Wrestling with the beast

Posted on by
2

There has recently been major fallout in the Christian circles regarding the Ravi Zacharias scandal, revealed after his death last year.

For those who don’t know, Ravi Zacharias is one of those American evangelists; you know the kind: saved by Jesus, because you need to accept Jesus as your personal savior because no salvation is possible otherwise, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Let me quote from the Christian site I linked above:

Zacharias used tens of thousands of dollars of ministry funds dedicated to a “humanitarian effort” to pay four massage therapists, providing them housing, schooling, and monthly support for extended periods of time, according to investigators.

One woman told the investigators that “after he arranged for the ministry to provide her with financial support, he required sex from her.” She called it rape.

She said Zacharias “made her pray with him to thank God for the ‘opportunity’ they both received” and, as with other victims, “called her his ‘reward’ for living a life of service to God,” the report says. Zacharias warned the woman—a fellow believer—if she ever spoke out against him, she would be responsible for millions of souls lost when his reputation was damaged.

The findings, alongside details revealed over months of internal reckoning at RZIM, challenge the picture many have had of Zacharias.

When he died in May, he was praised for his faithful witness, his commitment to the truth, and his personal integrity. Now it is clear that, offstage, the man so long admired by Christians around the world abused numerous women and manipulated those around him to turn a blind eye.

You get the picture. Some will say he “fell into temptation”, but from what I could see looking at the reports, he’s actually the one who manipulated others into temptation, mostly by using his charisma and willpower to force them into doing his will. He doesn’t look like an otherwise saintly person who fell into temptation, he looks like a manipulative, self-serving pig of a man; a “religious” Harvey Weinstein. But the man himself hardly matters.

The reason why his sleezy crimes and misbehaviors managed to remain secret until after his death is, to quote the argument from the man himself, “if she ever spoke out against him, she would be responsible for millions of souls lost when his reputation was damaged”. Basically, if it turned out that the great Christian apologist who is berating everyone into accepting Christ as a personal savior because there is no other way of salvation, manifested more signs of being a power-drunk piece of human garbage than someone in whom salvation could be witnessed, one could conclude that the entirety of this teaching is dubious.

I’ve been warning Christians about this, but they are incredibly arrogant, probably because they are intoxicated by the ego-trip of being on the right side of salvation and being the ones that preach from the high ground. It’s incredibly seductive, I know, but it doesn’t excuse them. I’ve been hearing the same thing from them for decades – how their Church is somehow shielded from spiritual fall by the Holy Spirit because it’s the holy fiancée of Christ, how the Pope is personally appointed by the Holy Spirit and you are protected from false teachings and spiritual fall if you are a faithful member of the Church. I steadfastly reminded them that nobody can protect you from your own spiritual failings and you depend on yourself alone to establish a personal connection and relationship with God, and to defend and confirm this relationship with your daily actions, with every thought and every breath. They thought I was the deluded one, that I am the one who needs to come to his senses and accept the “truth”. Then they elected that terrible leftist demagogue as the Pope, because the Church was so full of homosexuals and pedophiles that the previous saintly Pope resigned because he faced such stringent opposition to his attempts to purify the Church, he probably surrendered everything to God, as a good saint that he is, and left them to God’s judgment. The Christians would probably call his successor the Antichrist, but I don’t think Antichrist is a person; it’s a spirit of “progressivism” and humanistic materialism that is a direct opposition to the teaching of Christ, and as such is literally anti-Christ. However, it’s not that people have ideologies – ideologies, in fact, have people who are possessed by them, and that Francis creature is obviously possessed by progressivism. Now, apparently, the Catholics are more aware that they have a problem, because their very dogma is being actively changed by that creature, and being safe from false teachings isn’t something they would brag about very loudly, if they had any sense in them.

The protestant Christians can of course use this opportunity to mock the Catholics for having a fallible man as a safeguard of their theology, while they “have Christ”, and thus they have “certainty of salvation”.

In this I see the same arrogance that is the bane of Catholics – everybody likes having the high ground, the claim to the position of certain salvation from which they can “teach” others. Accept Christ, that’s the only thing you need, that’s the only thing that’s important.

How did that work out for Ravi Zacharias and hundreds like him?

A person who is so spiritually empty that he behaves literally like the stereotypical alpha-male ape that coerces females into having sex with him by invoking his exalted position in his tribe, is not saved by any definition of the term. That is as base and animalistic and devoid of holiness that is of God, as you can possibly imagine. He was a charismatic male specimen of human animal, he behaved in a bestial manner, lacked not only holiness but also any kind of gentlemanly refinement and self-restraint that would indicate normal human sophistication. If he “had Christ” or “was saved”, then I need neither, and may God keep me safe from those horrors.

God only knows that I have to wrestle with the human animal on a daily basis. It degrades my spiritual connection when it’s sick, it wants to eat too much food automatically when I’m focused on something else, the dullness of the physical brain blocks my insight, it colors my emotions and spiritual states with its own instincts, it automatically tries to project fulfillment into all kinds of material things, and I constantly have to check myself to see whether something originates from higher spiritual sources or the “rightness” instincts originating from the ape-body. To think I’m in the clear while I still share this animal’s existence would be foolhardy, and it is that very same foolhardiness that I perceive in the Christians, and I must admit I find them annoying. Even St. Paul wouldn’t dare say he’s “saved” before the “end of the race”, and you don’t have that problem? Really? It is one thing to say that God extended his hand towards you, that you recognized and accepted this hand, and that it is that very hand of God that is your salvation, and not any virtue or power of your own, and I would have no issues with that, seeing it as merely a different formulation of my own position. However, it is quite obviously possible for quite a significant number of Christians to use the claim of salvation as an instrument of their own power over others, which they use to satisfy their own chimpanzee instincts and desires. Obviously, there’s more to salvation than accepting Christ as a savior and belonging to “the” Church. You need to actually keep the faith, remain loyal, every moment of your existence, and the pride of salvation is, to me, just a symptom of spiritual apostasy, of fall into animalistic darkness, where “having Christ” becomes a currency of social posturing. This is something to be aware of, because these things don’t just exist in the community of leftists, atheists and others; you don’t just suddenly cease to have these kinds of problems just because you managed to sniff some spiritual substance and decided that’s what you want and need. The entirety of your animal problem is still there and you will have to keep it within the grip of the “structural integrity field” of your spirit until it dies and allows you to leave, and failure to keep a vertical spiritual presence as a dominant force that incarnates in your body will result in the animal part gradually taking parts of control away from the spirit, and it will do its thing.

Financial events

Posted on by
Reply

You must be wondering about the fact that the price of gold is falling and the American stock market is behaving strangely. Apparently, bitcoin and stock market are in a boom, and the metals are “worthless”, contrary to my predictions.

To that, all I’m going to say is that we have descended below the event horizon of the collapse of the world’s financial system. At this point and until the end, we are in the domain of chaos, panic, greed, ignorance and madness. Buy precious metals if you can. Earn as much money as you can while it’s still possible. Buy essential things. Avoid buying non-essential things. Avoid whatever the masses are doing. We are in the domain of evil and madness, enveloped by the fogs of war. Trust only in the plans that you made before, and don’t change course now, as Von Clausewitz would advise.

Totalitarianism

Posted on by
Reply

Watch this first:

There is a serious problem with identifying the leftists as “liberals”. A liberal is someone who minds his own business and does his own thing, and expects others to do so as well, the only limitation to freedom being the point where you infringe upon the freedoms of others. In that sense, I am a liberal. They are not. They are outright fascists. There’s no place for verbal ambiguities there. They have massive overlap with movements like the Khmer Rouge, the Bolseviks, Maoists, Sendero Luminoso, and the NSDAP. The only reason why they don’t actually commit genocide is that they are still in the process of maneuvering into the position of power where they will be able to do so with impunity. I am absolutely convinced of that, because I have historically seen such movements and all of them were outright murderous and genocidal. Calling them “liberal” is such an incredible misnomer, one can only facepalm. They are the exact diametrical opposition to liberalism.

However, to be honest, when I called myself a liberal that was true only to a point, because my personal worldview is nowhere near as relativistic. If I would have to qualify it more precisely, I would say my worldview can be summed up by “do what you think is right, and pay the price”, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a right to free speech, or that there is free anything, for that matter. If you speak lies, there will be consequences – your consciousness will drift away from reality, and your outward situation will reflect that. Also, if your lies offend people, they might do something about it, which also limits the concept of “freedom” of whatever is it that you want to do. If you speak the truth, there will also be consequences – basically, your consciousness will be more aligned with reality, but you might also offend liars and those who believe in falsehoods; and they, too, might choose to do something about it. The only way to avoid consequences is to live an utterly inconsequential life, but if you think that isn’t a consequence, you are sorely mistaken. In my worldview, you are judged by the harsh light of reality, and that which is of God will share destiny with God, while that which is false and evil will share destiny with nothingness. I always had contempt for the religious zealots who believe they have to kill people because they are the “enemies of God” as they see those things, as if God is powerless to kill his own enemies so they have to help him. That’s incredibly ridiculous. God has ways of dealing with scum. Trying to help God with justice is like trying to push Earth in order to help it spin. God doesn’t need you to help him with implementing justice. You need God in order to be aligned with justice. It’s impossible to be righteous if your consciousness isn’t in God. That’s the fundamental flaw of all those false moralists who are all basically atheists, and who in their conceit think they can be moral without God, and even want to kill everyone who disagrees with their pathetic “moral” views, usually based on “equality”, as the most pathetic of all concepts, because that’s what you come up with when you lack any moral compass whatsoever. So, my “liberal” approach is to tell you that you are free to explore reality and choose whatever path, but God is reality and illusion is deadly, and whatever you do, there will be a price. Offend evil by choosing God, there will be a price. Offend God by choosing evil, there will be a price. Try not to offend anyone and you will be inconsequential trash that will be taken out and recycled in the end.

How we lost freedom

Posted on by
2

It was a slippery slope.

Initially we had freedom of speech that was the core value of our civilization.

Then they came and said that isn’t right; if there aren’t limits on the freedom of speech, should the Nazis also be allowed to speak? Should holocaust deniers be allowed to speak? There should be limits to freedom.

Then laws were introduced that limited free speech for Nazis, holocaust deniers and “hate speech”, which was initially defined as calls for violence against groups of people based on their collective identity.

Then the “Nazis” were defined as “anyone who doesn’t agree with me”, the concept of “holocaust deniers” was expanded to encompass “deniers” of any kind of “accepted truth”, however flimsy, in order to protect weak ideas and beliefs from need to be defended by reason and evidence. “Hate speech” was extended to mean “any kind of speech that makes anyone feel uncomfortable”.

So now we no longer have freedom of speech, and soon we won’t have freedom of any kind, at all, because we are already locked down, and anyone speaking out is a “denier”, and apparently to deny the official narrative of corrupt politicians, journalists and “scientists” who are a propaganda arm of big industry, that’s a thoughtcrime comparable to eating small children.

Imposing any kind of limitations on the freedom of speech was a terrible mistake. Nazis are fully within their right to say what they think. You are fully within your right to disagree with them. Also, if someone verbally commits something that is an actual crime, prosecutable by actual laws, for instance crying “fire” in a theatre, or inciting a crowd to murder someone or damage his property, those are not things that need to be solved by restricting freedom of speech. They can be easily dealt with using normal laws. If normal laws cannot be applied, it means it was impossible to demonstrate a causal relationship between verbal incitement and actual physical harm. Also, it is very difficult to categorically state that it is universally wrong to preach against entire groups bound by similar characteristics. If we can see logic in preaching against drug cartels or totalitarian states, we can also see why this should be extended by allowing one to preach against any kind of life-choice, behavioral pattern or in fact religion or race. As far as I’m concerned, KKK is fully within their right to preach against Africans, and Africans are fully within their right to prove them wrong. Nazis are fully within their right to preach against the Jews calling them an inferior race, and the Jews are fully within their right to show them the stats about Nobel prize winners per race, which demonstrates that, if anything, they are the superior race. That’s how the marketplace of ideas works – you say something, and then someone else counters your arguments with something that’s either correct or foolish, making you look either like an ass, or like someone who actually has a point. If someone thinks his arguments are too weak to win against the Nazis and the holocaust deniers in the open marketplace of ideas, then he’s the one with a problem, because if they are so wrong that they should not be allowed to speak at all, then it should be very easy to let them speak, and then expose the facts and make them look like complete fools.

After all, it’s not like “hate speech” is something that is universally abhorred. It’s perfectly allowed, as long as it’s against the “right” target. The movie “Lethal weapon II” is pure hate speech and slander against the Republic of South Africa, probably devised because America was having a financial problem with RSA selling the enormous amount of gold from the Witwatersrand Basin, which amounted to 22% of all the gold ever mined, in the history of mankind, on the world’s market, in form of Krugerrands. From what it looks like to me now, the entire “apartheid” issue was a CIA active measure against RSA, to limit their access to the world’s market and the resulting change of balance in the financial sector, since America moved away from gold in the 1970s and had a problem with its resurgence, especially if someone else controlled it. This is a very cynical interpretation of American “fight for human rights” across the globe, and postulates that whenever America wants to suppress an economic or political adversary, this or that human rights violation will be invented as a justification, in order to rally the well-meaning idiots behind its imperialistic cause. It’s always some children that will cry unless America bombs some state or prevents it from selling cheaper gas, oil or gold to the market where America wants to sell their overpriced goods. Basically, Krugerrands are racist and Russian gas is not democratic.

So hate speech is obviously fine – you are allowed to hate the “Nazis”, the “racists”, the “deniers” of official ideology, the Chinese, the Russians and the white people. You’re just not allowed to hate the people in power and their ideology, because that will get you “deplatformed” and “un-personed”.

So, tell me, how many of you have heard of the Witwatersrand Basin and how much gold was actually found in there? I knew there was lots gold in the RSA, of course, but I had no idea how much until very recently, and then it clicked – the time that gold was massively exported abroad coincides exactly with the time when the entire media industry and all sorts of celebrities started making propaganda about poor black people being oppressed in the RSA and calling for international sanctions against the “corrupt” and “racist” regime there, presenting it as if the blacks were the indigenous people of the RSA, and the whites came and robbed/enslaved them and it’s a huge injustice. In fact, nobody lived there before the white people came. It was a wasteland. Then the Europeans came, made it into a paradise, found ways to mine useful minerals, grow food and basically make it look like Europe, and it created so many jobs that the blacks from all parts of Africa migrated there because the living conditions were so much better. The Europeans didn’t like the concepts of all those black overrunning the little paradise they made for themselves there, and made rules that allowed the Africans to work there and be paid fairly, but were not allowed to participate in politics of what was basically a white European country, which was all very much in line with the politics that were in place in the American South in the 60s, implemented by the Democratic party (which BTW is to the KKK what Sinn Féin is to the IRA). Then they made a mistake of exporting too much gold in form of Krugerrands into the world market, the CIA didn’t like it, did their psyop, RSA government tried to appease them by removing the apartheid measures, and now RSA is in the process of devolving into a typical African shithole run by corrupt tribal fuckwits who think AIDS can be treated with garlic and raping virgin girls, and all their problems can be solved by robbing white people.

So, how did we lose our freedom? Was it when we decided that “Nazis” should not be allowed to speak, or was it something deeper, more insidious, like accepting the concept of universal human rights as a supreme civilizational value, when it was in fact pushed – if not outright invented – by the CIA, as a method of pressure on the rival powers? Or did we lose our freedom by blindly following the propagandists who took over the emptied platform once occupied by the Church? In any case, as in any totalitarian system, we are free to criticize the enemies of the regime in power all we want, and we are free to praise the ruling ideology all we want. For anything else, we will be swiftly and cruelly punished. And oh-by-the-way, we now also aren’t allowed to work, move freely and are basically under house arrest, because someone’s granny will die and children will look at us with tearful accusatory eyes if we drive cars, have money, or in fact exist.

Misc updates

Posted on by
2

I seem to have covid-19, judging by the symptoms; again, after almost exactly a year. I guess the level of antibodies went down during the winter and here I go again. So far, it’s nothing serious, I just get a slight fever (37°C or so) after physical exertion, so I had to cut down on physical activity, especially during the cold. The worrying part is that it doesn’t seem to go away; the situation is unchanged for the last month or so. Another worrying part is that it’s affecting my brain function, most likely due to low-level inflammation level that’s more-less constant, and it appears to affect my brain functions. So far it’s not very serious, but it’s similar to the last time when it was serious; I have trouble focusing and remembering things, my mind is not clear and I tire easily. Another thing is that my immune system is in turmoil and I am more prone to allergic reactions that just flare up all of the sudden. I increased the vitamin intake just to be sure, because this is very tightly correlated with the time I spent in cold and dark; sunlight helped a lot last year, and it gets much worse as the winter progresses, and the obvious culprits might be low vitamin D and melatonin levels, which degrade the immune system, which then becomes both ineffective and prone to overreaction.

Since I’m half-sick and my brain isn’t working properly I haven’t been doing much thinking lately, so I don’t have much to contribute; mostly resting and watching things on YouTube, but I do wish to comment on a few things.

The first is that I observed that people seem to think that investing in Bitcoin or some weird stock is a much better idea than actually working for money, and the worst part is, the economy is in such a state that they might actually be right – if you are locked down, businesses are closing all over the place, and everything is so regulated it’s almost impossible to find something that pays well and isn’t regulated into extinction already, and things like Bitcoin and Tesla seem to go vertical, it’s obvious what will make sense to most people. Of course, in my experience this is always a precursor to collapse.

The second thing I want to comment on is saving money. I saw several situations where it looked like a very bad idea; for instance, kids trying to save money by buying silver and gold, and people trying to save money when it’s obviously that their problem is insufficient income. This made me wonder where the actual limit is, in a sense of who should save money and reduce spending, and who should simply work on increasing their income. It’s hard to tell, but as a general rule, if you find yourself buying unnecessary stuff after you got everything you actually needed, you should probably think about saving. Also, if you have a stable career which brings significant monthly income, and there is no obvious path forward in a sense of an income multiplier, saving money is the obvious choice. Conversely, if you’re a kid who is just starting his career, saving money in gold and silver coins strikes me as a bad move; rather, you should invest in your skills, buy a better computer, buy tools that will increase your effectiveness on whatever career path it is that you chose. Basically, there is a time to invest, and there is a time when investments pay off, and then you save.

The third thing that provokes my reaction is a case of a person who applied for a job and then figured out “oops, I only have a smartphone and I would need a laptop in order to do this”. We don’t live in a parallel universe where laptops are expensive. Sure they are, if you buy a really fancy one, but really, you should only think about a fancy one after you did lots of work on your cheap one. Not to have one at all, today, is actually dangerous, because everything is done over the Internet, and if you actually want to get anything done, you need a proper computer, not just a smartphone. The level of equipment at which you are a “player”, meaning that you can technically do serious work for money online, is so low, you need to be a dumbass not to have a laptop and a smartphone. For fuck’s sake, a cheap Xiaomi phone and an Acer Aspire 5 will get you in the game, for everything up to really, really high levels of professional work, at which point you will already have made so much money with a Xiaomi and an Acer, buying the newest and best equipment will be something you just do in your stride without even feeling the financial sting. Not having a smartphone with a good mobile network contract, and a decent laptop you can use to do work and stay informed, it’s not even borderline careless, it’s actually self-endangerment by outright foolishness. In my case, having less than two fully functional computers at any one time, having only one way of connecting to the Internet at any one time, would be something I would consider risky. Don’t think it’s just because I have money. I had redundancies of that kind even when I was really out of money, because the first thing you need to look after when you’re out of money is maintaining access to means of making money. If you lose that kind of access, your life is basically in danger. Losing access to means of making money, and here I mean access to making money by doing skilled work online, and not chopping wood for pocket change IRL, is something that starts a very steep downward spiral that ends with you starving and freezing on a street somewhere. Never allow yourself to lose full access to the Internet, and full capability to function in an online environment. This means a computer capable of running the right kind of software for the work that you do (whether that’s Office, AutoCAD, Visual Studio, UNIX terminal or Xcode depends on what you do), it means a webcam with a good microphone so you can do telepresence, which is absolutely essential during the lockdown and probably in the future work of any kind, and it means comfortable interface, which means “not phone”; a good laptop is usually fine, and a big monitor, proper keyboard and mouse are usually a welcome improvement. As for the operating system, don’t get a Chromebook if you need MS Office or Xcode for work. Don’t get a Mac if you have to write .NET code. Basically, being able to do work completely online today is absolutely essential, and good smartphones and laptops can be had for so cheap, compared to what used to be the case until very recently, that failure to equip yourself at least in some minimal sense necessary to get started, is sheer fucking idiocy. If you lose your home, you can bounce back easily if you have a smartphone, a laptop and some money saved. If you lose access to the Internet, and/or means of making money online, you are in a much worse peril than if you only lost your home. You basically lost access to civilization.