seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:48 am
...
With respect I don't have any interest in all that seems to interest you in respect to where souls wind up after millions, billions or trillions of years. I have my own ideas or intuitions about This World but I can see no way that other people in this world do have, or could have, ideas similar to mine. You are entirely free to zoom off into any level of (New Age-esque) speculations about this reality or humankind if that levitates your spacecraft. But in my own case what interests me, what gets my attention, is the here-and-now and how people are now dealing with immediate cultural and social issues and questions. For this reason I brought out a specific example: Renaud Camus and his ideas on
remplacement. But engaging you you on the level of your fantasy-world will only divert me into what I have defined (within quotes) as your *neurosis*.
The word neurosis has been used since the 1700s, when it referred broadly to a "nervous disease." With the advent of Freud's theory of psychoanalysis in the late 1800s, neurosis evolved to refer to mental disorders resulting from internal psychological conflicts rather than from neurological diseases or conditions. Today, the words neurosis and neurotic are no longer used in formal psychiatric diagnosis. The conditions formerly referred to as neurotic are now described with many other terms, such as anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Neurosis and neurotic are still frequently used in informal conversation and writing to denote recurrent worry and anxiety.
I regret using a word that has
a pathological tinge to it but you must understand, if you are to understand what I write and why I write it, that I operate from the position that we exist in pathological times. I do not expect you to have read or even to read now what I write and I don't care much if you do or don't (I am here strictly for my own purposes) but the notion of 'pathology' is core to many of my positions. And I hope that you will excuse me if I tell you honestly what I think about the content of your writing.
The basic premise I work from when thinking about indoctrination and PR and social engineering is that we have all been subject to it in extreme forms. I submited some quotes by Tomislav Sunic on the topic of
Homo americanus to give an idea of ideas that I entertain. So let me make a statement and you can then decide where you will stand in respect to it: I regard the ideas of Renaud Camus as being sane, as containing sane view and sane propositions. I regard his stance as 'needed' and also 'necessary' in order to counteract the objectives of Progressive Egalitarianism motivated essentially by Marxian praxis. There you have it. The pathology is Progressive Egalitarianism motivated essentially by Marxian praxis. And the object (my object if you will) is to examine what is the necessary antidote or reversal that is needed.
I don't give a flying fuck about your interesting, but bizarre, ideas of the sameness of all souls, and though I found your diagrams creative, and I would not object to some of the assertions that they express (a religious idealism unless I am completely off the mark), I do not find your area of concern to have much relationship at all to those things I see going on in the world right now. So I cannot engage with you at your level.
I am fundamentally interested in 'counter-currents'. I believe that I can see and understand 'the current' as it is flowing in our present time. It is pictured as 'good, necessary, progressive, positive, tending toward good ends' etc. but within my personal project I introduce the possibility that this is not so. I resort to another descriptive-assertion that has to do with degeneration, break-down, headlong dives into 'ignorant modes', and much else. I am therefore forced (in the sense of in order to pursue my core interests) to read, examine and think about the thought and conclusions of all those philosophers (to use the broad term as
thinkers, opinionators) who took positions against 'the current'. Note that these men have been pushed utterly out of the picture into the realm of 'unthinkable thought'. I have an example. I have read the writing of Martin Luther King a man presented to us as a model and a hero and one whom society will commend you for reading and emulating. Who might we propose
stands opposite him on the America cultural field? There are a few I'm sure but let me present David Duke as a good example.
Surely you have read something of MLK, right? But have you ever read, say, David Duke's autobiography?
Could you read it? I do not think so. You and tens of thousands -- millions -- could not even conceive of getting the book and reading it. It is 'not allowed' and he surely must deal in 'illegal thoughts', mustn't he?
(I assume you are waiting for me to make some statement about Duke's biography and where I place him on the human moral scale. Interesting, isn't it, how our thinking always follows predictable lines.)
The point I am trying to make (which will be twisted by those who are deeply involved in twisting as a central part of their praxis) is that we live in a culture where we have been subject to extremely intense social engineering through a wide range of media. Without going into what that is, how it came about, etc., I wish only to start with the assertion: you and people like you, you and me and people like us, live within intellectual worlds that are highly constrained and even controlled. What
are those mechanisms? This involves a rather demanding analytical project. And it demands one where we ourselves become the subject of our analysis and inquiry. That is why I refer to ideas that we have become 'wedded to'. That we have incorporated into our personalities. That have become 'part of who we are'. So that if a countering idea is presented it appear to the self as an 'assault' which must be defended agains with one's full force.
What am I referring to? What are the limits and boundaries of what I am referring to? Surely you want me to
be specific, right? I can well understand that. When a person feels attacked they tend to respond through reactive modes.
Iambiguous, this amazing hot-head! is
similar to you insofar as he clearly operates within an entire set of assertions and assumptions -- indeed these are conclusions -- about what is right & good. He notices that I do not seem to toe the same line as he feels is right & proper and then, in typical Left/Progressive fashion, sets up traps that have been
designed to be stepped into. Once you step into them you find yourself in a pre-configured mire. But that was how it was all set up at the start, right?
These are
games of course. These are the games common to the discourse [sic] going on in our present.
I can't be sure if I've made myself clear but in order to engage with me you will have to deconstruct a great deal of your own shtick and engage in ways that you do not seem inclined to.
]
