Category Archives: religion

Syria as a liberal Utopia

Posted on by
13

I was thinking about what happened in Syria, and what lessons can be taken from this.

Basically, what’s happening is jihadists killing, looting and pillaging, the Western propagandists lying and whitewashing their crimes and producing fake material in order to blame the Assad regime, and the neighbouring states capturing territory unopposed. Essentially, it looks similar to the collapse of a bee hive or an ant colony, and the first lesson, I think, is about the purpose of the state. Unlike what the liberal idealists imagine, if you remove the state you don’t get a Utopia. You get post-collapse Syria and Libya, or, in other words, you get hell on Earth. You get criminals in power instead of in prison, you get rule of the strongest, you get murder as a possible answer to absolutely every question, you get a division of society into warlords and slaves, you get unlimited slave trade and you get neighbouring states taking over the territory. Nobody gives a damn about “human rights” or similar nonexistent bullshit. You get violence, misery and suffering, and the only thing that limits human depravity is religious fanaticism, which in case of Islam is hardly a limitation.

You get a zombie horde with automatic weapons, pickups and motorcycles, and you get victims. Soon thereafter, you get starvation, sickness and everything else that leads to a dramatic population drop. Then the dust settles and the survivors make rules that are meant to avoid the depravities that led to this outcome, and the cycle of civilisation slowly repeats. Alternatively, the aggressive neighbours who split the territory between themselves and introduce the rule of law limit the bad outcomes before it comes to that point. Unfortunately, history shows that this is actually not a likely outcome; the territory formerly known as Libya, for instance, was left to the warring fractions of fanatics there, and slave markets are a normal thing for years already. Early years of the Soviet reign after the fall of the Russian Empire saw widespread famine and cannibalism, murder, persecution and all kinds of depravity. After the fall of Rome, during plagues and wars of the early dark ages, Europe was a hell on Earth.

So, this is what the state is for. The purpose of the state is not to distribute wealth to the poor, indoctrinate people or legislate “carbon credits”. The purpose of the state is to keep the savages in prison and afraid. The purpose of the state is to keep the borders controlled so that the people inside can be protected in their culture, beliefs and customs. The purpose of the state is to keep the normal people safe, and enemies afraid. What happens when the state collapses is unlimited human freedom, which translates as unlimited human depravity, and lack of civilised options that would create the playing field for freedom to practice non-depraved things in safety. The only thing that stops unlimited depravity is the controlled savagery of religious zealotry.

Heaven isn’t good because people there are free. It’s good because people there are good. The concept of freedom defined as the ability to do whatever you want is inherently flawed, because if evil people can do whatever they want, you get the hell that is Libya and Syria, where their freedom negates all options for others; basically, you no longer have the option to do normal civilised things because you’ll be killed. On the other hand, in heaven everything is limited by not wanting to do anything depraved, and by the fact that those who would want to automatically teleport into hell. As a result, not having certain “freedoms” creates all kinds of beauty and possibility – you can create art without jihadists raping and murdering you, for instance, because they are not allowed to. You can have things without being robbed and murdered. You can study science without being recruited into some army’s cannon fodder. You can live a long time because nobody’s trying to murder you, which in itself opens up all kinds of options. It’s interesting how Satanists keep harping about freedom from authority. Please, do everyone a favour and go live in Syria. See how you like freedom from all authority. Yeah, it’s hell, in ways I cannot even begin to describe, because freedom from authority doesn’t mean that you are free to do whatever you want. It means that both you and the most savage criminal who rapes, pillages and murders for fun can do whatever you both feel like doing. So, you like to listen to music, and he likes to flay people alive and listen to them scream. In a place with freedom from all authority, that guy forms an armed gang, and you get to be a victim. You don’t get to live in an autistic Utopia where you get to do your thing unopposed. You get to be a slave and a victim, or you learn to be so savage and murderous that even the warlords fear you. Freedom from authority causes reduction of the pool of available options to almost nothing, and freedom thus cancels itself. If everything is allowed, almost nothing is possible. Where evil is not allowed, almost everything becomes possible.

Hard problem

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking how people seem to have a very poor understanding of what problems are hard. They would think that walking on water or creating a Universe is a hard problem, and dealing with sin is easy. However, whatever they think is a hard problem might be trivial or easy not only to the point that God can solve it, but to the point where a huge number of spiritual beings can solve it.

Sin, however, seems to be such a hard problem that God can’t seem to solve it in any way other than by suffering and dying.

Let’s just stop here.

People think sin is a trivial issue – a good and forgiving God will of course forgive it and everything will be fine. No problem. You go to Church, confess, receive absolution, you’re done.

Wrong. Sin is such a hard problem that a good and forgiving God has to suffer and die in order to even try to solve it. That’s because sin is not an accounting issue. It’s not an entry in some book, that logs all your transgressions. No. Sin is a breakage in the structure of your soul. It’s a breakage in your relationship with God. Healing such a breakage, removing its causes, restructuring your soul in vivo without destroying it outright, is much harder than creating the Universe. After all, this Universe was apparently created by a damn fool with some help. Restructuring the soul as to remove a fracture that is sin, to remove a discolouration in the soul-substance, a weak spot at which the soul would break under pressure, and heal it to full theoretical strength, requires something that can best be described as dying and being rebuilt from the ashes of your former self. It requires surrendering to God to break and rebuild you, according to His perfect idea of what you ought to be, in Him, in His light. That’s what “sincere remorse”, the pre-condition of forgiveness, actually means. Sincere remorse means surrendering to God to destroy you and rebuild you in His image, as He wants you. It means not barking your wishes and conditions at God, and instead accepting His guidance and judgment at the most fundamental level of who you are and who you ought to be. It means understanding and accepting that your way was wrong, and had bad consequences, and you need to do more than just erase the bad consequences, you need to be a better person, the one made from God’s light, and not your stupid nonsense. In order to be of God’s light, you need to let Him break you and rebuild you, because He is the one who knows, because the goal needs to build the path towards itself.

On compassion and kindness

Posted on by
16

I am so annoyed by stupid, superficial, arrogant and godless people on the Internet who pose as “compassionate” and “kind”, but who are in fact everything but. Honestly, I don’t think they would be able to recognise actual kindness and compassion if they saw it; in fact, I think they would condemn it as some kind of evil.

It’s actually very hard for me to define kindness. I can recognise it when I see it, but definitions are tricky, as they have to be accurate, specific and exclusive – basically, they need to say what something is, but not by being so broad they are useless. They need to exclude all the similar things something is not. In this case, a definition of compassion needs to exclude all the things that look like compassion, but are in fact not.

So, let me think about it. Compassion is samyama on a person. If I had to explain it to a non-yogi, I’d say samyama is to “grok” something or someone, to understand the inner nature of a thing or a person by means of being. Kindness is now easy to define; from a state of compassion, kindness is to give someone that which he needs to become more of self; to exceed limitations and attain realisation of one’s true nature (or, should I say, attain realisation of God’s true nature). Kindness, in essence, is what a bodisattva or a dakini does and you are awakened from an illusion and prodded forward on a path toward buddhahood.

Making “poor you, I’m so sorry for your predicament” statements is neither compassion nor kindness. It’s a manifestation of narcissism, nothing more. You just wish to be seen by others as a good and compassionate person, in a value-system where those are desirable qualities that elevate one’s social standing. People making such statements don’t really care if they actually helped someone; they just want to be seen as well-meaning and helpful, and in reality they never touch the actual person they are talking to, nor would they wish to. It’s like one of those formal greetings, where you say “how do you do” and you don’t really care, nor do you expect an answer.

I think it’s the problem with the Internet; it empowers poseurs and sociopaths to an extreme. It rewards people for making statements and gestures, that don’t necessarily have to be backed by anything real. Sure, things of this kind existed since forever, but an inherently superficial environment really encourages them.

What’s the difference between a compassionate person and a poseur? Well, a compassionate person sees someone with a problem, feels personally touched by it and drawn to act, and does something very real to help the person. For instance, see someone you used to know who fell on hard times, so you do very concrete things to help them – give them a place to stay, buy them clothes, find them work to do so they can earn money, basically help them end the downward spiral and reverse the negative trend of their life. You can’t really solve anyone’s problem, but you can buy them an opportunity to do it themselves. That’s what compassion and kindness are. What’s the fake thing that postures like the real thing in order to get social points? Mother Theresa. She didn’t solve anyone’s problem, nor did she even try to. She basically faked compassion in order to be thought of as a saint by other people, but she didn’t actually help the people she supposedly helped. Everything she did was for self-aggrandisement only, and it worked; she is generally recognised by people as an icon of compassion or whatever.

Internet is full of people like that; judgmental, self-centred ego-trippers, who always know the right thing to say to make them look good. How can you tell a fake from a real one? See how they deal with the “nazis”, the “tax collectors”, the people their ideology demonises. An excellent example is a black musician who heard about the KKK racists, and didn’t like the idea of being judged and rejected by someone for things that had absolutely nothing to do with him as a person, so he basically went there and talked to the KKK leaders, and eventually befriended them to the point where they renounced their former ideology, which they could no longer espouse in clear conscience. A poseur will call everybody a “nazi” because that’s what you do if you want to pose as someone who’s “a good one”, on the opposite side of a nazi, and would immediately reject a person for a mere suspicion of embracing an ideology that’s not the left of Chairman Mao, thus indicating that he’s so extremely “left”, that anything less than absolute extremism on the leftist spectrum is a “nazi” to him.

What is my recommendation here? Well, stop rewarding worthless people with positive social score just because they make extremist statements of virtue-signalling. Stop assuming someone means well and is a good person because he said all the “compassionate” words, such as congratulating people on apparently good things and telling them how sorry he is when something apparently bad happens. How about putting all such people in a spam filter and completely ignoring them, because that’s what they actually deserve. They are like those people Jesus talked about, who make everyone know when they do something pious or charitable, because what they are actually after is social approval and elevated rating. They don’t give to the poor because they care about the poor, they just want to be perceived as compassionate and generous. They don’t fast and uphold religious rules because they care about God; they do it so that people would perceive them as properly religious, and as such better than all those who aren’t. Interestingly, if you actually helped another person, you would know how wrong it would feel to even mention it, let alone brag about it to third parties. You did it because it felt like the right thing to do. You might have even gotten punished for it in some way. It’s a real thing that exists in the world of real things, and the reward for it is to feel reality, and participate in it. You do good things because to elevate others is to feel close to God, who is the great attractor on the coordinate axis of all greatness. Social posturing would make a real person feel diminished and soiled. On the other hand, it’s everything a fake person lives for, thinking that if they convince people, God will have no other option but to sign off on it as well, because if all the people think someone is a saint, how could God ever reject such a person, yes? The entire thing makes me want to puke, but the phenomenon is quite real, I assure you. Well, let me tell you this: God is not God because he has your vote of approval. In fact, you can all call him Satan or a Nazi for all He cares, and it would affect only you. God is God because he’s the fullness of sat-cit-ananda. God is God because He’s where all the greatness and beauty originates from, and to which all saints aspire. God doesn’t become God by giving His imprimatur to fake people who managed to deceive gullible people who lack discriminative faculties. That’s my opinion.

Why are we still here?

Posted on by
8

This part of the comment section needs to be made into an article of its own:

“Since S.K. has been dead for a while why is existence of this place being prolonged?”

Because the contractually agreed time has not yet expired. Sanat Kumar’s life is in no way bound to the existence of this place; it’s maintained by the Jewel, according to the will of God expressed in the original contract. Believe me, I tried to shut it down in so many ways. For instance, I tried to revoke the contract by stating that his permissions were authorised on fraudulent grounds, meaning that he didn’t intend to do what he stated, but this argument was not accepted since Sentinel was aware of his intent and nature and approved the contract regardless, and since he had authority given to him by God, none can dispute it.
I also tried to revoke the contract, based upon the premise that since all original “signatories” are dead, it ought to be dissolved. This was also rejected, based upon the fact that the authority of the contract stems from the word of God, and not from either of the signatories.
Furthermore, I tried to argue that the foremost principle beneath anything is not the word of God, but dharma, meaning alignment with the inner nature of God, and this entire thing is fundamentally adharmic and should be dissolved on the grounds where things that are inherently opposed to the nature of God should not be allowed to exist. This was also rejected on grounds that although God in His nature of sat-cit-ananda is indeed the supreme principle upon which everything is to be built lest it crumble into non-being, existence of things opposed to God is not forbidden; it is just a bad idea and very much discouraged, because it can lead to terrible disasters such as this one. The terrible consequences, however, will not be denied to those who choose against God, and saving them would invalidate choice and freedom which are inherent to the nature of the soul. So, albeit this place is indeed a terrible nightmare opposed to God to the point where it would simply not exist were it even a bit worse, its existence is temporarily allowed, because eternity in God, salvation and blissful fulfilment are not obligatory, nor can they be imposed. This implies that terrible suffering, perdition and ruin are a viable alternative and can be chosen.
I used other arguments as well, but I was essentially told that God was smart enough to limit the existence of this dark pit of doom by imposing a termination date, and many other measures were put in place in order to assure orderly termination with the least possible amount of harm, and foremost of those measures is my incarnation here.

As a post scriptum, there’s something I’d like to add.

This is not a fucking game. God is not your daddy. There is no safety net. Nobody is going to undo your bad choices to reset the situation if you really badly fuck up. The consequences are real. Yes, this world is not ultimately real; it’s a virtual reality, or a simulation, or a holodeck, whatever you want to call it, but there’s one misconception I’d like to dispel. There’s a sanskrit word lila, which is usually translated as either game or pastime. Some religious schools like to say that this world is lila, God’s game or something. The implication is that you’re safe, it’s only a game, everything gets reset to the initial state afterwards, doesn’t matter what you do or what is done to you, it ultimately doesn’t matter.

This is completely and utterly wrong. Everything you do here absolutely matters, and it will determine the nature of your soul and your destiny. You can die here, permanently, without possibility of rebirth; your soul can be destroyed and absorbed into this place, and used as bait to attract other fools, and energy to power its binding mechanisms. You can commit sins here that will cripple your soul or destroy it outright. You can also become spiritually stronger and attain higher initiation, perhaps faster than anywhere else, and this is the bait Sanat Kumar used to attract souls here. The promise of evolution is real. However, what he didn’t say is that the price for that is extreme spiritual hazard. You can get destroyed here much faster and easier than anywhere else. You can commit terrible sin here easier than anywhere else. Also, the probability of spiritual achievement is very slim, while the probability of death and perdition is exceedingly great. You can argue that this is a game, but it’s a game where you can shoot with live ammunition at your family and friends while being deluded into thinking you’re using blanks and paintballs. Actual souls are getting butchered here. I’ve seen their parts recycled into the system. It’s not a theory to me.

You are having your memory suppressed, and you are having your spiritual insight suppressed. This means you essentially don’t know what you’re doing here. Think very carefully about this, because it means you can be deluded into committing acts you would otherwise never do, and the consequences will be both real and devastating. It means you can sin against God while thinking you’re serving Him. You might not survive this fact once you’re out and you see what you’ve done. Case in point people who spat at Jesus and ridiculed him. They thought they did a good or harmless thing, turned out they were fucked. Think they could forgive themselves “because they knew not what they were doing”? Yeah, as much as you could forgive yourself for killing a family member because you thought they were a burglar. You didn’t know what you were doing, but tough shit, you didn’t care to check, you’re fucked.

This is a virtual world. It’s not a game. Souls die here. We are all in mortal danger until it permanently ends, and even then the consequences will persist.

Darkness

Posted on by
4

A question arises of what does this world look like to the angels and holy souls above, in the real world?
Well, the answer is quite simple. You know that prologue, John 1:5 from the Bible?
“The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

“The Darkness”. That’s what this world is, and that is how it is known.