Odin Rising, Intro Tudor Negur

On Edgetivism

My Sister Before Her Suicide

While in the last post I gave a thumbs down to the degenerate Christian clique calling themselves The 'Satanic' Temple, in this post I give a thumbs up to the Edgetivist movement in art. Chaoscunt, the philosopher behind the movement, starts from the premise that art is not real life. The resulting behavior of a perceiver of a work of art is his own responsibility, not that of the artist. Art is just a virtual arena where we face our own demons, a realm of psychological exploration and experimentation. Chaoscunt warns of the danger of virtuestigmaism, the destructive trend "to categorize works of art by their most superficial aspects, notably 'political' associations." This leads to censorship and domestication of art, and the ascendance of saftyism, a wave of politically correct and safe works of art that by their nature are mediocre but highly praised by social justice warriors.

In reaction to this decadent trend in art, Chaoscunt advances Edgetivism, which is art with an activist dimension. The Edgetivist purposely explores the most taboo subjects in his society in order to remind everyone that art is not real life, thus re-establishing art as a realm of perfect freedom. The Edgetivist puts himself at risk and will be marginalized by the mainstream groups of castrated artists, but his mission is noble and heroic. "The Edgetivist will explore the most socially unacceptable aspects of life in his art. Not only does the work have to be breaking some sort of law that goes against freedom of artistic expression but also be reprehensible to the point of leaving 95% of society in shock. If you can put the contents of the work on a t-shirt and walk without getting into trouble with most people on the street, then it has failed to be edgetivist." 

Christians Oppose Abortions Because They Like to Fuck Orphans

        

I find myself in agreement with Chaoscunt's point that consumerism and political correctness can be very damaging to true art. There are many factors that contribute to the domestication of art once it's treated as a commodity meant to provide entertainment and 'an escape' from the drudgery of daily life. One thing I find particularly repulsive, connected with Chaoscunt's point about people's failure to distinguish art from the real world, is how people fail to distinguish the artist, as a real human being, from his art. If the artist isn't 'nice' they won't support his art. If the artist is personable and goes to talk shows and makes jokes and is humble, then they support his art. Examples abound. Black metal band Inquisition being dropped by Seasons of Mist once Dagon was found to be into child-porn. Yes, the guy has issues but he's a beautiful artist and the Inquisition sound will always stand out in the black metal landscape. That Roman Polansky is a rapist is not gonna stop me from enjoying Rosemary's Baby. That Varg Vikernes is a racist, murderer, and arsonist isn't gonna stop me from enjoying Burzum. There's a deeper issue here: the consumerist war against dangerous artists and dangerous art. Art has the special power of waking people up from their inauthentic slumber, like a chainsaw powered up next to your ear while you're in the middle of a sweet, wet dream. Terror and vertigo strike, suddenly you don't know who you are, where you are, and what's going on. But then when you see that very artist who rudely awoke you go to a talk show and smile and play nice so he can sell his merch, you see that they're slaves just like you, they're nothing special about them, and you let yourself dissolve in your dogmatic, comfy slumber again.  

Another related issue is the trend of people being offended by the content of a work of art and thinking their feeling is a suitable ground to judge the aesthetic value of that work. Speaking from my perspective as a fiction writer, I'm deeply repulsed by readers saying they don't relate with this or that character, that they have no one to 'cheer for.' What you relate to is irrelevant. Let's look at some classic characters. Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Dostoyevksy's masterpiece Crime and Punishment, is a disturbed student who feels he lives by a master morality that allows him to take an axe to an old woman and rob her. You don't relate with this 'monster'? Newsflash! It doesn't matter. Whether you feel offended is not part of the conversation about the value of a piece of art. Completely beside the point. Take Stavroghin, the main character of Demons: a nihilist who's part of a terrorist group and also a pedophile. Examples abound. Mersault, the anti-hero of Albert Camus' The Stranger, shoots an Arab for no apparent reason, except maybe because it was too hot outside. These novels are classic, paradigmatic works of art. Stop being offended and ask yourself why these novels are considered outstanding creations? 

Despite my agreement and support of Edgetivism I don't consider myself an Edgetivist for two interconnected reasons. First, it's a fact that some artists use art to further an ideological agenda. In that sense, the distinction between art and the real world becomes blurred as the artist wants his work to have a concrete effect (For more on this issue see my post Punching Nazis, Black Metal, and the Use of Ideological Symbols.) In this way, the artist moves away from authentic art as a medium of self-exploration and catharsis. Secondly, the same problem occurs in connection to Edgetivism itself. It too is militant art. And that's why I'm not an Edgetivist. My writing does have an edgy character but that's incidental. The essential thing is the inner struggle and tension it comes out of. Chaoscunt claims, "Always produce works that side against the predominant people in the art world. Make anti-Christian and feminist art in middle-age Europe, make anti-Islamic and anti-feminist art in 2016 Europe." I personally have nothing against feminism and I hate Islam as I hate all religions. But neither of these issues has penetrated my sphere of artistic interest and anything I'd write about them would appear phoned in and inauthentic. On the other hand, anti-capitalism is a notion close to my heart, the alienation, exploitation, and degradation of the individual that are intrinsic to this economic system fill me with monstrous rage. And this is something I tackle in my novella 'Ich Will'. My point is that there's a gap between what is edgy in an authentic work of art and what may be considered edgy and taboo in a certain society at a given time. No doubt there's a lot of overlap between the two but a true artist can't just mechanically follow what others find taboo and then force himself to make art against it. Instead, he should courageously face his fears and inner demons, and that confrontation is bound to have some edgy and disturbing aspects, but that's a natural side-effect and not the main goal of the artist.  

All in all, I salute Edgetivism as an authentic movement in a mass of artistic conformity. Saftyism requires relentless mockery and opposition as it leads to grotesque organizations like Antifa, and the rise of censorship and artistic repression, troglodytes judging beautiful works of art, a totalitarian nightmare.   

I

Satanism Declawed (The Satanic Temple abomination)

Ecce Homo, according to TST, the perfect sub

I was pretty enthusiastic about the Satanic Temple (TST, for short) when I saw the documentary "Hail Satan?" I was so into it I wanted to join the Edmonton chapter, but I soon realized it was a sad gathering of soy losers. Looking back, I think my infatuation had to do with my bitter hatred against the fascist Evangelical movement in the US. I figured that the enemies of my enemy must be my friends. Plus, I fully support the leftist politics behind the Satanic Temple, and their fight for equality, social justice, and LGBTQ rights. But soon I realized there's something rotten about TST, and it has to do with their hijacking and banalization of noble Satanic symbols and traditions, with no regard to their spiritual significance.

TST reeks like a public toilet or the sour sweatness that infuses a crowded bus. Its members are animated by the fearful hysteria of special needs kids singing around a campfire, hoping to keep the monsters away. There's nothing Satanic about this movement. The central, traditional  Satanic virtues are aristocratic pride, uncompromising individualism, colossal arrogance, elitism, sadism, a glorification of war and strife, and a romantic, creative outlook on life coupled with a delight in solitude. Now, the first tenant of TST reads: "One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance to reason." A true Satanist would recoil in disgust at this. If you squint a bit, behind that tenant, you can see the defeated, grotesque figure of the perennial slave, the marginalized loser, the creature born with the sole task of tasting all flavors of pain. And that resentful slave is the exact opposite of what traditional Satanism is all about. In fact, that pitiful slave is precisely the Christian scum which has been the whip boy of the true Satanist throughout the ages. The repugnant slave is now hiding under the guise of his master. What a farce! What a bad joke! One can't help but wonder, how did this sad transformation come about? In what follows I describe a few factors that must have contributed to this absurd state of affairs.

It is well-known that the fascist Evangelical right in the US has nothing to do with real Christianity. Following their Protestant outlook, the right-wing Christians hate the poor and equate poverty with sin, while success and wealth are seen as a blessing. Now, gradually this so-called Christian entity started to take on some seemingly Satanic attributes: strict hierarchal social order, intolerance, arrogance and disdain for the weak and vulgar. If you want, it started taking on the attributes of the Ancient Roman ruling class, the class that had been the target of the early Christians. Now, with this analogy in mind, the rise of TST is starting to make sense. Under the veneer of Satanism, the logical opposite of evil Christians, the old Christianity is reformed. The cries for equality, justice and inclusion are heard again. But this is just socialism with a Satanic face. Satanism is in no way essential to this movement. It is a paradigmatic Christian movement. Very edifying in this respect are Nietzsche's remarks about the Christian roots of socialism. One of them reads: “The socialists appeal to the Christian instincts; that is their most subtle piece of shrewdness” (Will to Power)

Watain, one of the black metal bands carrying the banner of true Satanism

Although a ruling political class can exhibit virtues associated with Satanism, Satanism in and of itself is strictly apolitical. By definition, the Satanist values his private space, his solitude, the realm where his authentic freedom can blossom. Others are usually a hindrance. The fun begins when the noises of the herd die down. Following Aristotle, Nietzsche reminds us: "To live alone one must be either a beast or a god." And self-deification is something the Satanist strives for. By contrast, any political enterprise starts with the question of the common good, of an optimal organization of society. Now, any such endeavor, by definition, would make the Satanist vomit, as he knows his own good is not the good of the crowd. Those two values are incommensurable because of the unbridgeable gap separating him from the vulgar slave. To put it differently, the Satanist strives to be a monster or a god, he wants to transcend his own humanity. Being human is a limit to be overcome in the spiritual quest for freedom. Now, any political project hinges on the premise of our common humanity, that we're all more or less the same, a homogeneous mass, we have all the same pains, the same hopes, and aspirations, the same things that make us happy. For the Satanic beast, this postulated uniformity is pure blasphemy and should be rejected in all its shapes and forms.

And this is why there's no strict contradiction between being a true Satanist and a leftist, though surely there's a psychological tension between the two. These two commitments belong to different spheres. One is private and the other is public. In the public sphere, one's humanity is assumed and one fights for the common good of all humans. In the private sphere, humanity and its limitations are questioned, man challenges the idea that he's a creation and becomes himself a creator. This is why creativity, originality and a strong artistic impulse define the authentic Satanist. He doesn't bow down to whatever values happen to exist in the degenerate community he contingently inhabits, but he creates his own values. For more on this issue, see my posts Punching Nazis, Black Metal, and the use of Ideological Symbols and my review of Berdyaev's Slavery and Freedom. 

In conclusion, TST is a repugnant abomination, mixing Satanism with political activism, cheapening noble Satanic symbols with their vulgar practices thus obscuring their original spiritual meaning and power. The herd instinct of these weaklings to organize and form chapters and nests around the world is completely foreign to the Satanic spirit. I think it would be more honest and honorable for this movement to just be a political leftist movement and just drop the "Satanic" gimmicks. But honor and honesty are hard to expect from slaves who constantly use deception for attention and survival.    

Interview about Odin Rising

Here's a recent interview I did with a local author about my new novel. 

What inspired your latest novel?

It was inspired by my rebellious adolescence, my first encounter with extreme metal, heavy drinking, and the radical philosophies of nihilism and Satanism. Adults are always quick to judge teens as naive or reckless, but I wanted to explore an intolerant teen's judgment of adulthood as a realm of weakness, slavery, and decay.    

How did you come up with the title?

Carl Gustav Jung wrote a famous essay "Wotan" in 1936, where he explains Hitler's rise to power in terms of the awakening of Wotan (Odin), the god of war, in the collective unconscious of the German people. The title is used ironically, as Tudor, Alex, and Edi—the trio of anti-social teens I follow in the book—think they too are under the martial spell of the Norse God.

                           
Is there a message in your novel that you want readers to grasp?

I enjoy blurring the distinction between life and death and uncovering what philosopher Emil Cioran calls "death's imminence in life." That is, that being alive is just a form of being dead; that we're nothing but complex zombies, mechanical systems that function based on a multitude of algorithms designed by a blind evolutionary process. And this is the sinister side of Tudor's insight that Satanism is necrophilia: the rebellious, satanic impulse to transcend the monotony of ordinary life is a paradoxical impulse that denies itself as it's annihilated by that which it negates. In other words, absolute freedom is nothingness, or a void that lies outside our language.

How much of the book is realistic?
Most of it is realistic, except the last three chapters in which I use a few dream-sequences and finally, in the last chapter, the distinction between dream and reality is completely eliminated.

Are your characters based on someone you know, or events in your own life?
Yeah, they are mostly based on my friends from high school.

Where can readers find you on social media and do you have a blog?
facebook.com/AxeBarnes/;  twitter.com/axlbarnes I'm also on Goodreads.

Do you have plans or ideas for your next book? Is it a sequel or a stand-alone?

My next novel is called This Town Must Burn and it grows naturally out of Odin Rising but it's not a sequel. It will be a more extreme horror novel, influenced by Edward Lee, Bryan Smith, and Tim Miller.

Of the characters you have created or envisioned, which is your favorite, and why?
I love them all, but especially Tudor Negur as he has the courage to follow the self-destructive consequences of his beliefs.

Do you favor one type of genre or do you dabble in more than one?

I like the sub-genre of psychological horror as most of my characters are mentally disturbed in some way, mostly by being psychopaths. But there's also a lot of philosophy in my writing, so it fits the label of philosophical fiction as well. I like my monsters to be inquisitive, lucid, and intellectually challenging for the reader.

Do you plan your stories, or are you a seat of the pants style writer?

George A. Martin draws the distinction between  "two types of writers, the architects and the gardeners. The architects plan everything ahead of time, like an architect building a house [...] The gardeners dig a hole, drop in a seed and water it." I'm a gardener, I plant the seed of a story, I water it with my sleep, my boredom, and my loneliness, and hope it would grow into something true and beautiful.

What is your best marketing tip?
I'm just getting a handle on marketing and have no tips so far.

Do you find social media a great tool or a hindrance? 
A great tool.

What age did you start writing stories/poems?
16. I started out with poetry and then short stories.

What genre are you currently reading?
I'm reading The Fireman by Joe Hill, so horror/dark fantasy.

If you could meet one favorite author, who would it be and why?
Stephen King. He's my #1 influence when it comes to fiction writing and also an amazing human being.

Do you see writing as a career?
No, I dislike the term "career." Too ideologically loaded. It links art to commercial success and entertainment value and cheapens it. I see art as an expression of spiritual freedom, as something good in itself, something connected with our deepest nature as beings contemplating mystery and searching for revelation.  

Intro to Odin Rising (short video)

Odin Rising now available

Packing more than six years of intense research and writing, my first novel, Odin Rising, is now available to order on Amazon. 275 pages full of nihilistic hate and violent misanthropy, this book carries my literary DNA and stylistic matrix. I'm very proud of the final product. This book is to be enjoyed by true horror fans and lucid readers. This blasphemous work will be surpassed in extreme depravity and anti-human sentiment only by my next novel, This Town Must Burn.

Here is the description: "Tudor, Alex, and Edi are Romanian junior high school students in the 1990s when they discover extreme metal and begin to explore the destructive, Satanic ideology behind the music. This shared discovery cements their friendship by forming a unique bond as they delve into depravity. Occasionally aided by their psychopathic friend George, they urge each other to commit increasingly more vandalistic and blasphemous acts: animal cruelty, slashing of tires, smashing windows, and grave desecration. This pattern of anti-social behavior climaxes when the three teens randomly kill an innocent elderly man during an afternoon of alcohol-soaked violence. The murder brings to light an ideological gap between Tudor and Alex. In Alex’s mind, Satanism means total war and the triumph of the Luciferian, Aryan race. Comparatively, Tudor sees Satanism as bleak nihilism and violent misanthropy. Because of the difference in ideals, Alex and Tudor face off in a final confrontation that transcends into a mythological dimension."

Punching Nazis, Black Metal, and the Use of Ideological Symbols

I'm all behind the political trend of punching and scalping Nazis. Once you wear the swastika symbol or do the Nazi salute, then you're fair game, you can be beaten, pissed on, burned and so on, as you, in fact, have shedded your humanity. While this case seems to me pretty clear, I wonder about others that don't appear to clearly warrant a violent response. How about someone wearing the communist hammer and sickle symbol? Is that an endorsement of genocide, given the communist atrocities? I think people are less inclined to react to the communist mark, partly because of ignorance, and partly because the communist threat seems so distant and academic, compared to the Nazi threat, which became hard to ignore especially after the election of Trump. Also, I'm a bit biased so I wouldn't punch a comrade.   

Things can get pretty tricky when, like me, you're a leftist who happens to love black metal. The anxiety about whether the hoodies and band-shirts you wear warrant you getting punched is a real thing, especially when you yourself are itching for some political violence. I'm a fan of Revenge, Marduk, and Peste Noire, bands singled out and boycotted by Antifa as Neo-Nazi. Black metal is an extreme and serious business and the rise of National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM) seems to be a natural development within a genre aimed at smashing all taboos. Peste Noire is easily categorized as NS given, among other things, the frontman's, Famine, happily doing the Nazi salute, a penchant for Third Right memorabilia, and the title of their first demo, Aryan Supremacy. Revenge is a bit harder to categorize, in light of their minimalist style and the fact that they don't publish their lyrics. However, reading through the album and song titles paints a vivid far-right picture. On Scum. Collapse. Eradication. you get songs like "Parasite Gallows (In Line)" or "Burden Eradication (Nailed Down)" Now, if you ask yourself who are the parasites who need to be nailed down and eradicated, you can get a clue from titles like "Sterilisation (Procreation Denied)." Given that Revenge is from Alberta, Canada, where eugenics had been practiced mainly against Aboriginal People up till the '70s, it's not far-fetched to conclude a virulent racism against Natives is at work here, with yet another history of genocide right on its tail. Taking into account the evolution of their style, their changing aesthetics and the variety of themes behind their music, Marduk is yet harder to pigeonhole than the previous two acts. Their early output was straight Anti-Christian Satanic Black Metal. However, the Panzer tanks featured on their EP Here's no Peace and the Panzer Division Marduk  album, as well as the eagle insignia adorning the cover of their Live in Germania album, have raised a few eyebrows and placed them straight on the Antifa black list.

Although NSBM is the more explicitly political sub-genre of black metal, Satanic Black Metal also has some grim political implications. Black metal is closely associated with various forms of Satanism, and it has a cultish, fanatical side to it. And I don't mean the watered-down, compassionate and humanitarian version of Satanism defining the Satanic Temple, but the real deal: ruthless destruction of all creation, savage misanthropy, a celebration of darkness, chaos, and death. This is the ideology behind towering acts like Behemoth, Satyricon, Mayhem, Gorgoroth, Watain, Marduk, Inquisition, and so on. Now, genuine Satanic Black Metal hasn't received as much political attention as NSBM, but it goes without saying that it can be more dangerous. I mean, a real Satanist wants 99% of mankind eradicated or enslaved by the Luciferian elite, not only the Jews or the Slavs or the Blacks. If no satanic black flame of rebellion is burning within them,  Aryans can line up in front of gas chambers the same way as other misbegotten races. So, that's a tad worrisome, I'd say. Erik of Watain eloquently states his views as follows: "For me,

Satan represents something so much bigger than this world, than this universe, than the creator of this universe. It is a force that is constantly counteracting the creation and breaking it down until everything has returned to its totally unlimited state of chaos." And the natural conclusion comes when Erik states that he "totally encourage(s) any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain."

So then, do I deserve to be beaten up for wearing a Watain hoodie, just as I should be if I were wearing a swastika armband? Should I be burned? After all, one of my hoodies claims "Let the World Burn" and last time I checked I was part of this world. Also, isn't a leftist supposed to destroy only the ruling class while waking the working class out of its exploitative slumber and help it build a bright, majestic, just future? Revenge hoodies have minimalist designs (skull-and-crossbones, knives, gas masks and so on) and pretty vague inscriptions ("Doom Division," "Total Rejection," "Scum Eradication," or "Nihilist Militant")  so I feel pretty safe wearing them but I've decided against buying a Panzer Division Marduk hoodie and settled on buying a flag instead. I thought wearing that hoodie would be in bad taste, especially in the ugly wake of Trump's election. Plus, what adorns the walls of my place is private, my business, behind closed doors. The private/public distinction comes with its own problems. My Facebook account is technically private but social media seems by definition to be public. And what if I decide to throw a party, does my apartment then suddenly become a public space for one night?

Philosopher Richard Rorty has an original understanding of the private/public distinction. In the private sphere, we focus on self-improvement or overcoming ourselves. Or, to put it differently, we focus on becoming who we are, as opposed to who others want us to be. Nietzsche, Rorty argues, is a philosopher of the private sphere. His metaphors regarding war are just meant to highlight the struggles we face on the road to self-discovery, the struggle of the individual trying to distance himself from the herd, the master trying not to drown in the sea of degenerate slaves. For Rorty, privacy also comes with a spiritual and artistic dimension. Following Whitehead's definition of religion, Rorty characterizes it as "what you do with your solitude." The artistic impulse, for Nietzsche, also comes from solitude, and it's aimed at transfiguring the world. This is also the area of madness and perceived deviance from social norms. On the other hand, Rorty argues, in the public domain the focus is on the public good, on social and economic justice, and creating the conditions necessary for everyone's development, including the gradual reduction of cruelty and humiliation, which are harmful to the self in general. One example of cruelty and humiliation is life in totalitarian states where the individual's private sphere is crushed in the name of a collective purpose. By avoiding cruelty and humiliation, the public sphere poses only minimal requirements on the individual, the ones we're familiar with in liberal democracies, while giving the space to the individual to develop in whatever way he sees fit.

Now, I have to admit I've been using Rorty's private/public distinction to defend my infatuation with black metal for a decade now, the idea being that black metal falls mostly in the private sphere. Incidentally, Ash from Nargaroth has a similar understanding of Satanism in black metal, one inspired by Nietzsche and Ash's own studies in psychology. That is the philosophy behind Nargaroth's hit "Black Metal ist krieg!" Marduk's militaristic imagery and glorification of war can be interpreted in the same Nietzschean spirit. In addition to the destructive aspect mentioned above, Satanism also has a more constructive dimension, rooted in its uncompromising individualism. Echoing Nietzsche's distinction between master and slave morality, Satanism emphasizes that we're fully responsible for our own lives, we're the authors of our destiny, not God or our parents or the horde of sheep we happen to live amongst. Satan is, after all, the romantic rebel angel, the accuser and opposer, to quote a Marduk song. So then, to a certain degree, bringing satanic symbols like the inverted pentagram or the inverted cross or the trident into the public domain is justified as a constant reminder of a commitment to individual freedom. For a more detailed discussion of this point see my Satanism Without Gimmicks.  Of course, the madness and cultish character of black metal will also spill into the public sphere some statements that are hard to justify like "Let The World Burn."

Another important line of defense here is that black metal is an art form, just extreme music. Now, if the creators of that music also see it as a medium of communicating a political message, that doesn't imply that the fans of the music automatically agree with the message. The music itself is non-representational, it's not about anything. It can surely give rise to strong emotions but the direction of those emotions is pretty much left open. Like, Revenge definitely has developed one of the rawest, most barbaric and confrontational sounds in black metal and one cannot listen to them without being overwhelmed by burning hatred. But what's that hatred directed toward? Human scum, parasites? And we saw the meaning the band attaches to these notions. But why can't the listener attach his own meaning? Like, imagining beating Trump with a claw hammer and puking down a hole in his skull. Both leftists and fascists feel burning hatred. The fact that it's directed at different things doesn't diminish its intensity. Maybe the song titles and lyrics of black metal bands point to the target of the hatred? Maybe, but a text is open to various interpretations, and the author's intended interpretation is just one of many. The Holy Bible, let's say, is a militant book but not all readers of the Bible agree with its message. Similarly, I find the lyrics of bands like Behemoth, Watain or Marduk very well written and aesthetically pleasing, but that's not gonna turn me into a church-burning Satanic terrorist. In one of their songs, Peste Noire uses a poem by critically-acclaimed writer Charles Baudelaire. Obviously being exposed to such sublime art is not gonna turn one into a raving neo-Nazi.

All in all, I don't think the symbols and statements on black metal merch warrant the automatic violent response that a swastika armband does. Although someone wearing a Revenge tee or hoodie that states "Scum Eradication" is kinda asking for it. These are complicated issues and all I did here was skim the surface. Another layer to the problem is supporting Nazi-bands or militant Satanic acts with money by buying their merch and going to their shows. What if that money is used toward terrorist activities? Then there's blood on your hands? Does that, indirectly, make you a Nazi? Truthfully, I don't yet have an answer to these important questions.

In Defense of Hate

This post is in reaction to the YouTube crackdown on hate speech channels, which is part of a larger pattern of shutting down extreme voices online. The list of attributes of individuals or groups that shouldn't be targeted seems to get longer and longer: age, caste, disability, ethnicity, gender identity, nationality, race, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, victims of a major violent event and their kin, veteran status.

Now, although I'm not racist or anti-LGBTQ rights, I watch this trend with alarm, skepticism, and distaste. I think if you squint hard enough you can see the neurotic SJW with a sign of "Live, Laugh, Love" hanging in her kitchen who comes up with these idiotic ideas.

So, first, where exactly do we draw the line between people it's ok to hate and the "sensitive" groups? Is it ok to hate my cheating wife or my lazy co-worker? Or maybe is hatred, in general, a bad thing? What if I hate the bourgeoisie and want to eat the rich and save the planet from the ecological catastrophe late capitalism will bring about? Is that wrong because it leads to violence? Well, that's the whole point: a red, violent revolution. So what if I hate religious people? Isn't religion the cause of genocide and various atrocities?  Wouldn't humanity be better off without these slavish freaks?

Second, hatred is a glorious, natural emotion that shouldn't be repressed. I can't think of anything positive that I've achieved in life without my hatred playing a role. I went to university partly because I hated my parents and wanted to move out of their house. I moved to Canada because I hated Romania. All my writing is steeped in bitter misanthropy. The same goes for the fiction of famous classical writers like Dostoyevsky, Kafka or Lovecraft, not to mention more modern writers like Martin Amis and Chuck Palahniuk.       

   

                                                                                           

Which brings me to my next point: you can't do psychology with a hatchet. Chopping off a strong emotion like hatred can only result in a fractured, lobotomized self. Hatred is the same as the sexual instinct: when you try to repress it, as Freud teaches us, it will come back ten times stronger and wreak havoc to the whole psyche. Hate is intimately related to love. Sometimes jealousy can turn the most sublime love into savage hatred, or someone we hate might suddenly appear to us in a beatific light. Also, the term "love-hate relationship" clearly captures the essential connection between these two emotions. In an ironic twist, the absolute divide between love and hate that SJWs assume is a remnant of Christian ideology. Christians have been happily torturing, raping, and killing people for two thousand years now. So, uncritically accepting that absolute dichotomy, that our modern hippies and feminazis find so appealing, didn't go so well in the Christian case. Lastly, the SJWs cry, all the hatred leads to violence. Well, I reply, first, there's physical violence and then there's systemic violence. Trump's decision not to pay taxes is systemic violence. Extreme inequality is systemic violence. Now, physical violence is sometimes used in reaction to systemic violence, like during the French Revolution. My point is that physical violence isn't bad in itself and that there are forms of institutional violence which are more sinister and damaging: the Catholic Church covering sexual-abuse cases, tax-giveaways to the rich, The Church meddling in the affairs of the state, money in politics, and so on. Thus, who's to say that the eradication of Catholics wouldn't be a blessing for humanity? Sometimes violence is the only solution. 

To sum up, I think the crackdown on hate-speech online could potentially create more difficulties than it solves, and it's a poor, ad-hoc solution to a complex problem; a cowardly, weak attempt to sweep complex, important issues under the rug. Who's to say that these hate groups would just disappear as a result of the crackdown? The oppressive censorship move might offer them more legitimacy and vindicate their narrative. We have to accept that hatred exists, try to understand its mechanism, and fight it head-on. 

Review of the movie Lords of Chaos

I really enjoyed the Lords of Chaos movie but was a bit turned off by how it caricatures Varg Vikernes and casts him in the role of the villain. I personally think Varg is a smart and charismatic individual, as well as a brilliant musician, but I'm not gonna let those beliefs affect my judgment of the movie. I think the movie fails on its own terms in the inconsistency with which it portrays Varg. In one early scene, we see Euronymous be mesmerized by the Burzum music (Varg's one-man band) and call it True Norwegian Black Metal. However, not only do we not hear the music (because Varg has denied them the right to use it) but also we get no insight into what inspired Varg to create that original, ground-breaking sound and of the ideology behind his music. Varg is just depicted as a one-dimensional follower who learns from his daddy Euronymous what's what in politics and how Christianity is a plague. But that's really hard to believe. First, Euronymous was a leftist, an admirer of the communist Romanian dictator Ceausescu. Second, Varg had been into collecting Nazi paraphernalia and into paganism before meeting Euronymous, which is suggested by his dungeon-like apartment in Bergen. And this interest, as well as an inclination toward history, Norse Mythology, and RPG games are what inspired the early Burzum music (The word "burzum" means "darkness" in the black speech, a fictional language crafted by Lord of the Rings writer J. R. R. Tolkien.) Thus, it's hard to believe that the danger of the Christian plague was brand new info for Varg at the time he first met Euronymous.

The movie briefly refers to these essential aspects of Varg's personality but in a dismissive way, as a teen trying his best to seem cool, be accepted by his peers and promote his music by taking credit for vandalistic acts like church burnings or grave desecrations. For instance, in the scene when Varg gives an interview to the reporters from Kerrang! in his own apartment adorned with Swastikas and weapons and so on, the interviewers ask him how Nazism and Satanism and Odinism are all connected. And Varg says that there is a connection, which is rendered as a laughable reply. But this was actually a perfect opportunity to offer a glimpse into Varg's complex character. Satanism is obviously connected with his anti-Christian stance and Nazism is inspired by Norse mythology and, as we all know, Vikings hated Christians. Varg is not only an attention-seeking teen, but he also has an outstanding speculative power to connect ideas from different spiritual traditions and weave them into a coherent ideology. If there ever was a philosopher in the Black Circle, it was Varg, not Euronymous.

Toward the end of the movie, Varg and Euronymous talk about the release of Mayhem's De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas and how the band is going to go on tour. To this, Varg, Mayhem's bass player, replies that he doesn't care about touring. This again doesn't fit the movie character. If Varg was desperate for attention, rock-star status, and the groupies that come with it, then why wouldn't he want to go on tour? But this was a widespread attitude in the Black Metal scene at the time, one adopted by other influential acts like Darkthrone, and it signifies their rejection of the commercialization of Black Metal and, more generally, their opposition to the modern world. But again, the movie fails to capture this aspect of Varg's personality.

Overall, Lords of Chaos is an engaging movie that takes a stab (lol) at portraying the main characters and bloody events associated with the birth of Norwegian Black Metal. There's no shortage of gore and brutality in this movie, and the depictions of Dead and Euronymous are very striking, tasteful, and memorable. The only portrait that doesn't ring true is that of Varg. The movie showcases Varg only as an attention-seeking, power-hungry, womanizing thug and completely ignores, although hints at, his spiritual, intellectual side. This is mainly because of the Hollywood formula of hero vs. villain the creators apply to a complex reality that has many grey areas. Why isn't Euronymous the villain? A sellout and a poser who took advantage of Varg and his talents for his own gain? Is he a victim just because he ended up stabbed in the head? Or, better still, why should we look for a hero in this story? Maybe we deal with two anti-heroes who pose complicated challenges to our belief systems. Maybe our story-telling should follow that human complexity rather than forcing it into pre-existing molds.