and therefore, no human male is safe at some top, and because they are human, and therefore, deceivers, humans are always surrounded by ENEMIES, and this is only possible, to be surrounded by ENEMIES, when you are yourself an ENEMY.
One who is Virtuous may be temporarily in the presence of an ENEMY, who is first an ENEMY to themselves. But then, they will either remove them, and “Access Deny” them, or if they can not do this, under some form of COMPULSION, they will work to DESTROY that ENEMY, and remove the CONTROL over themselves so wielded. A Vir, the only who could be VIRTUOUS, with VIRTUE being the Way of the Vir, never lives a life of defeat. Those who do not go to war with the Controls upon them by others are living a life of defeat, and they do not FIGHT BACK; they yield, and this then shows out in all other parts of their lives. A yielded life is a DEFEATED life.
One must make the note of something in their mind, without me managing the thought. Manu, and all the notions of the hand are not from, and of the human kind. It was, and is perhaps a different cognitive hominid, that on the surface seems to humans to be human.
This is because humans can not see themselves, let alone what makes another what they are.
In the RELATIONAL RULE, in which you humans are conformed to in ignorance, insecurity, fear, anxiety and your concerns… You can not treat nor see others as INDIVIDUALS.
Your Relational Rule in fact forbids individuality. So then, when you speak and interact with each other, based on your deceptive practices, you see their sex, and you see their status, in the limits of your experience, and then you seek to Control them, with conformity and regulation, but more often than not, with the limitation of PRIMITIVE and BRUTISH plays upon the emotions. A Man, or a Manu is that which knows its self, and because it does, and can know its self, it can categorize and see you, and yours. It sees your you, not as an individual, because if you are human, you are not an individual. You are a you, with yours, a ye, not a thee, nor a thou. You are a loose member of a hive mind, of mommy's mind, and the billions of mommies her feeble mind is connected to.
You are not your daddies, just like they were not their daddies. You, humans, are a mommied kind, and you have never had, nor can you have “Fathers”.
The Advent of Management through the Wolf Kind
“Fathers” essenced in the Phater are essenced in “Patterns”, and these Patterns were born first out of the dealings, and the “performances” with the wolf. When “Wolf Kind” sought to “manage” or use their “hands”, their grunts, their signaling to the wolf, there was no “self signaling” among the hominids, or that is, no reason to think there was till this event. Through Management of the wolf came the first degrees of Management upon one’s self.
This too is why for one to be proficient at the Management of the conditions of others, they must assert the same Management and quality upon their own conditions. That is why one who is observed who can not manage their time, and their worth on their own ought not to be expected to manage others well. This too is why, in upper status “Provisionary” fields―meaning high earning, high risk fields or professions―it's important to have a “wife”, a “family”, a house to be trusted by the insecure and fearful males up top. They want, subconsciously, and perhaps consciously, to see that you have things in your own “realm” other than work that you manage, and you shall be judged by that Management.
This is why reputation is a factor among humans, and those who forsake it do not forsake it at the top of anything. Instead, those who forsake it, forsake it while they have it not, and they are at, and remain at the bottom of human hierarchies, which are based on PROVISIONS and MATERIAL, all because they are based on the security and safety of the WOMBS. Womb worship is the primary motive for a human male's success. So then when other males, who have always worshiped the WOMB, do not see you with a WOMB that you provide for, and that which comes out of it, instinctively, you can not be one of them. Instinctively, you are not to be trusted, because it means you “follow” or exist by a set of “different rules”.
Even those who may exist based on the Methodical Rules would know that, like Bruce Wayne, to be Batman, you need to keep up the image of the RELATIONAL RULES, go out, and make sure others see you as “one of them”, otherwise, you will be restricted in the circles you can navigate. This too is why some high status players, male or female, will have “political”, or rather “social figures of attachment”, like wives and husbands, that maintain a relationship for this need, but yet have their actual desires and interest met freely in other ways.
Meaning, they will be long-term partners in this business of the Relational Rules, but know that in each other, this is not authentic, and that other “ways” are needed to sustain, maintain, and further, or advance in performance. Therefore, these kinds, still human, but “degreed” more reasonable, will tend to be more RELATIONALLY forgiven, because they know those rules are inferior, and if adhered to, would have them at the bottom with all the other relationals.
Make no mistake… You are at the bottom. And you are at the bottom based on your own judgements. You are not existing and living by some other rule set than that of relational. You are just likely failing at it, not realizing, the Relational Rules are designed to ensure failure. Because of this, media, and forms of indoctrination play on the Relational Rules, and keep you stuck in them. Those who break out of the Relational Rules, and turn to the discovery and learning of Performance Rules, even if human, will find far more advantageous things to be about, secure them, and enjoy them. There are a small few among you humans who break from the rules, but retain the urges and proclivities. These are humans who have chosen to live tactically, to not listen to nature, because nature is a problem in their condition, the condition of domestication. They do not reject their nature, they just hear it, and move on and inform their decisions based on something else: rules of achievement.
In the realm of Seduction, and/or pick up artist, and/or power, Management, and performance, they often do not address the facts of one's nature. They tell you, you can be, and do this, but not what you are working with and from. One does not attain through books. They simply get a new narrative to promote, that they will betray in their performance, or more so, lack thereof. They will not perform, they will try instead to BETTER RELATE.
There is no better at relating. Relating is a failed model in DOMESTICATION, that was only necessary and valuable in primal conditions, where there were threats, and scarcity in provisions. In domestication, that primal and natural code leads to slavery and despair.
This is the difference to be aware of.
Management of the wolf led to the mind coming to manage its self, in a small percentage. This percentage would become biologically changed, but their descendants, not having perhaps the needed biological reinforcement, would only inherit the cultural, and the rules based behavioral changes. This is why to ask this of humans, hurts them. When you have a culture of language and self-talk, but you come to conclude you can not use it, have no self-control, and can not manage yourself, and therefore, are subject to the Control and Management of others, it is for this reason. You have the Culture of the Wolf, everyone does. But you do not have the biological elements that were provoked in the First Man. Because of this, you do not believe the narratives of Man, and you know to act as if you do is to lie.
Man, too, did not know that his offspring was not Man. Man too had to lie to themselves, that it must be something else that makes their offspring the retarded version of them. And to answer why offspring was retarded came all kinds of speculative thoughts and accusations, including that of invisible forces. Never was it simply concluded that Man does not by default beget others of Man, but that among Man can be begotten human, and too, with atavism at play, humans can beget Manu, or MAN; and herein is something no other has ever said, nor understood. I myself would not grasp this, if I was not a Ratient, which is different from the Man of Wolf, and the Man of Horse. The Ratient became the Man of the Falcon, which is with the Horse and the Wolf. These metaphors are not needed for now. But the high sight, and prudent sight differs much.
As a Ratient, I have “genetic memory”, and the “Way” of my Kind is written in my nature, as is the innate ability to deduce and correlate from facts, that of Patterns likely to have been the case, versus not. With this rapid Pattern recognition, if I did not learn the SCIENCE to assess it, it would be presumed to be “actual memory”, though it is not. It is constructs of Patterns based on “inference”; however, operating on a level no human can conceive of, and neither could a Manu. I do not “see the past” in my head, and fall for it as actual. I see the Patterns in their construct, and accurately call it such: a CONSTRUCT.
And it is this Pattern of MANAGEMENT of the outer condition, that begot self-talk, and the Pattern of inner condition, called mind and thought, to which most of you have no sense of, hence no CONTROL or COMMAND over self and the constructs, or the notions thereof.
The Wolf and the Management was far back. However, those seeded through the wolf as the target first of Management would go on to manage the horse. This is where the hand showed through, with a new advent of thought, a true coming together, with an animal.
Management, then, like all hand references had to do with skill, and mastery. To think of the Manu terms as without skills would be absurd. To maintain does not imply a skill, but for most… mere possession. To maintain and manage is a level of its own. To manage is almost to say, to maintain in skill. But to say manage, in the human sense, is merely to say “keep going”, and keep them, others, conforming to the Relational Rules of WORK and SERVITUDE. To manage, for humans, is the same as to Control. It is to Control, and to manage the RELATIONSHIP, and this is evident in that, even in the “work” realms, human females are being promoted to most MANAGEMENT positions. They do not MANAGE the PERFORMANCE, and because of that, I could make a good “living” if I wanted to, as a “performance manager”, because so many are failing at this.
Performance in almost all domestic areas is being sacrificed for the WOW of relational Management. You will all suffer from this, like many of your ancestors did, when shaman human females governed all of your lives. You do not know of this era, because writing and record keeping was sacrificed in this error, and the children of shaman mommies are not required to read and to value literature and ideas. They are required to merely relate, and conform. When there are remnants of skill based, competency based system, and traditionally it is made the way, your human females will infiltrate it, and sacrifice the sciences, the engineering, the medical, and all the gifts of Manu, to the goddess of the womb and feeling.
You're in the stage right now, where those institutions still lie about the importance of skill, while the unskilled are being placed in the highest positions. And skill is being removed for the relational. Performance is being destroyed in the name of niceties. This is no mere opinion, this is an observation of what is occurring, and the difference between you and I, is I know history from a different source, and I know it has not only happened before, but that this LOOP always has happened, and once again, malcontent human males will surface in the future against their human females, angered by the oppression they always bring when they hold the Control, and then use their angry and malcontent human male Control for some payback, oppressing the human female population and forbidding them access to Control.
They come to forbid it, because when human females control the lives of others, it leads to a “nice” form of tyranny, that hurts more than any malcontent human males overt tyranny ever could. His, that male human tyrant form of oppression is often short-lived, easy to identify, and foreign to freedom lovers. But the tyranny of mommies is familiar to every home, and it is there all you little boys and girls are conformed to its “Relational Rules”, so when they are applied in all facets of life, you will not detect them, and not know they are the primary source of your suffering. Your love for your mommies make you all children, and it makes you the children they secure the vote for, to pretend this will all be brought about by wish, want and desire, and not merely out of the fear, insecurity, and anxiety all you chumps have, that I am putting on blast.
Tyranny is tyranny, but human males and human females, both slavers and slaves―well, the males are slaves, not the females―do not have the same way of enacting tyranny. One lasts longer and is more brutal. The human male tyrants may brutalize the body, but the human female tyrants brutalize the mind, and the soul. They take turns oppressing, because those human male tyrants ALL come from houses and homes where they were brutalized in their mind by their human mommies. NO MALE TYRANT was ever born to, and from a “Father” and a Warrior Culture of INDIVIDUALISM, of PRIDE, and of VALOR. NOT ONE.
All tyranny is EFFEMINATE.
All tyranny is RELATIONAL, and NO TYRANNY is ever about EXCELLENCE, about VIRTUE, about PERFORMANCE and that of the EXALTED. ALL TYRANNY is founded upon INSECURITY and FEAR, with ANXIETY at the point directing the need to be the prison of CONCERN, which then drives the CARE of the tyrant, and their henchmen and females, who then carry out their demands for their familiars.
All Relational Rules begin with FAMILIARS, and make no mistake, ALL MOMMIES and DADDIES would exercise tyranny in the name of their FAMILIARS, if not for their COWARDICE. A tyrant male or female is only able to enact their cowardice on others because they have Control over manipulated brute minds, whose hands they use to inflict pain, and whose presence they use to threaten infliction. All tyrants are and have always been cowards.
SEDUCTION is tyranny of the MIND. SEDUCTION is mental SLAVERY in the name of Entertainment and pleasure. Seduction is what cowards who do not control brutes who would do force on their behalf, have to wield. But when they have the Control over the brutes, they no longer need to be seductive or pleasing, they become simply IN CONTROL, and when they have this Control, they do not need to HIDE their true selves anymore.
Make no mistake you dumb human males, Seduction, which is not truly occurring in your lives, would be far better to be engaged than simply the weak CONTROL games you all lose at, because your mommies prepared you to lose. And you can not even know you are losing, because you have been so retarded that FAMILIAR, to you, is just what is, and automatic. The lot of you are not thinking animals; you are merely scripted animals, and you are shitting all over this planet your inadequacies.
This session required me to deviate to secure the path to some extent. However, continued motion this way would make that of a product unlikely to be “completed”. And achievement and completion is a value, not with the need for others to see it. The need for it to be done out of the demand and the Duty to the Method, to the WAY, and the WAY of the VIR does not need an audience.
On Manipulation
Etymology of Manipulation (n.)
by 1730, a method of digging ore, from French manipulation, from manipule “handful” (a pharmacists' measure), from Latin manipulus “handful, sheaf, bundle,” from manus “hand” (from PIE root *man- (2) “hand”) + root of plere “to fill” (from PIE root *pele- (1) “to fill”). Sense of “skillful handling of objects” is attested by 1826; extended 1828 to “handling or managing of persons,” especially to one's own advantage.
Etymology of Manipulate (v.)
1827, “to handle skillfully by hand,” a back-formation from manipulation. As “to manage by mental influence,” especially for one's own purposes, is by 1864. Financial sense is from 1870. By 1949 it served as a euphemism for “masturbate.” Related: Manipulated; manipulating.
Previously, I spoke of how one may not discern between the pleasure of Seduction, versus perhaps the pain of Manipulation; however, every time I use that term, Manipulation, what it signals to me is not the same as to ye. Manipulation is a skilled Management that often refers to a “mental Management” with thoughts and skills, versus Management of the hand, or material so to say. Manipulation is through the mind more than form.
But because of this loose notion, often, it can be said, EVERYONE is MANIPULATIVE and MANIPULATING; yet, I then differentiate in saying, it's more a question of awareness and SKILL. Done with skill or without it, with good intention or ill. Leaving this term neutral. However, the term is not neutral in actuality. Manipulation, like Management, is supposed to be about SKILL, and this is what determines if they are truly at play. Control through mental means does not elevate to the level of Management, nor Manipulation. In actuality, humans are limited to Control and Maintenance of both the material and mental form, but in actuality, more so, the material form is playing on the mental, as a priority, and the mental controller is not actually controlling the mind. It's their material playing on the material of the other. What then makes it seem otherwise is the DECEPTION.
DECEPTION and one being “good at it” is often seen as skilled or unskilled. That when one is aware of the DECEPTION, the awareness begets a CONTROL. This is valid, but not valid to then say, that awareness and Control equals a skill, and being skilled. I will reject that premise. That is not valid. When one is aware of CONTROLS and uses them, it is still Control, and skill is not the factor, when the Control is over something base and retarded.
In Seduction, that form of Entertainment for pleasure via escapism, what is being CONTROLLED in the MARK or the target does not require SKILL, and a part of the deception of those who write about Seduction is to convince in “spreading awareness” that when you then apply that awareness, you are SKILLED. That is the SEDUCTION used on the reader, and I have observed those in their arrogance, little ass girls think they are being SEDUCTIVE skillfully, because they had learned or read of it.
Now... for a story before I arrive at my expounding further.
In 2012, I was living in a forest in California. Out of pack, and simple. But then, I had determined a change of course, and was about to move to the jungles of Hawaii, as I am most favorable towards the forests and jungles of this planet. I am a bushman, oddly.
But along the way, I ended up on a different course. I met a very entertaining and enchanting female, and decided to investigate the ART of playing house with her. I would mentor her, and live in comfort and riches.
This Enchantress, not in any negative way, was overly given to those around her. She used to provide a bed and room for travelers, through whatever those online services were. One of them was a hippy girl and boy coming through, and they were picked up, and given a room to stay in. Being investigative, I tolerated this, because I would never have done this, and had the experience on my own. But in many ways, the same factor of thought is perhaps why I was among this Enchanted one as well. A love for strays perhaps. A need for excitement and a break from the norm.
Having interacted with these two hippies, I observed that the hippy girl was trying to “seduce” and play us. I pointed it out to the Enchantress, who was far better at Seduction than this dumb little girl. We brought up to her our awareness of The Art of Seduction to see what she would say. For me, it was obvious, she thought she was doing things from this book, and in those days, I would get everyone to read that trash for self-defense, but they would always take it, think I meant, do, and that I do what foolishness that book was about. Rare is it, any of these fools I have known were paying attention and listening to what I say, and how I say it.
But in this case, little hippy girl admitted she read it, and was ashamed to have got caught. She said she was the “Siren”, to which I had to correct her and say… she was not playing the “Siren”, but instead, the “Natural”, or that is, the “little ass vulnerable flirting girl”.
She was oblivious and lacked self-awareness. She had no idea what she was doing, though because she played idiot hippy boys, she thought she was skilled. In thinking she was skilled, afterwards, she would be in the guest room, wait for me to be passing by, and with disrupted timing, take off her shirt to flash me at a distance. Now, for you mental midgets out there, I see timing. Because I read microexpressions as fast as 1/25th of a second, I can tell when one is timing something, and controlling the timing. She was. I went to the Enchantress to let her know what happened, so she could understand what followed next. What followed next was me telling the two hippies to pack up their shit, because they need to find a new place.
Why?
If the little hippy girl was engaging in “skilled play”, I would have entertained it, because it would have been used in my mentoring of the natural Enchantress I was playing house with. I always wanted examples to use as “teachable moments” and I thought this would be one. But the second all I was observing was “petty bestial disruptive plays”, the formula was too apparent, and time would have been wasted. Hippy girl was not employing any skill whatsoever. She merely made herself visible and tried to cast a sense of Yummville and ease. To the skilled, this is insulting, and more so, for her to be unskilled and brutish, using sexual appeal and device to get the attention of the “Man” of her “host” was just rude and disrespectful, and therefore, I was honor bound, or “Valor bound” to forbid such childish behavior and throw her ass to the curb.
They packed up, were confused, and when I told her why, she had no choice but to try her act at “ignorance”, which would then elicit DEFERENCE. When you all say you “do not know”, “did not know”, or “did not intend”, or “was unaware”, I do not listen to you all. I do not BELIEVE you, nor should I, even if it was true. I should not believe you, because yes, though IGNORANT, it is of no meaningful excuse. Ignorance alone, when you ought not be, is enough for me to get you on your way. I have no desire to consort with the IGNORANT, and the IGNORANT could care less who they consort with.
So the fact of the matter is, awareness or the absence thereof is irrelevant. A Vir refuses to yield, to show deference to such things. And “I did not know” is not an answer and should never be tolerated. Most of the time it's the play itself. ESCAPE is often guaranteed if you plead IGNORANCE, and in a society where deference rules, relationship rules, forgiveness is demanded. This is not the WAY OF MANU. This is not the WAY of VIR; this is the human mommied way, because Mommy is forgiven by default in being unskilled, ignorant, and foolish. Daddy, however, is not afforded the same. He is disliked when ignorant and confused. He is thought less of by Mommy when he is incompetent, and because he is in the role of Provision, his incompetence is visible and matters in importance―but hers is invisible, and matters not, because her role in the CARE factor of RELATIONAL RULES is to say what is important and what is not, and to treat it as so or not.
She is not required to show her care through Provision and Protection as the daddy is. She, however, is the regulator who checks to see if it adheres to the rules, if it is accurate to the rules, the rules which are based on her interest, not his, or anyone else's. There are no rules that favor the human male interest, and where there seems to be… that “goal post”, as they call it, is able to be moved based on her WHIM, and in ignorance, and in childishness, she can not be expected and held accountable to any system.
The human female is not accountable, and the human male is only accountable to the whim of the human female, and for that, you humans known nothing but SLAVERY. You human males are mental midgets, retarded in slavery, and that is why when you get Control over the CONTROL mechanics, you can easily ENSLAVE others of other regions and foreign appearances. All because, you have been slaves all of your lives, providing for a master that is a master of nothing… But your dumb ass.
You all do not acquire a skill from reading and trying to mimic. What you read you convert to the familiar, and this is why, you do not come to change. Arrogantly, you may be doing the same oh, same oh, now just more aggressively.
That is what that little hippy girl was doing. She was just now arrogant, thinking she can be more aggressive, not realizing, yes, that works to get attention, because males are stupid and do not receive signals as easily as a female sends them. So a female who is more aggressive will easily get more attention. This is not skill; this is base, and simple. As an idiot she thought this was skilled. Her aggression backfired, because I would have played with skill, and art, but I do not play with brutes. She did not see the individuals, she just ran her script, and she got scripted out.
This is what you all do when you learn about “plays”, about “Seduction”, or the foolish use of the term “power”. Humans rarely deal in Seduction, and even more rare is human involvement in POWER. None of you have a relationship with POWER. What is human can barely get out of what is merely in the first mode… Control.
Control is what she wanted in her “play”. You all CONTROL, and you MAINTAIN, that is, POSSESS, that which you wish to Control. Rare is it any of you enter into being “MANIPULATIVE” and using the mind to “Control” and to move, and that of SKILL. If only it was true that you all were actually manipulative, and not in the vague sense. The world would be much better off if at minimum you chumps were manipulative.
But in actuality you're not. You are all base, and controlling, possessing and retarded. I have to say that the modes are Controlling, Managing, Manipulating, and Seducing. I have to say it because of chronology and taxonomy in language. But do not get it mistaken, rare is it, any of you will ever leave the banal and mundane realm of Control and Maintenance, just like rare is it any of you ever leave the value hierarchy of Gain, and Maintain. It's liken to the same. You do not enter Cultivate, which is about skills, competence, and performance, which in itself is a form of Management and Manipulation, but with the Entertainment in the character of Engagement, not Seduction.
Such is the road that differs in the species of cognition called human and Vir, never to be thought to be synonymous, and/or one and the same.
The modes, then, do not mean operative in all, or even most. Most are in the modes of Control and Maintenance, but they may call it Management and Manipulation. Most Management, in human sense, is Management of others, not objectives, skill, competence, task, and mission. It falls short of anything but possession and maintenance. But I continue.
Control through Relational Rule
What a human would think is Seduction is no more than CONTROL through RELATIONAL RULES, and there is absolutely no Control through that of managing anything through skill, competency, and performance. Seduction is not truly performative, and what it requires from those engaged is idiocy and conformity to the lowest denominator.
Seduction is whenever pleasure is used through escapism and relief, or distraction and relief as components of escapism. In that what is being distracted, or what a distraction serves is that of the burdens, responsibility, and demands levied in that of Provision and Protection, mostly.
What does this mean?
It differs with human males and human females.
A human male is expected, regardless of their nature to be… that of a Provider. Let's get this reminded… There is absolutely no expectation levied on domestic human males to be PROTECTORS, but their CARE is observed through them being POSSESSIVE. Expectations are all from a HUMAN FEMALE interest. Human males have absolutely NO EXPECTATIONS that they do, or can levy on a human female.
The direction of demand and human social systems is female levied on males, and males levied on males, on behalf of female interest. Everything in this society can be observed serving these aims. Too, because of this, the demand that is levied on males from males, human of course, is the demand the males received from females. This is why the demand serve “familiars”, homes, and families.
When in actuality a potent male would not be limited to a single house, a single female, and her offspring. A human male's interest is actually, though low is any interest of his, that of fornicating with as many females as he can, and moving around from task to task staying busy and in service as much as possible.
No matter what you idiot human males think, it is not, nor has it ever been in your nature to be housed, stick with a single home, a single female and her offspring. All of this is a product of your ancestors being bred to be serfs, serving on a land one's familiars; and the Relational Rules were put in place for female interest, and to number and organize, to meet the opposition of foreign forces doing the same, where their landlords were pitted against your landlords.
The fact of this, that all of you mental midgets would dispute, is in that NONE of you are satisfied in the long-term, with this living. In your dissatisfaction, you, as human males, loop through your servitude and work, and then you find ESCAPE in “checkout entertainment” and “checkout intoxicants” such as alcohol, weed and otherwise to “take off the edge”. You then go into your “empty box” where you are perturbed if anything interferes and asks more of you.
Only in the beginning does your single female access provide you with ESCAPE and distraction, and relief through female enticement, but then once you familiarize yourself with her, and the spell wears off, you are just left with an additional job in the home, and treated like one of the children you helped her pop out.
Entertainment comes with the need of being escapism, only because you are a beast of burden. You need to be distracted from that voice in your head that is called the “voice of despair”, and perhaps nothing quiets it more than the poison called alcohol, and that plant called “weed”.
One who does not feel empty does not need to consume so much. One who is living as they should has no need for distractions. One who is not in pain and suffering does not need relief. Distraction and relief and their need is the sign that something is WRONG.
But that wrong is LIFE, and so you think, life does this to me and everyone, and there is no alternative. And based on what you have access to observing, you are correct. To distract you from your inherent human fears and insecurities, and to make use of your anxiety, you work, you labor, you demand something to be served, and take the first thing you can in a conformed life.
A job, a profession is the best distraction for a human male, because it's almost guaranteed to last the longest. What is not guaranteed to last is the affection and distraction that a human female provides, before she merely gets what she wants.
It is considered common sense that the life span on that kind of distraction is short, and fades fast into what becomes merely stable and secure access, only assured through offspring, and material bonds.
It is not a thing that the human female offers the human male sustained distraction and relief. She does not do this. She does this only so far as to secure their servitude, and then she withdraws from this role and gets to keep the prize. It is the professions, the service, the work, the tasks that distract the human male from his own thinking, his own insecurities, fears, and anxiety, and exactly why he has a likelihood of living a life of despair, and if offered no Entertainment of value, that of malcontent, to which so many human males suffer from.
Seduction is not present in a human male's work, which is his main source of distraction. Pleasure is not a component often of a human male's work. Entertainment is not present, or a component of a human male's work. Because of all this, having no apparent element of Seduction, there are only two places a human male will ever truly experience something of the sort, and they differ greatly.
A human male will yearn for the rumors, that do not amount to much, of what a human female could do for their desire to experience pleasure. She will be heralded as the ultimate source, and the value of a human female is propped up not so much in other males, but by how every female has ever acted in that chump's life, like they were certainly the prize, to which he has no choice but to find out the hard way… that he had been bamboozled. Neither is he the prize.
One could perhaps say, he is the booty, or the spoils of war, and all is fair in what two realms do effeminates teach… But that of LOVE and that of WAR. This is what they say, and only what one who is immoral and vicious could both say and think, and to the Vir, love is a part of the war, or the conflicts humans must suffer defeated in, but has nothing to do with a Vir.
The human male looks to the human female for that promise, and never finds it, and is forced to think that the only answer to why he is without, is to be found in his inherent insecurity, fear, anxiety, and concern… that he simply is not “good enough”, and has “done something wrong”. To him, it can not be that nature screwed him, and human females get all the benefit from nature, while he is left with servitude and despair. No to his sorry ass, it has to be something in the doing, the choices, and his performance or lack thereof. Concerned, not realizing only because he is anxious and insecure, he tries and tries to make up for all the shortcomings that little girl points out, out of her anxiety and concern.
No Man would ever listen to what a little girl spouts out of the mouth, but all human males are indoctrinated by their mommies to default value “girl power”, which is “anything a girl does”. Saps, and chumps… the lot of you, for falling for this. But certainly, to have fallen for it, and to continue to fall, means it must be true… and it is. It's not POWER though… It's CONTROL.
The other area that male thinks he can find distraction and relief is in a funny place, and that is the Entertainment of watching others FAIL, from the position of being a spectator. A human male, in his despair, gets distraction and relief from undermining and subverting other males―and if you think you are not that kind of male, it's likely because you do not have CONTRAST. Let me help you have contrast.
Take the last six months. Name a situation that was not work related, where you and another male worked at a personal skill, not fitness, with each other, where failure was possible, challenge present, and standards clarified. In that moment, say you two pushed each other, and had gains to show for, and those gains got both of you collaboratively closer to mastery of something.
No, you can not say this has occurred?
Would you then say… You do not even have a “male gang”, a “male organization” outside of work, but you are either alone, or with your “girl”? Because these are the contrasting forces your slow asses would not even think about. That you have NO ACCESS to a male gang outside of males at work proves my point. That you have no association with males, with a shared task… outside of work… PROVES my POINT.
The reason you would say you do not undermine males, and seek to overthrow them is because you were undermined, and overthrown already, and you are not allowed to have access to a male gang, or collaboration outside of work or some role that serves a female. You do not have any targets that would be male, that you could subvert or overthrow, and that you would not… is why you have no inclination, no motive, no path to ever developing into a gang with others males.
And if you did, you would have the contrast, and you would see what male gang you would have access to, would be a bunch of males doing to others males what the females in their lives did to them; and that is undermine and subvert, trying to humble, to humiliate and bring down, to which most soldiers in the U.S. forces would know is the main theme of that gang. What most gang members of any street gang would have known.
In contrast, in Brooklyn, I had the experience of what it was like to perhaps observe the last of Men, who worked and collaborated with each other, and for each other, and oddly for what you all have, the Women that stood beside them and did the same. These were a subculture, a black martial subculture of folk that were my folk, and they proved in their “ways” to me, so early, that there is a contrast―but even they could not hold onto it, as the effeminate media whores tore apart at the new youths, turning them against each other, and more so themselves, coming to hate themselves, and in turn, hate each other.
You all hate each other, and that is why you need to POSSESS each other. The kind of LOVE you all have for each other, a healthy Man knows is fear, insecurity and anxiety based; and therefore, your LOVE is a kind of HATE, to which that MAN, that Vir, forbids to enter into his “world”, in which he, and only he, she and only she, as a VIR, is to have authority over.
It is the notion that the abused becomes the abuser, and that the masses of you have never had contrast, because only a Warrior would… You think all this I say about your kind, you would be exempt from, and then you have the nerve to think I am talking about someone else. Males often see my words this way. THEM, they think… Yeah, “we” be “we” and “them” they got this problem.
No you chump, every male I have ever met since the age of 15 has had this problem. And I say this from having tried to work with you chumps, to get you to organize to advance, to develop. From starting community through combat, and each one teach one movements, to offering entertaining services all over the place, only to observe you males either broken and serving the interest of some little girl who keeps you confused, uncertain and in pain, or for you to come in with your anxiety, insecurities and uncertainty and project it on the other males, trying to tear them down.
I am no spectator. I have been at this for a long time, and you males have no gangs, no groups, nor organizations that affirm and develop in any Commanding skills. The bulk of males these days seek out Entertainment that bashes others, so they can feel at least they do not have it as bad. Why otherwise would the media whores get away with their depiction of males in the media, as yes, accurately what you all are? They are not wrong for showing you are dopes controlled by little girls.
Males have complained about this in front of their females who have duper's delight on their face. I have been in the houses of male dopes saying everything they can about the ills of media and society, and their fat wives sitting there agreeing with every word, knowing that what has been said applies to them, but so long as they say “THEM”, then it somehow excludes them. It does not. Saying what the problem is, and embodying the problem and not the solution does not garnish deference. It garnishes delusion.
If I was male, but not a human male, and merely saying “them” and “they”, and only pointing out the errors, and not offering solutions, investigations, and possible differences, it would be the same delusion. But I have not been on the sidelines. I have been on the front lines ready, willing, and able to get things going, and in all that was attempted that relied on human male participation, the male would be short-run, and fall back to their life of despair and stupidity, and everyone of them had some little girl of ineptitude with her insecurity and her anxiety, pushing forth her infections, uncertainty, and need for relief via that human male serving her emotions.
I learned to stop trying to work with males directly. It's wasteful. This, I have not seen with females. But certainly with males. All of you, if you have ever heard of me or known of me, has been this way, and not one of you can prove and say otherwise, nor have I misled you into thinking otherwise. You are lying to yourself, not me lying to you.
You are the COWARDS and the CHUMPS, not “everyone else” and “them”. You are the masses, and the media whores are portraying you all accurately. Does that mean they did not lead that way? No, they did, and I watched it. But that you males fell for it, means it must be true. It did not work on me, because it was not accurate to my nature. If it works on you, perhaps you have to consider it just might be, because nothing in you says otherwise.
You want to say otherwise, and with your mouth you might vomit anything you see fit. But with your choices and behavior, you will show it was always right about you. Mommy made you all chumps, and now some Sally gets the booty from that defeat, and is ready to make you her little boy slave, who is left with thinking he was broken all along, and only her, somehow, knows how to fix it.
Me being a writer and speaker is my retirement from any sense that direct contact and mentorship with young males can have any impact. I have tried and tested it, and a male or female who disagrees with me will do so having none of these contrasting forces to show for. They will have no example of male empowerment groups that have to do with skills, competency, proficiency, Control and Command.
They will have male empowerment groups that neuter them to be best suited for female interest. So many call themselves men, and they have no definition of a male from a point of view other than the one females have taught them. It's absurd. Your argument would not counter what I say, it would prove it. And that is why those males will never be doing anything that is outside the Relational Rule, but instead, they have been taught they need to be sensitive, vulnerable, and talk, with some more talk of what is wrong with them, and come to grips with their mommy and daddy issues.
The sick can not offer good advice to the sick. They do not know the alternative. And the sick do not cure their own sickness; they often target only what they can see, and that which they can see is through the filter of their sickness, and not often the actual cause and/or condition.
Human males are not allowed to work together and for each other. Every human male I have seen since the age of 15 was the product of the abuse of a domesticated mother, who warped their minds and made them a “broken little girl”, and when you hear of me, and come before me, and act like it's not likely true for you… then show me your gang, and show me a structure that is about Control and Command. You can't. Because you will not be with males doing anything, or with males only online and in some childish fantasy club, you think then you are banded. You're not. A band of males not serving female interest would have an Ethos, colors, organization, hierarchy and standards that are clear, with goals that are attainable. Males like sports for this reason, and athletes are praised for this reason, and that is mere play with no meaning.
When a human male has a sports team, this is what they are yearning. When they have ideals, this, they are yearning, and the only thing they will ever have is that spectator's relationship to the “game”, in which they do not, and will not play on any meaningful level. The desire boys have around spectating these sports, and/or entertainments proves their natural yearning for these things, but had any of them access and a role in these things, they would not perform well, but would bring their mommy issues with them, and be kicked from these teams. They would fail, and blame others for their failure, like Mommy showed them. Mommy could never do wrong. “That's your mother”, they say as if that means something on its own.
Spectators spectate because they can not participate. And their arrogance is shown the second they then think, they can also judge the levels of those they observe, when they themselves have never leveled in any meaningful way. Had these spectating boys been among any Men, they would have learned that all expression better be backed by skill and competency, and that to say a thing, you better be ready to prove and fight for it. That these young males can say anything they want these days and get away with it, is evidence that this society, the domestic West societies, are effeminate, governed by rules of relationships that demand deference, soft, fragile and pathetic.
Of course then, a little boy can declare he's on point, and there will be no one there to show him otherwise, cause Mommy made him think he was special, and a Man would show him, he has not earned that status, and must put in the work. When he is before a Man, he will retreat back to his mommy, declaring he was not being loved and respected by that Man for merely showing up. She will then reinforce the delusions she bred in him, and take him back to Mommy's world, when he will go on mentally sucking from your tit of ineptitude and calling it milk and honey of the gods.
All of this is the closest a human male gets to Seduction, the Seduction his Mommy barely used on him to make him stupid and vulnerable to the Controls of females in the future, ready to pick up where she left off. The only thing to ruin this human male's expectations is the reality of having to work, and go it their own, as surely, Mommy never prepared them to do, because she never has to worry about that herself, minus those few females out there who did not have such an elaborate network of support, and had to get real. To which no female of that sort would disagree with these observations.
More about Care and Loyal, Reliable and Dependable
Might be odd for someone to hear, but a primary driving social motive for females to control themes, and how things are, and make things defer to their natures is that, if they DO NOT, then it would be far easier to detect that they are “taking it easy”, having a “lighter load”, and not sharing in the realms where there is risk and sacrifice that they so much demand. They will need a great deal of males around them, and in their realm too, able to live as they do. For then, it is not “females” who are like this, and live this way, but too, there are males who do so.
But make no mistake, though this is true, it is because some female has worked hard to make it true, and that “female” was more than likely one's mother, or someone's mother, and that male who stood by, doing no different, that daddy, was no more than a mommy themselves, made so by their mommy.
Mommy stamped individuals are dangerous. Mommies themselves are dangerous, and while you were being told your whole life that physical force is bad, and violence, and somehow made it most of your life never in real need of protection against it… the real violence of humans, as slavers, was taking place: the violence of CARE, and the indoctrination that surrounds it.
SEDUCTION needs you to first CARE. Without care, that of anxiety that manifests with concern, there would be no one to mark for Seduction, and no one who would receive the signal from the mark to seduce. No CARE at the CENTER, NO ANXIETY; and no CONCERN at the CENTER, NO SEDUCTION. It is care, that of the concern and anxiety, that Seduction will act as a distraction and relief for.
To seduce requires that you the seducer must pretend, at minimum, to have some reason to care for the mark, even though in actuality the mark themselves is insignificant, and replaceable, as you all will show all throughout your lives.
For a reader and/or a listener considering Seduction around yourself, ask this question…
Why do I want access to the one my mind just marked?
Why them, in being marked?
Is it them, or did my mind just need to mark?
You won't need any real reasons to mark another for access, nor will they need reasons to signal you to mark them, and seek to gain access.
Access is almost always about insecurity and fear, that begets anxiety and concern, that needs to be cared for, with ATTENTION, and ACCEPTANCE.
Humans are opportunistic slavers, not overt slavers. Humans enslave others, mostly emotionally, because humans themselves are human, because they are enslaved to their bestial urges.
Because you all have been trained to CARE, and to show your mark HOW you care, through Provision if you are a male, and through selection if you are a female, BOTH of youse need to make the other FEEL secure, even if that feeling is false. But will a male and female have the equal need to give a sense of security to the other?
The answer is no. In fact, most of the time, at least during the initial phases of association, a female could use the chaos of uncertainty, pressing to make the male feel insecure about their association. If a female has done this to you, and/or is doing this to you, or would, it is likely you are a chump. It is likely they need to keep you in limbo because they will need to have an excuse for when something better comes along. They will say, they are not necessarily looking for another, wish to take it slow, and/or maybe this is not best for the two of youse, or simply, they do not know, and they are unsure.
I have heard of this from others, I myself have never experienced it.
When you are kept “uncertain” by a female, this means she is keeping her options open. It would be rare for a male to deal with a female with any notion that with him, there would be insecurity. The human male has this obligation to all “his” associations to which he has access to, and have access to him.
A human female is allowed to have chaos and uncertainty in her associations, and she is not thought ill of this, but rather in a society of deference afforded to her, it is quite expected. Now, if one would like to disagree with me on this, explain why on average, near 70 percent of divorces initiated are initiated by females, and not males. Why are the human males acting with “certainty” in their marriages, almost no matter what, yet human females are clearly prone to be UNCERTAIN, as well as able to withdraw, from the same condition?
The gap, here, between females and males in divorce, has a clear correlated sex component to it. Females are prone to UNCERTAINTY, and in that uncertainty that is emotional, the human male, expected to act with certainty, is screwed over by his own certainty, when the association in whole does not have it going both ways.
A human male is expected to provide a sense of “SECURITY”, when in actuality, is not “security” but that of “STABILITY” and “DEPENDABILITY”. Many would speak of being “reliable”, being “loyal” and “dependable” as good traits, as legal obligations. But these are not traits that are individual traits, but social and collective traits. They require that someone is “higher”, like a “sovereign” in which a subject is loyal. They require a dependent, where dependable is noble. One must be DEPENDENT for the trait dependable to mean something. Relied upon by another.
Who is this other that reliability, loyalty and dependability mostly apply to?
That other, for the masses of humans, is rarely another male. That other is mostly to one's “family”, in which the mommy relationally rules, and then when parted from the “family” onto one's own extended version, one's “female” and her “offspring”. Surely too, the human male will be told these are good traits for his work. But who is the other, in this space, other than that of the “boss man”, the “employer”, the “corp”, the “state”, and too, the mommy back home that will spend his money?
Everyone asks that he be “loyal”, that he be “reliable”, that he be “dependable”, because “everyone” plans on making use of him, as their servant, their slave. If a man had but three visible chains upon him, holding him back, they would have these names of “Loyal”, of “Reliable”, of “Dependable”.
I am none of these things, and never shall be.
Seduction has only this “way” about it, where giving another a “sense” of security and/or stability is a thing, because Seduction has a hierarchy where one is the SERVANT, and the other the SERVED. Seduction is based on rank, where one ranks higher than the other, and the higher ranked one is rarely the one doing the seducing, but the seducer is the one who needs to do the work, who needs to SERVE the SEDUCED or the MARK, in their insecurities, and their fears, their anxiety and their concerns, and they begin this by working on what the seducer thinks is the need and the desire for security and stability. Only a human male, but “retardedly” believes that a human female actually wants security and stability, and would be happy if she had it. A human female can never shake her “uncertainty”; she was born with it.
The play at security and stability will often be as far as the human male can go. I can be your secure and stable slave, will you take me?
And that is it. This could hardly be called, on its own, Seduction. Seduction requires more, to be called so. A part of that more is realized that most are bored with their mundane, and simple existence.
Many have been CONDITIONED to have an ILL relationship to the notions of CONTROL, the notions of Management, and the notions of Manipulation. Yet what can not be said is that most shun, and throw off that which could be called seductive forms of Entertainment, which have at their core the trait of ESCAPISM, by way of DISTRACTION and RELIEF. Seduction is pursued aggressively. For ESCAPISM is pursued aggressively, and what can easily be detected if one has an ounce of an awakened hour in their day, is that MOST, the COMMONS, the MASSES, are indeed corralled about in DISTRACTION, and in constant need of RELIEF.
If one was to assert that most, the many, the masses, DO NOT WISH TO BE SEDUCED, this would be either deceptively stated, ignorantly stated, naively stated, or dialectically mistaken, in not knowing what Seduction is. This is why I repeat its essentials, never presuming that once stated once, a receiver or a listener would come back to the recall of said essentials. Do not think Seduction, and whatever loosely flies about in your mind, when the term is uttered. Think, one of the three kinds of Entertainment, and the one specifically which has the need for DISTRACTION and RELIEF. When you have realized these essentials are what the utterance or the signing of the term is meant to trigger in recall, then the question would be, “where, if anywhere, is the disposition of DISTRACTION and/or some RELIEF not the primary, in character of association?”.
Often those who are DISTRACTED and in need of RELIEF will not have an ounce of an awakened hour to consider the question, and certainly, will not have tracked my argument to this point, enough to be well invested in Part II.
I will deviate from my point for a minor moment here, to expound with some personal elements.
At the time of writing this, the day of 02-08-2022, I have but a handful of associates, hardly any in the physical space I habit, and the rest mostly online. I have informed slowly all who know of me, but certainly do not know me, that the material of Access Denied is becoming a filter and necessary degree of realization, in order for associations to be maintained. That those who do not become “accustomed” and/or “aware” of that standard I am holding… will not have continued access to me.
What needs to be stated is this: I am an ENTERTAINING individual. This is my value to most. And because of this, how they are entertained is in me being the FORCE of DISTRACTION and RELIEF. When I am the PRIMARY, the individual does not need to do much thinking. They get behind what I am saying, agree with it, and move on, for the price of Entertainment. When I am guiding the activities, they will be entertained.
However, there is a mistake in thinking, one to be ENTERTAINING, and/or ENTERTAINMENT itself to be a thing of actual JOY, that would have any relationship to Pride. Seduction, which relies on distraction and relief, is not the kind of Entertainment that has a relationship with Pride. Seduction is void of skills, competency, that of challenge, that of complexity, and that of advancement, and without these things, there will be no PRIDE, or now, shall I say… the EMOTION of that of TRIUMPH.
Many use me for ESCAPISM, and RELIEF.
Talking to a lad just yesterday who has known of me for well over a decade now, about why we talk… I had to tell him that he was motivated for the sake of emotional Entertainment. This lad has never grown from and shown advancement based on the strategies, tactics, and expoundings I have provided him, in discourse. Yet he always causes some error or problem, a concern if you will, like a little girl, that then provokes me having to “fix him” like a “little girl” would be triggered to do. I finally had to say ENOUGH.
You see, reader, and/or listener, Access Denied is semi new to me, in my own choices. It is the product of how I have been thinking and choosing throughout the years, but on the level in which it is being written and spoken, it is under real time development, and application.
With much time to use as evidence, I have to see why others have access to me, and what they are doing with that access. What they are doing is using me for Entertainment, in regards to their emotions, but those emotions are not Triumphant.
Like a little whore, these males, mostly, are accessing me to put up on me their anxious concerns, to then TAKE FROM ME, my time and ENERGY, that they did not get from their mommies and/or daddies. They are taking from me something in which I have not offered, and have never been about. For the name of Entertainment, they need someone to CARE, and to be CONCERNED about them, and in order to make this happen, they have to err, they have to commit some foolishness, be broken, in need of repair, and be a foolish undeveloped IDIOT. In other words, in seeking attention and access, they need to do so through SEEKING NEGATIVE ATTENTION.
POSITIVE attention would be around skillful, tactical, capable, and competent achievement. To do something well, and to be recognized for it. But for this kind of attention to be sought and had, one must take upon themselves to ADVANCE. But the little boys of this society, no matter what age they are, do not get POSITIVE ATTENTION from pursuing any quest of ADVANCEMENT.
The little girls that have run them their whole lives have taught them that attention is secured in CARING, in that of anxiously displayed concerns, and the way in which this is acquired is through CHAOS, or that of having some inadequacy, some ineptitude, some problem that is not about being FIXED or a solution, but instead, about being expressed, and having that expression shared in. So the human males I have interacted with have brought me this sissy notion of attention, and what they do not realize is, this is a form of “Entertainment”.
Think of the term to “entertain”.
Before I provide this etym. of entertain, I would like for the reader or listener to account for the point I have been making about language, and how there is a value code in a native tongue. The key is connecting terms to connect thoughts, and connected thoughts will be far more Rational in seemingness than that of chaotic thought. Evidence you are dealing with a mommy stamped little boy and/or little girl is that they are always confused, and they need you to unravel their confusion, to which you can not do, nor is this what they need.
They NEED your attention, and to control your time and energy, to which the confused and distraught will waste. No one who has been on this planet for over 16 years should be confused, in nature. It will be that something is in them, keeping them from having “sound sense”, and when you think you are “helping them”, you are “guiding them”, and you are “leading them” towards solutions, you will BE WRONG. And if you can not catch it, you can not see they never ADVANCE, then your motives are about access to them, so that you can maintain or possess a role that makes you feel a certain way. You will need to assess that feeling, and ask why it is your value.
I do not NOT need, nor desire ACCESS to others. I do not have ATTACHMENT, and POSSESSION with others, as a variable of my nature. This is RARE, and one ought not be fooled into thinking this would apply to them. Such is not likely. But such is why it can not be said, of the cognitive species, that I am human.
I, myself, do not find it entertaining to handle the care, the anxiety and concern of others, and having many occasions to see one be an inadequate thinker, to be confused, and burdened with ill thoughts, it is my nature to move on and send them back to their ways. It is my nature realized to let you all suffer, when you have not shown you are supposed to be any other way.
Seduction is a form of Entertainment. That too is why one ought not limit it to the notion of “romance”, of “sex”, of “females to males”, and so on. Seduction is not about these things, though as a form of “currency” in the realm of “attention”, they will seem as such. “Sexual attention” is the easiest kind. But make no mistake, “sexual attention” and “sexual energy” is not the primary. It is the means to an end, and the end is attention, is access, is the desire to FEEL, not necessarily be, that of SAFE AND SECURE. Sexual energy is a major DISTRACTIVE force, a force of major relief, and therefore, it ought to be common that ESCAPISM is best through the SEXUAL FORCES, and therefore, to distract a populace, and provide them with a sense of RELIEF, you work hard to SEXUALIZE them.
A sexualized populace will, without a doubt, be an idiot populace.
However, one ought to keep in mind the plays of Seduction, and not be mistaken to the “character” of Seduction. The character of Seduction is not itself “SEXUAL”, but instead, is able to be discovered in its primaries, its essentials through the category of Entertainment, and its primary trait of ESCAPISM.
Know this, before I move on… Sexuality provides the greatest escape for humans, because propagation of the species provides them with their primary sense of meaning. This is the mater way, the material way, and beyond that is the Way of the Phater, the Patterns, to which few will ever come into view and observation of, let alone adoption, and application thereof to experience the nonsexual emotion of TRIUMPH.
The TRIUMPHANT are not to be mistaken as void of the sexual. This would be absurd, and only the broken shamans, often inadequate, would promote an existence whereby sexuality is shamed. This, be not mistaken, is NOT what I am doing or have ever done. The sexual element of one's material existence is not the relevant element. It is all the elements that surround it, come before it, and after it, that matter, or rather Pattern the most in importance. Not the very central sense of SEXUALITY.
Those who prioritize sexuality, in any way, for their identity and their primary motives are mere BEASTS who are ANXIOUS, who are CONCERNED, who centralize CARE, and will be plagues upon those who grant them access, and try to distract and relieve their concerns.
To grasp the true nature of Seduction, one must start with the genus, the general category from which it is born. That general category is ENTERTAINMENT.
On Entertainment
Etymology of Entertainment
late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support” (12c.), from entre- “among” (from Latin inter; see inter-) + tenir “to hold” (from Latin tenere, from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
Sense of “have a guest” is late 15c.; that of “gratify, amuse” is 1620s. Meaning “to allow (something) to consideration, take into the mind” (of opinions, notions, etc.) is 1610s. Related: Entertained; entertaining.
This notion, that of Entertainment, could have its own book of expoundings brought forth by this writer, speaker. I will try not to enter that maze too much, in this expounding, but to try is perhaps to fail.
This word, entertain, and its extension ENTERTAINMENT, is very, very, very, verily IMPORTANT. Too much for me to bring light to for now.
When I was a young fella in Brooklyn, I of course heard of this category, because in the lives of so-called Americans, or the subjects of America, “that's entertainment”, the “entertainment industry”, a “form of entertainment”, or “entertainment central”, or an “entertaining event”, and so on, were EVERYWHERE.
So much, that a subject of the domestic, tech realm of America has had this word “entertaining”, and “entertainment” all over the place... But what thoughts have you ever had on it?
As a young fella, I was far more aggressive in my thinking than I am now. It was before the age of 12 that I completed all of my “studies” and reading, and since the age of 12, I have probably only skimmed a handful of written pieces. Meaning, I do not read, and many will mistakenly think I am well-read, and have read a lot. This is not, and actually, has never been the case. I have read fundamental pieces of classical thought, but most then that would follow by way of my own thinking was informed through observation, through investigation, through experimentation, and most of ALL, that of DISCOURSE with meaningful minds.
But of the first pieces of literature it could be said I read all of, and prioritized, it would be the series of Oxford English dictionaries, to which the ones I had access to filled a shelf, and they included etymologies. I did not study the dictionary as a reference book, like in how most of you have come to conclude, and therefore, caring little to reference the symbols you use for thought you neglect, and make little use thereof. When I looked at the dictionary, I was reading CODE. I had already known that everyone used a CODE for their thinking, for what they were entertained by and entertained through, and thus, what they entertained in their own thinking.
I did not allow your society, that of SAM, the Society Advanced by the Majority, to utter, to sign, to put forth a term that I would then only refer to in thought based upon examples and context, from when and where the terms were used by its SUBJECTS.
I saw you all from the start as NOT THE SOURCE of the ENTERTAINMENT, or the CODE. But you all see each other as an organic source, and so you can not, for the most part, think the CODE in its actual form. You do not have access to the CODE, do not know there is a CODE, but you are simply CODED. This is the REAL MATRIX, or mother's womb, whereby for you to go forward in living, to fulfill your destiny as a hopeful breeder, you have no need for the code.
But I, myself, was not CODED. I have a CODE, so it is not to be mistaken. But I was BORN with a code, and therefore, I was not coded in the sense of how language, through the schools, was used to code the way you all think. That a nature is not present in the majority of you, that was organically CODED in your being, is all too evident. You all, for the most part, evidence the sense that everyone is tabula rasa, or a blank slate able to be written upon, and best written upon by an “enlightened few”. This notion of you all being blank slates drives the importance of Entertainment; drives the importance of education; and rarely, though it does occur, does one step out from the coded existence, and discover that in them, they have an organic code that contradicts or seeks to override the conditioned code. Most of you confirm that indeed, without being coded by your keepers, you would have barely anything but your animal inclinations.
That you have never needed to decode the language of your keepers, in which they have coded you, shows that. That when I instigate this practice, it will come to mean little to most, and but a splinter of Entertainment to some, and majestic to the rare and the elite proves the point. If by now, in learning of my position on the written and spoken word, one has not become fanatical in language codes, then one is just looking for an entertaining and novel addition to their previously coded states.
This is often detectable in that the ones in search of novelty will have fancy ways to say the same base thing, that has always been at play. They go to school to become a “decorator” who merely adorns the base and banal with fancy expressions that are… deceptive, and illusive.
In the scheme of Control, of Manage, of Manipulate, I had drawn attention previously to the component of a lesser degree of “Maintain”, and this is at the core of the value hierarchy I have mentioned often. That “keeping” and “possessing” is key here. Too, this essence can be found in the term to “entertain”, which is the “keeping and the possessing”, in many ways, of that of a notion, versus an object to be held in the hand.
Do not forget this ingredient of “to entertain”, and more so the notion that it is to “keep”, to “maintain”, to “possess”, often, that of “someone” in this particular “frame of the mind”, or that is, their “thought condition”. The term “mind” means more to me than the mere presumption behind everyone having one. I do not know this, nor have I observed this to be true that “MIND” is verily valid, and prominent enough to say… most have it. But for the sake of keeping with the ingredients, mind, here, is that of the thinking apparatus, and in the case of hominids, of be them human, Manu, or Vir, it is that of the abstract mechanics of the mind, the thinking thing that is then “framed”, is wrapped in narrative.
Entertainment is all about “framing”, and more so than anything, it requires Control, Management, and Manipulation. There is no such thing as Entertainment that is void of these traits. They are essential, and that is why it is chronological, and why these variables require a skilled and competent “consideration”.
The Entertainment has a certain frame of mind. In this, Seduction is one of those certainties, and in contrast, there is the certainty of the “frame of mind” that falls under Engagement. This, then, making Entertainment that certain frame of mind, the genus, and amusement, Seduction, and/or Engagement the species, and they do not overlap. Engagement is never attained in, nor held, in that of escape, and mere relief. This is not the way of Engagement, but it is the way of Seduction.
Most of what it is to “entertain” can be correlated to that which “holds others together”, or “holds together that of a collective interest”.
The root of a primal nature of Entertainment was often the sharing of a collective, a band, a group of hominids, their narratives, their tales, their fancy, their tellings, their accounts. In the human base sense, “stories” and “fancy” was primary, and though they could be used to teach and to instruct, as too, metaphors, and allegories, it is not a given to say they were.
Seduction, as a form of Entertainment, does not require instruction, nor the transmission of skill, competency or challenge. Often, these would interfere with Seduction. Whereas, however, the Entertainment of Engagement does absolutely require that something is being ADVANCED, provoked, and only in the attainment of greater ADVANTAGE from the experience that was entertained, could it be said the kind was that of Engagement. In the absence of ADVANCEMENT, it would beg the question, for what purpose, then, was the Entertainment?
And DISTRACTION and/or RELIEF is what is likely, and nothing is more of a distraction to have something pull from one's self the FAMILIAR emotions, that then, more often than not, act as fetters, act as chains, act as impediments to becoming more, and advantaged. The triggering of the emotions, grounded in the fears, the insecurities, the anxieties, the concerns, the disgust, the despair, the ignorant surprises of novelty… are that of the SUBJECT'S way of being entertained, and not the way of the Entertainment, the certainty of the mental frame of Engagement. This is how they differ, and most will live a life whereby they will never experience the contrast of that which is entertaining advancement, versus that which is entertaining SUBJUGATION, and MEDIOCRITY.
Control has a lot to do with the mechanics of a situation and/or a condition that does not require much about the “frame of mind”. This element of frame of mind will surface once again later. But it is key that much of what would be “framing” and narrative is not necessary around a certain set of things in life, taken as a given.
Family, for example, where Control is based, is often not concerned with a “frame of mind” concerning Control. Neither is Management that is presumed. State of, and frame of mind is perhaps initiated on the level that would be called Manipulation. Manipulation is about the mind. Control and Management are often about the “chemical body”, which though has influence over the mental body, it's mechanically induced in a way in which a “frame” or “narrative” is hardly needed. Control and Management rely less on the frame and the mind, and more on the chemical body and that of the passions, the urges that are based in fear, in insecurity, and through anxiety, that of frustration and/or anger. All of this is the CHEMFORM, with a minor relationship to the “Menform”.
All things measured, based on degree go this way. It is that the chemical body, the passions, the urges, the impulses do not require much to be manipulated, even to say they are being manipulated.
Here is the problem I have with the notion of when, and when not, that of Seduction is even at play. I am not sure that it is often enough to count. Most of the “plays”, the “moves”, the artifacts of so-called Seduction would easily fall into the lesser planned categories that do not in actuality have, or need a form of ENTERTAINMENT.
Seduction does not truly begin, until something, by way of a certain frame of mind, is being ENTERTAINED.
When frame of mind is stated, and one presumes they grasp the meaning of this, it begs the question, did you check the etym. of “frame”?
You see, if I was to build the language code accurately, it would require way more to be written to secure the route. There is so much that is revealed in the etyms.
Etymology of Frame (v.)
Old English framian “to profit, be helpful, avail, benefit,” from fram (adj., adv.) “active, vigorous, bold,” originally “going forward,” from fram (prep.) “forward; from” (see from). Influenced by related Old English fremman “help forward, promote; do, perform, make, accomplish,” and Old Norse fremja “to further, execute.” Compare German frommen “avail, profit, benefit, be of use.”
Sense focused in Middle English from “make ready” (mid-13c.) to “prepare timber for building” (late 14c.). Meaning “compose, devise” is first attested 1540s. The criminal slang sense of “blame an innocent person” (1920s) is probably from earlier sense of “plot in secret” (1900), perhaps ultimately from meaning “fabricate a story with evil intent,” which is first attested 1510s. Related: Framed; framing.
To “frame” and that of a “frame of mind” is no light “matter”, but instead, is a significant “Pattern”. Framing is vigorous, bold, advancing. To advance in one's Control and Command is framing, and a certain frame of mind is a certain advancement of the mind. But this is a classical sense of Entertainment, in that sense.
Now, to entertain and Entertainment have been altered among the commons, knowing nothing hardly of advancement, to becoming merely that of “to gratify” and “to amuse”. And it is this that most have come to think only of Entertainment, and then too, why, in opposite form, there is no actual “framing” that is occurring as much as what is occurring is that of the impediment to the frame, the base, the foundation, that would beget a bold strength. Destruction follows amusement, quite often.
You dare to disagree, without checking the etym. of amuse?
Etymology of Amuse (v.)
late 15c., “to divert the attention, beguile, delude,” from Old French amuser “fool, tease, hoax, entrap; make fun of,” literally “cause to muse” (as a distraction), from a “at, to” (from Latin ad, but here probably a causal prefix) + muser “ponder, stare fixedly” (see muse (v.)).
Original English senses obsolete; meaning “divert from serious business, tickle the fancy of” is recorded from 1630s, but through 18c. the primary meaning was “deceive, cheat” by first occupying the attention. “The word was not in reg. use bef. 1600, and was not used by Shakespere” [OED]. Bemuse retains more of the original meaning. Greek amousos meant “without Muses,” hence “uneducated.”
Entertainment and amusement do indeed have a cultural association, do they not? Another term when but in my youth, I did not allow to go unregistered, unexamined, and without clarification. When you or any try to be amusing, let it be known now… Often what is essential is the diversion it provides, the attention seeking it entails, attention taking, and that of what beguiles, and to which a deluded state shall be encouraged. How often are those around you “teasing”? How often are those around you “fooling” around? Entrapping and making fun of things are quite the common alluring form of entertaining, when in actuality, that which would be a “frame of mind” is deluded, diverted, and made into a muddy mind, through that of escapism, with its primary traits of distraction, and relief. Diversion and delusion, whilst amused, to which most certainly…
I shall not be amused, and I am NOT amused.
Reader, and/or listener… I have said to you, I have etched for you… that life is WAR, and often I have shown that terms like that of SEDUCTION are themselves WAR terms, and best understood and grasped when this essential association is considered and acted upon. So then let there be no ignorant surprise too that this term “amusement” has a classical context involving it in “war”.
Etymology of amusement (n.)
1640s, “diversion of attention,” especially in military actions, from French amusement, noun of action from amuser (see amuse).
“And because all bold and irreverent Speeches touching matters of high nature, and all malicious and false Reports tending to Sedition, or to the Amusement of Our People, are punishable ... (etc.)” [Charles II, Proclamation of Oct. 26, 1688]
Meaning “a pastime, play, game, anything which pleasantly diverts the attention” (from duty, work, etc.) is from 1670s, originally depreciative; meaning “pleasurable diversion” attested from 1690s. Amusement hall is from 1862; amusement park first recorded 1897.
Why then in my life, have I been VIGILANT to that of Entertainment and its forms?
Because I am that of a VIR, and all VIR are Martial, and to be MARTIAL is to KNOW, and ACT as if you KNOW that life is WAR, and fight the entirety of it informed by a set of sound strategies, and the tactics of application they dictate. I have NOT permitted a life of amusement, and ENTERTAINMENT by easy way of SEDUCTION, and its ESCAPIST nature.
This has never been me, and my WAYS, and yet, all who have ever sought me out for ENTERTAINMENT, sought me out holding me as the symbol of their “amusement”. They have used me to DIVERT their attention, to make fun of “them” versus “us”, and so on, to be held as “the ones” versus “not so much the ones”. I have been used by the many to be a mere distraction, and to provide relief, through, though, the lies, the deceptions, the deluded states in which others have so induced in them, or to which they have played a role in inducements… of their own.
DO NOT GET IT MISTAKEN.
SEDUCTION is composed of what is rather an anti-entertainment that is in actuality an amusement. If I was to be as accurate as I could be, it would be that I would almost go so far as to say, what is called ENTERTAINMENT, to which I have used as a genus for the three, is inadequately called so. One is amused in Seduction, and entertained in Engagement.
But this would be to fight over the terms in a way I ought not fight. Entertained and Entertainment will be left for now, as ambiguous, though certainly I know this not to be the case. In order to move on, and to actually make this project have the appearance of completion, for the sake of my editor, I can not, at this very moment, deviate to make sense of that. I will still keep the order as to Control, to Manage, to Manipulate, and to Entertain, and have the three species of Entertainment be that of to Amuse, Seduce and/or to Engage.
But this formula will in the future have a degree of alteration to be more expounded in such a manner as to be Control, Maintain, Manage, Manipulate, Amuse to Seduction, Entertain to Engagement, but yet, perhaps a classical sense could be called the WRONG sense in this present age. The bulk of you mental midgets, as you are, for the most part, are not deserving of my WISDOM, and had I not been DUTY bound to expound, most would receive from me a HERMIT'S SILENCE, versus a Law Giver's Exaltation.
As the flow then has been dictating this alteration or deviation in the course, I, the listener reader, was trying to get a sense of then, why have it revealed now in this challenging way?
Clear to me, then, is the need to bring this term “amuse” into the fold and solidify its sense. Just like in the past, in my use of the word “care”, in the sense of saying “proper care” as a means to not deal with the term at the time, and save it for later, the term “amuse” will perhaps have the same treatment. I can not, at all times, in the written and spoken word, fix the entirety of the English language, as it is used by the educated mental midget Americans. It ought to be clear that I speak and write in English in a manner not modeled off of the present, but instead, oddly, I think and communicate in a way I ought not be able to, less it be written upon my own mind, in some history that has preceded “me” in present form, so much as “certainly” this is validly presumed.
Though I shall continue to say “entertain” and “Entertainment” in this order, know that, liken to how I have written “proper care” in the past, knowing that this term “care” is inadequate, and in need of exposure, expounding, and correction. But is all this suited to the written word, and the confined space in which things are written?
Methinks some classical thinkers could care less, on account that access to the writer or the speaker's mind is the point, not that of the delivery of some clean academic models, divorced from the mind that produceth. It is not argumentum ad hominem to ever consider me the writer, the speaker, as a necessary element of the decrees. Certainly, the quantity and the quality of my own faculties, their essence, cause, and conclusion are entirely responsible for what is produced, what is “brought forward”, for what is “advanced”, and therefore, to be said “entertained”, with that “certain frame of mind”, which is, in certainty, to be called the Vir frame of mind.
Then it could be said, this is what I so “entertain”, and it is this “frame of mind” to which I shall only “entertain”, and where another needs from me “amusing” affairs…
ACCESS DENIED.
Amusement towards a sedition that is seductive is but the way in which the masses, the many, the multitudes, and the mental midgets of SAM's endeavors are ever so RELATED to that of any notion of ENTERTAINMENT. I can not save a greater sense of ENTERTAINMENT, but know this… It is not because I lack the knowledge of such differences, but it is that, if completion is ever to occur…
I must choose my battles.
⚔
When you “play” at others, it is the “amusing” kind of “play” whereby the course of such “play” will require that something is, or shall be in DELUDED form.
Etymology of Play (v.)
Middle English pleien, from Old English plegan, plegian “move lightly and quickly, occupy or busy oneself, amuse oneself; engage in active exercise; frolic; engage in children's play; make sport of, mock; perform music,” from Proto-West Germanic *plegōjanan “occupy oneself about” (source also of Old Saxon plegan “vouch for, take charge of,” Old Frisian plega “tend to,” Middle Dutch pleyen “to rejoice, be glad,” German pflegen “take care of, cultivate”), which is apparently connected to the root of plight (v.), but the ultimate etymology is uncertain and the phonetic development is difficult to explain.
When you speak with me, and/or engage in anything “symbolic based”―to which only such a base can be engaged in with me―know this: I do not hear you, speaking, and listen to your limited sense of terms. I am always aware of these ETYMS., as the CODE in which the individual thinks. And with them, I have been a very successful “profiler” of sorts, on behalf of others, making this talent of Vigilance of mine “profitable” in the material sense.
I DO NOT PLAY.
I DO NOT PLAY games, though you may.
I DO NOT PLAY at SEDUCTION, though SEDUCTION is all PLAY.
I DO NOT MAKE FUN. These ways are not the “Way of VIR” but certainly are the ways of the commons who are in demand of DEFERENCE, and it is through PLAY that DEFERENCE is secured.
I call the “Ways of Seduction” that of “plays” for this very reason. ALL Seduction, with no exception, requires DISTRACTION, requires DIVERSION, requires ATTENTION sought, attention Maintenance, attention Management, and to some degree… attention Manipulation.
However, where books, speakers, and those seeking to profit from plays are misleading their audience, it is that what they have to say and/or write can be valued in the third, the Manipulation realm, where the mind, versus say the chemical body, is the actual factor.
It is not. Rare is it that any type of PLAY in which most of you will be engaged in will be MANIPULATED play, versus mere Controlled, Maintained, and Managed play. For Management of the play will be the likely extent.
Managed play, in regards to appearance of Seduction, is what a male will have with a male, as well as with a female. Often, the Managed play, with male to male, will be dictated by an arrangement of OBJECTS or “TARGETS”, such as an actual “game” with rules, or an actual source of “entertainment” that can be seen as a shadow of a HOBBY. The more “degreed” a male is to “systems”, the more different their forms of “amusement” will be, where it will border in many ways that of amusement with that of “Entertainment”, in that in it may be an element of “frame of mind”.
Males who are systematic more than empathetic, or that is broken―to which all empathetic males are―will demand from their “amusements” this “entertaining” level, and often, this demand is not present in human females, and the human males that are boyish and about the females. They will in essence value that which is popular, widespread, and embraced by the collective.
Where amusement bleeds into Entertainment, often, a greater demand is levied, and to which it can be partially stated that fandom then occurs. This level of convergence of amusement with Entertainment would require realms of expounding of its own. But it is to this realm that I would say a “SEDUCTION” is occurring between males, and only so much. But it would not be the male seducing the male, like a male must do for a female.
The one who is “seducing”, so to say, is the one who is the source of either the amusement, or the Entertainment, to what degree to be established. Intent to seduce is not necessary; only that them, as a trigger and a stimuli, are providing the results of Seduction is necessary. Triggering escape and relief, and through amusement, diversion, distraction, and play. To which these are the meaning of AMUSEMENT and SEDUCTION, with the necessary ingredient that is PLEASING.
Pain is not a part of amusement and Seduction, but this can be a bit tricky, because surely there are those who seek pleasure through pain.
Etymology of Pain (n.)
late 13c., peine, “the agony suffered by Christ;” c. 1300, “punishment,” especially for a crime, “legal punishment of any sort” (including fines and monetary penalties); also “condition one feels when hurt, opposite of pleasure,” including mental or emotional suffering, grief, distress; from Old French peine “difficulty, woe, suffering, punishment, Hell's torments” (11c.), from Latin poena “punishment, penalty, retribution, indemnification” (in Late Latin also “torment, hardship, suffering”), from Greek poinē “retribution, penalty, quit-money for spilled blood,” from PIE *kwei- “to pay, atone, compensate” (see penal).
The early “punishment” sense in English survives in phrase on pain of death. Also c. 1300 the word was used for the torments of eternal damnation after death. The sense of “exertion, effort” is from late 14c.; pains “great care taken (for some purpose), exertion or trouble taken in doing something” is recorded from 1520s.
Etymology of Pleasure (n.)
late 14c., plesire, “source of enjoyment, pleasing quality or thing, that which pleases or gratifies the senses or the mind,” from Old French plesir, also plaisir “enjoyment, delight, desire, will” (12c.), from noun use of infinitive plaisir (v.) “to please,” from Latin placere “to please, give pleasure, be approved” (see please (v.)).
Also from late 14c. as “discretion, will, desire, preference,” as in at (one's) pleasure “when one wishes.” From mid-15c. as “gratification; feeling of enjoyment, liking.” The meaning “sensual gratification” is from early 15c. That of “indulgence of the appetites as the chief object of life” is attested from 1520s. The ending was altered in Middle English by influence of words in -ure (measure, etc.).
Are either of the two of these terms accurate and detailed enough for my actual use?
For me the answer is… Not so much.
Here is why.
The Kinetics, the motion of the emotions in which I put forth, does not have “joy” as a base emotion. I locate JOY in and around ONLY that of PRIDE, which is not a base emotion.
“Enjoyment” or that of being “amused” and/or that of “Entertainment” comes in as the last Kinetics. To be amused or entertained is emotional. It needs to be etched or stated that I do not have knowledge a posteriori, or following, in essence, experience, observation, investigation, or examination, of the notion of “delight” and “pleasure”.
I do not know what it is to be pleased. I do not know what it is to be delighted. My “machine”, my body does not have the chemical makeup to where these terms match anything correlated to it. I know what it is to be “expressed”, and when “expressed” up and out of my nature, surely then, this ought to be called pleasing, versus displeasing.
However though, in my expression, there could be called that which is “pain” but too, I am not sure what this means other than when something contrary to the well-being of the flesh tries to come against it and inflict what then signals error. I grasp this material sense of pain. That fleshly response to an error that demands the halting of an action or reaction. But, mentally, I have never known, or had a MENTAL PAIN. I have not had something comparable to the errors of the flesh, the form. And because the term seems related, and perhaps an “anguish” can factor in… I do not have this as an experience.
I HAVE NEVER HAD A PAINFUL THOUGHT. Nothing has ever PAINED me to do, to think, to consider. I have no experience in this; yet I have heard human language speak of this PAIN and suffering much. I have never in my own mind experienced SUFFERING, yet had the bulk of you ever come to know of the past experiences I have had, you would presume, then, I must have suffered to some extent.
Because I have had experiences others would certainly have suffered under, yet I did not, it has led me to the presumption, if not the hypothesis, that the one in the condition is more the factor than the condition itself. That I was equipped to see and/or to conceive of the conditions based on my nature, and that nature differed so much as to “translate” the conditions in another “way”.
I have a fixed mind of VICTORY, and a fixed emotional body of TRIUMPH. These do not permit me to suffer, and it can be said, they were my chemical arrangement, not to be mistaken as some gain, or conditional conclusion. I was born without a sense of suffering, as too, born without a “degreed” sense of fear or insecurity.
Sure, they must exist as emotions in me to some degree, to which I do not deny. But the degree in which they must exist certainly is not the degree whereby they “play” a role upon my mind and my decision making process. I do not make decisions based on any level of fear and insecurity. I do not make decisions based on anxiety, on concern, on doubt, on DEFEAT.
So in this expounding, it must be then clear that where I can not lock down these terms pain and pleasure, perhaps it is because they are strongly limited to what could be experienced, and translated. To this, then, I can say based on observation that what others will often refer to as painful, I have observed most of you will take some form of pleasure in.
If pain is ERROR, which it would imply to me it is, I could never take a “pleasure” or a “joy” from it or in it. My joy is ONLY connected to success, and that of an error free direction. I receive joy through conquest of accuracy, Validity, and Virtue, and no other way. I do not have guilty pleasures, and/or some “slight delight” whereby I could call anything ORDINARY pleasurable.
I do not know what it is to be pleased, and therefore, I think this is why too, I do not know what it is like to be displeased. These notions are foreign to my nature. They are not notions that I developed some Wisdom around the Control and the Management of. Because of this, the pain and pleasure element in which others may so easily speak on―to which with ease mental midgets may so speak on anything―is but something, I must say, is yet to be usable to me in my own formulations.
To be amused, and/or to be entertained, for humans coming in in the sixth Kinetics, is all about the previous Kinetics that make a human what it is. And those previous Kinetics have humans in an anxious pain, perhaps in all of their association to any of the other emotions.
When fear and insecurity are at the foundation, pleasure, and what seems as pleasure, in the human sense, to me, is that of RELIEF from pain. That pain is almost implied as default. That pain is not a thing of its own, but perhaps a genus, or general form that begs the need for identification of the species.
I do this identification through the Kinetics. From insecurity and fear, I observe in you humans anxious concerns. From the impotence and ineptitude, human Control and Management is too low to meet these concerns and/or delusion common to humans, having them concerned with perhaps that which they have no Control over.
From this anxiety and concern comes their disgust when they are inept, and incapable of relief. Relief is the aim. Provide me with RELIEF is the root of human enslavement of others. “Serve me through distraction and relief.” “Divert my attention from these concerns, and to which I call all diversions pleasure.” This, so far, is how I see the human sense of pleasure.
From their disgust comes, when sustained, despair. Too this is grief, is anguish, is doubt, and where low self-esteem dwells. From here, the human demands “shake me from this sense of myself, and through my despairing ignorance, surprise me”. It is with chaos that one surprises, and less than surprise as the emotion is the kind of surprise which is “rock me through diversion”. One is surprised when in despair, this way.
And then when diversion, distraction, and disruption occur, there is this sense of RELIEF, and often, relieved to be ignorant, to be powerless, to be confused and inept, for then, the demands for performance are massively reduced. I do not observe that pleasure, like pain, is a thing of its own, but rather the genus in demand of species identification. Perhaps because most terms and symbols are merely in general form, till you then specify with other superadded terms of clarification. Genus of speech and thought, and species of speech and thought. This is very important.
Etymology of grief (n.)
early 13c., “hardship, suffering, pain, bodily affliction,” from Old French grief “wrong, grievance, injustice, misfortune, calamity” (13c.), from grever “afflict, burden, oppress,” from Latin gravare “make heavy; cause grief,” from gravis “weighty” (from PIE root *gwere- (1) “heavy”). Meaning “mental pain, sorrow” is from c. 1300. Good grief as an exclamation of surprise, dismay, etc., is from 1912.
Because this term will highlight there is a “hardship”, I can grasp that as a possible cause of “pain”―though yet I know this not. I had a life of “hardship”; however, only relative that others have described it that way. I did not know it was “hardship”, and this may be because I did not feel something “oppressive” about it. To this day, I am not sure my own youth was “hardship”, but in a sense, I would call it a challenge to be me, that I easily met with success. Was it “hard”? I do not know, because what is certain is that I was naturally hardened, and therefore, by comparison, I am and was “harder” than the condition. Therefore, I happened to it far more than it happened to me.
“Wrong” or “error” is easy for me to identify. So many things are “wrong” and born out of “error”. But how one reacts to the error, the wrong, is the key to “grief”. “Grief” is when the “error”, the “wrong” or the “feelings” around it become an impediment, bringing about the feelings of “repression” and “oppression”. This, I can truly say I have observed, and can understand. To then say that repression and/or oppression incur grief, and to say grief is a sort of, a species of pain, I can say… Yes, I have observed the grief of others, brought about by impediments, struggles, hardship, and repressive and oppressive forces.
For if I could not say, think, and align with this, I would not, and could not have a sense of JUSTICE. For such a sense is born out of the sense of INJUSTICE. Yet grief can easily be induced, even in what could be said were “favorable conditions”. One can be prone to grief from an internal mechanism, from PROCLIVITY. To where even if CONDITIONS be solely favorable and advantageous, they can have grief and in projection of it. Pain is less about that of the condition, and more about the character and their inner state than the outer state.
BURDEN, that of a “heavy load” and perhaps more than one can bear, too, this I can grasp. Certainly I am against others rendering onto me their BURDEN. I see burden as mostly surrounded by error. A MENTAL BURDEN to me is no more sensible than that of the vagueness of pain, minus error of the flesh.
A mental pain where yes, such grief of condition could be considered, becomes then often rendered as a sorrow.
It is to this realm that the Kinetics of DESPAIR is in reference to. It is the grief, the sorrow, the burdens that most are seeking a relief from.
Seduction under the delusion of care
Seduction, as this form of AMUSEMENT that sure, can be equated to Entertainment, requires the participants in it, the marks of it, and the cons of it to be in states of DESPAIR.
If you are being SEDUCED by any, and/or you have said you have been, and you negatively equate it… Here is the question…
Why did you NEED, and/or WANT to be SEDUCED?
No one can be seduced who is not in want or need of it.
But there is a deeper issue here that confuses this question for most: the notion of a VICTIM, which more often than not has the DEFERENCE afforded to them, of not being required to demonstrate that of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
“They are the victim here.”
“Do not blame the victim.”
“They were under the spell here.”
“Such and such was controlling them.”
“They did not know what they were doing.”
The mark is always presumed to be the victim, presumed to be innocent, and the chaser, the marker, is presumed nefarious. This is all absurd.
Seduction is not the same thing as running a con, as an art, in such that there is a science, and there is an art to it. A sense that Seduction has a science and an art is absurd, and only one trying to market their position and sell their position would assert such, as if they have found this mysterious code, and hereto present it for you to wield.
Etymology of Victim (n.)
late 15c., “living creature killed and offered as a sacrifice to a deity or supernatural power, or in the performance of a religious rite;” from Latin victima “sacrificial animal; person or animal killed as a sacrifice,” a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps related to vicis “turn, occasion” (as in vicarious), if the notion is an “exchange” with the gods. Perhaps distantly connected to Old English wig “idol,” Gothic weihs “holy,” German weihen “consecrate” (compare Weihnachten “Christmas”) on notion of “a consecrated animal.”
Sense of “person who is hurt, tortured, or killed by another” is recorded from 1650s; meaning “person oppressed by some power or situation, person ruined or greatly injured or made to suffer in the pursuit of an object, or for the gratification of a passion or infatuation, or from disease or disaster” is from 1718. Weaker sense of “person taken advantage of, one who is cheated or duped” is recorded from 1781.
SACRIFICAL ANIMAL. Remember sacrifice here. Sacrifice is the key to all of this. When you are made to SACRIFICE, you are the VICTIM, but when you NEED or you WANT to be made to SACRIFICE and get others to SACRIFICE, you NOR them are VICTIMS, but you are MUTUAL COMBATANTS. When one of you loses more than the other… You are called the VICTIM.
But you, the one who lost the most, are not the victim; you are the DEFEATED, you are the LOSER. Seduction does not have victims because of the Seduction. However, Seduction requires that both parties are in and of themselves the DEFEATED.
You can not seduce a Champion; you can only seduce, and be seduced by a chump, because only chumps “entertain” amusement, diversion, delusions, and petty emotions of fear, of insecurity, of anxious concern, of disgust, of despair, and the servitude to excite through ignorance, surprise… as a means of amusement.
This is the path of chumps, and Seduction, ALL OF IT, is the way of CHUMPS.
This too is why in the history of that defined as Seduction, it was often seen as the way human females played at so-called power. So-called POWER should not be called such. It should be called CONTROL. Power means a potent ability, and it does not mean, like these mental midgets assert, that status of Control and Influence over the lives of others. That is not power; that is a kind of Control.
Those who DO NOT want you to have potent abilities are those who give you a foul sense of these terms, forbidding a healthy relationship. Seduction is not healthy.
Seduction is not healthy, because Seduction requires that the WEAKNESS and the VULNERABILITY of the other gets worked upon and shared in. It reinforces what is already in ineptitude and inadequacy. Reinforces; does not stir, beget, or bring about what is not already there.
Therefore, one's mark must be WANTING, and NEEDING to be SEDUCED.
That Seduction is historically tied to “feminine” ways of Control and Influence, a human male that is using it is then called effeminate, just as politics relies on Seduction, and politicians are rarely fighting forces, males or females, but more often than not are effeminates themselves. Politics is polite warfare, is cowardly warfare that relies on Seduction at face value, and coercion and/or actual cowardly force as the bones that hold it all together, or perhaps the muscles that swing the bludgeon.
Politics is for COWARDS, and when COWARDS too need to fight back, they are convinced to fight back with politics instead of the honest forms of self-defense, that of bashing your enemy and oppressor to bits. From the mommies come politics and Seduction as the tools of Control and Influence. Those who are mommy stamped will suffer when they play this way. Those mommies who made their boys more effeminate, and able to be like them, will succeed in these arenas more than the other boys with an ounce of “masculine energy”. The effeminate mommy stamped boys will become the rulers of others who will do force on their behalf.
The force of dumb energetic male brutes, thinking Mommy mirrored innocence in their youthful stupidity.
An affirmative force that is under oppression and being sacrificed would act as a barbarian to fix their problems, a Noble barbarian, and smack the shamans in the face with their axe, not debate and negotiate with them asking they stop their subjugation and oppression; this, all of this is simply UNINTELLIGENT. “Dear oppressor, can you please choose to stop oppressing me, for certainly, I would like that, and be thankful.”
Seduction is for effeminates, because Seduction relies upon the parties negotiating around anxious concern, otherwise known as CARE. Only, it's not a negotiation. The effeminate who has the most Control in the situation instigates in the marker, and/or the marked, the need to CARE for the marked and/or the marker.
You can tell when someone who writes or speaks about Seduction is just an echo chamber, because nowhere in what they say, will this primary play and amusement be found and spoken of. It will not be revealed, not because of the conspiracy to withhold. It will be absent because the writer, the speaker, and presenter is a SUBJECT who has been seduced by Seduction, and they have no idea what it is and what its mechanics are. This is why I say, Seduction is neither a SCIENCE nor is it an ART, and that is proven in that its core ingredients are not accounted for. A science is a KNOWING, and absent the ESSENCE of a thing defined, there is no EVIDENCE of a KNOWING. Absent a KNOWING, and there is then no informed application.
The primary ingredient of seduction is CARE, which means that anxiety and concern must be present. When one is the marker, they are also the mark, and there is confusion here. A marker who is marked by the receiver is able to be identified, because the receiver NEEDS, and/or WANTS someone to GIVE them ATTENTION and their CONCERN, or CARE. The one who would then think they are the marker needs to pay for the receiver's attention through showing you care.
SHE needs to see that you CARE.
YOU must show her that you CARE.
I need to know that you CARE.
But you do not seem to CARE.
You all have been lied to your whole lives, if you think Seduction is something else other than the play of CARE, other than the DIVERSION of CARE, the DELUSION of CARE, the DISTRACTION of CARE, and the RELIEF of CARE.
It is promoted as a feminine superpower that human females are the caring sex, and this can not mean the PROVIDING sense. If care was about “taking care” of something, that is, PROVIDING for that something, would not in ACTION the servile human males be the most CARING?
Why is it, the sex that gets the most credit for being CARING is not the sex that is doing all the work to TAKE CARE of the CONDITION in which so many benefit from?
Why is it that the human sacrificial servile males, hard at work, are not caring for being servile and sacrificial. What then are they?
They are called PROVIDERS, not CARERS. Then what in the world is someone who cares, and how did this become exalted? A human female does not show her care through Provision, nor Protection. She shows her care by expressing anxiously her concern. That concern can be about anything, but often has to do with feeling that of safe and secure, and not from that of physical threats, to which would certainly be valid if they were present. But in the US, among the population I observe the most now, she, the human female, does not often have physical threats.
Contrary to the propaganda from softies, physical abuse to human females is not common. It certainly occurs, and when it does occur, it is uncommon for it to be from a stranger. It is more often than not a familiar that is harming a human female, and contrary to public opinion, it is not often that that particular human female is healthy, and has a quality character. Among the population, trash beat each other. The key here is BEAT EACH OTHER.
Studies, the only thing you can go off of to say informed, show that the same amount, if not more human females beat on human males. Frequency is not one-sided, as many think it is. Reporting is often one-sided, as is damage. Meaning, when a human male beats on a human female, they are likely to produce more damage than that of what a human female does, and can do to them, as human males.
Trash humans go back and forth beating on each other, and it can not be said that a human female in an abusive relationship is a strong and healthy human female, nor can it be said that a human male who beats on a human female, or any of their familiars is strong and healthy. These are behaviors of trashy humans. These are behaviors of SICK humans. One can not say that beating on each other is male nor female; it is simply not common, but where it may be more common is among the uncommon, or perhaps less visible trashy humans.
Make no mistake, when you label a human female a VICTIM of abuse, for the most part, you are absolving her of more than likely a past of her own, where she has inflicted harm and abuse towards a human male. Only you, the mental midgets of care, believe the human male is allowed to be hit, psychologically tormented, and abused and must take it in silence.
For this is the fate of a real victim, to be sacrificial, and to which there is no system that is concerned with the abuse of males anywhere. Not in the workforces, not in homes, and not in their roles as so-called Providers, which in domestic US means they are servants. They will themselves in this direction, and they would not wish themselves to be free. And neither do the females who often find themselves with this malcontent chump who beats on her. That female often too would fight against being liberated, and keep her concern cycle going by being around that which is easiest to make her care: her broken malcontent servile male.
Physical violence on average is not occurring towards human females in domestic orders such as the US. I do not, when I speak of humans, speak about any who are closer to primal orders around the world. I am speaking to the overly domesticated societies, with their sick Control mechanics.
In the US society, if a human female is getting beaten on, and sticking with it, then the sickness and the error goes way beyond the result of her being continuously beaten on―and make no mistake, those who were supposed to be her “guardians”, her “Providers”, and her “Protectors” failed in the three Duties, and did not prepare that offspring for self-reliance and personal responsibility.
This blaming of others for one's conditions is DEFERENCE. This argument on the grounds of IGNORANCE and being ill-prepared is about DEFERENCE. “I do not know”, and “I did not know” are excuses, but excuses are for COWARDS. For often those with these excuses do not come to the known. They do not get in the known, but they stay in ignorance using it continuously as an excuse.
Seduction, like all ineptitude, is anti personal responsibility, and this is because it is feminine, and in the US domestic social order of ineptitude, human females are not treated as intelligent agents that make decisions for themselves, and play a role in their existence. They are treated like, and therefore, act like children who have no clue to what is going on or why. They act like―and it is an act―passive little bunnies that everything happens to, and none of what happens is their responsibility, but it is others'.
This theme, as a CORE theme, moves to take over an entire social order, when one simple thing occurs. That simple thing is the absence of REAL, of authentic, of clear affirmative forces of threats that would need to be met with lethality and Vigilance. When a society has these threats removed, its populace becomes sallies, and make no mistake, US social order, the bulk of you, even your so-called elite fighters, are a bunch of sallies.
Because you are a bunch of sallies with no OUTWARD enemy, I observe in all you all do that you treat your so-called OWN as ENEMIES. I have never met a single male in the US social order that did not behave as if I was his ENEMY since that of my youth in Brooklyn, where allies existed because of real threats.
Before moving on, I will share this story. Locally, in Ashland Oregon, I have had one physical altercation in the years I have been here. A crazy 6’4 fella was threatening to kill people, in a parking lot of the local Shop'n Kart. Some effeminates reported it to the store managers in my presence, and as females they had no sense of what they ought to do, not even as agents of the states did they even wish to call the police. They were scrambling like ignorant children, and none among them were men.
In the olden days, the ones that were still around for me in Brooklyn, there would have been no shortage of “men” who would go out together, knowing each other or not, and correct this problem. Some cultures have this more than others. In 2006, in San Luis Obispo, this Latin fella and I saw a predator in a crowd following a child holding back his hand which he had out like a claw. At first, it looked like it may be an uncle, but him and I at an instant could read the male's posture and physical traits and see he was a sickly kind.
We looked at each other for merely a second, and this Latin fella and myself swarmed this sickling. We cornered him, and we held him while another male went to get security. Security could not demand ID, but I could, and did. My point is that the language myself and this Latin fella spoke to each other was ANCIENT and UNIVERSAL. We were two males who were alike in perhaps the obvious ROBUST frames we had, with a high chance he served in the military, and we held that in common, yet NONE of this needed to be spoken. We were “MEN” and “MEN” do not allow sick creatures to prey upon the herd.
I could care less about the herd itself, but never could it be said, I could care less about the presence of an infectious kind. I am not CONCERNED; I am Duty bound to FIGHT injustice, and no anxiety or concern is needed when I do. And never, ever, do I think of what harm could occur to me, for standing up to injustice. Neither did this Latin male. We were following a LAW that supersedes legal, and truth be told, if we could get away with it, we probably would have old-schooled this creeper, preventing future problems.
But we would not be able to get away with it, because this effeminate sally system protects predators, because it is run by predators. He is their “son”, and some “mommy” sick like him is likely the politician and enforcement in the area.
Security that day did not report this man, and we had to release him. I would know they did not report him, because days later, an old lady was killed by the creek, and no, he was not the perp, but on account of my profiling of his anxiety, and his “holding himself back” gestures, I had to follow up with the local police department of San Luis Obispo and see if his identity was reported and the event reported. I am a profiler, reader, and do not forget that. And whether needed or not, I am obligated to ensure that if I detect some error in justice, I have to act on it.
PD said no report was given. I was asked to give a sketch, to which I did, and though I am an artist, it was not a good sketch, but it captured enough features for the detective to come back with his picture―come back with his picture fast. He was being watched, was a sex offender, and reports had been in that he was moving around the schools, stalking.
A Man would think to say, give me his address. Now, you sallies could not understand this. You do not believe in violence solving anything, as you live in a castle that has guards, kings, and combat servants doing violence in your name every day, just not as much in front of you. You sallies are delusional. There are threats, there are enemies, when you are not permitted to act on them for justice, you all turn on each other. While saying violence is wrong, you all care for each other, with psychological violence. You all torment each other, with your sally ways.
Am I afraid to admit that I have no problem with killing, in the name of JUSTICE?
NO. I have no issue with KILLING, but I certainly have issues with MURDER. And sometimes this is a thin line. Sanctioned versus unsanctioned is always the question here, but they are not the same as justice versus injustice. This is not the way justice is determined, and what could be said about the American form of justice is that it barely, if anything, exists, and the exercise of force by the state is often far more unjust than the so-called threats they presume to be fighting.
That is why they fight around contraband more than anything. They can not fight around actual injustice, and having been raised in Brooklyn in the 80s and 90s, make no mistake, I was in a “war zone” where the police were a part of the problem, not the solution; where the so-called justice system, designed for sallies and by sallies, made use of “criminals” for seeking justice, and defense in a hostile realm. Criminals did not and never have cared about laws. And when you live in a place where the law forbids self-defense and self-reliance, you too join them as criminals.
Legal systems need criminals, and where they would naturally be destroyed by “MEN”, the legal system needs to restrain you and forbid your response. It needs to criminalize self-defense and “vigilantism”. Make no mistake, in the WAY of the VIR, all VIR are by nature Vigilantes, and in no way is this slander, or pejorative. But because of the massive gang called government, it is not wise to interfere in areas where you would become the greater criminal. So here we are, this Latin fella and myself naturally knowing what the fate of this predator ought to be, yet we are restrained by the law, who itself sallied up, was massively restrained.
You all learn of the La Cosa Nostra as this nefarious Italian thing that plagued cities with crime. This is what you all think, from far away. My sense is different. My primary sense is that “that thing of theirs” was a thing that often served JUSTICE far more than the costumed puppets of sallies, who declared a monopoly on the use of force. Justice, in the places I lived, was served by so-called CRIMINALS, that the STATE themselves opposed. How dare you go to a local leader, and ask them to take action on your behalf. No, a criminal must be taken to THEATER called court, because it is the COURTS that “make us” not liken to the “Barbarians”.
Barbarian is not pejorative to me. I am a Barbarian. I am a Nomad. I am a Vigilante, but I am not a fool, and therefore, I do not have some call to justice, whereby every injustice I would see demands an action from me.
Back to Ashland and the crazy man. He happened to be in my path as I was leaving, and I uttered to him, “go find a place to cool down”, to which, in crazy man fashion, he said “fuck you, you nigger, I will kill you”.
Yes, I know… seems odd he would call me a nigger to most of you, because I have pale complexion. But this word is not used based on color, as much as it's this central term for the mentally disturbed that carries the most venom to be said in their minds. They call “white” kinds this often, because they are crazy.
If not that this truly occurs often for others to see, certainly, perhaps because of my accent or something, crazy chumps call me a nigger all the time, often in the most odd of ways. The running joke among my black fellas is, “how in the hell do they somehow know?”, to which after a few laughs I say… “I ain't no nigger, and neither are you.” That is not what we are, and we ought not call ourselves by what the enemy has so conditioned.
The cop was surprised when I said, he called me a nigger, and not that he called me as much as I am not the chump who says n-word. Yes, it's chump to be forbidden and to adhere to the forbiddance of a term. I would never call someone a nigger, nor a nigga; it's the word used by an enemy, and I am not the enemy of someone on account of the color of their skin, or region of origination. I also do not use that word with the sense of some privilege because my biological paternal line was “Black American”, and I was raised “Black American”. I say words, and I do not cloak them giving them more power than is needed. When a Brotha or a Sista uses the word nigga towards another Brotha or Sista, they are using the designator of an enemy, and therefore, they are not treating the target with a term of endearment, this is absurd. They are treating the target of the term as an enemy. And this will be revealed in what else that individual does with them.
This, too, is why I bridge this point. ENEMIES is how you all behave. When I was young, my black fellas tried to get me to accept this notion of nigga versus nigger, that I was their nigga, so it's good. But my black folk, the older ones who mentored me in life, would say “ain't no niggas in here” but perhaps “you”. If you plan to be a “nigga”, you need “to get gone”.
Most of you will have no sense, no knowledge of the generational fight that once existed with the use of that enemy term, who declared it is not to be treated as a term of endearment. It's the enemy's term for you. Stop using it. But you sallies, and the shamans who run academia and media, promoted it among the so-called “blacks” the most scarred. They promoted the blacks who would easily say nigga this and nigga that. They promoted the ones that would breed in music, in media, and other forms of produced culture, the black male against the black male. My nigga one day becomes my target the next day in a shooting.
You want to know the answer to “Who taught you to hate yourself?”, a question asked by Malcolm... Black folk who fell for this enemy trap helped the enemy teach you to hate yourself, with the use of this term claimed to be altered. Those who use it in any way, other than mere reference, are the enemy. It does not matter what the color of their skin is. A white saying it to harm, or a black saying it to act as if to embrace. Neither is more authentic than the other. The harm is one move towards the enemy. The embrace has two moves towards the enemy. You my nigga gets you close. And then when close, you get treated like “their nigga”, which is their enemy.
Do not get it mistaken. America was fortunate that I was born with pale skin, because had I been born the way nature would often have it, darker than Malcolm, I would have been a force upon this society that none had yet to see. I would have been Malcolm where he left off, and I would have shaken this shit to the core. The elder black folk around me, many, Black Muslims, would say I was proof that Allah had a sense of humor, or “the gods must be crazy”, because they incarnated Malcolm into a little white boy. So you do not like me writing the word nigga or nigger, then too bad.
Any attempt to forbid me from the use of this term is at the same time an attempt to remove from me my own history and culture. I was no visitor to so-called “Black America” in Brooklyn. I was no guest. I was born to that “world”, and I had to “struggle” through its ways. And nothing is more worse than when a certain controlling kind forbids you from speech about your culture, and expoundings on it. Nothing is worse than censorship for that very reason. You forbid my use of a word, because what I would have to say would shake the foundation of your delusions. You will not strip me of my past, and the impact it had on stimulating my sense of the present and the future. You will not take away MY history, and claim you do so on account of the color of my skin not be suited in your ignorance to the conversation.
This crazy man called me the thing that you call your greatest enemy. I was not confused by it. That is the point. But when he threatened to kill me, it was, well, “on like Donkey Kong”.
To shorten this a bit, the crazed male pulled pepper spray at me, and tried to get at me, to which he failed. He caught a hook that was offered in a “gentle form”. I am not allowed to punch people in the street with a sound technique. That is highly unlikely to ever occur. When I hook folk who are wearing helmets and protective gear, I can get them to stargaze, and this is not difficult for even an average puncher. But because I can does not mean I should.
A punch, to me, is not used to DESTROY a target in the street, not in my adult life. When I was a youth, always fighting those bigger and stronger than me, it was the investigative aim. One hit wonders were an aim. But this crazed fella, though I was his enemy―do not get it mistaken, he was not my enemy―was nothing to me but a crazed and broken machine.
He was an error in the matrix, and I had nothing to feel towards him.
The hook was delivered to wake him up out of his error. It spun him, or I spun him, this I can not recall, and I took him to the ground. When I took him to the ground, I did so with the way in which I had taken hundreds of at risk youth to the ground, when I used to work with them at a detention facility. Never did I put my hands on a youth―and these were tough and bouted youths―with the aim to hurt them. I initiate a takedown, I am prepared to get hurt if that means preserving the well-being of who is now in my custody. This was no different for the crazed fella. Hands on means in my custody, and when that is the case, it will be with his safety and well-being in mind.
When you are anxious, and you are insecure and with fear, you will cause more harm. This is why it is important for schools of combat sports to work on this at first. I have had black belts on top of me, while I am intentionally giving low resistance, skirt around me, kneeing me in the face with their anxiety, on accident, with no respect, just jolting around my body as if I do not exist. This is not uncommon. This is anx, from the insecure and the afraid, who needs to physically show force against others to cloak their insecurities.
When I had this crazed man down, I had him face down at first, with his arm pinned against his body. But he had crazed “retarded” strength, and on this account, he began to pull his arm away, and for me to hold it any longer would result in a break. It would in the end seem as if I broke his arm. Fortunately, I was no stranger to this, and so he got that arm, and he was able to turn to his back, but he did not have the stamina to contend with me at side mount. So he died down. The police asked me if I struck him when he was on the ground, and to me it caught me off guard, as in, “what, no, skilled means I did not need to”. But this police did not know me, or of me. Emotions are at the heart of physical confrontations they arrive at. To meet one who was not emotional about the incident was odd for them. My disposition was chill, even humorous. I did not appear like someone just sprayed with mace, and having just restrained a wacko.
Moral of the story, I did not even treat him as an enemy, and the reason why is because he was crazed, and more so, even though he was older than me, he was a broken child. I could also say that when he was on the ground, he did not even feel like I was a danger to him, and the witnesses accounted to the police that calming the fella down was what I was doing, and not hurting him.
I was found to be in the right, which to me, however, was a wake up call. A weasel officer was there, whom I had seen before, who had punk bitch written all over him. Shorter than the other guys, and rumor has it, having been picked on when in high school, I saw him arguing for a short moment with the four other officers that I was in the wrong. To which those officers with a collection of witness testimonies, having interacted with me, and from what the crazy guy even said, all concluded that, that could not make sense. I saw you chump trying to work against me, because I make you feel insecure. But this means too that if that was a pack of chumps, which it was not, that I could have been the criminal there.
That situation taught me what it did not mean to. I need to leave the herd to the slaughter. I can not take up the Duty of Justice among them, because they are indeed behaving like I am their enemy, and he who takes action against wrong is putting themselves at risk, when the ones who have a monopoly on force are characterized as vicious and wrong. Plus, to all the hippy bitch faces that passed me in the lot, refusing to even call the police, I was the evil, because among the two of us, me and the crazed, I had the potent ability, the POWER. I was in Control, calm, calculated, and just yet, I am the sign of evil in this world.
Know how the enemy sees you, and stay out of their targeting reticle.
Because of fear, of insecurity, and the anxiety it produces towards, or manifested as concern, all things are seen as threats. But the loudest of threats is what is bold and beautiful. Care, the product of these things, is EVIL. It is evil because with it, one is TIMID. Valuing in health is not what care means, nor is it manifested this way in practice. If things were healthy, strong, and beautiful, would there be care?
No, you only take CONCERN with what ought to be thought of, as in need of it. But what about that which does not need your care. That which does not need your care is marked to come serve your need to be CARED FOR, and the greatest way a female controls a male is by rendering herself in need of care. And the only way she can do that is by remaining a child in need of deference for ignorance, absence of skill and competency, and in this state, she becomes VULNERABLE to the exploits of others, and do not get it mistaken, she loves being the VICTIM, because it means she was the CARING force in the life of another, and did her part, but they, not her, were nefarious and wrong in their doing.
What does she need and want? She wants her mark to care about her. She wants her mark to give her ATTENTION, and make her feel like that of Disney special. She needs her mark to care, and she is the model in which the Society Advanced by the Majority is based on, and that society is why here I am, the Last of the Mohicans, the Last of the Barbarians, perhaps the only one of my Kind anywhere near, having to face off with a crazy, because everyone else is CARING.
They make fun of the title Karen these days, but I wish they would take it further, and see just what the issue is. It's Caren. That is caring. All of these caring dopes moving in and out of the store were inept, incompetent, and incapable. Not a single “MAN” has passed this crazed fella, entered and left that store. ONLY CARING little CHUMPS, and with this CARE, you have the ultimate forms of OPPRESSION.
In fact, perhaps the police thought my handling of the crazed was with care, and because of this, I got a pass. But it was not care; it was restraint. Restraint because of analysis. The subject was not beyond my ability to safely control. This was presumed, and such a presumption can be very dangerous, which is why in REASON, threats should be handled with one remedy, and that is complete REMOVAL with your best tools. I had a firearm on me, concealed lawfully and legally. Soon as he pulled out the spray and charged me, I would be within my right to melt him with the firearm. But should I?
To me the answer is NO. The less skilled and trained you are, the more lethal you need to be. And though it would be within your right, it does not necessarily mean it would have been right. My sidearm was never even an option for this situation. However, that too would be another lesson for me. If I am carrying, which I always shall be, then I will also need to NOT INTERFERE. This is what that situation taught me. I had a split second to determine was he drawing a knife, when his hands went in his pockets. If it was a knife, I would have had to start backing up to gain distance, draw the sidearm, and adjudicate. Knowing this, I still was set on, do not draw the sidearm. I knew within the split seconds before me, “yeah, you might be getting cut, dumb ass. Should have been on your way. It's their problem, not yours.”
And that voice in my head is correct. One, none of them are worth me having a domestic body on me. None of them are worth me becoming with the reputation of the man who shot someone in the parking lot, in this small town. None of them are worth me getting slashed, and then me breaking his arm for doing so. None of them are worth any of the outcomes that could have occurred if he drew a blade.
On amusement
Seduction, as said, belongs best to the category of amusement. Though I shall keep Entertainment and enjoyment as the 6th Kinetics, and not what most would think is “pleasure”, I am open to a change to “amusement”.
I will now consider this before moving on, as this is an essential element to “grasp” what is occurring in “seductive” situations, or those mere “amusing” situations that pass as “seductive”, though may fall short.
Entertain has the essence of to “keep up”, “maintain”, “to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind”.
To amuse, however, differs, as was covered earlier.
Etymology of Amuse (v.)
late 15c., “to divert the attention, beguile, delude,” from Old French amuser “fool, tease, hoax, entrap; make fun of,” literally “cause to muse” (as a distraction), from a “at, to” (from Latin ad, but here probably a causal prefix) + muser “ponder, stare fixedly” (see muse (v.)).
Original English senses obsolete; meaning “divert from serious business, tickle the fancy of” is recorded from 1630s, but through 18c. the primary meaning was “deceive, cheat” by first occupying the attention. “The word was not in reg. use bef. 1600, and was not used by Shakespere” [OED]. Bemuse retains more of the original meaning. Greek amousos meant “without Muses,” hence “uneducated.”
When I am here using this term “amuse”, the latter addition of that of “deceive and cheat” is not that essence which I am calling upon. My sense of the term is for in alignment with the earlier essence expressed.
Etymology of Muse (v.)
“to reflect, ponder, meditate; to be absorbed in thought,” mid-14c., from Old French muser (12c.) “to ponder, dream, wonder; loiter, waste time,” which is of uncertain origin; the explanation in Diez and Skeat is literally “to stand with one's nose in the air” (or, possibly, “to sniff about” like a dog who has lost the scent), from muse “muzzle,” from Gallo-Roman *musa “snout,” itself a word of unknown origin. The modern word probably has been influenced in sense by muse (n.). Related: Mused; musing.
Here too, it is the older essence of “to ponder”, “to reflect”, “to be absorbed in thought”, “to contemplate” and/or “to meditate”. Now, to dream, wonder, loiter, waste time is an interesting factor that will be relative to the observer's sense of it all. Remember this, as I shall return to it later.
Amusement, and that of to amuse, is to distract one from all of this. The case of “one's serious business” is the way in which I am using both of these terms; not the “wonder”, the “dreamer”, or the artist sense.
The way I am using muse and amuse, then, is in the character of one who is focused, and directed towards something, not someone, thus business and objective, versus relational instead, as another who comes to “amuse” in that they come to “distract” them from their “focus” to “shift their gaze” upon something else, often more than not, that which would only be relational and with the likely essence of some mediocrity.
In the human female and male sense, consider this variable. A male who has something, like business, that they are “mused” by, or in, whereby they direct their attention, afford great attention, and in such, often do well and/or appear successful, has on the the outside an increased AVEnue, or that is Access Value Engagement, not to be mistaken as synonymous with sexual marketplace value, a very limited sense of value. His AVE, or Access Value Engagement will be high, on account that such a “fixed stir” and “focus” is desired by those most insecure and fearful.
The higher the insecurity of an individual, the more in demand of attention they shall be. The more desirous and in demand of attention, the higher the targeting of others who have the appearance of a lot of attention and direction to give.
For a human female, then, a male with a purpose, giving it attention shows a VALUE to her, that she must then “DISTRACT” or “amuse” from its original course, in order to DIRECT towards her, and what would become her OFFSPRING.
This, then, is why human females will trouble their servile chump males with the demand that they give the family as much attention as they give their work. The work and the amount of energy spent earning and in business will not count as a VALUE in the long term. The selection of a human male because of their industry is only because of the attention and energy needed to be industrious, but the human female will not find it of value if and only if it maintains the same course. That attention and energy is there for the “taking”, and it is to be shifted towards her and her offspring for it to be of true value, even if this means suffering ensues when shamed for not spending time, and wasteful, as it is for a human male, energy towards the relational component of a family, to which is a female thing.
Business is not relational, or at least, it was not designed to be. However, in this modern US civilization―the collective that is around me, but to which I am not a member of―relational Management and Control is permeating all parts of life, and the human females have amused the system, directing its attention and energy away from “objectives” systems, innovations, and any semblance of Reason, instead making all things bow to social attention, and meeting the relational needs of the applicants.
This leads only to insecurity, to fear, to anxiety, and that of the suppression, repression or muting of individual traits. Relatability is destruction. It requires the individual be sacrificed at the alter of love, and the collective be the primary, with all being conformed in it, which is no more than a rainbow sky with flying unicorns.
It has often been expressed that if a human male wishes to attract a more aggressive and determined female, it is not her to which he ought to chase, but instead, he is to signal her, and she will chase, if he simply has evidence of HIGH ATTENTION and energy put into a thing, a business, an ambitious set of objectives. It is for this reason that a human female may ask, what is your “five year plan”, or something in which they can measure, you are energetically pursuing something. To this, human females who are more of a higher social and material value, value ambition, and those females who do not value ambition are often those human females who are too childlike, in chase of unicorns in the simple fields around them, and can not DO BETTER than what they began with access to.
Meaning, in their own eyes, their own insecurities, and low self-esteem is what they believe. They hold themselves to be a commoner, a mere peasant, a force that can not entice. When one holds themselves this way, what they can get, and will get, they will try to hold tightly upon. The commoner and the peasant are the ones the most possessive, because more often than not, they lack options.
And so they are ruled more often than not by the insecurities and the fears of their human female masters, who distract them, and divert their attention from “business” and instead, do one very simple social play, barely able to be called a tactic, and known to all human females, and that is… They try to get you to care ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS, to which they almost invent with whim as its primary. Where there ought not be a CONCERN, surely, she will invent one. And when she gets you to CARE about it, you are her emotional servant, a dupe, and all throughout your life, every human female starting with your mommy, prepared you to be subject to this.
A small portion of human females who believe they deserve it all for merely being born will be ambitious behind the skills, and/or talents of another, their human servile male, where instead of amusing them, they will act as MUSES, being the force that keeps them on track, determined and ambitious. This, because on their own, that human female can not gain access to the value in which she wishes to engage. Instead, he is the Avenue of Approach that she must take, and what she has to offer him and his Avenue is the Control and the Management of his emotions, and his sense of value, in which she is used to verify. For he could care less about what others are thinking of him in the avenue he engages, but how she treats him, with pain or pleasure, cold or hot, will be the determining factor of his self-esteem, to which ALL human males have tied to their sense of relationship to human females.
A human male has no Sense of Self, disconnected from a sense of the female transaction. Sense Of Female Transaction is what then comes to make a human male the SOFT and servile chump they are. That transaction exists in a human male's mind, even when their Access Value Engagement, their AVE, is low. A human male will pretend to not care, but in secret, they will find ways to WORSHIP the female essence. In the absence of a human female engaged in transitive value with them, they will still prove to be this servile chump, in that they will have nothing to AFFIRM in. When they are about, they are RELATIONAL, and they exist based on SOCIAL existence, and have nothing to show for in their lives, by way of business, by way of productivity, by way of creation and augmentation, of innovation, of skills developed, of mastery attained.
This is why, to the Way of the Vir, it is essential to call it the “Way of Mastery”, because a Vir is a master of something, and anything at first is necessary to engage that. A master strategist, and a master tactician. A master at making decisions based upon the advancement of their Control and Command over their conditions. They are not an apprentice, a student, a pupil, a peer, nor a mere follower of no one.
A human male will be easy to identify, for they will have nothing to which they have mastered, and make no mistake, that which is competitive and comparative with others is not, and does not have mastery as a primary; it is RELATIONAL. This is why when others try to amuse me with the relational competitive, I can easily accept a defeat relationally, that amounts to a victory INDIVIDUALLY, and have but on rare occasions seen this to occur, in competitive fighters, who number very few. They will lose the comparative and relational bout, hardly damaged, yet win the great victory of their own course, in being able to divorce it from the relational.
Competitive sports are the means whereby a human male can show to a human female that they are “earnest” and in being so, that he ought to be selected. This is why, in the stereotypes of the high schoolers of the US collective, they had football and basketball players, or the “athletes” being high in the social status. Then, and perhaps always, media went to war against these.
My whole exposure to media growing up showed the “jocks” in a negative light, because the ones who make the movies and the shows are not “fighters” or “warriors”, they are shamans, and Brahmins, and it is not the sports that they excel at. They excel, like the ambitious human female, at finding others with talents and/or skills, or marketability, and like that human female, becoming the MUSE that will direct that energy, Control that energy, Manage that energy, Manipulate that energy, and provide the needed AMUSEMENTS, to make sure that individual with talent and/or skill does not ever discover the need for their own Solo Quest. A SOLO, or Sense of Life as an Outlander, is not doable for one who is insecure and fearful, anxious and concerned, and in need of Sense Of Female Transaction.
This is why in the entertainment realm, most of the currency a young fool was amused by was the access to human females that it gave them. What is done for female attention by human males is better grasped by asking “what is there that is NOT done for human female attention?”. For a human male, it would be hard-pressed to find an answer to this, and the ambition behind their business is not often this.
A solid human male will know, do not chase the human female, because when you do, that kind of amusement leads to being ENTRAPPED. You will be the amused FOOL, and you will have fallen for a HOAX, and that hoax, played on human males, is that a human female, like Mommy, ought to be worshiped, praised, and given attention on one simple account… She was born a SHE, a female, and therefore, in the natural hierarchy of master, in which your servile ass will need in TRANSACTION to find out what Access Value Engagement you have.
A human male needs a human female to TRANSACT in value, for him to determine his VALUE. For a human male, others relationally dictate what his value is. He needs to compete with other males, undermine, and overthrow them, to find his value. He needs to entice the human female to CONFIRM his VALUE, and he needs to SLAY any possible competition that upsets this “ORDER” of the NORM, this standard, this CLEAR FRAME, in which the amusement of the girls tries to keep certain, as a “frame of mind”, to which they then will ENTERTAIN.
The human male who engages in Seduction, what little it may be, is doing so from a position of innate human male insecurity and fear, and therefore, they are anxious when they deal with the opposite sex. The one who is not anxious, and thus, often successful, is not worshiping that human female, but likely has learned to play as the process and move on. She is a little girl that will hardly have any value of her own, other than her sex. He is a servile little boy who will have hardly any of his own value, but instead, serve some value in the cause of another, and others that make his rank for the little girl easier to assess.
You know you are that little servile boy when you have a little girl in your head, that tells you that you can topple, and do not need the other boy ahead or above you. The one that wants to see you direct your energy disruptively, towards even the stable hierarchy, so she can at least see your chump ass fight for something, and assert energy, to which she certainly is not “FEELING” you are doing, when she needs to put you to the test.
It is for that reason, I had learned long ago that human males who are servile little boys to some female ought not be spoken to, and worked with, in the realm of advancing in Control and Command over their conditions. Too, is it for this reason the scattered Saka, my Ancestors, seemed to have practiced celibacy, but this is not what they were doing. The Buddhists would go on later to adopt practices of celibacy, based on what they observed the Saka doing.
On celibacy and AVE
But what most do not know is that the Brahmins that adopted celibacy were doing it for access to females, and/or males. Meaning, they observed that because the Saka were on mission, and they were focused, with great Vitality, this attracted the little girls of the towns, who would always then seek to bring them things, and try to AMUSE them.
This, reader and/or listener, is ANCIENT. None of this is new. Hence the terms too being old, and well rooted. You, as a modern, do not have a greater Sense of Life than those who came before you. You, modern domestic, have barely learned anything from them and the past, but have only shamans, with their incestral “way” of being, leading your mind, diverting, deluding, and distracting you with their amusements, perhaps poorly called Entertainment.
However, though poor it may be, there is the certain frame of mind to which the shaman is seeking to maintain, and truly a poor state of mind it is.
When the young girls would seek to amuse the Saka, who were all WARRIOR men, with WARRIOR females, they would fail. This would only grow their approach and aggression. The weak ass Brahmin of the Indus always wants SEXUAL ACCESS, but they are not EARNEST towards a mission or a thing. The shaman and the Brahmin exist RELATIONALLY, and a male who exists this way can not show a human female they are earnest, unless that relational element becomes a business, a gathering under the Control, the Management, and the Manipulation of the shaman and/or their Brahmin. Then, the human female finds this to be given an attention they wish to divert onto them.
The shaman and the Brahmin―the shaman being a kind, the Brahmin being that very kind in positions of Control, Management, and Influence, such as media, politics, and academics―use relational Control as the means to get Sense Of Female Transaction. They are SOFT for that very reason. They will use a false sense of SEXUAL RESTRICTION to trick a human female shaman, who loves the chase and game, and is not tricked, but is now herself ENTERTAINED.
Shaman human males will play with this, with claims of being celibate, but the way to identify that this is a play is because more often than not, there is something unattractive and low in value to them, to where celibacy appears to be rather involuntary; thus making this term these days as INCEL, an INVOLUNTARY CELIBATE, on account of being of low value in what would be the Access Value Engagement realm, the AVEnue. In extension to the bare minimum of AVE is AVE-NUE, with the addition of Network Utility Earnings. The NUE is a very strong factor of AVENUE, and it will always be there, if even in slight. This is the social status one has in a NETWORK, combined with what SERVILE form they have in UTILITY, and in extension, what their EARNINGS are.
For human males, a human female is only on the AVE, and she does not have AVENUE. This, because a human female's network means nothing to the human male. Her utility, almost always absent, too means nothing to him, and her earnings are irrelevant. Because of this complexity, I will say AVE for then AVENUE, but even though it would seem to say human males use AVE, and human females use AVENUE, it is all actually present, even when some of the components exist in a lesser degree. The presence is a given; however, it is about the degree of potency and/or presence, whereby it will factor into a decision making process.
When a charlatan―which all shamans will be―does not have a NETWORK, a UTILITY, and EARNINGS to use, they have to use shaman rainbows and unicorns. They have to find some oddity that will ENTICE and ENTERTAIN. Among shamans, less so Brahmins, is that of the plays they will have at seeming to be spiritual. To get sexual access or attention from a female, even imagined, they will desire proximity. And the way in which they do this is through spiritual gaming, where they echo all the “high thought” in appearance, and the human male and human female will join around this. Neither of them are sincere or “authentic”, if you will. Both of them are, as shamans, using magical words and wands to get network access, and in this case, it is not utility and earnings that the network is around, but instead, AMUSEMENT VALUE ENTERTAINMENT.
Use the formula. To no doubt these are mere constructs, and do not mistake them as more than the PHENOMENON. These verbal and written constructs exist to trigger a recall of the essence. You can say it in other ways, so long as the essence is retained, and nothing is added or taken away. With this formula, it secures it in a greater potency.
The AVE, the Access Value Engagement carried out by shaman males will not be secure with Network, Utility, and Earnings. The Brahmin, who is the shaman natured who has acquired a network status, utility in institutions, and earnings derived therefrom, will, however, use the status quo AVENUE. But likely before they got to this position of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Influence, they had to “nobilize” poverty, and the antithesis. Because of this, the shaman is able to appear anti-establishment, while actually still being, if a Brahmin who is a shaman, that of the actual establishment.
When they are merely a shaman, they can remain anti-establishment, but make no mistake, most shamans, if they are potent in their shamanism, are trying to be a Brahmin, that is, a priest, an educator, worshiped, leading, teaching, guiding, directing. Shamans that are less utility based, who deal in the mystical, will not advance in their CONTROL and ACCESS, for they can never have STATUS. They will remain “shamans among the commons”, and not the merchants, or the rulers. They will have had some parents who may have been Brahmins among these things, but there is not enough room in the “established” for all the offspring of the Brahmins, so they populate the commons. They are the so-called hippies, the Liberals, the lefties, the little girls dressed in Eastern themes, doing yoga, saying namaste, smiling at you, and acting all sweet and innocent.
Make no mistake, this is an AMUSEMENT, and she is using it to allure others who will provide her with ENTERTAINMENT, and to serve her interest to feel closer to a Brahmin, a teacher, an instructor, a guide, to which, in the absence of UTILITY and EARNING, she will be more so the materialist, with no choice to concern herself with nutrition, stretching, breathing, and walking. She will “nobilize” these things, because they are the easiest. Care for the body, which is material, will then be wrapped in a narrative, a frame of spiritualism, to which nothing more than the BODY will be experienced.
EMPTY SPIRITUALISM does not produce anything USEFUL and APPLICABLE. It's easy to identify because nothing is AFFIRMED from it. You have a bunch of little girls and boys networking with each other, over what is praised in words alone, not actions. They all unite under the same narrative.
They are like the primal human ancestors of theirs, who gathered around the fires, and listened to human female primal craft imaginative stories, that had nothing to do with what was really in the fields, in need of knowing. The early campfire tellings were used to distract, to divert, to delude, and to AMUSE. And they were mostly told by the human females who barely left the camps. They told tales of how they felt about the world around them, not from what was observed, and what was discerned, that aided in skill and mastery.
The shaman was born from the mixing of this tale-telling with that of hallucinogenics. The tale-tellers, once under the intoxicants, would tell more elaborate and crazy tales, and tired from being in the fields as servants, and excited by these “fancies”, their tickled fancies would be prioritized over their burdened minds and muscles. The imaginative would take priority, and the words of tales would ascend into great value, because they provided excuses and motivations for why the sacrificial servant does what they do, now decorated as a sacrificial hero.
When a human male says they are celibate, it's because they are cursed with insecurities, and fears. They are of low Access Value Engagement, and they are using the term of celibacy to give a sense of Control they wield, though, given the opportunity to sex and get away with it, they would, and more than likely with some other low value female, they had done so. Often, they move from place to place to hide this. For one in the new place will not know that the deception and plays of celibacy and so-called spiritualism got them elsewhere, when they were no more than a novelty in the local. Novelty is what the fake ass INCEL uses to try to increase their chance of access.
When I was traveling around, I saw this everywhere. And because I am Saka, because I am Aristoi, I have not cared for the amusements of little girls, but they all flock to me to entice, and seek to AMUSE and ENTERTAIN, or that is, get me to entertain them, for surely, hardly, less she be rugged and wild, is a female to me entertaining.
They would think me celibate for not engaging in this. They would think me celibate from none of them getting sexual access to me. Like how they thought me Ancestors were celibate for not being enticed by their little girls. Never did they know that my Ancestors, and I who follow, had a standard of association, and of that, a female who is not fit to fight, willing to fight, and in the process of developing fight is never to be selected by my Kind, and unlike the human kind, that has the human female as the selector, those of my Kind have the Vir male as the selector, and the females are the ones, in essence, that then need to entertain, and be of value to him… not the other way around.
A Vir, be them male or female, seems to be celibate because they do not couple with chumps, and when most are chumps, then they are not seen coupling, and in the absence of this, they are often more appealing, and seemingly celibate. But a Vir does not practice celibacy, and never would.
Celibacy is a practice for the weak. Celibacy is a practice by and for those who would otherwise have a low level of options to begin with. Celibacy is for those, especially when they must announce it often, who have no other way of standing out to be engaged, but that of a simple oddity of not coupling. Yet that one claiming celibacy will be seen in the need of networking, and so they will use magical and foreign novel language as a means to seem to be more than what they are. This is only in short play, because eventually those around them know that they keep the talker around for amusement and/or Entertainment, and neither them, nor him or her has anything else to offer.
A Vir knows the celibate is a chump. But a Vir will seem celibate to chumps, because a Vir does not have a need to couple, and can not.
Among the Vir, there are no wives and husbands. This is a fancy. Among the Vir, there are no boyfriends and girlfriends; this, only boys and girls can have, and the Vir is neither. Among the Vir, there are no COUPLES, no partners, no unions, no loves, no pairing.
Among the Vir, there are INDIVIDUALS, and how they ASSOCIATE with other INDIVIDUALS is dictated by KARUNA, not to be translated as compassion. The association is guided by VIRTUE, and Virtue is the religion of the Vir. VIRITUS is the religion of Virtue.
But this Game of Virtue that guides the Vir and their associations does not look like, nor can it look like anything the humans do. So then, when one is in familiar territory, it is not the “Way of the Vir” at play. It is a charlatan who is at play. Charlatans wrap themselves in costumes of spirituality, avoid conflict like a little girl, and pretend to be about something that does not transcend mere word play and “spell casting”, and enter into the realm of decision making. It's all play, for amusement and Entertainment, and Entertainment is the first degree of value that ought to be sought by all Vir, with the second degree of value being “material” or that is resource, and low degreed, and then that of the highest degree: that of the game of Virtue, which is called the religion of Viritus.
In Viritus, it is liken to say, it would be the Saka version of Karuna, which the shamans and the Brahmins, the charlatans of Buddhism bastardized, and in the West was converted to compassion, a human female social play I called loosely a strategy in Niō Zen, Beyond Sissy Buddhism.
Viritus is not Karuna, because Karuna, in Buddhism, is not Karuna as it was to the Saka. Therefore, I am liberating Bodhi from Buddhism, Dhamma From Buddhism, and as one ought to see with clarity, as a Vir, I do not need mystic talk, but instead, I cut through that novel charlatan act, and define all the essentials necessary to inform decision making, thought, and action, arriving at “right thought”, or that is “accurate thought”, “right speech”, that is “accurate speech”, and “right action”, that is “accurate action”.
A female Vir―which will likely outnumber the males in this age, when they are realized―does not SELECT a male Vir. A female Vir is not lower than a male Vir. A Vir, in many ways, is not female nor male; they are VIR. But that which is a Vir is most correlated to that which is AFFIRMATIVE and not NEGATIONARY. In human forms, negation seems female, and affirmative seems male. This then leads to feminine and masculine talk, which is the talk of charlatans.
Among humans, there are only negationary forms, and energy. Humans are takers. All humans. Humans are slavers… All humans. Among humans, there are no affirming forces. Where a male of the humans seems to be affirming, they are actually UTILIZING.
Utility is the greatest level of approach a human male, or any human can have to that of affirming forces. Utility is a part of affirming, but they are not the same. Utility is a predecessor, but to be affirmed is not always useful. Affirming forces are not conditional, but they are internally derived. What are affirming forces, in the universe, are the traits and the attributes of the thing upon the condition, versus the other way around, though there is a MUTUAL IDENTITY that when BALANCED, is called HARMONY. The harmonic of the universe is all about how one being is affirmed in and of, and from itself with that of other beings, doing the same. The best and most excellent state is when things can be AFFIRMED in their being, without CONFLICT of other things too, free to be AFFIRMED.
But with the mixing of beings can come CONFLICT that is inherent to AFFIRMATIVE forces. There are beings that AFFIRM more than others. Beings that NEGATE more than others. An affirmative force, can become, from the point of view of another affirming force, that of a negate-itive, or negationary force. Do not think negative and positive with these phonetically. Think negate, with additive -ive, adding -t, for titive: negate-itive. There might not be a term called negate-itive, and negationary. To this, I am not sure.
But the essence of this is Ancient, and therefore, I take my own liberties and authority to invent, if yet to be invented, the discerning difference of negative, and negate’itive, though perhaps, classically, this difference would not have been needed. The posited and the negated ought to be presumed of the positive and the negative; yet in common usage, ignorance prevails in language, not proficiency and skill. I may be on appearance “barbaric” in my use of language, and I may err… But, in no way is this the mark of being unskilled in etching and speaking. I have a skilled association to language, with perhaps some personality quirks that afford me some radical differences. But unskilled would be a foolish assertion, with examples of where I may err in my portrayal of certain terms, and their structures. I speak and write with the mind of an Ancient, not the mind and the decrees of a domestic human animal among the Society Advanced by the Majority.
