Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 10th, 2012 #21
Simmon
Senior Member
 
Simmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 564
Simmon
Default

My take on the song was that it was talking on the natural instinct of men(and women)but in a slightly diferent way.
The rules of sociaty are set in opposition to a natural way of life on purpose to inset a false mindset.A tamming of sociaty if you will.To control the masses.If you don't toe the line, you will be punished.
The reason he went to prison may or may not have been a self defence situation but was not viewed that way by the rest of the lemmens or jury.
Mother tried to get him to toe the line maybe because she knew where his natural instincts would lead him.

Just my take on it.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmon View Post
My take on the song was that it was talking on the natural instinct of men(and women)but in a slightly diferent way.
The rules of sociaty are set in opposition to a natural way of life on purpose to inset a false mindset.A tamming of sociaty if you will.To control the masses.If you don't toe the line, you will be punished.
The reason he went to prison may or may not have been a self defence situation but was not viewed that way by the rest of the lemmens or jury.
Mother tried to get him to toe the line maybe because she knew where his natural instincts would lead him.

Just my take on it.
There's definitely something to what you're saying. It's kind of the Huck Finn thing, about civilization being a scratchy suit. Definitely man vs society comes into this when we move from the singer's specific problem to broader considerations. We all find ourselves at odds with the rules from time to time. And sometimes we may even suspect, as you say, the whole setup is designed to brainwash, hobble and veal-ize us.

When do we listen? When do we ignore?

When do we follow? When do we split off?

Not easy questions.

What determines what we do?

What is our nature? Can we make up our minds? It seems like it. But then sometimes, looking back like the singer, there does seem to be a fate unfolding; a tragic or wonderful working out that was not simply a product of decisions that could have gone a different way.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #23
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Simmon, are you from Tennessee? All the indices say yes.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #24
Simmon
Senior Member
 
Simmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 564
Simmon
Default

Al,
No, Im from northern Florida.(some joke and say its southern Georgia)
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #25
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmon View Post
Al,
No, Im from northern Florida.(some joke and say its southern Georgia)
I guess that officially makes you a White Cracker.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #26
Simmon
Senior Member
 
Simmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 564
Simmon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
I guess that officially makes you a White Cracker.
And proud to be so.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #27
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmon View Post
And proud to be so.


I noticed the whip in your avatar, who is the cowboy in the photo?
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #28
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
keifer
Default

This is a song, not a novel. You're trying to force-fit some half-cocked literary theory where it doesn't go. Besides that, the songwriter is not trying to solve any problem, quite the opposite. He's pointing out the inevitability of things, no matter what he or anyone might have wanted.

I never said it was a novel, I said it is narrative. A song is a narrative. Stating who the characters are, and what brings them together(The Plot)is hardly a half-cocked notion in any narrative, novel, song.


That is, if anything, a profoundly un or anti-christian theme, because the christian way would be to resolve the story with his repentance - which he manifestly does not do. You have no indication whatsoever that he regrets being in prison or would change his ways if he could.

This supports my statement that x-ianity is a constant in this narrative. I did not say he was christian following person, but rather I meant to imply that christianity is a character role as a constant gauge for which to judge in this song. Rather he the narrator is for or against x-ianity, he is still influenced and referenced in this song.
"God rest his soul".


It's not deconstructing, that is a jew concept meant to compete with genuine analysis, which is what I offer. It stands to reason you a typical WN can't tell the difference and think critical thinking is perverse. That's why WN always lose to jews - they despise thinking. To a (removed to prevent crying), which will be a proxy for WN, thinking is like a sort of dirty trick. Only a low-down would resort to it.

Instead of passive-aggressive carping and veiled jew-calling, why don't you either admit I'm right or come up with something better?

Deconstructing is about taring down previously held beliefs, standards, and power sources so as to redistribute them. Redefining standards in art has meant that we all get to be artist and that each voice is as important as the other, even if a person is using rat shit as a medium. PFFF! With deconstructionism we all get to be artist except the people who are really good at art. For them they owe something to the rst of by just going away. The result is that Andy Whorewall is considered an equal or better(because of social relevance) to Rembrandt. PFFFF!x1000. The ultimate result has been the death of art, the death of society. I understand what you mean by genuine analysis. I understand that great art exists rather I do or not, rather I am hear to say so and rather I am here to participate in it as a reciever of its message.
I have stood up in front of a room full of jews while defending my own displays of critical thinking, my genuine analysis of art in physical form for all to spit on, and throwing the words "Degenerative Art" back into the audience. It is no different of an experience than when yourself is being interviewed by seventy five people at once. People who hate you.
When you accuse me of being "passive aggressive", do you mean to say I present myself like a victim so as to draw people in only to entrap them.
I won't deny that to some degree I set people up for verbal combativeness, but it has nothing to do with passive and everything to do with predatory, in the primitive sense. I find what you did with this thread as passive aggressive. Your original statement that kicked off this thread, "Guess what I am thinking?" You set the situation for the audience failure only to tell them how stupid they are for not guessing what you are thinking.
And then it all came down to what you were thinking is some long drawn out conversation no one else participated in. It was a joke, right? I guess we had to be there to get the humor.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #29
Simmon
Senior Member
 
Simmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 564
Simmon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
I noticed the whip in your avatar, who is the cowboy in the photo?
Strawboss(Simmon Legree)The mean slave driver in the book Uncle Toms Cabin.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #30
Stephen
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: England
Posts: 332
Stephen
Default

Back on topic, sort of, compare "Mama Tried" to this more recent monstrosity by Gretchen Wilson and Merle Haggard-

(there's clearly nothing un-PC about this drivel)

"Politically Uncorrect"

I'm for the low man on the totem pole
And I'm for the underdog God bless his soul
And I'm for the guys still pulling third shift
And the single mom raisin' her kids
I'm for the preachers who stay on their knees
And I'm for the sinner who finally believes
And I'm for the farmer with dirt on his hands
And the soldiers who fight for this land

Chorus:

And I'm for the Bible and I'm for the flag
And I'm for the working man, me and ol' hag
I'm just one of many
Who can't get no respect
Politically uncorrect

(Merle Haggard)
I guess my opinion is all out of style
(Gretchen Wilson)
Aw, but don't get me started cause I can get riled
And I'll make a fight for the forefathers plan
(Merle Haggard)
And the world already knows where I stand

Repeat Chorus

(Merle Haggard)
Nothing wrong with the Bible, nothing wrong with the flag
(Gretchen Wilson)
Nothing wrong with the working man me & ol' hag
We're just some of many who can't get no respect
(Merle Haggard)
None
(Gretchen Wilson)
Politically uncorrect
(Merle Haggard)
Politically uncorrect
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #31
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmon View Post
Strawboss(Simmon Legree)The mean slave driver in the book Uncle Toms Cabin.
One of my favorite poems by Vachel Lindsay:

Quote:
Simon Legree

A Negro Sermon.
(To be read in your own variety of negro dialect.)


Legree’s big house was white and green.
His cotton-fields were the best to be seen.
He had strong horses and opulent cattle,
And bloodhounds bold, with chains that would rattle.
His garret was full of curious things:
Books of magic, bags of gold,
And rabbits’ feet on long twine strings.
BUT HE WENT DOWN TO THE DEVIL.

Legree he sported a brass-buttoned coat,
A snake-skin necktie, a blood-red shirt.
Legree he had a beard like a goat,
And a thick hairy neck, and eyes like dirt.
His puffed-out cheeks were fish-belly white,
He had great long teeth, and an appetite.
He ate raw meat, ‘most every meal,
And rolled his eyes till the cat would squeal.
His fist was an enormous size
To mash poor niggers that told him lies:
He was surely a witch-man in disguise.
BUT HE WENT DOWN TO THE DEVIL.

He wore hip-boots, and would wade all day
To capture his slaves that had fled away.
BUT HE WENT DOWN TO THE DEVIL.

He beat poor Uncle Tom to death
Who prayed for Legree with his last breath.
Then Uncle Tom to Eva flew,
To the high sanctoriums bright and new;
And Simon Legree stared up beneath,
And cracked his heels, and ground his teeth:
AND WENT DOWN TO THE DEVIL.

He crossed the yard in the storm and gloom;
He went into his grand front room.
He said, “I killed him, and I don’t care.”
He kicked a hound, he gave a swear;
He tightened his belt, he took a lamp,
Went down cellar to the webs and damp.
There in the middle of the mouldy floor
He heaved up a slab, he found a door—
AND WENT DOWN TO THE DEVIL.

His lamp blew out, but his eyes burned bright.
Simon Legree stepped down all night—
DOWN, DOWN TO THE DEVIL.
Simon Legree he reached the place,
He saw one half of the human race,
He saw the Devil on a wide green throne,
Gnawing the meat from a big ham-bone,
And he said to Mister Devil:

“I see that you have much to eat—
A red ham-bone is surely sweet.
I see that you have lion’s feet;
I see your frame is fat and fine,
I see you drink your poison wine—
Blood and burning turpentine.”

And the Devil said to Simon Legree:
“I like your style, so wicked and free.
Come sit and share my throne with me,
And let us bark and revel.”
And there they sit and gnash their teeth,
And each one wears a hop-vine wreath.
They are matching pennies and shooting craps,
They are playing poker and taking naps.
And old Legree is fat and fine:
He eats the fire, he drinks the wine—
Blood and burning turpentine—
DOWN, DOWN WITH THE DEVIL;
DOWN, DOWN WITH THE DEVIL;
DOWN, DOWN WITH THE DEVIL.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #32
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
That's what happened; that's not what the song is about. Come on, man. Much as I don't particularly like you, you're smarter than that.



WTF? It doesn't matter what the crime was, that's irrelevant. It was enough to put him behind bars for good, so yeah, probably murder. But it doesn't matter, the song's not about that.



Christ. Uh...there's a subtler version of your point that has some relevancy, but no, I don't think the writer is trying to celebrate criminal activity.
I actually like the song I was just trying to deconstruct it as I thought you wanted. There is more to the song then it just being about a person who murdered someone. No one writes a song celebrating murder (I think). That there is more to the song is for sure, but I don't think I belong to that White demographic to fully enjoy it.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #33
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,704
Horseman
Default

To me it's just these things:
1) a simple story of tragedy, told in few words, and it rhymes.
2) good melody
3) Haggard's voice/looks/demeanor come across as someone totally genuine (where the faggots in country music today come across as people trying hard to look genuine).
 
Old July 11th, 2012 #34
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
This supports my statement that x-ianity is a constant in this narrative. I did not say he was christian following person, but rather I meant to imply that christianity is a character role as a constant gauge for which to judge in this song. Rather he the narrator is for or against x-ianity, he is still influenced and referenced in this song. "God rest his soul".
That's merely a rhetorical convention; it doesn't mean anything religious by it. If the guy were influenced by religion, by christianity, he would have followed the commandments at least to the extent of not ending up in jail for life.

The point is to analyze the work. Your analysis is: religion is mentioned. Uh...ok. So what? There actually is a point that could be made there, but you didn't make it. Which is that religion, like parental advice, was a social influence that had no effect on the singer.

Quote:
Deconstructing is about taring down previously held beliefs, standards, and power sources so as to redistribute them. Redefining standards in art has meant that we all get to be artist and that each voice is as important as the other, even if a person is using rat shit as a medium. PFFF!

With deconstructionism we all get to be artist except the people who are really good at art. For them they owe something to the rst of by just going away. The result is that Andy Whorewall is considered an equal or better(because of social relevance) to Rembrandt. PFFFF!x1000. The ultimate result has been the death of art, the death of society. I understand what you mean by genuine analysis. I understand that great art exists rather I do or not, rather I am hear to say so and rather I am here to participate in it as
Yeah, that's great. You've been taught what deconstruction is, although you evidently can't figure out how to apply it in the real world, as I'll show.

I pointedly said I'm against deconstruction and what I do is analysis. How did my analysis begin? With a celebration of the greatness of the song. That is the exact opposite of deconstruction, which seeks to do away with the greatness of the artist and pretent the art, or 'text' as they like to call it, is a product of social forces rather than individual brialliance. Which is complete bullshit. That song is great because of Haggard, and no other reason. By celebrating this great artist, I am doing the opposite of deconstruction. What I offer is critical analysis of what he is doing in his song. That is not to explain its greatness away, or to belittle the achievement, but to better appreciate and understand and celebrate it. Which should be clear, since I started in that vein, by mentioning the song's greatness in the first line.

Quote:
I have stood up in front of a room full of jews while defending my own displays of critical thinking, my genuine analysis of art in physical form for all to spit on, and throwing the words "Degenerative Art" back into the audience. It is no different of an experience than when yourself is being interviewed by seventy five people at once. People who hate you.
Good for you. You should defend what's right, no matter who's against you. I'm just asking you to observe that I would only be 'deconstructing' Haggard if I said his song wasn't really great, it was a product of social forces in the mid-20th-century, and other songs would have been higher on the charts if the powers that be hadn't wanted to promoted the retrograde bourgeois notion of taking individual responsibility rather than social guilt. (Since most people, as we see here, cannot see beneath the surface, they will take this song as Haggard blaming himself, which he does, but only legally, socially and superficially, as the song is really, in my reading, about the ineluctability of outcomes given the character of the creature involved.)

Quote:
When you accuse me of being "passive aggressive", do you mean to say I present myself like a victim so as to draw people in only to entrap them.
I mean you're trying to jew around the edge of calling me a jew.

Basically I'm just irritated you don't truly understand what deconstruction is. Deconstruction is when you try to reveal the power relations that determine art works. It's a sort of neo-marxist idea. Marx thought all culture was a superstructure on the basic underlying economic relations in society. Deconstruction is a way revealing the supposed hidden power relations as determining artistic manifestations as everything else. I think it is a particularly unprofitable way to analyze things, and I hew to the older view of close reading in which you combine close textual analysis with knowledge of the author's life and times. I'm a traditionalist in that regard. And I also believe in subordinating all that to the impression the work makes, particularly if it's music. I get that from Oscar Wilde.

What I don't like is any indication I don't respect genuine greatness, because I do. My point was to celebrate that song. Good analysis never detracts from something, it enhances understanding and enjoyment, at least for intelligent folk. Everybody can enjoy that song, just like a Shakespeare play. But these can be enjoyed on different levels, and that's where analysis comes in. We can all feel the emotion -- or maybe the working class guy actually feels the emotions MORE than the bourgeois-backgrounded like me, or the rich like (someone else). Because he knows better than me what it's like to be a criminal and thrown in jail and not trust or listen to anybody. Whereas the smarter man goes for the subtler questions I raised in my analysis.

But even if I were trying to destroy something, a man or an idea, I would never call it 'deconstruction.' Although sometimes it might be fairly classed that way, in sense. I would still just see it as analysis, critical analysis. But kind of like the deconstructionists, I would go after motives, and that does involve some power-relations analysis. So that would be fairly similar, although coming from a different place. So if I were analyzing a conservative, or, say, Jim Goad, I would say, this is why he writes about (A) instead of (B), or this is why he writes about (A) in this way rather than in this other way. And together he and those willing to make the same vital concessions are used by a moneyman (Taki, say) to put out a faux-white-right publication, and thereby control the opposition to the judeo-communist left.

If I do that kind of thing, then yes, I'm sort of doing what the deconstructionists do. But really, I think it's best to consider deconstruction just the literary-analytical equivalent of political cant, and sneer at it. We do criticism and analysis, to the best of our ability. There's no new critical form to come up with. It's a matter of how well we can work within that form. Legitimate new forms are far between; humanity has been around for millions of years, this aint their first rodeo. New forms are for new technologies, not for written stuff. The literary canons are established beyond serious questioning, for the most part.

Quote:
Your original statement that kicked off this thread, "Guess what I am thinking?" You set the situation for the audience failure only to tell them how stupid they are for not guessing what you are thinking.
I'm challenging them. Yeah, the 'pukes' was deliberately insulting, but not really, just sort of poking at people. Because I like analysis. I think it's important to our cause. I think I can do it better than most. But I like to see if people can come up with stuff I can't. Often they can. And often I can use their new ideas to come up with new good stuff I could not have otherwise.

If people are too shy to hop in when I'm being obnoxious, they are missing the spirit of the forum. No one has to agree with me here. I really don't like too much agreement. The forum should be a lot of fighting - but stylized fighting. Not stupid gossipping and lying and false allegations. It can even be polite.

Quote:
And then it all came down to what you were thinking is some long drawn out conversation no one else participated in. It was a joke, right? I guess we had to be there to get the humor.
It wasn't funny. It was perhaps too repetitive. It's just a read on that song. I'm looking for a different or better one. That's all.

The problem is, and I get knocked down to earth when I try this, and this will be found insulting, but we simply can't beat the jews with people who are not able to analyze at a very high level. Analytical ability can be displayed in 1,000 forms, and song analysis is one good place to try it, since songs are nice and bite-sized, yet can offer the complexity we need to truly test our ability.

Someone give me a true deconstruction of Merle Haggard's "Mama Tried." Explain it away as the product not of individual genuis, but of social forces, including those promoting the song and choosing its story, meaning and message.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 11th, 2012 at 07:37 PM.
 
Old July 11th, 2012 #35
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by procopius View Post
I actually like the song I was just trying to deconstruct it as I thought you wanted. There is more to the song then it just being about a person who murdered someone. No one writes a song celebrating murder (I think). That there is more to the song is for sure, but I don't think I belong to that White demographic to fully enjoy it.
Not deconstruct, analyze. What we are doing is analyzing.

'Deconstruct' is a basically a propaganda term for destroy. Deconstructionists try to destroy literature by defaming the author in order to 'disappear' him, and to destroy his work by reducing it to a mere text without any inherent and ascertainable meaning. 'Deconstruction' is a school of tendentious criticism based on the bogus ideas that authors don't matter and texts don't have ascertainable meanings. Deconstruction is pseudo-analysis pretending to be a higher form of real analysis. It is the marxising of literary analysis, and is used only by leftist academic demagogues and others who hate literature because the best of it was produced by white men, who are a class the cultural marxists or neo-marxists hate for ideological reasons. Deconstruction is a way to disparage, using a pseudo-objective form of literary criticism that is nothing more than the same old shitty judeo-leftist politics in yet another drag (but this time liberal arts drag rather than the pseudo-scientific drag in which it outfits 'global warming'). Just as 'global warming' is imitation science, 'deconstruction' is imitation literary analysis.

Western White men acknowledge and appreciate true greatness; they do not disparage it. Jews seek to destroy what is great because they are ungreat themselves, they are envious, and they are full of hate. White men who fall into their academic clutches are to be pitied, as they are paying their worst enemies to deracinate and dupe them, and the idiots think they're being educated rather than inculcated.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 11th, 2012 at 07:41 PM.
 
Old July 11th, 2012 #36
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by procopius View Post
I don't think I belong to that White demographic to fully enjoy it.
Didn't you ever hear 'nothing human is foreign to me'?

Have you ever been in a situation where everyone was telling you one thing, but your brain and heart were telling you the opposite? That's sort of what he's really driving at in this song. We all face the challenge he faced growing up, to a greater or lesser degree. Even if we're not born rebels, we still, all of us, occasionally feel tension between what society/parents/friends tell us to do, and what we want to do. Through Haggard's experience we get this eternal problem on a grander scale, perhaps evoking fear or pity (per Aristotle) or relief and catharsis - or even recognition and epiphany, I suppose. It's a story about him, and in that sense necessarily particular, but it pertains to all of us. Whether we like the song or not.
 
Old July 11th, 2012 #37
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman View Post
To me it's just these things:
1) a simple story of tragedy, told in few words, and it rhymes.
Objectively it is a tragedy, I suppose, but it's not really in that form. It's kind of upbeat, almost. And that's because you don't get a sense the narrator could have avoided his fate, or is particularly sad about it. 'Had to be this way' is what comes through most strongly to me about the singer's attitude.

Quote:
2) good melody
3) Haggard's voice/looks/demeanor come across as someone totally genuine (where the faggots in country music today come across as people trying hard to look genuine).
I'd agree with that, that they didn't appear to be trying as hard. Just deceptively simple words sung without undue pressure or spin - sung calmly. Today it's all these faggots who are 35 singing about how hot some 35-year-old broad in their truck. That's faggotry. It's also PC. And you're right - it's very, very forced. I don't want to see some middle-aged guy singing about how lucky and horny he is.

Country was basically adult music, as I take it. I have written a couple times this sort of song analysis on original VNN, and one time got a lengthy letter from someone with great knowledge of country's origins who contended, if I recall, that the very genre is basically a music-industry invention. That may be, but at least up until a point, there was a good deal more adult seriousness in the songs they put out to the mainstream than what we've seen the last twenty years.

PC is so well entrenched, and this is a point basically no one but me has ever made, not saying, just saying, and I've made it repeatedly for years, that PC has gone far beyond simply conditioning people to have the right attitude toward this or that - that battle is over. It now is primarily concerned with destroying the tools. I don't know what the right metaphor is, that's not my strength to think them up, but say buildings and tools. PC has destroyed the castles of its enemy - now the forces driving it are trying to deprive their enemies of even the tools you'd need to build a castle; and beyond that, remove from their mind the very conception of castles.

I've made this point most notably in relation to public schools. Where people are taught not just the right attitudes, but they are taught to regard generalization itself, the ability to notice patterns, as inherently wrong and morally evil. And of course they're also taught to not be able to read using the look-say method, to get them to hate reading. So if they hate reading and they think that pattern-noticing/generalizing which is thinking is immoral, they are mentally undone. They are mentally unable to develop any kind of defense against jew brainwashing.

This is exactly what has happened.

Now we're talking about country music.

Country music is not inherently political except in the deepest sense, which is that it covers life in its deepest moments. But what it is, should be, used to be, traditionally, is music for adults. It deals with adult problems - loss, regret, failure, nostalgia. And of course everything else, but there was always a fair share of love and loss in it - I mean that's what life is largely about, as we are transient creatures in an evanescent world. But old country could reflect on any particular portion of this world - and fully. The man or woman written about could both be wrong. Today only the man can be wrong. Only the man can cheat. Only the man can wrong the woman, get in the way of her dreams, fail to appreciate her. The woman is never the bad guy. And this is not because of the songwriters, it's a very deliberately foisted PC amputation of human experience in line with the dogmas of feminism, which of course serves the master jewish agenda. It dovetails with the divorce court and every other currently jewed social institution. Do not imagine that is by accident, it is by design.

No one seems to see this, but it's exactly what's going on. Today's artistis are not any worse singers or songwriters than George Jones, Hank Williams, Merle Haggard, they are simply forced, like political writers for mainstream conservative outlets, to toe a political line set by illiberal leftist jews pushing an anti-White, anti-man agenda. If they want money, they have to play along; and if they want integrity, they have to play alone. So what can they write about? Either how great women are. How dumb bad stupid men are. Or how much they like sex and partying. And pretty much nothing else. This makes country music not technically bad, as the voices and bodies and instruments are tighter than ever, but it makes it jejune, boring, simplistic and childish. Maybe teenaged at best. And one doesn't go to country for teenaged hormones -- that's rock's territory -- one goes to it for adult sadness, loss, regret - and some positive stuff too, but non-sexual stuff. The only adult contemporary country music appeals to is 30s single women who are starting to wonder if they're fading and need reassurance from Keith Urban. And rural boobs whenever their bodies are needed for call-up in the latest round of jewish wars. As in jewish tv, the only time men are respectable and respected in modern country music is when they're joining the army to fight for Israel. (Toby Keith is surely among the top ten defense contractors benefiting from the WTC wars.)

It's sad, because country music is a good form.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 11th, 2012 at 07:45 PM.
 
Old July 11th, 2012 #38
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Objectively it is a tragedy, I suppose, but it's not really in that form. It's kind of upbeat, almost. And that's because you don't get a sense the narrator could have avoided his fate, or is particularly sad about it. 'Had to be this way' is what comes through most strongly to me about the singer's attitude.



I'd agree with that, that they didn't appear to be trying as hard. Just deceptively simple words sung without undue pressure or spin. Today it's all these faggots who are 35 singing about how hot some 35-year-old broad in their truck. That's faggotry. It's also PC.

Country was basically adult music, as I take it. I have written a couple times this sort of song analysis on original VNN, and one time got a lengthy letter from someone with great knowledge of country's origins who contended, if I recall, that the very genre is basically a music-industry invention. That may be, but at least up until a point, there was a good deal more adult seriousness in the songs they put out to the mainstream than what we've seen the last twenty years.

PC is so well entrenched, and this is a point basically no one but me has ever made, not saying, just saying, and I've made it repeatedly for years, that PC has gone far beyond simply conditioning people to have the right attitude toward this or that - that battle is over. It now is primarily concerned with destroying the tools. I don't know what the right metaphor is, that's not my strength to think them up, but say buildings and tools. PC has destroyed the castles of its enemy - now the forces driving it are trying to deprive their enemies of even the tools you'd need to build a castle; and beyond that, remove from their mind the very conception of castles.

I've made this point most notably in relation to public schools. Where people are taught not just the right attitudes, but they are taught to regard generalization itself, the ability to notice patterns, as inherently wrong and morally evil. And of course they're also taught to not be able to read using the look-say method, to get them to hate reading. So if they hate reading and they think that pattern-noticing/generalizing which is thinking is immoral, they are mentally undone. They are mentally unable to develop any kind of defense against jew brainwashing.

This is exactly what has happened.

Now we're talking about country music.

Country music is not inherently political. But what it is, should be, used to be, traditionally, is music for adults. It deals with adult problems - loss, regret, failure, nostalgia. And of course everything else, but there was always a fair share of love and loss in it - I mean that's what life is largely about, as we are transient creatures in an evanescent world. But old country could reflect on any particular portion of this world - and fully. The man or woman written about could both be wrong. Today only the man can be wrong. Only the man can cheat. Only the man can wrong the woman, get in the way of her dreams, fail to appreciate her. The woman is never the bad guy. And this is not because of the songwriters, it's a very deliberately foisted PC amputation of human experience in line with the dogmas of feminism, which of course serves the master jewish agenda. It dovetails with the divorce court and every other currently jewed social institution. Do not imagine that is by accident, it is by design.

No one seems to see this, but it's exactly what's going on. Today's artistis are not any worse singers or songwriters than George Jones, Hank Williams, Merle Haggard, they are simply forced, like political writers for mainstream conservative outlets, to toe a political line set by illiberal leftist jews pushing an anti-White, anti-man agenda. If they want money, they have to play along; and if they want integrity, they have to play alone. So what can they write about? Either how great women are. How dumb bad stupid men are. Or how much they like sex and partying. And pretty much nothing else. This makes country music not technically bad, as the voices and bodies and instruments are tighter than ever, but it makes it jejune, boring, simplistic and childish. Maybe teenaged at best. And one doesn't go to country for teenaged hormones -- that's rock's territory -- one goes to it for adult sadness, loss, regret - and some positive stuff too, but non-sexual stuff. The only adult contemporary country music appeals to is 30s single women who are starting to wonder if they're fading and need reassurance from Keith Urban. And rural boobs whenever their bodies are needed for call-up in the latest round of jewish wars. As in jewish tv, the only time men are respectable and respected in modern country music is when they're joining the army to fight for Israel. (Toby Keith is surely among the top ten defense contractors benefiting from the WTC wars.)

It's sad, because country music is a good form.
I always prefered country music that was created and performed by British musicians, as it's really a refreshing take to see how the Brits interpret the genre of a people who were primarily of British desent in the first place, yet have been transplanted; so you get to hear it from the perspective of those who live in back in the old country....it's just way better to me:


 
Old July 11th, 2012 #39
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,704
Horseman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Objectively it is a tragedy, I suppose, but it's not really in that form. It's kind of upbeat, almost. And that's because you don't get a sense the narrator could have avoided his fate, or is particularly sad about it. 'Had to be this way' is what comes through most strongly to me about the singer's attitude.
Maybe there is something noble about accepting one's fate without struggle and without crying and moaning about it.


Quote:
PC is so well entrenched, and this is a point basically no one but me has ever made, not saying, just saying, and I've made it repeatedly for years, that PC has gone far beyond simply conditioning people to have the right attitude toward this or that - that battle is over. It now is primarily concerned with destroying the tools. I don't know what the right metaphor is, that's not my strength to think them up, but say buildings and tools. PC has destroyed the castles of its enemy - now the forces driving it are trying to deprive their enemies of even the tools you'd need to build a castle; and beyond that, remove from their mind the very conception of castles.

I've made this point most notably in relation to public schools. Where people are taught not just the right attitudes, but they are taught to regard generalization itself, the ability to notice patterns, as inherently wrong and morally evil. And of course they're also taught to not be able to read using the look-say method, to get them to hate reading. So if they hate reading and they think that pattern-noticing/generalizing which is thinking is immoral, they are mentally undone. They are mentally unable to develop any kind of defense against jew brainwashing.
*
Most of PC is unspoken (what logically follows from the spoken). 99% of people couldn't even identify these opinions they have in their own minds. Example: a PC person will feel like it's wrong to put substance over appearance. They will feel like they are being White, and thus racist. Only when it's necessary to put substance first will they do it, and they'll have a little nod from each other that they won't report each other for it. Today in America, if you actually try to express some interesting thoughts or observations, or express curiosity, the liberal-minded people will look at you as if "what's wrong with you."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
This is exactly what has happened.

Now we're talking about country music.

Country music is not inherently political. But what it is, should be, used to be, traditionally, is music for adults. It deals with adult problems - loss, regret, failure, nostalgia. And of course everything else, but there was always a fair share of love and loss in it - I mean that's what life is largely about, as we are transient creatures in an evanescent world. But old country could reflect on any particular portion of this world - and fully. The man or woman written about could both be wrong. Today only the man can be wrong. Only the man can cheat. Only the man can wrong the woman, get in the way of her dreams, fail to appreciate her. The woman is never the bad guy. And this is not because of the songwriters, it's a very deliberately foisted PC amputation of human experience in line with the dogmas of feminism, which of course serves the master jewish agenda. It dovetails with the divorce court and every other currently jewed social institution. Do not imagine that is by accident, it is by design.

No one seems to see this, but it's exactly what's going on. Today's artistis are not any worse singers or songwriters than George Jones, Hank Williams, Merle Haggard, they are simply forced, like political writers for mainstream conservative outlets, to toe a political line set by illiberal leftist jews pushing an anti-White, anti-man agenda. If they want money, they have to play along; and if they want integrity, they have to play alone. So what can they write about? Either how great women are. How dumb bad stupid men are. Or how much they like sex and partying. And pretty much nothing else. This makes country music not technically bad, as the voices and bodies and instruments are tighter than ever, but it makes it jejune, boring, simplistic and childish. Maybe teenaged at best. And one doesn't go to country for teenaged hormones -- that's rock's territory -- one goes to it for adult sadness, loss, regret - and some positive stuff too, but non-sexual stuff. The only adult contemporary country music appeals to is 30s single women who are starting to wonder if they're fading and need reassurance from Keith Urban. And rural boobs whenever their bodies are needed for call-up in the latest round of jewish wars. As in jewish tv, the only time men are respectable and respected in modern country music is when they're joining the army to fight for Israel. (Toby Keith is surely among the top ten defense contractors benefiting from the WTC wars.)

It's sad, because country music is a good form.
It's funny. My ex-wife is a big fan of Vince Gill. He's a contemporary country singer who is actually great. I asked her "Why don't they ever play Gill on the radio, and nobody seems to know him?" And she said she was puzzled about that too. So you made me think there is maybe a reason why Gill's music is being suppressed, to make way for more PC art. But he's too good to hold down, so you have an awkward situation.

Last edited by Horseman; July 11th, 2012 at 08:05 PM.
 
Old July 11th, 2012 #40
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,349
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Interesting, never heard of Terry Reid before, not bad. Reminded me of Jagger's drag-lip't "Wild Horses," just a little bit.

 
Reply

Tags
#1, country, music

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM.
Page generated in 0.19251 seconds.