>>22674
>>22680
>>22691
>>22698
>>22700
>>22708
>>22735
>>22744
Y'all know about Vile? If GG Allin heard of these snotty punks, he'd probably be very proud of every song they put to record. "Solution" is obnoxious, politically incorrect, abrasive and lives up to the band's name in every way. Like GG Allin, this band holds its audience in absolute contempt, yet show raw passion in their performance. It can't be verified if these guys were dead serious or merely being shocking, but the album has achieved cult status among fans of early East Coast Hardcore especially on account of its legendary self-distribution. The band allegedly stuck copies of the LP on car windshields at Punk shows around Boston before unceremoniously tossing the remainder off a bridge. Consider Vile the East Coast's analog to White Pride, whose legendary demo was incidentally released the same year.

The album largely consists of bursts of blistering fast power chords and snotty shouts quite similar to fellow Massholes The Freeze and Gang Green. Half the tracks barely clock over a minute, with the longest one at exactly 2:23, so no track ever overstays its welcome. Perhaps the most distinct feature is the palpably buzzing guitar tone on account of the raw production which aids and abets the performance. Part and parcel with their assault on your senses is their patently offensive lyrics. On the A-Side, we're treated to "5 to 10" a tale of the lead singer doing time for the various felonies he denies committing, including raping a fat girl so ugly he "wouldn't fuck her with your dick." "I'm a Punk" celebrates the degenerate nihilism of Punk subculture. On the flipside, "Homophobe" opens with "I hate Faggots, they're really sick / Spending all their time sucking dick / Buttfuck them with a soldering gun / Killing faggots is really fun."

A shame they don't make Punks like they used to, because something like this is wholly cathartic in today's atmosphere.

Choice cuts:
https://youtu.be/xbz9hxO-r8Y
https://youtu.be/X7Y4De7SeGc
https://youtu.be/H5dase-EYMs
https://youtu.be/KO-WoqaS7T4
https://youtu.be/_fSzD42RcP8

LP:
https://youtu.be/-AVWnW4WEP0

Bonus EP "Vile Says Fuck Off":
https://youtu.be/AT25Lgh8VHI

>>22784
Your phrase

>spiritual Jew

implies the opposite of

>You do know you don't have to believe in God to be Jewish

Did you even read that? You're talking about Reform Judaism. It's basically the Jewish equivalent of Unitarians or those Presby sects with lesbian ministers. Being Jewish by culture or ethnicity=/=religious Jew.

>Some don't even believe there's an afterlife:

That actually brings up the interesting question of if or why an afterlife is even necessary to spirituality, which in a sense Buddhism for instance explicitly denies (depending on the school). You're also probably confusing the really weird heretical Christian and Islamic concept of "paradise" or the afterlife just being a garden of delights for physical bodies. There is absolutely nothing more base and materialistic an idea than that.

The Judaic concept of Heaven and Hell is, afaik, best surmised as the state of closeness to or separation from God, and is a state of being, not a place. Thus every act of wickedness and selfishness further cuts you off from God and confines you to your own personal hell, kind of like the road to destruction of a junkie who starts caving to temptation after temptation until being alone, wracked by every physical psychological and emotional desire and suffering there is, cut off from humanity, persecuted and guilty of all manner of crimes. Such is more closely like the state of hell and it has little to nothing to do with creature comforts, which are explicitly of the flesh. This is something that irks me greatly of all the numerous heresies being taught when I heard of it in church even, or some Evangelical books, asking about how "big" God is, or about how old they will be in Heaven.

Like this

>According to Maimonides, the World to Come refers to a time even beyond the world of the resurrected. He believed that the resurrected will eventually die a second death, at which point the souls of the righteous will enjoy a spiritual, bodiless existence in the presence of God.

What is so ambiguous to you about this? You're firstly taking a lukewarm Reformed site from what I can gather about it, and secondly, seizing on a few things that are yes sources of great Rabbinic debate. Many Jews don't believe in an afterlife per se. Many have concluded otherwise. And some Jews simply don't believe in God at all. It isn't some hivemind, and there is no real Papal central authority in Judaism, but rather more like the most autistic debates imaginable between different Rabbis. In a certain sense, the Talmudic aspect of Judaism is more like if you had a centuries old waybackmachine archive of ernstchan.

I managed to get my hands on a castle. It's not a city, but it's something. I basically just re-captured a freshly fallen city in the heartland of Hungary.

I also captured a bunch of lords from the HRE in a single, including this bastard, who burned down my village multiple times now.

The meta is basically:

>Get a bunch of archers and pikemen
>Choose a flat battlefield
>Place pikemen in front of the archers
>Wait for the fully armoured dipshits to mount a charge
>Shoot at them while they assemble their formation
>Shoot at them during the charge
>They fall off their horses
>You pick them off one by one with the help of your cavalry and superior infantry

It's basically a massacre every time, even if they have 20-30 troops more. The funniest thing is that the HRE is running out of actually good soldiers. They can get a few cavalry units in the first wave, and the rest is just freshly conscripted peasants and citizenry, dying en masse. The last army I took on had mountain bandits fight in it for fuck's sake.

Started reading the first pages of The most radical gesture by Sadie Plant, former member of the CCRU. It's her dissertation from 1992 and written before she even went to Warwick. Yet I expect it to reveal connections between situationist thinking/practice and that of the CCRU.

A good subsumption of postmodernism is given in there right at the start:

Of course, the situationists’ attempt to transform everyday life has been defeated, although their involvement with the upheavals of 1968 made them believe they had succeeded in helping it on its way. Neither have there been any further projects of the scale of that perpetrated by the SI and, in the present fin de millénium atmosphere of postmodernity, such all-encompassing revolutionary theories are said to be no longer possible. They bear the illegitimate arrogance of political totalitarianism, depending on unsupportable beliefs and assuming the possibility of ascertaining the way the world really is, regardless of the vicissitudes of appearance or the ambiguities of meaning. On this reading, the situationists’ attempt to construct a unified theory of capitalism merely brought them within the totality they thought they were opposing. But in spite of the radical opposition of situationist and postmodern thought, all theoretisations of postmodernity are underwritten by situationist theory and the social and cultural agitations in which it is placed. The situationist spectacle prefigures contemporary notions of hyperreality, and the world of uncertainty and superficiality described and celebrated by the postmodernists is precisely that which the situationists first subjected to passionate criticism.

This continuity is not coincidental. The philosophers most closely associated with postmodern thought, Jean-François Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard, both emerged from the same political milieu as the situationists. Baudrillard’s work is informed by his contacts with the situationist Guy Debord, and Lyotard was involved with Socialisme ou Barbarie and the mouvement du 22 mars, probably the groups whose political ideas and activities were closest to those of the SI. Allusions to the situationists are to be found in the work of both authors, and although postmodernism turns situationist theory against itself, the traces, even the tyre-tracks of the style, vocabulary, and scope of the situationist project run across postmodernism. Poetry, pleasures, cities, and subversions are themes common to both frameworks, and in their hostility to the Left, their attacks on the complacency and complicity of established forms of radicalism, their desire to collapse distinctions between the aesthetic and the everyday, and their search for the loci of social power in relations of language, knowledge, and everyday experience, the situationists provided postmodernism with much of the ammunition for its attacks on established genres of thought and s o c i a l o rganisation. Moreover, the tactics with which postmodernism makes these attacks were already present in the situationist armoury: pastiche and deconstruction, subversive violence from within systems of social organisation or thought, playful irreverence towards respected theories, and the exposure of every hidden allusion and resonance.
Postmodernism uses all this to convey our departure from the modern period in which we experienced ourselves as autonomous subjects capable of making judgements, expressing desires, and acting upon the world. In Jean Baudrillard’s work, it suggests that modern society has become hyperreal, a world in which the spectacle defines, circumscribes, and becomes more real than reality itself. Baudrillard describes the seductive power of images which fool us into believing a reality persists beyond this hyperreality, and suggests that subjectivity is produced by a host of networks of social relations and discursive constructions so complex that it cannot be unravelled to reveal causes, directions, or meanings. There is no such thing as a social whole or a theoretical unity: the notion of society is a myth belying the essential discontinuity of social relations, and the development of theory is the totalitarian exercise of power on the world’s dynamic fragments. The individual and the world are decentred: there is no core, no soul, no God, and no economic imperative. Alienation is not a problem peculiar to capitalism, but an inevitable feature of life to which we might as well develop a positive attitude, and the search for authenticity betrays a hopeless nostalgia for a unity which never existed in the first place. We live in the midst of codes, messages, and images which produce and reproduce our lives. These may have had their origins in commodity production, but have since won their independence and usurped its role in the maintenance of social relations. All that remains is the pleasure of playing in the fragments, the disruption and resistance of the codes in which we live, the jouissance of realising that the search for meaning is endlessly deferred and has no point of arrival and, in the absence of new movements, styles, or genres, the continual reiteration of those of the past In the postmodern imagination, alienation is everywhere and is therefore nowhere; power is dispersed and so impossible to seize. We will only ever feel at home, liberated, and content if we give up looking for a world more real, a social organisation more free, and a happiness more profound than those provided for us. There is no subject of history digging capitalism’s grave, and no Elysian field on the other side of the barricade.

Considered in these terms, postmodernism is a manual for survival, and a very good one, in a capitalist world which seems immune to transformation. Building on the failure of the social revolution which has been just around every twentieth-century corner, it cultivates an attitude which enables one to cope with the continual refurbishment of buildings, opinions, cities, and fashions, and its reassurance that it is quite natural to feel lost, confused, and uncertain of the solidity of the ground beneath one’s feet is welcome news to the shaky survivor of the late twentieth century. But, full of advice about surviving in the here and now, it tells us little about the possibilities of transforming it: of metaphorically and literally leaving the twentieth century behind. And this was the intention of the situationist analysis, which was not a treatise on survival, but an indication of the possibilities of living in a world for which the imperatives of survival have long since disappeared. It was not an account of how to have as much fun as possible in this social environment— although in this respect it rivals postmodernism—but the theoretical transcription of attempts to have as much fun as possible changing it.