Selling Out... who gives a shit?
Serial.Port.Killer
DanielSMcC (danie...@aol.com) wrote:
: Selling out? Fuck, I would LOVE to make wonderful music and make money doing
: it. In fact, honourable or not, either ONE of those options would be great.
: More power to those that have both.
Heh, nothing like the question of selling out versus artistic evolution,
huh? ;)
Most of the hostility directed toward the more acessible, "industrial"
musicians comes from their bringing the genre to the masses, who
inherently don't understand, or have the same appreciation for the music
that the hardcore fans do. NIN and KMFDM's supporters will argue that
exposing the genre to a larger fan-base can be nothing but good for
"industrial" as a whole. Their detractor's position is that it forces
the music to homogenize, and market itself toward the lowest common
denominator.
Generally, I find that I don't enjoy the more popular "industrial"
musicians simply because their material seems juvenile. Marilyn Manson
and Stabbing Westward don't even approach the intellectual level of Snog or
haujobb. Reznor may be a sophisticated musician, but lyrically, his music
is still about teen angst...
That doesn't mean there isn't room for this sort of material. Though
I've criticized the hell out of Reznor in the past, and am still annoyed
by his comments about FLA, I've come to appreciate a lot of what he's
achieved for entertainment as a whole. Since he hit the top of the
charts, "darker" entertainment has suddenly become marketable. In making
bleakness marketable, Reznor opened a hell of a lot of doors. This
effect has spread into other forms of entertainment besides music, I
doubt David Fincher's films would be anywhere near as popular as they
are, or Dave McKean's art as ubiquitous as it is if Reznor hadn't been
there, courting MTV the whole way...
Frankly, it's the threat to the genre's elitist popularity which is the
hardest for me to deal with. Whether it sounds petty or not, I know I
appreciate this industry far more than a fourteen-year-old Manson fan
hanging out in the mall ever will. Watching something you love get
subverted and homogenized for the mainstream is always going to be
frustrating. Reznor's music may have just evolved in a natural
direction, but its popularity has created dozens of clone bands, who
have come to define "industrial" for the general populace. That public
perception is of the same 14 year old in the mall, and personally, I
resent having to fight against that stereotype when I tell someone that I
listen to "industrial".
The point, is that "industrial"'s sudden increase in popularity has been
a mixed blessing. The genre shouldn't be defined as pre-teen angst and
headbanging, but that's exactly what's happened. Perhaps this is mostly
the fault of marketing, but Reznor and co. have to saddle some of the
blame. Their popularity has been a good influence on the entertainment
industry as a whole, but it's been a diservice to their more
sophisticated cousins who are still on the independent labels.
I'm curious how all of this is percieved by those who are actually
financially invested in "industrial" music. Has the genre's increase in
popularity helped the independent labels to sell more albums? If people
eventually gravitate from NIN to more obscure artists, than I suppose the
effect is generally positive, but if it causes people who might otherwise
become fans to dismiss the genre entirely, than there's a definite
problem...
Later...
Morgan
--
serial.port.killer "Good's gonna triumph over evil just as
rive...@netcom.com soon as it learns to fight dirtier."
mwo...@gladstone.uoregon.edu -Preacher
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mwolfe ftp.netcom.com pub/co/coldwave
Jeff Danos
Serial.Port.Killer wrote:
> I'm curious how all of this is percieved by those who are actually
> financially invested in "industrial" music. Has the genre's increase in
> popularity helped the independent labels to sell more albums? If people
> eventually gravitate from NIN to more obscure artists, than I suppose the
> effect is generally positive, but if it causes people who might otherwise
> become fans to dismiss the genre entirely, than there's a definite
> problem...
I believe that the "industrial mainstream" as it has been so named is
only hurting the more independant labels because the public often begins
to believe that all "industrial" music is like the groups they have
seen on MTV (NIN, Manson, KMFDM, etc.). And the simple fact is that
there are more "industrial" bands now than there ever have been, and not
all of them sound like these MTV industrialists, and I think they are
being overlooked by newcomers to the "scene."
just an opinion from the indy side of things--
-jeff danos
--
______________________________________________________
/* *\
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |
| |T H E U N I T E D E N D A N G E R E D F R O N T| |
| | -your elektro/texturesynth connection- | |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| ********** ********** |
| **/ ^^^^ \** ______________ **/ ^^^^ \** |
| **(> <)** | ||| | **(> <)** |
| * **\ /** | | | | | | | | **\ /** * |
| * **&&&&&&** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ **&&&&&&** * |
| * ******** ******** * |
|* *|
|~======================================================~|
| * /TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT\ * |
| /||||||||||||||||||||||||OO|||||||||||||||||||||\ |
| /||||||||||||()|||||--------------|||||()|||||||||\ |
+_/|||||||()||||||||||||____[==]____||||||||||||()||||\__+
***********************************************************************
featuring:
white trash compactor
testube
marble orchard
wage class slave
separate faith
dyanying
***********************************************************************
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1554
u...@geocities.com
***********************************************************************
acc...@hofstra.edu
Serial.Port.Killer wrote:
> I'm curious how all of this is percieved by those who are actually
> financially invested in "industrial" music. Has the genre's increase in
>> popularity helped the independent labels to sell more albums? If people
>> eventually gravitate from NIN to more obscure artists, than I suppose the
>> effect is generally positive, but if it causes people who might otherwise
>> become fans to dismiss the genre entirely, than there's a definite
>> problem...
>
>I believe that the "industrial mainstream" as it has been so named is
>only hurting the more independant labels because the public often begins
>to believe that all "industrial" music is like the groups they have
>seen on MTV (NIN, Manson, KMFDM, etc.). And the simple fact is that
>there are more "industrial" bands now than there ever have been, and not
>all of them sound like these MTV industrialists, and I think they are
>being overlooked by newcomers to the "scene."
Of course they're going to be overlooked initially. How many people do you
know that have even *heard* of a label like Metropolis, much less World
Serpent or the more experimental/obscure labels? However, look at it this
way.
I, like many of the younger people in this group I'm sure, started
listening to industrial/electronic music after being exposed to NIN. From
there I learned about more artists, many of whom were very different from
each other. Not everyone goes this route, but a great deal of people
have. The same holds true for electronica (blessed be her name). Somebody
might hear the Chem Bros or (ugh) Prodigy on MTV or the radio, and then
explore the genre a little more.
The underground is called that for a reason--it is outside of the
mainstream. For some artists, this helps form a better creative base, free
of commercial concerns. Some artists will never be accepted into the
mainstream because of the very nature of their work. I don't think we'll
ever hear Casey Casem play Merzbow.
Some people will only listen to music that isn't "corporate" or
"mainstream." They get upset and jump around whining about how Band X has
"sold out." They are also morons. And their breath smells. And their
mothers smoke crack.
Not every indie band will get exposure due to NIN or other bands which
have more than a smattering of "underground" flavor, but it can't really
hurt, can it?
>just an opinion from the indy side of things--
P.S. White Trash Compactor is a great name. You should put it on a T-shirt
or something.
---
I explain what I do to people like this: Journalism is a calling, like the
priesthood, except without the celibacy - I hope.
Michael O'Connor
Managing Editor, The Chronicle - Hofstra's only student-run newspaper
acc...@hofstra.edu *-or-* moc...@hofstra.edu
http://www.hofstra.edu/~moconn42 ReviewsInterviewsOtherThings
Now Serving : Download "The Eyes of Stanley Pain"
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
jeremy tolsma
In article <8809103...@dejanews.com>, acc...@hofstra.edu says...
>
>The underground is called that for a reason--it is outside of the
>mainstream. For some artists, this helps form a better creative base, free
>of commercial concerns. Some artists will never be accepted into the
>mainstream because of the very nature of their work. I don't think we'll
>ever hear Casey Casem play Merzbow.
>
>Some people will only listen to music that isn't "corporate" or
>"mainstream." They get upset and jump around whining about how Band X has
>"sold out." They are also morons.
I don't think you're seeing it from a wide enough angle here... Consider the
model of the 'music biz'... you have a handful of mainstream artists which are
marketed in a global economy, with massive amounts of money being invested and
massive amounts being extracted after advertising investments pay off. Then
you've got hundreds of thousands of struggling nobodies who are supposed to
make up the 'underground' which apparently has some kind of integrity because
it's 'not concerned with economic concerns'. Well we all know thats bullshit,
in the real world all the struggling nobodies chomp at the bit, and scramble
over each other for their chance to grab at the brass ring. Now, those of us
in the unfortunate position of being able to see the Big Picture realize that
many more people could be supported and 'make a living' within the industry if
the business were managed in a more efficient manner, relying on some
scruples for a change. The bottom line will always and should always remain
profit, but these days the bottom line is profit TODAY, not profit tomorrow,
and definately not profit of yesterday unless it translates into profit TODAY.
Therefore, large sums of money are invested into half a dozen bands a year,
when reasonable sums could be invested into a hundred or so, and we as
consumers would end up with much more quality product to choose from in the
marketplace.
>
>Not every indie band will get exposure due to NIN or other bands which
>have more than a smattering of "underground" flavor, but it can't really
>hurt, can it?
No, but at least the ones that suck would not get heavily promoted anyways.
Jeff Danos
jeremy tolsma wrote:
> >Not every indie band will get exposure due to NIN or other bands which
> >have more than a smattering of "underground" flavor, but it can't really
> >hurt, can it?
>
> No, but at least the ones that suck would not get heavily promoted anyways.
thats where it gest fucked up.
sometimes the ones that suck do end up getting heavily promoted.
go figure.
daniel landherr
Jeff Danos (da...@slip.net) wrote:
: thats where it gest fucked up.
: sometimes the ones that suck do end up getting heavily promoted.
That's because people like bands that suck. People do not want music that
makes them think. People don't want music that is complicated. People
don't want music that sounds different. People is the mass public.
I've come by this theory by years of watching public buying habits,
criticisms, etc. People want to shove easily digestible, mindless,
escapist excrement into their heads so they don't have to think about
life. The mass public revels in their passion for crap, so much so that
people will collect things of next to no actual value and pay large sums
of money for these items, purely for the enjoyment of having them sit in a
box (all collectible dolls, plates, etc).
People are morons who want to be entertained by garbage. Once you accept
this fact, the world becomes easier to understand. Now, I know there are
exceptions to this, but try to tell your average moron why Einsturzende
Neubauten's experimentation in dischordant, amelodic noise was interesting
and refreshing, and they'll ask (as I have been) "but why would anyone
want to play that kind of music, nobody would ever buy it".
This is why the general public is usually confused about art, and major
artists are stereotyped as weirdos. The real weirdos are the
corporate-trained, shit-guzzling mass public consumers. It's strange to
feel no passion about anything in life. It's odd to never want to learn
anything or think. It's downright nuts to be complacent about your own
ignorance, let alone revel in it.
Now, doesn't that make more sense as to why Disney, Microsoft, MTV, etc.
are #1?
That turned into a rant in a big hurry.
Dan
Rev Ammonia D
Well....I almost agree except that some of the best songs have only
three of four cords and I think what makes them so appealing the masses
is that they touch alot of people on a personal level.
Look at a track like Stairway to Heaven, one of the most over played
tracks on radio (if not the most over played track). Here is a song that
musically any starting guitarist can play, and that know one really has
any idia what the lyrics are about, yet it is ingrained in our minds.
It is not complicated yet it seems to be deep.
It is difficult in the Bevis and Butthead world we live in, with the
Spice Girls poping out at us every second on the old Emty-V to have any
faith in the Masses. I think some of the blame rest with the record
companies. They hand the Rolling Stones and Maddona zillion dollar
contracts....because they are safe and have proven track records. How
many new and differnt bands could be developed with just a small
percentage of those contracts?
People are starving for something new. Look at the sales of the last
Oasis CD.
The Rev
WinterMute
daniel landherr wrote:
>
>
> This is why the general public is usually confused about art, and major
> artists are stereotyped as weirdos. The real weirdos are the
> corporate-trained, shit-guzzling mass public consumers. It's strange to
> feel no passion about anything in life. It's odd to never want to learn
> anything or think. It's downright nuts to be complacent about your own
> ignorance, let alone revel in it.
While I agree with you in priniciple, I can't help but laugh to myself
grimly. In an existance where UN projected world population for 2015 is
nine billion, we are soon going to exist under dark age conditions
because we'll run out of fuel to run our cute little machines, and
religious fundamentilists are taking over governments everywhere; it is
easy to desire escapism.
It's a real dilema, should music be used to educate and raise
awareness, or to escape reality? Personally I buy into both, but in an
objective way I can see why people would listen to something like the
Spice Girls to forget everything else.
Just a random comment.
WinterMute.
Thin White Duke
In article <65v8fj$i7k$1...@news.d.umn.edu>, dlan...@ub.d.umn.edu (daniel
landherr) wrote:
= That's because people like bands that suck. People do not want music that
= makes them think. People don't want music that is complicated. People
= don't want music that sounds different. People is the mass public.
<snip>
=
= People are morons who want to be entertained by garbage. Once you accept
= this fact, the world becomes easier to understand. Now, I know there are
= exceptions to this, but try to tell your average moron why Einsturzende
= Neubauten's experimentation in dischordant, amelodic noise was interesting
= and refreshing, and they'll ask (as I have been) "but why would anyone
= want to play that kind of music, nobody would ever buy it".
You're right Dan, and your criticism can be extended to the very person who
started this thread. Sure, he's right that selling out doesn't matter. (I
don't even think there *is* such a thing as selling out.) But look at the
bands he listed: Type O Negative, Marilyn Manson, KMFDM. They are all
crap. Not because they're popular. It's the other way around. They're
popular because they are crap. They're easily digestible, bland, mindless,
stupid music that appeals to the bland, mindless, stupid masses. This is
not a matter of my opinion versus his; this is a matter of FACT. KMFDM is
the worst band in the world. You have to be an idiot to like them.
Period.
Thin White Duke, the chaos is killing me
(np: DAVID BOWIE 1.outside)
--
ZBZ: The White Duke is as wise as he is thin....
Locke: That's why they call him the Thin Wise Duke.
"I saw the best minds of my generation running on empty, Superglued to the
T.V., Dreaming of prosperity, Talking incessantly, Saying nothing, Sleeping
on platforms at train stations, Sipping chemical cocktails, Alive to the
Universe, Dead to the World." -- Meg Lee Chin
Thin White Duke € de...@columbia.edu € http://www.columbia.edu/~dek17/
ryan mcmenamin
"It's a real dilema, should music be used to educate and raise
awareness, or to escape reality? Personally I buy into both, but in an
Spice-Girls to escape everything else." (WinterMute)
----
Have you ever met a real spice-girls fan? Some of these "people" aren't
just escaping from reality. They're living in their *own* reality, where
anything remotely negitive is stubbornly ignored. And these are the kind
of people who comsume and breed the most, and live the longest.
Happy thoughts! Happy thoughts!
---------------------------------------
"I detest monkeys!"
*Opus 21*
Taylor McLaren
MAO! dlan...@ub.d.umn.edu (daniel landherr) wrote:
>That's because people like bands that suck. People do not want music that
>This is why the general public is usually confused about art, and major
>artists are stereotyped as weirdos. The real weirdos are the
>corporate-trained, shit-guzzling mass public consumers. It's strange to
>feel no passion about anything in life. It's odd to never want to learn
>anything or think. It's downright nuts to be complacent about your own
>ignorance, let alone revel in it.
>
>are #1?
I'm going to be literal-minded bastard and take from the words "the real
weirdos are the corporate-trained..." that you're suggesting that the vast
majority of people, given half a brain and a chance to really listen to
Einsturzende Neubauten, would suddenly find themselves in love with
clanging percussion and shrill vocals. I'm also going to assume that you
think it is impossible to feel genuine passion for Celine Dion's music.
As far as the former assumption goes... fair enough. I doubt that such is
the case, but I can't think of any way of disputing it without kicking up a
bunch of know-nothing generalizations. Somebody, however, buys Bette
Midler's albums. Lots of somebodies, in fact, buy those things. Not me,
probably not you, but there are millions of people out there who really dig
that sort of stuff. Is it because they've been possessed by the devil or
had their brains co-opted by the marketing staff at Columbia Records? Or
could it be that -- take a deep breath -- they prefer to listen to
something "nice" after a busy day at the office, or on their way to work
after dropping their screaming three-year-old off at day care?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not always in the mood to
have my head beaten in by Blixa Bargeld. As far as dealing with the
headaches of everyday "adult stuff" goes, my life is fairly simple, and I
still find myself easing into bed some nights and marvelling at the fact
that my body creaks and groans with the effort. For occasions like that,
I've got my assortment of albums by Enya and the Holly Cole Trio and Peter
Gabriel, and dammit, it's awfully relaxing to listen to stuff like that
every now and again. The production values are pretty damned incredible and
you know what? These people can SING. I mean, they can really sing well...
beautifully, even. "Beautifully" in the sense that my mother means it when
she uses the word. "Beautifully" in the sense that I can see why this sort
of stuff finds its way on to the radio stations that are heard in offices
all around the world, because when phones are ringing and bosses are
demanding to know where the McMurtry file is, one is probably already well
past the stage in one's life where going out and dancing to Skinny Puppy
until 3:00 in the morning is no longer an option, and having something
soothing playing over the P.A. system is the next best thing to being on
valium.
As for the motivations for buying what one does, or seeing the movies
that one does, or reading or whatever... is everything that you do done for
the sake of broadening your horizons? Don't you ever just want to sit back
and be entertained? Does everybody have to derive this sort of "higher
satisfaction" from music? Maybe some people do their thinking while
fishing or surfing or cleaning the garage or dancing around naked in the
woods under a full moon. Or maybe they don't want to think at all...
there's a reason that _The Sun Also Rises_ is a classic. And also _White
Noise_.
Yeah, I can definitely taste the polemic now.
All that I'm trying to say is that you aren't some 42-year-old waitress who
lives in a trailer park in Oregon, and it really isn't all that fair to
critique her tastes in music on the basis of "your observations". If
presented with those observations, I'd hope that she'd tell you exactly
which orifice you could force them into with a plunger, 'cause they're
awfully narrow.
-me
"The effort of talking American seemed to have tired him. * tmclaren AT
He did not say anything after that." -Ernest Hemingway * uoguelph DOT ca
Locke
Thin White Duke wrote:
> ... Sure, he's right that selling out doesn't matter. (I
> don't even think there *is* such a thing as selling out.)
Hey Duke, don't ruin our favorite topic !
Of course, there is such a thing, and every process of creation
with the intention of selling the product has the danger to be a
sell-out. The only album I know which is innocent of the
accusation is "Not Available" by the Residents because it was
recorded with the declared aim not to be released anytime soon.
The real problem with sell-outs is that nobody but the artist
can tell for sure what he had in mind during the creation process.
And for the most part he's not going to tell you if he's selling out!
And there is no clear line between 'selling' and 'selling-out',
it's a gradual thing, so you can argue about it forever.
> ... KMFDM is
> the worst band in the world. You have to be an idiot to like them.
> Period.
Oh come on! Just don't take them seriously. They're often good
for a laugh, almost like a cartoon band. I'm not gonna pay much for
a KMFDM record, but I buy them when I get them cheap. There are many
much worse bands around!
CU,
LOCKE
NP: Aphex Twin "Selected Ambient Works 88-92"
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| locke (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| @fiasko.physik.uni-jena.de \__=__/
| |
WinterMute
just as another interesting argument I was thinking of:
What is worse, a clueless Spice Girls fan that doesn't really do much
harm to anyone directly, or some members in the industrial scene who
align themselves with the neo-nazi movement?
Random thoughts from a sleep-deprived mind.
WinterMute.
Dave Scott
Thin White Duke wrote:
>
> Type O Negative, Marilyn Manson, KMFDM. They are all
> crap. Not because they're popular. It's the other way around. They're
> popular because they are crap. They're easily digestible, bland, mindless,
> stupid music that appeals to the bland, mindless, stupid masses. This is
> not a matter of my opinion versus his; this is a matter of FACT. KMFDM is
> the worst band in the world. You have to be an idiot to like them.
> Period.
Who are YOU to say a band is crap or not? I hate these bands too, but if
somebody gets some enjoyment from listening to these bands, then more
power to them! People have different tastes. That doesn't mean they're
stupid. Who really gives a shit if someone has a good time listening to
Spice Girls CDs instead of whatever you beleive to be cool music?
There's a reason people buy "popular" music. They buy it because they
enjoy it.
You, as a listener, are no more important than a 12-year-old who listens
to Marilyn Manson. This is not opinion; this is fact. Get over it.
-Dave-
WinterMute
Taylor McLaren wrote:
>
> Lots of somebodies, in fact, buy those things. Not me,
> probably not you, but there are millions of people out there who really dig
> that sort of stuff. Is it because they've been possessed by the devil or
> had their brains co-opted by the marketing staff at Columbia Records?
You realize of course, that most of these 'lots of somebodies', assume
that we have been possessed by the devil, or have been brain-washed,
becasue we listen to 'that strange electronic stuff'...
WinterMute.
daniel landherr
Taylor McLaren (see...@your.funeral.baby) wrote:
: MAO! dlan...@ub.d.umn.edu (daniel landherr) wrote:
: I'm going to be literal-minded bastard and take from the words "the real
: majority of people, given half a brain and a chance to really listen to
: Einsturzende Neubauten, would suddenly find themselves in love with
: clanging percussion and shrill vocals. I'm also going to assume that you
: think it is impossible to feel genuine passion for Celine Dion's music.
No, I believe all forms of music would have niche followers, just as the
more obscure areas do now. The only reason MILLIONS buy Celine Dion's
records is because they like that best out of the stuff that corporate
radio allows them to hear, and partially because they don't have enough
initiative to look for something else. I certainly don't think that
everyone would like Neubauten. There are artists I respect that I don't
listen to, simply because I'm not into what they're doing (most jazz,
blues, some others).
: could it be that -- take a deep breath -- they prefer to listen to
: something "nice" after a busy day at the office, or on their way to work
: after dropping their screaming three-year-old off at day care?
Yeah, but I bet most of them aren't looking really hard for something
nice, and would take pretty much any voice that came along and put out
smarmy stuff. Witness how easy it is for intense radio airplay to make
another star without lasting power (The Spice Girls).
: I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not always in the mood to
: have my head beaten in by Blixa Bargeld.
Who is?
: all around the world, because when phones are ringing and bosses are
: demanding to know where the McMurtry file is, one is probably already well
: past the stage in one's life where going out and dancing to Skinny Puppy
: until 3:00 in the morning is no longer an option, and having something
: soothing playing over the P.A. system is the next best thing to being on
: valium.
Actually something "soothing" playing over the P.A. would probably be the
straw that broke my back. Muzak annoys the piss out of me. It distracts
me, and has nothing to offer.
: As for the motivations for buying what one does, or seeing the movies
: that one does, or reading or whatever... is everything that you do done for
: the sake of broadening your horizons? Don't you ever just want to sit back
: and be entertained? Does everybody have to derive this sort of "higher
: satisfaction" from music? Maybe some people do their thinking while
: fishing or surfing or cleaning the garage or dancing around naked in the
: woods under a full moon. Or maybe they don't want to think at all...
Sorry. I realize people do their thinking in different ways, but I can't
just sit back and be easily entertained. If I don't think, I'm not being
entertained. If I don't have anything occupying my mind, I'm bored. Even
my family members have trouble understanding this. Maybe if I was more
easily amused, I wouldn't care a whit about the crap corporations put out.
: All that I'm trying to say is that you aren't some 42-year-old waitress who
: lives in a trailer park in Oregon, and it really isn't all that fair to
: critique her tastes in music on the basis of "your observations". If
: presented with those observations, I'd hope that she'd tell you exactly
: which orifice you could force them into with a plunger, 'cause they're
: awfully narrow.
I guess I can just be thankful that I'm not a 42 year old waitress.
However, I think you're stereotyping waitresses in trailer parks much more
than I'm stereotyping society in general. Overall, I know the only thing
I can do is expose people to things that I find interesting, and hope that
they feel the same way.
Dan
Philip Helmer
lo...@in.sig (Thin White Duke) wrote:
>In article <65v8fj$i7k$1...@news.d.umn.edu>, dlan...@ub.d.umn.edu (daniel
>landherr) wrote:
>KMFDM is
>the worst band in the world. You have to be an idiot to like them.
>Period.
Then just call me the biggest damn idiot around here. End of story.
Ph
"Like frozen sentries of the Serengeti, the century-old
termite mounds had withstood all tests of time and foe --
all tests, that is, except the one involving drunken aardvarks
and a stolen wrecking ball." -Gary Larson
Taylor McLaren
MUNG! dlan...@ub.d.umn.edu (daniel landherr) wrote:
>No, I believe all forms of music would have niche followers, just as the
>more obscure areas do now. The only reason MILLIONS buy Celine Dion's
>records is because they like that best out of the stuff that corporate
>radio allows them to hear, and partially because they don't have enough
>initiative to look for something else.
lot if everybody was suddenly forced to seriously reconsider their musical
tastes. "Ooooh, baby... love, love, love!" is probably a more common
sentiment among the population at large than "Grrrr... I am a robot! I'm
stomping around on the skulls of the living! Arrrrrrgh!", though, isn't it?
>: could it be that -- take a deep breath -- they prefer to listen to
>: something "nice" after a busy day at the office, or on their way to work
>: after dropping their screaming three-year-old off at day care?
>Yeah, but I bet most of them aren't looking really hard for something
>nice, and would take pretty much any voice that came along and put out
>smarmy stuff. Witness how easy it is for intense radio airplay to make
>another star without lasting power (The Spice Girls).
True, but I don't think that *that* would change a whole lot in the wake
of this Cataclysm of Taste that you're describing, either. While I know
that this obviously isn't the case with most of the people who read this
newsgroup, how many people in the world at large can honestly say that they
REALLY give a shit about the music that they listen to? How many people
here can honestly say that they'll still be buying fifty new CDs a year
twenty years from now?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the shit-guzzling crowd
generally seems to have other things on its collective mind than an intense
devotion to the music that it buys. Whether that's paying off the mortgage
and keeping from strangling that perky little twit in the marketing
department who keeps leaving cupcakes on everybody desk (in the case of the
Don Henley fans) or having enough money to go out next weekend and get
royally sozzled after that killer chemistry midterm (in the case of the
folks who made Alanis Morrisette a big name), there's probably something
else that seems more important than owning Bill Leeb's latest effort.
And boy, weren't those some great generalizations that I made back there?
>Actually something "soothing" playing over the P.A. would probably be the
>straw that broke my back. Muzak annoys the piss out of me. It distracts
>me, and has nothing to offer.
I know exactly where you're coming from, and I agree entirely, but how many
forty-year-old office dwellers share that opinion?
>Sorry. I realize people do their thinking in different ways, but I can't
>just sit back and be easily entertained. If I don't think, I'm not being
>entertained. If I don't have anything occupying my mind, I'm bored. Even
>my family members have trouble understanding this.
I'd tend to think that it's exactly that sentiment on their part that lends
to the success of all of the stuff that annoys the hell out of both of us.
I just don't want to chalk that up to a deliberate attempt to listen to
crap... I instead think of it as jumping at the first available distraction
from a life that is otherwise full of other, seemingly more important stuff
to worry about.
>I guess I can just be thankful that I'm not a 42 year old waitress.
>However, I think you're stereotyping waitresses in trailer parks much more
>than I'm stereotyping society in general.
Maybe. On the whole, though, both of our analyses leave out a whack of
specific details in the interest of passing judgement on an awfully large
segment of the population, and that's what I was trying to get across more
than anything else.
-me
"Guelph. What an ugly fucking word!" | DON'T KICK | tmclaren AT
-Jason Tar | THE BABY. | uoguelph DOT ca
Jeff Danos
WinterMute wrote:
> What is worse, a clueless Spice Girls fan that doesn't really do much
> harm to anyone directly, or some members in the industrial scene who
> align themselves with the neo-nazi movement?
> Random thoughts from a sleep-deprived mind.
> WinterMute.
now that is fucking lame. it is so ridiculous how many prejudiced people
we have on this newsgroup (as in pre-judging other people or making
generalizations about a certain type of group of people).
since when did industrial=nazi????
do combat boots make a nazi?
just because allot of industrial music is german-influenced these days
doesn't make it fuckin nazi music.
in fact, most germans hate that nazi stuff.
your clueless spice girl fan would be one of those people who just helps
to make this world more inaccessible for people who are different.
lucian X
Jeff Danos <da...@slip.net> wrote:
>WinterMute wrote:
>>What is worse, a clueless Spice Girls fan that doesn't really do much
>>harm to anyone directly, or some members in the industrial scene who
>>align themselves with the neo-nazi movement?
>> Random thoughts from a sleep-deprived mind.
>> WinterMute.
>now that is fucking lame. it is so ridiculous how many prejudiced people
>we have on this newsgroup (as in pre-judging other people or making
>generalizations about a certain type of group of people).
and with this post of yours, we see something lamer; a very hostile and
aggressive message based entirely on your inability to correctly
comprehend the above statements.
>since when did industrial=nazi????
since when did "some members" become an all-encompassing set?
>do combat boots make a nazi?
>just because allot of industrial music is german-influenced these days
>doesn't make it fuckin nazi music.
and just because someone gave you a set of people who are both in the
industrial scene and aligned with the neo-nazi movement doesn't mean that
said person was implying the two were necessarily inseparable.
>in fact, most germans hate that nazi stuff.
>your clueless spice girl fan would be one of those people who just helps
>to make this world more inaccessible for people who are different.
i see, so it's all right to generalize and be prejudiced, just as long as
we're not generalizing or judging you.
right.
.lx
--
[ lucian X is TM and (c) 1978 God all rights reserved patent pending ]
[ http://www.madison-web.com/lxl/index.html . electronic soundscapes ]
[ http://www.madison-web.com/lxl/lucian/index.html . a personal site ]
downfall
On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Dave Scott wrote:
> Who are YOU to say a band is crap or not?
he's the duke...he speaks thee trUth...
>I hate these bands too,
uh huh...sure...
> but if somebody gets some enjoyment from listening to these bands, then
> more power to them!
if someone, somewhere, manages to draw some sort of enjoyment out of those
pseudo rock, white trash sleaze bands than, fuck 'em, they should be in
some padded room...don't encourage insanity...it's not a very good
thing...
> People have different tastes. That doesn't mean they're
> stupid.
yeah it does.
> Who really gives a shit if someone has a good time listening to
> Spice Girls CDs instead of whatever you beleive to be cool music?
i believe the authorities care...they have the names of *everyone* who
owns a spice girl album and are checking it for possible murderers and
goat fuckers...
> There's a reason people buy "popular" music. They buy it because they
> enjoy it.
and some people enjoy being pissed on...your point?
-downfall
"the man has no sense of reality" - george drakoulias
daniel landherr
Taylor McLaren (see...@your.funeral.baby) wrote:
: True, but I don't think that *that* would change a whole lot in the wake
: that this obviously isn't the case with most of the people who read this
: newsgroup, how many people in the world at large can honestly say that they
: REALLY give a shit about the music that they listen to? How many people
: here can honestly say that they'll still be buying fifty new CDs a year
: twenty years from now?
: I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the shit-guzzling crowd
: generally seems to have other things on its collective mind than an intense
: devotion to the music that it buys. Whether that's paying off the mortgage
: and keeping from strangling that perky little twit in the marketing
: department who keeps leaving cupcakes on everybody desk (in the case of the
: Don Henley fans) or having enough money to go out next weekend and get
: royally sozzled after that killer chemistry midterm (in the case of the
: folks who made Alanis Morrisette a big name), there's probably something
: else that seems more important than owning Bill Leeb's latest effort.
: And boy, weren't those some great generalizations that I made back there?
I think you summed up the problem with popular music right there. Popular
music is determined by people who don't care about music.
Dan
Taylor McLaren
MEKONS! dlan...@ub.d.umn.edu (daniel landherr) wrote:
>I think you summed up the problem with popular music right there. Popular
>music is determined by people who don't care about music.
where marketing comes back into play. And accusations of selling out, which
both reminds me why this thread is dredged up every couple of weeks and
makes me wonder why I get worked up over it every now and again.
Ohm.
-me
"I'll betcha one of them land mines would really do | tmclaren AT
a number on your nutsack." -the ONION | uoguelph DOT ca
Todd Adamson
In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.971207...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>,
sw85...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu says...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Dave Scott wrote:
>
> > Who really gives a shit if someone has a good time listening to
> > Spice Girls CDs instead of whatever you beleive to be cool music?
>
> i believe the authorities care...they have the names of *everyone* who
> owns a spice girl album and are checking it for possible murderers and
> goat fuckers...
>
Ahh, if only that were true. Unfortunately, the truth is much scarier.
Those that do not own the Spice Girl album will receive the Mark of the
Beast. We will be rounded up and gassed.
Replace Babylon with Industrial:
And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, that great
city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud
voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark
in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the
wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the
smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no
rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever
receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here
are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 14:8-12
--
Todd (Paranoid as Hell) Adamson - SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net
(remove the spam goo to respond)
Reality ain't a popularity contest
- Me
downfall
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Todd Adamson wrote:
> Ahh, if only that were true. Unfortunately, the truth is much scarier.
> Those that do not own the Spice Girl album will receive the Mark of the
> Beast. We will be rounded up and gassed.
hm...i wouldn't be entirely against the notion of genocide as long as it
involved mindless hordes of spice girl fans...after all, "we shall cleanse
the earth"...
-downfall
"say what you mean and say it mean" - j.g thirlwell
*http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sw852994*
WinterMute
Jeff Danos wrote:
>
> now that is fucking lame. it is so ridiculous how many prejudiced people
> we have on this newsgroup (as in pre-judging other people or making
> generalizations about a certain type of group of people).
>
> since when did industrial=nazi????
>
> do combat boots make a nazi?
> just because allot of industrial music is german-influenced these days
> doesn't make it fuckin nazi music.
>
> in fact, most germans hate that nazi stuff.
>
> your clueless spice girl fan would be one of those people who just helps
> to make this world more inaccessible for people who are different.
>
> -jeff danos
> --
>
Sweetheart, lower your pulse or you'll get a heart attack. I'm not
saying that those who listen to industrial are nazis. There are a few
on the scene who are, and for the most part they aren't. I am just
commenting that from my point of view, a Spice Girl fan is less harmful
than a neo-nazi. That's all. A Spice Girl fan, (very generally
speaking), is not likely to try to suppress industrial music, because
s/he won't want to acknowledge it exists. A neo-nazi, will try to wipe
out whatever it is s/he is against, actively. I really was not trying
to make a generalization about the music and politics, it was a random
thought.
WinterMute.
ryan mcmenamin
"I am just commenting that from my point of view, a Spice Girls fan is
less harmful than a neo-nazi. (Wintermute)
----
True. But neo-nazis, or people of that type, are less than in number,
and really don't have that much power. Sure, they'll push people around
and make some trouble. But come on, they're little more glorified
bullies anymore. Spice-Girls fans, or people of that type, not only are
more in number and have more purchasing power, but they are also allowed
to flourish in our society (unlike neo-nazis). They, collectively, move
this culture along (for better or worse) with their money and numbers.
Or, a little more accurately, media influence moves this culture along,
by moving the collective.
What the hell are talking about anyway...? 'shrugs'
FS jake J
>i would disagree with just about everything you said.
>
>if you don't think there are that many neo-nazi's (moreover, fascists) in
>the world, then why the hell is the world so fucked up?
>
>
because of people blaming the worlds problems on fascism
Jacob
Ļ`·-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ`·-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ`·-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊ`·-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ
fluorescent grey : http://members.aol.com:/fsjakej/fg.html
-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ`·-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ`·-.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ`.,ļ__ļ,.-·īĻŊĻ`·-.
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>if you don't think there are that many neo-nazi's (moreover, fascists) in
>the world, then why the hell is the world so fucked up?
too many capitalists. ;)
>turn off your fucking tv
but man, it's like, real life in a box, or something.
WinterMute
child molester. All I was trying to say, is that being Spice Girl
really isn't that harmful. Yes, in terms of cultural development they
are a great obstacle, but they don't actively do any damage. I think,
I'm just trying to promote what to me true anarchism is. Letting other
people live their lives as they please, without bothering them, in the
hopes that they leave you alone. I hope this isn't inflammatory,
because it isn't meant to be, I just can't get into Spice Girl fan
bashing, because it's just a matter of choice.
WinterMute.
ryan mcmenamin
"I'm just trying to promote what to me true anarchism is. Letting other
they leave you alone." (Wintermute)
----
That comment scares me more than anything said in this thread. We
simply aren't intelligent enough for true anarchism yet. Far from it. We
still need religion, law, community, and government. Look around; what
you see is the failure of those four things. Why? Because we all have
this overinflated view of the individual. We can't even manage
ourselves, what makes you think we're anywhere near ready for anarchy?
Mismanagement of the self trickles down to mismanagement of community
and then government. Mismanagement of community and government breeds
further mismanagement of self. This cycle has created a culture so
frayed and weak (mentally and spiritually) that we can barely make
simple decisions for ourselves. So, we allow others (subconsciously) to
choose for us, i.e. the spice-girls fan type person. But, our economy is
supported by this type of easliy swayed comsumer, whom we call
individuals. We don't know the meaning of the word.
The kind anarchy you hope for (which sounds selfish really; leave
others alone so they'll leave you alone? It sounds like you're so afraid
of people you want to live in a world where you don't have to interact
with them. True anarchy *must* have interaction between people.) is so
much more a pipe dream today. We may never survive long enough to reach
any type of anarchism; thanks to the type of "individuals" we've become.
ryan mcmenamin
"if you don't think there are many neo-nazis (moreover, fascists) in the
world, then why the hell is the world so fucked up?" (caesurae)
----
Neo-nazis and these corporate fascist regimes you speak of are a
*result* of our "fucked up" culture. Quite blaming others for the state
of the world.
Robby Johnson
i thought the spice girls WERE neo-nazis?
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>lucian X <wor...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>>caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>if you don't think there are that many neo-nazi's (moreover, fascists) in
>>>the world, then why the hell is the world so fucked up?
>capitalism is in no way in opposition to fascism.
i didn't say it was. however being capitalist doesn't imply fascism
either. as such, we have three sets; those who are capitalist, those who
are fascist, and those who are capitalist as well as fascist (and a null
set of those who are neither).
i was merely introducing the first set, not denying the third. and it was
partially a joke to begin with.
>for ex. corporations are fascist regimes, many more powerful than some
>countries / states.
that's certainly arguable, depending on your definition of fascism.
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>WinterMute <dist...@isralink.co.il> wrote:
>>All I was trying to say, is that being Spice Girl really isn't that
>>harmful.
i'll agree with that.
so explain to me how you know that a spice girl fan must be inherently
ignorant, or else you've just made a harmfully ignorant statement.
Shoggoth
FS jake J <fsj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971210074...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >i would disagree with just about everything you said.
> >
in
> >the world, then why the hell is the world so fucked up?
> >
> >
>
> Jacob
Name one thing that causes more pain and death in the world.
WinterMute
ryan mcmenamin wrote:
>
> That comment scares me more than anything said in this thread. We
> simply aren't intelligent enough for true anarchism yet. Far from it.
You're right. But I'm entitled to my dream, and I'm also entitled to do
or say what I can to promote that dream.
We
> still need religion, law, community, and government. Look around; what
> you see is the failure of those four things. Why? Because we all have
> this overinflated view of the individual.
Personally I think that these things have been used as security blankets
for too long. Having these nice little cute rules, allows people not to
think about what they are doing. That, to me, is very frightening.
We can't even manage
> ourselves, what makes you think we're anywhere near ready for anarchy?
> Mismanagement of the self trickles down to mismanagement of community
> and then government.
The government, such as it is the few countries I have lived in, is
absolutely ridiculous. I would almost argue, (but not quite) that none
of us have ever had the chance to manage ourselves, so how the hell do
we know if we are, or are no capable of such responsibility?
So, we allow others (subconsciously) to
> choose for us, i.e. the spice-girls fan type person.
I don't know about you, but I do what is in my admittedly limited power
to not let other people choose for me. For instance, I do not watch
programmed TV from the standpoint that it attempts to brainwash me.
But, our economy is
> supported by this type of easliy swayed comsumer, whom we call
> individuals. We don't know the meaning of the word.
> The kind anarchy you hope for (which sounds selfish really; leave
> others alone so they'll leave you alone? It sounds like you're so afraid
> of people you want to live in a world where you don't have to interact
> with them.
I think you really misunderstood me in this case. I don't want to avoid
other people, but I want the choice of who I will be in contact with and
who I won't. That doesn't really explain it well either. What I mean
by the original statement, was that other people would not stop me from
doing what interests me, unless it was harmful to my surroundings or the
people around me. That isn't very clear either, but I hope it gets the
idea through better. I am aware that this view is completely utopian
and will never (at least in my lifetime) occur. But like I said, to sit
back and let things just happen is even worse than dreaming of something
that is out of reach.
True anarchy *must* have interaction between people.) is so
> much more a pipe dream today. We may never survive long enough to reach
> any type of anarchism; thanks to the type of "individuals" we've become.
>
Hey darling, what was the last thing that came out of Pandora's box?
WinterMute.
Todd Adamson
In article <01bd0641$64a02660$773937a6@nul>, "Shoggoth"
<htoggohs[NOISE]@[NOISE]hotmail.com> says...
Religion.
--
Todd Adamson - SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net
daniel landherr
Shoggoth (htoggohs[NOISE]@[NOISE]hotmail.com) wrote:
: > because of people blaming the worlds problems on fascism
: > Jacob
: Name one thing that causes more pain and death in the world.
The Spice Girls.
Dan
And I win for ending this circular argument.
The Lord Leto II
> > because of people blaming the worlds problems on fascism
> > Jacob
>
> Name one thing that causes more pain and death in the world.
Heart disease, cancer, and car accidents.
*** The Lord Leto II * God Emperor Of Arrakis ***
* http://www.missouri.edu/~c722465 *
* "Answer me. Can't you talk? Can't you move? *
* Answer me! What's wrong with you? What's *
* wrong with everybody in this crazy place?!" *
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>lucian X <wor...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>>caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>WinterMute <dist...@isralink.co.il> wrote:
>>>>All I was trying to say, is that being Spice Girl really isn't that
>>>>harmful.
>>>ignorance is harmful
>>i'll agree with that.
>>so explain to me how you know that a spice girl fan must be inherently
>>ignorant, or else you've just made a harmfully ignorant statement.
so you're saying that in the discussion of possible harmful impact of a
spice girl you totally randomly and in an unrelated fashion commented on
the harmful impact of ignorance?
it's possible, sure. but there is such a thing as pragmatic contextual
implication, and unless we are to speak only in sentences which can simply
be understood totally out of context, we are going to have to rely on it
in order to be able to carry coherent dialog, now aren't we?
the alternative, i'm afraid, would be hopelessly redundant.
>technically, my comment was not all encompassing. you are the one
>associating these terms by assuming that i was implying that spice girl
>fan = ignorant.
i am the one reading in the association which you admit to later,
actually. yes, i had to base that association on the assumption that your
statement was relavent to the discussion, but that's usually a given
assumption when people communicate in general.
>in fact my reply was in the context of _your_ implication, not mine.
that would be true if my nick were wintermute.
>maybe i misunderstood your comparison?
maybe you did. ;)
>if i did believe that spice girl fans are ignorant, and i do, :) that is
>of course only my opinion, which generally cannot be substantiated.
i don't want objective substantiation of your opinion, i want the
reasoning behind how you feel you can generalize a rather large group of
people (i believe in the millions?) without making an ignorant assumption,
or group of assumptions.
>if you really need an explanation though, it has alot to do with mtv
>viewers in general!
more generalizations?
well, while i don't care much for mtv, i don't think it's anyone's place
to lump together anyone who watches mtv into a singular stereotype just as
strongly as i think that it would be silly to say that all classical music
fans are old and conservative, or that all rap fans are black and
rebellious.
>cheers!
where everybody knows your name!
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.ef9e891d...@news.netins.net>,
>SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net (Todd Adamson) wrote:
>>Religion.
>only thing is, most religious zealots / fundamentalists are fascists
fascism n. a system of government characterized by dictatorship,
belligerent nationalism and racism, militarism, etc.
while you may be able to associate religion with racist, militarist,
nationalist or even dictator-related agendas in case circumstances, i
don't believe that you can categorize "most religious zealots" as fascist,
by it's technical definition.
besides which, "religion" is a pretty broad term.
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>WinterMute <dist...@isralink.co.il> wrote:
>>All I was trying to say, is that being Spice Girl really isn't that
>>harmful.
>>ignorance is harmful
>>>lucian X <wor...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>>i'll agree with that.
>>so explain to me how you know that a spice girl fan must be inherently
>>ignorant, or else you've just made a harmfully ignorant statement.
>>you misunderstood. it was a simple statement. ignorance is harmful.
>>so you're saying that in the discussion of possible harmful impact of a
>>spice girl you totally randomly and in an unrelated fashion commented on
>>the harmful impact of ignorance?
>reactionary cretin of a mind boiled over.
yike. settle down there, caesurae.
>i do believe that spice girl fans are ignorant. i also believe that
>americans in general are ignorant.
i know that. i pointed that out later. however, the statement above, in
context, appears to be saying that i made an incorrect assumption in
drawing the two statements together. i phrased it as a question in order
to ask why you would be saying that, since you obviously don't believe it.
>i was simply pointing out that technically, you assumed that's what i was
>implying, since the my comment was not obviously direct.
i think it was quite direct to anyone who can understand context.
>>it's possible, sure. but there is such a thing as pragmatic contextual
>>implication
>which is what i pointed out later... although i don't know what you mean
>by 'pragmatic'
pragmatic, practical, realistic. we make practical assumptions every day
in order to maintain non-redundant, coherent conversations. when i speak
with someone on a topic, i make the assumption that the next statement
they will add will either be relavent, or clearly change the subject
entirely. this is practical, because otherwise we would have to speak in
totally encapsulated sentences which cover everything in the conversation
covered thus far.
>>i don't want objective substantiation of your opinion, i want the
>>reasoning behind how you feel you can generalize a rather large group of
>>people (i believe in the millions?) without making an ignorant assumption,
>>or group of assumptions.
>just tune in to a television program.
and that will tell me how it affects and has affected millions, if not
billions, of people around the world? i recognize the inanity of most
television programming i have observed. this does not, however, give me
any kind of insight on its affects on culture though, except what it does
to me, and i can usually stay pretty detached from that sort of media.
>it doesnt take a rocket scientist to watch one does it! (and that is just
>an expression before you go and pick apart the semantics of a literal
>translation.)
uh, actually it was you, sir, who was picking on the semantics of my
taking your statement to be relavent to the discussion. i merely explained
myself.
>when you are as old as i am and you can't figure out why you can't get
>that old oscar myer advertisement out of your head, but yet you cannot
>remember those chemistry labs from college, then you begin to realize the
>signifigant impact that television has had on our lives.
i understand a great deal of what television does to people i have
observed, and what it has done to myself in the past. however, i still
believe that people are too subjective a medium to classify and categorize
by singular traits in order to make character judgements on their
behavioral patterns.
>>well, while i don't care much for mtv, i don't think it's anyone's place
>>to lump together anyone who watches mtv into a singular stereotype just as
>>strongly as i think that it would be silly to say that all classical music
>>fans are old and conservative, or that all rap fans are black and
>>rebellious.
>you chose the term 'all', not me.
your expression "mtv viewers in general" led me to the conclusion that you
were referring to the generalized group of all people watching mtv. if i
misunderstood, i apologize. feel free to replace "all" with "in general"
following the group in the above paragraph, and the point still stands.
deep breath,
Todd Adamson
In article <caesurae-1212970202160001@user-
38lcmsp.dialup.mindspring.com>, caes...@mindspring.com says...
> In article <66qj0o$865$2...@news1.teleport.com>, lucian X
> <wor...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>In article <MPG.ef9e891d...@news.netins.net>,
> >>SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net (Todd Adamson) wrote:
> >>>Religion.
> >>only thing is, most religious zealots / fundamentalists are fascists
> >
> >fascism n. a system of government characterized by dictatorship,
> >belligerent nationalism and racism, militarism, etc.
>
> religious zealots / fundamentalists.
>
You conveniently snipped the portion of lucian X's post that pointed out
that religion is a very broad term. When I say religion, I don't mean
just fundamentalist zealotry. Also, fascism hasn't been around long
enough to be in the same league as organized religion, when it comes to
causing misery.
Rev Ammonia D
The Lord Leto II wrote:
>
> > > because of people blaming the worlds problems on fascism
> > > Jacob
> >
> > Name one thing that causes more pain and death in the world.
>
> Heart disease, cancer, and car accidents.
>
> *** The Lord Leto II * God Emperor Of Arrakis ***
.
.
How about religion??? Bullets?? Booze????
The Rev
NP:Rabbit In the Moon "Out of Body Exerience"
ryan mcmenamin
"in order to know who will help and who will not help, you have to know
who to blame for past decisions.
in order to know who to blame for past decisions, you must STUDY
HISTORY!" (caesurae)
----
It really isn't that relevant who's responible for what, because the
deeper you study history the more you see that everything and everyone
is interconnected to each other. Each act, no matter how seemingly small
and insignificant, has a result that adds to the outcome of the whole.
The most significant points in history can be traced back to the tiniest
of consequences. Blaming individuals or groups of individuals for the
state of the world is still blaming. It's still putting responsiblity on
them, not you, not your generation. The most obvious murderers, thieves,
and polluters aren't the only ones who do wrong. Blaming turns you into
a pompous, strutting fool who sees humanity in divisions.
And since when is it necessary to campaign in order to educate? Do you
think Jesus went around campaigning and putting blame on others? Or the
Buddha, for that matter?
ryan mcmenamin
"Personally I think these things have been used as security blankets for
too long. Having these nice little cute rules, only allows people to not
think about what we're doing. That, to me, is very frightening."
(Wintermute)
----
So, what you're saying here is that free will has been suppressed by
religion, law, community and government? Well, look at it this way: if
you were take away the checks-and-balances of nature, would you expect
the animals to know what to do and not do in order to ensure their
survival? Of course not. They'd destroy each other. How could we have
functioned outside the order of nature without "these nice little cute
rules"? Rules and laws *make* us think about what we're doing when we
break them or begin to suffer the consequences when others break them
(which has happened to all of us). We can't do it ourselves. Humans are
not innately able to judge things on there own. I'm sorry. Common sense,
better judgement, sentience; they're all accquired things. All we're
given at birth is instinct and a few more brain cells than your average
ape. Without "these nice little cute rules", that are first and foremost
instilled within us by our parents, we grow into very unthinking people;
driven by others and by instinct. Societal rules ensure (ideally,
anyway) that those who were not raised perfectly by their parents
(which, obviously, is all of us) keep from doing too much harm.
Unfortunetly, we are being less and less perfectly raised by our
parents. And, there are too many of us for the old laws of religion and
society to keep us from doing too much harm. So, this world is the way
it is not because our free will has been stifled for too long by rules;
but because we're not being taught what the rules are anymore (and/or we
can't afford to care).
"I don't know about you, but I do what is in my admittedly limited power
to not let other people choose for me." (Wintermute)
----
Are you absolutely sure about that? No offense, but I don't think either
of us have the slightest clue into what... 90% of our influences are.
Sure, we may know some of the obvious influences: the media, politics,
organized religion, etc. But there is so much about us we don't have an
iota of insight into.
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net (Todd Adamson) wrote:
>>caes...@mindspring.com says...
>>>In article <66qj0o$865$2...@news1.teleport.com>, lucian X
>>><wor...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>>>>caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>In article <MPG.ef9e891d...@news.netins.net>,
>>>>>SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net (Todd Adamson) wrote:
>>>>>>Religion.
>>>>>only thing is, most religious zealots / fundamentalists are fascists
>>>>fascism n. a system of government characterized by dictatorship,
>>>>belligerent nationalism and racism, militarism, etc.
>>>right, and a fascist is one who would support such a government, namely,
>>>religious zealots / fundamentalists.
>>You conveniently snipped the portion of lucian X's post that pointed out
>>that religion is a very broad term. When I say religion, I don't mean
>>just fundamentalist zealotry.
it's really a question of terminology. i'm not altogether sure you should
attribute misery to "religion," in that every person in history has
probably had their own form of religion, understanding religion to be
merely a personal belief system, sometimes involving gods or codes of
ethics.
people may have been harmed by way of a particular religion's ethical
stance, or supposed divine command, but at the same time it's not exactly
useful to attribute the "fault," or at least causation, to religion.
people use whatever excuses they can in order to achieve their goal.
sometimes the religion itself inspires that goal, but the means by which
the individuals go about that goal is entirely their own, and cannot be
dictated by an abstract concept like "religion."
if we want to talk about causation of misery, let's talk about ignorance,
intolerance, and ingratitude. let's talk about a culture that professes
the inherent virtues in mindless consumerism, waste and self-gratification
at any cost. attacking misuse of religion is like attacking a symptom, not
the disease.
religion is just another human construct, after all.
>>Also, fascism hasn't been around long enough to be in the same league
>>as organized religion, when it comes to causing misery.
>sure it has.
historically speaking, fascism was first instituted in italy in 1922. if
you want to apply the term to similar historical events before mussolini,
perhaps another term might be more appropriate?
lucian X
Rev Ammonia D <earth...@pop.skyenet.net> wrote:
>The Lord Leto II wrote:
>>>>because of people blaming the worlds problems on fascism
>>>>Jacob
>>>Name one thing that causes more pain and death in the world.
>>Heart disease, cancer, and car accidents.
one word: stupidity. ;)
WinterMute
ryan mcmenamin wrote:
>
> So, what you're saying here is that free will has been suppressed by
> religion, law, community and government? Well, look at it this way: if
> you were take away the checks-and-balances of nature, would you expect
> the animals to know what to do and not do in order to ensure their
> survival? Of course not. They'd destroy each other.
Arguably the laws of nature, and laws created by man, are two completely
different things. But that is too obscure really to get into an
argument, and too open to interpretation. So I'll leave it as a
differing matter of opinion.
How could we have
> functioned outside the order of nature without "these nice little cute
> rules"? Rules and laws *make* us think about what we're doing when we
> break them or begin to suffer the consequences when others break them
> (which has happened to all of us). We can't do it ourselves. Humans are
> not innately able to judge things on there own. I'm sorry. Common sense,
> better judgement, sentience; they're all accquired things.
Education. Not brainwashing. Which is pretty hypocritical of me to
say, because all education to some degree is brainwashing. But, I think
some line of distinction can exist between the two. What most people
get today is brainwashing, not education.
All we're
> given at birth is instinct and a few more brain cells than your average
> ape.
That's arguable too. One a humorous level I'll comment that there's no
proof that we have more brain cells than an average ape. But, on a
serious level, it can be argued that humans have a 'soul', whatever that
may encompass, and that other animals don't. But, I don't want to turn
this into a theological argument.
Without "these nice little cute rules", that are first and foremost
> instilled within us by our parents, we grow into very unthinking people;
> driven by others and by instinct. Societal rules ensure (ideally,
> anyway) that those who were not raised perfectly by their parents
> (which, obviously, is all of us) keep from doing too much harm.
I don't know that I agree with you. I mean yes, granted our parents are
the primary instillers of proper behavior code. But again, where is the
line between the brainwashing society throws at us, and the advantages
to education?
> Unfortunetly, we are being less and less perfectly raised by our
> parents.
You and me both.
And, there are too many of us for the old laws of religion and
> society to keep us from doing too much harm. So, this world is the way
> it is not because our free will has been stifled for too long by rules;
> but because we're not being taught what the rules are anymore (and/or we
> can't afford to care).
I can't accept that there are 'certain rules' that must be followed. I
am as guilty as the next person for following sociodogmatic code, but I
don't believe that it is as essential as you make it to be.
>
> "I don't know about you, but I do what is in my admittedly limited power
> to not let other people choose for me." (Wintermute)
> ----
> Are you absolutely sure about that? No offense, but I don't think either
> of us have the slightest clue into what... 90% of our influences are.
> Sure, we may know some of the obvious influences: the media, politics,
> organized religion, etc. But there is so much about us we don't have an
> iota of insight into.
>
(Painful sigh.) Yes, like I said in my original quote, my ability to
break out of my 'brainwashing' is very limited. However; I owe it to
myself and all those around me, to challenge as much of my envelope as I
can. I'm not even saying I do a good job of it, I'm a fairly repressed
individual within my own right, but it has to start somewhere.
WinterMute.
P.S. Thank you for writing back an intelligent response.
lucian X
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>i see humanity more as a cancer that is growing out of control, likely to
>kill the host organism that gives it life.
i see that as a little bit arrogant, from a human perspective. i don't
believe humanity could kill the earth if it tried. not that it isn't.
but at any rate! i find it a lot more likely that humanity will just end
up killing *itself*, rather than destroying a planet.
>christianity on the other hand, has repressed education historically, and
>in the present as well.
something to note, though, is that he was addressing Christ, not
institutionalized christianity, and there is a not-so-fine line between
them.
>did you know that teachers regularly get _fired_ around here (the
>southeastern united states) for teaching darwinsim?
well, considering that it would take more faith on my part to believe in
darwinism than any religious creationary myth, i don't think that's
necessarily such an awful thing.
i think public schools need to teach objectively, and i've yet to see a
suitably objective explanation of evolutionary darwinism to convince me
that it's anything more than another creationary myth masquerading as
empirical science.
but that's just my thoughts on the issue.
jeremy tolsma
In article <66v8u1$1or$2...@news1.teleport.com>, wor...@user2.teleport.com
says...
>
>caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>i see humanity more as a cancer that is growing out of control, likely to
>>kill the host organism that gives it life.
>
>i see that as a little bit arrogant, from a human perspective. i don't
>believe humanity could kill the earth if it tried. not that it isn't.
>
>but at any rate! i find it a lot more likely that humanity will just end
>up killing *itself*, rather than destroying a planet.
things is that our planet is getting ready to kill us because we have been
killing it for a while now. As a defense mechanism, the organism that is our
planet will issue anti-bodies to destroy us before we destroy it.
Shoggoth
jeremy tolsma <ka...@spmm.intergate.bc.ca> wrote in article
<671rug$8ka$1...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>...
Better hope the earth doesn't read this NG, it'll find out you know its
diabolical plan and have a tree kill you.
Todd Adamson
In article <66t227$4om$1...@news1.teleport.com>, wor...@user2.teleport.com
says...
> it's really a question of terminology. i'm not altogether sure you should
> attribute misery to "religion," in that every person in history has
> probably had their own form of religion, understanding religion to be
> merely a personal belief system, sometimes involving gods or codes of
> ethics.
>
We've gone around on this issue before, so I'll leave the personal
interpretations aside. I should have made it clear in my original post
that I was referring to organized religion.
My point is that organized religion is a very handy tool for mass thought
control. It can be easily used to convince people that it is alright to
commit heinous crimes because "God commanded us to smite the
unbelievers."
> if we want to talk about causation of misery, let's talk about ignorance,
> intolerance, and ingratitude. let's talk about a culture that professes
> the inherent virtues in mindless consumerism, waste and self-gratification
> at any cost. attacking misuse of religion is like attacking a symptom, not
> the disease.
>
> religion is just another human construct, after all.
>
The disease is thought control. Religious dogma just happens to be one
of the best tools for its application.
> >>Also, fascism hasn't been around long enough to be in the same league
> >>as organized religion, when it comes to causing misery.
> >sure it has.
>
> historically speaking, fascism was first instituted in italy in 1922. if
> you want to apply the term to similar historical events before mussolini,
> perhaps another term might be more appropriate?
>
caesarae may be referring to authoritarianism in general, but judging
from his socialist stance, that probably isn't accurate either and I'd
hate to put words in his mouth for fear of being called an inane
capitalist. Fascism is indeed a 20th Century construct and was made
possible by the Industrial Revolution.
Todd Adamson
In article <caesurae-1312971307070001@user-
38lc732.dialup.mindspring.com>, caes...@mindspring.com says...
> i see humanity more as a cancer that is growing out of control, likely to
> kill the host organism that gives it life.
Your a very negative person, aren't you? :)
Sturgeon's Law: 95% of anything is crap. Never underestimate the 5%.
>
> >And since when is it necessary to campaign in order to educate?
>
> since our society became dependent upon a cash based economy.
>
When we finally figure out how to unlock energy from mass, socialism and
capitalism will finally go away and I say good riddance to both.
> >Do you think Jesus went around campaigning and putting blame on others? Or the
> >Buddha, for that matter?
>
> buddhists believe in education. they educate everyone about everything.
> shit some have even been know to teach / practice having sex in groups
> after children go through puberty. christianity on the other hand, has
> repressed education historically, and in the present as well. did you know
> that teachers regularly get _fired_ around here (the southeastern united
> states) for teaching darwinsim?
>
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the forbidden fruit in the
Garden of Eden. God didn't want anyone smarting than Himself. But then,
if He's so smart, why did He plant the damn tree in the first place!
Shoggoth
Todd Adamson <SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net> wrote in article
<MPG.eff2f861...@news.netins.net>...
> control. It can be easily used to convince people that it is alright to
> commit heinous crimes because "God commanded us to smite the
> unbelievers."
The fault is in the minds being controlled, not that someone is trying to
control them. Although I do not approve of mind control, if people would
not allow themselves to be controlled it would not be a problem
> The disease is thought control. Religious dogma just happens to be one
> of the best tools for its application.
ONE of the MANY effective methods.
> > >>Also, fascism hasn't been around long enough to be in the same league
> > >>as organized religion, when it comes to causing misery.
Fascism and Nationalism are quite new, but the stupidity which they take
advantage of has always been there. And religion may be the oldest example
of such behaviour, but I can easily imagine a caveman burning down a rival
village in the name of his tribe.
ryan mcmenamin
"since our society became dependent upon a cash based economy."
----
No, offense but that just sounds like an excuse to me.
"christianity on the other hand, has repressed education historically,
and in the present as well." (caesurae)
----
That's not what I meant. Jesus Christ has had very little in common with
most forms of Christianity. The same thing could be said about Gautama
and most forms of Buddhism.
lucian X
Todd Adamson <SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net> wrote:
>The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the forbidden fruit in the
>Garden of Eden. God didn't want anyone smarting than Himself.
that's your implication. all the myth states is that among all of the
pleasures which were allowed them, only one was forbidden, which was the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. not intelligence, mind you, but
awareness of right and wrong. loss of innocence and all that jazz.
>But then, if He's so smart, why did He plant the damn tree in the first
>place!
that's anyone's guess. in my opinion, i think the forbidden fruit is a
symbol of ignorant and lustful consumption. everything was theirs, as long
as they adhered to the one rule that was not to destroy themselves, and
they chose to indulge in their base desire and willful ignorance.
exit eden, get your fig leaves at the door.
ryan mcmenamin
"Arguably the laws of nature, and the laws of man, are two completely
different things." -- "I can't accept that there are 'certain rules'
that must be followed. I am as guilty as the next person for following
sociodogmatic code, but I don't believe that it is as essential as you
----
Actually, there isn't much of a difference between the order of Nature
and that of man. There are no real "laws of nature" (except those of
physics, but even they aren't always followed). It is the closest thing
to an anarchic state. But, what does choas do in time? It orders itself,
and becomes nature. That's what I don't like about anarchy. It just
can't exist in any reality. Some "sociodogmatic code" will always rise
up, over time. What we've been trying to do here is copy that order as
we move further outside Nature. We're supposed to have
check-and-balances of our own. If we do harm to others or ourselves,
then we'll pay for it. If we do what we're supposed to do, then we
prosper. Yes, the rules/laws of man are baseless. But, the rules of a
society at our stage of development must be followed, or the society
rots and is slowly pulled back into the order of Nature. As I've said,
we aren't anywhere near ready for a less structured state, apart from
nature (what you would call anarchy). We don't have the technology, the
patience, and the wisdom. We won't be at that state for... I don't know,
a couple thousand years maybe. Who knows? It all depends on whether we
even survive through the next century. Haha. In the meantime,
rules/codes/laws must be followed. If the rules become illogical, then
we alter them, or make up new ones; for ourselves and for the whole. If
we begin dropping them all now (which is what we're doing), then we will
kill each other off. A new order will simply come about though. We just
won't be a part of it.
And it's not like we don't have a clue on how to conduct ourselves.
There's no big mystery. We've had the answers for thousands of years.
It's just that no one ever wants to follow those particular rules, or
whatever you want to call them.
Locke
jeremy tolsma wrote:
> I beleive the general consensus on this subject of those who follow these
> things is that our planet is getting ready to kill us because we have been
> killing it for a while now. As a defense mechanism, the organism that is our
> planet will issue anti-bodies to destroy us before we destroy it.
I think that's bullshit. It takes millions of years to develop a defense
mechanism like that naturally, and the "problem" of mankind is pretty new
in earthly time scales. The only possibility to get rid of mankind is to
let mankind do it itself - and they do, by ruining their own sources of
life. Mankind is too bound to their feeling of superiority, they think
they could rule the nature, but still nature rules over them.
CU,
Locke
NP: Foetus "Gash"
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| locke (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| @fiasko.physik.uni-jena.de \__=__/
| |
Shoggoth
Locke <lo...@some.spam.free.place> wrote in article
<349664...@some.spam.free.place>...
> jeremy tolsma wrote:
> I think that's bullshit. It takes millions of years to develop a defense
> mechanism like that naturally, and the "problem" of mankind is pretty new
> in earthly time scales. The only possibility to get rid of mankind is to
> let mankind do it itself - and they do, by ruining their own sources of
> life. Mankind is too bound to their feeling of superiority, they think
> they could rule the nature, but still nature rules over them.
Damned marshians. You're so damned cocky. Weel look what _YOU_ did to Mars,
huh! Whos the parasite now!
lucian X
Todd Adamson <SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net> wrote:
[snip]
>The disease is thought control. Religious dogma just happens to be one
>of the best tools for its application.
i'll agree with that, though i think it's more important to examine the
attitude of the controlled, rather than the means of the controller.
WinterMute
ryan mcmenamin wrote:
We're supposed to have
> check-and-balances of our own.
<grin> Then, I am one of the checks that keeps things from becoming too
static. Maybe it can be argued, that in a large scale, for whatever
balance, it is necessary to have people like me, who genuinely believe
that anarchy is attainable.
As for the rest of your post, well, it's really a matter of opinion.
I'm not going to bore myself and everyone else with a repeat of what
I've said. Thank you for a lovely discussion.
WinterMute.
jeremy tolsma
>And it's not like we don't have a clue on how to conduct ourselves.
>There's no big mystery. We've had the answers for thousands of years.
>It's just that no one ever wants to follow those particular rules, or
>whatever you want to call them.
OK first of all, following rules is NOT a good way for anyone to live. That
is definately not what life is about. The only reason 'rules' ever manifested
themselves in the first place was because we weren't evolved enough not to act
like animals most of the time, but some of the time we didn't act like animals
and accomplished more, and we were smart enough to realize that if we put the
rules in and became 'civilized' then we'd enjoy a better lifestyle. The idea
is that eventually we would evolve beyond the need for the rules, but the
rules by their very nature prevent progress in the area of liberation. When
people formed the USA they were lucky, they were able to start over in some
respects and build a great nation on very few rules. As the years went on
more and more rules were piled on. It's not that people don't know how to
conduct themselves it's that they still beleive that resources are scarce, and
that turns people into either hoarders or thiefs. So eventually they
impliment a techno-fascist police state, and thats where we are TODAY.
jeremy tolsma
In article <349664...@some.spam.free.place>, lo...@some.spam.free.place
says...
>
>jeremy tolsma wrote:
>> I beleive the general consensus on this subject of those who follow these
>> things is that our planet is getting ready to kill us because we have been
>> killing it for a while now. As a defense mechanism, the organism that is
our
>> planet will issue anti-bodies to destroy us before we destroy it.
>
Then I guess you aren't one of the people who follow these kinds of things.
It takes millions of years to develop a defense
>mechanism like that naturally, and the "problem" of mankind is pretty new
>in earthly time scales.
But the problem of parasites feeding off the earth in unsustainable
proportions goes back to the dinosaurs. Sure, a meteor might have wiped them
out, or maybe an ice-age... whatever it was I beleive it happened at that
particular time so that the Earth would not be devoid of ALL life. In history
there have been 5 cataclysmic events that have wiped the slate clean of 90% of
the species that were on the earth at that time.
> The only possibility to get rid of mankind is to
>let mankind do it itself - and they do, by ruining their own sources of
>life. Mankind is too bound to their feeling of superiority, they think
>they could rule the nature, but still nature rules over them.
HEH, dont be bound in your superiority. we are connected to earth and we're
part of it.. if mankind does 'ruin their own sources of life' it will be
because the earth is no longer willing to replenish them. We cannot tap the
earth dry of resources or else it would lay desolate for eons.. it won't let
that happen... it'll wipe almost everything out and leave a few cockroaches or
something...
Locke
jeremy tolsma wrote:
> HEH, dont be bound in your superiority. we are connected to earth and we're
> part of it.. if mankind does 'ruin their own sources of life' it will be
> because the earth is no longer willing to replenish them. We cannot tap the
> earth dry of resources or else it would lay desolate for eons.. it won't let
> that happen... it'll wipe almost everything out and leave a few cockroaches or
> something...
O.k., I'm not religious, but I'm not trying to transform you.
Arguing about religion is pointless anyway.
I don't believe that nature has some kind of will. If you do -
that's your opinion In my eyes it's a fact that any sort of living
matter just keeps on living as good and as long as it can. If the
living conditions become worse for humans, nobody gives a damn shit
(we're returning to the topic of the subject line now), except the
humans themselves perhaps, the cockroaches will hardly miss them.
Industrial music (in the Neubauten sense) is meant to celebrate the
joys of the destruction of the human race.
Have fun,
Locke
NP: Coil "Unnatural History III"
jeremy tolsma
In article <3497B3...@some.spam.free.place>, lo...@some.spam.free.place
says...
>
>I don't believe that nature has some kind of will. If you do -
>that's your opinion
No it's not my opinion, it's a fact that an energy grid envelopes the earth
and can be used as a metaphor for the veins of an organism. Wether you refuse
to beleive it or not has nothing to do with religion, or even 'new-age
science'. Reality tends to exist wether you acknowledge it or not...
>In my eyes it's a fact that any sort of living
>matter just keeps on living as good and as long as it can. If the
>living conditions become worse for humans, nobody gives a damn shit
>(we're returning to the topic of the subject line now), except the
>humans themselves perhaps, the cockroaches will hardly miss them.
The dolphins and whales might 'give a shit' since they have the frontal lobes
necessary to manifest the necessary cognition to 'give a shit'.
>
>Industrial music (in the Neubauten sense) is meant to celebrate the
>joys of the destruction of the human race.
I thought they were about the joys of the collapse of poorly constructed
post-war architecture? When new buildings collapse, they make a lot of noise.
Thats what Neubauten was about.
ryan mcmenamin
"It's not that people don't know how to conduct themselves it's that
they still beleive that resources are scarce, and that turns people into
state, and that's where we are TODAY." (jeremy tolsma)
----
What? What are you saying? People are greedy and steal because rules
have made them believe that... I don't what you're trying to say. People
are greedy and steal because they are either selfish and lustful, or
they are desperate (due to poverty or addictions). Both are a result of
people being blindly (and/or forcibly) lead around by instinct. It isn't
that complicated.
ryan mcmenamin
"...to have people like me, who genuinly believe that anarchy is
attainable." (Wintermute)
----
What exactly are your theories on the anarchical state?
Locke
jeremy tolsma wrote:
> No it's not my opinion, it's a fact that an energy grid envelopes the earth
> and can be used as a metaphor for the veins of an organism. Wether you refuse
> to beleive it or not has nothing to do with religion, or even 'new-age
> science'. Reality tends to exist wether you acknowledge it or not...
But the way you look at reality and the metaphors you use depend
entirely
on your personal beliefs. If you attribute some kind of 'will' to
nature
that is religious thinking. I'm quite familiar with modern sciences
but I'm not sure what you're talking about with these energy grids nor
what
they have to do with 'nature's will'.
> The dolphins and whales might 'give a shit' since they have the frontal lobes
> necessary to manifest the necessary cognition to 'give a shit'.
Perhaps they could, but my point was that they never WOULD.
> I thought they were about the joys of the collapse of poorly constructed
> post-war architecture? When new buildings collapse, they make a lot of noise.
> Thats what Neubauten was about.
Makes me wonder: Have you ever heard a Neubauten track.
Have you actually listened to it?
(I know it's difficult because they're singign in German, but that's not
MY problem, you know ...)
Their name is metaphorical - they neve had a single song about real
architecture.
CU,
Locke
NP: This Mortal Coil "It'll End in Tears"
ryan mcmenamin
"that's progress!" (caesurae)
----
That was a nice "explanation", but what did it have to with education?
ryan mcmenamin
"true, but my comment was really just a comparison to Opus' suggestion
that campaigning for education was useless. he implied that jesus /
buddha did not campaign, which I believe to wrong." (caesurae)
----
Yes, *your* definition of campaigning for education is useless. Studying
history to weed out who'll follow you and who'll be blamed is a foolish
way to begin education. How exactly did Jesus and the Buddha campaign?
They just talked to people, and it didn't matter where or with whom.
Their only agenda was to get people to think in better ways.
"Opus also said that jesus / buddha did not place blame. while often
they did not blame people directly, they did blame many human
behaviors." (caesurae)
----
Now you're just backpedaling. Yes, they denounced certain behaviors, but
that's not the same as actually blaming individuals for the state of
things.
"yet, jesus also often lectured and even scolded some people who
confronted him, and in the old testement..." (caesurae)
----
Yeah, so what about lecturing?
Wouldn't you yell at people who tried to shut you up, or even kill you?
And don't bring up the Old Testement. It has nothing to do with Jesus
Christ.
And don't call me Opus...
WinterMute
ryan mcmenamin wrote:
>
> "...to have people like me, who genuinly believe that anarchy is
> attainable." (Wintermute)
> ----
> What exactly are your theories on the anarchical state?
>
> "I detest monkeys!"
> *Opus 21
right now) this is my belief:
1. Human being, given 'all' the information and education, will make
the 'right' choices.
2. The 'right' choices are ones which eliminate senseless hate,
destruction, and general negativity.
3. Rules of religion, government, and so forth, are just an easy way
for people not to have to educate themselves and think for themselves.
To clarify further, it's merely how people can pass the responsibility
of making decisions to someone else, "...s/he must know what s/he is
talking about, so I'll do that...".
4. At this point, at least in what I see of Western civilization, we
are trapped under all these senseless rules and stipulations. And I
won't even start to tackle how much blame common media has in that, as
far as I am concerned.
5. The ideal situation, as far as I am concerned, is where people are
educated enough, that regimented systems of classification of behavior,
are not necessary. That people can co-exist with their differences, and
not infringe on social, physical, or spiritual boundaries. This also
implies, that there would be no need for such, (meaning no such ghastly
acts as child abuse). I completely admit that I am a hopeless dreamer
in this respect, but again, I am entitled to my dreams and to pursuing
them.
I hope this quick blurb might make things a little clearer.
WinterMute.
jeremy tolsma
In article <67ao6u$1sc$1...@newsd-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, mcme...@webtv.net
says...
base of our spine? We also have a mammilian brain on top of that, and frontal
lobes grafted on top of the mammilian brain. I find it to be fairly
complicated, if you don't either you've got some hefty frontal lobes there or
you just haven't given it much thought at all.
jeremy tolsma
In article <3498FB...@some.spam.free.place>, lo...@some.spam.free.place
says...
>
>
>But the way you look at reality and the metaphors you use depend
>entirely
>on your personal beliefs. If you attribute some kind of 'will' to
>nature
>that is religious thinking. I'm quite familiar with modern sciences
>but I'm not sure what you're talking about with these energy grids nor
>what
>they have to do with 'nature's will'.
Not really, most biological entities ON the planet do not have will but they
DO have an immune system. I don't know why you would assume the earth is any
different.
>
>> The dolphins and whales might 'give a shit' since they have the frontal
lobes
>> necessary to manifest the necessary cognition to 'give a shit'.
>
>Perhaps they could, but my point was that they never WOULD.
I don't get it.. do you communicate with whales and dolphins to find out that
they wouldn't give a shit even if they could?
>
>> I thought they were about the joys of the collapse of poorly constructed
>> post-war architecture? When new buildings collapse, they make a lot of
noise.
>> Thats what Neubauten was about.
>
>Makes me wonder: Have you ever heard a Neubauten track.
>Have you actually listened to it?
>(I know it's difficult because they're singign in German, but that's not
>MY problem, you know ...)
>Their name is metaphorical - they neve had a single song about real
>architecture.
Apparently everything is a metaphor to you! Why bother solidifying any facts,
its all metaphors and opinions right? Anyway I have listened to plenty of
Neubauten, have been to one of their over-priced shows, and occassionally I
still enjoy listening to it, though not very often. Not sure what this has to
do with what the topic has turned into, or at least the portions I was
addressing; but when I saw Neubauten perform they were like one organism,
maybe a metaphor for how the earth works??
Locke
jeremy tolsma wrote:
> Not really, most biological entities ON the planet do not have will but they
> DO have an immune system. I don't know why you would assume the earth is any
> different.
Please re-read my previous posts because this is to be going in circles!
I did never say that an immune system would require a will. I was just
saying that your remark about the earth not willing to let the humans
live
requires a religious point of view.
The argument about the immune system I have answered already when I said
that a natural defense mechanism takes millions of years to develop,
much
longer than mankind is a 'problem to the earth'.
CU,
LOCKE
NP: Sielwolf "IV"
Todd Adamson
In article <679ns7$sr3$2...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>,
ka...@spmm.intergate.bc.ca says...
>
> No it's not my opinion, it's a fact that an energy grid envelopes the earth
> and can be used as a metaphor for the veins of an organism. Wether you refuse
> to beleive it or not has nothing to do with religion, or even 'new-age
> science'. Reality tends to exist wether you acknowledge it or not...
>
Reality is the energy grid. When you attach a metaphor to it, it becomes
an opinion.
> >In my eyes it's a fact that any sort of living
> >matter just keeps on living as good and as long as it can. If the
> >living conditions become worse for humans, nobody gives a damn shit
> >(we're returning to the topic of the subject line now), except the
> >humans themselves perhaps, the cockroaches will hardly miss them.
>
> The dolphins and whales might 'give a shit' since they have the frontal lobes
> necessary to manifest the necessary cognition to 'give a shit'.
Nature doesn't give a damn about dolphins or humans, it only cares about
the survival of the genetic code. Read Dawkin's _The_Selfish_Gene_.
druiD|3
jeremy tolsma <ka...@spmm.intergate.bc.ca> wrote in article
<671rug$8ka$1...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>...
> In article <66v8u1$1or$2...@news1.teleport.com>, wor...@user2.teleport.com
> I beleive the general consensus on this subject of those who follow these
> things is that our planet is getting ready to kill us because we have
been
> killing it for a while now. As a defense mechanism, the organism that is
our
> planet will issue anti-bodies to destroy us before we destroy it.
Soon mother nature will teach US a lesson. Then we'll realize that money's
not the only thing that matters....
druid13
druiD|3
Locke <lo...@some.spam.free.place> wrote in article
> Industrial music (in the Neubauten sense) is meant to celebrate the
> joys of the destruction of the human race.
FINALLY!!! Hit the nail right on the head. My prediction is, with all the
musical fads coming and going... that by end of the world (if it does
indeed happen) everyone will see the REAL light and be listening to
industrial music, and us RMIers will be sitting out on our 60 year old lawn
chair laughing our asses off.
druid13
> Have fun,
> Locke
>
> NP: Coil "Unnatural History III"
druiD|3
Todd Adamson <SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net> wrote in article
> In article <caesurae-1312971307070001@user-
> 38lc732.dialup.mindspring.com>, caes...@mindspring.com
> When we finally figure out how to unlock energy from mass, socialism and
> capitalism will finally go away and I say good riddance to both.
A nice dosage of chaos and anarchy THAT is what we need!
d13
druiD|3
Todd Adamson <SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net> wrote in article
> In article <66t227$4om$1...@news1.teleport.com>, wor...@user2.teleport.com
> that I was referring to organized religion.
Which will some day be abolished.
> My point is that organized religion is a very handy tool for mass thought
> control. It can be easily used to convince people that it is alright to
> commit heinous crimes because "God commanded us to smite the
> unbelievers."
"If you don't believe in God, you WILL go to hell."
> The disease is thought control. Religious dogma just happens to be one
> of the best tools for its application.
Absolutely.
> caesarae may be referring to authoritarianism in general, but judging
> from his socialist stance, that probably isn't accurate either and I'd
> hate to put words in his mouth for fear of being called an inane
> capitalist. Fascism is indeed a 20th Century construct and was made
> possible by the Industrial Revolution.
Companys burning down their own archaic manufacturing plants for insurance
money, destroying the environment AND getting away with it. Big
corporations slipping money into politicians pockets.... i sometimes
wonder what would've happened had the USSRs government NOT fallen and
instead the US's fell to communism, thus making the world (majority of it)
communist; instead of it's present state - fascist.
druid13
druiD|3
caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<caesurae-161...@user-38lcms5.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> In article <674pjb$mtq$1...@newsd-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> mcme...@webtv.net (ryan mcmenamin) wrote:
>snip the reasonably well-informed commentary<
I just find it disgusting that someone could value money over another human
being's life.
d13 (lovin' this debate)
jeremy tolsma
In article <349A4F...@some.spam.free.place>, lo...@some.spam.free.place
says...
>
>
>Please re-read my previous posts because this is to be going in circles!
>I did never say that an immune system would require a will. I was just
>saying that your remark about the earth not willing to let the humans
>live
>requires a religious point of view.
>
Ahh OK, well please re-read my previous posts because I hardly ever, and
definately did not in this case use the word 'WILL'. In fact, thanks to the
likes of Allister Crowley, I don't even know what 'WILL' means (after having
debated over it for many hours).
>The argument about the immune system I have answered already when I said
>that a natural defense mechanism takes millions of years to develop,
>much
>longer than mankind is a 'problem to the earth'.
Once again I will say that mankind is simply a genus of a species that the
earth has had plenty of time to develop an immunity towards. Of course you've
got to keep in mind here that if the Earth is a biological entitiy, it
certainly isnt the same KIND of biological entity as all the species who live
on the Earth. For one thing, the earth does not reproduce. Also, you're
probably not aware of the differences between micro-evolution and
macro-evolution, both of which are necessary to grasp if you're going to
beleive Darwin's observations in the Galapogos island chain. Wether or not
the Earth can develop an immunity over the course of several hundred thousand
years may not be possible using the conventional micro-evolution model.
However, macro-evolution can occur in a very short period of time, apparently
brought on by extreme situations.
druiD|3
> In article <67aqsl$1un$1...@newsd-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> mcme...@webtv.net (ryan mcmenamin) wrote:
> i don't know where you come from, but where i am (nashville usa) schools
> need money. students need money. teachers need money. it takes money to
> teach kids how to even read about jesus or the buddha in the first place,
> and illiteracy rates are RISING not declining.
Yep, all thanks to the government cutting funding to give corporate tax
breaks. Then only the RICH survive who can afford to put their kids in
private school, and publicly funded education becomes non-existent.
> so the only way to teach people about health, financial, literacy, music
&
> the arts, etc. issues is to be like jesus?
My friend told me about this philosophy the other day.... that is (in his
words): "all religion is a form of mind control and brain washing".
druid13
> --
> caesurae <caes...@mindspring.com>
>
jeremy tolsma
In article <01bd0c39$d3f722e0$5e660b9a@margaret-smith>,
p-l-e...@nospammailexcite.com says...
>
>Todd Adamson <SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net> wrote in article
><MPG.eff2f861...@news.netins.net>...
>> In article <66t227$4om$1...@news1.teleport.com>, wor...@user2.teleport.com
>
>> that I was referring to organized religion.
>
>Which will some day be abolished.
>
Woah... hold yer horses there Thomas Jefferson... how are you going to decide
whats organized and what isn't? Are you saying that people with similar
religious beleifs wouldn't be allowed to congregate? THAT is FASCISM.
>> The disease is thought control. Religious dogma just happens to be one
>> of the best tools for its application.
>
>Absolutely.
And the backlash against religious dogma happens to be one of the best tools
for the application of thought control, as you've displayed in the previous
statement.
>
>> caesarae may be referring to authoritarianism in general, but judging
>> from his socialist stance, that probably isn't accurate either and I'd
>> hate to put words in his mouth for fear of being called an inane
>> capitalist. Fascism is indeed a 20th Century construct and was made
>> possible by the Industrial Revolution.
>
>Companys burning down their own archaic manufacturing plants for insurance
>money, destroying the environment AND getting away with it. Big
>corporations slipping money into politicians pockets.... i sometimes
>wonder what would've happened had the USSRs government NOT fallen and
>instead the US's fell to communism, thus making the world (majority of it)
>communist; instead of it's present state - fascist.
Well thats crazy... Russia was as much a part of the industrial revolution as
the USA. As you can see the original author said that the Industrial
Revolution begat fascism and he's right... imperialism coupled with the
banana-republic syndrome put us in this position of 'hotspots' all over the
world that are perfect for the Hegellian model that both countries subscribe
to. Anyway the USSR was responsible for as many of the problems that we face
today as the USA was.