jorrizza's Profile

About the Author


The raving socialist Satanist.

  • (Ir)Religion: LaVeyan Satanist
  • Philosophy: I see myself as my sole purpose in life. There's no use in fooling myself with gibberish and other talk from the right-hand path. I am my own god and I worship my god on a daily basis. You could even call it narcissistic. I provide myself with the tools to succeed in life. I understand the importance of society, and my position therein. I'm in no way a hermit, I try to use the dynamics provided by society for my own gain. And yes, I'm still able to love. Although I have to admit I'm less likely to indulge in every potential relationship I come across. Anyway, I agree and mostly live by the book of Lucifer, the book of Fire, the first part of LaVey's work.
  • Raised Religious?: Yep, Roman Catholic. Abandoned it after reading the bible at eleven or twelve.
  • Why am I again Christianity/Religion: The Christian dogma is destructive and a factor of weakness in our society. It stops people from thinking freely and captures them in an endless circle of sin and repentance. It's the worst case of self-denial imaginable.
  • Political Orientation: Modern Socialist
  • Webpage: JRRZZ Blog
  • Last.fm Profile: jorrizza
  • jorrizza has also...

Post Archive


Culture’s definition is loosely connected to real life and elusive at best. People who have been assigned to watch over what some people think is culture are being criticized by thousands. I’m part of a culture. You are part of a culture. This website is part of a culture. What culture? Cultures are being added to the big soup of multicultural madness faster than you can decide whether you want to be a part of them or not. Politicians speak out about “our” culture. Things like subcultures arise from the masses of people resisting the very concept of culture. Culture nowadays is a broad term used to define everything two people and their dog take part in. The attention we give to culture is a cultural phenomenon. To quote the mighty wisdom of Wikipedia here: “Cultures can be understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another“. There, a definition. What good does this do? A definition can’t get much more tolerating than this.

But, some really interesting aspects of culture can be derived from the definition. Culture is progressive, liberal even, in nature. It’s never static, not for a second. Culture is constantly evolving into something new. Visit deviantART and watch culture evolve in real-time. Culture is not a static definable object, it’s an everlasting process of creation fueled by creativity and man’s hunger for something new to identify himself by. As long as people are communicating with each other, this cultural process will thrive. There’s no need for anything else, just communication between people. If a person stands out by doing something different, and is successful in his attempts, people will mimic the abnormality until it becomes normal. When the numbers grow you can start defining certain branches of cultural development, each of them going it’s own way evolving further into something completely new. Even if you take a closer look into one of these branches you’ll discover a finer grain of subcultures. The branches will collide and interweave over time, split up again or merge with other branches. They don’t know about physical borders, the influences between branches are only limited by the amount of communication between them. The process of cultural development is a complex and highly dynamic one. There’s no way of telling what will change tomorrow.

And now, all of a sudden, cultural preservation pops up. People start defining culture as something static, as an object, instead of the process it really is. They see the process as a threat to the object they’ve defined. This cultural snapshot is usually the culture these people are comfortable with, and most likely the culture that provides them with great power. They take an aggressive conservative stance against culture and provide people with their static, crippled substitute for culture. They’ll do anything to preserve their position in culture, even if it takes culture itself down in the process. Culturally different people are looked down upon and oppressed. The cultural placebo is force-fed into the mouths of the innocent at gunpoint. The non-conformists are beaten into obedient good citizen. Cultural developments are set aside as evil, it’s practitioners as terrorists. Even the last cultural strongholds are raped by abusing tentatively free media to spread the conformist’s message into the homes of millions.

Sounds familiar? It’s the Christian way of doing things. Hijacking culture to stop it from evolving, to stop it from being what it actually is - an everlasting process. They have been quite successful at it too. The American elections are the latest prime example of the immense success of the Christian anti-cultural influence. Many of the hot topics during these elections are Christian ones, topics that aren’t even that important in the grand scheme of things. I see the effects in my own country, the Netherlands, too. Politicians on the conservative right of the political spectrum are talking about conserving our identity and culture. Opposers, among whom our crown princess Maxima, are mocked because of their criticism. The reduction of tolerance comes at a price. Two anti-culturalists have been killed and terrorist threats have never been so real. Politicians can’t walk across the street without fully armed bodyguards at their sides to protect them from the very thing they preach - forceful preservation of culture.

You see, cultural preservation isn’t just about the five hundred year old church around the corner that has to make way for a new mall. It’s a tool used by the powerful for preserving their power in a virtual substitute culture. The cultural preservation most people are familiar with, that of property ownership, is actually basically the same thing. Churches, especially Christian churches, often don’t have to pay taxes. Christian initiatives are subsidized and tax money is spent on preserving their places of worship, just because it’s of cultural significance. I do wonder though, why every church is treated like it’s historical influence is great enough to save it from demolition. Even in these times of heavily reduced church attendance. It seems the Christian influence upon the western culture has made it’s dominance stick, which is worrying, to say the least.

So what about it? What can we, the youth, do to save culture? The answer is quite simple, we should keep on doing what we do best. Non-conformance is the only way to save culture, pubescent behavior keeps it from dying altogether. So if you’ve got kids, and they’re rebellious, be proud of them. They are the real preservers of culture.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

The Holy Bible. It is without question the work of God himself. Every word, every sentence, every story is the exact word of God. Christianity uses the Bible as the sole foundation on which the philosophy is constructed. The only way to live a good and moral life is to live by the guidelines set out in the Bible. Don’t even think about questioning it’s infinite wisdom, by doing so you’ll be questioning the infinite wisdom of the heavenly father himself. You don’t want to suffer the vengeful wrath of God now do you?

Entire countries, cultures even, have been converted to comply with the exact law of God. God fearing citizens have done their job well, protecting their fellow countrymen from a one-way trip to Hell. By making sure everybody has to comply by law people will be saved, whether they want to or not. Abortion and same sex marriages are evil, women should stay at home and science, oh my, stop those fools from questioning the Lord’s work.

There’s one big problem with this blindly following of a piece of literature. This book is written by dozens of people over a period of approximately one thousand six hundred years! There’s no way to ask the original authors about their intentions with it. Maybe the Bible as we know today is just a collection of fairy tales and folklore with a common topic. It’s not illogical for a librarian in ancient Greece to have combined some of the similar works into one, just like we combine the contemporary Grimm fairy tales into a single book. There’s no way of knowing for sure (some of) the original authors were actually serious about this guy-in-the-sky concept. A mighty and totalitarian god sending down his only son to earth, just to be sacrificed by his own creation, which is in turn mislead by the devil, an ex-employee of his, sounds like one hell of a concept for a Hollywood block buster. Maybe it’s intended that way, too. The moral guidelines found in the Bible are maybe just a byproduct. You’ll find plenty of examples of modern morality in contemporary novels. That does not necessarily mean the novelist’s goal is to teach about morality. Often references like those spice up the story, make it more lively. Imagine writing a romantic novel about the ER at a local hospital. The doctor has a steamy relationship with the head nurse, who in turn regularly exchanges bodily fluids with the football stud cancer patient. The doctor is his former coach and finds his nurse in the stud’s room in a natural but unwanted position, after speeding to his room because of a mysterious spike in his heart rhythm. Now imagine having to write this novel without using any reference to morality. It’s impossible, right? You’ll probably end up writing this using the morals you encounter in your daily life. Why wouldn’t the original authors of the Bible have done the same thing? And if so, why would you copy those ancient morals and apply them to your own life in the modern world, while the author was just writing for your amusement?

What if. What if The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were written two thousand years ago. What if the Greek librarian decided to put this combined work on display. We couldn’t ask Tolkien about the intentions of his work, neither could we know for sure his books were purely fictional. With the current course of events in mind it’s quite plausible our world would have looked quite a bit different.

Every boy from the age of twelve or so would have served in the military. We would have accused our adversaries of alliance with the forces of Mordor. Old men with staffs and beards would be screaming their lungs out on the tops of their own towers. We would march out with the full might of combined armies to meet the forces of Mordor at every volcanic eruption. Everybody would have been talking about Smaug without actually ever having seen it. We would have eye witnesses claiming to have heard dwarves singing while exploring caves in eastern France. Without boring you with endless hilarious possibilities, the message should be clear by now. Blindly following a moral extract from a work of fiction as your only guide in life isn’t just foolish, it’s dangerous too.