Destroyer 666 and defiance in the glare of emasculation

destroyer 666

I bring you abject decadence,
I glorify the violence of cowards and fools,
I sell your lives like cattle,
And whore your daughters to the world:
I am alpha and omega.

– Destroyer 666, Blood For Blood

Of all metal bands, Destroyer 666 have perhaps best signified the masculine ideal. Confrontation and turmoil are the essences of this ideal and spur it onward, on the path to introspection and self-improvement. The same strife also lies at the core of Destroyer 666‘s music, a perpetual beckoning to inner and outward conflict that mimics the restlessness burrowing its way into the soul of today’s man. This restlessness can’t be chalked away to an individual neurosis, for far too many minds of above-average intelligence confess to an intense feeling of anachronism or a displacement in time that leaves them as misfits in the here and now.

What have we, as men, truly become? Drowning in hyper-sensitivity and ever-walking on tenterhooks, watching what we say and how we behave lest we offend someone whose vocation, pathetically enough, seems to be taking offence. Granting equal credence to all opinions under the guise of democracy and diplomacy. Choking our innate sense of pride – if it ever was innate to begin with, for it seems like it never existed in certain men – to shamelessly ingratiate and curry favours from those with influence. Suppressing our natural, aggressive instincts to conform to the majority’s ideas of compassion and propriety; in fact one wouldn’t be entirely amiss in replacing “majority” with “female”, for with the warped nature of the more recent vintage of feminism, men have had to remodel themselves as effeminate ninnies to appear more in step with this Jezebelian ideology.

Reclusiveness is now considered an anomaly and a social wart but for how long can the proud and discerning man continue surrounding himself with those that have to be talked down to in the manner of ten-year olds so that some farce of a dialogue can be carried out? How long can he abide with the castrated behavior of these boy-men before throwing in the towel in disdain and retreating into his safe haven? If the point of all intercourse is either a mutual reinforcement of deeply held convictions or an advancing of knowledge, then too much contact with the craven type of person mentioned above is liable to leave the proud man disenchanted. The compromise inherent wounds and shames his sense of self-worth and leaves him questioning his fundamental values. He would rather spend time with his dog.

Men today cannot stand isolation and have the painful need to be constantly connected through technology. Solitude is frowned upon as being anti-social when in fact it is the only way of truly knowing oneself and developing any kind of personal life-philosophy. Instead men today prefer uploading pictures of themselves and their equally asinine companions on Facebook, are perpetually distracted by Whatsapp beeps even in the middle of workouts at the gym (but this kind of man rarely moves away from the EZ curl bar in any case), and massage their vanity through It would seem logical that a man should care deeply for the things he says on a public platform but sadly this isn’t always so today. Inanity and general listlessness are the sole constants to be found here, indicating, at its core, the same profound emptiness that the real man feels, but the difference between him and the herd being that the latter comes to accept this emptiness as its lot and even derives a kind of twisted pleasure from it.

All these seem distinctly unmasculine traits to me and are poles apart from the visceral, warring, and blood-thirsty dynamic evoked by Destroyer 666 over the years. Couched in a black metal aesthetic that is more influenced by traditional metal than it is by black metal, Destroyer 666‘s songs have always been about drinking, fucking, and fighting, in interchangeable order. While that is commonly mined territory for all heavy metal, Destroyer 666 have been adept at using bawdy ribaldry as a metaphor for that restless stirring inside the hearts of all real men, expressing the subjects alluded to above in an extremely literate manner. There is a seething undercurrent of violence to be found in their songs, violence not to be shackled like some sorry specimen from a travelling menagerie, but to be embraced as vim and vigour of the human condition, and as man’s native raiment, before the fall and the advent of morals.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Destroyer 666 and defiance in the glare of emasculation

  1. curious, not offended says:

    Curious. What would you say are distinctly masculine traits then?

    For example, nurturing is a distinctly female trait to me, for obvious reasons. Isn’t compassion a decision-making tool? Compassion would motivate one to affect the fate of another. Isn’t that a more masculine trait then?

    Also, I’m not sure what version of feminism you’re referring to here, but to me there’s nothing more masculine than a feminist man. To me, a feminist male is one that is confident enough to recognise that a whole sex does not need to be opressed, in order for himself to feel of value?

    To me, a feminist female is one who would never seek to humiliate (emasculate) a man, because feminism is about respecting all the sexes equally?

    • That’s the classical and most pertinent definition of feminism which I agree with. Suffrage for women, equal rights, fighting cultural anomalies like foeticide, child marriage etc are all good things. I’m opposed to the strain of feminism that ignores the nurturing, comforter role of women and seeks for a mindless parity between the sexes. I don’t imply parity in either a positive or negative sense though, but do stress on the primary differences in the psychology of the sexes that exist for a reason and are crucial to the survival of family as institution and to the safe upbringing of children.

      I prefer a nuanced take on things so, for instance, while I am fundamentally in favour of pro-choice arguments, I also believe “responsible” men should have a say in the choice. The womb may be the woman’s property but if it is impregnated by consent with the sperm of a known man, then it no longer stays just the woman’s choice.

      A feminist man unfortunately far too often assumes his views to pander to the opposite sex. Call it selective/reproductive memetics on amphetamines. A man shouldn’t need the label if he’s in favour of classical feminism because it’s then purely a matter of human rights.

      What are masculine traits? Compassion, yes, but not to the point of being unable to make hard, even cruel-seeming yet practical decisions. Intelligence obviously, courage, pride, honesty, some form of physical prowess…not an easy question to answer but I think it is easier to recognize the unmasculine than the masculine, but would you not agree that our fathers and their fathers seemed more manly than what we’re surrounded with today?

  2. curious, not offended says:

    Thank you and yes I agree with everything you’ve just said. Great point about feminism really just being about human rights and one doesn’t need to be labelled so.

    And yes. It IS difficult to find a manly man these days. I can’t speak for all women, but I certainly am attracted to the more masculine man (as you describe it) and quite frankly am just not sexually interested in men low on these traits.

    Hmm. I’ve never thought of this before, but you’re clearly onto something.

  3. curious, not offended says:

    I wasn’t going to say this, but it’s bothering me, a lot, so please may I ask: is suppressing aggression such a terrible thing?

    I suppose one should not suppress it. Aggression is usually just suppressed sadness/anger/frustration from a lack of perceived control. So one should find a healthy way to manage it I guess.

    I’m just concerned that you might be advocating aggression as a desirable masculine trait? Are you?

    Wouldn’t intelligence, courage, integrity, strength (physical/ mental/ emotional), or a will to exercise a combination of all of these, better achieve the manly masculine I think you are advocating?

  4. curious, not offended says:

    Just re-read your comment and interesting we both used the same adjectives to describe desirable masculine traits! So we must be on the same page somewhat..

    It’s just, I’m not sure I see any benefits to aggression at all. In fact, I think it’s the cause of a lot of misery in the world. And that an intelligent person of some influence might be advocating it, makes me super uncomfortable 😦

    Please tell me I’m reading it all wrong!

    ps – I do really love your writing. I grumble to myself occassionally because I have to slow down my supersonic reading speed and sometimes have to re-read sentences, but beautiful writing really.

    • I think all “successful” men of any substance channelize their more aggressive instincts as you mention. Moderation is essential to living any kind of balanced life but not at the cost of ironing out all the impromptu spikes and spurts of energy, which are the driving forces behind any great achievement.

      But this wasn’t meant to be a self-help piece. I’m of the opinion that aggression/violence is natural to man’s mentality, it just finds different ways of expressing itself depending on the level of civilization or the zeitgeist of any particular era.

      So, no, I wouldn’t say I’m advocating aggression, just treating it as part and parcel of the male life. Call it a meta-commentary on the facts of manhood if you will, much like a lot of metal music. It’s not pontification, it’s observation. Whether we find it appealing is besides the point but forcefully subtracting that aggressive component on account of gender politics, selection pressures, etc, also takes away something from the basic concept of maleness.

  5. I’ll also add loyalty to that list of values. Loyalty to the people that matter in one’s life and equally importantly, loyalty to oneself and all that it entails.

  6. curious, not offended says:

    Hmm. I see. Thanks for taking the time to expand on it.

  7. curious, not offended says:

    Had a brilliant discussion today with a very mature 18 year old on feminism, her expectations for herself and from men. It struck me, 16 years ago I too had a view of equality that relied on parity and would not have given time of day to a man that disagreed with that even subliminally.

    I guess when I was younger, eager to create my place in the world, I started off from a very defensive standpoint: demanding absolute equality and to quote this young lady “forecfully taking” what I perceived was mine. In fact, I will admit it was only 6 years ago, that I became confident enough in my place in the world, to allow a man to carry my luggage for me.

    Maybe the modern selfie-taking, whatsapp-addicted, approval-reliant man has simply adapted out of his instinct for survival? For a fighting chance to spread his seed amongst the modern selfie-taking, instagramming, immature woman, he needs to present himself in a complementary manner?

    The simple difference between men and boys, women and girls?

    • Selection pressures as I mentioned. Men have always vied for a woman’s attention but not by repackaging themselves to fit the woman’s expectations, at least not in the flagrant manner seen today. Females, in the past, seemed to automatically gravitate towards a man in his natural element, as is . The extreme feminist mindset has tampered with that dynamic in a big way; it doesn’t necessarily mean that feminist women today aren’t attracted to hard men, if you can excuse the pun, just that that uncompromising, unnatural view on life has led to a conflicted state of affairs on both sides of the gender divide.

  8. curious, not offended says:

    So you’re saying that third-wave feminism (gender differences are socially conditioned and there is no inherent difference between the sexes) is to blame for the state of these men?

    I put to you, that post-feminism (gender equality has already been achieved so there is no requirement for feminism) is really to blame. Post-feminist mothers raise their daughters to expect equality and their sons to expect deference from women, because they neglect to address equality at all. This has created a generation of women that have evolved beyond stereotypic gender-based restrictions, with expectations that the men will have done the same. Unfortunately, they haven’t. Combine this with sexual empowerment for women and a lack of male role-models practising feminism, now everyone is thoroughly confused! Women need less and want more. Men need the same (nobody is filling that need) and nobody has taught them to give differently.

    So maybe it’s the ‘lack of feminism’ that is to blame, rather than the presence of?

    I do absolutely agree with your point that there is inherent (and socially conditioned) differences between the sexes, that creates for a more appealing and beneficial partnership. But slating ‘feminism’ in a generalistic manner is not being part of the solution. Accepting gender differences, alongside embracing feminism/equality/human rights (whatever you want to call it) is the way forward.

    Change will come from women raising their sons with awareness too. From men being better role models for equality (cultural and political) to both sons and daughters. That creates manly men and feminine women.

    (As a side, while not to my personal tastes, third-wave feminism is doing really well in the Scandinavian countries.)

    • symbis says:

      Equality, as we see today, creates a playground for unworthy. Maybe, the whole idea of equality is deprived.

      • Anonymous says:

        Deprived from?

        Families that practise/prioritise gender equality, report higher levels of happiness and have children that go on to be more successful, more emotionally mature and earn more than their peers. Couple report high levels of satisfaction from their relationship, their sex lives and have more sex. Companies perform better and report higher levels of employee satisfaction. Teams at work are more efficient. The economic development of a country is directly correlated with higher levels of gender equality.

        If you have issues with “equality, as we see today”, YOU do something about it.

  9. curious, not offended says:

    I’m sorry. I’ve totally appropriated your article on music and turned it into gender politics. I’m done. I promise 🙂

  10. Pingback: Why Destroyer 666’s Wildfire disappoints | Old Disgruntled Bastard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s