Kite String

Is it in my own solitude?

Wondering why, 

it's so recurring to my mind;

Like television all the time

Suburban warm nights,

Aptitude of awake without any fight

Alone in the thrill of the-

lonesome landline;

Head clear and life nearer

Wandering into the overhead street lights,

Pale and fluorescent, morgue bright;

Musically ecstatic being free like a kite on a string:

Contradiction glaring, like bad bleeding from no beating;

Nothing, noting from nothing-

Imaginary concessions from out of touch dreams;

Baggage is a soiled seam,

Self-sewn, itching and ripped up-

reiterated stitches in mixed-

Conjecture,

Interjection, 

Conscientious objection in liberatory degeneration;

Detective unrelenting, Disneyland confetti,

Liability in listless serendipity

Misguided in introspective relationally constraining legibility

Unalive & Zero Day Reactions

 

Lucifer's Satanic Principles

I've been watching the show Lucifer on Netflix that depicts the Prince of Darkness (no, not Ozzy, though interestingly Sharon Osbourne makes a cameo in an episode) as having gotten bored of ruling Hell, coming up to Earth in the modern era and living as a nightclub owner in LA while helping the LAPD solve crimes. With that I have been considering how it would embody the principles of Satanism as it was codified by Anton LaVey and his Church of Satan, seeing as the series is about Satan and I would be of that classification. In a way beyond the basic explanation of the plot just given, it's a series about agency that beings with a certain cognitive capacity hold, be it human or celestial or— to a bit of a lesser extent within the context of the show— demonic; all having the power to make their own choices and forge the outcomes in their individual existence. To put it more concisely and as plainly put by the Devil himself in the first episode of the fifth season, given each episode serves as a vehicle of sorts for further exploration of his and those in Lucifer's orbit of their self-perception as it continuously develops: "The self-centered simplicity of you humans never ceases to amaze..." and this sentiment goes vice versa and all-around. 

This statement reminds me of something from another piece of popular media. The sentiment expressed by Optimus Prime in the second of the Transformers movies made by Michael Bay, where the leader of the Autobots remarks to a US military official regarding the human tendency toward petty violence; which is ironic, as if the machine beings in the films are so terribly dissimilar in such an instinctive drift towards these trivial yet simultaneously grandiose disputes.

Lust, love, stupidity, vapidity, jealousy, disdain, and everything plain and sweet— it's all there in this take on the King of Hell. From the minuscule misunderstandings to consistent abandonments, betrayals, formed bonds and dirty deeds done dirt cheep, solved and slate reset for further self-discovery. Study through firsthand initiation into life triumphing over counterproductive pride and lacking perspective solipsism; responsibility to those responsible without concern for the psychic vampires and retributive punishment dished out accordingly.... All this in a world of nuanced circumstantial (vital) existence. 

Nightfire Log (8/7-8/2026)

"I thought you'd already left and I was gonna get stabbed!" he laughingly exclaimed. Responding while patting my pocket given that since I went down to the river earlier that, "well, I actually could tonight. But, we're not in London and I'm not a Muslim," as I finished paying while chuckling myself and leaving on that note. From there it was back to the car and two minutes later back in the living room inside.

Full story from my life on Patreon.

Subcultural Entropy

The longer I've gone on the more I've noticed that Boyd Rice calling punk nothing more than a fad is ostensibly a true posit that is hard to argue with. As much as I personally love the genre, it was seemingly contrived from the start and now the bands play on the very cruise ships which are supposedly so detested by these bands and so called 'alternative' artists. One can blame or chalk it all up to said establishment incorporated as grifting culture vultures stealing it or whathaveyou about uppity classes taking it from the lower... 

whatever. money talks and bullshit walks.

The Ramones may precede the Sex Pistols in formation, but it is they (the latter) who enshrined this ideal of punk into the world with Johnny Rotten having the aspired attitude and Sid Vicious dressed up by Vivienne Westwood being the image of it all. That said and good an album as Never Mind The Bollocks is, the Sex Pistols were a boy band contrived by Malcolm McLaren; John Lydon being the only one (with the slight exception of original bassist Glen Matlock, though he rejoined the band once it regrouped for its reunions and still plays with them to this day) having his own entity beyond the band. Sure, it and the aesthetic terrorist movement it existed within was its own counter to the prior generation's counterculture of the hippies. Even then it's not so simply this genuine form of transgressive existence as those flower-power-make-love-not-war-peace-and-love-inc. may have been injected into the world given allegation of the Haight Ashbury clinic distributing LSD itself may have been a CIA operation. How then is one counter to the culture when they become the culture and merely play into it anyway? How does one go against the system by playing to its rules?

"Ugly words on the printed page no more constitute an act of transgression than happy platitudes painted on a protest placard constitute realities of any sort. They are empty and meaningless. Genuine acts of transgression are equally meaningless, though some might constitute criminality. Advocates of transgression seldom make the transition from word to deed, except in the context of the arts.

[...]

"More often than not, acts of transgression in the world lead not to liberation, but rather imprisonment. In a land and at a time where no amount of hyperbole, exaggeration, or overstatement can constitute even a thought crime, real acts are still punishable by law. But very few proponents of transgression resort to real actions, when words alone can create controversy or garner attention."

—Boyd Rice, NO

Most everyone seems to think they're some underdog championing against this overarching power that controls the mainstream with their infinite power, it's rather interesting.

 "Abortion is murder"

    "My body my choice"                 "Trans people out of sports"

                     "Trans women are women"

       "No Kings"                          "Don't tread on me"

                      "Come and take them"

   "One nation under God"                    "God hates fags"

                   "From the river to the sea"

       "Antisemitism"                         "Love is love"

And with that I'll offer one better: "Everyone keeps talking and they can't shut the fuck up," as Green Day sings in their song Lazy Bones. Now I happen to think Green Day is great in spite of all I've said here in regards to punk and its origins and aftermath— they're my favorite band of all time— but even in this I've noticed this shortsighted lacking perspective that goes along with many fans of the group in regards to this idea of the American Idiot; neglecting fundamentally that everyone under that national banner is included. As frontman Billie Joe Armstrong succinctly expressed while creating the title track in the documentary filmed of the albums concocting, being released nearly a decade after the matter and called Heart Like A Hand Grenade, that he himself is the American Idiot and as much when pointing a finger there's still three more aimed back at oneself.

With all this though I'm reminded of something that Charles Manson spoke of in the documentary Charles Manson Superstar, stating that if one is displeased with trees being cut down then stop buying the products like paper and pants produced by the deforestation; constrict what is disdained. And sure, even he may have been some sort of psyop himself, though while there is some credibility to the claim it's dubious at best. And he's not the only one who would be seen as consistent in living this ideal: figures like Ted Kaczynski, Varg Vikernes or John Brown are exemplary in such and embody a more absolute form of this Ghandi platitude of being the change wished to be seen rather than being merely all talk with a goodguy badge; as can be seen with an example of more recent exposure with a protest against the installation of a data center in Salem, MA featured a guillotine as a prop where it's mere performance, however in contrast these same people are of a political bend that tends to preach revolutionary ideals whilst simultaneously detesting and deeming the chanting to, "hang Mike Pence" and those who entered into the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021 as 'terrorists' or more popularly, "insurrectionists." All this to really say, put up or shut the fuck up and in the words of Mindless Self Indulgence:

"You think you're saying something relevant as you connect the dots

You never realized you have to get in line to suck a cock

You're telling me that fifty million screaming fans are never wrong?

I'm telling you that fifty million screaming fans are fucking morons!"

untitled ∞

One poem out of various I wrote with inspiration from the song Drugstore Perfume by Gerard Way. I read it aloud in this video here: 

Anyway as for the actual poem here it is written down. I did tweak it a bit since.

Displeased,

Disparaging covers

Cohesive struggles

Ungluing truthful discoveries

in lifted metaphors,

For every chapter of lived

suffering and satisfactory destitution;

To exist abound,

down and around out of town

Rainy-cover, dancing under clouds before dawn

Far beyond evening

Annoyances away with the day gone

Eating The Law: A Cannibals Guide to the Justice System by Claudia Berdella & ChicoryRed

Common perception sees the act of cannibalism as that of an extreme taboo, or absolute last resort option of obtaining sustenance in a survival scenario. Aside the completely natural history it has and be that as it may, with the exception of the state of Idaho there is no jurisdictional or federal prohibition against the act of cannibalism in the United States. Obviously where the practice would be foiled is in the methods of obtaining the meat to consume, even if it's consensually permitted; it amounts to murder, the desecration of a corpse or health hazard— even in the hypothetical case of a suicide where the cadaver is bequeathed with instructions/allowance is for such a purpose. That may be so, but there is still a way to do it legally in reality.

Extreme body modification is a world which exists within its own area of legal ambiguity. While it is not quite lawful in regards to certain practices, namely with acts like nullification— where a body part, typically an erogenous zone, is removed for aesthetic purposes— it isn't wholly illegal if done by a licensed medical professional. Typically done by the individual wishing to have the cosmetic adoption but not impossible to find a health official with such a proper expertise to do so.

In the instances of surgery which require the removal of a limb, it's not wholly out of the ordinary for the patient to be allowed to keep the severed ligature; though in that there is a lot of bureaucracy involved and it's easier to keep smaller appendages like a finger or toe. Sure, in regards to bodily alteration it's more dubious and then one may have to travel overseas to have the wished gone part hacked off, however then it's a customs dispute more than anything in taking it back to dish up given it's technically considered the transportation of biological matter. However, when back on home soil and with the removed ligature, there's as mentioned, no law that would prevent eating of it aside from personal discretion.

Spider-Man Brand New Day Review

As with much of the common sentiment seen online around discussion involving the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I have had a sort of fatigue by and large in its regard ever since the aftermath of Avengers Endgame, with some exception here and there. Sure, I saw the Thunderbolts movie in theaters twice, but that was for less than enjoyable reasoning and irrelevant to today. That said, last night on its second day of running I went to see the latest in its storylines: Spider-Man Brand New Day and found myself with some of the most enjoyment I've had with the superhero genre in years, and plan on seeing it one more time in theaters when I can.

The marketing team did a good job in concealing the actual plot, only showing snippets of scenes which occurred in really the only first half an hour to 45 minutes of the movie and by doing so subverting all expectations of what would happen; especially in regards to the actual character played by Stranger Things star Sadie Sink. In spite of what is probably already out there online, I won't spoil it either at it's part of the fun of going to see the movie and would ruin part of the allure and story which is absolutely worth the watch. As a continuation of the tale that began being spun in Captain America: Civil War, it serves as an excellent chapter in Tom Holland's variation of the web slinger.

With that end I only have a few gripes and one question with it all. Firstly with the character that Sadie Sink played it essentially took the same sort of story already presented in the Black Widow movie and succeeding Hawkeye one-season series on Disney+ as well as the aforementioned and continuing Thunderbolts movie. Secondly with the other gripe, the end post-credit scene shows Ned's Spidey-Tracker app showing the vigilante off-planet once again to seemingly hint at an upcoming Avengers movie, which would hypothetically just restart the whole cycle this movie decided to do away with and remove the more grass-roots Spider-Man being built. Then as for my question, if Ned's muscle-memory kicked in and rejuvenated his mind with their shared secret handshake then why did similar not work with MJ? 

Stupidity & Spiritual Pipe Dreams

 

"… I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking... 

The world is so exquisite... that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence." 

—Carl Sagan, Parade Magazine, March 10, 1996

I was listening to (yet another) interview with the artist Nick Cave where the topic of spirituality was discussed in conjunction with the idea of stupidity. Expressing distaste of labelling the irrationality that is posited by those of the more strictly atheistic variety in regards to the conceptualisation of some higher universal power(s). Conceding that by admitting the rational standard, it's hard to argue against that framework, however in that, it misses the mark based on much of what is deemed irrational is so nonetheless and that's part of the metaphysical or abnormal framework; with the universe being so vast and a mystery which we humans only have a limited comprehension of even with and in spite of progress in scientific understanding. Going on then Cave and the host expand that obviously many things in say, Biblical lore, are disputable, but in the more hardline negations attempt to remove any sort of artistry or value in stories and concepts as absurd and implausible as they may be.

Even then in negation, from any point would add to these ideas to some extent. Be it an apprehension against the Abrahamic framework or Greco-Roman pantheons, whichever mythology one leans into or away from in such a vehement approach somewhat lends into stemming from or into it all the same— it's not so black and white. From the desecration of Olympian temples or Varg Vikernes torching churches something is taken out of what is disgusted. Now that is obviously not to say these things lend or detract credibility to improvable faiths as opposed to the reality of merely adding to their lineage or human history as a whole. Ultimately what is being said here is that there's value in both positions, even in spiritual pipe dreams and it's too broad of an assumption to make either way around without having to as much question one's own position in arguing for or against.

"All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his own carnal brain. Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls 'God'... 

... but no law states that an externalized god is necessary... He can no longer view himself in two parts, the carnal and the spiritual, but sees them merge into one, and to his abysmal horror, discovers they are only the carnal— AND ALWAYS WERE!"

—Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Being one in the same and as Madonna sung, "living in a material world," is the human and conscious life not a form of the universe experiencing itself? Would it not mean carnality is the highest form of spirituality? Is it not fascinating that this may seem to necessitate near-endless inquiry? How did evolution come to this point of cognitive capacity and why are we the only species to such a degree of development, what's the purpose of it? Even with those questions and by all accounts, gods and whatever sort of divinity as humanity prescribes them likely are in all ways that of projection of personal attributes— desires and dislikes—but even in that doesn't wholly disprove the vast cosmos from having undiscovered and yet to be understood forces. Whether they're divine, conscious or whatever they're around; whether they're interpreted in said metaphysical fashion is in the mind of the beholder given there is no official capital T truth that isn't to an extent debatable, and we only know as much in what we do not know.

All that to say what it seems the Bad Seeds frontman was expressing is similar to that of what is presented in The NeverEnding Story, whereby letting that adolescent imagination die and ceasing to genuinely ask what, how and why in place of a presupposed and more solipsistic form of self-deceit masked as skepticism or total authority is a sad oversight which goes nowhere.

CHAOS Chapters 4 & 5: Enormously Informational, Small Summary

Given the increasing magnitude of information in these two chapters of CHAOS, the analysis and summaries I do of them will be dependant on how much I'm able to gleam from them with prior knowledge and analogous information. Primarily what I detail on the matter is my own summaries and brought upon thoughts on the book; like with Bacchanalian, where I detail and use that to my own end in understanding. These chapters however delve into territory that, while I've heard names and various ideas thrown about before (namely from Nikolas Schreck), don't necessitate my own grandiose exposé on the matter in conjunction with what is already in the Tom O'Neill's book which I do recommend reading at this point as it is quite a unique insight into the Manson Mythos in of itself.

The fourth chapter was primarily about Terry Melcher and Cielo Drive happenings largely stemming from what the property owner during those years could recall going on, prior and after Tate and Polanski moving in.

Chapter five regards the convolution on the LASO's behalf in the case. Having conducted the what is still the largest raid in the jurisdiction as well as state of California history on Spahn Ranch and the family on August 16, 1969 and keeping a diligant eye, reporting on the observable ongoings of the Family while letting them off the hook seemingly ad infinum in spite of Manson's consistent parole violations. Toward the end of the chapter is it then finally brought up the idea that Charles Manson could have been some sort of informant to some unknown agency; or even a pawn allowed to do his business based on recounted disdain with a dash of fear of the Black Panther Party.