Interrogistic Respect & Effective Dialog~ Other than the issue of ‘how’ to have effective dialog, there exists that question of ‘what’ an effective dialog is, and addresses the precursors of ‘when’ and ‘why’ to have the said dialog in the first place. ‘Where’ need not be addressed, in the Interrogistic sense, due to my standards being unwavering regardless of the company in which I find myself, and it is that solidity of standards which sets the Interrogist apart from the common left hand pather or Satanist, as most would advocate the changing of philosophical mask in order to accommodate ones company, so as to communicate effectively by way of blending in and adopting the local language and titles. While this is a useful skill when needed, many seem to set this as their default disposition, and unnecessarily so. What few realize is that this exposes that the left hand path commoner makes many inaccurate and unnecessary pre-judgments before adequately assessing the situation. The Interrogistic approach to effective dialog differs in that the interaction in question determines the method, and rejects that inadvertent issue of everyone getting the same treatment or care. This article will discuss the criteria by which intelligent judgment is to be made, and address the issue of respect, on which that judgment is founded. Now I’m not making the claim that these masks are ineffective, as they most certainly are, (in certain circumstances). The thing is, those circumstances are not always present as the mask approach seems to insist. I simply choose not to use that method of communication by default, as my approach is rather direct and omits the desire to gain the respect of everyone that I meet, as do some whom I have met. The Interrogistic approach takes the responsibility of assessing the subject with whom the prospective dialog is to be conducted. The subject’s aptitude is judged in comparison to one’s own, that assessment is judged in comparison with the circumstances present at that time and location. Thus, the issue becomes understanding the criteria by which one ought to judge the situation, rather than the overly simplistic question of how to have an effective dialog. The circumstance is the only factor actually being questioned, as only circumstances pertaining to personal progression would logically dictate that an Interrogist should go out of his/her way so as to communicate effectively with persons of sub-par intellect. I simply don’t have that level of respect for ‘persons in’ or ‘the collective’ society of this age, nor do I suspect, have the sorcerers of any given age. It is an issue of respect, and how one defines and enacts that respect, which begs the question, what is respect? Well it’s a word for one, and like any other word, it has its textbook definition. The thing is, like most words, it only indicates what must be experienced rather than read. One must spend a bit of time on both the giving and receiving ends of respect in order to fully appreciate its actual meaning and use, however, it is more often than not the case that I am witness to those undeserving of respect making the highest demands of respect. It is odd how that works, don’t you think? So who deserves respect, and why? If someone is clearly in the wrong, is respect to be given anyway, simply because they have status? I think not. If someone is clearly right, should respect be withheld because they possess a negative societal status, and who is it that determines another person’s status for me, as though I have no right to judge the person for myself? Ultimately, I question how it is that respect and status have come to be merged at all? Perhaps respect, much like war, is to be recorded by those who are writing the history, and in fact has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the actual events being just, true, or scientifically accurate. Perhaps respect is also to be defined by those whose words are permitted to the public ear. Such is the power of the media in domestic eyes. Interrogistic eyes, however, possess immunity, an objective in maintaining a greater level of attention, and as thus are not subject to the masses and the societal proclamations. I hold it to be a sort of truth, that I see no need to respect one who has little respect for him/herself, and likewise, no need for interaction. This sentiment has been laid out in “Obligations of those Interrogistic”. After all, it seems only natural to me that the most basic requisite of such a notion is that respect should already be somewhat present where the request is being made. Respect as I see it, is a personal matter, and may be administered or withheld at my disclosure. It has nothing to do with what another thinks it ought to be. The thoughts of others matter little to Interrogist for the simple reason that most Interrogist are more intellectually honest and honorable than the hubris that is the modern world. Respect is much like honor in that regard, and likewise, those confused about respect have about as much of a grasp of honor. Honor and respect are personal issues founded in the mind of the individual, and are not social concepts to which one conforms in order to make headway with a pack or herd. This implies, quite simply, that effective dialog of any sort is sought with others of an equal and respectable aptitude. This level of communication has no issues, and may be conducted with relative ease, thus my underlining point would be that, in fact, to (strive) for an effective dialog implies that you are communicating with an inferior being for your own selfish reasons, and respect for that person is not necessary or due. If ones idea of respect is based on the societal standard, they are not of my kind, and fail to meet my standards, thus fail to earn my respect due to lacking standards of their own. To codify one’s own standard of respect, and of honor, is the recognition of responsibility, and indeed the obligation of the Interrogist. These are my thoughts and only a bit of elaboration on how respect works in terms of the Interrogistic framework which is self-sufficient in that outsiders are not honored or given respect unless circumstances dictate that personal gain is possible and desired. An example of the failure of societies standard: If someone were to state a claim which was clearly incorrect, and you accurately correct them, it matters little how polite you were being when doing so. More often than not, the correction is viewed as being rude, and the other party becomes indignant, claiming that you were being rude or impolite, thus disrespectful. Thus I have often been a rude asshole for having simply taken the time to study a subject and become more knowledgeable than someone who did not. Ones level of knowledge is ignored and only tact is evaluated, thus the society’s judgment adds up to the intellectual/sorcerer lacking in manners rather than demonstrating prowess in intelligence. The picture being painted by the western world is one in which intellect is set aside to make the most room for those who kiss the most ass, and seek meaningless titles or status. With these lesser individuals, an effective dialog is hardly worthwhile. I have no need of adhering to the idea that I am disrespectful by default of being more informed or of greater aptitude for learning than another who absentmindedly runs off at the mouth. Thus, being a prick or being rude is in the eye of the beholder, as is respect, and often is the response to having been shown up. So, is that to say that I am lacking in respect? Absolutely not! It is to say that I respect the data more than the idiot who misquoted the facts. The Stone is at the core of Interrogistic thought, and the very purpose of the methodology of “Interrogistic philosophical filtration”. I respect the factual data. My natural Interrogation is one that pleases some and displeases others. In all honesty I can say that those who I offend are rarely of any concern to me. Those of sub-par intellect do not merit my politeness even in the event that they have status. I recognize my position on that scale, and fully expect those above myself to dismiss me, and they do, until I am of use. Interrogist ignore the societal standard and assume our own standard of observing both up and down this later, ever climbing, and one rung at a time. Those who enjoy my company are among the few that I respect, and that respect is in part due to the fact that they don’t become offended when I call them out on their bullshit. Dialog with peers is hardly ever stressed. Sure, there have been the few exceptions, but very few. It is the criteria by which one is to make the call, that I feel one ought to codify for one’s self. Interrogate, judge and dominate this modern watered down Satanism and those would be Satanist/occultist who lack even the most fundamental understanding. Withhold your respect and dialog for those who are able to earn it. Let others kiss the ring; let others grovel at the feet of modern Satanism’s politically correct status quo. Not I. Not an Interrogist. Control is a requisite skill set in any arsenal worth its salt. The thing is, I do not personally equate being rude to being out of control. Control itself, lead to my studies, and in the examples above, makes me rude towards anyone lacking that level of knowledge. It is as though some are saying that one should have a sort of default position of calm polite respectfulness, whereas I recognize that as only one of the many available options. Interrogist ask the question, at what point does being polite blur into petting the stupid?
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 23:59:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015