Part III

On Patterns of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment

Chapter 6

The Emotional Kinetics of Diffidence or Confidence

Through the use of being a MIMIC and an IMITATOR, one is coming to be “known” to their target in the way in which most have ever known each other: as that of a FAMILIAR. Even the term “to know”, or the expression “to know” is not the best form. It is to FAMILIARIZE, to be FAMILIAR, and to become FAMILIAR. This in actuality is what is occurring. Out of repeated exposure to someone or something that does not “appear” at face value to be a “threat”, one will grow comfortable in its presence.

The issue here, with the familiar, which is more often than not based upon PRECEDENCE, is that it often “says nothing else” about the status of the individual, the group, or the condition. Simply put, its status is in the processions, that which has preceded in Control and Influence, and that which is appointed, and established as familiar.

In order for a thing in precedence to be familiar, it must not be fought, resisted, undermined, usurped, and/or destroyed. This means, in the realm of the emotional Kinetics, the familiar is that which avoids the triggering of one's emotion of repugnance. The familiar often answers with comfort and ease, to that of one's emotional concerns. It provides some sense of security and safety. Sense here is key, and a standard of actual safety and security does not need to factor in, though it can.

Born in diffidence or confidence

In the emotional scheme of things, there is the first and dominant feeling, or emotion of DIFFIDENCE. As I have covered previously, diffidence is that of not “trusting”, that is, “feeling potent” in oneself, and therefore, incapable of observing, and trusting in that of the potency of others. Trust, here, is not so easy to cover without straying too far from my present point. Refer to other areas for that.

But in the realm of dichotomies, it is either one is BORN, that is, by DEFAULT, feeling that of:

DIFFIDENCE

Or

CONFIDENCE

These manifest themselves in that of a DISPOSITION of TWO ORDERS:

TIMID

Or

BOLD

Those who are TIMID are so on account of DIFFIDENCE.

Those who are BOLD are so on account of CONFIDENCE.

This does not mean, the conditions support either of the feelings. It is an internal pull. That internal pull, that disposition, is based on an internal network of natural self-assessment forming the foundation of one's self-esteem, one's self-worth, or that is, innate belief in quality.

There are many variables that factor into this default Sense of Self, from physical and mental strength, to talents, aptitudes, and so on. There is a feeling one has about themselves before they begin to experience their conditions.

In my observations, few ever come to realize this, because by time they have done any thinking that can be called moving towards awareness, they have so much of their conditions to contend with. When I refer to the mud of others, this is what is often meant. The mud is that of conditions, and it can cover the nature of an individual entirely, keeping them from seeing that of themselves, as well as seeing others, and being seen by others.

So the mud of the conditions needs to be stripped away. It is not stripped away by OPPOSING the mud. It is stripped away by diving deep into a vast body of water, so to say. This is liken to saying, find the Virtuous way to be, and BECOME it; DO NOT fight the vicious way of being, and seek to undo it. One does not stop vice as a solution; one starts Virtue as a solution, and will have no time, no energy, no attention to afford that of vice. This is key. It is more about what you do, than it is about what you do not do.

Because one has been conditioned, and living conditionally for so long, there is often far too much mud to uncover one's own nature, and then to come into accordance with it, versus that of being the reactionary, or the conditional self, often called the false self. The theory would then be that in everyone, there is a self that would have had a natural course, correlated to their innate identity, and then there is a self, or a person, a product that exists based upon external and artificial dictates. A NATURAL self, versus an ARTIFICIAL self.

However, any element of self that is communicated to others needs be through SYMBOLS, if not too that of observable and manifested behavior. Because of this, one does not and perhaps can not ever observe the natural self of another, but is always limited to the SYMBOLIC self of another, the SELF of ARTIFICE, the ARTIFICIAL SELF. Artificial, here, is not meant to be read with a negative connotation. It is not negative, but will be necessary, for all socializing.

The key, then, is not destruction nor negation of the artificial and symbolic self, but that of mastery over it, whereby as a symbolic construct, it is refashioned to be based upon the discovered, innate, and natural self. That one is to master the arts of symbolizing the self, so that they become the master of the symbols, and place their Master's Mark on the person, or the self of artifice, defining themselves for others in and of how they ought to be seen and/or treated.

This differs from the lives of most. Most have an artificial self, a symbolic self that is the product of the collective that preceded them in the procession, and holds the most familiar positions of influence. One, therefore, has a person that belongs to the collective, and can only see itself so far as it sees or is seen by the collective.

One is, in essence, defined by others, who too are defined by others, and not one of them will be living a life in VICTORY of SELF, from a natural standpoint. One is a citizen, a subject, a countryman, and the color of their skin, and/or the status, the rank, the names of regions, and/or of those cousins who look, and have been fashioned in thought in the same conditioned manner. One becomes and comes to exist simply as a replicant of a scripted collective, that assigns to each flesh being its personality, based upon being and becoming useful to the group.

Of what could be discovered in an individual about their nature is in this first category around sense of potency, that others would use the term “trust” for.

Your physical frame is a strong indicator of how you were born to feel about you. Meaning, that standard is based upon how your body would hold up to the climate, to the region of birth, and the threats that would exist in a primal condition. One who is, say, born with genetic conditions that would have them fat, and in need of struggling harder than most to lose weight and be fit, can not, by nature's standards, feel potent by default, but instead, as a fatty, they will have a hyper set of levels of insecurity and fear around their conditions, and their standings with others.

Because of this, they will often be like babies, trying to smile and please others with humor, keeping things light, and being the life of the assembly. Fatties have a high proclivity towards AMUSEMENT, versus SEDUCTION and that of ENGAGING and ACTIVE Entertainment.

Their physical carriage makes them timid, and by default, in avoidance to that of risk. They would not be risk-takers, for higher gains. They will seek comfort, ease, and clutter around them, to guard them from having to face threat cycles that would often be in nature. This is for those who would be born with this DEFAULT physical carriage.

It can be said, conditionally, this also occurs when one gathers fat, and becomes a fatty. It will change the way their mind navigates. One who was born bold, with a healthy carriage, or body, would be reduced in their natural status in the accumulation of fat, and/or conditional changes that occur that make them unfit for battling the elements, and/or the threats.

One's physical carriage is essential to their first set of feelings, and this too is why, what is one's natural body type can indicate a great deal about them, and their proclivities. Because conditions are often superior to their nature, it does not mean that body type will be accurate to tell you about what the individual is doing, and how they are living.

It will only tell you what, given the CHOICE and FREEDOM, they would likely be pulled towards. Where a condition is dominant, and liberties are lower, the nature of the individual will not have dominance in dictating what they are about. The condition will compel their behavior. But their natural type, in the physical sense, will tell you what chances there are, in regards to their compatibility with the conditions. When the conditions do not match the nature of the individuals, their suffering is much higher than those who seem to match the conditions the best.

Those who are born with frail, weak, and unintimidating, so to say, frames, will indeed be far more timid on scale, than those who are born with robust frames, size, and physical potency. It is not that those of bold and robust frames are treated differently that they think so much differently about themselves. It is that, because of how they will think of themselves by nature, they are likely to perform in bold ways with more ease; and therefore, a condition that favors boldness will favor them. Just as a condition that does not favor boldness, like the one I see around me, would eventually turn on those bold in disposition, who were once praised.

When numbers grow, and systems become more free, the most aggressive ones will dominate... and that is not the bold ones. It is a myth that the bold are aggressive. It is the weak who are the most aggressive in mind, towards that of controlling, managing, manipulating, and amusing and/or seducing others. This will only be exposed when the liberty is high, and dependency upon the bold is reduced and/or removed.

In more brutish and primal conditions, the weak need the bold to protect and provide for them. In domestication and settlements, when division of labor and governance dominate, the need for the bold becomes massively reduced, and the system becomes dominated by those with heightened insecurities, fears, concerns, cries for care and deference, often incapable of being met by their own.

How one is born, first and foremost, means some of the greatest things. I will develop a sense of the physical carriage and its indications on personality in the future. That is not for here and now.

Timid is in DIFFIDENCE. This lack of potency means, one needs far more reassurance of their security, their safety, and their stability, and these assurances can never come from within. They are only met by the conditions, being forced to be as favorable to their feelings of ineptitude as possible.

One who is born in diffidence will always be a collectivist, and focus heavy on conditions, making both excuses as well as demands in that it must favor them, provide for them, and be the determining factor in all. When things go wrong, to them, it is not because they were born feeling wrong; it is because the CONDITIONS are not giving them what they need, want, desire, and so on.

They then increase their aggression to control, to manage, to manipulate the conditions to serve them, and more often than not, this includes the conditions they share with others, and therefore, they come to seek Control over others, because innately, they can never control themselves. They are impotent and inept by birth.

One who is born in confidence will always lean towards individualism, though may be conditionally restricted from realizing, and/or actualizing this essence. They will believe in self-reliance, independence, personal responsibility, merit, skill, competence, and fitness of mind and body. The conditions are seen as theirs to be controlled and managed, not as an excuse or a requirement to be confident, and developed, but as a tool to facilitate this.

When the conditions do not provide for this, it is not the conditions, the confident ones blame, but they turn to themselves and wonder, what are they missing, and how can they improve the self, that needs to control and manage the condition. It is, “I” am missing something, about the condition. It is not the condition is against me, or the cause. One does not, with confidence, see themselves as a victim, even if by Reason they are. One who is with DIFFIDENCE sees themselves at the mercy of the whim of the universe, and often as the victim of the actions of others. They have only a small sense of SELF-RESPONSIBILITY.

Born to DIFFIDENCE, and/or

Born to CONFIDENCE…

Will define almost everything about how you interact with others, and the conditions.

A condition that is dominated by those who suffer diffidence will in turn favor it. That is, it will be dictated by it.

A condition that is dominated by those who are blessed in confidence will in turn favor it. That is, it will be dictated by it.

Precedence and familiarity, in procession, are products of conditions that are dominated by diffidence, that then leads to massive needs of deference from others, whereby everyone must yield to the ineptitudes and the petty emotions of those around them. When this is the case, the condition is dictated by kindness, niceties, love, compassion, and care.

When, in your mind, these terms seem PLEASANT, that is… PLEASING, then that is the evidence that your conditions, which is most conditions, are governed in all areas by those who suffer DIFFIDENCE, and hardly no other suffers diffidence more than your mommies, and your chump daddies.

And so your whole conditional life, you have heard them praise these traits and behaviors, but you have never observed these kinds of behaviors leading to the development of Champions. Champions do not need deference, they do not need to be cared for, they do not need you to be kind, to be nice, and loving. CHUMPS need care, and love, because they are wounded, emotionally, and often physically weak, and they fear the world around them, even when threats are not apparent nor upon them. This is what it is like to be born in diffidence.

This is not what the world looks like, to one who is born in CONFIDENCE.

Because of this emotional state that is default, the notion of battling for access, and/or getting access to others, and what plays are most common… are so determined. One mimics, one imitates, and one replicates others, as means to navigate the diffidence they feel.

When one targets, either consciously or unconsciously, others for access―with unconscious being the most common―there is this innate fear and insecurity, in most, because most suffer diffidence of that of triggering conflict with that stranger or that familiar. Many developed in mimicry, for the reasons in which it is the ultimate way to avoid conflict with others.

Avoiding conflict is how most “get along”, versus an alternative being “aligned VALUES”. However, it can be said that “avoiding conflict” is an “aligned value” for most. The question is not, whether something is a value, as, if it is sought to be gained or maintained, it certainly is, but instead, WHEREFROM in the emotional Kinetics, it comes.

When one interacts with others, they can observe what activates in them resistance, and fight. This familiarity with an individual tells one what triggers they need to avoid, to not set them off. What is being set off is the emotion that I am calling repugnance. The academics list the first two primary and universal emotions as FEAR/INSECURITY; and then that of ANGER; with DISGUST to follow; then DESPAIR; then SURPRISE; then ENJOYMENT.

I am not finding this simple rendering as useful. Instead, I describe these Kinetics as… DIFFIDENCE being a primary defining emotion, and from this lack of self potency, one lacks trust and esteem in self, and what falls is their energetics, their EAGERNESS gets used in ANXIETY, that needs CONCERNS to CONSUME, and CARE in DEMAND. When this care is not met, imagined or actualized, one has activated in them the EMOTION of REPUGNANCE. This is, they have resistance, and they have fight triggered in them, and more often than not, this is a manifestation of the diffidence not having one to be resolved or relieved by what degree it is looking to feed.

Diffidence is even better than insecurity, when looking at the greater scope of things. And it explains in clear, why then one would become repugnant. In not trusting the self and others, being in low esteem, one will need to “stress test” others to have them prove their “value”, and this is done in repugnance.

This emotion of repugnance comes in many forms. It can be FRUSTRATION, it can be ANGER, it can be SCORN, and it can be CONTEMPT, when the added ingredient of thinking oneself more DESERVING than the other, the target, is at play.

Repugnance occurs in many subtle ways, and can be detected in statements, and/or expressions that one renders, even if on the face of their nonverbal interaction, they are not revealing with clarity an emotional state. There are those who are in a CONTINUED state of REPUGNANCE, that is most often reflected in their sixth Kinetics, favoring that of the Entertainment version of amusement. They will “make light of things”. They will MOCK things, have diverted attention, and wish to DIVERT. They will be SARCASTIC―and make no mistake, SARCASM is CONTEMPT veiled in humor… for AMUSEMENT.

There is this sense among the commons that one is not being emotional, if the emotion is not loud. They would think calm is the opposite of being emotional, because being emotional is characterized as fiery, and aggressive.

This is not the way in which I have observed and contemplated the emotions. I would go so far as to say… one is always with a specific emotion at play, 1-6 of the default and base nature, or of the TRANSMUTED nature, and the key is to IDENTIFY which one it is.

Many, especially in their new access with others, wish to be in the sixth Kinetics, where they are either being amused, seduced, or engaged.

I do not use the term “joy”, nor “enjoyment” for the sixth emotion. One could say, seeking to be pleased, the emotion of pleasure, but too, I think this falls short. I use the term “Entertainment” as an emotional term, not an activity term. Meaning, to “be entertained”, that in upholding, reinforcing or bringing about a certain frame of “mind” is what this emotion is. It is the SETTLED and/or EXCITED state one is in, based upon the “conclusion” of the fusion of their emotions, by degree, with the added element of… where the relief, and distraction and diversions may be occurring.

What way in which one “pleases” themselves, or is “pleased” by another will give indication of which emotions they are consuming with, feeding. Amusement shows the emotional body of the individual is more often than not repugnant, which can have the added element of disgust, displeasure, contempt, and other forms. Amusement, in the “Way of the Vir”, is an Entertainment in vice. There can often be “pleasure” in seeing others fail and/or fall short, and/or get things wrong, and/or… get killed, and so on.

One who takes pleasure in others' failure is more often than not one who does not have past feelings correlated to a success acquired through skill, competence, and up and out of challenge. It can be said, their relationship to performance is a LIFE OF DEFEAT, a VANQUISHED existence.

When one reads these things, they may be looking in their own mind for examples, but have this hidden, subconscious criteria that loudness is needed to detect these things. That would lead astray the thinking of the reader. Humans and their emotions are not best observed only when they are loud and clear.

This is why it is an error to suppose that, it is emotional when it is loud, and one is calm when they are quiet. One is NOT UNEMOTIONAL when they are QUIET; one is HIDDEN in their EMOTION. Once challenged, deliberately, the emotion that appears to be triggered was only able to be triggered, because it was there looking to CONSUME. It was there looking to FEED. It was there sitting HUNGRY and without sufficient SATIATION. It was not getting FED.

When one seems like “all is well” and “satisfied”, this is because what emotion in them needs to feed, has fed, and they are satiated, and so long as they remain satiated, they will seem balanced, and healthy. However, one then needs to know about that individual, still, what emotion do they need to feed, and how do they feed that emotion.

Even as I sit here, writing this piece… it can be said what emotion I am in. I am in my Transmuted Sixth Emotional Kinetics, that of the realm of Entertainment. Of the three categories of ENTERTAINMENT, that of AMUSEMENT, SEDUCTION, and ENGAGEMENT, I am in the third… ENGAGEMENT.

Because of this, it means, emotionally, my energetics, my eagerness is being used through the expression of a certain set of “faculties”, or that is, “mental powers”. I am exercising and expressing RATIOCINATION, which for me is fueled by my “relationship” to the emotion of Entertainment. I am exercising in “pleasure”, sort of, to say… that of the skills and the competence of expounding on these points, as a means of successful expression.

It is not pride, nor Triumph being attained, but it could be said, being acted through, and because of. Therefore, the emotion is not Entertainment, unspecified. It is the emotion of Entertainment, of the ENGAGING sort, of the RATIOCINATIVE sort, producing the final term for that emotional track, that of EQUANIMITY, and TRIUMPH.

The Equanimity is not some calm, and quietness. The Equanimity, or the Immovable state, or unmoved by the emotions or other phenomena, is attained by massive energetic movement, in this specific emotion, the emotion of VICTORY, of TRIUMPH. Because of this, I would not be EXCITED in IGNORANCE, in the fifth Kinetics. Ignorance will not move me. I will not be brought into DESPAIR, in the fourth Kinetics. Despair can not move me. I will not be brought to DISGUST in the third Kinetics. Disgust will not move me. I will not be brought to REPUGNANCE in the second Kinetics, nor a state of DIFFIDENCE in the first. These shall not MOVE me.

Through the Kinetics, the track is different. When one is born in confidence instead of diffidence, that confidence gives them access to the sixth Kinetics as the primary focus. In a roundabout way, the Kinetics of confidence use EAGERNESS, the emotional Kinetics on that of INQUIRY, bringing about the notion of EAGER to LEARN and KNOW, called CURIOSITY. In low degrees it is curiosity, and must be present. But when it is because of a skilled and competent curiosity, it is INQUIRY, and INQUISITIVE. Because of this, it activates the active phase of ENGAGEMENT, versus the passive phases of mere spectating in the settled, and simple.

Through this Engagement, with the fifth playing a significant emotional role with the sixth, one becomes engaged, and in the Engagement, based on the degree of it, they are said to be expressed in some skill, some competence that is under the realm of some challenge, thus making possible, but not guaranteeing that of the state of flow being acquired.

This state of FLOW, when stable and habitual, is what it means to be with Equanimity to a degree. Sports, physical and mental games can be called engaging. So it is by degree. Both amusement and Seduction can be passive, and mostly are. They do not require some skill, or competence. That which does, begins the Entertainment of the Engaging sort.

But there are activities, so to say, that require having acquired a skill that falls short from “skill”, and is in actuality engaging that of the familiar. This is when what is actually at “play” is a routine that one has to merely repeat till it becomes familiar, and therefore, the performance matches the demand.

Many sports, sports being engaging of the physical and mental by degree, rest upon the combination of familiarity and that of the innate talent, and/or physical and mental gifts of the participant. Those who often “master” the routine of a sport will outperform those who have not engaged on the same level of routine.

There are then those more predisposed to some degree to master the routine faster, having that of a more applicable starting position, that can be correlated to that of when they are starting. For example, when the young are taught skills and competence at a young age, they have less mud upon them to impede the practice and exercise of the skill.

Whereas, when one has been pushed through the mud of society and they are older, seeking to acquire and master new skills, they do not start fresh, but unknowingly or knowingly, there is a lot of mud upon them that needs to be washed away. The same can be said with any competitive activity that is engaging. One who has less mud to wade through in such an activity will often produce a better result. Where one is “thinking” somewhere else, and not on the activity, they will lose time and space in the activity, falling behind those who are able to be present in “time and space” to task as task masters.

I will avoid too much deviation towards this element, but it will stand here to express that this metaphorical notion of mud, and what one must wade through in their lives in relation to skill and mastery, is VERY, VERY, VERY important. The same can be said about their emotions being the product of ignorance, which is mud. And that in order to transmute the emotions towards Triumph, too, one must turn to where their energetics are spent.

Eagerness as that energetics, the question is: ANXIETY towards CONCERN, or EAGERNESS towards LEARNING and KNOWING? When one finds themselves falling behind, staying still, and “feeling” low… they need to try hard at one thing… Find something that demands curiosity and/or inquiry, and seek out a thousand defeats in that new skill, to get the single Victory needed to begin the “relationship” one ought to have with pride.

That said, this comes back to why mimicry and imitation is often employed as a means to navigate others, with the realized or unrealized motive of avoiding conflict, and triggering in them their repugnance. One does not think through these Kinetics. That is why they are not narratives.

As they are the emotions, they are the ENERGETIC ATTENTIONS being given by your AUTO systems. One does not self report in regards to the accuracy of these observations, and systematic proclamations. You, the reader, can never say to me, upon observation, you are secure or insecure, and have this factor into my assessment. You can never say you are, or are not repugnant. You are, or are not disgusted. You are, or are not in despair. You are, or are not excited in ignorance. You are, or are not seeking Entertainment, by way of amusement, Seduction, or Engagement.

Your self reporting is correlated to your level of awareness of self and the Kinetics, and the observation which I have had in this living of mine is that it is absolutely RARE to ever CREDIT another to that of being “AWARE”. Call it arrogance in your diffidence, but I have yet to see anyone come close to the level of awareness which I produce in my expoundings, and that is exactly what would be needed for one to prove in observation to me, that there is even a thing in them employing REASON, towards that of a CONTROL, a MANAGEMENT, a MANIPULATION, that begets a COMMAND. This simply is so rare, it seems nonexistent. Therefore, to think to self report to either affirm or negate these assessments would be absurdly arrogant itself. One who would think they can self report on these matters would need be saying they are a master, then, in the realm, and as such, being a master, would have Equanimity.

In the early stages of emotional development guided by Reason, one is not looking to see where they are in the Kinetics. One is trying with all their might to be in the sixth, engaging mental and physical expression towards SKILLS, COMPETENCE, CHALLENGE, a thousand defeats for the single Victory, to develop a relationship with PRIDE. This, on account that, attainment in this as a habit is essential for VIRTUE, and till it is attained, one does not have the contrast needed to measure the other emotions.

So then, in the absence of this attainment, this relationship with pride, one is only able to think of the other emotions from that of diffidence, (anxiety: added later) repugnance, disgust, despair, excited ignorance, and amusement or Seduction in the Entertainment realm.

One has not the contrast to illuminate the degree and condition of the previous emotions.

Therefore, one is not supposed to be thinking, “Oh, I need to be AWARE of these others”, and then, “Oh, I am therefore AWARE of them”. No, you are not. The aim is in the sixth, and the fifth. The aim is a relationship and prioritizing of knowledge over belief, and the removal of belief and opinion factoring into one's thought. Being skilled and competent, and having a mastery in something is essential. Not for what that something is. But instead, because that something allows for the development of a MASTERY. Mastery has the same character, for the most part. But often, what is merely familiar, and more than others, is called a mastery. One needs to know the difference between an expert and a master, and more than anything, it will be based on diffidence or confidence from birth. Experts can be either or; a master can only be one who was born in confidence.

Therefore, when one is interacting with others, seeking to gain and/or maintain access to them, there will always be these two emotions that need to be navigated: that of their diffidence, and repugnance.

This is felt in those who have diffidence. Because you, the reader, likely suffer diffidence, and you do not have self-trust, or potency, you will not be able to suppose another does. You do not have inside you the contrast. It is not to say, one is 100 in either or. It is about what you mostly feel more than not.

One can be born in confidence and feel it 80 percent of the time, and then have a hit to their confidence with diffidence in the 20 percent. Born in confidence does not mean one does not waiver. Born in EQUANIMITY does mean, one does not waiver. One who is born with Equanimity, which must be a freak chance of occurrence, neither comes nor goes from confidence. It can be said, confidence and diffidence do not factor into their existence.

It is confidence and diffidence that move one. One who is born with Equanimity, as I can say I was, could never feel diffidence, but too, it is not accurate to say they feel confidence either. It can be said… they feel, and are guided by Triumph, or perhaps, better yet… VALIANCE.

But where one is born in confidence, they will need to use that confidence in the fifth and sixth Kinetics to strengthen their resolve in the fourth, making despair highly unlikely, and instead, transmuted to that of Vigilance. And with this Vigilance now in the fourth, they will need to be watchful of the commons and their diffidence, and how they try to get those more potent to doubt themselves and to depreciate themselves. This is why SELF-DEPRECATION is enjoyed by humans.

Those who are born in diffidence need things to be humble, to be lowly, and that is why there should be no surprise that then, as humans, they choose amusement in the sixth more than Seduction and Engagement. This, on account that amusement DELUDES. Amusement makes LIGHT OF. Amusement DIVERTS attention.

When one is in this state of diffidence, they too will fear based on the narrative that others will not “trust” in them. They fear others will discover that all the “ideas” they are seeking to live up to, they do not in actuality have “confidence” in, but too, they do not trust them.

Not because the values, and/or the narratives are assets and evaluated through the Intellect. This is the mistake often made. One who feels diffidence as a default will find “reasons”, with a lower case “r”, that is “post rationalizations”, to feed their mistrust, their diffidence. Oh, I do not trust this, and/or that, because of A, B, and C. And so, with the narrative declaring that “we” must all listen to each other… it is their A, their B, their C post rationalizations you are left thinking about.

I do not do this. I do not listen to the alphabet of reasons others create. I am able to observe when diffidence is present, and remain Vigilant to the expressions and the actions. I can see the emotions in others. NOT FEEL THEM… SEE them, and I see them in the body, hear them in the voice, and observe them in the manifested behavior, only in such rapidity and automation that it seems I am accessing an otherly ability and realm... but I am not.

It is not beyond nature, thus supernatural; it is instead, STRAIGHT TO NATURE, in the sense of, having no mud in between, and too, having all the contrast needed for identification.

One who is with diffidence will be with insecurity of the 7 mentioned in Part II. They will fear the FALL.

Fall in regards to heights, and the arms of their caregiver;
Fall from the group, in that of banishment, or exclusion;
Fall from that of reputation among the group, and how they are thought of;
Fall from navigation, mobility and locomotion among the group;
Fall of loss of control of their faculties among the group;
Fall in defense of their limbs, and their control over pain;
Fall from existence and presence, that is often mistaken as “fear of death”.

These insecurities are by degree. The fear is not this loud thing, where one says, they are afraid, and/or they are not afraid. The fear is an insecurity around a sense of a fall, or that is, “loss of access”.

Fear itself is often not placed with insecurity, but some would contend it belongs with surprise. Fear is often seen as a state of one being startled in their insecurities. This is why, fear displays on the face and in the body can be in flashes. Often too then, surprise has to be distinguished from that of the physical and sensory response of being startled.

For this very reason, I do not prefer to refer to surprise in the fifth Kinetics of universal emotions, but instead, I see it more as excited in ignorance, which means humans have a preference for ignorance, and this is on account of humans, ALL humans, being born in diffidence.

In the presence of diffidence and low self-esteem, you should never “trust” that one can believe in knowledge, certainty, and quality. To these things, they can only imitate, mimic, impersonate, and eventually delude, and believe that in their act to delude it… they are uncovering this so-called truth others say is out there. To them, those in diffidence, the truth is, nothing should ever be trusted. Not them, not you, not thee, not nothing… not even the Laws of the universe. All things are in a state of chaos, and can change identity at whim of thought.

This is the subconscious mind of those born in diffidence, which all humans are. One who is SEEDED to be VIR need be born in CONFIDENCE. This means, though there may be a minor struggle with that 20 percent diffidence, it would need be so minor, to call it a struggle would be inaccurate. One who struggles between diffidence and confidence is one who was born in diffidence. If the struggle exists, I'll say, that is like saying there is 51 diffidence, to 49 confidence. This can not be said in numbers, to be born in confidence.

One can then suggest, but what if it is 51 confidence, and 49 diffidence? My answer would be that one is still born in diffidence, and never would that be the case. Born in confidence is 80/20. No less than 80 percent. Anything less is born in diffidence. Where one has some confidence coming into display, it can be proven to be correlated to the fortune of the conditions, and therefore, not internally felt, but externally derived. It will be their diffidence that makes them incapable of holding on. It would not be actual confidence one is seeing.

Instead, it will be the feelings of approval by others that sustain the individual who is performing in a manner that grants them titles, ranks, and recognition. This is not CONFIDENCE. This is servitude. Confidence, as I use the term in relation to the emotions, is internally derived, not externally satiated. Because of this, when one has inner confidence, the only I recognize, the conditions may seek to shake it, and play on that 20 percent of diffidence, but evidence one was born with confidence will be on display in them overcoming that appeal to diffidence in the condition.

One who is back and forth, struggling and losing, never winning, can not be said to have been born in confidence. For every thousand defeats, there is at least one Victory to account for. For those in diffidence, defeat and Victory, here, means in the condition, and in ways others can recognize. It would appear to be liken to life goals, and achievements that others can see.

This is not the battle in confidence. A thousand defeats and one Victory occur DAILY. If one can not identify what realm the battle is in, where defeats in the thousand can occur daily, and Victory in the one can occur every day… then that is a REPLICANT who is purely REACTIONARY, and CONDITIONAL, and they do not suffer a thousand defeats daily, with a single Victory; they suffer a MILLION defeats daily, and no Victory, making them VANQUISHED.

It can not even be accurately said that one who is vanquished even suffers defeat. It can be said, they are not even fighting, where Victory and defeat are even variables. They are subjugated and VANQUISHED. It ought to be said, only one who is fighting towards Triumph not in repugnance is one who can experience the thousand daily defeats, for the single daily Victory.

One who fights in repugnance, fights and reacts to others. It is always others and the conditions, they fight, resist, undermine, delude, and subvert. They are never found to be speaking of “them” and what battles rages on inside them, that they have asserted energy towards resolving and advancing through and from. One who is repugnant can only see the outside world, and has no sense of the inside world. Those who are repugnant need more than anything to escape themselves, to distract, to divert, to delude, and be relieved of attention.

When then one is mimicking, and imitating, impersonating, it is more often than not because of their diffidence, in that there is nothing they have found, they have discovered for themselves that speaks, that calls out to something of potency in them, that would be called… their confidence.

The emotional confidence is that which has a potency, a power, a VERY MUCH wanting, an EAGERNESS that is being called out to. When one can not HEAR a CALL, to them, that overwhelms them, it can be said, they were born in diffidence. When one can hear a Call that overwhelms them, and cuts through all the mud of the conditions, it can be said, they may… MAY… be born in confidence. Those born in diffidence, in being deaf will come to conclude that there is no such thing as these Calls, and those acting like there are can do, and be doing only what they could do, and would be doing; and that is MIMICKING, IMITATING, and being FLATTERING around the notion of these Calls, so as to get access, and maintain access to others with the Calls, if they are existent, as a smoke screen to hide that in actuality, they have no trust for themselves, or any narratives. They pretend to believe, be alike for access, and make no mistake, EVERYONE of you readers, no matter what you would self report, born in diffidence or confidence, have been doing this your whole lives, not likely ever having enough of the exposure to a Call, but being only surrounded by mud, to where you have yet to come to exist for something that overwhelms you with a clarity and potency, to which in you, no DOUBT about it comes to be.

It can be said, for those who the “Way of the Vir” is right for, who can be said to be Seeded, are, and only can be those Kinds. They are not those born in diffidence. They are those born with CONFIDENCE. That confidence is not only about this “Way”. One can be with confidence in other ways that match their nature. But one who is with a confidence of birth is only proven in that they are so OVERWHELMED with the CLEAR and OBVIOUS nature of the Call, that no doubt and denial would even creep in; and in this way, it makes for what appears to those of diffidence those who become called extremists, radicals, and fanatics. Fanatics in the face of Virtue can be no vice.

When one is born in confidence, they do not answer to that of the diffidence of others. They do not seek to prove themselves to those who could not accept any proof. When those of diffidence raise concerns, those in confidence should not fall for these smoke screens. If arguments and dialectical challenges are posed that seem valid enough, take them from the source, likely in diffidence, and put them off to the side to dialectically examine and resolve.

Do not see it as, this one posed a good argument, and therefore, they REASON well. This is a ruse more often than not. This, one can see among the atheists, who are driven through their diffidence. They will pose reasonable questions, inquiries, and assessments, and then one is to suppose, they Reason well. This is not the case.

It is not difficult to arm oneself with arguments against those who believe in the otherly and the supernatural, when before one is only the corporeal that seems subject to the senses, and the sense data being the data that instigates the mind, and what reasoning it can do. This is easy to argue.

But those born in confidence would hear Calls that do not conform entirely with that of the corporeal limits, but do indeed suggest some Intellect, that though not conceived of, seems merely felt. The error is in assigning to this feeling that of a god, gods, and/or corporeal described essence.

In Viritus, “We”, those who are Vir and those who are Votaries, do not assign to this “feeling” the limits of “godness”, though it can be called this, thus making one of this Way not liken to those who are atheist, but at the same time, not quite right to be called Deist, but close enough.

Instead, this feeling is called Valiance, and if there is some “godness” somewhere, it limited its exposure to this realized and personalized emotion. One who Reasons well does not use language and communication to attempt to fathom, then, what appears unfathomable. Even so far as it would seem rather disobedient and delusional to conduct oneself in this manner.

One who speaks of gods and the otherly in the here and the now is, and can be… only a charlatan, when those to whom they speak to can not say for themselves that they have touched in their own way such realms. It would be said, MASTERS who could have encountered some OTHERLY would not even have REASON proper to speak among themselves in this here and now. That such would be silly. That only when traveling to the otherly, would one then be in some otherly alliance, and with such focus and expression.

The here and the now, which is mostly enough to be called ALL CORPOREAL, is about MACHINERY that serves the INTELLECT, even though only but in a few. Bringing some imaginative, fluffy thought to it, undermines it. Too, is it that those with diffidence can so easily yield to their imagination, and make things up, that in them, in their made-up state, will have no call, no vocation of that of skill, competence, challenge, and pride.

Their imaginations, being born out of their INEPT minds, will be the OPPOSITE of this. They will speak with the appearance of confidence in what they believe, and others with diffidence will not care for if it is confidence or not, but will play make-believe with them, to get access. This is not my WAY.

It is not confidence one is seeing in these charlatans; it is their diffidence, used with their repugnance, to fight for a delusion.

The feeding cycle of the default emotional Kinetics

Make no mistake, it is a common practice to adopt a belief with ease, so that you have something to mask your appetite for repugnance. It's like the drug addict who recovers, or pretends to, in the name of newfound religion. He has now found a system, mostly social, that will allow him or her to take to the streets, and fight against others with their words and contempt, as a means to feed that hungry GHOST called REPUGNANCE.

This is why those who are religiously telling others that in their religion you are wrong, are engaging in the emotional display of CONTEMPT. Their need to tell you, you must change and conform to their way has nothing to do with the way itself. The way here is their A, B, and C, but the reality is… this is REPUGNANCE, as a HUNGRY APPARITION, seeking to FEED. This is a GHOUL looking for FOOD, who while looking for its own food, does not realize it must feed more and more on behalf of the VAMPYRE master, who is above them in rank, feeding on them.

Do not get your attention diverted upon the A, the B, and the C. What they are saying hardly ever means anything. Identify the emotion that is trying to FEED, and if it is GHOUL seeking to FEED, or a VAMPYRE, if this is a factor liken to this observation. GHOULS often use AMUSEMENT, and VAMPYRES, of course metaphorical, will use SEDUCTION. GHOULS will use DISGUST, CONTEMPT and SHAMING. VAMPYRES will use STYLE, KINDNESS, NICETIES, CARING, COMPASSION, and LOVE. A ghoul will try to mimic what their master Vampyre does, creating a hot and cold condition, going from Seduction for pleasure, to amusement in pain, and back and forth.

But the Vampyre will sustain one more in pleasure, till they are hungry, and they have not had their repugnance fed in a while, and then they will bring the chaos and the pain, leaving the pleasure realm of Seduction, and falling to their forms of Manipulation. They will bring you pain in Manipulation, so that you demand the pleasure of their Seduction, forming a dependency around feeding habits.

Humans have been easily able to imagine ghouls and Vampyres, because humans, when they look in their mimic mirrors, feel they are one or the other, in actuality.

In this metaphor, and keeping with the three, you have ghouls, which is most of you, in your diffidence and repugnance, finding only “enjoyment” in amusement, and minor passive Seduction; and then in the third is the “sigma” WereWolf, who is not to be thought of like a wolf of the ordinary form, living in packs, but in being a “Were” and “Wolf” is being an animal like a wolf is, but with the addition of “Were”, which would be Vir. Many think of a man being a wolf, and that of wolf traits, which are easier to identify than a human can identify Man traits. But this is not how this ought to be analyzed. There is the animal, and there is the Man, and the Man is in charge of the animal. But to the human sense, the “werewolf” is the man who gets dominated and struggles with the inner wolf.

This was not the history of this allegory and metaphor, other than from the position of the Vampyres, who were the Romans, when they were fighting the Gauls, who were the wolves, who fought them with unconventional means, in the forest.

The Gauls did not become crazed around the wolf, until they succumbed to the intoxicants Rome brought them via trade routes and merchants who were let in. Those born in diffidence would take to the drink, for no one who is ever born in confidence would take to the drink, and remain in it. They may, covered in mud, dabble, but when they hear any Call to their confidence, they would cease.

The Belgae tribe of the Gauls called the Nervii refused to allow the drink among their Kind, and against vampyric Rome, they were the last to hold out, and fought them often, with Warriors in wolf cloaks, moving stealthy and controlled through the wild forest that the vampyric Roman legions feared.

Eventually, the drink would have all culture that would follow later only as mimicry, having the wolf elements be a part of the intoxicated crazed element. Outlaws who did not bend to Roman rule, and the shamans they placed at the head of now intoxicated dopes, in Europe, were seen as liken to the wolves living in the wild. No sense of what their MANLINESS, or their VIRTUE was, was ever considered. Only that they are not “one of us” and they are not “settled” and “civilized” was, and oh what six thousand or so years of civilization has shown, has been anything more than a MASS of VICE ridden MENTAL MIDGET RETARDS.

It can be said, more often than not, that in an unhealthy sense, the Vampyres are the alphas, the ghouls are the betas, and the werewolves are the sigmas. However, the alpha and the beta as a metaphor are only to be seen as such if they are in a collective or a team, moving together. In absence of this, most are unhealthy omegas. But all of these ranks and categories are conditional, in how they bring out natural traits.

One can rank from beta to alpha, and likewise. A young alpha “traited” individual has to play beta, when they enter a procession that has so-called leadership, preestablished in precedence and familiarity. They will need to choose to be submissive to do their time, but whenever “aggressive” roles of leadership open, they will act on it fast. Confidence is used as a term to describe alphas, and I disagree with this.

It is AGGRESSION and DOMINANCE that defines an ALPHA, and there is no such thing as an alpha, unless they are DOMINANT over BETAS, who are SUBMISSIVE to them. An alpha does not denigrate a beta, but needs and appreciates the beta. A beta does not denigrate an alpha, but needs and appreciates them.

That is why in human social orders, mostly among the males, a male who is socially beta can become socially alpha. These are SOCIAL ranks, and traits that correlate to NATURAL IMPULSES. However, when one is not a part of a pack, they are an omega, regardless of what kind of impulses and traits they have. Until they join and/or lead a pack, they are not alphas or betas.

One who is an omega, with submissive traits, will not be aggressive enough to lead a pack, and will not have the personality traits to do so. There are many online omega personalities who will create venues around teamwork, but in not being naturally alpha, they will not hold together the teams. They will be “leading” in the procession over alpha “traited” and beta “traited” kinds looking for teamwork, but their pettiness, as an omega, will break apart the teams and/or lead to inefficiency.

An omega, by nature, is not a good leader, as they will more often than not be over anxious, impulsive, with low self-esteem, and be prone to petty emotional displays. An alpha holds it together in the name of a team. Unhealthy versions of all these exist. As do healthy versions, and what determines the health of these structures is the condition, and that of the freedom to express one's natural traits, versus the subjugation, repression, and suppression of natural traits.

I will build out models in the future, of my own, describing basic traits with the designators alpha, beta, omega, delta, gamma, and sigma. Simply as basics that ought not be seen as reliable, but “food for thought” instead, helping one start the process of observing behavioral traits, and determining if they are of the nature of the individual that is default, and innate to them, or if they are born out of the conditional expectations, conforming, obedience, subjugation, and/or oppressive forces.

⚔⚔⚔

Back onto the point.

From this need to navigate the systems of others, more often than not, there is timidity at play, born out of diffidence, that causes the avoidance of conflict that would be caused if triggering in others their repugnance. This is a DESIRE, a WANT, a NEED, and a CRAVING in everyone to “fight back” against the conditions, to be sure one is safe and secure.

That craving is there, regardless. It must be expressed, and where it does not seem to be expressed, it is often because the individual has turned it inward, incapable of external expression upon the condition. Because of this, one needs objectives and a mission to use the craving to fight against. Where one is RELATIONAL and does not have fight expressed towards goals, objectives, values, and so on… they will use FIGHT to CONTROL, to MANAGE, to MANIPULATE others. When they are doing this, more often than not, it can be said… they are sabotaging themselves and others, and impeding that of performance and wellness.

Mimicry, imitation, pleasantries, kindness, niceties, and so-called loving and caring behavior is all about navigating what would be, if not distracted, relieved, diverted... fight in another. One uses these social plays as a means to bring all things into a familiar conformity, in order to put each other at ease, and under the spell of believing that all is secure, all is stable, and all is safe. Believing here is the key, and more often than not, to make that belief more convincing, things need to be settled and mediocre. For things to be settled and mediocre, fight expression needs to be low.

When fight expression is low, where it will be expressed will be more often than not against oneself, making one then come against others. People are fighting themselves when they engage in vices. People are fighting themselves when they take what time of their own they have to be amusing, and/or to be amused. People are fighting against themselves with most narratives they hold in their mind.

It is because of this that when folk initially try to go from stranger to familiar with another they are seeking access to, they will avoid fighting, so to say, and engage in what APPEARS to be PLEASING, and only it. But what is pleasing to those who are unexpressed, repressed, and unrealized is determined by this fight in them that is seeking to be expressed, but has no valid target.

So it becomes that navigating repugnance is the primary meeting ground of individuals; how do you provide relief, so that “youse” do not be “fighting” with each other. How do you not set the other one “off” and so on. How do you “PLEASE”. You end up being pleasing only on account that things you may want to say and express, do and express, you will need to fight back against, and suppress, so that you can “get along” with others. You can not FIGHT them, so you FIGHT yourself into SUBMISSION.

What makes Seduction different from amusement here, is that amusement, in many forms, does not require a sense of the target. Amusement can capture many targets into a wider net. Amusement, because it deals in diversion and deludedness, it does not need to consider what the target had, as an initial attention. But again, SEDUCTION uses ESCAPISM, as its primary ingredient, in the name of PLEASURE. ESCAPISM is composed of the two traits of DISTRACTION, and RELIEF.

In distracting another, it is best to know a thing or two about what may be pulling their attention. In knowing that one is by default likely with diffidence―therefore, not trusting of the self, and in extension, in others―then one comes to know to proceed with caution, to not do anything that would seem to trigger that diffidence they have. It is not in Seduction where one assumes their target is not with diffidence.

Where one assumes the target is not with diffidence, and has confidence to appeal to, that is the third form of Entertainment called Engaging. Of the three, that of AMUSEMENT, the most common, and SEDUCTION, the most desired, and ENGAGEMENT, enjoyed by few, ENGAGEMENT requires a degree of confidence at minimum, not in oneself, but in one's condition, and/or systems in which they are making use of for advancement.

Many who engage in Engaging Entertainment are doing so within a structure that was built with confidence in mind. This does not mean they were born in confidence, and/or have developed out of diffidence and into confidence. It would be that the security, the safety, and the stability of systems, structures, and “ways” can invest in one a sense of confidence, but this becomes the expression of confidence in “this and that”, being a confidence in a “way”. This is different from a confidence of self.

One can engage engaging systems as a means to deal with their innate diffidence, but what will occur, even if subtle and subversive, is that those with diffidence as default will either greatly or slowly infect systems of confidence with their innate feelings of diffidence. This is why in team performance, the innate level of confidence of an individual factors in hugely, and those who have only confidence in a condition, but not themselves, will not perform as well, and as high as those with self-confidence, in a structure made suited to confidence.

Seduction does not engage the confident in the confidence of a sound and valid, or that is, fortified system. Seduction, more often than not, is mostly around a disruption to the systems, and an appeal to the weakness of the individual. Amusement and Seduction, two species of the three of Entertainment, are for the WEAK, the FRAGILE, and the COWARDLY. One does not apply amusement and Seduction as forms of Entertainment towards those who are engaging life in confidence, with the expectation that the condition, likewise, ought to play on confidence.

AMUSEMENT and SEDUCTION play on DIFFIDENCE.

If someone can be seduced, then it will ALWAYS mean, THEY WANT TO BE SEDUCED. That want will be because diffidence creates the cycle of needing to feed on the condition, those foods of existence that make one feel, even if momentarily, that of safe and secure, to which one born in diffidence can never satiate.

This then, in their feeding, activates their anxiety towards that of manufactured concerns, and any concern will do, because concerns expressed are the bait for feeding. The feeding process is in sight, when the anxious concerns become called care, and a need is generated.

Remember, the two traits of CARE are ANXIETY and CONCERN. Care is a cry from the one who needs it, and the one who needs it is food for others who too need it reciprocated. Those who need care are the only ones who will in turn also care, and care is nothing more than feeding on each other's weaknesses and ineptitudes.

This feeding is a part of the next phase of the emotion, and that is REPUGNANCE. When one is caring for another, this is their “fight energetics”. They are getting their “fight” expressed by having a target that needs to be cared about, that they can assert energetics of emotionality towards, and feel relief and pleasure. Those who care for, and about others are in essence taking pleasure in the presence of those who are in need.

And that is why this NEED is about the FEED. Caring is feeding upon the ineptitudes, and inadequacies of others. This is proven by, if in a room, or a society of all high performing and healthy individuals, someone who cares, and would need to care... would not have a target.

Those who care, when they try to care for the target, will seem pleasant, so long as the target SUBMITS to the care. The care, with the need to feed, is a FIGHT to CONTROL, to MANAGE and to MANIPULATE the TARGET. If the target of care has activated in them their own repugnance, that triggers a fight, a resistance, and a refusal, the face of the one who is caring will change, and it will be revealed they are being CONTROLLING, and they are MANAGING, and they are MANIPULATING.

They are CARING is only what a SUBMISSIVE SUBJECT would think, when it is WEAK and needs to be CARED for. It is because they are the same kind of ghoul that the care is characterized as a virtue. But if someone was not weak, and was not in need of care, but they were targeted by someone who needs to care, their fight would manifest as NO, you will not be controlling, managing, and manipulating me. I DO NOT WANT YOUR CARE. That CÂLICE is nasty… KEEP it to yourself. Do not give me PITY, SADNESS, or try to EMOTIONALLY manipulate me into seeing what is NOTHING of CONCERN, needing to now be of concern.

Those who care generate concerns, and they need others to buy into those concerns, in order for them to be expressed in their care. When this does not occur, those who were caring get dark real quick in their repugnance. Their repugnance becomes exposed, when you say NO. If you keep saying YES, and playing along, you will not see that in actuality, they are fighting for Control, and it is based on their diffidence.

In Viritus, care and caring are VICES, and not to be mistaken for valuing, strengthening, and fortifying. In Viritus, one does not CARE; one CULTIVATES SKILL, COMPETENCE, and TRIUMPH in all they do, and upon the condition that is theirs. Where then others join in those conditions, the conditions facilitate the same in them, and they will not be in need of care from others. Neither will they need to care for themselves. When one VALUES themselves and others, care, where there is anxiety and concern, which is born out of diffidence, has no place, and does not exist.

So then in Seduction, which requires displays of care, a Votary and/or a Vir has no place. A Votary and/or a Vir does not engage in anxious concern, targeting for care, nor do they allow others to target them for care.

It is via care, and later compassion, that the sick play at to seduce a stranger to let them in. Amusement is for ghouls, and Seduction is for Vampyres. These Vampyres need you to invite them in, so that you would be powerless, in the face of their plays. Do not get it mistaken, they will come in regardless, but one who forces their way in is more apparent, in their ways, and is therefore more vulnerable in detection than one who has been invited in.

In care warfare―and it is warfare when one rejects it, and SUBJUGATION when one accepts it―there are two kinds of actors. The ghoul is the one who seeks to be invited into your condition with access to you, by being overly weak, fragile, and broken, in need of your care. It puts itself before you to be taken care of, to be helped, to be fixed, and those who take the bait, in the warfare of care, are those who are the more “statused” ghoul, or the higher “statused” Vampyre.

They take the bait, because they want the bait. They want to feed on the needy, and get their own care expressed. You have the food and the feeder, but do not get it mistaken. The ghoul in need feeds on the Vampyre as well.

The SLAVE and the SLAVE MASTER are both wicked. A so-called slave of conditions who says no, and dares to fight back was never an actual slave. Neither is a target of Vampyres a ghoul on account of being the target, but only revealed as such when they invite such, and sustain in such. One who says NO, fights back, and does not invite slavery is not slaver, and in likeness, is not a ghoul seeking to feed and be fed upon in a cycle of COWARDICE.

In this sense, one will say, is that not blaming the victim, when the perp should have all the blame? The WEAK are not VICTIMS, when they use their weakness to feed on targets of their own. When they choose to remain weak, weakness is their weapon to bait others in. Be cautious of treating weakness as innocence. Such is a myth, created by the weak to paint themselves a certain way.

True innocence requires INTEGRITY, which is born out of STRENGTH. True innocence is the strength to be MORAL, and UPRIGHT. Morality and uprightness is integral to their character.

Those who are weak, fragile, sensitive, in need of care, and often caring are not morally upright in character, and thus, with integrity, and innocence. The WEAK are not INNOCENT; and neither then is this sense that a child ought to be seen as such, because it lacks sufficient judgement.

These special statuses humans give to their weak makes it to where strength, uprightness, integrity, and good character are rare to be found. Instead, what happens is, Vampyres come disguised in innocence, like that of children; and children need to be cared for, and need to show they reciprocate by honoring the caregiver. The Vampyres of Seduction use the façade of childlike more than any other plays.

They are supposed to remind you of your childhood, when Mommy used to be there to show you care, and you used to look to her in wonder, and worship her as a caregiver. Seduction relies heavily on this INEPT phase that so many experienced, from this INEPT Social order Advanced through the Majority.

Seduction does not exist without diffidence, weakness, the cries for care, and the desire to feed on care, and target based on it. KINDNESS is SEDUCTION, because it acts as a means to distract the target from seeing what is really there; and that is, no matter the physical age of the individual, that inept child who never became strong, but was kept forever immortal in their ignorance, immortal in their diffidence, immortal in their repugnance, and as a result, they are deeply in their despair, and need to feed on the despair, the diffidence, the ignorance and the repugnance of others.

It becomes a CYCLE of FEEDING, proving that those who offer care are not at the same time those who offer a way to be strong, self standing, fortified, and autonomous. They are the opposite of everything BEAUTIFUL and NOBLE. They are feeders who need others to be suffering, and in despair, who can easily be targeted for supper.

Compassion is the same thing. Compassion is co-sharing in suffering, not in what is noble and beautiful. It has the implication and presumption that pursuit of a remedy to the suffering is present, but such is not the case. Those who need compassion and give it are also those who remove the sense of ending the suffering, and focus on empowerment towards solutions.

If they did focus in this manner, and such was attained, one would no longer be able to be compassionate, when there are no victims in need of compassion. I do not need to be compassionate, nor have compassionate others around me, because SUFFERING is an ENEMY that I DEFEAT any time it comes near to my conditions; and that which is my self, it can not even come near to, for I have EQUANIMITY.

Most can not keep suffering out of their conditions, because it is coming out of them first, and upon the conditions, and it is perhaps the hardest battleground to fight suffering. Those yet to be Victorious need to first start outside them and master the conditions, and remove the impediments towards well-being. Then, when they have removed it from the conditions, the only source of suffering would be easy to identify as sourced in them.

Those of the RELIGION of CARE, which is most, can only confuse others with concerns around conditions. Those who fall for this are those who do not have well disciplined and DELIBERATE conditions, but exist themselves in the conditions of caregivers. Caregivers control, manage, and manipulate conditions of collectivism, and dependence. A caregiver does not want to relinquish their role as care provider.

In order to sustain this role, they must keep others DEPENDENT upon them. This, to a VOTARY and/or a VIR, is a pathetic and sick existence, and is the root of human suffering. The absence of self-reliance, self standing, autonomy, and Intellect is why humans suffer.

Many turn to their repugnance, and how they fight against others to measure if they are independent, and self-reliant. They will say, they are free, only so far as they exist with no Victories, but plenty of adversarial associations. They will have plenty they are against, and hardly, if anything, something they are truly ABOUT, that is not in service to some caregiver.

The very act of trying to serve the insecurity and the fears of others, to disarm them, and/or put them at ease, to be invited in as a familiar, as a friendly… is the first stage of a Seduction in the lowest of forms. It is not yet Seduction that one is doing, at this level.

Because in order for it to truly be a Seduction, the one who is doing it has to be providing Entertainment. A seducer is an entertainer. It is not Seduction at this level, if not through entertaining means; it is instead merely the marksman targeting a controlled subject, and they themselves exercising some Control over themselves as the marksman, to not show that which is in them, that would trigger in the other their concerns, thus activating their repugnance.

The use of pleasure and torment in the four...

The use of pleasure and torment in the four modes of social interaction

This is basic interaction. So then this is merely CONTROL, and MANAGEMENT… and hardly on the level of MANIPULATION. It becomes manipulative, and out of mere Management, when the marksman, the one having marked the target for access, starts to observe what triggers and what distracts the mark, the target, and then the marksman takes a superior position of Control and Management. When the marksman is not winging it, by whim and/or tradition, but takes a superior position of Control and Management, and they can skillfully bring about the outcome, it enters the realm of Manipulation.

So long as it is in the realm of Manipulation, it can be carried out as that of the plays to induce pain and/or pleasure. Pleasurable Manipulation brings about Entertainment. Painful Manipulation, which is common, brings about torment. One who is using painful Manipulation is tormenting the subject, the mark, the target.

When one considers most associations, there is a back and forth. There is CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, and MANIPULATION with added TORMENT as a means to bring about conformity, and then, to be rewarded in conforming, the human then moves to CONTROL, MANAGE, and MANIPULATE towards PLEASURE, with that of the reward of AMUSEMENT, and/or SEDUCTION, as two forms of Entertainment.

When there is torment, this is its own category, that follows a kind of Manipulation. It is Manipulation with pain, and punishment. It is not a part of Seduction, to manipulate with pain, and punishment. Because these two, that of torment and Seduction, are a part of Manipulation, or follow it, it is easy for those who are unskilled, and merely bound to traditions of normalcy, to not be able to tell the difference.

Even those who are considered writers and experts on the subject matter―only on account of them being the only ones to broach the subject―will offer up a sense that there is a hot and cold nature to Seduction, and that some plays warrant the activation of pain and torment, in order to seduce. This is ERRONEOUS, and it shows that those writers offered no actual signs that they are navigating the subject matter, but instead, they are merely mirroring, echoing and mimicking the works and words of others put forth in precedence of the procession. These writers prevail only on account that none of their readers have ever thought about the subject on their own.

It can be said, in that Seduction is merely to lead astray, that pain can be used to lead one astray. This, of course, is true. That a mixture of pain and pleasure most certainly is the best way to subjugate another. But that is not what Seduction would become outside of the context of war, and its original meaning concerning sedition. Seduction, as it pertains to the commons who are not with lords whom they can betray, and are not in roles sufficient enough to warrant treason… such a sense of Seduction would be unfitting.

The same thing can be said about the misleading notion of laws, practices, and plays of so-called power, being read and learned by the masses, who are not in conditions whereby power is even present to be played with. These writers are deceiving and seducing their audience towards the pleasure of thinking, they play a role in their own living, which most of them do not.

Power is not a thing, outside of potent ability, which can be defined. Power is not fought over. Positions in the procession of Control, Management, and Manipulation are fought over. This exact categorization makes clear, then, the paths that can be taken. The writers who push out so many complex notions, without their simple parts explored, are writers who if you look at them, and how they live, they do not exhibit the attained state that they praise. It's like all the chumps who write about performance, or religious paths that have high attainment sought, and they are struggling in that attainment. Ought you listen to one who has not become “ATTAINED”?

That ought to be seen as foolish, and it is.

The way in which the commons are to be spoken to about Seduction is in the realm of its entertaining and pleasing nature. Where one finds pain to be pleasurable, it is still that concerning pleasing. One who is pleased by torment ought not have said of them that they are being tormented. It ought to be said of them that they are being PLEASED in what appears to a healthy individual as TORMENT.

Whether it is torment or pleasure will be relative to how it is received by the target, when speaking from their perspective, and relative to the observer, when from their perspective.

From my perspective and Sense of Self, and Sense of Life, I would not say that I have observed humans who are pleasing towards each other, and their conditions, though I would say… they aim to please, in the narrative. But to please here, in what they aim to do, I would say is TO SERVE. I would not say “please” in actuality. I would say, in servitude and dominance, humans predominantly torment each other. I would also go so far as to say, under the guise of Entertainment being about pleasure, so to say, amusement and Seduction are in actuality forms of torment, and oppression. But they are the forms in which so many seek, and can only seek. But I can not characterize these this way, only from my point of view. Therefore, my Reasoning has me seeing AMUSEMENT and SEDUCTION as forms of TORMENT, and I must say they are forms of PLEASURE instead, because of how they are received by those under their subjugation and limits.

So then, there is TORMENT, and there is PLEASURE… and both of these are the routes of MANIPULATION. One who is receiving the product of Manipulation is not on that level. The one who is tormenting or pleasing may be manipulating, but this does not mean the manipulated is that far into the Pattern. One often manipulated falls short in the first realms of Control and Management.

When you live a life where your Control factors, and Management factors are low, you will not live a life where it can be said your Manipulation factors too are anything but. Here is where I have not worked out the notion entirely yet. But in essence, torment and pleasure do not wait till the level of Manipulation is acquired in the individual. One can torment and please others, all along the way. One can CONTROL in TORMENTING, and/or PLEASING ways. One can MANAGE in TORMENTING, or PLEASING ways, and so likewise with MANIPULATION.

The same can be said, then, that on the level of Control and Management, one can seem entertaining, and right for that realm. But their version of Entertainment will not be skilled and competent, but more often than not, they are acting as a mirror, as a mimic, and in imitation perhaps of their favorite forms of Entertainment. They are just producing a character they have seen and favored, and they are passing it off as their own, in absence of them having their own thing.

An actual talented entertainer is one who fuses their innate traits with the condition, to create a pleasing result. One who ignores their innate traits, and tries to be what they are not, in the condition, will come off having failed at the exercise. They will not be convincing.

This is a strong factor in how most of you are, or once were controlled and managed by the Entertainment industries, with the casting directors trying to make sure, the actor, the entertainer in the role was convincing. Good acting is convincing acting. So if someone was chosen who lacked the natural traits to be convincing in the act, they would not carry the Entertainment towards the desire of some authenticity.

Most do not have LOUD innate traits that they can ROCK. They are muted, and there is nothing about them. So they can only mimic other performances that are generic, and can pretty much come from anyone.

The more experience one has, in being socially active, the more they will come to observe there are generic Garys and Jennies out there, that if they are socially active, their character will not have anything to do with them individually, but will be of the stereotypes one would expect from the Entertainment they are mimicking.

Seduction has the same nature to it. Seduction and amusement do not play on one's innate traits. They may say that one needs to CHOOSE the right mark based on this, to pick the right plays, but in actuality, when the plays are reduced to what they really target, they target UNIVERSALS. They all get stripped back to targeting the diffidence of the mark, the repugnance of the mark, and the need to be surprised into Entertainment, for distraction and relief. Now, how one comes to be entertained may differ at first, but more often than not, it gets stripped back to the basics.

To cover their bases, the writers on Seduction will put forth types and so on, that would appear to be different and in need of different angles. But these types, though they may have been more present before, only differed by degree of one's role, rank, economic, and social status. Differences occur when FREEDOM is more heightened. The freedom in the US, which would be the audience for these books, is based on resources.

So the more resourced one is, the more they can get away with increased fancies in Entertainment. But in the average individual, and among the commons, there is no present diversity in types. At least, I do not observe this anymore. In NYC, and where population is higher, this may still differ, and in the 80s and 90s in NYC, there were certainly more types then. But, and however, most of society has become conformed to mediocrity, and fear and insecurity in expressing difference is higher than it has ever been.

Social networks, online activity, and echo chambers are so vast now, that one can not hear their own nature, which was quiet before. There is far more social demand for conformity, with tech, than there ever has been, and this has been revealing that most are having a homogeneous experience, and coming out as a cookie-cutter same. Especially the young educated youth of today. Before the TECHpression, one could have different experiences that they pulled from and could pick from, to shape their individual character. One could make more mistakes, wander off the common path, adventure into the unknown, pioneer, and make waves.

But in this TECHPRESSION, such abilities and possibilities are more suppressed than anything, and the average young individual is the product of the assembly line of academia and media, social networks, and plain peers.

When it comes to the sense of males and females, and seductive types, a male will have a female before them who is no more than a little girl, who is seeking deference, but now with a more arrogant sense of entitlement. She will not be some WOW creation who steps out from the norm to pull attention. She can't do this anymore, because the ones who control the narratives are not the “has-been” pretty ones, but now the UGLY, FAT, BLUE-HAIRED chumps, that determine what is right behavior and not.

Now the pretty one better whip herself in public, and show that she is ashamed of being born the pretty girl. She better find out how to match the lesbians, so as to avoid their repugnance.

The child's play is mostly the only seductive play one will get from females today. They will be little girls, entitled to everything a master would think. Everything needs to serve them. To think, then, that there are players out there, these days, on the male side, doing anything but getting paid, and looking resourced is absurd. That is another game, the industry of pickup artists and so used to get away with before the internet.

Now it is clear enough to remove those foolish notions that there is game, and one needs to learn it. Now, there is dressing and driving like you have resources, and you are safe and secure, and there is… NOT doing this, and getting friend-zoned. It's silly how most come at “game”. Make no mistake: this, I am not doing. I am stripping it all back to what it is really about, and removing the mystery.

If one is activating a role for themselves where they bring amusement or Seduction, then that condition is one that is weak, and full of marks and targets who will be suffering diffidence, in need and desire for care, or to be a caregiver, and where such reliefs and expressions are not met, they will have activated their repugnance, and they will resist and fight you, till you make them feel safe and secure. Experience should inform the reader that this is more observable among the female humans; but it is a mistake to think human males are not running this track.

Human males are running this track, and in the US are growingly malcontent and displeased when they age, because it is not a part of the human male social condition to have a caregiver when they are older. They are moved to caregiving by way of resources. They are moved to provider, not even caregiver, and the human female takes up the worshiped role of caregiver to young. This created a master caregiver scenario, with the female, and a servile, servant, slave status for the human male, who is measured by how much they can serve and provide for a caregiver.

Most male suffering in the US and domestication these days is that, they are observing a historical trend they once knew nothing about, and that is, half of the males will not get honored by nature by being selected by a human female, for servitude.

The human males DESIRE to SERVE, and when they do not get selected, in them is activated their repugnance, and with no outward enemies to fight, they fight themselves. Their repugnance leads them towards RESTLESSNESS, in the absence of EXPRESSIVENESS. And in this restless state, they feel abandoned. When they seek to be around other males, they bring mostly their repugnance with them, and they all seek to UNDERMINE, SUBVERT, OVERTHROW, and THWART each other. In the natural sense, a DOMINANCE HIERARCHY is present and needs to be climbed, but most of them are not in hierarchies that are healthy, and they are the reason why.

Navigating repugnance defines so much, but it can be said… a failure to, as well as the need to, is why there are so many issues. It can be said, most are unaware of the repugnance natural to others, and themselves. Emotional ignorance, I have discovered, might be the primary issue. But this does not mean, there is something called emotional intelligence, and females somehow have this innate. That is ABSURD. There is emotional KNOWLEDGE, and this is not INNATE; this is STUDIED, and LEARNT. This is then either applied, or neglected.

The notion that human females have intelligence around emotions is a myth. They have proclivity towards Control, Management, and Manipulation more than the human male does. The human male has proclivity around controlling and managing other males, with fear and insecurity in the Management of females. Neither of these two humans, female and male, require any of these factors to require skill, competence and Reason. Human females and human males control, manage, and manipulate based on precedence and familiarity; and on occasion, in performance based realms which are not experienced by the masses, but the minority, skill, competence, and performance factor in.

The MINORITY who are out there will tend to write and try to speak to the majority, about how they can bring performance to their day-to-day, and more often than not, that minority is showing their limits in having any sense of what others are dealing with.

Self-help inspirational coaches and so are usually only prosperous because of the message being sold to the needy, as a form of showing one cares about them. It is not common for those achievers to have achieved in something that was skill, competence, and mastery based, to have the resource gains, and social status, and so on, to then come back into the public and common sphere to consult others, in how to achieve in the same.

No, instead, to tell you are dealing with marketing, it is clear. What they have mastered, as self-help coaches, and performance coaches, in essence, is that of selling and marketing themselves as that. It is not their achievements elsewhere that would be observable. In the procession, their status is based on the simple aspect of Entertainment for pleasure as Seduction, and it is not that of Entertainment for Engagement―but often can be mistaken as such.

ENGAGEMENT has a MISSION, and set of OBJECTIVES that demand greater familiarity than the norm skills, competence, and so on. Self-help and self-talk is not that. SELF-HELP, SELF-TALK, and SOCIALIZING around CONCERNS is CARE, and that is why the dopes who fall for this are being with the feelings of distraction and relief by getting attention from someone who makes a living, selling their attention, their care to the needy.

Seduction, like amusement, is for the WEAK, and most of what is out there is established to maintain the weak, so long as the weak is exploitable, either in the greater scheme of things, or in interpersonal, and individual ground level relationships and associations. Structures are based on caregivers and the cared for, and this is the actual CHARACTER of EXPLOITATION, and it certainly can not accurately be called a PATRIARCH. If anything, it is the product of matriarchs, but this too would be an error of analysis to simplify it as. It is far more than these mere categories of consideration. It is, as it can be said, complex. So then, to come to grasp what it is with more clarity, the simple parts must be analyzed.

When you are all in front of each other, your associates, strangers, or familiars, ask yourself… What do they “fight for” and/or “about”? When profiling others and yourself, begin with what is far away first, because it will be simpler than what is closer and more actual. You have those who have religious fights… What are they? You have those who have political fights… What are they? You have those who have resource fights… What are they? Then there are the associative and the relational, that of social fights… What are they?

The key is FIGHTS. It's also a fight to keep things secure, safe, and stable. What are those around you, and you, keeping secure, safe, and stable, and how does the fight to do so manifest itself?

Presuming you keep it safe, secure, and stable, what will be the future product, the end result? What, of the journey, and the present, motivates the safety, security, and stability?

In my observations, the answers to all these questions come down to the Seven Insecurities, and what the rest of you would say is make-believe. Confidence is not driving any narrative I have observed. Confidence is not even driving the narratives of confidence. Those who push some confidence, do so from the direction of diffidence and weakness. They push confidence, so that you trust them, for sales.

This will work, if you get confidence to apply it… they say. So when it is not working, it is because you have not gained confidence. No good salesman would ever activate the “fight” in you, by telling you, “SORRY… You know you were born with diffidence, and nature has condemned you, and confidence is likely never to occur in you.” Therefore, the best you can do is engage conditions developed in confidence and by the confident Kinds, so that at least you have a sense of security, safety, and stability and confident “ways” and structures. But... are the conditions, and the structures at present built by and sustained by elite confident characters?

NO… Absolutely not… So, good luck with seeking confidence outside of oneself.

Tactics for the born in confidence

Fact of the matter is, only those who are born with confidence ought to develop in a narrative based on confidence, and those with diffidence as default should stop lying to themselves, and learn what is happening in them, and find an accurate and honest way to get expressed.

I am not expounding and calling out to those with diffidence to fix this. My Call is not that of “get confident” and you need “confidence”. My Call is to those born in confidence, to defend themselves against those born in diffidence. I am saying, “WE” with “CONFIDENCE” ought to aim to keep those of you in diffidence from having access to others, to feed on us and our confidence. This is rather odd, and RARE to have ever occurred, because those born in confidence are often so blinded by it, that they want to see the best in others, and that others too, could shine through confidence.

This is why, in actuality, it can not be said I was BORN in confidence. I was born in VALIANCE, and this differs. In Valiance, I am not blinded. It is because of the Valiant in nature, that I can observe by contrast diffidence and confidence. I think if I was born in confidence, I would be blinded by it, and not be able to see its opposite, diffidence.

I think those born in confidence suffer this, in a way, and that is why they become the food of those born in diffidence. Being merely born in confidence does not mean, one becomes by default TRIUMPHANT, and then comes to transmute the emotions, and develops eagerness to learn and know, to inquire Vigilance, Veracity, Virtue, and Valor.

Make no mistake, Virtue is VVrath, in the name of Justice. It is Valiant, in that it is warlike. It is a force, and it can be said, a force for Triumph and health, well-being, and freed expression. No one who is born in diffidence, and struggles in it can ever come near to what I call Virtue. It would pain and torment them to even attempt to.

Those born with confidence need to hear the Call that you are an oddball, and most are born in diffidence, and because of this, when you enter into a play, and/or plays of association, you are stepping on a battlefield that is defined by their HIDDEN REPUGNANCE, that makes them fight for care, that is, for others to serve their concerns, their anxiety, and their diffidence.

When you were born in confidence and you seek access to one who is born in diffidence, you are being invited in to be a servant, and a slave to their ineptitude, and in order to be this for them, your repugnance will need to be turned on you, by them, where those of diffidence get you to fight what is you and your nature, to subdue and subjugate it, in order to conform to the needed character to gain and maintain access to them. You must become WEAKENED to gain and maintain access. You must become INFERIOR to them.

You prove your inferiority merely by engaging in amusement and Seduction. The second one seeks to seduce another, to target and to mark another for access, they are inherently inferior. Now, the problem with this language is that it makes inferior sound bad. This is not the case. It is not bad for one to be inferior to a MASTER who is SUPERIOR, so long as that inferior state is subject to being ADVANCED into one's own SUPERIOR state, through access to a master.

Inferior is not a negative term. By default, a dependent is inferior to that which it depends upon. But humans have a sense of inferior and superior not based on skills, competence, knowledge, and performance, but that of the procession, with precedence and familiarity being the values. Because of this, one could be superior in knowledge, skills, competence, and character, but in the process, hold an inferior status. This is what colors the notion of inferior poorly.

Because of this, one has to be able to recognize on their own, without the procession, what it is to be of superior quality in others. And then, in the absence of the one aspiring to map their way to their own superior quality, they turn to access to the superior to receive Engagement for their own advancement. One is not, outside of the procession, superior or inferior to another. One is superior to their quality, or inferior to their own quality.

Too, one who is superior in their own quality may not be the same make and model of another, seeking to advance in their own quality. The quality in make and model of the Master, or the Adept, needs to be in likeness to the potential of the pupil. The issue is that, in this present social order, when one is “little” or young, they do not become the pupil to an “Adept” and/or a “Master” who has mastered themselves.

Instead, they become a student, in attendance to a school that has instructors, teachers, and drill masters who can not be called attained on any personal and quality based level. They are those who are mimicking a curriculum established by an institution, and behavioral modification is the aim of the procession, to make one ripe for institutional exploitation.

One who has SUPERIOR quality in themselves is one who has CONFIDENCE.

One who has INFERIOR quality in themselves will have DIFFIDENCE.

However, there can be conditional diffidence and confidence.

The way to determine this is based upon the calls that one will encounter. One with conditional diffidence can encounter a condition that pulls out of them innate confidence, to which they then determine, having been inferior in quality, they can confidently advance towards a superior quality.

When conditions are born out of, and propagate diffidence, and they dominate, it can be said, those born in confidence are held in captivity to diffidence, and unlike those born in Valiance, one born in confidence can become stuck and subjugated by diffidence. One born in confidence needs to be called out to, and when they are called out to... Evidence, it is their confidence called out to is that, there is an ease of transition, and they become SPIRITED in their PURSUIT of liberating themselves out of diffidence. One who struggles after hearing the Call is one who did not hear the Call, but merely got excited in what they found seductive.

Because one is seduced by something does not mean that thing sought, and implemented seductive behavior. One who is seeking to be amused and/or seduced will convert Engaging Calls into those qualities, which are inferior. Those who are born in diffidence will delude that before them into fitting into models that get squandered. They will accuse the source of being like what they sought. They will accuse the source of amusement. They will accuse the source of Seduction. This, because, this is what they CRAVED, and in their inability to VALUE individuality, they marked the source for consumption, and they were either pleased or tormented in their feeding by their ignorance of what they were feeding upon.

In any association you have, if you must navigate avoiding triggering those around you, you are not around those with confidence. This is not to say that in conditions that are professional, one ought to exercise Veracity, and disrupt. No, in those conditions, the key is to be professional, and leave your personal quality out of it.

Do not engage others in a professional capacity, the same way you would engage others in a personal capacity. The error in mediocrity is that folk lacking in personal associations, in their neediness, make their professional associations feed their personal needs.

A VOTARY, and/or a VIR ought not be found doing this. They ought to be observed making it clear to those in a professional capacity that there is a difference. They do this by informing the needy diffident one that they are not to use them as a means of personal expression.

Meaning, the VOTARY, and/or the VIR does not let others feed on them by talking about personal concerns, history, and irrelevant material. The VOTARY and/or the VIR keeps it PROFESSIONAL. If one has shared values with another, discovered in regards to meeting in a professional capacity, then they associate in a personal capacity. But they separate capacity. One who acts the same in all conditions is one who is marked as UNAWARE, and what is the same about them in all conditions is they are an AUTOMATON.

The Votary and the Vir categorize all their associations, and develop a strategy and set of tactics that define how they are to behave. They do not “cut loose” and fall stupid to the need to express what they are personally, to all and anyone that enters their targeting range.

All HOMINIDS have SOCIAL TARGETING, including a Votary or a Vir. But the difference is, a Votary and a Vir have DISCIPLINE, and DISCRIMINATION in their targeting. Humans do not. Humans target opportunistically, and indiscriminately. This shows itself in what are considered “work” and/or “professional realms”, whereby humans will gain associations based upon these compelled conditions, and they will force others to have to navigate their personal sensibilities, their personal emotions, their concerns, need for care, and their repugnance.

One who brings their emotions into a professional realm is trashy, and low performance. A professional realm is so by having STANDARDS, MISSIONS, and OBJECTIVES. These more often than not are served through a set of standardized actions. This is the focus, and one's personal quality should not factor in. When it does, that individual needs to restrain their sense of the professional realm to care based systems of work―and often, given the choice, they do. Those born in confidence should avoid working in care fields.

Of course, the avoidance is on the account of having to render care for those who are certainly in need and/or desirous of care. I will remind the reader VERY often that these are not UNIVERSALS. This is about someone who hears the Call, and it is loudly in correlation with their temperament in many other ways. Most should stick to the realms of care, and only limit themselves to the universal law of DO NO HARM.

A warning around oxytocin

Repugnance is countered the easiest, and/or avoided the easiest by humans through that of physical bonding, with the chemicals being the key point. I have spoken of that of oxytocin in other areas of my work and will not repeat here.

However, it needs to simply be said that the purpose behind physical bonding is to bypass mental repugnance born out of the Seven Insecurities. It's also the BYPASSING of the MIND and any form of JUDGEMENT. When the physical bonding occurs first, there is a good chance, the individuals involved will not have carried out an assessment of character and temperament compatibility. Many will come together first, and almost only under this chemical spell, and only later, get to discover that those around them do not match in character; and chasing that chemical hit, they will then try to get the other to change.

I will not pretend to grasp the “chemicals” with any sense of accuracy when speaking about them. It is not essential for one to come at all this with a “material” sense. What experience I have had, with experiments and investigations deliberately carried out, has shown me enough to know that oxytocin, though needed and natural, has many under a spell that correlates to their suffering. This, when it is to say, no standards exist other than trusting and feeling connected, to establish whether an association ought to be in motion or not.

In the absence of a standard, so and so “just makes you feel good” and/or safe and secure, and through this physical bonding, has come to “gain your trust”. This is because of oxytocin, and oxytocin will be used as a chemical to navigate the repugnance of another, reducing their desire, need, and thought to fight and to resist. In essence, BONDING is about DISARMING another, so that they become VULNERABLE to the chemicals that weaken them into association.

Oxytocin among humans, in the public, often gets a wonderful wrap, or that is, it is clothed in Virtue. But the word “Virtue” means nothing more than “FEEL GOOD” among the commons of humans. It does not mean the “Way of the VIR”, as the word was born from. The Itus of the Vir.

Oxytocin makes humans feel good, or so they think. But the praise of this chemical, in regards to what is actually good, is a con. It's a scam, a myth, a delusion that is backed by the wants of the soft, the effeminate, the vulnerable and the wickedly manipulative. It is praised because it is where one is most “manipulated”, in the negative sense of this term―Manipulation being negative when played against a vulnerability, and not a strength.

If one was repugnant out of strength, in the name of Justice, or a cause, this could easily be stripped back by having one controlled through oxytocin, which can be said is what will make one care, trust, and so-called “cooperate”, which is not in actuality a cooperation. It is a BONDING and ALLYING, often not in regards to something that warrants cooperation.

In self-defense, for that of the Vir, and/or a Votary, with its Vows, be forewarned… Those who promote oxytocin as the “cuddle hormone”, “chemical of love”, of “cooperation”, and/or the “moral chemical” are VAMPYRES looking to FEED. For the most part, they are just mimicking popular opinions spread online. But they are far from being accurate about this chemical. I am not characterizing it as evil, but in domestication, it can be characterized as that which certainly leads astray, and brings about an association that has dark elements likely to creep in.

This is not me advocating that of “do not touch” rules, but it is me advocating for the Votary and/or the would-be Vir to avoid touching as a first thing. Meaning, do not come to “know”, or that is, familiarize with others through physical first, because certainly then, this chemical will have you stupid, in which those who are stupid under it would translate that to mean “trusting” and “cooperative”. This is not what it is.

To fight your repugnance, they hug you, and they cuddle you, and those who hug would-be strangers are social predators.

There is a chronology to the sense folk have about oxytocin. In the earlier studies, the excitement painted it in a positive light, and this is where most have come to dwell, because of what they want, and wish for. It supports their Sense of Self, and Sense of Life, and regardless that later and more advanced studies have uncovered a darker side, which does not align with the touchy-feely promotion of their own ways―which to the Votary and the Vir are PREDATORIAL.

ALL of you, who have been hugging and physical with strangers to disarm them, are social predators, ghouls, and Vampyres. When you think this does not mean you, and you are these physical kinds, it is because you have a narrative that you are kind, nice, gentle, and empathetic. These are Manipulations that are not found to be good in ACTUALITY. When they are properly observed and defined, these social traits are the primary ones used to access each other, so as to get the other to drop their guard, be more receptive, and not resist, defend, and/or “fight you” in your demands.

“Why are you so DEFENSIVE”, the nice one says.

“Why are you so STUBBORN”, the nice one says.

“Why are you so SERIOUS”, the nice one says.

“Why are you so RESISTANT”, the nice one says.

Says… NOT ASKS. These are not questions. When you think they are, you are being pressured to say… “I AM NOT”, and/or “WILL NOT be these things, so that I can COOPERATE, and be KIND”.

This is not the way of the Vir, and the Votaries with their Vows. Their answer is:

“I am all these things, from your point of view, because you are a GHOUL, and/or a VAMPYRE, trying to OFFEND me. Trying to SUBVERT me. Trying to DELUDE me. Trying to CONTROL, to MANAGE, to MANIPULATE, to AMUSE, and/or SEDUCE me. I am these things, because you are a PREDATOR, and I am DENYING you ACCESS. First and foremost, I am denying you access to my PHYSICAL. Second, I am denying you access to my MENTAL. You will not have a STANDARDLESS approach to my being. I am in need of SELF-DEFENSE against you, because you are in need of ACCESS to me, and in OFFENSE, on account of being an INEPT CREATURE.”

THOU SHALL NOT PASS.

When you grant them physical access with ease, it is the MATERIAL realm that is seeking to dominate the MENTAL realm. You will think, “this all feels right”. It's not.

Claiming the product of oxytocin is that of trust and generosity is the Manipulation of the praises, of the bias of the so-called scientists, who today are hardly more than mere “white coat” shamans, as Brahmins. The priests of the material realm. It can be said, more so, it fosters bias and envy. Even then, these terms fall short.

Oxytocin is said to be made in the part of the brain called the hypothalamus, but though made there, its impact can be said to be upon the entirety of the body.

The highest spikes in it perhaps occur during sexual arousal. It's then connected with the contraction of the womb before birth, and it is what triggers the release of milk. That said enough; one ought to see that it is mostly connected with the human female of the animal, or the hominid in which humans and Vir are both a part of… thus far.

If then among the biological sexes, this chemical is said to have supremacy, it is among the females, but this ought not lead to the error of thinking males are exempt from it. On the contrary, males are CONTROLLED by oxytocin.

Oxytocin is primary in social interactions of humans. HUMANS here is the key factor, not VIR and VOTARY, with their Vows. Studies done on other animals have shown that where oxytocin is blocked, it is suggested there is less monogamy, or bonding with one, and more of that of promiscuity, that too leads to more neglect to their offspring.

Is that enough to say, lower oxytocin production means less “bonding” in this material sense? PERHAPS.

For HUMANS, is that a GOOD, or a BAD thing?

For humans, physical relations is all they truly show they ever amount to. Relationships founded upon bonding from precedence and familiarity, which can not be said to be based on some standard of association. Humans, then, should praise bonding with each other, and becoming physically conjoined.

But for the Votary and the Vir, this is not the case. Because of the need and the push, the pull, the attraction to standards of association around shared values in temperament, bonding over physical chemicals is seen as an inferior form, a material form of association.

The aims of the Votary and the would-be Vir are MENTAL, and character alignment, over that of PETTY physical alignment. This does not mean celibacy, and the absence of the physical. The physical, however, has the level of potency equivalent to play, and only PLAY.

However, the human would then say… the Votary and/or the Vir would be promiscuous. This too is not the case. Because of the standard, the Votary and/or the Vir does not play at the physical with those not aligned, and/or in likeness.

It can almost be said, if a Votary, or a Vir takes up physical play with a human, they will be inadvertently causing them harm, because the human will be bonding, not playing, and when the Votary or the Vir does not bond, and pulls away towards their own living, this will contribute to the human's suffering. They connect everything to these physical bonds, because they do not have anything else to connect, or be correlated with another under. They couple only in the physical sense, and the rest is make-believe for them.

Therefore, upon the appearance of the Vows, yet to be fully covered, a Votary seems to pursue a life of celibacy, and a Vir appears celibate. But in actuality, this is only when among HUMANS, and is carried out so as not to HARM them; and never ought a Votary or a Vir consider the word of the human, the wants of the human, and their claims of non harm being a factor. They, the human, do not determine what harm is.

The Votary and/or Vir has to determine based upon the standards of their “Way” what harm is, and if they are engaged in it. Regardless of the feelings, and/or the positions of their associations, they then are to go with that standard and remove themselves from positions and roles of harm.

Engaging in the physical bonding of humans will cause them harm, when one is a Votary and/or a Vir, on account that the bonding will not occur with these kinds.

The Votary and/or the Vir does not BOND PHYSICALLY. The Votary and/or the Vir correlates in Entertainment that is ENGAGING, with that of others taking JOY in that of observing and interacting with advanced Control over conditions and self. This advancement is impeded by, interfered with by that of oxytocin. Oxytocin is about familiarizing in the material with others, out of that of attachment, based upon the Seven Insecurities.

Sexual arousal is used to get the attention of others, in the most easiest of the sense, on account of the role it plays in oxytocin and its release. Those who seek attention through sexual arousal are, to the Votary and the Vir, mere beasts who, in their artificial pleasantries, are hiding that of their heightened sense of the Seven Insecurities. They are in essence HONEY TRAPS.

Some have suggested that one's association with the smelling of oxytocin will be correlated to one's “relationship” with their primary caregiver of attachment, the “mother”. That where this was “positively” received, one induced to or through oxytocin would be more “trusting” even of those who are anonymous to them, whereas those with a “poor” association to their mothers, who were the primary triggers of oxytocin, they would generate a negative response.

The response, then, is not the same for everyone, other than, it is thought it is the same in correlation to the role their mum played in their early childhood development.

Because of this, it can be thought, at first, that the Votary and the Vir would need be those who do not have a positive association with mothers, and thus, in what mothers really only are in reduction, that of oxytocin inducement machines. But this notion would then mean, the sense of oxytocin is one of defeat.

The Votary and the Vir do not come from the notion of good mommy, and bad mommy. Both of these positions are the mommied position. It is not whether or not oxytocin makes one trusting, feel good, or untrusting, or feel bad. This is not the factor. Most who would be a Votary, and/or a Vir, if not all, are those who more often than not feel good regardless of the condition. One who feels bad in regards to almost anything is one who ought not engage this Way. This is not a Way that fixes those who have had bad emotional connections to caregivers, and are angry, and upset at the world.

To then think that a negative relationship to oxytocin is preferable will be absurd, and manipulative in characterizing this Way. Instead, what is being said is that one does not associate, positive or negative, based upon the physical and chemical Manipulation of these sorts, but that such physical interactions are reserved for play, only after the STANDARD has been met to arrive at play with another, with the physical bodies.

Because this standard would be in place, it means a Votary and/or a Vir would appear celibate, and in avoidance of the physical. But this is mere appearance. In actuality, what it means is that most will be DENIED ACCESS to the physical of the Votary and/or the Vir, on account that all they are, in VALUE, is in that area.

The Votary and/or the Vir does not settle in the physical as a primary value. What makes it clear the rest of you do, is that you do not have definable standards of association, and your associates are all based around how they make you “feel” in the realm of the Seven Insecurities.

Those of “this Way” are not avoiding oxytocin because of a negative association to it. They are avoiding it, like one would avoid heroin, crack, hallucinogenics, and intoxicants. Oxytocin is not these things, but it is a chemical that in essence makes one stupid to the observation of others. However, one who is in need of, and easily disarmed, and made vulnerable on account of oxytocin is one who ought not pursue this Way.

By the nature of this Way, those suited are those who are not sensitive, and easily moved by oxytocin to begin with. One who is easily moved by oxytocin, or any chemical for that matter, should not take the Vows of a Votary, and should not engage in this Way, for they would be harming themselves in the long run.

On account of this, as a part of “this Way”, that of Viritus, the Votary and/or the Vir would take physical breaks from physical play, as a means to prove to themselves and others of their condition that it is not primary.

Where these breaks from the physical play cause harm and/or issues, then it is indicative of that of a human being present who ought not be. Humans will sustain their physical play as meaningful, to cope with their Seven Insecurities, and a pause on such is an indication among them, that something is wrong, not good.

Humans ought to be engaged in consistent sexual arousal and play, in order to maintain physical health. When humans slow in this area, it is indicative that the parties no longer find each other entertaining, and they have grown too familiar, in whereby contempt is likely now a factor.

Because of this, the physical intimacy often used by humans to “get access” and/or to “get close” to each other has a level, by degree, of deference in the first stages of familiarizing, over that of long-term.

For young humans, male and female sexed… it is their FLESH each are seeking as a means to cope with the Seven Insecurities. The young can not know anything by standard about each other, because more often than not, a standard does not exist, and the two have not developed a character that is noteworthy in connection to that standard. They are merely ANIMALS, pretending to be about nothing more than that too, based in MATERIAL.

It would seem, they are chasing the flesh for validation, as a thing of its own, in regards to Nature's Prime Direction to procreate and replicate. Though this is nature's prime directive, it is not the motivational system of the human that leads them to fulfill this prime directive.

Instead, in HUMANS, nature has the Seven Insecurities, and that to them, in regards to their feelings, chasing the flesh―the fastest thing to stimulate oxytocin―gives them the most IMMEDIATE feeling needed to cope with the Seven Insecurities. The Seven Insecurities are the MOTIVATIONAL forces being the pursuit of flesh for pleasure. It is not the physical pleasure, by itself. It is the oxytocin element that is being sought after.

It is then NOT that the Votary and the Vir are to see oxytocin in a negative light. This is not the case. Like all emotions and their chemical foundation, it is about strategy and tactics to be in the most advantageous position, emotionally. Oxytocin and physical bonding will lead more likely to a reduction in standards in association. One gets past standards of association by being a familiar.

Where then oxytocin and physical play will cause the bonding pair to pretend to trust each other, at first, and to coordinate, it is only so much as in pursuit of the next oxytocin hit. When that hit begins to wear off, and requires more to be met, and that of real world conditional responsibility kicks in, oxytocin and its dependencies can lead to a great deal of problems.

When oxytocin is reduced, and stimulation and arousal is low… it then begs the question, what and why, towards what aim, and by what standard are those familiars aligned in?

The answer is NONE, and that is why it is a problem to use material validation as a form of coping with the Seven Insecurities.

The Votary and the Vir are about EMPOWERING themselves first towards GREATER and ADVANCED CONTROL and INFLUENCE over their own CONDITIONS and SELF, long before they then choose to play with others. And only then, does one come to have a standard of play.

Those who do not have a standard of play for associates is because they lack Control and Influence over their own conditions and self, only acquired through a set of standards that require skill, competence, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and Victory. Those without these things will settle with physical familiarity dictating all other elements.

The Votary and the Vir are not permitted in “their Way” to cause harm to others. This is not the same, to say they are forbidden to harm others in SELF-DEFENSE. When a Votary or a Vir is engaged in harm that an aggressor has initiated, it is the aggressor who is harming themselves by seeking to oppose, oppress, subjugate, or harm the Votary or the Vir. This is not the Votary and/or the Vir engaging in harm.

This is the Votary and the Vir engaging in self-defense, and though there will be harm in the engagement, the aggressor is the harming one, not the defender. Harm being present is not PRODUCED by the defending part. One who offends another, and dies in the process, killed themselves with their choices.

The one who engaged the offender and sought to remove the threat, resulting in the death of the offender, is not the one who has killed. They are the one who has DEFENDED. This does not mean the intent to kill was present. One who offends another, aggresses towards another to cause harm, removes the right, waves the right to be free from harm; and therefore, when halted by any means necessary, they can not be said to have been harmed.

Grief and sorrow are a part of the notion of harm in its etym. It does not merely mean physical damage. The Votary and/or the Vir are never to be the source of one's grief, and sorrow; and it is grief and sorrow that causes others to seek to harm through Control, Management, and Manipulation of that of others, more often than not, free of this.

When they do so, they are the source of their grief and their sorrow, the harm they are under, and the RESPONDENT is not the SOURCE. In defense, the respondent is REMOVING harm, not generating it. To REMOVE a threat is to REMOVE harm, and where removing that threat could mean ending their lives, this is not harm.

Now, this is tricky in the physical sense. It can be said injury may have been caused, and/or death has been produced… and death is seen as bad. But all of these things are induced by the aggressor, and are not the fault of the defender.

Injury is classified as a “wrongful action”. It can not be said that the one defending against an aggressor is the one who is engaged in an injury. The commons limit their terms to grunting of a physical sense. So long as one physically injures another, they are the bad one, even if the aggressor brought about the injury by aggressiveness, or by other means.

Because of this, humans, in their cowardice, will avoid overt aggression, and they will use guile as a means to make others vulnerable for the taking. They will use kindness, niceties, politeness, and deception as the means to subvert, to undermine, to overthrow, to disrupt, and impede. So long as they avoid the overt physical actions, they call themselves CIVILIZED, while they ROB YOU and torment you with policies, codes, statutes, legal tools of subjugation.

So then the one to BLAST them out of their threatening position is called violent for their self-defense. This is the absurdity of human suffering. They inflict harm through cowardice ways, and label those who resist and defend “the BADDIES”, because the defending party does not have the same COWARDLY temperament that brings about the use of subterfuge.

Humans see things first and foremost from physical pleasure, and physical pain. Because of this, pleasure and pain often have this category of physical implied, and the feelings are physical. Because of this, humans then connect their sense of the spiritual to how they “feel”. SPIRITUALITY to humans is EMOTIONALITY.

When a human pretends to be spiritual, they believe spiritual attainment is in kindness, caring, loving, compassion, and niceties. All of these are in the name of oxytocin, and “getting access” to each other, to remove “threats” or triggers that reveal they are plagued by the Seven Insecurities.

Seeking to see if there is a physical match first is the human way. And by first, it amounts to… ONLY, in the long run. The rest, that of beliefs and so-called values, is more often than not a sham that ends up being about a business arrangement around resources, offspring, and security in the familiar.

Humans are petty creatures.

On account of this, it is all in the name of the Seven Insecurities, improperly navigated, coming to cause a revelation in the mark and/or the target of their repugnance, which, less transmuted in the Kinetics, is always there.

If you think one is not being repugnant, it will often be because they are being pleased. One does not discover the repugnance of others, when they too, are repugnant. One does not discover the insecurities of others, when they too, are insecure. When one says nay to the presence of these things, more often than not, it is because it is present in them as well. They are not the judges of what is, and is not. No one who suffers the Seven Insecurities should be thought of as able to know them, expound on them, detect them in others, and navigate them in self and others, with advancement and transmutation in mind.

The human, because they are deceptive by nature, can be unattained in a thing, and speak on it all day, believing they are entitled to be heard. This is the arrogance of a human, on account that in almost all ideologies, secular or religious, those who are not attained in anything are those promoting some kind of attainment. One ought to be very Vigilant towards this. One who is not attained in what is promoted ought not be turned to for an accurate sense of it.

Therefore, in the lives of you readers, you will not have some position that validates what I am saying. You were not, and likely are not living attained in anything, but instead, are still on the level whereby your first form, if not only form of association to others, is governed by the Seven Insecurities.

In order to navigate and cope with them, you know only that of PHYSICAL bodies, and will not have a single association that can be said to be around a “Way”, a standard, a set of objectives, values, and missions. You may have social religions, and say this is your Way, yet, there you are, bonded to familiars and being a mere familiar yourself to others. There will be nothing about you individualized, and therefore, you will only familiarize with yourself and others, and any will do.

Get off the X

With this element of familiarize to disarm, and to navigate the repugnance that is certainly in the other, you CAN NOT, and WILL NOT be an INDIVIDUAL.

If one is individualized, one of the primary differences is, they seek to interact with the individuality of another. Familiars, who are collectivist, seek to EXPRESS their COURSE, and regardless of who the target or mark is, it does not change anything about their interaction. They are able to treat the mark and the target as an X, that has no INDIVIDUALITY.

Quiet kinds are not individuals. They are often held captive by the collective replicants, and they just receive the expression of the bot in front of them. A mere bot is easy to identify; it can be held captive, and will try to hold others captive for its expression, having no sense of the target or the mark.

Because of this, the Votary and/or the Vir has the standard to AVOID all BANAL and MUNDANE interactions. Interacting in this scripted and familiar way is an OFFENSE to the WAY. The Votary refuses to be held captive by a replicant, to make for a mere target and mark of having their expressions imprinted upon. A Votary asks the question to themselves: is this actor targeting me for individuality, or am I standing on an X, and anyone who is on this X will receive their expressions?

When the answer is, any will do, then the Votary

GETS OFF THE X.

Getting off the X is an expression often made by those in the combat professions, and in special operations. It means, DO NOT BE, and/or GET OFF of the area being targeted by a threat. To get off the X is to get out of the targeting acquisition system of one's opponent, and/or a threat. It is targeting the SPACE, and not you as an INDIVIDUAL, in particular. Conditions are often the space. Control and Influence over the conditions is about where you are positioned. Controlling and influencing position is everything.

Those who are individualized will often ask the one on the X, in their targeting reticle… who are they? This can be called a challenge, and that of seeking one's bona fides. What is your honest self, and intentions? Checking the bona fides of another is crucial to see if there ought to be an interaction. Is one dealing with “friend” or is one dealing with “foe”?

One who does not check the bona fides of another is a replicant, who does not value themselves nor others, and they ought to be avoided. This is achieved with ease, on account of vowing to refrain from banal and mundane interactions. So long as one does not have this Vow, they can engage with others only around the familiar, and this will be the engagement so as to avoid conflict.

Conflict is avoided by hiding actual intent, in interactions. One who uses indirection does not take a hard line position; is seeking to not trigger in the other their resistance, their fight, their defenses. All of these things are a part of the emotion of repugnance―that the academics call the emotion of anger, but I find this to be inadequate. It's REPUGNANCE, and EVERYONE has repugnance.

For the Votary and the Vir, this emotion, like all the emotions, is the target for transmutation.

A fight will always exist, in order to exist. It is innate.

For the human, the fight is repugnance, and the target for their fight is irrelevant to the need to feel the fight.

For the Votary, the Vir, the fight needs to be STRATEGIC and TACTICAL. For the Votary, they are likely only on the tactical level, whereas the Vir engages a full strategy. The Votary learns the tactics as the parts, which eventually can aid in defining the strategy, as the whole.

The human is so, because of their Kinetics. The Vir is so, because of their Kinetics.

Phase 1-3 of the human emotional consumption

The human and their repugnance is kinetically driven by them being born in diffidence. Remember, oxytocin comes to play a major role, in the human, feeling they can trust and cooperate with the one who stimulates an oxytocin response. You did not trust your mommies on account of them demonstrating skill, competence, Control, and mastery. This is absurd to conclude.

You trusted Mommy because of oxytocin making your whole sense of trust and cooperation―more so submission―a chemical trust and submission, not one of Reason, tactics, and strategy. This is what it means to be chemically made stupid, and inept.

Only when you are born in diffidence, then, does oxytocin have this kind of impact upon you. Born in diffidence, you need to feel trust and submission, and that feeling is a demand in consumption placed on the condition. If you felt confident from within, you would not need to consume from the condition, chemicals to trigger a sense of trust and submission.

One who is born in diffidence is one who is born subject, in their Kinetics, to the condition, and they do not have an inner potency that acts as a standalone, that can then shape the conditions.

From this diffidence, called lack of trust in self and others, one would need to be physically altered to cope with this feeling. From this are the Seven Insecurities. That is then why, in the Kinetics, it is said, born in diffidence, the first emotion is INSECURITY, and/or “FEAR”, though that designator is under challenge.

From this insecurity, the energetics, that of eagerness, becomes anxiety. The anxiety, combined with insecurity and ineptitude, begets concern. Concern, for humans, does not require a “reason to be concerned”. This error is often made in listening to humans, when they self report “why” they are “concerned”.

A Votary does not listen to self reporting humans to assess what “is”, that is, what “is ACTUAL”. A human will always be anxious, by degree, and concerned, by degree, as an emotional product of being born in diffidence, struggling with the Seven Insecurities, and therefore, living insecure. Anxious concerns are the two traits of care. Literally, care is anxious concern, not caution, which may be a Reasoned concern. Caution is liken to Vigilance, wherein, it means to be “on one's guard” and has a relationship to the term “prudence”. Concern, with anxiety behind it, is not the same. CAUTION is not the same as CARE.

Concern, on its own, is about “discernment”, and “distinguishing”. It's about “to perceive”; however, it can be taken to mean “to relate” as well, and “to belong to”. Care has the element of concern in the relative, not in the discerning element. Anxious concern is about relating in one's perception, and one's belonging, to that of concern. The ANXIOUS element changes the concern, and its character.

In caution, there can be concern of the discerning factor, whereby one is “on their guard” and has “concerns” they are engaging. This is not the same as care. Care does not require discernment, and that of being “on guard”, when in actuality, care is often about dropping one's guard, letting go, letting up, and being able to be “vulnerable” these days, in what they call a “safe space”, which is nothing more than a vulnerable space for predators of care to engage you in.

Those who are caring are predators of care, who feed on the weakness of others. To the VOTARY, to say one is CARING is no different from saying one is either A GHOUL or a VAMPYRE. Humans can not understand, and certainly can NOT OVERSTAND a sense of this observation from the position of a VOTARY, and that is entirely why, discourse with a HUMAN is not the source of understanding, and certainly NOT the SOURCE of that of OVERSTANDING a sense of HUMANS.

From anxiety is born the type of human concern. From diffidence, lacking in trust, a human does not have trust in systems of discernment, tactics, techniques, and procedures. Humans submit to how they feel, and when they use the term trust, it's that of a feeling and a faith, not a trust that is liken to confidence, whereby one has beliefs advanced in certainty towards knowledge, thus making them tactical. A known thing that does not serve a tactical sense is a useless data point, that ought not take up a position of so-called knowing.

Humans, in their Kinetics of diffidence, insecurity, anxiety, concern, and care are running the first call of the phase of their emotions. What comes in the second phase of their Kinetics is based on the response of the condition. Did the condition feed the call for care of the human? When the answer is yes, that human will see themselves as caring, and surrounded by those who care. When that answer is no, they will transition into the second phase of their Kinetics, and enter into the phase of repugnance.

First phase is the PHASE of CARE.

Second phase is the PHASE of REPUGNANCE.

Because others do not serve their cries, and their concerns in care, they will begin to fight, and what they are fighting for is Control, Management, and Manipulation of others, to get those others to serve the first phase.

When others do not respond to early stages of repugnance, this leads to ANNOYANCE, in the first degree; FRUSTRATION, in the second degree; AGGRESSION in the third degree; and ANGER in the fourth degree. The degree of repugnance will be based upon how the condition responds.

When in the lesser degree, and the condition of care, and its demands are met, the human goes back to phase one, the phase of care. When the conditions do not respond, the caretaker responds with more degrees of repugnance. When the phase of repugnance gets to the point of unresolved anger, what becomes established is disgust for the condition.

Disgust is born out of repugnance. Disgust is treated as the third emotion, by the academics. They list them as INSECURITY/FEAR, to that of ANGER, and then that of DISGUST. Notice, how many parts of the Kinetics differ in my treatment of the subject.

As of right now, I am the only one treating it this way, and because of that, I am too accounting for the academic approach for the reader. I do not find the academics' portrayal of the emotions to also have informative variables included. However, when one considers my approach to that of the Kinetics, one ought to see, my analysis is more advanced.

This advancement is not my invention. In the etymology of the terms, there is revelation. So then, let it be said, where one would say I was wrong, then, they need to use different terms. Repugnance comes before disgust, and this is indicated in the etymologies.

Etymology of Repugnance (n.)

early 15c., repugnaunce, “logical contradiction, inconsistency; incompatibility; resistance, opposition”(senses now obsolete), from Old French repugnance “opposition, resistance” (13c.) or directly from Latin repugnantia “incompatibility,” from stem of repugnare “resist, disagree, be incompatible,” from re- “back” (see re-) + pugnare “to fight” (from PIE root *peuk- “to prick”). The meaning “mental opposition or antagonism, aversion, strong dislike” is from 1640s. Related: Repugnancy.

Etymology of Disgust (n.)

1590s, “repugnance excited by something offensive or loathsome,” from French desgoust “strong dislike, repugnance,” literally “distaste” (16c., Modern French dégoût), from desgouster “have a distaste for,” from des- “opposite of” (see dis-) + gouster “taste,” from Latin gustare “to taste” (from PIE root *geus- “to taste; to choose”). The literal sense, “distaste, aversion to the taste of,” is from 1610s in English.

I am choosing my terms and their definitions based on etymologies, and not loose academic play.

Disgust comes about out of the phase of repugnance. Disgust begins the phase of despair, as what becomes born out of disgust are other degrees, like that of malcontent, and that of despair.

Phase ONE: to CONSUME CARE

Phase TWO: to CONSUME with REPUGNANCE

Phase THREE: To CONSUME in DESPAIR

These are three phases of emotional consumption. Emotions exist regardless of the context and the conditional response. Emotions, by degree, which differ in everyone, are and must seek to consume, as a CALL and a RESPONSE CONDITION.

This has to be reiterated often, as it will be easily forgotten. ALL of the emotions and their Kinetics are always present. Their consumption and expression is relative to the condition, and where one is in association, in the Kinetics.

When one is at a certain point in the Kinetics, it DOES NOT MEAN the other emotions are not present, and seeking to consume. Only conceptually are they separated, but in actuality, they are cycling and they are fused, with the status of one of the emotions dictating the status of all the others.

However, it would be useless to try to see it as a whole, versus the conceptual parts. With the conceptual parts, one can advance in Control and Influence. With the whole promoted, that is just shamanism, excited in the emotion of excited ignorance. Excited ignorance is an emotion, in the Kinetics, that I replace surprise with, and perhaps one of the greatest conceptions I have had in regards to the emotions. More on that later.

When one has repugnance that is not answered and alleviated through a caring and compliant condition, they develop in disgust towards the condition, and those in it.

This means, they become excited by something offensive, or loathsome, though in this etymology, that is loaded. For now, I will leave that as such, not ready to treat it. The Emotional Kinetics will require their own manual in time.

“Strong dislike”, literally a “distaste” is that in which disgust often correlates. It has expressions that are liken around the actual tasting of things, and correlate to the consumption of foods. So the element of taste is essential. It is to say, what is being tasted, even in thought, is opposite of what is more often than not familiar. One's taste approval is strongly connected to what is familiar. This connection is essential.

Scorn and contempt will follow, in this consideration in that of the category of disgust. They would be types of disgust, and one can also see then, that disgust is born out of repugnance; and so then, degrees that precede define degrees that follow.

So if one said, scorn and disgust relate to anger, it is not that this is untrue, or invalid, but I would say, REPUGNANCE, here, is a better choice for me, in terms, and not ANGER.

More often than not, the repugnance of the weak does not manifest to the level of obvious anger. Anger and its displays will be correlated to one's rank, and freedoms. One who can not be angry because of social consequences can still be repugnant, and repugnant often consumed in secrecy.

This phase of repugnance is one I have often observed humans can never identify in its precursor, or starting forms, when they “fight” for a care. I have never made a human aware of it, who then agreed. It is almost what proves that one is a human. A human can not detect when they are repugnant. But a human can detect when they are angry, and this is why perhaps the academics label the emotions the way they do. But because of this, those emotional degrees that matter the most, humans can not detect, and self report on.

That is why, it can not be said that the Kinetics I speak of are for HUMANS to use to advance in Control and Influence over. I would say, humans can not, and when one engages the Kinetics, and carries on in repugnance without detecting it, then that is sufficient evidence that they are driven by impulse and excited ignorance, and are not able to assert the needed Control and Influence born out of Vigilance to be called a Votary. The failure to catch early degrees of repugnance indicates the absence of Vigilance. For humans, “being on guard” does not in actuality exist.

For humans, what seems like “Vigilance” and “being on guard” is their diffidence. They are suspicious as an emotion on account of an inability to trust in the self, and others. They call this “their vigilance”, but with this, they often can not detect when one before them is of a greater quality and natural status.

Vigilance is proven out by seeing what one can be confident in others. It is not proven out by a CONSTANT DIFFIDENCE or mistrust in others. Many would like this to seem the case, to elevate their diffidence as more. The evidence for this is simple… One who does not have confidence in themselves can not have confidence in others.

Therefore, they can not have Vigilance, as Vigilance is used to detect by what degree one engages confidence. Where one has diffidence in themselves, they can not have confidence in others. So that question is answered in their BIRTH. Those in diffidence can not be Vigilant, and can not determine what confidence ought to be had in another, because they will have no confidence in another, regardless of that other. Those in diffidence are POSSESSED by it, and can not see past their own demons.

When one is seeking to be a familiar to get access to others, they are mimicking and they are imitating to avoid conflict, and that is, that of triggering, or rather revealing in another their repugnance. It is there, no matter what. But when one conditionally pleases them, they keep them in the phase of consumption in care.

It does not matter if this is male with male, or female with female, or opposites. This is what is socially occurring.

When one learns of Seduction, reduced now to the pleasing component associated with coupling for whatever reason, they are being told to see this as a skilled thing. It is not skilled, and most are doing it regardless of a sense of it. One is being seduced by deceptive writers to think, not only ought they do these things, but they can do them knowingly.

No, this is a SCAM. All of this is done in the next two Kinetics to follow disgust. When one has not had their conditions conform to their taste, they will feel subjugated, and emotionally oppressed. They do not have relief. Because of this, they will slow, and be stunted, rather retarded in their energetics.

When I call someone retarded, this is what I am saying. I am saying they are in the phase of despair, this means they do not fight, and they do not spar. Despair is when one's repugnance has had no impact, or little impact, and the individual has hardly no or little relief, distraction, diversion, and deludedness.

One feels, in common vernacular, disempowered, feels impotent, feels powerless. But this term “power” here is not correct. Power is potent ability, and most will never know what this means. The proper term is Control, and added Influence. CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, and MANIPULATION are the three categories of ACCESS, to be considered here. When one has a low access to these three, they will feel like they are “not in Control”. They are not the one who is in Control, but they are under that of the Control of others and/or another.

And more often than not, why they will see others as having them “under” is born from their repugnance, and their disgust. There are many reasons, or that is, variables, for why one does not get the condition to be concerned with their care.

Most of these variables are subject to one's birth, and therefore, determine one's Access Value Engagement, or AVE. AVE, for me, is liken to the commons' use of “marketplace value” or MPV; only, they will see this as sexual values, resource values, status and rank corollaries. I do not treat these values on separate marketplaces, nor as separate elements.

Sexual arousal is about oxytocin, and therefore, feelings of trust, access, and submission and Control. I do not treat it as its own value. Its value is correlated to the rest of these variables, which can be realized through other means as well. Sexual arousal is dominant in bringing about these feelings, therefore, it would look like there is a thing called the “sexual marketplace”.

Seduction is dependent on being born in diffidence

The reason this is the case, that physical attraction by nature plays a dominant role, is on account of the ease of these feelings being served in consumption, via this route. A human female who is born pleasing in the sexual appearance element, and learns to use their sexual arousal of others as a tool, is seen as advantaged, when she is set to navigate getting her concerns for care met. She will have far more in her network CARING for her FEELINGS. Getting others to serve her, through wanting to possess her as the ultimate drug factory, is easy.

A male who is attractive to attractive females will be born advantaged, so long as those who are attractive have a correlated status in Control and Influence to their attractiveness. It is presumed that Control and Influence favors attractiveness, but this a myth.

Control and Influence suffers trends where, when appealing to others is believed needed, those who are attractive are used, but more often than not, used by those who are not attractive. They are used by the UGLIES.

When the uglies number greatly and use their ways to take Control and Influence, they will always begin targeting those given nature's benefits. A trend will occur where attractive is shamed, and ugly is praised. Uglies fight the hardest with their repugnance, to control, manage, and manipulate others, and based on where the trend is, that will determine what use they make of the attractive.

Evidence that uglies control the attractive ones is in that those who only have nature's attractions, and nothing else to them, often will have tormented emotional states, because their Sense of Self and Life is dictated by uglies. It will not match the way they think MATERIALLY of themselves, as attractive.

They will look, and only LOOK attractive, but the content of their minds, and how it is arranged, would be unattractive. The curse of outwards sexual attraction is that one often does not develop something else about themselves that is valuable. They rely solely on just what nature gave them, and the value of this is the most at risk.

A young female who is physically attractive will lose this natural value when she nears thirty, most of the time. The value is lost when one needs to use makeup, in order to maintain the appearance of the value. Makeup is deception, and the wearing of it is evidence of insecurity.

A Votary and/or a Vir of this “Way”, be them female or male, in biological sex, does not wear makeup.

A male who is attractive, from the point of view of an attractive female, is not just attractive in how they look. Their attraction is connected to WHAT they attract. So then, attractive means ATTRACTS, and it is presumed, what is attracted, from the point of view of an attractive female, is that of SOCIAL RANK, STATUS, RESOURCES, and SUCCESS.

A human attractive male does not have any concern for this, in the attraction of a human female, but a human female certainly measures attraction based on these implications, in a human male. When a human female is low in physical attraction, and can not use sexual arousal of a higher valued mate, she will more often than not develop a disgust towards the very notion of having this value.

In her repugnance, she will disrupt notions of physical attraction and advantage and try to make it seem about other factors, like trust, caring, loving, kindness, and other variables. Attractive females do not often play up on these things as much as unattractive females.

Attractive females will, admittedly or not, often be attracted to males who give off a sense of danger, instability, and adventure, and these males will not score highly in the social make-believe of care, anxiety, kindness, niceties, and compassion.

The males who score high in these areas are males that by nature's standards are not meant to attract that of attractive mates. They are the ones left to not attract, but to opportunistically wait for unattractive females to select them as “good enough for now”, because they are always in hope that they will find a more attractive option they can trick into association, or does not know its level of attraction.

Seduction, if it can be called that, is dependent upon the MARK and/or the TARGET not having CONFIDENCE in its QUALITY. It requires that the mark and the target is born in diffidence. Attractive males and females of the human sort are born in diffidence more than not. Physical traits are not correlated to confidence like most believe.

They think that those who measure up as attractive are at the same time confident, when they see how they navigate society, and what status they hold. In actuality, for the most part, because they were attractive, others did most of the work for them, and for them to get the rank and status, they may act secure and stable in the now.

But what one is seeing in them is NOT that of confidence, but more often that of SUBMISSION and CONFORMITY, so as to maintain the artificial rank and status that correlates with their default starting condition.

There will be those who are seen as attractive who may start in a lower status and rank, economic and social, who use their physical traits to control and influence a climb, but these tend to be the ones who previously, in their development, were inflicted with their diffidence, not having sufficient relief. So in their climb, they will be more insecure than those who were born to conditions where relief in their diffidence was easy to be provided.

This is to say, especially among human females, when they are attractive and they were born to status, their diffidence was relieved often enough for them to believe they ought to be seen as attractive. But a female who is “attractive” but was born to a lower social and economic status, even as she climbs, will be limited to the past she has, where the relief in her diffidence was not sufficient enough. She will struggle with impostor syndrome more than the female that was born “up there”, so to say. IMPOSTER SYNDROME factors in, in many places. But I will not deviate to cover that here.

Without diffidence as a factor, Seduction as well as amusement would not work. If one is confident, then you can not approach them for access, and win access by mimicking them, by imitating them, because as one who is confident, they will see that such behavior is not authentic; and confidence demands authenticity.

Those who are confident will see, you are pretending. In order then, to use Seduction for access, it has to be that both the seeker and the target are pretending, and in actuality, they are both inflicted with diffidence. Because of this, SEDUCTION favors the IMAGINED, and in it is the constant support of REJECTING REALITY, or that of the demanding actuality of living, in order to adopt FANTASY and the FANCIFUL, and use it as a form of ESCAPE and RELIEF from the HARSH and BURDENSOME sense of REALITY.

To this then, Seduction is about bringing the target through regression, if it can be called that, and/or to that of acceptance of their inept childhood, having new life around their burden of personal responsibility.

Because human females are kept inept children longer, and in social networks of care more than human males, then Seduction is dictated by female needs, and behavior. Seduction is not male interest, which would need to be defined. Seduction is female interest, and used by males to get access to a female, but not for what most would think... is... that of sex.

Because sex is not the real factor, it then means, males can, but often do not, use Seduction on each other, and females upon females, and so on. Seduction is not sexual, but because sexual arousal is the easiest way to induce oxytocin, and develop “trust” and “submission” to others, sex, in many ways, is the easiest way to seduce.

But hardly can this be called Seduction, other than, sex is Entertainment with the notion of pleasure being the aim. It falls into the category of Seduction on account that pleasure is the aim, versus pain.

Where one uses sex as a means to cause PLEASURE and then PAIN, it is a mixture then of SEX for SEDUCTION, and SEX for MANIPULATION.

Pain around sex is Manipulation, not Seduction. It is CONTROL, it is MANAGEMENT, it is MANIPULATION. Those who use sex to control others, to manage others, to manipulate others, are acting like GHOULS and VAMPYRES; and no matter how blind you humans are, ALL of your FEMALES use their SEXUAL value to CONTROL, to MANAGE, and to MANIPULATE males, because the fact is, human females rarely have a value other than their sexual value.

Now listen. Human males rarely have a value other than their labor and value of servitude, and sacrifice. I have not, with my words, chosen to favor males over females. I do not FAVOR that of HUMANS, be them FEMALE or MALE.

But human males are not the ones in charge, in Control, and managing among humans, even though the bulk of you are deceived in thinking they are, as you look to the “Fields” that have competence as a factor and find males there the most. These are not the “Fields” that run your houses; and American households are ALL run by its females, and not by the males. It is deception to use the realm of others, not common to the realm of most, to find examples of some patriarch. That is a red herring. In the lives of the commons, it is all in the interest of the human females.

My life does not have human females controlling and managing, at all. For one to then say… I am patriarchal would be a FARCE. This Way, that is my Way, does not permit males or females governing each other. That is COLLECTIVISM, and SUBJUGATION, common to humans. I am not in any way saying human females are wrong to rule human males, and/or that human males ought to flip it.

NATURE placed human females in charge of human males, and where in some small minority of Controllers, human males take charge and oppress the human female from being in charge, it is because she is worse at it than him, and she is always, from cradle to the grave, seeking to manage everyone she can.

A short sense of history is that broken little boys under the Management of mommy become kings, become emperors, and rulers, and presidents, politicians over others. No male who seeks to manage others is doing it from being MALE.

They are doing it from FEELING the desire to be FEMALE, and to get her DEFERENCE, and her INFLUENCE. Those who are not driven to manage others do not seek out roles in the life of others as Management. They seek roles to manage missions, and to manage objectives.

Those who say they seek Management roles over others, to defend against those in those roles, are deceivers. One does not seek to compete in the Management of others. One DESTROYS those who seek to manage them without their consent.

And no MAN, or force of affirmation, female or male, would ever consent to have another manage their life for them. That is what it is to be a CHILD of INEPTITUDE.

The Control Kinetics used cowardly or courageously

When one seeks access to others, they need to identify what stage of access they are in. The three stages are:

CONTROL
MANAGEMENT
MANIPULATION

It can be said there are four forms of access with

4. ENTERTAINMENT

as the addition.

However, those who are inept try to skip the stages of the three, and come at each other in the fourth. But the fourth has no existence on its own. It is correlated to the feelings around the three. The three are the most legitimate, and the fourth, mostly composed of amusement and Seduction, is where smoke screens will be deployed to distract, to relieve feelings in the third. To divert, make light of, small of, and delude factors in the third. This is where Entertainment, as the starting ground for humans, is used as a weapon against the three they believe, more often than not, is in the hands of others.

When one believes they do not control, manage, and manipulate their own life, they use amusement and Seduction to try to destroy the very sense of these three―amusement being the most common way to divert from these, and delude them, play them down. One who does this, having no “Way” definable around Control, Management, and Manipulation, is one who can only be UNDER these of others, existing DEFEATED as a SUBJECT, mere SERVILE.

When one comes to seek, or pretend like they are not seeking access to a target or a mark―often, they too being the target and mark of theirs―they will need to assess what the level and character of Control they have in the situation. They will need to think of what is under their Management.

However, this is opposite of how Seduction works. In Seduction, this is settled by relinquishing any sense of Control and Management to that of enticing the mark, the target, usually a female, for them to take the reigns. One will seduce the other by having them be in Control, managing and manipulating.

Most males appeal to females by letting them take this role unchallenged. It's a COWARD'S life. A COURAGEOUS life is not the one where the male takes Control, and manages the female. A courageous life is one lived whereby Control, Management, and Manipulation are upon oneself, and only oneself, and all others are left to their own. This takes courage, because the human has everything in them, in their diffidence, to take Control or relinquish Control for access.

In the realm of human males, seeking to engage in Seduction with human females, weak males do it through relinquishing that of Control and Management to the female, thinking, this is what she wants.

The same can be said with timid males, thinking that other males want the Control and the Management, so they appeal through relinquishing this. There is a good chance this assumption is correct, when it comes to those of ineptitude and diffidence.

But the issue, here, is when one relinquishes Control and Management to one who suffers diffidence, they can not think higher of you, but must even think you are lower than them, and out of diffidence, they feel like impostors already as is. It does not elicit in them the relief in confidence they are seeking.

Because they are born in diffidence, they will never truly identify actual confidence, so instead, they are looking to trust, and what they are looking to see can be trusted is that one is not a THREAT, and one will serve them in deference, not ask much of them, and provide them with the answers, the relief for their concerns, their need for care.

When one relinquishes what little Control and Management they may have had to one suffering diffidence, they can only be some pleasurable good in the flesh, and/or as some resource provider. Those in diffidence would then never be satisfied with that relinquished one.

To make up for the relinquent behavior, one then needs to provide PLEASURE. They will not provide confidence or the appearance of it, because they have no Control, and no Management and Influence. So then, they must amuse and seduce. In order to do this, they must distract and/or divert. They must revert the interaction back to that of being inept children who based their world on Mommy's, and her stimulation of oxytocin.

Therefore, the SEDUCERS must BOND, based on the only thing they have ever felt about bonding: MOMMY and DADDY baseness. So the two move to repeat the hundred-thousand-year, or million-year behavior of BONDING over MATERIAL.

To seduce the target, one does not merely MIMIC and IMITATE them, which is the clear sign that one has relinquished Control and Management of their own, but one must move out of the realm of Control, Management, and Manipulation, and appear to come in the name of Entertainment.

Of the three options of Entertainment, the first two are contrary to Control and Management, and are a manipulated sense of escape from these: that of AMUSEMENT, and SEDUCTION.

The third option of Entertainment, that of ENGAGING Entertainment, requires Control and Management to be factors, and the level of Engagement correlates to who is in Control, and is managing. A simple example is teams and competitive activities, but this is not the limit of this form of Entertainment.

One does not seduce the target by challenging them on their elements of Control and Management of their condition. They seduce them by distracting them of this, and providing relief for what “fights” they may endure. One answers instead, more often than not, to the make-believe around their EMOTIONS of CARE. One will be in need of showing the target, the mark, that they care.

That is, that they will share in the ANXIETY of CONCERNS with them, thus exhibiting that they are BONDED. It will be, the mark's problems are now your problems. Sharing in suffering, and BURDEN is exactly what COMPASSION means. This is the currency dopes show each other, and what makes it seem trusting is that oxytocin will be the drug of choice, the chemical of choice. This will be induced through gaining physical access to the mark, the target.

In this state, the physical association of the two will take up most of the time and interaction, and there will be little challenge, strategy, tactics, mission, and sets of objectives between them. That is reserved, in their sense, to the world of burdens and toils, that of work.

When the realm of skill, competence, and mission is divorced from coupling, as friends and/or mates, then what one is left more often than not with is that of their amusements, and their Seductions, to keep them away from observing their ineptitudes in Control, and Management of their conditions and self.

ESCAPE is what they desire with their targets and marks, and it would be counter Seduction and amusement to suggest and provoke the need to advance and get better. This enticement will almost always instigate in the human their repugnance, for their cares to be served do not include they become pushed towards advancement. Their cares are about the familiar, and are already established. Advancement scares them, because it is FOREIGN.

A human should never be provoked to advance by a Votary, but in like ways, a Votary should never mark or target an obvious human for access and association, knowing they will cause harm through mere proximity and access.

The Votary's Way of using Control Kinetics

Because of this, a Votary begins the Vows of not seeking access to others, but seeking missions and objectives defined by standards, that call from them expression of their nature, their default temperament. When others hear the same Call, then how they come to association is over the MISSION and its STANDARDS, not over some appeal to the cares of the emotions of diffidence.

When one has no standard whereby they are seeking to come to access another, then it can only be presumed, they are accessing that other to have them serve a role required in their ineptitude. Absent a standard, one can only be accessing the other as an X, and have no VALUE in the INDIVIDUALITY of the OTHER.

When the standard is primary, it is presumed those engaging it are of a value that can be identified by proximity to the standard. It is to think, perhaps they are aligned in values, and cooperation can be excited in knowledge and advancement, where Triumph is experienced beside each other.

Experiencing TRIUMPH with others is the social aim of the VOTARY. Experiencing CONQUEST over others in dominance hierarchies is the social aim of HUMANS. They do not favor Triumph; they favor servitude and subjugation, getting others to serve their petty diffidence and Seven Insecurities. This is what it means to say that all humans are slavers, for they force and pressure others to serve the Seven Insecurities that plague them.

A Votary does not avoid instigating in others their repugnance. When one does not detect the repugnance of the one before them, it is likely because one is not a Votary, but is a coward who is relinquishing Control, Management, and Manipulation to the one who is dominating the condition. One is being held CAPTIVE as a COWARD by the one who seeks and accepts holding others as CAPTIVES.

This then is a question of diffidence and confidence. One who can be held captive by another, and one who seeks to hold others as captives is in diffidence. When one is in confidence, they will not allow others to hold them captive, and they will not hold others captive. One in confidence will hold themselves to a standard, and though it could be said, they will have no concern that includes others, for them to hold to the standard under attack by others, is not to say, they hold that attacker captive.

Instead, what is occurring is the attacker, in seeking to control and manage the defender, is in their repugnant phase. It is REPUGNANCE that is occurring when the CARING seeks to CONTROL and MANAGE others, to answer to their care, and its concerns.

One who is captive to this is a COWARD.

In professional spheres, one does not remain silent either. One states their capacity being professional, and requires others respect that they are there for the profession, and not for the social characters of others there for the same thing. A Votary does NOT permit being held CAPTIVE by another, to serve their EMOTIONAL needs.

Because of this, amusement and Seduction, which requires capture, does not work on a Votary.

A Votary is also required to work towards VERACITY, which means the expression of their “good taste”, whereas humans in this Kinetics express more often than not their “bad taste”, called disgust.

In expressing the “good taste” of the Votary, the Votary is expressing Control and Management of performance, whereby dwelling in the disgusted is not their Way, but advancing towards solutions, and engaging principles is. Veracity is not disgust. One does not speak to what is valid, by speaking to what is invalid. They can say, “this not that”, but where only “NOT that” is said, it is not Veracity. Veracity is that of affirming what is valid, only slightly mixed with analysis of what is invalid.

Where one only negates the invalid, this is not Veracity. Look for what is being AFFIRMED, not negated.

Before those who require familiarity in mimicry and imitation, as a means to relinquish one's individuality in Control and Management to another, the Votary so abstains. The Votary does not FIGHT the one seeking to generate submissive care.

The Votary fights only for themselves.

When another is seeking to fight for Control and Management over the Votary, they are met with ACCESS DENIED. Where one does not use the “Way” and the “Standards” of ACCESS DENIED, it CAN NOT be said, they are a Votary. To think the standards, and to NOT apply them is to incorrectly think, one is a Votary. To apply them, and to never have thought them is to incorrectly think, one is an applied Votary.

One must think them, integrate them, and own them, as standards that call to their nature, and then APPLY them, to be seen as a Votary.

In this, there may be a thousand defeats for the single Victory. In those thousand defeats, one is not a Votary, but in the single Victory, one “WAS” a Votary.

When one is marked by constant defeat, and only an accidental conditional Victory here and there, one is not a Votary of this Way, adhering to its Vows. One may be experimenting and investigating these “Ways”, seeing if they can apply them. When they can not apply them, having investigated them, then they ought to return to the ways of their kind, and meddle no further.

None should ever account for being a Votary on account of wishful thinking, without a history of application. Those who do ought to be ACCESS DENIED, and made marked as a SUBVERSIVE seeking to play in the fancy, not the applied.

When, in another, they can go without their repugnance being triggered, it is because of two conditions. Either they are before a Votary who is aligned, or they themselves are not a Votary, but a coward among others. A Votary triggers in humans their repugnance not with intent, but out of being UNCONQUERABLE and not subject to their desire to bring about servitude to their care, the only goddess they ever have worshiped.

In Seduction, one is to avoid stirring and stimulating the “resistance” of another. This “resistance” is the emotion of that of repugnance. Where one is targeted and marked with this avoidance, the one who has marked them, and is targeting them is a cowardly human, looking for base and banal access from another likely base and banal inept human.

This is not the WAY of the VIRITUS. The Way of the Viritus is in VALIANCE, and therefore, their very nature instigates and stimulates FIGHT, and where there is no observable fight occurring, it is the sign that cowards, in the human form, are at play, and no Votary nor Vir is present.

A Votary and a Vir do not pick fights with humans. When they find themselves dealing with the repugnance of humans, the Votary and/or the Vir designates this as grounds for ACCESS DENIED, because it means that human has targeted the Votary and/or the Vir to get their emotion of repugnance fed therefrom.

Humans are REPUGNANT. ALL HUMANS. The Votary and the Vir get others to reveal this fast, by NEVER answering to the anxious concerns of humans, and shutting down the phase of care, in human access. The VOTARY and the VIR will not CARE with HUMANS.

The Votary and the Vir fight, not in repugnance, but VALIANCE, and WRATH. They fight for knowledge, for skill, for competence, and advanced Control, Management, and Influence over their own condition, and own self, to which they are to own. They do not fight others for this, over them.

They fight to keep others from fighting for the role and position to control and manage them. Meaning, DEFENSIVE FIGHT.

But where the human can be ACCESS DENIED, no battle is necessary. Only in the experimental and investigative phases does the Votary not ACCESS DENY humans, because this would be cowardice. This, of course, unless there is no obvious value in maintaining the access for experimental and investigative purposes.

Where one is not a good subject for investigation, they ought to be ACCESS DENIED. When one is kept with access as a human, the Votary, or would-be Votary is required to inform the subject that they are being engaged for experimental purposes. No subject is meant to presume it has access under familiar terms, by a Votary. A Votary is required to define what form of access they are engaging in, with all in whom they are engaged with, that is, ASSOCIATED with.

All associations are subject to access by, or for:

RESOURCES

FAMILIARITY

SECURITY

SEX

ENTERTAINMENT.

The Votary must aim to have their associations defined by the social quality of VALIANCE in EQUANIMITY, with the VIRTUES of others, called the ENTERTAINMENT in ENGAGEMENT of the game of VIRTUE. In Buddhism, they called this Karuna, and translated it to compassion. This is not our Way. The game of Karuna is the game of Virtue, and Virtue requires Valiance, Vigilance, a devotion to knowledge, skills, competency and lethality in direction, thus Equanimity. In the absence of these traits habitualized, it can not be said, one is a Vir; but one who has Vowed to pursue this, and has APPLIED the phases can be called a Votary.

The very notion that a Votary does not AVOID triggering the repugnance of others, but by nature often does, makes the very notion of Seduction and amusement far from being practices of the Votary. Then, those whom it can be practices to are not said to be Votaries.

It can be said, a Vow of the Votary is that, they will not remain silent and captured, in a state of RELINQUISHING their CONTROL and MANAGEMENT to others.

Therefore, a Votary is not one who is called quiet or introverted, nor are they called extroverted and loud. Because of Veracity, simply put, a Votary interacts with others by a standard and purpose and expresses their individuality. A Votary interrogates those who seek interaction by trying to determine their individuality―even if the one before them is not individualized.

The Votary, therefore, has the Vow to PROFILE through questioning and analysis those before them. Until this has been done, it can be said, if engaging them, one is a captive. One must first and only engage to profile to determine if access ought to be granted, and/or denied. Where there are obvious incompatibilities, it is not cowardice to ACCESS DENY, but it is required. In the presence of obvious differences and qualities, and one is still going on, it is evident no Votary is present.

A Votary is under the Vow to be economical with their energies, and through a thousand defeats, come to a standard of how to spend their existence.

It has been said before, in other places, those who are nice, agreeable, and not triggering in others fight are not of this Way, but in their silence and agreeableness, if they claim to be of this Way, they are a CHARLATAN.

This Way, that of Viritus and its Valiance, is absolutely NOT FOR most, and the error of the past was that proximity was permitted without knowing how it interferes with any other standard ever being at play.

Those under oxytocin will be inclined to be agreeable, in that induced state, and cooperate regardless of the standard. To avoid this being the case, experiments are implemented where it can be said one activates an oxytocin cleanse, perhaps in how some these days talk about a dopamine cleanse, and so on. This is about studying one's own nature. Where one is harmed by this, they need to stop immediately and return to the touchy-feely ways of humans, and figure out their own concerns, for they are not the concerns of a Votary and/or a Vir, and such needs to be separate.

24 Advices for the Votary

Control, Manage, Manipulate and Engage conditions.
Do not be concerned with others, and the relational.
Develop oneself to be dangerous and Lethal, vigilant and Secure.
Signal, utter, communicate with exactness, detail, and precision.
Hold your own space, do not be needed, do not need others.
Engage in the Discipline of exactness, be overt, be direct, leave no room for guesswork.
Be about your own thing, invite others, do not mingle interest.
Engage with excitement, and energy all you do.
Formulate a clear strategy and profess it.
Bring to the center that of Reason, and that of articulation, eradicate confusion.
Take accurate account for all things, keep a log.
Make your values known, tell on yourself.
Require all be armed with the intellect, and a set of tactics, from a strategy of strength.
Require a standard of actuality, of reality, no unicorns allowed.
Encourage independence and self-reliance in all, allow not attachers.
Be about the self, its nature, its Ways, not about others.
Plan for the Advanced, do not linger, leave the past.
Be about a “Way”, be “extreme” in that Way… Devoted in that “Way”.
Avoid unicorns and rainbows, narratives that require imagination and deference.
Only the Beautiful, only the Noble, avoid the notion of bad with the good.
Devote to systems, not relations. Associate, do not relate. Collaborate, do not collectivize.
Prioritize the Intellect over the animal. Measure the habit. Meet the needs of the beast, do not forsake it, but do not let it be in Control.
Be aggressive, curious, and bold in all you do, do not be concerned with the petty judgements of the timid others.
Take responsibility only for you, and your Ways as they manifest. Leave others to their ways, and the manifestation thereof. Do not join others in their suffering and bad decisions.