I'm often asked: what can the individual do to change the world, to create a different society, a peaceful anarchy?
I think the answer to this is very simple. It's just obfuscated by a concept that is burned so deeply into the western mind and western society: that "talk" is less powerful than "action", that "thoughts" are weaker than "tangible activity".
Activism is always seen through that lens; there are politicians, there is big business, oppressing us. How can "we" attack them on the direct level?
Or: How is a peaceful egalitarian society possible? How can I act towards creating it in my everyday life?
This way of viewing things is useless. If you directly attack power, you will get arrested or worse. If you try to create an anarchist society on your own or with limited people "right now" you won't get far.
So what is the answer?
I believe thoughts, ideals and rationality are the root of human existence and human society. They shape human life, human personality and society. Society is run according to its ideology. A human's life is defined by the ideals he has got.
There are so many ideas in this world that spell oppression, injustice, violence, misery.
We just need to spread ideas that counter these. Ideas of freedom, of rebellion, of equality and exploration and ecstasy.
The tangible world will follow the ideas of that world. If enough people truly believe in the possibility of organized anarchy, they will - almost automatically - eventually sit down and create these societies. While if only a minority believes in these ideas, all "individual" attempts to create such societies will fail.
But even if "worldwide change" is a far away goal - if we spread ideas of rebellion and freedom and exploration, of courage and intellect, we will make an impact and start to change people; to the better.
And you will see, out of this "idealistic activism" - regardless how much people doubt this - a lot of tangible possibilities, projects, changes, communities will arise - almost automatically.
So how to go on with this?
You know the direction your ideas and ideals should be - anarchist, free, utopian, rebellious, creative. Make sure they are as pure, perfect and positive as possible - just like ideals should be. You can spread them simply by talking to people; or feature them in art, music stories. Use your mind! You will find a way.
The most powerful ideal is "truth"; you might doubt it, but even simply by telling the truth; about the government, capitalist lies, the world we live in; you can make an impact. And if others would follow you, you can change the world.
Human Idealism
I talked about Idealism. Historically, philosophical Idealism is usually associated with enlightenment era Idealism. This was mostly metaphysical Idealism; to give a simplified description, the idea that ideas and thoughts are the root of the universe and existence, not physical matter and energy. Regardless, the word Idealism generally means a worldview in which ideas are seen as the root.
When I talk about Idealism, it's maybe better to call it Human Idealism. I believe that rationality is the driving force of human existence and personality, and therefore of human society. Ideas and ideals appeal to rationality and are its most powerful agents. Therefore, Ideals are the root of human existence and society.
This clashes with two theories that are widespread.
One, the materialistic view of society. The idea that economic or political structures define society. The king, the prime minister, big business. I rather believe a society's ideology totally defines it's structure. Its ideas, its concepts, its thoughts. There were kings until the idea of monarchy died. There will be the power of big business until the idea of Capitalism dies.
Second, the psychoanalytical idea of the subconsciousness. The idea that humans are ruled by unconscious, hidden, lower urges and desires. I think on the contrary that humans are ruled by rationality, by the very conscious ideals and ideas they have. Rationality is always a much stronger force in human personality than the most powerful desire. If this is not the case for some humans, it is because their rationality is not very developed yet.
This is the idea of Idealism. Ideals and rationality are the true roots of being in this human world.
When I talk about Idealism, it's maybe better to call it Human Idealism. I believe that rationality is the driving force of human existence and personality, and therefore of human society. Ideas and ideals appeal to rationality and are its most powerful agents. Therefore, Ideals are the root of human existence and society.
This clashes with two theories that are widespread.
One, the materialistic view of society. The idea that economic or political structures define society. The king, the prime minister, big business. I rather believe a society's ideology totally defines it's structure. Its ideas, its concepts, its thoughts. There were kings until the idea of monarchy died. There will be the power of big business until the idea of Capitalism dies.
Second, the psychoanalytical idea of the subconsciousness. The idea that humans are ruled by unconscious, hidden, lower urges and desires. I think on the contrary that humans are ruled by rationality, by the very conscious ideals and ideas they have. Rationality is always a much stronger force in human personality than the most powerful desire. If this is not the case for some humans, it is because their rationality is not very developed yet.
This is the idea of Idealism. Ideals and rationality are the true roots of being in this human world.
Bullies And Rebellion
I wasn't exactly a rebel as a child. Well, in a sense I was maybe. I hated cops and the government and authority and shocked my parents with my talk about anarchism. But apart from that... I tried with extreme force to fit in. Follow all the rules. Be a good boy. Do what the teacher says. What the adults demand. I was worried very much that somehow I would fail at fitting in to society.
This all changed when the bullying started (I wrote more about this elsewhere). My bullies threatened to kill me, and I thought they would (and still think they could have). I realized three things out of this. First, my good grades and good behavior won't help me here. They were worthless. Second, the whole system makes no sense. You go to school to get a good job, for the chance to be successful in life. But at the very schools you might get killed or traumatized for life by schoolyard bullies, teacher sexual abuse and so on. How paradox!
And the most important thing, "fitting in" in my situation could mean death. This was a red line I couldn't cross.
At first I tried to reason with myself to find some other way out of this. But the first sparks of rebellion were awakened in me. So I became a rebel. This, for example gave me the inner strength to get a school degree after all. I never could have gone through with it in another way. What was funny was that the everyday adults, who I hated now, like my neighbors, suddenly respected me more. "He seems so to have so much more self esteem now!". If they only knew what I thought about them.
Much later, at one of the All-Out Demolition! parties I met one of my further bullies again, and even he was pleased by the way I had become.
So rebellion does not only work, sometimes it is necessary path of life and you can't do without it.
This all changed when the bullying started (I wrote more about this elsewhere). My bullies threatened to kill me, and I thought they would (and still think they could have). I realized three things out of this. First, my good grades and good behavior won't help me here. They were worthless. Second, the whole system makes no sense. You go to school to get a good job, for the chance to be successful in life. But at the very schools you might get killed or traumatized for life by schoolyard bullies, teacher sexual abuse and so on. How paradox!
And the most important thing, "fitting in" in my situation could mean death. This was a red line I couldn't cross.
At first I tried to reason with myself to find some other way out of this. But the first sparks of rebellion were awakened in me. So I became a rebel. This, for example gave me the inner strength to get a school degree after all. I never could have gone through with it in another way. What was funny was that the everyday adults, who I hated now, like my neighbors, suddenly respected me more. "He seems so to have so much more self esteem now!". If they only knew what I thought about them.
Much later, at one of the All-Out Demolition! parties I met one of my further bullies again, and even he was pleased by the way I had become.
So rebellion does not only work, sometimes it is necessary path of life and you can't do without it.
Spaced Out Producing
I don't do drugs, but a variety of things can get me high; one of them is music (and one of them is pain for some odd reason). And more than that, producing music can get me high. This is how I done music in 2009-2015. I tried to create sounds that started to trip me out, then go along with the trip while building the track. I would start to space out and my fingers where moving almost automatically while producing. And I got on some really good trips and reached some really good highs that way.
This is an understatement. I reached highs of a cosmic quality this way.
Coming down after this was not always easy as I often was a bit disoriented and had trouble speaking clearly or thinking. My tracks also confused me when I listened to them "sober" again; 'did I create this?' 'and how did I create this?'
The tracks were my personal trip diaries.
Because of this, I assumed they would be of little interest to the outside world, but to the contrary, these were often the tracks I got the best feedback on. "The advent of acid" was produced this way, and "Really into this space stuff" and "Fourth Uprising" and countless of others.
Definitely an interesting experience, and probably a safer high then when doing real psychedelics.
This is an understatement. I reached highs of a cosmic quality this way.
Coming down after this was not always easy as I often was a bit disoriented and had trouble speaking clearly or thinking. My tracks also confused me when I listened to them "sober" again; 'did I create this?' 'and how did I create this?'
The tracks were my personal trip diaries.
Because of this, I assumed they would be of little interest to the outside world, but to the contrary, these were often the tracks I got the best feedback on. "The advent of acid" was produced this way, and "Really into this space stuff" and "Fourth Uprising" and countless of others.
Definitely an interesting experience, and probably a safer high then when doing real psychedelics.
Post Rational Blur
I read an article on "Critical Whiteness Studies", which tries to expose and analyze white privileged, especially on terrains such as culture and language. The interesting part was the section of criticism of the whiteness studies. Avoiding "white" language could generate the problem of discriminating against people with less access to academic "education" and these studies, that use normal everyday language that could be seen as "white" without being aware of it or having evil intent.
Now I don't want to talk about "whiteness" or political correctness. But what we see here is the problem the western world faces right now. Concepts are deconstructed, rationally analyzed, criticized. But the criticism, the deconstruction, the analysis itself gets in the focus of rational deconstruction. And so on. Leading to total nihilism and chaos, a state where you can trust or believe in nothing anymore.
And this is the appeal of fascism. The fascists don't follow this path. They don't question their belief-system all the time. They don't use their rationality on it. Imagine a fictional Joe McBob from Texas; he was raised with racist views by his father. His friends believed in racism. He stays racist all his life because he never really sat down and rationally questioned his belief.
People admire racist, fascist and rightwing ideas because they're dumb. There is nothing rational about them. You don't have to be smart to believe them. These concepts avoid the "post-rational blur" that I mentioned. Rational critique can not touch them, because they are not rational.
The non-fascists on the other hand will for example criticize capitalism. So, they follow socialism instead. But then socialism gets criticized too. So they choose a "third way" position or maybe anarchism. But this gets criticized too. And so on. But our racists believe that whites are superior but never criticize that belief. That's how they can keep this belief.
What is the solution to this problem then? There are two problems with the "post-rational blur" of the leftists and cultural critics; or rather with the whole of western intellectualism. Which is that it is anti-idealist.
Ideals like freedom, justice, equality, rebellion or anarchy are perfect, spotless, eternal. These are things you can believe in, and you can keep that belief. They are in many senses above critique. Because they are perfect, critique can not touch them. But our westerners will think things like "real equality is impossible" or "there is no true freedom", "anarchy is impossible" or even - the worst of all - "there is no real goodness". If they only knew how wrong they are! This is the very problem.
The second thing that this wayward "rationalism" is anti-rational. It tempts people to stop rational thinking. Say you build a prototype and it doesn't work. On this experience you build a better one but there are still problems. What do you do now? You continue. Even if you have to come up with ten prototypes and "fixes". The same should be done with rational criticism. If there are problems with the criticism of "whiteness"; fix them. If there are still problems, fix these too. But continue to use your rational mind; even if it includes not over-analyzing some things.
These are the problems, and this is what we ought to do; keep rationalism idealistic, and, above all, rational.
Now I don't want to talk about "whiteness" or political correctness. But what we see here is the problem the western world faces right now. Concepts are deconstructed, rationally analyzed, criticized. But the criticism, the deconstruction, the analysis itself gets in the focus of rational deconstruction. And so on. Leading to total nihilism and chaos, a state where you can trust or believe in nothing anymore.
And this is the appeal of fascism. The fascists don't follow this path. They don't question their belief-system all the time. They don't use their rationality on it. Imagine a fictional Joe McBob from Texas; he was raised with racist views by his father. His friends believed in racism. He stays racist all his life because he never really sat down and rationally questioned his belief.
People admire racist, fascist and rightwing ideas because they're dumb. There is nothing rational about them. You don't have to be smart to believe them. These concepts avoid the "post-rational blur" that I mentioned. Rational critique can not touch them, because they are not rational.
The non-fascists on the other hand will for example criticize capitalism. So, they follow socialism instead. But then socialism gets criticized too. So they choose a "third way" position or maybe anarchism. But this gets criticized too. And so on. But our racists believe that whites are superior but never criticize that belief. That's how they can keep this belief.
What is the solution to this problem then? There are two problems with the "post-rational blur" of the leftists and cultural critics; or rather with the whole of western intellectualism. Which is that it is anti-idealist.
Ideals like freedom, justice, equality, rebellion or anarchy are perfect, spotless, eternal. These are things you can believe in, and you can keep that belief. They are in many senses above critique. Because they are perfect, critique can not touch them. But our westerners will think things like "real equality is impossible" or "there is no true freedom", "anarchy is impossible" or even - the worst of all - "there is no real goodness". If they only knew how wrong they are! This is the very problem.
The second thing that this wayward "rationalism" is anti-rational. It tempts people to stop rational thinking. Say you build a prototype and it doesn't work. On this experience you build a better one but there are still problems. What do you do now? You continue. Even if you have to come up with ten prototypes and "fixes". The same should be done with rational criticism. If there are problems with the criticism of "whiteness"; fix them. If there are still problems, fix these too. But continue to use your rational mind; even if it includes not over-analyzing some things.
These are the problems, and this is what we ought to do; keep rationalism idealistic, and, above all, rational.
Change And Responsibility
Art changes the world and people's lives. In the past, only very few people - the "stars" - could reach a larger audience, and often only with a select output (cue all the unreleased demos, jams and b-sides).
Nowadays someone coming from nowhere can reach 100,000s, even millions of people.
That means his art has an influence on and possibly change thousands of lives and many more, and has a large impact on the world.
With great power comes great responsibility.
What if you change peoples life to the worse? Not even by intent?
How do artists deal with this responsibility? What would you suggest?
Nowadays someone coming from nowhere can reach 100,000s, even millions of people.
That means his art has an influence on and possibly change thousands of lives and many more, and has a large impact on the world.
With great power comes great responsibility.
What if you change peoples life to the worse? Not even by intent?
How do artists deal with this responsibility? What would you suggest?
Art And Responsibility
In the beginning, I always tried to steer clear of big labels, big parties, large audiences. At first this was because I was a follower of the theorist Hakim Bey; and he urgently warned against these things. When I advanced beyond the ideas of Hakim Bey, I finally started to play gigs regularly, even at places like Tresor in Berlin, something I would have never done in my first years. Yet at the core I still was sceptical of any "larger" approach so I kept it at that.
I got into other ideas and other theorists later in my life.
I tried to keep my profile still low. It was no longer a question of tactics, but of responsibility. Art changes the world and people's life. Should an artist really have and / or use that power?
Throbbing Gristle for example warned against any approach to art that goes beyond the "output is shared between individuals" level, because, as they said, if art enters the social or even political level, things get dangerous very quickly (I don't remember the exact quote but you get the point).
I posted my music on a lot of forums but tried to make my releases unappealing, for example by using cryptic titles like "Doomcore 2", "Futuristic 3" or lack of cover pictures and lack of decriptions, so that only "individuals" who saw beyond this would listen to my music.
This all changed when I became an idealist. Ideals cannot be tainted or corrupted and are always positive. So I thought, if someone makes art based on ideals, only positive change can come from such an art.
Now it became imperative to spread such art as far as possible, and I reached numbers such as 100,000 plays with some of my tracks.
Still something told me to steer away from most of the bigger labels and organisations.
Recently, it came to my knowledge that such a way of thought might be a bit naive.
Yes, Ideals are perfect. But if you create art or a track, this is no longer idealism, it might become corrupted. If you put it into the world, it might become corrupted.
And then art can have a very negative effect on people and the world.
I don't know if my first idealistic theory was right, or the latter theory.
Since I got these doubts, I essentially stopped producing original tracks, with very few exceptions.
What would be the solution? I think only time will tell. One way might be something that I had detested the most in the past: to leave the political level, to make unpolitical art. The other, to leave the social level in art, to make music for select individuals again who can handle the content.
But there most be a better way!
I got into other ideas and other theorists later in my life.
I tried to keep my profile still low. It was no longer a question of tactics, but of responsibility. Art changes the world and people's life. Should an artist really have and / or use that power?
Throbbing Gristle for example warned against any approach to art that goes beyond the "output is shared between individuals" level, because, as they said, if art enters the social or even political level, things get dangerous very quickly (I don't remember the exact quote but you get the point).
I posted my music on a lot of forums but tried to make my releases unappealing, for example by using cryptic titles like "Doomcore 2", "Futuristic 3" or lack of cover pictures and lack of decriptions, so that only "individuals" who saw beyond this would listen to my music.
This all changed when I became an idealist. Ideals cannot be tainted or corrupted and are always positive. So I thought, if someone makes art based on ideals, only positive change can come from such an art.
Now it became imperative to spread such art as far as possible, and I reached numbers such as 100,000 plays with some of my tracks.
Still something told me to steer away from most of the bigger labels and organisations.
Recently, it came to my knowledge that such a way of thought might be a bit naive.
Yes, Ideals are perfect. But if you create art or a track, this is no longer idealism, it might become corrupted. If you put it into the world, it might become corrupted.
And then art can have a very negative effect on people and the world.
I don't know if my first idealistic theory was right, or the latter theory.
Since I got these doubts, I essentially stopped producing original tracks, with very few exceptions.
What would be the solution? I think only time will tell. One way might be something that I had detested the most in the past: to leave the political level, to make unpolitical art. The other, to leave the social level in art, to make music for select individuals again who can handle the content.
But there most be a better way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)