Part III
On Patterns of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment
Chapter 7 (continued)
Becoming an Entertainer
The collectivist roles of alpha, beta, omega, delta, gamma, and sigma
All of the personality traits, in these categories, alpha, beta, omega, delta, gamma, and sigma, are based on energetics. They are how the individual feels, and they are not based on what the individual knows, and what skills, what competence, and what talents they may have.
Alpha does not mean good leader in every realm. But it does mean driven to want to lead, and to receive the attention of leadership, so energetically, they will set up. They have, in them, the need for central attention. This often correlates with their physical size. They may be more robust, they may be taller, and may have a deeper voice. This would lead them to naturally presume the role of leadership. Others, seeing these physical traits, will yield, if beta, if omega, delta, and perhaps gamma, but not sigma. Having not yet defined these, I will not use them much.
But in essence, the alpha will be more aggressive, and this looks like confidence to humans. But the alpha is not confident. Their Sense of Self is connected to the confidence, in appearance, others signal to them, and in them.
Meaning, if the alpha is appointed by betas to lead them, they have a conditional confidence. They will have trust in their status, so long as they are among betas. If another alpha enters their realm, that trust fades, and they will need to act in ways to seek to secure their position. This means their confidence is not inborn, as it is in a sigma, if that is how they are characterized.
The alpha is aggressively insecure, more than the beta, but not more than the omega. In this aggressive insecurity, they need conditional responses to assure them, and this causes their aggression to be expressed. Alphas, in their diffidence, do not want others to lead them, and take point, because their diffidence makes them think, no one can, and should.
That so long as they are at point, and others agree they are the point, they will have their insecurities fed, and satiated, even if only for short. They fight aggressively socially, in how they are to be seen to others. Alphas are often easy to detect in that, they do not recon those around them to see what their value is. They presume right off from the start that they ought to lead.
Humans need this among them. Because of most humans not being inclined to this alpha aggression, they do not have mechanisms internal in them to cope with their diffidence. The alpha has the aggression, and often physical presence, able to be a threat. One is not an alpha if they can not be dangerous.
However, there are temperaments that can be called these things, and there are roles that can be called these things. Humans do not predominantly appoint to these roles those who have the temperaments. Humans are able to violate the natural order of things, and prioritize the role, and agreement.
This makes for a lot of beta types in alpha roles, and a lot of omega types in Management, and so on. Alphas, by type, are often only in alpha roles when threat levels are high, and dangerous types are needed. Then, the alphas are praised.
Alphas are usually too unaware to realize that, as an alpha, humans, who are mostly beta and omega, are using the alpha to shield them from danger and threats. The alpha is in essence praised only because they, alpha, are servile and to be used in sacrifice for the betas, the omegas, their wives, and their offspring.
Being alpha, from the point of view of the Vir and Votary, is being a dumb brute of Abel, meant for Seth and his betas and omegas to sacrifice for what they have back at the settlement. This goes for the alphas I knew so well in military forces as well. They are often sacrificial brutes, who were paid in the currency of the status of elite, among the ones willing to die for Seth's settlement.
It is the alphas and the omegas who tend to be entertainers. But the omega part is tricky. Some use delta to say the dark side of being an omega. I do not like these particular categories, but right now, I am blowing through the notion, so as not to deviate too far.
Omegas who have the “confidence” of their conditions, and alphas who have the “confidence” of their conditions tend to be the entertainers. Both alpha and omega do not have their own confidence. Their confidence is drawn from their condition. Like the other humans, they are born in diffidence, and this motivates them to find confidence in the condition.
Conditions can breed a sense of confidence, but this kind of confidence, that of conditional confidence, is arrogance, because more often than not, the individual's value is not based on their own innate quality, but the agreements of the condition; and therefore, they are exaggerated senses of worth and value, combined with ability.
On an island, in a survival situation, a comedian is not a better choice than a farmer, and/or a farm hand, and/or a cowboy, and/or someone having been among nature… no matter what label they can be called. The entertainer's value, like the leader's value, is subject to the agreements of the condition, not to that of nature. The Vir and the Votary judge value based on NATURE, and that of First Principles.
Skill, competence, mastery, proficiency, and ability are not measured by make-believe agreements. They are standalones. Whereas, the alpha and the omega, in the Entertainment sense, will draw their value from their spectators, and they will base their sense of confidence around this fuel.
The more elite social status the alpha may get, the less they will need the masses to give them social confidence, where they can find in rank, and status among a few to be far more valuable.
This creates the elite, and in mentality, where before, the alpha sought to be validated by anyone, they now will be more selective, seeing the most as without a value of speciation, and their own peers as the only ones whose judgement matters.
The omega often can not have the same access the alpha might, to that of a peer review that is smaller. The omega, as an outlier, more often than not gets their social confidence from that of numbers and clicks, often in subgroups, and rarely in competence hierarchies, though they may. The alpha is best for competency hierarchies, on account that elite praise offers them more validation than praise from the commons.
However, PRAISE and VALIDATION fuels the alpha, and what is then mistaken is that they are competent, because these hierarchies attract them. This ought to be avoided. More often than not, the level of competency of an alpha is institutional, and based on tradition. Alphas favor easy to recollect and navigate traditional systems. Whereas omegas may take more risk, and navigate new areas. The alpha and their confidence is tied to them being able to conform to a set of traditions that have hierarchy, competition, and clear symbolic differences.
This was the case for a long time with militaries, with uniforms, with badges, patches, tabs, scrolls, and “love me” folders with “certifications” and “accounts” of what you have done. Not much different from boy scouts, and other competition spaces.
Humans need signs to help them navigate their Sense of Self, and Sense of Life, because more often than not, they have nothing in them that they can trust. It is not human, to be born in confidence. It is human to gain one's confidence from a social and collective force, but this also means, a human with social confidence can have that confidence stripped from them, because it was never theirs to begin with. Alphas will not have their own confidence. None of the human categories will. All of the categories are human. I will say the sigma may be a religious category of humans, where they get their confidence from ideas―but if those ideas are shaken, so then will their confidence. It belongs perhaps to conceptual frameworks versus social frameworks.
The Vir and the Votary are not sigma, though outside looking in, they can easily seem like this. Among the Vir and the Votary, these COLLECTIVIST positions do not exist.
However, while one is enroute towards the Vows, these things will exist and be battled with.
I am often mistaken for an alpha, and then humans get upset when I refuse to lead them. Then, they think, he must be an omega, but then they get upset when I leave them altogether. Then, he must be a sigma. They have no idea what to think about me, and all along, never stop to think, they should stop directing their minds my way, and GO ABOUT THEIR OWN.
Seduction can not be used by those who fall in the beta category. Betas can use pickup plays, and use plays from lesser structures, in conditions where the marks are easy pickings like bars, clubs, and gatherings among friends.
But usually, Seduction is for alphas and omegas, in this sense. For the most part, alphas do not even need Seduction. It may be a beta in an alpha role that needs Seduction. Those who are naturally alpha often have an ease with getting attention from others. Seduction may be used perhaps by betas and omegas to appear to a target to be an alpha, but the way the plays will be carried out are beta and omega in nature.
When I say, a beta will not succeed with the plays, it is because a beta will relinquish. Meaning, they will pay for access with relinquishing their Control and Management to the mark, in submission, and they will not rise in Entertainment, beyond some simple amusement. However, like alphas are aggressive, I would say there are betas who ought to be called aggressive, and/or passive. All categories perhaps should have this. For now, I need to stop using these terms, and work them into their own chapter, and take them up to make sure my model of use is well-defined.
Seduction relies on fantasy
In essence, this is about who relinquishes, in the game of access. In most games, most battles for access, the male is relinquishing their Control and Management to others. The human male is quick to do this, because in his diffidence, he does not trust himself, and in the social confidence of systems, he will give them trust, so long as they reward him with a role in the procession. He will trust his work, so that he can be elevated towards the role of Management, a role that he would not get in nature, but can get in agreement.
So the level of trust is utility based, and based in the procession, and navigating it.
A human female is not quick to relinquish Control and Management. The human female is quick to demand that the human male relinquish this, in exchange for the star power nature gave her to males.
A seducer is such because they have discovered plays, tricks, and tactics that can be used to get others to relinquish. But in all this, someone has to RELINQUISH. When the seducer disarms the mark, that is, the female in this case, and she does not aim repugnance at him… he has to keep her distracted and relieved, as a means to maintain Control and Management over her, and her emotions. But a human female is not designed to relinquish this. A seducer is engaging in something that is not natural. That is why it is through tricks. The seducer, often a male, is using female plays to disarm a female. Seduction is EFFEMINATE.
Instead of like males, relinquishing Control and Management through mimicry and imitation, he is imitating the female and mimicking her to get access, but he goes straight to Entertainment, to amusement, towards Seduction. He keeps her mind busy, and in a certain FRAME.
That frame is that the seducer is a source of excitement, of novelty, of fantasy, of adventure, and the only way they can do this, is to isolate the target and the mark, not from peers, as they would say… but from that which activates, or reveals in them their repugnance.
This is the main point of Entertainment that is seductive. Entertainment that is amusing relies on the repugnance of the mark and the target. Those who aim to amuse have their own plays. Those who aim to seduce have their own plays, and the two can mix them up… which may be the best form of Control and Management. One who can amuse, and one who can seduce will probably be the best of Entertainment there is among humans.
However, amusement, with a set of plays and tricks, is not often the subject. The reason why it is not, is because it is easier, and the targets of amusement, the marks of amusement are often males, and their value is low to each other, as marks and targets. Those who will mark and target others for access are often males, and their favorite target and mark is a female, for natural obvious reasons. Because of this, Seduction becomes elevated in its status. Human females do not need to provide amusement, nor Seduction to get access to males. They just show up.
But human females have to seduce other human females, in their own female hierarchies. However, I will not deal with this direction of the plays. One need only remove male, and replace it with female, for it to be the same, in regards to direction of the use of the plays. A human male using Seduction is a human male acting like a human female. That is all it is, with one addition… and that is aiming to be the source of attention, and Entertainment. Human females often do not do this, even for themselves. Instead, human females often just amuse each other, like in how human males just amuse each other.
The expectation for the seducer is that they go beyond amusement, and into the realm of Seduction, and this, and why it differs for the male versus the female, is that it means he, the male, has to activate in her fantasy, the fanciful, the exalted, and the high adventure, to which no female can provide her.
A male who can provide this is a SEDUCER. In order for him to provide this, he has to deceive, because he is inept. He will need to make sure she does not discover that he is inept like she is. In order to do this, most males looking to seduce either a female or other males will mimic, and imitate the words, and the art of others, such as known entertainers, and figures.
They will have a character of Seduction that does not pay attention at all to the mark, but merely replicates a tried and true entertaining pattern. They will say things to get praise, and elicit attention on the grounds of what others have achieved. This is easy to detect, when one sees that how they are will contradict.
However, this contradiction, in Seduction, is a play of its own. Those who would be seduced do not require Validity and accuracy. Seducers can seduce, because those looking to be seduced are looking to be in on the same fantasy. The seducer and the seduced are not looking for facts, truth, Validity, and Advancement. They are looking for others they can maintain a certain “frame of mind” with, together, shared, and held up to.
Seduction is about getting others to buy into the same FANTASY, and make sure that no one gets called out as being a FRAUD. Seduction is about the acceptance of fraudulent thought, as if it was praiseworthy thought. It is about painting pictures, and living in the picture, in denial of the harshness of reality. So when the seducer says one thing, and appears another way, this will, in actuality, produce relief to the seduced.
For now, the seduced knows it is all a fantasy, and a deception, and they want themselves to be able to hide in the same. Delusion becomes replaced with fantasy. DELUSION is what they have when they face off with reality, and reality, or actuality, is too hard for them to handle. The male seducer comes along, among other males or females, and makes a narrative that is not required to be evidenced, and adhered to. Anything goes in the narrative of Seduction.
“WE ARE JUST PRETENDING… RIGHT?”
This is what those who are born in diffidence think. Because they are born in diffidence, there is no such thing as someone who is legitimate. Quickly, the notion is, “you are illegit, just like me”. Those in diffidence feel daily impostor syndrome.
But this is reduced and relieved, when around others who are impostors. One has others hiding their status as impostor, and when they do this, it is best for them to not call you an impostor. If you accept their ineptitudes, they will accept yours, and everyone is the fantasy they say of themselves, and challenge would be foolish. Those who get others challenged to prove up are often those too repugnant to be seductive.
Those who are counter to Seduction are often those who can not check their own need to fight. They will do enough to get attention, and then, when they are not pleased with the attention, their displeasure will kick in, and they will turn against those around them, and be repugnant. Often, this will start by them pointing at the other impostors as impostors. This, because this is how they feel. They feel like an impostor, and they will have contempt for those who had played along with them all along.
They will say, “YOU ARE AN IMPOSTOR”, and then those still in the seduced state will think... “Wait, but AREN'T WE ALL?” Repugnance will often ruin the ability for the individual to be seductive. They may have amused, but then, repugnance will keep them on this level.
Those who hold the fantasy the longest are those called seducers. They would be those who were truly relieved by the fantasy. Those who can not hold the fantasy will lose the relief it brings, and their own repugnance will be revealed, and when this occurs, it triggers, or reveals in others their repugnance. Once this occurs, amusement will be the only thing possible, not Seduction. Seduction requires the DISARMING of one's own repugnance, and the repugnance of others, or else, it will be merely amusement engaged.
Human females get massively stressed out around their repugnance. Because they are expected to be graceful and pleasing, they have to repress their repugnance often, and turn it into a lesser play than amusement. If they have their repugnance activated for too long, the stress becomes too much. The human male, on the other hand, is taught to endure his repugnance and the repugnance of other males.
To do this, they amuse. To do this, they poke fun, and make light. They mock, and they oppose. They subvert and they undermine each other, all as means to cloak their emotion of repugnance. When it becomes normalized in society, they use these means to express and exhaust the repugnance, so that when they are exhausted in it, they can appear caring, and please the females.
Because the human male has many ways to express their repugnance, amusement offers them more relief.
But human females are not as engaged in amusements, where they fire at others with their repugnance. Human females do not have much relief for their repugnance, and that is why relationships with males often have the male in the target of their repugnance. Because she can not have it run wild in social spheres like the male, it runs wild in the house she feels confined to.
Because the human female will not have much interest in things beyond a house, she will inevitably feel oppressed, and contained by her own nature. This causes her to seek aggressively more Control and Management of the house, and she connects such Control and Management of the house to that of which will relieve her of this emotion of hers, of being repugnant.
The human male seeks what is outside the house to control and manage this emotion. He will use far more smoke screens such as political commentary, sports, hobbies, social outings with amusing males, and so on. To those not acquainted with the emotions, they will think the human male has actual interest for what they are. This is not real. The human male takes interest in things they can get their emotion of repugnance expressed.
Wherever he can see a “them versus them”, “us versus them”, and so on, he will run to, if she lets him. If she does not let him, then in the house, he will be the target of her repugnance, and he is not allowed to respond with his. When he does, the human female elevates the level of repugnance in the male, more than he is ever allowed to have it among other males.
If he ever gets elevated in his repugnance on the level he gets with a female who pushes him, males may hammer him for it. Meaning, there are lines, from male to male in person, where repugnance goes too far. That then leads to fights. Online has mitigated this, through anonymity. Boys, not men, can get away with saying anything, crossing all kinds of lines. Things they would not say in person.
A human female would not get away with her repugnance on social display. She hides it in the home, and more so than the male, wears the face of the impostor when in social structures. It is for this reason, often, that they say… “familiarity breeds contempt”, because the HOUSE face will differ a great deal from the SOCIAL face.
More often than not, when folk gain access to each other, this is what they come to discover. They come to discover that they fell for the social face, the impostor face of the other, and then when they got closer, the repugnance became revealed.
This is what occurs in relationships, when fighting ensues. More often than not, the human male does not activate in the human female her repugnance. More often than not, she does activate in the human male, his, and she finds value in their tit for tat, more than he does. This instigation of fighting is because she is not getting the attention she needs by way of Entertainment, to prevent her expression of repressed repugnance.
For her, he is supposed to manage this emotion of hers, while she manages the rest of his emotions. So when she picks a fight to get him going, she is saying… “you were supposed to manage my repugnance”.
Being humans, you two do not know any of this, so would be quick to deny it. This is because it is automation that is occurring. Left automated, in ignorance, you all will come up with content and context to explain how your repugnance gets expressed. Human males do this with politics, sports, and other adversarial realms. They are not repugnant because their team lost. They are not repugnant because something happened at work.
THEY ARE REPUGNANT.
It's that simple.
She is not repugnant because you did not take out the garbage, or because you looked at another girl, or you did not attend some petty event for your child.
THEY ARE REPUGNANT.
All of these are smoke screens.
The emotions, all of them, are BEASTS looking to consume. The error of humans, in their arrogance from ignorance, is that what they consume is the cause of the hunger. It is not. DO NOT look at what is consumed; instead, investigate what it is that needs to be fed.
-
Internal DIFFIDENCE needs to be fed conditional CONFIDENCE;
-
Internal ANXIETY needs to be fed conditional CARE;
-
Internal REPUGNANCE needs to be fed conditional AMUSEMENT;
-
Internal DISGUST needs to be fed conditional PLEASURE;
-
Internal DESPAIR needs to be fed conditional COMFORT;
-
Internal IGNORANCE needs to be fed conditional SURPRISE, and EXCITEMENT;
-
Internal PRESSURE and REPRESSION needs to be fed conditional ENTERTAINMENT.
All for RELIEF, which is called SATIATION.
Relief occurs when all these internal Kinetics feed. The feeding quiets the emotion, and then, it seems in such relief, the emotion is not present. IT IS. ALWAYS, it is present. Satiated, it is pleased.
Because of this, you all aim to satiate the most emotional among you, who were once your mommies, when you were inept children in age, who are now mostly your girlfriends, your wives, your coworkers, your managers, and your peers under amusement. You all exist in a social hell of repugnance, relinquishing and taking Control and Management for, and from each other. EVERYTHING is about CONTROL, because none of you mental midgets in your ineptitude have self-control.
Those who have a different inner condition, born out of confidence, will not seek to feed these cravings and these appetites.
Seduction, like amusement, is how such appetites are fed.
The seducer will aim to not become familiar, because what you all do to your familiars is repugnant, and inept.
The one who uses Entertainment to disarm will need to keep their repugnance in check. This means, eventually, the human seducer falls back to repugnance, and that is why, from my observation, there are so many who talk and write about Seduction, playing at the fantasy that humans can be seductive, when in actuality, they hide behind contradictions, and the need for the seduced to be impostors like them, the so-called seducers.
Seduction requires, essentially, to be an impostor, who is imposing upon another imposture, in what fantasy posture is to be adopted. This is what seductive Entertainment is, and those who wish to be seduced are those impostors, who will want to be marked and targeted by others who want to posture up, in the same rainbows and unicorns of the inept imagination they can only produce.
ACCESS DENIED.
⚔⚔⚔
The Entertainment of amusement is about DIVERSIONS.
Etymology of Divert (v.)
early 15c., diverten, “change the direction or course of; change the aim or destination of, turn aside or away” (transitive), from Old French divertir (14c.) and directly from Latin divertere “to turn in different directions,” blended with devertere “turn aside,” from vertere “to turn” (from PIE root *wer- (2) “to turn, bend”) with, in the first word, an assimilated form of dis- “aside,” and in the second with de- “from.”
Sense of “draw off (someone) from a particular intention or state of mind” is from c. 1600, hence the meaning “amuse, entertain” (1660s). Related: Diverted; diverting.
Pay close attention to the etyms of the words I use. They tell you, inside of their breakdown, their relationships to the other terms. Entertainment is about a “frame of mind”. Frame of mind, and/or state of mind will be saying the same thing. Amusements cause one to TURN aside from a “state of mind”, or a certain “frame of mind” in which they are “holding”.
“draw off (someone) from a particular intention or state of mind”
Seduction is to lead astray, as said previously, with amusement being to “turn” aside. Either way you look at it, the two of them are about shifting one's attention. Amusement does this through deluding a “state of mind”, through mockery, making light, and reducing the sense of the matter; often, with contempt leading the way.
For human males, human females are an amusement, more often than an Entertainment. Human females value the ability to “turn heads”, to get a human male to “give them the attention”.
The more a human male has a focus, the more value there is in getting him to turn from it, and onto her. When a human male does not have a focus, or a “state of mind” to be turned from… then his attention is less valuable to a human female.
This is all correlated to an automatic system that is observing and trying to determine HOW MUCH the human male would spend energy in the interest of the human female. Her auto-brain determines this through observing what the human male is already engaged in. It can be his preexisting social networks and popularity, his schooling, or a career.
In the beginning, the human female will praise the devotion of the human male to whatever target he has acquired and is moving in on. For in his devotion to his targets or his goals, more often than not, this can increase the quality of her living.
However, this is not sustainable. It is not the success in target acquisition and sustainment that drives the human female. Eventually, she will need that energy to be turned away from the “state of mind” that does not hold her at the center. She will eventually need to be centered, and entertained.
One of the primary failures in access, and association of the successes, is that such “diversions” that start them off, such amusements will need to be mitigated later, in order for mostly the male to maintain their course as a servant, who is meant to provide for the female and her offspring. He was not an entertainer; he was a SERVANT. He was trying to be entertaining through relinquishing, and that was his limit. But once he has relinquished and amused her for access, he will eventually need to return to that world that is not fantasy, but which is demanding upon him to serve.
The human female is able to engage in fantasy far more than the human male... or it used to be divided this way. In modern times, this might not be the case. I can not account for what it is like to be a young male dope in today's American so-called society.
The course I observe these days, is that it is massively marketed that “little boys” become “little girls”. Meaning, “the way of the girl” exists, and only exists in promotion, whereas “the way of boys”, and “the Ways of MEN”, I do not see marketed anywhere in America. There seems to be hardly none to speak of, minus a few, who are not Men in character speaking of this as a crisis. It is not my crisis, so I shall not dwell on this.
A part of the collapse of the quality of life, in America, will be that the forms of work and service promoted, that the young ones will move towards, will be the kinds that do not support the threads of the infrastructure that is needed. For the most part, service jobs and social jobs are the most promoted. Too, is the notion that one's work needs to be social and political, as a means to have meaning.
This is mostly EFFEMINATE. All this can be called effeminate, in the sense of, the commons are led by their females. So in essence, what is most natural to the human females of the commons, will become what is cultural to the human males in the commons. The human females rule the commons.
Because of media, and storytelling that comes out of the effeminates in Hollywood and academia, the commons believe that “those in Control” have been those “Men” called “kings”, called “emperors”, and the arrangement of their “male nobles” into “houses” and “institutions”.
But yet, if you ask of anyone who they encounter on a day-to-day basis, that has Control and Influence over them, it will not be anyone who meets these descriptions. Neither would it have been the case in the past, where the commons and the nobles were kept separate from each other.
The daily lives of the commons are not controlled by the uncommons. This is not to say, there are no Influences from those holding the most Control and Influence; certainly there is. But not in the direct realm of Control and Influence over one's day.
My life, for example, being simple, and reclusive by degree, in that of my religious Ways… it can not be said that any other holds Control and Influence over my day-to-day. If I was to live the normal and secular life, then what would be said of it would be about schooling, work, and social networks.
Then, it would be said, work and social would be of the commons, and those, and them who are Controllers would only be fed to me in appearance over the screens, controlled by effeminates. One does not actually, for the most part, exist with proximity to these influences, even though, some of what they do ends up in the commons.
Where it ends up in the commons, more so than not, interaction with such is voluntary. When one volunteers, often they see it as not an option, on account of cultural expectations of the norm. They do not realize that cultural and social enforcement and propagation is what binds them, not compulsion from those who hold the Control and Influence. Social pressures hold everything together. The social pressures of your families and peers.
This is why it was once said… “The masses build the castles of tyrants”. The castle and the fortifications of the controlling and influencing elite is that of the agreement of fantasy. It is fantastical, and if the commons mentally differed, and were not under the spells of the media… there would be no Control, and enforcement over them, that could be sustained.
It requires, among the commons, agreement, and this agreement is not brought about through “threat of force” that is overt, or the use of overt force. This agreement is brought about through the SCHOOLING of your MOMMIES and DADDIES, having them, in the HOUSE, convert you and your interest over to that of the FANTASIES of SOCIETY.
If there were Men among the commons, this would not, and could not happen. There are only little good girls, and little good boys, among the commons, and girls and boys answer to mommies, with a far response to daddies.
Society, among the commons, has always been effeminate. And among the commons, males have never guided the interest. The interest of the commons has always been female, and collective female interest. This is natural. But female interest requires a massive amount of fantasy.
Fantasy is, for the most part, effeminate. Where fantasy is provocative, and can lead to imagined states of Advancement, it is then more of a thought experiment, than it is fantasy. Such is often thought of about sci-fi, or that of science fiction.
But fantasy that is spoken and/or presented that does not encourage a greater Control and Influence over some condition, but instead, is decorated whim, is effeminate and useless. Harry Potter and its popularity is a good example of that. Lord of the Rings differs, in that of teaming up towards a threat, and putting petty differences off to the side to engage the enemy, in the name of survival, for those soon to be destroyed by the threat. In the absence of a threat, and that of fighting back through that of organized means that have risk and rewards… it's effeminate.
Using MAGIC to fight oppressors is EFFEMINATE.
Fantasy drives amusement and Entertainment. The same can be said about the effeminate Marvel films. To boys, they think Marvel films are about masculine heroics. They are not. Most of the characters are using magic. They were either born with magic, like females feel, or they acquired their magic through some institution, some experiment, some accident, some chance.
They do not acquire their skills, proficiency, and competence through trials, through struggles, through advancing through a thousand defeats for their single Victory and gains. This would be the opposite of effeminate, and yes, though a poor term… MASCULINE.
Males have never had the luxury of thinking in fantastical ways, unless they were the little boys of the commons, and did not have things expected to come from them. Hard work was presumed in any area that had breakthroughs, risk and rewards on the other side. But the fact is, most, in the past and present, were never engaged in such “heroic” endeavors. It is mostly just tales of wonder, told for amusement and Entertainment.
Fantasy is very human. Recently, I watched the Rocky series, to see what I would think of it now, having watched it as a youth. Was seriously one of the best film series ever, and all about struggle, fight, and navigating the reward and punishment systems of life. SIMPLE, yes. But simply MASCULINE, for certain.
Magical positioning is effeminate. Another masculine show that was recent, was that of The Expanse. The Expanse shows why it is not “feminine” and “masculine” that is best suited to describe it. Females and males in The Expanse had threats before them, and roles, and functions, along a mission, that had to be thought out, planned, and navigated with skill. In these modern times, to see females and males acting tactically is simply crazy.
Tactically is the key here, versus fantastical. The females and their gains were not magical. They were made sense of. They had successes and failures that guided their development. It was not the fantasy of “SHE” can do anything you can do, and “DO IT BETTER” that is all over the place. It was excellent writing.
SCI-FI, not fiction. The sci, in the science part, does not mean that it is not fantastical and only grounded in what is known now, and knowable. What it is, is that where something is fantastical for the sake of wonder, it is explained by way of some reasoning of how it could be, versus, “it just is”.
Entertainment that is amusement based, and Seduction based, often forsakes the explainable, the knowable, and the motivational. Amusement takes what is perhaps real, and mocks it, makes light of it, pokes fun at it, as a means to escape it, to divert from it, as valuable.
Entertainment that is Seduction based takes what is real, and moves it out, replacing it with fantasy that is meant to pass as an alternative. It does not say, this is fantasy, and fictional, when it is Seduction. It says, LIFE is fiction, and FANTASY is real, and the seducer takes the mark down the yellow brick road of fantasy; and the mark, knowing it is all posing, goes along, because more often than not, the mark is female, and she has been dealing in fantastical thinking, and its corollary, emotional thinking, her whole life, and has hardly if ever lived in a condition that demanded of her risk, hard work, and endurance for a cause.
For the most part, she was shielded from this, and this take on it all, however, is rather dated, in that today, the little boy may have received the same treatment. However, the little girl can dwell in fantasy, and be satiated from point to point.
But the human little boy will become restless, if he does not have targets, acquire them, and conquer them. A little boy can not dwell in fantasy for long without becoming malcontent. A little boy will become restless, and in his restlessness, disgruntled, and aimless, having been diverted and distracted so much, that he can not pay attention to anything of value.
That little boy has a mind suited for targeting, and human females have a mind that avoids targeting, and risk where they can. They have a mind for AVOIDANCE, and FANTASY. With that mind, they are asking the boys to come play with them, in fantasy, and to divert their attention from their toils, and return to being “kids” again, because, for her, she hardly ever had to stop being a child.
In America, most of its females are children, no matter their age. In the past, this would be said of females, and not of males. Today, however, my observation is MOST of Americans, female or male, are children, and Children of Ineptitude they are. The difference is, the little girl in the adult body is supported in her childishness, and the little boy is shamed in his childishness, and is restless, having no objective orientated living, and no gains, or interests of his own, able to be realized in this female dominated American society of mental midgets, and dopes.
Fantasy is not about just that called Entertainment. Often, what does not get placed in the Entertainment category, oddly, is that of religion, and spiritualism.
Religion and spiritualism are seductive forms of Entertainment. Religion and spiritualism are so seductive, that those who engage in it are able to act like their fantasies are real, and express them in the open, without ever being called “mad” or “crazy”―so long as that fantasy is shared by a significant number. Without the numbers behind the fantasy, it would be called fantasy, and not religion, and spirituality.
Religion and spirituality are perhaps advanced Seductions. They are Seductions that began in the fantasy, but became elevated to a level of system, and instead of being checked by that of Reason, flourished in the effeminate minds.
Of the humans, female devotion to religion is often far more stronger than male devotion. Most of the motivation for males, towards religion, is the clear hierarchy it will provide, affording them a “Pattern” they can follow for “navigation”. It gives them peace of mind, like labor and work does for the dope, on account that the procession is clear. Human males need clear processions that they can endure, and do their time in, so that they can become senior, after another.
Etymology of Senior (adj.)
late 13c., “the elder,” from Latin senior “older,” comparative of senex (genitive senis) “old” (from PIE root *sen- “old”). Its original use in English was as an addition to a personal name indicating “the father” when father and son have the same name (e.g. Walterus Baddyng, seniore in late 13c. Leet rolls of the City of Norwich). The meaning “higher in rank, longer in service” is recorded by 1510s.
Etymology of Sir
c. 1300, title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c. also a title of priests), variant of sire, originally used only in unstressed position. Generalized as a respectful form of address by mid-14c.; used as a salutation at the beginning of letters from early 15c. Not an acronym of anything.
Etymology of Sire (n.)
c. 1200, title placed before a name and denoting knighthood, from Old French sire “lord (appellation), sire, my lord,” from Vulgar Latin *seior, from Latin senior “older, elder,” from PIE root *sen- “old.” Standing alone and meaning “your majesty” it is attested from early 13c. General sense of “important elderly man” is from mid-14c.; that of “father, male parent” is from mid-13c.
Etymology of Sire (v.)
“to beget, to be the sire of,” 1610s, from sire (n.). Used chiefly of beasts, especially of stallions. Related: Sired; siring.
My English may be odd to you… you Americans, but it is not lacking accuracy, and deliberation.
“You” and “your” LORDS is what gives you “peace of mind” in how clear their status, and rank, role, and authority shall be. “Our LORD the SAVIOR”. Humans FANTASIZE about being SLAVES that are properly CARED for, by a MOTHER LORD.
Your weak and soft seniors say everything about what society they came up through. What they are says what you will be, which in turn, says what you are now, that without the age, you can not yet see. To see what you are now, see what you will become… and that is revealed in your SENIORS.
Religion and spiritualism offer males the promise that if they take up the fantasy like a job, they will gain in the procession. Religion and spiritualism offer the females fantastical thinking that grants them deference in the rest of their lives.
Too, the procession they get access to is the wise old woman, for when the time comes, and they can no longer use their youthfulness as currency. Like with the fantastical Christians, all mothers become Mother Mary, and call child production sacred and holy, anointing themselves as spiritual along the way. For some odd reasons, such fantastical thought is not afforded to the other animals, when they are characterized… though such births they too render up.
It can be said, if the lowest form of Entertainment one can offer is amusement, and better than it is Seduction… then, of Seduction, its best form is spiritualism. Religion is often the product of males having taken over the shamanistic and spiritual fantasies, turning them into work, with more mechanical procedures, so as to simplify the procession. The males will take the spiritual fantasy out of the scenario and focus too much on the boring institutions, and literalism, as a means to swear upon some authority.
Human females will more often than not interpret the fantasy any way they see fit, and not having as much procession in it, and they will be able to ignore the mechanics of religion, and just use the shamanism, the way it was always meant to be used, and that is, for Seduction.
Any who has been around your young females who swear by some religion, knows that they use religious forbiddance as a means to increase their value, in the Entertainment of sexual hunting. They tend to be bigger freaks than the females who were desensitized and offered up as flesh sacrifices, to every and all, in a culture of looseness.
The religious female discovered, if she pretends to be a good little girl, then she can market the sense of purity, and attract the most naive and stupid of males, who would forever do her bidding.
It's all a CON.
Because I am “religious”, in that I deal solely in what I deem SACRED, I always attract the fantasy spiritualists. I do not come off religious to them, but SPIRITUAL to them, because they do not see me engaged in an institutional religion, with procession. Many will think, I am anti-religious, because they are poor saps who came from religious parents, who they saw right through as mere mimics.
They then assign this to religion, in general, and when they argue against religion, they falsely accredit this to better reasoning than that which their kin, their familiars once employed. It is not better reason that often makes one anti-religious. It is their repugnance that often leads them there. I am not anti-religious, but I am not pro-religions.
Certainly I have a religion, for here it is.
But I do not have a religion that deals in fantasy. Perhaps, on the surface, that would be the biggest difference. So then, do I have a religion that too, can be called Entertainment?
ABSOLUTELY…
Perhaps now some of you may be getting the point.
EVERYTHING is about CONTROL;
EVERYTHING is about MANAGEMENT;
EVERYTHING is about MANIPULATION;
EVERYTHING is about ENTERTAINMENT.
EVERYTHING.
Name a thing that does not have these variable mechanics involved.
The difference between myself and youse is that, I know this, and I categorize everything.
For human males, religion is mostly about Control, and Management, and they tend to divorce it of the Entertainment. Well, at least mostly. When I was young, I lived with a black family in Brooklyn. The woman of the house, who was the Father to the young, went to a Catholic church. That church was void of the Entertainment component, and had heavy Controls, and Management.
The male of the house, who was quiet and hands off―therefore, not a “father” figure, while she was―went to a Baptist church, which was less about Control and Management, and very entertaining. I misbehaved at the Catholic church, so that instead of going with her and the other boys, I would go with him, to his church. Going to church was going to happen with this black family, NO MATTER WHAT.
I was at his church on account of Entertainment. I was born to be a preacher, but not a priest. I had no desire for the Control, and Management, but certainly, the Entertainment, the soul, spoke to me.
There is a difference in cultures of religions. For me, later, when I would go to mosque, this was about managing one's contemplation, and one's Reasoning with other Men. It was about managing decency. When I would go to synagogue, that was about managing community, through shared identity, with an us versus a them mentality. The JEW, and the GOYIM. It was about managing the wit in order to manage others. Among these kinds, it was mostly only among the so-called black spiritualists, did I find a sense of my own spiritualism, and that was in the Entertainment element.
However, my spiritualism is not born out of Seduction, which appeals to fantasy.
My spiritualism comes under the third form of Entertainment, that of Engagement.
I do not deal in the spirit as an ethereal, and substance otherly based thing. For me, because Engagement is concerned with Advancement in one's CONTROL, one's MANAGEMENT, one's MANIPULATION of their CONDITION and SELF… then this means the FACULTY of DISCERNMENT was always the focus. This means, to ensure the Advancement of the faculty of Ratiocination, I had to become “familiar” with “all ways” and listen to what they had to offer, and see, from where does one call out to something in me.
What never called to me was the sense of the “otherly”, the fantasy as dominating, because it provided escape and relief. Instead, I was not set to escape anything, but to adventure deep into the POWERS of something, and that something was the SACRED INTELLECT, as the SOUL.
The INTELLECT is the spirit to me, is the soul to me. It is not otherly; it is here, and in the now, and through it comes Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment of the Virtuous sort.
Without this path, it is not Virtue and righteousness that is in another, but simple, in those without this, they are merely seduced, or simply controlled and managed by their beliefs, having no Control, or Management of their own.
Structured religions will mostly only be this. Structured spiritualism, and/or spiritualism without a structure will simply be an escape, and an evasion through the use of fantastical thinking. Because of this, most spiritualism is effeminate, and will forsake Reason.
Instead, the spiritualist is nothing more than an emotionalist, acting like their emotions are insight, when wielded mostly by little girls who have no signs of ever having to make strategic or tactical decisions that can be demonstrated. They will be little girls in a well cared for social network, with easy lives, turning to others to talk of serenity. They will have been and still be PRIVILEGED, where if they were to fail, and/or not get what they want… they merely run home to mommy, and/or daddy for their support, using them now as the servants, like the familiars once used them for their emotional needs.
Religion is not the way to seduce, but certainly spiritualism will be the best of Seductions. Because the Intellect is SACRED to me, and I live as if this is Valid, and strong… I behave with VIRTUE. Because I behave with Virtue, to those who will never know what this is, I simply behave oddly.
In me and my oddness, wrapped in some symbolism, spiritualists see this as me being a spiritualist. They become attracted, then, to me, and they want to know what brand of fantasy I am peddling. They do not want to know if I am peddling.
The very presumption I deal in spiritualism makes being a peddler a given. Spiritualism is not mostly real. It is a tool of Seduction to con others towards the same fantasy. Spiritualists are using their fantasy for social access, with most of them using it for sexual access, to get that oxytocin hit they so crave. Nothing in what they do on a day-to-day basis, minus a few rituals, will be different from how others live. Mostly, they have found a script to peddle, to get others to play along. It is a medium of exchange of fantasies, so that they can be amused, and entertained in the meantime, before they all become familiar to each other.
The Pattern is: entice with the Entertainment of Seduction made spiritual to determine the activities, and the “frame of mind”. Once the participants are engaged in the activities, the next thing that will occur is familiarization. This will occur, because the spiritualism will have many things in need of mirroring, and mimicking, to signal to others allegiance, and kindness.
When this is done, and one comes to mirror and mimic; they become disarmed. When they become disarmed, then those around them can revert to familiar access, and the access will be of no difference than that of access to anyone else. It will be modeled off of the same access their familiars had to them in the past, and they, likewise, to their familiars. It will be SPIRITUAL FAMILIARIZATION for ACCESS.
Along the way, someone will be leading the dopes with Control and Management of their mimicry, and mirroring. Popular these days is the ritual where a female, more often than not, has a male sit in front of them and they gaze at each other. It might be called gazing.
What it is, quite humorously, is a gateway to familiarizing, but also relinquishing. When one suggests or pressures this ritual, the one who is new to it has to relinquish Control and Management to the one pushing it. By going along, one is relinquishing. They are relinquishing as a payment for access to whoever the dope is, getting them to sit there in a gazing stupidity.
What these automatons do not have realization of, is that they are playing hierarchy. The EFFEMINATE―cause a male will do this as well―has DISARMED the resistance and the defenses of their TARGET, so as to shut down their REPUGNANCE.
With my Wrath, or Valiance, which is not repugnance, I never relinquish to you idiots, and mental midgets engaged in social predation. I have always said NO to them, and NO is very POWERFUL. When you say NO to these ghouls and Vampyres, they go from their kindness, now seeing you are not their kind, and they reveal they are nothing but “dark” and “leechy” emotionally petty creatures.
Etymology of Fantasy (n.)
early 14c., “illusory appearance,” from Old French fantaisie, phantasie “vision, imagination” (14c.), from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantasia “power of imagination; appearance, image, perception,” from phantazesthai “picture to oneself,” from phantos “visible,” from phainesthai “appear,” in late Greek “to imagine, have visions,” related to phaos, phōs “light,” phainein “to show, to bring to light” (from PIE root *bha- (1) “to shine”).
Sense of “whimsical notion, illusion” is pre-1400, followed by that of “fantastic imagination,” which is first attested 1530s. Sense of “day-dream based on desires” is from 1926. In early use in English also fantasie, phantasy, etc. As the name of a fiction genre, by 1948.
For fantasy, I do not speak of “imagination” and that of “creativity”. I do not include “creative imagining” that has as a variable that of Wisdom, in dealing with the known, or the speculated. Fantasy, when I use the term, has the illusive element. It is imagining in the realm of falsehoods, or that which can be demonstrated to be in error, not correct, not sound, and not well reasoned. The ILLUSIVE IMAGINATIVES of another.
Etymology of Illusive (adj.)
“deceptive, false, illusory,” 1670s, from stem of illusion + -ive. The older adjective is illusory.
Fantasy, then, in the sense of “whimsical notion, illusion”.
“Whimsical” is a term, and/or that of “by whim”, as a phrase that I use often.
Etymology of Whim (n.)
1640s, “play on words, pun,” shortened from whimwham “fanciful object” (q.v.). Meaning “caprice, fancy, sudden turn or inclination of the mind” first recorded 1690s, probably a shortened form of whimsy.
Etymology of Whimwham (n.)
“whimsical device, trifle,” 1520s, of unknown origin; perhaps from Scandinavian (compare Old Norse hvima “to let the eyes wander,” Norwegian kvima “to flutter”), or else an arbitrary native formation (compare flim-flam).
In connection to that of “whim”, and “whimsical”, and the “whimwham” is that of the “flam”.
Etymology of Flam (n.)
1630s, “sham story, fabrication,” also as a verb, “to deceive by flattery;” see flim-flam.
An old way of saying this, no longer in use, was that of “honeyfuggle”. It means to deceive by flattery or sweet talk, to swindle or cheat. The flattery was usually assumed to be with an ulterior purpose. You call one who is engaged in honeyfuggle, a honeyfuggler, and the act thereof, honeyfuggling. It may be a variation from the English dialect word “coneyfugle”, to hoodwink or cajole by flattery, where “coney” is the old word for an adult rabbit, and “fugle” is an even more enigmatic term that means to cheat.
This term may have dropped from use, in that “fugle” may have been linked to “fuck” as another way of saying it. The rabbit connection may indicate that at some point, it may have been seen as honeyfuggling was about trying to get a female to have sex with you, through such trickery, and cheating.
But this has a connection to that of perhaps Seduction, and the so-called dandies of the past. It would look like the female is being “tricked” to the “unlearnt” and “inexperienced” rather naive and doped eye, but in actuality, the human female is looking to be seduced, and led away, or that is astray from the real world, and into fantasy. It is only a trick and/or a cheat, in this sense, if the target or the mark was unwilling, and being compromised unknowingly. The naïveté is a part of the con, on the part of the mark and the target. They play coy as a part of the game.
I am using the term “coy”, here, in the sense of:
to be perceived as naïve while in reality you are being ignorant at someone else's expense. Usually for entertainment purposes.
Playing “dumb”.
It is very common, for human females, in their diffidence and pursuit of deference, to play coy, where they can―and where they can is almost everywhere. And when one falls for this playing coy, and steps up to take care of them, in their supposed weakness, in actuality, they are showing they are the ignorant and the naive one for falling for it.
By naive here:
Etymology of Naive (adj.)
1650s, “natural, simple, unsophisticated, artless,” from French naïve, fem. of naïf, from Old French naif “naive, natural, genuine; just born; foolish, innocent; unspoiled, unworked” (13c.), from Latin nativus “not artificial,” also “native, rustic,” literally “born, innate, natural” (see native (adj.)). In philosophy, “unreflecting, uncritical” (1895), used of non-philosophers. Related: Naively.
My use, here, is in the latter portion of: “In philosophy, 'unreflecting, uncritical' (1895), used of non-philosophers. Related: Naively.”
Unreflecting, and uncritical, in the sense of… lacking in sense of the situation. Whereas, it can be said, for the most part, CHILDREN―in which most are no matter their age―are NAIVE, and what is often missing is the awareness that their naïveté is for Manipulation, and to get others to serve them. It is just not advanced Manipulation. Later, amusement and Seduction come along as the other means to manipulate others, in more complex, yet still simple ways.
When males and females are engaged in seductive spiritualism, they are both required to play coy. This lays the foundation to that of POSING, that of IMPOSING, and that of POSTURING, and IMPOSTURING.
Of imposture, and impostors
When playing coy, as all spiritualists are doing… the key is that the others involved will not, and can not call you out on it, because they rely on the same means of Seduction. Those who are involved are not first seducing their mark, or their target; they are first seducing themselves, and this is necessary, to be a “good seducer” of others, and get to fugling.
Etymology of Imposture (n.)
“act of willfully deceiving others,” 1530s, from French imposture or directly from Late Latin impostura “deceit,” from impostus (see impost (n.)). Related: Imposturous.
Etymology of Impost (n.)
“tax, duty,” 1560s, from French impost (15c., Modern French impôt), from Medieval Latin impostum “a tax imposed,” noun use of neuter of Latin impostus, contracted form of impositus, past participle of imponere “to place upon, impose upon” (see impostor). Compare depot. As an architectural term, 1660s, from French imposte (16c.), from Italian imposta, from the same Latin source.
Etymology of Impostor (n.)
1580s, “swindler, cheat,” from French imposteur (16c.), from Late Latin impostor “a deceiver,” agent noun from impostus, contraction of impositus, past participle of imponere “place upon, impose upon, deceive,” from assimilated form of in- “into, in, on, upon” (from PIE root *en “in”) + ponere “to put, place” (past participle positus; see position (n.)). Meaning “one who passes himself off as another” is from 1620s. Related: Impostrous. For a fem. form, Bacon uses French-based impostress (1610s) while Fuller, the church historian, uses Latinate impostrix (1650s).
I included “impost” above as a means to correlate the motive behind “imposing”, in essence. When one is an “impostor”, in the way in which I am saying here, there is a social tax, a social duty that is imposed upon others, and that is, that no one is to challenge and confront your posture. No one is to call it out. When one does not call it out, you will think less of them, and them you… because the silent agreement is, they will not call you out, and neither you… them. That both are in agreement that the tax, the burden, the social rule is in play… means that everyone is allowed to IMPOSE upon each other.
In the past, one may have thought… “I do not wish to be an imposition”. “I do not wish to IMPOSE”. “I did not mean to IMPOSE”. However, for the most part, this term has then been conserved in common speech, and certainly then, not in those.
“Placed upon” each other, as a social imposition, or tax, is that of no judgements, no standards, and no conflicts are permitted. All are permitted to “come” and to “go” under their own “banners” of “fancy”, of “whim”, of “self-characterization”, and “self denotation”. YOU, as the social receiver, are required, are burdened with the TAX of ACCEPTANCE.
But only at face value, and in the open. You are not able to have your mind changed. You are not able to shut down that brain that will discern, that will judge, that will discriminate. You most certainly, in silence and in cowardice, are thinking, judging, and ruling.
Because you are a coward, who must play along, you will feel that the “self”, the “person” you present to others is not what you actually think, and therefore, the bulk of you, in your two faces―the one seen by others, and the one mostly only known to you, and/or your familiars―are impostors. And this hurts your feelings already had around diffidence.
When the POSTURE you take with others is not the one you take in your own mind… you are an IMPOSTURE. When you save your words and thoughts, and hide them, so as not to OFFEND… you are an IMPOSTOR. When you play COY, you are playing an IMPOSTURE. When you use FLATTERY towards another, you are likely an IMPOSTURE. Kindness towards those not of your kind, you are an IMPOSTOR. Compassion towards a stranger, you are an IMPOSTURE.
Etymology of Position (n.)
late 14c., posicioun, as a term in logic and philosophy, “statement of belief, the laying down of a proposition or thesis,” from Old French posicion “position, supposition” (Modern French position) and directly from Latin positionem (nominative positio) “act or fact of placing, situation, position, affirmation,” noun of state from past-participle stem of ponere “put, place.” Watkins tentatively identifies this as from PIE *po-s(i)nere, from *apo- “off, away” (see apo-) + *sinere “to leave, let” (see site). But de Vaan identifies it as from Proto-Italic *posine-, from PIE *tkine- “to build, live,” from root *tkei- “to settle, dwell, be home” (see home (n.)).
The meaning “place occupied by a person or thing” especially a proper or appropriate place, is from 1540s; hence “status, standing, social rank” (1832); “official station, employment” (1890). The meaning “manner in which some physical thing is arranged or posed, aggregate of the spatial relations of a body or figure to other such bodies or figures” is recorded by 1703; specifically in reference to dance steps, 1778, to sexual intercourse, 1883. Military sense of “place occupied or to be occupied” is by 1781.
When one's inner position differs from their outer expression of position, they are an impostor.
My use of the term “impostor” here is not connected to the coined expression, “impostor syndrome”.
Diffidence is the root of being an impostor. Those of you who are born in diffidence will not “trust”, or in actuality, believe in the “aims”, the “goals”, and the “motives” subscribed to your kind, in your collective. You will struggle to think anything has actual “meaning”, and what will motivate you, in actuality, is that of social grouping, social attention, praise, and validation.
In my work concerning high performance and consulting that of achievers, I had heard of this impostor syndrome to great lengths. Those often who have set out to achieve will not know what has been truly motivating them, and more often than not, it will not have been the themes in which they have achieved in. Because of this, they will feel as though they are an impostor.
More often than not, I saw this in females who pursued high performance, social rank, and status on their own. I refused to work with females, in consultation, because of the two sexes, they were the ones that could not admit to themselves what their actual motives were, which were far more linked with social recognition, about people, than those things in which they were seeking to excel at.
On account of this, a great deal of “achieving” females abandon their “achievements” and change course on the whim. This is why high risk and high reward industries, for the most part, do not want to hire females, when it comes to the endeavor needing believers in the cause, and that of long-term investment.
Human females are educated these days towards thinking they need to achieve in the ways in which human males, in their servile natures, have set out to achieve. Because of this, many human females will get what was aimed at, and when they get there, they will suffer more than the males, because human females are not designed by nature to be servile. They are designed by nature to be served, and demand service.
The reason achievers will feel more like impostors, and admit it to themselves and to others, is because, as achievers, they have the networks ready to give them attention for how they feel. A part of them having achieved is that they had a greater “awareness” than those often struggling with achievement, or indifferent to it.
With this awareness, the human females know that they do not care about the thing they are aiming at, or in. That in actuality, the SOCIAL CARE, the SOCIAL ATTENTION, and the RECOGNITION, STATUS, and RANK means more to them than the actual thing. Human males, being servile, will serve a thing over themselves, and others, as a means of ESCAPE, of PROCESSION, of STABILITY, and POSITION.
A human female does not define her position naturally on account of being useful, and having utility. A human male does. He is less likely to feel like he is an impostor in what he does, because he will leave himself out of it, to do that thing. So long as “that thing” has clear standards and perimeters and he achieves them, then he will not “feel” like an “impostor”.
But those who are social more than “that thing” will feel like impostors when they try to appear to be about “that thing” in any “sincerity”. They will know, for the most part, they never actually wanted to be about that thing, and they forced themselves to seem as if they were to get the recognition, the security and stability of the social components.
Human female achievements in the schools right now are not representative of interest in the things they are being compelled by the schools to perform at. Human male disengagement in the schools is not indicative of a lack of interest. The issue, here, is the SCHOOLS are SOCIAL centers for BEHAVIORAL modification, with human females being far more susceptible to behavioral modification, as well as the cause of it, than that of young males, who are often seen as “having a rebellious streak”. They would not be rebellious without others trying to CONTROL and manage them outside of their nature.
Whereas, this is not commonly the nature of the human female. She is quick to modify her behavior to match that of the collective, and to get attention. In many regards, this motivates human females in their achievement. Human females fake interest far more than human males, and hardly can be said to stick with the interest to the point of mastery.
That being said, it is not as if human males are taking of interest, and advancing towards mastery. However, most of the males would, if they were not OVER MANAGED by the HUMAN FEMALES, in the American society. Effeminate Management has turned the young human males against themselves, making before them no incentive to achieve, because where they would be allowed to achieve is now under female Control, and the achievement is far secondary to that of the social conformity, the obedience, and the socializing demands of the servile American condition.
The human female will feel like an impostor when she is about things, because she is being an impostor when her nature has her about others, or that of people. But the human female who could be about things will not feel like she is an impostor. So then, it is not to say ALL FEMALES are impostors when about things, and not others.
A female Votary is defined by being about “that thing” and not “others”. The “female” element means nothing. But in my observations, if the female is human, she will not be about things in sincerity. She will fake her interest, motivated by access to the variables that may be around that “thing”, but not the thing itself. This can be seen in Seduction, from both the seducer and the mark, who in essence would be seducing each other, to some degree.
A human male will feel like an impostor, not so much around clear-cut things. He will feel like an imposture around the social elements, that he turns to his female lords, in relinquish to, for them to control and manage for him. He will feel controlled and managed by his mommy, and in extension, other females, that in his cowardly silence to avoid conflict, he is an IMPOSTOR, and when he goes online… and is hidden in anonymity, he will let loose not his true self, but his other impostor, his REPUGNANT, RESTLESS, SUPPRESSED, and REPRESSED EDGE impostor.
You are all IMPOSTORS. It is not a syndrome; it is just COWARDICE. Playing coy is how you tell yourself, under Seduction, that you are not an impostor. It is how you tell yourself, there is no choice, there is no alternative, other way to be, or way out. That, if you do not, do as you do, you lose everything, never stopping to ask, why you have that “EVERYTHING” to begin with.
Almost everything you have sought after, and will have, you have FOR YOUR IMPOSTOR. You were never given the chance, nor had the courage to go after what your nature says you ought to chase. You never BUILT your “world”, but instead, you live in the “world” of your “mommy” and her “daughters”, shutting up, keeping still, bowing down, and engaged in all kinds of fuglery.
You fuglers FEEL like impostors every time you open your mouth and say something someone else has required of you, in your position, that in your own minds, you do not believe in.
It is not Entertainment, as a level where all this began. One does not begin to mimic, and imitate as an impostor, for access in Entertainment. You began as an IMPOSTOR, as a COWARD under the Control and Management of others, starting with what kind of an impostor you had to be in the house, controlled and managed by your inept familiars.
When one relinquishes their Control and Management, and becomes dependent on another to take “hold”, they will need to pay a “burden”, or a “tax” for the relinquished state in another's care. That TAX, that BURDEN, is OBEDIENCE, SUBMISSION, COMPLIANCE, and CONFORMITY.
In order to cope with this, one will have to develop, and produce a “self” or a “person” that is the product of the collective interest of the kind. One will need to become KIND to those around them.
Not your KIND
When one becomes outwardly kind, if inwardly, they are not of the same kind, then kindness, in manifestation, leads to feelings of being an impostor, a fake, a fraud, a deceiver, and therefore, lowly in one's self-esteem.
One who is a coward can only have low self-esteem, and they have lowered that self, and instead, replaced it, in manifestation, with that of an artificial self. In order to manipulate this condition, one will play coy, and appear to be naive, and in a natural state of ignorance of all things. This is called EXCITED in IGNORANCE. In this state, so long as others are playing coy, the fact of a con in kindness being run can be completely ignored, and everyone can go on engaged in the fantasy, acting like it is real, because in actuality, cowards never experience actual reality.
Etymology of Kindness (n.)
c. 1300, “courtesy, noble deeds,” from kind (adj.) + -ness. Meanings “kind deeds; kind feelings; quality or habit of being kind” are from late 14c. Old English kyndnes meant “nation,” also “produce, an increase.”
Etymology of Kind (adj.)
“friendly, deliberately doing good to others,” Middle English kinde, from Old English (ge)cynde “natural, native, innate,” originally “with the feeling of relatives for each other,” from Proto-Germanic *kundi- “natural, native,” from *kunjam “family” (see kin), with collective or generalizing prefix *ga- and abstract suffix *-iz. The word rarely appeared in Old English without the prefix, but Old English also had it as a word-forming element -cund “born of, of a particular nature” (see kind (n.)). Sense development probably is from “with natural feelings,” to “well-disposed” (c. 1300), “benign, compassionate, loving, full of tenderness” (c. 1300).
You mental midgets have used these words perhaps often in your lives, the words “kind”, and “kindness”. Because you grunt when you speak, more than “articulate”, you never had a “concern” or “cause” to go deeper in your treatment of your words. You will play coy, and say, or think, “well… if I did not look up the actual meaning, then I was not using it the way it was meant to be actually used”. That, you use it your own way, or in a different way.
This is ignorant. When I etym. a word, you are all using it the way it was designed to be used, ignorant of it or not. Kindness has “kind” and “kin” as a primary. When you all think, you are being “KIND”, this has to do with what you are “familiar” with, in “relation” to your “kin”. Your “kin” is your “KIND”, socially, but this is not always the case, NATURALLY. I will not go there yet.
The way you believe a “good” and “noble act” is defined is based on how your “kind” has CONTROLLED and MANAGED you to believe. Kindness is when you treat your “kind” in “KIND”, that is, the way in which they have defined as “good” for that “kind”. What is “kind” to one will not necessarily be the same in that of “kind” to another.
Those who are “kindness” are of “native” and “ignorant” “naive” thinking, often without the analytical and critical faculty to see when one differs, to take note of it, and recognize they are not “in kind” to them. They are not one of “THEM”, of their “KIND”. You can not be “kind” to one who is not your “KIN”, and when you seek to do so, you will in your “kindness” require they conform to the ways and the nature of your “kin”. KINDNESS is SUBJUGATION of those who are not and were not your KIND. Kindness is normal when one is among kin, and therefore, goes without characterization.
A Vir and a Votary will not be your kin, and of your kind, even if they were born among you, and from your physical forms. They may have the appearance of kind, among you, but what makes them Vir and/or a Votary is their COGNITIVE KIND, not their regional and material appearance in kind.
For humans, kinship has nothing to do with nature, in the sense of temperament, proclivities, and manifestations of one's aversions and attractions. To humans, they form in kind around the most petty of similarities, from that of complexion, that of phenotypes, that of region of origination, that of language, and cultural baseness, and so on. Human kindness, from the perspective of the Vir and the Votary, is the cause of most strife, for humans refuse to see and to accept that among them, there are other kinds. The VIR, the VOTARY is an “OTHER KIND”, and is not kin to that of humans, and their like.
When one is seeking access to another, and it is past that of who has relinquished Control and Management for pay, for burden, as a tax for access, in the Entertainment aspect, kindness is used as a social play to induce conformity. In order to be KIND, one has to mimic and mirror the kind that is designated as superior, mostly in an automated sense.
A male who is seeking access to the female kind will need to show her he is “in kind” and will be that of “kind” to her. This is the process of familiarizing, for any sense of kind is drawn from one's familiars.
The same then becomes extended out in the play of coy, towards what whims, what fancy, what fantasies, and ghosts of the mind the two, or more, will be at play with. Kindness is demonstrated by playing along, in the fantasies of others.
In order to take it to this level, the seducer and the mark will need to dabble in the novel, the seemingly new and different, but go back and forth. This process will play with contradictions, as said previously. Because it is fantasy, the worst thing is to accidentally become acquainted with a “true believer”.
This is funny as can be, and often, this will be the cause, or past cause of me denying access to others, and getting rid of them. They would come to find out, I was not playing, but that I would be rightfully called… a TRUE BELIEVER, in my “fantasy”. We can call it that for the sake of argument, as a means to not blunder this with an affirmation of being the one with TRUTH, while all others are pretending. That is never a necessary ingredient.
One can say that what I deal in is fantasy as well, and they will, if they are not acquainted with the facts, and/or they know only fantasy themselves to begin with. Reality is a funny thing that often should never be presumed well represented by those who say it, as a word. The term “reality”, coming out of the mouth of a spiritualist, will often mean the opposite, the unreality of experience, that allows them to paint their fantasy as reality.
Is it possible, I, myself, am trapped in a fantasy of illusions without knowing it?
Of course it is possible, but it is not likely. In it being possible, that does not raise in me diffidence, and/or doubt. Simulation hypothesis is absurdly useless, less it be, the very thought thereof grants gateway to another spectrum that allows confirmation. I do not use such speculative thought to inform my modus operandi… that would be ABSURD.
Fantasy that relies on illusion is not my Way. Imagination that compounds knowns and thought experiments is certainly a part of my Way. The two ought not be mistaken for being the same. One relies on falsehoods, and whim, while the other can, but is not required to, relies on knowns, and well Reasoned affirmations, to build out what could be, and/or may be of use for Entertainment purposes.
There is fiction in fantasy, where magic is just there, unexplained, whereas the kind of imaginatives I speak of would use what is known here, to build out knowledge there, where in fiction there is magic that is simple science, that most do not know but the initiated.
Those who imagine well will then create physics behind the magic, and have it match the lawfulness of the Laws of Identity that are prevalent in reality. Imagined the result will be, but imagined through good Reasoning would be the aim.
Therefore, if all I deal in is merely IMAGINATIVE, like say, even the presence of the Vir and Votary, then of it will be that it is well Reasoned deployment of imagination, founded upon the known and knowable, and not that of whim, and illusions. This would be the difference, if one was to say, I engage in the fantastical myself. I would not say nay to this, other than, fantastical requires whim and illusion in the way in which I use the term. More accurately, I ought to be accused of dealing in the imaginative.
I would encourage a Votary to first and foremost imagine the Vows being realized in and upon their condition, and from that imagined assessment, then apply. Nothing to me is worth imagining that is then not applied. The order is, to imagine, and then, to apply, and through said application of the imagined, advance in Control and Command over one's condition. To become a Master, and/or a Commander, one must first imagine the route in how to become so.
Were I to produce works of fiction, which I am sure I eventually will do, they will be imagined states of achievement that have all along the way, guidestones that provoke states that can be realized in actuality, and not solely left to the imagination.
Imagination is very important. Imagination used with false seeds leads to delusion. Imagination used with seeds of knowledge and sound Reasoning leads to MASTERY and COMMAND.
I would never speak ill of the imagination, and its creations, less it be, ill imaginations. Most of what is called fantasy is ill imagination.
Seduction is not about leading the mark astray through well Reasoned imaginations. It is about leading the mark astray through that of FANTASTICAL imaginations, that present escape from the social burdens and taxes one has to pay often as the impostor of civilization, and socializing.
Because there are things required of others that demand obedience to reality, they are repugnant, resistant, and looking to fight their way out, in rebellion. The seducer answers to this, knowing this, and instead of presenting something actually worth fighting for, knowing the mark does not crave this, they present what they indeed do crave, and that is the “fake, whimsical journey” along the contradiction of Heaven and Earth, hot and cold, high and low, and so on. Those of whim need to be on a roller coaster of their emotions, because moving through the kinetic spectrum makes them feel alive.
They feel alive when another is controlling and managing their diffidence, ensuring them nothing can be trusted, but them. They feel alive when their anxiety is managed, through being funneled towards the flirting with the fight, the repugnance, but the fight against the burdens and the taxes of society. The seducer takes the repugnance of the mark, and tells them, and shows them, it is their desire to fight to be free from the social constraints that has been put upon them. The mark could care less if this is true… for they are now in their own Disney movie, living out the fantasy that doped up company had peddled upon the young of the inept parents. The worst associate is one who is Disney infested, and so many are infested with Disney.
From the position of fight, such repugnance, given meaning, comes the “savior” there to explain it all, to “make light of it all”, to “amuse”, where there is no “muse”, no creativity, no skill, no call for competence. No, such things are forsaken, and become forbidden.
Such things come from the adult world of toil, but the seducer demands a return to the time when they were but babes wandering in the forest, in ignorance, lost in the wonders of the unknown, and free with their imagination to give rise to any conclusion and explanation they wish, regardless of the notion of fact or fiction, valid or invalid, rational or irrational. Favoring the latter of these, the fantasy of the fight, of the repugnance, is that of the fiction, that of the invalid, and that of the irrational, where anything goes.
Of course, only one who is dependent, and cared for, by others, in their possession, can be so privileged to be a mental midget in la-la land. Surely, no one who is on their own, having to make their mark on their own condition, can afford such folly.
Etymology of Folly (n.)
early 13c., “mental weakness; foolish behavior or character; unwise conduct” (in Middle English including wickedness, lewdness, madness), from Old French folie “folly, madness, stupidity” (12c.), from fol (see fool (n.)). From c. 1300 as “an example of foolishness;” sense of “costly structure considered to have shown folly in the builder” is attested from 1650s. But used much earlier, since Middle English, in place names, especially country estates, probably as a form of Old French folie in its meaning “delight.” Related: Follies.
It is effeminate, in the traditional sense, to commit to FOLLY. It is a privilege among nature to be mentally weak and forgiven for this. It is a privilege among nature to be unwise in one's conduct. STUPID is a PRIVILEGE. Americans have never been so privileged as they are now―and I did not say “white” Americans. All of those who are called Americans, and agree to this label are but PRIVILEGED more often not, in a great deal of FOLLY, both mental and physical.
The privilege of the so-called American is that of being permitted to be stupid, to be dull, to be useless, and forever in chase of the youth they once had, where the ignorance was excited far more than anything called curiosity, or eagerness towards knowledge.
Americans are not a curious bunch, and it is only from the very small few who are, that then pave the way for gains, the others then call themselves kin to, with the catchall category of “Americans did this”. Yet, those who have done “THIS” can be named in their individuality, and it will not be on account of the collective, that they did “THAT”. It will be because of their INDIVIDUAL nature, that set them free from the privileged stupidity of the masses, they have so climbed up and out of.
Fantasy is the privilege to be whimsical and stupid, in a state of folly. The seducer can only seduce those afforded this privilege. They can not seduce those who are required to be curious, required to be skilled, required to be competent, and obedient to actuality, for their performance, they so depend upon.
One who is independent can not be seduced, and those who are ever so dependent are those ever so dependent by FOLLY. If one is seduced, and blames the seducer, their ignorance has kept them away from seeing the true cause of the event, that of the captivity in stupidity they had been kept in by others who control and manage them, in folly. No one who is strong of mind can be seduced, because they would not be strong of mind and fanciful at the same time.
The Vir and the Votary do not play along with the fantasies of others. They do not create a persona that is agreeable and kind, to conform, and be… at peace with others around them.
The Vir and the Votary are VALIANT, and in being Valiant, they portray themselves as they are, when they are free, and where they would need to adopt and manifest a false persona, an impostor, it would need be when at war.
Deception is only justified when at war. Whoever one is deceiving, they are at war with. Therefore, the Vir and/or the Votary does not see their POSITION as with the rest of you, who are human. A Vir, and/or a Votary does not bring the self to their “work”, if their “work” is controlled and managed by humans. They bring a professional mask, but that mask is not to betray their inner, their temperament. It is that the mask is a funnel, whereby the only element of the Vir, and/or Votary to be expressed in the condition is that which the mask funnels for professionalism.
Humans can not do this. Humans, in their work, IMPOSE their IMPOSTOR, and that of a social TAX, and social BURDEN for others to ENDURE. Humans force others to endure their impostor as a means to fight and subjugate them to their whims.
The Vir and the Votary do not impose a tax, a burden on the humans when they socialize with them, but do DEFEND against, and NEGATE the sense that a human has, that it can TAX the Vir, and/or the Votary. A human can not impose this tax, or any tax on those who are not its kind, and the Vir and the Votary are not its kind.
One who needs to IMPOSE themselves on others, and assert self in all spheres, professional or not, is one who is SOCIALLY NEEDY, and thus DEPENDENT, guided by their CRAVINGS around the Seven Insecurities. They are seeking to be VALIDATED, to be HEARD, to be SEEN, and assured by others, they have a position in the unhealthy pack, in which all domestic packs are… that of UNHEALTHY.
A Vir does not have these cravings, and a Votary ought not to. Where one has these cravings around the Seven Insecurities, they will not be a Votary, having not adhered to the Vow to transmute the emotional Kinetics. In confidence, in excited knowledge, in the entertaining of Engagement in skills, competence, proficiency, and mastery, the Votary then is Vigilant, is Vital, is Vigorous, and Valiant in their Virtue, and this is all sourced from within, and that which is outer does not move them, and shake them from their own course.
This is what it means to be a Votary. One is not a Votary who is defeated in the moment, and accepts that defeat, and says, “I'll get it next time”. A Votary is one who when defeated, does not stay in that defeat, and in the same moment, fixes the defeat into a VICTORY. Fix it now is the Vow of the Votary. It would not need to be fixed, if it was not a defeat. But when it is fixed, it was a defeat turned to Victory, and these are greater than those that are Victories by ease.
From mimic, imitate, and mirror, the seducer is not yet born till they move to entertain with fantasy. Before this, and if yet to be here in the battle for access, they are not a seducer, but if only in mimic, imitate, and mirror, they are a relinquisher. This is what most would ever be. This is your generic. They have not seduced with this. They will have gained access, and they will have battled for that access, but more so, it is in cowardice and defeat in which they have gained access.
The one who begins to mimic, imitate, and mirror the other is the one who has placed themselves in a lower status, having no way of their own to be, and with courage. It is innately cowardice, and a cowardice in which the bulk of you display daily, as you mimic, imitate, and mirror each other.
For males, nothing is more pathetic than their cowardice exhibited in pursuit of the mommy stamp, to mimic, to imitate, to mirror mommy through life, and then, as a form of currency, do the same towards the female that happens to pass in front of you, assuring her you will transfer your mommy stamp, your mommy tax over to her, and she can be your new mommy whom you mimic, you imitate, and mirror the interest thereof.
Effeminate engage in Seduction, and those who engage in Influence ought not be seen as one and the same. There is an issue here, with the difference of influencing, say, through Seduction, and influencing through one's own power, or charisma.
Most can not often tell the difference.
Being able to work categorically through one's own thinking, and thinking of others is essential for being high performing in one's own living. Where one does not have their own modus operandi understood, and better, over stood, they will not be able to grasp in others, what their modus operandi is.
I am specific about what belongs to Seduction, only in that, I am specific about what can be misconstrued as Seduction that otherwise, may belong in a different category. I can only share with the reader, and/or listener, my categorical arrangement.
It is not to be mistaken as one meant to pass as universal, as if categories are fixed and locked in likeness to reality. They are not. They are symbolic representations that are supposed to account for reality, based on the limits in accuracy one can have in such accounting. Without a doubt, I will update these categories after much more deliberation occurs. But for the now, categories are needed to aid in sound thinking. Thinking that correlates the simple to the complex, and wherein there are complex ideas that share simple roots, it is best to have a map to integrate them all in.
On Influence
Seduction, as a form of Entertainment, can be said to be a form of Influence too. Control can be Influence. Management requires Influence. Manipulation requires Influence.
When I say, one is to advance in Control and Command over their condition, it is the Vir who does this. This is not the actual aim, at first, of the Votary. It is not Command the Votary is working on; it is INFLUENCE. But in early expoundings, I did not at that time think to clarify the difference, and so repeated was Control and Command, because the Vir and their religion was the point, and the Votary had yet to receive the needed treatment.
The Votary seeks Control and Influence over their condition, while they seek Control and Influence over themselves. Influence is very important. Control and Management are in essence where most of what is called Influence will occur.
I differentiate “Influence” from that of “Control” and “Management” on account that it is a more lofty and enigmatic term that has a “fluffy” origin. I have to remind myself how others often use this term, and then define my meaning.
Etymology of Influence (n.)
late 14c., an astrological term, “streaming ethereal power from the stars when in certain positions, acting upon character or destiny of men,” from Old French influence “emanation from the stars that acts upon one's character and destiny” (13c.), also “a flow of water, a flowing in,” from Medieval Latin influentia “a flowing in” (also used in the astrological sense), from Latin influentem (nominative influens), present participle of influere “to flow into, stream in, pour in,” from in- “into, in, on, upon” (from PIE root *en “in”) + fluere “to flow” (see fluent).
The range of senses in Middle English was non-personal, in reference to any outflowing of energy that produces effect, of fluid or vaporous substance as well as immaterial or unobservable forces. Meaning “exertion of unseen influence by persons” is from 1580s (a sense already in Medieval Latin, for instance Aquinas); meaning “capacity for producing effects by insensible or invisible means” is from 1650s. Under the influence (of alcohol, etc.) “drunk” first attested 1866.
I mostly limit my notion of this term to the elements of: “outflowing of energy that produces effect”; “capacity for producing effects by insensible or invisible means”.
When it comes to the relation to the stars, and the “flowing” notion of it, like with water, the way in which I am using the term is to say… there is the force that is influencing, in which the direction is coming from, and then there are the things in which the force is acting upon. How it is acting is yet to be defined. The force, however, is controlling and managing in action, with the “how”, again, remaining an X, till it is characterized.
“emanation from the stars that acts upon one's character and destiny”
The “stars”, here, however, are the attachments one has, through that of aversions and attractions. An aversion deals in attachments as well, often defined by such.
The starry element, then, is rather divorced, as most have done to the meaning of the term, but without knowing it. A force acting upon other forces and/or matter, and affecting a cause, or a response. It becomes rendered in common speech, or vernacular as:
“the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.”
One's nature, and/or temperament―which I will cover in the specific treatise of the emotional Kinetics and profiling―are those things influenced by what is innately compelled in one, by degree, in comparison to the conditional influences. Most do not have an influential nature, and here is where difference is massive. A replicant is one who is not influenced by their own nature, but is subjugated to the INFLUENCE of their CONDITION.
However, how one comes to influence in, and upon the condition, and in and upon others, will be determined by their nature and not their condition. On account of this, there are types of Management Influences that are most effective, that differ from the types of Management Influences that are most common, yet least effective.
Humans do not control and manage each other, on average, based on effectiveness. When one is promoting effectiveness, one ought to be very cautious and on the lookout for “weak rationales” versus “strong rationales”, which are needed for “Rational persuasion” to be effective. Most who control and manage others will feel, in the procession and their repugnance, that they need only provide “weak arguments” and that of “insufficient facts”.
Before one gets to Seduction, they must go through Entertainment, and its traits. Before one does this, they need to go through Manipulation. This is where it applies. But Control and Management do not require Manipulation. Manipulation requires them, and Entertainment, all that precedes it. In order to be able to manipulate, one will need to have a position of Influence.
To have a position of Influence, one will have had to control and manage their arrival to said position, and/or be there through appointment, and/or procession. Those often acquiring Influence over others and conditions have done so through PROCESSION, and not that of having shown the talent, the skills, and the temperament of being right for the position of Influence.
Because of this, Influence, like that of Management, is not on average conducted effectively. Effective Management was one of the things I was brought in to consult on, when working with clients, and the main purpose was to change the procession, and build teams based on individual profiles and temperaments. Often, those in the procession did not have the appropriate temperament to manage and influence others, and this interfered with productivity.
When you all see someone who is influential, the assumption may be, it is on account of some trickery and con that they got there. This, because of your diffidence in yourself, and others. When you have no data that you are using, to say how they acquired their Influence, then it is an emotional conclusion you are drawing, in how you think of yourself, and what would be needed for you to get there.
If you are not of the right temperament for Influence, then surely, if in the procession you got there, it would not have been on account of being right to be there. You would feel like an IMPOSTOR, and therefore, when observing others, you see them too as an impostor. To then be seen as an impostor, you presume they got there for running a CON.
One being in a position of Influence, by itself, does not say how, why, and in what way they are using the Influence. Most are not meant to influence others, and of those not meant to… they make up the majority of the Influence in this world.
Bad Influence is what most influencers are, as entertainers using Seduction and amusement, and/or as controllers and managers, using their position to influence others.
Influence is how one manages the condition, and others in it, who are under their Influence, or that is… subject to their impressions, either willfully or not.
The most effective means determined for influencing others is referred to as “inspirational appeal”. Though it is the most effective, it is not the most called upon, or used, for what would seem obvious that most are not inspiring, in their own being.
Etymology of Inspire (v.)
mid-14c., enspiren, “to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);” also “to prompt or induce (someone to do something),” from Old French enspirer (13c.), from Latin inspirare “blow into, breathe upon,” figuratively “inspire, excite, inflame,” from in- “in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + spirare “to breathe” (see spirit (n.)).
The Latin word was used as a loan-translation of Greek pnein in the Bible. General sense of “influence or animate with an idea or purpose” is from late 14c. Also sometimes used in literal sense in Middle English. Related: Inspires; inspiring.
The condition of inspiring, and being inspirational is so uncommon, that it was seen as “supernatural” in character.
Etymology of Inspired (adj.)
c. 1400, “communicated by divine or supernatural powers,” past-participle adjective from inspire (v.). From 1660s as “infused with seemingly supernatural influence.”
Take note that in the above etym., if one is seeking to know all the terms, the term “Influence” is correlated, and therefore, mapped in. This is how I learned the kind of English that I use. My terms, in use, fall back on and around each other, forming a linguistic map of values, and categories for mental reference, and Reasoning.
Etymology of Inspirational (adj.)
“tending to inspire,” 1878; see inspiration + -al (1). Also “influenced by inspiration” (1839); “pertaining to inspiration” (1888). The adjective was used earlier in spiritualism. Earlier in the sense “tending to inspire” were inspirative (1770), inspiring (1640s).
One who deals in “inspiration”, pedals in PEP.
Etymology of Pep (n.)
“vigor, energy,” 1912, shortened form of pepper (n.), which was used in the figurative sense of “spirit, energy” from at least 1847. Pep rally “meeting to inspire enthusiasm” is attested from 1915; pep talk is from 1926. To pep (something) up “fill or inspire with vigor or energy” is from 1925.
In the past, I would joke and say, others use me as their “dealer in pep”. And others be “pep fiends”, once they get hooked.
Motivational speakers are dealers in pep, and though they are seen as inspirational, I would not agree with this being one and the same. I would say, inspiration is proven through adoption of a direction, and some change having occurred in the “target” or the receiver.
One is not merely motivated, when they are inspired. One is not merely excited, when they are inspired. They are excited in ways, towards an action, or a way that can be realized. Motivated, I hold, can be excited in even things not in need of realization or manifestation. One would say, “you inspired me to do this”. But of course, motivation can be used that way as well.
Common usage of a term is not often an indication of accuracy of use, or sincerity. The term “motivated”, on its own, requires towards an action. I have far too often heard others speak of being motivated, with nothing to show for. Perhaps then the issue is not if “motivated” differs from “inspired”, but more so, if what most are missing is that “excited” and “excitement” are not the same. It would be “excitement” that does not require an “acquisition”.
Etymology of Motivation (n.)
1873, “act or process of furnishing with an incentive or inducement to action;” see motivate + -ion. Perhaps borrowed from German, where motivation is attested by 1854. Psychological use, “inner or social stimulus for an action,” is from 1904.
Examining the terms, what I think of as “inspiration” has more a nearness to “excitement” than it does to a motivation.
This is because the word “inspire”, having a sense of “spiritualism” and “religiousness”, correlates more to my own sense of “motivation”. I consider in use “inspiration” to be “spiritual motivation”, but this is not a part of the meaning as used by others, because most spiritual excitement will not have an action as an outcome, no matter how delusional spiritualists will say otherwise. Their spiritualism often does not exist in what they do, but more often in what they say, and pedal to others, to excite them towards fantasy. Fantasy is less likely to lead to action.
MOTIVATION and INSPIRATION, in common usage, do not maintain the sense of “towards an ACTION”, spiritual or otherwise. They are often used in place of the more base excited, and excitement.
Etymology of Excite (v.)
mid-14c., exciten, “to move, stir up, instigate,” from Old French esciter (12c.) or directly from Latin excitare “rouse, call out, summon forth, produce,” frequentative of exciere “call forth, instigate,” from ex “out” (see ex-) + ciere “set in motion, call” (from PIE root *keie- “to set in motion”). Of feelings, “to stir up, rouse,” from late 14c. Of bodily organs or tissues, from 1831. Sense of “rouse the emotions of, emotionally agitate” is attested from 1821.
Inspiration, with its sense of “blow into, breathe upon,” figuratively “inspire, excite, inflame,” has the sense of “call out” and “summon forth”. To inspire, then, is to often be seen as to merely “excite”; however, merely will not be appropriate.
Folk value greatly being brought to excitement, and excitement is not the same as “joy”. One is excited, in all the emotional states, and this is why I call the traditional sense of surprise, as an emotion, that of “excited ignorance”. But too, there is excited diffidence, excited anxiety, concern, and excited repugnance. The level of the motion of the emotion determines how excited, or summoned forth it is; by what degree.
One is in this degree or that, of the excited emotion, when it becomes apparent. But too, the emotion will be there in waiting, resting, and/or satiated, and unexcited. In this state where it is passive, it would be taken by humans to be without presence at all. Humans become only aware of their emotions when they are excited, and remain ignorant of them when they are satiated, or waiting for a target of excitement to appear.
Inspirational, I do not find to be the same as charismatic. One can learn a “vision”, and of “values” that they then can “excite” others towards. One can “inspire” from common character, and from conditional occurrence.
Charisma is a temperament variable. Inspirational is reliant on temperament to a large degree, but can occur through learning and conditioning. I do not find that charisma can be conditioned and learned, regardless of how many claim to present it for others to adopt. Those individuals tend to be “inspiring” through “vision”, and call this charismatic. I do not.
Etymology of Charisma (n.)
1875, “special spiritual gift or power divinely conferred, talent from God” (as on the early Christians in “Acts,” etc.), Latinized form of Greek kharisma “favor, divine gift,” from kharizesthai “to show favor to,” from kharis “grace, beauty, kindness” (Charis was the name of one of the three attendants of Aphrodite), which is related to khairein “to rejoice at,” from PIE root *gher- (2) “to like, want.”
In the form charism (plural charismata) it is attested in the “special spiritual gift from god” sense from 1640s. Middle English, meanwhile, had karisme “spiritual gift, divine grace” (c. 1500).
“These gifts were of two classes, the gift of healing and gift of teaching, the latter again being of two kinds, the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues. Such gifts have been claimed in later ages by certain teachers and sects in the church, as the Montanists and the Irvingites, and in recent times by some of those who practise the so-called faith-cure.” [Century Dictionary, 1897]
Meaning “gift of leadership, power of authority” is from c. 1930, from German, used in this sense by Max Weber (1864-1920) in “Wirtschaft u. Gesellschaft” (1922). More mundane sense of “personal charm” recorded by 1959.
Why, however, I bring this one to bear, is because more often than not… one who is innately “gifted” in charisma will be taken as amusing, as seductive, as influential by all, according to their need. Mostly, they will be accused of running a Seduction, because with their charisma, liken to one with a vision and set of values, exciting others… they will be being that of influential.
This Influence one may have will elicit from others their FEARS, which is excited insecurity, and their Entertainment desires, which they will see as excited towards joy. Pain or pleasure, in regards to those who are influential, is based upon the temperament and/or the condition of the one who stumbles across the path, and condition that the influencer has Control and/or Management over.
When one comes to the condition that is under their Control, Management, and Influence by consent, and as a volunteer, if they are displeased and remain, it is because of their repugnance, and it can not be justified. If one is compelled into the conditions under the Control, the Management, and the Influence of another, it is highly unlikely that the influencer of that condition is there by way of charisma. Where compulsion is needed, it falls under a different category of Influence.
The category of Influence most encounter, where compulsion and pressures exist, is the Influence of PROCESSION, with its PRECEDENCE. In this, the most common way of Influence begins with the employment of PRESSURE, based upon the authority in the procession. Those who hold prominence use demands, threats, frequent checking, and/or persistent reminders to hold Control over others, that then manifests as their form of Influence.
This is the most common, regardless of the wants and wishes of those speaking and writing, and giving you a sense of themselves. It is the kind most are likely to come across, that of the pressure kind, which often has one observing the influencer, or the controller, as it has been better stated... they are doing so from anxiety, and repugnance. “Pressuring” was how you all were conditioned by your mommies and daddies, who relied upon their precedence to establish legitimacy. The procession was, mommy was the source of pressure and relief, and daddy, in the old days, the source of “disciplining”, the odd word they used for punishment, which is indeed pressure likewise.
Pressure has always been the most common use of Control, that can be called Influence, barely. Second in common usage, more Influence than Control, is that of reciprocity.
Etymology of Reciprocity (n.)
“state or condition of free interchange, mutual responsiveness,” 1766, from French réciprocité (18c.), from reciproque, from Latin reciprocus, past participle of reciprocare “rise and fall, move back and forth; reverse the motion of” (see reciprocal). Specifically as “equality of commercial privileges between the subjects of different governments” is by 1782. Related: Reciprocality (1650s).
RECIPROCATION is one of the easiest forms of Control and Management, as often it is carried out under consent, and has the interest of the parties all involved in mind. Or at least, it is supposed to be. Reciprocation, however, can be very odd. I am not entirely sure that is what is exactly on display. For humans, reciprocation is often “everyone doing their fair share”, which means, everyone working towards the same aim, and often, this is under pressure.
Using PRESSURE, and the APPEAL to RECIPROCATION will be found throughout the full spectrum of Control and Management. However, it is important to note that when males relinquish their Control and Management to females, this does not have a reciprocal element to it. She may appear to relinquish some elements to the male, but mostly, these are elements for him to serve her in. He will get the status in those elements, in order for her to defer to him in those elements, and be cared for, receiving deference. This is not RECIPROCITY; but I am not entirely convinced, humans can understand reciprocity.
After pressure as a form of Control and Management, asserting Influence, I would have the preference to call the second “support” versus “reciprocation”. Less it be that, what is reciprocated is said to be that of one's support for those who too, show support.
I will move on.
The third most common form of Control, Management, and Influence is referred to as “COALITION”, or collective effort, which often has in company, “weak rationale”.
This form of Influence is about getting the target to do something by enlisting the support of others. SUPPORT here is shared with the previous forms, concerning so-called RECIPROCATION. Support is the core ingredient of all these kinds of Influence most commonly used. PRESSURE for SUPPORT, SUPPORT the SUPPORT, ENLIST others in SUPPORT, to INFLUENCE SUPPORT.
With the pressure form, and the coalition form being the top three of the ones most commonly used, it can be said, they are also the ones most INEFFECTIVE, and even more so, it goes to say they have a NEGATIVE IMPACT on performance outcome.
Yet, this is the way in which most houses with their young are controlled, managed, and influenced under their inept progenitors. It is here, then, in the house, where one is prepared to face these forms of Influence, or that of Control and Management from employers and managers.
Because I did not get raised in a house with procession established through precedence, I was not acquainted with these forms of Influence. I was fortunate, on the streets of Brooklyn, to find mentors who were “good” and “effective” leaders, expecting “high performance” outcomes.
But because I was not conditioned in a house, through pressure, through coalition, and the later related, I am not able to sustain normal associations, and/or jobs. One who was not conditioned to endure these things, but is healthy, will stand up to them, and require them to change.
This can not be done, whenever one is entry level in something defined by procession and precedence. Therefore, even if I wanted to, or needed to―to which neither is the case for me―I could not be engaged in the procession of precedence.
I am incapable of being in these realms, which thankfully, by charisma, combined with my mental talents, meant, even in the armed forces, I was freed from these realms, and placed in a capacity that correlated to my strengths. However, the inability to endure the behavior of the procession and its precedence, that uses these foul and ineffective modes of Influence, is not on account of a weakness, but on account that the strong do not endure the weak. These forms of Control and Management are weak.
What follows, and is near to them, is INFLUENCE through PERSONAL, or FAMILIAR appeals.
By degree, PRESSURE is mostly used.
Then, there is SUPPORT to get SUPPORT; MIMIC SUPPORT, to get SUPPORT.
Then, there is COALITION, that of collective support, seen as a given. This plays on the Seven Insecurities, as do all of these.
APPEAL to one's FAMILIARS, or the personal appeal, is RELATIONAL. Asking for favors from those one has access to is this. Asking for one to do something for you, in the name of friendship, or as family, is the appeal to the familiar, or the “personal”.
What will tend to follow near to the ones above is INGRATIATION, where like honeyfuggler stated above, one appeals through the use of PRAISE, and FLATTERY, with all this, again, being about controlling, managing and influencing SUPPORT.
SUPPORT is always key here. Getting others to do things for you.
Do it for me, for I DEMAND. I will do this if you do not. DID YOU DO IT YET?
Do it for me, and I will do it for you.
Do it for me, because everyone else DOES it, is SUPPORTIVE.
Do it for me, because we know each other, we are friends, we are family.
Do it for me, and I will help you where I can, as you DO IT.
Do it for me, and I will let you tell me how it ought to be done, so you share a role.
In the procession with its precedence, pressure often had the variable of…
DO it for me, because I told you to, demanded you to, and I am the BOSS, the AUTHORITY, the one in CHARGE, and your POSITION is lower. The one you were prepared for as a child.
They taught you to SUBMIT to this, and not to take CHARGE, and become your own CONTROLLER, your own MANAGER, and your own INFLUENCER. If you took CHARGE, they would lose the CHARGE, and by keeping you from it, they kept it for themselves. This is human conquest.
This is what they DO.
As stated early, these above are what ranks in two categories, in their descending order; they are what are MOST COMMON, and practiced in Control and Management, AND… Get ready for it, they are what ranks most INEFFECTIVE, with two of the three not only being ineffective, but NEGATIVE in their impact on performance. Can't repeat it enough.
On average, CONTROL and MANAGEMENT is being carried out in INFLUENCE upon others INEFFECTIVELY and negatively, minus that of the “exchange” or “RECIPROCITY” model of the three.
It is here, in this middle play of Influence, that most find their nearness to “peace”, and it is the “marketplace” that offers the best, for the most part, for what humans can afford in their temperament. It is the space of quid pro quo. What for what, and something for something. But support for support ought not be mistaken as the same. Many will support another, and stack up currency for future pressure.
Careful here. If you can, never take anything for nothing in return. When you have been given, give back, and close out the exchange.
Inspiration is the most effective, and yet it is the least practiced.
VISION and VALUE are rare, and in essence, this is what is needed. Getting others excited for the cause is about their emotions, more than the cause. And this can be GOOD, and BAD.
The most effective form of appeal, after inspiration, plays on the emotions as well, and that is the “do this for me, but tell me how it should be done, and buy into this”.
The “CONSULTATION” appeal, where the SUPPORT becomes DEMOCRATIZED, and you get others to buy into it, by allowing their input, and their CONTRIBUTION. Getting others to feel a part of the whole process of support, versus merely pieces being moved around.
This appeals to the Seven Insecurities, and that of FEELING like one belongs, or has a place, and is VALUED. This too, like inspiration, is neither negative nor positive by default. This is all based on what the aim, the cause is, that is being supported. But both inspiration and consultation, in this sense, are about the emotions of the individual, more than anything else.
The third most EFFECTIVE means of INFLUENCE is APPEAL to the LOGISTICS, often called logic, which is absurdly used.
It's more an appeal to UTILITY and MECHANICS of the given situation. It is where one uses sound judgment and argument to convince the other that the action, the support, is justified in utility of fact. This is dependent upon the level of reasoning, with a lower case r, that can be mustered up by the recipients.
The order of these three, INSPIRE, CONSULT, EXPLAIN, are often mixed, and the level of the third, explanation, is hardly ever that of sound reasoning, and sound argumentation. These three are the MOST effective. They, again, are not the most used.
-
Most Effective Means of Influence:
Inspire, Consult, Explain (soundly)
-
Ineffective and Negative Impact:
Pressure, and Collectivized or Coalition
-
Highest Frequency of Use:
Pressure, Reciprocated Support, Coalition and Weak Rationale
Why, then, the most effective means are not the most frequent is not just about the leadership, the controllers, the managers and the influencers, but it is also about that those who are in the condition of Control, Management, and Influence are there for support to be rendered up.
When you deal with those who can not be excited, because they are indifferent, and/or they are malcontent, repugnant, and so on… then regardless of what you are, charismatic and inspirational, it will not work on them.
The same can be said about consultation, as a play. When those you would consult are quiet, unexpressive, irrational, and possessed by negative emotional Kinetics, then the results of their consulting would be rejected, and there would be neither reason to consult them, nor to listen to what they have to say.
Too, in realms of mechanical clarity, consulting is not needed. In realms of social expression, there will be too many different personalities to make consultation sensible. The latter and third, that of using “rational” explanation to make sense of the call to action, requires that both the one giving the expression is rational, and the one receiving it is rational.
The emotional Kinetics being so dominant in defeat in most is why these effective means of Influence will not be the frequent means of how Control and Management actually play out.
A part of those who are “good with others” is they do in fact excite them, and they do in fact, get them to open up, and try to be expressed and involved in the process, and have that process defined by sound reasoning. This is a lot of work for someone who is inspirational, as well as good at influencing. It is very much dependent upon the “targets” who exist in the support function of the cause.
Discerning what emotional track one is on
I will now return back to Seduction, and what nature it has in regards to Influence.
Seduction, as a form of Entertainment, has to do with what kind of “frame of mind” one is trying to bring about in another, and/or maintain. The “frame” then is key. One who entertains, controls, manages, influences, manipulates the “frame”.
Seduction does not begin until one is in the phase of Entertainment. Of the phases, I have come to categorize them as MECHANICS of CONTROL, of MANAGEMENT, of MANIPULATION, and of ENTERTAINMENT.
Seduction rests upon the previous mechanics and phases of Control, of Management, of Manipulation. But the first three phases are more often than not about the Control, and the Management of the emotions of the target, and/or the mark, via manipulating their sense of, and their need of that of their worshiped states of CARE.
This phase is not Seduction, though it may be the precursor to Seduction, via the route of Manipulation.
When one is born―and it is indeed a default state―to that of diffidence, their energetics become in motion, anxiously. The flip side to this is ENERGETICS of EAGERNESS.
This anxiety, more often than not combined with the diffidence, has the individual, if they can be called that, in a state of doubt, confusion, and insecurity, and this breeds in the Sixth Kinetics, excited in ignorance.
In this anxious, and ignorantly excited state, one will more often than not have concerns, which they will not have solved, or come to remedy, nor “care” to do so.
They will instead, “CARE” to “CARE”. CARE is a SCAM. Care is used to get others to serve one's interest. It is not Seduction, but it is social Manipulation, and nothing is more manipulative over others than that of expressing one's anxious concerns, or care, with the expectations that others will respond in “kind” and mimic the same concerns. MIMIC them, not solve them.
The stage where one is before a target, and/or a mark, and asks of them questions that will not mean anything in the long run, is the stage of controlling that of the level of activity in one's fishing expedition, to get the other to “relieve” themselves through expression. Getting others to talk about their feelings, to OPEN UP… is MANIPULATION, that requires the manipulating side to control and manage their own desire to express and do the same.
The reason behind the effectiveness of “active listening” on social Manipulation is often because, the one employing it is waiting for their turn, and wishes with RECIPROCITY to receive the same treatment; that is, have another “facilitate”, that is, control and manage their desire to “express”.
These expressions, regardless often of what they sound like, are not expressions in search of ADVANCEMENT, and that of SOLUTIONS, and that of high performance. More often than not, they are expressions of care, and to what one affords this emotion. Care is not a primary emotion, but make no mistake, it is an emotion. It is the emotional product of one's anxiety and ignorance, that breeds ineptitude.
It is the conclusion of the anxiety, as it is wrapped in concern, and more often than not, the concern is not even valid, though may certainly seem to be. Care deals in selling itself based on the energetics. The more anxious one is about the concern, the more validity others are supposed to assign to it.
But this anxious concern uses the concern as a smoke screen. Instead of looking at the emotional body of the individual, and what state and phase they are in, the dope, the mental midget, the servile normy looks to the concerns, and it will be through the concerns that the emotionally manipulative ones, in fact, come to control and manage the one they signaled and permitted to target and mark.
Instead of the individual being the target and the mark for the desires, wants and needs of the marker, the John, the Gerry, more often than not, the one who would be marked, takes the mark off of them, and aims the energetics at the concerns. Then, through the concerns, this is the way they flip the script, and take Control and Management over the individual who has been blinded by their cravings, in marking them to begin with.
The one who has the concerns that get served is the one who in actuality is running the mechanics of Control and Management. Often, this is a female who is controlling and managing a male, by getting them to serve their concerns.
The human male began either eager or anxious to acquire the attention and the validation of the human female. But all he was, was ENERGETIC. Very often, more so than not, he had no plan or course of action. He simply wanted access, for attention and validation, as well as for an excuse to be expressed in the cowardice he must otherwise hide, and make excuse of. When one has to CARE for others, they have the greatest EXCUSE for being a COWARD. CARE does only this; it makes INEPT cowards.
When he targets and marks a female for access, he only will bring effort, bring energy, but hardly any Control, and Management. This is because, in nature, Control and Management belong to the human female, over the human male. Humans are not PATRIARCHAL; that is why they have to create traditions, rules, structures, and institutions, all things that fall apart in the “houses” of the masses, where the human females rule as totalitarians, which is what human females would be, given the ease to be.
If it was natural for there to be patriarchs, then human males would not feel so insecure, and undermine every male they encounter the best they can, given the smoke screens of the conditions.
Human males can not coexist with other human males without rivalry, and subversion. Nature has designed the human males to want to SERVE as many females as they can, and to do this, they have to remove other male competitors―to which they can not do, when they are inept or weaker, so they bide time, and wait for seniority, in the procession, to outlast the other males, to gain Control and Management over them.
Human males should never develop a trust for other human males, and though this sounds harsh, it is not an actual decree one must work at. In actuality, those of you who are human males are prohibited by nature from actually ever truly trusting other human males, and where you say you do, it would mean only a few things.
You trust that human male is BELOW you, and not a competitor; or you trust the conditions will keep them in check; or you are delusional, and have not afforded much attention to social mechanics around you.
Human males can not, and never will trust each other, and whenever given the opportunity, as the cowards they are, they will play at dominance hierarchies, and try to overtake the position of the other male in the presumed hierarchy. Human males, as well as human females, are repugnant as their default, stationary baseline. They are engaged in “fights” that are founded upon ineptitudes, and cowardice.
HUMANS suffer REPUGNANCE.
And for this reason, humans have care as their god, and goddess, and need to have targets and marks of care, and to be themselves targeted, and marked by the care of another. Humans have never wished to be FREE, and NOBLE, excellent, and VALIANT. Humans seek to be CARED for, and ABOUT. This is the highest value of the human, and exactly what makes a VIR, not a HUMAN, nor liken to a HUMAN.
Where the human is repugnant, all humans, the Vir has the transmuted state of VALIANCE.
Humans possessed in their repugnance can not grasp what Valiance is. For humans, it can be called martial Valor, or warlike in the name of Virtue, or excellence. It can be seen as Wrath, because too, it is the fight energy that is at the root of repugnance.
But instead of anxious, one is eager. Instead of anxious towards a concern, and excited ignorance, it is eager towards an Advancement, through that of excited knowledge, or curiosity, or inquisitiveness. Humans like to describe themselves deceptively with high traits, and think they could be curious, because they ask more often than not repugnant questions; but humans are born in diffidence, and not the confidence necessary to be curious.
Humans are not EAGER to LEARN and to KNOW; humans are ANXIOUS to MIMIC, to IMITATE, and to BOND… to CONFORM, to be modified for acceptance. Humans are fueled by anxiety, they are not fueled by “high wants” that are “motivational”. Humans are anxious, not EAGER.
When one is dealing with a human, they will need to account for the human likely state of suppressing and repressing their actual feelings, while cloaking them in some form of Entertainment.
Just the other day, over a very hot weekend, myself and a few others had been out and about “camping”, in the most loose sense of the term, as the camp spot was literally right off the road, and it was packed with humans, who were a scary sight to behold for any favoring of a performance based existence.
I myself would not lead myself or any other to a site like this, but I was not taking point. Perhaps it can be said, that was the last time I would find myself allowing others to take point, in choosing and locating the proper condition for expression and placement.
Per usual, in the nature of my interactions with others, I pursue Entertainment in the Engagement category, and what is engaged is not the physical so much, but the INTELLECTUAL. Often, the physical component is that hiking, and outdoors adventure is involved, but on the side, not as the focus.
Simple discourse with a male who has known of me, but never has known me for that of a decade, devolved into nothing more than their diffidence, their anxiety, and their care needing to be controlled and managed, and through amusement, circumventing, or settling their repugnance in expression.
If I was a fool, I would have continued to tackle the subject that was being spoken of. But in actuality, you humans are not talking about ANYTHING. You are grunting around your EMOTIONS, and now, I know better. I now know, when there is one ingredient that is significant, and missing, that the conversation should stop being about things, and instead become about the emotions, and/or ENDED altogether.
That one ingredient that says it all is the Sixth Kinetics: that of excited in ignorance, fueled by diffidence, or that of excited in knowledge, fueled by confidence.
The way you can tell which is which, is when the treatment of any subject―that is, that of a set of declarative statements, either being affirmed or denied, subject, copula, predicate, in propositional form―has no knowledge points. That is to say, when the discourse has no knowledge points to illuminate and account for, it is discourse surrounded in ignorance. One need only seek to account for the knowledge points.
Ask: “What here is about the known, versus the unknown?”. When the answer is, it is all speculation and whim, and there are hardly any crucial knowledge points, or data points able to be identified, then the discourse is based in EXCITED IGNORANCE, as an emotion, and the one with whom the discourse is taking place with is not actually engaged in discourse, and has no value in deciphering the knowledge for use.
Instead, the appearance of discourse is a smoke screen to get their emotions expressed, and because it is excited in ignorance, those emotions will be the expression of diffidence; that is, their lack of trust in self and others, and in extension, knowledge, and any certainty, and then that of anxious concern that needs attention and validation, such as the concerns of their emotional states, and then, if not satisfied, if not fed, if not entertained, the revelation of their repugnance.
These emotional tracks are trying to run, and be expressed, and the greatest error I had committed most of my life was that of “wanting” the “subject Patterns” to actually be the focus, and mean something to others, because of the advancement in the decision making process it can bring about.
But this has not been the actual state of things, when dealing with humans. When dealing with humans, instead, in the background, this emotional track is running, and it mimics the conversation, only so far as it finds points in the conversation to become emotionally expressed.
This can be detected when it is seen that the individual is CONFUSED, in DOUBT, can not DISCERN between belief and knowledge, can not discern between opinion and proposition, and then tries to get the one who might, to become the one who needs to CONVINCE them, and CARE for their diffidence… their confusion, their lack of trust, their doubt. And when they do this, the inexperienced will think, this shows… THEY CARE.
One falls for this BAIT of causing one to serve in the Control and the Management of the other's emotions, with diffidence and anxiety being the primaries here. It is not curiosity that is on display, when the one in diffidence and anxiety is asking questions, and looking like they need clarification.
This is not actually occurring. In their own ignorance, and lack of discipline, and self-responsibility, they too are delusional, under their own emotional smoke screen. It is not only a smoke screen for the intelligent, and the disciplined to fall for, but it is a smoke screen that is also used by the individual doing it, in order to repress, suppress, and conceal their own repugnance.
When it is in the phase, from them, to get you to CARE about their diffidence, and their anxiety, by pushing you, by controlling you, and managing you towards CONVINCING them, they are baiting you away from the quality and the confidence of knowledge, and into their hell of diffidence. It is not authentic and legitimate to think that they are INQUISITIVE, and they want to KNOW, and to LEARN.
The way to tell is that, it gives off a NEGATIVE tone of STRUGGLE. They are not EAGERLY asking, and getting excited from answers that clarify, and advance. Every time the intelligent ones offer up an intelligent answer, the response by those possessed by diffidence, and anxiety is that… they need more, because they are not getting it, and it is a struggle, and they are trying, but they just can't understand. This is the DIFFIDENCE of a GHOUL. This is not curiosity, and this is not eagerness, and this is not a value of knowledge.
When one is ignorant of something, yet, their association to knowledge is through eagerness, that is excited and positive states, then the discovery of their ignorance is exciting, and motivational.
They do not feel defeated in their ignorance, but motivated towards the Victory of the knowledge now, that they were ignorant of something, lacking in the data, but have now made this discovery as the means to remedy, with the pursuit of knowledge.
Those who discover their ignorance, and it “saddens them”, and it “hurts their feelings”, and it causes them to “struggle”, and they need convincing, and when you convince, they seek to be resistant, hesitant, reluctant, and confused… this has nothing to do with the subject.
This is about their emotional Kinetics of diffidence, excited ignorance, anxiety, and the concerns in which one is to serve in care. And when one does not switch up the pressure, and instead care for this inept state the emotional is in, through some amusement, and/or Seduction, the next Kinetics is that of a punishment towards the one who is a challenging force. That punishment comes with the revelation, not the activation, of their repugnance.
First, they try to derail you by making you serve their diffidence and anxiety, through having you presume you can convince them, and that they care about the subject; they just need you to work harder to make sense of it.
Your ENERGETICS here, to CONVINCE them, is FOOD. The energy. Not how you use it, or what you are saying, but that you are saying it, and you are saying it to them, thus giving them attention. Your attention is the energy. The ghoul will not care about the subject. Care does not have an association with subject Patterns. Care is anxious concern, and the concern is misdirection to conceal the anxiety.
It is not that they are anxious; it is that they are CONCERNED that you are supposed to think. Ghouls are always deceptive and shifty, and they use their confusion, and their emotions to smoke screen what they are. They come with the appearance of weakness, yet a desire to be cured through care, when in actuality, they are merely feeding on the energy of the one who is seeking to remedy the smoke screen, as if it was authentic in appearance. Those of diffidence, of anxiety, of concern, in need of care could care less about the subject.
They want your attention, and your energy, and when they get you to give it, and you are ignorant of their deceptions, then at the same time, you are revealing that you are more inferior in quality than you let on, when you think you are of higher quality, in that you know the solution, and you know the subject better than them. When you think this makes you superior, you are the idiot.
They do not believe in knowledge. They believe in usefulness, and utility, and knowledge, to them, only amounts to this. They do not believe you can believe in knowledge either, but that like them, you are seeking to be amused, and to express your emotions over them. So in the scope of things, in their eyes, they have revealed you are the chump and inferior, because they employed a childish tool of diffidence, of anxiety, of concern, of care, as a means to get you to serve them with your energy. They have done what every mommy has done to them, and they, in that moment, get to have a piece of mommy's Control and Management, barely able to be called Manipulation.
Every day, or mostly every day, I myself am learning more and more about the value of the emotional Kinetics system I am putting forth. The reader is not to presume this is something I have worked out. It is not. If it were just me, and among my Kind, there would be no classification of interaction as navigation of the diffidence, the anxiety, the concern, and need for care for others, or else they have revealed their repugnance. There would be no such thing as EXCITED IGNORANCE. There would be no such thing as COWARDICE, and INEPTITUDE.
If I was among Kind, to me… there would be no such thing as the EMOTIONAL KINETICS. It is only a system by way of observation of contrast, and that of discovering the con that is to be human.
I am but an ALIEN, of sorts, Terrain in origins, but foreign in COGNITION, having observed the bulk of you, as humans, in your ways, and now knowing the differences by contrast… All of this, is but me trying to explain and make clear to the rest of you, what you are, and how I differ, so that you may exercise some “awareness” enough to stop sending your IGNORANCE, and REPUGNANT human emotions my way, and trying to get me to serve you.
ACCESS DENIED.
Repugnance is at the root of the form of Entertainment called amusement. Amusement is the entertaining expression of one's repugnance, that is given even more weight when combined with the repugnance of others.
When amusement becomes the focus, it means care was not fed. The thing that is feeding now, in this stage, is one's REPUGNANCE.
When the form of Entertainment of Engagement of the Intellect, through Advancements, is the focus, this is called the stage of Valiance.
There is no Valiance in amusement, and there is no repugnance in engaging the Intellect for its Advancement.
Repugnance and Valiance both share in the genus, the general form, of being “fight energy”.
Repugnance is fighting from ineptitude, from diffidence, from ignorance, from anxiety.
Valiance is fighting from Advancement, from confidence, from knowledge, and from that of an eagerness, with the added ingredient of “Justice”, or in this case Virtue. Valiance is a fight for VIRTUE.
Repugnance leads to fighting from vice. Emotional Kinetics form habits, and habits is the genus of vice or Virtue. Vice does not only mean that which is endured from the outside in. One's emotional Kinetics can be called vice, or Virtue.
What makes one vicious, more often than not, is their emotional body. So then, it can be said, and never would I have said this a decade ago, that what makes one Virtuous… too, is their emotional body, but the emotional body under the Command of the Intellect, which in most, needs to be AWAKENED.
In the absence of awakening the Intellect, there will only be the emotional body under the subjugation of ignorance, diffidence, anxiety, concern, and repugnance.
This is what all of you must contend with, but in the absence of awakening the Intellect, it would be said… you do not know that this war even exists. You will instead look outside of you, and think, everything is based on the condition, and it either serves you and your needs, or it does not.
When one is cared for by the conditions, that is, well-fed, and fat in their emotions… they will not seem repugnant. It is thought, they only become repugnant when they do not get what they want, when duhkha, or dookie, is upon them. That is, when they seem to “suffer”, though this is foolish as a single word translation.
Duhkha is not merely suffering. Duhkha is the revelation of the war that will mostly only come about when conditions become adverse to the care in which the inept are hungry, and starving for, not as ghosts, but as ghouls, and Vampyres, serving as better metaphors, and allegories.
Repugnance requires a back and forth around care. It is care that is hungry the most, and when it is not well-fed, it is repugnance that cycles through to do the feeding. If one remains repugnant for too long, they consume all the energy of their prey. It is like over feeding, and over hunting.
Because of this, humans do a back and forth, more often than not, through the Kinetics. They will not stay repugnant. But if they do, and they consume the energy of those around them far too much, they will find themselves often cut off, and no longer endured by others.
From care to repugnance, one gets revealed. One will be in a fluctuated state of association to either of these two emotional states. Care as the hungry conclusion of anxious concern, and repugnance as the foundation for dissatisfaction and the absence of care factors being satiated.
When one is revealed in their repugnance for extended periods of time, having their care unsatiated for too long, they become disgusted, in revelation. Like all the emotions, disgust was already there. But if their care is fed, and they do not become repugnant in expression, because they are comfortable and well-fed in care, then they will not appear to be disgusted.
But do not get it mistaken, those who are born in diffidence and have anxiety and concern, in need of care, are both repugnant and disgusted, but in order to maintain their access to care foods, care feeding, caring, they repress and they suppress, they resist their own repugnance, and their own disgust, by a certain degree. More often than not, if they do this suppression hard enough, others will not be able to see they are repugnant, and disgusted… but think them well entertained.
Amusement, because often it will have laughter, and laughter is taken falsely as a sign of a positive emotion, called poorly “joy”, will be used to hide, in fact, that... the individual is in their repugnant revelation, and often has their disgust mixed in.
When one can laugh about the humor of being disgusted in certain things, it is because it is their own disgust being expressed in observing another. Humor hides the disgust, and the repugnance.
When a repugnant individual moves to being disgusted, they are revealed as disgusting. One will not be in the habit of disgust against things, without becoming disgusting. They will then become unattractive, though they may have already been, hence getting that far.
Most who are BORN attractive, objectively, get their cares served more readily, in exchange for access to them as trophies. Because of this, they will appear graceful, and better at suppressing their repugnance, at concealing it. Because of this, they will not likely appear disgusting.
But those who are less attractive, objectively, will not get their cares fed as much, and they will feel alienated, and cut off, and they will band together with other uglies around repugnance, and then their disgust, and adopt what would be disgusting as their noble cause, becoming malcontent.
The level of feeding towards one's cares determines depression, or that is despair. Perhaps depression is best left alone to being a chemical thing, and instead, I shall leave that out. But DESPAIR is defeat.
It is when one does not feel their care to be properly fed, their access to others to be sufficient, and satiated, that their lack of “speed”, their “lack of fight” will go unnoticed. It will be often because they are so unattractive to others, on account of their repugnance, and their disgust, that no one presents themselves to be “fought” by them. Others will avoid them.
Those who are possessed by DESPAIR are not seen as attractive―but make no mistake, those who began attractive have all these Kinetics as well, and their “confidence” is not from SELF, but is from CONDITIONS. This is not CONFIDENCE, like in the expression, born in confidence, versus born in diffidence. This is not confidence; this is CONDITIONAL ASSURANCE.
I do not observe in humans, confidence as a thing. I observe the best term, with its traits exposed, to be that of ASSURANCE, and it is not self-assurance, but it is conditional assurance.
More often than not, those who have been “properly” fed, in their cravings for care, are those that others would conceive of, or value as attractive, often in the outward physical sense.
Those who are attractive will often not be so on account of appearing repugnant, or disgusted with their condition and others. If they were repugnant and disgusted with favorable conditions, they would interfere with their care being fed.
The reason why, to normies, attractive people seem nice, seem kind, seem caring, is because they are well cared for, in their networks. Attractive physical kinds are shown a level of DEFERENCE to the extent of being very well-fed, in the realm of care. Their concerns are less, and their anxiety is more suppressed on account of being satiated often, with favorable conditions. In essence, those who are found attractive, and treated well because of this, can afford to play nice and kind, because they have deference.
Most females have deference, but not all on the same level. Attractive females get far more deference from males, including their daddies, than that of unattractive females, and there are far more unattractive females than there are physically attractive females.
Attractive males will receive deference as well. I myself know this first hand, and had to evaluate what sense others had of me, based on my appearance. I had to research how I was being received upon first meet and greet. What did my appearance say to others.
For example, if I do not open my mouth, everyone automatically thinks, I was raised by a “good family” with “money”, and was either a soldier or a cop. Now, I say, until I open my mouth. Because when that Brooklyn, Queens, Boston sounding accent comes out, the next thing is, he could have been those things, and/or a criminal.
Most would never presume I was an orphan on the streets, fighting daily to survive and live well, yet guided by an extreme Intellect and eagerness that is the key to my well-being. Most would not assume, in then learning those simple points, that NONE of those things ever registered as bad, as struggle, as negative to me, because I was born with confidence, born with Vigilance, born with Veracity, with Valiance, with Valor.
Because I was born “beautiful” or “attractive” in form, I was certainly shown favor. I can not dismiss it. Even now, at 44 years of age, the world treats me as an attractive older male, often not knowing I am in the category of “older male”. It just treats me as “ATTRACTIVE”.
And when you are treated as attractive, it makes it easy to not be repugnant, to not be disgusted. But a part of this has to do with inclination as well. I had an association for a while who was all his life, cognitively disgruntled and unattractive.
He looked like he could be “my brother” having similar phenotypes, but only somewhat. He had enough to be “good looking”, but the way he held his face, the way he walked, the way he stood, his expressions were all repugnant and disgusted, and what little “excitement” he would try to produce was forced, and repressed. His mindset, his attitude, and his mannerism were those born out of being seen… as unattractive, and then, becoming just that. But this can also occur based on conditions. Meaning, one can be born attractive, but conditionally be surrounded by unattractive kinds, and on account of having a weak nature, born in diffidence and anxiety, one comes to mimic the uglies, thus becoming one.
It can not be said that my conditions were among uglies. Oh no, I was around mostly good looking brothas, and/or Italians. My peers were athletic, were strong, were charismatic, and locked down the “streets” where we were. My close associates, surrounded by drugs, by booze, by crack, and every vice one could want, had no inclination to engage in such, but “felt” and acted beautiful against the odds. Our near associates, however, were all plagued, and possessed by the conditions, and broken by the lack of assurance from it.
What I had observed at a young age, when Christian whites would come in for programs, and/or to think they were helping, was that their “confidence” in “kindness” was more so a mere “assurance” in “care” they were provided from the conditions they were visiting from.
If these people had the same conditions that were around “us”, my “crew”, none of them would be the way they were. They would have been broken and defeated whites, looking for the crack pipe. As it would be shewn through in that, they were cowards, full of fear and insecurity when they were among us. They were easy to MOVE. They had to repress, they had to suppress the feelings in them that told them they can not trust the condition, the hood they were visiting. They had to tell themselves and each other that GOD has their back. They came through a few times, and then they stopped. Can you figure out why?
The conditions were realer than their belief in God having their back. The conditions informed their decisions, not to be mistaken for decision making process, with most of you often ignoring this word “process”. Their process likely remained delusionally the same. But their decision, on the other hand, changed. No doubt, they likely assured themselves it was for other reasons, other than they did not feel safe in the conditions they thought their guitars and smiles, their kindness could fix.
These were all attractive kinds coming in to help. This made them naive little children, who spoke from a position where their care was always serviced. So having their care well serviced, they wanted to be of service to the care of others. This is what you people do.
But what you care bears do not realize, is that by degree, your care only can be used against others who are used to satiated care.
When you take that nonsense into harsh conditions, that require skilled navigation that takes account for threats, where they are, where they can come from, and so on… your CARE is your weakness. It is born out of the DELUSION of being well-fed. Being well-fed, you think, you need only FEED the world around you, and that will solve the problems you are afraid of; that, what you are afraid of might jeopardize your own troth, and access to an assured safety.
We saw you coming in, as children who had no tools that could help you. If your assurances of your conditions were removed, fear of this removal would make your kind, in kindness, retreat back to your kind, your caring, domestic kind.
Valuing care is a privilege. Those who promote it are privileged, and fat in their emotions. They can only promote care, because they are assured in their positions of care. Because they do not have threats to their structures. When there are threats, those who would promote care will be silent. Instead, security becomes promoted, and in order to bring about that security, one does not care about their enemy; they DESTROY them.
Do not get it mistaken, the care bear females of your American society do not believe in peace, and nonviolence. They believe in assurances. When their level of assurance goes down, on account of there being threats, they would change up their tune of care, and promote protection, designate the males of the society as shields.
Shields can be broken, and when on account of being male, you are made to be a shield, the bulk of you would be too dim-witted, by nature's Command, to realize your status as being sacrificial and inferior is revealed. When you exist to be a shield over the females, and their offspring, the real hierarchy is exposed.
You may be given wealth and care while you are the shield and feel promoted, but this is for the means to control, and manage, manipulate your emotions of servitude, where your entire status, as a human male, is based on the assurance a human female and her offspring will give you.
Fools are you, human males, that you can not see you are, and have always been, by nature's decree, inferior to your human females. And because of this, you can not see that the Kind I came from, that had Valiant males and females, living as free and individualized beings, were not born out of the same species as the rest of you. “We”, the “Valiant”, are “hominids”; but we are not human.
Humans will never be Valiant, for Valiance shines through regardless of what assurance a condition seeks to provide and/or threaten. The Valiant are intrepid as a primary trait, and the conditions do not move us; WE, the Valiant, move the conditions.
Humans never have CONFIDENCE; they require ASSURANCE.
Etymology of Assure (v.)
late 14c., “reassure, give confidence to; make secure or safe, protect; bind by a pledge, give a promise or pledge (to do something),” from Old French asseurer “to reassure, calm, protect, to render sure” (12c., Modern French assurer), from Vulgar Latin *assecurar, from assimilated form of Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + securus “safe, secure” (see secure (adj.)). Related: Assured; assuring.
Etymology of Assured (adj.)
late 14c., of persons, “confident, self-assured,” past-participle adjective from assure. From early 15c. as “secure, made safe.” Related: Assuredly; assuredness.
Etymology of Reassure (v.)
also re-assure, “restore (someone) to confidence,” 1590s, from re- “back, again” + assure. Related: Reassured; reassuring.
Etymology of Assurance (n.)
late 14c., “formal or solemn pledge, promise,” also “certainty, full confidence,” from Old French asseurance “assurance, promise; truce; certainty, safety, security” (11c., Modern French assurance), from asseurer “to reassure, to render sure” (see assure). Meaning “self-confident” is from 1590s. The word had a negative tinge 18c., often suggesting impudence or presumption.
It can be seen from the etymologies provided above that the term “confidence” is used in likeness. But what is often not realized is, a “confidence” or “certainty” that rests upon a “pledge”, a “promise”, and that “pledge” and that “promise” is about securus, that of “safe” and that of “secure”.
One in “reassurance” seeks to “restore” the sense another has that there is a “pledge”, and a “promise” to keep them “safe and secure”. It is then said, by humans, one has “confidence”, not as an emotion, or a thing of its own, but a confidence that there is certainty, in the pledge, and in the promise around security and safety.
Humans do not, can not see confidence as an emotional variable. Just as humans would say insecure, as an emotion, but not diffidence.
There would be no such thing as an assurance derived from a pledge, or a promise to provide safety and security, unless by default, there was the “feeling” of being without that of safety and security. They call this feeling “insecure”, whereas I have come to call it diffidence, which has far more extension in awareness than insecure.
Assurances are not needed for those born in confidence. The conditions and the pledges around protection and safety mean nothing to those born in confidence, but everything to those born in diffidence.
Because you are born in diffidence, you need assurances, and assurances come by way of declarations, not by way of knowing if or if not one is actually safe and secure.
This is why, in your human relationships, the female mostly, and the male secondarily, though still yet… needs REASSURANCE, in the modes of attention.
CARE is a CRY for REASSURANCE.
Care, because it is anxious concern, is anxious concern around primal insecurities that I list as the Seven. Refer to the Seven Insecurities at the back of the book.
When the human female produces a care alert, it is a demand that says assure me of one, or some, or all of these Seven Insecurities. When a male produces the same, he says, “REASSURE ME, but know I will not believe you, and I will fight you on this, if you are male”. That, I will prove such is not secure, and you can never be the source. Whereas, a human female will believe, if the male is dangerous, yet controlled, that indeed, he can be the source of assurance she needs in the Seven Insecurities.
Attractive people are not confident because of being measured attractive. They may be those born with confidence, and more often than not, it can be said… unattractive people are most often highly unlikely to at the same time have been born with confidence. They may come to acquire assurances from their condition, on account of some other value other than their physical traits, but that is what it is.
Where there are those born in confidence, it is highly likely that at the same time, they are attractive. But the human error is that, born attractive means likely confident. This is NOT true.
Let me repeat that for you HUMAN readers….
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
It is RARE to be born in confidence, but where this rarity occurs, it occurs more often than not among those born too attractive, and not often those unattractive. It is not rare to be born attractive, though attractive is not the common. But the difference is small, in this realm, attractive or unattractive. Beauty is not in the eyes of the beholder. That is what UGLY folk tell themselves and each other, to make sense of the obviousness, in their lack of options, and their need to settle, from a human point of view.
I favor the cognitive character of the individual far more than their outward appearances. But though this is the case for my preferences, I would not say, one who is unattractive on the outside will have a good cognitive character. This is not the case, but by what degree there is something about them that is attractive, it may vary.
For the female and male realm, I do not find models, and promoted beauties as such. I find wild, and rugged, battle ready females to be the standard. These kinds of females are rare. So based on the nature of my Kind, it can be said, it is RARE for me to see a female, and to think she is attractive. But this standard is not the same for humans. Humans find it far more easier to be attracted to the opposite sex; and what can be said of this, more often than not, humans are not attracted, as much as they are intimidated.
Etymology of Intimidate (v.)
1640s, from Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare “to frighten, make afraid,” from in- “in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + Latin timidus “fearful” (see timid). Related: Intimidated; intimidating. The French verb was intimider (16c.).
When human females give males selective attention, it is the attention that is attracting them. When the male gives the female energy, or attention, the attention is the attraction. When a male says he is attracted to a female, and he feels afraid and timid, it is not attraction; it is intimidation. The same can be said about a female with a male. Intimidation does not mean threatened. Timidus, or timid, is more to the point. This can be based on fear, but it can also be the “stirring up” of the emotions of desire, of the taboo, of adventure, and of a game that seems “dangerous”.
Females feel timid around me, and get girlish real quick, knowing, or that is, suspecting, they can not make me feel timid. Females can not INTIMIDATE me, neither can males. But this is not an accomplishment of thought, and character. I am one of those rare and odd specimens that does not have a loud “fear” center. If I did not learn to Reason about strategies of risk and reward, this probably would have gotten me killed when young.
Fear and timidity stops most of you from doing things that can harm you, but at the same time, it makes most of you cowards at life.
Etymology of Timid (adj.)
1540s, from French timide “easily frightened, shy” (16c.) and directly from Latin timidus “fearful, afraid, cowardly,” from timere “to fear,” a word of uncertain origin. Related: Timidly; timidness.
In order to generate assurances around care, the human female will communicate to the human male that she is in need of care through that of being timid. This is a play at generating assurances, and assurances are communicated through attention and energy. The more attention and focus one directs towards the mark, the more it can judge with its base, primal and simple mind energetics, and thus assurances.
This is also why the human female values the resources and social status of the male, at first sight, more than his “physical” assurances. Human males are not that bright, in anything they observe. So when they see a female measuring them based on their resources, they call her a gold digger. But what is he, when he measured her based on her appearance, and sexual currency… A John?
Everything you humans do is about ASSURING the sense of safety and security of each other. You have jobs for safety and security, as an assurance; peers, in amusement for social assurance; family as assurance; society, political parties, sports teams, and so on, all around the need for being assured by the condition that there is safety, security and stability.
These assurances are about Control and Management, mostly, and they are not to be mistaken as under the realm of Seduction. They may be needed in order to activate Seduction, but a good Seduction, as Entertainment distraction, could bypass all of this, and that is why its value over amusement can be claimed.
Amusement will play on your repugnance, and your disgust. Think of most of what the boys of today do in “shooter games”. They are “fighting” against AI, or each other, in player versus player. This is their repugnance seeking targets. The difference can be seen, in cooperative games, where instead of repugnant amusement, some may be looking to push their knowledge and their skills. It all comes down to WISDOM to WIELD.
I have used games to experiment with young males, because it gave me free subjects, none whom I am still in contact with.
If, and only if, a game begins, and all seek to learn a greater skill than yesterday, can it be said to be driven by curiosity, or excited knowledge, and thus, engaging towards Advancement.
When the boys gather to run a loop that is the same as yesterday, and shall be the same no matter what, this is for amusement. It is driven by repugnance, and that will show in the way they speak and interact with each other.
Where there is the drive to expand in skill and knowledge, to run more strategic and/or tactical, it is shown by being the cause for difference in daily interactions. Far more defeats than Victories, but in the thousand defeats that breed the one Victory, it is the greatest Victory.
This is not often to occur. When I used games to provoke this, it can not be said the fellas were there to be engaged, and be engaging. Because of my charisma, I brought that level of Engagement, and they spectated and received it, as an amusement on their part. For access to a more entertaining condition, they complied with the standard. This is evident in the inability to replicate the engaging process, and that of resetting back to the default options of amusing repugnance.
I never once was able to get a male to replicate the nature of Entertainment via Engagement and Advancement. It was all dependent on me being the source thereof, thus illuminating that though one can be in a mode of their own, such as Engagement, others can be in the mode of Seduction, and/or amusement. These two modes were what the males were experiencing, when I used Engagement tactics for Entertainment.
One who is not observant, and too self-possessed would think that their mode became realized by spectating. This mistake and error of observation should not be made. Do not fall for others pretending in amusement and Seduction to be meeting you if in fact you are being engaging. This will more often than not be a deception that is present to gain, or maintain access to the one who is entertaining.
Those from amusement and Seduction can not, and will not characterize an engaging entertainer as actually coming from this mode. They will think, he is an AMUSEMENT. They will think, he SEDUCED me, and is a SEDUCER. This, because for the most part, they have only known amusers in masses, and seducers, often of the profession thereof.
I am often treated as an attractive seductive Entertainer, more than an amuser, and because of this, and this perhaps alone, others value my form of Entertainment over that of the value of amusers. But this is not my VALUE. Escapism and Seduction is not my value, and on account of that, I removed those who were accessing me in that presumed mode. Those who fail to enter into the mode of engaging forms of Entertainment, merely seeking amusement, and/or Seduction, will be
ACCESS DENIED.
Amusement feeds repugnance, and Seduction distracts, and relieves through entertaining almost fantasy based assurances.
Amusement ASSURES the acceptance of REPUGNANT Entertainment.
Seduction assures the acceptance of fantasy, so as to ESCAPE that which triggers REPUGNANCE and DISGUST, and instead plays on excited ignorance, as the game space.
Where AMUSEMENT plays on REPUGNANCE,
there is SEDUCTION that plays on EXCITED IGNORANCE.
Ignorance is the primary component of both, but it is the primary zone of “play” for Seduction, not amusement.
The ignorance of Seduction is the promotion of ignorance as a good thing, called fantasy. It is the parties not needing fact and reality to be of significance. So it is not a hatred and anger towards reality, but a rejection, so as to escape it.
Repugnance is a hatred, and anger, a near disgust for reality, which does not offer favors and assurances. Amusement needs there to be a reality to make light of, to mock―not to escape and dismiss to enter into fantasy.
Amusement, though it can be mixed into Seduction, is not the realm of fantasy. Seduction is the realm of fantasy, whereby those involved in it can make up any whimsical narrative about their condition, and act as if they are not bound to reality. It is a DISTRACTION from REALITY, not a critical, analytical retort of it, that is marked by repugnance.
“Let us leave this repugnant realm, and rejoice in ignorance, in a fantasy that can not and does not punish ignorance, like our harsh reality does”. In the realm of fantasy, a realm only the privileged and the assured can enter, there is no wrong. There are only KIND spirits that are nice, gentle, and wonderful in how they so assure any thought, and any feeling one has.
When this privilege is extreme, those seeking to be seduced, and to stay in seduced states will compel the condition to conform to the assurances their fantasy had been given them, and this is why, perhaps, some fun can be had with both amusement and Seduction, but eventually, these become poisons of the mind, and what minds they poison that then assert themselves upon the conditions become infectious, only in the eyes of those who have done well to obey reality, so as to Control and Command through reality.
Eventually, the culture war ensues between those seeking to enforce fantasy on reality, and those seeking to defend reality against them, because fantasy upon reality begets destructure, suffering, and usurpation.
A part of arts, and ways of Seduction deals in the Control and the Management of the emotional states of the mark and the target, but under such Control, the writers of Seduction failed to distinguish the difference, and in failing to distinguish the difference, existed themselves under a fantastical sense of what Seduction is, like in how the amused have a “joy” in their “repugnance”, when amusement dominates them.
Human joy and Entertainment is mostly centered around human repugnance, and the failure to see this, is on account that when the human is repugnant―and they are more often than not, as a baseline―they are fighting their own sense of their emotional states, and when asked where they are in the Kinetics, they may respond with, they do not feel anything.
Of course one who sees them, would not say… they look to be feeling TRIUMPHANT. No, he who says, they do not feel anything, looks DEFEATED, and this is because of the SUPPRESSION of their sense of their emotions, due to the COWARDICE in facing one's emotions, and doing something with it.
That very conversation with the fella who was only drawing the energy towards his diffidence, his anxiety, his concerns, and need to feed care with assurances, yet merely being repugnant, had him, when asked, stating he was feeling nothing.
This “I feel nothing” is equivalent to saying, “in my REPUGNANCE, I have no awareness that I am repugnant”. Suppressing and repressing one's emotions, to a point of lack of awareness about them, takes place in the third stage, that of repugnance.
It is diffidence, anxiety (concern for care, unsatiated, no “assurances”), to that of repugnance. The fight, the resistance, the defensiveness, the guardedness, the subversiveness, here, when they can not fight their target, gets turned on themselves, and this is one who is near to despair.
They will not use their energetics to be repugnant against a target that is not trying to hear that, and endure that. When they become ineffective at fighting against others, seeking to express their fight, they fight themselves, and they do this by repressing and suppressing their emotions, thinking they have fought over themselves, but in actuality, they are fighting themselves into “no fight”, or that is, the absence of sparre, of the spar.
They are en route to despair. They will show disgust, after repugnance, for the thing they could not fight, and when they repress this, they will become quieted, as they become disparaged.
Etymology of Disparage (v.)
late 14c., “degrade socially” (for marrying below rank or without proper ceremony), from Anglo-French and Old French desparagier (Modern French déparager) “reduce in rank, degrade, devalue, depreciate,” originally “to marry unequally, marry to one of inferior condition or rank,” and thus, by extension, to bring on oneself or one's family the disgrace or dishonor involved in this, from des- “away” (see dis-) + parage “rank, lineage” (see peer (n.)).
Also from late 14c. as “injure or dishonor by a comparison,” especially by treating as equal or inferior to what is of less dignity, importance, or value. Sense of “belittle, undervalue, criticize or censure unjustly” is by 1530s. Related: Disparaged; disparaging; disparagingly.
Those who are plagued by their repugnance will lose social rank among those who have a sense, or an awareness that this interferes with performance, and quality of association.
The emotional Kinetics of the Vir
Myself, as an example, I exalt Valiance in the place of repugnance.
Valiance is the third Kinetics, in the emotions of the Vir.
In the same order as human Kinetics, it is: Confidence behind one's Eagerness brought into expression, with Valor, leading to VALIANCE, and from there that of VERACITY, that of VIGILANCE, that of the inquisitive mind, eager to learn and know, towards VALIDITY. All arriving at the form of Entertainment that is ENGAGEMENT.
Engaging the Advancement of the Intellect and the character of the individual, with Control and Command over one's condition and self, is the aim, in the name of Virtue.
This is the Kinetics of the Vir; however, most of the Control and Discipline of this Kinetics begins in the seventh, not in the first. The Vir controls their Kinetics, by always bringing it back to Entertainment, or frame of mind based upon the principles of engaging the Intellect, to advance in Control and Command over conditions and self.
Because of this, they must inquire, instigate learning and knowing, and prioritize skill, competence, and proficiency, thus begetting methods and systems, ways and doing for all they are about. This then breeds Vigilance, awareness, a state of being awake, and from this position, that of a Veracity, wherein Valid expression is PRIMARY to the Vir, and they do not sacrifice it for assurances like the human does.
And from this Veracity, what is Validity expressed will often receive an injustice for those seeking assurance over others, with their repugnance. The Vir has Valiance, in that, they have Valor, and/or courage in the face of adversity and opposition, and they shine through that of the condition, in Victory, and they do not endure injustice. Their Valiance is martial fight guided by Virtue, and the expression and preservation thereof.
All of this, achieved only through the inclination of confidence to which they have been born with, that causes them to “believe in certainty”, where “certainty” is evident, and thus have an emotional relationship to the value of knowledge. In such confidence, they pursue knowledge, and from such knowledge, they become skilled and proficient, masters over the condition, and in such mastery of the condition, they become free, and with such freedom, they express into excellence all the other traits innate to them, that beget an intrepid character.
This is why the Vir is alien to you humans; because this does not describe what you all pursue and live by. You live as defeated cowards that cry out to the condition to give you assurances, around your ineptitudes. This too is why you must favor your default familiars, and anyone you can opportunistically get access to. You must favor this, for assurance, because by the numbers, you are surrounded by humans who have nothing more to them than being a programmed whimpering little tit of an animal, hungry for the same assurances, differing minorly in appearance, but having the same collective mental midgetry of a mind, as most of you, in kindness.
When a Vir meets a human, the Vir is bringing Valiance. When the human responds with their repugnance, the quality of social interaction is plagued by them, and brought to decadence. By quality, they are of a lower social rank, and they will not get assurances to the contrary, because this violates that of Veracity.
It is through Veracity, the expression of the Valid at all cost, that the Vir tells you humans what it observes and thinks about you, and why. Not a why that is there to convince you, but because of the Karuna Duty, or the Virtue game of the Vir. When asked, it is required to answer the question as if it is legitimate, until such a cheat has been acquired by way of the written or recorded word, presented for all to make use of.
Where the “matter” and its “Patterns” have been covered, the Vir and Votary are not to explain and convince the repugnant. The repugnant loses its ghoulish influence through pretending to be “interested”, when in actuality, they are seeking to be amused. They want a slave to ASSURE them, and to AMUSE them, and this garnishes an...
Access Denied.
The Vir will not control and manage your emotions through conditional assurances, and this is not the Vir disparaging you, the human. Your social ranks, based on being human, do not apply to the Vir.
It is you, humans in your repugnance, who are seeking to fight the Vir, to lower them, in your human ranks, while the Vir, and/or the Votary has made it clear… ACCESS DENIED.
“We”, those of the Vir, and/or the Votaries, with the Vows thereof, will not play your repugnant games. We do not consent to be ranked, and ordered in your processing. “We” are not a “WE”.
“We”, those of the Vir, and/or the Votaries, are not “yours”, your “familiars” and your “kind”, and therefore, do not want your “assurances” through your “kindness”. Stop treating us in KIND. WE ARE NOT YOUR KIND.
Therefore, the Vir does not amuse, nor does the Vir seduce; but this is the limit of how you humans will be able to see it. You will not observe the Vir seeking to engage, because before now, the Vir had to meet everyone where they were, because it was form to form, or individual to individual, and the Vir was with a Virtuous Duty of Veracity.
These works change that. Now, the Vir does not meet the human, in human ways. The Vir can now remove access, and leave the human be, and simply make available to those in the captivity of humans that of this WAY, and leave it to prove if they are motivated, by their own nature, to move according to its Vows.
-
Its vow to not be dictated by diffidence.
-
Its vow to not be plagued by anxiety.
-
Its vow to not be concerned, and in need of assurances and care.
-
Its vow to not be repugnant, disgruntled, displeased, and contemptuous.
-
Its vow to not be disgusted, and disgusting, expressing illness.
-
Its vow to not be in despair, broken, defeated, vanquished.
-
Its vow to not be excited in ignorance.
-
Its vow to not be amused and seduced, nor engage in such upon others.
These are what the Vows are NOT to be, but not as the Vows themselves, for these are the negations only because… the Vir, and the Votary are as they are for what they Vow to be, by being it.
-
Vow to be Confident.
-
Vow to be Eager.
-
Vow to be Expressed.
-
Vow to be Valiant, and Valorous.
-
Vow to be Veracious.
-
Vow to be Vigilant.
-
Vow to be Inquisitive.
-
Vow to be Engaged in Advancement of the Intellect, towards Control and Command over their condition and self, in the realm of Virtue.
It is because these are the Vows affirmed in being through the Vir, and the Votary, of the culture of Vir, that the other negated elements are known by contrast.
One who is meant to be a Votary and/or Vir does not struggle repugnantly to fight the negated states in the first. In confidence, they live out the Vows of the second affirmed values, and because of this, it is that which is affirmed which will cause that which would be negated, to have no need to be, on account of atrophy.
The sissy Buddhists seek to negate, and never achieve such. That is not what the Vir does. Through affirmation and expression of the traits of what it is to be Vir, that which is not meant to be Vir, atrophies. He who works on his problems, his possessions, his impediments, his inflictions, cravings, and hungers, is he who is feeding all of them, and is fat in their emotions.
He who works on excellence, emotionally sheds weights, and optimizes, having no time to make excuses for ineptitude, and no ineptitude that warrants excusing. They are freed, not through negation, but affirmation and expression.
One who does not find these variables in them to be affirmed, can not find them, because discovered is, they are human, and have not these traits. One who finds them with EASE to be expressed, proves such in their eagerness to be expressed, in them, and therefore, is natured towards them, and just might, just might… NOT BE HUMAN.
Seduction deals in Entertainment, slightly above that of amusement, but do not get it mistaken: a Vir is not seeking to seduce you with a fantasy, and where you think they had, and/or are doing so… it is because your limit has now been exposed. You are a human who is either amused or seduced, or a mixture of both, but no more, and by what would incite from engaging the Intellect, would be to you no more than fantasy based, because you would be deceiving to have an association with that very thing.
To a human, when the Vir and/or Votary are about the Intellect, this is equivalent to saying, “about the fantasy”. For, for the human, there is no Intellect, no confidence, no Valor, no Veracity, no Valiance. To the human, in their diffidence, in need of assurance, their assurances are best secured through fantasy, and therefore, all that would assure them are fantastical. To sense a confidence of the Vir, is to sense the Vir is engaged in what fantasy they would need to call their social and conditional assurances, confidence.
Humans do not see far. Humans hardly see at all, because they are too busy with their feelings of diffidence, their feelings of anxiety, their feelings of hunger for assurances, their feelings of repugnance, of disgust, and the despair this brings them, making them worship ignorance as a god, beside the goddess of care, while they amuse themselves and hope those better among them will come to seduce them, in fantasy.
Access DENIED
Vir ain't going to play that, and neither will a Votary. Those who do are neither Vir, nor Votary, and if they use these words, and they say, they CARE, and they STRUGGLE to realize them, they are neither. They are a charlatan, and you need to call them out. Struggle in these Ways is proof, they ought not be your Ways, because you are human. Go back and struggle with HUMAN CÂLICE, do not be here to STRUGGLE with the Confidence and CERTAINTY of the Way of the Vir, for those born to be of its Ways. Struggle means you were not born for this Way.
