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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)