What Is Idealist Anarchism?
Traditionally, anarchism has been to most part a materialist - often a very heavily materialist - political philosophy. Idealist anarchism on the other hand sides with idealism, and tries to set the anarchist ideas and principles on an idealist basis.
The idealist part of idealist anarchism claims that life, human nature, human behavior, society, the political world - is defined by ideals. And that all traditional governmental or economic, religious etc authoritarian organizations fail to live up to these ideals; the only way that people could live in a society of these ideals - an ideal society, is by the lack of (i.e. the abolishment of) these authoritarian and hierarchical organizations.
Ideals are ideas, thoughts, concepts, such as freedom, heroism, liberty, equality, individuality, compassion, mutual aid, solidarity. The highest ideals are the truth, rationality and "the good", i.e. the ideal of all goodness.
Hierarchical organizations claim that they represent ideals. But they fail these ideals and usually represent the opposite. The military says it protects freedom, but it serves tyranny; the government says it further progress, but it fuels societal regression; the capitalist press says it spreads knowledge, but it spreads lies and deceit.
The statist or "common" answer to this problem is to say the institutions need to be renewed or replaced; but the new institutions will just be as corrupt and vile, as history showed plenty of times (think of the Russian Revolution).
The only solution to this problem is get away with these authoritarian institutions completely. This will pave a way for humans to truly live with these ideals.
Idealist anarchism has some core ideas, and these are three of them:
Society is not based on or defined by economic or political relations. It is defined by ideals, thoughts, concepts. The economic structure and political structure follows these ideas. The economic or political structure *does not* shape these ideas. Not the ruling class, not the priests, not the military, police or workers are the strongest force in society; but the ideals and those that define them; the artists, poets, philosophers, 'wise men', theorists. Therefore, if you change the ideals of society, you can change society.
Likewise, the strongest force in human nature is rationality. It is not the subconscious, or instincts, or primitive emotions that are the strongest forces. The psychoanalytical theory of the "power" of the subconscious is one of the most vile materialist theories around and total nonsense. There might indeed be *some* humans that in the current state rather follow their instincts than rationality; but even with these: if their rational aspirations would be inspired, rationality would become the strongest factor in their minds.
Therefore, if you inspire the rationality of humans, you will have the most influence. And a society that inspires rationality the most would be an ideal society; and such society would be an anarchist society.
Likewise, idealist action is preferable over "direct" action. Every "action", every move that inspires and furthers rationality, ideals, wisdom, knowledge, enlightenment will shape and steer society and help humans and lead the way to true anarchism.
The pen is mightier than the sword - by a million times. Any "activism" based on violence, guns, bombs, fighting will fail in the end. A movement that spreads ideals by creating art, movies, music, manifestos, poems, critical articles will win over any force that exists in society or human nature.
Anarchists of the past indeed failed because they trusted "materialist" violence and action more than the power of art, of wisdom and knowledge.
Rationality is the strongest force in both society and humans. And idealism is rational. The way to a real free and just anarchist society.
Footnote: [1] I used the word ideals in more than one sense in this text. For most part, I talked about ideals in the real sense; but when I said society follows ideals there is something that should be noted: in the end, society follows *real* ideals; but in our current time, it also follows corrupted ideals like money or power that are far away from the real ideals but are still linked to it in a very imperfect way; people desire money to get human respect by others, which in a sense *would be* an ideal. But even these corrupted ideals are far away from the "materialist" forces of which the materialists philosophers say that they are the motors of society.
Left And Right
in the end, right wing people have been more tolerant of my views than those on the left. i think one of the reasons for this is the following. the left in the 20th century had a very strong anti-modernist sentiment. take for example the main structure of modernism, "bourgeois democracy", i.e. the type of "democracy" thagt exists in western nations. a typical leftwing position was this: bourgeois democracy is another system of oppression and authority and has to be rejected. but with the 90s of the last century and going into the current century, there was suddenly a new breeze of leftists, who would say something like "well, western democracy is still better than fascism or radical theocracy, so maybe we should *strengthen* bourgeois democracy against these threats"*. the funny thing is, this is a typical conservative, reactionary, rightwing stance and i don't want to have anything to do with it. those who *identify* as rightwingers on the other hand usually understand very well that western democracy is a fake, a joke, a trap. but the problem is of course, that unlike the "oldschool leftists" they don't want to replace it with a free society but with a fascist dictatorship that indeed would be a million times worse.
*on a side note, i think that western democracy inevitably leads to fascism, so supporting the one in favor of the other is even more of a dangerous illusion. we should fight for anarchy instead.
*on a side note, i think that western democracy inevitably leads to fascism, so supporting the one in favor of the other is even more of a dangerous illusion. we should fight for anarchy instead.
Hardcore Techno And Anarchist Theory
My new E-book is finished.
In this book I try to draw a connection between the musical genre of Hardcore Techno and the political philosophy of Anarchism, aswell as dealing with general topics of art theory, cultural resistance, subcultures and other societal and philosophical topics.
"sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good."
Table Of Contents
01. Preface
02. Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
03. Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
04. We Need A Revolution
05. Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
06. Artists, Outcasts and Society
07. The Illusion Of The Internet
08. Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
09. Revolution Is In The Air
10. Revolution Of The Mind
11. Sonic Threads
12. The Key
13. Anarchy and Extacy
14. Revolution Or Interest
15. Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
16. How To Create New Forms Of Music
17. The Closedness Of Possibilities
18. Revolution and Reaction
19. How Critical Debate Is Prevented
20. Techno - Needs More Synthetics
21. Art And Utopia
22. Our Current Crisis Of Culture
(also available as PDF)
https://hardcoretechnoandanarchisttheory.blogspot.com
In this book I try to draw a connection between the musical genre of Hardcore Techno and the political philosophy of Anarchism, aswell as dealing with general topics of art theory, cultural resistance, subcultures and other societal and philosophical topics.
"sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good."
Table Of Contents
01. Preface
02. Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
03. Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
04. We Need A Revolution
05. Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
06. Artists, Outcasts and Society
07. The Illusion Of The Internet
08. Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
09. Revolution Is In The Air
10. Revolution Of The Mind
11. Sonic Threads
12. The Key
13. Anarchy and Extacy
14. Revolution Or Interest
15. Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
16. How To Create New Forms Of Music
17. The Closedness Of Possibilities
18. Revolution and Reaction
19. How Critical Debate Is Prevented
20. Techno - Needs More Synthetics
21. Art And Utopia
22. Our Current Crisis Of Culture
(also available as PDF)
https://hardcoretechnoandanarchisttheory.blogspot.com
The Trap
I said everything in this world is a trap; and the trap always works the same way.
I will talk about my personal trap, because that is the trap I know best.
When I got records out, and played at parties and did other things, I got to know a lot of people of course. And almost all of them told me the same thing: "give up this idea of an anarchist revolution through music! We can still have parties and lots of fun and good times and enjoy it and the music will continue, but get rid of this anarchist idea." the meaning behind this is clear: to give up an ideal or dream for selfish, material gain. But this is of course wrong. A revolution triggered by music, or any form of art or even books is indeed possible. And anarchism is indeed possible.
So don't fall for such traps. Don't trade in your ideal, dream or vision in order to gain something in this world.
I will talk about my personal trap, because that is the trap I know best.
When I got records out, and played at parties and did other things, I got to know a lot of people of course. And almost all of them told me the same thing: "give up this idea of an anarchist revolution through music! We can still have parties and lots of fun and good times and enjoy it and the music will continue, but get rid of this anarchist idea." the meaning behind this is clear: to give up an ideal or dream for selfish, material gain. But this is of course wrong. A revolution triggered by music, or any form of art or even books is indeed possible. And anarchism is indeed possible.
So don't fall for such traps. Don't trade in your ideal, dream or vision in order to gain something in this world.
On Drugs
I never voluntarily did drugs, unless you count caffeine. I never was drunk in my life. I was sometimes stoned outta my mind being in a room of weed smokers and it's possible someone spilled something in my drink at parties, but in both cases, it didn't make me feel weirder than usual. There were two main reasons for this. The first was I always assumed I might like drugs just a little bit too much, and become easily addicted. The other was the following. Some take drugs for entertainment. Not interesting to me. But what is interesting is that drugs are used in an attempt to gain enlightenment and wisdom. Now this never clicked with me. Reaching enlightenment not by contemplation, but by doing a tangible, direct thing as buying a pill and swallowing it. That seems just so illogical to me. Now you might say, you can get knowledge by reading a book and that's a tangible thing too. But it's not, really. The book and the bed you sit in is not intellectual, but the content of the book you read is intellectual. While the drug is very physical.
To further illustrate this; if people could get knowledge and enlightenment with drugs, a restrictive government for example could set up a powerful anti-drug police force, maybe even using extreme measures, stopping people from taking drugs, and blocking them from gaining enlightenment this way! This is just so much non-sense. Because there is no way a government could ever block the spread of true knowledge. Therefore, the true knowledge could not be spread using drugs.
I re-read the texts by Hakim Bey a while ago. He is pro-drugs and actually addresses this point. He claims that the very nature of psychedelic drugs is that they evade government control. Somehow they always get spread.
Interesting idea. If that's true I could've tried drugs all these years. No I won't, just kidding.
I will not believe you can get a very profound insight by doing a very tangible thing such as reaching out, taking a pill, putting it in your mouth and swallowing it. Instead of contemplating. At least not without paying a heavy price. Because people do assume they got important knowledge by drugs. And this knowledge can get them places; becoming a rockstar, rich, whatever, or getting some things they want in life. But it doesn't help them with their intellectual development; at least not to the full extent. And that's what really matters.
Of course I don't condemn use of drugs or drug users, even if they're just doing it for entertainment.
And then there is the shamanic and religious use of drugs, which *could* be useful.
To further explain my point: how do you gain knowledge? By using your mind, reason, logic, your intellect. If someone told you: you will gain knowledge (profound knowledge) by taking a hammer and hitting a nail, or by picking up a stone and throwing it, you would say: nonsense. But that's what taking a drug is: not using your intellect, but doing a physical action: reaching with your hand, grabbing an object, putting it inside your mouth and swallowing it. How could you gain an important insight by this?
To further illustrate this; if people could get knowledge and enlightenment with drugs, a restrictive government for example could set up a powerful anti-drug police force, maybe even using extreme measures, stopping people from taking drugs, and blocking them from gaining enlightenment this way! This is just so much non-sense. Because there is no way a government could ever block the spread of true knowledge. Therefore, the true knowledge could not be spread using drugs.
I re-read the texts by Hakim Bey a while ago. He is pro-drugs and actually addresses this point. He claims that the very nature of psychedelic drugs is that they evade government control. Somehow they always get spread.
Interesting idea. If that's true I could've tried drugs all these years. No I won't, just kidding.
I will not believe you can get a very profound insight by doing a very tangible thing such as reaching out, taking a pill, putting it in your mouth and swallowing it. Instead of contemplating. At least not without paying a heavy price. Because people do assume they got important knowledge by drugs. And this knowledge can get them places; becoming a rockstar, rich, whatever, or getting some things they want in life. But it doesn't help them with their intellectual development; at least not to the full extent. And that's what really matters.
Of course I don't condemn use of drugs or drug users, even if they're just doing it for entertainment.
And then there is the shamanic and religious use of drugs, which *could* be useful.
To further explain my point: how do you gain knowledge? By using your mind, reason, logic, your intellect. If someone told you: you will gain knowledge (profound knowledge) by taking a hammer and hitting a nail, or by picking up a stone and throwing it, you would say: nonsense. But that's what taking a drug is: not using your intellect, but doing a physical action: reaching with your hand, grabbing an object, putting it inside your mouth and swallowing it. How could you gain an important insight by this?
My Motivation
When I got back into doing music, I was very enthusiastic at first. But that quickly waned. There were two reasons for it.
The first was, I felt my music was not on par with my earlier music. It just didn't feel as exciting to me anymore. But the other reason was more important. I felt that I had expressed all that I could express with my old style of music already. I had reached a plateau. And I wondered if it was possible to get to a higher plateau. What made it worse was that with most music I listened to, I had the same reaction. It seemed to be good and exciting and everything, but didn't get beyond a certain level. And I wondered if it was indeed possible to transcend that level by the use of art.
Then three things happened. I re-read Neuromancer by William Gibson, listened to the new music done by Joerg Buchholz, and watched Inland Empire by David lynch. This showed that there was still a higher level to be reached by art.
This was in 2011. All music I done since then would likely not have been possible without encountering these three things.
I of course don't mean I tried to reach the level of mastership a David Lynch or a William Gibson has. But to realize there is something in art, that is still above and not common, and maybe one can reach and share a tiny part of it. Maybe it's a kind of hubris to even desire to reach this level. But I gave it my all, and I am not to judge if I succeeded with it or not.
The first was, I felt my music was not on par with my earlier music. It just didn't feel as exciting to me anymore. But the other reason was more important. I felt that I had expressed all that I could express with my old style of music already. I had reached a plateau. And I wondered if it was possible to get to a higher plateau. What made it worse was that with most music I listened to, I had the same reaction. It seemed to be good and exciting and everything, but didn't get beyond a certain level. And I wondered if it was indeed possible to transcend that level by the use of art.
Then three things happened. I re-read Neuromancer by William Gibson, listened to the new music done by Joerg Buchholz, and watched Inland Empire by David lynch. This showed that there was still a higher level to be reached by art.
This was in 2011. All music I done since then would likely not have been possible without encountering these three things.
I of course don't mean I tried to reach the level of mastership a David Lynch or a William Gibson has. But to realize there is something in art, that is still above and not common, and maybe one can reach and share a tiny part of it. Maybe it's a kind of hubris to even desire to reach this level. But I gave it my all, and I am not to judge if I succeeded with it or not.
Hardcore Saved My Life
lately, other artists have posted about their mental or personal problems and their past, so i thought i should do it to.
hardcore literally saved my life.
when i was a kid, i was subjected to bullying. there was a group of other kids that brought knives and other weapons to school. one of their favorite things was to stage "fake executions" with me. for example, they would corner me, and then approach with the knife and make a motion as if they would stab me, and just stop short of my body.
they also beat me, kicked me and strangled me. when they didn't have any weapon, they threatened to just beat my to death or beat me to a cripple.
of course, i was aware that this might as well be hollow threats, trying to impress their peers with that kind of talk and behavior. but to me, they were psycho enough to actually do these things. also they encouraged each other when doing these kind of things, and i feared one of them would snap and turn that threat into reality. and there could just be an accident; the kid wants to fake stab me, but accidentally stabs me for real.
now, i was not very tough as a kid. i was more a nerdy person. so this was really a problem for me. i developed mortal fear and anxiety. and the anxiety started to spill into other areas of life too, not just school.
and i didn't know what to do or how to solve that situation. this is when hardcore entered my life. when listening to tracks like Extreme Terror and other speedcore, it seemed to me that music had that same sensation of "mortal terror" that i experienced at school, but in a lesser degree.
it allowed me to get into a controlled situation regarding that fear. i could listen to hardcore and get used to these feeling and just stop it at will by turning off the CD player. this way, i slowly got used to my anxiety problem and and learned to deal with it, and learned to handle it.
hardcore generally toughened me and got me more self-esteem and control and slowly taught me to take on these problems.
so, in the end, i owe a lot to hardcore.
hardcore literally saved my life.
when i was a kid, i was subjected to bullying. there was a group of other kids that brought knives and other weapons to school. one of their favorite things was to stage "fake executions" with me. for example, they would corner me, and then approach with the knife and make a motion as if they would stab me, and just stop short of my body.
they also beat me, kicked me and strangled me. when they didn't have any weapon, they threatened to just beat my to death or beat me to a cripple.
of course, i was aware that this might as well be hollow threats, trying to impress their peers with that kind of talk and behavior. but to me, they were psycho enough to actually do these things. also they encouraged each other when doing these kind of things, and i feared one of them would snap and turn that threat into reality. and there could just be an accident; the kid wants to fake stab me, but accidentally stabs me for real.
now, i was not very tough as a kid. i was more a nerdy person. so this was really a problem for me. i developed mortal fear and anxiety. and the anxiety started to spill into other areas of life too, not just school.
and i didn't know what to do or how to solve that situation. this is when hardcore entered my life. when listening to tracks like Extreme Terror and other speedcore, it seemed to me that music had that same sensation of "mortal terror" that i experienced at school, but in a lesser degree.
it allowed me to get into a controlled situation regarding that fear. i could listen to hardcore and get used to these feeling and just stop it at will by turning off the CD player. this way, i slowly got used to my anxiety problem and and learned to deal with it, and learned to handle it.
hardcore generally toughened me and got me more self-esteem and control and slowly taught me to take on these problems.
so, in the end, i owe a lot to hardcore.
Anarchism And Change
there was almost a decade where i didn't believe in anarchism and radical change; it only came fully back in 2014. i used to be ashamed of this period, as of course others were still fighting and being active, and i considered it to be kinda egoistical, maybe bourgeous, that i did not see any merit in this for that time. after all, who am i to decide what is right or wrong.
but in the i think for me it was a necessary transition; because there was a huge flaw in anarchism and anarchist theory as it existed in the 20th and 19th century; which is that it is materialist and not idealist. only idealist anarchism can lead to truly positive change.
anyone who follows down the road of materialist anarchism is in the danger of facing disaster.
to get back to my story, it was the right choice for me to break with materialism and join idealism.
and i can only appeal to others who seek radical change to turn to idealism too.
but in the i think for me it was a necessary transition; because there was a huge flaw in anarchism and anarchist theory as it existed in the 20th and 19th century; which is that it is materialist and not idealist. only idealist anarchism can lead to truly positive change.
anyone who follows down the road of materialist anarchism is in the danger of facing disaster.
to get back to my story, it was the right choice for me to break with materialism and join idealism.
and i can only appeal to others who seek radical change to turn to idealism too.
The World And Ideals
when one starts to question the world, one objects to very specific things at the beginning usually; maybe the government; or big business; or organized religion.
then, as one goes on, one realizes it's more complicated than that.
the workers are oppressed, yes; but they often don't come across as being the heroic fighters that people like marx painted them; when giving the chance to join a complacent bourgeois life, with luxury and comfort, and money, they're eager to give up the struggle quickly.
or the anarchist groups you admired are not as idealistic as you first thought; ridden by in-fighting and failure and narcissism.
this is when things get complicated quickly, as you realize there are more and more things in the world you should object.
this is when people usually give up. they think, if you go on, you can't see anymore what or against you are fighting for as everything seems to connected to bad things and this evil spreads through all of society.
so they stop the fighting and join in to normal life with less lofty and far-stretched goals.
because, it would be a fallacy, to try to fight a problem as large as this one, wouldn't it be?
but that is wrong. they stop just before realizing an important truth. it is indeed not just the government or big business that is evil. and it's not almost the whole of society. it's the whole of society. it's the whole of the world that is evil.
let me further define this here. it's not that there is some evil that for some reason extends to the whole of the world. the evil is not "in" the world. the evil *is* the world. the world is rotten to the core. there is something in the very nature of the world that is corrupted, corruption, and corrupting everything.
let me give an example. we all know the anarchists, or the hippies, or the punks, had revolutionary ideas, ideas of a better world and justice and peace and equality. and they tried to put these ideals out into the world and change the world.
and in a sense they all failed. this is why people think: there must be something wrong with these ideals and thoughts and theories they had. because they didn't work in the real world.
but this is wrong! the ideals, the theories, were all correct, pure, just and beautiful. but by putting these ideas into the 'real world', by trying to 'realize these theories and ideals' they ended up corrupting everything and themselves, because the world corrupts everything that gets put in it.
the ideas stayed grand and correct and right and true; just the world stayed corrupt because it will always stay corrupt.
so is there no solution? there is one. become an idealist, stay an idealist. leave the world aside. further your ideals and great thoughts and poetry and dreams. don't let yourself be corrupted by the world. keep your focus on the ideals.
then, as one goes on, one realizes it's more complicated than that.
the workers are oppressed, yes; but they often don't come across as being the heroic fighters that people like marx painted them; when giving the chance to join a complacent bourgeois life, with luxury and comfort, and money, they're eager to give up the struggle quickly.
or the anarchist groups you admired are not as idealistic as you first thought; ridden by in-fighting and failure and narcissism.
this is when things get complicated quickly, as you realize there are more and more things in the world you should object.
this is when people usually give up. they think, if you go on, you can't see anymore what or against you are fighting for as everything seems to connected to bad things and this evil spreads through all of society.
so they stop the fighting and join in to normal life with less lofty and far-stretched goals.
because, it would be a fallacy, to try to fight a problem as large as this one, wouldn't it be?
but that is wrong. they stop just before realizing an important truth. it is indeed not just the government or big business that is evil. and it's not almost the whole of society. it's the whole of society. it's the whole of the world that is evil.
let me further define this here. it's not that there is some evil that for some reason extends to the whole of the world. the evil is not "in" the world. the evil *is* the world. the world is rotten to the core. there is something in the very nature of the world that is corrupted, corruption, and corrupting everything.
let me give an example. we all know the anarchists, or the hippies, or the punks, had revolutionary ideas, ideas of a better world and justice and peace and equality. and they tried to put these ideals out into the world and change the world.
and in a sense they all failed. this is why people think: there must be something wrong with these ideals and thoughts and theories they had. because they didn't work in the real world.
but this is wrong! the ideals, the theories, were all correct, pure, just and beautiful. but by putting these ideas into the 'real world', by trying to 'realize these theories and ideals' they ended up corrupting everything and themselves, because the world corrupts everything that gets put in it.
the ideas stayed grand and correct and right and true; just the world stayed corrupt because it will always stay corrupt.
so is there no solution? there is one. become an idealist, stay an idealist. leave the world aside. further your ideals and great thoughts and poetry and dreams. don't let yourself be corrupted by the world. keep your focus on the ideals.
Interpretation Of The First Three Stanzas Of "Ode" By Arthur O'Shaughnessy
'We are the music makers,'
there is a literal meaning to it; as the text is about artists, those who create music - musicians - are included too. but i think there is also a second meaning. remember sayings like "the music stopped for him". not literal music, but the music that gets and keeps things going. and this is what artists, poets also create.
'And we are the dreamers of dreams,'
i see three meanings here. poets and artists do dream a lot and dreams are a source for their art. but they also create dreams in and by their works; they are the ones who are 'doing it'; they dream those dreams.
but there is also a kind of super aspect. *the* dreamers of dreams. dreams of dreams. not just ordinary dreamers but those who are the source of dreams, the creators of the stuff the populace dreams about then.
'Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—'
that's where you find poets and artist.
'World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:'
some have turned to art because they lost the world; they lost their families their social standing or economic positions. others have chosen to reject these by choice and became artists. but whatever way they walked, they are not part of the world, of everyday life anymore.
'Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.'
but even though that as persons they are not part of the world, the poets and artists are the ones that keep the world turning and changing.
'With wonderful deathless ditties
We build up the world's great cities,
And out of a fabulous story
We fashion an empire's glory:
One man with a dream, at pleasure,
Shall go forth and conquer a crown;'
cities, empires, cultures, civilizations were not built by economists or rulers or kings and princes; they were fashioned after an ideal, a dream, a vision a belief; and it's the poets and artists that create these ideas and beliefs.
'And three with a new song's measure
Can trample a kingdom down.'
and it's also the artists who can take the idea away again, and the empires will be bound to sink below again.
'We, in the ages lying
In the buried past of the earth,
Built Nineveh with our sighing,
And Babel itself in our mirth;
And o'erthrew them with prophesying
To the old of the new world's worth;'
a repetition of the abovementioned idea. the artists fashion ideals after which empires rise; but when that ideal wanes; new ones will be created and a new empire will come to life on the ashes of the old.
'For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.'
again, an age, a civilization, a period, is not shaped on an economical basis or on societal power or on money or military or the ruling glass; it follows an ideal, first written down by poets and artists; and when the understanding of this ideal becomes imperfect, a civilization falls; and a new ideal can rise.
the artists are the ones that write down the dreams; the dreams that the world follows.
there is a literal meaning to it; as the text is about artists, those who create music - musicians - are included too. but i think there is also a second meaning. remember sayings like "the music stopped for him". not literal music, but the music that gets and keeps things going. and this is what artists, poets also create.
'And we are the dreamers of dreams,'
i see three meanings here. poets and artists do dream a lot and dreams are a source for their art. but they also create dreams in and by their works; they are the ones who are 'doing it'; they dream those dreams.
but there is also a kind of super aspect. *the* dreamers of dreams. dreams of dreams. not just ordinary dreamers but those who are the source of dreams, the creators of the stuff the populace dreams about then.
'Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—'
that's where you find poets and artist.
'World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:'
some have turned to art because they lost the world; they lost their families their social standing or economic positions. others have chosen to reject these by choice and became artists. but whatever way they walked, they are not part of the world, of everyday life anymore.
'Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.'
but even though that as persons they are not part of the world, the poets and artists are the ones that keep the world turning and changing.
'With wonderful deathless ditties
We build up the world's great cities,
And out of a fabulous story
We fashion an empire's glory:
One man with a dream, at pleasure,
Shall go forth and conquer a crown;'
cities, empires, cultures, civilizations were not built by economists or rulers or kings and princes; they were fashioned after an ideal, a dream, a vision a belief; and it's the poets and artists that create these ideas and beliefs.
'And three with a new song's measure
Can trample a kingdom down.'
and it's also the artists who can take the idea away again, and the empires will be bound to sink below again.
'We, in the ages lying
In the buried past of the earth,
Built Nineveh with our sighing,
And Babel itself in our mirth;
And o'erthrew them with prophesying
To the old of the new world's worth;'
a repetition of the abovementioned idea. the artists fashion ideals after which empires rise; but when that ideal wanes; new ones will be created and a new empire will come to life on the ashes of the old.
'For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.'
again, an age, a civilization, a period, is not shaped on an economical basis or on societal power or on money or military or the ruling glass; it follows an ideal, first written down by poets and artists; and when the understanding of this ideal becomes imperfect, a civilization falls; and a new ideal can rise.
the artists are the ones that write down the dreams; the dreams that the world follows.
Musical Interest
my current main interest in music does not only predate my producer life by far; it predates most of my life!
i must have been 2 or 3 years old; at the beginning of the 80s. there was a show on TV i had not seen before and did not see again. it was about teenagers in a school; i assume it was a UK series. but what happened in the series was not important. when the ending credits appeared a new wave song played. of course at that age i didn't know this music was called new age. when the melody of that song played... it touched me so deep. it was a true unearthly experience. i felt like i was flying. i felt full of bliss. in other words, i had my very first true high. the high lasted for more than a day. i had no clue what that song was. i desperately tried to memorize the melody. but i failed at it and soon forget how the song sounded like. but that event stayed impaled in my mind.
i'm quite certain i heard the song again much later in my life, but i don't know it. it could have been something by new order or human league, or yazoo.
when i was a kid, punk was a big topic in the media, and i had two older brothers who were into all sorts of "alternative" music, so i always had a steady input of punk music even at a very early age (in a sense, i *grew up* on punk, but that's a different topic). i loved that music as a kid, and when i grew older i realized there to me was something special in the melodies of punk and new wave songs; but i didn't know what it was.
when i turned to hardcore techno and became a producer, i could not care less about these things anymore. the topic was now avantgarde and noise, and i was very skeptical of using any melodies at all.
when my first enthusiasm in hardcore waned, a friend gave me a CD that had a cheesy pop-punk cover of "everything counts" by depeche mode. they changed the melody a bit, and i noticed that it had this thing in melody again that i was curious about earlier in life. by now this thematic stuck with me.
i think somewhere in 2010, 2011 i *finally* realized what it was. the special thing, that gave me my first high.
of course i won't explain what it is, to not spoil the mystery. i know 100% how to use it and what it is. i made some half-hearted attempts to find it in music theory, but no success yet (i'm generally not interested in western music theory).
it's something that, at least in the way i'm interested in, is very common in punk, new wave, goth, reggae, 50s doo wop, indie pop, folk and chiptune.
it's not common in metal, 19th century classical, rap and lots of other music.
in electronic music, for example some tracks by somatic responses and miro have it.
so, i had this thing. i was at that time looking for something new, something else to add to my tracks so i discovered it at the right time.
but it was not easy to merge it with my style of music that started from so different roots.
only in the last years i have a feeling to have some success at using this "technique", but i'm still not fully happy with it. something for the future?
i must have been 2 or 3 years old; at the beginning of the 80s. there was a show on TV i had not seen before and did not see again. it was about teenagers in a school; i assume it was a UK series. but what happened in the series was not important. when the ending credits appeared a new wave song played. of course at that age i didn't know this music was called new age. when the melody of that song played... it touched me so deep. it was a true unearthly experience. i felt like i was flying. i felt full of bliss. in other words, i had my very first true high. the high lasted for more than a day. i had no clue what that song was. i desperately tried to memorize the melody. but i failed at it and soon forget how the song sounded like. but that event stayed impaled in my mind.
i'm quite certain i heard the song again much later in my life, but i don't know it. it could have been something by new order or human league, or yazoo.
when i was a kid, punk was a big topic in the media, and i had two older brothers who were into all sorts of "alternative" music, so i always had a steady input of punk music even at a very early age (in a sense, i *grew up* on punk, but that's a different topic). i loved that music as a kid, and when i grew older i realized there to me was something special in the melodies of punk and new wave songs; but i didn't know what it was.
when i turned to hardcore techno and became a producer, i could not care less about these things anymore. the topic was now avantgarde and noise, and i was very skeptical of using any melodies at all.
when my first enthusiasm in hardcore waned, a friend gave me a CD that had a cheesy pop-punk cover of "everything counts" by depeche mode. they changed the melody a bit, and i noticed that it had this thing in melody again that i was curious about earlier in life. by now this thematic stuck with me.
i think somewhere in 2010, 2011 i *finally* realized what it was. the special thing, that gave me my first high.
of course i won't explain what it is, to not spoil the mystery. i know 100% how to use it and what it is. i made some half-hearted attempts to find it in music theory, but no success yet (i'm generally not interested in western music theory).
it's something that, at least in the way i'm interested in, is very common in punk, new wave, goth, reggae, 50s doo wop, indie pop, folk and chiptune.
it's not common in metal, 19th century classical, rap and lots of other music.
in electronic music, for example some tracks by somatic responses and miro have it.
so, i had this thing. i was at that time looking for something new, something else to add to my tracks so i discovered it at the right time.
but it was not easy to merge it with my style of music that started from so different roots.
only in the last years i have a feeling to have some success at using this "technique", but i'm still not fully happy with it. something for the future?
The Deed Of Propaganda
there has been talk in the anarchist scene for years, that anarchism is too much theory, too much talk, too little action, too little 'real life' impact. but nothing could be farther from the truth. what anarchism is really lacking *is* theory and thought.
think about it. imagine the ruling class has one of their little meetings again, and a meteor strike or plane crash or bomb wipes them all out, the 100 or 1000 most powerful people on earth. the hierarchy lost its head and command. do you think the result would then be anarchy or anarchism? no, either another group claims power or society falls into total chaos. or somehow, an anarchist supported by a small group ends being the president of a western country. do you think he could steer society to anarchism then? no, society would resist this, and he would end up powerless or a coup takes place etc.
why is this? because capitalism and hierarchy is deeply buried in the minds of the populace. they believe in hierarchy and working for material goods and social ranks and gaining as much goods and power as one can get. and as long as their focus is on these things, anarchy won't be possible. what we need is an anarchist mindset that gets spread. that people realize that solidarity and freedom and struggle against oppression and beauty and creativity is the way to go, and not to work your ass off to get another luxury item you don't need.
if the majority of society has this mindset, hierarchy and capital will collapse by themselves as their support by the majority, which they need, is cut off. how should armies and big business and the state agencies still run when its members and workers no longer support them?
this is what we need. not more action and pragmatism. but spreading an anarchist state of mind.
in light of that anarchists are so focused on 'practical' issues it's astounding that they not only lack lofty, deep theories but also the more practical theories. if a man asks, you: 'how would anarchy work? how would the forming of hierarchies, or oppressive power, or violent groups be prevented in an anarchist society?' and all these other questions. what would you answer? anarchism is really lacking in that aspect.
and this is why we don't get a lot of support. because we're lacking in anarchist theories in the first place.
but, as hinted at, we don't just need these practical aspects of theories. what is really lacking more is a deep, abstract, grand anarchist vision, theories that really go to the core, are groundbreaking, and would manage to inspire the masses and lead to true change in the history of man.
"propaganda of the deed" was a phase in anarchist history, in which bombings, assassinations happened to 'agitate' the masses and lead to a revolution. the result was almost zero, as expected. a true dead end for anarchism.
i suggest the opposite. the deed of propaganda. focus more on theory than action, focus more on propaganda than on activism. spread ideas, thoughts, visions, fantasies, manifestos, of solidarity, of class struggle, of adventure, of freedom, of ecstasy, of peace and compassion and of revolution.
reason and intellect are the strongest aspect of human nature. if we try to stimulate reason and intellect through our propaganda, we could really inflame the hearts of people. and change things.
if we try to act and activate before we have a well thought out, brilliant theory of anarchism and how anarchist society works, we will achieve nothing. but if we focus on rationalism, and create these theories, we can truly make a difference.
let's do the deed of propaganda.
think about it. imagine the ruling class has one of their little meetings again, and a meteor strike or plane crash or bomb wipes them all out, the 100 or 1000 most powerful people on earth. the hierarchy lost its head and command. do you think the result would then be anarchy or anarchism? no, either another group claims power or society falls into total chaos. or somehow, an anarchist supported by a small group ends being the president of a western country. do you think he could steer society to anarchism then? no, society would resist this, and he would end up powerless or a coup takes place etc.
why is this? because capitalism and hierarchy is deeply buried in the minds of the populace. they believe in hierarchy and working for material goods and social ranks and gaining as much goods and power as one can get. and as long as their focus is on these things, anarchy won't be possible. what we need is an anarchist mindset that gets spread. that people realize that solidarity and freedom and struggle against oppression and beauty and creativity is the way to go, and not to work your ass off to get another luxury item you don't need.
if the majority of society has this mindset, hierarchy and capital will collapse by themselves as their support by the majority, which they need, is cut off. how should armies and big business and the state agencies still run when its members and workers no longer support them?
this is what we need. not more action and pragmatism. but spreading an anarchist state of mind.
in light of that anarchists are so focused on 'practical' issues it's astounding that they not only lack lofty, deep theories but also the more practical theories. if a man asks, you: 'how would anarchy work? how would the forming of hierarchies, or oppressive power, or violent groups be prevented in an anarchist society?' and all these other questions. what would you answer? anarchism is really lacking in that aspect.
and this is why we don't get a lot of support. because we're lacking in anarchist theories in the first place.
but, as hinted at, we don't just need these practical aspects of theories. what is really lacking more is a deep, abstract, grand anarchist vision, theories that really go to the core, are groundbreaking, and would manage to inspire the masses and lead to true change in the history of man.
"propaganda of the deed" was a phase in anarchist history, in which bombings, assassinations happened to 'agitate' the masses and lead to a revolution. the result was almost zero, as expected. a true dead end for anarchism.
i suggest the opposite. the deed of propaganda. focus more on theory than action, focus more on propaganda than on activism. spread ideas, thoughts, visions, fantasies, manifestos, of solidarity, of class struggle, of adventure, of freedom, of ecstasy, of peace and compassion and of revolution.
reason and intellect are the strongest aspect of human nature. if we try to stimulate reason and intellect through our propaganda, we could really inflame the hearts of people. and change things.
if we try to act and activate before we have a well thought out, brilliant theory of anarchism and how anarchist society works, we will achieve nothing. but if we focus on rationalism, and create these theories, we can truly make a difference.
let's do the deed of propaganda.
Using Your Imagination
so far i've hinted at what i believe in, but i have not really, truly explained it and written it down.
almost everyone, no matter what situation of life he or she is generally in, can imagine him- or herself to be rich, to live in luxury, or to be a ruler of an empire, or to travel the universe, or have even more fanciful, abstract or pleasurable fantasies. so why ever complain about your life situation or some trouble or worry? you can always have pleasure in your mind.
"but!", i hear people say, and they will voice complains. the most grave complaint would be that a fantasy is never as intense or real as something in the real world, and therefore can't give you as much pleasure and satisfaction as a 'real thing'. is this really the case? did you never have a dream that felt more intense emotionally than most things in real life? but, generally, yes, a real situation will feel more intensive, direct, have a bigger impact on most people than something that they imagine.
but this is similar to a child that learns to walk instead of crawling; at the first attempts it will fall down, and if i could reflect on its situation, might think, 'when i walk i get only a meter before falling down. if i continue to crawl i will get to farther places'. but, if it learns to walk, it is much faster than it could be with crawling.
likewise, a man who learns and trains to use his imagination and fantasy, for that man a fantasy will be a thousand times, a million times, infinite times more powerful than anything he can experience in the real world.
but it takes a lot of training and learning and patience, to really train your imagination, so don't give up too early. the result is worthy the effort.
the next complaint would be: someone who puts so much focus in spending time in a fantasy world will have lost contact to the real world and real life. nonsense! someone who is rooted in his imagination will have more energy, more power, more stability to face real life and live in the real world, than someone who lives in the 'real world' only. it is not without possibility that a weak mind *might* lose direction; just as a drunkard might lose control of his car and crash; but that doesn't mean the average man would not be able to drive a car safely.
so, yes, this is what i suggest to you. i'm sure have 30 minutes or 1 hour spare time a day, or likely even more. spent that time to create fantasies, imagined worlds, imagined lives, train your creativity and imagination. make your mind the center. if you do this often, you will reap the benefits, and you will see that the worries others have in real life will touch you less and less. of course, as said before, this is not a "all or nothing thing"; don't neglect your real life while doing so, focus on it and too and try to solve your problems. but don't forget about the purely fictional realms you can focus your fantasies on. it will give you great pleasure and will help to cope with real life better.
and i'm sure, if you do this, you will more and more realize the importance of the idea that this text is about.
it might seem odd to most people, to suggest to put so much focus on fantasy and imagination, than on "real world issues". but, consciously or unconsciously, partly or fully, it's what artists, visionaries, wise man, revolutionaries have done through all the ages of time. and it gave them strength to change the world.
you don't have to worry about a thing anymore again - when you have the ability of using your imagination.
once again, this text does not fully explain the main idea - it is a much larger thing, the background being the idea that rationality and intellect are the highest faculties of a human - and that fantasy and imagination are a subset of rationality and intellect - but it should be a good start.
almost everyone, no matter what situation of life he or she is generally in, can imagine him- or herself to be rich, to live in luxury, or to be a ruler of an empire, or to travel the universe, or have even more fanciful, abstract or pleasurable fantasies. so why ever complain about your life situation or some trouble or worry? you can always have pleasure in your mind.
"but!", i hear people say, and they will voice complains. the most grave complaint would be that a fantasy is never as intense or real as something in the real world, and therefore can't give you as much pleasure and satisfaction as a 'real thing'. is this really the case? did you never have a dream that felt more intense emotionally than most things in real life? but, generally, yes, a real situation will feel more intensive, direct, have a bigger impact on most people than something that they imagine.
but this is similar to a child that learns to walk instead of crawling; at the first attempts it will fall down, and if i could reflect on its situation, might think, 'when i walk i get only a meter before falling down. if i continue to crawl i will get to farther places'. but, if it learns to walk, it is much faster than it could be with crawling.
likewise, a man who learns and trains to use his imagination and fantasy, for that man a fantasy will be a thousand times, a million times, infinite times more powerful than anything he can experience in the real world.
but it takes a lot of training and learning and patience, to really train your imagination, so don't give up too early. the result is worthy the effort.
the next complaint would be: someone who puts so much focus in spending time in a fantasy world will have lost contact to the real world and real life. nonsense! someone who is rooted in his imagination will have more energy, more power, more stability to face real life and live in the real world, than someone who lives in the 'real world' only. it is not without possibility that a weak mind *might* lose direction; just as a drunkard might lose control of his car and crash; but that doesn't mean the average man would not be able to drive a car safely.
so, yes, this is what i suggest to you. i'm sure have 30 minutes or 1 hour spare time a day, or likely even more. spent that time to create fantasies, imagined worlds, imagined lives, train your creativity and imagination. make your mind the center. if you do this often, you will reap the benefits, and you will see that the worries others have in real life will touch you less and less. of course, as said before, this is not a "all or nothing thing"; don't neglect your real life while doing so, focus on it and too and try to solve your problems. but don't forget about the purely fictional realms you can focus your fantasies on. it will give you great pleasure and will help to cope with real life better.
and i'm sure, if you do this, you will more and more realize the importance of the idea that this text is about.
it might seem odd to most people, to suggest to put so much focus on fantasy and imagination, than on "real world issues". but, consciously or unconsciously, partly or fully, it's what artists, visionaries, wise man, revolutionaries have done through all the ages of time. and it gave them strength to change the world.
you don't have to worry about a thing anymore again - when you have the ability of using your imagination.
once again, this text does not fully explain the main idea - it is a much larger thing, the background being the idea that rationality and intellect are the highest faculties of a human - and that fantasy and imagination are a subset of rationality and intellect - but it should be a good start.
Idealism And Social Rank
one of the most vile concepts that exist in our society, that a lot of people believe, and that creates a lot of misery, is the following:
'some people are rich, some people are poor. some are powerful, some are powerless. but in the end, everyone is the master of his own destiny. with effort and wit, they could escape their situation and rise up in society's hierarchy. if people are facing pressure and perish, this is the result of their own action. with the right decisions and strength, they could be a winner. the only one who could change their situation in the end is themselves'.
it is vile, and i guess a lot of people believe it, because there is some truth to it: in a sense, although it's very dangerous to say this without knowing the consequences, everyone *is* the master of his or her destiny.
the problem in this line of thinking is something that is not even said loudly in this concept; that is just hinted at, implied, but even more strongly in this way. and this is, that if you are the master of your destiny, can change the situation you live in, can change your life to the fullest, is that you should choose to be rich, to be powerful - or to live an easy life without much problems - or to rise in societies ranks.
this is some vile materialism right there - as if life would be about money or power or a social rank!
life should be about idealism. if you are the master of your life path and your destiny, you should choose idealism.
and following idealism almost always means that you diminish your own social standing, your money, your power - by choice.
think about it. the most obvious, most simple things to do when you want to do something idealistic would to donate a large part of your money to the poor, or to engage in civil disobedience against corporations and the state.
both things would lower your material standing, you might end up in jail, end up in trouble - but that's the part of idealism!
almost everything you can do that is idealist will be detrimental to your material life and material possession.
just think of all the great idealists that walked the earth - they wound up in jail, in lunatic asylums, were beaten to death, executed, became poor and forgotten and so on.
of course they never had to weep about this or desired to change their path, because the richness of ideals, compassion, a powerful mind, is incredibly more important and pleasurable than any amount of money or material power you could have.
so, if you're a master of your destiny - you would better chose to be part of the powerless and oppressed, change your life in such a way that you walk their path, then to choose to become a part of the elite and ruling classes.
there is a saying, that a rich man or a man of power, no matter how he got there, must've done 'something right' to find himself in the position he is in.
the opposite is true. if you're a low man, a drunkard, a junkie, a death row inmate - you must have done something right in your life, to be so despised by the world.
the lesser you are in the social world, the higher you can be in idealism.
now i don't think people have to suffer. it is indeed possible to have a good material life *and* be an idealist. but it is tricky. it would be a topic of its own. basically, once you start rising up in the social order, it's near impossible to retain your idealism - but it is possible.
i suggest that idealist care about 'survival and some extra'. have a job or an occupation that pays your rent and internet and some money for leisure activities. you shouldn't suffer, and you have energy to engage in idealism.
but, of course, if you're idealist, this is not necessary. you *could* give all your money to the poor and become a wandering homeless man who talks about revolution to the populace, and still live a happy life. you don't have to, but basically it's your decision in the end.
if you are a master of your destiny - join the idealists, visionaries and dreamers, and you won't regret it. reject the riches the social world has to offer to you.
to end this text, if you look at the wise man, philosophers, prophets that are admired today or in the past - a lot of them lived, simple, poor lives, by choice or by chance, some even met horrible fates. yet even a lot of people who admire them for some reason still think it would be wise to yearn for money and power.
do not blame the poor for being poor - they're more clever than you.
'some people are rich, some people are poor. some are powerful, some are powerless. but in the end, everyone is the master of his own destiny. with effort and wit, they could escape their situation and rise up in society's hierarchy. if people are facing pressure and perish, this is the result of their own action. with the right decisions and strength, they could be a winner. the only one who could change their situation in the end is themselves'.
it is vile, and i guess a lot of people believe it, because there is some truth to it: in a sense, although it's very dangerous to say this without knowing the consequences, everyone *is* the master of his or her destiny.
the problem in this line of thinking is something that is not even said loudly in this concept; that is just hinted at, implied, but even more strongly in this way. and this is, that if you are the master of your destiny, can change the situation you live in, can change your life to the fullest, is that you should choose to be rich, to be powerful - or to live an easy life without much problems - or to rise in societies ranks.
this is some vile materialism right there - as if life would be about money or power or a social rank!
life should be about idealism. if you are the master of your life path and your destiny, you should choose idealism.
and following idealism almost always means that you diminish your own social standing, your money, your power - by choice.
think about it. the most obvious, most simple things to do when you want to do something idealistic would to donate a large part of your money to the poor, or to engage in civil disobedience against corporations and the state.
both things would lower your material standing, you might end up in jail, end up in trouble - but that's the part of idealism!
almost everything you can do that is idealist will be detrimental to your material life and material possession.
just think of all the great idealists that walked the earth - they wound up in jail, in lunatic asylums, were beaten to death, executed, became poor and forgotten and so on.
of course they never had to weep about this or desired to change their path, because the richness of ideals, compassion, a powerful mind, is incredibly more important and pleasurable than any amount of money or material power you could have.
so, if you're a master of your destiny - you would better chose to be part of the powerless and oppressed, change your life in such a way that you walk their path, then to choose to become a part of the elite and ruling classes.
there is a saying, that a rich man or a man of power, no matter how he got there, must've done 'something right' to find himself in the position he is in.
the opposite is true. if you're a low man, a drunkard, a junkie, a death row inmate - you must have done something right in your life, to be so despised by the world.
the lesser you are in the social world, the higher you can be in idealism.
now i don't think people have to suffer. it is indeed possible to have a good material life *and* be an idealist. but it is tricky. it would be a topic of its own. basically, once you start rising up in the social order, it's near impossible to retain your idealism - but it is possible.
i suggest that idealist care about 'survival and some extra'. have a job or an occupation that pays your rent and internet and some money for leisure activities. you shouldn't suffer, and you have energy to engage in idealism.
but, of course, if you're idealist, this is not necessary. you *could* give all your money to the poor and become a wandering homeless man who talks about revolution to the populace, and still live a happy life. you don't have to, but basically it's your decision in the end.
if you are a master of your destiny - join the idealists, visionaries and dreamers, and you won't regret it. reject the riches the social world has to offer to you.
to end this text, if you look at the wise man, philosophers, prophets that are admired today or in the past - a lot of them lived, simple, poor lives, by choice or by chance, some even met horrible fates. yet even a lot of people who admire them for some reason still think it would be wise to yearn for money and power.
do not blame the poor for being poor - they're more clever than you.
Why Hardcore Techno Failed
in the 90s, there was plenty of revolutionary content in the hardcore techno scene, and plenty of revolutionary people. i know it because i was there. it might not get acknowledged so much today, and even those who were there in its heyday might deny it actually - seemingly comparable to how 80s conservative american dads might not have been so talkative about their anarchist hippie days in 1968.
but let us say at least three proto-revolutionary groups existed within the hardcore scene: 1. real anarchist types, squatters, rioters, etc. 2. people opposed to authorities, the system, police, without openly identifying themselves with anarchism. 3. and techno hedonists who might not have been openly against "the system" but dreamed of a happy life with partying and freedom without authorities, mainstream society and its pressure.
i think there was a real chance of a revolution in the 90s, to get away with capitalism and hierarchy, and the hardcore techno scene could have played an important role in that revolution. i *believed* that in the 90s, and nowadays i *know* it was possible.
why didn't it happen? i don't think it was due to pressure from outside forces (like the government and society). of course the outside pressure existed too, the government clamping down on the free party scene for example, but really, in the history of mankind, what military or police force could ever stop the spread of a revolutionary idea?
i think it was due to inside forces.
the hardcore scene, and especially its revolutionary individuals, were highly anti-ideology. remember in the 70s and the 80s, also in the 90s to a lesser extent, there were so many socialist, trotskyist, communist and anarchist groups with their programmes and manifestos and rules. and people in the hardcore scene tried to get away from that. they embraced chaos and individual action and spontaneity and many other things 3over this "ideological" approach. for the same reason they were critical of "organized" action and activism.
generally in the 90s there was a thing going on that people got more and more critical of "political ideology" and political activism - that got total in the 2000s years until now.
of course there is a lot to be criticized in trotskyist or leninist ideology - but that doesn't mean you should do away with everything associated with ideology.
let's face it, when you want to have a revolution you need ideas, you need a programme, you need ideals, you need leaflets and manifestos, you need organization, groups, large structures and even some set of rules (even if they're temporary and bendable).
ideology in the negative sense - be gone. but positive "ideology" and organization - embrace it.
but it goes deeper. the hostility and organization was a form of anti-intellectuality and anti-rationalism. 'listen to the records, enjoy the parties. but don't think too much on it. don't reflect it too much. don't write an essay. don't write a manifesto'.
this strain of anti-idealism was going on in the 20th century and became especially virulent in the 90s, and is even worse today.
anti-intellectualism under the guise of anti-ideology and anti-organization killed off the revolutionary content of the hardcore scene.
but, revolution is really possible at every point in history. we can still do it.
just this time it has to be an intellectual, rational, ideal, organized revolt, with superstructures and programmes, or things that resemble them.
because no police force or military force, no capital and hierarchy, could ever stop a revolutionary idea being spread and changing society.
but let us say at least three proto-revolutionary groups existed within the hardcore scene: 1. real anarchist types, squatters, rioters, etc. 2. people opposed to authorities, the system, police, without openly identifying themselves with anarchism. 3. and techno hedonists who might not have been openly against "the system" but dreamed of a happy life with partying and freedom without authorities, mainstream society and its pressure.
i think there was a real chance of a revolution in the 90s, to get away with capitalism and hierarchy, and the hardcore techno scene could have played an important role in that revolution. i *believed* that in the 90s, and nowadays i *know* it was possible.
why didn't it happen? i don't think it was due to pressure from outside forces (like the government and society). of course the outside pressure existed too, the government clamping down on the free party scene for example, but really, in the history of mankind, what military or police force could ever stop the spread of a revolutionary idea?
i think it was due to inside forces.
the hardcore scene, and especially its revolutionary individuals, were highly anti-ideology. remember in the 70s and the 80s, also in the 90s to a lesser extent, there were so many socialist, trotskyist, communist and anarchist groups with their programmes and manifestos and rules. and people in the hardcore scene tried to get away from that. they embraced chaos and individual action and spontaneity and many other things 3over this "ideological" approach. for the same reason they were critical of "organized" action and activism.
generally in the 90s there was a thing going on that people got more and more critical of "political ideology" and political activism - that got total in the 2000s years until now.
of course there is a lot to be criticized in trotskyist or leninist ideology - but that doesn't mean you should do away with everything associated with ideology.
let's face it, when you want to have a revolution you need ideas, you need a programme, you need ideals, you need leaflets and manifestos, you need organization, groups, large structures and even some set of rules (even if they're temporary and bendable).
ideology in the negative sense - be gone. but positive "ideology" and organization - embrace it.
but it goes deeper. the hostility and organization was a form of anti-intellectuality and anti-rationalism. 'listen to the records, enjoy the parties. but don't think too much on it. don't reflect it too much. don't write an essay. don't write a manifesto'.
this strain of anti-idealism was going on in the 20th century and became especially virulent in the 90s, and is even worse today.
anti-intellectualism under the guise of anti-ideology and anti-organization killed off the revolutionary content of the hardcore scene.
but, revolution is really possible at every point in history. we can still do it.
just this time it has to be an intellectual, rational, ideal, organized revolt, with superstructures and programmes, or things that resemble them.
because no police force or military force, no capital and hierarchy, could ever stop a revolutionary idea being spread and changing society.
Facebook And Anarchism
how did i end up on facebook? some of you know i was quite hostile to it. some might say i changed my mind on it, while others would say i gave in for fame&clicks&views.
but i didn't change my mind. the question is, what is the problem with facebook in the first place? the history of modern media has always been entangled with state&capital, with power, control and hierarchy. tv stations, newspapers, book publishers in the past were large corporations with best connections to the political hierarchy and the upper class. the content of the media was likewise shifted in their favor. in fact, massmedia provided a far more extreme tool of social control then the police or the military - by shaping the opinions of the masses, and always shaping their opinion away from revolution.
but media in the past could always be subverted. used for anarchism and social unrest. anarchist newspapers. DIY film documentaries on social issues. anarchist books.
now we enter modern media, social media. the problem with these is that it is already a next generation of media. that is almost (!) impossible to subvert or to be used for anarchist causes.
think of it for yourself. in the 19th and early 20th century, anarchist published newspapers played an important role in the class struggle. do you think setting up an anarchist group on facebook would have the same effect? or any effect in the real world at all? this is because facebook is built in such a way to annihilate the radical or deviant energy of a post or group or message in the moment it ends up on facebook. (*how* facebook does this would be an interesting, but wholly different topic).
traditional media banned radical content. nice try to get an anarchist column in a normal newspaper, or an anarchist show on tv. those in power won't allow it. with facebook it's different: part of why facebook is used by so many is because it encourages it's users to post subcultural, anarchist or "radical" content too. not that there is no censorship - this is an important topic too. but generally, facebook doesn't need censorship in the same way traditional media used, because it can annihilate radical intent in the moment it begins.
so, trying to change society or achieve anything at all is an almost impossible task when using facebook (we should never forgot that facebook is at its very core a tool by those in power, for those in power, through those in power).
i would say facebook is constructed in such way that it really can destroy every form of traditional radicalism.
but there is also another thing. idealism. ideals are by definition not corruptible, destroyable, subvertible to something negative. by spreading ideals, facebook can do nothing to stop them or change them or take their radicalism. because no force in the world could do that.
so this is the one little backdoor facebook could not be without, that can be used for spreading anarchism and social defiance. by following ideals.
but i didn't change my mind. the question is, what is the problem with facebook in the first place? the history of modern media has always been entangled with state&capital, with power, control and hierarchy. tv stations, newspapers, book publishers in the past were large corporations with best connections to the political hierarchy and the upper class. the content of the media was likewise shifted in their favor. in fact, massmedia provided a far more extreme tool of social control then the police or the military - by shaping the opinions of the masses, and always shaping their opinion away from revolution.
but media in the past could always be subverted. used for anarchism and social unrest. anarchist newspapers. DIY film documentaries on social issues. anarchist books.
now we enter modern media, social media. the problem with these is that it is already a next generation of media. that is almost (!) impossible to subvert or to be used for anarchist causes.
think of it for yourself. in the 19th and early 20th century, anarchist published newspapers played an important role in the class struggle. do you think setting up an anarchist group on facebook would have the same effect? or any effect in the real world at all? this is because facebook is built in such a way to annihilate the radical or deviant energy of a post or group or message in the moment it ends up on facebook. (*how* facebook does this would be an interesting, but wholly different topic).
traditional media banned radical content. nice try to get an anarchist column in a normal newspaper, or an anarchist show on tv. those in power won't allow it. with facebook it's different: part of why facebook is used by so many is because it encourages it's users to post subcultural, anarchist or "radical" content too. not that there is no censorship - this is an important topic too. but generally, facebook doesn't need censorship in the same way traditional media used, because it can annihilate radical intent in the moment it begins.
so, trying to change society or achieve anything at all is an almost impossible task when using facebook (we should never forgot that facebook is at its very core a tool by those in power, for those in power, through those in power).
i would say facebook is constructed in such way that it really can destroy every form of traditional radicalism.
but there is also another thing. idealism. ideals are by definition not corruptible, destroyable, subvertible to something negative. by spreading ideals, facebook can do nothing to stop them or change them or take their radicalism. because no force in the world could do that.
so this is the one little backdoor facebook could not be without, that can be used for spreading anarchism and social defiance. by following ideals.
About My Disappearance From The Hardcore Scene In 2004
why did i disappear from the hardcore scene in 2004? the main thing that happened was this: after the experimental hardcore scene broke down somewhere around the year 2000, i fell into a deep void. the thing that i spent most of my energy on for years didn't exist anymore. to escape this hole, i tried various things. eventually i got stuck with spirituality and esotericism. it filled the void for a while. i got deeper and deeper into it, occultism, satanism, trying to invoke demons, that kinda business. the end of this development was that i ended up being in contact with a very extreme "christian" sect / cult. that experience nearly killed me, for real (i'm not kidding. i was moving towards death). in the end my family intervened to safe me. i don't know what would've happened otherwise.
i'm still not fully recovered from this experience. but i'm doing my best, and hope one day this is all behind me.
i'm still not fully recovered from this experience. but i'm doing my best, and hope one day this is all behind me.
Hardcore Scene And Anarchism
i actually feel very isolated and like fighting a losing battle or a lost cause in the hardcore "scene" or "underground". the reason is while anarchist and radical politics were welcome in the 90s, the situation is not like this anymore at all. i often think the best i could hope for is that people accept my music "despite" the politics, which kinda is a defeat on its own too. apart from that, the reaction to anarchism and politics is hostile to extremely hostile in this "scene".
sometimes i get a message like "keep going you're on the right way" (thanks Boris Otterdam!) and this is one of the things keeps me going.
paradoxically, this situation is also one of my main motiviations as the lack / scarcity of anarchism and radicalism means that one should put as much energy to it as possible.
and the knowledge that anarchism is the true, right thing despite all this and forever will be.
sometimes i get a message like "keep going you're on the right way" (thanks Boris Otterdam!) and this is one of the things keeps me going.
paradoxically, this situation is also one of my main motiviations as the lack / scarcity of anarchism and radicalism means that one should put as much energy to it as possible.
and the knowledge that anarchism is the true, right thing despite all this and forever will be.
Anarchism And Subconsciousness
a common argument against anarchism is the following thing: "yes, anarchist might put forward lofty ideals and theories, but the real life anarchist movements have been crippled by greed, egoism, narcissism. that's why we can't have anarchy. man might talk about ideals, but subconsciously he is ruled by motives like power hunger and greed".
western society is not the first to come up with an idea of the subconscious. you can find ideas about that in ancient indian culture and elsewhere too. but what is unique in western culture is the idea that the subconsciousness is somehow higher, more important thing, the true identity of man. a person talks anarchism but subconsciously he tries to impress others by it, narcissistic. "ah, now we got him! that's his true motive! he is a fool!" bullshit. you can as well see it the other way round. what he consciously does (embracing anarchism) is the real thing and his subconscious motives is of lesser importance. and that's how it is!
maybe the critics are right. there is no man or woman who really fully stuck up to his or her ideals, who did not do weak, nasty, debased and purely selfish things in his life. i'm not impressed by this argument. because you as well will find that noone lived his life without believing in an ideal or a higher intend in some in some circumstances. why should the former be the defining thing of a person and not the latter? i would say: even if someone lived the most vile, ugly, debased life - if he for one second believed in an ideal in his life, then that was his "true self" and everything else he did was of lesser importance.
the subconsciousness and primal drives and urges is never the "true nature" of man. consciousness, rationality and idealism is.
that radical movements are being crippled by greed and narcissism is a very real problem. but it's not a problem as big as people assume.
that man has subconscious motives of violence, selfishness and power hunger is the least worry for anarchism. because this is just subconscious. in the end, it can not overrule the power of the consciousness or rationality.
man doesn't have to be perfect to implement a perfect society.
western society is not the first to come up with an idea of the subconscious. you can find ideas about that in ancient indian culture and elsewhere too. but what is unique in western culture is the idea that the subconsciousness is somehow higher, more important thing, the true identity of man. a person talks anarchism but subconsciously he tries to impress others by it, narcissistic. "ah, now we got him! that's his true motive! he is a fool!" bullshit. you can as well see it the other way round. what he consciously does (embracing anarchism) is the real thing and his subconscious motives is of lesser importance. and that's how it is!
maybe the critics are right. there is no man or woman who really fully stuck up to his or her ideals, who did not do weak, nasty, debased and purely selfish things in his life. i'm not impressed by this argument. because you as well will find that noone lived his life without believing in an ideal or a higher intend in some in some circumstances. why should the former be the defining thing of a person and not the latter? i would say: even if someone lived the most vile, ugly, debased life - if he for one second believed in an ideal in his life, then that was his "true self" and everything else he did was of lesser importance.
the subconsciousness and primal drives and urges is never the "true nature" of man. consciousness, rationality and idealism is.
that radical movements are being crippled by greed and narcissism is a very real problem. but it's not a problem as big as people assume.
that man has subconscious motives of violence, selfishness and power hunger is the least worry for anarchism. because this is just subconscious. in the end, it can not overrule the power of the consciousness or rationality.
man doesn't have to be perfect to implement a perfect society.
The Inevitable Breakdown
the world is still deep in an economic crisis that became visible to the public eye in 2008. at various points, it seemed like the complete breakdown was very close. but this did not happen. "it's a miracle it did not happen.", a friend told me a while ago. it's indeed a miracle, but a very dark one.
what happened is that the economic breakdown put an absolutely extreme strain on the population. this was often not understood as being a result of the crisis but appeared as "personal problems". anyone who feels he or she is going through a crisis in life should ask him- or herself: is it not in a way related to needing money, to having to work for money, to having to have money pay rent? the very base of capitalism! this could be losing a good job and now having a stressful shitty job, the problems of unemployment, mentally struggling people getting their support cut and having to work jobs that are not good for their health, to people having still a "good" job but having to work much more or being thoroughly alienated with a dead-end job because the "suits" have taking over. it really effects people from all classes, the lower classes being hit worse of course.
now the dark miracle is that people, instead of revolting against these new conditions, did an almost impossible feat of strength to go through these, to pull through and "fix" their life, which will ultimately be wasted.
if the same thing had happened in the 60s or 70s, there would have been a revolution. there are two reasons for it: first, many people think that this happens to them is, as mentioned, a "personal struggle" and not caused by crisis and capitalism. if people realize it's a problem of society, they think there are no alternatives to capitalism so they can't change it. but there are alternatives.
what i wonder is why people do not just "snap": say "fuck, it, i'm not going through this shit" and become homeless or something else instead of fighting this pointless struggle "to make it through" that they can only lose because the crisis of capitalism gets worse - in a few years, there won't be enough jobs and a lot of people won't be able to pay rent.
now i have no illusions on what people can endure. people in war zones go on with what is left of their "daily life" too, even in the face if terror.
but it will take its toll. the strain capitalism puts on people's life will worsen, more and more won't be able to follow the money/rent/job circuit anymore and will indeed snap or breakdown. mental health problems and social dilemmas will rise. until the the big breakdown actually happens.
the only possibility is revolution and the abolishment if capitalism. let's hope this seed gets planted in society before it is too late.
what happened is that the economic breakdown put an absolutely extreme strain on the population. this was often not understood as being a result of the crisis but appeared as "personal problems". anyone who feels he or she is going through a crisis in life should ask him- or herself: is it not in a way related to needing money, to having to work for money, to having to have money pay rent? the very base of capitalism! this could be losing a good job and now having a stressful shitty job, the problems of unemployment, mentally struggling people getting their support cut and having to work jobs that are not good for their health, to people having still a "good" job but having to work much more or being thoroughly alienated with a dead-end job because the "suits" have taking over. it really effects people from all classes, the lower classes being hit worse of course.
now the dark miracle is that people, instead of revolting against these new conditions, did an almost impossible feat of strength to go through these, to pull through and "fix" their life, which will ultimately be wasted.
if the same thing had happened in the 60s or 70s, there would have been a revolution. there are two reasons for it: first, many people think that this happens to them is, as mentioned, a "personal struggle" and not caused by crisis and capitalism. if people realize it's a problem of society, they think there are no alternatives to capitalism so they can't change it. but there are alternatives.
what i wonder is why people do not just "snap": say "fuck, it, i'm not going through this shit" and become homeless or something else instead of fighting this pointless struggle "to make it through" that they can only lose because the crisis of capitalism gets worse - in a few years, there won't be enough jobs and a lot of people won't be able to pay rent.
now i have no illusions on what people can endure. people in war zones go on with what is left of their "daily life" too, even in the face if terror.
but it will take its toll. the strain capitalism puts on people's life will worsen, more and more won't be able to follow the money/rent/job circuit anymore and will indeed snap or breakdown. mental health problems and social dilemmas will rise. until the the big breakdown actually happens.
the only possibility is revolution and the abolishment if capitalism. let's hope this seed gets planted in society before it is too late.
Sentiments
a common statement thrown at one's head is: "you might criticize capitalism and 'the west' but if you're honest, are you not glad you live here than in one of the crisis regions of the world?"
but no! i'd rather be in a trench with a machine gun in the third world fighting for anarchism than be stuck in this western nightmare. as the shizit once said: "I'd rather be starving and free. Than fat and know they own me."
the truth is that it's the opposite case. the complete lack of meaning and higher purpose in the life of western people leaves them in a state of permanent existential mental terror, and they then need all the luxury and comfiness of 21st century life to at least temporarily forget about this. if you had any real meaning in your life you wouldn't need all you smartphones and fast cars and perfumed toilet paper, you wouldn't even need a roof over your head and could live in perfect freedom. it's no wonder poor countries often top the rankings of having the happiest inhabitants.
the western lifestyle and luxury is a mental prison.
but no! i'd rather be in a trench with a machine gun in the third world fighting for anarchism than be stuck in this western nightmare. as the shizit once said: "I'd rather be starving and free. Than fat and know they own me."
the truth is that it's the opposite case. the complete lack of meaning and higher purpose in the life of western people leaves them in a state of permanent existential mental terror, and they then need all the luxury and comfiness of 21st century life to at least temporarily forget about this. if you had any real meaning in your life you wouldn't need all you smartphones and fast cars and perfumed toilet paper, you wouldn't even need a roof over your head and could live in perfect freedom. it's no wonder poor countries often top the rankings of having the happiest inhabitants.
the western lifestyle and luxury is a mental prison.
Hardcore Techno And Revolution
There was definitely a spirit of revolution in the hardcore scene in the 90s, a lot of people believed in this and followed it. i assumed hardcore could kickstart a worldwide revolution, and that by 2005 i was living inside some kind of liberated zone where anarchy and hardcore music met.
just like the anarchist revolution that the anarchists in the 19th century envisioned, this revolution did not happen, and a lot of people reverted back into "real life", or continued with some attempt of "music without politics".
i lasted a bit longer but gave up too - until my rationality took part of the better of me again and i knew again that anarchy is true.
in the end we behaved like children. our one attempt at revolution did fail full-scale - or so it seemed - but that doesn't mean all attempts have to fail!
imagine a remote village mostly untouched by civilization somewhere. they heard about planes and that they're able, so to the best of their knowledge they cut chop and build a plane of wood and then are disappointed that they can't fly away with it. this is what happened to us!
because it is indeed possible to change the world and to start a revolution. but we used the wrong methods for it!
take DHR records for example. they wanted a revolution too. alec said he used a basic idea of williams burroughs. media can change social structures; the content of media has an influence on people of society. thus, "riot sounds produce riots". (it's more complicated, i reduced it to some basic terms here). but there is exactly the problem. william burroughs' concepts on this are extremely flawed. you will not have the right effect with it. burroughs knew more than a lot of people, but he really knew very little and his ideas were hindered by being "of their time".
so DHR couldn't start a revolution or even a riot with these methods. yet they still achieved a lot. literally hundreds of producers were inspired by them to generate radical sounds. their sounds and those of DHR literally reached millions of people. this is a *big* effect. so the burroughs method "worked" - but not in the way intended!
this is typical of using flawed methods to change the world - you achieve something, even a lot - but not what you intend!
so with the right methods we can change the world and this is what we should do. i will write about this elsewhere, but if you're curious, the core focal point of it has to be *rationality*.
just like the anarchist revolution that the anarchists in the 19th century envisioned, this revolution did not happen, and a lot of people reverted back into "real life", or continued with some attempt of "music without politics".
i lasted a bit longer but gave up too - until my rationality took part of the better of me again and i knew again that anarchy is true.
in the end we behaved like children. our one attempt at revolution did fail full-scale - or so it seemed - but that doesn't mean all attempts have to fail!
imagine a remote village mostly untouched by civilization somewhere. they heard about planes and that they're able, so to the best of their knowledge they cut chop and build a plane of wood and then are disappointed that they can't fly away with it. this is what happened to us!
because it is indeed possible to change the world and to start a revolution. but we used the wrong methods for it!
take DHR records for example. they wanted a revolution too. alec said he used a basic idea of williams burroughs. media can change social structures; the content of media has an influence on people of society. thus, "riot sounds produce riots". (it's more complicated, i reduced it to some basic terms here). but there is exactly the problem. william burroughs' concepts on this are extremely flawed. you will not have the right effect with it. burroughs knew more than a lot of people, but he really knew very little and his ideas were hindered by being "of their time".
so DHR couldn't start a revolution or even a riot with these methods. yet they still achieved a lot. literally hundreds of producers were inspired by them to generate radical sounds. their sounds and those of DHR literally reached millions of people. this is a *big* effect. so the burroughs method "worked" - but not in the way intended!
this is typical of using flawed methods to change the world - you achieve something, even a lot - but not what you intend!
so with the right methods we can change the world and this is what we should do. i will write about this elsewhere, but if you're curious, the core focal point of it has to be *rationality*.
On Breakcore Part 2
i said i left the breakcore scene not because of its political swing to conservatism around the year 2000, but because i could not formulate a criticism of this particularly virulent form of conservatism. but today, i can. breakcore is haunted by what i call "intellectual blindness"; the inability to realize what ideals are and their importance, and how they're different from the bullshit of everyday life. using a speech by durruti or mussolini or stalin, sampling bland pop or death metal or avantgarde, it's all the same to the breakcore crowd, interchangeable, dull, of no importance. they don't realize that the struggle for anarchism, for a better world, for love or truth is a very real thing that effects very real living beings - to them it's just another "ideology" like the speech of the potus or even the words of a manic salesman. because they don't understand that having and fighting for ideals is something very real and true. that ideals have true meaning and glory and can and will change the world to the better.
Teach A Man A Poem
teach a human to fish and he won't be hungry for a day
read a human a poem and he will learn to dream and both transcend the need to fish and give him the ability to create a world where he won't go hungry anymore
read a human a poem and he will learn to dream and both transcend the need to fish and give him the ability to create a world where he won't go hungry anymore
My Shift In Music
the music i did in my first period of producing (1997-2004) and the music i do now (2008 and after) is vastly different. my early music was more experimental with focus on noise and drones and breakdown on rhythm and structure.
some might think, perhaps i've mellowed down. or i found taste in more conventional structures, found merit in that, and that is responsible for my shift.
but this is not the case at all.
with my first period of music, my intent was to do experimental music. to get as far away from any convention in western music and to challenge any "rule" on how music has to be.
but i soon ran to the point where it seemed impossible to go on.
for example, the traditional rhythm in most of current western music, if we look at pop and electronic music, is a 2/4 or 4/4 rhythm. but if you use a rhythm like 7/4 or 3/13, and still using a pop or techno or hardcore set of drums, are you not still following convention? and even if you used different drums, is not using a steady time signature or one that can be expressed in rational numbers still a limit?
schoenberg did some of the most experimental music in his day, yet youngsters could sneer at him for employing the traditional instruments in his compositions.
stockhausen's electronic releases don't have that flaw; but it's still music on a CD that is listened by people at home; a convention that neither traditional nor techno music had and has.
so, how to get rid of this almost infinite amount of rules and conventions in music?
easy: annihilate music altogether. to hell with all rhythms and tonal structures and song schematics.
but how to do this?
to focus on something outside of the music you create. an idea or ideal.
for example love, or anarchism, or truth, or revolution.
the goal of the track is to express an idea. how the track expresses this is meaningless. how the track is produced is meaningless.
love could be expressed by a folk song, or indie rock, or gabber, or black metal. it is no difference.
i just use sonic forms to express ideas, and often the form is techno, but that is just the form, it is of no importance. the idea or ideal is important.
but this is not the whole truth; different forms have different merits (abilities to express ideas) also i love the techno form, or new wave form, and it best, but not necessary if both the sonic form and idea behind it is great.
but the idea or ideal is the most important thing.
some might think, perhaps i've mellowed down. or i found taste in more conventional structures, found merit in that, and that is responsible for my shift.
but this is not the case at all.
with my first period of music, my intent was to do experimental music. to get as far away from any convention in western music and to challenge any "rule" on how music has to be.
but i soon ran to the point where it seemed impossible to go on.
for example, the traditional rhythm in most of current western music, if we look at pop and electronic music, is a 2/4 or 4/4 rhythm. but if you use a rhythm like 7/4 or 3/13, and still using a pop or techno or hardcore set of drums, are you not still following convention? and even if you used different drums, is not using a steady time signature or one that can be expressed in rational numbers still a limit?
schoenberg did some of the most experimental music in his day, yet youngsters could sneer at him for employing the traditional instruments in his compositions.
stockhausen's electronic releases don't have that flaw; but it's still music on a CD that is listened by people at home; a convention that neither traditional nor techno music had and has.
so, how to get rid of this almost infinite amount of rules and conventions in music?
easy: annihilate music altogether. to hell with all rhythms and tonal structures and song schematics.
but how to do this?
to focus on something outside of the music you create. an idea or ideal.
for example love, or anarchism, or truth, or revolution.
the goal of the track is to express an idea. how the track expresses this is meaningless. how the track is produced is meaningless.
love could be expressed by a folk song, or indie rock, or gabber, or black metal. it is no difference.
i just use sonic forms to express ideas, and often the form is techno, but that is just the form, it is of no importance. the idea or ideal is important.
but this is not the whole truth; different forms have different merits (abilities to express ideas) also i love the techno form, or new wave form, and it best, but not necessary if both the sonic form and idea behind it is great.
but the idea or ideal is the most important thing.
Stuck In between
why did i stop producing music (back in 2004) and why did i come back (in 2008)?
in the 90s, when all this started for me, i believed hardcore techno could kickstart, with its energy and power, an anarchist revolution and change the face of society from the bottom up. but after 7 years of doing this sound and trying to be politically active, this goal seemed so faded and far away so i decided to just quit it all.
but i could not leave this behind, and all the years in between i tried to find a way, and finally found it, and realized the revolution *is* indeed a possibility that is still around, was around all the time and most likely will always be an option.
that's why i came back. the difference between my teenage me and nowadays is that i had an - almost naive - believe in these things while i now know with certainty that anarchism and revolution is possible and understand why.
but there was also an even different thing to it. at that time when that break happened, me and a lot of people i know, had a feeling that there is an important discovery to be made, that "dreams" and "reality" can not meet and it's important to give up your dreams to fully (dis?-)integrate into "real life". but this is not true at all.
there is no difference between your aspirations, your dreams, your creativity and your "wishful thinking" and everyday life or the "outside world".
because we was a humans can reflect ourselves, can reflect the world we live in and change it, and change society, in almost infinite ways.
so, there was never a real reason to give up "hope" at all.
in the 90s, when all this started for me, i believed hardcore techno could kickstart, with its energy and power, an anarchist revolution and change the face of society from the bottom up. but after 7 years of doing this sound and trying to be politically active, this goal seemed so faded and far away so i decided to just quit it all.
but i could not leave this behind, and all the years in between i tried to find a way, and finally found it, and realized the revolution *is* indeed a possibility that is still around, was around all the time and most likely will always be an option.
that's why i came back. the difference between my teenage me and nowadays is that i had an - almost naive - believe in these things while i now know with certainty that anarchism and revolution is possible and understand why.
but there was also an even different thing to it. at that time when that break happened, me and a lot of people i know, had a feeling that there is an important discovery to be made, that "dreams" and "reality" can not meet and it's important to give up your dreams to fully (dis?-)integrate into "real life". but this is not true at all.
there is no difference between your aspirations, your dreams, your creativity and your "wishful thinking" and everyday life or the "outside world".
because we was a humans can reflect ourselves, can reflect the world we live in and change it, and change society, in almost infinite ways.
so, there was never a real reason to give up "hope" at all.
Can Music Change The World?
imagine an isolated tribe on a remote island would lose the knowledge and skills to construct boats. after a few centuries not only the knowledge could be forgotten, but also the existance of the boats themselves. the idea to travel the ocean and visit other islands would be like fairytales and myths to them.
the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.
yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.
yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.
but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.
and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.
it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.
the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.
so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.
if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).
imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.
if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.
if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.
but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.
the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.
there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"
most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.
almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?
believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.
the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.
yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.
yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.
but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.
and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.
it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.
the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.
so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.
if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).
imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.
if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.
if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.
but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.
the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.
there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"
most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.
almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?
believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)