Interview with A.V. of Dead Congregation

dead_congregation-live

Back in 2012, I conducted an interview with one of the new “morbid wave” death/black metal bands who focus on atmosphere instead of pure riff acrobatics and internal contrast. These bands, borrowing widely from Incantation and Blasphemy, create a rushing wave of darkness that drones into extended mood pieces immersing the listener in a hopeless morbidity. Guitarist A.V. answered my questions…

What was your primary goal since the beginning that you set out to emanate with Dead Congregation and how do you think the band stands compared to other contemporaries of this style? Do you think Dead Congregation has carved its mark in the underground as an entity to be reckoned with?

Our time has been extremely limited in the past couple of years so we don’t really do interviews anymore, this one is of the new exceptions. Our goal was will always be to feed the fire of creation we have in us as artists and channel all that inspiration in the shape of compositions and ultimately recordings. Once our songs are recorded the way we have conceived them then it’s out of our hands. We’re not after world domination and other vanity-driven goals. We’re not the ones who should say what makes us different from our peers but it definitely seems that we have a stronger following than most.

Your debut album Grave of the Archangels received quite a bit of attention from the underground/extreme metal community when it was released in 2008; how important was the distribution of the album and what are your thoughts on all the constructive feedback concerning it? I gather you must be more than content with the good promotion endowed by NWN?

In reality there was no promotion at all from either the band or the label. NWN has a strong name in the underground and many people follow what that label does but none of us have ever sent out any promos or placed adds on related press and such. Apart from some selective gigs that we do most of the attention we’ve received is gained by ‘word of mouth’ in the underground. I guess when the material is strong it will find its way to surface sooner or later. Although we were extremely confident about the quality of our recording we didn’t really expect to receive so much feedback and sell so many copies.

Before the debut, you released the mini-album called Purifying Consecrated Ground which was released under Konqueror Records. What can you tell us about this rather obscure label and how you got in contact with them? How many copies and formats were printed of this release and what are your feelings regarding it on the present day? Has the style changed much at all between the two releases?

Konqueror Records got in touch with us in regards to our previous band Nuclear Winter and they wanted to sign us for an album. We explained that Nuclear Winter was laid to rest and we had a new band working on new material and they trusted us enough to offer a deal without listening a demo from Dead Congregation. We will always be grateful to them for releasing the first ever Dead Congregation recording and meeting all our demands with success. After that initial version there have been a lot of re-releases: CASSETTE version (Nuclear Winter Records, 515 copies and counting), 10”MLP (Necrocosm Records, 666 copies), MCD Digipack (Enucleation Records, 1000 copies), 12”MLP (NWN!, 1000 copies), 12”MLP (NWN! tour edition, 250 copies), 12”MLP Picture Disc (NWN!, 200 copies), MCD re-release with altered design (Nuclear Winter Records, 500 copies). We’re still proud of it as a recording, looking back you always find things you could have done differently/better yet it still represents the band at that time and some of the compositions in there are of the strongest we’ve done, in my opinion. The style is the same, yet we took it a few steps further for the album in the sense that we have a more personal sound on the full length.

Music-wise, what are to you the most essential aspects for a death metal band? Some say it’s the rhythm of the guitars, some say it’s the drum beat, and others say it’s the vocals… Maybe it’s a bit of everything? How do you manage do create such a morose atmosphere with your music?

I think it’s the feeling and atmosphere above all. The same riff can sound completely different if you alter important factors such us sound, drumming, the way you hit the chords on the guitar and many more. But in the end it’s all about the atmosphere a recording creates, if it doesn’t ooze of death and morbidity then it shouldn’t be labeled as Death Metal simply because the vocals are distorted and the drums are fast.

Many say that black and death metal must remain as subversive as possible or else it loses touch with its primary essence; what are your thoughts on that? Would you consider a band a sellout if they signed to a big label like Nuclear Blast?

It’s hard to say because in the old days all bands were on major labels without compromising their integrity and some bands still manage to do it. It has to do with how focused you are and what your goals have been from the beginning as spoken earlier. If a band feels like a label is trying to make them deviate from their initial goal then it’s up to the band to decide if they want to stick with that label or not. Truth is that on big labels you get to have less artistic freedom and it’s one of the reasons why we’ve rejected all offers from big labels but I’ll never judge another band for wanting to get ‘big’ and sign to a big label. If that’s what they want it’s fine by me, they do their thing, we do our thing.

What inspired the name DEAD CONGREGATION? I think it articulates your music rather well.

Thank you, we think so too. It’s a song title from our previous band Nuclear Winter and it seemed very appropriate as the moniker of the new incarnation.

Just how important is artistic appeal for you? Does aesthetics play a big role in your music? If Black and Death Metal doesn’t classify as art, then what is it?

Aesthetics are very important as long as they serve a purpose. If they complement the album as a whole and work hand in hand with the music and lyrics then I’m definitely all for good artwork and design. The problem is that many bands focus on that too much and forget the essence which is music above all. They try to hide their mediocre albums behind fancy illustrations and 20-page booklets for the vinyl edition. Same goes for ‘die hard’ versions of albums by bands that can barely sell 300 copies of a release. So yes, in some cases it is important when it’s done by bands who actually have to offer something substantial but a dirty whore will always remain one even if you dress her up in the most expensive clothes if you know what I mean.

As a counterpoint to great aesthetics I have to mention albums like Deicide’s debut that were badly designed, yet that eliminated none of the greatness of the album after all.

What would be the perfect depiction for your sound and what would you like for the listener to feel while he/she is listening to your music?

There are no fancy terms to describe our music, it’s just darkened Death Metal the way we perceive it as true.

I’m curious about the split you did with Germany’s Hatespawn and how you got in contact with the band. What do you think about their demo, “Ascent From The Kingdom Below”?

Hmm, can’t remember if it was us who asked them to join us for the split release or the other way around. We definitely admire Hatespawn’s body of work collectively otherwise we’d never have agreed to do a split release with them.

How important is it for a band like yourself to do a split with bands with whom you share a common vision? I personally don’t think it would suite your band very well to do a split with an ordinary thrash or punk act. I mean, your music is dark and evokes an atmosphere of pure morbidity, thus I think its obligatory for a band of your nature to do a split with bands, who, more-or-less, have the same ideals as you; do you agree? I guess it’s a controversial subject to dive into.

As I said above, we do find it important that bands who are featured in split releases share common grounds in vision, ideology, aesthetics, etc. Diversity is definitely accepted on music itself, as long as there’s similar ideals behind both bands. For example we don’t sound anything like Teitanblood or Katharsis but we’d gladly do a split with those bands because we know they’re like-minded people and our general perception of death/black metal is very similar. The same goes for gigs, when we are asked to play live we always check if the other bands on the billing have similar values as us, at least the majority of them.

How has the current economic climate in your Country affected you personally and what do you think are the possibilities of the situation improving soon?

It affects everyone in Greece more or less but I can’t complain, I’m a fighter and I’ll always find a way to get by even under harder circumstances. I’m not too optimistic about the economy improving soon since we’re governed by idiots and incompetent politicians who don’t care about the country’s prosperity.

What would it really take for human beings to change or do you think we are incapable of such?

The human race is the definition of a parasite, especially in these days of materialistic values. The majority of people’s actions are driven by selfish intentions and very few see the big picture and how every action has a consequence that might back fire on you in the end. It will take some very dramatic change in our lives before we have our wake-up call and then it will be too late.

From one point of view that’s good because the weak will be weeded out, however leeches and parasites always have a way of surviving also so there’s no hope for mankind after all.

Which 5 albums would you consider as the pinnacle of death metal and why?

That’s very hard to limit to only 5 albums but some of the most important in the sense that they shaped entire scenes are:

  • Morbid Angel – Abominations of Desolation / Altars of Madness
  • Immolation – Dawn of Possession
  • Death – Scream Bloody Gore
  • Entombed / Nihilist – early material
  • Malevolent Creation – The Ten Commandments (because it’s one of my fave albums of all time regardless of genres)

With which bands have you played live with, and what would you consider as one of your most worthwhile moments as far as playing live? Are there any interesting stories you can perhaps share with us? What about alcohol, does that play a factor at your shows or do you try to keep things as professional and tight as possible?

We have shared the stage with too many bands to be mentioned here but the truth is that personally I always enjoy it more when we play with buddies and allies of ours such as Grave Miasma, Cruciamentum, Drowned, Archgoat, Kaamos, Antaeus etc, than playing with bigger bands and/or big festivals. The atmosphere and vibes are a lot better when you play with like minded people as said before. A recent gig that was very close to perfect from all aspects was when we played with Sadistic Intent and Nocturnal Vomit some months ago.

We’re not heavy drinkers at all, we always have a few drinks but never to the point of being drunk out of our minds. It’s how we are as people and it doesn’t have to do with wanting to be ‘professional’ or ‘tight’.

Is there anything else you’d like to disclose before we close this interrogation? Maybe you can tell us what to expect from your death-coven in the future?

Our next album is entirely composed and we hope to record it on the early months of 2013, we just need to find some time between gigs and focus on that. We already recorded a 3-song demo in August and it sounds pretty massive without even mixing it so we’ll have a similar recording approach for the album which is basically: record everything as good as you can without correcting mistakes because you’re only human and you can’t fake to be something better than you are and most importantly IGNORE everything that the sound engineer says because he’s just a tool and his recommendations just slow you down and make you go in circles before you’ll end up in your initial approach anyway, haha.

All Hails, see you on the road sometime!

Tags: , ,

142 thoughts on “Interview with A.V. of Dead Congregation”

  1. confused discipline says:

    Following the release of Promulgation of the Fall, Brett Stevens took to the NWN forums decrying the band and album as something that will not be remembered in five years time. Making the year end best of and now given an interview is a peculiar reversal. Especially considering the fact that the lastest release won’t be remembered in 5 months time.

    1. Richard Head 9001 says:

      The band is astill young with only two full-lengths under their belt. They also have a better grasp on song structuring than 9/10 of the current death metal generation. So even though they aren’t releasing classics yet, they deserve support as they still can mature and begin writing really good stuff, as wel as keep the bar high and influence other youngsters to explore the orhodox death metal styling.

      1. Richard Head 9001 says:

        Sorry for the sloppy spelling. Fuck typing on an iphone and fuck me for having to use one in the first place.

      2. explore the orhodox death metal styling

        Are you sure that’s what they have?

        Also note that “best” is relative to releases in a given year.

        1. discodjango says:

          Richard Head is half-right. There came more bands playing the Incantation style after Dead Congregation had started it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these bands got it right, though. Some are boring because they focus on atmosphere alone (Grave Miasma, for example), some are good because they write interesting songs (Cruciamentum, Father Befouled).

        2. Richard Head 9001 says:

          Yeah I’m quite sure. I use the word “styling” rather than methodology, technique, or paradigm because I want to indicate that the similarities between DC’s sound and orthodox death metal are more than just surface-deep but they are not identical to the core.

        3. confused discipline says:

          If it does not meet the 5-10 year qualification, then why is it worthy of praise?

      3. confused discipline says:

        Hegel understood sentence structure and failed to communicate anything meritorious. How do you suppose that supporting a band keeps the bar high?

        1. Richard Head 9002 says:

          It doesn’t. I was suggesting that any band who shows the possibility of creating something worthwhile ought to be supported rather than struck down due to failing some qualification test right off the bat. Musicians mature and adjust their techniques as time passes; sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. All I’m suggesting is to take an optimistic stance toward bands that do things halfway right.

        2. Richard Head 9002 says:

          And by keeping the bar high, I meant to suggest that other bands should be expected to experiment without going so far as to begin fusing their sound with other elements from disparate genres. In other words, bands should be expected to move forward, not laterally or, even worse, in circles.

          1. confused discipline says:

            Promulgation…. was a lateral step for the band. Second album in and they’ve already released work which is little more than an appendix to what preceded with no standout tracks like Humani Hostis teeth into red or the title track.

            1. Richard Head 9003 says:

              Take for instance Pantera, if that band had been praised by true Hessians, sooner or later they would have composing an album worthy of entering the Dark Legions Archive. We need to support the scene.

              1. Richard Head 9002 says:

                Nice try, but you jumped the gun on the numbers. You were good, son, but as long as I’m around, you’ll always be second best.

            2. Richard Head 9002 says:

              So what is your point? Promulgations appears to have developed (or not) laterally to you. I say that it is an experimental move for the band, just not in the right direction. That’s not reason to dismiss the band. This isn’t 1995, when it was easier to write original metal. The style by now has been done to death (sorry, couldn’t resist that one) and new bands struggle to come up with anything that isn’t a rehash. It takes time to develop a musical voice that is idiosyncratic.

              1. confused discipline says:

                You’re suggesting here that we lower the bar. Earlier you said that we need to keep the bar high. Which is it?

                1. Richard Head 9002 says:

                  No; I say that we should support bands who try to expand on the basic death metal template because we can probably agree that the only other option is to rehash the old template. PotF was an honest attempt to expand and the result was unsteady. However if you are bound and determined that PotF was a shit album and that there is no hope for the band, then you can go on your merry way because I’m not going to convince you otherwise.

    2. discodjango says:

      What are you tying to proof with a comment like this one? That it is a terrible thing to change one’s mind?

      Regarding the album, I think you are wrong. It came out in May and people are still talking about it.

      1. That it is a terrible thing to change one’s mind?

        Additional points: best-of lists represent the best of a time period, not a universal. This site also chooses to be critical but support the underground by focusing on what seems to be happening in the community at the time, and differentiating best from worst.

  2. fenrir says:

    oh, he didn’t understand the question about aesthetics. Happens with most of the bands.
    Despite the ignorance, this guy seems to have a very strong, natural artistic compass. He gets my respect for that. I will listen to the new Dead Congregation a couple of more times in honor of that.

    1. Richard Head 9001 says:

      The dude clearly has that drive and it comes through in his writing. Promulgation just has a little too much try-hard experimentation to really let the songs come through full-force, so hopefully future records will be a little more restrained. Have you heard Purifying Consecrated Ground? That EP shows how well they really could be writing if they stick with their figurative guns and resist becoming a novelty “experiemental” act.

      1. Daniel says:

        Hi Richard. I view Dead Congregation as better than the Benedicitons and Authorizes of the old school but not up there with the top flight stuff such as early Morbid Angel, Dismember(including Carnage), and Immolation. Dead Congregation have the riffs. They just need to refine their song writing. The doomy 2nd track was cool and a nice break from pace, some of the later more blackened tracks they are hammering your face in only to break out in 4/4 doom for two minutes. Still it’s much more appealing than the post early 2000s (Unholy Cult, Infernal Storm, and Gateways were solid) from their heroes Immolation, Incantation, and Morbid Angel.

        They basically need to become the more brutal early Immolation that Promulgation hints at. Due to their very strong rhythm section from Inveracity, they have a percussive edge that some of the songwriting is starting to reflect and a step up from Graves in this regard. Purifying Consecrated Ground is their best despite being the most derivative work riffwise as the songwriting leaner and meaner but you could say this about many bands EPs including At the Gates and 1990s Carcass (Tools of the Trade kicks the shit out of Necroticism). Basically throw out the songwriting tributes to Covenant/Domination era Morbid Angel.

        If Dead Congregation can continue evolving into that direction of percussive Immolation elements with doom for atmosphere (as in track 2 of promulgation and many moments on graves) rather than schizophrenically separating the killer riffs in otherwise very strong tracks, they could easily be a USDA Prime death metal machine up there with the best of hte old school.

        1. Richard Head 9002 says:

          Yea, you have it right. The disconnectedness of riffs renders them ineffective no matter how cool they sound individually. I think maybe the band hasn’t totally realized this and that the cohesiveness of the EP was more or leas a fluke, or maybe they were dealing with familiar elements and had an easier time fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. I’m leaning toward the 2nd possibility, since it is evident that they were unsure of how to tie the individual parts (which are strong on their own) together on PotF.

        2. ODB says:

          Dead Congregation don’t have killer riffs. They have good ornamentation, in the form of those exotic licks, liberal use of feedback, etc. To their credit, they swamp their songs with these techniques but actual riffs are fairly non descript and underwhelming. They aren’t as idiosyncratic as Immolation either on the individual riff’s structural level; they borrow a little from the Immolation groove but they also fill their songs with those terrible, modern doom segments which are little more than power chords aimlessly dragging their feet.

        3. fenrir says:

          Unholy Cult was better than any of the other things you mentioned.

        4. fenrir says:

          At the Gates’ writing on their EP is anything but LEANER than the rest of their discography. It’s practically their most dense and strictly organized.

  3. Richard Head 9001 says:

    Purifying Consecrated Ground is very solid, tastefully lacking wankery. Can’t quite say the same for the new album but I appreciate the bands willingness to explore a more idiosyncratic sound rather than take the Teitanblood route and compose the minimalist and basic knuckle-dragging death metal possible, which thy easily could have done.

  4. Brahma Guru says:

    Why is such an old interview just now being published?

  5. Are U Elitist? says:

    Ok I have a question for you readers.
    Has this band released anything that is superior to say, “The Infernal Storm” by Incantation?

    If Incantation had disbanded after The Infernal Storm and all its later albums, (the exact same music) would have been released by any other band after 2010, would this site be praising that band too?

    Are any of these Icantation clones better than later Incantation ?

  6. Brahma Guru says:

    “What inspired the name DEAD CONGREGATION? I think it articulates your music rather well.”

    +1

  7. Are U Elitist? says:

    Also the ARA guys and its ilk should take note of this:

    quote from the interview:

    “But in the end it’s all about the atmosphere a recording creates, if it doesn’t ooze of death and morbidity then it shouldn’t be labeled as Death Metal simply because the vocals are distorted and the drums are fast.”

    1. Ara says:

      We aren’t interested in recreating an atmosphere that has been done a million times and is the safest answer as the death metal sound to your ears. Death is all there is, and thus can be expressed in a multitude of ways.

      1. Brahma Guru says:

        nobody’s called you out on your bullshit yet here?

        ara is to art as affirmative action is to asian americans

        (c) brama guru 2015

        1. Ara says:

          It is easy to call something you don’t understand bullshit when you’re afraid of outside infiltration of something that you find safe and comforting. Thanks for your criticism.

          1. It is easy to call something you don’t understand bullshit when you’re afraid of outside infiltration of something that you find safe and comforting.

            People who are not afraid of this have nothing they care about defending.

            I think however that “bullshit” is too generic of an attack.

            1. Brahma Guru says:

              do you have a better one-word description of metalcore sneaking into your blog?

              “bullshit” works fine and dandy

              in furtherance, it’s a description that the ara guy can easily digest (much like his music)

              ara guy eats the poo

              my advice to ara guy: quit your band, join the french foreign legion, get PTSD from being shot at in africa, return to france, witness the implosion of western civilization, drink a cognac, reevaluate what it means to make metal

              (c) brahma guru 2015

              1. Ara says:

                That’s funny, but ridiculous. Anyway, I apologize for my candor with the message above. Your comment was the first thing I read when I woke up and mornings make for irrational anger. That being said, you cannot call Ara not art. You can say my band sucks, you can say it’s not for you, but you can’t call a musical form of expression not art. That’s like saying red isn’t a color because you’re a fan of blue.
                Also, again, we are not a metalcore band. I’ll compromise with deathgrind, as loathesome as that is, but metalcore, no.

                1. I’ll compromise with deathgrind, as loathesome as that is, but metalcore, no.

                  We may need a new category, although it seems to me that it’s not deathgrind in the original sense (Suffocation ca. 1994).

                  1. Ara says:

                    Suffocation was considered deathgrind in 1994? I associate deathgrind with the double-time thrash beat type of blast which Suffocation didn’t really do until Despise the Sun. The Suffo blast isn’t really part of grind.

                    1. Yes, very much considered it back then. Suffocation, Bolt Thrower and Napalm Death were crossing over the boundaries there at the time. The Suffocation blast, while more disciplined than the grind blast, expanded on the concepts that grind bands were using. People called it deathgrind to make it clear where it stood relative to regular death metal. This then differentiated out “deathcore” to refer to the Skinless style stuff.

                2. Richard Head 9002 says:

                  Well, since it’s not quite death metal, how about “vegetative state metal”? Or maybe comacore?

                  1. Brahma Guru says:

                    “Bullshit” works too

                    (c) brahma guru 2015

                  2. Ara says:

                    Intensive core.

                    1. Richard Head 9002 says:

                      NDEcore.

  8. SERIOUS QUESTIONER says:

    This is a question for any who may care:

    Most leftist and crowdist people in general seem to be aggressively detached from religious belief. They are against anything or anybody that promotes behavioral standards. Incantation are a band that seem to speak negatively and against Christianity almost too literally. It seems counter-intuitive to me, to be an American conservative and an Incantation fan at the same time.

    What do you guys think ?

    1. ODB says:

      Religious awe through metal is a purely metaphorical connotation for the stirring of the soul or whatever it is that animates the human consciousness. It has nothing to do with the religious belief of the masses. Before them it is better to put on a blasphemous/atheistic front, irrespective of which side of the political spectrum one lies on because they aren’t capable of comprehending or respecting the subtleties involved.

    2. Roger says:

      American conservatives (i.e. neoconservatives) are mostly Jacobin Liberals intent on spreading democracy and liberalism through the world while using a perverted form of Christianity as a conduit for worshiping AmericaTM back home. Think Napoleon backed and financed by McDonalds and you won’t be too far off.

      But yes I get your point. Incantation, and the style of music it represents, is simply too modernist and individualist to be accepted by any traditional institution, from paleo-conservatism neo-conservatism.

      Mr Stevens might tell you otherwise, but this simply represents a person awkwardly trying to synthesize different tastes from widely different parts of their life into a coherent whole (early: death metal, late: conservatism). A noble attempt at fashioning a unique world-view, but one that ultimately fails in internal coherency.

      1. Nuumite says:

        Brett Stevens isn’t talking about the Conservatism that the herd knows, he’s talking about Conservatism through Traditionalism. Incantation and Metal in general fits in that worldview because Metal says things like “Only Death is Real” and that the only thing that matters is reality. Reality/Cosmos, etc. follows the same rules over and over again, so he is trying to conserve the knowledge of these rules.

      2. 1349 says:

        this simply represents a person awkwardly trying to synthesize different tastes from widely different parts of their life into a coherent whole. A noble attempt at fashioning a unique world-view, but one that ultimately fails in internal coherency.

        Metal is the latest incarnation of traditional thinking in music; did You know that?

        The worldview You talk about is not quite unique. Stevens is not the only one who is both a metalhead and a cons./trad.

    3. 1349 says:

      To be actually rightwing, all you must imbed in your everyday activity (while not necessarily recognizing) is that, basically,
      a) everything is a process;
      b) everything that exists serves a goal, and in order to exist a thing must have a goal;
      c) there are things that are both larger and more important/beautiful/interesting than the Self; in fact, the world doesn’t care for an individual;
      d) there is a world of ideas/abstractions which is not less if not more important than the tangible/measurable world; these worlds are interdependent;
      e) humans vary in their quality and in their value for the group or for humanity as a whole.

      So, being christian – or religious at all – is not necessary.
      (Even worse: christianity is quite liberal.)

      To be an American conservative, one can just be a conservative and happen to be American. ;)

      1. BB says:

        points B and D are human projections.

        B) e.g. a stone has no goal. a stone just is, and plays a role (big or small) in other processes: but it has no goal, as it is just a result of other (geological) processes. of course, a stone can be used as a goal (by animal or a human), but it doesn’t inherently serve “a goal”.

        D) the world of ideas/abstractions only exists in the human mind. the world (reality) doesn’t care about this imagined world.

        A, C and E are correct.

        1. confused discipline says:

          C is also incorrect. Individuals comprise “The World” as much as any natural process or existant object. Individuals care about other individuals therefore the world does care about individuals. That the world doesn’t always conform to the desires of individuals is another matter.

          1. 1349 says:

            You haven’t understood “C” (haven’t even read it correctly).
            The world doesn’t care for AN INDIVIDUAL (ONE individual).
            ONE human or ONE animal makes no sense.
            Nietzsche stated it makes no sense for the nature (the physical);
            i, as a ~pantheist, would add that it makes no sense for what is above the physical.

            1. 1349 says:

              *it must be better to say “makes no sense to smth.”

            2. confused discipline says:

              I am a single individual who is cared for by family and friends. We compromise “the world”. “The world” cares about a single individual. This is very easy.

              1. 1349 says:

                I thought it was easy to understand me, but You don’t. Or You do but You’re trying to troll.

                1. Confused Disciple says:

                  Telling another party that they don’t understand you might be a nice way to duck criticism in your own mind but the fact remains that you yourself said that reality is a system in which individual parts are connected. Stop ducking and accept the inevitable: you are in the wrong.

                  1. 1349 says:

                    Whatever you say!! =)))

        2. 1349 says:

          A stone is something “dying”, a fragment of what would play a bigger role before.
          The necessity of a goal (more exactly, a “goal function”, “objective function”) is quite a mathematical postulate. It’s probably a projection but it works for the society: if a society has no goals, it stops existing. After all, conservatism is another construct of the human mind.

          The goal function of the most primitive entities is to preserve the status quo. A stone tries not to be destroyed by weather and other stones. A government which doesn’t know where to lead the people just tries to stay in power.

          1. BB says:

            A stone doesn’t try anything. Stop antrophomorphising reality.

            1. 1349 says:

              As a primitive system, it does. Stop seeing humans where there are none.

              1. BB says:

                Okay, I understand what you mean, but now we are mainly talking semantics of the word “try”.

                I would use more transparant/useful language in describing a stone (and reality for that matter) though:

                e.g. the molecules in a stone, being governed by physical laws, stick together if no other forces are applied to them.

                So, yes, you could say that they (and the sum of their parts, the stone) “try” to stick together, but in most language “try” implies an actor/conscious agent. If the agent isn’t conscious, it doesn’t really try, but adheres to laws/principles. The same goes for having a goal.

                To use “try” or describe things in terms of “goals” only obfuscates things.

                1. 1349 says:

                  I’m not an English speaker, my thinking process is not Germanic, this could be one of the reasons why i’m sometimes misunderstood.

                  The border between “conscious” and “unconscious” agents, as well as between “living” and “non-living” entities is conventional rather than strict.

                  1. BB says:

                    The conventions are quite clear. A stone is dead, a cat is alive. A human has a consciousness, a stone doesn’t. One could debate about the degree of consciousness a cat or a chimpansee has, sure, but if you talk about “everything” like in your original post, it is clear not everything has a goal, since having a goal implies being an agent. Inanimate objects aren’t agents.

                    And yes, one could argue about crystals growing and a such being alive, and the ontological state of viruses, but it’s not a debate about the nature of life. It’s a debate about everything having goals or not.

                    All and all, it’s simple: things do not try. Not in German, not in English, and not in Dutch (my mother tongue, close to Deutsch, as you probably know).

                    1. 1349 says:

                      “The conventions are quite clear. A stone is dead, a cat is alive. A human has a consciousness, a stone doesn’t.”

                      The conventions are clear but they’re a model, a simplification.
                      It is all not that simple.

                      “All and all, it’s simple: things do not try. Not in German, not in English, and not in Dutch”

                      These are analytical languages. In synthetical languages (and the corresponding mentality) things can be a bit different.
                      …Interestingly, in eastern Slavic languages the word “goal”/”aim” (“cel”) is paronymous to the word “whole”/”integral”/”intact” (“celiy”).
                      But we’re digressing.
                      Return to this comment if not all is clear:
                      http://www.deathmetal.org/interview/interview-with-a-v-of-dead-congregation/#comment-537164
                      I won’t try to explain beyond that.

                    2. BB says:

                      It’s clear. I just don’t agree and think that you phrase things in an obfuscating manner, adding to your own the conceptual confusion…

                      Btw: a list is also a simplification. Being a conservative is not as simple as your list.

                      It would have been nice if you would have tried to discuss things further, but I understand and respect you’re not willing to invest the time.

                    3. If you want discussion, my advice is: use formal debate rules, ask rather than attack, and keep civility high from the inception.

        3. 1349 says:

          “D) the world of ideas/abstractions only exists in the human mind. the world (reality) doesn’t care about this imagined world”

          A system is more than the sum of it parts. There are connections between them, often subtle and exhibiting themselves (i mean, connections) only with time. A system is not something tangible.
          The world doesn’t care for ideas but it WORKS as if it had ideas/principles (AND goals, which are abstract, too).

          Also, once again: conservatism as i put it above is a description of how one acts rather than of how one “knows”/”believes”/”sees”/”feels”.

          1. BB says:

            Be more careful in how you phrase things. If you say “there is a world of ideas/abstractions” I take it you meant “is”.

            It might seem to work like this or that to you, but perception is just that: eye of the beholder stuff. If you want to talk essentials, as you initially tried to do with your bullet point list, try to stick to objective things.

            You say that the world works as if it had ideas/principles.
            I say: it has principles, there’s no “as if”-qualifier needed in that statement. What kind of principles? Physical laws for instance. Easy peasy. Ideas? Not so. The world/reality doesn’t think.

            1. 1349 says:

              “Ideas” don’t necessarily mean that someone “thinks” them. At least, i didn’t say that.

              1. BB says:

                Again, it might seem that the universe works “as if” it has ideas, but that’s more an obfuscating metaphor than a useful remark, since it’s just a description of something that can be said better: the world is governed by (physical) laws.

                It is clear to anybody who doesn’t adhere to magical thinking that reality/the world doesn’t think, so why chose such a metaphor? An idea is a result of a thought process, so it implies someone or something (an agent) that thinks it. It’s doesn’t help the discussion forward to make an agent of the whole of reality.

                1. 1349 says:

                  “It is clear to anybody who doesn’t adhere to magical thinking that reality/the world doesn’t think”

                  Before we discuss that (which i don’t want to), we must come to an agreement on what “think” means.
                  Whether reality, as a whole, has a WILL, is not important here.

                2. It is clear to anybody who doesn’t adhere to magical thinking that reality/the world doesn’t think

                  This type of argument — “every sane person agrees” (hybrid of ad populam/ad hominem) — is a stricly go nowhere do nothing proposition wherever applied.

                  1. BB says:

                    What I’m actually saying is that if you believe the world ‘thinks’, you adhere to magic. There is nothing interently wrong with a magical frame of mind, but one must admit to it. The alternative to magical thinking is the scientific method (which, of course, is not without its own problems).

                    Another option in this debate would be to stretch the meaning of the word “thinking” – which in scientific and regular use vocabulary is limited to brain processes. As I already stated, I think using “thinking” in such a way is only an obfuscating metaphore, that only adds mudd to the debating puddle.

                    Are there processes in reality as a whole, or in stones, or other what is commonly referred to as inanimate objects? Yes. Do these processes are (or resemble) what is commonly refered to as thinking? No. Do these processes originate from an (consciouss) agent? No.

                    Can a brain in itself be considered an inanimate object? Now that’s an interesting question, but whatever answer to it doesn’t alter the meaning of the word ‘thinking’.

                    Saying the universe has a goal, is confusing cause and result.

                    There might be some merit to use stuff like Hegel’s teleology metaphorically/descriptively/poetically, but not as an explanation for the causes of actual processes.

                    1. ODB says:

                      Maybe it is a little more helpful to think that all potential for thinking is embedded in nature or the universal consciousness? Everything that you perceive around you is in a constant struggle to improve its self consciousness so that it can eventually merge with this ultimate consciousness; yes, even something like a stone as inanimate as it may seem.

                      These are purely ontological arguments of course. I’m not sure if they can be tackled from a purely empirical perspective.

                    2. In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin word intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a ‘concept’ or an ‘intension’: something that can be both true of non-mental things and properties—things and properties lying outside the mind—and present to the mind. On the assumption that a concept is itself something mental, an intentio may also be true of mental things. For example, the concept of a dog, which is a first-level intentio, applies to individual dogs or to the property of being a dog. It also falls under various higher-level concepts that apply to it, such as being a concept, being mental, etc. If so, then while the first-level concept is true of non-mental things, the higher-level concepts may be true of something mental.

                      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

                    3. ODB says:

                      Also, if you’re of the inclination that the most fundamental constituents of nature viz. molecules, atoms, quarks, etc don’t have a functioning mind of their own and hence no consciousness, it is stiobvious that they function by certain laws. So does the mind – arising of the physical brain – and everything it gives cause and effect to, just along a far more complicated, multi-branched decision tree compared to the relatively “binary”/”ternary” logic of smaller entities.

                      Would a universal consciousness seem more palatable from this point of view?

      2. Ara says:

        I have some questions regarding what I’ve learned about true conservativism from this site. It seem that the “individual” is a bad thing, and lends itself to liberalism, which is a bad thing. Why exactly is this? Since everything has to be perceived through an individual mind to exist, why is such weight given to the processes of what is larger than the self? Why is collective thought and action the desired goal, since clearly no one can see eye to eye on things, and a greater good would have to be perceived from an individual or group of individuals’ minds? How is the value of a human factored? By race or individual characteristics or what? Who determines this?
        Also, this “bigger than the self” principle hints at religion. Why is this a good thing, and if this will no doubt cause cultural differences as to what that bigger-than-self is, who is to say what is correct, and what determines that value in the first place?

        1. A few thoughts:

          It seem that the “individual” is a bad thing, and lends itself to liberalism, which is a bad thing.

          The individual is separate from individualism, which is prioritizing the individual above all else. Self-interest is the default state of organisms, but when in society, this has to be traded off to some degree for interest in the whole, which is society as a whole and as an organic thing, which is distinct from a “collective” (which you can read about more on Free Republic if you… shudder… have a stern stomach).

          Since everything has to be perceived through an individual mind to exist, why is such weight given to the processes of what is larger than the self?

          The simple answer: because they have consequences.

          The self might be useful as a perceptual agent but that does not mean we assign its perceptions absolute weight. It is after all usually fallible.

          since clearly no one can see eye to eye on things

          Some are less correct than others.

          How is the value of a human factored?

          Why is one assigning value to human beings? I don’t understand the relevance.

          Also, this “bigger than the self” principle hints at religion.

          Not necessarily. Civilization, history, learning, art, etc. are all bigger than the self.

          who is to say what is correct

          Those who are more correct. The truth is out there… outside the boundaries of the human skull. Sometimes it intrudes. On those rare events, we should take note of it and use that truth to understand reality better.

          I can’t speak for conservatives per se here but from a general philosophical viewpoint, this clarifies what is being spoken of.

          1. SERIOUS QUESTIONER says:

            On a related issue.
            Some death metal is art.
            Some Incantation is art.

            Incantation’s lyrics are part of the whole artistic package.
            Some art points at something bigger than the self.
            Some Incanation points at something bigger than the self.

            Lyricwise (and what words might reveal about the artist and its art, its intent), how is Incantation’s anti-Christian depicted worldview not against a central pillar of what made America and Americans exceptional; one of the best nations in the history of humankind??

            Or in short: what are Incantation trying to tell us through their art?

            1. Ara says:

              Do you really think a majority of death metal bands have a “message” beyond shock value and surface-value rebellion?

              1. Do you really think a majority of death metal bands have a “message” beyond shock value and surface-value rebellion?

                Why is “majority” important? Let’s look at the bands that founded the genre: YES.

              2. Richard Head 9002 says:

                Maybe artists communicate messages without fully intending them. Most of our thinking is done subconsciously, and awareness is constantly struggling to keep up. This took me a while to accept but its why we got great art (black metal) out of degenerate losers.

                1. Ara says:

                  This is more what I think happens.

                  1. Richard Head 9002 says:

                    In that case, you shouldn’t be too weirded out by the idea that death metal bands have messages that lead to ideas deeper than just willingness to shock and entertain.

                  2. Richard Head 9002 says:

                    I’m also accidentally hinting at the idea that we are susceptible to projection; that we might read into something and find messages and meanings where there were none intended. That possibility leads us to examine the actuality of message and meaning on their own; their utility and relation to conscious ontology. But that’s something that I haven’t figured out.

                2. Maybe artists communicate messages without fully intending them. Most of our thinking is done subconsciously, and awareness is constantly struggling to keep up.

                  Otherwise known as “death of the author” theory.

            2. Lyricwise (and what words might reveal about the artist and its art, its intent), how is Incantation’s anti-Christian depicted worldview not against a central pillar of what made America and Americans exceptional; one of the best nations in the history of humankind?

              Two issues:

              1. Are we sure it was Christianity that made America great? There are better candidates. It may also not matter what the unifying cultural force is so much that there is one.

              2. Some of the best Christians are atheists. Discarding Christianity does not discard the thought process behind Christianity as we think of it.

          2. Ara says:

            Some are less correct than others.

            Who says?

            Why is one assigning value to human beings? I don’t understand the relevance.

            The statement “humans vary in their quality and in their value for the group or for humanity as a whole” is saying that humans have different values. What decides this? Is it skill based or not rooted in experience? Is this a call for eugenics or am I not understanding this?

            Those who are more correct. The truth is out there… outside the boundaries of the human skull. Sometimes it intrudes. On those rare events, we should take note of it and use that truth to understand reality better.

            Once again, who decides what is “more correct?” Historical evidence of the success of various societies or an individual’s opinion? The only thing I know of to be “correct” is that living things tend to turn away from physical or emotional harm and/or death, so I try to not exacerbate these things in my day to day life, since I can empathize with that. As you once said, “be excellent to each other,” since the world is obviously fucked and that’s the least we could do. Everything else seems to be a grey area rooted in opinion, and history may show results but not pure, objective, circumstance-free ones.

            1. To quote text, put it in BLOCKQUOTE tags.

              Who says?

              Either by mob rule (majority) or those who can tell pick what is correct.

              Look at how science, philosophy and technology work. Answers are found; they are best when picked by the best.

              The statement “humans vary in their quality and in their value for the group or for humanity as a whole” is saying that humans have different values. What decides this?

              Different values, different abilities. This is multi-causal in my view.

              Historical evidence of the success of various societies or an individual’s opinion?

              We should look more carefully at that since it is our only record.

              The only thing I know of to be “correct” is that living things tend to turn away from physical or emotional harm and/or death, so I try to not exacerbate these things in my day to day life, since I can empathize with that. As you once said, “be excellent to each other,” since the world is obviously fucked and that’s the least we could do.

              I disagree. I think we should unfuck the world. Anything else is a fear of being wrong and a cop-out.

              1. Ara says:

                Realism should tell you there is no unfucking of the world. Thinking you have a voice beyond making someone feel something through art is to me the true cop-out and rooted in ego.

                1. Realism should tell you there is no unfucking of the world.

                  It does not. If it is possible to fuck it, it is possible to unfuck it. Our problem is delusional.

                  Thinking you have a voice beyond making someone feel something through art is to me the true cop-out and rooted in ego.

                  I do not embrace negation but neither do I frame it in terms of voice. There are only more accurate solutions and it does not matter who says them.

                  The ego is a prison.

        2. 1349 says:

          “It seem that the “individual” is a bad thing”

          ????
          It’s not good or bad, it’s just something that, from a cons./trad. viewpoint, shouldn’t be cherished and absolutized.

          “Why is collective thought and action the desired goal”

          Where have You read this?

          “How is the value of a human factored?”

          By competence, which is inherited abilities multiplied by experience and will.

          “Who determines this?”

          In what situation?

          “this “bigger than the self” principle hints at religion. Why is this a good thing”

          Religion is, in the core, a technique of, first, raising one’s consciousness to the level of pure will and, second, raising it to the level of experiencing unity with the will of the Universe. (Without drugs or any exercises.) (Modern-day religions are not religions but ideologies.)
          The “bigger-than-the-self” principle doesn’t necessarily hint at religion.
          Rather, it is an anti-humanist, superhumanist principle.

          if this will no doubt cause cultural differences as to what that bigger-than-self is, who is to say what is correct

          If i start a party/movement/country/company/death metal band, i recruit those who understand me / agree with me. If somehow internal disagreement exceeds a certain threshold, the entity becomes dysfunctional and disintegrates. Do You get what i mean?

          1. Ara says:

            “If i start a party/movement/country/company/death metal band, i recruit those who understand me / agree with me. ”
            You, you, you. Not individualism?

            1. 1349 says:

              What is individualism?

            2. Nuumite says:

              Dude, like attracts like. All 1349 was saying is that he applies that principle to the people that he associates with, and all healthy groups apply the same principle. “Like Attracts Like” is a traditional rule of reality, now do you understand why people on here are the way they are? Metal is dying because people are mixing it with incompatible elements that don’t go with what makes Metal communicate what it’s supposed to. Society is dying because there are too many people that don’t have the same desires (“Desires are Destiny, another traditional rule of reality) that are being put with each other and they can’t get anything going, and if you aren’t trying to build in life, you are DYING. Put 2 and 2 together….

              1. Ara says:

                I feel that “dying” as a society is the inability to move forward. If you keep looking backwards to tradition for answers when a situation renders it impossible to maintain, you are the cause of your society’s death, not the intrusion of differing desires. I think “tradition” is an albatross around the neck of creativity’s corpse, which is clearly the disconnect I have with a majority of posters on this site.

                1. If you keep looking backwards to tradition for answers when a situation renders it impossible to maintain, you are the cause of your society’s death, not the intrusion of differing desires.

                  What if tradition overlaps with the right answer? You cannot reject it solely because it is tradition either; that’s committing the same sin you allege.

                  It seems to me that people uphold tradition because what has worked longest is most likely to keep working. Humans have not changed since the dawn of humankind.

                2. 1349 says:

                  With time humans gain experience which is invaluable.
                  Discarding experience is stupid.
                  At the same time, the mechanisms of creativity – and of invoking creativity – are understandable. This understanding is also part of our experience.

                  Also, tradition and experience are not the same.

            3. fenrir says:

              It’s an example. Your turning his example into a proof for “individualism” in his words is just setting up a strawman.

      3. Roger says:

        I hope not, seeing as only c and e aren’t obviously wrong. I’ve you Have to cling to outdated metaphysics in order to be right wing, then right wing ideology is fucked. You cannot expect an ideology that holds a view of reality which is totally wrong to survive in this day and age where science is part of each and everything you do and use (science telling you, correctly, than your right wing metaphysics is objectively wrong).

        1. 1349 says:

          ??!What kind of science are You talking about?? =))
          My science (general physics, biology, sociology, psychology, political science, even computer science) tells me i’m actually right.

          1. Roger says:

            a) everything is a process;

            Philosophers still debate the issue of whether matter, at its lowest level, is really ‘matter’ at all or just ‘process’. However, the debate is no finished, and anyway ‘process metaphysics’, in opposition to ‘substance’ metaphysics is not a ‘traditionalist’ metaphysics! It’s exactly the opposite. Essentialism is ‘traditionalist’. I.e. fixed substance around which other, less important things, revolve. If everything is process, then you are simply the product of your environment, a blank slate, to be programmed by the Bolshevik state as they see fit! No soul for you, no prior structures to humanity, no human nature.

            b) everything that exists serves a goal, and in order to exist a thing must have a goal;

            This is Aristotelian metaphysics, which is 2500 years old. Switch to the 21st century. Only 2 classes of things serve a goal. (1) Human artefacts (cars, computers, bibles, political parties) serve a goal, the goals of their human makers who imbue them with purpose. (2) products of natural selection (hearts, lungs, mating calls) in biological organisms ‘serve a goal’, in the sense that the particular genes that, along with environment, bio-chemically cause said product were selected FOR, owing to the beneficial effects said products have for the genotype of the organism.
            However, genes themselves don’t serve a goal. They are just molecules. They are as purposeless as stones, wind, solar systems and suns. “Everything that exists serves a goal”. How does a bit of inert matter serve a goal? You might TALK ABOUT IT in terms of it ‘serving a goal’, in other words it might be easy for you to understand the behaviour of a rock by saying “that rock, in sitting still there like that, is serving its goal!”, but that is not technically correct. We learn nothing by ‘explaining’ the actions of the rock by positing that it is fulfilling its purpose. Science has not progressed by looking for the causes of structure and process OUTSIDE of substances ‘purpose’, it has progressed by deconstructing substances and learning how the behaviour and structure of a substance is caused by the entities and activities of its constituent parts.

            d) there is a world of ideas/abstractions which is not less if not more important than the tangible/measurable world; these worlds are interdependent;

            You’re talking about mathematics and logic? Or are you talking about something crazy, like an ontologically separate realm of ‘forms’? Maths and logic don’t seem to be ‘empirical’, I’ll grant you that, but the jump from this to the idea that there is a separate ‘world’ of ideas to the ‘tangible’ world is vague and frankly hard to cash out. So what if maths and logic are not empirical or ‘tangible’? How does this lead to conservativism?! And also, how on earth do you make the idea of a fixed, essential, world of forms square with your claim that ‘everything is a process’?!

            1. 1349 says:

              “If everything is process, then you are simply the product of your environment, a blank slate”

              That’s a false conclusion.
              Because if everything is a process, there’s no “me” and “environment”. =)

              This is Aristotelian metaphysics, which is 2500 years old. Switch to the 21st century. How does a bit of inert matter serve a goal?

              I said enough about this in the comments above.
              This could be Aristotelian metaphysics 2500 years old but it also is cybernetics of XX and XXI centuries.

              We learn nothing by ‘explaining’ the actions of the rock by positing that it is fulfilling its purpose. Science has not progressed by looking for the causes of structure and process OUTSIDE of substances ‘purpose’,

              You’re trying to blame me for something i didn’t do or say.

              something crazy, like an ontologically separate realm of ‘forms’

              Not quite “separate”. The border is a convention rather than something strict. The world is not “digital” but “analog”.

              the idea of a fixed, essential, world of forms

              WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU READ THIS? Who are You talking to? Yourself?

              1. Roger says:

                Well expand on this for me, in good faith (in other words being self-conscious of including real factual content in your sentences as opposed to vague gesturing at ideas):

                “there is a world of ideas/abstractions which is not less if not more important than the tangible/measurable world; these worlds are interdependent”

                The most natural reading of this is that you are endorsing the Platonic idea of a separate realm of fixed, non-changing, forms. So no, I’m not talking to myself, who ever you are. “These worlds are independent” ?! Come on mate, tell us what you’re actually talking about then. First you say the ideas are in a separate world, then you tell us the border is ‘analogue’?

                I think you don’t know WHAT you really mean.

                1. Roger says:

                  Sorry ‘interdependent’. I don’t get how there could be a “world” of ideas, along with a tangible “world”, while these two “worlds” are apparently the same world, but not quite the same, but pretty much the same…

    4. confused discipline says:

      Given that American Conservatives worship an anti-religion to communism by acting out Marxists demonology. Their ethical dispensation owes more to Anton Lavey than Jesus Christ. If you’re unwilling or unable to pull back the layers, then sure being an incantation fan is at odds with American Conservatism. Peel back the veil and you see two entities fully committed to blapshemy.

      1. Richard Head 9002 says:

        Rand, not Lavey.

    5. Richard Head 9002 says:

      How are conservatism (as a response to government) and Christianity related? Seems that one can exist easily enough without the other.

      Your mistake is linking Christianity with religion generally. Christianity is a joke of a religion, a mockery.

      1. Roger says:

        Simply this: being a conservative means not pulling down the organic traditional social structures that preceded you. And these are Christian. You can’t have you came and bloody well eat it too. You can’t be a conservative and expect to be allowed to listen to incantation and worship oden!

        1. Richard Head 9002 says:

          To call Christianity an organic structure is a shaky statement. There has never since been a more carefully manufactured system of social control (that I know of historically) that is so underhanded and manipulative as the post-Mosaic religions (Judaism and Islam included). Society and values existed long before Christianity became the dominant opiate of the masses. Furthermore, since Christianity was introduced, societies have adopted it and gone downhill generally. Correlation does not imply causation, but we can still infer that Christianity fails as a strong foundation for a society.

          1. Roger says:

            You are talking crazy-talk. Christianity has been around in Europe since about 5-800 AD. That’s over a thousand years, and you say it’s not an organic structure? So what if ‘society and values existed long before Christianity’? Another version, still, of ‘society and values’ existed long before what came before Christianity!

            The class of things that you call ‘values’ exist so long as they are needed by the economic, and material underpinnings of society, then they are discarded for new ‘values’. Christianity had its time, but it was the EFFECT, not the cause, of ‘Christian society’.

            1. That’s over a thousand years, and you say it’s not an organic structure?

              Might make sense to look at continua here instead of discrete categorical ideations.

            2. Richard Head 9002 says:

              Well we were clearly thinking different things when we read the words “organic system”.

              The Christianity that I’m thinking of is the irreligious modernized type, which is indeed an effect of social and economic pressures.

              Anyway, I may be wrong since I misunderstood what you meant at first, but your whole premise is still indefensible; that is the claim that one cannot be a conservative without fully embracing Christian values. Probably we are responding to the term “conservative” with different associations, too, so you can go ahead and define what you mean by that term since you used it first.

        2. 1349 says:

          “being a conservative means not pulling down the organic traditional social structures…”

          Conservatism is realism.
          If the structure doesn’t work, it should be fixed or, if hopeless, pulled down (to give room to another system that a conservative will establish) or abandoned.
          Conservatism isn’t limited to “not pulling down”.

          1. I view the ultimate goal of humanity as to be both realist and reaching for something higher. That something higher cannot contradict realism, which is why I reject most conservatism, most religion, and all liberalism and other narcissistic ideologies. There is a word for them: delusional.

            1. Nuumite says:

              I think people resist Traditionalism and Nihilism and all that stuff because they don’t see the bigger picture. I know I’m preaching to the choir with what I’m going to say…But in life, if you want nice things, you have to put in work to earn them, and you have to follow the same processes and rules over and over to get it. Anti-Trad people are too focused on the “pain” that would be caused to people if you go in that direction, but that “Pain” would give way to “pleasure”. The small “pleasures” of accepting everyone and everything, following christian morals, etc. lead to nothing being made, and if you aren’t making something or at least trying to make something, you are DYING. If you “suffer” and put in work, you get the greater “pleasure” in the end, and then you realize that you really didn’t actually “suffer”….I’m seeing this in my own life now…

              1. Nuumite says:

                Oh, and another thing, preaching to the choir again. People are Anti-Trad because they don’t understand how life works. When people on here are against Individualism, they don’t say, “Be a sheeple”. What they are saying is to know yourself and then find like minded or similar people to you and then get together to get something going. When you’re in a group, people will fall into rank with some people leading and others following, but that’s how people work though, it’s a traditional rule of reality. “Individualists” just want to do whatever because if they join a group, they might not be on top and because of that, nothing gets built and then they die out. You can’t do this life thing on your own, it’s taken me 31 long years of trying it and failing at it, so I know…LMAO.

                Thank you Brett Stevens, I don’t agree with 100 percent of what you say, but your writings have been an important part of this journey I’ve been on…

                1. Ara says:

                  I’m not necessarily trying to poke holes in arguments here- I find other ways of thinking to be fascinating as clearly current dominant ways of thought are not working. However it is impossible to abide by a philosophy without opening yourself up to hypocrisy. There have been alarming things in this argument, such as saying that humans’ values are denoted through inherited traits, which to me is a wimpy way of saying you advocate championing certain races over others (just say it if you feel that way). If you want to believe that you are more than welcome to, as I am not the type to say that an entire human philosophy is rotten from inside due to racist standpoints, but what I am getting here is:
                  -tradition and culture are very important
                  -the self is not, identity is something that should arise from a collective
                  -progenitors whether in bloodline or culture or belief should not be diluted by those of outside origin
                  Which makes me think the “conservative” ideology is one where other races or religions shouldn’t be tolerated because they shouldn’t exist in the first place, and that every different sect of people should be separated by some kind of border. Am I understanding this correctly?
                  Because if so, you know such a “perfect” culture would find new reasons to hate and kill each other- for instance as much as all of us here feel devoted to metal, I and my band would be the first executed in such a utopia for having a different view on our art and how it relates to us as people.

                  1. clearly current dominant ways of thought are not working

                    Good synopsis.

                    Which makes me think the “conservative” ideology is one where other races or religions shouldn’t be tolerated because they shouldn’t exist in the first place, and that every different sect of people should be separated by some kind of border. Am I understanding this correctly?

                    This doesn’t resemble any conservatism I know.

                  2. Richard Head 9002 says:

                    It’s not that other races or traditions should not be tolerated to exist. It’s that we should not be forces to let them mix an dilute.

                    And yeah, some people are more able (more valuable) than others at certain things depending on race. I’m a racist. It’s not that extreme of a perspective.

                    1. I’m a racist.

                      What is “racism” and what is a “racist”?

                      Is this related to “hate” (hatred)?

                    2. Richard Head 9002 says:

                      I don’t hate any one race over others; I hate them equally. But pointing out the physiological differences between races makes me a racist and I’m okay with that because I’m doing nothing wrong.

                    3. “Hate” seems retarded to me.

                    4. Richard Head 9002 says:

                      Not retarded, just irrational. Love and hate, they are two sides of the same coin. Love and hate are the light and shadow in my heart. Hateful people are only hateful because they lack something to love; the emotional experience (love or hate) depends on the external object upon which the emotion is projected.

                  3. 1349 says:

                    “There have been alarming things in this argument, such as saying that humans’ values are denoted through inherited traits, which to me is a wimpy way of saying you advocate championing certain races over others (just say it if you feel that way).”

                    This is paranoia.
                    Seems like You read that comment but only retrieved from it what triggered Your fears/expectations. Try re-reading. Several times.

                    the “conservative” ideology is one where other races or religions shouldn’t be tolerated because they shouldn’t exist in the first place, and that every different sect of people should be separated by some kind of border. Am I understanding this correctly?

                    ????!!
                    No, that’s incorrect.
                    You probably have to get rid of fear (or other irrational thing that controls Your thinking) before You start understanding.

                    1. Ara says:

                      What exactly am I afraid of here?

                  4. Nuumite says:

                    Like Reality says, you need to maintain purity of something in order for it to work properly. You say that if people were separated, then they would fight among themselves, dude, that’s life, people are going to fight regardless of anything. You are supposed to fight and die and whatnoteverhaveyou, that;s part of what METAL is about, but if a group fights among itself, the group gets STRONGER because the weak elements were purged. You can sort of see this in the way Metal developed. But if you have a bunch of groups fighting with each other just to be able to live and be pure, and you have something like the government keeping them together and they can’t separate, then they are fighting for nothing, it’s a total waste.

                    You say your band would be executed in a True Metal society? If you wanted to do something different from what they would want, why wouldn’t you leave the True Metal society and go to another society or better yet, make your own society? You are welcome to try and fight it out or talk it out, but you would be a minority and it probably wouldn’t work out…Maybe Metal isn’t your thing and it would be better to express yourself with something else, that way you win and the society you left wins.

                    All in all, you can boil down everything that is said on this site to “Like Attracts Like”, it really is that simple. That’s kindergarten level right there.

                    1. Ara says:

                      I’m not saying we would be executed in a True Metal society, but in a deathmetal.org one. Our definitions of “true” metal may be different but metal is way too big of a facet of my persona and has been for 30 or so years so I’m not giving that up anytime soon.

                    2. Ara says:

                      the last comment should read 20 years. Maybe I feel older than I am.

          2. Roger says:

            Conservatism is not realism. Realism is realism. Conservationism is a political ideology (a normative theory). Realism is an epistemological theory. It’s about how words and thoughts do or do not correspond to reality.

            Conservationism, as a political ideology, is about not tearing down the pre-existing social structures that ‘organically’ keep a people together (i.e. keep a people together without ‘top-down’ force). Christianity, probably more so than nationality if you look back past the relatively MODERN idea of nationalism (i.e. pre 1850’s), has kept people together. Sure, it has sometimes been used by ‘unnatural’ political bodies to maintain top-down power, but just look at Puritanism in the newly created USA for an organic manifestation of christian social structures binding people together.

            Death metal and nihilism are not conservative. Evola, also, did not consider himself conservative. He called himself a revolutionary-conservative. What a confused notion.

            If you want to tear down the traditional social structures of your societies, then you are just a less self-conscious form of self-serving, individualist modernists wanting to reshape society for your utopian goals.

            1. Realism is an epistemological theory.

              It’s also a prescriptive theory known as consequentialism, once one removes the utilitarian influences.

              1. Roger says:

                Ok you could say Consequentialism is more realistic than rights-based ethics, but Realism – as a philosophical doctrine – is technically epistemological rather than ethical.

                It’s important to be clear with concepts to avoid useless confusion.

            2. Roger says:

              I meant to say ‘conservativism’ not conservationism.

            3. 1349 says:

              “Conservationism, as a political ideology, is about not tearing down the pre-existing social structures”

              Why have You started talking about “conservationism”?

              Death metal and nihilism are not conservative.

              Death metal, as all metal, is the modern voice of traditional musical thinking.
              All in all, we mean different things when we say “conservative”.
              (That’s why i initially tried to use the word “rightwing” instead of “conservative” here.)

              He called himself a revolutionary-conservative. What a confused notion.

              “Confused” – unless one learns thoroughly the concept of “conservative revolution” and its background, such as German statist nationalism of the XIX century.

              the pre-existing social structures that ‘organically’ keep a people together…
              Christianity … has kept people together.

              A people can only be ‘organically’ kept together by a common goal (project, mission…) or a threat.
              An ideology or a top-down force to keep them together for the sake of keeping them together aren’t ‘organic’.

              “you are just a less self-conscious form of self-serving, individualist modernists wanting to reshape society for your utopian goals”

              What are our goals?

              1. confused discipline says:

                “Death metal, as all metal, is the modern voice of traditional musical thinking.”

                What is traditional musical thinking and to whom is it traditional?

  9. tiny midget says:

    if u could have mozart and beethoven listen to the ten best metal albums of all time, what would they say? would they like black metal?

    1. Ara says:

      Haha I doubt it. Maybe something like Scholomance but that’s about it.

  10. ODB says:

    1349: You said, “Religion is, in the core, a technique of, first, raising one’s consciousness to the level of pure will and, second, raising it to the level of experiencing unity with the will of the Universe.”

    Religion is actually a technique for raising one’s consciousness to the level of pure intuition, which is the only way with which you can hope to make sense of the universe without. The pure will that you mention is far too closely linked with pure intellect and hence fallible to all its weaknesses. True understanding, however, can only be formed by tempering the intellect with intuition.

    Do you think it is possible to differentiate between an act driven by pure, intellectual will, and an act driven by pure intuition? My question is, do we “will” anything when we act of pure intuition or are we acting in spite of ourselves, outside of processes we usually equate with the conscious mind?

    1. Religion is actually a technique for raising one’s consciousness to the level of pure intuition, which is the only way with which you can hope to make sense of the universe without.

      Interesting thought; reminds me of Kant.

    2. 1349 says:

      “Religion is actually a technique for raising one’s consciousness to the level of pure intuition, which is the only way with which you can hope to make sense of the universe without. The pure will that you mention is far too closely linked with pure intellect and hence fallible to all its weaknesses.”

      I’m not an English speaker, so my “pure will” seems just the wrong (?) term for what You call “pure intuition”. Or am i missing something?
      By pure will i meant the level where there is no language, no feelings, no perception of forms, no time. Yes, the “only” level from which we “can hope to make sense of the universe without”.

      As for the question, the true self must be the “pure intuition”.
      The “Self” that i mentioned in the “rightwing bullet points” refers, rather, to the “usual conscious mind”.
      I have not acted of pure intuition but seems like those who have did not feel they were acting in spite of themselves.
      Well, maybe soldiers trained to use their “pure intuition” will have a feeling that they’re acting “in spite of themselves” – for how can you hold a rifle, aim and shoot when you can’t breathe and are generally dying from sarin? =)

  11. ODB says:

    Metal to me seems to be conservative musically but ideologically it fits somewhere along the sliding scale between pre-dogmatic universals and nihilist philosophy. We’re good as long as metal not only identifies with the latter but also recognizes the ability and, more importantly, the need to infuse it’s nihilism with a sense of the ideal, be it via aesthetics or ethics.

    1. Nihilism should not be forgotten. It is the wellspring from which all else flows.

Comments are closed.