Protection

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about something related to the previous article, and I think it’s so important I can’t let it go.

You see, when I was talking about not speaking about spiritual experience in order to protect their sanctity and privacy, there’s an aspect of it that I’m sure everybody missed completely. I didn’t mean protecting my own privacy. I meant primarily protecting God’s privacy.

You see, to me God is not a resource, or a treasury, or a power source you exploit endlessly. God is family. God is not just someone you ask for things, or protection. God is also someone you protect.

When I was much younger, in my early 20s, I read a book by some American Christian, Billy Graham I think, and of course his instruction was to accept the redeeming sacrifice of Christ, to accept his payment for your sins in order to be washed clean. I felt a sudden fury at the idea, and I thought, “I refuse”. The idea of letting God suffer at your behalf was so offensive to me that I instantly felt a surge of defensive anger. “In fact, I offer to take His place at the cross, any time, to protect Him from people like you, who would crucify Him for their benefit”. It was probably the most clear and defined thought I ever had in my life at that point. I would absolutely protect God from any harm, at my own expense, without a second thought, any time it’s necessary. It must sound weird, that my most basic instinct was to shield God in my protective rage, and take any harm that would befall Him upon myself. However, this is my nature. God is family. You stand between family and harm.

That, first and foremost, is why I refuse to talk about some spiritual experiences. They are something private that happened within my family. What happens within family, stays there. God is a protected family member whose privacy is sacred to me. So yeah, I understand that there are malevolent assholes out there who interpret my silence about these things as their absence, and they then interpret that as a sign of my spiritual fall or apostasy. Feel free, as far as I’m concerned, because you don’t matter. I prefer evil people to think whatever evil shit about me, if it means that all their thoughts, as if bullets, darts and rotten vegetables, hit me as a shield forever standing between their malice and God. I swore to protect God from harm and I meant it.

No authority above

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been thinking about what I said about godless people, how they lack any virtue and morality and will do absolutely anything if it means getting rid of someone or something that’s in their way, as they see it.

What I find interesting is that I met Catholics who tried to use that same argument on me. Basically, I am not a member of a Church. I don’t accept authority of the Pope, or any religious leader in general. I don’t necessarily accept the authority of scriptures. I question everything. What is to stop me from doing evil? I have no commandments to obey. I have no authority above me. What is there to stop me from doing any kind of evil or immoral things?

I thought about it, not in a sense that I myself wouldn’t know the answer, but I tried to formulate it in a way that would make sense to others.

You see, the expectation that absence of clear authority means that I can just do whatever is wrong. Sure, I don’t accept authority of scriptures or religious figures in that sense, but this absence of authority makes me extremely careful, because if I get something wrong, I have no obvious place to ask for help. I am aware that I have no mommy watching my back. If I get something wrong, I will suffer terrible consequences. I might disappoint good people who rely on my guidance and virtue. This alone is stronger reason for me to be extremely careful in my thoughts and actions than most people can imagine. For instance, my family expects me to be stoic, reasonable, sharp and understanding; they expect me to be someone who will solve problems, not cause them. They expect me to help those who show weakness and make mistakes. This expectation stems from long experience. If I started doing stupid, weak things, their confidence in me would be shattered, and it is not something I would wish to experience. I am expected to be the light in the darkness, someone who calms fears, offers good advice, gives understanding of what’s going on and how to approach situations. However, that’s only part of my motivation. The core of it is something else, much more private and personal; it’s my relationship with God. I don’t wish to speak about it in detail, because that would be both disrespectful and a breach of privacy, comparable to talking about sex with my wife to strangers. It’s just not done. You may ask yourselves why I don’t talk about God or my newer spiritual experiences, and that’s why. When I talked about those things before, it was a terrible sacrifice on my behalf, which I made because I wanted to open doors for spiritual experience, to create mantrically charged text that would enable initiation. However, whenever I open those experiences to others and talk about them, they are lost for me, forever. Their sanctity and privacy has been breached, and my memory of those experiences will forever be contaminated by the astral interference by people who read it. Losing the most sacred part of yourself is exactly as appealing as it sounds, and any normal person would prefer a bullet through the brain; and yet, I did that in order to give others the opportunity they would otherwise not get.

Those times have passed, however, and I am no longer willing to expose my personal spiritual experiences to external interference. That’s the reason why I don’t talk about them. However, I want you to understand their importance to me. If you can understand not wanting to break your family’s faith in you by acting from weakness or sin, imagine a motivation orders of magnitude more powerful – being in a position that something I do breaks my relationship with God. I would much rather die, and I don’t mean just physically, which is something I actually look forward to. No, I mean being completely destroyed as a spiritual being; I would prefer it to disappointing God.

Your Church, your Pope, your religious laws and scriptures, that’s all children’s play. You evade and work around those daily. I am much more honest than that, in a very raw way. Making God disappointed in you because you fucked up, that’s something I never want to experience, and that’s the reason why I’m so extremely careful in everything I do. You can’t even imagine how much. I also take holy scriptures very seriously, even when I end up disagreeing. I see it as a discussion with my wife. Even if I disagree with her, I will take her extremely seriously, think about it with everything I’ve got, and disagreement will never mean disrespect. I don’t treat things carelessly, and I am always aware of dangers and responsibilities. The fact that I am the one making the final call just means that I have nobody to shift responsibility to. When I make a call, I try to make it the best one I can make, using all my abilities, all my insights and powers, and advice from all sources I respect and acknowledge. However, the final call is always mine.

It’s not what the atheists do – “oh, there’s no authority above me, I can do whatever I want, that’s great”. No. Terrible things will happen if I fuck up. I can disappoint people I love, and beings of such high order that I don’t even know how to describe them with words. I can’t even begin to describe how bad that would be, or what kind of a discipline this awareness automatically creates. To me, none of that is abstract or intangible. It’s a treasure of immense value, loss of which would be the greatest personal tragedy. You just don’t fuck with that; you rather suffer whatever agony or inconvenience instead.

So, no, I don’t have the authority of Church, Bible or Pope to guide my actions, but that makes me ten times more careful, controlled and responsible than you can imagine. The religious people can understand that in some way, but the atheists, they are idiots and scum. I have no respect for them whatsoever, they are moral and intellectual garbage. They don’t even understand the problems, let alone the solutions.

Sin against the Holy Spirit

Posted on by
3

I’ve been watching that interview between Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk, and their discussion about the concept of the sin against the Holy Spirit, which Jesus mentioned as the only one that’s unforgivable, struck me as very interesting.

Charlie said it’s about using the garb of religion as a bludgeon against people, and in service of your ego, basically, and Jordan said it might be about rejecting the call of God to fulfil your destiny, or the failure to “aim up”, towards God. I thought they both have a valid point there, but something else came to my mind as I was taking a shower now.

I think the Evangelical, “sola scriptura” attitude, is the sin against the Holy Spirit. It’s the attitude that Holy Spirit was present when the Bible was written, and then took a permanent vacation. It’s the attitude that you can ignore people like St. Augustine or St. Theresa of Avilla because they are not in the Bible, and only the Bible matters because it’s the word of God, and God somehow went mute after it was completed. It’s the attitude that you own God, that everything outside of your own religion is of lesser quality, that it’s something that can be summarily dismissed, that it can’t have been inspired by God, and even if it were, it can be only to a far lesser degree than what you have in your own religion. To sin against Holy Spirit is to reject it in all things that don’t fit the mental framework of your religious beliefs.

It’s also about rejecting the living presence of God when it confronts you, and you think you are safe in your scripture and your religious rites and customs. It’s thinking you are always the one whose position is to teach, because that’s what your religion assumes, even when you’re confronted with “the living Force” that is trying to tell you something. It’s the sin of the Pharisees, who would lecture Jesus and try to trick him, assuming they own God and he’s some upstart.

Yes, it’s definitely about rejecting the path that leads up, and not walking through the door God opened before you, and it’s definitely about using the idea of God as a tool of your ego, in service of your self-aggrandisement. It’s also having the keys to the heavenly kingdom, but neither using them to enter yourself, nor allowing the others to enter, choosing to make the door an obstacle instead of a place of passage. It may also be using gifts of the Holy Spirit in order to confuse others and lead them away from God. There are indeed too many candidates, and I think all those interpretations are valid in their own way. Rejection of transcendence in service of your own lower nature, and using the form people associate with transcendence in order to deceive them away from transcendence and to give yourself power over others, though, seem like the best interpretation.

Godlessness is the root cause of all evil

Posted on by
Reply

America is a smouldering powder keg at the moment. Some pro-trans leftard killed Charlie Kirk, one of the well known right-wing speakers who believed in inviting people to talk to him and try to beat his arguments. He was a civilised, well-spoken person with too much belief in the power of arguments when dealing with the insane ideologues who believe in using force to suppress dissent.

The murderer shot him from the roof of the adjacent building while he was doing his usual thing, inviting people to discuss issues on an open microphone. He left behind a wife and two children, because he made the same mistake as Gonzalo Lira. He understood that his opponents are unhinged cultists who have absolutely zero respect for the life of anyone they disagree with or find inconvenient, including but not limited to mothers murdering their own unborn children for the crime of messing up with their plans. Unfortunately, his actions were not consistent with his understanding, because he stood there in the open, having a discussion with people who would rather shut him up with a bullet than with a well made argument, and eventually one did just that. He’s dead, his wife is a widow, his children are orphans, and the leftists are celebrating his death as if they single-handedly defeated Hitler or something, rather than killing an unarmed man whose arguments were driving them insane because they were, for the most part, just logic and common sense.

I talked to Romana yesterday about it on the phone, and she said something along the lines of “Aren’t the right-wingers the ones who are supposed to like guns?”, and I answered “True, the right-wingers like guns, but the left-wingers like killing people”. Basically, the right-wingers will go to the woods and shoot a deer or a hog, and then make barbecue for the neighbourhood, waving American flags, or they will dress themselves up in tactical gear and go shoot at targets, thinking they are in “Call of Duty” or something. The leftists invented the guillotine and the extermination camps. They dream of rounding up and exterminating their political opponents as if they were vermin. They want to kill people, they want to solve discussions with a bullet to the head of their opponent. JFK was shot in the head from the roof by a gunman who was an unhinged extreme leftist, so unhinged that KGB refused to recruit him when he went to Russia because they thought him so crazy they wanted nothing to do with him. The right-wingers like to play with guns, but the leftists see them merely as means to an end, and this end is murder of their political opposition. They would in fact prefer the guillotine, the gulags or the killing fields, but the guns will do in a pinch; and all the while, they think they are the heroes beating Hitler, because Hitler is somehow a cardboard cutout they place in front of every person they don’t like, making them anonymous and killable. They even call the Jews Nazis, without stopping to think how idiotic that makes them sound.

But the root cause of all this leftist madness is the rejection of transcendence; the war on God, and the concept of humanism, of Man as the measure of all things. When you start seeing yourself and others as mere biological automata without a transcendental core, you start seeing them in a utilitarian way; basically, people are things that are either useful to you, or they are in your way, and there’s nothing more important than power, defined as imposing your will on others by force, and simply killing those who fail to submit. If they are in your way, they are Hitler, and of course you’d shoot Hitler if you had the chance.

Godlessness is the root of all sins and is the greatest sin as such. The problem we’re having now is merely a culmination of the evil that started before the French revolution, and caused unseen slaughters and dehumanisation. Godless people will lie, deceive, manipulate and murder. They have no compunctions or moral inhibitions, because why would they? Power is all that matters, and all is good that serves a good cause.

Atheism is not merely a crime in God’s eyes; it’s the supreme crime. It’s the negation of the most fundamental of all realities upon which all existence and virtue are built. It needs to be rejected and resisted.

Wrong equipment

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about the four thirds system I was using for a few years, between 35mm film and 35mm digital. Was it a mistake?

I don’t think so. Olympus E1 with the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 lens was the best camera/lens combo I could’ve bought in 2004, especially since it was discounted. At full price, it would’ve been too expensive, but for what I paid for it, 1000€, it was a good deal. Compared to the 6-8MP Canons and Nikons at the time, it had similarly limited resolution – yes, percentage-wise the difference between 5 and 8 sounds like a lot, but it really wasn’t; whatever you couldn’t do with one, you couldn’t to with the other, either. So, as a singular camera-lens entity, it was great and it served me well in the transition from film to digital. Essentially, I used it for the same kind of photography I did on film, just with less money spent on film, development and scanning.

The problem with four thirds wasn’t that it didn’t make good pictures, or that I was unhappy with the camera and the lens. The problem was that I wanted to replace 35mm film with 35mm digital because that was the look that I wanted, and four thirds wasn’t 35mm. Also, the upgrade path was either very expensive, to the point where getting everything I wanted would cost as much as a 35mm system or more, and so when the 35mm Canon 5d became available, I did the math and decided that I might as well buy the stuff that I actually wanted in the first place, and I could get both resolution, dynamic range, and the reduced depth of field that I wanted, all at the same time.

So, the reason why I used the four thirds gear was the same as the reason why Canon and Nikon users used their APS-C cameras at the time. It’s not that they wanted APS-C, it was that 35mm was beyond reach so they used what they could get for reasonable money. I’m sure some stayed with APS-C even when 35mm became ubiquitous, but I’m also sure that most upgraded to 35mm. It was just a normal thing in that phase of development of digital technology, where not all was there yet. This is why I don’t consider it a mistake; driving a 1980s car in 1980s wasn’t a mistake, it was just what everybody had back then. Yeah, a 1980s car didn’t have airbags, wasn’t anywhere near as safe as today’s cars, and didn’t have equipment that’s anywhere near today’s standards, but nobody says buying an Audi 80 in the 1980s was a mistake. It was a very good car by the standards of the era, but technology progressed significantly since. If I had to go back in time and pick a camera to buy, I’d buy that same Olympus set in a heartbeat. What I would likely not do, however, is buy my first digital camera, the Fuji S602. Sure, it was a learning experience about digital, but it was a completely wrong camera for me and didn’t fit my style, requirements or criteria at all. For something as expensive as it was, I would have been better off buying more film gear immediately, rather than later, but then again, if I didn’t get burned on early digital, would I be able to tell what the problems were? I don’t think so. I think everybody needed to get burned somewhere in order to know what’s not good for them, what needs to improve and so on. Still, I have one good photo with that early digital camera:

In fact, I had a film camera with a 50mm f/1.4 lens with me when I took it, and tried to take it with film gear, as well, and the depth of field was so much of an issue that the photos weren’t anywhere near this good. So, a camera that sucked for me in most ways turned out to be just right for taking this picture. If it helped me do that, and if it helped me learn about what the limitations of small sensor digital were, and helped me figure out what I wanted, was it really a mistake?

That’s why I say mistakes are a part of the learning process, and I’m not worried about them. Mistakes are a problem if you fail to learn, and fail to move on. They are a problem if you get stuck in them. A correct path is sometimes navigation between wrong choices, between not enough and too much, between what you know for sure you don’t want, and what you think you want until you try it and see it’s an overkill. It’s not just a photography thing, it’s a life thing.