Author Archives: danijel

What’s going on?

Posted on by
26

I’m trying to understand what I’m seeing.

Yes, another month, another Muslim terror attack in France. This is becoming a regular thing. What bothers me is that those things were obviously allowed to happen, and not only that, but the order came from America. The order to allow the hordes of Muslims into Europe and America, where they will do what they are best at – murder and rape – came from America. There is no other explanation for it.

What I’m interested in is “why”.

You see, the Paris, Brussels and Nice attacks are utterly unsurprising and predictable. The only ones shocked by that are those who are so fucking stupid they actually believe the leftist bullshit about all people being the same and all cultures and civilizations being the same. The main result of this officially sanctioned invasion of unwashed Muslim hordes from the Middle East will be the awakening of Europe and America to the true nature of Islam. It will remove Islam’s carefully designed and implemented trickery of the “religion of peace”, and people will see it for what it is: that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not some “heretics” who “misinterpret” Islam. They in fact practice it literally and diligently. It’s the “moderate” Muslims who are not practicing that thing properly. That’s the truth of Islam. Islam is the religion under which Europe was robbed, plundered and raped throughout the Middle Ages, and it only subsided once Europe industrialized and developed power sufficient to crush the Muslims militarily and turn them into colonies (which, if I may add, was the perfect state of things, because allowing those shitholes to function as sovereign states is a bad idea).

The consequence of letting the Muslims into Europe en masse is so predictable, and it is so certain that those giving the order knew what would happen, the only remaining question is “why”. What are they trying to accomplish?

My working hypothesis is that guys in Langley are very smart. Those in Washington are usually stupid and corrupt idiots, but there are some very smart people in the CIA, who basically think the same way I do, only they have more information and resources. So I can assume that they know the demographics of Europe, they know what a strategic error it was to give the Muslims the monetary equivalent of the entire energy expenditure of the Western civilization by allowing them to profit from oil and thus influence the Western civilization without actually needing to rise up to the challenge and attain the civilizational level necessary to participate in it. They know who actually ordered and financed 9/11. They know it’s the Saudis, they know what it’s all about. They know more about those bastards than I do. I’ve seen some public documents; those were written by smart people. So CIA is in the know about Islam, they know the same things Geert Wilders knows. It’s just that they don’t talk about it in public; rather, they prepare contingency plans, they develop options for dealing with the problem.

If we look at the entire recent history of events in the Middle East, America has been intervening there in order to decivilize and deindustrialize countries, basically removing from Islam everything that was obtained by oil money, and reducing them to their natural state of medieval savagery of ISIS. That is actually a good thing, because ISIS is not dangerous. An Islamic state with modern weapons and technology is dangerous, but if you remove the industrial layer and reduce it to the technological level Islam would naturally have if not for oil, the danger level is that of the Somali pirates – you need to watch them with some minor naval force, but they are harmless to the West. It looks very much like America has been going through the list of Middle-Eastern countries, sorted by hostility to America, descending, and crossing them with red ink, one by one. Iraq, Libya, Syria. The next one on the list is Iran, but since this one is the most difficult, Turkey and Saudi Arabia might rise closer to the top of the list.

So, if America is trying to get rid of the threat posed by Islam that was empowered and enriched by oil money, why are they importing Muslims en masse into Europe and America? Well, you can’t really get rid of the Muslims if people in Europe and America have an idealized, unrealistic picture of Muslims as some kind of innocent victims of colonialism and Israel. Muslims need to be seen for what they are, and no amount of propaganda would do it. What is actually necessary is to allow the Muslims to show, in several controlled instances, what they want, what they would do if unchecked, and what they truly are. People need to see them for what they are, and it would be utterly incredible and unbelievable if shown to the peoples of Europe and America in any other manner but through the blades and guns of Muslims. So, what we are seeing here, the terror attacks, it was allowed in order to awaken us to the evil of Islam, and to show us what Europe will look like if we allow that to immigrate and breed here, financed with our own tax money, because the Muslims are simply incapable of functioning in our civilization on merit while remaining Muslims. And the Leftists, whose ideology allowed it all to happen, they will utterly discredit themselves now and will also be seen for what they are: blithering idiots who think “good” means “different from Hitler”.

And I can expect the next steps. Turkey will descend into Islamism. Saudi Arabia will openly spite America and some serious shit will take place there. Iran will soon obtain nuclear capability, and then Israel will act. They will wipe out all Muslim centers in the Middle East, and by then people will be prepared to see this not as an evil act, but as something that, finally, someone actually had the guts to do, for the good of all. Islam will be banned everywhere, the Muslims will be dealt with in some way in both Europe and America, problem solved.

What I don’t understand is why America is simultaneously poking at Russia and China. I also don’t know if it is all actually a result of someone’s careful planning, or if some degree of chaos and uncertainty played a role. What I do know is that the likes of Obama and Hillary are puppets on someone else’s strings. That much is obvious; they are someone’s creatures.

Small update

Posted on by
Reply

I haven’t been writing lately, for several reasons. First, It’s summer and I was on vacation:

IMG_1559

IMG_1490

IMG_1590

Second, it’s damn hot in here because the air-conditioner is not in my computer room, and I’m not all that into writing, or thinking for that matter, when my brain is being cooked. 🙂

Third, it’s not that I lack topics for articles, it’s that I’m not sure what will make any sense to write. I’ll wait for the heat to subside and then see.

About testing gurus and used cars

Posted on by
11

I occasionally encounter the concept of testing a prospective guru before accepting his authority. It sounds a lot like the idea of testing a used car before buying it; basically, you need to know what you’re committing to, lest you get screwed. But the idea is so fucking ridiculous in this context, that even entertaining it is a disqualification. Let me tell you why.

First of all, the fake gurus have been reading the same manuals for recognizing the true gurus as you have. They are familiar with the criteria, and they are great actors. Whatever you can think of, they already rehearsed to perfection. Essentially, it’s like trying to figure out a conman. If a conman is easily recognizable as such, he’s not really much of a conman in the first place, because he sucks at his job. A good conman looks more like the real thing than the real thing. Every criterion you can test him by, he already tested himself to see if it’s perfect. So you can’t go by appearance, you need to go by substance, which requires you to know what you’re doing, essentially you need to be very qualified at the subject matter; essentially, in order to qualify as a Jedi apprentice you need to be a powerful Force-sensitive, and it’s not that you’re going to test a Jedi Master to see if he’s qualified, he’s going to test you to see if you’re qualified.

And that’s the crux of the matter. You’re not going to test shit. You’re going to be evolving a long time before you’re qualified, and when you are, a real guru will test you to see if you have any brains in your head. You’ll need to see through appearances and superficiality, you’ll need to be able to react to high spiritual energies favorably, and you need to be intellectually competent. Basically, the guru is in charge, not you, and he’s in charge simply due to the fact that he’s a spiritual superpower, so the entire concept of testing something… well, if you think you have to test someone to know whether he’s a guru, either you’re not qualified to be a student or he’s not qualified to be a guru, because in the real spiritual relationships of that kind the concept doesn’t even appear, it’s an automatic thing, a key/lock click.

Another issue with the concept is the expectation that enlightened people don’t have anything better to do than teach kindergarten here, basically that they want to accept students. I certainly don’t, and neither do any incarnated Gods that I know of. Their missions are usually related to other things. Also, the Hindu guru model is the vast minority of what actually takes place in real life. In real life, spiritual relationships more often follow a husband-wife model, or something along that line. The expectation that a guru will accept students who are significantly below his own spiritual status are unwarranted; basically, he’ll look for someone very similar to himself, and won’t really care for a great number of such people, and since such things are negotiated in advance, prior to incarnation, you can see why a husband-wife model is more attractive than the guru-student model. It simply solves all problems. Sure, the guru-disciple model isn’t really incompatible with that, but more often than not, if you want to find a guru’s most advanced student, look for his wife. According to the apocryphal gospels, “the disciple Jesus loved the most” was his wife, whose name was later replaced with a generic “John”. Ramakrishna’s most respected disciple was his wife. Lahiri Mahasaya’s wife was an enlightened saint, according to Yogananda. Mirabai’s husband was enlightened. Marpa’s wife was a very advanced saint. As I said, it’s not really a rule because there are many exceptions, but it’s more of a pattern than not. Just ask yourself, if you were some kind of a God who planned to incarnate here, and you wanted to teach one advanced student, what would be the best way to arrange that? Sure, as long as you’re here you might as well teach others, but it might be only an afterthought. Teaching might not really be anywhere near the real reason why you are here. The true reason might be closer along the lines of cosmic politics, as in the case of Krishna’s incarnation. Sure, he had advanced saints as wives, and sure, he had a demigod friend-disciple Arjuna, but the real reason why he was here was to deal with the problem of too many fucking idiots incarnated in the warrior caste, giving the world a hard time.

So, testing Krishna to see if he’s a worthy enough guru to teach your highness? He’d intentionally fail all your tests just for shits and giggles. If you have to test him, it means you are not qualified. The ones who are qualified instinctively and immediately recognize him as the Lord and organize their entire lives around him. So, you can see why I find the concept ridiculous.

But of course, the vast majority of situations where you learn from some spiritually advanced person doesn’t follow the model of a life-long profound personal relationship. Most often, you can be spiritually influenced by several sources, each of them giving you a small nudge in the right direction. It can be music, someone’s photo, a sentence, a spiritual darshan. Reducing spiritual learning to the Hindu guru-chela model is too simplistic to reflect anything real, at least to the vast majority of people involved.

When in a hole…

Posted on by
8

I’ve heard people praising persistence in the face of difficulty and failure in so many places, from business lectures to spiritual advice, it’s making me sick, because my experience is quite different. In my experience, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. If something you have been doing has fucked you up, maybe, just maybe, doing more of it and harder isn’t the brightest idea. Instead, how about stopping to think and change your approach, maybe even revise your goals? Because if things are not working, you have several possibilities, and you can present them in simplified form as a 2×2 matrix, where the possibilities are that you are doing either a right thing or a wrong thing, and you are doing too much or not enough. So, the troublesome possibilities are that you’re either doing too much of a wrong thing, or not enough of a good thing. At the point of failure, assuming that you are doing the right thing, and only failing because you’re not doing enough of it is simply stupid.

Let’s put it this way. Life is a process of learning, from the point where you’re pissing into diapers to the point where you are reading articles such as this one. You had to go through certain steps in order to get where you are now. You didn’t get here by doing more of the things you did when you were 5. So, assuming that the first thing you will try will also be the last thing you will ever need is to assume you will die failing there. If not, you’ll outgrow it. You will either try it and see it’s not working, in which case you’ll find something more useful for attaining your goals, or you will try it, succeed and progress to the next level, of both understanding and methodology, and, quite possibly, of goals, because if your goals are still the same you had as when you were 5, you’re retarded. Your goals need to change with your growth in understanding.

The next issue is not that of right or wrong, but of approaching the problem adequately. If you don’t have a hammer at hand, it’s probably ok to hammer a nail or two with pilers, but if you didn’t get up to find a hammer after the second nail, you’re a lazy fuck. You need to change your approach as you do things; you need to adapt, learn, think. If your problem is something simple, such as unloading a truck full of cement bags, it is completely solvable by linearly scaling work. The more you work, the more gets done, and the more bodies you throw at the problem, it gets done faster. However, such problems are usually solved so quickly you can’t really call them “problems”. The stuff where you are likely to get stuck or fail is usually the stuff that requires a change in approach, basically you need to do things with your brain turned on and with your eyes open, observe what’s going on and focus on accomplishing your goals, and not necessarily on keeping your methods the same.

In spirituality, this is the most frequent reason for failure, and reason why failure is the norm and success is the exception. The way it works is that religions and cults assume their way is the right way, that more of it gives better results and all kinds of failure are due to not doing it enough or in the right way. Essentially, their basic assumption is that there’s nothing wrong with them.

Really?

Islam, for instance, thinks that solution to all problems is more islam. It doesn’t understand that the problem of islamic countries is that they are islamic. Ataturk understood that and worked on removing Islam from the position of Turkey’s solution-seeking paradigm. The result was that Turkey became the most advanced “islamic” country, but that’s a misnomer because it became advanced exactly because of not being islamic. Of course, there are always those who don’t understand that, and who think that the way to solve the remaining problems would be to introduce more islam, because that would make it better; of course it would, since there’s nothing wrong with it. Right. Also, in order to survive in the modern world, religions adapted by stating that you can take just the spiritual and ethical part of them, and for the rest you can have science and modern technology. However, if a religion fails at science and technology, if its approach is a dead-end there, what reason is there for you to think that its approach to God and ethics is any different? Most likely, its’s the same kind of failure, only more difficult to demonstrate because people were taught to accept bad assumptions as axioms.

Every stupid cult in the world thinks like that, and that’s why they are all dead ends. They are not solutions, they are problems. If you start from the premise that you already have all the important answers, you’re deluded. Spirituality is a process of transformation, and if you stick to all the ideas you initially brought with you, there’s no transformation, and doing more of that same shit will just waste more time.

No, the way to get somewhere is to assume you are on the starting point and you don’t have all the answers. When you get stuck somewhere, you can’t just assume that you need persistence. What you need is to stop and think, to see if you’re doing something wrong and that’s causing the difficulties, or you are in fact doing everything right and it’s just hard.

Persistence, of course, is essential when you need to do something that is difficult, takes a lot of time and effort, and you can’t just stop every now and then and check if 2+2 is still 4. Sometimes you indeed do have to persist and just grind the problem away. However, to assume that all problems are like that, that’s going to put you in a world of fail.

Ideologies and group identities

Posted on by
22

I’ve seen an interesting way of thinking in the Western jurisprudence, a sort of an extreme individualism which sees every possible guilt only on a personal level, disregarding even the very concept of collectivism.

And yet we constantly see how people act in groups, with group bonds of belief and emotions, which create common thoughts and joint actions. When you have thousands of football fans breaking each other’s heads, your problem doesn’t exist on the individual level. It’s not individuals performing those actions, it’s the groups. Individuals are just instruments which the abstract group entity uses to assert its dominance, attitudes and beliefs. In that sense, nations really do exist as entities with emotions and willpower. Football clubs really do exist not only as administrative entities and players, but also as an idea that binds the fans into a group entity, connected on some very basic common denominator.

It’s very easy to get sucked into binding your personal identity with some group. When you do, it’s important to understand that you don’t become more than yourself, you become less. You don’t become something larger than yourself by identifying with a group, a group becomes something larger than it was by increasing its membership. You, yourself, simply ceded parts of your identity, and replaced your individual, personal thoughts with collective thoughts, collective emotions, beliefs and goals. It then becomes possible for you to attack people you don’t personally hate, but you hate them as part of your group identity.

For me personally, it’s interesting how I became capable of truly understanding some things about biological conditioning and inclusion of animalistic mechanisms in spirituality only after I chose to stop self-identifying as human. I literally stopped seeing my identity as part of that of human race, and started seeing myself as a separate species, that is still close enough to human to reproduce with humans, but no closer than a dog is to a wolf. I started seeing through social and reproductive strategies that were usually seen as spirituality, and my entire perspective on ethics changed. For instance, humans have no ability to tell good from evil if you separate it from what’s good and bad for humanity. For instance, if somehow some other species evolved on Earth which was far superior to humans, and the absolute karmic law would demand that humans go extinct like the Neanderthals before them, the humans would view that as evil. If an absolutely better species needed to go extinct in order for humanity to go on, humans would choose themselves. That made me think: what if all other ethical opinions commonly held by humans aren’t what God would want, but what the self-serving humanity wants? God would want sat-cit-ananda to manifest. Humanity wants there to be more humanity. That’s all there is to it.

As I said, it becomes interesting when you dissociate yourself from the group you implicitly belonged to since birth. You start noticing things, the same way you’d notice things if you dissociated yourself from some more obvious social identity, only with more profound, more liberating consequences. One of the most important things you notice is that people aren’t very interested in the truth, they are more interested at “being right”, being on the right side, and the right side is the winning side. It’s just an animalistic instinct of wanting to be on the winning side, because those on the losing side are traditionally either killed or sold into slavery. Also, if one side offers no advantages to you if you pick it, you pick the other side. Truth, reality, that doesn’t even show on your instinctive mind’s radar. Truth is what the winning side tells. Reality is that the winners live and consume resources. That’s what mankind is about, not God, not truth, not manifesting sat-cit-ananda. It’s about who gets to live, reproduce and have resources. God is what is invented to rationalize the winning side’s right to do what it does, and to allow it to keep what it had taken. If a real, true God existed who would question the order of things, he would not be acknowledged as their God. Essentially, if you had a-prefixed deities, where “a” stands for “absolute”, aGod and aSatan, and humans could choose which one is God and which one is Satan, what do you think, how would they do it? Using rational philosophy, metaphysics and transcendental ethics? Or by the criterion of being allowed to live, reproduce and consume resources?

What do you think what Allah or Jehovah are, in the absolute sense? aGod or aSatan? An entity that lets your tribe kill, plunder and rape, own sexual slaves and demands blood sacrifices, does that sound like the sat-cit-ananda Absolute that created the dual Universe in order to manifest His fullness as a multitude? From where I see it, from my non-human position, it’s either completely fabricated, made up as a sick fantasy of warlords and madmen, or it was inspired by Satan as a system of belief that will bind humans into groups that are most useful for his goals of keeping souls bound in ignorance and sin, and leading them to perform sinful deeds that will propagate their enslavement to this place.

I once heard an interpretation that a division between God and Satan is within religions and not between them; between individual ideas and concepts and not so much between whole ideologies. But I wonder. Some ideologies, as a system, seem to be consistently promoting beliefs that are conducive to ignorance, bondage and resistance to any change from that status, and people assume group identities based on those ideologies, aligning their destinies with the group vector.

So yeah, think about that the next time you cheer for your country on the football championship, when you identify with others based on what OS runs on your computer or a phone, when you identify with others based on your species, race, nation, religion or other stupid bullshit.

The only thing you actually are, is what you are when you stand naked before the spirit of God, in His light. Every other identity is a descent into some illusion or another, promoting and propagating bondage and suffering. And guess from which perspective your actions are going to be seen and evaluated when you die?

Live your life in such a way that you can stand before God, stripped of any kind of collective identity, and have God see your life as his own, something that was His manifestation in the relative world of duality. Because where you’re going, there are no football clubs, nations, races, genders or religions, and the only true judgment that is passed on any action is whether it is of God, who is sat-cit-ananda.