IMMOLATION "FAILURES FOR GODS" REVIEW
Gorn1701E
THE Death Metal album of 1999? If you have been around since the origins of
the genre back in the mid 80s and have flavored many a talented and talentless
band, then you will agree. It’s been a few years but the world’s greatest death
metal band has finally unleashed a new album onto the masses. And what an album
it is!
“Once Ordained” kicks it off in the heaviest and most blistering way possible.
Great opener just like “Into Everlasting Fire” was back on the first album.
Then comes the track that many people will be screaming for when Immolation
play live. “No Jesus, No Beast” is an amazing catchy brutal number that
deathheads will die over. I definitely see crowds going apeshit and singing
along with Ross on the part where he screams, “Can hear us...death to Jesus”.
The title tracks then rolls in and is yet another pulverizing slab of pure
death metal. All you newbies, learn from the masters dammit! Song number four,
“Unsaved”, has an opening riff on it that will make your eyes roll into the
back of your skull, and make you bang your head from the waist up for the
entire track.
I could go on praising every song on here, but you should have a good idea as
to what an absolute masterpiece “Failures For Gods” is. Ross’ sickening vocals,
amazing double bass from Alex, and rhythms and leads of pure unholiness from 6
string murderers Bob and Tom make this album an immediate must get . If you
pass on this one, then every true death metal warrior you ever encounter will
scream to you (and I quote “Those Left Behind”), “You are nothing to
MEEEE!!!!!!!”
Morbid Mario
Bruni
1999, but the new MORTICIAN, "Chainsaw Dismemberment" is the most
brutal!
YArkadin
I definitely think so... the new Immolation is excellent. It's in the very
same vein as the prior two, except perhaps done with even more resolve. Every
song is a relentless and impassioned attack on christianity. It's truly
beautiful!
Death metal fans heed Morbid Mario's advice...
- Yury
Dario Mandir
>>THE Death Metal album of 1999?
>
> I definitely think so... the new Immolation is excellent. It's in the very
>same vein as the prior two, except perhaps done with even more resolve. Every
>song is a relentless and impassioned attack on christianity. It's truly
>beautiful!
It is good only if it attacks christianity ?? Bah ..
--
Black should blind those who see
Dario Mandir aka Novembre
There is no beast without cruelty
Deathlance
>>
>> I definitely think so... the new Immolation is excellent. It's in the
>very
>>same vein as the prior two, except perhaps done with even more resolve.
>Every
>>song is a relentless and impassioned attack on christianity. It's truly
>>beautiful!
>
>It is good only if it attacks christianity ?? Bah ..
Yeah, you figured it out you fuckin genius, it's only good because it attacks
christianity...
>--
>Black should blind those who see
> Dario Mandir aka Novembre
>There is no beast without cruelty
>
There is no cruelty with bestiality
"Sire of sin you embody hate undivine to you we congregate none so vile your
magnificent crown of horns inspires deeds maleficent"
- Cryptopsy
Dario Mandir
>>>>THE Death Metal album of 1999?
>>>
>>> I definitely think so... the new Immolation is excellent. It's in the
>>very
>>>same vein as the prior two, except perhaps done with even more resolve.
>>Every
>>>song is a relentless and impassioned attack on christianity. It's truly
>>>beautiful!
>>
>>It is good only if it attacks christianity ?? Bah ..
>
>Yeah, you figured it out you fuckin genius, it's only good because it attacks
>christianity...
>
sound and vocals .
YArkadin
>>
>> I definitely think so... the new Immolation is excellent. It's in the
>very
>>same vein as the prior two, except perhaps done with even more resolve.
>Every
>>song is a relentless and impassioned attack on christianity. It's truly
>>beautiful!
>
>It is good only if it attacks christianity ?? Bah ..
When have I said that?
metal...@my-deja.com
You dared buck the trend of apathy, and took a stand on something.
Therefore a straw man must be made of you by the weak of the tribe, who
feel the need for power. Those who do not have already transcended
power, and those are the true death metal fans ;)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
me...@anus.com
http://www.anus.com/metal/suffocation.html
New reviews covering the complete career to date of the brutal New York
style death metal band.
Despise the Sun
me...@anus.com wrote:
> http://www.anus.com/metal/suffocation.html
>
> New reviews covering the complete career to date of the brutal New York
> style death metal band.
Hail Goat!
Stoltzman
me...@anus.com
> All the best bands are affiliated with Satan anyways...
Metal is all about rebellion, and the conversion of rebellious energy to
intelligence, in this time a post-political intelligence which uses the
metaphor of Satan to speak to _personal_ freedom.
Metal will always be, if not explicityly "Satanic," of the side which
makes beauty of not-good and not-friendly, that which is feared by the
empire of ruling sheep. Think about it. Think about how the music is
designed to _sound_...
(As in, sound to a listener - if a stereo playing Vader was left alone
in an epic forest, it would still be beautiful, but it would not sound
until minds could pick up the broadcast.)
Max the Dog
to punk, which is primal scream therapy. Whereas Christianity and the
mainstream tell people to be meek and help others, the message of
metal/"Satan" is that one should be proud and seek to help one's self.
It implores us as individuals to define our own boundaries and standards
for what is "good" despite what society has conditioned us from birth to
think of as good (i.e. metal advocates mainstream society's "not-good",
as you call it), and that one should be uncompromising in holding to
one's own personal credo (i.e. being "not-friendly"). And the music is
designed to sound powerful and inflexible. This much I can agree with.
But from what dank corner of thine arse do you pull this notion that
metal is fascist? Metal suggests no higher cause to which the listener
must submit, except maybe the propagation of metal's message of personal
freedom. Metal appeals to and celebrates the individual. What's so
fascist about that?
Death Metal
> But from what dank corner of thine arse do you pull this notion that
> metal is fascist? Metal suggests no higher cause to which the
listener
> must submit, except maybe the propagation of metal's message of
personal
> freedom. Metal appeals to and celebrates the individual. What's so
> fascist about that?
Metal celebrates the individual in the same way many do: with no sense
of boundaries between self and world. Thus some things are very
serious, such as ecological damage or the enslavement of all to
commerce. A direct-willed metalhead would rather execute the
Christians/Jews/Muslims and build a non-material society rather than
serve up another round of destruction for our human genome,
environmental and soul.
N.B.: I did not say metal was explicitly _Nazi_, only fascist: in the
sense that believing an iron rule with collective value is more
empowering than material rule.
--
http://www.anus.com/metal/
death metal, black metal, speed metal,
thrash, grindcore reviews by S.R. Prozak
MrLocust
That'd be why so many of my metal fans seem so tolerant of other styles of
music and lifestyle then...hmmm, bit of a contradiction in terms when you
suggest that by celebrating the individual one of the most directly willed
forms this can take is to execute other individuals based upon the ill
founded supposition that all Christians/Jews/Muslims are responsible for
materialistic society and all the problems that brings.
Metal in some cases may indeed be opposed to materialism, but very few bands
or fans seem to suggest an way to achieve this other than through the
execution of said races based upon the same old tired, hackneyed reasoning
that judeo-islamic religions have caused capitalism and imposed it upon all
humanity, which is quite blatantly bollocks. There is nothing to suggest
that capitalism wouldn't have evolved were it not for the Jews. On the
contrary, capitalism had naturally been evolving as a system of economics
since the first abstraction from service or produce exchange to that of the
coin. It is not unreasonable to suggest that materialism is a part of human
nature as a whole, there is always going to be a contest for more wealth and
status symbols simply because humanity still operates fundamentally at an
instinctual level, whereby increased security and ability to provide for
family (i.e. wealth) and all symbols of this (i.e. material gain of luxury
items et all) equate greater chances of propagation of the individual's
blood line in much the same way that millenia ago physical prowess and a
large territory would have increased the chances of finding the best mate.
Again the iron rule with collective value part goes against the statement of
celebrating the individual. it implies the exclusion of those who's values
are not part of the collective and once again highlights the great myth that
metal, punk, or whatever genre you care to name equates individuality. it
may indeed endorse it, but it is often counter productive, simply because
those people who flock to a band in search of individuality will in effect
be limiting it through conformation with one another.
Metal as a genre is obviously neither a community of collective values nor
and community of individuality...and it certainly isn't both since each
statement negates the other. The metal scene it's self is vastly disparate
and fractured in not only musical style, but also in fan based attitude, one
needs only to look at this news group to see that.
As for individuality, hardly despite it's overall fractured nature there are
sub genre's within it. Individuality in the technical sense means a total
difference between yourself and your peers, being situated external to all
of society, which again is obviously not the case here since we all share at
least one thing in common, that being our basic music taste. Even were it
possible to be _completely_ individual in every aspect to everybody else you
still would not be an individual, this is due to the fact that your
'individuality' would in effect be defined by everybody else, you would be
everything that society on a person by person basis is not. This means
basically that being an individual within society relies upon everybody
elses tastes to actually exist, and that reliance ties the subject to their
society, limiting their individuality once again. Suggesting, not
unreasonably, that ultimate individuality within people in society is a
paradox and cannot exist.
Quite frankly this whole establishing of a common philosophy of the metal
genre is utter pap if that philosophy includes encourages individuality, and
with the poor attempts to justify anti-semitism and fascism seems to be
little more than a contrived doctrine for those who need it to be that way,
rather than an actual truth which can be applied in a realistic sense. An
attempt to build a sense of adversity which could consolidate the respective
sub genres of the metal community, yet still preserving this delusion of
self righteous (especially in the case of " destruction for our human
genome,
environmental and soul") individuality.
Some metal fans may believe in the concept of Fascism, either because
they're told to by their generic media or because they genuinly think that
that is the best form of social order (which I am neither disputing, nor
agreeing with here) but that does not in itself make metal a Fascist
statement. It doesn't make metal anything in fact, other than just another
style of music with a very loose ideology that is only taken up by those
who already believe in it. It does not condemn the quality of metal, it
merely questions those who attempt to turn it into a full on social
movement.
Ned 'Prissy Anglophile' Raggett
>
[snip snip snap]
> ...It does not condemn the quality of metal, it
> merely questions those who attempt to turn it into a full on social
> movement.
Hm. Didn't realize Ayn Rand was into metal.
Ned
ned thinking Habermas would have a field day here at kuci.org
in...@repulse-usa.com
<kcor...@enterprise.net> wrote:
Quite the essay you have here... was somewhat interesting to read, but
I wonder why you took the time to collect and put forth your thoughts
in this manner... I am assuming you have quite a bit of spare time on
your hands :)
*steve
>>Metal celebrates the individual in the same way many do
>
>That'd be why so many of my metal fans seem so tolerant of other styles of
>music and lifestyle then...hmmm, bit of a contradiction in terms when you
>suggest that by celebrating the individual one of the most directly willed
>forms this can take is to execute other individuals based upon the ill
>founded supposition that all Christians/Jews/Muslims are responsible for
>materialistic society and all the problems that brings.
...
Repulse/Warhead Records America
PO Box 14356, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-4356
(805) 594-1132 Phone (805) 594-1719 Fax
http://www.repulse-usa.com
Martha Hughes
>
> MrLocust wrote:
> >
> [snip snip snap]
> > merely questions those who attempt to turn it into a full on social
> > movement.
>
>
> Ned
> ned thinking Habermas would have a field day here at kuci.org
Well, what's wrong with being Satanic and Evil???
As far as Fascist, I think somebody should tell Borknagar, Immortal,
Bloodthorn, and all the rest of the epic metal bands they're fascist. If
you did, they'd think you were one of those xtian wackos.
MrLocust
in...@repulse-usa.com wrote in message <3784efeb...@news.fix.net>...
>On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:45:47 +0100, "MrLocust"
><kcor...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
>Quite the essay you have here... was somewhat interesting to read, but
>I wonder why you took the time to collect and put forth your thoughts
>in this manner... I am assuming you have quite a bit of spare time on
>your hands :)
>
>*steve
>
Just being on the internet I think provides conclusive evidence for having
far too much time on the hands
in...@repulse-usa.com
I suppose so... it is necessary for me, but then again if I were to
have the ability to get laid once a decade at least, I would probably
never bother reading the newsgroups!
haha
*ahem* yeah ok...
*steve
MrLocust
>I suppose so... it is necessary for me,
Damn! you have a decent excuse to be here! how I envy you!
but then again if I were to
>have the ability to get laid once a decade at least, I would probably
>never bother reading the newsgroups!
>haha
ah, that's alright then;)
Death Metal
> >Metal celebrates the individual in the same way many do
>
> That'd be why so many of my metal fans seem so tolerant of other
styles of
> music and lifestyle then...
Most that I know, are - at least, those who are with it enough to be
"true" - but that alone means one has taken steps toward understanding
metal.
> suggest that by celebrating the individual one of the most directly
willed
> forms this can take is to execute other individuals based upon the ill
> founded supposition that all Christians/Jews/Muslims are responsible
for
> materialistic society and all the problems that brings.
Please demonstrate why it's an ill-founded supposition if, before said
religions became the primary mode of thought in western culture, we were
not a materialistic world oligarchy - but now we are. I'm interested to
see what you come up with.
> Metal in some cases may indeed be opposed to materialism,
Art, by supposing an activity more interesting than material life, is
anti-materialistic. Also note the strong anti-moralism in metal from
the beginning.
> but very few
bands
> or fans seem to suggest an way to achieve this other than through the
> execution of said races based upon the same old tired, hackneyed
reasoning
> that judeo-islamic religions have caused capitalism and imposed it
upon all
> humanity, which is quite blatantly bollocks.
"The lady doth protest too much," at least without posting a
countervailing philosophy. Judeo-Christian religions, btw: for a genre
that attacks religion as much as it does, metal generally avoids bagging
on the Islamic cultures because they have higher individual moral
standards than the groupthink of Jewish or Christian cultures.
> There is nothing to
suggest
> that capitalism wouldn't have evolved were it not for the Jews. On
the
> contrary, capitalism had naturally been evolving as a system of
economics
> since the first abstraction from service or produce exchange to that
of the
> coin.
Not so - capitalism, as a monetary system, has no polemics; capitalism,
as justified by the "Protestant work ethic" and Jewish moral law (code
of hamurabbi) does and therefore regulates impetus with its own value
system, where the coin is only a token for exchange of values.
> It is not unreasonable to suggest that materialism is a part of
human
> nature as a whole, there is always going to be a contest for more
wealth and
> status symbols simply because humanity still operates fundamentally at
an
> instinctual level,
Not so. "Materialism" as power politics is not only different form
"materialism" as moral crusade, but also is not necessarily inherent to
human beings - without a contest for power, there is no power, and
humans tend to walk shoulder to shoulder.
> Again the iron rule with collective value part goes against the
statement of
> celebrating the individual.
I disagree. A collective value system, based on a lowest-level ideal
such as "we all eat, we do not destroy our world," is far from
oppressive of individual freedoms. On the other hand, a society where
you must "work" ten hours a day at unproductive jobs is forcing you to
conform or die... isn't it?
> Metal as a genre is obviously neither a community of collective values
nor
> and community of individuality...and it certainly isn't both since
each
> statement negates the other.
Only in a retarded linearist sense of logic. If I am pro-individual,
but believe we should all work together to preserve that freedom, I am a
collectivist.
> The metal scene it's self is vastly
disparate
> and fractured in not only musical style, but also in fan based
attitude, one
> needs only to look at this news group to see that.
Note the community is composed of people who have different degrees of
understanding of the community. Look toward those who founded it and
who guide it rather than to the diversity of losers.
>Individuality in the technical sense means a
total
> difference between yourself and your peers, being situated external to
all
> of society, which again is obviously not the case here since we all
share at
> least one thing in common, that being our basic music taste. Even
Musical taste, within which there is infinite variability. Find a
larger total difference between yourself and your peers than creating
insightful and meaningful art in an age of oblivion fostered by
Judeo-Christian capitalism.
> Quite frankly this whole establishing of a common philosophy of the
metal
> genre is utter pap if that philosophy includes encourages
individuality, and
> with the poor attempts to justify anti-semitism and fascism seems to
be
> little more than a contrived doctrine for those who need it to be that
way,
I disagree. No philosophy of metal attempts to "justify" anything -
that is for "moral" societies. Metal is staging and executing a
phenemology of the human spirit on all levels, and in that finds a space
in which one can see how "democracy" is more oppressive to humanity and
planet _as a whole_ more than fascism. Furthermore, metal posits
through its own example that in that whole, there is plentiful
"diversity" although not in the color-bar sense the "easy answers" media
would have you believe.
> Some metal fans may believe in the concept of Fascism, either because
> they're told to by their generic media
Ok, Mr. Deluded Poster, _WHAT_ media is encouraging fascism today? If
anything it's a media crusade against it - so please, elucidate here for
us.
>or because they genuinly think
that
> that is the best form of social order (which I am neither disputing,
nor
> agreeing with here) but that does not in itself make metal a Fascist
> statement. It doesn't make metal anything in fact, other than just
another
> style of music with a very loose ideology that is only taken up by
those
> who already believe in it.
Ah, but if it has an ideology, that ideology differentiates the genre
from others, correct? I see you are arguing for my side of the debate
here. Metal is about finding orders beyond the order that is and has
been. And in that, it has, like Herr Nietzsche, found a truth beyond
"mercy" and "democracy." Let's hear it for that, since both mercy and
democracy are failures.
> It does not condemn the quality of metal,
it
> merely questions those who attempt to turn it into a full on social
> movement.
Fairly stupid thing to question, considering how tight and ideologically
aligned metal has been since the early 1980s. Did you forget that
hardcore, with its insistence upon ideology, is in our heritage, as well
as the Nietzschean leanings toward the occult that inspired the
anti-hippie tirade of Black Sabbath?
Ah, you have some thinking left to do.
Death Metal
> Quite the essay you have here... was somewhat interesting to read, but
> I wonder why you took the time to collect and put forth your thoughts
> in this manner... I am assuming you have quite a bit of spare time on
> your hands :)
More likely, a defensive sense of "morality" which feels it must defend
its own sense of ...taste, and nothing more.
Australian Convict Scum
> > Quite the essay you have here... was somewhat interesting to read, but
> > I wonder why you took the time to collect and put forth your thoughts
> > in this manner... I am assuming you have quite a bit of spare time on
> > your hands :)
>
> More likely, a defensive sense of "morality" which feels it must defend
> its own sense of ...taste, and nothing more.
and when one feels its his duty to defend it, he MAKES time to do so.
Its called "dedication".
/}
// ...the world needs more hatred...
/{ /> http://darkwolf.black.art.pl/~hatred/
,__________///----/{___________________________________________________
/|==========|/\|-----/___________________________________________________\
\|==========|\/|-----\___________________________________________________/
'~~~~~~~~~~\\\----\{
\{ \> "Nine slaves of death, trapped in eternal hell..
\\ Kill you with their breath, if you catch a smell"
\} "Black Breath" - REPULSION.
IamXanaX
>as the Nietzschean leanings toward the occult
hahahahahaha
Death Metal
> > More likely, a defensive sense of "morality" which feels it must
defend
> > its own sense of ...taste, and nothing more.
>
> and when one feels its his duty to defend it, he MAKES time to do so.
> Its called "dedication".
If people like him weren't dedicated, young people would be having more
sex today.
MrLocust
>"true" - but that alone means one has taken steps toward understanding
>metal.
Yes and that suggests there is some inherent truth to be found within metal,
and that a "true" afficionado of metal exists, even that requires a certain
amount of conformity to some ideal which defines what a "true" and a "false"
fan of metal precisely is. You say it's to take steps to understand metal,
which is after all just another subjective form of art. Supposing that this
is the case then metal must have some underlying nature that unifies it and
distinguishes it from all other genres both musically and ideologically,
already this imposes a sense of 'values' upon which all within and without
the genre are judged to a certain extent, with "true" bands and fans of
greater and lesser accordance to this ideal. Already there seems to be a
hierarchy arising within this utopian image of collective individualism,
based upon the degree of how much a person conforms to this ideal. The
instant some categorical declaration is made such as 'Metal is Fascist' then
individualism is restricted in the sense that should a fan or a band state
that they hold views that oppose fascism they are by definition less "true"
to metal than one who holds similar views to this ideal that has been laid
down as one of the fundamental qualities of metal, a process of exclusion
that clearly portrays metal with a true following of people holding all the
same ideals, not because they have chosen to, but rather that all others who
hold ideals differing to the central ideal have been branded "untrue" (and
thus not a genuine part of the metal scene) by their own faliure to conform.
>Please demonstrate why it's an ill-founded supposition if, before said
>religions became the primary mode of thought in western culture, we were
>not a materialistic world oligarchy - but now we are. I'm interested to
>see what you come up with.
Well for a start Materialism is defined in three ways
A) a tendancy to prefer material possessions and physical comfort to
spiritual values
Which forms the literal definition of materialism
B) the opinion that nothing exists but matter and it's movements
and
C) The opinion that consciousness and will are wholly due to material
agency.
Which represent the two related philosophical definitions of the word.
Most if not all religions find B and C abbhorrent to their belief system ,
whereas in the case of A, the Christian church has a long history of
splitting and dividing into puritanical groups shunning materialism in
favour of spiritual value. Starting with protestantism that criticised the
catholic church for it's affluence and faith in trinkets and baubels and
carrying on to, and past the Quakers, all movements which promoted austerity
amongst it's adherents and an emphasis upon charity which even the Catholic
church has adopted. From the sixteenth century onwards the church was
responsible in many areas for the education and provision of the poor in
their parishes with the initiation of 'poor' funds which pre dates most
welfare systems in action today, whereas today a large proportion of all
shelters for homeless and the abused are church funded and staffed. Even
the missions which I don't approve of in principle at least demonstrate that
for the most part the church is willing to fund a non profitable expedition
that whilst can be viewed as a method of indoctrination, also is one of the
few sources of medical aid for those who the missions come into contact
with. Wether you agree with such a practice or not it is hardly the action
of an institution dedicated to the propagation of materialism, nor does it
fit any of the above definitions of materialism, but actually runs contrary
to them.
On a secondary note, many of the celtic and other pagan civilisations before
conversion to what is now the standard religious state of thought could
easily be viewed as materialistic. An emphasis on treasure hordes, a status
symbol which was hardly vital for the communities survival, and the
willingness with which the pagan peoples traded with other races for items
which were little more than luxuries. Even in Norse myth you have The
Necklace of the Brisings where Freyja was willing to prostitute herself in
order to acquire a material pleasure, the myth also is hardly condemning of
such avarice as her downfall is brought only through Odin's jealousy. This
in itself suggests that materialism was seen to be present in pre christian
Scandinavia, not that it was prevalent but it was present as it is and was
in all societies. Both the Judaic and Christian religions both openly
condemn money as an evil, avarice as a sin and humbleness as a virtue.
Whilst not all Christians and Jews stick by this theory, it is at least a
fundamental doctrine within those religions that money and materialism
should not be sought for their own sake...and by your own implication that
those who do not understand or abide by the fundamentals of an ideology are
not "true" members of that sub section of humanity then it's hardly judaism
or Christianities fault for the spread of materialism, but rather those
individuals who merely appeared as members of those cultures.
That is, assuming that materialism was not already present in those
civilizations they touched.
>"The lady doth protest too much," at least without posting a
>countervailing philosophy. Judeo-Christian religions, btw: for a genre
>that attacks religion as much as it does, metal generally avoids bagging
>on the Islamic cultures because they have higher individual moral
>standards
Despite Islam being just as guilty of hording affluence at the cost of
others with regards to the construction of hugely extravagant temples and
maintenance of said temples in and around areas of severe deprivation and
poverty amongst it's populace. Similar to some Buddhist temples out east,
which whilst boasting an impressive architectural facade seems to do little
for the community.
>Not so. "Materialism" as power politics is not only different form
>"materialism" as moral crusade, but also is not necessarily inherent to
>human beings - without a contest for power, there is no power, and
>humans tend to walk shoulder to shoulder.
Where precisely is, or was, this the case? humans walking shoulder to
shoulder with no higher administrative power governing or regulating their
activities? From pre Christian civilizations to now to tribes still
untouched by Judeo-Christian thought or materialism there exists a power
structure and a moral code of laws and within that a contest for power
amongst it's members whereby heads of state or small cultures attempt to
guarrantee loyalty amongst their closest subjects through the granting of
privaledges and benefits, from defferential power to material wealth.
>I disagree. A collective value system, based on a lowest-level ideal
>such as "we all eat, we do not destroy our world," is far from
>oppressive of individual freedoms.
Not true if at the lowest level that is the ideal, then it is easy to see
that if a faction within the community developed wishes to persue a form of
behaviour that did destroy an aspect of their environment, then their
individual freedom to choose to
do that is limited by the community abiding by the doctrine, or they do
nothing and have their right to an undamaged environment compromised.
On the other hand, a society where
>you must "work" ten hours a day at unproductive jobs is forcing you to
>conform or die... isn't it?
Indeed, but present society makes little claim to fully support
individualism.
>
>Only in a retarded linearist sense of logic. If I am pro-individual,
>but believe we should all work together to preserve that freedom, I am a
>collectivist.
But if someone does not wish to work together in a co operative sense to
preserve individuality then you are, by your statement of believeing we
should _all_, in the universal sense, work together, limiting their
individuality. Why should they be held accountable in such a fashion to
your world view? Saying that just one person _should_ do something promotes
that something as more positive than their present lifestyle, implying that
their present lifestyle is somehow 'less right' than you think it should be
which can translate as a condemnation of their own individual right to go
against your ideal of collectivism. Also if someone wished to act in a way
that was not pro-individual, i.e. following someone else's ideals that
originates through trust of that person rather than a firm believe in those
ideals themselves has a perfect right as an individual to subvert their own
individuality, and as such 'enforcing' individual choice is ironically self
defeating.
>Note the community is composed of people who have different degrees of
>understanding of the community. Look toward those who founded it and
>who guide it rather than to the diversity of losers.
again, heirarchic nonesense. Those who go against the founding members are
deemed losers and thus their voice is categorically dismissed, already the
individual choice to either follow those categorized as losers or to
establish a new view of the community and it's position in society is
effectively rubbished and declared invalid. All sounding a bit 'we
celebrate the individual, as long as that individual's one of us'.
>I disagree. No philosophy of metal attempts to "justify" anything -
>that is for "moral" societies.
Apart from that bit where you state that Judeo-Christianity should be
eradicated for the way it's ravaged human society of freedom with
materialism et all. Thereby seeking to justify the action with a reason.
If no philosophy of metal will justify itself then it's little more than a
personal opinion to which only it's formulator is held accountable, in order
to apply itself to others within the genre it has to be validated to at
least show why they should follow suite.
>Metal is staging and executing a
>phenemology of the human spirit on all levels, and in that finds a space
>in which one can see how "democracy" is more oppressive to humanity and
>planet _as a whole_ more than fascism.
It depends upon who is ruling the fascist state for a start, but in any case
most people have chosen to live this way, there have been innumerable
revolutions throughout human civilisation yet democracy still prevails.
Fascist and absolute governments have been overthrown or faded into
obscurity only to be replaced by democracy again and again wheras the
contrary exists only in a minute minority. This at least suggests that
those people who are willing to fight and act for their ways of life have
chosen Democracy through their own free will, those who have not fought more
frequently than not comprise the apathetic majority who really don't
particulary care what system governs them, a reason why communism succeeded
on a localised basis rather than universally, either people didn't want it,
or the working class/peasant majority upon which Communist revolution
depended upon for support didn't care enough to stand and be counted. if
democracy is more oppresive (and a great deal of luminaries agree that it
is) then the poeple have more or less chosen to be oppressed.
>Ok, Mr. Deluded Poster, _WHAT_ media is encouraging fascism today?
*sigh* very well. In the constraints of metal the emerging neo nazi black
metal scene can be seen as encouraging a fascist point of view, whilst nazi
does not equate fascist directly it implies it with the association with
Hitler, a fascist dictator with which many identify as an ideal leader in
certain respects. You yourself has stated that Metal is fascist, if that is
the case then by your own admission metal itself is a media that encourages
Fascist thought and doctrine, metal which would be considered the generic
media of metal fans. The strong nationalist right wing parties across the
world utilise media through which Fascism is encouraged etc. Media is not
just comprised of newspapers and tv shows.
>Ah, but if it has an ideology, that ideology differentiates the genre
>from others, correct? I see you are arguing for my side of the debate
>here.
Nice try but hardly the case. Notice the word 'loose' and the phrase 'that
is taken up by those who already believe it' If the ideology was true then
it would apply to all fans and all bands within the genre, since it quite
obviously doesn't then any ideology applied is little more than arbitary and
a superficiality at best. In any case it is quite possible for two genres
of music to share ideologies but be two different entities due to the fact
music is not differentiated soley by ideological differences. Additional to
this is the fact that again if the ideology was the sole definition that a
genre had then it's members would only be those who agreed with it, those
who disagreed...even if liking the music itself, would be excluded from
being classified as a part of it's associated scene which again is not
encouraging individualism within it's members, or celebrating that of those
who are not members.
Metal is about finding orders beyond the order that is and has
>been. And in that, it has, like Herr Nietzsche, found a truth beyond
>"mercy" and "democracy." Let's hear it for that, since both mercy and
>democracy are failures.
Depending upon wether you consider Nietzche to be the sole arbiter of truth,
even if you believe that such a thing as 'universal truth' can exist and not
just approximations to it based upon how many people agree...thus rendering
the truth subjective and consequentially applicable only to those who share
it's views. Plus it's debateable as to wether or not the concept of mercy
has any objectives in it's application that could define it as either a
success or a faliure.
>Fairly stupid thing to question, considering how tight and ideologically
>aligned metal has been since the early 1980s.
Apart from the fact that most bands seems to speak little about ideology
it's hardly aligned as it were. You've got our heritage, hardcore that
swings between the far right and far left of the political spectrum
intermittantly, bands such as Pitchshifter who are unashamedly left wing,
Burzum et all on the far right and a whole host of bands in the middle who's
main public concerns with life range from veganism, to finding out where
the next beer is coming from and to wether or not they're a small goblin or
in fact, as the case may be, a grown man looking foolish wearing an elf
costume.
Did you forget that
>hardcore, with its insistence upon ideology, is in our heritage, as well
>as the Nietzschean leanings toward the occult that inspired the
>anti-hippie tirade of Black Sabbath?
Despite, in the words of Ozzy, the occultism bit being "bollocks and little
more than a stage gimmick". Plus it's easy to see how a leaning towards the
occult could inspire anti-hippy sentiments....what with their tarot cards
and belief in a higher spiritual plane of existence and tendency to get
stoned rather a lot, polar opposites obviously.
>Ah, you have some thinking left to do.
At least it would appear that I am not alone....
MrLocust
>If people like him weren't dedicated, young people would be having more
>sex today.
If then I am somehow, through my own small efforts, preventing the likes of
your good self from procreating, then it gives me immense pleasure to say
that I could be of some service to the benefit of the species.
John Chedsey
I bow to thy wit!
--
============================================
Satan Stole My Teddybear
http://www.chedsey.com
--------------------------------------------
Goodbye Harry/Pavers Site
http://www.chedsey.com/goodbye/
Death Metal
> >Most that I know, are - at least, those who are with it enough to be
> >"true" - but that alone means one has taken steps toward
understanding
> >metal.
>
> Yes and that suggests there is some inherent truth to be found within
metal,
> and that a "true" afficionado of metal exists, even that requires a
certain
> amount of conformity to some ideal which defines what a "true" and a
"false"
> fan of metal precisely is.
Conformity is making yourself look and act like the others. Learning is
using shared tokens to communicate. Your definitional attack is
semantic in its nature.
> You say it's to take steps to understand
metal,
> which is after all just another subjective form of art.
Art, if you ask a great artist, is communication. A kind of
communication that is separate from the political (e.g. material causal
action), art is designed by human intelligence to convey the
metaphysical interpretation of unity of the sensual and the abstract.
User interpretation, while "subjective," is meaningless if it involves
misunderstanding the artist's intentions - therefore, art is as
"subjective" as your response to anything said aloud to you by a friend.
> Supposing
that this
> is the case then metal must have some underlying nature that unifies
it and
> distinguishes it from all other genres both musically and
ideologically,
> already this imposes a sense of 'values' upon which all within and
without
> the genre are judged to a certain extent, with "true" bands and fans
of
> greater and lesser accordance to this ideal.
Let's reinterpret that creatively: metal musicians get together because
something in the sound and ideas of metal music fascinates them, and
then make metal built on the work of metal bands in the past working
with the same general thoughts to keep developing those ideas. Compare
Angel Witch and Mayhem - big difference, similar ideas.
>The
> instant some categorical declaration is made such as 'Metal is
Fascist' then
> individualism is restricted in the sense that should a fan or a band
state
> that they hold views that oppose fascism they are by definition less
"true"
> to metal than one who holds similar views to this ideal that has been
laid
> down as one of the fundamental qualities of metal, a process of
exclusion
> that clearly portrays metal with a true following of people holding
all the
> same ideals, not because they have chosen to, but rather that all
others who
> hold ideals differing to the central ideal have been branded "untrue"
(and
> thus not a genuine part of the metal scene) by their own faliure to
conform.
Is anyone using "true" in this way? There are two groups of people
using the word "true" - one group, that hopes to differentiate bands
that are serious about their approach from the commercial bands, and
another group (mainly MAYHEM) who are using the word "true" to sell the
consumer bogus material.
If metal is by nature of a certain vein of thought, one should consider
why another would necessarily "oppose" that thought. Certainly
sheepishness is not part of metal - and right now, opposing "fascism"
and "racism" is seen as a brave, noble, merciful, Christian thing to do
- so explain why metal would want to include the brain-dead in its set
of ideals.
> >Please demonstrate why it's an ill-founded supposition if, before
said
> >religions became the primary mode of thought in western culture, we
were
> >not a materialistic world oligarchy - but now we are. I'm interested
to
> >see what you come up with.
>
> Well for a start Materialism is defined in three ways
> A) a tendancy to prefer material possessions and physical comfort to
> spiritual values
>
> Which forms the literal definition of materialism
>
> B) the opinion that nothing exists but matter and it's movements
>
> and
>
> C) The opinion that consciousness and will are wholly due to material
> agency.
C represents the fundamental statements of Judaism, interpreted at a
theological level. Christianity falls under A, using the avoidance of C
as its reasoning: "G-d" is external to reality, but manifests his
_approval_ through material reward. "The meek shall inherit the earth"
became "If one has inherited the earth, one must have been meek" in the
same way Darwin's evolutionarism became Evolution, where all things were
divinely ordained instead of being simply a convenient step in the
emergence of higher-ordered complex systems.
> Most if not all religions find B and C abbhorrent to their belief
system ,
"Just take it for the face value" - most religions claim a lot of
things, most of which are lies; see a serious analysis of Christianity
and Judaism such as Friedrich Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" and then
take the K-mart philosophy section you've just posted in the context of
existential reasoning.
> Starting with protestantism that
criticised the
> catholic church for it's affluence and faith in trinkets and baubels
and
> carrying on to,
Uh, the "Protestant Work ethic" was the formalization of the idea that
"G-d" rewarded decent, hard-working folk with material success. Did you
just stumble, or what?
>Wether you agree with such a practice or not it is hardly the
action
> of an institution dedicated to the propagation of materialism, nor
does it
> fit any of the above definitions of materialism, but actually runs
contrary
> to them.
Time to take a peek into what you're really saying here: the stated
values of that organization are against "materialism" in the sense of a
narrow definition stating "_all_ value arises from the material".
Judeo-Christianity is best summarized as: material value represents the
values of a mythological existence elsewhere.
> On a secondary note, many of the celtic and other pagan civilisations
before
> conversion to what is now the standard religious state of thought
could
> easily be viewed as materialistic. An emphasis on treasure hordes, a
status
> symbol which was hardly vital for the communities survival, and the
> willingness with which the pagan peoples traded with other races for
items
> which were little more than luxuries. Even in Norse myth you have The
> Necklace of the Brisings where Freyja was willing to prostitute
herself in
> order to acquire a material pleasure, the myth also is hardly
condemning of
> such avarice as her downfall is brought only through Odin's jealousy.
These are not "moral" myths. Reading it as polemic will result in the
errors you have achieved.
> This
> in itself suggests that materialism was seen to be present in pre
christian
> Scandinavia, not that it was prevalent but it was present as it is and
was
> in all societies.
Present, yes. Justified by the current religious tradition which
simultaneously maintains a public denial of materialism while espousing
its value as a spiritual system, "materialism" is more than present -
it's the foundation.
> Both the Judaic and Christian religions both openly
> condemn money as an evil, avarice as a sin and humbleness as a virtue.
Anyone else see the humor in this statement?
> >"The lady doth protest too much," at least without posting a
> >countervailing philosophy. Judeo-Christian religions, btw: for a
genre
> >that attacks religion as much as it does, metal generally avoids
bagging
> >on the Islamic cultures because they have higher individual moral
> >standards
>
> Despite Islam being just as guilty of hording affluence at the cost of
> others with regards to the construction of hugely extravagant temples
and
> maintenance of said temples in and around areas of severe deprivation
and
> poverty amongst it's populace. Similar to some Buddhist temples out
east,
> which whilst boasting an impressive architectural facade seems to do
little
> for the community.
"Religion concentrates power" - power is the symbol for future material
status.
> >Not so. "Materialism" as power politics is not only different form
> >"materialism" as moral crusade, but also is not necessarily inherent
to
> >human beings - without a contest for power, there is no power, and
> >humans tend to walk shoulder to shoulder.
>
> Where precisely is, or was, this the case? humans walking shoulder to
> shoulder with no higher administrative power governing or regulating
their
> activities?
Noble societies, such as the Greco-Roman, Nordic, Indian, Asian and
American societies of postmorality, afforded a space in which those who
were competent walked shoulder to shoulder as equals. One could make a
trivial assault on these cultures by saying "But they had slaves!!11!"
or some similar moral dilemma, but this fact does not diminish the
entire thrust of their civilization to evolve a democracy based on an
educated, philosophically-competent class of people, rather than a
collective living room of television morons.
> From pre Christian civilizations to now to tribes still
> untouched by Judeo-Christian thought or materialism there exists a
power
> structure and a moral code of laws and within that a contest for power
> amongst it's members whereby heads of state or small cultures attempt
to
> guarrantee loyalty amongst their closest subjects through the granting
of
> privaledges and benefits, from defferential power to material wealth.
Materialism is the most convenient form of power, and has existed in all
societies - but what were the organizational principles of such
societies? In a strict debate round, you've lost this point for failing
to address my point, instead only posting "disadvantages" that do not
scope the whole.
> >I disagree. A collective value system, based on a lowest-level ideal
> >such as "we all eat, we do not destroy our world," is far from
> >oppressive of individual freedoms.
>
> Not true if at the lowest level that is the ideal, then it is easy to
see
> that if a faction within the community developed wishes to persue a
form of
> behaviour that did destroy an aspect of their environment, then their
> individual freedom to choose to
> do that is limited by the community abiding by the doctrine, or they
do
> nothing and have their right to an undamaged environment compromised.
Right. The community would not tolerate destruction of the environment,
as we claim we do not tolerate "murder" or "genocide" now (while
endorsing it with the other hand).
> On the other hand, a society where
> >you must "work" ten hours a day at unproductive jobs is forcing you
to
> >conform or die... isn't it?
>
> Indeed, but present society makes little claim to fully support
> individualism.
That's a cop-out.
> >Only in a retarded linearist sense of logic. If I am pro-individual,
> >but believe we should all work together to preserve that freedom, I
am a
> >collectivist.
>
> But if someone does not wish to work together in a co operative sense
to
> preserve individuality then you are, by your statement of believeing
we
> should _all_, in the universal sense, work together, limiting their
> individuality. Why should they be held accountable in such a fashion
to
> your world view?
It's not _mine_; it's a sensible world view that we can all agree upon,
given our basic goals.
> Saying that just one person _should_ do something
promotes
> that something as more positive than their present lifestyle, implying
that
> their present lifestyle is somehow 'less right' than you think it
should be
> which can translate as a condemnation of their own individual right to
go
> against your ideal of collectivism.
It implies their lifestyle is less effective. Scientific, not
political.
> Also if someone wished to act in
a way
> that was not pro-individual, i.e. following someone else's ideals that
> originates through trust of that person rather than a firm believe in
those
> ideals themselves has a perfect right as an individual to subvert
their own
> individuality, and as such 'enforcing' individual choice is ironically
self
> defeating.
There is no enforcement of individual choice. If one wants to be inert,
one can be.
> >Note the community is composed of people who have different degrees
of
> >understanding of the community. Look toward those who founded it and
> >who guide it rather than to the diversity of losers.
>
> again, heirarchic nonesense. Those who go against the founding
members are
> deemed losers
Right. Current society is more fascist than what I propose.
> >Ok, Mr. Deluded Poster, _WHAT_ media is encouraging fascism today?
>
> *sigh* very well. In the constraints of metal the emerging neo nazi
black
> metal scene can be seen as encouraging a fascist point of view,
Which represents 0.1% of all media today. Thank you - you're done.
> Did you forget that
> >hardcore, with its insistence upon ideology, is in our heritage, as
well
> >as the Nietzschean leanings toward the occult that inspired the
> >anti-hippie tirade of Black Sabbath?
>
> Despite, in the words of Ozzy, the occultism bit being "bollocks and
little
> more than a stage gimmick".
Not at the time it wasn't. Plus you forgot to note the ideology with
which bands like Slayer have attacked their social system, using the
metaphor of Satan - otherwise, why have so many groundbreaking bands
done it? Because they're sheep?
> >Ah, you have some thinking left to do.
>
> At least it would appear that I am not alone....
No, there's plenty of ill-informed people like you who are enforcers of
"form" over abstract analysis. But that surprises no one. The question
is what frontiers are left for human expansion, before we give up on our
own choice (as you have above) and wait for the big explosion. You
don't understand metal, and more fundamentally, you don't understand
philosophy - you're en route to being a second-rate political
objectionist, at least. But, to paraphrase the Significant Pickle, this
poster is often off-topic, so I return to you these questions which you
cannot successfully answer:
I. What is responsible for the differentiation of genre in musical
structure as well as aesthetic?
II. What are the materialistic implications of "humility" and
"morality," both very Christian issues?
III. Why is it that metal, after becoming a mainstream phenomena in the
1970s, has consciously avoided commercial culture?
The answers to any question are not difficult, but they require an
investment of effort into the interpretation of external reality.
"Subjectivism," or relativism, is the delusion that our intellectual
projections necessarily change reality, e.g. that we are reality over
external events. This view, all things told, is closer to the illusion
that brought Hitler's downfall, and the downfall of Rome like many
civilizations before it: it suggests a divorce from externality as
tainted, in favor of the "pure": symbolic power ("G-d").
To one enlightened in psychology, it's easy - to you, it's Sisyphean.
MrLocust
>Conformity is making yourself look and act like the others.
metal genre are guilty of this act considering the basic 'uniforms'of the
metal genre. If you state that conformity is soley a matter of looking and
acting like others then it leaves your argument about individualism sorely
damaged, considering both the image and the actions portrayed by most of the
black metal scene up to date have been based around the same old hackneyed
corpespaint and synth sctions template for years. Not just black metal, but
all subdivisions of metal, there are very few bands or band members whome
actually have done anything other than adopt all the stereotypical trappings
of the metal genre. A practice which notable extends to the fans of the
genre.
However conformity also applies (indeed at it's most fundamental level) when
adopting an attitude or an ideology that has been put forward by a band or
bands. To say that conformity does not extend beyond the definition of
appearance and action is a gross misunderstanding of the acrtual process
whereby conformity of ideals is frequently the grounding for actions and
images associated with those ideals and can exist independently of
apearence.
Learning is
>using shared tokens to communicate. Your definitional attack is
>semantic in its nature.
>
around semantics, and poor definitions at that. Learning can happen quite
apart from communication and so called shared tokens. First and foremost of
learning expriences are experiential in nature, relating soley to the being
involved and their first sensations, a process which is carried on later in
life with each subsequent new experience. Also the human mind learns
primarily by trial and error and on an associative basis. Communication
only plays a part in learning as a medium through which knowledge can be
transmitted from one person to another. Even then this is little more than
a provision of guidelines for the subject to follow in order to achieve a
successful result when testing that knowledge for themselves and thus
recieving confirmation that those guidelines are indeed correct.
If you argue that learning is primarily based upon communication involving
shared tokens, language being the primary of these tokens, and then go on to
misinterprate parts of that language upon which your argument is based it
suggests, by your own argument, that your learning is faulty and thus, by
implication, so are any conclusions drawn from those interpretations.
>Art, if you ask a great artist, is communication. A kind of
>communication that is separate from the political (e.g. material causal
>action), art is designed by human intelligence to convey the
>metaphysical interpretation of unity of the sensual and the abstract.
and the abstract. Whilst it may demonstrate that certain abstractions and
the sensual are indeed unified, this is very rarely the purpose behind the
art, or what it is attempting to convey. Art can also be seen quite simply
as a physical manifestation of human neurosis, a method of expressing one's
inner mental illness through generic symbology. Not stating that this is
the case, but rather that there are many interpretations of just what art
communicates. Plus art can frequently be mundane, in the case of literary
and artistic satires. In which it's main purpose is to convey something
quite definately material, whithough sacrificing it's artistic nature.
>User interpretation, while "subjective," is meaningless if it involves
>misunderstanding the artist's intentions - therefore, art is as
>"subjective" as your response to anything said aloud to you by a friend.
more regard than an ordinary viewers perception relative to their own
experiences. If investigated it is frequently only though curiosity.
Indeed, were you to condemn subjective interpretation of metal say, should
it be grounded more around the listener in question rather than the artist's
original intention, then you are effectively saying that only those
interpretations which fit into a rather narrow band (i.e. those formulated
by persons most likelyto have had similar expriences and opinions to the
artist) are not applicable, which not only faulty from an academic view only
go further towards this seeming contradictory belief in simultaneous tokens
of individualism and selective acceptance of opinion.
>Let's reinterpret that creatively: metal musicians get together because
>something in the sound and ideas of metal music fascinates them, and
>then make metal built on the work of metal bands in the past working
>with the same general thoughts to keep developing those ideas. Compare
>Angel Witch and Mayhem - big difference, similar ideas.
Napalm Death and Burzum, big difference, very different ideas.....your point
being? There is a vast difference in political, philosophical and artistic
ideals across Metals spectrum.
>Is anyone using "true" in this way? There are two groups of people
>using the word "true" - one group, that hopes to differentiate bands
>that are serious about their approach from the commercial bands, and
>another group (mainly MAYHEM) who are using the word "true" to sell the
>consumer bogus material.
>
>If metal is by nature of a certain vein of thought, one should consider
>why another would necessarily "oppose" that thought. >
proof that it is, with the aforementioned difference in opinion within the
metal community it can only really be narrowed down to a sense of adversity
(for different reasons and different causes) that permeates the metal genre,
even were you to say it's an opposition to society it frequently is the
case that one band opposes a certain facet of society that another endorses
Certainly
>sheepishness is not part of metal
stop, the majority of people want to be led there is no reason why this
trend should not also manifest within the metal community.
- and right now, opposing "fascism"
>and "racism" is seen as a brave, noble, merciful, Christian thing to do
>- so explain why metal would want to include the brain-dead in its set
>of ideals.
expect metal to begin condemning it? how very integral the genres beliefs
are to it's existence.
Firstly you're equating anything that has popular support as being sheepish,
and thus brain dead in nature. In effect judging a philosophy by it's
followers rather than it's actual doctrine, which basically smacks of
reactionarianism; opposing something primarily due to it's followers and
it's mass appeal.....which of course wouldn't be a steroetype of metal to
which quite a few of it's fans conform to at all.
Secondly there are those metal bands who do oppose racism,but then I suppose
they are excluded from the metal genre based upon the now well known
exclusion principle of metal.
>
>C represents the fundamental statements of Judaism, interpreted at a
>theological level.
Materialism regardless of religion. If it be the fundamental statement of
Judaism then you cannot accuse Judaism in itself of being materialistic, as
it's doctine clearly opposes that. The only members of that community open
to that criticism then are those to whome it applies, which defies the
generalisations you have previously dealt out and goes someway to suggest
that it is not the religion at fault, rather it is the humans who choose to
march under it's banner whilst ascribing to few of it's values, and thus it
is a fault in humanity rather than the ethos itself and all it's members.
Christianity falls under A, using the avoidance of C
>as its reasoning: "G-d" is external to reality, but manifests his
>_approval_ through material reward. "The meek shall inherit the earth"
>became "If one has inherited the earth, one must have been meek"
materialism then it may be applicable. Firstly the ambiguities in the
multiple translations of the bible prevent us from knowing wether that
passage actually refers to the material world. Secondly, if read in context
it is quite apparent that those people who wrote the bible at that time were
under oppression by a foriegn race, as they had been for generations. "The
meek shall inherit the earth" is more readily accepted as an indication of
the Jews desire for deliverance with minimum suffering. By not placing
their faith in God they could still retain hope in dark times, rather than
being a fiendish plan for world domination. This is further suggested by
the bibles insistance upon tolerating one's hardships for the promises of a
paradisical afterlife as reward for their faith, something that not only
explains it's popularity at the time but also it's continued popularity
where the religions major support is still found in theunderprivaledged
areas of the world. This aside however, the emphasis is very much upon God
given reward and later the statements that god shall only reward those who
have faith and do not seek their own personal reward in which case those who
were deliberately meek with the intention of world ownership would not
recieve it, as those who seek material reward for their own gain soley are
repeatedly condemned throughout the bible.
>
>> Most if not all religions find B and C abbhorrent to their belief
>system ,
>
>"Just take it for the face value" - most religions claim a lot of
>things, most of which are lies;
people based upon their personal interpretations and philosophies then so
too can a religion. By your own admission virtually, those people going
against the doctrines in such a manner of their religion are not a part of
it but rather merely those who wear the trappings, and that the fault lies
in the human condition. To state that a religion can be faulted for all
those who appear to be apart of it regardless of personal conduct yet metal
can somehow enjoy exclusion from this method as 'well they aren't metal as
they haven't got the proper ideal' is indicative of the double standards and
superficial argument you've been throwing around throughout this debate.
see a serious analysis of Christianity
>and Judaism such as Friedrich Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" and then
>take the K-mart philosophy section you've just posted in the context of
>existential reasoning.
upon your witterings on about the metaphysical nature of arts communication
of the unification of narnia and acardia. This coming from someone who's
sole basis for philosophical analysis seems to be Nietzche? let's see;a fan
of extreme metal, the endless references to Nietzsche, the attempts to
justify racist and fascist viewpoints, the desparate attempt to consolidate
metal as a whole unified method of social thought (rather than just a
symptom of one part of social thought) yet with the exclusion of those who
are not genuine by some flimsy definition and the belief that it's metal's
job to oppose the mainstream (i.e. it inspires opposition rather than
resulting from it) withscant regard to the details of what the mainstream
is..........what is this, metal fan by numbers? please tell me you've tried
to kill yourself just once, or at least admire those who have, then you can
have the full set of cliches.
>Uh, the "Protestant Work ethic" was the formalization of the idea that
>"G-d" rewarded decent, hard-working folk with material success. Did you
>just stumble, or what?
partly a reaction to the affluence of the catholic church which it regarded
as unholy and lewd, I think a hint may be in the fact that it is the
originator of the puritan theology and philosophy of Christianity. Indeed
if you do decide to read, you will find that the emerging mass faith of
Protestantism and it's derivatives played a significant part in forcing the
Catholic church to start focussing on spiritual matters and it's subjects
enduring penance and material hardship rather than the luxuries of the
cloth - Try 'Europe in the 14th and 15th Centuries' by Longman publishing,
it's actually an academically accliamed text rather than just
unsubstantiated opinionation. The Protestant work ethic still is under the
jurisdiction of the bible which condemns those who have adopted the
lifestyle for material reward.....as stated if people were drawn to it
because they thought that it would be a key to reward who is more guilty of
materialism? the faith itself which outlines the terms of such rewards as
being only granted to those who do not seek them......or the people who so
dearly want material rewards that they're willing to pledge their existence
both metaphysically and physically to their acquisition? The work ethic
mayhave been exploited by industrialists and landowners through the church,
but again that hints at human fault rather than actual fault in the faith.
>
>Time to take a peek into what you're really saying here: the stated
>values of that organization are against "materialism" in the sense of a
>narrow definition stating "_all_ value arises from the material".
think wether it's breadth of interpretation is the matter, rather than the
fact it doesn't seem to back up your demands of it.
>Judeo-Christianity is best summarized as: material value represents the
>values of a mythological existence elsewhere.
summarization?
>These are not "moral" myths. Reading it as polemic will result in the
>errors you have achieved.
As stated, regardless of the morality of the tale it is indicative of
materialism being present in a society previous to it's conversion to
Christianity. Plus many of the Celtic myths are moral in nature, yet still
hold rather true to the vision that if a man achieves great wealth through
battle or whatever then the gods have rewarded him for it and to an extent
granted him the means.
>Present, yes. Justified by the current religious tradition which
>simultaneously maintains a public denial of materialism while espousing
>its value as a spiritual system, "materialism" is more than present -
>it's the foundation.
the vast majority of humans throughout history have sought material gain for
their own benefit and continue to do so. Every generation has found the
prospect of great wealth and superfluous luxury items attractive and have
done whatever is in it's means to achieve it's aquisition, regardless of
personal religion, even in the secular state it isa huge attraction. Since
most religions openly condemn it it is fair to assume it is within humanity
that the problem....if indeed it is a problem lies.
>
>Anyone else see the humor in this statement?
adhrents to whatever social movement or person religion.
>
>"Religion concentrates power" - power is the symbol for future material
>status.
the will of it's rulers and their ultimate gain, which is why there have
been so very many wars between Christian countries, each demonising the
other,in effect using religious symbols as allegory with which to inspire
eachpopulation following it's nations leaders aspirations. i.e. the
religions have been warped out of context to suit a specific purpose which
is where the concentration of power comes in, sadly you seem to be just as
taken in on this effective propaganda, albeit with different results.
previous populations could not see that what they were told was religion was
just a tool for political aspirations, and you cannot see that the way in
which religion is used in society is separate from the religion itself.
which both ovrestimates the relevance of religion in the coming ages and
underestimates it's originalpurpose.
>Noble societies, such as the Greco-Roman, Nordic, Indian, Asian and
>American societies of postmorality, afforded a space in which those who
>were competent walked shoulder to shoulder as equals.
blasphemy
despite his proof as a formidable soldier, teacher and philosopher then.
One could make a
>trivial assault on these cultures by saying "But they had slaves!!11!"
>or some similar moral dilemma, but this fact does not diminish the
>entire thrust of their civilization to evolve a democracy based on an
>educated, philosophically-competent class of people, rather than a
>collective living room of television morons.
political systems from the totally autocratic to the fully democratic. Plus
this does nothing to prove that power politics were not present in these
societies, secondly the only reason democracy worked in some of those states
was due to the relatively small population within them, which didn't require
a vast bureaucracy to maintain it's workings and carry out it's
implementations and subsequentially jam up the works, also many did not
afford space to people as equals, neither were they a meritocracy as you
seem to believe,in many women had no legal vote unless they werein a high
position within society, plus their voting system was frequently based
around social position rather than personal ability. There were frequently
contests for power within the societies and with surrounding societies.
>
>
>Materialism is the most convenient form of power, and has existed in all
>societies - but what were the organizational principles of such
>societies? In a strict debate round, you've lost this point for failing
>to address my point, instead only posting "disadvantages" that do not
>scope the whole.
>
>That's a cop-out.
>
>It's not _mine_; it's a sensible world view that we can all agree upon,
>given our basic goals.
>
>It implies their lifestyle is less effective. Scientific, not
>political.
>
>Right. Current society is more fascist than what I propose.
>
>Which represents 0.1% of all media today. Thank you - you're done.
>which bands like Slayer have attacked their social system, using the
>metaphor of Satan - otherwise, why have so many groundbreaking bands
>done it? Because they're sheep?
>
>No, there's plenty of ill-informed people like you who are enforcers of
>"form" over abstract analysis.
>is what frontiers are left for human expansion, before we give up on our
>own choice (as you have above) and wait for the big explosion. You
>don't understand metal, and more fundamentally, you don't understand
>philosophy - you're en route to being a second-rate political
>objectionist, at least.
>poster is often off-topic, so I return to you these questions which you
>cannot successfully answer:
>
>I. What is responsible for the differentiation of genre in musical
>structure as well as aesthetic?
>
>II. What are the materialistic implications of "humility" and
>"morality," both very Christian issues?
>III. Why is it that metal, after becoming a mainstream phenomena in the
>1970s, has consciously avoided commercial culture?
>
>The answers to any question are not difficult, but they require an
>investment of effort into the interpretation of external reality.
>"Subjectivism," or relativism, is the delusion that our intellectual
>projections necessarily change reality, e.g. that we are reality over
>external events.
Australian Convict Scum
is another one of those posts with a huge jpeg attached to it".
/}