The Error In Thinking

at the turn of the century, there was a realization that a lot of people had, well, that almost anyone i knew of had, me included. indeed, it is interesting that this sudden thought was so widespread. but what was this thought? it went along the following lines; in the history of mankind, man was fueled by great ideas; of social revolution; of cultural revolution; of better times, of a better society. this was in theory. but, in "praxis", these ideas never paved the way in which it was intended. the russian revolution, that ought to bring freedom and equality to everyone, brought more oppression and misery than before. didn't even the french revolution end in "the terror"? could not be the same said about every other revolution - and even if one could say, it did have, all parts accumulated, a positive outcome; was this not a mere nothingness compared to the ideals of utopia, on whose terms it was made on?
the same could be said about cultural movements and subcultures; the young punks screamed rebellion and anarchy - but in real life, didn't they join the "workforce" and a calm life after they had turned 30?
couldn't be the same said about the hippies, the ravers, all the others?
yes, of all the lofty ideals, in the end, judging realistically, not much was left in "praxis".
we, almost, all of mankind, realized that ideal and reality never met, not in the history of men, and probably never will. and on this followed another realization, that seemed so obvious and logical; to not follow these lofty dreams of change and anarchy anymore, and instead focus on - the real life, everyday experience.
to make something groundbreaking in "the actual", in existing genres, instead of clinging for dreams.
in practical results, this for example meaned that former radical electronic musicians dropped their "riot" and "anarchy" shouting and dived into other fields, usually under the guise of "pure art", "art for arts sake". their music and creativity suffered a lot by this.
but let us get back to our way of thinking. the "conclusion" was seemed so obvious, but it was not.
what we didn't realize was that there were two lines of thinking and the one didn't necessarily had to be concluded by the other. yes, that dream and reality do not meet - in principle, this thought was correct. and, it was supported by plenty of evidence. but what we thought then - there lies the problem. because if we can't have both - theory and praxis, dreams and actual results - then why choose the latter, instead of the former?
if we cannot ever put our dreams into "praxis", into an actual, substantial result - why do we have to give up our dreams? there is no logic behind it, well, there is actually no cause or evidence or anything behind it at all. it was just *obvious* to everyone. because "we" knew that pursuing dreams, that were bound to be without the chance of a direct, concrete consequence, was painful and useless. or so we thought.
because this is the big error in the line of thinking of almost all humans. most people, it seems, are unable to follow ideals or dreams, or utopian thoughts at all. but even those who are able to somewhat comprehend these things, still demand that dreams and ideals, have to be realized in some way, have to be put into effect.
and this is not the case at all. if you follow a dream, and it is a good dream, and you have no chance of ever putting it into something concrete, this can be most wonderful thing at all.
because, if dreams and ideals are still chained to the "actual", to a direct experience, they still lack vision, they still lack - what makes them ideal. ideals and dreams that are complete abstract, complete non-definitive, are those that are to be the most admired.
let us give some examples for this. a man might admire the ideal of anarchy, of revolution. this is good. but in the next step, he immediately wants that this idea is turned real. which, in itself is not bad at all. but, if he can't do it, or sees that others cannot do it aswell, he gives up this dream - because for him it is "just a dream". and this is where the error lies. if you cannot put it into something direct - this doesn't take anything of the dream and ideal away. the dream of anarchy stays grand - even if it is never realized! and it is worthy to fight for anarchy - even if it is never realized!
similiar, a life spent on fighting for social justice, is never wasted - even if you "reached" nothing with it, even if you did not manage to make the slightest change by your struggle - it is worthy. because the idea is grand. and the idea is great.
now, to most people this might seem like a depressing stand; to have an ideal and not being able to turn it direct. but it is not like that! the guy who fights for social justice, if he believes in it, even if he "fails", even if it amounts to seemingly "nothing", will live a much happier life than the richest men who is devoid of dreams and ideals - because this idea will give him happiness, too.
of course, this doesn't mean you should pursue ideas for selfgain - but you will gain a lot, gain everything - if you follow a dream or a great idea.
it doesn't matter if a dream cannot be put through - it was never the matter - strive for dreams - for the dreams sake!
this was the error in judgement and logic that we made - that the lack of "substance" of ideals and dreams would mean, that we should abandon dreams.
of course, in no way does that mean you should abandon the "everyday life", "real world" either - live in the real world. but also live in your dreams.
what should also be noted that if you pursue an ideal for an ideals sake, and it is a grand ideal, and you don't care if this ideal "can work" or not - *then* you will actually achieve a lot, in everyday life in the real world too. just like many (or all?) men who truly pursued an ideal and dream and dedicated themselves to it, went down in history. but, again, this should not be a prerequisite for taking this path, not at all.

so to end with our beginning, what would be the results for the subcultures, for anarchists and dreamers?
be a punk, be a hippie, be an anarchist, be a revolutionary, be a wonderful dreamer, or be something new - don't
let it bother you that the "actual" hippie scenes, punk scenes, anarchist scenes, men, women, actions and moves, might not be on par with those ideas and dreams - because this matters little. because the ideals are great. and this is what matters.

Our Current Crisis Of Culture

it is obvious and easy to realise what the current crisis of culture is. and it is easy to explain, why this crisis is so plainly visible to many - while to others it is invisible, even to the point that they insist there would be no crisis at all.
in the last decade of the 20th century, people were bored with the generic tripe that polluted the music area - all that cheesy eurodisco, all those ridiculous poser "hardrock" bands, and so on. instead they wanted new, fresh, different, groundbreaking, breathtaking ideas, concepts. and they got them. some created techno, acid, others dark ambient, breakcore, or other experimental and different music. it is impossible for those who did not live that era to realise how hard these sounds hit everyone; how the feeling of revolution and utopia and paradise music spread. because they are used to it now; but those living then, were not.
now, for nostalgics, the scheme is easy: revolution was in the air; we go to techno paradise, experimental music will break through, forgone by the rock relics and the boring pop genres. but, according to them, something went wrong, and the revolution failed and did not come. but nothing could be more from the truth.
we had our techno revolution. we had our breakcore revolution. we had our dark ambient move. and - we won.
and this is exactly the problem. if we were just crushed by the state repression, or this music had never left its shell, the situation would be much better now. where is the problem with this, with this succesful change?
because, we wanted new ideas, new movements, new society. and we have them. but, now, as they're established - they are simply not new ideas anymore. "our" new ideas are the old ideas now. what was once revolutionary - techno and its genres - is now reactionary. because life is about change, about movement, about breaking from the past each time anew. it cannot stop, it must not stop. yes, the techno breakthrough, the breakcore moment did *indeed* bring a lot of new ideas and modes to the musicworld; but these days, they are simply not new anymore - they belong to the past too, became boring, and worse, predicticable, formatted, precut. in that other decade, it was a breath of fresh air when boring pop songs were cut up and tuned to frantic beats - nowadays, you know this exactly how the breakcore track by some bullshit artist is gonna play out, when you hit play.
the same goes for society; society is indeed different from how society was in the 90s, 80s, 70s. but - it still sucks. or rather, it sucks - again.
our current culture, our music, our mode of living, is indeed the result of the breakthroughs, the social and sonic revolutions of the 90s; rave utopia came true; as came breakcore resistance. but utopia grew stale; as did resistance. not because these ideas were wrong - they were glorious. but because they are no longer new and exciting; they are old, and conservative, and establised. our past revolutionaries are the establishment of today. this can be seen in the all-night techno clubbers; the "party and forget society" myth still holds true for them; but it no longer has the utopian aspect, anarchist, fantastical edge to it, that it had to the first ravers.
the revolutionaries, the ravers, the experimenters, wanted new ideas in that past decade; and they got them. but now, they are not fresh anymore.
culture is always the product between two forces; the agents of change, and the agents of stillstand. those who were agents of change in that other decade, are agents of stillstand now. and the genres that were agents of change; speedcore, acidhouse; too are agents of stillstand now.
now, to get back to our beginning of this texts, this explains why this "crisis" is not visible to many; rather, it is not "visible" to the agents of stillstand; as they *want* stillstand, they do not see the problem. they appreciate it if nothing changes and culture and music just goes on, and doesn't change, so they approve of this.
the cultural stillstand, that is gripping western culture now, is just the "normal situation" for them now.
while for the agents of change, this annoying situation is plainly visible.
what needs to be done, is to rise up once again; to forget the concepts of past music and culture and society. to find something new, create something new, create something great, something wondrous. to produce music that was not done before; to rebel, to revel, to rave, to start a revolution.
"techno" is multiple decades old; and just as tripe as rock was after it lasted several decades. leave this behind; find new ideas, moves, possibilites, methods.
the ideas, the genres, that were so revolutionary in the past, are the moments of reaction now. we need to move on. to create something - awesome. to reach utopia!