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 - death metal black metal

1 2 [3] 4 ... 170
Metal / Other undergrounds: metal crossover with hacker/BBS culture
« on: March 14, 2014, 03:08:03 AM »
Metal has never been the only underground. For example, in the mid-80s through early 1990s there was the hacker underground that flourished on BBSs, conference lines and VMBs.


If you were part of this crossover between undergrounds, please contact me. You will be credited in an upcoming article on the topic for a longstanding music publication. Thanks to all who consider my request.

Interzone / Re: Further ruminations
« on: March 14, 2014, 03:07:25 AM »
The word reality being a shibboleth around here is annoying, but that comes from Brett's ANUS, not crow's tenure.

Yes, that one is my fault!

Interzone / Re: Out from darkness
« on: March 14, 2014, 03:06:44 AM »
The path is simple: Nihilism. Its the last tool to achieve a clean vision of reality. It is not a end; rather a beginning.

...Total Awareness...

A gateway to that which is between and behind, not forward or back.

Into a blacker dark.
For there are views of darkness.

The light will dissapear
It was never here.

As the eternity opens.

Interzone / Re: Why?
« on: March 14, 2014, 03:04:38 AM »
answers kill the mystery of life

They're in symbolic form. Besides, they generally don't exist. For any truth, there is a spectrum. From an inkling to the infinite... and the infinite keeps going and going.

As if the universe expands in every directly as a form of logic, in addition to its physical form.

The cosmic order is peaking out from behind the wrinkles and cracks of reality, every instant.


I'm the Antenna
Catching vibration
You're the transmitter
Give information!
Wir richten Antennen ins Firmament
(We are aiming antenna to the sky)
Empfangen die Tone die Niemand kennt
(Receiving tones no one knows)

The learner must be receptive, and already halfway learned, to learn something new.

Interzone / Re: Sociology
« on: March 14, 2014, 03:01:36 AM »
I wonder if any science "is" leftist or rightist. Certainly most sociologists are leftist. But like in a lot of disciplines, some of the best minds are not.

To start with, I beg your indulgence in a scrap of personal history. In 1951 I graduated from Washington and Lee University, where I majored in English, and entered the Yale University graduate school seeking a Ph.D. in American Studies. American Studies was an interdisciplinary field, requiring the study of, among other disciplines, sociology. I recall having the standard literary attitude toward sociology, a pleasant assurance that the social sciences in general were undeserving arrivistes, nouveau admis, here in the realm of the higher things. That notion vanished the moment I came upon the work of the German sociologist Max Weber.

Weber was well known in academia for his essay "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," written after he toured the United Sates in 1904. It was the origin of the unfortunately non-Protestant cliché, "the work ethic." He introduced the terms "charisma" and "charismatic" in their current usage; also "bureaucracy," which he characterized as "the routinization of charisma." He coined the term "style of life," which was converted into the compound noun "lifestyle" and put to work as the title of a thousand sections of newspapers across the United States. But what caught my imagination was the single word "status." In a very short, very dense essay called "Class, Status, and Party" he introduced an entirely new concept.

I was by no means the first person to get excited over Weber's "status." The concept was well known within the field of sociology, although it was more often expressed in such terms as "social class," "social stratification," "prestige systems," and "mobility." Six years later Weber's terms "status-seeking" and "status symbols" began showing up in the press. Soon they were part of everyday language.

The great American sociologists of the 1950s, W. Lloyd Warner, the Lynns, August B. Hollingshead, E. Digby Baltzell, C. Wright Mills, David Riesman, were turning out studies of how Americans rated others and themselves, often unconsciously, according to race, ethnic group, address, occupation, vocabulary, shopping habits, bill-paying habits (personal checks in lump sums as opposed to installment payments in cash), bureaucratic status symbols (corner offices, fine wooden desks as opposed to metal ones, water carafes, sofas as well as chairs, speaker phones, etageres of brass and glass), education (the great divide existing between those who had bachelor's degrees from a respectable four-year college as opposed to those who didn't), even sexual practices. The upper orders made love with the lights on and no bed covers. The lower orders--in the 1950s--found this perverted. Sociologists never rejected Karl Marx's brilliant breakdown of society into classes. But his idea of an upper class--the owners of "the means of production"--and their satellites, the bourgeoisie, in a struggle with the masses, the working class, was too rigid to describe competition among human beast in the 20th century. Weber's entirely novel concept of "status groups" proved to be both more flexible and more penetrating psychologically.

Within the ranks of the rich, including the "owners of the means of production," there inevitably developed an inner circle known as Society. Such groups always believed themselves to be graced with "status honor," as Weber called it. Status honor existed quite apart from such gross matters as raw wealth and power. Family background, education, manners, dress, cultivation, style of life--these, the ineffable things, were what granted you your exalted place in Society.

Military officer corps are rife with inner circles aloof from the official and all-too-political hierarchy of generals, admirals, and the rest. I went to work on a book called The Right Stuff thinking it would be a story of space exploration. In no time at all, I happened upon something far more fascinating. The astronauts were but part of an invisible, and deadly, competitive pyramid within an inner circle of American military fighter pilots and test pilots, and they were by no means at the apex. I characterized this pyramid as a ziggurat, because it consisted of innumerable and ever more deadly steps a fighter pilot had to climb to reach the top. The competition demanded an uncritical willingness to face danger, to face death, not once but daily, if required, not only in combat but also in the routine performance of his duties--without ever showing fear--in behalf of a noble cause, the protection of his nation. There were more ways to die in a routine takeoff of a supersonic jet fighter of the F-series than most mortals could possibly imagine. At the time, a Navy pilot flying for twenty years, an average career span, stood a 23 percent chance of dying in an accident and a 56 percent chance of having to eject at some point, which meant being shot out of the plane like a human rocket by a charge of dynamite under his seat, smashing into what was known as the "wall" of air outside, which could tear the flesh off your face, and descending by parachute. The figures did not include death or ejection in combat, since they were not considered accidental. According to Korean War lore, a Navy fighter pilot began shouting out over the combat radio network, "I've got a Mig at zero! A Mig at zero! I've got a Mig at zero!" A Mig at zero meant a Soviet supersonic fighter plane was squarely on his tail and could blow him out of the sky at any moment. Another voice, according to legend, broke in and said, "Shut up and die like an aviator." Such "chatter," such useless talk on the radio during combat, was forbidden. The term "aviator" was the final, exquisite touch of status sensitivity. Navy pilots always called themselves aviators. Marine and Air Force fliers were merely pilots. The reward for reaching the top of the ziggurat was not money, not power, not even military rank. The reward was status honor, the reputation of being a warrior with ultimate skill and courage--a word, by the way, strictly taboo among the pilots themselves. The same notion of status honor motivates virtually every police and fire fighting force in the world.

Status groups, Weber contended, are the creators of all new styles of life. In his heyday, the turn of the 19th century, the most stylish new status sphere, no more than 30 years old, was known as la vie boheme, the bohemian life. The bohemians were artists plus the intellectuals and layabouts in their orbit. They did their best to stand bourgeois propriety on its head through rakish dishabille, louder music, more wine, great gouts of it, ostentatious cohabitation, and by flaunting their poverty as a virtue. And why? Because they all came from the bourgeoisie themselves originally and wanted nothing more desperately than to distinguish themselves from it. They seldom mentioned the upper class, Marx's owners of "the means of production." They seldom mentioned Marx's working class, except in sentimental appreciation of the workers' occasional show of rebelliousness. No, as the late Jean-Francois Revel said of mid-20th century French intellectuals, the bohemians' sole object was to separate themselves from the mob, the rabble, which today is known as the middle class.

I thought bohemia had been brought to its apogee in the 1960s, before my very eyes, by the hippies, originally known as acid heads, in reference to the drug LSD, with their Rapunzel hair down to the shoulder blades among the males and great tangled thickets of hair in the armpits of the women, all living in communes. The communes inevitably turned religious thanks to the hallucinations hippies experienced while on LSD and a whole array of other hallucinogens whose names no one can remember. Some head--short for acid head--would end up in the middle of Broadway, one of San Francisco's main drags, sitting cross-legged in the Lotus position, looking about, wide eyes glistening with beatification, shouting, "I'm in the pudding and I've met the manager! I'm in the pudding and I've met the manager!" Seldom had so many gone so far to feel aloof from the middle class.

But I was wrong. They were not the ones who raised rejection of the middle class to its final, Olympian level. For what were the hippies and their communes compared to the great bohemians of our time in the status sphere known as Hip Hop, with its black rappers and "posses" and groupies, its hordes of hangers-on--and its millions of followers and believers among the youth of America, white and black? The Hip Hop style of life turns bourgeois propriety inside out. It celebrates the status system of the Street, which is to say, the standards of juvenile male street gangs, so-called gangbangers. What matters is masculinity to burn and a disdain of authority. The rappers themselves always put on looks of sullen hostility for photographs. The hippies' clothes of yore look like no more than clown costumes next to the voluminous Hip Hop jeans with the crotch at knee level and the pants legs cascading into great puddles of fabric at the ankles, the T-shirts hanging outside the pants and just short of knee level and as much as a foot below their leather jackets or windbreakers, and the black bandannas known as do-rags around their heads. What were the hippies' LSD routs known as acid tests . . . compared to the Hip Hop stars' status tests that require shooting and assassinating one another periodically? How cool is that? One of my favorite sights in New York is that of a 14- or-15-year-old boy who has just descended from his family's $10 or $12 million apartment and is emerging onto the sidewalks of Park Avenue dressed Hip-Hop head to crotch, walking through a brass-filigreed door held open by a doorman in a uniform that looks like an Austrian army colonel's from 1870.

Not all status groups are either as competitive as capital-S Society's and the military's or as hostile as the bohemians'. Some are comprised of much broader populations from much larger geographic areas. My special favorites are the Good Ol' Boys, as I eventually called them. I happened upon them while working on an article about stock car racing. Good ol' boys are rural Southerners and Midwesterners seldom educated beyond high school or community college, sometimes owners of small farms but more likely working for wages in factories, warehouses, and service companies. They are mainly but by no means exclusively Scots-Irish Protestants in background and are Born Fighting, to use the title of a brilliant recent work of ethnography by James Webb. They have been the backbone of American combat forces ever since the Revolution, including, as it turns out, both armies during the Civil War. They love hunting, they love their guns, and they believe, probably correctly, that the only way to train a boy to kill Homines loquaces in battle someday is to take him hunting to learn to kill animals, starting with rabbits and squirrels and graduating to beasts as big or bigger than Homo loquax, such as the deer and the bear. Good ol' boys look down on social pretension of any sort. They place a premium on common sense and are skeptical of people with theories they don't put to the test themselves.

I offer an illustration provided to me by a gentleman who is in this audience tonight and who witnessed the following: It was the mid-1940s, during the second World War, and a bunch of good ol' boys too old for military service were sitting around in a general store in Scotland County, North Carolina, waiting for a representative of a cattleman's association. They fell to discussing the war.

One of them said, "Seems to me this whole war's on account of one man, Adolph Hitler. 'Stead a sending all these supply ships to England and whatnot and getting'm sunk out in the Atlantic Ocean by U-boats, why don't we just go ov'ere and shoot him?"

"Whatcha mean, 'just go ov'ere and shoot him'?"

"Just go to where he lives and shoot the sonofabitch."

"I 'speck it ain't that easy. He's probably got a wall around his house."

"Maybe he does. But you git me a boat to git me ov'ere and I'll do it myself."


"I'll wait'il it's night time . . . see . . . and then I'll go around to the back of the house and climb the wall and hide behind a tree. I'll stay there all night, and then in the morning, when he comes out in the yard to pee, I'll shoot him."

Quite in addition to the Good Ol' Boy's level of sophistication, that story reveals four things: a disdain for the futility of government and its cumbersome ways of approaching problems, a faith in common sense, reliance on the inner discipline of the individual--and guns.

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a "fiction-absolute." Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world--so ordained by some almighty force--would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to "the intellectuals" also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.


Interzone / Re: Is that you John Wayne? Is this Me?
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:57:03 AM »
Do you like to think that you think outside of the box yet keep things in neat little pigeonholes?

I don't know if every problem demands "thinking outside of the box." When it's time to dig a ditch, we don't need a web app ("ditchr") to help us do it -- we need a shovel and the same methods that have worked for hundreds of thousands of years.

Interzone / Re: What is leadership?
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:55:46 AM »
Interesting. I hope I'm not waxing flaky too often, although I am sometimes trolly.

Leadership in the modern sense is presented as a social quality. "He has leadership, people love to follow him."

In actuality, it is a discipline more like the martial arts. One may have natural genius, but that alone doesn't do much, unless disciplined.

Then it can work magic. But again, it will work through organization/hierarchy and not a bottom-up vision of us all getting hippie happy with each other.

Life requires force. In all ways. It is the ultimate love: clarity and realism. That alone represents a form of unity with the cosmos which can reveal its true beauty.

Interestingly, one does not become a leader without being forceful within oneself to the same degree. It is how we can separate the tyrants who get up at noon while their men are dying in snow from the kings of old who were there, in the snow, with them.

Interzone / Hipster trend alert
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:52:59 AM »
In yet another sign that the new age lingo of the 1960s is still very much with us, “mindfulness” has become the new “sustainability”: No one quite knows what it is, but everyone seems to be for it.


Interesting analysis. The BOBO trend of the 1990s has now become slightly more ascetic and, oddly, more religious. There's a shift that way in general but it's picking up force.

Metal / Re: Ildjarn Split was written by Nidhogg
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:51:59 AM »
Sort Vokter turned out brilliantly for the limited resources. I always felt the Ildjarn-Nidhogg vision had room to expand although perhaps not in a "metal" form.

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:48:30 AM »
Sometimes, the doing must be, to some degree, compelled. 

And he reverses his position. How modern.

I just have no faith in the notion that, "Get the right leaders, and force everyone to follow them," addresses reality, either. 

And the false dichotomy.

And the anecdotal story where the real problem was that someone lied and was passive-aggressive instead of being honest. It has zero relevance to what we're discussing.

If you wonder why people stay away from forums now...

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 13, 2014, 11:53:26 PM »
You speak of "leadership" is if it were about making people do things, but that's not leadership; it is domination, and domination is always an exercise of the ego.

Civilization is about making people do things. In times of war, we defend; in times of peace, decisions must be made that involve all. To pretend otherwise is trendy libertarian double-speak, but it's not an address of reality.

Further the dichotomy between "domination" and "leadership." Leadership is making the right decisions. Domination is a method. It has no necessary link to the ego, except in those unworthy of the responsibility.

This is true whether at a company, a PTA bake sale, a local church committee, a farm, even a family. Leadership is necessary or it becomes "everyone do whatever they want," which is what you advocate.

The problem with liberalism is not that it exercises power; it's that its consequences are always bad because it is based in illusion.

I prefer organic leadership, which consists of putting the best people in charge and having a cultural shared values system to do the rest. This is distinct from the modern state, which operates by ideological commitment and shuns both the idea of people quality and cultural shared values because those conflict with its justification for rule, which is the equality of the individual.

And that is what you are arguing for here.

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 13, 2014, 11:26:00 PM »
Society works when everyone tends his own garden and straightens his own back yard, and it fails when it fills up with people ready to root around in other folks' yards.

Experience suggests otherwise -- you either have strong leadership, or your civilization falls apart. You either have cultural values, or you have anarchy. You seem to prefer the shopping mall model which, not surprisingly, is what you have.

Interzone / Nietzsche
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:43:27 PM »
Nietzsche is generally quoted by confused people. He makes that process easy by being sometimes apparently vague or self-contradictory.

What is his highest principle? I'd point to two ends of his career:

(1) That we are manipulated by others altering our language and thus thoughts
(2) That our dour proleocracy says "No" to life, where we should say YES

These are the highest principles.

In the middle, he crusades against the loss of Aryan characteristics among Europeans, celebrates national tribes versus nation-states (the uninformed may confuse this "anti-nationalism" which is really "anti-patriotism" with a position against ethnic nationalism which did not occur) and suggests that Western Europeans cultivate the ancient races among themselves and not focus on the modern political divisions, which were post-French Revolution nation-state divisions.

He also loathed passive-aggression, which I consider the biggest problem in society today. It is the root of crowdism, conformity to illusion (note: regular conformity is fine), and a failure to act decisively.

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:40:28 PM »
And since when have we cared how things are "generally" known?

We all care what is generally know. We're using language, which depends on tokens being roughly identical in understanding between speaker and listener for there to be any actual communication.

Besides, that dodges the fact:

This is generally known as submission, acceptance, and concession.

"I'll just fix up my yard and make it nice and ignore the world" is how we got in this situation. It's submission, acceptance and concession. You're giving everyone else the OK to do whatever they want.

It is imperative to instead at least speak up and push back. Or you grant them approval.

Metal / Death Metal Underground
« on: March 13, 2014, 12:47:54 PM »
March 12, 2014:

What are Sadistic Metal Reviews? The only path to metal glory is to make music that is metal both in form and content, and upholds the spirit of conquering the unknown and crushing the empty and pointless. Anything else fails and shall be mocked! Come for the impotent rage, stay for the occasional standout…


- -

1 2 [3] 4 ... 170