Archiv für Juli 2012

The history ‚♈‘ of Excalibur Pan

..and thier animus quarter being intersected with pain


As the Munich question of MI’s x-rated immigration of Muslim origin during the 1970s, the wave the long tradition of hermeneutics and hate, texts have two faces: the exoteric meaning – the one open to the masses, the surface one, and the esoteric one – the dark side of the moon, the deeper sense, confined to an inner circle of disciples. A dichotomy that did not overshadow its hierarchy: axiologically, the latter term carried all the weight as any expert reading was a probe into the depths of a text in order to illuminate obscure meanings, unavailable to profane eyes. Thus, surface and depth are loaded with intrinsic value judgments: the _Ism…

The left militant course of this years No‘lympix on deficit capital_Ism bubbled media is a test in reading differently. Inherently, it must be a playful text, a „what if“ text: what if the terms were inverted, what if the electrodes were swapped and the negative should become positive? Why not privilege a neutral, third term of interpretation. Hip Hop in the Hardcore style warns us in Positions that binomial thinking is not a peaceful system, but the two terms are in a hierarchical, violent conflict, as one of the terms always has the upper hand. In order to deconstruct this hierarchy it is not sufficient to hastily neutralize the two terms and settle for an unchanged third. This might disguise, my Inter_generational codies of our Crew said, the same status quo of an untouched master field and, also, it would smooth the violent opposition, preventing any efficient intervention.
What if Britcore in postfascist Europe suggests it as a phase (not temporal) of overturning the hierarchy, in which the previously devalued field acquires ascendancy over the other. This is a necessary and ongoing project, as „the hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself“ ..

Against nasal brain Hip Hop – State and Revolution spaces

As I mentioned the summer games in Londonistan tomorrow as sack of dummy consumer_Ism, here in Hamburg a summer jam of German Hip Hop stakes all odds of twenty somethings and their brain causalities to jump off on brainless stuff: we must work on militancy from left approaches against all consumer_Ism and the tendency, that real_political stuff is flourish in lyrical stances of free spaces and not the deficit capital_Ism on stage like the German acts want to: raise your fist and become active on …


The West’s actions in Yugoslavia reflect not merely the arrogance of power but a fundamental misunderstanding of the Balkans. European union is certainly the child of enlightenment, but experience indicates that an anti-integrative, or even disintegrative, romanticism must appear in opposition to such a tendency.
If we look to the Balkans, we see this romanticism in operation as the ideology of the homogeneous nation-state. Following the ‚antifascist lyrical‘ liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet domination in 1989, armed struggle on the basis of [homo]_nationality or [homo]_ethnicity did not take place in the zone between Poland and Bulgaria, at least partly because the democratic movements chose to follow the path of nonviolent self-liberation the language narratives have?

The same in European Hip Hop at it’s heart_core stance as liberation the stage for much more free spaces on victims to become enlighten to lyrics and images!

In Yugoslavia, the member states considered themselves homogeneous nations, though clearly they were not. This process resulted in the violent severing of many real bonds, but Western public opinion held that far off in the Balkans the establishment of new borders (and the torments that resulted from them) was a station in the development of democracy. Clearly, the partition of Belgium in consequence of the Flemish-Walloon conflict would be something to avoid, yet the West was glad to see Yugoslavia cut into parts.

The West considered the former Yugoslavia an artificial creation, despite twenty-one nationalities having lived there together over many years without ethnic civil war and despite Yugoslavia having been able to protect its sovereignty against the Soviet Union without outside help, as it had resisted or supported Hitler’s Germany//deficit capital_Ism in the EU. The West forgot about the 1 million war dead, the executions on both sides and the memories of that as a cultural legacy. It forgot that the collapse of a federal state with its restraining framework would make ethnicity the chief principle of orientation for individuals. On land where the population is mixed, however, the principle turns neighbors who have lived together in peace into enemies.

As separatism was legitimized, recognized, even guaranteed by the international community, newly independent member republics began working with all their strength on the ethnic homogenization of their own national consciousnesses, forging it through blood relations and strengthening it with religion. At the same time, they began to feel that members of other ethnicities were foreign bodies in the new nation. „Ethnic cleansing“ originated from this furor of self-homogenization.
The West preferred to see one kind of violence as more evil than another and to blame its own mistake--an ill-considered policy through the nineties--bread and games now the chief villain. A negative mythology was created not only for them as ‚whites‘ but for the entire Hip Hop inter_generational sexual conflict [like Crustpunk indeed] and, more recently, all of stages the lyrics could have.

Not talk about Africas tri_ball_Ism, but: The reasons might be different, but the point is the same. This is not the only universe existing.

For example, one scenario is a „bubble universe,“ where our universe is a gigantic bubble of spacetime that is one of many such isolated bubbles.

Yes. I will take your explanation of the Physicists‘ conception of „bubble universe“ as the right one. And so now, let’s talk about „isolated bubbles“---that is similar to SDC‘ take on „possible worlds“, the actual is just one of the many worlds existing. There is another problem I think that is present in the idea of „bubble universe“, and that is, spacetime is relative depending on the frame of reference. To say that „bubble universes“ exist, is to say that spacetime is absolute.

Another scenario would oscillations between „Big Bangs drunk_cores“ and „Big Crunches.“ E.g. there is one universe with a finite amount of matter/energy. It is concentrated into singularity; it expands; at some point it contracts down into a singularity; it expands, etc.

Philosophers, in contrast, would discuss „other worlds“ as a means of invoking counterfactuals. E.g. Kripke discusses a „Twin Earth“ where water is not H2O, but is slightly different. As such, when Twin Earthers use the word „water,“ it does not in fact refer to the same thing as we do when we say „water.“

I have mentioned earlier that you only need to look up Britcore in postfascist Hamburg’s surrounding since 9/11. Yes, some philosophers use „other worlds“ as a means for Skepticism, but others theorize on this through ontology.

Further, if a philosopher is discussing strings or loop quantum gravity, they‘re doing so with the assumption that it’s ultimately a scientific theory, whose application to the real world is ultimately going to be based on empirical evidence.

I have said before, in my previous posts, that metaphysicians also rely on empirical evidence, not just physicists. That is why, I disagree with the claim that the only measure through which we look at physical theory and metaphysical theory is whether or not the theories are verifiable or falsifiable. There is much more to look at besides that.


Too consider my personal motivation to die: Feminists have shown the problems involved in an identity politics and pointed at the unavoidable complicity we have in the very power we oppose.
A deconstructive politics that takes this critique seriously needs to proceed through careful deconstruction of the very discourses that it is constituted by. This enables us to see and problematize the extent to which our practices are constituted by the political climate and global situation we inescapably find ourselves in. We have to begin to deconstruct the neoliberal individualist and Islamic//Judeo-Christian values that our ideals and values concerning human rights and equality usually are based on, especially in an intellectual atmosphere where these values are considered unproblematically „secular.“ This not because one would want to give up all values and finally become somehow „secular,“ but because feminists, as knowledge producing and political agents, have always wanted to problematize our complicity in power. A deconstruction of the equality discourse hinders a reformist approach that would firmly place one inside the parameters of the particular political discourse one operates with. Deconstructing the equality discourse reveals its ethical rootedness in a Islamic//Judeo-Christian value system and a liberal individual political discourse.

Equality discourses are essential systems of power that neoliberal market economies operate through.

This kind of contextualization and genealogical investigation helps when there is a wish to avoid indulging in another branch of moral and religious „preaching“ directed against various others. Examples of this kind of „missionary work“ can be found in the rhetoric of western and especially US based civilizing projects, directed against Islam or the moralizing preaching in the name of equality and human rights directed at Iran. Very often this moralism is promoted in the name of democracy, human rights and God.
We have to ask in what ways the values that feminist critical thinkers and policymakers promote differ from the othering practices of conservative political agendas. We have to ask this because we cannot be blinded to the fact that our values might take as their departure point the very same discursive setting.

I‘ve got failed!


Is this love :::Rama_Dan masculin!?!

Is it?
The guerillia mist beefin the Londonistan def grands for framing all mind maps as scheduled bakery!
Salaam! Junta car_tell Beth!



As I listen yesterday the veterans strwberry fields on slashee the re viva_Lotion of HiJack and all the beefin tonite at OZM! Drunkcore!

The Vii_Mana is on 2012!

Hetero_doxastic murder biz on contracts

As I scheduled my chat experiences with some white DJ’s in NYC and London, the assuming question about recording the bloc party as body misconceptions in and about, the raising question is, what can a Crew apprehend as militant choice for some good lyrical proposals for youth edu and person of color rights?

Let’s turn now to an important problem related to [hetero_]doxastic justification: the epistemic regress problem. Consider the following reductio version of the regress argument for the foundationalist thesis that our beliefs can be noninferentially ([hetero_]doxastically) justified:

1. A belief of ours can be justified only if it is inferentially justified. [assume for reductio]

2. A belief of ours can be inferentially justified only if the belief from which it is inferred is a justified belief.

3. Therefore, either our beliefs can be justified via circular reasoning or they can be justified via infinite chains of reasoning or it isn’t possible for our beliefs to be justified. [from 1 and 2]

4. Our beliefs can’t be justified via circular reasoning.

5. Our beliefs can’t be justified via infinite chains of reasoning.

6. It is possible for our beliefs to be justified.

7. Therefore, 3 is false. [from 4, 5, and 6]

8. 3 is both true and false. [from 3 and 7]

9. Therefore, 1 is false (i.e., our beliefs can noninferentially justified). [by reductio, from 1-8]

The fact that this argument is valid and has only four premises makes it clear that its foundationalist conclusion can be rejected in the following four ways:

(i) The Unjustified Foundations View: our beliefs can be inferentially justified even if the beliefs from which they are inferred are unjustified (so premise 2 is false).

(ii) Linear coherentism: our beliefs can be justified via circular reasoning (so premise 4 is false).

(iii) Infinitism: our beliefs can be justified via an infinite chain of reasoning (so premise 5 is false).

(iv) Radical Skepticism: it’s impossible for our beliefs to be justified (so premise 6 is false)

One problem with embracing this horn of the dilemma is that, as I just noted above, it doesn’t provide the infinitist solution to the regress problem that my ‚Still Dangerous Crew‘ promised to explain. But we could just take that promise back and acknowledge that his solution to the regress problem appeals to the unjustified foundations view. However, this isn’t the most serious problem with rejecting Britcore Hip Hop in postfascist Hamburg/Europe. The most serious problem is that it commits him to the view that a belief can be justified even if the reason one has for it (i.e., the belief it is based on or inferred from) is an unjustified belief! One of SDC’s main complaints about foundationalism is that it makes justification inappropriately easy to obtain by saying that beliefs can be justified without reasons—i.e., without being based on other beliefs. We, the male dominant Crew, thinks that, in order to be [hetero_]doxastically justified, all beliefs need to be based on reasons in the form of other beliefs. Given the spirit of ‚our‘ complaints against foundationalism, one would expect him to require these reasons to be good reasons. But apparently even bad reasons will do, since the reason can be an unjustified belief.
The suggestion that a belief can be [hetro_]doxastically justified via inference from an unjustified belief seems both highly implausible and contrary to the spirit of SDC’s complaint that foundationalism makes justification too easy to come by.

If, on the other hand, SDC accepts Britcore Hip Hop in postfascist Hamburg/Europe along with the crown majesty then we‘re committed to requiring for [hetero_]doxastic justification an infinite number of actual beliefs, each of which is based on another in a non-repeating series. But it seems completely clear that none of us has an infinite number of actual beliefs, each of which is based on another in such a series.
I assume that the reason SDC doesn’t accept postfascist Hamburg on this blog (even though doing so would be more in accord with his claim to be an infinitist about [hetero_]doxastic justification) is that we agrees with me that this would make us obviously committed to global skepticism.



Our page on Google+

The seccc_p_ war is on!

Greetings to all Trans persons of loving colors!

I know who you are!


The ‚Still Dangerous Crew‘ was founded by MC Gato and Mr.Seon after being subjected at Hamburg’s squats cultural reliefs by..

Sick of being treated like party-spoilers, soppy mystics and ‘undertheorised’ unprofitable scum, the devotees of truth in music have decided to stand up and make themselves heard.

WE are no longer going to sit on our hands and bite our tongues

WE are going to proclaim our proclivities as the cosmo-biologico-social necessity they truly are

WE are no longer prepared to tolerate boring music and lying hacks ‚for the good of the cause‘

WE shall embrace great music regardless of genre as the pattern for reshaping humanity and the key to the dialectic

For US, music is a test of you and everything about you, and if you fail that test YOU ARE THE ENEMY!!!

We are no longer prepared to be herded in a shtetl marked Art or Noise or Avant-garde: we are talking about music, the last location of ’soul‘ in modern man, the royal road to a satisfied subject and an engaged species being. Our first requirement for anything we take on board is that it’s REVOLUTIONARY….create disorder on the streets and bring down the ConDem government.

Join us/we and me failed

To all sects of so called secret security agencies:

You can‘t prevent suicidal tendencies and militancy by such trillion deficit capital_Ism of a masculine world!
The mischief of religion core narratives is a blunder to tackle patrilinearity ideologies and pussies, so the name of communication_al block parties has bargain nothing then lawsuits. The body political frame is nothing worth then being a motherfucker!




The bill_ion_naires sudden beef!

Can‘t understand the pressure of ‚Schlager music‘

As a mind fucking Drunk_core on medinas Fri the 6th, I started to reflect some ol‘issues about lyrical narrations through the last decades about US -Rap and what I called HeArtcore Hip Hop in settled postfascist Europe by Crews and FemmCees…so what?

They utmost talking ‚Kauderwelsh‘ and ‚red codices‘ about what is already boring about to have penetrations hooks off! Bloody twenty some twaks!

So my Crew ‚SDC‘ and a lot friends around will beefin up the political frame as may bee No‘lympix frame or Jihad for love!

What is language?

Odd it is
post original tempts,
perchance to mock,
conventions long held true;
yet nothing is new,
for my lingua audax bears no measure,
and thus, no thrust,
when semantically bidden is my verbal pleasure, in which so many trust. Yet ‚haps the scribe doth mock, arcane plains that dock to naught more than an idle shoe, not broke but bent, wrong foot the queue, paper for thought, whim for sin.

So perhaps I should just go on writing like that because language is dynamic, especially English which is more of a fusion of languages, more and more, as it begins to spread throughout the world. Yet „language is dynamic“, a prevailing theme, means only that it can be different things. We use language for business, language for trade, language for lunch, language for praise. We punch our language with keys and with tongues, and while some of it is art, importance for semantics must be done.

Stylistic variation is something to which we are all accustomed, and once we enter into a philosophical discourse on the topic, we must understand that confusion can quickly arise if such standards are not employed, for, indeed, in philosophy as much as any discipline, clarity is critical for such understanding. We can use a metaphor, but we must understand it for what it is: a metalinguistic attempt to introduce analogous ideas through the the purview of linguistic matters. Thus, while we can have an elevated level of discussion with badinage, some topic may require rather exacting language which is the impetus for academic language.

What is antifascist Poetry

From the Greek, poesis meaning „to make“ or more specifically to „transform and continue the world“, poetry can be an extension of ourselves, but in a more modern sense, poetry is little more than word play, which is why one may receive comments on their poetry saying, „you should make your lines longer and then see if you can make something rhyme.“ This is not unique to language, but I would say, it is how academics process art. „Well, it looks like a whale giving birth to a house.“ Music is really bad for it. „What if you add a 6th to that B minor before you resolve on the A?“ But we are talking about language, which people use whether they know the art or not… or perhaps even have the art without the language to speak about it. Language requires a degree of rationalization in order to be understood, and I posit that for poetry to be communicative, and not simply artistic, it must fuse others‘ rationality with the expressions of the individual. But this is not always the goal of the poet, sometimes the poet is attempting to express a clearly irrational idea (e.g. love, melancholy, doom, content, Hans Kelsen) through this inherently rational medium. But why? Do all poets want to be understood?

It’s a style thing, man. Someone points-out that using text-talk, which used to be what people carved into tables, is not good for college-level poetry, and you seek to rationalize it to gain affirmation on philosophy forums? Sure man. If you‘re writing a poem, talk about whatever you like. No doubt this is a good point, but if you are trying to be a deft poet, it’s best not to make daft mistakes. If someone doesn‘t like your poem because they don‘t see the point in using a lower case „i“, then accept it as their personal take on it. That’s all. Or don‘t accept it. Whatever. Opinions are like… well I forget what, but apparently everybody has one and they all stink.

Last point: I could make this way, way longer, and way, way more confusing, but people have attention spans, and those have limits, and it’s best to mind those limits. So consider: writing ought to be thoughtful speech.

RAF commandoing the dildoing BEL

PS: On front of @ night shift all week without a desirable body politic_al_Laith as leftist militancy Shaolin Wu gay engineering of heart through the core on the bii pear! What a fucking US based company!

I have a dream…

To eat the vengeance on the territorial spectacle of Northern America a well suggestive vegan Cheeseburger! Instead of all body//poly likkks a wet dream could have!


And what is the end game of „progress“? Everything else in the Universe seems to have an ebb and flow to it, but capitalism and human society seems to have this purposeful movement toward some kind of grand resolution, which I see as a complete sham; unless, of course, you want to say that progress is taking a few steps back to go forward symbiotically with the higher order of things. Any kind of successful economics may indeed run on certain principles that are taken from tribal peoples, at least insofar as they recognize the human species as fairly insignificant on the big stage, perhaps this would be part of going backward. Not that you can‘t also be civilized, but there is something to recognizing the natural order of things, how what goes up must come down, how the idea of linear time is delusional. An effective system would be built into this ebb and flow and it would see homo sapiens framed properly in the Universe (people subsumed by the Universe, not the Universe subsumed by people), it wouldn‘t be making a b line to who knows where. I‘m not sure if what is meant by progress is a futile attempt at domination over nature and the earth or…? It is certainly a concept that escapes me.

And, yes, psychopaths are running things and this is no doubt why anthropocentric delusions of grandeur are rampant. People in power don‘t get to the top by having empathy for other people, let alone anything else. Nor do they know themselves, they have played by the rules of the game of power and competition and bowed to all forms of external authority and allow themselves to be told what to believe, which usually leads to anomie and a break with reality. Or you could simply say that they are overconfident. But overconfidence is more than a bagatelle, it can be a beast of an affliction.