top of page

Part I

The Open Letter

Access Denied page.png

Chapter 1

Preliminary Chapter

This preliminary chapter was developed after Access Denied had been written and edited. At first, Access Denied was set to be a thousand-page open letter to those to whom it would apply, either those in use of it, or those trying to figure out what the users were using, often from a position of rejection.

I will account here, in this preliminary chapter, the history behind why this open letter.

There are many, mostly online, who seek me out for guidance. Often, they want to be guided in their wants and their desires, but I DO NOT and CAN NOT offer guidance in such things. Instead, there is one thing I can “guide” in, and therefore, “mentor” in, as a Sage. That is, the nature and the excellent expression of my own “kind”, and that which is near to it, by degree.

Because of this, what is written in these pages is NOT UNIVERSAL, and it will NOT APPLY to most who come to this treatise for whatever wants and wishes brought them here. I do not offer guidance to individuals or groups. I have a DUTY to provide my discoveries in regards to my own “kind”, and that of likeness. A duty means it is not voluntary. I am not a Man who is “volitional” and can choose to be either for myself or that of being against myself. I am obedient to my innate identity and what it dictates, and I honor in obedience my Duty to be the best of me, in expression towards excellence and its Virtue. And this means I could care less about what the rest of you are doing in confusion and delusion. This is not my problem.

The “why” behind this open letter
The “why” behind this open letter

Oddly, the history and reasoning behind the production of this open letter is instigated by a need that I have.

That need is that I do not like dealing with others on a one-on-one basis. I used to be an experimental and investigative behavioral philosopher of a non-academic sort. Like I said, I have not attended elementary, middle, high, or collegiate schools. I am uneducated, and only through my own merits have I engaged this world; not through their “certifications” and their “approval”.

However, I was born with an odd set of proclivities. I was born prodigious, with a highly “Ratiocinative”, or that is Rational mind, and with a low degree of sensitivity to the chemicals at the base of negative emotions. I was born confident and joyous, and because of this, I can not be shaken from my own direction, and taken off course. But I was born with equanimity, never having to struggle to maintain it. Because of this, I am by NATURE an OUTSIDER to the human race, who is not born with a “drive” towards the affirmed emotions of enjoyment, joy, and pride, but instead, innately is born to fear and insecurity.

As an outsider, NO ONE should listen to me, and believe me, in that of what I write or say. None of it is coming from an “exalted” place promoted. It is all coming from an individual whose nature has come to nature too differently than that of what is common and liken to the masses, the multitudes, the many.

When others hear or see me affirming powerfully and in Command of my own nature, they become attracted to this... Because in ALL, what is universal is the desire for more Control. But not everyone is born with the same capacity and abilities to engage the Control mechanics naturally present, and/or conditionally present.

Most mistake my Ways as “Ways” that could help them increase their CONTROL, as well as their ACCESS to others, and things. But it is rare that this actually comes to occur, and it is rare because most will not have the default and the innate dispositions that my work actually applies to.

This has given me a history of having to manage and work with, in the past, a whole lot of folks who were attracted to this sense of “Control”, and seeking me out for it, but who were not themselves suited for what I am about. Though that brought me many “free subjects” to experiment with, and to learn from such experiments, it also cut into my time, my energy, and my ability to focus on that which was my own “Solo Game”.

Because of the way I was born, I was born to be “affirmative”. Because hominids―which humans and my kind are of―are by nature hyper social, that affirmative nature of mine translates into being “preachy” and “compelled”, by joyous impulse, to bestow the Patterns I have identified. This is an impulse, a Duty, a dictated natural state that does not have any concern or care for the audience, or the one who triggers the preaching, the bestowing. But because of its intensity, combined with the human need for attention…

Many will mistake my intense bestowing towards them as me giving them attention, and they will pursue further attention, and often play at social games necessary to maintain this kind of access to me.

Let it be said here for the first time : that intense energy of bestowing that you would encounter in me in flesh has nothing to do with you, and it is not your “you” that is being given attention. You are just the trigger of that element I am dictated by in my nature. You are replaceable, and any and all can trigger that. You, because you are receiving this energy of transmitting and bestowing, are NOT special.

The reader will observe, often, depending on how much of me they read, that I do not use the term human the same as most of you do. I am not grunting when I say my words. I am saying them with, more than not, an exact meaning. I will often define that meaning somewhere in the piece, and my editor, the Sauvageonne, will include a glossary and lexicon at the back of the book. Whatever you think I mean is not likely what I mean... And you the reader are to update to what the writer is defining as their meaning, and not take liberties to convert their works to your own wants, and wishes of reception. But... This is what humans do, when I interact with them. Human means “lowly”, of the “dirt”, of the “mud”, of the “Earth”, as opposed to the “Heavens” and among the “Gods”. It's not a physical being, like most of you grunt about, with this term. It is a mental state. It is a mental state that I was not born with. I was not born insecure and with fear, and because of this, the universal human need for attachment figures to make them feel safe and secure was not innate to my program. In the absence of this innate emotional need, one is not, and can not be a human. It is the primary defining factor of ALL HUMANS start in this life of theirs. As infants, it is the number one motivational and driving force, and in how most of you live, day-to-day, and the values you form, you have not shifted up and out of this, and into confidence. Instead, you still live insecure, in fear, and in pursuit of comforts and sureties of safety and security, and these are the base elements that define your emotionality.

I was not born with this program. Call me a freak, call me a mutant, or anything an outsider could be called. But this needs to be made clear. When someone would target me for bonding, they would always come to find out, they should not have. I am not meant to be in bonds; I was born Free and to be Free, and at all cost.

Because of this, for some, I then become an interesting target, in that I am a hard target to control, because I can not be controlled. And these ones, out of entertainment, will then try to seek to gain and/or maintain access to me. Whatever the reason humans try to get access to me, or keep it, it is often, almost always never about what I am about. It's about having me. Those days are numbered.

With new associates having been acquired, I had come to find that I was becoming even more strict in who and how one could have access to me, but that it was so strict, that there was no way others could conceive of it and the why. So as I began to explain some of the things, I observed there was an interest in others to see if they could apply it. But one of the driving changes I have discovered in the last few years is that I CAN NOT BE A MOTIVATIONAL FORCE.

Call this “Way One”, if you will.

Before I will cover that, let me offer a simple code. If not human, then what?

I will call humans, whom I define all over the place, a kind of cognitive species. So think of the way the mind and motives are designed, not the body, the carriage, the outward shell. In the past, I explained there were three cognitive species, based on quality of thought and character. Human, Man, and Sage. However, I refer to myself as a Ratient, because the Rational faculty is Divine to me, and I serve in its Ways; not the ways of some personality that is for social utility. Most of you, as human, are dictated by the “persons” you were given by the collective, and your day-to-day is about conforming to the standards of personification and familiarizing out of the need for security, safety, and stability. I obey REASONING, and do not be so fooled as to think you know what this means... You likely do not.

It is a myth that human males reason more than females, and do not let emotions dictate their decision making. Human males who appear to reason often only do so in professions that require it; but in their personal lives, they still live as the infants in search of attachment figures to feel secure, safe, stable, and with a servile purpose. Professions that require reasoning only do so, so far as there is a utility; therefore, males, being servile and often utility based, will dominate these demanding realms, and then act as if it has a place in their social systems, where human females dominate, and set the tempo, thus succumbing to a condition that is far from reasoning, and subject to the whims of moods. Some males who are professionals engaged in systems may wish their social existence was as clear and well-defined, but rarely do they possess the Control and/or Command to make it so, and therefore, their social existence is under the control of little girls and boys who are called mommies, daddies, brothers and sisters―and in extension, mayors, governors, and presidents.

In my eyes, or the mind's eye I possess, most, if not all of you, are chumps living a life of defeat, a vanquished existence. So then, when you meet me in person, it is foolish to think that I am trying to gain access to you, because you ask me something, and I begin to preach and bestow the Patterns triggered by the question. I do not want access to you, because you are just a collective replicant, that for the most part has nothing of value to offer me.

But this “bestowing” is a Duty, and most if not all humans can not understand what a Duty is, or would be, because this requires a relationship to pride. And most humans can not feel pride, because they can not live a skilled and competent life, and that is a prerequisite to the emotional conclusion of pride.

Many make the mistake in thinking I am without emotions. I am not. I am without the plague of the negative emotions. I have transmuted forms of emotions that I benefit from, and they begin with enjoyment, joy, and pride, and then the rest of them are in service of that state. Because of this, I come off energetically intense to the masses of timid whimpering little tits of cowardice, in which most are.

The creation of books, and soon videos will be motivated by this need to PREVENT having to preach and bestow the Patterns of discovery in one-on-one settings, which in the past, were the only kinds that could be carried out.

I am trying to cheat my innate and compelled Duty to represent and to illuminate these Patterns. Without products, such as videos and books, I am required to answer the questions and investigations of others. Most of you can not understand this. Rarely can you even think about your own life, let alone think about the mechanics of living, and how they could be controlled. So you can not have a sense of how, when you know these mechanics and make use of them to have an unusual level of Control and Command over conditions and self, you become required to bestow the sense of them.

When you do not possess value, you can not conclude on an obligation to spread it. Fear and insecurity is at the foundation of why, for the most part, you do not have anything to offer others, but your sex or your servile efforts towards resources. Sex, comforting, putting others at ease, giving a sense of security, and providing resources are the only ways you humans can actually find value in each other, and because of this, who you find value in will not matter. You instead have roles, and you value the role, and who is the role is replaceable, and you will change them out by your whims. Humans can not see individuality. Humans, ALL HUMANS, are slavers, and they seek to enslave everyone to everyone, so that they can use each other for these roles they need, to comfort their insecurities and fears. I will never be in those roles again, for others. I am denying access. But in order to do this, I have to cheat my Duty. Because without this cheat, I would have no choice. When sought after for illumination of the Patterns of Virtue, I would have no choice but to bestow. This is the fight of whoever the ancestors were, who did whatever they did to make me be born this way. It has nothing to do with some choice I have in the here and now.

Now, when others ask me questions, I can remain quiet, and give them a website. Here it is: voltential.me, and you can seek all this out for free.

Here is what happens when you do this. You discover that if you are not there to hold their hand and motivate them, they will not seek to uncover the Patterns to make use of them. This proves that the Patterns are not what is attracting them. It proves that I was attracting them. They wanted access to me, and in absence of the attraction to Patterns, it means they could not be attracted to me as an individual, because I am those Patterns; but instead, they had a want, a desire, a role they needed me to fill, based on their own nonsense, and then pretending to be about the Patterns was how they would place me in this role. This then means they would make use of my light, my motivations, and my energy, and when you are a fool, you will think they are guided by energy of their own, and then they will receive greater praise than they deserve. For most, for ALL humans, this does not matter. Because ALL HUMANS are doing this. They are faking interest in things in order to get access to each other, to serve roles. That is why after time, the thing diminishes. The romantic myth of association falls, and what remains is base, and exposed as merely the same as everyone else : a life around safety, around security, around mediocre relationships, with eventually children and work being the obvious conclusion, making you, no matter what you think, a talker who never was really about anything.

I learned the need, for me, for this first “Way”, that ALL would need to prove they have their own “light” and their own effort. I am way too good at influencing and motivating others. I was born good at that, and for humans, this would be a superpower to bend others to your wants and wishes, to get them to serve the roles you need, and so... There would be no checks and balance. For the Virtuous, this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for me to motivate and be the source of what others are doing, only to see, when left to their own, they rest, they betray, they subvert, and they undermine “the thing”. I am about that “thing”, and that thing is Virtue, and unlike most, I am not giving this lip service, while at the same time living a life of fear and insecurity, making moves only about materialistic stability. What you do is the fact; not these mythological and romantic narratives one passes off as them.

As I began to develop my own defenses, others began to take interest. They would ask me questions on these topics, and because I did not have products to cheat yet, I of course had to answer these questions. Because I had to answer these questions, I had to tap my savant mind with the questions myself, and let it give me the answers, because... They were not my questions, and therefore, I did not have the answers myself. But this is the talent I have, that so many have found value in. You can ask me a question that I never have asked, but because my mind has been exposed to so many things, and accounts for them with an automatic Reasoning system, it can be used like a machine by others, for their own interest. It's like saying, calculate this notion for me. I then say, send it. They send it, I receive it, and I yield to the nature of my mind, and it produces a correlation, a pattern, to expound on the inquiry. It's like a Chinese fortune telling machine, like Sum Dum Goy; only it's Sum Sage Goy. (That is a Last Dragon reference if you need the help.)

This weird savant gift of mine has been my ticket for advancing in many fields that have had me rich in life often, but at the same time, more often than not, has me “walking away” from all that is found of value in humans. Yes, I can make it work for me to be profitable, but while it works for me to be profitable, it works, and in its working, it alters me drastically. I, that thing that can be called I, that others can interact with, am not the “thing” doing the “correlations”. This is its own machinery. And because of that, this machinery has been MY Master, my Guru, my Teacher, my Mentor, and yes... My “Father”, because a “Father” is one who bestows Wisdom, bestows Patterns, and this machinery internal to my mind is where I get these Patterns from, and I would not get these Patterns without others making requests, because I do not myself need them, to express my own nature in excellence.

The Duty I had spoken of is not in fact me bestowing Patterns. I do not believe this is what I do. The Duty I have is to that of making that machinery accessible, like in that of being “open source”, and I am its gatekeeper, its guardian, and not the source itself. But because I am its guardian, I now need to shut down the the access that shamans and charlatans have been having by abusing this Duty of mine to grant access to this machinery, in order for it to resolve Patterns through automatic correlation, pattern recognition, and pattern production.

Now, this will sound “supernatural”, but it is not. It's simply mechanics. I was born to a dark brown male, who was a Creole of color from New Orleans, and a pale skin female who was an Ashkenazim Belgian. Why does this matter? I was born with Eastern European Anatolian phenotypes, and I did not look like either one of them, nor their kin. This is called atavism. It means I am a throwback to a previous setting that was among a set of ancestors; not all ancestors. I am as if two ancestors of mine had a child; and therefore, would have been their child, not the child of my progenitors in the near sense.

I am under the impression, and at this age of 42, and retired from life having no cares― so, easy to say― that my ancestors had to have been weird. And that they had to be a kind that was using this machinery and made it possible. The line these folk are in gives weight to this. My paternal line, though through a “black man”, is that of the E-V13 paternal line. About 8 generations back, they had a “white man” who was extraordinary in his living, that mixed in with the family that was black, and was responsible for the paternal line, but his offspring were legally black, so they would mix black with black, and that is why my “Da”, the male progenitor, was a black man, but in color coding stupidity of the mental midgets of today… I am called a white man.

My male progenitor, the Da, was considered brilliant, but not like what I am. But his brother, my Patruus, was said to be like what I am, able to use this machinery, was a Fighter, a nomad, and HIS OWN MAN. He raised me from before walking to the age of 4, and then he left the country. My Patruus, therefore, was my kin, but the male and female progenitors were not. My kin is whatever this kind was, no matter how they looked, that had access to the machinery of Ratiocination, that then they obeyed, and in obedience, they Controlled and Commanded life, to live Virtuous.

I mentioned that, at the age of 42, I am retired from “life”, and the better expression is “retired from this world”―in how the religious would say, “not of the world”, and this term “world” means collective, and is the social realm of humans, and not to be mistaken for the corporeal sense.

I have nothing in me that drives me to find a place or a role in the society of the commons. I had the last common's experience I needed to complete my journey years ago. I had lived with wealth, in all the comforts, had the ultimate mate, who was beautiful, intelligent, and talented, access to anything that life could provide, and like the Siddhartha of mythology who would be called the Buddha, it had no hold on me, and I needed to move towards my nature, and not towards standing as one of the many. This is not to speak ill of what condition I was in. It was the best condition, the one most should pursue. But... It was not for my nature.

Many who have met me would have concluded that I have a social need, because with their social need, they had to do what they could to get access and maintain access to me. So that they had access, they could only presume, I wanted the same in them. But those who then come to spend more time with me would come to see something different, that I am mission and objective orientated, and this could mean, being low in socializing with others, and hyper focused on the “thing” in which I am about. I am never and have never been about others, but others need others to be about them. This is the ways of the males and the females, and why most things are centered around relationships. Though from my kind, I see this as pathetic, humans should not. No one should be using my value system for measuring their own kind's ways. This is the error that many have, when they are attracted to me over that of attracted to access to patterns. They want to agree with me, and tell me they agree, because they know if they do not appear to, I will send them back to their ways, which are the human ways. This begets a great deal of deception on their part, and in this deception that they play out, their familiars, in their retarded mental midgetry, have the nerve to accuse me of being some deceptive force, when I am the most straightforward individual I myself have ever observed. I have never observed another who states their ways, and is only about their ways with no compromise as much as myself. Had I observed such an individual, I would be living and doing as they do, in order to push this “Way” further.

Let it be all the evidence that is needed, that in this cheat of mine to produce products of the written and spoken nature, I am not concealing, nor can it be said that I am hiding my own intent and Ways. Here they are. Here is what I think about those I describe. It could be said, there is no going back after that. If I am to be thought of, ever, as a villain, it ought to be for the right reasons. And it is not the right reason to think me a villain, because one thinks deception is villainous. For then, it is a hypocritical and an inaccurate thought. It is not I who is deceiving; it would be my accusers and their kin who try to get access to me. You are all liars and deceivers, everyone of you, and I should know; I am an expert at deception detection, and I read nonverbal communications on a microexpression level, and have a great deal of professional experience in this realm. In fact, specializing in deception makes me choose to be free of it, and upfront and outright, because it is more advantageous for one's own mental health, and clarity. I am not honest because of collective judgement. I am honest because of the Control and Command I wield. If I have to lie to you, you are either an enemy, or someone who has control over my fate, and the truth would jeopardize my standing. I arrange my life where neither of these two could be true. I refuse to grant would-be enemies access to me, and I refuse to have access and status with those who could strip me of value. I choose and advance in self standing, and any who then has me as an enemy, or is dependent upon me, is a charlatan who has not come to live the way I am about, but is instead using me for whatever want and need they have.

The problem is, because I have consulted others privately, no one outside of these associations knows what I am consulting in. So they have two options. They either just project their own vomit and inadequacies on me, and make me a villain based on typical villain characterization, or they listen to and interact with someone once counseled, and hear what they have to say, and/or think, and measure from there. But more often than not, that individual wanted access to me, not the Patterns, and therefore, their conclusion is exposed, when their talk is relational. That is about them, because I never sell myself, or market myself as about the relational, but all who come to be around me, hear from me, and see from me that I am “about it”. “About it” means that Virtue, in this sense... That fight. I am not about people.

So if someone is talking to you, and you can understand what they are saying, and they have something to say about me... Guess what? That individual was a charlatan who lied to themselves and others, in order to gain and/or maintain access to myself, or another in this realm of consideration... Only to eventually come to be found out. Here is how they would have come to be found out.

It would have been when they were left alone to have to prove their own motivation. Instruction, guidance, and motivation would have been removed, and then they come to a standstill. They do not produce anything showing they are about the Patterns that I facilitate an association with. They then look to me, or another, and say… You have changed, or you are this and that. This is relational. Their lie is exposed. They were in it for a relationship, and this does not mean intimate relationship. This could be male to male friends, or female to male attention, or anything. It's all about access. Sex too is just about access. Access is all about Control, and Control, for humans, is all about feeling safe and secure, thus driven by fear and insecurities.

If I am to be a villain, it will not be because of deception. It should be because I am telling you people what you really are, and exposing your lies to those attracted to that of patterns. Patterns make deception not suitable. And in these revelations of patterns, you, who call me a villain, begin to lose your Control over those attracted to patterns. The myth of your standing gets busted, and you become exposed, no matter what age you are, to be nothing more than an infant who is needy for access to others, so that you can feel secure, and safe― and who you have access to does not matter on the individual level. It is servitude you demand. You demand that others, and any will do, need to serve these roles you have around feeling comfortable, safe, secure, and with a purpose. I am to be the villain, because I am the one who instigates in others the revolutionary notion of standard of association, whereas you chumps have your con removed, when standards are present, and you fear you can not meet standards of any sort; therefore, you are anti standard and pro familiar.

The jig is up.

I am putting you humans on blast. So then, if not like this, and not human... What am I?

To say Ratient would be to say nothing. You will not know what that could mean. Because of this, Access Denied will be in parts. It's a lot of words, especially for mental midgets to be comfortable with. Most will in no way be able to read these works. These works will not conform to the dribble of your kind called literature.

The starting difference, here, is in the title that came after the essays. That of the “Vir”.

Because of this, this preliminary chapter begins with some weight. None of this was thought about before or during the writing of Access Denied. It's all a work in progress, and therefore, always gets changed as more questions, more inquiries are about by others, and I have yet to produce something that allows me to cheat, or skirt my Duty. This book will save me a great deal of wasted energy. It will be fundamental for the Vir to be. If one does not use it to get there, then I am able to reject their questions, and deny them access to the mechanics of Ratiocination.

But those who become proficient at the notions in this multipart piece will still be able to seek access to me, only so far as I have not been able to yet cheat the next stage. Because of this, I am motivated to work fast, to remove me as much as possible of being accessible. I do not want to socialize with most of you. You are mental midgets that are usually not value added. Selfishly, if these works can get one through their own self motivation to advance in Control and Command over their conditions and self, then when I am in association with them, they will be value added, and greater joy to be around.

Frankly, one-on-one means I always need to start from scratch with an associate, and this stuff is elementary, to where I am aiming to be with others. So it's now time for others to handle this part themselves, and leave me be, till you are ready to stop being a collective dummy, just scripting the same tired crap from your Society Advanced by the Majority.

“Oh, he thinks he is better than everyone else... How arrogant!” No, I do not think intellectually I am better than everyone else. I know that intellectually I am way beyond most of the Earth's population and even more so, ethically and morally, I am far more advanced than the bulk of youse who are mental midgets, and social plagues. I have a right to defend myself against the stupidity and the arrogance that are the masses. I am not the arrogant one. I put my mental and moral abilities on display with articulation, and not a single idea could be said is born out of an exaggeration of my ability to Reason well. My positions could show to any who Reason even halfway decent that I Reason in excellence, and therefore, am not in exaggeration. You, the fool who thinks me arrogant, would need to prove to yourself as well as others that you can measure Reasoning and living. When you are not good enough to do that, and you call me arrogant, it is you, the chump who is actually arrogant. You would be exaggerating your ability to judge on the subject matters that I affirm in. Arrogance would be me writing a mechanical manual about cars. I do not have the familiarity with cars to do this, so my affirmations would be exaggerated, and sense of role exaggerated, to deliver such. In what I do, I am the best at it. None can even come close. And what I do is about the sciences of Ratiocination applied to life, whereby one lives based on tactics and strategies born out of the nature of the Vir. No one has even attempted such a systemization, let alone then be suited to judge by what degree I have carried out this aim. Of course errors will be present. I am not walking a paved road here, that mental midgets only stick to. I am moving through the rough jungle of a new frontier, one that the rest could never even dare to find their way through.

Dare I say to you, mental midgets, I am greater in thought and realization than any of your heroes of sacrifice of the past. I am greater than your Jesus. I am greater than your Muhammad. I am greater than your Buddha, your Zoroaster, your Ibrahim. I am not here to present my expoundings with humility, and subtlety. That would be your human value system, hence the shared root of the terms. What good would it be to teach others to be a master, like the original teacher, only to tell them they can never be this? If I have studied all of your valued ways, and know them well, and then lived experimenting with them, and mastering them, then why is it that I would be shamed for daring to say I am a master, and one who is awakened, and therefore too, I am Buddha (but none of these things in a supernatural sense).

Everything said about these so-called heroes I have done, and done better. They are not foreign to me, and they have had less experience and development than I have. I am not with the actual belief I am these things, but if they are the standards of what these things are... Then I am these things and more. They are children, by comparison to what I grasp. And to say this before a bunch of mental midgets and vice ridden retards who exist as whimpering little tits is to incur their spite, and be labeled a villain, a narcissist, a con man. Well, bring it on. Because I find entertainment in putting others on blast. I am a destroyer of delusions, not a peacemaker and some pacifist chump. I am a Vir, and you have never met a Vir. You have met only academics and squirrelly girl boys who talk philosophy, and speculative thought.

I will bring forth a system real quick to point out why I am a villain, and actually so to humans.

Humans' primary values
Humans' primary values

Humans do not have much standards for who are in the roles of their lives. They use familiarity, and when one is in a role, the role is often “unconditional”; however, security and safety are primary, if looking for the emotional roots.

If one feels secure about the one in the role, not more will be asked of them. It is called “unconditional” not because it means there is no criteria, but because it means it is not act to act, moment to moment, but the “feeling” is to secure the role. So long then as the one in the role adds to the sense of security and stability, then the conditions, in their simplicity, are met. If they act out and cause a security threat, then humans will adjust.

“Unconditional love” is the possession of a mommy, and all notions of roles are managed by mommies. It's a mommy phenomenon, and when your mommy does not like something, your daddy better not like it, and better not, because you will need to contend with mommy, and contrary to the whimpering tits of mommies out there saying life is hard, their life is not. Deference in society is primarily shown to mommies, by all.

I am a villain because I do not recognize role placement for others. I JUDGE, and judge intensely the individual character of others, and I judge them by a standard of VALUE, that I can engage. My primary is the question, “What value do you bring to this association?”, and only because I innately, without trying, without needing, bring a massively valuable thing to ALL my associations, on every level of association. And that value I bring is not subject to the ruling of others; it is by my own judgment. It is that value of living and breathing disciplined through Ratiocination, and that of pattern accuracy at making tactical and strategic decisions that favor the individual Control and Command over their conditions and self. That is my value, and if one does not find that valuable, they should not engage me for association for anything else. I am not of value to you for your emotional needs, for your insecurity, your fear, your loneliness, your need for a workhorse for resources, for labor, for compliance, and for servile task, and compliance. I am not of value to roles, for which I will not serve.

Because I bring this value of mine, I also know to not let any have access to me who would declare this is not a “value”. All good, then why are you seeking access to me? Any answer you give will not suffice. This is called “knowing your own worth”. One could say, you are strong and you are a guardian, and that is a value. Yes, this is true, and that too is a servile role. No, I am not strong, and I am not a guardian for and over you. I am strong, and I am a guardian over the Laws that are able to be Reasoned to via Ratiocination, or methodical Reasoning. I obey and serve this Law; not you and your ineptitudes. And to guard over it I have the Duty to elevate others into Vir states, to assist in this Duty of guarding the Law, which is Virtuous. Someone who seeks me out to learn to fight can do that anywhere. You do not need me for that. But someone who seeks me out to Fight in the name of “the Law and Virtue” certainly needs my value for that, and can not get it ANYWHERE else.

I know my value. I know my worth. I am worthless in any other arena, and therefore, what is my value makes me unvaluable to almost everyone.

I know my worth, and that is what I bring, and can only bring to any association, and where one is not attracted to that value, then

ACCESS DENIED.

Access Denied page dark.png

But there are degrees of association.

I have a character, Volt, who is that first degree of association. In many ways, he has the value of being entertaining and being provocative in the entertaining sort. Therefore, in the light sense, it serves that “role”; only, this is misleading. This, because it is not carried out to entertain others, and be well received. I play Volt as my common character because the bulk of you are boring and uninteresting, and in order to get the most entertainment out of any given situation, I need to be the starter force. When I was younger, and on the East Coast, I did not have this need. I was surrounded by performing and entertaining big city personalities, whom I was able to value and enjoy for their entertainment value. They were valuable only to that aim.

A simple sense of valuing others is this.

Humans start with the need to feel, not to be mistaken for “to be”, that of safe and secure. Most human sense of safety and security is a false sense. That is why it is “feel” safe and secure, and one who thinks it is “be safe and secure” does not understand the human emphasis on “feeling” versus reality. Humans are not reality based. Humans are feeling based, and it trumps what is real, almost all the time.

After “feeling safe and secure” as the first value judgment―which can also be betrayed easily―humans have resources, as a value, because all values in humans feed this sense and feeling of insecurity and fear. Everything will be measured from it. So then the third value is entertainment, and often, this is by way of escapism, to cope with the struggle in the other areas. The roles humans live by are developed based on these three social values.

A small portion of human males have additional values to these three. But these additional values are subcategorical to the first. Out of the need to feel safe and secure, some, a minority of human males, feel the need for skill and competence at protection. In the second value, they have the added feeling of the need to provide. Human females do not have these two feelings in values. Human females do not have the feeling of the need to provide or to protect, but human females have the feelings that lead to outsourcing this. First, they seek to outsource to family, mostly the male parts, and then outsource even to strangers.

Because of societal conditioning, many human females are being taught to be providers and protectors, and they are failing miserably at this. The same can be said of what occurred in the past for the majority of males. They were taught, out of these needs, that their role was to be providers and protectors, and most of them do not have these feelings. This is why I said a small portion of human males actually have feelings towards this, on a level that could be called significant. To some degree, all humans have these feelings, but the degree that matters is the degree in which it impacts decision making. Feelings that do not impact decision making are insignificant and not worth considering. Decision making is and always will be the point.

Entertainment itself among human values is servile. It too often serves the first two values. Males will be entertaining to secure a mate, in order to feel safe and secure in a life's role as a male now with a target to serve, with the feelings of providing and protecting.

The potency of these feelings can actually be observed, and be the subject of evidence, with only the need for a simple dialectical expounding.

A male who has a potent feeling to provide will have that feeling impact their decisions, and they will then develop more towards higher earnings. Where a male does not have the actual and potent sense to provide, but is conditioned to do so, he will do as little as necessary to fulfill this role, so that he can get access to a spouse. Mate is not accurate, because many will remove the mating element over time, and be resource partners.

When you have not had sex in over three weeks with your so-called mate, then you're not mates, in the sexual sense, but you may be in the British slang sense. You are now engaged in a resource relationship, and whoever is the higher earner is now a relational slave to the other, when there is no value added. So if a male is in a relationship with a female and she is no longer sexual with him, but he is still the primary source of resources, that male is now a daddy servant. Marriage or not, you are a sugar daddy. You are also a chump and a sucker. For human males, sexual access to the female is a strong secondary to “safe and secure” and that of attachment figure. The way it can be identified that it is a secondary is that when the female stops being sexual with him, he will still remain with her to feel safe and secure, and attached. It is not true that males prioritize and value above all sexual access. This will motivate them, but in the end, it proves out : they value an attachment figure, and any will do.

When the male does not have ACTIONS born out of the decision to be high earning, then that male does not have a potent feeling to provide. This is the standard by which I judge natures and proclivities. It is about what can be observed, and by what degree. I do not care about others coming to agree to this standard. In the absence of a standard of observation, investigation, and reasoning, your “opinion” will not be worth câlice.

How can you say one feels like being a provider, enough for it to matter, when all you see them do is fail at, or do poorly at provision? And this sense that a male will give off will be measured by females as more important than that of security and protection, in the sense of threat cycles, because this has been outsourced to police and the state. This is why most females are inclined to be Statists, and eventually be the ministers of state. Soon, society will learn why Ancient males restricted females from running the state. I do not need to say why right now... I just need to wait a little, and then when the time is right, I will have a book that tells you why. But make no mistake, male or female at heads of state makes no difference to me. I am not for the state, nor against it... But I do not consent to be run by humans, no matter what kind of government they use to run others.

ACCESS DENIED.

right blue sword transparent_edited.png
Access Denied page dark.png

Just like a male can not say they feel the provider element, if they suck at it, they can not say they feel the protector element, if they have never felt it enough to dictate a decision to learn to fight and to be halfway decent at it. You are not a protector because you may be a provider, though a female will consider both. You are not a protector if you outsource the defense and protection of yourself and others. You are a subject. If you do not own a modern weapon, news flash, you are not, and never have been one who feels protective. Instead, that which you thought was feeling and being protective is best converted to “possessive”. If you are a daddy who is not dangerous and you feel protective over your little girl, first of all, that is sexual, and you're too ignorant to realize it, and second of all, that is possessive, not protective. If a band of uglies came through to take your daughter and your wife away―for you could care less about your sons― and in this you can not kill and destroy those threats, then you are not and never have been “protective”. You have just been possessive. It's no different from the female's possessiveness over those serving her in roles. You are all so pathetic in your normalcies. But hey, I am an outsider, not born to be like you all... So do not take that too serious, just now you know why I do not suffer, and you all are a bunch of whimpering little tits, clueless and aimless at living.

What makes me the villain to humans is that I can create these intellectual categories that can sum up all your motives, and reveal why you do what you do. Humans like to teach each other that it is all a mystery. But any who learns from me comes to learn, no it is not. None of it is a mystery; you're just ignorant. The mechanics are simple. But you can not see the mechanics, when you are enslaved to them. I am a villain, because I am Free. I am a villain, because I am also an abolitionist, and my words are a threat to human slavers, in which all humans are, as they seek to possess each other in roles, and the individuality of the one in the role is rarely ever the factor, and they are replaceable.

Because of what value I bring, I am not replaceable. That says something. But also because of that, there are many willing to lie more, and deceive more to maintain access to me, as a “unicorn” in the wild, ever so wishing however to tame me, and make me theirs, to which I can never be.

I can not be possessed.

And those who possess others do so because they themselves are under a possession, and that possession is the animalistic impulses, that of being in fear and insecurity. Possessed here means this : in fear and insecurity― and I was born fearless. Because of this, that others then see me as the villain, they see me as a psychopath. I find this humorous, because normies in society pretty much meet the definition of a psychopath, more than I would. The only thing that normies use to make me seem this way is that they will never see emotionality as a part of my life, and because you humans do not know true joy and pride, you can not tell that I am guided by an emotion, but not the emotions. I am guided by a rapid and potent joy through my being, that your world can not shake me from. And because of this, to you, I am unemotional. This is because emotional, to you all, means turmoil. Not equanimity. Equanimity is attained only when one has discovered, embraced, or been born with extreme pride and confidence in their being. That is an emotion, but it does not permit the other emotions. Those with the other emotions yet to be transmuted do not have equanimity, and therefore, of course one with equanimity would appear psychotic to these masses of impotent, mental midget, whimpering little tits living a life of cowardice.

 

So then what is the contrast of being human, in this sense I speak of, and what then would be the social evaluation path?

To be continued in chapter 4...

Primary Warnings around Access Denied
Primary Warnings around Access Denied

With that clarity having been made, I will attempt to close out this preliminary chapter with some descriptive “ways” and warnings.

First Warning

Access Denied page dark.png

One should already be bearing witness to the complexity that will follow as Access Denied and its relationship under that of Viritus, which has yet to be defined, unfolds. In that it is complex, that actually offers protection from would-be charlatans.

Shamans are those who are born with aggressive minds that instigate in them an impulse to have control and access to, and over others. They are innately collectivist, and they are innately needy for relations to others, and therefore, they require the abolishing of standards and competence. However, because they have aggressive minds, they will aggressively imitate, mimic, and promote novel ways, so as to use these novel ways as a means to gain access to others. They are the priests of this world. They are the entertainers of this world. They are the media of this world. They are the “free love” folk of this world. They are the educators of this world, and when they have a position of potent influence, I call them Brahmins. When they are limited to the commons, they are just in their nature of being a shaman. All Brahmins have the nature of the shaman, but not all shamans are the Brahmins.

A shaman can not prioritize a strategy of ethics. A shaman will not be, and can not be naturally or innately moral, because their conquest code, to which all have, is about the external, the material, and the otherly, in that, it is over others and their conditions, and not able to be over self, and one's own conditions. They are, like most human kinds, as the shaman is, compelled like a mommy to control the lives of others, and make those lives be in service to them.

Because of this, when something that may attract others becomes present, the shaman will either attack it and try to destroy it, or they will try to overtake it and reshape it to meet their needs of conquest over others. Shamans do not use physical force for conquest. Shamans use social and psychological manipulation for access and conquest over others. Through administration as Brahmins, they will use the force of nation-states and institutions, but they will not carry out the use of force themselves. Therefore, the violence and the oppression of shamans, which are the greatest threat to a Vir, are found not in physical predation and acts of material force, but are found in cultural warfare, in media warfare, in passive-aggressive realms, dismissive realms, social spheres, and relationships. First, the shaman needs relational access, and to get this, they will aggressively seek out that novelty, and appear more energetically committed than any other kind. But this interest is guided by subversion, and the eventual desire to undermine and to coop that novelty, so as to use it for themselves to gain access to those attracted to that would-be novelty.

Because of this, when shamans are present in a kinetics, a movement of some sorts, they will then attract other shamans, and eventually what began as “for others” will appear “for them” and with numbers, and dominant presence, they will remove the original intended audience, and then convert that “novelty” to match their nature. Anything you have access to in this world has had this happen to it. Every religion, every art, every media, every business, and certainly every institution.

The only way for a defense to be made against this common practice and cycle is for a system to go to the extreme in the characterization of itself, and its aims. This means from the start it would need to be extremely anti-shaman, in its message, its call, so as to have built into it, a system of detection that could be used to detect, by degree, shaman infiltration.

When you are a shaman, or the commons they control, you can not have any sense of why or what kind of defense I could be speaking of. The first warning then follows.

Those who have NO VALUE because they have not produced value, and have not earned value, will DEVALUE that of DEFENSE, and believe everything should be inclusive and open. Those who are all-inclusive and can not produce a definable standard of access are shamans. And when challenged, even if claiming, if not certainly in claiming a relationship to these aims I call about, AND they can not produce a sense of STANDARD and DEFENSE, they are not a Vir; they are a shaman pretending to be. In the absence of a standard of strategy and tactics, and a life that favors the defensive arts... They are not Vir.

I chose the term Vir for that very protective reason. A shaman would have a difficult time passing themselves off as a Vir. They can call themselves a “spiritual Warrior” and a “peaceful Warrior”, and so on, because this term has been perverted already by shamans. But a “Vir” is more extreme. It is more clear as a term. So when you set out to understand my why, and likely not truly care, then that is the answer ye shall find. I have built into the language and the “Way” a natural and dialectical defense against shaman infiltration.

Vir has, as a part of its nature, a strong sense of Valor, and that Valor is brought forth through a martial character, and shamans will not be martial beyond “dancing” and “display”; and therefore, they can not use, retain, and propagate this term. The term has natural and Reasoned Sage guards inherit to it. Many shamans try this with “spiritual warrior”, when they are in fact weak, fragile, inept, and can never be envisioned on a battlefield. A Vir has all the appearance of being “battle ready”, and not some frail little girly shaman.

Does this then mean that those who are characterized as shamans are receiving by default an “Access Denied”?

The answer is YES.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in Viritus for a shaman. They are ABSOLUTELY to be denied access to all of its realm, and no one hearing and responding to the Call of this system should ever trust and seek out a shaman, under the belief of “relational aims”.

Unlike every system there is, no one has a relationship to this one, who can not be observed, and tried, and tested, engaged in ACTIONS correlated to its aims as a life strategy. It is not about “can some weak ass gracile chump get on a stage and spout its words”. A shaman can do that, and will try.

Here is the ultimate and clear thing to look out for. Is that individual before you dangerous? Not, are they a danger. Are they dangerous? Can you look at them and think, they can fight on a battlefield, and be successful? If the answer is no, THEN THEY ARE NOT A Vir. They may be someone just starting off. They may be someone who is investigating these Ways, but when they are not attained in these Ways, then they most certainly should never seek to represent these Ways.

This, in society, ran by shamans as they all are, is not a standard. Shamans can seek to represent anything, and they will. They do not have the standard of actually attaining. They preach the standard of “willing” and “wanting” and “preaching”. They make it about the “want to be”, to be as sufficient as “already being”, and this is how they are detected with ease.

Second Warning

Because of this is the second warning. This too is the first Way to learn and abide by.

DO NOT SPEAK FOR THIS SYSTEM. DO NOT REPRESENT THIS SYSTEM in any way, shape, or form. Do not SAY ITS EXPRESSIONS TO OTHERS, trying to pass them off as integrated, and yours. Because until they are integrated, and one is using them for Control and Command over their conditions and self, and therefore, as a primary of their decision making process, they will be subverted, undermined, and betrayed.

Do not say “I agree”, and then say these ways. Do not do this. This, you have as acceptable in your society controlled by shamans. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to merely agree consciously with these Ways, only then with your actions to contradict them. This is not good for your own mental well-being. However, you are programmed to think that your wants, your wishes, and your desires are you, and not that which you actually do. This needs to be reversed. You are not your wants, your desires, and wishes; that is shaman make-believe. You are what you do, and how you do it. That is the real you, in motion, your valid kinetics. A shaman is defined as one who tries to pass off their “wanted” self as their actual self, and they use costumes, ploys, and devices to convince others that this is who they are. And when you get to “know them”, which you never do, but when you get to “familiarize” with them, you come to find out that they are common and base. Their spiritualism and their “high thought” is actually about emotionality and base needs―just like you― and they used “high thought” to get access to you, for simple and base reasons of attachment, formed out of fear and insecurity, because fear and insecurity is far stronger in shamans than in the commons, the mere brutes of popularity.

Shamans are born with a heightened level of insecurity, and because of this, they are mentally aggressive. With this mental aggression, they “attack first”, thinking others will be out to get them. In “attacking first”, it is not physical, because they are physical chumps... It is mental attacks and subversion. A shaman is more effeminate, or female like, than ever male like. They are nice, they are polite, they smile to disarm, and their handshake hides a snake. The shaman is not the one that screams obvious predator. The shaman is the one who is so nice and kind, that you think of them like a mommy, even if a male. If they are like a mommy, they are shaman, and most of your mommies were, and are shamans, and because you were smothered by her, you can not figure out what a shaman is. It's like the fish being ignorant of water.

A shaman is exposed to you, when they come to you, and they tell you the expressions of this system. Any who is authentically and sincerely related to these “aims” will know they are not to represent them, and instead, they will lead you to a primary source. A shaman will try to hide that this is the primary source, and pass the words off as their own thoughts. They will not recommend or direct others towards these works. They will hope others will not catch them. Shamans are, when you know how to read them, innately shifty. They look shifty in their body language, and they are shifty in their words, where you can never pin down their stance, and they hide behind a self-deprecating sense of nihilism, and confusion. When someone excuses their ineptitudes through appearances of being ignorant and confused, they are a shifty shaman.

There are those would-be but yet to be Vir who will make “I” statements about what they are doing, and how they presently stand that will be in alliance to the aims of this system. This is not the same thing. This is not them representing the system; this is them stating their own standing. When they do this, the shaman will abuse this. This is why it must rarely be done. One may tell another “I stand this Way”, and use this expression to properly categorize the “self owned” integrated sense. For example, I do not stand for acquiescence. I do not stand for being silent, and thus, rendering consent. Therefore, it is because I stand for my character being properly accounted for, and not misrepresented.

This is an “I” statement of a would-be, and/or an actual Vir. Acquiescence is COWARDICE, in Viritus. Silence, when a refutation or rebuttal should be produced, is cowardice. Allowing any to connect you to their ways that are not your “Ways” is cowardice. And Vir are not cowards. One who says these things, but then you observe, they never are in conflict with you and they are never correcting you, is a shaman. This stance, this defensive stance means by default a constant VIGILANCE, and a CONSTANT VERACITY.

The commons may call this “speaking truth to power”, but that is weak ass shaman câlice. For the would-be and/or the Vir, this is a “devotion to validity”, and it is not relational to a target, such as an opposing force, or another. The target of the would-be and/or Vir is validity, and proper account. The target is not the one who is attacking, the one who is oppressing, the one who is in control and/or has the power. A would-be or actual Vir does not fight an opponent, and therefore, does not exist in reaction. A Vir―and those seeking to be―fight in the AFFIMRATION of validity.

These Ways do not match the common ways, so then when one has before them someone declaring these “integrations” as their own, and you can say they are “nice”, and they are “polite”, and they are “kind”, and never in conflict with others, then before you is a charlatan.

Because shamans must play these games of niceties, games of politics or politeness, and play up kindness and compassion, Viritus is to be well guarded against them, in declaring these social traits to be vices. And therefore, where one speaks these Ways of the Vir, but is characteristically these other things, they are exposed. In this system, nicety, kindness, compassion, and politeness are chump ways, not champion Ways. They are “mommy approved”, and “anything mommy would like” is not the Way of the Vir. So there are no “mommies” and “daddies” in this Way. So if your mommy can talk to you, and approve of you, and this stays the same, you are mommy-stamped, and you need to stay away from these Ways. You will be a shaman who will betray them.

So in recap... A shaman will be the one trying to preach to you some element of these Ways. If you ask them, where did they get it from, they will not wish to tell you the source. Because if these are the sources, built in, you will find out that these warnings are in play... And they are revealed now to be a charlatan shaman trying to get access to you, thinking these Ways would make them appear as more than they are―only later for you to find out, they are base and mental midgets lacking in any morality, just like you likely are. For certainly you can not think, I am claiming someone reading this book is somehow morally attained, and a good judge of these things. That would be absurd.

The commons, and especially their brutish kinds, do not like to read, nor listen to verbiage. Mostly the shamans are into the written and spoken word. Therefore, if you are reading this, it is likely the defenses are there to guard against you. I am way ahead of you in regards to predicting patterns. My aims are not to lift up the reader's sense of themselves, and promote them as attained because they were attracted to these works. That would be role-playing. That would be treating you, the “X”, based upon a want, a desire, and a wish, to which I do not even have. That is what role-playing is. It's about the roles, and not the statistic of what you probably are as a reader. You are likely a shaman, and you will know this is the case when the Vir element of this book turns you off and away, and you see that it can not be subverted, and converted by you. You can not use this to match your ineptitudes, and your claims of values. It will not match.

Only few who capture this piece, either because of hearing something or reading something elsewhere, will match the inner calling to pursue it to the end. Would-be Vir will not be more than 3 percent of the population. This means if 3 thousand read these works, maybe, and ONLY MAYBE, 90 of them will be liken to it. But I said of the population; not of those who would find this piece. I do not think that it would be 3 percent of who reads this. I think of those who may read my work, unless they found another way... Hardly any, not even a single percentage, would be suited to its Ways.

But this, though a warning of its own, is almost always ignored. Those who become associated with me, far too often tie the works to me, and want to like it, to tell me they do, so that we can be “friends”.

Do not do this.

When you come to find out that this Way, that is “my Way” of Viritus is not compatible with your inner inclinations, say so, and be clear you are of a different way. This is not a bad thing; this is the best thing.

So then, if this be the case, can any who are not Vir or would-be Vir benefit from reading my works?

The answer is yes, but the challenge would be much harder if you are not meant to be a Vir. The challenge is harder, because first, you need to

IDENTIFY WHAT YOU ARE.

Access Denied page dark.png

Chapter 2

Before I branch over into the obvious changes a Vir has made in Access Denied, I need to lay the foundation. Most believe they are literate because they have an education. Most are educated, and education does not mean... college degree. Twelve years of schooling is default for Americans, and the percentage of educated adults in the United States is high; for now, I will say well above 90 percent. Those with college degrees and political and ideological views of tribalism will often dismiss the other forms of education as lower forms, and call them with the lower forms “uneducated”. This is absurd.

It is rare to be “uneducated”. Twelve years of schooling, on average, has proven to produce mental midgets. This is not education failing, when you know what its intended purpose was, viz, to create numb minds to field the factories and assembly lines.

The majority of jobs in the United States are menial, are labor, are servile. One does not need a twelve-year investment to wait tables or to work as a clerk in a checkout line, or secretary, or sell consumer goods, and so on.

Education was about breeding mental docility. The number one threat to freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to worship is education, especially of the compulsory form, in which the U.S. model is. One can not have “freedom” in these other areas, when their right to think and to think Rationally was interfered with, in which the schools were designed to do just that. This is not to say, some do not shine up and out of this atrocity, as certainly some may. However, they will be small and few, and often nameable in their differences.

Schooling is about conforming the mind of the subject to a curriculum of behavioral modification that serves the interest of the controlling factions. Schools are factories to make stooges.

You did not start with freedom of thought, or the right to guide the methodical development of the Rational faculty. How do you have freedom of expression when you have been compelled in how you think?

By how you think, I do not mean the content of your mind alone, but I mean the way, the method, the system of thought you wield.

I have had shamans accuse me in the past of ESP, or Extra Sensory Perception, because of my ability to read their thoughts and predict what they will say, and can not say. It's not ESP; it's a deep sense of understanding of the schooling they were exposed to, and an investigation and uncovering of the roots of its ideological propagation.

It is the ideas of replicants, and the schools were the source of replicating the “propaganda”. The leading influential mind for the schools and the way most think was the academic common they call a “philosopher”, Immanuel Kant. You may never have heard his name, or read his works, but you sure likely think his thoughts more than you ever had a chance to think your own.

Your emotional take on Reason and the abandonment and resistance of it can be sourced in him. Your sense of values being born out of collectivism, out of altruism and self-sacrifice justified through him. What controlling faction would not find it advantageous to control the minds of its subjects, and teach them their life is a life of self-sacrifice to a cause, or to every other they find themselves by default among?

The fact of the matter is, access as all-inclusive is born out of these premises and ideologies, compelled upon the minds of the subjects of the state who live lives of defeat, and cowardice.

It is not my Way to go through the madness of Kant, to fix the problems. There will be those who hold onto these ways of the academics, the schooled minds of mental midgetry. This work can not fix this in you, and you will live out and suffer under your “possessed” state.

Instead, it is my Way to present that which is born out of the essence of the Vir, guided by the Sage. When presented with another Way, one does not need to undo the other way. It will be undone by one being free in their own nature, undone through atrophy, falling out of use.

To this end, what may come as a surprise to those not knowing of me and how I do things, is I do not spend much time and energy deconstructing a problem. What I do is emphasize a Way that is demonstrable, and in accordance with the natures so defined. One then must discover if these Ways apply to their discovered nature, or if they do not. If one presumes they are of the nature it applies to, they then apply the practices. If they fail at the practices, then it was not for their nature. There is no doubt that these practices apply to the nature that is defined to be of interest.

If you have come to know someone who sent you to this source piece, that someone then “believes” on their own that the work is speaking to their nature. They could be wrong. The way to tell is not in their words. It is in the application of the ideas in practice, which requires action.

In this open letter, there will be behavioral practices that are described. Knowing the source is not necessary in recognizing the practice at play. Them who do not practice and “play at these Ways” are not them whose nature it speaks to. Expression is the fact of their condition, not their words.

When The Captive Finds Literacy And Philosophy

“A coward speaks a Way they then betray.”

Access Denied page dark.png

Quote me on that one.

What will follow will be clear descriptions of the practices.

There is a foundation of Wisdom that underlines the practices, and no practice should be carried out without owning the premises they are based on. In the absence of grasping the principles, one is left only with rituals, and that is for the shaman natured, not the Warfighting natured.

I brought up the education as a problem, because of the problem in literacy. Educated kinds think they can read, but one can not truly read, if they do not truly think well. Thinking well requires a foundation in multiple mental disciplines,

That of :

 

1. Metaphysics (Laws of Identity)

2. Epistemology (Laws of Knowledge)

3. Logic (Laws of Valid Reasoning)

 

These three can be simplified with the notion of “Identify, Know, and Reason based on such Knowing”.

What follows next is :

 

4. Ethics (Laws of Values)

 

The Laws of Values, or the Science of Values, becomes the actionary stage, or the application stage. Many will start with some ethical set of notions, but have no sense of their foundation. The religious will say “God”, or some “Prophet”, or some “messenger of God” has said so, and therefore, it is so. Academics more often than not are led to reject a God, and seek amorality versus a sense of morality. Academics claim that Reason is used by them to consider ethics, but in actuality, they use Kantian anti-Reason for this very cause. Academics and their dupes are left with emotions as the barometer of morality, not Reason, which they rarely if ever have cultivated.

In my culture, one was a man at age 13, and I took this notion seriously, making sure my mind was ready to truly be a man, and take up being responsible in all decisions I would come to make. These decisions were to be well-informed, and carried out by a method; therefore, methodology was sacred to me. If I had been forced into the schools, I would have had no time nor energy to take up the learning I had done.

By age 13, I had already studied the full seven disciplines of thought, extensively.

 

1. Metaphysics 2. Epistemology 3. Logic 4. Ethics

5. Aesthetics 6. Jurisprudence 7. Warfare

 

Now, I am not an example of what ought to be. As said previously, I was born with a mind that had an accelerated sense of Reason and so-called philosophy. My youth was spent in debate and discourse with a great deal of mentors, who never treated me like a child, and therefore, I have never been a “child”.

Now, knowing the etymology of this term, one would see it means “born of a mother's womb”, which too is likened to that of the term “matrix”, which means “mother's womb”. Infant and child were seen often as synonymous, and the term child would be used to speak of a young one before puberty, and therefore, a material expression. However, in law, an “infant” is one who does not command Reason, and can not defend themselves in a court of law. To old legal culture, you are all infants, and you are treated like infants by the system. You also treat your young like infants, that is to say, like children, in that they, like you, have not arrived at a mental stage of commanding Reason. This then is what is meant, when I use the term child.

The romantics like to see this term as freedom, carefree, and curious, and so on. These are not the traits of most children. Most children are timid, are indifferent, are possessed by their emotions, and act like bonobos, not troglodytes.

The use of the term childlike for romantic sense is a shaman thing, and it exists to seek deference. The state of infancy is one that is supposed to be short, and raised up out of, and into the state of Reason. Those who hold onto childhood are those who hold onto dependency and ineptitude. It is those I call the Children of Ineptitude. They are the masses, and they are infants who lack the ability to command Reason, because they have never had bestowed upon them Wisdom, and that of the means to cultivate the Rational faculty, that power of mind needed to Reason well.

This measurement, this judgment that focuses on the Rational faculty is one for the level of being a Vir, not that of a Fighter. A Fighter will be in pursuit of this development, if and only if they are by nature to be a Vir of the sort I define. From a Fighter developing tactics, they elevate to a Vir by developing the “Strategos mind”, or the mind of the Commander, the strategic mind. A Fighter only, will not be a Commander, but will fight under the command of others. A Vir comes to their own Command, and this is the only way one comes to self stand, and to be a Sovereign. Them who are kings and commanders over others, but not over themselves, are no Sovereign, regardless if this has been the limit of the use of this term.

A Fighter will remain on the tactical levels of living and behaving. This is no insult. This is far better than the ritualistic living of the commons, of the humans that are norms, that are multitudes.

This term ritual sometimes gets pointed out to mean “repeated set of actions”, whereas a rite becomes that of a “religious custom”. Ritual is not merely a “repeated set of actions”. One who reduces it to this, and does not see the variable of “without Reason”, or that of “customary actions”, is one trying to reshape the meaning of the term. Ritual may be guided by Reason, and it is said, it even has the root rē- in it shared with Reason, but the term in its completed form has not this requirement. It's a repeated set of actions guided by customs, by traditions, by that of adopted ways that do not require the foundation be verified. And as the guide was in the past mostly religious, today the guide is academic foul ideas, and political alignments. There are just new and added customs to make rituals more diverse. Humans are ritualistic; that is, the commons are ritualistic, because they can carry out a set of repeated actions without any concern for the origins and nature of the manifested.

Regardless of mental midgets being able to read etymology and understand word meaning, I am, like any writer or speaker, able to specify my use of terms, defining them, and fixing them into a lexicon. Literacy, so to say, requires the reader and/or listener then to realize the meaning has been specified, and update to that meaning. Ritual is not guided by Reason, but is guided by familiarity, more than anything. The same can be said about the term discipline, in that it's following a set of teachings, but can be used to also mean, in a neutral sense, the set of principles defined in a set system that are then followed or conformed to. So then the discipline of logic would not be the teachings, in the loose sense of this term, but would be the set of principles spelled out in the specific system of logic under evaluation. Discipline then becomes a notion of being devoted to a set of practices, becoming then a “disciple”. When I use the term disciplined, it is likened to the expression :

Winter Forest

“The unexamined life is not worth living”;
“The unplanned life is not worth examining.”

Access Denied page dark.png

Therefore, I use the terms “disciplined” and “discipline” in the way of deliberate actions that are the product of examination. This is neutral in my use. One can be disciplined in any teachings, so to say, but when others refer to what I do as “teachings”, they are not acquainted with my works. I am not a teacher, as I do not bestow a doctrine or a curriculum of sorts. I do not have teachings, as teachings can be about beliefs and opinions. I engage and guide in demonstration. Either demonstration of a physical sort, or a dialectical sort, through a methodology of Reasoning that can be defined and revealed through deliberation.

I guide through this process, and therefore, can be called a guide and perhaps a mentor. The etymology of mentor has the advisor, as well as Sage element to it.

However, I am not the mentor of “so and so”. I am a mentor in these Ways I speak of.

I distinguish this, as well as the term “guide”, because there will be those who come to a “guide” expected to be guided, only with the expectation to be “guided” where they want to go. Or one to be mentored in how they want to be mentored. This is the way of mental midgets.

I do not guide people, folk, or individuals. I guide in the lessons, the system, and the methodology. It exists separate from them, and they must guide themselves to it, where I then “guide” in what “it” is. I do not “mentor” individuals, and those who would say I do, they are often individuals who do not listen to, and make use of what I actually “mentor” in, which is a system of thought and behavior.

A primary motive for becoming a published writer and recorded speaker is that of removing myself from the personal equation many need, through seeking attention and that of a servile response from others. I am not here to serve individuals or groups in finding what they want. I am not here to fix others through ways they think they need.

I am a mentor and a guide in Viritus, and the other productions that come from it. When one seeks out these things, I guide through these things. I am not guiding and mentoring them. Let this be clear. When they have arrived at owning the material and integrating the material, or better, the “patterns”, then they will prove this by having the patterns guide their thinking and their behavior. In the absence of these patterns acting as guide upon them, displayed in actions, it means the individual did not come to own the patterns for themselves. This is on them, and they should be challenged to prove where in their daily living, as it must be, they apply the patterns. If the answer is no such application can be demonstrated, then how so can they say they have been guided or mentored in any way?

They can not. They have found new words alone, and they speak or write them to convince others of their novelty, while in action and in demonstration, they behave as everyone else does, as cowards with empty words.

Literacy, or that dealing with the ability to read and understand what is read, has not been developed through the schools; it has been stunted. Therefore, the significance and importance of language and definition is where I begin in guidance through the system I promote to those very specific “essenced” individuals, who are rare. This is not for the masses, the multitudes, the many, the cowards of society. Pay attention to the language, my definitions, and their meaning. Do not translate, or alter what is said.

Be forewarned, them who do this, who rewrite what I say in their own words, in their own ways, are subversives. They are seeking to reinforce delusions, not seeking to cultivate their faculties towards excellence. When you see this, you have all the information you need to determine that you are moving about near to a subversive. Take heed.

Those of a noble character will know when they can speak these things with exactness and when they can not. When they can not, being of a noble nature, they will only send others to the source and not seek to express what they can not express well. This is key.

On the matter of Philosophy
On the matter of Philosophy

I began this chapter with literacy and philosophy, in which I would say, to be literate, one must also be “philosophical” in the loose sense.

What do I mean by philosophical?

I do not actually praise this term, philosophy. Pythagoras is said to have been the first to make use of this self designator, that of “philosopher”. Some say it means a “love of Wisdom”, as philo is love. Philo is a love, often seen as “friendship” and that of “tending to”, with an unknown origin in Greek. One can see it as a devotion, so to say, but this is then stretching the ambiguity of the term. Sophia was that of “knowledge, and the pursuit of Wisdom”. Sophia had the sense of “the Wise”, like that of Sage. Prior to this term philosopher being used, “Sage” would have been the preference. I have this old preference, because of the use of philosopher today. So many call themselves “philosophers” for merely speaking or writing on philosophy, while living like all the rest. I also do not favor this term “love” as its possessive nature is all I see mostly in the fearful and insecure masses who use this term. I do not “love” anything. However, I do have devotion as a part of my nature, and for those, and that which I hold in the highest esteem in my value system, they are afforded my devotion. It can not be said that I am devoted to the pursuit of Wisdom, because it can be said and shown that I am living in a state of the Wise, and therefore, one who has attained. Begging the question... Attained in what?

The answer is rather simple, and should make sense of why I am writing this point to begin with. In the sense that too, for those seeking to grasp and investigate the Discipline of Access Denied, their objectives need to be in the attainment of the same. What then is that same?

Attained in having discovered my essence, or those sets of proclivities, nature, disposition, inclinations, persuasions, attractions and aversions natural and default to me. This is to say, I know my nature and my essence, and there is no confusion about it. I was born to be a Vir Sage, and I have obeyed this nature. Obedience has been attained long ago; an obedience that is necessary in order to come to a Command. I do not Command my nature through violating it. I Command it from obeying it. I am attained in guarding over my nature, and bringing it into an excellent state of expression. I am attained in Arete. I am an excellent version of me, not a foul or mediocre version of me. This, I am attained in.

In addition to the discovery, the obedience, and Command of my own nature, I am expressed in my discovery, obedience, and Command over that of so-called Reality. This is to say, in all these things, I am conformed to Reality, that objective that the Mytho-Buddha says is at the core of his Teachings.

“Reality” here is not based on what I believe. For then that would not be me conforming to it, but would be me conforming a sense of Reality to my own Sense of Self. This is what most do, and it is why they are delusional.

This term has barely been used by those who give it much deliberation. Reality becomes merely that which I “feel” is true, versus that which is actually discovered to be true, or that is, valid. This is key when approaching this notion; however, this is a matter of metaphysics, which is not the concern of this piece. For now, when speaking of a discovered sense of Reality, let it stand that I produce it in parts.

Reality is about identity. Identity is about identifying the parts that make up the whole of a thing. This is to say, all things have identity, and that is a set of traits and attributes that can be discerned, and symbolized for mental reference.

All knowledge, and therefore, epistemology deals in identification. Identity is at the core and the base of that which can be said to be believed, and then in certainty, be known. In the absence of identity, nothing can be said, nor even thought. All thinking and communicating is about identity. Identifying Reality then is not about some vague term as such. It is about identifying that which exists, and knowing it in the way at which it exists; this is to say, “an understanding of the origin and nature of the manifested.”


Reality then, in a sense, is the “real state” of the parts, as they can be discerned, not some make-believe sense of things in one's life, based on wants, feelings, whims, wishes, and evasions, as is mostly the case when this term is uttered in the commons.

The attainment I then speak of works in this way. It is an attainment in self-identification that occurs concurrently with that of identification of the external. This is to say, opposite to that of solipsism, where the belief is that nothing exists outside of mind, the attainment is in living as if indeed, existence is not purely mental, but a thing in operation outside of your experience of it. That conformity then is required of you to that of things as they are, versus you believing that things as they are, are to conform to things as you believe they are. This later type of thinking, which is indeed common, is absurd, and no one who cares about competency can truly live based on these thoughts without betraying them, as they certainly will. It is this betrayal that makes those who speak of “Reality” in such a way cowards, because they will not live based on these notions, only speak them, while in practice doing the opposite.

Coming back to the point at hand, philosophy and the term itself has come to be about those engaged in speculative thought, not realized and attained in living. This then is the difference between the philosopher, or rather the academic of today, and that of the ancient notion of the Sage who was not engaged in speculative thought, but was engaged in living a courageous or valorous life, based upon Wisdom and its product Virtue. In modern and that of common thought, a “thinker” or rather academic can be suicidal and intoxicated, and be called at the same time a philosopher, where as in the ancient sense, he or she would have been called a shaman, a charlatan, and a fool masquerading about as wise as a means to dupe the masses.

This ought to provide some clarification on the meaning of terms, as I am using them. Though philosophy will be used as a means to state these Disciplines of the Mind used for mental warfare, this term must not be taken as authoritative nor precise. These are Disciplines of the Mind of Viritus, and this term philosophy in its inadequacy is a temporary poor substitute for the weak-minded, incapable of conceiving more.

Literacy and philosophy are therefore said to be at the foundation of being able to grasp what practices and/or what Disciplines follow under the tag of Access Denied. One must do the work, which can be called an investigative work into the subject matter, and see if they speak to, and/or resonate not with some wild idea but with some nature, some essence the individual gets some sense of being present in them by default.

If you the familiar have one before you taking up these practices, then this is their claim, not mine. I have not and do not convince others in what their nature is, but I challenge them always on the matter, repeatedly getting them to check, to own, and to be sure, and to back out if they come to find all of this to be difficult. When it is of the nature of the individual, a devotion would develop, a devotion to their own standing―and those who were not born with confidence and Arete will not be able to grasp this, and would instead accuse them of being devoted to the cause of another. This is because the accuser knows nothing by experience of devotion to the self.

When they have not experienced devotion to the self, be not surprised that they live as cowards under the command of others, and therefore, must accuse the Vir of the same. The Delusional Under Domestication, or DUDs, can not see beyond their own limitations. What they do not have, and can not have, they wish others to also not be able to have. What they can not do, they must say others can not do. When they are full of deception and delusion, to make sense of it, they must accuse... that all others too are under the same, and to act otherwise is to pretend, and there is no authenticity in Virtuous paths... because they have never found one.

Them who seek to carry out these practices in the absence of the so-called philosophical premises will be those who will fail, and those who will be the ones to give rise to a sense of charlatans being at play. All who observe them should test their self ownership of the premises, and where they fail to prove up, they should be called on it.

One with the Vir essence does not see tests as negative, nor do they see so-called failure as negative. They see all this as a means to sharpen their wits, and sense of the premises. They use their failures as a guide towards success and self ownership. Those not of the Vir essence use failures as an excuse to quit and go back to the vanquished living of cowardice.

Continue to Chapter 3

bottom of page