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 - pagan980938127

1 [2]
Interzone / Re: Is democracy really the problem?
« on: January 08, 2008, 08:02:11 PM »
Succinct and accurate. We need leaders who are picked for their intelligence.

The previous comparison with engineering or medicine is interesting, because those are professions which nearly any educated person could perform if they so desired.  A man is not ordained at birth to be a doctor or engineer, nor appointed by any group, rather he works toward it.  Of course the best engineers and doctors are those which have a mastery of the base skills well above the norm, combined with a certain "creativity."

My point: if these professions are not appointed, yet the best stand out on their own merits, what validates a claim that leaders should be appointed?  I may not trust the majority to elect my leaders, but I trust secretive elitist processes even less.  I feel almost as if I currently live in a fascist country, which presents itself as a democracy to pacify the masses and yet at it's core reflects only the selfish and corrupt desires of corporate entities.  No doubt they consider themselves very intelligent.
This is never popular. Popular means lowest common denominator. The more people you have sharing in a decision, the dumber it gets.

I can not imagine a healthy society in which the people lack respect for their leaders.  Truly one can respect and even love a wise king or dictator, if he brings justice and prosperity to the country.  Which would indeed make him popular!

This situation primarily arises when there is competition for leadership and the best individual puts his will forward - I believe it is impossible for the inferior to win in a truly competitive situation.  If the superior loses then our measure of superiority was flawed.  This concept is intentionally lost in a democracy, in fact it is a celebrated idea that the inferior can and should win!  It is the people who contribute least in democratic societies which are given the most in order to provide "balance" - the illusion of strength, but the truly strong know that is not enough :)

Interzone / Re: Is democracy really the problem?
« on: January 04, 2008, 07:06:24 PM »

Well, ending by suicide in the last bunker as my country burns around me, is not exactly the alternative I should choose...  Nor should I wish for 60+ years of humiliation and self-hatred that Germany has experienced since that time.  The hard truth may be that Nazism is a failed ideology, or if it is not, then the implementation was flawed, which contradicts its core principle of German superiority.

Oh I see the value in the few governing the many, but only if the many is vastly inferior.  A point on which I remain unconvinced.  The irony of this discussion of course, is that Hitler and his party were democratically elected and supported.  People really like finding a scapegoat for all their problems.

It seems the best alternative may be the one that dares to include genuinely superior people moving toward cultural homogeneity... even if they have a different skin color than you - but which has zero tolerance for the inferior.  Obviously this could never, by definition, be a popular/democratic idea.

Metal / Re: What would a metal society look like?
« on: December 11, 2007, 12:17:33 PM »
What your describing is communism for a metal community.

Actually, not.

A disturbing trend I've noticed on the forum recently is for some moron to find a common thread between two ideologies and then claim that they are identical.  Similar logical ignorance occurs conversely, when two ideologies are not identical and are perceived as lacking any intersection.  Stated that way, I believe you can see where you erred.

As far as I understand, communism as a political-economic ideology attempts to create a society where all productive means (capital) are owned collectively, often regulated by a strong central government.  To achieve this it panders to the masses, feeding on the resentment of their own ineptitude to revolt against the successful few.  In practice, communism is associated with catastrophic failure: incompetence, famine, oppression, inefficiency - even less than the sum of its parts.

Communism is NOT the same as living in a communal fashion.  Humans are social creatures, and since the beginning of the species we have organized into "tribes" that pooled together resources out of necessity.  It provided protection against natural disasters (drought, floods, etc) and invading tribes, and allowed the community to take advantage of the relative skills of each member.

The largest difference between that and what we experience in modern society, was the necessity of individuals to simply fail, to be rejected and left behind for the good of the tribe.  Humanity made its greatest evolutionary progress in that time.  That is actually very contrary to democracy, liberalism, and especially communism, which seek to establish justifications for every member's existence and sustain as many as possible.  Or rather, those members who conform to the prescribed view of reality.  That is where they derive their "strength," which is inevitably a suicidal end.

What many of us on this forum have perceived is that modern society is broken.  Why continue repeating its mistakes?  Why debate pointless definitions?  Let's find a better path forward and attempt to follow it.  It turns out that 1000 people each with his own different mind and direction, spread all over the world will never be heard or effect real change.  Like a mall shooting, you will have shock press coverage for a few days or weeks and then fade back into obscurity.

As DionysianDeath has stated, we are not interested in the masses.  They will always follow the most convincing leaders, and right now those leaders are corrupt, selfish, and short-sighted.  The few who see that need to step up into that void.  Not "metalheads", not "elitists" or "fascists", but capable individuals.  Those who see the challenge ahead and despair, are fools and NOT the sort to be included in this vision.

I see nothing wrong with small groups of like-minded people (tribes) distancing themselves from society, it is after all more logical than merely sitting on your ass and complaining.  There are then at least two tasks: to fortify the tribe and await the impending collapse, also to make periodic "excursions" into society to recruit new members and spread propaganda (we'd be great at that :D).

So what role does music and in a greater sense art, play in this vision?  You have to understand that art is not only about the senses, but the mind as well.  It always communicates ideas, and what is an idea to your ear or your eye?  Just an electrical signal which can activate certain parts of the brain to feel pleasure or disgust.  If that is where the average person stops, then so be it.  They do NOT define the whole nor the aspirations of a few.

Further, as art communicates ideas then it may be a more direct method than words.  We can waste many words and perhaps never reach the same connection or lucidity implied by a single piece of great art.  We can express our common interests through that art, and as it evolves come closer to what we truly mean.

If for example, we wanted to establish a society which respects and nurtures classical Indo-European philosophy and spirituality, then what better expression of this goal than great classical art?  I won't pretend that most metal fits into this category, it is limited in some ways by its origins (those of sex, drugs, and pointless expressions of individualism) and also because people do not take it seriously.  Metal possesses certain worthy strands however: heroism, love of nature, acceptance of death, survival of the strong.

The opinion of the artist is only technically relevant, their work may be more or less significant than they realize.  Though as a rule, moronic artists will create moronic art and as with every aspect of society they are none too few.  Sometimes I think this site assigns more value to certain music than its worth, but as with the paradox of complaining and doing nothing to change, there is little value in your argument without offering a better alternative.

Interzone / Re: Studies
« on: December 07, 2007, 03:01:26 PM »
Two years into a PhD in electrical engineering focusing on autonomous robotics.  That takes much of my time, but I do read a bit of classic literature.  I own this used encyclopedic set of great western literature because I hate reading electronic books; so I'm starting with ancient Greek poetry and philosophy and moving forward from there.  I really enjoy math and science, so I can't wait to get into the likes of Galileo, Newton, and Huygens :)  You could say I "study" other art, such as paintings and music, though informally.

Anyway, once I have the PhD I intend to work in industry for a while, using the income to buy some nice rural land to live on and have a family free from the corruption of modern society.  I'd like to reduce my ecological footprint by exploring renewable energy sources, not driving anymore, and not buying anything disposable that is not also recyclable (I'm close but not quite there yet).  I have a desire to teach at the high school level once I have more life experience, any subject, anything to produce more critical thinkers in the world.

Self-sufficiency would certainly be a worthwhile pursuit, perhaps I find the will to break permanently free from a car, computers and the internet, too!

Metal / Re: Folk "metal" without the rock
« on: November 29, 2007, 12:22:33 PM »
With varying degrees of "folk" and "metal":


Interzone / Re: IQ
« on: November 29, 2007, 11:51:13 AM »
Better, if you're over 1.8, over 120 and exceed the Army APFT requirements, you get first pick of the women.  ;D

Wouldn't someone in this group already have first pick of the women?  At least if they had a reasonable level of self-confidence and assertiveness.  We are already programmed to mate or not, according to our qualities.  Also, you make women sound like prizes, or cattle to be rounded up and distributed to the chosen few. That is an old way of thinking, but does anyone among us still believe women to be incapable of independent thought?

As to the matter at hand, I say nature works better than human designs.  Let's remove the barriers that sustain inferior members of society, and let nature prevail.  For example, why do we spend so much resources to prolong terminally ill people?  To repair the damages caused by poor lifestyle choices?  To educate those who are unwilling or unable to learn?  Why do you want to exterminate 95% of the world's population?  It seems the answer is fear.  We only need to understand that people will die, people will fail, and even that humanity itself will one day go extinct.  The question becomes: will we evolve into something better first?  And if that's our goal, I'm not convinced that any human plan will realize it.

That might not be as quick and "easy" as mass extermination, but then again it might, and perhaps work far better.  The exceptions won't need to be sorted out by human rules, they will simply survive and pass their positive qualities onward.  Imagine a world, when suddenly, you have no fuel for your vehicle.  You must physically work to travel, becoming stronger or failing miserably in the attempt.  The supermarkets are no longer stocked, and you must either find someone nearby who produces food, or hunt/farm for yourself - or starve.  The government collapses and there are no public services or taxes, only what the community can and will provide for itself.  Scenarios like these are natural solutions to the problems we now face - if we can bare the thought of famine, disease, war, and death, for the good of humanity.  Eventually it should reach an equilibrium point and we can continue where we left off but with an inherently healthier perspective.

Mostly I take issue with human arrogance implying that we understand all of the world.  In truth, we know very little.  We've made very complex systems which are superficially fair, peaceful, and successful, and we pile on more layers of solutions.  We complain about them here, yet still proposing even more complex solutions.  Perhaps we are reluctant to leave behind the delights of the modern world despite it's flaws.  Nihilism may be a gateway to profoundly simple solutions, do we have the courage and resolve to walk all the way through...

Interzone / Re: School shooting in Finland
« on: November 09, 2007, 06:03:17 PM »
I see a few conflicting thoughts on this story.

First, if he hadn't gone on a rampage and committed suicide, I wouldn't have read his "manifesto" - that is true.  Is that a valid excuse to go on a solitary rampage... phrased differently: is anyone actually going to digest this who didn't agree with it beforehand?  (I happen to hold several of his beliefs, excepting the adolescent misanthropia.)  What did I learn from this incident and what did society as a whole learn?

Personally, the answer is nothing.  He was obviously rather confused about the world.  He uses the word "hate" in the manifesto and to me, that implies a strong emotional connection to the human race, similar to a child who uses "I hate ..." when his parents take away his favorite toy and he's left helpless.  The child is not disconnected from the parents but painfully aware of the relationship - not every child behaves that way and I'd call the barrier between hate/violence vs. leadership an intellectual one.  Also my concept of nature as the forces of the universe, is that they're emotionless, cold, and never selfish (having in fact no guiding will).  That's why I'm a nihilist.  So I would claim that he was not a natural selector, but an artificial one, and ironically, may have been the primary target of nature.

Secondly, a difference between a child and a mature adult is being able to manage your emotions and redirect your passions toward productive outcomes.  This kid might have published books, led a revolution, halted environmental destruction, but instead chose to act in a short-sighted and selfish manner - suicide always results from the ego and internal conflict.  We have enough selfishness in the world now to call this behavior remarkable and least of all admirable.  Also to commit suicide is to admit defeat, defeat is a result of weakness, making his choice even less admirable.  A "smart" person would never consider suicide, because if you have life there are always opportunities to get what you want while making a positive change.

Third, the society he refers to has not seized this as an opportunity to discuss his ideas (see the speedy removal of his YouTube account and I expect his entire online identity will follow as the "investigation" unfolds).  He is being written out of existence, except for a caricature which will be propagated by mass media.  He has only served to strengthen that which he hated.  There will not be any mass uprising, no destruction of modern society.  Surely an intelligent person could have foreseen this.  Don't confuse recklessness with bravery.

Finally, to be only 18 years old and convinced the world is without hope is a position of absolute ignorance (or the best case: a lucky guess).

Metal / Re: Metal as outside society's view
« on: August 31, 2007, 04:05:31 AM »
It does not attempt to distract.

Yes, this came to my mind immediately after reading your initial question.  Though I would point out quality metal does not distract, while the worst metal is in fact as distracting as other pop music.  So why no coverage of metal in the media, why don't you hear it on the radio?  To those who are ignorant of music/art, aesthetic is of primary importance: metal sounds angry and evil, like classical music it's purpose can rarely be expressed in 3 minutes - it's a journey.  Pop music is a collection of soothing, comfortable, and easy songs - even in their material self-absorption, they rarely dare to search for answers.  It is enough to feel better (paradoxically by feeling bad as that makes you an individual with complexity and profound issues :D).  If you're looking for distraction, why choose metal?

And yes the purpose of materialism isn't to think, but to feel better by purchasing something, so metal is far less profitable and this automatically limits exposure in modern society.  Metal only reaches the media when it's necessary to reinforce it's evil and angry nature - like when a moron kills himself or goes on a rampage.

Metal / Re: Classical/metal and rock are different worlds
« on: November 08, 2006, 08:31:37 PM »
I know this is a moron magazine, and so this moronic opinion should surprise no one, but I think more than "moronic" we see what happens when someone's brain is trained only to recognize the repetitive harmonies and binary song structures of rock music.

Morons aplenty, but let me go out on a limb and say there is no way that "article" is serious.  It's too obvious and secure in it's ignorance, like some troll posts here.  It's a joke.

Then again, when you look at the education system in the US and many other countries, especially the de-emphasis of the arts in favor of athletics and memorizing trivial facts... The author is about 40 years old, it's safe to say he has never had decent education in music.  Music was an easy "A" for a few years, a slight inconvenience.  So why would he appreciate anything beyond the simplest, most easily understandable music?  If it lets him connect with the masses, it must be good; if it alienates him as Beethoven seemingly does, it must be bad.

Otherwise intelligent people fall into that trap all the time.  They might stay there, but I think after a while most will yearn for more and end up with more intelligent music.  At least they can learn and evolve, whereas a true moron will always be subpar even if they listen to Burzum.

Metal / Re: Prozak's friend makes the 'news'
« on: September 18, 2006, 08:09:54 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if al-Qaeda is a massive trolling organization, who fools gullible people into committing terrorist acts for them for the sheer amusement of it, and then afterwords has a good laugh about it. I can almost see Osama bin Laden decked out in a bullet belt, Morbid Angel shirt, and high-fiving this Adam guy while watching coverage of their latest troll on the news and passing around a bowl.

This recent statement is particularly reminiscent of many black metal albums, such as Dethrone the Son of God:
Al-Qaida operatives in Iraq threatened on Monday to "destroy the cross and to slash the throats of those who believe in the cross."

I think you might be right about this :o  Too bad they want to set up a worldwide Islamic caliphate eerily similar to and probably worse than Christianity.

Metal / Re: Hinge albums
« on: September 06, 2006, 05:13:23 PM »
At the Gates - Terminal Spirit Disease
In Flames - Whoracle
Sepultura - Chaos AD

Metal / Re: Black/Folk Metal
« on: September 03, 2006, 09:20:20 PM »
I was wondering what you think about this genre (Black/Folk) and what bands you like ^^

I've found myself in a similar position recently, looking to explore pagan and folk-influenced metal.  Hopefully these suggestions will provide a starting point from one who has tried many new albums lately:

* Isengard is not to be missed, coming from Fenriz of Darkthrone you might expect that it is based on black metal and Norwegian folk, that is certainly true.  I'd recommend Hostmorke first although the demos are closer to raw black metal if that's your fancy.

* Right alongside Isengard would have to be Storm, which Fenriz was also part of.  I think his vocals are better on Nordavind than Isengard.  The female vocals are a nice touch missing from Isengard, I almost like this project more but not quite.

* Finntroll is interesting, definitely have their own style which is heavy on Finnish polka.  Some may find them a bit comical at times, but I like them.

* Otyg is not blackened in the least, but solid folk metal nonetheless and a worthy addition to your collection.  They play more traditional folk, slower, with traditional instruments and clean singing.

* Primordial is a recent find.  Since I'm of mostly Irish ancestry I think Celtic influenced folk metal is cool even if it sucked.  But these guys do well.  My attention did not falter which is a common problem with folk and viking metal (because as has already been stated it tends to be repetitive and unoriginal).

* Others I like: Trollech, Dark Reality, Fejd, and Ulver - fuck what admin says about them :P

I was not particularly impressed with Alkonost, Agalloch, or Subway to Sally - they may be HIV+ for all I know.

Metal / Re: Atheist - Piece of Time/Unquestionable Presenc
« on: August 28, 2006, 03:05:40 PM »
My only piece of advice: avoid that garbage festival "Elements." The first two Atheist albums are gold, but the third is moronic trash.

It makes absolutely no sense in the context of a metal album. I find it replusive, and it shouldn't even be made available for download here.  Can't believe I wasted my time on it. The only partially redeeming song is not even an attempt at metal - "Samba Briza".  The rest hurts my ears.

Metal / Re: Explaining death and the afterlife to children
« on: June 18, 2006, 11:27:54 AM »
When should you tell them the truth?

Isn't that what religion aims to do, convince us of "the truth" from as early an age as possible?  You might see lecturing your child here as vastly different; I'm not convinced.

Actually I don't think it matters much what/when you tell him about this subject, as he'll question it independently when the time comes.  Or he should if you do a good job parenting.  It seems like it would be more constructive to provide a solid intellectual basis for your child and instill within him values that are important to you.  That way when he does inquire about death or afterlife, you can give him your view without frightening him or supplanting his own unique thought.

Metal / Re: Essential Naturalistic/Romanticist Literature
« on: June 16, 2006, 08:32:49 PM »
Cool.  I have just recently become interested in reading many of the old classics of literature - some for the first time and others once again.  It chanced that I came across a pamphlet from this college which features an impressive array of classic literature not only on religion, philosophy, and works of fiction but also fundamental scientific works (on such topics as physics, chemistry, calculus, etc).  It might take some weeding to find those of most relevance to this website, nonetheless it is an impressive array and I doubt anyone here would be disappointed by it.

Many famous works, including some mentioned previously in this thread, are available in the Harvard Classics collection.  You can read them online here, but I really want to buy the whole printed set for the purpose of not needing technology to view them.  I think it would be a better experience to go outside and read them or just in peace and quiet somewhere away from the inane ruckus of our modern world.  Anyway I purchased five of them tonight comprising Don Quixote, Aeneid, and miscellaneous essays to name a few.  Can't wait to dig in :)

1 [2]