ZEITGEIST SCHALLPLATTEN

Zeitgeist is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age."
Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.
The coalescence of a computer “culture” is expressed in self-aware computer music, art, virtual communities, and a hacker/street tech subculture. The computer nerd image is passe, and people are not ashamed anymore about the role the computer has in this subculture. The computer is a cool tool, a friend, important human augmentation.

The coalescence of a computer “culture” is expressed in self-aware computer music, art, virtual communities, and a hacker/street tech subculture. The computer nerd image is passe, and people are not ashamed anymore about the role the computer has in this subculture. The computer is a cool tool, a friend, important human augmentation.

The coalescence of a computer “culture” is expressed in self-aware computer music, art, virtual communities, and a hacker/street tech subculture. The computer nerd image is passe, and people are not ashamed anymore about the role the computer has in this subculture. The computer is a cool tool, a friend, important human augmentation.

I just uploaded “A Sojourn in the City of Amalgamation, in the Year of Our Lord, 19—” to www.mixcloud.com - listen now!

Zeitgeist 0.0 by Alpha Code reviewed by Samuli Kemppi on DJMAG

Zeitgeist 0.0 by Alpha Code reviewed by Samuli Kemppi on DJMAG

Check this amazing set, Zeitgeist 0.4 by Alpha Code inside!

The “Rectoversion” calls into question the notions of the visible face (recto, right), the dark side (verso, reverse) and their mutual relations.  It also proposes a method of critical philosophical notion of dualism.  In this way, the “Rectoversion” appears as a true “Metadualismo” contemporary.

The “Rectoversion” calls into question the notions of the visible face (recto, right), the dark side (verso, reverse) and their mutual relations.
It also proposes a method of critical philosophical notion of dualism.
In this way, the “Rectoversion” appears as a true “Metadualismo” contemporary.

Spanish webmagazine, DensoMag, talking about Zeitgeist Schallplatten!

Zeitgeist mean spirit of the time, and this it’s a kind of metaphoric name because the purpose is to go against today’s musical scene.
Be free to all the rules of the business, don’t be part of the great distribution (Beatport, Juno, etc. but just on Bandcamp) and a total freedom about the artist exprection.
So the people will have the opportunity to listen and play something different almost opposite to the music you find on other shops top 100 and be totally connected to us on Facebook, Tumblr , etc.
Maybe it’ll start to release in vinyl soon, it’s just fixing some point to do this jump.
Finally, Zeitgeist Schallplatten will release just track by the enigmatic Alpha Code.

Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’
One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this  question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from  ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the  average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by  pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very  unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one  another a good deal in structure and ideology.
It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same  framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are  describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that  Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war  hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war  preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say,  Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again,  antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of  Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned  controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines,  have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of  capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or  Japan or Mussolini’s Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in  internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning.  For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set  of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind —  which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here  I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am  speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in  sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied  in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:
Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or  anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule  in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism.  Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type  are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy  Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase:  ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.
Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism  (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the  same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been  the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same  accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during  its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is  echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian  Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist  organizations.
Communists: A considerable school of thought  (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt)  refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes,  and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately  the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again  from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.
Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists  proper, i.e. Trotsky’s own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist  organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during  the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists  tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of  themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.
Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;
War resisters: Pacifists and others who are  anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the  Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
Supporters of the war: War resisters usually  base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than  Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a  military victory. The supporters of the People’s Convention came near to  claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of  Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist  organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left  tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private  soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or  ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of  officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war,  joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies.  Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist  phenomena.
Nationalists: Nationalism is universally  regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such  national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab  nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian  Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all  described as Fascist but not by the same people.

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely  meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly  than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social  Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922  Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek,  homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women,  dogs and I do not know what else.
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning.  To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some  of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the  régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if  ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I  have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others.  Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in  every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By  ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous,  arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for  the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English  person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as  near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then,  cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we  shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long,  but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism  satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists  themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are  willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a  certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade  it to the level of a swearword.

Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.

It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini’s Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.

Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky’s own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People’s Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Samuli Kemppi supported Zeitgeist 0.0 playing Zeitgeist 0.3 @ Deep Space Helsinki !