In response to Mr. Stove’s call for research into the overlap of metal-heads and Takimag-addicts, I think he would be quite surprised to find at least three such instances right under his nose. Indeed, Takimag’s own editor, Richard Spencer, and contributor Kevin DeAnna are such types, and I include myself in this category as well. As a matter of fact, Kevin and I are president and vice president, respectively, of the nation’s only (to my knowledge) Alternative Right collegiate movement, and a majority of the more intellectually-oriented Alternative Right youth of my acquaintance are similar metal aficionados.

Admittedly, in the 70’s and 80’s, heavy metal music was, to a large extent, mind-numbingly proletarian and simple. As Mr. Kurtagic aptly pointed out, the themes of this era and the likes of Ozzy Osbourne were primarily “related to youth and demonstrated an almost single-minded preoccupation with sex, crapulent excess, and low-brow posturing, with its frontmen displaying few commitments beyond contempt for authority.” To an extent, these themes still abound in certain realms of the broad genre “metal”, but they bare sharp contrast to the often surreal, mythical, and intellectually rigorous genres of metal which Mr. Kurtagic was referencing.

To my knowledge, no other genre of music in production lyrically encompasses classical themes like The Odyssey or Greek Gods, much less any aspect of Indo-European heritage.

Aside from generally healthy, intellectually serious themes, some aspects of the genre are overtly political on issues dear to us. I first got into metal when my friend dragged me to a show in Atlanta.  Being the fraternity gentleman that I am, I initially didn’t quite fit in with the mostly long-haired, tattooed audience at the show. I couldn’t help join in, though, when one of the opening bands announced that they were going to perform a piece conveying their feelings about illegal immigration. It wasn’t a great song, but without exception, every member of the audience began shouting with the singer “Illegals 1, Citizens 0!” and I knew I was amidst persons of a like-minded political persuasion.

Much of the genre is a rebellion against the overly-consumerist, spiritually bankrupt, and egalitarian nature of our social and political culture in favor of a return to a more folkish society that values the spiritual and heroic in man. 

As a college student who is the only attendee under 60 at productions of my local opera company or at live screenings of the Metropolitan Opera at the local movie theatre (I just saw Puccini’s Turandot today), I like to think my tastes of music aren’t quite as mind-numbingly simple as Mr. Stove suggests.

I could go on describing the merits of certain sects of heavy metal, but the true value can only be perceived by attending a show, which I would describe as a higher Dionysian experience, in the Nietzschean sense.  In fact, reading Mr. Stove’s post, I was reminded of Nietzsche’s comment in the Birth of Tragedy about Dionysian phenomena (my apologies in advance for the inflamed rhetoric):

“There are some who, from obtuseness or lack of experience, turn away from such phenomena [Bacchic choruses of the Greeks, et cetera] as from ‘folk-diseases,’ with contempt or pity born of the consciousness of their own ‘healthy mindedness.’ But of course such poor wretches have no idea how corpselike and ghostly their so-called ‘healthy-mindedness’ looks when the glowing life of the Dionysian revelers roars past them.”

Metal concerts in my experience achieve the higher Dionysian state in a way that the primal grind dancing and rap music so prevalent at clubs and fraternity parties could never hope to reach.

Given, metal is not everyone’s cup of mead, and what Mr. Stove references might be true: that something strange happens to the eardrums after 30; but for those of us still durable enough to get knocked around is a mosh pit, or simply looking for artists and songs that relate life-affirming myths and values, no music in production today could be more fitting.

I would like to take up Mark Hackard’s conception of Nietzsche’s project and his ultimate views of fate, divinity and truth.

To begin with, one must consider who Nietzsche wrote for: exceptional types. Not the majority. The Prologue of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra makes this clear. At first, Zarathustra spoke to the marketplace and his message fell on the wrong ears. From then on, he searched for higher men. It is in this context that Zarathustra “looked lovingly at his disciples” and spoke thus:

Remain true to the earth, my brethren, with the power of your virtue! Let your bestowing love and your knowledge be devoted to be the meaning of the earth! Thus do I pray and conjure you.

The search for truth is not for everyone, but only a select few who can handle the “futility and absurdity” to which Mr. Hackard refers. Only they can create their own meaning.

When Nietzsche speaks of the eternal return, he never speaks of it as if it were actually true, but rather he speaks of the thought of the eternal return, which serves as a reason for affirming life. This is a point of debate, of course, but in my reading it is not Nietzsche trying to make himself divine, as Mr. Hackard suggests, but rather, to put it basely, he is providing a reason for living life to its fullest in a world devoid of the supernatural. This thought, however, is for the few.

For the many, on the other hand, Nietzsche has a different prescription. On the subject of divinity, he goes the way of Feuerbach: humans project their virtues onto a god and venerate him or her in order to celebrate those virtues. This is a symptom of a healthy and prosperous people. Nietzsche does not take fault with the divine per se, but only the form of the divine and the god(s) it venerates:

“A people which still believes in itself still also has its own God. In him it venerates the conditions through which it has prospered, its virtues – it projects its joy in itself, its feeling of power on to a being whom one can thank for them… Within the bounds of such presuppositions religion is a form of gratitude. One is grateful for oneself: for that one needs a God.”

Later, Nietzsche laments:

”…they [Europeans] have failed to create a God! Almost two millennia and not a single new God!”

Thus, Nietzsche did not “negate the divine” (or at least the notion of the divine) as Mr. Hackard suggests, but perceived it for its all-too-human characteristics as well as its beneficial potentialities for a given society. The question here isn’t the truth of the god or concept, but its life-affirming qualities.

Take the concept of amor fati, which Nietzsche first formulates in The Gay Science:

“I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall become one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth!”

Here Nietzsche expresses the skill of the artist – the ability to make beautiful that which is otherwise mundane or ugly. He applies this skill toward life itself, resulting in a fundamentally affirmative and Yes-saying world view. This tendency to affirm life in spite of its uncertainties and calamities is the essence of the Attic tragedy.

Contrast this with the Biblical view of life and fate. All that is good comes from God, and all that is bad comes from sin or the Devil. Here, as Nietzsche says, “chance [is] robbed of its innocence; misfortune dirtied by the concept ‘sin’.” The world that God created is somehow “fallen” and it gets what it deserves. As Zarathustra noted, one gets the impression that God is like a potter who had not yet learned his craft thoroughly, and so takes revenge on his pots because they turned out badly.

Both views incorporate the notion of the divine, but in Nietzsche’s view the former is in the service of life, while the latter denies life and the world as it is.

In my reading, Nietzsche is not so much looking to secularize humanity, as Mr. Hackard seems to suggest, but to provide certain truths for those exceptional types who might create a new meaning for humanity – new, healthier, life-affirming gods and values. These creators would devise new myths to remove the absurdity and uncertainty from life and ultimately provide a new orientation for a given people.

In Round I, Greta van Susteren stood in AIPAC’s corner and responded to Congressman Traficant’s claims with softballs like “Israel is a democracy and our ally, right?” and “Are you an anti-Semite?”

This time, Traficant entered the heavyweight division and took on Sean Hannity.  Unlike Greta, Hannity came prepared with these heavy-hitters:

“These remarks sound like the conspiratorial, anti-Semitic remarks of people that we have heard from over the years.”

“To suggest, as you’re doing here tonight, that they control our Congress… is an absurdity!  It sounds like you are a kook!”

Skip ahead to 4:00 when the real swinging starts.

Here it comes again.  It passed under Reagan, faltered under Bush, and is now being advocated by Obama.

What is IT?  Amnesty.  “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” if you will.

Only now, the stakes are higher.

During his address to a joint session of congress two weeks ago, President Obama reassured American tax payers who would be funding his proposed health care reform: 

“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms—the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Then came the notorious retort: “You lie!” shouted Rep. Joe Wilson.

It turns out Wilson’s comment was not only correct at the time, but is also proving to be quite prescient.

Seemingly in response to Wilson’s critique, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has produced a version of the bill that would require the identity verification absent from the previous bill and would bar illegals from having access to the Health Insurance Exchange.

Why the sudden shift?  And why is the White House behind it?  We got our answer last night in a speech Obama gave to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“If anything, this [health care] debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.  That’s what I’ve said from the start, that’s what I say tonight.”

Fantastic! So now, instead of illegal immigrants having access to the Health Insurance Exchange but paying full cost, the plan is to simply legalize them so they still have access to the Health Insurance Exchange, but American taxpayers can subsidize their health care plan of choice!  Sweet trade!