Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 9 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 01, 2022, 11:15:46 pm »

More Duchesne:

Anyone who approaches the history of visual arts from an impartial perspective—concerned only with aesthetics, creativity, and originality—can’t help but realize, as I am about to explain in this article, that Western art stands on a league of its own. Making this claim goes against the relentless promotion of immigrant multiculturalism across the West today, which necessarily comes along with the notion that the art of the diverse peoples of the world is equally good.

They are not equally good (a relativist belief). They are better:

Western visual arts are indeed in a league of their own - in ugliness:


a most peculiar characteristic of Western art: its exhibition of a continuous proliferation of highly original artists with new artistic styles, new ways of projecting images on a flat surface, new conceptions of light, new standards of excellence, and new conceptions about nature and man—in contrast to a nonwestern world where aesthetic norms barely changed or where artists were invariably inclined to follow an established convention without breaking new aesthetic paths.

Change for the sake of novelty is frivolous at best, attention-seeking at worst, and antithetical to good art either way.

Of course Duchesne disagrees, as does his fellow Westerners on whom he relies as the judges of which art is better, which of course they will do using Western standards:

H.W. Janson’s History of Art, first published in 1962, with a sixteenth printing in 1971, which I am using, and numerous new editions thereafter, is an encyclopedic treatment of the history of art, with millions of copies sold in fifteen languages. Janson came from a Lutheran family of Baltic German stock. His criterion for choice of great art is “ORIGINALITY.” “Uniqueness, novelty, freshness” are the “yardstick of artistic greatness.”
This criterion underpins Janson’s magisterial book. This book has three opening chapters on “The Art of Prehistoric Man,” “Egyptian Art,” and “The Ancient Near East.” The rest of the book, with the exception of a short chapter on “Islamic Art” and a short “Postscript” with the title “The Meeting of East and West,” is entirely about Western art. These traditions really interest him insofar as they “contributed to the growth of the Western artistic tradition” (p. 569). He ignored China, Japan, and India until the end because they were not a “vital source of inspiration for Western art” except in contemporary times. New styles of art, new techniques and schools, was a uniquely Western phenomenon.

I agree that Western art involves more novelty. I merely interpret this as evidence of Western inferiority.

Arnold Hauser (1892-1978) was a Hungarian Marxist with Jewish ancestry, an admirer of bourgeois norms and sensibilities, writing at a time when students were educated without diversity and equity mandates. The Social History of Art, first published in 1951, the product of thirty years of labor, opens with eight short chapters on prehistoric, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian art, covering less than fifty pages in a four-volume book that is close to 1000 pages long. This rightfully valued book argues that art became more realistic and naturalistic as Europe became less aristocratic and hierarchical, more bourgeois, urbane and cosmopolitan. A “naturalistic style” actually prevailed through to the end of the Paleolithic Age in the way animals were depicted in a realistic way, although the art was concerned as well with the performance of magical rituals. This naturalistic attitude, which was “open to the full range of experience,” gave way in the Neolithic Age to a “narrowly geometric stylization” in which the “artist tended to shut himself off from the wealth of empirical reality.”

The Jew dislikes Aryan art. No surprises here! The above information also fits with our model of Aryan diffusion:

According to William Watson, while the Northern School contains "the painters who favour clear, emphatic structure in their compositions, with the use of explicit perspective devices", the Southern School "cultivate a more intimate style of landscape bathed in cloud and mist, in which pleasing calligraphic forms tend to take the place of conventions established for the representation of rocks, trees, etc. The painter of the Southern School was interested in distant effects, but his colleague of the Northern School paid more attention to the devices of composition which achieve the illusion of recession, and at the same time more attentive to close realism of detail. ... some artists hover between the two".[3] A more philosophical distinction is that the Southern School painters "were thought to have sought the inner realities and expressed their own lofty natures" while the Northern "painted only the outward appearance of things, the worldly and decorative".[4]

Back to enemy article:

In Egyptian art, “the person of the artist himself disappeared almost entirely behind his work.” Painters and sculptors remained “anonymous”

Only Westerners, being Achilleans, find this frightening. To everyone else, it is highly respectable.

Western art is persistently creative, never rigid and traditionalist. New artistic epochs emerge (Mannerism, Baroque, Rococo, Classicism, Romanticism, Naturalism, Impressionism) in opposition to prevailing conventions with increasing acceleration from the Renaissance onwards, led by artists who purposely wanted to break away from the prejudices of their age, innovate and experiment, and demonstrate thereby their own artistic genius.

This is why we call them Homo Hubris. Art should not be about showboating.

The Story of Art, originally published in 1950, is currently in its 16th edition. Wikipedia says that “over seven million copies” of this book “have been sold, making it the best-selling art book of all time.” It “has been translated into approximately 30 languages.” Unlike Hauser, who follows a Marxist conception of progress in the arts, Gombrich, born in Vienna into an assimilated family of Jewish origin, carefully rejects the idea of progress, believing that “each gain or progress in one direction entails a loss in another, and that this subjective progress, in spite of its importance, does not correspond to an objective increase in artistic value” (p. 3).

Jewish anti-progressivism summarized: "Progress means we can't have it all! We want it all!"

The Story of Art is a history of art from the beginnings to the present. Gombrich estimates that three chapters, out of twenty five, are enough to cover the achievements of primitive and nonwestern art. His reason for doing this is simple:

Western Europe always differed profoundly from the East. In the East [artistic] styles lasted for thousands of years, and there seemed no reason why they should ever change. The West never knew this immobility. It was always restless, groping for new solutions and new ideas (p. 131).

Among European painters there was an “urge to be different,” do something new, find a new way to enhance the aesthetic effect of the work, convey something different about the world, new life experiences along with permanent aspects of human nature. Using originality and restless creativity as his central criterion, Gombrich could not but pay far less attention to an Eastern artistic tradition that remained continuously the same through the centuries.

Again, I agree with Gombrich's observations. I merely interpret them as evidence of Western inferiority. (That Gombrich interprets them as evidence of Western superiority is evidence that Jews are Westerners.)

He writes about Egypt’s “art of eternity.”

No one wanted anything different, no one asked him to be “original.” On the contrary, he was probably considered the best artist who could make his statues most like the admired monuments of the past. So it happened that in the course of three thousand years or more Egyptian art changed very little…

Why should anyone want anything different? It is much more respectable to want to live outside of time than within it. (This is why I prefer to re-watch old movies/TV shows that I watched as a child than watch new ones.)

About Chinese and Japanese art, he observes:

The standards of painting remained very high…but art became more and more like a graceful and elaborate game which has lost much of its interest as so many of its moves are known.

Gombrich has the same attitude as Musk (and the opposite of mine) towards what is boring:

The unspoken assumption underlying his claim is that a thing has to be new in order to not be boring. This is a progressive assumption, which we disagree with. I find that many new things are boring despite being new, whereas many old things are not boring despite being old. This is because I am an absolutist. Whatever is boring will always continue to be boring, and whatever is not boring will never become boring. Whether or not something is boring to me is determined by the quality of the thing itself, and unrelated to how familiar I am with it. Musk, in contrast, lacks such perception. To him, what is boring is anything that he has become too familiar with.

Thus someone like Musk can never be satisfied, because everything that exists at any point in time will become boring to him eventually, whereupon he will desire even more innovation, over and over again without end. In contrast, someone like me can be satisfied forever simply by successfully finding the quality I seek.

In short, Musk worships Yahweh whereas I worship God.

Gombrich, being a Jew, obviously worships Yahweh. Duh!

Back to enemy article:

Clark’s book, as he says in the Foreword, “is made up of the scripts of a series of television programmes given in the spring of 1969.” The series, produced by the BBC under the same name as the book’s title, consisted of thirteen programmes, each fifty minutes long, singularly focused on European art from the end of the Dark Ages to the early twentieth century.
Civilisation is a joy to read for its high minded learning and its enthusiastic appreciation of the sublime originality of Western art in its incessant striving for new forms of aesthetic perfection. Other civilizations remained content with reenacting the perfection they had achieved in the past. The West was different:

The great, indeed the unique, merit of European Civilisation has been that it has never ceased to develop and change. It has not been based on a stationary perfection, but on ideas and inspiration

Which sounds more like what perfection is supposed to be: a) something that the attainer will never again want to depart from after attaining it; or b) something that the attainer feels the need to move on from as soon as it is attained?

Oh, I forgot we are talking to Homo Hubris.

Much of Chinese “art,” it should be said, consisted of bronze casting, ceramics, and jade carving. This “art” was highly sophisticated in technique and decoration, but I hesitate to call it art. It should be categorized as applied art, the work of highly skilled craftsmen. As H.W. Janson writes, “originality is what distinguishes art from craft.”

Sincerity is what distinguishes art from showboating.

think about Leonardo da Vinci’s remark about the indomitable desire of the “wretched pupil” to “surpass his master.” This attitude is singularly European


a state of “permanent revolution” as artists “contested with each other over who was the most “creative.”

Do those who behave like this even deserve to be called artists?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 30, 2022, 08:39:36 pm »

Our enemy Duchesne returns again:

Sure, if you judge by Western standards.

It could be that the most important historical question that points to a monumental contrast between the West and the Rest is the following: why did Western civilization produce all the greatest philosophers in history?

Because Westerners have been the ones judging which philosophers are the greatest, as Duchesne himself then proceeds to explicitly tell us (while failing to see any problem with this):

This conviction that philosophy was almost entirely a Western phenomenon was held by historians of philosophy from every school of thought until recently. The neo-Kantian Wilhelm Windelband, believing that philosophy concerns the “independent and self-conscious work of intelligence which seeks knowledge methodically for its own sake,” began his two volume classic, A History of Philosophy, published in 1892, with the ancient Greeks, without mentioning a single non-Western philosopher. Windelband believed that “the history of philosophy is the process in which European humanity has embodies in scientific conceptions its views of the world and its judgments of life” (p. 9). The historicist and existentialist Julián Marías, in his Historia de la Filosofía (1941), which went through countless editions, and was translated into English, also starts with the Pre-Socratics and ends with José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) without a word about a non-Western thinker
The liberal minded Will Durant, in his popular book, The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers (1926), profiles only Western philosophers. In a “Preface to the Second Edition”, written in 1962, we see the first inklings of multiculturalism, however, as Durant faults his book for leaving out “Chinese and Hindu philosophy”, even though he adds that Chinese philosophers were “averse to epistemology” or to inquiries into the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. The analytical-empiricist philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his widely known book, History of Western Philosophy (1945), which was cited as one of the books that won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, took it for granted that the history of philosophy should be about Western philosophers. Philosophy began with the Pre-Socratics because it is only then that we see speculations on the nature of things with “appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation”. Russell offered a chapter on “Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy” only to the extent that Muslims wrote commentaries on Aristotle. The Catholic philosopher, Frederick Copleston, in his magisterial work, A History of Philosophy, published in nine volumes between 1946 and 1975, began with Greece and stayed in Europe, including a volume on Russian philosophy, right to the end.

This Western-centric attitude was unquestioned until recent times. It was the typical perspective of texts for university students. Konstantin Kolenda’s Philosophy’s Journey: A Historical Introduction (1974) says that it was the ancient Greeks who “were able to think through to new, unorthodox questions.” “Mythical accounts about gods and about the world…do not necessarily concern themselves with the question of truth. Myth is something that is told and need not call for critical scrutiny, examination, justification. The idea of possibly discovering the true nature of reality behind the multiplicity of appearances and behind conflicting opinions is a most original and revolutionary idea in the intellectual history of man” (p. 5). It is not only that the ancient Greeks posed critical questions — “Is there some substance or some basic stuff out of which everything is made?” – but that their answers consisted of “reasoned” arguments. Not a single Eastern philosopher is included in Kolenda’s book.

In 1991, Norman Melchert published The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, in which he tells students that the value of philosophy is that it teaches you “to believe for good reasons”. Opinions are as good as the reasons behind them. “That’s what philosophy is”: teaching students how to think “clearly and rationally”. Every philosopher in Melchert’s “great conversation” is Western.
The Great Philosophers, a 1987 BBC television series presented by Bryan Magee, which was made available in a book of the same name, only discusses Western philosophers in its 15 episodes, beginning with Socrates and ending with Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

See? Duchesne, however, does not see; instead, he genuinely thinks the above is evidence supporting his claim:

This is a remarkable statistical fact. It needs to be emphasized this is not a comparison of the West against three or two other civilizations, but a competition of the West versus the Rest. Aside from the Muslim, Chinese, and perhaps the Indian world, no other culture in the world, not the Mayas, not the Aztecs, not the Khmer Rouge Cambodians, not the Tibetans, not the Aksum civilization, not the Egyptians, not the Assyrians, not the Bantus, not the Babylonians, not the Japanese, not the Koreans, NO other culture in the world, produced any great philosopher. Let it be repeated: this is not a list based on arbitrary, idiosyncratic, purely personal, or politicized assumptions. It is based on solid, widely recognized histories of philosophies.

Widely recognized by which civilization? Duh!

    Europeans 80.5 = 80.5%
    Jews 9.5 = 9.5%
    Chinese 7 = 7%
    Muslims 3 = 3%

If we add Jews to the European list, insofar as they were all educated in Europe, then the Western score is 90 = 90%.

I agree with adding Jews to the "European" list, of course.

The fact that Indian philosophy can’t be divorced from India’s major religious traditions, or was never conceived as a separate intellectual pursuit, explains why I could not include Indian philosophers
Sue Hamilton, an expert in Indian philosophy, acknowledges that “what Westerners call religion and philosophy are combined in India, and that its philosophies are correctly referred to as soteriologies, or ‘system of salvation’”. The Indian philosophical tradition holds that “understanding reality has a profound effect on one’s destiny”. The attempt “to understand the nature of reality” is a “spiritual undertaking, an activity associated with a religious tradition”. The aim of Indian philosophy was to escape from consciousness, to obliterate the thinking self; and every philosopher, or every philosophical outlook, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, were preoccupied with the notion of reincarnation, the process of birth and rebirth, the transmigration of souls and the “release” of the soul from that process.

So systems of salvation are excluded(!) from what Westerners consider to be philosophy? That surely says more about Western values than about the quality of Indian philosophers!

Nevertheless, Sue Hamilton, as is generally the case with Westerners who study Eastern thought, misleads readers with her view that Western philosophy “tends to be concerned with detailed and technical questions about kinds of logic and linguistic analysis” – whereas Indian philosophy is a “spiritual undertaking” about “big metaphysical questions” concerning the meaning of life and how to live one’s life in order to have an effect on one’s destiny.

I would put it even more strongly than Hamilton does. Western philosophy views language as fundamentally empowering, as opposed to viewing language as fundamentally restrictive (and only something we are forced to use for communication due to decay of empathy (itself partially caused by reliance on language)). This is also why Western philosophers tend to be more anthropocentric: in worshipping language, it trivially follows that Western philosophers have a higher opinion of language-users (ie. humans) compared to non-language-users (ie. non-humans). (As I have pointed out in the past, reincarnation was a mainstream belief of ancient Greeks, yet amazingly (to non-Western eyes) the idea that humans could reincarnate as non-humans and vice versa (the most trivially obvious thing in non-Western imagination) did not occur as a possibility to them: that is how ludicrously anthropocentric they are!) Similarly, Western philosophers tend to be dismissive of Original Nobility, because, as language-worshippers, they find it hard to accept the superiority of a pre-linguistic human (ie. infant):


The fact is that Chinese philosophers were accustomed to express themselves in the form of aphorisms, apothegms, or allusions, and illustrations. The whole book of Lao-tzu consists of aphorisms, and most of the chapters of the Chuang-tzu are full of allusions and illustrations. This is very obvious. But even in writings such as those of Mencius and Hsun Tzu, when compared with the philosophical writings of the West, there are still too many aphorisms, allusions, and illustrations.

Why do you think this was the case FFS? Answer: they were at least trying to partially overcome the limitations of language by not using language to crudely approximate an idea, but using language merely to describe a scenario that hopefully will cause the idea to independently arise in the listener's/reader's mind!

it was Aristotle who did the most in ancient times to delineate what constitutes a proper philosophical statement about what there is and what constitutes a valid form of reasoning about why something is so. He invented formal logic, a precise language about reality, about what things can be said to be substances and the reasons why they are as they are. He showed that true philosophical statements are composed of basic categories — substance, quantity, quality, relationship, place, time — which express the various ways in which being is, and that these statements can be formulated to be subject-predicate statements. This is just a little particle of what this incredible philosopher did.

The following then comes as no surprise:

Aristotle claims that a human's highest functioning must include reasoning, being good at what sets humans apart from everything else.

Back to enemy article:

Europeans took seriously Zeno’s paradoxes, for they seem to suggest that one could reach a logically unacceptable conclusion on the basis of sound reasoning from apparently sound premises. They wondered whether these paradoxes revealed deficiencies in the way we reason, calling for improvements in our reasoning powers, a better system of logic and a more precise usage of language.

But did they ever suspect that reliance on language itself might be the problem? No, because the Western approach to problems caused by language is always more language, never an attempt to discard language.

the Western mind was able to develop methodologies to understand texts from different eras and different cultures, because this is the only culture that learned how to draw ontological distinctions between mind and matter, individual and society, the three parts of the soul, and so on, in the course of which this mind eventually developed particular sciences—physics, chemistry, biology, botany, sociology, economics, etc.—to explain different aspects of reality, and newly emerging properties, while also realizing that the concept of “man in general” is limited by historically determinate factors. The prior ability of ancient Greek philosophers to discover the distinctiveness of the faculty of the mind, the distinction between physis (nature) and nomos (law or custom) nurtured a transcendental outlook that allowed Western thinker to stand aback from their context and view other cultural contexts in their own terms. Therefore, it is not enough to say that all knowledge is historically situated, the expression of a particular people. If all knowledge is contextual, then all knowledge claims are equally valid. We have to ask why the West developed all the theories about how knowledge is context-bound, and why the West produced all the modern sciences.

Since when was philosophy supposed to be judged by its utility to science/knowledge? But Duchesne probably doesn't even notice his own screwup that perfectly illustrates the problem with Westerners like himself:

So long as Western philosophy continues to predominate in prestige, it will be almost impossible to get off the track of:

which is what we are desperately trying to do.
Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: November 24, 2022, 04:36:56 pm »

I’m pretty sure this subhuman is referring to Rome as “the ancient west,” as it is typical of their kind to try and claim the Romans as their own, despite their Turanian ancestors being Rome’s greatest enemies (also please show me where Romans called themselves “Westerners”).

But compare Roman technology, such as cement and aqueducts, which made life easier and simpler for the populace, to western machinery, such as planes, nuclear power, and plastic, which have only made life more complex and dangerous for everyone. I don’t have to fear Roman cement in my drinking water, but I do have to worry about micro-plastics, chemical fertilisers and pesticides.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 23, 2022, 07:41:54 pm »

Homework: which bloodlines need to be eliminated first?
Posted by: rp
« on: November 15, 2022, 02:47:42 pm »

Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: November 11, 2022, 05:53:34 pm »

They owe us for… polluting their air and water and soil with unnecessary inventions that only serve to make life even more complex than it already is. Stupid ****.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 11, 2022, 04:31:41 pm »

We don’t owe developing countries ‘climate reparations’ – they owe us

We are on the hook for untold billions to countries experiencing adverse weather conditions, because we invented factories – and cars
The UK will neither apologise nor make amends for the Industrial Revolution whose beneficial effects continue to be felt every day around our world.

Should you persist in your unfair demands for “climate reparations”, may we suggest you pay us royalties for the following: the internal combustion engine, Spinning Jenny, steam power, Tarmacadam, electrical telegraph, railways, automobiles, airplanes, radio, television, computers, pharmaceuticals and the world wide web. 

We’ll throw in Parliamentary government and democracy for free as a gesture of goodwill. Bank transfers welcome.

The author also looks like what we would expect:

Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: October 19, 2022, 06:17:06 pm »

One amusing yet highly aggravating habit of rightists is how they will bemoan modern western civilisation while believing in ‘traditional’ western civ (pre-1950s) supremacy. They’re anti vaxx and the pharmaceutical industry yet boast about western science, they hate modern machinery like AI yet praise western inventors and high IQ rates. They loathe everything western civ has become while simultaneously supporting that which led it here. Their cognitive dissonance is astounding... but not surprising.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 18, 2022, 11:53:19 pm »

And our enemies are back with more self-congratulation:

let me just try to explain in a few words why European civilization is the greatest civilization the world has ever known. It’s precisely because of one word: biology. Globalists such as boyish, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, despotic, and useless sniveling brat, Trudeau, can just run to a safe place and suck their thumb if they refuse to acknowledge this fact accepted by all genuine scientists of the world. Races are real, and we are not equal in aptitudes. Some races such as the White race are in fact more intelligent, more adventurous, and more creative than others. And only a machine gun can change that.

Which is why we have this topic:

As I keep saying, there is no better poetic justice than using modern weapons against the civilization which invented them.

Whites who are of Indo-European stock are also endowed with unique characteristics, which demoralized and subdued Whites who think of themselves as the scum of the earth, should consider before depreciating themselves and bowing down to diversity traitors and Third-World invaders. Intellectual Giants such as Max Weber, Friedrich Nietzsche, G.W. F Hegel, and several others such as Spengler, notes Dr. Duchesne, had only good things to say about

     the strikingly vibrant European culture driven by a personality overflowing with expansive impulses, the ‘intellectual will for power,’ ‘fighting,’ ‘progressing,’ ‘overcoming of resistance,’ ‘battling against what is near, tangible and easy.’

Of course they had only good things to say about it. They themselves were Westerners!

Dr. Duchesne cites Spengler who writes of how “the Nordic climate forged this man full of vitality, through the hardness of the conditions of life, the cold, the constant adversity, into a tough race, with an intellect sharpened to the most extreme degree with the cold fervor of an irrepressible passion for struggling, daring, driving forward.”

Which is why we have this topic:

We do not deny the fact that cold habitats exert different selective pressures; we merely disagree on which selective pressures we prefer!

Do you have any idea what these people from the Caucasian steppes, riding on horse-pulled wagons and brandishing double-edged axes ended-up accomplishing once they started dispersing all over Europe and mixing with the Nordic Hunter-Gatherers?




I reached this conclusion years before you lot did!

Why would anybody want to demean, dispossess, and destroy us except to take our place because they are not gifted enough to compete with us fairly?

Because we in the first place never wanted to compete in making life far more violent and complicated than it ever should have been, yet have been forced to compete in order to not let you hold all the economic/military power that results from taking a lead in machinism etc.! Ending the competition requires first destroying those who started it without anyone else's consent.

They need to lie, intimidate, and even kill to beat us at our game. It must be enormously frustrating for them to realize how mediocre and useless they really are.

What is enormously frustrating for us is that we (who hate the game) have to beat you (who love the game) before we can stop playing. If only you had never existed, we could have sent our time and energy more meaningfully.

Bonus exhibit:

Whites created all the most profound words:

Natural Law
Transcendental Ego
Will To Power
Free Will
Pure I
A Priori
Transcendental Unity of Apperception

along with Duchesne's Twitter account header photo:

The worst part is not that our enemies like this stuff (though this is already bad enough), but that they genuinely think we envy them for this stuff.....
Posted by: guest30
« on: August 13, 2022, 09:33:18 am »

And why does the music go on for so long in the first place?

Do you all want to know the most simple song which created from Europe, with the simplest lyric tone? Have you ever hear "Horst Wessel Lied"? The song emphasize on how we sing rather than how we play the musical tone. Short music, more simple to play...

So, I doubt that "Horst Wessel Lied" song is using Western music's characteristics
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 12, 2022, 11:50:41 pm »


But never mind:

Classical Period

The eighteenth century Enlightenment is often celebrated for giving birth to a cosmopolitan age in which the West embraced “universal values” for humanity’s well being against age-old customs and beliefs limited by ethno-national boundaries. Kant’s famous essay, “Toward Perpetual Peace” (1795), is now seen in academia as a “project” for the transformation of millions of immigrants into “world citizens” of the West with the same “universal” rights. It does not matter that Kant was calling for a federation of republican states coexisting with each other in a state of “hospitality” rather than in a state of open borders.

This “Enlightenment project” has prompted many dissidents to reject the very notion of cosmopolitanism. Yet cosmopolitanism is an inherent product of the European pursuit of the highest in human nature, the ars perfecta. European national elites have always borrowed from each other even as they developed musical styles and philosophical outlooks with national characteristics. Bach is very German in a way that Vivaldi is not — though he absorbed into his works all the genres, styles, and forms of European music in his time and before. Ars Perfecta should not be confused with the pursuit of one uniform model arrived at some point in history and then fixated into a state of unoriginal repetition thereafter. Ars Perfecta allows for national authenticity of performance, intention, sound, and personal interpretation. Authentic works can be deeply rooted in a nation’s history and personality.

When we read the German flutist J.J. Quantz writing in 1752 that the ideal musical style would be “a style blending the good elements” of “different peoples”, “more universal” rather than the style of a “particular nation” — we should interpret this as an expression of the reality that the language of classical music, which is singular to the “different peoples” of Europe (and should not be confused with a people’s musical folklore) was cosmopolitan from its beginnings. This is evident in the European preoccupation with a universal theory of harmonics, the nature of scale systems, pitch, and melodic composition. It is evident in the way Europeans went about, earnestly during and after the Baroque era, creating the most perfect instruments to achieve a maximum of musical flexibility between strong and soft, crescendo and decrescendo, with almost imperceptible shades: perfect violins, violas, violoncellos, flutes, oboes, bassoons, horns, pianos. This strive for perfection was required to express and arouse all the shadings of human feeling as Europeans dug deeper into their interior selves to manifest in full their joys, afflictions, grandeur, rage, compassion, contemplation, and exaltation.

To be sure, the peoples of the world are “gifted with conscious rhythm”. Man “cannot refrain from rhythmic movement, from dancing, stamping the ground, clapping his hands, slapping his abdomen, his chest, his legs, his buttocks”. This rhythmic disposition, it is true, prompted all peoples to create musical instruments. Primitives developed a variety of simple instruments, drums, flutes, trumpets, xylophones, harps. These were “folk and ritual instruments”, but with the rise of civilizations in the Near East, India, and the Far East, we see a distinct class of musicians developing instruments with greater musicality and flexible intonation, enhancing the artistic expression of sounds. We see a greater variety of stringed instruments, new lutes and violins in Mesopotamia; and in Egypt vertical flutes with greater musical possibilities than the whistle flutes; and the complex double clarinet. Among Asiatic peoples, we see vertical and angular harps, lyres, lutes, oboes, trumpets. Instruments in ancient China include the mouth organ, pan pipes, percussion instruments, long zither; and in the medieval Far East we find the fiddle bow, flat lutes, resting bell, hooked trumpet. The gamakas are said to be the “life and soul” of Indian melody; the vina and the fiddle sarinda with its fantastic shape are found in India.

But in the West, with the rise of civilization in the Greek peninsula, we see both musical instruments and treatises on harmonics. It is really during the Renaissance that the West starts to outpace the rest of the world in the creation of more sophisticated and original musical instruments, including a tabella universalis, a classification of all wind and stringed instruments in all their sizes and kinds, as well as numerous scientific manuals on how to play them “according to the correct tablature”. By 1600, the level of sophistication and variety in kinds of European instruments is the highest; and then between 1750 and 1900 the quantity of timbres “increased astonishingly”, along with the quality of the sound of each instrument; for example, the harp was made chromatic after being strictly diatonic for 5000 years; and under the pressure of orchestration all instruments were developed to the “greatest possible technical efficiency”. The magnificent piano was invented and improved upon continuously.

It can be argued that with modern individualism, that is, the complete breaking out of individuals from kinship groups and norms, European music witnessed an intensification in the expression of personalities through music, leading to more sophisticated, refined, and specialized musical instruments — in order to express the wider range of personal feelings and experiences afforded by a liberal culture. This culture propelled modern Europeans to breach the medieval limits of the traditional order of consonance and dissonance, of regular and equable rhythmic flow, to improvise chromaticism, tonalities, and create many styles of monody, recitative, aria, madrigal, and the integration of theater and music for dramatic expression. It can’t be denied that modern Europeans did in fact originate a far greater variety of genres and instruments capable of bringing out the complex emotional and psychological constitutions of Europeans into the light.

The cosmopolitanism of Europeans in their striving for novels ways of achieving perfection has misled historians into think that the language of music expressed in Monteverdi, Scarletti, Bach, Rameau, Brahms was “global” and not limited by civilizational and national boundaries. While they acknowledge that each of these composers absorbed into his music their national traditions, they insist upon the “internationalism” of the music of the Classical era, believing that with Handel, Haydn, Mozart…we have “international composers”. Handel (1685-1759), they tell us, borrowed, transcribed, adapted and rearranged universally accepted practices in music, a German who became a naturalized British. They hail Christopher Gluck (1714-84) as a “cosmopolite” who professed a new style of opera away from the particular embellishments and ornateness of Baroque opera towards the Classical (universal) ideals of purity and balance.  They cite Gluck’s own words about how he created “music suited to all nations, so as to abolish these ridiculous distinctions of national styles”. Mozart (1756-1791), they insist, was a cosmopolite who travelled extensively throughout Europe, becoming familiar with every kind of music written and heard, his work “a synthesis of national styles, a mirror that reflected the music of a whole age, illuminated by his own genius“. While Haydn (1732-1809) was localized in Vienna, they tell us that his music was an outgrowth of an increasingly cosmopolitan Europe.

What this “cosmopolitan” interpretation misses is that classical music, in its origins and development, was 100% circumscribed to the continent of Europe; it had no connection with and no resonance outside Europe. When composers like Bach and Mozart absorbed all the genres, styles, and forms of music of their age, they were striving to express the highest potentialities in European music, rather than express “international music”, as we understand that term today. Handel said that when he composed his Messiah he was guided by the perfect hand of God, driven by a state of pure spirituality, in tears, ignoring food and sleep. It was a common belief among European philosophers that God is the all-perfect being embodying the perfections of all beings within itself. Schelling (1775–1854) then suggested that the perfection of God existed only in potentia, and that it was only through the human striving for the highest that God actualized itself.

And why does the music go on for so long in the first place? (Answer: for the same reason Duchesne's article goes on for so long.)

Conservatives often lament the restless striving of Europeans. They wish the West had been collectivist like China or the Incas, without a linear conception of time, attached to a golden eternal age in the past, without seeking to overcome the resistance of things, without disruptive individualists full of energy and fire trying to impose their subjective wills upon the world. They dislike Beethoven. They prefer the continuous tonic dominant harmonies of the eighteenth century, even before Bach. Beethoven is seen as an admirer of France’s 1789 revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity; the composer of the Eroica symphony dedicated to Napoleon, the conqueror who is blamed for ending Europe’s monarchical order. Such has been the nature of European creativity.

Beethoven’s music was an expression of his propulsive inner state of being, for whom the elegant, highly refined sense of Mozart was not enough; he needed to bend classic rules with unexpected metrical patterns to convey his sense of conflict, transformation, and transcendence of his age. Eroica was very Western in its expression of the ideal of heroic greatness, which he saw in Napoleon, built into this civilization since prehistorical Indo-European times. With Beethoven, expression of inner feeling became more intense and personal, for European individuality had reached a higher level of inwardness. His Sixth Symphony, Pastoral, is about his feelings aroused by delight in nature, apprehension of a storm approaching, awareness of the fury of the storm, and gratitude for the washed calm afterwards. He was drawn into his silent world of increasing deafness and solipsism, as he continued to compose. The great Romantic composer, Hector Berlioz, said that in the Sixth “the most unexplored depths of the soul reverberate”. Beethoven, a corporeal man who had a habit of spitting whenever he felt like, a clumsy guy who could never dance, sullen and suspicious, without social graces, prone to rages, was nevertheless a man of immense inner strength, who once told a friend: “I don’t want to know anything about your system of ethics. Strength is the morality of the man who stands out from the rest and it is mine”.

Which is worse: Duchesne's article itself or the accompanying examples?

Romantic Epoch

Only Western history is characterized by a continuous sequence of discontinuous revolutionary epochs. New epochs tend to be morphologically present across many fields from politics to science to painting and architecture, philosophy and music — although each field sees movements and schools peculiar to itself. The Romantic period in music runs roughly from 1830 to 1900; however, the variety of compositions is outstanding, with many characteristics of the preceding “Classical” period persisting, and new “Nationalistic” tendencies coalescing with it, along with new “Impressionistic” tendencies.

This makes the West incredibly hard to understand. The word “Hindu” or “Talmudic” can define a people for centuries. Not the West. “Romanticism” alone is very difficult to grasp. In literature, it spans a shorter period from 1790 to 1850, displaced by “Realism”, which does not appear in music. The different names associated with this movement bespeak of its intricacy: Joseph de Maistre, Rousseau, Stendhal, Goethe’s “The Sorrows of Young Werther”, Chateaubriand, Coleridge, Blake, Herder, Byron, Wordsworth, Delacroix, Wuthering Heights, Hölderlin, Novalis, Schlegel. In music one can choose Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Weber — but Verdi, possibly Wagner, and the Russian Mussorgsky are best identified as Nationalists. Brahms had little respect for most composers of his era, remaining a Classicist.

Perhaps the best composer to convey the meaning of Romanticism in music is Hector Berlioz (1803-69). It is said that “after him, music would never be the same…he did it all by himself, impatiently brushing aside convention”. He departed from the convention of “four-squareness” in melody, the rigidity of rhythms, and formulaic harmonies, expressing his moods and attitudes to the world. Experts say that Berlioz broadened the definition of orchestration by allowing each instrument to create sounds not heard before. He also expanded the use of programmatic music to accentuate the emotional expressiveness of the music by recreating in sound the events and emotions portrayed in ancient classical legends, novels, poetry, and historical events. He was a deep admirer of Western history and literature: Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare. and Byron.

What experts leave out is that the “intensity and expression of feeling” (to use the words of Liszt) in Romantic music was itself an expression of the amplification of the introspective consciousness of Europeans after 1750s. Whereas expression of feelings in the Baroque era had been confined to a few moods, each at a time, now music sought to express the complex shadings of human moods in the same breath. To express this subjectivism, this period saw the development to the greatest technical efficiency and musical effectiveness of all instruments, with the piano reshaped and enlarged to 7 octaves with felt-covered hammers for both expressiveness and virtuosity. In the Romantic age, a need emerged for instruments that would go beyond the expression of a few general moods at a time, to make use of all possible timbres so as to to express all the shadings of feelings, modulating from chord to chord — for Romantic Europeans, rather than being in one emotional state, anger or fear, until moved by some stimulus to a different state, were in a constant state of psychological flux, with unpredictable turns.

Both Duchesne and the composers he posts are Westerners. And that explains why both the article and the music are tediously bad in the same way. And worst of all, neither are aware of this at all, instead each having an extremely high opinion of himself.

Evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the intense subjective expressiveness of modern Europeans, the virtuosity and continuous creativity one detects from Bach to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and from the Classical composers to Schubert, the German Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, and Wagner. The transcendence of European high culture over evolutionary pressures is one of its defining features. It is very hard for simpler cultures to rise above these pressures, and so they are easier to explain in evolutionary terms. Schopenhauer once said that classical music “is entirely independent of the phenomenal world , ignores it altogether, could to a certain extent exist if there was no world at all”. What he meant is that the history of European music does not obey evolutionary pressures but is an immaterial realm of freedom where pure aesthetics reigns supreme. This transcendence peaked in the Romantic era.

Evolutionary psychologists today believe they can instruct us about the “biological basis of human culture”. But they can only explain culture at its most basic level. They can only tell us, rather boringly, that music is a “cultural universal”. They can’t explain the difference between Beethoven and Berlioz, and between them and traditional folk music. For this reason, evolutionary theories are inclined to ignore, if not trivialize, high cultural achievements in philosophy, art, and literature. Steven Pinker once said that “the value of [European] art is largely unrelated to aesthetics: a priceless masterpiece becomes worthless if found to be a forgery; soup cans and comic strips become high art when the art world says they are, and then command conspicuously wasteful prices.” They see high culture as “gratuitous but harmless decoration” without much import as contrasted to what Marx called the real foundation of culture: eating, digestion, getting money, satisfying one’s appetitive drives.

The way to explain European cultural creativity is to recognize its greater freedom from evolutionary/materialistic pressures. European consciousness acquired the power to turn in upon itself, take possession of itself, not merely to be conscious but to be aware that its consciousness is uniquely its own, constituted as a centre from which all other realities, the successive data of sensory experiences, the pressures of the world, are held together in what Kant called a “transcendental unity of apperception,” which implies a unity of self, which implies the discovery of the self as the agent of consciousness, doubling back upon itself, and thus rising to a new realm with its own autonomous inner life.
The rise of Russian classical music certainly came with a very strong nationalist impulse rooted in the use of folk music. Of the so-called “mighty five” Russian composers who developed a classical tradition, Mussorgsky, is credited with true masterpieces, though all he wanted was to express the soul of Russian people. It has been noted that Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s music, which came a generation after the “mighty five”, contained a peculiarly Russian melody. However, while his early compositions quoted folk songs, his later music has been categorized as “more cosmopolitan,” although Igor Stravinsky insisted that it remained “profoundly Russian”. Antonín Dvořák (1841-1904), a peasant from Bohemia, said that his music expressed his love for his native motherland. But what makes him a “genius” composer rather than a gifted provincial composer, was precisely his ability to absorb folk influences while finding ways to integrate them into the perfectionist-universal-transcendental impulse inherent in classical music. In varying degrees the greats were all rooted in their nations combined with some degree of Pan-Europeanism, the singular tradition of classical music in Europe.


Of course Duchesne's article also includes the mandatory Sinophobia:

The Chinese did not produce a single treatise of music that we can identify as theoretical on matters related to pitch, notes, intervals, scale systems, tonality, modulation, and melody. Britannica says that “the official Song shi (1345; “Song [Dynasty] History”) contained 496 chapters, of which 17 deal directly with music, and musical events and people appear throughout the entire work.” They also wrote manuals on how to play some instruments.  However, these were descriptive works. This article does not mention one single Chinese composer. After all, China did not produce any classical music.

Now, having finally made it to the end, reward yourself by listening to this example which I posted previously:


Because a random video game BGM is better than everything in Western classical music combined.....
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 12, 2022, 11:49:09 pm »

Duchesne at it again:

Various theories have been offered on the origins and role of music: i) it evolved as an elaborate form of sexual selection, primarily to seduce potential mates, ii) as a “shared precursor” of language, iii) as a practical means to assist in organizing and motivating human work, iv) as a means to enhance communication with supernatural phenomena, v) to encourage cooperation within one’s community, vi) as a pleasant preoccupation or source of amusement, relaxation and recuperation, vi) to express one’s cultural identity and feel united with one’s culture through social celebrations such as weddings, funerals, religious processions and ceremonial rites.

These explanations have a major, disquieting flaw: they can’t explain why Europeans were continuously creative in music for many centuries, responsible for the highest, most complex form of music, classical music, along with the invention of the most sophisticated musical instruments, the articulation of all the treatises on music on matters related to pitch, notes, intervals, scale systems, tonality, modulation, and melody. Classical music expresses the best that man as man has achieved in music.

Most complex? Yes. Highest/best? No. Complexity =/= quality (except to Westerners).

All the greatest composers in history were European.

According to whose judgement? Westerners'?

With the invention of the Ars Nova we can start identifying great individual composers, beginning with the Frenchman Guillaume de Machaut (1300-77), who adapted secular poetic forms into polyphonic music, not only the motet, which is based on a sacred text, but also secular song forms, such as the lai or short tales in French literature, and the formes fixes, such as the rondeau, virelai and ballade, into the musical mainstream. Francesco Landini (1325-1397) was the foremost musician of the Trecento style, sometimes called the “Italian ars nova,” and for his virtuosity on the portative organ and his compositions in the ballata form. Writers noted that “the sweetness of his melodies was such that hearts burst from their bosoms.” He may have been the first composer to think of his music as a striving for perfection, writing: “I am Music, and weeping I regret seeing intelligent people forsaking my sweet and perfect sounds for street music.”

Maybe the street music sounded better?

The English would produce their own great composers, most notably John Dunstaple (1390-1453), who developed a style, la contenance angloise, which was never heard before in music, using full triadic harmony, along with harmonies with thirds and sixths. This time also witnessed the Burgundian School of the 1400s, associated with a more rational control of consonance and dissonance, of which the composer and musical theorist Guillaume Dufay (1397-1474) was a member, known for his masses, motets, magnificats, hymns, and antiphons within the area of sacred music, as well as secular music following the formes fixe. This School originated in the “cosmopolitan atmosphere” of the Burgundian court, which was very prestigious in this period, influencing musical centers across Europe.

Creating a bridge beyond the Middle Ages, the Burgundian School paved the way for the Renaissance, which saw a rebirth of interest in the treatises of the Greek past. Franchino Gaffurio’s Theorica musice (1492), Practica musice (1496), and De Harmonia musicorum intrumentorum opu (1518), incorporated Greek ideas brought to the Italy from Byzantium by Greek migrants. These were the most influential treatises of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. There were significant composers during the early Renaissance, particularly Johannes Ockeghem (1420-97), with his Missa prolationum, a “technical tour de force in which every movement is a double mensuration canon” (p. 167).

The most renowned, and possibly the first in the pantheon of “greatest composers”, is named Josquin des Prez 1450/1455-1521), called the “father of musicians”, who made extensive use of “motivic cells”, easily recognizable melodic fragments which passed from voice to voice “in a contrapuntal texture” — a basic organizational principle in music practiced continuously from 1500 until today. This Renaissance figure distinctly aimed to raise music into an “ars perfecta“, that is, “a perfect art to which nothing can be added”. Theorists such as Heinrich Glarean and Gioseffo Zarlino agreed that his style represented perfection. For Martin Luther, Josquin des Prez was “the master of the notes”. The next giant in the pursuit of musical perfection was Adrian Willaert (1490-1562), the inventor of the antiphonal style (which involves two choirs in interaction, often singing alternate musical phrases) and an experimenter in chromaticism and rhythm.

Does Duchesne's example of des Prez's work sound good to you (let alone "perfect")? Would you want to re-listen to it frequently? (More seriously, how twisted would someone have to be in order find such music enjoyable? Now you know what goes on inside a Western mind.)

Striving for Perfection Versus Music Outside Europe

This striving for perfection through a long historical sequence by individuals from different generations, seeking to outdo the accomplishments of the past, points to a fundamental contrast between the models of beauty and achievement in the Western and the non-Western world. The impression one gets from the study of the history of music in such civilizations as ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, or Japan, is that of time standing still in state of accomplished perfection after a sequence of achievements. In the Western world, the history of music is heavily characterized by linear time, continuous novelties, if sometimes slow and interrupted, but always moving, whereas in the East, after some initial achievements, further changes are rare, as if perfection, already achieved, needed to be frozen out in a world of cyclical time.
As the individualism of the West took off with the demolition of kinship ties, the promotion of nuclear monogamous families, the rise of associations and institutions based on legal contracts rather than kinship norms (cities, universities, guilds, monasteries), a historicized linear conception of perfection developed,the idea that perfection lay in the future, rather than in some golden past age, or in some Platonic Form frozen out of time.

I academically agree with this (and thank Duchesne for acknowledging Plato as non-Western). We are here to defend the non-Western conception of beauty. Beauty is above time, not in time. Oneupmanship is not beautiful at all; it is crude and barbaric:

One-upmanship, also called "one-upsmanship",[1] is the art or practice of successively outdoing a competitor.
Viewed seriously, it is a phenomenon of group dynamics that can have significant effects in the management field: for instance, manifesting in office politics.[3]

and that Western classical music has identified oneupmanship with beauty is evidence of its absolute inferiority. I also agree with Duchesne about where oneupmanship (unsurprisingly!) came from:

To understand the European linear conception of perfection, their consistent striving for higher forms, it might be useful to go back to the ancient Greek ideal of arête, a term that originally denoted excellence in the performance of heroic valor by individuated aristocratic Indo-European warriors. In pre-Homeric times, it signified the strength and skill of a warrior. It was his arête that ranked an aristocrat (aristos = “best”) above the commoners; and it was the attainment of heroic excellence that secure respect and honor among aristocratic peers. The word “aristeia” was used in epic stories for the single-handed adventures of the hero in his unceasing strife for superlative achievements over his peers.

(There is of course nothing heroic about oneupmanship either. Heroism is against time, not in time.)

Operas grew out of madrigals, and the madrigal originated from the three-to-four voice frottola (1470–1530); from the unique interest of European composers in poetry (particularly pastoral poems about shepherds), and from the stylistic influence of the French chanson; and from the polyphony of the motet.


There is no space here to list every major composer of “late Renaissance” Italy, England and Germany, but mention should be made of John Dowland’s (1562-1626) lute songs, and the increase in new forms of instrumental music and books about how to play instruments, of which the most influential was Michael Praetorius’s Systematic Treatise of Music (1618), an encyclopedic record of contemporary musical practices, with many illustrations of a wide variety of instruments, harpsichord, trombone, pommer, bass viola — signaling the fact that Europeans would go on to create almost all the best musical instruments in history. The greats of the Reformation period included John Tavern (1490-1545), best-known for his masses based on a popular song called The Western Wynde, and Missa Gloria tibi Trinitas, as well as the composers Christopher Tye, Thomas Tallis (1505-1585) and Robert Whyte (1538-1574). The greatest of them all, Giovanni de Palestrina (1525-94), called the “Prince of Music” and his compositions “the absolute perfection” of church style, composed 105+ masses and 250 motets, 68 offertories, 140 madrigals and 300 motets. He is remembered as a master of contrapuntal ingenuity, for his dynamic flow of music, not rigid or static, for the variety of form and type of his masses, for melody that contain few leaps between notes and for dissonances that are confined to suspensions, passing notes and weak beats.

Again, just listen to the example provided by Duchesne FFS! Is it anywhere near as good as Duchesne describes? Would you want to re-listen to something like this frequently?

Meanwhile, as the rest of the world would not yet see a treatise on music, Girolamo Mei (1519-1594) carried a thorough investigation of every ancient work on music, writing a four book treatise, Concerning Musical Nodes, soon followed by Galileo’s father, Vincenzo Galilei’s Dialogo della musica antica et della moderna (1581), where he used Mei’s ideas to attack vocal counterpoint in Italian madrigal, arguing that delivering the emotional message of poetical texts required only a single melody with appropriate pitches and rhythms rather than several voices simultaneously singing different melodies in different rhythms.


The next epoch is the Baroque between 1600 and 1750. Baroque originally meant bizarre, exaggerated, grotesque, in bad taste, but then it came to mean flamboyant, decorative, bold, juxtaposition of contrasting elements conveying dramatic tension. This period saw instrumental music becoming the equal of vocal music as Europeans learned how to make instruments with far higher expressive capacities, replacing the reserved sound of viols with the powerful and flexible tone of violins, better harpsichords, and originating orchestral music.

It is not easy to demarcate new epochs in Western history for this is a continuously creative civilization in many interacting fields — music, painting, exploration, architecture, science, literature — with different dynamics and therefore different yet mutually influential cultural motifs and reorientations. Some figures are considered “transitional” figures. Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) is such a transitional musician between the late Renaissance (since there was no Reformation in Italy) and the Baroque. The originality of Western cultural figures, moreover, never came out of the blue but obtained its vitality from its rootedness in the European past, reinterpreting and readapting ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval Christian themes.

Monteverdi’s famous opera L’Orfeo (1607), for example, drew from the Orpheus of Greek mythology (as transmitted by Ovid and Virgil). Monteverdi’s L’Arianna was based on the Greek Ariadne myth. Orpheus, in Monteverdi’s adaptation, was a musician and renowned poet who descended into the Underworld of Hades to recover his lost wife Eurydice. Orpheus is allowed to go to his wife so long as he does not look at her, but overcome with his love, he breaks the law of the underworld, and looks at her, and loses her forever. Orpheus is a god-like figure in this heroic rescue mission, who experiences intense emotions in rapid succession, bravery, euphoria, and despondency. This adaptation was mediated by the personal experiences of Monteverdi, his  intense grief and despair at the loss of his wife combined with his chronic headaches and deteriorating eye sight. The cultural influence of Rome is evident in his trilogy, the operas Il ritorno d’Ulisse in patria (1640), L’incoronazione di Poppea, and Le nozze d’Enea con Lavinia, inspired by a historical trajectory that moves through Troy, the birth of Rome to its decline, and forward to the foundation and glory of the Venetian Republic. Republican rule by proud aristocrats unwilling to submit to a despotic ruler is unique to the West, inspiring the American “res-publica”. In the 1600s there were 19 Orphean opera versions, and countless operas based on other mythologies about Venus, Adonis, Apollo, Daphne, Hercules, Narcissus.

Again, just listen to it and realize how perverted Westerners have to be to like this stuff! I'm not the one choosing these examples (so it's not me deliberately choosing bad examples); Duchesne chose them all himself!

The invention of the Italian madrigal found its highest expression in Monteverdi, whose first five books of madrigals between 1587 and 1605 are estimated as monuments in the history of polyphonic madrigal. What made Monteverdi stand out among many other luminaries of his age, Henrich Isaac, Orlando di Lass, was the way he established in his opera a complete unity between drama and music for the first time in history, a repertoire of textures and techniques “without parallels”. While Italian opera was flourishing in every corner of Europe except France, France would soon build up its own opera tradition through the emergence of French tragedy in the grand literary works of Corneille (1606-1684) and Jean Racine (1639-1699). To these dramatic works, opera added music, dance and spectacle, beginning with Italian born Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632-1687), the national director of French music as a member of Louis XIV’s orchestra.

Is anyone here downloading any of these Duchesne examples of Western classical music? I am not. Did anyone even consider downloading them? Neither did I. Why not? Because they suck, that's why.

This was merely the beginnings of the Baroque achievement. The composers of this period constitute a veritable who’s who list. Arcangelo Corelli (1653–1713) was the first to create basic violin technique on the newly invented violin; Domenico Scarlatti (1685–1757) wrote 555 harpsichord sonatas and made use of Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish dance rhythms; Henry Purcell (1659–1695), recognized as one of the greatest English composers, is still admired for his “daring expressiveness—not grand and exuberant in the manner of Handel, but tinged with melancholy and a mixture of elegance, oddness, and wistfulness.” There is also Jean Philippe Rameau (1683–1764), known for his bold melodic lines and harmonies, and tragédie lyrique opera, and for his Treatise on Harmony (1722), which sought to establish a “science” of music, in this age of Newtonian principles, deriving the principles of harmony from the laws of acoustics, and argued that the chord (a combination of three or more notes that are heard as if sounding simultaneously) was the primal element in music.

Even more to the point, did anyone here actually even manage to sit through the entire video in any of Duchesne's examples? Neither did I. That is how much they suck.

There were also the giants Vivaldi, Handel and Bach. Antonio Vivaldi (1678-1741) wrote over 500 concertos, of which 350 are for solo instrument and strings such as violin, and the others for bassoon, cello, oboe, flute, viola, lute, or mandolin; as well as 46 operas, and invented the ritornello form (recurrent musical section that alternates with different episodes of contrasting material). Georg Handel (1685–1759), sometimes identified as the first “international composer,” though in reality deeply rooted in Europe’s cosmopolitan culture, born in Germany but becoming a naturalized British, wrote for every musical genre, along with instrumental works for full orchestra, with the most significant known as Water Music, six concertos for woodwinds and strings and twelve “Grand Concertos”, and his masterpiece Messiah, judged as “the finest Composition of Musick that was ever heard”.

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) mastered the organ and harpsichord and wrote over 1,000 compositions in nearly every type of musical form, driven by a search for perfection, to create music that would “honor the Most High God” and “produce a well-sounding harmony to the glory of God”. Bach assimilated all the music that had gone before him in his compulsive striving for arête in technique, and what he absorbed he shaped into his own endless variety of musical compositions. His music for the harpsichord and clavichord includes masterpieces in every genre: preludes, fantasies, and toccatas, and other pieces in fugal style, dance suites, as well as sonatas and capriccios, and concertos with orchestra. Bach was a Faustian man with passionate drives, measuring himself against other composers, hard to get along with, father of 20 children. Living in an age of mighty composers, it is said that he surpassed them in his harmonic intensity, the unexpected originality of the sounds, and his forging of new rules for the actualization of harmonic potentials. It is inaccurate to say that perfection is impossible. Europeans achieved it in many art forms, and would continue to do so in music, painting, and architecture through the 1800s.

I actually posted this example here:

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 25, 2022, 09:04:48 pm »

I agree with our enemies:

The astonishing fact remains that near 100% of explorers in History were European; a fact which Ricardo Duchesne elucidates in Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, and in some detail in the Fortnightly Review.
“The Portuguese, under the leadership of Henry the Navigator would go on, in the course of the fifteenth century, to round the southern tip of Africa, impose themselves through the Indian Ocean, and eventually reach Japan in the 1540s.”
The Age Of Discovery continued into the seventeenth century, with such famous names as Columbus, Cortes, Pizarro, Vasco de Gama, Vasco Nunēs de Balboa, John Cabot, Jacques Cartier, Henry Hudson, William Barentz, and Russian explorers Demid Pyanya, Pyotr Beketov, and Kurbat Ivanov.

Let us not forget the explorers of the Victorian Age, when a highly scientific outlook came to be seen as a necessary component of expeditions: David Livingstone, Frank Hatton, George Kennan, E.A Fitzgerald, and Charles Herbert.

This is a severely lacking account, which only goes to show the extent of the exploration undertaken by Europeans. As Ricardo Duchesne has argued, exploration is a highly overlooked activity which, if studied, reveals the soul of Europeans.

In other words, talking them out of the idea of expanding into outer space is impossible. The only way to stop them is to eliminate their bloodlines.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 04, 2022, 02:09:58 pm »

Over here, Zea_mays pointed out the following:

self-aggrandizement is an important part of Western art.

To which I responded:

This is yet another form of space-filling, this time with paintings inside paintings. One way or another, Westerners will try to fill every space they get their hands on.

Now our enemies are using exactly this to promote themselves!


Then again, they literally celebrate Western colonialism too:


The rest of the enemy article is just a repeat of the stuff we have covered in earlier posts in this topic.

Europeans produced the highest achievements in history, including the following (a longer article on Ricardo Duchesne’s achievement lists is available here.

The 5 Greatest Ideas in Science

1. The Atomic Structure of Matter (Physics)
2. The Periodic Law (Chemistry)
3. The Big Bang theory (Astronomy)
4. The Plate Tectonics Theory (Geology)
5. The Theory of Evolution (Biology)

Almost all the Greatest Skyscraper Architects

Frank Lloyd Wright
Louis Sullivan
Daniel Burnham
Raymond Hood
Cass Gilbert
Hugh Ferriss
Le Corbusier
William Van Alen
John Mead
Renzo Piano
Adrian D. Smith
John Burgee
John C. Portman
William Le Baron Jenney

All the Greatest Explorers in History

Balboa 1474
Cabot 1450
Champlain 1567
Cartier 1491
Cook 1728
Stanley 1841
Lewis and Clark
Amundsen 1928
Shackleton 1874
Erikson b.970
Columbus 1451
Magellan 1480
Dias 1451
Da Gama 1460

All the Classical Musical Instruments

French horn
Pipe organ

etc. etc.

How Faustian of them.....
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 02, 2022, 08:49:20 pm »

Duchesne back again:

Fact: 79 percent of the world’s most important inventions, including political institutions, modern technological innovations in medicine, agriculture and industrial technologies, and a moral order based on reason, moral universalism, and the rule of law came from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and/or the United States. These facts are irrefutable, and any attempt to reject them as false is an attempt to rewrite what had been the settled historical record. However, most leftist students view these realities as nothing more than White, self-congratulatory back-patting.

I will trivially refute it right here. Moral universalism views includes concern for non-humans, which Western civilization does not. For example, how many of the innovations in Western medicine which Duchesne is so proud of came about from Western scientists experimenting on non-consenting non-humans? Therefore indeed Duchese is doing nothing more than "white", self-congratulatory back-patting.

Duchesne’s recent book, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, is a continuation of his seminal 2011 book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (reviewed here). In that research and subsequent book Duchesne argued that Western Civilization is responsible for the world’s greatest innovations, technologies, and ideas as a result of not only the West’s ability to create something of intrinsic value from nothing, due, in large part, to the tenets of certain native Western philosophies, but, more importantly, the West’s burn-the-candle-at-both-ends work ethic, never-say-die character, their commitment to rational thinking, their inquisitiveness and willingness to explore.

I agree, except: 1) what was created has negative intrinsic value, in other words, the world was better before any of it was created; 2) "empirical", not "rational".

The opening chapter of Faustian Man is replete with the idea that White, Western men made the greatest leaps in human history—the leaps also Duchesne discussed in Uniqueness.
In Faustian Man, Duchesne incorporates this cyclical view within his theory of the West as a continually advancing civilization, while arguing that if current immigration replacement trends continue, and the White race is utterly marginalized, Western civilization will die out completely.

This is why is it a moral imperative that current immigration replacement trends must continue and "whites" be utterly marginalized. Western civilization absolutely deserves to die out completely and must be made to die out completely at any cost. With that said, I am more pessimistic than Duchesne. I am worried that Western civilization might survive even if "whites" become utterly marginalized. To be safe, Westernized "non-whites" must also be marginalized.

Huntington rightfully proclaimed that “Western values were particular to the West and alien to other cultures” (12). However, Huntington could not come to terms with the idea that the West, like other civilizations, had an ethnic identity.  In other words, while Huntington argued that Western ideas of liberalism, citizenship, and democratization were universal regardless of the West’s ethnic ties to White Europe, Huntington had no problem identifying other civilizations in terms of their ethnic identities, rather than focusing only, as he did for the West, on their “cultural attributes” (12). While the ideas we associate with liberalism are framed in a universalist language, Duchesne argues that we should not ignore the fact that they developed in a civilization with a particular ethnic identity.

What Duchesne ignores is that from the colonial era onwards, Westernization altered the selective pressures for bloodline survival within colonized ethnicities. Thus within those ethnicities can be expected to be many more Western-compatible bloodlines by now than there were prior to the colonial era.

I want to point out something else, however, namely Duchesne's positive use of the term "Faustian" (also used by numerous other rightist propagandists) to describe "whites":

What is the story of Faust?

The erudite Faust is highly successful yet dissatisfied with his life, which leads him to make a pact with the Devil at a crossroads, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. The Faust legend has been the basis for many literary, artistic, cinematic, and musical works that have reinterpreted it through the ages. "Faust" and the adjective "Faustian" imply sacrificing spiritual values for power, knowledge, or material gain.[1]

Yeah, that sounds about accurate. So, in short, our enemies proudly advertize that they are Devil-worshippers. Of course we already knew they were Devil-worshippers based on what Western civilization looks like, but it is nice that they themselves admit it.