Sunday, January 25, 2015


One of the main criticisms you often hear of radical Islam is that it’s not doctrinally based on the Quran.  Mainstream Christianity and I guess all religions are pretty much the same way - their actions are based on a particular Prophet and/or religious text - just like a movie can be based on an actual person or book - but are not inline with the book and/or Prophet himself, nor do they ever genuinely aim to be, something that even the popular media is starting to pickup on.  So in this regard whereas in the religion of Christianity the central figure is Jesus, the meat and bone of his teachings are swept under the rug ultimately in the name of bringing more people to the religion since in reality the Prophets were such badasses that no human being who values the creature comforts of life would ever try to emulate them.  So yes, today there may be more churches and Christians than ever before in history, but that doesn’t mean their properly disseminating the teachings of Jesus as opposed to just serving as a Christian place of worship.  Even if you attend church 1,000 times, here are some of teachings of Jesus you’ll probably never hear a pastor say or do, even though these are the types of things that they’re supposed to be teaching as agents of Christ:

1.  IF ANYONE ASKS FOR A LOAN YOU SHOULD GIVE IT TO THEM AND NEVER AS FOR THE ITEM (MONEY) BACK.  Today’s most popular Christian leaders will never in their right mind get on the mic and say anything like this, being that many have perfected the art of having other people pay for their above-average lifestyles.  In other words under normal human logic it’s impossible to be rich if every time someone asks you for money you gave it to them, especially considering that one's very own congregation is likely to have a number of needy members.

2.  CHRISTIAN LEADERS SHOULDN’T BEG FOR AND TRICK PEOPLE OUT OF MONEY (TITHES).  It’s unclear of where Jesus got his survival money from, but the general impression is that he didn’t have a lot of it and when he did have he didn’t get it through begging.  In fact the greatest Christian apostle in history, Paul, worked as a tentmaker while simultaneously preaching; he wasn’t going around telling people that if they didn’t give him money God wouldn’t like them.  Jesus’ most famous discourse is the Sermon on the Mount, but many Christian leaders can more easily recite dispersed passages about tithing.  What they never tell you about tithing is that the priests (actually the temple) people paid the tithe to had a shitload of responsibilities and was required to be a man of extraordinary discipline upon fear of death (according to the Law); in other words he wasn’t getting paid just to talk and sing.

3.  PRAYER IS A PRIVATE AFFAIR.  Jesus taught that prayer was something a person does in private - in other words an individual experience between a person and God.  However in direct contrast to this you have Christian leaders imploring congregations to pray en mass, without even having anything specific to pray for.  Why do they do this?  Sometimes you’ll go to a church, and the pastor will have you stand and sit like 20 times, and if you don’t do so or pray with the rest of the group you’ll look awkward and sometimes be called out.  Why?  Where is it written that continually standing and sitting would get you into Heaven?  Sometimes you can have a pet dog, and you’ll tell him ‘stand, sit, stand, sit,’ over and over again.  Why do you do that?

4.  BELIEVE “ON” JESUS, NOT “IN” JESUS.  There are many different versions of the Bible, some of which may have been or are being composed by anti-Christians.  So you may see something in the Bible one day and never see it again because since you last saw it the Bible has been ‘updated.'  One such incident is I remember reading Jesus telling his disciples that the will of God is the “believe on” him, not "believe in" him as is commonly taught throughout all of Christianity.  Jesus saw himself as a representative of God who would show people how to get to Heaven by actually living the lifestyle they should emulate and not as an object of worship.  In fact in the Gospels when people would offer him material wealth he would shun it and rather claim that their spiritual sacrifices were more important.  And there is a big difference between “believing in” and “believing on” a person.  Believing in somebody means you more or less deify him, but believing on a person means you expect to the fullest that such person will keep the promises he made, which in the case of Jesus is leading the army of God to retake the Earth from Man.  Jesus knew he was going to be the most famous man in history but never had anyone make a painting, statue or any kind of likeness of his appearance, even though in terms of attracting and/or retaining followers it’s virtually impossible for any religion to do so without resorting to idolatry.


Jesus said that many people would be deceived by religious leaders, but this does not free an individual from the responsibility of using his own brain even if a “prophet” or “man of God” coerces him him that he doesn't have to.

Saturday, January 10, 2015


Whereas foreign-based terrorism seems to always be at the forefront of the concerns of American politicians, the fact is that domestic terrorism, as in random, mass killings, has been the bigger issue in America in recent years.  Now this phenomena has evolved into something that, though maybe not as deadly in terms of instant death tolls, is at least equally if not more frightening - family members murdering their own, something that, according to news agencies like Yahoo, seems to be happening on a daily basis these days.  Indeed according to legend the first murder to have ever occurred was brother against brother, and hearing that one family member has murdered another may not be particularly new, but when you hear of mothers killing their own adult sons and sisters their own older brother than indeed there should be a cause for concern.  Whereas we all would like a nice, clearcut solution like 'America is Babylon, and that's why family members are murdering each other,' the fact is that there still exists contributing factors, and here are some that I've identified:


When you're a member of a family that's in its third, fourth (or maybe even longer) generation of domestic violence you can expect the violence to get progressively worse.  Why?  Because the abuse has now become so common that it is seen as normal, meaning that more torturous forms of abuse must be devised when the 'normal' punishments don't suffice.  So for instance you may hear tales of parents holding their children upside down and beating them to death whereas historically beating them will they were upright has proven to be significant punishment.


I've read in the past that there's an Illuminati conspiracy to destroy the family structure in America, but shifts in family structure we've seen over the last 100 years are also a result of economic revolutions (i.e. postmodernism) and other factors like legalized pornography.  Over the last century we've seen nuclear-family structures evolve from monogamy to serial monogamy (step-families) to single parenthood to same-sex marriage to what I predict would eventually be children living without parents (as in the case in large part of the sisters who killed their brother).  For instance, even though it does sometimes happen, I wouldn't bet on a man to love his stepson as much as he would his biological son or vice versa.


Anytime you have a discussion about violence in America or perhaps anywhere on the globe the media has to be mentioned.  All of that being said in American media especially, there are innumerable acts of violence, and in the society in general, from the police all the way down to the citizenry, violence is seen as perhaps the most expedient solution to interpersonal problems.

4 - GUNS

I'm not a fan of disarming the citizenry, especially when the police or anybody else legally has guns, but the fact is that having guns around, especially hand guns which are specifically made for shooting human beings, exponentially increases the chances of them being used.  Yes, some murderers will resort to other weapons if guns aren't available, but I believe that the ease of use of guns turns many people who may not have the heart to get up close and stab somebody into killers, and there's also the consistent flow of action movies where the hero gives the inexperienced novice advice on just how easy being a gun killer is, like in Wesley Snipes' the Detonator (2006) when he responds to the question "what's it like to kill" with the simple answer "you aim the gun, then pull the trigger."


Whereas tales of murderous domestic violence may become increasingly shocking and frequent in America, you shouldn't really expect anything practical (such as minimizing violence in the media) to be done about it since unless personally affected by such an incidence people really don't give afuk.

Sunday, August 03, 2014


Some years ago, during my days of deep soul searching, I met an old Rasta living on the Atlantic, and felt it a blessing to be able to have an inspired one-on-one with Bongo (RIP) of One Africa on the Cape Coast.  We were discussing some Bible-related topics, upon which I inquired does he believe the Bible is literal or not.  His response was yes he does take it literally, with the exceptions of Genesis and Revelations (the first and last books of the Bible) which are clearly symbolic.  Thus stories like Adam and Eve, where serpents are having conversations with human beings, are not to be taken on face value like a comic book but rather are depictions where imagery is meant to be interpreted.  In fact the story of Adam and Eve is very loaded, and here I will attempt to decipher some of its meaning.


No one in history, not even Solomon, had more than Adam.  On top of having the entire world at his disposal he had no competition whatsoever.  So unlike us, if Adam prayed his prayers were not dominated with him asking anything of God, not even protection from enemies.  All he had to do was go around and name animals and discover new things and you know "subdue the earth."  How free was Adam?  Unlike us he didn't have all types of religious commandments and governmental laws he had to follow but only one - don't eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was a direct order from God Himself.

Yet despite having everything and only one law to restrict him, Adam still disobeyed God by obeying Satan, and I think this is the ultimate lesson "the Fall of Man" is trying to teach us - even if God gives everything to a man in the end he'll still disobey.  We see this same theme being repeated throughout the Bible in the story of the Israelites, who despite being God's one-and-only chosen people whom He affords all types of supernatural benefits on, still in long run they decide to do their own thing


Again we know that this story is not talking about a literal tree with a fruit but rather is symbolic of an idea, that idea being that there exists such a thing as knowing good and evil.  Up until the point early in the Bible where we are introduced to the Tree, the word "good" appears at least seven times, while "evil" is not mentioned until the Tree is.

Since they were instructed by God not to seek the knowledge of good and evil, when they still did so of course God got upset.  Indeed one of the reasons they did so was to "be as gods" themselves, meaning that they were intending to use the knowledge to exalt themselves or make themselves, in their own perception, better even though, as mentioned earlier, it is generally understood that they lacked nothing nor had any competition.

Ultimately Man did receive the knowledge of good and evil via Mosaic Law, and any honest person who has given serious consideration to keeping it can tell you that it's exhaustive and virtually impossible to adhere to.  That's why later in the Bible Paul said that the Law is a curse on those under it (as in those who try to keep it) since at the end of the day no one can keep it.  Man asked for something and then when he got it was totally unable to keep it.  Of course symbolic stories are only really good for entertainment unless they have some application in the contemporary world, and indeed still we all eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil almost everyday.


It's peculiar that after eating the apple, the first thing that Adam and Eve noticed was that they were naked.  Why is this peculiar?  Because as far as I know there's no religion in the history of the world where being naked in front of your own spouse was considered "evil", so how does this fit into "the knowledge of good and evil?"  It's something that we all do everyday - we let our own minds tell us what's good and evil as opposed to sticking to what is actually defined as good and evil.  For instance I can stare at a mirror on a daily basis looking at my stomach and lamenting on how I wish it would go down or that I was more muscular, but that's my own concept of good and evil, meaning that there's no religion that I know of where having a big stomach is seen as a sin.  Many people do this, which leads to focusing more energy on things that aren't sin (like being naked in front of your spouse) instead of the things that actually are sins (like eating the damn apple in the first place), and ultimate goal of course being to make ourselves better or "like gods."

(Last updated 12 Jan 2015)

Monday, July 14, 2014


Many people attribute American global dominance to political might or the economic power of the US Dollar, but perhaps equally as influential is the power of Hollywood.  Most of us as human beings love a good flick, and whereas India’s movie industry may be bigger than America’s you’d be hard-pressed to find an Indian movie (or any foreign movie for that matter) playing in American theatres.  In contrast American movies are shown the world over, from Russia to China, and these films and other forms of visual media (such as television shows and music videos) are one of the main reasons outsiders admire and want to migrate to the United States.

But what are these movies telling us?  For the record I enjoy a good action or superhero movie just as much as the next man, but movies can and do influence our thoughts, especially if ingested regularly as in the frequency certain images and ideas or portrayed in this all-popular form of media.  In other words our brains are processing messages, sometimes consciously but oft unconsciously, due to consistently being exposed to them through movies and other forms of media.

Thus I am presenting to you, the reader, common themes that I see in American (primarily action) movies these days.  The purpose of this article isn’t necessarily to interpret the impact these ideas have on viewers but rather just to expose the fact that these images are being presented so regularly that it seems like someone(s) is intentionally putting them in all of these films.  I won’t even try to list every movie that fall under these categories, but I’m sure if the reader is a regular movie watcher he will be able to recall and/or recognize these themes over and over again.  I will be updating this list as I come across more of these phenomena.

1.  BLACK SERVANTS - I didn’t want to began this article on a topic dealing with racism, but as a Blackman myself I can’t help but to notice that a large number of movies that feature Blacks (even an Indian movie I recently came across) has at least one scene when they are a servant or serving someone.  Indeed you might see the occasional Black professional or passerby or even the Black hero, but again practically every moive that has a Black person(s) has one as some type of servant or being given a direct order, which of course he hurriedly obeys.

This makes one wonder that despite the advances made in race relations in the United States the idea of Blacks being servants and even the propagation of this idea hasn’t stopped and seems to even be on the rise.  One movie that comes to mind in this regard is the first Die Hard.  Mind you, Die Hard is like my favorite action-movie series of all time, and the first Die Hard did feature a Black hero, but Die Hard 2 had a couple of scenes of Blacks in lackey positions working in the airport.  I’m sure this issue was even made public as in Die Hard 3 (which also featured a Black hero in Samuel L. Jackson) there was a memorable scene of Bruce Willis barking on Jackson, telling him that he’s not racist.  Ultimately it’s disturbing to see that American Society, which has a Blackman as its leader, is stuck on this idea of Black servitude, but sometimes I think the powers-that-be are intentionally pushing this idea because they have a hard time accepting a Black as their leader, and other times I can’t blame them when I think about the large number of Africans who would give anything to go to First World countries like the United States just to be the same type of doorman, porter, janitor and other menial, less-respected (not dissing anyone, as ultimately a job is a job) occupations that you see often represented in these movies.

2.  BLACK SCIENTISTS - The antithesis of the aforementioned, which Hollywood also seems to love, is the portrayal of Black scientists.

When I was in college for a semester or two I was part of an organization called the National Society of Black Engineers.  One year I accompanied the group to the Society’s national convention which that year was at the Boston Marriott, and during my three or four days there I was very surprised at how well-funded this gathering was.  I mean it was like all of the big, respected companies were there, recruiting employees.  The reason I thought this peculiar was because my general perception was that such entities didn’t really respect the intelligence of Blacks and would rather go to somebody like the Japanese for such jobs.

But that was until I started studying Hollywood.  If you look at virtually any movie with a computer-lab scene, you may notice at least one Black is there, often in a prominent role.  A movie that comes to mind off the top of my head is Bruce Willis’ Surrogates, but again there are countless others.  Of course Blacks are most often portrayed by Hollywood as criminals, sexually promiscuous and again lackeys, but apparently one of America’s best kept secrets is the proficiency of Blacks in science.

3.  WHITE WOMAN HAIR - Might as well keep the race themes rolling.  If you watch any popular movie from like anywhere in the world you may notice that the lead female character (if not all of them) have the same type of hair, which is peculiar being that different races (and indeed people within those races) have different hair types.  To me this is most alarming to women who simply do not have such hair but, due to popular media socialization, feel they have to or they won’t be beautiful.  As such it’s not only Black women who are doing all types of crazy things to their hair and getting artificial weaves to make it appear Hollywood, but when you study the history of women’s beauty throughout the world you’ll be treated to quite a few stories of what appears to be sheer lunacy (such as Japanese women breaking their feet in order to fit into small-ass shoes) in the name of beauty but was really in the name of fad, as future generations look back and be like ‘what dafluk?!’

4.  DECAPITATIONS - By far the most disturbing thing on this list is the large number of movies that have a character(s) getting their head chopped off (and virtually every action movie that features robots have at least one getting its head violently removed).  This is happening with such frequency in movies now that I’m convinced, just like with Black servants, someone(s) is doing this on purpose, but for what reason one can only frightfully imagine, as in what’s the socialization goal of showing people getting their heads cut off but to desensitize the public to such acts?  A couple of movies that come to mind are the Expendables 2 and Kick Ass 2, and some, such as the recent Conan the Barbarian, even go as far as to show the severed heads.  In fact I’m sure if you’re watching a violent, bloody American action movie made within the last two to three years there’s someone who gets their head lobbed off.  Truly disturbing and perhaps the main reason I compiled this list in the first place.

5.  VENGEANCE KILLINGS - Back in the old days when an action-movie hero finally catches up with the villain at the end, he would do something altruistic like spare the villain’s life unless he was forced to take it because, after all, heroes aren’t murderers.  But these days it’s like when the villain is down on his knees begging for his life you better finish that bastard once and for all.  I became aware that this was something espoused by modern-day Hollywood after watching a movie (which title I can’t remember) starring Cuba Gooding Jr. where at the end he had the villain subdued but still put him out of his misery.  The espousement of vigilante justice (at least in Hollywood) and things of the such is what I see as part of the Third Worldization of American law enforcement.  It’s funny how Hollywood could portray actions that if viewers emulate would get them imprisoned for life, but when such crimes are committed the movie industry is never held liable, just like these stupid-ass rappers who encourage their followers to go out and engage in stupid, criminal acts but then when confronted about it say things like they were ‘just playing a role’ and have nothing to do with the case.

6.  STRIP JOINTS & OTHER FORMS OF NUDITY - As I’m sure I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this blog, I’m the type of person that when I watch an action movie I’m not doing so to see naked women.  However I’ve also come to realize that unfortunately female nudity is common in the action-movie genre, and these days you’d be hard-pressed to come across a movie without the infamous strip joint scene (including the increasingly-popular G-string view of a woman's, sometimes with her bending over, i.e., , etc.), which leaves one wondering is it true that all villains frequent strip joints, or does someone just get a kick out of flashing naked ass in our faces, as to my knowledge no one has ever patronized an action movie to see a naked girl?  In other words why does there seem to be such a conscientious effort on the part of popular American media to defile the public?

These days there is also the scenes of women wearing thongs and sometimes bending over - in other words the strip scenes are becoming increasingly explicit.  Another trend I’ve been noticing is naked male buttocks, as in the film Conan the Barbarian, and whereas in the early days of this phenomena (i.e. Virtuosity) I was wondering why such was being mainstreamed I’m now convinced that it is to appeal to homosexuals, not women, as you won’t often hear a woman express a desire to see a man’s ass.  Of course sexually-oriented nudity infiltrating mainstream media is something to be more or less expected in the country that by far produces the most pornography in the world, but innocently watching an action movie FOR ACTION and then having an ass flashed in your face, at least to me, is a turnoff.


The first time I noticed police being presented as ass-stupid was some years back when watching the Taking of Pelham 123 for the first time.  Since then I've come across quite a few movies with a similar represneation of police, the most recent being Fast & Furious 6 , a movie in which at least 100 police officers must have died.  Now I'm not Hollywood historian, but if my memory serves me correct in the old days police were presented for the most part as law-abiding and semi-competent.  Nowadays in movies it seems that they're just a mindless, faceless collective who are victimized and incapable of subduing the bad guy, whereas in real life it's usually up to the police to deal with supervillians and not vigilantes.


The list of movies that fall under this category, at least in recent years, may even be longer than the list that depicts Blacks as servants.  In other words you'd be hard-pressed to come across an action movie these days where at least one of the bad guys isn't a rogue cop or corrupt politician who the people have entrusted with the thir well-being but in reality really doesn't give a fuk about them.  I can't help but to think that constantly portraying law enforcement in the negative ways mentioned is making the masses lose respect for them, and I don't know why on earth Hollywood would want to do that.


Recently while peeping out a scene from the Avengers I started thinking about just how many movies, without viewers ever really noticing, have a female bondage scene?  I imagine that the number must be countless since the theme of virtually every action movie while growing up is freeing the captive female (remember the little tied-up girl in Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando?).  There's two issues I've identified with a high number of movies having female bondage.  First is bondage is a popular genre of porn which means some people get an extra, erotic kick out of it.  Second and more importantly is being that violence against women is like at an all-time high in America specifically depicting violence against women on a normal basis can't be a good thing.


Reportedly there are only seven major studios in Hollywood, which is evident when you see the same actors crossing over in like every film.  Thus when you see the same type of imagery being presented in almost every movie of a certain genre the implication is that either copycat children are writing these stories or someone is intentionally dispersing such imagery on a regular basis.  Thus the more-pressing question would be why would someone for instance feel the need to infuse action movies that are largely patronized by children (i.e. superhero movies) with images of women in G-strings, and sometimes as devilish as it may sound I believe conspiracy theorists who say there some of the power-that-be are intentionally trying to defile people's minds.

Die Hard 2
Fast and Furious 6

Die Hard
Fast and Furious 6



The Taking of Pelham 123

Fast and Furious 6


Wednesday, March 19, 2014


It oft amazes me how, being born in the United States in the 1970s, I was born into the “Cold War” era where just some few short years before the US and Russia were seemingly on the verge of nuking each other, amazing not because of the reality of such conflict but moreso due to the fact that I went through my entire childhood without me or anyone visibly close to me even giving afuk.  By the time I got to college and started studying and understanding what’s really going on between these superpowers, I was like, ‘Oh shit, these niggas could really get vexed one day and just blow each other up’, and the most unfortunate thing is that this is still going on and sometimes even seems to be escalating.

The current major crisis between the two is in the Ukraine.  Just a couple of short months ago it was Syria.  And even if we get through the Ukrainian situation without there being any major conflict we can very much look forward, in confidence, that a future crisis with the same implications will also materialize.

At the end of the day I would venture that say that no one, not even tough-guys like Obama or Kerry or Putin or Kiselyov, would want a nuclear confrontation since, in the end, it’s likely that millions of people will die, on both ends, who really don’t give a flying fuk about what’s going on in the Ukraine and instead are just concerned about getting from one day to the next, as with the majority of humanity who aren’t privileged enough to have close access to a nuclear arsenal.  This isn’t to say that anyone wants to turn on the news or come across an article about people being killed in political uprisings anywhere in the world, but I would venture to say the general disposition among the masses is that we can’t really do anything about it but pray and hope for the best, whether such a sentiment is true or not.

When I think of this whole nuclear-superpower situation, the one movie that keeps coming to mind is the recent G.I. Joe 3 (fitly subtitled "Retaliation").  You can come across article upon article on the internet foretelling the fall of America due to a number of reasons, but no one spends more money depicting the actually destruction of the United States than Hollywood.  I mean we’ve had tidal waves, ice ages, meteors, zombies and of course the most realistic and frequently portrayed of all, nuclear holocaust.  How many popular, multi-million dollar movies has Hollywood made (i.e. Mad Max, the Book of Eli, Terminator) set in the aftermath of some type of nuclear holocaust in the United States?  I bet even the biggest movie buff couldn’t name them all, and these movies aren’t being produced in Russia or Iran or North Korea or nations where you would think large parts of the population would possibly desire such a fate for America.

The one thing that makes G.I. Joe 3 different is instead of just being entertaining it actually has an educational element to it.  The scene where the bad guys hack the US’s missile defense system, causing it to launch nuclear warheads at various superpowers, with these superpowers responding by launching similar weapons back, is what would likely happen in real life if such missiles were launched.  In other words the only military defense nations have against nuclear warheads that are actually fired at them is to fire warheads back, not with the intent of intercepting the missiles midair but rather to take the country that launched them down with you.  When I first became aware of this (via an article by two prominent American scholars which unfortunately I can’t find right now) it startled and greatly alarmed me, even though through logical deduction an average person may be able to figure such out.  So to put it all into summation, if nuclear missiles start flying left and right then we’re all assed out.


Is there any NGO like ‘Stop War Between Russia and the United States’?  I’d definitely donate to something like that.  But in the meantime we’re once again stuck in the situation of apparently being able to only pray and hope that these two bullies don’t actually start directly fighting each other.


If only all news was like this, the world would be a different place - "President Barack Obama ruled out U.S. military involvement in Ukraine on Wednesday, emphasizing diplomacy in the U.S. standoff with Russia over Crimea".  It's good to see that despite how callous the superpowers can be sometimes at least they're not eager to fukup the world with nuclear war.  Maybe President Obama read this article!

Wednesday, February 05, 2014


The embedded video is of conspiracy theorist Mark Dice reading a letter dubbed "the Secret Meeting that Changed Rap Music and Destroyed a Generation".  In it, someone who claims to be a music industry insider alleges that, in the early 1990s, mainstream rap music was intentionally saturated with violence, criminal behavior and drug abuse (i.e. "gangsta rap") to inspire listeners (particularly in this case African-Americans) to commit more crime and consequently be incarcerated in private prisons that profit based on the amount of prisoners they hold.  Thus the people who are promoting the gangsta rap are the same ones who own shares in the private prisons - an outstanding yet plausible allegation.  Anyway for those who may have read what I've written about the impacts of mainstream rap music on listeners in the past, you would know that I also point out the late 80s / early 90s as a turning point in rap music, where songs of violence and sex took over what once was primarily a politically-conscious and party music.

If the abovementioned allegation is true then the following conclusions can be made:

1 - Encouraging masses of people to imprisoned in the name of personal profit has to be just about the closest modern-day America could get to legal slavery.

2 - Even if industry leaders did intentionally promote gangsta rap, there was definitely a "supply and demand" factor, especially amongst young African-American males, that  made the music wildly popular.  I know because I was there.  Things had reached a point where if rappers didn't come out talking about the cruel acts they can inflict on their enemies than they were a "punk" or some other negative appellation, which prompted many rappers who may be nonviolent to still take the gangsta route.


The idea of some entity encouraging criminal behavior to populate prisons for personal profit is a disturbing one but not far-fetched in a hardcore capitalist country like America.  After all this country was largely founded on the backs of the lowest paid labor a person can possibly get - slaves.  And honestly there does seem to be a long-standing "conspiracy" to keep mainstream rap music filled with images of violence and sex, but the question is who is perpetuating this conspiracy?  Is it the Industry, the masses or both?

Saturday, February 01, 2014


Ever since the official establishment of Satanism as a recognized religion in the United States, this organized set of beliefs has been increasingly gaining popularity, especially it seems amongst Hollywood-based celebrities (and even reportedly politicians).  This is of course more or less common knowledge, but it isn’t until something really outstanding happens that the “masses” suddenly seem to give a fuk.  Well now Satanism is being internationally broadcast via the most popular music awards’ ceremony in the United States, the Grammys, and people are starting to shake.

Being that the United States is indeed a country where freedom of speech is legislated and furthermore idealized, at the end of the day there’s probably only so much you can say about a nationally-televised performance, even if it was shown during television’s “primetime”, when “kids” were watching, that featured dancers dressed as the Baphomet (amongst other disturbing imagery).  Indeed since the days of old, wise parents wouldn’t just let their children sit in front of a TV and gaze at it because, after all, you never really know what’s going to put into their minds next, especially when dealing with the popular American Music Industry, which has been saturated with debauch for at least the last 15 years.  Thus the real issue surrounding Katy Perry’s “satanic” performance is was it an actual witchcraft ceremony where she tried to summon the devil to the Staples Center?

Even though I haven’t watched the performance nor have any intentions to, based on the articles and opinions I’ve gathered about the incident thus far I would have to say that no, Katy Perry wasn’t trying to officially invite demons to the Grammys.  Rather I would have to concur with the frame of thought that suggests her risqué performance was more or less a publicity stunt - you know, stupid, destructive and self-abasing shit that popular musicians do in the name of increasing popularity and making more money.


When dubbing a popular American music artists "satanist" or "luciferian" or "illuminati" or something of the such, no one seems to get accused of being so as much as Jay-Z, one of the most popular allegations against him being that he publicly wore a sweatshirt featuring the saying of a prominent Satanist, which stated "do what thou wilt".  Indeed even when visiting the homepage of the Church of Satan itself we see that, to them "Satan is the symbol that best suits the nature of we who are carnal by birth", and furthermore you may come across websites that claim modern-day Satanism is based in ancient "dionysiac" cults that practiced "orgiastic" behaviors.  So are the alleged Satanists truly people who love and follow Satan, or those looking for a religion that will allow them to do anything they want and having found it in Satanism?  After all one would be led to believe that anyone who actually knows what a demon is would never intentionally call one up.


Even though I don’t believe Katy Perry’s performance was an act of actual witchcraft but rather some sort of depiction of it, I do believe it is setting a precedence for things to come, as in don’t be surprised if in a future Grammy’s ceremony someone does perform outright witchcraft or Satanism.  When you consider Perry’s performance and other things that have occurred at this year’s Grammys than a person should now be cognizant of some of the forces that strongly influence the mainstream American Music Industry.