A.N.U.S.

Mailing list:

Search anus.com:

Letters: Happy Birthday ANUS!

The American Nihilist Underground Society has been online since 1987. That's 20 years of philosophical nihilism, internet trolling and sodomy! For 20 years we've been the number one source for nihilism and metal studies. We've appeared in a dozen of magazines and news sites, infecting forums world wide, and offending people from every culture and religion you could possibly imagine.

From the start, ANUS consisted out of a few friends publishing textfiles, calling for like-minded to find truth and beauty in activities disrupting the uniform system behind modern society. Over time it expanded into literature with poetic fragments of loneliness as well as courage and resistence, drug stories and strange philosophical outputs. However, the heart of ANUS, besides its amoral nihilist content, has always been the intrinsic stream-of-consciousness metal reviews, praising an elitist attitude and constantly defending the genre's originality.

Here we are, 20 years later, with members world wide, spreading our ideas and manifestos to a crowd larger than anyone could possibly imagine. Despite the simple design, the cryptic articles, the blasphemous inside jokes and the mystical poetry scattered out between broken HTML-files, ANUS march forward, spreading its hole wide open for those who dare to face the emptiness staring right back at them.

CUT YOUR FLESH AND WORSHIP JESUS SATAN DRUGS ANUS

- Alexis

since we believe in meritocracy we also praise the social hierarchies that uphold such an ideal. class division was a victorian attempt to rank people after economical income, making it useful to justify capitalism but not much else. we uphold the indo-european caste system, which base the caste divisions on ability and heritage.

our conception of freedom is that of ancient fascism: individual freedom is irrelevant - what we need is unity and through that, find common freedom to strive towards. the middle class would in a caste society involve a number of different castes but the general theory goes like this: leaders lead and workers work. slaves should not exist in a large number - if at all, since history proves that slavery is a mistake and eventually (together with slave morality) leads to slave revolt, which would bring us a new democratic totalitarianism of the crowd.

don't look at the internal division as "enslavement," because it's not. the democratic logic tells us leaders must suppress the majority, which of course is true, but no people are "enslaved" under a leader. leadership is simply another form of specialization.

caste meritocracy is the future for all functioning civilizations - and the only system that truly will bring freedom and peace to people.

thank you for writing in.

what i am trying to convey: that there is a better design for humanity, and it is rooted in an acceptance of design-based (Realistic) logic.

what is the basis of my reasoning and belief: that when we look at the function of natural systems outside of our human definition, we can find more than a moral/emotional direction a mechanism by which life sustains itself.

what i'd like to see: a localized, organic system of government which is intolerant of parasites and provides paths by which the better humans can breed more.

cheers

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

a lot of white people are seeing their homeland being destroyed, but the answer to our problems is not hate nor contempt for other ethnic groups; we need to fight the common enemy, which is multicultural globalism, not jews, negroes, freemasons etc.

cheap labour is an oxymoron, because it both moves national business to foreign lands, while competing out the established white working class. this is why hitler saw nationalized economy as the solution; by preserving national business you are able to regulate it according to internal needs, not external.

thank you for reading, and writing in.

"modern people" -- people whose fortunes are partially determined by a modern time

a lot of the rhetoric out there is for "personal" reasons, meaning people seeking to justify their own failures or successes and avoid guilt, worry or doubt. in our case, we are well-adjusted people doing quite well in the world, but we see how its conclusions -- the path it's taking -- will be an end in slow degradation to inconsequence. so we work against it, not for personal interest but in the interest of the whole, which will in turn benefit us along with everyone else.

it's important to separate self-interest in a holistic context from eogism. egoism is self with no external consequences; self-interest in a holistic sense is doing what is good for the individual within the set of actions that are coherent with the whole. egoism knows no such context :)

were i in your situation i would follow a simple plan:

1. acquire uebermensch for family (this is more important than most acknowledge)

2. find whatever position of power, influence or community stalwartism you can in your local community

3. continue writing and/or distributing news and ideas to support the ideas you have discovered

4. in every choice you make, and every choice you explain to others, display these values (from ideas you have discovered) as a form of personal discipline

5. if and when possible, join with others to gain political influence for a movement or movements who are committed to achieving change on whatever levels possible at that time

perhaps not the most satisfying answer -- many seem to want some quick response about distributing flyers and killing untermenschen. but on a practical level, a useful guide for achievement.

you also might consider (#3 and #5) joining up with corrupt.org forces to keep changing minds among those who are still awake, and eventually, to mobilize a political force to change the world. details available at http://www.corrupt.org/act

cheers

ps - nothing wrong with quality black metal, or high-impact trolling, either! :)

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

We see meritocracy as a third option and ultimate solution to the problem. Judging people by ability would secure effective and quality work within society, and avoid most of the corruption associated with the capitalist system, where any moron can buy his or her way up to leadership, without even being acquainted with Plato.

thanks for reading, and for asking such a perceptive question.

the icon we use is a fusion of the norse rune for life, and as we as holists associate the tree with the process of life (that which takes raw materials and puts them into a cycle from which nothing is lost, and nothing created except beauty: a form of information), we adapted it to a more treelike form in part to avoid commenting on other types of groups who use similar symbols. we wanted a new symbol, a compassionate and giving one that also brought to mind the order of nature, natural selection and the inherent idealism of those who appreciate beauty.

if you like our symbol, please plant a tree, kill a fool (smart people can be delusional as an inherent tendency, which makes them fools) or moron, and/or join up at http://www.corrupt.org/act

cheers

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

this is an interesting question.

what we need to have in mind, is that capitalism may be defined both as an economical system, and as a quasi-political, quasi-ideological system. the latter is what we must see as a corrupt: it sees Money as the highest value and destroys national culture and independence - all for the sake of centralizing power in the hands of those who are able to make clever profits, regardless of its consequences.

therefore, we cannot escape capitalism unless we set out to create new values; other values than that of production and/or consumption of commerce. ultimately, the people living in capitalist societies will not be able to reform society on their own, without a group of leaders changing the current design. most european countries today are moving toward nationalism, meaning they will stop the international economic power, and transfer it into the national economy to preserve political independence. capitalism as defined by competition is not so much a problem, as long as the State is able to regulate the market as it sees fit.

one could argue that capitalism is simply a by-product of democracy, and knowing how the current democracies in the west are working, we also know this to be a correct assumption. in other words, the belief in Money as God, is the result of over 2,000 years of crowd revolt. most people think selfishly and thus support any principle that means they will be able to profit on other people, regardless consequences.

the reviews are designed so that the user must meet them, find a common ground of knowledge processing, and use imagination to creatively fill in the picture of what is being described.

their logical format is pure information science, which takes into account a top-level description of the universe as a motion of data created by the exchange of heat that is physics, a brilliant design by which nothing is conserved or created except experience, knowledge, and evolving design. the cosmic order is their inspiration.

the language used is designed to bring about the subject-object collision you describe in the patterns of idealism, or the recognition that the mathematics of thinking and informational organization of the universe originate in a common logical scheme. all of this fits into nihilism as it is the quieting of the human chaotic mind so that it may appreciate the broader scope (outside the self, outside symbolic logic) of the universe as whole.

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

...or God is such a masochist that he created an "imperfect" and "immoral" world of natural selection to whine about, only to make himself look good in front of delusional people?

no, there is not, although i personally look at it this way: there are clever goths and there are foolish goths. i appreciate those people who define their lifestyle as gothic, as a way of creating a romanticist lifestyle away from modern society. the foolish goths tend to embrace self-pity, which is alien to traditional goths that usually lean toward nietzsche. today, most people calling themselves "goths" - just like with metalheads, punks and skinheads - do so to fit into a social scheme and play "outsider."

in short, we don't judge people by their adherence to a specific subculture, not even after their membership in political parties. we judge people individually after character, intelligence, creativity, and willingness to engage in sodomy against the modern society of intolerance.

if you feel morally offended by your own anus, you're not alone. more people are struggling to come to terms with the internal mechanisms of reality. a few of us thought it could be wise to accept truth, even if it's offending.

p.s. if we were not serious, it'd be silly of you to write in, wouldn't it?

well, let me ask you one question: if you want A and i want B, and it turns out that both of us can't have it our way, then what should we do? we could either fight over it for a week or so, or we could pick the best from A and B and get on with our life.

we cannot have it "our way," because we're not living in isolated bubbles. in a society, people are connected to each other and work together, whether we like it or not.

thanks a lot for your feedback, i'm glad to receive any support from our readers.

what differs intelligent artistic metal from massproduced superficial metal, are the same things that differ beethoven from britney spears; the former manages to portray the will as a power to understand our relation to life and how it operates, while the latter uses melody - and occasionally harmony - as purely an aesthetic effect. for moronic metal artists and pop bands, music is entertainment that wants to pass the time. therefore it has nothing meaningful to say us, nor is the experience in any rewarding, although some peope might find it "cool" or "fun."

the dark legions archive is dedicated to deconstruct music and analyze its very foundation, to discover how the music is built and from there on, learn the correlation between musical and existential thought. does such a relationship exist? i believe it does. we listen to music and we relate to things in life. clearly there is a connection, but no one has yet revealed it, only tried to describe it in very simle terms. we're here to contribute to that - yet preserve all the magic that music hides.

the bottom line is this: if it was very simple to describe and debate art, it wouldn't be art, but some mathematical combination we had to solve. fortunately, art is more than that, hence why brilliant bands like possessed and deicide often devalue their own work - and why the very simple melodies by kraftwerk are able to evoke such strong emotions. lots of swedish death metal bands claim they created music "just for fun," but when we listen to what they created, we find something deeper that you only discover after having listened to the actual music. metal is a special chapter in the history of music though; brilliant teenagers crafting music after the great classical composers, while attending school, learning about women, and partying on graveyards. the result has got to be unique...

i'm sorry that i can't answer your questions more specifically. perhaps this is a part of the magic of metal music; how did these young people create such beautiful music? we can analyze their instrumental skills, their philosophical influences and their dissident lifestyles, but that's probably as far as we're going to get. and when thinking about it, perhaps this is for the best?

thank you for writing in with what i consider to be interesting and vital questions.

i think it's useful to separate out christianity into three views, none of which defines it, but each of which reveals what it meanst in certain contexts.

first, there is the religious-philosophical definition, or that christians are people with certain values based on certain philosophical decisions.

second, there is the historical-political definition, or who was drawn to christianity and what were its effects on civilization.

finally, there is the name "christian" and as we know this can be applied to anything without particular relevance ("christian pornography","christian potheads","christian toast").

in my view, the historical-political definition encompasses most of what you read about christianity and christians on this site: a wrecking ball for many positive values, and an empowerer of corporate-crowdist rule.

the religious-philosophical side of christianity however is most likely what you are asking here: what values or beliefs make someone a christian? in this context, my answer may be unsettling.

a christian is someone who interprets the interpretation of reality known as the bible (with selected other sources).

my goal at this point in life is not to assault christianity, but to make christians see it as part of the language of philosophy which can describe all faiths and outlooks on life, and within that language, to make it more specific and realistic.

some christians are pure dualists, who believe that if they do what they read from the bible and interpret as God's word, they will be able to join others in an eternal life called heaven.

others are transcendentalists, like ralph waldo emerson or johannes eckhart, and they believe that God is a metaphysical summary of the world (like an emotion or intuition) and to reach a divine state is to live well, and to see with clarity the actions that need be taken.

there are other interpretations as well -- millions of them. the question then becomes not "what is the best interpretation of christianity?" but "what is the best interpretation of reality to which an interpretation of christianity can be applied?"

i think the viability of christianity, in short, depends on how realistic this interpretation is. if you want arguments against God, you must first acknowledge that these are arguments against interpretations of God, as God itself/himself remains invisible and unknowable.

i would argue against the simplistic, dualistic, symbolic reality that mainstream christianity has perpetrated upon the world for the past 2,000 years; clearly it is both arealistic and unreasonable, and its effects have been destructive. but now we are in the political-historical realm

i am not sure i want anyone to renounce God. i want them to see God in a realistic light, which i interpret as the transcendental. in this light, few of the destructive actions of mainstream political-historical christianity make sense.

i think the problem with most people renouncing God is that they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and so renounce all belief in life. i want them to believe in life, and to believe in that metaphysical summation called Gods, Godhead or The Gods if they can -- but then the real job begins, for a philosopher, which is tuning the accuracy of that belief.

i hope these answers make sense in light of your questions but i fear that any response will be oblique. there's a wonderful author from texas named paul woodruff who created a book called "reverence: renewing a forgotten virtue" which i recommend to any christian alongside the basic writings of johannes eckhart. christians who take the transcendental path are saying the same thing we are in different words, and would have a much more positive effect on human civilization than the political-historical manifestation of christianity has done.

cheers

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

you have two questions here:

1. what are the philosophical views of christians?

i think what i said was that they believe in an interpretation of the bible, which is in itself an interpretation of reality. for this reason, the question is impossible to answer: you would have to see into the minds of the christians.

christianity, as a philosophy, can be documented and understood, but keep in mind that this does not encompass all christian views, as it is written vaguely and is widely open to interpretation.

a. dualism. Christianity believes in separation between reality and God, (good and evil) and (reality) as being from separate planes, and the personal relationship between the human and God. again, in the hands of a studied thinker, these terms may take on a different meaning. transcendentalists for example reject dualism because they recognize that any other worlds out there are contiguous to this one, as they're from the same unitive order.

b. morality. Christianity asserts that moral absolutes exist.

c. symbolism. Christianity believes that moral symbolism, and recognition of God-symbolism, may be more important than reality.

d. love. Christianity believes in love as a guiding principle, leading to a passive morality of forgiving others regardless of outcome. as such, we might call it an "after processing" moral judgment, in that it does not assess results as much as intent.

what is interesting is that all of these concepts are based on words and symbols that are interpreted differently among individuals. a person of IQ 105 might find a stadium church that preaches the literality of hell to be rewarding, but someone at 125 IQ points is more likely to see that as metaphorical or symbolic in the ways of the ancient gods.

given that the bible is handed down to us as an oral tradition thousands of years old that incorporates elements of hindu, sumerian, greek, jewish and roman religious philosophies, it is hard to claim there is a single interpretation of christianity that is correct.

so we must say that christians believe in an interpretation of the bible which is itself an interpretation of reality, and thus their beliefs vary widely. other religions do not succumb as much to this informational entropy, since they define their absolutes and interpretive guideliness differently.

2. what compels them to believe in it?

this would also vary with the individual. i'd say the top reasons are: a desire for moral framework to life, fear of death, and need for an absolute means of compelling/controlling others.

it is not my goal at this point to assault christianity. other circumstances may vary and may have varied in the past. your question seems to be disconnected from the rest of our narrative here, as if you asked other questions as a means to introduce this one. why not simply ask that?

we post all letters that are "interesting" (subjective) on the website, and that is the discretion of our editor, not myself.

one aspect of Christianity is loving others and tolerating their ways as much as Christians respect their own. for example, Christians tolerate Jewish and Muslim neighbors and respect radically different traditions. what you are seeing there as offensive is simply from a different tradition.

you might find the above answer relativistic. after all, wouldn't it be nice to have an absolute moral standard by which we could declare one thing right and another thing wrong, and be done with it? however, christianity in itself is highly relativistic since it is based on love and tolerance for individuals and forgiveness of error on the basis of "intent," not outcome. so i think it is very christian to keep it there, as otherwise we will be denying metalheads their reality and religion in a way you would not want yours denied to you.

a transcendentalist, of course, would observe that as God is the whole of the universe, God encloses both "good" and "evil," which are relative (but not relativistic, since they are not judged) terms, and therefore a true God would relish blasphemy in the right context as much as He/She would relish praise in the right context. it's a good matter to think on.

again, thank you for writing in for a civil dialogue.

cheers

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

a few thoughts:

1. christianity predated metal. it is thus impossible that christianity can be non-conformity within metal, given that metal is responding to a world order in part created by that political-historical christianity we talked about.

2. every genre has beliefs. not every one will include christianity. my guess is that enlightened christians do not see metal as a forum for their beliefs. the few successes of "christian metal" bands (on par with "white power" bands) seems to suggest this is accurate.

3. i don't think metal is about non-conformity. rather, i think it's about a modernistic reincarnation of romantic beliefs, from a position of education in modernity. it's machine-like music that speaks a truth outside of machines, and ugly-sounding music that finds beauty in that ugliness. (yes, i think the historical jesus would have been cool with slayer, but he did have a sense of humor, unlike some recent high-profile religious leaders of all stripes).

this is where i find respect for christians, yes, but they must recall that if their beliefs and actions are ineffective in bringing about a better order, they are pursuing futility and should question their motives. we have always had a fair number of intelligent christians who visit the site and are not bothered by the content, nor the music. society does need to be overthrown in its current form, but we must be careful about what we ask for, because if the structure of our ideas is not substantially different, we will repeat its folly...

sorry for the brief reply, but hopefully it is useful data.

cheers

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

looking at the question from a philosopher's viewpoint however, metal as romantic art encourages exploration within a certain range of beliefs, which is what makes it distinctive as art. its sound and topic matter arise from those ideas. satanism in metal, for example, is not worship of satan but suggestion, metaphorically, of an amoral universe. i do not see metal as incompatible with transcendental beliefs, but transcendentalism is a philosophy discovered through individual exploration (esoteric) where finding personal belief in an icon, prophet or god is a passive, mechanical process (exoteric). for this reason, i do not think christian metal makes sense any more than white power hip-hop (a horrid idea).

i disagree wholeheartedly with this explanation. much as in literature, genres are founded by ideas expressed in words or sound. the symbols themselves are not those ideas.

i do not see why christians could not enjoy metal, including arch-satanic bands, by appreciating them as metaphor/art and not literal spiritual instructions (i consider it unwise for any to take slayer and deicide literally).

i am not certain why you conflate good/evil with better/worse; although both are interpretations, one is anthrocentric and the other is design- oriented.

good move on the eighth grader. in my experience, most bullies have been abused into low self-esteem.

my experience with christians is varied and, for the past decade, i have tried to talk to them in the language of philosophy -- not the language of politics. in philosophical terms, calling someone a "christian" is meaningless as the question is what they actually believe, and what they actually do. there's a fair amount of diversity in christianity.

i don't believe everyone has a right to ANY kind of belief. i think we need to as a species get back to reality, because we've made our world into shambles. i think this realism can be expressed in christianity but not in the populist form of it, much like it cannot be expressed in other populist philosophies (Randism, scientology,etc).

am i a fascist? no, i'm worse: i'm a realist. i'm the person who sees what's on the horizon before it happens, and would prefer we don't steer into it. i'm the one who sees that some people are wholly dishonest, while most are only partially so. i'm the one who knows altruism is fake, but believes in love for the whole, because only through that do we transcend what is otherwise life as glorified monkeys with car keys. as a realist, i also recognize that 99.9% of the population won't understand this and will oppose it, and so they need to be oppressed.

and you want the shocker?

the historical jesus would have agreed with me :)

unfortunately, this question cannot be answered, because we only have records of jesus. however, based on what i have read in the bible, he did indeed have a sense of humor and was not threatened by blasphemy or other "bad" behavior. so yes, he would have enjoyed slayer.

however, the structure of the religion as represented, whether by jesus or others, leads to an exoteric view that is poor psychology for most humans. christianity needs more geniuses (modern word for prophet) to reform its misinterpretation or design flaws; does it matter which?

i think it's a useful dialogue to have, unlike the somewhat acrimonious elitism from some groups like the internet infidels and fred phelps.

you might also want to explore bands that take no religious stance whatsoever. i would have to read lyrics (something i normally do not do) but i know that many death metal bands were not explicitly blasphemous, although all were amoral. have you heard demilich? gorguts?

cheers

v. Prozak
textarbeiter

June 17, 2007