Heavy metal as a spiritual vehicle

One day I want to take time to find spiritual power, and I am planning on experimenting with my favourite form of music: heavy metal.

Metallica aren’t the only band, but this skull really embodies a key quality of metal aesthetic.


Heavy metal is vigorous, unrelenting, raw, and deep. From the classic metal whose sonic hyms were sounding like thunder by the gods of heavy metal (such as Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, or Iron Maiden), to the endless hellstorm of thrash metal (made famous by Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax), and many other genres like industrial metal, power metal, and nu metal. Some might find value in more extreme forms of heavy metal, like black metal, extreme metal, and death metal. Pick a genre.

Heavy metal is such a meaningful breed of music, that I think it can be used to develop spiritual power and strength. A friend of mine thinks some experimentation is in order. He says, think of the heaviest, most kick-ass heavy metal tune or song you can think of, put it on, and see whether or not you feel like you can destroy an entire army of soliders or horde of barbarians single-handedly, or conquer the world, shout the greatest, fiercest, war cry ever heard, or do anything that allows you to express a volcanic burst of power, might, or emotion.

Or like the wild fiery dance of the god Shiva.

According to him, it grants us instant access to our most visceral and raw emotional power, the kind we don’t know is even there until we vent it.

I watched a documentary called Metal: A Headbangers Jounrey, and it kind of bolstered my idea that heavy metal is spiritual and can be used to bolster your own spiritual power. On top of that, the heavy metal musicians interviewed seem like nice guys, if not really awesome people. It clinches my admiration for the genre.

So maybe today, I’ll see which songs I have kick the most ass, or have the right tune for fighting, anger, and venting power.

Why I hate Hillary Clinton

This may sound hard to believe, but I dislike Hillary Clinton as much as George W. Bush. Why? Well here’s the reasons.

She supports the power of the state

In the whole Wikileaks story, I would expect America to support freedom of information and transparency. But NOPE! Pretty much all American politicians and diplomats, let alone all politicians alive, condemned the release of diplomatic cables because it threatened whatever interests they had planned, while feeding us the lie that it would endanger the lives of those involved in the secrets. To this day, no one has died as a result of the leaks. And Hillary Clinton was one the main politicians spreading the lie. She only does this because she was involved in some shady dealings with some Middle Eastern dictators, and wants to make herself look clean to those who know the truth. She also values security over human rights and freedom. Does that sound familiar?

She hates video games

She goes around trying to ban video games and wants the federal government to step in to control electronic media, despite there being a First Amendment which protects free speech and freedom of expression. This would appear to not make sense considering that she’s a Democrat. But oh wait, all politicians are out for social control, regardless of ideology. It seems she wants to control electronic media for no good reason other than she’s a soccer mom.

She’s authoritarian

Aside from valuing security and the power of the state and hating video games, she opposes legalizing marijuana, hates freedom and is more concerned with banning flag burning, openly rejects individual autonomy, individual rights, choice, and pluralism, and would rather see Americans have their guns taken away, possibly so she can control the American people with greater ease without having to worry about a lead revolution flying in her face.

She’s a bitch all-round

Every opportunity she gets, she uses it to act like she’s top dog, that she knows what she’s talking about, and that she’s acting in our interests. And you know she’s just a government advocate when it all comes down to it. Nearly all her political positions involve supporting the government, its authority, and its agendas, such as its agenda with Israel. Her only image is that of a female politician: that’s it. She’s nothing otherwise, save for a bitch.

And now I wonder, why would anyone like her?

Chaos as opposed to order

The dragon is a creature long associated with primal chaos. I know it’s an Oriental dragon, but I like it.

This is sort of a follow up to yesterday’s post, dealing more in the nature of chaos, and opposed order, and dealing with the true nature of that too.

I know this might play into the “order versus chaos” kind of thing, but even I have it in the mind. Maybe it’s appealing to me. Anyway, Chaos, to me, is the primal substance and force of everything. It is the primality of all the existence. The carnal, serpentine matrix from which all springs forth. In it, supposed patterns occur, the endless play of creation, destruction, and rebirth occurs, and events happen. Everything happens there, anything is possible. Connections are created by us in order to create some kind of structure. But don’t be confused, structure and order aren’t the same, not truly.

If order is opposed to chaos, then order is really nothing. Order as opposed to chaos has no soul, no movement, because order is harmony, and true order, or true harmony, does not exist, just like absolute stillness doesn’t exist. The “harmonious” aspects of the universe we live in are merely that – aspects; a part of chaos that we enjoy. True order is an ultimate purity and peace that lasts forever. It doesn’t exist, and its existence is impossible. If it does or can exist, then such a state of perfection should be avoided. Why? Because it is an empty, all but motionless, lifeless state that does not even breathe. And when you try to make such perfect harmony in human society, it would require an overseer to dissolve all free will we have, and deprive all of its primal nature. And there you have it, true order, a state of utter perfection and harmony, but no free will, no power, no life or movement even.

Pretty much like the Christian heaven.

If you want to oversimplify it, order is true harmony and chaos is unharmonious. And look at life, or existence in general, which you could extend to beyond the physical life we see. It’s not always coherent, and it’s not very harmonious, not truly. That’s not to say complete discord is all there is, or that there is no room to rest. In chaos, pretty much anything happens, and everything moves somewhere. And of course there’s conflict between something and another, pretty much all the time. For all I know, all of us are always fighting against something in life.

Simply put, order does not exist. Nor can it ever truly exist.

Hell, just the fact that conflict and spontaneous events can happen can tell you that order doesn’t truly exist. What one may call order from chaos is really something starting another, or one event starting a chain of other events and happenings, the exchanges of said events and happenings, and reactions. And yet, I’m alright with that, because there being no order doesn’t necessarily mean we live in a universe of doom. In fact, what’s more fun? An existence where any meaning is your own, or one where the meaning is decided for you? An existence full of life, or one full of nothing? Would you live with primal chaos, or run away to the illusion of order?

What Demolition Man has to teach us about trying to make a world of order

I was watching Demolition Man for what is officially the second time, and the idea for this post hit me: Demolition Man has something to teach about the futility of trying to make a world of order.

Think. In the movie, we have a city called San Angeles, a merging of San Francisco and Los Angeles that formed after a massive earthquake in 2010 (or at least in the movie’s version of events), where all crime seems to have been eliminated, so has any kind of fun and excitment. Things don’t happen there anymore. Swearing is illegal. Abortion is illegal. Pregnancy is illegal if you don’t have a licence (you need a licence to be pregnant? What the fuck!). Physical sex is illegal, so instead there’s only the most unerotic thing imaginable. And if you want to make babies, you have to apply for a process in which your seed is purified and planted into a woman. Smoking is illegal. Drinking alcohol is illegal. Meat, spicy food, and chocolate are illegal. Contact sports are illegal. You live how supreme dictator Raymond Cocteau wants you to live. And the police are total pussies who are untrained to deal with any kind of violence whatsoever, thus incapable of dealing with 20th century criminals like Simon Phoenix. The ways of the 20th century are deemed as “primitive”, and described as “gratefully forgotten”. To me, the people of San Angeles have completely rejected not just their freedom, but their humanity in favour of comfort, harmony, and order. Makes me sick.

And then, when Phoenix shows up, the order falls apart. As the movie goes on, we’re shown just how pathetic the attempt to create true order and purity is. Right down to Cocteau’s plans to create a “perfect society” and a beacon of order, which he describes as having “the harmony of an ant colony and the purity of a flawless pearl”. Reminds me of how in Shin Megami Tensei III Nocturne, and the Megami Tensei series in general, The Great Will (a.k.a. YHVH) keeps creating, destroying, and rebirthing worlds and universes until he creates a universe that is without chaos or vice and no one can oppose him, and everything is in perfect harmony and accordance with his will.

That ball of light is The Great Will, or Kagutsuchi. Can you deny that him and Cocteau have any similarities?

When the order starts cracking, no one in the “perfect society” can do jackshit about it, except for someone who was a hero in the 20th century for being a no compromise action cop. All Cocteau wants to do is try to preserve harmony and order, and the patheitc way of life he created, meanwhile those who live underground try to rebel but most of the time have to steal food because the alternative to living in a perfect, harmonious, utterly pure dictatorship is to live underground in near-starvation. And in the end, all Cocteau’s society is doing is trying to hide from chaos and cut ourselves off from our humanity.

One of the characters, Lenina Huxley, has a collection of artefacts from the past, and is ridiculed for being interested in what is seen as a barbaric society. You know what? Even if it was barbaric compared to a pussy state, I’m sure I’d prefer a barbarian country over what Cocteau would create: a world that is nigh completely devoid of free will. And that’s what true order is. It is a state without any primal nature, free will, or power or strength. It is complete perfection and harmony, and complete perfection and harmony, as it turns out, is at best, impossible, and at worst, worse than death ever could be.

My art is my own, not of the past

In both art class at school, and in art college, I keep being asked to compare my art, drawing, techniques, and ideas to past practioners and theorists, even when I can’t. Why, when my art is my own? I am the progenitor of my work. The only reason teachers would ask me to compare to past artists I don’t know or even care about is so they can fill in blanks, tick boxes, and grade me.

That is not to say I am without any artisitc inspirations. The way I draw fire, for instance. I get inspired mainly by esoteric Buddhism of Tibet and Japan, and the fireballs that dragons are seen with in Chinese artwork. And I draw characters in an anime-like manner, and I am often inspired by the demon designer Kazuma Kaneko, of Shin Megami Tensei fame. But I simply see no relation between my work overall with work of any historical artists, with names at least, nor do I see any relation between my art-making philosophy and that of art theorists and philosophers, any more than I see much relation between my philosophy and that of other philosophers (though as with my art, my philosophy is not without its sources of inspiration).

I also don’t like the notion that my worldview, especially artistic worldview, is somehow determined by what generation I’m from, and the artistic and cultural disposition of that generation. I was born in 1994, so were a hell of a lot of other people, just like every year. The opinions and worldview of each varies wildly, despite being born in the same generation and similar upbringings. I don’t believe I should be labelled as having the same way of thinking as everyone else in my generation.

I do get inspired by things, but I did not create the same art, and I should not be made to compare with other artists and theorists. I wish only to make my own work.

Zeitgeist: The Scam

In 2007, a man by the name of Peter Joseph set out make a conspiracy documentary movie about Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve (which are not related subjects), titled Zeitgeist: The Movie. A year later, he released a sequel titled Zeitgeist: Addendum, which continues to cover the Federal Reserve, but also lays out Jacque Fresco’s utopian vision called The Venus Project, which tries to create a “resource-based economy” based on social cooperation and scientific methodology. In 2011, a third movie got released, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, which lays out the project more, as well as discussing human nature.

Now that the history is out the way, let me tell why this is all a sham.

Sure it was convincing when I watched the movies in 2010, and shocking enough, but it’s a mess thinking about it now.

The first movie’s first assertion is that Christianity is a cult based around Jesus being a sun god, based on the false assumption that “God’s Son” is a homophone of Sun, even though the English  language wasn’t around at the time of the Roman Empire when Christianity was born, or when Jesus was even supposed to be alive. Why is that important? Because son and sun are only homophones in the English language, and they had different words in the languages that came before it. Furthermore, it tries to assert that Jesus was a direct rip-off of other saviour gods, most notably Horus. He asserts that Horus, and other deities (such as Mithras and Krishna, freaking Krishna) had by and large the same background as Jesus, though none of them were crucified or were born on December 25 (and that’s not counting the fact that Jesus wasn’t even born on December 25th to begin with) and most of them did not have virgin mothers. It tries to assert Christianity as a rip-off of pagan beliefs simply by nature of coincidental similarities, some of which might as well have been pulled out of his ass.

The second is just one long 9/11 conspiracy bit. If this was just a 9/11 truth movie, I’d be fine with it. But this is dealing with 9/11 after dealing with Christianity, so the real problem is not 9/11 conspiracies, but rather the progression, as the ideas are unrelated.

The third assertion is that the Federal Reserve runs everything; again, after 9/11 and Christianity, forming a string of unrelated topics. I used to believe that, but now, I doubt it. They also believe that World War 1, World War 2, and Vietnam, were provoked by a 9/11-esque conspiracy, all of them involving the sinking of maritime vessels, and were aimed at feeding money to central banking. The movie also decontextualizes quotes, sources, and the movie Network.

The other two movies serve primarily to promote the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement, the end of the second movie blatantly giving tips on how to be part of it. While Moving Forward was actually the most entertaining movie of the three (you gotta love the animations), it’s not much. I find it ironic that Peter Joseph in the movie tries to debunk the notion that his movement is not communist or Marxist, while the Venus Project actually comes very close. I mean think, society is run by what is effectively a giant computer, and he honestly believes people will look after the system of their own free will because he believes the system will take care of them, and he also advocates a kind of sharing where you don’t truly own anything. Sounds like communism to me, a kind of futuristic, holistic, utopian, communism, and it doesn’t sound good to me.

Speaking of Peter Joseph, and the Zeitgeist Movement, all the Zeitgeist Movement ever was is just a self-proclaimed activist wing for the Venus Project, and Joseph himself is little more than a conspiracy theorist and a charismatic figurehead who silences dissenting opinion on his forums. Doesn’t that sound like a cult to you? He rarely talks about 9/11, but will openly ban anyone who attempts to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, while not banning anyone who promotes them, all while claiming his movement is not about 9/11. He calls everyone “kids” to seem superior, calls everyone who disagrees with him insanse or mentally ill, and silences dissenting opinion on his forums. A user named peterpan posted a slightly dissenting opinion on the forum, and later got his post deleted, topic locked, and he himself later got banned.

Ex-members will notice a growing cult of personality around Peter Joseph. In the movement, his word is law, whether anyone in the movement likes to admit it or not, and he acts unilaterally to forbid members from talking to outsiders and banning members who post on their forums who aren’t glorifying him.

To conclude, the movie has one good intention: teaching you not to obey the establishment. Unfortunately, he wants you to follow his word instead. All in all, I’m glad I never joined the movement.

Sex and the demonic

Sex and desire were always enemies of religion, because religion asks for the sublimation and suppression of human desires, and tries to justify it mythologically. I seem to notice much of the demonic has a very carnal quality, and in a strange way it relates to sexuality.

Think, most religions have their ideal god or angels as being above sexual desire, and they idealize detachment from sexuality and earthly desires, and their demons seem to embody carnal and sexual desires. Satan, or Lucifer, seems to be associated sexuality, if mainly through temptation and desire.

The demonic in general feels quite carnal. I’m not sure why, but it probably has something to do with Satan’s nature as a sexual being, or perhaps all demons are carnal beings.

But none of this is a bad thing. All it means is that religion seems to demonize sexuality. And if this is all this is about, maybe the demonic isn’t all bad.

Resisting domestication

The three couples other than Kenny’s embody the lifestyle I want to avoid having, and the kind of people I want to avoid becoming.

Sometimes I think about my future, and I wonder about what could happen in time. One prospect that comes up is that I might get married at some point. And I’m not a huge fan of the prospect.

It’s not that I don’t want to be with a woman. I like girls, but I don’t want to be domesticated by them. And you know the only reason people want to marry is because they’re brought up to want it. Especially girls, who from childhood are given fantasies of being married to the boy of their dreams for the rest of their lives, not knowing the truth until it’s too late, when divorce hits.

Speaking of divorce, that’s actually another reason I resist marriage, because when the inevitable divorce happens, guess who’s gonna lose the most? The man. And that’s bad for me if you haven’t noticed. And in marriage, it’s never truly an equal partnership. One of us eventually dominates the other. Marriage has bad effect on the individual freedom of both parties. And often in marriage, the domestication tends to lead to us becoming pathetic people, trained to fear what they once loved, in the name of “protecting” children, by which I mean protecting their right to make TV, video games, music, and the Internet responsible for looking after children, not them.

And really, who wants to become this sad, pathetic loser? Not me.

I’m not braggin’ on anybody’s rights here, if you want to marry or tie yourself down, then that’s fine (though I criticize the idea), but I don’t. I don’t hate women, I just don’t want to be domesticated and tied down by them. I don’t want to change myself for anyone, not least into a sensitive, dribbling, empty wreck.

This may or may not be related, but just to conclude I just feel like mentioning this quotation from Corey Taylor (of Slipknot and Stone Sour) about heavy metal and masculinity:

Metal is probably the last bastion of real rebellion, real masculinity, real, real men basically getting together and beating their chest. It’s perfectly alright for guys to go to a metal show, take their shirts off, and swing them above their heads, and go completely insane, instead of trying to be these like sensitive morons or whatever. Yeah, I love women and I’m, I’m totally respectful to them, but at the same time, I’m a guy, alright? I like hanging out with guys and doing dumb ****. It’s just that simple. I think metal is one of the few places where you can actually embrace that.

Differences and Hindu gods

Let’s say my fist is fire and red, and my brother’s is ice and blue.

I wanted to learn differences between me and my brother. We’re twins, so I try hard as hell to establish differences between us. Besides appearance, general style, and musical style, I try to establish differences in philosophy, and what methods we’d use if we were heroes.

Whereas I would prefer the destruction and dissolution of all control-based and authoritarian/totalitarian social infrastructure, dish out vehement retribution to the establishment, and allow for and teach people to empower themselves, sustaining their freedom by the fire of their will, my brother advocates fixing society, correcting past mistakes, restoring right, removing and preventing corruption, and undoing hypocrisy and double standards (particularly the ones we teach to children).

I value freedom (as I define it), strength (mostly of will), individuality above collectivity, personal power, justice (and revenge), rejecting authority, sexual liberty, and self-kingship (you being the master of your life, your self, and destiny). He values equality, freedom defined by rights, moral social duty placed on public officials and the wealthy, education as an antidote for social problems, logical justice, and tight regulation of corporations, banking, government, and media. I realize this is more political but still.

I wouldn’t spare a dictator or totalitarian ruler at all, and brutalize him to death on principle. My brother would make him hit rock bottom until he can’t take it.

Let’s just say, his worldview and mine are very different. I even start to think he might be Order and I might be Chaos, in a generic sense.

His principles and methods, along with his style, compared to mine, actually remind me of the difference between Shiva and Vishnu. Shiva was the wild, hedonistic god of creation and destruction with a righteous streak to boot, while Vishnu was the preserver and restorer of the universe who often poses as a saviour. I relate myself to Shiva, and my brother to Vishnu.

Shiva and Vishnu.

I know it seems strange, but I just feel that that I find similarities between the differences between me and my brother and the differences between Shiva and Vishnu. Shiva is more wild and Vishnu just seems more orderly to me.

My thoughts on science

Science is the study, analysis, and interpretation of physical phenomenon. Forget all that crap about science versus faith. Forget the notion of science existing only after religion. For you see, science has been around since the first caveman tried to figure out how to make fire, or how the world around them was born. It was born of the desire to know about the physical world around them. To that end, we have created, tested, and demolished (and rarely revived) many ideas pertaining to physical phenomenon.

But be aware that science can only test what we can see. It can only observe physical phenomenon. Science is not a religion to be blindly followed, despite what some people will say. There are some who will take science as the replacement for religion, when in fact science and religion have completely different goals. This is often perpetrtated by advocates of scientism, who believe that physical science is the only path to the truth.

Compare scientism with Abrahamism. You’ll see that the two are no different.

As I said before, science can only go so far. It will find causes for physical phenomenon, but it will never truly answer the big philosophical questions like “Why are we here?”, “Is there a god?”, or “What lies beyond death?”, among so many others. Take evolution, for example. Evolution only explains how Man came to be the way we are and not why. So you could still say that a god or something similar orchestrated evolution, if you believe in one. Or the Big Bang. You can find a physical cause for the Big Bang, like a god-like particle or something like it, but it still leaves the possibility of saying that a god planted it there, or made the universe explode into birth.

Not mention, people are still searching for a theory of everything. And I’m not talking about a personal worldview or general view on life. No, a bona fide, solid, final, unified theory of everything. Such a thing is not only impossible, considering there are some things we can never account for or measure, but also dangerous for human society. Why? Because it will create a situation in which people no longer have to think for themselves or come to their own conclusions, there already being a dogmatic theory of all for everyone to follow. Not only would people be lazy and not thinking for themselves, but people would also ostracize anyone who disagrees. It’d be no different from what the Catholic Church tried to do.

Nice going, jerk.

The point is, don’t look up to science to answer every single thing, because it can’t. It is a means of studying physical phenomenon, and it has brought great progress, but it can never answer everything for you, let alone on its own.