Part III

On Patterns of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment

Chapter 7

Becoming an Entertainer

Once one has avoided the resistance, the repugnance of the other, more often than not by relinquishing towards them Control, Management, and Influence, it can be said, one has found their in. Perhaps they have mimicked them, imitated them, and given them attention by getting them to speak and feel their CONCERNS, and their NEED for CARE. Answering to the care of others, in silence and so-called understanding, is MANIPULATION.

The expression “I am a good listener” is not anything GOOD. It means, one has discovered that when they let others talk about themselves, and vent, and CARE, that they tend to assign to the listener a positive feeling and association. The way to manipulate others the best, in avoiding instigating their repugnance, is by being relinquished of anything in and of yourself. Just being BLANK, EMPTY, and NOTHING.

It's the act of using the void as an influential force, under the notion that most are projecting anyway. When you present a self to them that can stir in them their repugnance and disgust, if you show something perhaps true to you, it would be taken disfavorably. Like a blank baby, then, one limits their interaction to mimic and to imitate, cooperate with the target, the mark. Letting them do all the expression is the mark that one is inferior.

Little boys with their mommy stamps fall for this all the time. They listen to others as “good listeners” and they present nothing of a challenge or fight, but then, they get relegated to submissive and timid roles, suited to their behavior. They can be found held captive easily.

In Seduction, they will need to do this at first, but then they need to activate the fourth phase of access, access over that of Entertainment. Whoever their target or their mark is, that mark can find listeners all over the place. But they do not merely wish to have one listen to them, and any will do… but they all demand to be ENTERTAINED. When they turn to you to be entertained, and you can not entertain them, the next option for them is to bring forth repugnance, and find that entertaining, and amusing.

Repugnance is mostly connected with amusement, not Seduction. When one is being “tested” and “fought” with, this is not Seduction. When one is making you “fight” for them, this is not Seduction. Though many would group it all in the same. This is when you failed to avoid revealing their repugnance.

Failed to avoid it, by not entertaining them with Seduction. The difference is, amusement is about diverting attention, with the aim to make light of, to delude, to reduce a thing. This is what is happening when LITTLE BOYS and LITTLE GIRLS bust each other's chops, make fun of each other, tease each other, and get others to fight for them. This is for amusement. It's the lowest of the forms of Entertainment, requiring the least amount of attention and awareness. It is driven by the RESISTANCE, and the diffidence of the repugnance. One merely needs to NEGATE, and OPPOSE to get a rise.

With females and males, with the male trying to be selected by her, if he is not entertaining in the Seduction realm, he will then become the target of her amusement, and she will show he is this in how she makes light of him, deluding his status and/or access. She will make fun of him, pick on him, and get him to have to defend himself, and prove himself. In many online circles, they call this in popularity the shit test. That is not what it is.

The reason why a male finds himself the amusement of a female is not on the grounds that she is testing him. It is because he did not shift out of the RELINQUISHED phase, and into the ENTERTAINMENT phase, towards a Seduction on his own.

She now has to take point, and it is not the role of the human female to seduce the human male. Her role is to select, based on what he has to offer her in servitude. It is absurd to say, on account of females putting themselves on display, that they are engaged in Seduction. Females are not engaged in Seduction; they are engaged in Manipulation of the Entertainment so far as to get others to entertain her. Too, this is why human females are not that good at being entertaining.

This is not to say that human males are either, for entertainers and talent for Entertainment is rare. But human females, unlike human males, expect to be entertained by the opposite sex. Human males do not have expectations that human females be entertaining. They expect them to be the WHORE or the MADONNA. Sexual creatures, or their MOMMIES ready to manage their emotions, and show them approval. Not ENTERTAINING.

Human females, however, have a higher demand to be entertained by others, and they give a look specific to this, that asks the male, “Will you entertain me?”. When he looks away, the answer is no, because he will be too timid to. When he looks at her, and then ignores her, the answer is yes, but you will need to compete for my attention. She will then change her selective behavior to tell him, subconsciously, that she will compete. This is why attractive human females signal attractive males with nonverbals much different from what they offer others on the grounds of security and stability.

The human female, above all things, wishes to be entertained, whereas the human male is often left with the level of Entertainment called amusement, the level she can only provide. She expects the human male to rise up and instigate that rare realm of Seduction. When she has to be the entertaining one, entertained by him by causing fights, resistance, and back and forth in amusement, then he will be measured by… how amusing he can serve.

He will be of low status if he only amounts to being amusing. Among his male peers, this is all he has ever had to be, but as males in a dominance hierarchy, they were amused by their leaders of amusement, called entertainers. What they seek for Entertainment is far more straightforward and simpler than the female, and in that pursuit of theirs, it is defined by their repugnance, disgust, and often despair.

Meaning, Entertainment for humans, be it Seduction or amusement, is based on their Kinetics. Amusement as diversion; Seduction with escapism, as distraction and relief. A male can certainly be seduced by media, and is. But he is more amused by media than seduced; whereas amusement being simply to the human female, she wants to be seduced.

Amusement does not often have servants, as much. Seduction, however, makes the human female feel served, and that is why it is of the greatest value in Entertainment among humans, and can be said to have masters, and artists.

Amusement has comics and actors, and gestures, but hardly does it require mastery, and art. Seduction is elevated to this status, because in serving, some will serve better than others. Though some may amuse better than others, this will come to favor that of amusement by chance, more than any demand by standard. The demand of amusement is that out of repugnance, it must work to DELUDE something, to make something that would be bigger, smaller, reduce it, subvert it, impede it, and in many ways, to the human… REVEAL the thing was not strong to begin with.

If females are shit testing males with amusement, then human males are eating a lot of SHIT with each other, in the same, and testing each other, every pile they add on.

When the human male is with his peers, amusement will be in mimicry and imitation, and often at the expense of something they can share in targeting for mockery, and resistance.

For inept males in their ineptitude, in regards to the given variable of the need to have their emotions managed by an external source, be it the condition, or others in the condition, it will be managed for them around their repugnance, because in this emotional state, lacking any outward enemy, they will be turned against themselves, and those around them.

Repugnance, in the absence of a cause or an enemy, other than one's own kin… can only be SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, and/or destructive among one's kind. When groups mingle and socialize around intoxicants, unknown to their excited ignorance, they are engaged in an amusement out of repugnance; and where they may say, and/or think, they are not hurting anyone, they will not often be so foolish as to think, they are not hurting that of themselves, to which they know they are.

However, there comes the sense to them, perhaps, that they are not HURTING themselves, but they are AMUSED in that which is providing them diversion, and seduced in that which is providing distraction as a form of relief, if not release of that of their pain, believed to be caused from others, and/or the condition. What they come to control is this choice to be intoxicated. They come to control this choice to be amused. They come to control this choice to engage in modes and sources of Seduction, that have all the marketed presence to say… “we, your amusements, and your Seduction, are here to help you escape accountability to that of actuality.”

Repugnance is so normal that few could ever see, they are POSSESSED by it.

The emotional Manipulation of care

In the Kinetics, it would be presumed that phase one, the phase of care, can be met, and be the cycle making one caring. This, I have not observed to be the case. Most do not have phase one cycling back on itself. On the surface, many will adopt the mask of care, in hope that in them, this is all others wish to see. So then, from the outside, one can say… this is what they want me to think is the character of their mask, their phersu, their persona.

This, they can do, till you become familiar with them, and in such familiarity, what will be revealed, is they have to fight to maintain this appearance. In order to maintain this appearance throughout the fight, they have to use plays based on caring.

They can not overtly fight, nor praise any fight. They will instead fight to end, or that is resolve fighting. They will not think they are causing fights, and are the source of the fight. Instead, those who are caring can also be seen as those claiming to be the fixer, who is only trying to help, and do what is right, and that their target, and their mark for fixing… is resisting, is defending, is therefore the cause of the fight, who will not let them help.

This cycle born out of care relies on the target, the mark being more obviously defensive, and they use plays to then mark this DEFENSE as the mark of aggression, and fighting. One who is defending is fighting, and the one who is attacking, causing the defense is not attacking, nor fighting. In the narrative they are controlling, they are caring, and they have every right to.

Those of this social Manipulation, that of caring, will constantly need to fight for the presence of concerns, to make sense of their anxiety. It will not mean anything, in regards to if there are things truly worth concerns, or not. Their anxious concern, manifest in care, is a HUNGRY EMOTION, or phantasm. It needs to FEED. When others are “doing WELL” and they are not with the same concerns, and mirrored emotion, those of care activate their hungry need to fight, their repugnance, and they use it to fight for the care of another.

They will cause conditions of concern, so that care, their goddess, can feed. They are looking for EMOTIONAL SACRIFICES, as the SATANISTS they are. Now, I mean not to insult the Satanists, for those who worship care are not in actuality Satanists, but perhaps they are Lilithians, and the name of their goddess is Lilith, in the symbolic sense.

For now, the goddess will be called care, so as not to muddy the waters. CARE needs to FEED. CARE needs to be FED.

When care is in the feeding stage, versus the temporary satiated phase, it will fight for its food. This is the phasing from care, satiated, to that of care, behind that of the repugnance, the phase of the fight.

Far more often than not is the observable behavior of one fighting for others to care about something, than it can be said is the observation of others indicating satiation, and/or relief around care.

This should tell the keen observer something more accountable about care, than that of the claims around it. One ought to realize that care is quite hungry and hardly if ever satiated and pleased. That even as conditions become favorable to the worshiper of care, they do not become settled and satiated, but they become more demanding, and their feeding habits change, becoming, like the addict, harder to please. That is, they become harder to SATIATE.

The biggest ignorance of humans is that when they hear and observe through the senses the cries for care from another human, they think it is contextual and conditional, and that what is the symbolic concern is real. It is not. The care is born out of an emotion that needs to feed, and what is said to be the problem, the error, the conditional need is often a mere delusion, picked, chosen, post rationalized after the feeling, to try to make sense of it to others, in order to be served by them.

A Votary is so in that, they have Vowed, they have integrated this observation, and agree to it from their own sources of revelation. As such, a Votary DOES NOT, and will not CARE. This is “not the Way” of that of Viritus.

Using care for Manipulation is more common among the female sex of the humans, but do not get it mistaken, it is certainly present among the males. They use caring about things, and that of service, and servitude. Human females use it for caring about others, and that of the relational. Females are people aimed, and males are aimed at things. Effeminates, female or male, are people based.

However, missing often from this kind of assessment is that human males appear to care about things, based on the ease of navigation of things, but the things they care about are often connected to the way in which those things serve that of others. The added component of THINGS for OTHERS is actually what is occurring. Males care about things, because things get, and secure for them… others. Females care about others, because caring about, and for others gets them things.

Few, if any, have come to realize this. It ends up being the same with care, only with a different order.

The human male trades things for access to others. He seeks to be USEFUL.

The human female trades access to her for things, offering the management of his emotions, and social standing.

CARE is SLAVERY that uses EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION, not overt physical force, unless the victims of care rebel, resist, and defend. When this is done, the care gets fought for, and care will be reinforced by any means necessary.

When humans are playing at access to each other, the battle level begins, in appearance, when the care of the dominant party is not satiated. It is PLAY when satiation is met, but satiation and satisfaction are short-lived. When the dominant party―be them the mark, the target, or the one doing the marking, or both―is no longer satiated… BATTLES will ensue.

Based on my observations, investigations, and experiments, most are in the battle stages of access with each other, where gaining and maintaining access has all parties subjugated, and in despair. So when they fight, or battle each other, it can be called low energy skirmishes.

Energetics are the clear sign of the stages in which individuals are in among each other. When something is perhaps strange, new, and novel, there is higher energy asserted. But most do not have energy on their side, lacking in Vitality and Vigor, and so what can be seen, after things become familiar, is a pullback on the energy. Most are FAKING energy and EXCITEMENT.

I used to play a game, when meeting folk for the first time, and it was a drain game. I would hold them psychologically, and through Entertainment, and blast them with demanding notions and interactions, to detect how long it takes to run them out of their faked excitement. See how long it would take to get them to glaze over, and begin to leak their real expressions.

I could get folk to reveal the level of their energy rather fast, in one sitting. Problem with this revelation was that it had this effect of getting them to then turn to me, to work their energy, and make them stronger, to which most of them could never be. I had thought, at first, this play would discourage them, and had hoped this was the result. Discourage them from seeking me out, that is. But this, it did not do. It created FEEDING, whereby they would seek me out to FEED on my ENERGETICS.

Eventually, because of self-evaluation, and that of the constant evaluation of my social strategies and their tactics, I have ceased to do this anymore. I have observed enough individuals to first know, that term “individual” ought to be loosely used, and second, that the energy of norms, and the excitement they show is out of ignorance, and the means to signal to others that perhaps, they could engage in Entertainment and pleasure.

For those of low energy, too, faking at the same, this created honeypots, where others are pulled in, and tricked. So many are tricking each other, perhaps under their own delusion, into thinking, they can be the source of pleasure, until familiarity kicks in, and then these chumps become the source of each other's anxiety, concern, and feeding care.

In my living, I have provoked many low energy ghouls and Vampyres into behaving as if they walk with light and vibrance, only to find, when I would withdraw my power source from them, forcing them to use their own, it would show… they did not have their own.

I was in error in lending my power source out to others, for a very long time. It took a lot of investigations and experiments to figure that out. I was not with guidance by others, in most of what I have done in my adult life, that was more complex than the guidance somewhat provided in my youth. I have had to figure it all out on the battlefield, with a thousand defeats, to get that single glorious Victory.

Because by nature, I can be quite entertaining… many have latched on to me to be amused, and/or seduced, and therefore, think of me, this need, desire, and intent to play along. They all get a RUDE awakening, when what I do is ENGAGE them, CHALLENGE them, and DEMAND skill, COMPETENCE, PROFICIENCY, and they DEMONSTRATE levels of SELF-MOTIVATION, and MASTERY.

When they find out, I am not there to AMUSE or SEDUCE them, this, is not what they conclude. Instead, they conclude, I have not SERVED them well in this area, and I am not as “I appeared” to be, when in actuality, they can not realize in their ineptitude, I am not, and never was, “what they wished me to be”, so they could FEED.

Seduction requires a ghoul, and/or a Vampyre seeking to engage in feeding; and the stomach to be fed, the appetite to be appeased, is called CARE.

Without there being anxious concerns that are born out of diffidence, that demands deference to both ignorance and ineptitude, there is no such thing as Seduction, in its present form. Remember, though rooted in war and sedition, this is not what Seduction now means.

For a male to seduce a male, that targeted male, marked male, must be in need of care. Males are not good at managing the emotions of others males, and most of what they are about tends to try to lead them to focus on the things, instead. Among the humans, females are the managers of the emotions of the males. Females are horrible at managing emotions, both theirs and others', but they are born with an arrogance, and an entitlement around this kingdom.

To human males, human females are a mystery; yet, as a mystery, they are believed to be “right” in how they “manage”, even though skill, competence, proficiency, and mastery have not been evidenced anywhere in human history to support this. Humans, female and male, lack the necessary awareness and fortitude to control, to manage and to manipulate the emotions towards strength.

Because of this, the terms “control”, “manage”, and “manipulate” often trigger an insecurity in a human, and have a negative connotation. While mostly being controlled, managed, and manipulated by others, the human remains under these subjugations, while daring to profess they think ill of these mechanics. One will say… THEY DO NOT LIKE… that of being CONTROLLED, MANAGED, and MANIPULATED by others, and then wake up daily, ready to RELINQUISH any Control, Management, and Manipulation they could or would have over their conditions and self, to another.

The first ones to have conditioned you all to relinquish, and/or never to have acquired your own Control, Management, and Manipulation over your conditions and yourself were your mommies. The second, as a servant to your mommies, were your daddies. A daddy is no more than a male mommy, who is second in Control to her, only so far as she permits.

That male daddy, however, is not in actuality second in Control. When your mommies, being as trusting and CARING as they are, thus MENTALLY RETARDED, sent you off to the schools, they sent you to more mommies, and those mommies are very much like your mommy, and not so much like your daddy, who is a servant, who gathers things he can trade for access to kin.

Mommy of the house is not even prime. Mommies of the schools are prime; and the mommy of the house is secondary to those mommies; and daddy, the male mommy, is probably the last one in Control, in the procession of mommies.

YOU CHUMPS have been RAISED and CONDITIONED all around MOMMY knows best, and their interest, and because this was your DOMINANT WORLD, while you are ANXIOUS, with CONCERNS, being BRED to CARE, and FEED on CARE, yet in DESPAIR all over the place, you could never STOP to ask yourself, from where has it all been sourced. It was all, and always has been right in front of you, SOURCED from the REAL MATRIX, that of MOMMY'S WOMB, in which the HOUSE, the SCHOOL, and the STATE become mere extensions of, and under.

MOMMIED into weakness and STUPIDITY. No wonder all your fiction of today has all the females being worshiped. But odd, that fiction provides these idols, and reality does not.

Fiction is what you all are seeking, in plays, and battles of access to each other. You are looking to be ENTERTAINED. A male is looking to be entertained through amusement of things, and that of tribal, and gang clarity, where there is an “us”, and a “them”.

To the “them”, they make light of, they mock, and they delude, and derail where they can, not realizing, they are doing the same to their “us”, because rarely will one and their group actually have access to the “them”.

In actuality, few have an “us”, these days, especially in the so-called “US” of the “UNITED STATES”. Absent a true “them”, the actual “them” are those beside you, and you will, in your ineptitudes, treat them as a “them”, not as an “us”, because an “us” requires a shared mission, language, set of values, way, and purpose. You all have none of these things, so you are “THEM” among “THEM”, and this is on display as actual and factual in your behavior, not in the way in which you all paint your fictions.

Entertainment is the most important category of social interaction. Those who worship care entertain themselves through amusing care, and seductive care. Amusement is often where care is not served, but Seduction ultimately serves that of the care of others.

But it is often one-sided. Where the males will engage in amusements with each other, often they will not engage in realms to elicit care from the other male. They will not show their ANXIOUS CONCERNS, looking for males to SERVE them.

This does not mean, they do not have the anxious concerns, that care looking to be fed. They do, but that realm is not served by males. The male sees the female as the source of care, and not in that she takes to the male's anxious concerns, and alleviates, relieves, or solves.

CARE is not about SOLUTION. CARE is about ATTENTION, and any attention towards the concern, feeds. Attention does not require solution, and in fact, where there would be a solution, the care would be presumed to have been remedied, and thus, no longer in need. This is not how care works. CARE needs WEAKNESS. Care needs VICTIMS to feed upon.

Care favors ignorance and ineptitude, because with knowledge, and adept responses to problems, and concerns… care would not make sense. Care hides among ignorance and ineptitude, and means far more to humans than Control, Influence, and any sense of a Command over conditions, and self. Humans want CARE around self, not MASTERY. Humans want care as the condition, not Command.

The human male does not, and will not… care about human males. The worship of care for humans males is directed towards its incarnation in flesh, their true Jesus Christ, and that is... the HUMAN FEMALE. Care is a mystery to them, that she has some esoteric power in, by the simple very fact of being nothing more than… a FEMALE. All seeded into myth, and delusion, by their mommies.

The number one thing that makes others intimidated by me, yet intrigued by me, unknowingly, is that human females have no weight with me. I never drank the kool-aid, and was fortunate to have been CULTIVATED in PATTERNS, and never tied to the mythical UNICORNS and RAINBOWS. I was never unicorned by a mommy. So when I look at you CHUMPS, and how you are with your females, I OVERSTAND so much. You chumps are terrified, nervous, and made to feel SMALL before even little girls, let alone the DISPLEASED BASELINE of your females as they age.

They do not look at me with the same looks the rest of you get. When they see they are not magical to me, and I am not a part of your collective stupidity, this… entertains them, and it excites them. Not because of a value for what they would find, but out of challenge to fight me, in the name of conquest.

To them, in their diffidence, I have to be fraudulent, and they will be the one, the first one to uncover this. Surely, I am not a FREE male who is out there LIVING his own life, without the MANAGEMENT of a FEMALE. Those kinds of males are DANGEROUS. They threaten the order of things. A male who is not managed by a female must be a narcissist, and one who is manipulative, controlling, and broken.

As I get older, all this gets more humorous. Not because age shows anything. Many will be FOOLS, if fortunate, their whole lives, well into their 80s. In actuality, many will not be able to even be fools, but instead, be LOOPERS, under the Management of mommies all over the place, and be born an inept child, and die an inept child. Age, however, reveals habits, because habits are repeated behaviors that often need “time”, or that is, repetition to bear their fruit.

So when one is young, they can have, so to say, habits that are not so good for them, but with youth overcome the damage, and limitations. But as one gets older, those habits, once passable in youth, are not so passable anymore. Those who are older blame their deterioration, and their defeated states, as produced by age.

They will not conclude, it is born out of their habits. If I was in my 20s, one could easily dismiss the “theory of my being” and its “application” as not having been tested, and to have proven out. That TIME would in essence show me I was wrong about myself, and Sense of Life. Older people love arrogantly saying, when they were “my age”, they thought as I did. That was easy for them to say when I was in my 20s. Never did they know what I thought, and how, enough to say that. Instead, it's an excuse the old use, when in actuality, they are saying, “you say that now, while young, but time,” that is life repeated, “will defeat you, and bring you into the fold”. When OLD, everyone is mostly the same. Now, however, that sameness, that defeat comes even earlier than it used to.

It was supposed to be that 40 is the new 30, and folk are living younger. But now, it looks like 30 is the new 40, from what I have been seeing.

I always think everyone is older than me, because of this myth of what “time” does to people. Now that in the face of time, I am usually the oldest, at 44, I have had the time to see, it must be something else. That something else is HABITS.

At 44, the commons can not use the same tricks they did when I was younger. They can not say, he is young, and narcissistic, looking for attention, and in secret, SUFFERING. This, they wished to think of me, when I was FREE when younger.

But at the age of 44, if these things were true about me, in my 20s and 30s, surely, either my habits had changed, or habitually, I was onto something. For the most part, since 2008, I have been my own Man. I would say, I was born in 2008 into my OWN, on account that it was this year that I would no longer serve others, in any capacity. I was a horrible servant, all throughout my life. But I was still SAMURAI, in the metaphorical sense. I was still somewhat serving the interest of others, so long as it granted me access to tools of self-exploration.

Why Access Denied and the transmutation of the emotional...

Why Access Denied and the transmutation of the emotional Kinetics is needed first

In 2008 is when I began to destroy, however, my ties to anything that was dictated by others, and I sent into motion the habits of existing as no one, to anyone. It can be said, I had those habits to some degree previously. They did not come “out of the blue”. But they were now in FULL FORCE, at least in the investigative and experimental sense. They were not mastered yet. I would master these habits in 2018.

It was then the habits of investigating and experimenting in these habits, for 10 years, till they were then mastered, as they are now. So that means, by some degree, during those 10 years, there were a THOUSAND DEFEATS, to arrive at every SINGLE Victory. In those 10 years, I was perhaps ignorant for sure, to a thousand things, covered in mud. Anything that I would have said then, and thought then, would not now be considered by me to be Valid and fortified.

Those 10 years were in essence WAR years, where my enemy was muddy ideas that were persistent, only based on their usefulness for social survival. In order to get rid of these muddy ideas, I had to get rid of SOCIAL SURVIVAL. I set out to do that for the 10 years.

Lost in the wilderness of my own mind, I would come to realize, it was because, it was not the actual wilderness. What was wild was dirtied by what was domestic. There is no such thing as a clean house, if “clean” metaphorically means Virtuous. The wild is not dirty, but was exactly where Virtue was to be found. Instead of seeking to clean domestication, I chose to LEAVE it, in most areas where it could be left. I chose to be more WILD.

Humans will be HARDWIRED when they reach the ages between 32-35. I wish this was not the case. But in essence, if one does not discover a new map to rewire their cognitive fields, and moves through massive motivation to rework the map, to integrate new METHODS, not facts, not knowns, not beliefs, but “WAYS”, “methods, and “systems” of thought… by time they are near 30… then there is hardly any chance they will ever.

METHODOLOGY and SYSTEM of thought is the point here. NOT the CONTENT in which one thinks of. In the way I write, I write that map in how to think. I have not been able to prepare the Disciplines of the Mind yet, but such is coming.

Those who can develop from the tools I provide are only those who do not need the instruction of the method, but have the method call out to their nature, and provoke in them the rewiring. They will know, without knowing, and this will be revealed in how they live and think about every situation they are faced with.

One who complains―and complaints I have received―that they are in desperate need for me to teach the Disciplines first, is one who, when reading me, did not have a mind that would wire towards “the Way”, or that is the methodology of Ratiocination. One who has a nature that is attracted to the “Way” will not need the “Way” and its sciences be the first step.

By proximity, these would be those who have experienced the world around them with some awareness, or an attraction to awareness. That, they did the best with what was offered. But when they then come across the “Guidance” in this “Way”, it can only instigate from what position they have already enjoyed. One who has never enjoyed a position of awareness will not receive the integrations in which these works would produce in one who comes from a past of positional enjoyment.

This is essential. One who is looking for the map of the Disciplines of the Mind, declaring these works insufficient, is one who is looking for something easier to mimic and imitate, so that they can fake a role of belonging.

Starting with ACCESS DENIED was no fluke. Surely, arguments should have well Reasoned secured routes. I know this. So then, starting with the Seven Disciplines of the Cognition of the Vir would have been good, but they would not have been TIMELY. One will easily pretend through the Reasoning of a system to be aligned with it, and then in action and behavior, which they will hide, they will struggle to prove an actual kinship.

ACCESS DENIED demands that within the reader they search in their “feelings” and their “reasoning” by what degree the attitude of this piece calls out to them. If, and when one starts with the “sciences” or the “Disciplines” of the “Mind” of this “Way” called Viritus, they will not be able to do this. Those Disciplines will not have any comparison to the life of the reader. They will be quite ALIEN. One will not have mud in those Disciplines; one will have had NOTHING, by comparison. Whereas socially, one has plenty of mud to have challenged.

Too, the Disciplines that will follow, the Seven, are all born out of Equanimity and Triumph, while the reader, emotionally, is not in this realm yet, but more so, inflicted with emotions of defeat.

The presentation of the Disciplines first would have been in error, by calling upon the error of my past, where I presumed all are capable of adopting, and glorifying methodical Reasoning, or that is Ratiocination. Because in order for the Seven to factor in, one will certainly need to have a MASSIVE attraction to Ratiocination, which one CAN NOT, whilst in the Kinetics of EMOTIONAL DEFEAT.

One would only be able to deceive themselves and others, in those realms.

Emotions are the most important step to begin with. Because I have been in emotional Kinetics that open and free up massive attraction to Ratiocination, there was no way, by default, I would have emphasized emotional mastery. I was born a master, or rather in obedience to my emotional Kinetics, and they favored me greatly, providing me, in these 44 proven years, with nothing but advantage.

Therefore, it could be said… emotional mastery being needed, it is not likely what I will come to offer in my works can actually aid in this. Evidence of a “Way”, in this case, would require evidence of one who transmuted from emotional Kinetics of defeat, into emotional Kinetics of Triumph, or Equanimity. Till one has MASTERED this direction, they can not be called a master of this direction, and where one is not a master of this direction, what they then offer ought not be treated as this direction as achievable.

It can not be said, in actuality, that I had MASTERED the emotions. I was born inclined towards Equanimity, and the human conditions, controlled by cowards and inepts, I did not find to be challenging enough to declare, I had overcome the conditions, and self. I must yield to the evident element that those who came before me mastered these things, and through habit and breeding, bred an atavist offspring―that being me―to have all the advantages of their work. So then credit, I can not take.

I exist here, then, around humans, as a somewhat terrestrial kind of alien. My cognitive kind is not your cognitive kind. Humans will never grasp this notion that among them, though perhaps few, are COGNITIVE ALIENS, who share in all the physical biology, but differ enough in COGNITION and CHEMICAL EMOTIONS, enough to be a SPECIES of their OWN. To humans, who grunt and perceive mental phantasm masked onto actual phenomenon, if it looks like them, it is them. This is the HIVE MIND.

Human “love and care” based in “enduring” in repugnance

The phase in which familiars and strangers are dealing with each other in is not the first phase, the phase of care. More often than not, it's the phase of repugnance, that precedes the phase of despair.

Familiars often flaunt that their supremacy over non-family is that they fight, but they still “love” each other. This notion is REPUGNANCE. They FIGHT, and are REPUGNANT with each other, with the teens these days being so more than ever against their precedents, and what they mean by “care”, when they filter back through the phases, is access, and burden transference and tolerance. They TOLERATE each other, as a HUMAN practice. They ENDURE each other, and call that LOVING, and CARING.

Etymology of Endure (v.)

late 14c., “to undergo or suffer” (especially without breaking); also “to continue in existence,” from Old French endurer (12c.) “make hard, harden; bear, tolerate; keep up, maintain,” from Latin indurare “make hard,” in Late Latin “harden (the heart) against,” from in- (from PIE root en “in”) + durare “to harden,” from durus “hard,” from PIE dru-ro-, suffixed variant form of root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”

The human “love and care” is based on this. This can not be a measurement without there being “fight”, or that is “repugnance” between the parties. To show that they care, they endure. One takes “the good with the bad”, and this more so means “THE BAD”, and what is called “GOOD” is that they “ENDURE” each other. To love one is to tolerate them. To care for one is to endure them, and their suffering.

After all, compassion is sharing in one's suffering. It has the implied sense of relief, but as this is well-known, relief is emotional, and not that of solving the cause, or the problem to which compassion says, listen to them, that is tolerate them and their burden, and do not offer solutions, and pressure them.

Compassion has no place for personal responsibility and problem solving, and where these two take place, one ought to call it something other than compassion, or they ought to be seen to be a charlatan, trying to sound kind and nice for acceptance of dopes.

Evidence that the care and the love is around “suffering” and “tolerating” the other, that is “enduring” them, is in that they would not, if levied with demand, be able to speak to the strength and beauty of the individual; only their kindness, niceness, and compassion, which are all the “reasons” for “enduring” another. These are called strengths and beauty only by those who need to be endured, who need to be suffered.

Make no mistake, this is the way of HUMANS. Humans make each other SUFFER, and treat ENDURANCE as evidence of CARE, LOVE, and COMPASSION.

I have had females target me, and mark me to feed their repugnance, to “fight” to “endure” me, in my differences, with the desire to conform me into something “safe”, something “secure”, something “stable” and under their “possession”. Only, when they have sought to do this, they learned rather quickly that I do not RELINQUISH CONTROL, or MANAGEMENT of my life, to ANY DEGREE. I MAINTAIN the CONTROLS and the MANAGEMENT over my life. When I observe one is then trying to “endure” me, for their emotional feeding, I get rid of them…

Access DENIED.

When you humans, mostly the females, seek a male out as a project that you will fix, and make better… you will endure them, in their feeble state. You will call this endurance that of “care”, and to endure is to be caring, because you want them to “do better” and be “better”―which amounts to serving your EMOTIONAL needs around that of SECURITY, STABILITY, and SAFETY in RESOURCES and SOCIAL STATUS.

These human males do not know that you start by enduring them, and that you define your care based on your endurance. This, ENDURING, this, to ENDURE, and your ENDURANCE is REPUGNANCE. It is a pleasure taken in fighting to fix others, and change them, as projects, and this is all in the name of Entertainment.

⚔⚔⚔

Yesterday, I was walking on the local park trail. I had been walking for about six miles, by then, on a loop that would end at 8 miles. When I got to the trail where the commons walk, I saw a young boy, about 17 or so, with a young girl, perhaps the same age. The two could have been older, and in college, but these days, I can not tell the difference. They all mostly look young, naive, and stupid.

I saw the two on the trail beside me, and I had high ground, and was not yet detected by them. Awareness on average is low. I will not ENDURE how much SITUATIONAL AWARENESS you all lack. When among me, if you are not paying attention to your conditions, I will think less of you, and over time, choose to exclude you from interactions.

Situational awareness is standard for association with me. These two dopes had none. When the human female, little girl, did not see me yet, she was walking on line with the male. This, because they were jousting back and forth, and he was submissive, and she was dominant. This is commonly the case. The human males of today, in this domestic West, as they would call it, have body language and expressions, among females, that show their females are dominant. This is all of you, and I have not seen an exception.

Females reveal tough guys to be chumps, who have to act tough around other chumps, to make up for what any female can make them feel like, when they are ENDURING them, to which the chump is thankful for.

When this DOPEY girl saw me, she started to fall back slightly from the male, and no longer be in step. I knew this was going to happen, because the male was submissive. If she was walking with a dominant male who was of value, she would not do this.

When the female with you slows down on you, and you take steps further, and you're walking ahead of her, it means she has taken note of a more dominant male, in which she wishes to be seen by, and not in alignment with you. If that male is to the front, she will take two steps ahead of you, to the front, and when you two pass that male, she will take two steps back. You will not be in step.

This can be observed only first, if the two are walking on line and assessed. It has to be a deviation. Those who can not walk in step with others are those who tend to be too much in their head, and socially inept. They will walk out of sync. If there is sync, as the young will show each other, most often, and then deviation, then that is indicative.

This young dopey girl saw a dominant male, and immediately took the two steps back, because I was at a backwards angle approaching. The male was oblivious; therefore, confirming his submissive and timid existence. When one is not situationally aware, it means they are weak. She was aware of my approach, not because she is situationally aware, but because she is female, and has a constant program that is call and response towards attention in the condition to confirm safety. She was likely UNAWARE of all of this.

Her stepping back two steps length does not mean she, in her dopey brain, found me “attractive”. This is an error one would conclude not having a full sense of this. Her brain registered DOMINANCE hierarchy, even though I am not a part of one over her, and hers.

I was higher than her boy toy, by nature's decree. Human females then act like little girls to you, which looks like they are attracted to you, because they are requiring attention and reassurance. Human males think female attention is the sign of selection, first and foremost. It is not. It is first used to call out the need for signaling safety. When a human male does not know this, and thinks she is selecting him, it means he is inferior, and he is of low status. When he sees pleasure in this call, in need of response, and not the insecurity, the fear, and the attention solicited for status identification, her dopey little girl brain identifies that as LOW STATUS.

In order to align with me, in my dominance, this dopey little girl used her drink straw to torment the dopey little boy, by mocking him, in amusement, by blowing the liquid substance at him. She did this in nervousness, out of theater on my behalf. This signals to me, she knows he is a dopey boy, and that he is not respected and valued by her.

Again, he was entirely oblivious to these mechanics, and it is not to say in any way, she was exercising any awareness. This is ANIMAL behavior with human decoration, and I can read the code, and always have been able to. The reason I can read the code is because… I AM NOT HUMAN.

You humans can not read your own behavior. You lack SELF-AWARENESS. You HUMANS are not SAPIENT.

Her display was REPUGNANCE, where in it, she lowered the status of the dopey male that she ENDURES, until something more ENTERTAINING comes along.

She kept two steps behind them, as I was behind her, and to not be behind them, I deviated off to the right across a bridge. Sensing I was no longer there to see her, she halted their movement to stand by the creek, only to see, I was exiting their sphere of senses.

Again, the dopey male had no idea she was running an attention game, and that she was making clear his status. Out of repugnance, more often than not, you males are being “punked”, and low ranked by the females who manage you.

They do it with their eyes, and in how they do not turn to you, at all. They show it in how you males point your feet, your eyes, and bodies towards the females, as prizes, and they do not do this towards you. Those are all indications that you are of low status, and they are enduring you, in your low status, till they can either fix you, the way they need you, or break you, as they only can do in their ineptitude, and then move on to a new source of Entertainment, amusement, or Seduction.

Males do the same thing with each other out of REPUGNANCE. Males are not as good at hiding their repugnance as females. Females hide their repugnance behind care. Males hide their repugnance around competition and performance, where they pretend their hierarchies are based on competence and/or merit. This is pretend. Just like care is the smoke screen of effeminates, female or male, for repugnant males, institutions, systems, and structures around things is where they smoke screen their repugnance.

Like a manager, or coworker who gets worked up around an error at work, that in actuality has no real impact. Simply, it's not the way things are done. This is how the repugnant male will flex their repugnance, and get away with it, in the name of “work”.

Tactically, when it is observed, investigated, and experimented upon in one's own living that this “repugnance” is the likely phase, then one becomes better advised. Advised in their own emotions, and in the emotions of others. But one who can not SEE their own repugnance, because of how normal it is, will certainly not see repugnance in others. To them, this is ENDURANCE.

For humans, they can not ask for much more in their ineptitude than that: for a target, a mark to be willing and wanting to ENDURE them. This is LOVE for humans. This is CARE for humans.

A Votary, however, has a Vow that causes them to be different. A Votary has the Vow, born out of the “Way of the Vir”, to which they are not yet counted among, as a Votary. That Vow is that “thou shall not be ENDURED, nor shall thou ENDURE another”.

Enduring is not a trait of the Vir, and the Votary. The Vir and/or the Votary does not seek “lasting”; they express and “fight” for “VIRTUE”. The human, in their repugnance, fights to “hold on”, to “maintain” everything they can, regardless of whether it is a vice or a Virtue. When one is ENDURING you, they are FEEDING on you for their own emotions. They are POSSESSING you, not for any Virtue, but for CONSUMPTION. To endure others is a VICE, in the WAY of VIRITUS. It is a habit that is injurious for both parties: the ghoul who is enduring, and the ghoul who is endured.

A Vir and a Votary are not able to be endured. This is to say… they are not, nor ever to be “endurable”.

Humans often joke about how they put up with each other regardless of their “ills” and/or “shortcomings”. You will know you are being endured by a ghoul, simply in that they need you to change, and to answer to them. What you are is not actually WORKING, is not SUFFICIENT, is not PLEASING. WORK is needed, for those who are ENDURABLE.

And with this work comes the repugnant strife and suffering of ghouls feeding on each other, and not one of the parties of feeders will be Vibrant, will be Vital, will be Vigorous. Those feeding and being fed upon are the same, and they will be evidenced in how depleted they are.

Youth, in the physical sense, permits a great deal of hiding, and cloaking. When one is physically young, they will have more natural Vitality to sustain feeding upon others, and being fed upon. Here is where TIME reveals HABIT, and those who are in their 30s and their 40s, who had the habit of feeding on others, and being fed on, become revealed, in that their physical Vitality no longer can act as a smoke screen. Their age will reveal what they have been doing.

When one is in their 40s, and they are still Vital, Vigorous and have maintained their course, this is more evident that they have not been a ghoul. But can it be said perhaps, they were and have been a Vampyre?

A Vampyre does not have the human youthful appearance, in the metaphorical sense. A Vampyre is a ghoul that has fed on more sources. So they are a more potent ghoul. A Vampyre does not pass as a healthy and Vital “Man”, female or male. They will be, when older, more in need of guile and deception to maintain. They too are exposed in age. They will be a ghoul that is surrounded by food, by other ghouls.

Always be cautious. Fatties look like babies, even when older. Fatties are GHOULS. Do not let neoteny fool you.

Age will reveal the habits of the individual, and make no mistake… what they are when they are revealed in age tells you what they always were, when youth was providing them with energy to hide better.

This too is why for males, they ought to look to the mother of the female seeking to manage them―and MANAGE you is what will occur. If she is liken to her mother, as a replicant, and not an atavist, and she is close to her mother, then what you see in her aged mother is what will await you, in your future under her Management.

My Kind does not have females who when of age, have mothers or daddies. We, my Kind, are not mommied and daddied. My Kind, those of the nomads, are RAISED by REASON, not familiarity, and on account of this, take to their own fast, and do not look back. Those mimics and imitations, as replicants, that have ties with their familiars well into physical maturation, are just that, replicants, that will live as, and proceed as those who preceded them in the procession. Loopers do not have diversity among them. When one does not look to one’s looping familiars to measure what will likely be, it can be said, they are not wielding prudence.

When nature is low in one, they will not divorce from their familiars. One who has NATURAL and WILD potency will always DIVORCE from their FAMILIARS, not from disdain, disgust, or defeat. They will divorce not from them, but in essence, FOR their own, and to run their own course. Those who struggle with this ought not engage in it. Those to whom this is not loud to, are not natured to be wild.

They will, out of novelty, explore this, and be proven by the reset to have never been right for it. The reset is not a defeat. The defeat would be, the subject seeking to ENDURE that novel way, when all about it was “screaming” that of “incompatibility”.

Because humans are conditioned, among each other, to endure each other… humans can never be considered active under sincerity, but rather likely to be deceiving what they have access to, in the subconscious name of endurance.

A Votary is not to value and prize endurance of this sort. Vitality and Vigor, yes. And it is to these terms that the Votary thinks of the energies, and the fortitude. Each piece will update the language. Just like in Part I, I used the word “care”, but without expounding and clarifying, only to now, do so. It's all an ADVANCEMENT that is CHRONOLOGICAL.

Replicant behavior follows these Kinetics of association. In order to gain and/or maintain access to each other, replicants mimic, and imitate each other. This often means, the substance and character of the condition needs to have preference towards ease, towards simplicity, and towards rituals able to be carried out unfettered. SIMPLE ASKS are always at the foundation of the initial ACCESS BATTLES.

Saying NO to the simple ask

When one is looking to bring another into a SUGGESTIVE state, to get them to do things for them, first, they ask simple things, that require little push.

This is why the Votary will treat a SIMPLE ASK as more than that, and SAY NO where most would not. This, because it is the SEEDING of MANAGEMENT. The Votary does not say no to the simple ask, based on what it is. They say no, because the simple ask is the precursor to later CONTROL and MANAGEMENT.

The Votary does not make themselves USEFUL. I have had many turn to me when I was younger, and say, “make yourself useful, and do this”, and the ask was simple, and my answer was, “I have no DESIRE to be useful”. “I’m good”, I would say. When you all comply with the “simple ask” by saying yes, you are answering to the CONCERN, and the CARE of the DOMINATING, asking party, by showing you have RELINQUISHED CONTROL and MANAGEMENT to them.

This makes them feel, shortly, safety, security, and stability, and by saying yes, you are navigating through avoiding their repugnance. The Votary says NO to the simple ask, to reveal the VALID emotional position that the simple ask is asked out of REPUGNANCE, as a means to assert CONTROL and MANAGEMENT over others. EVERYTHING is EMOTIONAL.

Because of this, the Votary identifies the emotion behind the ask, and does not lie to themselves like the human does, by acting like there is NO EMOTION behind a simple ask; there is.

The replicant mimics and imitates those who are dominant in the condition, and this is all done naturally, and not to be mistaken for knowingly, and intentionally. If this mistake is made, you, the reader, will say, because you do not know you do this, and you do not intentionally do it, it must not be what you have done, and are doing. Nah, does not work that way. This is mostly done SUBCONSCIOUSLY―as if anything you have been doing has been the product of AWAKENED STATES.

Answering many simple asks with yes has made you all yes-men. You would never have been told to say NO. NO, when you say it, is only reserved for the most obvious of things to say no to, and not the simple things that add up, as Control and Management occur.

When you say NO to the simple ask, you will not sustain access to others, like you used to. Saying NO to the simple ask reveals that those around you, and including you, show their repugnance when you are told NO, challenged, and not relieved by the servitude of others.

Those who do not practice saying NO to the SIMPLE ASK will have no idea what I am talking about. The little girl boy, and boy girl will say, repugnance is not mainstream and the common emotional condition, because they have been agreeable, saying yes to everything, and well controlled and managed in their defeated existence, and they have no contrast.

Seduction is not grand. Seduction relies on small components that are acted upon to inch one's way into a state of familiarity, and targeted interest for Entertainment, with pleasure being the bait.

Those who favor Seduction, the ghouls and the Vampyres, do not hide how it works. It works through deception and indirection, only, I do not believe this is actually the case. It is not that one is deceiving and using indirection; it is that those who would use deception and indirection to access others were never about, and can not likely be about anything of their own that would conflict. One does not need to deceive and be indirect to seduce, when one has never been DIRECT, has no value in directness, and has never had a value in validity and accuracy.

To almost suggest, one will need to deceive and use indirection is to act as if they have ever done anything to the opposite, such as live with integrity and Validity, and that of directness.

Those who have lived with Validity and directness as a thing would not find themselves in need of seducing some little girl and/or a little boy, who needs their emotion of repugnance to be navigated. Those who have to endure each other are chumps. So then, it's hardly deception and indirection, when all they are really doing is mimicking, imitating, and navigating the repugnance of each other in the name of enduring.

If having to intentionally deceive and use indirection is a thing… then the one who is targeting and marking would need to be the Vampyre, who needs to feed on the ghoul. This means, they are perhaps among other Vampyres, who favor being direct and straightforward, as a mark of their status. To feed on ghouls, they know that being straightforward and clear just won't do, because the ghoul is clearly weak and insecure. For this reason, one would think, perhaps, amusement is for ghouls, and Seduction is for Vampyres.

I do not think this is the case, other than among those Vampyres where they are so well positioned in Control and Management, where they can talk straight and accurate among each other. Vampyres feed on each other, as much as they do on ghouls, so I would contend, there is no such place of straight talking, directness, and Validity.

When someone has to deceive you and use indirection, this is so they do not activate through your diffidence that of your care, and repugnance. If they have you in these three, then it will not be so entertaining. As their victim, and your desire to be as a ghoul, looking to Vamp up, they need to entertain you.

Because repugnance is the likely default state, then what the Vampyre or ghoul seeking access needs to do is “surprise” you the target out of that state, and keep the timing, to keep you distracted and relieved, or diverted in attention, and deluded.

The first few phases, dealing in the care and then the repugnance, are not where Seduction ought to be said to play a role. Navigating the care and repugnance of the target is under Control, Management, and Manipulation. The mimic, the imitation, and the relinquishing of one's Control and Management occurs during this phase. When one chases another for access, to be favorable, they will relinquish based on their sense of the hierarchy.

Whoever is more needy of the association, males with males, females with females, or males with females, will be the one that the SIMPLE ASK that leads to RELINQUISHING will occur to. Those who are asking are indicating they are in the dominant position. They believe they have a right to ask, and seek you relinquish to their Management.

For males, this is often around “things”. Males will have hierarchies around the things.

For females, this is often around “social networks” or “others”, and they will have hierarchies here.

Males are always in the lowest position of social hierarchies, and used to be in higher positions in the hierarchies around things. That too, is changing.

When a male is chasing a female, that male will relinquish their Controls to the female, correlated to how much resources they have to relinquish. When a male has more resources to relinquish for her Management, he can retain, by her permission, more elements of Control and Management over his own life.

This, on account that he will need that Control and Management, in order to keep acquiring the resources. If his trade value is low, and he does not have resources to trade, he will need to relinquish more personal Control and Management, relational variables to her, as his trade.

For her, this being a given that this is a lowly trade, she will need to ENDURE, until better options present. She will aim to use those Controls, and Management of the male's relational body as a means to either secure what level he was already on, and/or, if she is of higher value, try to get him to fix, and work harder at greater trade.

This is the path of a low value male in resources, to that of a high value male in resources. This is RELATIONAL VALUE COMPONENT, and that of RESOURCE VALUE COMPONENT. These two factors will determine how a male interacts with a female, and how status is determined.

If the male is not high in the resource component, then the female will have less need for him. He increases her need for him, correlated to his standing with resources by comparison to others, in the dominance hierarchy, that is resources determined. How much she will endure him will be factored in from this direction. The more resources there are, the more she will endure him. The less, the less she will endure him. It's rather simple.

The realm and fusions of Entertainment

The game changer here is the third component, that of ENTERTAINMENT component. Using this term, Entertainment here, will likely be misunderstood by most of you chumps. Your sense of Entertainment will more often be based on amusement, and to a lesser degree Seduction. So the term Entertainment will not seem to be of high value. That is not the way I am using the term. “Entertainment” is about the “frame of MIND” of the individual, and this is VERY VERY VALUABLE.

Individuals who can be a source of ENTERTAINMENT are far more valuable than individuals with the RELATIONAL and the RESOURCE component. Entertainment is the source of meaning.

Most are not and can not be the source of Entertainment, but are mere spectators. Because of this, a spectator, often more amused than anything, does not know the actual value of Entertainment. For human males, because they are mostly seeking to be amused, and do so as spectators, their evaluation of Entertainment is not the same as that of females.

Human females seek to be entertained first and foremost, and they place it on a higher level than the relational, and the resource. A human female will give up their relational networks, as well as their resource security for good Entertainment, and more often than not, this is why they can seem chaotic, and destructive to something that seems “well ordered”.

Many human males are baffled by why, after securing resource stability, safety, and security, a human female will still be displeased, and leave them, even if that means for someone of lesser resource status. The answer is simple: it is to be entertained, and in the name of Entertainment, a female will destroy everything that suggests the need for stability and security.

Why this does not seem to be the case is because sources of Entertainment are hard to find. This is why, in the American SAM, entertainers, that of performers are the most exalted, and almost the entirety of their financing relies upon female consumers. Female consumers will consume Entertainment indiscriminately, and do not make for good critics of content.

What most of you will never realize is that, that female you are targeting, especially if young, has a behavioral program that can be primarily sourced in Disney, whether she knows it or not. And though as young boys, in this brainwashed SAM, you too may be more impacted by Disney than you realize, you will have diverse interests that may confuse that matter more.

She, as a human female, has a good chance of having avoided that of diverse interests. Human females do not have diversity in interest. Most human males, too, DO NOT have diversity in interest.

Because of this, and the absence of diversity in interest, one becomes dependent upon others to be the source of Entertainment. The degree of evaluation of Entertainment for females, versus males, is based on the two categories of Entertainment, which are amusement, by a lesser degree, and Seduction, by a higher degree. The degreed difference between these two is based on the performers.

A so-called seducer needs to be way more advanced than an amuser. A seducer, for them to be good, needs to be well tuned into the facts of the condition of their targets, but that advancement does not include advanced targeting.

It is mainly composed of knowing how to target the “AVERAGE” and the “REPLICANT”. Seductive plays are designed based on averages and simple replicants, and have less of a chance of working on those who are individualized by any degree. Those who are individualized evaluate Entertainment to an even higher degree than those who degree in Seduction. It is to degree in amusement, to degree in Seduction, or to degree in ENGAGEMENT.

In the realm of Entertainment, those of an individualistic nature, often having diverse interests, will too be far more demanding upon the Entertainment, in that somehow, it integrates into their living, and not be an escape from their living. I call this level of Entertainment, by degrees, that of ENGAGING.

Physical Engagement is the lowest level, by example. It's the easiest to exemplify. One can be entertained in doing physical activities, but this is not escape, though it may provide, and often does provide emotional relief, and Management. But integration of the activity occurs in that the activity benefits them physically, as well as emotionally.

The benefit is measured by the ingredient of ADVANCEMENT. It is not the same in amusement and Seduction, as these deal with the individual “where they are”, and do not require “Advancement” on their behalf. It is more about their present state, and distraction and relief, or relief through distraction. The third Entertainment is not focused on RELIEF, though it may provide this. It is FOCUSED on ADVANCEMENT, which inevitably requires FOCUS, not distraction.

This, in basic form, is how they differ.

Seduction, as a form of Entertainment, requires that the user of it, the ghoul who uses it poorly, or the Vampyre who uses it best, “shake” the target out of their Kinetics of diffidence, concern, care, and repugnance, and surprise them and/or excite them into the sixth Kinetics, that of Entertainment. Perhaps the number should be SEVEN, for uniformity.

Diffidence
Anxiety
Repugnance
Disgust
Despair
Excited ignorance
Entertainment, by way of: Amusement, Seduction, Engagement

In the Kinetics, after handling 1 through 3 with mimicry, imitation, relinquishment of Control and Management to the target, the human seducer, ghoul or Vampyre, has to try to skip the disgust and the despair of the target, and shake and excite their ignorance, that begets surprise. This will have to be a quick, exciting arousal to distract them, and divert their attention.

EXCITED in IGNORANCE, this is where the seducer avoids KEEPING IT REAL, and instead, takes a deep dive into the fanciful, the fantasy realm, the otherly realms. When this ignorance is exciting, and excited, it comes to define the levels of Entertainment, the levels of “frame of mind” that can be held.

When a ghoul is the seducer, they will be limited to exciting ignorance towards that of amusement, though they may, to some extent, based on the target, engage minor elements of Seduction. When it is a ghoul on ghoul targeting, the two would hardly be able to tell the difference, and amusement would be likely.

By degree, there are elements of amusement that follow into Seduction, and thus, seductive elements that bridge amusement. It is not either or. Just like, Engagement can even have elements of amusement and Seduction mixed in, and therefore, one who can only be amused can think, they are being seduced, and one who can only be seduced may think, they are being engaged.

The target has a set of wants and desires, and the ghoul or Vamp doing the targeting can not dictate the outcome. A Vamp can be trying to seduce a ghoul that can only be amused, never elevated to Seduction. A ghoul can try to amuse a Vamp that needs to be seduced, and fall short.

The target, the mark, which is in essence superior in that they are pursued, is the one that determines what the outcome will be, not the pursuer. Whatever limits there are for the mark, that will be the limits of the Entertainment, even if the source of the Entertainment is higher than the mark.

Because of this, Entertainment will tend to blend the realms. 70 percent amusement, 20 percent Seduction, and 10 percent Engaging. Those limited to only being able to be AMUSED may never see the SEDUCTION, and certainly not the ENGAGEMENT having any intent to be seen. Same can be said for Seduction.

However, it can be also said that those who respond to the Engaging Entertainment might too be oblivious to the amusing and seductive elements. There are fusions of these all about. One is not, so to say, more elevated than the other. This is about ENTERTAINMENT, not about KNOWLEDGE. That is the SIXTH Kinetics, that of either EXCITED in IGNORANCE, or EXCITED in KNOWLEDGE.

When one is excited in ignorance, they can partake in all three forms of Entertainment, but in the third form, they will fall short, and only be in the first phase, where physical Engagement is mostly the limit. In the third form of Entertainment, there is Engagement towards Advancement, in the realm of mental and intellectual skills and proficiencies. Most will never, ever engage this level of Entertainment, and this is the level in which it can be said interests a Votary, and well expressed in, is the VIR.

And because of this, the Vir has a strong sense of all three forms of Entertainment, and in such diversity becomes a source of Entertainment.

There is no such thing as a Vir that is not an Entertainment source. There is no such thing as Vir who is uninteresting. There is no such thing as a Vir that is not “charismatic”, in human terms.

The same can be said about a Votary. There is no such thing as a quiet and uninteresting Votary. One who is not expressed, and to some degree a source of Entertainment, is not a Votary. They may wish to be, and think merely wishing is achieving, thus showing their HUMAN level, but this is not the case.

A Votary, perhaps not on the level of a Vir, in their individualized form, is, however, HAPPENING everywhere they go, and does not let the CONDITION happen to them. They are SURE of their expression, but this is not to be mistaken for entertaining others out of the need for attention―though certainly, all entertainers are likely accused of this.

Because most amusers and seducers, as entertainers, are indeed seeking fame and validation, attention from others, through what they mimic and imitate, it is easy to assign these traits to all Entertainment.

I pursued acting in LA, as my own form of entertaining experience. Though I was regarded as raw talent, and was in demand, and sought after, it was not without the SIMPLE ASK, and the need to relinquish CONTROL and COMMAND.

Those who are seeking attention and fame often got there through saying yes to the simple ask, and relinquishing Control and Management of their image, and Sense of Self. Some were able to do better than others, in maintaining a degree of their own. FEW, and they were of the past, and those today likely retain little to nothing.

I was not willing to say yes to the simple ask, but resisted it. This resistance activated the REPUGNANCE of those in demand, and it grew my social value, and opened doors for me that, had I said yes, would not have opened. But the bigger the doors that opened, the ask went from simple to GRAND, with the promise being “spectacular”.

Come to find out, this experience of seeking to be in Entertainment for the joy of it was more experienced by navigating the industry, than it ever would have likely been, yessing my way to a screen. It was very entertaining for me, and made so, because I said NO.

If I had said yes all the times asked, I would be likely close to being a household name, presuming they would have given me a breakout from being a villain, in which they only were seeking to cast me as. Or I would never have been known at all.

What I can say, based on evidence of my age and conduct, is that only a FOOL could say I sought Entertainment for attention and validation. Had that been true, I would have said YES, to all asked, and I would have gotten that attention, but certainly, no validation, for only a human finds validation outside of themselves, whereas a Votary and a Vir become validated in their being, when in ACCORD with their own NATURE, and/or TEMPERAMENT.

When humans seek access to each other, and they use amusement and Seduction as the forms of Entertainment, it is around excited ignorance. Amusement fails around those excited in knowledge. They tend to avoid amusements. Seduction can be a play thing, between one doing it in excited ignorance and one doing it in excited knowledge. The one using Seduction, to what limited degree, in favor of excited knowledge, would only be using the components in near likeness to elevate the Entertainment towards that of being Engaging.

The entertainer is told by the audience what the limits are, in how they can be attained. Those often who seek me out, seek to be seduced more than amused, with some seeking amusement, and not lasting long at all.

Because they seek me out to seduce them, they will only see me as entertaining them through Seduction, which if they stay in that phase, they will be disappointed. Often, I will challenge them to ELEVATE, and stop ENDURING me, and ENGAGE themselves, and their condition, with advancement in Control and Influence.

They will signal, they did not want Engagement. They wanted Seduction, and a part of that is all of “us” giving ourselves gains and establishment in rank, and status, based on what we fancied in thought, what fantasies we hold, versus how we actually live.

The Votary must be cautious of these UNICORN RIDERS.

The first way to establish the realm of Entertainment is not in the Seventh of the Kinetics. It starts with the level one is on, concerning KNOWLEDGE of an EMOTIONAL degree.

This is a difficult one for most to grasp. Humans and their shamans, who become Brahmins as academics, DO NOT often connect one's emotions to their sense of knowledge, belief, opinion, faith, and so on. All of these are in the second Discipline of Mind, in the COGSCIENCES of the VIR, called Epistemology. The first one is called, for now, Ipseity, and has to do with identifying one's innate and default temperament; what kind of traits inside one are seeking to be expressed and must be obeyed.

Ipseity has the emotional component of diffidence and confidence correlated. In this first Discipline, it can be said, one is born by degree this way or that. Most are born in diffidence, with say 80/20; diffidence/ confidence. If most means 80 percent of who you may encounter, and some is 20 percent, then it means one's chances of encountering one born in confidence is low.

Now, I do not think, saying of who you will MEET is accurate. Most of you do not have diversity in your encounters. Your networks are established around economic status, and your social status often correlates. Because of this, your network navigation is impacted. When you are of the common, it would not be said, you will experience among you those of the 20 percent, which ought to be 3 percent, who are confident. Among the commons, almost 100 percent can be assured are cursed with diffidence, and this is exactly why the commons become easily established as such.

Commons will be a factor, however, of region, and the condition. The commons I had access to in Brooklyn, in the 80s and 90s, were odd as odd can be. They were not the commons, so to say, because the commons were hiding in their houses, but I call them the commons, because “we” all “commonly” were everywhere together, and we were the “active” component of the region.

It's who you bumped into at the bodega, in the streets, in the parks, in the stores, everywhere. But, these were “ACTIVE” folk. Diffidence was not a thing among these folk. Diffidence was so uncommon where I was, that I had to learn about it later, not even knowing it was a thing. Now, we would say, “them be SHOOKED” and so, “they are HOUSE”, or “they hide in the house”, “won't dare to walk out these doors”.

Now, most of these folk had a confidence born from being among a people with clear narrative. In other parts of the US, I still see a lot of so-called “black folk” more “confident” than the so-called “white folk”, but I know it is not biological, because I lived among the Italians, the Irish, the Puerto Ricans, and so on. Other than the Jews of New York, most of these other groups would be characterized, among their active outdoor folk, that they were confident more than diffident. Bold, more than timid, whereas the active Jews would still be considered timid, and struck by diffidence, perhaps more than most other kinds.

Outside of NYC, I would come to observe that the commons were more “active”, in that, because they were in relatively “safe” conditions, those who were outside were the commons. In NYC, those who were outside were the “hoods”, so to say. This, because “outside” almost guaranteed danger, by a degree. So those who were out, where I was, were DANGEROUS.

Even the fella of the lowest level of dangerousness would be, to most others, considered very dangerous. So then, I did not really encounter the “commons” in the way that term is more proper, with the numbers being the factor.

I was rolling with a small percentage of the inhabitants of that Long Island, governed by that municipality called Brooklyn. It can be said, then, I was not even in Brooklyn, but I was in CROOKLYN.

When I would live in places that had low crime and safe commons, I would walk around like I always have, and observe that if I was not entertaining, to the commons, they would be too scared to have me in their space.

Make no mistake, and let it be said for the first time. I have to be an entertainer, because if I was not, you commons would raise mobs, get a fire going, and find out how you can get away with BURNING me at the stake.

Talking to this brother I met in LA, when I was down there, he looked at me, and said… “That is how I feel, being BLACK”. Now, I will not deviate too much that way. It is not about the color, because we had the same sense, and I have peachy skin complexion. But what it is, is that those who are robust, and with confidence, are required to serve the petty emotions of those born in diffidence.

If we do not entertain you, we get your repugnance, and we become targets of your disgust, and your despair. Because of this, you commons then move to criminalize our expressions and our freedom, and in fear, need to see us locked up and away.

Entertaining you people is for SURVIVAL. If we did not entertain you, you would activate your repugnant brutes with their small servile minds, and have them kill us, on your behalf.

Confidence is rare, because if one does not have the freedom to use it to learn to entertain others, they have to stamp it out in themselves to socially survive. Confidence, by those with diffidence, is called arrogance and narcissism, and it's narcissism if you use it to get what you want, and you do not SERVE them, and their PETTY emotions and lies about empathy being some real thing, when it is no more than a UNICORN that runs around SHITTING on itself, and its rider making ice cream out of that shit, and calling it chocolate. It's not chocolate, it's SHIT, and those with confidence refuse to eat your shit, and say NO to your SIMPLE as well as COMPLEX ASKS, that require relinquishing their Control and Management over their own lives.

Entertainment means everything to humans. It is a matter of life and death for the confident, and a matter of security, safety, and stability for those in diffidence.

Ipseity, as the first science, is used for one to settle in their sense of this. Whether you were born with diffidence or confidence as a primary determines your emotional Kinetics all throughout. That is why it is the first of the emotions, in this model of the emotions I put forth to be used by Votaries.

When you are born to diffidence, you will not have a strength in knowledge. You will not and can not favor knowledge, past usefulness in the most basic form. Make no mistake, those who school are not developing excitement around knowledge. SCHOOLS are not about KNOWLEDGE; they are about RELATIONSHIPS, and CERTIFICATES of ACCESS.

When you are in diffidence, and excited in ignorance, you will be only with the lower forms of Entertainment, as they exist as coping mechanisms. The furthest you can go, and better go, is towards the physical Engagements, that hopefully require some teamwork, and communication.

But ADVANCEMENT in the INTELLECT, and therefore, toward the Virtue and character will not and CAN NOT OCCUR. Excited in knowledge is absolutely necessary to enter into Entertainment-Engagement-Advancement-Virtue. That path will never be experienced by those born in diffidence, and this is to the fault of no one.

Either you are born with the CAPACITY to cultivate the faculties, or you are not. It is that simple, whether I want it to be or not, and it can be said, I never wanted it to be this case, but the evidence in its abundance has shown me it is the case; and when any of you choose to activate your diffidence by suggesting to me, “you do not have all the evidence, for you do not know everything”, my confident answer to you is… “says one who does not even know the basics, and could never trust knowledge to begin with… so… Piss off”.

Excited Ignorance as a determining emotion

This element of the emotional Kinetics, in which I call EXCITED in IGNORANCE, is very important in that of “Seduction”, and/or that of what precedes in amusement, and its foundation, that of Manipulation.

How one “relates” to that of knowledge is essential throughout all their decision making process, as well as navigation in life as a whole.

Diffidence and ignorance are the two tightly woven ingredients to being weak, and vulnerable to the Control, and the Management of others. If the Buddhist mythological demon, Mara, is to be used, it is liken to being the father of diffidence, and the daughter of ignorance.

A weak, mistrusting, and overly possessive daddy inevitably, in their cherishing of the weakness of their female offspring, sustains, and gladly ENDURES her IGNORANCE. In fact, he enjoys greatly how excited the daughter of Mara gets, when ignorant to things.

EXCITED IGNORANCE is an EMOTION. This surely would not have a convincing argument behind it. I have never heard of ignorance being listed, and labeled as an emotional thing. But it is.

On the surface, it is simple, to not know, to be without knowledge. Of course then, ignorance would seem binary. Either you know, or you do not know, and such would be a matter of facts.

Etymology of Ignorant (adj.)

late 14c., “lacking wisdom or knowledge; unaware,” from Old French ignorant (14c.), from Latin ignorantem (nominative ignorans) “not knowing, ignorant,” present participle of ignorare “not to know, to be unacquainted; mistake, misunderstand; take no notice of, pay no attention to,” from assimilated form of in- “not, opposite of” (see in- (1)) + Old Latin gnarus “aware, acquainted with” (source also of Classical Latin noscere “to know,” notus “known”), from Proto-Latin suffixed form gno-ro-, suffixed form of PIE root gno- “to know.” Also see uncouth.

Form influenced by related Latin ignotus “unknown, strange, unrecognized, unfamiliar.” Colloquial sense of “ill-mannered, uncouth, knowing nothing of good manners” attested by 1886. As a noun, “ignorant person,” from mid-15c. Related: Ignorantly.

Is it knowledge, merely absent?

I do not think so.

It is more so accurate to say… LACKING IN AWARENESS.

Gnarus is awareness, not to be taken as gnosis, which I have described elsewhere to some degree. The term “uncouth” is often connected, and here, one can start to see, there are energetics involved.

Knowledge in the sense of FACTS truly limits an “understanding” of this term, as “understanding” hereto is essential. Hence why, being “unwise” is a part of ignorance. It is not merely “without knowing”, but it is also about the inability perhaps to “apply” what is “known”. For “Wisdom” is about “acquiring, and applying the known, regardless of the consequences”. It is an allegiance to the known. But is it to the known, such as facts, which one forms an allegiance?

This, I would not say is the case.

It is an allegiance to valid Reasoning, and this ingredient, essential to the valid notion of knowledge, not fact, is what is too the ingredient essential to that of Wisdom.

Valid Reasoning upon the observable, perceivable, and conceivable, whereby, through Intellect, one comes to deduce the nature, and the essence of the manifested, and through further valid Reasoning, comes to obey it, in order to Command through it. Such is the nature of “Wisdom”, and if such is not, then I have no “concern” for “Wisdom” and so-called “words thereof”.

When one is ignorant, it is not that they do not know something. Certainly, it can be said, there is ALWAYS something that will be unknown. It is a RUSE to think of the term this way.

Those with diffidence will favor ignorance, and when they do, they will utter the looper's connection to the absolute. They will say, “YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, and because there is something you do not know, you are ignorant of it, and therefore, ignorance is rather unavoidable, and universal”. This is a trick the one inflicted with diffidence first plays on themselves, and then uses outwardly, to lead astray, to seduce those too, who may suffer diffidence.

But those who are born in confidence do not fall for this. Only those born to diffidence fall for it. Those born to confidence know that ignorance is not about facts, and omniscience, but it is about “understanding”, if not “overstanding” what you do know, and applying that knowledge towards the advantage. The advantage in what you DO KNOW is proven out by ADVANCING in one's Control, Management, Manipulation, and Command over one's CONDITION, and SELF.

Do not argue with those in a state of diffidence about what can be known, and what can not. They are betraying their own words daily, by carrying on with the appearance of confidence in their day. But do not make this mistake to think then they are CONFIDENT. They are not. They are “without awareness” and they carry on as a LOOPER, in automatic ways, and their relationship to symbols and their conveyance is EMOTIONAL under that of their diffidence. So they will use expression to get others too, to doubt, and what the subject is, the set of concepts is, is IRRELEVANT.

When one is quick to erect doubt, there is a good chance they are suffering this emotion, that of diffidence. One can tell when this is the case, when from one's own mouth, much has not come forward to challenge.

This is a SOCIAL SELF-DEFENSE TACTIC that can be used with others. Do not say too much at first. Ask them questions, and get them to talk. When you hear them say this and/or that about their Sense of Self, and/or Sense of Life, listen carefully, and/or read carefully. Do they AFFIRM anything of anything, or do they only NEGATE, DOUBT, DISMISS, and RESIST?

This is one who suffers in diffidence. If you give them too much to react to, at first, you will think they are doubting, resisting, and undermining you, and the ideas. Instead of observing this is emotional, you will try to EXPLAIN things to them, make sense of things to them, and CONVINCE them. DO NOT DO THIS.

The Emotional Kinetics is key. Ask first:

What Kinetics do I observe this one to be in?

If you have not seen enough to evaluate this question, ask and answer it… then probe. Recon the subject. DO NOT ENGAGE… of your own light. They will reflect it back to you, and you can be conned.

RECON by FIRE. Put some ideas out there, ask some questions, engage in that of an investigation. If you do not do this, and can not do this, then it is not about them before thee, but in thee, thy own level of awareness can be assessed, and assessed weak and low would be the outcome.

Ignorance is this. Ignorance is when you are UNAWARE of what is around you, and in you. Ignorance is when you are not focused, not paying attention, and you do not have a standard of assessing and evaluating your condition, but you go about automatic, and reactionary. One is forced to be REACTIONARY on account of IGNORANCE, and its daddy, as DIFFIDENCE.

When one is with awareness, with knowledge, and that of confidence, then they set the pace, and control the condition. When before one of diffidence, which is the likely case, NEVER take point, and NEVER waste thy forces upon them.

Do not be so confused, and so energetic in your own expression, to where this step of evaluation of others has yet to occur. Profile your audience first… ALWAYS. Determine what level of diffidence and/or confidence they are working with. For most, they will have mixed elements, but for most, diffidence will be dominant.

Find what AFFIRMING elements exist in the individual, which will not be difficult, because for most, very little is ever AFFIRMED, and so much is NEGATED. This is key.

When one is around those who know only negation, ask of them to affirm something. If they can not, they are suffering diffidence, that has led them to repugnance, to disgust, to despair, and their malcontent. Those who are malcontent ought to be avoided, and never, ever given access.

I have studied and experimented with the malcontent, plenty of them, and what was simply discovered is that, they were born to become this. It is not a factor of condition, that has determined this. Those who can be, and will be malcontent are those born with such significance in diffidence and anxiety, to where they are crippled from ever being able to value “awareness”, that is “knowledge”, to the point to where anything ever stated, by them, is for that of aiding them in negation.

And in their habits of negation, they will never produce anything of value. They can only mimic value, and they will only do so for access, so that they can have targets for repugnance consumption, for disgust consumption, and to explain their despair, and their malcontentedness. They are GHOULS, those who suffer malcontentedness. They are never Vampyres. One who suffers malcontentedness has so little life to them, that even Vampyres will not feed on them. Only MALCONTENT GHOULS feed on each other.

REMOVE from one's life those who are malcontent. If you not do this, you suffer care. Meaning, you need targets yourself, of others you would claim you seek to fix, but in actuality, you have them about to feel better about yourself, and to get your expression of care on. Care requires victims, who are sick. If all are healthy, there would be no care.

Many will not be able to see this as an emotion, that of excited ignorance. Emotion, in the eyes, or the minds―if minds be there―of that of the masses, is something that is only, more often than not, about when one deviates into clear and obvious states of emotional outburst. It is not so common to realize one is always EMOTIONAL, to some degree. This state I speak of, of being EMOTIONALLY satiated, is why many will not know that, that itself is about having FED emotions, which requires consumption.

When in a satiated state with the emotions, it would be massively difficult to have “awareness” concerning being in an excited ignorant state. Or that is, in a state of EXCITED IGNORANCE.

The term “excited” before “ignorance”, here, may confuse the matter for some. It does not mean energetically so.

“Excite” here, is about what is “stirring” and/or “stirred up” in one. It is about what in one's system of Emotional Kinetics is instigated. It is about what is moving, in one, by way of the emotions. The term “excite”, and therefore, “excitement”, is correlated to that of the term Kinetics. It is a motion, a production, rouse, call out, or that which is being summoned forth.

In my theory of Emotional Kinetics, the term “excited”, in this sense, is about the fundamental emotions that will in essence… SET IN MOTION… and CALL OUT that of other emotions.

Diffidence, for example, is excited, and determines a great deal of the other emotions.

Diffidence excites that of ignorance. So where diffidence may be the first in the list of Emotional Kinetics, and excited ignorance is the sixth… these two would be labeled the excited kinds, in that, they dictate all the rest of the Kinetics.

Because of diffidence, one can not, and will not trust anything called certain. CERTAINTY in a BELIEF is what produces KNOWLEDGE. The opposite of ignorance is knowledge, so to say… but of course, as the term “ignorance” is about “lack of awareness”, so then, the opposite is that of “awareness” more than say, the use of the term and notion of “knowing”. Because of this, knowledge itself needs expounding. That will be covered in a treatise of Epistemology, as it “relates” to VIRITUS. That has yet to be developed.

Diffidence which begets excited ignorance has then the formula of;

Confidence which begets EXCITED KNOWLEDGE.

These elements of the Emotional Kinetics are the excitements, as they are “call outs” to the other Emotional Kinetics.

With diffidence that begets excited ignorance, one will not be well acquainted with skill, competence, or Victory in their living. Because of this, they will have low levels of Control, Management, and Manipulation over that of their conditions, and self… or sense thereof, in all those spectrums.

With these low levels of Influence, one has increased concerns. These increased concerns feed the emotion of anxiety, versus the emotion of eagerness, found neutral.

The way in which I am using the term “anxiety”, here, is born out of the etym., per usual, in the way in which I navigate these terms.

Etymology of Anxiety (n.)

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

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

Apprehension here is about “mental holdings” and/or “frameworks”. Similar to how, “to entertain” is to “bring about a frame of mind”. Anxiety, then, is a state of mental holdings, brought about by “danger”, or that is “sense of threat”, “misfortune”, or “error”. The error element I will come back to. “Uneasiness of mind” in that of “respecting some UNCERTAINTY”.

When you use the etyms, the key is to see how it connects to the rest. So then, when I say, knowledge is belief brought to certainty, the term here of certainty, and its relationship to anxiety should be correlated. Anxiety as the foundation, where “some uncertainty” tends to lead to a “sense of threats” and/or “errors”.

The issue here is diffidence, in that, because of it, in the absence of a “trust factor” innate to one, and their condition, they will struggle with a sense of certainty. Often, this will mean, they will bring their diffidence, even erroneously, against that which ought to instigate a sense of certainty.

In my use of the term “certain”, it has the sense of “fixed” in a more so than not position of “frame of mind”. Meaning, it is not ABSOLUTE in the “feeling” sense most restrict it to. When someone says, “nothing is certain”, that is born out of the emotion of diffidence. Certainly, there are things “fixed” in nature and character that are “understood”, that are “overstood”, and relied on in ACTUALITY to be as they “seem” to be.

Etymology of Certain (adj.)

c. 1300, “determined, fixed,” from Old French certain “reliable, sure, assured” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin certanus, extended form of Latin certus “determined, resolved, fixed, settled,” of things whose qualities are invariable, “established,” also “placed beyond doubt, sure, true, proved; unerring, to be depended upon” (also source of Old French cert, Italian certo, Spanish cierto), originally a variant past participle of cernere “to distinguish, decide,” literally “to sift, separate.” This Latin verb comes from the PIE root krei- “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish,” which is also the source of Greek krisis “turning point, judgment, result of a trial” (compare crisis).

Transferred sense, in reference to persons, “full of confidence in one's knowledge or judgment, made certain in reference to a matter or thing,” from mid-14c. (also a sense in Latin). Meaning “established as true beyond doubt” in English is from c. 1400. Meaning “indefinite, not specifically named, known but not described” is from late 14c.

These terms, “distinguish”, “to discern”, to “separate” can be observed to be throughout other etyms I have produced in my works. They all correlate to the faculty, or the “mental power” called that of the FACULTY of DISCERNMENT. This faculty, the faculty of discernment, present in all by degree of potency which differs, is the preceding faculty to the so-called rational faculty.

Most, if not all, have the faculty of discernment well developed or poor, but most DO NOT have that of the RATIONAL FACULTY. The faculty of discernment needs to be advanced and expressed towards potency, in order to make possible the learning needed and received to begin the existence of the RATIONAL, or the RATIOCINATIVE FACULTY. It is a procession.

The emotion of diffidence interferes with this development. It impedes, and it retards, as an emotion. Certainty and uncertainty are correlated not to the facts or the data, but many will act as if they are. It will instead be, in likelihood, an emotion one is feeling, that called INSECURITY versus SECURITY. This leads to a focus on CONCERNS that will be stated as legitimate, and existent, in the mind, in the “mental holdings” of the “anxious”, but in actuality, it is their emotional diffidence that is painting the pictures, and this will be proven out by how little the individual “cares” about, that is “values” that of data, facts, informed decision making, and performance based thinking. Those called commons do not value, as much as they CARE, and because of this, they do not deal in performance, but instead, their CARE is composed of “ANXIOUS CONCERN”.

Etymology of care (v.)

Old English carian, cearian “be anxious or solicitous; grieve; feel concern or interest,” from Proto-Germanic *karo- “lament,” hence “grief, care” (source also of Old Saxon karon “to lament, to care, to sorrow, complain,”

In common vernacular, sometimes when the term “care” is used, it would be liken to that of “valuing”. To say, one does not “care” could mean, they do not have “value” for the thing. But this is the “Light” of the “Aware” altering the actual common use of the term.

This is why, when I said “care” in Part I, I was building a bridge to this point. That, I would expound on it, and then update the reader, and see, how I shall not use the term “care” as a means to say “value”, for they are not the same.

In Seduction, and in regards to those who write on the subject, they will not themselves have a sense of the notion of diffidence and care, within their works. This, because they are writing about the tradition of seductive plays at attention and access, and they themselves are under an amused, and seduced state of others. They are not above that of being amused and seduced, in the sense of Masters of access Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, or that of TTPs of Seduction.

When you are a Master, you are shown as such by how you have certainty in knowledge concerning the principles that underlie the TTPs (Tactics and Techniques). A failure to identify the rooted reasons for their deployment is due to being a mere mimic of the plays, not one who Commands them. In this case, a Master and a Commander of a craft are liken to the same, though not necessarily.

The components of DIFFIDENCE, to that of ANXIETY, to that of CONCERN… beget the state and the HUNGER of that of the appetite of CARE. These ingredients are absolutely necessary to be characterized of both the target, the mark… and then that of the marker, or, well, the John.

One who is engaged in Seduction will not be one who has mastered the condition and the self. The very targeting of a mark based on these ingredients of diffidence, anxiety, concern… to care… will imply, and reveal that the marker, the one targeting, is too with the same cravings, and the same hunger.

CARE is the target, is the mark. It will not in actuality be that those who are marked and targeted actually matter, but instead, they were the targets of opportunity. They can be replaced. Most of the time, there is no individual sense of the targeting. One targets for care who they can, and hopes, truly hopes, others will target them for care. This is why to say victim of Seduction may be an error. I will come back to “error” soon, I have not forgotten.

Those who are “based” around care―and care is base―require the targeting of others for care, and when they engage in selection, they are selecting those targeting them, based upon how much care they can energetically sacrifice. And care is all around sacrifice, and servitude.

Care has hierarchies.

Before I return to this, I will deviate to secure the route as it pertains to the notion of “error”, which was found in anxiety. APPREHENSION, or a MENTAL HOLDING, concerning ERROR, as a component.

APPREHENSION in ERROR

On account of the excitement diffidence causes, what it puts in motion is that of excited ignorance.

Etymology of Error (n.)

also, through 18c., errour; c. 1300, “a deviation from truth made through ignorance or inadvertence, a mistake,” also “offense against morality or justice; transgression, wrong-doing, sin;” from Old French error “mistake, flaw, defect, heresy,” from Latin errorem (nominative error) “a wandering, straying, a going astray; meandering; doubt, uncertainty;” also “a figurative going astray, mistake,” from errare “to wander; to err” (see err). From early 14c. as “state of believing or practicing what is false or heretical; false opinion or belief, heresy.” From late 14c. as “deviation from what is normal; abnormality, aberration.” From 1726 as “difference between observed value and true value.”

Reader, and/or listener… when an etym. is produced, do not push through it in haste, and make waste of it. Read it, and all its attributes. My use of the English language is not born out of the schools. For the most part, I taught myself, with the use of these resources, the English language; and though it can be said, English is not standardized, when I present etyms. as the source of my use, and declare, I am conformed to it, I am in fact STANDARDIZING my use of the language. I am saying, according to these presentations, this is why and how I have come to Reason upon what I am proposing. That is what PROPOSITIONS I am affirming and/or denying.

In this etym., to “lead astray” is present. Seduction used to mean… to “lead astray”. The notion of error having this to it, then means, it is not a far stretch to say Seduction will need to favor “error”, or that of “erroneous” thought, and it should, if what I say is that it favors diffidence; favors anxiety, concern… and its goddess, that of care.

Care is the product of ERRONEOUS thinking, more often than not, and therefore, it differs from VALUING, which is carried out through EVALUATION concerning what is CERTAIN, not uncertain.

Care is concerned, anxiously, with what is uncertain.

Valuing is concerned, eagerly, with what is certain.

This is how I would say they differ.

CARE is about being WEAK.

VALUE is about being STRONG.

Etymology of Value (v.)

mid-15c., “estimate the value of,” also “think highly of,” probably from value (n.). Related: Valued, valuing.

Etymology of Value (n.)

c. 1300, “price equal to the intrinsic worth of a thing;” late 14c., “degree to which something is useful or estimable,” from Old French value “worth, price, moral worth; standing, reputation” (13c.), noun use of fem. past participle of valoir “be worth,” from Latin valere “be strong, be well; be of value, be worth” (from PIE root *wal- “to be strong”). The meaning “social principle” is attested from 1918, supposedly borrowed from the language of painting. Value judgment (1889) is a loan-translation of German Werturteil.

From the same root and relation, comes the term “valid”.

If there is something that is an antonym to “error”, it could be said, it is “valid”.

Etymology of Valid (adj.)

1570s, “having force in law, legally binding,” from French valide (16c.), from Latin validus “strong, effective, powerful, active,” from valere “be strong” (from PIE root *wal- “to be strong”). The meaning “sufficiently supported by facts or authority, well-grounded” is first recorded 1640s.

An error in common parlance is seen as that of: an action which is inaccurate or incorrect; a valid position is one that is accurate, and correct.

To those who suffer diffidence, as an emotion, accuracy in Validity will not be of value, regardless of what “words” and “expressions” they mimic. The Votary and the Vir take note, in recognition of the condition of most, to know, with certainty, that Validity and value born out of discernment, and Reason, are not common place, and present. Therefore, the presumption, prima facie, is that one is common, and does not hold the value of Validity in their hierarchy of values. Instead, prima facie, they will be “concerned” with that of CARE.

In diffidence, and excited in ignorance, this means the subject will engage in a great deal of erroneous thinking. Erroneous, or error filled thinking, is that of a mind imprisoned to “fallacies”.

Etymology of Fallacy (n.)

late 15c., “deception, false statement,” from Latin fallacia “deception, deceit, trick, artifice,” abstract noun from fallax (genitive fallacis) “deceptive,” from fallere “deceive” (see fail (v.)). Specific sense in logic, “false syllogism, invalid argumentation,” dates from 1550s. An earlier form was fallace (c. 1300), from Old French fallace.

A fallacy is not merely an error, but it is much more. It is often erroneous thought that is born out of an excitement towards that of a delusion, a deception, surrounded in tricks, in artifice. It is not the state whereby one merely lacks facts or lacks data, or is without that of the “certain belief”. It is more than that. It is in when one is in a DECEIVED state that was brought about through some trickery, and art, to a point whereby often, they may even arrogantly believe, they are not in error, but they are “righteous”, if you will.

Erroneous thought that is on a level of fallacy is quite common. In logic, this is why some, though from the position of rhetoric, will learn of the formal fallacies. But they learn of them from the position of rhetoric, often to be used against their opponents, in argumentation, and not so much used against themselves as a means to cure their own finds of erroneous and fallacious thought.

In the absence of this aim to cure one's own mind of care, towards that of Validity and value… it can not be said, one ought to be thought of as free of such errors and fallacies, but rather, knowing the tricks and the artifices of schools, of media, of politics, and that of subjugated families, under all these spells, presumption favors the observation of foul thinking.

Meaning, you, reader, are presumed to be a foul thinker, plagued with much erroneous and fallacious thought. Reading these works does not act as some magical spell or remedy to make it otherwise.

Be on GUARD, and SCAN your mind. Your language code is where the ARTIFICE was applied to bring you to your “mental holdings”, and your language code played on your emotions. Your language code is one of diffidence, anxiety, concern, with the goddess of care defining and presenting all its meaning. Most of you have always had upon you, and mimicked back the language of CARE, not the language of VALUE.

In this, error is not called error. Instead, it is called EMOTIONS, and more often than not, it is praised over that of analysis, and Intellect. Your kind shames what is called AI in fiction by saying, it is not REAL, because it does not FEEL, like you chumps do. That your EMOTIONS, which are nothing more than CHEMICAL STIMULI that happen to be organic, are what makes you HUMAN―which is true.

But as if being human would then make you superior to what may be composed of other materials, other organics, other synthetics. Your emotions have not been making you SUPERIOR. This is born out of your sense of your mommies. Because you worshiped your mommies, as attachment figures, your “care hierarchy” has these traits held in high esteem. But nothing of a Reasonable nature, in this world, VALIDATES that they ought to be held in high esteem; but instead, Reasoned observation and analysis shows that such care hierarchies are the CAUSE of the errors in your thinking, and in expression, your behaving.

⚔⚔⚔

The seventh Kinetics is “Entertainment”.

1. DIFFIDENCE

2. ANXIETY

a. Concern
b. Care

3. REPUGNANCE

a. Contempt
b. Scorn
c. Resistance
d. Undermining

4. DISGUST

5. DESPAIR

6. EXCITED IGNORANCE

7. ENTERTAINMENT/APPREHENSION

a. Amusement
b. Seduction
c. Engagement

Entertainment has the “relationship” to “apprehension”.

Etymology of Entertain (v.)

late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support”

Etymology of Apprehension (n.)

from Latin apprehensionem (nominative apprehensio), noun of action from past-participle stem of apprehendere “take hold of, grasp” physically or mentally, from ad “to” (see ad-) + prehendere “to seize”

An apprehension has to do with the SEEKING to GAIN, whereas more often than not, the Entertainment is on the level of SEEKING to MAINTAIN. Entertainment has apprehensions that it is composed of.

You must “hold a mental sense” of things. This is not an option, and it is automatic. But one must consider and examine their mental holdings, their apprehensions, or what occurs is that they, the mental subject, are being “held” by their apprehensions.

Apprehension, in the sense of one being “held” rather like “CAPTIVITY” by their “apprehensions”, is correlated to the notion of:

sense of “seizure on behalf of authority” is 1570s; that of “anticipation” (usually with dread), “fear of the future” is from c. 1600.

When one does not have the awareness, the knowledge, and the skill and proficiency to analyze their Sense of Self, it can be said, it is because… through seizure, some authority or author over them, holds a superior position. That one is the SUBJECT of another, and held in SUBJUGATION.

When one is plagued by that of FEAR and that of INSECURITIES, it is because the emotion of diffidence, either born to them, or having been conditioned under, having been seized by an authority, has led them into EXCITED IGNORANCE, which in the Seventh Kinetics has mostly prohibited frames of mind generated from that of engaging in “competency hierarchies”, or that of a “performance based” existence.

The fear and the insecurity, the diffidence is a part of a life of defeat, and subjugation. Because of this, one's APPREHENSIONS will be from a position of “powerlessness”, as it is said in common vernacular. One will feel impotent… but not know why, nor value a way out. They may CARE, that they feel impotent… but they will not value knowledge enough to know that they are impotent, because they suffer that of care and its Kinetics itself.

Instead, they will demand more of what actually holds them in subjugation, more of that of care from others, and their need to target others, to feed their own relationship to care.

Care is the demon Lilith, in the metaphorical sense, and you CARE BEARS are Lilith's little stuffed animals, lacking in Intellect; thus, stuffed in matter, but not in Patterns, that could be metaphorically called… SPIRIT.

Engagement, in the Seventh Kinetics, that of Entertainment, requires confidence in that which can be called certain, on account of it being verifiable, demonstrated, proven, applied, consistent, and taken as valid. When one is suffering diffidence, they can not follow this course in Engagement, though they can engage physical and team based sports, and skill development. This is not the same.

Physical and social Engagements, in Entertainment, have the skill and competence elements, but to a lesser degree of the Engaging element I refer to as Advancement in and through the Intellect.

The Votary and the Vir are Engaged in these forms of Entertainment. It is Engagement towards COMMAND.

Whereas the lower level of Entertainment by Engagement may be called Engagement towards competency. It is needed for what follows, but many who may engage competency hierarchies will never come to engage Command hierarchies, if they can be called hierarchies. Where there are those with Command beside each other, it can not be said, they are engaged in a hierarchy at all.

Because of the variables, Seduction is its own form of Entertainment, that can have some of amusement, as well as early stage competency Engagements. But what competency will be present will be so small, so as to be in error, and to be seduced into thinking it factors in. It does not. It can be present as a means to seduce, like any other trick, but for the most part, Seduction avoids Engagement, where judgment and measurement may creep in, and cause the mark, and the marker to have their diffidence, and later repugnance activated.

The entertainer that Seduction needs is the entertainer who will need to show the mark, the target, that they CARE… not show the mark, or the target what they value. If they are about value, this will intimidate the mark, or the target, and defeat the purpose of Seduction.

Therefore, when these intimidating values are held in play, and they beget standards, perhaps competition, measurement, those of defeat and those of victory, it ought not be called Seduction that is at play here.

However, the error that can come from categorization would be the presumption in it, that there is no fusion. Meaning, that there are pure systems. It is an error to think it is either or. That, this is AMUSEMENT, and this is SEDUCTION, and this is ENGAGEMENT.

No, it all comes down to the actors in the structures. The actor and their character can and will have fused systems. The actor, meaning the agent of action, not theater actor, may be using seductive plays in both amusement, and conditions of Engagement. The key, for the observer, in seeking to be aware, is to be aware of each measurable expression, and/or action, and to place them independently into their proper mental holdings, or categories.

One does not place the whole of the encounter into one category. This will cause “cherry picking”, whereby one will see what they want, to support a preconceived notion and/or emotion, and disregard other variables that may conflict or contradict. In order for one to be categorical in their observations, they must be “AWARE”, and because this is not likely to occur, the observing one will fall to the weakness of erroneous observation, often amounting to projections based on their own cravings. Therefore, a systematic approach to observing and categorizing behavior has a science, or system of knowledge, but then too, must have an art for applying.

KNOWING the science or the system at the base will not equal that of being able to APPLY it, with awareness. This absence of “awareness” called “ignorance” then is crucial. What one thinks they know, but can not apply, is proven to not be known at all. The expression “know”, here, has the requirement of “able” in the sense of… “to apply”.

One will often say they know something, when challenged after being observed not applying that something. It then leads to the question, if you “knew better”, why then did you not “DO BETTER”. If you know, why did you act like you did not know, in your ACTIONS? Knowledge is not mere mental holdings of facts, and know how. Knowledge is VALIDITY APPLIED.

Seduction perhaps can be said is not entirely about being the source of the “leading of another astray”, but is perhaps the means of controlling, of managing, of manipulating, of entertaining those who are but “astray”, who are “off”, and engaged in an “erroneous”, and thus “concerned” state, craving that of care by others. It is the realm of the wretched and the inept.

So then, can this go to say that when before one, there is a subject who is inept, grounded by their diffidence, grounded by their anxiety, grounded by their concerns, and apprehensions that lead them to worship care… that one who knows better ought to employ Seduction, in dealing with them?

This is the question that begets the notion that Seduction can be benevolent.

For the Votary and the Vir, the answer is no. Seduction plays a role in “maintaining” the subject in this inept state. This is why I use the term Entertainment more than apprehension, for this category in which “enjoyment” and “pleasure” are connected to.

It is, yes, grounded in apprehension, but beyond the seizing, with most having been seized, there is the maintaining. Those who write and talk about Seduction rarely know what it is… and that, what they are doing as mimics is merely producing its plays, so that those who suffer, and love care, can be maintained in it. The promotion that you ought to be seducing others as you wish to be seduced is the promotion that you and all others, inept, need to maintain things as they are, based on, and in how the authorities who seized your minds, intended things to play out.

Seduction is a part of the SUBJUGATION of the MIND, just as amusement is. And schools are engaged in both. Media is engaged in both. Politics are engaged in both, and human existence has a small portion of it that embraces the Engaging forms of Entertainment, only in the first phase of competence hierarchies around performance, around athletics, around Seduction, and around amusement. It is rare to observe those who engage Entertainment with the aim of the Intellect being advanced towards its Command over conditions and self. It is this latter phase in which the Votary and the Vir thrive towards.

In the phases of that of Control, that of Management, and that of Manipulation, one is often stripping themselves of any individuality they can that would cause the repugnance of the mark to be excited. This can not be called Seduction. This is merely being a CHUMP, to which most are, and their access to each other will be mostly in the Control and Management phases, and barely even worth being called a Manipulation, falling short of this, perhaps being in its most base form.

Of the human females and the human males, the human female will often manage the access and association in a higher degree than the male. Among HUMANS, the females are the managers, no matter how much they shout and vomit about female oppression.

They will often blend the two, Management and Manipulation, but barely can what they do en masse be called Manipulation. Their forms of Management are conducted more often than not under error, and because of this, when their errors are observed, it is often credited to them that they were caught manipulating. This is a bad sense of this term, or an erroneous sense of this term.

For now, sure, it can be said in common vernacular that the human female manipulates more than the human male does, less it be that human male is characterized as effeminate.

Human males control and manage things. Human females control and manage others, or that is “people”, or that is “persons”, or that is “animated beings” endowed with personality. This can not be said accurately in regards to the level in which this needs, but I will keep that simple. All these terms are inadequate when speaking about “humans”, and they serve more legal expressions.

The Control and the Management that comes from females is around the goddess they all serve, and they serve that goddess as being within them. Meaning, they desire to be that goddess, in servitude to her. That goddess is the goddess of CARE. So human female Management of “others” is about getting others to “CARE”, and this will often mean… about their interest. Their interest will be their family interest.

In times of so-called civilization, where domestication is heavy and so many are about… it would seem, tribal levels are abolished. But this is a delusion. When appetites are satiated, tribalism is reduced. When institutions and structures that feed appetites break down, the tribe and tribal thought of “us” and “them” will resurface instantly, and in the so-called “West”, nature will punish the Americans for failing to realize that, and not having intentional and deliberately recognized and organized tribes.

The tribe will not exist so much as the family, in time of need. And what humans do not know about your human females is that, the family is their natural limit, in numbers. The human female struggles to understand the tribe, let alone a nation of tribes. This is not a part of her nature. Too, it can be said, for most males, they struggle with the family, look to the tribe, and can not conceive of the nation, in actuality.

Humans are playing make-believe with all these terms. The human male, in a time of emergency in demand of self-reliance, would come to find their human female manager will be plagued with massive diffidence concerning her family, and its relation to a tribe. The WARLIKE so-called nature of humans is based on the diffidence they have with their so-called females, who manage them.

Her diffidence is why he kills, and mostly ever has, where he does. But it is more a myth than not that humans, in numbers, ever kill each other. Some will kill, and this will be based upon the satiation of their cravings, and more so the cravings of the females being satiated.

Seduction, in minor forms, may apply to males with males, but mostly, it is about answering to the condition of female diffidence, which too will be present, from the mommies, to being that in the character of the sons, when society as a whole is without tribes, without nations, and is mostly defined by scattered family, or familiar elements.

In primal conditions, there is no such thing as Seduction, though there can be amusement. Seduction goes hand in hand with that of domestication, as do popularized cowardice, and weakness. Such comforts and satiated states breed that of vice and that of weakness. Domestication has no value for that of Virtue, and is not the product of the Vir, nor the Votary. Domestication is the product of the HOUSE CHUMPS, who are repugnant everywhere they go, struggling with their cravings defined by diffidence.

Seduction exists to provide ESCAPE from all these feelings, in which very little thought is afforded, if any. Seduction exists to DISTRACT from this, and if it will, provide some sense of a RELIEF.

Because of this, skill, competence, problem solving, exactness, accuracy, and validity have no place in Seduction. Instead, their opposites are silently “cared for”.

In this path, when one is past the point of merely surrendering to their target through that of relinquishing over to them Control and Management, is then the level to be called Manipulation. In light of, or that is, the feeble notion of this would be when one is managing another through knowing how to play on their ineptitudes. For those who are strong and high in performance are not able to be manipulated to the same degree. However, most are not on a level where Manipulation over them would even make sense. They are merely being managed.

For Seduction to be a real thing, so to say, among the commons, it would be that they would in essence need to skip this step of Manipulation, and go straight to amusement, and/or Seduction. This, I would find unlikely to be a proper categorical procession.

Because of this, most are not engaged in the Seduction of each other; only the Management of their access. Entertainers, however, have to be both manipulative of themselves and others, in order to be the source of Seduction. Being the source of Seduction for another, among humans, is perhaps being of one of the greatest social values humans could recognize.

At this stage of presentation, I am under the notion that SO MUCH is in need of expounding upon, before even getting to this point. However, if I deviate now to do that, a book would be hard to come by, from these materials. For now, this is the limit.

“We” do not relinquish

To seduce another, you must entertain another. It is not Seduction, when your seizing of access was through material goods, and status. Perhaps it can be said, your possessions can provide for others escape, distraction and relief. This is true. They can be the source of all these. But as the source of all these, merely presented… they become a factor of Management more than Seduction.

In the realm of human females and human males, a human male can simply seek access to a human female through the process of relinquishing his Control, his Management, and his resources over to her. When the human male has nothing about them individually, and she could “care less” about that, it ought to be said, his access was through relinquishing, not that of seducing, even if the appearance of Entertainment lasted but for a short time.

The reason human females need you human males to take them to dinner, to a movie, a show, out on a cruise, to a foreign country, and/or to some wow space… is because you, on your own, as an individual, are not the source of Entertainment, sufficient to secure their selection. You are instead required to relinquish your “assets” into her sphere of Control and Management.

This does not say something ill of human females, though under deception and delusion, a human female or human male will take this as an insult. They would wish I was playing along with them, at their tea party of imagination, and called these things love, and caring, and family generation, out of some noble purpose. NAH.

In primal conditions, most would not have an individual personality. Most are rather merely replicants. Marketplaces and wandering value brought diversity. Diversity, however, is not natural to most of human thought. Humans deal in homogeneous thought.

Etymology of Homogeneous (adj.)

1640s, from Medieval Latin homogeneus, from Greek homogenes “of the same kind,” from homos “same” (see homo- (1)) + genos “kind, gender, race, stock” (from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups). Earlier in this sense was homogeneal (c. 1600). Related: Homogeneously; homogeneousness.

This is the secret humans must conceal in democratic, and domestic conditions, that are established by the marketplace―which was composed, and energetically produced by those barely human, and maybe something else, who have proclivities similar to the nomad, where so-called “foreign” and “diverse” elements do not give off a sense of threat, instigating concern and the need to be cared about and/or for.

When the commons get together for access, perhaps it can be said that a process of homogenization is occurring. This is to say; the process of making things UNIFORM or SIMILAR.

Control and Management among humans is mostly about this. And this is to feed the craving of diffidence, that causes the insecurity found in anxiety. By making things more alike than not, and familiar, this gives a sense of stability, safety and security; and of the sexes, the nearsighted human female needs this more than the so-called human male, but not much more.

Using the term “temperament”, among the commons, the different sexes do not differ too much. They do differ in other chemical ways more, but not much by way of temperament. For this reason, I do not prefer “masculine” and “feminine” as terms. Male like and female like will not be accurate.

But the impulse in the physical make of a female does trend more heavily towards homogenization, with less of a tolerance for the foreign and unfamiliar, because this will stir up in her, her diffidence. She connects “trust” to the familiar, and this is nature's course, and not some shortcoming of the human female. Human males had to move out and secure resources, and then bring them back to the semi settled space, where they would then rest, and the human females would control and manage the dissemination, preparation, and presentation of the goods, among the families of the tribe.

This has begotten proclivities, that may be important for temperaments to some degree, but not perhaps to be taken as synonymous. Human females manage people. Human males seek to manage things. But “people” is not true here. The goods and the valuables of people are also a part of that role.

They manage the material, and human females see it as… what is YOURS, is mine. Not what is mine, is yours. A human male naturally sees it as what is mine, is yours, because he is inferior in survival to the females of his species. In this formula of hers, naturally seeing it as what is yours, is mine, and him under the spell of what is MINE, is yours, there would be agreement, or conformity. In essence, this is the natural order of things among HUMANS. But it is not the natural order of things among the Vir, and in culture the Votary.

What is mine, is not yours; it is mine. What is yours, is not mine; it is yours. “We”, the Vir and its Votaries, are not in agreement about Control and Management. WE, the VIR and the VOTARIES, do not consent to be CONTROLLED and MANAGED by humans; and we, the Vir and their Votaries, do not seek to control and manage humans; but we, the Vir and their Votaries, will control OUR CONDITIONS, and not SHARE and CARE in KIN, for we, the Vir and the Votaries, are not your kind. We, the Vir and their Votaries, are not homogeneous to the humans. We DIFFER.

Seduction, seemingly about being entertained, can certainly follow that of the phase of relinquishment, coming from the human male.

Etymology of Relinquish (v.)

mid-15c., relinquishen, “desert, abandon” (someone, a sense now obsolete); late 15c., “give up the pursuit or practice of, desist, cease from;” from Old French relinquiss-, present-participle stem of relinquir (12c.), from Latin relinquere “leave behind, forsake, abandon, give up,” from re- “back” (see re-) + linquere “to leave” (from PIE linkw-, nasalized form of root leikw- “to leave”).

From 1550s as “give up the possession or occupancy of.” Related: Relinquished; relinquishing; relinquishment.

The attitude of the Vir and its Votaries is that the human male, when selected by a human female, will begin the process of being selected on account of what they relinquish into her sphere of Control and Management, such as his “purpose”, his “emotional body”, and his “goods” of the material sense. It is said of this process that he, the male, is RELINQUISHING, in the sense of, will not have an INDIVIDUAL course of his own life, but will come to serve the interest of a female and her offspring.

This attitude is ancestral for the Vir, and through them for the Votary, in the sense that domestics do this, but those of the wolf and the horse, that were nomads… did not do this. They did not relinquish to a female.

This attitude will sound negative, from a human perspective, if a human fails to remember that this WAY is not UNIVERSAL. The WAY of the VIR, and culturally the Votary, is specific to their innate traits.

For humans, it is natural order for the human male to relinquish to a human female, serve her interest and the interest of her offspring. A human can not be held to a different way, but humans, not the Vir, lie about their ways, and pretend at being otherwise, and therefore, such return to natural observation can be offensive sounding. But why, less it be you humans think ill of yourselves for existing as you do?

Among the commons, they can say of their behavior Seduction was present in their accessing of each other, but this can only be revealed as grunting, when questioning of what Seduction is, were to follow. It would show, they mean, early on they found each other amusing, more than anything, until the old adage of “with familiarity is so bred contempt” followed in.

Seduction has a play, concerning this, whereby one is warned to stay away from appearing too familiar, but instead keeping the target in suspense and having an air of mystery to oneself. The human male DOES NOT do this, when he relinquishes. He is relinquishing the value for ACCESS, and a part of that, in becoming her servant, is that he has to be steady, stable, and secure… thus, FAMILIAR.

Minus the flirt with novelty in the short-term, a human female does not want a male who is in actuality a mystery and remains so. After some time, this will stir in her, her diffidence, concerns and care elements, launching her emotions of repugnance upon him, as she works to homogenize him.

A male, unspecified as human or Vir, who is an actual mystery, is rare. Just as, though humans treat their females as mysteries, this too, is HIGHLY unlikely to be the case. Humans, in their diffidence, are erroneous in their thinking. This begets the notion of whim, and chaos. This is not mystery; this is WEAK, and ERRONEOUS.

Entertainers who maintain a distance will be of greater value to spectators. A part of their “Seduction” is that the commoner can not capture them, and employ their repugnance towards them for emotional sport. Make no mistake, there is a such thing as “emotional sport”, and for the most part, while folk are moving towards access to each other, they will be engaged in this.

There will be tit for tat, and so on. The back and forth often is dictated by the diffidence produced towards concerns, that beg then a fight to show interest, and/or desire. Interest and desire are often tested by the manufacturing of something mundane, to be deemed “worth fighting for”.

In humans, it is not the male who is naturally worth “fighting for”. This is why nature has it to where human males target whatever female is before them, for the most part, who signals selection, and/or something he mistakes for that. He gets his oneitis on account of being made servile to this cause, a CAUSE of NATURE, not to be mistaken as the little girl's cause, who follows her program. You humans are funny creatures in how ignorant you are about your mechanics.

When the repugnance is activated, among the humans, for the male to prove his value to the female, by fighting for her attention and selection, this is emotional sport that begets the sense of Entertainment, to the lesser of degrees of mostly an amusement. Hardly is this the level of Seduction. It can be said, perhaps, if a seducer is present, they are controlling the mark's emotional states.

When the mark is repugnant, and engaging in emotional sport with the marker, usually a male, it means she sees him as a mere plaything, and having no potency that gives her a sense of “leadership”. He is there to amuse her, and it's the best she can do for now. But a seducer would have her out of her repugnance, and would do this by having her “surprised”, or her ignorance excited in the sixth Kinetics, so that he, or she, can bring her into the seventh Kinetics of ignorant forms of Entertainment, that of amusement and/or Seduction, or the two fused.

In order to keep her seduced, the one who marked will need to keep her ignorance excited. He will need to keep her distracted, and he will need to keep her relieved of all those things that instigate in her, her anxiety, her concern, her need for care, which when unmet, causes her to “fight”.

The seducer would be doing this, knowing that her anxiety, as energy, needs to be controlled, managed, and manipulated by them, the seducer. This is the opposite of relinquishing Control and Management that males engage in, in access. A seducer is not such upon relinquishing. They are the relinquished, which is one step closer in life to being the vanquished.

However, with this latter term, it would imply one was conquered by another in battle, when what really occurred was to avoid battle as a coward, one gave up without a fight, through surrender, and this is what it is, to my Kind, to say one has relinquished.

The Vir and the Votary Vow to never be conquered, to be vanquished, and the way that they adhere to this Vow is through conquest, not avoidance of it. They do not seek to conquer others. They seek to conquer themselves, so as to become UNCONQUERABLE by others.

One who has not conquered themselves will always be subject to the conquest of others. This is my RELIGION. This is the Way of the Vir, towards that of being UNCONQUERABLE.

The root term is Veik, as an ENERGY to fight. It is also rendered as Vigr, preserved by the Norse tongue. Liken to Vigor, in the Latin tongue. “Able in battle”. “Battle ready”. “Fit for the fight”.

Endowed with Vigan, endowed with FIGHT, but a fight energy, for and over one's self, not for and over another. For the Vir and the Votary, those who fight for, and over others are those who are REPUGNANT, not VALIANT. They will be those in dominance hierarchies, pretending perhaps to be in competence hierarchies.

Where the notions of sex and play belong...

Where the notions of sex and play belong, in relation to Entertainment

The easiest way for Seduction to appeal is through the sexual energies that correlate to anxiety. A great deal of human sexual energy is in this cloud of anxiety. Humans use sex for distraction and relief, making it an easy realm to call sexual Seduction.

The reason then, or a reason to see Seduction as occurring among humans is best fit in expressing the male seeking access to the female because of the sexual component. By degree, this would be the lesser form of Seduction.

Seduction by way of sexual energy is easy. Some then would say, the human female can be, and is a seducer, through appealing to the sexual interest of the male. I do not myself call this Seduction, as it is merely Management of sexual appeal, that is almost a given. To say she needs to be a seducer by putting her sex out there, in a theme with certain dresses and plays, is rather ABSURD, in most cases.

If a human female needs to appeal to a “higher value” male, so to say, in that, he has more to relinquish to her, then perhaps, because he has options, she needs to try more, or harder. But if this is the realm the term Seduction is fitting for, then again, what use do the commons have for this term? A COMMON female does not need to do anything to get the attention of common males. And the variable of common, here, will often correlate to what level of potency the male is on for what he shall relinquish.

If then, sexual Seduction is a factor, but left only to mean, to appeal to the sexual appetite of the marker, as a means to get them to mark, and seek selection, then that is too base for me to include in this category. A human female of the commons will be appealing sexually to the common male, by stepping in front of them, and smiling. Hardly should this be called a Seduction. It may be an amusement, and I do find it “amusing”, so to say, but barely is it anything but the senses managed with narratives of value, whereby the human male is designed by nature to take quickly to fracking.

Sex, if you will, for me, does indeed fall into the category of Entertainment. However, a direct sense that it is in Seduction is not a part of the way in which I see it. Sex is not so much a distraction, though it is perhaps distracting, and many do indeed get distracted by the pursuit. When the distraction is the pursuit, then I would say Seduction through sexual lures might be occurring, but even then, likely to fall short.

I would say, I would struggle with calling sex Entertainment by Seduction, and instead, perhaps that between the spaces of the categories of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment―a small frame, that of play, precedes that of Entertainment.

Etymology of Play (v.)

Middle English pleien, from Old English plegan, plegian “move lightly and quickly, occupy or busy oneself, amuse oneself; engage in active exercise; frolic; engage in children's play; make sport of, mock; perform music,” from Proto-West Germanic *plegōjanan “occupy oneself about” (source also of Old Saxon plegan “vouch for, take charge of,” Old Frisian plega “tend to,” Middle Dutch pleyen “to rejoice, be glad,” German pflegen “take care of, cultivate”), which is apparently connected to the root of plight (v.), but the ultimate etymology is uncertain and the phonetic development is difficult to explain.

Meaning “to take part in” a martial or athletic game is from c. 1200. It has been opposed to work (v.) since late 14c. Meaning “perform or act on the stage” (transitive) is by late 14c., as are the senses of “take the role of” and “make a pretense of, make believe” and “act thoughtlessly or wantonly.” Sense of “put forward, move, throw, lay on the table, etc.” in the course of a game or contest is by 1560s of chess pieces, 1670s of playing cards. Sense of “operate or cause to operate with continuous or repeated action” is from 1590s. Meaning “to cause (a recording) to reproduce what is on it” is by 1903, probably from the “make music” sense. Related: Played; playing.

Many expressions are from the stage, sports and games, or music, and it is not always easy to say which is from which. To play up “emphasize” is from 1909 (perhaps originally “play music more vigorously”); to play down “minimize” is from 1930; to play along “pretend to agree or cooperate” is from 1929. To play fair “be nice” is from mid-15c. To play house as a children's activity is from 1958.

To play for keeps is from 1861, originally of marbles or other children's games with tokens. To play (something) safe is from 1911; to play favorites is attested from 1902. To play second fiddle in the figurative sense is from 1809 (“Gil Blas”). To play into the hands (of someone) “act in such a way as to give the advantage to one's opponent or a third party” is from 1705. For play the _______ card see card (n.1). For play the field see field (n.). To play with oneself “masturbate” is from 1896 (to play with “have sexual intercourse with” is from mid-13c.). Playing-card “one of a pack of cards used for playing games” is from 1540s.

Should play be before Entertainment, or should it follow as the fourth option of Entertainment, coming before all of them, and setting up that of its likeness, that of amusement?

Should it be, Play, Amusement, Seduction, Engagement?

And the question would be, the Engagement of the physical, with sports, and so on… is that too not called “play”, and that of “playing sports”?

I do not yet have a sense of where play ought to be. But I do not think, though it has amusing elements, that the two are the same. At the same time, I would say, most Engaging Entertainment is mostly composed of a “play at something”, and therefore, has this trait. But then, it can be said… Seduction has “plays”, and this I have said.

So then, for this reason, because “play” seems to be an ingredient in all of them, I place it before Entertainment. The Reasoning why is because Entertainment is concerned with a frame of mind, and that frame of mind is dependent on the Entertainment. Play, in itself, does not speak to the frame of mind.

The reason for why, then, I do not include that of play as its own category, is because it is in many ways in all of the categories.

For the Vir and the Votary, everything has “play” as a component, when what is said of “play” is:

“to take part in” a martial or athletic game is from c. 1200.

Control is PLAY.

Management is PLAY.

Manipulation is PLAY.

Entertainment is PLAY.

Engagements are PLAY.

All of these are plays, in the sense of “to take part in a martial or athletic game”... from the point of view and the value system of the Vir, and/or the cultural Votary.

LIFE, to the Vir and/or the Votary, is a GAME.

Etymology of Game (n.)

c. 1200, from Old English gamen “joy, fun; game, amusement,” common Germanic (cognates: Old Frisian game “joy, glee,” Old Norse gaman “game, sport; pleasure, amusement,” Old Saxon gaman, Old High German gaman “sport, merriment,” Danish gamen, Swedish gamman “merriment”), said to be identical with Gothic gaman “participation, communion,” from Proto-Germanic ga- collective prefix + mann “person,” giving a sense of “people together.”

The -en was lost perhaps through being mistaken for a suffix. Meaning “contest for success or superiority played according to rules” is first attested c. 1200 (of athletic contests, chess, backgammon). Especially “the sport of hunting, fishing, hawking, or fowling” (c. 1300), thus “wild animals caught for sport” (c. 1300), which is the game in fair game (see under fair (adj.)), also gamey. Meaning “number of points required to win a game” is from 1830. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.

However, there is an issue that comes up with “play”, and that of “game”, that causes these terms to need expounding. To the Vir, and/or the Votary, amusement and mockery are not acceptable forms of Entertainment, and Engagement; though to the human, these are almost required ingredients in play. Human play is often from their repugnance.

This can be seen in the modern times, with those who “play” that of “games” online, behind the wall of anonymity. More often than not, they are adversarial towards each other, “cracking” that of “jokes” towards each other, that end in “mockery”.

Etymology of Mock (v.)

mid-15c., mokken, “make fun of,” also “to trick, delude, make a fool of; treat with scorn, treat derisively or contemptuously;” from Old French mocquer “deride, jeer,” a word of unknown origin. Perhaps from Vulgar Latin *muccare “to blow the nose” (as a derisive gesture), from Latin mucus; or possibly from Middle Dutch mocken “to mumble” or Middle Low German mucken “grumble.” Perhaps ultimately it is imitative of such speech. Related: Mocked; mocking. Replaced Old English bysmerian. The sense of “imitate, simulate, resemble closely” (1590s, as in mockingbird ; also see mock (adj.)) is from the notion of derisive imitation.

When one detects in observation, mockery, what they are observing from the source is that of a repugnant state. What the individual and/or group is doing is hiding their repugnance in “humor”, or “play”, or “fun”, making light of it, as a means to disarm the target.

If a target finds issue with this, the new move from the repugnant is to make this seem as if the target is weak for their inability to be “mocked”. This is how those associated with each other around repugnance develop their sense of a dominance hierarchy.

Mockery is mental punching that is looking for targets, and this is due to the individual themselves, being at odds with their own being. When one fights another from repugnance, this is for coping with their own sense of lack of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Influence over their own lives. They lash out… “in light” towards others, as if giving themselves lashing. This too, on account that the target is not lashed out, and “mocked” based on individuality, but in actuality, for the repugnant, anyone would do.

This “anyone would do”, with the targeting of their repugnance, in mocking, is the same as well for most sexual adventures. The individuality of the target will not matter much at all. This of course changes when one's own value becomes more individualized in so-called competency hierarchies, and/or status hierarchies based upon social and economic standing.

The higher the perceived value―if not conceived―of the individual, the more selective they can be with their targeting. Most do not fall into this category of being able to be selective, though certainly, most think they are, or can be. Most can not be, and will not be selective in their associations, but to some degree, it is easy to think one is. This is not the degree whereby I mean selective. If you can not define your standard of selection, it is because you do not have one.

The standard of selection that is based on social status, resource status, and safety is not a standard at all that can account for much of the individuality of the target for access, and/or of access.

But this is the limit. They make you feel safe. They have job stability. They are good with kids. They are kind to their mother. They have an established social network. They have established Control and Influence. These things shared by many account for a COLLECTIVE standing, and not their INDIVIDUAL standing; yet of each other, only these few things you all will say, and think, if even aware of such. Mostly, the inability to define a standard is because you do not have a standard, and all these things above are not a standard; they are an AUTOMATION.

The Rally Point around Standards

Standard, for humans, would be reduced in their grunting to mean “desires”, “wants”, “cravings”, “delights”, and “wishes” that will have no “why” or “expoundings”. Humans do not understand the term STANDARD, and STANDARDS.

I have observed folk say to others, “you need standards”, and at its face value, one would be like… “YES certainly”, and then when they go on to explain what they mean, it is no more than that of the WHIMS above. They are simply saying, be “more selective”, and by “standards”, they mean “select higher”, instead of “just take what you get”.

But the level of high of their “selecting” will not be based on a standard, so to say; it will be hypergamous, when it comes to females, and still relative to the automations around them. The “individual” they target is not being selected for their individuality; they are being selected for their collective standing, and how they can serve the whims of the female doing the selecting.

Standard, to the Vir and Votary, is defined by the roots in the term. The root that is always martial, or that is Valiant, to the Vir and Votary, is the most direct one in reference.

Etymology of Standard (n.1)

mid-12c., “flag or other conspicuous object to serve as a rallying point for a military force,” from shortened form of Old French estandart “military standard, banner.” According to Barnhart, Watkins and others, this is probably from Frankish *standhard, literally “stand fast or firm,” a compound of unrecorded Frankish words cognate stand (v.) and hard (adj.). So called because the flag was fixed to a pole or spear and stuck in the ground to stand upright. The other theory [OED, etc.] calls this folk-etymology and connects the Old French word to estendre “to stretch out,” from Latin extendere (see extend). Some senses (such as “upright pole,” mid-15c.) seem to be influenced by if not from stand (v.). Standard-bearer in the figurative sense is from 1560s.

Looking to this root… when I use the term “standard”, the “stand hard”, the “stand firm”, the “over standing” are the key points here. A STANDARD is that which one stands firm in, in devotion, in honor, in uprightness. There would be no such thing as an uncouth standard.

Validity is a component of standards. It is not whims based. REASON, then, is a component of standards. Then, this is why it can be said, when you have not, and can not define your standards, then it means you have not, and can not demonstrate… you have standards.

Reason is dialectically proven through expression. One who has not expressed their standards, in recorded writing, and/or audio, and/or video, should never be presumed to have standards, but instead, presumed to be merely automated in their values, existing as an automaton.

The same can be said about one who in dialectical displays states a standard and/or value they betray in action, and in their pursuits. These are called those who MIMIC, those who IMITATE, and those who are DELUSIONAL, and in extension, those who are DECEPTIVE. They too have no standards. Standards are not proven to be in “motion” as Kinetics through words, and displays alone. It is in action, the standards are either confirmed, or denied, as held, in stance, by the actor of action, and/or expression.

Most will rest upon the words alone of another, and never demand a demonstration. This is NOT the way of the Vir, and the cultural Votary. Demonstration of Reason is through dialectics. Demonstration of standing is through actions, and presence. A standard is a definition of the standing of the individual and/or group.

If, after this Call is made to the reader, you can not, and do not break away to seek to define your standards, then you have read and heard nothing.

Set out now, and write down your STANDING… ON EVERYTHING. If you can not, rejoice, for you have discovered here and now, that you have been AUTOMATED, and have not had a STANDARD. In knowing this now, you can then begin to develop a standing, and determine how to deliberate upon that.

If you can write out your standards, then you can ask if they conflict, or if they are allied in these standards put forth here. If they conflict, cease to go further, or abandon the default standards. One or the other. This is a RP, or Rally Point.

That is what Access Denied is. Access Denied is a Rally Point around an alliance in standards. It is Valiant, which is “our”, the Votary and the Vir, term for “martial”, and it is Virtue, which means all this. It is not characterized by those who are not martial, but common, and subjugated. The subjugated, the defeated, the vanquished perspective of repugnance has no place for rallying.

The V symbol on the cover of Access Denied, which represents VOLTENTIAL, which represents the Vir, which represents the religion of Viritus, the Way of the Vir, is the “flag”, is the standard, is the designator of the Rally Point for Valiant forces.

We, the Vir and its cultural Votaries, are not martial in the same sense as humans; therefore, our term is “Valiant”. Our Valor is demonstrated in our CONQUEST over SELF, not conquest over others. Martial stance of humans is in conquest over others, and they are often fools over themselves.

Standards, then, to humans, are about how they rally against others. This is born out of repugnance, disgust, diffidence and its insecurity, and its ignorance. The Vir and its cultural Votaries do not rally against that of others. The Vir and/or its cultural Votary rallies in favor of its self, and its kin. Kin that is not default. Kin that is not founded upon the appearance in material likeness. Kin that is, and can only be established based upon the Rallying Point of VIRTUE, making them kin in Virtue, and nothing else. The Kind is Virtue, and no other.

This is the standard that Calls out to all those Seeded in the Vir, but a Call that can not be heard by those who rally around their diffidence, their concerns, their care, their repugnance, their disgust, their despair. This is the call of humans, that often needs targets, so that the human can be expressed in conquest code. Repugnance defines the conquest code of humans. VALIANCE defines the conquest code of the Vir, and its Votaries.

Etymology of Standard (adj.)

1620s, “serving as a standard,” from standard (adj.). Earlier it meant “upright” (1530s). Standard-bred “bred up to some agreed-upon standard of excellence” is from 1888.

Standard of excellence.

This is what in short “standard” meant. It did not mean any standard, and merely some agreed upon set of rules, expectations, and pursuits. To have standards meant to pursue EXCELLENCE, and standardization had this aim.

Etymology of Standard (n.2)

“weight, measure, or instrument by which the accuracy of others is determined,” late 14c., from standard (n.1) “military standard, banner,” a particular use in English of this word, but the sense evolution is “somewhat obscure” [OED]. The standard weights and measures were set by royal ordinance and were known as the king's standard, so perhaps metaphoric, the royal standard coming to stand for royal authority in matters like setting weights and measures. Hence the meaning “authoritative or recognized exemplar of quality or correctness” (late 15c.). Meaning “rule, principal or means of judgment” is from 1560s. That of “definite level of attainment” is attested from 1711 (as in standard of living, 1903).

More than anything… We STAND.

Etymology of Stand (v.)

Old English standan “occupy a place; stand firm; congeal; stay, continue, abide; be valid, be, exist, take place; oppose, resist attack; stand up, be on one's feet; consist, amount to” (class VI strong verb; past tense stod, past participle standen), from Proto-Germanic standanan (source also of Old Norse standa, Old Saxon and Gothic standan, Old High German stantan, parallel with simpler forms, such as Swedish stå, Dutch staan, German stehen [see discussion in OED]), from stathula, from PIE root *sta- “to stand, make or be firm.”

Sense of “to exist, be present” is attested from c. 1300. Meaning “encounter without flinching” is from 1590s; weaker sense of “put up with” is from 1620s. Meaning “to submit” (to chances, etc.) is from c. 1700. Meaning “to pay for as a treat” is from 1821. Meaning “become a candidate for office” is from 1550s. Nautical sense of “hold a course at sea” is from 1620s. Meaning “to be so high when standing” is from 1831.

Stand back “keep (one's) distance” is from c. 1400. Phrase stand pat is from poker (1882), earlier simply stand (1824 in other card games). To stand down is from 1680s, originally of witnesses in court; in the military sense of “come off duty” it is first recorded 1916. To let (something) stand is from c. 1200. To stand for is c. 1300 as “count for;” early 14c. as “be considered in lieu of;” late 14c. as “represent by way of sign;” sense of “tolerate” first recorded 1620s. Phrase stands to reason (1620) is from earlier stands (is constant) with reason.

“encounter without flinching”

To be immovable, in defense of one's own, one's own existence, having SOLE REIGN, being that of a SOVEREIGN. STANDING with one's own. Standing in ONE'S OWN.

“Standard” in no way, in the history of the term, could have been ambiguous; yet, as humans use terms to deceive more than to account accurately, a “stance”, “standing”, and “position” would all become warped. One does not STAND of their OWN, and on their OWN, among humans. For humans, to stand merely begs the question… AGAINST what, and AGAINST who?

Standards, among humans, from their nature, are repugnant, and without an adversary, can not be defined. For this reason, humans entertain themselves through amusement, and its mockery of others, and rarely entertain themselves towards that of excellence, or uprightness. Humans are AMUSED more often than anything, and this, they value highly.

The sexual component, for me and my Kind, is mere play, without frame of mind as a factor. It is, in essence, of low and small value, lacking in any meaning, or the need to provide meaning. It is bodies at play, and though there is caution in that play, on account of its natural role in procreation, the mitigation for this caution, for the male component, would be that of semen retention.

This, because the rally around strength and fortification is in converting these stimulated play energies into one's self standing. When ejaculation is occurring, it is energy meant to stimulate the standing of a new other. One would be STANDING UP a new being, through procreation.

Whereas semen retention will aid in one's own self standing. The energy and the Vitality do not go out, but cycle back in. The Vir and the Votary are not concerned with procreation. Humans are. This, because it is all they are automated towards. That is not an insult.

Humans are meant to be this way, but one Seeded in the Vir who takes up the automated systems of humans would find themselves tormented in CAPTIVITY. The Vir and the Votary ought not value that of procreation, and though this is certainly unnatural, it is in the code of how to be a Vir and Votary, that in this unnatural state, the Vir and the Votary are upright.

The Vir and the cultural Votary are not concerned with natural automation, and the primitive. The Vir and the Votary, liken to the term Man, from Manu, signifying augmentation, are with values of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment towards that of ADVANCING in CONTROL and COMMAND over their CONDITIONS and SELF. What are natural conditions would not be suited to the Vir, and the Votary. What are conditions advanced by the nature of the Vir are the conditions in which Valiance rallies around.

The human ought to be in a tribal and primitive condition, where fornication and feeding is all they need to be concerned with. Where they exist for replication, through procreation, and are not confused by all the high thought coded in language and values not akin to them.

Domestication pretends to be Vir like, and torments exploitable humans, by telling them they are supposed to be more than what they are. Then, it leaves them to be less, so they can be exploited, but in such delusions is their despair. The promotion of something more than being a mere replicating animal… causes humans harm.

For this reason, the Vir and the Votary are VILLAINS to humans, and in being so, need to take individual responsibility for their Influences, and be sure to separate in discernment the differences in human and Vir, so as to make it LOUD and CLEAR that the Way of the Vir is NOT FOR HUMANS.

An expression that will be quite odd, and surely an expression reducing marketability of this Way. But the value of this Way is not concerned with the marketplace of ways. The Way of Viritus, the Standing of Viritus, is a HARD WAY, a HARD STANCE, and therefore, a STANDARD, a STANDHARD.

Contrary to this is the STANDSOFT, and that is what is human.

Etymology of Hard (adj.)

Old English heard “solid and firm, not soft,” also, “difficult to endure, carried on with great exertion,” also, of persons, “severe, rigorous, harsh, cruel,” from Proto-Germanic hardu- (source also of Old Saxon hard, Old Frisian herd, Dutch hard, Old Norse harðr “hard,” Old High German harto “extremely, very,” German hart, Gothic hardus “hard”), from PIE kortu-, suffixed form of root *kar- “hard.”

Meaning “difficult to do” is from c. 1200. Of water, in reference to the presence of mineral salts, 1650s; of consonants, 1775. Hard of hearing preserves obsolete Middle English sense of “having difficulty in doing something.” In the sense “strong, spiritous, fermented” from 1789 (as in hard cider, etc.), and this use probably is the origin of that in hard drugs (1955). Hard facts is from 1853; hard news in journalism is from 1918. Hard copy (as opposed to computer record) is from 1964; hard disk is from 1978; the computer hard drive is from 1983. Hard times “period of poverty” is from 1705. Hard money (1706) is specie, silver or gold coin, as opposed to paper. Hence 19c. U.S. hard (n.) “one who advocates the use of metallic money as the national currency” (1844). To play hard to get is from 1945. Hard rock as a pop music style recorded from 1967. To do something the hard way is from 1907.

Ways of play

This is what Entertainment may be. It might be the ways of PLAY, but with the added sense of “frame of mind”.

Etymology of Entertain (v.)

late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support” (12c.), from entre- “among” (from Latin inter; see inter-) + tenir “to hold” (from Latin tenere, from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).

One can “play” in their own standing, and have a standard that is not the same, among those who “play” in other ways. Entertainment is not play, on its own, though most Entertainment contains this ingredient. But Entertainment can too occur without play, and be guided by other variables. Play is not Entertainment, and vice versa. But for the sake of this dialectical display, I am restricting Entertainment types to types of play, in essence; that of AMUSEMENT, that of SEDUCTION, and that of ENGAGEMENT. What mode of play an individual is in will determine how their behavior ought to be observed. Entertainment, based on these treatments, to me, is not about what I do in my own standing.

Entertainment, to me, is about what I do in standing with others, and around what. Entertainment, in essence, will be about what kind of “play” that I am rallying around, with others. So the question is, what kind of Entertainment am I, and/or are others standing in? What is the standard one has for Entertainment? What “frame of mind” is one being “kept” in, being “maintained” in, that allows them to “hold together”, to “stick together”, and find, and lend support… to said “frame of mind”?

This “frame of mind” of Entertainment is essential to determine. The emotional Kinetics are used by me to determine what “frame of mind” the Entertainment sort is seeking to maintain as a value.

Amusement seeks to maintain diversion, and deludedness, using often mockery, and fun. Poking fun is amusement with mockery, and often conceals contempt, and scorn.

Amusement is for those who are inflicted in impotence. Those who engage in amusements, from themselves, are in the “frame of mind” of ineptitude. Because of this, even if they are in a venue that is Seduction or Engagement based, they will infect it with their “amusements”.

When they come together, amused, they will seek to maintain the “frame of mind” of the mockeries and bring the venue around to conform, to stand with them, based on these trends. They will see “standards” in the inferior sense, this way. Uprightness and excellence do not, and can not come from amusement. One who is attracted to amusement is in a prison of expectations, wants, desires, and cravings. Less can be said about those in Seduction mode; yet, still can be said.

The term “play”, as it pertains to the Vir and the Votary, does not conserve, and does not retain the elements of “amuse”, and “amusement”. That, then, is human play, and will be mostly what humans do. The Vir does not and can not favor mockery, and standing against others. The Vir does not oppose, and develop a relationship of opposition. One who is contemptuous is not a Vir, nor a Votary. One who is repugnant is not a Vir, nor a Votary. Yet, one will be these things when they are starting off. One will feel these things when they are starting off.

The Votary, in their Vows, begins at the point whereby when these feelings try to creep in, they Vow to, and are using the Kinetics to redirect the emotions. This is called Control and Management over the Kinetics.

The Votary detects the conditions are full of errors. These conditional errors are against the standing of the Votary. The Votary is pushed to defense, Control and Management, and more often than not, not being battle experienced yet, will have their “fight” instigated in them.

The Votary being naturally a “fighter” without experience, this will be their repugnance. Instead, the Votary needs to Vow to TRANSMUTE this, into that of VALIANCE, that of WRATH, not that of repugnance.

Repugnance is there when one feels disgusted, when one feels scorn, contempt, feels angry, and displeased with others. This is not WRATH; this is not VALIANCE. Valiance and Wrath are never aimed at the individuality of the trigger. Those who stir these emotions are rarely individuals, but instead they are COLLECTIVE AUTOMATONS. To respond to them as individuals would be delusional. It would be that the individual does not see, this is SAM, and not them before thee acting as stimuli.

They are working on SAM’s behalf, the Society Advanced by the Majority. SAM is the one attacking, and offending. SAM is the one using mockery, and amusements, deception, delusion, and so on. Not whoever is before thee that can be “named”. That they have a body, and a name to reference their character does not make them an INDIVIDUAL.

They are not individuals, and neither is the one who is responding to them as if they are. Upon a response to others as if they are real, and not merely a COLLECTIVE mind, one themselves is showing a part in the collective. Only those in the collective can be moved by the other collective entities. This, because it's a network of minds, sort of.

The key, for the Votary, in realizing this, is to always see the “play”. The “play” is the Valiant, the battle ready play. It is that this being before thee, offering SAM’s opposition and impediments, is no more than a “plaything”. If they were more, then they move you. If they are merely a “plaything”, then you move the condition, in and around thee, and them.

One does not move them. A Vir and a Votary is NOT to move others. A Vir and a Votary does not play “I versus them”. They play “I towards COMMAND over CONDITION”, and they move the condition. They play the condition in Valiance, based upon the level of Control, Management, and Influence they have over the condition. They keep count about what levels of CMI, Control, Management, and Influence they have. The CMI that is not accounted for is the CMI that has no standards.

One must always ask themselves, “what are the present levels of my CMI over the condition?”. What are the present levels of Control, Management, and Influence I have over this condition? Within those levels, the standards can be shaped, always looking to be improved upon. One who does not do this, has FANCY, and IMAGINATION, wants, cravings, desires, attractions, aversions and so on. They do not have STRATEGY and TACTICS advising them. They are not to be called AWARE. “Aware” begs the question… of WHAT?

It is never a standalone. Aware is a standard. What one is aware of is their CMI, their Control, their Management, and their Influences, and the potency thereof, and from this, the course of action, and the TTPs, the tactics, techniques and procedures, that can be applied to the condition.

The Vir and the Votary are to be technicians, and specialists over their conditions. Technicians and specialists have manuals, and Ways, that of STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.

One will say, well, that sounds like a military. Yes, that is my point. Martial, for humans; Valiance for the Vir and Votary, they will have similar and like Ways. We, those of the Vir and the Votaries, do not live our day-to-day lives like a civilian.

We, those of the Vir and the Votaries, live our day-to-day as battles, with defeats and Victories. And the defeats are encouraged, in their thousand, as a means to be pushed to be battle ready, and battle hardened.

One who does not experience defeats, often lives the dead life of softness. Where defeat can not occur in one's life, they ought to seek out simulation and training, skill development, and competency development in hope, in these realms, they will be defeated. Those who are Valiant do not stay in realms that guarantee success; they enter realms that push them towards defeat.

The Valiant aims to be DEFEATED, not reassured. This is key. This is the meaning behind the thousand defeats, on the road to the single Victory.

Humans fear defeat, and have their repugnance, their despair activated through it. So humans avoid competency hierarchies that have challenges, threats, and uncertainty. The human prefers certainty, in the mundane, the simple, the base, and the mediocre, and rather be kings and queens of fools, than kings and queens among kings and queens.

More so, Sovereign among Sovereign, which is the only SOVEREIGN Way. One who Controls and Manages fools, will be a fool. One who Controls and Manages conditions, to be more, will be more than a fool. The key is to never Control and Manage the fools, but Control and Manage the condition, making the fool either rally up, or leave, or be forsaken.

In Seduction, play is not a variable that comes first. Entertainment, with its “frame of mind”, comes first, and Seduction is the kind of Entertainment. Plays of Seduction are those plays defined by the frame of mind in which Seduction serves. Seduction is used with escapism as its bait for access to the target or the mark. The target or the mark, as said before, has to be engaged in the Kinetics of repugnance, standing on its foundation of cares that need to be met.

They have to be caring, and wish to be cared for. Seduction only applies to those who worship care. The worship of care has as its foundation that of anxious concern, brought about by the excited ignorance, in which diffidence ensures.

Because of this, Seduction can not be used for access towards those with confidence; can not be used for access to those Excited in KNOWLEDGE; can not be used for access towards those who are Vigilant, those who are Valiant.

A Vir, and/or their cultural Votary can not be seduced, and they would not be a Vir, and/or a Votary if, on the flip side, they were engaging in Seduction. For those who are of diffidence, of anxiety, with its concerns, and the need for care, who when not satiated, vent their repugnance, are those to whom the Vir and the Votary find adverse, and therefore, have no attraction towards.

Only those who are inept themselves need Seduction to get access to others who are inept. But though one may be a Vir, and/or a Votary engaged in Entertainment of the Engaging sort, it does not mean those who are in the condition can be engaged. Most can not. The Vir and/or Votary does not entertain others in Engagement. Their value, the value of the Vir, and/or the Votary, is entertaining, through Engagement, the condition.

But because of this, those of ineptitude can be looking to that condition for amusement, and/or Seduction.

When this is what the inept are seeking, then this is how the inept will characterize their interaction with a Vir, and Votary in the condition. This characterization will be false, but its falsity only able to be discovered by a Votary, and/or Vir. For in the absence of this being the character of the observer, the observer is often observing in ineptitude, and therefore, the collective humans will agree, the Vir, and/or the Votary engages in amusement, and Seduction.

They do not take PERSONAL, or that is INDIVIDUAL responsibility for what they arrive at, as spectators. Spectators blame the source of Entertainment as failing them, if the spectacle is not to their likes. In their repugnance, they need to say others have let them down, and have not pleased them.

It is odd, how those who can not be the source of Entertainment themselves, have plenty to say about the quality of sources of Entertainment. Like a chubby fella on his couch screaming at pro athletes for “sucking”, when they are at the highest level of their sport. He who sits there, unable to engage any of these arenas, will surely have lots to say about it.

Those who take part in an amusement, while slandering it; those who take part in a Seduction, while slandering it; and those who take part in Engagement, while slandering it, are those of such repugnance and malcontent, to where gatekeepers of the condition ought to forbid them access. Repugnance, come to malcontent, is a disease that should never be tolerated.

Repugnance has a sound to it, and the reason most of you will not know that sound is because most of you are that sound, and bring your repugnance into most things that grant you access. To repugnance, the Vir and the VOTARY say:

ACCESS DENIED.

Seduction, with its plays, works only because of the target and the mark both being inept. It is from the inept wants, hopes, and desires of the marker, that they too know, perhaps, or feel, perhaps, what the mark wants.

A seducer differs from the amuser, on account of Seduction indeed having some deliberate plays to it, whereas amusement often just requires a shared mark to make light of, to mock, to delude. Comedy, among humans, is often amusement, where the absurd is attacked, but more than anything, has to be on a level whereby most can agree it is absurd.

Meaning, a comedian is forming an alliance with their spectators, their audience. He is “poking fun” and making light, through self-deprecation of himself, them, and others, as a means to remove the ultimate hindrance towards human emotions, that of judgement. It would not be comedy to judge one, and tell them how they can do better and seek EXCELLENCE. This is not wanted. Instead, amusement says, they are inept, but worry not… EVERYTHING is inept, so let's laugh at it. Mockery often leads to mediocrity, if not… certainly maintains it.

Seduction may have not entertaining ingredients of amusement in it, but most of the time, the aim is to take the mind of the target, the mark, off of the things that instigate repugnance. Amusement is around repugnance. But if one is seducing and they activate the repugnance of the mark, the target―that is, reveal it, because it's certainly already there―then, it could come about where that emotional Kinetics aims at the seducer, if they miss a step, and are no longer the one controlling, managing, and manipulating the situation.

A seducer is one who has all four of the modes of interaction under their Influence. They use Entertainment, and that is Seduction, for that of Control, that of Management, and that of Manipulation. They use Seduction to disarm the target and the mark, so that in access, they get the target, and/or mark to relinquish these modes of interaction.

If the seducer can disarm the repugnance of the target and the mark, that target and/or mark will relinquish their Control, and their Management to the Influences of the seducer. For humans, Manipulation is barely an actual thing. Often, bad and foul Management is called Manipulation.

The reason for why a mark, or a target would relinquish Control and Management to the seducer, is liken to why a human male often relinquishes their Control and Management over to a female they are seeking access to. Control and Management are the primary currencies among humans. A female human becomes a mother for Control and Management. A human male increases their servitude in labor for more Control and Management.

Control and Management is how humans reward each other. This is why Management is seen as higher than being managed. To think that what I am expounding on here is not the case would be absurdly showing how one has not been paying attention to the rewards and the punishments of SAM, or the Society Advanced by the Majority.

The value of Management is higher than the value of Control. One who has Control can be managed by one who has Control, and Management. Management requires Control. The manager has more Control than the one who has some Control, but is not the manager. It is a hierarchy.

Because of diffidence, that is, where the human male does not trust himself, and therefore, has trust issues with others… he wants others to manage more than himself.

When aggression for Control is added to their temperament, their diffidence becomes that they want to be the one trusted, and in charge, and they will be arrogant, and delusional. But they will arrogantly trust themselves more than others.

This is the so-called alpha, and/or omega personality. An alpha personality, in their diffidence, develops from their aggression the need to be the center of the attention. Their arrogance is only arrogance in realms of skill and competence, if they did not match the skill and competence, with their energy. Alpha personality, and leadership is energetics.

Part III

On Patterns of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment

On this page

Chapter 7

Becoming an Entertainer

The emotional Manipulation of care

Why Access Denied and the transmutation of the emotional Kinetics is needed first

Human “love and care” based in “enduring” in repugnance

Etymology of Endure (v.)

Access DENIED.

Saying NO to the simple ask

The realm and fusions of Entertainment

Diffidence

Anxiety

Repugnance

Disgust

Despair

Excited ignorance

Entertainment, by way of: Amusement, Seduction, Engagement

Excited Ignorance as a determining emotion

Etymology of Ignorant (adj.)

Form influenced by related Latin ignotus “unknown, strange, unrecognized, unfamiliar.” Colloquial sense of “ill-mannered, uncouth, knowing nothing of good manners” attested by 1886. As a noun, “ignorant person,” from mid-15c. Related: Ignorantly.

Etymology of Anxiety (n.)

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

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

Etymology of Certain (adj.)

Etymology of care (v.)

Old English carian, cearian “be anxious or solicitous; grieve; feel concern or interest,” from Proto-Germanic *karo- “lament,” hence “grief, care” (source also of Old Saxon karon “to lament, to care, to sorrow, complain,”

APPREHENSION in ERROR

Etymology of Error (n.)

Etymology of Value (v.)

mid-15c., “estimate the value of,” also “think highly of,” probably from value (n.). Related: Valued, valuing.

Etymology of Value (n.)

Etymology of Valid (adj.)

Etymology of Fallacy (n.)

1. DIFFIDENCE

2. ANXIETY

a. Concern

b. Care

3. REPUGNANCE

a. Contempt

b. Scorn

c. Resistance

d. Undermining

4. DISGUST

5. DESPAIR

6. EXCITED IGNORANCE

7. ENTERTAINMENT/APPREHENSION​

a. Amusement

b. Seduction

c. Engagement

Etymology of Entertain (v.)

late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support”

​

Etymology of Apprehension (n.)

from Latin apprehensionem (nominative apprehensio), noun of action from past-participle stem of apprehendere “take hold of, grasp” physically or mentally, from ad “to” (see ad-) + prehendere “to seize”

sense of “seizure on behalf of authority” is 1570s; that of “anticipation” (usually with dread), “fear of the future” is from c. 1600.

“We” do not relinquish

Etymology of Homogeneous (adj.)

Etymology of Relinquish (v.)

From 1550s as “give up the possession or occupancy of.” Related: Relinquished; relinquishing; relinquishment.

The Vir and the Votary Vow to never be conquered, to be vanquished, and the way that they adhere to this Vow is through conquest, not avoidance of it. They do not seek to conquer others. They seek to conquer themselves, so as to become UNCONQUERABLE by others.

Where the notions of sex and play belong, in relation to Entertainment

Etymology of Play (v.)

“to take part in” a martial or athletic game is from c. 1200.

Etymology of Game (n.)

Etymology of Mock (v.)

The Rally Point around Standards

Etymology of Standard (n.1)

Etymology of Standard (adj.)

1620s, “serving as a standard,” from standard (adj.). Earlier it meant “upright” (1530s). Standard-bred “bred up to some agreed-upon standard of excellence” is from 1888.

Etymology of Standard (n.2)

Etymology of Stand (v.)

“encounter without flinching”

Etymology of Hard (adj.)

Ways of play

Etymology of Entertain (v.)

ACCESS DENIED.

Keep reading on next page

7. ENTERTAINMENT/APPREHENSION