Saudi Arabia and the other too consanguineously bred Gulf monarchies are denying the fact that they support Islamic extremism in western states against accusations by the domestic German intelligence agency according to recent news reports. The Saudis are denying that they even support the Salafist ideology despite “Salafism” simply being an appeasing, more hen-pecked liberal term for Wahhabism, the fundamentalist Sunni movement founded in the 18th century that is the ideological bedrock of the Saudi monarchy.
Wahhabism was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century and spread by earlier iterations of the Saudi state. It declared that earlier common Islamic worship practices in the Arabian peninsula were polytheistic and pagan, espousing a return to an imagined 7th century past and the supposed teachings of the barely documented Islamic prophet Mohammed. Wahhabis state that all, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who disagree with their revisionist interpretation of Islam are apostates who may be slaughtered at will. Since the 1960s, Wahhabists states such as Saudi Arabia and their citizens have spent billions of dollars per year on propaganda to the rest of the world, including mosques constructed in Western states. Their propaganda budget exponentially outstripped that of the entire then Communist second world after the oil crisis of the early 1970s. Wahhabist states remain the world’s primary funders of Islamic terrorism.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar have been caught red-handed trying to hide that they fund multiple organizations trying to indoctrinate Muslim youths in western states with the ultimate goal of making them into jihadists, stating that the organizations simply are not government organizations despite them being directly funded by their foreign ministries and private donations. These inbred Salafist states are looking to undermine Western nations from within. They have done nothing to take in Syrian refugees and have allowed a massive wave of rapists, thieves, and terrorists into Europe. This wave of criminals dwarfs the Mariel Boatlift of 1980 to Florida when the dead dictator Castro, eulogized by the leftist propagandizing press, dumped his prisons and asylums. The faucet of inbred criminals and terrorists must be turned off to protect European nations.
Tags: censorship, germany, inbreeding, islam, politics, saudi arabia
Why is there so much religion on this site?
Deus vult!
Tobacco, beer, and religion are all relevant to metal. Obviously.
Also perhaps Satan and marijuana.
You’re thinking of jazz.
Metal is more like Cthulhu and DXM.
Because Daniel Maarat obviously lacks the capacity to transcend thinking in terms of linear populist tripe. So he writes about “terrorism” and “immigration”, and whatever the new bogeyman of the month is. Someone should tell him – you wanna get rid of “terrorism”? Well then, first you’re gonna have to figure out a little something called the petrodollar, Kissinger’s crowning achievement. And then you’re gonna have figure out the byzantine maze of alliances and intrigues that make up 21st century geopolitics in the Eurasian region.
But something tells me Daniel Maarat is gonna continue posting tripe about “terrorism” and “nationalism”, while the very concept of the nation-state continues sliding into obsolescence against a backdrop of accelerating financial, socio-political and ecological chaos.
why are you using quotation marks like that? what do you actually mean?
The nation-state (proposition nation) is dead; the nation has risen again.
When conservatives at DMU and amerika state that we don’t want cultural diversity and want to protect our culture and heritage from outsiders, I can somewhat understand your point and see the positives in your statement. But, can’t the native-americans ask the same question? Would it be too idealist or too naive(stupid) to ask this? Or both? Do you see the conquest ethic from metal as the partial answer to this question?
I’m not an American, just want to understand your point of view.
Someone should respond to this guy as he actually has something intelligent to say, or ask rather. Unfortunately, I don’t have much to add on this topic as I believe that all utopic idealism is garbage. To come up with any ideas in response to the failures of the current status quo is to believe that “things could be better if only we Just…” fill in the blank. All ideas routed in progress are naive. This makes fascists or “alt-right” (whatever the fuck that means… is it similar to alt-rock?) supporters and leftists really the same thing. I support all forces of chaos. I support ISIS as much as I support racial intolerance and lynchings. I couldn’t care less why these groups do what they do… only that they are killing people, sacred things are being desecrated, and that people are frightened.
It makes everyone naïve except those who believe in putting our best people in power and giving them unlimited authority because obvious, most humans are “talking monkeys with car keys.”
… said the monkey whilst fumbling with his car keys.
So who is to decide who is our best people? And even if that first ruler we appointment is an exceptional one and brings us into a golden age, what happens when said ruler dies? They are in absolute power so they will likely appoint their successor. And often someone in absolute power likes to keep things in the family, so he’d (I’m just riffing off patriarchy here) likely appoint his son. What is to say his son will be any good? I am certain the role of an absolute monarch is far more than a full time job, which would leave little to no time for him to properly raise his son and ensure that he would be an effective ruler. Perhaps the future heir would become resentful and want to destroy everything his father built once he gained power. My point is, you are speaking from the perfect world of pure ideas, where everything seems so simple “if we’d only just…” in your case appoint our elite with absolute power. But this is the corporeal world where ideas, when manifested lose their purity and perfection. If something as simple as a perfect square cannot exist in this reality, then something as complicated as governing humans on a mass scale (even in the thousands, let alone the billions) is surely doomed to fail. The patterns of human society are the same as the patterns of a star: it begins small, with people having these great ideas and seeing how everything could perfect. Then more people become attracted by these ideas of utopia and then they attract more people and so on stop forth, until what started as something simple small and pure is now a giant mass of shifting energy which will eventually reach critical mass and then explode or implode. I suppose total chaos is much an ideal as total order, so let me rephrase. I choose to have no expectations. I choose to say that nothing is right and nothing is wrong. That we are all just shit flinging, cum spraying monkeys that deserve to live as much as they deserve to die. What is the point of saying “if only”? “If only” is an escape. “If only” is a distraction from that gnawing feeling that none of this matters. I like to play the game too bit I don’t confuse my ideas with my reality. The reality that not a single one of us moneys has a fucking clue. I hope your elite comes and saves you someday from monkeyishness. I really do… But I think we both know that this won’t happen.
It’s easy to find out who should be in charge. Start by defining a measurement of intelligence which is determined by the preferences of our civilization’s elite. We can call this IQ for now. Next, go out and identify gene clusters which correspondend to IQ. When you don’t find any just muck with the methodology until the results yield as expected. Now that you have an accurate genetic test you can insure only the most objectively intelligent get to rule and breed and live.
Or just use an objective test like ability to do things in reality. IQ testing works well too. If you do not speak English, use Raven’s Progressive Matrices.
Raven’s Matrices objectively test the ability to perform well at Raven’s Matrices.
This ability has some overlap with other abilities, but the correlation is not absolute.
There may very well be 140 IQ people who are generally useless and who don’t have a milligram of creativity.
A 110 IQ person who can create things of value is better than a 140 IQ person who can’t.
Also, a 100 IQ person may be a martial arts master, but perform averagely at IQ tests.
And lastly, a 140 IQ person can still be a serial killer and rapist, which still makes him an enemy.
There are more virtues than IQ. All of them should be encouraged genetically.
I roughly divide virtues to three categories, which in turn can be divided further.
– Intellect
– Skill
– Character
Can you please explain your theory of genetic morality as I’m not quite following and maybe some other people don’t understand either.
Cheers,
Carzak
This… (I sincerely hope this is more of a statement than an actual question)
So the “elite” decide who the eliter “elite” are? Who picked the first round of “elite”? What happens when the “elite” can’t agree on what they want for their “elite” society? What happens when the offspring of the “elite” are not reared properly? Genetics can only go so far. A child must be cared for properly and given the right kind of attention in order to rise to its full potential, that or it must rise trough adversity, but in this hypothetical situation these “elite” children are most certainly not birthed into adversity, after all we wouldn’t want that for the future of our “elite”. Even if they had properly trained nurses and care takers who would rear the “elite’s” children while the “elite” are going about their “elite” business, these children would likely suffer identity issues due to the lack of a proper relationship with their parents likely rendering them ineffective rulers, and thusly… not so “elite”. And what Led you to believe that human intelligence is such a trivial matter that it could possibly be quantified, particularly by a test designed by humans who still have no clue of the full potential of anyone’s mind (even those down syndrome ones. Just making a point. I fully support the euthanization of defective offspring). Perhaps you Are confusing knowledge with intelligence, knowledge being extremely simple to quantify. Or perhaps you are you just color blind. Can you at least see shades? Or is everything just black and white to you? I hope your illusory world of ideals and “elites” is cozy and comfortable…
put ‘elites’ in quotes again, it makes your argument so much more effective
I only did it to all of them to remain consistent. I don’t think it adds any actual value to my argument, which I believe stands on its own. If you would like to challenge my actual argument, proceed. But you were the one who decided to address this element of my writing. Cheers… I hope you have an “elite” day.
You must be new here. Let me explain: when Brett speaks of “our best people”, he is merely referring to himself in pluralis majestatis.
No, he is not.
In relativity, yes I am “new” here but I’ve been checking the website regularly for a month or so now
Isn’t it obvious?
Apparently not!
No, it isn’t obvious, B! lol
Let me ask this, then: is “best” a binary category, or a spectrum?
Best is on the spectrum.
So then we have a spectrum from bad, to mediocre, to varying degrees of best?
Good.
What would happen if you picked anyone on that spectrum of best, and asked him/her to mention others who are on the spectrum of best?
Oh, you weren’t talking about the autism spectrum…
a spectrum of course. But everyone has their own. Even if most individuals don’t really know how to govern themselves they at least have their own ideas on how they would want to be governed.
1. Is that really true, or is there overlap?
2. Do we care about the opinions of every person in this regard? For example, does it make sense to ask a bad guy who he considers to be “best,” since he will simply name another bad guy?
But who named the bad guy a “bad guy”? Where are we looking to, for this absolute objective qualification of best? The spectrum of course has overlap, but all it takes is a detail in order for people to disagree and inevitably start killing each other. Even the best of the best can let their emotions get the best of them.
And… I don’t know what is REALLY true, all I have are my instincts and faculties of reason. Are you going to tell me you REALLY know what’s true?
It is really stupid and weak to want someone to have unlimited power autority over you, especially if he is only an human. Especially considering this is a death and black metal site. It can be good to have some sort of leader but having someone having a total autority is madness. I rather have a society full of monkeys with car key than having brutal overlords doing all the thinking for me, and wanting me dead because I don’t act exactly as I have been told.
Humans vary in quality and ability.
yes it’s true but I don’t think the goal of humanity is to be under the charge of people with unlimited authority. Yes we need leaders and people of moral or spiritual autority but there gotta have some kind of freedom because the goal of humaity is to have a balance between our own power and the power of God. Not just a God or a overlord maintaining people in slavery or erasing them for his glory.
In a way you’re saying ‘everyone who doesn’t believe what I believe (which is nothing) is an idiot and all their politics are the same’. For once I agree with you, they all clearly believe in something other than smashing to pieces everything that we forged over the last 2000 years. Conversely your beliefs stated here don’t even guarantee that what’s useful will be preserved. For sure, prelusions like ‘just’ are defied by the logistical consequences of all actionable ideas, but I don’t think that the last 50 years of ineffectual politics is a reason to suggest that all the directions we’re traveling in are without merit. Some people are waking up to the injurious consequences of empathy, and some others are exhorting others to take their first steps on that path lest they end up further entrenched.
There is no universal path that we all should take, but without a doubt society should have a direction, and opting for ‘back in time’ requires us stepping a dimension above our physical bounds, which I would contend we are all smart enough to realize is not happening without the intercession of someone far less gay than us.
I disagree with anyone who thinks, for instance, that we should destroy Beethoven’s works to cause another Beethoven to arise. Every communist regime did the human equivalent of this and they fucked their societies so badly that their ideas were never tested. I don’t want to live in a society that reads like a Blood album, because there won’t be any riffs, it’ll just be Germans laughing at you while you get raped for not being as tall as I am, because it was decided by government fiat that strength wasn’t a sufficiently measurable.
Your worth as a person, itself an idea, is (in a general sense not you specifically) worth protecting. I guarantee that taking your attitude toward other humans will preclude your ideas from being duly heard. Human life is sacred, even yours (not talking from experience).
If I’ve somehow misrepresented your contribution here today I’d like to hear it so we can address any discrepancies between the ideal and the action as I understand they are psychologically very important to you.
Best wishes, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Wil Wheaton,
B.
This format for interlocution is quite difficult for discerning who is talking to who. I am more than happy to address all of your points, I just didn’t realize this comment was for me so I hadn’t read it until now.
In a way you are implying that this is what I mean. I have no issue with people not agreeing with me. It doesn’t mean I won’t express fervent opinions. I define most of my human interaction based on the Nietzsche quote “One should do away with the bad taste of being in agreement with many”. As he points out, such an idea should be left to dogmatists. I disagree with no one on how they should live their life. If you can find a way to be happy, then I implore you to do so. But don’t confuse your way of being happy as the definition of how everyone will be happy, even in general terms, like thinking that society is good for everyone. I don’t believe that chaos is absolute, nor is order. Only that both will come and both will go, such is the ebb and flow of the cosmos. So I choose total ambivalence towards the world outside of my small circumstance, and to be an idle watcher while everything unfolds of its own accord.
The last 50 years are as effective or ineffective as they have ever been. Nothing has changed since the birth of this planet, or even this reality (If ever such an event happened). There are only semantics. Details. The grand scheme has never faltered and will always remain, whether humans conquer the stars or die stranded upon this planet. Society has had its direction since its inception: sustain growth at all costs, thus harkening back to my metaphor of the life cycle of a star. There is no going back in time, of course, but one must only look forward to see the encroaching past. Society will fulfill its destiny and either explode or implode. The only person who can decide one is worth something is themself. If you require society to define your worth or other people to cherish your life in order to know you are worth something, then you will never be worth anything. But if you find a way to affirm your own existence, however you can, be it through the destruction or preservation of life and society, or anything in between, then you will become unlimited. One must accept and embody the ultimate paradox of life: your life is only worth what you decide its worth. There are no answers, the only truth that can ever be found is within the infinity of questioning.
This should be deleted
This format for interlocution is quite difficult for discerning who is talking to who. I am more than happy to address all of your points, I just didn’t realize this comment was for me so I hadn’t read it until now.
In a way you are implying that this is what I mean. I have no issue with people not agreeing with me. It doesn’t mean I won’t express fervent opinions. I define most of my human interaction based on the Nietzsche quote “One should do away with the bad taste of being in agreement with many”. As he points out, such an idea should be left to dogmatists. I disagree with no one on how they should live their life. If you can find a way to be happy, then I implore you to do so. But don’t confuse your way of being happy as the definition of how everyone will be happy, even in general terms, like thinking that society is good for everyone. I don’t believe that chaos is absolute, nor is order. Only that both will come and both will go, such is the ebb and flow of the cosmos. So I choose total ambivalence towards the world outside of my small circumstance, and to be an idle watcher while everything unfolds of its own accord.
The last 50 years are as effective or ineffective as they have ever been. Nothing has changed since the birth of this planet, or even this reality (If ever such an event happened). There are only semantics. Details. The grand scheme has never faltered and will always remain, whether humans conquer the stars or die stranded upon this planet. Society has had its direction since its inception: sustain growth at all costs, thus harkening back to my metaphor of the life cycle of a star. There is no going back in time, of course, but one must only look forward to see the encroaching past. Society will fulfill its destiny and either explode or implode. The only person who can decide one is worth something is themself. If you require society to define your worth or other people to cherish your life in order to know you are worth something, then you will never be worth anything. But if you find a way to affirm your own existence, however you can, be it through the destruction or preservation of life and society, or anything in between, then you will become unlimited. One must accept and embody the ultimate paradox of life: your life is only worth what you decide its worth. There are no answers, the only truth that can ever be found is within the infinity of questioning.
Your arguments were engaging and I misjudged your character as a self important know it all with an oversized vocabulary, compensating for the fact they’re really saying nothing.
Cheers to you and never stop being overlly opinionated or willful. It is the extremes that keep this reality turning…
-Sawyer
you fags should get married
Duly noted! And your profound nature is greatly appreciated. Never stop being the smartest person around, we love you for it!
The simple answer is that it’s too late for that. If all non-native North Americans packed up and left, the infrastructure would simple decay and provide shelter and resources for gangs of outlaws. The native population would have its hands beyond full and would never pick up where the rest left off and be able to keep the rails and roads and shipyards and power plants and electrical grid in working order and running smoothly.
The less simple answer is that the natives never developed far beyond nomadic savages and so never had a civilization to speak of. Barely coherent religion, no written language or even way to communicate cross-culturally until French was introduced. In other words, nothing of value was lost.
The only real downfall is every single human action now leads to gross landmass size piles of waste, and of course more people. I think the human experience is grossly overrated and we should be cut down mercilessly by either a plague, world war or ice age. If we were so great at our best then we should have never let our worst impulses taken over. Humanity is a gross tumor on the planet, it’s too late to sort it out now.
The problem was that we never encountered this dilemma until we succeeded. Now we know… and the culling must begin.
Whats so great about success anyway?
The human experience is not grossly overrated, it is glorious and grand. It is also undercut and diluted by all those with no love for the wholeness of being. Kill yourself and make way for the lovers of life.
Life is something you must take… by force!
Thanks, I think from a realist’s perspective your response makes sense.
I suspect the average nomadic savage lives/lived a much more fulfilling life than you ever will with all your “rails and roads and shipyards and power plants”.
By the way, you misspelled your screen name.
I imagine the real difference is that people outside of egalitarian societies lead actually fulfilling lives. Leftism is a virus. Most “conservatives” are actually Leftists.
I don’t think being a slave is what constitute a fullfiling live.
YOU DON’T KNOW BRO LIKE THE IDEA IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED
You talk like I made value judgments – I didn’t make value judgments.
You should know, at least, that societies don’t evolve based on the desire to bring fulfillment to all. They evolve based on the proclivity for the clever and ruthless to seek fulfillment at the cost of the dumb and altruistic.
Anyway, you may be right. However you will want to keep in mind that your idea of a fulfilling life is bound to differ from that of any other given person.
Once people stopped leading nomadic lives they started having a lot more free time… free time to realize how shitty life really is so they tried to make it better. That is why we are in this modern mess. When your whole life is solely based around survival, then it must be pretty hard to be unhappy so long as you have food, water, warmth etc… Once survival becomes secondary, because it is almost implied due to the societal construct around us, then one has all this extra time and mental energy to focus on pointless shit. The true failure of the modern age is not liberalism or conservatism, but the seed of all of this… agriculture.
It is not agriculture, it is the desire for agriculture. It’s like I can give you a lot of drugs, but if you don’t have the need or desire to take it, you will not become a junky. If we don’t destroy the need for that, the agriculture will reapear sooner or latter
Yes great point. But before we can eliminate the need for agriculture we need to eliminate over %99 of the population. Or %100… Then there would definitely be no need for any of this.
Noble savage fallacy.
Said fallacy states that the “noble savage” is happier because their life is simpler. I think it is a fallacy to believe primal survival is simpler than modern day living. I think many people get away with doing nothing in this modern life, and are able to live a long time while doing nothing, whereas one would meet an untimely death were they to do nothing in the wild. Staying physically fit isn’t even all that relevant to most people’s lives and their survival in this age. Only those who wish to stay healthy. Whereas survival would depend on one’s fitness of mind and body in the wild.
With proven positive correlations between activity and happiness, one could conjecture that the human mind and body really is more suited for the very active lifestyle of perpetual survival. One’s body would be constantly releasing endorphins, while the mind is staying focused on survival and not getting bogged down with distractions.
I do not believe that said lifestyle would be without its trials and tribulations, and likely those trials would be much greater and those tribulations would be much more painful for most, than in modern life but there would be a clear distinction between the good times and the bad times, unlike the general miasmic malaise that wafts through the air of civilization, causing people to question if the good times are actually good.
But I think the true fallacy is the belief that life is any better now than it was prior to civilization. I really think that nothing is all that different. Just the circumstances. I personally just don’t feel that the over structuralization of modernity is suitable for myself and so I have a bitter nostalgia for a past I do not know…
>But I think the true fallacy is the belief that life is any better now than it was prior to civilization.
Got a time machine? Then, how did you gain any inkling of what life was like prior to civilization?
You’ll find that comparing the present to an imaginary past is a waste of imagination.
Anyway, the solution to all your wondering should be obvious: Make the future what you want it to be. Nostalgia is the little death.
You seem to think you’ve nailed me! Nostalgia is an illusion and an escape. I know this completely. All I’m saying is, all of the “progress” we’ve made as civilizations has solved many problems, but has been the source of a great many new problems, which leads me to think that any step forward is also a step backward. This informs my opinion that progress isn’t real.
Good point. You might also note that “progress” has failed to solve the problems it claims to solve. We are more “inequal,” with more poverty, and greater threats to our survival, than at any other time.
if thats what informs you then im calling the supreme court because mfs have been falsely imprisoned for sure
To: grand belial’ s quiche Lorraine –
Instead of just telling me my opinions are invalid, why not try expressing what you believe to be valid as well to back it up. Who knows! you may actually have an impact! Though I doubt it based on your previous comments.
And what would be an effective use of imagination? Anything that gets someone thinking is an effective use of their mind, so long as it is not to pacify their deeper thoughts, but access them. From this very inconsequential exchange, I would guess that you are very rigid and have absolute ideals. May start contemplating infinity and what it really means.
A waste of imagination would be something like nostalgia, which I had said previously. Another example would be dick measuring contests on gay hookup comment boards.
Maybe you feel badass for transcending the illusion of progress but simplicity is another illusion because, like progress, it is not a standard metric but rather a value that fluctuates constantly depending on how vast you want to cast your measurements as well as many circumstances beyond your control (or the control of a society at large, by extension).
In other words, fife does not get more- or less- simple in the same way life does not “progress” down any kind of one-dimensional path toward an ideal. It just changes all the time. Fuck infinity, embrace the chaos.
To: your welcome – I can no longer properly reply to your comments, so I will reply to my own
Either you’re not fully reading what I’m saying or it’s written in a way that you keep misunderstanding, but nothing you stated contradicts what I an trying to stay and infact stands in affirmation of it. I never said simplicity was better or correct or even possible! Life is not simple and it never has been and it never will be. There is no right way or wrong way. Now is the same as then is the same as the future. Anything that seems different are just details. I abide by chaos! You do too! We agree…
Nostalgia is an illusion when taken as how reality should be. Believing life was better prior to civilization is as untrue as believing life is better post civilization. But when nostalgia is kept in the imagination then it can be used as a tool to help one question. Nostalgia is one way to use the imagination. It is not the only way and it is not the best way, but again there is no best way. It is just a way. Use your imagination however you see fit. Just don’t confuse your imagination with reality and I will do the same.
The natives aren’t even native!
so are the Europeans. And for what I know, the jews are not native from Israel. Its useless to know who are native from where. People were nomadic tribes most of the time in the history of mankind. ”It’s useless to say, it’s my land, I’ve got right to it from my ancestors.” This world is just a big monopoly game, in a way.
The European conquest of the North American continent was essentially complete like, 6 generations ago. There’s no sense in re-litigating the verdict of battle 150 years later, particularly given that there are like, only a couple million real Indians left (most enrolled members of tribes do not and have never lived on the reservations and most are 1/8 or 1/16 indigenous; they are neither racially nor culturally Indian) and 320 million people living mostly productively on the lands their peoples once inhabited. It would be ludicrous to expect that somehow the continent is going to be evacuated by people who aren’t American Indians. No matter how you feel about it, that’s a cat that can’t and won’t go back in the bag.
Note that this is separate from any question of compensation or reparations.
Reparations with repatriation to Siberia sounds good to me. The Indians were bloodthirsty savages and, because they attacked a superior warrior culture, got owned. So it always goes, and guilt is for the weak, but most of those like metalcore anyway.
North America is an example of the death of an ethnoculture.
The American race and its cultures are no more.
I want to avoid this for races and cultures that I value.
Yes, once we factor in their historical circumstance and inability to unite.
I mean, the native americans were killed and bred out by outsiders, so you’re kinds reinforcing the site’s point
who gives a shit ? you got the worst moron president of your king of morons country, and you’re all kucked up. Get over it ;)
Why are you so racist and anti-democratic?
Democracy was a mistake.
Yes, undoubtedly. And we were warned by the example of Athens.
if democracy was a mistake then by causation you having free speech was a mistake which i totally agree with
A common prejudice among German students is (or used to be when I last had the mispleasure) as that “the USA” is inhabitated by mindless consumer-barbarians without any hint of ‘culture’ (ironically, these were people who wouldn’t bother to write even remotely complete or grammatically correct sentences unless forced to and whose idea of culture was getting drunk to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NQ6lro4i-I).
And we’ve all been overtrumped with “personal gaffes” and nothing else.
Similar nonsense by other politicians – and there’s plenty of that – gets less headline space.
This describes much of humanity across the board.
Because it’s mostly true.
Almost any educated person from outside the U.S. who has met many “Americans” will corroborate.
Some of you have IQs, but it would seem that your whole society has deeply-seated mass psychology problems.
Also, national and ideological indoctrination is strong in most Americans, even among the smart ones. It’s quite painful to watch and hear.
i’m sure your glorious country is largely free of the problems you mentioned
It dates back to Belle Epoque, when Germans were second only to USA in terms of industry but at the same time were well known for their culture, philosophy and linguistics. On those fields they definitely surpassed USA, while still being constitutional monarchy and quite conservative. Then the USA intervened in WWI, and in whole system of postwar policies. Then once more.
So now, when moronic Germans scorn USA, it is finally ungrounded.
Then the USA intervened in WWI, and in whole system of postwar policies. Then once more.
That’s a bit of an overly romantic viewpoint. The last successful Prussian monarch was Wilhelm I and he was successful because he employed brilliant people, eg, Otto (v.) Bismarck or Helmut v. Moltke, and supported them when putting their theories into practice. His son, Friedrich III, died of cancer 99 days after ascending to the throne. Then came Wilhelm II, and even hardcore supportes of the Prussian monarchy described him as “less talented” for anything but stage manageing his public appeareance or as “Der glaenzendste Fehlschlag der Geschichte” (the most sparkling failure of history). One of his more useless properties was that he wouldn’t tolerate anyone outperforming him on anything.
The German empire went into the war for blindly supporting an Austrian effort to get rid of Serbia and consolidate/ extend its territory on the Balkan based on a plan created by an ex-chef of the general staff who tried to turn it into something workable until his death because nobody had a better idea. As expected, implementing this plan failed and lead to the ‘static’ western front. Germany was dependent on food imports for his population and the British were slowly and effectively starving it to death through a naval blockade. In 1915, a (futile) attempt to implement a counter-blockade via so-called ‘unlimited submarine warfare’, ie, declaring the waters around the British Isles as “no sailing zone” and sinking any vessels without warning, was abandoned because of US protests/ threats after the Lusitania was torpedoed.
In 1916, the new German supreme commander, Erich v. Falkenhayn, came up with the brilliant plan to run a huge battle of attrition centered around Verdun based on the idea that, by the time the last French soldiers had been killed, some German ones should still be left. This led to a gruesome massacre with absolutely no military significance. Similarly innovative British and French infantry offensives against fortified German lines ended with similar non-results. The Verdun disaster led to another change of command on the German side, bringing in Paul v. Hindenburg as nominal chief and his associate Erich Ludendorff as de facto military dictator of Germany because they had been more successful on the eastern front.
Ludendorff chose to revive the unlimited submarine warfare in the hope that this would accomplish something before the USA could move enough troops to Europe to turn the scales but it didn’t. After war on the eastern front had ceased in 1917 because of the Russian revolution (furthered by the Germans who arranged for Lenin etc to travel safely to Russia from the exile in Switzerland), the Germans made a final attempt to win the war in the west with the 1918 spring offensives. Because of improved tactics, these resulted in the first tactical successes anyone had achieve on the western front since 1914 but because of want of any strategic conception (there are some nice diary entries from a German officer about this, “Unfortunately, the headquarter abandoned its strategic goals” followed by “Turns out they never had any” some days later) this, too, ended in failure.
Afterwards, the war was lost. In order to save the army, Ludendorff chose to sacrifice the monarchy. The thus saved army would then stage “the great remake” 21 years later.
I know that part of German history, or at least how it is written about, hence I know about those internal problems, weak monarch (but not authority of monarchy itself), certain shallowness of said conservatism (dead, mechanical, “reactionary” values), education, culture, military errors, as well as circumstances leading to proclaimation of republic (and I fail to see role you ascribed to Ludendorff). But I provided conclussion that stay strong despite all those inevitable reservations. You provided unnecessary lesson of quite popular history, aimed at deconstruction, which is always possible and usually quite easy to conduct. You say that it wasn’t so idyllic? Here I can point to two things. First – there are always problems, that can be elevated to being of utmost importance, despite overall well being and strength. One must reach at what is prevalent here. Second, such evaluations must be seen in context. Then, in all its relativity, answer: who provided such outstanding men (also among socialdemocrats), who was able to stand against pression of ten other nations, where people had, despite all, better upbringing, where proletarians had better conditions, etc, etc.
About German idiocies on world war I – as you already hinted, there were even more ridiculous ideas on French and English side. Also, do you remember how German tactics were criticized at the time, as an utilization of democratic (mass) methods on battlefield, “material” war?
Monarchies worked better than democracy, and equality is nonsense, but these are taboo things to say in this time. WWI was an outbreak of mass retardation on all sides, owing to despair that the Napoleonic crisis had not been resolved after nearly a century. Europe was exhausted by the stupidity and decided a great conflagration was better than slow death.
No, “Europe” didn’t decide anything, a handful of supposedly “superior” rulers came to the conclusion that war was the only solution to very concrete external and internal problems that had been anticipated decades before by marxists, problems that boiled down to the increasing difficulty to turn a profit in a divided world, there wasn’t too many people on earth, just too many capitalists in the competition.
Main factor after the German/Austrian leadership being the Russian ones, Russian ambassador to France was paying journalists handsome sums to write pro-war articles calling for Jaurès’ death.
If metal is supposed to despise false authority, despising all those heads of states and generals, as well as all the trade union leaders and social-reformers who ended up backing that pointless slaughter is perfectly metal.
No, “Europe” didn’t decide anything, a handful of supposedly “superior” rulers came to the conclusion that war was the only solution to very concrete external and internal problems that had been anticipated decades before by marxists,
This isn’t really true, either (BTW: history is among the things I also consider fun). The aftermath of the French revolution greatly increased the size of the land armies because of the adoption of mandatory military service for all male citizens of a state. Additionally, the large style adoption of trains revolutionized mass transportion during the 19th century. Armies consisted of a fairly small standing core and a large number of reservists who were to join their respective units when they were readied for going to war. This was called mobilization. The Prussians introduced the idea of a peacetime General staff of professional officers whose purpose was to work out detailed plans for mobilizing the armed forces quickly and moving them to the theater of operations using trains and roads. This enabled them to win the wars of 1866 (against Austria) and 1870/71 (against France).
The General staff system was generally adopted after the Prussian success in 1870/71 as the impossibility of using the train system for quickly moving loads of people without detailed advance planning became obvious from the French failings in this area. By the time of the outbreak of WWI, all continental powers had detailed “how to start a war” operational plans based on objective facts like “how many units can be moved from A to B using n roads at which speed”.
When the Austrian heir was murdered in Sarajevo, the Austrian General staff indended to use this as casus belli against Serbia with the plan to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina. On order of the German emperor, they were assured of German support whatever they might do. And then, the military technocrats took over. As an army was basically unusable for serious combat until mobilized, one great power mobilizing its army forced all others to do the same (in the minds of the commanding officers) as it was known how long this would take and no one could risk to be attacked by the enemy before the forces of the own country were ready.
The Austrians mobilized against Serbia. This caused the Russians to mobilize. Mobilization of Russia meant Germany was required to mobilize because of its treaty obligations to Austria. Because of the German mobilization, the French had to mobilize in order to avoid being overrun. Various attempts of the nominal political leaders to stop this escalation of organizational madness, eg, a last minute telegram from the German emperor to the Tsar, couldn’t stop anything: As the armies were mobilized to, they had to march according to whatever the corresponding plan was.
The Germans opened the war with attacking Belgium because their plan dictated a quick campaign against France based on circumventing the strong, French fortifications close the border of Germany. This was based on the assumption that the French wouldn’t again be so stupid to try to invade Southern Germany but man their fortification to repel an attack. Of course, they were so stupid but redirection a marching army on short notice was simply impossible. As Belgium was neutral and this neutrality had been guaranteed by the United Kingdom, it entered the war as well and the “great conflagration” was complete.
You don’t have to associate with war such simplified and so easily despised authoritarian figureheads. They are popular Satans for naive, so metal after 90s should already know better. After unexpectedly horrible experience of WWI the will to fight even more actually came from common people, front soldiers, not some cartoonesque warmongers.
The great human fiction: “The elites did this to us!”
The grim human truth: “We create our elites, every time!”
This assessment of monarchy seems right to me because the idea of “mass popularity” as ultimate yardstick sounds very wrong. I also suspect that ardent »republicans« are mainly pissed of that there’s something their money won’t buy.
But that’s not an informed opinion and descendents of noble men aren’t necessarily noble themselves.
“Monarchies worked better than democracy”.
Bit of a vague statement isn’t it? For every great royal house there’s a line of self-serving imbecile tyrants that would never allow dissenters of your level to exist. Democracy vs monarchy is like fixed low income vs roulette.
No, it is not. Compare historical eras. The less power the monarchy have had, the more we have been involved in large scale warfare of an ideological nature. Remember the Napoleonic wars. Also look at the existential conditions of citizens and the seemingly intractable and civilization-threatening problems we face.
Then the great ones rise above and the others fail, or allowing dissenters is not useful.
Or maybe fixed income versus competitive labor. The best rise, instead of everyone living in a trailer and hanging out on the internet all day waiting for entropy to take us.
The best will always rise but they also need to realize that governing humans is a futile effort and that they should Just focus on themselves and expanding their abilities and mind. For within themselves they can manifest everything that is pure and perfect, but whenever they try to extend this manifestation to their fellow men it is inevitably tainted and broken.
The problem is that a “rise” like that of a royal house doesn’t necessarily require more than a talent for backstabbing and brute force. Did Lenin and Trotsky “rise” because they were wiser than the system they overthrew and more suitable for power? In modern terminology that’s called careering and you could call Steve Jobs a king.
and I fail to see role you ascribed to Ludendorff). But I provided conclussion that stay strong despite all those inevitable reservations. You provided unnecessary lesson of quite popular history,
On 29th of September 1918, the so-called “Schwarze Tag des deutschen Heeres” (black day of the German army), Ludendorff demanded that immediate steps for seeking an armistice on the base of Wilson’s 14 point plan to avoid a military catastrophe. But this meant the emperor had to go and Germany had to be turned into a democratically governed state. This led to the first German government formed from members of the parliamentary majority, initially under Max von Baden as chancellor who then planned to transfer control to the leader of the largest party, Friedrich Ebert. The republic was a lunchbreak accident which occured in between.
The more general issue here is that Germany had a thoroughly incompetent monarch who let the also incompetent military leaders run free. The USA didn’t really ‘intervene’, they were forced into the war because unannounced submarine attacks on US vessels (among others) had been resumed because Ludendorff wrongly believed this would enable Germany to win the war before the numerical superiority of its opponents became overwhelming. When this turned out to be wrong, said military leaders preferred saving their own asses for a future, better day instead of honouring the oaths of loyalty they had sworn to the emperor.
This thing may have looked nice from the outside but its core was rotten.
As I’ve said, there is no doubt about certain weaknesses and Wilhelm II was their prime example. After Wilhelm I and even more after Bismarck, Germany strived for politician of his calibre (despite his many shortcomings – before you mention them). Instead they’ve got banal experts with lack of depth and insight. Maybe socialdemocrats were closest to something, but they were, after all, leftists. If not overly marxists, then preoccupied with trivialities.
About Ludendorff – I still don’t get it. You can say that he made very bad choices, that he want to give up a war but not monarchy. He was looking into available solution but not at any price, as he didn’t made that decision in the end. Not trying to say here, that he highly esteemed Kaiser.
Looking for coup de grace look no further than that: monarchy was de facto finished when republic was unlawfully proclaimed. When de iure – it doesn’t really matter, because the loss of true legitimacy was already declared and apparent. Monarchy was weak,and I can add to that metaphysical exhaustion and immutable laws of history if you want, but it was international revolution (true – still quite halfhearted in Germany back then) in its many forms, which ended monarchy in Germany. But I would want to avoid something here. We shouldn’t pressume with such ease that if a country is weak then revolution must be something certain, necessary, or that it’s some reasonable reaction of people (ha,ha) to injustice or war, because by that we have already justified every irreversible crime and stupidity of perpetrators.
As for the USA – more important than decisive reason are their internal factors that led to intervention.
About Ludendorff – I still don’t get it. You can say that he made very bad choices, that he want to give up a war but not monarchy.
Not necessarily the monarchy as a token institution but the emperor and the existing constitution of the empire. The USA had gone to war specifically to get rid of both. Creating a ‘parliamentary’ cabinet lead by Max v. Baden was de facto a coup as appointing/ dismissing the chancellor was a prerogative of the emperor who wasn’t even consulted but presented with the fait accompli and then urged to abdicate. As this didn’t move forward quickly enough, v. Baden even published the news that the emperor had abdicated before he actually did so (source: S. Hafner, Der Verrat, 5th ed, Verlag 1900 Berlin, 2002).
The German revolution was an entirely different animal (and had no connection to the Russian one) and the outcome of that was eliminated by the new “social-democrat republican government” via (fairly bloody) intervention of military “volunteer units” specifically created for this purpose (an earlier plan to use the western army after marching it back to German territory faltered after mass desertion of conscripts).
Eh, I know most of that, I just tend to wrap it into conclusions to avoid citing long excerpts. Von Baden case (as well as that of Ludendorff and Hindenburg) was a case of insubordination and transgression. It was unlawful act. Such things happen. For authority “that moment” is popular delegitimization, mass denouncement.
By international revolution I didn’t mean that the German revolution was literally one with Russian as in official organisation, although they were connected on many levels: by central idea, by their powerful sympathizers, through informations about their advances they influenced each other, at some points in time their people have met each other etc.
We do have a moron president by the name of Barack Obama, but that will change come January 20th when a smarter individual will be sworn in.
Majority of humans on planet earth are morons.
Most people are morons, but even worse, see the world through the narrow prism of their personal interests and are oblivious to the rest. A purge and natural selection burst are needed.
This small, isolated point, I couldn’t agree more with! But hark! Massive natural disaster is on the horizon and if we do not, then close future generations will see natural selection retake its rightful place upon the throne of Earth.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both smarter than Donald Trump. Being smarter than someone doesn’t mean you’ll do better than them. Your appraisal betrays a partisanship I wasn’t expecting to see on the internet’s preeminent post-nihilist death metal and undiagnosed learning disorders support forum.
In what reality is Trump intelligent, because he surely isn’t in this one. I couldn’t care less about his politics. He can subjugate and eliminate all the Spicks, towel heads, niggers etc… he wants, so far as I’m concerned, but don’t try and justify it as if it’s all by some intelligent design. He’s got big balls and is willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants, but that doesn’t mean he’s any smarter than Obama… And it also doesn’t mean he wouldn’t see every last one of his supporters dead if it made him a buck. He obviously has no honor or loyalty… Obama, Hillary, Bernie, Trump are all the same person. Stop thinking things will get better. A child grave is the only thing you have to look forward to…
*a cold grave.
No, no. You meant “child grave.”
Yeah you’re right haha…
trying to hide that they funds
Fund*
Thanks Clippy!
Despite the poor turn that this site has taken recently, I am still a patriot. I still want to fix it. I still believe in metal.
So let me proof read articles before they go up.
*proofread
I should proofread my comments about proofreading.
I second this and I officially volunteer to be a proofreader. I’m assuming that you’ve got my email address since you gotta enter it to post comments here. If you want any of your articles proofread, just send them right over to my email address. I am a busy man, but I reckon that I’ll get through most of them.
Go back to Reddit™ with your grammar corrections, you fucking faggot.
Reddit is like the Special Education department of the internet.
You’re just mad no-one knows enough about you to ask for an AMA, which you wouldn’t do anyway because you don’t have the strength of character needed to pull your intellect, which SUCKS because I LOVE YOU in a NON GAY WAY. I feel like you should’ve sat a self-esteem class or something before you torpedoed your work with DECADES of trolling. Because you’re worth it.
http://www.amerika.org/politics/brett-stevens-qa-on-reddit-december-22-8-pm-est/
fcuk yeah this article was the bomb. long live Israel/amerirca via saudi/ISIS scapegoat
I hope everyone dies. You mortals sicken me.
Says the fellow mortal. Don’t hope, do… start killing people if you really want that.
If he starts with himself, I’m sure it will catch on.
I’m going to start with you in a human centipede experiment. Your mouth will be sewn to your rabbi’s anus,your arms removed,his legs at the hip. Then I’ll drop you in the woods so you can crawl on the forest floor for sustenance.
Don’t try ripping your mouth from his anus because you now both rely on eachother for movement. That & separation will trigger an explosion just powerful enough to make you a vegetable that feels only pain.
You obviously just want me to lick your ass.
i just saw the gayest guy on earth
Why expend the energy when you can get people to do it for you with minimal effort?
“Kill any ten people & I’ll give you this counterfeit crack boulder….oh crack isn’t your thing? 20 people & these jordans are yours”.
Okay… I’m still just reading ideas. I’m assuming (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you have yet to manifest anything of consequence.
mom i posted my extreme heavy metal contempt for human life again hahahaha and i also demeaned B L A C K P E O P L E hahahahahaha black pepole are way less smart than me for not living like i do, a life in which i am really truly happy
i hope you stop being such a gay mopey faggot case on the internet, you fucking sooky queer. i bet even boyd rice has sucked less dicks than you.
A Case For Meritocracy
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tFmryhDL03UNWEhGcIzBEYnsMMLXzUUzgRzvSRmnbJ0/edit?usp=sharing
Yeah, and those fundamentalists have been doing all that with full western powers support since Reagan at the very least, and some support even before that, like for the fall of Mossadegh in Iran.
(well the Muslim Brotherhood was funded in Egypt in early 20th century with backing from the Suez canal compagny and made it’s peace with British colonialism during WW2 to help control social unrests).
Syria is a NATO proxy war where al-nosra was doing “good work” (as French foreign affaires minister Fabius put it) until recently. Now they are still useful scarecrows to justify sending troops there that will be used in a bigger conflagration soon enough.
Point is : Conservatives of every cultural background can get along each other pretty well as long as there’s money to make, so stop looking at all this with that “culture shock” analysis grid, it only prevents you to get closer to reality.
More importantly: the USA funds ISIS and the “rebels” in Syria.
Fucking kikes and their marionette.
please do not use anti-semitic language on this website as it demeans the victims of the holocaust
islamo-fascists: our comrades in the east!
That’s rich.
where’s the death metal in this whole discussion? i mean the death metal with guitars, bass, drums, growls that sometime ago even used to make fun to some people almost 30 years ago while they played and listened to it someone remember all the dm concerts where we’ve gone to escape all this shit discussed here, while it still was music foremost and even fun? for those who want to remember what it started like or to those who unfortunately even know, check the link below, i heavily doubt anyone in this death metal documented in thus video including the band and me stagediving thought about us presidents or statements of the arab world. maybe rename deathmetal.org into deathpolitics.org would be s solution too..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTsKWvMnwr0
“Everything recorded after 1993 is total shit” (newsflash: Most things recorded up to and including 1993 were also shit. That’s life.) and “Accept nothing short of perfection!” doesn’t lend itself to much musically.
Still something I’m looking forward to get:
https://gravebomb.bandcamp.com/track/possessed
We could be discussing music here instead of this dead people’s pasttime.
i totally agree with you here bro, good call
A bad king is better than a democracy of geniuses.
A bad king makes wrong decisions half of the time while a democracy always makes wrong decisions.
“Good King Cole,
He called for his Bowl,
And he called for Fiddler’s THREEEEE!!!!”
This place is like 4chan now, you should post an article and link to Old Disgruntled Bastard everytime he posts something new as he is eloquent and inspiring as opposed to duuurrrr drool inducing
offtopic – Varg made couple of great videos lately, could you post them here? thanks
please don’t i already play shadowrun and i don’t want to learn another system right now
I read the 2nd edition rulebook of Shadowrun, I couldn’t get anyone into it.
a classic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr1K_vJ3gcw