Metal Reviews

I love how a band / artist can pen the most vile misogynist garbage about pedophilia, rape, torture and murder and talk about slaughtering Christians (never Muslims, Orthodox jews, etc, though, hmmm, I guess that would be "intolerant") and nobody bats an eyelash, yet, when someone has certain views regarding race, everybody trips over themselves to denounce it. It's quite amusing, really.

It's one thing to write about it, but it's quite another to act those things out. If Cannibal Corpse actually gutted a pregnant woman and ate the fetus then I would put them in the same camp as Varg. Til then he's one of a few special sociopaths who is famous for writing about something and then actually doing it. I suppose the Flemmish one will object to the wording in this post as well. I'm sorry my native English isnt up to his high standards. Perhaps a trip to Flanders will correct this.[/i]

Apparently the Flemish (one 'm', homes) ties with Britain, exemplified in centuries of wool/sheets trade between the two nations, results in a generally superior grasp of English among Flandern's people than most of Americuh's. And we're not even native English speakers! Oh, the merriment and mirth.

Oh yeah: [/i] I guess you're bad at pbb talk, too.

Race? What the fuck? Get back to the 19th century you vile... respectful non-marxist discriminator between cultures

I don't know if you know this but apparently calling everyone who isn't a racist a marxist is one of the first signs of being a douchebag.

Take me, for instance. But don't get drawn in, Karmo likes to drop comments like that to wind people up and start endless arguments, which he rarely partakes in after the kickoff. Or so I've noticed, anyway.

Oh believe me I had noticed that

My mentioning of marxism and such was based on Gramsci's ideas on cultural hegemony. A political structure built on a cultural foundation, making anyone who can determine the socio-cultural field also the political overlord.

The idea of political correctness (as I so love to defy) is based on this - roughly the construction of a semantic and ideologic passe-partout that determines which human social interaction (language, policy, thoughts, actions, etc.) are valid and which are not. Valid being, of course, politically correct.

In practice, I believe the construction of political correctness has three prongs. Firstly, the absolution of politically correct theses regarding democracy to the democracy. He who is not politically correct, is therefore also not democratic. Secondly, the discrediting of people who think otherwise by the antifa-syndrom when their message, or parts thereof, do not fit within the politically correct discourse. Thirdly, as etno-cultural identity is a hindrance to the formation of an international proletariat (from a marxist point of view) or an international consumer (from a liberal-capitalist perspective), the daily practice of a healthy sense of identity must be subdued.


A cultural hegemony needs socialisation factors, of course. These were found in the new social movements from the seventies onwards: the peace movement, the green movement, the gay movement, the anti-racist movement, the feminist movement, the multicultural movement, etc. Each of these movements do not strive for the respect for other cultures, the equality and equal chances in life between man and woman, the balance between man and nature, however. They strive for a dilapidation of the social, cultural, gender and ethnic differences between people and groups of people. By deconstructing these differences, they try to create an (almost) genderless, cultureless, atomised and universal man. Equal in essence, equal in its goals, thus equal in its government and social order. In other words, the global, equal and materialistic model society, the (neo-)communist consumer society.

A good example of this is multiculturalism. Equality, universality and the idea of a craftable man are core components of the marxist theories. Translated into politically correct jargon, it becomes: enrichment by diversity and multiculturality. Which implies mass migration. Now, cultures have different ethics, values and laws. To make social interaction possible at all, a common denominator is necessary that will always deconstruct the specifics of a given culture. The final goal is thusly not diversity and multiculturality, but monoculturality: the uniform one man. All who are of the opinioon that people and groups of people are culture specific and require their own socio-cultural 'habitat', fundamentally plead for diversity (= the recognition of different cultures) and multiculturalism (= a multitude of cultures), but are branded in politically correct terms as racists and thus anti-democrats. In other words, the discourse is faulty.

True irony that totalitarianism was not conquered with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but was released from its cage, put in another costume and used to subjugate the Free West.

So yeah, there you have it.

tl;dr

Then don't fuss about me leaving arguments ;)

I'm not leaving the argument. I could very well post a lengthy response, but I'm trying to review a Rage album at the moment and just can't be bothered typing it all out when a) we've argued this before and b) it's the wrong forum.

First, I'm gonna challenge any conception of race. Race doesn't exist besides the social concept which we've created and is so different according to who you're asking that it isn't a valid concept. Any ideas we've created about race can easily be debunked with a counter example so unless you think we can act as if black people from Compton or white people from Nebraska are a respectable criterion for description then let's not even use race. As for biological differences, of the 5% genetic differences we have amongst different humans only 1% can be ascribed to continental or geographic regions. That means our difference is .05 x .01 of our entire genetic materialif you're keeping track. that's just not statistically significant.
Wait "politically incorrect" = "undemocratic"? You can't have it both ways and say Marxists or the Left is a bunch of totalitarian Stalinists bent on the creation of a gulag on every block and say that we pronounce any who disagree with us as a fascist. Or wait maybe that's our smokescreen? We'll outwardly defend democracy until we can establish our Obama-Chavez worldwide dictatorial state? I think this is some pseudo-jargon bullshit you got here. The use of any left crying "undemocratic" is to challenge disenfranchisement, either through force or through stratification. Being a racist doesn't make you "undemocratic". You could think blacks are inferior bushmen but not until you say that should prevent them from having the vote does it become undemocratic.
Yeah, if what you're saying isn't valid like race isn't then yeah I'm going to call you out for it. Acting as if gays are different than straight people in some essential way is bullshit and I'm going to cry foul. If I could think of other politically incorrect stuff then I'd flaunt some more examples. Political incorrectness, as the left sees it, is the propagation of ideas within public discourse that tries to create some arbitrary and false hierarchy to people when that simply doesn't exist.
To be honest with you I'm not sure if I can understand this track. The Left wants to eliminate identity through identity politics contained in the gay rights and women's rights movements you talked about later on? The creation and formation of resistance along identity lines is a popular tactic of the Left, a practice I personally disagree with. Marxists probably would subscribe to what you're saying but the Left doesn't so if you're just targeting Marxists then I guess you're right on. But even then Marxists don't want to ignore identity. The ethnic nationalism in Bolivia is amazing and I think on the horizon for some true progress to be made. I think you're a little behind the times honestly in your criticism of Marxism. We're becoming more open-minded these days.

pseudo-jargon babble. Deconstructing differences is deconstructing structural inequalites to open the door for a respect to the objectified gender, those mistreated for their sexual orientation, politically ignored and materially poor countries. I don't want genderless I want respect for one half of genders. I don't want cultureless I want a respect for indigenous culture which we've wiped out through cultural imperialism. Your whole ramble has seemed to ignore that most important of concepts. If I want a monocultural world why do I bitch when Western culture undermines native cultures? I think you're attacking a straw man.

Where in Marx is man craftable? That's some biocosmism that I don't think many Marxists subscribe to. Humans are diverse not malleable. Marx believed in a human nature; it's just one that is being oppressed by capitalism. Invalid deduction much? Globalization has made multiculturality possible without some future mass migration. Mass migration results out of the economic oppression being a catalyst for seeking new opportunity. Whatever. When you say habitat, you mean segregation dontcha? How cute. If you didn't think people could mesh culturally then how is America possible? People can blend it's alright. Miscegenation won't be our doom.

Forgive me for my bluntness and possibly failings in clarity. I'm on a forum for christsake.

My bad. Let's just turn the Burzum review into a criticism of what Varg dislikes.

Heh, I should have put c) Rio or Trapt will be along soon enough to do it anyways.

Well I'm not going to spend any time picking apart Karma's arguments or calling them stupid and misguided, everyone else seems to have taken care of that. I'd just like to point out the fallacy in his statement that a Flemmish man can have a better grasp of English than a native speaker. This is pure nonsense and can only find credence in the mind of a fool.

+1

Yet labeling politically incorrect groups as undemocratic is precisely what happens over here. We in Europe are far more pussified than you guys across the pond. The major right-wing party in Flandern, the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Concern) has been placed behind a 'sanitary cordon' by the other parties, effectively permanently placing it in the opposition, for being 'undemocratic'... even though it usually nets between 25 and 15 per cent of the votes.


Of course gays are different in some essential way from straight people. That's how they wish to see themselves, how they form their identity, unless of course they find themselves discriminated for it. Differences in culture, gender, sexual preference etc. are about cherishing the pros and learning to accept the cons. Hierarchy? Why not.


A change of tactics. Sure, there are still morons praising Stalin and Mao, but the real force is that of '68 and the Frankfurter Schule.


You want respect for the poor, completely forgetting about the rich. You're a long way from Sherwood Forest, R. Hood. Emancipating the weak with the accomplishments of the strong leads to both parties being diluted.


I vaguely remember reading a note on mass migration: Europe, even though it has millions of unemployed citizens, plans to import 20 million more non-European over the course of the next decade. Seeking new opportunity? Being invited in, rather.


Is America still possible? With your plethora of problems I doubt it. When your minorities become majorities - which is happening soon, right? - we'll talk again.

Maybe across the pond. I don't know enough and will pass to Rio.

Who you like to fuck isn't an essential characteristic. Ugly or hot, blonde or brunette, man or woman. I don't think you know what gay rights movements want. They just want their bond to be equally respected as a heterosexual bond is. There is no need for hierarchy among cultures, gender wtf? Why should European culture be held over Asian? They gave us gunpowder; we used it. Where does ranking come into this?

True true. Indigenism of Latin America is our new frontier.

The accomplishments of the strong? How so? Their wealth comes from the worker. Investing isn't a strength. Ingenuity is nothing without the worker. This kinda shit is all fine for you to say because you don't have to be part of it. If you lived in a slum in Nairobi you wouldn't be blathering about the accomplishments of the strong. Society is too interdependent to say one's accomplishments are one's own.

How you see this not as capitalism's incorporation of cheap labor to exploit is beyond me.

[/quote]America isn't collapsing soon. We have economic problems based on Reagan and Bush shit policies, and lazy politicians warping cultural issues into dire clashes which is bullshit. America has no more Mexican illegal workers than it had illegal Chinese and Irish workers making the railroad. Minorities becoming majorities doesn't fucking matter unless the power relation shifts and it probably won't. Whether they're Hispanic or White it doesn't matter when they vote. Hopefully, Obama passes this healthcare reform and can start some amnesty policies. Bring on the burritos, America will adapt and blend culturally. I'm sure we'll be fine or please tell me how I am wrong.

Wow, I'm sure Marxists and the Frankfurt School would love to believe they have the level of influence on modern society you ascribe to them. Unfortunately they don't and this is paranoid nonsense. My original complaint was that it's stupid to call any non-racist a marxist, and you seem to agree because you bring liberal capitalism into it as some kind of mirror image. Of course, it is, which is why as a (sorta quasi) marxist I can relate far more to liberal (in either sense) capitalists than anti-enlightenment reactionaries.

So in a way I take your point, and interpret it as a complement.

First, stop presenting "political correctness" as this tyranic force which you alone are visionary enough to "defy". Let me think how many people have done exactly the same thing to me in the last few months... I'd lose count pretty quickly. The entire concept of PC is a reflexive one, specifically designed to be a lens that people can use to view themselves as in some way persecuted. The existence of the concept is the absolute nadir of nativist identity politics. So if you want to focus purely on the level of discourse then you have to account for the overwhelming reactionary flipside which is gleefully manipulated by our mass media.

I am pleased that we agree on the importance of Gramsci's idea of cultural hegemony. The idea that cultural hegemony currently exists in a Marxist form, neo (what is neo-Marxism, by the way?) or otherwise is reactionary fantasy. The identity politics of post-68 social movements do not have inherent marxist qualities and as a force for social change they can only ever fill the gap, inadequately, left by the marxist notion of the proletariat. In fact they entirely fracture the basic marxist schema of structural class struggle. "It's a change of tactics" isn't really enough as an explanation. You couild just as easily, and far more convincingly, present them as a total capituilation to capitalist logic.

Your last long paragraph reads to me like tying yourself in knots to prove a counter-intuitive proposition... very Zizekian, but it also is kind of meaningless in the real world. Cultural hegemons are trying to foist a monocultural identity upon us? Of course they are, but what is specifically Marxist about that? The King of England in the 15th century presumably had very similar goals... Equality and universality are core components of Marxism but they are a long way from being exclusive defining ones. And as you yourself pointed out they are shared by marxism's nemesis, liberal capitalism.

Oh, and



This is stupid, and just the kind of equivalence I'd expect from the most unreconstructed Stalinist. The simple facts are that unfettered immigration and multiculturalism ARE freedom. Some people might say they are the negative side to freedom, but to argue that they are part of some sinister scheme to homogenise everything is a conspiracy theory on the level of stevelovesmoonspells recent thread in Helheim.