Part II

The Battle of Access

Chapter 1

Compulsory and Voluntary Associations

When I “seek” to Control and Command my associations, this is not the same as Control and Command over the associate. One can not assert Control and Command over others. Between myself and the associate is a condition. This condition, contextual, is called “the association”, and this is that which is definable, in the sense of “why” and “how” the parties are associated.

There are two categories to register here in thinking about associations. These two categories will also make clear, how “value” judgements are being made by the Departed of those with “Sole Reign”, that of “Commandos” or “Commanders”. If you are at present engaged in Access Denied from the receiving end, it is not a Commando you are in contact with. A Commando is one with Control and Command over their conditions, and they are not so while engaging in departing. This departing is an entry process that has to do with the march of the Commando, but most will never enter into this realm of advancement.

The two categories of association are:

Compulsory;

Voluntary.

Contracts are presumed voluntary, and where compulsion is at the root of a contract, that contract is invalid. This is not a debate, nor a statement about whether SAM, the Society Advanced by the Majority, agrees to these terms of Justice. Commandos―which I certainly am one―do not debate with fools about Justice, but profess their sense thereof, and where the fool violates, they wave their rights of being free from harm, and will be considered “at war”, and therefore, subject to treatment defined by the Laws of War. Laws of War are not a part of Access Denied and the Ways of the Departing, but they are a part of what is necessary to be a Commando. One who does not have a science of War can not be said to have Control and Command over their conditions, because all conditions are in a state of War, and those not knowing this are ignorant, are living defeated in this state of War, often under the subjugation of others. Under this subjugation, it will mean the majority of the associations they have known fall into the first category... compulsory.

In so-called “philosophy”, there is this notion of “voluntarism”, where it is stated that all associations must be subject to consent, and can not be compelled. One can call this notion anything they wish, so long as they capture the substance. Access Denied, as an element of Viritus, and Viritus being an element of that of Niō Zen, has at its core this notion of voluntarism, and it rejects all COMPULSION of association. Compelled association is born out of collectivism and is the norm. It is also the root of all other errors and harm of associations. Starting here is essential.

Of these two categories, compulsory is listed in the first because of its dominance in practice, not in value. Voluntary associations are not common among the commons. However, in the words of the SAM, most associations are painted as voluntary, because those who are subjugated to them can not think about, can not reason about, can not measure about how associations are gained, and/or maintained, and the substance that holds them together.

The commons, the majority, the multitudes, and the many were born into compulsory conditions, and this condition is called by the norms a “family”, and in extension, a “society”, or that of a “social order”. At no point and time of any condition can one profess with any Reason that they “volunteered” in their association to their default familiars, or that of family. It was a compulsion of Nature, in that the male and female fornicated to instigate the production of offspring, and you were that offspring, and none of what would become your free will, if you have any, was associated with that process. Yet for 18 years and more, individuals live under this compulsory association; and their Sense of Self and Sense of Life, which are the product of this fusion with that of their natural proclivities, which are low in impulse, means the association will be the primary dictating force in what persona, what character they will have as a conclusion of experience.

This then offers two more categories to consider :

Conditions;

Proclivities.

Many use the expression “nature or nurture”, and this expression is câlice. What I mean to say is “crap”, is “shit”, is “inept”. “Nurture” implies intent and active states, and “nature” is mostly so ambiguous that most having to break down its meaning would just opt out of the dialectical engagement.

Proclivities are those sets of traits and attributes that you were born with by default. This means they are inherent to you, as well as unalienable.

The etymology is as follows:

Etymology of Proclivity

“inclination, propensity, tendency,” 1590s, from French proclivité or directly from Latin proclivitatem (nominative proclivitas) “a tendency, predisposition, propensity,” from proclivis “prone to,” literally “sloping, inclined,” from pro “forward” (see pro-) + clivus “a slope” (from PIE klei-wo-, suffixed form of root klei- “to lean”).

Proclivous (1730) “tending, sloping” seems to have been a mere dictionary word for most of its existence, though it began to acquire some technical senses after c. 1890.

The definition of the term is still related to the history of its use; however, a technical sense is what is being used here, by me :

“a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition toward a particular thing.”

In a legal, and law lexicon sense, the term is given more weight, and is as follows.

Noun: ability, appetence, appetency aptitude, aptness, bent, bias, disposition, facility, gift, gravitation, inclination, inherent ability, innate disposition, innate sense, instinct, leaning, liking, natural sense, partiality, penchant, predilection, predisposition, prejudice, prodivitas, proneness, propensity, readiness, talent, tendency, affinity (regard), character (personal quality), characteristic, conatus, conviction (persuasion), desire, favor (partiality), favoritism, frame (mood), habit, liability, position (point of view), preference (choice), standpoint.

Burton's Legal Thesaurus. William C. Burton. 2006

What is “proclivity” can be seen as “one’s nature”; however, what causes confusion in this matter is by what degree one’s proclivities internally demand to be expressed. Most do not have loud and differing proclivities than their collective and default compulsory associates. Most match the same set of characteristics as those they end up with by default. Out of these most who match, most are from common stocks, and what makes a commoner a “commoner” is not that they number in the many. They are a commoner because they are uninspired, and they lack potency in talents, in drives and inclinations towards a clear “nature”. They are in essence dull.

Proclivities have two categories and states that can be considered:

Repressed;

Expressed.

Again, the order here is not arbitrary. Conditions are that which will determine which of these two are occurring, that of repression, or expression. Because previously I stated that compulsory associations are the most common, the most default, the most in practice, then too it correlates that in order for this to be the case, the proclivities of individuals are not the primary. The collective or the group is the primary. In order for compulsory associations to be the most common, repression of the proclivities is needed. The individual is expected to conform to that of the group and its identity of agreement, and to do this, it must repress its individuality, which is its set of proclivities.

The term INDIVIDUAL, in regards to character, is just that. It is those sets of proclivities that make them who they are, and no other. However, under repression of the proclivities, the objective of a collective is to conform the individual to that of a group identity that has precedence. Meaning, it came about before them, and as the condition, the individual, through compulsion, is required to conform to it. At no point and time of the condition is there an investigation and discovery of the proclivities of the individual, and then the condition is made to meet their needs of expression. Because this is the practice and the way of the multitudes, repression is almost a given as the trait of the condition.

Collectivism can never be based on the proclivities of individuals being free to be expressed, but instead will always be in “play” on account of a great deal of repression.

The notion of “truth”, and that of “honesty” and “deception” are correlated to this condition.

When the track of association is based on,

Compulsion;
Repression of proclivities;

Then what follows in the third is “deception”, and not “honesty”.

Compulsion begets repression, which begets deception.

The reversal of this is:

Voluntary;
Expression of proclivities;
Veracity.

Access Denied, as a set of tactics born out of the Martial Way of Intelligence, or that of Viritus, holds the second and rare track in value, and rejects the “dispositions” of the first track in all places where they exist.

However, because most are born by default to the first track of traits, they will then presume that in all things they observe, those things are “conditionally” the same.

This narrative will be due to the fact that the majority of their associations are under the first track, and most have never had an experience with clarity about an association that could be in the second track.

The Departed are defined by their adherence to the second track. Any individual seen using compulsion, using repression, and using deception is not the Departed, but some subversive seeking to cloak their intent and nature behind some “novelty” that could serve their predatory leanings.

The third element of stack one, that of deception, is fully justifiable when dealing with enemy and adversaries, that of subversives, and that of usurpers. Therefore, there is absolutely no decree that “thou shall not deceive”. This decree is often the decree of predators, be them familiars, one's “mommy and daddy”, and be them one's SAM, or Society Advanced by the Majority. In practice, they are mostly deceptive. And in being so, they fear deception, and are insecure because of its common place. So they promote “honesty”, only out of this fear and insecurity that you too will be doing exactly what they are doing, and that is deceiving.

Because of this, those who are insecure and fearful because of the way they live are, by their very nature, subversive, and seek to undermine. Towards them, Veracity is to be used not as a moral imperative, but as a means to deny access. They can not seek access towards those who practice Veracity. They can only seek access to those who are, like them, too seeking access through deception, making use of compulsory associations, and that of the repression of individuality.

There is a declaration in Access Denied, certainly because of Viritus and Niō Zen, that those you deceive are your enemies, and if you are deceiving everyone around you, then you are their enemy, and they yours, and this is what reveals your lack of Control and Command over conditions. It can never be seen as healthy and Virtuous to be associated routinely with “enemies”.

Veracity is of value in the moral implications of Access Denied, not because of some floating concept, religious decree, or social demand. It is of value because it is needed for “Equanimity”, or that of being mentally and physically fortified, being Immovable, being invulnerable, being invincible. Veracity is an expression of one’s proclivities, and how they manifest themselves in symbolic communication. It is Veracity, because it “can be” opposed, and lead to others being adversarial, and targeting one for not repressing their direction. It is Veracity, because in being so, and doing so, one will be declaring their nature is their duty, and they are not duty bound to the nature of others. It is Veracity, because there will be opposition.

The first stack is the cause of one being surrounded by enemies, and how then one comes to treat each other, but also, their own Sense of Self. One who is surrounded by enemies is one who lives a life of defeat, in that of occupied territory.

When one is compelled into their associations, they feel powerless, and in this compulsion, only more compulsion is produced. The tempo in how things unfold becomes all compelled. This then is what leads to the need to repress anything about the individual which can come into conflict with the compelled commands. To do this, the individual not only must deceive others, but they must deceive themselves. Not only is it the condition that works to repress their individuality, but to do well, in conformity, they must carry out the conditions' compulsions, by repressing their individuality in and of themselves. The conditions can never repress an individual more than they can repress themselves, because of the conditions. The deceiving individuals on the outside can never deceive more than the individual will deceive themselves.

The formula here, or say, the categories to consider on the individual level, are as follows:

Ignorance begets, when taught one is informed, an arrogance, and when this arrogance is aggressive, that of delusion.

From the order of the collective, this all needs to be reversed. The individual is not dealing with a natural ignorance and arrogance, but instead is dealing with the ignorance and arrogance of a preceding structure and set of “ways” called “society”, which when delusional itself, and being the controlling force in the individual's life, in compelling conformity, has the individual conforming to its delusions, its arrogance, its ignorance. But because of the size and scope of the Leviathan I call SAM, the Society Advanced by the Majority, it has a sense of legitimacy, only to those who have dominant in them the base emotions of fear, of insecurity, and that of being born to doubt. The “strength in numbers” fallacy plays out and the individual yields ever so much, as such is done “subconsciously”.

Direction is everything, when it comes to all these matters. Which notions, or that is, ideas, are primary, and which are secondary, and/or mere bi-products are key to think about, when consideration matters, or rather Patterns.

Another formula I will produce will make itself known in other works I produce. I will start it here.

In the realm of rhetoric, one is taught the terms “Pathos”, “Ethos”, and “Logos”. I am not certain of the order that the academics may list this in, but this order above is how it is presented in its “mysteries” counterpart, that is, “esoteric” versus academic “exoteric”. Esoteric often being that which is hidden and for initiates, requiring competence in degrees of knowledge, versus exoteric, which is common, of the “world”, more easily accessible, and conformed to the status quo.

The order here patterns in importance, just like the difference in my choice of this term, “patterns” versus that of “matters”. For Pathos is what “matters”, and Logos is what “Patterns”.

If one can recall, in Part I, these two terms, “matter” and “Pattern”, have been defined. “Mother” and “Father”, which is mater and pater, are rooted in these meanings. “Mother”, or mater, is “one who ties you to the material”, and “Father”, or pater, is “one who bestows Patterns”. This latter, to bestow Patterns, is equivalent to saying “to bestow Wisdom”, inasmuch as it is implied that Patterns or knowledge is meaningless in the absence of application. And when knowledge becomes of value, it is certainly then applied. And in not being of value as much to the commons, in its application, it is also almost always resisted as the way in favor of human rituals, traditions, customs, and norms. Norms are not often the product of knowledge, but are the product of ignorance, of arrogance and delusion―but one who is of the norms can not conclude this in which I have stated, because they have yet to live in and through knowledge and the courage and/or Valor to act in accordance with it.

Contrast here, in living, is needed in order to characterize properly the way one is presently living. Live another way, and try many ways as a means to see which ones provide you with a Knowledgeable Way, versus a mere easy and well-trodden way.

Logos, which means “Word” in only a basic sense, means, in the profound sense, the “Intellect”; means the relationship a “Word” has with Reality and that of Knowledge and application. Logos, in “philosophical” circles, means all this, and more. It too means “the methodology” thereof, and in the greatest sense, “The Way”, or the methodology of accordant thought, speech, and actions.

Pathos is the electrical chemical body of the individual. It is the base emotions, and it is the “reactionary” element of one’s being. Though joy is of the six base emotions, it is only truly activated as a by-product of a well Reasoning and well acting individual who lives in Control and Command of their well-being through their conditions, and their ethics, hence Ethos being in the center.

The six base emotions

I will deviate from the previous direction and point I was trying to make, only to return some time later. A deviation common to how I write, because I write in sessions of “flow”, and I do not disrupt that flow. It is essential to advise readers along the way how this is conducted, so as to understand why at times, I need to “secure the path” through expounding on something else. So though it may seem I have abandoned the original course, this is not the case. I will cycle back to it, and for my deviations, the reader should be better equipped to examine my Reasoning Patterns.

I am in agreement with the common profile of the six basic emotions. This is not to say this is the final and most illuminated way to approach the emotions. This is to say, it is sufficient to start the consideration.

The six are categorized in this manner:

Fear (Insecurity);
Anger (Anxiety, Concern);
Disgust (Displeasure, Repugnance);
Despair (without speed and energy, without advancement);
Surprise;
Enjoyment.

Note

This treatise was written in 2021, and because of it, come 2022, the BASE EMOTIONS have received much overhaul. The reader must UPDATE to what comes later as more ADVANCED. The treatise will not be altered, so that the reader can see HOW TO, it advanced my own SENSE of the PATTERNS, and therefore, had to change it. Later, the ORDER will be:

Diffidence

(governed by universal fears of the five)
Anxiety

(which begets concern, and the demand for, and production of CARE)
Repugnance

(That of REACTIONARY fighting. That of UNDERMINING fight. That of SUBVERSIVE fight, that of resisting others, from feelings of resistance void of meaning)
Disgust

(expressive distaste, displeasure, REPUGNANCE made Active in expression.)
Despair

(having that of roots in spar, energetic advancement and success, with this being “WITHOUT” as a state of despair.

Having no ADVANCEMENTS.)
Surprise

is changed to FAVORED UNCERTAINTY,

versus CURIOSITY, that of EXCITED in learning and knowing.
ENJOYMENT

is changed to “ENTERTAINMENT” as an emotion, having ENTERTAINMENT in AMUSEMENT, or in SEDUCTION, with its elements of ESCAPISM, versus that of ENTERTAINMENT in ADVANCEMENT, through SKILLS and COMPETENCE, towards CONTROL and COMMAND.

A separate treatise will explore the emotions better, as the PATTERNS become more apparent to me. Therefore, in this treatise, read with the realization that the data that follows has received an UPDATE, and per usual, the reader ought not to be ATTACHED, but instead, look for the moments of FLASH, when the realizations were occurring.

END OF NOTE.

This is not perhaps the order in which Ekman would arrange these six, but this is the order I place them in, based as well on a sense of common to rare. However, this notion of enjoyment, which is needed for joy, should not be treated as synonymous. Joy is not merely “enjoyment”, though enjoyment is at the base of what is needed for joy.

When others make a list of “emotions” with the qualifier of “positive”, you will often see terms that are not a thing in themselves, but imply some other base or root. For example, the term “love” is often described as a positive emotion, but love is not an emotion; it is a ruling, it is an evaluation. One can say, the base emotion for love would be tied to enjoyment, as in one who is loved is being “enjoyed”; yet how often is fear, is anger, is disgust and sadness present in “love affairs” more than that of enjoyment? One would need be deaf, dumb, and blind to not be aware of the stereotype proved right often, in how “honeymoon” periods of enjoyment turn quickly to dust, with the overall experience then being sustained in “fear of loss”. Meaning, human females often stop being as pleasing as they were to the human male to attract them, and start becoming more demanding of conditions that are instigated by fear. This is so common, one will ignore its fact, because often, they will not have a contrast of an association with another around meaningful, and objective orientated courses.

One must venture into this “living” via a system to truly comprehend what life was being lived previously, mostly out of compulsion and the driving emotions of fear, of insecurity, of timidity. These two that follow fear are not base emotions. They are the product of this base emotion, and when one is with fear combined with insecurity and timidity, their self-esteem becomes so inflicted, they are prone to either overt or covert anger, disgust, resentment, despair, and contempt.

I have yet to observe any social order that was not one held together under compulsion. In addition, I have yet to see a social order that was characterized by primary emotions of confidence, of boldness, of enjoyment, and sustained joy, and high self-esteem. In all social orders I have observed, they are populated with what others call themselves, “humans”, and this very term is one that denotes a lower Sense of Self; and therefore, humans, properly called so, are those who experience more often than not the so-called “negative emotions”, more than perhaps the single positive emotion, born out of enjoyment, that of joy.

I have accounted for these base emotions in short, here, as my work is not for emotionals, and that of the mud of their emotions. I will not be seeking to resolve that. Individuals must stay away from what I do, if they are emotionals, and seek their own kind to resolve their issues. Nothing I present is for emotionals and their mud. Let this be very clear.

Laying this summary of the six basic emotions will be useful, because I will demonstrate dialectically how the tactics individuals use socially are mostly drawn from these base emotions, and how in being so, the base emotions can translate the nature of the tactics. When one then establishes an expression of a different base emotion and prioritizes the targeted to be felt, they then must “shift” in their social tactics to reinforce their aims, and not undo their work. This is to say, in order for one to change their emotional profile, they do not work against their emotions. They work for strategies and tactics at living that then stir up, and cause the expression of the desired emotion. In this case, the only emotion I promote is enjoyment, which leads to joy, which leads to Equanimity. I do not promote enjoyment in the base sense of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. I do not promote enjoyment as a standalone. I promote it as the start of a “path” that then cultivates, in addition, its corollaries. For example, I promote skill and competence at life strategies and tactics.

When one applies these skills and tactics, they are for advancing their Control and Command over their conditions, and self. Over self includes their electrical chemical body, their emotional body. This is carried out in a way that sees fear reduced, and then in extension the reduction of insecurity, and the eradication of timidity, and passive acceptance of the dictates of a collective. One does not remove fear, but they will reduce it through that of becoming skilled and capable. Ineptitude is the most common cause of fear and insecurity. To cure this emotional mud, it is simple: learn to become adept at something, and conquer it, in and for oneself.

In the realm of what is called “social”, the tactics one has been made to use are not “tactics” at all. They are simply mimicked “call and response” traditions, carried out by the mindless. This piece will be used to attempt to illuminate, to expound on these elements of life, so that one can be mindful of them.

One's actions and thoughts are not called tactical, till they know what they are doing, and how it is applied deliberately.

What actions one takes, skilled or unskilled, are not only actions that have social consequences, but too, are always turned back on oneself, and a part of the formula of their Sense of Self. Often, the judgement of how one is socially is not their own judgement, but it is the judgement of the collective. This is to say, one will see themselves the way others see them, or that is, how others appear to see them, and/or proclaim to, as one will not in actuality have a clear picture of how others see them. It can be said, most will not even have a clear picture of their own, of how they conceive of others. The absence of clarity is going both ways in these conditions.

Motives and primal codes behind the Children of Ineptitude's associations

The multitudes, the many, the masses―which you the reader are likely a part of, but arrogantly pretend not to be―can be characterized as inept. Because of this ineptitude, you would seek out means of increasing your appeal to others, in order to entice their interest in you, so as to gain access to them, with males having the primary motive of access to form, and females having the primary motive of access to resources, stability, security, and safety, with child production as the major motive, even if the female does not consciously think of this as her “way”. Secondary, for the female human, is that of being entertained, excited, and lured through the securing of “deference”. Deference is that of “yielding”, and when one is shown it, as human females are greatly, it becomes a sense of security through entitlement, and that of bringing ease to the females living, or that is, routine.

Female motives and values, that can for now be called “subconscious”―though they are quite conscious of them―are far more “complex” or compounded than that of the male simple motives of access to flesh, and that of validation through the role of being selected as a mate by a female. These two forces or motives are the simple ones for males. Sexual access, the primary one for males, does not mean access that grants sex. Sexual access shows itself in many ways, including the way a human so-called “father” will be possessive over a so-called physically matured “daughter”, and a human so-called “mother” jealous over the attention their “son” shows another female.

This matter about “sexual” motives among families is a touchy one, and I will not spend too much time on it. If one believes Seduction, or that way of leading astray for that of access, is only about them and those they are unfamiliar with, then their sense of the subject matter will end up being delusional. Seduction, the act of leading one astray, so as to GAIN, MAINTAIN, CULTIVATE, and/or DEFEND... ACCESS... is a value move or action that begins from the start of one coming to have breath, and therefore, animation, as an animal with animus.

As I have already said numerous times, this set of actions above is what defines a value, in that value is that which one seeks to gain, maintain, cultivate, and/or defend. The kind of value is something different. That it is a value, and to say one is valuing does not imply “goodness” or “maliciousness”. The kind of values, for now, can be labeled under the habitus or habit of either Virtue or vice.

So then there are Virtuous values, or there are vicious values. Virtuous values are those engaged for the sake of increasing the well-being, the worth, the esteem, the character, the form, and the competence of the agent of action towards excellence. Arete then, this “Greek” term, designates the innate trait I speak of, of being born with confidence, and/or born to seek excellence, which is not a character that Seduction seeks to enforce and cultivate, but instead, is used by those not born of this way, to attempt to gain access to those who might be, through leading them astray, stirring doubt and confusion, and luring them away from Reality, duping them with illusions and tricks. All which is only necessary, and it is necessary, for those who are inept and not those who are adept, and/or potent at living. Those adept and potent at living are so because of an obedience to a Reality, that is first discovered in its parts, and then said discoveries are applied towards competent thought and action cultivation and sustainment.

First, let me state what is meant by “Reality”. In the most basic sense and approach to this term, it must be stated that it is meant to trigger something that can not be triggered, and that is the notion of the “Absolute”, which is incomprehensible. The Absolute is Reality, as a sum of its parts. However, the hominid mind, which the human mind is, can not conceive of any “Whole”, but instead has a “sense” of a thing, based on the compounding in thought of its parts, which can be referenced by the mind in their individuality. The faculty, or mental power that is used for this mechanical sense is the faculty of discernment. This faculty, in most, is not “powerful”, or that is, is not “potent”. When a thing is not potent, it is called “impotent”. However, often this term is seen as a sexual term, and not as its simple form, “lacking potency”.

In most of what I observe, some are not merely lacking in potency, they are “ill-natured” or “ill-conditioned” towards potency, and because of this, I favor the constructed term “ill-potent” over that of impotent.

They are, therefore, not to be taken as synonymous and one and the same. Impotent is just the absence of potency, whereas ill-potent is the sickened relationship one has with the sense of potency, or that of “power”.

Power, in this context, is defined as “ability that is potent”. So then it is not power, if only ability is the sense to be triggered, but becomes power when the ability present is potent.

I define my terms so that the reader understands the attributes I am referring to, in them being the parts of the term, so that they do not get lost in the whole of a term, failing to use discernment.

Virtue requires obedience to Reality, with Reality being that which is as it is, and not what one merely thinks it is. As an absolute that can only be approached through discernment, it is individual parts with their identity, or their essence, or their set of traits and attributes that one can discern and then come to use. So then to say Reality begs the question... The real state of what? When one says Reality by itself, things as they are in fact, without reference to the “THING”, then there is no surety that the writer or the speaker is in fact communicating something about Reality. The number one foundation to a sense of Reality is the Law that is referred to as the Law of identity, with the term essence and/or character able to be used as well in place of identity.

Reality then is things as they are properly identified in their “being” and their “ways”. Without the reference to things, the term Reality is often “seductive”, in that the user is in fact seeking to “lead one astray” and towards that of unreality and that of illusion, and a state of vulnerability, which the inept praise as a positive trait, but in reality nothing seeks to be vulnerable, but is only made vulnerable by a predator, or unfavorable condition.

Seduction is dependent upon exploiting, as well as sustaining that of the trait vulnerability. One who is “impenetrable”, and one who is with “Equanimity” and one who is with “high value”, and one who is with “confidence”, and one who is with “certainty”, and one who is with “morality” can not be seduced by the Children of Ineptitude, in which most humans are, no matter their physical age.

Those who come to hear of Access Denied, and pick it up as an investigative piece into their own nature and direction, will find that its tone will seem to be the illusion and the fantasy―this, because it promotes that some, nay... few... nay... VERY FEW are born with Arete as a calling, as a vocation. And these few need not “weapons of Seduction”, but they need “armor” and “weapons of war” to defend against the Children of Ineptitude, who aim to lead them astray, so as to have access gained or sustained to them, for more often than not bestial, and primal motives that are more concerned with the material realm, and not the realm of Mind, the realm of Intellect, and the character that can be born out of this realm's furtherance.

It comes to be seen that though the access and the pursuit of it can be called a value, it will be, however, that the level of evaluation and valuing will be so bestial as to be called possessiveness more so than appreciation. For the seducer, the Child of Ineptitude is not seeking access because of the quality of the thing pursued. It is seeking access because of its insecurities, because of its fears, because of its need for belonging, its need for validation, and its need for “role security”.

This is why beyond that of mere strangers and extended associations, these pursuits of access by those Children of Ineptitude include even those―if not especially among those―who call themselves families or familiars, and are even “blood related”.

The human naivete has most, that of the commons, carrying on in the delusion of romantic associations in characterizing their social existence. Folk are deceiving themselves about motives, tactics, and directions, and it is this self-deception, this living in delusion that causes the element of Reality dealing in identity to punish them; therefore, giving the sense that Reality is harsh. Reality is not what is harsh. Having delusions is what is harsh, because Reality, or that is, the Laws of Identity punish ignorance and arrogance, when you continue to make decisions based on how you want things to be, versus how things actually are. In the absence of conforming to “as things are”, or that of Reality, one then suffers and fails. It is a fact that those who perform well and highly are those who have come to discover the Laws of Identity, come to obey them, and in such obedience, come to increase Control and Command over, if not with them. This is the key aim in the expounding of Access Denied.

EVERYTHING is about CONTROL and COMMAND: either you have it over self and condition, or the condition and/or others have it over you. This is the question to always be asked, and this is the war that is innate to life, that is demanding to be fought in a skillful way.

The Children of Ineptitude do not fight this war. They instead engage in inept tactics to lead others astray, and lead others into being accessible, so that as they suffer their ineptitude, they have collected others to suffer with. “It is better to suffer with others than to suffer alone” should be the motto of Children of Ineptitude.

Recently, I had been giving some guidance to two others at the same time, on the subject matter of “social ethics”, and that of Seduction for one, and Access Denied for another. The two individuals were engaged in a conversation together, with one of the individuals being the main focus, concerning that of attracting the opposite sex.

One of these individuals was akin to the nature of Access Denied, in the sense of not wishing to play the game of access on the level of “low status” attraction, and granting anyone access to them for the sake of validation and belonging. Instead, in increasing their sense of status in the social context, they then increase their sense that their associates too must meet a certain criteria of interaction. The other one was under the condition of still being in need of validation and acceptance, or that is, selection from the opposite sex.

Now, the two of them were different in that the one needing validation was a male, and the one seeking elevation in sense of status was a female. Because there is this difference in males being servile, mostly by Nature's Prime Directive, and females being the selectors and the primary social force, a female can have a sense of elevation out of the “game” much quicker than a male can.

A female can, in essence, gain a sense of this access mechanics faster, because she needs the male less than the male needs her for acceptance, and validation. This is not to say a female does not need validation. This is to say that she can get validation or strengthening from other means outside the male-female association. This, of course, if she has a nature, in this case, that is more “wild” and/or that of being of the “nomads”. I do not mean those little girls in need of constant deference from the world, who are the majority of females embodied on this planet.

It is simple that a female learning that she has the “power” is a lot more easier to conceive of than trying to instruct a male about “power”, when the control mechanics are about “mates” and the “market of mating”. He, the male, especially the servile kind, does not have the default position of “power”, or that of any Control and Command.

A human female can, and will have power, or that is, ability, or that is, Control and Command over a human servile male, with little need to figure out how. It will happen by nature of things. She can have this Control and Command over others, without having any Control and Command over herself.

Note

Control, more so than actual Command. They are not the same. A COMMAND is far more demanding, and rarely is it had. But the terms are used in regards to the AIM.

However, in human social orders, this is not the same for a male, though they are trained and cultured to behave in the same manner by the females who tie them to the material, called mothers, as well as the males who are limited to the material.

A human male needs to increase their own potency of Control and Command in order to increase their attractiveness, and this increase is not done through deceiving oneself about one's motives and one's objectives. But most Delusionals Under Domestication, or DUDs, have romantic or rather fanciful lies they tell themselves about relationships and associations. These lies are fashioned around their relationships in the past with their “other mothers”, where they served her interest to feel “motherly” and looked to her for their cues on how to behave.

In primal times, it is presumed that in Advanced Hunter Animal Behavior, among humans, the males would come of age of cultivation around 7 years old, and begin to mimic and surround themselves with the males of their uncle's warband, and/or hunting party, and/or gang. It would not be the father, or the male progenitor responsible for provoking the young male to become of age and a “man” with self standing. This, because a natural thing exists where offspring seeks to overthrow their progenitors, being the first place they learn subversion towards self standing, and as DUD, they fail. In primal conditions, they would be disruptive forces, and succeed. Therefore, what would occur is social mechanics to prevent this event, and to direct the rebellious forces into forces of development and self standing, as was intended by nature. The male would join the uncle's gang, and no longer be in the realm of mothers, of females, and the deference that was common to their realm.

A male that is shown the deference of a female will be hindered in the development of their Symbolic Sense of Self. They will yearn to be a “forever young” that seeks the spells of incompetence and irresponsibility. The same could be said about the human female. She was supposed to leave her mother at a young age of around 9-10, and be placed with the family of her future husband before they were to be married.

For those today, in the industrial West, this would seem very odd... because mating is seen as “personal choice”, even though those making the “personal choice” are not carrying on by much of a standard, other than opportunity strikes, and that of “whoever becomes familiar, and easy to access, who too is seeking access”. The loose requirements around mate selection and development show that human history has not been one where humans have learned, and had to learn a way of managing access in the “sexual marketplace”. It does not behave like a “marketplace” for most. It behaves like a “feeding troth” with a first come first serve arrangement.

The human female was married off for social political reasons between males, so-called “fathers” who were often making resource alliances. The fathers were able to make these tactical decisions better than their daughters, and the myth of “love” and “liking” one's mate was not being perpetrated in primal times.

Resources were the main attraction, and the rest was simply secondary, and to be worked through as it is today. However, being DUDs, Delusionals Under Domestication, humans have reversed the order, placing the fancy and fantasy of “love” as the primary, and resources and cooperation around resources and offspring as the secondary. Only, this sense of “love” as the primary usually only lasts through a “honeymoon” period, and then the facts of access and association kick in, and the relationship becomes business and about managing a household and a family, with resources being the primary determining factor of the association. The DUDs come to think they have “fallen out of love”, and then they are simply left with resource security instead.

Overcoming this myth of “love” is something Children of Ineptitude are not prepared to do. They are not prepared to do it, because they have not come to self appreciation, or that is, self standing, and of age. The “age” I speak of here is one of competence and deliberation. This is the age of self standing. The male not coming of age is looking for a “better mommy”, or a more “controllable mommy” in a mate, and the female human is looking for a “better daddy” in a mate. However, because they have not come of age, their interaction with “better mommies and daddies” has the consequence of still having the “replacement code” involved, where nature designed the young not of age to overthrow the old, or their progenitors, as a means to increase their share of the resources, or that is, the “access”. This is a primal code, so DUDs do not have a conscious awareness of this behavior. This behavior only becomes apparent when a better mommy, better daddy mate does what theirs has not done... and that is demand competence.

A Child of Ineptitude expecting deference will have an adverse reaction to demands levied by the condition or their target of interest. When the target of interest, the mate levies demands that require a level of competence, one who has yet to come of age will begin to run tactics of undermining, tactics of subversion, and tactics of resistance, while however maintaining tactics of sustained access. This, born out of the emotion of REPUGNANCE, which needs to FEED.

The tactics of sustained access are motivated by the primal need, in nature, for the young to overthrow their progenitors, to take their place, and if they had not done this with their familiars, they will then project this need on their new “associations acquired”, or “access acquisitions”.

For the human male Child of Ineptitude, or COI, the human female mate becomes a “mommy” to resist, to undermine, to subvert, and to control. For the human female mate, who is COI, it's the same, only with the added behavior of treating the male like a child to be turned into a worshiper of her being. Human females do this to their default familiar daddy: starting at a very young age, they will assert Control, Management and Manipulation over them, to get them to do things for them they would be able to do themselves. This is the cultivation of deference that is programmed in young females to seek early on. The human male seeks approval, and the human female seeks deference in these early stages. That seeking of deference translates to seeking servants. What is served is not merely their physicality, but also, if not more so, their “emotional body”.

Mothers seek offspring to serve their “emotional body” and their Symbolic Sense of Self, and social status, or social category of “the mother”. The motivations are not “love”. If others think I am wrong, and the motivations are for “love”, then it means a female can love a thing without having any knowledge, any exposure, or any criteria for a thing, because a baby is not a thing developed, or a thing with character or traits that can be observed, other than the general traits of being a baby. Other than a certain look the baby may have, it does not have “expression” that can be evaluated. Therefore, the “love” a “mother” has for their baby is a self-absorbed motive, where they are truly “loving” that of their emotions around being a mother, and it is all about them, and not the target of the emotions, the blank slate of a baby.

This “love” then, if one argues it is real and paramount, becomes the same practice later, lacking in any discernment standards and/or requirements, where a mate is selected not because of what they are in “essence”, but because of how they make one feel about themselves. This is not simply the direction of human female COI thought, but this is also the direction of human male COI thought. It is Children of Ineptitude thought, regardless of the sex, male or female.

The key element here is the absence of a criteria, of standards, and of the Reasoning necessary to form these things. When one is a COI, it is because there were no guides to aid them in coming of age, or that is, to their self standing.

Coming to self stand is the only cure for ineptitude, and if this is not cured, then males and females of the human sort, of COI, will undermine, and seek to overthrow each other, while possessing each other to express these primal drives. REPUGNANCE becomes the hunger of the two, in NEED of FEED, and each become the FEED.

It does not lead to a healthy association for ineptitude to be allowed.

Now, one may be wondering, what is with this deviation on the subject matter?

This was to secure the route for an alternative look at Seduction. This is to say, if the previous look on Seduction, which will be expanded in the next section, was about the Children of Ineptitude, or COI relationship to Seduction, is there a “Wisdom Of Wielding” (WOW) version of Seduction?

This can be, in essence, likened to a counter-argument, another way of seeing or conceiving of the terms, and the plays. With this alternative approach, perhaps too the previous one can be further illuminated. As my readers should realize by now, I do not strategize on the topics I write about. I enter “flow” and just do what I am internally directed to do, as a means of resolving notions, so as to be a skilled guide for others, so as to serve the Rational self-interest of mine to guide others to being better associates for my own Entertainment and enjoyment.

So then this couple hours conversation had yesterday influences what needs to be resolved on the day I return to writing this piece. It all plays a role, because these questions and their considerations are not for me; they are for those I associate with, and would associate with.

Seduction, as I have covered, means to lead astray, and in its history, it was used contextually about leading astray a vassal, who is the subject or inferior of a lord, and often into treason against the lord. So by the sound of it, to lead astray and/or into treason against one’s lord would seem negative, and a bad thing. But look at it again, and ask about your filter of reading and thinking.

In Access Denied, is the objective to be faithful and loyal to a lord or a superior?

The answer, if you are paying any attention, should be NO. A BIG NO.

But then you may think, “well... I do not have lords and I do not have masters, and I do not have superiors, for I am a free male or female.”

If you think this, minus the really rare chance of this being true, then you are DUD, that is, Delusional Under Domestication.

In the system most of my audience lives in, it's a marketplace with the primary jobs, by number, being categorized as service jobs. Most work is unskilled labor, not skilled labor. Most is the key here. It is not to say that there are no skilled jobs. Of course there are. However, the level of skill will vary, and in the workforce, or the “forced work”, one is often easy to replace with another, if that one does not comply with standards and/or personalities that are often arbitrarily present and dictated.

One is not involved in a court of aristocrats and nobles where a king is at the top, and barons need to have their personalities stroked and pleased, or it's “off with your head”.

No. Most are “peasants” and commoners, only, you have been taught in the industrial world that you are “free subjects”, so long as you freely comply with laboring, and rendering up taxes.

If you do not freely do this, then you will be outcast and left without shelter, as all shelter is secured with the “king's currency”: in the case of the nation-state I am among, the Federal Reserve note (FRN) you call money. It's their money. It is not a barter system of goods that one could make and exchange for others. It is a medium of exchange required to secure on the land shelter, food, water, clothing, and security. Without this FRN in one form or another, the individual is an outcast, and they may have to resort to begging, to crook, or to the con of the hook. Either way, in the absence of securing routinely the FRN for exchange, one can not secure a modern sense of quality of life and comfort. One becomes a subject to the FRN, the Federal Reserve notes, in that needs are mostly only secured through them being secured.

This is the new version of servitude, where “funny money” exists for you to take care of your needs, to remove the need of a lord having to do this. Yet the lords then have you showing up to work by your own means, and paying you a wage that ensures no upward momentum towards self standing. Your “loving family” did not prepare you to overthrow, or make your own “society”, but instead, your “loving family” prepared YOU for a life “familiar” to them: a life of servitude to invisible lords.

The first lords that can be called petty or small lords were your familiars. Here, or among these, you were taught to engage in activities that would be under the Management and sustainment of others. In essence, the values you would come to hold were not to be values of your own, or one's own. One's own values are necessary before self standing can occur.

So then prior to self standing, one is habitually working on one’s own standing, and this is the identification and practice phase before self standing becomes the habit, and therefore, character of the individual.

In the familiar place of servitude, the son and the daughter are serving roles that are needed for the roles of “mother” and “father”. The son is more often than not trained to be servile, with the expectation to handle his own role in servitude with responsibility, and the greater the responsibility, the more often, the greater the earnings in regards to resources―which is his primary role of training that of “provider”. The daughter serves the role of being the target of affection, the target of “love”, and the target of the sense of joy and preciousness. She is the greatest prize for the daddy, because for the first time in his likely pathetic and inept living, there is a female he has authority and control over. Of course, one would be a fool to think this remains longer than 7 years. It does not take long before the daughter mimics the mother and begins to assert her Control and Influence over the daddy, if he is present, and makes him her servant, twisting him this way and that.

I have observed, in my experiments and investigations, four-year-old daughters easily manipulate their daddies into positions of servitude. I have been in houses where I had to train their young, and the training meant increasing responsibility on both male and female young. The male young were already ready for that, whereas most resistance was in the female young, who would do it to come off pleasing, but when they could get their daddies to handle the task for them, they would do it, because it was not about the task; it was about Control and Influence, which their daddies Delusional Under Domestication did not have.

Those daddies who may have it, to some degree, still would show a massive amount of deference to daughters, that is, yielding and lower expectations of responsibility, than they would to sons. This, in the industrial world, should not be controversial, because most would have had experiences to confirm the massive inequality among young males and females when it comes to deference. It may only be controversial to be honest about it, and then that of stating, “parents” are mostly breaking their young, males and females, by having their young―which should not be theirs―but guided to be their own, as forever theirs, serving these inferior roles where though professional responsibility may be expected, competence is almost never expected, except among the higher performing caste of those in the industrial West.

Servileness is so common that the average individual would certainly, under delusion, deny being servile, while even if the entirety of their day coming to be mapped would show their pursuits, or that is, their values, were all in the interest of others (allocentric), with perhaps only a whimsical pursuit here and there having to do with their own interest. One is slandered and shamed, in this “Society Advanced by the Majority” (SAM), for acting in “their own interest”; they are called “selfish”, and they are called selfish by only those who seek to exploit them. Out of the male and female human, it is mostly a female accusation (and by the older females) that one is selfish. And this is because of these roles as a youth, where she was trained to believe she has and ought to have access to whatever she wishes, and that competence is not a factor. This, some would call an “entitlement”, and there is no greater entitled creature than the role of the daughter that then becomes, most of the time, the role of the “wife”.

Many would think me a misogynist for this expression, and that many would be those who have been mommied to stupidity and ineptitude, proving my point quite rapidly. No male or female who has acquired their own standing, and certainly that of self standing would come against these words, because for them to have gotten there, they would have had to do what nature intended for them to do... and that is, OVERTHROW the role of childhood daughter and son, mother and father.

The role is what would be overthrown, not the individual. One might have a mother who could become a friend, or a favorite, in that her value system matches, and there are activities and objectives that can be aligned with. But if still a “mother”, she will be superior to the “daughter”, and too, she will undermine and she will subvert, and the daughter will do the same thing. The relational roles will have superiority and primacy over the activities and the objectives. Humans can not escape this, and should not try. Humans are forever children, who are forever standing under the authority of others, or that is, their group, their collective, their state. HUMANS CAN NOT STAND ON THEIR OWN; HUMANS CAN NOT SELF STAND.

A son may have the same values as a daddy, so that the daddy can become overthrown in role, but individually taken as a friend, an ally in activities, objectives, and mission. In fact, there would be no better relationship than a daddy who trained and equipped their son with Wisdom to self stand, and to do so beside them as allies in some cause for living. The love of a son, turned man, towards the man who was once father, now brother, would be one of the most meaningful relationships nature could make possible among hominids.

It is an observed phenomenon that males enjoy the company of males more than females, and females enjoy the company of females more than males. But in this modern DUD, Delusion Under Domestication, males are constantly undermining each other. This is due to the corruption of the first male in their life, their “dad”.

He failed to be a Father in the deeper sense, if a Father is “one who bestows Wisdom”. He may have provided in that role, and he may have given a sense, and truly only a sense of stability and security, but that is overlooked in domestication, with relational needs being more desired, and wanted. The “father”, like the “mother”, has not been, for a long time, a role that can be called a transmission of Wisdom. Wisdom is rarely found in culture, would say the Wise. Culture as the source of Wisdom would be uttered by children who have stood under, and never over culture.

Standing under, or one's “understanding”, is of two sorts. Either one stands under nature, or that of Reality and actuality, and therefore, over all the rest... Or one stands under the ways of humans and their traditions, their cultures, their rituals, and their delusions. This is why these symbolic narratives, under these names, pass on ways of decorating the banal, the mundane, the everyday and simple. Honor thy mother and father is a part of the Ten Commandments, is it not?

But where does one come to learn of what “mother” and “father” ought to mean and be?

Now, if I was told “honor thy father”, and then, that father meant “one who bestows Wisdom”, be them female or male, then certainly, I agree, one should honor them who bestow Wisdom. I do in fact honor these, when they are found in their rarity.

But if one is honoring those who are merely familiar, who can be inept or adept with no compulsion to either or, then one would be honoring a role for the sake of it being a role, served well or in incompetence. This is unintelligent; this is not what I do. If this would not be intelligent, yet this is exactly what the many do, then is it not to be settled that the masses, the many, are unintelligent?

Of course it means this. And if the masses are unintelligent, then is it intelligent to stand under their ways? Of course it would not be.

It comes down to a simplified thought Pattern.

I want access to you. Alright... Well... Why?

― You're sexy, and I want your material joy.

― You're skilled, and I want a transmission of the skills.

― You're entertaining, and I want to be entertained.

― You're exciting, and I want to be excited.

― You're strong, and I want to be protected.

― You're resourceful, and I want your resources.

― You're stable, and I want stability.

― You're familiar, and I want familiarity.

― You're exotic, and I want exotic (novelty).

― You're easy, and I want it to be easy.

― You're opportunistic, and I want opportunity.

― You're fortuitous, and I want fortune.

― You have social status, and I want status.

― You're a prize, desired by others, and I want the prize.

― You're available, and I want what I can take.

― You're servile, and I want to be served.

― You're self standing, and by example, I wish to self stand.

― You're pleasant, and I want to be pleased.

― You have a capacity and potential for development, adventurist, and I want adventure.

Compile your own list, and see what's on mine. Now, ask yourself, when you want access to another, or you already have access, what is the condition of the access?

Most have access to familiars whom they would not have access to if they were strangers. Familiars are one's family. Remove in mind the access. Then ask: why would you want access to them, and why would they want access to you?

Most can not do this, because they are under the possession of their senses/passions. In this possession, one avoids painful thoughts, and tries to seek pleasant thoughts. Most of what would be produced by this analysis would fall into the category of painful.

For example, you see a male daddy who has a daughter who can not serve his needs or interest in some utilitarian way. She has no skills, and she has no tools. So then, if she was not his daughter, and some female stranger, why would he seek access? The obvious answer is “painful”. What is the first thing a human male thinks of when seeking access to a female? The whole “world” knows there is one answer to this question, but that answer when the question is asked about these roles is “painful”.

This, because it can not be dodged with any authentic argument. He would seek access first and foremost out of sexual context and impulse. Now, as most have observed, you have males who get placed in orbit as “satellite” and will seek the sexual access to a female while never having sex, or a chance to have sex. They are often seen as beta males, for easy reference, and satellite males that a female keeps around, teases, perhaps, but does not “get down with”.

This is a “daddy” to the human female who is of the sexual age. Reverse it, and what is the “daddy”, when made a stranger, meant to be accessed by a female human for? The most prominent answer, and painful answer, is found with the same formula. A female, unless she is young, is not primarily looking for sex in a male; she is looking for deference and servility, a sense of stability and protection. So then, like how she will “satellite” a male that can not arouse her sexually enough to engage, the “daddy” made stranger is the same thing. He is a male who she has servile interest in, and therefore, would access them for.

How many college age children have a simple access to their parents, their “mommies and daddies”, for the simple fact that they are providers, pay for shit, provide shit, and work for them?

A painful thought for most to be honest about. College age children have parents that feel used, and of course, in the avoidance of painful thoughts, and the pursuit of pleasing thoughts, they hold onto the Delusion Under Domestication, the DUD, that they are a family who “loves” each other. It takes some major mental midgetry for these DUDs to go so long unchallenged. Those who would challenge must be the same DUD, avoiding the painful thoughts of calling it what it is. Perhaps then, if ever asked, how come I can call out these things, for would it not be painful for me too, to think this way?

The answer is simple.

I was never someone's son, and I was never someone's father. Because of this, I never began making others my servants, and I never began as the accepted servant of another. I began in and through my own, as a default, and little children would call this own standing as “hardship”, because they are incompetent at living, and self-responsibility. I was born too with confidence, and a drive for competence, Arete. So this was all a blessing.

This ADVANTAGE, and it certainly was one, allowed me to look, or that is, observe others in their “natural”, jokingly, their Delusional Under Domestication habitat, and see things as they are, or were, without the need to have a mechanics of avoiding painful thought, and seeking pleasing thought.

I do not have this dichotomy in thought. I can not have a “painful” thought.

To now return to the point and purpose of this piece, I will lay down with clarity the categories that I hold to be essential to a Vigilant and aware sense of social interaction.

I will warn the reader, though such should not be needed. How I will approach this subject matter, or rather its Patterns, will not be validated by academics or rest upon some approval of some so-called “peers”, in which I have none, and do not care to have. I will be communicating on my own authority and standing, and one can reject whatever they wish. However, after I have conducted this communiqué, one will no longer be able to falsely characterize my disposition in regards to social strategies and tactics. This Pattern, if you will, will have become bestowed, and my Duty of never acquiescing met, and I can then move on with other material. Meeting a Duty is the point of Access Denied. One who reads this piece should have no confusion about who they are seeking to gain, and/or maintain access to. For as I have said, I do not seek access, nor to maintain access to others. I do me.

Chapter 2

Motivations Behind “Plays” Towards Access

Throughout Access Denied, the term “Seduction” being used is only carried for the sake that, it is the common and mistaken category for terming these “plays”. Because others will use this term, and/or think of these plays with such decorations, I will maintain a semi use of the term.

But in actuality, Seduction is not occurring in these “plays” that will be accounted for. Instead, these plays are governed by a NEED to SERVE, and a NEED to be SERVED. SERVITUDE is the real category here, and how the “plays” of so-called “Seduction” are often carried out, knowingly or unknowingly, will prove that.

It is also the reason why in the past I had recommended to others to study The Art of Seduction, the ways of Seduction, the character of Seduction, and therefore, the “realm” of this. But in order for them to do so, they would need to turn to the works of others, for I had no works… Till now. That which I would then train the individual on would need to be used to augment the foolishness they would encounter in literature, NEVER written by one who actually engages the practices, either as a tool, or in the sense of self-defense.

The same can be said about the category of “pick up artist”, or “PUA”, in that I myself had no sense that there were those out there making a living “teaching” the “plays” of “picking up” females, until that is, young males would tell me about it, and ask for my advice―to which I do not give advice. Giving advice is a dangerous thing.

Seduction is misleading as a term, in that where it had to do with “sedition” at one point, and getting another to “betray” their lord, this is clearly not the way most would think of this term when activated. Seduction is about a male human, trying to “please” a female human in order to pass SELECTION. However, this too… is not the entire picture. This is how the term Seduction would be likely first thought of… but then a whole chunk of its use would go without accounting.

Seduction, so to say, is about PLEASING for ACCESS, and it does not require male marking a female who has, and must have already marked them, giving them permission to pursue, often with subtle and nonverbal forms of communication and indication. Though Seduction plays a role here, the “plays” that are used from male towards female are often then the same “plays” a male will use with other males, in order to be “pleasing”, if that male is more “statused” than them. It's about pleasure for access. When this is the true character of Seduction, one would then see the term is not suitable.

The term “Seduction”, if it is to be called an “art”, originates historically in that of “warfare”.

Etymology of Seduction (n.)

1520s, from French séduction, from Latin seductionem (nominative seductio), noun of action from past-participle stem of seducere (see seduce). Originally with reference to actions or beliefs; sexual sense is from 1769, originally always with women as the objects. Earlier appearance of the word in Middle English with a sense “treason, treachery” probably is a confusion with sedition, which confusion also is found in Old French seducion “treason, betrayal.”

Is such a mistake?

Etymology of Seduce (v.)

1520s, “to persuade a vassal, etc., to desert his allegiance or service,” from Latin seducere “lead away, lead astray,” from se- “aside, away” (see secret (n.)) + ducere “to lead,” from PIE root *deuk- “to lead.” Sexual sense, now the prevailing one, is attested from 1550s and apparently was not in Latin. Originally “entice (a woman) to a surrender of chastity.” Related: Seduced; seducing.

Replaced Middle English seduisen (late 15c.), from French séduire “seduce,” from Old French suduire “to corrupt, seduce,” from Latin subducere “draw away, withdraw, remove” (see subduce).

The term “war” has similar essentials;

Etymology of War (n.)

late Old English wyrre, werre “large-scale military conflict,” from Old North French werre “war” (Old French guerre “difficulty, dispute; hostility; fight, combat, war;” Modern French guerre), from Frankish *werra, from Proto-Germanic *werz-a- (source also of Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, German verwirren “to confuse, perplex”), from PIE *wers- (1) “to confuse, mix up”. Cognates suggest the original sense was “to bring into confusion.”

As said previously, the term “astray”, in “lead astray”, as the meaning of “Seduction”, means to be lost, and without a horse.

Etymology of Astray (adv.)

early 14c., o strai, “away from home; lost, wandering” (of cattle), borrowed and partially nativized from Old French estraie, past participle of estraier “astray, riderless (of a horse), lost,” literally “on stray” (see stray (v.)). Figurative use is from late 14c.

ALL OF YOU are “astray”, and the number one way you are kept “astray”, that is without a “horse”, is you are kept caged, and without expression that is based on the nature of your being. Your whole life you have been “led astray”, and hardly does this seem so, when the word “Seduction” is used instead. But kept in a state of “pleasure seeking”, “pleasure reinforcing”, and “pleasure possessing” has been the entire reason for why you have not, and will not, if such pleasure continues, have any Command over your conditions, and certainly not yourself.

The HORSE that one does not have, making them lost… is that of a COMMAND. When you have no HORSE, it means no status, it means NO COMMAND. Instead, you are on “foot”, and you are “close to the earth”, a “pedestrian” taking the “low road”, the “human road”, and you exist in “safety” because there are those you SERVE TO PLEASE, that you AIM TO PLEASE, and the trait this all plays upon is poorly called “agreeable”, but this is misleading. Too, they say the opposite is disagreeable. These are childish terms for these traits. Agreeable is timid, and most who would be disagreeable are malcontent, but there are those who are BOLD, who will not yield to the roles others prescribe to them. They will seem disagreeable only to those requiring agreement, whereas the ones who will be “pleasing” will be those who are “agreeable”, which means TIMID, DOCILE, easily able to be SUBJUGATED.

When one is engaging the tactical sense of Access Denied, it is “time”, or rather the needed condition in the now, to pay close attention to the words being used to describe things, to dissect them, and to ask if even they, the words, are being used to hide something deeper. The answer is, often, THIS IS THE CASE.

When they pick personality traits and label them, they do not want to seem to call what are common traits that of something negative. They say “agreeable” instead of “timid”, versus “bold”.

Seduction, a poor term to be deployed, is all about being AGREEABLE, or that is TIMID in the presence of one's “TARGET”.

It is very important to note a simple fact that can not be, nor should it be avoided.

Human females DO NOT SEDUCE. Sure, it would seem a human female putting herself up and out there to be “marked” and “accessed” is Seduction, but it is not. Seduction is carried out by the inferior individual in the relationship. A human female who simply makes herself the prize is not engaging in the Seduction plays herself. She is inviting and eliciting that of others to begin to seduce.

There are “profiles” that a human female can, and may adopt that puts them more out there to be chased by more higher status males, but this is rather absurd to even consider as commonplace and applicable. When Cleopatra is used as an example for females to model after, to wow a human male, it begs the question… What emperor and/or high status male are most female before, where this could even make sense? For certainly, males, human males, DO NOT NEED TO BE SEDUCED. It is absurd to think Seduction goes both ways. A human male has to SEDUCE, that is SERVE and PLEASE to get ACCESS, and a human female only needs to SELECT. The relationship is SERVE and SELECT, among males and females. The servitude is where the Seduction takes place. It can be said that for one to seduce either the opposite sex for access of that sort, or for one to please others for access, status, and other aims… one must provide distraction and relief.

This cleans up the aims, and the language much better than the foolish writings I had to leave others to, to adventure through the topic. The very sense of writing about Seduction is often that cloaked in Seduction itself, where the writer will provide distraction and a sense of relief to the reader, as a means to serve their petty Sense of Self, and “please” their petty emotions of “power”.

The fact of the matter is, Seduction is a romantic term used to label the base and petty forms of servitude and selection you all do around your insecurities, your fears, and feelings of ineptitude. I will not distract, and provide relief around this. I will not partake in delusional escapism, and sell this topic in a way to further delusion.

My aim is to break down just what Seduction is, not so that one could implement its plays for access to others, cause those who do are chumps, both the servant and the selector, but instead, it is so one can STOP being a chump, and doing these things, and be well defended against the “plays” of other chumps trying to get you to SERVE them, and activate the timid Child of Ineptitude in you.

This is, after all, a self-defense manual, and Seduction is about “treason”, and the “Lord” to whom it gets one to betray, in this metaphorical context, is that of “GOD”, which is “Reason and Discernment” that “advances one in Control and Command over their conditions and self”. That is the “God” that one is to be devoted to in this Way, or this can be said, the “will of God”, or the ultimate “WILL”, and the “treason” is in that one gets you to SERVE them, and their petty emotions, and as it is said… One can not serve two masters. But it is often mistaken, human males do not serve two masters, cause yes, as said, this can not be done. Human males serve human masters, first and foremost the females who select them starting with mommy, and then later the males who might manage them in their servitude and profession, and/or the females who manage them, as female management comes to dominate.

Those who are RELIGIOUS, so to say, serve the interest more often than not of a community starting with their home. They serve as carriers of cultural memes, versus that of any declaration of their religion. Hence, they say their religion is to be good, and good, and this is judged by how they are with others. None of what they do actually serves a “RELIGIOUS” trait, but often only serves a familiar trait.

Now, that I have said this, it would beg the question… What then do I consider a religious trait?

That which is common and base can not be called this, unless too, most the RELIGIOUS life is the FAMILIAR life, or the life around families, and then therefore, the Ten Commandments is the religious life. The Ten Commandments are pathetic and base.

It will not matter if it is true and/or valid, but I place the “Ratiocinative Faculty” or the “Rational Faculty” as the highest in Divinity, and that to be intelligent in all one does leads to that of expressing to the fullest, and most excellent their innate traits. This means, by Command, Reasoning upon one's conditioning, and seeking the noble version of it, through cultivation. That sounds simple enough. What is familiar is not this. I place the Intellect, that of Reason as the religious trait, and that will seem odd.

This is not to say simply that of science in the material sense, but instead, science, that is knowledge behind ALL, in which one does. And when this knowledge is behind all one does, and they ACT on that knowledge, they are then WISE, if habitual, and WISDOM is a religious trait, not mere conformity to the familiar and that which has precedence.

For those who are shamans, they would have perhaps hope I was to announce some supernatural sense of what is religious, and therefore, religious practice. This is not my WAY, and this is not the “Way of the VIR”. The “Way of the VIR” is not for shamans, is not for humans, is not for BRUTES, and base familiar beasts.

In simple terms, this is the RELIGIOUS life STANDARD I am affirming. Though simple to express, and seemingly familiar, what sense most have about “REASONED” ways is certainly not what I am speaking of, and one would need to study my words to try to grasp that. After all, this book, which is religious, is about religious association with others, treating the matter of association and access as a “sacred” matter, that requires standards, and requires skill, requires competence, and requires “mastery”. All of these things is the religion of the Vir.

So then, when I state that Seduction in actuality is “serve” and “select” based, what do I mean?

When I break down the “plays” of Seduction, of seeking to “serve”, to “please”, and then that of the one seeking to “select” and to be “served”, I will too break down the direction of the plays, and who they arise from. What needs to always be remembered is, “Seduction” is a romance term, because in actuality, ALL OF YOU are doing these plays on some level, be it skilled or unskilled, with success, or without it… Because these are social plays of ineptitude, carried out by simpletons, or SIMPS, as Socially Inept and Mediocre Plays.

On motives and impulses

What are the motivations behind “plays” towards access, gaining such, maintaining such? A “play” is an “action”. I will break down these terms first, having them well established.

Etymology of Play (v.)

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

In the first portion of this term, I will use it as an example in dealing with PEEK, or the Primary Emotional Engagement Kinetics. These can be used, the six of them, to determine the category a term would likely fall under.

In the more obvious sense, “play”, because it is “amusement” in character, would fall under the sixth Kinetics of “enjoyment/pleasure”. However, what kind of “enjoyment/pleasure” is too made clear in the etym. It would be that of “light”, as opposed to heavy. It would be that of “quick”, and therefore, short-term, rather that of slow and long. Too, the ingredient of one “busying” themselves should be remembered. I will come back to this ingredient often. “Frolic”, and often connected to that of “children”, versus supposed of that of adults. This next ingredient to pay close attention to is “mock”. And with this in mind, another one of the Kinetics is made clear, and that would be number three... Disgust.

Before I return to the etym. of “play”, I will deviate to cover the etym. of “mock”, but “quickly and shortly so”.

Etymology of Mock (v.)

mid-15c., mokken, “make fun of,” also “to trick, delude, make a fool of; treat with scorn, treat derisively or contemptuously;” from Old French mocquer “deride, jeer,” a word of unknown origin. Perhaps from Vulgar Latin *muccare “to blow the nose” (as a derisive gesture), from Latin mucus; or possibly from Middle Dutch mocken “to mumble” or Middle Low German mucken “grumble.” Perhaps ultimately it is imitative of such speech. Related: Mocked; mocking.

Replaced Old English bysmerian. The sense of “imitate, simulate, resemble closely” (1590s, as in mockingbird ; also see mock (adj.)) is from the notion of derisive imitation.

For humans, the nature of “play” has this element in it, hence to “make light of”, and so on. Though it is a part of the sixth Kinetics, it is not so from the position of starting in the sixth. This ingredient in relation to the term “play” is a clue that such “play” is born from the rooted five. It is play in the sixth that is determined by the rising out of the one, that of:

“Fear/Insecurity”;
“Anger/Impotence”;
“Disgust/ Displeasure”;
“Despair/Defeat”;
“Surprise/Ignorance”.

Human “play” will have these 5 as the defining factor of the human sense of “enjoyment”, of “pleasure”, of “Entertainment”, and of “amusement”. Let me be very clear here... ALWAYS.

It will be by degree, and the whole point of the human sense of the sixth Kinetics of “enjoyment/pleasure” is to cope with the other five, as well as to HIDE the rooted emotions. The sense of the sixth Kinetics in humans is often a major part of their “plays” at deception. ALL HUMANS are DECEPTIVE, and that is INNATELY so... Because of the five Kinetics, and their direction of impulse, one up. To one-up, in Access Denied, means to start in the one, and work your way UP through the Kinetics. When you “one-up someone”, this, is what it means.

To mock, a mockery, and so on, has contempt, has disgust, and has undermining as a primary factor, whereas the humor and other tools of concealment will make it seem to be about the expression of “joy”, of “happiness”, and so on. Often, this will not be the case. Where one is enjoying themselves, is pleased in advancement, perhaps... it is not “play”. I myself do not “play”. Most only “play”, and what level of “player” this then means is that of a being a “disgusted” individual often “defeated in despair”, and set to use “play” to undermine, to subvert that which is the opposite, that of living examined, and planned.

Next time someone “makes light of”, “mocks” or seeks to “derail” what you have said and/or have done, are doing, or would do... Know this... THEY ARE TRYING TO ONE-UP YOU, with that of mockery and their disgust hidden in that of play.

Sarcasm has this very definition. Sarcasm is the delivery of contempt hidden in humor. This is why I do not permit access to me to those who are baseline sarcastic. Sarcastics are mental midgets of malcontent. Yes, that includes comedians. Comedians are rarely anything but contemptuous. Others align in their play, because the comedian is best at delivering contempt, disgust, and scorn. Their tools are elaborate, whereas the tools of the spectator are often too angry and too defeated to entertain. A comedian is one who has found out how to turn their misery and despair into a profit, through that of using “surprise of ignorance” to catch the spectators off guard.

Every word and every notion can be placed along the Kinetics. I will try to keep giving examples for this, to make it clear. I will use the etymologies to assist me in this, to show that the terms themselves are “teachers” or “guides” through the ideas. This is why, in at least the most basic form, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is important to grasp. One thinks, or that is, their thoughts, without a doubt to this writer, are guided by their language, it making possible and impossible, or probable and improbable degrees of thought.

The nature of “play” here is made even more clear, in that some culturally add the expression “innocent” to that of play, as “innocent play”. Such would not have been needed to be added, if “play” was inherently treated as, and seemingly as… “innocent”. It is not the experience of the observant that children are innocence. This is only the presumed state carried out by those of the fifth Kinetics of “surprise” and its ignorance. Children are designed by nature to be manipulative, and to produce “cuteness” as a way to attract attention, to increase caretakers' interest, so that they increase odds of survivability.

Humans are animal programs, and the fifth Kinetics having ignorance as an element has humans surprised often in what each other does, or does not... seem to do or be doing.

Note

The fifth is that of FAVORED UNCERTAINTY. This is far more useful than SURPRISE. Too, there is the emotional need and desire to EXCITE in that of IGNORANCE, thus, some form of AMUSEMENT in one's own IGNORANCE. This is taken deeper in my other works, and one's DESIRE for more on this will be met with deeper expoundings later.

When it comes to children, one would hear the “phrase” of that of “playing make-believe”. One does not hear, attached to human children, that of “playing science”, or “playing logic”, or “playing reality”.

Play is far more so than not all about “mockery” and “making light”, reducing the sense of the need of skill, of competency, of ranks, of hierarchies, and of expectations. When one is competing, it may be used that they are “playing”, but this is loose language. Where skill is a factor, tactics and strategy are a factor, this is not “playing”.

In Brooklyn, a common expression was “I ain't playing”, because this was clear that this was a state of being “light” and to not be taken serious.

Terms change in their use, but more often than not, they change because of ignorance, not because of deliberation. I tried to explain that to an old lady who was full of disgust and ignorance, who took the opposite side, “playing” with words and meaning to a point of aged stupidity. She had no sense of what deliberation would look like in regards to the meaning of words, and like most humans, she believed she was entitled to use words any way she wished, and not be held accountable to an agreed upon, or at least, defined meaning.

One can have their own sense of terms, but then one must communicate that sense to another, for that other to have a sense of the meaning seeking to be conveyed by the transmitting source. Where one can not define the meaning behind the terms they are using, they are not using terms... they are just grunting. This would then be the indication that too, their associates do not exist much beyond the grunt, and from day-to-day, they are just screeching, and making all kinds of sounds that seem like words with meaning, but in actuality, it is just their EMOTIONS, whimpering about.

For this aged mental midget of mediocrity, she was in actuality GRUNTING, “we must make light of this demand, make mockery of this demand of accountability to meaning behind terms”. This was her EMOTION, which needed only PLAY, for those who are inept require massive amounts of DEFERENCE, and when one makes LIGHT of demand of standards, values, and advancement, it is

ALL FOR DEFERENCE.

Mockery, and in extension, it, as “play” and often that of being “playful”, is often with the aim, more so than not, to incur DEFERENCE, or that is... the yielding of the demands others may levy, to which is called deferential treatment.

Etymology of Deference (n.)

“a yielding in opinion, submission to the judgment of another,” 1640s, from French déférence (16c.), from déférer “to yield, comply” (see defer (v.2)).

Etymology of Deferential (adj.)

“respectful in manner, characterized by deference,” 1822, from deference. As a word in anatomy, “conveying away or carrying off,” 1877, from deferent (adj.) + -ial. Related: Deferentially.

Etymology of Respects (n.)

“expressions or signs of esteem, deference, or compliment,” 1610s; see respect (n.). Earlier (late 14c.) as “aspects, particular respects.” For “expression of regard,” Middle English had respeccioun (respection), from Latin. To pay (one's) respects “show polite attention by visiting or making a call” is by 1660s.

Could you have ever known, in your so-called “language”, that a demand for “respect”, or an emphasis on “respect” is also a demand for DEFERENCE, or that is, for one to YIELD, to SUBMIT?

Whatever you “feel” these words mean when you are “grunting” what would become known to a VIR, is at least observed as likely that you do not have a developed language faculty, as human, and therefore, because of this, you can not build out “Languages of Strategy and Tactics”. This is why a Vir sees the limit of humans with language as this:

HUMANS can only PLAY with WORDS, with that of TERMS, but they DO NOT wield them in meaningful and tactically useful ways towards ADVANCEMENT in thought.

The “Way” to determine if one is before a human grunting is right away EASY. They are “making light”, and in essence a mockery of the use of terms and their meaning towards that of demanding and laying out a standard of skill and competency.

The human is, and will always be seeking DEFERENCE from others, because the HUMAN is and always is one-upping from that of insecurity, and FEAR. Because of insecurity and fear, the HUMAN needs others to YIELD. This is because they will be moved through anger, in their impotence, and be expressed in disgust, in their displeasure, and automate DEFEAT in their despair, and show their ignorance, with their surprise. A human, in the fifth, being ignorant, needs DEFERENCE, because its opposite is DEMAND, but one that is levied on the self. The enemy of DEFERENCE is one being with their own self, and that of unyielding, and that of insubordinate. To truly get a sense of a term, always see what synonyms and what antonyms are connected to it.

Deference
Synonyms:
bashfulness, diffidence, humility, modesty, self-distrust, self-forgetfulness, shyness, unobtrusiveness, unostentatiousness

Antonyms:
conceit, egoism, egotism, self-assertion, self-conceit, self-confidence, self-consciousness, self-esteem, vanity

When do you know when you are before a human demanding deference?

Why, they will tell you about how you are being “selfish”, and they will tell you how you are “thinking only about you”, and how you are “arrogant”, and how you need to be “humble”, you need to be “kind”, and displaying “humility”, and so on.

But when you are used to this kind of treatment, you will not be able to, perhaps if human too, have a reason to question all of this, and see that the one stating these things is DEMANDING YOU YIELD, is DEMANDING you SUBORDINATE, is DEMANDING YOU SUBMIT, is DEMANDING you ALIGN with THEM.

A demand for DEFERENCE is the DEMAND YOU OUGHT NOT BE YOU... YOU BE US…

And US always means THEIR INTEREST… Not your self-interest, to which you are SHAMED from having.

Those who DEMAND DEFERENCE are those who DEMAND YOU do NOT ASSERT YOUR interest, but you exist for their interest, often masked as a GROUP INTEREST, with the greatest of this being with the FAMILY―often with a matriarch head that demands her interest be served, but has the whole family to hide behind as she makes it about the “whole”, which is under her control. “Mommy does it for the good of the whole” is the human delusion, where deference is at the highest. None receive more deference than human mommies, in their often massively ENTITLED, massively IGNORANT, massively INEPT roles and existence among those themselves existing in SUBMISSION, SUBJUGATION, and SACRIFICE... And perhaps willingly so. Humans are spoken of with such wrath of recognition, because from the view of the Martial, the Vir... Humans are ALL pathetic children in demand of deference, and in constant attack on that of individuality and the right to direct one's own interest, through self-determination. The self is the target of humans. Why?

I will take this moment, before answering this, to remind the reader of something about me... But only in that, that something illustrates a TACTIC. Otherwise, such is useless.

English was not my first language, so to say. It could be said, then, I was not a native English speaker. My first language was Louisiana Creole, a form of French, as my Patruus, who was responsible for me, was from New Orleans, and was a Creole of color. He mostly spoke “French” to me, and where there was English, it was coming out of the recording of speeches of Malcolm X, that my Patruus would run in the house.

I began to learn English at age 5, when I was placed in a “home” with a “foster” who spoke French and German, a black woman from Brooklyn New York. She struggled to teach me English, and mostly just provided me with the resources. In actuality, I had some odd ease with English, so long as it was the English of England, and not the American educated auxiliary language called “Basic English”, which in actuality is what all school children are learning.

When speaking with Americans, and when experimenting with Americans, I have concluded that none of them have a native tongue. Brooklynese was its own kind of English, and there was a native element to it, where “classical tongues” were still present, and if one was like me, raised among elders and older folk, versus one's own age, then such “native speak” would be transferred. I never got rid of Brooklynese because of this connection. It was a more natural tongue that had as a part of it the transmission of attitudes, and values.

Native tongues have this, but educated tongues make for stooges, as the American education system does so well. When in discussion with educated folk of America, communication is often weak, and the demand for deference is high, because more often than not... The educated will have revealed their IGNORANCE in regards to language and meaning of words, and their arrangement. How could this be so, when on average, they have all had more than 12 years of education?

It could only be the case if education was not designed to elevate Command of language among its stooges; if instead, something else was their aim. This aim was that of DIFFIDENCE, but I will deviate first, to secure the route.

When I was learning English, it was not with children's books. I have never been treated as if I was a child, and therefore, I have never been a child. There is no such thing as children, outside of the simple definition of “coming out of a female's womb”, or a “matrix”. A child is a mind state that is a part of culture. In some traditions and classical cultures, the “young”, that of posterity, dressed like, and modeled their ways off of their elders. They were not kept among those of the same age, confused and ignorant, wandering around together to try to figure out “life” on their own. They were guided, mentored, cultured, cultivated, and led.

When I was young, this was what happened to me. In Brooklyn, the elders, the older folk, were constantly available to mentor and guide me. This does not mean they knew what was “up”, so to say. But it could be said, a “village” tried to raise me, and it was all, as it ever was, self-serving for them to do so, because I was entertaining.

One of the things the elders had known about me, made “light of”, laughed often about, was that... I carried with me an Oxford English Dictionary. I had a backpack often, that would have only that item in it.

Previously, and this is age 6... I had been asking adults what their “words” meant. What does that mean? I would ask. Because of this, they would get frustrated when using their words, with many actually being more than delighted to “teach” their meaning of a word. I was very fortunate that among Black NYC so-called Americans there was a movement around DEFINING terms, and knowing the meaning, even hidden meaning of WORDS, and this movement was organically a part of the default CULTURE I was both born to, and lived among. So there were many black folk who would get down with definition with me, and with them doing it, and usually only them doing it, I would get the most exact sense of a term.

With the Italians, this was not often the case, and they were the second “group” and culture I would encounter. The third group was the Brooklyn Jews, who loved “words”, but more than anything, they loved being manipulative of their meaning, and they were the source of my first encounter of shifty language, where they tried not to be locked in. They loved rhetoric over logic. Differences, however, in how such language would be handled still had one thing in common. Most of the “groups” I was around handled language in some way or another, and even though perhaps different, nonetheless... engaging in language.

Around the so-called adults I knew would have issues with being questioned about their “word usage” and the “meaning”, I would simply pull out the dictionary, and check the word. Eventually, I did this regardless. I would listen to their take on the term, look it up, and often enter into conversations about why they say it means “this and that”, whereas the dictionary would say otherwise.

The more and more I encountered discourse, the more and more I saw that the commons, for the most part, had their own sense of terms, determined by so many other factors, such as culture of default, and that of socioeconomic standing, and that of education; that a term would have variations in its use, based on the limits of the user.

This is not to say it was subjective, as far as meaning goes; it is to say, most do not consider the meaning of the words, especially when everyone around them is just as inadequate in word usage. If you do not care about, or better said... VALUE the meaning of words, there is an easy reason to why. It is because you are “common”, and words do not offer you any benefit in being expounded upon. It is because you lack Control and Influence over your conditions and self, and whether your thinking is exact or not would have little to no impact on how you navigate the common space. You do not value, because you are indifferent, and you also likely suffer diffidence, and therefore, like all others, demand deference.

One of the things I had learned, at this age of 6, and quite dedicated to my dictionary, was the notion of synonyms and antonyms. To get a sense of what others meant about words, I needed more words. I would make a list, as well as trees of the meaning of terms. I began to write out the definitions in the dictionary, as a practice, but then realized writing them out was not of much use to me, though recommended, for I had the ability to memorize all the terms, and their meaning, and cross correlate them. So instead, I began to build out tree elements of connecting terms, and their roots... And this then guided in the sense of ideas―not merely the meaning of words.

Here is what I am attempting to expose the reader to, at the same time reminding them that as a prodigious savant of sorts, I was doing this at the age of 6, only two years into my learning of the English language―as it was to the English and not the Americans, and their education in Basic English, as the auxiliary language it is.

Because of this, it had come to define my entire relationship to terms. With the written word, I am able to show the reader, in a way, evidence supporting the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, because by doing here, in the context of this subject matter, the reader will be able to see that the terms tell you what to think, and tell you more, when you know more, than you would otherwise think, if left to just a “feeling” of the meaning, as it is used in context with the users.

In essence, if you do not use this methodical “Way” of having a relationship with terms, you are not in actuality learning “words” and their meaning. Instead, what you would be doing is converting new terms into familiar meaning. Do not do this with my work. Because of this, I have had to engage this method right before you, the reader, as a means to make clear that I do not do that myself; I do not grunt terms. I use them and their corollary terms as a form of knowledge building, and conceptual mapping, that I then do not betray by showing you deference, in your diffidence.

Here then follows that example. When I say deference, most of you would not have thought much of this word. You would see it means to “yield”, to which it does, but not knowing why you ought to yield, or what you would be yielding to. Surely, if a master had an apprentice, the apprentice, to learn, must yield in their own sense, to adopt the sense of the master, and follow in the master's “Ways”. For the apprentice is not the master, now are they?

So the apprentice “yields” in their sense, because they are an apprentice seeking to have a greater sense. This is the nature of the relationship of an apprentice and a master.

When you read my works, if you do so thinking you hold a position to alter it, it will be because you think by default you have either an equal or superior position. However, this is not entirely correct, and the term diffidence will make sense of this.

When skill, competence, mission, objectives, aims, risk, and reward are in “play”, so to say, this notion of “yielding” to the “superior” one is inherent. They are thought of as “superior” in this “play”, only in the sense that they are skilled and proven to have the skills that the seeker, the apprentice wants.

But most human sense of superior is not based on skill and competence, as stated in Part I. Instead, it is based on familiarity and precedence. Play, in the first order, is based on this familiarity and precedence order, not based on skill and competence, which is only useful for those with aims, with objectives, with a mission, often accompanied by risk.

Deference, then, is often shown to an “elder”, someone older, or with “seniority”. “Respect thy elders” is often stated in this culture. And when the terms “respect” and “honor” are used as synonymous with deference, there is something greater indicated about the relationship humans have to that word. But too, the word diffidence is somehow connected to deference.

If you look at that list of synonyms, diffidence is right there as second, following bashfulness. If you were schooled, you would have looked at all the synonyms and antonyms, and not had a value for looking them up individually. Arrogantly, you would think, you know enough to read over them, and move on.

This was not my relationship with words. All of these terms would be an X to me, and this was automatic to my mind. When I read anything, or hear anything, my mind automates the tree of traits of the term, so that I have no terms that are without traits being recalled. Whereas, humans... You just have a “sense” of its use, and what it “might mean”, and when you lack a deep sense, you just make the word match other meanings you do have a sense of. This is mental midgetry. This is mental ineptitude, and it is common. Because of this, most will not be able to read my works. I will have plenty written, but not have plenty having been read by plenty.

Etymology of Diffidence (n.)

c. 1400, “distrust, want of confidence, doubt of the ability or disposition of others,” from Latin diffidentia “mistrust, distrust, want of confidence,” from diffidere “to mistrust, lack confidence,” from dis- “away” (see dis-) + fidere “to trust” (from PIE root *bheidh- “to trust, confide, persuade”). The opposite of confidence. Original sense (distrust of others) is obsolete; the modern sense is of “distrust of oneself, want of confidence in one's ability, worth, or fitness” (1650s), hence “retiring disposition, modest reserve.”

“Diffidence is a defect: it is an undue distrust of self, with fear of being censured for failure, tending to unfit one for duty.” [Century Dictionary]

This single term here, taken as a synonym in relation to deference, is and was always of interest to me. Deference has a sense that there is a superior and that one is to yield, in respect and honor to that superior. One is to submit to them, in essence. Humble submission and respect.

But neither of these two, “humble”, which means “lowly”, and “respect”, which means “obedience”, is what most see it as... Yet there is one thing for sure. Though you may not see the meaning of these terms as this, and you have your own sense... It is not your sense that determines how you act. There is this very odd thing that occurs. Even if you “sense” the term to mean the opposite, YOU ACTUALLY BEHAVE based on the ACTUAL MEANING of that of the TERM.

It is to say, even if you decorated all these terms to mean something else, oddly, such decoration does not change your behavior. You will behave based on the meaning of the terms, even if you do not know the meaning. This is an odd observation, and it is almost always the case, based on my investigations and experimentations, even carried out with Elite Research Institutes. I have literally engaged others in the meaning of words, and then, had them describe behavioral examples, and then, examples of evident behavior, and where their thoughts may have resided in their “fancy” relationship to the term, their behavior was grounded in the “meaning” of the term, as it had been deliberated upon. What use is there in knowing this?

The use is this:

In Part I, I said, DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT HUMANS SAY.

Instead, WATCH WHAT THEY DO.

Now, here is the odd thing. The “words”, the “terms”, in English, have a massive amount of description of what could be called philosophical or scientific revelations. When I asked an “elder” who was knowledgeable about this, his explanation was as follows. However, do not take my forward of this as approval. You will need to think on it, of your own.

He stated: “They tell us about ourselves, and they show in their language they know how we work, and because of this, how we can be controlled. They control us through words, not force. If we know the language, we can control ourselves through it. They are required to let us have the chance to know ourselves, and if we do not try to, and accomplish this, they are morally allowed to run us, because we refuse to take responsibility and run ourselves.”

This fella was a “black fella”, as the color coders would say, and he was a part of the Nation Of Islam, and often preached self-awareness in my neighborhood.

He would go on to say, there were “rules” or “Laws” that “Controllers” had to adhere to, in order to justify their Control. I would later see that in many circles, as well as among the Controllers, which I had been among, this was held to be confirmed and true. That the Laws were strict, and they were not malicious, that there was this unwritten Law, that if you do not take responsibility for your own mind and behavior, someone else must, and hardly do you have a say in who that would be, for... it is not you. But if you take responsibility in what you think, and how you behave, and this shows in skillful existence, then Controllers can not usurp this, or they violate an ancient and important Law.

I have found evidence in my own life, with the use of affidavits notarized and witnessed, set upon high, that this is actually honored. I can not say I am oppressed, and subjugated. I can say any time I asserted myself, my Law, my value, and did so in a skilled and well Reasoned “Way”, Controllers have backed off of me, and honored the Law. When you have a malicious sense of Controllers, it is because you are the Controlled, and you refuse, knowingly or unknowingly, to take Control over yourself and your conditions. Therefore, you outsource Control, and in that state, you get just what you deserve.

He would be the first to explain to me that they are required by Law to “fully disclose” how they see you, what you are, and all of what could be called remedies and redress, but they are not required to compel interest. A library, he says, is where they are required to “reveal it all”, and everywhere else, it is allowed to be concealed.

Later in life, I would Initiate into the “Laws” myself, and the reader can be told easily: my works are the revelations of my Kind, my Way, my Law, and I only have the Duty to make them known and present, and able to be freely engaged. I do not have the Duty to obligate others. But when others engage me, and fail to investigate the expoundings, and I am in the position of a “Controller”, a “Commander”, it is on them for refusing to do their “due diligence”. It is, in essence, that acquiescence is consent. In silence, one has consented. My Kind does not remain silent.

You may have the right to remain silent, but you better be cautious in when you ought to be or not be silent.

When Controllers say “we got this”, then “you do not”. When you then go along, you consent, and therefore, have little to no right of challenge, when the outsourced responsibility comes to fruition.

Why is one brought to outsource responsibility?

Diffidence. I now return back to this term.

Diffidence goes both ways, not one or the other. It is not merely a mistrust in others, nor is it a mistrust in oneself. It is indeed a DEFECT. Diffidence is born of the 5, of:

Fear, Insecurity;
Anger, Anxiety;
Disgust, Repugnance;
Despair, Defeat;
Surprise, Excited Ignorance.

Insecurity is the obvious root. Now, if one was to say, this is with REASON, then it is not diffidence. Diffidence is a subcategory of emotion. When one is ignorant, which is in the category of 5, that of surprise, one will have a low sense of worth. One will not be confident in their abilities to make decisions. Their decision making process would be “suspect”, and will show them, they ought to doubt their own thinking. This then instigates in them a mistrust under the category of the third Kinetics, that of disgust/repugnance. It is not that humans will “mistrust” other humans, and not “feel” a correlated emotion. It is not the same as one who starts in the sixth, and transmutes it to Triumph, would then in excited knowledge of the five, and Vigilance in the fourth, thinking and professing that others have not earned the status of being reliably potent and skilled in their thought.

“Trust”, I will bring up again later. The Vir does not “trust” or “mistrust”; the Vir evaluates, and they determine their associations based on their analysis and profile of the competency of the individual. Most, that is the commons, should never be considered competent, as deference to diffidence, a yielding to diffidence is actually quite common.

I deal with the diffidence of others far too often. They will doubt their own quality and performance, and born out of the “self diffidence”, they have no choice but to “feel” this way about others. This is why MALCONTENT is a disease, and it is born out of the defect of diffidence, the ignorance seeded in it, and the disgust that gives it momentum, kinetic direction.

When you doubt or ignore the abilities and the skills of others, and think to put forth your own expressions, this is you seeking to overcome your diffidence, and to appear “capable”. This will take priority over being skilled and competent in what you express. “Everyone is idiots, and I am not” is diffidence. But it is not true, when you have this diffidence, that you too, think you are not an idiot as well. You know you are, and to conceal your own mental midgetry, you will point out at others, and blame them, when what you see in them... is actually you.

Diffidence is the root of this notion that most hate in others what they themselves are. This is diffidence. When you are ignorant, and a mental midget, there is no way you would ever be able to measure that someone else might not be. And what reinforces this defect that leads to the disease of malcontent is that mostly, the one you are projecting on suffers the same infliction; and therefore, you will not have a reason, or that is, justification to believe or act otherwise. But because you will be mostly correct, that others ought not be trusted, and you ought to “mistrust” as default, this does not mean it was born out of analysis. That would be a post rationalization that follows.

The only who know this about the rest of you are the ones who are not inept, who are skilled and competent, who then see by default, you start in diffidence. When you have never thought that there are others who start by default with diffidence, it is because you are those “others”. Meaning, you have never learned or observed conflicting data or experiences, which means certainly, you have not been that contrast.

More so in human males do I encounter this. I will affirm skillfully what I know is the case, and then immediately, from the human male, I would receive their doubts. In the past, I referred to this as the “need to negate” and being “negate’itive”―not to be treated as the same as “negative” in how it is used commonly. There is something being negated, and when one is negating from a sense of the emotional drive to do so, it is from diffidence. They are not negating, doubting, and challenging because skill provoked the challenge. It is an emotional challenge, and this too is the source of what some call “shit test”.

It is not only females who give “shit tests”, which is a feeble description of what is at play. Males, females, young, and old all do this. This is because it is rooted in the Defectively Advanced Diffidence. DAD.

This is usually what your daddies, your DAD-s were like. Your DAD was distrusting, or mistrusting of others. When they possess their daughters, they show what humans “make light of”: that of “mistrust” for whatever mating male comes calling. They start by default with the “mistrust”, and this interferes with any true criteria of measurement. This is diffidence, and it's a plague of the mind that the lower animal human has, the humanal. Daddy has diffidence. So he does not trust; he mistrusts, right away. And this is born out of daddy's own ineptitudes. Daddy sees daughter possessively, and because of this, he sees challenge to this possession, when she gives her attention outside of the house.

Odd, how you humans can not see that daddies behave like “stalkers” who would love to hold a “female” in a cage. Only you humans call this cage “my house”, or “home”, or the “house”, and she is kept there, in possession, and the turmoil happens to begin when the “gentleman” caller begins, where his access is about sexual attention and access. Such is forbidden. Such could only be forbidden if some element of that role, the possessive element, was already at play.

You humans, and your daddy-daughter setups are disgusting. Absolutely no young female is supposed to be under the care and possession of a daddy when she is approaching the “mating” ages, so determined by NATURE―not society. It is sick, and it is why the rest of you are so immoral, defined by what you accept, and what your cultures can not take account for.

As part of my past professions, I was a research investigator, as well as infiltrator into cult spheres, on behalf of private organizations. I also consulted on profiling, and that of the “mental spheres” of oddities, such as “serial killers” and “serial rapists”, and so on. Of all these defected kinds, that then prey upon the other defected kinds... their defects, were born from normal conditions, where perhaps some deviations from the norm would occur, but mostly on account of mommies being themselves... impulsive, and having issues forced on the young.

Mommy issues and daddy issues are all throughout the human relationships, and this is often “made light of” for that very reason of diffidence, and deference. Mommy is the one who says “trust” and “all will turn out right”, because she holds the greatest amount of demand for deference, and she receives it. Meaning, your whole “world” yields to mommy, and lets her be an inept child. The role of diffidence then is daddy. He is the disgruntled, the displeased, the downtrodden chump who thinks everything he has could easily be taken, or lost, which, well... it can. He has to fight to hold on to what he thinks he values. Mommy often does not. Mommy has others fighting to keep her sitting fat in her deference. This ineptitude in daddy, and this constant fear and insecurity in his sitting has him doubting the quality of all things in life. And when he sees he is surrounded by others like him... Why wouldn't he? His “feelings” are reinforced in that all of his kind are as inept as he is.

And how did it become this way?

At present, the schools teach the “girls” arrogance. It teaches the human females that they are Mary Sues with innate superpowers, girl power, magic, and that of importance in merely being born. Human males, however, have nothing but diffidence bred into them. Human females play with diffidence, and because of this, it is why some males think they “shit test”, and can hardly see when males “shit test”.

This is because human females play with it, make light of it, mock with it, and so on. This, because they hold more deference, in that, the “world” yields to them, and does not demand much of them. But human males are inflicted by diffidence, and with that infliction, they inflict each other. Human males can not play with diffidence because human males will be in realms, often, that require some level of trust. Human males will be in areas where there could be risks; but these human males will number few.

Most human males, because they do not have mommy and sissies' deference, will develop sarcasm and humor around their diffidence, as a means to try to “play” with it―but it will be full of spite, jealousy, envy, and one-upping. Human males will favor competitive realms, if they are not so much chumps, and they will hide in those realms their feelings of inadequacy. They will try to fight for recognition, to appear skilled, able, and trusting... to overcome DAD, and his Delusional Advancement in Diffidence.

They will say, “I am to be trusted”, and “trust matters”, and “I need to be able to trust you”, and so on. They will seek to earn the status of being the one to measure the trust of others, and to establish the criteria. Diffidence is at the foundation of many of the cultural trends around human males, with the two primary variables determining trust, that of “familiarity” and “precedence”. DADs doubt their male young, and question their trustworthiness. They also, if they have any masculine sense, demand more from the sons, that they be skilled, and capable at something; yet, they demand deference.

You better yield to Daddy, and why is that? Because Daddy is valid because he has precedence, and that alone secures the respect and honor he thinks―but does not really―he is deserved. He knows he has done nothing to deserve it, but to him, neither has mommy, and surely, in the measurable material, he tends to do way more. But none of these values register in nature as legitimate sources of “trust”. The only thing humans can “trust” is that of displayed lethality. When humans do not have any among them who can be, and demonstrate the ability to be lethal, they have nothing else to trust.

Diffidence is born out of ignorance and ineptitude; and ignorance and ineptitude are sustained in systems of deference based on precedence, and familiarity.

The need for trust is based on fear and insecurity; not based on Triumph. The Vir has no need to trust others, nor the need for others to be “dependable”. Those who are skilled and competent, with such a character, are also consistent, capable, and potently clear in their ways. These are the ones to which a Vir is to associate with. Vir ought not spend time coddling the emotionality of those inflicted with diffidence. Let them doubt things, and deal in their mistrust, but let them do it upon and among others, and not the VIR.

Etymology of Trust (n.)

c. 1200, “reliance on the veracity, integrity, or other virtues of someone or something; religious faith,” from Old Norse traust “help, confidence, protection, support,” from Proto-Germanic abstract noun traustam (source also of Old Frisian trast, Dutch troost “comfort, consolation,” Old High German trost “trust, fidelity,” German Trost “comfort, consolation,” Gothic trausti “agreement, alliance”), from Proto-Germanic treuwaz, source of Old English treowian “to believe, trust,” and treowe “faithful, trusty,” from PIE root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”

from c. 1300 as “reliability, trustworthiness; trustiness, fidelity, faithfulness;” from late 14c. as “confident expectation” and “that on which one relies.” From early 15c. in legal sense of “confidence placed in a one who holds or enjoys the use of property entrusted to him by its legal owner;” mid-15c. as “condition of being legally entrusted.” Meaning “businesses organized to reduce competition” is recorded from 1877. Trust-buster is recorded from 1903.

Humans have played with this word through many phases. In the 1200s, it was specific of what one was to “rely on”.

Veracity
Integrity
Virtues

What? Where are these in this “world”? If you have “trust” issues, should it not be easy to see why? Would not diffidence then make sense if neither you, nor those around you have “Veracity”, have “Integrity”, have “Virtues” even worth mentioning? Where are these three ingredients in the lives of the commons?

Do you know what these three terms mean?

I will not expound on them right now, but perhaps later, and elsewhere. One could say, expounding on Virtue and Veracity has already occurred. For this simple sense, recall the transmuted emotions.

Triumph, out of Joy of one's success... Pride
Excitement, or Eagerness to know and learn, as this aids success
Knowledge based Vigilance, situational awareness, Equanimity
Veracity, in that of the expression of the Virtues, of Knowledge, of Triumph
Wrath, in that of the excited Virtuous pursuit of Justice
Courage, and/or Valor, with the Vir with Equanimity having Valor over courage.

If these six transmuted emotions are considered, it is seen they hold the values of Virtue, and certainly the value of Veracity, which is the strength, the fortitude, the determination in producing skilled and valid expressions. Veracity is about valid expressions, and speaking them, and producing them no matter the cost.

There is no Veracity where there is no possibility of consequences, of risk. When one has no consequences for speaking the “truth”, there is no Veracity.

But this is perhaps an added sense, that Veracity is about expression.

Definition of Integrity

Noun

Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

The state of being wholesome; unimpaired.

The quality or condition of being complete; pure.

(cryptography) With regards to data encryption, ensuring that information is not altered by unauthorized persons in a way that is not detectable by authorized users.

(aviation) The ability of a system to provide timely warnings to users when they should not be used for navigation.

Derived terms

* integrous (very rare)

Synonyms

(Synonyms) * honesty * uprightness * rectitude * unity

* wholeness * purity * goodness

* probity * sincerity * virtue * decency

Definition of Veracity

Noun

(uncountable) Truthfulness.

(countable) Something that is true.

(uncountable) Accuracy or precision.

Act of being exact and accurate.

Correctness and carefulness in one's plan of action.

Related terms

* veracious * verifiable * verification * verify * veritable

* verity

In order for these two to be present, there is much more that precedes it.

How can you have Integrity, if you do not have a definable and achievable “Way”, a “code”?

How can you have Veracity, if you do not deal in areas where exactness, accuracy, and Validity reign primary?

The answer is, you can not. And this is why, what is being that of deference is that of “yielding to the familiar and the preceding”, and NOT placing these two things above as primaries. They are a far tertiary, or third, and if that is the case... What is the near second, to follow precedence and familiarity?

The answer is shown in the roots of “truth” as a term.

Promoting Integrity, Veracity, and Virtue is a human sham that does not apply to the commons and the many. Am I wrong?

Prove it!

Write down your code, be it ethical, or simply a “Way”. Announce it, and deliberate on it. Oh, you do not have a “code”. Where then do you show your “integrity”, your “holding fast”, if not then simply left with obedience to precedence and familiarity? These two then are your “way”, and they are not a “code” that you have deliberated upon.

So then, where in your life must you be accurate, must you be precise, must you favor in value skill, competence, and ability? Does that go beyond mere servile precedence and familiarity?

No, not likely. The Vir has a Code, and I am answering that very question of what it is, laying the foundation in Access Denied. The Vir has a Code that prioritizes accuracy, exactness, precision, and all of this is under the aim of Virtues. Your Mommy and Daddy demanded deference from this world, and what the world was to yield to... was their ineptitudes, and their cowardice at living.

You can “feel” you have Integrity and Veracity, but the second one, Veracity, which demands accuracy and precision, shows you do not. Because you can not be accurate and precise about a “Code”. You had no Code before you came here. If you have all this as your code, you probably engage it with diffidence and deference still plaguing you; and therefore, you have no precision and accuracy about your relationship to this Code.

In the term “trust”, which is why it does not apply to the VIR, the lie is easily dispelled. Trusting and trust have their common nature revealed. It had nothing to do with Integrity, Veracity, and Virtue, which are all three RARE. Instead, trust is void of Veracity by way of:

“religious faith,”
Old Norse traust “help, confidence, protection, support,” from Proto-Germanic abstract noun *traustam (source also of Old Frisian trast, Dutch troost “comfort, consolation,” Old High German trost “trust, fidelity,” German Trost “comfort, consolation,” Gothic trausti “agreement, alliance”), from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz, source of Old English treowian “to believe, trust,” and treowe “faithful, trusty,” from PIE root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”

The second portion shows the essence of “trust” is more about “comfort” and the “faith to the familiar”. The first set of traits is the lie that humans declare around their “familiarities”. They say, within their familiar bonds, they have “Integrity” and they add “loyalty”, and it is only from these “familiars” that then they “speak truth”―which is often not affirming of one's own, but against the other. This is not Veracity based, concerning facts, evidence, all well Reasoned. No, this is faith based, is blind, and all held together through the precedence and familiarity banner. It is most of all about being COMFORTABLE in one's ALLIANCES.

What is “TRUE” for humans is that which COMFORTS them in their ALLIANCES, their bonds, their associations, their familiars. What is “true” holds them all together, and what is true, Mommy teaches their young, “is how we all feel about each other”. Nothing is more “true” than that. Truth, to humans, could never be about Integrity to a Code, and Veracity to that of facts, evidence, and actuality, and then certainly... not that of Virtues. Diffidence and its rise towards deference can only lead to VICE, and that of the prison of the mind, which requires no Integrity, no Veracity, and certainly... no Virtues. Those with diffidence will not live lives of conquest and Victory; they will live lives of cowardice and defeat. Because of this, “trust”, to humans, is about securing in faith one's place in the human huddle; and the human huddle is no more than an alliance around ineptitudes, deference, and diffidence.

A Vir has no need for trust in that of the Integrity, the Veracity, and the Virtue of others. Because of these three ingredients, the Vir can analyze if one before them is worthy of association, and those in need of, fearful of, doubtful of “trust” are those with diffidence, and they should never be mistakenly thought of as being able to at the same time have Integrity to a Code, and express with Veracity the facts, the validities of that Code, in their living of that of Virtues. Diffidence and deference impeded this path.

How do you know you are dealing with a human, who in their diffidence, demands deference, that of yielding to their ineptitudes?

They will say… “I need to be able to trust you”. “I do not trust you”. “You need to trust me”; “I do not feel like you trust me”. “I do not feel like I can trust you”. “You need to earn my trust”; and “I would like to earn your trust back”.

To you humans, this is normal. To the Vir, this is sick and pathetic.

I shock many, when they get to “familiarize” a little with my words, when I say... DO NOT TRUST ME, and I will NOT need to TRUST you. I will judge and measure you based on what you do, and know your character, and it is your character whom I will determine association with, or not.

Mommy is “unconditional”. Yet your mommies will be the ones to focus on this kind of “trust” above, and be the first to “play” you with these words, and make you “earn their trust”―making you soft later to others in life, who play you the same way.

I do not play that.

There is a reason that among humans, trust is often related to you “opening up”, so they can “trust you”, and the opening is “up” into VULNERABILITIES. The only one who would ever demand, in the name of anything, trust, or otherwise that you be vulnerable is a predator, is your enemy. The Vir does not do this. The Vir would demand that weaknesses be revealed ONLY for the sole purpose of then fixing them, removing them, and overcoming them. “Honesty”, or that is Veracity, here about “weakness”, is only for the pursuit of being STRONG. So then, where one has VULNERABILITIES, and they remain, they are a coward, and they live a life of DEFEAT.

Mommies and sissies under diffidence and deference, where declaring such things glorious and Virtuous... is because mommies and sissies can be vulnerable, because they outsource Provision and Protection to daddies, and other servile males... who yield to the human female as the most prized possession, worth their worship. This, by nature's design, not human conspiracy.

Trust has the elements of Provision and Protection within it. For this, refer to Part I, and I will not repeat on these two here. Here is where this is mapped in to what was mapped previously.

“Confident expectation”, in regards to familiarity and stability, is the nature of trust to humans. Humans need to know that you are all still “bonded”, and there is no threat to the hierarchy of precedence and familiarity. Because of this, humans rely on seniority, and they make its posterity go through “gatekeepers” to prove their “faith”, that is... their trust. This is proven by adhering to their ways of the familiar, and this, they call integrity; and this is proven by adhering to the beliefs of their faith in the familiar, and this, they call veracity; and this in adherence to their altruism, their sacrificial demand of the individual to the group, forming their collective, and in sacrifice to the group is the ultimate sense of their virtue.

The words may seem the same... But the meaning surely is not. This is an important thing to gauge when you deal with humans. Do not think they are saying the same thing. Because of this, the Vir defines their positions, and uses Vigilance in making sure others state their sense of terms; and no Vir presumes another is Vir; and no Vir treats humans as if they would do otherwise than to muddy their sense of terms, and their connection to the roots. A Vir always presumes the human will be guided by “confident expectations”, and therefore, pervert the sense of what is noble. ALL HUMANS will do this.

To recap, these ingredients will be used to secure the route, later in these expoundings, concerning the BEHAVIORAL PLAYS at ACCESS in which humans engage in. You have had defined for you:

Deference
Diffidence
Trust

3a. Integrity

3b. Veracity
Play
Mock

All of these will play a role, and if the flow so dictates, this will be the systematic approach throughout. The variable of Veracity is being carried out here. Proven is it, that that is not a part of the life of one who would MOCK that of precision and accuracy and language. For without it can not be Integrity, in regards to a “Code”, or a “Way”. This is very much an example of the two of them being expressed in the aims of Virtue.

When one has the transmuted emotions, from that of the Triumph, that of Vir, one does not have deference and diffidence, trust, play, and mockery as their Way. This does not mean one does not have “Wrath” in their Veracity, which they certainly do. It is not mockery that is conducted here, it is “this NOT that” identification. I do not mock humans when I call them mental midgets. This is literally a category, liken to saying mental ineptitude. This is not me making light, or playing. This is me using these terms as ACTUAL classifications, engaged with expoundings of why, based on facts, evidence, experiments, and observations.

But when you are with diffidence, you will be “at play” in this “Way”, and therefore, because you mock, you would “trust”; so then would this be what others are doing... if it bears some resemblance. Trust, to you humans, is about familiarity and precedence.

Trust is what you all call what makes you “comfortable”, and this you seek, and because of this, you demand deference, or that standards yield, and “codes” be reduced to easy to follow child's play.

Precedence and familiarity, here one starts

In this treatise, it is about behavioral plays at gaining and/or maintaining access. There is an undeniable “relationship” that one has by default with these ingredients of precedence and familiarity.

I will design this expounding chronologically. The first phase is rather simple, and complexity often does not occur until one deals with strangers, or those not familiar to them.

This is not a metaphor... You started in the mother's womb; therefore, you have been born to the “matrix”, but this BIRTH was not in the womb secured. It was secured later from that of exposure to oxytocin, and prolactin of sorts. Meaning, the bond to the womb was external to the womb, not internal. To be born to the matrix is to be bonded to the womb and the womb bearer, not to be from and out of a womb. Once out of the womb, the entity is individualized, and meant to be born to its own life. When born to the matrix, one's own life, or direction is denied, and one is born to the collective life, or that is, living in sacrifice to others, the collective.

Etymology Of Matrix (n.)

late 14c., matris, matrice, “uterus, womb,” from Old French matrice “womb, uterus” and directly from Latin mātrix (genitive mātricis) “pregnant animal,” in Late Latin “womb,” also “source, origin,” from māter (genitive mātris) “mother” (see mother (n.1)).

The many figurative and technical senses are from the notion of “that which encloses or gives origin to” something. The general sense of “place or medium where something is developed” is recorded by 1550s; meaning “mould in which something is cast or shaped” is by 1620s; sense of “embedding or enclosing mass” is by 1640s.

The mathematical sense of “a rectangular array of quantities (usually square)” is because it is considered as a set of components into which quantities can be set. The logical sense of “array of possible combinations of truth-values” is attested by 1914. As a verb, in television broadcasting, from 1951.

I am not using this term like in how the “manosphere” uses it, nor in reference to the 1999 film of the same name. In that film, one was with a birth as a battery, giving energy to machines, and the world they thought they were living in was a “false reality”.

In no way do I think in relation to the bad philosophy of that film. It was a good film that did bad philosophy really well.

When you were not BORN to your own life... You have not thought the thought that you are your “own”, and could be your “own”. You were born to a womb, or that is “from that place” at first, and your correlation to this “world” was therefore “attached”. The first attachment was to the place of your form's origination, and that is the start of the “matrix”. It is not, so to say... “thee matrix”, as this would develop as you would receive the “codes” that would govern your Sense of Self and your Sense of Life later. SOS and SOL have been explained in Part I.

The source of your physical form was the womb of a particular female animal, that is referred scientifically as Homo sapiens sapiens of the Homo genus. For the sake of generalizing this animal form, I will use the term hominid, and in short, Min. All of this for a “Reason” that will be stated elsewhere at another time.

The female hominid that you were physically born to had nothing to do with anything that could be called “individualized”. Individuality, in this sense, in the context of hominids, is entirely of the mind. You, by default, are materially a kind of animal, the Homo genus, or the hominid, to be the exact. This then has traits held in common, or in general, that makes it like the others born of the same genus. Refer to Part I, and that of the AHHAB traits. It is the way of the flow for all that to be repeated here; however, I must reign it in a bit, to accomplish a goal.

Once you grasp the AHHAB traits, this says what kind of animal you are... to which you have no individual choice in. Instead, it is all materially predetermined. As such, your “form”, which is a set of chemical and electrical actions and reactions, is fixed. There is no level of energetic imagination, nor no level of induced intoxicant and hallucinogenic states that can change the FACT that you are a hominid. Your identity in this regard is fixed.

Of your animal species, and like most, if not all animal species, they are then divided naturally by “sex”. I have no use for the word “gender” here.

Etymology of Sex (n.)

late 14c., “males or females collectively,” from Latin sexus “a sex, state of being either male or female, gender,” of uncertain origin. “Commonly taken with seco as division or 'half' of the race” [Tucker], which would connect it to secare “to divide or cut” (see section (n.)).

For the sake of etymology and the above use of “gender”, its meaning is as follows :

Etymology of Gender (n.)

c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).

The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.

I myself use the term “sex” of the “animal” and not the term “gender”. However, do not get it mistaken. For the sake of the etym. on sex, it is the early use of this term, and its etym. that is being referenced.

Feminists and those engaged in identity politics are not using the English language based on its roots, and history of use. That would only be acceptable if and only if they stated the difference between their lexicon and the history of the term. The same goes for me. I can not change the meaning of a term without defining and stating the point in which the departure from the history occurred. Otherwise, this is called hijacking terms.

Male or female, as the terms are used by this writer, are not related to “social constructs”, but are entirely a reference to a set of chemical and biological components. Where a male or a female has a “defect”―which is a deviation from the naturally intended aim―has anomalies, they do not disprove the general notion. “More so than not” is what I am saying, when I say males or females “be like this”. It is always implied. It is not to say that one who does not conform to this is not a male or female; however, there is a defect then to be considered where there is deviation.

I, myself, am a deviated kind, so what most would say about “males be like this and that” would not apply to me. Therefore, I classify this through cognitive species, and not through biological species. Where I deviate is in quality of cognition. I have a penis, so I am a male of this animal the hominid. I can impregnate a female. She is a female because she can be impregnated, and have a child. If a male can not do this, and a female can not do this, then they have some kind of “defect”, and your “feelies” about that word mean nothing. There is the animal healthy as intended, and the animal contrary to this. Most will not have the defects, and that some do, does not change what is meant to be. I will not have offspring, and that is a cognitive choice, not a biological limitation.

It is foolish to argue with those thinking “sex” and “gender” should be “roled” into one, and there should be “swapping”. On that note, here is a simple notion. If male and female are social constructs... How then could one “feel” the other is more right for them? Would that feeling not be make-believe, if the roles are make-believe to begin with? Or does the feeling say there are “real” roles, based on those feelings, and one is merely presumed in the wrong “natural role”?

I hold that it is valid, that one's Sense of Self, and Sense of Life are subject to constructs, often conditionally compelled from the collective. Most human males do not have the traits like Provision and Protection; they are taught they are supposed to feel are true. Neither do most human females. So is there an issue with what is “taught” versus what is “felt”? Yes, I would say, with certainty. But what is at the root of this is diffidence and deference, not some sense of male and female. If you have a penis, you are a male, and if you have a vagina, you are a female, of the sexes. How you wish to behave, that is your business, and how I will measure you, judge you, and associate with you... That is my business.

Those making sex the determining factor in their behavior, based on being a stooge, are not my associates. Those who are overly sexualized, hetero or homo, are of no interest to me. I am about the cognitive realms, and over sexualization in either or is not conducive towards my aims. So I will not play these word and identity games with you all. Je m'en câlice, it's not what is sacred to me, is not my fight, and if you try to include me in your fight, I will cognitively destroy you for the inept children in demand of deference in your diffidence.

When I use male and female, it's bio-chemical, and bio anomalies will not dictate my definition and speech. More so than not is implied from here on out.

Etymology of Male (adj.)

late 14c., “pertaining to the sex that begets young,” as distinguished from the female, which conceives and gives birth, from Old French male, masle “male, masculine; a male” (see male (n.)). Mechanical sense, used for the part of an instrument that penetrates another part, is from 1660s. Meaning “appropriate to men, masculine” is by 1788. Sense of “composed or consisting of men and boys” is by 1680s.

Etymology of Female (n.)

early 14c., from Old French femelle “woman, female” (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella “a female,” from Latin femella “young female, girl,” diminutive of femina “woman, a female” (“woman, female,” literally “she who suckles,” from PIE root *dhe(i)- “to suck”).

What precedes the individual that becomes born is a great deal of traits that were not their doing. One must realize what those traits are, because much of what one is, is determined by these particular traits, and what one will do will be based on them, BORN out of them.

As previously stated, the first set of traits is that of being a HOMINID, and therefore, an ANIMAL, and as an ANIMAL, that of being a MAMMAL, and as all these... that of being a HETEROTROPH.

A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae: the great apes, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.

A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans).

A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees and humans.

For shorthand, here on out, I will use Min for that of hominin. Wherein the flow may dictate the use of “Min”, it is to be taken to mean the same. “Min” has the relationship with the notion “to think”, or that is “memory” and “recall” as a primary factor in the thinking process. Of the two, that of the so-called human hominin, and that of the chimpanzee, the human kind relies heavily on that of behaving in accordance with “memorized” or “mimicked” patterns, thus giving the sense that the human is “intelligent”―though I would challenge this sense. But where “Min” may be used, it will draw the distinction between the other hominids and hominins. “Min”, as a symbolic tool, allows me to create a term that precedes that of “human” and OTHER. Wherein “human” is a kind of hominin, so then too is it a type of “Min” giving overall more alike than not, in the “form” differences, in the kind of “Min” they could be. Therefore, not simply are the three proposed cognitive species types of hominids and hominins, but then add “Min” as the category. Types of “Min”, then, hones in deeper to the breakdown of the traits.

All Min are animals, and are mammals, and therefore, are HETEROTROPHS. For most of the mimicking kinds, the masses, the many, the multitudes, the commons, living in and through one's traits will often mean acting unaware of them, and without concern. Indifference is a common character trait among the Humanus, the first order of the Min.

Not born a troglodyte, or a bonobo, from among the Pan category, or the “chimp” category, you were born something else. But it would be a mistake to think drastically far from that of these “cousin” kinds. When it comes to the kind of expression of one's kind, and either oneself being the same or differing, there will be an “energetic” similarity to one of these two: the bonobo or the troglodyte.

The commons, the many, the most, the multitudes share most in likeness and motivations to the bonobos. It can be a thing of interest for a Min to learn of the bonobos and troglodytes, in order to see how little of a deviation there may be in one's motives. The more your day-to-day is based on the EMOTIONS, and not, say... systems, then the more akin you will be to these “chimps”. Emotionalism is in likeness to the other forms, whereas that which is foreign to the other forms―ALL so far known other forms―is that of the Mind, with the character of Intellect. Min, on its first level, does not have a potent mind, and this is made evident in how each individual lives, where it is either “form” that dominates, this through the emotions, or it is “Mind” that dominates, and this through the adherence to Patterns of successful living, where one is in Control and Command over their form, and its use... Not the other way around. Someone will be in Control over your form, and its use... So if you are not, look around you, and figure out who is. For the most part, it will not be the single “who”; it will be a collective.

Those born innately collectivist believe the “individual” of the “group” receives their Sense of Self, and in extension, Sense of Life, from that of the “group”, and therefore, is bound―if not indebted in all―to the “group”.

Because of this, preceding generations, called “progenitors”, if they physically produced you, see themselves as “that group”, and that by default, you are born to “them”. Them, they, us, are called… “the family”.

Before I expound on that, I will be taking this section to lay down some terminology, some vocabulary and etymology to illuminate on the importance of language. The notion of precedence and its CONSEQUENCES, its SEQUENCES are all over the place in your living. You will not have thought about it. And if, after reading this, you do not think about, and make decisions based on now being exposed to it... Then that will act as a strong indicator of your HUMANITY, and you should not engage these, or any of my works further. In regards to tactics, the inability to break away from PRECEDENCE as a variable that holds primary positions is the mark of a SLAVE, or rather, a single UNIT of a COLLECTIVE that is innately COLLECTIVIZED, and it would only cause harm to divorce that UNIT from the COLLECTIVE, where it ought to remain.

Etymology of Precedence (n.)

late 15c., “a being a precedent, previous occurrence or existence,” from precedent (n.) + -ence, or from Medieval Latin praecedentia, from Latin praecedent-, past-participle stem of praecedere. Meaning “act or fact of preceding another, right of preceding another in processions, assemblies, social formalities, etc.” is from c. 1600.

The notion of a “procession” is important, but I will not add that one to the map at this time... As there is much to cover. But be aware that there are terms within terms that indicate the nature, the traits of an idea, of a notion, a CONCEPT. It is best to become acquainted with all the terms.

The notion of precedence, especially in regards to a “procession”, has embedded the notion of a RANK.

Etymology of Rank (v.)

1570s, “arrange in lines;” 1590s, “put in order, classify; assign a rank to,” also “have a certain place in a hierarchy,” from rank (n.). The meaning “outrank, take precedence over” is by 1841. Related: Ranked; ranking. An earlier verb ranken (mid-13c.) “to fester, suppurate” is from rank (adj.).

That which precedes in a procession is that which outranks what follows it.

Etymology of Outrank (v.)

“be superior in rank to, excel in precedence,” 1829, from out- + rank (n.). Related: Outranked; outranking.

That which follows that which outranks, in the precedence of procession, has the “natural” expectation to TRUCKLE, and when they are doing so, it's called TRUCKLING.

Etymology of Truckle (v.)

“give up or submit tamely,” 1610s, originally “sleep in a truckle bed” (see truckle (n.)). Meaning “give precedence, assume a submissive position” (1650s, implied in truckling) is perhaps in reference to that type of bed being used by servants and inferiors or simply occupying the lower position. Related: Truckled; truckling.

The reference to that of the “bed” of a “servant” and “inferiors” is far bigger than one would naturally think, having been well bedded in their domestication. The “bed” is correlated to the notion of a pit or dug up area of the ground where one would rest. The low sense, and lower position too correlates to the rough start of the species.

Beds, especially having their own rooms and being designated and fixed are not a given in life, though most of you have never known otherwise. Only when you have “camped” for entertainment, have you been without a bed, and because of this, it would be odd for you to even consider that “bedding” has some odd place in all of this.

Who used to “put you to bed” or “take you to bed” at night, when you were an infant, a child?

You had your fixed bed, in your fixed room that was either shared with others, or just for you. Dedicated resting places with beds is one of the key pieces of domestication. Having a place to lay your head is important to the sense of feeling safe, secure, and sure. Only, no bedroom actually affords this.

Being assigned this bedding in a house, a settlement helps establish “place” and “attachments”, which is why it should be of no surprise that the young of Humanus will have attachments in extension to blankets, and stuffed toys, and so on. The attachment a child would have to an object of their infancy has the relationship of oxytocin to it, like that of the attachments they would have to figures in their space, such as mommies and daddies.

For the last six thousand years or so, Humanus, among the Min, have been constantly living to SECURE their beds, preferably in rooms, with walls that act like BLINDERS, to make them FEEL that of safe and secure. The FEAR Humanus have provoked in their young has often been around when you go to sleep, or when you are tucked, safe away in your beds, and the Humanus young fears the unknowns around the bed.

When I was a young fella in Brooklyn, I did not know at first about this condition among the Humanus. I would find out about it when I would “stay the night” or nights at the “homes” of others, for I have never had a home, nor could I ever wish for one. Their young would have fear around the rooms and the beds, and have rituals of bedding. The few times I was around those near to my own age would be the times I would observe how their mommies ritualized bedding, and see the “comforting” gestures and behaviors. It was one of those truly “frightful” and “sickening” experiences that contributed in me the staying away from that of children and their mommies. Observing this weakened state, and its perpetration and continuation was the only thing I witnessed worth anyone's “real fear”, and certainly worth my CAUTION.

The last time I had stayed over the house of a young fella and saw that routine, and the “mommy” tried to include me in her emotional loop, I decided to just leave, to which they were shocked, because to them, I had nowhere to go, and I was heading out into the “black of night”, the “dark”, the “unknown”. This is what triggered fear in their Mommy, and she thought... How could I?―to which I certainly could, and only preferred to. That night I would find a rooftop I had used often, retrieved my well hidden sleeping bag, bundle up under the NYC sky... Sleep, wake before the Sun, stow the gear, and head out into the game of the streets. I was born to be a nomad, not to have a “bedroom”.

But here is where your rank is well established. In and around these beds, and too, being “put to sleep” is where the rank of your superiors is established. They have been PUTTING you all to SLEEP your whole lives, and in FACT, you have never had a chance to be AWAKE.

HUMANUS establishes RANK, and OUTRANK based on PRECEDENCE, and this is born out of the nature of the dependency offspring has on their progenitors. In nature, this is all program and the way it is supposed to be. Key qualifier here is, IN NATURE. Domestication is not something that is in accordance with nature... It is established based on AGREEMENT, and those AGREEMENTS that establish it come from FEW, and for their INTEREST, and those who “bed” in their “domes” and their “homes” do so as servants, as peasants, and as commons with low and burrowed bedded RANKS.

It is required that offspring “give up or submit tamely”, for if you do not, then the WORLD would be full of fright, that you would need to FACE ALONE, which the very thought of is frightening to collectivists. Going it on ONE'S OWN is something of fright. It is only NATURAL that for the most part, for at least 7 years of the Min living, is one where they need the care of those who preceded them, who are well established, having already “given up or submitted tamely”.

Those who have given up or submitted tamely are RANKED in a procession where they are lower than those who preceded them in the procession, and they are well along in working their way “up” in that procession, where it would then be their turn to control.

Having you as their offspring was a part of this procession, in that it marked the turning point to them from child to parent.

Etymology of Parent (n.)

early 15c. (late 12c. as a surname), “a mother or father; a forebear, ancestor,” from Old French parent “father, parent, relative, kin” (11c.) and directly from Latin parentem (nominative parens) “father or mother, ancestor,” noun use of present participle of parire “bring forth, give birth to, produce,” from PIE root *pere- (1) “to produce, bring forth.” Began to replace native elder after c. 1500.

You were simply “brought forth” and “produced”, and one's progenitors are often the way this would occur, and as such, having precedence to you... They have PREEMINENCE.

Etymology of Pre-eminence (n.)

also pre-eminence, c. 1200, “surpassing eminence; superiority, distinction; precedence, a place of rank or distinction,” from Late Latin praeeminentia “distinction, superiority,” from Latin praeeminentem (nominative praeeminens), present participle of praeeminere “transcend, excel,” literally “project forward, rise above,” from prae “before” (see pre-) + eminere “stand out, project” (see eminent).

What gives the parent their authority is simple: they were STANDING merely BEFORE you came to STAND, when in actuality, no one in DOMESTICATION is STANDING ON THEIR OWN, but their STANCE is entirely based on PRECEDENCE, and the STANCE of others.

Standing, and stance is all about “place”; and “knowing your place” is based on being “put in your place”; and this is carried out by those of a preceding STANCE in the procession.

The mommy and daddy only have one PLACE that they know, and where they take PRECEDENCE, as the prius, and that is in the home that houses the beds, the kitchen, and the baths... their servant quarters.

Etymology of Prius (n.)

“that which takes precedence, that which necessarily goes before,” noun use of Latin neuter of prior (adj.) “former, earlier”

Mommy and Daddy do not have precedence outside the “home”, the “house”, their “STANCE”, their “PLACE”, their “quarters”.

Etymology of Quarters (n.)

“military dwelling place,” 1590s, from quarter (n.1) in sense of “portion of a town.” As “part of an American plantation where the slaves live,” from 1724. The military sense seems to be also the source of quartermaster and it might be behind the phrase give quarter “spare from immediate death” (1610s, often in the negative), on the notion of “provide a prisoner with shelter;” see quarter (n.2).

Your mommy and daddy are spared from immediate death only because there must be someone, or “some ones”... a collective with precedence that “has a place” for your mommy and daddy. What would be that place, if you were observant?

In the Domestication Under Delusion that is all around me, called the US of A, that “place” is as a “citizen” who is “tied to a city” or a “nation-state” who is “taxable”, which means “exploitable”.

Etymology of Tax (v.)

c. 1300, “impose a tax on,” from Old French taxer “impose a tax” (13c.) and directly from Latin taxare “evaluate, estimate, assess, handle,” also “censure, charge,” probably a frequentative form of tangere “to touch,” from PIE root *tag- “to touch, handle.” Sense of “to burden, put a strain on” first recorded early 14c.; that of “censure, reprove” is from 1560s. Its use in Luke ii for Greek apographein “to enter on a list, enroll” is due to Tyndale. Related: Taxed; taxing.

“To burden, put a strain on” was first recorded early 14c. Your parents were in preceding times and place, “spared from immediate death” because they were relegated in RANK to that of “beast of burden”, but instead of being “serfs”, “servants”, “slaves”, and so on, in a traditional sense, they were “spared” to become “employees”, to become “employed”, and to “fetch a wage”, to “cut out a life of their own” where “renting” on a land would be common, and being a fool who rents from a bank, and calls their “bed” their own.

The preeminence of one's parents does not go beyond the “bedrock” of the “house”. Only to children, would they have preeminence, and when the observable “world” becomes bigger, and the offspring get further away from this petit chattel, they then come to see that their “parents” were mere replicants with a low status, a low RANK, a low standing in the bigger scheme of things. In that bigger scheme of things is observed that there are those who STAND OVER the parents, who TAX the parents, who compel OUTSOURCED services from the parents, and those then... who merely came before you, had no actual standing in the greater scheme of things, but were only SECURED in your life by being FAMILIAR. There is not much more to them, unless there is.

What degree of care do you have for the personality of others, and where there is a personality, does it take prius, does it take priority over that of merely being “familiar”? Would you seek out your mommy and daddy as individuals, if they were strangers? Have you sought out strangers that are like your mommy and daddy, and developed in association with them? Did you do so because of them being mere familiar replicants? Do you have any standard in your pursuit of others that is drawn from anywhere other than “what your house was like”?

Most do not, and they are simply engaged in the loop, the procession, where they are seeking to “make a home of their own” and replicate the same things that they “enjoyed” the most in the “homes”, the “nest”, the “beds” their mommies once controlled. You whimpering little tits are living lives of defeat and death, begging for Mommy's comfort, remembered in things such as beds, rooms, “blankies”, and toys that remind you of the “good oh days” when you were a babe looking for a tit to suck, where the only price for being able to do so was the price of “truckling”, the price of giving up, and submitting tamely to that of holding mostly a mommy in the position of “preeminence”, and a daddy often more than not in a position of servitude, as he would have been the clear and obvious beast of burden of the “house”.

What motivated your mommy to be your mommy was this feeling and need she had for “preeminence”. Having a child was the only step in the procession that could do that for her, and if you are a female too, this will be the pull nature has on you. To feel preeminence, you would need to bear a child. It can be said that this is the process.

For the daddy, there is the process as well; however, it manifests in a different way. The daddy does not get preeminence like the mommy; the daddy, who will be secondary to the offspring, if they spend a lot of time with the offspring, but equal or less to the mommy, would not have relational preeminence, though of course they will have rank that is higher than the offspring. In many ways, the daddy, if there is a mommy, is a secondary mommy to the young, that they can play with, in the way mommy plays with them. Daddies often become play toys, with the young, if they are around, because more often than not, the young follow the procession of the mommy, and to her, the daddy is indeed a plaything, a “Provider” and rarely ever truly seen as a “Protector”.

A mommy does not need a daddy to be a Protector; mommies are agents of the state, and the state offers them protection. It's the trade the state makes, because mommies, more than daddies, bring about the truckled, those never having to “give up” nor to “submit tamely”, because they have already done this for the preeminence of mommy. Male or female, they have been emasculated, and daddy too is emasculated, and because of this, in domestication... they can certainly be on the same page... because it's mommy's page.

All the mommies of domestication have taught you that they are, and have always been OPPRESSED, and they are VICTIMS, and they are FRAGILE, and YOU, male or female, need to take their “hearts”, their “emotions” into consideration in all you do, so as not to “HURT” them, and to all this... You have likely “given up” and “submitted to” without question, as the stooge of the mommy in the house and the mommies in the schools.

In 1997, I was 17 years old and shipped out to Fort Benning Georgia to the “Home of the Infantry” or “School of the Infantry”, whichever it was. Drill Sergeant Yates, a black fella, who I think was native to the South, would scream out “Mommy... I want my Mommy!”, in regards to the whimpering attitudes and displeasure of the males, as infantry only had males those days. He never screamed out “Daddy... I want my Daddy!” in his jest. Why would he?

Back in the days, for males, daddies were often a bit tough on them, with expectations, and when the rest of the world was emasculating their daddies, trying to get rid of this demand for competency, Mommy was never resisting, but echoing, by being that one the “boy” could run to, and do as Mommy does, and complain and show their displeasure for demand in performance. Mommy of course was the source of that, because not much demand is ever allowed to be placed on the performance of a female. Where do you think all this deference came from?

The deference that females have in human societies, in an exaggerated form in over domesticated societies, is born out of the preeminence that human males and females are submitted under, when they are whimpering little tits, bonded to the tits of mommies.

Nature began this process, and it applies to the female side of being Humanus, not to the male side; and because of that, the males only appearing with preeminence and only in systems, males are, by nature's decree, sacrificial, secondary, and utility based. Once they have seeded, the young come through and to her to establish this rank system on the procession. Males will then seek out systems where they can precede not their young, but that of other males, often who are new to the system. They will treat this new male as a “wish he was my son”, because at home, his “son” is under the preeminence of his mommy, and does not need to respect or listen to him, and won't, because the daddy does not have this preeminence. When he does listen, he will then have disgust, and disdain for the daddy, for making him do so... and Mommy will agree, he should not have been so pressured, because Mommy can only see how she would feel if she was so pressured, which is but a foreign thing to her nature to have occur.

The most healthy thing right now for DOMESTICATED folk who were meant to be NOMADS is a separation of the sexes, in arenas that require decision making. Males and females should not be making decisions that impact the lives of others, without their explicit consent and collaboration. Males should not be telling females how to be, and females most certainly should not be telling males how to be... and ALL THE MALES are being told how to be based entirely on the preeminence nature has given females, in the procession. It is not the choice of females and males for this to be this way. This is the mechanics of nature, this is the procession, and as such, in primal conditions, where there were resource scarcity, competition, and the threat cycles, this would lead to a loop of survivability for Humanus, and cause them no harm. They would all huddle in a mediocre animal existence and repeat for hundreds of thousands of years, as they were already doing, before the Advent of the Nomad, who enhanced their potency on this planet, through the outward “taming” of the conditions, through collaboration with other kinds, put forth towards that of definable and deliberate missions. None of this is common in Humanus, and the ills of society are all because of Humanus making decisions for, and controlling the lives of others, in domestication, guided by agreements of rank and control, and not missions, objectives, and certainly not self ownership.

One would think this is me blaming female Humanus. This is not. I am expounding on the mechanics, and a Humanus is a Humanus, because it can not go against, it can not prevent, and it can not take Control over these mechanics. It is not to then say, the Humanus is the one that needs to change, should be expected to change, should be required to change. The Humanus of Min can not undergo these changes. It is the Vir, and/or would-be Vir that needs to bring about these changes, NOT in the lives of others, for them, or over them... but in their own life, for and over themselves.

This is the nature of Access Denied. It is the nature of discovering these mechanics; not to think oneself a victim. Victimhood is for whimpering little tits of mental midgetry. It is for the would-be Vir to take Control over their conditions, and remove from them the variables that impede acquisition of advantage. The variable of precedence as the means to establish rank is an impediment. The variable of familiarity to establish association is an impediment.

Precedence has been shown to be about the ingredient of preeminence; that this is what is established in precedence, and this is a natural procession.

Etymology of Procession (n.)

late Old English, “set of persons walking or riding formally or with ceremonious solemnity; a religious procession; the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem,” from Old French procession “procession” (religious or secular), 11c., and directly from Late Latin processionem (nominative processio) “religious procession,” in classical Latin “a marching onward, a going forward, advance,” noun of action from past-participle stem of procedere (see proceed). Meaning “act of issuing forth” from anything is late 14c. Related: Processionary.

The process of nature is the unrecognized religion of Humanus. They worship their mommies, when they are infants, and they worship mommy replacements in wives and girlfriends, when they move past puberty. The Humanus male is never without a mommy, as that role becomes religiously filled, with all the females in their lives. Religiously so, because nothing is more sacred to a Humanus male than the attention and the access, the approval of a female.

It shows the rank of the Humanus in the greater scope of things. In the realm of competence, skills, proficiencies, and masteries, the Humanus worships the sex that produces the least amount of candidates for this criteria. With this criteria, there has been, and will always be far more males meeting it, but this is not to be mistaken for the ingredient and the element that is primary.

It is not male here that then should have preeminence. This is what male mental midgets would conclude. They would think they ought to lead, because they are male. They would think they Reason, and Reason well or better than the females, because they are male.

This is the mark of a mental midget, and it violates the well Reasoned sense of individuality. Surely, there is a female, at least one, that can Reason better than a male. There are many who can, but of those many females who Reason well, there is certainly a male who will Reason better than them. It is not certain that for every male that Reasons well, there is a female who Reasons better. That, history and observation show is improbable to be the case.

Just like in any physical challenge, a female could be elite and greater than the majority of males, but she would not be able to stand unchallenged, and above an elite physical male. In the realm of the ELITE, it has been, and is likely always to be that an elite male will surpass an elite female, in areas of physical performance, and in areas of mental performance.

I do not concern myself with the level of performance of the commons. I am a “mental elite”, and physically, I am well above average, and entry level physical elite. This notion of physical elite is more diverse in modern, domestic conditions, because there are those who can be called dedicated athletes, and I am not one of those, by any standard. I have the natural talents and natural abilities, to where if I was a dedicated athlete I would certainly be elite in whatever athletic field I aimed at.

When I was “martial” in role, I was in a “martial elite” physique, and capacity. At age 43, I have not taken a hit physically, but compared to others in the same age range, and younger, I am still far more fit and capable than the majority.

However, a female who is trained and dedicated to being an elite athlete will be more elite than I would be in physicality. This is a matter of training. Not a single female would be more elite in physical abilities and performance than I would be if I was dedicated to being physically elite. This is kind of the point that I am making. Certainly, there are other males who would be more physically elite than me, even if I dedicated to this zone. That I could say this would not be the case with a female proves the point.

The differences between males and females in, and perhaps only in elite arenas are clear. Males often dedicated to their “zone”, who would be average in that zone, are often more able and better than females in the same zone, who are elite in their zone among, and only among females. Dedication and conditioning versus innate and natural are different here. In arenas of eliteness... nature dominates. It is not about dedication and conditioning as a primary. It is about one's natural aptitude, then combined with one's dedication and focus.

One who is not naturally equipped in the elite sense could dedicate and focus greater than others naturally inclined, and must, but still, simply fall short for not having the talents, and/or the innate material needed when competition with others is the point. For me, I am not competitive with others. This was never a part of my nature. Had it been, it is highly likely I would have pursued a career as a professional and competitive fighter, and had I dedicated myself to that route, which I did not, I would have a name known to most by now. Lacking in this desire, and/or need of competition, which I believe is born out of insecurity and fear, meant there was no reason internally to motivate me to be competitive with others, as the framework to then use to determine my “worth” or my value.

In my interactions with the “world” of “fight”, I have observed MOST―but not ALL―of the males were insecure, fearful, anxious, and confused about their value among others, their rank, their status, and their point and purpose; and therefore, they were entering systems that if they worked hard at it, could tell them where they rank, and where they fit, and make their existence more clear.

Fighters, I have observed, are often very lost, and they have a great deal of energy, and want to express it, but do not know where or how. Entering systems is based on precedence and preeminence. When a male enters a system, this is what they are hoping to find. They are hoping, work or “play” to find something that could make their rank clear, and their sense of rank is not limited to the home, and is more complex than the sense of rank a female would have.

For the male, his rank is based on the gang, the tribe, the clan, the nation-state, and often correlated with dealing with others as the mark for competency. A male's sense of rank requires an opponent.

This is not a requirement of the Vir, and/or that of my Kind. A Vir does not have a sense of rank.

Rank is a collectivist manifestation in thought and agreement. The need for such, the fight for such, and then that of competition shows―unless for “play” which is rare―the individual is in need of RANK for the sense of purpose in life. And among Humanus, this never works. Satisfaction does not come with RANK among Humanus males.

Only human females will have a short sense of satisfaction in their sense of preeminence. It is short, because Humanus can never feel sustained satisfaction. Humanus is innately dissatisfied, as the driving force for their competition over resources, as heterotrophs. Because of this, the more dissatisfied the Min, the more it will chase a form of preeminence where it could, and direct as much of its mind and energy towards the targets and their ranks.

For motherhood, this is manifested in the targeting of offspring for affection. When the mommy does this, she is expressing preeminence among the young, and the “Jesus” narrative, or the “religious narrative” is liken to how “Mother Mary” became. “Mother Mary” had preeminence for one “reason”... She gave birth to someone called the “Son of God” and only that. She did not have any other mark of preeminence and that was all the mental midgets needed.

Mommies, because they are often more settled than not, when they have offspring, and they are out of the “sexual market”, supposedly, would then take up the appearance of having “grown up” and become “responsible”. If they were “whoring” about, that is, using their sex for attention, and access to others, previously... they would stop it, because this would be “unsafe” behavior in the procession now of being “motherly”. Now that they have this “target” of their affection, they need to keep the “target” secure to be targeted. Mommy has something far more valuable to her than the attention of a male, which by then she has experienced is feeble, and too easy to attain to value much. Now, she has a DEFAULT WORSHIPER, and she gets to be “Mother Mary”, and to her, make no mistake... Jesus is a mere myth, but her child, who she will in turn worship, has far more preeminence in her mind than the “Son Of God”. Make no mistake... None of the Humanus worship Gods, and God-men; they WORSHIP each other. Humanus can only worship Humanus, and this is why I say... ALL HUMANUS are SLAVERS, and SLAVES.

A CHILD will, and can only WORSHIP its MOTHER, and does not, or rarely ever will or could WORSHIP its daddy, but if any had a FATHER, one who bestowed Patterns, they would not be limited to this feebleness of worship. Mommy is the worshiped entity among Humanus, and that is why they would prefer Goddess symbols over God symbols, call the Earth a mommy, not a daddy, and when things get secure and comfortable in appearance, place all their mommies in the positions of Control of settlements.

This of course becomes short-lived, as the opponent who has not done this so foolishly would then swoop in and take from all the mommies, and then subjugate them once again, because mommies are too blind in the worship that leads to deference to realize they are not naturally inclined to Provide and Protect, and in the absence of these natures, and those talented in them, being expressed in them... opponents and takers would come and take with ease. This is the future of the Humanus in domestication that surround me in their ineptitudes. They do not have talented Providers and Protectors at the head of their civilization; they have inept mommies, and their effeminate sons running amok, playing make-believe, wearing costumes and ranks of presumed power, that rest upon castles built in sand.

This observation of the Humanus and my take on them, and expoundings are not being carried out to say, they ought to have a different way and direction. It is not them I am ever speaking to. However, there are those among them with talents of Provision and Protection, who should stop truckling, who should stop “giving up”, and “submitting tamely”. It's perhaps the right condition to make a clear separation and let them fend for themselves. But those of you servile in these ways can not, because as I have said, you have too many Goddesses in your heads, and you worship inept idols.

And this is the key. My measurement and statement is that among the sexes, Humanus worships the one that produces the least amount of elite, if there are standards based on skill, proficiency, competency, and mastery. Sex should not be the factor; however, Humanus should not say or think this, while betraying it, and having sex of the individual being so strong in determining expectations. One who is Humanus only says sex should not matter when they are trying to enforce deference for one sex: the female sex among Humanus.

The sex of the male matters, when you throw him at the enemy to “die for his country”. The sex of the male matters, when you tell him he has “toxic masculinity”. The sex of the male matters, when it comes to working risky jobs, in risky conditions, and the female life matters more than the male life. All lives do not matter to the Humanus, but certainly all female lives have preeminence to the Humanus, including―if not even more so―to its servile and truckled males, all sleeping in a bed that is in a burning house, too comfortable and doped up on oxytocin to think they ought to spring into action, and abandon the burning house.

The US of A has a drug addiction problem because almost all of its offspring were doped up on oxytocin from the start, and moved by dopamine from the start, and mommy was their drug pusher, while she was getting high off of them as default worshipers, and all of you are too doped up to have even thought of this possible sense of the “procession”.

Brave New World, that classical literary piece, required externally driven opiates, if I am not mistaken. But the Defeated Present World, that of the domestic US of A... had the opiods truly built in already, and activated upon with an over “loving” bonobo Humanus procession. Be not surprised why the bulk of Humanus who know of “chimps” praise the bonobos. They are praising themselves.

Part II

The Battle of Access

On this page

Chapter 1

Compulsory and Voluntary Associations

Etymology of Proclivity

Proclivous (1730) “tending, sloping” seems to have been a mere dictionary word for most of its existence, though it began to acquire some technical senses after c. 1890.

Burton's Legal Thesaurus. William C. Burton. 2006

The six base emotions

Note

Diffidence

(governed by universal fears of the five)

Anxiety

(which begets concern, and the demand for, and production of CARE)

Repugnance

(That of REACTIONARY fighting. That of UNDERMINING fight. That of SUBVERSIVE fight, that of resisting others, from feelings of resistance void of meaning)

Disgust

(expressive distaste, displeasure, REPUGNANCE made Active in expression.)

Despair

(having that of roots in spar, energetic advancement and success, with this being “WITHOUT” as a state of despair.

Having no ADVANCEMENTS.)

Surprise

is changed to FAVORED UNCERTAINTY,

versus CURIOSITY, that of EXCITED in learning and knowing.

ENJOYMENT

is changed to “ENTERTAINMENT” as an emotion, having ENTERTAINMENT in AMUSEMENT, or in SEDUCTION, with its elements of ESCAPISM, versus that of ENTERTAINMENT in ADVANCEMENT, through SKILLS and COMPETENCE, towards CONTROL and COMMAND.

​

END OF NOTE.

Motives and primal codes behind the Children of Ineptitude's associations

Note

Control, more so than actual Command. They are not the same. A COMMAND is far more demanding, and rarely is it had. But the terms are used in regards to the AIM.

Chapter 2

Motivations Behind “Plays” Towards Access

Etymology of Seduction (n.)

On motives and impulses

Etymology of Play (v.)

Note

Deference Synonyms: bashfulness, diffidence, humility, modesty, self-distrust, self-forgetfulness, shyness, unobtrusiveness, unostentatiousness Antonyms: conceit, egoism, egotism, self-assertion, self-conceit, self-confidence, self-consciousness, self-esteem, vanity

Etymology of Diffidence (n.)

“Diffidence is a defect: it is an undue distrust of self, with fear of being censured for failure, tending to unfit one for duty.” [Century Dictionary]

Etymology of Trust (n.)

Definition of Integrity

Noun

Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

The state of being wholesome; unimpaired.

The quality or condition of being complete; pure.

(cryptography) With regards to data encryption, ensuring that information is not altered by unauthorized persons in a way that is not detectable by authorized users.

(aviation) The ability of a system to provide timely warnings to users when they should not be used for navigation.

Derived terms

* integrous (very rare)

Synonyms

(Synonyms) * honesty * uprightness * rectitude * unity

* wholeness * purity * goodness

* probity * sincerity * virtue * decency

Definition of Veracity

Noun

(uncountable) Truthfulness.

(countable) Something that is true.

(uncountable) Accuracy or precision.

Act of being exact and accurate.

Correctness and carefulness in one's plan of action.

Related terms

* veracious * verifiable * verification * verify * veritable

* verity

Precedence and familiarity, here one starts

Continue to Chapter 3

Deference
Synonyms:
bashfulness, diffidence, humility, modesty, self-distrust, self-forgetfulness, shyness, unobtrusiveness, unostentatiousness

Antonyms:
conceit, egoism, egotism, self-assertion, self-conceit, self-confidence, self-consciousness, self-esteem, vanity