Muthafucka!

My favourit internet forum has been banned. It no longer exists. Oh, the angst!





Seriously. I feel really bad. It was a great place.



Anyways. Seems like I've cleared up a lot of time for studying now.



And Death In June really rules supreme right now. More than before, actually. And it's really fun reading about people reactions to Douglas P.'s artistic adventure. Maybe taking an active artistic stance against fascism when using fascist symbolics ain't that interesting from an artistic view point. Makes the art kind of meaningless, and the project kind of pointless.

Anyways. Eff Off.

Philosophy, once again...

Did the same test I did ages ago, but I got a better score, meaning Anal Rand ended up after Freddie N. Unfortunately Hobbes ended up quite low, but I can live with that. Spinoza and Sartre ended up high and thats nice. I have quite a lot of respect for those gentlemen. I don't understand why the stoics and Aristotle got 85% and 72%, though...


1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Stoics (85%)
3. David Hume (84%)
4. Spinoza (74%)
5. Nietzsche (73%)
6. Aristotle (72%)
7. Kant (70%)
8. Aquinas (67%)
9. Epicureans (61%)
10. Ayn Rand (59%)
11. St. Augustine (58%)
12. John Stuart Mill (51%)
13. Ockham (50%)
14. Nel Noddings (49%)
15. Thomas Hobbes (49%)
16. Cynics (48%)
17. Jeremy Bentham (48%)
18. Plato (47%)
19. Prescriptivism (26%)

Centerextremism

Apparently, I am a marxist (according to the PoliticsForum Quiz 2.0 ) To be more specific, what they had to say about me is this:

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a internationalist, non-absolutist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist.

Actually always thought of myself as more of an anarchist. One thing that made me pissed of about myself is that I seem very "neither more nor less" this-and-that. That's kind of chicken. Just do the test and you'll understand.


I also did a Moral Politics-quiz and ended up like this:


Your Score

Your scored -4.5 on the Moral Order axis and 5.5 on the Moral Rules axis. (Thats in the top left corner.).


The following items best match your score:

1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Extreme Socialism
3. Ideologies: International Socialism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (75.59%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (79.04%), John Kerry (66.20%), George W. Bush (37.42%)

And this is how I ended up with the Political Compass-quiz (Economic Left/Right: -8.12, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31)


Quite the pinko. Not that surprising, but marxist? I'd imagine that I had a bit more of a brown/blackshirt pair of balls than this. But hey, you can't get everyting. Feels pretty good to know that it's just a fascination of aestethics. The whole anti-capitalism stance with the far right, extreme national(social)ism and National Bolshevism gets you confused at times... I guess the only thing that makes us different is the ethnic, chauvinistic and nationalistic aspect.

And on a side note, for eventual swedish fans (I don't know if anyone is even reading this and to be quite frank (you can be ernest) I don't give a toss): Jag hatar ordbögeri, vilken sida ordbögen än står på. Om man känner att det är viktigare att verka klyftig än att faktiskt förmedla kunskap så känns innehavet av en blogg som propagandavapen ganska korkad. Tro det eller ej, men jag hatar fanimej elitism. Nevertheless, it's quite interesting reading, eventhough it reminds me a whole lote of the reviews over at anus.com. Take it anyway you like.

c'mon

Chill a bit. I know you ain't like that, really. But it hurts me that you try. So I try back, I guess.

Coffee & Cigarettes

No cigarettes. But a bit to much coffee.

Gotta write 3,5 pages about shit I have hardly read 'til tomorrow. Whoopifuckindo.

didn't get accepted to the university program I had applied for. Got some nice advice, though. Helpful lot, more or less.

Will be going to my first class in religious history in 2 hours. I don't know... From what I have heard I should have a pretty easy time there after reading history. Rumours has it, they are playing a bit more fast and loose there. History is anything but fast and loose. At least not for being a theoretical, humanistic subjects.

Well, gotta continue with this essay-thingy.

God, I wanna get drunk.

Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes

This have been an incredibly shitty day with two higlights: perfect cappuccinos and Thomas Hobbes.

Now, I have never really cared for Hobbes earlier. His system has always seemed totally opposite mine. He wants subjects to authoritys to never rebel and to always accept the cards they are dealt. Those in power have absolute power and therefore has the right to do what the want to do. Not my thing. I think rebellion is important. I think rebellion should always be at the heart of what you do. Well maybe not rebellion, but at least a keen sense of anti-authoritarianism and a ability to think for yourself. Obviously, at first glance we don't mix.

But.

"Bellum omnium contra omnes."

It means "the war of all against all" and is the description that Hobbes gives to human existence in the state of nature, i.e. what we are really like, when we have no (created) civilization or state watching over us. Because if there is one thing that annoys the shit out of me it is people that takes about "nature" as something positive, as something we should strive for. And sure, I think there are many ways that nature is to prefer, since we after all are animals and have very base instincts that we need to understand and sometimes use and appreciate. BUT: I am very careful about nature, and especially "nature." "Nature" usually ain't as natural as people think it is. Nature (but for some reason "nature" doesn't seem to be, if you listen to it's acolytes.) is an ugly and hostile place. You want things to be more natural? Abolish every law ever written. Legalize rape, theft, murder and incest because you know what? It's perfectly natural.

And Hobbes realized this, I think. He realized that all societys are a form of contract where we give up some of our freedoms (the freedoms to rape, murder and steal) in order to be protected from violence (and, in my book other forms of oppression as well.).

Everything but our base lusts and instincts are constructs to protect us from our base lusts and instincts.

In other news, I have for some reason become quite fond of Maniacs (ex-Mayhem) new band Skitliv. Mad and insane doom/black metal. And I really enjoy his fucked up tattoos.


Addendum I: Oh, and for our basic instincts and urges I think they are basically this: Eath, Shit, Fuck, Kill, Dominate and to be dominated. If you strip everything from us, if you take us back to before we where even cavemen, thats what you have. A flock minded, sex crazed killing machine with dreams of power.

Addendum II: Swedish readers should check this blog. He's obviously a liberal, but hey. You can't get everything. Anyway, his idea is somehow related to my own. So check it out.

Solve Et Coagula

I don't appreciate fuckers who is so proud of reading much. Yeah, sure. You know a lot about symbolism and shit. You can quote the bible or whatever. Nice for you.

But.

Do you have any thoughts of your own?

The thing that mostly tells shitheads like that appart from people who are intelligent and intellectual is the need for the former group to show ther "knowledge". God know I am no saint in that department, but hey...