Friday, June 30, 2017
Sunday, November 22, 2015
A new book is coming out in 2-3 weeks: Critical Thinking? Introduction to navigating the irrational. The book takes various aspects of business under the lens of Tradition and provides select personal practices for those who want to change things. The book has a website: www.prakhsisclassics.com
More news coming soon regarding lectures in Prague, Czech Republic.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
If there was one single person who saw what I do, willed what I do and did what I must, it would mean that I have become One, ready to leave behind existence.
Yet: everybody sees what I do, wills what I do and does what I do, but from different angles, representing -temporarily- different aspects. These aspects are my ideas. They exist in such large quantities because I forgot to exercise control over the Virgin's promiscuity. My father made my mother, whom I have been entering since there is time, turning myself into my father. She is birthing my father tirelessly and the time is close when I will fully dominate her, the Pure Virgin; at the moment she is fully mine, in the sweetest death, I will be fully myself again.
This is my secret: nobody knows this besides me; everybody only relates to this. The various degrees to which they relate to this, establishes the hierarchy and the diversity of the one principle: myself.
It's easy to see that the teaching, that says that each and everybody must be liberated for me to be liberated, does not mean that I go out and "illuminate others”.
This would be impossible for two reasons: First, if I saw „others” as non-I (heteron), how could I tell them about the I (auton)? Second: I can not teach myself to be I: I am already I: I must only remember it.
So the teaching simply means that on the path of metaphysical realization I eliminate that, which is not I (which I perceive to be a heteron), i.e. I fully remember that, which I am, will myself and do my will.
In that moment, in absolute dominion, active and radiating, my sight, my will and my act becomes One, and the Virgin will be dead.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
- Separation: the Metaphysical Zero (Tao, Absolutum, etc.) creates the Prima Materia (pure potential, etc.), as its negative image (pre)creating the conditions of becoming.
- Preparation concerns the Prima Materia; increasing the tension of “wanting to become” but being in the state of potentialities, not being able to become anything (not even existing) by itself (herself), wanting/lusting the One (and all) to enter her, thereby actualizing everything according to his will. Important: One does not emerge from the Prima Materia, but One would not exist without the “pre-existence” of the Prima Materia. One, as the positive representation of Metaphysical Zero, exists to enter the negative representation of the Metaphysical Zero and to actualize it. One exists beyond manifestation and its representation on the manifest plane is the male, just like One is the positive representation of Metaphysical Zero. The preparation (increasing the tension of becoming actual) is performed by One, the principle of the masculine, or –on the manifest plane- by the masculine: the superior, virile male. The presence of the masculine is the pre-requisite of preparation (and tension).
- Unification; this is the operation of One on Prima Materia, which the alchemists call the wedding or possession of Mercury or the Virgin.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The protocols are aimed at distance from the mass, never subordinating the superior to the inferior, dynamic control and awareness in all circumstances.
Perhaps the most recent texts outlining the kind of war protocol we are now addressing is Budo Shoshinsu, a collection of the most authentic moral teachings of the Japanese knights, written in the 16th Century for young samurais to teach them the foundations of bushido, “the spiritual path of the warrior”.
The teachings concern the appropriate perception of death (as an opportunity for transcendence, which is apparent in everyday behavior, heightened awareness and the importance of the moment), loyalty (towards the superior and everything that is superior), high alert (always prepared to face defining moments), martial arts (control over forces and actualizing the principle of One, thus creating harmony between the “inner world” and the “environment”), weaponry and behavior without excesses (excess is the result of attachment: to wine, women, etc....attachment means being dominated).
To live by the principles outlined in the teachings required to maintain control over all areas of life (thoughts, emotions, actions on the physical plane, higher states of consciousness). Control is analogous with dominance over power(s), a fundamentally solar, male, royal principle.
In short the teachings were oriented towards maintaining the dominance of the superior (pure, independent/detached, solar, royal, direct, masculine) over the inferior (attached, dependent, lunar, reflective, dark, feminine).
The difference between Japan in the 1500s and the world at large today is that Japan was a traditional society, quite isolated from its rapidly degenerating environment. The process of degeneration has continued until today. Today there is no chance of isolation for traditional world views to subsist.
Modern world view is pervasive while traditional world view is heavily attacked and ridiculed at best: modern world view is the direct result of the general process of involution, while the traditional world view reflects the state of consciousness dominant before the process of involution –materialisation- started.
In the epoch of Tradition the potentialities of various aspects of materialism were marginalized (in consciousness therefore in society as well, where it was prevalent among slaves only). Today all these unrealized potentials are being actualized by inferior people whose life’s purpose is to serve tendencies (forces) that actualize these potentials (slaves).
We may consider the actualization of potentials natural. What makes the actualization of all aspects of materialism destructive however is the notion that it is superior to Absolutism, or that materialism should be the context for actions in all areas of life, which would make it a relatively absolute factor (which is of course senseless): absolute, because no principles are perceived or accepted beyond it, and of course relative, since the refusal of principles is merely the result of inferior (materialistic) thinking and the inability of this thinking to grasp them.
The difference between the era of Tradition and the Modern era is that in Tradition the hierarchy of existence was truly reflected in social organization (caste system) whereas in the age of modernity this hierarchy is reversed. Thus the level of consciousness and the world view of slaves is dominant today.
In all areas of life, this world view is in direct opposition to the royal, super human consciousness, which in the era of Tradition was directly and actively represented by the King (of the world). The king dominated by his presence (passively active: no action was necessary), while the queen on his side was a living symbol of power active in the manifest world.
Slaves have never had power. The (active) dominance of power was the domain of the warrior caste. For warriors the King represented absolute knowledge, thus the purpose of their life. Today, just like in the age of Tradition, slaves don’t dominate power. Their pursuit of power is senseless and always reflects inferior and repulsive style elements. Dominance, thus masculine potentials are so much out of range for them that instead of dominating power, they are trying to identify with it. Not grasping the concept of dominance they want to become the symbological queen and sit on the king’s throne.
They put each other on the throne and laugh at each other there. It is comical, although this is a dark kind of humor, since it also involves the usurpation of power. Today there are millions of such thrones (positions) everywhere.
We have artificial organizations in all areas of life today: politics, military, religious organizations, the corporate world, academia and criminal organizations. Each deserves separate studies. What’s relevant here is that they “took over” structures from the era of Tradition, but since they all lack true fundamentals (they are based on illusions), these structures were first empty shells (pseudo hierarchies where positions are “rewarded” based on the amount of inferior (reflective) knowledge and manipulation), then the structure itself has been changed, reflecting the very illusions that called them forth: “horizontal hierarchies” (flat organizations), female principles in leadership, etc. All reflect a materialistic world view that denies vertical differentiation, promotes a gross and stupid equality and since it is unable to define it’s own principle (matter), it completely lacks any foundation.
Only in artificial organizations is it possible that people occupy roles without actualizing royal principles in themselves under a false sense of leadership. Thus ranks have no significance, they don’t represent plexuses of power. Instead of actualizing the principles of power and dominance within themselves, men (and women) remain powerless and increase the effort of manipulation and accumulation of inferior knowledge.
The use of weaponry for example doesn’t require super human qualifications. It requires inferior education only that enables people with no inner power whatsoever to operate them (as opposed to traditional fighting systems like swordsmanship and archery, where the weapons were the very symbols of the path to achieve super human states, which the warriors were actively occupying and then transcending).
War is necessary when power is usurped. It’s purpose is to reinstate the dominance of the superior over the inferior in all areas of life.
In the era of Tradition and the initial stages of history (external) war was a focused effort, reflecting a focused, controlled, dominated mind, aligned to supra rational consciousness. External war (small jihad) was the reflection of the warrior’s efforts to eliminate involutive tendencies within himself (great jihad) and to conquer principles by transcending the human state.
In the era of Tradition war was the domain of the best: nobility; hence the respect of the fighting parties for each other: they were not in opposition but fought for the same purpose on different sides. They were fighting an inner war. External war provided them with opportunities to actualize many potentials. In such a war there were no losers. The dominance of one didn’t mean defeat for the other. Only the superior was involved in war and the victory of one was a revelation that he actualized the principle of One in himself to a larger degree then the other. Thus One’s victory, whether or not it ended up in the other’s physical death, provided the other with a chance of transcendence. Both the death of the best of the dominated forces and the victory of the dominating forces was glorious. The two achieved the same objective. Victory was the divine manifestation of the superior, a testimony that the victor had already transcended the human state. The one who died, achieved it after death; in a way the next stage of his initiation was triggered by the victor. The victor saw himself in the defeated, the defeated saw himself in a more actualized state, in the victor. The two were one.
As we follow history and get closer to the present day, the purpose of war has been gradually changing, taking on more and more inferior forms. First, with the disappearance of kings in total dominance, the royal weapons of bows/arrows and swords were replaced by more inferior weapons that no longer symbolized any path, they were mere technologies. In the same time the purpose of war was becoming less spiritiual and more material/economical. Naturally this meant that more people from the lower castes were involved in war. In the last stage of history it is the masses that are fighting for resources; there is no principle involved, the fighters are the slaves, there are no warriors: war has become terrible, the symbol of total annihilation: the individual in the mass, who identifies himself completely with his body suffers complete elimination. Everybody loses, there are no victors. Everybody involved serves negative tendencies. Nobody dominates power. Various powers dominate everybody. The mass is powerless. Actual war is just the open, intensified version the occult war that takes place in everyday life. Individuals in the mass (slaves) are unable to exercise any control. There’s no force of integration (leadership roles are also occupied by slaves) so there’s no vertical alignment towards principles. Soldiers are disrespectful and cynical. They confuse power with technology. The soldiers are excessively weak: no nerves, no mental strength and absolutely no presence of intellect: rape, brutality and cruelty is wide spread*. Entertainment and promiscuity is part of war. In the very near future even the slaves are going to be replaced by robots operated by male or female operators (not soldiers).
Not only is the masculine principle not present, in a sense the war is against the masculine principle itself.
Negative tendencies are fighting against a few superior men (representing principles) through the masses. Today everybody with an unshakable materialistic world view is a mass individual and blindly follows/obeys negative (anti traditional or modern) tendencies. The pseudo principles they submit to are democracy, evolutionism, progressivism and a twisted “spirituality” that perceives God outside of one’s existence.
In the 1500s young samurais were advised to simply avoid places that are not appropriate for their rank (pubs where low caste people gather, brothels, etc.), behavior that is typical to inferior people (pursuing pleasures: visiting whores, drinking) and to be always on high alert once they leave their house.
The reason given for this was because they could at any time expect some crazy individual to pick a fight with them (the symbology of which is that the inferior would force the superior into situations that are unworthy of him).
Today this advise still holds, although social organization according to the caste system no longer exists. The number of superior people is very low and one finds only places where inferior people gather, blindly pursuing pleasures and fun, “dedicated” only to economical and material goals, exercising the least amount of control possible.
The elite is not organized; every member of the elite is isolated. Every one of them must fight individually. There is nowhere to go. Each one must decide: fight or die. They must fight a royal fight, actualizing principles in themselves, becoming superior, occupying their place in the true hierarchy.
The isolation is not physical. Superior people are born into an inferior environment, grow up in an inferior “culture”, they are exposed to inferior value systems, they are completely surrounded by the mass. The mass is a brute aggressor whose only purpose is to disable the superior reaching his goal. The mass has no other purpose, the force behind it is the absolute anti-principle: it can’t be reached, can’t be realized, can’t be actualized. It doesn’t even exist by itself: it’s existence depends on the principle of One it is fighting against. This births senseless behavior, irrationalism, blind mechanism, stupidity.
Orientation of the mass
Today we find the following elements that are typical of the mass:
Pleasure. It is fundamentally oriented towards the body, slightly oriented towards the mind (not the intellect). The pursuit of pleasure is pervasive in all areas of life. The illusion of the mass is that life is not worth living without pleasure. They don’t realize that the kind of pleasure they are pursuing stems from the same roots as the pain and suffering they are trying to avoid. The root is an unquenchable thirst for life (the cause of their existence). Once pleasure is “achieved”, pain or suffering is immanent. In the same token, once pain or suffering is experienced, the pursuit of pleasure is intensified. The notion that people’s behavior is driven by the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of pleasure was established and this senseless behavior is truly valid for the masses today. Everything people do to pursue pleasure is in the context of a material world view. All their actions are the opposite of the actions of the superior. This difference is perceivable by different style elements. Since pleasure is mostly material, individuals in the mass are increasingly unable to differentiate between types of pleasure. One aspect of materialism is exactly the lack of differentiation. Emotional pain is “cured” by chocolate, alcohol, etc.
Examples outlined very briefly
Eating and drinking as perceived by the inferior
they eat and drink carbohydrates, glucose, lactose, calories, protein, fats, alcohol, etc. focus is exclusively on the body. Also, eating and drinking habits reflect emotional states and fluctuations. Eating and drinking may become a compensation. Eating style is animalistic, greedy, voracious. Prefer strong tastes for immediate benefits. The inferior consumes. Without control. Blindly and in (mostly large) quantities.
Eating/drinking as perceived by the superior
enjoy the sight, smell and taste of tender meat, exciting vegetables, soft butter, honey, hot, fresh bread, etc. they capture and fix the deep ecstasy of wine with their soul, they fly with the volatile strength of spirits and they intimately know the solid, calm quality in beer. This is not eating or drinking. This is active knowledge. For them the food or the drink is a symbol of the essence they already have, thus eating and drinking is a ritual for the actualization of knowledge. Quantity is absent, only quality is present.
Exercise - inferior
To look good, be attractive, improve self esteem, improve physical health. The self is subordinated to the body; it identifies with the body.
Exercise - superior
Looking good is of no concern; the superior man is attractive to the superior woman because of the principles/superior knowledge he actively acquired and the dominance he exerts; the superior transcends the individual self and identifies with I, the ruler of existence and consciousness (self esteem is senseless); physical health and strength serves the purpose of actualizing the absolute man (or woman) and it is the consequence of appropriate actions of the I. The body serves the I.
Relaxation - inferior
Analogous with stupor. In an acute lack of understanding and under the aegis of an astounding lie, the mass uses names of traditional doctrines to accomplish stupor: yoga, meditation, contemplation. They breathe deep to calm the nerves and cope with stress, which they experience because they don’t understand the cause of existential crisis.
Calm - superior
For the superior every area of life is a ritual, thus he lives in high (intellectual) intensity; the behavioral style is calm, firm and unshakable. On the path of actualizing the One in himself, he exercises meditation and contemplation supreme. He exerts synthesized control over “thoughts” and “emotions”. Striving to be detached from the body and transcend the human state. Relaxation is senseless.
Talk - inferior
Their talk reflects their thoughts. Uncontrolled, associative: one thing reminds them of another thing, that of another, etc. their talk is chatter that lacks strength. They also go with the flow, and find themselves in situations that they don’t understand; in fact they are not aware that they are in “situations”. The subject of their talk is their “life”: Work, relationships, kids, shopping, jokes, etc. infinitely boring and there’s nothing to follow. They either talk all the time or the don’t talk at all. When they don’t talk it’s not a sign of control but that of a particular emotional state.
Communications - superior
What do two people, who have absolute knowledge talk about? What does a wise man and a mass man talk about? Nothing: it is senseless. The wise knows the mass man, the mass man is not fit to comprehend knowledge…also, he’s too busy talking. The superior makes statements when the time is right. He doesn’t get into arguments (discursive knowledge is inferior). the purpose of statements from the superior is to trigger the “evolution” of others, who are ready. Discussion is avoided. The superior doesn’t want to persuade.
Dance - inferior
Part of fun, pleasure and even exercise. The scene has become the disco or (mostly latin) dance clubs (the music played in clubs is just a feeble attempt to organize the confusion in the “composers” mind). The style of dance in discos is reflective of the mindset of the mass: mechanistic, robot like. Isolated people, men and women moving the same way. Physical contact is always sexually motivated. Dance (besides drinks of course) has become a necessary step for sex between strangers and semi strangers. This mentality is also valid in dance clubs. While these clubs maintain various forms of dance, the motivation is to mate, to have fun or even to exercise.
Dance - superior
Dance is a ritual that serves the purpose of the realization of the absolute man and the absolute woman. The dancing parties become the symbols of these absolute states. Dance is serious. The harmony between the movements of the man and the movements of the woman is analogous with sex. The force that drives these movements are sexual. Since the woman sees in the man the symbol of the absolute man and vice versa, sexuality is experienced in high intensity, but impersonally, on a supra individual plane. Dance doesn’t involve one improvised move (ritual choreography). This way, there is no room for individual sexual motivation. Once individual (inferior) sexual motivation is present, the magic of dance is gone.
Arts - inferior
Industrial design, under the aegis of practicality.
similarly to eating and drinking, arts are the actualization of knowledge: ritual.
Sex - inferior
Pursued exclusively for the sake of pleasure. Each individual pursues his/her own pleasure. The act is comparable to mutual masturbation (just like their dancing style). On a lower level they even consider it fun. Alcohol is almost always part of the experience. In fact the reason for drinking alcohol is often exclusively to have sex. This is true even when it is not immediately apparent: at pubs, company events. It is more apparent in discos and whenever dance is involved. Attraction is based largely on physical faculties. Sex dominates both men and women.
Sex - superior
Similarly to dance, it is a ritual whereby both the man and the woman are symbols of the absolute man and woman. The stages reflect the alchemical operations of separation, preparation, burning, retraction to the root (beginning), etc. If alcohol is used it is never to
”achieve” a state of stupor but to experience the analogue qualities of ecstasy, the lifting of spirit as a preparation for sex, whereby higher states of consciousness is achieved. The woman is in analogy with sex (taken to the extreme she is sexuality); man dominates sex, he is never dominated by it.
Fun/entertainment - inferior
Geared toward focusing the mind, to induce some level of negative entropy; instead of the upward direction of the focus of the superior however, the inferior focuses his attention downward.
3. Work and career
Artificial roles, where there is no room for the intellect (superiority); there are rationalizations only, which are subordinated to inferior goals. People are subordinated to functions and become mechanistic (robot like) sometimes animalistic. The work environment was created specifically for the masses and is mostly maintained by mass individuals. Just like everywhere else, the pursuit of “fun”, pleasure, money and/or positions or all of these is constant.
Work, fun and pleasure is mostly intertwined among the mass. The motto is that “if it feels good, it is good”. Since the mass evaluates everything on a physical level, they are ready to try anything under this motto, all the while, due to their relative mindset, they are losing grasp on what feels good and what doesn’t: since they are on the lookout for new sources of pleasure, they find less and less things that don’t feel good.
Protocol in social situations:
First of all we must differentiate between the masses and people who don’t belong to the mass but are not (yet) superior either. These people are potentially superior, but they are confused or not on a path to realization. The presence of the superior means a force of integration for these people. They start to realize latent potentials and perhaps organize around the superior, gradually acquiring higher knowledge themselves and exhibiting the superior style elements. When the caste system was alive, there were three basic levels between the king and the slaves (warriors representing controlled force, merchants, representing control over economics, craftsmen, representing control over matter...the slaves were outside the hierarchy, representing merely bodies who exercised no control by themselves). In the time of Tradition superiority was reality and respect from the less superior towards the more superior was authentic. Today reality is defined by inferiority where respect has no foundations. Although the degree of actualization of true, absolute principles in people is still different, thus a hierarchy is potentially in place, the influence of negative tendencies is so strong that these potentials maybe realized by the best only while the rest falls victim to negative tendencies. Recognizing the style elements of the mass and keep a distance is vital.
Thus the following protocols are not for the masses. It is for the actually and the potentially superior.
We must also differentiate between protocol for men and women. Men are warriors who can expect “attacks” from the mass from anywhere, any time. Even though the mass directly target superior men, attacks may come directly or indirectly. Indirect attacks come through their women. Women, who belong to a superior man must be aware of their role in this scenario. All women who are potentially superior (with or without a superior man) are subject to attacks, but women who belong to a superior man experience more of these.
Although naturally each person is different, they exhibit some similar characteristics due to the same orientation of their focus**; in interactions they are always courteous, collected and calm, their actions are void of everything unnecessary. They don’t make compromises in most of those situations individuals the mass considers to be normal.
The most common of these situations are based on undifferentiation.
The mass can’t differentiate, can’t grasp the essence. This results in them mixing everything up in life, which results in a total lack of clarity. Examples:
mixing of men and women: there really is only physical difference between them. On any other level feminine tendencies dominate. The term unisex was born and they even start to look the same. They don’t have a need for differentiation. They share saunas, swimming pools, lie next to each other on the beach, perform the same tasks in adjacent cubicles, drinking together in pubs, men and women gossiping with each other, competing against each other. Men don’t look at women as women, and women don’t look at men as men. They look at body parts: both men and women see butts, breasts, legs, arms, backs, stomachs etc. The focus of attention reflects a fragmented world view. It is common that women and men start to look at other women’s or men’s body parts, as well. In all situation there’s mostly indifference. This is of course no detachment. They are both dominated by sexuality. So when it comes to sex, it lacks real tension (tension comes from differentiation). Partially due the constant lack of tension, but increased promiscuity, learned homosexuality is rampant. The mass propagates that everything is ok, as long as it doesn’t hurt (physically) others. Also, they do anything for fun and pleasure. This has become the norm.
mixing of races. It starts also in the context of fun, pleasure and even careers. Example: white (and other) people listening to North American black music (not accidentally the strongest “cultural” influence today world wide), dancing to black music, dressing like blacks, moving like blacks, talking like blacks and acting like blacks. Then mixing with blacks. The mass doesn’t differentiate, so this is –in a sick sense- not a surprise.
Mixing perspectives: the mass thinks in relative terms. They are unable to grasp metaphysical (absolute) contexts. Their thinking is feeble and relative: they have no real context so they are always mixing what they perceive to be a context with content. Science has become unscientific, the truth has become relative and law has become unlawful.
Protocol for women who already belong to a man
One of the most fundamental context of the behavior of women is sex. Sex is always present in social interactions. Within this context, sharing is a fundamental part of woman’s nature. For women, the protocol is based on control over sharing. The woman should not adjust her behavior to the environment, but to her man only. The range of social interactions exceed those that are directly, or almost directly (through 2-3 steps) linked to sexuality. Here we only look at those that are directly related.
The difficulty is that the closer a woman is to the absolute state, the more sexual she is and also, she possesses a quality which is typically described as “nice”. “Nice” however has more than one aspect. A woman, whose life depends on a superior man, is nice but distant. She exerts the kind of happiness only women in love can. She smiles and laughs, but she is in control and distant. People see that she is happy, smiling and polite. But these visual style elements are the only ones she shares with others. She doesn’t share her dreams, fantasies with anybody but her man; she doesn’t talk about her body and of course, she doesn’t talk about her sexuality even to other women! She shares everything with her man only, who is the one who insures this control.
Sharing information verbally or by writing is a very intimate thing. Sharing information over drinks, away from others, is even more intimate. Only primitive people think that sharing the body is what “matters” only. Superior women know that everything they share with others, they take away from their man, who they belong to completely: in this sense they are worst then prostitutes, since prostitutes put on sale to the inferior which already belongs to the inferior. A woman, intimately sharing information with other men and even other women, puts on sale that, which belongs to the superior. Naturally, even telling about this openly to the man after, is not an excuse for the act already done.).
Even inferior men “feel” this truth and this is why they are only jealous of other men, if they are unknown to them (at the women’s work, from their past, etc.). This truth doesn’t know social ranks: blue color workers or bankers feel the same burning jealousy. If the woman is flirting with their own friends, even if it is in front of their own eyes, they are not jealous, they don’t even notice. Inferior women often cheat on their husbands with family friends. Only the most primitive men don’t care who their women share information with. This is because their view is so materialistic, that they themselves identify with their body only, thus that’s all they want from the woman, as well. Since the woman, through her sexuality closely identifies with her body, the more primitive the man, the more feminine he is.
Women typically break the protocol of not sharing precisely because they have a man. They make small compromises to comply with social norms and they think that situations are innocent or they confuse the notion of being “intimately nice” with being “nice with a distance”. Both inferior men and women take advantage of this confusion by being indiscreet. In fact when a woman experiences indiscretion it maybe an indication that she has not kept a distance. Indiscretion is sneaky. Always hidden, it looks innocent, humorous or nice or has an “it’s OK” undertone (especially when drinking is involved; in fact drinking with a man automatically invites/encourages the inferior man’s indiscretions), especially if it comes from people who are considered to be acquaintances. Today people know a lot of people but these are not “relationships”, they have no foundations; they are superficious and meaningless. Needless to say that any kind of indiscretion coming from strangers (however small, nice, funny, etc. they maybe) are unacceptable . To use the samurai analogy, indiscretion is analogous with somebody crazy trying to pick a fight. If it already happened (couldn’t have been avoided by distance), it must be dealt with swiftly and and for good, to make sure it will never happen again: it is time to use the sword.
The range of indiscretions is wide. It could be questions about private life, almost anything related to sexuality, invasion of privacy (contact at inappropriate times), even talking about own life without being asked. Today both the work place and public areas (bars, pubs, public transport, etc.) is full of instances of indiscretions that most people don’t give attention to and walk by in a state of sleep. It could be as common as mass emails sent to “buddy lists”, or innocent questions like what did you do last night. This last one is interesting because the one who’s asking is not even aware of why it is indiscreet. What makes it indiscreet is the wrong answer, that would imply sharing information. So the question set up, initiated the circumstances for indiscretions. People in the mass are always curious. Knowing is possessing. If they know the superior, they have a sense of excitement, similar to the one the thief feels, because they feel they possess them, in a sense steal part of them.
At some instances of indiscretion it’s enough to ignore the situation in other cases taking a direct stance and “using the sword” is necessary. It is important that the woman is aware of the situation, almost like in a state of heightened awakeness, feeling that this is a “war situation”, carefully controlling her actions. The presence of this control already creates a distance. If the situation is clearly an intentional indiscretion, the woman must flatly ask to stop it. The man the woman belongs to is always present in the woman, even when he is physically not around. Typically this presence, as a passive dominance, repels indiscretions coming from both inferior women and men. When the woman keeps the distance towards somebody who is not a mass member she does them a favour. The cool distance makes them adjust their behavior. When she keeps her distance from the mass she does what she must: active opposition to the mass, active subordination to her man. The conscious act of subordination to her man becomes sharply evident, if the inferior man, who commits the indiscretion is above the woman in the pseudo hierarchy at work. In such instances the woman openly subordinates (cuts off) all inferior, material considerations. Superior women typically experience subtle indiscretions only, it rarely happens that they face gross indiscretions, like concrete, direct sexual proposals. These happen mostly to women who have no desire to keep a distance and happily “mix” with anyone. Gross indiscretions are the result of this pattern of mixing. From their point of view it is not even indiscretion, but something “men do”. Gross indiscretions geared towards the superior woman are grotesque and less dangerous than the subtle ones. They are easy to notice and easy to deal with immediately. The subtle ones have a more violent, bullying character: by using “socially accepted values”, like niceness and “friendliness”, it forces the woman to take a stand in “small” situations, taking a risk of coming across “strange” in the eyes of the mass; for them however this is not a risk, because keeping a distance means more than being friendly.
Protocol for women who don’t belong to a man
The biggest challenge these women face is the lack of masculine principle in the majority of men. Besides of course the control of sharing and keeping a distance from the mass in general, adhering to the basics of etiquette enables women to exhibit the appropriate style elements to attract potentially or actually superior men and repel the mass men. With the adherence to etiquette, they repel mess women as well. Even though without men, the question of subordination to the superior applies to these women as much as to those who belong to a man. Ideally they should submit to the idea of the absolute man until the idea becomes an actuality when meeting the man.
Important consideration is that a superior man who already has a woman (or women) is always preferable to an inferior man.
Two more points must be addressed here: meeting the superior man and sexuality. Both of these could trigger “wrong compromises”.
In traditional societies the caste system itself provided the solution for meeting the right man. The authenticity of caste system was based on active dominance of the superior. Belonging to a particular caste and being born to a particular family set the conditions for “finding” the right man.
The notion of love was not distorted by modern sentimentalism and notions of men serving his woman and his family, or that the woman grants favours, or allows men certain things.
The woman experienced her existence in subordination to the man, who exerted active (intellectual) dominance, which is synonymous with higher (impersonal from the point of view that it is higher than the individual) love.
Today’s “system” has no authenticity. Both men and women are seeking (sinking into) sentimentalism. “Falling in” love is a correct term to describe the the rather primitive physical love people confuse with the higher ideal. “Freed from the bonds” of hierarchies, mass members, who are often positioned no higher than on a regressive infantile level, “freely” decide who to marry, who to date, who to have “relationship” with. The criteria is often no more than a body part. In other cases it is social rank, which, lacking any authenticity, is a negative image of true hierarchies of previous eras, thus choosing a “life mate” becomes a mockery Tradition. It is typical of women that they are trying to find men for those who don’t have any yet often with the specific intention, to make sure she “gets enough”, that she is sexually satisfied. To increase the chances, they often look among men, who they consider to be safe choices (e.g. unable to get women on their own), and they either do introductions (better scenario) or set up a blind dates for them. A blind date is an opportunity of checking each other out and quickly decide: he/she looks good, or doesn’t look good and how much compromise one is willing to make, etc. This is in sharp contrast to introductions even as recently as 100-150 years ago, when meetings had a more ritualistic character: formal introductions in the presence of parents or the public, controlled communications and a general sense of high tension.
If the “arrangements” produce no results, the woman gets a dildo for her birthday, and the search continues, typically not for long. After accepting the notion of “you gotta have somebody”, the woman will either go out to get drunk and get laid, or provokes the indiscretion of somebody at work by a little flirting, then accepts the dinner invitation, gets drunk and gets laid, thereby establishing a relationship.
By nature women are controlled by sexuality. The circumstances today are such, that the media specifically propagates that not only is it OK for women to subordinate themselves to inferiority, like promiscuous men (themselves controlled by sexuality, just like women), but seeking anything higher than physical pleasure (which is just a small aspect of physical love) is socially not acceptable or “funny”; this is again a typical slave mentality, which directly attacks and undermines the superior.
Women represent sexuality, (superior) men represent control over sexuality. By “carrying” the ideal man in herself, almost like being in love with him, the woman exhibits certain style elements that draws the right man (at least as close to the state of absolute man, as the woman is to the state of the absolute woman) to her. This protocol applies only to superior women, not most women. Once the right man finds her, he’ll take her. The style elements of the right man are typically open and honest and enable the woman to recognize superiority and distinctiveness: the actual man replaces the ideal.
The superior woman without man applies the same protocol to all mass men as women with men.
Protocol for superior men
The essence of the superior man is in opposition to the mass. On all levels men must realize royal principles. On the highest level he is in complete dominance, on a lower level he actively pursues dominance over powers, and loyalty to the highest principle, on an even lower level control over his life, typically as a family man (head of family) and loyalty to the superior; all superior men are loyal, exhibit various degrees of detachment from what is considered to be life by the mass (burning desires, thirst for becoming, attachments). They are detached. They don’t subordinate themselves to anything inferior, including women. They are not dominated by sexuality or substances (drink, food, drugs, etc.). The more the man has actualized the principle of One in himself the more personal the war is for him. On the highest level he sees the “enemy”, the cause of the negative tendencies in himself. Eliminating the cause is the purpose of the war. On such a level awareness extends to every moment. Mass individuals experience “important”, defining moments in their life only occasionally: graduation, important promotion, wedding, divorce, etc. Maybe 10 defining moments in an average life. Maximum. Superior men experience at least this many every day. Actualizing potentials is what makes up their life. An acute ability to recognize the essence, to differentiate. To clarify and put things into their place. Always purpose driven, they act from context. The decisions they make are essential, contextual, not the result of analogy: the result of synthesis. They consider the appropriate factors only; they eliminate confusion. They maintain perfect communication. If they write or read, it is for this purpose. They listen in context, from the point of view of the truth. They avoid discussions, arguments, they don’t want to persuade. They make statements. This straight forwardness characterize all their actions. The way they act is clear from distortions. They are not influenced by attachments, sentimentalism or low level considerations. Their acts are focused, pure and powerful. Since they actualize supra rational knowledge, on the level of the causes of phenomena, their life is a ritual. Everything is symbology including themselves and the roles they play. This includes their relationship with a woman or women. Inferior women typically avoid superior men. What makes a woman inferior is the drive to subordinate themselves to the inferior. Women that are not completely mass women, and of course superior women, feel attraction to superior men and a strong desire to subordinate themselves to him (in most cases this is not based purely on physical factors. Those are quickly becoming irrelevant). The higher level the actualization of One in the man, the more women he already possesses (potentially or actually). On the level of the king, all women belong to him***. They avoid situations that calls for subordination to the inferior: women or inferior men. They are the symbol of One, royalty, absolute man. Meditation and contemplation supreme is a daily practice.
Challenges are plentiful. Not making compromises is dangerous. Survival is not possible without some adjustments. Situations may arise that their presence activate latent potentials in men lower then them but who don’t belong to the mass. In such situations, even if the superior man is put in a lower role in the artificial hierarchy, his dominance is still undeniable. Today they must occupy positions of power even in this reverse hierarchy so they can exert the kind of influence they must.
This is of course more than difficult but it maybe possible by staying both inside and outside the system. Each man must have a plan to accomplish this. They must avoid places of gross stupidity. Just being there is a potential reason for corruption. They may experience direct attacks from men putting them in situations, which are not natural (normally a superior man should never meet a slave).
* on subtle rape see “style elements of negative tendencies”
** about the focus of the superior, see “style elements of negative tendencies”
*** the king is the active representation of One. This means that all men are his modalities and through all men he actively possesses all women. He may claim any and all attached (in actuality he never claims these) or unattached women. On a lower level (e.g. warrior) men don’t share women with other men. Since they are not controlled by sexuality, they can have more women.
People today live in a world that lacks any trace of modesty, intimacy and is build mostly on routine. Routine is the visible cause of the other two factors. If we don’t look at the situation linearly, but from a point of view that precedes all three elements, it is rationalism and a material weltanschauung that stems from the general tendency of involution, that could be identified as the main cause, but we spoke about this elsewhere.
Routine is the opposite of ritual. It is important to start with this, because when looked at it from „below”, the two looks the same. In reality however the two represent two different forms. The content of a ritual is a symbol, the content of routine is an object or a practical act (performance). The difference between an object and a symbol is the observer. Only a superior observer sees symbol in an object or an act: a symbol is always the precipitation of something higher, the representation of the superior on an lower plane.
There is no room to describe the differences between the superior and the inferior individual in details here. In this context it is enough to note that an individual is superior to the degree he is able to realize high(er) principles in himself or has already actualized them.
The individual is in constant crisis. If the individual is not striving toward the superior, the general crisis is pulling him down towards the inferior. Even the conscious, focused effort to reach higher levels mostly results in stagnation, standing still, which is comparable to standing still in a strong, powerful current of a river. If this effort is missing, the individual is falling unconscious, like a stone, blindly subordinating his consciousness to the general tendencies of involution. This blind inertia is routine.
In every moment, when the individual takes on the style elements of negative tendencies and his actions are not carried out in the context of striving upward, his actions are routine thus he is obeying negative tendencies.
To perform a routine means that there is no actor: the individual is not present. It’s not the individual who performs the activity but something else. Today, routine has levels. Not hierarchies of course, but quantitative levels. Whole life segments have emerged that are maintained by activities that are not connected to higher context: they require routine.
The strongest of these are the segments that emerged around entertainment (in growing complexity): radio, television, most books, magazines and places of entertainment. The need for entertainment is so strong that even at work people act like in a pub or disco most of the time. It is of course work where routine is most dominant and we couldn't find one instance when the individual does anything from a higher perspective. People have become mechanized at work, like robots and when they are entertaining, they are just as mechanical (see dancing and conversation formulas as examples).
Entertainment and mechanism has become the foundation also for the relationship between men and women. People are so confused that they associate to entertainment when it comes to the opposite sex.
The basis for the relationship between men and women has become routine and as we can see routine is inferior, it means blindly obeying (negative) tendencies without resistance and without awareness. Among other things negative, involutive tendencies undermine the principles of distinction and tension-filled separation in all areas of life including fundamental differences between men and women. From the characteristics describing men and women respectively, we have chosen two: modesty and intimacy.
We’ll look at the symbology of two common, every day occurrences to shed light on how these characteristics disappear because of routine. These are communications in general and meetings in particular.
Intimacy is part of the woman. The woman is fundamentally dual, divided, man is fundamentally an undivided unity. A woman is fundamentally social while a man is fundamentally distant, „single”. Man does not belong to any woman. The woman belong to a (one, single) man.
One aspect of being social means sharing, which is analogous with dividing. Another aspect of women is attachment (identify with the other, gain identity from submitting to one man). A man is detached since he has his own principle in himself. Attachment undermines the masculine principle and a man who becomes attached (to people, things or situations) is inferior, to the degree of his attachment itself.
Without control, which is insured by superior principles present in the man, the urge of the woman to share is limitless. Since this is coupled with a drive to attachment, this uncontrolled sharing results, when taken to the extreme, in the woman becoming a whore, or rather, the whore emerging from the woman.
We have no intention to look at the phenomenon of whores here, however it is relevant to note that the drive of attachment drives whores not towards the superior, but towards the inferior. For some of them the inferior element, the inferior object of attachment maybe the pimp running them, for others it maybe the client, physical pleasure, money or other factors. Romantic notions according to which whores could be changed, are groundless.
The true meaning of intimacy, like all other feminine characteristics is connected to the presence of man. The presence of the man maybe real, meaning there is a man in the woman’s life, or potential, meaning that the woman hasn’t attracted the man into her life yet; in this case the man is potentially present given that the woman is ready to attract him. Being ready to attract a real man into her life means that the woman is standing against most negative tendencies and she has a more or less correct concept of the real man in her mind. This concept is invariably different from those suggested by the mass media, or any mass individual, who propagates the same (as the mass media). For the mass individual, who is unable to differentiate qualitatively, the mass media (due to it’s quantitative might) is unquestionable, thus the suggestions which the mass media is bombarding the mass with act as elements that are accelerating the process.
Intimacy exists between one woman and one man and it has several levels, since sharing is possible on several levels. Sharing on the highest level is only possible if the woman is close to the absolute woman state. In this case the woman experiences her submittal to the man with a profound intensity and experiences man as the foundation of her existence. According to this, the woman’s behaviour reflects this high level existential experience in all areas of life. In the center of her thoughts and her inner images stands the man she belongs to, or wants to belong to. She recognizes other superior men as well, as the modalities of her own man/husband and her faithfulness towards her man is the symbol of her respect towards the high principle also present in other superior men. In her man the superior woman experiences the stable, unchanging principle of One and not merely the physical man.
She perceives less superior and inferior men according to this. She is aware of her own superiority in relation to some men, who are farther away from the state of the absolute man than she is from the state of the absolute woman. She is also aware of her inferiority in relation to the masculine principle. Besides her man, she doesn’t share herself with anybody (man or woman) on any level. Since in the center of her existence there is the man, her behaviour reflects this man. Even though she thinks about and spends time with other people, she does this with control and in a context provided to her by the man. For a superior woman, just like for a superior man a meeting, and a conversation is more of a ritual than a routine. Each act, even the smallest one, serves a purpose. Women who are less superior often give in to the suggestions of the mass.
There are 3 areas of routines that determine mistakes less superior women may make. These are the routines of emotion, perception and intent.
All these are present simultaneously in most situations. Today the most common situations are conversations and meetings. At this point we can disregard the various forms of entertainment, because they can be simply avoided, by not going to discos or watching television. Entertainment has relevance only as much as it determines behavior.
In case of meetings, perception routine means that it is considered normal that anybody can meet up with anybody else without any particular reason. The reason given is typically to „have a conversation”, a drink, coffee, etc. We are still talking about intimacy as a characteristic of woman.
In this context meetings are analogous with the woman sharing time. Time maybe shared with men or with other women. This is typical to the workplace where people are unfortunately forced to take part in senseless and destructive meetings, so the workplace must be handled differently than the non-work environment.
Superior women never initiate and when possible refuse all invitations for meetings without a clear purpose even in the work environment. If she has to accept it she does so only with the purpose to solve a problem, thereby giving it a purpose. Invitations for meetings out of work is always refused by superior women.
Less superior women accept invitations to meetings both within and without the working environment. They do so because of the perception routine: they don’t question why this should be acceptable. For them the man in their life has a physical presence only, so when he’s out of sight, he’s out of mind. They don’t realize that by accepting the invitation of any men for a meeting without purpose, they are no longer intimate with their own man.
When the woman listens to a man talking about his private life, the woman is intimate with him, consequently she is no longer intimate with the man in her life. Being intimate with two men is not possible. Especially not with two men in the same time. This way the woman, when she routinely accepted the invitation, was never intimate with her man. If she was, it was only lower level, physical intimacy, only for the moments of being together.
Women on the lowest level of course can’t have intimacy at all; they are close to whores. Even when they are together with a man, they are not intimate because they make the man they are with part of a continuous sharing process. In conversations they share themselves with everybody: with all men and all women. Essentially, everybody knows everything about them. Since sharing mostly happens through the mouth, perhaps this is why men in little longer marriages no longer what to kiss their wives on the mouth. Also, this is why it was never customary to kiss a whore on the mouth.
Men always want intimacy from women. Inferior men indiscriminately from all women, superior men with control, attentively and discretely. Men give, women receive.
Men give invitation and observes the woman. He wants to see how it is accepted. A woman with a man always asks why the invitation is extended. Once the purpose is established that becomes the context of the meeting and it is disrespectful to change it. If the purpose given is not acceptable (just talk, coffee, a beer, etc.) superior women avoid the meeting.
Women without man almost always accept the invitation without asking; in such cases the context for the meeting is the concept in their mind about the meeting and the same goes for men. Naturally it is the concept on the man’s mind that dominates the outcome of events in the course of the meeting.
Low level women with man also accept the invitation without asking. Accepting the invitation without a set objective is already a subtle symbology of sex.
If she accepts, the man continues giving at the meeting. This time he gives information about himself and observes the woman; by now he has created the conditions for deepening the intimacy he had already established when they agreed on a date. If she accepts the information given by the man, the act continues. He asks the woman questions, first carefully, delicately, then more and more directly, increasingly personal questions, all the while observing her.
By this time the situation is intimate. There is a back and forth flow of thoughts and information between them, and the symbology of sex is so strong that it is present on both of their minds.
This is further strengthned by drinks.
Even when they are in a restaurant, the drink is always given to the woman by the man. After the subtle act of back and forth flow of thoughts, the drink is a solid form of sensuality. The woman accepts it, takes it to her mouth and tastes it, while the man is watching her. Intimacy is deepened even more. Then the man asks the woman for more of her time, extending the communication beyond the usual frame (to home or work, etc.). Just by getting involved in such communication, the woman is „working with the man”. By this time intimacy has become the context of their communication: the context is the two of them. The words no longer matter, because every sentence, word, style element is a symbol in this intimate context. The woman shares more of her thoughts and feelings either verbally or by the way she communicates. Not only has the man been suggesting the woman all this time that he wants her (through his acts), but due to the intimate context he created, their communication is already the symbology of sex. Actual sex is just a question of the right moment.
Lower level women put themselves in such situations almost on a daily basis. Most of them of course never get to the point of actually having sex with the man (men), but they get very close.
This is the symbology of meetings and communications (phone, email, personal, sms, etc). On a lower level, neither men, nor women are aware of the symbology. Even though they never think about meetings and communication in this sharp, symbological context, they still obey the power hidden in the symbols. They are blind and they think and do whatever they must (which is often the same what they routinely want), just by being in the situation. In such cases the woman is often very surprised when she eventually finds herself in situations where the man is making direct references to sex, trying to kiss her or invite her to his home for the next drink (some women would go there even despite their surprise) and she does not understand why this is happening to her. Some men also don’t understand why they say what they say; others have a feeling for the symbology of communications and, although they don’t understand it, they use it successfully.
Since man symbolizes undivided unity (One), he can’t be intimate, since it would undermine his essential self. Women share, men give. Men give, women accept, they take, they take in. Accepting what comes from the man (including any kind of initiative) is an intimate moment. This is where superior women exercise control, this is the moment when their man is present as a force of control, even when he’s not there physically. The rationalization, that it is only about an innocent conversation is the result of the perception routine, which unfortunately results in women losing their intimacy by sharing themselves with everybody.
Due to emotional and perception routines women on a lower level demand intimacy from their men, while they discuss everything about their lives with their girlfriends or even male colleagues.
It is important to note here that a superior man, who exercises control, radiates the principles he represents to everybody. As opposed to women, a man can’t divide himself, therefore anybody and anything can belong to him. Just as he can’t share himself, he also must not be attached to anything: not to women, objects or situations. Since he is not holding on to anything, he can have everything. Since he doesn’t depend on anything, he can exercise full control.
Women are intimate and men aren’t.
Men are modest, and women are not.
For the principle nature of man both sexuality and physicality (bodily nature) is foreign, while both of these constitute the natural composition of the woman.
It is difficult to find an appropriate word instead of modesty in English. Some vocabularies indicate bashful, chaste, coy, prim, even shamefaced and shy as it’s synonyms. Most of these imply either timidity, awkwardness or abstinence, all of which are far from the meaning that concerns us. Prim, decorous could be closer, since they refer to appropriate attitude and behavior. In the Hungarian language the word they use (literally translated) is the one with coins on his eyes, referring to covering the eyes, which of course is in analogy with discretion. The examples taken from women’s behavior will explain the meaning more precisely.
When it comes to nudity, for women, unless an inhibition developed in them for any reason, including low self esteem, or that they are not happy with their body, etc., exposing their body to other women is quite natural.
For men however exposing their body to anybody (to women, men or even family members) is unnatural. Expressions like shy, or shamefaced apply to cases where a man is forced into such situations. Naturally, superior man is not stuck on the bodily plane, but by realizing his essential self, he’s been trying to transcend it.
Unfortunately today routine, that comes forth through emotions, perception and the will is pervasive, disabling men to actualize the masculine principle and women to become absolute women.
Emotional routine made sentimentalism the accepted „sensation” in all areas of life. It taught men about compassion, feeling with and for the other instead of acting detached, concerned only about the truth, making decisions that are essential to a man’s purpose.
This went as far as that people respect the „sensitive man”, who identifies with the victim. Men today are crying openly with their women or secretly in their room over sentimental stories, sinking deep into a haze, where even a distant sign of control is hopeless. It’s interesting to note that the “heros” today, like corporate “leaders”, bankers, boxers, politicians, etc. are openly crying in public, either honestly or for good PR. In one of his books, that he wrote about Gerry Swartz, the Canadian corporate hero, Peter Newman didn’t fail to mention it as a positive trait that Gerry often cries when he watches romantic movies.
Especially in North America we often come across with situations, where sharing is directly and openly assigned specifically to men. Men are expected to share their life with a woman, share their thoughts and feelings with others, etc.
There really is a lot of sharing going on. There are swing clubs where couples share their partners with total strangers. The emphasis is of course not on “strangers” but on “sharing”. The real problem of course lies in the man sharing his woman with another man and also in him sharing the woman of another man. Since this does simply not belong to the principle of man, it is unacceptable.
A man, especially if he is a superior man, can have more than one women. The reason for this is precisely his detachment; the fact that he does not depend on the woman on any level. If the man is attached to/dependent on the woman or physical pleasure, he has no right for more than one woman, and if this dependency is very high, he has no right to any women at all, since he himself represents predominantly feminine tendencies.
It is enough to mention only the question of female and male equality among the perception routines. Without touching on the causes and features of feminism it is enough to consider the phenomena whereas women pretend modesty and demand intimacy.
At this point we must mention that in certain moments the woman really is modest. This moment is when sexual potential openly presents itself, or when the woman unexpectedly suspects sexual thoughts from a man. This modesty is however temporary. Her body is very natural and important to the woman and exposing it is also natural.
Today some inferior men “learned” that body exhibition is a masculine trait. Not only identify these men with their body, but quite often they identify with one or two parts of their body only and they put these on public display.
Man, who is supposed to represent individuality, detachment, singleness, lives the same kind of chit-chatting social life like women do – often even taking on the role of “the friend of a woman/women”- and in addition to this, he’s forced to live a collective life, which demands the same kind of behavior that is natural to women only. Most of the time they are preoccupied with their body, they go to fitness centres, where they run around naked in front of each other, etc.; the behaviour between men has become almost the same as the behavior between women.
One level lower the perception routine says that the mixing of men and women, is ok not only at work and parties but also in the realm of nakedness or near nakedness. They go together to massage salons and saunas where men and women are sweating together with an almost complete lack of real tension between them. This is one typical instance of no intimacy and no modesty, whereas the differentiation between men and women are almost non-existent.
The perception routine that makes men look at their bodies as women do, actually further increased the feminists’ claim of equality, since women are naturally at home in the domain of the body and the men, who follow them there maybe considered to be women, more so then men.
In addition to women routinely pretending modesty, and men routinely giving up modesty, there’s another aspect of the perception routine, which is not acceptable.
This is when women demand intimacy from men, based on feminine principles, practically using these principles to undermine the masculine principles. In such cases the woman actually wants her man to share/divide himself with her, to become intimate, like she is, to share his feelings with her, talk to her about his thoughts and act like he is her best friend. In such cases the false concept of faithfulness is always a factor; faithfulness is only possible towards the superior. When the woman demands that the man divides himself with her, she is also demanding faithfulness from him, and vice versa.
This request is based on the false assumption that only one woman may belong to one man. This is of course false from multiple aspects, and it is the One, the principle of man that renders the opposite true. Man is one and undividible. No woman can divide him, while more women may belong him, as to the representation of One.
Since today the majority of men are farther away from the principle of the absolute man then the majority of women from the principle of the absolute woman, this claim that a man has no right for more women has merits. But only from this point of view, and not on the basis of the two being equal, with equal „rights” .
Most men today instead of trying to transcend the body sink into it even more, and try to get more women, driven by sexual desire, while working on their appearance (for seduction, just like women), or they are eating and drinking uncontrollably (taking in: again, just like women).
We have mentioned the routine of intention/will, as well, but we don’t have to touch on this one in details. It concerns the object of desire, which is invariably material in nature.
To sum it up, let’s return to the style elements of men who are close to the state of absolute men.
These men experience the interaction with the mass as a personal war and their behaviour is in polar opposition to all manifestation of the masses.
Everything they do is a ritual, everything they see is symbology. Each of their acts is purposeful.
They remain detached and they strive to reach super human levels. They may be alone on their path or they maybe with one woman or with more. Whatever the situation maybe the masses can’t understand them and any kind of explanation from them to the mass would be senseless, below their rank and unacceptable.
Whoever follows them from lower ranks, must adapt to them and make „upward” adjustments, which as an absolute minimum means that women must try to acquire the absolute woman quality, and men must realize the principle of One in themselves to the maximum of their potential.