Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Imposition

[1] 2 ... 14
Audiofile / Re: Imposition
« on: September 03, 2017, 05:58:41 AM »

Audiofile / Imposition
« on: December 04, 2016, 09:18:54 PM »
Black metal from Australia. Influences: Demoncy Emperor Darkthrone Tangerine Dream


Imposition - Dark Mysticism [LP] (2016, Mega)

Metal / Re: Burzum - The Ways of Yore
« on: June 04, 2014, 07:01:18 PM »
Nostalgia may be an unhealthy attribute, however, seeing oneself as part of a continuous lineage over time as opposed to an isolated atom with no connections to the past, is pretty healthy. I cant help but suspect that alot of the anti Varg/Burzum sentiment has more to do with ideology than anything else.

Varg doesn't just see himself as part of a continuous lineage over time. In fact, he is kinda doing the opposite (in one sense) by positing that 'racially' European people DO NOT form a continuous lineage with Homo Sapiens, but are in fact Neanderthals! Obviously, though, he sees himself as part of a European lineage. But it's not that he sees himself as part of a European culture that is stupid (race is another issue). What is stupid (and is evidence of his lack of contact with reality - location in a dream world - escapism gone quasi-militant, etc - which i also think is coming across in his current music which is heavy on symbolism and 'having the right imagery' and light on song development, texture and vairation - even within the ambient genre) is that he is positing extremely novel views about biological race, asserting that they are truly scientific, while also asserting that the rest of science is 'religion' (the rest meaning the majority scientific consensus from people who do this all day every day and have done it for 30+ years as tenured professors but who hold different conclusions to his own and so must be 'faking it').

How is the work of Varg different from the work of Tolkien? Surely one could make the same argument against Tolkien, to wit, that he was lost in a world of his own creation. Beyond the pseudo intellectual rhetoric, can anyone provide a musical analysis of the flaws on this album? Consider it a friendly challenge...:)

Lord of the Rings is actually a very nice allegory for the then developing clash between a rising materialistic, mass, proletarian and totalitarian empire (Sauron's/communist Russia) vs a semi-agrarian, bourgeoisie, apolitical, 'organic', and very English way of life (Hobbits/The West). It wasn't the heroic members of the fellowship who were entrusted with the ring - it was the individuals who explicitly renounced 'big picture' views, glory, hierarchy, and empire.

Varg's art has no connection with current issues, but that isn't a mark against it. His writing does, however, attempt to address political and scientific issues, and unfortunately it's painfully factually retarded and 'ideological' - in the worst sense; clouded.

You might agree with his 'conclusions', or his practical goals - but this in no way vindicates the fallacious and childish reasons he uses to get there. Championing his poor methodology can only do damage to the practical goals you like.

If you want a more compelling, mature, and engaged 'way into' some similar issues, I suggest this:


Metal / Re: Burzum - The Ways of Yore
« on: June 03, 2014, 05:29:14 PM »
Not loving this, unfortunately. I think Varg is lost in a world of his own creation.

Observe this embarrassment of an essay I stumbled across on his website while researching the new album:

If we are to believe the evolution religion (alias "science") each species and each race adapts to its environment over time. According to this religion the blackest Negro tribe moving into Europe will after some time turn white, change their nose shapes, grow a larger skull, grow a nose bone, grow larger pelvis bones, grow shorter lower arms, change the shape of their skulls, get thinner skin, get a little bump in the back of their heads (known in France as "the Math bump", because those who have it [i.e. fair Europeans...] are often very good with mathematics), change the angle of their forehead, change the length of their legs, change their metabolism, grow a larger brain, grow blue or gray eyes, lose their curly hair in favour of straight hair, grow blonde hair, and so forth, and they will also all of a sudden see a need for art, civilization, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, religion and so forth...

...sorry, but I have to stop. This is too bloody ridiculous. Yet, this is what most of us are taught to believe in. This is what most of us believe in today! Some even claim this happened in less than 12,000 years! In popular films about this subject (like the ludicrous "Ao") this even happened the moment the Negroes sat foot in Europe. Like *bang*! The Negro has become European in one generation! Very "scientific"...

Basically 'Europeans' are Neanderthals, but with a few Homo Sapiens (What Varg calls "African"!) genes.

Varg then goes on to champion the scientific(!!) research that his wife apparently does into all this.

Now, you might ask why the facts my wife presents to us are not all over the media, because this is after all a huge scientific breakthrough regarding the origin of the European man! It changes everything. We are not even of the same species as the other human races!


To me, there is a different between stimulating the imagination and creating a world for yourself.

Metal / Clannad
« on: May 22, 2014, 05:19:02 PM »
I was pleased to see a post about Clannad, who I remember my father playing on vinyl from my childhood:


Interzone / Re: Denigrating science to inflate the religious ego
« on: May 10, 2014, 07:46:15 AM »
Nothing would please me more. Nobody needs you.
The site is expressly about transcendence. And you don't get it.
Transcendence from screaming infant to realized man, via the unlikely mediums of deathmetal and nihilism.
So long.

Woa, isn't Wild a staff writer and contributor of actual content for this site? It's often I don't agree with his points, but we manage better than this exchange just here...

What do you mean 'nobody needs him' - if he's a writer, then of course he is needed?

Am I missing something here?

I think Jon is just banned from the forum. Not sure if he will continue contributing to the front page.

What a stupid state of affairs. And he just recommended me a book in pvt message, which I wanted to thank him for doing, and now can't.

Interzone / Re: Denigrating science to inflate the religious ego
« on: May 10, 2014, 07:41:23 AM »
Common to those who lack understanding and to those who have it is a desire to know- despite the strong differences between such notions. This is the great fault as I see it- the desire to know is quite often embattled by the things we cannot know through this desire.

I like to think that when things mean differently to varying individuals something akin to 'coal to diamonds' makes itself known.


I dislike sectarianism though, because understanding is common to all fields of inquiry- though fields are all artificialized. We could probably translate this thread title into something a bit less 'specific' and more common to certain relative positions. Sorry for the obfuscation here, it's hard for me to put into words what I mean.

I didn't understand your whole post, but I understood your concern with endless desiring-to-know.

This can be a problem. One needs to be/do/exist as well as grasp at the unknown. However, this desire to 'be', to be 'thoughtless' or, what is basically the same, 'at peace', is more or less itself just a desired state (desired by the 'ego', if this is even an objectively real entity at all which of course it isn't - the brain is much more complex than 2 or 3 tendencies) - desired, in this case, because it leads to good mental health/pleasantness/etc. You could get this by finding the perfect drug, perhaps call this perfect drug 'SOMA', and imagine that it could be taken every few hours with no long term side effects and that it keeps you 'in the flow, man, with being'.

Contrast this, the 'spiritual', 'being at one', 'inner peace', etc, with gazing into the abyss of the universe to understand it. Casting the spiritual in the light of a desired, human-all-to-human state of feeling, I think brings it off its high horse.

Nice, you have reminded me I own this but have not read it. Thanks!

Interzone / Re: Denigrating science to inflate the religious ego
« on: May 10, 2014, 12:18:55 AM »
It's a popular thing in some conservative circles (and this forum of late) to stand up for religion against the terrible onslaught of fanatical scientific atheism that's single-handily destroying Western Civilization. Oh dear.

While the merits of this are still to be seen, what's most intriguing to me are the ways in which people go about counter-acting this. Science is accused of being arrogant, of not being able to explain how we got here, and not being able to explain why we exist.

It's my challenge that all 3 of these are absurd.

To the first, science is actually the most humble discourse humans have ever attempted to understand "reality" - and certainly far more so than religion. Consider: science never says it has the final answer. It is always open to new evidence and contemplation of things which were heretofore considered ludicrous. Not only that, but it is based upon observing what can be perceived, in a careful and verifiable way.

Contrast this to religion, which inevitably claims final and complete knowledge. It is extraordinarily reactionary against anything that contradicts its dogma, and its methods are almost entirely subjective, relying on what's occurring in the internal nervous system of the individual, whether from a true shaman or a dishonest epileptic rabbi. The problem with this is that it is impossible to communicate what was experienced, as nothing is external to be observed.

To the second, while science cannot yet answer that question, it is collecting information and forming hypotheses, until enough evidence is gathered to justify a conclusion. That's called humbleness.

You know what isn't humble?

Declaring: "God made the universe in seven days, the Sun orbits the Earth, and if you don't agree, prepare to get toasted."

Now, on to the last point. It's here that the criticism is true: science can't explain why we exist. However, why I think this charge is absurd is because nothing else can either. Sure, you can invent all sorts of reasons/explanations/bullshit, collect them in a holy book, and off you go; but that doesn't make it true.

What's particularly funny is that the people who do that call others arrogant!

I'm very much in favour of the suggestion that a certain scientific outlook is clearly (with a bit of reflection on this concepts) more reverent, and ego-less than some 'spirituality'.

Science is suspending judgement that derives from older cognitive tendencies, intuitive/natural/unreflective cognition, that evolved to get us fucking and fleeing and eating. Science is about cultivating cognitive habbits that are by their very nature unnatural - and so transcendental - which is why you can teach a 5 year old child a religious narrative but learning physics takes you 25 years of painful education (read: brute overcoming of implicit ways of thinking to learn new and more powerful/objective cognitive tricks).

Nothing could be more reverent of prior structures, reality, Being, than going through such a process in order to comprehend it more fully. Nothing could be more religious?!

Interzone / Re: Denigrating science to inflate the religious ego
« on: May 10, 2014, 12:14:58 AM »
Nothing would please me more. Nobody needs you.
The site is expressly about transcendence. And you don't get it.
Transcendence from screaming infant to realized man, via the unlikely mediums of deathmetal and nihilism.
So long.

Woa, isn't Wild a staff writer and contributor of actual content for this site? It's often I don't agree with his points, but we manage better than this exchange just here...

What do you mean 'nobody needs him' - if he's a writer, then of course he is needed?

Am I missing something here?

Interzone / Re: Metal as metaphor
« on: May 07, 2014, 02:36:09 AM »
Good article.

Views that were deemed entirely normal ten years ago even are now morally 'other': outright 'evil'. Paul Gottfried has written a book on how liberalism has shifted ever leftwards since the mid 1800's:


Being liberal minded definitely no longer means advocating free speech, 'negative freedoms' (freedoms 'from' as opposed to freedoms 'to do'), property rights, etc. In fact, you are labelled an 'extreme right winger' if you publically advocate the (classical liberal) right to free speech over the right not to be offended in some (non-American) Anglo countries, for example. This is pretty extreme, and simply lacks what Nietzsche called a historical sensibility: The Nazi's were 'extreme right wingers', not classical liberals!

Interzone / Re: Tell me about your education.
« on: April 21, 2014, 09:14:53 PM »
Well fine. I have told you how it is with me.
You have told me how it is with you.
My position hinges on it being by far the best thing I have come up with, by way of being able to live my life, in a way that provides immense satisfaction and peace. Nothing else even comes close.
How well does yours work, for you?

This is called solipsism, and is ironically close to what your favourite writer, Mr Brett Stevens, posits as underlying the 'decay of civilisation'.

This wouldnt be a problem, if your opinion was not all pervasive around these forums. Every thread is defined and judged upon whether it meets your extremely personal and unusual standards. The criterion is no longer something mind independent, where discussion is open to transcedence and growth, it stops with the preferences of some bloke based on what ideas have made him feel good. But there are so many different ways to live and so many starting points and contingencies that what makes some one individual feel content can be so utterly arbitrary.

Interzone / Re: Tell me about your education.
« on: April 21, 2014, 07:45:16 AM »
Some of you characters are still in the education system, or not so long out of it.
From what I am coming to understand, education nowadays is more about indoctrination than about education.

I am running into more and more young people, especially on forums, that seem completely unable to learn anything that they don't already know.
There is this whole thing now, focusing upon proof for every single word, being demanded, before consideration of the message even takes place.
What is this? What's going on?

People tell me politics is a big subject in schools. Biased leftwards, from what I can see.
It seems generally unpopular, but from the evidence, it warps kids anyway, into equality-obsessed machines that become enraged at anyone who mentions things they know nothing about. What they really do know about, is being so utterly self-centered that it boggles the mind.

Is there truth in this? Can anyone shed light?

I simply do not understand how you  can think a concept like indoctrination can go hand in hand with the concept of demanding proof. They're pretty much opposites, aren't they?

If kids you are talking to are demanding proof, then that means ideas are being put to the test, and selected for. If yours don't cut the mustard, that isn't necessary because your audience is 'indoctrinated'. Quite to contrary if these kids are, in fact, demanding proof.

And for what it's worth I don't like the tendency towards anti-intellectualism that is so often displayed by non-leftists, which you yourself seem to buy into Crow. I observe the forum heading this way. Rigorous argument, use of 'proof' and evidence, and a skill in rhetoric should not be the property of the hard left with the right having only vague mysticism and far-removed philosophy with a distrust for debate and intellectual battle.

Interzone / Re: More on nihilism.
« on: April 20, 2014, 09:12:14 PM »
Thank you. A bit intellectual for me, but I'll work at it.


Do you feel the universe operates without purpose?
That it is completely random?

Do I feel this? No. Do I think this is the case? Maybe.

There are two levels of cognition operating here. Intuition and rational reflection.

I know why I may feel (i.e. intuitively) that the universe operates without purpose, because i've done a lot of evolutionary psychology, and I know i'm 'hard-wired' to process things, on an intuitive level, in terms of agency and intentionality and purpose (because, in our evolutionary history, most of the patterns and structures we were confronted with WERE put in place by agents - traps, marks in the sand, artefacts, etc).

But I don't believe the universe acts 'randomly'. I think there are patterns, and that there is structure. Whether these patterns and this structure is at root informed by intentionality is another question - one which I don't think about much these days. These patterns and the order and structure manifesting them are interesting, aesthetically beautiful and compelling to me whether or not they were initially caused by some process animated by a prior purpose.

Interzone / Re: More on nihilism.
« on: April 20, 2014, 08:51:28 PM »
I can, if you're willing to you're willing to consider the response carefully.

(First off, who cares? Nihilism is, in my opinion, a mistake. It's a nice idea in theory, but fails to take into account human psychology and the need for 'illusions'. Sure, go through a period of 'freedom' in order to 'choose' your battles, but this, like like Sartre's existentialism, assumes that after you violently dislocate motivation from its point of contact with 'reality' (i.e. after you go through the process of nihilism, or 'cleansing the doors of perception' to see the Void) motivation just doesn't wither and die. In other words, if you dwell on the fact of the matter than objective meaning is an illusion, it might be quite difficult to ever give a shit about anything ever again. For, how can you simply forget the fact that objective meaning is an illusion after you have realised this? That would require a process of 'getting dumber' again after you have 'gotten smarter'. Also, some people who i've spoken to around here seem to think that after you learn the facts that deconstruct objective meaning, you will suddenly be able to see that certain values are somehow objective (authoritarianism, paganism, perennialisn, deep ecology, or whatever), while other values are somehow not (liberalism, christianity, humanism). If nihilism is true, no values are binding whatsoever. Certain values may preserve the natural world better than others, for instance, but so what? It is a further leap from this to the conclusion that you SHOULD follow them.)

To the question. There are two meanings of the word 'meaning'. On the first, 'meaning', is just the way in which a language represents/refers to the things it does. The meaning of 'cat' is the cat over there. The meaning of 'happiness' is a certain mood grounded by certain neurological processes. The cat being happy means the cat over there is in a neurological state. Obviously even a nihilist accepts this sort of meaning. His words still refer to things due to being involved in a language community which has conventions regarding what words refer to/represent/mean. 'Cat' in my language convention that i share with other speakers of English means a certain mammal with four legs that has been bred from other mammals over a long period of time to chase mice and balls of string and shit on your carpet while only being concerned with your existence when it is time for dinner. 'Cat' (i.e. the set of symbols c-a-t) in the language convention that speakers of French share means nothing - it picks out or refers to no object in reality (I know not what set of symbols in French picks out the appropriate mammal).

On the second meaning of 'meaning', meaning means(!) purpose. Then what does purpose mean? Purpose means some prior intention informing an activity. You moving your arm to pick up the beer is an activity informed by a prior intention (your intention in drinking the beer). A nihilist uses the conventions of his language ('meaning' in the first sense) to convey the idea that there is no purpose informing his activities other than his own wishes and desires. Similarly, he uses language to convey the idea that there is no purpose informing the activities of the universe because those activities are not caused by an agent, and only activities that are caused by agents can have purpose.

[1] 2 ... 14