Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

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 - Time Curator 23

[1] 2 ... 11
1
Interzone / On becoming a better king
« on: March 29, 2014, 05:18:54 AM »
I have noticed in myself that sometimes when I discuss online, I am egotistical in that I enjoy the thrill and power of making normals squirm in discomfort when I unleash difficult truths.

I am of course not suggesting that I cease being a social reject -- that I will always be. I am merely suggesting that I end my egotistical activity of over-indulging in the thrill of holding taboo opinions, values, and goals.

What character deficiencies have you noticed in yourself?

2
Interzone / Re: What is Death?
« on: March 28, 2014, 01:48:16 AM »
Death is the friend of the strongest warriors, the muse of the greatest artists, the goal of the best philosophers, and the portal to God.

3
Interzone / Re: What is your political viewpoint?
« on: March 28, 2014, 12:56:28 AM »
Quote
Is our present-day aristocracy fit for the job of fixing the world?

No.

They're only vaishyas.

4
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 24, 2014, 01:03:33 AM »
On second thought, don't respond. Nothing constructive is being accomplished by this or any of my other contributions. I'll go back to lurking this section as the differences in perspectives between myself and the rest are far too different.

Giving up already?

Vigilance, the purpose of this discussion board is not to have a "we all agree with one another so let's pat each other on the ass" circle jerk.

We come to genuine consensus and purposeful agreement by contrasting these different perspectives. That is both the beauty and function of a dialogue.

It's like a cooperative investigation into the nature of reality. I could very well be mistaken and misinformed on certain things. I'm here to learn.

Now then, I think we can classify the Civil War as a revolution in that it was a revolution against the Southern Slave Owner class and against the British and French who supported them. (Of course, the delusion is that the North's victory meant total freedom, when in reality they never freed themselves from the Northern Wages Slave Owner class.) Remember, secession, though usually unfavorable, is nothing more than a tactic or strategy or means of and end: revolution. The South's "revolution" was really nothing but a very late counter-revolution to 1776. Another way of seeing this in the "big picture" is that there are different factions of oligarchs who engage in internecine conflict; it's definitely not as simple as "the masses versus the elites" or "the poor versus the rich". I'm sure we agree there.

Regarding Athens being a democracy, this is exactly what I was getting at: it was a plutocracy in which the masses were fooled into believing it was a democracy. In other words, there is only ever the appearance of democracy in formalities, but even this never lasts long, and rarely produces substantive improvements in the lives of the many. Most importantly, we must remember this is the same society which murdered Socrates. (Unrelated but relevant, we must remember the Weimar Republic had democratic features and elections with popular votes, and even though Hitler lost the election in public, behind closed doors in private it was decided he would be appointed.)

Regarding Plato, I'm saying that democracy cannot be some force outside the cycle which makes it less- or non-violent, precisely because democracy is inside of and a part of that very cycle.

5
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 23, 2014, 09:25:08 PM »
Hmm. Well, here's how I see it.

First off, the American ideal is not democracy, it's a constitutional representative republic, finding its fullest and best to date design and expression in the American School of economics. This is a highly intelligent, nuanced, idealistic-yet-realistic view. It is most definitely not democratic, at all. If you want to talk "historical fact", then name me ONE democracy in ALL of history. You can not find one. They don't exist. Democracy is always a lie, a con, a swindle, a manipulating the masses into thinking they have self-rule.

Second, there's nothing dangerous about denying democracy. It's called sanity. If someone says "the aliens are coming to kill us" yet there is ZERO evidence for their claim, I deny it. It's a healthy thing to do. The same goes for "democracy", "libertarianism", "communism", etc. -- all synthetic ideas and demagoguery designed to get people to cut their own throats.

Third, there is most definitely blood on the sword of America. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War...

Fourth, Plato himself forthrightly speaks out against democracy. He states: "These will be some of the features of democracy... it will be, in all likelihood, an agreeable, lawless, parti-colored society, dealing with all alike on a footing of equality, whether they be really equal or not."

6
Interzone / Re: On the function of art
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:58:15 AM »
We seem to have slightly different temperaments then, crow. My mind is rather judgmental and decisive.

I really like your last statement there though. Good art is hard to find, and even when we do find it, we often let it slip past us because we are not attuned to it or are not yet at an appropriate level / in a proper mindset.

7
Interzone / Re: On the function of art
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:15:04 AM »
You find things more engaging, more beautiful, more full, when you stop intellectually analyzing them?

That depends.

I don't think it is possible to overestimate the importance of the intellect.

(Furthermore, the very idea that one should enter into immediacy, simplicity, initiative, and spontaneity only ever comes as a effect or product of disengaged, intellectual analysis and reflection. This is what separates the creative adult from the child: neither are the average adult, but the child's playfulness is subconscious and instinctual, whereas the creative adult's is more conscious and deliberate, a courageous stand and statement that life, even with its "evils", is good. In this way, great art is a kind of universal spiritual language which warns "Appearances are deceiving" "Society is more often destructive, parasitical, and predatory than creative and helpful" "You will have to exert yourself, become responsible for your own destiny, and pay attention to results -- intentions and self-righteousness mean nothing" and yet which emboldens "Enjoy this life!" "Be of good cheer!" "Stand up and fight!")

I do, however, think that the ego can use the intellect as yet another one of its hiding places.

But eventually, of course, Truth/death finds it. :)

8
Interzone / On the function of art
« on: March 23, 2014, 05:58:09 AM »
Quote
... we find (among others) the Academics, like William-Adolphe Bouguereau. This is from the wow-I-can-definitely-see-what-it-depicts-but-itís-boring-me-to-tears school of art. It has no urgency. Great art is almost by necessity always inspired by personal experience in the world and time we live in. Trying to remove yourself from it will turn the art into stories about virtually nothing. And thatís what we see in Bouguereau. An artist trained in the old school, with all the craft of tradition but none of the spirit gained from experience. That experience doesnít need to be one of terror, but giving an artwork weight demands an ability to pick up what is going on around you and inside you. And we are not talking socio-political particularities here, but an existential understanding. What does it mean to be human during this time and this place?

http://www.deathmetal.org/article/if-metal-was-a-painting/

When I was younger, I agreed with this article. I thought Bouguereau was a very talented picture maker, but ultimately a boring, pointless artist. (I also thought that Bach was boring music.)

Now that I'm older, and by that I don't mean softer, but on the contrary, harder, more disciplined, more perceptive, and more experienced, I have changed my mind.

Now I find Bouguereau one of my favorite painters (and Bach one of my favorite composers) and can't help but find this old DLA/DMU article a rather naive, superficial view of the function of art in general and the nature of Bouguereau's paintings in particular.

Again, I definitely personally understand where the author was coming from though, and no disrespect is intended toward him, merely disagreement.

In my opinion, Bouguereau was neither purely-mechanical-photorealism nor was he Thomas Kinkade-esque pretty stories.

His paintings do in fact carry a lot of urgency, and on two levels:

(1) When nearly everyone was being hip and rebelling against traditional drawing and painting methods, Bouguereau, Ingres, and a rare few others were maintaining them

(2) When nearly everyone was being hip and rebelling against traditional painting subjects, Bouguereau and a rare few others were upholding them

The author of the article correctly notes that great art should not be (or at least, need not be) mere sociopolitical commentary (as even the least propaganda-like of it is transient and vain), but then makes the error that Bouguereau has no personal, subjective, existential import in the here and now.

This is a gross ignorance of the power of metaphor and myth. Bouguereau paintings are laden with metaphysical and psychological symbolic and allegoric power, and these principles most definitely apply to the existential experience of the individual by their nature of being eternal verities. What could be of more weight than that which is everywhere and everywhen true?

But coming down from the clouds, even those of you readers skeptical of perennial "Truths" cannot deny the romanticist themes in Bouguereau, in his treatment of nature, youth, senses, and emotions. And yet even in this more down-to-earthiness, Bouguereau does not fall into the egodrama of self-expression or of merely illustrating "what is going on around you and inside you". Instead, he shows patterns of life and experience which any intelligent and noble soul can relate to: the loss of virginity and virtue, the longing for a better world, the joy of friendship and kinship, the mystery of the past, the complexities of love, the majestic yet simple beauty of nature, and much more.

I can never be sure whether I am merely projecting qualities onto Bouguereau that aren't there. That possibility aside, what I can be sure of is that, as I have aged (only 26 years old, but nonetheless), I have found that we too often over complicate things in life, perhaps as a nervous distraction, a way to entertain ourselves, a way to escape and avoid facing the fact that maybe, just maybe, the answers to the deep questions of life are a lot more simple than we think, and that we merely have not yet found the courage to face them and accept their implications, for it would mean an end to nearly all of our thought and activity, as nearly all of it is in vain (not merely in the sense of never comparing to the Eternal and Infinite, but also in the simple sense of never even living up to our own highest personal visions and values for ourself).

Now, when viewing art, whether it be a Bouguereau painting, a Bach concerto, a Sacramentum album, or an Incantation album, I simply ask myself: is it beautiful, and does it make me want to live a beautiful life?

9
Metal / Re: Gender in metal
« on: March 23, 2014, 12:19:11 AM »
Lisa Gerrard is like a Virginia Woolf. Contemplative. Rare.

10
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 22, 2014, 11:52:38 PM »
There is nothing stable about democracy. Democracy is only ever a hoodwinking of the masses by an oligarchy (most often, though not always, a plutarchy).

Even more, there has never even been an actual democacy. It is merely a chimera. The same goes for a free market. Doesn't exist.

We have to stop quibbling over the formalisms and get to the substance. The Nazis talked a good game early on, but ended up being just another form of destructive demagoguery.

Who cares if one lives in a monarchy or republic? The only relevant question is: what is the society accomplishing?

11
Interzone / Re: Further ruminations
« on: March 15, 2014, 12:29:24 AM »
The question is one of effect and being effective, not whether the content is correct. On the whole, I have never doubted that. I do rethink the details constantly.

Right. I didn't get the sense you doubt the truth of which you write, only the sense you doubt yourself, or efficacy as writer. But why?

12
Interzone / Re: Further ruminations
« on: March 14, 2014, 04:31:01 PM »
You want a reason to go on with this website Prozak?

Ha ha ha...

Your weariness is understood.

But your cowardliness is unacceptable. Shake it off now, my friend. It is not befitting for a soul like you.

You act according to eternal principles, not immediate effects. You preserve and promote quality art because it deserves it, not because you egotistically want to see a favorable, tangible effect right away, and besides, the best advantages and gratifications are always long-term and never short-term. Stop this emo complaining about how it's hard, how there's no time, how the audience is unworthy and unhelpful. You keep a space open because, even if not today, someday a handful of kids might come along and will want a place to discuss (and later act on) ideas, a very metal activity if you ask me.

You fight because you were designed to, not because it might benefit you.

Pick up your bow and get back on your chariot.

This life is a war.

And you have come to win.

13
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:11:51 PM »
Those who claim to be against both the far left and far right are suspicious - what are they for? The middling left-global-capitalist consensus? Better to be even a communist!

Respectfully, I disagree.

There is nothing at all dubious about opposing lies, and so if lies are found in both the left and right ideologies, then a truthful mind just so happens to oppose both.

Politics is not about picking a team, but about picking a goal, and that goal had better not be based on lies.

In fact, Prozak did exactly this, back when he had balls of steel, err, I mean, more creative and productive thinking than the dead-end New Right crowdism of late:

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/politics/

COME ON YOU FUCKING HESSIANS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAAkerF32QQ

ANUS 10 years ago: serious effort at solving problems by redirecting society toward traditional ("Platonic") commonweal

ANUS now: smug posing and useless opining with Social Darwinist sentiments like "kill the poor" (a far cry from and in a sense the opposite of the genuine Eugenics homo sapiens really needs), then crying "hoomanist!!1" or "lybirall!!1" if someone points the stupidity out

14
Interzone / Re: "The poor": kill them
« on: March 02, 2014, 08:50:41 AM »
Quote
Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.

Hey Conservationist,

Yeah, you too kontinual,

What's up? I'm your type b covert spy.

You're a criminal because you promote mass murder. You've been targeted for "silent disappearance".

Have a nice day.

15
Interzone / Re: Defining 'Civilization'.
« on: November 09, 2013, 07:24:46 PM »
Civilization means order. Specifically: Man-made order, as opposed to the order of nature. Civilization is mankind building a separate, self-referential world for itself, with the implicit risk of humans forgetting that the world, or reality itself, isn't something that can be reduced to- or explained by the civilization's concepts.

Good luck with that "order" and "civilization". Sounds more like one part barbarism mixed with two parts relativism and ten parts anthropocentrism to me.

But you are correct in your diagnosis/analysis of this being where today's "order" and "civilization" is.

Take a look at this, from an article by Ron Suskind in the New York Times:

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush [later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove]. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

"The aide [Karl Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

[1] 2 ... 11