Swedish black metal band Marduk has recently come under fire from Leftist organizations. According to these disgruntled Leftists, Marduk’s use of World War II themes in their music is evidence that the band is deeply devoted to the National Socialist cause.
Red Ice delivers news, TV and online radio, including Red Ice Radio and Radio 3Fourteen. Founded by Henrik Palmgren in 2003, Red Ice reaches hundreds of thousands of people every month seeking an alternative to the mainstream, covering politics and social issues from a pro-European perspective. Truly independent and supported by members, Red Ice remains commercial and ad free. Red Ice is based in Sweden and North America.
All posts byRed Ice
Both sides ate ruining this genre for me and all can suck cocks in hell.
So black metal is supposed to be politically correct now? haha wtf this shit is getting out of hand. Why does the left want to protect people that want to destroy them and their culture so much?? I just don’t get it.
Ima have to listen to those guys more. Maybe we can crank them and some Death in JUne and go march on Poland. Top Kek!
Ramones did a song, “Blitzkrieg Bop”. Was there any outrage?
This just shows how hysterically sensitive Far Leftists have become recently.
Morrissey did a song called ‘National Front Disco’. Very little outrage.
And why is World War 2 imagery in Metal suddenly ‘fascist’? Do I need to throw out Black Sabbaths ‘War Pigs’ or my copy of Metallicas ‘Master of Puppets’ to make antifa happy in their safe space?
You are wrong with that one, the first affirmative action band was Znowhite.
Awesome NS Hardcore band FEAR RAINS DOWN…
Split up band from Sweden. Be sure to check out their song “First Degree” off the release before this…
I am half-Norwegian and am really into Black Metal so when I heard Marduk had been labeled this I literally laughed out loud.
These dudes are NOWHERE near the same universe as Burzum or Mayhem or Graveland.
Never liked Mayem. Graveland is OK, but the best NSBM band is, with no doubts, Kroda. Burzum is OK, but the hype is higher than the actual quality of the product.
I like Marduk, have seen them live a couple of times; their music is not complex nor elaborate, but hey, their music is basically party music.
What do you think of Nokturnal Mortum? They’re pretty fash.
There are many bands out there who are really enthusiastic about our Cause and Ideals, but they simply lack of musical skills, so when I’m listening to metal, I prefer good musicianship. Nokturnal Mortum is in the middle, they are not bad musicians but they are not virtuoso neither.
Hey Joseph Kurwa, English doesn’t use double negatives.
English is not my first language.
I recently got in an argument with an anti-white Blackmetal fan… they sure listen to a white genre… There is one American Blackmetal band called Inquisition I’ve heard of that had a song called “Crush the Jewish Prophet”… If anyone knows of any good fashy bands of any genre list them for me!! I’m always looking for new music!
Funny blog I found: https://shamelessnavelgazing.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/inquisition-and-black-metals-fascism-problem/
In Black Metal I recommend Graveland (from Poland). The lead singer is a devoted National Socialist.
I am half-Noregian and really into Black Metal.
Sadly, most of the bands that are explicitly prowhite or NS lack of musical skills. They have enthusiasm, energy BUT they are not good musicians. This are some of the most decent ones:
But to be honest, metal is implicitly white, and there are a lot of really good bans out there, not only in the black metal scene:
What exactly is a “white” genre? Just like saying “black” genre. Do you realize how moronic you sound when you say that? Like a brainwashed drone. There’s no such thing. Music is sound. Humanity’s skin color has nothing to do with sound.
No alt-right man would say such drivel. No way in hell that you’re white.
You are in the wrong place. For the Huffington Post please type ‘black man fucking mi girlfriend while I’m listening Bob Marley’ in Google and hit enter in the first result.
That’s absurd. Music is an expression of genetics and there are significant difference between the musics of different racial and ethnic groups.
Skin color is the LEAST interesting aspect of race.
Wow. Surely you jest. If not, you’ve certainly found yourself in the wrong quadrant of the internet.
I think you are looking for Triarii!
Other than that I know mostly swedish bands that sing in swedish. Best one musically is Ulthima Thule but their texts are specific to swedish nationalism and in swedish
There is also Burboun Boys that are closet nationalists with a libertarian streak. They sing in english, but they also have an industrial metal band where they sing in swedish. That music is more crazy and more pro white sortof, still trying to sail a bit under the radar since they want to be able to sell records in sweden.
Then there is Saga of course which is a fantastic singer even if her own compositions are so so.
Pantera was at least implicitly pro-white, though they had some explicit moments
Pantera even did a record with David Allen Coe.
Germanic, Celts, and Turks could be invasive and destroy stuff all over… but they also could build upon the destruction and invasion. Germanic folks later built civilization. So did the Turkics. And Celtics.
In contrast, black Africans have not proven civilizational capability.
Europeans Europeanize wherever they go. Asians Asianize. Arabs Arabize. Hindus hinduize.
Some build civilizations better than others. White Europeans have demonstrated best ability to build and make progress.
Africans have proven they have the least ability to build stuff. Africanization is mostly destructive.
So, African takeover of Europe will be totally different from Germanic Barbarian conquests or even Turkic or Moorish invasions.
It will spell the end of civilization, a permanent Detroitization of the world. A Europe that is Africanized is finished forever. It will not be a dark age followed by new beginning. It will be permanent dark age… like most of black Africa.
In the end, it’s not about ‘liberal democracy’ or some such. Sure, liberal democracy is nice, but what really makes a system work is a combination of race/genes, culture, values, work ethic, manners, habits, and attitudes.
Consider some of the Bio-Cultural Ruling Systems:
Germanocratic(includes Scandinavia and is close to Anglocracy)
Sinocratic(of which even Japan may be a part)
I would argue that Anglocracy without democracy will work better than Afrocracy with democracy. Anglocracy is a system of rule by sober, serious, intelligent, and well-mannered peoples(before UK allowed the yobs to run wild). Consider Hong Kong. Under most of British rule, it was no democracy.
It was Anglocratic in terms of elite rule. And most of society was Sinocratic, managed by Chinese as middlemen and workers. And it worked. How did it work without ‘liberal democracy’? Cuz Anglocracy was clean and efficient, and Sinocracy was sober and hardworking. Singapore was also the result of fusion of Anglocracy and Sinocracy.
And even today, Singapore is not a liberal democracy. But things run well there cuz Sinocracy, though not very innovative, is serious and intelligent.
Now, I’m not knocking liberal democracy. But the REAL reason why one system works and another doesn’t has MORE to do with combo of genes, values, work ethic, manners, and attitudes.
In the 19th century, France was sometimes ‘democratic’ whereas Germany was ruled by imperial system. And yet, Germans surged ahead, even surpassing UK in industry and many academic/scientific fields. How was that possible when Germany didn’t have liberal democracy? Cuz its Germanocratic virtues were harder version of Anglocracy.
Israel proves that Judeocracy works very well too.
Indocracy is a mixed bag cuz of caste legacy and genetic diversity of India. It works in some ways, in other ways it’s a mess.
But Afrocracy? You can instruct Africans in all the liberal democratic theories around the world. It won’t do much good. African genetics leads to Africanization of society. And African manners, temperament, and etc lead to social chaos, though I don’t mind when they talk about how homos ‘eat da poo poo’.
Now, compare Anglocracy vs Latinocracy.
Some will say US made more progress cuz of liberal democracy whereas Latin America came later to democracy. But really?
Is democracy really such a charm? But Mexico in late 19th century was democratic whereas Germany wasn’t. Yet, Germany did so much more. And Japan, though undemocratic, achieved more than Mexico from late 19th century to WWII era.
And compare US vs Argentina. The latter had so much potential and had democracy, but why did it lag? Latins ruled with their attitudes and styles. It will build and maintain civilization, but not a very efficient and sober one.
I would argue that even if the Brits had won the war and American Independence has been crushed, the US under Anglocratic rule(of British) would have achieved nearly just as much.
Slavocracy? Russia existed for much much longer than the US. And it had many more people than the US in the 19th century. But in short time, Anglos swept across the continent and created a great powerful nation. In contrast, Russians were still digging dirt on the same plot like they’d been for many centuries. Russians then went for communist revolution. It too failed. Why? Cuz Anglocracy has a great combo of order and individuality. It empowers each person as a free agent. But it also instills order and unity and common purpose. In contrast, Slavocratic model was to treat people like cattle, either as serfs or comrades. So, the sense of initiative and responsibility didn’t develop in the Russian heart and mind.
But one good thing about Slavocratic heaviness is greater sense of roots and belonging. In contrast, the Mercurean mobility of Anglocracy may have led to too much atomization and deracination in the end. Of course, Anglocrats of the past understood this danger. This is why they balanced out their globo-mobility with British patriotism, loyalty to Queen, Anglican Church, and race-ism. As Anglocrats were high-spiritedly moving all around the world, there was the danger of becoming one with the natives. So, race-ism was necessary to maintain British unity and uniqueness. And it was good for the natives too since white race-ism meant white men were discouraged from sexually exploiting the native womenfolks. In contrast, the Latinocrats led to much more sexual abuse of local womenfolk in other lands. Hopkins has impressive race-ist attitude in THE BOUNTY. Good man.
Judeocracy is very formidable but complicated. Jews have so long operated by latching onto OTHER peoples that one wonders how it would do on its own. Israel is such an experiment, but even it is heavily dependent on the support of great powers. So, the jury is still out on the true power of Judeocracy as an independent ruling system.
Ethiopia and the Nubians built civilizations thousands of years ago with alphabets, architecture, complex governments etc.
And “Germanic superiority” is a historical aberation. For the overwhelming majority of history, the only relevant countries in Europe were either Greek or Latin.
Turkey ?….not welcome!