Politics, the most boring thing ever besides staring at paint and silence. You would think based on that that there is no point at all to it. To that I’d say you are kinda right.
You hear about it on the news, and how many times have you asked “what the hell does it mean?”, “what the hell does it do?” All it’s been is a way for people to justify their authority and their actions. All it ever was is policies and decrees. And if you’re looking for ideals, like freedom, or peace, or for their defence, in the realm of politics, then you will not find any such hope.
Do not support politicians or political parties, for they only seek authority, and do not want to defend any ideals. Don’t even care for political ideologies either, for they only consist of goals for a society, how it should be run, and how those goals are to be reached. Place your loyalty only in what ideals you have, not in politics.
Remember the very first post I made? It contains poetic language pertaining to what I consider to be elements of my soul. Just for kicks, I feel like expanding on it, talking more in depth. By the way, this has nothing to do with astrology, which I do not believe in.
Fire
This one should be a no-brainer, right? Fire’s all over this site, to the point I’m surprised I don’t talk about it very often here. Maybe I will. I might have wanted to stay away from it earlier due to what I saw as its primarily destructive nature, but deep down I realized, fire kicks ass, and it’s in me. Think: heat, intense energy, wilderness, passion, anger, these are things that fire embodies and I have. Recently, in my philosophy and spiritual philosophy, I am developing the concept of a subterranean/chthonic flame within us, which I will discuss
Earth
I wish I could find a good image like this with jungle stuff as well.
Earth to me pictures both jungles, plants, dirt, energies of the earth, and lava and volcanic force. After all, lava, or magma, is merely the blood of the earth, the chthonic and inner fire of the planet, of all planets. Where fire is mostly passion, emotion, and anger, earth is much more sensual. The earthly delights I dream of.
Light
I wish I could find an image with both that sunlight and flames around it.
Light to me has heat, but also to me connontates brilliance, radiance, summer heat (which I love, especially in the city), and brighter human qualities. It is human brilliance, and divine.
Id (Carnal Darkness)
Let’s just say these three colours represent id and carnal desire, and imagine them mixed, and without the orbs.
Remember when I said darkness was part of the mix? Well I see two kinds of darkness. The carnal, sensual, edgy darkness, and I the empty, nihilistic, desolate darkness. I prefer the former dark: carnal, sensual, sexual, lust, sin (in a religious context), demons and devils, arousal, and, for some reason, the pagan. It is also a serpentine darkness. Like earth, it’s about pleasure. Though some would say it has less to do with darkness per say, and more to do with carnality, sin, and desire, though I just call it dark, because I like it. I dislike the nihlism, emptiness, wallowing, sadism, of the other darkness.
Chaos (or more or less my love of it)
Red and black are the colours of chaos, the primal thing.
Chaos, as I’ve discussed before, chaos is the primal element, matter, substance. To me it screams power and primal. Mainly, it’s my love of chaos that allows me to individualize this. Chaos is also an image, an idea, that inspires so much in me, including how I think.
Ego
Closest approximation made by someone.
Believe it or not, ego is not a problem for me, given that I value self, and selfhood. Ego often translates to self, but most people refer to self, and I consider ego as a deeper understanding of self, something of energy. It has such power. But be careful. Try not to be blind to your ego or lose yourself to it. Be aware of ego, and ensure that you do not lose yourself to it, or it will lose its glory and its lustre.
This must be the face he makes when he orgasms to exploiting young girls. I’m serious.
Just to warn you, this might be my most abrasive post, until something else comes along. It ought to be, considering this is one of the worst people to still be alive.
So who is he? He’s the founder of ARK Music Factory, Patrice Wilson, maker of some of the worst crap in music history, and that guy who appears in the music video for Friday. He also happens to love exploiting young girls in music videos.
Remember Friday? I song so unsufferably bad that at best it’s a punchline, and at worst a complete waste. Pretty much everyone on the Internet hated it, it’s as though everyone on the Internet had forgotten all their disagreements to unite against something so horrible. The worst thing about it is they were just trying to make music designed for 13-year old girls, and they ended up sending Rebecca Black, the singer, to an online slaughter, which she later complained about pointlessly. And I say pointlessly because she’s a bad singer. What she might not have expected is how much hatred the song attracted.
But that’s not the worst part part. With Friday, the extremely negative reception, but with another song, Thanksgiving, it was intentional this time. You know what sucked about Friday? Well for Thanksgiving, Patrice intentionally crafted Thanksgiving to suck in exactly the same manner as Friday ended up sucking, intentionally setting up a young girl to be the victim of what is effectively electronic human sacrifice. He didn’t set himself up to be the centre of the loathing of the entire world, nor is he the star of the song, but rather he places the girl, Nicole Westbrook, as the target of the anger of the Internet, and it was all planned.
It seems like he feeds off the attention he gets. But I don’t care. Even he enjoys the attention, I want it to be known that the man is single-handedly among the lowest of humankind, not just because he makes crappy music, but drags innocent young girls into his game of making bad music and knowing full well that everyone will hate the song and take it out on the singer. You know who the scum is here.
What are American ideals, you might ask? From what I understand, they are individualism, self-reliance, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and, perhaps most important for this post, freedom of religion and to worship or believe anything you want. What about Christian values? Why, those would consist of the doctrine of repentance, subservience to God and his commandments, “embracing Jesus” on pain of eternal damnation, faith, most often blind faith, and conformity to Christian/Biblical religious doctrine, which includes worshipping only one God (Yahweh/Jehovah).
From there it’s clear that Christianity couldn’t have less to do with freedom, or American ideals for that matter, and yet it’s the biggest religion in America. Hell, they even get unearned cultural capital, otherwise known as privilege, which serves as an excuse for non-Christians to be persecuted in whatever manner they could still get away with.
And doesn’t it seem ironic? America’s whole origin story is about people who didn’t want to acquiesce to the state religion of England or to the crown, and set sail to the New World to practice their religion freely. And when England tried to oppress them again, they got their asses kicked! And when America was born, the constitution practically guaranteed freedom of religion to this day. So it seems ironic that freedom of religion and separation of church and state are allowed to be impeded by Christianity, to the fact that much of America’s political officials are Christian, and the President is made to take a religious oath, with religious and right-wing watchdogs keeping an eye on the religious status quo, making sure their imaginary Christian nation stays pure.
It’s also really ironic that Republicans and conservatives identify themselves as Christian, while supporting unregulated capitalism, defending billionaires (instead of standing up for the poor), are often depraved people behind closed doors, and some, like Paul Ryan, actually support Ayn Rand. I’m not mad that they support unregulated capitalism and Ayn Rand, I’m mad that they do it while still calling themselves Christian.
I’m looking you, Donald Trump.
All of this begs the question: why does America readily accept a religion and religious ideology that is contradictory to its own values?
It’s been 12 days since this game came out and I first played it, now I’d like to use this opportunity to comment on it. Just so you know, I’m focusing on the main game, not any upcoming DLC expansions.
I’m sure we’re quite aware of the early controversy surrounding the new design of the lead character, Dante. And Vergil too. There’s quite a bit that’s changed about the game that, I’ll admit, doesn’t make it feel like Devil May Cry. But the gameplay feels the same as all the other Devil May Cry games. The elements are there: hack-and-slash combat, purchasing upgrades, buying items, restoring life with gold orbs, devil trigger, it’s all there, plus some interesting new elements, and a unique take on on-the-fly weapon changing. The music and bosses are also cool. Still, though, the thought of how different the story details and character designs are from previous, more traditional installments does make me feel like it’s a distance being Devil May Cry.
What makes me feel better, though, is that (a) it’s an alternate continuity, which means it doesn’t spawn from the same continuity, and (b) it’s from a Western perspective. Believe it or not, Devil May Cry from a Western perspective is not a bad idea (unlike Godzilla 1998). The story, though different, is actually somewhat interesting in its direction, and I’m getting inspired by some of its ideas recently.
Overall, it’s a great game, but it doesn’t completely feel like Devil May Cry.
Let me say this: I don’t think crossovers are not inherently bad. Look at Smash Bros. I just don’t think they’re very creative. This is because you throw in characters from different universes and you have to combine their universes, and somehow create a story involving all of them and often explain how or why they came together. Worse if you try to include a completely new bad guy who exists solely as something to be opposed by the existing characters.
With Super Smash Bros., at least, it was fun, and, admittedly, original, mainly in gameplay. Hell, it was cool. Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale, on the other hand, is nothing other than an attempt by Sony to try and capitalize on Nintendo’s idea. Somehow, when Nintendo did what they did, it was great and original, but when Sony tried, it’s very unoriginal. And the nature of the crossover is even more ridiculous, and a heavily out of place roster. The only thing Sony did was pull a bunch of their characters together and fight each other in a manner that nigh copies Smash Bros.
Even Smash Bros., though, can be quite uncreative in the way of story, but that is mainly because it’s a fighting game, a genre that in general suffers from lacking in story.
That aside, I think crossovers just aren’t very creative. If you can find me a crossover that is, be my guest. But that doesn’t make them bad. Gameplay-wise, they can actually do great. I just wish the story could be more tolerable in its quality.
This is the asshole from the NRA who tried to use video games as a scapegoat for violence. Just as pathetic as progressive gun control advocates.
Ever heard all those random arguments that try to blame something else and emphasize less importance on the actual culprit or his actions? Religious nuts claim that crime and gun violence happen because of “sin”. Progressive anti-gun advocates try to blame guns themselves, rather than bad gun owners, and try to act as though responsible gun owners do not exist. Social conservatives and the NRA have tried to use video games and violent media as a scapegoat and try to attribute them to all of society’s problems. And still others blame the culprit’s parents, lifestyle, religion, or state of mind, all forgetting that the culprit and his/her actions are more important.
The reason? Everyone wants to blame something else because they delude themselves into thinking that it will solve the problem forever. The same reason that people would blame something else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions and choices. People try to have us believe that something causes you to act the way you act, instead of pinning responsibility on the culprit. The sad thing is it’s easy, especially if the culprit decides to evade justice and retribution by killing him(or her)self.
This rampant blaming also justifies administering social control, in part due to the belief that doing so will resolve the problem, when in actuality will only succeed in punishing the innocent. And that just won’t stand. Whenever politicians participate in this blame game, you just know they’re trying to push an agenda of social control. When religious nuts do it, you know they’re just trying to push their religious views on everyone. When normal people do it, they’re just being stupid.
The sooner we realize that the actions and the individual responsibility of the culprit are more important, the better.
Isn’t it ironic that Christians, especially in America, talk about freedom? Why? Because Christianity, and religion in general, has no value for freedom. All that freedom Christians talk about is probably just them trying to justify Christianity and make it compatible with the American philosophy, which, otherwise, it isn’t (but that’s a later topic).
In most, if not all religions, freedom has no meaning or no value at all. You live, or are expected to live, by predetermined standards, and whatever you do is already pre-ordained by a god who supposedly knows what is and what will be. There is virtually no such thing as freedom in religion.
Really, the only freedom religion values or cares about is the freedom to spread the word, follow the faith, or worship the god, as well the false freedom called “freedom from sin” or “freedom from desire” (as it is in Buddhism), which in reality simply means being an uptight, over-moral, religious drone, or an empty husk who has cut himself from his humanity. Also, the Bible seems to mention the freedom to choose to be slave.
“Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a covering for evil; live as God’s slaves.” – 1 Peter 2:16
Yep, the Christian Bible actually says we should live as God’s slaves. And Christianity wouldn’t be the only religion. Pretty much all religions require submission to a god, law, or perscribed doctrine (the latter two especially if a religion is atheistic, but all religions require submission to a doctrine). That is a commonality in all religions. And this is how religion cannot and does not value freedom.
Ah, collective responsibility. I dismiss it because it makes no sense, and it drags unnecessary parties who have no role into an issue they may not even care about, often against their own will. Collective responsibility is the cornerstone of totalitarian governments. Any good society seeking submission and control would use guilt as a device to keep its subjects in line. This appears as a theme in Jean-Paul Sartre’s work, The Flies, in which Zeus’ minions, the Furies, represent the morbid and suffocating forces of neurotic guilt, and shame in our humanity, which bind us to authoritarian and totalitarian authority.
“For the good of everyone” is an ideal or justification for the existence of totalitarian systems, especially totalitarians, since they believe they do what they do for everyone’s sake, when really it’s all about total control. The ideal gives control to government to act “for the good of the people”, which is not only impossible, but also totally not good when you try. The worst thing about is that, as long as everyone shares responsibility, the originator of a crime can safely deny responsibility because everyone shares it.
Even in supposed democratic culture, collective responsibility can be a perpetuated ideal, in the sense everyone feels the same guilt over something. It does not empower the individual, rather it empowers the puppet-masters who use guilt, shame, and tragedy to manipulate the innocent and the gullible.
In contrast, individual responsibility places the individual as accountable for all his/her actions, no matter what influences those actions. You are in charge of and responsible for your actions, no one else. Take your pick as to which is more moral a thing.
I believe that the concept of the alter ego is important to the self, for it is one of the things that drives the growth of the individual self. In most cases, the alter ego is the manifestation of everything you want to be and want to achieve, but also contains characteristics and ideals with your real or current self. The alter ego is a goal, a dream, an aspect of yourself that you wish to fulfil, the part of your self that has not been realised, or cannot be let loose in the real world, whether due to lack of confidence or fear of some sort of restrictions or other reasons. Thus, I believe the alter ego is not completely separate from the real self, or so it’s called. For if they were, how would they be related?
For instance, my alter ego is very confident, he’s like a wild animal. He does what he pleases, he has many opportunities to fulfil his ideals, his sense of justice, and his desires. And he has true freedom, by his own power. Ergo, he is strong in spirit, vicious in his heroism, and powerful.
Aleph's Heretical Domain 
You must be logged in to post a comment.