"Heavy Metal Satanic Music"-80's Talk Show Segment

From the 1980's talk show The Hot Seat;

KNAC's Thrasher faces off with The Hot Seat's Wally George on the subject of heavy metal music.

Wally really harps on alleged "Satanic messages" and "backward masking".

Part 1

Part 2

Edited by Animal - 20 Jul 2011 at 7:10pm

As an "American" . . .

I know that many of these "Hosts" do these kind of shows to piss people off and get ratings, but . . .
WHERE ARE THEY NOW???
But, they still pissed me off to no end.   We had the PMRC (Pre-Menstrated Rock Critics) and so-called
Christians with ridiculous videos showing "examples" of what Metal does to "Kids" and I was just . . .
ashamed to be associated with these religious "profits" that were basically doing all this to scare the shit
out of Parents so they could contribute more cash in there pockets (Death - Crystal Mountain anyone?).

The world needs to stop saying "Americans", and say "The American Government" or just be more specific.
I look at "Wally's" audience, and its how its always been, Homo-phobic Jocks and R&B/Rap listeners that
probably do more Drugs and "Pot" than the Metalheads, even back then.
But I was amazed at how many Metalheads were actually IN his audience .

The ONLY thing I had a problem with KNAC was that their radio show turned into "Valley of the Dolls",
too much Glamm and Trash-Rock (not "thrash") .

Sorry, that shit pisses me off.  I'm glad Dee Snyder and Frank Zappa, amongst others surprised the US
Senate hearing about OUR music, and were more in-tune with "reality" and what "most" of the music was
all about, and that we are "articulate".

. . . I feel like listening to Gorod now .

I'll try to get over the American thing, sorry to take it soo seriously.

By the way - a Priest/KNAC coincidence:


Edited by MAVIIIVAM - 02 Aug 2011 at 2:09am

Thank you Umur .

And now we have ANOTHER "Nut" wanting a seat in the Whitehouse. Wasting time and money of her
constituents on a crusade banning Porn . . .

Which brings up the ugly question, "What will be considered Pornography by the Christian Right"? Your
naked Baby pictures, Heavy Metal, Nude Statues, Anatomy Drawing Class?
What gets me is, I understand we have "Freedom of Speech" but . . .
Why not Ban, White Supremacists, Radical Religious Organizations, The Klu Klux Klan, Anti-Government
Militia's??? 
Its the PMRC all over again . . .



Ban Porn . . . let people make their own choices and keep us free from stupidity, how the fuck do we let
people like this become politicians?

By the way, "Night Flight" was an AWESOME show here late at night .


Edited by MAVIIIVAM - 02 Aug 2011 at 3:04pm

 

MAVIIIVAM wrote:  And now we have ANOTHER "Nut" wanting a seat in the Whitehouse. Wasting time and money of her constituents on a crusade banning Porn . . .

If you actually read what she signed you would see that is not what it said at all, but that's, like, several pages, far too much effort, someone else might beat you to your sensationalism if you wasted your time doing that!

 

UMUR wrote: "Opposition to any redefinition of Marriage" sounds awfully conservative to my ears. I�m sure that�s another way of saying that gay couples shouldn�t be allowed to marry, which is a viewpoint I�m strongly against. If people love each other they should be allowed to marry whoever they want to as long as both parties agree with the marriage IMO.

EXACTLY!!! (Umur)
1st, thanks Henry, for the subtle tones in accusations that any document is too much to read for folks like me .
(Well, it has nothing to do with Prog, Metal, Pornography and had no pretty pictures . . . so, youre right ).

I also did know about the Documents, but admittedly through News sources from the "Big 3" major
networks and various expose's.

1. There seems to be a Document "Missing", It may be because they are "Re-doing" this document to
make it more conducive to be elected into the Whitehouse to say "What? We never said anything like
that...". . .
Or hey, simply, theres a glitch and it'll be up shortly (i.e. There is a Blank 2nd Page at the Site).
Edit: It appears ALL Pages are shown, see Pdf. I provide on my next Post.

But . . . Wasnt it Markus Bachmans Clinic that, "On (hidden) Camera", a Staff member (at his Clinic) saying
that (paraphrasing) "We are able to change/cure homosexuals...".  Now "Denying" any of this and blaming
it on "Tape Tampering"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNNhVjzRxCE
(Man, you can see how "Sex" is treated in a "TeeHee" manner on all the Vids to the Right ).

2. This "Family Leader Pledge" is full of "so-called Christian" values, when "Values" are something that is
an individuals right - to be what they want to be.
a. I'm a Christian, I dont "understand" what it is to be Gay, only that the folks I knew were friendly people, but
I have no right to "Throw Stones" at anyone that is different to me, especially if they are non-violent and do
no harm to others (and, Heterosexuals can be just as destructive as Homosexuals with un-protective sex).
I had plenty of racism hurled at me (and my Father) when I lived in the South.

b. "She is against gay marriage, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about."
Its funny, you say that Henry, but this Document is full of strange so-called "Facts" that you have to
"Sign" for and adhere to (Slavery, Military Co-mingling, Same sex Parenting and more). . .
What is this for?  Why is it needed?  In other words it may not say anything about "Porn" but its revealing
a lot more other issues these people have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1rpkS4RX6g

c. History has shown, that when something like this is Printed-up, and used in a Political Dialogue:
-To stir up controversy, like an annoying commercial, you'll remember to Vote for _______________
-All the "nuts" will come out of the woodwork to use it as a Tool to yell at you about "Your core values"
and tell you that you are wrong.
-More "[%&*@]s" are born, and more Stones Cast, instead of having civil discussions on the matter,
we will have "Witch Hunts" on whatever stems from these "Christian Values".
This document(s) may say they are "Against any form of Bigotry", but any religious zealot, racist
group or individual, as-we know in our human history, will "Twist Into Form" these views and ideas to their
own gain, to use it as a Pedestal to eradicate what they deem "a cancer" on humanity.
3. Yes, there are paragraphs protecting the obvious, but you dont present a bomb with a tag that says,
"Hi, this is a Bomb to blow up this Building".

Look, I'm not a Radical Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Religious Right/Conservative, or a
"Hippy" . . .
I'm "Me", one individual with core values, ethics and dont wish harm on anyone. But I'll defend the "Right to
choose" till my last breath.
I see alot of wackos on YOUtube, on the streets and News that are "Angry" to the point of madness,and
have no want to have a discussion, only to force their ideas down peoples throat.  Politicians are all the
same, there seems to be no hope for an "Honest Man/Woman" who can show REAL "Hope" without a
Religious Agenda (We can hope that a "Socialistic Agenda" isnt part of the equation either) that
"separates" one person from another . . . This is America, Land of the Free.  We have our share of
problems, but we made them, and we can solve them "together".  We are made of "different" peoples,
thats America.
But when Religion and Political Bias enter the fray, we are screwed.

And I dont like that with this "modern media" we cant talk face to face about this, I dont want to throw
mud at a screen when we probably would talk more civil if we were face to face, all little "jabs" aside.

Henry, I have to ask out of my honest ignorance - WHERE are the News Media getting this
"Ban Porn" business?  If its Media Sensationalism, then I'm sorry I fell into it, but is there
something WE are not reading?

"Porn" is a subject that we can debate about as well, but when someone "may" be out to be rid of it, I see
them taking Pornography (and Christian values) and lobbing other "Controversial Media" into one soup
eventually.  Thats why I make the comparison to the PMRC.  It could happen again.

Okay, here we go . . .


Edited by MAVIIIVAM - 03 Aug 2011 at 7:23pm

 

MAVIIIVAM wrote:  1st, thanks Henry, for the subtle tones in accusations that any document is too much to read for folks like me . (Well, it has nothing to do with Prog, Metal, Pornography and had no pretty pictures . . . so, youre right ).

My contempt was for the people reporting on it. I'm usually too lazy to read primary documents too. ;-)

Henry, I have to ask out of my honest ignorance - WHERE are the News Media getting this "Ban Porn" business?  If its Media Sensationalism, then I'm sorry I fell into it, but is there something WE are not reading? "Porn" is a subject that we can debate about as well, but when someone "may" be out to be rid of it, I see them taking Pornography (and Christian values) and lobbing other "Controversial Media" into one soup eventually.  Thats why I make the comparison to the PMRC.  It could happen again. Okay, here we go . . .

I think it's people being melodramatic to the point of deliberately misrepresenting her or just plain lazy because those kinds of headlines drive hits. Someone somewhere (deliberately or not) misinterpreted that as meaning banning porn and that headline got copied everywhere because if they did actual work that would cut into the time they need to spend finding Youtube videos of cats to play. I have absolutely no confidence in journalists and you shouldn't either. Another good example of this type of reporting is The New York Times in 2007 ran a big headline of THE POPE CLOSES LIMBO. You would think that an august institution like the NYT would be concerned with accuracy, but no, the document that statement is in is very long and boring, so they didn't read it (or worse, deliberately misrepresented it) because it actually said the exact opposite. It was an official statement that, long an unofficial speculation by theologians, Limbo is consonant with Church teachings, and you are free to believe it or not. Or a more recent one: did you hear about that stupid story going around about the IQ scores correlated with browser use? It was total bullshit, even more so than I  thought was obvious from the "study" itself, and nobody bothered to spend 10 minutes checking before it went everywhere. Eh, it looks legit, they have a nice layout and everything, cut-paste stick our byline on it move that copy go go go was amy winehouse secretly engaged before she died, how does kelly osbourne feel about it and how about that girl in australia

Comparing any anti-porn stance she may have to the PMRC would probably be accurate. Constitutionally, there is no way porn could be banned in the US, and technically it's completely infeasible barring a huge internet filtering scheme, which I think would meet heavy resistance in the US even though most people's brains shut off when they hear the words "child porn". Because the PMRC never wanted or tried to get any laws passed that would actually restrict the access of explicit material to adults. And in the end they didn't get anything substantial done, the RIAA voluntarily adopted the parental advisory label to get them to go away, and it means almost nothing to most people these days. The threat is from passing new laws to aid the enforcement of the current ones, and that has nothing to do with Michele.

I'm not here to defend Michele Bachmann's character or any of her other positions because I'm talking to you about the media, so I won't respond to the rest of your post. 


Edited by Henry Plainview - 03 Aug 2011 at 8:46pm