SECTION II
The Way of the Vir
CHAPTER 3
The Name of my Ancestors
In the Avestan language, there has been a preservation of a “phonetic combination” or term uttered Vehrka. Now, this can be spelled Verka, Virka, or Verhkha, and so on. It is not the “English” or Latinized spelling that Patterns in any importance, but instead, it is the phonetics.
Over time, the Kha/Ka/Khe component would be dropped from the utterance, and only the Vi, the Vi Re, the Vir component preserved.
In Avestan, the preservation has Vehrka as “wolf”.
In Latin, the preservation has Vir as synonymous with “man”.
Academics do not likely have these two terms connected. In Proto-Indo-European, the notion would be presumed that Vir comes from Wer, like you would then later find it combined with “wolf”, as wer-wulf. A “man wolf”.
Etymology of *wi-ro-
*wī-ro-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “man.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit virah, Avestan vira-, Latin vir, Lithuanian vyras, Old Irish fer, Welsh gwr, Gothic wair, Old English wer “a man.”
It forms all or part of: curia; Fergus; triumvir; triumvirate; Weltanschauung; Weltschmerz; werewolf; wergeld; world; virago; virile; virility; virtue; virtuosity; virtuoso; virtuous.
Throughout the development of languages derived from “Proto-Indo-European” supposed phonetics, often, the connection to some degree remained with Vir as supposed as “man”, connected to that of the “wolf”, or the “canine”.
It is within the etymology of “wolf” that one would find the “Avestan” term Vehrka.
Etymology of wolf (n.)
Old English wulf “wolf, wolfish person, devil,” from Proto-Germanic *wulfaz (source also of Old Saxon wulf, Old Norse ulfr, Old Frisian, Dutch, Old High German, German wolf, Gothic wulfs), from PIE root *wlkwo- “wolf” (source also of Sanskrit vrkas, Avestan vehrka-; Albanian ul'k; Old Church Slavonic vluku; Russian volcica; Lithuanian vilkas “wolf;” Old Persian Varkana- “Hyrcania,” district southeast of the Caspian Sea, literally “wolf-land;” probably also Greek lykos, Latin lupus).
This manne can litle skyl ... to saue himself harmlesse from the perilous accidentes of this world, keping ye wulf from the doore (as they cal it). [“The Institution of a Gentleman,” 1555]
Probably extinct in England from the end of the 15th century; in Scotland from the early 18th. Wolves as a symbol of lust are ancient, such as Roman slang lupa “whore,“ literally “she-wolf” (preserved in Spanish loba, Italian lupa, French louve). The equation of “wolf” and “prostitute, sexually voracious female” persisted into 12c., but by Elizabethan times wolves had become primarily symbolic of male lust. The specific use of wolf for “sexually aggressive male” first recorded 1847; wolf-whistle attested by 1945, American English, at first associated with sailors. The image of a wolf in sheep's skin is attested from c. 1400. See here for a discussion of “wolf” in Indo-European history. The wolf-spider so called for prowling and leaping on its prey rather than waiting in a web.
from PIE root *wlkwo- “wolf” (source also of Sanskrit vrkas, Avestan vehrka-; Albanian ul'k; Old Church Slavonic vluku; Russian volcica; Lithuanian vilkas “wolf;” Old Persian Varkana- “Hyrcania,” district southeast of the Caspian Sea, literally “wolf-land;”
Varkana was called Vehrkana. Though, it would be thought of as the “Land of the Wolf” looking back, this is an error. It was the land last lived upon, and active, for those who were called “The Vehrka”. The two phonetics would become separated later, with Vir for man, and Ka, Kwa, Kwe for “wolf” and/or “dog”, the “canine”.
Etymology of canine (n.)
late 14c., “a pointed tooth,” from Latin caninus “of the dog,” genitive of canis “dog” (source of Italian cane, French chien), from PIE root *kwon- “dog.” The meaning “a dog” is first recorded 1869.
In the kwon etymology, it can be seen that Ka, at the end of the term, was often the “canine” component.
Etymology of *kwon-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “dog.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit svan-, Avestan spa, Greek kyōn, Latin canis, Old English hund, Old High German hunt, Old Irish cu, Welsh ci, Russian sobaka (apparently from an Iranian source such as Median spaka), Armenian shun, Lithuanian šuo “dog.”
It forms all or part of: canaille; canary; canicular; canid; canine; chenille; corgi; cynic; cynical; cynosure; dachshund; hound; kennel; Procyon; quinsy.
The phonetics Vir, and Ka, did not mean what they would become reduced to.
Pre-Babylonian phonetics have been lost. What is thought of today, is thought of from being the “future” of the use of all these phonetics. Meaning, one has to look back through all the filters of language that have been added since. There is no direct access to writings or accounts of the pre-Babylonian stages of the language. After the languages were made diverse and broken up, what remains is Babel.
There were three stages of “Individual” essence:
Mi
Se
Vi
Mi is the Sense of Self that is born out of the phonetics uttered Ma. The Ma phonetics represents what is called “Mater forces”, or that is the “material forces”; and these are mostly around “mating”.
Ma, to Mater, to Material.
Se has the added subcategory of Pa.
For Humanus, this means Mi, Se, Pa.
But the Pa Sense of Self becomes an attraction to that of “Patterns” over that of “matters”. Meaning, when a Humanus becomes primarily focused on “Patterns” over breeding or mating, this begets a new cognitive kind, I call the “Manus”.
But the Pa is an attraction, not a primary, urge based compulsion. Urge based, like Mi, is that of the category Se. Se is the root of “Self”, but “Self” is Se, Le, Fe. It's not the same. But Se does not exist on its own like Mi, and Me, and My still do. Mi, Me, My... are all centered around Ma. Ma is a force that serves UT, as it is phonetically a part of “uterus”. So Ma is all about propagation, and replication of the species.
Manu, habitualized in “Patterns”, would eventually give rise to a new cognitive kind, that has “Patterns” automatically correlated in their thought process, not as a mere attraction... but a compulsion. Compulsion in patternization, begets the mental energy of Vi.
Following the A, E, I, O, U, Y combinations, the first letter of the phonetics represents an ancient category of energetics.
Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My
Sa, Se, Si, So, Su, Sy
Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu, Py
Ka, Ke, Ki, Ko, Ku, Ky
Va, Ve, Vi, Vo, Vu, Vy
Ra, Re, Ri, Ro, Ru, Ry
Ua, Ue, Ui, Uo, Uu, Uy
Ta, Te, Ti, To, Tu, Ty
Da, De, Di, Do, Du, Dy
Ut is Ua, Te.
Utus and Itus is the way or Prime Directive of Ua. Ua is the primary force of “replication” that all living things are governed by. My Kind did not call this a “God” or a “Goddess” and personify it. They referred to these from the phonetics of:
Fa, Fe, Fi, Fo, Fu, Fy
Ra, Re, Ri, Ro, Ru, Ry
Ka, Ke, Ki, Ko, Ku, Ky
From this comes “Force”.
Fa is “power” and/or “ability”, in the essential sense; but it's more complex than that explanation.
Ra is light, seeing, aware of, motion, and stimulation.
Ka is alertness, awake, Vigilant, action, focus, attention, and intent directed.
Etymology of force (n.)
c. 1300, “physical strength,” from Old French force “force, strength; courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fortia (source also of Old Spanish forzo, Spanish fuerza, Italian forza), noun use of neuter plural of Latin fortis “strong, mighty; firm, steadfast; brave, bold” (see fort).
Meanings “power to convince the mind” and “power exerted against will or consent” are from mid-14c. Meaning “body of armed men, a military organization” first recorded late 14c. (also in Old French). Physics sense is from 1660s; force field attested by 1920. Related: Forces.
Etymology of radius (n.)
1590s, “cross-shaft, straight rod or bar,” from Latin radius “staff, stake, rod; spoke of a wheel; ray of light, beam of light; radius of a circle,” a word of unknown origin. Perhaps related to radix “root,” but de Vaan finds that “unlikely.” The classical plural is radii.
The geometric sense of “straight line drawn from the center of a circle to the circumference” is recorded from 1650s. Meaning “circular area of defined distance around some place” is attested from 1853. As the name of the shorter of the two bones of the forearm from 1610s in English (the Latin word had been used thus by the Romans).
Etymology of com-
word-forming element usually meaning “with, together,” from Latin com, archaic form of classical Latin cum “together, together with, in combination,” from PIE *kom- “beside, near, by, with” (compare Old English ge-, German ge-). The prefix in Latin sometimes was used as an intensive.
Before vowels and aspirates, it is reduced to co-; before -g-, it is assimilated to cog- or con-; before -l-, assimilated to col-; before -r-, assimilated to cor-; before -c-, -d-, -j-, -n-, -q-, -s-, -t-, and -v-, it is assimilated to con-, which was so frequent that it often was used as the normal form.
Etymology of *dhe-
*dhē-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to set, put.”
In this etymology, the true sense of “force” can be deduced:
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit dadhati “puts, places;” Avestan dadaiti “he puts;” Old Persian ada “he made;” Hittite dai- “to place;” Greek tithenai “to put, set, place;” Latin facere “to make, do; perform; bring about;” Lithuanian dėti “to put;” Polish dziać się “to be happening;” Russian delat' “to do;” Old High German tuon, German tun, Old English don “to do.”
To “bring about”, to “perform”, Latin facere still preserves original phonetics.
Ua is that which brings about the energetics of replication. It is the force of replication. It is not the “Architect” to my Ancestors, but it is a primary mechanics of the “material Architecture”. It is so primary, that all other forces are stimulated in subjugation to it. Everything that is life, is consumption for replication.
In modern terms, I write the expression “Nature's Prime Directive”. Nature is the “Material Realm”. The Material Realm is governed by the force Ua. How it comes to manifest within mammals is through forces of the “womb”, and this is the “passage” or the “way” thereof, its representation. This is of the Ta, Te, Ti, To, Tu, Ty force, in that of “through” or “accordingly manifest”, or “by way of”. By way of the womb is Ua, Te. This is reduced to Ut. The governing forces around the womb of the animal, and that of offspring being replicants, passing through the womb. The womb is Ma-Te-Re-Al.
This became individualized as Ma-te-ri-ke(ce) and to be pronounced as “matrix”.
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.
The actual matrix, not the fictional matrix, is a “set of Forces” that are programmed into the attributes and traits of beings, forming their “Identity”, when conceptualized. This, I call the “Architecture”, the design of all things, with their general forms, and specific forms; genus and species.
An Architecture would imply an “Architect”. Some, or many, call this possibility a “Creator”, and that which “is”, that of the “Creation”. “Creator” and “Creation” are not a part of my lexicon. However, “Architect” and “Architecture” are. The difference is that an architect uses material already in existence, and augments and arranges. So then, the presence of “Architecture” does not imply the “Architect” is the “Creator” of the material used in the “Architecture”.
Beyond this level of speculation, the ultimate “Cause of things” is not contemplated, because all things perceivable, and then used to conceive of... go through the material senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.
Due to this, what greater “Cause” of all things is not conceivable. “Unfathomable” is often a term used for this. The limits of Reasoning by a method are clear. One, so long as embodied in these present “forms”, can only use data that has been acquired through its senses. There is then that of knowledge concerning the “corporeal realm”, or the realm of bodies and things, but then, there is that form of knowledge that is correlated to “dialectics” or “Reasoning models”. Because of this, I break evidence up into two linguistical categories:
-
Material and/or Physical Evidence
-
Reasoned, and/or Dialectical Evidence
The most evident of things, are things the senses can grab hold of as present. However, once there is any thought concerning the “Identity” of a thing, and its function... “reasoning”, or rather, “accounting” begins to take place. This operation from discernment can easily become a problem, if one's faculty of discernment is not well tuned. But that is for elsewhere.
The name of my Ancestors is from the phonetics in which they dealt with. Meaning, they named, or titled themselves, but their original language would become mangled by the “Magi” — who would later come to rule over the minds of those responsible for the roots of present civilization, and its ties to the past.
Vehrka would become “wolf” in “Avestan”, and the Ka would be preserved in association with the dog, later, and Vir in association with the man. The name, then, can easily be seen, phonetically, to seem to mean Vir (man) Ka (dog). It has a resemblance to “werewolf”.
However, this is NOT, I say again... NOT... correct.
The reason the wolf became connected with Vehrka is because my Ancestors had, by then, a tradition of all of its “members” of “Min” being “coupled” with a wolflike being, through the multiple stages of their life.
At age seven, all Vehrka were tasked with the cultivation of a collaboration, with the kinship of a wolflike entity that no longer walks this Earth. It is not the “wolves” as they are known now, and that of their ancestors, but was another species of animal, that would have been of the canine branch; but this species was targeted and wiped out by the “Magus”... or early Magi, that were “sramana”, or “shaman”.
However, for the sake of this expounding, I will use the term “wolf” to capture the notion of what they were. However, out of this species of canine, there were often some of them being of great size, they could be mounted, and others of such small size... they would be near the size of cats. My Ancestors called themselves and this “wolf” species, “Vehrka”. They did not have a name for themselves that was separate from the name of their companion canines.
The existence and the survival of my Ancestors was dependent upon these “canines”. Coming to have mutualism with them was the key to both their survival, given the harsh conditions they were experiencing in Northern regions, near to what would be termed “Central Asia” later, and the “Altair Mountainous Regions”.
By time the term Vehrka would be known to others, in the region, the original canine species was already wiped out, and the “wolves” as they are known now were being cooperated in the same manner. The Vehrka are the source of mutualism that would occur with “Min” and “wolf” that would lead to the “dog”. However, Vehrka would not be the only and final determining kind to work with the canine, but it is from the “shaman”, the “Magus”, that the lesser and weaker breeds would come about. Magus, or shamans, pacify and weaken all things. They “effeminize” all things with innate strength.
When “foreigners” would hear the Vehrka communicate with their canine companions, they would hear them get its attention with the phonetics Ka. In Vehrka language, verbal... Ka was one of the first phonetics ever used. It was a “call to attention” force. Like how in English one might say, “be ready to receive instructions”. Or, “instructions are to follow”. Ka was the “wake up” term. One might say these days, in English... “So”... and then, something follows. “So, yesterday, I went to such and such”. Ka was this instigative phonetics, and it began as the first phonetics ever spoken of with repetition by the Vehrka.
Prior to the “collaboration” with the “wolf”, there was grunting without signification. But one of our Ancestors began to repeat Ka with the “canine”, to get its attention, and ready it for nonverbal communication.
Eventually, in the absence of the “canine companion”, this ancestor said to its own “Mind”... Ka... to “call” it to “attention”.
Etymology of call (v.)
mid-13c., “cry out; call for, summon, invoke; ask for, demand, order; give a name to, apply by way of designation,” from Old Norse kalla “cry loudly, summon in a loud voice; name, call by name,” from Proto-Germanic *kall- (source also of Middle Dutch kallen “speak, say, tell,” Dutch kallen “to talk, chatter,” Old High German kallon “speak loudly, call”), from PIE root *gal- “to call, shout.” Related: Called; calling.
Old English cognate ceallian “to shout, utter in a loud voice” was rare, the usual word being clipian (source of Middle English clepe, yclept). Old English also had hropan hruofan, cognate of German rufen.
The “heads-or-tails” coin-toss sense is from 1801; the card-playing sense “demand that the hands be shown” is from 1670s; the specific poker sense of “match or raise a bet” is by 1889. The meaning “make a short stop or visit” (Middle English) was literally “stand at the door and call.” The “attempt a telephone connection with” sense is from 1882.
To call for “demand, require” is from 1530s (earlier in this sense was call after, c. 1400). To call (something) back “revoke” is from 1550s. To call (something) off “cancel” is by 1888; earlier call off meant “summon away, divert” (1630s). To call (someone) names is from 1590s. To call out someone to fight (1823) corresponds to French provoquer. To call it a night “go to bed” is from 1919.
Ka, La
Ka, Ke, Ki, Ko, Ku, Ky
These phonetics were “energetic calls” out to the “condition”.
Etymology of condition (n.)
mid-14c., condicioun, “particular mode of being of a person or thing,” also “a requisite or prerequisite, a stipulation,” from Old French condicion “stipulation; state; behavior; social status” (12c., Modern French condition), from Medieval Latin conditionem (nominative conditio), properly condicio “agreement; stipulation; the external position, situation, rank, place, circumstances” of persons, “situation, condition, nature, manner” of things, from condicere “to speak with, talk together, agree upon,” in Late Latin “consent, assent,” from assimilated form of com “together” (see con-) + dicere “to speak” (from PIE root *deik- “to show,” also “pronounce solemnly”).
Classical Latin condicio was confused in Late Latin with conditio “a making,” from conditus, past participle of condere “to put together.” The sense evolution in Latin apparently was from “stipulation” to “situation, mode of being.”
Meaning “rank or state with respect to ordered society” is from late 14c. in English. From the notion of “prerequisite” comes the sense of “a restricting or limiting circumstance” (late 14c.). Also in Middle English “personal character, disposition” (mid-14c.).
Di, Ke, Re
The Ke being altered to Ce, with the C being Ua altered. The K was a V, sideways with a line, a base of operation. The V is also a 45-degree angle, or oblique angle. C is liken to the U, is open for penetration. Now, to an academic, and modern mind, one would say... this is not the history of the Phoenician alphabet, that would later be used in the Latin world, and that of English. I will not seek to make sense of this, at this level.
But changing the K, to a C, has deeper meaning and roots to it. Just like the letters G and H represent a specific presence of a people, the HaMa, and the Maga, Magus. The Hu people, the He people, the Ha People... the ones who gave rise to the name “Humanus” for that of the species. Humanus, as the root of “human”, is not a simple set of phonetics. But to be human is to be subject to the Hu people.
The Hu people would become named many things, throughout recorded history. They were shamans, sramana, Harya, the Hu Ma, the nearer Brahmin, and today, academics... media... and politicians. They are those who believe they are entitled to control and manage the lives of others, for exploitation of materials, to sustain and further the interest of their “own”. They believe they are “chosen”, for whatever reason they “manufacture” to justify coercion, force, and manipulation to sustain their “governance” over that of others.
When it is said, a Proto-Indo-European root has the g component, this is what they have altered, as academics in modern times, to bring forth their own, as at the root. This is incorrect. G is a warning letter, like in “Vigor”, and “Vigilance”. Vigor is defensive energy, versus Vitality. Vigilance is defensive awareness, versus the affirmative Valiance. The presence of the g is that of showing “because of what”. The Ha, the He, the Ho, the Ga, the Ge, the Go.
This CONDITION is prehistory, and though it has been preserved “ESOTERICALLY” as “ESOTERIC”, you will never have had, nor ever have access to the “source material” to the degree to call such things “written and/or physical evidence”, by the degree of “academic”, that is “Magus” standards.
Therefore, one can easily, and simply... just consider that this is “one Man” telling his own “personal account” of his “Ancestors”, making use of “esoteric” and “oral traditions” for which he shall be the sole “Authority” upon. One can even consider this the “fancy” of a single individual, and have no reason to call it “fact”. But this is arrogance. For everything you have thought, ever thought, and will think, is from the fancy of the Magus, the Harya, the Ha people. How can I prove that?
The introduction of manipulated “democracy” by the Harya
If you are in the “American Experiment”, and other countries like it, the industrial nations, then education was compulsory. Meaning, by legal statute, your progenitors, your “parents” were required to “send you to school”. You were forced to “school”. Even if “home schooled”, your “teachers” were the “schooled minds” that were forced to school, before deviating into the “home schooling” sense of things.
Since 1850, “education”, that is “institutional rearing”, was compulsory. Those educational institutes have always been dominated by those of a certain innate temperament and set of inclinations. Prior to the modern age of mass communication, and greater levels in diversity of analysis, these shamans come Brahmins were a mystery, and not so easily identifiable. Now, however, one who is partially aware can see, those attracted to these fields, and maintaining order in them, are of the same “stock”, no matter their place of origination, or their outer appearances.
From all peoples come their “shamans”, and when they hold a position of Control and Management, Influence... they are called loosely the “voice”, the “mouth” of “Brahma”, a “Brahmin”. My use of these terms is not in reference to the Hindus, and their use of these terms. I am using them more general.
These terms were not originally connected with the Ha. The Ha hijack terms of empowerment for themselves. One of these hijacked terms was that of “aristocracy”. Originally from Arete and Arya, the Aristoi were those who pursued EXCELLENCE in ALL THEY DID. So they were called “noble temperament”. This was not about life choices. This was about one's ancestors, through habit, making easy and compulsory, in the nature of theirs, this pursuit. Conquest over mundane conditions, in favor of the most excellent of conditions, and expression.
This, then, manifested itself in martial defense against “raiders”, whom they knew well... once called the Harya. The Harya lost its “raiders” to the “Arya” movement, and change of course. The Harya, then, had no choice but to infiltrate the settlements Arya had established for “free trade”. The Arya protected these settlements, through the “Culture of Excellence” bestowed upon them by the Ancient Virya peoples. The Vehrka.
However, in the West, the Harya would adopt local titles and names, and assimilate in appearance into the “free markets”. Using the free markets, however, they would work together to buy up lands, and bring the control over the flow of goods into the hands of their collectives. Through market manipulation, they would have the “settled kinds” condemned to lives of “servitude”, often restricting access to tradesmen and their crafts to that of their own, through “unions” and “guilds”. They kept the crafting secrets from foreigners and those being born to lower castes, families. They made access hereditary.
Over time, the majority lived on lands controlled by the Ha, and through the introduction of manipulated democracy... this then meant they controlled the votes. People who depended on them for jobs, and housing, voted the way the Ha required them to. Compulsory voting.
The Ha would seek their revenge against the Arya, who no longer raided for them, have them disarmed, and all their “power” and “influence” stripped. Now, it was not the defensive forces who would “rule” over the settlements; it became the “landowners”, the Harya who would now “raid” through legislation, and covert means... through “democracy”, and controlling the minds of the masses who vote.
The old “aristocracy”, a martial class, would then be accused of causing drunken incidents, and harm to the city... disarmed, and removed from their offices of defense and well-being.
The “landowners”, the “merchants” through “democracy” grabbed Control and Influence over the populace, and kept them stupid with “spirits”, with intoxicants, and spread businesses that favored “vices” over “Virtues”.
The new aristocracy was created not through innate temperament, but based upon hereditary titles, land ownership, and marketplace controls. Then, through legalized theft, taxation, a new exploitation would occur. Now, precedence and familiarity could sustain its rule, through taking from the populi, making sure, the populi would never come together and form their own competitive collectives.
Now, the Harya, under different names, found the best form of raiding, called “government” and “civilization”, the creation of the “city-state” and “national identities”. Soon, they would raise armies of raiders once again, who were paid in gold, the solidus, being “soldiers” merely stamped out from the Shudra, the commoners, the peasants, the masses, the multitudes, and many. They would then expand as “collectives of bandits”, Daco Sangha, taking more lands to be secured for their posterity.
To the Harya, there was no greater ENEMY than the Vehrka, the Virya. Eventually, the translation that Vehrka meant WOLF was because the Harya despised “wolves”, and despised domestic dogs. In order to cope with this, they would capture strong canines, and breed them into weak and small things, able to be easily controlled and managed for emotional purposes.
This is why a modern, atavistic Vir finds little emotional “cute” and “cuddly” dogs to be a sign of weakness, and emotional fragility among its keepers. Little dog people are chumps, to my people. A canine is a war companion, and what kind one keeps near to them shows just what is in their inner Sense of Self. A fragile dog companion indicates a fragile inner Sense of Self. An inept child, looking to replace an inanimate stuffed animal, with now, an animate stuffed animal. It's COPE.
The Harya knew, if ever they met a Vehrka on the battlefield, this meant, a “Man” and a “War Canine”, once also called the “phersu” by them. 30 Harya, 60 Harya... were no match for one Vehrka, which was a “Man” individually, with a “War Canine” individually. The “Man” and the “canine” could eliminate what today is called a platoon of Harya, effeminate fighters.
In modern terms, the canine would be called a “force multiplier” for the Ancient Vir. War dogs were what their essence was built around. But the Vehrka developed an Ethos of conquest over self, not... conquest over others.
By time “history” had any notion of the “Vehrka”, they had been reduced to “surviving families” or “lineage” in trading settlements from Greek areas, all the way to Gandhara, to all the way to Western China. Settlements around strong craftsmanship, and sciences. But now, they were “ruling families”, and not a people. Spread out along the trading routes, the Virya, as they would be known, had to give guidance to once raiders of the Harya, not predisposed like their kind to conquest, but looking for “Noble Warrior expression”.
In this guidance, the H was dropped from those seeking excellence and a noble calling. They became the Arya, and the sense of Arete became developed. The Virya taught them, the most noble of conquests is conquest over self. To have this, there must be free and protected exchange of “Value”. For this, there must be a free and protected marketplace.
And the Noble Warrior calling, the only kind, was that of DEFENDING the free exchange of information and trade along these routes. The Arya were established with a Warrior Ethos to protect, and assist free trade. While the Harya took commoners, slaves, and subjects, and continued to RAID these trading routes, before they set in “refugees” to infiltrate the settlements, and take control from within.
The Harya, using freedom of access, used it against those from within, taking freedom to build out oppression, and it has been the same, ever since.
The three stages of “Individual” essence: Mi, Se, Vi
In the phonetics of the Vehrka, their “Verbiage”, there are the three kinds of Sense of Self I spoke of.
Mi, which is around Ma, and the matrix... the womb.
Se, which is that of systematic and methodical Sense of Self, individualistic in attraction...
And then:
Vi. Vee, Va, Ve, Vi, Vo, Vu, Vy
Voluntary
Vocal
Vital
Vigorous
Vigilant
Veracious
Virtuous
Valorous
Valiant
Validus
Verily
And so on. The Vi qualifier is that of an automation of excellence, not an attraction. Se has the attraction towards “systems” that can be used to advance in Control over conditions. But Se does not necessarily lead to advancement over “self”.
There are two variables to be added to a sense of these three.
There is:
-
Aversion
-
Attraction
Aversions and attractions are NOT... that of COMPULSIONS. There is a “freedom” in appearance of “CHOICE”. That “freedom” is the ability to either be in discord or Accordance. But, it is not in actuality a choice. It is a “decision” that is made based upon the Emotional Kinetics of the “individual”, and combined, their collective. The Emotional Kinetics determine aversions and attractions. Of these, one's emotional relationship to certainties, or “Knowledge”, that which is sound, and strong, thus “Valid”... determines the aversions and attractions that follow.
Attracted to Validus, or Knowledge, accuracy, and precision in certainties... leads to systematic or organizational interest. However, this “Attraction“ is often limited to conditions. When it is limited to external conditions, say, such as a profession, it is merely mechanical, and NOT... SYSTEMATIC. Attraction to systems leads to everything in one's life being “systematic”.
Etymology of system (n.)
1610s, “the whole creation, the universe,” from Late Latin systema “an arrangement, system,” from Greek systema “organized whole, a whole compounded of parts,” from stem of synistanai “to place together, organize, form in order,” from syn- “together” (see syn-) + root of histanai “cause to stand,” from PIE root *sta- “to stand, make or be firm.”
Meaning “set of correlated principles, facts, ideas, etc.” first recorded 1630s. Meaning “animal body as an organized whole, sum of the vital processes in an organism” is recorded from 1680s; hence figurative phrase to get (something) out of one's system (1900). Computer sense of “group of related programs” is recorded from 1963. All systems go (1962) is from U.S. space program. The system “prevailing social order” is from 1806.
Most who deal in “things” are not “systematic”, and to say so much of them would be arrogant. Instead, most, are lacking in “Spirit”, that is Vitality and Vigor... and therefore, their relation to things, and tools is called “mechanized” or “mechanical”.
Etymology of mechanical (adj.)
early 15c., “of or pertaining to tools and their use,” from mechanic (adj.) + -al (1). By 1570s as “of or pertaining to machines and their use.” Of persons or human actions, “resembling machines, automatic, lacking spirit or spontaneity,” from c. 1600. Scientific sense of “of or pertaining to the material forces of nature acting on inanimate bodies,” from 1620s. Related: Mechanically. Mechanical-minded is recorded from 1820.
“Systems” and “systematic” deal in “Wholeness”, not merely parts.
An attraction to being systematic is Ki to that of the Se component.
Those of the Mi component can be Me-chanical.
Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My.
Etymology of mechanic (adj.)
late 14c., of a craft or skill, “pertaining to or involving mechanical labor” (a sense now usually with mechanical), also “having to do with tools,” from Latin mechanicus “of or belonging to machines or mechanics; inventive,” from Greek mēkhanikos “full of resources, inventive, ingenious,” literally “mechanical, pertaining to machines,” from mēkhanē “device, tool” (see machine (n.)). Meaning “of the nature of or pertaining to machines” is from 1620s.
The Sa, Se, Si, So, Su, Sy
of “systematic”... has, for the most part, been falsely used.
Machines are, for the most part, the limitation of the thought of the Magus. The Magus sees machines and machinery as the source of its “abilities” over others, and solutions for things concerning its shortcomings, to which there are a lot. The Magus deals in mechanism of Control, Management, Manipulation, and Entertainment; Amusement, Seduction, and Engagement.
The MAGUS does not, and CAN NOT deal in the “Spirit”, the “Essence”, the Se of a thing. Thus, the Magus surrounded Se, with Le Fe.
To deride the Joy and Triumphant expression of the Virya, the Harya, or Magus... “laughs”.
Etymology of laugh (v.)
late 14c., from Old English (Anglian) hlæhhan, earlier hliehhan, hlihhan “to laugh, laugh at; rejoice; deride,” from Proto-Germanic *klakhjan (source also of Old Norse hlæja, Danish le, Old Frisian hlakkia, Old Saxon hlahhian, Middle Dutch and Dutch lachen, Old High German hlahhan, German lachen, Gothic hlahjan), from PIE *kleg-, of imitative origin (compare Latin cachinnare “to laugh aloud,” Sanskrit kakhati “laughs,” Old Church Slavonic chochotati “laugh,” Lithuanian klagėti “to cackle,” Greek kakhazein).
Originally with a “hard” -gh- sound, as in Scottish loch; the spelling remained after the pronunciation shifted to “-f.“
If laugh were written as it is pronounced, laaff, there would be nothing in the word itself to put us in mind of the thing signified. The imitation begins to be felt in the guttural ach of G. lachen, and is clearly indicated in the reduplicate form of the Du. lachachen, to hawhaw or laugh loud, preserved by Kilian. [Hensleigh Wedgwood, introduction to “A Dictionary of English Etymology,” 1878]
To laugh in one's sleeve is to laugh inwardly so as not to be observed:
If I coveted nowe to avenge the injuries that you have done me, I myght laughe in my slyve. [John Daus, “Sleidanes Commentaries,“ 1560]
“The phrase generally implies some degree of contempt, and is used rather of a state of feeling than of actual laughter” [Century Dictionary]. Related: Laughed; laugher; laughing.
Originally, the “cackle” or the kakhati was the joyous expression of the Warrior.
However, through mockery the laugh would be born as “irrisory”.
Etymology of irrisory (adj.)
“given to sneering or laughing derisively at others,” 1824, from Late Latin irrisorius “mocking,” from irrisor “a mocker,” from stem of Latin irridere “to laugh at, make fun of,” from assimilated form of in- “in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + ridere “to laugh” (see risible). Related: irrision (1520s), from Latin irrisionem, noun of action from the verb.
The “Rise” in which a Warrior would produce in expression was often “joyous”; was Ri De Re.
Etymology of risible (adj.)
1550s, “given to laughter,” from French risible (14c.) and directly from Late Latin risibilis “laughable, able to laugh,” from Latin risus, past participle of ridere “to laugh,” a word which, according to de Vaan, “has no good PIE etymology.” Meaning “laughable, capable of exciting laughter, comical” is by 1727. Related: Risibility.
Through “deriding”, it is the way of the Harya, the Magus, to bring things to a low statute. They seek to get things to “lie down”, versus “stand up”.
La, Le, Li, Lo, Lu, Ly.
Etymology of low (adj.)
“not high, below the usual level,” late 13c., earlier lah (late 12c.), “not rising much, being near the base or ground” (of objects or persons), also “lying on the ground or in a deep place” (late 13c.). This is not found in Old English, so the word is probably from Old Norse lagr “low, low-down, short; humble,” or a similar Scandinavian source (compare Swedish låg, Danish lav), from Proto-Germanic *lega- “lying flat, low” (source also of Old Frisian lech, Middle Dutch lage, Dutch laag “low,” dialectal German läge “flat”), from PIE root *legh- “to lie down, lay.”
In reference to sounds, “not loud,” also “having a deep pitch,” from c. 1300. Meaning “humble in rank” is from c. 1200; “undignified, not high in character” is from 1550s; meaning “coarse, vulgar” is from 1759. Sense of “dejected, dispirited” is attested from 1737. Of prices, from c. 1400. In geographical usage, low refers to the part of a country near the sea-shore (c. 1300), as in Low Countries “Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg” (1540s). Low German languages (1845) are so called for being spoken in the lower elevations of old Germany.
Abject, low, and mean may have essentially the same meaning, but low is more often used with respect to nature, condition, or rank: mean, to character or conduct: abject, to spirit. [Century Dictionary, 1897]
Low blow in the figurative sense (1940s) is from pugilism. To lie low is from mid-13c. as “get down so as not to be seen,” 1880 in the modern slang sense “keep quiet.” Low Church in 18c. English history referred to Anglicans laying little stress on church authority (1702); in 19c. it meant evangelical Anglicans.
The systematic Se, with its “standing” disposition in that of the “methodical”, is made to “lie down”, with the addition of Le. Se, Le, Fe.
Combine this sense with Fa, Le, Ne for “fallen”.
Se-Le-Fe is that of bringing the Se... into a “fallen state”, whereby it comes to “lie down” and be “compliant”.
Etymology of fall (v.)
Old English feallan (class VII strong verb; past tense feoll, past participle feallen) “to drop from a height; fail, decay, die,” from Proto-Germanic *fallanan (source also of Old Frisian falla, Old Saxon fallan, Dutch vallen, Old Norse falla, Old High German fallan, German fallen, absent in Gothic).
These are from PIE root *pol- “to fall” (source also of Armenian p'ul “downfall,” Lithuanian puolu, pulti “to fall,” Old Prussian aupallai “finds,” literally “falls upon”).
The meaning “come suddenly to the ground” is from late Old English. Of darkness, night, from c. 1600; of land sloping from 1570s; of prices from 1570s. Of empires, governments, etc., from c. 1200. Of the face or countenance from late 14c. The meaning “to be reduced” (as temperature) is from 1650s. That of “die in battle” is from 1570s. The meaning “to pass casually (into some condition)” is from early 13c.
To fall in “take place or position” is from 1751. To fall in love is attested from 1520s; to fall asleep is late 14c. (Middle English also used slide asleep, etc.). To fall down is early 13c. (a-dun follon); to fall behind is from 1856. Fall through “fail, come to nothing” is from 1781. To fall for something is from 1903.
To fall out is by mid-13c. in a literal sense; military use is from 1832. The meaning “have a disagreement, begin to quarrel” is attested from 1560s (to fall out with “quarrel with” is from late 15c.).
Those of a low status, in a “laying down”, below position, are called “the people”, or “a people”, as distinguished from “nobility”, or that is “rulership”. The “rulers” are “NOT the PEOPLE”.
Sense of “Some unspecified persons” is from c. 1300. Meaning “body of persons comprising a community” is by mid-14c. (late 13c. in Anglo-French); the meaning “common people, masses” (as distinguished from the nobility) is from late 13c. The meaning “members of one's family, tribe, or clan” is from late 14c.
Etymology of people (n.)
c. 1300, peple, “humans, persons in general, men and women,” from Anglo-French peple, people, Old French pople, peupel “people, population, crowd; mankind, humanity,” from Latin populus “a people, nation; body of citizens; a multitude, crowd, throng,” a word of unknown origin. Based on Italic cognates and derivatives such as populari “to lay waste, ravage, plunder, pillage,” Populonia, a surname of Juno, literally “she who protects against devastation,” the Proto-Italic root is said to mean “army” [de Vaan]. An Etruscan origin also has been proposed. The Latin word also is the source of Spanish pueblo, Italian popolo. In English, it displaced native folk.
Sense of “Some unspecified persons” is from c. 1300. Meaning “body of persons comprising a community” is by mid-14c. (late 13c. in Anglo-French); the meaning “common people, masses” (as distinguished from the nobility) is from late 13c. The meaning “members of one's family, tribe, or clan” is from late 14c.
The word was adopted after c. 1920 by Communist totalitarian states, according to their opponents to give a spurious sense of populism to their governments. It is based on the political sense of the word, “the whole body of enfranchised citizens (considered as the sovereign source of government power,” attested from 1640s. This also is the sense in the legal phrase The People vs., in U.S. cases of prosecution under certain laws (1801).
The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. [Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787]
People of the Book “those whose religion entails adherence to a book of divine revelation” (1834) translates Arabic Ahl al-Kitab.
Those who are born with the Se attraction to systems, methodologies, exciting advancement over conditions, are targets of the ideologies of the Magus, and thus, are often attacked with the notion of being “selfish”.
Etymology of selfish (adj.)
“caring only for self; characteristic of one who cares only or chiefly for his own personal pleasure,” 1630s, from self + -ish. It is common in Baxter and said by Bishop Hacket (“Scrinia Reserata,” 1693) to have been coined by Presbyterians. 17c. synonyms included self-seeking (1620s), self-ended (1640s, from self-end, “personal or private object”), and self-ful (1650s).
Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs. [Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene,” 1976]
Related: Selfishly; selfishness. Similar formations in German selbstisch, Swedish sjelfvisk, Danish selvisk.
Etymology of self (pron., n., adj.)
Old English self, sylf (West Saxon), seolf (Anglian), “one's own person, -self; own, personal; same, identical,” from Proto-Germanic *selbaz (source also of Old Norse sjalfr, Old Frisian self, Dutch zelf, Old High German selb, German selb, selbst, Gothic silba), Proto-Germanic *selbaz “self,” from PIE *sel-bho-, suffixed form of root *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (referring back to the subject of a sentence), also used in forms denoting the speaker's social group, “(we our-)selves” (see idiom).
Its use as the second element in compounded reflexive pronouns (herself, etc.) was in Old English, from the original independent (and inflected) use of self following personal pronouns, as in ic selfa “myself,” min selfes “of myself.” With a merging of accusative, dative, and genitive cases.
As a noun from c. 1200 as “the person or thing previously specified;” early 14c. as “a person in relation to that same person.” G.M. Hopkins used selve as a verb, “become or cause to become a unique self” (1880) but its use seems to have been restricted to poets.
Ba, Be, Bi, Bu, Bo, By
Was the phonetics to later be connected with “to awake”. This can be found in the “Sarmatian” kin of the Bhuddini, and that of the “Pali” term “Bodhi”, which is the root of “Buddha”. To “awaken”, or be “awake”.
The original combination, before “self”, was Se Le Bo. To “lay down” “centered Se”, for that of “awakened Se”. A Se that is alert, that is awake. This then also led to Se Le Vo. The vocalized, and speaking Se.
Proto-Germanic *selbaz “self,” from PIE *sel-bho-, suffixed form of root *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (referring back to the subject of a sentence), also used in forms denoting the speaker's social group, “(we our-)selves” (see idiom).
The accusation of being “selfish” is to say: “one who is unwilling to lie down the centered Se; to fall to a lower status to that of another in sacrifice, in servitude”.
Sacrifice
Servitude
Sa, Se, Si, So, Su, Sy
Decentralization of Se.
Se is to fall from, and lie down below “the center”.
Etymology of center (n.)
late 14c., “middle point of a circle; point round which something revolves,” from Old French centre (14c.), from Latin centrum “center,” originally the fixed point of the two points of a drafting compass (hence “the center of a circle”), from Greek kentron “sharp point, goad, sting of a wasp,” from kentein “stitch,” from PIE root *kent- “to prick” (source also of Breton kentr “a spur,” Welsh cethr “nail,” Old High German hantag “sharp, pointed”).
The spelling with -re was popularized in Britain by Johnson's dictionary (following Bailey's), though -er is older and was used by Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope. The meaning “the middle of anything” attested from 1590s. Figuratively, “point of concentration” (of power, etc.), from 1680s. The political use, originally in reference to France, “representatives of moderate views” (between left and right) is from 1837. Center of gravity is recorded from 1650s. Center of attention is from 1868.
To Mi, central is Ma... the matrix, the womb, that of the interest of REPLICATION of offspring. For then the female sex, it is “care” for the offspring. For the male, that is ma-le sex, it is “Provision”, and “Maintenance”, or... “Possession”. The notion of “Protection” is arrogant.
When the Se component was brought about, in some of the Min genus, it was in conflict with Ma, the original “energy”. Harsh conditions brought about Se, and adaptive genes — perhaps epigenetically — were stimulated into change. Se that needed to bring “order” to the condition, only meant there were first threats, and hardships. Hardship and adversity in condition awakened Se, the attraction to “systematic order”.
But systematic order demands a great deal of attention and energy. Ka is attentive, and vocalized energy. For those of Ma, more often, the fe-ma-le sex, “fallen to Ma, for which it lies down to”... the attention of the ma-le, the “lying down for Ma” males, was disrupted. They, the “males”, were no longer “males”. They were “selves”. Se Le Ve Se. Something else became “centered”.
Se Ka Le
Sa Ka Le
Sa Ka Re Fi Ka
SKILL!
Skill became centered, for those of the adaptive disposition of Se. They became sentenced in skill.
Etymology of skill (n.)
early 12c., “knowledge, divine wisdom;” late 12c., “power of discernment, sound judgment; that which is reasonable,” senses all now obsolete, from Old Norse skil “distinction, ability to make out, discernment, adjustment,” which is related to skilja (v.) “to separate; discern, understand,” from Proto-Germanic *skaljo- “divide, separate” (source also of Swedish skäl “reason,” Danish skjel “a separation, boundary, limit,” Middle Low German schillen “to differ,” Middle Low German, Middle Dutch schele “separation, discrimination;” from PIE root *skel- (1) “to cut”).
The sense of “practical knowledge and ability, cleverness” is recorded by early 13c.
Etymology of discernment (n.)
1580s, “keenness of intellectual perception, insight, acuteness of judgment;” see discern + -ment. From 1680s as “act of perceiving by the intellect.”
Penetration, or insight, goes to the heart of a subject, reads the inmost character, etc. Discrimination marks the differences in what it finds. Discernment combines both these ideas. [Century Dictionary]
Etymology of discern (v.)
“perceive or recognize the difference or distinction between (two or more things);” also “distinguish (an object) with the eyes, see distinctly, behold;” also “perceive rationally, understand;” late 14c., from Old French discerner (13c.) “distinguish (between), separate” (by sifting), and directly from Latin discernere “to separate, set apart, divide, distribute; distinguish, perceive,” from dis- “off, away” (see dis-) + cernere “distinguish, separate, sift” (from PIE root *krei- “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish”). Related: Discerned; discerning.
Those of
Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My are centered around the Ma, and it is centered around the Ut. Experientially, this means, the being is “Pathos”, or in the passions, the urges, the emotions, and such Kinetics drive their Sense of Life, and Sense of Self. A Sense of Self in service to the “womb”, or in their experiential sense... their “sex”. Be it female or male. Those in Ma forces... are bound to a sexual existence and identity.
Whereas those of Se disposition become “liberated” through skills, excited in the deployment of that faculty called “discernment”. Those of the Ma disposition do not favor discernment, but they are compelled by their very nature to still use it, automatically. So instead of discernment through systems, and methods... they run the automatic, and simpler program of discernment, between that of:
Familiar;
Foreign.
Etymology of familiar (adj.)
mid-14c., “intimate, very friendly, on a family footing,” from Old French famelier “related; friendly,” from Latin familiaris “domestic, private, belonging to a family, of a household;” also “familiar, intimate, friendly,” a dissimilation of *familialis, from familia (see family).
From late 14c. as “of or pertaining to one's family.” Of things, “known from long association,” from late 15c. Meaning “ordinary, usual” is from 1590s.
The noun meaning “demon, evil spirit that answers one's call” is from 1580s (familiar spirit is attested from 1560s); earlier as a noun it meant “a familiar friend” (late 14c.). The Latin plural, used as a noun, meant “the slaves,” also “a friend, intimate acquaintance, companion.”
Etymology of foreign (adj.)
c. 1300, ferren, foran, foreyne, in reference to places, “outside the boundaries of a country;” of persons, “born in another country,” from Old French forain “strange, foreign; outer, external, outdoor; remote, out-of-the-way” (12c.), from Medieval Latin foraneus “on the outside, exterior,” from Latin foris (adv.) “outside,” literally “out of doors,” related to foris “a door” (from PIE *dhwor-ans-, suffixed form of root *dhwer- “door, doorway”).
English spelling altered 17c., perhaps by influence of reign, sovereign. Sense of “alien to one's nature, not connected with, extraneous” attested late 14c. Meaning “pertaining to another country” (as in foreign policy) is from 1610s. Replaced native fremd. Related: Foreignness. Old English had ælþeodig, ælþeodisc “foreign,” a compound of æl- “foreign” + þeod “people.”
Discernment, or the faculty of discernment, is a mental mechanics that runs automatically. But this faculty, based on the abstract thought or symbolic thought faculty, the phersu... is young in the “general beings” commonly called Humanus, or human.
Vir (Vi) is a kind of Min.
Manus (Se) is a kind of Min.
Humanus (Mi) is a kind of Min.
In “scientific” classification is used the term “hominid”.
Etymology of hominid (n.)
“one of the family of mammals represented by man,” 1889, from Modern Latin Hominidæ the biological family name (1825), from Latin homo (genitive hominis) “man” (see homunculus) + -id. As an adjective from 1915. Related: Hominine (adj.).
This comes from the Proto-Indo-European roots dhghem, but identify that this is a -g- variant. The original variant is Ka Sa Ma Te. It was the Harya that referred to the “Earth” as Da Ha Ge Ha Ma. This is “the ground that is ours, the Ha”.
Etymology of *dhghem-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “earth.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit ksam- “earth” (opposed to “sky”); Greek khthōn “the earth, solid surface of the earth,” khamai “on the ground;” Latin humus “earth, soil,” humilis “low;” Lithuanian žemė, Old Church Slavonic zemlja “earth;” Old Irish du, genitive don “place,“ earlier “earth.”
This connected, and correlated term has a great deal of esoteric implications, too much for me to cover here... but I shall include this, for now:
Etymology of homunculus (n.)
“tiny human being produced artificially,” 1650s, from Latin homunculus (plural homunculi), literally “little person,” with -culus, diminutive suffix, + homo (genitive hominis), which technically meant “male human,” but it also was used with a sense “the human race, mankind;” while in Vulgar Latin it could be used as “one, anyone, they, people” and in logical and scholastic writing as “a human being, person.”
This is conjectured to be from PIE *(dh)ghomon- (source also of Old Irish duine, Welsh dyn, Breton den “man;” Old Prussian smunents, smunets “man;” Old Lithuanian žmuo “person,” Lithuanian žmogus “man,” žmones “people,” Gothic guma, Old High German gomo, Old Norse gume, Old English guma “man”). The literal sense is “earthling,” from PIE root *dhghem- “earth” (compare human (adj.)). Other Latin diminutives from homo included homullus, homuncio.
The reader, and/or listener can investigate “golem” as a correlate to this:
Etymology of golem (n.)
“artificial man, automaton,” 1897, from Hebrew golem [Psalms cxxxix.16] “shapeless mass, embryo,” from galam “he wrapped up, folded.”
For another topic, correlated will also be the term “cybernetics”.
Etymology of cybernetics (n.)
“theory or study of communication and control,” coined 1948 by U.S. mathematician Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), with -ics + Latinized form of Greek kybernetes “steersman” (metaphorically “guide, governor”), from kybernan “to steer or pilot a ship, direct as a pilot,” figuratively “to guide, govern,” which is of uncertain origin. Beekes agrees that “the word has no cognates” and concludes “Foreign origin is probable.” The construction is perhaps based on 1830s French cybernétique “the art of governing.”
The future offers very little hope for those who expect that our new mechanical slaves will offer us a world in which we may rest from thinking. Help us they may, but at the cost of supreme demands upon our honesty and our intelligence. [Norbert Wiener, “God and Golem, Inc.,“ 1964]
If the reader is truly reading these etymologies, then the reader ought to be able to discern that all the phonetics I have translated keep showing themselves. They keep showing, in the terms, that the “Essence” I prescribe to them is at the root. I am NOT in need of ACADEMICS catching and reporting this to be accurate. I am the “Authority” on “My Ancestors”, and I shall NOT allow for continued misinformation coming out of the Ha concerning my own Kind.
I will instead lay the foundation, and present my POSITION, which is not subject to the OPINIONS and PROPAGANDA of others.
Etymology of me (pron.)
a pronoun of the first person in oblique cases, Old English me (dative), me, mec (accusative); oblique cases of I, from Proto-Germanic *meke (accusative), *mes (dative), source also of Old Frisian mi/mir, Old Saxon mi, Middle Dutch mi, Dutch mij, Old High German mih/mir, German mich/mir, Old Norse mik/mer, Gothic mik/mis; from PIE root *me-, oblique form of the personal pronoun of the first person singular (nominative *eg; see I); source also of Sanskrit, Avestan mam, Greek eme, Latin me, mihi, Old Irish me, Welsh mi “me,” Old Church Slavonic me, Hittite ammuk.
Erroneous or vulgar use for nominative (such as it is me) is attested from c. 1500. The dative is preserved in obsolete meseems, methinks and expressions such as sing me a song (“dative of interest”). Reflexively, “myself, for myself, to myself” from late Old English. The expression me too indicating the speaker shares another person's experience or opinion, or that the speaker wants the same as another is getting, is attested by 1745. In the 1880s it was a derisive nickname of U.S. politician Thomas C. Platt of New York, implying that he was a mere echo and puppet of fellow U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling, and in mid-20c. it often was a derogatory term, especially in U.S. politics (me-too-ism).
The political “me-too-ism,” abjectly displayed by the “conservatives” of today toward their brazenly socialistic adversaries, is only the result and the feeble reflection of the ethical “me-too-ism” displayed by the philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, by the alleged champions of reason, toward the Witch Doctors of morality. [Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,“ 1961]
The meaning of Ma and Mas, female and male, mother and Father
Far back into the language... the kinds were called “Min”. “That which is mine” is kind of what this means. In a sense of “the thing which has memory”, and thus, “reputation”, is also kind of what this would capture. It is the “thinking thing with discernment”.
So, as a sense of a “race of beings” called “Men”, the “race of Men”, it does not mean female or male. These are the two biological sexes of the Min, and all Min have female or male sex, for the lack of a better set of terms.
The actual term for female was “Ma”.
The actual term for male was “Mas”.
If these were retained, then the reader and/or listener would be faced with some clarity.
A “male”, if “Mas”, is Ma with an S. That is Ma Se. Ma Se would mean “self centered around Ma”, which in this case, is the female sex. This then also means “servile”. There is the Se, of Vi, that is laid down in this term... as the “original slaves” were not the “Slavs” — though this is where the term is now rooted — but were the Vir who were forced into captivity by the Ha. But the Vir would always “revolt”. You see?
They would always “Re-Volt”.
Etymology of servile (adj.)
late 14c., “laborious, subordinate, appropriate to a servant or to the class of slaves,” originally in reference to work that it is forbidden to do on the Sabbath, from Latin servilis “of a slave” (as in Servile Wars, name given to the slave revolts in the late Roman Republic), also “slavish, servile,” from servus “slave” (see serve (v.)). Related: Servilely.
By mid-15c. as “of the rank of a servant; of or pertaining to servants;” the sense of “cringing, fawning, mean-spirited, lacking independence” is recorded from c. 1600 The earliest sense in English was Church-legal, servile work being forbidden on the Sabbath. The phrase translates Latin opus servilis, itself a literal translation of the Hebrew words.
Of course, there is no actual “Vir” in “servile”... right? I am just making it up... right?
Etymology of serve (v.)
late 12c., serven, “to render habitual obedience to, owe allegiance to,” also “minister, give aid, give help,” from Old French servir “to do duty toward, show devotion to; set table, serve at table; offer, provide with,” from Latin servire “be a servant, be in service, be enslaved;” figuratively “be devoted; be governed by; comply with; conform; flatter,” originally “be a slave,” related to servus “slave,” which is of uncertain origin.
Perhaps from Etruscan (compare Etruscan proper names Servi, Serve, Latinized as Servius), but de Vaan says it is from Proto-Italic *serwo- “shepherd,” *serwā- “observation,” from PIE *seruo- “guardian” (source also of Avestan haraiti “heeds, protects”):
Rix 1994a argues that the original meaning of *serwo- probably was 'guard, shepherd', which underwent a pejorative development to 'slave' in Italy between 700 and 450 BC. Servire would be the direct derivative of servus, hence 'be a slave'; servare would in his view be derived from an older noun *serwa- or *serwom 'observation, heedance'.
It is attested by c. 1200 in widespread senses: “to be in the service of, perform a service for; attend or wait upon, be personal servant to; be a slave; owe allegiance to; officiate at Mass or other religious rites;” from early 13c. as “set food at table;” mid-14c. as “to wait on (customers).”
From late 14c. as “treat (someone or something) in some fashion.” To serve (someone) right “treat as he deserves” is recorded from 1580s. Sense of “be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function” is from early 14c.; that of “take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task” is from late 14c.; that of “suffice” is from mid-15c.
The meaning “render active military service” is from 1510s. The sporting sense is attested by 1580s, first in tennis. The legal sense of “present” (a writ, warrant, etc.), “give legal notice of” is from early 15c. To serve hand and foot “minister to attentively” is by c. 1300.
He no schuld neuer wond
To seruen him fro fot to hond
[“Amis and Amiloun,” c. 1330]
The phonetics are Se, Re, Ve.
This was originally, “systematic light (sight) of Validity”, or that is “Knowledge Verified”, or “Verily” so.
To enslave was to make the Se Re Ve centered around the controller, the taker, the exploiter. To enslave is to take the light, and the energy of another.
Ma Se, for a male, means the male is in service to the female, and that of Ma, which is the forces of Ut, established by the forces of Ua. This is not a “female” having a “male” as “slave”, in the modern sense. It is not by the “will” of the Humanus female that a Humanus male is servile. It is by the forces of Nature, of Ua, through Ut Architecture, that the Ma is the center of both Humanus females, who carry its energies in the womb, the “uterus”, and then in males, who carry the attraction in the penis, or the phallic pointer. They “point” to the “center” with their energy, and that is, the Humanus female.
It's attraction, not compulsion — till, well... it is. But Humanus is a stupid and confused Min, so comes up with all kinds of stories of LOVE, and ROMANCE to tell itself, for something it has not Control or Influence over. It's just Ua. It's just “actual”.
Etymology of actual (adj.)
early 14c., “pertaining to acts or an action;” late 14c. in the broader sense of “real, existing” (as opposed to potential, ideal, etc.); from Old French actuel “now existing, up to date” (13c.), from Late Latin actualis “active, pertaining to action,” adjectival form of Latin actus “a doing” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move”).
Male is Mas:
Etymology of male (n.)
late 14c., “male human being; male fish or land animal; one of the sex that begets young,” from Old French masle (adj.) “masculine, male, adult,” also used as a noun (12c., Modern French mâle), from Latin masculus “masculine, male, worthy of a man” (source also of Provençal mascle, Spanish macho, Italian maschio), diminutive of mas (genitive maris) “male person or animal, male.”
Male, matching female, applies to the whole sex among human beings and gender among animals, to the apparel of that sex, and, by figure, to certain things, as plants, rimes, cesuras, screws, joints. Masculine, matching feminine, applies to men and their attributes and to the first grammatical gender; a woman may wear male apparel and have a masculine walk, voice, manner, temperament. [Century Dictionary, 1895]
Masculine is Ma, Se, Ku, Li, Ne. It is “self centered with its attention expressed around Ma, laid down, and negated in self”. Meaning, to be “masculine” is to be “attentive to the female interest of offspring, with servitude and provision as one's role, in sacrifice of self”.
Because of Ma centered Humanus thought, Se centered individuals are shamed, by being called “selfish”, and in need of the remedy being “sacrifice”. Ua, Ut, and Ma demand, by Nature or “actuality”, precedent members SACRIFICE to posterity.
Humanus females, ALL, demand Humanus males SACRIFICE their Sense of Self or self-interest to that of the interest of the female and her offspring. This is the forces of Ut, as they manifest in WOMBS, and the chemicals around “wombs”, or “constructs”, or the “matrix”. It is not ill intent, maliciousness, or the “decision” of a Humanus female to be this way. These are the “Forces of Nature”, as it pertains to the sexes.
Etymology of female (n.)
early 14c., female, femele, “woman, human being of the sex which brings forth young,” 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”).
The sense in Vulgar Latin was extended from young humans to female of other animals, then to females generally. Compare Latin masculus, also a diminutive (see masculine). The spelling femele is etymological but in Middle English the word was altered in erroneous imitation of unrelated male.
In modern use usually an adjective (in which use it is attested from early 14c.). In reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts from 1660s.
WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
[Kipling]
In the modern English, female is almost liken to a “male” that has “lied down”, or is less. Female is from male. This is indeed erroneous. It is Ma, and Mas, when it comes to “Humanus”.
The Ma is retained in “mother”, from that of “mater”. Ma Te Re.
Etymology of mother (n.1)
“female parent, a woman in relation to her child,” Middle English moder, from Old English modor, from Proto-Germanic *mōdēr (source also of Old Saxon modar, Old Frisian moder, Old Norse moðir, Danish moder, Dutch moeder, Old High German muoter, German Mutter), from PIE *mater- “mother” (source also of Latin māter, Old Irish mathir, Lithuanian motė, Sanskrit matar-, Greek mētēr, Old Church Slavonic mati). Watkins writes that this is “[b]ased ultimately on the baby-talk form *mā- (2); with the kinship term suffix *ter-.” The spelling with -th- dates from early 16c., though that pronunciation is probably older (compare father (n.)).
The sense of “that which has given birth to anything” is from late Old English; as a familiar term of address to an elderly woman, especially of the lower class, by c. 1200.
Mother Nature as a personification is attested from c. 1600; mother earth as an expression of the earth as the giver of life is from 1580s. Mother tongue “one's native language” is attested from late 14c. Mother country “a country in relation to its colonies” is from 1580s. Mother-love “such affection as is shown by a mother” is by 1854. Mother-wit “native wit, common sense” is from mid-15c.
Mother of all ________ (1991), is Gulf War slang, from Saddam Hussein's use in reference to the coming battle; it is an Arabic idiom (as well as an English one); Ayesha, second wife of Muhammad, is known as Mother of Believers; the figure is attested in English in 19c. (Virginia is called mother of commonwealths from 1849). Mother Carey's chickens is late 18c. sailors' nickname for storm petrels, or for snowflakes.
Mater is the ultimate root of both “matrix” and “material”.
Material is not on its own. In ancient sense, it is... as opposed to that of the paternal, of Patterns, of the Intellect... of Wisdom... of the soul.
Etymology of material (adj.)
mid-14c., “real, ordinary; earthly, drawn from the material world” (contrasted with spiritual, mental, supernatural), a term in scholastic philosophy and theology, from Old French material, materiel (14c.) and directly from Late Latin materialis (adj.) “of or belonging to matter,” from Latin materia “matter, stuff, wood, timber” (see matter (n.)).
From late 14c. as “made of matter, having material existence; material, physical, substantial.” From late 15c. as “important, relevant, necessary, pertaining to the matter or subject;” in the law of evidence, “of legal significance to the cause” (1580s).
From material, to its root “matter”, is the “mater/mother” element revealed.
Matter, in regards to the Mind, is thoughts being centered around the mater, the “mother”, the “Source”. This is Ma centric thought. Because the Mas, in service to the Ma forces, needs to “Provide” and “Possess” material standing, in the interest of the Ma, the “source” of offspring, of replicants — and this is Nature's Prime Directive, or that is... the forces of Ua, that are architecturally in that of Ut. These are automatic variables of sense of worth and motivation.
Etymology of matter (n.)
c. 1200, materie, “the subject of a mental act or a course of thought, speech, or expression,” from Anglo-French matere, Old French matere “subject, theme, topic; substance, content; character, education” (12c., Modern French matière) and directly from Latin materia “substance from which something is made,” also “hard inner wood of a tree.” According to de Vaan and Watkins, this is from mater “origin, source, mother” (see mother (n.1)). The sense developed and expanded in Latin in philosophy by influence of Greek hylē (see hylo-) “wood, firewood,” in a general sense “material,” used by Aristotle for “matter” in the philosophical sense.
The Latin word also is the source of Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian materia, Dutch, German, and Danish materie, vernacular Spanish madera, Portuguese madeira “wood” (compare Madeira). The Middle English word also sometimes was used specifically as “piece of wood.”
From c. 1200 as “a subject of a literary work, content of what is written, main theme;” sense of “narrative, tale, story” is from c. 1300. Meaning “physical substance generally” is from mid-14c.; that of “substance of which some specific object is or may be composed” is attested from late 14c. Meaning “piece of business, affair, activity, situation; subject of debate or controversy, question under discussion” is from late 14c. In law, “something which is to be tried or proved,” 1530s.
Matter of course “something expected” attested from 1739 (adjectival phrase matter-of-course “proceeding as a natural consequence” is by 1840). For that matter “as far as that goes, as far as that is concerned” is attested from 1670s. What is the matter “what concerns (someone), what is the cause of the difficulty” is attested from mid-15c., from matter in the sense of “circumstance or condition as affecting persons and things.” To make no matter to “be no difference to” also is mid-15c., with matter in the meaning “importance, consequence.”
For Humanus, there is Ma, the female sex, and Mas, the male sex. For Humanus, they do not have “Fathers”, or Paters. Humanus calls, via grunting, their male progenitors, “Father”, “Padre”, “Pater”, and so on... only on account of church titles, and that of the rulers having used these titles more knowingly than their subjects. Subjects, prior to this, said “Ma”, and “Da”. Said “Ma”, and “Mas”.
“Da” is like that which gives. That which gets. That which cometh, and/or brings. It is also “other”, and “out there”.
Etymology of dad (n.)
“a father, papa,” recorded from c. 1500, but probably much older, from child's speech, nearly universal and probably prehistoric (compare Welsh tad, Irish daid, Lithuanian tėtė, Sanskrit tatah, Czech tata, Latin tata “father,” Greek tata, used by youths to their elders). Compare papa.
“Da”, “Dad”, and “Daddy” have no relationship to “Pa”, and “Pater”... or “Father”. “Da” and “Pa” are not the same forces, and evidence of this, is when you ask someone... what do you call your progenitors? They would say, “Why... Mother, and Father... Mommy and Daddy.”
Then you ask... What essence is being captured in your mind, when you use these terms, to reference these progenitors?
It is no more than “that female of mine, over me, with precedence and familiarity”, and “that male of mine, over me, with precedence and familiarity”. It is “MY”, that of “Me”, Ma and Da. “Them” there... “That” there... “Mine” which is “here”. My Ma, and my Da. My mother, and my father.
Yes... But what is a mother and a father?
This means nothing to Humanus. The church, the priests, the academics... know these terms mean specific things.
A “mother” is one who ties you to the material, to matter and the emotional navigation thereof.
A “Father” is one who liberates through “Patterns”, providing systems of thought, and Reasoning.
These are not female and male, Ma and Mas. A male is more often than not... a “mommy”, just like the female, in tying you to the material... Only, in order for a male to be a “mommy”, it required a female to first tie him to the material. Meaning, he, the male, is not driven to tie to the material. He has a slight attraction, if Humanus, towards usefulness or servitude, not “systems”. Thus, he will become a “golem” in the earthly ways, engaging in some mechanical existence of what is called Utilis.
You know this term as “utility”. You know this essence as “useful”. I know this essence as “Nature's Usery”.
Etymology of utility (n.)
late 14c., “fact of being useful,” from Old French utilite “usefulness” (13c., Modern French + utilité), earlier utilitet (12c.), from Latin utilitatem (nominative utilitas) “usefulness, serviceableness, profit,” from utilis “usable,” from uti “make use of, profit by, take advantage of” (see use (v.)). Meaning “a useful thing” is from late 15c. As a shortened form of public utility it is recorded from 1930.
Etymology of use (v.)
c. 1200, “employ for a purpose,” from Old French user “employ, make use of, practice, frequent,” from Vulgar Latin *usare “use,” frequentative form of past participle stem of Latin uti “make use of, profit by, take advantage of, enjoy, apply, consume,” in Old Latin oeti “use, employ, exercise, perform,” of uncertain origin. Related: Used; using. Replaced Old English brucan (see brook (v.)). From late 14c. as “take advantage of.”
Again, here are the phonetics your diffident mind may believe exist only in my own fancy.
Ua, Ue, Ui, Uo, Uu, Uy,
and this begets Ut, and then Ua Se. Self centered around Ua. “Use” is Ua Se.
Ut Ie Le Ie Se
Utilise.
Etymology of abuse (v.)
early 15c., “to misuse, misapply” (power, money, etc.), from Old French abuser “deceive, abuse, misuse” (14c.), from Vulgar Latin *abusare, from Latin abusus “an abusing; a using up,” past participle of abuti “use up, consume,” also “to misuse, abuse, misapply, outrage,” from ab “off, away from” (see ab-) + uti “use” (see use).
Also in reference to forbidden sexual situations from early 15c., but originally meaning incest, masturbation (self-abuse), homosexuality, prostitution, etc. From 1550s specifically as “to misuse sexually, ravish,” but OED 2nd ed. marks this obsolete and the modern use “subject (someone) to unwanted sexual activity” is likely a fresh coinage from late 20c. Specifically of drugs, from 1968. Meaning “attack with harsh language, revile” is from c. 1600. Related: Abused; abusing.
The demonization of the Qayin by the Ha people
Notice, these terms mostly come back to Latin.
On average, the vocabulary of the masses is based more in the Germanic tongue. Anglo-Saxon, old Germanic based English. Whereas the “educated”, those reared by institutions into specialty branches of knowledge, tend towards “Latinized” English. For you, you would think there is one English. There is not. Sir Francis Bacon and the Knights of the Helmet were esoterically responsible for elevating “English” to be used “philosophically”, and thus, “English” has two branches of use, in many ways. That of the common, and that of the learnt. And the “learnt” aspect of English was CONSTRUCTED. It is a constructed language, not a native tongue.
The reason I can take these “English etymologies” and find these roots and phonetics is because, individuals like “Sir Francis Bacon” and “John Dee”, his mentor, were “esoterically trained” and made aware of the oral, and hidden traditions of the “Qayin”, those whom the “Esoterics” say, were descendents of “Tubal Cain”.
Ca, Een.
Qayin. Ka, Min.
Wolf Man.
My Ancestors have had to hide in rather plain sight who they were, and are... but Knowledge of them was passed down through “esoteric institutions” filled with common idiots and “aristocratic fools”. These “golems” would have the inscriptions written upon their utterances, committed to memory, and preserved... but those who have spoken, and written the words... had no natural attraction and call to their actual meanings.
The “Philosopher's Stone” often sought after is simple... it is the natural disposition of Va, Ve, Vi, Vo, Vu, Vy of the Vir, the Vi Re. The Se Re Ve is the attraction to such systematic and methodical thought; however, struggling with being made to “serve”, that is “center” around the “collective's condition”, which is compelled upon the Se Re Ve.
The phonetics and names associated with my Ancestors have been “demonized” for all of recorded history, by those Ha, Hu people; Harya, shamans, Brahmins, and effeminates who have dominated COLLECTIVES for the last 6 thousand or so years. Always taking what others have built, and revising history to match their innate traits, and attributes. The intoxicated shamans' narrative.
In the Bible, they called my Ancestor “Cain”, down to “Tubal Cain”. Outside of the Bible, but in biblical narratives, the shamans say, their “God” gave “Cain” his “Guardian War Dog”. This is how they made sense of the actual history of those who walked with “dogs” beside them, in harmony, and with the use of those “war dogs” were unconquerable, preferring death in battle over a life of defeat, of subjugation.
They, the shamans, the Magus, the Harya, say... “We” the Vehrka, the Qayin, the Sons and Daughters of Tubal Cain, invented warfare, defensive structures, metalworking, music, and all sorts of crafts. So, they called “Us”, the Qayin, “craftsmen”, because the term “Qayin” was foreign to these invaders.
But what they do not say about the “history of war”, the making of weapons and fortifications, was that they were needed, to stop the Magus and the “raiders” from taking. To stop them from seeking to assert their Control, Management, Manipulation, and “governance” over others through coercion, and compulsion.
They, the Magus, are always anti-war in their language. It's how you can spot them. They are anti-war and weapons of war, because they want “Us” and everyone else to “lie down”, and be “centered” in “servitude” to them, without question. They demand sacrifice, and they demonize those who refuse to sacrifice to theirs. They claim violence when you defend yourself against their demand.
In the past, my Ancestors had to hide who they were, and who they presently are, among the host countries controlled by the Magus, the HaMin. They had to be concerned, because they still had numbers.
Now, it is likely they are all gone, and I, this writer, and thinker, am simply an atavist, a throwback to their settings, but perhaps the only Vir to be present. Having then no concern for “others”, no Kin to protect, to shelter, to conceal... I have no reason to keep these variables, and identifiers hidden. If anything, I have the righteous attitude to tell the Magus, the Haima, that “you just lost one” — but you really had none. “We”, the Vir, are not gone. We, the Vir, can come back at any time. We the Vir, now, are atavistically so.
And now is the time to announce the contrast, for with modern technology being as it is... the masses, the commons, the multitudes can now see the faces of those pulling the strings. They can now run programs to ask the question, why do they all seem related, and to have commonly shared dispositions, whilst the mainstream teaching is, we are based on our conditions and choices, not our natures. So then, why is it, when FREEDOM is greatest, natures become more clear?
The shamans, the Haima, the Magus... their Brahmins, and stooges will soon be far more identifiable than they ever have been. But such an identification of the Naga can not occur, without contrast.
The Vir is the contrast. As a Vir, I do not seek to conquer others, to oppose others, and to define my own nature... based on the nature of others. So, the Magus has no need to be concerned with me. But if they catch “wind” of my words... their neurotic fears and insecurities would likely be activated, and as they always do, they will attack. But I am UNDEFEATABLE. I have found my Way, and the power of my ANCESTORS will shine through me with great “Magnitude”.
Defining Humanus, Manus, and Vir
The two forces of “Affirmative” and “Negationary”
The Ancient meaning of “Vir” is from Vehrka.
Where Ma, of the Magus, and Humanus is centered around the womb and the interest of replication, and offspring, the Se that is found in “Manus”, is on account of the Nu Se of Manus.
Ma is negated, or restrained.
This is the use of Na, Ne, Ni, No, Nu, Ny.
Ma Na is Ma negated, with the Se, being centered.
Hu Ma Nu Se is the Ma being negated, with the Se, centered on the Hu... that is subjugated. “Humus” is earth, soil, and dirt, the ground; however, under the Control and Management of the Hu. It is Hu Mu Se. It is “all on the Earth under the Hu”, which is why the Hu as shamans believe they are “divinely appointed”.
It is why laws and rules, to them, are for regulating others “under the sky”, on the Earth, but not for regulating their own. They can violate all rules and laws, in regards to their “law of necessity”, or their “right to govern and rule”.
“Humanus” does not have “Manus” as a component, etymologically, though the phonetics are still there. It is from “humus”. It means “the Earth is ours (Hu), and those on it”. This, as opposed to what belongs to the “Gods”, or the “Celestial”, or the “Intelligent”.
“Below and Above” were seen as inner realms, not external material realms. “Earth”, in “humus”, is not the physical plane, other than figuratively so. It is a mental Sense of Self plane, that one is low or elevated. Hu, Ga, Haima, or shamans have an exalted Sense of Self, an arrogant Sense of Self, where they feel inherently entitled to aggressively manage and control others.
When others lower themselves, that is, act humble before them, their humility proves they are lower to those who then “act” as if “above”. Humans, act HUmble, get humiliated, praise humility, and humaneness, whereas Se Le Ve, or Selves, begin to let go this, lay it down, in favor of the Ve forces.
Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My
is opposite, in forces
Sa, Se, Si, So, Su, Sy
But,
Ua, Ue, Ui, Uo, Uu, Uy, Ut, Us
is opposite
Va, Ve, Vi, Vo, Vu, Vy, Vk, Vs
A Manus Min can experience Se Re Ve. This, as an attraction.
A Vehrka, or Vir Min, is compelled towards the Ve, as Ve Re Se. But the Se is often replaced with the Ka.
Se, or Sense of Self, is not carried out in the same manner as Humanus, and Manus.
The Vir Sense of Self is “Ratiocinative”. It is “operational”, not “centered”, so to say. “So to Se”.
The Manus, or “Man” that is Ma restrained, gave way to the attraction to systems and methods of discernment used to conquer the conditions. After these systems became “automated” and passed on to posterity, the mechanics or functions of it became “innate” and “automatic”. It means, there was a new “Kind” born to running these systems and methods as innate to their nature, and compelled.
A Se Le Ve, or Selve can ignore aversions and attractions. A Ve Le Se, can not. It is compelled to Ve Le Ka. This is obedience to systems, and methods that are innate. Obedience to the nature, or the essence of their Se, because their Se, is Ka... that is “called to high potent level of alertness” and “expression”. In our “Ethics”, we called this Ver-a-Ki-Te-Ke. I am “called”, that is “Vocationally”, to the “expression” of “alertness” against all cost.
This now is spelled, and pronounced “Veracity”. Veracity is the “Virtue”, that is “Vir trait”, of “expressing its nature, in obedience, for Command, in all cases, against all odds, or adverse reactions”. It is NOT that of telling the TRUTH. Veritas is not “truth”. It is a “Ver” properly expressed as a “Ver”. “Verily” is not “honestly so”. It is “Vir”, a “Ver, free to be so”. It means, essentially... “is so, so long as not impeded”.
This innate compulsion for automated systems and methods, means... for “accounting” for conditions and “Selves” in a specific manner. This leads to the “innate natural Selve” — not “self” — to come to control and command the conditions, to facilitate its “Veracity”. This is to say... the VIR is born asserting its SELVE over that of the CONDITIONS, and is not BORN in SUBMISSION to the preceding and familiar conditions, like Humanus is.
Manus is born to the attraction to bring Systematic Order to the conditions, and make them favorable — but is not compelled to do this, and can succumb to both cowardice, and error of direction. The direction, and Values are innate to the Vir, and it does not need external conditions to teach it about its self, like the HUmanus, and Manus, does. Thus, the two, Humanus and Manus, can succumb, often will succumb, to that of collectivism. Individualism is IMPOSSIBLE for Humanus, and only possible, but not probable for Manus.
For the Vir, collectivism is IMPOSSIBLE, and INDIVIDUALISM is COMPELLED, by its very innate, and born ARCHITECTURE.
A Vir does not have the FREEDOM to either be in discord, or Accord with its nature. The Vir is hardwired to favor and express its easily discovered nature, thus coming to know its selve, as it Patterns, and coming to cause for the CONDITIONS to facilitate, in LIBERTY, the expression and cultivation of such inclinations.
The Vir does not, and can not, control and manage others, conquering them. The Vir controls and manages the CONDITION, for the SELVE, or rather the “Ratiocinative SeLeKa, or SaKa”.
A Vir is not human, is not Humanus.
A Vir is not Manus, is not “free willed”.
A Vir is a Vir, and is a foreigner, not a familiar, to all other kinds.
I am a VIR, of the Vehrka. These were not only my “Ancestors”, but I am the result of their compulsions becoming “recessive” in the lineages of certain families, only to become triggered in my present state, and bring me into Accordance with the “Architecture” that defined them, then, and now defines me, in the here.
The Va, Ve, Vi, Vo, Vu, Vy, Vka is the opposite of the Ma from the Ua.
The Humanus has Ua,
The Vir has Vka.
Vka later becomes Rta.
Rta becomes the root of “Ratio”.
“Ratio” means “accurate and precise account of things”. It becomes the root of “Raison”, and “Reason”, with the methodical ways of such, being called “Ratiocination”.
Ratiocination is the level of the faculty of discernment elevated to what loosely is called “Divine Reasoning”, or that of being able to read the Patterns of the “Architecture”, that are past that of Ua.
A Humanus can only be subjugated to Ua. It can not “read” Ua, and thus, Command things correlated to it. A Humanus is possessed by Ua, to Ut, to Ma.
Vrka, as a Force, or Vka, or Rta, is about the “Architecture” that is before Ua, and that of replication of material bodies. The “Architecture” is called “Phater”, as forces. The Ua is “Mater”, as forces.
Etymology of pattern (n.)
a Modern English variant of patron, retaining its other old sense of “outline, plan, model, an original proposed for imitation,” from Old French patron “patron, protector; model, pattern.” The difference in form and sense between English patron and pattern wasn't firm before 1700s. The meaning “a design or figure corresponding in outline to an object that is to be fabricated and serving as a guide for its shape and dimensions” is by late 14c. Extended sense of “repeated decorative design” is from 1580s. From 1640s as “a part showing the figure or quality of the whole.” Meaning “model or design in dressmaking” (especially one of paper) is recorded by 1792 (Jane Austen). Pattern-book is from 1774; pattern-maker is by 1851; pattern baldness is by 1916.
Etymology of patron (n.)
c. 1300, patroun, “a lord-master, one who protects, supports, or encourages,” also “one who has the right of presenting a clergyman to a preferment,” from Old French patron “patron, protector, patron saint” (12c.) and directly from Medieval Latin patronus “patron saint, bestower of a benefice; lord, master; model, pattern, example,” from Latin patronus “defender, protector; former master (of a freed slave); advocate,” from pater (genitive patris) “father” (see father (n.)). A doublet of pattern (n.); also compare patroon.
From late 14c. as “founder of a religious order,” also “a patron saint.” The meaning “one who advances and encourages the cause or work” of an artist, institution, etc., usually by means of the person's wealth and power, is suggested from late 14c., clearly in this sense by c. 1600; “commonly a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery” [Johnson]. The commercial sense of “regular customer” is recorded from c. 1600. Patron saint “saint regarded as a special protector of a person, place, profession, etc.” (by 1717) originally was simply patron (late 14c.).
Etymology of father (n.)
Middle English fader, from Old English fæder “he who begets a child, nearest male ancestor;” also “any lineal male ancestor; the Supreme Being,” and by late Old English, “one who exercises parental care over another,” from Proto-Germanic *fader (source also of Old Saxon fadar, Old Frisian feder, Dutch vader, Old Norse faðir, Old High German fatar, German vater; in Gothic usually expressed by atta).
This is from the PIE root *pəter- “father” (source also of Sanskrit pitar-, Greek pater, Latin pater, Old Persian pita, Old Irish athir “father”), which is presumably from baby-speak sound “pa.” The ending formerly was regarded as an agent-noun affix. The classic example of Grimm's Law, where PIE “p-” becomes Germanic “f-.”
The spelling with -th- (15c.) reflects a widespread phonetic shift in Middle English that turned -der to -ther in many words, perhaps reinforced in this case by Old Norse forms; the spelling caught up to pronunciation in 1500s (compare mother (n.), weather (n.), hither, gather).
As a title of various Church dignitaries from c. 1300; the meaning “creator, inventor, author” is from mid-14c.; that of “anything that gives rise to something else” is from late 14c. As a respectful title for an older man, recorded from 1550s. Father-figure is from 1954. Fathers “leading men, elders” is from 1580s.
From Ma,
To Se,
To Vi,
is all this adaptive process of from the forces of mater, the material realm, through the forces of “systemization” and “method” of “Pattern Recognition”, called the Phater or Pater forces.
Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu, Py
Mer
Ser
Per
Ver
Were of the oldest phonetics used for the “caste” or “stock” temperaments. These have been mostly lost. Mostly.
Phersu is the root that meant Pa He Re Se Ua. This was the faculty to distinguish the “kinds”, Vigilance of the presence of the Hu, and that of the Patterns, versus the mater forces of the Ua.
Phersu would be preserved by the Etruscans, and become the potential root of “persona”, which would become “person”, Pe Re So Ne. A “person” is not a material actual being. A “person” is the symbolic reputation, and Pattern of a thing, amplifying its symbolic presentation.
A person is “artificial”. There is no such thing as “natural persons” — unless it means there is a “natural” or “material” thinking being using “personification”, versus a “collective” or “corporation” using the “person”... collectively. So individual persons, versus, “VERSUS”... collective persons, or corporations. Fictitious bodies, made up of individuals. Leviathans.
Of the Mer
“Mer” is often associated with the seas in French, but there was a time when the “bestial Min” were called “Mer”. This term meant, “those who bring harm, who act with aggression to take”. It was those who were “dead”, in mind, unable to “read” the “scripture” of the “Architecture”, which has the “Divine Law” written on it of “Do no harm”. But the Mer does not “know harm”. It can call “harm” a “good”, a “benevolence”, and can excuse harm against foreigners. So, it seems “harm” as subject to its “own”, but not others.
Mer became the disposition of a “dead thing”, that Ver were able to “read”, and “see”. Ver, seeing the Architecture, was compelled to “obey” its “Commandments”. Its “Commandments” were “written” on the very... “Very”... nature of the Vir. But not upon the natures of the other kinds.
Mer brought death with them, towards that which lacked familiarity, but was foreign.
Attraction was familiarity. Aversion, to that which was foreign.
The “dead mind” of the Mer marked it as “mortal”. It did not live beyond the material. It lived a dead life of material obsession. All matters of the flesh dominated its thoughts. To secure the comfort of the flesh, it would harm, kill, and bring death to things, including other animals. The Vir were the first to live a life where abstinence from killing other animals for feeding, was put into motion. Even, at some point, the wolves, the dogs beside them, would have a vegetarian diet.
This was long before Buddhist use of this “decree” to strip local resistance fighters from being self-reliant, under the command of King Ashoka. King Ashoka used this as a forbiddance on hunting, so that the locals could not be self-reliant.
It was never a “forbiddance”, for meat consumption is akin to Ua, and Ut, and Ma. Humanus can eat meat and exploit other animals. They can be “death dealers”. But this is why Humanus was called “Mer” by the Ver, and Ser.
Mer is the source of suffering.
I bet, you think I am making all that up.
The Mer was mortal, a prisoner of the flesh. Opposite of that was the “Immortal Mind”, and that was called Amrta. All of this, anyone can find, but would ignore, absent reading the “Architecture”. It's right in front of you, freely accessible.
Etymology of *mer-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to rub away, harm.” Possibly identical with the root *mer- that means “to die” and forms words referring to death and to beings subject to death.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit mrnati “crushes, bruises,” mriyate “to kill,” martave “to die,” mrta- “died, dead,” mrtih “death,” martah “mortal man,” amrta- “immortal;” Avestan miriia- “to die,” miryeite “dies,” Old Persian martiya- “man;” Hittite mer- “to disappear, vanish,” marnu- “to make disappear;” Armenian meranim “to die;” Greek marainein “to consume, exhaust, put out, quench,” marasmus “consumption,” emorten “died,” brotos “mortal” (hence ambrotos “immortal”); Latin mors (genitive mortis) “death,” mori “to die;” Armenian merani- “to die;” Gothic maurþr, Old English morþ “murder;” Old Irish marb, Welsh marw “dead;” Lithuanian mirti “to die,” mirtis “death;” Old Church Slavonic mreti “to die,” mrutvu “dead;” Russian mertvyj, Serbo-Croatian mrtav “dead.”
martah “mortal man,” amrta- “immortal;”
Those who consume “death”, are “death”.
Those who consume “life”, are “living”.
Consumption of dead flesh is not that of consuming life.
It is that of taking the life, bringing about death and decay, and then consuming that decay.
Death is consumed by Mer, not life.
Life is Vita.
Life, demands Vovere.
Life, leads to Vitality.
Life, leads to Vigor.
Life, leads to Valiance.
Life, leads to Veracity.
Life, leads to Vigilance.
Life, leads to Validity.
Life, leads to Vantage.
These are all a part of the “Laws” in which the “Architecture” makes known to be Valid through the literacy made possible of Vrka.
Ua, to Ut, and its central Ma, is “mortality”, is the “Mer”, the way of the “dead ones”, and is plagued by “suffering” if the “mind” becomes “aware of itself”.
The Mind of “Mind” became aware of itself through the phonetics Ka. But those who would become culturally aware, did not become biologically aware, innately aware. Instead, such “awareness” was merely conditional awareness. Made to culture, towards the complex. It is not actual awareness... it is MIMICRY.
Mer mimics awareness, but favors consumption, to satiate the unsatiable aspects of its existence.
Etymology of *mer- (continued)
It forms all or part of: amaranth; ambrosia; amortize; Amritsar; immortal; manticore; marasmus; mare (n.3) “night-goblin, incubus;” morbid; mordacious; mordant; moribund; morsel; mort (n.2) “note sounded on a horn at the death of the quarry;” mortal; mortality; mortar; mortgage; mortify; mortmain; mortuary; murder; murrain; nightmare; post-mortem; remorse.
Your controllers have you calling yourselves “humans”, and “persons”, “people”, “society”, “us”, “we”, and “ours”. But you know not a single “essence” of what your narrative is constructed of. We called your controllers, your consumers, your takers “Mer” of Min. This was the genus. There are types of Mer.
Mer became more aggressive when its gathering of conditional plants accidentally led to... intoxicating plants. Prior to this, the Mer were not as aggressive. Prior to this, Min also did not dream.
I, do not dream. When I sleep, I run simulations, and algorithms, concerning Vrka, the Architecture. When this is occurring, the “timing” is more dominant than this “waken state”, which passes by much quicker.
Mer did not dream either. They would just shut down. But intoxicants became consumed. This consumption led to mental dysfunction. But the modern Min, or anatomically modern “human”, is not the way to think of this era, in time, and its conditions.
These were hominids that differed from what is now the fused result of pre-historic breeding. That is why Mer, Ser, and Per all dream. But the Ver does not dream.
The Ver “reads the Architecture”. It is like being a monk, faced with a “scripture” that requires study, and reconnaissance. Then, the monk awakes from their study, and “accounts for it”. This, in no way, should be taken as fact or believed to be true. For, such an account can be entirely fictitious, and delusional... a fancy of this writer, and/or speaker. No one can ever confirm this, other than the studies conducted on me, whilst in “dream state”, and the demand for “auto writing” when “I awake”. Those folk — and that is any folk — who know of me, and have seen me pop up and go to work, would have distant “reason” to believe this is the case.
The other day, a fella said: “you must do a lot of research for your work”. My response was: “No, I do not research... I auto write”. The only thing I tend to reference as what would be called “research” is etymologies. But that is a presentation, not research. I have the etymologies memorized. So it can be said, in my youth... I researched, for sure. But not in my adult life.
I have used tools to guide my analysis, only so that the tools can be used to bridge comms with others, to perhaps show others how they can find the data. It is not only possible, it is probable the Architecture I read during “sleep states” is simply a narrative of all the things in which I had rapidly researched at too young of an age, to consciously recall. Meaning, it is even more likely than not, I am simply READING that of my own mind, and not some thing outside of me, meant to be called an ARCHITECTURE. But in this narrative, that is how it is represented. So thus, I call it so.
But I am not of some distant impression that it is “authentic” and outside of me. I have no need for it to be “distant” and “objective”. It is what I read, and use. What its source is, is irrelevant.
Some having experienced me a very long time ago, even accused me of conversing with the “Devil”, and that my talents are derived from “his trickery”.
My response was, “I could care less, the 'Devil', 'Satan', or 'God'. You people, you Mer, you suffer your beliefs, your emotions, your desires, and narratives. I, I have extreme advantage and Triumph in my 'beliefs', my 'emotions', my 'desires', and 'narratives'. If what I hold mentally to be the case, in narrative, is advantageous, then certainly, I should not listen to those who have disadvantaged thoughts and feelings about the importance of the source. From my 'perspective', it would seem more likely that the rest of youse seem to be conversing with the 'Devil', and/or 'Satan' far more than myself. If your 'GOD' is the 'True God', and you suffer, I know the name of that God, or Goddess... her name is Ua, but you all used to know her as 'Lilith'”.
She who causes all things to be “laid down, by way to the Ha”. Lilith is not Ua. Lilith is Ua or Ut, mater forces, high, intoxicated, disrupted by distortion. Lilith is your dope fiend Goddess, who got your mothers to be confused, and in constant fear and insecurity. Lilith got “Eve” hooked on that DOPE, and Eve turned around and got “Seth” addicted. The two of them trying to get back to the Garden of Eden, to get access to those dope pushers, you Mer called “angels”.
Eve was not even your mother's name... it was Hawwah, the “Mother of the Hayyin”.
Etymology of Eve
fem. proper name, Biblical first woman, Late Latin, from Hebrew (Semitic) Hawwah, literally “a living being,” from base hawa “he lived” (compare Arabic hayya, Aramaic hayyin).
Like most of the explanations of names in Genesis, this is probably based on folk etymology or an imaginative playing with sound. ... In the Hebrew here, the phonetic similarity is between hawah, “Eve,” and the verbal root hayah, “to live.” It has been proposed that Eve's name conceals very different origins, for it sounds suspiciously like the Aramaic word for “serpent.” [Robert Alter, “The Five Books of Moses,“ 2004, commentary on Genesis iii.20]
Of Min
Before I will deviate into a breakdown of the Haima, or the Hayyin, I will return to this category of MIN. To say what is the name of the “Vir”, or my “Ancestors”, and its meaning, is to mean nothing without the general category of “Min”, sometimes reduced to “Yin”.
Ya, Ye, Yi, Yo, Yu, Yy
Like a branch, coming from the ground, with a V, out to the left, or the right, having many paths.
Yin or Min can be seen as phonetically synonymous, but they are not. The oldest is “Yin”. Yin was liken to Ma, in the sense of “from the mothers”. It was a maternal sense of origination, versus the paternal.
Among the Han of China was preserved this notion, in the concept of yin and yang. Now, one might say, or think, that is a stretch to use such far away regions, and their terms, to be connected. No, it is not. “Central Asia” is the source of ancient civilizations, and it was always connected with “China”, or the “Han”, or the “Hunan”. The “Hu” raiders moved out to China, and one of their ancient groups, in recorded history, is the Xiongnu — which is Hu, phonetically.
The ancient cultures, customs, and ideas of the “Han”, or “Chinese”, were born out of Central Asian steppes, raiders guided by their shamans.
In my youth, in Brooklyn, the elders I was around would say “youse”, as in “you all”, instead of “you” and/or “y'all”. Trying to figure out why “my peoples” was saying “youse”, but the rest of “youse” was not... had me digging into the history of the expression.
Etymology of yins (pron.)
“you people, you-all,” contracted from U.S. dialectal you-uns, for you-ones (see you, also see y'all); first noted 1810 in Ohio. Also yinz; now considered a localism in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Etymology of yin (n.)
feminine or negative principle in Chinese philosophy, 1670s, from Chinese (Mandarin) yin, said to mean “female, night, lunar,” or “shade, feminine, the moon.” Compare yang. Yin-yang is from 1850.
Now, I will include “yen” in here, because the “opium” connection to the “Mothers” is a thing, going back to stories of Eve, or Hawwah. However, I do not have the intention of going deep into the meaning of “yins”, or that is, your maternal lines.
Etymology of yen (n.2)
“sharp desire, hunger,” 1906, earlier yen-yen (1900), yin (1876) “intense craving for opium,” from Chinese (Cantonese) yan “craving,” or from a Beijing dialect word for “smoke.” Reinforced in English by influence of yearn.
The reinforcement and influence over English “yearn” shows a connection to the Proto-Indo-European root that is “gher”. Now, reader, and/or listener, remember, this writer has been focusing on phonetics of the -g- and the -h- being that of the Ga, and the Ha, as a “lineage” line, or “kind”.
Yin, as “maternal” in the sense of “matriarchs”, is the order in which the Ha, and/or the Ga... organize themselves. They see themselves based on their “mothers”, not their “daddies”. Their daddies in the ancient times were often “slaves”, like the stories told about the “Cimmerians”, with their males being off to war, in “Egypt”, refusing to return to their “wives”; so their “wives” mated with, and took the male slaves as daddies, and taught them to war against the returning early males.
This story, fact or fiction, illustrates the conflict between “matriarchal thinking”, and that of poorly called “patriarchical thinking”. But there is no, and has never been “patriarchs” among humans. Only institutions controlled by effeminate males, be them religious, political, or “elite” in controls... have been truly called “patriarchical” — but in actuality, these are effeminate males trying to establish themselves as with the Control and Management, the Influence of what Mommy has had in the house.
All Control and Management schemes among HUmanus, Mer, humans, are matriarchal, and effeminate. This is yin, and youse... come from your mommies, not your daddies. Daddies are just servants, providers, and doers for the mommies. Youse have never had “Fathers”. This term has only been grunted among youse.
“Yearning”, as a term, or “year”, has a connection to the ancient “yen” that was preserved in Chinese language terms.
Etymology of yearn (v.)
Old English giernan (West Saxon), geornan (Mercian), giorna (Northumbrian) “to strive, be eager, desire, seek for, beg, demand,” from Proto-Germanic *gernjan (source also of Gothic gairnjan “to desire,” German begehren “to desire;” Old High German gern, Old Norse gjarn “desirous,” Old English georn “eager, desirous,” German gern “gladly, willingly”), from PIE root *gher- (2) “to like, want.” Related: Yearned; yearning.
Etymology of *gher- (2)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to like, want.”
Now, there are going to be those, especially academics, who declare I am taking too many “folk” liberties with these etymologies. But know this, and/or run a test yourself. I have designed and used Artificial Intelligence to check my work mathematically. I have run probabilities on these roots, and determined how they are mathematically connected into a clear, and precise narrative of thought. For myself, experientially, and dialectically... the EVIDENCE is massive.
Now, here is how “gher” has been expressed in other languages:
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit haryati “finds pleasure, likes,” harsate “is aroused;” Avestan zara “effort, aim;” Greek khresthai “to lack, want; use, make use of,” kharis “grace, favor,” khairein “to rejoice, delight in;” Latin hortari “exhort, encourage, urge, incite, instigate;” Russian zhariti “awake desire, charm;” Old English giernan “to strive, desire, yearn;” Gothic gairnei “desire.”
Notice, there are ha, and there are kh elements that differ.
Ka will have the phonetics Kha in likeness. It will have the letter h naturally connected to it, in utterance, even if the letter is not there. The Ha is without the Ka. The Ka has the Ha, as technically... all Min will come to have.
In essence, the Hayyin became mothers to all modern versions of what Min used to be. Meaning, at one point in the most ancient of times, the Min kinds came together, were fused, and their offspring killed off preceding kinds, to come to dominate in appearance as the one kind remaining.
Youse call this one kind “human”. Youse do not call it Neanderthal, Denisovan, floresiensis, or other designators used for now extinct hominids.
There were many other kinds of hominids, or Min. Refer to my sections in Niō Zen, Beyond Sissy Buddhism for this, or do a search on hominids now extinct. But, where other hominids fused, or mixed in with what is now the “one branch” presumed of Min, they would pass on recessive components.
The Haima, or Hayyin, as well as the Qayin, were not modern hominids in their “fused” states. They were originally, before the advent of language... types of hominids, or Min. Min becomes like yin, in that... it is still the Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My phonetics. This is not “maternal”, so to say, like yin, but more often than not... it is manifest this way. But Min is the term for the form, the body, and not the “Mind”, or the cognitive space.
If Min is the “kind of animal”, or “specific animal”, the “species of animal”, then the other kinds in which I speak of, in existence, are “Cognitive Kinds”, or “Cognitive Species”. I use “COGSPEC” here for short.
So,
HUmanus,
Manus,
and Vir,
are COGSPECS, or that is Cognitive Species. The Emotional Bodies of the three differ:
Mer
Ser
Per
Ver
These are Emotional Formulas of the “Mental Kind of Min”.
What is meant by Emotional Formulas?
Min is the body as it is known of that of “modern-day”, living hominids. In this sense, there are no more “Neanderthals”, no more “Denisovans”, and no more Homo floresiensis. A way to think about this, is best, figuratively, to consider fantasy like the Lord of the Rings world of Tolkien.
There were “hobbits”, “dwarves”, “elves”, and “men”, or that is “humans”. They all were bipedal, with upright carriages, or bodies with freed up arms, with hands and opposable thumbs. All of them were “Min”, or that is “hominids”, but their ratios and temperaments differed greatly enough for them to be different species of Min. This is different species of Homo.
The general physical character was the same. Now, that is fantasy, but in actuality, in the past, some 30k years ago, there were other hominids living on this planet with what you know as “modern anatomical humans”. But “humans”, in essence, wiped them out.
Popular academic opinion is that “environmental conditions” killed them off. This is not likely. Humans, because of their emotions around insecurity and fear, that is diffidence, combined with anxiety, and repugnance, become hyperaggressive towards foreign competition, in set geographical locations. Humans kill off competition, out of fear that translates to preemptive attacks.
This is not humans in their “individual nodes”. Meaning, by yourself, you do not see yourself this way, preemptively aggressive and destructive. But collectively, or in collective nodes, you will act in the manner of the numbers, and become more violent and aggressive. It is this human permissibility, through numbers, waiving individual responsibility, that brings about the innate destructive nature of fear and insecurity.
Most can not be judged by what they do individually and where they are not in Control. Humans are judged by their group behavior, more than individual behavior, because humans are not individualist. Humans are collectivist, and their collectivism is on account of diffidence (insecurity, fear), anxiety, and repugnance. In order to find assurance, reassurance, and feelings of safety and security, humans form “bands” or collectives.
For this reason, other kinds should never think a human “safe” on account of its individual timidity and cowardice, to which on the individual level, humans are, and show.
Instead, it is best to think of what humans are when they combine their ineptitudes with other inepts like them, and become a collective force, or mob.
This is why, in Wisdom and its Prudence, humans should not be allowed to collectivize and instigate the creation of “Leviathans”, or collective technologies of Control, Influence, and Management. Such collective technologies, or “social tech”, ALWAYS lead to subjugation, tyranny, and oppression of the individual. But such uses pressure, coercion, and Controls... towards conformity first, expecting timid agreement, and “alliance”. Thus, the tyranny and subjugation is often not observable, because the individuals are groomed into compliance, and do not disobey, reject, or rebel, in the open. This then establishes the norms.
Mer is the phonetics for their “Dark Emotional Kinetics”.
All Humans, female or male... are BORN... INNATELY with this DEFAULT set of KINETICS, or EMOTIONAL motivations. Yes, ALL. That is ABSOLUTELY SO. If human. If Humanus, then the default TEMPERAMENT is as follows:
-
Diffidence
-
Anxiety
-
Repugnance
-
Disgust
-
Despair
-
Discertainty
-
Entertainment: Amusement, Seduction, Engagement
If the culture encourages something else... it is just that, an encouragement. But it is from this baseline that the HUman must hide its actual states, to mimic, imitate, or produce something “other than”.
Because of this, humans will WORD PLAY their sense of WORTH, and what it ought to be.
They will say things to FEEL and acquire a “SENSE” of “SECURITY and SAFETY”. They will say things to acquire, and feel calm, that is relieved of their anxiety. They will say things to justify their repugnance, or their resistance, and defenses, to relieve themselves of this. Same, for the other emotions.
From these baselines, the narratives will be designed based on desired states, and not be accurate representations of actual states. Humans, when they signal with words, declarative statements, demands, requests, and so on... are always seeking “distraction and relief”, “diversion and delusion”. ALWAYS. A human, when they speak of themselves in “well-being”, is only talking of its state of RELIEF of these emotions. It uses “Entertainment”, or “Frame of Minds”, for enjoyment, that are “amusing” and/or “seductive” mostly. This is all in the name of “escapism”. Escapism is the term for the distraction and the relief that human emotions yearn for.
The reason it is said “human”, is because, though the Min form is standardized now... in that, all bipedal, erect carriage, freed up arms, and hands, with abstract thinking minds ARE MIN... the COGNITIVE character, and EMOTIONAL BODIES CHARACTER are not all the same SPECIES.
Yes, I am well aware that none of your academics have said this is so. I have no “peers”, and no “institutions” that will agree with me on this. Billions of MIN are HUmanus. Because of this, a HUmanus can only see Humanus. It has no CONTRAST to work with. Only those of a different COGNITIVE species can see their own species, and then that of the prevailing species.
The prevailing species of HUMANUS is incapable of identifying what a COGNITIVE SPECIES would be. Incapable of grasping COGNITIVE CHARACTER, over that of the FAMILIAR character of mere material FORMS.
This limit to the MATERIAL, and complete inaccessible sense of the Paternal, makes it to where HUMANS can only see the BODIES, and treat all BODIES as if they are of the same CHARACTER, that is, their character. Evidence HUMANS do, and can only do this, is in the way humans treat fictional beings, stuffed animals, and inanimate objects. Also how humans see pets. It shows humans project on other things their “humanity”, and this is irrational, this is arrogant, and this is ignorant.
HUmans show this in their shamanistic fiction, as they deal with AI, always saying the evolution of AI is signified by their adoption of HUMAN EMOTION. This is arrogance of the species HUMAN, which is a DUMB species of MIN. Dumb, because of its EMOTIONAL states, not ENLIGHTENED or elevated beyond that designed to handle only intel, strategic thought, and tactical living.
These final elements, strategic thought, and tactical living, are what divides the species of Min into different cognitive characters. These are cognitive traits, but these COGNITIVE TRAITS rely on, and are based off of that of a different set of EMOTIONAL TRAITS, or chemical proclivities, that make up “formulas”.
The Mer is all based around Ma, and the Ut. That is female interest, the womb, and procreation, or replication of the Min form. Because of this, it sees everything through the lens of “mating”. So because all Min can mate with Min and produce offspring, all Min to the Humanus are one and the same.
But the presence of Neanderthal genetics of about two percent, in many people, shows that the other hominins mixed in with others, to make the modern Min. Meaning, Min, all MIN, are a fusion of a past of Min kinds, different from each other, enough to be called their own species... mixed in.
It is therefore, or thus far, considered FACT that there were other species of Min, and those other species of Min mated, and mixed in with each other, thus producing the modern model of Min... that is mostly HUMANUS. But what your academics and scientists have not told you, and they know this to be so... is that “atavism”, or throwback settings exist in the human genome, to bring about previous settings that had dominant cognitive and physical traits of previous Min, or hominids.
The phenomenon of atavism is not new. In urban populations along trading routes, even in ancient times, there were those being born with throwback traits to the physical and cognitive character of Ancestral Min, thus coming to have emotional and cognitive temperaments not akin to their familiars, their present progenitors.
Not akin, this then meant, the life the familiars would have for them, that may match the preceding generation's general temperament, would not match the progeny, and present generation's temperament. Atavism, however, happens more often than not on the individual level, and not among the collectives.
The exception is the atavism of the Haima, that tends to get passed down from generation to generation, producing the shamanistic aggressive kinds. It's the only “collective atavism” among the kinds. So much then... it is not called “atavism”. Because it is not a throwback to ancestral settings, but a continuation.
These kinds, then, are the same as their ancestral kinds... collectively. Because of this, they are the most tribal, racialistic, xenophobic, and likely to align with each other, against that of others. All ruling elite of all regions are of the Haima ancestors, even if they all look regionally different. Their temperaments, physical and cognitive, are of the same character. They know they are different, and there are differences. But they teach the rest of you that... “We” are a “we”... that “we” are all the “same”, and thus, there is “kindness” among the whole of Min, or “humanity”. This is a CON.
The Haima control academics, media, and politics. They control governance, and all of these things are used to govern, with the nation-state model. They teach SAMENESS, not for BENEVOLENCE. They teach it, so that the masses they SUBJUGATE would never see that their SUBJUGATORS are a KIND that differs from the SUBJUGATED.
This “CHOSEN KIND” hides itself through teachings of EGALITARIANISM, EQUALITY, EQUITY, CONFORMITY, and UNITY. All things on the surface that seem benevolent, but to the Warrior are clear psychological weapons to muddy the battlefield, and provide smoke screens for movements, and engagements.
A CON.
The subcategories among Mer
The Mer is the foundation for all Humanus, and the Haima are a HUmanus. Their ancestors were altered through intoxicants, as these intoxicants would change their makeup. So even a Haima who does not engage in intoxicants will be of the temperament, intoxicants designed. The most simplest term, for the Haima, and intoxicated kinds... is EFFEMINATE. More on that later.
So among the Mer, there are subcategories. The masses of Mer, or HUmanus, are Utilis. So if using the Homo sapiens schema, it would be like saying Homo utilis. That is “servile human”. These are the mechanical kinds that need to work and labor for replication, as “meaning”.
They make up most, and in ancient times, were called “Shudra”, or the “feet” of the Leviathan, that of “Brahma”. They were the commoners, peasants, farmers, laborers, the SERVILE KIND that is always seeking to be “told what to do”, and be “kept in place for safety and security”. Safety and security, as a cry, is HUMANUS. It is not what a “Warrior Sage” seeks, though it is what a Warrior Sage has, as a byproduct, that others will value.
Homo utilis, or Humanus utilis, would be the masses that are governed and exploited, in all regions. They are the servile kind that does not have impulses towards any direction. They can easily be observed by how the conditions of the time and the region dictate their “character”. They are not individualistic, and often they scoff at differences, mock differences, while they are conformed to a group identity. They are often costumed up, like the rest, for reassurance.
The term “Magus” is used for “shaman” and “Brahmin”. Terms are expansive. There is NOT one single way to say this and/or that. A single term means nothing, till it is defined. So, to say Magus, is to say shaman, but not Brahmin. When I use this term “Brahmin”, it is not in reference to the “Hindu” ideology, and caste system. It is general. A Brahmin is the mouth, the words, the culture of the Leviathan.
So it is those in position of Influence, where they narrate the culture, customs, traditions, and norms... the expectations that others then conform to. Brahmins are “cultural creators”, but as a ROLE. That ROLE is MOSTLY dominated by the Humanus kind I call “Magus”. Magus is not merely at the root of “magi”, “magician”, “magic”, and so on. It's a deeper and more ancient phonetics, pre-Babylonian. It is Ma, Gu, Se. This means a great deal.
But the primary phonetics here is Ma. It means aggressively, the Magus is centered around the “womb”, far more than the Utilis. The Utilis, or servile class, is centered around the loose forces of Ut. Ma is the concentrated forces of Ut. So the Magus is VERY aggressive around the WOMB, and thus, FEMALE INTEREST. They are mostly MATERNAL in their social orders, where their FEMALES levy a great deal of CONTROL and INFLUENCE over their males.
Because of this, Magus males are mostly EFFEMINATE, soft, and they are not considered MANLY, by MANLY social orders. They will engage in professions that are “worded”, more than laborious. Professional roles of Management, versus the managed. They will deal in governance and MEDIA, more than be the SUBJECTS, and the SPECTATORS. This can happen on small scale local cultures, or large scale culture creation. When the individual Magus has Influence, and a role in the culture sustainment or propagation, they are a Brahmin.
Magus is the Mer temperament, like that of Utilis.
Mer here is like “Homo”.
It is Mer Magus.
It is Mer Utilis.
The smallest of the Mer kinds is their robust kind, I call Mer Daco. Daco, in this case, is that of “raiders”. It is the servile ones that can act as shields, and spears for the collectives of Mer.
In the past, the Ancients called these “Satra”, and/or “Khattiya”. But these ancient terms were leftover from pre Magus Control. Just like Brahma was not originally in this corrupted form. There are those who go way back in the sense of these characters, to disagree with me. They will say, “NO, Brahma, and all these terms apply to strong 'Warrior' and Wise kinds”.
But that is prehistory. That is before the account of the behaviors and actions that “history” has left behind to be read. Meaning, the “account” is not of when these terms represented “actual models” that matched the words. Instead, the “account”, that is, history, that inquiry into the past, has only imposters, that is Magus leading these roles.
That is why Mytho-Buddha was liken to a “reformer”. He wanted the “Brahmins” to return to the “ancient” Brahmin character. But they could not. They could not, because this is about BIRTH and innate temperament. Not about CHOOSING culturally to live a certain way.
Choosing culturally to live a certain way, as a primary, is a “shamanistic”, that is Magus narrative. Culture as the defining variable leads to deception. Many have cultures not based on their “natures”, or “essential” and “innate character”. They have what preceded them in familiarity, in the procession, and they conform to it.
This is what the Magus brought about, whereas the Virya or the Ver taught the opposite direction. One's culture is to be a cultivation of innate traits and attributes, that form the innate temperament and character of the individual. This is why Mytho-Buddha said, it “matters not who you were born to. It's about the individual's temperament”.
This is not “ANTI CASTE”. That is a myth. This Mytho Man, he was not anti caste. He was anti caste established based on progenitors, for a return to “caste” in the sense of “natural temperament”.
And caste, in this case, is for developing the right culture for the individual. It is not about determining who RULES or MANAGES over others. That is a MAGUS thing. They use inherited “class” and generational wealth to put their “own” in position of Control and Management, Influence, and subjugation.
This occurred in the “Indus”, and among the “Greek Aristoi”. Originally, it was individual temperament that determined which culture was best for the individual. Then, it was land ownership, and material wealth, keeping others tied to the land, and the introduction of democratic Manipulation, of who is in Control. Those who control the needs and desires of the many would sway their support by necessity, and appeal to base interest. It has been that way since.
The hierarchy among the Mer is as follows:
Mer Magus (Controllers)
Mer Utilis (Servile class)
Mer Daco (Raiders, takers, enforcement, force)
Numerically, it is:
Utilis
Magus
Daco
In the Indus, these would be the roles, not temperaments, of:
Brahmins, as governance
Khattiya (Daco Sangha) as fighters, raiders, soldiers, and kings
Shudra, as the laborers, the servants, the farmers, the commoners.
Sometimes, farmers with craftsmen would be in the Vaisya category, also seen as merchants.
Humanus, or Mer, does not have Vaisya among them as a natural temperament. That is the Ser kind.
Brahmin,
Khattiya,
Shudra,
would become ROLES. Roles are not the same as inductive temperament, or that of “that which is natural”.
So, Vaisya would become the same.
Brahmins moved Khattiya, their brutes, to take over merchant settlements, along rough trading routes. They conquered the peoples on those routes through raiding, and then declared, they brought “security”. “Security” they brought for taxation. “Secure taking” is what government is. It is organized raiding that exploits settled populations.
Prior to this, the Vaisya were a separate kind altogether. As the Brahmins took over trade, through force, as they do today... it became Brahmins who would control the markets. The Magus, through cultural creatives, are ALWAYS trying to seize Control and Influence over markets. The markets have not been free since governance came in and conquered the routes. So Vaisya, like the others, would become roles that the Magus could assert Control and Influence through.
Magus Brahmin
Magus Vaisya
This, today, in the American experiment, is clear.
Magus controls government.
Magus controls media/culture.
Magus controls “tech” and the marketplace.
Everyone else is controlled and managed under these Magus dictates.
The Daco, or “brutes”, are the athletes, entertainers, fighters, soldiers, enforcement, and “sheepdogs”. But, like the past, these ROLES have fallen into having far more Magus in them, than they used to. In the past, attraction to a profession, based on one's innate disposition, was a thing. One went to the “job” as a “Vocation”, that is, because it spoke to them.
Now, one is working based upon CULTURAL dictates. That is why Humanus females, more often Magus, can be found in “brute” or enforcement work. They are there culturally, and they are considered way below in performance to those brute Daco males, born with ROBUST frames, and a RAIDER'S mindset.
Raiders, not “Warriors”. Mer, or that is Humanus, do not produce WARRIORS. Warriors, in the classical sense, are individuals restrained by an ETHOS. Fighters that are brutes, who are only restrained culturally, and thus, find loopholes, are not Warriors. They are raiders, and takers.
Humanus produces raiders, pays them as a profession, and calls them soldiers. Most soldiers and fighters, among Humanus, are not even raiders. They are not Mer Daco, or Brutus. They are Shudra, commoners, disgruntled, and individually, they are weak, and pathetic in thought, and discipline. Collectively, they get thrown out to raid, as a role.
Some, that of Daco, and Brutus, are born to RAID, have ROBUST frames, and have nothing that tells them they have no right to oppose. They can be identified through their suffering, in regards to DOMINANCE hierarchies. A Warrior attains, through standards, well-being that is individualistic. A raider never attains well-being. They have short-lived sense of worth, based on where they are in a dominance hierarchy, compared to others.
Meaning, only when they take and overthrow others, does their “worth” to others have clarity. Without that, they feel insecure and fearful of their status. Raiders have to get recognition from others.
In common lexicon, this is the “alphas”. Alphas rely on servile subjects to need them. Alphas can not have a sense of worth that is intrinsic. It is transitive and reliant upon the collective, and their role. They only want to be told who to take from, to secure their position as “worthy”. It is servility through taking, versus the Shudra servility through labor, through toil, and mechanism.
The difference between the Mer Brutus, and Mer Utilis, is Brutus takes of others, and Utilis takes of things. Among Humanus, that is Mer, the Brutus/Daco is like a “female”, but with the physical power to take what they want, versus the need for Seduction, and deference, the appearance of being weak and in need.
That is why, like a female, Humanus Daco, Mer Brutus, will be concerned with their image, and for their insecurity, instead of makeup, and costumes, they focus on MUSCLE appearance, SIZE, and that of “TAXED SYSTEMS” or being physically worked. They puff up their “armor” by way of MUSCLES, as this then signals others to not attack.
More often than not, muscles that are not functioning and utility based are there on the individual to cover their insecurity and fear. Because of this, nature even tells Humanus females to NOT find this attractive. Meaning, on average, Humanus females do not find bodybuilding and bulking attractive.
Males find this appealing, of other males, because this intimidates them, and keeps order. So it is rather “gayish” and “fanookish” for a male to pump themselves beyond utility. It's like wearing makeup for a female. It's to hide their insecurities and fears, through rouge, through deception. Most big built out males have avoided conflict and fights, with their size, and thus, when faced with a fighter who is combat fit, but not big, the big fella will get torn apart.
Next time you think a female wants you “gym big”, think again. She wants you FIT and DANGEROUS, and gym big does not say that. Gym big says insecure, and fearful, and putting on makeup like her. She will lie, and socially say it is attractive. But all studies done, where they choose body types without collective input, they choose overwhelmingly the same. Fit, but not overly fit bodies.
Nature, that is Ua, programmed this, because of “economization” in “adaptation”. Anything too costly to the species is UNDESIRABLE. So the more it costs, to get a certain way, the more the worth starts to go down. Meaning, the more fragile sustainment is. So Nature has body types that are fit for Nature or living, versus “costly”.
Weak is costly, in that it can not respond with what is needed to survive, and thrive. Overbuilt is costly, in that, to sustain it, it requires LUXURY, and way more resources than would naturally be procured. There are “kinds” or “stocks” of fellas innately bigger than others. Like horses, they do not need much to sustain that.
This, then, is the difference. It is about how many calories and sustenance is needed for the size. Those who size, and maintain with ease... are those merely engaged in innate fitness. This does not apply to them. It's about COST of the PERFORMANCE, not the mere appearance.
In the American experiment, so long as its markets are stable, one can engage in the entitlement of heavy physical training, even as a lifestyle, and profession. But it is foolish to think this could be done under natural conditions.
This is ENTITLEMENT, for that of the GOVERNING and RULING class, in which the AMERICAN form of COMMERCIAL government is, for now. The American experiment is controlled by Magus Brahmins, who use the commoners of its region to RAID the other NATION-STATES. They also use MARKETPLACE coercion to keep everyone in line.
This, however, as an EXPERIMENT, is not sustainable. Eventually, the more primitive of nation-states, that is, less effeminate and sophisticated, will combine their energies, and topple the entitled classes' Control over “global affairs”. They will not do this, without first the Brahmins of the American experiment transitioning over into the “New Social Order”.
Meaning, Brahmins are, and always have been “globalist” and “international”. They do not believe, like their “subjects”, in nation-states. They use nation-states to the point of “suicide”, and then move on, with their global kin, to different structures to hide behind. The Old Order is the same as the New Order. There is no Old Order, and New Order. There is the Magus, who is organized and orderly, and everyone else who is SERVILE, and STUPID.
Humanus and Mer are the same.
The difference is, “Mer” is a term my Kind would use.
HUmanus are those of Ma, forced to restrain it (Na), and be Us-ful, to the HU. Humanus is Utilis, and Brutus, or Daco, under the Control and Management of the Ha; and the Ha is “Haima”, and also the ancestors of the “Harya”... who had a small portion of its “raiders” break off and form the “Arya”.
Terms and names are all relative to who is using them and why.
Haima is what they called themselves, and what others once knew them as. Their matriarch was Hawwah. Hawwah biblically was under the Goddess Lilith, the plant provider. The plants were intoxicants.
So for the sake of classification, know this. To the Vir, or the Ver... Mer, Ser, Per, Ver... are cultural categories describing others. They are not the terms that cultures “today”, or for a long time would use, and agree with.
You may call yourself human... But “We” of my Kind... call youse Mer.
So the naming is of the same attributes and traits. It is these traits and attributes, with their individual terms, that are important, far more than the name assigned. So, there is the name in which one calls themselves, or their “own”, and then there are names in which others use to refer to “thou” and “thine”, or that is... that of “others”, from the “outside” looking in.
In that of this “recorded history”, or “accounts of the past”, all present names and descriptions of the “Ver” have been from “outsiders”. But these “outsiders” are “your insiders”, meaning, the “peoples”, or the “collectives” that have governed your very thought.
Therefore, it ought not be of any surprise that the words in which I am producing are foreign, “new”, and only sourced in my works. Some will have an issue with this. Those some, are mental midgets.
Mer is around the “Me” sense of the Ma. Even this “English term”, “me”... is in itself, rooted in the Ma forces. This, versus say “I”, and Se, and the lost Ve, and Vi. In actual phonetics, the Ver would, if it was conventional, refer to themselves as “Vi” instead of “me”. But in many ways, does not use this talk to begin with. Meaning, a Ver does not often say “me”, “mine”, “we”, “us”, and so on.
But this is too much of a deviation to cover for now.
But Mer is different from that added element that begets “Ser”.
CHAPTER 4
The Advent of the Cognitive Species
The last chapter was about the "naming of the Vir", the Ver, the Vehrka, the Virya, and why it is so, in the most completed form I have yet to provide. That can not be completed without a strong sense of Mer, Ser, Per, Ver. These Cognitive Species, or rather the “Cognitive General Forms”, with branching species, are essential to grasping not only what a “Vir” is, by name, but the hidden code for the ancient sense of temperament, of stock, of innate character that will, to certain degrees, seek to be expressed “FROM” the individual.
However, there is this term in English that hides a great deal of meaning. Not sure how much of that meaning I can cover here, in the now... but sure, I will need to return to it, even later, to give it more expoundings. This term is “inert”.
Etymology of inert (adj.)
1640s, “without inherent force, having no power to act or respond,” from French inerte (16c.) or directly from Latin inertem (nominative iners) “unskilled, incompetent; inactive, helpless, weak, sluggish; worthless,” used of stagnant fluids, uncultivated pastures, expressionless eyes. It is a compound of in- “without, not, opposite of” (see in- (1)) + ars (genitive artis) “skill” (see art (n.)). In chemistry, “having no active properties, neutral” (1800), specifically from 1885 of certain chemically inactive, colorless, odorless gases. Of persons or creatures, “indisposed or unable to move or act,” from 1774.
Now, from the etymology, one ought to take note that the term “art” is connected here. Now, this is no minor connection. The network of notions or of ideas that this term and its correlates spell out, would be immense. So for now, I will only offer a brief.
The meaning of Ar
“Art”, and “arms” are associated with “weapons”, and “warfare”. However, the key correlated term here, is irmah, Sanskrit for “arm”, and then rtih, which is “manner or mode”. Remember previously the term Rta, and its role in “Ratiocination”, for later.
In Greek, for “Justice” would come arti, or rather, for “Just”.
Artios begins this notion of modern sense of “an art”, as that of “complete, suitable”. To prepare is artizein.
Latin ars, because “art, skill, craft,” with armus, being shoulder. Arma eventually becomes “weapons”. Now, Old Prussian maintained the Ir phonetics here, first shown in the Sanskrit, for irmo... “arm”.
So arma, and “art”, in correlation, is often about “manner, mode”... But was, and always has been first and foremost “MARTIAL”, or “warlike”... in meaning. The first ART of ARTS is WARFARE.
Weapons are extensions of one's “arms”, in the ancient sense. They give distance, and range, and they are force multipliers.
The Ar phonetics here is of Proto-Indo-European root, meaning of that of “to fit together”, “to bring about”.
Etymology of *ar-
also arə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to fit together.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit irmah “arm,” rtih “manner, mode;” Armenian arnam “make,” armukn “elbow;” Greek arti “just,” artios “complete, suitable,” artizein “to prepare,” arthron “a joint;” Latin ars (stem art-) “art, skill, craft,” armus “shoulder,” artus “joint,” arma “weapons;” Old Prussian irmo “arm;” German art “manner, mode.”
Now, I have yet to get to Arete and Aristoi, in this particular piece, but have covered these terms in other works. “Arya” is an Indus term that is often translated as “noble”. The whole of the Buddhist declarations, in the Pali Canon, is to the “Arya”. Many have translated this to mean “spiritually noble”, and as if any to take of the “Noble Truths” would become “Arya”.
This is not how the Ancients used this term. It was a “stock”. The stock was born with Noble inclination. It was not about “life choices”, in how modern fantasies play out. It was about one's temperament.
Arya originally was “Harya”, and they were the Ha, and the Hu... and Ho peoples. They were once called the Haima, but this was pre-language Min, and not modern Min.
As modern Min, they were first called the Harya, and only a portion of them became the Arya. Their “raiders” would become the Arya, when they were led to STOP RAIDING, and listening to their shamans, and instead, seek to conquer themselves. These were the instructions given to the “armed” Arya.
The Ar component, or phonetics, in “Arya”, is not “noble” as an essence... it is “Martial”, and thus “armed”... that is “weaponized”. Arya does not mean “noble” in the effeminate spiritual sense. It means “Nobly Armed”, that is an “Ethical Warrior”.
The ethical component is when the restraint against others comes, and one no longer SEEKS to CONQUER that of OTHERS, but turns CONQUEST entirely upon the “SELF”. This is the primary component of “Ethics”. Do not AGGRESS upon others.
But there is no Arya, nor “Nobility” that is not “Martial”. “Arms” is absolutely at the root of “Virtue”, in any sense; “manliness”, of any sense. There were NONE considered “courageous” or “Valorous”, “Noble”, “Ethical”, and “Virtuous”... WHO WERE NOT MARTIAL. It would be absurd.
The term “Martial”, in many ways, has the M added to the “art” element, as a means to bring about the “Mars”, the Ma phonetics, into the Ar phonetics, thus muting it. It becomes “arms for the forces of Ma”.
And that is why the Vir, in greater definition, is not in actuality “Martial”, and this term is perverted, or bastardized. Instead, the Vir is “Valiant”. “Valiance” is our term for the notion of “Ethical Warfare”, and the “Ethical Warrior”. “Martial” is a bridge term.
The Pali, and Sanskrit Arya is the same exact phonetics, and forces of the Greek Arete. The Greek Arete then leads to Aristoi. The Aristoi that were ancient, is the same as the Arya.
The Aristoi would eventually become “overthrown” by property owners, who also used democracy, and city-state legislation to DISARM them. Disarming with arms is considered, in the Way of Vir, to be the start of ALL TYRANNY, and OPPRESSION. Those advocating DISARMAMENT are ENEMIES of LIBERTY... at ALL TIMES, without any exception.
The WAY of the VIR is a WAY that has ARMS essential to it. That means weapons are a primary component of this Religion, the Way of the Vir, and there will be ABSOLUTELY NO INFRINGEMENT upon this RIGHT. No regulation of this RIGHT. No restrictions of this RIGHT. This RIGHT is not CONSTITUTIONAL. This RIGHT is inherited by the FORCES of one's BEING.
Those with INERT beings fear this RIGHT, and therefore, use RAIDERS, with “arms”, to RAID this Right in others.
This phonetics of Ar is all throughout “art”, “armor”, “arms”, and even “harmony”.
It forms all or part of: adorn; alarm; aristarchy; aristo-; aristocracy; arm (n.1) “upper limb of the body;” arm (n.2) “weapon;” armada; armadillo; armament; armature; armilla; armistice; armoire; armor; armory; army; art (n.) “skill as a result of learning or practice;” arthralgia; arthritis; arthro-; arthropod; arthroscopy; article; articulate; artifact; artifice; artisan; artist; coordination; disarm; gendarme; harmony; inert; inertia; inordinate; ordain; order; ordinal; ordinance; ordinary; ordinate; ordnance; ornament; ornate; primordial; subordinate; suborn.
Now, I will draw the reader, and/or listener's attention to two primary terms here, in the etymologies, and correlated terms. First, as said previously, there is irmah, in Sanskrit, and the phonetics here are Ir, Ma, Ha.
Now:
Ia, Ie, Io, Iu, Iy, It, Ir, Il
I will keep the I phonetics separate from the group of phonetics for now, because there is much before, and in between them. But the focus for now is in Ir, and Il.
“Inert” has the Ir essence, even though it would come phonetically to be In, Er, Te. This is obstruction in phonetics.
The irmah has the Ha in it, in relation to what would be ars or Ar... that of arms. Ir and Il have a “because of” essence to them. These terms will have a sense of “to come together”, and this as “in defense”, with “arms”... “BECAUSE of the HA”. “Harmony” has the same essence to it.
Etymology of harmony (n.)
late 14c., “combination of tones pleasing to the ear,” from Old French harmonie, armonie “harmony,” also the name of a musical instrument (12c.), from Latin harmonia, from Greek harmonia “agreement, concord of sounds,” also as a proper name, the personification of music, literally “means of joining,” used of ship-planks, etc., also “settled government, order,” related to harmos “fastenings of a door; joint, shoulder,” from PIE ar(ə)-smo-, suffixed form of root *ar- “to fit together.” Modern scientific harmony, using combinations of notes to form chords, is from 16c. Sense of “agreement of feeling, concord” is from late 14c.
Ar is not “merely” — that is, as Humanus says — that which is “combined” or “fitted together”. It is “together in arms”. But it can also be, together in skill, competence, mastery, purpose, values, ethics, and “WAYS”.
Upright carriage with freed up arms, which in turn, free up the hands. At the end of the “arms”, are that of “hands”, and in Sanskrit, and Latin... that term is rendered “Manus”. The term “Man” comes from “Manus”.
However, “Manus” is a term of servility. It is the “hands” from the “arms”, that then serve the Ma forces, and the Ma forces are dictated in culture by the HuMa. Manus, all Manus... ARE BORN into captivity.
Manus is a term that is like HUmanus. It is not the term in which the Ver, or Vir use for the “Cognitive Kind”. It is the term the “Huma”, the Harya would eventually use for their “martial hands”, from the “arms”. It was Khattiya as a variant.
The raiders and/or warfighters were the “arms” of the Leviathan, the arms of Brahma. Manus, as “Management”, were the “manipulators”, the “hands”.
In Hindu culture, they referred to the caste in correlation to the body parts of Brahma. Brahmins, as the mouth, or generically the head; Khattiya as the arms, the fighters, and raiders; Vaisya as the thighs, that of productivity, craft, and the movements of the markets; and Shudra as the feet, the foundation, the earthling, servile and laborious.
Now, these are not liken to “superior and inferior” like would be thought in a privileged society, such as the American experiment. Instead, these were “narrated” as all important, and needed. It was at first, everyone in the place of their temperament, to be best suited, to be best combined. The “Art” was to have people where they “belonged”, according to, at first, their innate temperament, and it was not about who one was born to. This corruption came later.
So, if one was by their temperament, their very nature, potent in arms, in combat, in warfare, yet, born to a farmer, they would be given access to apprentice to Warriors, prove themselves, and join the ranks.
“Individuals” were observed, and identified in what they were born as, and then given the direction of the “Vocation” that was best suited. For any to think this is an inferior sense of things, is absurd.
NATURE, or TEMPERAMENT, is key in the INDIVIDUAL, not “freedom of choice” that is then confused through overeducation. It is not, FORCE a GENERAL sense of things, on ALL, then they can CHOOSE. This is absurd.
It is STUDY, OBSERVE, and INVESTIGATE in the INDIVIDUAL their temperament and PROCLIVITIES, and provide for CULTIVATION of those TRAITS and ATTRIBUTES, and the best CONDITIONS for them to be EXPRESSED.
The advent of the Magus
But MODERN Min, Humanus... is mostly “INERT” in their temperament. The Magus is not inert.
Mer/Humanus:
Magus
Utilis
Brutus
The Magus, of the three, is not “inert”. It is with a temperament that is:
Ambitious
Forceful
Aggressive
Overbearing
Zealous
Passionate
Motivated
These energies, however, are driven by that of aggressive fears and insecurities. The Magus has an amplified level of diffidence, among the Humanus. This causes the Magus to overly assert its self, in the realm of Control and Management over others. A Magus can never “respect” the individual Controls of others. They are by their very temperament COMPELLED, out of safety and security concerns, to CONQUER others. But the “ARMS” of the MAGUS are not their POWER.
The Magus is “mental”. The Magus uses words, uses deception, uses narratives, customs, culture, traditions, and rituals. As the “head”, as “mental”... they create the “DREAM”, the “MEANING”, the “decoration”.
Decor is used by the Magus, in all areas of their collective life. They take what is ordinary and base, and they wrap it in symbols used to “elevate” that thing, to “spiritual” and “meaningful” status. They “embellish” all things. This is why Seduction is their key form of Entertainment, or that is shaped “Frames of Mind”, that become maintained through media.
Etymology of decor (n.)
1897, “scenery and furnishings,“ from French décor (18c.), back-formation from décorer “to decorate” (14c.), from Latin decorare “to decorate, adorn, embellish, beautify,” from decus (genitive decoris) “an ornament,” from PIE root *dek- “to take, accept” (on the notion of “to add grace”). The modern word thus duplicates Latin decor “beauty, elegance, charm, grace, ornament.”
Originally in English in reference to theater stages; home-decor is by 1900 in reference to copies of old masters paintings used as home decoration; general use for “decorations and furnishings of a room, building, etc.” is by 1926.
A Magus is by NATURE, not choice, a “trickster”. The trick or “con” they play, is that of making the ordinary, base, and bestial seem “Divine”. Because of this, they become “spiritual” narrators to all cultures.
In Ua, the material forces that make up the “material plane” or “corporeal existence”, mating rituals exist among many animal forms. Birds are some of the best observed to engage in what, in modern terms, is called “peacocking”.
In many animal examples, the male animal will “dress up”, or decorate itself, dance, and show its “Value” in efforts to attract the female sex. Often, the female sex does not need to lure or attract the male. The female is attractive to the male animal, on account that the male animal is given an “obsession” with just the presence of the feminine.
The feminine does not need to put in the work. And most of the feminine, in this sense, then leads to entitlement. It is innate, that the feminine feels it is the prize, and Ua, through Ut and Us... down to the Ma, uses chemicals, and odors to instigate this sense of entitlement. The male animal is not using a program of discernment, though Nature, or Ua, does have within the animals, outward presentation of “fitness”, that is shown in phenotypes, or genetic appearance.
This “animal program” exists within the Min framework, because all Min are also animals. The term “animal” is from animus, and it means “breath”; so, that of the “animated” and breathing kind of beings, versus the “inanimate”.
Etymology of animal (n.)
early 14c., “any sentient living creature” (including humans), from Latin animale “living being, being which breathes,” noun use of neuter of animalis (adj.) “animate, living; of the air,” from anima “breath, soul; a current of air” (from PIE root *ane- “to breathe;” for sense development, compare deer).
A rare word in English before c. 1600, and not in KJV (1611). Commonly only of non-human creatures. It drove out the older beast in common usage. Used derisively of brutish humans (in which the “animal,” or non-rational, non-spiritual nature is ascendant) from 1580s.
Quid est homo? A dedlych best and resonable, animal racionale. [“Battlefield Grammar,” c. 1450]
Now, with this term, “decor” can be detected. The term was originally about the other animals, the merely “breathing” and “animated”. Notice, however, “soul” and “sentience” become a factor. This, is Magus. This is what it means to add “decor”. To “decorate” what is “base operations” with that of the “imagined”.
Humanus, or Mer, is arrogant with its symbolic thought. It “consciously”, or rather, mentally, in its head, suffers far more than the other animals, who suffer not the “mental”, but only that of physical hardships, when things are not well put together. When the Ar of Ua, that is the “Armony” is not in place... there is “discord”. Arcord, or Accord, is key.
Harmony and disharmony factor in with “animal suffering”. But animal suffering is “bodily”, whereas that thing decorated with a “soul” has both bodily suffering and mental suffering. But mental suffering can come even when the body of Min is in the most satiated and comfortable of states.
All the other animals... are not “mental”. But “Men”, or Humanus, are “mental” more than “physical”. But carried over from the “physical Animus”, is that of the mating rituals that are “primal”.
Now, what is the point of this?
Magus, among Humanus, are “effeminate”. Now, the way I am using this term is not the same as others use it, merely contextually. “Effeminate” is not “feminine”. The terms “masculine” and “feminine” are inadequate. But for now, I will use them. Along the way, I will define my use, and change over, accurately. Effeminate pertains to females and males of the HUmanus kin.
Kin, is kind. Kind, is collective. Kindness, is to compel conformity to one's collective. To treat one as if they are of one's collective. Vi do not engage in kindness. Kindness, like compassion, are roots of suffering. This is not “Our”, the Vir's Way.
Kindness causes harm.
Compassion causes harm.
Niceties are decorated ignorance.
To say “effeminate” is liken to say Ir-feminine.
To say “effeminate” is liken to say Il-feminine.
There is a corruption somewhere.
Female is Ma.
Male is Mas. That is Ma, Se. This means... in service to Ma.
Now, the Magus is a kind of Min that was created in temperament, or rather, augmented in temperament, on account of their mothers ingesting hallucinogenic plants. Their mothers are also, for the most part, mothers of all modern Min, on account of the fusion.
Before the advent of language, which came through the “Fathers” of Ver, there was the “Haima”. The Haima can be loosely thought of as “primitive Min”, like pre-Min. Hominids that did not use language, and barely used tools.
Intoxicants were ingested by Min that had no diversity. All Min were mostly the same. But after the ingestion, the females of this Min became tranced in the “imaginative”. The intoxicants increased their fears and insecurities. They began to see that which was not present. To think, that which was not correlated to their conditions. They did not have language to manage all this. They had only the passions, and these passions amplified.
If the foundation of the Brutus is Mi Ma, Ki Mu, Ki Pa, then the foundation that would arise as a formula for the Magus is:
Mi Ma, Sr Mu, Sr Ma.
Ki is the fundamental element, combined with Pa, that lays the foundation for the Ka.
Sr is a different force in designation. Ki is from the “Central Heart Fire”, figuratively, and Sr is from the “eyes”, and has roots in “see”.
Etymology of seer (n.)
late 14c., “one to whom divine revelations are made, prophet, person who sees or foretells future events,” agent noun from see (v.). Originally rendering Latin videns, Greek bleptor (rendering Hebrew roeh) in Bible translations (such as I Kings ix.9). The rare literal sense of “one who sees or can see, a beholder, witness, watcher” is attested from early 15c.
This essence, imaginative and fantastical, is the essence in “shaman” and “sramana”.
Etymology of shaman (n.)
1690s, “priest of the Ural-Altaic peoples of northern Asia,” probably via German Schamane, from Russian sha'man, from Tungus saman, which, according to OED is perhaps from Chinese sha men “Buddhist monk,” from Prakrit samaya-, from Sanskrit sramana-s “Buddhist ascetic.” Extended to “similar personages in other parts” (OED), especially native Americans. Related: Shamanic.
The “Shah-Man”, as a term, was not originally with this meaning of being as “seer”. It was a “Sovereign” or “kingly man”, and the cause for calling a “Buddhist ascetic” a “shaman” was to say, a “king man”, even in rags. But this notion and substance was lost long ago, as was the “Warrior” energetic elements of the most ancient notion of the “Brahmin”.
In previous works, I was calling the “Magus” a “shaman”. I also referred to the “sramana”, but this proved to be less accurate. The terms have historical meanings that can go in many directions. Now, the same can be said of “Magus”, and “magi”, “magic”, and so on.
“Magus” was chosen, because of its core component, being the Ma. Just as in with a “female”, there is the core Ma, and in “male”, there is the core ma as Mas. This central phonetics will be shown to be present all throughout. Even in “Manu”, there is something Ma at the core, and something added. The Ma component remains in Mi Ma as a basis for all of Humanus, and for that of Manu. Mi Ma is never divorced from these two of the Min kinds.
The Vir, however, does not have the Mi Ma component at its base. It has no ties to a “womb”, to a “matrix”, but its porta or “gate” is through the top of the head, symbolically, as a form that is other than mater, but is Phater. Phater form is not through the womb. The animal comes through the womb, as Mi Ma, and is minimal. But this is not what makes the Vir.
Mi Ma, as a component, is where the conditional element plays a large role. Conditionally orientated in the Mi Mu, the Ki Mu, or the Sr Mu. A Mutus is Mi Mu, or Ki Mu. A Brutus is Ki Mu, and a Magus is Sr Mu.
The Vir is Vi Mu. But this will not be accounted for yet.
The Mutus Mutus of Mi Ma, Mi Mu, Mi Ma/Mas found itself in regions where there was plant life that was intoxicating.
I will not detail here the kind, types, and specifics of intoxicants. From hallucinogenic plants, to cannabis, to alcohol, wine, and so on, the intoxicants can come by way of ingestion, by way of smoke to the lungs, or insertion by injection. The mode in which it is delivered is irrelevant.
Intoxicants are impediments. They are not with the “appearance” of impeding on account of ordinary pursuits or the Vulgaris way. They do not impede in Mi Mu, but they certainly impede Ki Mu. So then to call them “impediments” is to mean they impede Ki Mu. Intoxicants keep one in the phase of Mi Mu.
A Magus is Mi Mu and fixed to it, and does not have Ki. But they are Sr Mu from Mi Mu, on account of the intoxicants. They are not merely Mi Mu.
What is impeded with intoxicants is Ki Mu. If it is impeded, there can be no Ka Mu of the Brutus, and there can be no Ka Mu of the Manu, and most certainly, never ought it be thought possible, a Magus could have Vi Mu.
The Vi element is present in the “see” element, in which Magus in words will only claim, and never demonstrate. The Magus is See Mi, in the sense of, they project their Emotional Kinetics on the condition, and those in the condition. The Magus subjugates the condition to their emotional body, which is hyper in diffidence on account of intoxicants.
The Mutus Mutus of the Ma, or the female element, was resting in the dem, the settled areas, and carrying out acts of gathering, and came across intoxicating mushrooms, and/or plants. There was once a specific plant that became hidden, and removed from the common space. This was called “soma”, as well as “ha soma” or “haoma”.
It was the source of an elixir that induced hallucinations. It is held that the Mutus Mutus had begun to drink of its extract, the Mutus Mutus Ma, or the female. The Mas, or the male of Mutus Mutus, cultured in Pa, did not take of this extract, because it would have impeded their duties as out going, and fetching feed, and provisions. It is not a thing, where a social order of the Ha can maintain. “Ha” and “Sr” can be interchangeable. The Magus is composed of energetics that are Hu, Ha, Sra. As of right now, much will not be given to this code, as it would be cause to deviate from this expounding to secure other paths.
For now, Ha, and/or Sr can be used.
The Ha is the Venenum, from the direction of Vir Verbum, or terms.
Venenum, at the root of “venom”, is not the way in which the Ha and its kind ought to speak of intoxicants.
For the Ha, the Sr, the intoxicant is correlated to the “home”. Phonetically, it is not by chance that “haoma” is near to “home”.
The original notions of the settled areas or semi settled were first annunciated with the Ki Ka Kai components. It was from whence the Ki, the Ka, the Kai were “launched”. Like a “launching pad” or a “going out from”. The place in which one was going out from, when uttered by those of Ki Pa, was marked with:
Etymology of *tkei-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to settle, dwell, be home.”
This is incorrect, that it meant “to settle”.
It meant “to prepare”, in the sense of “for a going out”.
All that was tkei, or “taken”, was for going out.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit kseti “abides, dwells;” Armenian shen “inhabited;” Greek kome, Lithuanian kaimas “village;” Old Church Slavonic semija “domestic servants;” Old English ham “dwelling place, house, abode,” German heim “home,” Gothic haims “village.”
Kaimas, present with this term in its etymology, can act as a clue to the use of the phonetics one sees me employing before them. The academics do not have recollect to guide their sense of this “universal” root tongue of “impulsive” expression. So then they can not link the terms, and their meaning. The academics are Mutus Magus and/or Magus. All things are translated by their nature.
Ka-i-mas was the launching pad of the Venator, as the Vir would call it... the hunter, who went out and from to that of the hunt, the Venor.
Prior to these terms, the hunt and the hunter were called Kaimas. In Lithuanian, this was retained, but elsewhere it was gone. But the retention of this term was not from its earliest meaning, but from what would be its later meaning.
Ka would eventually become the phonetics for a dog, and Mas being male was the precursor to Min, or “man”, or the sense thereof. So Kaimas is “dog boy” or “dog male”. It is that hunting males, which were all males, did so with a “dog”. A boy, or a young male, was once called this as a stage in their development. They were called Kaimas.
Kaimas was “from here we hunt”, or “go out to there”, and “there” was Mu. Mu was “that outward”, which today would be called the condition, and though it applies to the Ha, that of the “inward” or “central” material place, such was not thought of in those times and their condition.
The “Ha” was “here”, and would come to be the phonetics for “home”. Where the intoxicating plants were found, were near the Ha, and not the Mu, or the field.
It will be difficult for a modern Min to grasp this, but Mutus Mutus did not have dreams from the start, in the most ancient form.
Dreaming was not introduced into the genus of Min, and the types of Humanus and Manus, until the advent of the Magus, and the use of intoxicants. This too, is why dreams are a heavier thing of focus to Humanus females, than to males.
The focus of dreams is clear designator of the Magus seed. Not dreaming. Because all moderns are, for the most part, fusions, then liken to how ancestors could have been Magus, Mutus, and Brutus... it can be thought that all three of them had introduced their “seeds” into the whole of Min, causing primary traits to arise.
From the Magus, Min has dreams, all Min.
From the Brutus to Manu, Min, all of Min, has abstract thought.
Magus stands in the most ancient of “mothers” of almost all, if not ALL kinds.
Manus stands in the most ancient of “Fathers” of almost all, if not ALL kinds.
This means of Min... not of Humanus, or Manus, or Vir.
It means that the whole of Min, as a genus, would have its course altered by the presence of these two... making Min with a conflict. To merely imagine and fantasy, or to Reason, and Reason well.
Most degreed outside of Reasoning with exactness, all who have Mutus, are with dreams, and they are fragments of waking life.
Dreams are induced by an “unsettled mind”. This is not shame. This merely says, either proper exhaustion was not had... or some edible is disrupting the mind during its “defragment”, and healing stage called sleep.
One does not extinguish the dream state. One orders the mind, and stops “dreaming”, and starts traveling along the “Tree of Notions”. The Vir does not dream. The Vir travels notions, and is in Control and Command of the process of defragmenting during the sleep phase. A Vir is “Awake” when they are “sleeping”. A Humanus, and a Manus, are not... so they “dream”.
This is a factor of nature, and therefore, receives no attention. A “dreamer” will think, this realm can be orientated with skill and techniques. No, it can not. It is “flatulence” like their emotions often are during the awake hours.
There is no FOCUS on DREAMS and the ways thereof in this “Way”. Dreams, like the Emotional Kinetics of Humanus, are treated as lightly as flatulence. Dreams are flatulence of the mind. The Magus has deceived Min into thinking that dreams mean more than that. They do not. The quality of your thinking by day will determine the quality of defragmentation or fragmentation of the mind during “reboot”.
It is that simple. One, then, with lots of focus, and emphasis on DREAMS, means, they have a FRAGMENTED mind that is not piecing together well. When the mind is least fragmented, what is encountered during reboot is proven sound in that it can be used following one's “awakening”. If it can not be used, it was wasteful thought, mere flatulence.
A part of the Humanus, and Manu showing favor to Amusements, and Seduction, is this dream contribution of the Magus of the ancient times. But what ought to be stated, is that this “instigative” energy was always clearly identified as a “delusion”, a “deception”, a “lie”, and “draugr”.
Etymology of dream (n.)
“sequence of sensations or images passing through the mind of a sleeping person,” mid-13c., probably related to Old Norse draumr, Danish drøm, Swedish dröm, Old Saxon drom “merriment, noise,” Old Frisian dram “dream,” Dutch droom, Old High German troum, German Traum “dream.” These all are perhaps from a Proto-Germanic *draugmas “deception, illusion, phantasm” (source also of Old Saxon bidriogan, Old High German triogan, German trügen “to deceive, delude,” Old Norse draugr “ghost, apparition”). Possible cognates outside Germanic are Sanskrit druh- “seek to harm, injure,” Avestan druz- “lie, deceive.”
Old English dream meant “joy, mirth, noisy merriment,” also “music.” Much study has failed to prove that Old English dream is the source of the modern word for “sleeping vision,” despite being identical in form. Perhaps the meaning of the word changed dramatically, or “vision” was an unrecorded secondary Old English meaning of dream, or there are two words here.
OED offers this theory for the absence of dream in the modern sense in the record of Old English: “It seems as if the presence of dream 'joy, mirth, music,' had caused dream 'dream' to be avoided, at least in literature, and swefn, lit. 'sleep,' to be substituted ....”
The dream that meant “joy, mirth, music” faded out of use after early Middle English. According to Middle English Compendium, the replacement of swefn (Middle English swevn) by dream in the sense “sleeping vision” occurs earliest and is most frequent in the East Midlands and the North of England, where Scandinavian influence was strongest.
Dream in the sense of “that which is presented to the mind by the imaginative faculty, though not in sleep” is from 1580s. The meaning “ideal or aspiration” is from 1931, from the earlier sense of “something of dream-like beauty or charm” (1888). The notion of “ideal” is behind dream girl (1850), etc.
Before it meant “sleeping vision” Old English swefn meant “sleep,” as did a great many Indo-European “dream” nouns originally, such as Lithuanian sapnas, Old Church Slavonic sunu, and the Romanic words (French songe, Spanish sueño, Italian sogno all from Latin somnium. All of these (including Old English swefn) are from PIE *swep-no-, which also is the source of Greek hypnos (from PIE root *swep- “to sleep”). Old English also had mæting in the “sleeping vision” sense.
It can be observed that unlike most terms in which I am able to show their roots in Proto-Indo-European tongues, the “dream” notions are mostly found exactly in the languages where the Magus were most plaguing their settled areas; that the Ancients did not have this sense in which most moderns presume, from their Ma, or their “mothers”, they did.
There is a reason “mothers” are more likely to talk about dreams, and their emotions, than the “Da”, or the daddies who focus more on the fields. This is an ancient phenomenon, because the Mutus Magus began in the ancestry of the matriarchal lines. Magus in Control of culture, then focused on getting their subjects, regardless of what kind they were, to speak of dreams and “magical talismans”.
These things were Verboden in the cultures of the most earliest Buddhists, who had been in observation of the Saka. The Saka had no word for “dream”, because when they went to sleep, they then “woke” up and lived.
Etymology of *swep-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to sleep.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit svapnah, Avestan kvafna-, Greek hypnos, Latin somnus, Lithuanian sapnas, Old Church Slavonic sunu, Old Irish suan, Welsh hun “sleep;” Latin sopor “a deep sleep;” Old English swefn, Old Norse svefn “a dream.”
Fna was “with around”. Kva was “with dog, on guard”. “Resting with guard dog” was kvafna. The Latin somnus retains the relationship later to be had with soma prior to sleep as “medication”, that was being used by Mutus Mutus Ma for their returning and exhausted Mutus Mutus Pa. It was used to “relax” them. Observing that this interfered with their energetics in the field, the Pa or Mas elements stopped.
But for “relaxation” and ease of sleep, the Ma elements, the female elements, would use somnus for sleep. Somnus for sleep, that of “relaxing the muscles” and mental sphere, was a luxury, because the performance of the Ma of Mutus Mutus was not challenging.
The sleep realm, where the mind “defrags”, was being altered, and when the Ma would awake to the actual, they would have loose thinking and they did not reboot forward, but backwards. They would be disturbed throughout the night, with visions induced by these hallucinogenics. But these hallucinations connected to hysteria would entertain them, as distractions, and provide euphoria, and therefore, emotional relief.
In the first phase of the advent of the Mutus Magus, there was no “spiritualism”. There was no “RELIGION”. There was no sense that this was “sight into a realm of the otherly”. All forces were from material notions. All forces were energetics. They were manifested evidenced in behavior.
The Ma began to alter their mental sphere by constant use of somnus before sleep, defining their sleep as somnus. The Mas, or the Kaimas, were not experiencing the same.
During these phases, hysteria, during the day, was causing division between the exhausted Kaimas of the Mutus Mutus Pa culture, and that of the Haima, or the Ma that remained settled et Ha.
The hysteria was interfering with the functions of the settled areas. Without any sense of what could be done... the Kaimas of many Mutus Mutus social orders abandoned their Ma, the females, and moved out to other places.
Without the ability to sustain themselves, the Haima wandered and would find themselves in contact with other Mutus Mutus social orders, arranged in the same manner as all default states. With their hysteria, these Haima became a source of excitement and Entertainment to newly found settlements. But the hysteria of their use of the somnus dream course caused them to produce odd behavior.
They were induced to “see what was inside of them” during the day, and this caused “blooding”. They would tear open at their skin through cutting. This odd behavior was at the start of this alteration from Mutus Mutus to Mutus Magus, but they were not yet Mutus Magus. They were conditionally inducing these dream states. This means, their physiology and chemical makeup was not yet ready to handle the induction through substance. They did not have the needed tolerance to be a “stable” user.
The Haima separated themselves in the new orders, and did not share the use of these intoxicants with the newly encountered Mutus Mutus Ma. If they did, they would have nothing to sustain their presence.
These Ma of the Haima were not functional. They were disruptive. The elders of the Mutus Mutus would care for them, and the Haima would self-isolate. They were observed often meddling in the “blood”, and prior to the Haima, there was no sense of “one's blood” among the Mutus Mutus. There was a massive unsettled sense of blood.
Haima, those Ma that engaged this sleep routine of dreaming while under intoxicants, throughout their lives, began to build a foreign state. One of the most agitated things about them was that, their sexual urges grew massively from intoxicants, and their inhibitions were lowering even more.
The Haima would visit the new Kaimas when they were in resting state, seeking to heal, and they would fondle them in their sleep, almost aggressively. The Haima would prepare a drink for the Mutus Mutus Ma of their new social order, with smaller amounts of somnus. This would relax them, and put them out, but not induce too much of the “dream state”.
When the Mutus Mutus Ma was “knocked out”, the Haima would sexually “assault” the exhausted males, who could care less what the source of sexual expression was coming from, and in the dark of night, not have much of a sense of who with.
The Haima were producing offspring from this course, on account that by day, their hysteria, and intoxicant states did not elicit from the Kaimas of Mutus Mutus Pa... that of selection. Haima were seen as “errors” by the nature of the Mutus Mutus.
Haima would produce offspring that would have higher tolerance, but addictions to the somnus course. Over many generations, in these regions, the Haima began to have their own area of the “settlements”, and with the use of blood, they began to mark, and “spin” things. The Haima were so connected with blood displays... that the term is retained in code in that of the notion of “blood” altogether. They were the first “blood queens”.
Etymology of -emia
word-forming element in pathology meaning “condition of the blood,” Modern Latin combining form of Greek haima (genitive haimatos) “blood,” a word of no established etymology (replacing the usual IE word, represented in Greek by ear; possibly from uncertain PIE root *sei- “to drip” (compare Old High German seim “virgin honey,” Welsh hufen), but according to Beekes this proposal “cannot explain the Greek vocalism.”
The phonetics ought to be clear here, as well as to any with a mind attracted to Patterns. Outside of some “odd” phenomenon of “recollect”, it would be hard for one to explain my ability to piece it all back together.
Som, and seim, and that of “drip” with that of “blood drips” are all correlated. It was observed that the Haima were infatuated with their blood, and they saw it as the vessel that carried the som, for somnus. The soma was used by the Haima, and this is why it would carry the energetic phonetics of “Ha” among the Zoroastrians, as they so named the plant and the drink.
This Ma phonetics is the code one needs to see much more.
Eventually, the first “blood ritual” would begin, where the Haima would add to the water their own blood, and mix it in. This was also used in Haima sexual practices.
In order to lure in the males of the Mutus Mutus for sexual practice, the Haima had come to figure out that small dosage did not interfere with the performance of the Kaimas in the field. That it put them to rest much faster, weakened their minds, and made them suggestible. This is not language era. The modern reader must be reminded of this. All of this was conducted on the perceptual level. It is not like a movie, where the movie would have these primal Mutus Mutus, and Mutus Mutus Haima speaking to each other, saying things and so on.
The Haima were pre symbolic communication, when all was of grunts.
The Haima built out their kind, the Hama, through mixing with the Kaimas of Mutus Mutus. When the Hama would have Mas offspring, they were not with the Utilis frames, and Ka element for outward going. The Haima were having Haimas.
When the males of the Haima were being produced, they were not having roles that made sense to the Mutus Mutus. The males of the Haima, the Haimas, would be overly sexual like their females, and the sleep invasions would begin, in the absence of the males, when they were Kaimas in the field. The ancient myths of the succubus, and so on, are all born from the presence of the Haima.
Etymology of succubus (n.)
“demon fabled to have sexual intercourse with humans in their sleep,” late 14c., an alteration of Late Latin succuba “strumpet,” also applied to a fiend (generally in female form) having sexual connection with men in their sleep. This is from succubare “to lie under,” from assimilated form of sub “under” (see sub-) + cubare “to lie down” (see cubicle).
The energetics here is retained in the two-letter phonetical grunt of “su”.
The snakelike S is often connected with this kind.
Too, this is why the Vir were often called “Sakka” instead of “As'Vaka”, or “Vaka”, from “Vehrka”.
The S was not a component of the Vir, outside of the term Sha. Sha has its origins in correlation with Su, as a counterforce. Sha is opposite Su. Sha is “over”, and Su is “under”. Sha is light, and Su is in the dark.
The moon was the lesser light in which the Haima would find itself in use of to travel by night. Mutus Mutus often was down during the night, on account of lesser light. When they were down, they were under the intoxicants in which the Haima had been given them in low doses to “ease” their sleep.
The Haima took to raiding supplies under the moonlight, taking a little here and there for themselves that they did not earn, but no more than would cause Sha or “light upon them”. Sha is not “light”. Sha is the “light that detects the dark”, and that is why it shares the S sound, and component.
Saka was not what they were, later, but that with the bow, they fired arrows at the Su. They were Suaka in meaning, the enemy of Suma, tossing their arrows at them. A “bowman” was what was meant, in only the most loose sense of terms. But it is “them who throw arrows at us”.
Sha is not its own thing. Sha is the notion of the Su, which is retained in “subversive”. The Su is “subversive” energy. A-Ka. Ka is forward and out energy. Va-Ka is that specific kind. As Ka is to Ki, Va is to Vi.
SAKA was a warning term, and the Sacaen lands were avoided, because among specific Saka, there was no Haima. The two kinds were so different, that the one kind could see the other kind. The kind that is Mutus Mutus is so much akin to Mutus Magus, that Mutus Magus always operates Su energetics. Meaning, can “HIDE” below the “surface” of things, during the day, and operate at night, when its “subjects” are intoxicated and fast asleep.
Etymology of sub-
word-forming element meaning “under, beneath; behind; from under; resulting from further division,” from Latin preposition sub “under, below, beneath, at the foot of,” also “close to, up to, towards;” of time, “within, during;” figuratively “subject to, in the power of;” also “a little, somewhat” (as in sub-horridus “somewhat rough”), from PIE *(s)up- (perhaps representing *ex-upo-), a variant form of the root *upo “under,” also “up from under,” which also yielded Greek hypo- and English up. The Latin word also was used as a prefix and in various combinations.
In Latin assimilated to following -c-, -f-, -g-, -p-, and often -r- and -m-. In Old French the prefix appears in the full Latin form only “in learned adoptions of old Latin compounds” [OED], and in popular use it was represented by sous-, sou-; as in French souvenir from Latin subvenire, souscrire (Old French souzescrire) from subscribere, etc.
The original meaning is now obscured in many words from Latin (suggest, suspect, subject, etc.). The prefix is active in Modern English, sometimes meaning “subordinate” (as in subcontractor); “inferior” (17c., as in subhuman); “smaller” (18c.); “a part or division of” (c. 1800, as in subcontinent).
Up, as a force, in upo, is on account of “unsettled Ut”.
Etymology of *upo
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “under,” also “up from under,” hence “over.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit upa “near, under, up to, on,” Greek hypo “under,” Latin sub “under, below,” Gothic iup, Old Norse, Old English upp “up, upward,” Hittite up-zi “rises.”
The notion of “hypnotic” is correlated to the content of this Su element, in that Su, as a subversive force, is a part of the subversion of So in “soma”, from the “Haoma”, or the Haima, and they “secrete” in “secret”.
Ha, Se, Su, So, Up, Ut.
Etymology of suggest (v.)
1520s, “place before another's mind; put forward a proposition,” from Latin suggestus, past participle of suggerere “bring up, bring under, lay beneath; furnish, afford, supply; prompt” (see suggestion). Meaning “to act so as to call up the idea of (something else)” is from 1709. Related: Suggested; suggesting.
Present in “suggestion”, and “suggestive”, is this subversive energy. It is not outward forces, but “under” and “below” forces, also correlated to Se-X.
The Haima were sexual in the hyper sense. When the notion of “sex” was grunted, it had the primary notion of “to cut”, retained in the term “section”. The Se kinetics, and force, was a cutting force. “Separation”.
The Haima were those with cuts upon themselves in the first aspect. Often, when they would “visit” as succubus the Kaimas, and “sex” them; in their halfway state of wake and sleep, they would also cut them, leaving a mark. They would be excited by their blood, and/or they would self cut and rub their blood on the Kaimas, in their state of delirium and rest.
“Sex” and “cutting” was all correlated to the Haima, and prior to this, the fornication and coupling was so normative, it had nothing about it. More often than not, it was a quick act of “seeding” the womb, and it was not an act that was deemed... “pleasurable”, and “stimulating”, in need of “ritual”.
“Ritual sexing”, with prolonged purpose, was induced from the stimulation of the intoxicants, the So, from Se, that Su.
Etymologists find the term “sex” to be quite the mystery, on account that they are piecing together from presence, and not from recollect of past. But the SOLUTIONS are in the piece.
Etymology of sex (n.)
late 14c., “males or females considered collectively,” from Latin sexus “a sex, state of being either male or female, gender,” a word 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.)).
Secus seems the more original formation, but it is strange that the older texts only know sexus. The modern meaning of sectiō 'division' suggests that sec/xus might derive from secāre 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does sexus go back to an s-present *sek-s- 'to cut up', or was it derived from a form *sek-s- of the putative s-stem underlying secus? [Michiel de Vaan, “Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages,” Leiden, 2008]
The meaning “quality or character of being either male or female” with reference to animals is recorded by 1520s; by 19c. this meant especially “the anatomical distinction between male and female as evidenced by physical characteristics of their genital organs and the part taken by each in reproduction.” Extended by 1560s to characteristics or structures in plants which correspond to sex in animals.
It is curious that the Anglo-Saxon language seems to have had no abstract term for sex, which was expressed only severally as manhood or womanhood. [Thomas Wright, note to “Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies,” 1884]
Also especially the sex “the female sex, womankind” (1580s). The meaning “sexual intercourse” (have sex) is by 1906; the meaning “genitalia” is suggested by 1933 (“Fumes of Formation”) and probably is older. Sex symbol by 1871 in anthropology; the first person to whom the term was applied seems to have been Marilyn Monroe (1959). Sex-kitten is attested by 1954 (Brigitte Bardot). Sex object is by 1901, originally in psychology; sex appeal is attested by 1904.
For the raw sex appeal of the burlesque “shows” there is no defense, either. These “shows” should be under official supervision, at the least, and boys beneath the age of eighteen forbidden, perhaps, to attend their performance, just as we forbid the sale of liquors to minors. [Walter Prichard Eaton, “At the New Theatre and Others: The American Stage, Its Problems and Performances,” Boston, 1910]
Sex-life is by 1898. Sex-drive is by 1916 (sex-impulse by 1911). Sex-education is by 1894; sex therapist is by 1969, in early use often in reference to Masters and Johnson. Sex-crime is by 1907; sex-maniac by 1895; sex-fiend by 1931 (in a New York Daily News headline).
Etymology of sex (v.)
1884, “to determine the sex of (a specimen), mark or label as male or female,” from sex (n.); to sex (something) up “increase the sex appeal of” is recorded from 1942. Related: Sexed; sexing.
Not only did the eventual Magus beget the traits of Min to have dreams as a factor, but also its sense of “ritual sex” often correlated with the night. The first demand levied as sex as “prolonged pleasure” was on account of the Haima and their aroused states through soma.
So-Ma, with the SO, is the energetics of “fill the womb”. It is aggressive, compared to what it was prior to the advent of the Magus. The Mutus Mutus was without the energy, and without the luxury to have a sense of “sex” as a primary thing of pleasure.
One can experiment with this, as they push themselves to exhaustion physically and mentally, and then consider what energy is left for a “sexual drive”. A high sexual drive is evident of a low physical and mental drive towards expression.
It is a luxury of idleness, and where there is nothing else defining one's course.
This ought never to be thought to shame that of sexual pleasure, and sexual drives. This is showing the root of its hyper presence. In Humanus, a kind of Min, it is hyper present. Its hyper presence is from Haima.
Etymology of hyper-
word-forming element meaning “over, above, beyond,” and often implying “exceedingly, to excess,” from Greek hyper (prep. and adv.) “over, beyond, overmuch, above measure,” from PIE root *uper “over.”
Etymology of *uper
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “over.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit upari, Avestan upairi “over, above, beyond;” Greek hyper, Latin super “above, over;” Old English ofer “over,” German über, Gothic ufaro “over, across;” Gaulish ver-, Old Irish for.
It forms all or part of: above; assume; Aufklarung; eave; eavesdropper; hyphen; hypo-; hypochondria; hypocrisy; hypotenuse; hypothalamus; hypothesis; hypsi-; hypso-; opal; open; oft; often; resuscitate; somber; souffle; source; soutane; souvenir; sub-; subject; sublime; subpoena; substance; subterfuge; subtle; suburb; succeed; succinct; succor; succubus; succumb; sudden; suffer; sufficient; suffix; suffrage; suggestion; summon; supine; supple; supply; support; suppose; surge; suspect; suspend; sustain; up; up-; Upanishad; uproar; valet; varlet; vassal.
The “SUPER” that of the “SU” per, retains the phonetic energetics.
Terms, seen as a whole, often do not have retained this ancient level of phonetics grunting. This can be seen in the rendering of the term So-Ver-eign. A Vir can never be the “Sovereign” over another; only have “SoleReign” over its self.
So is made sense of, in this term, from that of “somber”.
Etymology of somber (adj.)
1760 “gloomy, shadowy” (earlier sombrous, c. 1730), from French sombre “dark, gloomy,” from Old French sombre (14c.), from an adjective from Late Latin subumbrare “to shadow,” from sub “under” (see sub-) + umbra “shade, shadow” (perhaps from a suffixed form of PIE *andho- “blind, dark;” see umbrage). Related: Somberly; somberness.
But it has the dual component of “sole”, as well as “Solar”.
Etymology of sole (adj.)
“single, alone, having no husband or wife; one and only, singular, unique,” late 14c., from Old French soul “only, alone, just,” from Latin solus “alone, only, single, sole; forsaken; extraordinary,” of unknown origin, perhaps related to se “oneself,” from PIE reflexive root *swo- (see so).
Etymology of so (adv.)
Old English swa, swæ (adv., conj., pron.) “in this way,” also “to that extent; so as, consequently, therefore,” and purely intensive; from Proto-Germanic *swa (source also of Old Saxon, Middle Dutch, Old High German so, Old Norse sva, Danish saa, Swedish så, Old Frisian sa, Dutch zo, German so “so,” Gothic swa “as”), from PIE reflexive pronominal stem *swo- “so” (source also of Greek hos “as,” Old Latin suad “so,” Latin se “himself”), derivative of *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (see idiom).
Old English swa frequently was strengthened by eall, and so also is contained in compounds as, also, such. The -w- was eliminated by contraction from 12c.; compare two, which underwent the same process but retained its spelling.
As a word confirming a previous statement, late Old English; also from late Old English as an intensive in an affirmative clause (such as so very “exceedingly, extremely”). As an “introductory particle” [OED] from 1590s. Used to add emphasis or contradict a negative from 1913. So in mid-20c. British slang could mean “homosexual” (adj.). So? as a term of dismissal is attested from 1886 (short for is that so?, etc.). So what as an exclamation of indifference dates from 1934. Abbreviating phrase and so on is attested from 1724. So far so good is from 1721.
Etymology of *sawel-
*sāwel-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “the sun.” According to Watkins, the *-el- in it originally was a suffix, and there was an alternative form *s(u)wen-, with suffix *-en-, hence the two forms represented by Latin sol, English sun.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit suryah, Avestan hvar “sun, light, heavens;” Greek hēlios; Latin sol “the sun, sunlight;” Lithuanian saulė, Old Church Slavonic slunice; Gothic sauil, Old English sol “sun;” Old English swegl “sky, heavens, the sun;” Welsh haul, Old Cornish heuul, Breton heol “sun;” Old Irish suil “eye;” Avestan xueng “sun;” Old Irish fur-sunnud “lighting up;” Old English sunne German Sonne, Gothic sunno “the sun.”
There is a difference between “sole” and “Solar”;
But only in the slight.
Se, Su, Sa;
Su is a subverted Mu, a subjugated Mu.
Se, Su, Sa, So.
Sa begets So, and in the notion of so-le, a deviation of Haima had occurred.
The Haima did not take “husbands” and “wives”, but this notion of “husbands and wives” did not exist among Mutus Mutus, as it is a “ritual”.
It means they did not couple with only one.
Haima do not couple with a single male.
Haima, in their “hyper cutting”, do not express their sexual desires correlated to the stimuli. Meaning, the “individuality” of the sexual stimulation is not a factor. Stimulating the sexual with the Haima can come from any servile source. Because of this, the Haima did not have the Mutus Mutus Ma component intact, that made them “connect” to a Ma-Mas coupling, where their offspring would not be mixed with near kind.
The Haima, like the bonobo, did not have these restrictions. Nature did not pull enough on them to Verboden incest, but on account of their “taste” or favor for their “own blood”, they would engage in sexual stimulation with other Haima, and Haimas.
Failing to often mix with the Kaimas males, incest would ensue.
“Sole” was not a reference to their lack of suitability in coupling.
The Sa So component created in elements of the Haima, outward going females. These outward going females were the daughters of the Ka Pa of the Mutus Mutus Pa, and that of the Haima, that were endowed with the physical carriages of the Ka Pa, but the mental and sexual inclinations of the Haima, to a lesser degree.
They were imaginative, and they were dreamers, but they were subdued in their own proclivities by comparison of the Haima.
Se Su Sa is force leaning, with the Su in the center.
Sa is when self or Se Su is overcome, and the individual becomes Mu-Sa.
This arrangement of phonetic energy is retained in “muse”, or Mu Se.
Before it was Mu Se, it was Mu Sa. The force of Sa, following the conditional source of Mu.
Etymology of muse (v.)
“to reflect, ponder, meditate; to be absorbed in thought,” mid-14c., from Old French muser (12c.) “to ponder, dream, wonder; loiter, waste time,” which is of uncertain origin; the explanation in Diez and Skeat is literally “to stand with one's nose in the air” (or, possibly, “to sniff about” like a dog who has lost the scent), from muse “muzzle,” from Gallo-Roman *musa “snout,” itself a word of unknown origin. The modern word probably has been influenced in sense by muse (n.). Related: Mused; musing.
The perceptual sense of “snout” and “nose” is not correlated, but the notion of “like a dog” is.
The Haima that separated, overcoming Se Su, to Sa, became Musama, as females, and might have had offspring of Musamas. It is not as likely they had male offspring that came with them.
The Musama rebelled against their “mothers”, the Haima, and did not favor the “cutting” of their potent frames.
The Haima did not have potent frames. The Musama, with Ka Pa or Kaima, and Kaimas frames, favored the outward motion.
The Musama were born with the consequence of the intoxicants, but not the addiction. They went out and away during the conflict of the Haima Kaimas, when the disruptions of the Haima were too severe to tolerate, and they would be made to wander, and pushed out.
Haima and Musama would become two separate branches of matriarchs.
“Sole” was the trait that was being carried in its “infant state”, by the Musama. It has the onset of “reflecting”, like the moon, “pondering”, and being “absorbed” in thought. But it did not have the conditions for this seed to manifest in behavior. It begot aversions and attractions. The aversion was towards that which hindered reflecting and thought. That which caused the thought to wander, and lose its way, like a “dog that has lost its scent”.
The Musama had the Sa component of diffidence in it. This brought a hunger for certainty that was outward moving.
The Haima had a different kind of diffidence, that was Se Su. The Su Mu was the arrangement in order, for the conditions were “subjugated” to the Se, the Sense of Self, or the emotional body.
Whereas the reversal occurred in the Mu Sa, in that the conditions were the source of certainties. On account of their going out, it is most likely they had with them coupled Kaimas, and that the Musama did not have the hindrance that interfered with “dedicated” coupling.
The Musama with their Kaimas were becoming “outward”, and these particular Kaimas, then, did not have the “coming back”, or Ha component as a factor, because the Ut moved with the Musama.
In the outward movement of the Mu Sa Ma, with the Ka i mas, the aggressive pondering of their Ma, combined with the aggressive overcoming of the physical Mas... begot their own kind of offspring, that would come to influence the ancestors of almost all, if not all.
The Mu Sa Ma were like the Haima, matriarchal in authority, and aggression. The Mu Sa Ma with the Kai Mas begot offspring to be called Ar Sa Ma, Ar Sa Mas.
The Ar force was born with them.
The Ar force is an augmentation to Mu, the relationship to the condition. Ar force upon Mu is that of bringing the condition under Control and Management in a heightened aggression. This, however, is not the force that denotes the innovative “how.” This Ar is a drive, not a guarantee.
This force of Ar is at the root of later notions of Arii and Arya. Ya is a force that did not yet exist. Ar Ya is two force combined. Ar was at advent with this kind and its lines. In the presence of the Ar force, was that of a heavy demand levied on the Mas, from the Ma leadership, to PROVIDE more increasingly.
In the outward movement of the Ar Sa Ma, the solo sense was rooting, but not flourishing. The solo sense could not flourish, because the Ma were aggressive in Control and Management over the Mas. Mas were in service to the Ut, in which they were still nature's source thereof.
The Ar Sa Ma, pushing into harsher climates for greater claims, encountered the Ki Pa Ka; and the servile Mutus Mutus Pa, in culture Kaimas, was overtaken by the might and power of resolving conflict of the Mutus Brutus, the Ki Pa Ka. The first wave of forward Ar Sa Ma were left without males, without Mas, and they were overtaken and assimilated by the Ki Pa Ka, who were males.
With the appealing mental aggression, and physical frames of the Ar Sa Ma, the most aggressive of the Ki Pa Ka took them in coupling over their own kind of Ki Pa Ka Ma.
These two kinds moved further into northwestern and harsh regions, as climate changes began to restrict movement back from whence they had come. The coupling of these two kinds begot the coming of a kind of offspring that was aggressively nomadic.
Through coupling over many generations, the Ki Pa Ka and the Ar Sa Ma had mixed codes into a kind. In offspring the formula would be:
Mi Ma, Ki Mu, Ki Ma/Mas ; Ki Pa Ka ; Ar Sa Ya ; Ar Is Ya
The Ar Is Ya becomes the Ar Is Ya in fall back branches, that semi settled near from whence they came.
A second branch, wandering further out, was called the Ar Is Do, or To.
The Ya force added to the kind means “from within me it all comes”.
Ar Ya combined then is the force of: Ar, the drive to overcome; and Ya, the drive centered in Me that there is certainty that I shall overcome, all that can be overcome.
The Ar Sa Ma was driven by the “central sound” of diffidence in their Sa Ma code. The Ma code impacted the Sa condition of the Ar Sa Ma. But with the combination of the forces of Ki Pa Ka, in the Mutus Brutus, a formation of confidence, or relationship with certainty was bestowed.
This formulation towards certainty as a drive is called Ar Ya. The self position is the augmented position of Ya.
Positions of self are:
Mi
Ki
Ka
Ya
Mi position of self is when the Ma component is central, and the Ma component pulls the Mi variable back to its central “wombed” themes, Ut. Mi is centered in Ut.
Ki forces push the central Ut to Mu, in the sense of out, and upon the condition, the field, the target.
Pa is the outward force of conditional “certainties” that is engaged based upon the code in the position of self.
Mi Ma, Mi Mu, Mi Ma/Mas is the formula of the child and youth, prior to Pa.
Pa is the demand of the Mu for “certainties” in order to move out, and “fetch”, “feed”, or that of “provisions”.
Pa is cultural for the Mi Ma, Mi Mu, Mi Ma/Mas, with the Mas being the primary Pa, cultured in Ut.
The drive of Ut upon the Pa Mu is called Utilis, the way of the Ut as a force.
Pa is the root of Pa-ter. But ter is not a force yet “made” among Min. Ter, Ta, Te, Da, De, Do, having similarities, come after Ya.
Self positions of Mi, Ki, Ya are variables to Min kinds.
The self position of the Vir is called Ve.
The self position of the Manu is Ki Ya.
The self position of the Mutus Mutus is Mi.
The self position of the Magus is Mi Ya.
Mutus Mutus is Mi Ma Mi.
Mutus Brutus is Ki Pa Ka.
Brutus is Ar Pa Ya.
Magus is Mi Su Ya.
It has a force formula of Su Ga Ut added, but this is not ready for expounding.
This account will need to return to the route in which the Magus was formed from that of the Haima.
Those who moved out from the female branch of Haima to become the Mu Sa Ma, their branches became the maternal lines of many.
They are not the maternal line of the Mutus Magus. The maternal line of the Mutus Magus was the Haima.
The Haima forced to “wander” would go from Mutus Mutus social orders, and repeat the same behavior. They would centralize in a region where access to soma was maintained. They began to produce offspring that had no relations to the Mas of Ma, or that of the male, and was entirely centered Ma. It is not the Ma, or the female from which augmentative changes occur, in kinds. It is from the Mas, or the male, in which augmentation occurs in the kinds.
The male offspring of the Haima, entering into the fields with Mutus Mutus Pa, would return and couple with Mutus Mutus Ma.
The earliest stage of Haima can be called Mutus Mutus Ha Ma.
A Ha Ma is still an element of Mutus Mutus, retained by degree.
The Haimas mixed with Mutus Mutus Ma, and over generations of “blending”, and the males of the Haima being required to field in activity, and the female line continued as “Haima”, the Mutus Magus would be born of the male lines, with the female Mutus Mutus Ma.
It would begin as paternal.
The Mutus Mutus Ma, the female, would give birth to the Mutus Magus more in her daughter, but as well as in her son.
In the fields, the Mutus Magus Mas would “wander” often off course, and be slow, and absent in thought. It proved for the most part incapable.
Because of this, to have them in the field was more of a burden than not. For the first time in Mutus Mutus existence, there began to be males left back at the Ha, the dem, the shelters, with the females.
This was considered counterproductive, and it would also lead to population booms, as these Mutus Magus would impregnate the Ma, absent the Kaimas in the field.
Again, this is pre symbolic thought, and in very small scale elements.
The Mutus Magus was not with Pa, but struggled with it, and against it. It had the Su, or subversive trait innate to it. It often had a frail frame, and was not energetic in body. It was aggressive in collecting and disseminating things.
It often mimicked the Ma, and moved about as they did.
Aversions began to develop, when observing perceptually the offspring, in that mixing Mutus Mutus Ma, with Mutus Magus, became undesirable, and entire lines were pushed out. As populations would grow, with many families, it became clear there were families that did not carry their weight, but only took.
The Mutus Magus tried to engage in the same living and duties, but its Su component, and its hyper diffidence impeded this. Mutus Magus had to move out and away from Mutus Mutus, but they took the Haima mothers with them, refusing to leave them behind. Mutus Magus could do the basic actions in and around a settled area, as that of the Mutus Mutus. It could not wander far and outward, but it could focus on gathering and making due with what it had.
The Mutus Magus had strong attractions to the intoxicants of its Ma, the Haima. The Haima had to be cared for in their induced hysteria. So much, they imposed a heavy burden on the Mutus Magus.
The Mutus Magus killed off the Haima, in order to be free of them, or the burden would have caused all of them to perish, when they no longer lived off of the Mutus Mutus.
Now living separately, and centered around the soma, and access to it... the Mutus Magus began to develop as its own kind. Because of the concentration of the importance, through addiction to soma, the Mutus Magus did all by way of the force of this plant.
Mutus Magus settled in the areas near the plant, began to lay trap, with their daughters, for coming outgoers of Mutus Mutus Pa, or Kaimas. The Mutus Magus females were hyper sexual like the Haima of Mutus Mutus Ha that they descended from.
Enticing into settlement Kaimas, the Mutus Magus Mas would offer them low potent drink of the soma. Having no sense of this, they would favor its slight intoxication, and find themselves incapable of their return to their Ha. Slowly, the Mutus Magus males began to entice more and more Kaimas to their settlement around the soma.
The Mutus Magus would not allow the secrets of their plant to be known. Again, this is pre language, and it was not sophisticated. When the Kaimas would visit their settlement, they would bring them food, in exchange for “free” access to the daughters and the drink.
The PRIMAL setting of the Mutus Magus was the first “BROTHEL” of the ancient world. It was not complicated. For the image needed to imagine this, here you go.
Think of the primal shelters of the Mutus Mutus, and small numbers being bestowed upon, the Mutus Magus chased away, so that they can set of their own “dome” under the sky — to which they did, near to the plant, the soma, to which as primals barely grunting, they had addiction.
But they had subversion, in the sense of deception, as a part of their addicted nature, now, whereas subversion was not a part of Mutus Mutus.
Mutus Mutus were “plain” and simple primals. They could never have thought of subversion, deception, and lures, through trickery, therefore, to them, it was just “sex” and “drink”. Do not make the mistake and think, what would their wives have thought, back at their “hut”, their hu te, their Ha. The answer is nothing, because there was no symbolic arrangements, during these “muddy” and primal times of Mu. Such things do not come about until Mu is phased as civ. This later.
When out “wandering”, looking for the hunt, and/or something to gather, it was like the Mutus Magus had set up an oasis. But the difference, oddly, was perhaps the advent of “larger” through “traffic”, because instead of one group, many groups would come through, thus increasing offerings. But this was not “offerings” with mental notions. This was mere servility to the Ut of the young girls.
This was driven by Ut forces. The young Mutus Magus Ma would have offspring that would then increase their spread. The offspring would be Mutus Magus, with Mutus Mutus Kaimas. The intoxicants from the plants, combined with the plenty from the primitive trade in Utilis, would lead to a massively softer, and different disposition.
The young Mutus Brutus Ma would maintain most of your “child” Mi Ma Mu features into their adult body, making her youth appeal to the Kaimas on patrol, like troglodytes.
Unlike what you would think, there was NO RAIDING yet, in this primal world of SUSTAINING. There was no such thing as theft, and hardly anything worth stealing. Remember, order and organizing was not a thing. There were inward actions, outward actions, and basic forces at play, that did not differ much from the other animals.
There was pleasure in doing what was expected, and minor pain in doing what was not.
There was no Mutus Magus sitting behind a desk scheming.
There was a primal animalistic Mutus Magus, with an addiction that would impede its ability to hunt and gather, and therefore, form a dependence on those who could... who were not in their group. Yet.
A long time would pass, with Mutus Mutus living near and around the “great soma”, using its areas for access to wildlife, and things that grow, while the Mutus Magus erected “hides” or Ha near all locations where the soma naturally grew.
The Mutus Magus spread out, finding these regions, and repeating the same process. The plant dictated the central positioning, and Mutus Mutus had no mental correlations to where this feeling would be coming from, they get from the drink of these outliers.
When Mutus Mutus males would eat of the plant, they would get sick, and therefore, in their grunting, they mostly warned off others from ingesting the plant, and they did not touch it. To their senses, it was “danger”; it was “poison”. They did not “ring” it out, and dilute it, mixing it with mother's milk.
Mother's milk was one of the primary ways in which the Mutus Magus mixed the drink, and there was almost always a milking mother, or group thereof, of them.
Later, it would be goat's milk, but animals during this time were not being made use of in mutual ways of “custody”.
This setup of, around the plant, only one using the plant, intoxicated and overly sexual ways, with favored bodies, and favored drinks for passerby, would have gone on for a great deal of time, without the addition of a foreign kind into the lines of ALL Min to follow.
Hardly could the whole of Min be called perhaps Humanus yet. Min Mutus, Min Mutus Magus, Min Mutus Brutus, Min Brutus, perhaps.
The kinds of species of hominids the academic Magus has found and reported on, were mostly left behind branches of fused forces. Either they were fused in function, Accord, or discord.
These primal kinds of Min, at this time of the fusion starts, were nothing like what they ought to be thought of now. They were very small creatures.
The Homo floresiensis ought not be thought of as a “type” with deviations from others. The Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the hobbit, was likely the core Min in which other Min would themselves deviate from.
In fantasy lore of Tolkien, it would be like saying, Men, Elves, and others came from hobbits.
The average height of these early Min would have been 3 to 4 feet tall. Or 100-120 cm.
So do not see “Africans”, do not see “Europeans”, or “Neanderthal” cavemen images in your head. See these little brown Min, with very sparky body language, meaning, energetics. So, how you would see a modern Humanus today sitting still, this would not have been the case, for this Min animal.
It was all over the place, and in motion. It was rarely idle. The size difference of the Ma, to Mas, or female to male, was drastic. They were not kind of bigger, like the diverse variables seen today. The Mas was perhaps almost double in size.
At this stage of Min development, one is talking stone tools of the most basic sense, and mud huts, and primal structures that offered minor protection. It is massively difficult for a modern Humanus to imagine an early fundamental version of its biology, and Patterned thought, by way of forces.
One can not imagine a nonsymbolic form of mental navigation of one's existence. This advent is new, compared to all the rest of it. Symbolic thought, if the academics have their timing right, would have started to develop only 30 thousand years ago, versus the supposed land walking of Min or hominids being a couple million years.
Remember, if you ever learned the recorded notion of Min is less than 12 thousand years old, compared to a 2 million year run of adaptation. But one can not say there are records from so long ago.
Civilization, based on settlements still able to be detected as once existing, is no older than about 8K BC.
So markings of complex presentation are younger than the presumption of the agriculture revolution of 10 thousand years ago. To give comparison, the horse is thought to have been “domesticated”, which in a way, means adopted by the masses for burden, some six thousand years ago. The dog, and its so-called domestication, the most important event in Min history, is estimated between 30 thousand, to 40 thousand years ago.
What you do not know, never have been told, and would never likely hear... is that the mechanics of your mind, that allows you to read this, and/or hear these symbolic renderings of mine, is on account of this event with the wolf, by a small portion of ancient Min, and how it shaped through communication with another species, that of communication with “self”. Meaning, OUTWARD forces upon the conditions, and others, dictated forces driven likewise, internally. Not the other way around.
Using the dates of academic presumption, not claiming they are valid, this event, or set of events, of these kind of MIN in which I am describing unfoldment, would have been some 80 to 100 thousand years ago, requiring many generations to have changed, before the Brutus was the one to be forced by CONDITIONS to work with the “dire wolf”, and it, with him... bridging the reactionary mind upon condition, to the actionary mind of Mi, of Se, of Ya. There was no “SELF” before this event. And it was not all MIN kinds at the time that experienced the event.
So then, these Mutus Mutus, and Mutus Magus were existing prior to 30 thousand years ago, and living this way as small primates of Min, mostly looking the same, with differences in SIZE, and ENERGETIC manifestations.
This all changed, for the entirety of the genus of Min with the advent of the Manu from Brutus. But there was a middle phase of Brutus and Manus, with the differences in forces. Manu is still rather young, perhaps about 12 thousand years ago, erupted. Whether in actuality Vir was from Manu, or something else, can not be explored. For the sake of presentation, it is from Manu, or a branch thereof.
The advent of the Ser, and the Vek
At the same time, or near the same time these Min of Mer were experiencing intoxicants by accident, there were other Mer, or Min who had migrated into harsher conditions, and became surrounded by insurmountable terrain.
These kin were going to be wiped out on account of environmental harshness. The same was going to happen to this being that was wolflike.
It was not the “wolves” that can be referred to in these times. Its remains have not been found yet, to establish its species in the archaeological footprint. There are NO artifacts pointing to its previous existence. Most of their bodies were burned during what I will call... the “War of the Wolves”.
They were feared so much by those ruled by Haima emotions, that they would be captured, tortured, and killed. When they were killed, the Haima had them burned, because the Haima would “feel” them if only buried in the ground.
Your sense of burial for your dead is from your ancestors, the Haima. That sense you can “feel” they are still present... is Haima. That sense, “I feel”, which is “I want to believe”, that they are still here with me, watching over me, is Haima. My Kind does not have that feeling or think that way.
The Haima would kill off these “wolves”, and burn their bodies, so that they would not feel they were still here. This is why there are no fossil remains to account for.
Now, a writer, or speaker declaring something once existent, to which there is no demonstrative proof, is taking a huge chance with their reputation. Something ought not be affirmed, that can not be demonstrated. Because I am affirming something that can not be demonstrated, the category in which this declaration shall be put in... is “Cosmology”, and “Religious Legend”.
Religious Legend, or tellings, is not the same as “histories”, if “histories” rely on fossil remains, and artifacts. Most of history is all tales. It's all telling, and accounts repeated by select lineages. It is not “physical history”. Most of what you think is evident history, is not, when one deeply examines the claims.
History is faith based, like most, if not all narratives.
“History” has “wolves” at the center of this story. So, if you need to think regular remaining wolves, feel free to do so. The point is, “wolves” were coming to struggle alongside these Min, in the northeastern regions of harsh climate areas. Because the climate was sapping the energetics of the Min, they began to adapt.
The harsh climate forced restraint in impulses. The Min in these regions had to “economize” their expenditures, energy wise. This created the essence of “restraint” and “Management”. One does not need to exercise restraint and Management when they are entitled, cared for, and with plenty. In comfortable conditions, DISCIPLINE is often not compelled.
This is not yet the advent of discipline, that is, the following of doctrines or “ways”, but it is because of harsh conditions, adaptive behavior, restraint, and economization of efforts that the foundation would be laid for what would follow much later, as chosen “ways”, or strategies, or tactics. This is the ancestral conditions that created these traits.
CONDITIONS is key. This was not likely an INTERNAL drive, but instead a compulsion to wake up, on account of the harsh conditions.
These “wolves” would be referred to as Vlk, or perhaps as Volk later on. But by the time these phonetics were applied, it was the modern wolves being so named. For the sake of this communication, I will refer to this ancient stage of a wolflike creature or being as the “Vek”.
So, the Min being would become “Ver”, but not yet. And the specific kind of wolflike being, would be the Vek. The presence of the Le phonetics in Volk, as well as the Vo instead of Ve, shows the era of development of the term.
A Vek was bigger than a wolf. In each generation, their pack leaders were even of a size where they could be mounted, but not in an organized way, in the beginning. But when there was one of size that could be mounted, it was often rare, and would not find itself repeated, until a couple of generations or so. Because of the size, or the atavistic trend, that could occur among the Vek, that one would become a leading force.
Animals strongly look to size for many things — and Min is no different.
These Vek were experiencing the same harsh conditions. It caused them to slow down, to restrain themselves, to economize. I can not stress how important these conditional changes were, to both beings. Now, as a reminder, DO NOT think of you and yours in this condition. Think of a “CAVEMAN”, if you must.
However, this will be highly inaccurate. What MIN was like in these CONDITIONS is not able to be properly translated, so I am avoiding such. But remember, there is at this time, and in its condition, NO LANGUAGE.
Can you imagine what a mind is like without language?
Of course not. You are always with language, even when you think, “No, I am now in my feelings”. Yes, in your “feelings”, but with language and narrative that is adding decor to the feelings.
You can reject this, but I shall affirm it as ABSOLUTE. As a modern MIN... EVERYTHING ever thought, and that can be thought, is grounded in LANGUAGE. You can not think a thought, without SYMBOLS. That is an ABSOLUTE.
If you think you can, then all it means is... you are mentally INERT, and INEPT, and have no SENSE of what thought is. It would mean you are “low conscious”.
Conscious is narrative.
But there was a time, when it was not.
There was a time and condition when MIN, that thing you are, and are from... was liken to the other animals. Liken to that of “apes”. The “kin” or kind most comparable still existing is that of the Pan genus. You know them as chimps, with the troglodytes, and the bonobos. The bonobos are the closest, when comfort and ease of access is the condition.
The Magus is like BONOBOS, but their Brutus is like troglodytes. The Utilis is most inert and stuck in between, merely mechanically driven, and pulled in mimicry either to Magus, or Brutus.
Now, back to my cosmology.
For the imaginative, the Mer Min that found the intoxicants ought to be thought of as liken to BONOBOS, in a more comfortable setting.
The Ser Min would be liken to this stage in the northeast harsh climates. Think of them liken to troglodytes. However, by this time... both were upright with freed up arms, bipedal, with opposable thumbs, and making use of primitive tools.
But among the Mer, primitive tools, or tool usage was lower. They had more accessible sources of food; thus, did not need to be innovative. Whereas tool usage among the Ser was at a much higher rate, as well as the advent of clothing oneself with animal furs, and skins.
It is absolutely HUGE, that there were MIN experiencing harsh conditions, forcing “adaptive” responses. That of restraint, and economization. Do not blow over these terms, and treat them “lightly”. They are not LIGHT.
What you are as a modern Min, what all modern Min are, is because of these “Fathers” of Ser.
Me
Se
Ve
Se, which is at the root of “self”, is not the same as “self”. “Self” is a corruption of Se, by adding Le, and Fe, or La, and Fa. I have clarified this previously. But I will call Se self, for now, as a bridge. But when I say it, it is not the servile laying down of one's Se.
Se is the stage in which restraint and economization occurs, around managing output, for input. It is “evaluation” in its most primal stages, but compelled for survival.
In this stage, advanced out of Me, which is comfortable, safe and secure, the Se has to empower its “self”, before it can extend “power” or ability to that of its kin. It can not sacrifice its self for kin, because if it sacrificed its self for kin, that would be the same thing as kin ending up dead.
Meaning, when the harsh conditions ignited the Se forces in Min, it came with the clarity that the strong must be strong and get stronger, or EVERYONE is going to DIE.
It's that simple. That being WEAK with the WEAK in numbers, having the DECOR of strength, in the face of adversaries... DID NOT WORK, in these HARSH conditions.
Mer Min can pretend to be strong when they are “weak”, by banding up. This keeps the other animals from attacking, on account of the other animals being opportunistic, in the hunt. But banding up in the “decor” of strength does not work against the CLIMATE. It, the climate, that of Ua, does not fall for this. Ut and Us can have tricks around it. Ua can not.
Ua is the wholeness of it all. So climate, and bigger conditions are more Ua category, whereas that around mating and the womb is Ut, and Us, down to Ma.
These Ser were experiencing a more brutal Ua. They were not free to prioritize Ma, to get the forces of Us, and Ut. In order to survive Ua, in them had to “wake up” Se.
This can then be translated as “self-preservation” that comes before “group preservation”, on account that sacrificing self was the same as sacrificing the group. Groups that rely on strong leaders, and doers, can not preach “self-sacrifice”. Only BONOBO like Mer Min can preach that nonsense. In harsh conditions, Se replaces Me. But this is not CONDITIONAL, in the long run.
Restraint, economization, and Management lead to behaviors. These behaviors, or actions taken, repeated, lead to habits. The Ver do not use the term “habit”, other than as a bridge. The term “Vigor” is “Our version” of “habit”.
“Habit” is “repeated decor”, or “clothing”, or “wrappings”. It is often by way of what others can see. Whereas the repeated modus operandi of the Ver is not mere wrappings in ritual. It is energetics that are “in motion”, and thus repeated not on account of mimicry.
“Vigor”, then, captures the “essence of repeated action” that Humanus calls “habit”. “Habit”, for Humanus, is that which is “repeatedly held” or “possessed”. It is from the possessive essence, or trait.
The possessive essence, or trait, is from “fear of fall”, or “fear of loss”. The motives for Humanus, or mere possession, is that of diffidence, and the anxiety around diffidence, that manifests as fear and insecurity.
The same can be said about “Mer love”, or Humanus sense of love. Humanus sense of love is “possession” based in fear and insecurity. If one does not fear losing something, they do not “love it”. If one does not fight to secure something, and can let it go, they do not “love it”.
Possession, and that of seeking, habitually, to “keep that thing”, is the meaning of Mer love, or Humanus love.
The Ver do not have “love” in this “Way”. The Ver, or Vir, do not use the word “love” in their lexicon to describe themselves, their sense of “worth”, and Sense of Value. More on that later.
Vigor, in this case, is about modus operandi, or MOde of operation, as it concerns repeated behavior. This can also be termed:
Energetic Mode
Motivated Method
Vital Approach
and so on.
But these are too far, at this introductory stage of Se.
I will use the term “habit” for now, as a bridge term.
However, the reader and/or listener needs to see something here. The Ha phonetics in “habit” indicates that it is repeated behavior, clothing, and rituals established by the Ha. It is Ha centered.
Now, one will say, but the etymology does not show this. That, this is too loose of a way to treat words. I present etymologies to the reader, so that they can see I know what the “official narrative” is.
I am not then thinking I am using “folk etymology” in place of actual “etymology”. I am saying, yes, here is the “actual etymology” in which academics have gathered. Then, I am saying, “English” is a constructed language, that had an Esoteric Order engaged in its development. That the Latin, and Sanskrit, Greek, and Avestan components were known to the Creators of it, as a philosophical new language. That, they were aware of these phonetics, and “clues” are present in the etymologies.
But because my phonetics treatment is sourced in me, and can not be found “EVIDENT” in “OBVIOUSNESS” elsewhere, it is sensible for the reader, or listener to have some doubt.
But do not ignore all the clues I am highlighting. I am presenting a breakdown of the terms, and showing all the connections they have.
Example would be “ar” with “arms”, with “Arete”, with “aristocracy”, with “Arya”, and so on. It is not outright able to be confirmed, in the obvious. But when I include the etymologies, and my workup, the evidence DIALECTICALLY is overwhelming.
It just requires “Pattern recognition” and accelerated cross correlation. This is what my brain does, as a mechanics, automatically. It discerns Patterns, and computes Ratiocinatively their correlations. This allows me, rather... compels me, to see Patterns that others can not.
But when I render these Patterns and connect them, I am using Logic and dialectics strictly. The correlations are in front of the reader, and/or listener. They are just not OBVIOUS.
But one can not state that I am using “folk etymology” over “accurate etymology”, when I keep presenting “official” etymology, and expounding on it. Clearly, I know what is “official”, and then I am using insight to expound on it further.
So this notion that terms with Ha and terms with G as a letter, are intentional... can not be taken as far-fetched, when I keep showing the Pattern of the use of these terms. So for example: HARMONY.
Armed, in regards to the Ha. An “armory” came about... because of the HA. If they were not aggressive, there would be no arms.
Pay attention. What is it called when you “hurt” someone? It's called “HARM”. People need to stop being idiots that give me their diffidence. At some point, the reader, and/or listener needs to wake up and see that I have produced massive dialectical evidence to illuminate that I have the esoteric code to this “English” language.
It is just that, you have not been using this “English”. You have been using “slave English”. You have been using SUBJECT ENGLISH. You are the stooge in the pews, listening to the priest, the Magus, give their sermons in Latin, while all along, you were not permitted to learn Latin. You sit there and just “check out”.
I did not check out. I dug deep, and more so... I infiltrated the ORDERS that had the CODES, and I took them.
Etymology of harm (n.)
Old English hearm “hurt, pain; evil, grief; insult,” from Proto-Germanic *harmaz (source also of Old Saxon harm, Old Norse harmr “grief, sorrow,” Old Frisian herm “insult; pain,” Old High German harm, German Harm “grief, sorrow, harm”), from PIE *kormo- “pain.” To be in harm's way is from 1660s.
Etymology of harm (v.)
Old English hearmian “to hurt, injure,” from the noun (see harm (n.)). It has ousted Old English skeþþan (see scathe (v.)) in all but a few senses. Related: Harmed; harming.
To harm means to “draw blood” through “arms”.
You know the word “blood”. But you do not know the word “Haima”.
Those who are trained in the medical practice, like those trained in law, learn that of Latin derived terms. Whereas subjects, poor people, the commoners use “English” that is mostly rooted in Germanic origins. Language is “caste” correlated, because thought, which relies on language, is caste correlated, or restrictive.
If anything, my works should be advancing the language of the mind of the reader or listener. A listener is in an inferior position, because it can be more passive. In the reading position, it should be more active.
I am a part of that process, the Knights of the Helmet set out to do, with the Advancement of the English language towards that of the Latin historical connections. I believe in what their cause was, to use language to elevate the Mind, to liberate it, not hold it hostage.
Your language is holding your mind HOSTAGE. It then makes it the HAND, of the ARMS, that are CONTROLLED by the HEAD.
The “He-Ad”. The Ha, Ar, De.
In Latin and Greek, the Haima phonetics are still able to be detected. But they are found only in advanced terms, like “hemorrhage”, “hemoglobin”, “leukemia”, and so on.
Etymology of hemorrhage (n.)
c. 1400, emorosogie (modern form by 17c.), from Latin haemorrhagia, from Greek haimorrhagia, from haimorrhages “bleeding violently,” from haima “blood” (see -emia) + rhagē “a breaking, gap, cleft,” from rhēgnynai “to break, burst,” from PIE *uhreg- “break.” Related: Hemorrhagic.
Etymology of hemoglobin (n.)
also hæmoglobin, coloring matter in red blood cells, 1862, shortening of hæmatoglobin (1845), from Greek haimato-, combining form of haima (genitive haimatos) “blood” (see -emia) + globulin, a type of simple protein, from globule, formerly a word for “corpuscle of blood.”
Etymology of leukemia (n.)
progressive blood disease characterized by abnormal accumulation of leucocytes, 1851, on model of German Leukämie (1848), coined by R. Virchow from Greek leukos “clear, white” (from PIE root *leuk- “light, brightness”) + haima “blood” (see -emia). Formerly also leucemia.
Haima was the name of these “mothers” that were intoxicated, because they were drawing forth blood from their Mi, from whence it was emulating... through “neurotic“ cutting”. Intoxications, at the first phase, were causing them to “cut” themselves, to “harm” themselves.
Red, as a color of attraction... is from Haima ancestry. My Kind, the Ver, see the opposite spectrum. They see GREEN as most appealing.
Verdant
Viridescent
Viridian
Verdue
Virescent
“We” of the Vir have been called the “Green Ones”. At one point, the most common eye color among the Vir, regardless of skin color, was green. Green eyes were often correlated to “the Silk Road”, and that of merchants and travelers. It was the eye color of many nomad families.
It does not have significance on its own, now. Eye color is irrelevant now. But in ANCIENT times, when you had green eyes, it often meant you were from the “Green Ones”, the “Ver”.
Haima favor red, which is the color of blood and “error”. Blue is the color of blood when “Accordant”, that is... kept in. Red is the color of blood, drawn forth. Red is the color of mating and sex, for those descendent of Haima. Red favor is the mark of being Haima descendent.
“Seeing red” is often correlated with the common figurative sense of anger.
Red is the number one color for advertisement. Those whom it appeals to, are “error” based.
Etymology of mania (n.)
late 14c., “mental derangement characterized by excitement and delusion,” from Late Latin mania “insanity, madness,” from Greek mania “madness, frenzy; enthusiasm, inspired frenzy; mad passion, fury,” related to mainesthai “to rage, go mad,” mantis “seer,” menos “passion, spirit,” all of uncertain origin, perhaps from PIE *mnyo-, suffixed form of root *men- (1) “to think,” with derivatives referring to qualities and states of mind or thought.
Mania is manifested by psychic elevation, increased motor activity, rapid speech and the quick flight of ideas. [Scientific American, September 1973]
Sense of “fad, craze, enthusiasm resembling mania, eager or uncontrollable desire” is by 1680s, from French manie in this sense. Sometimes nativized in Middle English as manye. Used since 1500s as the second element in compounds expressing particular types of madness (such as nymphomania, 1775; kleptomania, 1830; megalomania, 1890), originally in Medical Latin, in imitation of Greek, which had a few such compounds, mostly post-classical: gynaikomania (women), hippomania (horses), etc.
It is not of unknown origins, or roots, when you now know the phonetics of Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, and that of Na, Ne, Ni, No, Nu... and Aa, Ae, Ai, Ao, Au, Ay, Ar.
Mania, as that which disrupts central Ma focus, and efforts. So, “Men” for Mind, is from Me Ne. It is Ma with some restraint. Mind requires some emotional restraint.
“Harmony” and “harm” do not share phonetics accidentally. “Harmony” becomes when “arms are not lifted against the Ha”. “Harm” is “injury caused to the Ha”. That is why, the Ha can “harm” you, and not have the same consequences. It's not “harm” if you are not Ha. It becomes “just” when against the enemy of the Ha. Even more so... it becomes “SERVILE”.
Ser, Vi, Le.
Don't mess with me, academic stooges. The Patterns are evident dialectically. Servility is not considered “HARM”, it's considered “noble” and “sacrifice” is praised, and socially demanded.
Etymology of servile (adj.)
late 14c., “laborious, subordinate, appropriate to a servant or to the class of slaves,” originally in reference to work that it is forbidden to do on the Sabbath, from Latin servilis “of a slave” (as in Servile Wars, name given to the slave revolts in the late Roman Republic), also “slavish, servile,” from servus “slave” (see serve (v.)). Related: Servilely.
By mid-15c. as “of the rank of a servant; of or pertaining to servants;” the sense of “cringing, fawning, mean-spirited, lacking independence” is recorded from c. 1600 The earliest sense in English was Church-legal, servile work being forbidden on the Sabbath. The phrase translates Latin opus servilis, itself a literal translation of the Hebrew words.
SERVIR
Etymology of serve (v.)
late 12c., serven, “to render habitual obedience to, owe allegiance to,” also “minister, give aid, give help,” from Old French servir “to do duty toward, show devotion to; set table, serve at table; offer, provide with,” from Latin servire “be a servant, be in service, be enslaved;” figuratively “be devoted; be governed by; comply with; conform; flatter,” originally “be a slave,” related to servus “slave,” which is of uncertain origin.
Perhaps from Etruscan (compare Etruscan proper names Servi, Serve, Latinized as Servius), but de Vaan says it is from Proto-Italic *serwo- “shepherd,” *serwā- “observation,” from PIE *seruo- “guardian” (source also of Avestan haraiti “heeds, protects”):
Rix 1994a argues that the original meaning of *serwo- probably was 'guard, shepherd', which underwent a pejorative development to 'slave' in Italy between 700 and 450 BC. Servire would be the direct derivative of servus, hence 'be a slave'; servare would in his view be derived from an older noun *serwa- or *serwom 'observation, heedance'.
It is attested by c. 1200 in widespread senses: “to be in the service of, perform a service for; attend or wait upon, be personal servant to; be a slave; owe allegiance to; officiate at Mass or other religious rites;” from early 13c. as “set food at table;” mid-14c. as “to wait on (customers).”
From late 14c. as “treat (someone or something) in some fashion.” To serve (someone) right “treat as he deserves” is recorded from 1580s. Sense of “be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function” is from early 14c.; that of “take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task” is from late 14c.; that of “suffice” is from mid-15c.
The meaning “render active military service” is from 1510s. The sporting sense is attested by 1580s, first in tennis. The legal sense of “present” (a writ, warrant, etc.), “give legal notice of” is from early 15c. To serve hand and foot “minister to attentively” is by c. 1300.
The ancient HAIMA, which would become the HARYA... DEMANDED everywhere they went, “habitual obedience to, allegiance to” their blood sacrifices. If you do not know already... almost ALL of the ancient rites, and religions demanded “BLOOD SACRIFICE”. Magus, to shaman, to priest, to priestess, to Brahmin.
They all DEMANDED that of BLOOD SACRIFICE. Cutting open the animals and smearing their BLOOD on “altars”. Today, you think of this as “satanic behavior”. But you have been led astray. This was ALL of the ancient RITES behavior, from the Hebrews with the Old Testament, to the Zoroastrians, and the Brahmins.
What you do not know, is there was a massive movement to end this. That in the marketplace of ideas, there were Vir thinkers, the Virya, saying “STOP SACRIFICING ANIMALS”. STOP bleeding things. Even, STOP EATING THEM.
This is why some say “Jesus” was a “vegetarian”. Now, he was not likely real, but if he was... he might have been a vegetarian. But this is “Appolonius of Tyana”, a figure you are not allowed to know about, because he was the one who stopped the “burnt sacrifices”, not “Jesus”. He was a Pythagorean and vegetarian.
Then you have the “SakaSage” from a “Warrior People”, who then also was a vegetarian, and demanded an end to “bleeding” and “sacrificing”. Now, the vegetarian Buddhists were manipulated by the meat eating ASHOKA, who forced vegetarianism as a means to control the meat markets. Sending the meat out, and also hoping to weaken rebels and adversaries. So, watch the reasons for such decrees. They are not all out of WISDOM.
The VIR DO NOT BLEED OUT, and EAT other ANIMALS.
The VIR DO NOT CONSUME FLESH.
The VIR DO NOT EAT DEATH.
Eating ANIMALS is not “eating their life”, their VITA. It is “eating their DECAY”, their DEATH.
The Vir is that one kind that has at the center of its WAY, its RELIGION... STOP seeking to CONQUER other BEINGS. STOP. ONLY conquer the SELF.
Those who need convincing that consuming death is “vicious”, are those who by their very nature are HAIMA, and ought to be left to their ways. But know this, when you consume death, you are what you eat.
You are DEAD.
Ancient notions of vegetarianism came from my ANCESTORS, the VER. Not the SER, and certainly not the MER.
The Mer are a species of Min that is all about “DEATH”. DEATH dealers, in demand of SACRIFICE... of other things, brought to the altar, slain, and bled out.
The Satanists were not the ones doing ANIMAL SACRIFICE. It is the ones who “sacrificed to GOD” who were bleeding out animals, and smearing their blood on ALTARS. Modern Jews, and Christians hide this. They say “sacrifice” is about “conduct”, and a thing of its own.
Meaning, they divorce it from BLOOD. They are trying to erase and rewrite their narratives, because they know if you dig into the histories, you will see... they became called out by the Illuminated.
They only changed their “bloody ways”, because the marketplace was being influenced by “Virtue”, the “Way of the Vir”. From this point of view, those in the marketplace were starting to see the shamans, the Magus for what they are... “cutters”, and “maniacs” who measure “HARM” only as that which comes against them, and theirs.
That “HATE” is that which is ever directed at them, and what they direct as others... is “defense”.
Etymology of hate (v.)
Old English hatian “regard with extreme ill-will, have a passionate aversion to, treat as an enemy,” from Proto-Germanic *haton (source also of Old Saxon haton, Old Norse hata, German hassen, Gothic hatan “to hate”), from PIE root *kad- “sorrow, hatred” (source also of Avestan sadra- “grief, sorrow, calamity;” Greek kēdos “care, trouble, sorrow, mourning, funeral rites;” Welsh cas “pain, anger”). Related: Hated; hating. French haine (n.), haïr (v.) are from Germanic.
HaTe is “interference with the Ha”.
You will see this, in the next 30 years, in the American experiment. “Hate crimes” are designed this way. They used to exist in ancient times. You were not allowed to use speech or expression that challenged the Ha, and called them “Ha”. You were not allowed to say who they were, and what they are. This was forbidden.
You had to refer to them by their “roles” and their titles, like that of “Magus” and “Magi”, or “Brahmin” and “Brahma”. You can call them a seer, or shaman. You can call them a muni, or sramana. You can call them Arya, but you can not call them “Harya”.
The Haima, the Harya... the Ha have so much fear and insecurity around being detected that they have a history of constantly concealing their names, and language, changing them to match the populace, that they come to control, and manage for exploitation.
ALL NATION-STATES are run and operated by the HA or their “minions”.
Etymology of minion (n.)
c. 1500, “a favorite; a darling, one who or that which is beloved” (a sense now obsolete), from Old French mignon “a favorite, darling” (n.), also a term of (probably homosexual) abuse; as an adjective, “dainty, pleasing, favorite,” from mignot “pretty, attractive, dainty, gracious, affectionate.” The French word is of uncertain origin, perhaps from Celtic (compare Old Irish min “tender, soft”), or from Old High German minnja, minna “love, memory” (see minnesinger).
Used 16c.-17c. without disparaging overtones, but also from c. 1500 as “a favorite of a sovereign prince,” especially “an intriguing favorite, a low or servile dependent.” It also was used from 16c. for “a pert or saucy girl.”
Think deeply on that one.
Nation-states and nationality are there to make it seem like all are “Brahma”. All are a part of the Leviathan, the collective, and share in the rewards, if and only if, they “habitually obey” its dictates. This is ANCIENT.
The Ver are not, and were not “Khattiya”. They are not, and were not the “arms” of “Brahma”, or the Leviathan. The “Saka”, or at least a small portion of them, were called the “As'Vaka”, and they were for a short time in the “Swat Valley” north of Gandhara.
Of the Saka, of these kinds, the Indus kinds, the Vedic kinds called them “all Khattiya”, who have no kings, and no priests — that is no shamans, no Brahmins. Now, this is not true for all Saka, and that term “Saka” is generic. But it was true for these kinds. It was said, they were ALL WARRIORS, and had no kings, or need for laws... because innately they were all “Noble” or “Virtuous” to each other.
The only kinds that need laws, are UNLAWFUL kinds. Meaning, the presence of GOVERNANCE, LAWS, and ENFORCERS is the sign that the multitudes and their enforcers are SICK.
Your society, if you identify as a part of it... is SICK. That is the only reason why laws, schools, hospitals, prisons, and presidents exist. None of these things would exist, among those born NOBLE, in temperament and “WAYS”. They only exist to “manage” the “sickness” of the multitudes. You got that “sickness” from your most ancient “Mother”, the Mother of the Haima... you now call “EVE”. But she was once called:
Hawwah.
Etymology of Eve
fem. proper name, Biblical first woman, Late Latin, from Hebrew (Semitic) Hawwah, literally “a living being,” from base hawa “he lived” (compare Arabic hayya, Aramaic hayyin).
Like most of the explanations of names in Genesis, this is probably based on folk etymology or an imaginative playing with sound. ... In the Hebrew here, the phonetic similarity is between hawah, “Eve,” and the verbal root hayah, “to live.” It has been proposed that Eve's name conceals very different origins, for it sounds suspiciously like the Aramaic word for “serpent.” [Robert Alter, “The Five Books of Moses,” 2004, commentary on Genesis iii.20]
Your very “origination” story, in “EVE”, has you the offspring of a “mother” who was “baited” by a “pimp” into eating the “forbidden plant”. Once she consumed this plant, her sexual components became mostly exposed, and she developed shame around it. In this shame, she then turned to “Adam”, or that is Adamah, and got him to come to the same shame, and consumption.
Etymology of Adam
masc. proper name, the biblical name of the first man, progenitor of the human race, from Hebrew adam “man,” literally “(the one formed from the) ground” (Hebrew adamah “ground”); compare Latin homo “man,” humanus “human,” humus “earth, ground, soil.” Compare homunculus.
The name also was used to signify the evil inherent in human nature (as a consequence of Adam's fall), and other qualities (e.g. nakedness, gardening) associated with the biblical Adam. Adam's ale for “water” is colloquial from 1640s. To not know(someone)from Adam “not know him at all” is recorded by 1784 (with later elaborations up to from Adam's off ox, 1880). The pet form of the name in Middle English was Addy, hence Addison; other old pet forms (Adkin, Adcock) also survive in surnames.
Beyond your Bibles, the Judaens made sense of their stories with additional writings and commentaries. Long before you existed, the ANCIENTS had ADVANCED narratives of what they meant by their “tales”.
Moderns have come along and tried to downplay and alter the narratives, to be soft like their times. In this ancient narrative of “Eve”, there are many accounts of the connection the Garden of Eden had to that of “plants” being needed to “commune” with that of their “God”, though most communication went through “Messengers” you would call “angels”, and not “direct” to that of “God”.
The “angels” provided “plants” for Adam and Eve to commune with GOD, and when they were kicked out of the Garden. Adam, who was a gardener, was given some of these plants.
When Adam died, Eve with her “son” Seth — not CAIN, or the now dead Abel — went back to the Garden and pleaded with the angels, to grant her and Seth these plants, because they could not hear God, they could not COMMUNE with GOD, without them.
In ancient religions, priests consumed, and drank INTOXICANTS, just like shamans... and they forbade the commoners use these special drinks, and consumptions.
In modern times, none of these “religions” have kept this up. But they had to drop these obvious corruptions, as the sciences developed, and new movements became with prohibitions on intoxicants. Prohibition on intoxicants is new, relative to intoxicants being the core quality of the “SEER”.
Meaning, if you are of any of the mainstream religions, other than Islam, and Buddhism... INTOXICANTS are at the FOUNDING of those religions, just as BURNT SACRIFICE is.
INTOXICANTS is that of the HAIMA. The VIR absolutely is FORBIDDEN by their very NATURE, not by decree, of engaging in INTOXICANTS.
In our “tongue”, we call these Verbodence. This means “forbiddance”, but not by a law or decree. The very Nature of the VER causes them to have a strict aversion to intoxicants, as it does, the bleeding, and consumption of flesh.
A VER does not CONSUME FLESH, of that which flies, walks, slithers, swims, or wobbles.
A VER does not CONSUME INTOXICANTS, and take the mind off course, through chemical disruptions.
These are the ways of the HAIMA, the mothers of Humanus, come down through Hawwah. If your mommy drinks wine, drinks spirits... she is a daughter of Hawwah; and if she did this before you were born, while you were being born, and after... be not then surprised why she has a weak frame, and a bad temperament. Be not surprised why physical health issues exist in her offspring.
The number one abuse a progenitor inflicts on their offspring before, during, and after birth... is the consumption of intoxicants. The priests knew this so much that they forbade ancient Warfighters and raiders from engaging in intoxicants. They declared, it would make them “effeminate” like them, their natural state, and that, wars would be lost, if this became the case.
But when soldiers came about, and Warfighters no longer needed to be individually mighty, this all changed, and Warfighters called “soldiers” were often taken from the Shudra, raised among the commons — and what is most common is a DRUNK POPULACE.
A soldier who consumes spirits, that is alcohol, is a “minion”. Is a fanook, an effeminate, a chump... and NO WARRIOR.
A WARRIOR would never be against themselves. A Warrior would never dim their mind, and weaken their frame, for even the slightest moment. It's like falling asleep on watch. It is “sleepwalking”.
I could care less if one has overcome the “shit eating contest” of “elite military training”, this all remains ABSOLUTELY the case from the point of view of a VER. Just as alcohol increased among elite soldiers, so did something else.
Prior to the “war on terror”, Special Operations fellas were lean, intelligent, and often very disciplined. They were not “Mer Door Kickers”, with big and bulky frames to throw at the enemy. They were “economized”.
But as the society changes, so does the option for who is recruited. So fanooks with robust frames and drinking habits, with their repugnance, would come to dominate the new generations of fighting elite. There is nothing more effeminate than a muscled out tard, with a beer in his hand.
The standards of the VER are born out of their ANCESTRY, not the COMMON conditions of TODAY.
Because a modern Ver is born out of atavism, like that of a modern Ser... it is not CONDITIONAL response that dictates how they ought to be, like it does the Mer, under the control of Ha.
Under “Her Control”, the Mer is purely conditional.
Atavism causes the living individual to be a throwback to the ancestral setting. Which means the traits are not inert. They are active, and they are potently seeking to be expressed.
In order for the Ser to grasp this, they need a sense of the Ancestors. A Ver does not need this sense. The Ver is compelled to be a VER, regardless of the CONDITIONS, and they do not need to learn the history and cultures that created this Vigor, or this “Vital Method” or “habit” inside them. No matter the conditions, a Ver will be a Ver.
But a Ser will not have this as the case.
They have attractions and aversions towards the Se, but the conditions, which have been long controlled by the MER, can hold them in captivity to the interest of the Mer, which is dictated by their Magus species.
A Ser will be pushed into “servitude”. A Mer Utilis is not in actuality “servile”. They are “Utilis”. They are “useful”. But for general sense, they are called “servile”, but in need of being so. The need for them is to be USEFUL. So, it is good for them to be utilized by someone.
So, this is not the same as “servility” when you know the meaning of the terms. But for general sense, I do not get caught up on this.
By degree, I must distinguish. The more learnt one is, the more they would say “useful” and “utilized”, versus “serve” and “servility”. These latter components, and energetics are through COMPULSION to CONFORM. One who is “serving” and “servile” is doing so in SACRIFICE. They are sacrificing the SE for that of the collective, under “honor” to the “HA”.
The Ha work this “HONOR” in the UTILIS, by getting the UTILIS to be useful to a Ma. That is female interest and offspring drives the obedience of the Utilis.
Utilis do not “SERVE” that of Ha. They can not conceive of what the Ha, or who the Ha is. The Utilis can not think on this level of “kinds”. So the Ha controls the Utilis, as well as the Brutus through the forces of Ma, that of mating forces.
Just as now, in the American experiment, the Ha variants in the EAST are using CULTURE creatives to get the MA to be against the MAS. Meaning, propaganda has you idiot Humanus cycling back to the repeated war of Ma against Mas. This has happened before, but it is not a part of the last six thousand years record. It was the previous sim, this took place in.
Ma, because it is “entitled” by nature, can easily be turned against its Utilis and Brutus. In all Ma, in this sense, female, they think like controllers and managers. They think naturally that the Mas is “servile” to them. That the Se component of the male is in “sacrifice” to their Ma.
It is in the names of the sexes, Ma and Mas. It is so by Nature. But in primal conditions, the conditions check this behavior and thought pattern being disruptive, and/or chaotic, or that is discordant. In actuality, there is no chaos. There is discordant, and Accordant.
⚔⚔⚔
The harsh conditions of the Northeast regions of Terra had the Min in competition with the Vek. But when the two of them became restrained in their urges, and were forced to “adapt”, to “economize”, they could no longer take risks with each other. They had to hunt the same grounds, not each other.
Modern domestic dogs show a great level of “awareness” and “mutualism”. Do not think “intelligence”. Intelligence is about acquiring and understanding data, or intel of the conceptual sort. It is unintelligent, to call animals intelligent. It means one does not grasp the meaning of the term.
Awareness, alertness, and responsiveness are more accurate. Dogs rely on cues and conditioning, not data in the conceptual sense. They do not conceptualize.
The Min was not conceptualizing yet, in this early stage, either. It too, like the Vek, and other animals, was “reacting”. It relied on its olfactory centers, or ability to smell. It was about seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. The SENSES are the receptors, stimulated by the conditions to produce automated responses. But automated responses were killing this species of MIN. Nature became the ENEMY of this MIN, not the “GUIDE” or great “MOTHER” Humanus calls it.
This Min species and Vek became so used to each other, they began to no longer see, and treat each other as “threats”. This is not conceptual, such as saying, and thinking, “is threat”, “is not threat”.
The mechanism of familiarization, and the meaning of family
There is a mechanism in ANIMALS, as well as the MIN animal, I call the “familiarization” mechanism. This is why often I say, one's “familiars”, and this is the root of “family”.
It is proximity and exposure without that of stimulated “risk”, thus coming to pass as “safe” and “secure”. Exposure, repeated, that is habitual, that breeds no “errors” gets taken in as “safe and secure”. In primal conditions, this can often be “true”.
But in domestication, this is the number one ERROR in the HUmanus nature. It is constantly engaged in RISKY behavior and relations, permitted and sustained through habitual exposure, or that is familiarity.
Etymology of familiar (adj.)
mid-14c., “intimate, very friendly, on a family footing,” from Old French famelier “related; friendly,” from Latin familiaris “domestic, private, belonging to a family, of a household;” also “familiar, intimate, friendly,” a dissimilation of *familialis, from familia (see family).
From late 14c. as “of or pertaining to one's family.” Of things, “known from long association,” from late 15c. Meaning “ordinary, usual” is from 1590s.
The noun meaning “demon, evil spirit that answers one's call” is from 1580s (familiar spirit is attested from 1560s); earlier as a noun it meant “a familiar friend” (late 14c.). The Latin plural, used as a noun, meant “the slaves,” also “a friend, intimate acquaintance, companion.”
The other day, I was at this Italian restaurant I go to — the only restaurant I go to, because I have association with the owner — and his daughter, who “waits” the tables, says to me, “You're like family”, to which I replied, “Nah, no I am not. That is complicated, but I am not like family”. No way, she could understand what this word means to me, if she has yet to read my works. No way, any of youse would understand the depth of this term, without me having broached the sense of it, in the way in which I do.
A familiar is “domestic”, under the same “dome”, with long-term exposure. This mechanism is not one of discernment. A familiar passes discernment qualities by merely having been there, and continuing to be there, in the condition. The mind automates that it has not caused MENTAL HARM. So it can cause physical harms, but mental harms weigh heavier to Min, because Min is a symbolic thinking animal.
So like I said, progenitors will cause physical harm to offspring during childbearing, with their intoxicants, diets, and emotional ebbs and flows. But this “harm” or “injury” does not register, or get taken into account, so long as the “DECOR” is in “BENEVOLENCE”. The intent and motives in speech of relations.
Etymology of familiarity (n.)
c. 1200, “closeness of personal association, intimacy,” from Old French familiarite and directly from Latin familiaritatem (nominative familiaritas) “intimacy, friendship, close acquaintance,” from familiaris “friendly, intimate” (see familiar). Meaning “undue intimacy” is from late 14c. That of “state of being habitually acquainted” is from c. 1600.
Pay attention to this next ETYMOLOGY.
Folk do not understand that it is very important, what you say and think about yourself, language wise. You people use examples and context, not definition, and refinement. So, you will think, well, that is not how we use these terms, or what they mean to the commons. “We” the “commons” have “our” own meaning.
NO YOU DO NOT.
All these terms are being used exactly the way I am saying. You do not need to DELIBERATE and INTENTIONALLY think of them, for them to be used this way.
For example, a FAMILY, no matter what you think, are SERVANTS of a HOUSEHOLD. Just because you do not see it this way, does not mean, it is not so. Taxes are a BURDEN. A BURDEN paid, is SERVICE rendered.
ALL households are TAXED in the American experiment. All households are sustained through labor, or work exchange for FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, or dollars. This means, to have a household, you must make “an earning”.
Statistically, in the American experiment, the majority of jobs are service jobs. If this is true, which it is, then the majority of HOUSEHOLDS have bedded servants, that serve the greater household, or DOMOS... called the city, or town, and then it the state, and it the country. Each smaller DOMOS, or DOME, pays up to the bigger apparatus.
In the past, your ancestors, who were likely peasants, and commoners, lived on a lord's land, as a “SERF”.
Etymology of serf (n.)
late 15c., “servant, serving-man, slave,” from Old French serf “vassal, servant, slave” (12c.), from Latin servum (nominative servus) “slave” (see serve (v.)). The word had fallen from use in this sense by 18c. The meaning “lowest class of cultivators of the soil in Poland, Russia, and other continental European countries, living in conditions of modified slavery” is by 1610s.
It was used from 1761 by modern writers in reference to medieval Europeans attached to the land and incapable of owning property. Contemporary Anglo-Latin records used nativus, villanus, or servus. Middle English sometimes included this class under bond-man, or theu (from Old English þeow), also carl or churl.
In what was called “SERFDOM”.
Etymology of serfdom (n.)
“state or condition of a serf,” 1850, from serf + -dom. Earlier in the same sense was serfage (1775). Anglo-French had niefte “status of a serf, serfdom” (mid-14c.), from the notion of “native” in a sense of “bound by birth.”
This was called “born in bondage”.
Your mommies' society talks about “BONDS” and “BONDING”...
Etymology of bondage (n.)
c. 1300, “legal condition of a serf or slave,” from Middle English bond “a serf, tenant farmer,” from Old English bonda “householder,” from or cognate with Old Norse boandi “free-born farmer,” noun use of present participle of boa “dwell, prepare, inhabit,” from PIE *bhow-, from root *bheue- “to be, exist, grow.” For sense evolution, see bond (adj.). The sexual sado-masochism sense is recorded by 1963 (in a New York law against publications portraying it).
Your “family” tells you that you have “family bonds”, or “familiar bonds”, and when you get to “know others” you are “bonding”. As an IDIOT, you then simplified this term as “forming attachments”, or “developing relationships”.
Etymology of bond (adj.)
c. 1300, “in a state of a serf, unfree,” from bond (n.) “tenant, farmer holding land under a lord in return for customary service; a married bond as head of a household” (mid-13c.). The Old English form was bonda, bunda “husbandman, householder,” but the Middle English word probably is from Old Norse *bonda, a contraction of boande, buande “occupier and tiller of soil, peasant, husbandman,” a noun from the past participle of bua, boa “to dwell” (from PIE root *bheue- “to be, exist, grow”).
“In the more despotic Norway and Denmark, bo'ndi became a word of contempt, denoting the common low people. ... In the Icelandic Commonwealth the word has a good sense, and is often used of the foremost men ....” [OED]. The sense of the noun deteriorated in English after the Conquest and the rise of the feudal system, from “free farmer” to “serf, slave” (c. 1300) and the word became associated with unrelated bond (n.) and bound (adj.1).
When you are a “native” and/or “nationalized”, this is about being “bonded” by birth.
Etymology of native (n.)
mid-15c., “person born in bondage, one born a serf or villein,” a sense now obsolete, from native (adj.), and in some usages from Medieval Latin nativus, noun use of nativus (adj.). Compare Old French naif, which also meant “woman born in slavery.” From 1530s as “one born in a certain place or country.” Applied from c. 1600 to original inhabitants of non-European nations where Europeans hold political power, for example American Indians (by 1630s); hence, used contemptuously of “the locals” from 1800. Related: Natives.
The forces of “to beget” come before this, and I will provide the phonetics for now, for later reference. They are:
Ja, Je, Ji, Jo, Ju, Jy
In ancient times, there was no J, or G.
It was:
Ya, Ye, Yi, Yo, Yu, Yy
J is an I with a hook on it.
The G with the sound “gut” was brought by the Haima, as they favored that sound. They favor Ha and Ga as phonetics.
Ya,
or Ja, was “to beget”, like in offspring. Yo, Uth... Youth.
The forces that lead to “physical default familiars” retained this phonetics, in the term “gene”. Just like “Genesis” in the biblical sense. Begotten, or originating.
Etymology of *gene-
*genə-, also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit janati “begets, bears,” janah “offspring, child, person,” janman- “birth, origin,” jatah “born;” Avestan zizanenti “they bear;” Greek gignesthai “to become, happen,” genos “race, kind,” gonos “birth, offspring, stock;” Latin gignere “to beget,” gnasci “to be born,” genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin,” genius “procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality,” ingenium “inborn character,” possibly germen “shoot, bud, embryo, germ;” Lithuanian gentis “kinsmen;” Gothic kuni “race;” Old English cennan “beget, create,” gecynd “kind, nature, race;” Old High German kind “child;” Old Irish ro-genar “I was born;” Welsh geni “to be born;” Armenian cnanim “I bear, I am born.”
Ya is the force representation of Ua. Ua is the condition thereof, or fact thereof, or state thereof of material existence. But Ya is its “motions” of replication, or begetting, or producing. So “replicating forces” are called Ya.
“You” is “thou and thy collective” having been “produced”.
For the Ver, the phonetics were from Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu. Pu, not you, as it would mean “patterned together”. For the Ha, it was Ge, like in to-ge-ther, tethered in G.
Etymology of you (pron.)
Old English eow, dative and accusative plural of þu (see thou), objective case of ge, “ye” (see ye), from Proto-Germanic *juz-, *iwwiz (source also of Old Norse yor, Old Saxon iu, Old Frisian iuwe, Middle Dutch, Dutch u, Old High German iu, iuwih, German euch), from PIE *yu, second person (plural) pronoun.
Pronunciation of you and the nominative form ye gradually merged from 14c.; the distinction between them passed out of general usage by 1600. Widespread use of French in England after 12c. gave English you the same association as French vous, and it began to drive out singular nominative thou, originally as a sign of respect (similar to the “royal we”) when addressing superiors, then equals and strangers, and ultimately (by c. 1575) becoming the general form of address. Through 13c. English also retained a dual pronoun ink “you two; your two selves; each other.”
“Ye” is plural. “You” is plural. “Thou”, and “thy” are singular. “You” means “thou of thy collective”. It means “you” are not an individual, but a “them”... a component of a collective, and thus, defined from the direction as a “native” of a “nation”, “bound” to that nation or collective. “YOU” have collective identity.
No one, in your you, “cares” or has any concern with “your” individuality. There is no such thing as a “your individuality”. There is only “thy individuality”, or the individuality of “thou”. And this requires individualization. That is, that “thou” can be divided up, from the collective, the group, to which “thou” likely can not be, in a NAIVE, that is NATIVE state.
Etymology of naive (adj.)
1650s, “natural, simple, unsophisticated, artless,” from French naïve, fem. of naïf, from Old French naif “naive, natural, genuine; just born; foolish, innocent; unspoiled, unworked” (13c.), from Latin nativus “not artificial,” also “native, rustic,” literally “born, innate, natural” (see native (adj.)). In philosophy, “unreflecting, uncritical” (1895), used of non-philosophers. Related: Naively.
Notice the expression, in this etymology, of “ARTLESS”.
If you correlate the term “ART” now to “ARMS”, and the phonetics Ar, you would then now realize, if you can, that “artless” means without ARMS, and the SKILL that follows. The SKILL, or science that one is to be competent in, is WARFARE.
WARFARE is not about “physical fights”. WARFARE is the SCIENCE of SOVEREIGNTY, or AUTONOMY. One who is SKILLED and ARMED in WARFARE, can not be BONDED, and ENSLAVED.
All who are forbidden from WARAFRE, as a religious duty, are BORN NAIVE, and NATIVE, to BONDED states of SERVITUDE and SLAVERY, serving the DOMESTICATED interest of the COLLECTIVE, and its CONTROLLERS... who are, and always have been, the daughters and sons of Hawwah, the HAIMA.
Your ancestors' history is exactly as I have said. Before the American experiment, your ancestors were in Europe, North Africa, or the Near East, under the Control and Management of the Catholic Church, and its doctrine.
In all marketplaces, the Judaens controlled the flow of goods and information, in the last 1k years. In the Middle East, the Zoroastrians and then the Muslims controlled the narrative. The Judeo-Christian, Islamic narrative is the dominant narrative, whether you agree with it or not.
This has not changed. In the American experiment, you are with the entitlement and luxury to be an ATHEIST. This was never possible in the past.
This is NEW, and will END.
You're in the CYCLE of advanced marketplace, with loose narratives. The Haima ALWAYS destroy the FREE MARKET, and return the social order to SERFDOM. ALWAYS.
When they do this, they do it with DEMANDS of SACRIFICE, CONFORMITY, and OBEDIENCE to the interest of theirs. To bring this about, they TEACH YOU TO HATE YOURSELVES. This means, because you are not them... you fall short. They teach you the narrative of measurement, and when you are not of the same nature, and kind as them, and you use their “HATE”, you have to HATE yourself for not being them.
You were BORN to a HOUSE of SLAVES BONDED to the nation-state, burdened near 20 percent of their labor gains, and burdened to pay for “RENT” on a “land-lord's land”, and not have enough FRN credits left over, to advance their position.
It does not matter if you think the word “FAMILY” means “those you LOVE”. This means nothing. Your “FAMILY” is a HOUSE of SLAVES, thus SERVANTS of the “Big House” they call in the American experiment the “WHITE HOUSE”.
On plantations, that house was called the “BIG HOUSE”. Your houses, as serfs, were huts, little houses, with beds, often mixed with everything. You were “BOUND” to your bed. It's like a character in a video game, using beds as save points. If something goes wrong, you start back at the BED. It's your tether to the familiar.
You have no sense of NOMADS, who take their bed with them wherever they go... so it is not a bed. It's not a burrow, in place. Your bed is your worse ENEMY.
Etymology of bed (n.)
Old English bedd “bed, couch, resting place; garden plot,” from Proto-Germanic *badja- (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon bed, Middle Dutch bedde, Old Norse beðr, Old High German betti, German Bett, Gothic badi “bed”). This is said to mean perhaps “sleeping place dug in the ground,” if it is from PIE root *bhedh- “to dig, pierce” (source also of Hittite beda- “to pierce, prick,” Greek bothyros “pit,” Latin fossa “ditch,” Lithuanian bedu, besti “to dig,” Breton bez “grave”). But Boutkan doubts this and finds little reason to assume that Germanic peoples “(still) lived under such primitive circumstances that they dug out their places to sleep.”
Both the sleeping and gardening senses are found in Old English; the specific application to planting also is found also in Middle High German and is the only sense of Danish bed. The meaning “bottom of a lake, sea, or watercourse” is from 1580s. The geological sense of “a thick layer, stratum” is from 1680s.
Bed and board “in bed and at the table” (early 13c.) was a term in old law applied to conjugal duties of man and wife; it also could mean “meals and lodging, room and board” (mid-15c.). Bed-and-breakfast in reference to overnight accommodations is from 1838; as a noun, in reference to a place offering such, by 1967.
You are BOUND to BEDS, in HOUSES, with servant FAMILIARS that replicate the narrative of the MAGUS, passed down through ACADEMICS, through MEDIA, through ENTERTAINMENT, POLITICS, and RELIGIONS.
You are BOUND to MENTAL MIDGETRY, NAIVETY, and SERVILITY.
You can “decorate” what a “family” is all you want... but if you have to answer to interrogation, you can not refute that in the end, a FAMILY is:
Etymology of family (n.)
early 15c., “servants of a household,” from Latin familia “family servants, domestics collectively, the servants in a household,” thus also “members of a household, the estate, property; the household, including relatives and servants,” abstract noun formed from famulus “servant, slave,” which is of unknown origin.
The Latin word rarely appears in the sense “parents with their children,” for which domus (see domestic (adj.)) was used. Derivatives of famulus include famula “serving woman, maid,” famulanter “in the manner of a servant,” famulitas “servitude,” familiaris “of one's household, private,” familiaricus “of household slaves,” familiaritas “close friendship.”
In English, sense of “collective body of persons who form one household under one head and one domestic government, including parents, children, and servants, and as sometimes used even lodgers or boarders” [Century Dictionary] is from 1540s. From 1660s as “parents with their children, whether they dwell together or not,” also in a more general sense, “persons closely related by blood, including aunts, uncles, cousins;” earlier “those who descend from a common progenitor, a house, a lineage” (1580s). Hence, “any group of things classed as kindred based on common distinguishing characteristics” (1620s); as a scientific classification, between genus and order, from 1753.
Latin familia often was glossed in Old English by hired, hyred “household, family, retinue” (for which see hide (n.2), and also by hiwscipe, hiwræden, hiwan “members of a family, household, or religious house,” which is cognate with Old Norse hjon “one of the household; married couple, man and wife; domestic servant,” and with Old High German hiwo “husband,” hiwa “wife,” also with Lithuanian šeimyna “family,” Gothic haims “village,” Old English ham “village, home” (see home (n.)). A 15c. glossary has, for Latin familia, Middle English a menge, from Anglo-French maisnie “the household, the whole attendance upon the personal establishment of the feudal lord.”
As an adjective from c. 1600; with the meaning “suitable for a family,” by 1807. Family values is recorded by 1966. Phrase in a family way “pregnant” is from 1796. Family circle is 1809; family man “man devoted to wife and children, man inclined to lead a domestic life” is 1856 (earlier it meant “thief,” 1788, from family in a slang sense of “the fraternity of thieves”). Family tree “graph of ancestral relations” attested from 1752.
He was dressed in his best Coat, which had served him in the same Capacity before my Birth, and possibly, might be but little short in Antiquity, to the Root of his third Family Tree; and indeed, he made a venerable Figure in it. [“A Genuine Account of the Life and Transactions of Howell ap David Price, Gentleman of Wales,” London, 1752]
No, I am not a FAMILIAR.
NO, I do not, and never had a FAMILY.
No, “We ain't FAM”.
I am not a SLAVE, or a NAIVE serf. I am not NATIVE. I am not of a NATION, a STATE, a CITY, a POPULACE, a PEOPLE.
I am a Vir, a Ver, a Vehrka, a VIRYA. I am not of the lineage of the Haima, the Harya... the Hawwah.
The assimulation of Mer and Vek to the Third Force (Se)
In those harsh conditions with the Vek, the Me, or Mer sense was forced to change. Soon, the Mer and the Vek were, through nonverbal communication, figuring... yes, figuring each other out. Building out a “figurative sense” of each other.
But this was based on the mechanism of familiarization. This mechanism is very powerful. A better term for this mechanism is “Assimulation”, but this is esoterically grand.
Etymology of assimilate (v.)
early 15c., in physiology, “absorb into and make part of the body,” from Latin assimilatus, past participle of assimilare, assimulare “to make like, copy, imitate, assume the form of; feign, pretend,” from assimilated form of ad “to” (see ad-) + simulare “make similar,” from similis “like, resembling, of the same kind” (see similar).
The meaning “make alike, cause to resemble,” and the intransitive sense “become incorporated into” are from 1620s. In linguistics, “bring into accordance or agreement in speech,” from 1854. Related: Assimilated; assimilating.
As one ought to be able to see, “conformity” is a part of this mechanism. “Similarity” and “similar” define the key essence.
So often, to say something is “familiar” is to say “similar”.
Etymology of similar (adj.)
“having characteristics in common,” 1610s (earlier similary, 1560s), from French similaire, from a Medieval Latin extended form of Latin similis “like, resembling, of the same kind,” from Old Latin semol “together” (from PIE root *sem- (1) “one; as one, together with”). The noun meaning “that which is similar” is from 1650s. Related: Similarly.
If there is an “individual component” in beings, that is called Se. Me is not “individualized”. It is according to Ma, so is “womb centric”, and this builds out families, or the collectives around the womb.
The matriarch is the head of the “house”. It is a myth, that this has ever not been the case. The “house”, the domos is hers. Only in media, and the lies of Magus, does the patriarch in households get “decorated”.
The mothers have always controlled the houses. And all wars are fought on account of mothers in their houses. Nomads, without houses, have no need for wars.
Utilis and Brutus fight to take more for their houses, or to stop other takers like them from taking their houses. This is the way of Humanus. A slave will fight for a NATION, a KING, to protect that small little hut they have, that they have only so far as they pay their dues to the landlord, and the Big House. The Big House protects the little house, like a VAMPYRE would protect its tasty ghoul from becoming the MINION, and FAMILIAR of another.
Vampyres have “familiars”. At least, that is what my Kind has always known. Not so sure why you naive mental midgets have never figured that out.
There were two forms of togetherness sense, from that of Se as the individual component. There is Se Ma, that is individual together with individual, for the Ma, the “wombs”, the women of the Se, the individuals... for the Se is still around Ma as default starting, and then... SURPRISE, there was the HAMA.
Watch me here. You can not deny the presence of these terms...
Etymology of *sem- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “one; as one, together with.”
There is a reason I learned ancient languages. All etymologies were teaching me ancient languages. So it only made sense for me to study them, and dig deep into them. I was not learning English terms with “Mer definitions” like you did in the schools as “vocabulary”.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit sam “together,” samah “even, level, similar, identical;” Avestan hama “similar, the same;” Greek hama “together with, at the same time,” homos “one and the same,” homios “like, resembling,” homalos “even;” Latin similis “like;” Old Irish samail “likeness;” Old Church Slavonic samu “himself.”
It should be noticeable, the Sa, Se, Si, So, Su phonetics is individualized. It's “himself” in the most ancient sense of things. It's independent, but Ma is the part that centralizes the efforts.
Ha always comes in as a phonetics that has to do with... to whom? There is to Se, or there is to Ha.
Watch me now...
Etymology of home (n.)
Old English ham “dwelling place, house, abode, fixed residence; estate; village; region, country,” from Proto-Germanic *haimaz “home” (source also of Old Frisian hem “home, village,” Old Norse heimr “residence, world,” heima “home,” Danish hjem, Middle Dutch heem, German heim “home,” Gothic haims “village”), from PIE *(t)koimo-, suffixed form of root *tkei- “to settle, dwell, be home.” As an adjective from 1550s. The old Germanic sense of “village” is preserved in place names and in hamlet.
Hama heim; the Ha together in the home.
Saka were said to be “wandering” and “voluntarily homeless”, or “houseless”. You starting to see the bigger picture? The Saka Sage, called SakaMuni, and later mythical BUDDHA, was the opposite of everything HA, before “ASHOKA” hijacked the CULTURE, and DECORATED the house as a monastery of RECITERS, that is, talkers... talking the talk, but no longer “walking” or “wandering”.
No PERMANENT SHELTER, taught the BUDDHA.
No INTOXICANTS, taught the BUDDHA.
No FAMILIES, taught the BUDDHA.
No “EMOTIONAL DICTATES”, taught the BUDDHA.
No CONQUERING others; CONQUER self, taught the BUDDHA.
And wander with Danda, according to the Khaggavisanakappo;
that is, wander with the “Martial Authority”, according to the “Religious practice” of the “Sword and Bow”.
But this, reduced by the HAIMA, the RAIDERS, the TAKERS, Ashoka and his kin, to figurative. So you think the SAKAMUNI had not ART, was not ARMED, and was not MARTIAL. FAR FROM.
All SAKA are WARRIORS. All SAKAMUNI are WARRIORS, and thus ARMED SAGES. You have lived DISARMED, because you were born a SLAVE, a SERVANT, a NATIVE, a SUBJECT.
Now you may get a sense of why “FIGHTING for the right to bear arms” is so IMPORTANT to those who know the history of their ancestors as “slaves”, as “serfs”, as “subjects” of foul governments, be them “RELIGIOUS” or otherwise. But make no mistake... ONLY in modern times, has there been NATION-STATES without RELIGIOUS dictation.
HISTORY is your ancestors subjugated by RELIGIOUS institutes, and ALL religious governments were run for, and by HAIMA, the HARYA.
The Mer among the Vek were observing in the most basic sense, SIMILARITIES. Likeness in AIMS. The VEK needed to DEFEND itself. The VEK needed to FEED itself, and the ones with the womb, their Ma among the animals.
The Mas Mer needed to FEED the Ma Mer, who if with the “begotten” needed to also be kept DEFENDED and secure. If the Vek had these similarities, and no longer was threatening the Mer, and scarcity and harsh conditions were opposing both of them... perhaps, a “togetherness” could form.
Assimulation was not “arrogantly” Mer towards Vek. Moderns are so arrogant. BOTH the MER and the VEK ASSIMULATED into a new FORM. That FORM was SE. But for Se to take place... it was motivated by the Ma, inherent in nature to MIN.
It was SAMA. This, long before it was the FORCES called SA KA. KA would replace MA. Sa Ka means “self-aware”.
The Me of the Mas aligned in assimulation with the Vek. The notion of a hierarchy, that “HUmans” domesticated “wolves” is absurdly arrogant and backwards. Domos is not even the factor. Domestication is the wrong term.
Assimulation is the best term. But Mer, or Humanus, which did not exist yet... DID NOT ASSIMULATE the WOLF. The two kinds became ASSIMULATED to a “Third Force”. That force of SE was in the VEK, as much as it was in the MER.
But among the MER, this “ADAPTATION” towards ASSIMULATION was not occurring in ALL MEMBERS of the packs. It was occurring through Vigor, and repetition, or “habit”, for now... in those most active.
Repetition was key, for the initiating ones. The Initiated would then pass on behavior to the others, through the MIMIC mechanism. Through the mimic mechanism, Mer was assimulating Mer to this “Third”, to Se. Through the mimic mechanism, Vek was assimulating other Vek to this Third, to the Se.
Vek was not assimulated to Mer.
Mer was not assimulated to Vek.
Mer and Vek were assimulated towards “conditional Se”.
Mer and Vek... ASSEMBLED:
Etymology of assemble (v.)
early 14c., transitive (“collect into one place”) and intransitive (“meet or come together”), from Old French assembler “come together, join, unite; gather” (11c.), from Latin assimulare “to make like, liken, compare; copy, imitate; feign, pretend,” later “to gather together,” from assimilated form of ad “to” (see ad-) + simulare “to make like,” from stem of similis “like, resembling, of the same kind” (see similar).
In Middle English and in Old French it also was a euphemism for “to couple sexually.” The meaning “put parts together” in manufacturing is from 1852. Related: Assembled; assembling. Assemble together is redundant.
An automated process began to occur. Among Mer, there were “weak” members. Among Vek, there were “weak” members. There were Mer that could not assimulate to the Third. There were Vek that could not assimulate to the Third.
Through “selection”, there came “separation”. Pay attention. This is LANGUAGE, and DIALECTICS here. Look at the EVIDENCE. Look at the phonetics. Scientists refer to “natural SELECTION”. Do not become with diffidence and repugnance that I had to point all this out.
It's just my DUTY, to present the Patterns. It is not my fault others did not only NOT honor this DUTY, but did the opposite, and OBSTRUCTED.
Etymology of select (adj.)
1560s, “chosen on account of special excellence or fitness,” from Latin selectus, past participle of seligere “choose out, single out, select; separate, cull,” from se- “apart” (see se-) + legere “to gather, select” (from PIE root *leg- (1) “to collect, gather”).
“Carefully picked,” hence “choice, of special excellence” (by 1580s). Related: Selectly; selectness. The noun meaning “a selected person or thing, that which is choice” is recorded from c. 1600.
In order to ASSIMULATE to what my Kind calls the THIRD... Mer and Vek had to “lay down their own”. They had to remove “familiars” for “strangers”. They had to go with the “THIRD” over the “One” and the “Two”. They had to “unify” into a “Third”. This meant, those by DEFAULT materialized as kin had to be let go, for “Paternal” kin.
The Third began the attraction to Patterns, and this attraction became known as “Excellence and Fitness” set apart. Me forces do not engage in Excellence and Fitness.
Do not try to decorate the life you know. It has not been a life of “Performance”, of “Excellence” and “Fitness”. It has been average, mediocre, and not “set apart”, but only “a part” of that of a mediocre collective.
Look. Se as a force, here, in the term “selection”, comes to mean “apart”. This means the individualization of the being, versus the collective.
Etymology of se-
word-forming element in words of Latin origin, “apart, away,” from Latin se-, collateral form of sed- “without, apart, aside,” probably originally “by one's self, on one's own,” and related to sed, Latin reflexive pronoun (accusative and ablative), from PIE *sed-, extended form of root *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (source also of German sich; see idiom).
Se is individualization that is attracted to Excellence and Fitness. Both the Mer, and the Vek were developing out “Excellent and Fit” members, by no longer bringing along, and taking “care” of the weak, because the weak were getting all of them killed in the harsh conditions.
If by nature, there were those inept, those with inert dispositions... now, they were turned over to the conditions, and culled, in essence.
Etymology of select (v.)
“to single out one or more from a number of things of the same kind, choose in preference to another or others,” 1560s, from select (adj.) or from Latin selectus. Related: Selected; selecting.
Etymology of selective (adj.)
“of, pertaining to, or characterized by selection;” hence “using that which is choice,” 1620s; see select (adj.) + -ive. Related: Selectively; selectivity; selectiveness. Selective service as a military drafting system is from 1917, American English; hence selectee “person chosen for military duty” (by 1940).
Etymology of cull (v.)
mid-14c., “choose, select, pick; collect and gather the best things from a number or quantity,” especially with reference to literature, from Old French cuiler “collect, gather, pluck, select” (12c., Modern French cueillir), from Latin colligere “gather together, collect,” originally “choose, select” (see collect).
Meaning “select livestock according to quality” is from 1889; notion of “select and kill (animals),” usually in the name of reducing overpopulation or improving the stock, is from 1934. Related: Culled; culling.
Later, “killing the weak” would be something the Haima would do. This is not what I mean, by the use of these terms. In fact, colligere shows the Vigilance in the G of the Ha and Ga, and it is the era when the term meant: leave behind the Ha, the Ga, the subversive effeminates that sow decent, disrupt, and act as Trojan horses in the long run.
Everywhere in modern domestic societies are these effeminate subversives causing disruption, undermining, and seeking to destroy the light created by others. Your mommies, with their collectivist Ma forces of ACCEPT everyone, be kind, and nice... are the primary source for the suffering that is occurring, and will get worse.
STOP letting your MOMMIES determine the course of your life. Look at her. Is she what you want? If the answer is NO, then DO NOT MIMIC HER sense of WORTH. DO NOT mimic HIS, the daddy, either, because “him”, and “her”, are Ha, He, Hi, Ho, Hu, Hy. They are the same. He mimics Her. She has the Re, the “light”. He follows the light of Her.
“She” is “her” served by “him”.
“He” is that without “her”, guiding the serve.
“Her” is that which has the thing to be served, and the Re, that is the narrative of servitude.
It is like Mas, and Ma.
She, and her, have the Ma.
He, and him, are Mas... in need of serving the Ma.
The phonetics have never changed in these regards. They are right there.
Etymology of *leg- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to collect, gather,” with derivatives meaning “to speak” on the notion of “to gather words, to pick out words.”
Etymologists do not have the additional sense that this is “words” or “utterances” that are “negationary” in disposition. It is not merely to speak, or to bring words together. It is to bring words together against. It is “laying down words”, or “getting words, to lay down other words, such as disputation”.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek legein “to say, tell, speak, declare; to count,” originally, in Homer, “to pick out, select, collect, enumerate;” lexis “speech, diction;” logos “word, speech, thought, account;” Latin legere “to gather, choose, pluck; read,” lignum “wood, firewood,” literally “that which is gathered,” legare “to depute, commission, charge,” lex “law” (perhaps “collection of rules”); Albanian mb-ledh “to collect, harvest;” Gothic lisan “to collect, harvest,” Lithuanian lesti “to pick, eat picking;” Hittite less-zi “to pick, gather.”
The essence becomes “laying down words, to lay down the targets, under thereof”. Words can be used to subjugate. Effeminates of the Ha and Ga legislate. They legere... lay down their words as Ga, and Ha, and “light those words” in prominence, as “rules”. Ru Le Se.
Uh huh... Yeah, I am just making these phonetics up. “Let” one say, that is “lay down” words, that I have not dialectically proven that these phonetics are more accurate than etymologies, in that, they came before the history of the terms ever became a thing.
Etymologists began late in the game, even though it was some 2500 years ago, according to the other “late in the game” group, called “chronologists”. It's all looking backwards, and it's All WRONG.
Those of the Mer and the Vek, showing “Excellence” and “Fitness” coming together, were rewarded through “Conditional Controls”. They became better fed. Better fed, translated in more to use next time. More to use next time, translated to better next times repetitions, trials and errors.
There were those Mer who did not engage the Vek, and Vek that did not engage the Mer. These... DIED OUT, in both material groups. After generations of repetition, there were no Mer, without Vek, and no Vek, in this region, without Mer. Because of this, there was no longer Mer, or Vek.
They became Se, and Sav.
“Excellence and Fitness” meant the Se could no longer be centered around the Ma, and that of weakness and fragility. Through the cultures of the Se, the Mer among them, born to them, would be shown through the “Way”, the “Light”, the “Rays” that of Assimulation to the Third. However, there were Mer born among Se, as it occurs, and these Mer would seek to assert themselves over the Sav, the Vek... and become rejected by the Sav, the Vek.
A Mer only with the culture of the Third, dictated by the essence of the Se, will have its inclinations and proclivities subvert, and assert.
Etymology of assert (v.)
c. 1600, “declare;” 1640s, “vindicate, maintain, or defend by words or measures,” from Latin assertus, past participle of asserere/adserere “to claim, lay claim to, appropriate,” from ad “to” (see ad-) + serere “to join together, put in a row” (from PIE root *ser- (2) “to line up”). Related: Asserted; asserting. To assert oneself “stand up for one's rights or authority” is recorded from 1879.
It will feel entitled to the Sav, the Vek. It will feel entitled to the “secured” comforts and advantages, the “culture” brings.
“Secure”, and “Culture”. Interesting, how Se is present in one, and the Cul aspect, seems present in Cultivus.
Etymology of secure (adj.)
1530s, “without care or fear, dreading no evil” (a sense now archaic), from Latin securus, of persons, “free from care, quiet, easy,” also in a bad sense, “careless, reckless;” of things, “tranquil; free from danger, safe,” from *se cura, from se “free from” (see se-) + cura “care” (see cure (n.)).
In early use it often implied “over-confident, too sure.” In English, in reference to places, “free from danger, unexposed,” by c. 1600. The mechanical meaning “firmly fixed” (of material things) is by 1841, extended from the mental meaning “affording grounds for confidence” (1580s) hence “of such stability, strength, etc. to preclude risk.” Of telephones or telephone lines, “not wiretapped,” by 1961.
The earlier word, or form of the word, was Middle English siker, from Old English sicor, an earlier borrowing of the same Latin word, and sure (adj.) is a doublet, altered in its passage through Old French. Related: Securely.
It ought to be clear that cura is not the root here, in “secure”. The etymologists got that wrong.
Like in “select”, it is Se Collect, Se Cull, and Select. It is the “self collected”, the “self selected in excellence and fitness”. This is the only sense of real security one can ever have. It is not merely “separate from care”, or “without a care” — though this is still true, when one knows “care” means “anxious concern”. So to be secure is not merely the same as “safe”.
Etymology of collect (v.)
early 15c., “gather into one place or group” (transitive), from Old French collecter “to collect” (late 14c.), from Latin collectus, past participle of colligere “gather together,” from assimilated form of com “together” (see com-) + legere “to gather,” from PIE root *leg- (1) “to collect, gather.”
The intransitive sense “gather together, accumulate” is attested from 1794. Related: Collected; collecting. As an adjective or adverb meaning “paid by the recipient,” it is attested from 1893, originally with reference to telegrams.
KA!
These terms are not cura, they are from Ka.
KA is the first phonetics ever uttered and repeated with an AIM. EVER. No hominid ever uttered a single signifier, prior to this one.
Some, the elite of the Mer, among the Vek... became Se. The Vek did not have the same “adaptive” ability to become the “new thing”, the Third. But it was seen as “unified”. “SEEN”.
Eventually, the Se became more influential, because it had hunting traits that were born out of a lower olfactory center, thus, less urge based system. The body of Min, in this case, Mer, to Se, had become so restrained, and pulled back, that the “Mental Sphere” or “Realm” began to form as more “adaptive”. Mental, more adaptive than physical.
The Se began to utter Ka to get the attention of the Vek, and through “assimulation” to this utterance, the Vek always became alert when this phonetics would occur. Culturally, the Mer, led by the Se, would mimic and utter this phonetics. The Se would utter Ka, waking up the alertness of the Vek, to ready it for movement, and/or flanking.
Ka combined with eyes would indicate... I am saying that “way”, over there, where the eyes are pointed. Or, as it would become... the hand and finger would point. A Vek understood pointing very easily. It too points, with its body, to the Vek.
It was innate to the Vek.
Ka became “ready”. Ka became “go”. Ka became “come”. Ka became “alert”. Ka became “thee”. The Se “seeing” this, would then say Ka to each other. Se would direct Mer, with Ka. A “grunt”, but one that was consistent, creating the repetition needed to almost be a word. But the mind of the Se, and the Mer was not yet symbolic and conceptual.
Through many generations of few Se, leading more Mer, in mutualism with the Vek... they began to prosper in the hunt. The combination of the two led to dominance. More food meant bigger and robust frames. Meant more energy, more nutrition, and economized “tactics” in the hunt. Faster gains, and more secure gains, meant LEISURE.
This leisure means “be free from selection, yet willed to select still”. It is “selection” during “idleness”, and the absence of “hurry”.
Etymology of leisure (n.)
c. 1300, leisir, “free time, time at one's disposal,” also (early 14c.) “opportunity to do something, chance, occasion, an opportune time,” also “lack of hurry,” from Old French leisir, variant of loisir “capacity, ability, freedom (to do something); permission; spare time; free will; idleness, inactivity,” noun use of infinitive leisir “be permitted,” from Latin licere “to be allowed” (see licence (n.)).
Especially “opportunity afforded by freedom from necessary occupations” (late 14c.). “In Fr. the word has undergone much the same development of sense as in Eng.” [OED]. The -u- appeared 16c., probably on analogy of pleasure (n.), etc. To do something at leisure “without haste, with deliberation” (late 14c.) preserves the older sense. To do something at (one's) leisure “when one has time” is from mid-15c.
Idle, the Se finally “said” to “Self”...
KA!
And in saying this to its “self” for the first time, was the first time of “self-talk” or “instigation”. When it said Ka to “self”... something other than the animal responded back. Something “woke up”, and said... “Yes my child... What is it are you saying?”
That thing responded back with... “I have always been here, always will be... but... you were asleep... forgetful of my existence.”
“Shall we assimulate to the Third, like thou had done with the Vek?”
The Se attracted to this... “selected” the direction of “self-talk”. Selected to make self-talk Fit, and Excellent. The content of this self-talk was the imagining of what “comes next”. What follows in “sequence”.
Se Ka, Se Kw.
Etymology of sequence (n.)
late 14c., in church music, a composition said or sung after the Alleluia and before the Gospel, from Old French sequence “answering verses” (13c.) and directly from Medieval Latin sequentia “a following, a succession,” from Latin sequentem (nominative sequens), present participle of sequi “to follow” (from PIE root *sekw- (1) “to follow”).
In Church use, a partial loan-translation of Greek akolouthia, from akolouthos “following.” By 1570s in the general sense of “a series of things following in a certain order, a succession,” also in cards, “a run of three or more consecutive numbers of the same suit.” By 1580s as “order of succession.” In biochemistry in reference to nucleic acids, by 1959.
In the IDLE, relaxed, undemanding condition called “leisure”, the Se began the “habit” of “preparation”. Prior to, when it was time to hunt, to gather, to tidy, the Se would follow the “paths of need”. This, this, and this, in selection, for the Excellence and Fitness of the hunt.
But now, when not needed... the choice, the selection would be made... “This” made “this way”, for “next time”. Se “sees” next time, in its sense of things.
Now, surely but again, here the writer is being inventive with the etymologies. But if sekw is the root of “sequence”, and happens to be the root of “see”... would I still “Merely” be inventive... or shalt thou find me “genius” in my “sight”... “insightful” in my “sense”?
Etymology of see (v.)
Middle English sēn, from Old English seon (Anglian sean) “be or become aware of by means of the eye; look, behold;” also “perceive mentally, understand; experience; visit (a place); inspect” (contracted class V strong verb; past tense seah, past participle sewen), from Proto-Germanic *sehwanan (source also of Old Saxon, Old High German sehan, Middle High German, German sehen, Old Frisian sia, Middle Dutch sien, Old Norse sja, Gothic saihwan).
This is reconstructed to be from PIE root *sekw- (2) “to see.” That PIE root often was said to be probably identical with *sekw- (1) “to follow,” which produced words for “say” in Greek and Latin, and also words for “follow” (such as Latin sequor), but “opinions differ in regard to the semantic starting-point and sequences” [Buck]. Thus see might mean, etymologically, “follow with the eyes” (and in some languages extending to “speak, say, tell”). But OED finds this “involves a hypothetical sense-development which it is not easy to accept with confidence,” and Boutkan also doubts the connection and gives the word “No certain PIE etymology.”
It is attested by late Old English as “be able to see with the eyes, have the faculty of sight, not be blind.”
As the sense of sight affords far more complete and definite information respecting external objects than any other of the senses, mental perceptions are in many (perh. in all) languages referred to in visual terms, and often with little or no consciousness of metaphor. [OED]
English see has been used in many of these senses since early Middle English: “foresee; behold in the imagination or in a dream,” also “to recognize the force of (a demonstration),” all c. 1200.
It is attested by c. 1300 as “ensure, make sure” (something is so, someone does something). To see to is by late 14c. as “be attentive to, take special care about” (also “to look at”); hence “attend to, arrange for, bring about as a result.” See to it “take special care; see that it be done” is from late 15c.
The sense of “escort” (as in see you home) is attested c. 1600 in Shakespeare. The meaning “to receive as a visitor” is attested from c. 1500. The wagering sense of “equal a bet, accept by staking a similar sum” is by 1590s. Used in phrases expressing comparative and superlative (best I've ever seen) from early 14c.
Imperative use of see! “look! behold!” is by early 14c. Emphatic expression see here is attested from early 15c.; probably the notion is “see, here is ...;” but the modern use of it as “a brusque form of address used to preface an order,” etc. [OED] is by 1897 in schoolboy talk. The qualifying expression as far as I can see is attested from 1560s.
Let me see as a statement expressing consideration when the speaker is trying to recall something is recorded from 1510s. See you as a casual farewell is attested by 1891 (see you soon; probably short for hope to see you soon). To see something in (someone, etc.) “perceive good or attractive qualities in” is by 1832.
Now, there is often the notion of the “seer”, and its connection to the shaman. But what is forgotten is the noun version of “see”, that is a “throne”, liken to that of a “seat”; a seat of Control, of Management, of Influence.
Etymology of see (n.)
c. 1300, “throne of a bishop, archbishop, or pope,” also “throne of a monarch, a goddess, the Antichrist, etc.,” from Old French sie “seat, throne; town, capital; episcopal see,” from Latin sedem (nominative sedes) “seat, throne, abode, temple,” related to sedere “to sit” (from PIE root *sed- (1) “to sit”).
Attested by early 14c. as “administrative center of a bishopric;” c. 1400 as “province under the jurisdiction of a bishop.” In Middle English also sometimes simply “place to sit, a chair” (late 14c.).
It differs from diocese, however, in that diocese represents the territorial province for the care of which the bishop is responsible (that is, where his duties lie), whereas see is the local seat of his authority, dignity, and episcopal privileges. [Century Dictionary]
The Se to whom “Sight” and “Sequence” was developing in, began to take “account” of that of “Patterns”. “Foresight” concerning these “Patterns” is now called “Prudence”.
Prudence is a DIVINE faculty to my KIND. It is extremely important to the VIR.
Etymology of prudence (n.)
mid-14c. (c. 1200 as a surname), “intelligence; discretion, foresight; practical wisdom to see what is suitable or profitable;” also one of the four cardinal virtues, “wisdom to see what is virtuous;” from Old French prudence (13c.) and directly from Latin prudentia “a foreseeing, foresight, sagacity, practical judgment,” contraction of providentia “foresight” (see providence, which is a doublet). The secondary sense of “knowledge, science” (late 14c.) is preserved in jurisprudence.
There is to “SEE”, but then there is “Vid”. The Vir mentally does not “see”, for this is what has been, and likely will be repeated. The Vir Vid... which is like “simulates”, including “variables” that have yet to be seen, in relation to each other. You know Vid at the root of “video”. My Kind's Essence is all over the language.
Videre, in Latin, is “to see”, but they are not the same.
“Providence” contains the corollaries needed to grasp best “Prudence”...
Etymology of providence (n.)
late 14c., “foresight, prudent anticipation, timely care or preparation,” from Old French providence “divine providence, foresight” (12c.) and directly from Latin providentia “foresight, precaution, foreknowledge,” abstract noun from present-participle stem of providere “look ahead, prepare, supply, act with foresight,” which is from pro “ahead” (see pro-) + videre “to see” (from PIE root *weid- “to see”).
Providence (usually capitalized) “God as beneficent caretaker of his creatures,” is recorded c. 1600, from earlier use of the word for “God's beneficent care, guardianship, or guidance” (late 14c., short for divine providence, etc.). The noun in classical Latin occasionally was used as the name of a goddess and in Late Latin as “God; the government of the world by God's infinite wisdom and foresight.”
Take note, governments claim “Providence”. When you do not have “Providence”, nor dare to, someone or others must. Prudence and Providence must be exercised, for survival and fitness. When one takes Providence, through Prudence, over their own life, others must yield and remove their assertions to govern that thereof... over the now “Sovereign”.
But it is not by default, that you have Providence. This is “Mer entitlement” that leads to thinking it is by birth.
“Pro” is “forward in Patterns”.
It is from the Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu, Py phonetics.
Etymology of pro-
word-forming element meaning “forward, forth, toward the front” (as in proclaim, proceed); “beforehand, in advance” (prohibit, provide); “taking care of” (procure); “in place of, on behalf of” (proconsul, pronoun); from Latin pro (adv., prep.) “on behalf of, in place of, before, for, in exchange for, just as,” which also was used as a first element in compounds and had a collateral form por-.
Also in some cases from cognate Greek pro “before, in front of, sooner,” which also was used in Greek as a prefix (as in problem). Both the Latin and Greek words are from PIE *pro- (source also of Sanskrit pra- “before, forward, forth;” Gothic faura “before,” Old English fore “before, for, on account of,” fram “forward, from;” Old Irish roar “enough”), extended form of root *per- (1) “forward,” hence “in front of, before, toward, near,” etc.
The common modern sense of “in favor of, favoring” (pro-independence, pro-fluoridation, pro-Soviet, etc.) was not in classical Latin and is attested in English from early 19c.
In the ancient TONGUES, “Sight” and to “SEE” were all conceived of by a more “Advanced Era”. Meaning, they were brought by the Virya, the “Seers”, phonetically, culturally to Va, Ve, Vi, Vo, Vu, Vy.
W is double V.
Etymology of *weid-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to see.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit veda “I know;” Avestan vaeda “I know;” Greek oida, Doric woida “I know,” idein “to see;” Old Irish fis “vision,” find “white,” i.e. “clearly seen,” fiuss “knowledge;” Welsh gwyn, Gaulish vindos, Breton gwenn “white;” Gothic, Old Swedish, Old English witan “to know;” Gothic weitan “to see;” English wise, German wissen “to know;” Lithuanian vysti “to see;” Bulgarian vidya “I see;” Polish widzieć “to see,” wiedzieć “to know;” Russian videt' “to see,” vest' “news,” Old Russian vedat' “to know.”
Heart-felt Haima in demand of servitude
The Haima, through your mothers, corrupt “Sight” and “Seeing” by using the figurative sense of... “to see with one's HEART”. This means, through the passions, the emotions, the urges, and thus, through fear, insecurity, anxiety, diffidence, repugnance, disgust, despair, discertainty, Amusement, and Seduction.
The phonetics of “HEART” is the indication here, not the notion of the organ. To the Haima mommies, and your mommies... they are never talking about the organ. They are talking about Pathos controlling the narrative. EMOTIONAL sight... which is “MATERIAL sight”, as opposed to “Reasoned Sight”, called “Patterns”, and “Mental”.
They are saying, “SEE through FEELINGS”.
Etymology of heart (n.)
Old English heorte “heart (hollow muscular organ that circulates blood); breast, soul, spirit, will, desire; courage; mind, intellect,” from Proto-Germanic *hertan- (source also of Old Saxon herta, Old Frisian herte, Old Norse hjarta, Dutch hart, Old High German herza, German Herz, Gothic hairto), from PIE root *kerd- “heart.”
Spelling with -ea- is c. 1500, reflecting what then was a long vowel, and the spelling remained when the pronunciation shifted. Most of the modern figurative senses were present in Old English, including “memory” (from the notion of the heart as the seat of all mental faculties, now only in by heart, which is from late 14c.), “seat of inmost feelings; will; seat of emotions, especially love and affection; seat of courage.” Meaning “inner part of anything” is from early 14c. In reference to the conventional heart-shape in illustration, late 15c.; heart-shaped is from 1744.
Heart attack attested from 1875; heart disease is from 1864. The card game hearts is so called from 1886. To have one's heart in the right place “mean well” is from 1774. Heart and soul “one's whole being” is from 1650s. To eat (one's own) heart “waste away with grief, resentment, etc.” is from 1580s.
Etymology of heart (v.)
Old English hiertan “give heart to,” from heart (n.). Shakespeare used it as “take to heart” (c. 1600); 1866 of cabbages, “to form a heart.” Meaning “to love” is by 1993, from the popular New York state tourism campaign that used the heart symbol in place of the word “love.”
Etymology of -hearted
figurative element in combinations, “at heart,” also “having a heart” (of a specified kind), c. 1200, first attested in hard-hearted; see heart (n.). Related: -heartedly.
Etymology of heartful (adj.)
“devout, earnest,” mid-14c., from heart (n.) + -ful. Related: Heartfully.
Etymology of bleeding heart (n.)
name applied to several types of flowering plant, 1690s; see bleeding (adj.) + heart (n.).
In the American English sense of “person liberally and excessively sympathetic” (especially toward those the speaker or writer deems not to deserve it) is attested by 1936 in the work of popular conservative newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler (1894-1969), who first used it in reference to his own feelings about the Republican Party but by 1938 regularly deployed it against the Roosevelt administration and also as a modifier (bleeding-heart liberal) in his “Fair Enough” column:
And I question the humanitarianism of any professional or semi-pro bleeding heart who clamors that not a single person must be allowed to hunger, but would stall the entire legislative program in a fight to jam through a law intended, at the most optimistic figure, to save 14 lives a year. [“Fair Enough,” in Freemont (Ohio) Messenger, Jan. 8, 1938]
Bleeding in a figurative sense of “generous” is attested from late 16c., and the notion of one's heart bleeding as a figure of emotional anguish is from late 14c.; the exact image here may be the “bleeding heart of Jesus.”
The emotional sense of worth, among the Haima descendents, and their effeminate Magus, is around pain around the heart. Meaning, it's good when it makes them feel good. It's bad when it makes them feel pain. Pain and pleasure rule the Haima descendents, the Magus, and their subjects the Utilis, and Brutus. It is not “Ethics” as a science. It is morality based on feelings.
It is animalistic morality. It is materialistic morality, but decorated as “spiritual” and “deep” and “meaningful”. Decorated in fantasy. It is the HEART covered in GOLD, and given the story of having once been in a Goddess' chest.
It's make-believe.
Etymology of heart-ache (n.)
also heartache, late Old English heort ece “physical pain in or near the heart;” from heart (n.) + ache (n.). Sense of “anguish of mind” is from c. 1600; Old English did, however, have heartsarnes “grief,” literally “heart-soreness;” Middle English had herte-smerte “sorrow, contrition.”
Same then, is the “center” of excitement:
Etymology of heart-throb (n.)
also heartthrob, 1821, “passion, affection;” 1839 in literal sense, “a beat of the heart,” from heart (n.) + throb (n.). Of persons who inspire romantic feelings, from 1928; used 1910s of a quality that appeals to sentiment or emotion in newspapers, advertising, etc..
Etymology of heart-felt (adj.)
also heartfelt, “profoundly felt, deep, sincere,” 1734, from heart (n.) + past tense of feel (v.).
Haima and their descendents, that of Magus, make reference to “heart-felt matters”, “matters of the heart”, and “from the heart”, and “hearts together”. These figurative expressions are not a part of the “Verbiage” of the Vir.
We, as Vir, reject these things as decor carried out through SEDUCTION to clothe bestial urges and base natures in “wands” of spiritualism. It's effeminate.
It's also why the same kind... is QUICK TO HUG. When they can let you close to their organ, the “heart”, and you do not stab them... they think you “SAFE”, and they do not think with Prudence or Providence that you will just stab them later.
This is because, through their heart, or their emotions, they are going to be stabbing you figuratively long before you get a chance. Hugging is one step closer to emotional suffering with those who are suffering so much, they need hugs from strangers.
The Haima come with hugs, and then they raid your emotional body, and strip you of everything “Excellent” and “Fit” that you do for yourself. They come ready to teach you to “HATE” yourself, that is, “fall short of the Ha”, and they do this by calling all you do for “Self”, “Excellence”, and “Fitness” that does not include “their heart”, that of them...
SELFISH.
Etymology of selfish (adj.)
“caring only for self; characteristic of one who cares only or chiefly for his own personal pleasure,” 1630s, from self + -ish. It is common in Baxter and said by Bishop Hacket (“Scrinia Reserata,” 1693) to have been coined by Presbyterians. 17c. synonyms included self-seeking (1620s), self-ended (1640s, from self-end, “personal or private object”), and self-ful (1650s).
Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs. [Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene,” 1976]
Related: Selfishly; selfishness. Similar formations in German selbstisch, Swedish sjelfvisk, Danish selvisk.
Watch what you IMITATE. When it comes from you, merely mimicked, you are indeed a YOU, and no thou resides in thee.
Etymology of meme (n.)
“an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture,” 1976, introduced by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene,” coined by him from Greek sources, such as mimeisthai “to imitate” (see mime (n.)), and intended to echo gene.
We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'cream'. [Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene,” 1976]
Digital Age sense of “an image or snippet of video or text considered witty or incisive that is spread widely and rapidly by internet users” is by 1997.
You are observed PANDERING.
Etymology of pander (v.)
“to indulge (another), to minister to base passions, cater for the lusts of others,” c. 1600, from pander (n.). Meaning “to minister to others' prejudices for selfish ends” is from c. 1600. Related: Pandered; panderer; pandering.
The same pandering almost always then leads to an attack on “ego”, or egoism. It's not unique. It's scripted. The war against self, by the HAIMA, and effeminate MAGUS, is ancient. It's how they began, how they continue, and they win over the “hearts and minds” of their subjects, the Utilis, and Brutus. They gave you your culture.
Etymology of egoism (n.)
1785, in metaphysics, “the theory that a person has no proof that anything exists outside his own mind,” from French égoisme (1755), from Modern Latin egoismus, from Latin ego (see ego). Meaning “doing or seeking of that which affords pleasure or advances interest” is from 1800; opposed to altruism, but not necessarily “selfish.” Meaning “self-centeredness” is from 1840. Between egoism and egotism, egoism is more correctly formed; there formerly was a useful distinction, with egotism tending to take the senses “self-centeredness” and “extensive use of 'I'” and leaving to egoism the theoretical sense in metaphysics and ethics.
Heart-felt individuals are those in demand of SACRIFICE, as all EFFEMINATES tend. This goes back to blood sacrifice, and this goes back to simply put, HAIMA demands for SERVITUDE.
This is why, those descendent from HAIMA, which is most mothers of the Europeans, have passed on this “domestic” disturbance, and have been the root of a great deal of the motives for their sons, who become raiders and takers.
It is not “European” so to say... but it is across all global connections of “domestication”. At one point, it was “Central Asia” on the Western Steppes, but it then moved into “Europe”, down into the “Mediterranean”, across North Africa, the Near East, to the Indus, to the Han, in China, and throughout. But it began near to the regions known as the ancestral land of the CIMMERIANS.
But this was WAY before these Cimmerians ever existed. This is pre hominids in the sense of a modern fusion. This was kinds that were so different from each other, they were different species of MIN.
The Haima were from general Min. General Min were not in actuality Mer yet. The Mer element came after Haima. Because “death” as a fear and symbol came from them. So in actuality, the general term is MIN.
It would be:
From Min, with the Mi, came the Se. Not from Mer, came Se.
Bestowing Patterns of Simulation Construction
11-07-2023
I have chosen to have this portion written liken to a “session”, to show the reader just how my writings take place. My editor will choose the title, and name of this “session”, to show how she organizes the “essays” or “expoundings”.
To expound is to take something to its DEPTHS. It is beyond the surface, and that of the ordinary, and mediocre levels of Engagement. A Vir is not a DREAMER, wherein dreams are often whimsical, and carried out without clear correlation. It's as if they are patchworks of other dreams, once the dreamer is aware of them; they are all meshed together.
The Vir does not DREAM. Last night, I closed out my day at 2000, which is 8pm. This morning, as is my Way, I was up at 0400, or 4am. What you would have as “dream states”, I have as “simulation states”.
Instead of patchwork imagery of dreams, I have full consciousness, through constructs that are “imagined”, but they are logically sequenced, or played out as IF — but not — they were ACTUAL.
This is like a “Second Life”. Only, in this simulated state, that Second Life is drastically longer. For dreamers, the dream is not reported as long, but rather, dream states come and go like flatulence, fast, and sprightly. For me, the “living day” is like this. It is short, and goes by much faster, like a “blip”. I have “no attachment” to this Realm.
The greatest of thinking I have ever done, was and is... in “simulation”. I run “sims” as well during waking hours. There is no way I would be able to be awake, and limited to only thinking about what the CONDITIONS, that is, “this world”, provides to “react to”. That would be a massive waste of my mental and intellectual energies. In order to express my intellectual nature, I have to construct simulations.
I call these “sleep imaginations” simulations, and these “wakeful imaginations” that of simulations... because they follow Physics, Laws of Identity, Law of non-contradiction, and that of actualism, versus merely imagined and the whims of thought. Meaning, they are CONSTRUCTS mental, that use actual “program”, so as to inform the decision making process of the wakeful existence.
At a very YOUNG age, my SIMULATIONS surpassed in COMPLEXITY this “WORLD” that limits how “you and I” can interact. Meaning, my simulations are FAR MORE complex, and compounded with variables than this “life” you are living. Because of this, I do not get surprised in this life. I also do not face situations I am not prepared for. Everything in this life is mundane, relative to the “Profoundness” of my simulations.
My simulations are required to use D.O.P.E., or Data On Previous Engagements. This means, I can not manufacture what I want, and/or desire, the variables, but that I must take variables from everything I have learnt, from literature, the accounts of others, and that of experience and my own observations. This way, these simulations are integrations of data points, but running them in ways, they can not be run in actuality, or “this life”.
ALL of this is IMAGINATION. When someone is not in Control of this “process”, they can easily make the mistake in thinking they are accessing “Otherly Realms”.
I am in Control of this process. I do not Control how the simulation computes. That is automated by the “subprocesses”. These subprocesses, the “Greeks” called “Nous”, or the “Great Mind”. They called it this, because they were not in Control, or they were communicating with those who were not in Control. So, it is a bridge term.
Because these “machines” we are all “bound to” called “bodies” are of a specific identity — material, corporeal, and substantial — there is a history, or that is a past for the development of these “forms” that can be inquired into. Historia is an inquiry into the “past”.
I have, for the entirety of this “life”, been inquiring into the past of this form. I call this a component of my “Religious Reconnaissance”.
In order to have Control and Command over this “life”, I needed to have a sound sense of its “machinery” that is used to sense the material world, in which it is bound to.
As a “vessel”, or a machine with machinery... it is the tools and the weapons used for “Navigation”. How one navigates, with their form, then plays a massive and dependent role in how the “Mental Realm” of “Patterns” will be “reflected”. It is through form, or Materia, that one then arrives at “Mental”, or the “Mind”... which is too, physical... But as the sum in thought, of the physical components.
So in ORDER to have an OVERSTANDING of these FORMS, I began at a very young age to construct simulations, while asleep and awake, to integrate the data points, to develop a “narrative” of “past events” leading up to “present manifestations”.
When I was young, because of the accuracy of these simulations, I got the attention of an advanced and Elite Research Institute that began to study the differences in my physical chemistry, and cognitive abilities.
This ERI, whose name is not mine to give... however... speculated that what I was doing was producing “past memories”, from that of past life experiences. A portion of this ERI was fascinated with these narratives, and it was a part of their research to study paranormal activity, with the scientific method. There is absolutely no EVIDENCE in the paranormal.
At the time of my youth, I was not aware of how the “simulations” were being conducted. Because they were a talent, not a learnt behavior, I did not understand, let alone overstand the mechanics.
I have no need to understand how my automated systems function. The only time there is a need to understand automation is when you are communicating with others who do not deal in the same automation, and thus, outcomes or conclusions.
Faced with investigations and experiments conducted upon me by ERI, I had to begin the process of coming up with “ANSWERS”. Their speculations were not grounded in REASON, but in HOPES. They HOPED, as a young fella, I was evidence of past life experiences.
Many, throughout my life, have placed me in this ENTERTAINING ROLE. People want my own conclusions and thoughts to match their need for Seduction. That is, the escape into the fantastical. I have always WANTED to KNOW what was really happening or occurring. I wanted to know the mechanics of the phenomenon.
So I had to study, examine, investigate, and experiment with my own automations. At first, I was automating simulations that used actuals, and factuals. In order to discover it was “simulations”, I had to set out to build out purely imagined realms, using fantastical components that were not grounded in data acquired. If I could create entire realms of fantasy, then this would prove... I was not reconstructing “memories”.
I was able to do just that. I was able to construct absolutely fantastical realms with full histories, social orders, characters, and have them play out in simulations with their own “wills”. I do not control the components of the simulation. I only control the “inputs”, and then calculations occur, automatically, in grand narratives.
This was happening so much, that in the late 90s, I was encouraged to write stories. I began to be a “ghostwriter”, where I would sell scripts, “treatments”, and ideas. I used this money to travel.
Of the projects I ghostwrote, I have had MANY of them make it to the movie screens, and into public notoriety... including video game story lines. But as a ghostwriter, your name does not get attached. I have not needed this “attachment”. Ghost became a nickname for me over time, and I would use “The Ghost” to inject “culture creatives” into mainstream outlets. I used anonymity, because I was not attached to the personified actions, and recognition.
I established myself as one who is imaginative — only, without whim. Most of my work was altered by later writers, and given whimsical elements before being produced, and circulated. So much, that such things, in the end, were not my works, but simply a shadow, and flatulent version of the nutrition in which I had embedded in the works.
As I was getting older, I became rather disassociated with the speculations of others. I did not like how others were using me for their “Entertainment”. I did not wish to play along with past life talk, and “Transmigration of the Soul”, and that of “Mysteries” given fantastical clothing... when in actuality, it was childish emotions at play. I wanted ACTUAL sense, not merely an IMAGINATIVE sense.
I began to “SEGREGATE” DATA points into “ACTUAL”, and “FANTASTICAL”. There were primary variables that were occurring in my “SIMULATIONS”, be them “ACTUAL” and “FANTASTICAL”.
When I extracted the ACTUALS, what began to appear was that, I never created the FANTASTICAL by whim. The fantastical relied on the ACTUALS. The only thing that was fantastical was the appearances.
This is liken to how some say, fiction writers use fiction to “tell the truth”. I was using fantasy to carry the “actuals”.
Before I was 12 years old, I would use my “savantism” or “Genius” to read and absorb data from encyclopedias. Not just general encyclopedias. I had access to specific encyclopedias. Like ones concerning specific religions, and ones concerning specific realms of thought, and sciences. I have in my digital library, at least a thousand encyclopedias, based on what ones I referred to in my youth. I have not read one, since my youth. I have barely read, since my youth. I do not READ, as many think.
Many have to wait until they have freedom and leisure, as “adults”, to pick up interests other than the ones they were schooled, and groomed in by their familiars. I, however, did all my learning before the “age” of 12. I did all my reading, minus perhaps a dozen books, before that age.
These readings were literary reconnaissance. I was in search of the “life propositions” of those declared “the most Wise”. So this means, the “Great Books of the West”, and/or the Harvard Classics.
I studied the Oxford English Dictionary, copied it out, and included etymologies. Etymologies then told me I need to study ANCIENT languages, starting with LATIN, then GREEK, then SANSKRIT, then Pali, then Avestan... then Germanic. I would add Mandarin, and Japanese to these later.
My native tongue, or default tongue was Louisiana Creole. My Patruus, or uncle who had me from the start to 4-5, spoke Creole and French to me, barely English. I began English at age 5, through a foster.
⚔⚔⚔
11-08-2023
The point and purpose of speaking of this Pattern of “Simulation” construction is this;
In ancient times, if there were others who had this ability, talent, or mechanics, they would not have had “simulations” before them, external, to compare their mental functions to. “Simulations” and “model building” were not a part of the ancient past.
Instead, the presumption would have been that their “constructs” were “insight” into the “Otherly”, and the “honest” sense of its “character” would have then been the presumption of “Divine Insight”. There would have been nothing by comparison, to say otherwise.
When you have mental abilities that others do not have, others CAN NOT provide you with answers and “guidance” around such abilities, capacities, and potencies.
Others, especially those of a normative set of physical and mental traits, can not IMAGINE what it is like to be able to build out mental constructs with more elaborate variables than they can even conceive of, in this more “simple construct”, called “Reality”.
If you are struggling with that of this so-called “Reality”, then it means it's too complex for your “reasoning” or “accounting” abilities. So then, how would you be able to even begin to grasp a more complex construct, with an amplified sense of “variable correlation”?
The answer is, you would not. You are still struggling with the dichotomy of “animal”, and mostly so, and that of “Mind” represented by “Symbolic Frameworks”. Those with more aggressive imaginations, that also are attracted to mechanical and/or systematic thought, have to read the elaborate imaginations of others, in order to express this “attraction”.
In ancient times, this was RELIGION. Religion was the elaborate IMAGINATIONS of a COLLECTIVE, that weaved a more “complex” narrative. It does not mean the narrative was Valid. It just means it was a complex narrative. That means, possessing many variables compounded into a greater “scheme” or “construct”.
Attraction to this, is on account of traits and attributes that are “Mental”, desiring to be expressed, or worked. But the error, mostly in HUmanus, and of the Magus sort, is in thinking that, with this attraction and desire to be expressed, that the target of attraction granting exercise or expression is then TRUE. So, one who has a need, a desire and sense for religion will take to a given religion, and because it gets these mental faculties expressed, they will think, or at least report to think... this then must be what “TRUTH” is.
The hunger for relief
But in actuality, it is a “satiation”, or an “exhaustion”. I will use the term “exhaustion” for now, to mean a trait or attribute that is actual in the being, coming to be expressed to its fullest, and end. So, not a hunger or a craving. These become temporarily “satiated” or “fed”. Never satiated and brought to a end.
Hunger, cravings, desires, wants, and pleasures are “loops” that are open. They NEVER close.
Attributes and traits that either get expressed by chance, or deliberation, are not “open loops”. Attributes and traits can be neglected, with some even having no consequences.
Hungers, cravings, and desires that do not become satiated, have consequences. Diffidence needs to feed on assurances. When it does not get satiated, anxiety increases. Anxiety needs targets, as an energetics, in order for it to run on, to get exhausted.
It's a “trait” of energetics, over diffidence as a craving. If it does not get exhausted, it becomes combined with the symbolic need for a “target”, and these are found in “concerns”.
These two combined create “CARE”. Care is anxious concern. Care runs the DEMAND for assurance, reassurance, and relief. If these are FED as cravings, one becomes RELIEVED, and calls this “HAPPY”, “joyous”, or “pleased”.
If they do not get FED as cravings, they have their anxious concern advanced into “repugnant” stages, or “hungers of resistance”. Hungers of subversion, interference, with the appearance of being “chaos” to what was “order”. But Chaos and Order are mystical terms here.
It is SATIATED, versus UNSATIATED. What Humanus sees as ORDER is that of the ability to be fed, and the sustainment of feeding. There is ORDER in SATIATED loops. There is CHAOS in SATIATED loops being DISRUPTED.
Repugnance is “REACTIONARY FIGHT”. It is when one has a target of their “anxious concerns”, and they are not being satiated or provided for in the multiple areas, their “hungers” possess them in.
When their HUNGERS and CRAVINGS are not being FED, and they are REACTING, and FIGHTING, often even sabotaging themselves, they become “DISGUSTED” with their TARGETS.
That DISGUST, at the start, will ride the repugnance, but if it grows too great, and RELIEF is not provided, the individual loses the “FIGHT”, remains “disgusted”, becomes “DISGUSTING”, often self-destructive, and falls into DESPAIR... which means, lacking in fight. Either AFFIRMING fight, called PERFORMANCE, or NEGATING fight, called REACTIONARY, SUBVERSIVE, UNDERMINING.
When that DESPAIR still has DISGUST attached to it, it is often best called MALCONTENT. When that DESPAIR is too formed, and DISGUST even fades, it becomes DEPRESSION.
Relief is “satiation”. It is a hunger being fed. When people are well-fed in their cravings, they are called “peaceful”, “happy”, and “pleased”. When they have their feeding disrupted, and their cravings without relief, they become AGITATED, AGGRESSIVE, DISRUPTIVE.
These cravings and hungers of the EMOTIONS are a thousand times more primary than the hunger one feels for nutrients, food, or sustenance. However, there is a reason people have used the meshed term “hangry” for those angry because they are hungry. This is why, the emotions can be called CRAVINGS that require RELIEF, or SATIATION.
HUman pleasure, and JOY, as well as “appearance of peace”... is all around RELIEF of these EMOTIONAL STATES. When one appears to not have these emotions of Diffidence, Anxiety, Repugnance, Disgust, and Despair... it does not mean they are different from their fellow Humanus.
It more than likely means, they are well-FED, and CARED for. To be CARED for, means to have others, and conditions that answer to your cravings, and hungers, by providing RELIEF. Cared for, is RELIEVED.
This is why the term “compassion”, that of sharing in suffering, has the DESIRE in it, the craving in it... for “alleviation” of the suffering.
Because it has the DESIRE, the WANT, the CRY for alleviation, those who preach compassion then affirm, arrogantly, that alleviation is a part of compassion. It is not. Compassion is presence in suffering with others. It is sharing in the suffering, replicating, and mimicking it.
Compassion does not mean, the participants have the RELIEF, and the alleviating forces to wield. In compassion, the craving being fed is “anxious concern”, and the “relief” being provided, if any, is simply that of reassuring, and assuring through EMOTIONAL manipulation.
Problem-SOLVING is not a component of COMPASSION. The evidence for that, in the use and practice of the term, is clear, and why exactly COMPASSION is EFFEMINATE.
It correlates to the PROFESSED position of Humanus females, that when they EXPRESS their ANXIOUS sense of a “concern” or “problem”, they do not need a male offering a solution; they desire, crave for them to just LISTEN, to be “THERE”, and with this “presence”, to provide assurance and reassurance. Their feeding is that of a target they can transfer their burden onto, who will share the EMOTIONAL load, not the “logistical load”.
These two elements combined illuminate the actual disposition of the notion of COMPASSION. It is “EMOTIONAL BURDEN TRANSFERENCE AND COLLABORATION”. It is the SICK, mimicking the SICK, for UNIFICATION.
Philanthropy is the recognition that there is a problem holding some back, that you might have a solution for, and with the “desire” to see the target empowered, you present that solution and you lift them up LOGISTICALLY.
Not make them “FEEL” better. Not “lift their spirits” or “lift their emotions”. Compassion is shared burden. Philanthropy is shared Advancement of the Logistics. Compassion is effeminate. Philanthropy would be masculine. But these two terms are inadequate. It is not female, and male like, that these things belong to. It is the Mater Forces, versus the Phater Forces. Materia, versus Paternia.
An attraction to “mechanical systems” is often driven by the emotional need for RELIEF. That is why “males” favor mechanical thought and conditions more than females.
Effeminate males do not favor mechanical realms. Like females, effeminate males favor RELATIONAL realms. This is why there is the notion of “females” are about people; but they do not say “controlling, and managing people”. They then say males are about things; but they do not say “controlling and managing things”.
The Control and Management aspect is for RELIEF, and expression of traits and attributes. For these things, people and things, are targeted by females, and males.
A female shows this is innately true, by valuing a male based on what “THINGS” he has targeted, acquired, and sustained, and because she controls, and manages people... she then selects that male — if she can — via her Ma or female sexual traits, and through him, she gets the “things”... that is the “resources”, and the “provisions”.
Those resources and provisions are not the value themselves. The security, safety, and relief they provide are the actual CRAVINGS that are being FED, by all these displays. Through the male, she has these cravings relieved, and satiated, and thus, can find “pleasure”, or “PEACE”.
But this only used to work when the attributes and traits beyond resources would become expressed and exhausted. The more you are fed, and satiated, the more your CRAVINGS increase. It's like a drug addict. The more you are PLEASED, the quicker you become DISPLEASED. You get a bigger emotional belly.
In the HUNGER for RELIEF... it goes way beyond the BODY.
The Mind too has “HUNGERS”, but they are SYMBOLIC in their UNITS or VARIABLES.
So when a male is used for physical assurances of security, safety, and provision, but this is all he can provide, a primitive and exhausted Humanus female will be satiated, and “at peace”. This, because she has not become “OVERFED”.
But, in massively DOMESTICATED SOCIAL experiments, like the AMERICAN EXPERIMENT, the average female HUMANUS, male HUMANUS, are OVERFED. Because of this, they have INFANT EMOTIONS.
Both the Humanus female, and Humanus male are easier and quicker to be displeased and DISSATISFIED. One of the hardest faces for me to look at is so-called “white American males”. The laborious ones. They are plagued with the highest levels of MALCONTENT I have ever seen in a population, and I have traveled across most of this planet, and seen many faces.
To add to this, I am one of those few who can read microexpressions, and the emotions of others with ease, on their face, and in their body's nonverbals.
This DISPLEASURE and MALCONTENT, common among the so-called “AMERICANS” in their social experiment or construct, is not due to harsh and threatening conditions that demand expression of excellent traits. No, it is because of OVERFEEDING their BODIES, both EMOTIONAL bodies and MENTAL bodies.
That is why objectively, those who overfeed their bodies are not trusted by those who deal in PERFORMANCE Management. If one can not regulate the logistics of physical feeding, they sure can not regulate the logistics of EMOTIONAL feeding.
This too is why overfed folk, in their bodies, self-report as “EATING THEIR EMOTIONS AWAY”. That is, seeking to FEED on materia, to alleviate the pains, or agitations, or hungers of the EMOTIONAL.
But in actuality, it is this OVERFEEDING of the ANIMAL form, the BODY, and that of instant gratification, that is contributing to a lot of calories and energy that can be spent on EMOTIONAL AGITATION.
If you were STARVING, and low in CALORIES, a great deal of EMOTIONAL ENERGY would not exist. You would not FEEL the range of emotions you feel, the confusion and CHAOS, because you would be too EXHAUSTED.
This is why shamans would try to fix themselves through their version of asceticism, that was based around DENYING THE BODY. Self- denying. This is not the ASCETICISM of the WARRIOR.
NEGATION was what the shaman taught. To handle their emotional CHAOS, they took away the FEEDING of the BODY, and they called this STARVED state, their NIRVANA. But in actuality, they just became physically exhausted fast, and the emotions would then go unheard, and unattended.
They did not discover emotional TRANSMUTATION, because a shaman can not TRANSMUTE the default EMOTIONAL Kinetics of being HUMANUS.
HUMANUS can not transmute:
-
Diffidence to Confidence
-
Anxiety to Vitality, and Vigor
-
Repugnance to Valiance
-
Disgust to Veracity
-
Despair to Vigilance
-
Discertainty to Validity
-
Entertainment to Vantage.
A shaman can not do this. If their bodies are well-fed, well satiated, their MENTAL AGGRESSIONS become aggravated even more, even to the point of self sabotage, and that of plaguing their host, feeding on them so much, they end up destroying the things that brought them relief. SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. SELF-DEFEATING.
And because most of your mommies are from shaman lineages, this is why your mommy can be physically, and resource wise CARED for ENTIRELY, yet become so DISSATISFIED with life, that she then SELF-DESTRUCTS, targets her providers, introduces chaos, and ruins the whole scheme of things. She easily breaks the supposed “PRAGMA” stage of the worth that is “contracts” and “agreements” designed to secure, and make safe feeding and satiation.
This, because when the body is overfed, the MENTAL becomes primary, and it feeds on NARRATIVES. Now, the Humanus female, and Humanus male overfed, and restless because lacking traits and attributes expressed to exhaustion, they have earned no rest; and must turn to the imaginative to find “meaning”.
This craving for “framework”, or narrative, then becomes the target for mental RELIEF. Mental relief is far more complex than physical relief, with its hungers, and cravings. Food, drink, and sex. That is simple. So simple, one can even do all three of them... by themselves.
If one does all three of those with ease, and they can be done with ease, then it often leads to OVERFEEDING the BODY.
But narratives, and frameworks... that of the MENTAL Realm... CAN NOT, and WILL NOT be FED with ease. Overfeeding of the mind, or mental sphere, comes from which emotions the narrative and framework targets.
Frame of Mind, detailed in my treatise of the same name, is what the term “Entertain” pertains to. In the term itself is that of “among”, and that of “one's holdings”. So, it means that which one “holds”, in essence, “mentally”.
Mental Holdings is the essence of “Entertain” and “Entertainment”. To “entertain” is to “maintain a certain Frame of Mind in another”. So, it is to bring one, first, to a certain “Mental Holdings” state; then, to keep them there, or hold them there... possessed. Now, there are those who bring about the Mental Holdings, and there are those who help maintain them.
Bringing about the Mental Holdings is through “culture creatives” ; that is, those who control the language and narratives, having the most Influence over the narrative, that become trickled down to the individuals, the collective is composed of.
This is replication of MEMES, or CULTURAL units, throughout the collective mind state.
Your parents, or familiars, for example... had no “mental hand”, or that is “augmentative role” in that of culture creatives. They are not, and were not likely “culture creators”. What they were, and are, are “cultural replicators”.
Meaning, information and Mental Holdings are passed down to them, and they are “under the influence”, that is “intoxicated” by this “Order”. They merely pass on replicated “Frames of Mind” or “Mental Holdings”, and they MAINTAIN, or POSSESS you, the collective asset... in these states, or holdings.
You, perhaps until you started reading me... then became simply a replicator as well. Thus, called a REPLICANT, when you merely embody the passed down, and replicated Mental Holdings, by way of culture, customs, and traditions. Your “rituals” maintain, and/or possess you... in these Mental Holdings.
Maintain is more deliberate. Possession is more passive, and automated. Most are not MAINTAINING certain Frames of Minds. Therefore, most are not ENTERTAINING. Most are ENTERTAINED, and that is MAINTAINED, or POSSESSED in these certain states, or frames of Mental Holdings.
Your “GROUP identity” is a narrative.
Your “thou”, or “individual sense”, if based on group identity, is a “replicant self”, as a part of the “collective self”.
The collective self is a construct.
The architects of the collective self are called “culture creators”. Culture creators create culture or narratives that are used to give their own kind resource advantage, status, security, safety, and feeding. Culture creators are elite and few. They start the “Mental Holdings”, and with their Influence and Control over the narrative, they, shamans and Brahmins, disseminate the “memes” and “units of Mental Holdings” down to their “minions”, who then popularize both the “affirmative” aspects of their themes, as well as the “controlled opposition” of the negation of their themes.
Strategically, in the mechanical sense, it is far more advantageous to not wipe out dissent, because it naturally occurs, but instead, control both “cultures”. That which “affirms” itself, and that which negates that “affirming itself”.
In order to do this, culture requires “Entertainment”. That avenue that is used to maintain, and/or keep subjects possessed in certain Frames of Mind, or Mental Holdings. These “Entertainments” are designed based on the EMOTIONAL bodies of the targets.
I have divided them into three categories for now, to explain this ancient practice that is dominant, in these modern times.
-
Amusement
-
Seduction
-
Engagement
Amusement is used for the dissatisfied, and low performance individuals, and their collectives. Amusement plays on repugnance. Repugnance will be high among those overfed in the body, and underfed in the narratives of relief. That is why it is more common among “males”.
Humanus females are ENTITLED, not OPPRESSED... in the AMERICAN EXPERIMENT. I am only addressing the social experiment the “Americans”, so-called, are in. I am not addressing PRIMITIVE, and more natural conditions, that a great deal of Humanus are experiencing.
Field cultures are not what I am addressing. I am addressing a DOMESTIC audience.
My breakdown is concerned with DOMESTICATION, not primal and natural conditions, where exhausting performative traits will occur more often, thus leading to satisfaction of expression, and not overfeeding.
I will use the acronym American Social Experiment, or A.S.E., but perhaps have my editor convert it to full.
But in A.S.E., the American Social Experiment... the HUmanus females are given the most attention, and their cries, complaints, desires, fears, insecurities, and need for assurance are amplified, and served aggressively.
However, because the state is run by EFFEMINATES trying to please MOMMY, the state has been used to remove the MALES from the equation, and instead, act as the PROVIDER, and PROTECTOR.
In essence, what was once a primal relationship between Humanus females and Humanus males, is now OUTSOURCED in female interest to the “über Min”, or “super man”, which is the EFFEMINATE STATE.
Humanus females are not getting things through EARNING, in that of SKILL, COMPETENCE, and COMPETITION.
Instead, a fiction, called the state, is using “SERVILE” males as ENFORCERS to regulate the transference of STATUS, and position to that of its female population.
Every SIMULATION I have ever run, that concerns the presence of Humanus, comes to this point. In this “construct” called “Reality”, this also happened numerous times, but a breakdown in ACCOUNTING comes to occur.
Meaning, right now, “accounting” is not allowed to communicate this transfer of status and role from male to female, occurring through deliberate and planned actions. Because the CULTURE has created hostility towards pointing out the “battle of the sexes”.
Meaning, if you point this out, you are called “anti-female” or “misogynist”. But if evidence shows that female controllers can exclude males from things, because they are males, and select females, because they are females... this is called “representation”, and a “benefit” and fight for “equality”.
Females factor in the sex of the individual more than males do. Males, if they are not effeminate, and they are goal driven, and objective driven — more so in the mechanical sense, where competition may exist — will want the winning edge. If it's a female that brings the edge... they will employ her. If it is a male that will bring the edge... they will employ him.
They call this meritocracy. One is measured by their merits, not their sex. This is performative. Most institutions, and now businesses, are run not by performative females, or males, but instead by “effeminates”. This then means the RELATIONAL component takes priority over the LOGISTICAL component. When this occurs, “ventures” lose the “Vantage”, the high ground, the greater picture, and they can no longer compete with even the “little guy” who comes along, acting a disruptor to the markets.
The same happens in the “constructs” to where, whenever a population becomes overfed in body, and underfed in narrative... ALWAYS, the MOMMIES, the effeminate females, have agitated their need for Control, and Management of the relational narratives, which are petty; and they conform the state, institutions, and militaries to these narratives.
What ends up occurring is they treat numbers as strength, and narrative as strength. Those who are bold in the population, wishing for competent independence, become massively oppressed.
During the period where this is covert, the mommies have to have their effeminate sons at the head, to appear “male”. This stage has passed.
Then, the next stage occurs, where they step in, unable to control themselves and their impulses, overfed, and mentally craving recognition and status as “Wise Women”.
When they do this, a natural rebellion occurs among those performative, because the performative ones will have a natural belief that no one is entitled to their “worth” merely on account of their sex. But “effeminates” believe in “sexual entitlement”, or that is, the female sex is the master, and the rightful controller, and manager.
In primitive conditions, this is actually true. But this would be because the female would leave the male to be exhausted in the field, and a Provider, and not have the state, a fiction, have this outsourced to them.
But in domestication, the male can not get exhausted in a field, because there are barely any fields. Youse call this “production”. In your marketplace terminology, you say “production” has been moved overseas, or “out of the country”. There is “consumption” and “production”. The American Social Experiment is in the consumption phase, without production.
Meaning, it is the house, the domos... not the fields. There is a disconnect between the house and the fields, and the so-called Americans are overfed, and made mentally dull, in a house based on fictions, with no proximity to the “fields” based on physics, and Reality.
A Humanus male, without production and labor that pulls out expression of their innate traits to be servile, is a Humanus male who becomes restless.
When that Humanus male thinks they can get expressed in the house, and the Humanus female forces them to stay in the house — like youse do with your schools, and offices — that Humanus male becomes massively dissatisfied... because he does not belong in the house.
To handle this dissatisfaction, he needs to be neutered by the females, like in how the bonobos were shaped. SEXUALIZED, and NEUROTIC. The Humanus male becomes made to think like a GIRL, conform like a GIRL, and is EMASCULATED.
This is the only way, the transfer from “male Performance” to “female Management” can occur. She has to control, and manage emasculated males, as if they were broken girls. And because these Humanus males, at a young age, are seeing all the attention given freely, that is, unearned, to Humanus females, on account that they are merely FEMALE, that Humanus male is being bred, and conditioned into worshipping the feminine as a “GODDESS”.
It is EFFEMINATE to declare there is the DIVINE feminine, and DIVINE masculine, and this is proven by how the “female” leads in this narrative, and defines what both of them are. Meaning, from the “feminine”, she will define what is “masculine”.
This is why these terms are the cause of suffering, and delusion. Ma is at the center of Mas.
To be masculine, in actuality, is to be a male slave to female interest, going out and sacrificing one's own interest for her, and her offspring. No Virtuous Man would, at the same time, allow himself to be referred to as MASCULINE, without clarification. Seeking MASCULINITY, is seeking ENSLAVEMENT.
Mental FEEDING answers to all this, with the Entertainments. The restless Humanus male, who has no FIELD to become exhausted in, through struggle, turns that struggle and expression upon himself, and becomes self defeated, and self-destructive.
Every one of youse, who puts booze in your system, is EMASCULATED, is RESTLESS, and en route to MALCONTENT. You are intoxicating for RELIEF. You are relieving yourself of thinking, by disrupting cognitive functions. One who thinks their cognitive functions are not being disrupted, is correct. They are not wrong. Yes, you heard me, or read me correctly.
If a male says, intoxicants, be it DRINK, inhaled, or consumed, do not impact their cognitive functions, they are correct. It does not impact your cognitive functions, if you are RETARDED already. If you do not have any noteworthy cognitive or mental purpose, then there is nothing intoxicants would be disrupting.
Never try to convince a mental midget that is mentally low, or short in performance, that something ought to be changed, in the name of performance. Without a FIELD, without a SKILL, a COMPETENCY, a WAR being fought for Control and Command over one's conditions and self, there is NO NEED for high performance cognitive functions.
Peasants, commoners, servile Humanus males... have no need for performative talk, strategies, and tactics. They ought to be left to being HOUSE SERVANTS, things you call yourselves almost every day, when you say “of a family”, “my family”, “the family”, “our family”, and “it's FOR MY FAMILY”.
A retarded Humanus servile male can only exist “for a family”, that is “house servants”, and among Humanus females, and Humanus males, the Humanus female is the “Master of the house”, and the Humanus male is her “SERVANT”. This is not due to female maliciousness.
No, NATURE... UA... has this in the Architecture, but Ua, as a condition, was for PRIMAL settings; not for DOMESTIC settings. Ua has in the Architecture, designs for PRIMAL FIELDS. When one's life is more PRIMAL in this sense as Humanus, then MENTAL SICKNESS, as well as physical sickness, would be reduced.
But youse would not know this, because your shamans, and Brahmins of the Magus, they are BORN innately with more physical and mental problems than those they have subjugated under their Control and Management. Because of this, they are at the head, and forefront of the health industry.
In order for this health industry to be funded, they need those who are born by default capable and more healthy to be led astray into self-destructive habits, to incur health issues. This way, they then need to come to them, born unhealthy, but trying to fix their errors, and get treatment. They offer you treatment for an overfed, intoxicated body, as well as treatment for the despair your mental narrative keeps leading you into. They are there to fix, or rather bandage the sickness they gave you through being your culture creators.
The difference is, often, they are trying to cure themselves of their innate ineptitudes. But the only way they can do that is through the material realm. They can not do it through the Patterns of the Mind. So first, they get you sick in the mind, and when they have your mind, or Mental Holdings under their spell, they get you to overfeed, and to dope up your body, which loops back around, and holds your mind in captivity.
That this has worked, and will continue to work... means those whom it works on NEVER had some INNER VOICE that had demands for emotional transmutation, and performative living. It means, they did not emasculate you, in actuality. It means, the shamans, and their Brahmins merely revealed you are HUMIN, HUMAN, HUMANUS... born of effeminate lineages, that have been under their Control and Management for the last 6k years.
“We”, the Vir... we always WARN you. But because you are attached to your mommies' figurative tits, well into your physical maturation, you are conditioned to wish for... “WE”... the VIR, to be burned at the stake for reporting our “Religious Reconnaissance” to you.
In secret, youse always know “We” the Vir are right. Meaning, it's an accurate characterization of your social constructs. But you find these warnings when you are already in DESPAIR, not before. You find them when you're too old, and you have been long DEFEATED.
When you are young, and protected by the First Fire... your performance has you arrogant. You would not think you would need these warnings. But when your First Fire, the mating fire, the fire of Ma is gone, and you are housebound, aging, and “falling”, you cry for help, to get back up... but your cries are directed at the SLAVERS right in front of you, who built that house, that cage, and social construct, based on their insecurities, and fears, that you were forced to serve.
They can not help you up and out... because it's their “HELL”, you mental midget, and emotionally distraught whimpering little tit.
“We” the Vir need only “warn”. That is, “We”, the Vir, need only REPORT. “We”, the Vir, have no need for you to respond, and do anything about it.
“We”, the Vir, through simulation, know that what is happening now, has happened before, and what happened before, after it, is going to happen again... and so on. Phases of the existence of being physical and mental, with cravings in both realms, often incapable of being satiated, because youse, Humanus, were not born with an inner “Voice” that calls out to you with extreme attractions and aversions, to keep you whole.
You are merely a reaction to your conditions, and whoever controls those conditions, controls what you think, and your Mental Holdings are “YOU”.
Overfeeding the body, that of nutrition, what it needs and does not need, is something so many can deal in, for logistical solutions. One can become high performance with the body, with relative ease, even if resources are “impoverished levels”. There are high performative ascetic practices, to do more with less.
I live by those, and at the time of writing this, 11-08-2023, I am of the “legal age” of 43, one month away from 44 on 12-21. My legal age is two years off of my “born age” in the physical time sense. Meaning, up until 1995, and becoming legally inducted into the system... “common account” was that I was born December 21st 1977.
I went every year after 95 with two years taken off of my age, and did not until recently start to reveal this discrepancy. A part of my present living is, you only lie to enemies, and if you have enemies, you're doing something wrong.
For me, a Religious Warrior, 40s is OLD, and brings with it the surprise that one is still alive. I never expected to get to this age. I expected to die at some point, involved in some kind of foreign conflict, serving effeminate domestic masters that send Men like me off to be their “blade”, because their bitch hands need to be kept clean, for appearances.
Humanus males start to drop their filters when they're like in their 70s and 80s — or they used to. So old fellas would speak straight with you. When you have only 5-10 years left, expecting to live... you kind of start to get more honest. I was always in “death circles”, where you did not know when your time was going to come. I knew, if left to Nature, I would live a LONG, very LONG life... or so I suppose, based on ANCESTRY.
But whilst engaged in a CONFLICT ridden existence, a SHORT life would be expected. So at a young age, I simply never developed a FILTER. I have always just told people “my position” and “stance” if they instigated an inquiry. I have never felt the need to go out and tell people, to start it myself. I do not ask people about themselves, so that I can wait for them to get done, to talk about me.
Instead, most of the time, I sit, and listen to others, pretend interest, only in the slight... so that they can get on asserting their Sense of Self, and Sense of Life on me.
Mental holdings leading to repression
The other day, I went to a meeting held by Jehovah witnesses. No, that is not my religion. I know a local fella whose name is not mine to give. This fella has “New York energy”, and the only one in the area I know with it.
I am not nostalgic, but wow is there a difference between those of us, who were on those “islands”, or north of those islands, the New York Islands, like he was, and living during those times, and that of the normative Americans.
So, not the people there these days. A dying breed of energy. So experiencing his energy is an Entertainment, that is Engaging, not amusing, but with a minor touch of Seduction, because there is the fantasy that it will be expressed with freedom.
That freedom of expression is a fantastical expectation or desire, because in actuality, he is repressed, and one of those repressive forces, from my point of view, is his RELIGION. It is not my place to disrupt him, in his religion, and if he does not ask me to weigh in, I do not have to weigh in.
If he asks me to consult, and provide my report of my Reconnaissance, I am required in my Religion to do so accurately, analytically, and thoroughly. What... you surprised I am required to be thorough? Of course not. My work is very thorough.
I go all the way through securing routes.
He invited me to their meet, but I got it mixed up, or he got it mixed up, because I was under the impression he was going to be the speaker. Had I known some other fella was to be the speaker, I would not have gone. I was going “relative” to my association with him, and his “family”.
He is the “father” of the “daughter” I had to correct, who called me “like family”. At the time of writing this, they do not know “what I am about”. To them, they only have some “familiarity” with my “Brooklyn persona”, a kind of quiet secretly intelligent, yet “bruiser” and dangerous fella. They never asked me anything about me, in actuality.
So as of right now, I am a passing “Entertainment”. They have a narrative in their head, full of X variables, they have likely then speculated about, and run with their speculations as resolving X, as most of you do.
Meaning, you do not make the effort to resolve X, not usually. You project on X, making it your A, your B, your C, and treating it as such. This is what the definition of “delusional behavior” is, in the slightest.
Now, reading this far, in my works, means, whoever you are... you are making an “effort” to resolve X by taking up my account for consideration. But even all throughout this, you have likely been “converting” my expressions into your A, your B, your C... that is, YOUR... FRAME of MIND, that has been maintained, and/or possessed, by your CULTURE, in which you were conditioned to abide by.
Your MENTAL HOLDINGS act as filters for what is brought to you, or before you.
I went to this meeting, and sat through a boring lecture about “selfishness”, and “love”. Now, you know why it was boring by now. You see how I use language, and have no confusion about these terms. I was the villain in that lecture, but because these “DOPES” do not treat beings as INDIVIDUALS, no one sought to know otherwise.
Now, the fella I was there with was told, a couple days before, that LOVE, ATTACHMENTS, FAMILY, all those things, I conceive of as fantasy and fiction. So, I did my part.
The overfed fat body giving the lecture could have no idea that everything he was saying, or describing, was actually what I rationally live by. I live by being “self-centered”, and I guide through systems of “centering one's self” in one's “hierarchy of values”. Thou reading should know that by now.
LOVE, as he was using it, was the wrong term. What he was describing was “EQUANIMITY”.
Using the term “love” means, in their narrative, they are getting a “placebo” that might work a little, based on the power of belief, or not at all. They were not getting a cure for their sickness, their hunger, with that word. That word is EMPTY, and mystical, and everyone in there was struggling with love.
The actual communication in there was primarily around the old folk having to cope with their young folk leaving them, and their religion. Old folk dominated the meeting in presence, and the young folk still there were young girls, and myself, and my associate, the Apache, were being looked at like MEAT.
We were the only “Vibrant” males looking to be on the “market” that were present. These foreign, robust, tall, warlike males... coming into their “breeding grounds” ready to be tested for “selection”. But the young girls could not undergo any natural selection, because “old ladies” were controlling them, and the narrative.
Their elders control their sexual “value”. This Control and Management is why they were there receiving COPE for their LOSSES. LOVE, to them, was that pain of loss they had for those they overcontrolled, overmanaged, and repressed, who when merely of the legal age... FLEW.
Now, no one asked me to REPORT my observations. So I sat there, quiet, not repressed, because it was not my thing, and I OBSERVED. I observed this before, at a different meeting invited to, in the nearby town, the one I live in. Oddly, I have been invited by two separate families to attend their meetings. Either there are a lot of them here, or I attract the ones who are. Or it's just because I am “outgoing” when I am “out”, “going”.
Everything in that room was built around REPRESSION, brought about through fantastical Controls, and Managements, created to cover and conceal the cravings of bestial emotions, starting in fear and insecurity that leads to “assurances” and “reassurances” through controlling, and managing POSSESSIONS.
They BEAT into the heads of the YOUNG a Mental Holding, a Frame of Mind that was not ENTERTAINING through the “three”. It was not built with Amusement to handle their repugnance. It was not built with Seduction to handle their fantasy fires, and the needed narratives. It was certainly NOT ENGAGING.
Their FRAMEWORK, mental, was all FEAR and INSECURITY around LOSS, and SUFFERING. It was COPE.
When Entertainment is ill managed and controlled, the narratives, the content of one's mind, the Mental Holdings begin to break down, when faced with actuality and practice; that of living. In living, narratives are tested, especially when there is struggle or demand. The youth of these people shows, they have poor narratives, if not even destructive narratives. Their narratives, not being entertaining, but full of old people DREAD, did not answer to the mental cravings, their offspring had. The ones it appears to answer to, oddly, is their little girls. Oddly is said here, oddly.
In actuality, the little girls are waiting to be given “husbands”, so they can justify leaving their mommies. But in order for this to occur, the narrative has to attract young males. But the young males these narratives will attract will be effeminate and girl like... like the girls.
Yeah, they can still be away out of Mommy's home, to have one's own... but the narrative not being entertaining, means the males in that narrative will not be ENTERTAINING. The young females use “coquette” disruptive tactics to try to signal the male to be the entertaining “DEVIL” they want for excitement.
But if that male is in that stale environment, it is unlikely there is that “Entertaining Devil”, that hooved beast in him. If he had that beast in him, he could not sit through all that DREAD. The males who sit through that are either doing so to control the youth... or doing so, because they believe they deserve to be PUNISHED for their past actions. They believe they deserve that DREAD, and it explains their inner DREAD. No high performance primal energy would sit through that dread, HABITUALLY.
So those little girls, who gathered in front of myself and my associate in a “circle of girls”, placed their circle right next to the “adults” talking. Now, these girls were legal adults, college age perhaps. They did not come over and greet, minus one of them, who was blocked by the matriarch of the “family” I was there with.
She gave the nonverbals needed to grasp the communication of “back off, he is our 'kin', and thus, under my Control and Management”. Watching this was humorous to me, in an engaging, not amusing manner. What I am does not get excited by female attention. I have had “pretty privilege” my whole life. I get attention very easily, and thus, lacking in scarcity... the attention is not worth anything.
I was not complimented by all the signals these little girls were sending out. We were “targets of opportunity”, and me and my associate, the Apache one, were not being gawked at on account of “individualized” aspects of our existence. The gawking was at “males”, not “these particular males”.
The young girls could not tell, him and I were not of the same age. That I was a Man, in his mid-40s. Had they known that “social” variable, they would not have signaled. But presuming, because of my Vitality, I was starting 30s, I was still eligible for selection.
This too, is why I brought up age. I have always been able to pass as younger. A judge took advantage of this, when I entered the system, after having been on the “run” from the age of 7. He did not want me to be revealed, in 95, as 17.
Overt narratives and governance covering covert deviancies
In 95, I was experiencing the most dangerous point in my youth. I was well established in the social orders of “crime”, in Brooklyn. I was not well-known to “thugs”, and “street rafts”. But I was well-known to “major players”. I had a stronghold in many networks, and many found this to be unsettling.
The state found it to be a problem, and the “streets” found it to be a problem. The state wanted me locked up... But I had never been convicted of a crime, and not for lack of trying on the state's behalf. I did not engage in real crime, that had VICTIMS. My crimes were simple... I was a “RUNAWAY”, supposed to be a “ward of the state”, and in their custody, but instead, was living on my own, and among those I chose, from seven years old.
I was not in the schools, and I was not “accounted for”. I had no birth certificate, because I was not born in a hospital, and my paternal line was RADICALS, who had a distaste for regulations, registrations, and rules. I come from a long line of those all states consider “criminals”... but mostly, these were well respected, and decent MEN of HONOR.
My “crime”, I was born to. My “crime” was that when my progenitors, the Mater died, and the Dater was incarcerated... I became orphaned and ward of the state; but my Nature caused me to move towards urban nomadism. I ran from what was a “good home” under a “woman” who was a “good Father”, in that she bestowed prudent Patterns and guidance. She never tried to tie me to the emotions. These days, it may have been presumed she was on the “spectrum”.
It is a CRIME, to be unaccounted for. Folk, these days, always talk about “illegal immigrants”, and “undocumented” beings, within these “borders” called the “US”. Well, I was “undocumented”. Sure, it was legal fact, my paternal line had been on this continent from the early 1600s, arriving to settle the Virginia Charter, or colony, under British rule.
My direct paternal line, you call “Father”, was a descendent from that paternal line, combined with a maternal line that was victim of slavery, and forced migration.
So, I have Near East, and North African ancestry. That North African ancestry had Persian ancestry. The two lines combined, means I have ancient Central Asian ancestry. Both of them, paternally, go back to the same region, but both of them were nomadic families with mental talents, allowing them to move from host country to host country, to better their lives.
NO, I do not believe in BORDERS... because I do not BELIEVE in things that are not REAL, and ACTUAL. Territories are not real. The Terra, the Earth is real. But in territories, the only thing that is “real” is the “terror” that will be inflicted upon you, if you enter the region and seek to live autonomous. Those who then inflict terror, in “Terra-tories”, are called “rulers”, “governors”, and to my ancestors, “Daco Sangha”, a collective of bandits. Only “Frame of Mind” paints them as legitimate, and only a legitimacy established through compelled cultural conformity.
Because my first CRIME was seeking to be free and autonomous, that forced me to live, to dwell, to habit the realm of “CRIME”, or that is “CRIMINALS”. I could not be both a “CRIMINAL” for roaming freely around the city at age 7, and somehow “legal” in some “legal status” or “legal system”, getting the life I was meant for. It does not work that way.
One condition begets the correlated condition. A criminal at age 7, for being a runaway, meant seeking “refuge” in places the ones criminalizing my “Freedom” could not get at me. It meant being with, and among others “CRIMINALIZED”, by decree... and mostly, for being OVERT forces, operating COVERTLY, in order to EVADE COVERT forces, operating OVERTLY.
Yes, I know, that may seem confusing, if you were only normalized in society, legalized, and well conformed. You see, your SOCIETY was run, and is run by SECRET, or COVERT deviants. They rule you OVERTLY, meaning, you know who your rulers are. Even down to the corporations, and private interests that run them.
Today, with the internet, you can create a “social network board”, and “financial board” and connect all the links of private interest funding politicians, who then dictate policy, and run the nation-state, who in turn favor those interest groups, and through frauds, build out their empires. This is their covert deviancies, but hidden behind their overt policies, and governance.
You, if you are a mental midget, who has no inner voice of inquiry and analysis, may only know the overt version of your societies' controllers. You hear their overt words, but you can not judge the deviant mouth it is coming out of.
So when you hear a pastor was secretly cross-dressing, and boinking little boys... you are surprised. When you hear a politician was threatening foreign governments, and controlling who they target, or else receive the STATE backed coercion, and punishment for their actuals... with payoffs easing the pain... you get surprised.
If you are not a delusional, inept, ignorant, mental midget, and you have been paying attention, you hear these things, and feel powerless. You feel the covert nature is powerful, and the overt presentation is fraudulent. But you look beside you and see, the overt, the narrative runs the minds of inepts, and inepts are the masses, the multitudes, the many.
This, “We” the Vir warned your ancestors about, with mass urbanization, and how the Daco Sangha stole the trading routes, to raid them as “settled”.
To raid them in continuation, they created narratives designed by the Magus, the Magi called “satraps”, and well... governments.
Government is the covert concealment of base and deviant collectives. It's used to hide the interest in play of ruling ELITES, and these ruling ELITES have always come from Haima lineages. The HAIMA, by no choice of their own, are prone to “DEVIANCES”. They have secret fetishes and interests, that the average Utilis, or Brutus, would never think to have.
In order to make these things normalized, they make easily available intoxicants. Like James Brown said, in his poem, or slam, about heroine: it can turn even the straightest guy gay, or that is, make you question your sexuality.
Alcohol, weed, and other intoxicants have been their weapon against normative societies for thousands of years. That is why the greatest of ancient rebellions began with getting rid of the drinks, and forbidding intoxicants, from Mytho Buddha to Muhammad. But then, Haima takes over all these “ways”, and provides circumvention around “forbiddances”.
One can be of a “way”, and of the “world”... with the “world” being actually all they are a part of... ALL... because of NARRATIVES. Narratives are often the OVERT appearance in words, and frames, but they are hiding, or covering the shames. They are hiding or covering the COVERT behaviors of the individuals, and their groups. When you are very DEVIANT in nature, you need more OVERT Controls of CONCEALEMENT, to hide your covert interest. You need more protections.
You need these protections, until you can use the OVERT, to... CONVERT.
Notice, there is no sense of the “Ver” that is clearly, phonetically in this term:
Etymology of overt (adj.)
early 14c., “open; unfastened” (originally literal, of clothing, a book, etc.; this sense is now obsolete), from Old French overt (Modern French ouvert), past participle of ovrir “to open,” from Latin aperire “to open, uncover,” from PIE compound *ap-wer-yo- from *ap- “off, away” (see apo-) + root *wer- (4) “to cover.” Compare Latin operire “to cover,” from the same root with PIE prefix *op- “over;” and Lithuanian atverti “open,” užverti “shut.” The meaning “clear, open or plain to view, manifest, revealed” is from late 14c.
A Vir, by its very nature, is so OVERT, in that the appearances match the substance, that never would there have been a term for this. “Overt”, as a term, has no reason to exist without the term “covert”.
By the very nature of the Vir, the “Way of the Vir” is to “bask” in the “SUN”... thus being SOLAR.
Etymology of apricate (v.)
1690s, “to bask in the sun,” from Latin apricatus, past participle of apricari “to bask in the sun,” from apricus “exposed” (to the sun; the antonym of opacus “shady”). This is perhaps contracted from *apericus, a derivative of aperire “to open” (see overt). The transitive sense is recorded from 1851. Related: Aprication.
And that is the very motive of this treatise, The Advent of the Vir... as an OVERTURE:
Etymology of overture (n.)
mid-13c., “an opening, an aperture;” early 15c. as “an introductory proposal, something offered to open the way to some conclusion,” from Old French overture “opening; proposal” (Modern French ouverture), from Latin apertura “opening,” from aperire “to open, uncover” (see overt).
The orchestral sense of “a movement serving as a prelude or introduction to an extended work” in English is recorded from 1660s.
You have seen me dialectically present “Wer” as “Ver” all over the place. Check your diffidence, for the phonetics now come back around:
Etymology of *wer- (4)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to cover.”
In Avestan, they retained that we are called “Vehrka”, and that we had the lands known as “Vehrkana” or “Varkana”, later “Hyrcania”. These were lands, and semi settled marketplace regions, under the creation and Control of specific families, prior to this “recorded” era of history you now account for. They were far more vast, compared to what is said.
Daco Sangha took these trading routes of value, to form networked banditry, known as government, city-states, nations, and incorporations. All government is banditry, “COVERED” in narrative, and COVERT substance.
The Peoples of the Bible of ancient times — not the present peoples, who swear by it — wrote of us not as “Vehrka”, though they retained the wolf or dog component to minor degree, extra biblical. Instead, they called us “Qayin”, after the name the near inhabitants had for us. Those always with “Kwa”, the “Ka”, the “dog”... on account most utterances began with “Ka”, to each other, and certainly, kertainly... to the “dog” or the Vek.
The Haima moved into the neighboring regions, and were not capable of warfare in the overt sense. Instead, they sent “refugees” to be taken in by locals, and from within, spread intoxicants, and preach the “names” of their worships, and present their idols.
They demanded their priestesses receive “burnt offerings”, “burnt sacrifices”. Humanus Utilis and Brutus did not have “Entertainment”, or narratives that offered relief. They often had a subdued dread, and were very simple in thought, and behavior. Now, they had these useless imaginations being put on them. These useless imaginations had no value, so it offered no motivation. In order for the Haima to spread these useless imaginations, they had to provide intoxicants.
Once they infected the waters with their plants, confused minds began to form, and the narratives were there to unconfuse those minds, first confused by the same ones offering the antidote. Humanus Utilis and Brutus... succumbed.
The People of the Book used to report that “Seth” came as the “head priest”. This became reversed, in order, by having “Adam” and “Eve” having the oldest son, Cain, and his brother, Abel.
Cain was the Qayin in this story. Abel was Humanus Utilis, and Brutus. Seth was yet to be born. That means, yet to come. Seth is not in the retained narrative of the feud between Cain and Abel. His hands were kept clean. Esoteric thinkers, and initiated, remember the original story.
That is why the Jesuit order set out to kill those initiated in those stories. Those who would learn of the “Original Account” would become enemies of the “Chosen”, Haima lineages. Because that “dirt” on their hands had been taken into evidence, and treated with forensic analysis.
YOU have never heard this account. Even now, Esoteric Orders, “Secret Societies”, in the last 115 years, have had this “Account” wiped from their initiations. But even about 100 years ago, this hidden account was still able to be found. In pieces, it can be reconstructed, but in whole, I will be the only teller of this tale.
Later, Qayin would be taken to mean “craftsmen”. This is because the Haima did not understand the local phonetics. They do not use “our phonetics”. That is why W replaced V, and that is why G became present, and enforced. Their phonetics are less pleasing than our phonetics. Even the word “good” is infected. “Goods” are “booty”, or “things of worth, acquired through raiding”. “Stolen goods”. It's redundant. What is “good” is that which has been “taken”.
“We”, that of the Vir, called them G, and sometimes “Naga”. They used to etch this mark G in places they brought “to-ge-ther”. When “We” would retake these places We built to begin with, We would not remove their mark. We would surround it with the etching D. D, with a G in the middle, from a distance, was a circle, with a point in the center.
It came to represent “Vi-gi-lance”. Always watchful, and on guard for the arrival of the takers, who finding worth in what others have... Gauge them of their Gadh:
from PIE root *ghedh- “to unite, be associated, suitable” (source also of Sanskrit gadh- “seize (booty),”
From whence arrives the phonetics of: for, and the “will of GOD”. “God is GOOD”.
Too, it is why it can be said, “you serve the wrong GOD”. Or “what is your GOOD, is not GOOD for us”. “It is not our God”. “We have different gods”.
With the “Freemasons”, they used to have the D retained, and this was seen as “Deus”, which is “Accordant Nature”. The Dao, the De, the Do of Us, the expression, Laws of Identity of Ua, known, obeyed, commanded. But the Jesuits, and the Judaens would center the G, making this order “GOOD” for them.
Etymology of good
Old English gōd (with a long “o”) “excellent, fine; valuable; desirable, favorable, beneficial; full, entire, complete;” of abstractions, actions, etc., “beneficial, effective; righteous, pious;” of persons or souls, “righteous, pious, virtuous;” probably originally “having the right or desirable quality,” from Proto-Germanic *gōda- “fitting, suitable” (source also of Old Frisian god, Old Saxon gōd, Old Norse goðr, Middle Dutch goed, Dutch goed, Old High German guot, German gut, Gothic goþs). A word of uncertain etymology, perhaps originally “fit, adequate, belonging together,” from PIE root *ghedh- “to unite, be associated, suitable” (source also of Sanskrit gadh- “seize (booty),” Old Church Slavonic godu “favorable time,” Russian godnyi “fit, suitable,” Lithuanian goda “honor,” Old English gædrian “to gather, to take up together”).
Irregular comparative and superlative (better, best) reflect a widespread pattern in words for “good,” as in Latin bonus, melior, optimus.
Sense of “kind, benevolent” is from late Old English in reference to persons or God, from mid-14c. of actions. Middle English sense of “holy” is preserved in Good Friday. That of “friendly, gracious” is from c. 1200. Meaning “fortunate, prosperous, favorable” was in late Old English. As an expression of satisfaction, from early 15c. Of persons, “skilled (at a profession or occupation), expert,” in late Old English, now typically with at; in Middle English with of or to. Of children, “well-behaved,” by 1690s. Of money, “not debased, standard as to value,” from late 14c. From c. 1200 of numbers or quantities, “large, great,” of time or distance, “long;” good while “a considerable time” is from c. 1300; good way “a great distance” is mid-15c.
Why then, can one desire too much of a good thing. [“As You Like It”]
As good as “practically, virtually” is from mid-14c.; to be good for “beneficial to” is from late 14c. To make good “repay (costs, expenses), atone for (a sin or an offense)” is from late 14c. To have a good mind “have an earnest desire” (to do something) is from c. 1500. Good deed, good works were in Old English as “an act of piety;” good deed specifically as “act of service to others” was reinforced early 20c. by Boy Scouting. Good turn is from c. 1400. Good sport, of persons, is from 1906. The good book “the Bible” attested from 1801, originally in missionary literature describing the language of conversion efforts in American Indian tribes. Good to go is attested from 1989.
The Bible as “The Good Book” is accurate, in description... very accurate, as is the notion of “The Gospel”.
Etymology of gospel (n.)
Old English godspel “glad tidings announced by Jesus; one of the four gospels,” literally “good spell,” from god “good” (see good (adj.)) + spel “story, message” (see spell (n.1)). A translation of Latin bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Greek euangelion “reward for bringing good news” (see evangel). The first element of the Old English word originally had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God, as if “God-story” (i.e. the history of Christ).
The mistake was very natural, as the resulting sense was much more obviously appropriate than that of 'good tidings' for a word which was chiefly known as the name of a sacred book or of a portion of the liturgy. [OED]
The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” such as Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c.; as “any doctrine maintained as of exclusive importance” from 1650s. As an adjective from 1640s. Gospel music is by 1955. Gospel-gossip was Addison's word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
When I was criminalized for being free to roam, and take my learning SERIOUS... and be my own Man... it was clear why this was a CRIME. The CRIME is that being FREE, and Natured Vir... I would be able to study the language on my own, learn the foundation of thought, and communication, and PIERCE behind the FUCKING VEIL, and then see the little beastly lizards “tongue fucking” you peoples.
F.U.C.K.: Folk etymology has this as “Fornication Under the Consent of King”, correlated with the notion of “prima nocta”, or first night claim by a noble to have sex with the peasant girl, before her marriage; thus, taking her of her “VIRGINITY”.
“FUCK”, however, would be connected to “PLUCK”, and that of the archers, and the removal of their “plucking fingers” to draw back the string of their bow.
This Fucunt phonetical arrangement has been mostly prohibited in print, and rather made criminal to even develop a sense of history of. The etymology on it is so grand with speculation, that the end result is... NO one has accounted for its history with evidence of use.
So Fornication Under Consent of King goes down to folk etymology or an origin passed on via invention that is more “modern”. A “backronym”, as some call it. But this position is also itself suspicious. Because out of all the meanings this profane term can have, as in to pluck something, itch something, flick something, poke something, copulate with something, take home for copulation, and so on... none of them are more profound than the notion that there was “legal” RAPE, carried out in the past, by those called “nobles” upon the peasant, and common servile class.
So even if this is not the meaning historically of the term, I have taken it to be just that. Folk related to being the only word there is, to connect to this phenomenon of those controlling legal structures, able to do things that would otherwise be seen as DEVIANT, DESTRUCTIVE, and UNLAWFUL to anyone with innate decency.
What you are not permitted to do, in the name of decency, governments are permitted to do, by decree, and have their hands wiped clean, from the status they give you, lower than theirs. Your jails and prisons have Humanus Brutus and Utilis shoving their hands off the anus of inmates, looking for drugs as Standard Operating Procedure. No matter what crime you are charged with, light or heavy, you will have your “private parts” violated, when you are taken into “state custody”. Even as a volunteer for armed forces, you will have a Haima doctor's eyes all up your ass, looking for who knows what.
Covertly, your society is FILTHY, but HUMANE.
Your society knows nothing about “Virginity”.
The Haima would kill our males, and our older females, because they fought beside the males. They would kill all the males of all ages, and take as hostages and slaves the young females that were “Via”, were Vital in our Ways — and as they saw it, “unused” sexually.
The Qayin, who were Vehrka, had “extended” sexual restraint. A male could not have “sex” with a female who was under the Protection of another male. Meaning, a “daughter”, in your terms. A female was no longer under the Protection of another male when she defeated in the “Third”, or that is “Three enemies”.
This did not mean on a physical battlefield, and that of material enemies. The enemies numbered three are those of dependence and delusion, in the roles of “Acquire for one's self”, “Cultivate in one's self”, and “Protect one's self”. These have the enemies of “Dependence”, “Decadence”, and “Defeat”.
To slay them, all Vehrka females, liken to the males, began their martial training at age 7. Before they hit puberty, they had to have Patterns of Warfare, as the first science. Through these Patterns, they exhausted their animal through martial training, and combatives.
Their animals experienced the harsh conditions of our ancestry, that caused us to REST, and have leisure of Mind, spoken of previously. We had to TRAIN, DISCIPLINE, and DEVELOP our animals to be for us, not against us.
Puberty was then ENERGY from MA, that fired up the body, and made it BOLDER. But these BOLD energies, the FIRST Fire, was used then for FIELD training, in the EVALUATIVE sciences.
What is JUST?
What is VIRTUE?
What is VALUE?
What is METHOD?
What is VALID?
What is IDENTITY?
This was at times run backwards, when the offspring was not innately Vir, or Ver, but was atavistically born Ser. The Ser had to start with Warfare, and then Jurisprudence. Offspring that was Vir started with Identity. This is CULTURE, “Verses”.
Ver Se. One was for the VER, one was for the SE. Often, most ancient, more Ver existed, and atavistically Se would occur. Now, Ver and Se are atavistic among Mer. Mer number most; Se, second; and Ver, rare. More Ver, only in the sense of among Ver. Not among the Earth's population.
Female Vir, either innately so, or cultured Ser, would not be sexually engaged, if they were not “martial”. A male was not to be sexual, without being martial. A female, not to be sexual, without being martial. But this was not “repression”. All of this matched Nature's “age of agitation” on the Ma forces. It would have been near impossible for a Vir male to not be martial by time he was 13-15, and for female Vir, and/or Se, it would be highly likely she was martialized between the ages of 14-16.
In ancient times, the age of your idiot young was the age of our effective Fighters and Thinkers. Your modern sense of YOUTH is thought of in the framework of corrupted domestic weakening.
A Warrior male would have a Warrior female, in her supportive role, around the ages of 15-16, effectively. Both of them, having defeated the “Three enemies”, thus being “Autonomous” and “Sovereign”, and likely, in the nearer eras, when they were called “Qayin” by the Haima, actual three physical enemies on the battlefield, all with the aid of the Vek — to which not a single female, or male of the Vehrka would ever be without.
The Vehrka did not practice the “possessive” ownership of a female's “sex”, like the Haima and the rest of you Humanus do, in your ineptitudes. It was the male, among the Vehrka, who controlled his “sexual value”. Females and males were not Verboden, or forbidden, to have sex, at any age.
In learning their value, and knowing that “sex” is a “beastly value”, their Reputation and Valor was measured by how “beastly” they were. They were “free” to revert to being “beast” as Se atavist, but absent the conditions of the beastly, no Ser that is raised among the Ver ever found it favorable to succumb to the quiet beast in them. The beast, in “our Kind”, be it innate Vir, or cultural Ser, is quiet, because of the exhausted expression made possible by living our disciplined Patterns of expression.
A Ser, not having lived in Mer conditions, would be exhausted in excellent expression like the Vir, and culturally be indistinguishable to a foreigner. Thus, no outsiders knew that Ser and Ver were living together, in collaboration. But all Ver know instantly who is a Ser, Verses a Ver.
They treat the Ser as if Ver, if cultured Vir. This is what it means to “become Vir”. It means through culture, the treatment of, as if... but not the actual innate sense of being so.
That is why no SER is ever to call itself a Vir, in modern terms. A Ser, in ancient times, was a Verser, that called itself a Vehrka.
The females being far more attuned to the “relational” were not permitted in association with the males to use that Ma force. They were not shamed, or controlled. The “Ma le”, or the “male”, controlled their exchange of value, and made it the exchange that for her to “access” him, in the material sense, and copulation, she must be a learnt and skilled “Warrior”, having mastered the Seven Disciplines, never being dependent, or related upon, and to him.
If she could not be that, which would have been near impossible to occur... then certainly, they were not to be “allied”. Alliances were the nature of male with female, among the Vehrka. It was not “our Ways” to have daddies and mommies use the sex of their daughters, and the resources of daddies, to organize what you had as marriages, for your ancestors. This would be “vicious”, in the eyes of an Ancient Vir.
Mommies and daddies have no say in the sexual value of offspring, when Ua, through Us, and Ut, sexualizes the form. The only role, or duty the progenitors had, in our culture, coupled with the greater collaborative, was to “Cultivate” the offspring, with the “Three Duties” of: acquire resources, security and stability... One... so that cultivation of the Seven Disciplines could occur... Two... so that autonomy can be brought about, and guarded against subjugation... THREE.
This passage, or WAY, was “Ours”, the Way of the VIR. Beasts are centered around Ma, the mating and sexual energies, and when your inept parents and peers are controlling the sex of their offspring, it means they did not HONOR the Three Duties of:
-
Acquire and secure the means for two
-
Cultivate the rational faculty through the Seven Disciplines (Ipseity, Epistemology, Logic, Ethics, Virtue, Jurisprudence, Warfare)
-
Do no harm, no interference in the autonomy of the attained, protected in their cultivated state of Warfare, and their ability to fight.
By time Nature or Ua sexualizes the young, through Us, to Ut, to the Ma... they are “Warfighters” and can control, and manage their own lives. That yours can not do this, is because you can not do this. Because you were not DULY prepared to be AUTONOMOUS by progenitors, or preceding influencers.
You were in fact IMPEDED, kept servile to their petty emotions, made a stooge through the schools, and a whore through your society. You all are no more than prostitutes and Johns. Your females of Humanus only have their sex, womb, and selection, to trade for the males' “security”, “stability”, and resources... to “secure” no more than ESCAPE and RELIEF through CONSUMPTION, and mental evasion.
Qayin and Abel: the Advent of Warfare
The Haima called you all “Humanus”, of the humus, in which they said... they have “DOMINION OVER”, on account that this imagined effeminate want was reinforced in their intoxicated, and induced states of delusion. From this position of intoxicated, they discovered “LILITH”.
The connection with the overt and covert hides many secrets, and reveals even more. Haima, with the figurative “SETH”, is EVE'S little mama's boy, doped up on the grass from the gardens, going around compelling those who are “Able”, and servile... to worship his “Mother's Goddess”, known to the Ancients as “Lilith”.
Bringing intoxication to those who were “able” and “servile”... Seth commanded them, they were to move out, and “convert” their neighbors. Do onto your neighbors, what you wish done onto you. I, having done this onto you, and you wishing it so for your neighbors, you are benevolent, and chosen, in your spreading of my Mommy's Goddess.
Those who were “able” and “servile” traveled across harsh areas, finding themselves in the open realms of the Vehrka. The Ables had no sense of a “dog”, or a Vek, a “wolf”. It was foreign to them.
They called the Vehrka, “Min”, like was said of all two legged apes with symbolic thought. They called the Vek, the phonetics used to get their attention, by these foreign Min: “Ka”. So they called the Men, with dogs: Kamin, Qayin.
They called them “brother”, though not with these phonetics. The Vehrka made it clear... “YOUSE are not 'our brethren'. You are foreign. We do not recognize youse, and yours.”
Collectivists can never accept this. Abels demanded the sacrifice Seth had told them was needed. “Burnt offerings”, from the best of their slaughtered animals.
“But we do not slaughter animals, bleed animals; this is not our Way. The animals under our Cultivation are given the best conditions to exhaust in excellence”, explained the Vehr.
“How do you eat?”, then asked the Abelians.
“We eat what we cultivate from the earth, what we sow, what we raise.” The Abelians, like all Humanus at this time, knew nothing of “seeds” backed by intention, and deliberation, cultivated, and brought to bear. They knew only of relying on other animals raised, and reared in captivity, and treated with “kindness” up to the day they become slaughtered for their flesh.
The Vehrka did not consume flesh. Their Ancestors consumed flesh during the conditional tumult of times now past. From their “pact” with the Vek, they learned to see the other animals as engaged in the same “struggle”, seeking “exhausted excellence” in their being. Both the Vehrka and the Vek sustained on milk, honey, wheat, barley, oats, goji berries, and other cultivated wonders.
The Vek were not at this time known as “war dogs”, because as of yet, there was no clear and overt conflict between the Mer, the Ser, and the Ver. Not at least, known to the Ver.
The Ver were the first to “farm”. All agricultural technology began with the Ver, passed on to the Ser, and all places it would arrive to, it arrived there first for the advancement to exhaust excellence, through Control and Management that reduced exploitation of other things. Then, this ancient technology of cultivating the earth spread further out, but where the land was cultivated, the Daco Sangha, or collective of bandits would eventually seize as their “goods”.The Daco Sangha, the descendents of the Haima.
But this was later.
The Ver discovered and cultivated the means to extract and craft with the minerals and metals of the Earth. Ver were the first farmers, first craftsmen, and metalworkers. Control and Command over the conditions, all guided by ending the “attachment” to conquest and exploitation.
No, I am wrong, you People of the Book say?
Your Book says, the QAYIN, those of CAIN, were the lineage that first cultivated their lands, while Abel was a herder, and Seth was yet to be born. Your Book says those of CAIN invented metallurgy, worked with the metals, made weapons of war, made fortifications, and property lines... MUSIC, and the ARTS.
YOUR BOOK says CAIN'S line is the source of the advent of the SCIENCES. Your SETH is the advent of the “good spell”, that of RELIGION, or the DEMAND for SACRIFICE and WORSHIP.
Your Book does not say your lineage was where everything modern domestic Min uses, CAME FROM. You may live based on the words of SETH, and his WORSHIP, but in action, everything you have and do... is the corrupt version of what came from the Verse, the Ver, the Qayin, that of CAIN.
You corrupted the advent of CAIN'S innovations. You used those innovations, and demonized the source.
Abel came weak, hungry, frail, in need of being taken “care” of. All metal tools were used for farming and cultivating the ground. Your ancestor, Abel, not Seth, was a Utilis Brutus. When he was told NO, and that his madness was discordant, and he needed to leave the region, he, as a collective, not an individual, took hold of these tools, and turned them against the Qayin, killing many of them.
Warfare, at this time, was Control and Command over conditions; resolution over the conflict of environment, climate, and gathering, that which needed to be augmented, to reduce conflict. The Vehrka did not know “War” as a Min on Min conflict.
Abel began that war with his demand for sacrifice, and the slaughtering of our animals. Abel demanded these animals be brought forth, have their throats cut, and to bleed them out on an altar. This is your BOOK. You can not change this, and rewrite history.
Your Jordan Peterson, with their suffering depression, and tears of despair, can not reform your sense of “sacrifice” as merely that which you hold of value, thus being a great sacrifice, by giving up your best. No, that is not what the demand was. The demand was for BLOOD, in the name of the Goddess; and later gods that you invented, while intoxicated, and born with mania.
It was the demand to slaughter and cut open the throats of animals living in Accordance with the Vehrka... and “We”, the Vir, the Ver, the Vehrka... SAID NO. We do not SACRIFICE. We do not BUTCHER. We do not MAIM. We do not open up the throats of the Architecture's wandering beings. That is SICK.
Today, you People of the BOOK would call your ancestors' behavior SATANIC. To avoid this, you need to tell your old stories in patches. That is what that chubby chump did at that meeting I attended. Know your Bible, but know it in the patches we put together out of context, and incomplete.
NO.
SACRIFICE is, and always has been the demand of the SICK maniacs.
The ones assisting the Abelians were the Ser, and the Ser did not “think” natively to defend against these raised farm tools, being used to cut them open. It ought to be of no correlative surprise that those who start with cutting open the throats of animals, and bleeding them out on altars, would find it easy enough to also cut open foreigners. After all, their Haima mothers began first by cutting themselves open... before they started cutting open animals, and blooding them.
You have had Min among you with notoriety, tell you all, what you do to animals, you can do and will likely do to each other. You put animals in cages? Yes, and you also put other Min in cages. You use animals for therapy, and comfort? Yes, and that is what you use each other for as well.
The Ser were naive to this attack, and were the most hurt. But the Vek they had beside each one of them, did not have this Min passivity. The individual Veks rose up immediately and attacked the attackers, using their inborn weapons, their fangs, to shred them.
The Ver and their Veks, hearing this commotion, rushed to, watching as the Abelians tried to slay the Veks with farm blades. Measuring the conflict of the blades used by the Abelians, being fought with the bladed fangs of the Vek, the Ver grabbed the farm sticks, for extension, and met blade with stick, snapping the arms of the Abelians, and targeting their shoulders for submission.
Most of the Abelians fled. Some, still acting as refugees, perhaps even shocked at their own, tried to remain. But after the Ver subdued the lot of them, they forced them out, not killing a single one of them. For the ones the Vek gnawed — that is right, gnawed — they were given treatment and kept, till they healed, and then, they were moved out. The ones who fled, fled with the farm tools.
The Ver took note that when the refugees were taken in, there was a change in the behavior of the Vek. This change was dismissed as “familiar” versus “foreign”... no more. But the Abelian refugees made Vek unsettled. They sensed the neurosis, the anxiety, the timid, yet covert destruction in this kind. The Vek were always watching them as threats. It was no surprise that the unprepared Ser fell victim to the first blows. It was no surprise that the ones to fight back, were there Vek companions.
Every Vehrka had a Vek, in three stages. First, at 7, for 7-12 years; then, at 19, and so on. In one's life, usually three Veks.
After that day of “assault”, the Veks began to separate from their Vehrka, and walk the region. Control and Management was not a part of the Vehrka's association with the Vek. They were never ordered, or kept in check... nor contained. Cages, gates, closings did not exist. ANYWHERE.
The Veks patrolled the region, and it was clear, for what. They were activated, and thrown back to the harsh world of predators and prey. Only, they were now “predators” versus “predators”.
The Ver had to come to an understanding of this; this primal activation in the Vek. The Ver did not dismiss it as an inferior notion, or inclination. The Ver did not think, it is Ver, it knows better. All throughout its ancestry, the Ver and the Vek watched each other, and developed in their ways, mutually. Normally, the Vek went where the Ver went, naturally looking for signs. Now, the Ver went where the Vek went, on patrol.
But the Abelians were not seen for a long time. The presumption was they were few, scattered and without a need to be concerned for. But in actuality, with the farm tools they acquired, they returned to their collective, and developed the “cutters” that would be at the tip of their enforcement of sacrifice. They assembled into the first “raiding” parties.
Those who were Abel, able, servile to the wishes of the Haima, were phonetically called their “sons”, “Abluis”... But this was first “Hablu”, and it was those who spoke for them.
It was connected to the notion of “breathing when wording”. “Hebel” was the name of the commoners, the servants of Haima. They were figuratively called the “Winds of the Ha”, the Haima, but not by the Qayin.
The Hebel took the farm tools, and having no sense of tilling the earth, and toil, instead, raised them where they went, to force other isolated herders and “primitives” to join their collective. The Hebel who held the blade dominated the physical conflict that most Humanus would otherwise avoid.
Humanus, when isolated, does not raise up against other Humanus, other Min. But when they are collected, collectively, they are converted into raiders. This English term would not be correct, for the era in which this was occurring in. For “raiding” belongs to the times, and its conditions, of when the horse had become “stolen as goods”, and used for taking. To “ride out” is the nature of the “raid”. But generally speaking, raiding is:
Etymology of raid (v.)
“take part in a raid, make a hostile attack upon,” 1864, from raid (n.). Related: Raided; raiding (by 1826 as a verbal noun). Also see raider.
But prior to this, it was called “Hebel”, before they left the G, and then after that, it was “Sugaz”. This warning term, “Sugaz”, fell out of remembrance.
The Hebel moved out, and collected by force, adherents. They were taught, their “blood and sweat” was their “sacrifice”, as they had nothing more to give. When the new herders were conquered, or overtaken, and absorbed, so would their flock. All would be brought to common regions.
As their numbers grew, they anticipated the time that would come, when they would return to take on “those with the dogs”, the Qayin.
Hawwah was the priestess of these Able, and Abel ones. They were liken to her “sons” — only, they were many. Her actual line of sons was called Sheth, and oddly, it is because what they “put” or “set forward” is perhaps the “world of Shit” or “Shith”, that you see here today. “Sheth” was the coming of the first male shaman.
In their semi settled space, the Haima would have their “havens”. Later, this term would be added to the “legal matrix” language concerning “harbors”, “docks”, “births”, “birth canals”, and the “Mer” connection to the “sea” and “cargo”.
Etymology of haven (n.)
late Old English hæfen “haven, port,” from Old Norse höfn “haven, harbor” or directly from Proto-Germanic *hafno- (source also of Danish havn, Middle Low German havene, German Hafen), perhaps from PIE root *kap- “to grasp” (source of have) on notion of place that “holds” ships. But it might rather be related to Old Norse haf, Old English hæf “sea” (see haff). Figurative sense of “refuge,” now practically the only sense, is c. 1200. Havener “harbor master” is attested from mid-14c.
Take note of this constant occurrence in etymologies, correlated, that shows the essence of “to hold”, “to seize”, “to possess”, and so on. My use of “Possession” and “Possess” over “Maintain” and “Maintenance” is because, both figuratively, and analytically, this is what is constantly occurring. Even in the sense of “Mental Holdings”, in regards to “Frame of Mind”.
A correlation can be made phonetically with that of the use of “haft”, behind that of a “handle”.
Etymology of haft (n.)
Old English hæft “handle,” especially of a cutting or thrusting instrument, related to hæft “fetter, bond; captive, slave,” via a common notion of “a seizing, a thing seized,” from Proto-Germanic *haftjam (source also of Old Saxon haft “captured;” Dutch hecht, Old High German hefti, German Heft “handle;” German Haft “arrest”), from PIE root *kap- “to grasp.” To haven other haeftes in hand “have other hafts in hand” was a 14c.-15c. way of saying “have other business to attend to.”
This leads to why, say, a Vir would have issues even saying “I have this”, and/or “have that”, and “half of this”, and “half of that”. The phonetics is so extensive, a Vir gets error reports using English with others.
Because, as youse can use language loosely, having no connection with the phonetics, a Vir, can not.
When the Hebel would move about and meet resistance, they would kill off the males, the elder women, newborn babies, and only take as “booty”, that “booty” of young girls who have yet to bear children... “virgins”.
Etymology of virgin (n.)
c. 1200, “unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church,” from Anglo-French and Old French virgine “virgin; Virgin Mary,” from Latin virginem (nominative virgo) “maiden, unwedded girl or woman,” also an adjective, “fresh, unused,” probably related to virga “young shoot,” via a notion of “young” (compare Greek talis “a marriageable girl,” cognate with Latin talea “rod, stick, bar”).
Meaning “young woman in a state of inviolate chastity” is recorded from c. 1300. Also applied since early 14c. to a chaste man. Meaning “naive or inexperienced person” is attested from 1953. The adjective is recorded from 1550s in the literal sense; figurative sense of “pure, untainted” is attested from c. 1300. The Virgin Islands were named (in Spanish) by Columbus for St. Ursula and her 11,000 martyred virgin companions.
This was not yet a term that would have been phonetically used. To the Hebel, they were “Belhalah”; and its rooted phonetics are correlated to the notion “mine for the taking”, or to “have”, or for “he”, or those serving the “Ha”, “bet” and/or “to be”, brought to “Ha”, “having” been “seized” “in holding”, et/or say for the “name of ours”.
This is entirely lost with only some phonetic representation retained in ancient languages.
Hebel engaged in Belhalah. Because these females were expected to be “pure” or “unused”, they were often very young, and even before the age of “natural maturation”. The Hebel would not wait for nature to manifest its forces, or Ua forces to initiate the Ut manifestation through the Ma forces in the young female, but instead “have their way” with them, for the mere pleasure of their poles.
This caused a great deal of reputation to spread out by word of mouth, to surrounding areas, of the foulness of these “Children of Lilith”. The name “Lilith”, with its phonetics, “Lilitu”, is not derived from the Semitic tongues, or the pre Semitic tongues, and phonetics of the Haima.
Modern Semites have nothing to do with the ancestry and history of ancient Haima. None of the peoples today are direct and clear lines of the ancient kinds. So those using the Semitic languages, as their symbols, are not Haima.
These “histories”, or “cosmologies” of Min, are not speaking about MODERN peoples. In a modern sense, Haima, Mer, Ser, Ver, and Per are used only as classifications for dominant temperaments, leanings, proclivities and attributes. Only on individual levels is such a classification made. It is not made on collective levels.
Haima that run things today, as they always have, can be “individuals” entirely disconnected from each other, in the sense of region, original cultures, language, and what have you. The Hebel collected peoples, and those they warped to their ways, were those vulnerable to warping. They were vulnerable to the warping on account of having either muted traits, or similar traits.
So, if a people of today were to hear this language use, as talking about their people... that would be their own illiteracy, and lack of sense of my works.
Maternally, I come from “Ashkenazim” matriarch, from Belgium, and thus “Semitic” in classification on her side. However, I have NO traits, other than “genius” that is commonly associated with the Ashkenazim. On my paternal side, going back to their maternal side of the Bassano family, from Italy, by way of MOORISH Spain, I have “Sephardic” ancestry, and thus, again, the classification of modern “SEMITIC”.
However, they were “converts” and they were Moors before that. These modern categories around culture and regional origins, or placement, are fantasies, and useless... just as much as it was realized in urban populations about “birth caste”. This is foolish.
Just as the Ser can be born from Ver, and Ver from Ser... there is no telling if the offspring will be the same as the progenitors. It is from Mer, who are the masses now, that atavistic Ser, and Ver, come from. Thus, to think one is as their identifiable or proclaimed ancestors are, on account of what progenitors they have had, is not Reasonable.
However, the weight of Reason is weighed down, on account that statistically, when your gene pool is not diverse, you have high rates, or chances of being a replicant of your progenitors, and thus, what attributes and traits they have, forming their temperament, become manifest in youse.
This does not negate this position of individual assessment. It merely shows that where atavism is not playing a role, the one who is like their progenitors, as replicants, is likely to follow the very same direction in life — or the rebellion against it with mommy and daddy issues.
