beyond good vs. evil

Eve and I went to my parents' place for my stepfather's birthday. We ate seafood and noodles and fried shrimp and all sorts of goodness.

Before I left, I asked to borrow a DVD from my older brother that he urged me to see. It's called They Sold Their Souls For Rock And Roll. It is a Christian-based expose of Satan's influence on rock performers since the '50s.

I borrowed it for giggles. All of my life, being raised in a religious household, I've periodically had to come into contact with such materials. As a kid, I remember watching a special on TBN (the Trinity Broadcasting Network) about the "backmasking" of subliminal messages on heavy metal records. Ironically, I credit this special for getting me into rock music, and sound recording in particular.

After I got home, I popped it into the DVD player. The first five to ten minutes did not disappoint. The first scene involved some actors dressed in black, smoking cigars and drinking hard liquor while sitting in a dimly lit, smoky room. Apparently, the men (whose voices were digitally altered to make them sound evil) are demons, plotting ways to brainwash human beings into giving their souls to the Devil.

It was ridiculous enough to warrant my watching of the rest of the 3-hour presentation. But a funny thing happened as I began watching: I got into it.

You see, after the initial hysteria of the introduction, I found myself nodding my head and agreeing with the host's assessment of such artists as Robert Johnson, Jimmy Page, Ozzy Osbourne and Eminem. These artists have never shied away from controversy, and play into the alarmist Christian public's fears quite well, to maximum profit.

Likewise, the revelations about such artists like The Beatles, Elvis, Sting and Carlos Santana were interesting. As a conspiracy hobbyist, I find myself reading about the occult influence in popular culture often, and huge pop cultural icons such as the above-mentioned artists often find their names associated with conspiracy theories, mostly because they inspired cult-like devotional followings from adoring fans.

What was amazing was that the makers of this DVD (which is also available in a marathon 10-hour version) also managed to tie artists such as Madonna, Britney Spears, the Spice Girls and even Joni Mitchell in with the occult... and made decent arguments to boot!

Not that their arguments were based upon logic. With Christianity, the basis for disavowal of anything threatening to the faith is not rational-- it's simply a case of either/or reasoning. Most religions function this way, so it's not really fair to assail Christians for decrying a rapper like DMX for his violent imagery and allusions to witchcraft. Even though DMX is doing this in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, it makes sense that religious groups would have a problem with his lyrics-- DMX is dope but his music is not very conducive to spiritual self-discovery.

A lot of this hysteria comes from the mistaken notion that rock performers are the same offstage as they are onstage. I mean, I've heard of Christian groups protesting movies for their content, but they rarely ever boycott the actors themselves. That's because it is accepted that the actor is "acting". But why is it different with musicians?

The late, great Frank Zappa made a point of bringing up this discrepancy when he was fighting the PMRC in the late '80s. He reasoned that a ratings system could not be applied to rock musicians because the rating would stigmatize the artist rather than the content of the artist's oeuvre-- I think Zappa was concerned that his more ribald works would cause his serious, academic compositions to suffer through association.

And what about an artist like Eminem, who is self-aware and almost "in" on the joke? To attack Eminem because he writes lyrics that dwell on the irony of his influence on young minds is missing the point: Eminem is a parent himself, and understands the capacity that kids possess in relation to music. He also knows that the key to keeping kids from being "brainwashed" by pop cultural icons is to be involved with their lives to such a degree that the children are raised with critical thinking faculties and the ability to discern for themselves and make wise decisions.

I mean, I've been listening to evil rock and roll music for more than 20 years, and I've listened to gangsta rap since its infancy: I have yet to commit one single drive-by, spend one minute in jail or sacrifice a baby to Satan. And I probably never will, because I was raised to question the appearance of all things.

Not all of us musician-types are willing to trade our livelihoods for 15 minutes of fame.


*/*


Whether or not you believe in God or the Devil, one thing about the DVD was undeniably clear: some artists have advocated the heathen ethics of such occultic luminaries as Aleister Crowley and Church of Satan founder Anton La Vey. It was the hip thing to do for some time, and I doubt that someone like Mick Jagger or Robert Plant understood the full implications of their dabblings in withcraft.

The mere mention of Aleister Crowley sends Christians into a tizzy-- Marilyn Manson knew this and exploited it fully. But what I find humorous (or perhaps alarming) is that throughout the entire 3-hour DVD, as Crowley's name and visage was being bandied about on the screen, not one mention was made of the symbol of the All-Seeing Eye within the pyramid that he wore in one of his more famous photographs.

Not one mention of Crowley's involvement with British Intelligence agencies during WWII. There was one small mention of the two secret societies he belonged to, but nothing substantial.

What I'm getting at is this: the DVD documentary didn't go far enough.

All this fuss over Crowley's influence on rock stars in order to rush the New Age of Aquarius into existence during the '60s, and no mention of his influence on politics in America.

Our current President has ties with secret occultic societies, all the while masquerading as a pro-life, anti-gay Christian. His Vice President hangs out at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California, where it has been rumored for decades that world leaders retire to hunt human game (puts that recent Texas 'buckshot' story into perspective, doesn't it?)

I have a question: What's a right-wing politico like Dick Cheney doing hanging out at a place called Bohemian Grove' in the first place? You'd think that a man who has devoted his life and career to persecuting ideals that can conceivably seen as 'bohemian' would WINCE at the idea of taking a vacation at a grove with the word 'bohemian' in its title...

Anyway, back to my point: The DVD asked Christians to re-examine the music that their kids are listening to, stating that there is more than meets the eye. I say to Christians that they should re-examine their loyalties to a man whose family connections clearly demonstrate that they will say or do anything in order to be in power.

Did you know that George Herbert Walker Bush was a pro-choice politician before he was handpicked to be Ronald Reagan's VP? When he didn't get the nomination in 1980 (after attacking Reagan's budget plans as "voodoo economics") he did the next best thing-- he toed the line in order to get close to the Presidency. It can be argued that Bush Sr. has served four terms: one on his own merits, two by proxy via Reagan, and one by proxy via his son.

He'd been planning on doing this with Dan Quayle, but Quayle proved to be so stupid that even the average American could see it. George W. Bush is George H.W. Bush's Plan B, and it has been working rather well.

Dig this: In 2000 and 2004 George W. Bush supported the Republican Party platform which stated that abortion in ANY sense was wrong, even for cases of rape and incest. I found that odd, considering that Poppy Bush conceded as much in the 1988 debates against Michael Dukakis. However, he has contradicted the party platform several times since, most notably while being questioned by John McCain in 2000.

But now that South Dakota has banned ALL forms of abortion, our President is now stating unequivocally that, in cases of rape and incest, abortion should be allowed.

Meanwhile, the big fear that Lefties had about Bush Jr.-- that he was going to stack the Supreme Court with nominees that would overturn Roe v. Wade --has yet to materialize. Alito might be for overturning it, but Roberts so far as proven to be another David Souter, conservative on the surface but progressive underneath.

And we all know who appointed Souter to the High Court, don't we? Yes... it was George H.W. Bush.

Remember: South Dakota's decision is a state measure. If Bush scolds the state for banning ALL abortion, not only is he contradicting himself AGAIN but he is infringing upon state's rights. I thought conservatives were all for state's rights.

In light of these flip-flops, the mystifying (and now-defunct) Dubai Port deal makes a lot more sense.


*/*


So I guess the point of all of this comes down to my earlier statement, that a DVD like They Sold Their Souls To Rock And Roll doesn't go far enough.

It's not just rock and roll that is shaping malleable young minds. Politicians are doing quite a mindfuck on all sorts of well-meaning people right now.

And then there's religion itself.

I don't go to church because I feel the hypocrisy all around me. I don't worship Anglo-Saxon images of Christ because they are false representations of what Christ looked like. I don't even believe that Jesus was his name-- most likely it was a variation on "Yeshua", and the term "Christ" is a title, not a surname.

The only thing I prefer to do is read the Bible itself. You can't go wrong reading the actual words of the prophets. However, there are many editions of the Bible that obscure the true meaning of the words. Many times, scholastic theological commentary acts like propaganda, leading believers down a primrose path that directs their thoughts to the proper "issues" of the Church... like abortion, for example.

The Bible makes no specific mention of abortion. So why is the church so against it? Because the Pat Roberstons and Jimmy Swaggarts of the world say so. These men are the modern Pharisees, and Christ is quoted as saying to not trust the self-righteous hypocrites who masquerade as men of God.

Going back to the idea of Satan's influence for a second: Did you know that there are exactly TWO references to Satan in the Old Testament? I'm not talking about "the Devil" or "Lucifer"-- those are separate entities. No, Satan is mentioned twice by name in the Old Testament, and although his name (taken from the Hebrew word ha satan) translates as "the accuser" or "the opponent", this does not automatically mean that he was an evil being. Rather, Satan worked for the God of the Old Testament as a prosecuting attorney of sorts-- he was never opposed to God, but rather acted on behalf of God... as a "devil's advocate".

The snake in the Garden of Eden myth is not Satan. It is a serpent, plain and simple (albeit a talking serpent). Bible scholars imply that the serpent is Satan, but when God curses the serpent for tempting Eve, he makes no mention of the snake being possessed by the Devil.

When Jesus Christ is tempted by the Devil in the book of Matthew, Jesus calls him "Satan" while the Bible states that Jesus was tempted by the Devil. Thus, it is Christ in the New Testament that first equates the name Satan with the evil notion of the Devil.

In other words, Satan being evil is a relatively new concept, historically speaking. The book of Job, which lists the first appearance of Satan by that name, is the oldest book in the Bible, predating Genesis... so why isn't the Book of Job the first book of the Bible? And why isn't more attention called to the fact that, in the days before the New Testamant and the Gospels, the concept of Good vs. Evil isn't so prevalent?

This is why I read the Bible but reject the trappings of the modern Church: like politics and like popular culture, it is all based upon distortions of the truth.

I prefer to seek truth. I apologize, however, if it gets boring for you, the reader. Maybe one day I'll figure out how to abbreviate my thoughts... or perhaps I'll start my own church...

What do you think about that?