I rarely speak young templar

I rarely speak young templar, but you forced my hand. I will thus formulate what has to be said – for your own consideration.

1. human being, as any other biological entity, is a part of the same „natural proccess” you idolize so much; therefore, why is it that you struggle to accept that million years of evolution definitely pushed us into being carnivores? Are you aware that we posses a hormone which gets activated once we digest meat and which is correlated to oxcytocin and other „happy&bonding hormones” – all to tell our primordial ancestors that THIS GROUP HERE ALLOWS YOU TO DIGEST MEAT, ITS GOOD TO STICK AROUND? You never allow for any tinkering around „natural ways of living” beavers, wolfs and deers have. Why OUR „natural ways of living”, which always involved meat-eating, is an only exception that can be violated and negated?

2. even if we all turn vegeterian today, what do you think will happen to the populations of the species we farm for food currently? Will they decrease or increase? Will there be more chickens around if we just release them all to the forests and jungles? I can guarantee you that would be yet another hecatomb and most likely, a total extinction in the end. Why is it hard to imagine that certain spieces may co-exist in many different ways? Just like a primordial wolf decided to cooperate with humans for offering us his sense of smell in exchange for offspring protection (at a risk of dying in every single hunting endeavour it supported humans with), why can’t we imagine that poultry offers us itself as a food source, but in exchange it gets a secure, and evergrowing population of its own population/genome? And just like a wolf didn’t „consciously” made such a bargain, poultry do not engage it „rationally”, but that is just how nature and its evolutionary proccesses you adore so much work. Imagine how many species went extinct PRECISELY because there was noone to have interest and use for it; and if only there was a rational being to employ FARMING, those precious lost lifeforms you mourn now would be there today in plenty of numbers and you could cry all day how much they suffer in our sheds instead.

3. industrial farming does look horrible indeed, but have you ever thought that it is solely because the death that occurs there is grouped together at one time and in one place? Don’t you think that if you took all the perfectly „natural” deaths in your beloved „natural state” and f.e. put 1000 lions with 1000 zebras in one place at one time, you’d witness even more horrific orgy of bloodshed? One that actually involves sometimes hour-long desperate struggle for survival, fear, terror, and in the end being slowly devoured while you are still alive? What if we are actually MUCH more ethical death-dealer here – we collect our geese and in one second one giant vertical guillotine chops all their heads off and its over. What if our „industralization” is in fact much preffered death?

I am poking at you young templar, because you fell into the trap which I identify as a certain naivete when it comes to understanding „nature”. You love your „nature” but only within parameters you strictly set up to be perfectly fail-safe for you – you want to have a nice hike in the clean mountainside, pretty meadow with pretty rabits and a nice clean lake to stroll around. But at the end of the day, you ALWAYS take your ass back to the shelter of your walls, which prohibit all kinds of predators to ever get near you and endanger you; walls, that shield you from merciless cold and wind and rain; you flick on electricity to warm yourself and dry yourself and open a fridge which is filled with food you don’t even know how got produced, because you no longer have to.

In other words, you are NOT REALLY in love with nature. You are in love with a sandbox, carefully curated and controlled piece of it; an idealized view that tickles your infantile sense of aestethics, in which you are always perfectly safe. And from which safety you can climb high on the ladder of your moral posturing and self-indignation.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously – go out there to the deep forests with a knife and a tent (I will grant you that) and come back to us after 6 months. Then I would take your „love of nature” seriously, for only then you’d at least have a BIT of exposure to the reality of it (which still would be NOTHING compared to what our ancestors have to suffer from for millennia). And this is why you believe humans are not really a part of a „nature”, and they are always framed as some sort of „abomination” that invaded peaceful and harmonous world of „natural proccess”. You can only believe so because you have NO understanding of what nature really is.

Because mother nature you idolize so much is really a cunt – a sadist, which created a giant gladiator field upon which for million years million different lifeforms constantly were being eaten alive and developing better tools to be even more efficient at tearing flesh, crushing bones and sucking down the marrow. Wherever we put our feet, we stomp on a graveyards of unimaginable amounts of lifeforms that we do not even know ever existed. And your beautiful nature doesn’t give a single fuck; for every 1 adult sea turtle 100 have to be torn apart alive by seagulls on a beach and its OKAY THAT WAY. But if I went there and crushed all of them myself with the soles of my boots, I’d be called a psychopath and a monster. Why is that? Oh, that’s because she is a „pure harmonous force of nature” and I am just some sort of „abberation”, a „cancerous growth” that just suck the poor mama dry, right?

What if I told you that your moral posturing doesn’t really have anything to do with your supposed high empathy (and oh how much you like to tell yourself that), but it is instead your futile attempt to regain some sort of substitute of a „meaningful relationship” you never managed to secure with the actual real human being? What if I told you that your „love for animals” is really a love for their passivity, for them being perfectly fail-safe, for not needing to understand their emotions or feelings, for a security they give in the constancy of their behaviour, for a fact that they are unable to betray, for a fact that they do not demand and challenge you to grow emotionally and to face hardest truths of life?

What if I told you young templar that what you love the most is actually that convenience itself? You can get all the good vibes and pats on a back for how empathic you are without any work, any hardship, any growing, any stress, without facing heads on any tragedies of so complex human existence and fate? What if I told you that there are countless of matters that you could work on improving – in relations with people that will soon leave you (by the design of your beloved mother nature of course), but you’d rather be sheltered by all the discomfort it takes to navigate complexities of a human tragedy and you opt out to rather passionately defend boars and ducks instead? Isn’t that really pathetic?

But lest I forgot – humans are evil cancerous growth that should better be gone, so there is nothing really to investigate, right?

That’d be all. Go hug a tree now if there is need for consolation.

Forge your swords

Abandon the fallacious „marketplace of ideas” concept, for it has been deviced to disarm you into the never-ending impotent and futile attempts of „reasoning” with The Other. In order for it to happen you need at least three conditions to be met and for all of them to appear together is extremely unlikely, so stop wasting your time.

1. First of all, for authentic, meaningful debate there has to be at least similar intellectual prowess. Main modern gównoprogressive assumptions of today’s world are of egalitarian provenience; meaning, that The Other ALWAYS arrives to you as an equal partner for a rational discourse. That is of course blatantly false – a capacity for purely abstract, rational reasoning is EXTREMELY ill-distributed and on top of that requires a lot of philosophical training.

2. Even if unlikely happens and you end up with someone who is capable of abstract thought and logical reasoning, that DOES NOT automatically mean you are engaging a RATIONAL person. There is plethora of objects in the world around us and even more ways they can influence with each other, which makes us swim in the ocean of potential interactions we’d call „facts”. Out of that ocean, what make us choose what is a fact (has meaning) and what is not (is meaningless) is anchored solely in the value structure of the ego. That value structure is mostly inherited though; meaning that it is most of the times NOT a product of a conscious effort.

What you end up with then are people who are becoming „attracted” to certain core ideas/believes „instinctively” first, without any deconstructive/questioning process being involved. Then, said core belief becomes entwined with an ego, as more and more ideological structures are being integrated to it and around it (ways of explaining the world and ourselves in it) and thus the „personal” investment is being made. In the end any attack on the idea becomes an attack for the „sense of self”, thus eradicating any chance for authentic, RATIONAL debate. The more ego-investments were made into the core-belief, the more grandiose is the system of post-factum rationalizations, further enhanced by the bigger intellect mentioned in the condition number 1. 9/10 you are not talking to people really; you are debating their ego defenses of ideas that were not of their own choosing.

To sum up – any time you throw an argument at someone, remember it probably strikes at a certain belief; the more „core” the belief is, the less likely you will be getting an authentic response and more likely you will get what I call „ego intervention”.

3. Even if the miracle happens and you get yourself an adversary which is capable of high abstract thinking AND he has done tremendous work of policing said abstract thinking so that it is not a slave to his ego, you still need a final piece of the puzzle which is TRUST, meaning previously demonstrated attitude of benevolence and putting the contrarian arguments IN THE GOOD FAITH.

It is easy to imagine The Other as an actor who dominates you intellectually in the certain field and plays its cards right to „appear” as if he has no ulterior motives behind his discoursive persuasions, but he is in fact seeking to fuck you over (meaning: forcing you to admit to something as an attempt to influence your behaviour, which in turn would advance his agenda), whether he does it intentionally or not.

To sum it up: stop wasting time on talking. Forge your swords instead.

Breathe a little less

A little less
Of a night

Cross my heart, hope not to die

Then the unnamed feeling
It comes alive
Then the unnamed feeling
Takes me away


„Słowo Wojownika jest dla nas najważniejsze. W czasie pokoju tylko słowem zaświadczysz o swojej buyu, Wojennej Odwadze, dasz świadectwo śmiałości i dzielności. Ale i w czasach wojennych po słowach poznać tak tchórza, jak bohatera. Słowo jest niczym kwiat duszy – to więcej niż dźwięk wydawany przez wargi.”

„Odwaga oznacza zaciśnięcie zębów – nie zważanie, co nadejdzie potem oraz parcie naprzód bez względu na okoliczności.”

[Bell Witch – Mirror Reaper]

Wieczna tęsknota

[Bez Ciebie świat – Eleni & Wiesław Ochman]

Minął letniej nocy sen
Urok rozwiał się jak dym
I tylko jedno wiem
Że źle mi z tym

Kochałem tamten czas
Gdzie on dziś jest?

And we remain yet we stand

I’ve told you once I’ve told you a thousand times
No regrets and no remorse
No 4 am whiskey-soaked wisdom
Or bloody knuckled politic do I regret
And not a single moment will I ever repent

So here’s to comrades near and far
Raise a glass, raise hell
Years have passed closer to the grave
But this is the song we chose to sing
To the bitter end, to the end

Dzień Ojca


Nieżywe, smutne słowa: „Mały Jaś”,
Mów do mnie znów jak dawniej. Światło zgaś,
Chcę z tobą być jak dawniej sam na sam,
By dobrze, tak jak dawniej, było nam.
Przy tobie, tak jak dawniej, siądę tuż
I będę aż do świtu milczał już;
I tylko będę słuchał twoich słów,
A ty znów, tak jak dawniej, do mnie mów.

Ja wiem, jak ci jest trudno przemóc grób,
Lecz zrób to, jeśli możesz, dla mnie zrób…
Tu nic się nie zmieniło, tylko – czas…
Przyjdź do mnie nie na długo, chociaż raz,

I powiedz, tak jak dawniej: „Mały Jaś”,
Obejmij tak jak dawniej, lampę zgaś,
Do siebie na kolana znów mnie weź
I siwe moje włosy dłonią pieść.

Bloodied Yet Unbowed

Upiór patrzy w moje oczy,
Świat mi cały kirem mroczy,
Zimne ręce na mnie wkłada,
Wyje za mną: biada! biada!
Co mi moc ma, chwała warta,
Cóż, choć imię niesie grozę
Na ramionach moich czarta,
W ciele mojem trupa wiozę.
Lecz na Boga! Zanim runę,
Jeszcze skrzeszę mieczem łunę,
Jeszcze laury zerwę świeże
Choćby na grób!… W bój, rycerze!

Tragedy is the precondition for being. Being is an interplay between finite and infinity and in that field the tragedy lies, and there is no way out of that.

Pod stopy krzyża

Dużo cierpiałem lecz koniec się zbliża
Z uspokojeniem po przebytej męce
Pójdę, o Chryste, do stóp twego krzyża
Wyciągnąć znowu z utęsknieniem ręce
I witać ciszę zachodzącej zorzy,
Która mnie w prochu u stóp twych położy!


Więc posłuchałem słodkiego wezwania –
I oto idę z mym sercem schorzałem,
I pewny jestem twego zmiłowania,
Bom wiele błądził, lecz wiele kochałem,
I drogi życia przeszedłem cierniste…
Więc Ty mnie teraz nie odepchniesz, Chryste!