Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

white power metal????

1 view

Skip to first unread message

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98

> > I agree. I personally have roots in old metal and punk genres, so the
> > white supremacy aspect of BM is very disturbing to me. Not shocking
> > though, just frustrating, because I thought the movements of punk had
> > some effect on metal. Guess not....
>
> right wing influence? not at all shocking, just unfortunate & typical.
>
> the punk/hardcore movement has had profound effects on metal, and vice
> versa.. 'blast beats' have their modern history in Repulsion ->
> Napalm Death in the metal circles, and via old scandinavian
> hardcore (kangcore).

I seem to recall hardcore bands being much more into fascism when I was
younger and have not noticed that many fascist types in metal until the
recent resurgence of clones of the masters of the genre. There's an
important distinction in that some music, e.g. "white power metal," exists
only to spread a political reality, where much of the foundational membership
of black metal did not believe in politics and sought to reaffirm a spiritual
bond with their race (in countries predominantly of that race for 1000 years
or more). As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
against their race.

666 DEATH METAL 666 "The basic nova mechanism is very simple: 666
BLACK METAL 666 Always create as many insoluble conflicts 666 SPEED METAL
666 as possible and always aggravate existing 666 GRIND CORE 666
conflicts--This is done by dumping life forms 666 www.evilmusic.com 666
with incompatible conditions of existence on 666666666 reviews/info 666666666
the same planet...to create and aggravate the 666666666 www.kcuf.org
666666666 conflicts that lead to the explosion of a 666 www.anus.com/hsc
666 planet that is to nova." | SUPPORT THE 666 metal is life 666 - W.S.
Burroughs HEIL |JUDEO-CHRISTIAN <http://www.evilmusic.com/> ~!~
<http://www.anus.com/> SATAN| HOLOCAUST

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98

Let's get out of the mindfuck from the rest of our species instead and affirm
several things:

1) Self determination.
2) Speech and freedom rights.
3) Ability of nations to choose racial purity.
4) Destruction of Judeo-Christianity and other religions based on commodity.
5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.
6) Overthrow of control.

Any nation can have its land; let's just not enslave them. It is fairer to
admit racial distance than to cram us together in a hatebox; I believe we can
work together even if apart, appreciating our differences rather than being so
afraid we have to integrate them.

Shalom88 from Israel? Now I've seen it all...

In article <3604DA22...@nkongzimba.co.il>,
Shalom88 <shal...@nkongzimba.co.il> wrote:
> Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
> >
> > Paul Wilbur wrote:
> > >
> > > On 18 Sep 1998, Xhorder wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >1.Enslaved
> > > > >2.Unanimated
> > > > >3.Burzum
> > > > >4.Einherjer
> > > > >5.Thorr's Hammer
> > > >
> > > > Unanimated isn't white metal (nor are the other bands).. it's not even
viking
> > > > metal...
> > > >
> > > > That guy in the recordstore doesn't know what he is talking about...
> > > If "white metal" is used to define "Aryan metal" then I believe Burzum
> > > fits this catagory.
> >
> > Varg Vikernes has contradicted himself so many times I don't believe a
> > *single* thing he says.
> >
> > Let the music speak for itself.
> >
> > He now calls metal "nigger music", including his own,
>
> So let's all be niggers, and be fucking proud of it!!!!! salaam
> aleikum!!!

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98

> > What I have noticed is that most of the racist posts seem to come from
> > overseas
> > (Europe) and I would think people close to Germany would remember exactly
> > who fucked Nazism was.
>
> Have you ever thought that maybe that is why we have seen both sides of the
> thing and can think about these things clearly without being affected by
> hysterical propaganda ?

There's nothing wrong with wanting one side of the Judeo-Christian equation to
leave your country, knowing that the other side will soon follow as the nation
grows stronger.

Also, America is where the term "white power" was coined and where racism has
come to equal economic competition taken to frustration, where 200 years of
slavery was justified by its financial expediency... so I wouldn't give shit
to our European brethren, or anyone with a well-thought opinion (of any
nature). As scientists, we have to accept that anything _might_ be true - and
not necessarily in the political sense, but in a sense where there are truths
and beauties in most things, some of which are still relevant...

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

Jeff Holt

unread,

Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98

As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
> those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
> support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
> against their race.

So let me get this straight: you are willing to support racism in
another country on the basis that it would be racist not to do so?
Something's wrong here . . .

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98

> Let's get out of the mindfuck from the rest of our species instead and affirm
> several things:
>
> 1) Self determination.

That's fine, as long as yours does not interfere with mine. That would
cause war.

> 2) Speech and freedom rights.

Definately! And the freedom to disagree and stand in opposition to what
anyone feels is "wrong".

> 3) Ability of nations to choose racial purity.

Nope. Usually a "nation" makes a decision based on majority, and the
majority isn't always right (pardon the pun).

> 4) Destruction of Judeo-Christianity and other religions based on
commodity.

No again. If somebody wants to worship a chicken, that is their right.
Just as you should be able to worship satan. Explain how J-C is based on
commodity.

> 5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.

What? But give a nation (state) your "#3"? Revolution is good, but now you
are contradicting yourself.

> 6) Overthrow of control.

"They" only have control if you give it to them, but if "control" allows
your "freedom of speech" as in #2 then I am for it. I wouldn't want a
government to have the power to take away freedom.>

> Any nation can have its land; let's just not enslave them. It is fairer to
> admit racial distance than to cram us together in a hatebox; I believe we can
> work together even if apart, appreciating our differences rather than being so
> afraid we have to integrate them.

Agreed, mostly. The theory is that integration creates understanding,
which isn't always true. Nice theory though.>

Paul

> Shalom88 from Israel? Now I've seen it all...
>

> 666 DEATH METAL 666 "The basic nova mechanism is very simple: 666
> BLACK METAL 666 Always create as many insoluble conflicts 666 SPEED METAL
> 666 as possible and always aggravate existing 666 GRIND CORE 666
> conflicts--This is done by dumping life forms 666 www.evilmusic.com 666
> with incompatible conditions of existence on 666666666 reviews/info 666666666
> the same planet...to create and aggravate the 666666666 www.kcuf.org
> 666666666 conflicts that lead to the explosion of a 666 www.anus.com/hsc
> 666 planet that is to nova." | SUPPORT THE 666 metal is life 666 - W.S.
> Burroughs HEIL |JUDEO-CHRISTIAN <http://www.evilmusic.com/> ~!~
> <http://www.anus.com/> SATAN| HOLOCAUST
>
>

> In article <3604DA22...@nkongzimba.co.il>,
> Shalom88 <shal...@nkongzimba.co.il> wrote:
> > Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Wilbur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 18 Sep 1998, Xhorder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >1.Enslaved
> > > > > >2.Unanimated
> > > > > >3.Burzum
> > > > > >4.Einherjer
> > > > > >5.Thorr's Hammer
> > > > >
> > > > > Unanimated isn't white metal (nor are the other bands).. it's not even
> viking
> > > > > metal...
> > > > >
> > > > > That guy in the recordstore doesn't know what he is talking about...
> > > > If "white metal" is used to define "Aryan metal" then I believe Burzum
> > > > fits this catagory.
> > >
> > > Varg Vikernes has contradicted himself so many times I don't believe a
> > > *single* thing he says.
> > >
> > > Let the music speak for itself.
> > >
> > > He now calls metal "nigger music", including his own,
> >
> > So let's all be niggers, and be fucking proud of it!!!!! salaam
> > aleikum!!!
> >
>

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:19:50 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>There's an
>important distinction in that some music, e.g. "white power metal," exists
>only to spread a political reality, where much of the foundational membership
>of black metal did not believe in politics and sought to reaffirm a spiritual
>bond with their race (in countries predominantly of that race for 1000 years
>or more).

agree, but no comment on the wisdom or logic base behind that purpose.

still, (very) valid music.

>As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
>those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
>support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
>against their race.

and yet then, in your next post, we find this:

>1) Self determination.

>2) Speech and freedom rights.

>5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.

>6) Overthrow of control.

i see a bit of a contradiction. or did i miss something?

any group should be able to say: "we're taking X area for ourselves,
where Y principles must be respected" - provided that X is a "fair"
(pretend it's not an arbitrary word) choice.

also, provided that X isnt already inhabited by people who dont
believe in Y.

...or do you not support principle 1) that you mentioned before?

(note that self-determinism and self-determination seem to be
different, from where i'm standing)

-Daemonic

"We have no dreams at all or interesting ones.
We should learn to be awake in the same way - not
at all or in an interesting manner."
-Nietzsche

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:39:52 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>Let's get out of the mindfuck from the rest of our species instead and affirm
>several things:
>

>1) Self determination.
>2) Speech and freedom rights.

>3) Ability of nations to choose racial purity.

>4) Destruction of Judeo-Christianity and other religions based on commodity.

>5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.
>6) Overthrow of control.
>

>Any nation can have its land; let's just not enslave them. It is fairer to
>admit racial distance than to cram us together in a hatebox; I believe we can
>work together even if apart, appreciating our differences rather than being so
>afraid we have to integrate them.

so, you believe in a deterministic factor (race) as exerting a bigger
influence on the definition of a person (definition of multiple people
yield compatibilities/lack of) then their wills and beliefs?

yours is relief for a symptom, not a sickness. soon the body dies
because the disease destroys it - silently, with no other symptoms to
hint at it's presence.

disease: noted. a new suggestion for a solution is possible; seize the
opportunity, if you can.

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98

> Free speech as long as you agree with it is only an illusion; if you
> support free speech then act likewise, dammit!

We are all pro-free speech Annatar, no one has posted otherwise. You seem
to only get defensive when we disagree with you. That should be your
right, but don't accuse us of trying to limit you saying what you feel
like saying. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think both you and I are
willing to go to war to protect each others "rights". As long as someone
posts racist shit, I will stand in opposition. That's my right, as it is
for them to post racist babble. I would rather people were just more
honest about which way they lean when it comes to their beliefs.
Paul

> >
-- > Annatar Gorthaur, Darkfriend Trollsbane
a.k.a. Maarten de Jong > ICQ 3836817 e-mail: maar...@lx.student.wau.nl
> "My sinful glare at nothing holds thoughts of death behind it
> Skeletons in my mind commence tearing at my sanity
> Vessels in my brain carry death until my birth
> Come and die with me forever
> Share insanity"
>
> -- Slayer - Postmortem
>
>

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

Jeff Holt wrote:
>
> As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
> > those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
> > support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
> > against their race.
>

> So let me get this straight: you are willing to support racism in
> another country on the basis that it would be racist not to do so?
> Something's wrong here . . .

"wrong" is only an aesthetic principle of _yours_ and not necessarily of
the people you are discussing with now.

Free speech as long as you agree with it is only an illusion; if you
support free speech then act likewise, dammit!

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> Let's get out of the mindfuck from the rest of our species instead and affirm
> several things:
>
> 1) Self determination.
> 2) Speech and freedom rights.
> 3) Ability of nations to choose racial purity.

By what means?

> 4) Destruction of Judeo-Christianity and other religions based on commodity.

Rather: hailing the deviant!
Freedom of speech of course... watch your point #2!

> 5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.

But what about *your* ideal of state then? Rather:
5) Extremely critical attitude towards whatever form of state, always
igniting discussion and supporting of the flame of renewal!

> 6) Overthrow of control.

Depends on what level of control...

I agree...

> Shalom88 from Israel? Now I've seen it all...

Yes, let him explain! Why the "Shalom", or why the "88"?

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

> >>As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
> >> those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
> >> support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
> >> against their race.
>

> If those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, do
> you also support their right to use force to exclude other races?
>
> How about the gas chamber?
>
> Sound good?
>
> Was Mengele your grandfather?

Couldn't post an argument without a slander, could you? Attempting to group
those who support unorthodox arguments with the worst deeds of similar
thinkers only proves that you are a dogmatist who cannot escape the aesthetic
of stereotype. And for that, you are the greater fool!

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

EVIL UNLEASHED

> >There's an
> >important distinction in that some music, e.g. "white power metal," exists
> >only to spread a political reality, where much of the foundational membership
> >of black metal did not believe in politics and sought to reaffirm a spiritual
> >bond with their race (in countries predominantly of that race for 1000 years
> >or more).
>
> agree, but no comment on the wisdom or logic base behind that purpose.

Might as well comment.

> still, (very) valid music.

All noise is valid music; whether it's valid art is for those who want to draw
the line. I can only explain where it's coherent, and leave validity to the
Judeo-Christians, straight-edgers, white power negro-killers and other
linear dogmatists.

> >As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
> >those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
> >support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
> >against their race.
>

> and yet then, in your next post, we find this:
>

> >1) Self determination.
> >2) Speech and freedom rights.

> >5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.

> >6) Overthrow of control.
>
> i see a bit of a contradiction. or did i miss something?

You missed that self-determination does not include the right to live
anywhere - it means you have the right to be free, but with the knowledge
that that may not include infringing upon other cultures, e.g. living in
Norway if you're a Judeo-Christian. There's a huge world out there!

Also, if one interprets ultramodernism somewhat correctly, one sees how
Hitler's revolution was very anti-state in its approach toward the boundaries
of politics and philosophy: it became a personal, almost religious, quest if
one sought to understand it. And the leaders of that regime acted in accord
with that sacrament.

> any group should be able to say: "we're taking X area for ourselves,
> where Y principles must be respected" - provided that X is a "fair"
> (pretend it's not an arbitrary word) choice.
>
> also, provided that X isnt already inhabited by people who dont
> believe in Y.
>
> ...or do you not support principle 1) that you mentioned before?

I support self-determination, especially for ethnic groups. Nords in
Scandinavia, Jews in Israel (well - wherever wants them), Christians in -
well, wherever wants them, again.

> (note that self-determinism and self-determination seem to be
> different, from where i'm standing)

Very much so - determinism is very linear.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

EVIL UNLEASHED

> >Let's get out of the mindfuck from the rest of our species instead and affirm
> >several things:
> >

> >1) Self determination.
> >2) Speech and freedom rights.

> >3) Ability of nations to choose racial purity.

> >4) Destruction of Judeo-Christianity and other religions based on commodity.

> >5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.
> >6) Overthrow of control.
> >

> >Any nation can have its land; let's just not enslave them. It is fairer to
> >admit racial distance than to cram us together in a hatebox; I believe we can
> >work together even if apart, appreciating our differences rather than being
so
> >afraid we have to integrate them.
>

> so, you believe in a deterministic factor (race) as exerting a bigger
> influence on the definition of a person (definition of multiple people
> yield compatibilities/lack of) then their wills and beliefs?

Where the hell did you get that from? Judeo-Christianity isn't about race,
but freedom is about allowing some if they wish to keep their gene pools
distinct, regardless of their ideas. Freedom is freedom, for everyone.

> yours is relief for a symptom, not a sickness. soon the body dies
> because the disease destroys it - silently, with no other symptoms to
> hint at it's presence.
>
> disease: noted. a new suggestion for a solution is possible; seize the
> opportunity, if you can.

I have: universal freedom and self-determination, and an inspiration outside
of Judeo-Christian thought. This includes not chasing devils like Nazism,
admitting and admiring the interconnectedness of the universe and placing
trust in the beauty that arises everywhere - even in the seemingly "ugly" or
"destructive" - to bring complexity and further layering of
interconnectedness to the systemic anti-hierarchy that is the structure of
our universe. This includes faith and compassion for all, and respect for
those who wish to stay apart from the manifestation of the disease that is
Judeo-Christianity. J-C is not the end-all be-all of human sickness, only a
very visible front - and in stepping around it to reveal the beauty inherent
in a multitude of seemingly conflicting things, I am demonstrating a way
around the mindfuck of human fear.

(This is Satanism, This is Nihilism, This is Buddhism, This is even encoded
in Judaism, but even more, it's obvious from watching the world move.
Because it's dressed in an upside-down cross, a swastika and a marijuana leaf
at the same time have no effect on its relevance or universality.)

And what're you doing?

HEIL SATAN

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:17:14 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>EVIL UNLEASHED
>
>> >There's an
>> >important distinction in that some music, e.g. "white power metal," exists
>> >only to spread a political reality, where much of the foundational membership
>> >of black metal did not believe in politics and sought to reaffirm a spiritual
>> >bond with their race (in countries predominantly of that race for 1000 years
>> >or more).
>>
>> agree, but no comment on the wisdom or logic base behind that purpose.
>
>Might as well comment.

race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
is trivialized in comparison. which do you think would be bigger? -
the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
same species?

would affirming a "spiritual bond" with the former negate the purpose
of being part of the latter? especially seeing as how the latter isnt
referenced at all?

however, the reason i didnt originally comment is because that's not
the point i was trying to make.

>> still, (very) valid music.
>
>All noise is valid music;

back to this. :) however, i think this is a simple definition problem
we have; if you dare trust my memory, last time it seemed as we ended
up arguing that semantic issue.

>whether it's valid art is for those who want to draw
>the line. I can only explain where it's coherent, and leave validity to the
>Judeo-Christians, straight-edgers, white power negro-killers and other
>linear dogmatists.

that sounds a bit silly to me - what do you think i mean when i say
"valid"?

>> >As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
>> >those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
>> >support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
>> >against their race.
>>
>> and yet then, in your next post, we find this:
>>

>> >1) Self determination.
>> >2) Speech and freedom rights.

>> >5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.
>> >6) Overthrow of control.
>>

>> i see a bit of a contradiction. or did i miss something?
>
>You missed that self-determination does not include the right to live
>anywhere - it means you have the right to be free, but with the knowledge
>that that may not include infringing upon other cultures, e.g. living in
>Norway if you're a Judeo-Christian. There's a huge world out there!

if people were to agree, "we should have X country given to Y people",
and repeat the process for each people, that would be agreeable, if
perhaps stupid in my opinion. it emphasises self-determination - the
people who it involves map out their own path in beliefs that they're
doing something positive (in theory) for all involved, because all
involved want this "positive" thing done. forcibly uprooting people
and conforming them to your opinion on the issue is not a solution
that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a
step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?

...so, how many norwegians _really_ want a country without christians?
varg talks about "reclaiming his ancient heritage" - implying that
christian thought has so permeated the nation that most people end up
believing and siding with it. if so many people believe in it, that
says that most dont believe in a "racially defined nation" with
odinists running amok...right?

some reference material cites some interesting figures; a bit old in
cases, perhaps, but i dont expect that this sort of thing could change
so drastically (especially given the natural increase rate which i
cited as well):

norway:

religious affiliation (1980): lutheran 87.9%, nonreligious 3.2%, other
8.9%

ethnic composition (by country of citizenship, 1991): norway 96.6%,
denmark 0.4%, sweden 0.3%, united kingdom 0.3%, pakistan 0.3%, united
states 0.2%, vietnam 0.2%, other 1.7%.

natural increase rate per 1,000 population (1991): 3.8 (world avg.
17.2)

sweden:

religious affiliation (1991): church of sweden 88.9%, roman catholic
1.7%, pentecostal 1.1%, other 8.3%.

ethnic composition (1991): swedish 90.8%, finnish 2.5%, other 8.3%.

natural increase rate per 1,000 population (1991): 3.3

finland:

religious affiliation (1990): evangelical lutheran 88.1%, finnish
(greek) orthodox 1.1%, nonaffiliated 9.9%, other 0.9%.

linguistic composition (1991): finnish 93.5%, swedish 5.9%, other 0.6%

a lot of the figures arent common denominators; for instance,
ethnicity and citizenship arent directly related. however, we percieve
something very definite here; the people of norway - all of
scandinavia, even - live in what seems to already be a "racially
defined area". past that, somehow i doubt removing christian thought
is the goal of a majority there...seeing as how most of them (~90%)
are christians. where are the true unholy vikings to replace them?

>Also, if one interprets ultramodernism somewhat correctly, one sees how
>Hitler's revolution was very anti-state in its approach toward the boundaries
>of politics and philosophy: it became a personal, almost religious, quest if
>one sought to understand it. And the leaders of that regime acted in accord
>with that sacrament.

this is not my field of expertise; i'll leave this to someone else who
has definitive information to agree with or contest. however, i _do_
know that, ideologically, nazi germany was against everything i (and
many others here) believe in - censorship of art and unfounded bigotry
against race (...and more!) dont seem like really good ideas to anyone
who values progression in the sense of progressing to something new
and of higher intelligence then back.

(and yes, the doings of nazi germany were both bigoted and unfounded
in that - unless you'd like to explain how gays, for instance, are
part of the "religious tribe" you spoke of before)

>> any group should be able to say: "we're taking X area for ourselves,
>> where Y principles must be respected" - provided that X is a "fair"
>> (pretend it's not an arbitrary word) choice.
>>
>> also, provided that X isnt already inhabited by people who dont
>> believe in Y.
>>
>> ...or do you not support principle 1) that you mentioned before?
>
>I support self-determination, especially for ethnic groups. Nords in
>Scandinavia, Jews in Israel (well - wherever wants them), Christians in -
>well, wherever wants them, again.

so, back to the case of scandinavia, what do you suggest is to be done
with the huge majority of christians who live there already? did i
mention the words "huge majority"?

it seems to me like you're proposing a solution for a problem that
doesnt exist. a small group wants to keep their gene pools "pure"
(!!), for whatever reason or nonreason they have - let them. if
there's enough of them, no problem - and if there isnt, it's the fault
of no one. segregating an area who's inhabitants dont want it is
disrespectful, and more importantly, anti-self determination.

funny you mention ethnic groups. "jew" connotates ethnicity, yet you
vehemently affirm that you use it to mean simply a follower of
judalism. rereading that last paragraph, it seems you've run into a
contradiction - there's really no way that could be your intent here.
which is it?

sto...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

In article <34c7905c...@news.mindspring.com>,
yog_s...@juno.com (Ninnghizhidda) wrote:

> some reference material cites some interesting figures; a bit old in
> cases, perhaps, but i dont expect that this sort of thing could change
> so drastically (especially given the natural increase rate which i
> cited as well):
>
> norway:
>
> religious affiliation (1980): lutheran 87.9%, nonreligious 3.2%, other
> 8.9%
>
> ethnic composition (by country of citizenship, 1991): norway 96.6%,
> denmark 0.4%, sweden 0.3%, united kingdom 0.3%, pakistan 0.3%, united
> states 0.2%, vietnam 0.2%, other 1.7%.
>
> natural increase rate per 1,000 population (1991): 3.8 (world avg.
> 17.2)
>
> sweden:
>
> religious affiliation (1991): church of sweden 88.9%, roman catholic
> 1.7%, pentecostal 1.1%, other 8.3%.

I just wanted to point out that when someone is born in Sweden, he
automatically becomes a member of the church. I don't know how it
will be now when the state and church become two different entities.
I know that people here are not very religious, they mainly stay
with the church because of "tradition" and the fact they have to be
paying members to be married (or buried) in a church.

John.

>
> -Daemonic
>
> "We have no dreams at all or interesting ones.
> We should learn to be awake in the same way - not
> at all or in an interesting manner."
> -Nietzsche
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

myles robert hamilton

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 02:17:14 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> >EVIL UNLEASHED
> >
> >> >There's an
> >> >important distinction in that some music, e.g. "white power metal," exists
> >> >only to spread a political reality, where much of the foundational membership
> >> >of black metal did not believe in politics and sought to reaffirm a spiritual
> >> >bond with their race (in countries predominantly of that race for 1000 years
> >> >or more).
> >>
> >> agree, but no comment on the wisdom or logic base behind that purpose.
> >
> >Might as well comment.
>
> race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
> that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
> is trivialized in comparison. which do you think would be bigger? -
> the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
> same species?
>

I agree. I'm actually a bit baffled that a.n.u.s. speaks out
against the commodity view of reality (establishing universal valuative
criteria for objects based upon surface characteristics, while ignoring
the actual substance of those objects), yet has no problem with a race
wanting to keep itself "pure" for the sake of being pure.

>
> that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a
> step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
> basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?

I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
"might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.

Blessed are the Weak
Blessed are the Sick
Blessed are the Poor in spirit....

Even their savior was depicted as calm and passive, accepting his own
brutal death before he would allow himself to resort to violence.

The reason why god is "supreme" is to allow the weak ones feelings
of vengeful satisfaction after they recieve a good ass kicking...cause
hey, "I might have just got my face pounded in by that guy, but he's going
to hell cause my omnipotent god is now pissed at him..so who's laughing
now?"

>
> >Also, if one interprets ultramodernism somewhat correctly, one sees how
> >Hitler's revolution was very anti-state in its approach toward the boundaries
> >of politics and philosophy: it became a personal, almost religious, quest if
> >one sought to understand it. And the leaders of that regime acted in accord
> >with that sacrament.

"anti-state"?????? He built a big, powerful, scarry-fucking
machine (tm)!! All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
gassed.

He constructed a polity, not an spiritual ideal. He murdered his
opposition, and reduced personal freedoms to an all time low.

Melvin Slundersloth

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:22 -0500, myles robert hamilton
<mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:

>> that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a
>> step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
>> basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?
>

> I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
>"might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.
>
>Blessed are the Weak
>Blessed are the Sick
>Blessed are the Poor in spirit....

it's somewhat of a contradicting issue. if you ask a christian, why he
believes in his religion, most will cite fear ("you're going to
hell!") as a motivation. fear of who? - the stronger being. "i am a
vengeful god" - he also has the power to _be_ vengeful.

i agree that christianity attempts to appeal to the "weaker" man...but
by siding the "stronger" man with them. god destroyed sodom and
gomorrah because he didnt like how people wre acting. god sent plagues
against egypt because he didnt like how people were acting. god
destroyed the world with a flood because he didnt like how people were
acting. god threw adam out of the garden because he didnt like the way
he was acting. god threatened to disown (destroy?) the hebrew people
while moses was recieving the 10 commandments because he didnt like
the way they were acting. is there a similarity becoming evident...?

>Even their savior was depicted as calm and passive, accepting his own
>brutal death before he would allow himself to resort to violence.

partial disagreement. the logic in christianity gets even fuzzier,
here, but it seems that god "sent" jesus for the specific purpose of
being killed, so it's roots are the stronger person willing something.
many points in the religion may contradict ("forgive them, father, for
they know not what they do"), but the general feeling is IMO what i
stated above.

> The reason why god is "supreme" is to allow the weak ones feelings
>of vengeful satisfaction after they recieve a good ass kicking...cause
>hey, "I might have just got my face pounded in by that guy, but he's going
>to hell cause my omnipotent god is now pissed at him..so who's laughing
>now?"

"my god is bigger then your god"
"my god is more powerful then your god"
"my god will kick your ass just because he can"

are you sure you disagree with me here? christians are motivated with
fear - fear of might.

myles robert hamilton

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:22 -0500, myles robert hamilton
> <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>

> >> that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a
> >> step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
> >> basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?
> >

> > I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
> >"might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.
> >
> >Blessed are the Weak
> >Blessed are the Sick
> >Blessed are the Poor in spirit....
>
> it's somewhat of a contradicting issue. if you ask a christian, why he
> believes in his religion, most will cite fear ("you're going to
> hell!") as a motivation. fear of who? - the stronger being. "i am a
> vengeful god" - he also has the power to _be_ vengeful.

I am speaking more about the ideals held by the religion. The
fear factor is definately there, but the heart of Christian idealogy was
manufactured from the bitterness of the weak.
Though god, specifically the Old Testament God, was vengeful, I do
not see that as a sign that Christianity endorses "Might is right" as a
value judgement. All that means is that God is powerful, not that human
beings should openly show their strength. The content of most scripture
says the opposite.

>
> i agree that christianity attempts to appeal to the "weaker" man...but
> by siding the "stronger" man with them.

of course, but the strength is in _GOD_ not the Individual..the
individual's might is not right..GOd's is.

god destroyed sodom and
> gomorrah because he didnt like how people wre acting. god sent plagues
> against egypt because he didnt like how people were acting. god
> destroyed the world with a flood because he didnt like how people were
> acting. god threw adam out of the garden because he didnt like the way
> he was acting. god threatened to disown (destroy?) the hebrew people
> while moses was recieving the 10 commandments because he didnt like
> the way they were acting. is there a similarity becoming evident...?

That's all the Old Testement God...who was a little more agressive
than his new Testament Counterpart.

At any rate, these passages are just meant to show God's power,
and thus don't directly relate to what human behavior should be composed
of (except that it better be what God wants). "Might is right" is a claim
that seeks to establish how human beings are supposed to act, not Gods.
God would be "right" even if he were a pussy, cause he's God. His
strength isn't a justification for his actions, its just a way to flex his
muscles and let people know who's in charge.

>
> >Even their savior was depicted as calm and passive, accepting his own
> >brutal death before he would allow himself to resort to violence.
>
> partial disagreement. the logic in christianity gets even fuzzier,
> here,

Logic? In Christianity? Where?

but it seems that god "sent" jesus for the specific purpose of
> being killed, so it's roots are the stronger person willing something.
> many points in the religion may contradict ("forgive them, father, for
> they know not what they do"), but the general feeling is IMO what i
> stated above.

Even so, the point is that reward waits for you beyond...

The crucifixtion is the model of Christian thought. "Let those who are
stronger than you push you around on _Earth_, cause you'll be better
off later in the _afterlife_. Its good to be meek...Yaweh really digs
that shit. Look, even jesus was meek, and he had the power to kick some
major ass!" And because the average Christian does not have the powers of
Jesus (david Koresh excluded), they must "choose" to be meek

>
> > The reason why god is "supreme" is to allow the weak ones feelings
> >of vengeful satisfaction after they recieve a good ass kicking...cause
> >hey, "I might have just got my face pounded in by that guy, but he's going
> >to hell cause my omnipotent god is now pissed at him..so who's laughing
> >now?"
>
> "my god is bigger then your god"
> "my god is more powerful then your god"

"My God works for Kragin Federal Bank"

Melvin Slundersloth

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:48:16 -0500, myles robert hamilton
<mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:07:22 -0500, myles robert hamilton
>> <mrha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>

>> >> that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a
>> >> step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
>> >> basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?
>> >

>> > I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
>> >"might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.
>> >
>> >Blessed are the Weak
>> >Blessed are the Sick
>> >Blessed are the Poor in spirit....
>>
>> it's somewhat of a contradicting issue. if you ask a christian, why he
>> believes in his religion, most will cite fear ("you're going to
>> hell!") as a motivation. fear of who? - the stronger being. "i am a
>> vengeful god" - he also has the power to _be_ vengeful.
>
> I am speaking more about the ideals held by the religion. The
>fear factor is definately there, but the heart of Christian idealogy was
>manufactured from the bitterness of the weak.

the weak, intending to do what? give themselves strength via god?
sounds reasonable to me.

> Though god, specifically the Old Testament God, was vengeful, I do
>not see that as a sign that Christianity endorses "Might is right" as a
>value judgement. All that means is that God is powerful, not that human
>beings should openly show their strength. The content of most scripture
>says the opposite.

i agree that "might is right" isnt a value judgment open to humans
under christianity. however, that's not the point - it's not open to
humans because humans dont have undeniably superior power.

under a nonchristian atheistic interpretation (as was what i was
originally talking about), "might" can be undeniably proved - "if i
can do it, i'm stronger".

it's the same philosophy, here; just different applications. which was
my point.

>> i agree that christianity attempts to appeal to the "weaker" man...but
>> by siding the "stronger" man with them.
>
>of course, but the strength is in _GOD_ not the Individual..the
>individual's might is not right..GOd's is.

the individual's might is not right because the individual's might is
not supreme.

as an interesting example, what do you think would happen if satan was
portrayed as _more powerful_ then god? if satan could destroy god at
any time he wanted?

> god destroyed sodom and
>> gomorrah because he didnt like how people wre acting. god sent plagues
>> against egypt because he didnt like how people were acting. god
>> destroyed the world with a flood because he didnt like how people were
>> acting. god threw adam out of the garden because he didnt like the way
>> he was acting. god threatened to disown (destroy?) the hebrew people
>> while moses was recieving the 10 commandments because he didnt like
>> the way they were acting. is there a similarity becoming evident...?
>
> That's all the Old Testement God...who was a little more agressive
>than his new Testament Counterpart.

from the christian perspective, it's the same god talking - so perhaps
this is not an important difference.

> At any rate, these passages are just meant to show God's power,

well, now...

>and thus don't directly relate to what human behavior should be composed
>of (except that it better be what God wants).

agree.

>"Might is right" is a claim
>that seeks to establish how human beings are supposed to act, not Gods.

where'd you get that from?

"might is right" seems to establish how _all_ beings are supposed to
act. god is the strongest - god can direct how everyone else acts
because otherwise, they get thunderbolts thrown at them. god has might
- christians dont, so they listen.

>God would be "right" even if he were a pussy, cause he's God.

would he be god, if he were a pussy?

>His
>strength isn't a justification for his actions, its just a way to flex his
>muscles and let people know who's in charge.

i dont see the difference. god's justification is as such: "i'm god".
god is god because he is "almighty".

almighty --> god
god --> right
almighty --> right

>> >Even their savior was depicted as calm and passive, accepting his own
>> >brutal death before he would allow himself to resort to violence.
>>
>> partial disagreement. the logic in christianity gets even fuzzier,
>> here,
>
> Logic? In Christianity? Where?

*looks around*

well, in my defense, i did say fuzzy. :)

> but it seems that god "sent" jesus for the specific purpose of
>> being killed, so it's roots are the stronger person willing something.
>> many points in the religion may contradict ("forgive them, father, for
>> they know not what they do"), but the general feeling is IMO what i
>> stated above.
>
> Even so, the point is that reward waits for you beyond...

given to you by the mighty being. agree, but i'm not sure what it
proves for you, except that we still agree on this portion.

>> > The reason why god is "supreme" is to allow the weak ones feelings
>> >of vengeful satisfaction after they recieve a good ass kicking...cause
>> >hey, "I might have just got my face pounded in by that guy, but he's going
>> >to hell cause my omnipotent god is now pissed at him..so who's laughing
>> >now?"
>>
>> "my god is bigger then your god"
>> "my god is more powerful then your god"
>
> "My God works for Kragin Federal Bank"

"my god's dick can be any size he wants!"

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/23/98

Paul Wilbur wrote:
>
> > Free speech as long as you agree with it is only an illusion; if you
> > support free speech then act likewise, dammit!
>

> We are all pro-free speech Annatar, no one has posted otherwise. You seem
> to only get defensive when we disagree with you. That should be your
> right, but don't accuse us of trying to limit you saying what you feel
> like saying. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think both you and I are
> willing to go to war to protect each others "rights". As long as someone
> posts racist shit, I will stand in opposition. That's my right, as it is
> for them to post racist babble. I would rather people were just more
> honest about which way they lean when it comes to their beliefs.

True maybe, but the nazi paranoia is striking... Supporting free speech,
yet immediately calling other people 'nazi' when they're only expressing
admiration for the nazi's creativity in killing seems rather
contradictory to me.

> Paul

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/23/98

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:22:13 GMT, fuck_yo...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>Exactly. There is nothing more sheeplike than retaliation against
>demonization with demonization; it's pathetic. Hence we see in response to
>the reason of National Socialist a good grouping of people who feel power and
>righteousness in their condemnation of "this clear evil," yet none of them
>can explain why it's different than any other goverment

do you assert that national socialism is equivolent to "any other
government"?

...just as bad as "any other government"?

>or why what the Nazis
>did is "wrong."

that's a misleading statement, e.g.:

do you believe in evolution?

well, since you cant prove it as the reason for our existance, it must
be untrue.

you should know not to apply words like "right" and "wrong".

>Note how carefully they've attempted to stereotype me as a gas-oven feeding
>"racist" when all I've said is (1) I support the rights of others to create
>racially-defined groups (e.g. you don't have to breed outside of you family,
>and you don't have to invite J000000Z onto you farm) and

so, hold on a second. there's an inconsistancy in your logic.

you support "the judeo-christian holocaust" on the grounds that "this
promotes x and y bad things" etc. right?

why dont you therefore support the like for those who believe in
keeping their race pure ("pure" having silly "positive" values
attatched to it - see myles' post) for promoting z (or, dare i say x
or y?) bad things?

your position is in err and illogical - if you believe in
self-determination then you believe in the rights of anyone to do
anything regardless of percieved intelligence. christians can put on
their yokes and pull jesus' chariot while inbreeding with only their
kind of the other side of the world - they dont concern you.

for the record, there is a massive difference between "get these
fucking people out of my country" and "stop these fucking people from
breathing _MY_ oxygen" - so the rebuttal "i dont want them enslaving
me" isnt valid based on how you've defined your position previously.

>(2) National
>Socialism is more advanced than current government, politics and cultural
>coercion and is in the long run a better future for humanity.

maybe, maybe not. but on a more important topic, who cares? i can come
up with better ideals to strive for, and off of the top of my head.
why choose the lesser of two evils when you can come up with something
that surpasses them?

>Notice how
>much they've read into what I've said - without a clue as to what I am
>saying!

a couple of responses to what you've said have been perfectly valid.
grouping those valid responses with "them" is a bit dishonest, dont
you think?

>Let's put it this way - who'd you rather be killed by? Stalin - who is the
>more likely case, since his victim list ran 30 million (or you could
>substitute Tojo), or Hitler?

this is a rather silly question. which would you rather be, a slave or
an amoeba?

>Nazis:
> - First Ecological Policy.
> - First Worker's Rights Policy.
> - Fought Wars to Accomplish Great Things.
> - Declared Their Intention, and Fulfilled it.
>
>Other Governments:
> - Lie, Cheat, and Steal for Power Only
> - Rip off the worker and his family
> - Require obedience through semi-voluntary coercion
> - Start wars for money and power
> - Actions have nothing in common with stated intention.

and yet, the nazis:

-censored art and expression
-required conformity to "correct" thought processes
-preached unity by physical characteristics (different from race,
even!)
-practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any
warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)
-enslaved/killed minority groups

so, the question arises: why do i want _any_ of these governments?

if you want honesty, i prefer "other governments" - personal freedom,
which they allow, is paramount and leads all other progression. unless
you think the 1984 scenario shows positive progression of the human
species.

>What, you'd rather have 200 years of black slavery in the United States for
>the simple reason that we could justify using other human beings as machines?
>Instead of a leader who sought to _visibly remove_ the presence of a
>religious train of thought he believed to be antithetical to positive human
>growth?

out of curiosity, how do you think he believed the aforementioned
censorship and conformity demands would encourage "positive human
growth"?

you still havent explained what homosexuals and other various
minorities have to do with said "religious train of thought". it
almost seems like you're dancing around the issue; a bit clumsy,
but...

it seems that, based on that information, hitler DID practice blind
bigotry. and intentional blindness is, dare i say...stupid?

>I like you guys but -- sometimes you're fucking dense. And cruel to all of
>humanity in you cowardice.

another blanket statement. who is included in "you guys"?

fuck_yo...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/24/98

> > > Free speech as long as you agree with it is only an illusion; if you
> > > support free speech then act likewise, dammit!
> >
> > We are all pro-free speech Annatar, no one has posted otherwise. You seem
> > to only get defensive when we disagree with you. That should be your
> > right, but don't accuse us of trying to limit you saying what you feel
> > like saying. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think both you and I are
> > willing to go to war to protect each others "rights". As long as someone
> > posts racist shit, I will stand in opposition. That's my right, as it is
> > for them to post racist babble. I would rather people were just more
> > honest about which way they lean when it comes to their beliefs.
>

> True maybe, but the nazi paranoia is striking... Supporting free speech,
> yet immediately calling other people 'nazi' when they're only expressing
> admiration for the nazi's creativity in killing seems rather
> contradictory to me.

Exactly. There is nothing more sheeplike than retaliation against
demonization with demonization; it's pathetic. Hence we see in response to
the reason of National Socialist a good grouping of people who feel power and
righteousness in their condemnation of "this clear evil," yet none of them

can explain why it's different than any other goverment or why what the Nazis
did is "wrong." Inarticulate wenches who are merely followers and dogs...

Note how carefully they've attempted to stereotype me as a gas-oven feeding
"racist" when all I've said is (1) I support the rights of others to create
racially-defined groups (e.g. you don't have to breed outside of you family,

and you don't have to invite J000000Z onto you farm) and (2) National

Socialism is more advanced than current government, politics and cultural

coercion and is in the long run a better future for humanity. Notice how

much they've read into what I've said - without a clue as to what I am
saying!

Let's put it this way - who'd you rather be killed by? Stalin - who is the

more likely case, since his victim list ran 30 million (or you could

substitute Tojo), or Hitler? Hitler had an ideology and a plan - and
contrary to what you may have chosen to believe, it was NOT primarily to kill
Juden - it was to affirm a certain method of thinking.

Nazis:
- First Ecological Policy.
- First Worker's Rights Policy.
- Fought Wars to Accomplish Great Things.
- Declared Their Intention, and Fulfilled it.

Other Governments:
- Lie, Cheat, and Steal for Power Only
- Rip off the worker and his family
- Require obedience through semi-voluntary coercion
- Start wars for money and power
- Actions have nothing in common with stated intention.

What, you'd rather have 200 years of black slavery in the United States for

the simple reason that we could justify using other human beings as machines?
Instead of a leader who sought to _visibly remove_ the presence of a
religious train of thought he believed to be antithetical to positive human
growth?

I'd rather die in Hitler's death camps than in Stalin's factory of his own
power and wealth, or the Amerikan corporate machine in Viet Nam. What about
you? Die for something, or die for the same old nothing that has kept
humanity in the dark - something which is conveniently represented in
Judeo-Christianity?

I like you guys but -- sometimes you're fucking dense. And cruel to all of
humanity in you cowardice.

"I vomit on gOD's child..." <http://www.evilmusic.com/>
--==============================================
==================: gOD is the lie of control personified. If you
need to believe in absolutes, you may have already become lost. Redeem
yourself with means only you can discern. -- Tao of PostLobotomy Life

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/24/98

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:03:11 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>> >> > I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
>> >> >"might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Blessed are the Weak
>> >> >Blessed are the Sick
>> >> >Blessed are the Poor in spirit....
>> >>
>> >> it's somewhat of a contradicting issue. if you ask a christian, why he
>> >> believes in his religion, most will cite fear ("you're going to
>> >> hell!") as a motivation. fear of who? - the stronger being. "i am a
>> >> vengeful god" - he also has the power to _be_ vengeful.
>> >
>> > I am speaking more about the ideals held by the religion. The
>> >fear factor is definately there, but the heart of Christian idealogy was
>> >manufactured from the bitterness of the weak.
>>
>> the weak, intending to do what? give themselves strength via god?
>> sounds reasonable to me.
>

>Strength at the expense of all others, since their gOD is the one inalienable
>quest? What happened to your objectives for progressivism and equality and
>self-determination? I think you're _lying_ (mostly to yourself!) about your
>objectives and justifying them with aesthetics.

see below.

>How can one say such a dumheit as to suggest that "The weak giving themselves
>strength through an omnipotent (heh) deity" is reasonable? They are, in
>translating, getting strength from the denial of others - for all time - which
>is a more sinister existence than a couple decades of genocide and then peace
>and progressive philosophies behind human advancement.

you misinterpreted my meaning. though i am partially at fault for not
phrasing it incorrectly - to expand, i meant "this as their belief set
sounds reasonable", as in, "this as their belief set sounds like what
they believe in" (proving my assertion that their beliefs include
"might is right").

you should know that i dont endorse that sort of thinking by now.

>> under a nonchristian atheistic interpretation (as was what i was
>> originally talking about), "might" can be undeniably proved - "if i
>> can do it, i'm stronger".
>

>Depends on where your boundaries of might exist - for a Nazi, for example,
>intellect might prove "might" - and if their culture had a superior
>understanding of postaesthetic thinking

postaesthetic thinking...

...like those "fuhrer-isms" you mentioned disagreeing with in another
post?

these "fuhrer-isms" - discrimination by useless criteria (e.g. sexual
orientation) - are completely and diametrically opposed to any
ideology that _anyone_ supporting free thought should (would) believe
in.

>than another physically- and
>financially- and populistically-strong culture which believes that "might
>(physical) is right" in the method of Judeo-Christian genocides,

two points:

A) if belief in "might is right" is a reason to eliminate a group, why
do you suggest justification USING that value system?

B) why are you grouping by culture?

>why not
>remove the diseased limb? --

well, they didnt just remove that. homosexuals (people living "their
own way"), gypsies (people living "their own way"), etc. were
"removed" as well, as were sympathizers.

>> as an interesting example, what do you think would happen if satan was
>> portrayed as _more powerful_ then god? if satan could destroy god at
>> any time he wanted?
>

>Satan would not work as a metaphor, then -

that's not the point. it's a hypothetical situation - who would a
christian be worshipping if satan were stronger?

it's also a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious.

>And further: the reward is deferred;
>therefore, life itself has no value EXCEPT as used to pursue the overarching
>goal. Nazis even are not so dogmatic!

perhaps not. except for the fact that i interpret fascism and nazism
as such - one exists for the purpose of furthering the goal of others
("the state", says mussolini).

you are, in effect living at someone else's feet.

minus religion, life here has no value, PERIOD! you serve others and
work as cannon fodder - everyone is expendable.

...this is better?

(a metaorganization like this, when percieved to be separate from
those comprising it, seems to me similar to a corporation - everything
for the greater profit of some imaginary thing. is there a difference
between conventional government and this? this is why i do not support
conventional societal systems.)

Jeff Holt

unread,

Sep 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/24/98

Whoever made this intelligent reply,

Thank you! I was scrolling through the previous message, trying to pick
out which logical fallacies I was going to leap upon, and you saved me
the trouble. The following passage in particular sums up what I would
like to seep people remember whenever they start glorifying Hitler
primarily because they see him as a dark, powerful figure and thus
associate him with rebellion:

> and yet, the nazis:
>
> -censored art and expression
> -required conformity to "correct" thought processes
> -preached unity by physical characteristics (different from race,
> even!)
> -practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any
> warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)
> -enslaved/killed minority groups

I still think it's absurd that we're even talking about this on this
(these) newsgroups, but if people are going to argue for thought
conformity and racism, I'm not going to pretend it's not going on. I'm
glad I'm not the only one.

Jeff

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/24/98

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:11:30 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>> > race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
>> > that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
>> > is trivialized in comparison. which do you think would be bigger? -
>> > the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
>> > same species?
>>

>"For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
>(actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
>alien, predatory culture - the point being not superiority complex
>(Christian: gOD has ordained one superior, so we keep it "pure") but
>affirmation of their will to change and to have more progressive objectives,
>no matter the method, than the equally-murderous Jews and Christians.

out of curiosity, given hitler's ideal of the "pure aryan man", what
do you think would have been done with blacks?

...this, among other things that i mentioned, hints to me that the
intent was something other then what you specify.

"culture" is silly - it affirms a sort of group collective instead of
emphasising individual thought. if someone in nazi germany was born
jewish and decided against that set of beliefs, what do you think
would have been done with him?

"culture" is hardly defined by race - in fact, it should be said that
only those who consciously ally themselves with a certain way of
thinking have a specific "culture", and none others. you cannot be
born into it - you must consciously decide for yourself. a blond
haired blue eyed "aryan" no more shares this "culture" with the next
then does someone from asia. there is "culture" in the sense of
similar achievments (usually in art) by a certain group of people -
you are using the word in a different sense then this, where it doesnt
apply.

>Bands who Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust:
>Bathory
>Hellhammer
>Burzum
>Darkthrone
>Immortal
>Mayhem
>Morbid Angel
>Black Sabbath
>
>...in short, all of metal; all of recent logical advances in music. And
>philosophers? Since Nietzsche, the carping whiners seem to have mostly shut
>up, and any work since has been very agreeable to destruction of
>Judeo-Christianity.

i know you've given nietzsche a lot of respect in the past; here's an
interesting essay that relates to our topic for today:

http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/WAGNIET.html

a couple of the quotes from mein kampf peppered about seem
very...interesting. if we can assume they should be taken at face
value, they invalidate what you've said.

>To writers? Any of note, including the last two of
>importance: Joyce and Burroughs.

who's joyce?

>> > >Also, if one interprets ultramodernism somewhat correctly, one sees how
>> > >Hitler's revolution was very anti-state in its approach toward the
>boundaries
>> > >of politics and philosophy: it became a personal, almost religious, quest
>if
>> > >one sought to understand it. And the leaders of that regime acted in
>accord
>> > >with that sacrament.
>>

>> "anti-state"?????? He built a big, powerful, scarry-fucking
>> machine (tm)!!
>

>That is aesthetics: his machine was his tool for a task. His state did not
>run for its own power or authority; it ran because it had a job to do, one
>that actually had the interests of all the world's peoples in mind.

...would the state have dismantled itself in the future, _of it's own
violition_, if a better solution presented itself?

of course not; all states exist for the sake of gaining power (1984).
people are weak, and they like the ego trip of placing themselves
higher then the next man. in germany, it was the "non-aryans" - how do
you think hitler got so much support?

do you really believe that the common person in germany understood a
quarter of what you've asserted hitler and his country believed in? of
course not - "99% of people dont know what they want".

any society that feels content to leave these 99% people in the dark
while it guides their actions is "feminine and erotic" - such was the
way with nazi germany.

no real political can change without first altering the current state
of humanity - more intelligence, more free thought! and assuming all
current governments are horrible in some way, you see why i prefer
this government to yours - art and expression are the only way to
achieve those things, and in nazism/fascism, those methods are not
allowed. you fall into a trap; no different/better government without
more intelligence (i'm actually thinking something more akin to the
mix of self-determinism, free thought, etc.), and no more of that
without a different government. you'd be foolish to think that your
proposed government is the be all end all of things.

at least, in "amerikkka", the 1% who knows how to think for themselves
can attempt to show the rest. germans follow the leader.

>> All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
>> towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
>> gassed.
>

>Not true. All of the efforts of the German nation were devoted toward a
>series of objectives.

all of the efforts of the state may have been devoted towards that.
all the efforts of the german people supported the state - the state
could have stood for most anything. the people didnt care, because the
people were stupid and liked envisioning themselves on top of a racial
pyramid. this way of doing things helped them believe it - "if the guy
in power says so..."

>If you acted counter to those objectives, you were
>jailed and put to work - if you were Jewish, there was about a 15% chance
>you'd get gassed and burned.

i'm curious about this "15% chance". where do you get your figures?

>Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for all
>time - it's called "war."

...is this apologism?

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/24/98

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:30:50 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>> >Exactly. There is nothing more sheeplike than retaliation against
>> >demonization with demonization; it's pathetic. Hence we see in response
>to
>> >the reason of National Socialist a good grouping of people who feel power and
>> >righteousness in their condemnation of "this clear evil," yet none of them
>> >can explain why it's different than any other goverment
>>
>> do you assert that national socialism is equivolent to "any other
>> government"?
>>
>> ...just as bad as "any other government"?
>

>I assert that it is "better" than "any other government" (so far in history)
>for its progressive thought process, no matter how much killing, brutality,
>inefficiency and racism went along with that.

arent "killing", "brutality", "inefficiency", and "racism"
anti-progressive thought processes?

why dont you intersect all the best governments you've found so far so
you leave yourself with only the progressive and not the regressive?

>> >or why what the Nazis
>> >did is "wrong."
>>
>> that's a misleading statement, e.g.:
>>
>> do you believe in evolution?
>>
>> well, since you cant prove it as the reason for our existance, it must
>> be untrue.
>>
>> you should know not to apply words like "right" and "wrong".
>

>Note the word is in quotes, mocking it.

and yet, you seem to be using it in a way to throw negative light on
those who do not agree with nazism.

>Define "believe" and "evolution."

evolution: changes in gene frequency in a population on a world scale
which had the ultimate result of forming man from lower life.

believe: hold to be true using logical/scientific processes (instead
of faith)

>> >Note how carefully they've attempted to stereotype me as a gas-oven feeding
>> >"racist" when all I've said is (1) I support the rights of others to create
>> >racially-defined groups (e.g. you don't have to breed outside of you family,
>> >and you don't have to invite J000000Z onto you farm) and
>>
>> so, hold on a second. there's an inconsistancy in your logic.
>

>So you say. And I say there is massive inconsistency in yours...

round 1...

>> you support "the judeo-christian holocaust" on the grounds that "this
>> promotes x and y bad things" etc. right?
>

>No. I support the Judeo-Christian holocaust for many reasons, most of which
>focus on a public and lasting departure from the ideas of the postheathen
>premoderns.

which are "bad" for humanity, right?

(please dont pretend to not know what i mean by "bad"; it's shorthand
for more relevant concepts when i put it in quotes)

i repeat:

so, you support the judeo-christian holocaust on the grounds that
"this (judeo-christianity) promotes x and y 'bad' things ("ideas of
postheathen premoderns")"?

>> why dont you therefore support the like for those who believe in
>> keeping their race pure ("pure" having silly "positive" values
>> attatched to it - see myles' post) for promoting z (or, dare i say x
>> or y?) bad things?
>

>I am an objectivist, and all of us share a world - therefore, unlike you, I
>believe in progress - that instead of us all "doing our own thing" as the
>guise of acting in dishonesty and error, we work toward a more progressive
>future.

you show misunderstanding of my beliefs - you make assumptions because
i havent even provided you with enough information to know in the
first place.

there is no guise of dishonesty and error. people believe in their
beliefs, of course - no one who seems themself "doing their own thing"
believes themselves to be denying information to rationalize acting in
a certain way.

what if everyone could "do their own thing"? what if everyone's (most
people's) "own thing" was extremely similar to the point where it was
functionally identical? what if this "thing" supported the same
progression that you speak of?

how could this be achieved? any method to do so would consequently
endow upon humans huge amounts of freedom, knowledge, understanding,
and the like. perhaps we should work for that end, instead of the
sophomoric "this was the best government so far..." that you seem to
enjoy crusading for. a higher ideal society would naturally fall into
place from my solution; yours leaves them bullshitting around in the
herd for all eternity since free thought is illegal when it violates
the status quo.

>> your position is in err and illogical - if you believe in
>> self-determination then you believe in the rights of anyone to do
>> anything regardless of percieved intelligence.
>

>First big wrong. What if what they are doing is not-self-determination, e.g.
>unselfaware like Judeo-Christianity?

freedom to toss their freedom away. killing them just makes martyrs
and makes you look silly for taking the easy (worse) way out.

i think varg said something profound once - paraphrased, "they may be
in a jewish trance, but they are still our brothers! they must be
awakened and then welcomed back into our midst. for killing them would
be akin to killing ourselves, killing our own flesh..."

i agree.

>> christians can put on
>> their yokes and pull jesus' chariot while inbreeding with only their
>> kind of the other side of the world - they dont concern you.
>

>We share a world.

they would have you killed first. and so, that would be
anti-progressive as it does not allow you to share your views with
them. getting rid of them would affirm snuffing out all revolutionary
ideas - is that the precedent you want to set?

the solution is to work to teach them better - or, more logically, to
work to emphasise free thought in humanity, so that this "better"
thing falls into place naturally. not doing that leaves an equally
stupid humanity behind, 99% still not knowing what they want but
having beliefs that you find less offensive.

>> for the record, there is a massive difference between "get these
>> fucking people out of my country" and "stop these fucking people from
>> breathing _MY_ oxygen" - so the rebuttal "i dont want them enslaving
>> me" isnt valid based on how you've defined your position previously.
>

>Your logic is not consistent. Get these people out of my country is a
>legitimate response to their stated beliefs; killing them is one method.

an anti-progressive method, yes. see above.

>Whether or not Hitler's actions (beyond the massive distortions of history,

which "massive distortions of history" are you speaking of?

>> >(2) National
>> >Socialism is more advanced than current government, politics and cultural
>> >coercion and is in the long run a better future for humanity.
>>
>> maybe, maybe not. but on a more important topic, who cares? i can come
>> up with better ideals to strive for, and off of the top of my head.
>> why choose the lesser of two evils when you can come up with something
>> that surpasses them?
>

>I have chosen the purer state of mind and its emblematic philosophy for my own
>means,

you sidestepped my question; noted. please try again.

>which you have not yet come close to a glimpse of.

unneeded personal attack.

>> >Notice how
>> >much they've read into what I've said - without a clue as to what I am
>> >saying!
>>
>> a couple of responses to what you've said have been perfectly valid.
>> grouping those valid responses with "them" is a bit dishonest, dont
>> you think?
>

>No, when I've identified the group by their error, rather than as a group.

some have not read anything into what you've said - pretty poor job of
identifying, dont you think?

>> >Let's put it this way - who'd you rather be killed by? Stalin - who is
>> >the more likely case, since his victim list ran 30 million (or you could
>> >substitute Tojo), or Hitler?
>>
>> this is a rather silly question. which would you rather be, a slave or
>> an amoeba?
>

>No, your answer is rather stupid - progress lies in having a vision of future
>and an understanding of reality, which is the way of being killed by Hitler -
>ideology - rather than Stalin or Tojo, who were only businessmen.

yours is apologism. put a negative thing next to a more negative
thing, and the first doesnt look so bad. dishonesty? noted. apologism
permeates a large deal of what you say below this; how would you like
me to interpret it?

so, a slave or an amoeba? at least a slave has capacity for
intelligence which he can perhaps capitalize on. hence, slave = not so
bad, eh?

>> >Nazis:
>> > - First Ecological Policy.
>> > - First Worker's Rights Policy.
>> > - Fought Wars to Accomplish Great Things.
>> > - Declared Their Intention, and Fulfilled it.
>> >
>> >Other Governments:
>> > - Lie, Cheat, and Steal for Power Only
>> > - Rip off the worker and his family
>> > - Require obedience through semi-voluntary coercion
>> > - Start wars for money and power
>> > - Actions have nothing in common with stated intention.
>>
>> and yet, the nazis:
>>
>> -censored art and expression
>

>Censored _some_ art and expression.

the art and expression hitler didnt like - which was precisely the art
and expression which counts for anything in this context!

>> -required conformity to "correct" thought processes
>

>Allowed anyone to leave for ten years...

allowed all the jews to leave areas they'd conquered within 10 years
too, i'm sure.

your response is a half truth. same as apologists for government - "if
you dont like it, leave!". too bad nowhere better exists.

so now, i'll throw back what you said at you - you're still living in
america, i'm assuming, so can i take that as your approval of
everything the government does (such as you'd like me to take no one
_being able_ to leave within 10 years and therefore staying)?

>> -preached unity by physical characteristics (different from race,
>> even!)
>

>Yes. I was hoping you'd bring this up: Hitler was not a racist as much as he
>was a believer in his culture,

please define "culture", as you're using a nonstandard definition.

"The Aryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock
unmixed, and therewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he
himself had created" -hitler, "mein kampf"

>and saw the Jews (unified by ethnoculture) as
>a force in his way (an interpretation that history supports). So he removed
>them.

all the other bigotry (must i keep bringing up homosexuals and
handicaps?) hitler indulged in does not support this notion. what it
tells me, is that it was done for the _exact same reason_: blind
racism.

>Who can blame him? Especially when he gave them - count 'em - 10
>years to get the hell out.

back to this. why arent you living in a NS country now? you're
twisting facts.

>> -practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any
>> warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)
>

>So do current governments -

apologist.

>and so do you, seemingly.

and yet, no citations...

>> -enslaved/killed minority groups
>
>We're living in the land of 200 years of racially-justified slavery to which
>Hitler's actions were miniscule in comparison

apologist.

>and you care?

i care because you're pushing NS as "the best government around".
that's bullshit - i care because compared to something that deserves
the title, hitler's actions embodied it's antithesis. "miniscule"?
you're comparing negatives. compare a negative (hitler's actions) and
a positive and see what you come up with. not so "miniscule", eh?

>Your logic is
>heavily biased by aesthetics!

me? apologism is based on aesthetics - simple psychological tricks to
take emphasis off logical conclusions. and you're the one trying to
rationalize hitler's "miniscule" (see?) actions.

>> so, the question arises: why do i want _any_ of these governments?
>

>The question arises: what sort of motivational thinking do you want behind a
>government?

my question is better.

i like some of the positives you've mentioned, such as freely
admitting what they were doing - doesnt make what they did any better.
however, perhaps other governments should learn that bit of honesty.

negatives still outweigh them - freedom uber alles. you seem to
disagree with this notion...?

>And therefore, to make a political statement, which ideology do
>you choose? Your ideology as exhibited in these posts is closer to
>Judeo-Christianity than progressive;

how so?

>I think we're in the 1984 scenario, only it has been very cleverly disguised.
>Work all day for inefficient, worthless, and environmentally-destructive
>projects. Create products designed to trick fellow human beings into
>purchasing inferior goods for more money. Do whatever you can get away with,
>as long as it makes money.

i realize those things are happening. and yet, once more, what makes
this government _useful_ is that it allows us to get out of this
scenario with time and social progression. NS sets everything in stone
- racial fervor is a better motivation then intelligent thought, i
guess.

>And if you don't believe the press is censored in
>this country, it's obvious you know nothing - NOTHING - of how this system
>works.

of course it is. and yet, this debate is in plain sight of anyone
who'd like to read along. would it be that way in nazi germany?

>> >What, you'd rather have 200 years of black slavery in the United States for
>> >the simple reason that we could justify using other human beings as machines?
>> >Instead of a leader who sought to _visibly remove_ the presence of a
>> >religious train of thought he believed to be antithetical to positive human
>> >growth?
>>
>> out of curiosity, how do you think he believed the aforementioned
>> censorship and conformity demands would encourage "positive human
>> growth"?
>

>Collective objective

...via sheepthink. but ok.

>and removal of elements which (in the style of
>Judeo-Christian fatalists) posited no value to existence.

freedom of expression and free thought "posit no value to existance"?

>Clearing the shop
>so that thinking could begin.

doubtful. germany never had to invade poland - germany could have
"cleared the shop" in their own backyard and then proven to the world
how much better their system was - instead they took a different route
which makes me question their intent. there is nothing not honorable
about proceeding carefully.

in fact, i suggest that if this was their intent they would have began
with themselves and not concerned themselves with more until they
could prove their hypothesis. but they didnt, and they didnt get a
whole lot done - see below.

>And truly, his empire invented great things,
>and his vision was made manifest in laws of great truth and purity:
>
>- Ecological laws

out of serious curiousity, can you cite some examples here?

>- Workers' rights laws

those are positive things. then again, stupid systems seem to achieve
a lot of not-so-stupid things:

-nuclear arms treaties
-equality of races and sexes
-freedom of speech (at least, a significant degree - would you like to
wager on whether the nearest library has a copy of mein kampf in it's
collection?)

>Those are unfortunate Fuhrer-isms that I would not have applied.

and yet, they, along with bigotry against jews, were the ways in which
the people were motivated. and now, the idea behind my general
solution becomes clear...

>Then again,
>I would not have applied the gas ovens either (The Judeo-Christian Holocaust
>relies on exile to serve the function of eradicating Judeo-Christianity -
>those people cannot take care of themselves on their own).

i was suggesting that (exile) back in this discussion, but you
responded with "we share the same world". care to explain?

>> it seems that, based on that information, hitler DID practice blind
>> bigotry. and intentional blindness is, dare i say...stupid?
>

>How was he blind? --

simple bigotry can only be blind.

>His actions may have been in error, but not ignorance.
>None of our research now existed to demonstrate the function of homosexuality
>and so to him, he was clearing out those who were contrarian to his program,

if, as you stated before, "might" for a nazi might mean intelligence,
which part of homosexuality prevents a person from excersizing
intelligence? which part of being invalid prevents it? any person has
the potential to provide vast insight with intelligence.

why didnt hitler even _attempt_ to do a bit of research into
homosexuality before deciding that it was "contrarian to his program"?
not very logical...

>and were ALSO too stupid to leave when he announced his intentions.

the fact of the matter is that countries had immigration quotas and
would not allow that many people to come. moreover, i suspect that
many people moved to an adjacent country, and once hitler took it
over, they didnt exactly get a chance to leave again.

why are you twisting facts?

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

> >Exactly. There is nothing more sheeplike than retaliation against
> >demonization with demonization; it's pathetic. Hence we see in response
to
> >the reason of National Socialist a good grouping of people who feel power and
> >righteousness in their condemnation of "this clear evil," yet none of them
> >can explain why it's different than any other goverment
>
> do you assert that national socialism is equivolent to "any other
> government"?
>
> ...just as bad as "any other government"?

I assert that it is "better" than "any other government" (so far in history)

for its progressive thought process, no matter how much killing, brutality,
inefficiency and racism went along with that.

> >or why what the Nazis

> >did is "wrong."
>
> that's a misleading statement, e.g.:
>
> do you believe in evolution?
>
> well, since you cant prove it as the reason for our existance, it must
> be untrue.
>
> you should know not to apply words like "right" and "wrong".

Note the word is in quotes, mocking it. Define "believe" and "evolution."

> >Note how carefully they've attempted to stereotype me as a gas-oven feeding
> >"racist" when all I've said is (1) I support the rights of others to create
> >racially-defined groups (e.g. you don't have to breed outside of you family,
> >and you don't have to invite J000000Z onto you farm) and
>
> so, hold on a second. there's an inconsistancy in your logic.

So you say. And I say there is massive inconsistency in yours...

> you support "the judeo-christian holocaust" on the grounds that "this

> promotes x and y bad things" etc. right?

No. I support the Judeo-Christian holocaust for many reasons, most of which

focus on a public and lasting departure from the ideas of the postheathen
premoderns.

> why dont you therefore support the like for those who believe in

> keeping their race pure ("pure" having silly "positive" values
> attatched to it - see myles' post) for promoting z (or, dare i say x
> or y?) bad things?

I am an objectivist, and all of us share a world - therefore, unlike you, I

believe in progress - that instead of us all "doing our own thing" as the
guise of acting in dishonesty and error, we work toward a more progressive
future.

> your position is in err and illogical - if you believe in

> self-determination then you believe in the rights of anyone to do
> anything regardless of percieved intelligence.

First big wrong. What if what they are doing is not-self-determination, e.g.
unselfaware like Judeo-Christianity?

Oop.

>christians can put on
> their yokes and pull jesus' chariot while inbreeding with only their
> kind of the other side of the world - they dont concern you.

We share a world.

> for the record, there is a massive difference between "get these
> fucking people out of my country" and "stop these fucking people from
> breathing _MY_ oxygen" - so the rebuttal "i dont want them enslaving
> me" isnt valid based on how you've defined your position previously.

Your logic is not consistent. Get these people out of my country is a

legitimate response to their stated beliefs; killing them is one method.

Whether or not Hitler's actions (beyond the massive distortions of history, he
did send a bunch of Jews and not enough Christians to their deaths in work
camps) were vengeful is another question.

> >(2) National
> >Socialism is more advanced than current government, politics and cultural
> >coercion and is in the long run a better future for humanity.
>
> maybe, maybe not. but on a more important topic, who cares? i can come
> up with better ideals to strive for, and off of the top of my head.
> why choose the lesser of two evils when you can come up with something
> that surpasses them?

I have chosen the purer state of mind and its emblematic philosophy for my own
means, which you have not yet come close to a glimpse of.

> >Notice how
> >much they've read into what I've said - without a clue as to what I am
> >saying!
>
> a couple of responses to what you've said have been perfectly valid.
> grouping those valid responses with "them" is a bit dishonest, dont
> you think?

No, when I've identified the group by their error, rather than as a group.

> >Let's put it this way - who'd you rather be killed by? Stalin - who is

the
> >more likely case, since his victim list ran 30 million (or you could
> >substitute Tojo), or Hitler?
>
> this is a rather silly question. which would you rather be, a slave or
> an amoeba?

No, your answer is rather stupid - progress lies in having a vision of future

and an understanding of reality, which is the way of being killed by Hitler -
ideology - rather than Stalin or Tojo, who were only businessmen.

> >Nazis:

> > - First Ecological Policy.
> > - First Worker's Rights Policy.
> > - Fought Wars to Accomplish Great Things.
> > - Declared Their Intention, and Fulfilled it.
> >
> >Other Governments:
> > - Lie, Cheat, and Steal for Power Only
> > - Rip off the worker and his family
> > - Require obedience through semi-voluntary coercion
> > - Start wars for money and power
> > - Actions have nothing in common with stated intention.
>
> and yet, the nazis:
>
> -censored art and expression

Censored _some_ art and expression.

> -required conformity to "correct" thought processes

Allowed anyone to leave for ten years...

> -preached unity by physical characteristics (different from race,
> even!)

Yes. I was hoping you'd bring this up: Hitler was not a racist as much as he
was a believer in his culture, and saw the Jews (unified by ethnoculture) as

a force in his way (an interpretation that history supports). So he removed

them. Who can blame him? Especially when he gave them - count 'em - 10

years to get the hell out.

> -practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any

> warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)

So do current governments - and so do you, seemingly.

> -enslaved/killed minority groups

We're living in the land of 200 years of racially-justified slavery to which

Hitler's actions were miniscule in comparison and you care? Your logic is
heavily biased by aesthetics!

> so, the question arises: why do i want _any_ of these governments?

The question arises: what sort of motivational thinking do you want behind a
government? And therefore, to make a political statement, which ideology do

you choose? Your ideology as exhibited in these posts is closer to

Judeo-Christianity than progressive; I'd rather have Nazis!

> if you want honesty, i prefer "other governments" - personal freedom,
> which they allow, is paramount and leads all other progression. unless
> you think the 1984 scenario shows positive progression of the human
> species.

I think we're in the 1984 scenario, only it has been very cleverly disguised.

Work all day for inefficient, worthless, and environmentally-destructive
projects. Create products designed to trick fellow human beings into
purchasing inferior goods for more money. Do whatever you can get away with,

as long as it makes money. And if you don't believe the press is censored in

this country, it's obvious you know nothing - NOTHING - of how this system
works.

> >What, you'd rather have 200 years of black slavery in the United States for

> >the simple reason that we could justify using other human beings as machines?
> >Instead of a leader who sought to _visibly remove_ the presence of a
> >religious train of thought he believed to be antithetical to positive human
> >growth?
>
> out of curiosity, how do you think he believed the aforementioned
> censorship and conformity demands would encourage "positive human
> growth"?

Collective objective and removal of elements which (in the style of
Judeo-Christian fatalists) posited no value to existence. Clearing the shop
so that thinking could begin. And truly, his empire invented great things,

and his vision was made manifest in laws of great truth and purity:

- Ecological laws
- Workers' rights laws

> you still havent explained what homosexuals and other various
> minorities have to do with said "religious train of thought". it
> almost seems like you're dancing around the issue; a bit clumsy,
> but...

Those are unfortunate Fuhrer-isms that I would not have applied. Then again,

I would not have applied the gas ovens either (The Judeo-Christian Holocaust
relies on exile to serve the function of eradicating Judeo-Christianity -
those people cannot take care of themselves on their own).

> it seems that, based on that information, hitler DID practice blind

> bigotry. and intentional blindness is, dare i say...stupid?

How was he blind? -- His actions may have been in error, but not ignorance.

None of our research now existed to demonstrate the function of homosexuality
and so to him, he was clearing out those who were contrarian to his program,

and were ALSO too stupid to leave when he announced his intentions.

> >I like you guys but -- sometimes you're fucking dense. And cruel to all of

> >humanity in you cowardice.
>
> another blanket statement. who is included in "you guys"?

This one is blanket for a purpose but for this message you may include
yourself in its scope. Does it matter, here?

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - The truth, not the lies of society.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

The truth - so complicated, so redeeming! Sorry this has taken so long to
reply, but there have been DejaNews errors.

> >> >There's an
> >> >important distinction in that some music, e.g. "white power metal," exists
> >> >only to spread a political reality, where much of the foundational
membership
> >> >of black metal did not believe in politics and sought to reaffirm a
spiritual
> >> >bond with their race (in countries predominantly of that race for 1000
years
> >> >or more).
> >>
> >> agree, but no comment on the wisdom or logic base behind that purpose.
> >
> >Might as well comment.
>
> race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
> that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
> is trivialized in comparison.

What about race-culture? What if for one second, you became an objectivist,
and realized that one tradition of the great lie had become vastly powerful
and infectious? And that it on its own had separated itself into a very
racist and bigoted and destructive culture?

While you were educating and doing better - "To change the world, you must be
the change you seek" (Ghandi; and Hitler definitely was) - would it not
behoove you to remove it? As a gift to your own people?

> which do you think would be bigger? -
> the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
> same species?

What if they were one and the same? A world without Judeo-Christianity would
be a grander place, with more human freedom for all - not freedom in the
obvious way that a gun is not pointed at your head, but freedom in the sense
of a lack of a coercive, "voluntary" society based on replacing values with
aesthetics?

See: Hitler was an artist, not a politician - and this is why many artists
respect him and are fascinated by him. His act was metaphorical and while
vengeful, not resentful - differentiating him from his enemies, and providing
a point in history to look back to in the future to remember the cause of
human freedom - even if that means "pruning the tree" of those organized
AGAINST freedom.

> would affirming a "spiritual bond" with the former negate the purpose
> of being part of the latter? especially seeing as how the latter isnt
> referenced at all?

If you truly believe in spiritualism, a gift for one part is a gift for all -
and removing diseased limbs that wish not their own cure is a gift for all
including the diseased limbs.

> >> still, (very) valid music.
> >
> >All noise is valid music;
>
> back to this. :) however, i think this is a simple definition problem
> we have; if you dare trust my memory, last time it seemed as we ended
> up arguing that semantic issue.

I am once again bagging on the sense of semantics that others use for
demonstrative purposes. Argue with /dev/null if you wish! ;) -- I have made
my points.

> >whether it's valid art is for those who want to draw
> >the line. I can only explain where it's coherent, and leave validity to the
> >Judeo-Christians, straight-edgers, white power negro-killers and other
> >linear dogmatists.
>
> that sounds a bit silly to me - what do you think i mean when i say
> "valid"?

I think the use of the term at all is inane and a sign that you have not
learned much of real import regarding objectivism and human philosophy.

> >> >As an Amerikkkan, I'm not into the idea of "<race> power" but if
> >> >those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way, I
> >> >support their right to do that - any other approach is bigotry and biased
> >> >against their race.
> >>
> >> and yet then, in your next post, we find this:
> >>
> >> >1) Self determination.
> >> >2) Speech and freedom rights.
> >> >5) Revolution against the state in whatever form it takes.
> >> >6) Overthrow of control.
> >>
> >> i see a bit of a contradiction. or did i miss something?
> >
> >You missed that self-determination does not include the right to live
> >anywhere - it means you have the right to be free, but with the knowledge
> >that that may not include infringing upon other cultures, e.g. living in
> >Norway if you're a Judeo-Christian. There's a huge world out there!
>
> if people were to agree, "we should have X country given to Y people",
> and repeat the process for each people, that would be agreeable, if
> perhaps stupid in my opinion.

Why stupid? If you value individualism, you (giggle) value our individuality,
right? So there is nothing more beautiful than a culture which wants to
preserve its own.

>it emphasises self-determination - the
> people who it involves map out their own path in beliefs that they're
> doing something positive (in theory) for all involved, because all
> involved want this "positive" thing done.

Who cares what "all involved" seem to think they seem to think they want -
the value is in what can be done, and considering that 99% of people have no
clue as to what they want, how they would value their lives or how they would
design a future, why would any sane person bow to their authority in such a
demagogic style?

> forcibly uprooting people
> and conforming them to your opinion on the issue is not a solution
> that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a
> step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
> basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?

People who have invaded your land have the right to return to whence they
came - and if they are diseased, this is perhaps the most compassionate thing
you can do with them. The "might is right" doctrine is a non-issue - gOD
supremacy is based on the idea that all power is distributed beyond human
control, where Nazism affirms individual power and the right to reshape the
world toward more sensible (rather than more predictable) ends.

> ...so, how many norwegians _really_ want a country without christians?

Let's subtract the 99% that we know aren't thinking, and do we care how _many_
want it as opposed to who out of the thinkers want it? Find any more
intelligent music from Norway than Burzum, Darkthrone and Immortal? Find any
more intelligent music from Poland than Graveland?

> varg talks about "reclaiming his ancient heritage" - implying that
> christian thought has so permeated the nation that most people end up
> believing and siding with it. if so many people believe in it, that
> says that most dont believe in a "racially defined nation" with
> odinists running amok...right?

See above - most in America believe in the death penalty, the illegality of
drugs, keeping sodomy illegal, and that we all should work for money and
continue to resent our fellow humans in a system that pits individuals against
all other individuals. Is this what you want? I have to laugh at the
contradictions in your 'logic'!

Very interesting. The ethnic composition seems to be based upon where their
papers are from, not what their believes or genetics are, and so is useless,
but the fact that most choose German Christianity is very revelatory - the
most contradictory and yet anti-Judaic form of Christianity yet! (Remember
that Yiddish is a partially Germanic language... some groups came to their
modern state of evolution there, and even have within themselves some debate
as to who are the 'authentic' Jews.)

> natural increase rate per 1,000 population (1991): 3.8 (world avg.
> 17.2)

Ah, so they are declining. Very sad - modern states decline when people see
no hope. You want more of them believing in Lutheranism and Judaism then so
none will be left?

Very, very "smart."

> sweden:
>
> religious affiliation (1991): church of sweden 88.9%, roman catholic
> 1.7%, pentecostal 1.1%, other 8.3%.
>
> ethnic composition (1991): swedish 90.8%, finnish 2.5%, other 8.3%.

Seems the ethnic figures are useless again. Glad you noted it below.

> natural increase rate per 1,000 population (1991): 3.3

Declination also.

> a lot of the figures arent common denominators; for instance,
> ethnicity and citizenship arent directly related. however, we percieve
> something very definite here; the people of norway - all of
> scandinavia, even - live in what seems to already be a "racially
> defined area".

Wait a sec, man - you can't say the figures aren't directly related and then
claim them relevance in defining the area. That doesn't make sense, flat out
simple.

> past that, somehow i doubt removing christian thought
> is the goal of a majority there...seeing as how most of them (~90%)
> are christians. where are the true unholy vikings to replace them?

Claim to be Christians. 99% are total sheep in any part of the globe - why
are you counting on the judgment of those who are most likely not thinking at
all to discern your own opinion? Sounds very - externalized - to me.

> >Also, if one interprets ultramodernism somewhat correctly, one sees how
> >Hitler's revolution was very anti-state in its approach toward the boundaries
> >of politics and philosophy: it became a personal, almost religious, quest if
> >one sought to understand it. And the leaders of that regime acted in accord
> >with that sacrament.
>
> this is not my field of expertise; i'll leave this to someone else who
> has definitive information to agree with or contest.

It's core of the issue, so why are you even debating me?

>however, i _do_
> know that, ideologically, nazi germany was against everything i (and
> many others here) believe in - censorship of art and unfounded bigotry
> against race (...and more!) dont seem like really good ideas to anyone
> who values progression in the sense of progressing to something new
> and of higher intelligence then back.

You're thinking aesthetically. His mechanisms were only tools - you have
spoken nothing of the goal. Our society doesn't use those tools, but has
achieved a far more insidious goal - total enslavement in the name of
'freedom' - and you support that instead?

This is like saying that because I ride a bike to work, I don't work - but he
who drives must be working. (Or the common perception in AmeriKKKan
businesses that if you're sitting at your desk, you must be working - but
that if you are not seen, you are not 'working' - what a joke, a lack of
logic in principle founded in deliberate ignorance to avoid value - as value
implies a value to life, and therefore, mortality!)

> (and yes, the doings of nazi germany were both bigoted and unfounded
> in that - unless you'd like to explain how gays, for instance, are
> part of the "religious tribe" you spoke of before)

I think it was resource allocation. Not my cup of tea either, but neither is
racialism - Jewish (oldest racist tribe in history) or otherwise. But I don't
judge the tools, only the objective and the pattern-shape of the philosophical
thought process. Window-shopping is for the liliterate ;)

> >> any group should be able to say: "we're taking X area for ourselves,
> >> where Y principles must be respected" - provided that X is a "fair"
> >> (pretend it's not an arbitrary word) choice.
> >>
> >> also, provided that X isnt already inhabited by people who dont
> >> believe in Y.
> >>
> >> ...or do you not support principle 1) that you mentioned before?
> >
> >I support self-determination, especially for ethnic groups. Nords in
> >Scandinavia, Jews in Israel (well - wherever wants them), Christians in -
> >well, wherever wants them, again.
>
> so, back to the case of scandinavia, what do you suggest is to be done
> with the huge majority of christians who live there already? did i
> mention the words "huge majority"?

You mentioned that your statistics were not relevant. What else did you
mention about relevance?

> it seems to me like you're proposing a solution for a problem that
> doesnt exist. a small group wants to keep their gene pools "pure"
> (!!), for whatever reason or nonreason they have - let them.

You missed my points again (or I posted them too late, again): They wanted to
keep their culture strong, e.g. a separate but distinct and equal strain.
Why do the Judeo-Christians need world domination, while maintaining purity
of their own race but infecting other cultures? Why is it "okay" in your
book for you to tolerate Jewish racism and Christianism exclusivism but when
another group steps up to the plate, you see them as "bad" and "not
progressive"?

> if
> there's enough of them, no problem - and if there isnt, it's the fault
> of no one. segregating an area who's inhabitants dont want it is
> disrespectful, and more importantly, anti-self determination.

Not at all - if those who don't want it don't want self-determination, it's
most probably pro self determination.

> funny you mention ethnic groups. "jew" connotates ethnicity, yet you
> vehemently affirm that you use it to mean simply a follower of
> judalism.

For me, yes - for Jews, no. Read the Tanakh (I can lend you a copy if you
need).

> rereading that last paragraph, it seems you've run into a
> contradiction - there's really no way that could be your intent here.
> which is it?

To affirm a culture future for humanity, through any means necessary -
perhaps even genocide, or perhaps only publically finding the justice
kindness progressiveness and futurism in all things which affirm human
freedom instead of wallowing in the mistakes of past like a protective
blanket - which is your mistake.

I'd rather discuss this in person, but I can't pass up on such a valuable
opportunity. The hand gestures - something inherited from my ancestry on
several sides - make it all understandable (I swear it!).

HEIL HITLER

HEIL SATAN

HEIL FREEDOM

"Think for yourself, or your answers will not be satisfying."

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

> >> > I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
> >> >"might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.
> >> >
> >> >Blessed are the Weak
> >> >Blessed are the Sick
> >> >Blessed are the Poor in spirit....
> >>
> >> it's somewhat of a contradicting issue. if you ask a christian, why he
> >> believes in his religion, most will cite fear ("you're going to
> >> hell!") as a motivation. fear of who? - the stronger being. "i am a
> >> vengeful god" - he also has the power to _be_ vengeful.
> >
> > I am speaking more about the ideals held by the religion. The
> >fear factor is definately there, but the heart of Christian idealogy was
> >manufactured from the bitterness of the weak.
>
> the weak, intending to do what? give themselves strength via god?
> sounds reasonable to me.

Strength at the expense of all others, since their gOD is the one inalienable

quest? What happened to your objectives for progressivism and equality and
self-determination? I think you're _lying_ (mostly to yourself!) about your
objectives and justifying them with aesthetics.

How can one say such a dumheit as to suggest that "The weak giving themselves

strength through an omnipotent (heh) deity" is reasonable? They are, in
translating, getting strength from the denial of others - for all time - which
is a more sinister existence than a couple decades of genocide and then peace
and progressive philosophies behind human advancement.

> > Though god, specifically the Old Testament God, was vengeful, I do

> >not see that as a sign that Christianity endorses "Might is right" as a
> >value judgement. All that means is that God is powerful, not that human
> >beings should openly show their strength. The content of most scripture
> >says the opposite.
>
> i agree that "might is right" isnt a value judgment open to humans
> under christianity. however, that's not the point - it's not open to
> humans because humans dont have undeniably superior power.

Christianity wholeheartedly endorses "Might is right" - in the sense that gOD
is universal might, and that those who follow his will can do whatever they
see fit to achieve those goals.

> under a nonchristian atheistic interpretation (as was what i was
> originally talking about), "might" can be undeniably proved - "if i
> can do it, i'm stronger".

Depends on where your boundaries of might exist - for a Nazi, for example,

intellect might prove "might" - and if their culture had a superior

understanding of postaesthetic thinking than another physically- and

financially- and populistically-strong culture which believes that "might

(physical) is right" in the method of Judeo-Christian genocides, why not
remove the diseased limb? -- Or rather: remove those who could swim from the
sinking ship.

> it's the same philosophy, here; just different applications. which was
> my point.

Nein - your point is that one is acceptable, where another is not.

> the individual's might is not right because the individual's might is
> not supreme.

That is, that there is no self-determination. Same basis of "Satanism" versus
the godheads.

> as an interesting example, what do you think would happen if satan was
> portrayed as _more powerful_ then god? if satan could destroy god at
> any time he wanted?

Satan would not work as a metaphor, then - as his goal was not to destroy gOD.
His goal was to affirm his freedom. Perhaps a better understanding could be
found in the phrase, "The Modern Prometheus."

> i dont see the difference. god's justification is as such: "i'm god".
> god is god because he is "almighty".
>
> almighty --> god
> god --> right
> almighty --> right

See "tautologous logic" or "mindfuck" in your local hacker's dictionary.

> > Even so, the point is that reward waits for you beyond...
>
> given to you by the mighty being. agree, but i'm not sure what it
> proves for you, except that we still agree on this portion.

That "might is right," but only in the sense where used to support conformity.
That's "Judeo-Christianity" at its best. And further: the reward is deferred;

therefore, life itself has no value EXCEPT as used to pursue the overarching
goal. Nazis even are not so dogmatic!

666 DEATH METAL 666 "The basic nova mechanism is very simple: 666
BLACK METAL 666 Always create as many insoluble conflicts as 666 SPEED

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

About nazism:

> > -censored art and expression
>
> Censored _some_ art and expression.

Evil Goat,

I agree with most of your points, however, I think you are being
somewhat too tolerant towards nazism on this particular point (which can
be extrapolated to Freedom of Speech, of course).

I find the book burnings quite offensive... Just as offensive as that
yokel impaled onto a cross.

> > -preached unity by physical characteristics (different from race,
> > even!)
>
> Yes. I was hoping you'd bring this up: Hitler was not a racist as much as he
> was a believer in his culture, and saw the Jews (unified by ethnoculture) as
> a force in his way (an interpretation that history supports). So he removed
> them. Who can blame him? Especially when he gave them - count 'em - 10
> years to get the hell out.

Partially agreed. The jews, unified by ethnoculture, are being cast out.
Which proves that Hitler had *something* of a racialistic view. You seem
to dismiss this. But I do not think it can be neglected. This
racialistic feature is just one of the features of nazism which I
disagree with (alongside with the book burnings). It does not settle the
argument, but it cannot be neglected, that's all I'm saying. Whether the
jes got 10 years to leave or not: the point is, racialism was one of the
point of nazism.

> > -practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any
> > warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)
>
> So do current governments - and so do you, seemingly.

Quite correct!

> > -enslaved/killed minority groups
>
> We're living in the land of 200 years of racially-justified slavery to which
> Hitler's actions were miniscule in comparison and you care? Your logic is
> heavily biased by aesthetics!

Indeed! And besides, jews are as racialistic as nazis.... "Talmud" "holy
people"... Fuck them. Whatever happened to those Palestines?

> > so, the question arises: why do i want _any_ of these governments?
>
> The question arises: what sort of motivational thinking do you want behind a
> government? And therefore, to make a political statement, which ideology do
> you choose? Your ideology as exhibited in these posts is closer to
> Judeo-Christianity than progressive; I'd rather have Nazis!

I would not dare to make such a bold statement. But then again, I
haven't even figued out myself, so basically I'm saying nothing (yet).
The thought process is still busy (even at 4 AM, now =)).

> > if you want honesty, i prefer "other governments" - personal freedom,
> > which they allow, is paramount and leads all other progression. unless
> > you think the 1984 scenario shows positive progression of the human
> > species.
>
> I think we're in the 1984 scenario, only it has been very cleverly disguised.
> Work all day for inefficient, worthless, and environmentally-destructive
> projects. Create products designed to trick fellow human beings into
> purchasing inferior goods for more money. Do whatever you can get away with,
> as long as it makes money. And if you don't believe the press is censored in
> this country, it's obvious you know nothing - NOTHING - of how this system
> works.

Again, agreed in each and every aspect. Today's society is only a
mockery of Freedom of Speech.

> > >What, you'd rather have 200 years of black slavery in the United States for
> > >the simple reason that we could justify using other human beings as machines?
> > >Instead of a leader who sought to _visibly remove_ the presence of a
> > >religious train of thought he believed to be antithetical to positive human
> > >growth?
> >
> > out of curiosity, how do you think he believed the aforementioned
> > censorship and conformity demands would encourage "positive human
> > growth"?
>
> Collective objective and removal of elements which (in the style of
> Judeo-Christian fatalists) posited no value to existence.

By whose measures?

> Clearing the shop
> so that thinking could begin. And truly, his empire invented great things,
> and his vision was made manifest in laws of great truth and purity:
>
> - Ecological laws
> - Workers' rights laws

Some of the achievemnts of nazism... But the pros AND cons should be
mentioned. You mention only the pros, other people only mention the
cons... I try to mention both.

> > you still havent explained what homosexuals and other various
> > minorities have to do with said "religious train of thought". it
> > almost seems like you're dancing around the issue; a bit clumsy,
> > but...
>
> Those are unfortunate Fuhrer-isms that I would not have applied. Then again,
> I would not have applied the gas ovens either (The Judeo-Christian Holocaust
> relies on exile to serve the function of eradicating Judeo-Christianity -
> those people cannot take care of themselves on their own).

I see the "Judeo-Christian Holocaust" as a mental crusade... Killing the
people following that doctrine would mean a violation of Free Speech,
which is one of my core beliefs. The mentality should be countered
whenever met in a disrespectful way, of course.

> > it seems that, based on that information, hitler DID practice blind
> > bigotry. and intentional blindness is, dare i say...stupid?
>
> How was he blind? -- His actions may have been in error, but not ignorance.

I think I can agree here.

> None of our research now existed to demonstrate the function of homosexuality
> and so to him, he was clearing out those who were contrarian to his program,
> and were ALSO too stupid to leave when he announced his intentions.

Hitler was just..... surviving?

> > >I like you guys but -- sometimes you're fucking dense. And cruel to all of
> > >humanity in you cowardice.
> >
> > another blanket statement. who is included in "you guys"?
>
> This one is blanket for a purpose but for this message you may include
> yourself in its scope. Does it matter, here?
>
> <http://www.evilmusic.com/> - The truth, not the lies of society.

Hmm... I'd say A truth (one of many), but at least... not lies!

I have been making a plan to construct something of a philosphical
enclave... I've put some thoughts on my homepage
(http://www.student.wau.nl/~maartenj, without any fucking pics =)), and
more are to follow... It will cover the broad philosophical issues
covered as well in this newsgroup (as of yet it is still in development,
but it is online already), and my plan is to "build" a philosophical
enclave.... In other words, read my thoughts expressed, be inspired by
them (or use your inspiration you already had), and type *your*
thoughts... If mailed to me, they will appear there, not out of context,
no, the whole "essay" written... This way I hope to achieve greater
philosophical insight for *everyone* , since different views and
opinions will be expressed, and besides, it will be something where
flames will be unexistent... It will not be like Usenet.
This quite pretentious undertaking will only succeed if I get material
(philosophical essays, so to say)...

Maybe we can even write a "Nihilism FAQ" =)
I urge everyone however to write his/her thoughts down in essay-form and
mail them to me... We shall build a bulwark of philosophical freedom!

With regards,

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

HEIL HITLER - THE IRREFUTABLE LEADER ;)

> > race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
> > that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
> > is trivialized in comparison. which do you think would be bigger? -
> > the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
> > same species?
>

> I agree. I'm actually a bit baffled that a.n.u.s. speaks out
> against the commodity view of reality (establishing universal valuative
> criteria for objects based upon surface characteristics, while ignoring
> the actual substance of those objects), yet has no problem with a race
> wanting to keep itself "pure" for the sake of being pure.

"For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
(actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
alien, predatory culture - the point being not superiority complex
(Christian: gOD has ordained one superior, so we keep it "pure") but
affirmation of their will to change and to have more progressive objectives,
no matter the method, than the equally-murderous Jews and Christians.

Bands who Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust:

Bathory
Hellhammer
Burzum
Darkthrone
Immortal
Mayhem
Morbid Angel
Black Sabbath

...in short, all of metal; all of recent logical advances in music. And
philosophers? Since Nietzsche, the carping whiners seem to have mostly shut
up, and any work since has been very agreeable to destruction of

Judeo-Christianity. To writers? Any of note, including the last two of
importance: Joyce and Burroughs.

> > that emphasises intelligent progression - in fact, you're taking a

> > step back to the "might is right" doctrine. "might is right" is also a
> > basic tenet of christianity - why is god "supreme", again?
>

> I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is a reaction to the
> "might is right" doctrine by those who would be rendered "wrong" by it.

...yet it brings out a corresponding "might (of omnipotent and inevitable
fatalistic gOD) is right" reactivity. It's a mindfuck; I wouldn't look for
orthogonal logic in this morass!

> Blessed are the Weak
> Blessed are the Sick
> Blessed are the Poor in spirit....
>

> Even their savior was depicted as calm and passive, accepting his own
> brutal death before he would allow himself to resort to violence.

Which was in itself a resentment of guilt - let himself die so others would be
the aggressor, when it was he who was seeking to make their values (human
values, life values) worthless.

Fichte es!

> The reason why god is "supreme" is to allow the weak ones feelings
> of vengeful satisfaction after they recieve a good ass kicking...cause
> hey, "I might have just got my face pounded in by that guy, but he's going

> to hell cause my omnipotent god is now pissed at him..so who's laughing
> now?"

Well said!

> > >Also, if one interprets ultramodernism somewhat correctly, one sees how
> > >Hitler's revolution was very anti-state in its approach toward the
boundaries
> > >of politics and philosophy: it became a personal, almost religious, quest
if
> > >one sought to understand it. And the leaders of that regime acted in
accord
> > >with that sacrament.
>

> "anti-state"?????? He built a big, powerful, scarry-fucking
> machine (tm)!!

That is aesthetics: his machine was his tool for a task. His state did not
run for its own power or authority; it ran because it had a job to do, one
that actually had the interests of all the world's peoples in mind.

> All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
> towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
> gassed.

Not true. All of the efforts of the German nation were devoted toward a

series of objectives. If you acted counter to those objectives, you were

jailed and put to work - if you were Jewish, there was about a 15% chance
you'd get gassed and burned.

> He constructed a polity, not an spiritual ideal. He murdered his

> opposition, and reduced personal freedoms to an all time low.

A polity can be a spiritual ideal, in the sense that it can direct thought
toward a new metaphor and conception.

Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for all
time - it's called "war."

Personal freedoms in modern AmeriKKKa are at a low lower than Hitler's lowest
low, without an ounce of the intention that he had - here, it's only
business, which is the lowest of the low forms of fatalism and surrender to
doubt. Hitler is a hero for rising out of the morass with an understanding
of the sublime and an eye to future and not fear of the past - HEIL HITLER!

HAIL SATAN

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

> > If those who live in racially-defined countries wish them to stay that way,

> do
> > you also support their right to use force to exclude other races?
> >
> > How about the gas chamber?
> >
> > Sound good?
> >
> > Was Mengele your grandfather?
>
> Couldn't post an argument without a slander, could you? Attempting to group
> those who support unorthodox arguments with the worst deeds of similar
> thinkers only proves that you are a dogmatist who cannot escape the aesthetic
> of stereotype. And for that, you are the greater fool!
>

> Well, well...such a strong response! :-)
>
> Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Mr. EvilMetal. I didn’t mean to. However,
just
> so that you may be more aware in the future, a dogmatist is one who arrogantly
> states opinions as positives. And nowhere in the above passage did I state an
> opinion. If you need help, please check the nearest dictionary.

You stated an opinion in the bias of your words - which is as clearly
understood in philosophy as stating a formally-declared opinion, since the
two are essentially the same. What, trying to weasel out of the opinion you
did held? Embarrassed?

> And as for the “aesthetic of stereotype,” I have no idea of what you’re
talking
> about. Are you trying to make up your own language?

No, but that "nearest dictionary" might help you.

myles robert hamilton

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

> > I agree. I'm actually a bit baffled that a.n.u.s. speaks out
> > against the commodity view of reality (establishing universal valuative
> > criteria for objects based upon surface characteristics, while ignoring
> > the actual substance of those objects), yet has no problem with a race
> > wanting to keep itself "pure" for the sake of being pure.
>
> "For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
> (actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
> alien, predatory culture

Why would free-thinking beings be concerned with their
(coincidental) cultures, outside of understanding the distortion that it
places on their perceptive capacities? Personal thought should be what is
important, not the generic similarities _manufactured_ by the communities
in which they live. To accept the characteristics of the culture you were
randomly raised in as containing inherent worth (and moreover to judge
members of other cultures upon such stereotypical criteria) just
perpetuates the sheep-like behavior of the ascetic ideal.
Hitler didn't ask jews how religous they were before he killed
them.

- the point being not superiority complex
> (Christian: gOD has ordained one superior, so we keep it "pure") but
> affirmation of their will to change and to have more progressive objectives,
> no matter the method, than the equally-murderous Jews and Christians.
>
> Bands who Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust:
> Bathory
> Hellhammer
> Burzum
> Darkthrone
> Immortal

Immortal? Though I anticipate your response of "one can tell by
the beauty of their music where their ideals lie", I have to say that
I think immortal are doing it more for "fun".

> Mayhem
> Morbid Angel
> Black Sabbath

Again, I don't see how Ozzy or BS are waring with the christian
commodity society by participating in OZZFEST each year.

Why should people tolerate such a means of obtaining "freedom" if
it means that their lives/rights/dignity must be sacraficed for others
(and no I am not talking about the direct targets of Nazi persecution)?

(it actually resembles notions of christian "virtue" to me)

>
> > All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
> > towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
> > gassed.
>
> Not true. All of the efforts of the German nation were devoted toward a
> series of objectives. If you acted counter to those objectives, you were
> jailed and put to work

No room for dissent?? Politically necessary? maybe..ideologically
consistent/prudent? no. Those who have no strength to stare the
opposition in the face everyday do not deserve to lead.

- if you were Jewish, there was about a 15% chance
> you'd get gassed and burned.

Only because there was a 15% chance of getting caught. They
didn't just let people go once they were captured.

>
> > He constructed a polity, not an spiritual ideal. He murdered his
> > opposition, and reduced personal freedoms to an all time low.
>
> A polity can be a spiritual ideal, in the sense that it can direct thought
> toward a new metaphor and conception.

The whole problem is that a polity exists to "direct people". If
the concern is personal freedom, the state is obviously the last thing you
want to strengthen.

>
> Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for all
> time - it's called "war."

That is not a justification.

>
> Personal freedoms in modern AmeriKKKa are at a low lower than Hitler's lowest
> low, without an ounce of the intention that he had - here, it's only
> business, which is the lowest of the low forms of fatalism and surrender to
> doubt. Hitler is a hero for rising out of the morass with an understanding
> of the sublime and an eye to future and not fear of the past - HEIL HITLER!
>
> HAIL SATAN

Hitler sure did get along well with the upper class....

Melvin Slundersloth

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 01:20:16 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>> I agree with most of your points, however, I think you are being
>> somewhat too tolerant towards nazism on this particular point (which can
>> be extrapolated to Freedom of Speech, of course).
>

>I think we have to be tolerant of all ideas except those which prove
>themselves to be fearful and regressive.

do you agree, then, that we should not be tolerant of this particular
thing (which is what he asked)?

>> I find the book burnings quite offensive... Just as offensive as that
>> yokel impaled onto a cross.
>

>It would not have been my choice, nor would the gas ovens have been my
>execution of the final solution.

side note: what do concentration camps have to do with a high and
lofty ideological goal? you'd think that if hitler REALLY had a
non-racialist metapurpose he would just kill people straight up.

details, details...

>However, the book burnings are not the
>whole of Nazism and represent a small and less significant factor of the
>ideology.

what a good way to "motivate" people. mmm...fascism...

>> Indeed! And besides, jews are as racialistic as nazis.... "Talmud" "holy
>> people"... Fuck them. Whatever happened to those Palestines?
>

>Same with Christians, who instead of race base their assumptions on belief,
>and retaliate with pity and guilt on those who do not believe. Send 'em both
>to the ovens ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reeducation camps.

watch yourself. :)

>> Hitler was just..... surviving?
>
>Not sure I get it. He was probably allowing the homosexual genocide to occur
>as part of the price for his pairing with the Catholic Church

alliances with those we disagree with for gain? sounds like he was
more of a businessman then you'd like to admit.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> I agree with most of your points, however, I think you are being
> somewhat too tolerant towards nazism on this particular point (which can
> be extrapolated to Freedom of Speech, of course).

I think we have to be tolerant of all ideas except those which prove
themselves to be fearful and regressive. This is not the case (in the whole)
of Nazism, where for the ideas expressed by some...

> I find the book burnings quite offensive... Just as offensive as that
> yokel impaled onto a cross.

It would not have been my choice, nor would the gas ovens have been my
execution of the final solution. However, the book burnings are not the

whole of Nazism and represent a small and less significant factor of the
ideology.

> Partially agreed. The jews, unified by ethnoculture, are being cast out.

> Which proves that Hitler had *something* of a racialistic view.

Racialism in service to culturalism, as opposed to racialism in service to ego
or economics. Big difference!

> You seem
> to dismiss this. But I do not think it can be neglected.

I dismiss it because it's not the issue. The issue is culture-warfare and not
racialism.

> Indeed! And besides, jews are as racialistic as nazis.... "Talmud" "holy
> people"... Fuck them. Whatever happened to those Palestines?

Same with Christians, who instead of race base their assumptions on belief,

and retaliate with pity and guilt on those who do not believe. Send 'em both
to the ovens ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reeducation camps.

> Again, agreed in each and every aspect. Today's society is only a

> mockery of Freedom of Speech.

A mockery of every freedom and every human hope.

> > Collective objective and removal of elements which (in the style of
> > Judeo-Christian fatalists) posited no value to existence.
>
> By whose measures?

Objective. That is, by ideas which can be understood and shared by honest
intellectuals.

> > - Ecological laws
> > - Workers' rights laws
>
> Some of the achievemnts of nazism... But the pros AND cons should be
> mentioned. You mention only the pros, other people only mention the
> cons... I try to mention both.

He's mentioned enough of the cons, which for me are obvious: bellicose
society. Civil rights infringement. High cost of shooting AND burning Jews.

> I see the "Judeo-Christian Holocaust" as a mental crusade... Killing the
> people following that doctrine would mean a violation of Free Speech,
> which is one of my core beliefs. The mentality should be countered
> whenever met in a disrespectful way, of course.

The mentality should be countered, period, and if killing is one way to do
it, I support it. Send 'em to the ovens! My preferred countermethod is
education and an insistence on truth, which is to Judeo-Christians as
kryptonite is to stuporman.

> > None of our research now existed to demonstrate the function of
homosexuality
> > and so to him, he was clearing out those who were contrarian to his program,
> > and were ALSO too stupid to leave when he announced his intentions.
>
> Hitler was just..... surviving?

Not sure I get it. He was probably allowing the homosexual genocide to occur
as part of the price for his pairing with the Catholic Church (noted killers
in their own right, and fucked over righteously by Hitler).

> > <http://www.evilmusic.com/> - The truth, not the lies of society.
>
> Hmm... I'd say A truth (one of many), but at least... not lies!

Not lies - therefore truth - one of many? Sure, in that there are many topics
for truth. But anyone who is not an objectivist is lying to themselves!

> I have been making a plan to construct something of a philosphical
> enclave... I've put some thoughts on my homepage
> (http://www.student.wau.nl/~maartenj, without any fucking pics =)), and
> more are to follow... It will cover the broad philosophical issues
> covered as well in this newsgroup (as of yet it is still in development,
> but it is online already), and my plan is to "build" a philosophical
> enclave.... In other words, read my thoughts expressed, be inspired by
> them (or use your inspiration you already had), and type *your*
> thoughts... If mailed to me, they will appear there, not out of context,
> no, the whole "essay" written... This way I hope to achieve greater
> philosophical insight for *everyone* , since different views and
> opinions will be expressed, and besides, it will be something where
> flames will be unexistent... It will not be like Usenet.
> This quite pretentious undertaking will only succeed if I get material
> (philosophical essays, so to say)...

Sounds good to me.

> Maybe we can even write a "Nihilism FAQ" =)

Sure. I've got half of one on one website.

> I urge everyone however to write his/her thoughts down in essay-form and
> mail them to me... We shall build a bulwark of philosophical freedom!

Written with the blood of dead Christians!

666 DEATH METAL 666 "The basic nova mechanism is very simple: 666
BLACK METAL 666 Always create as many insoluble conflicts as 666 SPEED
METAL 666 as possible and always aggravate existing 666 GRIND CORE 666
conflicts--This is done by dumping life forms 666 www.evilmusic.com 666
with incompatible conditions of existence on 666666666 reviews/info 666666666
the same planet...to create and aggravate the 666666666 www.kcuf.org
666666666 conflicts that lead to the explosion of a 666 www.anus.com/hsc
666 planet that is to nova." | SUPPORT THE 666 metal is life 666 - W.S.
Burroughs HEIL |JUDEO-CHRISTIAN <http://www.evilmusic.com/> ~!~
<http://www.anus.com/> SATAN | HOLOCAUST

"Think for yourself, or your answers will not be satisfying."

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> CHRISTIAN BLACK METAL aka UNBLACK IS HERE TO STAY,LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!!

So is the stench of shit.

Whether you like it or not, metal is a theory beyond the bounds of
Judeo-Christianity, and your attempts to subvert it by stapling a different
mask onto the dead body of the lack of hope is typical judeo-christian
reliance on aesthetics instead of logic - you guys always self-parody and
make yourselves a worthy target for worms.

HEIL SATAN

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> >No. I support the Judeo-Christian holocaust for many reasons, most of which
> >focus on a public and lasting departure from the ideas of the postheathen
> >premoderns.
>

> I have a slight problem with this...not so much with the "ethical tangent" of
> your thinking, but the proposed objectivity behind it.

Too fuckin' bad...

> >Anyone< who dares to presume selective genetic tailoring of the human race,
in
> order to avoid total hypocrisy, must in turn be objective enough to view their
> OWN place in society, and be willing to weed themselves out.

Sure - were I one who was hopelessly doomed to follow the course of pessimism,
guilt and pity, I'd kill myself to preserve my honor. Do you have such balls?

> You say that by removing (insert dogmatically inclined-motivated race/nation
> here) from the species, we progress as human beings because we remove their
> ethos from our mindset.

That's not what I said - however, by removing certain cultures we would
progress simply through purging of disease. But that is not the first tenet
of national socialism (as you well would know, were you an objectivist!).

> What do >YOU< do for society? What do >YOU< represent? How is >YOUR<
> continued existence going to perpetuate the human need to excel, not regress?
> What functional niche will >you< fill that is necessary to our existence?

I create many structures of beauty and function joined in the power of true
optimism through an acceptance and endurance of nihilism in the context of
personal value and objectivist valuation. And you?

> I bet your life that your answer to this would be deemed inconsequential or
> irrelevant to >any< other person with your ethical mindset.

I bet you just lost your life in a bet.

> Most racists/purists/idealists/whatever I know are motivated by the need to
> remove >others< from the global gene-pool, with no objective regard for their
> own shortcomings.

Not so. Hitler made himself an example first, using the ideas that Gandhi
would later express in his eloquent statement about "becoming the change you
seek in the world."

> Think about your own place before you feel qualified to decide who should live
> or die...
>
> Anything else makes you a coward and a slave.
>
> Just like Hitler.

Shows what you know about history - which man was a coward, the man who
fought and died or those who hid behind bureaucracy to make profit from a war
that cost millions of lives?

You are ignorant of history and objectivity - no wonder your post is so
self-contradictory. What do YOU do for the world? Chase Nazis on USENET?
How very regressive, and hypocritical - what would YOU do for the world?

"Think for yourself, or your answers will not be satisfying."

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> I think that might be a little general (even though it's a quote).
>
> IMO, most people >do< know what they want....they want to achieve their
> ultimate form of contentment.
> The question is, how to achieve this?

Is that what they _want_, or what they'll accept in the absence of belief that
they can have what they _want_?

> The biggest mistake along these lines is that many think that contentment =
> laziness, or the path to contentment = sheeplike "follow the pack to the
yellow
> brick road" mentality.
>
> It's basic universal law that LIFE IS HARD. Everything exists in adversarial
> position to something else, and it is the conflict excited by the adversarial
> relationships (chaos) that perpetuates life. Many philosophies revolve
around
> the fact that "within this struggle can be found a goal--order within
> chaos--for at that point, it ceases to become meaningless, and the journey
> fulfilling".
> The problem is that most people (especially those who engage in anecdotal
> philosophy, for some strange and ironic reason) have given up their "kampf",
> and will not achieve the "contentment" they really want.
>
> Now, there was a point to all this...
>
> Somewhere.

You lost your point because you have no belief in life - only in the struggle
for life. But where is the value behind your struggle? Only in your belief
that there should be a struggle!

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

Look, we've generated a giant meatshit of text...

> >> > race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
> >> > that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
> >> > is trivialized in comparison. which do you think would be bigger? -
> >> > the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
> >> > same species?
> >>
> >> I agree. I'm actually a bit baffled that a.n.u.s. speaks out
> >> against the commodity view of reality (establishing universal valuative
> >> criteria for objects based upon surface characteristics, while ignoring
> >> the actual substance of those objects), yet has no problem with a race
> >> wanting to keep itself "pure" for the sake of being pure.
> >
> >"For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
> >(actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
> >alien, predatory culture - the point being not superiority complex
> >(Christian: gOD has ordained one superior, so we keep it "pure") but
> >affirmation of their will to change and to have more progressive objectives,
> >no matter the method, than the equally-murderous Jews and Christians.
>
> out of curiosity, given hitler's ideal of the "pure aryan man", what
> do you think would have been done with blacks?
>
> ...this, among other things that i mentioned, hints to me that the
> intent was something other then what you specify.

If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.

> "culture" is silly - it affirms a sort of group collective instead of
> emphasising individual thought. if someone in nazi germany was born
> jewish and decided against that set of beliefs, what do you think
> would have been done with him?

My, did you just shoot your foot off or what - in answer to your question, HE
WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE NAZI PARTY AS ALFRED ROSENBERG (Author of the
"Final Solution") AND OTHERS WERE. Note how many of the high-ranking Nazis
were jewish in blood!

Culture is not about sheepism - it is about _shared_ values, values that are
inalienable by their consistency with the parameters of existence and the
responses possible. In some cultures, the response is bravery - in others,
pessimism.

> "culture" is hardly defined by race -

Read carefully. I did not claim that it was - only that race was the shield
for his description of culture (which he did not define by race, accepting
"mongrel" whites of every sort into the Nazi party).

> in fact, it should be said that
> only those who consciously ally themselves with a certain way of
> thinking have a specific "culture", and none others. you cannot be
> born into it - you must consciously decide for yourself.

Exactly.

> a blond
> haired blue eyed "aryan" no more shares this "culture" with the next
> then does someone from asia. there is "culture" in the sense of
> similar achievments (usually in art) by a certain group of people -
> you are using the word in a different sense then this, where it doesnt
> apply.

If one's ancestors created a culture by choice, one can choose to accept it as
an artifact of history bearing cumulative learning.

> >Bands who Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust:
> >Bathory
> >Hellhammer
> >Burzum
> >Darkthrone
> >Immortal
> >Mayhem
> >Morbid Angel
> >Black Sabbath
> >
> >...in short, all of metal; all of recent logical advances in music. And
> >philosophers? Since Nietzsche, the carping whiners seem to have mostly shut
> >up, and any work since has been very agreeable to destruction of
> >Judeo-Christianity.
>
> i know you've given nietzsche a lot of respect in the past; here's an
> interesting essay that relates to our topic for today:
>
> http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/WAGNIET.html
>
> a couple of the quotes from mein kampf peppered about seem
> very...interesting. if we can assume they should be taken at face
> value, they invalidate what you've said.

Please explain; given the poor quality of your logic so far, I'm not that
inclined to chase down this essay (so sue me, I'm lazy and you're posting
crap).

> >To writers? Any of note, including the last two of
> >importance: Joyce and Burroughs.
>
> who's joyce?

James Joyce, author of "A portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and W.S.
Burroughs, author of "Naked Lunch" and "Nova Express" (origin of the term
"heavy metal").

> >That is aesthetics: his machine was his tool for a task. His state did not
> >run for its own power or authority; it ran because it had a job to do, one
> >that actually had the interests of all the world's peoples in mind.
>
> ...would the state have dismantled itself in the future, _of it's own
> violition_, if a better solution presented itself?

YES. In fact, one wonders whether his intention was to preserve the state at
all...

> of course not; all states exist for the sake of gaining power (1984).
> people are weak, and they like the ego trip of placing themselves
> higher then the next man. in germany, it was the "non-aryans" - how do
> you think hitler got so much support?

From those who felt themselves disadvantaged - however, you haven't proved the
motivations of his government in doing so - only assaulted it aesthetically.
His government worked for his people, and the results were abundant. Economic
recovery. Worker's policy. Ecological policy. Cultural study. Got that from
any other government?

Also worthy of study are the Japanese...

> do you really believe that the common person in germany understood a
> quarter of what you've asserted hitler and his country believed in? of
> course not - "99% of people dont know what they want".

Exactly, and so he deceived them while leaving enough information so that the
intelligent could understand his motives and actions.

> any society that feels content to leave these 99% people in the dark
> while it guides their actions is "feminine and erotic" - such was the
> way with nazi germany.

These 99% will never make a conscious choice in their lives - why try to
convince them, when bread and a circus is their chosen delimiter of
intellectual capacity?

> no real political can change without first altering the current state
> of humanity - more intelligence, more free thought!

Which Hitler did. Look at how many people have questioned his actions, and
either bowed out with a moral aesthetic bias (as you have) or probed further
(as many artists have, most without becoming "avowed Nazis".)

> and assuming all
> current governments are horrible in some way, you see why i prefer
> this government to yours - art and expression are the only way to
> achieve those things, and in nazism/fascism, those methods are not
> allowed.

Not true - art which preaches Judaic/Christian fantasies is not permitted, all
else is legal.

> you fall into a trap; no different/better government without
> more intelligence (i'm actually thinking something more akin to the
> mix of self-determinism, free thought, etc.), and no more of that
> without a different government. you'd be foolish to think that your
> proposed government is the be all end all of things.

No, you fall into a trap - you want something more fascist without the
positive objectives of fascism, because you do not believe in optimism - you
want the same old shit with assurances that it's "in your best interests."
Tell me, what controls the current government? I'll tell you: money and an
obsessive need for power. Did Hitler take power for his own benefit? He did
it from an ideological belief instead - and built the most impressive modern
government for his people.

So, what has government since done besides make money for those in the crony
system? Think long, you have mindfucked yourself...

> at least, in "amerikkka", the 1% who knows how to think for themselves
> can attempt to show the rest. germans follow the leader.

What if the leader was showing them how to think for themselves? You are not
capable of thinking for yourself, judging by what you've posted here.

> >> All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
> >> towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
> >> gassed.
> >
> >Not true. All of the efforts of the German nation were devoted toward a
> >series of objectives.
>
> all of the efforts of the state may have been devoted towards that.
> all the efforts of the german people supported the state - the state
> could have stood for most anything. the people didnt care, because the
> people were stupid and liked envisioning themselves on top of a racial
> pyramid. this way of doing things helped them believe it - "if the guy
> in power says so..."

There was the matter of hope, and belief, that they found in their leader
after a series of beaten commercialites. They both knew and did not know -
they trusted his motives, but may not have understood his politics - in the
same way a child can trust its parents.

> >If you acted counter to those objectives, you were
> >jailed and put to work - if you were Jewish, there was about a 15% chance
> >you'd get gassed and burned.
>
> i'm curious about this "15% chance". where do you get your figures?

Based on world almanac statistics. Most escaped, by the largest margin.

> >Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for
all
> >time - it's called "war."
>
> ...is this apologism?

Why would you think it so, unless you were inclined toward apologism? Let's
call it "compatibility"...

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> >I assert that it is "better" than "any other government" (so far in history)
> >for its progressive thought process, no matter how much killing, brutality,
> >inefficiency and racism went along with that.
>
> arent "killing", "brutality", "inefficiency", and "racism"
> anti-progressive thought processes?

It depends on the motivations behind them. There are effects and side
effects, some of which are dependent on other people beside the leader.
"Anti-progressive thought processes" is more censorious than anything Hitler
ever achieved; a thought process can only be judged by what it attempts and
what relevance that has to life, rather than it being judged in an artificial
sphere of isolation (aesthetics).

> why dont you intersect all the best governments you've found so far so
> you leave yourself with only the progressive and not the regressive?

That would be National Socialism, crossed with the economic militarism of
modern Japan and with a more efficient method of disposing of the bodies (ok,
ok, maybe I mean more efficient method of shipping Christians and Juden to
Palestine, but they don't seem to want them there either - who can blame
them?).

> >Note the word is in quotes, mocking it.
>
> and yet, you seem to be using it in a way to throw negative light on
> those who do not agree with nazism.

Cite, thanks. I am mocking those who believe in aestheticism.

> >Define "believe" and "evolution."
>
> evolution: changes in gene frequency in a population on a world scale
> which had the ultimate result of forming man from lower life.

"Lower life"? Seems like you'd support the ape genocide. What's different
then about killing those who are of lower philosophical standards?

> believe: hold to be true using logical/scientific processes (instead
> of faith)

Doesn't apply where you applied it, then, unless you can provide a better
example.

> >No. I support the Judeo-Christian holocaust for many reasons, most of which
> >focus on a public and lasting departure from the ideas of the postheathen
> >premoderns.
>
> which are "bad" for humanity, right?

"Bad" has no meaning. They are a direction I choose not to pursue.

> (please dont pretend to not know what i mean by "bad"; it's shorthand
> for more relevant concepts when i put it in quotes)

Shows how little you know about what I'm doing - I place nothing in the "bad"
category without a corresponding parameter of teleology. So please define
yours...

> i repeat:
>
> so, you support the judeo-christian holocaust on the grounds that
> "this (judeo-christianity) promotes x and y 'bad' things ("ideas of
> postheathen premoderns")"?

I support the Judeo-Christian holocaust on the grounds that it leads toward a
better method than the Judeo-Christian method. Your definition makes no
sense to one who is not enmeshed in aestheticism.

> >I am an objectivist, and all of us share a world - therefore, unlike you, I
> >believe in progress - that instead of us all "doing our own thing" as the
> >guise of acting in dishonesty and error, we work toward a more progressive
> >future.
>
> you show misunderstanding of my beliefs - you make assumptions because
> i havent even provided you with enough information to know in the
> first place.

Maybe you're just inarticulate or confused?

> there is no guise of dishonesty and error. people believe in their
> beliefs, of course - no one who seems themself "doing their own thing"
> believes themselves to be denying information to rationalize acting in
> a certain way.

What they believe can be delusion, can it not?

> what if everyone could "do their own thing"? what if everyone's (most
> people's) "own thing" was extremely similar to the point where it was
> functionally identical? what if this "thing" supported the same
> progression that you speak of?

Then it would be blessed - but my "progression" is not normative (in
direction) but ultimately facilitative - just in a radically different
direction from Judeo-Christianity.

Did you read Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" or Joyce's "Ulysses"? These might
help you argue this without seeming so ignorant.

> how could this be achieved? any method to do so would consequently
> endow upon humans huge amounts of freedom, knowledge, understanding,
> and the like. perhaps we should work for that end, instead of the
> sophomoric "this was the best government so far..." that you seem to
> enjoy crusading for.

Ah, you're stereotyping my beliefs again - how dishonest! This was the most
impressive government so far, and contains beliefs I find useful - that is
the core of my belief. Furthermore, I see this government as metaphor and
not symbolism - a new way of thinking - and therefore appreciate it instead
of blindly crusading against it as you do.

> a higher ideal society would naturally fall into
> place from my solution; yours leaves them bullshitting around in the
> herd for all eternity since free thought is illegal when it violates
> the status quo.

Your solution is to repeat history. How boring and how misguided.

> >> your position is in err and illogical - if you believe in
> >> self-determination then you believe in the rights of anyone to do
> >> anything regardless of percieved intelligence.
> >
> >First big wrong. What if what they are doing is not-self-determination, e.g.
> >unselfaware like Judeo-Christianity?
>
> freedom to toss their freedom away. killing them just makes martyrs
> and makes you look silly for taking the easy (worse) way out.

Depends on the objective - and your assertions fall flat when one considers
what value there is in reclaimed land and culture.

> i think varg said something profound once - paraphrased, "they may be
> in a jewish trance, but they are still our brothers! they must be
> awakened and then welcomed back into our midst. for killing them would
> be akin to killing ourselves, killing our own flesh..."
>
> i agree.

If you have read my postings, you can see how I would agree - and also how I
would appreciate kindness toward the diseased flesh in dispatching it.

> >> christians can put on
> >> their yokes and pull jesus' chariot while inbreeding with only their
> >> kind of the other side of the world - they dont concern you.
> >
> >We share a world.
>
> they would have you killed first.

Jews, Christians? Yes, they would - they would have me and my descendants
enslaved forever to boredom and mindless pessimism.

> and so, that would be
> anti-progressive as it does not allow you to share your views with
> them. getting rid of them would affirm snuffing out all revolutionary
> ideas - is that the precedent you want to set?

If they are not self-aware, sharing with them information is useless - they
cannot make decisions, so they cannot accept or deny - and if they do, it is
an aesthetic decision which will repolarize on slight stimulus.

> the solution is to work to teach them better - or, more logically, to
> work to emphasise free thought in humanity, so that this "better"
> thing falls into place naturally.

How is Nazism not doing that?

> not doing that leaves an equally
> stupid humanity behind, 99% still not knowing what they want but
> having beliefs that you find less offensive.

A state educated in the methods of Nazism would empower an acceptance of
awareness that Judeo-Christianity denies. My methods promulgate the
possibility of awareness, where theirs attempt to squash it - and since they
cannot make decisions, they cannot accept something new - so education may
come with an Iron Fist.

> >> for the record, there is a massive difference between "get these
> >> fucking people out of my country" and "stop these fucking people from
> >> breathing _MY_ oxygen" - so the rebuttal "i dont want them enslaving
> >> me" isnt valid based on how you've defined your position previously.
> >
> >Your logic is not consistent. Get these people out of my country is a
> >legitimate response to their stated beliefs; killing them is one method.
>
> an anti-progressive method, yes. see above.

Your aesthetic categorization shows how you are as ignorant as they are.

> >Whether or not Hitler's actions (beyond the massive distortions of history,
>
> which "massive distortions of history" are you speaking of?

That which is often accepted in American schools: a crusade against Nazism
while giving short shrift to its advantages and context.

> >I have chosen the purer state of mind and its emblematic philosophy for my
own
> >means,
>
> you sidestepped my question; noted. please try again.

You missed my answer. Please try to think, period. You're ignorant and
defensive!

> >which you have not yet come close to a glimpse of.
>
> unneeded personal attack.

No, honesty. You still don't understand what I'm saying. No surprise - you
don't WANT to.

> >> >Notice how
> >> >much they've read into what I've said - without a clue as to what I am
> >> >saying!
> >>
> >> a couple of responses to what you've said have been perfectly valid.
> >> grouping those valid responses with "them" is a bit dishonest, dont
> >> you think?
> >
> >No, when I've identified the group by their error, rather than as a group.
>
> some have not read anything into what you've said - pretty poor job of
> identifying, dont you think?

When I've identified the group by their error, that means what bounds the
group is the error - therefore all included have made the error. Try again
to read what I'm saying, please, or to take your aestheticism somewhere where
they care - like the rest of the world, which loves its delusion and will
never ever wish for progress?

> >> >Let's put it this way - who'd you rather be killed by? Stalin - who is
> >> >the more likely case, since his victim list ran 30 million (or you could
> >> >substitute Tojo), or Hitler?
> >>
> >> this is a rather silly question. which would you rather be, a slave or
> >> an amoeba?
> >
> >No, your answer is rather stupid - progress lies in having a vision of future
> >and an understanding of reality, which is the way of being killed by Hitler -
> >ideology - rather than Stalin or Tojo, who were only businessmen.
>
> yours is apologism. put a negative thing next to a more negative
> thing, and the first doesnt look so bad. dishonesty? noted. apologism
> permeates a large deal of what you say below this; how would you like
> me to interpret it?

You have misinterpreted my comments and are now attempting to categorize
them, which is more fascist than what Hitler ever did - he at least granted
his enemies intellectual honesty. Luckily those who follow what you have
said are having a laugh at your expense!

> so, a slave or an amoeba? at least a slave has capacity for
> intelligence which he can perhaps capitalize on. hence, slave = not so
> bad, eh?

In your view - one who has capacity to be more than a slave might disagree.

> >> >Nazis:
> >> > - First Ecological Policy.
> >> > - First Worker's Rights Policy.
> >> > - Fought Wars to Accomplish Great Things.
> >> > - Declared Their Intention, and Fulfilled it.
> >> >
> >> >Other Governments:
> >> > - Lie, Cheat, and Steal for Power Only
> >> > - Rip off the worker and his family
> >> > - Require obedience through semi-voluntary coercion
> >> > - Start wars for money and power
> >> > - Actions have nothing in common with stated intention.
> >>
> >> and yet, the nazis:
> >>
> >> -censored art and expression
> >
> >Censored _some_ art and expression.
>
> the art and expression hitler didnt like - which was precisely the art
> and expression which counts for anything in this context!

Not at all - only that which he found incompatible to his culture. If you
find my disagreements with Hitler to be apologism, note this one here - I
would not have done the same. He initiated great works, and in the execution
there was some error - I believe his state was strong enough to withstand any
art. Note that few artists overall were censored, and most who were made
clear that they were not artists but political activists - those abusing art.

> >> -required conformity to "correct" thought processes
> >
> >Allowed anyone to leave for ten years...
>
> allowed all the jews to leave areas they'd conquered within 10 years
> too, i'm sure.

Perhaps not ten years, but gave them a clear warning to clear out, until the
later years. At that point, the machine was full tilt - warm your hands by
the fire.

> your response is a half truth. same as apologists for government - "if
> you dont like it, leave!". too bad nowhere better exists.

Then you affirm that National Socialism was the apex of government? He
allowed those who were not Jews - that is, had denounced rejected and
abandoned Judeo-Christianity - to work in his government. So you think he's
unfair?

> so now, i'll throw back what you said at you - you're still living in
> america, i'm assuming, so can i take that as your approval of
> everything the government does (such as you'd like me to take no one
> _being able_ to leave within 10 years and therefore staying)?

That is very ignorant of you - I work every day to change it. There is no
threat to my life here other than existence, and that is a worldwide problem
- see that Vikernes interview you were quoting.

> >> -preached unity by physical characteristics (different from race,
> >> even!)
> >
> >Yes. I was hoping you'd bring this up: Hitler was not a racist as much as he
> >was a believer in his culture,
>
> please define "culture", as you're using a nonstandard definition.

Culture: shared beliefs and values common to a people.

> "The Aryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock
> unmixed, and therewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he
> himself had created" -hitler, "mein kampf"

Assume "racial stock" is metaphor for "belief in his own power" and you may
have a chance of hell in interpreting that.

> >and saw the Jews (unified by ethnoculture) as
> >a force in his way (an interpretation that history supports). So he removed
> >them.
>
> all the other bigotry (must i keep bringing up homosexuals and
> handicaps?) hitler indulged in does not support this notion. what it
> tells me, is that it was done for the _exact same reason_: blind
> racism.

Killing the handicapped was racism? You're bringing up very small
percentages of his action and forgetting that, while he cleaned out those he
saw as unsupportive of the common cultural goal, his main intent was to
affirm his culture by 1) building its strength and 2) removal of intruding
elements.

> >Who can blame him? Especially when he gave them - count 'em - 10
> >years to get the hell out.
>
> back to this. why arent you living in a NS country now? you're
> twisting facts.

Where's there an NS country now? You're twisting facts. Throughout this
debate you've been dishonest and have interpreted most of what I've said with
half-truths and manipulated definitions. And no matter what you quote, you
have interpreted it in a solipsistic recursion to your own definitions - tell
me who's ignorant now? YOU are. You know nothing of philosophy or ideology,
yet you hope to convince others based on a comparison of aesthetics - the
WORST form of ignorance.

> >> -practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any
> >> warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)
> >
> >So do current governments -
>
> apologist.

Name-caller ;) Establishing the currency of gov't has nothing to do with
apologism, only a matter of competitiveness defined - can you understand
that?

> >and so do you, seemingly.
>
> and yet, no citations...

Read your own posts. You believe in current government over Hitler.
Therefore, you believe in might is right - or did you not read history?

> >> -enslaved/killed minority groups
> >
> >We're living in the land of 200 years of racially-justified slavery to which
> >Hitler's actions were miniscule in comparison
>
> apologist.

Comparativie objectivist, rather. You think with one insult you can dodge a
valid point? Your argue dishonestly...

> >and you care?
>
> i care because you're pushing NS as "the best government around".

The best idea in government, and quite possibly as more metaphor than
anything else - an idea for the future of humanity, rather than wallowing in
the abyss as you would have us do.

> that's bullshit - i care because compared to something that deserves
> the title, hitler's actions embodied it's antithesis. "miniscule"?
> you're comparing negatives. compare a negative (hitler's actions) and
> a positive and see what you come up with. not so "miniscule", eh?

What if the "positive" is an illusion? Then not only are the disadvantages
"miniscule," but irrelevant. You are bullshit. Your arguments are bullshit
- they have no content, only aesthetics. You are an apologist for current
government while you hope to condemn the few humans who had actual hope -
you'd prefer the fake, so that you don't have to step beyond the bounds of
your self-perception.

> >Your logic is
> >heavily biased by aesthetics!
>
> me? apologism is based on aesthetics - simple psychological tricks to
> take emphasis off logical conclusions. and you're the one trying to
> rationalize hitler's "miniscule" (see?) actions.

You have a few cites you claim are apologism which are open to
interpretation, and you fail to defend the morality inherent in your own
statements. That is dishonest. I have made my points; do you hvae any? Or
am I to take you literally as a man of no ideas?

> >> so, the question arises: why do i want _any_ of these governments?
> >
> >The question arises: what sort of motivational thinking do you want behind a
> >government?
>
> my question is better.

It's vapid, so it might be better for you! If one is to have an idea - what
sort of motivation do you want behind it? That it is government or text on
paper is irrelevant - consider the idea.

> i like some of the positives you've mentioned, such as freely
> admitting what they were doing - doesnt make what they did any better.
> however, perhaps other governments should learn that bit of honesty.

"Better" is a moral comparative. You are an apologist for current government.

> negatives still outweigh them - freedom uber alles. you seem to
> disagree with this notion...?

I disagree with your defintion of freedom.

> >And therefore, to make a political statement, which ideology do
> >you choose? Your ideology as exhibited in these posts is closer to
> >Judeo-Christianity than progressive;
>
> how so?

Aestheticism. "morality." Pessimism.

> >> if you want honesty, i prefer "other governments" - personal freedom,
> >> which they allow, is paramount and leads all other progression. unless
> >> you think the 1984 scenario shows positive progression of the human
> >> species.
> >
> >I think we're in the 1984 scenario, only it has been very cleverly disguised.
> >Work all day for inefficient, worthless, and environmentally-destructive
> >projects. Create products designed to trick fellow human beings into
> >purchasing inferior goods for more money. Do whatever you can get away with,
> >as long as it makes money.
>
> i realize those things are happening. and yet, once more, what makes
> this government _useful_ is that it allows us to get out of this
> scenario with time and social progression.

Not so in my belief - it cripples further with seemingly gentler but in fact
more invasive methods - and you will see, in the future, how skillfully it
avoids force in favor of more powerful and insidious forces.

> NS sets everything in stone
> - racial fervor is a better motivation then intelligent thought, i
> guess.

What if racial fervor serves intelligent thought? You've ducked this issue
all along: you can criticize the aesthetics of what they did, but you have
never attacked the motivations. Never! Because you cannot - because theirs
are purer than what you would prefer, which is the profit-motive -
aesthetics.

> >And if you don't believe the press is censored in
> >this country, it's obvious you know nothing - NOTHING - of how this system
> >works.
>
> of course it is. and yet, this debate is in plain sight of anyone
> who'd like to read along. would it be that way in nazi germany?

I've got a whole book of contra-Hitler art and cartoons from within Nazi
germany. Plenty of dissent occurred with the awareness of NS forces and was
not retaliated against - why? - it was _healthy_ in the Fuhrer's estimation.

> >> >What, you'd rather have 200 years of black slavery in the United States
for
> >> >the simple reason that we could justify using other human beings as
machines?
> >> >Instead of a leader who sought to _visibly remove_ the presence of a
> >> >religious train of thought he believed to be antithetical to positive
human
> >> >growth?
> >>
> >> out of curiosity, how do you think he believed the aforementioned
> >> censorship and conformity demands would encourage "positive human
> >> growth"?
> >
> >Collective objective
>
> ...via sheepthink. but ok.

Once again, you criticize methods and not objectives. weak.

> >and removal of elements which (in the style of
> >Judeo-Christian fatalists) posited no value to existence.
>
> freedom of expression and free thought "posit no value to existance"?

That's not what I said - dishonest categorization on your part.

> >Clearing the shop
> >so that thinking could begin.
>
> doubtful. germany never had to invade poland - germany could have
> "cleared the shop" in their own backyard and then proven to the world
> how much better their system was - instead they took a different route
> which makes me question their intent. there is nothing not honorable
> about proceeding carefully.

One secures power by acquiring land. America did this, and you support our
government? How well you are fooled!

> in fact, i suggest that if this was their intent they would have began
> with themselves and not concerned themselves with more until they
> could prove their hypothesis. but they didnt, and they didnt get a
> whole lot done - see below.

They did begin with themselves - note the economic recovery and discipline of
their empire. Nothing like that since the Mayans, Aztecs, and Romans.

> >And truly, his empire invented great things,
> >and his vision was made manifest in laws of great truth and purity:
> >
> >- Ecological laws
>
> out of serious curiousity, can you cite some examples here?

Yeah - read Hitler's lawbooks.

> >- Workers' rights laws
>
> those are positive things. then again, stupid systems seem to achieve
> a lot of not-so-stupid things:
>
> -nuclear arms treaties

To deal with the nuclear arms race, a creation of this crazy society.

> -equality of races and sexes

Are you that fooled? Nothing like that exists here - only the illusion that
it does, so inequity can continue. Womens' and blacks' salaries still lag
behind others, and Mexicans do the dirty work at minimum wage - wake up!

> -freedom of speech (at least, a significant degree - would you like to
> wager on whether the nearest library has a copy of mein kampf in it's
> collection?)

I doubt it does - from experience.

> >> you still havent explained what homosexuals and other various
> >> minorities have to do with said "religious train of thought". it
> >> almost seems like you're dancing around the issue; a bit clumsy,
> >> but...
> >
> >Those are unfortunate Fuhrer-isms that I would not have applied.
>
> and yet, they, along with bigotry against jews, were the ways in which
> the people were motivated. and now, the idea behind my general
> solution becomes clear...

They were not the ways in which the people were motivated - explaining the
failures of history in the context of a failed philosophy and projecting a
future in which the people could assert themselves were how the people were
motivated.

Ever read Hitler's speeches? Or all of the first 150 pages of Mein Kampf?
He declares exactly what he would do, and why. What did he say about
socialism? About capitalism? About jobs and slavery?

> >Then again,
> >I would not have applied the gas ovens either (The Judeo-Christian Holocaust
> >relies on exile to serve the function of eradicating Judeo-Christianity -
> >those people cannot take care of themselves on their own).
>
> i was suggesting that (exile) back in this discussion, but you
> responded with "we share the same world". care to explain?

I support exile, but when one shares a world, one can never exile anyone
except by sending them off the planet - death is a good intermediary for
that!

> >> it seems that, based on that information, hitler DID practice blind
> >> bigotry. and intentional blindness is, dare i say...stupid?
> >
> >How was he blind? --
>
> simple bigotry can only be blind.

Your statement is more fascist than anything Hitler has ever done - what
about the motives for "bigotry"? You have set up an absolute polarity, and
accept no thought outside what your spectrum of thought can understand - and
since you consider _category_ and not object, you can never understand.

> >His actions may have been in error, but not ignorance.
> >None of our research now existed to demonstrate the function of homosexuality
> >and so to him, he was clearing out those who were contrarian to his program,
>
> if, as you stated before, "might" for a nazi might mean intelligence,
> which part of homosexuality prevents a person from excersizing
> intelligence? which part of being invalid prevents it? any person has
> the potential to provide vast insight with intelligence.

Function = breeding, working with the system to propagate the people.
Homosexuals BTW also made up a large part of the Third Reich; those
persecuted publically were most often Jewish or unintelligent...

> why didnt hitler even _attempt_ to do a bit of research into
> homosexuality before deciding that it was "contrarian to his program"?
> not very logical...

Do you know he did no research?

> >and were ALSO too stupid to leave when he announced his intentions.
>
> the fact of the matter is that countries had immigration quotas and
> would not allow that many people to come. moreover, i suspect that
> many people moved to an adjacent country, and once hitler took it
> over, they didnt exactly get a chance to leave again.
>
> why are you twisting facts?

Why are YOU twisting facts and argument? Most of what has come from you is
argumentation without logical basis - and I've shown it. When your best
response is "apologist" and "bigot," how are we to take you seriously?

Answer: I don't. You are twisting facts and you are a liar with an agenda
you have not admitted here. Liar! Liar! My cards are on the table - where
are yours? LIAR.

"Think for yourself, or your answers will not be satisfying."

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> I still think it's absurd that we're even talking about this on this
> (these) newsgroups, but if people are going to argue for thought
> conformity and racism, I'm not going to pretend it's not going on. I'm
> glad I'm not the only one.

Aesthetic morality is a greater conformity (and fascism) than Nazism. "I'm
not going to pretend it's not going on" - you weakling! No one has asked you
to ignore, but no one asked you for your conformist opinion, either - wake
up!

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> > "For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
> > (actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
> > alien, predatory culture
>
> Why would free-thinking beings be concerned with their
> (coincidental) cultures, outside of understanding the distortion that it
> places on their perceptive capacities? Personal thought should be what is
> important, not the generic similarities _manufactured_ by the communities
> in which they live. To accept the characteristics of the culture you were
> randomly raised in as containing inherent worth (and moreover to judge
> members of other cultures upon such stereotypical criteria) just
> perpetuates the sheep-like behavior of the ascetic ideal.

What if your culture is more coherent than what replaced it? What if you
respect the ancient romans more than the modern christians? You're assuming
absolutes based on position, where interpretation would be the question.

Free-thinking beings start working with themselves, and from there reach out
to the world. And if they love their land, where they see it occupied by a
virus of blindsided thought, they remove it - and who cares what their
methods were?

Press in AmeriKKKa is ultimately censored more than in Nazi germany, through
economics. Gun in the back, or threat of starving and economic ruin in the
back - what's the difference? Both constrict your freedom, but one is
coherent where the other - modern Judeo-Christian capitalistic society - has
no objectives except to serve itself. No matter what you say about the
Nazis, you will find it hard not to acknowledge that they did not serve
themselves - but their ideology.

> Hitler didn't ask jews how religous they were before he killed
> them.

Actually, he did... see my post about Alfred Rosenberg, architect of the
"Final Solution" (tm)(sm)(r).

> - the point being not superiority complex
> > (Christian: gOD has ordained one superior, so we keep it "pure") but
> > affirmation of their will to change and to have more progressive objectives,
> > no matter the method, than the equally-murderous Jews and Christians.
> >
> > Bands who Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust:
> > Bathory
> > Hellhammer
> > Burzum
> > Darkthrone
> > Immortal
>
> Immortal? Though I anticipate your response of "one can tell by
> the beauty of their music where their ideals lie", I have to say that
> I think immortal are doing it more for "fun".

I think Immortal are doing it for the art, but I think they acknowledge the
value of this political idea.

> > Mayhem
> > Morbid Angel
> > Black Sabbath
>
> Again, I don't see how Ozzy or BS are waring with the christian
> commodity society by participating in OZZFEST each year.

Black Sabbath = early albums, where they speak in detail about the virus of
Judeo-Christianity without deviating into politics. See the second half of
"Volume IV" for more detail.

Only in the sense that any ideology must. Obtaining freedom is a long and
treacherous path with many variants; why should one not tolerate an effective
method?

> > > All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
> > > towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
> > > gassed.
> >
> > Not true. All of the efforts of the German nation were devoted toward a
> > series of objectives. If you acted counter to those objectives, you were
> > jailed and put to work
>
> No room for dissent?? Politically necessary? maybe..ideologically
> consistent/prudent? no. Those who have no strength to stare the
> opposition in the face everyday do not deserve to lead.
>
> - if you were Jewish, there was about a 15% chance
> > you'd get gassed and burned.
>
> Only because there was a 15% chance of getting caught. They
> didn't just let people go once they were captured.

Often they did; quite a few were traded off or released through deals or by
request of Jewish leaders (from Nizkor). And more than 15% - way more - were
caught.

> > > He constructed a polity, not an spiritual ideal. He murdered his
> > > opposition, and reduced personal freedoms to an all time low.
> >
> > A polity can be a spiritual ideal, in the sense that it can direct thought
> > toward a new metaphor and conception.
>
> The whole problem is that a polity exists to "direct people". If
> the concern is personal freedom, the state is obviously the last thing you
> want to strengthen.

A polity can exist as metaphor, and as leadership that must be interpreted,
especially if one layer is designed to deceive while leading into a second
more explicit and empowering layer.

> > Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for
all
> > time - it's called "war."
>
> That is not a justification.

No, but it does explain context: why such a method is used, and why the method
is not the objective. Justifications are for Judeo-Christians!

> > Personal freedoms in modern AmeriKKKa are at a low lower than Hitler's
lowest
> > low, without an ounce of the intention that he had - here, it's only
> > business, which is the lowest of the low forms of fatalism and surrender to
> > doubt. Hitler is a hero for rising out of the morass with an
understanding
> > of the sublime and an eye to future and not fear of the past - HEIL HITLER!
> >
> > HAIL SATAN
>
> Hitler sure did get along well with the upper class....

And killed many of them for their money, as well.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

> >How can one say such a dumheit as to suggest that "The weak giving themselves
> >strength through an omnipotent (heh) deity" is reasonable? They are, in
> >translating, getting strength from the denial of others - for all time -
which
> >is a more sinister existence than a couple decades of genocide and then peace
> >and progressive philosophies behind human advancement.
>

> you misinterpreted my meaning. though i am partially at fault for not
> phrasing it incorrectly - to expand, i meant "this as their belief set
> sounds reasonable", as in, "this as their belief set sounds like what
> they believe in" (proving my assertion that their beliefs include
> "might is right").

Same effects - if their belief set is x, and you say that believing x is
reasonable, you have endorsed x.

> you should know that i dont endorse that sort of thinking by now.

Your logic is inconsistent and shows very little understanding of the man you
quote in your sigfile. Why should I believe in your consistency?

> >Depends on where your boundaries of might exist - for a Nazi, for example,
> >intellect might prove "might" - and if their culture had a superior
> >understanding of postaesthetic thinking
>

> postaesthetic thinking...
>
> ...like those "fuhrer-isms" you mentioned disagreeing with in another
> post?

That's just argumentation. Care to do better and address my point? Or are
you bowing out in disgrace?

> these "fuhrer-isms" - discrimination by useless criteria (e.g. sexual
> orientation) - are completely and diametrically opposed to any
> ideology that _anyone_ supporting free thought should (would) believe
> in.

DEPENDS ON THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THEM.

How do you feel about fighting a war? You target your enemy because he seems
to be the enemy - and then take him out. That is a method. If your
objective is defined, the method is irrelevant. BTW, note that the republic
you're living in has done similar things to Indians, Negroes, Homosexuals and
even Jews!

> >than another physically- and
> >financially- and populistically-strong culture which believes that "might
> >(physical) is right" in the method of Judeo-Christian genocides,
>

> two points:
>
> A) if belief in "might is right" is a reason to eliminate a group, why
> do you suggest justification USING that value system?

I don't - I suggest no justifications. I suggest reasons why that assert not
"might is right" but "logic is right."

> B) why are you grouping by culture?

Culture is an index of similarity.

> >why not
> >remove the diseased limb? --
>

> well, they didnt just remove that. homosexuals (people living "their
> own way"), gypsies (people living "their own way"), etc. were
> "removed" as well, as were sympathizers.

Besides these very small components of what he did, why not remove the
diseased limb? Why are you afraid to answer my question?

> >> as an interesting example, what do you think would happen if satan was
> >> portrayed as _more powerful_ then god? if satan could destroy god at
> >> any time he wanted?
> >
> >Satan would not work as a metaphor, then -
>

> that's not the point. it's a hypothetical situation - who would a
> christian be worshipping if satan were stronger?

The "stronger" by reason of righteousness and guilt.

> it's also a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious.

So is the level of honesty on your part...

> >And further: the reward is deferred;
> >therefore, life itself has no value EXCEPT as used to pursue the overarching
> >goal. Nazis even are not so dogmatic!
>

> perhaps not. except for the fact that i interpret fascism and nazism
> as such - one exists for the purpose of furthering the goal of others
> ("the state", says mussolini).

So you are a subjectivist?

> you are, in effect living at someone else's feet.

Solipsist! I am living by my own choice - and what are you living by? The
morals of others, the fear of all humanity...

> minus religion, life here has no value, PERIOD! you serve others and
> work as cannon fodder - everyone is expendable.
>
> ...this is better?

Your categorization is not true. Minus religion, life has more value - since
you've decided the value yourself rather than relying on a template. This
paragraph alone is enough to prove the difference between our thinking, and
why I'm making sense and you will not understand - thanks for playing, but I
like you (as a person) too much to let my scorn for your intellect interfere.

> "We have no dreams at all or interesting ones.
> We should learn to be awake in the same way - not
> at all or in an interesting manner."
> -Nietzsche

Read this again.

Sybren

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 05:00:55 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
>territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
>not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
>to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.

Uh...why didn't he put the all the German christians in the ovens
then?

Sybren

myles robert hamilton

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>
>
> > > "For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
> > > (actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
> > > alien, predatory culture
> >
> > Why would free-thinking beings be concerned with their
> > (coincidental) cultures, outside of understanding the distortion that it
> > places on their perceptive capacities? Personal thought should be what is
> > important, not the generic similarities _manufactured_ by the communities
> > in which they live. To accept the characteristics of the culture you were
> > randomly raised in as containing inherent worth (and moreover to judge
> > members of other cultures upon such stereotypical criteria) just
> > perpetuates the sheep-like behavior of the ascetic ideal.
>
> What if your culture is more coherent than what replaced it? What if you
> respect the ancient romans more than the modern christians? You're assuming
> absolutes based on position, where interpretation would be the question.

no, I'm saying who cares what the christians _or_ the romans
believed....your own beliefs should be forged independent of these (as
much as possible).

>
> Free-thinking beings start working with themselves, and from there reach out
> to the world. And if they love their land, where they see it occupied by a
> virus of blindsided thought, they remove it - and who cares what their
> methods were?

Strong individuals don't need to destroy their oppossition,
moreover they don't even desire to do so. Christianity sees it fit to
destroy oppossition precisely because xtians are not confident enough in
their "faith" to allow it to be challenged.

>
> Press in AmeriKKKa is ultimately censored more than in Nazi germany, through
> economics. Gun in the back, or threat of starving and economic ruin in the
> back - what's the difference? Both constrict your freedom, but one is
> coherent where the other - modern Judeo-Christian capitalistic society - has
> no objectives except to serve itself. No matter what you say about the
> Nazis, you will find it hard not to acknowledge that they did not serve
> themselves - but their ideology.

Their idealogy was ultimately self-serving anyway! I see very
little differences between nazis and christians in this way.

> > > Immortal
> >
> > Immortal? Though I anticipate your response of "one can tell by
> > the beauty of their music where their ideals lie", I have to say that
> > I think immortal are doing it more for "fun".
>
> I think Immortal are doing it for the art, but I think they acknowledge the
> value of this political idea.

At any rate, there is no accounting for bad taste when it comes to
selection of imagery.

> > >
> > Why should people tolerate such a means of obtaining "freedom" if
> > it means that their lives/rights/dignity must be sacraficed for others
> > (and no I am not talking about the direct targets of Nazi persecution)?
> >
> > (it actually resembles notions of christian "virtue" to me)
>
> Only in the sense that any ideology must. Obtaining freedom is a long and
> treacherous path with many variants; why should one not tolerate an effective
> method?

Precisely because one might soon find himself the next target of
that method. Refinement necessarily occures in stages of narrowing scope.
Wave 1 of the purging might not include you, but as the status quo
constricts its vision of acceptable characteristics, you are likely to
become next in line for the gas. The ends may seem to justify the means,
but sometimes the means can begin to alter the ends themselves.

>
> > > > He constructed a polity, not an spiritual ideal. He murdered his
> > > > opposition, and reduced personal freedoms to an all time low.
> > >
> > > A polity can be a spiritual ideal, in the sense that it can direct thought
> > > toward a new metaphor and conception.
> >
> > The whole problem is that a polity exists to "direct people". If
> > the concern is personal freedom, the state is obviously the last thing you
> > want to strengthen.
>
> A polity can exist as metaphor, and as leadership that must be interpreted,
> especially if one layer is designed to deceive while leading into a second
> more explicit and empowering layer.

Maybe a polity can exist as a metaphor, but regardless of that
there are certain functional purposes that a polity must address......

Agendas must be set....someone must set them..people will not agree on how
to set them...thus, someones' will must become subverted to the wills of
others.

>
> > > Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for
> all
> > > time - it's called "war."
> >
> > That is not a justification.
>
> No, but it does explain context: why such a method is used, and why the method
> is not the objective. Justifications are for Judeo-Christians!

"Justification" above = reason why it ought to be done to
logically support the goal. I am not speaking about moral justifications.

I contend that this is a myopic and undesirable method that
actually counters the goal of achieving spiritual/intellectual freedom.

> >
> > Hitler sure did get along well with the upper class....
>
> And killed many of them for their money, as well.
>

Seems like more of a politician than an artist.

Melvin Slundersloth

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 05:59:25 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>> >How can one say such a dumheit as to suggest that "The weak giving themselves
>> >strength through an omnipotent (heh) deity" is reasonable? They are, in
>> >translating, getting strength from the denial of others - for all time -
>which
>> >is a more sinister existence than a couple decades of genocide and then peace
>> >and progressive philosophies behind human advancement.
>>
>> you misinterpreted my meaning. though i am partially at fault for not
>> phrasing it incorrectly - to expand, i meant "this as their belief set
>> sounds reasonable", as in, "this as their belief set sounds like what
>> they believe in" (proving my assertion that their beliefs include
>> "might is right").
>
>Same effects - if their belief set is x, and you say that believing x is
>reasonable, you have endorsed x.

now you're just failing in reading comprehension. let's repeat - my
original statement intent was:

"this as their belief set sounds like what they believe in"

where are you pulling this from? try again. i already explained what i
meant by "reasonable" in this context - reasonable as a suggestion to
what they believe. are you not reading?

>> you should know that i dont endorse that sort of thinking by now.
>
>Your logic is inconsistent and shows very little understanding of the man you
>quote in your sigfile. Why should I believe in your consistency?

you're interpreting my logic as inconsistant because you seem to have
a problem reading my words off the paper (well, screen) - see above
and far below.

>> >Depends on where your boundaries of might exist - for a Nazi, for example,
>> >intellect might prove "might" - and if their culture had a superior
>> >understanding of postaesthetic thinking
>>
>> postaesthetic thinking...
>>
>> ...like those "fuhrer-isms" you mentioned disagreeing with in another
>> post?
>
>That's just argumentation. Care to do better and address my point?
>Or are you bowing out in disgrace?

dishonest. you got a response to the point below, when you asked the
question "why not just remove the diseased limb?". i stated that yours
is an incorrect interpretation of their actions as they seemed to be
removing more then that.

stop throwing accusations where they dont belong.

>> these "fuhrer-isms" - discrimination by useless criteria (e.g. sexual
>> orientation) - are completely and diametrically opposed to any
>> ideology that _anyone_ supporting free thought should (would) believe
>> in.
>
>DEPENDS ON THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THEM.
>
>How do you feel about fighting a war? You target your enemy because he seems
>to be the enemy - and then take him out. That is a method. If your
>objective is defined, the method is irrelevant.

bad analogy. method in this case implies objective - at least, it goes
to show a different objective then the one you state. there is no
"cutting off of diseased limbs" - there is killing people that your
blind bigoted and racialist views make you percieve as diseased limbs.
(we're not even talking about judeo-christians here)

you may say to yourself that, in the end, you think a lack of one type
of thought practiced by a certain race (and in fact, i believe hitler
categorized them by race - why didnt they get equal treatment as
christians? both peoples would have equal potential to be..."moulded")
in the world is positive. i agree. i disagree with methods, but even
that is irrelevant to my point: when you want to idolize a person for
his thinking which brought on specific actions, you must first analyze
his thinking and his intent. and these "little, inconsequential
things" you keep writing this off as do wonders to really hint at what
he was ultimately thinking.

BTW, methods are important in this case because as i've mentioned/will
mention in other posts i'll be writing after this, there is an
opportunity lost in taking the simple way out (e.g. what hitler did).
so methods must not be interpreted as standalone objects here as they
relate to more - consider that. method is directly related to portions
of the objective in this instance.

>> >than another physically- and
>> >financially- and populistically-strong culture which believes that "might
>> >(physical) is right" in the method of Judeo-Christian genocides,
>>
>> two points:
>>
>> A) if belief in "might is right" is a reason to eliminate a group, why
>> do you suggest justification USING that value system?
>
>I don't - I suggest no justifications. I suggest reasons why that assert not
>"might is right" but "logic is right."

logic is a function of intelligence. if "intelligence is right" (as
you implied earlier about the thinking behind nazism), isnt that
justification in the same way as the original tenet? might is might is
might no matter how you define it - and you have no business
subverting the individuality (individuality-potential if you must) of
other beings because you believe your intelligence to be higher. would
you make yourself the christian god?

it might be better to say "logic is logical" - but that's a waste of
breath. i am not sure logic (especially human logic) is a
justification for undertaking actions that interfere with the
wellbeing of others, seeing as how new points can always be brought up
which counter the original supposition.

>> B) why are you grouping by culture?
>
>Culture is an index of similarity.

for a sheep, yes.

unless, of course, you mean culture in a non-racialistic sense.

in humanity, an easy (and important!) classification would be follower
and other. i suppose culture can be an index of similarity, then -
everyone who sees in themselves as part of their race before they see
themselves as the entity that they are gets placed in the latter one.
identifying with the collective over the self is obviously an act of
nonindividuality.

let's start defining culture as separate from ethnic backrounds and
then we can get somewhere. even this ("race-culture", "ethnoculture")
is anti-determination on your part - you're sticking people into roles
they're born with, much like the hindu cast system. i thought you
supported self-determination...?

>> >why not
>> >remove the diseased limb? --
>>
>> well, they didnt just remove that. homosexuals (people living "their
>> own way"), gypsies (people living "their own way"), etc. were
>> "removed" as well, as were sympathizers.
>
>Besides these very small components of what he did,

much of his oratory was based around "making a better german nation" -
part of that solution was killing people he said were holding the
country back.

in fact, i believe even you've claimed this was his overall purpose,
making the better german nation via said methods.

this is a _very small component_?

as i mentioned before, it doesnt matter anyway - i bring this up to
invalidate your claims of his intent. see below, among other places.

>why not remove the
>diseased limb? Why are you afraid to answer my question?

i answered your question already by pointing out how he's not just
"cutting off the diseased limb". however, now that we're here, i'll
expand on that a bit as well:

to continue a rather simple analogy, why not cure the limb? especially
if the curing aids other parts in the same action. for surely, as you
mentioned about spirituality (and i'll get to that post in a bit - i'm
a bit pressed for time, but i give you my word), "a gift for one part
is a gift for all".

if you cut my arm off, it's not going to grow back. you've already
discarded the opportunity to have an arm, plus the opportunity to
partake in the action of curing which is valuable to the rest of the
body.

...what benefits do you see which offset this?

>> >> as an interesting example, what do you think would happen if satan was
>> >> portrayed as _more powerful_ then god? if satan could destroy god at
>> >> any time he wanted?
>> >
>> >Satan would not work as a metaphor, then -
>>
>> that's not the point. it's a hypothetical situation - who would a
>> christian be worshipping if satan were stronger?
>
>The "stronger" by reason of righteousness and guilt.

and thus ends this point which you've dragged out beyond it's time for
no reason.

>> it's also a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious.
>
>So is the level of honesty on your part...

funny; i could say the same about you.

>> >And further: the reward is deferred;
>> >therefore, life itself has no value EXCEPT as used to pursue the overarching
>> >goal. Nazis even are not so dogmatic!
>>
>> perhaps not. except for the fact that i interpret fascism and nazism
>> as such - one exists for the purpose of furthering the goal of others
>> ("the state", says mussolini).
>
>So you are a subjectivist?

i'm not sure how you're correlating using one's own interpretation of
something with being a subjectivist - perhaps it's subjective but only
in the sense that everything a human does is subjective to an extent
(observer bias, imperfect senses, "human error").

please elaborate.

>
>> you are, in effect living at someone else's feet.
>
>Solipsist! I am living by my own choice -

i wasnt talking about "you" - i was talking about the hypothetical
person in my example. calm yourself. but to continue this anyway...

in fascism, if you were the fuhrer in germany, perhaps you would be.
but unless you knew _automagically_ that everything you choose the
fuhrer would also choose, you live by his feet, because he commands
what you must think.

if you do not "automagically" know (and it is not possible that you
could), and you think you do, you instead alter your opinions on "what
i want" because of cognitive dissonance - which is basically the same
thing.

>and what are you living by? The
>morals of others, the fear of all humanity...
>
>> minus religion, life here has no value, PERIOD! you serve others and
>> work as cannon fodder - everyone is expendable.
>>
>> ...this is better?
>
>Your categorization is not true. Minus religion, life has more value - since
>you've decided the value yourself rather than relying on a template. This
>paragraph alone is enough to prove the difference between our thinking, and
>why I'm making sense and you will not understand -

twice now (three times, actually, but one isnt important) you seem to
not be able to read and interpret my words in a logical way. i wont
hold it against you, because it's probably an honest mistake, but i
suggest rereading.

my statement was an extension of what you originally said about jews
and christians:

>And further: the reward is deferred;
>therefore, life itself has no value EXCEPT as used to pursue the overarching
>goal. Nazis even are not so dogmatic!

"99% of people dont know what they want" - minus religion, 99% of
people find even less value in themselves. speaking from your highly
touted objectivist standpoint, even, the value in these people has not
moved anywhere! - and under the new nazi government we lose the
ability to move it at all. you've hit a dead end and havent yet
proposed a way to get out of it.

now, in all seriousness, start reading a little more carefully and
maybe the discussion will make more sense to all parties involved. i
dont think you're being dishonest, but you're repeatedly making a
mistake you can easily correct.

looking through your posts, it seems that everything you have to say
about me and my "alledged judeo-christian thinking" stems from your
misinterpretation of the beginning and end of this post. well, sorry,
but that's your fault and your problem - reformulate your ideas on me.

>thanks for playing, but I
>like you (as a person) too much to let my scorn for your intellect interfere.

that's a cop-out if i've ever heard one. i'm not afraid to hear an
honest opinion of myself - are you afraid to give one? are you afraid
to have one?

i'm not sure the psychological term for it, but this seems like some
sort of odd mutated threat - "i'd REALLY let you have it, but...".
there's no need for games like this here.

(it seems important to note here that "individuality" and "free
thought" are not neccesarily contingent on intelligence - an otherwise
average person can be a free thinker. intellect gives profundity - and
yet, up to a certain [low] point, it's not a prerequisite. the average
intelligence for humanity is set and nothing short of genetic
engineering can raise it to a significant degree - a more feasible
goal is to promote free thinking which can exist anyhow)

you seem to have forgotten to respond to me linking the idea of "the
fatherland"/centralized organization of control with a corporation. or
religion, even.

>> "We have no dreams at all or interesting ones.
>> We should learn to be awake in the same way - not
>> at all or in an interesting manner."
>> -Nietzsche
>
>Read this again.

i would say the same to you about a good number of conflicts we had in
this post. :)

-Daemonic

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 05:00:55 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>Look, we've generated a giant meatshit of text...

getting bigger with every cycle.

>> >> > race to me is irrelevant in the face of other issues. the only race
>> >> > that's important is the human one - every other racial classification
>> >> > is trivialized in comparison. which do you think would be bigger? -
>> >> > the spiritual bond (potential) with others of the same race, or the
>> >> > same species?
>> >>
>> >> I agree. I'm actually a bit baffled that a.n.u.s. speaks out
>> >> against the commodity view of reality (establishing universal valuative
>> >> criteria for objects based upon surface characteristics, while ignoring
>> >> the actual substance of those objects), yet has no problem with a race
>> >> wanting to keep itself "pure" for the sake of being pure.
>> >
>> >"For the sake of being pure" - that is where you misunderstand. The "race"
>> >(actually several races) purify themselves to keep themselves free of an
>> >alien, predatory culture - the point being not superiority complex
>> >(Christian: gOD has ordained one superior, so we keep it "pure") but
>> >affirmation of their will to change and to have more progressive objectives,
>> >no matter the method, than the equally-murderous Jews and Christians.
>>
>> out of curiosity, given hitler's ideal of the "pure aryan man", what
>> do you think would have been done with blacks?
>>
>> ...this, among other things that i mentioned, hints to me that the
>> intent was something other then what you specify.
>
>If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
>territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
>not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
>to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.

well, here comes another point, in harmony with what i've already
said:

he didnt need to kill blacks. he already had support via racial fervor
he enacted. he originally built support in his original holdings and
europe - NOT africa. the fact that he posessed parts of africa implies
said support.

...what a businessman! killing africans would be pointless. plus, mass
transport of them into germany would be inefficient, as would be
building concentration camps in africa, across the ocean. it is
therefore also possible that he wanted to, but couldnt achieve it.

also, i'd like to know what killing gypsies (which i've mentioned
before) has to do with "judeo-christian culture". you've given
unsatisfactory answers about homosexuals and handicaps, so i must say
that i expect the same...

>> "culture" is silly - it affirms a sort of group collective instead of
>> emphasising individual thought. if someone in nazi germany was born
>> jewish and decided against that set of beliefs, what do you think
>> would have been done with him?
>
>My, did you just shoot your foot off or what - in answer to your question, HE
>WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE NAZI PARTY AS ALFRED ROSENBERG (Author of the
>"Final Solution") AND OTHERS WERE. Note how many of the high-ranking Nazis
>were jewish in blood!

in harmony with my last points, we can summarize:

hitler thought judeo-christianity was against germany, but we note
that homosexuals have nothing to do with this (and you provide a
different reason for this as well). homosexuals in concentration camps
meant for "those damn judeo-christians"?

hitler thought homosexuals were against his reich, but allowed them in
his government, like a good businessman, since they were useful to
him.

hitler thought judeo-christianity was against germany, but didnt have
much to do with exterminating christians, like a good businessman,
since they were useful to him.

a bunch of practicing jews (see articles below) served in his army?
what a businessman!

hitler killed a bunch of poles for...well, why?

hitler killed a bunch of gypsies for...well, why?

looking at the email you sent me summarizing jewish activities in the
nazi army, we can see even _more_ reasons to call him a "good
businessmen". here are a few quotes...

>One of these Jewish veterans is today an 82 year old resident of
>northern Germany, an observant Jew who served as a captain and
>practiced his religion within the Wehrmacht throughout the war.

observant jews, representing the scourge of judeo-christianity, in
hitler's army? ironic - who's shooting themselves in the foot now?

>One of the Jewish field marshals was Erhard Milch, deputy to Luftwaffe
>Chief Hermann Goering. Rumors of Milch's Jewish identity circulated
>widely in Germany in the 1930s.

>In one of the famous anecdotes of the time, Goering falsified Milch's
>birth record and when met with protests about having a Jew in the Nazi
>high command, Goering replied, ``I decide who is a Jew and who is an
>Aryan.''

if milch was a practicing jew, well...same as above. if the anecdote
reflects a true story, why would his birth record need to be
falsified? if he was not a practicing jew, why would the people care
whether he was ethnically jewish or not, unless they were complete
sheep as i mentioned?

now from
http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/altnazi_040397.html:

>The 1935 Nuremberg Laws made German Jews into second-class citizens by barring them
>from some professions and forbidding marriages between them and Christians.

christians, you say?

_laws_ against this? sheep? followers? nazism demands conformity? see
far below, on censorship of art (and real thinkers "knowing better").

>They divided Jews - many of them fully assimilated and some even baptized - into "full,"
>"half" and "quarter" Jews by the number of Jewish grandparents they had.

no interpretation needed. more specifically, the nuremberg laws
defined "jew" as one who has one or more jewish grandparents.

if we accept that hitler was doing a good job as a "businessman",
perhaps a reason for him to let jews into his army becomes apparant?

>Culture is not about sheepism - it is about _shared_ values, values that are
>inalienable by their consistency with the parameters of existence and the
>responses possible.

...where do these "shared values" come from?

...can they be transfered to anyone willing to accept them?

>> "culture" is hardly defined by race -
>
>Read carefully. I did not claim that it was - only that race was the shield
>for his description of culture (which he did not define by race, accepting
>"mongrel" whites of every sort into the Nazi party).

see above. what did the ancestry of a person have to do with whether
they were "jewish" or not?

>> in fact, it should be said that
>> only those who consciously ally themselves with a certain way of
>> thinking have a specific "culture", and none others. you cannot be
>> born into it - you must consciously decide for yourself.
>
>Exactly.

so, why did his description of culture require a "shield"?

why wouldnt hitler, describing a political agenda, speak literally and
plainly?

>> a blond
>> haired blue eyed "aryan" no more shares this "culture" with the next
>> then does someone from asia. there is "culture" in the sense of
>> similar achievments (usually in art) by a certain group of people -
>> you are using the word in a different sense then this, where it doesnt
>> apply.
>
>If one's ancestors created a culture by choice, one can choose to accept it as
>an artifact of history bearing cumulative learning.

or one can choose not to. or one can choose to accept a culture his
ancestors had nothing to do with. you are stating the obvious.

>> >Bands who Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust:
>> >Bathory
>> >Hellhammer
>> >Burzum
>> >Darkthrone
>> >Immortal
>> >Mayhem
>> >Morbid Angel
>> >Black Sabbath
>> >
>> >...in short, all of metal; all of recent logical advances in music. And
>> >philosophers? Since Nietzsche, the carping whiners seem to have mostly shut
>> >up, and any work since has been very agreeable to destruction of
>> >Judeo-Christianity.
>>
>> i know you've given nietzsche a lot of respect in the past; here's an
>> interesting essay that relates to our topic for today:
>>
>> http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/WAGNIET.html
>>
>> a couple of the quotes from mein kampf peppered about seem
>> very...interesting. if we can assume they should be taken at face
>> value, they invalidate what you've said.
>
>Please explain; given the poor quality of your logic so far, I'm not that
>inclined to chase down this essay (so sue me, I'm lazy and you're posting
>crap)

if you're not interested in persuing something which might be
potentially interesting, too bad for you.

it's an essay on nietzschian ideals vs. wagner/fascism/etc. the quotes
are not the point; i thought this might be an interesting read.

i could equally counter that you dont understand what i'm saying.

>> >To writers? Any of note, including the last two of
>> >importance: Joyce and Burroughs.
>>
>> who's joyce?
>
>James Joyce, author of "A portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and W.S.
>Burroughs, author of "Naked Lunch" and "Nova Express" (origin of the term
>"heavy metal").

i know who burroughs is, hence my question, "who's joyce?", not "who
are they?".

are you condescending on purpose? dishonest debating strategy.

anyhow, back to seriousness, you mentioned also that he wrote
"ulysses"? would your reccomend both?

>> >That is aesthetics: his machine was his tool for a task. His state did not
>> >run for its own power or authority; it ran because it had a job to do, one
>> >that actually had the interests of all the world's peoples in mind.
>>
>> ...would the state have dismantled itself in the future, _of it's own
>> violition_, if a better solution presented itself?
>
>YES. In fact, one wonders whether his intention was to preserve the state at
>all...

with any government the logical assumption is "no", so it's up to you
to give some reasoning to back that up...

anyhow, a better solution in a nazi-dominated world would never have
presented itself due to censorship. how many parties were allowed in
germany?

>> of course not; all states exist for the sake of gaining power (1984).
>> people are weak, and they like the ego trip of placing themselves
>> higher then the next man. in germany, it was the "non-aryans" - how do
>> you think hitler got so much support?
>
>From those who felt themselves disadvantaged -

...due to the convienient presence of others as scapegoats. a person
does not have to be disadvanted to feel disadvantaged. look, you've
said nothing.

>however, you haven't proved the
>motivations of his government in doing so -

the motivations of hitler's government in gaining support?
this is a stupid question. government requires support to
operate. otherwise it doesnt stay for long.

>only assaulted it aesthetically.

i've questioned hitler's motives with logic at every turn. do you
claim that his motives are aesthetic, or that logical extrapolation is
aesthetic? interesting definitions you use.

>His government worked for his people,

seeing as how a number of them werent citizens and therefore not "his
people"... :)

>and the results were abundant. Economic
>recovery. Worker's policy. Ecological policy. Cultural study. Got that from
>any other government?

irrelevant. i'm not debating what his government did as a positive. as
i mentioned numerous times before, i believe in freedom as the most
important issue, which was not present in nazi germany - end of case.

as a side note, information can be gained from all new systems of
doing things in some amount. this is obviously not an exception - why
do you try to make it seem as if i dont agree with that when you have
no information to back up the claim? dishonest.

>> do you really believe that the common person in germany understood a
>> quarter of what you've asserted hitler and his country believed in? of
>> course not - "99% of people dont know what they want".
>
>Exactly, and so he deceived them while leaving enough information so that the
>intelligent could understand his motives and actions.

...leaving the sheep as sheep...

i've already suggested a better solution then that. why do you
advocate supporting stupidity of the masses? afraid that they might
rise up when they begin to think for themselves?

>> any society that feels content to leave these 99% people in the dark
>> while it guides their actions is "feminine and erotic" - such was the
>> way with nazi germany.
>
>These 99% will never make a conscious choice in their lives - why try to
>convince them, when bread and a circus is their chosen delimiter of
>intellectual capacity?

fatalist. if one human being can think, all can - the question is how
to achieve that. you dont seem to want to achieve that. afraid of
something...?

>> no real political can change without first altering the current state
>> of humanity - more intelligence, more free thought!
>
>Which Hitler did.

and yet, you've provided not one example of how, here. looking back a
bit, your "free thought" seems to consist of "bread and circuses" -
come again?

>Look at how many people have questioned his actions, and
>either bowed out with a moral aesthetic bias (as you have)

invalid assumption disproven in the last post and yet to be reproven
by yourself. until you do so, this is a dishonest ad hominem attack
with no backing. noted.

my, this is quite a set of notes...

>or probed further
>(as many artists have, most without becoming "avowed Nazis".)

you've said nothing in response to my point. your response was
"filler", which is aesthetic and amounts to contentless useless
unimportant words clogging up this post.

>> and assuming all
>> current governments are horrible in some way, you see why i prefer
>> this government to yours - art and expression are the only way to
>> achieve those things, and in nazism/fascism, those methods are not
>> allowed.
>
>Not true - art which preaches Judaic/Christian fantasies is not permitted, all
>else is legal.

haha. why make something illegal, if it's stupid? free thought. if
it's such "crap", shouldnt the people be able to realize that for
themselves?

...or do you support germany's current anti-nazi laws?

(or perhaps you also support the actions of the government against
resistance records which you quoted a bit before?)

http://www.freedomparty.org/ca_11.htm says:

>The terms Degenerate Art and Decadent Art were applied by the Nazis to "all art other than the
>most commonplace naturalism." Schools of forbidden artistic expression included impressionism,
>expressionism, cubism, futurism, and others. Hitler had denounced modern art as the product of
>"morbid and perverted minds," and reportedly shouted at one painting: "There are no blue horses!"
>after which he pledged to rid Germany of "aesthetic atrocities."

...abstraction is judeo/christian?

"aesthetic atrocities"? seems like he didnt care much about the
content, instead focusing on the style (which is aesthetic).

this quoted from the site, originally from New York Times, August 6,
1937

>They would be the object of great interest to the Reich, which would have to
>take up the question of whether future inheritance of such gruesome
>malfunctioning of the eyes cannot at least be checked. If, on the other hand,
>they themselves do not believe in the reality of such impressions by trying to
>harass the nation with this humbug for other reasons, then such an attempt falls
>within the jurisdiction of penal law.

it doesnt seem like hitler had much understanding of art!

...perhaps it wasnt pretty enough for him?

>> you fall into a trap; no different/better government without
>> more intelligence (i'm actually thinking something more akin to the
>> mix of self-determinism, free thought, etc.), and no more of that
>> without a different government. you'd be foolish to think that your
>> proposed government is the be all end all of things.
>
>No, you fall into a trap - you want something more fascist

of course i do! which is why i emphasise conformity, censorship,
motivation through aesthetics (like "racial fervor")...

(sarcasm)

>without the
>positive objectives of fascism, because you do not believe in optimism - you
>want the same old shit with assurances that it's "in your best interests."

this coming from the man who tells me that the 99% of people who dont
think "will never make a conscious choice in their lives" - defeatist!
fatalist! pessimist!

please explain your impression of "what i want" in specifics, not
blanket statements and generalizations. that means, quote specific
goals i've mentioned instead of applying faulty logic to them to come
up with something other then what i've said.

>Tell me, what controls the current government? I'll tell you: money and an
>obsessive need for power.

are you making a strawman of my arguments again and trying to imply
that i support this?

if you were, that would be rather dishonest of you!

of course, if you are, the things you say about "what i _really_ want"
in government start making sense: because your interpretation doesnt!

i only support the higher degree of freedom offered in many
governments of today when compared to certain other fascist
governments.

>> at least, in "amerikkka", the 1% who knows how to think for themselves
>> can attempt to show the rest. germans follow the leader.
>
>What if the leader was showing them how to think for themselves?

"bread and circuses" emphasises thinking, i suppose?

censorship emphasises thinking, i suppose?

if people were _really_ thinking, they would know _intuitively_ to
boycott such "degenerate art forms". they would be able to make the
decision for themselves, without Daddy telling them what the answer
is.

teaching to think and telling what to think are different!

>You are not
>capable of thinking for yourself, judging by what you've posted here.

ad hominem noted. dishonest debating strategy noted.

to throw that back at you, you're not capable of reading, so your
opinion on this is meaningless. :)

i gather that you define thinking as "people who have come to the
conclusion that i am right". for, you, being a thinker, have come up
with the Truth, and those who disagree must be stupid and nonthinking,
for if they were not they would have come up with the same. why?
because you're a thinker. tautology? logic trap?

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and the chance to
prove me wrong - which viewpoints contrary to your own would you
consider products of intelligent thought?

>> >> All of the efforts of the German nation were directed
>> >> towards serving the German State. If you didn't do what he wanted you were
>> >> gassed.
>> >
>> >Not true. All of the efforts of the German nation were devoted toward a
>> >series of objectives.
>>
>> all of the efforts of the state may have been devoted towards that.
>> all the efforts of the german people supported the state - the state
>> could have stood for most anything. the people didnt care, because the
>> people were stupid and liked envisioning themselves on top of a racial
>> pyramid. this way of doing things helped them believe it - "if the guy
>> in power says so..."
>
>There was the matter of hope, and belief, that they found in their leader
>after a series of beaten commercialites. They both knew and did not know -
>they trusted his motives, but may not have understood his politics - in the
>same way a child can trust its parents.

so, you agree that they were sheep?

now, the problem with people, is that when one fully matured person is
a child and one is an adult in an analogy, the former has not attained
as much of his potential as possible.

guiding the "child" to "what is good" is not helpful unless we can be
assured that the child is growing up. the guiding does not improve -
the guiding serves as a (supposedly) useful base for thought after
maturity has been reached. nowhere have i seen anything that would
cause them to mature, just stay children...

was hitler afraid to have a nation of free-thinking adults instead of
children?

"guiding" is an aesthetically pleasing way to say "demanding certain
ways of thinking". and you dont believe in aesthetics, do you...?

>> >If you acted counter to those objectives, you were
>> >jailed and put to work - if you were Jewish, there was about a 15% chance
>> >you'd get gassed and burned.
>>
>> i'm curious about this "15% chance". where do you get your figures?
>
>Based on world almanac statistics. Most escaped, by the largest margin.

encyclopedia britannica yields this:

>Altogether, in German-occupied Europe, 6,000,000 out of a total of about
>8,300,000 Jews were killed or died in concentration camps.

do you have a reason to believe your figures are more accurate? (also,
what are your figures past "15%"?)

>> >Murdering your opposition is standard practice in government today and for
>> >all time - it's called "war."
>>
>> ...is this apologism?
>
>Why would you think it so, unless you were inclined toward apologism?

a person can only judge another person's intent as something if the
first has the intent he sees in the second? that's not logical...

in fact, it's blatently stupid.

you are attempting to justify "murdering your opposition" by claiming
it as being "standard practice in government today and for all time".
justification in this manner is aesthetic and subjective. you are
being an apologist by saying "well, everyone does it!".

that's blatently stupid as well.

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:45:52 GMT, sto...@hotmail.com wrote:

>In article <34c7905c...@news.mindspring.com>,

> yog_s...@juno.com (Ninnghizhidda) wrote:
>
>> some reference material cites some interesting figures; a bit old in
>> cases, perhaps, but i dont expect that this sort of thing could change
>> so drastically (especially given the natural increase rate which i
>> cited as well):
>>
>> norway:
>>
>> religious affiliation (1980): lutheran 87.9%, nonreligious 3.2%, other
>> 8.9%
>>
>> ethnic composition (by country of citizenship, 1991): norway 96.6%,
>> denmark 0.4%, sweden 0.3%, united kingdom 0.3%, pakistan 0.3%, united
>> states 0.2%, vietnam 0.2%, other 1.7%.
>>

>> natural increase rate per 1,000 population (1991): 3.8 (world avg.
>> 17.2)
>>

>> sweden:
>>
>> religious affiliation (1991): church of sweden 88.9%, roman catholic
>> 1.7%, pentecostal 1.1%, other 8.3%.
>

>I just wanted to point out that when someone is born in Sweden, he
>automatically becomes a member of the church. I don't know how it
>will be now when the state and church become two different entities.
>I know that people here are not very religious, they mainly stay
>with the church because of "tradition" and the fact they have to be
>paying members to be married (or buried) in a church.

my source mentioned "30% nonpracticing"...do you think it's a greater
number? regardless, if they want to be married or buried in a church,
it's because they believe in christianity. so it works out either way.
thanks for your input, though.

Ninnghizhidda

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:30:37 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>> >If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
>> >territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
>> >not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
>> >to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.
>>

>> Uh...why didn't he put the all the German christians in the ovens
>> then?
>

>He did something more effective: he weaned them from their weak thought
>process and used them to implement his dreams.

...which, for some reason you havent stated, he chose to not do this
with jews.

...why not?

their "weaning", as you've mentioned holds true with most people, was
simply an aesthetic, temporal difference. people came out knowing and
thinking just as much as they did when they went in - sheep just the
same. trying to capitalize on their sheepdom is a crime against
spirituality.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

> >If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
> >territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
> >not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
> >to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.
>

> Uh...why didn't he put the all the German christians in the ovens
> then?

He did something more effective: he weaned them from their weak thought
process and used them to implement his dreams.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

> > What if your culture is more coherent than what replaced it? What if you
> > respect the ancient romans more than the modern christians? You're assuming
> > absolutes based on position, where interpretation would be the question.
>
> no, I'm saying who cares what the christians _or_ the romans
> believed....your own beliefs should be forged independent of these (as
> much as possible).

A certain amount of redundancy occurs in that the issues are essentially the
same; while "history is a nightmare from which i am trying to awake" it is
vital to study the points of value in history, versus the ongoing fatalism.

> Strong individuals don't need to destroy their oppossition,
> moreover they don't even desire to do so.

What if their opposition is "strong" in the ways of the physical world? Then
it is a matter of efficiency to destroy your opposition (and of course the
knowledge that if your opposition preaches easy but stupid answers, they're
going to have more support from the mass than the difficult answers and
longer human existence crew).

> Christianity sees it fit to
> destroy oppossition precisely because xtians are not confident enough in
> their "faith" to allow it to be challenged.

Irrelevant, compared to real-world politics. They're insane and we all know
it. So are the Jews. Why not end 'em all and speed up human development?
TOTAL WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY.

> Their idealogy was ultimately self-serving anyway! I see very
> little differences between nazis and christians in this way.

Please post some content - I understand what you say, but their ideology was
not self-serving - it was world-serving, in that it was an ideology and not a
justification.

> > I think Immortal are doing it for the art, but I think they acknowledge the
> > value of this political idea.
>
> At any rate, there is no accounting for bad taste when it comes to
> selection of imagery.

No swastika tattoo for the head of your penis, I take it, then?

> > Only in the sense that any ideology must. Obtaining freedom is a long and
> > treacherous path with many variants; why should one not tolerate an
effective
> > method?
>
> Precisely because one might soon find himself the next target of
> that method.

Is that fear?

> Refinement necessarily occures in stages of narrowing scope.
> Wave 1 of the purging might not include you, but as the status quo
> constricts its vision of acceptable characteristics, you are likely to
> become next in line for the gas.

They attempted to murder less than 5% of the population, and allowed numerous
dissidents to stay free. Unless one preached Judeo-Christian beliefs contrary
to german nationalism, one was fine!

> The ends may seem to justify the means,
> but sometimes the means can begin to alter the ends themselves.

This is the greatest risk of active ideology. And as Hitler found out, one's
cohorts are not always as lucid as oneself...

> > A polity can exist as metaphor, and as leadership that must be interpreted,
> > especially if one layer is designed to deceive while leading into a second
> > more explicit and empowering layer.
>
> Maybe a polity can exist as a metaphor, but regardless of that
> there are certain functional purposes that a polity must address......
>
> Agendas must be set....someone must set them..people will not agree on how
> to set them...thus, someones' will must become subverted to the wills of
> others.

Which happens inherently, since resources are shared. Might as well make it
for a good cause rather than for a commercial fatalism!

> > > That is not a justification.
> >
> > No, but it does explain context: why such a method is used, and why the
method
> > is not the objective. Justifications are for Judeo-Christians!
>
> "Justification" above = reason why it ought to be done to
> logically support the goal. I am not speaking about moral justifications.
>
> I contend that this is a myopic and undesirable method that
> actually counters the goal of achieving spiritual/intellectual freedom.

How is that so? If it advances the learning of humanity at temporary expense,
how is it myopic? Especially if it is working simultaneous angles...

> > And killed many of them for their money, as well.
> >
>
> Seems like more of a politician than an artist.

Politics is the medium, art the expression.

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Annatar Gorthaur wrote:

> Paul Wilbur wrote:
> >
> > > Free speech as long as you agree with it is only an illusion; if you
> > > support free speech then act likewise, dammit!
> >
> > We are all pro-free speech Annatar, no one has posted otherwise. You seem
> > to only get defensive when we disagree with you. That should be your
> > right, but don't accuse us of trying to limit you saying what you feel
> > like saying. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think both you and I are
> > willing to go to war to protect each others "rights". As long as someone
> > posts racist shit, I will stand in opposition. That's my right, as it is
> > for them to post racist babble. I would rather people were just more
> > honest about which way they lean when it comes to their beliefs.
>
> True maybe, but the nazi paranoia is striking... Supporting free speech,
> yet immediately calling other people 'nazi' when they're only expressing
> admiration for the nazi's creativity in killing seems rather
> contradictory to me.

And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
inflict on their freedom? If you are simply admiring killing creativity, I
would think there are so many more "creative" killers in history than the
Nazi's. It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your
life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
game changes.
Paul

>
> > Paul
>
> --

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

> And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
> inflict on their freedom? If you are simply admiring killing creativity, I
> would think there are so many more "creative" killers in history than the
> Nazi's. It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your
> life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
> ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
> reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
> game changes.

What's the point in not acting on it? If you have ideas, to not act is the
same as an action in the opposite direction. There are no more excellent
killers or evil villains than the Nazis, and since they are so demonized, it
is our mission to free that stigma from the clutches of Judeo-Christianity so
that there is at least a chance for truth...

Angelraeper

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> > And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
> > inflict on their freedom? If you are simply admiring killing creativity, I
> > would think there are so many more "creative" killers in history than the
> > Nazi's. It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your
> > life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
> > ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
> > reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
> > game changes.
>
> What's the point in not acting on it? If you have ideas, to not act is the
> same as an action in the opposite direction. There are no more excellent
> killers or evil villains than the Nazis, and since they are so demonized, it
> is our mission to free that stigma from the clutches of Judeo-Christianity so
> that there is at least a chance for truth...

Truth?? As in the TRUTH the way YOU SEE it?? lets be realistic here...
the idea of TRUTH is actually idealistic bullshit... there's too much
grey area involved in this issue to be able to distinguish "black" from
"white".... everyone's point of view is prejeduced in some way...
to the nazis, wat the 3rd reich did was justifiable... but to the rest
of the world, it isn't... so how are you gonna argue wats the truth? and
in this case i'm assuming that you are saying that hitler and gang have
been maligned by the judeo-christian community....
watever it is...
genocide is genocide.... no 2 ways about it... and from the way i see
it.. satanism and nazism are in no way alike so quit trying to drag
christianity into the picture...

Angelraeper

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

Paul Wilbur wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
>
> > Paul Wilbur wrote:
> > >
> > > > Free speech as long as you agree with it is only an illusion; if you
> > > > support free speech then act likewise, dammit!
> > >
> > > We are all pro-free speech Annatar, no one has posted otherwise. You seem
> > > to only get defensive when we disagree with you. That should be your
> > > right, but don't accuse us of trying to limit you saying what you feel
> > > like saying. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think both you and I are
> > > willing to go to war to protect each others "rights". As long as someone
> > > posts racist shit, I will stand in opposition. That's my right, as it is
> > > for them to post racist babble. I would rather people were just more
> > > honest about which way they lean when it comes to their beliefs.
> >
> > True maybe, but the nazi paranoia is striking... Supporting free speech,
> > yet immediately calling other people 'nazi' when they're only expressing
> > admiration for the nazi's creativity in killing seems rather
> > contradictory to me.
>

> And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
> inflict on their freedom?

Of course it does... I didn't say I was supporting nazism. I am just...
separating different aspects of it.

I find book burnings offensive.

But just as I think the nazi war machine was... creative in its
spreading of death and destruction, I think the spanish Inquistion was
creative as well. Yet I find dogmatic christians offensive.

What more I think of nazism as whole does not matter, I was only looking
at the most creative way to kill, or the most efficient way.
People accusing me of being a nazi are doing exactly the same as what
they fear.

> If you are simply admiring killing creativity, I
> would think there are so many more "creative" killers in history than the
> Nazi's.

Of course there are... Did I assume the nazi's weren't?

> It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your
> life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
> ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
> reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
> game changes.

So? You can't accuse me of not having experienced what you have
experienced.
I have my view of the situation. I respect that people can have a
coloured vision about nazism. But I don't think that this vision is a
valid reason to react like being stung by a wasp on people who think
that the nazi's did a pretty "good" (better word: efficient) job in
killing dozens of millions of people.

You have your experience, I have mine. Does that make me a nazi, or you
a "politically correct" hatemonger? Of course not.
If more people would realize this, Usenet would not be such a flaming
mass of intolerance, bigotry and trolling.
I have taken your point, Paul, I hope you've taken mine...

> Paul

--
Annatar Gorthaur, Darkfriend Trollsbane a.k.a. Maarten de Jong

http://www.student.wau.nl/~maartenj

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> > >If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
> > >territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
> > >not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
> > >to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.
> >

> > Uh...why didn't he put the all the German christians in the ovens
> > then?
>
> He did something more effective: he weaned them from their weak thought
> process and used them to implement his dreams.

Damn... Why didn't he do this with 6.000.000 jews? They could've
stripped the whole world of its money (if I am to believe that they are
so good at that)!

Now *that* would be effective...
But I suppose it was effective as well to use them as a scapegoat for
the misery germany was into, back then... He might have slaughtered
christians and used jews.
But if he was *truly* against judeo-christian culture, he should've
burned those christians as well, IMO.

I'm starting to believe that Hitler was a businessman himself. A "jew",
according to some people's definitions. And didn't he have jewish
ancestry, by the way? Or was my school that bad?

Hitler as yet another victim of that judeo-christian culture he sought
to destroy... What would be to say against that? Really, because of WW
II the jews are only more respected and cherished, and pitied: something
he would've loathed, I think.
The more I read these pro/anti Hitler messages, the more questions I
seem to get!

> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> > I agree with most of your points, however, I think you are being
> > somewhat too tolerant towards nazism on this particular point (which can
> > be extrapolated to Freedom of Speech, of course).
>
> I think we have to be tolerant of all ideas except those which prove
> themselves to be fearful and regressive. This is not the case (in the whole)
> of Nazism, where for the ideas expressed by some...

"The whole" of nazism agreeable? I'd say "a part" of nazism agreeable.
Another part, not.
I do not see "The Whole Idea Of Nazism" yet. If it was to destroy
judeo-christianity, why not burn christians along with the jews? Why
burn the gypsies?
Allright, so he used the christians.. Why not use the jews and the
gypsies and the homosexuals as well?
Why the book burnings?

I guess I'm one of those fuckers believing in free speech, ultimately.
Not that "anything goes", but I wouldn't kill people. My fight is mental
and I will never stop arguing with dogmatists. But I will not support
them being killed. That contradicts with my belief in free speech.

> > I find the book burnings quite offensive... Just as offensive as that
> > yokel impaled onto a cross.
>
> It would not have been my choice, nor would the gas ovens have been my
> execution of the final solution. However, the book burnings are not the
> whole of Nazism and represent a small and less significant factor of the
> ideology.

The book burnings are a part of nazism, part of following that ideology!
If we want to view nazism as a whole we will not omit details. We do not
omit details with judeo-christianity, and likewise, we shall not do this
with nazism. That would only be honest.

> > Partially agreed. The jews, unified by ethnoculture, are being cast out.
> > Which proves that Hitler had *something* of a racialistic view.
>
> Racialism in service to culturalism, as opposed to racialism in service to ego
> or economics. Big difference!

Yes, but the culturalism perhaps in service to ego or economics?
Because, essentially, the german people would not have been mobilised so
quickly if they wouldn't have a scapegoat like the jews.
We have to watch our step... What purpose *did* the culturalism serve?

> > Indeed! And besides, jews are as racialistic as nazis.... "Talmud" "holy
> > people"... Fuck them. Whatever happened to those Palestines?
>
> Same with Christians, who instead of race base their assumptions on belief,
> and retaliate with pity and guilt on those who do not believe. Send 'em both
> to the ovens ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reeducation camps.

No, rather discuss and convince. If not respected, retaliate with
laughter, and dismiss of it.
Killing the people would only result in pity towards the christians.
Rather, root out that mentality.

> > > Collective objective and removal of elements which (in the style of
> > > Judeo-Christian fatalists) posited no value to existence.
> >
> > By whose measures?
>
> Objective. That is, by ideas which can be understood and shared by honest
> intellectuals.

A bold statement to make, but it might be true. Note that the idea of
"objective" has to be shared by all participants in the discussion, else
it has no meaning at all.

> > > - Ecological laws
> > > - Workers' rights laws
> >
> > Some of the achievemnts of nazism... But the pros AND cons should be
> > mentioned. You mention only the pros, other people only mention the
> > cons... I try to mention both.
>
> He's mentioned enough of the cons, which for me are obvious: bellicose
> society. Civil rights infringement. High cost of shooting AND burning Jews.

Yes, and you mentioned enough of the pros =).

So let us continue with the evaluation, after good interpretation.

> > I see the "Judeo-Christian Holocaust" as a mental crusade... Killing the
> > people following that doctrine would mean a violation of Free Speech,
> > which is one of my core beliefs. The mentality should be countered
> > whenever met in a disrespectful way, of course.
>
> The mentality should be countered, period, and if killing is one way to do
> it, I support it. Send 'em to the ovens! My preferred countermethod is
> education and an insistence on truth, which is to Judeo-Christians as
> kryptonite is to stuporman.

Agreed, except that I do not support killing because of disagreement,
which I explained above.

> > > None of our research now existed to demonstrate the function of
> homosexuality
> > > and so to him, he was clearing out those who were contrarian to his program,
> > > and were ALSO too stupid to leave when he announced his intentions.
> >
> > Hitler was just..... surviving?
>
> Not sure I get it. He was probably allowing the homosexual genocide to occur
> as part of the price for his pairing with the Catholic Church (noted killers
> in their own right, and fucked over righteously by Hitler).

Aye, so he was just using his business instinct to survive.

> > > <http://www.evilmusic.com/> - The truth, not the lies of society.
> >
> > Hmm... I'd say A truth (one of many), but at least... not lies!
>
> Not lies - therefore truth - one of many? Sure, in that there are many topics
> for truth. But anyone who is not an objectivist is lying to themselves!

Why? There are many perceptions, many truths, different to anyone.
Popper stated that objectivity is an illusion. I agree with that.

> > I urge everyone however to write his/her thoughts down in essay-form and
> > mail them to me... We shall build a bulwark of philosophical freedom!
>
> Written with the blood of dead Christians!

Too bad only electric current flows through my computer.

> 666 DEATH METAL 666 "The basic nova mechanism is very simple: 666
> BLACK METAL 666 Always create as many insoluble conflicts as 666 SPEED
> METAL 666 as possible and always aggravate existing 666 GRIND CORE 666
> conflicts--This is done by dumping life forms 666 www.evilmusic.com 666
> with incompatible conditions of existence on 666666666 reviews/info 666666666
> the same planet...to create and aggravate the 666666666 www.kcuf.org
> 666666666 conflicts that lead to the explosion of a 666 www.anus.com/hsc
> 666 planet that is to nova." | SUPPORT THE 666 metal is life 666 - W.S.
> Burroughs HEIL |JUDEO-CHRISTIAN <http://www.evilmusic.com/> ~!~
> <http://www.anus.com/> SATAN | HOLOCAUST
>
> "Think for yourself, or your answers will not be satisfying."
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Warden of cell block D

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:30:37 GMT, evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>

> >> >If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he eradicate them in the vast
> >> >territory in Afrika he held for the first four years of the war? His war was
> >> >not against blacks (contrary to what idiot AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
> >> >to believe). His war was against Judeo-Christian culture.
> >>

> >> Uh...why didn't he put the all the German christians in the ovens
> >> then?
> >
> >He did something more effective: he weaned them from their weak thought
> >process and used them to implement his dreams.
>

> ...which, for some reason you havent stated, he chose to not do this
> with jews.
>
> ...why not?
>
> their "weaning", as you've mentioned holds true with most people, was
> simply an aesthetic, temporal difference. people came out knowing and
> thinking just as much as they did when they went in - sheep just the
> same. trying to capitalize on their sheepdom is a crime against
> spirituality.
>
> -Daemonic
>
> "We have no dreams at all or interesting ones.
> We should learn to be awake in the same way - not
> at all or in an interesting manner."
> -Nietzsche

All this discussion recently convinced me to pick up Mein Kampf again and
reread the chapter on Nation and Race. It seems pretty obvious to me that Hitler
was fighting the Jewish "Race" rather than the religion. I take this right
from his own writing:

"On the first and greatest lie, that the Jews are not a race but a
religion, more and more lies are based in necessary consequence."

As a matter of fact, In the whole book, I don't remember a single anti-"true"
christianity comments.

"Finally he [the Jew] needs only to have himself baptized to possess himself
of all the possibilities and rights of the natives of the country"

Hitler also draws links between satanism and Judaism:

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for
the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from
her people"

It is my belief Hitler did not attack blacks because he viewed them as lesser
animals that could do him no harm:

"It was and it is the Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always
the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the
necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from it's cultural and
political height, and himself rising to be it's master."

The whole chapter repeatedly attacks the "poisoning" of the Aryan race, and
the bastardization of Christianity. It also touches on the fact that one of
the biggest faults of the Jew is his unwilling to perform with society for the
greater good, but rather focuses on his ("chosen") self. Hitler wanted a _True
Arayan Race_. This meant killing anyone unpure that might "bastardize" the aryan
race (ie. gypsies - thanks daemonic). He didn't view most other races as a threat
though. Jews were a major threat - a race that wouldn't "sacrifice their egos
for the greater good of the community".

Dave
--
"But don't hold your breath
As you wait for your god or the void
Or the abyss of nothingness
Your uselfulness isn't through
Your productivity I resume..."

Carcass

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> > like to seep people remember whenever they start glorifying Hitler
> > primarily because they see him as a dark, powerful figure and thus
> > associate him with rebellion:
>
> And which of the listed things aren't fitting for the "dark, powerful figure"
> and for rebellion against the current society and morale?

Hitler wasn't a sellout. He was the only leader since Robespierre to be so
committed to ideology - perception of a better human future through organized
thinking - and though he shared Robespierre's failings (heh), he created an
empire unequaled before or since. All other leaders have stuffed their
pockets and enriched themselves at the expense of the people. Hitler was a
pure ideologue. Stalin, Tojo, Roosevelt and Churchill were not so motivated,
nor were the western nations who drove Germany to the wall with post-WWI
sanctions. Hitler alone was standing for his belief, and in that a belief in
hope for humanity. This is why people ideolize him.

> > > -censored art and expression
>
> Some so-called "art" deserves to be destroyed. Heck, 90 percents of it.
> Hitler destroyed anything he didn't liked just because he could - what can be
> more Satanic?

No art deserves to be destroyed. But it sounds like what he eliminated was
political cartoons and politicized art in the form of dissent, which as we
know isn't art - it's politics. He was just playing the game intelligently.

> > > -practiced the "might is right" behavioral pattern (as does any
> > > warmaker, perhaps to lesser degrees on occassion)
>

> "Might is right" is as Black Metal as Black Metal goes. It is a root of both
> Satanism and of majority of pagan mindsets. Anyone who opposes the doctrine of
> survival of the fittest is a closet xtian.

"Might is right" is an irrelevant question. "Might is right" is a tautology
to answer the void of its own teleology. Ideology and design are "right" -
and sometimes they must be proved by the irrefutable, e.g. might. Humanity
is mostly whiners, losers, and detractors (See This Newsgroup for a Great
Example) with few leaders.

> > > -enslaved/killed minority groups
>
> Yep. What can be darker, ain't it? (only killing majority groups too, but hey,
> nobody's perfect...)

He did kill majority groups, if you count Jewish overrepresentation in
banking, publishing, and chemical industries.

> > (these) newsgroups, but if people are going to argue for thought
> > conformity and racism, I'm not going to pretend it's not going on. I'm
>

> I guess you pretended my previous post on subject wasn't going on. So I'll
> rephrase it here - do you seriously think that now, in anno 1998, racism is
> "thought conformity" and liberalism and politcorrectness are mightily
> non-conformist examples of free thought?

They are examples of the same fear that used to engender racism! No one wants
to accept the beauty of universe or the diversity of ideas. They would rather
object to the package the ideas come in than think for themselves in order to
appreciate what might be there.

> Come on, wake up, smell the fresh
> newspapers with this or that yet another anti-racist rant. Heh, I won't be
> surprised if you americans already teach your children that "all races are
> equal and for thinking otherwise you'll go to hell" before teaching them
> alphabet.

AmeriKKKans suffer a great deal of guilt for the Indian genocide, several wars
with fragments of a colonial empire, and of course, 200 years of genocide
practiced against the blacks through forced breeding and slavery.

> Wanna know why mirror of my site, that contains one or two "thought
> conformist" passes, was wiped from fortuneshitty? A little hint - not because
> of unsuccifient amount of "conformism".

Because humanity is full of fear: and fear demands you chase the external
devil, rather than face him. The anti-racists are just using the same
Judeo-Christian mind trap to pursue an "evil" instead of facing the evil
within, and acknowledging that it is common practice in humanity and that
we'd be better off learning from the example of the Nazis and what they had
to teach philosophically than we are chasing after chimaera of purity. You
think Hitler wanted anything other than the best for humanity? His vision
was no different than yours - he was a sensitive artist who perceived the
best in humanity. He took drastic, manipulative, draconian steps to attempt
it, but he came closer than any other human leader and for his lack of
selling out we respect him today.

|| :The face of gOD is a mirror: \\\ .death metal & black || : of
deepest human despair : \\\ .metal and grind || .core and speed
###%%### <http://www.anus.com/> .metal and heavy || .metal and evil. |
Blasphemy and Nihilism for | /// ----------------- 666 777 | a new
spiritual Armaggedon | /// <www.evilmusic.com>

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> > > We are all pro-free speech Annatar, no one has posted otherwise. You seem
> > > to only get defensive when we disagree with you. That should be your
> > > right, but don't accuse us of trying to limit you saying what you feel
> > > like saying. When it gets down to brass tacks, I think both you and I are
> > > willing to go to war to protect each others "rights". As long as someone
> > > posts racist shit, I will stand in opposition. That's my right, as it is
> > > for them to post racist babble. I would rather people were just more
> > > honest about which way they lean when it comes to their beliefs.

Humor in this original post: if the poster were honest about his objections to
racism, he might find that his consistent posting is indicative of another
mentality than objection.

> > True maybe, but the nazi paranoia is striking... Supporting free speech,
> > yet immediately calling other people 'nazi' when they're only expressing
> > admiration for the nazi's creativity in killing seems rather
> > contradictory to me.
>
> And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
> inflict on their freedom?

And right back at how: How is that different from the witchhunt against
people with fascist beliefs? Either you believe in freedom or you don't; if
you believe in freedom, you post your ideas and not your scorn/morality and
other unproven and untenable ideas. The "anti-Nazis" are as rabid, vengeful
and censorious as any group in history because they suffer from their own
disease - as they accuse the Nazis of externalizing their woes into a
scapegoat of burning Jews, the "anti-Nazis" similarly are not accepting the
nature of their world or of their own actions and are externalizing to avoid
the truth.

> If you are simply admiring killing creativity, I
> would think there are so many more "creative" killers in history than the

> Nazi's. It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your

> life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
> ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
> reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
> game changes.

Fuck the scene. The "scene" is for people who want more of the same old shit.
I don't want a "scene"; I want an underground. The difference is striking!

What about those of us who have watched this supposedly "free" system enact
worse damage to our world, our collective conscience and awareness, and our
conception of human freedom than the Nazis ever would? To the point that,
despite our dislike of their methods and ostensible justification, we support
their regime over the "free" regimes of the west which, like Christianity, use
their stated purpose as a cover for the externalized hatred which they are
afraid to express -- ?

HEIL SATAN

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> > What's the point in not acting on it? If you have ideas, to not act is the
> > same as an action in the opposite direction. There are no more excellent
> > killers or evil villains than the Nazis, and since they are so demonized, it
> > is our mission to free that stigma from the clutches of Judeo-Christianity
so
> > that there is at least a chance for truth...
>
> Truth?? As in the TRUTH the way YOU SEE it?? lets be realistic here...
> the idea of TRUTH is actually idealistic bullshit... there's too much
> grey area involved in this issue to be able to distinguish "black" from
> "white".... everyone's point of view is prejeduced in some way...

Science suggests an objective reality. Subjectivism is an easy cop-out for
finding ways to process the information in front of you. Truth exists, but
only in the abstract - and the abstract is not arbitrary.

> to the nazis, wat the 3rd reich did was justifiable... but to the rest
> of the world, it isn't... so how are you gonna argue wats the truth?

The rest of the world is deceived. Case in point: We are slowly destroying
our planet, and most people are still enslaved to a constant need to
contribute money and time to the power structure.

> and
> in this case i'm assuming that you are saying that hitler and gang have
> been maligned by the judeo-christian community....

Surely they have!

> genocide is genocide.... no 2 ways about it... and from the way i see
> it.. satanism and nazism are in no way alike so quit trying to drag
> christianity into the picture...

All three are hopelessly connected as being human philosophies.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> > And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
> > inflict on their freedom?
>

> Of course it does... I didn't say I was supporting nazism. I am just...
> separating different aspects of it.
>
> I find book burnings offensive.

Who really cares? Our current empires burn books daily. More important is
finding a solution around the human intellectual problem of dishonesty,
mendacity, and subversion of our own best interests and objectivity. The
Nazis came closer to doing this than any other political movement, and that
is why they are considered evil, not because they smoked 4 million Jews...

Note: The Japanese (20-30 million) and Stalin (30-35 million) both killed
more people than the Germans. The Germans were facing a war reparation
demand larger than the current US deficit in equivalent economies.

> But just as I think the nazi war machine was... creative in its
> spreading of death and destruction, I think the spanish Inquistion was
> creative as well. Yet I find dogmatic christians offensive.

The Spanish Inquisition was boring in comparison to the Nazis. Like a good
movie, and very much fun as well. There's humor in those concentration camps,
machine gunnings, bombings and mass invasions. Killer!

> What more I think of nazism as whole does not matter, I was only looking
> at the most creative way to kill, or the most efficient way.
> People accusing me of being a nazi are doing exactly the same as what
> they fear.

EXACTLY. Afraid to admit their inner beings, they have stifled them into
resentment and a more destructive form of hatred than Nazism. What poor
deluded fools! We should have compassion, but what if it were more efficient
to simply feed them into the gas ovens? After all, at the rate modern
society is destroying our world, we don't have much time... and it might not
have been the same had Hitler taken over and supplanted the power structure
of "personal profit" with an objective and culturally-shared impetus toward
positive change.

> So? You can't accuse me of not having experienced what you have
> experienced.
> I have my view of the situation. I respect that people can have a
> coloured vision about nazism. But I don't think that this vision is a
> valid reason to react like being stung by a wasp on people who think
> that the nazi's did a pretty "good" (better word: efficient) job in
> killing dozens of millions of people.
>
> You have your experience, I have mine. Does that make me a nazi, or you
> a "politically correct" hatemonger? Of course not.
> If more people would realize this, Usenet would not be such a flaming
> mass of intolerance, bigotry and trolling.
> I have taken your point, Paul, I hope you've taken mine...

There is no tolerance here for ideas. If the "anti-Nazis" really believed
what they said, they would allow fascism to expound its points and wear
itself out. But they continue to fear it... cower, sheep!

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> > He did something more effective: he weaned them from their weak thought
> > process and used them to implement his dreams.
>

> Damn... Why didn't he do this with 6.000.000 jews? They could've
> stripped the whole world of its money (if I am to believe that they are
> so good at that)!

He did strip the Jews of their money, first by simple asset repossession and
second by taking their bribes to keep immediate family out of the labor
camps. What he did with 4 million (new official figure!) Jews was reflective
of his belief that they could not be changed: for whatever cultural or
genetic reasons, they were unlikely to leave resentment behind.

You contemplate those that you know and see what you think about that
ethnicity and its problems.

> But I suppose it was effective as well to use them as a scapegoat for
> the misery germany was into, back then... He might have slaughtered
> christians and used jews.
> But if he was *truly* against judeo-christian culture, he should've
> burned those christians as well, IMO.

He burned the image of their gOD. 'Nuff said.

> I'm starting to believe that Hitler was a businessman himself. A "jew",
> according to some people's definitions. And didn't he have jewish
> ancestry, by the way? Or was my school that bad?

Your school was repeating the yet-unproved as true. History sez it's
undecided whether he was Jewish or inbred.

> Hitler as yet another victim of that judeo-christian culture he sought
> to destroy... What would be to say against that? Really, because of WW
> II the jews are only more respected and cherished, and pitied: something
> he would've loathed, I think.

Yes. At the same time however, people have seen a focal point of reaction
against the culture of subtle death with the culture of active death. And
many have taken note...

> The more I read these pro/anti Hitler messages, the more questions I
> seem to get!

That would please Hitler immensely.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> I do not see "The Whole Idea Of Nazism" yet. If it was to destroy
> judeo-christianity, why not burn christians along with the jews? Why
> burn the gypsies?

The idea was to eliminate enemies of the state. Christians were used by the
state for the purposes of achieving its own ideology.

> Allright, so he used the christians.. Why not use the jews and the
> gypsies and the homosexuals as well?
> Why the book burnings?

Power assertion. Machiavelli. And what's wrong with it? Book burnings
targetted very few (jewish) targets. And since the Jews are the originators
of Judeo-Christianity, it's a fairly sensible step.

> I guess I'm one of those fuckers believing in free speech, ultimately.
> Not that "anything goes", but I wouldn't kill people. My fight is mental
> and I will never stop arguing with dogmatists. But I will not support
> them being killed. That contradicts with my belief in free speech.

Great. Well said. And all that shit. But time is running out, and most of
"free speech" is crap that is not said with honesty: it is lies; worse than
lies, it is not even consciously lied. Therefore, why not take the immediate
steps?

> The book burnings are a part of nazism, part of following that ideology!

Part of its methodology...

> If we want to view nazism as a whole we will not omit details. We do not
> omit details with judeo-christianity, and likewise, we shall not do this
> with nazism. That would only be honest.

I have asked for no omission of details, but I have asked they be considered
in reasonable context and not as objections in their own right (since that is
stupid).

> Yes, but the culturalism perhaps in service to ego or economics?
> Because, essentially, the german people would not have been mobilised so
> quickly if they wouldn't have a scapegoat like the jews.
> We have to watch our step... What purpose *did* the culturalism serve?

Unified the people toward a non-resentful worldview. Jews were used as
"scapegoats" in the Jewish view of how they were treated; more likely, they
were a demonstrative metaphor for the struggle of the German people, within.

> > > Indeed! And besides, jews are as racialistic as nazis.... "Talmud" "holy
> > > people"... Fuck them. Whatever happened to those Palestines?
> >
> > Same with Christians, who instead of race base their assumptions on belief,
> > and retaliate with pity and guilt on those who do not believe. Send 'em
both
> > to the ovens ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reeducation camps.
>
> No, rather discuss and convince. If not respected, retaliate with
> laughter, and dismiss of it.
> Killing the people would only result in pity towards the christians.
> Rather, root out that mentality.

Sounds nice and all but you're not very effective. Education works to some
degree but the earth degrades while we wait. A few genocides will mean
nothing in ten thousand years, while without them we may not make it that
far.

> > Objective. That is, by ideas which can be understood and shared by honest
> > intellectuals.
>
> A bold statement to make, but it might be true. Note that the idea of
> "objective" has to be shared by all participants in the discussion, else
> it has no meaning at all.

It doesn't. Objective exists whether recognized by those in the grip of
subjectivism or not.

> > He's mentioned enough of the cons, which for me are obvious: bellicose
> > society. Civil rights infringement. High cost of shooting AND burning
Jews.
>
> Yes, and you mentioned enough of the pros =).

No one else dares.

> > Not sure I get it. He was probably allowing the homosexual genocide to
occur
> > as part of the price for his pairing with the Catholic Church (noted killers
> > in their own right, and fucked over righteously by Hitler).
>
> Aye, so he was just using his business instinct to survive.

To achieve his goals - he seemed to survive just fine.

> Popper stated that objectivity is an illusion. I agree with that.

Popper is an idiot.

> > Written with the blood of dead Christians!
>
> Too bad only electric current flows through my computer.

Semantically, you are correct. But a world of imagery (and not image) awaits
you...

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

Ah, some meat to conversation instead of name-calling. How silly those
thinkers of Judeo-Christian taint are!

> > >> Uh...why didn't he put the all the German christians in the ovens
> > >> then?
> > >

> > >He did something more effective: he weaned them from their weak thought
> > >process and used them to implement his dreams.
> >

> > ...which, for some reason you havent stated, he chose to not do this
> > with jews.
> >
> > ...why not?

He believed them to be incapable of change as their culture and genetics were
too deeply rooted in addiction to resentment and codependency on the
antagonism of nature - their masochism was a defining characteristic and one
they had cherished for two thousand years already, and he saw no need to
expend the effort it would take to convert them to a non-threat to use them
except in the immediate sense of having them making war materiel.

Not only that, he clearly allowed quite a few into his military to serve his
purposes, and befriended many as well. Probably confused the fuck out of them
in doing so.

> > their "weaning", as you've mentioned holds true with most people, was
> > simply an aesthetic, temporal difference. people came out knowing and
> > thinking just as much as they did when they went in - sheep just the
> > same. trying to capitalize on their sheepdom is a crime against
> > spirituality.

Not so - many would have you believe this, but for those who fought for the
Nazi side, a pride remains today. That they were the one group in that war
who weren't money-grubbing prideless wretches seeking to demonstrate their
fear to the world.

You still haven't understood any of my motivation, which is a shame. You
could benefit. Hitler was a form of Christ: he gave of himself in pure
ideology and paid the price for it. His methods are inconsequential; all of
history is such methods. His ideas are the only distinctiveness. And those
stand us a chance of freeing us from the mindfuck of pity/scorn (a duality
based in our duplicitous double perception of others arising from our fear of
their abilities) that is one segment of the human deception. Am I evil? I
am Hitler. I am Jesus. I am Gandhi. I am Martin Luther King. I am the
forces of evolution within humanity which assumes the burden of choice, and
leaves what is without as the codependent for those who need it. I stand a
chance of saving you through education and your own action, not mine. This
is the demonstration of history through ideas, and is why a peace-loving
free-speech supporting individualist such as myself can have my own ideas and
also support Hitler - and also debunk royally the witch hunt you and others
of the craven have going here. Feel silly for now but your learning is
invaluable. Because I have hooks into your soul, and soon you will start to
feel the erosion. And at first it will be terrible, and you will feel the
terror. Better later it will soon become stagnant, and again resume its
fearsomeness. But in the eye of the storm you will see clarity: without
emotion, without fear, without aesthetic. And when the rage subsides,
something to supplant all that has gone before will be in its place. And you
will both praise Him (Hitler) and criticize him (Hitler) but you will not
revile him: for you will see he is a giver, the eye of God and the hand of
Satan.

> > "We have no dreams at all or interesting ones.
> > We should learn to be awake in the same way - not
> > at all or in an interesting manner."
> > -Nietzsche

Useful quote. More useful quotes:

> All this discussion recently convinced me to pick up Mein Kampf again and
> reread the chapter on Nation and Race. It seems pretty obvious to me that
Hitler
> was fighting the Jewish "Race" rather than the religion.

WARNING: One must read the whole of this postmodern tract to decode it!

>I take this right
> from his own writing:
>
> "On the first and greatest lie, that the Jews are not a race but a
> religion, more and more lies are based in necessary consequence."

Simple observation. The Jews unify their religion by race!

> As a matter of fact, In the whole book, I don't remember a single anti-"true"
> christianity comments.

You did not read closely enough!

> "Finally he [the Jew] needs only to have himself baptized to possess himself
> of all the possibilities and rights of the natives of the country"

Christianity is symbolic for labor - for joining hands with the others. He
uses it as counterpoint to Judaism, which is individualism for the sake of
resenting others, a basis in fear that has the individual both dependent on
others and working against them for his/her own pile of gold.

> Hitler also draws links between satanism and Judaism:
>
> "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for
> the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from
> her people"

Imagery again, given the nature of Satan in the Jewish religion: a minor angel
of corruption outside the race ("La Raza").

> It is my belief Hitler did not attack blacks because he viewed them as lesser
> animals that could do him no harm:
>
> "It was and it is the Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always
> the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the
> necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from it's cultural and
> political height, and himself rising to be it's master."

I believe he had compassion for the blacks.

> The whole chapter repeatedly attacks the "poisoning" of the Aryan race, and
> the bastardization of Christianity. It also touches on the fact that one of
> the biggest faults of the Jew is his unwilling to perform with society for the
> greater good, but rather focuses on his ("chosen") self.

E.g. directly competitive to Hitler's own beliefs, which were in their public
form (think object design) programmed to counteract those of Judaism,
Zoroastrianism and other great enthroned fears.

>Hitler wanted a _True
> Arayan Race_. This meant killing anyone unpure that might "bastardize" the
aryan
> race (ie. gypsies - thanks daemonic).

He didn't want an Aryan race - he wanted a white culture. Gypsies presented
a different threat as they, like Jews, were a wandering culture with no
allegiance to their host nation.

> He didn't view most other races as a
threat
> though. Jews were a major threat - a race that wouldn't "sacrifice their egos
> for the greater good of the community".

See what he says about the Japanese...

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> You missed the point.

You articulate it poorly.

> Of course you are not going to "kill yourself to preserve your honor"
> (ironically enough, the concept of "honor"/pride is rooted ENTIRELY in
> aestheticism), because:

I disagree. The concept of self-image of honor/pride is rooted in
aestheticism, but not the thing in itself.

> 1) Your beliefs are YOUR beliefs. Why would your existence ever be contrary
> to those beliefs?

Easily. Humans experience duality and paradox as everyday occurrences, and a
good deal of it is necessary to further the development of belief. However,
I do not agree with your subjectivist tangent - one could believe something
and be momentarily incapable of executing it.

> 2) If your opinions change (ie. through learning, growth, etc.) you will NO
> LONGER consider your own existence to be contrary to your belief system.

If the existence was ever considered contrary. If one has tolerance for
paradox and understanding of the nature behind what humans perceive as
duality, there is no such problem!

> "I used to be blind, but now I've learned to think for myself. A long time
> ago, I would have hated myself 5 years ago, but now I've learned to hate what
I
> was".
>
> That's paraphrased, but would you be interested in the source?

I believe I know the source.

> >That's not what I said - however, by removing certain cultures we would
> >progress simply through purging of disease.
>
> You repeated what I said. Look:
>
> >> You say that by removing (insert dogmatically inclined-motivated
> >race/nation
> >> here) from the species, we progress as human beings because we remove their
> >> ethos from our mindset.
>
> Please point out the difference.

You assume that our mindset is projected into the world, and that we are
solipsists swatting at flies, where what I am asserting is that we are a
universalist culture understanding the nature of its disease and choosing to
remove it where found first internally and next externally.

> >But that is not the first tenet
> >of national socialism (as you well would know, were you an objectivist!).
>
> I'll pass on the flame-bait, thank you.

Pass on whatever you wish. Calling it flame-bait is a copout.

> >I create many structures of beauty and function joined in the power of true
> >optimism through an acceptance and endurance of nihilism in the context of
> >personal value and objectivist valuation. And you?
>
> I write music.

Similar idea, depending on how you execute (heh) it.

> No need to clutter the description with semantics, non?

Depends on what you write music for and how.

> >> I bet your life that your answer to this would be deemed inconsequential or
> >> irrelevant to >any< other person with your ethical mindset.
> >
> >I bet you just lost your life in a bet.
>
> How so?
>
> Why do you NEVER refute these arguments without resorting to telling the other
> poster that they're just >WRONG<, without giving reason/anecdote/whatever?

NEVER? You must be reading a different poster, then. You were making bets
about a persona (mine) of which you know relatively nothing. And I said:
I'll bet that if you made such a foolish bet with your life, you would die -
because you posited an absolutist dogma in a subjectivist context. No
necessary direction to that one except the violation of your absolutism.

> >Not so. Hitler made himself an example first, using the ideas that Gandhi
> >would later express in his eloquent statement about "becoming the change you
> >seek in the world."
>
> What you attempt to say is that Hitler "reformed his value system based on
> personal experience and learning, and overcame the initial fallacies in his
> thinking".

No, my friend: what I am saying is that Hitler expressed his value system to
his people as an ideology, and once that had been communicated took it to
further extremes of action.

> What you fail to refute, is that of the countless Judeo-christians that were
> either a) not firmly rooted in their beliefs as to not accept other value
> systems or b) not even chrisian(!) were also killed.

Countless? They were counted, clearly. I think Hitler would say: if they had
chosen not to accept the choice of personal will to the degree that they were
Christians/Jews at that time, they were incapable of making any decision...
therefore valueless and ready for ovens.

> You say Hitler destroyed Judeo-chrisitanity in the "Fatherland" to remove the
> crippling dogmatic value system from his people, not letting it become a
> corrupting influence.
>
> Yet, in his "justification" of these actions to his people, he used
> anti-semitic propaganda and such which most certainly did NOT reflect his
"true
> intent" as you put it.

Manipulation is part of Machiavellianism, and he used it to great effect.
However he never left out his true intent and ideology whether in symbology or
direct reference.

> "Free-thinking" is hardly promoted by attempting to convince your people of
the
> corrupting influence of a culture by making them look >BAD< (ask any
> sympathetic Nazi supporter from the era)..
>
> Another intersting use of aesthetics to further one's end.

Meaning your aesthetics? Free thinking can be promoted by any means, whether
recognition of the enemy both within and without or by recognition of
positive factors, which also occurred. You seem to be afraid to do anything
but reduce your argument against Hitler to one-sided aesthetics: he SEEMS to
be a manipulator to you, and he seems to present what in your value systems
would be ego-politics - but a study of aesthetics might help you further see,
to appreciate the intent behind vast motion in a metaphorical reconstruction
of history.

SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

> >Is that what they _want_, or what they'll accept in the absence of belief
> >that
> >they can have what they _want_?
>
> So it's back to "what's the meaning of life"?

It's back to what's the meaning of choice - and as you demonstrate, most
people have no idea how to choose what they want.

> The fact that you and I do not agree on this very basic tenet to individual
> human thought indicates that perhaps there is no "truth"? Ad hominem, no
> "fallacy"?

Logical fallacy in your "logic" there - because we do not agree has nothing
to do with the nature of objectivism. One or both could easily be deluded!
Arguing the pragmatics of objectivism in a world of the deluded only means
that you fear _your_ subjectivism, not that you believe objectivism does not
exist.

> >You lost your point because you have no belief in life - only in the struggle
> >for life. But where is the value behind your struggle? Only in your belief
> >that there should be a struggle!
>
> You didn't read my post very carefully, then.

I read your post more than carefully. Luckily it fits into a type I've seen
before in most cases, and in a few cases where not, falls into some common
patterns of fallacy (most of which you accuse me of using, to the humor of
people reading these archives in the future).

> That's unfortunate. You support free-thought above everything else, but seem
> to be convinced that those who do not agree with >YOUR< view are either a)
> wrong, or b) "slaves to aestheticism".

It's unfortunate that this solipsistic interpreptation is the best you can
come up with to counter my arguments. That is _your_ mode of perception;
mine is to describe what I can analyze. Most fall into the latter category
because 99.9% of all human behavior does.

> Which is interesting, when the entire point of your argument that "Nazi
> government was a good way to go" is rooted in aestheticism.

In _your_ view. Which as any objectivist could tell you is solipsistic!

Thomas Wolmer VK/EHS/X/VE

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

yog_s...@juno.com (Ninnghizhidda) writes:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:45:52 GMT, sto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >In article <34c7905c...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > yog_s...@juno.com (Ninnghizhidda) wrote:
> >> sweden:
> >>
> >> religious affiliation (1991): church of sweden 88.9%, roman catholic
> >> 1.7%, pentecostal 1.1%, other 8.3%.
> >
> >I just wanted to point out that when someone is born in Sweden, he
> >automatically becomes a member of the church. I don't know how it
> >will be now when the state and church become two different entities.
> >I know that people here are not very religious, they mainly stay
> >with the church because of "tradition" and the fact they have to be
> >paying members to be married (or buried) in a church.

Or remain as members because they just don't bother to leave it.

> my source mentioned "30% nonpracticing"...do you think it's a greater
> number?

One figure I remember from some poll was ~14% of the population saying
they were _religious_ - thus including others than christians. Some other
poll gave 7-8% "practicing christians", but I think that was just some
sub-group, like people between 15 and 25 or so.

> regardless, if they want to be married or buried in a church,
> it's because they believe in christianity. so it works out either way.
> thanks for your input, though.

Nope, I know people who are 100% atheists and still want to be married
in a church because "it's such a nice atmosphere" or somesuch. And I know
even more people who "believe there is something", but still like to go
churches at such occations. But will you see them att communion? No way.

--
Thomas Wolmer VK/EHS/X/VE | At work: ehs...@ehpt.com
My opinion does not equal | ECN Web: http://vksun25.ericsson.se:8001/~ehswolm/
Ericsson Hewlett-Packard | Not work: d90...@nada.kth.se
Telecommunications AB's | WWW: http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d90-two

ghaa...@geocities.com

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

In article <6un6kh$cak$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
> > Some so-called "art" deserves to be destroyed. Heck, 90 percents of it.
> > Hitler destroyed anything he didn't liked just because he could - what can
> > be more Satanic?
>
> No art deserves to be destroyed. But it sounds like what he eliminated was
> political cartoons and politicized art in the form of dissent, which as we
> know isn't art - it's politics. He was just playing the game intelligently.

Note quotes and "so-called". We should first define what can qualify as art
and what cannot. Such examples as cradle of shit or spice girls either don't
qualify as art, or some art DOES suit best to be a fuel for bonfire on a city
square.

> They are examples of the same fear that used to engender racism! No one wants
> to accept the beauty of universe or the diversity of ideas. They would rather
> object to the package the ideas come in than think for themselves in order to
> appreciate what might be there.

Exactly.

> AmeriKKKans suffer a great deal of guilt for the Indian genocide, several wars
> with fragments of a colonial empire, and of course, 200 years of genocide
> practiced against the blacks through forced breeding and slavery.

Thank doG I am not amerikkkan..;) Feeling guilt for the deeds of ancestors,
what can be more ridiculous... Heh, like niggers deserve anything more than
cotton plantations. They were weaker - they were enslaved, end of question.

> > of unsuccifient amount of "conformism".

Unsufficient, of course. Where are my typing skills..

> You think Hitler wanted anything other than the best for humanity?

I don't care what he wanted, but I see what he did. And I like it.

> His vision was no different than yours - he was a sensitive artist who
> perceived the best in humanity.

Errr...who said you I perceive the best in humanity? I want humanity decadent,
degenerated and ultimately, destroyed and forgotten. And I support Third Reich
and NS in Black Metal not for benevolent ideals of National Socialism but for
realities of so-called "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity".

> He took drastic, manipulative, draconian steps to attempt
> it, but he came closer than any other human leader and for his lack of
> selling out we respect him today.

It's strange actually that same man and same ideology can be glorified by
different people for nearly opposite reasons...:)

Shadow Dweller http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/8101/
ghaa...@geocities.com http://people.weekend.ru/Ghaaroth/
2:5030/148...@fidonet.org UIN1371288
----/\---\/---/\---\/---/\---\/---/\---\/---/\---\/---/\----
"If We had to be something for "jesus christ",
We would be it's Last Breath..."
BELKE'TRE
----\/---/\---\/---/\---\/---/\---\/---/\---\/---/\---\/----

Plague Rages

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

> > >If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he
> eradicate them in the vast
> > >territory in Afrika he held for the first four
> years of the war? His war was
> > >not against blacks (contrary to what idiot
> AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
> > >to believe). His war was against
> Judeo-Christian culture.
> >

> > Uh...why didn't he put the all the German
> christians in the ovens
> > then?
>
> He did something more effective: he weaned them
> from their weak thought
> process and used them to implement his dreams.

He did something more stupid: he fucked up the
nation by losing the war and killing eight million
germans. STUPID FUCKING LOOOOSER!!!!

hahaha!!!

--
THE PLAGUE...
====================================================

====================================================

----Twisting The Knife-----
--The Unofficial NAPALM DEATH Home Page---
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/2453/main.html

" Hide behind tv, hide behind life.
You should be living, but you only survive.
Life holds nothing, but pain and death.
Don't look for love, there's none left. "

Napalm Death, Scum do album SCUM.

"All my life is pain, drowned in tears.
I never thought I would feel this way (in my life).
Everyday I die once more. My heart turns black.
I'm bleeding from inside. Never again safe and warm

Love is dead "

Atrocity, "Love is dead" do album "Willenskraft "

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

Customer 1: This album uses too many noisy guitars. I want something that
sounds good, that I can hear and not think about how fucked-up it sounds.
This must be the music of stupid, angry people

Customer 2: I want to get a band with a chick vocalist. I think it's cool
and open-minded for metal bands to use girls to sing. I've heard a few and I
think it's a neat idea, a cool thing to be listening to.

What's your pick? Do events and expressions have content that is different
and self-evolving, or are they all basically the same except that some are
wrapped up in an aura of confusion? Would you rather be killed by a leader
who believed in human futurism through what he was doing, or by one who was
only taking care of a business empire? People, awake! Whatever you think of
what you think I'm thinking, you are probably missing the point: USENET is
the stage for the subconscious to be explicated and the nature of ideas to be
separated from their containers.

NOW do you understand?

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> > I do not see "The Whole Idea Of Nazism" yet. If it was to destroy
> > judeo-christianity, why not burn christians along with the jews? Why
> > burn the gypsies?
>

> The idea was to eliminate enemies of the state. Christians were used by the
> state for the purposes of achieving its own ideology.

Not really an answer to my question, not that it really matters in the
end.

> > Allright, so he used the christians.. Why not use the jews and the
> > gypsies and the homosexuals as well?
> > Why the book burnings?
>

> Power assertion. Machiavelli. And what's wrong with it? Book burnings
> targetted very few (jewish) targets. And since the Jews are the originators
> of Judeo-Christianity, it's a fairly sensible step.
>

> > I guess I'm one of those fuckers believing in free speech, ultimately.
> > Not that "anything goes", but I wouldn't kill people. My fight is mental
> > and I will never stop arguing with dogmatists. But I will not support
> > them being killed. That contradicts with my belief in free speech.
>

> Great. Well said. And all that shit. But time is running out, and most of
> "free speech" is crap that is not said with honesty: it is lies; worse than
> lies, it is not even consciously lied. Therefore, why not take the immediate
> steps?

Exactly our difference. Why take those immediate steps, when it means
partially sacrificing intellectual integrity? When the goal turns out to
be nothing? Steps once taken cannot be undone. Is that an excuse to make
no steps? No, of course not. Further in the posting I elaborate on this.

> > If we want to view nazism as a whole we will not omit details. We do not
> > omit details with judeo-christianity, and likewise, we shall not do this
> > with nazism. That would only be honest.
>

> I have asked for no omission of details, but I have asked they be considered
> in reasonable context and not as objections in their own right (since that is
> stupid).

Fair enough...

> > > > Indeed! And besides, jews are as racialistic as nazis.... "Talmud" "holy
> > > > people"... Fuck them. Whatever happened to those Palestines?
> > >
> > > Same with Christians, who instead of race base their assumptions on belief,
> > > and retaliate with pity and guilt on those who do not believe. Send 'em
> both
> > > to the ovens ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reeducation camps.
> >
> > No, rather discuss and convince. If not respected, retaliate with
> > laughter, and dismiss of it.
> > Killing the people would only result in pity towards the christians.
> > Rather, root out that mentality.
>

> Sounds nice and all but you're not very effective. Education works to some
> degree but the earth degrades while we wait. A few genocides will mean
> nothing in ten thousand years, while without them we may not make it that
> far.

Again: exactly our difference. We both seem to have the same target, but
our acts to reach it differ greatly.
I am not to make a judgement about who's right. I see your point.

> > > He's mentioned enough of the cons, which for me are obvious: bellicose
> > > society. Civil rights infringement. High cost of shooting AND burning
> Jews.
> >
> > Yes, and you mentioned enough of the pros =).
>

> No one else dares.

True. Provocators exist, but most people either don't support nazism, or
are afraid (of themselves, of course).

> > > Not sure I get it. He was probably allowing the homosexual genocide to
> occur
> > > as part of the price for his pairing with the Catholic Church (noted killers
> > > in their own right, and fucked over righteously by Hitler).
> >
> > Aye, so he was just using his business instinct to survive.
>

> To achieve his goals - he seemed to survive just fine.

Exactly, a businessman, so to say. Not that that matters anyway.

> > Popper stated that objectivity is an illusion. I agree with that.
>

> Popper is an idiot.

The true objectivist speaking =)
If Popper is an idiot, so am I.
You complain about subjectivism, stating that it is "pointlessly asking
questions without making decisions". But that is only one way to look at
subjectivism. The other way is: acknowledging that objectivity does not
exist, or at least cannot be defined by us, and yet trying to make as
much out of it as possible, always striving for objectivity. And never
stop asking questions, always pull everything into doubt.
Some subjectivists indeed come no further than "what is it then?" and
ask questions until the end, without achieving anything.
I try to make decisions yet always keep in mind that the objectivity is
only there as I see it. I will never stop asking questions, but they do
have a point I think, and I am not decisionless at all.
Objectivism might be more decisive and "to the point", but the so-called
objectivity can be meaningless another day, and all would have been for
naught.
One has to make himself a path in between the two opposites. Popper
certainly wasn't an idiot; he was not "pointlessly asking questions".

> || :The face of gOD is a mirror: \\\ .death metal & black || : of
> deepest human despair : \\\ .metal and grind || .core and speed
> ###%%### <http://www.anus.com/> .metal and heavy || .metal and evil. |
> Blasphemy and Nihilism for | /// ----------------- 666 777 | a new
> spiritual Armaggedon | /// <www.evilmusic.com>
>

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Plague Rages wrote:

> evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
>
> > > >If Hitler was out to kill blacks, why didn't he
> > eradicate them in the vast
> > > >territory in Afrika he held for the first four
> > years of the war? His war was
> > > >not against blacks (contrary to what idiot
> > AmeriKKKan white power l0zers want
> > > >to believe).

That would have been genius to go after Africa! Then he could have fought
a battle on 3 fronts insted of two and gotten his ass kicked that much
faster.

James S Kang

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
> Customer 1: This album uses too many noisy guitars. I want something that
> sounds good, that I can hear and not think about how fucked-up it sounds.
> This must be the music of stupid, angry people

> Customer 2: I want to get a band with a chick vocalist. I think it's cool
> and open-minded for metal bands to use girls to sing. I've heard a few and I
> think it's a neat idea, a cool thing to be listening to.

Number 1. While I may not seek what he does, he is right in seeking sound
that is pleasing to him at a pure sonic level (and spiritual, some might
say), rather than seeking music because he likes the philosophy of the
musicians.

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

And ended up giving it all away because over extended himself. Please,
there wasn't much of a fight to put up in Africa to begin with. Let me
guess, he would have soon taken Antartica if everything had gone
according to plan? He went for it all, and ended up taking his own
cowardly life with a shot to the head. Not only was he an egomaniac, but
a spineless leader as well.
Paul

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 evil...@evilmusic.com
wrote:

>
>
> > That would have been genius to go after Africa! Then he could have fought
> > a battle on 3 fronts insted of two and gotten his ass kicked that much
> > faster.
>

> He held two thirds of north african territory for most of the war.
>
> <http://www.evilmusic.com/> - THE TRUTH YOU CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FACE

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

> > And you think killing someone with different "values" than yours does not
> > inflict on their freedom?
>
> Of course it does... I didn't say I was supporting nazism. I am just...
> separating different aspects of it.
>
> I find book burnings offensive.

Us both.

>
> But just as I think the nazi war machine was... creative in its
> spreading of death and destruction, I think the spanish Inquistion was
> creative as well. Yet I find dogmatic christians offensive.
>

I don't understand how they are doing "exactly what they fear"? I fear
people kicking my ass for having friends of different races, or dating
women of other races, but I have never stepped to someone who was talking
to a Nazi and threatened to beat them.

>
>
> > If you are simply admiring killing creativity, I
> > would think there are so many more "creative" killers in history than the
> > Nazi's.
>

> Of course there are... Did I assume the nazi's weren't?

> > It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your
> > life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
> > ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
> > reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
> > game changes.
>
> So? You can't accuse me of not having experienced what you have
> experienced.
> I have my view of the situation. I respect that people can have a
> coloured vision about nazism. But I don't think that this vision is a
> valid reason to react like being stung by a wasp on people who think
> that the nazi's did a pretty "good" (better word: efficient) job in
> killing dozens of millions of people.

Have you experienced what I have experienced? I doubt it. You seem to
"admire" the Nazi's a little too much Annatar, that's why you get
accussed. I don't find myself trying to point out the finer points of
someone who I dislike for one reason or another. I could, but if what I
dislike is a huge part of that persons personality or belief structure, I
would just assume walk away and leave them alone. However, they "Nazis"
in this group are very vocal, and I won't run from anyone. I could easily
not post, and be silent, but that would be very unlike me.
Paul

>
> You have your experience, I have mine. Does that make me a nazi, or you
> a "politically correct" hatemonger? Of course not.
> If more people would realize this, Usenet would not be such a flaming
> mass of intolerance, bigotry and trolling.
> I have taken your point, Paul, I hope you've taken mine...

I think I am understanding it more. But it hard to take you seriously when
you speak of the praises of Nazis and then try to say I am the one with
the intolerance problem. Let's not forget who the truly "intolerable" were
in this enlightening conversation we are having. And don't expect me to
walk the fence on an issue as serious as this...
Paul

> > > Paul

AleX

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

> > > > I do not see "The Whole Idea Of Nazism" yet. If it was to destroy
> > > > judeo-christianity, why not burn christians along with the jews? Why
> > > > burn the gypsies?
> > >
> > > The idea was to eliminate enemies of the state. Christians were used by the
> > > state for the purposes of achieving its own ideology.
> >
> > Not really an answer to my question, not that it really matters in the
> > end.
>

> What more answer would you need? Burning those who professed to be
> Christians along with the Jews would have been nice, but would have deprived
> them of an army and would have gone against the safe nice and happy
> democratic process that brought NS to power.

HMMMM..... Goat, aren't you afraid that you'll be a candidate for a burning stake as
well? Aren't you of Jewish descent too? Don't you remember what happened to the
leader of the French revolution/ All of them eneded up with their heads in the
guilliotine baskets.

Alex Shterenberg

!!! REMOVE THE "X" FROM MY ADDRESS WHEN REPLYING !!!

Angelraeper

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

> Science suggests an objective reality. Subjectivism is an easy cop-out for
> finding ways to process the information in front of you. Truth exists, but
> only in the abstract - and the abstract is not arbitrary.
>

True... i'm open to that idea.. but don't you find it too tedious and
wats more... you're basing truth on something that is'nt tangible... so
how far can you push the truth in abstract ideology to the masses who
are so used to "subjectivism"? it's a view worth exploring... but it
is'nt realistic... because of the mindset that our current society has
built and cemented over the millenia.... it's really quite impossible
to believe that ANYBODY can judge the truth in PURE abstractivity....
lets face it... MAN gets security and a sense of control when he's
managed to somehow quantify his immediate surroundings... and thats
where subjectivism stems... and by that term, we are enslaved in a
way....

>
> The rest of the world is deceived. Case in point: We are slowly destroying
> our planet, and most people are still enslaved to a constant need to
> contribute money and time to the power structure.
>

Agreed and Disagreed... yes it's true that we're fucking up this planet
and it's obvious that not many ppl give a shit bout it.. (no unless they
can squeeze a buck out of it...) and so we are in true subjecting our
habitat to a slow torture that results in death..

but wat i disagree on is your decided course of "remedy " to this sad
state of affairs... and by (i'm assuming)mass genocide, hitler was
ridding a part of this "disease" ... namely man... but from a
first-person perspective...it's sub humane treatment that i don't think
no body should ever have to go thru (other than the assholes that piss
me off that is....;¬))

> > in this case i'm assuming that you are saying that hitler and gang have
> > been maligned by the judeo-christian community....
>
> Surely they have!
>

lol... thats cute.. i don't think you would still calmly stand there and
kindly ask me to stop butchering your whole family and relatives with a
placid smile while i rape your sister and prepare to hang your mom's
body parts on meathooks strapped on the ceiling.... (hypothetical)
i mean... there will be some form of animosity .... not that
slaughtering 3/4 of your race makes such a big deal rite? besides.. like
or not... hitler was murderer... looking at it from either way
(subjectively or not)...

> > genocide is genocide.... no 2 ways about it... and from the way i see
> > it.. satanism and nazism are in no way alike so quit trying to drag
> > christianity into the picture...
>
> All three are hopelessly connected as being human philosophies.
>

well since you put it that way... i reckon everything else from the
common tree frog to the pentium micro chip are connected to chritianity
right? comon! from our society's morales to it's economic
influences...everything leading from the GOLDEN AGE stems from human
philosophy... you have to be a bit more specific than that..

angelraeper...

"there is no truth...only instinct and awareness"

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

> > > I do not see "The Whole Idea Of Nazism" yet. If it was to destroy
> > > judeo-christianity, why not burn christians along with the jews? Why
> > > burn the gypsies?
> >
> > The idea was to eliminate enemies of the state. Christians were used by the
> > state for the purposes of achieving its own ideology.
>
> Not really an answer to my question, not that it really matters in the
> end.

What more answer would you need? Burning those who professed to be

Christians along with the Jews would have been nice, but would have deprived
them of an army and would have gone against the safe nice and happy

democratic process that brought NS to power. I think I explained somewhere
else why they considered gypsies enemies of the state.

> > Great. Well said. And all that shit. But time is running out, and most of
> > "free speech" is crap that is not said with honesty: it is lies; worse than
> > lies, it is not even consciously lied. Therefore, why not take the
immediate
> > steps?
>
> Exactly our difference. Why take those immediate steps, when it means
> partially sacrificing intellectual integrity? When the goal turns out to
> be nothing? Steps once taken cannot be undone. Is that an excuse to make
> no steps? No, of course not. Further in the posting I elaborate on this.

I think some steps are more effective than others, especially if you have a
deadline. Some of what they did was vengeance-war, but a good deal of it
serves them well today: a massively powerful nation with less of a
Judeo-Christian than nihilistic influence.

> > Sounds nice and all but you're not very effective. Education works to some
> > degree but the earth degrades while we wait. A few genocides will mean
> > nothing in ten thousand years, while without them we may not make it that
> > far.
>
> Again: exactly our difference. We both seem to have the same target, but
> our acts to reach it differ greatly.
> I am not to make a judgement about who's right. I see your point.

You are not - many others here are infected with a need to make judgment
before ambiguity reveals to them their fear of life (HINT: AUTHOR IS TELLING
YOU THE NECESSARY INFORMATION REGARDING "WHY" IN THIS STORY).

Also, Nazis were not all killing - a good deal of education that was not
propaganda and social work that was not biased occurred before the events of
which we are familiar thanks to years of historical (hysterical) whining by
the so-called victims (now busy enacting genocide themselves).

This isn't about which side was "right," but who had ideas. There are plenty
of killers worse than Hitler in history. But what shocks everyone is that he
chose to make a large obvious production of what he was doing, as if to
demonstrate what's on the fork to all of humanity. No one else has ideas
that approach those of National Socialism, politically. The closest would be
Chomsky or Kaczynski, and their campaigns at education have both run into the
wall of denial we have all observed: people don't want to learn, but will
follow if lead into a situation from which they must extricate themselves.

> > > Yes, and you mentioned enough of the pros =).
> >
> > No one else dares.
>
> True. Provocators exist, but most people either don't support nazism, or
> are afraid (of themselves, of course).

Afraid of themselves. Well said - they are. The people who run around
chasing Nazis are in fact being educated, since they will eventually have to
face their own displacement behavior. Projection of one's own fears into an
external demonality is common to Christianity, but not to Nazism - seems the
core of the issue here.

> > To achieve his goals - he seemed to survive just fine.
>
> Exactly, a businessman, so to say. Not that that matters anyway.

His goals were not business goals! You may have a different usage of the word
"Businessman" over there.

> > > Popper stated that objectivity is an illusion. I agree with that.
> >
> > Popper is an idiot.
>
> The true objectivist speaking =)

I am glad someone can understand the humor.

> You complain about subjectivism, stating that it is "pointlessly asking
> questions without making decisions". But that is only one way to look at
> subjectivism. The other way is: acknowledging that objectivity does not
> exist, or at least cannot be defined by us, and yet trying to make as
> much out of it as possible, always striving for objectivity.

I don't agree. Subjectivism is to say that objectivity doesn't exist, so we
assert the subjective in various ways of comparison and ideology that hint
back to but do not believe in their ability to achieve objectivism.

> And never
> stop asking questions, always pull everything into doubt.
> Some subjectivists indeed come no further than "what is it then?" and
> ask questions until the end, without achieving anything.

That's the essence of the philosophy. Similar to Judeo-Christianity: a
pessimism against effect!

> I try to make decisions yet always keep in mind that the objectivity is
> only there as I see it. I will never stop asking questions, but they do
> have a point I think, and I am not decisionless at all.
> Objectivism might be more decisive and "to the point", but the so-called
> objectivity can be meaningless another day, and all would have been for
> naught.
> One has to make himself a path in between the two opposites. Popper
> certainly wasn't an idiot; he was not "pointlessly asking questions".

If a writer/thinker is not honest with himself and his world, he's worse than
an idiot. So you've "changed my mind" - I don't think he's an idiot, but
that he's worse. Everyone happy?

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - WHERE MORTAL THINKERS FEAR TO TREAD

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

> That would have been genius to go after Africa! Then he could have fought
> a battle on 3 fronts insted of two and gotten his ass kicked that much
> faster.

He held two thirds of north african territory for most of the war.

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - THE TRUTH YOU CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FACE

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

In article <6urkan$e...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,

I'm not sure the suggestion is that one seek philosophy of musicians, but
artistry. Pleasing sound can occur on many levels, because by natural
necessity liking extrapolates to an abstract plane from the basics of
appreciation. Hence art arose from aesthetics... and never the twain will
meet except to destroy!

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - IDEAS

Annatar Gorthaur

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

Paul Wilbur wrote:
> > But just as I think the nazi war machine was... creative in its
> > spreading of death and destruction, I think the spanish Inquistion was
> > creative as well. Yet I find dogmatic christians offensive.
> >
> > What more I think of nazism as whole does not matter, I was only looking
> > at the most creative way to kill, or the most efficient way.
> > People accusing me of being a nazi are doing exactly the same as what
> > they fear.
> I don't understand how they are doing "exactly what they fear"? I fear
> people kicking my ass for having friends of different races, or dating
> women of other races, but I have never stepped to someone who was talking
> to a Nazi and threatened to beat them.

People accusing me of being a nazi are dismissing something that lies
outside their frame of reference; just the point they are agitating
against!
You have never threatened to beat someone who was talking to a nazi, but
you have been mocking others on this NG, mistaking rational thinkers for
provocators.

> > > It's not paranoia either. When you spend a large portion of your
> > > life watching fellow scenesters getting stabbed (as we had several years
> > > ago here in Sacramento) by Nazi's, I hardly call that paranoia. It's
> > > reality. You can say whatever you want, but when you act on it the whole
> > > game changes.
> >
> > So? You can't accuse me of not having experienced what you have
> > experienced.
> > I have my view of the situation. I respect that people can have a
> > coloured vision about nazism. But I don't think that this vision is a
> > valid reason to react like being stung by a wasp on people who think
> > that the nazi's did a pretty "good" (better word: efficient) job in
> > killing dozens of millions of people.
>
> Have you experienced what I have experienced? I doubt it. You seem to
> "admire" the Nazi's a little too much Annatar, that's why you get
> accussed.

This is exactly the "intolerance" point. You tell me that I admire the
nazi's a little "too much"... Says who? What is "too much", are you to
tell me how much I should or should not "admire" something?
It's very simple: I don't like people. WWII got lots of people killed.
WWII started because of the nazi's. There you are.
I have made my points about the ideology of nazism elsewhere, and am not
going to type a shitload again about objectivism, subjectivism, goals
and measures again.

> I don't find myself trying to point out the finer points of
> someone who I dislike for one reason or another. I could, but if what I
> dislike is a huge part of that persons personality or belief structure, I
> would just assume walk away and leave them alone.

Well then, why are you blindly mocking in other threads? Why not leave
it be?

> However, they "Nazis"
> in this group are very vocal

How many nazi's have you seen here?
I think the people who are nazi-paranoid are far more abundant and vocal
here.

> and I won't run from anyone. I could easily
> not post, and be silent, but that would be very unlike me.

Okay then, please try to make a *point* in your other postings as
well,instead of telling us which smell is entering your room when
reading a posting.

> > You have your experience, I have mine. Does that make me a nazi, or you
> > a "politically correct" hatemonger? Of course not.
> > If more people would realize this, Usenet would not be such a flaming
> > mass of intolerance, bigotry and trolling.
> > I have taken your point, Paul, I hope you've taken mine...
>
> I think I am understanding it more. But it hard to take you seriously when
> you speak of the praises of Nazis and then try to say I am the one with
> the intolerance problem.

It's hard for me to take people seriously who start flaming for the sake
of "tolerance".

Devamitra

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

Paul Wilbur wrote:

> And ended up giving it all away because over extended himself. Please,
> there wasn't much of a fight to put up in Africa to begin with. Let me
> guess, he would have soon taken Antartica if everything had gone
> according to plan? He went for it all, and ended up taking his own
> cowardly life with a shot to the head. Not only was he an egomaniac, but
> a spineless leader as well.
> Paul

A spineless leader only because he didn't want to watch the construction he had
built all his life, his beloved Thousand Year Reich falling ? To feel guilt about
his failure, maybe even guilt of all the lives that had been lost, as it all came
worth to nothing, as the final plan was executed ?
I am saying that at least I wouldn't have done any better. Would you have ?

Devamitra
--

H E I L S A T A N
"The ancient white light writings
were just lying men and their pens.
You are the same, only in black.
Return with the knowledge
of making your own god"
SUPPORT THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HOLOCAUST

http://www.sci.fi/~defender
http://www.anus.com

James S Kang

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
> In article <6urkan$e...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
> holy-ghost@nwuSPAM_HOLOCAUST.edu wrote:
> > evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:
> > > Customer 1: This album uses too many noisy guitars. I want something that
> > > sounds good, that I can hear and not think about how fucked-up it sounds.
> > > This must be the music of stupid, angry people
> >
> > > Customer 2: I want to get a band with a chick vocalist. I think it's cool
> > > and open-minded for metal bands to use girls to sing. I've heard a few and
> I
> > > think it's a neat idea, a cool thing to be listening to.
> >
> > Number 1. While I may not seek what he does, he is right in seeking sound
> > that is pleasing to him at a pure sonic level (and spiritual, some might
> > say), rather than seeking music because he likes the philosophy of the
> > musicians.

> I'm not sure the suggestion is that one seek philosophy of musicians, but
> artistry.

Well, the only evidence of artistry I need is the sound. Not much else has
an effect, except at a purely intellectual level.

Pleasing sound can occur on many levels, because by natural
> necessity liking extrapolates to an abstract plane from the basics of
> appreciation. Hence art arose from aesthetics... and never the twain will
> meet except to destroy!

Destroy each other? Or the Judeo-christians or something?

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

> > Science suggests an objective reality. Subjectivism is an easy cop-out=
> for
> > finding ways to process the information in front of you. Truth exists,=

> but
> > only in the abstract - and the abstract is not arbitrary.

> > =

>
> True... i'm open to that idea.. but don't you find it too tedious and
> wats more... you're basing truth on something that is'nt tangible... so
> how far can you push the truth in abstract ideology to the masses who
> are so used to "subjectivism"?

All of the truths that they enjoy on a lasting and profound level are
objectivist, where the subjectivist ideals are used to hide and to disprove
the concept of ideal, thus affirming the fatalistic valuelessness behind
which most cower. Tangibility is a factor unknown to this world; generally
that which is tangible can affirm as a thing-in-itself only short-term
inclinations which are irrelevant on a systemic scale.

> it's a view worth exploring... but it
> is'nt realistic... because of the mindset that our current society has
> built and cemented over the millenia.... it's really quite impossible
> to believe that ANYBODY can judge the truth in PURE abstractivity....
> lets face it... MAN gets security and a sense of control when he's
> managed to somehow quantify his immediate surroundings... and thats
> where subjectivism stems... and by that term, we are enslaved in a
> way....

Right, the philosophies here represent a charge against all of the past of
human thought: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken."

> > The rest of the world is deceived. Case in point: We are slowly destro=

> ying
> > our planet, and most people are still enslaved to a constant need to
> > contribute money and time to the power structure.

> > =

>
> Agreed and Disagreed... yes it's true that we're fucking up this planet
> and it's obvious that not many ppl give a shit bout it.. (no unless they
> can squeeze a buck out of it...) and so we are in true subjecting our

> habitat to a slow torture that results in death.. =

There is no concern for value or futurism, and so people see the quest to
treat our environment as immediate, and therefore take from it what they can
and assume the damage will magically "go away."

> but wat i disagree on is your decided course of "remedy " to this sad
> state of affairs... and by (i'm assuming)mass genocide, hitler was
> ridding a part of this "disease" ... namely man... but from a
> first-person perspective...it's sub humane treatment that i don't think
> no body should ever have to go thru (other than the assholes that piss

> me off that is....;=AC)) =

Humanity is a large organism. Trimming some bits off the end as part of a
plan to free up the rest to lucid thinking is no great crime, esp.
considering he was the most gentle killer of that war - far fewer died by his
hand than by the businessman-leaders, say Stalin or Tojo or Roosevelt.

> > Surely they have!
>
> lol... thats cute.. i don't think you would still calmly stand there and
> kindly ask me to stop butchering your whole family and relatives with a
> placid smile while i rape your sister and prepare to hang your mom's

> body parts on meathooks strapped on the ceiling.... (hypothetical) =

What about the Judeo-Christian crimes they ignore? It's all part of the
submissiveness to "moral right" behind which they hide, like all subjectivity.

> i mean... there will be some form of animosity .... not that
> slaughtering 3/4 of your race makes such a big deal rite?

3/4? Four million Jews in 1940-45 = 1/6.

> besides.. like
> or not... hitler was murderer... looking at it from either way

> (subjectively or not)... =

So was every other leader. But Hitler had an ideal, where the others only
wanted to assert power. Hitler was against "might is right"; his belief was
that only an enlightened ideology could determine the fate of humankind
regardless of methodology (the unimportant half of the equation).

> > All three are hopelessly connected as being human philosophies.
>
> well since you put it that way... i reckon everything else from the
> common tree frog to the pentium micro chip are connected to chritianity
> right? comon!

Don't blame the tree frog, man, but the Pentium sucks.

> from our society's morales to it's economic
> influences...everything leading from the GOLDEN AGE stems from human
> philosophy... you have to be a bit more specific than that..

Sure. Our aestheticism leads us to crappy design. Pentium, Judaism,
Chevrolet, Apollo 13.

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - FUCK SOCIETY, CHOOSE LIFE

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

> >He held two thirds of north african territory for most of the war.
>

> Yes, but the territory he controlled was considered 'secure' territory, i.e.
> relatively safe and easy to maintain. If he had pushed into Africa farther,
he
> would've been fighting three fronts. But eventually, he pulled his troops out
> of Africa to prevent just that.

The first assault on Hitler's empire was in Africa, where his general Rommel
managed to create quite a bit of good warfare before being driven out by the
Americans (aided by the perpetually confused British general Montgomery, a
pure idiot).

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - INVADING AFRICA WITH POTATO CHIPS

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

> People accusing me of being a nazi are dismissing something that lies
> outside their frame of reference; just the point they are agitating
> against!

Those who disdain Nazism so vocally are trying to set up a polarity of
acceptance and disacceptance; the same crusade they seek to prevent they
institute.

> > Have you experienced what I have experienced? I doubt it. You seem to
> > "admire" the Nazi's a little too much Annatar, that's why you get
> > accussed.
>
> This is exactly the "intolerance" point. You tell me that I admire the
> nazi's a little "too much"... Says who?

Sez those who do not believe in the power of intellect, or the chaotic
distribution of ideas throughout a system. If the world is beautiful, Nazism
is beautiful. There can even be a beauty in a tradition which replaced the
older with vapid values beind destroyed by fire.

> I have made my points about the ideology of nazism elsewhere, and am not
> going to type a shitload again about objectivism, subjectivism, goals
> and measures again.

Heh! - Especially not for people who do not listen, such as Paul Wilbur,
Ninnghizhidda, and others.

> > I think I am understanding it more. But it hard to take you seriously when
> > you speak of the praises of Nazis and then try to say I am the one with
> > the intolerance problem.
>
> It's hard for me to take people seriously who start flaming for the sake
> of "tolerance".

Exactly. They are the hypocrisy in humanity which would keep us in ages of
reactive ignorance. To the ovens!

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - A CRACK IN THE WALL OF DENIAL

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Sep 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/30/98

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Devamitra wrote:

> Paul Wilbur wrote:
>
> > And ended up giving it all away because over extended himself. Please,
> > there wasn't much of a fight to put up in Africa to begin with. Let me
> > guess, he would have soon taken Antartica if everything had gone
> > according to plan? He went for it all, and ended up taking his own
> > cowardly life with a shot to the head. Not only was he an egomaniac, but
> > a spineless leader as well.
> > Paul
>
> A spineless leader only because he didn't want to watch the construction he had
> built all his life, his beloved Thousand Year Reich falling ? To feel guilt about
> his failure, maybe even guilt of all the lives that had been lost, as it all came
> worth to nothing, as the final plan was executed ?
> I am saying that at least I wouldn't have done any better. Would you have ?

I have no desire to "out-do" Hitler! I don't find it necessary to rule a
country, or kill people so that my "dreams" can run their course. And
don't romanticize what Hitler "felt", he obviously did feel much as he
ordered the death of women and children.
Paul

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

> > I find book burnings offensive.
> Us both.

Yet you're a book burner: you support a dominant ideology against which any
deviation is an infraction.

> I don't understand how they are doing "exactly what they fear"? I fear
> people kicking my ass for having friends of different races, or dating
> women of other races, but I have never stepped to someone who was talking
> to a Nazi and threatened to beat them.

So fear is your problem?

I think I am understanding it more. But it hard to take you seriously when
> you speak of the praises of Nazis and then try to say I am the one with

> the intolerance problem. Let's not forget who the truly "intolerable" were
> in this enlightening conversation we are having. And don't expect me to
> walk the fence on an issue as serious as this...

But you are walking the fence. You have not taken an intellectual stand.
And for that you are a coward, the type of human fear that retards the
species with its hysteria. Lighten up! Reach out to ideas not fears. Any
"Nazis" you may have met do not encompass the whole of the philosophy, and
there are ideas there you can use. Unless you are too afraid to leave
earthbound torment...

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - ENJOYING THE APOCALYPSE

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

> HMMMM..... Goat, aren't you afraid that you'll be a candidate for a burning
stake as
> well? Aren't you of Jewish descent too?

I'm a candidate for death in this society, also, so what would the difference
be? Any free thinker is at risk in human society - hence my addiction to
ideas over physical reality's seeming contradictions.

> Don't you remember what happened to
the
> leader of the French revolution/ All of them eneded up with their heads in the
> guilliotine baskets.

Such is the nature of power. But they left us gifts of their ideas, and where
their ideas failed...

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - GENOCIDE THE POT MOOCHES

Paul Wilbur

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

>
>
> > > I find book burnings offensive.
> > Us both.
>
> Yet you're a book burner: you support a dominant ideology against which any
> deviation is an infraction.

Which books do I burn? You pulled that one out of your ass.

>
> > I don't understand how they are doing "exactly what they fear"? I fear
> > people kicking my ass for having friends of different races, or dating
> > women of other races, but I have never stepped to someone who was talking
> > to a Nazi and threatened to beat them.
>
> So fear is your problem?
>

Yeah, partly. I don't like the idea of having to watch my back all the
time because some asshole has a problem with who I am with. So yeah, I am
concerned about it but I can also hold my own. It's the 5 one one
situations that the Nazi's around here are famous for I "fear".

> I think I am understanding it more. But it hard to take you seriously when
> > you speak of the praises of Nazis and then try to say I am the one with
> > the intolerance problem. Let's not forget who the truly "intolerable" were
> > in this enlightening conversation we are having. And don't expect me to
> > walk the fence on an issue as serious as this...
>
> But you are walking the fence. You have not taken an intellectual stand.
> And for that you are a coward, the type of human fear that retards the
> species with its hysteria. Lighten up! Reach out to ideas not fears. Any
> "Nazis" you may have met do not encompass the whole of the philosophy, and
> there are ideas there you can use. Unless you are too afraid to leave
> earthbound torment...

Please, save you propaganda for some poor kid who is looking for a father
figure and an identity. I have no fear of other cultures living next door
to me, handling my food, painting Afro-centric murals on public walls,
etc. It seems to me that the fear YOU have has led you to hate. And drop
the "intellectual" aspect of Nazism BS, killing is killing. Hating what
you don't understand (and I feel I have a pretty good understanding of
Nazism, enough to despise it) is the backbone of your fearful ideologies.
Paul

>
> <http://www.evilmusic.com/> - ENJOYING THE APOCALYPSE
>
>
>

Devamitra

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

Paul Wilbur wrote:

Are you absolutely positive that every Nazi is behaving with that quasi-randomly
expressed hate ? This is the same problem with many "dubious" groups. Only the
deeds of the worst get noticed. Then, when you meet an intelligent nazi someday,
you say "he isn't a nazi, actually, those 'bad' people are".

Devamitra

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

> Humanity is a large organism. Trimming some bits off the end as part of a
> plan to free up the rest to lucid thinking is no great crime, esp.
> considering he was the most gentle killer of that war - far fewer died by his
> hand than by the businessman-leaders, say Stalin or Tojo or Roosevelt.

Myself, in Hitler's position I would have treated the jewish _race_ with much less
respect. But anyway, Hitler was a great humanist. If anyone says he did not love
humanity, has no understanding whatsoever about his motives. The means may be
disagreed upon, but the motives were clear. No fear. No weakness. No
"megalomania". Thought.

> So was every other leader. But Hitler had an ideal, where the others only
> wanted to assert power. Hitler was against "might is right"; his belief was
> that only an enlightened ideology could determine the fate of humankind
> regardless of methodology (the unimportant half of the equation).

Hitler was also a darwinist, though.

Devamitra

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

evil...@evilmusic.com wrote:

> You are not - many others here are infected with a need to make judgment
> before ambiguity reveals to them their fear of life

You do not need to fear life to have a need for judgement. Decision - that is what
we should be making. Without decision there is no progression, in my opinion. Unless
you are separating judgement from deciding the positive and the negative from two
external polarities ? I am not talking about simplistic "good" and "evil" here,
rather about a determined choice between two opposing methods/paths.

> Projection of one's own fears into an
> external demonality is common to Christianity, but not to Nazism - seems the
> core of the issue here.

Nazism has been mistreated very badly, however. It tears my eyes to see the
skinheads they show on the finnish television, shouting for "niggers to leave the
country" so they would have more judeo-christian jobs and money. And there is a very
small number of black people here.

Devamitra

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

AleX wrote:

> HMMMM..... Goat, aren't you afraid that you'll be a candidate for a burning stake as

> well? Aren't you of Jewish descent too? Don't you remember what happened to the

> leader of the French revolution/ All of them eneded up with their heads in the
> guilliotine baskets.

If he is, himself, a candidate for the stake, I respect him even more for being
extremely unselfish and far-reaching with his ideals.

DEATH TO OPPORTUNISM

Devamitra

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

Ninnghizhidda wrote:

> side note: what do concentration camps have to do with a high and
> lofty ideological goal? you'd think that if hitler REALLY had a
> non-racialist metapurpose he would just kill people straight up.

When racialism is not economic, like we probably agree that it was not in this
case, could the goal be anything else than ideological ? What is "high and lofty",
is another thing altogether. Concentration camps had the purpose of being the
cleansing fires for an intellectually and spiritually free culture.

EMPEROR OINGLOIN

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

"HEIL LIFE"? What is this , Woodstock 1969??? You cannot be
serious.

Rina

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

>
> He did strip the Jews of their money, first by simple asset repossession and
> second by taking their bribes to keep immediate family out of the labor
> camps.

don't forget he also took their gold teeth and whatever other assets they left
after they died.you are overlooking some facts which were proven.

> What he did with 4 million (new official figure!)

6 million.documented by none other than the Germans themselves who were certain
they will win the war.

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

> > Yet you're a book burner: you support a dominant ideology against which any
> > deviation is an infraction.
>
> Which books do I burn? You pulled that one out of your ass.

Ah, semanticist: you would burn any credence in Nazism or its books, and would
crusade against it until your death - what's the difference between that and
book-burning? Why are you compelled to retaliate against another belief for
using the same techniques you employ?

> > So fear is your problem?
> >
> Yeah, partly. I don't like the idea of having to watch my back all the
> time because some asshole has a problem with who I am with. So yeah, I am
> concerned about it but I can also hold my own. It's the 5 one one
> situations that the Nazi's around here are famous for I "fear".

I think your fear is greater than immediate observation. I think you're
afraid of the next step in the thinking process. I can't help you with a
group of people who take a flag without finding its ideology, but if you're
Judeo-Christian and preaching Judeo-Christianity, they're helping out the
future by axing you.

> > But you are walking the fence. You have not taken an intellectual
stand.
> > And for that you are a coward, the type of human fear that retards the
> > species with its hysteria. Lighten up! Reach out to ideas not fears.
Any
> > "Nazis" you may have met do not encompass the whole of the philosophy, and
> > there are ideas there you can use. Unless you are too afraid to leave
> > earthbound torment...
>
> Please, save you propaganda for some poor kid who is looking for a father
> figure and an identity. I have no fear of other cultures living next door
> to me, handling my food, painting Afro-centric murals on public walls,
> etc.

What does this have to do with what I have said above? You are projecting
your means for handling reality upon the Nazis, who suffer no such fear and
do not act out of fear but of affirmation for life and creativity. Are you
stupid or mendacious? -- These are the two choices of self-definition left to
you (encoded on the USENET archives for years to come).

> It seems to me that the fear YOU have has led you to hate. And drop
> the "intellectual" aspect of Nazism BS, killing is killing. Hating what
> you don't understand (and I feel I have a pretty good understanding of
> Nazism, enough to despise it) is the backbone of your fearful ideologies.

1) Any emotion can be motivated by fear, not exclusively hate. 2) If
something is reprenhensible and destructive, do you not hate it? This is
obviously how you feel about Nazism. 3) If you disregard the intellectual
process behind Nazism, how can you claim to understand it?

I'll leave you tied up in your shoelaces to ponder those.

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - WHERE MORTALS FEAR TO TREAD

evil...@evilmusic.com

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

> Are you absolutely positive that every Nazi is behaving with that
quasi-randomly
> expressed hate ? This is the same problem with many "dubious" groups. Only the
> deeds of the worst get noticed. Then, when you meet an intelligent nazi
someday,
> you say "he isn't a nazi, actually, those 'bad' people are".

His bigotry is to justify his own inaction. If once does not believe in
choice, one can remain inert and not choose to be alive. Much easier from a
distance than living!

<http://www.evilmusic.com/> - A CELEBRATION OF DEATH

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages