Sunday, June 26, 2016

Hammers Of Misfortune

Unholy Cadaver - Unholy Cadaver - 1997
Unholy Cadaver - Unholy Cadaver - 1997
Hammers Of Misfortune - The Bastard - 2000
Hammers Of Misfortune - The August Engine - 2003
Hammers Of Misfortune - The Locust Years - 2005
Hammers Of Misfortune - Fields/Church Of Broken Glass - 2008
Hammers Of Misfortune - Fields/Church Of Broken Glass - 2008
Hammers Of Misfortune - 17th Street - 2011
01. Unholy Cadaver - Unholy Cadaver, 1997 Vinyl LP Album Limited Edition x 2, CD Album
     Shadow Kingdom Records - SKR041DLPCD
     Reissue from 2011
02. Unholy Cadaver - Unholy Cadaver, 1997 Vinyl LP Album Limited Edition x 2, CD Album
     Shadow Kingdom Records - SKR041DLPCD
     Reissue from 2011
03. Hammers Of Misfortune - The Bastard, 2000 CD Album Reissue
     Metal Blade Records - 3984-14914-2
     Reissue from 2010
04. Hammers Of Misfortune - The August Engine, 2003 CD Album Reissue
     Metal Blade Records - 3984-14915-2
     Reissue from 2010
05. Hammers Of Misfortune - The Locust Years, 2005 CD Album Reissue
     Metal Blade Records - 3984-14916-2
     Reissue from 2010
06. Hammers Of Misfortune - Fields/Church Of Broken Glass, 2008 CD Album x 2
     Profound Lore Records - PFL 040/040.5
07. Hammers Of Misfortune - Fields/Church Of Broken Glass, 2008 CD Album x 2
     Profound Lore Records - PFL 040/040.5
08. Hammers Of Misfortune - 17th Street, 2011 CD Album
     Metal Blade Records - 3984-15058-2
To congratulate the British escape from the European Reich, let's indulge in an avalanche of hypra first class neoretroprogthrashdoomblackrock. Very few attain the altitudes of Hammers of Misfortune. From the debut's black death with a large twist to the grandiose resurrection of the rocking 70s of Uriah Heep, this is all too good to be true. Addiction may occur through all the veins of this musical experience that has nothing to envy from In The Woods or Maudlin Of The Well. And the hard rocking parts remind us that several HOM members are the backbone of the incandescent Vhöl. Nonstop sonic gold and everlasting superlativizer!
PS: Unholy Cadaver #2 is the CD rip, this is the one you want.
!ZER Unholy Cadaver, Hammers Of Misfortune ZER!

PS: incredible update! We are getting from a great benefactor the uncut version (11 tracks) of The August Engine!
The August Engine - Uncut Version - 2003


  1. There is nothing to congratulate the British for. They only proofed to be good nationalist sheep, who follow their fascist pied pipers. You really think this has got anything to do with choosing freedom? It's all about their fear of foreigners, who will take away their jobs. And now? The foreigners will still come (which is a good thing, by the way) but they got nationalist fucks leading them. Congratulations! Remember Germany 1939?

    Greetings from Germany

    1. Whatever the reasons, which you chose to be xenophobia and nationalism, the end of any layer of state control is a great achievement. Now the rest must follow: let Scotland secede from the UK, Corsica from France, Quebec from Canada, Tibet from China, every US state from their federal Reich and so on, and then each subsection of these smaller chunks of land must also explode into smaller ans smaller units, until we get to the great void of government and a free society.

      Please, I need no lecture on migrants and foreigners. I was born in Chile from French parents, my family is from German descent, my children were born in Switzerland where I worked for three years and we've lived in Canada since 1996.

      I am not congratulating you for the easy, automatic, adolescent invocation of Adolf. WTF??? Are they going to start burning Jews and Muslims in the UK? Is it what they do in Switzerland (not in the EU) or in Norway (not in the EU either)?

    2. WTF??? I'm not lecturing you on foreigners! At what point did I gave you the impression, a country not being part of the EU would burn their scapegoats? I guess they won't be burning any people at all. But nationalism was the breeding ground for the Third Reich. And as long as people think nationally, their land won't explode at all. It will keep them together.

    3. At what point? Here: "Remember Germany 1939?"

      Nationalism is not only a matter of country, it flourishes locally. Cf the nationalist movements from the Basques, Scotland, Bretagne, Quebec etc. Once these are enacted, further breakdown may occur.

      To make this "smaller is better" idea wrong, please explain how larger countries (aka mafia entities with monopoly power of the use of force over a given territory) are better for everyone.

      If you loathe Brexit, you must be in favor of a larger EU, even a Worldwide Union under a single government. What a nightmare... Remember USSR 1917?

    4. I'm sorry, but both your arguments are pretty... for the lack of a better word... stupid.
      First of all: the EU is mostly, not exclusively, a trade union. It is not a centralized government. The UK was reigned by it's queen and governed by it's PM now, when it is in the EU and it still be when it has left. The political system won't change.
      But now Britain has to pay taxes for everything it buys from it's neighbors, student exchange (a really bad thing, very oppressive and so) will stop, or at least be only available for the elite, since it will become really really expensive and british tourism will be back to only the british islands, since they can't afford to go anywhere else.

      No, it won't be a smaller, independent region, since the sovereignty of Britain or any other country in the EU is not taken away by the EU. That's why they could VOTE their way out. Try to tell the tibetians that they only need a vote to leave china...
      But there will be more borders. Not more or less governments, just more borders. So, you're congratulating for what? To not be able travel, work, study, learn, meet other people freely within a larger region than just their own islands?

      And as for nationalism now: There are a lot of very nationalist governments in countries that are part of the EU. Starting with france, hungary, poland, austria... if you're going to be a right wing, nationalist government, you can be that within the EU. As I said, it is not a centralized government.

      So both your arguments are invalid.

      And for "bigger is better": yes and no. "smaller is better": yes and no. But in the end we live in the 21st century and most problems we (as humans) have to face now are global problems and finding a way to solve these global problems globally and without lots of bureaucracy or borders or wars should be the goal. And that means working together as one mankind, forgetting our chosen nationalist or whatever identities, for a common goal.

      It's not about more or less borders and more or less governments. It's about no borders and no governments.

    5. Well then think of the breakdown of Yugoslavia. You really support what Karadzic has done for his smaller unit? That wasn't freedom. It was genocide!
      Are you really so naive to think people can handle a free society? Even the smallest islands elect a leader or hail a king. And yes, I remember so called socialism. I was born and raised in Rumania.

    6. "It's about no borders and no governments."

      Well... yes! Call me stupid as much as you need to, we do agree on that. Great.

      Now, what about your previous paragraphs? How do you link them to your no-government conclusion without removing layers of bureaucracy?

      It is not about sovereignty or nationalism, but regulations, taxes and bureaucracy, aka blackmail, extortion, and parasitism. The UK got rid of one big fat layer: very well.

      "Try to tell the tibetians that they only need a vote to leave china..."

      Let me try to figure out your "logic": Tibetans cannot vote themselves out of China, ergo the UK should not leave the EU. What molecules have you consumed?

      What do you think about this one: some ancient Greeks ruled via democracy, and they had slaves too. Ergo slavery is a great feature of democracy.

      "To not be able travel, work, study, learn, meet other people freely within a larger region than just their own islands?"

      What are you talking about? The UK is becoming a giant prison? Everyone is becoming bankrupt? Mad Max apocalypse upon the island? Cannibal Holocaust maybe? You mean, like in Switzerland and Norway?
      My whole family is spread across the globe, from the UK to South Korea and from Germany to North America. I live in an area populated with immigrants from Asia, the Middle-East, Africa, Europe etc. There are here students from all over the world. And this place is not the EU.

    7. "You really support what Karadzic has done for his smaller unit? That wasn't freedom. It was genocide!"

      Another red herring for fuck's sake... yeah, of course, I am all for genocide, mass murder and general destruction, global torture and eating babies alive, preferably very slowly.
      Like it happens everyday in Switzerland.

    8. Well, if you say that every implosion of a country is good, no matter what outcome, then yeah, you're supporting mass murder. Just explain how the demise of Yugoslavia with Serbia as a result fits your vision.


    9. "no matter what outcome"

      Defamation! I did not write anything like that, or that we should always ignore the causes and consequences.
      From basic principles, smaller political order means less brute domination and corruption. Isn't that obvious?
      But OF COURSE I'd rather have corruption and theft than genocide and extermination. I chose to live in country with large but relatively safe extortion, blackmail and corruption rather than in a brutal bloody dictatorship.

      I was expecting the Yugoslavia example, I am surprised you have not come up with Somalia, Iraq and Lybia yet.
      Except in my music, I do not support violence and chaos. These countries were all broken by violence and force, this is the worst possible scenario, the most favorable ground for more misery.

      Your turn now, let us know how the Brexit vote bears any similarity to civil war, and why we should expect mass graves in the near future in the UK.
      You seem to have definitely adopted the position that pro-Brexit UK voters are simply racist and ignorant and evil (and I guess people like me who express a positive reaction). Is it possible that these people are defiant of corrupt institutions, organized parasites, liars and crooks? or are they already organizing armed militias and opening death camps?
      Are the Swiss and Norwegians who so far have not joined the EU also racist, ignorant, evil, genocidal bigot primates?

      I guess you will not dare downloading any more music from an openly genocidal, racist, ignorant blog.

    10. Uhm "Whatever the reasons, which you chose to be xenophobia and nationalism, the end of any layer of state control is a great achievement." Did I get that wrong? If the British had opted out because the was a real movement looking for freedom, then I'd be one of the first to raise my glass. The majority of the voters who wanted out are old. I'm pretty sure their motive wasn't freedom but let's make Britania great again. Yes, I do believe they are racist.

      "Are the Swiss and Norwegians who so far have not joined the EU also racist, ignorant, evil, genocidal bigot primates?" No, not a the moment. But if you light the right match, they will be. I mentioned Yugoslavia, because at that time I thought it would be impossible such things would happen in the middle of Europe. And it could happen again.

      To make it clear: I've been following your blog for quite some time. I know your not racist! But the swiss are.

    11. Your quote is of course correct, however you cannot infer that "whatever the reasons" includes events like wars or natural disasters. My phrasing is probably bad: I meant of course "whatever the reasons for the people who voted", which does not include pogroms and public hangings.
      You can have bad reasons (I am old and racist!) to get a good result (peel off some state power). I do not think that Brexit is becoming the way to make murder of foreigners legal in the UK, is it? Since I never advocate aggression, you cannot honestly think I would support a Serbia/Croatia-type war or rejoice from a major earthquake as the cause of the breakdown of a country.
      But yes, separation from a country through a peaceful process is always welcome.

      You presume that the Brexit voters are old, dumb & racist: that's your recycling of the media coverage.
      This article might interest you:

      Is it not possible at all that the non-EU populations of European countries reject the craziness of the EU bureaucracy and the damages it does to their economies and lives?
      Here is one example of the tens of thousands of laws the EU has excreted for 50 years: (let's regulate pizzas!)

      To assert that the Swiss are racist, this is particularly... racist. Sure, I am not a statistics, but my 3 years working in Switzerland never let me suspect anything like that, not anymore than from the other places I have lived in like Germany, France or Canada. I am sorry but this is plain bigotry, to paraphrase the ulcerated media.
      And if you think that 1) people can become simply racist because they are not part of the EU and 2) keeping countries in the EU would cure any racist country like Switzerland, you must also think that voting AIDS and cancer as illegal is enough to eliminate these diseases.

    12. I see. The majority of people who voted for the exit is over 65 years old. That's just a media lie? I guess we all have our bibles. Mine is the evil mass media. Since it is on top of the page - i guess yours is "No Treason". We both believe in stories we have no real proof for.
      Yugoslavia, to my knowledge, was never a part of the EU. All i said was, that your breakdown into pieces theory has it's traps. At no point I said that if they had been part of the EU would've prevented what happened. Also being part of the EU doesn't keep you from being racist. The Hungarians are a pretty good example. And Switzerland isn't part of the EU because they are racist. Ok, that's a bit over the top. But, with their immigration rules, their first strike votes etc. they really keep people outside their borders. Except the wealthy ones. Are you one of the wealthy ones? Is that the reason for your beef with government in general? You're welcome to be polemic to.

    13. If "Over 65" means "racist", which I wasn't aware of, then you have a point.

      A short excerpt from the introduction (page 2) of Ludwig Von Mises' Omnipotent Government (ful PDF on the books page):

      Neither should nationalism be confused with the striving for
      popular government, national self-determination and political autonomy.
      When the German nineteenth-century liberals aimed at
      a substitution of a democratic government of the whole German
      nation for the tyrannical rule of thirty-odd princes, they did not
      harbor any hostile designs against other nations. They wanted to
      get rid of despotism and to establish parliamentary government.
      They did not thirst for conquest and territorial expansion. They did
      not intend to incorporate into the German state of their dreams the
      Polish and Italian territories which their princes had conquered; on
      the contrary, they sympathized with the aspirations of the Polish
      and the Italian liberals to establish independent Polish and Italian
      democracies. They were eager to promote the welfare of the German
      nation, but they did not believe that oppression of foreign
      nations and inflicting harm on foreigners best served their own

    14. "they really keep people outside their borders. "

      Canada is not part of the EU. My wife, children and I were granted Canadian citizenship many years ago.
      Canada is full of legal immigrants.

      "Except the wealthy ones."

      You mean except people whose line of work is in demand.

      "Are you one of the wealthy ones? Is that the reason for your beef with government in general?"

      Unfortunately, no, I am not among the wealthy ones. I still have to work every day to make a living. I can't even go on vacation this year because my taxes have just risen again.

      My beef with the government is too large and wide for a single comment. I adhere to the philosophy developed since John Locke and expanded by Frédéric Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others.
      The nano-version:
      - government is a self-serving authoritarian entity that behaves like a mafia on a national scale. Its method of operation is exclusively based on threats of violence.
      - government's purpose (robin hood) is the worst possible solution to address social problems from healthcare to education to ecology or any other topic it decided to get a hold on. Government degrades peoples lives.
      - government is war

      I can already hear all the objections you have and I understand them: I shared your pro-state view for most of my life. But through discussions with both sides of the debate (I even sat down at the Occupy movement) and after reading quite a few books (including a ton of pro-authority literature from Rousseau, Plato, Marx, Christopher Lasch, Keynes, Proudhon, Piketty and many others), I had to adopt the libertarian view. I had no choice: reason and logic are on this side. It was like discovering the earth is not flat after all.
      The books section is there as an introduction to this philosophy.

      Things the State is not


    15. Mises again:

      Most people are intolerant of any criticism of their social and economic tenets. THey do not
      understand that the objections raised refer only to unsuitable methods
      and do not dispute the ultimate ends of their efforts. They
      are not prepared to admit the possibility that they might again
      their ends more easily by following the economists’ advice than by
      disregarding it. They call an enemy of their nation, race, or group
      anyone who ventures to criticize their cherished policies.
      is stubborn dogmatism is pernicious and one of the root
      causes of the present state of world affairs. An economist who
      asserts that minimum wage rates are not the appropriate means
      of raising the wage earners’ standard of living is neither a “labor
      baiter” nor an enemy of the workers. On the contrary, in suggesting
      more suitable methods for the improvement of the wage earners’
      material well-being, he contributes as much as he can to a genuine
      promotion of their prosperity.
      To point out the advantages which everybody derives from the
      working of capitalism is not tantamount to defending the vested
      interests of the capitalists. An economist who forty or fifty years
      ago advocated the preservation of the system of private property
      and free enterprise did not fight for the selfish class interests of the
      then rich. He wanted a free hand let to those unknown among
      his penniless contemporaries who had the ingenuity to develop all
      those new industries which today render the life of the common
      man more pleasant. Many pioneers of these industrial changes, it
      is true, became rich. But they acquired their wealth by supplying
      the public with motor cars, airplanes, radio sets, refrigerators, moving
      and talking pictures, and a variety of less spectacular but no less useful innovations.
      These new products were certainly not an achievement of offices and bureaucrats.
      Not a single technical improvement can be credited to the Soviets. The best that the
      Russians have achieved was to copy some of the improvements of
      the capitalists whom they continue to disparage. Mankind has not
      reached the stage of ultimate technological perfection. There is
      ample room for further progress and for further improvement of
      the standards of living. The creative and inventive spirit subsists
      notwithstanding all assertions to the contrary. But it flourishes
      only where there is economic freedom.
      Neither is an economist who demonstrates that a nation (let
      us call it Thule) hurts its own essential interests in its conduct of
      foreign-trade policies and in its dealing with domestic minority
      groups, a foe of Thule and its people.
      It is futile to call the critics of inappropriate policies names and
      to cast suspicion upon their motives. That might silence the voice
      of truth, but it cannot render inappropriate policies appropriate.
      e advocates of totalitarian control call the attitudes of their
      opponents negativism. They pretend that while they themselves
      are demanding the improvement of unsatisfactory conditions, the
      others are intent upon letting the evils endure. This is to judge all
      social questions from the viewpoint of narrow-minded bureaucrats.
      Only to bureaucrats can the idea occur that establishing new offices,
      promulgating new decrees, and increasing the number of government
      employees alone can be described as positive and beneficial
      measures, whereas everything else is passivity and quietism

    16. No, not Canada. I meant, the swiss are keeping foreigners outside their borders. But you've lived there... That's why I asked you about your wealth.
      But thanks for your first clear answer. I don't think I will ever agree with you, but at least I think I understand your point of view.


    17. Yes you were talking about the Swiss (and incidentally about the future of UK). My rebuttal is that Canada too has strict immigration laws, mainly based on professional experience, or wealth (really, there are two ways of immigration in Canada: can you work or do you have enough money to not depend on the sate), just like Switzerland.
      I had to leave Switzerland when I was unable to find e new job after the end of my contract.

      I also thought I would never agree with the philosophy I have today. It came after a long process of reading, debating and analysis. If you take the time to consider this view that you do not agree with (which is the basis of honest debate and intellectual progress), if you read a bit on the subject, you might not change your current opinion, but at least you will know why. Before you read a couple of books by Mises et al., you cannot really grasp the depth and the power of this philosophy. Don't take this as patronizing, I am only stating this because it is what I went through (talking to people I was disagreeing with, they asked me to read and then comment, and I did it, and here I am now).
      It means I am open to change my views again if more convincing arguments come my way.

  2. ....what exactly is the benefit of breaking from the EU?.....I'm curious on your reasoning for support of this move by UK.....please don't slogan-ize, but instead, give your reasons for approving this move....I just find it disturbing that someone like Trump supports and lauds this...therefore it makes me highly apprehensive that it is a good my country(USA) Trump represents xenophobia and nationalism....there is nothing libertarian about nationalism......unless the libertarian-ism espoused is the right-wing bastardize version that unfortunately some, in my country, believe to be ideal....

    1. The Trump shit lauds Brexit, so your reaction is to reject Brexit. If Trump loved your favorite book or food, would you also suddenly find them dubious? If Trump said the Earth is a sphere, would you adhere to the Flat Earth Society ?
      And you are asking me to avoid slogans, that's rich.
      Did you also cringe in 1989 when the Eastern Bloc fell apart and Poland, East Germany, Romania etc. escaped from the soviet empire? Were these countries xenophobic and brown-shirt nationalists for getting out?

      Let's dwell on my reply to Uwe in the comment above.
      I hope Brexit is a start to the disintegration of nations. Less government is better (slogan, sorry).
      When countries break down, say to the size of Luxembourg, it will be much easier for people and goods to vote with their feet and select the most accomodating (free) areas. Small countries have to compete much more through a better offer (less taxes, better services) to attract and retain citizens. Small countries are also easier to manage.
      Then the process can expand to the regions, then to the cities, then to the nighbourhoods, and then into the great void of no government at all, when people realize what a state really is: a parasitic entity that we'd be better off without, a mafia that degrades the lives of their slaves, us, the cattle (sorry for the slogans).
      The chances this disintegration happens are slim to say the least, but I can only applaud a step in that direction.

      The opposite view is that of a global, worldwide government. If you do not like Brexit (for other reasons than Trump's praise), you must be willing the Eu to expand instead of shrinking. Then why stop there, let's have not just a EU but a World Union, under the umbrella of a giant Earth-dominating bureaucratic entity. Where do you move when it starts to stink? Jupiter? And it will stink a lot, very quickly.

      If you take the time to read a couple of books from the links I put up for download, you may understand that libertarianism has nothing to do with nationalism, on the contrary. It is the only movement that genuinely goes against that type of right-wing crap. Libertarianism is not left-wing, it is not rigt-wing, it is the only true atheism against the cult of the state.
      Trump is not a libertarian from any angle, and he can choke on his wig, while Hilarry, Merkel, Groland and Trudeau drown in their own feces.
      More slogans.

  3. ^^^eu sucks our english money.we need to keep it in england as i need it for my dole money.i also want to vet who comes through the gates of the new mighty england.goodbye my e u friends-its been so emotional.

  4. Bigger, smaller, doesn't matter, in the end will be the thug with the club that will dictate and as we all know thugs tend to agglutinate.
    As a race we are too young, we're still too attached to our toys. What I know is that knowledge and education have the power to erode barriers, perhaps we should start from there and hope to achieve greatness.

  5. C'est pas encore fait hein.
    Qui a dit que le Royaume-Uni allait sortir de l'UE? Le peuple? AHAAHH AH AH AH AAAAAHHHHH
    Dans 3 mois ils auront juste un nouveau premier ministre. Whooo!
    De deux choses l'une : soit ils votaient le "IN" et Cameron pouvait continuer (avec une légitimité renforcée) à imposer ses vues ultralibérales à la commission qui lui servait déjà de carpette. Soit ils votaient le "OUT" et Johnson va négocier des conditions (ultralibérales) pour sortir de l'EU que personne ne voudra contrarier : la GB (ses dirigeants) a besoin d'un consensus financier et l'UE (ses dirigeants) ne peut pas se passer de la puissance économique de la GB.Dans un cas comme dans l'autre la GB imposera ses conditions commerciales qui arrangent tout le monde, comme quand elle était dans l'UE. Les perdants comme à chaque fois sont ceux qui espèraient de l'Europe des avancées sociales. Mais la GB, comme la France et l'Allemagne (et les autres, et toi aussi, j'ai bien compris) se foutent d'une Europe unie sur des principes sociaux. La liberté des capitaux ça va de soi, mais attention à ce que ces sales humains ne suivent pas les mêmes chemins.

    Depuis quand un referendum organisé par un politicien carriériste oblige les politiciens à le respecter? On est bien placé pour le savoir. Ils continueront à faire ce qu'ils savent faire car ni Hollande ni Merkel ni Cameron/Johnson ne veulent se brouiller, et personne ne veux voir la GB se rapprocher (encore plus? est-ce possible?) des Etats-Unis. Tout continuera comme avant dans le meilleur des mondes mais les nationalistes d'Europe vont avoir du grain à moudre pour les années à venir. Comme s'ils avaient besoin de ça.

    1. Tout à fait. Ou organiser autant de référendums jusqu'à obtenir le résultat souhaité. Ils peuvent même simplement ignorer ce référendum et s'arranger avec l'opinion publique en jouant la carte de l'usure. Une petite coupe de foot, des jeux olympiques, un American Idol et on passe à autre chose.
      En revanche cette histoire reste un excellent camouflet à tout l'industrie politique et médiatique.

      La position que le défends inclut une liberté de circulation générale : point 2 de la première section de
      Quant aux nationalistes, leurs idéaux de communistes arrimés à leurs niveau intellectuel de tabouret les mettraient en faillite assez vite, advenant qu'ils aient assez de traction pour atteindre le pouvoir.

    2. Je suis moins optimiste que toi. Je ne vois pas de camouflet quand on se contente de se jeter dans les bras de l'un ou de l'autre de nos maîtres. Le panurgisme fait partie de nos instincts et on ne s'en débarrassera qu'après quelques siècles ou millénaires et un paquet de massacres.
      Entretemps on peut toujours rêver d'une révolution mais c'est remplacer une religion par une autre, le problème des utopies c'est qu'elles ne prennent pas en compte la médiocrité de l'être humain. Y'en aura toujours un pour bouffer l'autre, voire tous les autres.
      Puisque tu aimes les livres je te conseille les Naufragés du Batavia de Simon Leys, qui montre qu'une micro-société, à l'abri de toute règle et toute morale, finalement auto-suffisante se fait posséder par un seul et unique taré charismatique.
      Malheureusement c'est pas les tarés qui manquent dans notre espèce.

    3. J'oubliais, Maurice G. Dantec est mort.
      Vais écouter Fear pour faire passer tout ça. Je dirais pas que ça va me changer.

    4. Je suis en effet de moins en moins client de ce cynisme un peu dandy. L'homme est bête et méchant, tout est foutu, blablabla... En attendant l'espèce prospère malgré ses éléments pourris, cela prouve qu'en moyenne il s'est passé plus de bien que de mauvais depuis le début de l'histoire, et que la tendance vers le mieux se maintient.
      Je ne rêve aucunement de révolution en terme de révolte armée et autres catastrophes sanglantes. En revanche une révolution intellectuelle (pour ne pas dire spirituelle) est possible et souhaitable. Quand la majorité sera débarrassée de l'illusion de la politique et en particulier de cette flasque superstition nommée "démocratie", la voie fleurie des rivières de miel sera à portée de main. Dès la disparition de la religion de la "démocratie", "la tendance à bouffer l'autre" aura nettement moins prise.

      Le livre que tu cites a l'air intéressant, as-tu un lieu pdf ?
      Cela dit, je ne base surtout pas mes arguments ni ma "philosophie" sur des fictions. Je glousse en songeant à ce crétin de Piketty qui dans son bouquin de propagande tartine des exemples larmoyants tirés de... Émile Zola, Dickens et Titanic ! Grandiose démonstration de verbiage idéologique.
      En l'occurrence Dantec est l'auteur connu le plus médiocre que j'aie jamais lu, doublé d'un cuistre primaire sur le plan des idées. J'ai même jeté ses livres à la poubelle, je n'ai pas voulu les donner d epeur de polluer des esprits innocents. Je faisais une parodie de lui dans mon émission de radio en 2003: "La chronique de Doris Mantec". Jamais compris le succès de Houellebecq non plus (mais contrairement à Dantec, j'apprécie le personnage, le film de son enlèvement est excellent).

    5. Dantec j'ai lu ses deux premiers bouquins quand j'étais ado, j'en ai gardé un bon souvenir. Par contre je pense la même chose que toi sur le type. Bon je me contredis finalement...

      Les Naufragés du Batavia par contre n'est pas une fiction mais parle d'un évènement bien réel :

      Je n'ai pas lien à proposer, désolé.

    6. Affreuse histoire en effet. Heureusement, il y a aussi les Restaus du Coeur, Khan Academy etc. pour contrebalancer.

    7. Je ne vois pas le rapport avec les restos du cœur et je ne regarde pas la télé-réalité, mais tu as raison, le mieux c'est de contrebalancer.

    8. Le rapport est que l'histoire du Batavia ne démontre pas l'immoralité de l'être humain puisqu'il y a des contre-exemples.
      D'ailleurs si l'état naturel de l'être humain était cette tendance à l'abomination que brandissent si aisément les nihilistes de salon, l'espèce aurait disparu depuis longtemps: chaque tribu préhistorique était dans un état de dénuement au moins aussi précaire que les gens du Batavia. Ergo tout le monde aurait dû s'entre-tuer bien avant la domestication du feu.

    9. Je viens de piger ton allusion ;a la télé réalité. PTI: Khan Academy

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Zer,

    System slaves desperately cling to their cognitive dissonance, trying to deny they've got a fence post up their ass. I admire your charity in challenging their egos. I don't know how you tolerate the stench of their fear. Fucking scum whining to be paid to live on their knees rather than die on their feet. They blame everyone but themselves for handing over control of their fear. They sold their ass, cock and balls to the EU and now hand up arguments from their knees about the money being no good. No wonder Trump pisses on people like that, they beg for it. Fuck the EU and the bankers that own it. Get their cattle outta the road already.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  7. Private lenders and traditional lenders are not that much interested in providing church loans.So Griffin's Church Loans is a way to churches specialized in church loans.Even they accept bankruptcies and foreclosures as well. church mortgage




Click here for more info about reloads.