The old order and the new, and the repetition of the old

Sometimes it seems to me that all the young and/or rebellious types out there are seeking to oppose the established order, but when I do feel their desire for rebellion is a little misguided. The main reason I feel this way is because the old conservative established order has increasingly lost its place in the world, and it is no longer the dominant cultural force we think it is. This old order is meeting resistance more and more, and I feel it is currently weak, limp, and soon to die. This is the reason I don’t care much for the old order, because we are now in the business of kicking down an old dog, and that’s not very satisfying to think about. This is especially true once we consider there is a new zeitgeist asserting dominance in this day and age, one I would consider more worthy of rebelling against.

Some of you may know about the modern cultural zeitgeist. A zeitgeist that consists of materialistic atheism and popular left-wing belief, and has not abandoned the tropes the 1960’s counterculture it grew from or the old established way of thinking it was trying to fight. In this new zeitgeist freedom is something people may talk about, but they don’t believe in a lot of freedom being possible outside this new mode of thinking and the dogmas that come with it, and if you don’t follow this line of thinking then you must be a either a right-wing capitalist religious idiot or Donald Trump. Not all ideals find within this line of thinking are bad, but both lines of thinking seem to emphasize the creation of a moral order that the whole world must advance towards and all individuals ought to follow, and you can see that way textbook liberals and textbook materialists advance their beliefs.

The way I see it, this is almost destined to happen because of the way humans always seem to repeat the patterns they created before. If you seek individuality and rebellion, find yourself without the interference of the patterns of the masses.

Advertisements

I’m sick of Satanism being viewed as just a religion for rebellious teenagers

I picture of what I think is a teenage Satanist. Not as evil as you think.

One so-called criticism people often claim to have of Satanism is that they believe it’s just a religion for teenagers looking to rebel against their Christian parents. Said people never even consider the idea that Satanism is an actually viable philosophy.

People who think that way delude themselves into thinking that Satanism is either a religion of evil or pure crazy, classic signs of condescending attitude and ordinary sheep consigned to conformity.

No one ever thinks that people can actually be attracted to the philosophy (if you read my previous posts about Satanism, you’ll get an idea of what the philosophy is, and why it is a good philosophy).

Even if Satanists are rebel teenagers, what’s so bad about that as long as they don’t engage in human and animal sacrifice? If they see the philosophy of Satanism as a valid symbol of their rebellion, or if it fits in with who they are in a genuine way, then I’m all in favour of it. As long as it’s not ultimately artificial, and no sacrifice and murder are involved (very few Satanists, even teens, actually engage in killing innocents, and those that do are psychopaths seeking to tie their crimes to Satanists). And those who put down Satanism as being a religion for just rebel teenagers, or put down teenagers who are Satanists, should probably get off their high horse.

Another pondering on Lucifer

Lucifer by Guillaume Geefs

I’ve been doing more pondering on this figure called the Lightbringer, or Lucifer. I’ve come across the idea that Satan was originally Lucifer before his fall again, and I think that, in a way, Lucifer’s fall could be a metaphor for something else.

According to tradition, Lucifer fell because of the following reasons:

  • He believed he was just as great as Yahweh, or that Yahweh wasn’t as powerful as he seemed.
  • He didn’t like the idea of bowing down to the first man
  • He disagreed with Yahweh’s plans, and wanted to stand up to him
  • He didn’t much like serving Yahweh

Thus it can be said that the story of Lucifer falling from heaven and taking the identity of Satan (“adversary”, “opposer”, fitting of his status as rebel) can be seen as the Judeo-Christian way of saying that pride, freedom of thought, dissent, and insubordination are not accepted, and are in fact seen as sinful in the eyes of their god. This would continue into their teaching of “salvation”, which basically says that anyone who doesn’t believe in God or what the Bible says is going to suffer eternal damnation in hell. After all, what better way to silence freedom of thought, curiosity, and desire than with fear and morality stories for the sheep?

His rebellion extends to his continuous efforts to thwart the plans of his enemy, like when he took the form of the serpent to give them knowledge and awaken them from their ignorance in Eden. Added to the idea that Yahweh is a tyrant when it comes to sex, Lucifer can also be seen to represent sexual liberty as the opposite. In general, he can be seen as representing of freedom and selfhood, and the wisdom attained from following your own path (wisdom counting the serpent). Or a symbol of fighting against the “purity” espoused by Christians, and the oppression that God would want. He’s the freedom-loving opposite of everything a control-based self-denying religion or ideology like Christianity might stand for, hence the title Satan. In a way, you could say I treat him similarly to the LaVeyan way of viewing Satan, with similar characteristics and virtues.

If Lucifer is Satan, then it’s possible Satan is a name that we give Lucifer, “God” gave Lucifer, or Lucifer gave himself. Funny enough, the name Satanael is mentioned in the Book of Enoch as referring to the same entity (Satanael meaning “adversary of God”).

That’s about all I have on the subject.

Unsatisfied revolutions

I’ve been feeling quite depressed for much of the day in art college. For starters, the weather was terrible and I might’ve been late, then my photography tutor had me critiquing BA artwork, I mean actually critiquing work, filling boxes. I wasn’t really interested in critiquing. But then she had me making something to promote myself, like a business card or a poster. You would think money would be a tempting promise, but in this I don’t think the money is worth it.

What made me feel depressed is that I actually had plans for today. Productive plans in fact. I was going to discuss image presentation and polishing, and I was planning on making a large painting about chaos. I was eventually able to make the painting, but not the presentation. Added to that, I had to do stuff I did not ever care about, there’s the same shit when teachers perscribe that I do a task and I set out to do it only for tutors to prevent me from doing it, and to top it all off, and this is what this post is about, when I try to think about defying anything, I just remember the times I promise to disobey and end up failing to live up to that promise. And there’s the fact that this week there’s the goddamned inspections happening in college, which make for stricter timetables for a whole week.

How do I live with that violating feeling? Hell, how even do tutors live with bastardizing the plans of students to actually work? The tutors, and my mom, think it’s all necessary, but I don’t. I felt so depressed and empty that I almost cried, in front of a computer no less, but somehow, perhaps miraculously, I didn’t. Maybe I just wasn’t sad enough. It’s times like these that having someone special in my life would really take the pain away. Sure I do talk to friends, but it doesn’t help much.

The good news is that I wasn’t depressed at the very end. As I said earlier, I did manage to make my large painting, and in the end, heavy metal does heal these wounds. But I can’t forget it until it’s over. Besides, I didn’t make the business card anyway. I just made a poster. But the tutor didn’t care. I’m dissatisfied with that, mainly because it didn’t have much impact or triumph. I wonder, do I have the strength? Will I ever get the chance to disobey in a big, or at least meaningful way?

If you’re reading this, then thanks for listening to my gripes.

In praise of teenage rebellion (and it shouldn’t just be teenage)

Rebellion is something I have always praised, unless it’s not genuine, but that’s besides the point.  Not only do I extoll the virtues of teenage rebellion, but I also want to make the statement that teen rebellion shouldn’t have to be just teenage.

I’ve heard parents devaluing their rebellion as just a phase, but only a small part of that is true. Teens see the world around them and want to explore on their own, and don’t what their parents are doing, or what they’re trying to make them believe, so of course they decide to rebel. And that’s something I advocate. If parents are trying to indoctrinate you and condition you into something you don’t believe or don’t want, of course rebelling against them is the right thing to do.

I’m not saying teens are absolutely right about everything, and if they turn out to be wrong, then learning from it is important. But I’m just extolling the virtues of teenage rebellion. I even have something to say to any teenagers who may be reading.

If you want to rebel, live free, and walk your own road, you must do so by your own strength. If you are strong, your self-emancipation will be achieved, and your rebellion will be complete. I am still in pursuit of that goal, but don’t follow my example, be your own.

I just wish their exercising of free will and quest for independence wasn’t just teenage. As adults, our defiance is slaved out of our spirits, so it seems. The notion that just because your older you stop being defiant and independent is a product of our mythology and our system. Cling to your teenage spirit and you’ll keep the youth and the strength, and if you lose sight of it, you’ll feel aged and be easier to string along.

Making war

 After this post, I’ll posting less frequently, because I need space to think, again.

A little like this, except genuine. And I look nowhere near like that.

My mom refers to me as belligerent, “just like my father” apparently. My brother complains about the way I see things. I just view things through a different prism, I just try to be true to who I am, or what I view as my self-identity.

I may make war every now and then, but that is part of not just my characteristic of fighting for what I want and what I value, but also part of  my philosophy that says asserting yourself is key to your freedom.

My belligerence and rebelliousness, I feel, is justified. I don’t trust anything I see as wrong. When something’s the direct opposite of what I stand for, I fight it. I stick to my guns as much as possible until it’s over or I have no choice left. That’s my way. Part of that I may have learned to embrace more through heavy metal, but if I stand for something, I’m asserting my view, and you don’t have to agree with me, but if you oppose me, expect me to oppose you.

Sympathy for the devil

Apparently this is Satan, and he looks cool.

This is just my opinion, but I think some of you saw this post coming. Keep in mind, this post has nothing to do with John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Yes, I have my sympathies for the devil. Satan (or Satanael), Lucifer, Helel, Beelzebub (or Ba’al), Samael, El Diablo, Shaytan, Iblis, The Red Guy, The Serpent, The Dragon, the Apostate of Heaven, the Lightbringer, the Prince of Darkness, the Morning Star, the Devil, King of Demons, Al Pacino, whatever you decide to call him. Why?

Well consider this, the Biblical god is a tyrant and a dictator in the Bible, and otherwise just plain an entity who lies about his power and spends his days trying to force everyone to believe he has any spiritual authority. Satan rebelled against such a god and, if the Bible is anything to go by, continues to rebel and works constantly to thwart his works any way he can. The concept of the devil is pretty against the notion of any spiritual authority and represents disobedience to tradition religious dogma concerning god and the human soul. That doesn’t sound so bad. And what do you think he was doing in the garden of Eden? If he hadn’t led Adam and Eve to that fruit, they’d be stuck as mindless creatures living under Yahweh forever. And who wants that?

So why is he so bad? Even if he is just a creation of the Bible, think of what he is created for. He’s part of the Judeo-Christian concept of two beings fighting for control of the soul of Man, thus “God” is painted as good and someone deserving of spiritual authority and ownership of your soul, and if you don’t believe, it’s misguidedly believed Satan will take control instead. Propaganda is what’s going on here. The Abrahamic religion’s been doing this for centuries now, constantly pressing on us to believe what they tell us to believe, without any questioning of the truth or even validity of the dogma. That, and evolving Western culture and its trends (most likely inherited from Christianity), is how Satan is evil.

I’m not saying he’s utterly good, and I certainly don’t believe in worshipping him (because what’s the point?), but I’m just saying he’s not exactly bad. In fact, he only ends up killing 10 people in the whole Bible, and most of that is on the Biblical god’s orders. And the whole Garden of Eden doesn’t count. For all we know, Yahweh might’ve told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit as a bluff, or cursed them with mortality after they ate the fruit (personally I prefer the latter idea).