to the pure and hatefilled
niv...@hotmail.com
obvious MINORITY; deduced from reading the posts..)
to get a handle on what attitudes prevail in the current bm scene, what
does everyone think of this statement?
(from: "http://www.rusmetal.ru/vae_solis/Sacramentary.htm" Sacramentary
Abolishment interview)
Q: BLASPHEMY once was the most popular Canadian BM (I prefer to call
them as «primitive grind», though) band, and (if I’m not mistaken)
their lineup included a nigger, playing guitar... What do you think of
this fact? Isn’t black metal a kind of music, meant only for the White
Men?
A: I can assure you, that you are not the only one somewhat confused by
this fact. If I am not mistaken (and I could be, as it is only a
rumor), the nigger is now a rapper and sells crack-cocaine from
his ‘gangster car’. Anyway, who cares... he is just a fuck. Black metal
is strictly a white man’s realm, as far as I am concerned. Elite music
for the elite society. Simple.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
black_...@my-deja.com
>
> Q: BLASPHEMY once was the most popular Canadian BM (I prefer to call
> them as «primitive grind», though) band, and (if I’m not mistaken)
> their lineup included a nigger, playing guitar... What do you think of
> this fact? Isn’t black metal a kind of music, meant only for the White
> Men?
>
> A: I can assure you, that you are not the only one somewhat confused by
> this fact.
Yes, your confusion is obvious.
> Black metal is strictly a white man’s realm, as far as I am concerned.
?? Black metal is 'nigger-music', after all! Your concern counts for
nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
ap
Sharund
black_...@my-deja.com wrote:
Heh nice going... except for one thing Verminaard doesn't utilize usenet at
all...
What were you trying to say anyway?
Was this merely a reaction to some nasty words or did you have some point? if
so please make it...
Sharund
--
Demon Realm - Wrathful aggressive black metal
mailto:demon...@beer.tj
Dominion Of Demon Realm website
http://www.darkmetal.com/demonrealm/
Subscribe to the Demon Realm newsletter
mailto:demonrealm...@listbot.com
Sybren
>Black metal
>is strictly a white man’s realm, as far as I am concerned. Elite music
>for the elite society. Simple.
Bands like Impiety, Abhorer, Sigh and Abigail alone prove this wrong.
Still, one can't deny that Metal in general has been predominately white,
male, lower class and relentlessly elitist at the same time.
Sybren
--
"Was liegt daran, das ich Recht behalte! Ich habe zu viel Recht.
Und wer heute am besten lacht, lacht auch zuletzt."
NivendE
S.J.He...@student.tudelft.nl wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:02:00 GMT, niv...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Bands like Impiety, Abhorer, Sigh and Abigail alone prove this wrong.
> Still, one can't deny that Metal in general has been predominately
white,
> male, lower class and relentlessly elitist at the same time.
>
Lower class? Most everywhere I look I see rich kids with parents who
buy them instruments. Similar to the current 'punk scene'
Sybren
>Lower class? Most everywhere I look I see rich kids with parents who
>buy them instruments.
Perhaps not everywhere, but at the shows I've visited throughout Europe in
the last ten years, the large majority of the audience and bands were no
academics.
Joost de Heer
|> Still, one can't deny that Metal in general has been predominately
|white,
|> male, lower class and relentlessly elitist at the same time.
|>
|Lower class? Most everywhere I look I see rich kids with parents who
|buy them instruments. Similar to the current 'punk scene'
I think he meant 'intellectually lower class'. Which is proven by the vast
amount of retards posting to this newsgroup.
Joost
NP: Grind Crusher - V/A
--
Ei! wie schmeckt der Coffee süße, lieblicher als tausend Küsse [Kaffee ]
Milder als Muskatenwein. [Kantate - ]
Coffee, coffee muß ich haben, und wenn jemand mich will laben [J.S. Bach ]
Ach, so schenkt mir Coffee ein!
NivendE
joo...@sci.kun.nl (Joost de Heer) wrote:
> NivendE <niv...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> I think he meant 'intellectually lower class'. Which is proven by the
vast
> amount of retards posting to this newsgroup.
>
> Joost
>
Hmmm, is it strange that I find Black Metal to be the most thought-
provoking type of metal music?
Garth ov Grimraven
do we really want to classify these bands as "Elite" though? If we allow these
bands in you're allowing hundreds of "very good but not exactly superior or
ground breaking" type bands into an 'Elite' as well. One would only have to
be slightly raised above mediocrity to constitute oneself as 'Elite' at this
point.
Total Death und ColdVoid uber alles!
"The Holocaust never happened, and it should happen again." -Nizkor Project
NivendE
iamx...@aol.comTROLSK (Garth ov Grimraven) wrote:
> do we really want to classify these bands as "Elite" though? If we
allow these
> bands in you're allowing hundreds of "very good but not exactly
superior or
> ground breaking" type bands into an 'Elite' as well. One would only
have to
> be slightly raised above mediocrity to constitute oneself as 'Elite'
at this
> point.
>
The 'elite' is still somewhat of a debatable issue, bands I thought
were 'elite' at one time continue to disappoint me time and time
again...
Trépas
>
> do we really want to classify these bands as "Elite" though? If we allow
these
> bands in you're allowing hundreds of "very good but not exactly superior
or
> ground breaking" type bands into an 'Elite' as well. One would only have
to
> be slightly raised above mediocrity to constitute oneself as 'Elite' at
this
> point.
>
That depend of what you mean by elite... band like Sigh and Abigail are in
the best band in there kind... Bazzah from Malaysia is also a real good band
in there kind... If thise band don't necessarly have the same credibility
and attention of some other least good band from Scandinavia, it's just
because that they come from Asia I think, and often, there album arn't
necessarly easy to find (Sigh is an exception here)
sulfugor
The guy who runs Vae Solis ( herr stalhammar ( russians are totally in
love with germans who slaughtered millions of slavs like cattle) )
has this weird obsession with black people. To any band that has a
black member in, he will give the lowest grade possible, no matter what
the music sounds like. For example, in his reviews of the last
sepultura album, i could almost picture him foaming at the mouth, so
enraged he seemed at the singer's color ! He gave blasphemy's "fallen
angel of doom" his lowest grade too and called the members "a nigger
and 3 jews who call themselves national socialists!" and sounded quite
enraged , hehe. He has an article on his site that calls black people
the greatest threat to white civilization ( not jews as usual but
blacks !) ! Ironically, in one other review he compares a band to
Suffocation and it's implied that he thinks Suffocation are a good band
( i assume he has never seen pictures of the band circa "breeding the
spawn"! he'd probably have a heart attack, poor guy).
What i don't get is how a russian can become so obsessed with blacks in
particular. Can you imagine an american getting all worked up about
Chechens ?
Also, he doesnt seem to have any problem with pakistani, malaysian,
indian, arab and other geographically unusual black metal, just "black
and jew" black metal .
sulf
salvatore
come one man thats a pretty stupid comment..... i know u can have your own opinion
and if thats your good for you.... but that is a fucking stupid point of view..
i'm no jew but i think that that is a fucking ignorant comment.
NivendE
sulfugor <sulf...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> He has an article on his site that calls black people
> the greatest threat to white civilization ( not jews as usual but
> blacks !)
I think that 'wigger'dom is a viable threat, although whether blacks
are the only ones perpetrating it or not is yet to be answered.
> What i don't get is how a russian can become so obsessed with blacks
in
> particular. Can you imagine an american getting all worked up about
> Chechens ?
Most of these people who claim to know what National Socialism is about
have never even seen a black person before. Although I personally don't
know what his personal situation is, maybe he caught a glimpse of what
is happening in germany, although those blacks aren't traditionally
what would be referred to as 'niggers'
> Also, he doesnt seem to have any problem with pakistani, malaysian,
> indian, arab and other geographically unusual black metal, just "black
> and jew" black metal .
pakistani, arab, indian black metal? This is intriguing, please list
some bands..
Unchain the Underground
roll, which finds its roots in blues, which finds its roots in
spirituals sung by blacks in the fields. Thus, all metal is "nigger
music." To say black metal is for "whites only" is idiotic. If you
really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with his
or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
Garth ov Grimraven
>
>"The Holocaust never happened, and it should happen again."??
>come one man thats a pretty stupid comment..... i know u can have your own
>opinion
>and if thats your good for you.... but that is a fucking stupid point of
>view..
>i'm no jew but i think that that is a fucking ignorant comment.
uh, you're quite misinformed about my quote. www.nizkor.org is a
well-respected as well as completely libelous anti-Nazi propaganda website.
They twist language and edit quotes as well as outright lie, and the sheeple
eat it up with a spoon. Nizkor would have us believe the "Jewish soap" fairy
tale, even though it's been refuted by even mainstream historians (although
they say it was just a 'rumour' and not outright propaganda).
The quote has a dual purpose:
1) to shock or amuse (depending on where you're coming from; as a brainwashed
sheep you will be shocked, as an informed independent-minded person you will be
amused)
2) irony
In any event, I would have no problem saying that the Holocaust never happened
AND that it should happen again.. insofar as much of "the Holocaust" didn't
happen (I'm thinking of the 6 million number specifically). If 6 million Jews
really did die (which they didn't as can be easily proved with a little
research) would I be obliged to call the Nazi's 'wrong'? No. I am also making
commentary on the overemphasis that is placed on "the Holocaust" and the total
blackout of far more destructive actions occuring since WWII. The Nizkor quote
is for me a classic example of the media's role in force-feeding collective
white guilt.
Garth ov Grimraven
>
>Black metal finds its roots in metal,
uhmmm.. is there a concise musical theory in metal? Distortion and belligerant
volume do not count as theoretical concepts.
which finds its roots in rock n
>roll, which finds its roots in blues,
here you're jumping around, in you're genealogy of black metal you've lost the
substance. Black metal has got NOTHING in common with blues as a musical
theory.
which finds its roots in
>spirituals sung by blacks in the fields.
uh wrong. Whites invented blues. Blacks were responsible for popularizing and
progressing upon that theory. Jazz was invented by blacks but jazz is quite
clearly heavily reliant upon European classical principles.
Thus, all metal is "nigger
>music." To say black metal is for "whites only" is idiotic. If you
>really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with his
>or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
this is why you fall into the category of "Jew aestheticist." You followed the
history of black metals musical aesthetics (the purely superficial qualities)
and not the theoretical concepts animating the aesthetics ... you have
unsuccessfully been grasping at the shadow and in doing so loose the substance.
stop.... monkey time!
Melvin Slundersloth
Garth ov Grimraven wrote in message
<20001102185438...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
>
>this is why you fall into the category of "Jew aestheticist
I still am baffled by this notion that circulates around this newsgroup
that Jews are somehow inherently preoccupied with the aesthetics of a
subject. Where the hell does this come from?
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
http://www.Ihavenofuckingwebsite.com
Old Slav
Garth ov Grimraven <iamx...@aol.comTROLSK> wrote
> uh, you're quite misinformed about my quote. www.nizkor.org is a
> well-respected as well as completely libelous anti-Nazi propaganda
The Truth:
Old Slav
> uh wrong. Whites invented blues. Blacks were responsible
> for popularizing and progressing upon that theory. Jazz was
> invented by blacks but jazz is quite clearly heavily reliant upon
> European classical principles.
Blues is based on the pentatonic scale, which originated in Asia.
Garth ov Grimraven
>that Jews are somehow inherently preoccupied with the aesthetics of a
>subject. Where the hell does this come from?
no you've got it all wrong. Aestheticism over form/substance suggests
fundamentally Jewish motives. It's a means to an ends relationship. Unless,
of course, the act of aestheticism is an end in itself (ie: masturbation).
Neil Lund
Unchain the Underground wrote:
>
> You "black metal elite" have such a disdain for non-whites and anyone
> that does not share your ideology. If you get sick, do you refuse to
> eat chicken noodle soup because it is "Jewish medicine?" If you order
> pizza and the delivery guy is mexican, do you refuse to tip him? If
> you find out that a black guy made the burger you are eating, do you
> spit it out and refuse to eat the rest?
>
Haha...talk about a pigeonhole.
>
> Greg
> http://www.unchain.com/
jesus...@my-deja.com
> Q: BLASPHEMY once was the most popular Canadian BM (I prefer to call
> them as «primitive grind», though) band, and (if I’m not mistaken)
> their lineup included a nigger, playing guitar... What do you think of
> this fact? Isn’t black metal a kind of music, meant only for the White
> Men?
White man's music and culture is for white men. Black metal is for white
people. White people are currently the only minority not protected by a
Jewish/Christian United States-United Nations axis. That is
discrimination.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> The Truth:
>
> http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p185_Grubach.html
The democratic party receives 50% of its funding from Jewish voters? I
didn't even know that. This explains Lieberman, who never did anything
useful in his whole life.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> If you
> really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with his
> or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
That's good reasoning.
We're different races for a reason, and we have different histories and
cultures to prove it.
You seem to be repeating what you've heard on television.
Garth ov Grimraven
>
>> The Truth:
>>
>> http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p185_Grubach.html
>
>The democratic party receives 50% of its funding from Jewish voters? I
>didn't even know that. This explains Lieberman, who never did anything
>useful in his whole life.
another funny thing is that the Republican party receives over 25% of its funds
from Jews. No wonder why we have the entire Muslim world against us. Hail
Hezbollah!
jesus...@my-deja.com
> another funny thing is that the Republican party receives over 25% of
its funds
> from Jews. No wonder why we have the entire Muslim world against us.
All these sheep don't realize how much religion controls their lives.
75% of the vote bought is a pretty big number.
Garth ov Grimraven
>the
>>substance. Black metal has got NOTHING in common with blues as a musical
>>theory.
>
bullshit. Like I said you are fixated on the aesthetics (ie: instrumentation).
If you wrote a song by Darkthrone, Burzum, Immortal, Emperor, etc on a sheet
of paper you'd see the scales, chords, and structures don't even remotely
resemble blues, it's far closer classical music from the late Romantic/early
Modern era.
>Oh, did they? What whites invented the blues and when? Whites
>popularized the blues, I will give you that.
Where do you think those 'slave songs' came from? They were based on the folk
music of whites, the music of the church also explains this. That is
proto-country/western/southern. African tribal music was/is completely
rhythm/percussive based. You can't simply go through musical evolution point A
to point E skipping through the logical between points.
As for the origins, they're a little fuzzy as folk/traditional/tribal/ethnic
music is almost never written down but passed down through the generations
(like the oral tradition). Anyway, blues is an inferior theory as it's
extremely limited in scope and ability to express.
>And this is why you fall into the category of "simpleton."
Oh, good one
> You
>pigeonhole me after reading some of my posts on a usenet group,
it was a joke pal, nonetheless your comments heavily suggest you of the crime
of aestheticism.
just
>like you pigeonhole people based on the color of their skin or what
>part of the world they come from.
oh give me a fucking break. Can you POSSIBLY sound more like a brainwashed PC
sheepish television addict?
I'll bet you also snicker at people
>that post from an AOL or WEBtv address.
actually I'm posting from an AOL address smart guy
>Yes, I am talking about aesthetics here... the musical roots of black
>metal.
the "roots" of black metal (or any art form) exists INDEPENDENT of aesthetics.
That is: instrumentation, production/programming, playing technique, as well as
things like 'ideology,' lyrics, image, etc. This as opposed to things with
substance: structure, tonality, harmony, etc.
>I did not, once, mention the ideals of either black metal or
>the blues... you brought that up and are using it as the basis for
>picking apart my argument.
as you see I'm not suggesting that ideology is something integral to the music
necessarily. I'm not a musical metaphysician ala anus.com. What I'm saying is
you can judge music if you strip it of it's aesthetic components, and when this
is done blues/rock and black metal don't have anything to do with each other
except traditional instrumentation.
>do realize how integral the ideology is
>to black metal, but that is not what I was talking about. Black METAL
>is not just a concept. It is an aesthetic art form as well.
I definitely agree, except I'm not sold on black metal as a concept in itself,
but rather a postmodern hybrid of late classical structures with aesthetic
filtering.
>You "black metal elite" have such a disdain for non-whites and anyone
>that does not share your ideology.
I have disdain for non-whites? Am I being pigeonholed now? tsk tsk... I want
nothing to do with NS black metal personally. I think some of the people
involved have the right feeling but the wrong ideas, I also think a lot of the
people involved with it are reactive idiots and/or complete posers. I don't
have to defend my 'ideology' here, as you clearly have very little idea of why
the 'Elite' (whether they network within or without the metal underground) are
opposed to the feelings and values persons like you express. Which is not to
say you are completely hopeless. I see some potential in here, but if everyone
insists on the inherit supremacy of television values I can't add anything
here.
If you get sick, do you refuse to
>eat chicken noodle soup because it is "Jewish medicine?" If you order
>pizza and the delivery guy is mexican, do you refuse to tip him? If
>you find out that a black guy made the burger you are eating, do you
>spit it out and refuse to eat the rest?
>
this is absurd, and that's all I have to say.
Melvin Slundersloth
Garth ov Grimraven wrote in message
>> I still am baffled by this notion that circulates around this
newsgroup
>>that Jews are somehow inherently preoccupied with the aesthetics of a
>>subject. Where the hell does this come from?
>
>no you've got it all wrong. Aestheticism over form/substance
When you say "aestheticism," don't you essentially mean "a preoccupation
with the outward characteristics of an object?" (meaning "form/substance"
here is more clearly understood as "substance")
> suggests
>fundamentally Jewish motives. It's a means to an ends relationship.
1) At base, all relationships that are willing, conscious endeavors
have some "end," so I don't see the purpose of makeing the distinction here.
The difference between listening to, say, Ildjarn for its "true underground
spirit" vs. that "neato fuzzy sound I like so much," (in terms of self
satisfied action) is an illusion.
2) Aestheticism (ie.. appreciation of surface elements, over/ at the
expense of creator defined 'purpose') needn't necessarily be 'vapid.'
Appreciation of art stems from the experience the audience has with it. If
a the aesthetic elements of a piece trigger an audience member to tread a
valuable intellectual path, is this a bad thing simply because it is not the
particular path that the artist envisioned? (note: the viewer's perspective
(ie..the aestheticist) is what matters here) Should the viewer just walk
away from the personally valuable expereince that he has had, or force
himself to throw it away in favor of what the artist wants?
3) Most importantly, you haven't really addressed what is "Jewish"
about "means to an end" behavior. What specific tenents of Judaism have
spawned such behavior? As I assume you see nothing GENERALLY wrong with
having goals (ends), and pursuing courses of action designed to fulfill them
(means), is your objection purely circumstantial?
Are you calling it "Jewish" because you don't like it (ie.. "_______ is
gay!") or because you think it is a behavior spawned by Judaism?
Unless,
>of course, the act of aestheticism is an end in itself (ie: masturbation).
Rare, but not entirely worthless.
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
http://www.Ihavenofuckingwebsite.com
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8tvcca$2nc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> If you
>> really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with his
>> or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
>
>
>We're different races for a reason, and we have different histories and
>cultures to prove it.
>
No one doubts that....... Notice: that fails to address what he said
in any reasonable fashion.
>You seem to be repeating what you've heard on television.
That is a dishonest accusation, as you have not heard his rational for
such a claim, and therefore have no way of knowing if his motivations for
the above statement coincide with popularly held attitudes.
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8tvu8c$gto$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> > suggests
>> >fundamentally Jewish motives. It's a means to an ends relationship.
>>
>> 1) At base, all relationships that are willing, conscious
>endeavors
>> have some "end,"
>
>That end, however, can avoid teleology if it seeks the process itself as
>an end.
This assumes "the thing in itself." Positing the "process" as the end begs
the question "why would one desire the process in the first place?" A
question, that is one step removed from the teleology....
>
>> The difference between listening to, say, Ildjarn for its "true
>underground
>> spirit" vs. that "neato fuzzy sound I like so much," (in terms of self
>> satisfied action) is an illusion.
>
>You discount the subconscious and/or the need for structural
>significance over repeated listens.
>
"the need for structural significance?" Regardless, what ensues is the
individual pursuing a known outcome in which they happen to hold value.
>> 2) Aestheticism (ie.. appreciation of surface elements, over/ at
>the
>> expense of creator defined 'purpose') needn't necessarily be 'vapid.'
>> Appreciation of art stems from the experience the audience has with
>it. If
>> a the aesthetic elements of a piece trigger an audience member to
>tread a
>> valuable intellectual path, is this a bad thing simply because it is
>not the
>> particular path that the artist envisioned?
>
>It is no different than if they saw a stump, and went down the same
>path:
Yes and no. Someone could in fact have a meaningful thought process
triggered by the sight of a stump, that is true. But unlike a stump, art is
rooted in communication, so that even a viewpoint that strays from the
artist's intentions is not likely to stray altogether too far, for the
shared nature of much communicative symbology assures that more often than
not, the audience will be pushed in the "right direction." (no pun intended
for all you nazi black metallers)
the art had nothing to do with their revelation unless the
>aesthetic was part of the structure,
Of course aesthetics stem from the structure. The actual artistic process
involves *conveying* an idea in a particular fashion, so (outside of
extraneous constraints) the artist is going to be particular about the
medium(s) he harnesses.
> which in Jewish art it is not.
>
>> 3) Most importantly, you haven't really addressed what is
>"Jewish"
>> about "means to an end" behavior. What specific tenents of Judaism
>have
>> spawned such behavior?
>
>"Eye for an eye" + the idea of conforming to the DEMANDS of a God,
What the hell does this have to do with the idea of "means to an end?"
and
>not sharing the spirit of that god(s) throughout deeds as pagans do.
What are you talking about? Ever heard of "The 10 Commandments?" Without
commenting on the value of such a thing, I think it is a very clear example
of a high profile portion of Jewish scripture that illustrates the type of
behavior which one should engage in order to invoke the spirit of their
deity through one's actions.
>
>Are you done with the pretension?
no. (see below)
It's obvious you're out of your depth
>here, and you're using that ignorance as an excuse to argue against
>something that morally offends you.
Wow, you scared me AND invoked a straw man argument in the same sentence.
>
>That's why we call you sheep.
>
>
Uh, oh. "we?" When all else fails, break out the herd alienation tactics
d00d!
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
Unchain the Underground
Grimraven) wrote:
>uhmmm.. is there a concise musical theory in metal? Distortion and belligerant
>volume do not count as theoretical concepts.
> which finds its roots in rock n
>>roll, which finds its roots in blues,
>
>here you're jumping around, in you're genealogy of black metal you've lost the
>substance. Black metal has got NOTHING in common with blues as a musical
>theory.
Idealogically, they are not related. Musically, they are.
>uh wrong. Whites invented blues. Blacks were responsible for popularizing and
>progressing upon that theory. Jazz was invented by blacks but jazz is quite
>clearly heavily reliant upon European classical principles.
Oh, did they? What whites invented the blues and when? Whites
popularized the blues, I will give you that.
>this is why you fall into the category of "Jew aestheticist."
And this is why you fall into the category of "simpleton." You
pigeonhole me after reading some of my posts on a usenet group, just
like you pigeonhole people based on the color of their skin or what
part of the world they come from. I'll bet you also snicker at people
that post from an AOL or WEBtv address.
> You followed the
>history of black metals musical aesthetics (the purely superficial qualities)
>and not the theoretical concepts animating the aesthetics ... you have
>unsuccessfully been grasping at the shadow and in doing so loose the substance.
>stop.... monkey time!
Yes, I am talking about aesthetics here... the musical roots of black
metal. I did not, once, mention the ideals of either black metal or
the blues... you brought that up and are using it as the basis for
picking apart my argument. I do realize how integral the ideology is
to black metal, but that is not what I was talking about. Black METAL
is not just a concept. It is an aesthetic art form as well.
You "black metal elite" have such a disdain for non-whites and anyone
that does not share your ideology. If you get sick, do you refuse to
eat chicken noodle soup because it is "Jewish medicine?" If you order
pizza and the delivery guy is mexican, do you refuse to tip him? If
you find out that a black guy made the burger you are eating, do you
spit it out and refuse to eat the rest?
NivendE
gr...@unchain.com wrote:
>
> You "black metal elite" have such a disdain for non-whites and anyone
> that does not share your ideology. If you get sick, do you refuse to
> eat chicken noodle soup because it is "Jewish medicine?" If you order
> pizza and the delivery guy is mexican, do you refuse to tip him? If
> you find out that a black guy made the burger you are eating, do you
> spit it out and refuse to eat the rest?
>
This is akin to saying: if a black metal band is 'NS', do you dismiss
their music and not buy their records?
jesus...@my-deja.com
> >> I still am baffled by this notion that circulates around this
> newsgroup
> >>that Jews are somehow inherently preoccupied with the aesthetics of
a
> >>subject. Where the hell does this come from?
> >
> >no you've got it all wrong. Aestheticism over form/substance
>
> When you say "aestheticism," don't you essentially mean "a
preoccupation
> with the outward characteristics of an object?" (meaning
"form/substance"
> here is more clearly understood as "substance")
"A preoccupation with the APPEARANCE of an object as ultimate VALUE"
might be a useful restatement.
> > suggests
> >fundamentally Jewish motives. It's a means to an ends relationship.
>
> 1) At base, all relationships that are willing, conscious
endeavors
> have some "end,"
That end, however, can avoid teleology if it seeks the process itself as
an end.
> The difference between listening to, say, Ildjarn for its "true
underground
> spirit" vs. that "neato fuzzy sound I like so much," (in terms of self
> satisfied action) is an illusion.
You discount the subconscious and/or the need for structural
significance over repeated listens.
> 2) Aestheticism (ie.. appreciation of surface elements, over/ at
the
> expense of creator defined 'purpose') needn't necessarily be 'vapid.'
> Appreciation of art stems from the experience the audience has with
it. If
> a the aesthetic elements of a piece trigger an audience member to
tread a
> valuable intellectual path, is this a bad thing simply because it is
not the
> particular path that the artist envisioned?
It is no different than if they saw a stump, and went down the same
path: the art had nothing to do with their revelation unless the
aesthetic was part of the structure, which in Jewish art it is not.
> 3) Most importantly, you haven't really addressed what is
"Jewish"
> about "means to an end" behavior. What specific tenents of Judaism
have
> spawned such behavior?
"Eye for an eye" + the idea of conforming to the DEMANDS of a God, and
not sharing the spirit of that god(s) throughout deeds as pagans do.
Are you done with the pretension? It's obvious you're out of your depth
here, and you're using that ignorance as an excuse to argue against
something that morally offends you.
That's why we call you sheep.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> >> > suggests
> >> >fundamentally Jewish motives. It's a means to an ends
relationship.
> >>
> >> 1) At base, all relationships that are willing, conscious
> >endeavors
> >> have some "end,"
> >
> >That end, however, can avoid teleology if it seeks the process itself
as
> >an end.
>
> This assumes "the thing in itself." Positing the "process" as the end
begs
> the question "why would one desire the process in the first place?" A
> question, that is one step removed from the teleology....
So you have no idea, essentially. Why does one value the process?
Because life itself is an existential process, and not a quantitative
one.
> >> The difference between listening to, say, Ildjarn for its "true
> >underground
> >> spirit" vs. that "neato fuzzy sound I like so much," (in terms of
self
> >> satisfied action) is an illusion.
> >
> >You discount the subconscious and/or the need for structural
> >significance over repeated listens.
> >
>
> "the need for structural significance?" Regardless, what ensues is
the
> individual pursuing a known outcome in which they happen to hold
value.
Not so, as in the care of the experience/existential the outcome is not
known, and hence not Jewish - Jews and Christians fear the unknown and
like the meek and stable.
> >> 2) Aestheticism (ie.. appreciation of surface elements, over/
at
> >the
> >> expense of creator defined 'purpose') needn't necessarily be
'vapid.'
> >> Appreciation of art stems from the experience the audience has with
> >it. If
> >> a the aesthetic elements of a piece trigger an audience member to
> >tread a
> >> valuable intellectual path, is this a bad thing simply because it
is
> >not the
> >> particular path that the artist envisioned?
> >
> >It is no different than if they saw a stump, and went down the same
> >path:
>
> Yes and no. Someone could in fact have a meaningful thought process
> triggered by the sight of a stump, that is true. But unlike a stump,
art is
> rooted in communication, so that even a viewpoint that strays from the
> artist's intentions is not likely to stray altogether too far, for the
> shared nature of much communicative symbology assures that more often
than
> not, the audience will be pushed in the "right direction." (no pun
intended
> for all you nazi black metallers)
You are changing the case you brought up - orginally, we were speaking
of something totally irrelevant to the original argument. A stump is a
similar aesthetic.
Shared communication then triggers a response through structure and
form, as aesthetics can only trigger a sympathy and do not communicate
anything. "I like blood of Christians on my sword" doesn't communicate
what the experience, "I stabbed a Christian, and as he died realized
what cowards they all are, and how we must always work against the
lowest common denominator of human thought" gives to the person having
the experience.
> the art had nothing to do with their revelation unless the
> >aesthetic was part of the structure,
>
> Of course aesthetics stem from the structure. The actual artistic
process
> involves *conveying* an idea in a particular fashion, so (outside of
> extraneous constraints) the artist is going to be particular about the
> medium(s) he harnesses.
The point of this debate is that Judaic objects have aesthetic unrelated
to structure.
> > which in Jewish art it is not.
> >
> >> 3) Most importantly, you haven't really addressed what is
> >"Jewish"
> >> about "means to an end" behavior. What specific tenents of Judaism
> >have
> >> spawned such behavior?
> >
> >"Eye for an eye" + the idea of conforming to the DEMANDS of a God,
>
> What the hell does this have to do with the idea of "means to an end?"
>
> and
> >not sharing the spirit of that god(s) throughout deeds as pagans do.
>
> What are you talking about? Ever heard of "The 10 Commandments?"
Without
> commenting on the value of such a thing, I think it is a very clear
example
> of a high profile portion of Jewish scripture that illustrates the
type of
> behavior which one should engage in order to invoke the spirit of
their
> deity through one's actions.
Incorrect. One is blessed by being of Jewish blood, and nothing more.
Acting to please the deity results in good things happening but,
coincidentally, if bad things happen take an eye for every one you lose.
> It's obvious you're out of your depth
> >here, and you're using that ignorance as an excuse to argue against
> >something that morally offends you.
>
> Wow, you scared me AND invoked a straw man argument in the same
sentence.
Keep flailing and screeching "straw man" - the accusation is not true
and you know it.
> >That's why we call you sheep.
> >
> Uh, oh. "we?" When all else fails, break out the herd alienation
tactics
> d00d!
Perhaps me and another individual here, perhaps just me. Either way,
you're flinging shit while you duck the issue: you're defending the
status quo way of thinking because you're AFRAID OF ANYTHING ELSE.
salvatore
Garth ov Grimraven
>with the outward characteristics of an object?" (meaning "form/substance"
>here is more clearly understood as "substance")
basically. Aesthetics means appearance for me. Form and substance are the
same for me when it comes to art.
>1) At base, all relationships that are willing, conscious endeavors
>have some "end," so I don't see the purpose of makeing the distinction here.
Art is an end in itself. Aestheticist art is merely entertainment or in the
case of masturbation - aestheticism is catharsis.
>The difference between listening to, say, Ildjarn for its "true underground
>spirit" vs. that "neato fuzzy sound I like so much," (in terms of self
>satisfied action) is an illusion.
yeah I'd say so. There's a little more to Ildjarn than that neato fuzzy sound,
in my opinion.
> 2) Aestheticism (ie.. appreciation of surface elements, over/ at the
>expense of creator defined 'purpose') needn't necessarily be 'vapid.'
Well the artist can be the aestheticist as well. An artist can be at best
"clever" in his emphasis of aesthetics. I can appreciate say an album like
"Transilvanian Hunger" or "Svartedauen" because the artists' use of aesthetics
is unique and interesting. This is technique though, and that is something
altogether removed from art's substance.
>Appreciation of art stems from the experience the audience has with it. If
>a the aesthetic elements of a piece trigger an audience member to tread a
>valuable intellectual path, is this a bad thing simply because it is not the
>particular path that the artist envisioned? (note: the viewer's perspective
>(ie..the aestheticist) is what matters here) Should the viewer just walk
>away from the personally valuable expereince that he has had, or force
>himself to throw it away in favor of what the artist wants?
I hope you'll get it now
> 3) Most importantly, you haven't really addressed what is "Jewish"
>about "means to an end" behavior. What specific tenents of Judaism have
>spawned such behavior? As I assume you see nothing GENERALLY wrong with
>having goals (ends), and pursuing courses of action designed to fulfill them
>(means), is your objection purely circumstantial?
>
> Are you calling it "Jewish" because you don't like it (ie.. "_______ is
>gay!") or because you think it is a behavior spawned by Judaism?
>
I'm being a little sarcastic when I connect Jews with aestheticism. When I
think of aestheticism in the music world I think of corporate massproduced
music. And Jews own all the major record labels. Also the artists involved
who peddle this shit are engaging in what is stereotypically called 'Jewish
behavior.' This stereotype is definitely not without its elements of truth.
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u08p4$ocd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> >> > suggests
>> >> >fundamentally Jewish motives. It's a means to an ends
>relationship.
>> >>
>> >> 1) At base, all relationships that are willing, conscious
>> >endeavors
>> >> have some "end,"
>> >
>> >That end, however, can avoid teleology if it seeks the process itself
>as
>> >an end.
>>
>> This assumes "the thing in itself." Positing the "process" as the end
>begs
>> the question "why would one desire the process in the first place?" A
>> question, that is one step removed from the teleology....
>
>So you have no idea, essentially.
It was a rhetorical question numbnuts.
Why does one value the process?
>Because life itself is an existential process, and not a quantitative
>one.
But the process you're choosing (listening to Ildjarn) is pretty fucking
specific. Its not just something to chalk up as "one of the wacky, random
experiences that makes up life." You actively seek music of a certain genre
(many times certain bands), and choose to repeatedly expereince it because
of a known intellectual/emotional set that it tends to reference. SUre you
can't say *exactly* how you'll react, but to deny that you have a pretty
good idea of the possible outcomes is stupid. There is something *tangible*
about the actual process that you seek.
Btw, pointing out that "life is an existential process" has no implication
toward my statement. Just because meaning is derived from the individual,
does not mean that a said individual does not take calculated action in the
direction of their current ideal(s).
>
>> >> The difference between listening to, say, Ildjarn for its "true
>> >underground
>> >> spirit" vs. that "neato fuzzy sound I like so much," (in terms of
>self
>> >> satisfied action) is an illusion.
>> >
>> >You discount the subconscious and/or the need for structural
>> >significance over repeated listens.
>> >
>>
>> "the need for structural significance?" Regardless, what ensues is
>the
>> individual pursuing a known outcome in which they happen to hold
>value.
>
>Not so, as in the care of the experience/existential the outcome is not
>known,
The "outcome" is going to rely heavily on your *expectations* of the
event or process. Is there a particular reason that you don't wander into
the R & B section and decide to experience the process of a random artist?
If process is all that matters, then you should be fine, but as you know,
all experiences are not created equal. Your argument essentially boils down
to "I tend to engage in conscious action in which I have no idea what the
consequences might be."
and hence not Jewish - Jews and Christians fear the unknown and
>like the meek and stable.
So did you reverse-engineer this little philosophy? Start from the point of
"jews and christians fear the stable," and trying to break the mold by
claiming to engage in random action?
...and here we have a good example of an "existential experience." My case
was to point out that your example was not representative of the usual
situation, but I addressed your point anyway with the "yes." Here is an
existential question for you: "Why is the experience of the stump less
valuable than the experience of Ildjarn?"
>
>Shared communication then triggers a response through structure and
>form, as aesthetics can only trigger a sympathy and do not communicate
>anything. "I like blood of Christians on my sword" doesn't communicate
>what the experience, "I stabbed a Christian, and as he died realized
>what cowards they all are, and how we must always work against the
>lowest common denominator of human thought" gives to the person having
>the experience.
I am aware of the limitations of abstract symbols, what's your point?
>
>> the art had nothing to do with their revelation unless the
>> >aesthetic was part of the structure,
>>
>> Of course aesthetics stem from the structure. The actual artistic
>process
>> involves *conveying* an idea in a particular fashion, so (outside of
>> extraneous constraints) the artist is going to be particular about the
>> medium(s) he harnesses.
>
>The point of this debate is that Judaic objects have aesthetic unrelated
>to structure.
Aesthetics unrelated to structure exist, sure, but what's JEWISH about them?
>
>> > which in Jewish art it is not.
>> >
>> >> 3) Most importantly, you haven't really addressed what is
>> >"Jewish"
>> >> about "means to an end" behavior. What specific tenents of Judaism
>> >have
>> >> spawned such behavior?
>> >
>> >"Eye for an eye" + the idea of conforming to the DEMANDS of a God,
>>
>> What the hell does this have to do with the idea of "means to an end?"
>>
>> and
>> >not sharing the spirit of that god(s) throughout deeds as pagans do.
>>
>> What are you talking about? Ever heard of "The 10 Commandments?"
>Without
>> commenting on the value of such a thing, I think it is a very clear
>example
>> of a high profile portion of Jewish scripture that illustrates the
>type of
>> behavior which one should engage in order to invoke the spirit of
>their
>> deity through one's actions.
>
>Incorrect. One is blessed by being of Jewish blood, and nothing more.
That's not all it takes, bud. You have to follow the will of your god as
well, as you mention below (keep KOSHER too!1!)
To deny that Jewish scripture encourages behavior that "invokes the spirit
of god" is absurd.
>Acting to please the deity results in good things happening but,
>coincidentally, if bad things happen take an eye for every one you lose.
What does this reference to a primitive penal system have to do with "means
to an end," and how the idea is specifically JEWISH?
>
>> It's obvious you're out of your depth
>> >here, and you're using that ignorance as an excuse to argue against
>> >something that morally offends you.
>>
>> Wow, you scared me AND invoked a straw man argument in the same
>sentence.
>
>Keep flailing and screeching "straw man" - the accusation is not true
>and you know it.
After meeting every point you made with a counter point, you claim I am
"using ignorance as an excuse..." (don't recall making any excuses, myself)
then, you told me that I was "morally offended," which 1) I am not and
2)you'd have no conceivable way of knowing if I was.
THAT constitutes a man made o' straw.
>
>> >That's why we call you sheep.
>> >
>> Uh, oh. "we?" When all else fails, break out the herd alienation
>tactics
>> d00d!
>
>Perhaps me and another individual here, perhaps just me. Either way,
>you're flinging shit while you duck the issue: you're defending the
>status quo way of thinking because you're AFRAID OF ANYTHING ELSE.
THIS also constitutes a man made o' straw.
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
http://www.Ihavenofuckingwebsite.com
jesus...@my-deja.com
> Why does one value the process?
> >Because life itself is an existential process, and not a quantitative
> >one.
>
> But the process you're choosing (listening to Ildjarn) is pretty
fucking
> specific.
That's why it is a choice.
> There is something
*tangible*
> about the actual process that you seek.
You mean consistent.
> Btw, pointing out that "life is an existential process" has no
implication
> toward my statement. Just because meaning is derived from the
individual,
> does not mean that a said individual does not take calculated action
in the
> direction of their current ideal(s).
I argued that individuals do make choices to support their ideals, and
that these are more important than aesthetics. Where did you
misunderstand?
> >Not so, as in the care of the experience/existential the outcome is
not
> >known,
>
> The "outcome" is going to rely heavily on your *expectations* of
the
> event or process.
The "outcome" relies primarily on the content of the experience,
regardless of expectations.
>Your argument essentially
boils down
> to "I tend to engage in conscious action in which I have no idea what
the
> consequences might be."
Nope, you misunderstood or are trying to portray it incorrectly.
Because we make choices of experience, the content of an experience is
more important than its appearance.
> and hence not Jewish - Jews and Christians fear the unknown and
> >like the meek and stable.
>
> So did you reverse-engineer this little philosophy? Start from the
point of
> "jews and christians fear the stable," and trying to break the mold by
> claiming to engage in random action?
You don't understand the word teleology.
Jews and Christians want the outcome of an experience, not the
experience. I want the variability inherent in good art - yes, the
artistic representation is the same, but the ideas provide something in
the transfer to the point of outcome that is not an outcome itself.
Jew-logic: "I like this album because the nice production makes me feel
like I bought something of value."
Pagan-logic: "I like this album because of what is unknown in it, and
the experience of moving toward a mystical ideal in the process of
listening."
> >You are changing the case you brought up - orginally, we were
speaking
> >of something totally irrelevant to the original argument. A stump is
a
> >similar aesthetic.
>
> ...and here we have a good example of an "existential experience." My
case
> was to point out that your example was not representative of the usual
> situation, but I addressed your point anyway with the "yes." Here is
an
> existential question for you: "Why is the experience of the stump less
> valuable than the experience of Ildjarn?"
The experience of the stump involves no conscious choice, thus is
random. "Less valuable" depends on context.
My point: aesthetic choices regard outcomes as value, where existential
choices regard process as value.
This is far simpler than you're making it out to be.
> >Shared communication then triggers a response through structure and
> >form, as aesthetics can only trigger a sympathy and do not
communicate
> >anything. "I like blood of Christians on my sword" doesn't
communicate
> >what the experience, "I stabbed a Christian, and as he died realized
> >what cowards they all are, and how we must always work against the
> >lowest common denominator of human thought" gives to the person
having
> >the experience.
>
> I am aware of the limitations of abstract symbols, what's your point?
That symbols represent an experience, while the experience is something
else entirely.
> >The point of this debate is that Judaic objects have aesthetic
unrelated
> >to structure.
>
> Aesthetics unrelated to structure exist, sure, but what's JEWISH about
them?
If they are perceived in that state as VALUABLE, that is a VALUE SYSTEM
which focuses on aesthetics unrelated to structure.
> >Incorrect. One is blessed by being of Jewish blood, and nothing more.
>
> That's not all it takes, bud. You have to follow the will of your god
as
> well, as you mention below (keep KOSHER too!1!)
> To deny that Jewish scripture encourages behavior that "invokes the
spirit
> of god" is absurd.
The question is not parts, but the whole. Jewish scripture reinforces
moral ideas of value in outcome and not experience, thus the "spirit of
god" is only material value/morality.
This is why Capitalism/Judaism/Christianity are the same belief system
divergent from previous human efforts.
> After meeting every point you made with a counter point, you claim
I am
> "using ignorance as an excuse..."
Finding something to say about every point doesn't mean you've posted a
counterpoint - you actually have to address the point, which you fail to
do on a regular basis (see above)
>(don't recall making any excuses, myself)
> then, you told me that I was "morally offended," which 1) I am not and
> 2)you'd have no conceivable way of knowing if I was.
>
> THAT constitutes a man made o' straw.
Your actions reveal you are morally offended.
Further, your misinterpretations reveal your thinking.
> >Perhaps me and another individual here, perhaps just me. Either way,
> >you're flinging shit while you duck the issue: you're defending the
> >status quo way of thinking because you're AFRAID OF ANYTHING ELSE.
>
> THIS also constitutes a man made o' straw.
It's based on your statements, so if it's a straw man, you made him.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> >> If you
> >> really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with
his
> >> or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
> >
> >That's good reasoning.
> >
> >We're different races for a reason, and we have different histories
and
> >cultures to prove it.
> >
>
> No one doubts that....... Notice: that fails to address what he
said
> in any reasonable fashion.
Incorrect: if we have different values, the individuals within each race
will have different values, and there *is* reason to judge by race (not
skin color, haha). If one group of people behaves differently from
another, and that differentness involves something that by sheer chaos
is unacceptable to the first group, why should the first group want to
be around the second?
Of course, Unchain the Underground tried to make it into a moral issue
with the word "judge," but that's something to debate with people
smarter than you guys.
> >You seem to be repeating what you've heard on television.
>
> That is a dishonest accusation, as you have not heard his rational
for
> such a claim, and therefore have no way of knowing if his motivations
for
> the above statement coincide with popularly held attitudes.
He's using the language and concepts of popularly held attitudes, and
nothing more is needed.
Keep making men of straw, as you like to say... maybe someday even you
will believe what you say, and you'll feel your lack of self confidence
subside.
jesus...@my-deja.com
salvatore <salv...@viper.net.au> wrote:
> exactly.
If you're not white, then you're not qualified to make judgments about
what white people should or shouldn't do.
> > Black metal finds its roots in metal, which finds its roots in rock
n
> > roll, which finds its roots in blues, which finds its roots in
> > spirituals sung by blacks in the fields.
As well as organ music in church, and white folk music, and obviously
Asian music as well (pentatonic). You seem to be repeating the media
party line here, but most well-informed sources don't try to make things
so black and white.
> > Thus, all metal is "nigger
> > music." To say black metal is for "whites only" is idiotic.
Black metal is composed in the style of white music, using instruments
whites invented, promoting the cultural values of whites. It has nothing
to do with black music except in the formation of "bands" in the rock
style, and that is a superficial element at best.
> > If you
> > really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with his
> > or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
If someone is part of a group that is 50 times more likely to commit
crimes against me than me against them, or has produced an ideology and
religion like Judaism, there is no way I'm going to trust that
individual.
In your Christianized language, that is "to judge," and it is the only
intelligent viewpoint. Christians are afraid to make decisions and you
have succumbed to that trap as well.
Rainer Deyke
news:8u1n5p$os5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> salvatore <salv...@viper.net.au> wrote:
> > exactly.
>
> If you're not white, then you're not qualified to make judgments about
> what white people should or shouldn't do.
By the same reasoning, if you are not salvatore, you are not qualified to
judge what salvatore should or shouldn't do.
--
Rainer Deyke (ro...@rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware computer games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u1mi8$odk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> Why does one value the process?
>> >Because life itself is an existential process, and not a quantitative
>> >one.
>>
>> But the process you're choosing (listening to Ildjarn) is pretty
>fucking
>> specific.
>
>That's why it is a choice.
>
>> There is something
>*tangible*
>> about the actual process that you seek.
>
>You mean consistent.
Yes, consistent and identifiable.
>
>> Btw, pointing out that "life is an existential process" has no
>implication
>> toward my statement. Just because meaning is derived from the
>individual,
>> does not mean that a said individual does not take calculated action
>in the
>> direction of their current ideal(s).
>
>I argued that individuals do make choices to support their ideals, and
>that these are more important than aesthetics. Where did you
>misunderstand?
Your logic was that process was to be valued over teleology in the Ildjarn
case because "life itself is a process."
>> >Not so, as in the care of the experience/existential the outcome is
>not
>> >known,
>>
>> The "outcome" is going to rely heavily on your *expectations* of
>the
>> event or process.
>
>The "outcome" relies primarily on the content of the experience,
>regardless of expectations.
The content of the "experience" is heavily dependent upon expectations,
because every "experience" inherently involves a degree of interpretation.
Don't pretend that when you order a new black metal record, you don't have
some idea of what you'll be getting.
>
>>Your argument essentially
>boils down
>> to "I tend to engage in conscious action in which I have no idea what
>the
>> consequences might be."
>
>Nope, you misunderstood or are trying to portray it incorrectly.
>
>Because we make choices of experience, the content of an experience is
>more important than its appearance.
This FAILS to address the above. Aesthetics can trigger a wholly different
experience. Someone who becomes captivated with ILDJARN's production has
not failed to properly identify the content of an ILDJARN experience, but
has been lead on their own path, perhaps in a way unintended by the artist,
The whole idea of the "appearance of experience" is ludicrous.
>
>> and hence not Jewish - Jews and Christians fear the unknown and
>> >like the meek and stable.
>>
>> So did you reverse-engineer this little philosophy? Start from the
>point of
>> "jews and christians fear the stable," and trying to break the mold by
>> claiming to engage in random action?
>
>You don't understand the word teleology.
>
>Jews and Christians want the outcome of an experience, not the
>experience. I want the variability inherent in good art - yes, the
>artistic representation is the same, but the ideas provide something in
>the transfer to the point of outcome that is not an outcome itself.
Could you rephrase the above, as I am still unable to understand why it
would be incorrect for me to interpret it as "I desire the experience of
thoughts unknown to me, but do not seek art out specifically to provide this
experience."
>
>Jew-logic: "I like this album because the nice production makes me feel
>like I bought something of value."
>
>Pagan-logic: "I like this album because of what is unknown in it, and
>the experience of moving toward a mystical ideal in the process of
>listening."
Your "jew-logic" isn't complete. You have to examine why "nice production"
makes one feel like they have bought something of value. There could be
retarded motives behind it, no doubt, but there could also be a highly
personal experience behind such an action that has been triggered by such an
aesthetic element.
Your "pagan-logic" isn't quite, for lack of a better term, "sound." 1)There
is no inherent value in the unknown 2) Because of #1, the value of an album
then depends on the value of the "mystical ideal" the unknown pushes you
toward. Your assesment of this "ideal" will depend, in large part, on
your existing value scheme, as art does not provide LOGICAL EVIDENCE
necessary to make metaphysical judgements, but rather highly propagandized
conclusions. In short, pagan logic is "I like this album because it
presents an ideal that ends up conforming to my my own."
If you claim to be seeking "the unknown," then why repeatedly head to the
black metal section?
Furthermore, your conception of "the pagan spirit" seems to be quite sugar
coated. For a people who embraced the unknown without fear, they sure
managed to generate a ton of fearful superstitions\myths. (beware of the
Trolls d00d)
>
>> >You are changing the case you brought up - orginally, we were
>speaking
>> >of something totally irrelevant to the original argument. A stump is
>a
>> >similar aesthetic.
>>
>> ...and here we have a good example of an "existential experience." My
>case
>> was to point out that your example was not representative of the usual
>> situation, but I addressed your point anyway with the "yes." Here is
>an
>> existential question for you: "Why is the experience of the stump less
>> valuable than the experience of Ildjarn?"
>
>The experience of the stump involves no conscious choice, thus is
>random.
The only choice you have with Ildjarn is to hit the "play" button..... who
cares?
> "Less valuable" depends on context.
Exactly. So conceivably, a random stump experience could prove to be
just as valuable as a consciously sought Ildjarn experience, no?
>
>My point: aesthetic choices regard outcomes as value, where existential
>choices regard process as value.
My point: The idea that process is an end in itself is an illusion.
>
>This is far simpler than you're making it out to be.
>
>> >Shared communication then triggers a response through structure and
>> >form, as aesthetics can only trigger a sympathy and do not
>communicate
>> >anything. "I like blood of Christians on my sword" doesn't
>communicate
>> >what the experience, "I stabbed a Christian, and as he died realized
>> >what cowards they all are, and how we must always work against the
>> >lowest common denominator of human thought" gives to the person
>having
>> >the experience.
>>
>> I am aware of the limitations of abstract symbols, what's your point?
>
>That symbols represent an experience, while the experience is something
>else entirely.
You are confusing the points of veiw of the artist and the audience. The
experience of the art will always be different from the experience that
prompted the art to be created.
I'm just pointing out that because of shared symbols, the two will not
usually vary as widely as (directed creation ) Ildjarn and a stump
(randomness) .
>
>> >The point of this debate is that Judaic objects have aesthetic
>unrelated
>> >to structure.
>>
>> Aesthetics unrelated to structure exist, sure, but what's JEWISH about
>them?
>
>If they are perceived in that state as VALUABLE, that is a VALUE SYSTEM
>which focuses on aesthetics unrelated to structure.
Your assumption is that the aestheticist believes that the aesthetics are
validation for the structure, when in fact they are usually just triggers
for personal experience that have structures of their own (to varying
degree, they will differ from the structure of the art). An aesthetic
appreciation isn't the claim that "ildjarn's ideas are good because they
contain "good" aesthetics." It's "these features of ildjarn's music
affected me in the following way, which may or may not have been in
accordance with Ildjarn's intentions. Either way, I don't care, as I found
it personally meaningful."
>
>> >Incorrect. One is blessed by being of Jewish blood, and nothing more.
>>
>> That's not all it takes, bud. You have to follow the will of your god
>as
>> well, as you mention below (keep KOSHER too!1!)
>> To deny that Jewish scripture encourages behavior that "invokes the
>spirit
>> of god" is absurd.
>
>The question is not parts, but the whole. Jewish scripture reinforces
>moral ideas of value in outcome and not experience, thus the "spirit of
>god" is only material value/morality.
Experience involves interpretation, which makes it just a stone's throw from
material value. Once you perceive, its time to pass judgement on the
situation, and once you have judged, you have entered your own material
realm or morality. "What did I learn, what are its implications towards ME,
is this GOOD(tm) or BAD(tm) or even significant?"
>
>This is why Capitalism/Judaism/Christianity are the same belief system
>divergent from previous human efforts.
Capitalism is more closely related to a science than a philosophy. The main
premise is "economic efficiency creates the optimum material distribution
amongst the populace."
Regardless of whether you agree (I actually don't), it is not a "jewish"
idea.
>
>> After meeting every point you made with a counter point, you claim
>I am
>> "using ignorance as an excuse..."
>
>Finding something to say about every point doesn't mean you've posted a
>counterpoint - you actually have to address the point, which you fail to
>do on a regular basis (see above)
Ignoring the ad hominem, I'd like to point out that, even were your claim
true, it in no way constitutes "using ignorance as an excuse." No excuses
have been made.
>
>>(don't recall making any excuses, myself)
>> then, you told me that I was "morally offended," which 1) I am not and
>> 2)you'd have no conceivable way of knowing if I was.
>>
>> THAT constitutes a man made o' straw.
>
>Your actions reveal you are morally offended.
How?
>
>Further, your misinterpretations reveal your thinking.
>
>> >Perhaps me and another individual here, perhaps just me. Either way,
>> >you're flinging shit while you duck the issue: you're defending the
>> >status quo way of thinking because you're AFRAID OF ANYTHING ELSE.
>>
>> THIS also constitutes a man made o' straw.
>
>It's based on your statements, so if it's a straw man, you made him.
>
Show me the statements that prove 1) I am interested in supporting the
status quo
2) I'm afraid
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
Archon
> Jews and Christians want the outcome of an experience, not the
> experience. I want the variability inherent in good art - yes, the
> artistic representation is the same, but the ideas provide something in
> the transfer to the point of outcome that is not an outcome itself.
>
> Jew-logic: "I like this album because the nice production makes me feel
> like I bought something of value."
>
> Pagan-logic: "I like this album because of what is unknown in it, and
> the experience of moving toward a mystical ideal in the process of
> listening."
>
What about liking it because of the atmosphere in it?
I think "Jews like good production" is a stupid comment. Is it only "if
you're jewish - you like good production" or is it also "if you like
good production - you're jewish"?
How about valueing both good production and the mystery in it?
About wanting outcome in an experience; how can music with good
production alone have an outcome?
matt kennedy
out-of-context phrases from unrelated articles, just to use a footnote that
someone(who hasn't seen the original source) might believe outright. Very
messy cut and paste indeed. That statistic is grossly incorrect.
<jesus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tvc74$2k0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > The Truth:
> >
> > http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p185_Grubach.html
>
> The democratic party receives 50% of its funding from Jewish voters? I
> didn't even know that. This explains Lieberman, who never did anything
> useful in his whole life.
>
>
>
>
>
matt kennedy
<jesus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tvipv$85i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > another funny thing is that the Republican party receives over 25% of
> its funds
> > from Jews. No wonder why we have the entire Muslim world against us.
> All these sheep don't realize how much religion controls their lives.
> 75% of the vote bought is a pretty big number.
Now go back and do your math again, hotshot! 50% of Democratic + 25% of
Republican does not equal 75% of whole.
50% of Democrat would equal 25% of whole. 25% of Republican would equal
12-13% of whole.
that gives us a little more than one third of total (39%) if and only if the
original statistics were true, which they were not.
Sharund
matt kennedy wrote:
Now just out of curiosity how are you sure that the original statistics were not
true? and can you provide more accurate statistics? I don't know one way or
another... but you are right about the math thing
Sharund
--
Demon Realm - Wrathful aggressive black metal
mailto:demon...@beer.tj
Dominion Of Demon Realm website
http://www.darkmetal.com/demonrealm/
Subscribe to the Demon Realm newsletter
mailto:demonrealm...@listbot.com
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u1mtk$ook$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> >> If you
>> >> really think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with
>his
>> >> or her value as an individual, you are a complete asshole.
>> >
>> >
>> >We're different races for a reason, and we have different histories
>and
>> >cultures to prove it.
>> >
>>
>> No one doubts that....... Notice: that fails to address what he
>said
>> in any reasonable fashion.
>
>Incorrect: if we have different values, the individuals within each race
>will have different values, and there *is* reason to judge by race (not
>skin color, haha).
Keyword: "individuals." You can only discern what values a person holds by
dealing with them on an individual level. I have yet to come across a
universal set of values shared across a race.
>
>> >You seem to be repeating what you've heard on television.
>>
>> That is a dishonest accusation, as you have not heard his rational
>for
>> such a claim, and therefore have no way of knowing if his motivations
>for
>> the above statement coincide with popularly held attitudes.
>
>He's using the language and concepts of popularly held attitudes, and
>nothing more is needed.
First of all, motivation is what is important here; and secondly, a
conclusion that conforms to a popularly held attitude is not inherently
wrong (you just wish to smear him with the stigma associated with holding a
popularly held attitude, rather than address his points) His end
conclusion that "racial generalizations are not an effective criterion upon
which to evaluate individuals," does not point in anyway towards media
conditioning. I have yet to see the lingual cues you are speaking of.....
>
>Keep making men of straw, as you like to say... maybe someday even you
>will believe what you say, and you'll feel your lack of self confidence
>subside.
>
I have no problem with the ad hominem, but at least bundle it with a
point, so its not a total waste.
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
Joost de Heer
|Keyword: "individuals." You can only discern what values a person holds by
|dealing with them on an individual level. I have yet to come across a
|universal set of values shared across a race.
Well, there is universal stupidity, but that's a value shared across everyone.
Joost
NP: Weihnachtsoratorium - J.S. Bach
--
Ei! wie schmeckt der Coffee süße, lieblicher als tausend Küsse [Kaffee ]
Milder als Muskatenwein. [Kantate - ]
Coffee, coffee muß ich haben, und wenn jemand mich will laben [J.S. Bach ]
Ach, so schenkt mir Coffee ein!
Unchain the Underground
No, not at all. I am guilty of pigeonholing there... I do admit it and
apologize for it. My frustration got the best of me.
I cannot speak of you, specifically, but I have come across a slew of
people in this "scene" that will write off a band or record label
because of "jewish" ties or will dismiss a band completely because
they have a non-white member. I think that is completely ridiculous
and I was just wondering how far these people go.
To be 100% honest, I don't have a problem with someone that has NS
views - if you believe in it and stick to your convictions to the
death, more power to you. It is the trend I have seen towards NS views
that sickens me. 15 year old kids that listen to Absurd then turn
around and decide that they are one of the new Hitler youth.
Pseudo-misanthropists that post on the internet make me sick!
Unchain the Underground
Grimraven) wrote:
>>>here you're jumping around, in you're genealogy of black metal you've lost
>>the
>>>substance. Black metal has got NOTHING in common with blues as a musical
>>>theory.
>>
>>Idealogically, they are not related. Musically, they are.
>
>bullshit. Like I said you are fixated on the aesthetics (ie: instrumentation).
No, I am not fixated, but that is what I am discussing here. It seems
that is an aspect you are choosing to ignore.
> If you wrote a song by Darkthrone, Burzum, Immortal, Emperor, etc on a sheet
>of paper you'd see the scales, chords, and structures don't even remotely
>resemble blues, it's far closer classical music from the late Romantic/early
>Modern era.
I disagree with you there, but even if you were right, doesn't
classical music find its roots in the Church?
>As for the origins, they're a little fuzzy as folk/traditional/tribal/ethnic
>music is almost never written down but passed down through the generations
>(like the oral tradition).
Until the Library of Congress began recording spirituals and blues
songs, which was the beginning of the end of the oral tradition.
>Anyway, blues is an inferior theory as it's
>extremely limited in scope and ability to express.
A matter of opinion, not a fact.
>>And this is why you fall into the category of "simpleton."
>
>Oh, good one
Seldom do I revert to personal attacks... I apologize.
>> You
>>pigeonhole me after reading some of my posts on a usenet group,
>
>it was a joke pal, nonetheless your comments heavily suggest you of the crime
>of aestheticism.
Aestheticism is a crime?
> just
>>like you pigeonhole people based on the color of their skin or what
>>part of the world they come from.
>
>oh give me a fucking break. Can you POSSIBLY sound more like a brainwashed PC
>sheepish television addict?
Again, I am pigeonholing you here based on what little I know about
you. Wrong, on my part, I admit. In turn, you are pigeonholing me as a
"brainwashed PC sheepish tv addict," which I most certainly am not.
> I'll bet you also snicker at people
>>that post from an AOL or WEBtv address.
>
>actually I'm posting from an AOL address smart guy
Watch yourself. A lot of people in this newsgroup will immediately
dismiss you based on that... I think they are calling it the United
USENET Movement.
>>Yes, I am talking about aesthetics here... the musical roots of black
>>metal.
>
>the "roots" of black metal (or any art form) exists INDEPENDENT of aesthetics.
>That is: instrumentation, production/programming, playing technique, as well as
>things like 'ideology,' lyrics, image, etc. This as opposed to things with
>substance: structure, tonality, harmony, etc.
Aesthetics are, at the core, anything perceptible. Harmony, tonality
included...
>as you see I'm not suggesting that ideology is something integral to the music
>necessarily. I'm not a musical metaphysician ala anus.com. What I'm saying is
>you can judge music if you strip it of it's aesthetic components, and when this
>is done blues/rock and black metal don't have anything to do with each other
>except traditional instrumentation.
No shared chords? No shared musical progressions or structures?
>I have disdain for non-whites? Am I being pigeonholed now? tsk tsk... I want
>nothing to do with NS black metal personally.
I based that on the websites you promote via your sig file, which make
claims like Bill Gates is an enemy because he is an " Anti-Aryan
Nigger-lover" and feature cartoons like the delightful "Niggerball."
Probably not fair to base my judgements of you on the sites you choose
to promote, but am I really that far off?
> I think some of the people
>involved have the right feeling but the wrong ideas, I also think a lot of the
>people involved with it are reactive idiots and/or complete posers. I don't
>have to defend my 'ideology' here, as you clearly have very little idea of why
>the 'Elite' (whether they network within or without the metal underground) are
>opposed to the feelings and values persons like you express. Which is not to
>say you are completely hopeless. I see some potential in here, but if everyone
>insists on the inherit supremacy of television values I can't add anything
>here.
When it comes down to it, I don't really know much about your personal
ideology, so it is wrong for me to attack you. Judging a person
because he or she is a jew or black or hispanic before getting to know
that person is, in my opinion, wrong. If you do so, you are guilty of
the crime of aestheticism because if you strip them of their aesthetic
components (skin color, hair, accent, language) you have the same
thing at the core. I think enviroment is responsible for individual
shortcomings in 99% of the cases, not genetics.
> If you get sick, do you refuse to
>>eat chicken noodle soup because it is "Jewish medicine?" If you order
>>pizza and the delivery guy is mexican, do you refuse to tip him? If
>>you find out that a black guy made the burger you are eating, do you
>>spit it out and refuse to eat the rest?
>>
>
>this is absurd, and that's all I have to say.
It was pretty absurd, I admit.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> Judging a person
> because he or she is a jew or black or hispanic before getting to know
> that person is, in my opinion, wrong. If you do so, you are guilty of
> the crime of aestheticism because if you strip them of their aesthetic
> components (skin color, hair, accent, language) you have the same
> thing at the core. I think enviroment is responsible for individual
> shortcomings in 99% of the cases, not genetics.
Race is not aesthetics; it is genetic structure that encompasses a lot
more than color of hair/eyes/skin!
Until you realize this, you are thinking aesthetically :)
jesus...@my-deja.com
> > If you're not white, then you're not qualified to make judgments
about
> > what white people should or shouldn't do.
>
> By the same reasoning, if you are not salvatore, you are not qualified
to
> judge what salvatore should or shouldn't do.
I am qualified to judge what he should do relative to my own race.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> >Incorrect: if we have different values, the individuals within each
race
> >will have different values, and there *is* reason to judge by race
(not
> >skin color, haha).
>
> Keyword: "individuals." You can only discern what values a person
holds by
> dealing with them on an individual level. I have yet to come across a
> universal set of values shared across a race.
A person will hold cultural values, many of which are genetic memory, as
well as different limitations on raw intelligence.
80% of a person is genetics, the remaining 20% environment, and the
statistics back this up - why are wealthy black children not scoring at
the same level as poor whites? Different intellectual values and
different aptitudes.
jesus...@my-deja.com
> >> Why does one value the process?
> >> >Because life itself is an existential process, and not a
quantitative
> >> >one.
> >>
> >> Btw, pointing out that "life is an existential process" has no
> >implication
> >> toward my statement. Just because meaning is derived from the
> >individual,
> >> does not mean that a said individual does not take calculated
action
> >in the
> >> direction of their current ideal(s).
> >
> >I argued that individuals do make choices to support their ideals,
and
> >that these are more important than aesthetics. Where did you
> >misunderstand?
>
> Your logic was that process was to be valued over teleology in the
Ildjarn
> case because "life itself is a process."
Still you misunderstand, and now seem to be backing away from the point
you attempted to make.
Individuals seek meaning, but do not do it on the teleological level
unless Judeo-Christianzed; otherwise they value the existential.
Hopefully that will clear this up for you.
> >The "outcome" relies primarily on the content of the experience,
> >regardless of expectations.
>
> The content of the "experience" is heavily dependent upon
expectations,
> because every "experience" inherently involves a degree of
interpretation.
> Don't pretend that when you order a new black metal record, you don't
have
> some idea of what you'll be getting.
I have no idea what I'm getting unless I've heard it; the basics are
assumed, but those change radically with the music inside. Or are you
telling me I should expect the same thing when I order a Blasphemy
record or a Burzum record?
You are trying to limit experience to expectations, but this also is a
Jewish view.
> >>Your argument essentially
> >boils down
> >> to "I tend to engage in conscious action in which I have no idea
what
> >the
> >> consequences might be."
> >
> >Nope, you misunderstood or are trying to portray it incorrectly.
> >
> >Because we make choices of experience, the content of an experience
is
> >more important than its appearance.
>
> This FAILS to address the above.
It addresses the above by explaining why people seek content over form.
>Aesthetics can trigger a wholly
different
> experience. Someone who becomes captivated with ILDJARN's production
has
> not failed to properly identify the content of an ILDJARN experience,
but
> has been lead on their own path, perhaps in a way unintended by the
artist,
> The whole idea of the "appearance of experience" is ludicrous.
You have misunderstood it, and that is why.
Existential value to a work is something hinted at by the appearance,
but only delivered in content (think of all the "it was almost there but
didn't seem to have any lasting power" albums in history).
People who choose Ildjarn for an aesthetic experience wish to understand
that aesthetic, not surround themselves with it for a neutral,
positivist, surface-level experience, as is present in Judaic "art"
(read: products).
> >Jews and Christians want the outcome of an experience, not the
> >experience. I want the variability inherent in good art - yes, the
> >artistic representation is the same, but the ideas provide something
in
> >the transfer to the point of outcome that is not an outcome itself.
>
> Could you rephrase the above, as I am still unable to understand why
it
> would be incorrect for me to interpret it as "I desire the experience
of
> thoughts unknown to me, but do not seek art out specifically to
provide this
> experience."
Your interpretation has nothing to do with what is written above. Any
idea why this is?
> >Jew-logic: "I like this album because the nice production makes me
feel
> >like I bought something of value."
>
> >Pagan-logic: "I like this album because of what is unknown in it, and
> >the experience of moving toward a mystical ideal in the process of
> >listening."
>
> Your "jew-logic" isn't complete. You have to examine why "nice
production"
> makes one feel like they have bought something of value.
This is covered in many areas of post-Nietzschean analysis: "nice
production" allows a work of art to be measured by external
characteristics, e.g. appearance. Value is derived from the production
being "quality," or well-done without regard for content.
This explains pop music.
> There could
be
> retarded motives behind it, no doubt, but there could also be a highly
> personal experience behind such an action that has been triggered by
such an
> aesthetic element.
These could be entirely locked in the user's head. Just like the person
who sees a stump, and suddenly thinks of relativity: they are the force
driving that experience.
> Your "pagan-logic" isn't quite, for lack of a better term, "sound."
1)There
> is no inherent value in the unknown
This is not the unknown, but the unknown as introduced by an aesthetic
concept - the unknown is the content.
> 2) Because of #1, the value of an
album
> then depends on the value of the "mystical ideal" the unknown pushes
you
> toward. Your assesment of this "ideal" will depend, in large part,
on
> your existing value scheme, as art does not provide LOGICAL EVIDENCE
> necessary to make metaphysical judgements, but rather highly
propagandized
> conclusions.
Not true - art demonstrates its logic in the internal construction of
things such as melody, rhythm, timbre.
> In short, pagan logic is "I like this album because it
> presents an ideal that ends up conforming to my my own."
> If you claim to be seeking "the unknown," then why repeatedly head to
the
> black metal section?
You have misunderstood completely.
> Furthermore, your conception of "the pagan spirit" seems to be quite
sugar
> coated. For a people who embraced the unknown without fear, they sure
> managed to generate a ton of fearful superstitions\myths. (beware of
the
> Trolls d00d)
Much of what we see now through the superstitious filter of
Judeo-Christianity was not originally superstitious.
> >The experience of the stump involves no conscious choice, thus is
> >random.
>
> The only choice you have with Ildjarn is to hit the "play" button.....
who
> cares?
You have selected the CD, which is far more important than allowing
random music into your life.
> > "Less valuable" depends on context.
>
> Exactly. So conceivably, a random stump experience could prove to
be
> just as valuable as a consciously sought Ildjarn experience, no?
Not so. A random stump experience might be valuable to the user, but has
nothing to do with the stump; the user listening to Ildjarn sought an
idea to understand it better and had a greater experience as a result.
> My point: The idea that process is an end in itself is an illusion.
Translation: you do not believe in choice, preference, or learning. One
might call you a "material nihilist."
N. Evermind
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > If you're not white, then you're not qualified to make judgments
> about
> > > what white people should or shouldn't do.
> >
> > By the same reasoning, if you are not salvatore, you are not qualified
> to
> > judge what salvatore should or shouldn't do.
>
> I am qualified to judge what he should do relative to my own race.
I am qualified to judge what you should do relative to my penis size. The
whole seven inches say: "jesuscrass...must...die".
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u70th$oo6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
???? "80% of a person?" (that rules) "genetic memory?"
Visit Deja-news, look for the "White Man's Realm" thread, and you will see
my views on the above.
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
Melvin Slundersloth
jesus...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8u71j8$pcf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> >> Why does one value the process?
>> >> >Because life itself is an existential process, and not a
>quantitative
>> >> >one.
>> >>
>> >> Btw, pointing out that "life is an existential process" has no
>> >implication
>> >> toward my statement. Just because meaning is derived from the
>> >individual,
>> >> does not mean that a said individual does not take calculated
>action
>> >in the
>> >> direction of their current ideal(s).
>> >
>> >I argued that individuals do make choices to support their ideals,
>and
>> >that these are more important than aesthetics. Where did you
>> >misunderstand?
>>
>> Your logic was that process was to be valued over teleology in the
>Ildjarn
>> case because "life itself is a process."
>
>Still you misunderstand, and now seem to be backing away from the point
>you attempted to make.
>
>Individuals seek meaning, but do not do it on the teleological level
>unless Judeo-Christianzed; otherwise they value the existential.
>
>Hopefully that will clear this up for you.
You're just blowing smoke. "Existential" only pertains to the source of the
value. We were talking about undertaking action as a "means to an end."
Your actions could be (and I would argue a majority of them are) goal
oriented (teleological in nature), but focused on value of existential
derivation. The fact that "life is a process" does not 1) imply that the
process is valuable or 2) imply that because the process is ongoing, one
cannot hold/pursue specific values at an arbitrary point within the process
(ie.. I have discovered that I find ________ to be worthy, and dislike
________).
Another way of putting it : "what's 'un-existential' about valueing
Ildjarn's aesthetics over its 'message'?"
>
>> >The "outcome" relies primarily on the content of the experience,
>> >regardless of expectations.
>>
>> The content of the "experience" is heavily dependent upon
>expectations,
>> because every "experience" inherently involves a degree of
>interpretation.
>> Don't pretend that when you order a new black metal record, you don't
>have
>> some idea of what you'll be getting.
>
>I have no idea what I'm getting unless I've heard it; the basics are
>assumed,
....so you DO have SOME idea....
but those change radically with the music inside. Or are you
>telling me I should expect the same thing when I order a Blasphemy
>record or a Burzum record?
I'm not saying that there are not some points of difference between the two
(hard for me to cite specifics, as I have not heard Blasphemy)........but,
choosing bands from the same genre seems to indicate more similarity than
someone who thirsts for "the unknown" would be comfortable with.
Another way of looking at it: I think most people would agree to some
sort of statement to the effect of "Black Metal is about HATE and WAR and
Freedom...." By seeking out a black metal band, you are intentionally
pursuing art that comments on a limited portion of reality. I'm sure also
that you're aware of how many black metal bands share similar, often
identical aesthetics. Well, if they are not "Jewish(tm)" bands, then their
aesthetics have been chosen as an intentional reflection of their ideals,
and thus highly similar aesthetics reveal very similar ideals. (See also:
the use of "shitty production" in black metal)
>
>You are trying to limit experience to expectations, but this also is a
>Jewish view.
No I'm not, I'm just pointing out that perceptions are always made in the
context of existing values. So the unholy pagan "process" can be pretty
"jewish" if you ask me.
>
>> >>Your argument essentially
>> >boils down
>> >> to "I tend to engage in conscious action in which I have no idea
>what
>> >the
>> >> consequences might be."
>> >
>> >Nope, you misunderstood or are trying to portray it incorrectly.
>> >
>> >Because we make choices of experience, the content of an experience
>is
>> >more important than its appearance.
>>
>> This FAILS to address the above.
>
>It addresses the above by explaining why people seek content over form.
But you're trying to seperate "the content" of the experience from "the
appearance," as if to imply that there is a "right" way to experience
something (sounds REALLY "JEWISH" to me). The "experience" happens only in
your brain
>
>>Aesthetics can trigger a wholly
>different
>> experience. Someone who becomes captivated with ILDJARN's production
>has
>> not failed to properly identify the content of an ILDJARN experience,
>but
>> has been lead on their own path, perhaps in a way unintended by the
>artist,
>> The whole idea of the "appearance of experience" is ludicrous.
>
>You have misunderstood it, and that is why.
Well of course.......
>
>Existential value to a work is something hinted at by the appearance,
>
This makes absolutely NO SENSE. Existential value is value derived from the
individual, and therefore someone else's (the artist perhaps) values/desires
have ultimately no bearing whatsoever on what the final worth of an artwork
is to the audience member. As mentioned before, shared symbols will
probably push the audience's interpretation in a given direction, but that
does not mean an artwork will somehow be imbued with some sort of *absolute*
worth.
but only delivered in content (think of all the "it was almost there but
>didn't seem to have any lasting power" albums in history).
>
>People who choose Ildjarn for an aesthetic experience wish to understand
>that aesthetic
What's to "understand" about good production? I thought you said they wanted
to do so because they had been fooled into thinking that a given aesthetic
is automatically valuable. Now they are trying to "understand" it?
, not surround themselves with it for a neutral,
>positivist,
"Neutral, positivist?"
surface-level experience, as is present in Judaic "art"
>(read: products).
"Surface-level" is your own hangup. If its valuable to them, why do you
care?
>
>> >Jews and Christians want the outcome of an experience, not the
>> >experience. I want the variability inherent in good art - yes, the
>> >artistic representation is the same, but the ideas provide something
>in
>> >the transfer to the point of outcome that is not an outcome itself.
>>
>> Could you rephrase the above, as I am still unable to understand why
>it
>> would be incorrect for me to interpret it as "I desire the experience
>of
>> thoughts unknown to me, but do not seek art out specifically to
>provide this
>> experience."
>
>Your interpretation has nothing to do with what is written above. Any
>idea why this is?
You seek "variability," just like people who are "open minded."
"Well, its different, so it MUST BE valuable!"
Trying to seperate an "experience" from its "outcome" is also a massive
logical flaw. The "outcome" is the sum total of your "experience" at any
given time.
>
>> >Jew-logic: "I like this album because the nice production makes me
>feel
>> >like I bought something of value."
>>
>> >Pagan-logic: "I like this album because of what is unknown in it, and
>> >the experience of moving toward a mystical ideal in the process of
>> >listening."
>>
>> Your "jew-logic" isn't complete. You have to examine why "nice
>production"
>> makes one feel like they have bought something of value.
>
>This is covered in many areas of post-Nietzschean analysis:
????? What the fuck does that mean?
"nice
>production" allows a work of art to be measured by external
>characteristics, e.g. appearance. Value is derived from the production
>being "quality," or well-done without regard for content.
Value is derived from what the listener thinks is worthy. No one sees "nice
production" as a "jewish" means to an end....because it serves no
(teleological) fucking end. Personal preferance towards such aesthetics is
invariably rooted in what those aesthetics mean to the individual (ie.. how
they effect the interpretation of the piece), not because they were told to
seek out a given set of aesthetics by an external source.
>
>This explains pop music.
Lazyness explains pop music.
>
>> There could
>be
>> retarded motives behind it, no doubt, but there could also be a highly
>> personal experience behind such an action that has been triggered by
>such an
>> aesthetic element.
>
>These could be entirely locked in the user's head.
Yeah, so........
Just like the person
>who sees a stump, and suddenly thinks of relativity: they are the force
>driving that experience.
It doesn't matter what drives the experience.....its Existentialism
baby....... Look at your ARKANUM, IN THE WOODS..., etc... albums and
discover a world of people who have been profoundly effected by stumps
(well, in most cases full trees), and other natural objects they have
"reacted" to.
>
>>>Your "pagan-logic" isn't quite, for lack of a better term, "sound."
>1)There
>> is no inherent value in the unknown
>
>This is not the unknown, but the unknown as introduced by an aesthetic
>concept - the unknown is the content.
The content becomes known. In fact, the "unknown" portion of it is just
relative to YOU. This is actually quite ironic.
1)The artist has intentionality and therfore creates his art with specific
ideas in mind
2) You value the art for the reason that you are not yet aquainted with the
ideas behind it (unknown). This is a purely subjective circumstance that is
independent of the artwork. The ideals of the artwork aren't "hiding," you
just aren't aware of what they are.
3) So your appreciation of the artwork hinges upon circumstances specific to
you, and not inherent to the work itself
4) Congratulations, you are a JEW.
>
>> 2) Because of #1, the value of an
>album
>> then depends on the value of the "mystical ideal" the unknown pushes
>you
>> toward. Your assesment of this "ideal" will depend, in large part,
>on
>> your existing value scheme, as art does not provide LOGICAL EVIDENCE
>> necessary to make metaphysical judgements, but rather highly
>propagandized
>> conclusions.
>
>Not true - art demonstrates its logic in the internal construction of
>things such as melody, rhythm, timbre.
Absolute Bullshit. This stands as the most inaccurate thing you have said
yet. I could understand if you said that art demonstrates its "intentions
in the internal...." But art does not, and I am almost convinced, cannot
successfully make logical appeals. I offer you the chance to decode the
structure in a song (Lets say something off of BURZUM's "Det Som..") and
display how its construction utilizes logical/factual statements/proofs.
>
>> In short, pagan logic is "I like this album because it
>> presents an ideal that ends up conforming to my my own."
>> If you claim to be seeking "the unknown," then why repeatedly head to
>the
>> black metal section?
>
>You have misunderstood completely.
>
>> Furthermore, your conception of "the pagan spirit" seems to be quite
>sugar
>> coated. For a people who embraced the unknown without fear, they sure
>> managed to generate a ton of fearful superstitions\myths. (beware of
>the
>> Trolls d00d)
>
>Much of what we see now through the superstitious filter of
>Judeo-Christianity was not originally superstitious.
So the mighty Norse men never built roads around rock outcroppings to avoid
pissing off the dwarves in there? They weren't scared that Trolls and Frost
Giants dwelled in the dark, vast, UNKNOWN landscapes? Offerings to Gods
weren't to obtain favor, and keep fate at bay?
>
>> >The experience of the stump involves no conscious choice, thus is
>> >random.
>>
>> The only choice you have with Ildjarn is to hit the "play" button.....
>who
>> cares?
>
>You have selected the CD, which is far more important than allowing
>random music into your life.
What? Whatever happened to magic of the "unknown?' Randomness is certainly
more "unknown" than sifting through genres you've experienced before.
>
>> > "Less valuable" depends on context.
>>
>> Exactly. So conceivably, a random stump experience could prove to
>be
>> just as valuable as a consciously sought Ildjarn experience, no?
>
>Not so. A random stump experience might be valuable to the user, but has
>nothing to do with the stump;
If the stump set if off, it has everything to do with the stump. I think
what you mean is that "it does not reveal knowledge about the stump," or
something along those lines. I fully agree, but that's not the issue. No
one is trying to find knowledge about the stump anyway, and if they were,
they'd recognize their own subjectivity and discard much if not all of that
experience (context specific) as being unhelpful in that context.
the user listening to Ildjarn sought an
>idea to understand it better and had a greater experience as a result.
Why is the experience greater when you "seek" as oppossed to having an
unexpected revelation?
>
>> My point: The idea that process is an end in itself is an illusion.
>
>Translation: you do not believe in choice, preference, or learning.
????????
One
>might call you a "material nihilist."
Speaking of Nihilism.....does it bother you when you're confronted with the
idea that your values might not be objective truths? Just askin' ;)
-----Melvin Slundersloth-----
Unchain the Underground
>
>
>> Judging a person
>> because he or she is a jew or black or hispanic before getting to know
>> that person is, in my opinion, wrong. If you do so, you are guilty of
>> the crime of aestheticism because if you strip them of their aesthetic
>> components (skin color, hair, accent, language) you have the same
>> thing at the core. I think enviroment is responsible for individual
>> shortcomings in 99% of the cases, not genetics.
>
>Race is not aesthetics; it is genetic structure that encompasses a lot
>more than color of hair/eyes/skin!
It is not JUST aesthetics, but it seems that people that judge based
on race are basing that judgement on aesthetics. When someone makes a
pre-judgement based on race without so much as speaking to or even
seeing the person, they had may as well be judging the person based on
whether they write with a #2 pencil or a ball-point pen. While I do
know that race is a genetic structure, I do not believe that the
genetic structure automatically determines behavior, motivations
and/or beliefs which, unless I am mistaken (?), are the things that
most "racists" (for lack of a better term) base their negative views
of other races on.
>Until you realize this, you are thinking aesthetically :)
You made a good point, I thank you for it.
Unchain the Underground
>A person will hold cultural values, many of which are genetic memory, as
>well as different limitations on raw intelligence.
>
>80% of a person is genetics, the remaining 20% environment, and the
>statistics back this up - why are wealthy black children not scoring at
>the same level as poor whites? Different intellectual values and
>different aptitudes.
Scoring academically, do you mean?
I know some rich and poor white people that are dumb as stumps...
heavin...@my-deja.com
> >A person will hold cultural values, many of which are genetic
memory, as
> >well as different limitations on raw intelligence.
> >
> >80% of a person is genetics, the remaining 20% environment, and the
> >statistics back this up - why are wealthy black children not scoring
at
> >the same level as poor whites? Different intellectual values and
> >different aptitudes.
>
> Scoring academically, do you mean?
>
> I know some rich and poor white people that are dumb as stumps...
Really?!!?