Whenever these topics appear I always think of this wonderful article by Summoning: http://www.summoning.info/Stuff/Politic ... ments.html

If you for whatever silly reason dislike multiculturalism, you should logically dislike metal since it is the product of the mingling of many cultures. As Summoning says, "Summoning definitely does not sound like blues, nor do we have any other obvious foreign influences, but like any other kind of music derived from metal it would not exist without it".

I see how it can be misinterpreted, but my point was just that their goal is to one day have their opinions and ideas realized in order to gain at other people's expense, even if they're just writing about it at the moment.

But let's say that I think that all belonging to or stemming from ethnicity/nation X shouldn't be allowed to do something in my country that others can. If i then make a lot of blog posts in order to argue for this stance then I am "just" expressing my opinion and it doesn't do any immediate harm towards these people. But the goal is still that what I write will eventually happen, and readers will be influenced by it. My hope is obviously to get as many people as possible to agree with me. When someone eventually acts on it or something similar as a result of being radicalized by the blog, then it will cause the intended harm, even if a pleasure of seeing other people suffer isn't the intended purpose.

Good rant, but I just want to clarify one thing: Stalin wasn't fascist. Simply because fascism is a very specific political movement that Stalin was not part of. Stalin can only be called fascist if every authoritarian regime is automatically fascist, which is historical obfuscation. That's all.

This Summoning article is pretty awful and I've read somewhere (maybe even this forum) a post pointing out why most of their arguments are irrational, can't be arsed to find it or explain myself right now.
What do you mean by "dislike multiculturalism"? Opposing immigrant-friendly policies and wanting a mono-national country, or rejecting anything created by different culture/nation? I can't see the contradiction in in the first case, and if it's the second even people like Varg are pro-multiculturalism.

While I agree the term shouldn't be confused with Stalin, it becomes an entirely semantical argument. As far as I understand, there was little in Stalin's regime that was unlike fascism, and very much that was alike.

How do we know Summoning aren't agents of the ZOG though?

I dunno, everybody says that. Not sure how much of it is selective history and propaganda. Soviet propaganda to be precise, as I read his successors didn't like him much. I should really dig some more into soviet history, it seems really fascinating. You normally barely hear any facts about it, which is rather suspicious.

As far as I have understood it, these are the core differences between (traditional Marxist) socialism and (Italian) fascism.

The socialists were against nationalism and state borders, while the fascists were strongly for. As a consequence they also had different views on racism. The socialists did not believe in any racist ideologies, because they didn't believe in state borders and such, while fascists regimes were strongly nationalistic and nation state oriented. As far as I can remember Mussolini did not initially like the Nazi state, and there were no racist laws during Mussolini's early rule. It was first after history led the two states closer together and Hitler's influence rose that Mussolini introduced racist laws. It is in no way a requirement for a fascist regime to be racist, but the two fit together nicely.

The socialists were for governmental owned industry (as in the people's property), while the fascists were for privately owned industry. Both were strongly against traditional capitalism and laissez-faire, as they both agreed that it created tensions and class struggle. While the socialists solved the class struggle problem by distributing the wealth evenly, the fascists solved it by introducing a system of governmental corporations that manually balanced and set the prices and wages, and controlled the industries and labor. The fascists in turn removed labor rights, like the rights to go on strike and form labor unions. The fascists had a strong focus on maintaining law and order and avoid tensions in the society, and trying to avoid workers organizing was one way of doing it.

I also think that fascism is somewhat more accepting of personal freedoms (less intrusion by the government), and that is lacks some of the authoritarian control of the private life that Marx theorized. Another difference is that the proletarian dictatorship in a Marxist regime in theory is supposed to be temporary. The ultimate goal of Marxism is a utopian society without a dictatorship; the fascist dictatorship is permanent.

All over Europe fascism was regarded as a viable alternative to a parliamentarian democratic state by the wealthier and established inhabitants that above all else feared socialism and wanted to maintain law and order. Then they could at least keep their wealth. The traditional socialists and the fascists hated each other, and the differences that existed were "unbearable". But at the same time there are also quite a few similarities, as this article perhaps can shed some light on: Can China Be Described as 'Fascist'?

Didn't stop the USSR from pulling some decidedly antisemitic shenanigans.


The question of "multiculturalism" is even more complicated than that, as there are more facets still to multicultural policy. A pretty reasonable concern of many people is the promotion of cultural moral relativism, as evidenced by the allowing of halakhah and sharia courts in several countries. Some folks also worry that some countries' multicultural policies overly simplify complicated issues within ethnic groups by treating them all as one big block; the "black/asian/muslim/whatever community".

Really though, this particular facet of this conversation regarding the apparent evilness of anti-semitism wasn't specifically about those that spread their beliefs. It felt like we were talking about racists/anti-semites in general.

In truth, I really don't think that Varg is evil; I think he is simply stupid.



Thats an utter strawman there. No one has said that an awareness of Hitler's atrocities relegates all subsequent actions as 'good'. Thats a confabulation.

Thanks for that link. And I also want to extend a thank you to Summoning for that excellent editorial thereof. I'll be buying their next album in support and appreciation of them for the wonderful music and on principle.

It's a shame Lugburz is the only Summoning album I've heard and liked, otherwise, I might feel inclined to do the same (well, if I liked them, I probably would have already, but yeah). I don't set out to be a contrarian, but god dammit if I don't have exceptionally unique [read: bad] taste in music.

Either way, that was a nice little bit of reading (the Summoning link, not this thread).

For those still failing to see naivety in that Summoning article, here it is nailed down well:
http://www.deathmetal.org/forum/index.p ... l#msg37550

Most of these counter-points are just as stupid, even if they're slightly better informed.

Dont really have anything the say about the rest of the text, but the writer seems to be pretty clueless about black metal. Norwegian black metal bands were not the first black metal bands, so it's pretty dumb to claim that black metal has always had national socialistic elements.

Well, he doesn't...

Also, those bands mentioned were originators of the "classical" form of black metal, which is why it's not that misguided to call them "original".

The part about them being "fiercely nationalistic" and "supporting natural selection" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is far, far more questionable.

Here's a hint: 95% of bands in the genre we know as black metal today, take more from Norwegian scene than from anywhere else, the whole ideological infusion started there too, most of the so-called first-wave BM bands aren't black metal by any standards. I'm sure the guy who wrote that posts's black metal knowledge eclipses yours by miles, so think before posting such revelations that BM was a significant movement before Norway.

vengefulgoat, you're making a blatant strawman case. The article said "original black metal has no national socialistic elements", to which you retort the second wave Norwegians were fiercely nationalistic. National socialism is not analogous to nationalism, so your point is void. By natural selection you probably mean social darwinism; as far as supporting natural selection goes, as humans we hardly have a choice in the matter. I'm nitpicking about this because it's utterly asinine to confuse high social status with producing more reproductive offspring.

Do you have any links about second wave black metal musicians speaking for social darwinism? I'd like to read it, especially concerning Emperor. I've read some utterly racistic rants by some bands that I assume were quite overblown and exaggerated for the supposed extremity value.

Actually, we are talking mainly about Varg and people like him, but also racist bigots in general (who all by definition does spread their beliefs). The reason this whole conversation is going on is because Varg is spreading his beliefs. Why would we talk about some random people's thoughts? Their thoughts are not a part of society. It has been specified so many times now that we are not talking about whatever happens in someone's head. That is pure psychology. We are talking about people's actions; what people write, say and do. If people have a thought and don't share it, then you wouldn't know about it, so it has nothing to do with anything which people associate with racism. We're discussing it from a sociological viewpoint, not psychological.


You brought up the subject as a defense of racists. You brought up the fact that some racists don't like Hitler as a defense of racists not being "evil".

The type of evil you are talking about is non-existing. When we talk about "evil" we are not talking about some badly designed cartoon villain that is evil just for the sake of being evil. It's been emphasized several times already, and no one has claimed racists are motivated by a lust to be evil. If you had followed the conversation instead of just reading your own posts you would have known we aren't talking about mere thoughts. We are talking about ethics, society and actions (including what you say or write, which are actions, not thoughts).

Most of my posts has been about whether sharing racist beliefs does harm and whether or not this harm is intended, or if it's simply innocent expression of opinion. I've said that sharing racist beliefs eventually causes harm and that the harm has been intended from the start, but at the same time that it's not motivated by some pleasure of seeing others suffer or because they like to do harm (which you seem to think I've argued for).

juusokult is, as far as I understand him, saying that the Norwegian scene wasn't the first wave of black metal, and that black metal originated earlier, thereby implying that the Norwegian scene did have national socialistic beliefs, but that it's not the original black metal music. vengefulgoat is simply pointing out that the Norwegian scene could still be referred to as the "original" black metal scene. I don't interpret their conversation as whether the Norwegian scene's beliefs could be characterized as national socialistic or not, but whether the Norwegian scene was the original black metal (both musically and ideologically).


I'm not sure who "you" is referring to, considering the quote was from an external web page, but it could also be that he meant selective breeding.

I think it's rather something along the lines of "letting the weak die". I won't deny that some of the Norwegians had fantasies like that, but I'm pretty convinced that it was mostly just for show, being evil warriors of satan and all.

Firstly, it's not what I said. It's taken from someone's post on other forum I decided to link. Anyway, his point was not to imply early Norway was NS, but standing in a position where introducing NS ideology into the music wouldn't be as off as introducing it to, say, thrash metal. I agree that other than later Varg speeches, Norwegians 'ideology' was just some rants about negroes, and not anything other NS groups would ever want to associate with. As far as social darwinism goes, I indeed doubt any of the original bands had something to say on this beyond shit in the vein of "let the weak die", and a phrase like that would still fit more into the laissez-faire individualist social darwinism than the NS eugenics based collectivist one.

i don't like either varg or the bands " he made fun of " ( actually he's right about how they look gay , especially those 2 photos of gorgorth which is a retarded band ; gaahl him self is openly a homosexual with a jewish fashion designing boyfriend ( yes just search about it , it's confirmed ) So i guess he is not joking about this point of some black metal bands being funded by jews , that could be why i look hardly through labels to find " really " underground bands ( yes i cannot listen to anything other than black metal since i was never attracted to music before i found out about it ) for me these kind of bands are considered a third type , not " pagan white light warriors " nor " faggot norwegian retarded metal stars " , but just a mix of really evil , hate , and in the same time being represented in a simple , clear way , just purism and obscurity ... bands like this obviously does not look jewish nor gay : ( check out the spoiler ) .

I have a feeling your stay here will not be particularly lengthy, my Egyptian friend.

This is not acceptable. There is some tolerance for allowing people to voice their opinions, but not if you come across like an angry child in every way.

Other users: Don't bother replying to my post or the quoted post.

The title of this thread is stupid.

Vikernes's article just points out that most black metal bands spread values which are toxic to European people (which I agree, especially about tattoos, piercings and all those stupid sub-culture trends). The implication of Jewish businessmen in the development of music industry is not a mystery.

Did anyone ever question the success of the so-called Orthodox Satanist trend? You know, these "Satanists" who hate national-socialists as "life-lovers" and who use Hebrew letters on their artworks...

Hip hop music also promotes "gangsta" pseudo-subversive values (in fact completely approved by free-market post-Christian capitalists) in order to corrupt the youth.

Anyway, did Vikernes create a blog? I thought he didn't use any other way to express himself than burzum.com.

To me those news updates at burzum.org are basically the same as blog posts, so if you are referring to me calling it a blog I just meant those updates.

I'm not familiar with where he expresses himself, but he also runs these blogs:
http://thuleanperspective.com/ (political)
http://myfarog.org/ (RPG thing)

So is your paranoid drivel.

Yeah, there's no greater threat to European culture than earrings.

Why don't we have a smiley doing the invisible jerk off gesture? We need one.

This.
Under flows of management-school-brainwashed middle or upper-class kids' insults and mockeries, some people dare say they agree with what should be considered as commonsense.

Destroy democracy, destroy capitalism, destroy nihilism, destroy everything you have been taught, because it was only lies.

Life is worth being lived when you respect the laws of Nature, and human species is worth being defended when it lives in harmony with other animals.

Don't listen to the flock / masses/ followers. Obey the leaders.

I am a racialist. I am an environmentalist. I am an animal rights defender. I am a socialist. And I'm proud.


(I'm pretty sure that if some great philosopher's quote was posted without mentioning the author, everyone would laugh at it)

You mean like this?

Depends how "great" this so-called philosopher is. But if it was posted by you, yeah, I probably would laugh.


That's the one.

A philosopher is defined by his published works. I haven't published anything else than a Crowley's book translation up to this day, so I guess I cannot be defined as a philosopher for now.

But your emphasize on the word "great" makes me guess that you think "greatness" depends on one's opinion. A matter of taste, in other words. If I'm right, I will be forced to leave the debate, as I'm opposed to cultural relativism.

Besides, personal attacks are not compatible with a healthy debate.

This contradiction is priceless.




"our people..my people". A lot of white nationalists say these words. Who are you? Moses? Anyone who thinks there is or ever will be unity in one color is downright delusional. You should only be talking about your relatives using those terms of people.

If you mean that "following the masses" equals "following the leaders" because masses follow leaders, that's a sophism.

PS: anyone ever got an infection due to amateurish piercing or tattoo? If that's not a physical harm, what is it...

Have you even joined it yet? All I see you write is short posts about yourself, and then you barely explain what you mean or how it's relevant to the discussion.

Sorry, it's a bit too late in the night for me to join.
Besides, I tend to dislike more and more internet debates, because posting messages and lacking respect is cheaply affordable.
The simple fact that the thread is 7-page long (with lots of insults and personal attacks, it seems) is enough to indicate that Vikernes hit a sensitive string.


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Most of the time, words are strong enough to defend themselves alone.

You join to say you don't want to talk?

You quote Schopenhauer's "three stages of truth" to prove you are right, because people think you don't make sense?

You count the length of the conversation in order to prove Vikernes is right?

You think trivial things like piercings and tattoo's are destroying European culture because of infections from amateurish practice?

You don't see how blindly following leaders and the masses are similar?

You talk mostly about yourself and give yourself labels for what you stand for in the middle of a conversation, without anyone asking you?

The points that you make are for the most part not related to the rest of the posts.

You believe that everything one learns in books or at school is untrue, but what some "blog guy" writes is true simply because you agree?

Are you sure you're not schizophrenic?

"Wow. I am really pretentious."
-Rob Corddry

And nobody's ever been hurt by a traditional European activity of any kind?