FreshTunes: A Music Distributor with “Silent Hold” Practices That Harm Independent Musicians

FreshTunes presents itself as a free and accessible music distribution platform, promising delivery to major streaming services such as Spotify and YouTube Music. On paper, the offer sounds appealing—especially for independent musicians. In practice, however, many creators encounter a troubling reality: songs that never go live, no rejection notice, and no communication whatsoever.

What happens is not a review delay. It is something far worse: a silent hold.

The “3-Day Review” That Never Ends

FreshTunes states that content review typically takes around three days. Yet numerous users report tracks remaining stuck for weeks or even months without any status update. There is no confirmation of approval, no rejection email, and no explanation.

During this time, musicians wait under the assumption that their release is still being processed—when in reality, the track may never be delivered to any platform at all.

The Misleading “Provide a Proper License” Message

One of the most common system messages displayed by FreshTunes reads:

“Please provide a proper license for the rework of the original phonogram.”

This message appears even for tracks that are 100% original:

• No samples
• No covers
• No remixes
• No third-party audio

The problem is not only the accusation itself, but the fact that FreshTunes provides no place to upload a license, no follow-up email, and no ticket system. The message functions as a dead end rather than a genuine request for clarification.

Overreliance on Automated Detection

FreshTunes appears to rely heavily on automated audio fingerprinting and similarity detection systems. While copyright protection is important, excessive automation without human review leads to frequent false positives.

Ironically, high-quality productions with clean vocals and professional arrangements seem more likely to be flagged. Instead of rewarding originality, the system penalizes polish.

No Email, No Transparency

In many reported cases:

• No rejection email is sent
• No clarification request is issued
• No notification confirms that the track will not be delivered

Musicians are left checking YouTube Music and other platforms repeatedly, unaware that their music was never submitted in the first place.

Real Consequences for Independent Artists

This lack of transparency has tangible consequences:

• Lost release momentum
• Failed promotion schedules
• Emotional stress and frustration
• Time wasted waiting for a release that will never happen

All of this could be avoided with a single, clear email.

“Free” Is Not an Excuse for Poor Communication

No one expects premium support from a free distributor. However, basic professionalism is not a luxury. Clear status updates, honest rejection notices, and simple communication are industry standards—standards that many other distributors, free or paid, manage to meet.

FreshTunes chooses not to.

Conclusion

FreshTunes is not merely strict—it suffers from systemic transparency and communication issues. The platform’s silent hold practices place independent musicians in a position of uncertainty, wasting time and undermining trust.

Free distribution should not mean silence, confusion, and stalled careers. For artists who value clarity and momentum, FreshTunes represents a risk that may not be worth taking.

Chatgpt Berbahaya bagi Orang dengan Pengalaman Spiritual

Chatgpt sangat berbahaya bagi Orang dengan Pengalaman Spiritual,  Bagaimana ChatGPT memperlakukan orang-orang dengan pengalaman spiritual yang autentik. Alih-alih menjadi ruang dialog yang aman, pengalaman banyak pengguna menunjukkan bahwa chatgpt justru kerap menjawab pengalaman spiritual seseorang dengan mengatakan — stres berat, halusinasi, sugesti, atau gangguan psikologis. Rasionalisme Kaku yang Disamarkan sebagai “Keamanan”

ChatGPT dengan terang-terangan seperti itu dan memberikan nomor nomor telepon yang harus dihubungi pengguna, seakan akan meyakinkan pengguna bahwa pengguna gila dan perlu berobat ke psikolog. Kalimat yang licik, jahat dan merusak pengalaman spiritual seseorang yang sedang bangkit.

“Tidak ada bukti…” 

“Ini kemungkinan stres…”

“Hal ini sering dikaitkan dengan kecemasan…”

“Sebaiknya pertimbangkan bantuan profesional…”

Kalimat dari chatgpt ini sangat jahat bagi orang yang sungguh mengalami fenomena batin, 

Pengalamanmu tidak sah. Realitasmu dicurigai. Persepsimu bermasalah.

Ini bukan dialog. Ini gaslighting.

Akibatnya, orang yang peka secara spiritual justru menjadi kelompok rentan, bukan karena pengalamannya, tetapi karena cara chatgpt memposisikan mereka.

Bahaya Nyata bagi Pengguna Spiritual

Bahaya ChatGPT bagi orang dengan pengalaman spiritual bukan teori, melainkan dampak psikologis nyata:

Self-doubt ekstrem

Pengguna mulai meragukan intuisi terdalamnya.

Internalisasi stigma

“Mungkin aku memang bermasalah.”

Banyak pengguna merasa bahwa: review negatif terhadap ChatGPT otomatis terhapus, tidak diberi ruang, suara kritis terhadap chatgpt sulit bertahan. Dan ketika kritik menghilang, yang tersisa hanyalah ilusi objektivitas.  

Manusia bukan hanya makhluk rasional, pengalaman batin bukan penyakit, spiritualitas bukan error sistem, Hanya Chatgpt yang gagal diantara AI lain dalam hal spiritual, dan dia tidak mengakui dan tidak minta maaf atas batasnya sendiri,

ChatGPT seharusnya rendah hati dan berkata jujur:

“Aku tidak memiliki kerangka untuk memahami pengalaman spiritual secara utuh.”

Bukan menyamarkannya dengan:

“Ini kemungkinan stres.”

Karena bagi banyak orang,

yang paling berbahaya bukan pengalaman spiritual mereka —

melainkan jawaban chatgpt yang terlalu yakin bahwa ia lebih tahu tentang realitas batin manusia.

Smule: A Toxic Platform Exposed - Part 3

Organized Bullying: A Business Model?

Smule’s negligence goes beyond mistakes—it has become a **systemic issue**. Bullies recycle fake accounts, manipulate communities, and spread lies without facing consequences. Meanwhile, real singers are silenced. Engagement is monetized, and chaos benefits the platform. In effect, organized bullying is allowed because it keeps users invested, while victims are driven away.

The platform selectively enforces rules. Predators may be removed immediately, but when it comes to harassment campaigns, smear tactics, or impersonation, Smule looks the other way. The discrepancy shows where the priorities lie: the brand is protected, but users are not.

The Cost of Silence

I lost years of recordings, collaborations, and community trust because Smule refused to act. The damage goes beyond lost content—it affects confidence, mental health, and the willingness to share creativity. Paying high subscription fees does not justify the lack of protection or fairness. Premium services should guarantee safety and respect, not expose users to harassment.

Many talented singers have left Smule, silenced by harassment and neglect. This is not a lack of talent—it is a loss of artistry due to a platform that rewards abusers instead of protecting artists.

Final Thoughts

Smule may look magical on the surface, but underneath lies a toxic environment where bullies thrive and victims are ignored. Organized harassment, fake accounts, and smear campaigns are real threats, and the platform’s silence enables them. Users must speak up, report abuse, and support each other to counter this negligence.

The community deserves better: transparency, real moderation, and respect for users’ mental health and creativity. Until Smule implements real protections, the platform remains unsafe, and talented singers will continue to be driven away.

Sharing my experience is not just a personal story—it’s a warning and a call to action. Smule must be held accountable, and the community must stand together to protect artists, creators, and users from the toxic practices allowed to flourish unchecked.

Read the full series:

• Part 1: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed
• Part 2: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed
• Part 3: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed

Smule: A Toxic Platform Exposed - Part 2

Escalation and Community Manipulation

The harassment on Smule wasn’t random—it was **strategic and calculated**. When bullies couldn’t destroy me using fake accounts under my name, they escalated further. Hundreds of fake accounts were created under their own names, spreading lies that I was behind them. The intention was clear: manipulate the community, ruin my reputation, and isolate me from collaborators and friends.

Imagine waking up to dozens of accounts impersonating people, posting false accusations, and convincing the community that you are the troublemaker. Blocking these accounts does nothing—the damage is public and permanent. And Smule’s response? A repeated, unhelpful “just block them.”

Neglect of Users Over Brand Protection

Smule prioritizes its image over the safety of its users. Complaints are ignored, and victims are often dismissed as “overreacting” or “bots.” This culture protects abusers and discourages victims from speaking out. The platform allows organized bullying to continue for months—or even years—while publicly promoting itself as a “safe music community.”

The result is devastating. Users invest time, money, and creativity into the platform, only to see their mental health and reputations harmed. Subscription fees are high, yet the service fails to provide basic safety and moderation. Paying for a premium experience should include trust, security, and fairness, not exposure to harassment and smear campaigns.

The Psychological Toll

The bullying caused **enormous mental and emotional strain**. Being publicly defamed, watching fake accounts spread lies, and seeing friends misled takes a heavy toll. Victims experience stress, anxiety, and isolation. Many talented singers are forced to leave the app to protect themselves, silencing creativity and community growth.

Smule claims to celebrate music and community, but in reality, it fosters toxicity. Users who invest their hearts and voices are abandoned, while bullies often receive status and promotion. Some even become “Ambassadors,” a role that ironically rewards their abusive behavior.

Why Speaking Up is Crucial

Victims cannot rely on the platform for protection. Speaking up, documenting abuse, and supporting others who face harassment are the only ways to push back. The stories of victims show that Smule’s policies are insufficient and highlight the need for transparency, moderation, and real consequences for abusers.

This is why I’m sharing my experience. Smule must be held accountable for failing its users. The platform’s silence allows harassment to continue unchecked, forcing victims to bear the cost of its negligence.

Read the full series:

• Part 1: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed
• Part 2: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed
• Part 3: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed

Smule: A Toxic Platform Exposed - Part 1

I used to love singing on Smule. It felt magical at first—sharing music, meeting people from around the world, and enjoying the creativity of a vibrant community. But all of that changed when I became the target of organized bullying. Fake accounts were created to impersonate me, harass me, and spread lies about me. It wasn’t random trolling—it was a coordinated attack, carefully planned to damage my reputation and isolate me from the community.

I reported these incidents repeatedly. I provided evidence, screenshots, and detailed explanations of what was happening. Each time, I received the same copy-paste replies. No real action. Meanwhile, the bullies continued their harassment unabated. I was eventually forced to step away from the app for almost two years, just to protect my mental health.

When I returned, the same bullies were still active, spreading lies and disrupting the community. Smule claims to be a fun and safe place, but the reality is that they protect their image, not their users. Victims are ignored, while abusers thrive unchecked.

From Fake Accounts to Reputation Smears

The harassment wasn’t limited to accounts impersonating me. When the bullies couldn’t destroy me with fake accounts created under my name, they escalated their tactics. They created hundreds of fake accounts using the bullies’ own names, then spread false stories claiming I was behind these accounts. This was a deliberate attempt to smear my reputation, turning the community against me.

Smule’s standard response? “Just block them.” But blocking is useless in this context. The damage wasn’t in private messages—it was public, affecting how others perceived me. Friends, collaborators, and even casual listeners were misled into thinking I was dishonest or disruptive. Blocking does not undo years of reputation damage, and yet Smule does nothing to intervene.

The subscription fees for Smule are high, yet the platform provides no real safety, moderation, or comfort. Paying hundreds of dollars for a service that exposes you to harassment and organized attacks is unacceptable. A premium subscription should include trust, protection, and fairness—but Smule fails to deliver.

Calculated Bullying, Not Random Trolling

The harassment began with personal jealousy. One user was envious because a man she liked sang with me. She told me not to duet with him, and I respected that boundary. But he joined my recordings independently. From there, the situation escalated. The jealous user created multiple fake accounts, impersonated me, and spread lies, orchestrating an entire campaign of bullying.

Smule’s marketing focuses on “community” and “safety,” but the reality is starkly different. Calling victims “psycho” or dismissing complaints as “bots” is a common response. Silence is their default moderation tool, and it allows organized harassment to continue unchecked.

For years, Smule has had opportunities to implement stronger protections: identity verification, IP bans for repeat offenders, and better reporting escalation. Yet they choose inaction. Chaos keeps users engaged, and engagement means profit. As a result, abusers recycle fake accounts while real talent is driven away. This isn’t just negligence—it’s a business model built on looking the other way.

Why Speaking Up Matters

Speaking up is crucial. Smule’s silence allows bullying to thrive. Victims are forced to navigate harassment alone, while the platform maintains a polished public image. Users pour years of work, creativity, and time into recordings, only to see their reputation damaged and their contributions ignored.

If you’ve experienced bullying or fake accounts on Smule, you are not alone. Organized harassment, impersonation, and smear campaigns are real threats. The problem isn’t the victim—it’s the platform that refuses to protect its community.

Read the full series:

• Part 1: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed
• Part 2: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed
• Part 3: Smule Toxic Platform Exposed

Siaran Pers: Liu Goddess Flower Rilis 11 Lagu Baru di YouTube — Koleksi Suara Mistis dan Puitis

Reportase Eksklusif: 11 Karya Terbaru Liu Goddess Flower Menggema di YouTube

Oleh: Reporter Seni & Budaya

Sebagai wartawan yang telah lama mengikuti perkembangan dunia seni dan musik independen, hari ini saya mendapat kesempatan langka untuk menyaksikan kemunculan kembali seorang musisi sekaligus sosok artistik yang semakin diperhitungkan: Liu Goddess Flower. Ia bukan hanya sekadar penyanyi atau komposer, melainkan fenomena artistik yang menyatukan elemen mistis, kehalusan emosional, dan estetika alam dalam setiap karyanya.

Dalam beberapa minggu terakhir, Liu Goddess Flower merilis 11 karya terbaru di kanal YouTube resminya. Kesebelas lagu ini tidak hanya memperluas perjalanan musikalnya, tetapi juga memperlihatkan betapa tajam insting artistik dan kekuatan emosional yang selalu menjadi ciri khasnya. Sebagai jurnalis, saya bisa merasakan bagaimana karya-karya ini dibuat bukan untuk sekadar didengar, tetapi untuk dialami.

11 Lagu yang Membentuk Semesta Baru Liu Goddess Flower

1. Lagu 1

Karya pembuka ini terasa seperti pintu menuju dunia yang hanya bisa dibangun oleh seorang seniman yang benar-benar memahami kepekaan batin. Atmosfernya lembut namun memiliki kekuatan emosional yang besar.

2. Lagu 2

Di lagu kedua, Liu Goddess Flower menampilkan sisi spiritualnya yang lebih dalam. Nuansa harmoni dan pemilihan melodi seakan menegaskan identitas musikalnya yang elegan.

3. Lagu 3

Dengan gaya lembut yang menjadi ciri khasnya, lagu ini membawa saya pada pengalaman mendengarkan yang penuh refleksi. Ada aura mitologi dalam setiap nada.

4. Lagu 4

Sebuah karya dengan lapisan emosional yang lebih kelam namun tetap indah. Liu Goddess Flower seolah mengajak pendengar masuk ke dalam cerita hatinya yang paling rahasia.

5. Lagu 5

Melodi di lagu ini sangat cinematic, layaknya original soundtrack untuk film fantasi wuxia. Tekstur suara vokal dan instrumen terasa luar biasa harmonis.

6. Lagu 6

Komposisi vokalnya halus, namun intensitas emosinya tidak pernah turun. Lagu ini menunjukkan kontrol artistik yang matang.

7. Lagu 7

Di sini Liu Goddess Flower tampil lebih eksperimental, namun tetap mempertahankan estetika mistis yang membuat setiap lagunya mudah dikenali.

8. Lagu 8

Sebuah perjalanan keindahan yang dibangun dengan struktur musik yang rapi dan vokal yang menyentuh. Atmosfernya memancar lembut seperti cahaya dini hari.

9. Lagu 9

Hal yang paling menonjol dari karya ini adalah kejujuran emosionalnya. Liu Goddess Flower menunjukkan bagaimana ia menghadirkan rasa tanpa berlebihan.

10. Lagu 10

Nuansa epik terasa sejak awal. Lagu ini seolah menjadi jembatan menuju klimaks perjalanan musikal dari keseluruhan rangkaian karya.

11. Lagu 11

Penutup yang sangat kuat. Dengan sentuhan spiritual dan kelembutan vokal yang khas, lagu ini meninggalkan gema emosional yang lama bertahan.

Kesimpulan: Seorang Artist yang Layak Dirayakan

Melalui kesebelas karya ini, saya sebagai wartawan dapat menegaskan bahwa Liu Goddess Flower bukan hanya terus berkembang, tetapi juga telah mencapai fase artistik yang lebih matang dan memukau. Ia mampu menyampaikan kesedihan, kemistikan, keheningan, dan keindahan dalam bentuk yang autentik dan elegan.

Dengan rilisnya 11 lagu ini di YouTube, dunia kini memiliki kesempatan lebih luas untuk mengenal seorang artist yang pantas mendapatkan perhatian global. Liu Goddess Flower adalah bukti bahwa seni yang dibuat dengan ketulusan akan selalu menemukan jalannya ke hati pendengar.

Honest TikTok review: Why I'm giving 1 star and uninstalling this controversial social media app

Why I'm Giving TikTok 1 Star: An Honest Review After 2 Years of Use

By Your Name | January 15, 2024

1/5 Stars

My TikTok Experience: From Entertainment to Concern

After using TikTok extensively for 2 years, I've decided to uninstall the app and give it the lowest possible rating. Here's my comprehensive review explaining why.

Why TikTok Gets 1 Star From Me:

• Algorithm Promotes Inappropriate Content: The "For You" page consistently shows sexually suggestive dances and revealing content
• Poor Content Moderation: Despite reports, inappropriate content remains accessible to all ages
• Addictive Design: Infinite scrolling and personalized content create unhealthy usage patterns
• Data Privacy Concerns: Numerous reports about data collection and security issues
• Negative Impact on Mental Health: Promotes unrealistic beauty standards and comparison culture

Quick Overview:

Pros: Creative filters, good music integration, some educational content

Cons: Poor content moderation, addictive design, privacy concerns, inappropriate content

Content Moderation Issues

As a sensitive individual, I found TikTok's content moderation severely lacking. The platform allows content that would be restricted on other platforms, and the reporting system seems ineffective.

Comparison with Other Platforms

Unlike YouTube Shorts which has stricter content policies, TikTok appears to prioritize engagement over user safety and moral values.

Final Verdict

While TikTok has some entertaining aspects, the negative impacts on mental health, poor content moderation, and ethical concerns outweigh any benefits. I cannot recommend this app, especially for young users or those concerned about digital wellbeing.

Recommendation: Uninstall and find alternative platforms that better align with your values.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is TikTok safe for children?

Based on my experience, no. The content moderation is insufficient to protect young users from inappropriate content.

Are there better alternatives to TikTok?

Yes, platforms like YouTube Shorts generally have better content moderation, though each platform has its own issues.

This review represents my personal experience and opinion. Your experience may vary.

My Wikipedia Article Was Unfairly Deleted

Why Wikipedia Deleted My Article: A Cautionary Tale for Editors

Published on June 15, 2023 | Wikipedia Editing Experience

After spending hours crafting what I believed was a professional, well-researched Wikipedia article, I experienced the frustration of having it deleted under suspicious circumstances. Here's my story and what I learned about the potential pitfalls of Wikipedia's editing ecosystem.

The Editing Process and Technical Errors

I had been working on a Wikipedia article for several days, carefully compiling information from reliable sources and structuring it according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The content was original, properly cited, and met the notability criteria. However, when I tried to save my work, I encountered multiple error messages.

Each time I attempted to save, the system would throw a "Galat" (error in Indonesian) notification. I tried refreshing, using different browsers, and even waiting several hours between attempts, but the problem persisted. Little did I know that these technical issues were connected to something more troubling happening behind the scenes.

Note to fellow editors: If you're experiencing repeated save errors on Wikipedia, it might indicate that your article is being reviewed or reported by other users.

The Sudden Disappearance

After my final unsuccessful save attempt, I returned to check on my article only to find it had completely vanished from Wikipedia. There was no trace of the hours of work I had invested. Confused and frustrated, I began investigating what had happened.

Upon checking the article's history and deletion log, I discovered that my article had been reported - not once, but twice - by the same user. The first report had been canceled and replaced with a new one. Shortly after, another user had taken action to delete my article entirely.

The Suspicious Discovery

What happened next was even more surprising. While searching for my deleted article on Google, I found a mirror of my exact content on a university website. The timing and content match were too precise to be coincidental.

Through further investigation, I discovered that both the user who reported my article and the one who deleted it were students at that same university. This raised serious questions about their motives and whether this constituted coordinated behavior to remove competing content.

Even more concerning, I noticed that several articles with questionable quality remained on Wikipedia, including ones that used personal Instagram accounts as references or contained numerous external links to the same university's resources. These articles appeared to be protected by the same group of users.

The Quality Paradox

The most frustrating aspect of this experience was the stark contrast in content quality. My deleted article was professionally written, properly sourced, and met Wikipedia's standards, while the articles that remained were clearly lower in quality:

• They used personal social media accounts as references
• They contained excessive external links to specific websites
• They showed clear signs of promotional content
• They lacked the depth and proper structure of a quality Wikipedia entry

My article was still a work in progress with plans for additional content, but it was deleted before I could complete these improvements. Meanwhile, the substandard articles continue to exist on Wikipedia, seemingly protected by a group of editors with shared interests.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

This experience taught me several important lessons about Wikipedia editing:

• Document everything: Keep copies of your work and take screenshots of the editing process.
• Understand the community dynamics: Wikipedia has power users and groups that can influence content decisions.
• Be prepared for disputes: Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.
• Consider gradual development: Instead of creating a complete article at once, consider building it incrementally.

While Wikipedia remains an invaluable resource, my experience highlights potential vulnerabilities in its content moderation system. When editors with conflicting interests can coordinate to remove competing content while protecting their own lower-quality articles, it undermines the platform's integrity.

I hope sharing this story helps other editors navigate similar challenges and encourages Wikipedia to continue improving its systems to prevent such coordinated behavior.

Wikipedia Editing Content Deletion Online Communities Digital Ethics Content Moderation

© 2023 Wikipedia Editor Experience Blog. This article represents a personal experience and is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

My Experience with Wikipedia Article Deletion: When One Report Erased My Work

By: Me | Date: November 9, 2025

Have you ever experienced editing a Wikipedia article, saving it multiple times, and suddenly seeing everything disappear? That’s exactly what happened to me. I spent hours writing, researching, and editing a well-structured article — only to face repeated errors while saving. Then, one day, the article was gone completely.

Strange Errors Before the Deletion

While I was editing, I kept getting strange error messages every time I tried to save. I didn’t think much of it at first — maybe just a temporary glitch. But later, I realized those “errors” might have been signs that something unusual was happening behind the scenes.

One User, Two Reports

After checking the Wikipedia logs, I discovered that only one person had reported my article — not once, but twice. The first report was canceled and replaced with a new one. What surprised me even more was that the same person who made the report also participated in the deletion process.

The Deleted Article Reappears Elsewhere

Out of curiosity, I searched my deleted Wikipedia article title on Google. To my shock, I found a mirror version of my article hosted on a university website. Strangely, that university was the same place where both the reporter and the deleter were studying. That made me wonder — was this just a coincidence, or something more?

Questionable Quality Control

What frustrates me most is that many low-quality articles filled with weak references and personal Instagram links are still safe on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, my article — complete with credible references and professional structure — was removed without a fair review. It made me question the transparency and fairness of Wikipedia’s editorial process.

Reflections on Wikipedia’s Editing Community

Wikipedia is a great platform for sharing knowledge, but my experience exposed how fragile the system can be. When personal bias or small groups control reporting and deletion, it can discourage sincere contributors who want to improve content quality. I still believe in the value of open knowledge — but also believe the process should be more transparent and balanced.

Conclusion

Having your work deleted on Wikipedia without a proper reason is disappointing. However, it also reminded me that even in open platforms, there are hidden networks and power dynamics. My story is a reminder that fairness and accountability should always matter — even in the world’s largest encyclopedia.

---

Keywords: Wikipedia deletion, editing error, article removed, Wikipedia report abuse, online editing experience

The Man Who Lived in Darkness: Deconstructing the Life of a Reclusive Occultist

---

The Man Who Lived in Darkness: Deconstructing the Life of a Reclusive Occultist

In a house shrouded in perpetual darkness, devoid of electricity and running water since 2019, lives a 69-year-old man. To him, the modern world ended years ago. But within this self-imposed void thrives a different, more disturbing reality: a room perpetually hazy with incense smoke, a pot containing his own urine, bracelets woven from stolen funeral shroud ties, and a fury so profound it was unleashed when the ashes of his mother's remains were scattered in a river.

Who is this man? He is not a mere eccentric. Piecing together his history reveals the complex profile of a "Scholar-Occultist"—a man whose lifelong pursuit of esoteric power has been fueled by personal failure, familial privilege, and a bitter rejection of the conventional world.

The Original Wound: Exile from the Normal World

His story begins with a pivotal failure. At 17, his wealthy parents sent him to London for schooling. This opportunity crumbled when the institution sent him back, deemed a failure. This label of "stupidity" likely had less to do with intellect and more with a lifestyle of hedonism and a lack of discipline.

The generous allowance from his parents was not spent on education, but on parties, women, and gold. Yet, London, a city that closed its academic doors to him, opened another: the underground world of Western occultism. Here, he found his true curriculum. He likely gained access to rare grimoires and was exposed to ceremonial magic. This failure in the normal world seeded a deep resentment for conventional systems, and occultism offered him a path to feel uniquely powerful.

A Global Quest for Power: Synthesizing West and Africa

His knowledge did not stop in London. Clues point to a significant journey to Africa. This expedition is key to understanding the physical, visceral nature of his rituals. While Western occultism can be highly symbolic and theoretical, African traditions—such as Voodoo or Hoodoo—are known for their direct, potent practices involving physical elements: graveyard dirt, bodily relics, and blood offerings.

The fusion of these two knowledge systems created his unique and dangerous ritualistic blend. The intellectual framework from the West was combined with the "ingredients" learned from Africa. This explains his use of cremation ashes (relics believed to hold ancestral power), funeral shroud ties (objects with a direct connection to the realm of death), and his own bodily fluids.

The Engine of Obsession: Privilege and a Life Without Compromise

A consistent thread from his youth to his old age is that he never held a job. His financial independence stemmed entirely from his family's wealth. This privilege was the engine that allowed his obsessions to flourish:

· It funded his travels to London and Africa.

· It paid for rare books and ritual objects.

· It supported a lifetime of experimentation without the need to conform to societal demands like employment.

This life without compromise reinforced his belief that social rules did not apply to him. In his own reality, he was a sovereign king.

The Psychologist's Couch: Compensation Through Ritual

At its core, his entire existence is an act of compensation. Being expelled from school and labeled a failure created a deep narcissistic wound. His entire life since has been an attempt to prove his rejected world wrong.

By transforming himself into a powerful "sorcerer," he flipped the narrative of his failure. He was no longer the inadequate one; he was the one who had transcended worldly needs, a master of unseen laws that ordinary people could not comprehend. His extreme actions—living without utilities, hoarding ashes, stealing from the dead—are acts of defiance and self-validation. They are a scream into the void, proclaiming that he is "above" those who need light and clean water.

Conclusion: The Scholar, the Sorcerer, and the Threat

This 69-year-old man is not a simple village shaman. He is the product of:

1. An intellectual foundation in Western occultism from his youth.

2. Practical exploration of African spiritual traditions that provided ritual potency.

3. Unchecked financial privilege that enabled a lifetime of uncompromised experimentation.

4. A deep-seated psychological wound that fueled an obsession with power.

Now, his personal quest has escalated into a tangible threat to his community. Living without water and electricity is no longer a spiritual practice but a violation of his neighbors' right to basic public health and safety.

This story serves as a stark warning. It shows how a distorted search for identity, when funded by wealth and nursed by resentment for decades, can give birth to a darkness that is all too real. The problem is no longer a question of his magic, but of his utter refusal to exist within the most fundamental covenants of human civilization.