Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:20 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:36 pm
Where did you come from? is the question I ask. How did you come to be?
I fascinate you, don't I? Old Bean.
fascinate
fas·ci·nate (făs′ə-nāt′)
v. fas·ci·nat·ed, fas·ci·nat·ing, fas·ci·nates
v.tr.
1. To capture and hold the interest and attention of. See Synonyms at charm.
2. Archaic To deprive of the ability to escape or move, usually by the power of a look. Used of serpents.
3. Obsolete To bewitch.
v.intr.
To capture and hold someone's interest and attention.
[Latin fascināre, fascināt-, to cast a spell on, from fascinum, an evil spell, a phallic-shaped amulet.]
Oddly enough, there is a sex shop, perhaps it is a chain, that I used to pass driving in Denver. It was called
Fascinations. Someone did their research on the matter and thus the subtle reference to a
fascinum (a dildo) makes perfect sense.
I wonder if people would use the word as often as they do if they knew its origin?
Moving on to the topic at hand . . .
I know that you do not understand what I am on about. And that is why I find you a suitable and interesting subject. You have never analyzed yourself. You have never had anyone focus on you. You are honest, of that there is no doubt, and certainly level-headed and unflappable, but you really do not at all understand yourself as an *outcome* of an entire range of cultural processes. But this is not for you to understand! You have given yourself up, as you gave up your culture, your heritage, and control of your destiny.
Destiny? What could this term mean to you? Even having to think about it will give you a headache.
What I am trying to point out is that when the horizon was erased a void opened. And into this void rushed a whole series of perversions. Now you only think I am referring to sexual improprieties and though the manipulation of sexual impulses is definitely a part of it, and one of the main engines for rejecting strict sexual ethics (so you can wack-off freely and with as little guilt as possible (or none at all), even if it is *into the air* and with no family-making intention), I am referring to the warping of human spirit. But if I use that term I know that it means nothing to you. There is no 'spirit' there is no 'soul' there is just biological imperative *to reproduce*. There are no values, no genuine object! This is the core imperative
that you tell me defines you! What I do is reflect back to you, embellished, amplified certainly, what you tell me that you are. And you are not alone. There are, literally, millions & millions of
yous.
You have, and you have been given,
determining power. You have far more power than you imagine. You were in so many ways created by powers & institutions into which you are subsumed (economic, advertising, PR, propaganda, education) and they did this to mold you (in the best of circumstances) into the '
perfect consumer slave'. In your state, that is an inert, moldable blob, you serve them well. They do not want a thinking subject with an anchor or a rudder. So they give over
a sense of power to you. This is a perversion of the demos. You are not directed by upper echelons of authoritative power that you respect, admire and emulate. You make it very clear that you
cannot even conceive of such.
I know what happens to a people when they are seduced away from that domain of value I often refer to as
higher metaphysical value. It is a thoroughly vulgar (i.e. popular) process.
Augustine of Hippo said:
“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”
What I say is that when a man falls away from higher metaphysical values, or when culture and its institutions pull him away from those concerns, that there is no where to go but down into unfreedom. But when he relinquishes his freedom he has done so through a grotesque negligence! And everything that you write is negligent, according to my valuations which, it must be clear, have no relevance or influence on you, given your predicates.
Here again is René Guénon:
“This now leads us to elucidate more precisely the error of the idea that the majority should make the law, because, even though this idea must remain theoretical - since it does not correspond to an effective reality - it is necessary to explain how it has taken root in the modern outlook, to which of its tendencies it corresponds, and which of them - at least in appearance - it satisfies. Its most obvious flaw is the one we have just mentioned: the opinion of the majority cannot be anything but an expression of incompetence, whether this be due to lack of intelligence or to ignorance pure and simple; certain observations of 'mass psychology' might be quoted here, in particular the widely known fact that the aggregate of mental reactions aroused among the component individuals of a crowd crystallizes into a sort of general psychosis whose level is not merely not that of the average, but actually that of the lowest elements present.”
All that I desire to do is to *see clearly* and to *explain things clearly & truthfully*. On this thread, in this conversation, we are trying to clarify what has value and what is real. If we are not doing that, what the fuck are we doing? My view is that everyone is
approximating truth and we do that, in bizarre tendentious ways,
because of our fragmentation.
