Stoney

@De Lorenzo, I have a serious question for you; this time, no provocations. If you truly believe in "democracy," explain to me then why you continue to write on a site where 90% of the comments on your reviews are insults. If "the majority" of the site consists of "average" users who have decided that they dislike you, respect their opinion, as painful as it may be, and leave, or stay silent. Because even assuming that 90% of this site's users are just ignorant monkeys without opposable thumbs who criticize only out of ignorance, for your own personal consistency, you shouldn't even doubt their opinion: the majority must be respected "always," you were the first to say so. And I repeat, this is not a provocation; I am dead serious. Regards.

One of those groups that embodies the metaphysics of the pathetic, and thus makes possible that mystical experience where the ugly tends toward infinity, ultimately coinciding with the beautiful. In short, no matter how hard they try to suck, in the end, you almost manage to respect them. Then you wake up, come to your senses, and an existential doubt assaults you: weren't the Manowar already more than enough in this line of clowns? Did we really need this?

I tried to give dignity to black metal, believe me. Well, these are my conclusions. In a normal world, it would work like this: people would read the title and think, "Who are these idiots?", then they would put on the record, have a good laugh, and that would be it. But no, if you give it a try, there's always an expert ready to play the oracle and explain to you the misanthropy, the neopaganism, the underground Norwegian culture (?), plus all the house of cards to convince you that no, look closer, it's not true that they are idiots, it's you who, superficial and a bit of a fool like every newcomer, judges from too narrow a perspective. Because otherwise, you would realize that this music conveys the "true" meanings that matter: the crosses, the black (ooh, evil, fear, brr), the existential malaise, the unpronounceable names because eeehhhh we are people who suffer, and then the misunderstanding of the world, sigh, sob, the trrrishti things that touch us because the evil society does not care about us so much and will never understand us, we who are better and special. Well, I believe that in certain things, the first impression is the right one: it's all, all, all, all crap. :) @Taxirider, I have nothing against you or the review, indeed, you make a very clear argument separating the music from the provocations, but in my opinion, black "coincides" with its degenerations, it's not like classic metal wrongly accused of satanism because of some fanatic; here we’re talking about a genre that was born and grew up on a diet of bread and fundamentalism, and that owes its worldwide fame to the vandalistic acts you mentioned. Then, it's also possible for someone to listen to (or play) certain music because it sounds good to their ears or reminds them of arcane places, but when it comes down to meaning, I think there's little to discuss; unfortunately, we always end up back there. I repeat, nothing personal, bye.

@De Lorenzo, so far everything has gone well, but if we now call those who voted for the Movimento 5 Stelle "qualunquisti," then you have to allow me to call those who voted for the center-left "rincoglioniti" and those who voted for the center-right "incoscienti." That's how you are; with those you dislike, you don't hold back, you use common sense and call things by their name, and rightly so; with others, however, you minimize or mystify. So, please, let's set the record straight once and for all: it's "qualunquista" to believe in a comedic crowd agitator, it's "rincoglionito" to believe in a left that can't stand on its own, and it's "incosciente" to hand the nation over to a handful of criminals who have been responsible for unspeakable wrongdoing in broad daylight for 20 years (not 2 days). Do you like it this way, nice and clear-cut, or is it too much "caciara"? A response would be appreciated.

Yes, (!), I understood that you didn't think this way. Indeed, from the perspective of the electorate of that political side, things work like this. And you were right to say "ideologized electorate," because those who take such offense at ideologies are the first to support one without realizing it: the "politics of doing," utopian, hypocritical, and basically fierce, not less than all the other ones they so despise.

True what they say (!). The problem, however, is that being decisive and solving problems without too much chatter doesn't mean treating everyone who engages in reasoning that goes beyond two logical steps like they're being kicked in the butt, or shouting "communist" every time someone says "no, wait, let's think about it." Since when does being decisive and pragmatic mean glorifying the primal instinct against critical reasoning? This at best means being ignorant, or having the precise intent to dismantle dialogue between social parties. Which is exactly what's happening. So, people do not approve of any ideological propaganda; at most, they choose those who sanctify their most violent and instinctive inclinations, giving them a legitimacy that would be unthinkable in a truly democratic country.

I believe that on a purely political level, the League does not represent any substantial change compared to the past; rather, it seems to defend the same bureaucratic and parasitic apparatus as always, the same collusions, the same dealings that have existed and thrived within the halls of power in Italy for 60 years. I do not see this breaking force from a political point of view. Clearly, those who vote for it do so for a different reason. I think that the typical League supporter, whether an entrepreneur or a worker, 30 or 70 years old, derives much more satisfaction from seeing the mayor of their city ordering beatings for Romani children than from seeing him engaged in serious policies to safeguard businesses and the territory. If anything, the discourse on territory, economy, and the defense of the "small plot" serves as a legitimizing wrapper to justify the itchiness against the "other" (not only immigrants, but also those who work 10 hours instead of 12, viewed as lazy or a "parasite," southerners, etc.). Let’s not forget that nowadays no one votes anymore for an ideal or for representation, but votes out of a sense of "partisanship"; that is, the individual, frustrated and fearful of the evolution of society and the economic fabric in a way often incomprehensible and threatening, fully aware of being little or nothing in the face of larger-than-life logics, delegates their anger and desperate desire to defend themselves to those who most openly display confidence, strength, and if necessary, cruelty against all the things that trigger immediate fears. All of this takes place within a punitive and morally violent mentality, of which political speeches are just a mask of representation. And I believe that this discourse is transversal to all social classes and education levels of those who vote for the League, and perhaps even transcendent concerning the specific case of the League. I think a similar discourse works to explain the general success of all right-wing forces and clearly the subsequent decline of left-wing parties.

@Geb, but which one regardless. "Little girl, I want to drink an orange soda because bitter sphinx is reality, and I'm too old to be deluded anymore"; "for the Christ's assassinated without a truth, for what was sacred and is no more, so that the last become the first, for your filthy conscience half washed." Is this really their being "out of the box"? In short, if I read such crap and think "hey, it's crap," am I the one with problems? Am I the one who hates their "being out of the box"? And yes, we certainly need people of culture in this damn Italy, that's for sure.

These individuals, who turn the concept of "culture" into a sort of trend, indeed, into a prize game where the more you act like a "sage," the cooler you become, are really starting to get on my nerves. I’ve read interviews with these folks packed with references to poets, writers, and directors, dropping from the sky for no reason, just to make those who fall for it say, "Oh, look how much these guys know," a series of dry little nuggets one after the other, splashes of self-indulgent knowledge for its own sake. They’re as ignorant as goats, yet they engage in all these beautifully refined speeches with the serious demeanor of someone who has understood everything and dispenses absolute truths, complete with that detached condescension towards reality typical of the thinker who knows it all but is doing you a favor by sharing the bread of knowledge that sustains him. If culture is in such a bad state in our country, it's also because of people like them.

First of all, I see not a trace of wisdom, psychology, and even less of science here. Moreover, "science" and "technique" are not synonyms. Lastly, I didn't understand the reference to the flower children, so I presume the reason is as follows: since I often criticize the modern way of living, I must inevitably be a silly hippie all about peace, love, and weed. It’s a specious argument that tries to demonstrate the validity of one viewpoint by ridiculing its extreme opposite. You see, you've got it wrong; it’s you who is making judgments without understanding, dear Punisher. You probably didn't even grasp the essence of my argument, but that's alright. Regards, and until the next essay.