Chuck Berry Admits White, Not Black Influences

[Joe]

So are you going to explain how the music you listen to constitutes 'bad company' (because I am sure you would condemn yourself) and further explain that in the context of Matthew 15:11, as I asked.

As I said the original topic is not hinged on Shakespeare.

[EzraLB]

Yes I was forced to study Shakespeare at school. I don't think much of his plays, if anything his plays would have had influences from the plays of antiquity. Romeo and Juliet, what is positive about that play? Macbeth, a murderer, wonderful. Hamlet, more murder. Julius Caesar, depicting a pagan. Those are a couple that come to mind. I've failed to find anything good so far.

No one in high school has enough education to possibly even begin to understand Shakespeare, and it's a joke that they "force" kids to read it. As I once pointed out to one of my professors in graduate school, it's virtually impossible to comprehend Shakespeare without knowing the Bible and European history--and he agreed. And, no, I didn't "Google" the comparisons of Shakespeare and the KJV--I studied it in graduate school when I was contemplating getting a PhD in, as you say, "trash" pop culture.

None of Shakespeare's plays can be taken at face value--which is exactly what you are doing. No one watching those plays in 1600 would have done so. Shakespeare used old English historical and Classical (pagan) sources to write plays which were to be understood as commentary on contemporary Elizabethan culture and society.

Thus Julius Caesar referred to certain members of the British throne. Coriolanus probably referred to Sir Walter Raleigh. Macbeth is a commentary on James I. In this way, Shakespeare could get away with criticizing, yes, the immorality and hypocrisy of the aristocracy without landing himself in the Tower of London. So, yes, when you read Shakespeare superficially, and dismissively, as you do, it's easy to write him off as trash.

And unlike most brain-dead Judeo-Christians and Puritans, it's clear Shakespeare understood that the British people were direct descendants of Noah. Perhaps if the Puritans had bothered reading Shakespeare instead of burning his plays and rewriting them, they might have learned something.

[wmfinck]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say regarding play writers and the KJV. Even if it was true and no I won't just believe some study you googled because the internet is full of falsehoods and disinformation and spurious studies; so what, Jews can read the original Hebrew yet they will never understand the Scriptures. A degenerate could do the best translation ever yet it would be meaningless to him. I don't think you have your priorities in order. You present certain things and I think so what because the relevance is minimal.

Wow, Nico, I do not even think you are reading what EzraLB has to say. Instead, you are arguing with him like he is some pimply-faced kid in his mother's basement trolling Stormfront.

He is not quoting internet studies alone (as if studies had more or less merit simply because they are posted on the internet). Rather, he referred to his own graduate school study experience (and I know for a fact that he is authentic).

Writers of plays in the modern world are quite often jew scum.

But in Medieval England, education was very expensive and difficult to attain. There were very few literate men in England before the time of Alfred the Great.

To write a Macbeth, or a Pygmalion, in the 16th century was not exactly like churning out pulp novels today.

And just because a writer portrays a murderer does not mean that he is endorsing murder. Just because a writer portrays Julius Caesar does not mean that he is endorsing paganism.

All of those protestations fail. Being Christians, we have to confront and depict the real world, as well as do our best to separate our hearts from it. Coming out of the world does not mean ignoring it and pretending it does not exist.

[wmfinck]

None of Shakespeare's plays can be taken at face value--which is exactly what you are doing. No one watching those plays in 1600 would have done so. Shakespeare used old English historical and Classical (pagan) sources to write plays which were to be understood as commentary on contemporary Elizabethan culture and society.

Thus Julius Caesar referred to certain members of the British throne. Coriolanus probably referred to Sir Walter Raleigh. Macbeth is a commentary on James I. In this way, Shakespeare could get away with criticizing, yes, the immorality and hypocrisy of the aristocracy without landing himself in the Tower of London. So, yes, when you read Shakespeare superficially, and dismissively, as you do, it's easy to write him off as trash.

These literary techniques were used by ancient Greek and Roman poets as well, because if the poets had commented on their rulers directly, they would have suffered greatly for it.

[EzraLB]

When I was in high school in the 1970s--in between rotting my brain and soul with rock 'n roll music and reading Shakespeare--I managed to find the time to study piano, both popular and classical. I would encourage anyone to learn an instrument, no matter what age you are--it's great for the brain.

I did learn to play "Fur Elise" and some of Chopin's Preludes, which were deceptively simple. I bring this up in reference to a point I made earlier--how the jews have subverted classical music and its interpretation. Here I'm posting a performance by Grigory Sokolov of a piece that I learned to play, Chopin's famous "Funeral Prelude" No. 20 in C minor.

The YouTube poster refers to Grigory Sokolov, as the "greatest living pianist". I do not like the way he plays this piece at all, and if you look into Sokolov's background, you will find that many of his influences were jewish, including Anton Rubenstein with whom he feels the closest aesthetic affinity. Is he playing Chopin like a jew? You decide... I doubt an Aryan would play it this way.

[NicoChristian]

Yes I was forced to study Shakespeare at school. I don't think much of his plays, if anything his plays would have had influences from the plays of antiquity. Romeo and Juliet, what is positive about that play? Macbeth, a murderer, wonderful. Hamlet, more murder. Julius Caesar, depicting a pagan. Those are a couple that come to mind. I've failed to find anything good so far.

No one in high school has enough education to possibly even begin to understand Shakespeare, and it's a joke that they "force" kids to read it. As I once pointed out to one of my professors in graduate school, it's virtually impossible to comprehend Shakespeare without knowing the Bible and European history--and he agreed. And, no, I didn't "Google" the comparisons of Shakespeare and the KJV--I studied it in graduate school when I was contemplating getting a PhD in, as you say, "trash" pop culture.

None of Shakespeare's plays can be taken at face value--which is exactly what you are doing. No one watching those plays in 1600 would have done so. Shakespeare used old English historical and Classical (pagan) sources to write plays which were to be understood as commentary on contemporary Elizabethan culture and society.

Thus Julius Caesar referred to certain members of the British throne. Coriolanus probably referred to Sir Walter Raleigh. Macbeth is a commentary on James I. In this way, Shakespeare could get away with criticizing, yes, the immorality and hypocrisy of the aristocracy without landing himself in the Tower of London. So, yes, when you read Shakespeare superficially, and dismissively, as you do, it's easy to write him off as trash.

And unlike most brain-dead Judeo-Christians and Puritans, it's clear Shakespeare understood that the British people were direct descendants of Noah. Perhaps if the Puritans had bothered reading Shakespeare instead of burning his plays and rewriting them, they might have learned something.

You seem surprised by some of my responses as I am equally astonished at your attitudes and defence of things that have had no benefit on our culture. As you refer to Shakespeare being allegorical it still makes little difference to me; actors, plays, cinema are all inhabited and run by the worst kind of people, the dregs of society. You seem to feel driven to defend them as if they are pinnacles of White culture. The fact that Shakespeare is promoted in school makes me wary due to the fact that school programs are written by Jews and liberals. You refer to Puritans as brain-dead, yet they made America and in turn CI.

This discussion started off about rock music and other popular modern music. You also felt compelled to defend this degeneracy to the death. You also write off Judeo-Christian exposes of rock as being paranoid and hypocritical. Just because they're Judeos doesn't mean they're wrong.

Here are the facts; rock has nothing Christian about it, rock does not promote any good values. Regardless you interpret this as being irrelevant and harmless. That's your personal opinion, I on the other hand regard such art as dangerous and a peril to spiritual development. I guess I'm just more traditional.

You seem to think of Shakespeare as great art. Shakespeare was considered a degenerate in his day; he seems tame nowadays because our standards are so low. He associated with actors and the scum of his day, actors are and have always been scum, it goes with the trade. Once again those are the facts; you can interpret them to be harmless even good, your opinion not a fact.

In my opinion classical music is one of the highest achievements of our society. Is all classical music good, no; do I listen to all composers, no. Will I defend bad composers, no. Have Jews infiltrated and corrupted some classical music, unfortunately yes. Regardless it's incomparable to rock.

None of his plays can be taken at face value as you said. To me that's just the ongoing deception of plays, art and films. You can say that about any film or play. To me that's just the confusion of Babylon; similar to the mainstream shows with subliminal messages and hidden evils.

We can sit here and discuss this subject to death; neither of us will prevail because people mix up facts and opinions. Certain things are facts, but then the way people interpret them and think of them is opinion. The reason why I'm disputing studies and things like that is because we live in an age of deception and lies. Nowadays one can search anything on the internet and find a study that 'proves' your point of view. As I posted on another thread a Biblical scholar 'proved' that a Negro tribe are Israelites. I don't understand why you are so defensive of Shakespeare and rock; art that is of no Christian benefit. You're probably the kind of person who thinks that ancient Greek art is good just because it was White.

I don't have time to argue all day with opinions. Some people grew up with worldly degeneracy as I did. I guess many people just can't shed things from their youth. I look back at the past and I don't see anything positive. The eighties and nineties were full of mostly trash. I don't see much better things from the fifties onwards, even the twenties was pretty bad. Just because something is White don't make it alright. I have personally suffered enough spiritual damage from worldly things in my life. I don't see any reason for my family to have the same negative influences. I guess some people are just more liberal and open to worldly art and influences. I'm not; most of the rubbish put out by Jews is to destroy our relationship with Christ. As I said, I can't be bothered anymore to sit here and argue with your opinions. If you want to be immature enough to have the last word then go ahead. I thought that as a movement we're ultra-conservative, but I guess there's always liberal elements in any movement.

[NicoChristian]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say regarding play writers and the KJV. Even if it was true and no I won't just believe some study you googled because the internet is full of falsehoods and disinformation and spurious studies; so what, Jews can read the original Hebrew yet they will never understand the Scriptures. A degenerate could do the best translation ever yet it would be meaningless to him. I don't think you have your priorities in order. You present certain things and I think so what because the relevance is minimal.

Wow, Nico, I do not even think you are reading what EzraLB has to say. Instead, you are arguing with him like he is some pimply-faced kid in his mother's basement trolling Stormfront.

He is not quoting internet studies alone (as if studies had more or less merit simply because they are posted on the internet). Rather, he referred to his own graduate school study experience (and I know for a fact that he is authentic).

Writers of plays in the modern world are quite often jew scum.

But in Medieval England, education was very expensive and difficult to attain. There were very few literate men in England before the time of Alfred the Great.

To write a Macbeth, or a Pygmalion, in the 16th century was not exactly like churning out pulp novels today.

And just because a writer portrays a murderer does not mean that he is endorsing murder. Just because a writer portrays Julius Caesar does not mean that he is endorsing paganism.

All of those protestations fail. Being Christians, we have to confront and depict the real world, as well as do our best to separate our hearts from it. Coming out of the world does not mean ignoring it and pretending it does not exist.

I agree with the above. It still doesn't make rock, Shakespeare, pop or any other garbage written by Whites good for Christians. One point I want to make is that how do you want to appear to your audience. For example I used to see the Aryan Nations; they're CI, but to a wider audience they are an embarrassment. Same with many Klan chapters nowadays. I don't like the idea of having to interpret things; we could sit here and interpret Shakespeare's meanings all day and to no avail. On a personal note at times I have thought that the way you Bill have presented yourself was not good. The language people use is important, swearing is bad and whatever the situation one should think about how they will be perceived. I have myself been guilty of poor presentation and I'm not trying to criticize you because I feel it would be hypocritical. I just wanted to point out that too often we have a I don't care what anybody thinks attitude; but it does matter what people think, to a degree. Anyway as I stated; some people still like things in the world. Some people think things are harmless, even good. That's where disputes may arise. In this kind of cases it may simply be a case of each man to his own and God will decide.

[EzraLB]

Shakespeare was considered a degenerate in his day; he seems tame nowadays because our standards are so low. He associated with actors and the scum of his day, actors are and have always been scum, it goes with the trade. Once again those are the facts.

For someone who claims to want to rid himself of jewish influences, you sure do rely on the standard jewish interpretation of Shakespeare. It's a complete jewish lie, promoted by the likes of the jewish expert on Shakespeare, Samuel Schoenbaum, that Shakespeare was a commoner, an actor, a low-life. Does that make sense to you?

Whoever wrote those plays must have been one of the most learned men in England who had access to vast libraries of books covering the regal Court, law, history, religion, and the classics. There were no pubic libraries in those days, and only the wealthy had any access to any books, including the Bible. The idea that a commoner could have written those plays out of sheer imagination is a fairy tales for jews and their dupes.

Shakespeare was clearly from the aristocracy and had private tutors and attended the finest schools. He was not an actor, nor would he have consorted or socialized with actors. No one from the aristocracy would risk their reputations in doing so. Most likely Shakespeare wrote the plays and then had them passed on to the theater group that would perform them. In fact, even writing poetry was considered beneath the aristocracy. As such, they all used pseudonyms, like Shakespeare, when doing so.

And no, again, Shakespeare was not considered a hack and low-brow. His plays were attended by all echelons of Elizabethan society. His plays were extolled by his contemporaries. By the time of his death, he was already acknowledged as the greatest writer in England's history. Did he have some detractors and scoffers, like yourself? Probably, but so did Beethoven. I'm sorry, but you just simply do not know what you are talking about, and instead of admitting that, you keep piling on one falsehood after another.

The only truth you've said about Shakespeare that is accurate is that you don't like his work. That's fine, but don't try to rationalize your opinion based on falsehoods and historical inaccuracies. If you want to believe the lies of the jews so that you feel good about denigrating the greatest writer in the English language, by all means do so. Is English even your first language? If it's not, there is no way you could possibly understand Shakespeare. You don't like him. Leave it at that.

[Kentucky]

Either way, I agree that Classical music is the highest form of the art, hands down.

Of course, I am prejudiced and would strongly disagree with that opinion being that I am a two dimensional artist and throughout history, painting was the king of art, preceding symphonic compositions. Perhaps music is more pop-ular today than the visual arts, because it is free and pervasive. It is the difference between listening and looking.

To look at art is to see the vision, not of the artist, but of God. How many musicians can say, "it's the music not me"? At least that is my motivation when painting and I know is the same with a plethora of other great art/paintings. If my art doesn't come close to great, I have fallen short. The same cannot be said of music because of its transient nature never being performed the same way; albeit may have its moments. Paint on canvas is irrevocable and stands on its own merits forever.

Painting has taken a back seat to other forms of expression, in my opinion, because the jew knows what is more inspirational to motivate their adversaries, the White race. Great art is no longer found in the mainstream church; one has to go to a museum or art gallery or if they can afford it, buy a piece for themselves, take it home, hang it on the wall and savor endless hours of its execution to reflect on God's Creation.

I can't tell you what it is exactly, but I've been at art shows where people dropped to their knees and started crying (and it's not even in the religious genre lol) out of sheer joy touching their hearts. It proves to me, that our people still have something in their heart to recognize good. I can tell you that jews and niggers don't even get a blip on the aesthetic radar, because they comprehendeth it not. The highest form of art, as you say, is in the eyes of the beholder... er make that ears.

Throughout our history do-gooder Christians have tried to out-do each other in demonstrating their superior piety. They have railed against virtually every aspect of our culture and arts.

So much so, that today we can unequivocally declare that it has come to pass when they shall call good evil and evil good. I wouldn't be so quick however, to condemn Christian history i.e. the last 2000 years, leading our race into the cultural morass and cesspool of "art" (so called) that it is today. Hitler was a pleasant pause on the modernist movement, which was even infecting the "do-gooders" of churchianity. When England purged the jews for 300+ years, it was a glorious age of beautiful art and culture.

Everybody's an art critic, but that doesn't mean it has any affect on our culture per se. When God put His Law into our heart and mind (the New Covenant), it was for His glory. It's like, when the righteous do nothing about the self-righteous, they have no one to blame but themselves and are no longer righteous themselves; they have become accomplices to the corruptions of our culture and art. Don't like something? Boycott it.

Good White Christians with the right spirit should rail against deviant and decadent art forms. And persuade our kin that it is harmful to our happiness and well being. I pray that is what motivates Christian Identity: to eliminate everything that does not bring glory to our Lord and Savior... so that in the end all that is left, is the Kingdom of Heaven. Will there be rock 'n roll in the Kingdom? Everybody here should know the difference between the true Rock of our Salvation and the rock in the back seat of a '57 Chevy. Discern the spirit, ya know.

Mark

[Joe]

This is a Christian forum. I would like a justification from the Bible for your opinion Nico.

It is like I am being shunned ...if my question is elementary it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to correct my error.

I don't have time to argue all day with opinions.

Neither do I, a justification from Scripture would be definitive.

If this question is at the discretion of each man, than you guys can argue all day about nothing and I couldn't care less.

Edit: The debate about Shakespeare is interesting, Ezra is quite knowledgeable. But you cannot hold others to your personal preferences and opinions outside your home. That is why I want to bring it back to Scripture.