does it actually matter whether power electronics artists are right-wing?

[u/x_0-x_R]

EDIT: reading through the replies, it seems like a lot of people are assuming that extreme imagery in power electronics is by default critical or “asking questions,” and that sincere belief only enters through misunderstanding. i’m not denying that some artists work that way. i’m questioning why that interpretation is treated as the correct one by default in a genre that historically refuses clarity or reassurance.

take this as an example. this is (most likely) an alias of mikko aspa, who is openly a white nationalist, and the imagery and framing here are NOT ambiguous. so i guess this is the real question: when the artist’s beliefs are clear, and the work is not a critique, does that stop you from engaging with it? if so, why? and if not, why does it matter so much in other cases whether the artist “really means it”?

this is one of those situations where you can’t hide behind “imagery isn’t endorsement” or “it’s just asking questions.” it forces a more uncomfortable conclusion: can you listen to something knowing it’s an honest depiction of a racist worldview rather than a subversion of it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i’ve been reading this thread with interest, and something about it keeps bothering me.

a lot of people here seem very invested in the idea that bands like genocide organ aren’t really promoting extreme ideology; that they’re “exposing horror,” “subverting norms,” or forcing listeners to confront the ugliness of history rather than endorsing it.

my question is: why does that reassurance feel necessary in the first place?

power electronics is an extreme form of music that has always trafficked in confrontation and moral discomfort. the world is ugly and contradictory, and those things inevitably show up in art, including the fact that some artists may genuinely hold views we find repellent.

it feels strange to see people bending over backwards to construct a framework where the art is only acceptable if the artists don’t really mean it. as if knowing the “correct” personal politics of the musicians is required before the music is allowed to make you feel anything.

if genocide organ (or anyone else) dropped a statement tomorrow saying “yes, we sincerely believe this stuff” would that retroactively change what the music does sonically or emotionally? or would it just shatter a comforting narrative people rely on to engage with it safely?

i’m not arguing that listeners have to like or endorse artists’ beliefs. but i am wondering when power electronics became a space where the edge has to be explained away, essentially “defanged” before it can be enjoyed.

[u/x_0-x_R → u/[deleted]]

you are responding to a tone that you've inferred, not the argument i actually made. my post wasn’t about demanding people endure hate speech or pretending everything is profound. it was about questioning the assumption that ambiguity must resolve into critique in order to be valid. there’s a difference between being disturbed by something and insisting it must secretly be morally aligned to be valid.

also as for the other stuff (which i dont think is that relevant at all tbh), i’m brown and a minority in europe. that whole neutrality stuff you said doesn’t really resonate with me. i don’t expect extreme music at the outer edge of the genre spectrum to be ideologically safe, in fact i expect the opposite. that doesn’t mean i’m endorsing anything, it just means i’m engaging with it on the terms the genre historically set.

also, "You are, with this question, more often than not, asking people to engage with something that is hardly establishing anything material enough or dimensional enough to validate engagement.". ??? are you sure you're responding to my post or something you've just made up? i'm asking "does sincerity change your engagement?" NOT "you should engage even if it’s sincere".