Romance
Is Rape By Seduction
By Adam
Shane Lawes
MY DIARY DIGITAL
DATA ENTRY 36 OF 145
The following is a transcript of the stone statue
ritual that I performed a couple of hours ago here at Melbourne Cemetery - And
tonight I vented out all my anger about some spiritual people upon the stone
statue of Jesus Christ. For as I have stated previously in some of my diary
data entries, I grew up surrounded by many 'spiritual' (for the want of a
better term) people - And the behaviour of many spiritual people makes me
angry. Because many spiritual people claim to be 'New Age' - meaning that they
believe in and are operating out of the belief that we are now leaving the 2000
year old astrological Age Of Pisces - (which was also influenced and ruled by
its polar sign Virgo) - and we are now entering into the 2000 year new
astrological Age Of Aquarius - (which is also influenced and ruled by its polar
sign Leo). However, despite their new age spiritual beliefs - many new age
spiritual people, with their spiritual, overly self-righteous preaching
morality, are behaving like a spiritual version of an overly self-righteous,
moral, Age Of Pisces religion - which is the very thing that they claim to be
different from - And in addition to this, many people who claim to be operating
within the astrological new Age of Aquarius - are instead still very much stuck
within the old astrological Age Of Pisces ways of behaviour - For example the
age Of Pisces was obviously influenced and ruled by the sign of Pisces - which
meant that coupling seemed to be such a major priority and influence within the
2000 year Age Of Pisces that we have just been through and are now leaving -
And as the 2000 year old Age Of Pisces finishes - so to seemingly has the
traditional Age Of Pisces coupling relationships come to an end - And this can
be seen in the massive breakdown of marriage, monogamy and coupling
relationships in the world - and also in the way that divorce laws to end
marriages became much easier, and also obviously increasingly and rapidly more
common, at the end of the 2000 year astrological Age Of Pisces - However, despite
this, many spiritual people who claim to be operating out of the astrological
new Age of Aquarius, still continue to keep clinging to Age Of Pisces ways
including its Age Of Pisces like coupling relationships - despite the fact that
many coupling relationships are now failing - For the astrological New Age of
Aquarius, unlike the astrological Age Of Pisces coupling, is instead based more
on individuality and groups, and in that context also obviously individuality
in groups for those that want to combine both - And in terms of a transition in
relationships from the failure of coupling relationships as the 2000 year old
Age Of Pisces now ends - and into something that the 2000 year Age Of Aquarius
that is now beginning is about - at the moment the only thing that comes to
mind in terms of relationships is open and non-monogamous relationships, and in
terms of intimacy and sex in the new Age of Aquarius - it could be instead
orientated around masturbation and/or orgies and/or group sex. And in addition
to this, the 2000 year astrological Age Of Pisces that we have just left was
also ruled by its polar sign of Virgo - And the sign of Virgo is very much
orientated around the work ethic - so this is where the master and servant ways
and behaviour came from in there various forms throughout the 2000 year
astrological Age Of Pisces that we have just left - However the 2000 year
astrological Age of Aquarius that we are now entering is ruled by the sign of
Aquarius and its astrological polar sign Leo - which means an eventual end to
the master and servant influence and ways of the Age Of Pisces that we are now
leaving - and a move into an increasingly more egalitarian way of existence
where some say the world could be ruled by an elite group that will have
control of the world - And the degrees of benevolence in which that elite group
that will increasingly control the world - will ultimately depend upon how we
as people in the world allow this influence and way of this astrological New
Age of Aquarius to continue to manifest and exist. And although through
intuition and experience I believe in many similar things to new-age spiritual
people like astrology, psychic abilities and reincarnation of the spirit-soul,
for me personally, when it comes to problematic new-age spiritual people, of
any astrological star-sun-sign - some spiritual people have wrongfully attacked
me for liking and wearing the colour black which they call negative which is
both ridiculous and racist to say as black is not a negative colour and black being
wrongfully considered a negative colour has its origins in wrongful racism
especially from colonialism - so to say black is a negative colour is
wrongfully racist - and also many people who consider themselves new-age
spiritual people assign morality to their own personal aesthetics, tastes,
likes and dislikes - and by that I mean that many spiritual people wrongfully
view their own personal tastes and likes as being positive and the right way -
and those spiritual people then wrongfully glorify their own personal
aesthetics - and those spiritual people then also wrongfully and harmfully
attack the aesthetics of people that are different to them and accuse them as
being negative and wrong. And I have had to experience this by many spiritual
people whose aesthetics tastes are light - and who then attack and accuse my
personal dark tastes in aesthetics as being negative - (For many spiritual
people have just swapped the religious terms of 'good' and 'evil' with the
terms 'positive' and 'negative'). So in that context those spiritual people
wrongfully view their 'light' aesthetics as being 'positive' and 'right' - and
then my or any other persons 'dark' aesthetics as being 'negative' and 'wrong'
- And those spiritual people have no right to assign morality to their own
'light' personal aesthetic tastes and say that their personal tastes are
'positive' and 'right' - and nor do those spiritual people have any right to
attack and say that my 'dark' personal aesthetic tastes are wrong and negative
- Because to say that all 'dark' aesthetics are 'wrong' and 'negative' is wrong
and it has its most recent origins in white supremacist colonial racism. Then
going back in history, the next unfair demonising of dark aesthetics was done
by the promoters of the Renaissance - who viewed what they termed the darkness
of 'gothic' art of the pre-Renaissance period Europeans as being barbaric and
wrong - which was wrong of the Renaissance promoters of any period to do. Then
going back even further in history - The origins to the demonising of dark
aesthetics could be possibly found within some forms of Zoroastrian - which is
considered to be the world's oldest living religion - Because from it's origins
in Persia - which is now the countries of Iran and Afghanistan - the Zoroastrian
religion had tribes that worshiped either or both the God of Light called Ahura
Mazda and/or the God of Dark called Angra Mainyu - And each of these two Gods
had their own pantheon of deities of both male and female form - and which were
either part of the light side of existence or the dark side of existence - and
they were then worshipped in such a way by their different followers. Then a
couple of thousand years before the birth of Christ - a prophet came along in
the religion and he completely reorganised the Zoroastrian religion - (possibly
for territorial power reasons) - and this prophet then designated that light
and the deities and followers of the light way were good - and that dark and
the deities and followers of the dark way were evil - And thus in the world's
oldest living religion - light then became good and dark then became evil - And
then this world's oldest living religion of Zoroastrianism went on to influence
the major world religions of Judaism which then also led into Christianity and
which then also led into Islam - And in the influence of these religions -
these major world religions also influenced the secular world of thinking and
believing, as philosophy and science emerged out of a world influenced by
firstly Zoroastrianism and then Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and also
philosophy and science, and now also new age spiritual beliefs. And thus the
light way has unfairly been designated as always being good and positive - and
the dark way has unfairly been designated as always being evil and negative -
and this can also be seen in so much modern art, such as in many books and
films for example, which also view light as being good and positive - and dark
as being evil and negative. And this whole glorifying of light as always being
good and positive and the demonising of dark as always being evil and negative
is unfair and often very wrong. For in my experience, growing up surrounded by
many spiritual people, and which most of them had light aesthetics, meant that
I was often repeatedly attacked for having my own personal subjective tastes in
dark aesthetics - And also many spiritual people with light aesthetics hide
behind their false notion and concept that their light aesthetics are good and
positive to get away with their harmful and hurtful behaviour, because they
unfairly and wrongfully claim that light aesthetics are always good and/or
positive - And I have been harassed and hurt in my life by some people who have
light aesthetics. And there are obviously people who have dark aesthetics who
are also harmful people in one or more ways. So saying that either light or
dark aesthetics is either good and positive, or evil and negative, is
ridiculous - and it is like saying that the day and only in the day good
happens and in the night and only in the night bad happens - for that is
obviously ridiculous and false, and it is not the way that light and dark
operate and exist as - Because when it comes to either light or dark
aesthetics, it is not the light or dark aesthetics that can be considered to be
either good and/or positive or evil and/or negative - It is the specific
behaviour and the ways of behaving and creating of the person who adheres to
either their light or their dark aesthetics, or both light and dark aesthetics.
In addition to this, when it comes to dark aesthetics, many people who like and
create within dark aesthetics that may be unsettling to many people who like
and adhere to light aesthetics, are not evil and/or negative because of their
unsettling dark aesthetics - For instead the people who may be existing within
and creating and operating out of their dark aesthetics that may be unsettling
to many people - are actually delving deeply and facing and portraying an
unsettling aspect or aspects of existence which they choose to do so through
the power and the ability of their dark aesthetics - So in that context, dark
aesthetics can be viewed as a deep and a necessary part of existence, that
delves into often unsettling issues and aspects of our existence that light aesthetics
too often do not deal with the unsettling but necessary issues and aspects of
our existence - And that is why I personally believe and adhere to dark
aesthetics.
© Copyright
Adam Shane Lawes
