Metal Reviews

Yes, we all know these things; the paradox of humanity is that the more we "evolve", the further we sink in the cesspool of mediocrity.
The lowest common denominator is championed as a virtue; art and culture have all but disintegrated into a morass of banality.
But, it seems to me that the acts of vandalism, though immediately satisfying, are ultimatelyself defeating.
Enlightenment can come only through the media of music, art and liteatrure, and I suppose film, as well. In short, by planting seeds in the minds of the few that are in tune, though they may not yet realize it.
And I must stress that true enlightenment is not for the masses, necessarily. Their will always be the cattle, driven by fear and the need to conform. That is as it should be, after all.
I have, as you probably know, written a few minor theses on this very website regarding just this topic, so Desolitary's views are nothing new to me. In fact I agree with him, just not with the idea that burning down churches and whatnot can ever acheive anything positive,
V.

I think you are all being very unfair in compairing modern culture/art etc unfavourably to ancient. So :



Those races used their natural inborn strength and achieved what exactly? A few statues lying around the place, no-one nowadays can claim to be a part of them, as they have all died out or assimilated with others. You say modern society is 'vicious self-aggrandizement', yet what was Rome, with its Gladiatorial displays and vicious dictators? Life was not all rosy in those days, a large portion of the city of Rome was used as housing for slaves, who lived well below the standard of living that we would consider acceptible nowadays. "The refined warfare of morality", at least nowadays countries go to war for some form of defence, however twisted it may be. America has not invaded countries purely for glory, as did Rome etc.

And saying that the world has no order is all a matter of perception. You could say the world is a bad place, but compare it to that of a hundred years ago. I would say that it has improved immensely in social means, health quality, general standard of living etc.

As for art, we are in no position nowadays to comment on how good/bad it is. The impressionist painters were ridiculed by their peers in their day, who's to say in another hundred years the art of today will not be held as highly?

I dare say that in a hundred years, the art of today won't even register; people of today are still dazzled by TV, which is no longer a new invention, so some day soon, a budding inventor will say "Eureka" and bring forth something even more immediate and brain liquifying into the modern consciousness. I don't think I'm overstating the case when I say that plenty of people are more or less symbiotic with their televisions; when I reveal to someone that I haven't had a TV for years their immediate response is one of dumbfoundedness, which soon turns into accusations of hippiedom and the like. That's anecdotal, but I'd say that the machine which replaces the TV will debut to universal praise, facing almost zero dissent, and anyone who speaks up will be instantly marginalized.

Any art from the past which shows up on this new form of entertainment will do so in pastiche, remastered and fronted by the celebrities of the era. Think of what the Royal Shakespeare Association has to resort to just to gain an audience, and multiply it tenfold to satisfy the dwindling common denominator and you'd be on the right lines of what to expect. Paying for the privelidge of watching advertisements won't be uncommon.

There's more; the western school systems of this era, specifically of the US, the UK and Australia, have all but given up on nurturing genius, instead opting to lower expectations so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.. just look at "No Child Left Behind", and at how much businesses really value degrees right now and you'll see that the goal of education is not to encourage brilliance, but to reassure people that mediocrity is good enough; how can any art of real substance be expected from the following generations if they don't feel the need to strive and hone their craft? How will we be able to tell their music from the manifactured music that already infests the airwaves?

I apologize for the slightly off-topic rant, but off-topic rants are good for the soul. Maybe I'm too pessimistic but that's where I see things headed..

No TV here either. But the TV as something that people could have in their houses hasn't been around for 100 years, and with cable etc it's really only taking off now. You could argue that just as many people are addicted to the internet...



True, yet capitalism as much as anything can be blamed for this attitude that everything exists to make profits from.



Still, at least children are being educated. Modern education is >>>> than that 100 years ago. You could be paranoid like that, or look at the world a little more optimistically. The fact that the metal underground of nowadays exists and is so healthy is proof that there are people rebelling against the norm, and I think they'll continue to do so, more so in fact as more and more people revolt against this society. As for their music, we'll just have to wait and see...

No argument here, although I don't share your sense of optimism. My basic point is that as technology improves, creativity dwindles, and I agree that capitalism and increasingly corporatism shares some of the blame.

edit: I see Desolitary's point more and more; dissent in a forum is one thing that doesn't even register with the offending parties, and action is needed. Still, it's good to discuss it even so - looks like I've become complacent because of technology too, haha.

You might as well be optimistic; after all, nothing that you or I do will change things, so why worry? Have a drink, put your feet up, and relax with some good music and a lady or three.

What happened to Desolitary? After a call to drop the bullshit from both sides he has no response?
He spends his 4 or 5 posts in alternately defending his actions and attacking me for a facetious remark, but when an offer of genuine dialogue is offered, he seems to have fled in the wind...
perhaps dialogue is too effeminate for him.
Bah, I don't really give a ripe fuck, either way.
V.

it's only been a day or two..

I've been away from my computer all day.



Propaganda. Performing an action is the greatest method of conveying information, who needs poetic words when one has the glorious imagery of deeds? A burnt church is an open symbol, it's a vessel through which can be conveyed all the woes of society. It sums up every complaint, every rant, every murmer of discontent that we utter.



A couple of bystanders looking at one another in slothful resignation before the charred reminence of an archaic, imperial building; could this not be interepreted as being analogous of the psychology of western civilization at large? Our society is obsessed with preservation because it has lost its innovative spirit. We are afraid to mess things up in our perfect little world, we have faith in the bedrock of knowledge that science has provided us with and as such we can only see the world in sterile terms. We look back on history and fantasize about what it would have been like to grow up in an era where there was still some noble pursuit to go after, some cause, some aim. People mourn the loss of an old building purely because by its destruction they loose a connection to a better world than the one that they see around them. What the world needs is faith in it's own ability to do something more than daydream; a lifetime spent prowling gothic looking churches and dreaming about vampire novels is a worthless mode of existance. Burning a church is a beginning, a foreword glance, an innitial step, some optimism in a haze of dreamy indifference.

I see what you are saying... and there is a strong visceral reaction to destroying by fire that which is held dear to the purveyors of the "a life byond thehere-and-now".sham.
I think we both agree that the strong will be the true inheritors of the world, while the weak and narcotized will be thralls, and nothing more...Perhaps there is a use for deeds such as yours, but they must be backed up with a purpose beyond the immediate;
the tears will dry and a new, BIGGER church will be built, and you will probably land in jail... intellect alone is of little value, while at the same time brute force alone is of equal value; it is when the two are combined and driven by purpose and will that real goals can be accomplixhed.
V.

Also, the church has a long history of sadism and blood on it's hands, so in a sense, the more that I think about it, burning down the so-called :"houses of god" seems to be fair game.
After all, the church brainwashes through fear, so it is only fitting that it is combatted with fear.
V.

fighting violence/fear/whatever with more fear and violence will only make you as low as whatever you're fighting, no?

and see here, there are millions of people who place their faith on the church. even if you think they're sheep it's not your duty to "enlighten" them like some parent who says to their kid "you'll thank me later". it's not up to you. you're not hurting the church, you're hurting the people.

also, if you burn down a church, they'll play the victim and look good. counter productive?

I am not saying that I would necessarily burn down a church... as I stated, I believe it is counter-productive, as well.
And I also stated that I don't give a damn if someone choses the path of monotheisim, its their life.
But, if, as desolitary apparently is, one is militantly opposed to the church, I can see the point they are trying to make.
And the reason I believe the majority of christians, moslems, etc. are sheep is simple: they simply follow what they are told is their religion from the onset of pre-school onwards... about 95% of the so - called devout are so far from the teachings of their messiah, that it is obvious that they are only christians because "they were raised that way".
V.

Why isn't it up to me? Why do I have to deflect the responsibilities of my actions towards some moral or some figure of authority? I do what I do not because God or destiny or law or any other entity outside of myself commands it; I do it because I think that it is right and that is enough to justify it.



Not if the message that I'm trying to voice denies the idea of the powerless 'victim'. Christianity nurtures the concept of an eternal underclass of downtrodden peoples, forever consigned to being well and trully beneath other segregations of people. This sentiment is constantly being reinforced throughout our society, we are forever told to 'have pity', to 'be kind', we are told to give to those who are less fortunate and less capable than us and thus acknowledge their inferiority. Nobody is born a victim, they are made them through the assumptions of perpetual incompetence that society works upon. Being a 'victim' is a state of mind, a mental illness, one that society should be trying to eradicate rather than nurture. People will look kindly upon 'victimized' church members and look sternly at me. I know that. But with time, as social perceptions change and peope become more and more aware of the insult they do to others through their superficial help, perhaps my actions will be re-evaluated at large as being of an ultimately humanistic nature, perhaps people will see that a wound isn't an impairment so much as it is an education.

But that is the very nature of christianity. It is no coincidence the the populations that have the largest factions of devout catholics, moslems, christians etc. are also the most impoverished.
You can see it here in the states with our black population: everything is the fault of white man, racism, blah blah...
there is a parallel here: those that accept responsibility for the here and now and take positive steps tpwards their goals, will succeed in life, those that perpetualy blame others and seek outside assistance (god), while dwelling everwhere but the here and now, are doomed to fail. A self destructive opiate.
The church knows this and exploits it, and so it goes, round and round; a cynical cycle that perpetuates the weakness and exploits the misguided hope of mankind.
The church is an instrument wielded for the power of the priests, based on lies and fear, at the expense of their flock.
Everything that the church stands for leads to decadence and banality... the lowest common denominator is praised as a virtue, while strength, honor and pride are declared sins.
In short the gospel is unnatural to man; why should I love my enemies? They will then surely destroy me, and that goes against the will to life and the will to power, which are the same will, incidentally.
Just as a sapling becomes a tree through a steady diet of water and sunlight, so the church became the power it is today by the blood, fear and hope of its fellow man... throw in a good dose of torture for good measure as well... the history of the church is a cruel and sadistic one; it is a phenomenom that has been kept alive so long through the cynical ability to exploit mans inherent fear of the afterlife, made all the more easily done in its infancy by means of torture and death; their methods of innoculation have become more refined in these modern times, i.e. instead of using barbarism, they brainwash young impressionable minds and socially ostracize the "heathens"; anyone remember the so-called "satanic panic" of the mid eighties? A perfect example of the use of vilification and fear, and it works quite well, you gotta give them that.
In short, (yeah, I know: too late...)it is only fair that the church be stricken back with full force, both physical, and intellectual.
V.

By using open violence against what you're trying to fight, you only create martyrs. Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was seen as a threat to the state religion, and thus the state. Look what that accomplished.
The September 11 terrorists struck out against a megalithic enemy quite similar to the church in many ways, and they only succeeded in getting the crap bombed out of Afghanistan and gave Bush all the flimsy excuse he needed to wage war on Iraq.
Such actions are futile, and only get one reviled by the general populace as a violent barbarian.

Somebody of historical eminence (I think it was either Voltaire or perhaps Napoleon) once said:
"The only thing stopping the lower classes from rising up and murdering the ruling class is religion".
V.

Christians have a martyr mentality towards the world (a generalization, obviously, though one that isn't completely unfounded; anyone that follows the general gist of what Christianity has been preaching for the last couple of thousand years should at the very least have an enormous amount of respect for their combustable forebears who allowed themselves to become mood lighting in Nero's gardens), whether or not I give them that martyrship won't change that, without me they'd find some other excuse to punish themselves for God. This is the irony of the situation; if a religion is based on material self sacrifice then it should, in all reason, accept, even welcome the loss of its possessions.



He accomplished nothing, it was his aim to accomplish nothing. Jesus was a nihilist who concocted the illusion of courage through his apathy. People adored him purely because of this Morrisonesque charm and it was those who came after him, not he himself that produced all of the mechanisms and constructions that we can see today (though all of those mechanisms and constructions would surely not have been possible without a somewhat willing public).

Actually, I've read that too somewhere. More and more archeological material that church desperately tries to melt proves that Jesus himself was more of a nihilist or atheist than a christain. I've also seen a long documentary on TV about the guy, with heaps of interviews with archeologists and historicans. It pointed in the same direction.

Jesus himself wasn't out to start anything. He was Jewish, after all, and never renounced that (though he did get excommunicated). However, he was gaining a cult of followers, and the Roman officials saw that as a political threat. So they did what the Romans did best, and killed him in a very uncomfortable manner. However, it's human nature to venerate anything that's sacrificed for ideals or a cause (look at the Japanese kamikaze, the Norse attitude towards warriors fallen in honorable battle, etc.) My point is, you strike against any sort of symbol, you create a martyr. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, that's how the rest of the world sees it. Burning churches is useless and ultimately self-defeating, since you make the church into the victim instead of the oppressor you see it as.