Part III
On Patterns of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment
Chapter 5
The Mimic Mechanics
In this chapter of that of Part III, I will be experimenting with a new approach. ACCESS here is the point; and therefore, how “most”, the “many”, the “multitudes” seek to gain and/or maintain, or possess in access will be the point of this battle coverage.
I must remind the reader that ALL OF THIS is from a specific Point of View, or POV. Remember, in the title is the expression a SELF-DEFENSE MANUAL for that of the VIR, with the “VIR” having been characterized perhaps only a little so far.
But it is significant to draw this distinction. When someone is asserting a POV, often there will be those who are seeking to share in that point of view, whether or not they ought to or not. They may suppose that it is being recommended and/or pushed on them, that some UNIVERSAL claim of WAY is present and being AFFIRMED. Do not get it mistaken: the way in which these access plays will be covered, for the most part, are of no use to the masses and the many, in which it describes what the masses, the many, the multitudes are doing, as a NATURAL MECHANISM of being HUMAN.
One of those mechanisms in being human is that of having, and being possessed by a REACTIONARY MIND, muted in nature, awaiting stimuli to respond to, with that of MIMICRY. Humans are MIMICS, and this has been essential for humans in their social survival, which is not to be mistaken for survival in the conditional sense. Most of what has permitted social survival among humans would not be applicable in more natural and primal conditions, with the return of potent threat cycles. Your mommies, in essence, have not conditioned you to survive what would be a natural setting, but instead, they conditioned you all to survive socially among the domesticated.
This takes the mimic mechanics that may have been significant, in primal conditions, for a social survival that was then utilized in a conditional, or environmental survival, and in essence, socially oppresses, and incarcerates, now, in domestication. The behavior and the mannerism in which the bulk of you, if not all of youse, have been mimicking only makes sense socially in domestication, and in this mimicry, most of you have not had before you skills, competence, Control and Command to imitate. So then, if left to adverse conditions that break your social rules of domestication, you would find yourself with a low survivability rate. You would find yourself in DANGER.
Conditions in fact being domesticated for most of youse, it may then lead to the attitude of “so what, 'we' are not in natural and primal conditions”. This attitude is not invalid on the surface.
The error of domestic mimicking, at odds with innate nature and biology
The issue with mimicking your mommies for social cohesion, in domestication, is that the program being imitated mostly does not speak to the inner CODE of your NATURE. It does not produce that of the skills, and the competency to make you feel secure and safe in your bodies, and with your minds.
Domestic stimuli, in demand of domestic mimicry and imitation, is the very foundation that breeds in most of you timidity. It breeds your insecurity and your fears, which then beget your energetics, your eagerness to be used in anxiety, which manifests in CONCERNS. In these concerns, you then demand, as the stimulation of Mommy programmed you to, that… of CARE. To either be cared for, or to have a target of your desire to be a care provider.
For that of the human males, this manifests as being USEFUL, and more often than not, to the emotional bodies, and the concerns of others, under the possession of care.
CARE is the GODDESS of DOMESTICATION, and all your mommies and daddies worship this god in their day-to-day. They suffer under this GOD.
The error in mimicking domestic behavior is that your biology and innate nature, and set of dispositions were not founded upon that form of behavior. Instead, domestic behavior was compelled from external, that is, conditional forces, as a means to produce that of a servile populace to the governing forces. It is the CONDITIONAL aspect of human history, not the NATURAL aspect.
So in its enforcement, that of conforming to domestic conditions, the individual being is pitted against their nature. Because of the mimic mechanism in humans being dominant, humans are innately deceptive.
I will build out this argument.
Etymology of Mimic (n.)
“one who or that which imitates, a mime,” 1580s, from Latin mimicus, from Greek mimikos “of or pertaining to mimes,” from mimos “mime” (see mime (n.)).
Etymology of Mimic (v.)
“act in imitation of, imitate or copy in speech or action,” 1680s, from mimic (n.). Related: Mimicked; mimicking.
Etymology of Mimic (adj.)
“acting as a mime, practicing imitation, consisting of or resulting from mimicry,” 1590s, from Latin mimicus, from Greek mimikos “of or pertaining to mimes,” verbal adjective from mimeisthai “to mimic, represent, imitate, portray,” in art, “to express by means of imitation,” from mimos “mime” (see mime (n.)).
Etymology of Mimicry (n.)
“an act of imitation in speech, manner, or appearance,” 1680s; see mimic (adj.) + -ry. The zoological sense of “the external simulation of something else in form, color, etc.” is from 1861.
Etymology of Mime (n.)
c. 1600, “a buffoon who practices gesticulations” [Johnson], from French mime “mimic actor” (16c.) and directly from Latin mimus, from Greek mimos “imitator, mimic, actor, mime, buffoon,” a word of unknown origin. In reference to a performance, 1932 as “a pantomime,” earlier (1640s) in a classical context: The ancient mimes of the Italian Greeks and Romans were dramatic performances, generally vulgar, with spoken lines, consisting of farcical mimicry of real events and persons.
When one thinks of themselves in domestication, one does not have the term “mime” to come to mind for describing themselves. One does not think of all the mimicking and imitating they have had to do, in order to socially navigate their domestic existence. One comes to think, in the lowest order of thinking, that they are “them”, and a thing of “nature”, and how they “ought to be”.
One would not consciously conclude that they are an imitation, a replicant, a copy of the behaviors they were stimulated by in others. One does not consider the route that induced their mannerism, their ways, their disposition, their attitudes, aversions and attractions. All of this thought is exactly what is necessary to consider oneself SELF-AWARE.
In the absence of such considerations and deliberations is, before the Vir, a MIME of a HUMAN. If you, the reader, yes you… can not produce in the written word, or the spoken word a map, or profile of yourself, showing you have a sense of the origins of your manifested character, then be not surprised why you are seen as a mere SAM replicant, without individuality, and therefore, in the social Quest of a Vir, of low to no value.
The fear and insecurity that is innate to most is on account of having been conditioned to mimic, from Mommy, and then Daddy, that of domestic traits, that were not correlated to, or that is… logically connected to your NATURAL and INNATE traits.
One of the primary differences in condition I have had from that of the rest of you, is that I was raised in the early part of my life by a MAN, that is, an “Intelligent being”, that in this case was a male, and then the second one was a female. Both were “Man” in the way they behaved, not HUMAN.
I did not have, during what would be the age of intense mimicry and imitation, that of a female of a human sort stuffing my “me” in her face, being forced to make the imprints she had upon her my own imprints.
This, however, was a CONDITIONAL difference, but besides that, there was a NATURAL difference in that the program to mimic and imitate is not and never has been high in my system. Perhaps similar, but not the same as those on a spectrum… I do not turn to the OUTSIDE forces in imitation in order to come to social likeness with others.
I do not smile because others smile. But in like, I do not SUFFER sadness, or distress because others do. Humans, in their ignorant ARROGANCE, call this EMPATHY. It is not empathy; empathy is a myth. It's MIMICRY.
Etymology of Empathy (n.)
1908, modeled on German Einfühlung (from ein “in” + Fühlung “feeling”), which was coined 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-1881) as a translation of Greek empatheia “passion, state of emotion,” from assimilated form of en “in” (see en- (2)) + pathos “feeling” (from PIE root *kwent(h)- “to suffer”). A term from a theory of art appreciation that maintains appreciation depends on the viewer's ability to project his personality into the viewed object.
“Not only do I see gravity and modesty and pride and courtesy and stateliness, but I feel or act them in the mind's muscles. This is, I suppose, a simple case of empathy, if we may coin that term as a rendering of Einfühlung; there is nothing curious or idiosyncratic about it; but it is a fact that must be mentioned.” [Edward Bradford Titchener, “Lectures on the Experimental Psychology of the Thought Processes,” 1909]
“... there is no doubt that the facts are new and that they justify their name: the art work is a thing of “empathy” (Titchener, Ward), of “fellow feeling” (Mitchell), of “inner sympathy” (Groos), of “sympathetic projection” (Urban), of “semblance of personality” (Baldwin), all terms suggested by different writers as renderings of the German Einfühlung.” [“The American Yearbook,” 1911]
Etymology of Empathize (v.)
“understand and share the feelings of another,” by 1917, from empathy + -ize. Related: Empathized; empathizing.
The term “Pathos” having been used previously by me is strongly at the root of the expression, or the term “empathize”. This term, and all in likeness are rooted in the PIE, Proto-Indo-European root… kwent, to suffer.
Etymology of *kwent(h)-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to suffer.”
It forms all or part of: anthropopathy; antipathy; apathy; empathy; idiopathy; nepenthe; osteopathy; -path; pathetic; -pathic; patho-; pathogenic; pathognomonic; pathology; pathos; -pathy; psychopathic; sympathy.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek pathos “suffering, feeling, emotion, calamity,” penthos “grief, sorrow;” Old Irish cessaim “I suffer;” Lithuanian kenčiu, kentėti “to suffer,” pakanta “patience.”
Empathy shares in likeness to that of compassion, and these two are praised by your human females, and taught to the human males that it is what makes the human female superior, in that, they do not say this, but they arrange the sense of well-being around that of the sense of suffering, and the appearance of its expression and tolerance―rarely its relief, and its resolutions.
The Vir does not believe this HYPE. The Vir does not see empathy and compassion as Virtues. The Vir has the Reasoning and awareness necessary to observe that these are DECEPTIVE and MANIPULATIVE social plays, born out of the human female's dominant condition.
Empathy and compassion require targets who are suffering and are in despair, in order for then the one targeting to “feel” with them as a “unit”. Meaning, to “share in the emotions”, the “suffering” is a play at leading to that of BONDING and/or forming bonds.
Humans, especially human females, are not, more often than not, bonding over that of skill, competence, and Triumph. The bonding, more often than not, is over DESPAIR, and some “suffering”.
Mental midgets can reject this, in theory, but would fail at such a rejection when challenged to account for predominant behavioral displays. When observation and analysis is applied, it would be the conclusion that more so than not, humans align around suffering and despair more than around success and Triumph.
Fear and insecurity caused the ancient human to huddle around the fires and rest in herds, having the artificially inflated sense of security in numbers. It was not SKILLED numbers. It was just NUMBERS. The value of the group was born. In the observation of the group from other animals, the rules for being opportunistic and risk-averse meant the predatory animal would not attack a strongly knitted group. They would instead wait for there to be outliers who stray from the pack, the herd.
Straying from the pack, and/or being forced out is one of the greatest fears, and/or insecurities for being human. The way in which it is to be human to mitigate this “subconsciously” is to be sure to MIMIC in FAMILIARITY those to whom one is bonded with. That is, whoever they are who hold rank within the social order, they set the condition in which the lower ranks are to imitate in order to show “bonds”, to show “familiarity”, and “group identity”, so as to be distinguished from “them”, from that of “others”, from that of the “foreign”.
Etymology of Foreign (adj.)
c. 1300, ferren, foran, foreyne, in reference to places, “outside the boundaries of a country;” of persons, “born in another country,” from Old French forain “strange, foreign; outer, external, outdoor; remote, out-of-the-way” (12c.), from Medieval Latin foraneus “on the outside, exterior,” from Latin foris (adv.) “outside,” literally “out of doors,” related to foris “a door” (from PIE *dhwor-ans-, suffixed form of root *dhwer- “door, doorway”).
English spelling altered 17c., perhaps by influence of reign, sovereign. Sense of “alien to one's nature, not connected with, extraneous” attested late 14c. Meaning “pertaining to another country” (as in foreign policy) is from 1610s. Replaced native fremd. Related: Foreignness. Old English had ælþeodig, ælþeodisc “foreign,” a compound of æl- “foreign” + þeod “people.”
Important to restate to the reader is that, if anything, what to take from these manuals is not the notion that I am seeking to convince, nor even to make clear to the reader, something suggested ought to be thought, and/or aligned with. This, I am not doing.
I am telling you, the reader, what I think about you and others. I am telling you my inner workings, and whether they are accurate or not is IRRELEVANT. They do not need to be CORRECT to be what I think.
The sense of trying to make them seem correct and convincing would require that I yield to the observation and judgment of others, and/or a group, to see if in agreement, and then conform my own thinking to the agreeable. This, I do not and CAN not do.
Because this is not the way of my REIGN, my SOVEREIGNTY, my NATURE, it then means I shall not be limited to the limitations of others. This is often what a mind only with mimicry and imitation will have, that with said flattery, they are often only limited to that which appears before them, that they merely REFRACT.
When others come to me for counsel, often with the desire to be entertained in their emotions… they will quickly try to win me over through imitation and mimicry, like they were required to do for Mommy, more so than for any daddy.
Most have not thought, and would not think… this was them seeking to DECEIVE me, because mimicry, and imitation, called flattery, can not be seen as deception, if the individual does not have something innate to them seeking to be expressed, that appears to them contrary to that which is mimicked or imitated.
The Reasoning behind my ability to see human mimicry and imitation as deception is only because I have a POTENT nature that seeks to be expressed in its OWN way. That what is inside me is louder than what the condition wishes to have stimulated in me. In most cases, it is quite clear that what the human wants me to mimic and/or to imitate would require of me pretending, and deceiving. This, on account that I am SELF-AWARE, and as such, I know what belongs and comes from my NATURE, my ESSENCE, versus that in which merely a condition would demand of me.
DO YOU?
When one has a muted nature and disposition, it can be said, they have nothing about them seeking to be expressed, separate from their conditions. And because of this, everything of rhythm would be CONDITIONAL. This then would be the obvious disposition of one who says, “we are products of our conditions” or “environment”. One does not turn to them and say… “NO”, “we are products of our nature”.
Both would be saying something about themselves, and of that, that both IGNORANTLY first and foremost believe… “WE” be a “WE”. But there is no “WE”. The fact is, one who says they are the product of their conditions and/or environment and/or their past is correct. It means throughout their lives, they have been only in imitation and mimicry, and did not have inside them some call to be something other than. They were easily conformed to the suffering of their group, and they share in mimicked identity.
One who is tight with their familiars can only be so if they had a muted nature, or a like nature to their familiars. Most, the many, the masses, the multitudes have MUTED natures, and because of this, they will match the condition of their times, and their collective. This, because truly, nothing inside them speaks to a different way.
But one who has a nature that is loud, that is potent, no matter the conditions of their times and those who surround them, will be pulled to choose their NATURE over the CONDITIONS, and produce OUTLIER behavior.
If they are cowards, they will need to hide these differences so as to not lose access to the group and be banished.
If they are COURAGEOUS, and/or VALOROUS, there is a good chance they will become an outlier, a villain, and one who does not maintain access to the group, nor wish to.
This “NOR wish to” is very important. Those who are outliers, outcasts, and incapable of group accordance are mostly those defected, and inept. It is not often a matter of them being WITH their own nature. This can be observed on account that they want, they desire, they need access to others, and suffer in the absence of this relief. They will have contempt, disdain, scorn, and a defeated attitude towards their outlier status.
The way to tell the difference is that one who is with their nature will be charismatic, and attractive. This is not based on how they look. Confidence is very attractive, especially to the masses who are suffering that of their diffidence. It is not that one's CONFIDENCE gains the CONFIDENCE of others.
One can not gain CONFIDENCE from those struck with DIFFIDENCE―for they have none to give. One does not get from them confidence; they get from them their desire for relief, distraction and diversion of their suffered diffidence. This is why, eventually, the diffidence of those seeking to be entertained will move through the Kinetics, become anxious concern, begetting a care not answered to, instigating a repugnance looking to consume others, in fight, resistance, disruption, and chaos.
One who is not with confidence, but stricken with diffidence can only seek to CONSUME and DISRUPT one with confidence. And the way they begin access to those with confidence, or anything they wish to consume is through that of the so-called flattery of mimicry and imitation.
Mimicry and/or imitation is not, in and of itself, an error nor issue. It is the absence of awareness around it, that is the error. One is not a mimic on account that they are mimicking―though this would seem, at first, to be how to think of this. One can mimic, while aware of it, and not be a mimic, so long as… they have a nature that they are able to express in accuracy and freedom.
In order to socially interact with others, something attained through mimicry and imitation will be needed. This is what it means to communicate. To come to what is a “common ground” requires a “mimicry” of likeness. What changes its status is that of INTENTIONALITY, and DELIBERATION.
If one does not have a self that is born out of their actual nature, then they only have the replicant of mimicry and imitation to act through. Then, one can not be said to be INTENTIONAL and DELIBERATE in their mimicry and imitation for a purpose of communication.
Taking this point as actual for me is a part of the motivation to define oneself in the written or the spoken word. Meaning, as I put my thinking before the reader, I am providing evidence of my own nature, and accounting of it and for it. Often, more so than not, other than the use of the English language, and set of terms… I am not mimicking, or imitating the ideas and thinking of others. I am not merely acting as some mirror of ideas covered by others, and then signaling to groups a likeness in agreement. I am not speaking of, nor to whom I agree with, me then just replicating their expressions, for you.
I am producing my own thinking, and when one comes to interact with me under specified conditions, they will receive not access to my individuality, and/or my innate disposition, but instead, by degree, they will be only engaging me by way of the entertaining mimic in which I wield to establish a bridge for communication. It can also be said that the mimic I have acts as armor and shield against the intrusion of others.
The Adept Way of using a mimic
My mimic is born out of a condition that was highly uncommon. My mimicry is not, will not be, and can not be… of you.
Meaning, I will not, can not, never will mimic anyone I can, and will come to encounter. I will not MIMIC and IMITATE YOU. My mimic, intentional and deliberate, was developed when I was a young man, and learning how, and to what limits I would have any common ground with humans, or that of the commons. I did not seek out a mimic that could “blend in” and “bond”. I set perimeters for my mimic, my mime.
The limits were that of using the language of the commons, but not to the limits of the commons with the language.
I was not to mimic the lifestyles, because they were lifestyles founded upon suffering, and ineptitude. I was to mimic modes of dress, only in the sense of… found in the “times” and its conditions, and then that of the modes of Entertainment. My mimic was to be an ENTERTAINER, that brought about ENGAGING conditions, that would be used to STIMULATE critical and analytical thought. This would be the limits of my mimic. My mimic was never to mimic suffering, to mimic self-deprecation, doubt, confusion, strife, struggle, and insecurities.
In the conditions in which I had access to, I studied individuals that were mentors, their mannerism, their behavior, and their tempo, and mimicked them, on account that they were skilled at controlling their conditions. I only mimicked a handful of individuals, and they themselves were not imitations, and replicants of their conditions. They had a way about them that granted them AUTHORITY in their conditions. They were HIGH performance. For some, this can be called role models.
However, what roles these fellas were in were not roles I would seek out for myself, but were roles that existed in my conditions, that required skill from me, because the roles were linked to my social and conditional survival, which had a demand upon me that was not ordinary and common.
When I was mimicking these players, these mentors, it was not SUBCONSCIOUSLY. I was STUDYING them, and PROFILING them.
A common error that others make about me, upon first thought, is that my accent is because I was native to that of Brooklyn New York, in the 80s and 90s. People will think of me as a New Yorker on account of how I sound. This would suggest that the accent was born out of the condition of the group in which I interacted with.
This is not the case. My accent was developed on account of the individuals whom I mimicked, and imitated in mannerism, as a means of social navigation.
One who knows accents, knows that in NYC, the NYC dialect is very INDIVIDUALISTIC. You have stereotype accents, often trained in actors and so on, and then you have the individualized sense of the accent. Often, this is how the authenticity of the accent can be established. It sounds enough like NYC, but then, like something else is there as well.
My mentors were Black American, Italian American, Jewish American, and later on, Irish American. When I left NYC at the legal age of 17, but the actual age of 19… I would become later assigned to an Irish fella who was born in Ireland, and was raised in Boston. He played a role in teaching me how to appear Irish American, not to convince a local, Boston audience, but enough to convince an international audience.
Because of my earlier life Influences, I could not pull off Irish. I had to be a New York, a Boston, a Philly hybrid, in order for my mannerism to make sense. I had already been well learnt in the notion of adopting a mimic, a character that is founded upon the most truth, or valid stance as possible.
If you were to master deception, the best kind is the kind that mostly tells the truth. I am not Irish. When I was navigating for professional purpose this fella's social network, the primary ingredient was not that I was convincingly Irish American, but that I was from the “life”, which was one that had a lot to do with “shadow markets”.
My value, to my “employer”, was that I did not need to be taught the “life” in order to mimic it. I was from the “life” that was highly integrated into NYC shadow markets. My networks were strong, and it was for this reason that I was “recruited” for what work I would do later.
My “acts” required of me were not developed under the notion of being able to mimic, and imitate with exactness and accuracy so as to be FAMILIAR. This, I would not have been able to, nor would I have been best to, trying at. My MASTERY was in that of INDIVIDUALITY. I would not have been a successful navigator of the circles and networks of others if I was generic.
This was always the case. I learned at an earlier age that where mimicry and imitation comes in, it had to be of individuals and what made them successful, and high performance, and none of what hindered and impeded them.
I had to spend a lot of time in clubs, often out of the States. A part of my mimicry and imitation was not that of adopting the vices of those networks I interacted with. Among them, I was not their mimic, their replicant. To them, I was always a VALUABLE outlier. This was key in my strategy.
BE OF VALUE,
And that, when this was established, it reduced greatly the need to mimic and imitate others. They would accept the VALUE I provided as the PRIMARY, not the sense of SECURITY and SAFETY in the FAMILIAR.
And these guys, what they did to the 95 percent of them bonded only in familiarity was a fate I never would have wanted. Familiar bonds, in risk conditions, are not as strong as they seem in domestic and timid conditions. What makes you all think, your mimicked imitation and familiarness, in domestication and common living, is the right move―if ever even realizing you do it―is that the THREAT CYCLES are massively reduced, and delusionally for most, NOT EVEN present.
When one deals in high risk, more non-permissive environments, you better have something valuable to offer, and that will always be individualized. There will be some skill, some competency, some connections that make you valuable. Those who exist only in the commons have no sense of what this means, and they do not seek to be of any value in individuality to each other. They seek from each other ENTERTAINMENT through AMUSEMENT and SEDUCTION, which more often than not is merely some mimicked and imitated set of brands, that makes one a vessel of memes, and clichés.
At high-stakes conditions, generics can not navigate. One of my first mentors, an Italian fella from Bensonhurst, used to say to me, at age 8: “Don't be like these guys. Do not do this… like they do. You see where that got them. You see where this is going, and/or goes?”
“If you want the same result, do the same thing… good or bad.”
He was the first to say to me, “do not get lost in the crowd”. “Find a way to stick out, to get seen, and to become known.” “Reputation”, he said, “is not about what others want to think about you on their own.” He said: “Control what others think. Lead the way they think. Make them think what you need them to. DON'T ever let them catch you SLEEPING. You need to always be on GUARD, reading the ROOM, reading the CROWD, reading the PLAYERS.”
“Watch… Watch… Watch. And of course… SHUT UP… You ain't watching when you yacking.”
I had the advantage of having so many diverse individuals around me, that the notion that there was a group to mimic and imitate was seen as absurd. NYC granted the strongest chance to be some wacko individual.
My accent is born out of the individuals I engaged. Even in NYC, folk would ask me all the time, “where you from?”, and when I would say, Bed Stuy, or Red Hook, or now, in Bensonhurst, or this place or that… in NYC… they would say, “Nah, I mean, from Europe, or somewhere else”.
New Yorkers heard New York in me, but like how they hear New York in an immigrant who was first somewhere else. It could be said, perhaps this is because my first language till age five was Louisiana Creole. So I was late to the show with English, and this would put an individual spin on my NYC dialect.
Then, there was that of living socially mostly among Brooklyn blacks, and professionally, around Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens Italians. Also, there was my debating, and going to synagogue with the Jews.
It was inevitable that my flavor of Brooklyneese would then be very diverse and not able to be locked into mere mimicry and imitation of any specific New Yorkers group. That I speak English, sort of, and have to communicate with others means, I would be a fool, incapable of communication, if I was to adopt the notion that mimicry and imitation is absolutely erroneous.
Of course I do not adopt this position. Mimicry and imitation is necessary for social navigation. The issue is that of ignorance of its mechanics, that leads to an arrogant sense that somehow, one is authentic who behaves a certain way, because it is all they ever mimicked and imitated without diversity, and one who could be multiple ways is a fraud.
Those who strongly identify with their group are those who simply have been limited in their imitation and mimicry, and likely would not even realize that their whole Sense of Self and Life is merely a mirror to this effect.
The key is knowing how your personality that is used in communication was built. When one finds flavors that speak to them, far more than their default settings, and they adopt those flavors, though it is indeed mimicking and imitating, it is no more inferior than those personality traits acquired by some dope by happenstance they were by default already in those conditions. It's not more authentic for a default replicant to be with certain imitations, than a foreigner who came from a default condition, and switched to a new one.
“Yeah, BUT, you're not from here” or “actually this and/or that”… says the CLONE of STUPIDITY.
It's always funny for me, and it happened yesterday, where a New Yorker from Upstate will say, “yeah, I'm from New York too”, and then they will imitate me the best they can, to find common ground.
They do not know what made Brooklyn so different from what they know and/or knew. It was a young fella that did it. I said, “Nah, I am not from New York; I am from Brooklyn, from the 80s and the 90s”. I never just say… “from Brooklyn”. I will always specify the era.
I left Brooklyn in 1995 for a year, returned in 1996, and left in 1996, but finally in 1997, when I became in the custody of the Department of Defense. After that year, I would go on to travel to, and live in so many other places. I have lived among so many kinds of people, with their imitations, their group identities, so many foreign countries and conditions. I was always the outlier, and I came to be able to navigate these diverse conditions not with some mimicry and imitation strategy, with the belief that this flatters, but with the respect of always daring to be my own Man, finding out what comes from me, and out of me, and then blending that with what can be communicated with others.
Because of this, there is this massive error that one has, when they meet me, and/or seek to get access to me. They will seek to flatter me. They will seek to imitate, and to mimic. They think this shows respect and admiration. Now, one may say, “well, you did that with mentors when you were young… is it not the same?”.
It would be the same, not when one meets me, and is only an associate, but when one has come to find out what VALUE I offer, and they have something in them that calls out to that value, to be theirs. Then, and only then, am I liken to how mentors were to me.
I am not someone's mentor on account of mere association. But so many have made me seemingly so, as they live like others, and never go to the depths of my value.
A part of the creation of my literature is to remove this opportunity for those seeking to be entertained by me, coming to merely mimic and imitate. When you can not determine and expound on what value I bring, then certainly, you should not be mimicking and imitating me. You will get it wrong, and this has always been the case.
I have stopped individually mentoring. That is why the books were created. The number one reason was so that access no longer would have the associate level. I found no value in others getting access to me, and coming with the deception of mimic and imitation, and show agreement outwardly, while concealing inner repugnance, and resistance.
This too is why I developed for myself the STANDARD of ASSOCIATION that demands that all be with ease, and one who struggles, has conflict, needs convincing and/or external motivation is not right for association.
My associations are around the VALUES. Not around others coming to FLATTER, thinking that my personality has the trait of NEED for ATTENTION, and ADMIRATION. This is absurd. It is an ANNOYANCE to me, to be placed as some daddy in need of impressing and pleasing.
What will occur is the mimic, having nothing about them, does not acquire the essence and the spirit of what value I bring. In the absence of this, when they seek to impress through imitation, they do the most simplest version they can, and they fall drastically short. Often intentionally, because when I move to correct them, now they get to FEED on me, for the meal of their EMOTION of REPUGNANCE. They get to inject their diffidence, their anxiety, their concerns, and desire for care, to which I can not, and never would want to ever be of value to. All this showing, they were never aware of what value I actually have and offer up in trade for what value others have. They have in their minds this “image” they wish for me to be, and internally, these emotions they need me to serve.
Self-defense, from this manual, is there to tell you that I am well aware of these factors.
The VIR, in which I represent, is not one who would find flattery and mimicry, imitation as a positive. Where it begins to occur NATURALLY, it is acceptable. There is a common thing that occurs when one is exposed to me, at length, and that is, they start to talk with an attitude that gets accented in similarity to mine.
One would think this is imitation. It is on a subconscious level, but not in regards to flattery. Those who have access to me, in a single day can be engaged in 8-12 hours of discourse. This is less likely to occur these days, on account of books, but in the past this was mostly so. This means, in a single day, they can come to have more answers, questions, conversations with me than they have with anyone in a month or more.
This phenomenon, most can not be aware of on the outside. Those who do not engage with others can not imagine what Engagement is like with me. I do not sit around, and CHECK OUT with others. I stimulate, and ENGAGE others, towards that of a quality of thinking, and CONTROL over their CONDITIONS and SELF. This never gets turned off. It's my value. In a single day, one can have interactions with me that are far more socially intense and engaging than what they are likely to encounter in weeks or months from others, if not, as some have said… in their lifetime.
The pain some have had in losing access to me is in that, for the rest of their lives, they can expect they will NEVER encounter another who comes to ENGAGE so much, STIMULATE so much, from them, and upon this world. To many, I have acted as a motivational force for them to be awake, and when they lose access, they go back to sleepwalking through this world, and all they can remember is HATING me for cutting off that access. Back asleep, they can not remember what it was like to be awake, but they will always remember enough to yearn for it, and to find it elsewhere, to which, what I have observed, they do not end up doing.
This also leads me to see this as harm. That to instigate others, and give them access to my energetics as motive, but have them dependent upon it, was harmful. I had to create, in the last few years, the principle guideline that no longer can I promote and be of value, in a way that sustains dependency. This is a strategy I have not yet resolved. It is easy for me to engage and instigate others, and to lend out my own energetics to move them.
But what is not acceptable is that, I have yet to discover a strategy and system that one can work on their own, and arrive at their own mastered energetics. It can be said, this is why I write, and later, will speak, with the attempt to systematize what I can. But based on observations, in the absence of the Karuna, or that is, the social factor, the mentoring factor, one does not have what is needed to navigate this course.
One can not, in essence, read nor hear their way to what is needed. There is a massive social element to being Vir, as there is a massive social element to being human. This, then, leads me to believe that working over a culture, and set of practices that one can implement in their day-to-day is what is necessary.
The Way of the Vir is NOT to be MIMICKED
The question will then arise, does one come to then mimic and imitate the culture of Vir, as a means to discover the principles for integration?
The answer is NO. These “WAYS” are not “WAYS” that require, nor should they be… MIMICKED, and/or IMITATED. One should not be of these “WAYS” absent that of INTEGRATION.
The difference, then, here, is in the terms. To imitate will often have one in an inferior position from that imitated. One would just be a reflection and have a near likeness, but not the same quality. One becomes a KNOCKOFF.
Most of what can be called belief and opinion would be that which is mimicked and imitated. It is first, in that the source is itself engaged in merely the imaginative. That which is being produced from the source is not actual in and of itself. It is not INDEPENDENT of the SOURCE.
Belief has this way of being just that. More often than not, beliefs do not survive a demand for that of demonstration. It is in this realm, the REALM of DEMONSTRATION, that the “WAY” of the “VIR” comes to differ, in that the source is supposed to be “actuality”, and therefore, what is produced ought to be able to stand on its own, and not be subject to the mere imagination of some speaker, some presenter, some entertainer, such as myself.
If I am the source, and it all depends on me, then there is the possibility it is all a matter of my own fancy, and not that of actuality. Something then ACTUAL must be the SOURCE. Something actual in me, and in others; something actual, then, in them. This then must be discovered, and the only way that I know of, where this can occur, is if the “Way” that is being produced is founded upon knowledge that is composed of sound Reasoning.
This means, the “Way” can not be supernatural, can not be faith based, can not be mere “imaginatives” of some shaman, some teacher, some arbitrary and whimsical set of ideas. The “Way” must be founded and sourced from systematic Reasoning, that has a dialectical standard that can be accounted for.
This means, them who would come to be of the “Way” that is produced can not be of the “Way” at the same time ignorant of its parts. It would be of its “parts” they have knowledge, and in “part” come to “KNOW” of the “WHOLE”―which though EXPERIENTIAL and unable to be demonstrated as a whole, it can be broken down and expounded upon in its parts. I will cover this notion briefly.
More often than not, what is mimicked and/or imitated is something complex, or shall it be said, compounded.
Etymology of Complex (adj.)
1650s, “composed of interconnected parts, formed by a combination of simple things or elements,” from French complexe “complicated, complex, intricate” (17c.), from Latin complexus “surrounding, encompassing,” past participle of complecti “to encircle, embrace,” in transferred use, “to hold fast, master, comprehend,” from com “with, together” (see com-) + plectere “to weave, braid, twine, entwine,” from PIE *plek-to-, suffixed form of root *plek- “to plait.”
The meaning “involved, intricate, complicated, not easily analyzed” is first recorded 1715. Complex sentence, for one containing one or more subordinate clauses in addition to the principal clause, is attested from 1776.
I have observed, the use of the term “complex”, by most, often signals their sense of “difficulty”, and “arduous” at “conceiving”; that “complex”, as a term, and its meaning, is viewed through the “excited in IGNORANCE” Kinetics of the human experience.
This, however, was never how I conceived of the term and its meaning. Perhaps on account that I learned English not through mimicry, and imitation of others' use, but from the actual sources, or direct and deliberate productions concerning the language. This is not to say I learned it well, but it is to say, what account I have for the language, is on this account.
For me then, the term was not about “difficulty”, as others feel their away around, but “complex” as an identifier meant there were parts that were simpler, that needed to be identified first, and then that which was in its compounded stage would be just as easy to conceive of―with of course this not still being true for most. Things that are “overly complex”, so to say, have so many parts that most can not hold the amount of data points present to conceive of the whole.
“Interconnected PARTS, formed by a COMBINATION of SIMPLE things, or ELEMENTS”. So then when something was seemingly complex, I asked a simple question… What are its parts, in their simple form? What are the elements? What are the ESSENTIALS? And then, as a young mind, near the age of 8, I was breaking everything down into mental maps, accounting for their parts as a means, through INTEGRATION, through COMBINATION, of having an exact sense of the WHOLE.
Etymology of Compound (v.)
late 14c., compounen, “to put together, to mix, to combine; to join, couple together,” from Old French compondre, componre “arrange, direct,” and directly from Latin componere “to put together,” from com “with, together” (see com-) + ponere “to place” (see position (n.)). The unetymological -d appeared 1500s in English by the same process that yielded expound, propound, etc. Intransitive sense is from 1727. Related: Compounded; compounding.
Of this idea, and/or this conclusion, what, if anything, has been COMPOUNDED?
If this question is not even asked, then more often than not, what is the complex conclusion, under adoption, is merely an imitation and mimic of the conclusion. This is very common in the adoption of customs, culture, traditions, and rituals. They are COMPOUNDS often taken at face value, and implemented by those replicants who do not know the source, nor the reasoning behind the arrangement.
If one uses these few examples, it can be said, this is the evidence of my accounting of the English language. I am not merely mimicking the terms and their use, limited to that of simple imitation of, and in how others come to use the terms. I do not use the rest of you as indicators of how I ought to wield the English language.
Because of this, most believe it is me, that I am the one using language incorrectly. And/or, in their mimicked ways, they will see some rule of structure of grammar perhaps betrayed or ignored, and dare to highlight that. Yet, if asked to PRODUCE anything up and out of their own mind, exhibiting a structure of acceptance, they will often have nothing to show for. This, on account that the educated mind―with there being so many who are educated, in the so-called States―is not itself prone to produce much of anything called thought.
It is merely designed, as educated stupidity, existing to echo the dribble of the academics, from whom what they produce is mere mimicry, and imitation. Too, these academics more often than not are mimics, and that is why it is academic standard to source one's compounding in that of some academic who has precedence and familiarity. You mental midgets are ABSURD in your “ways”.
Terms are more often than not compounds. They are composed in their definition of other terms, considerably more simple in their individual parts. But when one moves with this notion of the part is more simpler, yet investigates, they may find this to be less true than previously thought.
Often, a complex notion or idea can be composed of other complex notions and ideas. The more this is the case, the more likely that one is dealing with something of the fancy, or the imagination of others. Something that is not compounded from observations and demonstrations, but more often than not, previous held agreements, and persuasions.
When one can not map back an idea, or a notion to first principles, it ought to be considered a mere belief, or an agreement that does not likely have a foundation in the actual, and the factual. However, it could be that it does have this foundation, but in one's own limits, they have yet to uncover it. Either way, in the absence of the first principles and Reasoning that is based upon the observable, the demonstrable, either through material investigation and experimentation, or of the dialectical nature, one who is of this “Way”, that of the “Way of the Vir”, removes the thinking and the notion as usable, in their decision making framework, and that of their association to a narrative.
This becomes a primary difference between to MIMIC versus to INTEGRATE.
One who is of this “Way”, the “Way of the Vir”, is NOT to mimic, and imitate any of its components. The parts, in their simpler form, are ALL to be that of identified, and then weaved into the whole, which itself, more often than not, will be subject to the experienced, versus the evidenced.
The parts are to be evidenced, and the whole is realized in application. One does not conclude on the whole in absence of knowledge of the parts. This is, however, what humans do, and narratives and beliefs are often the whole of a complex notion that has a greater chance of being founded upon irrational notions, and that of faith based reasoning, lacking in any evidence and sound judgement.
The “Way of the Vir” is the religion of the Vir. By calling it a religion, many would think, they can navigate it the way in which other religions are navigated. That they need to hear of the beliefs, personalize them, adopt them, mimic them, imitate them, and bounce them back to others, so as to GROUP.
This is NOT the “WAY of the VIR”. This is the way of HUMANUS, or that of the HUMAN. It has no place in “this Way”.
There are no religious conclusions and compounds, in their whole, that one can ascribe to in VIRITUS, the WAY of the VIR. One learns, comes to identify, comes through confidence in the beliefs that are most certain, into knowing that of the parts; and the whole, then, becomes experiential.
The VOTARY, the one who has taken the Vows of the Vir for themselves, takes the Vow of…
I SHALL not MIMIC, nor shall I imitate.
I shall INTEGRATE, through KNOWLEDGE and OVERSTANDING of the PARTS, owning them, from myself, and for myself, as a means for APPLYING them in my living, and once applied, come to EXPERIENCE and CONCEIVE of the exactness of the WHOLE.
This is the “Way of the VOTARY”, along the “Way of the VIR”.
Integration is “our” Way, not imitation. Knowledge is “our” Way, not belief. Proposition is “our” Way, not opinion. Those who use terms that are opposite of what is the Way are those exposed to have sought to merely mimic and imitate, and in doing so, never integrated; and therefore, they contradict. Contradiction is evidence of the absence of integration. For, one who has integrated the parts is one who knows the parts, and this includes their subparts.
One who is CONFUSED is one who has not… integrated. One who fails in application, struggles in application, is unmotivated in application, is one who has not integrated. And so long as they have any association to the Way inept at these conclusions, it is because they are an imitator and a mimic, who is looking to escape and evade judgement and detection.
But they will do no such evading, and they will be most rapidly found out, and removed. One does not SLOWLY work at this Way. A slow and unmotivated approach means, this Way is not a Call that calls out to their nature. Evidence it is a Way suited for them is that its Call excites in them a Vitality, a VIGOR, a VIBRANCE.
One can say, this is the nature of motivation, in this Way, and nothing less than this. One who is hesitant is not of this Way. One who is reluctant, is not of this Way. One who needs that of convincing, is not of this Way. One who is in doubt is not of this Way. One who suffers their DIFFIDENCE in association, failing to OVERCOME it towards CONFIDENCE, is NOT OF THIS WAY.
Etymology of Integrate (v.)
1630s, “to render (something) whole, bring together the parts of,” from Latin integratus, past participle of integrare “make whole,” from integer “whole, complete,” figuratively, “untainted, upright,” literally “untouched,” from in- “not” (see in- (1)) + root of tangere “to touch,” from PIE root *tag- “to touch, handle.”
The meaning “put together parts or elements and combine them into a whole” is from 1802. The “racially desegregate” sense (1940) probably is a back-formation from integration. Related: Integrated; integrating.
This term “integration”, for the time being, till updated, is a religious term in that of this Way, that of the “Way of the Vir”, that of VIRITUS. One must be integrating. They must be coming to know the parts, and compounding them, combining them into a whole.
WHOLISM indeed factors into this system. But one does not begin with the whole, apply it, and presume they know it, and that in actuality, it is the whole. A so-called WHOLE being applied in IGNORANCE, and unable to be EXPOUNDED upon in its parts, is no WHOLE at all. It is a DECEPTION, and a SCAM.
For this reason, a VOTARY is only so under the Vow that they have aimed to know the parts, and they can, under interrogation, expound on the parts. What are the parts of this notion, they must ask. Do I own these parts as KNOWN or BELIEVED? Do I own these parts as a PROPOSITION, or an OPINION? Can I expound on these parts? This, a VOTARY must always answer to, or never be conceived of as actually a VOTARY, but instead, in their ignorance, be seen and called a mere mimic, who is seeking to appear to feed their hungry ghost of emotions. They are merely an APPARITION.
Etymology of Apparition (n.)
early 15c., “supernatural appearance or manifestation,” from Anglo-French aparicion, Old French aparicion, aparoison (15c.), used in reference to the Epiphany (the revealing of the Christ child to the Wise Men), from Late Latin apparitionem (nominative apparitio) “an appearance,” also “attendants,” in classical Latin “service; servants,” noun of action from past-participle stem of apparere “appear” (see appear). Meaning “ghost” first recorded c. 1600; the sense differentiation between appearance and apparition is that the latter tends to be unexpected or startling. Related: Apparitional.
Though seemingly metaphorical… this term “apparition” can be used to describe the appearance of ideas and beliefs that are shamanistic and supernatural in rendering, versus based in actuality. An idea that is a mere apparition.
It may appear to be sound, and right, until its parts are investigated. This does not mean only that of obvious supernatural claims. The state, for example, and that of governing bodies are not actual, and able to be found real in any sense. They are founded upon agreed appointment, and only this.
In actuality, only the individuals in which it is composed of, as an idea, are actual, and to what is their reasoned abilities, and capacities, are all there truly is.
But when acting as a state, or a body of individuals, under appointment, they give themselves, upon fancy, powers, abilities, and capacities that can not be found in their actual individual, and real states. The STATE is an APPARITION. The state behaves like a god, or more so… a goddess. It is not real, but the bulk of youse have never lived under the notion things ought to be.
So much of your narrative is composed of belief and opinion, the fancies of those who preceded you, and are the familiars of the condition of your time. This is evidence of the absence of integration being common to your kind, the kind I call Humanus. The Humanus does not break things down into its parts, with the requirement of knowing, and overstanding.
The Humanus mimics and imitates the fancies it is surrounded by, and in the name of avoiding conflict, carries the memes, the culture units into reinforced prominence, with the expectations that others will agree to the same fancy, and treat it as actual and real.
Mimics, then, whether they know they are this or not… will have their diffidence, their lack of trust in self and others on account of having nothing integrated in their minds.
Therefore, VALIDITY is not of VALUE to the MIMIC, the mere replicant, but standing in agreement is. The mimic will presume of others that which is true to them, that in their absence of integration, and their wonder of ignorance, so then is it likely others are condemned to the same.
That, why ought they trust youse, who too are excited in your ignorance and have barely any integrations informing your decisions? The answer is, they should not trust themselves, nor should they trust you… because YOU are a YOU, and not a THEE, on account that you exist as a mere replicant, in imitation and mimicry of things, of parts you have no knowledge of. And on account of this ignorance of the parts, you engage in conditioned behaviors, more often than not, in servitude. This too is why you are, and your kind are… APPARITIONS, and the metaphor of “hungry ghost” in no way is absurd, and disconnected. There is something deeper there.
⚔⚔⚔
Of imagined “apparitions”
I traveled across the North American continent, as you all call it, by backpack for over a year, from the East Coast to the West Coast, arriving in Santa Cruz, California. When I stopped for a while in Colorado, I was inhabiting a land that had a governing body that would be called Liberal.
My gear was not outdoor hiking gear, but was military equipment. Pack, clothing, and sleep gear. So to the “local authorities”, I looked like a homeless vet, but not a drug ridden homeless vet. I was well disciplined, clean, fit, and healthy.
“Police” is named after “polis”, which means “city”. The term “policy” is a part of the notion of police. They are those in uniform, more often than not, who enforce the policy of a polis, the city. They enforce the code and the standards under the color of law, which is not the same as being Law. But I will not break down this complex notion.
The policy enforcement of this Liberal city did not like that a vet looking fella was walking around, freely living in the forest and coming out and going back in confidence. CONFIDENCE bothers those with DIFFIDENCE, and vicious natures.
Remember that, when one uses ARROGANCE and NARCISSISM to attack those who show CONFIDENCE, and have the SKILL and COMPETENCE to back it up, only INEPT, DIFFIDENT, and REPUGNANT kinds are quick to label others these things, so readily.
The city enforcement moves to harass me, looking to get me to “submit”, to “obey”, to “yield”, and be “inferior”. When I stood tall as the SOVEREIGN I was becoming, they had no choice in their system of thought to but attack my body, because my mind would not waiver. So I received numerous beatdowns from the local police, and they had taken my equipment and tore through it, destroying some of the pieces to make the use of them obsolete.
I had the ability, the skill and the competence to destroy these tyrants, if ever I wanted to. Police are not well trained and experienced at actual combat. Most of them, but not all of them… are CHUMPS. And you can tell who the chump is, because their insecurity requires them to over assert themselves, and place you in a role of inferiority and subject.
Most of you would not agree with this and see it this way, because you were born with diffidence, and live as cowards, already so easily submitted. You do not have a FIGHT towards self-rule and self standing. They do not need to submit you, because your mommies and daddies already did this for them.
I took those beatings, because fighting back was not in my strategic interest. My experiment was to intentionally find myself before the courts, to exercise my sense of Jurisprudence. It would be too easy to use physical force to destroy tyrants. It is bestial and base, and only the last resort for a Warrior Sage. These were not Warriors among the city; they were THUGS in costumes, with a status of being APPARITIONS.
If you have never received a beating from a law enforcement officer, it's because you have lived a life of safety and security, through obedience and subjugation. You have been nothing but COMPLIANT. For most, it is easy to be compliant, because you will not stray from the easy path. You will not walk where you are told you are not allowed to. You will not seek to live among nature freely, where you see fit. You will not walk in front of their targeting systems, but avoid a life that could lead that way, and declare, in your commercial existence, you are free, so long as this means… to consume. To DRINK, SEX, and be MERRY.
I chose to step outside of this, and walk before their targeting systems. It was deliberate and intentional, and the fight was not a physical one for me, though that is all they could produce. The fight for me was “philosophical”, for the lack of a better term. What happens if I walk out to be NO ONE, and live USELESS, yet free, making the DOME of the SKY my only HOME, living as the Mytho Buddha had done? Can I walk in SOVEREIGNTY, and see the evidence in all the parts that indeed, I am left to be FREE?
The answer to this, by the city-state, is NO. So there was a fight in the realm of Jurisprudence, and I was dragged into the courts. Now, I have never been convicted of a crime. I have been charged with many crimes, but never a crime on the books, that had a so-called victim. I have never been accused of VICTIMIZING someone.
I have broken many RULES, POLICIES, and CODES. In breaking them, none of them was around vice. They were broken during the religious practice of my Virtue. They were broken only from the perspective of the make-believe agents of the city and state, who needed me to be as much of an APPARITION as they were.
I will not go into detail about this fight in law against the city-state. I won that fight, and eventually after many interactions, I was placed on a DO NOT CONTACT list, which was oral, not actual, whereby the local enforcement was told, if there was no victim or indecency, they were to leave me be to wander.
One of the things I knew to do was to hold the court as a fiction, extremely accountable to their use of terms, and their meaning. I did not presume any words they used were founded upon the common usage. Now, I will get to my point.
Youse, you commons who have no sense of integration of parts to grasp in knowledge the whole, GRUNT out what you think words mean, based on imitation and mimicry. Most of youse think you speak a language, but in actuality you do not. You FEEL words, and inject in the use of the words your own meaning, that happens to match, in mimicry, the same feelings as your familiars. Normies, which most of you are… are retarded in language, by any standard.
Take as an example, when the court, a fiction, says: “you must APPEAR before the court, on this date and that”. You are appearing in court. You have made a “court APPEARANCE”. For you normies, who have no drive for knowing the parts, you will have a feeling of what “appear” means, with the limits of “to be seen”. That is it. I am here, therefore, I have appeared. That would suffice for you in your living, because you do not live with consequences for your ignorance of language.
But in a court, language is its machinery. They are very specific in their use of words. When you are not, and you do not refute their terms, your ignorance and its silence is taken as evidence of both infanthood―meaning, you do not Reason, and therefore, yield to those who do―and then that of your consent. In SILENCE, you CONSENT. In the absence of a rebuttal, you consent. In the mimic and the imitation of the use of terms, you will often appear to agree to things you are not aware of.
I used the term “apparition” above, and in it is the term “appearance”, and in further it has “an appearance”, if you will, with that of “attendants”, and in the classical Latin sense, “service”, “servants”.
There is a status component here that most will never have learned of. In fact, in many of the words used, there are status elements, and value hierarchies noted. One may think it “frivolous” that I draw upon etymology, on a level one could call religious.
Indeed, etymology is very important, when it comes to my sense of the English language, and that of the ideas in which I will come to integrate through its use. The integration could not occur, if I was limited to the common tongue, and the mere grunting youse engage in.
I could not think the way I think, if I learned to navigate English from mimicking, and imitating the rest of youse, as you have only done, from those you source your “tongue” from. Being a mimic is being an idiot. This does not mean mimicry and imitation are useless. The variable here, to define such quality, is that of AWARENESS, ACCOUNTABILITY, and DELIBERATION.
I know better than to mimic, and to imitate the ways of the court, thus showing ignorance and inferiority, giving sound foundation to the presumption the court makes that you are a subject, inferior, servant, and in obedience.
Etymology of Appear (v.)
late 13c., “come into view,” from stem of Old French aparoir, aperer “appear, come to light, come forth” (12c., Modern French apparoir), from Latin apparere “to appear, come in sight, make an appearance,” from ad “to” (see ad-) + parere “to come forth, be visible; submit, obey,” which is of uncertain origin; de Vaan says from a PIE *prh-o- “providing.” Of persons, “present oneself,” late 14c. Meaning “seem, have a certain appearance” is late 14c. Related: Appeared; appearing.
There is a part of this etym. above that reveals something different, and less thought of. That of:
from ad “to” (see ad-) + parere “to come forth, be visible; submit, obey,”
Why is there the notion of “obedience”, “submission”, and to be seen as such, in this term?
Could it be that the COURT APPEARANCE has you seen in an OBEDIENT, and SUBMISSIVE rank and ROLE? Of course it does. Neither equal nor superior is the presumption before some court.
When these courts had this term present, about my interaction, I was required, on record, to refute the notion of an “appearance”.
I stated that I am NOT in appearance; that I am there before them in the absence of any recognition of the present individuals; that I do NOT CONSENT to be GOVERNED, RULED, or JUDGED by their social order and private club; that I am not there on matters of contract, oath, or agreement; and that I am not in SUBMISSION, I am not in OBEDIENCE, and that I am NOT an APPARITION or a GHOST.
I needed them to define who they were, and by what authority they were compelling me to “seem to appear”, which I was not doing.
Of course, like you may be doing… they laughed. Like you, only with a costume on, and having education and status in this fiction, they did not see the use of that term to mean anything but to be “seen” by that of the “court”.
Instead, in their mimicry and imitation, their sense of authority could not be refuted by my catching of the use of the term “appear”; and if this is refuted, they must PROVE that in fact, I am their SUBJECT. They do not have any sense of this proof being their burden, once their prima facie assertion has been refuted.
They do not honor the principles by which their governance was founded upon, because they are ignorant of them. One can not honor what they have no knowledge of, and when one comes along who has a greater knowledge, it is not this knowledge that shall set them free among the ignorant.
Ignorance can not often be Reasoned with. One then burdens them, and takes away opportunistic feeding. This, then, is what I came to do, making their prosecution of me cost them a great deal of trouble. I did not win out, out of sound Reasoning, exactness of language, and that of strategies of a clear nature that defeated their reasoning. I would come to win because of relentless deployment of legal devices that I was discovering along the way, that would tie up their system, and cost them money, time, resources, and eventually, their actual seats, if they continued. Out of becoming a legal annoyance, I became free.
On account that I was not harming anyone, not engaged in vices, or indecency, it was easy for them to leave me to my Victory. Also, that I am not an activist, and declared I would not be, meant that it was just me getting through, and that such would never become a popular set of disobedient behavior.
A simple word such as “appear” means nothing to you, MIMICS. Most of your words mean nothing to you. When then you hear from me, or read from me, ALL words mean something to me, and I can define what that means, you think me tedious. Because of this, then, if ever you were to encounter one who has taken the Vows to themselves, of the VOTARY of a VIR… you would think, like you, they are merely MIMICKING, and KNOW not what they say or think… LIKE YOU.
This is what always makes it odd, when normies attack “fringe” and “otherly” groups as “cults” and “crazy” on account of what fancy beliefs they may hold. For, the normy holds in their inept and retarded mind far more notions that are apparitions, than whatever deviated thought that otherly group is inventing. Why, that otherly group would not be able to get away with convincing others of absurd thinking, if not for the normalization of the absurd in NORMAL living.
ALL OF YOUSE, ABSOLUTELY ALL OF YOUSE, GROOM each other for the ABSURD, the FANCY, the merely IMAGINED, MIMICKED, and agreed upon. You're ALL GROOMERS of the STATE, of ACADEMIA, and of MEDIA. This then making it to where you are all nothing but GHOSTS, APPARITIONS, having an APPEARANCE, which is in the state of being obedient, submissive, servile, and in ATTENDANCE.
Etymology of Attendance (n.)
late 14c., “act of attending to one's duties” (archaic), from Old French atendance “attention, wait, hope, expectation,” from atendant, present participle of atendre “expect, wait for; pay attention” (see attend). Meaning “action of waiting on someone” dates from late 14c. (to dance attendance on someone is from 1560s); that of “action of being present, presenting oneself” (originally with intent of taking a part) is from mid-15c. Meaning “number of persons present” is from 1835. To take attendance in a classroom or lecture is by 1891.
Etymology of Attendant (n.)
“one who waits upon another,” early 15c., from the adjective or from French noun use of present participle of atendre (see attend).
Etymology of Attendant (adj.)
late 14c., “solicitous, attentive,” from Old French atendant, present participle of atendre “expect, wait for, pay attention” (see attend (v.)). Sense of “serving under, accompanying in a dependent position” is from c. 1400; that of “closely consequent” is from 1610s.
Etymology of Waiter (n.)
late 14c., “attendant, watchman,” agent noun from wait (v.). Sense of “attendant at a meal, servant who waits at tables” is from late 15c., originally in reference to household servants; in reference to inns, eating houses, etc., it is attested from 1660s.
Your RULERS, your MASTERS, your SLAVERS have been telling you the TRUTH, in regards to your STATUS, almost all of your lives. And they knew they could tell you the truth, because they knew you would not investigate the parts of the complex notions they govern you by.
They knew you would mimic and imitate each other, existing as a retarded and inept collective that has no sense of individual thinking. Collectivism, being innate to the masses, as you are likely, has you accepting and agreeing, in masses, to complex conclusions; and individualism would incline you to investigate the individual parts compounded to form the conclusions, and take accurate account of the notions. COLLECTIVISM breeds INEPTITUDE, STUPIDITY, MEDIOCRITY, SUBMISSION, OBEDIENCE, SERVILITY, and SACRIFICE.
INDIVIDUALISM BREEDS KNOWLEDGE, INTELLIGENCE, EXCELLENCE, AUTHORITY, AUTONOMY, and that of SELF-WORTH, in which most of you shall never have.
Like a domestic animal is raised, and reared for exploitation, so then has it been the course of your education as a mere subject. The very fact that you were compelled into state sponsored education would shock you and wake you up, if there was an individual spirit, soul, or intellect in you seeking to be expressed. In the absence of such a shock, there is that called the exploited animal and subject, raised and reared in its stupidity.
Etymology of Education (n.)
1530s, “child-rearing,” also “the training of animals,” from French education (14c.) and directly from Latin educationem (nominative educatio) “a rearing, training,” noun of action from past-participle stem of educare (see educate). Originally of instruction in social codes and manners; meaning “systematic schooling and training for work” is from 1610s.
All education is despotism. [William Godwin, “Enquirer,” 1797]
Educated RETARDS who have been engaged in nothing but MIMICRY and IMITATION the whole of your lives.
So then, when it comes to targeting me for access, in the past, but no more… one would step before me, having been reared by the schools, and the houses of ineptitude under PARENTS who are nothing more than SUBJECTS, SERVANTS, in OBEDIENCE, SUBMISSION, and IGNORANCE.
And to gain access came that of activating the mechanism in which the bulk of you have only known. Imitate him, his words, his ways. Mimic what he does, and he will “like” and “praise” you. He will accept you as “like” and “familiar”, as “friend”, and “lover”.
Only, what others did not know, lacking contrast, is I always had a plan for that. I would pull back, and no longer provide my energetics, and see what the subject would do, and almost ALL but perhaps ONE have always done the same thing.
They reset into being NOTHING, about nothing, PRODUCING nothing, MOTIVATED by nothing; thus, proving they only move, and be about when there is something to mimic and imitate, and in the absence of a projecting and imprinting force, they, perhaps YOU, simply succumb to a state in inactivity, docility, timidity, and emptiness.
What is not mimic, and mere imitation is that which, when no one is looking, is precisely what you do, want to do, will do, expect to do, from thyself, and only thyself, for thy own value, nature, and the need for it to be expressed. When what you do when free needs to find its way in likeness to others, you have found your true slaver, and it is the fancy narratives in their stage of conclusion that run you... and you run nothing.
You become a slave of SAM, the Society Advanced by the Majority, whose advancement is in the symbols, the terms, the meaning in which your mind uses to navigate thought. If this arena of cognition does not become disciplined, exact, accountable, skilled, and competent, then the emotion of confidence that is needed for the emotion of Triumph does not, and never can be brought about.
Mimic and imitation is needed for survival at the start, for the infant mind, but it is something one is supposed to advance out of. Though this can be said to be the case, this does not then mean, because one is an INFANT in mind, no matter their age, when they come to discover the “WAY of the VIR”, that then this excuses mimicry and imitation, so long as it is only in the beginning, and left quickly. NO.
I say again, loud and clear… NO. There is to be no mimicry, and no imitation in that of the “Way of Vir”. One either becomes knowledgeable in the parts, given the necessary Vitality, Vigor, Vigilance, and Valor, or they ought to stay very clear of the “Ways”. There is absolutely no level of acceptance of mimicry and imitation for access.
There is SKILL, COMPETENCE, CONFIDENCE, and TRIUMPH for access. Evidence of mimicry and imitation is in that, the one doing so will not be able to take the parts, and build by degree usable versions of the “Way”. They will get the parts seemingly right, here and there, by chance, proving in their lack of Control, Management, Manipulation and Entertainment from and through the parts, they have not INTEGRATED them into UNITS of KNOWLEDGE and APPLICATION, through DISCIPLINES.
Mimics will be quick to look for something new to mimic, for Entertainment. A mimic is entertained mostly in AMUSEMENT, and/or SEDUCTION―but those too in the lowest level of ENGAGING Entertainment are often there under imitation and mimicry.
On this note, to leave this specific notion covered… The only thing that is not MIMICRY and IMITATION is that whereby one comes to KNOW, not believe, where one comes to INTEGRATE, not agree, where one comes to APPLY, from and on their own, having the source be their own nature, and the product correlated to that very nature.
This way when what is produced is accounted for, it can be mapped back to the producer, and the production does not require, nor have the need for that of another to be the source. Another may have instigated the direction and the set of notions, but when one has integrated them themselves, they now own it, for themselves, and the instigating source is no longer relevant.
Those who do not deal in integration, but deal in the fancy instigated by others, can and will only see that those integrating are doing the same thing. They will not conceive of integration. They will see one engaged in a complex conclusion, and like seeing themselves in a mirror, they will suppose that neither you nor them overstand the parts, have any sense of them.
That you have your IMAGINED APPARITIONS, and they have theirs, and of the two, the one that is normal is superior to the one that is OTHERLY, and that is all you are, to the IMBECILE. You will never be known, or observable by traits and attributes to the imbecile, the inept, the mental midget, who is retarded and cowardly. They can only see you, or thee, so far as they can see themselves, which is not far at all, and rather chumpy, in status.
When one mimics, and one imitates, they are behaving in appearance. They are inferior, submissive, obedient, servile, and driven by their insecurities and their fears, with belonging and bonding as a strong drive. In the WAY of the VIR, this is not the way. FLATTERY is not the Way of the VIR. IMITATION is not the Way of the VIR. MIMICRY is not the Way of the VIR.
This, however, in closing, is separate from that of behaviors that become mimicked and imitated subconsciously, on account that one has a greater abundance of exposure to a new behavior, than they do to the reinforcement of the old and familiar behavior. Manners of speech and movement are correlated to how you live. Though it can be called a subconscious imitation and mimicry, it is the kind that is natural and acceptable, on account that when one's conditions change, and have dominant elements to them, adapting to those elements is a part of navigating them.
It is not authentic for one to engage new conditions with dominant changes and behaviors, and remain in accord with what was once default and reinforced from previous conditions. That would be absurd.
When one encounters normies, and one has changed on account of an abundance of different values, that past associate will allude to the previous self being the authentic self, and the new self being a mere imitation and mimic.
In actuality, default selves are more often than not nothing but mimicry, and imitation. On account that it is the only way one has been, and is familiar with, they call it their authentic self. They then call what comes later, a fake, or fraudulent self. They say, “this is not who you really are, I remember who you used to be, and thus, who you really are.” “This new thing is make-believe.”
When one has this attitude, they are projecting, and thus showing how they engage the world. In their safety and security to the familiar, they praise it as authentic, and can not see they are a mimic of the familiar. That all they have is based on PRECEDENCE and FAMILIARITY.
If they were to change up, they know about themselves, it would be because they would be faking it for access. They would be imitating and mimicking so that they get something for the play. Because this, they know about themselves, in their limits to only seeing things as far as they see themselves, so then would they see the Votary.
They would see the Votary as engaged in the same deception and delusion they would be, and it is from here the accusation comes forth, that is, appears. It APPEARS, from that of their submission and obedience to the default settings of the PROCESSION, whereby PRECEDENCE and FAMILIARITY means everything, and there is no contrast, by any other standard. They exist only to have that which is already had, play out into fruition.
They will be correct in their assumption that those before them are running the same play of MIRRORING others they wish to have access to. They will not be correct by Reasoning correctly, for they can not do this. They will be correct on account of how high in probability it is that someone is engaged in this first play, in the Battle for Access. Coming at others as a mimic is simply the norm.
It is so much the norm, most would think, it certainly is not happening. A replicant has done nothing but mimic, and imitate their familiars, and on account of this, they are a generic Gerry, and generic Jenny, trapped in a shell of uniformity, mostly composed of mere imaginations, or that is, apparitions.
Any idea, or notion that is sourced in the fancy, not founded in actuality through sound observation, and/or concluded in mind through sound dialectics, is simply that: a mere apparition, and is called such, and identified as such by the Votary.
One is not a Votary without the self-declared Vow to engage in INTEGRATION, that is INVESTIGATIVE, KNOWLEDGE based, whereby one comes to own the parts, and weaves them into a WAY that is a SYSTEM that is well definable. The use of the definition of another is not mimicry, and imitation, if one has knowledge of the parts being well accounted for in the definition. If it is based on, “it is so, because of the source”, this is appeal to authority fallacy, an erroneous way to Reason, and is not based in the “Way of the Vir”.
No matter if one is male among males, or a female among females, the two of them are more often than not subconsciously engaging in having mimicked, and/or imitated, and/or that of at the present time of play, or Battle for Access, mimicking, and/or imitating to appear familiar, and to refrain from conflict and that of triggering the repugnance from others.
EMPATHY is an APPARITION
Empathy is nothing more than an observant seeing in others a presumed emotional state, always of a negative sort, and then mimicking and imitating them, to show they care, or that is, “share in the same ANXIOUS CONCERN”.
This is the play of compassion. Compassion needs a victim. Those who need to be compassionate need there to be those who need, and call out, with emotional displays, for others to come and share in their suffering with them. Those who are compassionate are no more than Vampyres, feeding off the suffering of others.
They are SUFFER FEEDERS, and evidence of this can be found in the very obvious fact that they, the feeder, will not push for a solution to solve the problem, and to bring about a power state from the sufferer. They will merely join them in the CÂLICE PILE, sit there, and tell them it all smells good.
Feeders who feed on suffering, those who call it compassion, will not have a record of ever levying demands of excellence and advancement upon themselves or others. They will be seen as the shoulder to cry on who cares. To care is no more than to feed on the anxious concerns of others. Care bears, normalized, appear favorable, but only to the weak who need to be cared for. Those who do not need to be cared for see those bears for what they really are: APPARITIONS and VAMPYRES, hiding behind a rainbow of colors.
EMPATHY is FRAUD. It's the fraud of mimicry and imitation, so as to feed on the negative emotions of others, and whereby one can feel better about themselves for being on the feeding end, over the one being fed upon.
The very fact that this attitude of mine and rendering of care, compassion, and empathy in this light would be alien to you, the reader, hearing here, and only here for the first time… begs the question… have you examined, ever, that of the parts of these terms, and the behaviors exhibited under them, in their categories?
If the answer is no, then you can not say, your sense of these terms and their described behaviors was born out of that of integration, knowledge, observation, investigation, and valid accounting. Instead, you have a sense derived from having mimicked and imitated the values of your neurotic mommies, and servile daddies. Expound and define for yourself, and perhaps others, how this empathy thing, compassion thing, and care thing is anything more than an emotionally hungry GHOST, who needs inept victims to feed upon.
Why, without someone sucking at life, those who are compassionate, and caring would have no one to be compassionate and caring towards. Those who have these traits HATE those who are high performing, and who do not need, nor want them. They feel rejected, and abandoned.
There is a reason why practice of compassion and care is more common among the shaman poor, the hippies, and those running scams called psychology, and therapy. It's more common among them, because what is not common among them are those of HIGH PERFORMERS, who deal in SKILL based, COMPETENCE based, TRIUMPHANT thought.
If you are in a room of high performers, what value then happens to care, to compassion, to empathy?
That should be enough to cause a reevaluation of these notions, and get one to shake their mere mimicked and imitating sense.
Amusement and Seduction, as two forms of Entertainment, have no place in the “Way of the Vir”, because the two of them require chumps. The Way of the Vir is not a religion of, or for chumps. It is a religion for CHAMPS.
Religions and ideas that are about care and compassion are religions and ideologies, apparitions for those who APPEAR―and they APPEAR― with their moans, their cries, and their emotional displays to show obedience, submission, timidity, servility, pain, and suffering, marking them as inepts, inferiors, and basket cases.
One of the things I have counseled males in, but they can not listen to, because they are servile chumps, is with females, stop letting them be about care and compassion in some kind of relationship. That, this is Venenifer, it is venom; it is cognitive and emotional poison.
I have informed ALL males, especially human males, that when you chumps stop to listen to their cries, their moans, their displeasures, you are submissive, obedient, agreeable, timid, and revealed to be a coward. If you can not stand up to a human female, and tell her to stop the negative emotional pity party, you are a CHUMP, and she will treat you like what you are.
She will not be the one to have made you that way, though perhaps your mommy did. The new girl―and she is a girl if she contends with petty emotions―is simply there revealing what your mommies, and inept servile daddies made you: and that is a little boy who has come to praise, through mimicry and imitation, that of Mommy's evaluation of the negative emotions, your anxiety towards concerns, which then demands care, which is met through deference.
This trap of the petty emotions is only possible when mimics are the subjects. The reason the Hollywood movies show what you all are likely to encounter, only, in an amusing or seductive way, is on account that the bulk of you are mimicking, and imitating each other, never stopping to investigate if there are other ways of engaging.
I have never, and never would let some little girl, no matter her age, young or old, have me serve her PETTY EMOTIONS. I do not have petty emotions of my own that need caring for, so I do not come to be a good meal for the Veneficus who needs to feed on a Venenifer. This is the relationship. Those who are not Venenifer, are not poisoned and broken, are useless to the poisoners, the feeders, because they will not get an agreeable response.
When you chumps submit to little girls and their petty emotions, it is only because like them, you have petty emotions, and you need and want attention and attachment to answer to how inept and lowly you feel, on account of having nothing integrated in your minds and characters founded upon any valid construct. You have only your MIMICKED and IMITATED ways that trigger in you your DIFFIDENCE, whereby you can not trust your own quality, nor the quality of another, because such trust has not been earned through acquisition.
In this state of diffidence, you two make each other nervous and timid, or that is, reveal youse are already like this, and so you play in circles now, to relieve these nerves, through amusements, and partial Seductions, if it can be called that. You DIVERT and you DISTRACT. You DELUDE, make light of, and mock… and you provide RELIEF. This is what you all do in your ineptitude.
VIR DON'T PLAY THAT…
ACCESS DENIED
The caring, the compassionate, the kind, and the nice, these are all mimicked and imitated ways, where males and females are mimicking Mommy, never stopping to think of how incompetent most of your mommies have shown you they are. In essence, they were and always have been the worst thing to mimic.
The reason behind males calling other males sissies, in the past, was on account of saying, you are mimicking your sister, who is mimicking your mommy, and you are not supposed to be a model of these mimics, when a male and young. In the absence of a better way, you were at least expected to mimic a male role model. Not just any male, but a male who had authority, and was locking down their world, excelling. A good role model, then, was by some standard. It does not mean the standard was right, or in accordance with one's nature.
Most of those males I had observed, even those doing well in material gains, were not doing well in what spoke to my nature. Few were ever able to be anything more than models, about locking down the conditions. Some were of the mind where self conquest spoke to them and they did well.
I had in my own mind a male role model who was not even male, nor was it female. The Vir, always there in my mind, as imagined, was the same, no matter male or female. Only humans have this thing female and male, because humans are mere animals, as your education proves out, that have nothing to them but a mimicked existence designed to cover the nakedness of their bestial behavior designed around mere consuming to fornicate, and laboring to secure the products of fornication―the life youse live, explained and summed up in a single sentence.
Never has your kind, or near kind ever shown me what I was supposed to be, and therefore, it is absurd to presume that one ought to then come to mimic and imitate me, as a role model.
Far too many tried to flatter me by appearing, as they only can, to model their sense of direction based on me. Those who have tried only revealed that in their mimicry, what they were about, and could be about had no proximity to anything about me, and what I am about.
They would only show me what they had translated me to be, in their inept minds. And not a SINGLE one of them could ever say with evidence, they knew the Man whom they were seeking to model themselves off of. The idea they were modeling themselves upon was an apparition of their own minds, and had nothing to do with me.
Boys will mimic of me what they think gets me access to females. Boys think I come off as the bad boy, and that this is what females find appealing in me. So they will think, they want to be a bad boy.
The girls, the only ones they can get the attention of, then get a hold of them, and lay their petty emotions upon them, only to find out they were no BAD boy, but they are Mama's boy, because only a Mama's boy sits there and listens to the anxious concerns and cry for care of a little girl.
A so-called bad boy, which I am not, but liken to in this area, does not listen to her nonsense, or anyone's. Where there is a problem, it needs solving. This sense of, listen to her cries but do not try to promote solutions, is for CHUMPS. She is a chump for being that way, looking to vent and not solve, and he is a chump for allowing it to be that way, and playing a part in it.
Mr Mimic pretending to be a bad boy gets exposed immediately for being nothing more than a DECEPTIVE Mama's BOY, a little sissy, and the girl did not need to work hard in any way to expose him. It will be as if he is relieved to be found out.
He got the access; now with his attachment figure, he can play house once again with the mommy he was previously forced to leave, when of age of responsibility. He wants his mommy back to manage his petty emotions, to attach to, and the new girl is just that. So when she brings him into her suffering, and her concerns for care, he is only so happy, because this is the mark of Mommy. In his SIMPLETON mind, he thanks her for this PRIVILEGE, and she now must deceive him till she finds a better option, lie to him about how she likes him, and values him. Only of course till she is able not to, and then that which was always there comes out.
You all, all throughout your lives, have plenty of examples of how, through mimicry and imitation, concern, care, compassion, kindness, and niceties, it is nothing more than you all playing each other, deceiving each other, and all of your relationships expose you to this fact, and then you lie more to yourselves to cover up what you have discovered. You have discovered that you are a chump, and so is everyone around you, and you have never been given an alternative to the life of a chump. But given that alternative, does it then mean you were not meant to be a chump? No.
Fact be told, you were likely born to be a chump, and will live a chump's defeat till you die, and all along only wonder if everyone you have ever known had but any who were not a chump like you. The answer will be, BORN to chumps, surrounded by CHUMPS, there was never a such thing as a CHAMP. Instead, the notion of a champ is from sports, entertainment and business. Material champs, who in their personal lives are revealed more often than not to be chumps too, just like you. In a land of chumps, there are no chumps… there are normies.
It is certainly a play of access to come as one's familiar, through imitation and mimicry, and because most are familiar to each other, more so than not, one would not even assume they are mirroring and mimicking for access.
This, because it's mostly all one has ever done. Male, female, or whatever, fact of the matter is, most are replicants, and in being a replicant, there is no need to consciously mimic others for access… but it will actually occur, unless one is AWARE, and AWAKE.
You all will never find me mimicking and imitating youse, because the way in which you all behave, to me, is found pathetic and undesirable. I do not want the outcome you all have, in subjugation and defeat, and therefore, I will not perform in the same manner.
Know this, in conclusion of this play, this Battle for Access… NEVER have I used this play with others. Never have I tried to DISARM others, through appearing FAMILIAR, and mimicking, IMITATING them… and the route of FLATTERY. But everyone, from the start, has always, in the past, begun with me through first mimicking, imitating, and being agreeable; and to this ever occurring in the future again, there is…
ACCESS DENIED
There is now only INTEGRATION, with one owning the parts, and being the source of the motivation to apply them, and confirm that indeed, it is now their Vocation, and they are a Votary.
Where one is not a Votary, they will not advance past mere Engaging Entertainment with me, and even then, that will be highly limited. Only a Votary gets then access to that of the further expounding, born out of my value, and will have an approximation to knowing me. This is the sense of the expression, to “NOT BE OF THIS WORLD”, in the sense of, the religious life.
Those who are of this “world” will act as so, and at times, say otherwise on account of having APPARITIONS that differ, in which they can have the appearance, and only that. In actuality, in all they do, and who they associate with, it will all be “worldly”.
The VIR is not of the “world”, but neither are they defeated and oppressed by any proximity to it either. They can be MASTERS of the “world” and must prove that, through VICTORIES, but they know the “world” is filled with the DEAD, is the UNDERWORLD, and it is therefore, then, not a prize to the Vir, but instead, a WARNING.
To the world is the response…
ACCESS DENIED
