Welcome to The Beast Bay General Thelema Science Art Scholarship The Beast Bay website
 up a level
 search
 main


  Dangerous Art
Art Posted by Virbius on August 14, 2001 @ 04:16 PM
from the testing-your-metal dept.

[This may be review for those familar with Diedrik Soderkind's The Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground.]

A recent Beast Bay newsbite cited a brewing Heavy Metal phenomenon in Malaysia that drew concern from government officials, seemingly harkening back to the Satan scare in the 1980s and backward masking lawsuits, with artists like Judas Priest and Frank Zappa taking irrational heat. The article drew my attention since the phenomenon in question was "Black Metal," a significantly different beast from domestic Metal, primarily in ideology and real world impact. The obvious argument made by any rational individual to the assertion that "Dreamer/Deceiver" by Judas Priest caused two teenage boys to attempt suicide was: "Hey, this is Art, folks!" Rob Halford of Judas Priest was more concerned about missing his afternoon Tea than warping young boys' minds.

Not so with Black Metal. These guys aren't playacting.

Named after a seminal album by Venom, one of the bands from the 1980s New Wave of British Heavy Metal, Black Metal stylistically traces its roots to both Satan- and Crowley-influenced rock such as Black Sabbath and Celtic Frost (see the Black Metal/Death Metal family tree), and also to 1970s Art Rock a la Emerson Lake and Palmer. Ideologically, it is a logomaniacal mishmash of Odin worship, White Supremacy, and a very transcendent physical Nihilism that openly advocates the burning of Christian Churches, murder of strangers and suicide.

A defining moment in the advent of the genre was the burning of the Fantoft Kirk, a 15th century Christian Church in Norway, by a 16 year old female fan of the band Burzum (a Middle Earth word for "Darkness"). When the image of the blackened embers of Fantoft was printed in Norwegian news, "Varg" Christian Vikernes, a.k.a. "Count Grishnak" of Burzum, made the newsphoto the album cover of his second album, "Aske". An interesting note: the church has surprisingly been restored.

I have found specific details concerning the crimes committed, and the names and personal details of the criminals difficult to locate on the internet. I recall that burzum.com carefully recorded daily copycat crimes as far away as Russia (where I recall Orthodox monks were slaughtered with knives allegedly bearing inscribed praises to Satan). A FAQ states that 45-60 churches were burned in Norway alone. Lords of Chaos details a quite a number of murders, but I do not have that text at hand.

While I do not advocate the horrors committed by this movement, I and a number of sound minded others (such as black metal record label blackmetal.com) are propelled by a strong interest in this music and its scene. My personal feeling is that the role of the artist is not so much to express himself, as to express that which humanity feels but lacks the creativity to express. These devastating [primarily] Norwegian performance terrorists are expressing a growing angst among the forgotten feral misfit youth of the world, primarily toward Christianity and the politics of power which have become commonplace in modern society.

I see this phenomenon as a wake up call to humanity -- as if Charlie Manson wasn't a wake up call 30 years ago. It's time to wake up and smell the plutonium.



<  |  >

 

  Related Links
  • Articles on Art
  • Also by Virbius
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Anathema Maranatha on Tuesday August 14, @09:46PM
    93-

    With respect, the book Lord's of Chaos is by Michael Moynihan (of Blood Axis), not Diedrik Soderkind. Soderkind wrote the preface.

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @02:27AM
      Hmmm.... that's funny. I used to credit Moynihan as author. I apologize for not owning the book, I caught a good deal of this first-hand prior to the release of the book. Amazon.com credits Moynihan as being the preface writer and Soderkind as author. If you can conlusively correct me...I will stand corrected.

      Moynihan is an interesting one himself...he manages to keep his idealogies ideal as opposed to deadly, but did you hear the one about the Blood Axis show in SF a few years back that was shut down by rioting anti-Nazi groups? While Moynihan and Kris Force from Amber Asylum (who was a member of Blood Axis at the time) calmy declared that they were NOT Nazi's to the unplacateable rioters?


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Anathema Maranatha on Wednesday August 15, @03:54AM
        Amazon mistakenly has the comma in the wrong place.

        Here's an interview with him in regards to the book: http://cyberpsychos.netonecom.net/cpaod8/8moyn.html

        On the book itself, authorship actually seems to be attributed to both. Here is a bit from the inside:

        "Most of the interviews with the Norwegians in the books were done in person in the fall of 1995 by myself (Moynihan) assisted and abetted by my co-author, Didrik Soderlind. [...] The remaining interviews were all conducted by myself either by phone or mail. The bulk of the book was written and organized by myself, with important contributions from Didrik. A few key sections of the book were written by him, specifically the material on the religious., social situation in Norway and the current trends in political extremism there."

        So, I guess it would be safe to say they both wrote it, although I have always considered it his book.

        I don't know how much truth there is to the rumours of him being a Nazi. That sort thing seems to circulate around the neo-folk corner of the music world quite a bit but I have a hard time distinguising between those who really adhere to it and those who use it as a fashionable way to sell CD's.


        • Re: Dangerous Art
          by Virbius on Friday August 17, @04:43PM
          http://cyberpsychos.netonecom.net/cpaod8/8moyn.html

          I find it very interesting that this article points out that Bob Larson, of all people, lauds "Lords of Chaos" with praise for it's "exhaustive resource regarding the seamy and Satanic side of pop music and culture" and promotes the book by saying "this book has the facts you need to understand what's going on in Death Metal music". This fact in and of itself makes me highly suspicious of this whole phenomenon and in particular makes me downright despise Moynihan for not openly rejecting this praise of his book, if in fact he has not.

          Bob Larson and his organization were THE chief instigators of the Satan scare in the 1980s, through expensively produced and widely distributed media programs that simultaneously glorified the eerie evil of Backward Masking and other trappings of "Satanism", evangelizing utter mindless abandon to Christ without doubt or thought as being the only way to save one's soul from the certain eternal destruction that awaits those who do not immediately renounce this hideous but oh so strangely cool eerie evil.

          I have more than just a little reason to not only be suspicious of, but to downright despise anything Bob Larson becomes involved in as being nothing more than a vile, hideous, manipulative form of self-serving Capitalism, Larson's even remote involvement in this phenomenon gives me more than a little reason to doubt, suspect and utterly despise Moynihan for not immediately and conclusively denying any association with this man or his "Ministry".

          There is some very suspiciously evil shit going on here and our little church arsonists and monk-murderers are little more than pawns in what is rapidly appearing to me a much larger, much more hideous and evil game.


          • Re: Dangerous Art
            by Xnoubis on Friday August 17, @05:03PM
            It was in the late '80s that our friends Nickolai and Clifton, who were both enthusiastic Satanists at the time, infiltrated a Bob Larson event. Naturally, they heckled his presentation without mercy. Clifton was the more fiery speaker, and soon was on his feet engaging Larson in heated confrontation. When the evangelist couldn't think of anything else to say, he ended with, "Jesus loves you!"

            Clifton, enraged, drew back his hand, pointed back at him and bellowed: "Well, Satan HATES yewww!!!"

            Knowing how expressive his voice could be, I'm sure that the entire room appeared to burst into flames for just that moment. Score one for us.


          • Re: Dangerous Art
            by Anathema Maranatha on Friday August 17, @05:29PM
            Whoa! That sure is a whole lot of despising of someone just because they wrote a book!

            Whatever happened to any advertising is good advertising? Why should the author of a book bother to go around "denying any association" with someone who has written a review about their product? Especially a positive review? Can you imagine Marilyn Manson sitting down to write a letter of non-association in response to each fundamentalist that touts his work to be that of the Devil? Why should he... it's free advertising.

            Moynihan is an independent musician and writer. Larson is a professional a**hole corporate entity. More power to Moynihan and Feral House if the paranoid ramblings of a fanatic such as Larson have helped them to sell more copies of their book and perpetuate the free flow of information!


            • Re: Dangerous Art
              by Virbius on Friday August 17, @06:47PM
              Pardon me if my disgust here is so strong, but I have first hand experience of the vile evil perpetrated by this form of "Christianity" which I have very very very often CLEARLY denounced my association with, in spite of, and even more vehemently BECAUSE OF my association with Christ and his teachings.

              This SHIT that DARES to assume the identity of one of my most central sources of inspiration simply has no comparison on earth in terms of the degree of hatred and disgust that I could possibly have for any particular person, organization or ideology.

              In contrast to Mordecai's very soundly and rationally presented suggestion below that (so-called) "Christians" should be ignored does not address the facts and the reality of this type of "Evangelism". These people are truly evil, self serving capitalist pigs that see themselves as some sort of Elite almost exactly like the Nazi's, who present themselves as smiling happy evil-denouning family people who in fact are openly and diliberately invovled in Mind Control, Oppression and Usury of their rapidly growing Flocks, Flocks that carry this disease of inhumanity to greater and greater numbers each and every day exactly like a virus, or a cancer.

              Marilyn Manson, I like. Case and point here on my take on Moynihan: No organization of the likes of Bob Larson Ministries would ever, I mean EVER... you hear me, please hear me say it would NEVER EVER EVER HAPPEN that one of these industries would EVER say anything positive about Manson (Brian Warner). Warner believes in and advocates Freedom and in fact is openly associated with OTO. He has also clearly stated a reverence for Christ but a rejection of the Church's use of Christ for the control of society.

              These organizations, not Christ or True Christianity, but this devious Masquerade of "Christianity" or "Evangelism" and the mind control known as "Pentecostalism" is the sworn enemy of everything Thelema stands for. While preaching "Freedom In Christ" they enslave HUGE numbers of weak and poor individuals with impunity, brainwashing them, empowering them and arming them to "Go Forth and Multiply"

              Thus, the fact that Larson even BOTHERS to praise Moynihan is highly suspicious to begin with, and if I were Moynihan I would be POUNDING DOWN THE FUCKING DOOR of either or both the publication that printed the article or Bob Larson Ministries themselved DEMANDING that they retract their statement because it essentially amounts to slander, since I have NO association WHATSOEVER with the idealogies of those organizations, and the fact that they would claim it not only misrepresents me but seeks to weaken my impact by diffusing it's meaning.

              But that's just me. I HATE XTIANITY!!!!! And, I am sorry, on the whole I am glad to ignore them, but when I know of organizations like Larson's that so openly use Mind Control and Brainwashing tactics in order to create armies of mindless Tithe Paying Zombies, I cannot just sit by idly and watch this happen. I am just sorry. Please accept my humblest apologies for bearing so much hatred.


              • Re: Dangerous Art
                by Anathema Maranatha on Friday August 17, @11:46PM
                Don't be sorry... you are free to hate whatever you want.

                Again, if controversial individuals went around having to pound the door down of everyone else who misrepresented them or had an opposing view, they would accomplish little else other than waste their own time... time which could be better spent exploring and refining their own ideology or art. Bob Larson is an idiot, but he has the right to say whatever he wants.

                Just seems to me like your underlying conspiracy theory here is growing a bit bigger than it needs to. To even imply that Moynihan is in any way in cahoots with the likes of Bob Larson is just totally ridiculous. The fact that Larson praised anything by Michael Moynihan or even knows who he is is quite funny... your suspicions seem to be blinding you from the humour and irony of it all.


                • Re: Dangerous Art
                  by Virbius on Saturday August 18, @12:05AM
                  Maybe. Do you live in California? Go to one of the "Spiritual Warfare" conferences at Jubilee Christian Center in San Jose and tell me if you really think this shit is funny.


                • Re: Dangerous Art
                  by Virbius on Saturday August 18, @12:19AM
                  p.s. Bob Larson is NOT an idiot. If you think that, with all due respect, YOU are clearly an idiot. Bob Larson is a genius, an evil dictatorial genius of mass hypnosis. You are so so blind for not seeing this. Bob Larson steals people's souls. Those assholes stole mine once and it took more than 10 years of bitter struggle to get it back. I know of that which I speak. I will not entertain any further argument on this thread. If you want the last word, go ahead, have it. I have said my peace.


                  • Re: Dangerous Art
                    by Virbius on Monday August 20, @05:11PM
                    I want to apologize for my behavior here, I got a little out of hand. The issue touched a nerve with me and brought up a very touchy personal subject that I feel justifies my position on this, though I need to understand that others are unaware of my experiences unless I share them.

                    I think that I have stated pretty clearly that I am not making any definite conlusions concerning Moynihan's involvement with Larson. More than anything what I am suggesting is that Moynihan should probably be more concerned about the connection, which I have come to understand through verifiable source is more than merely literary. They HAVE worked together.

                    Larson says "Our philosophies are poles apart", but considering the research I have been doing on the forementioned related topic, this kind of talk strikes fear into my bones. Evangelists are very skillful at using rhetoric of this sort as preludes to evil of sorts most people would not believe, but which I am quite able to document and have experienced first hand.

                    I apologize for not being more open to your observations concerning Moynihan, and especially to Moynihan himself, I am in no way attempting to discredit him. If anything I am attempting to warn him that the "Spiritual Warfare" evangelists, of which Bob Larson is one, are not to be messed with. They are incredibly dangerous individuals with a terrifying plan of global spiritual cleansing, and they have proven, it has been well documented, that they will use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to accomplish their goals.

                    It is some really terrifying stuff. Do the research yourself, it doesn't take long at all. Search for "Eric Pryor" and "Spiritual Warfare". It is well documented.

                    Sorry to come off so heavy.


                    • Re: Dangerous Art
                      by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @04:26PM
                      On the other hand, if they are truly "just dialoguing" as I understand is the intention on both of their parts, that is a GREAT thing. I just think that the caveat concerning the horror of the intent behind the "Spiritual Warfare" movement should be fully recognized in that dialogue. The "horror" is that the basis behind the movement ("Spiritual Warfare") is a radical conversion of the entire planet to THEIR brand of watered down, misapplied Christianity, and there have been more than a few horrifying stories of people and families having been utterly destroyed by the political manipulations of the movment, and no real open recognition on the part of the practitioners concerning how evil their ideas are. Bob Larson still preaches "Spiritual Warfare" in spite of the jagged, dubious history of the movement.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by AA on Wednesday August 15, @09:02PM
        Kris Force has never collaborated with Michael Moynihan in any way shape or form. This is incorrect.


        • Re: Dangerous Art
          by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @10:46PM
          My apologies, I stand corrected. The performer in question was Annabel Lee, a former Amber Asylum collaborator.


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Shasu Ma'akheru on Wednesday August 15, @12:59AM
    I'd really, really like to passionately condemn acts of terrorism against Christianity, but I just can't. The history of the Christian domination of most of the world reads like the history of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism, only much, much longer and without the funny parts. Even so, it's no less hard to be enthusiastic about a bunch of herd-minded neo-Nazi twits running around burning churches and slashing priests. It just gives the Christians propaganda material, and at the present scale, doesn't come close to the level of death and property destruction necessary to match the birth rate and income levels of Christendom.

    Moreover, considering that Nazism and its pseudo-Norse fellow travellers are the ultimate expression of repressed, emasculated Christian manhood, it's hard to even characterize this as an assault on Christianity by outsiders. This is more like a penny-ante reenactment of the slaying of Kronos by his son, Zeus. Only in this case, Zeus is just peeing in Kronos' shoes.

    The suggestion that a localized arson spree by disaffected teenagers is art is just silly. And what kind of wakeup call was Charlie Manson? I think the square world was already hep to the idea that sociopathic drifters mixing hallucinogens with delusions of grandeur was a recipe for trouble.


    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @02:38AM
      On Manson: By "square" you do mean dreadfully unaware, don't you? I didn't mean to imply that anyone actually awakened to anything, just that the alarm has been going off for thirty years.

      As to the rest, you are quite right: Witches, Moslems and Pagans never hunted Christians in mass genocide, it was the other way around. If I were to quote their sacred scripture: "God is not mocked, you reap what you sow". The point made tying Nazism to "emasculated Christianity" is a good one, well taken. Have you studied the KKK recently? Their propaganda reads word for word like the Christian Right. Who's fooling who?

      The "Art" in question is the music. The reference to the crimes as "performance terrorism" is my journalistic "poetic license" speaking.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Virbius on Wednesday August 22, @08:15AM
        Correction: There is ample evidence of Romans (Pagans) hunting and killing Christians in mass genocide. Witches and Muslims remain blameless in this respect.


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @04:12AM
    Feral misfit stepchildren unite!

    Re: Dangerous Art
    by John on Wednesday August 15, @10:55AM
    Hi!

    Blackmetal is definitely NOT a mishmash of Odinism, White Supremacy and Nihilism. That may count for NSBM-Bands (National Socialist Black Metal, *ueeargh*, two things that were never meant to mingle), but not for the genre in general.

    Blackmetal topics range from inanely "dumb chick in leather" songs to invocations of demons to killing xtians. There is only a handful of bands worth mentioning. The music once used to be wild and dangerous, but ever since the good ol' days of church burning and murder black metal has become merely something you can earn money with and get sex for free.

    Just some subculture which once was radical.

    John

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @01:07PM
      This is great! I am hoping to draw out more responses from people actually involved in the scene. Obviously there are a great many variations to the Black Metal genre, a number of which are not pigeonholed into inciting crime. Or is this too quick an assumption?

      I am not clear on the disctinction between NSBM and ordinary Black Metal.
      Is Burzum considered NSBM?

      I am tempted to share your belief that the Malyasian government's concern about Black Metal is illusory. There certainly seems to be a silence concerning Black Metal crime on the internet... a detail which I find disconcerting. A particularly long and lucid review of Lords of Chaos on amazon.com cites the short prison sentences received by Black Metal criminals, also noting that few if any are repentant, most have every intention of getting free only to commit more and worse crimes.

      Care to comment?


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by John on Saturday August 18, @08:07AM
        Melez!

        Well, according to the NSBM.org website Burzum is National Socialist Black Metal. Basically, I don't give a fuck about that, as Burzum is classical black metal, and politics of such kind are not topics in the lyrics. It is atmospheric, a track like "Jesus' Tod" always chills me. Anyway, the guy behind Burzum believes in racism and white superiority, antisemitism and other such petty beliefs for the dull of mind.

        You might as well look at the site of the "Allgermanische Heidnische Front", under www.heathenfront.org

        If my memory isn't screwing me, the AHF was founded by Varg Vikernes, or something like that.

        Anyway, most black metal bands are opposed to such lines of thought, as they embrace satanic "promethean" ideology. Foremost would be Ulver, or Emperor, or Solefald.

        Nowadays, Black Metal is just a commodity or simple rock 'n' roll. From the theatrical antics of Cradle of Filth to something like Dimmu Borgir (check with them for 'scarlet woman chicks in leather" songs). There are a few bands on the fringe, but thats nothing new. It is seductive to embrace a fantasy world.

        John


    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @01:16PM
      p.s. an inanely dumb "chick in leather" Black Metal song sounds like a cool thing. Can you cite an example? I can't recall Varg Vikernes ever writing about a woman except for mystic presence in "Dunkelheit" which gives his life "New Meaning", ostensibly by her ability to gas or mutilate large numbers of non-aryans or something to that effect.


    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Friday August 17, @02:34PM
      Having concentrated on this topic for several days now, I apologize for painting the idealogy of Black Metal as simply a "logomaniacal mishmash" which it certainly appears and in some perspective IS.

      What I failed to present in my original article were what I consider to be the positive aspects of the movement, predominantly that Varg Vikernes in particular, as a spearhead of the movement, adamantly proclaims a return to nature and respect for folk traditions, which he feels entails destruction of modern society and it's inherent Christian bias. There is a lot of truth to this idea, though as I've stated numerous times, I do not advocate murder or suicide, I am starting to feel a justification for the arson.

      If it is really true that this is a subculture that simply "once was radical" that is a true shame. In light of my new discovery here I feel it should by all means be revived and made ever more radical.

      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Mordecai on Friday August 17, @03:57PM
        However, it takes a great deal of skill and luck to orchestrate a campaign of arson that doesn't eventually include murder. Besides, if churches must be burnt rather than turned into museums it shows that Christianity is still a relevant social force. Ignoring them or laughing at them is far better, imo.


        • Re: Dangerous Art
          by Virb the Dwerb on Friday August 17, @04:05PM
          point taken.


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Fra THA;M on Wednesday August 15, @02:16PM
    I dabble a little in Black Metal, as I dabble a little in Jazz and Classical. While there is no existant institution I despise more than organized Christianity, I can in no way sympathize with unprovoked violent assault upon it's members (most of whose only sin is ignorance of their religion's opressive qualities).

    These ridiculous teenagers, wearing ridiculous facepaint, and spouting infantile philosophies are contemptable. Don't get me wrong, aesthetically I appreciate the nuances of melodic black metal, but anyone who takes seriously the messages therein are losers. It is the same in any medium, it's pathetic to see individuals so afraid to think for themselves that they decide to identify with a fantasy that allows them to imagine thay are empowered. It is unfortunate that the only people taking these generally laughable bands seriously are impressionable children.

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Shasu Ma'akheru on Wednesday August 15, @11:26PM
      While there is no existant institution I despise more than organized Christianity, I can in no way sympathize with unprovoked violent assault upon it's members (most of whose only sin is ignorance of their religion's opressive qualities).

      The missing word in the above is "willful", and it should be inserted immediately before "ignorance". Christians pleading ignorance to the oppressive qualities of their religion are even less plausible than the residents of Dachau, three blocks from the camp, pleading ignorance to the stench of burning human flesh.

      When you join a voluntary organization, it is not unreasonable for an outsider to interpret your membership as an endorsement of the activities of the organization unless you speak against it.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @01:33PM
        For the sake of clarity, I am in almost complete agreement with this statement and have been since I first read it. Thus, I have not commented since I have had nothing to add. Since some poeple seem so determined to misrepresent me, I thought I would make this clear.


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Azag on Wednesday August 15, @02:50PM
    Considering the terms "Black Metal" or "Death Metal" does conjure visions of post-Slayer underproduced guttural slurring vocals and definite tribal influence commin through in the heavy base rhythms, and powerful drumming. Sort of a sub-Sabbath on steroids.

    In an MTV interview w/Ozzy(1995?), he mentioned his early days with Black Sabbath, how their practice studio was actually a basement - so looking through the window got you an eyelevel view of the sidewalk ala Lavern and Shirley. Across the street was a movie theatre and they would watch fans line up for blocks to see the latest Hammer-Horror (UK) films. This, as the Wizard of Oz commented, was one of the primary imputes for producing "scary" music - in Ozzy's own words - "if Christ sold, you better belive we'd be singing about him. But he doesn't. The Devil sells and people want to be scared."

    In an effort to be "different" Black Metal turns out to be the ragged moron step-child of Speed Metal, and "Hard Rock" before that - grasping to be that much raunchy-er, that much more unacceptable. Hence the heavier and heavier reliance on anti-Xtian, death and pain sentiments to gain merit. The fast track to pissing the most people off, most of the time. Standard fare here in the U.S.

    The nationalistic perspective is viable if you're looking towards Swedish or Teutonic affiliation - at some point youll find it. However, yes Slayer, Metallica and bands like, are actually what were talking about if you want to talk roots. 10 years ago, Slayer was the predominant Death Metal or Black Metal band IN THE WORLD, but there seems to be an unspoken agreement that if you turn out a dozen gold records, you're no longer underground, or hardcore enough to be considered "Black Metal".

    Bands like Burzum are capitalizing on fringe Western trends. The burning of churches, and associated violent actions of the Metal toting-Euro youths illustrates how people jump into the pool of reactive "anti-establishment"(naturally anti-Xtian in the West) youth/drug culture in an attempt to present their own brand of psychosis as "valid" art or media. This Swedish Nationalistic Black Metal isnt any kind of "new" or remarkable presentation musically, its not really anything other than Western in origin - so I dont really see the significance in any of the European "Nationalistic" manifestations. Not that the West owns the style,...but Satanism, and the extreme horror culture preexisted by decades.

    Crossing the lines of copycat multimedia, racing to come in last, as some quasi art-statement. How predictable.

    Regarding the Nazi's reminded me of a short comment by one of P.K. Dicks characters from "The Man in the High Castle":

    "Their trouble she decided, is with sex; they did something foul with it in the 'thirties, and it has gotten worse. Hitler started it with his - what was she? His sister? Aunt? Niece? And his family was inbred already; his mother and father were cousins.Therye all committing incest, going back to the original sin of lusting for their own mothers. Thats why they, those elite SS fairies, have that angelic simper, that blond babylike innocents; therye saving themselves for momma. Or for each other."

    Couple interesting points:

    1) "performance terrorists" is only a viable term if you sympathize with the terrorizers - and as a self-styled Christo-Thelemite Im surprised you approach the matter with such glee where Xtianity and those who follow are the main targets. If "strong interests" = glee :]

    2)"the role of the artist is not so much to express himself, as to express that which humanity feels but lacks the creativity to express."
    - How burning churches and stabbing clergy relates to resolving some "lack of creativity" is a mystery. Straighten me out brother.

    93's for all my friends, in the house, on the house.

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Wednesday August 15, @11:39PM
      Greetings brother!

      1) "performance terrorists" is only a viable term if you sympathize with the terrorizers - and as a self-styled Christo-Thelemite Im surprised you approach the matter with such glee where Xtianity and those who follow are the main targets. If "strong interests" = glee :]

      I think that you should know that the discussion concerning my "Christianity" is an apocalyptic can of worms :-) but I'll address it in light of this issue. To begin with I think that you should recall pretty clearly that in the former beastbay discussions, that erupted into all out war, I very clearly stated my objections to the Church and to many people who call themselves "Christian". The distinction between what I would consider Christian and what is commonly considered "Christian" is becoming increasingly more difficult to make due to the extraordinary convolution of the matter. At least a single semester college course worth of study is required to even begin to address the issue.

      In that regard I have always shared a sympathy with the rage represented by Black Metal. Even in former conversations I have clearly stated that "Xtianity" is diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. The similarity in terminology to my own beliefs and the sugsequent rage that I receive from others concerning it fills me with a fairly incredible rage for Xtianity and "so-called" Christians.

      The fact is that my own beliefs have shifted radically in recent months, at least on what I consider to be the surface. Bruce Bawer's book "Stealing Jesus (How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity)" has been a significant factor in the recent clarification of my beliefs. I would direct any significant enquiries to that text for answers.

      2) "the role of the artist is not so much to express himself, as to express that which humanity feels but lacks the creativity to express." - How burning churches and stabbing clergy relates to resolving some "lack of creativity" is a mystery. Straighten me out brother.

      I think this is merely a misunderstanding, at least partially on my part in unclear delivery. I certainly did not mean to imply that murder was art, though there are those who believe such things. My central feeling here is that the I justify the rage towards the convolution of the meaning of Christianity, the lack of acknowledgement on behalf of Christians for crimes committed through history, and the subsequent role that Christianity has played in making a hateful power hungry modern world.

      At least one contributer above has stated that, although he despises Christianity almost more than anything, he does not condone random murder of innocent Christians, and neither do I. But I do consider the topic to be of universal significance, and it is not being addressed anywhere in any significant manner. The issue is only beginning to be addressed in such books as Bruce Bawer's "Stealing Jesus" which for the most part are being ignored by Christians as "The work of The Devil" which is precisely the root of the problem. In this respect, while I do not condone terrorism, I recognize the inevitability of it given the circumstances, and am suggesting a mode frequently suggested by Xnoubis here (though he may disagree with my application) "Attempt to understand rather than exclude".

      "They shouted out 'who killed the Kennedys',
      when after all it was you and me"

      - Rolling Stones "Sympathy for The Devil"



      • Re: Dangerous Words
        by Azag on Thursday August 16, @12:40AM
        While I agree this isnt the time nor place to delve into your personal beliefs in depth, as you mentioned - the subject matter does provide some nice association towards Xtianity, personal, Gnostic, pop-culture or otherwise. As the writer of the piece and a valued Thelemic voice I appreciate the work indubitably and hope the personal angle didnt confuse the original issues.

        I would probably ask you those same questions if we were sitting on a bench, eating cold sandwiches @ 2 am in front of some lost Safeway out there...

        93 V!

        "Blood will baptiste, and fire sterilize this land our earth."
        - Slayer


        • Re: Dangerous Words
          by Virbius on Thursday August 16, @01:38AM
          Far from confusing the original issue, I think it clarifies it quite a bit, thanks for asking. It's only 1 am and I am not particularly hungry, but I appreciate the reference.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Xnoubis on Thursday August 16, @11:01AM
        > he may disagree with my application

        You bet I disagree. This formulation runs exactly opposite to my view. Sneaky, if intentional. ;-)

        How about, "Attempt to preserve the diversity of approaches"? Stated this way, it becomes obvious that when an approach threatens to interfere with other approaches, it becomes a problem. In other words, to value tolerance consistently, one must seek to constrain intolerance; to be intolerant of intolerance, if you like, while being aware of the delicate balancing act this requires. Without balance, the constraint of intolerance easily becomes intolerance in the problematic sense.

        In this particular instance, I think this means seeking to diminish both Christian fundamentalism and anti-Christian violence.


        • Re: Dangerous Art
          by Virbius on Friday August 17, @01:50PM
          My distortion of your meaning was not intentional. It does fit in with my conventional modus operandi though, which has been tolerance, but not for the intolerant, which sounds very similar to what you are saying, we are using the same words here, but simply have two differing perspectives on the application. I comprehend the caveat concerning balance.

          Clearly, in our example of the Black Metal murderers and arsonists we have something a little more extreme than even "the constraint of intolerance becoming intolerance in the problematic sense". My own take on it is that the "Christian" domination of the world throughout history (I use the quotes to question the use of the word in this context) is at least a little more severe than mere intolerance, and agree with the poster above who referred to the burning of a few churches and killing a few priests as being equivalent to "peeing on their shoes" in retrospect.

          Again, though, I do not condone these activities in any fashion. I do not advocate murder, arson or suicide. I advocate understanding.

          I believe that what has been done here, with this article and ensuing discussion, is to powerfully evoke an expansive GRAY AREA, which is exactly as I had willed. I believe there are "Black and White" "Right and Wrong" in this issue and they can be discerned. I am not claiming that I know what they are, part of my reason for choosing to post this and participate in the discussion is that I would like to get a clearer picture of the ethical issues involved myself, and already I have been quite surprised at some of the new perspectives I have gained on this phenomenon.

          It is very easy to simply conclude: "Murder and Arson are wrong" and avoid the deeper issues.

          Does a tiger sin if it kills a man?

          I think that the conventional, cookie cutter, Zondervan Publishing House Fundamental Christian answer is "Tigers are not bound by God's law in the way that humans are" which I think is a cop out. It avoids the deeper issues by a phenomenal denial of the reality of the different orders of being that exist in the world. It is a very Anthropocentric prejudicial response.

          The answer to the question, in my opinion, is "What is Sin"?

          Thelema defines Sin as "Restriction". Is there something I am missing in, as Thelemites, condemning the acts of both Black Metal criminals and the musicians that encourage them? It is my feeling that a number of key members of the Black Metal movement are clearly "Working their true wills and Great Work", among them Vark Vikernes. I truly feel that Varg is a madman, a fanatic, a psycho, but that he is in true perfect Thelemic form. He is fully himself under all circumstances. As Crowley put it "If a man such as Napolean were apointed by destiny to rule Europe...".

          The bible defines Sin (Greek "Hamartaneo") as "failing to acheive perfection" or "falling somewhat short of perfect". It is a distortion and misinterpretation in my opinion to interpret the New Testament concept of Sin as being somewhat conclusively tied to "Christian" ideas of right and wrong, such as Homosexuality, Fornication, Drunkenness, Sorcery et. al. It is my opinion and understanding that "Sin", in the New Testament context is always context related.

          Certainly, one of the principles that hinders perfection is undue Restriction.

          Does this mean that I feel that Black Metal criminals should not be punished? Absolutely not. I feel that if we are to believe all we have been told concerning this phenomenon (which I currently somewhat doubt) WE have what I would call a problem on our hands... a moral, ethical dillemna and an apparent threat to civilization no matter how juvenile.

          I also feel very strongly that neither Thelema NOR Christianity has the right to dictate that anyone's ethics should live up to any one person's interpretation or ideal of "Moral or Doctrinal Perfection". I feel that the topic presented in this article demonstrates a very clear and extreme example of what exactly can be meant by "Ethical Diversity".

          It would be very easy to excuse this as simply "Intolerance of Intolerance in the problematic sense". What I think this ignores and almost completely fails to take into account, in a manner of common, domestic variety denial, is the degree to which ALL of modern society is founded on hateful and bizarre distortions of Christian ideas which were original instituted to control the masses.

          In an essay found at www.burzum.com Varg states:

          "Negative, destructive, anti development, unrealistic and Utopian: I have heard it all. Yes I am negative to the modern civilisation, yes I applaud the destruction of the modern civilisation, yes I seek the end of the "development" of this modern civilisation, yes I know it is unrealistic to believe in a New World and yes I know that what we want to replace the old with can seem Utopian to most people.

          "I have to be negative to a "civilisation" which rapes Mother Earth and murders our human races, which tortures animals and destroys everything that is good, pure, natural, healthy and clean. To even think about developing this sick, degenerate, anti-nature, Judeo-Christian, Capitalist pig "civilisation" is out of the question. It has to go, it has to be levelled to the ground so that we can build something new."

          Sounds basically like a very lucid and intellectual version of Charlie Manson. But honestly, though I do not condone the methods of either Vikernes or Manson, and I am certainly not a White Supremacist, I absolutely agree with the statements made above. I am in absolute, complete agreement with the arguments of both Vikernes and Manson. Both adamantly proclaim a radical return to reverence for nature.

          I could not possibly agree more.


          • Re: Dangerous Art
            by Xnoubis on Friday August 17, @03:36PM
            in our example of the Black Metal murderers and arsonists we have something a little more extreme than even "the constraint of intolerance becoming intolerance in the problematic sense".

            To the extent that they are motivated by revulsion at the excesses of Christian intolerance, I'd just think of this as an extreme case of the general principle.

            Does a tiger sin if it kills a man?

            "Sin" is only a functional point of discussion if the people engaged in the discussion agree about what it means. Thelema doesn't exactly define sin as "restriction." The Book of the Law says, "The word of Sin is Restriction." And that could be interpreted to mean many things, pestilence forbid.

            So I would frame the problem as, "How shall we respond to the possibility that tigers might eat us?" And the basic answer is: don't give tigers the opportunity to eat us. Put them in wildlife preserves, make sure there's plenty of antelope to go around. If they don't like it, they can always grow opposable thumbs...

            Is there something I am missing in, as Thelemites, condemning the acts of both Black Metal criminals and the musicians that encourage them?

            That depends on whether you view the doctrine "Might makes Right" as Thelemic or not.

            What I think this ignores and almost completely fails to take into account, in a manner of common, domestic variety denial, is the degree to which ALL of modern society is founded on hateful and bizarre distortions of Christian ideas which were original instituted to control the masses.

            Isn't that over-simplifying? There's a lot of distorted Christianity in our society, but there are a lot of other influences as well: socialist impulses, materialism, Greco-Roman ideals of heroism, hedonism, rebellion, scholarship, etc. And even many of the flaws in Christianity aren't original to it, but are carried over from other movements, such as Roman distortions of Zoroastrianism, or extremist ascetic Judaic sects like the Essenes.

            Our society has a lot of problems, but I don't think that violence is the solution.

            Ethical Diversity

            It seems to me that this issue hasn't yet pointed to any great ethical paradox. The principle of "Ethical Diversity," as I see it, is clear on this point: everyone has the right to live according to his or her code of ethics, up to the point where they begin to interfere with others' rights to live according to theirs. At that point, it is not the code of ethics that is at fault, but the interference. If the code of ethics demands interference (e.g., "Might makes Right"), it isn't in accord with Ethical Diversity.

            The problem then becomes, what happens when some of the people believe in Ethical Diversity and others don't? Then there is competition for hearts and minds. And we find that in the short term, rejecting diversity is extremely compelling for most people. So those who support diversity need to be very resourceful in getting the message out. It is so much easier to be persuasive by saying, "We will right the wrongs!" than by saying, "We all have a right to be heard."

            I'm unashamedly partisan on this subject: tolerance is a more advanced conception than intolerance. But for that reason, it is more subtle and fragile. It takes a Gandhi to point out the limitations of intolerance, but only a Rush Limbaugh to make tolerance look bad.


            • Re: Dangerous Art
              by Virbius on Friday August 17, @04:19PM
              Tyler: "If you could fight one historical figure, who would it be?"
              Narrator: "Ghandi"
              Tyler: "Good! Good Answer!"


              • Re: Dangerous Art
                by Virbius on Friday August 17, @10:26PM
                Hello Virbius, meet Virbius. Why Hello, pleased to make your acquaintance. Did you know that I am a Magus? I am feeling quite self important at the moment. I am really quite a good dancer when nobody is looking. I am also a genius finger painter.

                Sorry... Virbius digresses.

                If Virbius were asked the above question, "Who would you fight" he would pick Jesus. He would probably get his ass kicked but it would be worth it just to get a couple of good square punches in.

                Virbius transmits his royal Magusness to all. I do not require your faith, only that you worship me.


                • Re: Dangerous fArt
                  by Azag on Monday August 20, @09:58AM
                  i was so unassuming when i reached this point in the thread, i almost pissed my reactionary ego-defensive pajamas!

                  Would loudly crapping your pants @ over 14,000 rpm be considered Mud Metal?

                  ~ "Who would you fight" ~
                  After kicking my own ass (im a lofty Magus now), dont know if he qualifies, but I would hold A.S. LaVey down and force him to say nice things about Christ (he was a whole 150 lbs of "Satanic" FURY),then make him wear a big blond wig and full makeup and eat tons of cake and icecream - after that I would dress him as a little girl in a pink summer dress and just brush his pretty hair for hours......and he'd love it.
                  Then we'd switch...ooops

                  Thanks for transmitting the full Magustration to me big V, now I guess we should get together and y'know - quote Crowleyana, wax profundities into the night, and berate those unlike our obviously superior selves. Ahhh, fakin spiritual evolution....this is GREAT! So many uses.

                  Im down for the Mud Metal!
                  With flowery, almost girly love,
                  Azag

                  }:](strokes pattern baldness 93 times)


            • Re: Dangerous Art
              by Centre of Pestilence on Friday August 17, @08:02PM
              It's me, Virbius Maximus...

              My reason for not making more comment on your statement above is that for the most part I simply wholly agree. I have nothing significant to contribute to the thread besides the tidbit of "Fight Club" dialogue.

              Do what thou Wilt


          • Re: Dangerous Art
            by Fra THA;M on Friday August 17, @07:15PM
            "Thelema defines Sin as "Restriction"...Certainly, one of the principles that hinders perfection is undue Restriction."

            What about the arguement that ludicrous musicians like Varg are restricting the rights of impressionable children to understand the world on their own terms? By preaching so loudly to children (the only people who take these clowns seriously) they are as restrictive as priests on the pulpit. Worse. At least there are echoes of a positive message in christianity.

            As for the notion that these individuals are working the Work of their Will, I must sadly shake my head. Perhaps they are working the work of some Will, but I doubt it is at the promptings of their Holy Guardian Angel. My guess is that they listen to the whispers of their Lurker on the Threshold...their malignant demon.


            • Re: Dangerous Art
              by Virbius on Friday August 17, @07:51PM
              You might want to make note of some of the comments above concerning Bob Larson's "association" with Moynihan. There may be more to what you are saying than you are currently grasping. In other words, I tend to agree with you here about restrictive controlling messages, but am putting forth a suggestion, not conclusive though, that it is more than a little odd that Bob Larson praises Moynihan. There may be a lot more here than it would seem on the surface.

              Puppet or not, I thing Varg is a fully reaslized individual. I strongly feel he is as much himself as Crowely was Crowley. Crowley ultimately was not evil, Varg ultimately has a very pronounced evil streak, and a clearly evil methodology, but like I say, does a tiger sin if it kills a man? Varg is a different sort of thing than a Crowley (Cameron below states that Varg thinks Crowley is stupid - a person can find his True or Pure Will without Crowley). Varg has proclaimed his Word to the Aeon, in my opinion he is as self-realized as anyone has ever been. This does not mean that I condone or agree with his view in any way.


              • Re: Dangerous Art
                by Fra THA;M on Saturday August 18, @10:04AM
                " does a tiger sin if it kills a man?"

                A tiger does not recognize the consequences his action will have on other individuals. If Vikernes connot fathom the weight of his actions, like a tiger, then he is less man and more animal.
                Consequently, if he isn't a man, he cannot be a fully realized or authentic individual, but merely a slave to his basest nature. Refine thy Pleasure...


                • Re: Dangerous Art
                  by Fra THA;M on Saturday August 18, @01:35PM
                  "Varg has proclaimed his Word to the Aeon"

                  The thought of Vikernes as a Magus? Yuck.


                • Re: Dangerous Art
                  by Fra THA;M on Saturday August 18, @01:37PM
                  "Varg has proclaimed his Word to the Aeon"

                  The thought of Vikernes as a Magus? Yuck.


                  • Re: Dangerous Art
                    by Virbius on Sunday August 19, @11:13PM
                    In order to really consider your opinion here as having any kind of substantial weight, I am forced to ask you what YOU have done, recently or otherwise to either make the world a better place, or in the very least, clearly and concisely lay forth your own most central theses (your "Word" in my context of usage).


                    • Re: Dangerous Art
                      by Fra THA;M on Monday August 20, @09:24AM
                      I am Nothing, Naught, and that is my word, Bigbird. I am no Magus.

                      It fills me with mirth to consider those laughable Mayem and Burzum tunes equivalent to a thesis on the Universe. Yeah, Varg is as intelligent as George Berkeley, Issac Newton, Eliphas Levi and Crowley. Give me a break.


                      • Re: Dangerous Art
                        by Azag on Monday August 20, @10:38AM
                        a purple vein is about to burst on my left temple.

                        ("is as intelligent".)
                        - nice

                        Does anyone know if Varg received more or less stars and/or happyface stickers next to his name in class? Cause if he didnt, maybe he's not "worthy" to be considered Magus. So if you havent come into harmony with Varg's version of universal acceptance through action,does that mean he couldnt possibly be realized?

                        Now, watch as I pull a diving board out of my hat.

                        Shmazag - }:]
                        (zip's fly up and down 93 times)


                      • Re: Dangerous Art
                        by Virbius on Monday August 20, @04:48PM
                        I want to make clear that I never said "as intelligent" but "as self-realized" which seems to be the root of our disagreement. In my opinion a person can be fully self-realized if he is doing his own will. If his will is nothing more than to eat, drink, f*** and shit, then his will is somewhat easily accomplished by anyone with a double digit IQ. I never said Varg was smart, I never said he was RIGHT, I just said that the pathetic little mutherf***er blows every one of us out of the sea in terms of shear determination, clarity of vision, accomplishment of goals and uniqueness of purpose.

                        I hope this clarifies my POV a little...


                        • Re: Dangerous Art
                          by Xnoubis on Monday August 20, @04:59PM
                          If his will is nothing more than to eat, drink, f*** and shit, then his will is somewhat easily accomplished by anyone with a double digit IQ.

                          Can it genuinely be the will of a human being to operate at the level of an animal? I'm not speaking of this Varg person, but of the general principle.


                          • Re: Dangerous Art
                            by Virbius on Monday August 20, @05:29PM
                            I have always resisted the idea, but I am coming more to appreciate the fact that a great many people seem to have very little ambition of any sort beyond mere animal nature. Animals bear young and raise them remember. It seems to me that an overwhelming majority of humans have little other desire than procreation and "little pink houses". In that respect, it seems to me somewhat clear that, indeed, it can genuinely be the will of an individual to have little if any skill or ability outside of the domain of mere animal. A great many people would be somewhat upset at the suggestion that they should become great artists or philosophers.


                          • Re: Dangerous Art
                            by Mordecai on Monday August 20, @08:51PM
                            I think that most of these problems can easily be avoided by leaving behind entirely the initial question of what some "human being"'s will is, and concentrating entirely on what my will is. I believe that it is an utter snare and delusion for me to try to ascertain or even care about what someone else's will is or whether or not they are doing it. One may rejoin that the will of someone like Crowley is obviously to know and care about exactly that. And one may be right. I neither know nor care.


                            • Re: Dangerous Art
                              by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @01:40PM
                              I tend to agree, on the whole, that "arguing about doctrine" can be quite useless. On the other hand, personally, I find the current argument topic interesting, and am experiencing it dispassionately. I am just interested in a finer degree of understanding concerning the matter (Will) and this topic serves as a great springboard for understanding by posing a tricky controversial circumstance as a point of analysis.


                            • Re: Dangerous Art
                              by Azag the Wonder Pillow! on Tuesday August 21, @02:43PM
                              "I think that most of these problems can easily be avoided by leaving behind entirely the initial question of what some "human being"'s will is, and concentrating entirely on what my will is."
                              - Mordalicious

                              I think that most conversations altogether can easily be avoided/subverted under these terms, but then would we gather here and unite silently under the "objective" banner of no-words?

                              Isnt the fact that you replied at all a sign of partciapation, nay of "Will to Action" itself - by association?

                              poke...poke...jab...hold my hand...:]


                              • Re: Dangerous Art
                                by Mordecai on Tuesday August 21, @03:51PM
                                Obviously I have no problem with being involved in discussions with others. I just don't waste my time trying to assess their "true will", and whether or not they are doing it. Your "poke...poke...jab" might be authenticity on your part, or not, what difference should it make to me?


                                • Re: Dangerous Art
                                  by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @04:12PM
                                  Sublime... Beautiful evocation of the heart of the matter.


                                • Re: Dangerous Art
                                  by Azag on Tuesday August 21, @04:28PM
                                  In light of your being considered somewhat of an authority on the subject, at least in my deluded fantasy - I was deliberately positioning myself as person with lesser experience petitioning you, the person with more experience in these matters of "True Will".

                                  Weather the "poke jab" bs is or is not appreciated seems to be beside the point.

                                  I simply wanted to hear the rest of your opinion on these matters of Will, as they pertain to this very topic being as subjective as it is. Varg's "True Will", and weather or not it was realized seemed to be the focal point of most of the exchanges - I was interested in seeing how not "assessing" someone elses True Will may or may not effectivly destroy the composure of this entire topic.


                                  • Re: Dangerous Art
                                    by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @08:33PM
                                    I feel that the "argument" (dispassionate debate intended to arrive at truth) was settled conclusively below by X-man's announcement of the role of the Shadow in Jung's Individuation. I ceased upholding my view at the point he brought that forth.


                                    • Re: Dangerous Art
                                      by Shmazag the Wonder Shilow! on Tuesday August 21, @10:29PM
                                      I would have to agree, along Jungian lines.

                                      As Ive personally shown, purly for demonstation pourpases now, people (i) can get turned very backwards, in thinking that therye (im) defending their(my) own Will by projecting outward onto someone elses, thereby moving their (my) "center" from the light of interior existance towards the darkness, a re-polarization towards that "shadow" truth of material reflection. The pain.

                                      Ive learned alot from you tramps today. Thx for the space and place fellas.

                                      93


                                  • Re: Dangerous Art
                                    by Mordecai on Wednesday August 22, @11:22AM
                                    When it comes to your will I believe that there are no "authorities" other than you. Sometimes Crowley the world teacher takes this position as well. Other times Crowley the egomaniac says he knows what's best for you. Which Crowley is the Prophet to obeyed is up to each of us to decide.


                          • Re: Dangerous Art
                            by me on Tuesday August 21, @12:37PM
                            Humans are animals, some are even smarter than that of the homo spp. Science validates this claim. Human senses are in decay.


                        • Re: Dangerous fArt
                          by Azag on Monday August 20, @05:46PM
                          My comments were not directed towards you V.
                          Just wanted to clairify.


                          • Re: Dangerous fArt
                            by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @05:57AM
                            oh, yeah, right... as if I can't hear you mocking me in this posting..... everybody funny, now you funny too.


                            • Virbius and his Dangerous Art
                              by Azag on Tuesday August 21, @09:32AM
                              Only w/the Mud Metal ref., but I did find it humorous at the time :].

                              The remarks concerning Vargs IQ were actually defensive, supporting your general feeling that (as I see) a person doesn't have to score 1400 on their SAT's to be considered "Realized". Obviously missed.

                              Your personal perspective towards Black Metal is purely subjective, and beyond my providence to reproach. Now, I dont think Im understanding your present disposition, as I thought we were in a semi-state of agreement and definitely dont feel im "mocking" you, or that I even really could on a simple www.messageboard. I mean really, what value does all this pixilated conjecture really carry when the forum is open to the mundane public (me)?

                              It occurs that some amount of "mocking" or silliness would be considered par for the course, and that maybe I have participated on that level alone, and if so...forgive. Actually I assumed you'd consider my personality when reading my foolish remarks and take a grain w/the words.

                              Im done w/this subject.

                              fIN.


                              • Re: Virbius and his Dangerous Art
                                by me on Tuesday August 21, @12:42PM
                                [In the Shells]



                                • Re: Virbius and his Dangerous Art
                                  by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @01:18PM
                                  My concerns on both sides make sense, but what you probably aren't getting is that my point of view requires thought.


                                • Re: Virbius and his Dangerous Art
                                  by Shmazag the Wonder Shilow! on Tuesday August 21, @03:20PM
                                  Its getting cozy round here.

                                  While I do hear what youre saying concerning social programming, maybe even agree to some extent, it doesnt help the integrity of your comments not leaving a real email address.

                                  That will remain the important factor when regarding you and yours. Looks to "Me" as if you dont really want the personal responsibility of owning your words, where you have to assume some type of relevant "center" to speak from.

                                  Breaking words down is easy. Building words up in the face of adversity takes courage. Did you have something original to offer? No? Then I will consider V to be a superior "message board poster" if nothing else by virtue of participation and representation.

                                  The guy went out on a personal limb to give us something to discuss, and stands by his work.

                                  Being an absentee poster comes of as obfuscation, autoerotic, singular. The truth its always seemed to me is three sided. You can quote me, or flock me - my emails always available - even to you, Me.

                                  Magus Awaaaaay! Swoosh!
                                  (fly's sideways at 93 ft. per sec)}:]


                                  • Re: Virbius and his Dangerous Art
                                    by me on Wednesday August 22, @07:03AM
                                    Hmmm. I tend to shy away from psychotics. thnx anyway!


                                    • Re: Virbius and his Dangerous Art
                                      by Virbius on Wednesday August 22, @08:38AM
                                      Does the phrase "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" mean the same thing as "The pot calling the kettle black"? Or am I missing something here...


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Cameron on Thursday August 16, @08:57PM
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

    Disinformation has a dossier on Black Metal called Satanic Metal Heads which has some excellent links. They may have another dossier on the subject as I recall reading about the subject two years ago and this is dated Oct, 2000. I belive one of Mayhem's albums actually has the seal of the A:.A:. somewhere in the jacket. Of course Count Grishnackh is in jail for killing and eating (with a TV dinner) his drummer and I suspect he may have taken chapter III of Liber AL a little too literally.

    There are other Death Metal links to Crowley as well, for example, Nile of Relapse Records (specializing in extreme/gore metal/grind) thanks "Mr. Crowley" in their album "Amongst The Catacombs of Nephren-Ka", though I suspect they have sublimated their taste for death.


    Love is the law, love under will,
    Cameron

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Friday August 17, @02:05PM
      This is simply incorrect. Varg Vikernes did not "eat" Eronymous, the drummer of Mayhem. Varg Vikernes is in Prison in Norway for stabbing Eronymous in excess of 70 times, which he claims was in self defense. He insists, to this date, that he is not a murderer. I am not in agreement with his arguments for innocence, but he certainly did not "eat" Eronymous "with a tv dinner". This is simply a misinformative fabrication.

      I think that what you mean is that he sat and ate a tv dinner in Eronymous' apartment while Eronymous's corpse bleed out it's last onto the carpet. I do recall hearing something to this effect. But Varg is not a cannibal, that certainly would have come up in the trial had it happened, and I certainly would have remembered that detail, had it been true, but it's not.

      Thank you, however, for posting the links.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Cameron on Friday August 17, @02:47PM
        Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

        It makes sense that it would have arisen in court, though I had been told that he mixed parts of Eronymous into a TV dinner. I appologize if it is misinformation. Otherwise, according to Vikernes own statement he "read one 20 page book by Crowley and found it utterly meaningless and ludicrous." It looks like Eronymous was the guitarist too.


        Love is the law, love under will,
        Cameron


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by X on Wednesday August 22, @12:40PM
        If anything Euronymus ate Dead's brain. I don't know which album had the A.A.-sigil on it, but I would emphatically not make too much of it - especially if it's an early album. Nor the 3rd Chapter reference (though it is possible that I am wrong in this regard) - never heard a whisper about it from that direction. These guys were rather clueless (at least back then) of Crowley/Thelema and hardly read anything in that direction... enough LaVey to dismiss him as a pussy (for lack of a better way to express their dislike) though. (Some of their followers threatened stores that would sell The Satanic Bible in Sweden.) Their Black Circle wasn't exactly about ritual, cermonies, Thelema in the sense that people usually think of them.


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Cameron on Thursday August 16, @09:01PM
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

    Disinformation has a dossier on Black Metal called Satanic Metal Heads which has some excellent links. They may have another dossier on the subject as I recall reading about the subject two years ago and this is dated Oct, 2000. I belive one of Mayhem's albums actually has the seal of the A:.A:. somewhere in the jacket. Of course Count Grishnackh is in jail for killing and eating (with a TV dinner) his drummer and I suspect he may have taken chapter III of Liber AL a little too literally.

    There are other Death Metal links to Crowley as well, for example, Nile of Relapse Records (specializing in extreme/gore metal/grind) thanks "Mr. Crowley" in their album "Amongst The Catacombs of Nephren-Ka", though I suspect they have sublimated their taste for death.


    Love is the law, love under will,
    Cameron

    Re: Dangerous Art
    by jazzcat on Friday August 17, @06:03PM
    ...peace and love is my law, or do i have to get down and dirty, and speed(@#^^%$#^***&^*(&^%$^$ metal my brains, to
    come to some sort of terms with my humanity, which if truth be told is in dire need of some sort of cathartic resolution,(the ReVoLuTiON will not be on TV) but in lieu of that i will
    kind of lose it in the plethora of dark images that are floating around out there...cuz the drugs
    are bad and so are the chicks!!!

    hey Mr Crowley, got a lot of good drugz and a lot of baaaaad puzzy!!...cool duuuuude! and a lot of satanic hand signs!!!

    on a serious note...i wonder what Xonubissssssss meeeaaans, by t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e!!!

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Xnoubis on Saturday August 18, @08:50PM
      Shall I bite? Yeah, sure, what the hell...

      I mean that even though there have been participants who have insisted that you keep to the topic or be silent, I have stood by your right to express yourself here. But then when there have been participants who have been persecuted for their views, I've stood by the right for them to express themselves. We've put the Shells in place to discourage persecution, but even there, the Shell'ed comments are not removed. There's only been one occasion when someone was asked to leave, and that was after he flatly refused to refrain from flaming.

      I think that, in the main, Beast Bay participants have demonstrated a willingness to allow for a multiplicity of views. It's been -- and will continue to be, I'm sure -- a learning experience for all of us.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by jazzcat on Saturday August 18, @10:07PM
        ...a learning experiance?

        well that's the way I see it,

        but it do get rather complex don't it?

        when i joined OTO back in 79' i went there to learn, and i did learn, but more in spite of OTO
        rather then because of it, (long story)

        so it affected my whole life, see?

        so if i am a little testy that is part of it!

        also i came out of the late 60's...for those of you that remember that magickal time...
        or those that had parents that were there,
        having the draft hang over your head from the time of 18, is not a fun way to grow into adulthood!
        and i was a 'child' of the late 60's...off the pig man!,,power to the people!...flower power!
        I saw Jimmi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin,
        Rolling Stones, John Mayhal, Cream, J Airplane
        you name it i probubly saw it, THAT WAS MUSIC!!!
        not that i don't listen to some metal bands...

        anyhoot!..so i did not grow up with the internet
        and i am a spontainous person, i improvise
        i also read a lot of books, i did Gnostic Mass
        in Grand Lodge Bla bla bla!...

        as far as keeping on the topic, that is a bit of a
        no brainer for me, cuz it reminds me of a class room...i like to be able to bounce off of what people are saying and use it as grist for the mill...

        having said that, that brings me to the topic of tolerance...and my coment is this; at what point
        do i tolerate someones ((mere)) tolerance of me?

        understand what i mean?...and the internet brings a hole bag of stuff, that, well is flaming sort of like road rage on the information highway?

        if you are on the inside, it's always easy to
        kind of put the ones on the outs!...in a diminished light...even if you play fair by
        the established rules...since you are on the
        inside..!THAT is what you call tolerance?


        • Re: Dangerous Art
          by jazzcat on Sunday August 19, @07:05PM
          thankyou for the thoughful EMAIL... Xnoubis

          tolerance on forums such as this

          seems sort of rare, if you tend
          to be a bit experimental
          like my self...

          its difficult to be creative
          and not appear as a "shit disterber"
          as i was called on another forum
          where i am considered 'out of line'
          cuz i practice, spontanious word(wyrd) play...

          but in the larger picture, when it comes to
          me being TOLERANT, of the MERE TOLERANCE
          of those whom are still living in the
          "NEW AGE"...DARK AGES...well it's more
          then this absurdist old young thelmite
          type boy can bare...!

          is Satan a G-force?
          I can't get me no, dat da dada daaa dada dat da
          satanic action!!!

          I know i push the outer envalope and
          I AM learning to work the lines between
          the lines, and not OVERREACT!...but some
          times you got to wing ding it!

          Catcha on the rebound, unwound unbound, rezound!


    Re: Dangerous Art
    by Xnoubis on Monday August 20, @09:51PM
    [Continued from here.]

    it can genuinely be the will of an individual to have little if any skill or ability outside of the domain of mere animal

    Doesn't this get back to the old "want vs. will" distinction, though? Some people can, through trauma, be cut off from their will to self-actualization and remain in an animal-like state. They might -- in fact, they probably would -- fiercely defend their life choices when challenged. But is that generally what we mean by "will" in Thelema?

    I suppose we could conceive of individuals whose stars say within them, "Shrink! Recoil from the faculties that you might develop! Turn back now!" Such people would then actualize by not actualizing. But this doesn't feel right to me.

    We may not be able to determine what constitutes an obstacle for a particular person. But I think we can generally assert that people face obstacles that they're not always aware of. My inclination is to see stunted development as evidence of obstacles that have not yet been overcome. I don't see much that convinces me of a "will to be stunted."

    (It's possible that Mordecai is correct in suggesting that this is a futile thread of inquiry, but I'm not sure yet. Trying to ascertaining the specific will of another is one thing, but reflecting on the meaning of will in general seems within bounds to me.)

    • Re: Dangerous Art
      by Virbius on Monday August 20, @10:37PM
      I confer with the Want vs. Will thing, and it does not change the essence of my argument, which is that a nasty little prig named Varg Vikernes appears in every way to me to be a fully individuated being, which I equate with "doing one's will".


      Let's rejoin this proposition, shall we?


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @05:55AM
        This would probably be the first time I have ever disagreed with Mordy that I can recall. I find value in this "discerning the will of others" thing on a purely theoretical basis, with a view to what it could mean in terms of a perspective on my own will.

        What do you think would be the likely true will of a severely disabled down's syndrome sufferer? How about an autistic? Catatonic? I think we can all imagine the pure will of a true schizophrenic (we've all known a few, haven't we?).

        I subscribe to the theory (laid forth in Hartmann "magic white and black") that all men have a certain character. Some resemble animals, others are more evolved. A shrew-like man will develop shrew-like characteristics. A very courageous man may come to actually resemble a Lion or some other character from the animal kingdom.

        I absolutely believe that some people are just sort of Elementals as oposed to evolved spirits, and so should it be. I think it is very utopian of Crowley to suggest that "each man that becomes a magician makes it possible for others to follow" a nice ideal, but the reality is that not all are magicians.

        And some are magicians, but nasty, beast-like black brothers, if I am using the terminology even roughly as it should be used, and such, I suggest is Varg, and fully realized as such.


      • Re: Dangerous Art
        by Xnoubis on Tuesday August 21, @10:08AM
        Obviously, I feel that it does address your argument, or I wouldn't have written it.

        To use your terms, one can be fully individuated around Want, which I would not equate with "doing one's will." The On-line Medical Dictionary defines "individuation" as "A process of differentiation having for its goal the development of the individual personality." It sounds to me as if everyone except for small children and advanced psychotics qualifies as fully individuated. How is this "doing one's will"?


        • Re: Dangerous Art
          by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @01:30PM
          We are talking at cross purposes here, since we are now at odds concerning the definition of "Individuation". While the definition given I accept as true, I have always considered "true" Individuation, in the Jungian sense of the word, to be something much more subtle and sophisticated than "anyone with a name and a nose to pick is Individuated" and actually always associated the word with the accomplishment of Crowley's program of Will, i.e. knowledge of and actuation of self.

          One of the key elements of Jung's Individuation is the battle with the same-sex parent figure concerning individuality and liberty, i.e. The degree to which I will deliberately NOT be like my father.


          • Re: Dangerous Art
            by Xnoubis on Tuesday August 21, @02:32PM
            We are talking at cross purposes here

            Except that I'm actively seeking to understand your usage of terms... Jungian individuation, okay. The first thing I turn up is this, under the heading, "Archetypes and the Individuation Process":

            "According to Jung, one must get in touch with the Shadow and Anima/Animus before one can truly get in touch with the Self. [...] One of the clues to projection of shadow content is the degree of negative emotion aroused in us by something in the outside world - often other people."

            So I might be able to avoid the question of whether Jungian individuation is the same as doing one's will, by asking whether Varg is really individuated in the Jungian sense. Does this seem like someone who has fully assimilated his Shadow, or do I detect maybe tiny traces of Shadow projection?


            • Re: Dangerous Art
              by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @03:59PM
              No! You DO NOT detect traces of "Shadow Projection" you... you... undereducated ape! You are just not seeing my point... it takes thought you know? See what I mean? People like you are just animals, you don't know how to think and wouldn't want to if you could...! I am the only one who understands, I transmit my Magusness, fall and worship me or I shall smite thee with a curse!

              Frater Virbius

              (witness mine hand! Ma Ba Ph.d 3.14159263 6.02x10-23 I had sex with your mother Esq. the Third! ...and don't you forget it!)


              • Re: Dangerous Art
                by Virbius on Tuesday August 21, @04:05PM
                In other words, point taken X-man. That seems to be the conclusion of the argument. I have no further debate and have been significantly enlightened by your advanced adeptship (nudge-nudge, wink-wink).

                Seriously, the actual Jung quote in the text clinches it and negates my entire argument. It seems in every way to be the summary thesis on the subject in my opinion.

                While it's been real fun exposing my hateful anti-Xtian Black Metal erudition, I stand formally corrected.

                Over and Out.


    Re: Dangerous Art (is this funny, or just sick?)
    by Virbius on Thursday August 23, @02:51AM
    A realaudio clip of Varg singing a Cliff Richard song with the band Mayhem, including Eronymous, the man he would later be imprisoned for murdering.

    and just so that you can sing-a-long with them:

    "All the little flowers are singing, all the little birdies are too.. they are very happy and we hope you are too..."

    Re: Fine Dangerous Art
    by Virbius on Thursday August 23, @08:46AM
    After hearing about Ulver for about the Nth-millionth time I finally went and did some research and I am quite delighted! The Disinformation article on Black Metal referenced above says "These guys are no Burzum!", a fact that is somewhat verified by their overly ambitious double-CD "Themes from William Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell", their oil-painted album covers, and the fine art graphics that surround this band and their fan websites.

    A visual discography is available, as well as mp3 sound samples ("Capitel I" from their debut, "A Memorable Fancy" from William Blake/Themes, "Nowhere/Catastrophe" and "The Future Sound of Music" from their latest Perdition City). More info can be found here though I found this page needed some excessive font size increasing in Netscape, maybe it does better in IE which is recommended.

    These guys are just delightfully wierd, not only bathing in the dark ambient intensity of orthodox Black Metal, but also utilizing acoustic guitars, synths, female voices and plainchant. One of the really cool things about them is that they claim no allegience to Black Metal or any genre for that matter, being described in ID3 tags alternately as Black Metal, Progressive Rock and even Jazz!

    I am loving it...

    • Re: Fine Dangerous Art
      by John on Friday August 24, @05:41AM
      Hi!

      The "Themes from.." is a real modern classic. I quite like Ulver. The booklet to Perdition City has a text in it, in which they discuss Coil. Great stuff.

      Anyway, if you like Ulver, then try out Solefald. They released two albums on Avantgarde Music and a new album will appear on the 24th of september. Their website will be under www.solefald.org, but it won't launch till next month.

      John



     
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


        "As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
    [ home | search ]