Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Identity

The PC Metal Inquisition Continues

The metal media appears to have taken up a new crusade recently—the rooting out of thought crime in the music scene and interrogating all potential dissidents.

The metal media appears to have taken up a new crusade recently—the rooting out of thought crime in the music scene and interrogating all potential dissidents.

Earlier this year, the black metal band Inquisition faced a media storm worthy of their name and had to endure media harassment for alleged Nazi ties. Most of the story originated from a rabid leftist blogger who wants the metal scene to work harder to include transsexuals and a “reformed” skinhead who alleged the band made pro-Nazi statements in his presence.

This is all it takes for a witch hunt to now be ordered against a metal band.

Now the press has found a bigger target for the self-righteous indigination–the Guitar Hero favorite and purveyors of cheese Dragonforce.

In an interviewwith the Vice music affiliate Noisey, Dragonforce founder Sam Totman undergoes an interview that’s more akin to a kindergarten teacher harranguing one of her students for sticking bubblegum under his desk.

Totman is repeatedly askedt to “explain” why an old band of his had “racist” and “homophobic” content:

NOISEY: So, I wanted to talk to you about something that happened way before the new album. I was digging around a little bit and found Demoniac, the band you were in before Dragonforce. I really want to know what the fuck you guys were doing.
Sam Totman: Hah! We started that, me and my friend, back in New Zealand in the 1990s. It was when I was 18 or something. We were having a laugh basically. We just sort of thought “Oh, let’s play some black metal” because we didn’t know any good singers so we couldn’t do any other kind of music except for black metal, death metal. It was just kind of a big joke really. Our first record was all serious, Satan this, Satan that, and we did quite well with that. The second one kind of turned into NOFX crossed with black metal, and then the third one got into power metal so it was like power metal crossed with black metal, and no one really got it basically.

In fairness I don’t know if NOFX ever sang about “killing faggots” and raping children and killing black dudes. That was what I saw when I looked up the band.
We had some strange characters in that band and everyone kind of wrote their own songs, so any dodgy ones weren’t anything to do with me…

I can’t get over the lyrics honestly. Has nobody ever pulled you up about that before?
Nah.

Really?
Not really, no. Nobody really cared about that band anyway.

I mean, it took like five minutes on Metal Archives to find all that. You guys have really young fans, and you’ve got songs about raping “old fags” and killing “queer cunts” and that’s…not so good.
We had a bit of a twisted sense of humor. We were just having a laugh.

Things are a little different now than they were in ‘99. I don’t think it’s really that funny. What if a 12 year old kid goes on there and thinks “Oh, so Dragonforce thinks it’s cool to beat up gay kids”?
To put it simply, it was us having a laugh and all the dodgy stuff like that was mostly our old drummer. It was just a laugh and it was a long time ago so it’s not really a big deal.

And the interview continues on like that for its entirety. Totman says it was just them joking around, interviewer keeps demanding an apology. Nothing is resolved.

One noticeable shift from the treatment of Inquisition is how Dragonforce were treated easy in comparison. Another major metal outlet even published a defense of the band and dubbed the lyrics of their past band youthful stupidity. Both the previous band, Demoniac, and Dragonforce both have the same Asian guitarist and this might sufficiently satisfy claims that they aren’t racist.

For a genre that likes to glorify itself as outside the norms of conventional society, those norms seem to be sweeping through the scene and ensuring that everyone keeps to their dictates. While the lyrical content of Demoniac was certainly not tasteful, the majority of metal lyrics aren’t high prose either. The point is now how the media demands penitence for any past transgressions and assurances that it will never happen again.

Just like the proverbial kindergarten teacher with her bubblegum terrorist of a student.

Like the rest of society, expect more victims for the PC metal inquisition in the next few years.

No Comments on The PC Metal Inquisition Continues

Death to Urban Elves!

It’s time to call a spade a spade.

Or, in this case, it’s time to call an Elf an Elf.

Originally published at Jack-Donovan.com

Now is the time for plain speaking.

It’s time to call a spade a spade.

Or, in this case, it’s time to call an Elf an Elf.

Oh, we’ve danced around the issue and called them by many names.

In the 1960s, our people called them “hippies.”

People today sometimes call them hipsters, but hipster-ism is a pose affected by rude, youthful elves who mock us with Pabst Blue Ribbon and vintage cigarettes because they know that when you live for an average of 700 years, you don’t have to take anything very seriously.

“SWPL,” or “Stuff White People Like” was also a cute euphemism, but we all knew we weren’t talking about “stuff white people like” in general. Lots of white people like Coors Light and know how to fix cars and listen to mainstream country music unironically.

We weren’t talking about those white people, and everyone knew it.

We were talking about creatures with white skin who AREN’T REALLY PEOPLE.

I’ve mentioned them in passing, but it’s time to identify the enemy. We must NAME THE ELF.

Elves are often mistaken for humans, because they have similar features and white skin, but they tend to be slender and slightly more delicate than the race of men.

I live in Portland, and that’s where I first noticed the obvious differences between humans who live in the suburbs and in the country, and urban elves, who live downtown, shop at Whole Foods, pretend to read UTNE, and see themselves as “stewards of the Earth.” They’re always saying queer, condescending things to humans, like, “why don’t you just evolve?”

The show Portlandia is actually complicated tongue-in-cheek Elvish humor. It’s self-deprecating and neurotic but somehow also celebratory and awkwardly amusing, like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Elves can breed with humans, but they are embarrassed of their attractions to brutish and short-lived humans so they prefer to murder the children before their Elders find out. This is why elves tend to be feminist and vote Democrat. Elves also tend to be outspoken feminists because the elvish race, which has much in common with the Dwarves (but we’re not going to get into the whole gold-mongering Dwarf thing here), is almost completely androgynous and elvish communities have been matriarchal since their Age of Vulvar began in 33 AD. Elves will often say that “gender is just a construct” because they like to tease “unevolved” humans, who they know full well have more fully differentiated sexes.

Hen-pecked Elvish males are secretly jealous of human men, though, so they work with the Dwarves to market birth control pills, human pornography, soy products, plastics and other products with dysgenic, emasculating effects. They don’t actually consume these products themselves, which is why they can often be spotted at “health food” stores. “Health food” and “organic” are both shortened versions of unpronounceable Elvish words that translate roughly to “not the poison slop we feed stupid humans.” Sadly, wealthy and high-born humans often collude with Elves to push these products on the lower human castes, to keep them weak, compliant and easy to control.

However, it was the courage of an Alabama congressman that inspired me to finally “come out of the closet” as an elf hater.

Congressman Mo Brooks came out and said what I’ve known for some time.

The thoroughly Elf and Dwarf-controlled Democratic Party has long been waging a “War on White People” by conducting a massive university-based re-education campaign to get white people to “reject their whiteness” which is code for rejecting their basic human nature, and act more like white Elves. Elves see white humans as a nuisance, and know that if white humans hate themselves and adopt Elvish breeding habits and matriarchal lifeways, they will die out in an Elvish decade or two because of their shorter life spans. Elvish Democrats have also moved to import non-white peoples, orcs and goblins into white human areas as part of their ethnic cleansing campaign. Their secret slogan, which sounds far more sinister in Elvish, is “no white people, no white people problems.” After the extinction of white people, the elves will quickly move to enslave the unsuspecting non-whites, orcs and goblins, and rule planet Earth in alliance with the clever gold-hoarding Dwarves.

Most white people laugh at ideas like a “War on White People,” because they have been glamoured by Elvish magic, so they cannot see the Elves’ pointy ears or creepy high cheekbones. Also, it seems like the people in prominent positions on both sides of this “war” are white. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, for instance, are not Elvish, but Elvish yes-people who have been promised immortality by Elves in exchange for their treachery. The joke will be on them, because the Elves lost the secret of passing immortality to humans in 1323 BC, during the Tutankhamen debacle, and this was well known to human scholars until the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in 642 by the Goblin Caliph Omar.

I do not mean for this to sound partisan, because the Republican Party in America, for the most part, simply wolf-whistles about the “War on White People” to create confusion and advance the interests of moneyed white humans, who hope to bargain with Elves after the majority of their white human rubes have been exterminated. They are sneaky backroom dealers and cannot be trusted.

That’s why I’m reaching out to you, common white human.

Let the scales fall from your eyes, my brothers and sisters.

The Elves are not your friends.

Stop taking their “diversity” and “women’s studies” misinformation classes. Stop supporting their puppet “parties.” There is only one political party. THE ELVISH PARTY.

Stop listening to their Elvish “Hollywood” folklore.

These are not your people.

They aren’t even people!

They’re elves, and it’s “us” or “them”

DEATH TO URBAN ELVES!

RUN TO THEIR DOWNTOWN BOUTIQUE STORES AND RIP THEIR ANCIENT HEARTS OUT OF THEIR SKINNY, SUNKEN CHESTS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

1 Comment on Death to Urban Elves!

Like The Roman: Knight Fight Club

This ain’t LARPing.

Hat tip to commenter Logan Smith for sharing this. This is a promotional video for a Polish television show centered around medieval combat tournaments. This ain’t LARPing.

The Polish Knight Fighting League is no scripted medieval battle reenactment. It’s more like a Dark-Ages-themed tournament for people who share a passion for shiny helmets and medieval martial arts. Participants put on full protective armor and try to land as many hits on their opponents as possible. They can strike with their metal weapons and shields, or simply use punches, kicks or headbutts. Matches are judged on points, like fencing, where the knight with he most connected hits wins the game, or by knockdown, where the first man to touch the ground with more than a third of their body loses. Would-be knights can participate in one-on-one duels, or team matches where the ultimate goal is to knock-down as many opponents as possible. The team with the most people left standing when time is called wins the day. Sounds like a fun time if you’re into this sort of thing, but judging by the promo video below, it can get pretty brutal. Apart from hitting an unarmored opponent and landing hits to the spine, neck and back of the knees, everything else is apparently permitted.

Watch this after reading William Neville’s latest piece, “Reclaiming the Way of the Sword.”

No Comments on Like The Roman: Knight Fight Club

STIHIE: Free Beer for Latino Heritage

Isn’t corporate advertising great?

Earlier this year, Budweiser sponsored the rollout of the film Cesar Chavez (yes, really) and decided to reward Latino audience members at one showing for their special, Latino heritage – with a free beer. And only the audience members who understood Spanish would be able to get a Bud. This apparently makes for good advertising.

Watch as we’re all supposed to laugh at the gringos for sitting in ignorance while the Hispanics have all the fun outside. It appears Budweiser knows where the demographics are heading and knows Whites aren’t the future in this bizarre ad.

Isn’t corporate advertising great?

No Comments on STIHIE: Free Beer for Latino Heritage

Beauties in Beast Mode

These women are becoming more like men–physically, emotionally and in many cases, chemically. In the process, these manly women are distorting our perception of what women are, and what men should want from them. They are female fighters, lifters, soldiers, Crossfitters, bodybuilders, competitive athletes, movie stars, and the countless women who flock to trainers trying to emulate them.

Why Are So Many Men Applauding Masculine Women?

The professional feminists who scold us from the headlines of Time, Salon, Slate and The Atlantic aren’t exactly breaking gender stereotypes. They specialize in nagging, moral hygiene, and high melodrama. Feminists claim there’s a WAR against them every time they don’t get something they want, and when they’re not playing victims for sympathy or dreaming up new ways to say they’ve been raped, they’re busy gossiping about celebrities and giggling about pretty boys like Ryan Gosling. They would naturally object, but most feminists are, truly, basic bitches.

Beyond the feminist world of words and micro-aggressions, there are women–who may or may not identify themselves as feminists–who are not just verbally, but physically and aggressively challenging gender roles and overcoming sex differences.

These women are becoming more like men–physically, emotionally and in many cases, chemically. In the process, these manly women are distorting our perception of what women are, and what men should want from them. They are female fighters, lifters, soldiers, Crossfitters, bodybuilders, competitive athletes, movie stars, and the countless women who flock to trainers trying to emulate them.

Feminists will claim and celebrate the successes of these manly women, but it is often men–masculine and hierarchically-oriented men–who are coaching and pushing these women to become more masculine.

Check out the photos in this article about women and lifting from women’s blog XOVain. Notice who’s spotting her? Behind every strong woman, there’s some guy telling her she’s a strong woman.

From regular gym-bros and NRA members to prominent trainers, fitness writers, and successful athletes, the guys most likely to complain about the pussification of men consistently pole-vault over each other to promote, defend, and generally fawn over any woman willing to handle a barbell, a ball, or a rifle.

Why are so many guys who are disgusted by effeminate men so supportive of masculine women?

I’ve been thinking about it for a while–every time I see men I know share some “strong is sexy” pic of a broad shouldered woman with an 8-pack. I wonder about it every time I see them point to a woman who is obviously taking male hormones as an example of a “real woman.” And I have to peel my palm off my forehead every time some tough guy turns radfem and starts telling any man who questions this that he is just “threatened” by “strong women.”

Exactly how manly do women have to be for us to be sure men are “secure with their masculinity?”

I’ve talked about this with a bunch of guys, including some strongmen, martial artists, and powerlifters, and here are some of the reasons why I think so many masculine men are encouraging women to be more like them.

Men are Being Solipsistic

Men are judging women as if women were men.

Guys have been taught from an early age, thanks to the scolding of feminist educators, that there are no “male” virtues, only human virtues. Men are naturally drawn to the old masculine virtues of strength, courage and mastery. They place a high value on traits and behaviors that men have always valued in each other. So, instead of letting women be women and appreciating the differences between the sexes, men are imposing their own idea of what is good on the women in their lives.

Radical feminists would, somewhat ironically, call this sexist and oppressive, because it is men telling women how to behave based on their own preferences and biases.

Why is a woman only a good woman if she acts like a man? That’s the patriarchy talking!

Men who appreciate manly excellence are doubly impressed when a female shows interest or aptitude in a manly sport or pastime. It’s not uncommon to see some alpha male type overlook 100 guys working just as hard and performing better to fawn over a female marksman, lifter or fighter because, well…“isn’t she something?”

It’s also easier to give a woman special attention, because you don’t have to deal with man drama–that whole push/pull, dick-measuring thing men do as they perpetually work out their chimpanzee hierarchies.

Men Don’t Actually Like Women

A dirty secret about men is that a lot of them don’t really like women. They like looking at women naked and they like having sex with women and they may even fall in love with women, but for the most part, they don’t really like women.

I’ve had a lot of heterosexual men tell me that they almost wish they were homosexual, because they find most women irritating and they feel like they have almost nothing in common with them. This actually seems to be the case more frequently with extremely masculine men, and it makes sense that they would have less in common with women. A male psychotherapist who works primarily with men in the military called me recently to talk about men and masculinity, and he mentioned hearing this from a lot of his clients too.

Actually, as I was writing this, a buddy of mine was texting me about this girl he was trying to talk into having sex with him. He was pretending she was interesting, but the truth is he just thought she was hot. Men do this all the time. His last text read, “I think I already hate her.” He went on a date with her later that week.

Feminists would call this “misogyny,” but I’d call it “normal.” It’s normal to want to hang out with people who are more like you, who have the same kinds of aspirations and who have similar interests. So it seems like when a lot of these guys fantasize about a perfect woman, they fantasize about some kickass chick who likes sports and guns, who won’t ask them to watch chick flicks or talk about the last episode of The Bachelor or say that everything is “amazing.”

Men Today Want “Activity Pals,” Not Girlfriends or Wives

Men and women used to understand that they were different, and that they would spend time apart doing different things. Men learned to love their women as women, and enjoyed them for who they were on their own terms, but they didn’t need or expect to have the same kinds of relationships with their wives that they had with their best pals.

Feminists have preached for decades that men and women were supposed to be “equal partners” in everything, and that seeped in and contributed to the idea that husbands and wives were supposed to want to do everything together.

But this desire for women to like and do “guy things” is as much a product of modern life as anything else–especially in America. Americans work a lot of hours, often odd hours, and it takes a lot of time and energy to maintain any kind of relationship.

Most men used to work with other men all day long, and work time has been “guy time” since men were hunting aurochs. Male friendships were forged and maintained in the process of aggressing against animals or nature or other men. As Lionel Tiger theorized in the 60s, that’s how men “bonded.” Today, most men get few if any opportunities to do “guy things” at work. Most corporate jobs are actually pretty emasculating. Most men also work with women, so work time usually isn’t “guy time.”

Because any relationship requires an investment of time and energy, it is difficult for a lot of men to maintain strong male friendships as working adults. If they want a girlfriend or a wife they’re going to have to invest a lot of their free time in building and maintaining a relationship with her, and there are only so many hours left in a week. If a man enjoys sports or working out or shooting guns, getting a woman to enjoy those things too probably means he’ll get to do them more often, and as a couple, they will likely spend more money on those activities. A lot of guys come to the conclusion, consciously or not, that if they want to do guy stuff and have a girlfriend, it would be better to find a girl who either already likes doing guy stuff or who can be encouraged to like doing guy stuff.

It’s like the dad who wants a son but ends up with a daughter, so he makes the best of it and teaches the daughter to do all of the things he wanted to teach a son to do. Some tom-boys are born, but a lot of them are made by dads in the same way that mothers sometimes make their sons into girlfriends. We’re not supposed to blame parents for this–we’re supposed to call that a myth and say “that’s just who they wanted to be”–but humans are heavily influenced by peer affirmation, and if you spend an unusual amount of time with your father or mother or boyfriend, you’re probably going to end up a little more like them.

Men want guy friends and girlfriends but girlfriends demand a lot of time, so some men end up slowly turning their girlfriends into guy friends. Women who want boyfriends who actually seem to like them and give them a lot of positive affirmation and attention end up learning to like doing things their boyfriends like doing.

I’m not looking to blame anyone for this–for the most part it just seems like modern couples are making the best of their situation.

There is a point, though, where making your girl into your bro gets out of hand. When you’re telling other dudes to “check out your wife’s sick lats” or bragging about how she could out-lift them and probably kick their asses…maybe you need some guy time before you and your wife end up shaving each others’ chests.

Unless that’s what you’re into.

Men are Fantasizing about “Shieldmaidens” and Sci-Fi Supergirls

Even as progressive Hollywood writes a tough-talking, man-tossing supermodel superhero into almost every action movie, and Marvel makes Thor a woman, much of the far right is also fapping away to fantasies of bosomy blonde Valkyries and sexy shieldmaidens. It’s difficult to tell how prominent a role women warriors played in Germanic cultures, but some scattered information is being played up to flatter women and encourage an absurdly modern feminist inclusiveness among so-called radical traditionalists. There have always been tales of female warriors, but they have generally been exceptions to the rule, and the women who fought successfully alongside men probably looked more like Brienne of Tarth than a sword-wielding succubus from a Heavy Metal magazine cover.

If men really want a co-ed warrior caste of eugenically bred, chemically enhanced, man-jawed super-persons to transcend the human condition and prepare our race for interstellar war with the Klingons, then they need to be more honest about that, and work out some of the contradictions and inconsistencies in their worldviews.

I’ll admit I’ve toyed with the seemingly eugenic notion that it would be better for everyone to be terrifyingly strong, fast, smart, and aggressive.

Leave it to a man to think up something like that.

It has some merit and appeal, but like all utopian dreams, it seems likely to decay rapidly when exposed to human nature. As with today’s military, the newspapers would get their carefully curated success stories even as internal morale and brotherhood failed, and women would hide behind sterile double-standards as they used sex to manipulate their male peers. The idea that women would be better and better off if they were encouraged to become mentally and physically more like men–but with men with shapely breasts and tight round asses–is just more sci-fi male solipsism.

Something in men tells them that might is right, and something lower tells them that women are hot, so I guess it makes sense that a lot of young men would decide that hot ‘n mighty women are the pinnacle of human perfection. I’d like to blame this on a post-feminist world of sexual confusion, or even ronery Asian animators, but Robert E. Howard was writing sword-swinging chicks into Conan stories back in the 1930s. The sexy warrior woman is an ancient archetype that’s long held a place in the pornographic pantheon of male fantasy. We’re just at a patch in history where it’s easy to lose perspective and imagine the exotic anomaly as a new norm.

Men Can’t Get Enough of the CrossFit Butt

The CrossFit butt sold more average men on weightlifting for women than a decade’s worth of oily blondes pumping iron in muscle mags.

You’ve seen the photos. You know what I’m talking about.

It makes perfect evolutionary sense for men to fixate on the rear-mount impregnation point padding of healthy young females. Some black men have a thing for gigantic Hottentot hindquarters, and I know some white guys who go for the Rubenesque Jell-O butt thing, but it makes sense for the majority of men to want that perfectly rounded, unblemished rear end that signals youthful fertility.

Women today are marrying later than their predecessors, if at all, and by the time they decide to settle down and have kids, they’re probably been sitting on their asses in some office eating those muffins from Starbucks for a decade or so. The prevailing wisdom says the only way women can keep that perky posterior is to do squats. Lots and lots of squats. When women object that grunt and thrust power moves like squatting seem a little…butch…men who normally hate feminists find themselves talking about breaking down gender boundaries and “reimagining our idea of female strength.” Because, well, “dat ass.”

Men Know Where The Money Is

Guys get into the fitness industry because they like training. Some got turned on to training when they used working out to transform themselves or to work through a rough part of their lives, but many more trainers, gym owners, writers and fitness entrepreneurs are just jocks who decided to try to do what they love doing for a living.

The bug, or the feature, depending on your perspective, is that unless you’re selling supplements or you’re a big shot with a name and a book or a new program, the real money is in marketing to women. Especially if you’re a trainer or a gym owner.

There are two obvious reasons for this.

First, the men who are most willing to give up everything and train to be elite athletes also tend to be young guys with little if any disposable income. Kids who pin their hopes on something as chancy as becoming a professional fighter or an extreme athlete often come from broken homes on the wrong side of the tracks. People with a lot of disposable income to spend on expensive gym memberships and personal training tend to be older, and most men over 30 have either figured out how stay in shape on their own or have let themselves go to focus on making money. Men are sexually objectified now more than they used to be, but plenty of wives are happy with a doughy husband as long as he brings home the dough.

Second, the body is a machine, and if a man cares about his body, he will tinker with it until he figures it out. Most men will buy books and talk to other guys at the gym and read websites and watch thousands of videos and argue furiously for endless hours with other men on the Internet about which technique or program is the best before they will pay a personal trainer to hold their hand and walk them through a basic routine. A lot of them would probably really benefit from a few sessions with a trainer, but it’s kind of like…asking for directions. Men want to figure it out themselves. Women generally prefer to be shown.

So, most male trainers end up counting reps for middle-aged women. Unless you’re at an elite level coaching professional athletes or entertainers, that’s the job. Go to any Globogym and see who is training who.

Most male trainers, no matter how jacked they are, no matter how much they can squat, no matter how much Hatebreed or Metallica or they listen to, eventually realize that they are in the female empowerment business. And to keep doing it day in and out, a lot of them probably convince themselves that’s a good thing. Who doesn’t like empowerment? It’s their job to lure cardio bunnies off their ellipticals and out of their Zumba classes. They sit through countless consultations listening to housewives tell them they’re worried about “getting too big” and masculine looking.

Of course these trainers know that noticeable hypertrophy is something they had to train for specifically, even as men, and there is no chance that a woman in her 30s, 40s or 50s will “accidentally” get yoked. With a lot of work, they might get the backs of their arms to stop jiggling and maybe even get something approaching a CrossFit butt.

These women want to look like taut TV and pop stars whose aging bodies have the support of top trainers, plastic surgery, Botox, human growth hormone, Clenbuterol, Adderall, and possibly Oxandrolone or Stanozolol–the testosterone derivatives especially popular with female bodybuilders. It’s rumored that the last two are also frequently used by female CrossFitters, and may well be responsible for many of the inspirational photos trainers use to motivate their female clients.

This leads to an important consideration. If men take female hormones to gain the characteristics of females, we call them transsexuals. If women are be told to admire women who take testosterone and testosterone derivatives to gain the characteristics of men, aren’t they being encouraged to look like borderline transsexuals? Is the fitness community’s “ideal woman” really a vascular tranny with the 6-pack, biceps, and modified rear end of an 18 year-old dude? What does that say about this brave, new post-feminist bonobo culture? Why the double standard?

As personal trainers work with their clients, they help feminine women overcome their natural resistance to increasingly heavy resistance training by pointing to these strong, empowered, masculinized women as examples of a reimagined femininity. They sweet-talk their clients and make them feel good about themselves, because that’s what keeps them coming back and paying for the pleasure.

“Don’t be afraid of your own strength.”

“You’re stronger than you realize.”

“Women can be strong, too.”

And, as they shape them into fitter versions of themselves, whispering words of encouragement in moments of vulnerability, guiding their movements with a firm, caressing hand, carefully watching the form of every hip thrust, a lot of these trainers are setting up their next job perk.

Most male trainers end up banging a choice selection of their most loyal female clients. I watched one CrossFit coach take home one after another for months. I delivered fitness equipment to private gyms for years and watched the dynamic between these guys and their attentive, blushing clients. It’s become a fairly well-known phenomenon since then. It’s like bagging cougars in a zoo.

I’d bet many of the memes and slogans about women, strength, and training that “strong women” repeat and reformat and post to their Pinterest accounts and Facebook pages are the echoes of trainer game. We see this “Strong is the new skinny,” “Lift Like a Girl,” and “The myth that women shouldn’t lift heavy weights is only perpetuated by women who fear work and men who fear women” stuff over and over again because some guy, somewhere, was trying to fuck another man’s wife.

Trainers are the worst offenders, but it’s not just trainers. Almost every testosterone-fueled, hardcore, shit-talking lifting or fighting blog or site that I’ve read and enjoyed has posted some go-girl female empowerment article about “strong women” in the past year or so. They use them to drive traffic, expand their audience, avoid butthurt from a handful nagging female readers and clients, bathe in female affirmation (“likes” and “shares”), and probably to get laid. Almost none of their hero-worshipping fanboys will object, because they know they’ll be called insecure cowards, fags, micropenised misogynists, and anyway, “Look! There’s a hot girl lifting weights!”

Redefinition, Sex Roles, and The Flip Side of Feminism

The problem with this is not that some female outlier will shatter our illusions by being stronger than some men.

The differences between the sexes are on curves–they’re not mutually exclusive. The fact that strength is and has always been one of the defining virtues of masculinity does not mean that all men are stronger than all women. It just means that most men are stronger than most women, and women don’t have to be strong to be considered womanly, whereas the same is not true for men. It doesn’t matter if some atypical woman who realizes she’s not like other women decides she’d rather play with the boys. That’s probably been happening for all of human history.

The problem isn’t at the extremes, it’s about using the extremes to redefine the middle.

The strong men who stand up for their “strong women” are usually also the first guys to complain about the way American society is promoting effeminate men. They’re the first ones to mock the pajama boys and the Justin Biebers and limp-wristed hipsters. They’ll happily scoff at flamboyant feather boa-ed fruitcakes, metrosexuals, goths, and emo-kids. They’ll call other men “pussies” and “vaginas” all day long.

These guys think that men should act like men and women should act like women…until it comes time to pander to their female audience, or they need a gimmick to make a little extra money, or someone calls them sexists or misogynists–which is like being called a racist, only slightly less terrifying. Then suddenly strong is the new skinny, and no one should tell a woman where she should be or what she can do. Girl power!

Most of these jocks and tough-guys would object to being called feminists, and dismiss them as fat, ugly, whiny bitches.

But if feminism is about anything, it’s about eliminating socially prescribed sex roles. Feminists would argue that people are just people, regardless of their plumbing, and no one should tell women how to be women or men how to be men. No woman–especially women, because in feminism women are more equal than men–should be told she shouldn’t be somewhere or do something based on the fact that she’s a woman. Feminists also say they believe that feminism helps everyone, because it means men shouldn’t be told how to behave or where they should go or what they should do.

Feminists are conveniently selective about how they apply this, but we’re not talking about them right now. We’re talking about big, tough dudes who don’t think they are feminists.

The guys who I’m talking about would be the first ones to make fun of the male feminists in the “I need feminism” photos.

If it’s not OK for men to act like bitches, why is it applause-worthy when bitches act like men? Applauding masculinity in women is just the flip side of the feminist project to encourage effeminacy in men. The net effect is the same: the progressive negation of sex roles.

This glaring hypocrisy is something men need to think about honestly.

It’s not a hypocrisy of progressive men, who already call themselves feminists, and are all for Mr. Milkers and women fighting wars.

It’s a hypocrisy among otherwise socially conservative men, men of the right and far-right, men who believe that men today are by-and-large an embarrassment to their forefathers. I see it among readers of mine, who agree that the way of men is the way of the gang, who agree that masculinity is about strength, courage, mastery and honor, who rant about feminism, who are concerned about fatherlessness and a lack of male mentors, who worry that male testosterone rates are dropping globally, who are angry that there are no initiations for modern men, or men’s only clubs, or places where men aren’t constantly policed by the interests of women.

I see these same guys, guys who I generally like and agree with about most issues, turn around and cheer for female UFC fighters, for women who enter strongman competitions, for female powerlifters, for any girl who handles a gun, for sexy stock car racers, for chicks with vascular arms, 8-packs, and man shoulders. I see them encouraging every woman who enters a previously male space and simultaneously complaining that there are no places where men can be men anymore.

What, gives fellas?

Decide what you really believe.

If you believe that everyone should be manly, and unmanliness should be discouraged in men and women alike, that’s a novel position. I’d like to see a man who actually believes that work it out on paper.

If you truly believe that no one should tell a man how to be a man or a woman how to be a woman, be honest about it and stop playing both sides to look cool. Call yourself a feminist, or at least a men’s rights activist, since MRA’s believe what feminists believe, but realize that feminists aren’t being completely fair or honest.

If you believe that men should act like men and women should act like women, except when it’s convenient or profitable for you, then at least be honest with yourself. Pick up a piece of poster board and write, “I need feminism when it gets me attention, money or poon.” Then face the mirror and understand what you are.

I believe that sex differences run deeper than some obvious reproductive plumbing. Males and females have had different roles for most of human evolutionary history, and our brains, hormones, and psychologies have adapted to work differently. Different things draw our interest, different things make us happy, and we need different things from each other. I believe that gender is a total life experience, “from cradle to grave,” and that while it is possible to masculinize women and emasculate men, no normal female can ever really know what it is to be male, and no normal male can ever really know what it is to be female. It’s as degrading to females to think of them merely as handicapped males as it is to think of men as females with “testosterone poisoning.” I believe that the most feminine thing a woman can do is nurse her own baby, and the most masculine thing a man can do is face death in battle. Modern life degrades both masculinity and femininity–turning motherhood into a part-time job that women are supposed to squeeze in when they aren’t doing the “important” work of making money in some corporate career and turning masculinity into a video game that men play alone.

I’ve come to the conclusion that masculinity is the product of both nature and nurture, and that most men need to be surrounded by other men who will challenge them and hold them accountable to reach their full masculine potential. Without that brotherhood, the majority of men will become increasingly weak, effeminate, insecure, withdrawn, and apathetic.

By most accounts, that’s exactly what is happening to men in America.

I am not a feminist. I believe that sex roles generally increase human happiness, social stability, and are necessary for a thriving culture. Men should tell men how to be men and women should tell women how to be women. I think it’s great when men “police gender” and call each other pussies and push each other to be stronger, braver, and more competent.

And I am absolutely certain that the regular presence of women in male spaces short-circuits this process. The introduction of females into a group of men will always change the culture of the group, weaken male friendships, chill male speech (because men talk differently to each other than they do to women), and turn men against each other.

Encouraging a woman to do something men do and inviting her into one of the few surviving male spaces is a feminist act that is ultimately, if not immediately, harmful to men and masculinity. Men should call out men who do it, instead of congratulating them for being so “open minded” or being afraid to be called “sexists.”

There’s nothing brave about being “gender inclusive” in America. It’s like being “anti-racist.” It’s the safest, most establishment position you could possibly take. The President of the United States would pat you on the back and call you a “good boy” for doing exactly what you’ve been told to do. Anti-discrimination is fashionable, commercially viable, legally enforceable, and an easy way to get approval from women.

If you want to do something brave, try discriminating.

Try saying “no.”

Instead of jumping at the opportunity to help some tough girl live her best life and be a strong, independent woman who will brag about being manlier than men, try giving her the cold shoulder.

Then grab a brother and help him rise up.

Because men are failing.

Masculinity is failing.

If you’re angry about it, do something about it and stop playing both sides.

American women have thousands of laws, organizations, books, magazines, movies, television channels, gyms, websites and celebrities working to “empower” them. You don’t need to be Captain Save-a-Ho because American women do not need your help.

I’m not saying that women shouldn’t take care of themselves or learn self-defense skills or exercise. The historical reality is that the majority of women always worked hard. They worked in fields, milked cows, scrubbed laundry, and cleaned when cleaning was harder than running a vacuum. Women knew how to work hard without trying to be men or do everything men did. Women didn’t think “women’s work” was degrading until a bunch of bored Jewish women told them making money was more important.

If women want to stay in shape, let them Zumba. Leave them to their group exercise classes and yoga and things they actually feel drawn to and enjoy doing. Let women be women. Stop trying to redefine femininity by putting lipstick on masculinity.

I’m sure some women will read this and disagree. I’m sure it will make some women angry. Some of them will probably say they want to kick my ass. But that would just prove my point about how masculinized many American women already are.

No Comments on Beauties in Beast Mode

Blue Sunshine

Something I have pondered for a very long time is to what extent the so-called “Goth,” Industrial, post-punk, EBM and synth-pop scenes are implicitly—or even at times explicitly—exclusionary on a racial basis.

 

THE WHITENESS OF GOTH

In “Psychology and White-Ethnocentrism,” Kevin MacDonald discusses groups he calls “implicitly exclusionary” on race, and explores how these groups may be used to foster greater community among Whites. Examples he gives include NASCAR, Country and Western Music, and—somewhat ironically—the GOP. He writes how such groups intuitively segregate themselves, but dare not to mention what they are. In these “implicitly exclusionary” social groups, Whites often outwardly entertain leftist ideas about multiculturalism and diversity, but remain strikingly racialist on an intuitive, instinctual level, both because of evolutionary psychology and because of repeated observations of society, social interaction, and different ethnic groups.

Precisely because such social groups are “impotent in [effectively] opposing the forces that are changing the country in ways that oppose [our] long-term interest,” these implicit White communities are simply “enclaves of retreating Whites rather than communities able to consciously pursue White interests”—that is unless and until these groups blossom into a more “explicit White culture legitimizing White interests.”

Something I have pondered for a very long time is to what extent the so-called “Goth,” Industrial, post-punk, EBM and synth-pop scenes are implicitly—or even at times explicitly—exclusionary on a racial basis.

Having listened to a variety of different artists and subgenres that fit in this larger cultural rubric for over 25 years now, I have outgrown this “scene” only to some small, limited extent. I love this music to this day, although I am far more selective of many of the later artists and subgenres. Admittedly, I have not adhered to the more outlandish fashion statements in a very long time. I usually wear black slacks, black dress-boots, and a dress shirt of some sort. In the summer time, I wear t-shirts or polos. Having also taking to weight-lifting for many years, I stand in stark contrast to many of the men in the “scene” who are underweight, and often times overtly androgynous.

Despite the modest ambivalence towards the scene that has increased with age, a cursory review of this scene and its history indicates this “implicit exclusion” seems to be its very hallmark. Go to any goth, alternative, industrial, or EBM venue, and you will see that 95 percent of the patrons are lily White. Most all of the artists are too, with the majority hailing from Europe. Several persons I have met at these venues or interacted with online are expressly racialist. One woman I know of in Seattle, who used to work as a Dominatrix, is a bona fide true believer. There are countless others.

At the most basic level, the attraction to this music and this scene, which almost invariably takes hold during early adolescence, stems from an instinctual desire to reject the status quo of the modern world. This desire seems to stem from the existential ennui that modern life, rootless bland, and often quite vulgar, can afflict on the more sensitive among us. It was not long after my purchase of Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me in the seventh grade that I learned that Robert Smith of The Cure was lauded by one critic as ”the thinking teen’s pinup.” In “Paint a Vulgar Picture,” Morrissey laments, in his characteristically sullen and melancholy fashion, “What makes most people feel happy /Leads us headlong into harm.” Indeed, outside of perhaps some of the later martial-industrial and aggrotech works discussed later, one cannot imagine a better antithesis to “Me So Horny,” “O.P.P., (Yeah You Know Me)” or “Fuck tha Police” than the Cocteau Twins romantic anthem “Love’s Easy Tears,” or “Marian” by Sisters of Mercy, or even the commercially successful “Just Like Heaven” by The Cure.

This basic rejection of modern life, in America as well as post war Europe, among the goth-alternative set is further signified in its unstated dress-code, when that code is distilled to its most basic, rudimentary essence. Rather than sneakers, jeans, sweatshirt or tshirt and a baseball cap, which loosely signify affinity for rap and mainstream American culture, men’s attire is basically boiled down to some variation of black leather shoes, either quasi dress shoes or Doc Marten style boots, black pants and, if not a tshirt featuring a favored band, some sort of dress shirt with a black wool coat or leather jacket. Indeed, Ian Curtis and other members of Joy Division dressed quite similar to their fathers and grandfathers.

Joy Division Joy Division

The lady counterpart, not usually wearing black pants, often wears a dress or skirt sometimes, very often quite frilly and effeminate, often matched with black nylon or other stockings: all in such a way that harkens back to times past. In many cases the lady, more than her male counterpart, embraces a sort of neo-Victorian or neo-Romantic aesthetic. Admittedly, many folks, particularly during younger, more formative years, sport aggressive piercings, outlandish eye and facial makeup, as well as, in some instances, very risqué, revealing attire that at times is best described as “fetish gear,” sometimes even for the gents. And yet at the most basic, intrinsic level, the attire—in principle—is a throwback to greater times of greater formality and decorum than is seen in an age where cargo shorts and sneakers are the often the norm.

In conjunction with this aesthetic and this code of style, almost all of the musicians that compromise the many variations and sub genres of this subculture hail from Europe. Many artists, from Joy Division to Sisters of Mercy, from Das Ich to the Virgin Prunes, tackle deep, heavy subject matter that has been the hallmark of Western Culture for centuries. In a very profound way, they are an important continuation of this Western tradition. Among many other excellent works, with masterpieces such as Trees in Winter by Sol Invictus, The Corn Years by Death in June, The Moon Looked Down and Laughed by the Virgin Prunes, First Last and Always by the Sisters of Mercy as just a few of some very honorable mentions, two albums in particular hold their own against the greatest poets, writers and artists of our civilization, at least in terms of lyrical content: Closer by Joy Division and Pornography by The Cure.

A quick review of my favorite songs among two truly extraordinary albums that never cease to captivate or inspire, from start to finish, reveal a wide array of deep, heavy subject matter: “Means to an End” touching upon feelings of loss and ultimate betrayal from the end of friendship; “Atrocity Exhibition” and “Colony” exploring the dark, intrinsically brutal nature of humanity as seen throughout history; Robert Smith doggedly exploring the depths of lust, lost love and lost innocence in “Siamese Twins,” “Cold” and “Figurehead” and the existential dread, misery and ennui that invariably ensues; and songs like “Eternal,” and “Decades” on one hand and “One Hundred Years” and “Short Term Effect” together exploring the themes of the fleeting transience of youth and life itself, as well as the inescapable imminence of mortality and death. All deep, heavy themes entirely absent from most pop music, particularly from the likes of the aforementioned rap ditties talking about other people’s pussy and killing white cops. As a critical review of these masterpieces is beyond the scope of this article, readers who are not familiar with these two works can only be urged to introduce themselves to these two masterpieces that define this subculture.

To be sure, many of these artists have avowed leftist sentiments, some of them explicitly disavowing any racialist message or undertone, just as MacDonald describes in the difference between the conflicting explicit and implicit views about race in most Whites today. Despite that, the music—which has been the foundation of this subculture and its many variations—is nevertheless at its very core a uniquely Eurocentric cultural expression; a cultural expression that stands in great contrast to a greater mainstream culture which has implicitly and explicitly marginalized European culture. Indeed, several artists, from the well-known Dead Can Dance to the far more obscure The Moon Lay Hidden Beneath a Cloud, to much of the Apocalyptic Folk subgenre, draw heavy influence from Classical and folk European traditions in music, replete with motifs concerning the Medieval age and other periods in European history.

As a blatant expression of European culture, many prominent artists among the various sub-genres use a uniquely European gestalt as part of their image, with many of the more attractive artists using their classical European features to advance a distinctly idealized image all their own. Perhaps the very God-mother of this subculture is Siouxsie Sioux herself, born Susan Ballion. Born with the natural beauty of an English Rose, she embraced her fair complexion and expressive blue eyes to become a cultural icon of the age. Her trademark eye makeup harkened back to many of the glamorous starlets of yesteryear, with a distinct homage to Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich.

Siouxsie Sioux Siouxsie Sioux

Patricia Morrison, of Sisters of Mercy fame among other acts, is another pale queen and goth vixen who champions this definitively European look and style.

Another more obscure, less celebrated figure is Constance Rudert of Germany. Embodying Germanic beauty and sex appeal, her alabaster skin, lovely long legs and her angelic visage with expressive blue eyes and lush full lips create a unique vision of European woman—and more particularly German womanhood—as the romantic and erotic ideal bar none.

Constance Rudert Constance Rudert

Many of the men similarly capitalize on such distinctly European features, from Ian McCulloch, to Andrew Eldritch, VNV Nation and Funker Vogt, to Morrissey himself, who of course caused a bit of controversy by expressing concern that “immigration was washing the face of Britain away.”

These images, these looks, comprised of distinctly European traits and a distinctly European sense of style, in their own way provide a source of inspiration to millions of people of European descent. Whereas rap and hip hop artists and other sorts of degenerates convey a decidedly negative role model for youth, this sense of style, thoroughly European in its essence, offers a unique vision for youth and adults alike to which they can both aspire and relate to.

Going beyond this implicit and yet still quite blatant European identity of almost all musicians and subgenres that comprise this subculture, some bands—particularly industrial and aggrotech subgenres, as well as the more notorious apocalyptic folk subgenre—convey messages as well as imagery that, although only at times explicitly racialist, embrace a sort of fascist aesthetic that signals this very “implicit racial exclusion” in unparalleled fashion. One of my all-time favorites, Feindflug exudes these fearsome qualities, with many explicit references to the Third Reich in imagery and sound samples. While also indulging in far fewer Soviet themed images, the overall impression of Feindflug, in both sight and sound, is strikingly Germanic, but also militaristic, energetic, and even tribalistic.

Having seen them at the Kinetik Festival in Montreal in their only North American appearance so far, this author can attest to this first hand. Performing “Stukas im Visier” in front of historical footage of Stukas in action, including one scene zooming in on the swastika on one of the plane’s tails, the boys of Feindflug, while certainly never endorsing or condoning some of the more unfortunate Reich policies, at least seem proud of their nation’s military history and tradition. Of course, in tandem with another song critical of the death penalty as implemented in the United States, there were also clips of blacks being brutalized and executed by the US criminal justice system. What I took from it was a criticism of the hypocrisy of the United States, as if to ask: who are you Americans to criticize us? But I digress.

Although not nearly as controversial as Feindflug, another aggrotech act from Germany, Funker Vogt, also comes to mind. Most of their lyrics leave much to be desired lyrically, and yet, obviously written with less than perfect command of the English language, there is something uniquely Germanic about them, with a Teutonic charm all their own, particularly with the shouting, cookie-monster vocals in a German accent and bombastic electronics featuring layered, sophisticated percussion sets. Many of their lyrics touch upon issues of war and violence and destruction, in a mildly admonitory tone to those who bother to sit down and read them. Such mild, dubious anti war messages are more than muted however by the hyper-energetic and militaristic style of the music and the way Jens Keastel shouts into the microphone like an enraged staff sergeant, or at least as he used to in their early stuff. As a part of this overall trend of breaking politically correct norms and trends, some of Funker Vogt’s songs are deeply sympathetic to the German side in the aftermarth of World War II and the Cold War, such as Black Market Dealers and Cold War. “Vorwaerts!” Also has a bit of a Third Reich ring to it, reprising the refrain “Voerwarts,” a prominent motif in marching songs and propaganda pieces of the period, such as Baldur von Schirach’s Hitlerjugend lied “Vorwärts! Vorwärts!”.“White Trash” also seems to be explicitly racially conscious.

Other bands with such motifs include Wappenbund, Der Blutharsch, Death in June, Boyd Rice, as well as early Sol Invcitus, as the suspected leanings politics of each of these save for the last have been hotly contested subjects for well over a decade or more. Also of note is the fare more obscure but excellent Above the Ruins (fronted by Tony Wakeford as a predecessor project to Sol Invictus) which had a Joy Division like sound set to themes of neo-Paganism and European nationalism. This was when Wakeford and friends were members of Britan’s National Front.
With the additional exception of the very obscure Wappenbund, Von Thronstahl, and Arditi among a few others, any fascist sympathies held by these and other artists is, as stated before, admittedly hotly debated. But the mere indulgence in such motifs without blatant and over the top disavowal breaks politically correct norms and taboos, and thus in many ways renders these cultural and artistic messages fair topic for discussion and debate.

And some select favorites do more than just dabble in disapproved images and lyrical content. A very obscure favorite of mine seems to do more than just tug at naughty allusions to fascist aesthetics; “Sons of God” by Arditi sets a salient sound sample taken from Hitler’s Mein Kampf to martial-industrial percussion and an almost Wagnerian synth-pop musical score.

Even more inspiring is this live rendition of “Jugend Marschiert” by Coinside of Hoyerswerda, a project in close association with Wappenbund.

With the title and refrain “Jugend Marschiert” (youth marches) itself a notorious slogan used quite often during the Third Reich and to a lesser extent the GRD, the song opens by addressing the Fatherland as “You land of the poet, you land of the thinker,” as they make explicit note of the fact that Germany is on the brink of no return, and rejects the prevailing rule of capitalism and liberal democracy in the current Bundesrepublik, specifically censuring how so many youths lose themselves in “television and consumption of drugs.” To counteract these trends the song implores the youth “to march forward as Dawn breaks,” to take a stand against “false leaders” who “do not stand us for,” promising a good future as indeed “all the powers of capitalism are no temptation to us.”

Of course the lyrics, let alone the bombastic, militaristic music style only form part of the milieu, as the dress and style of the strikingly homogenous crowd provide additional ambience to this most inspiring venue, not to mention other details such as the logo on the upper left corner featuring a Stahlhelm logo representing what was once adorned by the vaunted Wehrmacht.

These more overt, more militaristic cultural expressions demonstrate that, at least on the fringe, certain subgenres within this vast subculture are already becoming explicitly exclusionary, explicitly and blatantly nationalist, with lyrical content expressly addressing the Zeitgeist of Europe in the West as it languishes in decline and, if present course remains unabated, eventual fall.

This is not to suggest that such displays, so shocking to the ruling elites, are completely widespread or that the scene is not without its disadvantages. While far from a majority, homosexual and bisexual elements seem overrepresented a great deal in many venues, as is to a much greater extent, androgyny in men. Indeed, such venues are often fraught with sexual exhibitionism of one sort or another. Additionally, it is not uncommon to come across cross-dressers, transgenders, and other freaks at some of these venues. The documentary “Goth Cruise” featured a black male in the scene who would dress up as a woman. Most troublesome of all, I have seen a few interracial couples at these venues during my day, but still far less than in venues that cater to more mainstream culture.

Additionally, a lot of bands are quire libertine. Take for example the overt sexual themes of Die Form, whose lyrical content routinely delve into the depths of sexual deviancy and depravity and whose lyrics, as well as albums and live performances often explore motifs surrounding BDSM and other fetishes.

Beyond such examples of decadence in Die Form and many other artists besides, a lot of bands have expressed far-left sentiments, including unequivocal denouncements of National Socialism. Such artists include Das Ich, who have at expressed at times feelings of shame and war-guilt typical of far too many post-war Germans, such as in “Von der Armut.” Again however, this is exactly as MacDonald has described in his discussion between the current paradox of conflicting explicit and implicit views held by most whites today.

Of course, in many ways much of the sexual exhibitionism, decadence, and libertinism that can be so pervasive at times are in many ways a natural release stemming from the intrinsically dysfunctional nature of modern society, as part of a bid to live for today and suck the marrow from the bone of life while young and alive, for there is no afterlife. One on hand, like the rest of modern civilization, critics can contend that it suffers the same sort of radical individualism that bears all sorts of unpleasant consequences, from the societal ills stemming from the rise of single motherhood, lowered fertility rates, and so forth. In another sense, however, such libertinism in many ways embodies the neo-Pagan spirit, freeing itself from the dysfunctional prudery that has plagued Christianity, with even greater adverse affects in the unfortunate puritanical legacy that exists to this day in the States. Not to mention of course the radically inclusive universalism upon which Christianity is founded upon that partially explains why so many Whites are not more resistant to the tide of multiculturalism, the coming demographic crisis, and the assured annihilation that awaits if we continue to sit by and do nothing. In many ways, this tension between tendencies towards the romantic ideals of Europe’s past on one hand, and some of the more libertine elements on the other is simply a testament to our own complexity.

Despite some drawbacks, the scene, composed of so many different sub-genres and variations, is a net benefit to European culture, and remains an incredible subculture in which the Sons and Daughters of Europe can commune, have a few drinks, listen to good songs, make friends, and in some instances fall in love. It offers a surprisingly expansive and ever-growing palette of different sub-genres of music that, in all its many variations, is uniquely European in its identity, with at least some of the lyrics, album artwork, and stage presentations touching upon some of the greatest themes of European Culture. With the exception of Country music, which is actually only a White American phenomenon, rather than a European one, it is one of the only contemporary subcultures with a blatant European identity. Aside from offering a lot of good music that resonates with those estranged from an increasingly distasteful, vulgar and downright ugly world, the scene kindly offers a uniquely European artistic expression in a world otherwise deluded by the assorted band of miscreants and multi-culti mousketeers pushing an increasingly Afrocentric, mongrelized culture.

Indeed, we find ourselves in an age that has largely supplanted the blonde, Nordic ideal of starlets of yesteryear with a new, definitively multiracial or black “update” far more in tune with the prodding of the multi-culti delirium running rampant: a new multiracial, multicultural gestalt as personified by distinctly “ethnic” figures such as Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, and Jessica Alba. In this milieu supplanting the very faces of Europe in both overt and subtle fashion, sensibilities as those offered in this subculture, which are uniquely and unmistakably European in every way and indeed almost fetishize such exclusively European traits, is a welcome and necessary deviation and respite from the insanity of the modern age. Presently we languish in a bankrupt, vapid “culture” that dares to allow Jay-Z to present himself as a modern Frank Sinatra. A defiant, even deviant subculture deeply entrenched in our increasingly marginalized European cultural traditions offers a most welcome sanctuary indeed. In many ways, this dark wave could be the once and future voice of the Sons and Daughters of Europe in this era of imperial decline.

5 Comments on Blue Sunshine

Subverting Thor

How can you pervert a perversion?  The Marvel version of Thor has about as much to with Germanic heathenry as the screeching crone Madonna has to do with the Theotokos.  The entire history of the character is an insult to the old European belief system, and was intended as such.  But the recent controversy over Marvel’s “Thor” being transformed into a woman shows that even bastardized Western symbols have to be subverted, as modern culture is unable to create something original and admirable. 

How can you pervert a perversion?  The Marvel version of Thor has about as much to with Germanic heathenry as the screeching crone Madonna has to do with the TheotokosThe entire history of the character is an insult to the old European belief system, and was intended as such.  But the recent controversy over Marvel’s “Thor” being transformed into a woman shows that even bastardized Western symbols have to be subverted, as modern culture is unable to create something original and admirable.

The Thor of the comics was not simply the God of Thunder put into a fictional universe so he can fight Galactus or Absorbing Man.  Thor has a dual identity within the Marvel mythos as he is sometimes Dr. Donald Blake, a physical weakling.  Odin forced Thor into this identity in order to teach him a lesson about humility and become “worthy” of wielding Mjolnir.

The latest Marvel movies, which inform how most people think of the character today, dismissed the dual identity premise.  Even when he is not wielding Mjolnir and stripped of his divine power, the movie character is still a highly effective warrior capable of, in Agent Coulson’s phrase, “making some of the most highly trained professionals in the world look like a bunch of minimum wage mall cops.”

At the same time, they have kept the larger idea of breaking the proud Thor and turning him into a soldier for egalitarianism (and mysterious multinational government agencies).  Thor’s highbrow speech and noble lineage is a punch line, and Thor only becomes “worthy” when he tells Loki to stop being like Hitler and sacrifices himself to make the world safe for Natalie Portman.

But while the movie Thor is perverted, he’s still a dull reflection of the actual Thor, a greater Western archetype of strength.  More importantly, the character always thinks of himself as Thor, even when he’s lost his supernatural powers.  The subversion is one of ideology, not identity – Thor’s strength and character is “broken,” rebuilt, and then used to save democratic man (or woman, in Portman’s case).  It’s simply the cinematic version of Seal Team Six going through hell so their daughters can be like Miley Cyrus.

In contrast, the comic book divorces Thor’s essential characteristics from the character itself.  Stan Lee pictured Thor in his true form as “looking like Vikings of old, with the flowing beards, horned helmets, and battle clubs.”  But Thor’s consciousness is somewhat divided.  While “Blake” is always “Thor,” his status as one of the Aesir is something conditional, rather than something that he just is.  Thus, as recent apologists for Thor’s sex change argue, Thor in the comics is not always a mighty Norse god–sometimes he’s just a man—or even a frog.  Like the word Christ, Thor is apparently less a name than a title.

Thus, Marvel can say, “This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before.”  But it’s not really.  It’s just transferring the personification of power into a more politically correct vehicle.  In the Marvel Universe, Thor isn’t really the hero or even really Thor – Mjolnir and the power it contains is.  After all, the weapon is inscribed, “Whomsoever wields this hammer, if he [or she apparently] be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.”

Within Marvel’s announcement there is a representation of the “Unworthy Thor” stripped of power, who looks like some kind of archaeo-futurist barbarian borne of the collective unconscious of the New Right.  Maybe he just got tired of fighting to make the world safe for Tumblr.

As with all actions of this type, there is a financial motivation.  Marvel says it will “speak directly to an audience that long was not the target for super hero comic books in America: women and girls.”  But as Time magazine points out, even young boys don’t buy much in the way of comic books these days, let alone girls.  While there might be a slight uptick in female readers, a “gimmick” like a sex or race change  gets the niche market of comic book fans–mostly “middle-aged men”–to make sure they pick up the latest issue.

The female Thor accordingly corresponds to the cover girl aesthetics of “strong” female characters—who don’t exactly resemble female powerlifters and couldn’t put up 225 on a squat rack, let alone duel a frost giant.  Fictional portrayals of “strong” women like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Lara Croft are mostly designed to appeal to men by combining cover girl aesthetics with masculine actions.  This of course is prompting criticism that we must have feminine superheroes who defeat enemies through “feminine” abilities.  (Like what?  Posting selfies featuring handwritten slogans about tolerance?)

But there is also an ideological motivation.  Comic book heroes–especially those “born in Lower East Side at some point between 1938-1944”–have often reflected the a dual fantasy of subversion and assimilation, with Superman as the obvious example.  He is alien–yet he is also the ultimate representation of the American nation.  Yet as America herself has become passé and unacceptably tied to a European past, superheroes have had to renounce ties to the historic nation and even to their own racial identity in order to remain “heroes.”   

To facilitate this, we get the racial transformation of various characters, such as Nick Fury morphing from a World War II soldier (albeit one who led a “racially integrated elite unit”) into Samuel L. Jackson in both print and film.  Similarly, comic books today are less telling stories than about beating the correct political ideology into a dumbed down audience.  Therefore, Archie will soon die taking a bullet fir
ed by a fanatical gun rights supporter at his gay friend, who is “married” to a black man.  Soviet propaganda looks like a model of subtlety in contrast.

What never seems to catch on is the actual creation of heroes that don’t owe something either to a past White identity or Western archetype.  Those that are created come off like unintentional comedy, like “Black Panther”–and he’s probably the best of the lot.  He hails from the “technologically advanced” nation of Wakanda, menaced by the evil quasi-Afrikaner nation of Azania and its evil champions (like “Voortrekker.”)  The defining characteristics of affirmative action heroes–indeed their only characteristics–are that they are black, have a vagina, or practice one of the sexual fetishes that our society has deemed worthy of celebration.

Therefore, we are constantly hectored that existing heroes of comics and the screen must be made black–we need a black Batman or a black James Bond.  By doing this, we will somehow convince minorities of various sorts that they too can be universally appealing heroes.

After all, Black Panther represents… being black.

And, Wonder Woman represents… being a woman.

So to get around this, we’ll transform characters with greater appeal.  Archie was supposed to be about wholesome Americana… so we’ll make it about homosexuality and gun control.

Captain America represents patriotism… so we’ll make him black.

Batman represents justice… so the good Republicans at the Wall Street Journal tell us we “need” to make him black soon too.

It is a cultural form of the cargo cult role playing which has led to such historic spectacles like Faustin I of Haiti aping Napoleon by putting a cardboard crown on his head, or America collectively pretending that Maya Angelou’s sub-literate nursery rhyme at a Presidential Inaugural was really a poem.

But Thor is a special case.  The deity Thor is perhaps is most important personage of the indigenous European religious tradition, and certainly the most popular god among ordinary people of the pre-Christian age.  Rather than identifying Odin as the symbolic champion of the old ways, John Lindow in Norse Mythology notes that medieval Scandinavian sources portray “the conversion as a struggle between Thor and Christ.”  During the period of uneasy coexistence between Christians and pagans, believers in the Old Gods would wear Thor’s hammer pendants around their necks–a practice continued by heathens today (and, for that matter, some metal fans).

Therefore, Thor is culturally specific in a way that Superman or Batman isn’t.  Putting him in a comic book is bad enough, as the character is based on a deity that was once the dominant figure for Germanic civilization and who understood and pictured their gods in highly specific ways.  One imagines that the adventures of “Moses” calling on God to drown a mugger in Greenwich Village or “Muhammad” using a friendly jinn to trick Dr. Octopus might be seen as distasteful (although hilarious).

But even if the point to “lighten up” is graciously conceded, Stan Lee pictured Thor along the lines of the romanticized image we have of Vikings of the late heathen period. He wrote him as part of that.  He therefore fits in a certain context that represents a group of people that once existed.  The comic book hero’s adventures and changes have to be limited by what makes sense with the character.  The usual objection that “anything is possible” because fictional heroes are in a world of magic misses the point–the character is based in a specific cultural context and is indeed defined by it.

Moreover, even in fictional universes, magic and supernatural occurrences have rules and context.  A Song Of Ice and Fire has magic, but Ned Stark’s severed head can’t simply start flying around in the middle of the story any more than the wildlings can breach the Wall with an Abrams tank.  Even within the Marvel universe, Thor can’t be a woman and remain Thor just as Cat-Woman can’t be a man and remain Cat-Woman.

Thor’s sex change is political and is defined by its creators as such.  The reason is that to have a white (indeed Nordic) male character associated with the Germanic past and traditional masculine virtues is simply impermissible.  Even in the most bastardized, degraded, perverted form, the existence of a white male Thor in pop culture is an insult to everything our culture is telling young boys to be.  The Marvel Thor has to be a woman – and it has to be a different race next.

Political correctness can only achieve popular appeal through subverting symbols that already appeal to mass constituencies because any new symbols will appeal pathetic by comparison.  And certainly European cultural symbols, even in their most debauched form, are superior to affirmative action culture.  Most Americans, especially children, instinctively sense this.  After all, “social justice man” is hardly something to appeal to the imagination of a typical seven year old.

To be fair, shapeshifting and even gender bending is nothing new even within the lore of European religion.  Loki is, after all, the mother of Sleipnir, having transformed into a female horse as part of a ruse against a giant.  However, while the shapeshifting, androgynous Loki helps various gods (including Thor) on several adventures, he is also the father of monstrous beings who will ultimately unleash chaos and the destruction of the gods.  In this we see the understanding that perversity and chaos, even if used for temporary advantage, further a process of degeneration and final destruction.  Loki is a deeply perverted character, although not an entirely “evil” one in the Christian sense.

Interestingly, there is a story in the lore where Thor must pretend to be a woman–the Þrymskviða.  Assisted by Loki, Thor must disguise himself as Freyja and attend “her” wedding in order to reclaim his stolen hammer.  The giants recognize something is amiss (like when the “bride” eats an entire ox) but Loki comes up with one hilarious excuse after another.  One can imagine our ancestors roaring around a fire hearing this light-hearted tale.

Of course, the reason Þrymskviða is funny is because European religion and Germanic Christianity had a sense of social norms and hierarchy as serving a necessary function.  Bending gender roles on occasion could be used for humorous effect or perhaps in extraordinary occasions (like the “shield-maidens” of legend).  However, it would be absurd to take “pride” in the idea that you are subverting a norm and deriving worth from it–the louder someone boasts of their pride, often the less they have to be proud of.

But America can’t admit that.  “We are all created equal” after all.  So even gods, symbols of gods, and even the fictional heroes of less degenerate times need to be twisted in order to make people feel better about themselves.  In the end, the value of such symbols are frittered away and become objects of indifference or even scorn–arguably, what is happening to American patriotism and identity today.

What Marvel is doing to Thor is part of this.  We should be glad because even though young boys swinging a plastic Mjölnir is better than nothing, such actions ultimately postpone the inevitable.  European cultural symbols, practices, and even gods need to become the source of a vital living Tradition, not objects of exploitation used to propel the elaborate practical joke we call American culture.

Besides, Thor is a red bearded war god, not a socialist teddy bear.  The existence of Marvel’s she-Thor may make it a bit easier for Europeans to start looking into the distinctions and rediscover the living well of Tradition media companies have been leeching from for years.

Yes, it’s an insult.  But we should laugh at how utterly pathetic it is that people feel compelled to act this way in order to feel moral.

And we should remember the end of the Þrymskviða.  Thor gets his hammer back and deals with the situation as the God of Thunder usually does–by using it to slaughter all of his enemies.

There can be these games for a while, and comics’ new world begins, where nonwhites are paid for existing, and transqueers don’t pay for their sins. But as surely as Water will wet us, the sons of Europe will learn–and The Gods of the Copybook Headings, or the Gods of the North will return.

6 Comments on Subverting Thor

A Reflection on Freedom

Americans are told that they must forfeit their freedoms, the same ones the terrorists supposedly wish to destroy, in order be kept safe from the terrorists that the U.S. openly funds and arms. This state of affairs is telling both about oligarch-run Washington, which cynically creates both the problem and then offers a “solution”, laughing all the way to the bank, and the American people, who have become the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot.

Originally published at Soul of the East

The Fourth of July holiday (decreasingly referred to as Independence Day) is an opportunity for countless Americans to have a day off to gorge themselves on food and beer, watch fireworks, and utter a few superficial platitudes about freedom. Minimal thought is given to these assumed freedoms, and even less to the founding myth that lays behind them. As long as homosexuals can “marry,” everyone can fornicate in the manner of barnyard animals, and Wal-Mart remains stocked with cheap Chinese-made trinkets, the masses are content to believe they are free.

That this Independence Day takes place in the growing shadow of the violently rising “Caliphate” (an offshoot of al-Qaeda) in Syria and Iraq passes without notice by the proletariat, who would rather be entertained with televised sports. One can hardly fault them for this; the intricacies of Middle Eastern sectarian politics are in and of themselves irrelevant to their lives.

What is actually ominous is the genesis of this self-proclaimed Caliphate. The Caliphate and the resurgent jihadist movement that preceded it have been cited by the U.S. government as an immediate terrorist threat to the “Homeland”. Indeed, the “terrorist threat” has been continuously used by the elites to perpetuate and expand the surveillance state and peddle for more war in the Middle East, with the ever-lovable former Vice President Dick Cheney spouting that if America fails to reinvade Iraq, then the United States would suffer an attack at the hands of terrorists to dwarf the 9-11 operation of 2001. Thus our ruling elites assure us that we need more domestic control and more foreign interventions to keep us safe, what the late Gore Vidal termed perpetual war for perpetual peace.

That the same terrorists who now supposedly threaten our lives and our “freedom” have been sponsored and armed by the American government shows the level of willful ignorance that most of our citizenry is happy to live with.

Americans are told that they must forfeit their freedoms, the same ones the terrorists supposedly wish to destroy, in order be kept safe from the terrorists that the U.S. openly funds and arms. This state of affairs is telling both about oligarch-run Washington, which cynically creates both the problem and then offers a “solution”, laughing all the way to the bank, and the American people, who have become the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot.

For a people whose common perception of freedom is that it consists of self-gratification, such a program of elite manipulation is not only expected, but perhaps even deserved. But manipulative, technocratic elites and passive, subservient populations are not the final word. And while America’s Independence Day may be more myth than reality, there is indeed a true, spiritual freedom to be sought out and achieved.

The twentieth century Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev proclaimedsuch a freedom. A freedom, in his words, that “presupposes the existence of truth, of meaning, of God.” He knew that “Truth and meaning liberate, and liberation leads to truth and meaning.” And that true freedom “must also be love, and love must be free.”

Unless and until Americans forsake mindless consumerism, nihilistic self-gratification, and allowing the corporate media to do their thinking for them, they will never attain to the true freedom spoken of by Berdyaev. Americans must realize that their true enemies are neither manufactured terrorists nor a revived Russia, but their own amoral, decadent elites, and even more so their own complacency and sloth.

Yet there is always hope that the people will awake from their spiritual slumber. May we lay claim to a true spiritual freedom and nobility that will shake the thrones of the parasitic elites and lead to the creation of a healthy, godly society.

1 Comment on A Reflection on Freedom

Finding Depth in the Modern World

Brooks informs us that American culture is too centered around attaining happiness, at the expense of a different goal in life that is deeper and more important. Already, we think that this is a very strange proposition. Perhaps we find it hard to disagree. But since this is the Elite of our society, let’s go ahead and assume they have an evil ulterior motive.

 

David Brooks recently gave talk before the Aspen Institute. Brooks writes for numerous establishment papers, and has a reputation as the sort of conservative liberals like. Considering the pathetically liberal situation of the conservative movement in America today, this is really saying something. The Aspen Institute, let us recall, is hardly a town-hall meeting in Tupelo. Brooks informs us that American culture is too centered around attaining happiness, at the expense of a different goal in life that is deeper and more important. Already, we think that this is a very strange proposition. Perhaps we find it hard to disagree. But since this is the Elite of our society, let’s go ahead and assume they have an evil ulterior motive.

These ideas and these conferences have a trickle-down effect to the wider culture. Thus, they are very instructive in finding out where the Elite wants to take the country. Desire is a permanent feature of the human condition. Buddhism set its goal out explicitly as the elimination of desire (they desired to end desire) and one glance at modern Japan should instruct as to how successful this 2,600 year experiment was. Desire for happiness is such a nebulous idea that philosophers have spent volumes arguing about whether happiness and satiation are identical or whether one can be happy if one wanted to be, and became sad, etc. One thing is certain: Happiness is not the opposite of depth. Shallowness is. He might appear to be arguing against shallowness, but he uses the term “Happiness”. I wonder why. For a man smart enough to be able to call up complex cabbalistic arguments for accepting the misery of the human condition and continuing to serve one’s fellow man, this seems to be a strange oversight. Then there is his idea of “depth.” Traditionally, “depth” has been viewed as a function of contemplation. The contemplative and the active lives were known to Dante and the medievals by the parable of Rachel and Leah. The contemplative has always been viewed as higher, but it had very little intrinsically to do with the “service” that Brooks speaks about. It was in an inner direction, and service and charity are outward foci.

The real reason for the talk should be clear: they are priming us for “the new normal” when previously promoted things like rampant consumerism become untenable. They directed us to the one thing when it served their interests to do so and now they direct us to the other. The Elites have determined that, having served their agenda by spreading false values across the planet and by reducing all existence to a sort of chattel slavery to Mammon, it now suits them to reduce us to the level of serfs, and we might as well be prepared to accept our lot with all the amor fati of a character out of Russian literature. That’s pretty simple, and that is the most likely reason Brooks is making these points.

Of course, there is no point in saying we should try and be “deeper”. Some people are already “deep” and they will remain so, others will remain superficial. Miguel Serrano, in his classic travel memoir, “The Serpent of Paradise”, pointed out that perhaps, in the wake of the enormous psychological upheavals of the 20th century, the West would become more contemplative, and the East would become more active. This is exactly what we are seeing today, with the rise of the Asian Tiger economies and India, while at the same time the religious traditions of those countries are becoming less and less profound. Today, seminars on the business applications of the Bhagavad Gita are all the rage in India, and in China, my sources inform me that every single Taoist master is dead or in hiding. We in the West are getting less involved in the affairs of the world, or less able to involve ourselves. We are amply compensated: spiritual currents in the West are becoming more and more profound- look at the current right-wing “scene”. Interest has exploded in Evola and other metaphysical thinkers–while fewer rightists care very much about the “science of race”. This is mirrored in the general populace, which is increasingly rejecting climate science, evolutionary science, psychological science, etc. It matters little and less. The science of the skepticism movement is by no means limited to flyover country either. Many of our young undergrad philosophers are becoming enamored with complex arguments for the irrelevance of empiricism and positivism and all that “19th century baggage.” Perhaps for the wrong reasons, but these reasons do not matter. We are at the end of an Era. This is–for better or for worse–the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

But back to Brooks. He wants to get us used to less, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Here is the Big Secret. The processes which control the destinies of man and civilizations are cosmic and universal. Everyone is merely acting out his or her role in the drama, lila, the play. In a healthy, sustainable society, people have less materially, but also want for far less. Instead of waking up at 40 and asking, “is this it?” they will be inserted into the passion of the seasons, of Sowing and Reaping, Working and Sleeping, Sex and Death. They will struggle with the land and love it, they will raise their families and feel the warm embrace of community and identity. The future is Agri-Cultural. It is the Growth of the Soil. The elites are inadvertently paving the way for a beautiful future, because they cannot help but do so. They are themselves constrained by the stars.

No Comments on Finding Depth in the Modern World

Why Metal is Right-Wing

I can say with confidence that heavy metal music has done far more to advance authentic right wing aesthetics, values, and yes, even philosophy, than all the failed institutions of the Beltway Right put together.

 

I grew up listening to metal. I have also had more than my fair share of interactions with various manifestations of the American Right for well over a decade.

With that in mind, I can say with confidence that heavy metal music has done far more to advance authentic right wing aesthetics, values, and yes, even philosophy, than all the failed institutions of the Beltway Right put together.

Whatever the political opinions of the artists involved (if they even have any), metal belongs to the Right. From the most simplistic party sing alongs to the highly complicated creations of serious artists, metal repeatedly stresses themes of conquest, self-overcoming, strength, and conflict. If the primary value of the Left is equality, than the primary value of the true Right is hierarchy. The common thread between an anthem about drinking with girls to the heavy drone of doom meal is the rejection of egalitarianism and the pretty lies of modernity. If leftists can “Imagine” along with John Lennon a world where the Last Men loaf about all day where there is “above us only sky,” metal provides the battle songs for those things it’s still worth to “kill or die for.”

Metal is about seeking glory and excellence–Wagner for the working man. Even a leftist who tries to channel metal will find themselves presenting an image of strength, vitality, and self-glorification. Whatever the political beliefs of a left wing headbanger, the aesthetics betray them.

The same cannot be said for what passes as the conservative movement’s “aesthetics.”

Some Christian conservatives hate metal because of the anti-Christian beliefs and symbolism of certain people involved. Obviously, this paints the genre with too broad of a brush–it’s worth noting that the “Satantic” imagery of many early artists was used to symbolize evil as something real and something to be feared. This is a far more respectful treatment of Christian theology than the contemporary Christianity–which holds faith as simply a means to fit in the occasional day at an inner city homeless shelter, stripped of any divine significance. Besides, most Christian conservatives today seem more intent on competing for who can adopt the most half-starved African children to bring to their McMansion than ensuring a promising future for their own children. So we shouldn’t be too concerned with their cries about how “evil” metal is.

Even those authentically anti-Christian metalheads attack the faith from a different perspective than your usual campus leftist. Metal is filled with critiques of the Christian religion for displacing the indigenous spiritual traditions of Europe, for allegedly promoting egalitarianism, and for serving as a force of repression on extraordinary individuals. It echoes Oswald Spengler’s charge that Christianity was “the grandmother of Bolshevism.” This is hardly the same old recycled anti-Christian tripe.

Beyond the ideology and aesthetics, metal is profoundly a “localist” genre. Bands must develop a following and work their way up, rather than simply being imposed on all of us by some record producer at age 19. This goes for a lot of the “pirate radio” that first popularized the genre as well. What was best about local metal radio shows was that they were proudly local institutions. The announcers were amateurish, half the bands were unknown, you couldn’t get a decent signal once you left the confines of the city it was based out of, and it utterly lacked the gloss and professionalism of a major radio station. It was something unique, an acquired taste. You would actually find out about new bands or new songs from it–something you can hardly get from major radio today.

When conservatism was serious, local institutions were prized for their own sake, with communities serving as the proper basis for affection–the “little platoons” in Edmund Burke’s phrase. Today, conservatism is composed of 20-somethings making 20 something a year plotting to give deracinated corporations tax breaks. For me, it’s the same conflict as listening to a new band on a metal playlist or hearing the same Rihanna “song” yet again on a “professional” station. The latter can only be called “culture” by a true cynic and serves as evidence that popular choices are imposed from above rather than the spontaneous “free market” of conservative/libertarian fantasies.

Metal as a genre, even in its lowest form, relies upon musicianship. At its best, it can sublimate profound themes within complicated melodic structures. You can’t “fake” good metal. It’s no accident that many younger metalheads find that they “graduate” to classical when they get older, in the same way that the talented musicians who pioneered the genre owe a debt to the maestros of Vienna and Bayreuth.

In today’s popular music, you can substitute Ke$ha, Katy Perry, Rihanna, the animated corpse of Britney Spears, and whatever else they are promoting in and out of any given melody. It’s hard to say if anyone would even notice–as long as you keep the autotune on. The themes are predictable, the melodies hackneyed, the “message” cliched–express yourself, even (especially) when you have nothing to say. Popular music is the soundtrack to American-style democracy, and I can think of no greater condemnation. If I can slightly borrow a famous phrase, when someone tells me the pop station is “culture,” I release the safety catch on my revolver.

Clearly, if conservatism is about upholding the established order, heavy metal music is hardly the kind of thing champions of the long extinguished Ancien Regime would be comfortable with. Of course, that’s sort of the point. We don’t live in a world where the “Establishment” is patriotic landed aristocrats defending the interests of Church and Crown. We live in a world where Fortune 500 companies fund groups that combat “white privilege,” where multiculturalism has joined hands with Goldman Sachs, where the justification for this System is outlined for you in your mandatory diversity training in the classroom and the corporate boardroom. It’s their system, not ours. Why do we want to make it more efficient or cut their taxes?

Who cares?

The Right can’t look to Burke in this context–they should look to Burzum. The System must be dismantled and metal is the soundtrack to that Revolution–even if the people playing it aren’t aware of it.

Want to do something that will make a difference? Save the money you were going to waste on supporting another huckster conservative politician promising to save America, and go buy some metal records instead.

6 Comments on Why Metal is Right-Wing

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search