Black Metal, Nihilism, and Heresy

I. Degrees of an Allegory in Black Metal

Black metal, as any art, spans not only the musical, but the ideological as well as some kind of social component. Those who claim its flag range from popular musicians dressing up, to occult panderers playing at magickians, to extremists, to individuals that society would consider degenerates. There are more groups that could be mentioned but that we do not need to mention explicitly. Needless to say, all of these groups have a very different understanding of what black metal is, and what their seminal exponents such as Quorthon intended or what his work represents, or should represent, once it was out of his hands.

Taken at face value, black metal is not only ridiculously exaggerated, grander than life some would say, as is the whole metal genre. An esoteric reading by a spawn of the modern mentality renders all such content as mere entertainment, as he classifies all ideas outside the crudest and most obvious material as ‘not real’. In a typical gesture of progressive superiority, this type places itself the lowest on the ladder of wisdom, a self-deception built on rhetoric. The next level may be those who are affected psychologically by the aura of the music and mythos in a way that inspires or at least moves them beyond the merely emotional. These are the ones that ‘get’ black metal, and who thus see not only form but essence, even if vaguely.

The next level of interpretation belongs to those we’d rather not take too seriously for our own, those who make us question how much we can take ideas into action, those of whom we wish not to think of too fairly lest we realize how thin the walls of our comfortable civilized world. This the general congregation of those who take one side of black metal and adapt their lives and outlook in some manner to the tenets of what they perceive the ideology is. Such an attitude may range from dogmatic religiosity, to simply the extreme, authentic and transcendental individuality that lies at the very core of black metal. In such a case, it is not merely a matter of ideology, but the idea of leaving behind all ideology in lieu of a direct re-discovery of bare reality.

Whatever the case, securely nested at the center of black metal there is one constant, and that is an exhortation to a dangerous living. What this dangerous living implies may be interpreted, if only narrowly before one is led astray by sophistic apologisms. What it should mean, invariably of the degree in which it is accepted, is that the walls of our current comfort should be repeatedly broken down. Whether this is a temerary constant effort or a cyclic return will depend on the characteristics and disposition of each. Black metal is a door with a warning and an invitation to the lonely traveler, “that he may know things shown only to holy men”. Embracing black metal at its deepest and most essential is embracing a modern, and transcendental, heresy.

II. Embracing Heresy

Implicit in the act of learning is the exercise of reading, studying, listening and considering things not because we are already reassured of their validity, but because through their exploration, along with a temporary willingness that leads to true empathy, one may discover things about oneself, about supposed truths, and about declaimed sins, crimes and atrocities. These would not be otherwise visible from within the bubble where a man is trapped in his own time is born and raised were it not for the freedom of will latent in (almost?) every human being.

For the realist, there is no such thing as heresy or sin. There is cause and effect, and a universe of states and possibilities. Everything is considered in that light from beginning to end, and not just while the mental exercise lasts. That is, the effects of an action do not stop at the obvious or the direct, but continue in a, perhaps infinite, series of ripples throughout eternity. Heresy comes as the answer of the hero to the Dark Age, and the shapes it takes as an adversary of the lowly are only that: form. The essence of the heroic never changes, but its form must adapt in order to reflect and respond to the times. Thus, black metal is, too, noble essence in sickening form deriving from decadent and banal rock and roll, from chthonic African beats and torturous screams and unnatural, flow-disrupting electric sounds. The form is putrid, and at its best a renouncement, rejection and aggression against the modern spirit.1

Embracing heresy is also tantamount to the destruction of modern mentality within ourselves. It is a kind of small death. If completed and taken far enough, it is also a burning of bridges. While ‘moral’ crimes are now a murky subject for an increasingly atheistic society with no bases in except for uncontrolled and unconscious group feelings, there are a couple things that are considered true heresies even though they are not called by that name since doing so would be a tacit admittance of a religious stance. To the ‘uninitiated’ mind, their drinking should be, at least at first, sickening, dizzying and confusing. That is, if they are actually taken in. The deeper black metal experience, when taken in to the marrow of the bone, when one lets it invade, pervade and infect so that it rouses fear unattached to ‘reason’, operates as an Ayahuasca drought. With time, its best recordings are as stimulating, inducing and delicious as good wine.

Modernity is most clearly afraid of hard ideologies that looked towards the dissolution of or advancement beyond the hindrances and shortcomings of their time by linking to an imagined heroic past and pushing into the future with an adapted and unhinged response. In short, anything that threatens material comfort, complacency and mediocrity. The first that should be mentioned was National Socialism, a psychotic, drug-addled, and transcendental attempt to create a racialist agrarian utopia from the failures of German industrial capitalism. The second was the austere, bellicose delusion of Islam as an epileptic’s response to a world of decadent merchants and constant internecine tribal conflict in Dark Age Arabia. Both rejected hypocritical cowardice, aiming purposed ruthlessness in failed attempts to carve divined paths attempting to recreate imagined golden paradises through wanton destruction.

III. Nihilism as a Portal

By using the form and appearance as heresies as pathways to reflection instead of rejecting them, closing our eyes and adhering to anything that feels safe or ‘right’, we help make something of the unconscious conscious. Thus bringing it to the fore also means the beginning of the distinction of the real and the illusory. As these things become visible, as emotions are objectified after being evoked, there arises something beyond skepticism. Where skepticism is a constant rejection and doubting in a retreat to a knowable safe space, nihilism is sword that sees all as perception, path and possibility, seeing a transcendental reality that simply is.

Nihilism on its own, and in itself, is also only a tool. Nihilism is rejected by some as ‘self-defeating’, but this does not matter since nihilism is only meant as a doorway and a tool to get rid of constructs, which ultimately include it. The true goal lies beyond it and anything we talk about, and it lies in experience beyond a merely dogmatic judgement. This is not hedonism or liberalism; it retains careful consideration, but it also brings courageous daring. It is dangerous because it provides no safety nets as it cuts down all constructed support and lets the individual fall through an empty metaphysical space.

Taking such an approach also means seeing things through to the end, or remaining in failure and perdition. Such paths do not admit for half measures, one cannot just remain among the remnants of the onslaught. Thence comes construction and discovery, and thus necessitates action: training, studying and isolation.

What is realism? It is the idea that whatever we think must correspond to what is going on in the ultimate reality around us, which manifests in the physical. This means that whatever other dimensions it has, the patterns it creates appear in our physical world. Thoughts are not reality, but if they act like reality, they have a chance to become real.
—Vladimir J. Putin Narrow and Iterating Traditions Evolving Out of Order

1 Good music is defined by the quality of its communicating power, which pertains organization and codification. The part of the form which is being alluded to refers to its sound material aspects, amongst others, and their effects over physical and organic nature in their distortion and sickening aura.

Here is something to accompany your readings, in English or whatever language you see fit:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

75 thoughts on “Black Metal, Nihilism, and Heresy”

  1. S.C. says:

    Hmmm… Really good piece, but it is definitely in need of a bit of grammatical editing just for clarity’s sake. A few areas, though grammatically clear, could use some smoothing out as well, if only to maintain the otherwise quite natural current of the article and really complete the unique, engaging and challenging voice presented (which reads like Daniel’s). Such an article of resonant timbre is deserving of discussion, even if it will only be with myself. I only found one (perhaps irrelevant) element that really got my mind racing with questions, so here are a few…

    Why is learning implicit of reading? I ask, because such a statement presents itself is dogmatic. It is absolutely intrinsic to how most would define higher learning, but does that make it true? At least in such an area as this, could not an illiterate individual set upon this path and discover as much as one who is highly studied? I should say, are they less equipped for such a pursuit? Of course, the illiterate individual could not document their perceptions, experiences and methods but would that strip it of its nobility? Is such a path, in the end, truly for the individual or for the affect the individual ultimately has on others (be it the collective or selectively chosen individuals) and future others? Is it only heroic when it is transmittable?

    What if there were two individuals of equal inherent intelligence and both are equally driven by this same path. But, what if one had a complete absence of exposure to philosophical or metaphysical ideas developed by others, and the other was entirely familiar with all previously developed philosophical and metaphysical ideas. At the end of each their journeys along this path and, respectfully, their lives, how different would their ultimate experiences be? And I mean all nuance and details aside. Could their conclusions, or final thoughts be the same?

    In summation, my final questions: how does the will influence the means, and how does the means influence the will? And does the direction define the path or the path, the direction?


    1. David Rosales says:

      how does the will influence the means?

      A stronger will will probably tend to look towards efficiency or efficacy.
      A weaker will will probably look for the easy way out, self indulge in mediocrity, surrogate activities and provide excuses.

      how does the means influence the will?

      As Plato exposed in The Republic, the kind of system in which individuals develop will have an influence on the kind (and quality?) of character produced. The easy and lazy means will tire and irritate the will that is actually looking for a result. The hard and effective means will defeat the weak will. Apart from talking about weak or strong wills, we can also talk about the potential of a will to grow. Then again, I’m only speculating.

      And does the direction define the path or the path, the direction?

      That’s easy to answer, no? If you wanna get to place A or place B, and A and B are different places, while there may be a concurrence or intersection of paths, but ultimately the whole of the path is going to be different for different destinations.

      PS. The point of “reading or not reading” is inconsequential; you can interpret that whole phrase as absorbing information via all methods possible to the individual.

      1. S.C. says:

        In retrospect, these were bad questions haha… Oh well, it was an attempted jumping off point. But what do you mean by surrogate activities? Are you defining them as distractions?

        1. David Rosales says:

          As explained in the Unabomber Manifesto.
          I strongly recommend it’s reading and pondering.

          1. S.C. says:

            I’ll pursue it.

  2. True Force of Nature says:

    National Socialism was and still is the most dillusional son of modernity. In its search for comfort, security and stupid egalitarianism of the chosen ones it gets rid of anything that could be seem as self-consciousness and forces the conformist, submissive and idolater herd to accept a non-existent superstitious superior aim beyond itself.

    1. S.C. says:

      I’d say it was as much a failure as communism. I think the true failure is modernity.

      1. The great octopus out to destroy everything says:

        Communism failed to become a full reality, it was like an half-summoned demon whose horns are cut by the closing portal (around 1923) and so he becomes infected with a part of what he was supposed to destroy and ultimately transforms into it (1991), trying a full summoning would still be a great idea.
        Fascism was there for good, gave all it got, and anyway it always claimed that what perished deserved it, so fuck it.

        1. S.C. says:

          I think communism’s manifestation was entirely characteristic of how such an idea would occur, when taken beyond the theoretical. How could a large collective possibly govern itself entirely through its constituents? It can’t, of course, because humans are not inherently automatons and they all want different things, so logically someone had to appoint themselves as the parental unit who “knows what’s best for everybody…” It became a self-defeating paradox…

          1. The great octopus out to destroy everything says:

            That´s probably not the best place to enter detailed debates on the succession of political and military events from 1917 to the 30s in Russia and beyond, but the main point of classical marxism was that communism had to be a worldwide thing, not stuck in a half-backward country, even one as big as Russia. So you can only judge the various groups who tried to bring it about (and at this point you must enter details or that´s just uninformed drivel, like forming a definitive opinion on metal purely on what the “metal” bands with the most media exposure do).
            On the other hand each national version of fascism claimed that it would find within the nation itself the strengh to regenerate it, and so can be judged from what we did get.

      2. David Rosales says:


  3. 1349 says:

    So a “hero” is someone who recognizes the necessity of breaking through the dogma and the static system of beliefs and rules that dominates any given time, and does break through even if he’s afraid to do so. Right?
    Is realism equal to heroism?

    1. David Rosales says:

      As I understand these,

      Realism is a way of thinking/em> about things.
      Heroism is a way of going about
      doing things and confronting perceived reality.

  4. You guys just bring the vibrations… so low.

  5. Ooga Booga says:

    *tips fedora*

  6. Vigilance says:

    I think that people who missed out on formative childhood experiences like blowing up mailboxes or jumping fences sneaking into schools to skate on the roof end up as adults adopting these school shooter ideologies based upon emotivism and immoral power politics. Didn’t push enough boundaries as a kid when it was healthy to do so.

    At the end of the day no amount of winded rationalizing will make the video for Immortal – Blashyrk threatening as opposed to funny and ridiculous.

    1. S.C. says:

      Way to trivialize the topic and strip it of any dimension…

      1. Vigilance says:

        You and I both know that none of the author’s here or the commentariat will be the ones donning jackboots in service of the charismatic demagogue. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s trivial inauthentic word-wank, because at the end of the day we all shuffle from jobs we hate to homes in fracturing communities to fuck our wives once a month, god-willing, while spewing loads of bullshit on websites like this because we can and because we just fucking love this music and that’s the culture of it.

        Yes, I’m being charitable and assuming everyone isn’t a shut in autist, except Rainer.

        1. Rainer Weikusat says:

          I have to admit that I neither hate my job nor think I’m living in a ‘fracturing’ community — people have been ranting and raving about “the modern time” since the dawn of time. How this makes me ‘shut in’ I don’t understand :-).

          1. vigilance says:

            Yeah well you know I excluded you from the observation.

        2. Jerry Hauppa says:

          For a site so obsessed with reality, this is one of the only comments I’ve ever seen resembling truth.

          How sad.

          1. S.C. says:

            How sad that philosophy is no longer loved cherished and revered, and now considered unreal, when it once was considered the most real… I guess the cave is cozy.

            1. Jerry Hauppa says:

              There is a maturity in coming to know the futility in all argument, even here. Each click of any “submit comment” button is an exercise in ego-fellating, whether it’s to push a concept of reality or to derail a conversation by knocking the music I make. No matter how “in the right” one feels, people do not have the ability to change someone’s mind or accept the loss of ground in argument themselves, and either way it doesn’t matter because the result is the same and rolls over us regardless. Even if the metal mindset is more aligned with what is inherently substantial and good for society, championing it as an avenue for change is no different than the vegan who thinks his/her diet is going to change the world. None of us are changing anything, which is what Lance was saying.

              1. S.C. says:

                Your comment implies i believe I can, or even wish to change or save society. Such an implication couldn’t be further from the truth, for I couldn’t agree more with this characteristic of maturity. There are impassable boundaries with regards to one’s influence on other people, and particularly society, but the context of my argument is not within society, but within the self, where every boundary can and, for those who will it, should be broken

          2. Great contribution asshole, but... says:

            Ara still sucks.

            1. Varg Overreacts to Big Cat Cock says:

              I’ve never heard of that.

        3. Kvädare says:

          I think that people who missed out on formative childhood experiences like blowing up mailboxes or jumping fences sneaking into schools to skate on the roof end up as adults adopting these school shooter ideologies based upon emotivism and immoral power politics. Didn’t push enough boundaries as a kid when it was healthy to do so.

          You and I both know that none of the author’s here or the commentariat will be the ones donning jackboots in service of the charismatic demagogue. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s trivial inauthentic word-wank, because at the end of the day we all shuffle from jobs we hate to homes in fracturing communities to fuck our wives once a month, god-willing, while spewing loads of bullshit on websites like this

          You are a negative nancy, a party pooper, and a naysayer who tries to drag others down to your level.
          When a burning spirit crosses your path, the light blinds your eyes and you look away, and you dismiss his fire.

          1. S.C. says:

            haha I like the whimsy of your comment. Well said.

          2. Pyromaniac says:

            The only right thing to do in this case is to add more fuel to the fire.

        4. S.C. says:

          Well I’m fairly self aware, not only that but I think someone near to me would’ve broken the news, if I were autistic, but I am rather isolated and antisocial. I also don’t hate my job or the people I work with and have a very loving and passionate relationship with my significant other of over 6 years, yet I still can’t sleep most nights and am addled with anxiety that has been quite difficult identifying the root of. Point being, many individuals will easily defy your blanketed statements, harkening back to my point that you are trivializing the topic.

          As well, I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of this article, or perhaps I have, but according to my own reading, it portrays the collective efforts to reassess morals (i.e. NS and modern fundamentalist Islam, with both being reactions to their current climate) as failures and lauds the efforts of individuals. The efforts of those who see things for themselves and not as anybody else would have them see things.

          If the deconstruction and reconstruction of one’s own reality (philosophy) is not of interest to you then do not concern yourself, but those of us who do concern ourselves do it for its own sake. Its pursuit is its own nourishment. It is not a means to an end and the pursuit is not to reach satisfaction. On the contrary, it is the acceptance and adoration of perpetual dissatisfaction. The art of infinite questioning. The only place to combat the mundane is within your own mind.

          And you are right that I would never be the trooper of any demagogue as I place myself beneath none and would gladly choose death before serving a master.

          1. David Rosales says:

            The idea was to explore heresies such as these from within, even with profound empathy, through their words and eyes and not from the eyes of their enemies. The point of doing so is to defeat the dogma of the world you do live in at the moment. You have already been conditioned to hate them by X set of morals. The point is to defeat THAT set of dogmas above all. After that, everything breaks down because morals and dogma melt, no matter the source.

            Also, it was not modern fundamentalist Islam that was referred to, but Islam as a whole and in its origin as a warrior like religion.

            The meaning was confused by a wrong emphasis given by a second hand in a key point in the article.

            Individuality is important, and it is a major theme in black metal, but this article was about heresy as another of those components of black metal, and the usefulness of its embracing as a de-programming.

            1. S.C. says:

              I suppose I take them hand in hand, Individuality and heresy. Wouldn’t the general goal most of people be to collectivize and develop together? I mean, inherently we are social beings, no? So then wouldn’t the greatest act of heresy be to choose the self over the collective, i.e. individuality? And I appreciate the clarity.

          2. Vigilance says:

            I think it’s funny that you proved my own point to me by challenging the cynical humor it was delivered in. Autistic, no, socially adroit, probs. Second, telling me you’re into philosophy for nothing more than to toy around with doesn’t exactly betray a sense of importance so yeah, trivial.

            Can I expect a substantive rebuttal or are we going to continue dancing, my lovely begotten star?

            1. S.C. says:

              I am happy to continue this interaction. Socially adroit eh? If it seems I am playing then I betray the topic and myself. I am desperately sincere. Perhaps my reactions seemed insubstantial because I was reacting to little substance (rather, it doesn’t seem like you were submitting anything of your own personal values, opting for humor instead). But it seems you actually want to talk now. So…

              First: Your humor was ignored because I wasn’t interested in exchanging jokes. I want to learn something. And within humor (as in lies) there is always a tincture of truth, so I was only hoping to goad you into telling me your whole truth, or rather a more accurately representative (and hopefully thought provoking) part of it.

              Second: If I seem to characterize your comments, then I should re-explain myself. I do not abide by delusion or fantasy or believe that I am of some etherial class/race of masters who will violently conquer humanity to awaken a new golden age. No… I have no interest in, nor do I believe that I ever would save/destroy/change humanity. I only believe in my influence on my own life and the lives of those I surround myself with in my own world (the world that I directly influence). The only way my influence can reach my surroundings is through my mind forcing my body to manifest what is within.
              When I look within I see no boundaries, but when I look without, I am surrounded by boundaries set by others. If I am weak willed then my corporeal influence is limited to that of stronger wills than mine and my mind’s boundaries encroach. But if I am truly strong willed then I am able to allow myself to be as I imagine (through the internal destruction and reconstruction of outer influences) I can be, without regard for how others believe I should be, thus breaking the boundaries I identify around myself and maintaing the total freedom within my mind. I fully accept that life is suffering, but I am not one to be told how to suffer.

              Third: I took it upon myself to defend this article but that was not my place as it certainly doesn’t represent myself in any wholesome way. I only resonate with much of what it (vaguely, to be fair) touches on. The article speaks for itself, and if what it says doesn’t speak to you, then that is that. I only did so because it seemed that you missed the point of what the article was attempting to say (which I misinterpreted to a degree…).

      2. Rainer Weikusat says:

        The practical reality of any mass movement composed mostly of carrierists and opportunists is going to be pretty trivial, no matter how murderous they’re allowed to be. And anything turning into a mass movement will end up being composed mostly of carrierists and opportunists. Insofar the NSDAP had an ideology beyond what made effective PR in the radio age, these were hobby horses of individual members most people smiled about if no one was looking ATM.

        They also didn’t invent power conservation via unbounded state terror, this would have been Robbespierre (for modern times). Just because the idea that whoever controls the state is entitled to use whatever means of barbaric violence he can come up with in order to further this goals is add odds with anything resembling rule of law and what’s usually considered human decency (or ‘nobility of spirit’ if someone prefers high-flying terms) doesn’t mean it’s a spiritual alternative to the middle-class centered industrial society. People have argued that it’s actually just an inevitable phase of it’s development (people mostly being ‘the communists’ but as usual, their ideas are too simplistic and too obviously self-serving).

        1. The great octopus out to destroy everything says:

          Power conservation through unbounded terror (fine title for an album) can be traced back to whatever prehistoric warband leader started to crush skulls upon the slightest signs of disagreement, any tyrant of a large nation from the antiquity can be said to have brough the “state” part into that.
          Robespierre was a moderate (there were people on his left, the Enragés, Madmen) who opposed death penalty (he adhered to Beccaria´s arguments, all he said about the King was that if the crowd had killed him right after his attempted flight-betrayal in 1792 that would have been understandable, but he only called for his destitution).
          His biggest “sin” is that he supported a temporary law that put a maximum on the prices of basic needed goods in a time of economic crisis, which upset speculators.

          1. Robespierre was the one who rationalized mob violence and eventually internalized all the bullshit he was spouting with secret “lists” of suspected traitors to proscribe to the guillotine. He tried to pass the moral blame for the violence he sanctioned to the other members of the Committee for Public Safety. The Bolsheviks loved and erected statues of Robespierre.

            1. The great octopus out to destroy everything says:

              From an advocate of a return to barbarism, of an embrace (even if only at the meditating-philosophical level) of “heresies” like nazism and original Islam, any attempt at blaming a different tradition on grounds of “justifying violence” is null and void, not from a moral outrage but from sheer cold logic.

              1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                The article described both »national socialism« and »warrior islam« as failed attempts. That’s not exactly ’embracing them’. A reply attempted a “layman’s psychoanalysis” at the usual “household bastard Freud” level usually employed to reduce all meaningful communication to idle speculation about other people’s “childhood-related” personality deficiencies. This was rebuked as way to “trivialize the topic”.

                That’s technically accurate, however, real national-socialism was trivial enough on its own. Eg, prior to becoming Hitler’s “PR genius”, Goebbels tried to edge a living out of small-scale egg production together with his wife. Throughout much of the 1920s, the Nazis were the nation’s laughing stock, would-be murderous simpletons incapable of uttering coherent sentences and lead by an unpleasant Austrian with a faible for outbursts of hysterical anger in public, most famous for discharging a pistol at the ceiling of the Feldherrnhalle in Munich during an attempted coup which went nowhere due to the inability of its leaders to come up with an idea how to execute it. Even the people who installed Hitler as chancellor mistakenly believed to be able to control his rabble easily.

                There’s a bit of a darker story behind this, that of the so-called »lost generation« of millions of young men growing up as cannon fodder in the WWI trenches who then ‘returned home’ – with no useful skills beyond slaughtering others in apocalyptic wastelands and the physical and psychical disfigurements resulting from that – into a society controlled by ‘rich’, older people who had no further use for them and didn’t care about their fate. Once let out of its bottle, this anti-genie proved to be unstoppable in its homicidal determination until most of Europe lay in ruins. But there was no utopia, just a collective, extended suicide while creating the greatest possible carnage in the process.

                1. Which made it indistinct from the Leftism around it. This does not end up we get rid of democracy.

                  1. Rainer Weikusat says:

                    As that’s an intelligent remark, I’m going to try to write an intelligent reply.

                    The collapse of the Weimar republic is certainly an exemplary case of a failure of a democratic system. The ultimate outcome of that was a destructing of property/ cultural heritage and lives on a hitherto unknown scale and at an enormous cost. That’s a given. But people who doubt the effectiveness of democratic government usually prefer so-called meritocracies. And these also come with a set of systematic problems (some of which I had the mispleasure to encounter in practice), namely (not an exhaustive list):

                    Incompetent leaders: Whatever method of leader selection is being used, there’s bound to be an incompetent leader at least every now and then. Incompetent leaders are a holy terror and their ought to be some way to get rid of them short of murder. There’s a traditional way for dealing with such a situation and that’s reducing the nominal leader to a symbolic role and create a ‘real leader’ position below him. Sometimes this worked (Frankish kingdom), sometimes it didn’t (Ottoman Empire), sometimes, the nominal ruler managed to wrestle power back from the as-subject-to-incompetence ‘secondary leaders’ (Japan), sometimes, the system just fell over (2nd German empire).

                    Organizational rot: As soon as an organization is large enough to develop a formalized structure and “there’s money in it”, people whose main talent is ‘gaming the system to their own advantage’ will start to infest it. These people do the double damage of reducing the overall competence level and blocking advance of more technically competent others with their superior organization manipulation skills.

                    Hierarchical decrease of competence: Assuming that people raise to the level of their technical competence, lower order leaders will be increasingly less competent. As per Dunning-Kruger effect, that’s not going to be their opinion of it. This will also serve as negative competence filter at the entry level.

                    There’s also a personal aspect: Despite my social deficiencies, I’ve managed to out-maneuvre the existing system (in Germany) to the degree that I’m nowadays living the normal life of someone who works in a regular job and lives in a (rented) place of his own (at the expense of severing any ties with my so-called ‘place of home’). But that’s decidedly not what was going to happen according to the opinion of pretty much everyone who believed to know me prior to about 2003. A system where ‘concerned individuals’ had been able to enforce their whims more efficiently had – at best – forced me to become 100% ‘externally managed’ permanent welfare recipient. For hopefully obvious reasons, that’s not a prospect I had been looking forward to.

    2. bewitched says:

      If only kids pushed boundaries, we would not have black metal, planes, computers, we would not have been in space, etc. Black metal is a way of pushing the mind, soul, spirit beyond its ”normal” settings. Just like meditation, psychadelic drugs, etc. There so much things we don’t know about this universe, about ourselves. Maybe you can say Immortal is ridiculous, but maybe at your death, you will go into that realm so who will be laughing then? Boundaries have there reasons to be, but for my part, it would be a shame not try to break them. If nobody tries that, I’m pretty sure that ”humanity” will die sooner or latter.

      1. Vigilance says:

        The context I made my point within was either lost on you or you ignored it be annoying.

        1. Matt Risnes says:

          Everything you’ve said in this thread is 100% correct. You can’t logically interact with people who bring up Robespierre in a conversation. People live in different realities. Some live in realities where you have children and careers and a home to maintain and mortgage to pay for. To those of us, all this blathering conjecture about the socio-political implications of music made by malcontent 25 year olds is pure nonsense. Especially considering almost without fail, any of them that continue into their 40’s turn into complacent novelty acts touring to make their own mortgage and child support payments.

          Doesn’t make reading the site any less amusing.

  7. Rainer Weikusat says:

    “Rock’n’roll decadence” is something invented in the 1970s as hedonistic banalization of the more esoteric ideas of spiritual renaissance through (hallucinogenic) drugs etc which arose in the second half of the 1960s. After the revolution didn’t come but the would-be revolutionaries started to turn grey instead,
    [I have better bootlegs on CD but they’re not on youtube :-)]

    turned into

    but this has little to do with rock’n’roll which – while rightfully described as banal, at least superficially, is more something like this

    I also have to object to the characterization of ‘black metal as music’: It may appear as described to someone who intuitively assumes the more pleasantly sounding forms of western music as ‘natural’ and deviations from that as ‘insane perversions’ but just a traditional cage around one’s mind which isn’t natural at all: As far as I’m concerned, Richie Blackmore & gang are blue-haired aliens whose music will forever seem unnatural to me. I sympathize with the poor, white working-class lad who can’t take his sweetheart out for a dance because 25 flights of stairs are too much despite all his youthful vigour. He’s more closely related to me but still inherently not-me. But (certain) black metal does really have a 1:1 correspondence with certain aspects of me (or ‘my mind’ or ‘my soul’) and I don’t experience them as »putrid […] a renouncement, rejection and aggression« at all. This is rather more true for what they’re supposed to renounce.

    Nice music.

    1. Rainer Weikusat says:

      … obviously meant to write »Jimmy Page & gang« but I mostly don’t like Deep Purple, either (I have a Rainbow live recording here I listen to maybe every seven years or so …).

      1. canadaspaceman says:

        millenials … ahhhh … probably weened on whatever generic 1980s or 1990s hard rock/metal, instead of starting with the roots of 1950s rock n roll, and discovering the heavy stuff on your own.

        One reason why the “older” metal generation does not relate to today’s “scene”.

        That is why NWN and Dark Descent and other underground labels press records of shitty demos you have ignored for years in your mp3 collection.
        Youngsters have not grown up on the basics to know what is simply rehashed stuff.

        1. Most of the new records and most of the actual musical innovation (not rehashing aesthetics into pop music) praised on Death Metal Underground are made by middle-aged men.

        2. Syphilis says:

          Why would one listen to 50s flavored rock instead of 70s, or 90s flavored rock? Why does it matter when its essentially the same thing?

      2. canadaspaceman says:

        and you are a mentalcase not to realize the brilliance of Jimmy Page and Richie Blackmore.

        1. Rainer Weikusat says:


          Jimmy Page may be brilliant at what he is/ was doing but he never managed to touch anything inside of me like many other good guitar players have. And this poor-men’s Roger Daltrey clone with the mike … “I can’t help about the shape I’m in/ I can’t sing/ I ain’t pretty and my legs are thin” … And “ain’t pretty” is putting this very politely. It makes one wonder if character education by applied violence might not be a good idea after all.

          The varying incarnations of Richie Blackmore are less atrocious but there’s still plenty of annyoing stuff in them. Eg, the second part of the live recording I mentioned is (mostly) a series of long instrumental where the members of the band run through kindergarten-renditions of all “greatest hits of Classic” they remember from their musical training.

          1. Necronomeconomist says:

            Dawg you have entirely too much time on your hands, for all the writing you put on this website.

            1. Rainer Weikusat says:

              You making a wrong assumption about my typing speed.

    2. Svmmoned says:

      “But (certain) black metal does really have a 1:1 correspondence with certain aspects of me (or ‘my mind’ or ‘my soul’) and I don’t experience them as »putrid […] a renouncement, rejection and aggression« at all. This is rather more true for what they’re supposed to renounce.”

      Exactly. But I would say that such correspondence is due to commonality in suprapersonal sphere, not direct link with individual.

      Also, which black metal you had on mind?

      1. Rainer Weikusat says:

        Also, which black metal you had on mind?

        Hmm … that’s a difficult to answer question. In 1991, known space collapsed. This sent me onto a onto a 24 year orbit through the soft underbelly of ‘mainstream [music] culture’, first towards the origins of it and then back into its then-present (allusion to ‘Buck Rogers’ movie intentional). After an odyssee of a few discoveries and much more horrors, especially on the social side, I found myself at the tail end of a particularly nasty culture clash in fall 2015, finally concluding “Fuck! This is all hollow & wrong & I hate it. Let’s start over with the other turn”. Since then, I’ve been on a journey of gradual recovery of what I actually am (as opposed to what I was trying to be) and what I might want to develop into. Quite a bit of the music I accumulated since then represented stations I had to pass by and eventually passed by and the presently ‘active’ set is probably not final, either. I’m also at least half of a death metal.

        That said, the present core set is
        [Mayhem, Live in Leipzig — should have found that in ’91]
        [Antaeus, Condemnation]
        [Human Serpent, Inhuman Minimalism]
        [Norns, Pazuzu — probably need some eastern Baltic connection to get that]

        I’d include Under A Funeral Moon here if I had it.

        “Honorary mentions”:
        [Deitus, Acta Non Verba]

        Whoever hates that is entitled to it. Very nice death metal demo the Hellthrasher guy released on CD (probably again sold out by now):

        1. Necronomeconomist says:

          You need a strong editor. Until the day you get one, my free is advice is… you should’ve cut this part: “Hmm … that’s a difficult to answer question. In 1991, known space collapsed. This sent me onto a onto a 24 year orbit through the soft underbelly of ‘mainstream [music] culture’, first towards the origins of it and then back into its then-present (allusion to ‘Buck Rogers’ movie intentional). After an odyssee of a few discoveries and much more horrors, especially on the social side, I found myself at the tail end of a particularly nasty culture clash in fall 2015, finally concluding “Fuck! This is all hollow & wrong & I hate it. Let’s start over with the other turn”. Since then, I’ve been on a journey of gradual recovery of what I actually am (as opposed to what I was trying to be) and what I might want to develop into. Quite a bit of the music I accumulated since then represented stations I had to pass by and eventually passed by and the presently ‘active’ set is probably not final, either. I’m also at least half of a death metal.

          That said, the present core set is…”

          It was totally irrelevant to other humans reading this thread.

          1. Rainer Weikusat says:

            I considered it necessary background information.There’s a large set of so-called »genre classics« I know nothing of. And this is a highly subjective compilation of (some) things which have a meaning for me right now.
            The latter may change and the former may not applicable to anyone but me.

            1. There’s a large set of so-called »genre classics« I know nothing of.

              It is worth learning a genre from its classics, or those founders who established the major tributaries of its thought. I wish I had done this with more heavy metal back in the day, even if I dislike regular heavy metal, because it is highly informative. Patterns repeat but the interesting thing is what stimulus causes them to repeat, as it changes with shifts in context.

  8. Svmmoned says:

    Shouldn’t there be “exoteric” in second sentence of second paragraph?

    1. David Rosales says:

      That would be correct…

  9. says:

    Theres so much sentimental bullshit and blogposting here.

    I sentence you all to death, through sodomy!

  10. thomasw_ says:

    So if to a realist “there is no such thing as heresy” then how would ’embracing’ that which is unreal be one of the strengths of any musical art that aims to be realist? This conception seems to be an oxymoron. Perhaps it is paradox where the apparent contradiction can be dissolved with a proper explanation? Not sure but would ‘exposing’ instead of ’embracing’ be more accurate?

    1. David Rosales says:

      Heresies are no less real than whatever dogma and propaganda you are already fed as ‘the proper’. Exposing retains distance and the outsider perspective of something as taboo or undesirable. Embracing implies pervading learning that twists points of view, thus actually experiencing a different mindset. You may reject this as a method, however.

      Explanations are nice, and they help signal a way; but understanding words is not the same as understanding, in the deeper sense of the expression, what they are referring to. This latter implies a living, an experiencing, and an actual change of mentality.

    2. David Rosales says:

      P.S. you are getting lost in the wording itself. Too much modern, academic or Internet way of thinking, perhaps.

      1. S.C. says:

        Well we are relying entirely upon wording in order to communicate in this forum so yeah internet would probably be the cause of all these rhetorical misunderstandings. Conversations truly are better held in person.

    3. Rainer Weikusat says:

      In logic, there’s something called “the principle of charity”. This is supposed to mean that – before criticizing a text – one ought to seek to understand it, that is, assume the author meant to make a sensible statement, strive to come up with an interpretation of the text which makes sense and base an eventual critique on that.

      »Heresy« is usually regarded as strongly negative, ‘ignore the taboo and the wrath of the ancestors will come upon us’-style stuff. Considering this, »For the realist, there is no such thing as heresy« obviously means “xyz considered heretical!” is not a reason to avoid xyz. To the contrary, xyz will likely provide commonly unavailable insight because it’s “considered heretical”.

      OTOH, that’s a strong statement I have some troubles believing in: People tend to be cavalier wrt what others consider heretical (the out-moded religious term already suggests a patronizing attitude) but far less open-minded about their own convictions.

      1. David Rosales says:

        That is true. The few individuals with self-honesty as an active goal will try to defeat that too.
        Have you read Brett Stevens’ Nihilism already?

    4. S.C. says:

      The point is to debase everything, then grant it all equal credence in the reconstruction of your reality.

      1. David Rosales says:

        Excellent. Furthermore, theory is only a part.

        1. S.C. says:

          Of course, since reality is not only an internal construct but a union of inner and outer.

      2. Simply and beautifully put, sir.

        To think according to appearance is easy; to think truth regardless of appearances is laborious, and requires the expenditure of more power than any other work man is called upon to perform.

        —Wallace D. Wattles, The Science of Getting Rich

        1. S.C. says:

          Well thank you. I hope to have more thoughtful interactions. It is rare to find people who will even approach these subjects, let alone think about them in a most conducive way. So one must take it from where they can get it! Cheers and thank you for your thought provocation…

      3. Rainer Weikusat says:

        Or “don’t accept appeals to authority as justification for anything“.

        Problem: That’s going to be massively unpopular with $authority and will rather motivate it to retaliate than to explain itself (as I know all too well).

        1. David Rosales says:

          It’s not the same, and that is too passive. It’s precisely the skepticism that leads nowhere constructive that we’re trying to avoid here.

          1. Rainer Weikusat says:

            I think it’s exactly the same: “This is heresy!” is an appeal to authority, namely, the authority which declared such and such a thing as ‘heretical’: That’s a value judgement without justification one is supposed to accept because of the authority of whatever entity made the judgement. If rejecting this without being told why one should accept the value judgement »leads to nowhere constructive« that’s either because the value judgement itself wasn’t constructive of ‘the authority’ expects unquestioning obedience and refuses to explain its judgements. For the latter case, there’s no other way but ignoring said authority on the grounds of unconstructive behaviour. That’s possibly going to lead to a theoretically avoidable detour but it’s better to undertake that and learn what the authority isn’t willing to teach than to accept being another entity’s mindless tool.

            NB: This obviously doesn’t apply to a lot of ‘real world’ situations but it certainly does apply to programming and should apply to philosophy: That’s a Greek word whose meaning is (AFAIK) “love of wisdom”. And assuming that oneself is so smart that anybody asking question is just an irritating insect which has to be crushed is not wise.

Comments are closed.