Magma

We put a lot of time and effort into the last discussion, and though I'm tempted to copy and paste or review what I said there, I won't.

Seeking proof that he is not a Hitler supporter "you know for sure" seems an odd approach and mindset to me and illustrates a prejudicial outlook (not very open minded). Proof operates as a principle in logic and law, but even if you mean evidence as nothing can be known with absolute certainty, including what I just said, it seems an odd and uncharitable way to go about things to me. If he hasn't discussed it and offered his side to it, maybe it's because it's such a non-issue (not just for him, but for interviewers). If it was important, then it is more likely that he would have been asked about it and spoken up about it to defend his reputation. Such topics in such forums is one way that rumours get spread, and it's problematic because some people are wired to always harbour doubts even if there's a ton of evidence to the contrary and if the allegations are baseless. If I said that Chancellor Martin d'Auberville von Chang II is a pedophile, some people would not only only believe it when I say it, but continue to harbour doubts even when it is shown to be a fabrication or a distortion of events.

While I do believe in scepticism, I am a great believer in principles of charity. Not only do I think that we should attempt to treat others as intelligent, rational creatures and,strive to put their arguments in the strongest form possible, but I also think and that we should attempt to see people, including their motivations, in the best possible light. I like to assume honesty, compassion and general goodness unless there is strong evidence to the contrary (doesn't mean I'm not wary or indeed rather of the misanthropic mindset at some times more than others). I think that too many people are far too judgmental of others. To me just doing this topic is not being charitable to Christian Vander, which might seem rather unChristian (unChristian Vander that is -- haha) and I am disheartened to see this come up again.

I think that he had some fascination with Nazism, and it inspired The Time of Hate era of his Kobaian mythology(as mentioned, the debut with the non-Buddhist swastikas shows a scene of horror, with an eagle's talon swooping over terrified people, which evokes the symbol of the Nazi party. I also think that the Time of Love era of his mythology is post Nazism when Fascism has been dispensed with. One could interpret that in various ways, it could be akin to the Marxist revolution, a dictatorship of the proletariat before such a state was dismantled for a Utopian communist society, so he felt that a Time of Hate was a necessary precursor to a Time of Love, or it could be that he was just presenting an allegorical dystopia, a la 1984, that revolted him, but he presented a happy ending unlike the picture of the future being a boot stamping on a face forever. I would find it strange that Vander would do an over-the-top Hitler impersonation that sounds like parody in "Stoah" if he respected or supported the man.

I have a Persian historian professor friend who has written many books, and he has long been fascinated with Nazism, and there are some things that he likes about the ideals, but he does have a nuanced view. As said, Coltrane is his hero, and I think I quoted Vander's thoughts on him in the last thread. He has performed with black musicians, he loves African American jazz, an ex-wife was Jewish as said. I know nothing of why the marriage ended, but I doubt it was because he sought the extermination of the Jews, or she couldn't stand his going on-and-on about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Without knowing anything about the marriage, or the timeframe, it would be conceivable that a bad marriage led to a fascination with anti-Semitism. People are complicated, and people's perspectives change over time. From what I do know of people saying about him as an older man, at least, is that he is a loving and spiritual man.

This search for evidence seems a strange one to me. Presuming guilt rather than innocence by asking for proof that he never supported Hitler is uncharitable, and not how people into logic and evidence commonly approach such matters. Surely the burden of proof should lie on proving that he was a Hitler supporter (innocent until proven guilty).

I read that old Wikipedia article, now amended said Mortte (anyone can add there), and have read something else on it, but I recall no claims that he supported Hitler, only that he had some Nazi memorabilia, which could have been used as inspiration for his music which, as said, was, in part, inspired by Nazism as wel as by the mythology that they drew on.   He's passionate about his music, and like a method actor, I could imagine him getting into such stuff when he's looking to draw on it for his story. Some actors get so into their work that they try to be like and sound like what they are portraying, which can lead to some social faux pas if they are, say, portraying Adolf Hitler or Vlad the Impaler. If a serious method actor is playing a cannibal and asks to "have you for dinner", be wary about the invitation even if they include an "over" in the sentence.

Normally if I read something negative about someone, I would be sceptical of that and search for evidence to corroborate that and get a fuller view of it rather than search for evidence to prove that what was said is absolutely not true. If you find Vander not disproving it by saying nothing about this in your research, maybe it's because it never really was an issue at all and this is much ado about nothing. I find the Nazi regime both horrifying and fascinating, but I would never support Hitler.   

Insinuations are made about about people all the time, but that doesn't mean they should have to defend that in interviews, or that it is considered an important enough question, as there is some dark cloud that needs enlightening so an interviewer feels the need to ask the question: "Are you ever, or have even been a supporter of Hitler" (to reference the Communist witchhunts of MCCarthyism).

Anyway, listen or don't to Magma. The energy, negative or otherwise, comes from you and says more about you than the music. For some other music that you might enjoy "meditating to", or tripping to as said. I think you might know this already, try Yatha Sidhra's Meditation Mass and Popol Vuh's Hosianna Mantra.    I prefer to focus on my breathing in a quiet place when meditating (practicing mindfulness).

By the way, it is thought that Stella Vander may have posted here in the past, but even if she does check this site now and then, I wouldn't expect a response from here. Perhaps you could email someone through Magma's official site -- methinks that such an approach would be better than casting aspersions on his character again.

I know from some very well informed friends that there is probably at least some truth in the rumors. You need to make up you own mind on this stuff and do so research if it really bothers you. For what is worth his hero, Coltrane, is black, and he was married to someone who is Jewish and had Jewish members of the band. I guess the simplest statement is its complicated. I still listen to their music regularly.

Edited by Nogbad_The_Bad - August 12 2018 at 06:52

Artists don't want to hug the world and plant flowers, they want to make great art. Get over it.

You're not meditating if you're listening to music but that's another story...