RACISM is a ideology based/concer of ancient politics, and mithology.

Greeks: the concept of “areté” and “Xenophobia”…(they belive in racial distinctions among conquerros and slaves ( Aqueos, dorians, etc…)

Gods, Gothorum (baltogermanic tribes): Blut Adel (blood heritage). The racial distinction between the Jarls or kings (blond or dred hair) and the people with dark hair (slaves).

Indoiranian: Manu laws Code-the arya Varna (varna means caste or race in sanskrit).

white supremacist, racism and Racialism is not the same.Fascism, NSADP (National Socialism) is not the same ! KKK and North America racism is another history.

Metal music talks about mithologies : 80s bands (trash, speed, heavy) talk a lot about satan and satanism. Satanic mithology spread the worship of Satan ( Samahel – Old testament-Hebrew), the dark lord and evil one,etc (dualistic post Mazdeism dualities and neo-monotheism). Now we have a lot of metal bands with other mithologies: Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, etc…(Indo european Paganism).

If some bands talk abut rape womens, sacrife childrens, orgies, drugs or any (as satanic 80s bands did) and NON-MORALIST stuff…is acceptable. if they said: Hail Satan !, is just fine for headbangers…. but, if a metal band say “Hail Hitler” …now, dotards start the discusion if metal followers can tolerate racism. Metal is about Mithologies(and whatever u want to say), if some guys belive in that ..i dont give a fuck!!!…if they sing about Satan, Odhin or III Reich ..so great…WTF….if u dont like, don´t listen that “kind of metal”.but don`t tell us which band is “true metal”…fuck off u moralist people.

By the way: “cotation”

Ok, stop. What? a.) There is no such thing as race. b.) culture ≠ race. c.) there are no clear delineations between cultures!

who ever wrote that..is just a “doxomimetics” (the copy of accepted/comon sense – opinion) Race exist for the Antropologist and Etnologist, Archeologist, fisiologist, academics,etc.

Race and culture: Whats the line between both concepts? well, when u study old indoeuropean grammar, u know the most of the kalkolitcs and iron age tribes mixed the concept of “culture” and “Race”. The concept of culture came from the greek (Athenas) word: PAIDEIA and means : “to teach how to be a perfect man or citizen” , and the early paidea (Werner Jaeger theory) made a selection between the Race/blood heritage- of the invaders and conquerred tribes. The invaders were ( Baltics, anatholian migration theories )- Ionians (Ancient Greek Ἰωνία or Ἰωνίη), Dorians, Aqueans (minos-Cretences)..etc …

In old times the conquerrors saids: we are the master race! , we are power and we are “good”. To be white and blond is to be a member of the aristocracy -the gods caste-. If u think im talkin shit, read the first chapter of Federich Nitzsche “geneology of the moral” or some academic works of filology.

now, modern Democracy says: “its a crime to belive in race or racial diferences”-…well, thats a political stufff…. someday they will say to belive in any god or Santa klaus is a crime too , i don`t care. If some headbangers or skinhead hypocefalics jerks, belive in white racial supremacy, is the same to belive in satan or Christ or w/e (methapisics), at least if we stand infront of a moral/ethic argument.

If u belive race or cultural diferences dosen´t exist ..well, it depends what kind of academic sources do u read or do u prefer.

Im gonna keep lisening Manowar, Burzum, storm, Nokturnal Mortum, Arkona,etc. I don´t care if they were nazis or they are still talking about myths as “Racism”. U waste ur time triying to tell waht can we hear or not. “Racism” and “paganism” is the new extreme metal satanism, and there will be alwways extrem metal fans.

sorry about my bad english grammar, english is not my native language.

Oscar

Let’s just run through the errors one by one, shall we?

First, metal is a type of rock.

Second, there’s nothing inherently liberal about rock.

Third, it makes no sense to say “liberalism has failed”. Failed to do what? Liberalism is not a means to an end, but an ideal in and of itself, so there’s no way it can be said to have failed. It may not have produced what you want to see, but your goals are not liberalism’s goals.

Fourth, the term “liberalism” didn’t exist in Plato’s time, nor did the corresponding concept, so, yeah.

Fifth, metal is not a spirit or an ethos, it is a style of music. Stating the obvious is apparently a necessity with you.

Sixth, there is nothing inherent to metal that connects it to the idea that the beauty of nature and the power of warfare are more important than morality, which is, in any case, a disgusting idea.

Seventh, morality is not the same thing as liberalism.

This doesn’t leave much, does it. I refrained on commenting on the stuff which is pure unsupported opinion.

How so? You’ll have to explain this one more.

Once again, I’m not sure how much we disagree, exactly. But I hope you at least see how Vijay’s entire premise is incorrect.

As for this:

“‘Individualism’, in the sense of the idea that the individual is the essential or ‘casual’ factor in society (as opposed to social currents, memes), to me is scientifically incorrect (from the perspective of evolutionary anthropology or cognitive psychology). “

First of all, be careful in your wording. First of all, science is not subjective, therefore your use of the phrase “to me” is suspect. Either it’s scientifically correct or not.

And as such, It doesn’t look to me like you have any actual sources that say that the sciences you site, anthropology and psychology, have produced results that agree with your conclusion.

What is pretty clear to me is that the individual effects society and vice versa. But the individual is still the basic building block of society, and not the other way around, which you still apparently disagree with. But you say that “social currents, memes” affect society more than individuals; where do you think social currents and memes come from if not from individuals?

“This (IMO) philosophical misrepresentation of human beings is, i think, increasingly leading to society where a calculating upperclass manipulate the demand of culture-less mass of human beings with great scientific, psychological precision.”

First, “culture-less”? Such a thing doesn’t exist. Every society of human beings has a culture.

Second, you keep complaining about this “calculating upperclass”; for one thing it is a separate issue from individualism per se. You haven’t shown that such a thing has anything to do with individualism or would disappear if we had a more “traditional” culture.

Second, you’re descending a bit into conspiracy theory territory. Yes, people try to manipulate others into buying their products and voting for their candidates, etc., but the idea that they’ve figured out how to control the rest of us with “great scientific, psychological precision” is wishful thinking–for them! No one has figured out even how to predict the demands of the consumers, let alone control them. If they could, the economy wouldn’t go up and down all the time.

And also, it’s not a fixed “us vs. them” thing. We are all part of both classes, really. We are all both buyers, sellers, and manufacturers, or at least a lot of us are.

“Well, now you’ve lost me. In what sense does it not exist? In the sense that there are no individuals? Surely not. In the sense that individuals don’t have thoughts, feelings, desires, and decisions?”

Not in the sense that there are no individual human beings. And not in these sense that these animals don’t have desires etc. In the sense of where these desires come from! In the sense that “…one of the key errors in the basic premises of economics as a social philosophy. ‘Demand’ is not an expression of the will of free agents. It is highly malleable.”

You cannot seperate the Individual from the society. ‘Individualism’, in the sense of the idea that the individual is the essential or ‘casual’ factor in society (as opposed to social currents, memes), to me is scientifically incorrect (from the perspective of evolutionary anthropology or cognitive psychology). When we believe that we are giving primacy to individuals over society, i.e., with notions like “…demand, at least as I understand it (I am not an expert in economic theory) represents what people want; the reason they want it is irrelevant, just that they want it”, we are really giving it to society again (in a different, perhaps more risky way). However this goes under the radar because we think we are giving to individuals. Individuals are herd animals. Natural selection has favoured social human beings. It has also favoured some sense of rational thought, but this is (sometimes unfortunately) competes with social instincts and losses all too often.

This (IMO) philosophical misrepresentation of human beings is, i think, increasingly leading to society where a calculating upperclass manipulate the demand of culture-less mass of human beings with great scientific, psychological precision.

Its simplistic and very general, but it should get my point across (finally).

“In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and survival are more important than anything else”

It’s interesting because it’s so clear (unlike most of the stuff that they write) and yet so bizarre, especially given even their own “nihilist” premises.

Creating a symphony is more important than survival? Why? A symphony doesn’t seem to be much good if there’s no one around to here it.

And since when is winning a battle an end in itself. Ever battle in history has been a means to an end, and that end is more often than not exactly a struggle for survival of one side, albeit sometimes the threat to that survival is perceived misguidedly.

I’m not saying that the exact converse of the statement is true, that “personal comfort and survival” are the only goals. But symphonies and the like are certainly means to an end, namely enjoyment, or enlightenment, of the individuals that listen to them.

Symphonies are not an end in themselves; if they were, then you’d have to say that if the entire human species fell off the face of the earth, the existence of a symphony (in recording, in musical notation) would still have some value.

But it seems to me that even within the “nihilist” logic of the ANUS site, that is not so.

Another thing I should clarify is this:

Individualism can mean a few things. At a very basic level, it means that the individual is the unit of analysis of society. This is completely uncontroversial. Every psychologist studies the individual’s behavior and thoughts.

Even the sociologist and anthropologist gathers their information in part from individuals, their behavior, and their thoughts.

At a slightly less basic level, I believe that the individual is the unit of interest. That means that any theory of morality, or of politics, should address the interests, the desires, the actions, and the rights of individuals.

This is quite different from Vijay, whose professed philosophy is that the individual has no importance whatsoever. For him, it seems, only the society as a whole matters. He views individuals within a society as like cells within a body; if a few or even thousands die, it doesn’t matter.

Now, in theory, either view would be a possible starting point. But Vijay’s justification for his position makes no sense, as a careful reading of his site makes clear.

My idea, I think, makes at least more sense.

“Industrial society atomises culture (removes traditional culture)”

I don’t see it. First, I don’t see how those two are the same thing, and second, I don’t see anywhere where industrial society has removed traditional culture.

There are of course revolutions, a very few of which have deliberately sought to get rid of the past, such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution. But that is the exception rather than the rule; there is nothing inherent to industrialism that seeks to remove traditional culture for the sake of removing it.

Industrialism does represent a change in culture, but that is nothing special to industrialism. Cultures change all the time, they’re in a constant flux, and the fact that industrialism represents one such change is no special cause for alarm.

And indeed, every industrial society (including China, despite the efforts of the revolutionaries) preserves many aspects of its traditional culture going back as far back as one can remember. Not all of them, of course, but no culture does that, industrial or not.

“This reflects one of the key errors in the basic premises of economics as a social philosophy. ‘Demand’ is not an expression of the will of free agents. It is highly malleable.”

Well, first of all, I don’t think any one advances economics as a social philosophy in the first place. Economics is part of the system in which humans relate to each other, but no one proposes that it’s the whole thing. And as for demand, again, I don’t see anyone saying it’s not malleable. That doesn’t mean it’s not the product of free will, at least to the extent that free will exists in the first place, the latter a big philosophical can of worms that does not, I think, matter for current purposes. The point is that demand, at least as I understand it (I am not an expert in economic theory) represents what people want; the reason they want it is irrelevant, just that they want it.

“Argument: Individualism doesn’t really exist. “

Well, now you’ve lost me. In what sense does it not exist? In the sense that there are no individuals? Surely not. In the sense that individuals don’t have thoughts, feelings, desires, and decisions? Again, the answer is quite obviously no. I don’t mean to apply a straw man to your argument, but you’ll have to be clearer in what you mean by “individualism” if you think it actually doesn’t exist.

“If we pretend it does, and leave things up to ‘individuals’, we open society up to the dangers of never ending demagoguery across all aspects of social life. I think we can see this developing in the west. Increasingly we have a vicious, calculating upper class manipulating a bovine-like population.”

Ok, now you’ve said a mouthful. Again, you’ll have to be clearer about what you mean by “individualism”, since I have no idea how from it, you get to “leaving things up to individuals”. When I say “individualism”, I mean that we see the individual as the unit of choice, the unit of desire, and the unit of interest. It does not have any of the implications you seem to ascribe to it.

So I have no idea how it would lead automatically to the things you see it leading to. And as for Tibet being better, you’ll have to elaborate. In what way is Tibet not individualist, and in what way does it not have the problems that we have?

“I’m not saying traiditional culture is perfect or that individualism hasn’t benefitted people in any way shape of form.”

Again, traditional culture can mean many things. You have to be more specific.

Once again, I think I am talking at a much more basic level than you. I don’t even think we do have as conflicting opinions as you think we do.

I never meant to imply that the flow of influence was unidirectional, or in general that individuals weren’t influenced by outside factors. Indeed humans are influenced a great deal by many other things, including other individuals, and also “society”, which itself is composed, of course, of the actions of many other individuals.

This is quite different from the position of a person like Vijay, who seems to think of a society as an organic being in its own right, capable of its own actions, its own desires, and at times it seems like he thinks that it can even feel pain and have “rights”.

My point in my response to Vijay was simply that this latter position is incorrect. Any and every single theory of culture, of society, of psychology and anthropology, as well as every theory of government and of control, has to take the individual into account as the building block of society. If you don’t do that, or if you ascribe desires or rights to “society” or “culture” as a whole, then you’re living in a fantasy world and have no actual theory.

As this is quite a separate point from your criticisms of industrialism as opposed to traditional culture, I will address the latter in a separate post.