Anti-Nazi Mix

No Fascist Europe - Anti-Nazi Mix

i had planned this mix already a few month ago and wrote the text below then. with the so-called "refugee crisis" that served as a scapegoat for an ever further mobilization of the extreme right as well as clearly showing the right wing attitudes amongst the middle class and the "center" of society, the fears i expressed have been surpassed by far by now. i can imagine that in a few month, weeks, these thoughts will too seem outdated with an even further gain of power by the right and the rightwing mindset. it's so very much necessary to take a stand now and say "no!".

the old text:
with the worrying tendency in europe, the rise of neofascist groups and movements, and a shift to the right and extreme right in public opinion, with the general population readily accepting fascist, nationalist and reactionary concepts and ideas again, it's time to take a stand. europe must not be allowed to fall prey to a fascist coup or restructuring. this dark night must not be allowed to be repeated. we will fight you, we will defend our rights and lifes and freedoms to our last. do you want to still have at least some degree of freedom and liberty in the next year, or live in a dictatorship or risk to be wiped out? we must not give way to these brutes. we must get up, and raise our voice.

Tracklisting:

01.Atari Teenage Riot - Hetzjagd Auf Nazis
02.Exit 100 - German Nazis Fuck Off
03.Nero - Youth Against Racism
04.DJ Freak - Anti Nazi Pack
05.Micropoint - Anti Nazi Vendetta
06.Chosen Few - Chosen Anthem (Against Racism)
07.Party Animals - Die Nazi Scum
08.Atari Teenage Riot - Hunt Down The Nazis
09.Alec Empire - You Must Confront
10.Nic Endo - Instant Balm #1

No Fascist Europe - Anti-Nazi Mix by Low_Entropy on Mixcloud

The Power Of Art

i so far have often claimed that art is more powerful than politics, or economics, or a political party, or billionaire CEOs. while some would agree with this claim, others would readily laugh at this thought. they would ask, how could art, just art, be of such power? it's art, on a medium, such as sound, images, video... nothing direct, nothing tangible - not a bomb or a gun not even a rock or a stone. how could it then - effect the "real" world?
i think this questions can only be approximatedely answered - at least by me, by now.
one thing i would like to say, that the matter is that art not so much changes the world by effecting the "real" world, but the world of thinking and thinking men.
but let us get to the point.
i can say two things:
first, man, is above all other things, rational and intellectual and capable of thinking and reflection.
second, thinking and reflection and intellectual thinking can be and can be used for more powerful things than almost any force in the world.
as for the second claim, it's obvious that man is in the superior position (just saying he is; not saying whether this is rightful) to any animal by the power of thinking and intelligence.
everything, good or bad, weak or powerful, in the end was created by man's mind; our architecture, our technology - our culture, space flights, internet, satellite communication.
the power of intellect enables man to solve the most complicated situations, and civilisation verily shows this.
no matter what the problem or issue is, to use one's intellectual cabalities will amost in any case lead to better results, than to rely on other abilities; let alone the things most people would associate the closest to the direct, real world, such as muscle power and strength.
the intellect is really something "abstract" compared to what people call real world things; but it is easily to see that it is more powerful than all these things.
the first claim is harder to proof; is man really intellectual, or not a creature driven by instincts and shades of ignorance? but we see, in history, that there always was a call and a move towards and an interest in all things intellectual and brilliant; let's face it; whole cosmologies were felled, not by armies, not by popes and kings, not by natural disasters, but by lone thinkers sitting in their rooms alone and spinning their theories, such as galileo, newton, darwin, and all the others (oh, even if you're critical of some of these thinkers; you can't deny the power they had over the world in the end originated by the power of thinking).
so there was always a call for intellect and thought in the history of humans.
but, how does this relate to art? because art, in it's core, in it's root, in it's very base and shape and foundation is something highly intellectual; smart; abstract; thoughtful; mindful; full of brilliance and creativity.
maybe the power of art rises from the very fact, that while common philosophy, thoughts, debates, are rooted in concepts that still are very much tangible and related to the real world (such as social debates etc.) while art in itself relies on abstract concepts and thought.
this is the power of art; maybe you will realize this power too.
this is why art can change the world. can change everything. and even can change - the life you live.

Let Art Reign

in almost all cultures, except our current western one, art used to be a matter of utmost importance. imagine being a conductor of the king's ceremoy, or a religious one. doing your job badly might make you lose your head; or it might threaten the political and religious structure of the nation. compare this to the rather mild dangers our techno bedroom producers face, and their (seemingly) lack of power.
but art was not seen only as important and having amongst the highest power in society and elsewhere, it was also omnipresent. remember the saying: we need a society in which the artist is not a special type of person, but every person a special type of artist. this could be amended with: we need a world where doing art is not a special form of activity, but every activity is a special form of art. in the past and in other societies it is like that. it's no wonder we speak of the "art of cooking" or art of architecture, or artisans; in the past activities that are now considered to be quite general, "everyday" activities were considered to be an art unto themselves; only true masters - masters of their art - were considered to be genius cooks, builders, carpenters, and so on. this is most clearly seen at how artfully everyday items such as knifes, chairs, cups were designed in other or ancient cultures, compared to our industrial mass production of these things.
art is simply amongst the highest things possible. it is above politics, economics, cultures. it shapes society and the world and each persons life. it is the framework for all these things. it's again not accidentally that culture has a double meaning - one for created art in general, and one for the very totality of the social and political structure (as in such wordings as 'western culture', 'eastern culture').
this is most clearly seen in the effect art still has upon the world. rock'n'roll shaped society much deeper than any president, political party or political movement. the soviets realized in western pop lied more danger to their political structure then in most foreign spies, military men or hostile ministers.
yet contemporary culture is split about this issue. while the power of art is felt, it is publicly denied. when a politican would issue a call, that a famous rockstar is to become a member of the parliament with a high salary, everyone would laugh. it's just an artist after all! nothing too serious. yet a rockstar has a much direct and stronger influence on society than any politician; if he would issue a call to a social issue, like to donate money, support a political goal, or even take the fighting to the streets, masses of people would follow; while such a call from a political person would in most cases have almost zero effect these days.
it is what has broken so many artists by now; that on one side people realized that there art is the most important thing in the universe; yet at the same time it is seen as being "just art", "just music", nothing that matters too much in the end. the famous artist is pulled back and forth between these two viewpoints - a dilemma.
of course, even now, upcoming and starting artists, still have enough mind and wits, to realize that art is important, that art is amongst the most important things; much more important that other social or cultural or political issue. yet, the ignorance of the masses in this matter, is a force pulling them down again.
art is part of what i call the "higher layer"; the part of thought and reflection and pondering, that is already above mere societal theories and political structures; the root and base of worldviews, theories, philosophies, thinkers and insightful people.
so, the power of art still remains; the only thing missing is the conscious recognition of this power. but this can be regained. artists need to realize that they indeed play a high game, an important game, the highest game; that their work is more important than that of most people, especially than such people such as bankers, politicians, etc.
artist need to recognise that they have the power to change the world, and the power to change people's lifes - to the better.
let art reign.

Metaphilosophy

i think in the 60s and in the 90s, and maybe also around the 20s, of the 20th century, there was a rare chance for society & humans in general, and that was the possibility of the creation of a metaphilosophy.
what is metaphilosophy? don't worry, i don't intend to create a new age "new thinking" type of foolishness, everything is based on the most rational of ways.
i like to explain this concept in 3 parts.
1. an extension (that is going upwards) of criticism. philosophy and debates are based and have an important base in criticism and analysis of things: but usually this criticism is bound by higher concepts. the question might be debated: how can the nationstate strengthened? can a criticism of the traditional family hinder or support the nationwide economy? and so on. the problem here is that there are these higher concepts that are kept intact. but generally, in philosophical evolution, these higher concepts slowly get criticised too: is it really right to subordinate everything under economy? do we really need a nationstate? could humans live without a government, or military, or war?
so over time, the criticism and analysis rises to a meta-level.
2. family, clan, tribe were already higher concepts over the savage life of past history. eventually these submerged into even higher concepts, such as nation, city, federal republic. same goes with rudimentary language, and symbolism, that evolved into delicate philosophical debate and advanced mathematics.
yet, it is possible, to go even higher. a bound that unites all humans would even be a higher state of organisation then the "USA" or a united europe. this would pose an advanced structure. same goes with a bound that involves all living things on earth. a point of thinking at which the hippies did arrive at in the 60s.
3. and most importantly: to not look at a specific philosophy; or even philosophy as a whole - in a singular, isolated way. to combine philosophy with art and music and politics and social structures for example. to combine worldviews of different cultures and nations. to mix this up with streetlife, rebellion, subcultures, traditions, or fine art. this is the very basis of metaphilosophy - and this what happened in the 60s.

obviously the "old guard" and common people are very opposed to these thoughts; they have a hard time grasping the existing and simple philosophies already - but that would not be a reason to stop.
now a lot of these thoughts have been abandoned - people cringe at the idea that music and politics could form a lasting union again, or to mix philosophy with "lower" issues or issues foreign to it would be nonsense to most people.

the rise of esoteric and "new age" worldviews after 2000 might be a good example for this; the hippies often had some 'esoteric' ideas too, but they took what they liked and were more interest how the thoughts of foreign cultures could mix up with modern "psychology", philosophy, or even science - often in a rational way that discarced "supernatural" notions of these ancient ideas.
in fact timothy leary complained in some of his 70s books that the hippies suddenly took a turn backwards, to "traditional buddhism" and similiar concepts, and also to a rural, simple lifestyle instead of moving on and shaping the future.
which can be seen in similiar tendencies today.

in the 90s, this metaphilosophy might be harder to be spotted, but it is clearly seen in the music of the 90s, the techno and hardcore and breakcore, where concepts from almost every existing music were taken and "sampled" and woven together to create something new and abstract and intellectual.
the cyberpunk and cyberspace movements in the 90s had similiar aims; cyberspace more or less *is* metaphilosophy - a "meta" space (in snow crash, the cyberspace is called metaverse, not the term used gibson, "matrix").
also this type of meta-thinking was seen in the books by such thinkers as bey, zerzan, in the 90s.


now the thing is, seemingly a lot of this stuff is still, or again going on. rockbands hardly limit themselves to a singular style such as "hair metal" anymore but infuse anything from zeppelin to beatles and tangerine dream, same goes for the electric genres.
yet there is something missing, that blocks the creation of a true metaphilosophy. most importantly, a rampant anti-intellectualism. for example, a band might fuse punk, rock'n'roll-kitsch and 50s b-movie imagery - but not by an intellectual critique, but some kind of "mystic", emotional clinging to these things - ultimately an anti-rational motion (same goes for artists that fuse funk and hiphop and house and such things).
surprisingly, the second explanation is that this showcases there is actually a lot going on that would lead to a metaphilosophy - both tendencies exist at the same time.

the ultimate factor for steering clear of pitfalls and failure regarding these things is - that everything has to be based deeply in rationality and intellectuality.

it might very much that the conditions are right again for these kind of things to happen - maybe in the 20s of the 21th century? but regardless of the social conditions, these things are reachable for the single individual in and at all times, of course.

The Higher Layer

most people's life revolves completely about direct, tangible things. their work, their family, their house, their city, their district, etc.
yet there is also a higher layer, the layer of politics and economics, that is above this, and in the end complete decides and influences their "everyday" experiences; politicians, big corporations, national economies, conflicts, wars, multinational trade agreements. these effect work, city, house & home and can make people lose their jobs or their money or their till-then way of life.
now, in the past, both the more "advanced" thinkers of the right and left claimed there is an even higher level: the social classes for example; the bourgeoisie of seemingly hostile nations will stick together to fight a threat by a possible takeover led by the lower classes; the national politics are defined by higher economical issues that are above the national level; and so on. while the right would claim that there is a general leftwing / communist threat not bound to any nation or politician.
but, there is an even higher layer. this is the layer of art, of music, of language, symbols, philosophy, and everything related to it and so much more.
of course, to the everyday citizen, this will be completely absurd. most people find it hard to realize art and music could be more important than work and family (as most teenagers in a conflict with their parents will find out) - to believe art could be more important and powerful than the goverment is insanity to them.
but yet - think of it. it is true. elvis presley's music had a bigger impact and did a deeper change to western and general society than any single US president in the 20th century. british citizen at first were more shocked by punkrock then by the threat of a soviet war.
this is because in this layer lies the actual power. a change of art in society can change its politics, its structures, its modus, and then by this how everyday life is lived and its conditions.
now, the very everyday citizens will dismiss this claim. but it shows they're hypocritical and contradictionary about it. if rock'n'roll was just meaningless rubbish, auditive waste - why were they so afraid it, why did they fight it so heavily? if it was of less importance - they could've just ignored it. same could be said for any new art movement that was introduced in the last centuries, or even fashion - also subcultures, new modes of language, of symbolism, such as in rap or graffiti culture (although for today's kids it might be hard to realize how deeply their parents' parent generation was scared by these things).
the introduction of a new, brilliant art form was almost immediately met by panic and outrage of politicians and conservatives of any camp. this is a testament to the power of art.
why is this this way? i'll give an attempt at an explanation - that is hardly complete or objective. politics is not just politics or economics; they're based on philosophies, on a thesis, on concepts, thought out structures, an analysis. and this is where we reach the realm of - philosophy, and symbols, and language, from which these concepts and programmes are created and taken. thus, language, philosophy and symbolism is the very basis, the root, the creating power of political programmes and economical strategies, which are then employed by politicans and CEOs and effect the workplace and everyday life. art and music is the other side of the coin of philosophy - not visibly seen as "philosophy" or reflected thinking by many, but also based on thoughts, concepts, ideas, creative, conceptualism. art is connected to symbolism and logic and language.

most people do not even look at political philosophy or likewise things when considering their dire everyday life and work situation anymore. even harder would it be to them to look up further and see that art and language towers above all this.
yet, art and music and language have this power; even if it was forgotten it can be resurrected; and we as artists should have good intentions to better the world and give people something to hope & inspire for, and should use art and other forms to achieve this.

Hardcore, Hardtrance and Politics

almost anything, any type of music of the 90s is being revamped now. there are bands that sound like smashing pumpkins again, like soundgarden, even like eurohouse, or 90s "american" soul. in the dance and electronic scene there is a lot of this "retro" activity again. yet, there is a huge blind spot, that most people do not even realise. there is no return to mid 90s hardtrance, as in the production of jam&spoon (gotta say yes) or sunbeam. there is no return to experimental hardcore, like fischkopf or anticore records. and there is not much of a return to early 90s 'hardcore' "techno / house".[1]
what is even more bizarre is, that this fact is even logical to many people. it makes sense to them, that eurodance cheesiness is resurrected, or techno methods and beats are used; but that oldschool hardtrance production are not brought back to life is obvious to them.
to see why this is the case, i should mention how i've seen these things, as i lived to them. i missed the period of 1990s hard techno, as i was too young to join a subculture then (i.e. didn't have the chance / connection). i experienced the hardtrance rave boom that took all of germany and half of europe. for me, the music was the solution; an artistic solution on how music, art should be created; a final point, a step to perfection, the music i wanted and loved and that made me happy and content.
then i slipped into the experimental hardcore scene and rejected the dying trance-rave scene for it's "cheesy" emotions and commercialism. now, this was also a version of artistic vision & brilliance to me; a solution; but also, a political and cultural solution and answer and way and revolution (as it was very politically and culturally charged then).
yet i turned my back completely on them after the 2000s.
this was because i formerly felt that this music was the right way; but came to the "enlightment" that i must be wrong.
this was part of what i call the "new dilemma". you meet this dilemma when you talk anarchist politics for example. people will tell you: "you think the goverment is evil, and a free society could be constructed". "but, obviously, this thought is wrong". why is this so obvious? what makes it wrong? the fact is, it is not wrong. the goverment can be overcome, or any other authority. we can create a free society. within our lifetime.
why *should* it not be that way? what should prevent this from happening? the thing is, that the debate with these people takes not part on a rational level. they act out of a *feeling* of helplessness in the face of oppression, some supposed archaic knowledge that the world always has to be shitty. but it doesn't. this is not part of a rational debate.
so, the same thing was with oldschool hardtrance and experimental hardcore. "of course, we couldn't be right". "out of all music scenes and producers and cultures and social groups, it would be very likely that we had the solution to the artists' dilemma, the lack of vision, and the various problems associated and not associated with it". but maybe, just maybe, we were right. maybe we had it. maybe we were on the right, perfect way.
and i intend to go back to this sound, and find out.

footnote 1: i should add, that at the date i am writing this, there is a slow, almost invisible return to this style going on already; but it will be seen wether this grows further; i dearly hope so.

How Music Has Become Meaningless - Addendum

i should explain where i am getting at: that music is made, produced, and bought for "personal pleasure" or as a "personal hobby" is a historical anomaly. music was always tied in to societal, political or cosmological structures. made for royal ceremonies or religious events. even in the 19th century, when the power of pope and king had waned, there was a consensus that art should not be created for its own sake, but for the betterment of mankind and society. even in the 20th century, in the soviet union, art was not seen as a personal but a political thing, and "unpolitical" music like rock'n'roll music was banned for this very reason. (of course it was wrong they banned it - but it shows that music was understood political back then - even if the soviets were in the wrong and acted wrong in this matter).
that music is a hobby or a "simple leisure" in todays society, is something bizarre and basically wholly new in the last 5000 years. art was always seen as something with a higher purpose, a higher goal, that was far beyond "everyday experience" or a hobby, as it is now.
sure, in tribal societies, or medieval times, there were also all-out parties were people got drugged to oblivion and danced till they dropped - but even those were usually societal or religious in nature - not just "pleasure for everyday's sake".