A.N.U.S.
American Nihilist Underground Society
|
Home
Philosophy
Nihilism
Articles
Resources
Culture
Heavy Metal
Heroes
TribesAbout
NewsFAQ Staff Media Contact |
Letters: Race, Nationalism and IdentityAlthough the subject has been bored to death due to mass campaigns and egalitarian indoctrination, race is still a high-intensive subject in any serious political and cultural debate today. When studying the slow collapse of modern pluralist society, one easily understands why: we're trying to deny the obvious, which is that cultures and people don't mix. They never have and they never will. However, accepting the reality of race and coming to terms with the unavoidable problems with multicultural society, doesn't clear up some questions regarding identity and political organization. Is Canada one country? Where do the Hungarians belong? How do we handle the effects of ethnic crossbreeding? The questions are many and few dare to answer. Below is an interesting compilation of some of the questions our readers have had regarding race, culture, nationalism and identity. While certain topics have been cleared out, others become more obscured by a bleak future. But there is hope and by providing you, Reader, with more information on these subjects, we hope to be able to contribute to a more intelligent and sensible debate around the things they refuse to say on TV. - Alexis
Let me warn you, I am adding this statement after I have written everything as this has become much longer than I anticipated; I have not taken any time to edit this so I apologize if the organization of it at all seems incoherent. I hope genuinely to clear up any misunderstandings I may have concerning your position and also to engage on a constructive dialouge if possible. Thank you.
-- Why nationalism? I am puzzled over the fact that your organization, which claims inspiration from both Neitzsche and Evola, and aspires to influence the 5-10% of the population that "does something," advocates such a modern idea as ethnic nationalism. Pardon me if I am mistaken in my impressions, but would I be correct in stating that you believe that part of the "solution" (for lack of a better term) to modernity lies in organizing the state around the principle of ethnic nationalism? If I am wrong on this count then please forgive me for what follows, and I would be interested in knowing where I erred in my assumptions. Surely you are aware of the very liberal, egalitarian, and democratic roots of this modern phenomenom: nationalism? Undoubtedly you are also aware of the indisuptable disasters and disruptions that this ideology has played a role in causing (the French Revolution, WWI, WWII, etc.). How then, do you profess to be able to combat the symptoms of modernity with one of the major causes of the disease? That it goes hand and hand with liberalism is easily shown by looking at the history of this idea. I am willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but I believe essentially all of the great national liberation movements of the nineteenth-century including the French Revolution were instigated by liberals and members of the third-estate. Yes, even the German unification (darling of "right-wing" nationalists) was primarily a liberal program. Many of them point to 1871, but few to 1848 and the immense ramifactions the liberal revolution of that year had on the following decades of German history. Even in 1871, it was none other than the liberal and Jew, Eduard Simson, who led the Reichstag delegation as they asked King William to accept the imperial crown at the behest of the German princes. Let us not forget also the major role attributed to another liberal and Jew, Eduard Lasker, in the push for unification. I am sure that I do not need to explain to you the connection between liberalism and its desire to destroy all distinctions in law and priviledge. These so-called national movements were almost entirely orchestrated in order to shift political power to the third-estate. In other words, they served the ends of materialism and commerce! Here we return again to Germany, where the right-wing nationalists will point to Bismarck as their counter-argument. It is true, that by virtue of his extraordinary genius and personal energy Bismark was able to use this force for his own ends at times. The German Empire (really Greater Prussia) was able to maintain its traditional ruling class (although I would argue that the Prussian elites were merely following the letter of the law at this stage, as Evola would say, instead of being fully aware of their role as the bearers of Tradition) until the end of World War I. Far from being a panacea for the ills of the German nation though, the contradictions introduced by liberalism and nationalism threatened to tear the state apart. The Social Democrats continued to gain seats at a staggering pace up to the very last elections before the war. Bismarck and his successors were increasingly forced to placate public opinion by additional military expenditure and beating the drums of war. We are all aware of the painful consequences the limitations this placed on German foreign policy had in the summer of 1914. So this German exception turns out to be no exception at all. That there is an implied egalitarianism and a very real leveling aspect to nationalism is beyond dispute as well. However, for one thing, the very idea that all ethnic groups can stand amongst each other as equals is a priori absurd. Secondly, wherever there has been this idea of nationalism there has been accompanied with it the repression of local and regional identities and languages. Schools where one is taught the "national" language and taught the "national" history for the sake of unity (but what is really uniformity, as Guenon and Evola would rightly call it). This is clearly seen in France, with the elimination of the provinces and their replacement with relatively equally sized districts during the revolution. These efforts to create the nation necessarily results in more government bureaucracy, replacing concrete relations among men with abstract and absolute entities thus further dissolving any organic and traditional community ties and contributing to the modern error. It is no leap of logic to see that from this we come to understand man as a "citizen" with under the abstract tyranny of "civil law" and whose politcal life lies seperated from his community and peers. Certainly we see the egalitarian impulse behind nationalism when we look at the excesses of the French Revolution and "The Terror." Does this not show that far from reflecting the true nature of things, the Jacobins felt it necessary to embark on physically exterminating almost the entirety of the French aristocracy and clergy (two groups whose very existence threatened the mythical idea of any national equality among citizens)? It is no accident that the vast majority of trained historians are not nationalists (and it is not from political correctness). It is because history clearly shows that nationalism, rather than originating from some sort of mystical unity of "the Volk," has really been a top-down affair all along based on the clever manipulation of myths and forced changes in human relations. The whole Volkish nonsense is such a complete exercise in Romanticist sentimentalism (which Neitzsche explicity frowned upon) that I truly do not even know where to begin in addressing it. The very democratic nature of this idea, that all Germans or Frenchmen or whomever share a common bond and thus are equal before each other is nothing but an example of slave-revolt and plebian mentality. What one really means when the invoke something in the name of the Volk is that Romantic idealization of the peasant, and the crazy insinuation that it is they who are the true heirs of the state and form its basis. Nothing could be more of an inversion of the truth. For their part, even the National Socialists tried to reconcile this contradiction in their ideology by introducing the furher-principle, ironically allowing an insane son of peasants to weld almost absolute power. The volkish tendency for uniformity manifested itself particularly under National Socialism. The very modernist and positivist notions of one-hundred percent racial purity and the desire for absolutely no minorities within German borders, as well as the planned Germanization of any conquered lands serve as examples of this. I wish to say in closing that none of this at all means to imply that I do not think ethnicity is unimportant. That would be far from the truth. I merely think it is misguided to advocate the idea that each ethnic group is entitled or should have their own nation-state in order to preserve or protect their culture. It is a very Wilsonian idea and we have seen that the nation-state is more often than not detrimental to culture and identity. Only a supra-national body, that takes into account ethnicity but does not have it as its ruling principle, can guarantee the harmony (a harmony that includes conflict and war) of the multiple cultures and peoples on this planet. By taking into account ethnicity I mean recognizing the limitations and particular character of each and providing representation or oversight accordingly and without malice (Can you truly picture an African-American nation, free and independent, existing next to any hypothetical "White" nation without requiring constant intervention? For just as men cannot live in a vacuum, nations cannot either). We have two examples of this type of polity in the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire, both of which provided a non-materialist and non-economic basis for unity of parts. I think that as long as serious opposition to the current world-order takes the form of nationalism it is doomed to ultimately fail or fall into tyranny. The task I believe is to mold a truly Traditional political opposition. If such an individual as Julius Evola himself became disenchanted with this idea, I believe it may lie beyond my personal ablities. This is perhaps the reason Rene Guenon said that it is our task in the present age to simply sow the seeds for a future restoration. at Friday, August 17, 2007 7:35 PM from estado_novo@xxx.xxx
hopefully you will not find my answer disconcerting if it is brief; volume does not equal quality, in metal music or philosophy. Why nationalism?
I am puzzled over the fact that your organization, which claims inspiration from both Neitzsche and Evola, and aspires to influence the 5-10% of the population that "does something," advocates such a modern idea as ethnic nationalism. Pardon me if I am mistaken in my impressions, but would I be correct in stating that you believe that part of the "solution" (for lack of a better term) to modernity lies in organizing the state around the principle of ethnic nationalism? If I am wrong on this count then please forgive me for what follows, and I would be interested in knowing where I erred in my assumptions.
Surely you are aware of the very liberal, egalitarian, and democratic roots of this modern phenomenom: nationalism? Undoubtedly you are also aware of the indisuptable disasters and disruptions that this ideology has played a role in causing (the French Revolution, WWI, WWII, etc.). How then, do you profess to be able to combat the symptoms of modernity with one of the major causes of the disease? That it goes hand and hand with liberalism is easily shown by looking at the history of this idea. I am willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but I believe essentially all of the great national liberation movements of the nineteenth-century including the French Revolution were instigated by liberals and members of the third-estate. Yes, even the German unification (darling of "right-wing" nationalists) was primarily a liberal program. Many of them point to 1871, but few to 1848 and the immense ramifactions the liberal revolution of that year had on the following decades of German history. Even in 1871, it was none other than the liberal and Jew, Eduard Simson, who led the Reichstag delegation as they asked King William to accept the imperial crown at the behest of the German princes. Let us not forget also the major role attributed to another liberal and Jew, Eduard Lasker, in the push for unification.
you have confused nationalism as one aspect of the liberal nation-state, but forget that nationalism is an aspect of many things, and the nation-state "nationalism" is more correctly defined as patriotism: http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/patriotism a nationalist state can be either misinterpreted, or paired to an ideology which is destructive, which is why nationalism is not the sum of our beliefs, much as neither socialism nor environmentalism are. our beliefs stand on their own as a whole system of thinking with no part divisible from the others. I am sure that I do not need to explain to you the connection between liberalism and its desire to destroy all distinctions in law and priviledge. These so-called national movements were almost entirely orchestrated in order to shift political power to the third-estate. In other words, they served the ends of materialism and commerce! Here we return again to Germany, where the right-wing nationalists will point to Bismarck as their counter-argument. It is true, that by virtue of his extraordinary genius and personal energy Bismark was able to use this force for his own ends at times. The German Empire (really Greater Prussia) was able to maintain its traditional ruling class (although I would argue that the Prussian elites were merely following the letter of the law at this stage, as Evola would say, instead of being fully aware of their role as the bearers of Tradition) until the end of World War I. Far from being a panacea for the ills of the German nation though, the contradictions introduced by liberalism and nationalism threatened to tear the state apart. The Social Democrats continued to gain seats at a staggering pace up to the very last elections before the war. Bismarck and his successors were increasingly forced to placate public opinion by additional military expenditure and beating the drums of war. We are all aware of the painful consequences the limitations this placed on German foreign policy had in the summer of 1914. So this German exception turns out to be no exception at all. be also wary of false-flag approaches. what separates modern conservatives from nationalists is that conservatives advocate a "nationalism" based on participation in the outward trappings of an ethnicity, e.g. move to france and become french. it is not true ethnic nationalism, which is an organic state composed of caste divisions, and is inherently anti-liberal. That there is an implied egalitarianism and a very real leveling aspect to nationalism is beyond dispute as well. However, for one thing, the very idea that all ethnic groups can stand amongst each other as equals is a priori absurd. Secondly, wherever there has been this idea of nationalism there has been accompanied with it the repression of local and regional identities and languages. Schools where one is taught the "national" language and taught the "national" history for the sake of unity (but what is really uniformity, as Guenon and Evola would rightly call it). This is clearly seen in France, with the elimination of the provinces and their replacement with relatively equally sized districts during the revolution. These efforts to create the nation necessarily results in more government bureaucracy, replacing concrete relations among men with abstract and absolute entities thus further dissolving any organic and traditional community ties and contributing to the modern error. It is no leap of logic to see that from this we come to understand man as a "citizen" with under the abstract tyranny of "civil law" and whose politcal life lies seperated from his community and peers. agreed, the class war leveling aspect can get dangerous. here's an explication of that by another writer: http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/2006 Certainly we see the egalitarian impulse behind nationalism when we look at the excesses of the French Revolution and "The Terror." Does this not show that far from reflecting the true nature of things, the Jacobins felt it necessary to embark on physically exterminating almost the entirety of the French aristocracy and clergy (two groups whose very existence threatened the mythical idea of any national equality among citizens)? It is no accident that the vast majority of trained historians are not nationalists (and it is not from political correctness). It is because history clearly shows that nationalism, rather than originating from some sort of mystical unity of "the Volk," has really been a top-down affair all along based on the clever manipulation of myths and forced changes in human relations. The whole Volkish nonsense is such a complete exercise in Romanticist sentimentalism (which Neitzsche explicity frowned upon) that I truly do not even know where to begin in addressing it. The very democratic nature of this idea, that all Germans or Frenchmen or whomever share a common bond and thus are equal before each other is nothing but an example of slave-revolt and plebian mentality. What one really means when the invoke something in the name of the Volk is that Romantic idealization of the peasant, and the crazy insinuation that it is they who are the true heirs of the state and form its basis. Nothing could be more of an inversion of the truth. For their part, even the National Socialists tried to reconcile this contradiction in their ideology by introducing the furher-principle, ironically allowing an insane son of peasants to weld almost absolute power. The volkish tendency for uniformity manifested itself particularly under National Socialism. The very modernist and positivist notions of one-hundred percent racial purity and the desire for absolutely no minorities within German borders, as well as the planned Germanization of any conquered lands serve as examples of this.
I wish to say in closing that none of this at all means to imply that I do not think ethnicity is unimportant. That would be far from the truth. I merely think it is misguided to advocate the idea that each ethnic group is entitled or should have their own nation-state in order to preserve or protect their culture. It is a very Wilsonian idea and we have seen that the nation-state is more often than not detrimental to culture and identity.
the nation-state and the nation are two different entities, as explained above. the nation-state is a bureaucratic entity, while the nation is an organic one based on culture, not economics and convenient political groupings. Only a supra-national body, that takes into account ethnicity but does not have it as its ruling principle, can guarantee the harmony (a harmony that includes conflict and war) of the multiple cultures and peoples on this planet. By taking into account ethnicity I mean recognizing the limitations and particular character of each and providing representation or oversight accordingly and without malice (Can you truly picture an African-American nation, free and independent, existing next to any hypothetical "White" nation without requiring constant intervention? For just as men cannot live in a vacuum, nations cannot either). We have two examples of this type of polity in the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire, both of which provided a non-materialist and non-economic basis for unity of parts. I think that as long as serious opposition to the current world-order takes the form of nationalism it is doomed to ultimately fail or fall into tyranny. The task I believe is to mold a truly Traditional political opposition. If such an individual as Julius Evola himself became disenchanted with this idea, I believe it may lie beyond my personal ablities. This is perhaps the reason Rene Guenon said that it is our task in the present age to simply sow the seeds for a future restoration. yet by their poor design, both of these empires collapsed into liberalism and ended up fostering thousands of years of damages, while the damages by true nations are short and localized. i do not trust any meta-state; it is too easily subverted. independent states require someone subvert all of them before they can become corrupted, and if someone is able to do that, it is probably best humanity ends now.
V. Prozak
Hello, I've been a reader/lurker of this site (and its many spin-offs) for quite awhile now, and have found a great deal of useful information and challenging viewpoints. However, after considerable thought, one question still plagues me, and it is concerning race: what, precisely, are the criterion of terms like "Indo-European"? An illustration: I am of a very mixed ethnic background--Irish, Welsh, German, English, and probably Scandanavian as well, in nearly equal proportion (if ancestral research and geography are to be believed). Physically however, I present a good deal of gracile Mediterranean traits. Now, in a hypothetical (and I believe ideal, in your view) repatriation of people to their various ancestral homelands, where would I (and many others like me) go? Further, what would the criteria be in deciding who is and who is not Indo-European? Phenotypical percentages (and if so, how much)? It seems that such things would be quite difficult to practically determine and apply. I apologize in advance if the answer to my question is plainly located elsewhere on this site and I have missed it. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply. at Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:04 PM from the_end_of_the_word@xxx.xxx
the term indo-european is in most cases a linguistic term, but language and ethnicity are closely related, so it's a pretty accurate way of determining ethnic identity. check out this IE-map for a basic view of how the indo-european people have diverged. people of mixed ethnicity basically have two choices: a) they integrate with the closest matching population b) they form their own community #a might be most practical, especially if the level of admixture is high and the composition is closely related to the population you wish to integrate with. #b is probably the best choice if you find a lot of people with similar genetic make-up, and see a point in creating and developing your own community. an example of this are the finland-swedes, or finno-swedes, who are a mix of finnish and swedish ethnicity and today classified as an independent ethnic and cultural group in scandinavia. determing where to draw the line isn't possible in an absolutist sense; there doesn't exist any racially pure concept of what it means to be irish or german, even if the specific phenotypes for each ethnicity are fairly easy to discern. this line has to be drawn from peopel to people and will be a question dealt with in the future when it becomes relevant. right now it's most important to understand the basics of what race is and why it actually is of importance. First, thank you for a thorough and prompt reply. Your response is one that I have considered before, so allow me to further muddy the waters. In my understanding, language is a component of culture, and while I believe you are correct in your assertion that language and ethnic identity are closely related, it is not a definitive watermark by any means. Truthfully, I am not absolutely clear on why race (as opposed to culture) matters so much. Since we agree that it would be impossible to determine racial identity in an absolutist sense, and since most "white" people are quite mixed ethnically, we are left with a dubious criterion by which to determine suitable members of an ideal community based on race. Personally, I wouldn't want to be stuck in line at a supermarket with most people of Indo-European heritage, much less try to build a workable civilization with them. I do not wish to be contentious; I am merely trying to understand this issue mroe clearly. I appreciate again your time and consideration.
the proto-IE language tree allow us to study how the different races have diverged into new local ethnicities. in other words, it's not a determiner of ethnicity, but a way through which we understand culture placed in a historical-linguistic context. race matters because it determines our behaviour, thought and value patterns to a very large extent. just because there is not absolutist way in which we can determine who's A or B, doesn't mean that classification is irrelevant. it's fully possible to discern who's norwegian and who's spanish. merely, it shows that we're speaking of general differences, but in daily life, not to mention cultural creativity, these differences have a huge impact. also, note that most white europeans are not as mixed as one might think. one of our columnists wrote an article on this topic some years ago: http://anus.com/zine/articles/mixed-race i completely agree with you regarding the supermarket-problem; most white people today are stupid. this is why we believe in eugenics (natural selection). you're not OK simply because you belong to a specific race. we must value people individually and select the ones who are intelligent, strong and noble enough to create a new society when this one falls apart. neo-nazis and white supremacists are moronic in that all they care about is the "White Race." race is important but you can't base an entire worldview on it. even hitler realized that. i think the reason to why many people feel uneasy talking about race, is that the subject is discussed among radical opposites: on the left we have the people who believe that we're only a product of our social environment and that all people should live happily in an equal business market (!), while the people to the right are shouting emotionally about the Aryan race and how inferior blacks, jews and asians are. for any sensible person, both of these camps are insane. we belong to neither group. race is a reality and we have to face it realistically. that means no illusion and no hate.
Alex,
Thank you for your reply. You have very salient points regarding linguistic development, and they are well-considered. However, the statement "race determines our behaviour, thought and value patterns to a very large extent" seems exceptionally strident and mostly unverifiable through current scientific research. Now, it could be (nay, it very well may be) a lack of genuine understanding on my part, but is there a specific collection of empirical data that substantiates this claim? I am quite aware of the role that genetics play in influencing the aforementioned attributes, but how much of that is race-specific?
It should be noted here that I am in complete agreement with you about the impact that cultural differences have on every facet of our lives; to believe otherwise would be to admit willful ignorance. I also agree about the majority of white people being morons, although I would amend it slightly to say that the majority of all people are morons. It would be interesting to discuss ways to motivate or enlighten other European Americans, but I suppose that is a conversation for another time. Race is indeed a taboo, one of The Big Three (alongside class and religion), and you are right on the money in your causal assessment. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this with me--you have provided a great deal of insight. ~Daniel
culture is a product of both our genetic composition and our social environment, with a large emphasis on the former. because of this and the fact that there are substantial racial differences, our behaviour is formed thereafter. we've stored hundreds and hundreds of scientific researches that prove our point on this matter, otherwise we'd let it go. here's some of my personal favorites:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm this one is a classic: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03/minnesota-study-of-twins-reared-apart.php i spam you with some links to studies here, because people that are critical to the importance of genetics and race, are often so on a social basis, that is, they haven't really looked into the subject but simply find it unappealing or scary. it's scary, because it means we're not totally in control of who we are and what we can do with our lives. we want to believe that there's a free will, that all people are equal, and we can do whatever we want, however, that is not really the case.
My main point of contention, I suppose, is that I am unsure of how much
culture is learned, and how much is determined by biology. As an
example: can a man of African descent who has lived in Berlin for 40
years be considered more German than a second-generation American of
German heritage whose family has lived in Oklahoma for the same 40 years? the question you ask is basically the same as: how deterministic is our behaviour? looking at some of the studies above, i think you'll get the general picture: it's quite huge. I also agree about the majority of white people being morons, although I
would amend it slightly to say that the majority of all people are
morons. It would be interesting to discuss ways to motivate or enlighten
other European Americans, but I suppose that is a conversation for
another time. you're definitely right; most people are morons, and so eugenics is something all people should advocate, not just for their own sake, but for the sake of our planet. you shouldn't feel confused about your ethnic identity; you're hardly alone in coming from a diverse european background and in most cases, people either feel very strongly to certain general attributes, for example to the germanic traits, or they find people of similar traits, which is very common in for example america. i advocate a form of individual honour, that is, i believe all individuals should be proud of their heritage and their individuality, no matter what they are or where they come from. later in life they can decide whether they'll integrate with a fitting culture and population, or form their own. whatever you choose - be proud!
I am a nihilist, I believe in morals at Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:57 AM from toodarkpark@xxx.xxx
every nihilist undergoes a realization: that to believe in nothing is to believe in a world dominated by nothingness. we have transcended. in that sense, anything that is both realistic and idealistic in a holistic sense (inter-connected; not discrete like judeo- christian morality or technology or capitalism or modern neo-nazism) is nihilistic. that is a statement far more evolved than kiddies saying "i believe in nothing, i give up, i bend over, world of hate, take me (anally) now." in that context, what you've written above should be spraypainted on the capitals of the world :)
V. Prozak
Hi , I'm not sure whether I'm sending this to the right place , but anyways , I'd like to know what your opinion is on the matter of human perception altering substances such as LSD , Psilocybe and even Marijuana ? I'm interested to know (in the context of nihilism) whether the experiences induced by these chemicals are of any value , cosmically . I've read almost all your articles and noticed that you often make references to drug abuse and so on . Thank you .
at Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:20 AM from robotmule@xxx.xxx
i appreciate your reading the articles, and you've spotted a common theme which is the use of drugs. i can point to two sources for this: first, some personal experience, and second, the raw power of drug use and politics as a metaphor as we see in books like william s. burroughs's _naked lunch_. as they mimic both all sources of excess, and all sources of wisdom, drugs are a powerful metaphor.
i do not know if it makes sense to ask the question as to whether these
experiences are of any value, cosmically, without giving it some context.
as a nihilist, i am a reality-addict, and so even when using drugs, i want
to do so realistically. in that, i first note that different people have
different needs and abilities. some people, on marijuana, become slumbering
slobbering dolts whose main interests are television and potato chips; others
find fantastical new worlds. we could define the psychedelic state as a distortion of the memory we use to process what we have witnessed through our five senses, and therefore, as we put together memory and senses to form what we know of reality, new possibilities as our brain struggles again to find what is going on. in short, drugs force us to re-interpret reality, and as such can be quite reasonable. but, how often do you want to reinterpret reality? as with religion or philosophy, the misinterpretation of psychedelia can become more powerful than the reality, and one of the fundamental misinterpretations i've seen is that existing in a state of the unreal contributes toward making that state real. it doesn't. it can contribute toward making music about that state, art about that state, or even quality business (most of the pot smokers i know are upper management or programmers) but it does not make the state itself real. the state itself remains sealed in the head of the user. in that regard, i'm somewhat sceptical of the psychedelic experience. i think it can be powerful learning than then turns into a "magic solution" which solves nothing, because it is only re-arranging the thoughts in the mind of the user. and like anything that pleasures the individual and does not change the world, it comes to failure by perpetuating the state it hopes to relieve. life is boring? take drugs. when you sober up, life will still be boring and the only solution will be... more drugs. our entire modern experience can be explained by our going inward into our minds instead of outward toward the world. we change perceptions, we garner votes, we (clever monkeys) re-arrange figures and words and symbols to show that "reality" is as we say it is, but really, we're convincing each other of a false reality. and so we live in this happy neurotic state of denial, and then reality rears its head in the form of a prophet or heretic, and when we're done crucifying or electrocuting them, we move on with doubt in our hearts -- and the only solution is more illusion inside the head. i guess i can summarize it this way: of all the drugs i've seen used, quality indica marijuana is the only useful one. take a day alone, a sunny day, and drink a lot of water, then a lot of powerful coffee, then take some ripping bong hits with 5% tobacco in the mix. smoke as much as you can, preferrably about 1.5g of fine indica. then go outside, wander through some woods, see what you find to be true. when you're done, come back inside and sober up by reading a good book (naked lunch will do, or maybe something by tom wolfe) and go to sleep. in a few days the THC will be out of your system. then systematically go over what you experienced, and think out what of it might be true -- it helps to keep a journal while you're on the drug. i no longer use drugs. maybe i've gotten all i needed, or maybe i've gotten boring, but either way, i avoid them. i'm into making change outside the head as only that re-inforces itself and leads to even more positive change. i hope my answer helped and encourage you to submit more detailed questions if appropriate.
V. Prozak
Hi Prozak,
In your response to one of the letters posted on August 10th, you mentioned that an article that you'd written on metal and jazz would appear in the very near future. Are you still planning on posting this article? (It hasn't shown up somewhere other than ANUS, has it? I don't see it on the homepage, and the Metal page doesn't seem to lead to it, nor is there a sign of it on the links on your profile to your music and metal writings.) I'm really looking forward to reading your thoughts on jazz, and seeing how you'd compare and contrast it with metal. In fact, I'm curious to know what you think if "improvisational" music in general. It seems that it'd inherently be the antithesis of the reasons you value classical and metal as highly as you do, but I could be wrong. I wonder, would you could consider jazz, or artsy fartsy noise bands, "degenerate"? My gut instinct tells me that the answer is: yes. Always enjoy your take on music, as I do ANUS in general. I used to worry that when it comes to the high standards you hold people to, I may not make the cut (yes, I'm revealing that I've struggled with deficient insecurities), but I've come to realize that you're probably pretty much "a guy like me" (to put it in very oversimplified terms -- and don't take that as an insult, I'm not trying to "knock you down", I have a lot of respect for you). I mean, as far as I know, you eat, sleep, shit, piss, cum, bleed, love music, wonder what's wrong with this crazy world, feel that the societal system (and not to mention all the concrete and plastic) we've been born into is all wrong, and yet (hopefully) have experiences in life and interactions with people that you wouldn't trade for anything. If you can say that this (admittedly broad) description fits you, then I think I can relate to you. Keep up the good work, Ryan at Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:26 PM from remnantsaflame@xxx.xxx
thank you for writing in, and with a series of interesting questions. In your response to one of the letters posted on August 10th, you mentioned that an article that you'd written on metal and jazz would appear in the very near future. Are you still planning on posting this article? (It hasn't shown up somewhere other than ANUS, has it? I don't see it on the homepage, and the Metal page doesn't seem to lead to it, nor is there a sign of it on the links on your profile to your music and metal writings.) i haven't linked it yet, as it's an exclusive with metaljazz.com, so i'd like to give him and his readers time to appreciate it before we link it. however, the link is here: http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/jazz-metal I'm really looking forward to reading your thoughts on jazz, and seeing how you'd compare and contrast it with metal. In fact, I'm curious to know what you think if "improvisational" music in general. It seems that it'd inherently be the antithesis of the reasons you value classical and metal as highly as you do, but I could be wrong. I wonder, would you could consider jazz, or artsy fartsy noise bands, "degenerate"? My gut instinct tells me that the answer is: yes. insightful. i shy away from the term degenerate, because it brings on so many connotations. what i would rather do is say that i differ from jazz in artistic aims, and note that, like rock, when jazz chose to get progressive it went toward more structured music, like the later experiments of ornette coleman. another way to say this is that life delivers a response to what you aim for, and those who aim for unstructured music get a certain way of life/thinking out of it, and those who aim for structured music have an entirely different approach and reward. jazz, like the postmodern novel, consists of linking together widely disparate ideas with a narrow bandwidth of unifying thought or metaphor; conventional literature uses a wider bandwidth of metaphor, and so goes deeper into its material, and its unification matches every part to every other part (architectonic). i find this more challenging and believe it will be more mentally rewarding for those who practice it, but people are not equal so it is possible that some are going to aim for jazz and find its rewards match their abilities and inclinations. Always enjoy your take on music, as I do ANUS in general. I used to worry that when it comes to the high standards you hold people to, I may not make the cut (yes, I'm revealing that I've struggled with deficient insecurities), but I've come to realize that you're probably pretty much "a guy like me" (to put it in very oversimplified terms -- and don't take that as an insult, I'm not trying to "knock you down", I have a lot of respect for you). I mean, as far as I know, you eat, sleep, shit, piss, cum, bleed, love music, wonder what's wrong with this crazy world, feel that the societal system (and not to mention all the concrete and plastic) we've been born into is all wrong, and yet (hopefully) have experiences in life and interactions with people that you wouldn't trade for anything. If you can say that this (admittedly broad) description fits you, then I think I can relate to you. sure. another way to put it: i'm human. i do the best i can with what i've learned. i think, unlike many, i've been fortunate to be able to explore this life in depth and witness many opinion-changing events, mainly by getting myself into and out of difficult situations. other than that, and my instinct as a writer, i'm standard human being with standard human flaws and weaknesses. however, i'm at war with those, which might not be standard in this time thank you for the kind words on the ANUS. we keep writing for it because we're gifted with insightful and curious readers like yourself, people who despite a failing, dying, broken human world are still seeking a level above techno-subsistence living. look for new writings soon! cheers
I was alerted to this post that the Late Jesse Pintado died of AIDS.
This is a false allegation that unless you have proof it should not be posted.
Iam a family member of the Late Jesse and he did not die of aids.
He was not thinner and thinner. Please get your facts straight before posting any
absurd bullshit. As the Pintado family we are deeply hurt by this post.
It has been known to the world that Jesse passed on due to Liver Failure due to alcohol addiction.
We request an apology for this false allegation. Pintado Family at Monday, August 27, 2007 3:05 PM from yaquilove@altrionet.com
i don't know why you assume that:
1) i would automatically accept that you're from the pintado family
we stand by our sources. jesse pintado died of AIDS, and the resulting
coverup was designed to protect his family, but ANUS.com is a pro-truth site
because we believe truth is more important than worrying about whether we've
offended someone. if you have medical evidence to submit, go ahead, but our
source was closely connected with the medical authorities overseeing the
investigation of pintado's death and it's clear this was an AIDS-related
illness. please send whatever evidence you have and we will consider it.
V. Prozak
Hello, I'm sure this is so far belated it may be irrelevant.... but I just read your comments on Chuck S. and Death. After I read them I decided to look up Chuck's comments on Christianity and so forth and found that although he himself embraced Christianity on a personal level he decidedly kept religion seperate from his music. I dont understand why you would pick apart someone who is a deceased metal legend who actually progressed metal away from generic labeling and ignorant attitudes toward a scene that actually has become so huge alot of us as musicians can develope a lifestyle around it. I really hope that you understand that satanism is used mostly as imagery in metal music. Read Jon from dissections final interview.......and this is not coming from a Christian perspective of your comments. You ultimately have to be a fascist to not let someone have their own personal views and opinions without getting ridiculed. Why don't you fucking ridicule someone with personal beliefs associated with astrology, hinduism, buddhism, zoastorism, satanism- BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL RELIGIONS YOU IGNORANT PRICK! People like you a a plague to the modern world because your exactly like the shitheads you hate-Judgmental asshole right wing christians like George W. Bush and Pat Robertson. If I was you I would drop your metal persona and join a group that fits you like they did! See you in hell~ at Thursday, September 6, 2007 3:28 PM from the_path_of_blood@yahoo.com
i disagree: people like you are a plague on this world because of your ignorance and yet your assumption and conviction that you are right. your "logic" is full of holes. for example, you tell me i'm intolerant of others and imply that each person on earth is entitled to his beliefs, and then you tell me mine are ignorant and should not exist. you have just become a hypocrite by committing the same sin of which you accuse me. you forget that in reality, some things ARE wrong -- and that chuck's opinions are ones that smart people with a silence of mind can ascertain are stupid and destructive. but you would rather revenge yourself on others for not tolerating stupidity, even though it will eventually exterminate our species or reduce it to the point of uselessness. you are the problem; chuck is the problem. you are part of the same mental delusion that has afflicted this society for centuries, and taken it from greatness to a complete poverty of intellect or spirit or even bravery -- but we do have all these neat toys, and any idiot whose metal band appeals to other fools is assumed to have the "right" to speak untruth and insist he has the right to that untruth. if you read history, you will see i am right and you are wrong. unlike you, i don't pretend that each person is right. i don't pretend that every point of view is important. unlike you, i'm over the drama of myself and my ego and have moved onward (new concept for humanity) to embracing reality and being determined to make not just the best of it but something better of it. and you, in contrast, what do you have to offer? angry criticism and bitter ness. the ideas you defend have failed; you are part of the old, stodgy, conservative and stupid world order that has failed humanity. the ideas i speak are for the future, and for those brave enough to escape the traps that enmire you. consider change <-- this is the best advice you'll receive all year
V. Prozak
hi,i love your site i have folowing question to ask you and sorry for my english 1.Your concept of pan-nationalism seems fragile.For example a Hungarian Nationalist will always think that Erdely is Hungarian teritory while a Romanian natonalist will militantly deny that.Serbian Nationalist will always point out that 700.000 Serbs were killed during ww2 in camp Jasenovac by Croatian Ustashe,while Croatian Nationalist will say that is a lie.There is no unity among nationalist only hate.There never will be they have tendencies to be blind and intolerant to other cultures.I think you are not seeing flaws of current nationalists,they are mostly christan,conservative,anti-gay, fachistic idiots.They are kind of a relic of the past(19 century).How do you think pan-natonalism can work? 2.You advocate Fascism witch takes freedom away from people and ancient pagan values.But the old indoeuropeian cultures (Greek,Germans,Celts,Slavs..) valued freedom a lot because they know it was esential to human spirit.They praised it in music,epics,myths.They fought and died in battles so they can be free and so they culture and genetics would survived. Like water,food and air freedom is basic need of human existance,when humans dont have it they feel oppresed. And you are now living in Fascism,your freedom is being taken from you every day by useless unnecery states. Ideal of ancient times is not Fascism but anarchy. 3.You claim that you dont belive in conspiracy teories,yet you claim that jews own most of worlds wealth and that they support the Left. 4.You deny the fact that Nietzsche valued individualism above all else 5.I find your opoinion that Slavs are not indoeuropian but asiatic race and that they are product of product of mixed heritages(ok Bulgarians are) to be racist.And you claim that most western europians dislike slavs(ok that is true) because of what happened in Russia (What happened i russia happened in france a century before,i dont see people hating french because of it) and a history of failure among the Slavic people.And which failure that may be defeating napoleon or the fact while the whole europe was in ruins and all europian nations were crushed by the nazis slavs were the only ones resisting and fighting them in bigest front in human history in wich germans(aryans) were defeated by slavs(slaves,scum,lower race) and pushed back from the east,and only after nazis have been defeated in the east americans and british had landed(they just waited like cunts for russians to finish the job) purly to take glory of defeating germany(today the world is flooded whit american propaganda how americans freed the whole world,and they wont admit europe was libereted by slavic blood).But i agree whit your oponion that there are idiot slavs and that there are great slavs(that is true for any race).In way i see things slavs have their own land(and a lot of it) germanic nations their own land,and every one should be living among there own.I from the perspective of the slav find germanic mentality to be too cold and spiritless,and becouse of that i could never live among them.Only in slavic land i feel like home.The other nations would say the same thing.Thats why for good of slavs all slavs living in lets say london sould be deported home(for good of the british too,but who cares about them) 6.If you love culture so much why are you living in america.You should go back to europe.Europe is center of the world. I never saw america but i saw australia so that gives my prety much the picture how america is.What i saw was shity junkpile,it has no artistic value.Its nothing compered to other places i wisited before(prag,viena,bukurest ,zagreb,belgrade).And from what read this organisation is from texsas.Now may ask you why whould someone inteligent want to live in texsas? 7.You claim that americans are more socialy mature than europians.I dont see how could that be.Care to explain how? 8.I like the idea of Hessian subculture,but its name is germanic.Is made for germanic people only.Can jew or chinese man be a Hessian? at Friday, September 7, 2007 3:00 PM from lord feanor@xxx.xxx
thanks for writing in with all these interesting questions. hi,i love your site i have folowing question to ask you and sorry for my english we're not picky about english, because the english aren't picky enough for us. 1.Your concept of pan-nationalism seems fragile.For example a Hungarian Nationalist will always think that Erdely is
Hungarian teritory while a Romanian natonalist will militantly deny that.Serbian Nationalist will always point out
that 700.000 Serbs were killed during ww2 in camp Jasenovac by Croatian Ustashe,while Croatian Nationalist will say that
is a lie.There is no unity among nationalist only hate.There never will be they have tendencies to be blind and intolerant
to other cultures.I think you are not seeing flaws of current nationalists,they are mostly christan,conservative,anti-gay,
fachistic idiots.They are kind of a relic of the past(19 century).How do you think pan-natonalism can work? most nationalists now are screwups but so are most people. for example, most of the liberals i know are disorganized people who are motivated by hatred as well, it's just that their hatred is less rigid in its form and more socially-driven. i don't think there's much of a difference, do you? the whole point of nationalism is that we don't need to make such distinctions. what is the ethnic-cultural makeup of a land? that is who it belongs to, and we can use historical continuity to make better decisions. for example, if hungary only recently started accepting russian immigrants, it is still a land for hungarians. the idea of pan-nationalism is that we recognize that we must unite to defeat globalism, because each of us wants the same thing: a space for our people ruled by our cultural values. 2.You advocate Fascism witch takes freedom away from people and ancient pagan values.But the old indoeuropeian cultures
(Greek,Germans,Celts,Slavs..) valued freedom a lot because they know it was esential to human spirit.They praised it in music,epics,myths.They fought and died in battles so they can be free and so they culture and genetics would survived.
Like water,food and air freedom is basic need of human existance,when humans dont have it they feel oppresed.
And you are now living in Fascism,your freedom is being taken from you every day by useless unnecery states.
Ideal of ancient times is not Fascism but anarchy. i don't believe in this split between "freedom" and "fascism," because most people in fascist states consider themselves free; freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose, and so on, because anyone can define it however they want. what it means is an ability to live a sane life un-obstructed by others, and we clearly don't have that in the democratic west. fascism eliminates many obstacles to a more plausible definition of freedom. anarchy is a failure, if you want an organized society. it is tempting because we all know how people use being part of a group as an excuse to do less than they must. but in groups, there are some advantages as well. 3.You claim that you dont belive in conspiracy teories,yet you claim that jews own most of worlds wealth and that they
support the Left. we don't believe in conspiracy theories, but we do believe in published statistics about the distribution of wealth among ethnic groups. we do not use it as the basis of a conspiracy theory, however, and note that other ethnic groups have much wealth and power as well. our point is that any society that allows lobbying by wealth will rapidly become owned by invisible oligarchs, of many ethnicities and inclinations. 4.You deny the fact that Nietzsche valued individualism above all else yes, because he didn't. nietzsche did not trust uniformity, but he also knew that what most people call "individualism" is a callow excuse for being unrealistic. that's why zarathustra's ultimate act was to transcend himself. 5.I find your opoinion that Slavs are not indoeuropian but asiatic race and that they are product of product of mixed heritages(ok Bulgarians are) to be racist.And you claim that most western europians dislike slavs(ok that is true) because of what happened in Russia (What happened i russia happened in france a century before,i dont see people hating french because of it) and a history of failure among the Slavic people.And which failure that may be defeating napoleon or the fact while the whole europe was in ruins and all europian nations were crushed by the nazis slavs were the only ones resisting and
fighting them in bigest front in human history in wich germans(aryans) were defeated by slavs(slaves,scum,lower race) and pushed back from the east,and only after nazis have been defeated in the east americans and british had landed(they just
waited like cunts for russians to finish the job) purly to take glory of defeating germany(today the world is flooded whit
american propaganda how americans freed the whole world,and they wont admit europe was libereted by slavic blood).But i
agree whit your oponion that there are idiot slavs and that there are great slavs(that is true for any race).In way i see
things slavs have their own land(and a lot of it) germanic nations their own land,and every one should be living among there
own.I from the perspective of the slav find germanic mentality to be too cold and spiritless,and becouse of that i could never live among them.Only in slavic land i feel like home.The other nations would say the same thing.Thats why for good
of slavs all slavs living in lets say london sould be deported home(for good of the british too,but who cares about them) slavs need their own land, and their own natural selection. they don't belong in western europe. russia failed to stop the mongols, and then executed its upper castes; while the french did the same, it was to a lesser extreme. 6.If you love culture so much why are you living in america.You should go back to europe.Europe is center of the world.
I never saw america but i saw australia so that gives my prety much the picture how america is.What i saw was
shity junkpile,it has no artistic value.Its nothing compered to other places i wisited before(prag,viena,bukurest ,zagreb,belgrade).And from what read this organisation is from texsas.Now may ask you why whould someone inteligent want to
live in texsas?
1. you don't run away from problems 7.You claim that americans are more socialy mature than europians.I dont see how could that be.Care to explain how? americans are more socially aware, and so have a kind of effortless hipness when it comes to justifying their choices by lifestyle. europeans are more functionalist. there is more to say on this, but it awaits an upcoming writing. 8.I like the idea of Hessian subculture,but its name is germanic.Is made for germanic people only.Can jew or chinese man
be a Hessian? absolutely, but as hessians are nationalist, they need their own tribes within the hessian realm:
http://israel.hessian.org/ see how pan-nationalism works WITHIN another concept, that of hessianism? i appreciate your questions and hope my answers were interesting.
V. Prozak
Thank you for answering my questions. 1.But how are we to determent to who does erdely belong to to romanians or hungarians? 2.Ok but i always thought that in Fascism states people feel oppresed.But then again i live in so called free state and again i feel opresed.I feel opresed becose forests are beeing cutten away,earth is beeing poluted and overpopuleted,spirit of the old europe is almost dead.And while we live on the edge of doom everyone is concerned with saving few childern in africa, new magic thing on the tv-shop or christian pity for the weak.My curse is that i have to watch all this,i feel like casandra.Look i want these things fixed but i dont want to give up my freedom. 5.Yes Russia failed to stop the mongols but so did china, tibet, seljuks, cumans ,semirchye ,darya,turcs,some arab caliphates,koreya.Russians were outnumbered,Russia did fell but so did almost whole asia.And it is idiotic to hold for that one defeat and to overlook the glorious victorys that slavs had such as defeating hitler and napoleon.And i find the stance of this site that slavs are not of indoeuropian blood to be offending. 6.Im glad to see a american accepting that there is real big problem in american culture(if you ask me the word american culture is oxymoron) P.S You should consider putting on anus section about military marches.I think that inteligent hessians realy enjoy that music.And i warmly recommend you and all readers of this site to listen to Russian Red Army Choir. at Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:04 PM from lordfeanor@xxx.xxx
good to hear from you again. 1.But how are we to determent to who does erdely belong to to romanians or hungarians? the romanian and hungarian ethnic groups are quite distinct; i would take a look at the people in the land, and give them to one or the other based on their group. if they're mixed, they're now a new nation unless they desire one side or the other. 2.Ok but i always thought that in Fascism states people feel oppresed.But then again i live in
so called free state and again i feel opresed.I feel opresed becose forests are beeing cutten
away,earth is beeing poluted and overpopuleted,spirit of the old europe is almost dead.And while we live on the edge of doom everyone is concerned with saving few childern in africa,
new magic thing on the tv-shop or christian pity for the weak.My curse is that i have to watch all this,i feel like casandra.Look i want these things fixed but i dont want to give up my freedom. "freedom" is an illusion. there's a lot you cannot do in a free state. in an "unfree" state, as the language would have you believe it, you can do everything you can do in a free state, unless it's:
a) against the state if you look closely, you'll find that the same thing as penalized in "free" states, but they won't tell you about it in advance. fascism wins for honesty, with me. 5.Yes Russia failed to stop the mongols but so did china, tibet, seljuks, cumans ,semirchye ,darya,turcs,some arab caliphates,koreya.Russians were outnumbered,Russia did fell but so did almost whole asia.And it is idiotic to hold for that one defeat and to overlook the glorious victorys that slavs had such as defeating hitler and napoleon.And i find the stance of this site that slavs are not of indoeuropian blood to be offending. russia failed because it could not unite; militarily, it had a chance to defeat the mongols but did not through its preening, self-obsessed, dramatic behavior. it thus passed on the problem to europe, and as a conquered stated aided the mongols against europe. forevermore, russians are not european, but eurasian. 6.Im glad to see a american accepting that there is real big problem in american culture(if you ask me the word american culture is oxymoron) america is a marketplace. it's also the ultimate free state. it's your future, being america, unless you change the path of your own country! P.S You should consider putting on anus section about military marches.I think that inteligent hessians realy enjoy that music.And i warmly recommend you and all readers of this site to listen to Russian Red Army Choir. i agree on both counts, especially if they sing in "old church slavonic" which is more sensible than modern russian, which sounds like the lisping of a drunk syphilitic in comparison. if you can get together a list of pieces and recordings that are not limited to russian marches, we can float the suggestion on audiofile on the metal forum.
V. Prozak
Hello Prozak,
I'm a frequent reader of the site, I have a few questions for you. I post on quite a few message boards fortunately your fame quite exceeds you, which in no doubt you know. I've been discussing the site with a member on a message board, I post on. Like many people he relies on Straw Man and Ad Hominem arguments. Most directed towards you and ANUS.com affiliates. Here is said persons statements: "There isn't any power behind black metal though (funny teen to early 20 year old idealists who think they're revolutionaries) and to think it can propel any sort of ideology past the mental age of 14 (like I said before) is just rather hysterical to me." "black metal is by no means esoteric or even very cool anymore (not even Prozak listens to much BM anymore and he doesn't take himself very seriously at all." " I don't see corrupt.org promoting any sort of goal except mentioning different extreme ideologies (guess that sort of thing might be profound to very sheltered people who grew up in the suburbs with rich mommies and daddies...) that appease to easily manipulated depressed 15-20 year olds who hate themselves and listen to shitty black metal (which is now a popular form of music distributed by MTV and other popular media outlets and probably the reason you came to discover his site in the first place.)" How do you feel about his critique if it could be called that of said, ideologies, ideas and people involved with the site? Do you believe the ideas presented on this site are only to produce Hubris? Are you "a confused guy I think. Has NS beliefs but comes from a mixed racial background" according to Robert: http://www.biodiversityforum.com/an-interview-with-a-satanist-t9174-s14.html I'd like to see your opinions. Good day sir Josh at Monday, September 10, 2007 6:38 PM from deeds.25@xxx.xxx
thanks for sending this in, and for your belief in what we're doing. you're right about this fellow being one giant ad hominem + straw man attack, but that's common for people who are not able to engage the content they criticize. here are some point-by-point analyses: I'm a frequent reader of the site, I have a few questions for you. I post on quite a few message boards fortunately your fame quite exceeds you, which in no doubt you know. my hope in having organizations with whom i work is that focus is no longer on the person, who is not exciting, but on the ideas which are abstractions that reveal reality. that might sound like a paradox to some, but most of the best learnings of humanity were originally seen as paradoxical and now are accepted as fact. I've been discussing the site with a member on a message board, I post on. Like many people he relies on Straw Man and Ad Hominem arguments. Most directed towards you and ANUS.com affiliates. most people would not last long in a structured debate, and this person is no exception. he seems too accustomed to convincing people in pubs that he is right, not knowing that behind those nods and agreement is a highly socialized apathy. structured debate is different: people care about truth in argumentative form first, and later about who is witty or popular. it's the exact inverse of the "social debate" with which he seems to be familiar. Here is said persons statements:
"There isn't any power behind black metal though (funny teen to early 20 year old idealists who think they're revolutionaries) and to think it can propel any sort of ideology past the mental age of 14 (like I said before) is just rather hysterical to me."
"black metal is by no means esoteric or even very cool anymore (not even Prozak listens to much BM anymore and he doesn't take himself very seriously at all." cool? what is this "cool"? when we are speaking of artistic movements, the last thing we care about is their trend-worthiness, because people who follow trends seem to have little going on except participation in something which they feel gives them place in an anomic society. black metal is quite possibly the only legitimate artistic movement of the generation which hit their 20s in the early 1990s, meaning the generation who were the children of the baby boomers and early hippies in USA and europe. i have not found another artistic movement which captured the imagination of so many and was not a populist sham which disguised old and dead ideas as something new and vital; black metal reached toward ancient yet eternally vital ideas, and make them relevant to their audience. it is esoteric in that one can view it simply as music, or take a path into interpreting it, and through that learn more and discover that many of its "random" symbols were in fact a highly structured take on a philosophy of existence. as a result, almost all of its audience are unaware of its full belief system, but they don't need to be, as its subconscious symbolism removes from them many aspects of guilt and fear, and gives them a new outlook on existence even if it is not an explicit ideology. now it makes sense to think about how an un-ideology can become an ideology. if i begin to see the beauty in winter and predators like wolves, and cheer the mechanism of nature that kills the weak and exhalts the strong, i am no longer without an ideology, because i have begun to see natural selection as important -- more important than the guilt and dogma conditioned into me by a society of people who repeat what they see on television. and then i wonder why immortal are so proud to be norwegian, or why enslaved uphold their folk traditions so highly, or why burzum is so devoted to the idea of higher-caste divisions of the white races predominating, and i can explore those issues even if i don't join some political party about them. black metal, like all artistic movements, attacks explicit dogmas with this kind of ambiguous, esoteric aesthetic -- this is the same type of outlook nietzsche advocated in "thus spoke zarathustra." when we live in a time where most people (rock bands, politicians, hipsters) are dishonest and do what they do to gain attention, people do not believe anything is serious, even if a lack of the serious is what keeps them miserable. this is the same case with your homeboy on those forums, in that he sees black metal as an odd shade of rock music and refuses to take it seriously. the problem thus is his own, and not the fault of the music, which is to be expected in esoteric art forms: unlike explicit forms of manipulative product which state their outlook so as to appeal to an audience and sell themselves, black metal is a ludic genre which demands exploration in order to learn enough to see the hints it drops at a numinous truth behind its aesthetic. again, i expect 1% of the population who listen to it will "fully" understand it, and they will be metal fanatics; another 9% will find its ideas intriguing enough to adopt, and for the remaining 90%, it will be a curiosity. "I don't see corrupt.org promoting any sort of goal except mentioning different extreme ideologies (guess that sort of thing might be profound to very sheltered people who grew up in the suburbs with rich mommies and daddies...) that appease to easily manipulated depressed 15-20 year olds who hate themselves and listen to shitty black metal (which is now a popular form of music distributed by MTV and other popular media outlets and probably the reason you came to discover his site in the first place.)" his first three words, "i don't see," summarize the situation here: problem is between keyboard and chair. i think he has made himself unwilling to take certain things seriously, and as a result, cannot find meaning in them. well, that is no surprise. if i pick up a book, and tell myself it is nothing but lies, and as i read it repeat "it's all lies," i will confuse myself to the point where any truth within it will seem a lie. to robert, as to all our detractors, i suggest actually exploring our views and asking questions, because we have much in common with all who are critical in this society. our goal has been not to style ourselves as different but to find commonality, because our ultimate intention is to get people together on a consensus about how society should be run so we can change the current one. How do you feel about his critique if it could be called that of said, ideologies, ideas and people involved with the site? Do you believe the ideas presented on this site are only to produce Hubris? Are you "a confused guy I think. Has NS beliefs but comes from a mixed racial background" according to Robert: http://www.biodiversityforum.com/an-interview-with-a-satanist-t9174-s14.html i would like this not to be about me, or any "facts" about me that are incorrect; this is about an ideology, and how we will make it work in our society for the bettering of humanity. our goal is to make change. most of the people you encounter on internet forums are there to talk, and to make themselves feel more important for the "ideologies" they espouse. our ideology is not a mix of others so much as it is a clarification of the intersection of others, since one of the greatest trends of our time is to style oneself as unique by adopting an ideology and having an "unexpected" variation of it. this is tiring. the basics of all ideologies were laid out thousands of years ago by greeks and ancient indians, and ever since then most of our political scientists and revolutionaries have done nothing but confuse the issue. we are about returning to clarity. for example, we are nationalists, but we refuse to join the nationalist establishment which says one must view nationalism as the ONLY solution, and to implement it with rancor toward other ethnic groups. caucasians need to accept that our problems begin and end with us, and if we see issues like multiculturalism causing problems, it's because we allowed our values to decay to a point where our cultures have been replaced by a marketplace. it's that simple, and it's that free of hatred. what we need to do is get back on track, but nationalism alone won't do it; nationalism is one of the ingredients in the recipe for the cake that is a future society with less failure hardwired into it. some people are bothered by our green stance, but what we've done with environmentalism is to take away from it the unrelated liberal views that were added by greens to try to get a broader audience. environmentalism has nothing to do with human rights, because environmentalism by itself is not a complete ideology any more than nationalism is. it's another ingredient. same goes with socialism, biological determinism/realism, and other beliefs we have. this causes some to see our beliefs as confused, but that is because these people are looking for simplistic, symbolic answers where one ingredient makes a meal.
q: How do you make a cake? I'd like to see your opinions. Good day sir thank you for sending them along; i hope i helped. i'd like to stress again that these organizations are not about myself. i choose to be anonymous, to be invisible, and not to use the internet for social purposes so that i can keep the focus on ideas. true, someone must present them, and that person will always be attacked, but those who are interested in real solutions to the human dilemma will be more drawn to the ideas than to the people who maintain them. to people like robert, i'd say: give us a chance -- do some reading on our sites with an open mind, starting at www.corrupt.org/data, and come back with any questions you might have. in every ideology, there are a range of interpretations; some are more reasonable than others (a form of esotericism unrecognized by most) and in all ideologies, we will find commonality with these, and then show them how they would have to apply themselves to achieve those goals. our path is not one which will make us popular, but we are fortunate to be able to offer actual solutions, which is why i think that people like robert who think they hate us are doing themselves a disservice by not getting to know us and what we stand for in reality.
V. Prozak
Hi, I have a rather cheesy question... Maybe there's something I've missed on this site, but to according to a nihilist, what do you think comes after death? I could write a whole book about how I converted my mind on how I changed as a person, but basically put: for the first 15 years of my life, I wasn't exactly a christian, but technically was a catholic and was used to the christian, and of course I believed in Jesus Christ as being my lord and saviour but I never really went to church that often. Right now, I'm an atheist. After all this confusion I've gone through myself, I realized that the most convenient way of living life is accepting that it is meaningless, and that it's foolish to bow down and pray to a supreme being that doesn't really help me, and I don't think it helps most christians anyway. I'm sure they just think it helps them, but only results in making their lives confused. Hence, I am a proud atheist now and I also agree with most things I've read on this website. Thing is, I thought there was always a convenient thought about christianity. After death, you go to heaven. Thus, I'm not 0% christian just yet. What do YOU think comes after death? at Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:35 PM from terminef@xxx.xxx
you pose a classic question that people for thousands of years have asked themselves. let's examine this quote from arthur schopenhauer: "If in everyday life, you are asked about continued existence after death by one of those people who would like to know everything but refuse to learn anything, the most appropriate and approximately correct answer is: 'After your death you will be what you were before your birth.' For this answer implies that it is preposterous to demand that a species of existence which had a beginning should not have an end; in addition, however, it contains a hint that there may be two kinds of existence and, correspondingly, two kinds of nothingness." what makes christianity nuts, is that it seems to be a cover-up for death-denial. people see the animals in nature dying every day and think to themselves "that could be me." at one point they realize that it one day WILL be them. when we've come this far, we've got two basic options: a) accept fate b) deny fate the former accepts death as a natural part of life. as schopenhauer mentions, every beginning must have an end. the latter denies it and tries to replace it with something else: anti-death, or immortality. immortality in a metaphoric sense is interesting: people can compose great works of art and continue to live on through them. immortality as an organic view on life makes sense: we will all die, but life as a whole continues forevermore. thus we understand that we're just a part of this system and we as human beings are just temporary forms of energy that soon will be transformed (death) into something else. into...new life? i will leave you with these thoughts. i think it's important to think about these things on your own and face them with a curious and open mind. ingmar bergman directed a film called "the seventh seal." in it, he comes to a surprisingly rational conlusion: denying death helps no one, but focusing too much on the same creates neurotic people. solution? accept it and move on. human life is ultimately great, despite its impermanence.
Greetings,
Question: Do you plan to update your website anytime soon? It's fairly out of date, i'd go as far as to say stagnant. For a website who is keeping things supposedly true, you have a relatively short & old list of mainly 90s/earlier era coporate style underground favorite bands that are, in my view, mostly all has-beens & misleading to any new-comer. Where are the (mostly) post millenium cult works worthy of recognition e.g. Blut Aus Nord, Control Human Delete, Bal Sagoth, Kroda, Nortt, Sadistik Exekution, Thunderbolt, V.E.G.A., Wyrd, Decapitated, Mithras, Strapping Young Lad, Grinded Nig, Deuterium, Goretorture, Lord Wind, for example.
Also, Jonathan. at Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:42 AM from jonathanjp04@xxx.xxx
i agree that the website is stalled and stagnant. problem: many tasks exist on several websites, and since others can only do some of them, i am short of time. where i disagree is the list of bands. our goal is not to include those who emulate the originals, or who are adapting to fit an aesthetic without creating the cognitive path that originally engendered that aesthetic. we plan to have more lord wind in the future, and i don't know deuterium or kroda, but the rest are not included for a reason. i also find your definition of older death metal as "corporate" to reveal a lack of understanding of the history: at the time of release, all of these bands were on independent labels that have subsequently grown or been bought out. the contemporary "independent" and "underground" black metal bands might as well come to us from large corporations, as they have no indepedent creativity, artistic conveyance of meaningful information, or really any authenticity, being recombinant emulations of past succeses. a few exceptions, like averse sefira and demoncy, will have full reviews as we get to them. look for updates in the future, probably about 60-90 days from now.
V. Prozak
Dear mr editor i really find this pic a bit disgusting http://anus.com/etc/infoterror/images/Taste.jpg I mean yeah I am an Indian n trust me I hate India more than most people. I find religions n traditions disgusting n blind faith makes me puke. n I am a lover of dark art/illustriations n was thinking of sending u some artwork of mine. But about this pic, dont u think its wrong mocking people who have lost their loved ones. Yes, people who r filthy n ugly but they have lost someone they love so we should respect that. Tsunami caused many casualties n left many children roofless. Instead of this pic, had there been a pic of someone mocking the indian culture/traditions/god I would have LOVED that. Its not even a matter of whether the people whom u hav presented r indian r not. I wud have still emailed u even if they were americans. I wouldnt even have bothered emailing u if this was just any other website. But since ur website speaks of "focus on the real world" & which i assume is a bit anarchical,I am e-mailing this to u. Well hope u get my point. at Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:55 PM from sarabjit9999@xxx.xxx
i agree, it's a pretty offending image. in some sense, it's a mockery of modern humanism, which places emphasis on individual lives instead of real world consequences. in this case, it's about the environmental destruction of our planet that is retaliating against an industrial society gone mad. we're not really into mocking indian traditions or indian religion. in fact, we like ancient hinduism quite a bit and find it highly truthful. nihilism means we don't moralize over reality and that means we, in theory, could mock indian traditions as well, but we see no point in that. same goes with this picture: it's pretty tasteless (see filename) to mock those who've lost their beloved ones, but since we're all in this game called life and at some point need to die, we should be able to laugh about it. especially when we pollute our planet and then whine over environmental catastrophes that lead to human death. we'd be interested in seeing your art creations, please submit your works to the same address. nwubifv wkige zejmfkxp pyfxecj vtquyz bkivlyrxm mphlcxs at Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:35 PM from whjbdi@mail.com
sorry, we don't speak polish :(
Hi Prozac,
I hope you don't mind this rather lengthy email...I understand if you're too busy to get into the fine details or whatever...I'm just hoping you can point me in a new direction...something I've overlooked maybe... ----- I feel I've been enlightened on many things here. I gain a lot of strength from the teachings here and I believe in the work we're doing and want to stay here and help it grow. I've learned how to free myself from different personal issues, come to realize more of the profound corruption in the world...my critical process has been sharpened considerably. However, I still can't figure out a direction that makes sense in regards to my own society, my 'people' and culture. It seems the more I read the more depressing the situation becomes...where as virtually any other topic I explore through here I end up feeling empowerment and inspiration. I can't apply the societal ideas you set forth to my own country...I can't see how it fits. It's something that continually obstructs my development here....when I follow the logic it always ends in frustration, in despair, or at least in a continuing sense of isolation... I've read through many sections including pan-nationalism. I understand and admire the ideas, I just can't translate them for Canada or the states even....it seems like they only make sense for countries with a reasonably strong pre-existing cultural history, something I think doesn't exist here. If nationalism was imposed say here in BC, what happens to the different ethnicities that live here? There are extremely large populations of every kind of ethnic group and many have been here for a very long time, many much longer than the throngs of 'white' people who have moved here from other parts of Canada even in the last few decades (me included). To me they all seem to have equal claim here... If we segregated though, made up the province into different sovereign nations, we'd still have conflict as we'd all be so close to each other, there would be no logical way of divvying things up... And you talk about the uselessness of the "white" classification, but isn't that the only logical thing we could use in a country like this? (from your http://anus.com/zine/articles/nazi/ ) "Further, "white power" people want to accept all "whites" as being of the same tribe, which is error. The French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any "white nationalist" who endorses mixing Indo-European tribes clearly doesn't understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed "white" people as English, and you can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves ethnically as well as politically." This is about as detailed of an answer as I have found so far...but even so seems contradictory. You have suggested to some with mixed heritage in your letters to basically fuck off to the middle east even... I have no idea what an alpinized germanocelt is (a joke?), but again how do you draw the lines? When does it become "not ok" to mix? Isn't it only wrong when it is an indefinably changing process? Can't we fix that then by simply stopping all new people from coming in, deporting 1st generation immigrants and figuring out something with a total mix of the rest? I don't want that though...I don't want to mix any more than I already am...but if it's for a reason, for something new and meaningful, I think I would take that route...but I don't think that it would turn out to be meaningful...or at least it would be pointless as 99.9% of others won't care...if I breed with a Scottish person (I'm different parts french, czech, german, small amount native), that's what I'd be doing though, even though they're "white"...I'd be mixing more..making things potentially worse... Do people of just general European ancestry (indo-europeans??) have certain special parts that Asians for example can never be able to join in on? I think we discarded ALL those "special" parts as soon as our ancestors got off the boat! It's always been a free for all here! People came here originally for social freedoms and material opportunism and that's why people continue to come here! See the loops I'm going through? There doesn't seem to be any solution...I wish we could just start over again somehow...form small villages and war with each other until bigger and bigger groups are formed....not even any possibility for new foreign genes...community would be too important for survival, no cheap transportation, no airplanes...new cultures formed organically by trust and a symbioses with nature.... Nature...that is the only Canadian thing I can trust...that gives me some kind of strength....the only thing it seems it's worth just simply PRESERVING rather than always...reconstructing...
got some things working, so time for a slightly more detailed response. I feel I've been enlightened on many things here. I gain a lot of strength
from the teachings here and I believe in the work we're doing and want to
stay here and help it grow. I've learned how to free myself from different
personal issues, come to realize more of the profound corruption in the
world...my critical process has been sharpened considerably. i'm glad we are able to contribute to your understanding and enjoyment of life, or so i hope. yes, the situation is bleak, but one genius aspect of nature is how quickly it can turn around otherwise hopeless-seeming situations. for example, humanity barely made it to this stage... it's a question of moving forward from here. However, I still can't figure out a direction that makes sense in regards to
my own society, my 'people' and culture. any such direction is going to have several parts. these are:
1) unite culture as a sort of foundation, with more details therein. basic synopsis: become a civilization again. It seems the more I read the more depressing the situation becomes...where
as virtually any other topic I explore through here I end up feeling
empowerment and inspiration. I can't apply the societal ideas you set forth
to my own country...I can't see how it fits. this is the thesis statement of your email, so i'm highlighting it. It's something that continually
obstructs my development here....when I follow the logic it always ends in
frustration, in despair, or at least in a continuing sense of isolation...
I've read through many sections including pan-nationalism. I understand and admire the ideas, I just can't translate them for Canada or the states even....it seems like they only make sense for countries with a reasonably strong pre-existing cultural history, something I think doesn't exist here.
canada is a nation-state, composed of several nations, mostly english, scots and german. french canada is a different story. do not let the moderns fool you with their definition games. canada is like the usa a colony of england, and should look toward the anglo-saxon tradition (not its new world, commercially-derived replacement) as a source of its true culture. If nationalism was imposed say here in BC, what happens to the different
ethnicities that live here? deprived of work and housing, they would emigrate back home. this would benefit their home countries immensely and would help reduce population overflow. There are extremely large populations of every
kind of ethnic group and many have been here for a very long time, many much
longer than the throngs of 'white' people who have moved here from other
parts of Canada even in the last few decades (me included). To me they all
seem to have equal claim here... If we segregated though, made up the
province into different sovereign nations, we'd still have conflict as we'd
all be so close to each other, there would be no logical way of divvying
things up... moral thinking is illusory; ask instead: what would make the best society? no matter what you do, including if you do nothing, someone will be hurt and offended. so ignore that, as it will only make you moribund. And you talk about the uselessness of the "white" classification, but isn't
that the only logical thing we could use in a country like this?
(from your http://anus.com/zine/articles/nazi/ ) "Further, "white power" people want to accept all "whites" as being of the same tribe, which is error. The French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any "white nationalist" who endorses mixing Indo-European tribes clearly doesn't understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed "white" people as English, and you can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves ethnically as well as politically." This is about as detailed of an answer as I have found so far...but even so seems contradictory. You have suggested to some with mixed heritage in your letters to basically fuck off to the middle east even... I have no idea what an alpinized germanocelt is (a joke?), but again how do you draw the lines? When does it become "not ok" to mix? Isn't it only wrong when it is an indefinably changing process? Can't we fix that then by simply stopping all new people from coming in, deporting 1st generation immigrants and figuring out something with a total mix of the rest? the idea of mixing heritage is a poor idea, so we should attempt to keep 3/4 what our root heritage is - germanocelt - and limit other elements. also, at some point, a wave of nordic semen through artificial inseminations is a really good idea. alpinized germanocelt = german, celtic and "alpine" ancestry, which would be the southern german type I don't want that though...I don't want to mix any more than I already
am...but if it's for a reason, for something new and meaningful, I think I
would take that route...but I don't think that it would turn out to be
meaningful...or at least it would be pointless as 99.9% of others won't
care...if I breed with a Scottish person (I'm different parts french, czech,
german, small amount native), that's what I'd be doing though, even though
they're "white"...I'd be mixing more..making things potentially worse... test that "small amount native." in almost all new world cases, it's wrong. families pass on the dogma for generations and when the DNA test comes, 3/4 of them find out it wasn't so. scots are at least 75% nordic-germanic, czech are at least 50% german-austrian, french were originally a germanic tribe... go anglo-saxon, young man scots included. Do people of just general European ancestry (indo-europeans??) have certain
special parts that Asians for example can never be able to join in on? if we want a civilization that's going anywhere, it should be of an ethnic and cultural consensus. northwest europeans are all genetically very similar. mixing too much with the east or the south presents bizarre hybrids. that's the pan-aryan ideal which is fscking insane if you ask me. I
think we discarded ALL those "special" parts as soon as our ancestors got
off the boat! It's always been a free for all here! People came here
originally for social freedoms and material opportunism and that's why
people continue to come here! that "free for all" is a path to decline, so we shouldn't free fal with it See the loops I'm going through? There doesn't seem to be any solution...I
wish we could just start over again somehow...form small villages and war
with each other until bigger and bigger groups are formed....not even
any possibility
for new foreign genes...community would be too important for survival, no
cheap transportation, no airplanes...new cultures formed organically by
trust and a symbioses with nature.... i know; this is stressful thinking, for only the bravest thinkers look at it this way: the current society is for many reasons a death path. they've cut down all the trees around here, the air quality has plummeted, and the place is getting downright third world not in appearance or ethnicity as much as level of dysfunction. next stop: becoming what mexico is (no thanks!). so a change in path is needed. all changes bring horror to some and pleasure to others. do what is beautiful, and has a better future. there is no future in the current path. Nature...that is the only Canadian thing I can trust...that gives me some
kind of strength....the only thing it seems it's worth just simply
PRESERVING rather than always...reconstructing... i'm from texas, as you remember. part of my family is canadian, and you can still find "us" up there en route from europe relatively recently. most of us in texas see ourselves as texans, but we're aware that the design of us comes from europe, and so we also see ourselves as europeans. society is diseased, but we're committed to making it better, and there's no way to do that without causing some problems, but the result will be better, so the problems don't matter. so we look at individuals and think "i want more people like this one, in a culture that's more like our european heritage," and we move on from that. most people will never accept our ideas, and they'll throw out false ideas based on the concept of a replacement of nature. we don't want national states, made up of a unified ethnic-cultural consensus, we want the nation-state where everyone is equal and globalism reigns! really? we must ask them -- but they are incapable of the kind of thought required to figure out what they really want. bureaucratic nations are a replacement for nature, equality is a replacement for nature, ideology is, and so forth. we need to think biologically and structurally, and in that, nationalist entities make more sense than nation-states. you're ahead of the curve on this one, so most people will find it baffling, and they will offer up all sorts of "arguments" and definitions which are really irrelevant, because it comes down to this: do we want natural, healthy states based on consensus, or crappy third world states based on political principles including equality? i prefer nature; i prefer a long-term future, not short term misery. thanks for reading this slightly rambling but occasionally hopefully insightful email.
V. Prozak I am coming near to the end of my years as a college undergrad and will be working on my final thesis/research project. I have decided the topic will be on Nishitani or some issue related to the Kyoto School in general (i.e. nihilism, nothingness). I am especially interested in this school for the way that it provides an intermedium for Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy, especially that of Zen. I am also interested in its use and understanding of nihilism. Though I am familiar with Nietzsche, Evola, and other such figures in their relation to nihilism, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Nishitani or the Kyoto School in general, if you are at all familiar with it. If not, I would gladly take any referrences to other members of ANUS/Corrupt that may know more about this. I highly respect your work and opinions and am eager for any feedback you can give me.
i think this is a good topic, but i would say that you should compare schopenhauer and nishitani, because schopenhauer's "quietude" is closest to what i call nihilism and i believe that same attitude is inherent in zen, although somewhat obscured by the method of learning zen. http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/buddhist-christian_studies/v019/19.1hase.html the above seemed like a good resource on kyoto::nishitani. my impression is that most thinkers interpret nihilism on a personal level, as in a barrier to overcome like nietzsche's "void," where the ANUS/schopenhauer usage is as a method: recognize the nothingness of everything and the primacy of nothingness as a necessary part of consciousness, and thus consciousness as a necessary and correlative part of the world, and consequently approach the "void" from a different perspective. if there's more clarification i can give, please ask. in the meantime, i think it would make sense to start a topic in the CORRUPT forum with links to nishitani and kyoto resources, and a series of questions. On another more personal note, it has come to my
attention that after I graduate college I will probaby
have to do something, although I'm not quite sure
what. Grad/Law school, the working world, spiritual
exploration? I'm not really sure where to begin
looking, and frankly I don't think I have put a whole
lot of effort into it, though I do have many ideas I
have explored. What can you recommend? this is a difficult question for anyone, as it is hard to tell what you want in life. my suggestion is to follow your fascinations by finding a way to make them pragmatically supported by others. whether that's teaching/academia, writing, running a business, consulting or working in media, there is a way for you to pursue both what fascinates you and get paid a decent wage. it will take time to discover this, so my advice is to pick a general path ("i'd like to become a writer about the fusion of buddhist practice and western theory") and find something which supports it (job for spirituality today magazine) and explore that until you learn more about your eventual path. i hope that helps and wish you the best of luck
V. Prozak I am a high school student who is seeking my own way in life: I'm trying to find what is real, and distinguish lies from reality. My search has led me here, and I want to know more. I have read much of the information here, and have gained a lot of insight. But many questions remain. Would you mind answering a few of these questions? They may seem trivial, but they are important to me, and it would be of great help if you could answer them.
1. What if a god or gods exist, and nihilism is wrong, and our eternity is lost in "damnation" or the something on those lines? at Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:49 PM from risingloki@xxx.xxx
we're happy to receive positive feedback from young people like yourself, who are trying to figure out what to do next. if we can provide them with a sense of direction, that alone is inspiration for us to continue what we're doing. nihilism, as we use it, is a method to discern probabilistic truth from absolute morality. you get a lot of the latter in high school, so it's a good idea to try to cut through the modern bullshit and see it for what it really is. 1. What if a god or gods exist, and nihilism is wrong, and our eternity
is lost in "damnation" or the something on those lines? nihilism cannot be "wrong" in the sense that it's not a belief system to which you subscribe a certain list of moral rules to follow. nihilism tells us there is nothing inherent to follow, hence why we must create it ourselves and when doing so, finding what's closest to truth or reality, which is a subjective assessment of the common laws and hierarchical principles we see ourselves living within. we're not opposed to a belief in one or several gods. as nihilists we recognize that the chance of there actually being physical entities in this or another world, is small, but this in itself does not mean that god or gods are "wrong." instead, we try to find a realistic function for these gods, which means god becomes a concept expressing our shared existence. some people, like most judeo-christians, try to use this concept to hide away from life because it includes a lot of horrible things (death, pain, suffering, war, inequality). as a nihilist you see no point in moralize over something that's obviously a natural part of life. hence our god would worship death as much as life and peace as much as war. god is thus no longer some strange old man in another world, morally controlling how we're supposed to live. instead god becomes a spiritual or cultural concept in our world and his laws become those of our shared reality. the concept of the "eternal damnation," which stems from a semitic tradition, claims we as human beings are inherently "bad" because of our lusts, desires and passions to understand and gain control over what is good and evil. indo-european mythological and religious tradition say this is natural and tell us that we need to move on with our life, despite its horrors. apart from the cultural difference, damnation is a stupid concept, because it makes no sense to demonize what's inherent to human nature and psychology. as nihilists we don't believe in the absolute power of an external world. even if that world existed, we wouldn't care, because we're not living in that world, we're living here on planet earth! 2. How can consumerism be pointless if people die for it everyday? why do we do things that might feel good today but not tomorrow? answer: most people can't think long-term you will notice this behavior among many people in high school. they will waste their free time on getting drunk, watching tv and having sex. when they wake up, reality is just as empty and bleak as before. so why do they do it? the fact that some people spend their time on something, doesn't automatically mean there's a meaningful point to it. think of how many people that vote for each election, even though polls reveal that few today even have faith or trust in our governments. so why vote? again, people don't know any other way out. this is all they know. 3. If "civilazation" is created by humans, who, in the end, are nothing
more than animals, isn't everything on earth technically nature? technically, technology is a product of what we humans have created with natural resources. thus, technology isn't really "anti-nature" as some thinkers have been led to believe. instead it's just another way of organizing materials and functions in our world to create something that serves a functionalistic purpose, like catching fish, strengthen the roof on houses, or generate binary numbers in a processor. what this means in a modern context, is that we can't "escape" technology, because nature is just an organic form of technological organization. in nature, nothing is really morally "bad," as much as there are less realistic designs. for instance, too many frogs mean a disease will be created to wipe most of them out. the frogs weren't evil but the amount of reproduction was too high. reality is constructed in a way so that the better design always reigns. in other words, we must learn how to organize and use our technology so that it co-exists in harmony with humanity and environment. we've failed on this today, as shown by the negative effects upon our daily life as well as the industrial pollution in seas and rivers. everything is "nature" but nothing is equal. we must always find a better design and apply that to whatever we're creating; music, technology, jobs, children. 4. How can someone like me, who are in their arly teens, break away
from the system and live a nilhilistic life style? good question. there are many ways to break free from this system, of which here are a few: - resist peer pressure: you don't need trends or flashy lifestyles, follow your own ideas and beliefs, regardless if they're popular or not - school life: life in high school is often dull and boring. you can change that by confronting the established norms with new ways of looking at things. open up debates and insert nihilistic ideas to force people to think in new terms. the results can often be funny - free time: most people in your age will find tv, sex and beer to be most fun. as a nihilist you see these things for the escapist illusions that they most often are. find out what you're good at, what you're interested in and what you'd like to improve at. write, paint and compose. explore the things around you that no one else cares about. be productive instead of consuming - love: avoid the temporary flings with people who don't care about neither you nor themselves. seek out an intelligent, beautiful partner and do creative things together to grow as individuals. take care of the friends you can trust and pay little attention to people who talk much but aren't worthy of your friendship - fun. most importantly: have fun. many young people misunderstand this and think to themselves: "alright, time to get drunk!" - that's not how you do it but when these people realize that, it'll be too late. don't commit the same mistake. having fun means enjoying life without feeling bad about it or trying to escape from it. it can be anything from planting trees, walking in nature, fishing with your friends, and listening to great music, to joining a discussion group, going to a classical concert or trolling your teacher at school. take an active part of life and be open to new possibilities check out these additional references as well: http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/nihilist http://www.corrupt.org/data/open_courseware/nihilism i hope this email has answered, if not all, at least some of your inquiries. good luck on your journey and don't hesitate to contact us again if you ever feel like doing so! October 24, 2007 |
