Monthly Archives: October 2017

Woe to the enemies of truth

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine how it must feel for the people who went to the Moon, the Apollo astronauts and the guys in the mission control, to read all the “skeptical” statements about how we never went to the Moon, how it’s all staged, how it’s recorded on a movie set, how it’s all a conspiracy and deception. Imagine training for years, after being selected because of a glorious career in the Airforce, taking huge risks and watching friends die in that Apollo 1 capsule, only to see all that madness, arrogance and evil disguised as “honest skepticism”, years later, as you watch your country discard your achievement, because the financial cost is too high, and it’s not seen as practical or useful.

Imagine living on the ISS space station, connecting to the Internet, looking up a YouTube video about space, only to see people claiming the Earth is flat, there is no space outside the “dome”, and it’s all CGI and green screen, deception for the gullible.

Imagine seeing God, being in His holy presence, having your life transformed by the greatest wonder and beauty and magnificence beyond imagination, and then see people dismiss it all, say there’s no God, there are no saints and mystics and yogis, it’s all madness and fraud, deception for the gullible. Imagine being so deeply connected with God, you can touch other people’s souls directly and open them to God, to cause a glimpse of experience, as much as they are capable of taking in, only to see them reject it, rationalize it away, and furthermore, to have people witness this and lie outright about what they saw and experienced, the very next day, and make it their mission in life to slander you in every way possible, so that nobody would believe you or take you seriously. Imagine trying to teach people how to attain what you saw, in ways you know to be reliably effective, only to be accused of trying to deceive and seduce the gullible.

Sometimes, skepticism consists of questioning the evidence in search of the truth. At other times, and, I would say, much more frequently, it consists of dismissing the valid evidence that doesn’t fit your own personal kind of madness and evil. It is wrong to assume that people have good and honest motives and they are generally good persons. In fact, it is my experience that most people’s motives are selfish, petty, evil or just outright stupid, that their hearts are filthy, their souls worthless and their existence a source of suffering to others. Oh, I used to assume that everybody is looking for the truth, and if they saw it, they would immediately embrace it, dedicate their lives to it, and tell others about it. Imagine my surprise when I tested this idea in practice and found out how incredibly wrong I was.

It must hurt to have walked on the Moon, only to see the number of “skeptics” denying it grow every day, because it’s seen as cool and rebellious. I know it hurts to have seen God, and see the atheists congratulate each other on being “free thinkers” and people of “high intelligence” because they don’t believe in all that religious bullshit. It hurts to be the target of decades-long character assassination campaigns conducted by “truth seekers” and “skeptics”. It hurts even more if you can’t just return to the Moon at will, or you can’t just experience God at will, as most can’t. At least, you can trust your memory, you can know what you saw, what you are, where you have been.

Can you even imagine the level of contempt one feels for the “skeptics”, when he knows for a fact that he’s right and that he knows exactly what he’s talking about, and they spout their worthless drivel, their only goal being the destruction and negation of reality so that they can substitute it with their worthless, harmful nonsense?

There is a special hell for the “skeptics” and other enemies of the truth: they will have to see the truth, and see how they opposed it, in their arrogance and malice. They will be locked in the agony of knowledge that can never be denied, and no amount of remorse will break their suffering. They will have to see themselves as God saw them, as those who testified for the truth saw them, and there is no greater pain. In this agony they will perish, for none can endure it for long. For this sin there is no forgiveness, because they can’t say “I didn’t know”, or “why wasn’t I told?”. You were told, you knew the truth, and you laughed the laughter of malice and contempt, ridiculing those who accepted the truth for what it is, belittling them and dehumanizing them.

God is many things to many people. To saints, He is the love of their life, their goal and the purpose of their existence, the greatest joy imaginable and the eternal life. To sinners, God is the ultimate horror, the stuff of nightmares, a drawn sword that comes to claim their lives, eternal darkness that will devour them. To all the atheists and skeptics I say this: woe to you. You will be crushed by God like cockroaches and you will feel the eternal nothingness claim you, knowing that it claims you alone, and that those, whom you ridiculed as “sheep”, “cultists” and “unintelligent believers”, will inherit the eternal life. Nothingness which you professed will indeed be your fate, but yours alone. God, whom you had denied, will exist forever, and you not at all, and those who loved Him in face of your “enlightened” ridicule, will be with Him forever, not even caring as you vanish into nothingness to which you always belonged, because the only thing that is important about you, is that you are finally gone.

On this Earth, you skeptics were the aspect of this world’s evil and godless nature, which tortured those who wanted to remain faithful to God and truth, as you tried to use all kinds of deception to instill doubt in the souls of others, so that they would forget and deny God.

But as this world fades away and flesh is stripped from us all, you will be denied, and you will be killed, as the light of God shreds you to pieces, and His voice yells at you in anger, casting you into nothingness with an eternal “no” to everything that you are, and everything you dreamed of. There is nothing as wonderful or as magnificent as that, which God has in store for those who love Him, but of that, you will know nothing.

 

The glorious democracy

Posted on by
Reply

The Crimeans voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. As a result, they got international sanctions, because democracy is good only when it’s pro-Western. When it’s pro-Russian, it’s not democratic.

The Donetsk and Lugansk regions voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. They didn’t get to join Russia, but they got wrecked by Ukraine.

The British voted to leave EU. This vote is basically ignored by the political elites, delaying things to the point where the population will get bored and accept the futility of any such move.

The Americans voted for Obama because they were bored with the Bush era perpetual war. Then they voted for Trump because they were bored with the Obama era perpetual war, socialism, immigration and pro-Muslim stance.

The Catalans voted to leave Spain. Their vote was suppressed by police violence, their leaders arrested and their will ignored.

The Kurds want a state, which is logical since the state borders in the region were drawn arbitrarily in the colonial times, and their territory was split between Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Their will is ignored and the only thing those three states agree upon is that the Kurds must never be allowed to have a state.

Wonderful thing, democracy.

The problem is, democracy is invented as a toy for the masses, as something that will convince them that their input counts and that they are not ruled over against their will, that they elect their own government. It was a trick that served one major purpose: to pacify the masses and trick them into changing the government by voting, instead of just killing the bad leaders along with their families. As a result, an elaborate system was invented to manipulate the masses into electing one of your pre-selected candidates. In case of Iran, the system is not very subtle: a religious council has to approve a candidate before the elections, so you’re guaranteed to end up with a Muslim fanatic as a leader. In the West, you have the media to perform this role, and the masses usually obey, and when they don’t, as in case of Trump, the consternation of the elites shows what a sham representative democracy actually is: the people actually dared to elect someone contrary to their instructions and now they have a problem.

So, how long before the masses figure out that democracy doesn’t work, and they have to return to the time tried method of firing squads and hanging, for the bastards who betrayed their trust?

About the way I argue

Posted on by
Reply

I’d like to explain something about my behavior that might frustrate some people needlessly. You see, if you get into an argument with me, and if this argument is longer than a few sentences, you will lose. If you’re on an ego trip, you’ll behave like a hissy critter and complain how is it that I’m always right, and the answer is, no, I just tend to pick my battles very carefully, and if you pay attention, you’ll see that most arguments end before they have really started, because I immediately concede to any valid point anyone makes; I don’t argue when someone’s right, or when I think the other side of the argument might be as valid as mine. So, it’s a matter of very careful triage, where I estimate how correct the other side is, and how important the issue itself is. If the issue is not important, I will shrug and say that it doesn’t matter who wins, or the difference between the opposing sides isn’t large enough for it to matter who is right. An example of this are arguments regarding equipment. Canon vs. Nikon, or PC vs. Mac, or iPhone vs. Android. Who cares. Someone will say that brand A is better, and I will shrug and say that the differences aren’t large enough for me to care. Basically, don’t compete if the prize isn’t worth winning.

The second case is when it isn’t clear who is right. For instance, if science isn’t clear on something, such as the string theory, I will refrain from having elaborate opinions and simply say that the theory sounds interesting or compelling, but the evidence for the whole thing just isn’t strong enough. It’s a case of don’t compete if it isn’t clear what the victory is; if it isn’t clear what the truth actually is, it’s impossible to say who won the argument.

The third case is when the other side is making a correct statement. If someone says that Hydrogen is chemically reactive, I will say “yes” and that will be the end of it. This will be so even if I otherwise strongly disagree with the person on other points, because the most important thing about winning arguments is not allowing yourself to be sidetracked, which includes opposing someone when he’s right about something just because you think he’s wrong about something else. If I think someone is the worst person in the world and he states that Paris is the capital of France, I will agree. If you think that you have to disagree with absolutely every single statement someone makes because you want to make a moral statement about his person or philosophy, you’re stupid and emotionally immature. If Hitler states that conserving the environment and building good roads is good, and you disagree because you disapprove of his racial policies, you’re an idiot. The correct way of arguing with Hitler is to say, yes, conserving the environment is good, and building roads is good, but if you really believe your race is superior, then meritocracy is the only credible way you should approach the issue, since inferior races will fail to compete with yours in the market of ideas and will die off. If you think you have to actively exterminate someone because he’s outcompeting you, then he’s obviously not the one who’s inferior. Essentially, you concede obvious truths and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked, you concentrate on your opponent’s core issue, try to figure out where he is wrong or his actions are contradictory to his beliefs, and then reduce the argument to a clear and compelling line of thought that is difficult or impossible to refute.

So, essentially, the reason why people think I’m “always” stubbornly insisting on defeating “everyone” is because they simply don’t add my early concessions to the tally of the arguments I participate in. Having done that, it would become obvious that I actually concede most points, or I ignore issues because I don’t find them important enough. However, it then becomes obvious that in a small minority of cases, where I do actually choose to fight, I do so by exploring the entire tree of possible arguments and counter-arguments in order to find weak points and flaws in my thinking, and before I express a thought, I am already aware of all the possible refutations, and if none of them are valid, only then do I state my case, and the reason why I do so with such certainty is because I already tested it against all the objections I could think of, and I am very good at thinking of test-cases for debugging code. So, that’s something to have in mind if you want to argue with me: I don’t pick losing battles. If I’m confident enough about something to insist, it means I probably tested my idea against a very large set of possible objections before having initially stated it, and unless you thought of something that I missed (which happens every now and then, but not frequently enough to be something a reasonable person would bet on), you will lose. Sure, in some cases I make intentionally controversial statements just to fuck with people and snap them out of their stupor, but even then the argument serves the purpose of getting you to think hard enough to see the way out. The fact that it’s wrong doesn’t mean that I missed something, it means I left it to you to figure it out.

Another important thing to have in mind is that for me, arguing isn’t about an ego trip, it’s about truth and virtue. I argue in order to oppose falsehoods and establish a correct way of handling things, not to win battles. That’s why I’m my own arguments’ harshest critic, but that’s the part you don’t see, because it precedes the point where I actually write the argument down. You don’t see the part where I mercilessly test it against possible objections. So, it’s not a case of “I’ll win some, and you’ll win some”. If you want to build up your self-worth by opposing me every now and then just so that it doesn’t look like you’re a “yes-person”, you’re in for a world of hurt, because if I recognize your argument as something I already tested my own argument against and rejected the objection as invalid, I will dismiss you in a way you will find quite abrasive to your self-image; in fact, if I recognize your argument as a lazy one, as something that doesn’t survive even the most superficial scrutiny, I will do things to your ego it might not recover from.

So yeah; if I really insist on something and if I act as if what I’m saying is a fact, it probably means that I tested the argument beforehand and I am convinced it is solid, and now I want to test it against other people’s ideas in case I missed something; in this case, I will appreciate good input, but my tolerance for nonsense is always low. You need to really turn your brain on, and in most cases it will be much wiser of you to concede than to argue, and I will think more of you if you do, because if I say water is wet and you argue against it, I will think you a fool; not because I like yes-men, but because I dislike insecure fools who think they always need to argue lest they be considered yes-men.

Kids and the dangers of the Internet

Posted on by
Reply

I get annoyed when school teachers, who are generally among the more clueless people out there, give children wise advice about the dangers of the Internet, basically “don’t go there, because bad people with white vans offering free candy, and hackers and stuff”.

You know what’s the worst thing that can happen to your kids online? Other kids. And not just any kids, but the kids from their school.

You know what the greatest danger is? Oh, it must be the bullying and shit, right? Wrong. It’s spending 10 hours every day on gossip and talks so stupid I’m simply unable to fabricate examples of, because my brain refuses to go there. Yes, there really are kids who spend most of their awake time on Snapchat and Facebook, exchanging trivial messages with other kids, probably because they are afraid of being out of the loop, which usually means being the one who’s picked at.

Now imagine what the kid’s mind will look like if all he or she is doing is exchanging idiotic messages with other kids who don’t really know shit about anything? And that’s at the time when they should be reading books, or listening to adults who would teach them things. The most dangerous thing about socializing with other kids is that the options available are “get along with everyone, especially the leading kid in the group, or be singled out for attack”. That’s how you get street gangs later. In my time (because I’m fucking old) it used to be called “bad company”, because it was recognized that it rubs off on you and you get pulled in to whatever your peers are doing, and it’s usually not training for the math competition.

If kids managed to spend 10 hours a day reading books and practicing math and coding, they’d get to be super smart. But if they spend 10 hours a day hanging out with other kids (online or IRL), they will get to be stupid and evil, because that’s what it amounts to: they try to find each other’s weakness so that they can bully and attack others, which gives them the sense of empowerment, and they try to get other kids to like them, because it gives them the sense of worth. Another problem is that they attack anything that’s different from them in any ways, because different means their choices and qualities aren’t the only option, and there’s a vast fear of choice, because choice means you can choose wrong. So, they pretend there are no choices by choosing conformity. They choose to look the same, act the same, think the same and feel the same, and if some among them is smart or virtuous enough to understand that this is a very stupid form of self-deception, he or she is singled out for attack, mostly to scare others into even greater conformity.

Another thing that bothers me with the social media is that it’s a case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Essentially, if you hang out with other kids online, and you are all pathetic conformists, you get to like worthless shit and have your worthless shit liked, and you waste your time collecting likes and being the same as everybody else while you should be building up your personality and learning useful things. As you neglect your real life, you get increasingly less emotional reward points from your real life, because it’s increasingly fucked up and hopeless due to neglect, and you have no other choice but to keep investing in the creation of the fake online presence where you post yucky artificial shit that’s designed to be liked by worthless people such as yourself. And increasingly, the voices of reason that scream at you that the emperor is naked are dismissed as trolling and abuse, so that you can descend deeper into the Shelob’s lair. Stay assured, however, that if you stay the course, you will turn into nothing way before any actual monster puts you out of your misery.