Summoning Against Nazism

[skeptik]

I don't think that they would.[/too lazy to make an argument]

 

[IOfTheStorm]

On the Reformation of Metallic Art and Cultural Ideals
by Jordan

"The question now is 'Where do we go from here?' There seems to be no
obvious answer, no new movement waiting in the wings to boost the
flagging creative fortunes of metal. However, I believe the seeds
have been planted for the next revolution in metal, but it will take
courage and dedication to for these seeds to bear fruit, for the
seeds were planted primarily by Burzum and Graveland, and the fruit
they will bear is metal that becomes self-consciously the music of
collective identity. But where identity was merely one aspect of the
art of Burzum and Graveland, it must be the defining reality of the
next movement. We must understand that metal is wholly the product of
Indo-European civilization, and embrace that fact. Metal must look
once more to the classical tradition, to the example of Wagner and
Sibelius, and a new music must be crafted whose central focus is upon
shared identity, tradition and mythology. The dead hand of populist
moralism with its guilt-laden objections to 'racism' must be cast off
and the principles of identity, hierarchy and elitism affirmed
without shame or compromise. Otherwise, we may very well be
witnessing the death of metal."

- Mornelithe Falconsbane, Metal, Race, and the Art of Identity

I. Dissection

The question of how to advance metal's artistic horizons has become
intricately connected to issues of culture and identity, and by
extension the ultimate taboo of ethnicity and racism. The most recent
and significant metallic movements—death metal and black metal—have
sought to craft an _expression of European romanticism in the modern
age, deriving central values and ideals from the pre-Judeo-Christian
ideologies of Pagan Europe. The modern metalhead finds himself torn
between two distinct camps: those who feel that metal must be
transformed into a cultural _expression of Eurocentric ideals, and
those who contend that the entire concept of ideology, race, and
culture are wholly irrelevant to metallic pursuits.

From this author's understanding, the assertion of complete and total
disconnection between metal and European ideals seems wholly invalid;
it is obvious that metal has at the very least a superficial link to
European culture, as can be seen even in the proto-metal of Led
Zeppelin and their flirtations with Norse mythology. Yet the issue is
complicated by the fact that, historically speaking, metal is not the
product of exclusively Indo-European civilization. Metal has always
been something of a bastard child, a synthesis of traditional values
and European musical structure with African-American rhythmic
sensibilities and rock n' roll instrumentation. Heavy metal pioneers
Black Sabbath emerged out of the electric blues scene that a young
Eric Clapton and undeveloped Led Zeppelin fronted in the early
seventies. The inherent ties to blues and, by extension,
African-American cultural tradition cannot be denied without a hefty
amount of unfounded historical revision.

That said, the reason that Black Sabbath can be classified as heavy
metal and Led Zeppelin cannot is largely due to the efforts of the
former to distance itself from the blues-based electric rock of the
era. It can be confidently held that metal should be defined primarily
by its desire to break away from the cultural miscegenation that gave
it birth. Each successive generation has taken greater and greater
steps towards advancing metal in the direction of a "new classical
music" based entirely upon European experience, values, and
compositional tradition.
The question becomes: If the goal of metal's artistic progress appears
to be the recreation of traditional western art music, why not simply
forget about electric guitars and compose romantic epics for a
legitimate symphony orchestra? The answer lies in metal's deep
structure—its fundamental, driving ideological components.

Metal is simultaneously a product of the modern age and a rebellion
against it. Metal turns to the past in order to gain insight into how
culture might be centered less on democratic moralism and rampant
monetarism, and more on a heroic, pagan ideal of individual will and
the triumph of the strong. Metallic culture however, unlike the
ancient world from which it draws its inspiration, is not pre-moral:
it is post-moral. As such, a simple and direct revival of old-world
values cannot function because such a construct can only lead to
further stagnation and a denial of cultural knowledge that we have
acquired during the last century.
Such is the central metallic paradox. We must march ever forward
towards a new artistic future even as we gaze towards the past in an
effort to subvert the insanity of modernity by preserving cultural
tradition and rejuvenating ancient values. The past must not simply be
revived, but reinterpreted. In order to create something of true
cultural worth, the values of our ancestors must be combined with the
concerns and sensibilities of our modern selves to form a distinct and
relevant contemporary synthesis.

Ultimately the central focus in metal is not on the literal value sets
of the ancient world per se (although this is certainly an important
component). The driving element is the yearning itself, the raw
experience of the realization that we wish we were born several
centuries earlier, living in a different time, surrounded by a
different world. Metal is not the articulation of historically
accurate cultural revivalism—if this were the case, metal would have
been assimilated into neo-folk movements—rather it is the first person
narrative of the contemporary romantic, longing to travel to a distant
existence where honor, courage, heroism, and naturalist ideals reign
supreme.

It is from this central concern that metal derives its vehement
nihilism, its obsession with trans-valuated darkness and the tragedy
of the human condition. This ideal finds _expression in metal's
violently simple instrumentation and abrasive sonic construction, in
which grand poetry and epic statements are built out of minimalist
elements that speak simultaneously to the profound pain of existence
as well as the cosmic beauty inherent in our suffering. These elements
are the products of contemporary experience, and it is for this reason
that there is worth in developing metal as a distinct and unique art
form, drawing on European musical/ideological tradition, but
ultimately retaining an identity rooted in the 21st century.

And so it seems that columnist M. Falconsbane is entirely correct in
his assertion that metal must be recognized as a European art form and
advance along suitable cultural paths. Despite the fact that metal has
emerged historically from a counterculture centered around blues and
rock, the metallic ethos must be carried to its logical conclusion and
become the music of a pan-European "collective identity." Metal must
truly take the next step in its evolution and purge itself of foreign
cultural influence, lest it succumb to a dysgenic deterioration
wrought by novelty-oriented hybridization and a prioritization of
aesthetic over ideology.

II. Reformation

This author proposes four compositional reforms that could bring about
change coherently, if not swiftly:

1. Eliminate exaggerated emphasis on rhythm as derived from
Afro-centric musical influence, including the use of backbeats, rock
n' roll based metronomic time keeping, and incessant polyrhythm;
return percussion to the primary role of accentuation that it served
in European orchestral composition. Also study the use of rhythm in
European folk traditions and incorporate where appropriate.

2. De-emphasize metal's historical obsession with live
performance/technical virtuosity and focus on the creation of
carefully controlled artistic products in the form of contemporary
recordings. Utilize studio techniques to introduce greater dynamic
variation and textural depth into metal's sonic construction.

3. Approach composition using a conceptual, motivic foundation in the
tradition of Wagner, centered around the gradual evolution and
development of primary themes and leitmotivs rather than simple AB
coda structures and blues derived repetition of riffs and melodic
fragments.

4. Compose central conceptual material and librettos from European
mythology, archetypal constructs relating to the heroic ideal, and
folk narrative. Create original works understanding that a balance
between adherence to tradition and contemporary reinterpretation is
the only way to advance metal ideologically.

Although four separate points are listed for the sake of convenience
and clarity, we should really consider these reforms as existing
within two overarching conceptual groups: points one and two speak
towards a change in metal's musical aesthetic, whereas points three
and four speak towards a change in metal's conceptual framework and
compositional approach. Each of these two groups and their respective
components will be taken in turn and discussed in some detail in order
to elaborate on the potential implications of these suggested reforms.

II A. Musical Aesthetic—Rhythm

By eliminating or lessening the metronomic rigidity of metal's
rhythmic foundation and replacing it with more involved and subtle
percussive accentuation, an organic aesthetic can be achieved that
would be impossible to realize with conventional drumming technique.
Fluidity of motion and a greater level of expressive articulation are
essential if metal is to truly distance itself from the dance oriented
"four-to-the-floor" rhythms of popular music and hark to the romantic
lyricism of 19th century symphonic works.

Many will no doubt revile at this suggestion on the grounds that
metal's relentless rhythmic drive is one of the genre's most direct
expressions of violence and nihilism. While this concern is certainly
legitimate, I would assert that a general sensibility of aggression
can be preserved by carefully manipulating other (non-percussive)
musical elements within the composition. Tonal dissonance, chromatics,
and abrasive sonic aesthetic can all be utilized to convey this aspect
of the metallic ethos. Additionally, moments of abrasive and direct
rhythmic anchoring can still occur at certain points, as the goal is a
shift in emphasis, not complete elimination. I would also remind the
reader that the reforms I have outlined represent an advancement based
primarily on black metal aesthetic and ideology—other metallic forms,
such as death metal, would obviously be incompatible with the proposed
aesthetic shift away from rhythmic emphasis as it stands in
contradiction to the genre's central ideological elements.

It is also important to emphasize that the sound of metallic
percussion need not necessarily change drastically. Hihats, cymbals,
snares, bass drums, and toms have become an indispensable part of
metal's tonal palette, and should not be lightly cast aside (although
in certain instances it may be highly desirable to use traditional
percussion to highlight the emotive quality of certain themes). The
importance is not on how the percussion sounds, but how it is used
musically and approached compositionally. Of course, this is
ultimately a decision that must be made by the composer in light of a
given work's thematic material.

II B. Musical Aesthetic—Dynamic Variation and Textural Manipulation

Although metal often has a relatively large dynamic range, it
possesses very few increments within that range. Due largely to the
inherent nature of electric guitars and distortion boxes, elements
within metallic compositions are either loud or soft with no potential
"in-between," creating a limiting and blocky gradation that is not
terribly useful for crafting more expressive and subtle composition.
Additionally, the problem is worsened by the overly compressed nature
of contemporary mixing aesthetics. Albums are often mastered for
maximum volume rather than dynamic variation, and the result is
usually an overly saturated but ultimately boring and lifeless mix
that destroys any subtlety of articulation that may have existed
within the original recording.

To remedy this, careful manipulation of dynamics must be implemented
during the post-performance, mixing stage of recording projects. A new
breadth of emotionality can be achieved via the use of crescendos and
decrescendos. By changing the relative volume of individual elements
over time, specific musical lines can be pushed forward or backward in
the mix, thus adding a sense of inertia and tension to the
composition.

Other studio techniques can also be utilized to heighten metal's
musical sophistication and expand its emotional palette. Not least
among these is the potential for complex layering of texture and
subtle, time-based alterations of instrumental timbre. Typically,
compositions in extreme metal tend to consist of only three or four
textural groups: Bass and rhythm guitars form the primary textural
thrust of the piece, while vocals add sonic variation to select areas.
Lead guitars compose the third textural group, and tend to cut through
the other timbres in order to communicate primary melodic lines.
Synthesizers occasionally complete the composition by adding a sense
of depth and spaciousness to the overall aesthetic.

While minimalist instrumentation must be preserved in order to convey
metal's central theme of nihilism, there is still room to push the
envelope and achieve a more complex textural counterpoint through the
use of careful sonic layering. Sonic experimentation must be applied
with discretion, and a balance maintained between structured
minimalism and emotive complexity.

Ideally an aesthetic should be achieved that, when analyzed in terms
of its readily identifiable "meta-textural" groups (i.e., generalized
sonic "chunks" such as percussion, guitars, vocals, etc) displays an
overarching "top-down" minimalism, but reveals upon close observation
of individual units a greater level of depth and sophisticated
textural interplay. This is a desirable aesthetic because it mimics
the metallic treatment of both form and concept: far-reaching and
profound statements encapsulated in minimal and nihilistic frames.
Composers should turn to the work of middle-period Burzum, Pure
Holocaust era Immortal, and the recent releases of Summoning for
insight into how metal might be advanced in this direction.

II C. Conceptual Framework—Thematic Composition and Melodic
Development

The composers of Europe's romantic era knew that the process of
musical creation entailed more than the mere arrangement of tones and
textures into pleasing patterns of symmetry and harmony. They
understood that music, when elevated to an endeavor of a principally
artistic nature, was about the _expression of abstraction, the
materialist representation of ideals, the communication of ideas. It
is from this understanding that composers such as Wagner and Berlioz
developed their thematic approach to composition, in which musical
motifs are developed in conjunction with specific conceptual
constructs.

In this sense, each melodic progression is conceived as a "musical
noun," a symbolic representation of a person, a thing, a place, or an
abstract concept of some form. This structure allows for music that is
more cohesive and artistically unified than models emphasizing music
for music's sake, and transcends the limitations inherent to the form
by creating a template through which the artist can communicate his
inner world with greater consistency and accuracy.

Metal has flirted with motivic composition before, as is evidenced in
the strikingly dramatic structuring of elements employed by Bathory
circa the release of Blood Fire Death. Most attempts at penning more
thematically oriented pieces however have been basic in their
implementation if not grand in their ambition, and it is immediately
apparent that the vast potential of this approach has not yet been
sufficiently explored. Metallic composers should focus on developing a
"musical palette" of themes, such that common motifs might be used
across the entire career of an artist on multiple works in multiple
contexts. Artistic unity, and the structural coherency that thematic
composition can create, is vital to the advancement of metal as theory
and product.

II D. Conceptual Material and Reinterpretation of the Ancients

If metal is to emerge as a revitalized _expression of pan-European
culture and identity, it follows that its conceptual foundation must
be rooted in a European worldview. The most interesting explorations
of European tradition are those that move beyond simply reiterating
established constructs and do something new with old ideas. We have
seen that merely recycling old myths ad infinitum becomes dull and
paralyzing quickly, and it can thusly be concluded that metallic
artists must assume the role not only of musician but also of literary
craftsman, creating new and relevant narratives by reinterpreting the
archetypes of old.

Several works have already begun treading this path. The most obvious
example is Absu's Celtic mythological cycle Tara, in which the band
members actually insert themselves into the narrative as dramatic
characters. Similarly, Burzum's Daudi Baldrs uses the Norse tale of
Baldur's Death as an elaborate metaphor for the Christianizing of the
Heathen spirit. Both of these works demonstrate a will towards
reinterpretation and the creation of relevance and contemporary
meaning within ancient constructs. Future works must continue in this
vein.

III. Conclusions

The eminent threat of metal's demise is very real. If artists do not
begin making an active effort towards reinvention and evolution,
metallic culture will surely collapse under its own superfluous
weight, surrendering to the vapid vultures of mediocrity that circle
ever overhead. As other thinkers have noted, the only path towards
advancement lies in the recasting of metal as the culture of European
identity and the occupation of a unique position between the ancient
and the progressive. It has been the intention of this short text not
only to illuminate the problem, but to provide some insight into how
we might remedy metal's ills.

For all its nihilist leanings and violent morbidity, metal articulates
a tragic beauty of experience that allows us to understand the
position of modern humanity in a fashion that few other
cultural/artistic movements have. Ultimately, we must decide what it
is we value in metal, and advance our efforts accordingly. Do we favor
the entertaining, the novel, the divorcement of aesthetic from
purpose? Or do we prefer the ideal, the deep structure of artistic
cohesion, the marriage of form and function? Perhaps it is fitting to
end as we began, with the words of others:

"Those able to see the logic in this, and who at the same time are
mentally advanced enough to advance one level up in the 'game of
life,' will follow and do as I have done! This may be many, or only a
few in the 'metal ranks.' The Elite will follow, the rest will not.
Such are the laws of Nature! So ist das Leben!
- Varg Vikernes, Reasons for the Development of Burzum Away from
Black Metal

Read some, it was a good laugh. My sincere condolences to "Jordan".

 

[MFJ]

"Mornelithe Falconsbane" ahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha x14252352

my friend had a name almost identical to this in Everquest.

 

[Necromunchkin]

Interesting thread, but its 1am and I'm tired so I'll take a longer look tomorow.



Defeated, but not destroyed. Their still about, a chick from my language school almost had the shit beat out of her by a group of nazis because she had a patch on her jacket from a anti-nazi band. Lots of em, everywhere. It's really really bad in russia and finland right now, as well as a handful of other countries. It's pretty scary.

Nazi's dumb. Metal good. Neo-folk, also good. Beer and Currywurst before work = better.

edit: Oh, and two beers up for the summoning guy.

I'm not surprised though. Hell, if you're in the right spots in the U.S. you can find a surprising number of Neo-Nazi/Skinheads and the like. I used to get into incidents with them in my youth, being a long-haired, partially hispanic metalhead. The weirdest thing I can recall is getting involved with this girl who was half-Indian (grandparents from New Delhi) who had on and off been with all this Skinheads and used to rant a storm against spics, my pals, chinks... I just so wanted to ask her if she'd spent much time in front of a mirror.

 

[dorian gray]

Fucking Nazis. Nothing ever changes.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

they were threatening castration!

 

[grazim]

I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

 

[dorian gray]

at least it's an ethos

 

[dorian gray]

damn it!!!!!!!!! ninja post!

 

[grazim]

hahaha beat ya

 

[dorian gray]

LOL!

edit: this line cant be beat: "this isn't 'nam. There are rules."

 

[cthulufhtagn]

haha every time the 'bowski gets mentioned it's followed by 10 posts quoting random lines

my girlfriend hasn't seen it and i still quote lines from it to her all the time. at first i did it out of habit, now i do it to confuse her.

 

[grazim]

After you confuse her, do you tell her that she's like a child that wanders into a movie theater? That she has no point of reference?

 

[Patrick R.]

yeah, or British, American, or anyone else who fought against the nazi's in the wars. Some kid has a swastika poster of Hitler on his wall.....dude, your grandfather fought against those folks you dumb shit!

There was a movie called "The Believer" about a Jewish skinhead, "inspired by 1965 incident in which Jewish man was arrested at a KKK rally in New York. When this fact appeared in the New York Times, the man committed suicide, just as he had threatened a reporter he would do if his identity was revealed."

It happens. Just look at wiggers.

Yes and who’s fault is that? Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party never wanted a war against America or the British Empire. What is the point of America getting involved in a war against Germany, a nation that has never attacked the United States in it’s history except when our treacherous federal government decided to go against them in the first world war?

This totally contrast our relationship with the British, who have been our traditional enemies going all the way back to the 1700’s and they even returned to haunt us in 1812. Prussian soldiers even trained American colonialist to fight against the British military, which was the best in history at that time. So how does the same federal government, that was against the British monarchy end up sending them supplies to attack the Germans less then 200 years later? The answer to that is different political factors and ideologies influencing the governing bodies of those two nations.

I know this may sound strange to those who don’t understand American history very well, but you are going to have to do better then quote from Nuremberg prosecutors about an entire global conflict and the political philosophies of Germany. But in any case, just don’t forget where the Nazis found their political beliefs on race…they were influenced by academics in the United States.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Yes and who’s fault is that? Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party never wanted a war against America or the British Empire.

History lesson 101

They were the ones to that threw down a declaration of war after the cowardly bombing of Pearl Harbor.

What is the point of America getting involved in a war against Germany, a nation that has never attacked the United States in it’s history except when our treacherous federal government decided to go against them in the first world war?

Three seperate incidences of attacks by German subs on American trading vessels ring a bell?

This totally contrast our relationship with the British, who have been our traditional enemies going all the way back to the 1700’s and they even returned to haunt us in 1812. Prussian soldiers even trained American colonialist to fight against the British military, which was the best in history at that time. So how does the same federal government, that was against the British monarchy end up sending them supplies to attack the Germans less then 200 years later?

Same federal Government? Comparing a fully industrialized megatron of a nation who is run by career politicians to a group of farmers, store owners, and bakers who would convene for a couple months every year in the summer is a bit of a stretch isn't?

I know this may sound strange to those who don’t understand American history very well,

Adoofus, you're an idiot.

 

[Patrick R.]

History lesson 101

They were the ones to that threw down a declaration of war after the cowardly bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Oh, and where did I claim the contrary? I didn’t, as the captured war time documents show, Hitler never wanted a war with Great Britain or America…he never declared war on the former, only the latter after Roosevelt and his administration waged a de facto war against the Reich and supplied their enemies with weapons as he Hitler detailed in his Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.

Three seperate incidences of attacks by German subs on American trading vessels ring a bell?

A de facto war ring a bell?

Same federal Government? Comparing a fully industrialized megatron of a nation who is run by career politicians to a group of farmers, store owners, and bakers who would convene for a couple months every year in the summer is a bit of a stretch isn't?

Oh we don’t have the same federal government as set up by the US Constitution? Outstanding analogy of Americans…what did I tell you about different political powers my friend?

Adoofus, you're an idiot.

Outstanding reply.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Oh, and where did I claim the contrary? I didn’t, as the captured war time documents show, Hitler never wanted a war with Great Britain or America…he never declared war on the former, only the latter after Roosevelt and his administration waged a de facto war against the Reich and supplied their enemies with weapons as he Hitler detailed in his Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.

Hitler, who had numerous sexual engagements with Himmler in his bunker of bravado didn't want to tango with Britain out of any sort of comraderie, but purely out of respect for their naval prowess. Invading the island nation would prove to be more trouble than it was worth. Why bother when Britain was conceding to their every move with political sanctions that were filled with more hot air than a GMD social thread?

As you pointed out the U.S was still run by the principles instilled by our revolutionary forefathers. So you can bare to understand that the nation had little to gain from watching Great Britain, who contrary to what you may believe, had an outstounding relationship with us for the past 200 years, crumble by the hand of a fascist regime who had proven that their word of neutrality meant jack shit when they pissed on their pact with the Soviet Union.


Portraying the States as the villain in the most noblest God damn fight in their history is just silly.

 

[Patrick R.]

Hitler, who had numerous sexual engagements with Himmler in his bunker of bravado didn't want to tango with Britain out of any sort of comraderie, but purely out of respect for their naval prowess. Invading the island nation would prove to be more trouble than it was worth. Why bother when Britain was conceding to their every move with political sanctions that were filled with more hot air than a GMD social thread?

As you pointed out the U.S was still run by the principles instilled by our revolutionary forefathers. So you can bare to understand that the nation had little to gain from watching Great Britain, who contrary to what you may believe, had an outstounding relationship with us for the past 200 years, crumble by the hand of a fascist regime who had proven that their word of neutrality meant jack shit when they pissed on their pact with the Soviet Union.


Portraying the States as the villain in the most noblest God damn fight in their history is just silly.

‘Numerous’ sexual engagements with Himmler? Wow, was that part of his political program or what? How would that have brought the German Empire back to it’s feet? LOL, that is propaganda ignore it.

Invading Great Britain would be more trouble then it was worth? Germany tried to invade Britain, but they didn’t build the proper navy to go against the legendary British navy, they didn’t have the proper air force either. After the Nazis knocked France out of the war they could have murdered thousands of British troops, but Hitler allowed them to escape at Dunkirk. If the Nazis didn’t have to fight against 4 super powers, then the British under Churchill would not have won the war.

The monarchy was no friend to the United States, we were a British colony at one time but we became a sovereign nation and Great Britain didn’t see our right to exist, even the Royalist in the United States didn’t but they were taken care of real quick. If the British government decided to antagonize against the Third Reich then why should Americans go out and die for a Westminster form of government against a nation that would never have invaded the United States?

I can sympathize with sour Polish and German relations because during the formation of the German nation which was finally proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at the French city of Versailles on January 18 1871, their was a settlement commission set up to buy land from Poles and sell it to Germans. That along with the constant to Germanize Poland set the stage for a bad relationship with Poles and Germans. But the Brits and Americans have no reason to complain against Germany.

As far as the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact, that pact was broken because the Soviet Union was about to launch an invasion against Germany and all of Europe, Hitler decided to strike first but of course couldn’t take down the Soviet Union. It wasn’t Germany alone that invaded Poland, the Soviet Union did as well shortly after the Germans did (this was the allies excuse for declaring war on Germany. After that the Soviet Union invaded, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania something ignored by the Nuremberg prosecutors.

When we refer to ‘Americans’, 'Russians', ‘Germans’, ‘British’, etc we must understand that we are referring to political powers because different people with different agendas have managed to run these governing bodies throughout our history. With the Russians, they were ruled by Czarist powers, then they were under firm control of Marxist powers known as the Bolsheviks who brutally murdered millions of Russian people and their political opposition. Millions of Russians continued to suffer and die by the millions even after the second world war.

The ideological powers controlling the United States federal government was against the Reich from the very beginning, but mysteriously they weren’t against the Marxist controlled Weimar Republic, the governing body set up over Germany during world war I, who decided to hand the German Empire over to her enemies who in turn chopped it up handing bits and pieces of it over to other nations with German speaking peoples becoming minorities in newly founded nations.

Also, the same ideological powers in control of America’s government have no problem with the Federal Republic of Germany, with their current chancellor being Angela Merkel. I guess that is the only Germany that today’s America will except, one they can bully and intimidate.

Think back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the former created the Federalist party, he advocated a strong federal government with little state rights, while the latter was against that. George Washington favored the Federalist party, even though he advocated a powerful federal government he was not for imperialism over other nations affairs, that is a political thought process created by greedy hateful anti -American globalist who wish to end our sovereignty and merge us with Canada and Mexico. Now how can this be? These neo ‘conservatives’ need to get their ideas straight, how can the United States control the world if we aren’t even a sovereign nation?

 

[Demilich]

Did I miss something here? Who the fuck is this guy, where does he come from, and why does he talk so much?

 

[Ars Magna]

propaganda

He said propaganda. Sometimes, when I use lard as a lubricant, I feel like a short order cook.