Also, one of the fundamental aspects of NS is the concept of Blood and Soil - very typical for bands like Graveland (00s material), Nokturnal Mortum, Drudkh, etc. And also for lots of Pagan bands in general.
"Wolfnacht and Der Sturmer, a lot of material of which fits the bill for RAC rather then "pure" black metal" Wolfnacht and Der Stuermer present excellent black metal sound. As for their lyrics - most of them are about such themes as Aryan mythos, total war, esoteric aspects of NS, and heathen worldview, presented through destructive and chtonic art of black metal.
NSBM emerged as a a term after The Night and The Fog compilation, which loosely defined genre ideology-driven black metal. It is quite a vague term because a lot of bands like Absurd and Bilskirnir aren't "political" in lyrics, but member's political views land them together with Wolfnacht and Der Sturmer, a lot of material of which fits the bill for RAC rather then "pure" black metal. And, of course, we have far-left antifa crazies who label any band as "fascist nazi" as long as it has some connotations to paganism and patriotism. But then again, no genre can be clearly defined.
"nsbm doesnt exist" It DOES exist but there are only very few bands that in reality are NSBM to begin with. About 99.9% of the cases the NSBM tag gets used by people who like to label bands because of their personal convictions, agendas and other reasons that serve their opposing views. Most black metal bands do not agree with the NSBM label as they don't have NS motivations to begin with. Only bands like Der Stürmer, Capricornus, Dark Fury, Selbstmord are those few that have openly spoken that national socialistic worldview comes first before anything else and musical side comes secondary.
"raises the head of mankind to the skies and leads us across the Universe" Heh, Universe aside - let's get back to perishable land that I "worship" so much. Humanity already did it's best to pollute the whole planet for the sake of globalisation and money making:[url=http://www.visiontimes.com/uploads/2015/01/Benxi_Steel_Industries.jpg]air[/url], [url=http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5716532.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Endless-view-of-pollution-in-Bangladesh.jpg]land[/url], [url=http://anvictory.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1365269181_rssrs.jpg]water[/url], and even [url=http://i0.wp.com/www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Space-Debris.jpg]space[/url], and the problem is growing. We have billions of primitive, hungry and totally useless people on Earth. Humanity doesn't know how to hanlde one planet, but you keep talking about space, that we've already started to pollute. Infantile and ephemeral position, nothing more to say.
"the mix of cultures" you're fond of distorting terms, that's expectable. Mix of complementary cultures (traditional european cultures, for example) or races (Baltic and Dinaric, for example) provides nothing wrong, in that case we can talk about mutual enrichment and natural ways. While mixing the non complementary races and cultures gives us nothing but degeneration and a melting pot of grey masses without any identity and uniqueness, and that's just what your multicultural world is about. "simple phenotype" It's obvious that centuries of hard work and struggle for existance means nothing to you, and yes - it's a degeneration.
"I can be proud about my music for example, but never that I was born in Austria" As I said, Protector makes rather mediocre and expected statements. Being proud of your ancestry means to respect, defend and enrich the legacy of your forefathers. Generations of our ancestors built civilisations, conquered territories, created culture, defended bloodline and tradition in numerous wars. National and racial pride is not only a pride of your history, but also a great responsibility - because you must do your best to match. 'Respect, defend, create' - a fundamental principle. It has nothing to do with your primitive "if one has nothing to be proud of - he starts to be proud of his ancestry" leftwing conceptions. Being proud of your ancestry means to preserve the fundamental values and provide their further expansion. Also, I'm sure that Protector is really prrroud of a great amount of muslim immigrants building ghettos and mosques in Europe.
Once again, you're refusing to take a research into consideration just because: 1. People behind it deny leftwing censoprship; 2. They dare to have an unpopular politically incorrect opinion.
"Besides, I proved otherwise" You proved the obvious: some scientific researches are financed by concerned sides.
[url=http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jeff_wall.htm]And lefties are not an exception[/url].
"Predatory periodicals" oh lol, you're not even trying to hide the fact, that you approve an open censorship. And after that you keep talking about impartiality and absence of political engagement. [url=http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Hypocritical-Censorship.jpg]Total hypocrisy under the mask of presentable and reasonable position[/url]. And yeah, I've already got your point, that when science supports your political views - it's an official, respectable and impartial, but if it doesn't coincide with your worldview - it suddenly becomes [url=http://s13.postimg.org/6yxhyn33r/1369542293003.jpg]PSEUDOSCIENCE[/url] and conspiracy theory. Also, it's pretty hilarious that you've started (with boo hoo, wiki-links) with accusing me of looking towards confirmation bias, and now you're searching for "skeptical analysis" to feel less discomfort because of my links. Very demonstrative, I'd say.
All this peer-review hysteria is hilarious. Just try to get it people, we have a pure scientific approach here: someone makes a research, suggesting something that our impartial [url=http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_censorship]liberal censorship[/url] doesn't approve at all. What an average leftie should do, to overcome the discomfort (how dare this conservative retard to exist with his intolerant opinion!)? Right kids, just say the magical form "No peer-review, doesn't count!" and you can continue to live safely in your imaginary world full of equality and rainbow unicorns. You just continue to ingeminate that without passing a politically engaged censorship the research isn't scientifically validated, bringing here, oh lol, "skeptical analysis" full of "you know, I think their arguments are pretty rhetorical" stuff. Now that's what we call SCIENTIFIC nowadays, kids.
At last, how ironic is the fact that you, a critical born of the "multicultural which leads to degradation", descends from — according to scientific scrutiny[¹] — the mix of cultures? You did ignore, as known, but It must be hard to accept, isn’t it? Also, take a look on this multicultural degradation: a crew formed by different folks in International Space Station[²][³]. While segregationists wish to separate the tiny[⁴] and almost insignificant planet and its folks based on simple phenotype to worship the land and all of these medieval superstitions, the modern age and science, based on Illuminist conceptions which states that all men are equal, raises the head of mankind to the skies and leads us across the Universe, towards to colonize the Solar System[⁵][⁶][⁷] and the entire galaxy[⁸].
About irrationalism (nationalism and ethnic pride), I’m going to let Protector speaks for me: “I prefer to be proud about things i did or am responsible for, but I never ever could feel pride for things I could not even decide upon. I can be proud about my music for example, but never that I was born in Austria. […] It seems for me that Nazis have nothing else to be proud of than the coincidence that they were born in their father-land.”
"[...] As for Watson, once again, it's just a typical situation when someone is forced to deny previous "incorrect" statements after a howling campaign of politically correct opponents. Would he deny it without being forced? I really doubt it, because it's a question of politics, not sciense. Freedom of speech? Never heard of it” http://i.imgur.com/pZ6d43r.jpg. “you're openly denying the fact that politics have a strong influence on a climate inside scientific community, for the sake of your own political views.” Of course not, I agreed with you that politicians can pay papers which can “prove” their bias.The result? Medical Hypotheses, Scientific Research and so many others[¹]. “And it's you who don't understand (or pretend so) that in REALITY political bias comes firts, then comes any scientific method etc.” Can you prove it? Besides, I proved otherwise – with the separation of science and technique — and something else[²].
As these articles cited by you doesn't offer a peer review as usual (and are always published by predatory periodicals[¹][²]), I decided to read some skeptical analysis in a few websites about these researches[³]. Moreover, you can call the scientific methodology how you want to, but it won't change the fact that science follows several rules[⁴]. You will not change this simply using argumentum ad hominem on me. Science is a human tool, not an ideology — so it is not my side. So your ignorance about epistemology and scientific methodology has, at all, a cure[⁵].
And by the way, humanity never got scared. Until the very last time it always lived in accordance with it's nature, and what can be more natural that that? Pacifistic ephemeral concepts that lead to degradation? Typical for your multicultural herd that wants to unify everyone in a [url=https://youtu.be/XxSnhLIoPGg]useless worldwide melting pot[/url], but humanity surely can [url=https://youtu.be/CtDRsSx90tU]do better[/url] than that.
Also, I too have a [url=http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.VaA7YFec5uB]gift for you and your multicultural hypocrites[/url]. And yeah, two diffetent types of people, but if you knew the matter of Islam a little bit better, you'd know that the "peaceful type" can easily become the "terrorist type". The problem of uncontrolled immigration and total cultural and racial incompatibility exists, and the invader won't ask you about your opinions and positions - he simply will try to press you, just because you're DIFFERENT from him. Also, what you've predictably labeled as "primitive, fearful, ignorant", I call pride and preservation of heritage, commitment to ethnical diversity, and segregation of initially incompatible cultures.
[url=http://wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunks-the-out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution/]"The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990’s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."[/url] "It has no scientific validity" Because some leftwing adept of total equality said so, lol. I'm pretty sure that to defend the "absolute truth" of your theory you'll start all this bullshit about abscence of political cause, amount of gaps and ignoring once again. While talking about impartiality on the other hand. Ignorance and clamorous impudent hypocrisy - just typical for politically correct lefties.
Also, I really love how you do your best to represent an official theory as the one and only, while labeling all opposite theories with vague terms, using hilarious reasons like all this peer-review (which of course would be done by people supporting the opposite side) thing. And it's you who don't understand (or pretend so) that in REALITY political bias comes firts, then comes any scientific method etc. And your statements are the direct proof of that. You declare your side as the only right one, while all others are just "pseudoscience". Oh that's so scientifical and impartially.
Couldn't care less about Gould since "he spoke out against cultural oppression in all its forms, especially what he saw as the pseudoscience used in the service of racism and sexism". As for Watson, once again, it's just a typical situation when someone is forced to deny previous "incorrect" statements after a howling campaign of politically correct opponents. Would he deny it without being forced? I really doubt it, because it's a question of politics, not sciense. Freedom of speech? Never heard of it.
Fitst of all: you don't need to bring excuses all the time. Once again, I have absolutely no interest in your obsession with terms, also I can see that you're fond of labeling any opposing opinion with vague terms such as "pseudoscience". Looks colourful, especially with wiki-links, but let us get back to reality. You're refusing to take a research into consideration just because: 1. People behind it deny leftwing censoprship; 2. They dare to have an unpopular politically incorrect opinion. Also, "no falsifiability and no skepticism, no political impartiality and a couple of notable fallacies" is just a perfect description of your precious one-sided "official science" that talks about "objectivity" while practicing dictatorship and political censorship. Excuses of different groups apart: you're openly denying the fact that politics have a strong influence on a climate inside scientific community, for the sake of your own political views. Talk more about confirmation bias, lol.
"I'm sure that when reality will meet you one fine day, and a group of precious immigrants will suddenly decide to break your face and rob you because you're too white and not muslim - you'll have some great time talking to them about diversity, putative genetic similarity, bad evil Hitler and nice soviet occupants." There are islamic fundamentalists and muslims, two different types of people. Moreover, it seems, by your xenophobic and racist statement, that you are moved by fear, then behold your description: [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ela3ChTzFcA]primitive, fearful, ignorant and obscurantist.[/url]
"Still the question exists: why should I accept and toletare human beings that are so different from me [phenotypically] biologically, culturally, religious, etc?" You shouldn’t. Here is the reason that you are an antiscience obscurantist.
"Also this. Different genes, different sceletons, different intelligence, different potentials and civilizational achievements - different everything." Well, no. It has no scientific validity. The opinion is full of gaps, the author ignores completely that there is neither isolation enough nor time enough to occurs the differentiation -- which leads to speciation. "[...] that people in general and politicians especially use any methods to achieve necessary result. There is no objective truth in science since it's highly influenced by current politics." You don't know how the scientific methodology works, is visible. But furthermore, congratulations: it was the best description of these "studies" by Medical Hypotheses.
"They've made a concrete research and you just don't want to admit that" Concrete research? Without peer-review? Make me laugh. If you see it as a "concrete research", please go back to the XIV-VI centuries; over there they did valid researches too, with no peer-review and no scientific methodology about shamanism, astrology, spiritual healing, phrenology (etc.). This is modern science, you need to put your paper to criticism, to actual knowledge, to the Scientific Method. "there is no evidence of racial similarity" Of course not, after all the study declares there is no human races according to statistics. It would be more easy say "I didn't read anything".
"Politics have a strong influence on a climate of scientific community, and they're don't hesitate to buy necessary results - that's a fact." I’m happy to see that you recognise this (and [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/ ]this[/url]). "I clearly said that people who considered to be fundamental in genetics made an official statement, which is obviously supported by a scientific research." Maybe you don't know, but Stephen Jay Gould did already refute these false statements on his book [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man]The Mismeasure of Man[/url]. Also, are you James Watson? Because Watson himself has dismissed this statement. Why you won't talk to him? And I almost forgot, I have a gift for you and your aryan supremacy [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892]here[/url].
"I look towards reality." Reality? You look toward confirmation bias[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias]1[/url]]. "Do you deny the existance of political orders, political structures financing specific scientific researches to get the necessary statements and results?" I don't, but you do, right here, on your reference, the Medical Hypotheses: no peer-review (before long, no falsifiability[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability]2[/url]] and no skepticism) no political impartiality and a couple of notable fallacies. It's the definition of pseudoscience[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience]3[/url]]. "Watson's refusal happened because of the great pressure of politically correct scientific community and leftwing politicians." It is almost the same excuse given by other various antiscience/post-modernists groups as creationists, "ufologists", radfeminists, relativists, exoterists and so on. Why I'm not surprised?
Also, I'm sure that when reality will meet you one fine day, and a group of precious immigrants will suddenly decide to break your face and rob you because you're too white and not muslim - you'll have some great time talking to them about diversity, putative genetic similarity, bad evil Hitler and nice soviet occupants.
Calling numerous obvious facts of political censorship a "conspiracy theory" won't save your imaginary world from the fact, that people in general and politicians especially use any methods to achieve necessary result. There is no objective truth in science since it's highly influenced by current politics - this link of yours where science community is trying to prohibit it's independent and undesirable part is a great example. As for butthurt, well I don't lurk on the pages of my ideological opponents showing everyone how UNCOMFORTABLE I feel because they dare to exist - but you do. Still the question exists: why should I accept and toletare human beings that are so different from me biologically, culturally, religious, etc?
Seriously, son, seriously. They've made a concrete research and you just don't want to admit that, reffering to their refusal to use peer-review forced by politically influenced community? "Yeah, you've made some researches but you know what - they does't count because you refuse to agree with our censorship". Lol, that's how little you need nowdays to afford yourself not to notice irritating facts. Just as I stated below - political correctness simply dictates what is allowed and what's not. Same situation with Watson's classic "it's not racist, you got me wrong" excuse.
"refutes your last statements" No, it doesn't - there is no evidence of racial similarity. And one of my links is a more recent study. [url=http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html]Also this[/url]. Different genes, different sceletons, different intelligence, different potentials and civilizational achievements - different everything.
Once again: I'm not fond of specific terms and paper concepts, I look towards reality. Do you deny the existance of political orders, political structures financing specific scientific researches to get the necessary statements and results? Watson's refusal happened because of the great pressure of politically correct scientific community and leftwing politicians. Politics have a strong influence on a climate of scientific community, and they're don't hesitate to buy necessary results - that's a fact. "validate personal authority over scientific evidence" Nothing to do with me. I clearly said that people who considered to be fundamental in genetics made an official statement, which is obviously supported by a scientific research.
"According to genetics (so unpopular in our modern politically correct science) Races DO EXIST" An article published by Medical Hypotheses? The same predatory magazine that does not use peer-review -- and was forced to use it in 2010 by Elsevier and refused (1)? Seriously, son... seriously? There is a great fallacy called argumentum non sequitur on its reasoning and conclusion. To finish with your hilarious and embarrasing situation, there for 2007, James Watson himself did apologise on Independent journal, he said "To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly [...] More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." (2). At last, there is a more recent study that refutes your last statements (3).