Friday, October 19, 2018

Audio Kollaps

Audio Kollaps - Ultima Ratio - 2002
Audio Kollaps - Music From An Extreme, Sick World - 2004
Audio Kollaps - Panzer - 2008
01. Audio Kollaps - Ultima Ratio, 2002 CD Album Enhanced
     Epistrophy - EPI 029
02. Audio Kollaps - Music From An Extreme, Sick World, 2004 CD EP
     Crimes Against Humanity Records - CAHRECS 025
03. Audio Kollaps - Panzer, 2008 CD Album Limited Edition
     Epistrophy - EPI 046
Let's grind together! In one sentence: Audio Kollaps is the German answer to Terrorizer. Their fast thrashing bone-crushing with a crust vibe propelled by those super catchy riffs and the appropriate neanderthalizer vocals is sure to satiate the disciple of the Pete Sandoval terror machine [if you have not yet consumed the new bomb Caustic Attack, your existence is dry and empty]. Memorable grindcore is always a treat and Audio Kollaps excel at this form of primitive yet highly efficient sonic delivery. Triplazering Audio Kollaps forever located on the top shelf of the grindiverse!
Remove brackets and unzip: [taxation is slavery]
!ZER Audio Kollaps ZER!


  1. Though i still can't get my head around libertarianism, i appreciate without envy your liking for extreme metal music. And for the rest of my life i'm afraid i have to deal with the correct usage of english prepositions...
    But, to come to a point of concern and thinking about our conversation, i ask myself what's the distinction from libertarianism as a philosophy to libertarianism as an ideology. I would like to discuss on a philosophical level but i won't to struggle on an ideology one. I am of the opinion that at the end of the day reality beats ideology, maybe first at the end of a period or maybe at the end of a century, but reality wins, always.
    If you like to contemplate libertarianism as an ideology and consider that only libertarians are kind of illuminated and all the other ones (taxpayers, slaves, ordinary citicens, leftists, rightistst, people, whatever) are deaf, dumb and blind, i'm in doubt that at the end of our discussion there is is more than total devastation, hate and uncleared misunderstanding.

    To make it clear, i respect that this is your website, and i respect your free expression on this site and i will disappear on demand if you don't like my objections.


    1. No! Do not disappear! If I did not want interaction, I would not have open comments on this site, nor would I so openly publicize libertarianism (I'd rather use the less ambiguous and less political terms voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism, but that's secondary).
      So, again, let me apologize for my abrupt initial response to your initial remark. No small chair here, erase that forever: I had been under the impression (because of other ongoing conversations that are indeed less fruitful) that your intervention was mere provocation.

      Libertarianism is not a disconnected, purely theoretical ideology, it is actually the most realistic philosophy one can find, especially when combined with Austrian economics.
      Let me explain why as shortly as I can, but forgive me in advance if this is taking more space than a regular comment.

      Libertarianism is a doctrine about rights: it seeks to elucidate what rights are, how to find out what behaviour is legitimate. It is practical ethics. It seeks to determine how to resolve conflicts as civilized human beings, as opposed to constant physical fight as it happens in the animal world. It is based upon one principle: self-ownership of the individual.

      We are talking to each other through the internet. On both ends, we know there is a rational, independent mind. We would not argue with a piece of inanimate matter, you do not argue with your computer - you argue with people at the othe rend of the computer. We would not even argue, except for entertainment, with a text generator, or with a toad (life seemingly deprived of reason), not even with a future rational mind like a baby or a person in a coma, or with a small chair. Arguing only take place between autonomous, rational, conscious entities.

      This may be due to many reasons - e.g. because we, as rational and conscious agents, only see intellectual value in equally rational and conscious agents - but the point is: this is how it happens, and has always happened. This is reality.
      The consequence of this fact is simple : as soon as you engage in conversation, as soon as you recognize the other party as a rational and conscious being, you are in effect saying that this other entity - human or otherwise, let's call it a person - is responsible for the words that come out of her. By the very act of arguing, you are validating that this person you are communicating with is self-owned. If you knew there was a gun pointed to my head and that I was ordered by someone else to type all this, you would in fact be thinking you are arguing with this other person with the gun, not with me. And since you cannot argue that you do not argue with someone, by engaging in rational conversation you are saying to this other person: you are free, you are autonomous, you own yourself and you are repsonsible for what you say and for what you do. The direct consequence of this is: all persons are inherently free, no person has any legitimacy to impose its will by force on any other person.
      Sure, we can argue, you can try and convince me of something, and if the argument fails, you still can hit me with a stick or bomb me to subdue me. That would not make you right, that would not make yourt argument stronger. Just as if we were playing a game of chess, you could very well bash my head with a hammer, but that would not make you the winner of the game.
      One can always act like an animal.

    2. You may dig into the topic much deeper by reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics (entries 1 and 2 on the Books page or the presentation by Stephan Kinsella).
      So unless you can prove this wrong, we can start from this position: all rational & conscious minds are equally independent, none has any natural right to dominate others. It is universal - for all people, in all places, at all times - this is why it is ethical. No exception.
      From there, we can define aggression as the initiation of the use of force, or the threat thereof, and start thinking about the appropriate legal system and whatnot. For example, aggression is unethical, therefore all aggression must be met with the necessary means to make it stop. If you attack me, I am justified to use violence to make you stop, even if it requires your death. Libertarianism is not pacifism, it is non-aggression. Libertarianism does not rely on the goodwill of the people, it does not suppose everyone is nice and peaceful. On the contrary, since criminals and evil minds exist, it is very dangerous to have a powerful entity, the state, for them to seize control of. Anyone who supports the idea of man being a nasty creature should also support the rejection of the powerful tool that is the state and that is available for grab by these evil people.

      All political theories from left to right have the same objective: to establish a normative framework, ie. establish what is ethically right and wrong. The problem with any political approach is that it starts with a negation of its own premises: it seeks to establish what is right, but denies from the beginning all individuals their self-ownership, which is the premise of any actual right as seen above, by imposing an entity - the state - as the supreme authority that shall decide what is right (whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy is irrelevant - force will be used against innocents, aka people who did not commit to aggression). This is a contradiction that no sane mind can entertain. This is why I and all other consistent libertarians reject political authority, and its embodiment in the state (The book The problem of political authority is a must read).

      A political position, by definition authoritarian, is way more removed from reality than the opposite view of libertarians, which stipulates that you own yourself, are responsible for your words and acts. Everything else, every other right, derives from this position. Free speech for example is a consequence of owning yourself and the physical objects you use to express yourself. All actual rights derive from self-ownership, also called the Non Aggression Principle (google NAP), as opposed to legal rights who are merely stipulated, decreed or voted.
      On a very pragamtic level, most social problems (security, justice, poverty, healthcare, unemployment, city planning etc.) were in the past dealt with through private, decentralized organizations, not the political ghost called "the state" - see the previously cited book The voluntary city that depicts how things used to be before the invasioin of the state in all spheres of life since Bismarck.

      For all these reasons and many more, the libertarian, truly anarchist position (not the left-wing, molotov cocktail, communist version of Bakunin etc.), is much more in sync with reality than any other position that claims to be civilized, it is more expedient and it is a contradiction to argue against it.




Click here for more info about reloads.