Satanism and Asatru 2
Jeff Blanks
Jones ) wrote:
> Wasn't Grishnakh one of those Orcs that the Ents stomped into
> the ground in LOTR?
It was the Rohirrim. (Had to go to my copy of Robert Foster's Complete
Guide to Middle-earth for that one.) If you people out there don't
understand any of this, read the book!
>
> >> >>>Christians are the ones who find Satan in other
> >> >>>people's cultures... a bit like the sawdust/plank of wood parable
> I didn't exactly say what you quoted.
Well, someone said it. I figured it was worth responding to, so I just
responded to whoever said it.
> >> >>And Jesus said nothing particularly interesting.
> >
> >You might as well call Beethoven unoriginal because Gustav Mahler came
> >along later.
>
> Huh? I didn't say that, either...explain!
See my comment above. _Somebody_ said it.
> >> "Boring books with unhappy endings..." as Lemmy Kilmister put it. I
> >> agree!
> >Well, they weren't exactly meant as an entertaining afternoon
> diversion.
>
> No, they were meant to lay down laws of social control...BUT, most
> people now use religion as an entertaining afternoon diversion, anyway.
I suppose, at least regarding the institutional church--but then _I_ never
considered a worship service entertaining. But the people who wrote the
New Testament (at least) weren't exactly in a position to lay down "laws
of social control" (not that _some_ social control isn't necessary in the
first place). I think they must have gotten off a few paragraphs at a time
when they weren't trying to escape the Romans who wanted to feed them to
the lions or some such.
dannie hawkins
> I read Tolkien's criticisms
>of Nazis (all true, by the way!) in a biography, so my source was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OH!! thus spoke a holy thing!! HARK - IT- brings us the Truth at
last. I feel a great Need flowing over my body, I...I.. I must go and
drop to my knees and Pra.... Nooo, I think I have a need to Puke.
--
WAR
POB 65
FALLBROOK, CA 92088 usa
1-900-336-2020 ext.573 ($2 pr min. &10 max)
Kullervo
>You must have seen _The_Letters_Of_JRRT_, where he slams Hitler and the
>Nazis for just that. BTW, has no one in the metal scene noticed that
>Tolkien was an intensely devout Catholic? He'd be freaking if he knew
>about the phenomenon of people taking the names Burzum and Uruk-hai--or,
>reaching further back, Cirith Ungol (pronounced with a hard C, BTW)--for
>musical groups.
There are about 5000 more (I have a list somewhere), yeah it's all
crap.
>As for Grishnakh (sic), those who haven't read Tolkien
>might be interested to know that he's no one particularly
>special--certainly not a "count."
In an early interview he said BURZUM was a word in a language "forgotten
by men". Ha ha ha ha.
Orion Henry
>>> they twist once-proud myths to their own ends.
>>
>>musical groups. As for Grishnakh (sic), those who haven't read Tolkien
>>might be interested to know that he's no one particularly
>>special--certainly not a "count."
>
>recall where it came from. Now that I think about it...Tolkien would
He was an orc-chieftan, and a rather weak one at that.
>roll over in his grave at all these rip-off bands. Most of them most
>likely heard the term once, said "oooo, that sounds evil!" between
>joints and picked up a new name from there. I read Tolkien's criticisms
Very likely; he was a pretty pitiful character. There are plenty of
better choices.
>of Nazis (all true, by the way!) in a biography, so my source was
>indirect. Wasn't Grishnakh one of those Orcs that the Ents stomped into
>the ground in LOTR?
Well, close...he was actually riden into the ground by those fiesty
riders of Rohan, though it was more of an accident than actual
design (shows how pitiful a character he was...)
>people who never come into contact with members of any particular race
>or belief system are very likely to form ignorant, negative opinions of
>that group. Example: "All guys with long hair are drug addicts and/or
>losers." "All metal fans worship Satan." "Jews have horns and a tail
>and control the media." Fundies still spew the first two of these
>statements; the third was believed by many Europeans at the turn of the
>century.
Don't think it's gone away; check out Pit #15 for some fun
statements like "Bill Clinton is a Jew," "Your country [America] is
run by Jews" and yes, "the media is controled by Jews." Of course,
he also insinuates this is a bad thing. I don't give a shit who
runs the media, since I mostly ignore it.
> No, they were meant to lay down laws of social control...BUT, most
>people now use religion as an entertaining afternoon diversion, anyway.
Indeed. I went to a old friend's wedding the other day, in a (bleh)
church. Needless to say I was biting my lip during the "...and
these two people will grow in their love for god as well as with
each other, yadda yadda..." segment of the ceremony. The only thing
that kept me from laughing out loud was my friendship with the
bride, which I do value despite her being a Christian (largely
because she is one of the few I've ever gotten to discuss the topic
with me in a reasonable and intelligent manner, rather than "well,
you should just believe").
Kullervo
>While speaking of the orc-languages, he says:
>
>"But Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or
>things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy
>than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a
>closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same
>sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and
>repetitive with hatrred and contempt, too long removed from good to
>retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only
>the squalid sounds strong."
>
>I'd imagine he would refer to metal-types as "orc-minded", and in
>many cases he would be right, though most certainly not all.
>
and people who indulge in being rude to people who are interested in
comparative studies I hope.
Orion Henry
>> >>that equation, in and of itself, and I have told some of them so. As for
>> >>Lolki - he makes for a confused portrait of "Satan."
>>
>> J.R.R. Tolkien mentioned long ago how despicable such people were;
>> they twist once-proud myths to their own ends.
>
>Nazis for just that. BTW, has no one in the metal scene noticed that
>Tolkien was an intensely devout Catholic? He'd be freaking if he knew
Anyone who has read his works even half awake would realize this, I
would imagine.
>about the phenomenon of people taking the names Burzum and Uruk-hai--or,
>reaching further back, Cirith Ungol (pronounced with a hard C, BTW)--for
>musical groups. As for Grishnakh (sic), those who haven't read Tolkien
>might be interested to know that he's no one particularly
>special--certainly not a "count."
Well, Tolkien is best known for his cool names, so many people over
the years have drawn on him for this purpose only, ignoring the
actual character/location behind the name. But I agree the "Count"
thing is rather stupid sounding.
I am a great fan of Tolkien, though I find his attitude towards evil
rather amusing. For one thing, he draws _very_ strong lines between
good and evil; beings that are evil are practically inhuman, with
never any reason for living other than to cause pain and suffering
to anyone and everyone that wanders into their field of vision.
While speaking of the orc-languages, he says:
"But Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or
things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy
than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a
closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same
sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and
repetitive with hatrred and contempt, too long removed from good to
retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only
the squalid sounds strong."
I'd imagine he would refer to metal-types as "orc-minded", and in
many cases he would be right, though most certainly not all.
The funny thing is, I think the reason that Tolkien's evil
characters are so damn cool is that he despises them so. Evil
beings are to him to hideous and dirty that he describes them with a
foulness I don't think any of us who have a closer kinship with the
"dark side" (as it were) could manage.
Strangely enough, though, his good characters have no religion in
the sense of Christianity; they don't engage in pointless
self-debasing rituals or reciting hymns designed to make them think
in the right ways. They tend to be free-willed and independant,
especially the stronger characters (like Gandalf and Aragorn).
Somewhat of a conflict, it seems to me, with any religious beliefs
of Tolkien's. But I'm not sure where he stood with his personal
beliefs beyond his basic stance on good and evil, or how involved he
was with the "organized" part of Christianity. I have certainly
known people that consider themselves Christians who don't go to
church (though church-goers tend to shun these types as much, if not
more than, atheists).
Paul Davidson Jr.
Very thoughtful post, Orion!
Orion Henry wrote:
> I am a great fan of Tolkien, though I find his attitude towards evil
> rather amusing. For one thing, he draws _very_ strong lines between
> good and evil; beings that are evil are practically inhuman, with
> never any reason for living other than to cause pain and suffering
> to anyone and everyone that wanders into their field of vision.
> While speaking of the orc-languages, he says:
The only thing that comes to mind when reading this is Golom, the little
"frog" man from "the Hobbit." That character had a lot of depth as an evil
character... he had far more reason to live than to just cause pain and
suffering to anyone who came into his field of vision. In fact, I rather
liked Golom... he was the most human of all of the characters in Tolkien's
books. We all carry some hidden dark pain that drives us to act in the ways
that we do.
--
Walk in the Shadows and Dance in the Light!
Ljos Vindalf!
Paul Davidson Jr!
"Love is the Law... Love under Will!"
Terry L. Jones
writes:
>In an early interview he said BURZUM was a word in a language
"forgotten
>by men". Ha ha ha ha.
Translation: He made it up. Language and all.
Who listens to black metal for lyrical depth, anyway? Why bother;
"worship satan" over and over again is FAR too repetitive for any but
the most narrow mind.
-the white devil
Nigel Kay
> Grishnakh...I know that name sounds Tolkienesque, but I don't
> recall where it came from. Now that I think about it...
> ...Wasn't Grishnakh one of those Orcs that the Ents stomped into
> the ground in LOTR?
Yes, it was the name of one of the orcs. I doubt Vikernes had any real magical
or philosophical motive for calling himself that, it probably just sounded cool.
Don't you think it would have ruined his image if he called himself
Tom Bombadil?
--
Nigel Peter Kay
Ontario, Canada
<nk...@ftn.net>
Jeff Blanks
Henry) wrote:
> I am a great fan of Tolkien, though I find his attitude towards evil
> rather amusing. For one thing, he draws _very_ strong lines between
> good and evil; beings that are evil are practically inhuman, with
> never any reason for living other than to cause pain and suffering
> to anyone and everyone that wanders into their field of vision.
He did that largely for the purposes of the story. Someone once said that
TLOTR works well if seen as a "psychic journey," with each character or
set of characters possessing an opposite, the most blatant and stark
pairing being Frodo and Gollum. My appreciation of the book actually
deepens as I get to know it better. It might be a Truly Great Book after
all.
> While speaking of the orc-languages, he says:
>
> "But Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or
> things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy
> than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a
> closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same
> sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and
> repetitive with hatrred and contempt, too long removed from good to
> retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only
> the squalid sounds strong."
I'm quite familiar with it.
> I'd imagine he would refer to metal-types as "orc-minded", and in
> many cases he would be right, though most certainly not all.
Well, how do you fix that? He might point out, based on his letters, that:
1) this is what a society like ours has to expect (he had a great deal of
disdain for both drugs and the modern school system, which he felt talked
down to students too much), and
2) there's probably some good buried in there somewhere (he saw a good
deal of good in the hippie movement, for example).
> The funny thing is, I think the reason that Tolkien's evil
> characters are so damn cool is that he despises them so. Evil
> beings are to him so hideous and dirty that he describes them with a
> foulness I don't think any of us who have a closer kinship with the
> "dark side" (as it were) could manage.
It depends on what you mean by "evil" and "dark side." Most metal fans,
it seems to me, use these terms to denote behavior that is frowned on by
the rest of society, whether it's actually evil or not--in fact, they use
it _because_ the rest of society frowns on them, which means that both
sides are actually speaking the same language, so to speak. When Tolkien
says "evil," he means EVIL evil, as in ACTUALLY HURTING PEOPLE (and the
Earth) AND LIKING IT. For all that, I'm not sure there are actually that
many evil characters in TLOTR, and the good characters seem to understand
that all of the evil ones were good once, and hold out some hope for
redemption. None of them do, though Boromir, the warrior of Minas Tirith,
repents of his momentary fall into evil. So I don't think JRRT _despises_
his evil characters as such, though he allows his characters to fly off
the handle at them sometimes.
> Strangely enough, though, his good characters have no religion in
> the sense of Christianity; they don't engage in pointless
> self-debasing rituals or reciting hymns designed to make them think
> in the right ways.
I never considered the rituals of Christianity "self-debasing," but I
think I know what you mean. I don't go to church too often these days,
though.
> They tend to be free-willed and independant,
> especially the stronger characters (like Gandalf and Aragorn).
> Somewhat of a conflict, it seems to me, with any religious beliefs
> of Tolkien's.
Read _The_Letters_Of_J.R.R._Tolkien_ if you want Tolkien's opinions.
Better yet, read his books, especially the later volumes of
_The_History_Of_Middle-Earth_, a collection of previously unpublished
drafts, unfinished texts, and "technical" info, heavily annotated by his
son, Christopher.
> But I'm not sure where he stood with his personal
> beliefs beyond his basic stance on good and evil, or how involved he
> was with the "organized" part of Christianity.
He was an intensely devout Catholic. In fact, he once apparently said
that _lembas_ was inspired by the Communion wafer.
Terry L. Jones
jbl...@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) writes:
>
>In article <4cirbd$m...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>> writes:
>> >In an early interview he said BURZUM was a word in a language
>> >"forgotten by men". Ha ha ha ha. Translation: He made it up.
>> >Language and all.
>
>philological standpoint (not that Tolkien ever fully developed "the
>Black Speech," as he termed it, the language of the bad guys in
>_The_Lord_Of_The_Rings_).
I did not know this. Does this mean that Grishnackh equates himself
as being an orc?
the white devil
Jeff Blanks
Jeff Blanks
<pau...@norfolk.infi.net> wrote:
> Orion Henry wrote:
> > I am a great fan of Tolkien, though I find his attitude towards evil
> > rather amusing.
> character... he had far more reason to live than to just cause pain and
> suffering to anyone who came into his field of vision.
Well, to that extent, he wouldn't be evil! ;) If you go back and read
the book, though, Tolkien says (through his characters, of course) that
the Ring had become his sole reason for living, but that there was some
shred of the person he used to be that was starting to come out. It's a
sort of schizophrenia.
m.k.
The sequel to the Lord of the Rings
>that was begun just before the great man's untimely death was set in a
>Middle-Earth long after the departure of the elves and dwarves, etc and
>documented the arrival of a very evil monotheistic cult. It is a
tragedy
>he died.
>
>Kullervo.
>
Would any of you know wether Tolkien had any contact with the Society of
Light? (As an oxford don & friend of C.S. Lewis, he must most certainly
have known about it...).
Also, is there any documentation of this sequel?
M.K. (Z.M.A.)
Kullervo
>
>He was an intensely devout Catholic. In fact, he once apparently said
>that _lembas_ was inspired by the Communion wafer.
Maybe, but the dwarven equivalent of waybread, cram, is inspired by
something in Norse culture... I forget the details. When Tolkien started
giving away more of his sources, Eru Iluvatar turned out to be Jehovah
and Manwe turned out to be Woden. The sequel to the Lord of the Rings
Kullervo
>>
>Would any of you know wether Tolkien had any contact with the Society of
>Light? (As an oxford don & friend of C.S. Lewis, he must most certainly
>have known about it...).
>Also, is there any documentation of this sequel?
When I first heard about it (late 1992 or early 1993) there was none save
the original MS in the possession of CJRT. Doubtless it will be
published, maybe to those in the know (I'm NOT one of them) earlier, but
in the end in the History of Middle Earth series. It's an
untitled chapter at the most, unfortunately. I pray no ghost writer is
hired to do the job.
Kullervo.
Kullervo
>In article <4cirbd$m...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, tjo...@ix.netcom.com(Terry
>L. Jones ) wrote:
>
>> In <8205770...@gary.cursci.co.uk> Kullervo <ko...@cursci.co.uk>
>> writes:
>> >In an early interview he said BURZUM was a word in a language
>> >"forgotten by men".
Okay, I didn't want to keep this thread going but this is important. I
know very well that burz/um means darkness/the in Morbeth
("Blackspeech"), that's why I wrote...
>Ha ha ha ha.
Someone else wrote this.
>Translation: He made it up. Language
>and all.
>
>Not quite. The word is genuinely Tolkien's, and it does "work" from a
>philological standpoint (not that Tolkien ever fully developed "the Black
>Speech," as he termed it, the language of the bad guys in
>_The_Lord_Of_The_Rings_).
The latest on the Dvarg Vikernes front is that he killed Oystein Aarseth
in self-defence after he ran into the kitchen for a knife. How quickly
the stories change, eh?
Kullervo.
Orion Henry
>> rather amusing. For one thing, he draws _very_ strong lines between
>> good and evil; beings that are evil are practically inhuman, with
>> never any reason for living other than to cause pain and suffering
>> to anyone and everyone that wanders into their field of vision.
>
>He did that largely for the purposes of the story. Someone once said that
>TLOTR works well if seen as a "psychic journey," with each character or
>set of characters possessing an opposite, the most blatant and stark
>pairing being Frodo and Gollum. My appreciation of the book actually
I don't consider Gollum an "evil" character, though. When I say
evil I mean Morgoth, Sauron, the Nine, etc. Characters like Gollum
and Borimir are good to begin with, they are just corrupted by the
power and evil of the Ring.
>deepens as I get to know it better. It might be a Truly Great Book after
>all.
There is no doubt in my mind of this...
>> closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same
>> sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and
>> repetitive with hatrred and contempt, too long removed from good to
>> retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only
>> the squalid sounds strong."
>> I'd imagine he would refer to metal-types as "orc-minded", and in
>> many cases he would be right, though most certainly not all.
>
>Well, how do you fix that? He might point out, based on his letters, that:
>1) this is what a society like ours has to expect (he had a great deal of
>disdain for both drugs and the modern school system, which he felt talked
>down to students too much), and
>2) there's probably some good buried in there somewhere (he saw a good
>deal of good in the hippie movement, for example).
Yeah, I've known people who feel that there is at least a little bit
of good in everyone. Of course, I would say by the same tolken
(heh) that there is a little bit of evil in everyone, a tiny bit of
joy or sadistic pleasure that even the most monk-like people
entertain in the darkest recesses of their mind on occassion.
Tolkien's characters seem to have none of this: there is never any
doubt to the good characters as to what is right, and that there is
only one thing to do, given the options of right and wrong. When a
band of orcs slew Borimir and captured Merry and Pippin, there was
no doubt in the minds of any of the remaining three that they should
go after them, even though it was a suicide mission and both hobbits
were most likely already dead, because it was the "right" thing to
do.
>It depends on what you mean by "evil" and "dark side." Most metal fans,
>it seems to me, use these terms to denote behavior that is frowned on by
>the rest of society, whether it's actually evil or not--in fact, they use
>it _because_ the rest of society frowns on them, which means that both
>sides are actually speaking the same language, so to speak. When Tolkien
>says "evil," he means EVIL evil, as in ACTUALLY HURTING PEOPLE (and the
>Earth) AND LIKING IT. For all that, I'm not sure there are actually that
>many evil characters in TLOTR, and the good characters seem to understand
Yeah - the afforementioned Morgoth & crew, and orcs. Other than
that they are fairly few, and even fewer that are actually "seen" in
the book (ie Shelob).
>that all of the evil ones were good once, and hold out some hope for
>redemption. None of them do, though Boromir, the warrior of Minas Tirith,
>repents of his momentary fall into evil. So I don't think JRRT _despises_
>his evil characters as such, though he allows his characters to fly off
>the handle at them sometimes.
Right, as I said I don't think Borimir falls under the category of
evil.
>> Strangely enough, though, his good characters have no religion in
>> the sense of Christianity; they don't engage in pointless
>> self-debasing rituals or reciting hymns designed to make them think
>> in the right ways.
>
>I never considered the rituals of Christianity "self-debasing," but I
>think I know what you mean. I don't go to church too often these days,
>though.
Well, I'm not an expert on religion, but most prayers I've seen
involve getting on your knees. That falls under the category of
self-debasing for me.
>> They tend to be free-willed and independant,
>> especially the stronger characters (like Gandalf and Aragorn).
>> Somewhat of a conflict, it seems to me, with any religious beliefs
>> of Tolkien's.
>
>Read _The_Letters_Of_J.R.R._Tolkien_ if you want Tolkien's opinions.
>Better yet, read his books, especially the later volumes of
>_The_History_Of_Middle-Earth_, a collection of previously unpublished
>drafts, unfinished texts, and "technical" info, heavily annotated by his
>son, Christopher.
I may, someday. In one way, though, I'd just rather not know. I'd
just as soon let the five books stand on their own and not hear much
about Tolkien personally (especially given his religious bent) or
anything annalyzing the books, as that tends to ruin it for me.
>He was an intensely devout Catholic. In fact, he once apparently said
>that _lembas_ was inspired by the Communion wafer.
Well, that makes sense to me. The one thing that gets on my nerves
is the arogence of the elves. Namely in the way that all their stuff
kicks way more ass than it should - the cloaks, the rope, the
cookies that keep you going for three days, etc etc.
On the other hand, their stuff is just useful - stuff like morgul
weapons are a hell of a lot cooler, again for their evilness
(ironic...).
Kullervo
>I don't consider Gollum an "evil" character, though. When I say
>evil I mean Morgoth, Sauron, the Nine, etc. Characters like Gollum
>and Borimir are good to begin with, they are just corrupted by the
>power and evil of the Ring.
I may be wrong but I always got the impression that Smeagol had always
been a bit of an outcast in Fallohide society before he stole the
ring from Deagol and became Gollum.
>
>>deepens as I get to know it better. It might be a Truly Great Book after
>>all.
>
>There is no doubt in my mind of this...
Nor mine.
>>2) there's probably some good buried in there somewhere (he saw a good
>>deal of good in the hippie movement, for example).
But he got very pissed off when anyone suggested he had written the
lord... by smoking anything other than tobacco.
>
>Yeah, I've known people who feel that there is at least a little bit
>of good in everyone. Of course, I would say by the same tolken
>(heh) that there is a little bit of evil in everyone, a tiny bit of
>joy or sadistic pleasure that even the most monk-like people
>entertain in the darkest recesses of their mind on occassion.
>Tolkien's characters seem to have none of this: there is never any
>doubt to the good characters as to what is right, and that there is
>only one thing to do, given the options of right and wrong.
Well... I don't think that's true but I don't have the energy to go
and give lots of examples. I think it's subject. Aragorn comes
across as an arrogant bastard to me.
>
>I may, someday. In one way, though, I'd just rather not know. I'd
>just as soon let the five books stand on their own and not hear much
>about Tolkien personally (especially given his religious bent) or
>anything annalyzing the books, as that tends to ruin it for me.
While this sin't my attitude personally, I think it makes a lot of sense
to do so if, unlike me, curiosity about the drafts etc doesn't consume
you.
Kullervo.
Kullervo
>>>that was begun just before the great man's untimely death was set in
>>>a Middle-Earth long after the departure of the elves and dwarves, etc
>>>and documented the arrival of a very evil monotheistic cult. It is a
>>>tragedy he died.
>>>
>>>Kullervo.
I know he was an intensely devout Catholic and do not dispute this.
>
> I think it's safe to say that this "sequel" is bullshit.
I think it's safe to say you should calm down.
> For one
>thing, Tolkien when he died was still attempting to complete the
>Silmarillon.
As well as several lexicons of the Elvish languages, a complete rewrite
of the Hobbit, a version of the lord of the rings illustrated by the
author, an Old English version of the exploits of Eriol the Mariner...
Did you learn that when you were doing your term paper?
>For another, Tolkien AVOIDED religion in Lord of the
>Rings
But not in the Silmarillion, Akallabeth, downfall of Numenor (where the
Numenoreans stopped worshipping Eru and began to Worship Morgoth)... etc,
etc. Furthermore, Eriol the Mariner (hey, I had to find something
relevant for alt.religion.asatru) is later revealed as serving Woden.
> I've read FIVE biographies of
>Tolkien (had to analyze him for a term paper) and seen NO mention of
>such a sequel.
That's because this information was revealed at a meeting of the Tolkien
Society in 1992 by CJRT. I was not there - this is just what I was told
by someone else who was.
> Tolkien was concerned only with finishing the Silmarillon when he
>died.
See above.
>His son finished it;
No he didn't. His son went through all the existing MSS and collated
them into one volume with priority given to the most recent versions.
Whatever people may say about CJRT's "exploitativeness", he has had the
extreme good sense to NEVER do any ghost-writing.
> it first saw print several years after his
>death. Tolkien never worked on a sequel to the best of my knowledge
Which is obviously not great.
>(and the knowledge of his biographers, at least two of which spoke with
>Tolkien on a regular basis in order to profile his life).
>
>>Would any of you know wether Tolkien had any contact with the Society
>>of Light? (As an oxford don & friend of C.S. Lewis, he must most
>>certainly have known about it...).
>
> I don't know quite what that is. Tolkien stopped talking to C.S.
>Lewis around World War 2 (although Lewis wrote his eulogy years before
>Tolkien died, for some reason).
>
>>Also, is there any documentation of this sequel?
Not yet - I hope there will be. Probably as an appendix to a forthcoming
"History of Middle-Earth".
>
> No. This is clearly an attempt to alter the values of Tolkien to
>match the values of the person who concocted this story.
Do you mean me? I'm not altering Tolkien's values in any way.
Kullervo.
Jeff Blanks
> In article <8210965...@gary.cursci.co.uk> Kullervo,
> ko...@cursci.co.uk writes:
> >>
> >>He was an intensely devout Catholic.
>
> The sequel to the Lord of the Rings
> >that was begun just before the great man's untimely death was set in a
> >Middle-Earth long after the departure of the elves and dwarves, etc and
> >documented the arrival of a very evil monotheistic cult. It is a tragedy
> >he died.
> >
> >Kullervo.
What about all that unfinished _Silmarillion_ stuff he had, like an epic
poem telling the story of Beren and Luthien in detail, among others?
Certainly that stuff ought to have had priority over anything else.
> Would any of you know whether Tolkien had any contact with the Society of
> Light? (As an oxford don & friend of C.S. Lewis, he must most certainly
> have known about it...).
> Also, is there any documentation of this sequel?
Yes. It was to be called _The_New_Shadow_, and he wrote the fragment of
it that exists probably sometime in the early Sixties. He mentions it in
_The_Letters_Of_J.R.R._Tolkien_, where he says that he consciously
abandoned it because it would have been too conventional in form and too
"sinister and depressing" in content. "I could have written a 'thriller'
about the plot and its discovery and overthrow", he writes, "--but it
would be just that. Not worth doing." Earlier he writes, about his
exploring a fully human Middle-earth, "Since we are dealing with _Men_ it
is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable
feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good." To understand
Tolkien, it's necessary, I think, to understand that he really did
consider the good guys _cooler_ (not that that's a word he would have
used, of course) than the bad guys, not just more laudable. Take, for
example, Gandalf vs. Sauron. I know whose company I'd rather have (if
they actually existed). If it's any consolation, the fragment he wrote is
scheduled for publication before long--I'd say within the next year--as
part of the last volume of Christopher Tolkien's
_The_History_of_Middle-Earth_.
BTW, what is the Society of Light? And what would "Jack" Lewis'
connection with it have been?
Kullervo
>writes:
>>tjo...@ix.netcom.com(Terry L. Jones ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>In article <8210965...@gary.cursci.co.uk> Kullervo,
>>>>ko...@cursci.co.uk writes:
>>But not in the Silmarillion, Akallabeth, downfall of Numenor (where
>>the Numenoreans stopped worshipping Eru and began to Worship
>>Morgoth)... etc, etc. Furthermore, Eriol the Mariner (hey, I had to
>>find something relevant for alt.religion.asatru) is later revealed as
>>serving Woden.
>
> I know that. His religion, however, was distinctly Catholic... so
>why would he write about the arrival of an evil monotheistic cult?
I have no idea and I don't care. See my answer below to your question
about Tolkien's values.
>
>>> I've read FIVE biographies of
>>>Tolkien (had to analyze him for a term paper) and seen NO mention of
>>>such a sequel.
>>
>>That's because this information was revealed at a meeting of the
>>Tolkien Society in 1992 by CJRT. I was not there - this is just what
>>I was told by someone else who was.
>
> You're sure of this? Are any copies of this text available
>somewhere? I'll believe it when I see it...
Me too. I believe there's a recent post by someone else who knows more -
he mentions "A new shadow".
>
>
>>> Tolkien was concerned only with finishing the Silmarillon when he
>>>died.
>>
>>See above.
>
> Okay...I should've said "primarily" rather than "only". I still
>won't believe anything about this sequel until I see what little he
>wrote of it somewhere.
Me too.
>
>>>His son finished it;
>>
>>No he didn't. His son went through all the existing MSS and collated
>>them into one volume with priority given to the most recent versions.
>
> The difference being...?
That point was already answered, below:
>
>>Whatever people may say about CJRT's "exploitativeness", he has had
>>the extreme good sense to NEVER do any ghost-writing.
> Tolkien never worked on a sequel to the best of my knowledge
>>
>>Which is obviously not great.
>
> And here you counter with some friend of yours, who supposedly
>attended a meeting in 1992, where nearly twenty years after Tolkien's
>death they reveal a mysterious sequel that somehow escape five
>biographers and several literary critics. It's nice to know you have
>all the answers.
I don't. Never said I did.
>Now should I believe you?
It's not a question of belief. Either the "sequel" fragment will be
published or it won't.
>>>
>>>>Also, is there any documentation of this sequel?
>>
>>Not yet - I hope there will be. Probably as an appendix to a
>>forthcoming "History of Middle-Earth".
>
> What forthcoming book is this? I saw some book with that title in
>downtown Chicago last week.
Okay, look, I never meant to be rude ("bullshit" got me temporarily
riled) - this is just a discussion between two people who are obviously
both very admiring of Tolkien. Anyway, the "History of Middle Earth" is
a series of editions of all Tolkien's surviving works - drafts of
published works and unpublished, etc. It was on volume 7 when I last
looked (doubtless it's progressed further - volume 34 will probably be
Tolkien's shopping lists). No offence, but I'm surprised you didn't know
about it.
>
>>> No. This is clearly an attempt to alter the values of Tolkien to
>>>match the values of the person who concocted this story.
>>
>>Do you mean me? I'm not altering Tolkien's values in any way.
>
> So explain what this sequel says about Tolkien's values,
Why? Who gives a shit about Tolkien's values? If I found out that Tolkien
was a Nazi muslim paedophile I'd still read his books - they are great
literature. One analyst/critic has published a work where he says that
Bilbo's tunnel is vaginal and that the Shire is the womb. That IS
bullshit and I'm utterly uninterested in analyses of Tolkien's values.
> if it IS
>true. I doubt this because such an anti-religious theme seems
>completely out of place in any of Tolkien's works.
I never said it was anti-religious. MAYBE it's anti using religion for
EVIL ends?
>
> the white devil
By the way, did you take your monicker from DANZIG's "White devil rise"?
All the best,
Kullervo.
Kullervo
>In article <4crfml$q...@due.unit.no>, m.k. <z....@avh.unit.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <8210965...@gary.cursci.co.uk> Kullervo,
>> ko...@cursci.co.uk writes:
>>
>> >that was begun just before the great man's untimely death was set in a
>> >Middle-Earth long after the departure of the elves and dwarves, etc and
>> >documented the arrival of a very evil monotheistic cult. It is a tragedy
>> >he died.
>> >
>> >Kullervo.
>
>What about all that unfinished _Silmarillion_ stuff he had, like an epic
>poem telling the story of Beren and Luthien in detail, among others?
You might want to check out "The lays of Beleriand".
>> Also, is there any documentation of this sequel?
>
>Yes. It was to be called _The_New_Shadow_, and he wrote the fragment of
>it that exists probably sometime in the early Sixties. He mentions it in
>_The_Letters_Of_J.R.R._Tolkien_, where he says that he consciously
>abandoned it because it would have been too conventional in form and too
>"sinister and depressing" in content. "I could have written a 'thriller'
>about the plot and its discovery and overthrow", he writes, "--but it
>would be just that. Not worth doing."
Cool.
Thanks for the information.
Kullervo.
Jeff Blanks
<ko...@cursci.co.uk> wrote:
> >>2) there's probably some good buried in there somewhere (he saw a good
> >>deal of good in the hippie movement, for example).
>
> But he got very pissed off when anyone suggested he had written the
> lord... by smoking anything other than tobacco.
Well, that's one of the things he _didn't_ like. He simply noted (in a
1967 letter) that some of "the behavior of modern youth" was driven by a
rebellion against "regimentation" and "drabness" (evil stuff in Tolkien
tends to be very drab--nothing that comes from the bad guys in Tolkien
even looks cool, as far as I can tell), as well as "a sort of lurking
romantic longing for 'cavaliers'"; he considered these "wholly unallied
to the drugs and the cults of faineance [laziness] and filth."
> >Yeah, I've known people who feel that there is at least a little bit
> >of good in everyone. Of course, I would say by the same tolken
> >(heh) that there is a little bit of evil in everyone, a tiny bit of
> >joy or sadistic pleasure that even the most monk-like people
> >entertain in the darkest recesses of their mind on occassion.
> >Tolkien's characters seem to have none of this: there is never any
> >doubt to the good characters as to what is right, and that there is
> >only one thing to do, given the options of right and wrong.
Tolkien himself was fully aware of this situation. He wanted to create a
situation where right and wrong were more clearly defined, possibly to
make our understanding of them clearer. His idea was to have a
progression from the black-and-white of The Time Of Legends to the shades
of gray we have to deal with today. As for evil in the "good guys," try
_The_Silmarillion_. There's tons of it there. Knowing the background
serves somewhat to "humanize" the characters.
> Well... I don't think that's true but I don't have the energy to go
> and give lots of examples. I think it's subject. Aragorn comes
> across as an arrogant bastard to me.
Well, when you're THE KING, I guess you've got a right to be! ;)
John Nowakowski
Morgoth, what happened to Alatar and Pallando, what if the Mouth
survived. . . etc
Kullervo (ko...@cursci.co.uk) wrote:
Kullervo
>
>One word - MANOWAR.
(the sound of a thousand voices as one, crying "Hail, hail, hail").
And as I stood and looked on, I heard the armies of the world hail them
without end...
"Odhinn I await thee
your true son am I
I hail thee now as I die
I pledge thee my sword
and to no man I kneel
ours is the kingdom of steel."
________________________________________________________________
Actually, in terms of literature, I think MANOWAR (i.e. JdeM) are far
more into John "Frustrated teacher" Norman.
Hail and kill brother!
Kullervo
John Wagner
>-wintermute- <ggil...@post.its.mcw.edu> wrote:
>>Hey all you Tolkien fans, have any of you read the Robert Jordan books?
>
[snip, snip]
>... Jordan writes badly and is yet another
>bastard who has ripped Tolkien off. I once heard the only antiTolkien
>argument I could actually sympathise with and couldn't counter: "What I
>hate about Tolkien is the spawn of bad fantasy novels that are his
>legacy". Too right. Worse is that Jordan is earning more than Tolkien
>ever did. Difference is that in 100 years' time people will still be
>reading JRRT while Brookes, Williams, Jordan et al, will be long
>forgotten.
>
Agreed about Tolkien ripoffs, by all parties. But don't write
Jordan off completely. Most of his Conan books were very good,
certainly better than any of the other modern Conan writers I've
sampled.
--John
Jeff Blanks
Torkelsson) wrote:
> In article <4d87pd$n...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ohe...@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Orion
Henry) writes:
> >> I think it's subject. Aragorn comes across as an arrogant bastard to me.
> >Yes, and even more so the elves.
> I am rather surprised to hear that you consider the elves to be arrogant.
> I have always thought of them as the most tragic characters in Lords of the
> Ring.
Well, Tolkien apparently saw them both ways. In his letters, he cites
pride and a sort of lazy conservatism as the Elves' main foibles.
Jeff Blanks
(Jason P. Sorens) wrote:
> Jeff Blanks wrote the following:
> : In article <30EBD3...@norfolk.infi.net>, "Paul Davidson Jr." wrote:
> : > Orion Henry wrote:
> : > > I am a great fan of Tolkien, though I find his attitude towards evil
> : > > rather amusing.
> : > The only thing that comes to mind when reading this is Gollum, the little
> : > "frog" man from "the Hobbit." That character had a lot of depth as
an evil
> : > character... he had far more reason to live than to just cause pain and
> : > suffering to anyone who came into his field of vision.
> : Well, to that extent, he wouldn't be evil! ;)
> Hmm, I would disagree philosophically. To me, shortsighted selfishness
> is the essence of evil, which is epitomized by Gollum, who is consumed
> with lust for the Ring.
Well, sure, if you're saying that it's not necessary to be consciouly
dedicated to evil in order actually to be evil. (I guess I overstated
myself.) In fact, it's been conjectured that the human mind cannot
actively choose evil, because the human mind always thinks it's doing
ultimate good; that's why we need to watch ourselves and question our
motives and ethics on a regular basis.
Fa...@f195.n151.z1.fidonet.org
that captured the Hobbit & the Dwarves.. but I haven't read LOTR or "The
Hobbit" in awhile
Kullervo
jbl...@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) wrote:
>In article <4dpchj$n...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>jas...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason Posey ) wrote:
>> You have a very modern, very comfortable middle-class view of evil.
>
>This statement is obviously meant to be subtly insulting (or at the least
>haughtily condescending). What you mean is that I'm a softie ignoramus
>who _doesn't_know_about_real_life_. Let's hear _your_ view, bud.
>
>> >: ... it's been conjectured that the human mind cannot
>> >: actively choose evil, because the human mind always thinks it's doing
>> >: ultimate good;
>
>> I've done things I felt were evil. I knew that when I was going to do
>> them. I did them anyway. Your conjecture falls apart.
>
>Well, _why_? Were you faced with two evils? OTOH, it wasn't _my_
>conjecture (he said, cowering behind a metaphorical rock). I think,
>though, that it does hold up in most--or at the very least an awful lot
>of--cases.
>
>> >all evil arises from ignorance.
>>
>> Yup. Jeff Dahmer did what he did because he didn't know any better.
>
>Yup yourself. He rationalized. He took it to an insane degree, but
>that's exactly what he did. He was so far gone he couldn't see the evil
>in what he did--or else he chose to ignore it, defending it within his own
>mind as the sort of regrettable-but-necessary thing he "had to do" in
>order to keep from getting caught (the only "ultimate good" he saw).
Chewing the Fetus of Christ
>> the fake reality of the god of christianity ENSLAVER.
>
>You're _way_ late on this thread, Chris. Enough of us already know the
>true facts about this situation to produce a Net-wide guffaw at the
>spectacle of you putting your foot so firmly into your mouth.
you missed my point -- who gives a shit about the facts? he is
creating purely abstract art, and he doesn't need facts -- he needs pieces for
a mythology. did he entirely adopt tolkien? no, it's a big mix of shit -- the
cool things he found in evil, as he attempts to find a place for his basic
emotional outlook of hating all that is contentin in life. he's an intelligent
man, and i think he is being mocked by fools who think they have uncovered the
magic key to destroying his credibility. his use of other traditions in his
constantly evolving (into shit...) mythology are the process of an intelligent,
artistic mind.
so in the grand tradition of usenet
the bung of endless opines
'fuck you and your kin'
- sven
STORM THE WALLS OF HEAVEN
dethrone enslaver
|
END THE REIGN -|- OF THE WEAK
http://www.paranoia.com/~goat/altar/
Philip Wang
>>who gives a shit about the facts?
>
>newageism, historical revisionism (see below), etc.
Sometimes facts are kind of useful to have...but then every once in a while in
entertainment sometimes you need a suspension of disbelief otherwise everything
goes down the drain.
>
>> he is
>>creating purely abstract art,
>
>Define abstract art. It's not abstract at all.
>
The undulating repetitiveness of his riffs brings to my mind some of the
kind of music that a number of modern composers do - play a few bars worth
of notes over and over and over. This is accomplished by either tapes
recorded and spliced and all that or through computer sampling or some really
patient instrumentalists. But what makes a lot of them different from
Christian's music is that after a while, other composers tend to bring one
part of the undulation out of phase very slightly. Maybe slow down part of
the ensemble or something, or maybe speed it up. Christian doesn't do that,
and in the end you might as well be listening to the lights humming because
the lack of variation I think pretty much reduces it to that level. Then again
one can argue that all of this is done on purpose and by being such an
annoyance to many listeners except a select few, it is "evil" because a lot
of people don't like it and all that stuff. I've read his take on what he
thinks his music is, and as far as Burzum is concerned, I don't agree with
what he is trying to do. Basically he comes across to me as a lousy singer,
a lousy arranger, but a pretty decent riff writer. And for some strange
reason, when he writes music for Darkthrone, it is much better I think than
what he writes for himself. Oddly, the music is both characteristic of Burzum
and at the same time characteristic of Darkthrone.
> >he's an intelligent
>>man,
>
>Not intelligent enough to avoid falling for historical revisionism.
>
He does tend to contradict himself, even in the same interview a few questions
later, and even in interviews in which the interviewer is strongly biased
towards him. But then again could one consider that this is due to loss of
some communication due to language barrier? I find his lyrics in English at
least to lack some of the fluidity and depth of his fellow Norwegians. But then
I've heard from a friend of a friend who is fluent in Norwegian that his
own Norwegian isn't that hot either (unless he writes in that obscure dialect
that he claims to know?)
>>and i think he is being mocked by fools who think they have uncovered >the
>>magic key to destroying his credibility.
>
My take now on the situation is that these kids had a big fantasy world that
was fun and where there was music (the main thing) and mythology and lore all
based on history and their culture and the Count comes by, thinks this is a
major political movement, tries to take it over to be their leader, and finds
out it was just a lot of musicians trying to make a powerful music scene and
so now jumps ship after he basically sinks it himself.
Credibilit? Well, I think in ten years people won't be thinking of Hvis Lysett
Tar Oss or Filosofem when someone mentions "Count Grishnackh" but when someone
mentions any of the other band names their records will come to mind. I think
it is highly inappropriate that a musician not be so well known for his music
as he is for things he has done that were not music.
>The magic key is simply that he has swallowed a whole load of patheitc
>Nazi propaganda - I lost respect for him after that...
>
I never had much respect for him to begin with.
>det some en gang var...
>
eeeeeehhhh eeeeeeeeeeehhe aararrrrggghh eeeehh
MEGATON-MAN: "Look at them, helpless tender creatures, relying on me, waiting
for ME to make my move!"
(from below): "HEY, MOVE YOUR ASS, YOU FATHEAD!!!!!"
MEGATON-MAN: "It is a MANDATE! And I am DUTY-BOUND to OBEY!!!!"
Jay
and now as Dvarg. Which is it??? (Why I care I have absolutely no idea,
though.)
Chewing the Fetus of Christ
>>who gives a shit about the facts?
>
>This is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates makebelieve
>newageism, historical revisionism (see below), etc.
since it wasn't defined as an absolute, it could progenerate art or
even any of the perpetual fallacies you mention -- i stand in the abyss, where
nothing is defined, and my words can be lovers or venoms...
>> he is
>>creating purely abstract art,
>
>Define abstract art. It's not abstract at all.
music "to stimulate the fantasy of mortals" is not abstract art?
>Not intelligent enough to avoid falling for historical revisionism.
he is not his political views.
he is many things.
intelligence has little to do with politics,
as politics is unintelligent.
>The magic key is simply that he has swallowed a whole load of patheitc
>Nazi propaganda - I lost respect for him after that...
the nazis are no worse than the jews; have you lookd to israel lately?
the nazis are no worse than the amerikans...the brits...the afrikans...they
just articulated it in a more ambiguous, fear-invoking manner ...mostly because
of historical revisionism after the war.
i don't care for nazis, but i don't care for anyone who has any sort of
politic, whether they are p.c. ("damn redneck") liberals or ardent elitist
repulblican fascists ("nigger-loving leftists"). fuck all civilization, as its
precepts are weak.
JOIN US
WE ARE THE FUTURE
Kullervo
>I've heard him referred to as Christian,
He was born Kristian Vikernes. He anglicized it to Christian when he
was in the Norwegian death metal band OLD FUNERAL.
>as Varg (in the Brit-metal mags),
Varg means wolf in Norwegian and Swedish. He changed his name when he
returned to his BURZUM project after his previous death metal bands, OLD
FUNERAL and SATANEL, split up. This is the name he now uses, other than
the Tolkien nom de musique.
Actually it's pretty clever:
VARG
AMOR
ROMA
GRAV
Amor = love > Latin
Roma = Rome > Latin (for the Romans, the centre of the world?)
Grav = grave > Norwegian/Swedish
>and now as Dvarg.
My little joke. Varg means wolf in Norwegian. Dvarg means Dwarf. What
is my prolem with him? Simple - I'm really gutted that such a talented
guy also has to have a stupid Nazi agenda.
Kullervo.
Kullervo
>I hope somebody makes
>pirate/bootleg version of this, so that I could have the CD version
>and boycot Varg at the same time (hint!).
Well, this is exactly my attitude to Nazi music, much of which happens to
appeal to me on a purely musical level. I got the bootleg of Pa svarte
throner and copied Aske, although I had already bought Det some en gang
var, Hvis lyset tar oss and Burzum before I read his Nazi comments.
Being a music journalist it just so happens that I will be sent a promo
of Filosofem free.
Yippee...
Nuna buda fjord kabuda!
Drep Greven!
Kullervo
Lord Kittenslayer
> Basically he comes across to me as a lousy singer,
>a lousy arranger, but a pretty decent riff writer. And for some strange
>reason, when he writes music for Darkthrone, it is much better I think than
>what he writes for himself. Oddly, the music is both characteristic of Burzum
>and at the same time characteristic of Darkthrone.
Again, are you sure he even wrote the music for Darkthrone?
On the back of the CD it says "Lyrics:Varg", and Fenriz has always been known to
write all of the music for Darkthrone.
___________________________________________________________
__&__ From the desk of LORD KITTENSLAYER
/ \ ___________________________________________________________
| |
| (X)(X) "We wanna scare those who shouldn't be at our concerts,
C .---_) and they shall have to escape through the emergency exit
| |.___| with parts of their body missing, so we can have
| \__/ something to throw around."
/_____\
/_____/ \ - Dead, a.k.a. Pelle (R.I.P. 1991)
/ \ ___________________________________________________________
.kentilla.
> I read your post with acute interest, does this mean you are gay ?
>
hahahahahahaha!! Goat's getting the piss ripeed out of him by Jeff
Walker. Keep it up!!
Smutty.
--
Efilnikufesin...
o---------------------------------------------------------------------o
| "Euuuuugh, wraaaaaagh, aaaaaaaaah!!" |
| |
| - Obituary |
| |
| Mail to <ag...@coventry.ac.uk> |
o---------------------------------------------------------------------o
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DISCLAIMER : Sorry!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Philip Wang
>>a lousy arranger, but a pretty decent riff writer. And for some strange
>>reason, when he writes music for Darkthrone, it is much better I think than
>>what he writes for himself. Oddly, the music is both characteristic of Burzum
>>and at the same time characteristic of Darkthrone.
>
>Again, are you sure he even wrote the music for Darkthrone?
It looked like on the inside that it said "written by Count Grishnackh" and
I had taken that to mean that the music was also written by the Count. There
is a bit of a difference between the second half and the first half of the CD
(not necessarily enough to mean that there were two different people writing
each half, but that it is different and I didn't discount the possibility that
someone else wrote the second half in the style of the guy who wrote the first
half). I just interpreted what the CD inserts said as the Count wrote the
second half and Fenriz wrote the first half.
Anyways, either way, whether Fenriz or the Count wrote it, the second half does
have a bit of a Burzum type character in the composition (not in the way of
Hvis Lysett Tar Oss but more like older stuff and faster) - the Count had to
have been an influence since he and Fenriz had that "special relationship"
(whatever that means) that the Count mentioned in an interview.
So if you are right and the Count did not write the music, one can assume that
the track that the Count wrote on Panzerfaust is also lyrics: Varg / music:
Fenriz as well?
>
>On the back of the CD it says "Lyrics:Varg", and Fenriz has always been known to
>write all of the music for Darkthrone.
>
I had taken the "guest appearances" to include that in Darkthrone's case the
"guest" took part in writing some music as well. It's not that Transilvanian
Hunger is obviously Burzum style, it's just I heard a bit of a Burzum sound in
the album more so than in previous albums (which did not have Varg anywhere as
far as I can remember). Well, not sound, but just the way the guitar parts
were written.
Oh well, if he didn't write the music, he didn't. I'm not losing sleep over
this question.
"He stands...like some sort of...pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out
over the city he's sworn to...to stare out over...and it's evident...just by
looking at him...that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."
- The Tick
Darkening
[snip]
>
>Oh well, if he didn't write the music, he didn't. I'm not losing sleep over
>this question.
To throw my opinion in on this: I agree that there is a mvsical
difference between the first and second half of Transilvanian Hvnger...
Assvming Fenriz composed all the mvsic, the difference covld be dve to
the very different lyrics - Varg's lyrics might call for different (more
Bvrzvm-esqve) mvsic... Also, Fenriz tends to write a lot less words per
song than Varg, and yet the length of the tracks isn't all that affected
by that. Having fewer words per minvte might also affect the mvsic...
I like thinking abovt totally vnimportant things when I have
something to do...
- Darkening
Kullervo
Nagel (Fenriz) wrote all of Transylvanian Hunger and Panzerfaust. Half
the lyrics on both albums were written by Kristian Vikernes in Oslo
Landsfengsel and mailed to Gylve who fitted them to the music, which
shows in particular on Panzerfaust. End of debate.
Kullervo.
Satanyuppi
Chewing the Fetus of Christ
>> music "to stimulate the fantasy of mortals" is not abstract art?
>
if i interpret you correctly, that is my point.
>> he is not his political views.
>
>Whatever that means...
MAN
product thoughts
art spirituality
work politics
A LIFE
>> the nazis are no worse than the jews; have you lookd to israel lately?
>>the nazis are no worse than the amerikans...the brits...the afrikans...they
>>just articulated it in a more ambiguous, fear-invoking manner
>
>oh really?
>
>Sounds like David Irving to me "Dresden was as bad as the Holocaust".
>Can't argue with people who think like that I suppose. And then there's
>the question of "taking Satan's methods as one's own..."
i have no idea who david irving is, but i quote patton, war is hell.
all war is hell and if you won a war, you behaved like a fucker to do it. i
don't think it's wrong; i think however that politics is the last way to get
anything done ot benefit humans on this planet.
satan's methods are evident from his philosophy, which distributed can
be understood in individual ways, and thus from the individual philosophy would
come the methods. "taking satan's methods" would be meaningless.
- bolero
Kullervo
>
> i have no idea who david irving is, but i quote patton, war is hell.
>all war is hell and if you won a war, you behaved like a fucker to do it. i
>don't think it's wrong; i think however that politics is the last way to get
>anything done ot benefit humans on this planet.
> satan's methods are evident from his philosophy, which distributed can
>be understood in individual ways, and thus from the individual philosophy would
>come the methods. "taking satan's methods" would be meaningless.
"t.s.'s m." is an expression and not a reference to Satanism.
Kullervo.
Kullervo
med...@garnet.berkeley.edu
Kullervo <ko...@cursci.co.uk> wrote:
>v15...@cc.tut.fi (Ville Vainio) wrote:
>Well, this is exactly my attitude to Nazi music, much of which happens to
>appeal to me on a purely musical level. I got the bootleg of Pa svarte
>throner and copied Aske, although I had already bought Det some en gang
>var, Hvis lyset tar oss and Burzum before I read his Nazi comments.
>Being a music journalist it just so happens that I will be sent a promo
>of Filosofem free.
Naturally this is none of my goddamn business :-b, but I'm gonna comment
anyway. I find this attitude extremely irritating. Why should an artist
have to be some social activist too? And why judge an artist on the
basis of his ideology? When you buy a CD, you're paying for the music;
whatever the people who get the money spend it on is their business. I
am equally irritated by people who won't give money to the homeless
because they might spend it on booze or drugs. If you don't want to
give money to the homeless that's fine, but if the reason you give is
the above one I think it's pretty stupid. What if they DO spend it
that way? It's really none of your business; everyone has the right
to go to hell in their own way. As far as nazis go -- personally, I
am favor of diversity. And when I say that, I REALLY mean it -- I'm
not just in favor of having several different kinds of people who I
agree with, I also want to have people around who I don't agree with.
That's called tolerance. The more different ideologies & lifestyles
we have around, the better off we are IMO. If you're going to judge
nazis, why stop there? Why not judge moslems, and homosexuals, and
the pope? And if you want to eliminate all ideas that you don't like,
how does that make you such a desireable individual?
--medusa
Jay
Reap ) wrote:
> I think the homeless are a bunch of losers......we should build
> concentration camps to kill the homeless...I'd pay to see that.
I'm sure someone would pay to see _you_ in there, too. And what of the
kids? You can't blame _them_. Or is this just the way you indulge your
power fantasies and I shouldn't take any of this seriously?
> I understand how you (Medusa) feel about Varg, but I (and some others)
> feel the same way about your hopelessly liberal-scumbag attitude.
> WHY help the homeless?
At least help the ones who can be helped and are willing to give back as
they've been given (I know it's unpleasant admitting there are people like
that out there, :/ but give it a try).
> If we feed everyone who is starving...EVERYONE
> would die in 50-100 years or less! Fact!!!
Things can change. Besides, I'm not even sure you're right. OTOH, this
probably just has to do with your stupid power fantasies again (I have
them too, in my own way, but I at least have the decency not to be proud
of them).
> So why not keep the food and
> other limited resources for the upperclasses so they can continute to
> breed higher breeds?
Oh, I see. People with more money are just obviously better than everyone
else right on its face. I guess you count yourself as a member of those
"upper classes."
> You need a dose of reality,dear......you;ve been
> watching too many Brady Bunch and Beaver re-runs.\--Blakkr
_You_ need to start thinking a little more. You seem to live in mortal
fear of being called "unrealistic."
Kullervo
bla...@ix.netcom.com(Scott A. Reap ) wrote:
>In <4f0ggo$b...@agate.berkeley.edu> med...@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
>writes:
> I think the homeless are a bunch of losers......we should build
>concentration camps to kill the homeless...I'd pay to see that.I
>understand how you (Medusa) feel about Varg,but I (and some others)
>feel the same way about your hopelessly liberal-scumbag attitude.
>WHY help the homeless? If we feed everyone who is starving...EVERYONE
>would die in 50-100 years or less! Fact!!! So why not keep the food and
>other limited resources for the upperclasses so they can continute to
>breed higher breeds? You need a dose of reality,dear......you;ve been
Kullervo
>In article <8225780...@gary.cursci.co.uk>,
>Kullervo <ko...@cursci.co.uk> wrote:
>>v15...@cc.tut.fi (Ville Vainio) wrote:
>
>>Well, this is exactly my attitude to Nazi music, much of which happens to
>>appeal to me on a purely musical level. I got the bootleg of Pa svarte
>>throner and copied Aske, although I had already bought Det some en gang
>>var, Hvis lyset tar oss and Burzum before I read his Nazi comments.
>>Being a music journalist it just so happens that I will be sent a promo
>>of Filosofem free.
>
>
>Naturally this is none of my goddamn business :-b,
It was posted publically - everyone is welcome to comment.
> but I'm gonna comment
>anyway. I find this attitude extremely irritating. Why should an artist
>have to be some social activist too?
When did I say he should be a "social activist"?
> And why judge an artist on the
>basis of his ideology?
I don't judge his art (which is awesome) but I judge him morally.
>When you buy a CD, you're paying for the music;
Shit, and here I was keeping only the boxes and staring at them for hours
on end.
>whatever the people who get the money spend it on is their business. I
>am equally irritated by people who won't give money to the homeless
>because they might spend it on booze or drugs.
This is a different matter altogether.
>If you don't want to
>give money to the homeless that's fine,
So it must be fine for me not to pay for Nazi CDs. I also happen to
like the music of SKREWDRIVER, though I've never bought anything by
them.
>but if the reason you give is
>the above one I think it's pretty stupid.
Why?
> What if they DO spend it
>that way? It's really none of your business;
But it is my business what CDs I buy.
>everyone has the right
>to go to hell in their own way.
Unless they hurt others doing it.
> As far as nazis go -- personally, I
>am favor of diversity.
They're not.
> And when I say that, I REALLY mean it
Because you can afford to. Tolerance of, for example Nazis, is easy
when you're not a Jewish child scared of the bullies who hang out
outside the school gates every evening to "mug a jew".
>-- I'm
>not just in favor of having several different kinds of people who I
>agree with, I also want to have people around who I don't agree with.
Whatever...
>That's called tolerance.
But this is not tolerance:
"Jews? Crush them, gas them, burn them".
- K. Vikernes.
> The more different ideologies & lifestyles
>we have around, the better off we are IMO. If you're going to judge
>nazis, why stop there?
I don't.
> Why not judge moslems,
I do.
> and homosexuals, and
>the pope?
I do.
> And if you want to eliminate all ideas that you don't like,
>how does that make you such a desireable individual?
In what way am I eliminating Vikernes' ideas by not sponsoring him? You
have jumped to the conclusion that I believe Nazis should be persecuted.
Believe it or not, I don't (unless it is legal persecution for actual
criminal activity). I am perfectly within my rights not to buy his CDs
because I don't like the Norwegian milkmaid blowing a trumpet on the
album "Filosofem"... so to I reserve the right not to give money to a
follower of David Irving.
Kullervo.
>
>--medusa
>
>
Chewing the Fetus of Christ
>But this is not tolerance:
>
>"Jews? Crush them, gas them, burn them".
> - K. Vikernes.
the problem i find with the above is that it is politics from someone
who resents the machine of politics and all thought that is linear,
quantitative, confined and conclusion-based; he has drifted from artistic
observation into an area where any artistic soul is lost, and consequently he
has entirely inverted himself to the doctrine of christianity.
however, i don't think criticizing him or not buying his albums because
he's a nazi necessarily does anything either. the music is not nazi, nor is
the message within the material -- thus it is not a tolerance issue, but a
selfview issue. fuck all politics -- that is the root badness.
- sven
Jeff
Ville Vainio
med...@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
[to Kullervo]
>OK: what I say does make sense unless you are determined to misunderstand.
>I don't think it's very difficult to see what I'm getting at here: I am
>saying that
>2) You have the perfect right to boycott anything you like. But I am
> expressing here the opinion that it's pretty skeevy to not pay an
> artist for his music if you are acquiring the music anyway just
> because you don't like his ideology. To me, this is like saying
> that it's ok to steal from a jew because you hate them.
Maybe it just makes one feel better? Maybe some people could sleep
their nights better knowing that they don't support activity that they
find stupid? And is there some compelling force that says you have to
pay for everything you enjoy? Capitalism is a model of economy, not a
law of nature.
--
Ville Vainio - v15...@cc.tut.fi \./ Nothing is true => \./
http://proffa.cc.tut.fi/~v153286 _._ everything is permitted \./
'Grab the golden rope and climb the imaginary walls of your thoughts
You may fall but at least you'll have tried...' - Septic Flesh
med...@garnet.berkeley.edu
Ville Vainio <v15...@cc.tut.fi> wrote:
>med...@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>[to Kullervo]
>>OK: what I say does make sense unless you are determined to misunderstand.
>>I don't think it's very difficult to see what I'm getting at here: I am
>>saying that
>>2) You have the perfect right to boycott anything you like. But I am
>> expressing here the opinion that it's pretty skeevy to not pay an
>> artist for his music if you are acquiring the music anyway just
>> because you don't like his ideology. To me, this is like saying
>> that it's ok to steal from a jew because you hate them.
>Maybe it just makes one feel better? Maybe some people could sleep
>their nights better knowing that they don't support activity that they
>find stupid? And is there some compelling force that says you have to
>pay for everything you enjoy? Capitalism is a model of economy, not a
>law of nature.
>Ville Vainio - v15...@cc.tut.fi \./ Nothing is true => \./
>http://proffa.cc.tut.fi/~v153286 _._ everything is permitted \./
> 'Grab the golden rope and climb the imaginary walls of your thoughts
> You may fall but at least you'll have tried...' - Septic Flesh
I agree with you completely, as long as you admit that it's okay to
steal from some one, which I guess I do. But to be completely
consistent here, you will have to also concede the right of a
KKK dude to rob a black shopkeeper because he doesn't want his money
to go towards equal rights for black people; and the right of some
one to rob a jewish doctor because he doesn't want his money to go
to someone who might perform circumcisions; etc etc etc. The main
point I am making here is that some one's disgust for one ideology
could be translated into any ideology; in other words, if you admit
that it's ok to steal in order to make you feel better or because
you don't like the person you're stealing from, then you have to admit
anyone's right to steal for the same reason. That goes for nazis who
steal from jews as well as those who steal from nazis. Me, I see
nothing wrong with theft in an absolute sense, but I think there are
serious logistic flaws to saying it's okay to steal as long as you
don't like the ideology of the person you are stealing from.
--medusa
Benjamin C. Rice
med...@garnet.berkeley.edu () wrote:
>a nazi/he beats his wife/he may be a pedophile" etc. The point is that
>an artist's personality or ideology, whether they seem good or bad, is
>utterly irrelevant to the quality of music he produces or whether you
>like it.
That is true. But BUYING an album of theirs and supporting them with your
money is another matter entirely.
>>> When you buy a CD, you're paying for the music;
The money goes into the hands (and therefore supports) the PERSON who is
responsible for the music.
Ville Vainio
>could be translated into any ideology; in other words, if you admit
>that it's ok to steal in order to make you feel better or because
>you don't like the person you're stealing from, then you have to admit
>anyone's right to steal for the same reason. That goes for nazis who
>steal from jews as well as those who steal from nazis. Me, I see
>nothing wrong with theft in an absolute sense, but I think there are
>serious logistic flaws to saying it's okay to steal as long as you
>don't like the ideology of the person you are stealing from.
Eh? I seriously don't admit the right of other people to do the
things you said, because I just think they are wrong. In perfect
world everybody would have the right to draw their own moral
conclusions, and I wouldn't object to that. Unfortunately the world
and society is imperfect, people are stupid and ignorance dominates.
Therefore, we have to cope with it (well, not necessarily), and
develop moral codes that are logically flawed. Moral and logics don't
mix, anyway. Some world views are worse than others (again because
the world is imperfect), and I don't feel need to approve all of them.
It's ok if you support pedophilia, KFS, necrophilia, devil
worshipping, crack cocaine or suicide, no matter how absurd, but if
your views are based on herd mentality (eg. xianity), I wouldn't
approve your ideas. Being a part of machine doesn't necessarily bring
you the ultimate spiritual fullfillment.
Support the "x... [D-I]........"! (in imperfect world, honesty isn't
absolute).
--
Thomas Melaniphy
Why should he change for you? Because you are too stupid to comprehend
it? By the way, "pretensious" is not a word in the English language,
moron. Practice what you preach
Thomas
Scott A. Reap
>Jeff wrote:
>>
>> Try speaking english you cunt instead of your pretensious
driffle....
>
>your pretentious drivel."
>
>See how much better it looks when not typed with your toes? Now go
and
>wash those fingers (we KNOW where they've been!) and try again.
>
>Sigrun
You both suck.What is indtead? You mean instead,you two should hook
up,make a cute couple....
blakkr
Gregg Bender
>>Try speaking english you cunt instead of your
>>pretensious driffle....
Why should he change for you? Because you are
too stupid to comprehend it? By the way, "pretensious"
is not a word in the English language, moron. Practice
what you preach
---8<---end-quote---8<---
More than likely a typo, since pretentious *is* a word.
-Gregg
Chewing the Fetus of Christ
>>>> When you buy a CD, you're paying for the music;
>
>The money goes into the hands (and therefore supports) the PERSON who is
>responsible for the music.
sure, but does the money go to support the ideology? it goes to
support the art. if the artist chooses to be a shithead after that, it's on
his/her karma, so why care?
- goat
Scott A. Reap
Read this.
Goat says (in his signature thingie); END THE REIGN OF THE WEAK.
In the above posting,he says "his or her karma."
GOAT IS A BLOODY HYPOCRITE!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon
> Read this.
>Goat says (in his signature thingie); END THE REIGN OF THE WEAK.
>In the above posting,he says "his or her karma."
>GOAT IS A BLOODY HYPOCRITE!!!
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I don't think he meant it in the western Wiccan sense. When *I* say
Karma I mean how my personality effects my environment and how my
environment effects my personality. This can lead to a viscous daownward
spiral called samsara, if the effects are negative. But in an enriched
environment the effects of one's karma can lead to almost perpetual joy.
This is part of what LaVey is talking about with avoiding the
Demoralization Process and living in total environments.
Of course, the term has been stolen by those who need a beliefe in a
supernatural punisher to scrouge their enemies, much like Xians believe
that all the people they dislike are going to suffer in Hell. But I do
not mean this, nor does I suspect Mr. Goat.
________________________________________________________________________
"I have lived a thousand years, and I have done a million murders. A mad
animal. Man is a mad animal." Peter Wies, "Marat/Sade."
Pastor of Muppets
> Read this.
>Goat says (in his signature thingie); END THE REIGN OF THE WEAK.
>In the above posting,he says "his or her karma."
>GOAT IS A BLOODY HYPOCRITE!!!
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, he hates the weak, but by his own words he proves he's IS the
weak... what a poser. Karma and christianity are the same thing, it's
called superstition
tick-tock-tick-tock-tick..........
Dick Eney
Scott A. Reap <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <0099E309...@pomona.edu> cbl...@pomona.edu ("Chewing the Fetus
>of Christ") writes:
>>
>>>>>> When you buy a CD, you're paying for the music;
>>>
>>>The money goes into the hands (and therefore supports) the PERSON who
>is
>>>responsible for the music.
>>
>> sure, but does the money go to support the ideology? it goes to
>>support the art. if the artist chooses to be a shithead after that,
>it's on
>>his/her karma, so why care?
>>
Same as the drug lords use their profits to build themselves mansions
full of gawdawful kitsch and parks with statues like the stuff you see at
Disneyland. ("Support artistic taste -- don't do Coke!" Hey, I'm
surprised the DEA hasn't thought of that slogan...)
|----------Dick Eney (dick...@access.digex.net)----------|
|If you think the system isn't working, ask someone who is|
|---------------------------------------------------------|
Scott A. Reap
writes:
>med...@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>
>>could be translated into any ideology; in other words, if you admit
>>that it's ok to steal in order to make you feel better or because
>>you don't like the person you're stealing from, then you have to
admit
>>anyone's right to steal for the same reason. That goes for nazis who
>>steal from jews as well as those who steal from nazis. Me, I see
>>nothing wrong with theft in an absolute sense, but I think there are
>>serious logistic flaws to saying it's okay to steal as long as you
>>don't like the ideology of the person you are stealing from.
>
Why don't you come to my apartment and see how many "rights" my
"might" and I along with my trusty sword will make you if you try to
steal from me you slime-ball,have-not,whinebag!
blakkr
med...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>>med...@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
<sigh> every time I accidentally read a post from this shitlicker, I
can't help but feel that the nazis have a good point about restrictive
breeding...certainly, at the very least, swine should not be permitted
to breed with cockroaches, as his case unfortunately proves. Perhaps
if you didn't play with your "sword" (or, with more verisimilitude, your
"penknife") so much you would have time to squeeze those noxious boils
on your ass, my friend. Without these speech impediments, you might
actually say something which, if not worth hearing, at least would not
constitute the verbal diarrhea which is the trademark of your posts.
You must understand that I cannot come and visit your apartment, as
it is not my wont to hang out in sewers, although I realize that the
fumes do get one high; and there is no point in my trying to rob you,
as I have no pressing need for sticky "Jugs" magazines or a GI Joe
collection at this time. However, I will keep you and your "sword"
in mind, and the next time some one asks me where to find a Peewee
Herman doll, I will send them to you.
--medusa