Part I
The Open Letter
Chapter 3
The Prison Of The Hug... Access Denied
For all the practices that follow there are two natures to them. The first nature is “The Investigative”; the second nature is “The Integrating”.
For there to be integration is required the premises be realized and applied. For there to be investigation, one need only experiment, and test. For the most part, it's only after the investigative does one come to see if they can even integrate the premises. This is to say, they must prove themselves in Reality or in actuality, versus that of mere word play, and conformity in speech and proclaimed ideas, betrayed by action.
For those not seeking to have the premises integrated, the investigative could inform them in different ways, and end up working for them for their own reasons, or rather justifications. In the investigative mode, one can NOT say that this is the Discipline of Access Denied. One can say, they perhaps like some of its ideas, and want to see how they can be played with. This way, the investigative is not declaring an agreement with the principles and the premises. They may reject these, but have a sense of their own of where the practices go and lead.
These two categories then make it clear that there are two purposes for this work. The investigative serves both types, but can be used by itself by a more mainstream audience―this of course if they were even able to read this far. The second category of those “integrating” it are those who have evidence and proof born out of the investigation that the principles and premises are sound and valid, based on their own testament.
When one integrates it, none can say they are simply doing as others do, for the reasons of others. Those who say this do so from a position of rarely having anything they do be out of self ownership, and self-devotion. These accusers are almost always Children of Ineptitude. This is why their response to seeing others come to self ownership is predictable and rather scripted. It is also evidence in this fact that they wish to limit the development of those around them, and that they agree that most are characterized by being inept, and this is why they doubt you, in your integration. They do not want you to integrate these Ways because these Ways are about denying access, and access without standard is what they are seeking to gain and/or maintain.
During the process of writing this, which is conducted in a state of Flow, as my readers well know, I decided to reverse the endeavor, and lay out the practices, and let the philosophical premises follow in later parts of this piece. By time this has become edited, it may be in another order, as my editor, the Sauvageonne, determines such things, and does so well.
To begin with, this open letter is written in a way in which I speak mostly from my own point of view. This is me demonstrating, in essence, my practices, and how and why I own them. So it acts as a “why I do this” and “why I do not do that” kind of written piece. Others then need to see if it makes sense to an investigation they wish to conduct.
I will start this with the investigative mindset considered. Now, I do not believe that I am a writer who can reach a mass audience and make sense to them. Be then not surprised if this seems to “fail”. It will not be my failure, for all Vir and Warriors will grasp this piece, but it would be the failure of the reader to take proper recognition of their own innate nature, perhaps mistakenly thinking this piece was written for them. If none of it makes sense to you... You have your answer. You are not whom it was written for; turn away or back now, or continue to read to know something about those it was written for. That can be your actual investigation.
It all starts with the HUG!
Yes, I said that. It all starts with the hug, which is perhaps the greatest cultural predatory act there is, yet so normalized, so given, so present, that the masses would think me some wretched creature to even call out. Mommies and daddies wide and large will decry, “he is soulless, he is heartless, he has no love!”
Yes, perhaps all of these can be true about me in the eyes of the doped out Children of Ineptitude, but these accusations will not be able to be investigated. The hug, however, can be investigated, and has been, with my observation being that those who wake up to do something about it tend to find that the quality of their interactions with others begins to be raised and leads to a better Sense of Self.
So what is it with the hug that I am saying it all begins with?
The answer, in simple form, is social predation. This is what Access Denied is all about. It's a defensive manual against social predation, and this kind of predation or predatory behavior is not about strangers, though they matter, but is more so about familiars and those common to the individual. What is the target of the predation?
That of physical and emotional ACCESS. A part of the physical can be that of also resources, or other forms of material access. This can be considered the first and number one driving factor, that of material access. Then what follows, after sustained material access, is that of emotional access. However, this is by Reason, this order. In the order of the individual's sense... Access is more valuable than the actual resources. Rarely can it be said that a predator is preying on the individual for intellectual access. Usually, this is because the target does not have an intellectual component, and the predator does not have an intellectual need. This does not rule out the predator's tactics of using the charlatan form of intellectualism as a means to get access to the material and the emotional.
In fact, let's begin with a clear clue and indication when this is happening.
The predator using charlatan intellectualism to seduce their target is easily exposed by this one simple observation. The observation is that they will be seeking emotional access, in addition or even without that of material access. This is the dead giveaway, because one who is truly intellectual is not at the same time truly emotional. However, the ones who use charlatan intellectualism on their targets are often the emotional shamans, and therefore, there is a good chance that targeting tactics employed will come with a form of charlatan intellectualism. In fact, in this society, the shaman charlatans are the ones often seen as intellectual, because they dominate academic and political commentary, and culture creatives. I'll come back to the shamans later.
In this observation that they would in fact be emotionals hiding behind intellectualism, one will see what their words serve. They will use intellectualism to prop up emotionalism. This is why you know you are in the presence of a shaman charlatan using the intellectualism to entice through novelty tactics, only to eventually strip it all down to emotionalism.
With this warning made, let me move on.
The correlation here is in the culture of hugging. This culture is predominantly on the side of softies, on the side of hippies, on the side of Lefties and Liberals, and more so than anything, it has a gender variable, in that it is feminine, and therefore, more common among females. This of course is not saying there is no hugging and greetings among males of the same sort. Making this gender distinction often leads to mental midgets trying to hijack the words. Society, as it is Advanced by the Majority, is mostly soft and “effeminate”. These terms, masculine and feminine, as a dichotomy, are not good ones. I do not believe either says what is female like or male like. Therefore, I use these terms specifically in order to avoid masculine and feminine. It is not male like to be Rational, and female like to be emotional. It is masses like―male or female―to be irrational and emotional. It is rare for any, male and female, to be Rational and sound of mind. When this seems to be the rare case, males seem to dominate this category not in their homes, but in their professions, leading to the misconception that this is about males and females. Males being “Rational” in their professions chosen does not often translate over into their personal lives, if they have one.
Being Rational, male or female, is rare, observably. Now of course it begs the question, by what standard is said Rationality judged by? A simple answer would be the standard of the direction of the thought and its motivations. Rational when motivations are based on principles, and not Rational when motivations are based on primal urges, and reason or analytical thought is just used to serve those base emotions in some utilitarian form. Many use some level of reasoning to serve their base motives. In professions that require reason as a foundation, many can employ it, with males showing more desire to than females, but the same reason applied does not translate over into their individual lives, and daily decision making process. Utilitarian based reasoning is not the one I am speaking of. I am speaking of the Reason, with a capital R, needed to be Wise. These are the objectives I speak of. Wise is not in regards to a profession, but is in regards to the whole of the living of the individual.
There have been studies that show a correlation between how successful one tends to be, and how much control and space they need around their own living. Increased competency and performance both require increased Control and Command. In all these increases, the individual tends more so towards cutting out their own space, and that of being more of it.
Whereas those less successful and less driven towards competence tend to be the opposite. They tend to take less care of their possessions, when others have free access to them, and they tend to take less care of their body, when others have more access to it, and less care of their space and who is allowed in it. This is a correlation to the factor I mentioned earlier, of being born with confidence and Arete, or that of the pursuit of the excellent. In order to pursue excellence, the individual needs to pursue competence, increased ability, and increased expression. To do this, more often than not the individual needs to increase Control and Command over themselves and their condition. On the basic level, this translates into greater gains in performance in the professional and utilitarian realms, but then bleeds over, so to say, into the personal life of the individual, therefore, causing markers of success and failure to be distinguishable in cultures.
This is why the masses who are economically low in status have a different culture than those who are not of the masses, but elite in economic standing. The practices are not the same, and for those of the masses, this seems to be because of the “money” and this is wrong. The culture of success is a culture of competence, and a culture of competence is a culture of autonomy and independence, and this requires an increased standard in one's associations and pursuits.
Most who then will struggle with these practices are those who were born to a culture that does not promote competence, but promotes acceptance. These will be the different variables that determine the starting foundation of one's investigation.
So then, what does this have to do with the hug, and why is this called the first of the social forms of predation?
When one is born, they are born to familiars. This means family; however, in the use of the term familiars, this extends beyond one's blood relations, and enters into all those who were allowed to become familiar, and that is fixed in association over continued exposure. This tends to be the only standard. Strangers, not yet known, who look like and act like one’s familiars are rapidly taken as “familiars”. These are replicants.
In the culture of the hug, which is a predatory culture, hugs are afforded to strangers without any standard. Now, one need only look back at history, that kind of inquiry into the past, and see how and why this developed along with other greetings, such as kissing cheeks and lips, and so on.
Most human history can be called and certainly is, by me, “replicant” history; a history of replicants and loopers.
Now these are new words for one to be exposed to, and begs the question, what do they mean?
When a society becomes fixed to the resources of the land, you have the masses who are servile, you have the landlords and business owners who run the market, and then you have the governing forces who claim a monopoly on the use of force. They claim to be the only “legitimate” forms of force, and any other using force locally is a “criminal”, even if they are doing the same thing as the governing force. In essence, in many ways, crime is unsanctioned competition.
When tied to a land or a city, as a citizen/denizen, it does not take long before marriages and mating end up bringing about a countryman look, where your neighbors look like your cousins, and everyone seems related. This is because genetically, diversity is low. The thing that has increased diversity in genetics was the marketplace, that also became the main reason for travelers and wanderers to move about, other than that of religious pilgrimages. Nomads and that of conquest were the earliest cause of diversity in kinds.
Places where marketplaces were expansive received greater diversity in genetics. This, of course after the ancient mixing of conquest by horse and/or ship, which created almost everyone's ancestors across the globe.
Folk were called as such because they had shared values, they had a shared language, and most of all, they had a shared genetic population, where they looked more alike to each other than not. For one to have a brother, a sister, a mother, a father of a folk was likened to the same folk in one's town, being almost always the same. In essence, a countryman was not much of a stranger, because you were all replicants of each other, and a shared culture to begin with.
Strangers were those from a foreign land, and they were identifiable because the genetic population they came from had different phenotypes, or that is, appearances of the expression of the genetics.
It would not be common in the past to hug and to kiss someone with different phenotypes, because one would not even know if they too were of the same culture of hugging and kissing. One could presume, in the past, they were not. This too is evidence of why today, in the United States, which is what I speak of, this act of hugging strangers is predatorial. Most who do it do not care if the one before them is of a different culture, and one that does not use such inclusive access to bodies.
If you saw a female, presumingly, dressed in Islamic garb, with a face covering... Would you hug her? The answer is that you would not. This, because she wears an obvious mark of cultural difference, and you do not know the cultural greeting for her. But if she looked like you under the garb, and one day was out and about wearing marks of American commercialism, would this change and a hug be socially pushed? For many, the answer is yes. This, because she looks like you.
The culture and customs of the stranger are unknown, but the dominant mindset of hugging cultures is that “we are all the same”, and “we all want hugs” like the rest of you, whimpering little tits with your emotional needs. Everyone bound to everyone is at the foundation of this “American” shaman hugfest.
Recently, I was asked by one individual if I hugged. One, she was of South African descent and raised in Connecticut. She also lived in Brooklyn, and was the woman of a Brooklyn native who is well “associated” with me. They were not from the West coast where “we” all are now. They knew in Brooklyn, you do not just hug a stranger. In Brooklyn, there were hostilities between the diverse array of folks that inhabited the borough. You could not assume, nor force a sense of togetherness with a stranger who may differ from you vastly.
I would say it is a mark of lack of diversity in both cultures and ideas that leads to a culture of hugging. This is the same culture of predatorial practices that preach acceptance and tolerance of others, yet they do not have any among them that needs acceptance or tolerance, because they are all the same. They may have some of diverse skin complexions, and this might be what they mean. But they are not diverse in thought, and practices. They are all conformed to the same ideology.
I have lived in “Left” paradises, where they have unchecked, unchallenged positions of control from San Luis Obispo, Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Portland, Boulder, to Santa Cruz California, and so on. They never have diversity in anything more than preference of style and appearance, with conformity to substance. New York City, in the 80s and 90s, had diversity in culture, diversity in thought, behavior, and activities, and because of this, there was little crossover. Those of difference tend to keep to their own. I know this, having been one of those rare fellas to crossover, and partake in the realm of everyone, seeing no people as my people, but those who dare to Reason and Reason well, who can be found held in captivity among all so-called peoples as their minority. To Reason and to Reason well is the only true minority. Those who are different in the mere customs and styles have a difference that is easy to drop in the name of social conformity, which all these major Left societies illuminate.
They do not want “diversity”; they want “pets”. Having a discussion about this, one of my close “associates” I call Apache―on account of him being, well, an Apache―located the term menagerie, which means a “collection of exotic animals”. This is what the Left does. They themselves are mostly of one kind, looking much more like each other than not when they are of pale complexion. No matter where they come from, they are pale shamans, and then they collect others with different complexions and treat them like pets to back up their role as mothers to all, with their males as servile to all, meek, weak, and timid little subversives.
Now perhaps some of you on the Left are offended by my words. Perhaps you think I am from the Right. You would be wrong. I do not subscribe to any of your viewpoints, as you two take turns oppressing each other in politics. A part of Access Denied is this : Access Denied when it comes to counting me among your kind. I am not an American; I am not a citizen; I am not of your community, your religions, your ideologies, and certainly, any of your political parties. Access to me on a collective level is DENIED. There is Reason for this.
But yes, I am putting the Left more on blast than the Right, because the Right is actually more diverse than the Left, and where they come together is for political reasons. The Left does not separate their lives from their politics; they aim to use politics to enforce their way of living on everyone else. So you should be put on blast. You're also the ones raising your young with “free love”, and this is hurting them and their self-esteem. I have lived among your young for the whole of the second half of my life. Your “free love” has jacked them up, and one of these days, some of them will rebel.
In primal conditions, the mind of humans had a sense that their torso was a forbidden point when on the hunting ground, or the battleground. It's where all the vital organs are, and it is why some of us who were professional Fighters with arms, so-called soldiers, are used to wearing protective ballistic plates protecting our center mass. Those who have no Fighter sense have no defensive sense. This means, they do not think about their vulnerable areas being protected. In many regards, this is effeminate, because even now, females are rare to be engaged in battlefields, yet all combat roles are pretty much open to them. Some have gone through selection, receiving deference in their performance, but other than going through the training, they do not stick around to prove themselves with a unit. Those who do, if there are any, will be able to be named on both, or one hand.
Why then would it be “female” to think of protecting their center, and forbidding access to it? It would not be.
Physical defense was more common to fighting males, but where there were fighting females in the past―and there were fighting females―in such rare cases, they too thought and lived as the fighting males. This is because Fighter and fighting is that which obeys Reality the most, and Reality, in the fight, does not care if you are male or female.
It is not that there is a reason to believe that physical harm will come from the predators of this domestic society. No, it is not the physical that is at stake here. It is the emotional, the psychological, and even, dare I say, the spiritual bodies of the individual that get softened up by these cultures of hugging. They come through the physical acceptance, and with that of oxytocin being a chemical that triggers on these touches and anticipation thereof, it does not use the mind to say who is safe or right, and who is a threat, and wrong. The emotional body fails humans in detecting threats, and the stories where it succeeds are those that are cherry-picked out of all the times the same emotions were active in the individual and failed to match Reality. It's because of how dominant the emotions are, and how present, that eventually a feeling gets it right.
The hug is that permission to enter into the vulnerable position of another. Once one is in theirs, they begin the process of becoming a familiar, and as they display no harm to the torso over time, this becomes the only thing emotionals need as a standard to see the stranger as a familiar, and therefore, accepted, and therefore, safe and one of “us”.
But your body is more intelligent than your weak mind. It knows this has occurred, and because it has occurred, you remain insecure. Insecure, because so many that register as threats, to your subconscious mind, have access to you, and your torso.
A Vir, once they become awakened to their nature, begins the process of stopping this unnatural and rather foolish behavior, that is too, yes, the first element of sexual access.
It does not matter who the predator is, be them blood related, familiar, or stranger; the hug is a sexual act in the lowest degree. I have been asked by others, if this pertains to fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, and the answer is an easy YES. Sexual is a simple sense, when even “sexual” is actually about feeling secure and safe. Sex is a currency for this, and therefore, is about Control and access. Access is what is really meant.
It is a fact that the mind registers access and forbiddance to the torso with significance. This is why even those lacking in self-defense will defend their torso and their head space when confronted with attacks. So then why is it that there is no standard in who should or should not have access? The same can be said with the absurd notion that you should ever let an agent of the state, who is a stranger, handcuff you behind your back, when you have not proven to be a threat to yourself and others. This too is a foul human practice that needs to be addressed. Too much access has been tolerated in far more areas than this essay will be able to address, and that access needs to enter into the realm of “Denied”, and it's time to start fighting back against these cultures of access, these cultures of predation and exploitation.
On the primal level, your self-esteem and your sense of security goes down when your culture is one of easy access. Those who come to practice more Control over their space and access to their body develop a mind that is suited for many advantageous behaviors. To the incompetent masses, none of this would be held as important. This is because none of the gains will be experienced by the incompetent masses.
The “AVE”nue, the Access Value Engagement arenas, makes even some of this clear. Others would call this the “sexual marketplace”. Say you're a female who hugs everyone, like many females do. What then should the value of your hug be to a mate, or a potential mate? You have probably already shown them that much physical affection, out of the need and desire for attention, acceptance, and those other elements of fear and insecurity. Now, being that he will be a little boy like you are a little girl in this culture, he will be delighted to get the same hug everyone else gets. It's one step closer to grabbing that booty, which presumingly not everyone is able to do, but just about anyone will be allowed to in the absence of standards. A Man will not “play” that. This is the world of boys and girls of ineptitude, no matter their age.
A Man has high value in themselves, be them male or female Man. Man is not a gender, it is the age of Control and Command of the Mind. It is the advent of Intelligence that makes Man from humans, but no longer the lowly human.
A Man will see that your hug is indiscriminate, and therefore, when given to him or her, they will not value it as much as one who is physical for the reasons nature had permitted : for that of mate selection and alliance.
The value of something on the market that is saturated is low. When one gives out a saturated act, they too will feel the low value of their action and contribution. It will move from not only low value, but expected, and others will treat it as a social requirement that is pressured by others. Nothing is of the lowest value than that which is given up in sacrifice on account of compulsion. Why, it is not even yours, if you are required to give it up. Your hug becomes “my hug”, and they say “give me my hug” often enough to prove that point. “Daddy wants his hug”, the humans utter in their perverted ignorance.
It does not need to be that the hug is connected to sexuality. This is not necessary, for the same reason that sex itself too can even be divorced from sexuality, and be categorized as a realm of the expression of control mechanics. As said before, this is all about access demanded to mitigate the sense of fear and insecurity innate to the masses. Access, not sex.
This term “control”, by default, is not negative; however, those with a low level of control in their lives, who are under the control of their emotions and/or others, will see this term as negative. Seeing it as such would also be why they do not come to seize control over their conditions, nor their “selves”.
This lack of realization that more control, or an increase in control needs to occur is correlated to this demand placed on the young to have no control over the most important thing to begin with, that is, their bodies, and their targets of affection. From the start, infants must have their default caregivers as attachment figures. There was never an option on their part, and can not be.
In the early developmental phase, this is all the “value” a child, an infant is shown to be able to offer their familiars.
The baby, mostly to the “mother”, the one who ties one to the material, is an “object” and/or a “target” of affection and control. What is being controlled is the use the baby has for triggering and expressing the emotions and the role the mother serves. Now, I say the mother more than the “father”, and right now, I need to correct these terms a little, and deviate from their use.
Defining the terms mother and Father
Mater is the root of mother; pater is the root of father, as terms. As one can perhaps detect, these roots are shared with other terms. Mater is the root of material, of matter, of mature, and so on. Pater is the root of the term pattern.
The word pattern, even as well patriot, had an esoteric sense of “Wisdom”, and to be “faithful to the pattern”. It then became faithful to the father, to the animalistic grunting forces. But the esoteric meaning is behind the deliberation of the terms. Those Ancients who had a role in the development of the English language, and the Latin shared elements, coded an ideological sense within the language, with value judgments, realizations and all, included.
Because of this, in “America” and its schools, its subjects were not taught a native English, with these implications included in its vocabulary. Instead, American schooled minds were taught an auxiliary language, disguised under the name “Basic English”.
In the Esoteric Sciences, which Viritus and Voltential are certainly a part of, the mater and the pater are not terms that are male and female human specific. In essence, anyone who “ties one to the material” is a “mother”. This means if a male ties their young to the material, that male is also a mother. In fact, I would say, most human males, if not almost all, are “little sister mothers” compared to the main mama of the social hierarchy. Now, I say “little sister” like I would say sissy, in the sense that the male familiar has less influence and control over this matter, and tends to be an additional child under the control of the female head of the family―the “mother prime”.
Males do not make “good mothers”, or that is, potent mothers. They do not tie the young to the material nearly on the same level as females. Unless they are effeminate, all males want patterns and systems to guide their decision making process. But males, having been highly mothered, will have been conditioned to look to their emotions, which is the first element of being tied to the material. None are more materialistic and bound than the emotionals, to which I will explain just why. I refer to those under this condition―which is most of you―as MOMMY-STAMPED, in the sense of approved by mommies.
A “Father” is not necessarily a male, and is a rare thing that perhaps only existed when the “mysteries”, the “Esoteric Sciences” were about, in order to initiate “Fathers”. A Father can only exist after initiation into the Sciences. Why do I say this?
Father, with pater as the root, is about pattern. Pattern is that identified set of behaviors and consistencies concerning observable phenomenon. Phenomenon, a “Greek” term, means that of “natural occurrences”, and/or “manifestations”. The pattern of a thing is the “identification of the origin and nature of the manifested”, so says the initiated thought, and so proven in all sciences, philosophical or utilitarian.
To be a Father is to “bestow pattern”, and some other ways in which this can be expressed are these :
“Wisdom is the Father of all Fathers”;
“Father is one who bestows Wisdom”;
“To have been Fathered is to have had Wisdom bestowed”;
“To bestow Wisdom, one must have Wisdom”;
“To have Wisdom, one must have patterns identified”.
The patterns in pater, or that of the essence of the term, is that which is necessary for Wisdom. In common writing, this term Wisdom would be left undefined, with the arrogance of the reader left to run amok. As a reader, if you have not asked about the definition of Wisdom after its use being plenty here, then go back and understand my point of literacy and definition. It would mean you have NOT actually been reading, at least not with the intent to first understand, and the later state derived from understanding, that of “overstanding”.
Overstanding is when one owns the principled thought at the foundation of the conclusion. It is beyond belief, and even knowledge, in that it becomes knowledge applied.
This too is the foundation of the term Wisdom.
When I use this term, its definition is as follows :
“Wisdom is to be in the possession of valid Reasoning that begets valid identification, which in turn leads to valid understanding, which begets knowledge, in which one then has the courage and/or valor to act in accordance with, regardless of the cost, the risk, the reward.”
Wisdom is, therefore, knowledge applied, and regardless of the consequences, with there being more often than not the mark of opposition to that which is Wise by that which is common. The common is never considered Wise, because the common is whim and ritual based. The common is not considered unwise because it is common. It is unwise because of what is common to the commons : that of emotionality and base motives, guided in rituals, in whims, in beliefs, and that of opinions. And I would also add... Deception. These are all things that are antithetical by their nature to that of sound Reasoning, that of sound knowledge, and that of sound action born from these things. It is a different line of mental manifestations, which begets a different line of behavioral manifestations. Wisdom is not found in words alone, nor as a primary. Wisdom is found in action, and such Wise actions are often the target of the masses, the many, the multitudes, the commons, the crowds, and the “normies” who despise what is WISE.
When one is well conformed to the commons, having a secured place at the table, there is a good chance that they are not to be counted among the Wise. Wisdom is the greatest form of foreigner, leaving those with it without a people, a kind, a nation, a tribe, a party. Those with all those things can not be called Wise, for Wisdom dispels all those delusions in which they are. The Wise have kin, only in the loose sense that all who are Wise are of the same kind, and all who are Wise are but those rare elite minds, sprinkled in captivity among the unwise humans that have control over this sphere.
A Father would know all these things, and be them male or female, they would then bestow them and more upon others, being their “Father”. Father is not about blood relations, and neither is mother. Both are roles, and as roles, both have a purpose.
A mother, male or female, has the purpose of binding one to the material.
A Father, male or female, has the purpose of bestowing Wisdom through patterns.
A mother is about bonds and bonding.
A Father is about Control and Command through patterns.
I do not speak ill of females when I speak ill of mothers, and the limits they place on those in captivity. One of the greatest starting Fathers I had was a female, but female as a sense of “group” is material, and they can not claim her as one of theirs. She was a Father, because she bestowed Wisdom. She was not a mother, because she did not prioritize the material and that of social bonding, as mothers so do.
I have not been mothered or bound to the material, and because of this, I am liberated in and through patterns, and it is my role, if I have any, to bestow patterns; that is to say, bestow Wisdom. However, I am no Father and never should be seen as such. A Father, in addition to bestowing Wisdom, does so upon children or infant minds, in which all without Wisdom are. I am not this, because I do not bestow Wisdom directionally upon a subject, or individual―at least, no longer. As was said before, I am a guide, and mentor of a “System of Wisdom”, and I serve it, and more so... guard over it. It, the “System of Wisdom”, I do not bestow. I illuminate its expoundings, and in those who receive it, they must initiate “their Father” and become that which bestows its Wisdom upon themselves through their own efforts. Those who seek out what I do ought not, and shall not seek a Father in me, though this is the nature of the child, and the infant mind.
The “mommied” and subjugated child
It is the nature of the child and infant mind to seek in others the “better mommy” or the “better daddy”, whom they will then expect servility from, and/or a target to overthrow, in that they had failed to overthrow their familiars.
I would say, the masses being oblivious to this motive can be seen choosing their mates and their associates based on these models. It's one or the other, when they are not Wise, and this is all throughout the commons and the motives of their behavior.
When one cultivates their young to have no standard of directing their attention and affection, then what they are doing is keeping them “mommied”. They will give this affection and attention outward in all other places, looking for that satisfaction and pleasure signals “mommy” trained them to serve. You are making them a servant of the emotions of others, because as a “mommy”, you made them a servant of your emotional needs.
I began to speak of this “value” that can only be said to be the case of children. They act as mirrors, mimicking the emotional signals of the controlling force―more often than not, the mother who too is the primary one who says “give your uncle a hug”, “give Mommy a hug”, or “give Daddy a hug”, or “hug your aunt whom you have not seen in a while”.
Just like all other commands given by one's familiars, there is this sense that to not listen would incur a negative result.
Familiars do not earn the respect of the young, nor the right to be listened to. When familiars command their young, they do so arbitrarily, and that is too where this “subject” status, and low status of mind comes from, that prevails later in life; a mind and low status that make the young stay children even after the age of 18, and now under the arbitrary command of others, often that of the Society Advanced by the Majority, or some work manager, or some nation-state.
It all begins during this phase when the mother smothers and subjugates the emotional body and mind of the child, the infant, and keeps it impotent, that is, lacking in power, and therefore, in its physical maturation, makes it inept and forever to be called Children of Ineptitude, which are all the products of mothers and having no “Fathers”, but plenty of daddies. This being possible and the common case, because a Father is rare, and rarely are those called fathers deserving of the title; and common is it for the infant minds of the masses to come to see that their mother and so-called father were incompetent all along, and were just older children no more suited to lead, to Control and Command than they are, now that they are thrust out into the realm of responsibility. This is all that separates the infant, the child, from the common adult. The child is without responsibility in the material realm, having their needs cared for, and the adult is a child with the responsibilities of needs, now under their “control”.
Having a “job” and paying bills are the only things parents use to justify their role as “commanders” over their young. They do not even pretend to be Wise or to be competent―at least, that is, most do not. This can be seen to be different when one changes socioeconomic status and enters into realms of high risk and high reward professions, and social orders. When one has access to these social orders, one sees a whole different set of behaviors and guides. Now, I am speaking of the commons, and these deviated social orders are not the commons, and they have figured out long ago how to deny access to the commons. They are not elitist because they think they are better than the commons; they are elitist because they have more Control and Command over conditions and self than the commons. They are elitist because they are better than the commons in living lives based on sound patterns. Not all, of course, with there being those born “up there”, or those who got up there through “hook and crook”―though unlike the common beliefs about these elite realms, which they can never observe, most did not attain their place there through foul means, but attained their place through Reason and the Rational self-interest born from it, too demanding excellence in all, which the commons do not.
It must be noted here that though there are humans and commons starting to ask these questions about affection required for the commons' young... They are not doing so on the level I mean, to draw attention to.
There is a protection that is being spoken about, from the girl scouts, to family agencies, and psychologists now instructing parents to back off their young, and teach them about the right to choose how and who they show affection to. This is because the same people, the same commons were against early last century info speaking about how cuddling and too much physical attention leads to offspring generating needy behavior and bad habits. The mothers rebelled against the early studies, thinking they knew best. “Mother knows best” is absurd. I have not seen a mother yet do well. But this standard I must speak of.
The standards I am speaking of are not to be considered human standards, or standards to be upon the commons. I am not telling the commons to change. This would be irrational. My message is for those that were held captive among the commons, but did not have a common nature, that after reading or being involved in activities connected to these spheres of knowledge, they come to see their previous upbringing was not in accordance with their nature. That indeed, they were held in captivity, and this is a description of that captivity, so that they can better understand how liberation is to be brought about. Not a liberation that requires a rebellion against the previous life. This is not the case.
A liberation that requires an exiting and an extinguishing of previous behaviors of captivity. This then does not require blaming the mothers and the “fake ass fathers”. They were Children of Ineptitude, and it could be said, never knew better or had a sense of an alternative. The commons are the commons because they lack curiosity, they lack boldness, they lack courage, valor, veracity, and Virtue. In the absence of these things, they simply did what they were told, and then turned and told you what to do. They did not know why, or whether it was the right way to tell. But they also did not care, because the commons are indifferent. They are marked by this absence of sincere care. Their level of care is mundane, or that is, earthbound, and they do not conceive of a level of care fit for the Gods, or that is, Solar driven.
My works are of the “Solar kind”, and not of the Earthling kind. Commoners are materialists, are Earthlings dancing around with “wands” they call magical sticks, but the “Solar kind” can see, are just STICKS, and have no magic in them. The real magic is in the mind, and it's the magic of exact thought, precise analytical accuracy, which creates the magical conclusion of increased Control and Command over condition and self. There is nothing more “magical” than being a Commander in life, over one's own living. This is the ultimate prize, and the commons, the masses do not attain this, and therefore, their social systems call them subjects, and never Sovereigns. Their social systems create fictions that are based on the collective might of idiots, and they call these nation-states, and the nation-state is then seen as the “Sovereign”. Think about this. The only Sovereign among the masses, the commons, is a fiction; a nation-state that is no more than a body of individuals claiming the use of legitimate force over a set geographical location and/or populace. It is the most incompetent way of conceiving of a Sovereign, yet it is the historical way.
It is not then the commons whom I say must change, or even can. This I do not. It is those who were held in captivity, coming to find they ought to be guided by their own efforts, their own insight, and their own drive to be more. These are whom Access Denied applies to, as a tactical guide aimed at liberating oneself from the life of defeat and docility, the vanquished living.
This is what was brought about when your parents, your familiars directed how you were to use your affection, the only thing the mother can even say was of value to her, when you were a child, and the thing she then misses and longs for, when you come up and out of the home and begin to do the same thing she did on your own.
What value can be said of children other than targets of affection and controlled forces of affection generation?
If one had a farm, they were free labor that joined in the resource efforts. In the old days, if one was a master craftsman, the children were the given apprentices to be raised through your craft, and carry on the family business. What is it that you humans say, is the “value” of offspring, if not only these things?
So then it should be clear what has occurred. What has occurred is that human mothers, those of the commons, exploited the baby making machine in order to fulfill their emotional needs, and rarely if ever do they then produce offspring that can be called competent at living.
The reason why this has not, and does not occur in domestication is because the conditions are not suited to the program. In the ancient and more primal times, there were objectives and tasks that the young would be applied towards : males on the hunting and battlefields, and females, in support caring for the semi-settled, or urban settled environments, conducting resource management and distribution. These primal roles should make sense of why so many of the common females vote Democrat, are Liberals, and are now Socialists.
By innate proclivity, they seek to manage the resources of others, and when influencing the direction of already arbitrary, whimsical, and base governments, they will inherently direct them towards Socialism, and Communism... And then put their husbands at the head of such tyrannies. Human females are never anti-slavery; they are only anti-brutality, because this stirs their emotions and fears. Human females are all for slavery, so long as it's “everyone enslaved to everyone”, and then therefore, slavery has been abolished in their minds. Managing others, their affection and their resources, is what human females do.
This begins with the mother, out of nature, and extends through the daughter, who then becomes a wife and mother of her own, replicating the same system of managing resources and affection.
This very matter of the hug illustrates this. Human females (common females, not Vir females) demand more physical attention to soothe their insecurities and fears. They are also the ones who change and initiate the level of affection in social groupings. Males, when healthy and left alone from mommy, want to wrestle, not hug. Now one can say that this is likened to a hug, but then that would show they do not know what it is to wrestle. Wrestling is about competence and ability. It's about proving oneself, and the expectation is to get better through doing. The softies of society have turned hugging into a thing of development, literally having businesses that claim they deal in platonic affection and cuddling, which is a lie used by predators.
It should be of no surprise when one enters these realms that those partaking are those too incompetent on the normalized marketplace to find affection from others. So then they create a model of drawing in prey, which in this case just draws in more predators, so that they all can prey on each other.
These are the same ideologues who are using media forms to sexualize the young before nature has given them the forms to signal mating market entry. These are the same kinds that then move towards pedophile tendencies and so on. Not in the sense of legal statutes do I speak of, but in the sense of seeking to sexualize that which nature has not sexualized―by that of nature in the physiological sense.
Now, many will think of sexualization and/or that of the readiness of an individual based upon their culture and social norms, where the young, no matter their physical readiness, are measured by their supposed mental readiness, or as most put it, maturity.
This latter factor is not a factor of nature. It is a factor of that of conditioning, and the individual mental level of sophistication speaks to the common mental levels of their collective. This is to say, Society as it is Advanced by the Majority is full of inept so-called parents, raising their young to also be inept. The ineptitude is their doing, not the age of the body of the individual.
This is why the body is used by the masses, with age, to dictate what is “mature”, because it is that which is materially formed, and not the product of the formation of patterns.
Nature determines when the body is ready, and society stops the mind from moving with the body in its development. Society in essence makes mental midgets. So then when the young come of physical age to enter the mating marketplace, their minds are not presumed to be ready. Not much, however, changes from a 13-year-old to a 21-year-old, other than their appearance. They all seem to pretty much think the same, minus an additional awareness of responsibility and a sense of social taintedness.
Conclusion on the hug
In this practice chapter of Access Denied, one should now see that the first step of denying access, which is an informed step, has to do with the “culture of the hug”, and how this is actually holding you back, and lowering your self-esteem.
In order to conclude this section, my objective will be to explain what a hug is. Now, by explain, I do mean scientifically, as well as behaviorally, in the sense of behavioral philosophy.
Before being able to do this, I will make a connection with Viritus and Voltential, as this is a Voltential Production for a reason. Vigilance and vitality guide the behavioral philosophy of Viritus. In the future, I will make reference to these terms, and define them as a Way, perhaps in its own treatise that will be about human behavior and Vir behavior. This need to connect this expression “behavioral philosophy” to Vital Vigilance is born out of the need to make clear that my use of these terms is not based upon academic theories and practices. The behavioral sciences of academia do not tend to be diverse in their ways of approaching observed behavior. Instead, the filter often used is one that promotes emotionality over that of Reason, and for their audience, this makes sense. Their audience is inept children who need to be comforted, and by inept children, I mean those of the commons of all ages. I have observed that even those who are above 60, in this Society Advanced by the Majority, or SAM, are in fact Children of Ineptitude, or COI, and they have spent their long life meek, timid, and cowardly. By “child”, as explained earlier, I mean one who has not “patterned in Reason”. This is equivalent to the legal sense of an infant, in which the commons are considered prima facie till they prove otherwise. To be of the “Age of Reason”, or that is, in possession of a developed Rational faculty, one has the burden to demonstrate such. It can be said that modes of demonstration are in the spoken word, the written word, and the formulation of ideas, and the abilities to dissect notions. These abilities and ways of Reason are uncommon, and instead, most behavior among the commons, the infant masses, the Children of Ineptitude is ritualistic, in the sense of repeated patterns of behavior based upon custom, education, tradition, and conditioning. The COI, or Children of Ineptitude, will not be able to grow out of their despair. When asked if there is an age limit of the physical body for learning these things, the answer is yes.
Those who are between the ages of 28 to 33 are at the final phase of cognitive maturation, or wiring. If one does not take Control and Command of their mind before the rough area of 33 to 35, they will be hardwired to the material, and they will not have Control and Command over the “pattern”; and therefore, can not become Wise and remedy their ineptitude. These are the limits of the mind and the brain it uses. Hardwired is what comes at this age, if methodology made habit is not attained. One who discovers and implements the “methodology” will then be able to use it all throughout their life, with the mind being “wired” for it. This is where physical age will matter, and those who are past the age of 33 to 35 will not grasp, nor find this direction suitable for their being. They are hardwired, and it would be irrational to expect them to “understand”, let alone overstand these positions. One is then not seeking to change their minds and/or to learn them on these points. When one is expressing and sharing these things with a “hardwired Child of Ineptitude”, it is only as a means to deny access and make this denial clear for one's own sake, and not the sake of the recipient. The recipient, in this case, can pretend to understand, but they will be deceiving themselves. It is “unfortunate”, but it is simply the case. It is too late for the hardwired to do anything but mimic the practices, and see how they work out for them. The hardwired can not integrate the methodology, or that is, the methodical mind, and this is what is actually needed to “own” these notions for oneself.
That said, those in academia often carrying out their sense of behavioral sciences are doing so hardwired, and they are not blessed with a methodical mind.
This latter expression “methodical mind” must be made clear to be the filter, or the kind of Sense of Self and Sense of Life being applied. This is to say, emotionals can not read this piece about hugs, and see that their emotional filters for assessing hugs are useless.
The science is clear. The hugs are about the release of oxytocin and the release of stress, lowering the heart rate, relaxing the muscles, and so on. Huggers have never been observed to be high performers at anything. It is not a mere stereotype that huggers are soft. It's a scientifically discovered fact that hugging is about softening oneself, and one's “target” of the hug. However, the weak need to be softened to counter their ineptitude at dealing with stress and competency. This is to say, for the Children of Ineptitude, the hug is a normal part of their existence, as are pleasure foods, as are often intoxicants and mood altering substances. The hugger is a “mood based creature”. Because of this, they swing up and down, and all around, their mood determined by external forms of association. This is to say, they have no association with a meaningful self, so they are forced to draw from their conditions and/or their environment stimuli to tell them how to “feel”, and fulfill how they want to feel.
A “feeler” then can not grasp the clarity of the science, because the feeler does not care about science and that of informed decision making.
If you are a feeler, if you are an emotional, then you have no reason to read this piece and continue. Instead, if you do, this condition will stimulate your emotions towards dissatisfaction. In your emotionality, you share with the commons the common trend and disposition. Too, you share with them a life of displeasure more than a life of sincere joy. This should have been a clue to you, why you suffer, that is, that your emotionality has not gained for you success and enjoyment in a sincere and sustained way. Your emotionality has not secured for you a high performance life, but instead, you remain unachieved in any field or form of knowledge and practice. You remain in your emotionality an inept child or infant, one who has not come to Control and Command conditions, and certainly not that of “self”.
What then is your defense for your emotionality and its filter, if all with an ounce of Reason can see that you are not the model to live by?
This, emotionals can not answer.
You are an emotional when you declare that your emotions have a role in knowledge, in understanding, in guiding you in your decision making process. When you place emotionality as the primary, what little reasoning (with a lowercase r) you do is servile to those emotional decrees. This makes you an emotional, and those with Reason will see that your praise of emotions as a guide has led you to negative emotions more so than positive emotions. This is because positive emotions are a product of competence, and elevated Sense of Self through increased Control and Command over conditions and self. These positive emotions are not primaries. They are rewards for Reasoning, and Reasoning well. This makes them sustained, and creates a character that is appealing―first and foremost appealing to oneself. In extension, they then appeal to others who too have an inclination to seek to Reason well, but are a burning light called “darkness” by those who are emotionals, and never aim to Reason well, and reject Reason as a primary, suffering their inadequacies, calling it, like the charlatans they are, “a spiritual war”. It is not a spiritual war you emotionals contend with; it's a “chemical” and “material” war, and you are the “materialists”.
It is a fact that the emotions are a chemical response to stimuli. This is material. It is a fact that the only “mental entities” having made themselves known through their products are those of ideas, of notions of symbolic thought, of abstractions, of concepts. Therefore, in the observable and demonstrable Reality, the mind is the “Spirit”, and the only thing that differs so far from the material realm, in that the thoughts exist as entities of their own―only so far as they can be shown in expression. Those animals, which emotionals are more so than the Rational, are material as primary, and thought for them is a slave for the material. Therefore, as “shamans” who can not wield the mind with nobility, by birth, they design spirituality around the materiality of their emotions... And to this display, one can now see who the shamans are. The shamans are the servants of “Mara”, and his “daughters”. The shamans are often his “daughters” and their “sons”. I will not make much use of metaphor in this piece, as I do not favor metaphors. I use them only as a bridge to the exact and clear. So then what comes before or after the metaphor is the detailed point, and the metaphor should never be given priority and primacy, nor used in absence of the clear expression.
To an emotional, who is no more than an animal who has low access to the mind, the hug is a noble thing, an enlightened thing, a spirited thing. The hug coming via collision of the material, this should make it clear they are the materialists, they are the ones tied to the Earth, and in their language, they show this, often calling the Earth a mother, like a child would, and calling its ways “nurturing”, like a child wants, and then that of the constant avoidance of conflict (of course, so long as they have sacrificial males to handle the conflicts for them). With their words, then, they shame these males as they live protected in their castled societies.
They brace the material, and through the material. They do this not only through the hug, but the enticement of all things material. They do it through song, through dance, through intoxicants, through the “cuddles”, through the foods, and through the “feel goodies” that are base to all cultures. Why do you never see a hugger, an emotional, a mater engaged in conflict and rigorous growth and development? As you have seen them 5 years ago, you shall see them today, and when it comes to telling the future, the emotional can have theirs told with great accuracy. They will be tomorrow as they were today, and as they are today, they were yesterday. Children of Ineptitude do not develop, because in their material existence, they seek escape from judgement, escape from that of standards, from that of competence, and from that which can be seen as adverse and conflict-ridden.
Emotionals, which huggers are, are “escape artists”, and the plays they wield around them make one simple demand upon others joining in the same space, that demand being : “grant me access, I grant thee access”. But is the access a thing of earning and a thing of standards? Of course not. It's a culture of predation, where one is taught from many sources that being open and being vulnerable are the signs of strength and security―of course, all taught by those who show no sign of strength or security, and who show no sign that their ideology of the material leads to a remedy of the problems they are plagued with. Their solution : repeat the same rituals over and over again, and this level of familiarity will beget a level of stability, and in such stability from routine, “we” come to have a sense of security. To all that which is not familiar, but foreign, bring it into the hug, and bring it into the dance, and bring it into the intoxicants, and bring it into the food, and too, it would soon soften to the ritual and take of the same routine, and we shall call its conformity an “act of love”, and we shall seek to sustain and maintain it, in the infinite loop of a petty and inept existence, as forever children and infants in demand of sustained deference.
THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.
Every time you were young and commanded to hug a “mother” or a “father”, you were preyed upon. Every time you were commanded to hug a relative and to give them their kiss and their hugs, you were preyed upon. Every time you were introduced to a stranger that knew someone you knew, and you hugged them, this time with no command, you were the subject of predatorial culture. You at no point and time were ever in the position of Control and Command about the hug, and to whom you would give affection to. At all times, you were never taught that there should be a standard for the hug. But you have some sense of who can “grab your booty”, or “grab your breast”, or “grab your penis”, and so on... Why?
When do things change when it comes to the parts of the body that are often connected to sex? What is the difference between the hug and then that of sexual access?
Are not the hug and the embrace the starting point? Is not the area of the hug your most vulnerable area, with the primary organs that need to be protected?
Does not the male who hugs the female come to feel her breast upon his chest, and in some cases, have his pelvic area pointed at her vagina?
Is not the hug then replicated in the sexual embrace, when the forms of male and female are merged with penis to vagina?
When is it that a hug is not somehow seen as one of the steps in mating?
Now, one will say, “but there is the hugging of parents with their young, and that is not SEXUAL!”
Uh huh... Right... No Reason to think there is a sexual element there...
(That was me being facetious.)
It was not only Freud who brought forth notions of sexual repression hidden in the subconscious, and so on. This is not “magical psychology” when it comes to tracking the possessiveness that is shown over parents and their young. It is not outright surprising when sexual abuse occurs from parents, but instead, only a surprise that they acted on it, and could not control themselves. Control, by degree, is what most show, in regards to this, and a control that has far more to do with judgement of others, getting caught, and being found out. The fact of the matter is that studies have shown that social stigma can make a male feel disgusted for thinking sexually about a female in a picture, who was in reality older than 18 years old, but told to the subject to be 12 to 15. Yet males and females are sexual at these ages, per nature's decree.
It is a fact that when a female looks like a female, and no longer a “little boy”, attraction from males begins. Age is not the factor; her appearance that signals natural breeding urges is the factor. Now, let me be clear. Emotionals are urge based. Those inclined towards Reasoning as a primary are only so by nature of reduction in the urges. Them who are massively urge based need to realize they are then “emotionals”, and they need to figure these things out for themselves.
Domestication has made sexuality a sick thing, on all levels. In primal conditions, the female would be off with a new family of her future husband, before she made the change physically into the “sexual marketplace”―and yes, it's a marketplace, whether you realize it or not.
However, I would add that SMV (Sexual Marketplace Value) is too limited to be used often. I prefer the use of the expression “Access Value Engagements”, or AVE, as the actual values are about fear and insecurity alleviated through controls, in which sex is often a play for such, not the primary itself. More on this elsewhere.
In these conditions, so-called fathers, or that is, male familiars did not have to manage, or control some notion of their daughters in a sexual way, as she was not signaling in her form the sexual crossover. Males were often separated from their mothers, the ones who truly tie them to the material once forth, out of the matrix, and placed in their uncle's hunting or war bands, the earliest form of gangs, if you will. Uncle is often the male on the mother’s, or female’s side, and patruus was a term used for the male on the dad’s, or the male’s side.
Both of the young were not with their familiars past the ages of 11 to 13. It would be at these stages that they were moving on to the next phase of their lives : the phase of being of service to the tribe, in hunting and/or defense, in some craft for the marketplace, or as a “wife” to bring forth children to, in essence, be used more often than not for farm work, and/or to have an apprentice to assist in one's craft, and take over when one is too old to continue. Past this natural age... Rebellion sets in for a reason. They become rebellious because nature did not design the young to stay under the control and command of their familiars, when nature gave them the urges to sexualize and form their own “replicants” and familiars. This set of urges makes them seek to be independent from the familiars, but one's familiars have not bestowed knowledge, and/or Wisdom of independence.
Instead, in domestication, the young are kept as children, and infantile. They are kept dependent for the possessive need the familiars have to justify their lack of potency in life. It is the servile nature of the masses to convince themselves they are serving their young, and when they no longer have a target of their service, they feel empty, and they feel worn down and without purpose. They become restless when they are no longer exhausted from their care for others.
A slave will often work hard to maintain a master, and the master too, through their same shared fear and insecurity of loss, will work hard to maintain a slave. It is a myth that most who were slaves―and slavery goes beyond color, and is in the history of most peoples―wanted to be free, and would fight for their freedom. Most slaves, being mentally incarcerated, would fight to maintain their status as a slave, especially if they believed their slave master, the “oppressor”, was a good one out of the other options. A master, or one who “possessed” slaves, was a weak and fragile being in their dependency, constantly in fear that the labor taken from others would one day end, and they would need to labor. Leisure was what they sought to secure. Those who knew what to do with the leisure would often discover the need to end such a cycle of despair. Those not knowing what to do with the leisure gave themselves more of a deeper dependency upon the cycle of despair, sustaining the same loop of ineptitude, and disgrace.
Slavery would never have been possible if humans, on average, did not produce offspring to serve their own ineptitudes, and lack of purpose in life. Offspring, and the primary motive is that of familiars giving birth to excuses to why they suck at living, and do not amount to much of anything. By not amounting, I mean amounting to much to oneself, and not some collectivist and utilitarian sense of worth. When one is worthless to themselves, they need to give rise to default worshipers and targets of pleasure in a role. The role of a baby is to be at the mercy of a mother who will demand she be worshiped for one simple fact : she had a womb, and the infant came through the womb with little need for competency on her part. The male, then in service to that female, now has a new thing to be in service to, to justify why he will toil everyday to sustain things such as a “roof”, such as clothing, such as food, and some false sense of security that he could never provide because he is a sap... Having been sapped in his toil.
When asked why, at the age of 42 now, I have NO children... I respond with the question, “why would I?”
Often, the answer is, “it's the most amazing thing”, and/or “nothing is better than the love of one's child”, and other “romantic” nonsense that any with a mind's eye to see can see is delusional. I have worked with the offspring of so many, because I have worked with so many. Almost everyone has a connection to their “host” that held them in captivity for nearly 18 years or so. I have not once observed of these offspring a devotion, nor a sincere admiration for their host, their familiars. I have only observed, minus a few among the wealthy, this sense of disappointment in one's familiars for obvious reasons... Mothers and fathers do not prepare their offspring, in domestication, to live for themselves, autonomous and competent. No, they do not do this. They prepare them to be exploited by others, just as they exploited them for their emotional needs and role needs, by bringing them to form.
I am accused often of being “selfish”, and I embrace this term, because I am Rationally self-interested and do not live for others, in sacrifice. However, nothing is more humorous than a female or male with offspring calling me selfish, and thinking they are not, because they have a responsibility to others. They created that responsibility for selfish reasons, in a primal sense. No offspring made a contract with their familiars to be born. No offspring said, “make me to be responsible for me”. Of course not. The male and the female, for their own selfish primal urges, Sense of Self and Sense of Life, produced offspring to hide the fact that they had no idea what else there could be in life.
I do not have children because I am Rational, and more so... Virtuous. It's not the same as a lower animal producing a replicant. Having a human is something that demands far more ethical considerations than humans can offer. A lower animal has a replicant of itself, and they proceed in the same manner. Humans, in their complexity, can have offspring that are not akin to their nature, but different. Too, humans have offspring, while those humans are not free, nor sound of mind, and certainly not being sound in character. This can not occur in the animal world of the less complex forms. This is uniquely a human problem. Why? You humans are giving birth to offspring that is then born in captivity to a Society Advanced by the Majority, and they are compelled to then live inept as you did. Ramasse ta criss de marde before you produce offspring. Nature does not provide you with some innate sense of preparing an infant to rise through Reasoning. It certainly did not prepare your parents to do it with you, this being why you can reject Reason as the primary compass in decision making, and favor some magical sense of the emotions.
The fact is, the masses have never shown that they do anything more than produce offspring, and loop around resources for themselves and these offspring. This is what a “looper” is. You know you are a looper when I ask the question, “what have you done today, done yesterday, and will do tomorrow that advances you towards greater Control and Command over your conditions and self?” When this confuses you and you have no answer, it's because you are a looper, a mere replicant, and you probably have no “soul”, if the soul is some ethereal being not bound to material identity. A looper is a materialist, and I have seen none so materialist as those who claim to be spiritualists.
These premises produced here are at the foundation of why so much should matter, on this topic. It's not about hugs, reader. It's about access, and it's about being made soft for that of an exploitation that goes beyond the simple physical access when young. Your mind is recording everything, and the results play a heavier role in the subconscious than they do in the conscious. The results are your self-esteem.
When your parents made you hug (and yes, they made you hug), they interfered with the first thing you were to have control over : that is, how to show, and whom to show your affection and appraisal to. They broke your appraisal system, creating this sense of all-inclusiveness and acceptance of others, no matter their differences.
I ask a simple question often : what is the category an individual is in, who wishes and wants you to be vulnerable? Can you answer this, reader?
The answer is one's enemies, and/or a predator.
Who would want me to be vulnerable? Why is this praised in your culture? Who taught you this? Whoever they were... They are the ones who also taught you to hate yourself. They are the ones who taught you to doubt your nature, and to abide by theirs. They are the ones who taught you that you were less, and less was best. They were the ones who got you stressed, the ones who made you “undress”, and the ones who could never give you “redress”. They were all along your enemy in their behavior, no matter how benevolent sounding they tried to be in their tactics of predation. They were predators, and they might not have even known it.
In the work I do, that of investigative and experimental behavioral philosophy, I apply judgements on first sight, based on the way the individual looks, long before they produce a behavior. I watch their body language, their microexpressions, their dress, their mannerism, and their overall physical health and radiance. I can see a predator in less than a second. And I am not talking the kind you all can see, and see only here and there. I am talking the kind you all do not see, who are everywhere. They manage you at work, they live next door, in another house, and the same house... They teach you your college ideology, and they attract your votes in their democracy and entertain you on your screens. Predators are born out of weakness, out of fear, and out of insecurity. They are often fat, or frail in body, with pointy faces, like witches and warlocks, by degree. And they not only wear their vices in the open, but are quick to invite you too, and share their vices with them. Predators are those who when you look at them, you can not imagine them in a Warrior role beside other Warriors in some film or real life. You look at them, and say, I would not trust them with my protection. I would not trust them with my life. The fact of the matter is this : them who can not conquer both their enemies and themselves in the light, will all be predators. Their form of predation is not them hunting your form and seeking to inflict pain, and torment. These human predators seek pleasure, seek to please, seek to disarm, seek to seduce, seek to undermine, seek to subvert, seek to overthrow, and they do it with smiles and words of “benevolence”. Human predators are not like nature's predators. Human predators are not Fighters, nor are they Warriors. This is a myth. Fighters and Warriors are seen as beautiful for a reason, and even in the myths, you see they have some ugly and subversive being seeking to overthrow them, and their own beauty is so bright that they shine on the ugly, and make him or her look good, therefore, undetected.
Those who shun athleticism will be predators. Those who shun independence will be predators. Those who shun excellence and standards will be predators. Those who shun conflict orientation and resolution, through tranquility and passivity, will be predators. Out of all the kinds you have before thee, and perhaps even you, 80 percent will be the predators I speak of. The number one way to tell is the simple question : when do I see them fighting for autonomy, to either gain it, or sustain it? If the answer is you do not, then they are a predator, because domestication requires predation, and though this is all by degree, every degree of it is an act of aggression and subversion to autonomy, that of being self standing, that of being self owning, and that of being self-directed. All of these subversions are by degree. The hug is that subversion that began when you were a child, that said, by degree, “you do not have your own standing, but you need to share your form with 'me', with 'mommy', and with 'daddy', even though all we are, are the ones who have given rise to your physical existence for our own self-possessed reasons. We have earned and deserve your affection, because we do all this for you.” This is the lie of the familiars; they did it for themselves, and continue to do so. Then your self ownership was interfered with further in requiring this in your culture to be extended outward. It taught you that access to your body was simple, and without a standard. This then caused you to lower standards around your body, your form, the thing you were supposed to possess, and this led to vices, led to intoxicants, led to poor consumption, and physical weakness. Those who have gone in the other direction, who have tasted victory, by degree, in physical excellence too, often then prize their form, and develop standards in how it is to be used, and with who.
Chapter 4
To Meet A Vir
Common folk or the “commons” are likened to a “caste”, and Vir too are then a caste of their own. Caste is not considered in modern times, at least, not in the industrial world that claims “democratic” principles. Moderns in such “democracies”―which are no more than mob rule, and a mob that is ruled―believe they are more enlightened than those of the past, in that education, to the commons, is absurdly found to be synonymous with “enlightenment”.
The masses, who are the commons, are “educated”, and this means “institutionally raised”, or “reared”, likened to that of domesticated animals cared for, because they are to be exploited for some means. Now, this of course all sounds radical, and perhaps this term, to the educated, is taken to be synonymous with extreme. However, radical means “to the root”. The word educated, like all words or terms, has a root meaning that can be discovered with the linguistic tool of etymology, which is the study of the origin, essence, and history of a term.
When the commons meet and greet, there is a rather common way, universally, they do so.
This brings me to the first subject of meeting a Vir.
A Vir, in this context, is not one who merely engages in some fight. Going to a gym does not make you a Vir, nor does even fighting professionally make you what I am calling a Vir. Many of the commons fight for some primal motivated means that do not transcend the individual fight they are engaging.
So when I speak of the Vir, this is too not to be taken to mean a soldier or one who engages in the obvious combat nature of war.
By Vir here, I am talking about one who is engaged in the fight that is life, tactically, informed by what is, not merely what is wanted. Tactics is the beginning of being a Vir. A Vir lives tactically. No identifiable tactics, NO Vir.
This book is for those who might have in them the inclination to be a Vir, but until now a culture does not exist to aid in this, so they are held captive by the mental midgets of cowardice, the human chumps―to which I think all humans are. A Vir is not a human, because a Vir becomes so through a set of mental integrations and acknowledgments that alters their mental CHARACTER.
The first premise of the Vir
Let me start with that first, as if you have a choice.
First, one is, and can only move to be a Vir based on this premise :
Life is WAR.
Not some of life. Not “this part and not that part”. Life, all of it, is about conflict, about strife, and about the stirring of confusion.
In the Buddhist tradition, one of the first and important affirmations they are accredited with making is that :
“Life is suffering.”
At the start, for many, it will seem that I ascribe to Buddhism, until they read my works, and/or get to have discourse with me, to see otherwise. I am Buddhistic in how I live and think, but this system of Bodhi, or awakening that I ascribe to is not Buddhism. Instead, in my treatise Niō Zen, Beyond Sissy Buddhism, I state my thesis as the aim of liberating Bodhi, or the notion of awakening, from the religion called Buddhism, and tackle the notion myself. Buddhistic then means about Bodhi, or that of awakened Ways, or habits. This can be seen as being about Virtue, and Arete, which are both concerned with a thing being its most excellent version of itself, not the essence of that which it is not.
“Life is suffering” does not ring out the same way in how I express meaning above. Suffering does not seem to be a part of the process of excellence, but excellence and that of attaining in its habits seems to be that which is liberation from suffering. Them who make good decisions, or rather Wise decisions, tend to have reduced chances to suffer. They tend to be in states of joy and delight, as one can say is correlated to serotonin and its relationship to success and pride, and the habits that are reinforced through such chemical relations.
If I am awakened, that is, if I know my nature, my essence, and I bring it into the most excellent state of expression, and equanimity, then the question is... How much do I suffer?
Now, reader, look what I did above, if you hope to track my writing method. I used the word awakening, which is the translation of Bodhi. A Buddha is an “awakened one”. So in essence, If I am saying I am awakened, I am saying I am a Buddha. When using the word, I then go on to define it as being about one knowing one's own nature, and then bringing one's nature into excellent expression, and then the attribute of equanimity.
If I say I am awakened, and the reader or listener is thinking of some supernatural sense of this term, then they can easily doubt I am supernatural, for certainly, they ought to. But not one who knows me can rationally and justifiably doubt that I display a great deal of demonstrated self-awareness and self-knowledge. An idiot observer, a mental midget who is designed to be subversive is quick to not see this, as they see all based on their own limits of sight.
But those who know me, and of me long enough would not say ignorance of self appears to be one of my character traits. Instead, as this manual will even show, I tend to know exactly what I think, why I think it, and its relationship to actuality or Reality. I am not a superstitious Man, nor am I shamanistic, and certainly, I am not engaged in the absurd.
Self-awareness and self-knowledge are some of the most potent things others discover about me, after continued exposure. Now, do I behave habitually with excellence in mind? One can also ask, is Virtue, as I define it, significant to me, or merely a thing of words?
The same associates would know I place Virtue and excellence in self as the highest value in my hierarchy of values, and because of this, this lays the foundation to the point and purpose of this manual.
So then it leaves the last variable I am using as a part of the definition of Bodhi or awakening, perhaps the hardest trait for most to possess. It is that of the trait of equanimity, which can be defined as “immovable Mind”, or “diamond-hard Mind”, or a mental state whereby one is not swayed in their decision making process by the emotions, the passions, and other phenomena.
This would then beg the question, with equanimity, if not swayed by the emotions, the passions, the urges, and other phenomena... What then is the determining factor of decision making for those with equanimity?
The answer that I can provide on that matter, or rather that “pattern”, is that of Reason, with a capital R, and not that of the lowercase r in reason, that most do. Reason, with the capital R, can be changed to a term called Ratiocination, which means to Reason by method.
In Viritus, it is not an axiom, or self-evident truth that “life is suffering”. It is observable that most are not suited to the Fight of that of life, and therefore, indeed suffer; and thus, suffering is quite common. However, a Vir is only so because they engage life tactically, and when developed strategically, and these two forms of engaging life lead towards an uncommon performance at living, that then illuminates that successful living does not equate to “suffering”, but it equates to a “joy” that is perhaps best rendered as a sustained confidence and pride. Dare I add this “new” emotional category, I call... Triumph.
In Viritus and to the Vir, the expression “life is suffering” is changed to “life is war”, and this is actually closer to duhkha, the word translated from Buddhism, poorly, to mean suffering. It is “conflict”; it is “strife”; it is “confusion”; and all of this, out of ignorance.
This is the essence of the term “war” in its history. It means a “struggle”. The Buddhist translated this to “suffering”, because the whimpering little tits of Brahmins hijacked this from the Saka, a kind, my kind, who were Warriors, all of them. They were Vir, which is more than being a Warrior.
That it is “war” then means, one either lives in defeat―that is vanquished and subjugated―or in Victory. When “life is suffering” is an axiom, the nature of the one proclaiming it is one who was born in fear and insecurity, and they have not advanced in Control and Command over their conditions and self. They are vanquished. When one knows life is war, then the only other option is to fight that war, and thus become a “Vir” : one who learns and practices the sound tactics, born out of a sound strategy to “fight that war”. One who rejects that “life is war” can not be a “Vir”. One who sees it as “suffering” suffers, and will continue to. When one engages the “fight of life” as a Vir, they discover ample amount of evidence to dismiss this so-called inherent nature of suffering. Whimpering little tits of mental midgetry can not know life to mean anything more than their inner suffering and ineptitudes. With their “feelings”, they define what is commonly believed. The Vir overcomes, conquers this notion, and is no longer held in captivity by the defeated. This is a Vir, and “life is war” is neither negative nor positive, but is. And as an “is”, what is negative or positive, so to say, is one's awareness of it, and WILL to overcome it, in Victory.
Life is war does not mean despair and misery. Let it be said, if you got this book from, or you are of the malcontent, the discontent, the angry and the defeated, YOU ARE NOT A Vir, and neither are they. The result of seeing LIFE is WAR is not pessimism, or a modern sense of cynicism. It is not fatalism; it is not absurdism; it is not nihilism. This instead is an empowering realization. A clear sign of a MALCONTENT, one who is defeated, is that they will be quick to tell you about their pain, their suffering, what harm they think has been done to them, and how they see the “world” through “their scars”. These are the ones in DEFEAT : do not think them suitable for this “Way”. Recently when I met with those two fellas, that was all they could talk about. Past of pain and so on. And one of them took interest in the book. It needs to be warned, those who dwell and talk about their scars are not to ever be seen as aligned with all this.
A Vir does not walk around angry and disgruntled. This is what chumps do. And be sure of it, a chump will find my works, and try to use them to get access to others, to seem different... But look at them. If they are angry, unattractive, and bitchy and whiny, NOT bold, large and in charge, then they are a chump. It will be obvious.
Life is war is a realization that leads to advantages. Because life is war puts life into a category that has sciences that can guide one's thinking. Have you ever wondered why high performance individuals study Sun Tzu The Art of War, or Musashi The Book of Five Rings, and other works of war to be good earners or providers, if you will, and/or good protectors?
This is because it is obvious, when this is engaged, that the strategies and the tactics of war apply to everywhere in life but one place. That place where it does not apply is in that of the life of the defeated; the life of the vanquished; the life of a chump. Chumps not only will not know war, because they are defeated, but they will also forbid and be forbidden from thoughts of war. They will don the cloak of pacifism to hide their impotence―or so thought Gandhi, whom I just quoted.
Chumps have to build ideologies to explain their life of defeat, that lead to victim mindsets. But how are you a “victim” if there is no war? Well, they say there is war, and it's called oppression, and then they teach that this is what war means. That it means conquest over others, and they have had conquest done to them, and now being subjugated, somehow, they can call themselves more moral and peaceful.
Do not get it mistaken, when you can not use force, and you are not dangerous, in no way can you CHOOSE that of PEACE. You are not choosing peace when you are a chump; you are pacified. Only a Warrior can choose peace, because if they wanted to, they can choose the opposite and blast you chumps. When they are not blasting you, it is them choosing peace... Not you. They are letting you be, and you call this privilege... your doing. It is not. The only reason why you chumps have been allowed to exist in the number you do is that your chump kind developed civilization as the extended family to exploit you for their needs, like you do your own. If they did not tax you, and use you as the justification for their expansion of control, they would engage in population reduction tactics. They would either wipe you out, or let someone else. You are taxable income, and you are social justification for their existence, because you, as dopes, outsource your “protection” and “care” to them, to which they never can serve well in.
You can call yourselves peaceful, you dopes, because you live defeated, and could not fight back even if you wanted to. Not only do you live defeated, but your ancestors lived defeated, and therefore, defeating you was not even necessary. They let your mommies and daddies defeat you in the home, long before they then defeated you further in the schools.
Right, I am the villain. I am the one who gave birth to you so that you would fulfill a role in my life. I am the one who had you serve my emotional needs as an animated organic stuffed animal, that I could force a smile from, could cuddle and show around to others, to act like I have accomplished something. I did that to you.
I am the Villain because I kept you in a cage called a house, and told you how to be, and how to please me. I am the villain because I did not fight back and protect you from the state, saying your mind is theirs and is required by law to be schooled. I am the villain because I let strangers get in your head and teach you their ways, and to conform to their ways, and to serve their collective interest. Right, I am the villain. I am the villain because I held you in my house past the age of puberty and denied you the natural process of starting your own family. Because I somehow did that... I am the villain.
I am the villain because I did not honor the three Duties, I did not maintain you and protect you and your well-being so as to guide you to the cultivation of the Rational faculty, to live a skilled and competent life. That of my three Duties, held by all parents, I am the villain because I have failed at them.
I am the villain because I did not ensure you had a marketplace skill that could allow you to be independent, and to make your way through a life civilization forces you to pay for, as if it was a privilege. I am a villain because I did all these things…
But wait… I had nothing to do with any of these things, and when you read it written, check that. You never thought these were things of villainy. These things are called normal. These things are called familiar. This is called life. Life is not called war. Life is called love, and love here means all those things I listed. Possessive love fest of keeping everyone in a state of mental midgetry. That is what someone says, when they say “life is not war; life is about love”. I would not disagree with them. The defeated life is about love, because the real meaning of the word love is that of “possessing others out of fear and insecurity”. Love is only beautiful to whimpering little tits of defeat. Save it, and never think that for someone like me your “love” could be of value. I would never wish to be loved, because that to me is the same thing as “wishing to be a slave”. I do not love, but certainly I do VALUE others, and in that evaluation, afford them my values, one of them being the three Duties of maintain, cultivate, and protect.
I am not a villain for the absence of honoring these three Duties. I am a villain because the rest of you do not know what they are, and certainly do not live as if they exist, and ought to be honored. I am the villain, because I am Spartacus. I am the villain, because if anyone listens to what I say... I will deprive you, mommies and daddies, you, chump little girls and little boys, victims. I am the villain because I am bad for “business”, and your business is about maintaining access to others, to make them serve a petty role around your petty emotions.
Call me the villain for Virtue, because any who stands for Virtue would be the villain in the eyes of the many, but in actuality, as the word is rooted in, it means of the villa, and this is of the commons. The commons are the true villains, but hey, let's flip it.
I am a villain because I know what makes me tick. More so, even if it differs greatly, I do not apologize to the numbers. I tell you all je m'en câlice; your crap is not my crap. I do not deal in crap, I deal in the sacred. That cup of yours you call sacred is a cup, just like your magical wands are just sticks. I expose you, and for that, you hate me. But fortunately for me, you suck at life and can be of no threat to me.
A Vir is in development when this notion that life is war is not merely investigated, but adopted as observably true. In the absence of this, one is not and can not be a Vir. But one is not a Vir because they say this is true. To fight that war of life begets then actions, devoted and eager, taken to develop tactics of living, strategies of living. And one who does this can not live like everyone else and then say, “but I am tactical and strategic”, unless somehow, the masses are living tactically and strategically. That would be absurd to claim. Some may be organizing things tactically. And many may be serving in these organizations. But that does not make them tactical and strategic. This is about the individual.
Tactical in living means nothing you do is without deliberation. It means you eat tactically, you sleep tactically, you exercise tactically, you work tactically, and you associate with others tactically. It does not mean you do a tactical job, and then in the rest of your life you are an emotional dope looking for security.
How the Vir's values and aim differ from the human values
Vir are not in search of security and safety. Vir are defined by one aim, and in the absence of this aim carried out daily, one is not a Vir in the way I mean. That aim is simple : to ADVANCE in one's CONTROL and COMMAND of their CONDITIONS and SELF, guided by a STRATEGY and SET OF TACTICS, with VIRTUE as its essence.
When one has this aim, and they are, and only when they are SUCCEEDING at it, they will develop a relationship to pride; and when they are proud they are joyous; and when they are joyous, and they can not be shaken from this joy, they are a Vir. Until one gets to this level of sustained bold power, they may be investigating this Way, but they do not yet live it, victorious.
When you consider my works, consider that aim the best you can. When you struggle to think of this aim, then you now know what you need to know... None of this speaks to something in you.
But then there will be those who lie to themselves, and wish to lie to me, and say it does speak to them. And when they do this, I am prepared. It's the second Way that is clear.
If one has to work hard and struggle at choosing tactics over impulse, then it means they do not have a nature that fits the Vir's Way. They are a human, a shaman, a common, a brute, or something else, and they need to GO BACK, because it will be observed that they are not tactical, they are not strategic, and they are not attracted to Virtue. They just want all these things because of what these things can get access to. But when observed, they will have no gains.
When one has no gains, it is like what I said earlier about the males with the proclivity to provide and to protect. They do not have these proclivities, when they do not have gains that would be born from these proclivities. They are conditioned to call these their wants, and then they undermine the gains where they can. When one does not make rather easy gains, in the things I write and implement, then it means they can not integrate these things into their preexisting code. It means this is not a Way for you. Integration begets drive and motivation, and those who do not integrate and own it will be revealed, in that they can not self motivate and self drive. The “Ways”, here, are ones where none is to motivate, to convince, or to support the drive of another. They must do it alone, and share in the gains, and only the gains with others.
You will find the charlatans easy when knowing this, as well as the answer to the accusations of me being a charlatan. You could not have known that I DO NOT CONVINCE. You could not have known that I do not teach universality. You could not have know that I actually dismiss any legitimacy in this being popular. Without my words and my expoundings, you could not have known that I leave others alone, and in need of figuring out if this matches their nature. Instead, without all this, you had to assume I was brainwashing others to think I had answers for them. This is an easy assumption, because ALL OF YOU, because you were schooled and raised by the state, are products of brainwashing. And you are defeated and too impotent to stand up to the state and those who subjugated you to it, so when you learn of me, you think I am an easier target for your inner oppression and ineptitudes. Now, you will be exposed. Others will see, contrary to what any of you can say... It's on record... I am a very hard individual to ever be around for a long time, and I am constantly pressuring others to prove an authentic relationship to the patterns, and constantly denying access, and getting rid of people. That makes me a horrible “cult leader”. Cult leader 101 is tell everyone what they want to hear, and that they are the chosen special ones, and that you are the holy messenger of the Way, and numbers lead to more sex... I mean... Uh, more entries to heaven and merit. It sounds like cult 101 is all the same stuff you normies prepared your young for in the house. I am not about that. Society is the real “cult” in the pejorative sense. You folk literally surrender your young to schools, and outsource all your duties to the state. You just clothe your young, feed them, and put them to bed, and then you have the state do the rest.
Stop and think of the simplicity of why you are so insecure and fearful. You were raised in a home, where mommy and daddy would have been obvious slaves to raiders, if they had hit your town. If you can not see mommy and daddy taking up arms and defending you, and they have never taught you to do the same... Then there you go. Your inner thoughts are not based on civilization and this false sense of security. Your biology only believes it is safe, when there are clear signs of being lethal, either your own lethality, or the lethality of peers. This means proof, not presumption. And that is why simulation of lethality is needed for a healthy society.
That is the standard of the Vir. If I am sitting with some folk, you are all being measured based on that reality. If we were not in the castle walls, and out in the fields, and we were attacked by raiders, male or female, what value would you bring? If the answer is none, YOU ARE A CHUMP as you sit there with me. I will not protect chumps. I will protect those who are making the effort and gaining towards that of being dangerous and lethal. For those on that path, I will honor the three Duties, maintain, cultivate, and protect. It's one for all, and all for one. But flip it. It's all for one, and one for all. The one here is the primary, because the Vir is an individualist, not a collectivist. A soldier is a collectivist. A Warrior may even be a collectivist. They are ready to give up their lives for the collective. The country, the family, the nation, or whatever. This is not what I mean by Vir.
A Vir is not sacrificial.
No one uses the term “Vir”. Vir has the sense of being elite. It has the sense of taking it further, not merely being mindful of the battle, but the whole point. That is the Vir. They are about the war, the campaign; not the battles and the moments alone. It is about short-term versus long-term, rituals versus tactics, and tactics versus strategy.
But the more elite you become, the more you see that we are not all driven the same; and if we are not all driven the same, why should we all be of the same value?
The elite start to look down at others not because the elite feel better, but because the elite got there in service to their lesser. They got there managed by lesser. They got there being married to lesser. They got there being parented by lesser. The more elite you get, the higher standards become, and the higher standards become, the more you then see areas that are standardless, if not even forbidden. And when adding standards to those areas, you learn rapidly how most are afraid of standards, even more so, ready to undermine them. When this occurs, one begins to see their individuality, and that we are not all driven the same. You are not doing the same amount as I am, and certainly not on the same level. So then, why in the world should you “matter”? Oh, because mommy says “all lives matter”, or “black lives matter”? Rubbish! With humans, “like lives matter” and “stranger lives do not matter”, only because a stranger is yet to be in a role that is standardless, serving the interest of some mommy or daddy. Lives do not matter, till they do. Meaning, they do not matter, till they materialize in service to something. All lives matter to those who want access to everything you got. And black lives matter to all of those who can use so-called “black folk” or this slogan for their agenda. They ain't lying, they just are not telling you why such things “matter” or “materialize”. So long as they do not finish the sentence, they can run a con based on ambiguity. Keep the terms loose to where they can mean anything is one of the number one plays of a con.
Humans have the values of :
-Security and safety, born out of the innate infant fear and insecurity;
-Resources, material security;
-Entertainment.
Human males have by degree an added sense, ordered in the same : the value of being a protector, able to guard what they have gained through defensive means. Protection is not provision here. It is protection from “threats” that would harm and subvert their efforts, and the safety of their own.
The value of providing, where this is governed by insatiability and the sense of “insecurity” that says, nothing is ever enough, drives further the appearance of being entertaining for the sake of making others feel safe, and secure.
When humans use the sense of alpha and beta traits, this is actually what is meant. This is also why conditions can dictate who is in which role. A beta can be the only one to fill the role and “act” alpha. That is why alpha and beta for males is not accurate, though it is useful to some degree.
An alpha would be this male above. Because of the first three human values, the alpha would be the one with a “strong feeling”, strong enough to impact decision making, to protect, to provide, and to entertain. It's born out of insecurity and fear, but not to mean like how one would see this as a problem. Meaning, innate and default. It's the level of insecurity and fear in every human that is normal, so it goes without detectability. You would not see the alpha behaving in fear and insecurity, because they will have been succeeding in protecting and providing. It is failure in these two that leads to the sustained state of insecurity and fear. Successful alpha means they have answered these needs, but this is conditional. When they fail, and/or conditions do not allow them to succeed at protecting and providing, then they will only be left with their insecurity and fear, and this is why so many would-be alpha today are angry, in pain, and malcontent. They are driven to protect and provide, but society has convinced their targets of these drives, females, to turn against them and outsource to the state and other females. Uglies, in essence, who could not get these alpha males, having convinced the ones that could to shun them and to remove themselves from this order. Because these emotions and feelings are potent, then it causes these males with no target of expression to self-destruct―even suicide. Humans can not understand themselves, so they do not know why. The solution is for males to band, and this creates a balance. When the male does not have a female target for these emotional traits, but is in a band, they protect, and they provide in and for the band, and this makes them succeed. Therefore, this society has targeted male associations and banding, and has forbidden male only associations, declaring females should be sprinkled everywhere, even where they do not voluntarily go on their own. This makes it to where those males with these proclivities have no way of expressing them freely. The solution is not in making females targets. The solution is in the band, the gang, the “raiders”, in simulation not realized in actuality, to where males need to stop targeting females for this expression, and instead, they need to learn how to work with other males, and stop trying to undermine other males, the way they learned from their mommies, who did so to their daddies.
You are not an alpha male, nor a beta male, when you undermine males. You are a sissy, a chump, and a “mommied” mental midget. Beta as an insult means the one saying it is not an alpha. You can not have an alpha without beta. It's a union in a band. It proves the individual is not aware of any of this. They are a “mommied” mental midget when they paint beta as a bad thing. You can not have a successful band of males, from the start, who are all alpha. This requires that the all alpha squad provoke each other in a more elite level. All alpha would be elite. But from the start, it needs to be an alpha with some healthy beta, and when it is healthy, in the human sense, the beta become alpha, out of respect for the alpha, and now they become elite. Acting like mommies stops bands in general and certainly stops what is needed here. Competition is not the same as undermining. In America, the males do not only compete with each other, they, at the same time, will undermine each other, and rejoice in the failure of their supposed teammate. This is a “mommied” mental midget; and yes, mommies, male or female, are defined by being an undermining and negate-itive force. They are not an affirming force, a can do force, a risk taking force, a force in demand of competency. The cat, as they say, has been out of the bag for a long time. Human females, on average, are incompetent at living. Human males, on average, are incompetent at living, and where there are those who tend to do better, they number more males than females, but the masses of males should not get credit for this. They do not do so because they are male. They do so because they are driven in those two areas of protection and provision. These will be the best humans have to offer, but they also make for good slaves. A good slave is a slave who never wants to be free, and if freedom was to be forced on them, they would fight to protect their slavery. This is what human males with provision and protection as a drive often become, because ALL humans, including them, are SLAVERS. That is my point.
How then does the Vir differ? For the reader, if you do not notice this already, be forewarned, my writings are not planned. They are free-form, freestyle, and stream writings. The motion gets going, and where it goes, nobody knows, including myself. I am along for the ride as much as the reader will be―only clearly, because I am devoted to this, I will track faster and better. Flow needs to flow.
The Vir differs in this way.
The Vir is to value deliberation, tactics, and strategy as the number one factor in their decision making process.
This does not mean they are to shame and ignore these human feelings listed above. It means they are to be aware of the default settings, and realize, because life is war, and war is complex, and even more so, domestication is not favorable to primal instincts, that they need to think tactics and strategy instead.
Life is war is the first thing to rule on. Once one says yes, I hold this integrated and valid, based on my observations, the next one is this : human biology is primal biology, and was designed in threat cycles, to handle them, and was not designed for domestication. Once one accepts this, the next one that must be found valid is this : that domestication turns the primal elements of being human against the human, so that the human is exploitable.
Let's say you reject one of these but not the rest. Then you can not be a “Vir”, and because no one is using this term “Vir” and you have never used it and do not use it outside of reading this, it is why I have the authority to define what it means under this system of thought. If someone says it does not mean that, and comes to oppose this meaning, it is because they are subversive and were looking for a target of their subversion. No one uses this word, so it is free to be defined by me, under this system. To Viritus, this is what Vir means. If someone says Disney has their own definition, then, when you give that definition, say “according to Disney”. But because no one is using this term, it is implied, according to Viritus, this term means this.
Humans are schooled to think it is acceptable to pick and choose what they like and do not like in a system and then have a set of contradictory views. That is not the Vir Way. That is not acceptable in this sphere that I promote. Contradiction is a disease. And because most of you accept contradiction, it will also confuse you in how you notice it. You will speak ill of it, only when you think your opponent is in contradiction. You will not think ill of it in eradicating your own contradictions. Where you think you would find a contradiction in what I put forth, it will be in that you have injected your own. I build my overstandings based upon dialectical formulations that are predicate logic based. Because this is a dynamically changing system, there will be better ways to say a thing that comes later, and corrections will need to be made. But when they are made, they will not be contradictions. They will be better formulas. Where something is found to have been wrong, it will be stated, and corrected. Contradiction here is not permitted.
That is why ingredients of terms are essential. A Vir, even if rooted in the human emotions described and the values, has to be the one having discovered that acting on, and living based on those innate values, in domestication, is not advantageous. A Vir values advancing Control and Command over the conditions. If one does not value this, they are not a Vir. If one does not make moves daily at this, they do not value it. They can not say they value it, and then they have nothing to show for it in real life. This will be a repeated point. If you are not a high earner, you are not sincere when you say you value earning, and providing. If you are incapable, and uninterested in fighting, and/or readying for a fight, you can not say you value protection. It does not mean being a master at these things. It means living a life that is about these things, not merely speaking a life that would want to be about it, but is not. Folk, defeated and weak folk, often sell themselves to others based on what they want to be, or what they think others want them to be, versus saying what they actually are. This is the mark of a coward and a charlatan, who in being a coward is weak in mind and awareness and probably does not know they are a coward, and therefore, would doubt this. But that is the evidence. You are a coward when you pass yourself off on what you want to be, not as what you are.
Life is war. Human biology is based on hunting and war, and under primal conditions. Domestication turns these innate traits against the human so they can be exploitable.
Ask yourself if you can observe these to be valid. If one of them has the answer no, then continue realizing this thing called a Vir, here, can not be you. These three propositions are at the foundation of the Vir. They are why the Vir needs to not use their emotions for decision making, but needs to use deliberated upon tactics and strategies. These tactics and strategies, then, have to reorder the values.
The value of entertainment and enjoyment;
The value of resources based on the first;
The value of excellence and strategy and tactics in all one does, the Game of Virtue.
This is how the Vir is to differ.
The way this works requires a sense of the six primary base emotions.
These six primary base emotions are categorically chronological. Humans, ALL HUMANS, begin in fear. This is proven dialectically in the notion of attachment theory, in that it is the motive, fear and insecurity, that triggers the need for an attachment figure, and too, why an attachment figure needs the baby or the infant or the “target” to express its own emotions.
1. Fear and insecurity
2. Anger (and/or frustration?)
3. Disgust
4. Despair
5. Surprise
6. Enjoyment
Forget what you think about emotions. You are clueless about emotions, because they likely run you more than they do not. These are the categories to use from here on out. But do not merely agree. Step aside and write down what emotions you think are at the base, not what other emotions may be sub categorical to one of these.
What you will notice is that there might be many ways to say enjoyment, and of the emotions, the negative kinds or the injurious kinds are far more numerous than the positively sustainable kinds.
Enjoyment can have happiness and joy as a part of it, but these differ in that happiness is conditional, and not sustained, and joy has this sense of being baseline and sustainable, but with a criteria. There is absolutely no legitimate sustained joy in the absence of pride, and pride is the route of sustainment of joy. Pride is joy advanced and sustained through ongoing patterns of success that require skill and competency. This is why pride is defined as the joy one gets from their success. Because of this, it offers the solution that is needed strategically and tactically. The strategy is around pride.
So when the question can be asked, about what the Vir is strategic and tactical about...
Because a strategy could be any strategy. Tactics are all over the place, so does this matter?
The answer is yes. The Vir is not about merely strategical and tactical thought, like being good at chess, or commanding troops on a battlefield, or getting that business gain one wants. No, it does not mean this.
The Vir, in their defined aim of advancing their Control and Command over their conditions and self, is doing so through a relationship with the emotion of pride. One need only reflect back on whatever history they can find about Warriors, and hear of their pride, and rarely of a true Warrior without pride, less it be that slave warrior ready to sacrifice themselves for the collective. Pride is contrary to sacrifice, and that is why human mommies can never know anything about pride, and can only slander it, and get human daddies (who are male mommies) to do the same. They have no relationship with pride. One can not live a life of defeat and have a relationship with pride. And often, conditional satisfaction that is fleeting is mistaken as pride. Pride can not be taken from you, because the skills and competence are the actual important factor. Pride is the result of these things; not a thing in and of itself.
You can not have pride and be unskilled. You can not have pride and be incompetent at thought. You can not be stupid and proud. You can not be immoral and proud. The word pride is perhaps the most overly used and perverted word by humans. Humans, on average and even more, can not, and will not have a sustained relationship with pride, which is why humans can not distinguish much in the difference between pride and arrogance, and often treat them as one and the same.
Tactic and strategy require SKILL. Skill is the aim of the Vir. Tactics and strategies require competence. Competence is the aim of the Vir. Skill and competence mean nothing without being in the realm of risk and reward, challenge and complexity. Therefore, a Vir aims to be in these realms, so as to put to use their skills and competency to push them further. This correlates to the emotions of providing and protecting.
The Vir does not need a “target” like the human does. The Vir is mission and objective orientated. The targets of humans are relational, and this is primary to human females, only a little more than human males. The target that is not like the human target is that of the “target of objectives”, and that of “tasking” with the primary objective being that of advancing in one's Control and Command over conditions and self. The Vir does not target others for access based upon attachment figure relationships, but this does not mean that such targeting is NOT natural to them. It means, as a Vir, they are guided by tactics founded upon THIS strategy, and as such, then, they make INFORMED and INTELLIGENT moves in their decision making process.
A recap can follow in this manner.
A human uses the emotions of fear and insecurity, and in extension, anger, disgust, and despair, and/or the avoidance of these things as a major factor in their decision making process, and the aim of that process is access to each other as a means to comfort and console those emotions. The motivations behind their work, their play, and their relationships are born out of this motion, this kinetics.
The Vir is defined by a different kinetics. The Vir guided by Ratiocinative strategies and their tactics begins in the emotion of enjoyment and moves it, through skillful and competent enjoyment, towards that of victories in Control and Command over conditions and self; and therefore, prioritizes the development of a relationship to pride, the highest emotion of health. Therefore, when the expression “decision making process” is brought up, their motives and their motion of dictation differ in that of the “human targeting” and the “Vir targeting”. Human targeting is towards the control over others, and access to each other. Vir targeting is Control over self, and one's conditions for the sole purpose of developing a relationship not to others, but to pride, which is defined as “a joy acquired through victory”. When one develops a decision making process that has the motion, the kinetics of being about advancing in Control and Command over their conditions and self, towards that of a victorious life, they begin the movement, the kinetics of self standing, and Commanding, and everything else follows this, as SECONDARY.
For humans, this is not the aim, and because of this, humans and Vir, though both hominids, are not the same “character species” as being hominid is―and this is correlated to innate proclivities. Humans are those born with the default fear and insecurity based emotions of proclivity, and they are common in numbers, presence and control. This is a human dictated “world”, or that is “social order”, and a “Vir” is absolutely rare, because of the proclivities, the traits which I have begun to lay down.
One's name : the first form of access of another
I started this chapter saying that when the commons meet and greet, there is a common way they do so. Names are the first forms of access one has to you. They come to know your name. It's one of the first questions; what is your name?
Then they tag you with that utterance for future recall. When one utters it, or thinks of it, they then conjure up the image of the named, and then their sense of their character, accurately or whimsically, with most recall being whimsical.
My name, or that is, my most “real” or “royal” name is Ta’ir. It's the one I write with, but locals and many call me Volt, and sometimes Voltaire, which obviously Volt is the shortened version for. I have different names, for different levels of realization.
Ta’ir is not a name that should be used by anyone who has not read my works and become acquainted with my “true” character, the “Saka-muni” in which I am. Instead, non-readers and non-investigators of my works should simply call me Volt, and this can be called my name among the commons. In fact, after this piece has been released, free on my site and published on Amazon, then it will be clear what level the associate is to me, based on what name they call me by. The commons will never have learned a reason to call me Ta’ir, and so they will call me Volt. Those who read my works and become familiar with that character closer to my nature will learn to stop calling me Volt, and call me Ta’ir, if they are seeking a philosophical and meaningful relationship.
I introduce myself to the commons as Volt for this reason, not as Ta’ir. Now, there are those who would say, “what does it matter, what one is called?” I would say, as opposed to what appears to be a question, it is not a question, even if phrased in such a manner of inquiry. It's a statement that is saying they have yet to see a reason, lowercase r, for why one's name should matter, and what others call them. But if I am Reasoning, with a capital R, upon this “world”, why then would Reason skip over that title, that term, that label, that category you first use, and allow to be used when meeting others?
If a name is simply a name to you... Should you then be the one to determine if I am indeed an awakened writer who writes or speaks before thee? Are you of a quality of thought that could be called curious, or that of eager to know and learn? What have you been doing your whole life, being about with a name given to you, and required of you, yet not knowing the meaning of the name, nor ever coming to self-name?
Who is self standing who bears the name of others under compulsion?
Who but the awakened are self standing?
Those who are not self standing will not only not care about the titles they have had thrust upon them by those who preceded them, but they will also not care about language in general, the meaning of words, and how they are indicators of the accuracy of thought, in relationship to Reality, or that “royal” sense of things as they are, not as they are believed.
Is not awakening―no matter how ambiguous of a term―a term that means to awake to something? So then what is one awakening to?
Would not the best answer be Reality? Does one awaken to actual Reality, or a sense that is excellent in accounting for Reality? Awake, or Bodhi, is then better translated to :
“To habitually account for Reality, accurately, exact, and in Control and Command over the influences of such accounts.”
The term Reason, with a capital R, came from the Latin root ratio. Ratio meant to “take accurate account”. All accounting has implied the aim of accuracy, and not some mere sloppy allowance in accounting. To say to account is to imply with accuracy, with care, with concern, and better yet, with science, or that is, methods of knowledge, and then that of the further science of sciences, logic, which is the science of Reasoning.
The methodical Reasoning that is Ratiocination is called in basic terms logic. It is the discipline that studies the mechanics of thought and expression, with the aim of validity, or sound Reasoning of exact thought, and so on. Its enemy it seeks to destroy is falsehood, and that of errors of Reasoning, called fallacies. Now, some may say that logic is not this, because they have been schooled and domesticated by the foul thinkers and mental midgets of academia. So then as one would propose there being multiple ways to approach logic, let me then say, I have a method and system with the aims above, one of my own, and I call it Ta’ilogji, so as not to be captured in the debate of what is logic, and what is not, by those who have been over schooled. Logji is the Prijban term for logic. Ta’i is the expression methodical, and anything that follows is the method thereof. So then with logji defined as valid Reasoning, then Ta’ilogji is the method and discipline of valid Reasoning. I will produce in the near future a treatise on Logic to be called… “Vir's Logic”.
My “true” or most developed sense of philosophy is not conducted in English, but is conducted in Prijban, which is a religiously constructed language and lexicon based upon the constructed language Lojban, itself a language based on predicate logic.
My ultimate name, Ta’ir, was given to me by students and seekers I was introducing to Prijban and the impact language has on thought. The students made Lojban or Prijban names, and at that time I was called Tyr, and they did not know my given name was Voltaire. They chose Ta’ir for me, and presented to me for me to choose to adopt or not. They chose it because it describes my primary character trait, that ought to be clear in this manual, and that is the trait of methodology, or that is, methodical. I am above all things characterized in ALL I DO as methodical.
When one knows my real or my “royal” name, then they should know what to expect from me. One should expect that I will always be methodical, and then if they do not favor this, they ought not seek access to me.
Now, when you are called by a name, you are not simply being signaled; they mean “you”. Everyone who calls your name has a sense of “you”, and when that name is known to them and familiar to them, they will go on to treat you based on that sense.
When one changes their default name, it is often as a mark that they have changed their character. However, this is not often the case, or true. They may have changed a few elements, and/or style, and/or wishes and wants, but for the most part, they will still be familiar and recognizable to those who knew them by the other name. This practice of name change has been abused, like most practices meant to liberate.
The name that is being used is a symbol for your character, and in the beginning of a “meet”, no character is yet to be established. Profiling is a scientific term that has to do with establishing an informed sense of the characteristics of a subject. At first meet, you are an “unknown subject”, or an “UnSub”, of some use in short slang. The name begins the tag. You are “John” or “Sarah”.
You of course are not these names. These names are tags for the memory and the communicated reference of your character. Now, a character is the sum of one's values, and values are the actionary displays one produces, not their words. One's words are either accurate descriptions of the behavior, or inaccurate, or deceptive descriptions of the behavior. Truth is not in words, but in actions. Words and their truth value are based on observed actions, or behavior.
In actuality, in nature and in Reality there is no “truth” and there is no “falsehood”. Truth and falsehood are patterns only of the mind, and its conception of Reality. Most get the order of this wrong, and that is one out of many sources of delusion.
Values are that which one SEEKS to GAIN, to MAINTAIN, to CULTIVATE, and/or to DEFEND. One of these terms of actions must be present to say one values a thing; in the absence of any of these terms, it is not value that is being observed, but something else. That will be covered elsewhere.
When you are an “UnSub”, an unknown subject, others begin their investigation into you, starting with the most easily recognizable and familiar forms of classification.
― Where you from?
― How old are you?
― What do you do for a “living” (prof)?
― Where did you school?
― How much did you school?
― What is the status of your parents?
― Where is your family now?
― How long have you been around?
― What kind of foods do you like?
― What kind of music do you like?
And in the observable…
― What are they wearing?
― What is their social status?
― What is their economic status?
― What is their level of attractiveness?
― What is their relationship status in the realm of “access market”?
― Who do they know in one's own social network?
For the most part, this generic sense of discovery does not uncover values. The interrogator who is seeking access is not profiling, as this term would imply a science of characterization. Instead, you, or some other, in a first meeting, are looking for familiar markers to label the individual by, so that you can begin the process of getting used to them.
Instead of profiling, then, one can call this familiarizing.
The word familiar is the root of the word family. One's “family” is one's “familiars”, and more often than not, one has never profiled one's familiars. When one is familiar with another, and only at this level, it is absurd to the awakened who profile others to hear them say “I know so and so”, and/or “I have known so and so, for this amount of time”.
The word “know”, here, is being used loosely in the commons, by the commons, and does not have a level of potency and difference from that of “think”, that of “belief”, and that of “familiar”. I am familiar with so and so is the actual level of realization the common mind has. The common mind rarely deals on a day-to-day basis with knowledge, but is engaged in beliefs of the familiar.
Associations, as they develop, are associations developing towards familiarity, and not knowledge.
The added element to familiarizing oneself with another is then detecting their likes and their dislikes, and in extension of that, their affiliations along religious, political, and ideological expressions, that all are correlated to social status and economic status. The elements that are familiar to others are often the determining factor of what affiliations one has in extension. High socioeconomic status, fused with higher attractiveness, has been shown in studies to have a likelihood of being “Conservative”, and unattractiveness, across the board, often leads to “Liberal” leanings.
The correlation is not causation, but these factors, on the lower familiar level, are what determines then in extension one's affiliations. It is better to realize this than to listen to the romantic themes that are then born out of those affiliations, which are often mere smoke screens to hide the primal familiar behavior.
People are not complicated, but they are confused. And in this confusion, there are contradictions; and in contradictions, there is a lack of consistency; and in the absence of consistency, plans and discipline lack potency and place. Therefore, all of those inflicted with this confusion of the commons lack discipline and potency, and seem all over the place.
The confusion, for the most part, is in thinking that one knows another, because they have been exposed long enough to them to be familiar with them. However, the evidence shows, in “breakups” and in relationships of all forms ending with hardship, that had knowledge truly been present, so then would a method of association.
This manual, though called Access Denied, is in fact about “methodical association”. This would mean awakened sense of how to associate with others, and in this sense, though, missing the ingredient of how to associate with oneself.
Many need to work backwards. They are not yet ready to take on the journey of how to associate with oneself, as this one requires testing and experience too with one's conditions. So then perhaps an attempt can be made to start backwards, learning what an association is with oneself, by asking the easier questions about “who should I associate with?”, as well as “how should I associate?”, and “what determines that how?”.
Having associated with others your whole life, it must begin to sound weird, if you have any sense that you have done so most of your life on a whim, and not by any sound Reasoning, or methodology. Most of you are NOT meant to employ methodical systems. Most of you are emotionals, and if you are of this sort, it will be odd that you have even read this far. This is clearly written for those more systematic in nature. If I have kept your attention this long, and you thought before you were an emotional, you may want to challenge that, because emotionals can not read my work, and this is known. You may have been conditioned to be emotional.
Emotionals will rely on feeling a sense of others. They will not be able to measure, to profile, to form analysis. To them, others serve their feelings, good or bad, and this is what it means to be by a whim versus Reason. That which is familiar will often become that which is accepted. Otherwise, how did it get established as the familiar? And when one engages their Sense of Self, and their Sense of Life upon this world, they must ask : are they doing so from the familiar, or are they doing so from some method? Emotionals need familiarity to be sustained more than those who are systematic, so to say, in that systems often include challenge and a rise through competency hierarchies, which means the encouragement and acceptance of new data needing to be integrated.
These two differences, the empathetics, so to say, and the systematics, are not entirely accurate if at all a good means to classify others. Instead, bold or timid is far better, and I will clarify that later. Too is that of nomadic or domesticated, expressed or repressed, and so on. There are contrasting terms that can be used as traits for one's innate set of inclinations and proclivities. Some are born timid, whereas others are conditioned to be timid. One who is born in such a way will have a body type or carriage character that makes this known on first sight, whereas those conditioned to be so will have a carriage character that conflicts with the behavior and its displays.
The expression of AHHAB traits in hominids
A robust carriage character, for example, is not meant to be timid, but the mind of the body can be conditioned to be so. Whereas a slender, smaller frame, and/or a plump fatty form will be more inclined to be timid, innately so. This is all measured not from whim, but from a simple fact that is either unknown, overlooked, or ignored by the academic hominid humans, and that fact is this :
All present hominids are descendants from Advanced Hominid Hunting Animal Behavior (AHHAB).
That you are bipedal, or two-footed, is about standing upright, able to have increased situational awareness for that of spotting a target, and then, with control, moving in on the target to fall the target, to acquire the target, to access the target.
Being bipedal is all about target acquisition in that it increases situational awareness, through that of scanning by sight. Odors, for detection, tend to hover low to the ground, and by standing upright with one's carriage, there becomes a reduction, then, in the trait detection of smell. For when this trait was reduced, as it was in hominids, it shows genetically that compared to chimps, sight would become the primary trait for the hunt. Therefore, from quadrupedal, or four-footed, comes the bipedal advancement, granting an upright position.
What emotionals, what the timid and the domesticated can not conceive of, certainly, on their own, is that this then is not about choice and whim.
That you are a descendant of AHHAB, or Advanced Hominid Hunting Animal Behavior, means you have a mission that is predetermined when it comes to expression of traits. All of us hominids, be it a human or a Vir, have this universal or general trait of being bipedal, all for this reason. You are not bipedal so that you can reach items on grocery store shelves. You are bipedal to serve Advanced Hominid Hunting Animal Behavior. And the primary trait for this, trait of behavioral pursuit, is SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, and that of SCANNING for TARGETS, either that of values, or that of threats.
It is Dharma, Dhamma, the Tao, and/or a universal fact that a hominid, being bipedal, that lacks situational awareness is an unhealthy hominid. If you are not scanning for threats, you are unhealthy. If you are not scanning for targets, or that is, values, you are unhealthy, and in extension, if you are too timid, weak, and/or fat to then chase the target, and succeed at its gain, or to escape that threat, then... You are unhealthy. The Delusional Under Domestication (DUD) leads to the hominid having tasks and conditions where threat cycles have been massively reduced, and resources, the primary value of being a heterotroph (this term will be explained later), are easily acquired through means not recognized by the biological program of the hominid, which is designed for AHHAB, or Advanced Hominid Hunting Animal Behavior.
This biological condition of being a hominid is essential to grasp with the mind, like the hand grasps an object for augmentation... Because it is the instruction on what physical traits are meant to be commanded into expression. Because of DUD, Delusion Under Domestication, most hominids will not express AHHAB traits. It will not be obvious to a DUD why so many like to run, and engage in marathons. Why are they so pleased with this expression?
The answer is AHHAB, Advanced Hominid Hunting Animal Behavior. The hominid hunting form, in being upright, and in health being so, granted the hunter with the marathon manner of pursuit. Hominids were not the fastest hunters, nor the strongest. They would need endurance and perseverance. These two traits, called Virtues by hominids, are called so because of AHHAB expression. Endurance was needed to track and to acquire a target, and then outlast that target, exhausting it through continued and constant pursuit.
The evidence of this AHHAB expression can be found in how hominids cool down through the sweat glands, and the reduction in body hair, allowing for continued exertion of energy. The hominid system of cooling down during physical activity is evidence of AHHAB, or the Advanced Hominid Hunting Animal Behavior. Your cooling system is not designed for servile jobs, it is not designed for schooling, and it is not designed for domestication. No matter how you live now, your cooling system, male or female, was designed for Advanced Hunting, for AHHAB.
The prey cooled down often through panting of the mouth. When it was overworked in its escape and its evasion, it would eventually overheat and be overexpressed by that which was able to express longer, therefore, having more endurance. The advanced hunter, in this case, was the hominid. It overtook the prey through endurance, not speed and strength.
Virtues are all based on AHHAB, and that which is not Virtuous, but is vice, too is all based on AHHAB expressive traits. This is not optional, but the exact sense of an objective foundation to morality, or that is, codes of value, when it comes to behavioral expression.
If you are not engaged in expressing these AHHAB traits in your living, you are not living. The planned life spoken of, required for the examined life worth living, is the plan or discipline of expressing AHHAB traits. Now, as the reader should know, I do not hunt animals, nor consume that which has the near trait to my own locomotion. This is a luxury born out of the marketplace and division of labor. I can sustain on a sophisticated diet lacking in the “kill”. I eat eggs, which are from an animal, so I am not called a vegan. However, the animal can not be kept in unhealthy conditions, but must be cared for in Virtuous ways granting it expression. Eggs have the potential, if fertilized, to become an animal, but it is not flesh or a being that is in expression. The key here is I do not interfere with that being expressed, where such can be avoided and an alternative sought. And though I could do goat's milk, I avoid dairy, for the most part. This would have some saying I am an ovo-vegetarian, but this term vegetarian is ideological, and I do not use this classification for myself. I do not consume locomotive beings, because I have opted out of behavior that is conquest and exploitative, in that I can, as of now, opt out as a realization of the Virtue of the conditions. I have never met a vegetarian who had a well-developed sense of “why not” in eating locomotive beings. For the most part, vegetarians are emotional timid whimpering little tits whom I do not share a likeness with. It is not dishonorable to hunt and to consume the locomotive for that of the hominid animal called “human”. However, for the hominid animal called “Vir”, it would be considered dishonorable and unintelligent to engage in conquest and exploitation over other locomotive forms, in that the Vir is innately inclined towards a liberty of excellent expression of its own traits, and the traits of other beings. The Vir does not serve their animal as the primary. The Vir serves the Intellect and obeys its Reasoning, which is a Reasoning upon that of actuality, or Reality, that demands a conformity to what is―not that which is merely wanted and believed. In this manner, a true Controller and Commander rises above the cycle of conquest over others, and moves toward their Command in conquest over self. In having conquered the self, the Commander then becomes a liberator and guardian over the self possession of others, not for their sake, but for the sake of the Law.
This matter is perhaps too much for this particular piece. However, the reader might begin to grasp with their mind what their hand can not grasp, and that is... This piece being likened to a manual of self for others to recon, to better understand the Man they are faced with, it then means my filter must become somewhat illuminated for them. And this filter is one of Virtue, and access is denied because those often seeking access are most commonly, in actuality, seeking conquest through sickened ways, born out of their insecurities, their fears, and their ineptitudes. One who is not a Commander is a slaver, regardless of their age, from child to adult, and regardless of their relationship to control mechanics, or that falsely called power.
One who is not a Commander of self can only be a slaver to others
If you are not a Commander of thyself, and you seek access to others, that pursuit will be “sickly”, and this is why then you will suffer in association, as well as spread suffering to associates. You will, in your ineptitude, fused with your access to control mechanics, be seeking to get the target to conform to your wants, your desires, your projections, your insecurities, your fears, and your delusions. When your level of access to control mechanics are low, you will need to seduce, either well or poorly. If your access to control mechanics are high, then you will outright oppress, suppress, and subjugate. When you lack Command, and you are a Child of Ineptitude, you will speak ill of slavery, as if you could never engage in it, but in actuality, you are a slaver, and have been one on display even as a child, and that of engaging in subversive acts against parents, against peers, and mostly, against yourself. Subversion is the slaving tactic of the inept. Oppression is the slaving tactic of those subversives who have access to the control mechanics that others are under, or subject to.
No slaver is a Commander of self. No slaver is a Sovereign, with sole reign. None who have sole reign seek a reign over others. No Children of Ineptitude, in their absence of Command, are self standing; and therefore, no Child of Ineptitude is a Sovereign. There are those shaman Children of Ineptitude who use this term as a desired pursuit, or as a fancy “wand” to decorate their ineptitude and grasp of freedom. The Children of Ineptitude become revealed, in that they are the ones who say one is born a Sovereign, and has lost their Sovereignty, and merely needs to realize it, and/or retake it. This is the clear sign that a subject and a Child of Ineptitude, a “COI”, is the one transmitting their sense.
No one is born a Sovereign, on the basic fact that all are born children who are impotent, not inept, but impotent, in that they lack potency, with the specific quality being over Control and Command. The CC, or Control and Command, is arbitrarily in the hands of their familiars, the male and the female who facilitated the coming of their animals, and who, if they are inept, as they often are, then have the animal as a “slave” serving their ineptitude, calling the animal “son or daughter”, and themselves, “mother and father”.
One who can not deny access is a subject, a slave, a dependent. Offspring can not deny access, when they are young, to their “familiar captors”, because they are not independent, they are not self standing, and this all means they do not have Control and Command over self and condition. And for the most part, neither do their familiars, and this is why they behave as the oppressed with their own offspring, now suffering their “oppression”, which is not so to say carried out for nefarious and obvious reasons―and this is why most would reject this narrative. It is with the SENSE, ignorant and arrogant sense of HUMAN BENEVOLENCE that human familiars are slavers.
The question that is not asked, when this narrative or assessment of mine is rejected, is “What are familiars compelling to be served?”.
If you have not asked this question, yet you reject my narrative, then it begs the question... “What were you thinking the servility was, that you were rejecting, exists among familiars?”
If you can not answer this question, your rejection was not in Reason, but was an emotional rejection carried out by your ineptitude―your ineptitude when it comes to Reasoning and your ineptitude when it comes to language, and analyses. Coming to a conclusion or position that was not based on situational awareness, as stated earlier, is inept. It's unhealthy, and it's due to lack of expression of those traits that make you a hominid, with AHHAB required to be expressed.
When one thinks of slavery, as a Child of Ineptitude, they are limited to the notion of enslaved towards physical labor. This is why taxation is not seen as slavery to the DUDs of ineptitude. Domestication has, over the last 6 thousand years, perfected the treatment of the servile class to the point where the servile class does not see itself as servile, but as free. This, because of the increase in the numbers of the servile class, hundreds of millions in the US(Corp). As an example, the common individual is subject to the nation-state taking from them 20-40 percent of the “fruits of their labor” by way of taxation. They leave you with enough to “take care of yourself” to make it to the next round of “exploitation”. Instead of a full slave, you become a partial slave, and this is called “a citizen”. Because you have 70-80 percent of your fruits, you then think you are “free” relatively, with the schools never allowing you to think of servility in proper context. Your servility then makes sense, because you are taught, in your delusions, that it is the cause of such qualities of comfort and ease you experience, with your valuing of comfort and ease being the traits that make clear you are a Child of Ineptitude who demands deference, or that of the yielding of others, and society in whole. In your ineptitude, you demand... “make this all easy for me, for I can not deal in hardship”.
Those of you who seek challenge, being eager in living, and demand being pushed to a stronger version, can not be called timid by nature, though you will fight the timidity the DUDs are trying to get you to conform to. Delusions Under Domestication are the dominant themes of those you will associate with, those whom you will have access to, and the disposition of most of those who would seek access to you. You will identify this state with ease, because it would mean that ALL are familiar. Delusion Under Domestication, or DUD, is exactly what is the most familiar, so much that it's delusional, in that the masses under its spell are unaware of it, and in compliance under the delusion of freedom.
With your fruits of labor of some 70 percent, you then have to use half―if not more than that―for a shelter, clothing, food, and transport to sustain the “Cycle of Servility” (COS), or one's cause.
With the cause being characterized as a servile cause, that which is leftover is spent on entertainment and comfort, to make the cause easier. Therefore, this translates into escapism and restlessness, if one has not expressed the AHHAB traits.
A slave in harsh conditions was more expensive to maintain. The slave master had to provide the poor shelter, the poor clothing, and the poor food as an investment in their slave. They also had to back off the slave at times, and not work the slave too hard. The tempo of work had to be controlled to keep the slave slaving, because they were a lifetime investment to the slave master. Whereas indentured servants were replaceable, and they were short-term investments of seven-year contracts. So they were worked hard, to the point of death being common, and a seven-year contract not leading to one's freedom, because one did not often survive it.
A slave could not be fired. A slave would not often be replaced. This meant a slave could often find ways to skirt the oppressive demands of the slave master. This means becoming, in the eyes of the exploiter, lazy.
This was an economic nightmare for slavery, as machines in the North of the Americas were making “work” more economical. It was given that exploitative humans would need a better system of exploitation. That system would come with the rogue practice of caring to end slavery, and instead, bring about the wage and that of employment, where one had to be hired and could be fired from their position. Positions then too became competitive. Where you would be lazy, you would be replaced, and when your whole life is dependent on that wage, you can then be worked much harder than a slave ever was, because too, you work more loyally, because you are delusionally convinced you have chosen your work in life... and are free.
Exploitative forces do not care about the means of exploitation. As long as they get theirs, you can think whatever you want. You can be worked for eight-hour days, for a wage that is then used to pay for shelter, clothes, food, and escape, and the sign of the servitude, being just the same, is that you can not get out of the cycle. This is the determining factor and question to ask. Does your present servility come with a strategy to be raised towards more leisure and less servility? This means, can you make enough of a wage, or do you have a working talent, or a working option, to elevate up and out of the servile position and into greater Control and Command? If in one's work, the answer is no, then it's just servile. If, on the side, one has a plan for improving their conditions, and the servile work supports the base for this, then it is justifiable for long-term strategy. If one is servile with no strategy to increase Control and Command towards a leisure needed for Virtue… One is merely servile, and in the cause. This cause one then serves is the cause of the exploitative. You may not call yourself a slave, but you are certainly exploited, and this is the actual point, not the term one ends on in characterizing the exploitation. From indentured servant, to slave, to wage employee, the outcome is the same; it's a set of control mechanics, by degree, aimed at using you for their “cause” aimed at exploiting you. Schools made all this possible, producing STOOGES.
So to say slavery and enslavement in the context of one's familiars, in the conditions of past times, it was rather literal when it came to labor as a trait of exploitation. When there was the “family farm”, you would be a mental midget to consider that having a lot of children was not motivated by the need for more farm hands, in the sense of a serf serving the work needs of a Lord, or in the sense of a family having more socioeconomic self standing, as a well working farm.
