The figure in question is Loki, who is traditionally depicted as small, dark, and twisted, not out of racial animosity, but as a reflection of his character.
Another interesting editorial from another site...
- Thread starter Jim LotFP
- Start date
The two figures collectively represent Loki. The priestly figure bears the life rune, staking a claim to belonging among the people, though he clearly is an alien (just as the Church came to the North claiming to be the true religion of Europe, despite bringing with it ideas and ideals that were thoroughly opposed to the native beliefs of the continent). His assistant bears the cup of poison which, in the original myth, was slathered on the arrow that struck down Baldr. The cover is a visual representation of Varg's interpretation of the Baldr cycle as the story of how the invincible spirit of the people of the North was laid low by the poison of the Church and its alien ideas. Race here is a secondary characteristic, a means of illustrating the alien nature of the Church.
You make one of the mistakes consistently made by those who misread the work of Burzum (and Graveland as well), focusing on race when the primary concerns are spiritual. All of Burzum's work is concerned primarily with addressing the spiritual attack on the heathen tradition represented by the (semitic) religion of Christianity. Race is always secondary, and always tied to the notion of alien religion (Christianity) undermining the spirit of the Northern peoples.
You make one of the mistakes consistently made by those who misread the work of Burzum (and Graveland as well), focusing on race when the primary concerns are spiritual. All of Burzum's work is concerned primarily with addressing the spiritual attack on the heathen tradition represented by the (semitic) religion of Christianity. Race is always secondary, and always tied to the notion of alien religion (Christianity) undermining the spirit of the Northern peoples.
and the fault that the nsbm-propagators make is that they they justify their ideologies with a biologistic world image, meaning the notion that they have certain inherent characteristics preserved from their ancestors that make e.g. paganism "natural" to them. This grants that they can oust influences that are "alien" to this (i.e.Christianity).
Go a step further and every "race" is attributed its proper place in the world where it should stay. The frequent line of argument of neo-nazism when it comes to persecuting minorities...
Go a step further and every "race" is attributed its proper place in the world where it should stay. The frequent line of argument of neo-nazism when it comes to persecuting minorities...
Occam's Razor said:
We've strayed far outside the parameters of the actual discussion, though, to be fair, culture has a significant biological component, so you can't simply dismiss the argument out of hand. More importantly, there's no question that Christianity represented a value system alien to Nordic society as it had previously developed, whether one attributes this to genes, chance, choice or some combination thereof is irrelevant.
Zealotry
fruit of failure's loins
- Feb 28, 2006
- 203
- 0
- 16
I find the whole concept of cultural preservation [or rather, reversion, in the case of these pre-Christian pagan ideas] to be a bit short-sighted. So you purge all Monotheistic, Middle-Eastern religions from Europe... Then what? Does life suddenly improve for the public? Do the paradigms of scientific and social progress suddenly shift 180 degrees? Will replacing Jehovah with some patently European pantheon really change things that much? What is the end to which nationalism is the means?
I somehow doubt you can positively answer these questions.
I somehow doubt you can positively answer these questions.
Zealotry said:
Exactly. It is just misleading to think of an "original" state of things, or of the ancient as best for the present. Of course, culture in the North had been developing in a certain way until Christianity came. You cannot say that it went awry from then on only because it didn't continue the same as before. I think this is how history runs. If the oh-so-genuine ancient people had been as superior as you claim, they might have survived Christianity, but unfortunately - to cite another favorite of the extremists - the strong survive, and the Christians obviously had the powers to subject the older religions. So what? Do you think it would be better now with the status quo reestablished...starry-eyed indeed...
Zealotry said:
Most proponents of nationalism I am aware of promote the purging of negative ideological elements (Christianity, liberal democracy, consumer capitalism etc.) as part of a larger program of cultural and spiritual renewal. I am unaware of anyone suggesting that getting rid of Christianity, or Jews or Space Aliens or whatever will in and of itself solve anything. Most nationalists do, however, see Christianity etc. as being stumbling blocks that need to be removed so that other productive actions can take place.
In other words, your argument is a strawman.
I merely included some of the other ideological/population groups that nationalists sometimes advocate "purging". Your question assumes that removing monotheism from the picture is the be all to end all of nationalist thought, that nationalists believe that "purging" Christianity will lead ipso facto to cultural and social renewal. This is obviously a strawman, yet here you are, accusing me of doging the fucking question. Hypocrisy, thy name is apparently Zealotry as well...
BenMech
student of the d'eh
Occam's Razor said:
It's misleading to think of history and culture in static terms period, and even more misleading to present nationalist viewpoints as if they make such assumptions. At least have the courtesy to honestly represent the viewpoints you claim to be arguing against.
How is this any worse, than, say, the myth of "progress" and the assumption that the present status quo is better than the values of past societies? You chide your opponents for thinking that isn't strictly speaking logical while blindly accepting illogical conclusions when they prop up your own worldview.
No, but you can say it went awry inasmuch as healthy values were replaced (often by force, one might add) with values that encourage poor planning and social structures that are not to the long term benefit of the people as a whole.
How so? If "survival" is dictated (as it was in this case) by force of arms rather than by any natural arbiter, the superiority of one value system or another becomes irrelevant to whether it is perpetuated. Don't mistake Social Darwinism for genuine evolution.
Yet another strawman. No one is proposing a return to the 9th century, what is proposed is is the return to those values of previous societies which offer a way forward from the mess the values of the current society have helped to land us in.
Zealotry said:
The problem is that you are an intellectually dishonest jackass. You set the stage by lying about what nationalism proposes and then demand to know what it hopes to accomplish through the means you falsely ascribe to it. It's not only a strawman argument, it's a loaded fucking question, and it has no place in serious discussion.
Unless and until you are willing to engage in discussion without recourse to fallacies and mendacity, we have nothing to talk about.
Let's keep the threats of violence and fuckyous to a minimum.
Now, there are a lot of assumptions, loosely defined terms, and general horsehockey going on in this thread.
"What is the end to which nationalism is a means?" seems pretty let's-cut-through-that-bullshit straightforward to me.
Now, there are a lot of assumptions, loosely defined terms, and general horsehockey going on in this thread.
"What is the end to which nationalism is a means?" seems pretty let's-cut-through-that-bullshit straightforward to me.
Let's face it Laeth: you are most likely one of those sociopaths that have no life of their own and spend all day on the web gathering "knowledge" and sweating it out again together with a stench of your angst-driven superiority complex. You seem to know everything better, have an opinion on every topic (which is of course always the right opinion) and put down other people - you'd make a nice demagogue, but you would probably have to give up your anonymity.
Jim LotFP said:
It would be, if it weren't first accompanied by a strawman construction of the opposing position. He lies about what is proposed and then demands to know how that falsely constructed proposal can possibly. It's intellectual dishonesty of the purest sort. Like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Occam's Razor said:
You sure spend a lot of time ascribing ulterior psychological motives to people who whip you in debates. You sure it's not your own inferiority complex at work, Freud?
Let's see, I posted under my real name until some jackass banned me. You post under a made up name. I've replied to 4 or 5 topics on this forum, you've got a reply in almost every thread on the board. You do the fucking math, kid.
That's because I am one of three people in Lamentations at the moment. My name hasn't changed since I became a member at Ultimate Metal. At least in this forum, it should be clear to people who I am if not Dave or Jim. And it is not that I post my warped political views as blogs elsewehere on the web. But I won't justify myself any longer - you are banned for now.
