Maya, Lifting the Veil, pt 2
On Evil
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game
So the previous section was a bit self-indulgent, but I feel like I have to kind of chronicle the past to understand where I’ve come to now. I had decided to keep a journal of sorts in the darker days when I was speaking with a psychologist. It was less a chronicling of activity and more of a stream of consciousness writing; just a stream of thoughts that entered my mind.
In it, I found that I had wrote “In order for the future to be predictable, the past must be intelligible.” I still don’t exactly know what is meant by this, but I think I’m starting to understand. It’s quite a curious thing that the mind can produce things like this without consciously knowing what they intend to mean. Jung has much to say about this kind of thing, as do Hindus and Christians.
Again, I am not here to argue that this world is governed by Powers and Principalities that are nefarious. If you haven’t figured this out by now, then I cannot help you. You have to be willing to look, really look at how people live their lives. About why they do the things they do and believe the things they believe. There’s a belief that art is informed by culture. I do not necessarily agree with this. I think it’s apparent that art, in large part, has the capacity to drive culture in a certain direction.
I just said I wouldn’t argue the above, but I feel I have to say something about it here. Maybe it will open your eyes, maybe it won’t. Have you noticed that nearly every single major corporation in this world, every single media outlet, every State institution, seems to be of one mind in their views? What are they presenting? They are claiming to stand for love and tolerance and equality, but what are the fruits of their efforts? When you look at the people around you and their social media accounts, what kind of people do you see? If someone has a counterpoint that falls outside of their view, are they tolerant to it? Or do they try to wipe it from the face of the Earth? Tyrion Lannister perhaps said it best:
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
The censorship of what were considered “extreme views” might, on its face, seem to be reasonable. After all, we can all agree on what happened in history, about morals, about correct views right? The people who counter the narrative must all be evil, backwards, savage imbeciles, correct?
The Illusion of Choice
But this isn’t the case. These people are censored because they have things to say which dare to disrupt the status quo. They are a threat to the very institutions above. They are rebels. The dissidents are not always right about everything, but anything that goes against the “correct view” runs contrary to the power of these institutions. It is why they are united in their message. The political parties are no different. Sure we are presented with what appears to be dissent between “conservative” and “liberal”, but you must understand that these people are in bed with each other. They’re part of the same clique. Even the most “conservative” conservative in a political cabinet will stay within the Overton window of the institutionally correct worldview, and that Overton window will, and has, irrevocably shift in one direction with a ratcheting-like effect.
This is on purpose. There are a great many politicians and media representatives that exist for the sole purpose of giving the dissidents somewhere to vent without going off the farm completely. This gatekeeping, as it seems, is starting to fail as conservatives seem to be waking up to this fact. There may be no line in the sand that Republican politicians can’t cross, but their voters seem to have some of their own.
The Ouroboros
What is the narrative about which I speak? What is the overall “plan”, if it exists? When I speak like this I feel that many people will start to think of shadowy men in shadowy rooms planning every single chess move in the world. While there is no doubt in my mind that secret meetings like this do happen (think of what may occur in the backrooms of the CIA, Davos and the WEF, the UN, Bohemian Grove, and on Epstein’s island), the fact is that it doesn’t look like it takes much “scheming” to push the world into the direction the Powers and Principalities (I’ll just shorten this to “the creeps”) want it to go.
So what direction is it being pushed into? Prosperity and tolerance and peace and ultimately a Star Trek-like utopia where man wants for nothing, gets along with everyone, cures nearly all disease and lives in harmony with the Universe?
Nope. That’s what they’re trying to sell you, but no, that’s not what you’re going to get.
What they’re selling you on is soullessness. They are selling you on the worship of the material. They are selling you your own Pride. Ultimately, they are selling you on evil. It is easy to blame the problems of the world on others, on mysterious conspiracies, on “greedy capitalists” or “envious Marxists”, on “white privilege” or “homophobes”, but the truth is that all of the suffering, every single bit of it, all comes down to the individual man and the bit of evil that he carries within him.
Don’t get me wrong. The “conspiracy” is very much real. What I am trying to say is that we, collectively and individually, let it happen. We buy their stuff. We indulge in what they want us to indulge in. Our complicity in their games is what gives them power.
All it takes for the creeps to win is to push those buttons. To encourage those impulses. To make you feel important and more worthy of better things and more anger towards others. Particularly, if they can get you to feel like you’re superior to other people because they’re not as smart or intelligent or compassionate or productive or rich or poor or black or white as you, then the rest falls into place. The rest is easy. You do their work for them. You are their instrument. Without you they fail. How do you save the world? You cannot sit back and wait for others to fix it for you.
The responsibility for what happens in this place is up to you individually. It may come down to defending yourself for doing the right thing, but it will not come down to forcing others into the light. Either they will find it themselves or they will not. It is up to you to be the model for the light that they may follow. This is not a promise of bliss on this world. It is very likely that the strength of men may fail. It is very likely we will enter a very dark cycle of humanity. Do not worry about this, for it is during these times that men find their strength and goodness again. This world is not the prize. Thinking that you can make it so is complete folly and hubris.
We cannot just “Go back to Fresh Prince” as AA says, that is, we cannot go back to the days we look back with nostalgia at how simple everything was, for we are too far gone to return at this point. Additionally, we will not have solved the root of the problem.
That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended — civilizations are built up — excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin.
In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans.
CS Lewis — Mere Christianity
The history of civilizations does not show a line with “goodness” going up or down with time. It shows a circle. It’s an Ouroboros: The snake devouring its own tail. History is littered with scenarios like this; Rome being the most obvious but certainly not the only one.
We see empires built by heroic men, which lead to a “golden age”, which makes men decadent and comfortable. Morality slips. Courage turns to sloth and weakness, and the whole thing collapses under its own weight. Kingdoms rise and fall over and over again.
It seems that now, with Globalization, there seems to be a push to herd everyone under one massive global empire, built on lies and coercion. The largest empire on Earth would, logically, lead to the biggest collapse seen on Earth. Perhaps even so large a collapse to be considered “The End of the World”. This cycle has seemed to accelerate as we move closer to the present, but maybe that’s just my view from here.
Plug In Baby
The wavelength gently grows
Coercive notions re-evolve
A universe is trapped inside a tear
It resonates the core
Creates unnatural laws
Replaces love and happiness with fear
Muse — MK ULTRA
Go back and watch your favorite TV shows. It’s more obvious now than it was 20 years ago, but it still existed back then as well. What kind of lessons do they teach? Are they actually teaching empathy? Are they actually teaching tolerance? How much of the message of tolerance comes in a packaging of viciousness or ridicule or sometimes even murder to the “unenlightened”? Are these stories preaching tolerance or are they teaching Pride? Are they preaching peace or are they preaching division?
I’ll not say that the truly wicked are not deserving of punishment. I’m not saying that at all, but what I am suggesting is that the attitude towards these “villains” caters to the ego of the masses watching the film. It is “clapter”. It is schadenfreude. It is not love, but “self-love”- the surety that you’re so much brighter than others. Pride. The deadliest of sins. If you examine the people who are the supposed “heroes” of these stories, they seem to radiate Pride and a sense of superiority and this is portrayed as “strength”.
It’s much, much worse now. You see, propaganda isn’t just news reports and opinion articles and advertisements. Those can certainly spread lies through argumentation and persuasion, but a better way to spread lies and instill false beliefs is by creating an alternate reality. You create a fake world full of strawmen and have them say the things you want people to think and feel. This is exactly what TV and film are. It is so much more effective than books at influencing people. You can engage with people through sight and sound and music to draw them into this fictitious world.
As an example, think about what you think about when you hear the word “Homicide Detective”. Have you ever met one? Have you ever been involved in a homicide investigation or this process? Assuming you have not, you probably think you have a good idea of what a homicide detective does. You have an idea of what this person might look like, how they may act, what they might do, how their processes work. How do you know this? You don’t: all you know about it is probably what you saw in fictitious accounts of fictitious homicides, or at the least, dramatizations of “actual” homicides.
Now, yes, you can say that this is a necessary prerequisite of making a story for entertainment. I don’t think Arthur Conan Doyle had any nefarious intentions when creating Sherlock Holmes, but what I’m saying is that if someone did want to influence what you believe and your perception of reality is, then TV and film would be an excellent way to do this.
An entire science has been dedicated to how to get people to do what you want them to do. It’s called Marketing. Are you so sure that the “program” you’re watching is not also advertisement of some form?
And the thing is, you wouldn’t really be aware of this. You might think you’re not being influenced by it, but your subconscious absorbs it. Much like how you all of a sudden feel hungry after watching a commercial for some snack or restaurant.
With media being conglomerated more and more into just a few massive corporate structures all controlled in whole or in part by these massive financial institutions, is it so far-fetched to think that they sneak (though nowadays it’s as subtle as a sledgehammer) these suggestions into their programming?
Hm. “Programming”. An interesting way to describe these things, isn’t it?
The Quality of Evil
In my formerly-held “enlightened”, “progressive”, materialist view of the world, evil was explained away by animalist instincts and behavior. The natural world, I would say, is cruel; red in tooth and claw. It only follows that our evolutionary traits would encourage greed and bloodlust. We are fighting for territory and resources, after all, not unlike a pack of wolves, and the only reason why we were able to develop a system of morals and rise up above the blood and guts of nature to build cities was because we were fortunate enough to have evolved higher cognition. This is the commonly-held, heavily propagandized version of the origins of morality that has been thrust onto the populace for the past century or so.
It’s convincing, sure, but something about it always seemed a bit off. There are crimes that are committed so ludicrously above and beyond what even animals do to each other that seem to betray something else at work. Many times these crimes are nonsensical. They are not part of the survival instinct because sometimes they consume the lives of the perpetrator. They are not part of the reproductive instinct because they may not involve heterosexual sex, though say a serial killer may perceive a kind of ecstasy similar to the sexual one. They are not a part of greed because they do not enrich the man doing it- in fact a man’s obsession over his criminal activity may bankrupt him. It seems evil for evil’s sake.
The most heinous of crimes do not stem from mere animal impulses, but from utter depravity and nihilism. This is perhaps why they are so appalling to us. It is facile to write off a person’s faults and misdeeds to their animal instincts. A beggar stealing bread to eat or even a man who murders for riches is a much different kind of animal than a man who preys on children, or a man who starves millions in the name of creating the perfect society, or a man who guns down multitudes at a public event. These are acts of utter nihilism. They are acts of overwhelming Pride.
Why Pride? How are nihilism and Pride connected? Nihilism essentially says “No matter what I do, I can’t seem to find satisfaction in this world. Therefore the world does not matter.” and they might say “Since there’s really no point to the world and to my life, I might as well indulge in every pleasure and every whim I have before I die.”
Yet there’s something inside them that torments them even though they feel like they are “liberated” from the notion of purpose.
In my experience, they’ll typically carry on to: “It is the fault of others why I cannot feel satisfied. They do not succumb to my desires. These idiots have created this awful society in which I cannot sate my desires. These whores will screw anyone but me. These moralists spoil my fun. These wreckers are why I can’t live in Utopia.” Ultimately, the very worst of them will move on to “And these people deserve torture and death for their mistreatment of me.”
If you look at the interviews done with the most heinous criminals in history, they will invariably say something like the above. John Douglas’ Mindhunter is a terrific insight into this kind of mind, if you are prepared to travel through the hell that is reading it. As unsavory as it is to read, it is important to understand the mind of the massively-deluded Prideful, and it is important to recognize that this voice is not foreign to us. It is not just “other people”. It exists in every single one of us, and I fear that many are falling victim to its siren song.
The Iron Law
CS Lewis used morality as the basis and foundation of Mere Christianity. He argues against morality being mere instinct in a far more elegant way that I ever could. He argues that morality is a Law- one which steers a man’s conscience. I, for some reason have decided to start with the bad news first: that evil is present in every man. Lewis adds that, thankfully, goodness is also present in every man. In fact it is a concrete Law to follow.
He proffers the scenario of you being in a position to help a man in danger. You will likely, instinctually, feel one of two things: you will feel a desire to help the man, out of herd instinct and mutual cooperation, and you will also feel the desire to flee from the danger, out of survival.
He argues that you will also feel a third thing- the thing that will drive you to help the man. He likens the impulse of morality, the speaking of the conscience to you, to sheet music for the piano. The instincts may be the keys that can be pressed, but the Moral Law tells you which keys ought be pressed.
When reading this I felt something like an epiphany. After realizing the nature of evil in the world and how it came to be, I started thinking about the conscience. Informed by Jung, I found myself meditating on what the unconscious mind is, where it comes from, how it is produced. Perhaps, I thought, the part of the mind called “conscience” is part of a greater consciousness, what could be referred to as “God”.
What if the conscience was God speaking through us? To us? Encouraging us to do the right thing? It seems to be exactly what CS Lewis is talking about here. I’m going to try to explain why, I think, it often goes wrong.
The Trap of Rationality
If right action is an impulse, an unexplained feeling perhaps Divinely inspired, why do so many people do the wrong thing? Why are so many lead to believe they’re doing good when in fact they act wrongly (judged by the consequence of their decisions, the fruits that their actions bear, so to speak).
I would argue that it is rationalization. Think about a minor error a child would make. Have you heard them try to explain away their actions? To fruitlessly cast blame on other things before blaming themselves? What about the criminal caught by the police that tries to explain that his stealing is invariably justified because society at large owes him? Or what about the murderer who claims that the “bitch had it coming”? All of these people try to produce a rationalization for their actions.
You can read any number of Op-Ed pieces from some “forward thinking” journalist or academic that claims centuries, or even millennia-old moral standards are simply wrong because they don’t make sense by their rationalization. In fact, modern and post-modern philosophy tends to make their entire body of work based on this: That we must invent a new moral paradigm, a new way of looking at the world, because the old ways are, well, old, and we’re so much smarter and more evolved and technologically advanced than they were.
Do you see the Pride involved here? The utter disregard for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of collective knowledge so that people can pursue their darkest and most selfish impulses while claiming they have the moral high ground because they argued the conscience into submission? This is the arrogance of “Progressivism”.
We are taught to venerate rationalism, and in many ways, it’s not a bad thing. Reason is a gift from God, and it’s how we learn new things about the world. It’s how we can communicate to each other in a coherent way. However I think we underestimate the weaknesses of reason and logic. It is very weak at the premises. If the premises an argument is made from are flawed, then the entire house of cards of the argument collapses.
Axioms must exist in logic. Take any rational argument and, at its core, at some level, you will invariably come to a premise that cannot be rationally explained. A true axiom should be a “universal truth”. An absolutely unassailable and unfragmentable premise. (As a side note, what I find funny about nihilists is that they often argue for the impossibility of truth while attempting to use reason itself).
The ratcheting effect of the Overton window means that more and more people will take a premise and pretend it is an axiom. It’s why so much “argument” now rests on simply labeling contrary viewpoints as “white supremacy” and “homophobia” and the like. They simply assign your idea to this unassailable label, and then the discussion cannot be furthered. No argument can be had; you “lose” the debate from the outset.
Axioms are meant to be fundamental. They have to rest at the bottom of the argument. By definition, you cannot argue for why an axiom is what it is, for it cannot be simplified further than that. The axiom at the heart of the issue of moral philosophy is to ask “What is ‘good’ anyway?”, and the axiom at the heart of philosophy itself is “What the hell is ‘truth’?”
That is where we must leave the realm of logic. First you have to get to the axiom, and then, somehow, someway, find a way past it.
Think about any of the bad things you’ve done in your life. What do I mean by bad? Trust me, you’ll know. I for certain do. They are the things I feel the most shame for. The things which have alienated me from true friends, have nearly ruined relationships or nearly ruined my life (sometimes to the point of me considering terminating it). What did they all have in common? I talked myself into them. I knew they were wrong but I made arguments in my head about why it was right.
I cited the academics and “philosophers” I had mentioned before, and if anyone had a problem with what I was doing, then they were just prudish sticks in the mud. In the cases where what I was doing was a “victimless crime” I thought “eh, who is this hurting anyway?” unaware that the victim was myself. In the instances in which I could foresee it hurting someone, I thought “well, if this does end up hurting someone, they have a reason to be” for this or that reason that I conjured in my head. These arguments were built on sand.
The Inversion of Virtue
In this “new enlightened moral paradigm” we are told to embrace Pride. In fact we have a whole month dedicated to it now. An entire month dedicated to being Prideful, and what are we told to be proud about? What you do with your genitals. If you do weird things with your genitals, then you are justified in being prideful. In today’s day you are justified in feeling Prideful if you have black or brown skin. You are taught all about self-respect and self-care and self-love, and you are also taught not to “judge” anyone if they catch some venereal disease due to their promiscuity, eat themselves to death, or burn down a city.
In fact, you aren’t to judge these people, you are expected to applaud them for their “fulfilling” self-aggrandizement. Prostituting yourself on the internet for money is “empowering”. Having uncountable sexual partners and previously unmentionable paraphilias is “liberation”. Being in a daze and stoned all the time is “spiritual”. Eating until you’re morbidly obese is “healthy at any size”. Rioting in the streets and attacking people for “wrong beliefs” is “social justice”. Lying and propagandizing is considered necessary to combat “disinformation” because the “ends justify the means”. Stealing is considered to be justified because of “institutional white supremacy”. Being irresponsible and shirking your duties is “living your best life”.
Watch any TV show, read any article, or listen to any popular music and you’ll see the seven deadly sins get ticked off: Lust. Greed. Envy. Wrath. Gluttony. Sloth, and most of all, of course, Pride. Check, check and check.
These things are “virtues” now, and these “virtues” ought to be broadcast, we are instructed. You can even put a little frame around your Facebook photo to show that you care so much about Current Thing because you’re such a perfect, wonderful person.
We are told that the inversion of sin to virtue is a righteous thing because thinking of them as sins is wrongheaded.
And then we wonder why suicides have spiked and millions of people take antidepressants. We wonder why violence is beginning to climb, and why our cities are becoming uninhabitable.
Are these people just not getting enough self-affirmation? Self-fulfillment? Joy? Satisfaction? Is that why? Ought they double down, look for even harder drugs, kinkier sex, injustices to fight? A global crisis to “solve” so that they can feel so self-satisfied in being an activist? How about we demand that the people at the top get even more power so that they can ensure that their wealth and power is distributed to those that are in need? That plan surely can’t fail!
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.” Yeah, I know, this saying is trite and overused, but it ain’t wrong.
I’ve had to acknowledge my own Pride concerning this. I used to be angry at these people. I used to hate them, in a way, because they were creating this world of depravity and censorship and crime and violence. I am slowly learning to not feel that way. I feel sad for them. I hope they find the error in their ways while at the same time not trying to pretend that I am “better” than them. I feel this way because I am unlearning how to hate them and am learning how to love them.
The Inversion of Beauty
Speaking on the inversion of morals, we can also look on the modern world and see the inversion of truth and the inversion of beauty. I’ve already spoken on the inversion of truth in my “Mourn the Death of Truth” article, so I’ll focus on beauty here.
We are being continually indoctrinated to believe that the profane is sacred, that the ugly is beautiful, that disharmony is music and that anything can be “art” if intellectualized enough.
A key example I can give is in music. Beethoven’s 9th Symphony is considered his magnum opus. Composed while he was deaf, Beethoven had created a work of art so profound and so moving that people who don’t even know classical music know it. It was, by any definition of the word, a literal miracle.
It’s stood the test of centuries. The best known melody from the entire symphony contains The Ode to Joy. It emerges from a cacophony of dark sounds and melodies to a man singing about how we ought to eschew this darkness for more joyful sounds. The Ode to Joy is a major scale played in quarter notes, with a slight variation. That’s it.
It is quite possibly one of the most recognized, most influential, most moving pieces of music composed and it is composed in such a simple fashion that it is often the first thing a child learns to play when they first tinker on a piano or scratch a bow across a violin.
Now, I’m of course doing the final movement a bit of a disservice. There is more going on there besides this particular melody, but in musical theory terms, it’s still quite “simple”. Haughty intellectuals might call it “pedestrian”, but what I can say about it is that it makes me feel something. There is something inside of me that opens up, that makes my eyes water, every time I hear it.
Similarly, there is a song that Johnny Cash had composed late in his life that still, to this day, inexplicably gets me choked up. It’s a three-chord progression, yet it’s one of the most beautiful things I ever heard in my life, even before I had revisited the Bible and paid more heed to the words that he sings.
And then you come to the “modern” orchestral composer, to the “experimentalist” musicians. They will tend to write off what you listen to as “pop trash”. They’ll thumb their nose at Beethoven because he was so simple. He was a rube. The real masters are composers whose names you never heard of. Johnny Cash wasn’t nearly the guitarist that Yngwe Malmsteem was (and the haughtier of snobs will point to yet more obscure guitarists than Yngwe). These music nerds love to hold their knowledge of modes, microtonalities and technical proficiency above your head and pridefully boast of how above they are to the stuff that sounds good to “normal” people.
And here’s the thing: the kind of music these people make? It sucks. It’s unlistenable garbage. This isn’t to say much thought wasn’t put into the music they write; in fact I’d argue that they put too much thought into what they were writing. It’s intellectual snobbery as “art”. It’s the rationalization I talked about earlier. They’ll write essays and books on how dissonance and grating sounds and lack of discernable rhythm is actually so brilliant because of just how smart the composer is.
One of these shysters actually got people to comment on just how brilliant it was to write a piece of “music” that is 4 and a half minutes long and is composed of…silence.
WOW! SO ARTISTIC! “Man, this really gets me thinking about, you know, like ‘what even is music man”, like can silence be music? Wow this piece really SAYS something”, says the deluded “intellectual” who is so in love with his perceived mental capacity to “understand” such a “deep” piece.
It’s masturbatory garbage. It’s the destruction of beauty by people who cannot create beauty and have no connection to the Divine. You can write the most algorithmically “interesting”, mathematically “perfect” music with abundant key changes, esoteric time signatures, using microtonalities or even eschewing “western” music theory altogether, but you know what you won’t have? Real music. You’ll end up with a monument to your ego, and you’ll never, ever be half the musician that Johnny Cash was with his 3 chord song.
Why? Because like with morality, music comes from the soul. I appreciate some of the more inventive and experimental composers, but what is made must come from the soul. It cannot be an intellectual exercise. It cannot be a demonstration of your enormous “brilliance”. It is evident which pieces are monuments to a man’s Pride and which are devoted to the Spirit and/or to that which is greater than man. You will recognize it almost immediately. If you have to talk yourself into liking a piece of art, then it’s most assuredly the former.
You see this all over the modern and postmodern “fine arts” community as well. I can contrast Monet’s beautiful brushwork to the splashes of menstrual blood (literally) that passes for “art” nowadays, but I think you get the idea. Along with a seemingly purposeful degradation of morals comes a seemingly purposeful degradation of art and beauty. I do not think these things are unrelated.
Greed vs. Pride
“Ok, you might have a point that the most powerful people and institutions in the world seem to sell people garbage products and garbage ideals and play to their baser instincts, but there’s no supernatural “evil”, there is no “devil”, it’s just that these people are greedy and want more than others!”
Maybe, but I think not. Greed is a very dangerous sin, but not the most dangerous. It’s easier to say that a mugger is more driven by greed than a media tycoon is. Why? Because there is only so much comfort and pleasure that one can attain through money. If you’re sitting on stacks of millions of dollars, I don’t think many people’s “quality of life”, if we could call it that, would improve very much if we added another stack of millions of dollars on top of it. How many yachts, fancy foods, sports cars, prostitutes and cocaine could a man have use for anyway?
No, there comes a point where the lust for money turns into a lust for power. The uber-wealthy seek yet more wealth not to sate their hunger, but to sate their Pride. Why do they seek it? I’d contend that these people: The Bill Gates and Klaus Schwabs and Rothschilds, etc are seeking to remake the world in their image, as if they were gods. They will rationalize this as “trying to help humanity”, but as I’ve said before this will be ruinous.
They will invariably make slaves of humanity in order to “save” it, in their view. They’re already on the record talking about how we must “depopulate the planet” to “save the Earth”. What do you think that could possibly involve?
I may not be as charitable to their motives as that. The above is the most charitable, I believe, in assuming they have good intentions that will devolve into atrocity. At this point I am more inclined to believe that their intentions are not good and they’re driven by darker, perhaps demonic powers, but I don’t expect you to go as far as I do now.
Until then just drink in this photo of Marina Abramovich and Jacob Rothschild posing in front of “Satan Summoning His Legions”. If you do not know who these people are, then I recommend you correct this gap in your knowledge quickly.
If you think there’s no devil, that there’s no Enemy, that there’s no supernatural mysticism, then you best start believing it, because the creeps certainly seem to believe it. You can go ahead and convince yourself that this is “just art”. I am not comforted by this notion.
The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.
Great article. Johnny Cash was an amazing musician whose music came from the depths of his soul, if you ever see the video that was released for his version of "Hurt" you'll come away stunned, an absolute masterpiece. Trent Reznor has said that Hurt is now Cash's song, think it was meant for him.