Anarchism Beyond Modernism: June 2017

Saturday, June 24, 2017

this is my first book on anarchism. in it i try to explore various topics, politics, art (especially music) and philosophy.
my intent is to outline a vision of an idealist anarchism, that is beyond the materialist philosophy of modernism and modern anarchism. with a special focus on the political potential of art and music and how it could be used for social change.
but i don't want to use so much words, if you're interested in the content, check it out.

all texts written by Sönke Moehl.

you can also download this ebook as a pdf at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7sf4lah79cga21y/Anarchism%20Beyond%20Modernism.pdf?dl=0

Anarchism Beyond Modernism

Table Of Contents

00. Further Reading Material

01. Anarchy After Modernism
02. The Deed Of Propaganda
03. Sentiments
04. Can Music Change The World?
05. Anarchism And Subconsciousness
06. The Appeal Of Fascism
07. Plato's Anarchy
08. Music And Ideal
09. Music And Politics - Part 2
10. Anarchy Is Real
11. How To Incite Social Change By Purely Sonic Means
12. Anarchy Is Possible
13. The Power Of Art
14. Hyperphilosophy
15. Let Art Reign
16. The Higher Layer
17. Idealism And Social Rank
18. Techno, Anarchy And The Failure Of the 20st Century
19. Old vs.New, And Ideology
20. The Crisis Of Music

Monday, June 19, 2017

Anarchy After Modernism

anarchism was the only thing that had any sense, any meaning in the last 200 years or so, in the west. all subcultures that had any meaning, such as punk or subversive techno, gained it by their entanglement in anarchy. the anarchist theory was ahead of its contemporary theorists, starting with monarchists, bourgeois democrats, authoritarian socialists, more liberal democrats after WWII or even more modern strains of thinking such as 'focaultism'.
yet anarchism, from its conception on, had one big, painful, crippling flaw, that was the sole reason a lasting anarchist society was never created during its times. which was that it was created during modernism, and was a modernist ideology through and through. from modernism it inherited the one big misconception; that action and activism relating to the 'real world' would be more important than theoretical, intellectual efforts. anarchism was all about activism; the man who is 'all talk no action' was always the main antagonist in anarchists' thought. so they stormed into the real world, agitated, organized, creating protests, rallies, even sabotage and terrorism. and met the fierce opposition of the powers that be and - failed.
in modernism, action speaks louder than words, the real world is more important than thinking.
but this is all wrong; theory is more important than action; idealism is more powerful than realism; the intellect is the one driving force in human behavior; and the intellectual is the one who holds the key to changing society.
the humans who had the most impact on the course of history, did do this solely by picking up a pen or using their voice. marx, freud, countless of other 'theorists', or if you believe the myth: buddha, christ, etc.

the theoretical, abstract, 'ideological' defines society, its tangible structures, its concrete happenings, its everyday life, not the other way round. the belief in the 'idea' of military has more power on people than the military forces, the idea of anarchy would have more impact than anarchist activism.

we don't need anarchist terrorism, we need 'anarchist theorism'. direct action, while still important, has not the place of - abstract thinking.

there is something that has happened to almost every anarchist. when turned to anarchism, the idea of anarchy seems within ones grasp, the revolution just around the corner. then one ventures into 'the real world', into anarchist organizations, activism, struggles, and meets disappointment after disappointment, until the idea of anarchy seems so faded and weak. what happened? not the idea of anarchy was weak - you just turned from it by choosing activism and 'real world action' over furthering your ideal by thinking, idealism, spreading the ideas. you should have stayed with your ideal - you should have stayed an idealist.

i'll give you examples. there is a generation of people that grew up with movies in which 'blacks' have as much wit, impact, smartness and appeal as 'whites'. this has changed minds more than any activism.
even mainstream movies now often, quite routinely paint politicians as utterly corrupt and incompetent. this has corroded the popular belief in government institutions more than our own ittle work.

music such as punk, political hip hop, subversive techno did more propaganda for our rebel cause - by purely artistic and intellectual means - then we could have done otherwise.

if all anarchists had turned into writers, philosophers, musicians, directors, painters, instead of ralliers, 'activists' and bomb builders - we would already live in perfect anarchy by now.

even with the classical anarchists, what is most remembered, admired, and recreated to this day? their countless acts and their activism, or not rather - their thoughts, books, theories?

let us get rid of modernism and its painful reversal of things, with its replacement of the theoretical with the practical.
let us be idealists - dull 'realists' be gone - let us embrace the theoretical, the abstract, let us embrace thinking.

let us not be unbalanced.
we likely need *some* action for our anarchy (or do we?) - 100% theory and 0% could be a trap.
but the main focus should be on theory and the abstract. the right form of activity will almost automatically arise when our theories, and our framework of theories, are strong enough.

let us be artists and dreamers, for these inspire, and for these have have the last laugh.
let us be philosophers.
let us be intellectual.
and let us spread ideas - and let us spread ideals.

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.

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 band '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.

note: i do not approve of the violent struggle, and i think in most cases it is pointless. when i mentioned it, i mentioned it in the sense of a thought experiment.

Can Music Change The World?

imagine an isolated tribe on a remote island would lose the knowledge and skills to construct boats. after a few centuries not only the knowledge could be forgotten, but also the existance of the boats themselves. the idea to travel the ocean and visit other islands would be like fairytales and myths to them.

the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.

yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.

yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.

but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.

and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.

it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.

the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.

so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.

if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).

imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.

if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.

if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.

but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.

the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.

there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"

most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.

almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?

believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.

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.

The Appeal Of Fascism

over time, every society loses the contact to its ideals, its ideas, that maybe were its base a long time ago. it becomes corrupted and decayed. then a new generation comes, who realizes this, and questions this society, such as it had happened in the 60s. they will say, 'you leaders talk about freedom, peace, equality, but your government, your military, your police, is the complete opposite of freedom, of peace, of equality.". but it doesn't end there. another generation comes, and questions the rebel generation that was before it. 'you hippies talked about peace and equal rights, but the hippie movement was full of hypocrites, of hierarchies, of tricks and oppression, of corruption and misery too". such as the punk generation did in the 70s. but, what happens now is that not a new call for justice, freedom and liberty is made. suddenly, such calls themselves are seen with a skeptical eye. didn't the hippies fail with their call of freedom? would not all movements themselves fail with such a call? but yet, these movements retain a positive, an "idealistic" core. punk was a call for rebellion and included those who where alienated from society, and created a bond and a positive moments - at least in some parts. even though it did not put it trust on calls-for-action, pamphlets, revolutionary campaigns and books like the hippies did.
with the techno movement in the 90s you had a movement that had a large idealistic core, yet was highly skeptical of anything "ideological", especially political ideology.
what happened after the hippies, punk and techno though was that slowly the *ideals* themselves became the focus of criticism. this ended in the generation of 2000-2010 which was the most nihilistic generation that ever walked in the west, because they did not believe in the possibility of a free and just society, or a positive revolution, or any large scale optimistic societal change at all. ideals like resistance and global justice were completely alien to them - at least to the majority.
no ideal, not in its truth and purity, could be of interest to them. the stories of revolution past, of marx and kropotkin and lenin and bakunin were as removed to their everyday life as the sand oceans of mars.
yet, again, the story does not stop there. in 2006, the majority no longer lived for ideals in their life, but for everyday topics like a career, an own house, trying to get rich, or at least semi-rich, etc etc etc. ideals were removed from their lifeline.
but, of course, deep inside ones self, one knows that one needs an ideal in his life. that one cannot live just for "fun" or for whatever comes along, or not even just for money and a business life. this is where slowly the extreme right and fascism comes into play.
they started to provide anti-ideals to people, that were disguised as ideals. nation, authority, race, 'religious identity'. 'do you dislike the corruption of society? do you realize how meaningless life in modern society is?' 'join us! become proud of the color of your skin, the nation you were born in!'.
these anti-ideals are completely opposed to true ideals, as fascism brings only misery, hatred and disaster to mankind, unlike idealism, which elevates man, brings man to help others, to do good, to create something positive.
like there are always idealists in society, even in corrupted society, for which ideals appeal, and who are ready to do something constructive, there are completely negative people in society, to which immediately these anti-ideals appeal and who are ready to do the worst filth and cruelty.
it should be noted that the extreme right and the fascists really try to dress their anti-ideals as "true" ideals. that there would be something great, ideal, a "better-than-everyday-life" aspect to nationalism, to "pride" in ones race, to authoritarian leaderships (exclaimed as being made up of true heroes, and not the rats and the scum that the fascist leaders are in reality).
and they hit on a society that is so made up of nihilists desperate for an "ideal" no matter what, that they readily join the ranks of the of the rightwingers, extreme conservatives, of the fascists.
as the connection to true ideals has been severed in society, it's hard to oppose this.
because it's not that the anti-ideals replaced the nihilism; it's still there, as something that works as a block, which prevents people from understanding true ideals.
for example, when a fascist says "whites should dominate the other races", you cannot just counter it with a statement like "all 'ethnic' groups should work together", like it was still possible in the 60s, in the 70s, in the 90s. because nihilism is in full swing, and a statement like that would be an ideal, and people don't believe in ideals anymore. 'you're a fool if you believe that all races could live in peace, it's a dream, it's more complicated, real life is different.'
they're skeptical of the belief in ideals, yet they more than childishly believe in their own anti-ideals of racial or otherwise superiority.
so, what is to be done? the only way is to return to real ideals - truth, freedom, equality, solidarity - and to convince people of them again, and show them they are indeed very tangible, possible things, and that a true free and just society is very much possible.
*note: i use the word "nihilism" in a special way in this text. i note that true nihilism has its very positive aspects, but i wanted to use the word in this text as indicating the lack and loss of ideals amongst people.

Plato's Anarchy

plato's theory of forms can be seen in a purely intellectual way. of certain theories, ideas, concepts, thoughts, pure versions can be conceived. this can be seen best in the field of mathematics, with it's pure, irrefutable logic, formulas, theorems and abstractions. what is noteworthy is that in the history of philosophy, these thinkers that dealt with plato's theory of forms usually put their focus only on ideas that are friendly to existing society and hierarchy; such as the question of a pure government. yet if we assume that on an intellectual level we can imagine a pure version to any idea or thought (such as pure justice to justice, or pure freedom to freedom), this also goes for ideas that are neglected by and are dirty to society. pure rebellion, pure anarchy, pure resistance, pure chaos. the theory of anarchism and resistance has to exist on an abstract, wholly intellectual, "higher" level too (while at the same time, of course, staying a real world affair). so let's indulge in that.

Music And Ideal

i addressed the issue of art, music, ideals and ideology before, but there are still more aspects to look at.
which is that the removement of any kind of ideals and ideology and politics, as it happened in the last decades, is not only approved, but even celebrated, and all that in the name of "freedom" and "art". oh how wrong can you be. for example, if hardcore political punk fans disapprove of a punkband that are slipping from their former anarchist politics, this is seen as something backward. "artist should be free to do what they want", etc. it is seen in the way, that, like the reign of for example the catholic church or authoritarian aristocracy on art, the "reign" of ideology and ideals on art would be similiar oppressive. if art "has" to follow ideals, this is another rule, restriction that is necessary to overcome. if art follows ideologies like anarchism, utopism and such, this is seen as a hazard, a distraction to art and the process of creating art. "art has to be free of ideology!".
this is so dead wrong, because the cardinal error here, is that art *always* is based on ideals or idelogy, or politics, and similiar concepts. the underlying ideas and ideology are what give a given song, painting, poem, it's beauty, it's content, it's outline - all of it. the actual artwork is of lesser importance then the ideology and idea behind it. it's of almost no importance. if there is a great idea or ideology, the actual artwork will almost automically - will automatically be good. because, as i said, this is the very basis of the artwork. art is about understanding, apprehending, realizing ideals, political and other concepts, ideology and philosophy. if the idea is beautiful - its artwork is too. it can be compared to footsteps in the snow - these are just footsteps, not the man who caused them. the actual artwork is just a trace, the idea and ideology behind it is the actual art. if you remove the ideology and ideals from art, you remove the very core of art.
take punkrock. do you think the 3 chords and shrill voices was what caused the punk movement, the youth rebellion in the late 70s and 80s? it was the ideology of punk that drove people cracy, the anarchism, nihilism and uprising. and the songs were just a trace of this "ideology" of punkrock. which is why contemporary artists who create structually similiar punksongs by far don't cause an uprising like that again. they lack the politics, and ideology. the nihilism and anarchism that gave the punksongs their actual beauty - not the other way round.
again, the actual painting, book, movie, is just a trace - like a footstep in the snow. the true piece of art, is the ideology behind it.
even to diehard opponents of ideology-based art, it should be obvious that it is exactly the most political, the ideological, the most ideal-based art that is seen as the most beautiful, is the most praised. the hippie music of the 60s. the punkrock of the 70s. the nihilist rebellion of the 50s.
it is funny that people think they could apreciate the bands of the 60s movement, without being an anarchist or utopist themselves, and somehow leaving the "ideology" behind. oh what a fool you can be.
even the ideologeous music of ideologies you complete disagree with often holds beauty. think of an atheist appreciating christian choral music. even ultra-stalinist soviet music can be interesting, even if you complete oppose these "regimes".
this is because it is still better that art is based on a bad ideology, then being based on no ideology, or no politics at all.
as i said, the negatively amazing thing these days is that people appreciate - highly - bands and artists that were highly anarchist and political in their days - think of all the 60s bands - yet somehow think they could "leave" the politics behind in this, appreciate the art without it.
as i said, ideals and ideology can not be removed.
which brings us to the question, why do people actually try to remove it, and what is the result of this?
well, as i said, it is unremovable, which means that even artist how claim to be free of "politics" and ideology are actually very ideologous too.
90% of all music made these days, especially electronic music, is completely ultra-capitalist, authoritarian, hierarchic. just listen to common electronic house music, it's full of lyrics praising money, luxury, stuff like that.
oh, the artists of course claim they use these lyrics in a non-ideologeous way, maybe "ironic" way. well, it's still ideologeous. if the US army moves into another country but claims it is just peacekeepers or whatever, it's still the US army.
so, art cannot be removed from ideology and ideals, and it is what gives art meaning. of course this onslaught against "ideology" and "politics" is part of a bigger problem, which is the rapid onslaught of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. at the core, people despise ideological and anarchist art because it is "intellectual", removed, smart. they cannot take this.
but don't give up the ideology - or the ideals!

Music And Politics - Part 2

there are two main points that are brought forth when talking about the connection of politics and music. the first is that one should not *force* artists to develop a connection with politics. that it is the choice of the artist whether he wants to do political or unpolitical art. what quickly becomes visible though is that the same people readily get angry about political art and artists. if it's freedom of choice, shouldn't the choice to be political be respected too? seems these types have a very one-sided definition of freedom, and of choice. but that is not the main thing i want to say. the thing is that no artwork is merely the artwork to itself. art always has a cultural connection, a social connection, a connection to the individual, the artist - and always a political connection! there is simply no unpolitical art. every art also has a political message that it communicates to the audience. it's so strange that in our times there is such a focus on the social and other connections of the artist - how was his childhood, his youth, his ethnic background, was he raised religiously - but almost no interest in the political convictions of the artist. if the culture or social surrounding influenced his artworks, why shouldn't have his political connection left a mark on his art? in fact even when there is a piece written or a documentary segment made about a band whose political connection can't be denied, like some bands from 70s punk or 60s rock, this is then downplayed to some kind of general 'social discontent' or social flux. the actual political ideas of the artists in question are rarely mentioned and almost never debated.
saying the political ideas of an artist have no influence on his or her art is like saying the social and cultural situation of jamaica had no impact on the history of reggae music.
note that this not only goes for particular "leftradical" or other artists, but every artist, because every artist (and person) has political ideas.

art doesn't exist in a vacuum and just as everyone understands that the cultural background and personal biography of an artist has an impact on his or her art, it should be understood that the political opinions of the artist have an impact on the art - whether the artist wants it or not.

which brings us to the second point. when saying that art should be political - does that put down artists that are unpolitical? well again it is no "should", but every form of art *is* political. but, what this kind of statement hints at is that some art doesn't have an obvious political statement. but take oldschool gabber or early breakcore for example, even if there was no political statement visibly attached to a track, the raw power, anger, defiance of this music was a politically anarchist and nihilist statement by itself. even more so than a lot of outright political punk bands, for example. this music was anarchist in every way, so the call for political music takes nothing away from it. now there are a lot of electro, minimal, chic house type of producers. i never "bought" that they're unpolitical. they're celebrating luxury lifestyles in their music, expensive clothing, cars, clubs. it's in their lyrics. so they're completely capitalist, hyper-capitalist, to the point it becomes ridiculous. so a lot of people think this is unpolitical music, just for dancing and having a good time at the weekend, but it's deeply, very serious pro-capitalist music actually. but the point is, even if the producers had no intention to do political music, it would be political. because every music is political. if there would be a way, that a producer is really completely freeing himself of all conscious political influence in his music, then i think this would be very risky, because some random political content would fill this gap - because music *has* to be political - and influence his audience and this would be very dangerous. so maybe, in a way, we should be glad in a way that the common techno producers of this day are capitalists. but, of course, there are much better alternatives.

so, saying that music is political is not forcing anything, or devaluing anything. it's just stating a fact.

Anarchy Is Real

i talked about anarchy and revolution, and these are not only true but possible; not only more possible than everything else but the only thing possible. the thing is, how do people see revolution and anarchism? they think one day, the president or chancellor or whatever is addressing people on TV or a stream, announcing he will step back in the light of some 'revolutionary forces' that have overpowered the state. this is unlikely, people realise this is unlikely and therefore think anarchism is a pipedream. it would be an official message by an official power. but that's not how anarchy works! there is always anarchy, there is always people who rebel, who fight for justice and freedom, who challenge oppression and exploitation, at any point in history, around the world. there is never 100% control by the state or capital or whatever. there is never control. even the sheltered kid by some politician or businessman or politician turns to drugs and fucks things up and gets wayward. often in a negative way but it shows there is never really any control. people do not really believe in society or the laws or politicians. who would not disregard the interest of (hierarchic) society for self gain? people know no government or political affiliation when the pure self interest is challenged. we live in an anarchy, but we live in the anarchy we were warned about; where people don't play by the rules, but in a very egotistical way. when they go against the morals of the masses or hierarchies they often do this for petty reasons or petty gains. still - this shows there is no control.
what we need to realise that anarchy is all around us; that anarchy is a daily choice we can make. but that it has to be a positive anarchy of mutual aid, of cooperation, of freedom. and we need to realise that we are already part of a large matrix of likeminded individuals who do this thing already, even if they don't call themselves anarchists, even if we don't know them - yet. this is the real revolution. let the president believe he still has some power; he never had any.

How To Incite Social Change By Purely Sonic Means

it is not accidental that "culture" has a double meaning: for works of art aswell as for a society, a civilization as a whole (as in: the egypt culture, the roman culture). farming, a millstone are techniques of culture; but a painting of a field or a windmill is "culture" too! the truth is that in any part of culture, the whole of culture is recreated. in a military society, the stories, poems will be about war. a seafaring nation will have fairytales and epics about the ocean; and so on. but this not a onesided transmission; the works of art shape and recreate the society at large too. therefore; changing the art of a society will inevitably change this society too. this is the reason dictators and oppressors always hated the free expression of art; and often feared it more than armed rebels and resistance.
so, let us look at music. every song is a model of the culture it was created in at large. by changing this model you give an impulse to change society at large. the question is: what is represented by what in the song, and exactly what is to be changed. this is, at first, a tough question. for example, the high frequencies of noise music have an unnerving, exciting, insurrectionary aspect. but the high frequencies of pop can transport the uneasiness that makes people cling to the promises of false "security" by the autocrats. the distorted midranges of rocknroll transport raw emotion that can fuel uprisings. yet the distorted midrange of nazirock supports primitive "urges" that fuel fascism. the pounding rhythm of early techno made you get going and get active; the monotonous rhythm of later techno makes you walk "the straight path" of society without diverging from it, in a monotonous fashion.
but there is one thing that is the key factor in insurrectionary music. it is song structure. it is no wonder that the most political decades of the 20th century, the 60s and 70s, gave rise to the most complicated song structures since classical music, in genres like psychedelic rock, progressive rock or krautrock. it is the one thing that defines all. the society which defines every aspect of life in a hierarchic way has pop music in which the whole structure is predefined. verse, middle 8, chorus... it's all the same in hundreds, in millions of songs. the structure of 99% of songs is so predictable, formatted, defined by rules, "by the book" that it takes all fun, all life - all revolution out of it. the first thing that happened when genres such as techno, house, drumnbass sold out was that all songs started to get similiar in structure (compare the ongoing beat and structure changes in early jungle to the monotonic "DJ friendly" later drumnbass tracks).
so, experiment in structure; combine silent with loud parts, flick through whole genres in a single track, morph frequency ranges. find every way to break up a solid and fixed structure. find the written and unwritten rules that define the structures of pop and other music in western culture, and break them, get rid of them. especially speed changes seem important to me; that's something that has nearly disappeared from music and is something that upsets the pop hierarchists the most. i cannot strain the urgency of that.
this way, you can create sonic pieces, that will have a revolutionary effect on society at large!

Anarchy Is Possible

all revolutionary political, subcultural, artistic movements came to an end or were severely damaged at the end of the last decade of the 20th century, and at the beginning of the 21th century. the leftist movements withered, anarchism withered, the political part of punk withered, of hardcore, of breakcore, situationists, hippies, anticapitalists, everything.
in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this was - the internet. and this can be explained in a very simple way. with access to the internet, one can look up and read all about the various anarchism movements, the various attempts at revolution, the struggles - and how all of them failed. one can look up the political bands and artists of the past, and see how they either selled out when they got the chance, or succumb to infighting and selfishness - the old "human nature makes anarchism impossible" argument - or were run by crooks and impostors who used the revolutionary slogans for "self-gain" from the start.
it's the main reasoning one hears now when talking to people to that dislike anarchism or activism. "okay, society is crooked. but what do you want to do? start a revolution? we had revolutions in the past and they did not work. an uprising by the under classes? did not work either. create small communes, groups that are free from the system? it failed in the 60s and elsewhere. do a personal, individual rebellion inside society like the punks did? they all joined society again later - or ended in a worse ways".
that is the main thing that keeps everything in control. people do not believe in change, in positive change, because of this anymore.
but it is not true. it's a lie. everything above is a lie. *why* it is a lie could fill a whole book - maybe a whole library - and this would then be the book of revolution.
so let's just give - a few - examples.
first, the anarchists obviously do not believe in it. they're still here. we're still here. and we have reasons to believe that revolution, anarchy and utopia are still very much possible. so, there is not just one take on the above mentioned idea. there are various attitudes towards the idea that revolution failed. there is opposition to this idea. so how can you be sure that revolution really has to fail?
second, look at a typical biography of an anarchist in 19th, early 20th century. being introduced to anarchy as an adolescent, joining anarchist circles, breaking free from his family, maybe his social surrounding, to join the cause. doing propaganda and activism. and then get killed or imprisoned or something else during a riot or another struggle. there are thousands, millions of people who lived like that. now the early 21th bourgeois will say: see, "he failed. he better had chosen to join a bourgeois life, like we did!" but the truth, during his active days of struggle, he felt more free, more joyful, more ecstatic, more closer to the truth, than any bourgeois could, no matter if it's a billionaire or the president himself. he had a more fulfilling live than the rest. oh, his tragedy is sad - but this doesn't take away the fact that at least it was close to the truth.
of course i would not support such way of life in today's world - there are ways to resists without risking your life! but that does not take this point away.
third, and even more importantly. in western society, in the current days, we only really know about the last 200, 300 years of western culture, any maybe not even that. oh there is a lot of knowledge about past cultures, foreign cultures, but it is far from being conclusive. since hundreds of years, there has always been anthropologists, sociologists etc - not to mention more "crackpot"-style theorists - who claimed that in the past indeed societies that could be considered half, mostly, or fully(!) anarchist. tribal societies, sometimes even agricultural or advanced societies, or "short lived" (i.e. a matter of a few decades - or sometimes even centuries) enclaves. the point is not whether this is true or not - but that we *cannot* know. it might very likely be that there has been organized anarchy before. if the "primitivists" (which i often do not like very much) are right, in a sense mankind has lived much longer without government than with government. that mankind lived longer without capitalism and a ruling bourgeoisie is indisputable.
so how can then people be *sure* that anarchy is not possible with 'human nature'? how can they be sure of something that they do not know for sure?
this shows the whole weakness of modernism, of the modern age; that most of it's theories are only based on the short period of the modern age itself, and generally disregards anything else. it shows that there is a lot we don't know - especially about human history and human "nature" - and that people just disregard that!

so, yes. anarchy is true. anarchy works. the revolution is possible, even today. and the belief that this is not so - is to most part fake.

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.

Hyperphilosophy

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 hyperphilosophy.
what is hyperphilosophy? 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 hyper-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 hyperphilosophy - 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 hyperphilosophy 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* hyperphilosophy - a "hyper" space.
also this type of hyper-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 hyperphilosophy. 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 hyperphilosophy - 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.

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.

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.

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 idealists 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.

Techno, Anarchy And The Failure Of the 20st Century

there is a feeling that many members of the technovement in the 90s, or the digital chaos movement, or meta-anarchism, felt: that, for a short moment in time, we were at the top of the world. and then we feel deep, so deep, into the deepest abyss. what exactly was this feeling - and what caused it?
i think an easy way to get a clear picture, of the situation and the possibities that were there at the end of the 20th century, is to look at the music of electronic labels such as Fischkopf or Digital Hardcore Recordings. there was something special about this music; it was not the aggression or the use of digital beats,
not even the noise; this had been done; maybe not done to the extreme, but it had been done. no, what made it special that it was actually composed of various styles of music that were stacked on each other. before Taciturne on Fischkopf Records 012, you didn't have records that combined analog techno, shrill noize, christian chorals, gabber beats, postpunk samples, japanese-style harmonics, and plenty of other things, with each other.
before Atari Teenage Riot, music with aggresion, with shouting, that combined electronic and guitars, existed; plenty of it. but before Atari Teenage Riot, there were not songs that combined rap, acid, electronic hardcore, krautrock-style electronics, avantgarde, punkrock, riot girl shouting, in one piece.
a new kind of music was created. a type of metamusic, of hypermusic. that was what intrigued us. it was not only a combination of existing styles, but something on top of it.
most clearly this tendency at the end of the 20th century is seen in what i call "hyper-anarchism"; the politics of people like Bob Black, John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. while anarchism during most of its time was firmly rooted in enlightment and 19th century style ideology, these authors took it to a whole new level and combined it with anti-enlighment, advanced ideas, ideas taken from other cultures, from art, from poetry - from science, combined them and created something new.
and, a third part of this final tendency of the 20th century, was the cyberspace, virtual reality movement.
"cyberspace" is the idea to create a completely computerbased world, a world based purely on logic and rationality and reason. a world that is artificial and exists on their own.
how are these three things connected? in all 3 types, material from the world of rationality, philosophy or art, was taken, fused with each other, combined - and something new was created, which then influented the created arts, or philosophy.
this new "rationality", way of thinking, was what suddenly came into existence at the end of 1990s - and vanished almost as quickly again. it was taking rationality and philosopy to its extreme.

so what went we wrong? we had it, for hecks sake we had - and we lost it, and we lost so much.
but, it was not without our fault.
the movie "the matrix" is a good example of this phenomen. it was hyped extremely in 1999 - and lost most of its fans in the 2000s. yet, there was now a changed fangroup that adored the movie.
the matrix was about cyberspace, a computergenerated world. this was how it was understand back then. but nowadays, its main fan base lies in the esoteric, new age realm. and these people say; "no, this is not cyberspace". "the matrix is just a metaphor for the 'astral plane'".
so we had a concept of cyberspace, something based on pure logic and reason, replaced by anti-rational, esoteric new age stuff.
and this is a good example of the degeneration of western thinking in the decades that followed the end of the 20th century.
rationality and reason is lacking more and more, so it's no wonder anti-rational "new age" ideas and such, spread. of course not only in the "esoteric" realm, anti-rationalism everywhere is growing.

but again, this is without our doing. techno *was* hyperrational in the 90s - hardcore too - maybe the most rational, logic based music - feed your head, my friends - but it also had a virulent anti-rational content. especically the social scenes around it. while music such as the anarchist, utopists bands of the 60s led to a culture of demonstrations, books written, essays, manifests, there was not much such output or activity related to techno. the crazed raver of 1992 might be an anarchist in heart, and by action and nihilistic dancing - but he was not an anarchist in action, he didn't join - or created - an anarchist group in most cases.
this scepticism of ideology and rationality by the techno-crowd was its downfull - and no wonder the original techno, trance and hardcore was replaced by "dumb" music when the year 2000 came by.

similarly, the meta-anarchist group was highly, toxically anti-rational. and deliberately and openly so. rationality and intellect was seen as a problem of 19th century philosophy and the enlightment period in philosophy generally - that had to be overcome.

only the "cyberspace" movement was seemingly not tainted by this - but quickly and completey forgotten by the people. creating a computerworld is not so much a topic for scientists and intellectuals anymore, but more for computernerds.

so, at the end of the century, existing philosophical, artistic and rational ideas were stacked on each other - with great results, but then this was quickly forgotten again. but we can get back to it. and then, we're in the advantage again.

addendum:
in the aftermath of the 20th century, this tendency still leaves it waves in some way; there are artists that combinee different musical genres, and philosophers that combine different ideas. but generally, in music the tendency is to "copy" a single genre, like punkrock, or rocknroll, or even krautrock - in an exact way, not creating something new - and the same in current "rationality" and philosophy. in many cases, the combination is laughable - like combining one hardcore techno genre with another hardcore techno genres. generally, it is lacking.

Old vs.New, And Ideology

the core point of music is the ideas, the concepts, the thoughts, the plans, the settings, the framework, the road, the politics, the ideologies, that are behind it. make no mistake. there can be an idea, and / or an ideology found behind every piece of music. this is exactly what makes most of todays breakcore, hardcore, IDM, or intelligent techno, discofunk, and all the other "names", so awkward, so boring, so shameful. the ideology behind it - sucks. it is usually capitalist, ultra-capitalist, hyper-consumist, conformist, authoritarian - hierarchic, oppressive and weakening. one for the feeble minded. oh, you don't believe me? check the average lyric of all the "hip" clubbing music todays - cues to expensive clothes, shopping, luxury lifestyle, life of the rich, of the famous, most socially elevated clubs whose bouncers don't let you in, and such. and you want to tell me this is not ultra-capitalist music? oh, it's 'ironic'? it doesn't seem very ironic to me. if the nazi party says they're ironic, would that make them ironic? no, it would more appear as a cop-out. the same goes for our capitalist techno producers. or take breakcore. how many clues to anarchism and rebellion are in your average breakcore track - as opposed to clues to star wars, boring 70s disco, all sorts of capitalist pop culture trash? maybe a 1:10.000 ratio.
okay, so i get it all wrong? then tell me, what is the ideology behind pop breakcore and club techno? there is none? nonsense! there is always an idea and intellectual structure behind a piece of art. if you don't know this, you don't know art.

now, this raises an interesting point. because these types of producers actually *do* spend a lot of energy to cover the tracks. to declare their "art" to be beyond "petty" things such as politics, anarchism, uprising, ideologies - 'ideologies are a thing of the past'. but let me assure you, they produce indeed very ideological music, that is full of politics. they hide it, so they don't have to expose their actual politics, so people don't realise what a boring revamp of reaganism, 80s yuppie pop overkill, and hardline reactionary crap their political agenda is.
the point that this music is without ideology doesn't work because you can't have music without politics, or ideology, or ideas.
also, politics, ideas, anarchism, and social struggles are not "petty" things that would taint art; these are what give greatness to art, are greater things, and art without them - if it doesn't have a better idea to offer - would be very weak and small art indeed.

also, this explains why there is a gap of people who adored the experimental hard genres in former years, like breakcore and speedcore and hardcore, and those who do now.
because the original hardcore and breakcore had an anarchist, or individualist, radical mindset, that was dangerous, eager to change society, intented to rip through social rules, to be powerful and insurgent. music intented to change peoples life.
in what way does contemporary breakcore intend to change people's life? to the better? to - an utopian state?
hell, it can't even help their listeners to get out of their shitty jobs.
so the people who listened to the original hardcore were people attracted to this; individualists, rebels, freethinkers, anarchist, ruffians.
each one is attracted to music that fits to ones own ideology and thoughtset.

but, again, there is light on the horizon. there might be a comeback of anarchist politics - of utopia, of rebellion, of insurgency - to the hardcore music, to the hardcore places. and this time, it will blow everyone away.

The Crisis Of Music

what is the crisis of music these days, that so many people seem to feel, yet find it hard to put in words often? - only to be denounced by those who assure everyone that everything would be "fine".
it is that music is only made for petty, small, boring, useless, mindless reasons - to get rich, for fame, for a social position, for greed and material selfgain. to became a star, a megaseller - or at least a "star" within an enclosed "underground scene".
music should be made for positive things, for ideals - for the good of humanity, for utopian concepts, to help others, to heal others. to add something good, something truly good and positive and wonderful and fantastic to this world. but this is to most parts lost now.
oh, i know a lot of people say this was always the case, just "covered up" so maybe not visible to everyone. but this is far from the truth. even if we would say it was like that, even in the full extent, there is a change in quality now. some promoter or musician might have joined a radical, utopian youth culture for money or fame, and covered it up with nice words. but at least the possiblity of making truly utopian music was acknowledged. these guys might have thought "yeah, we are clever, the others strive for social change, but we go for luxury". but nowadays, this position itself has become almost an impossible - for these people. if an electronic musician says he makes music for the revolution, for a free world, for a radical change of the social system, or a peaceful, equal society - he will simply be laughed at, not taken serious, in fact a lot of people would assume he or she has lost his or her mind. because this "utopian viewpoint" is simply not understandable to most people now.
almost impossible - but not quite. because, after all, there are still people who believe in the revolution, in a just society and world, and in wonderful, adventurous ideals and concepts. maybe they do not even lack numbers, as opposed to the radical 60s or the punk years of the 70s. but they for sure have become less visible, less "public". in fact, i often get feedback by people who are still radical and dreamers, but most say they feel alienated to the material, greey, shallow music cultures and subcultures that feed the bullshit of the masses and the rest these days.
this could be an intermission to say to these people: go on with the struggle! you are for sure not alone.
to go on with the topic, if music is not made with a high and positive ideal in mind, it loses all it's value, it's spark, the elements that are interesting and special and outragous (in a good way). this music - becomes the shallow tripe that it is.
just think about it - some of music that is most respected and well-known these days, was it not made by dreamers and idealists, who had the most ideal social structures and radical concepts in mind? couldn't that serve as a proof that indeed this way has - its merits?
who will think of bands or musicians in 50 years that just swam with their greedy peers in a shallow soup.

also what i see a lot these day, is that, especially upcoming musicians, walk a road without orientation. they put a lot of work and energy, and quite some hard sacrifices, into their art. then it first gets ignored, gets picked up by a label or distributor or something else, than "public" interest vanes, and they slowly get back to their start and are in danger of fading into obscurity.
this is the danger when music is not based on a high ideal!
if you have an ideal - for example, helping people, giving them a positive outlook at life - you have already "attained" everything with your art, when you do this very thing. even if you only help 2-3 people this way, you have done a good deed. and it doesn't matter how many other people listen to your music or stuff like that.
and even - which is unlikely - you do not manage to do something good with your art - at least you have tried, and this is noble in itself, and you have done something good and do not have to blame yourself.

so what are these high ideals art could be based on? i already mentioned some - to create a revolutionary situation by your music, or helping a radical struggle with your output. music can be a vehicle to make people aware of social and political issues by your lyrics or titles. a noble way is to make music that generally spreads a feeling of amazement, something adventurous, marvelous - for adventure and marvel is what the world needs!
and, the most noble act could be, to create art that *heals* others, gives them hope and an outlook and a good foundation for their life.
it is no sense to try to make a comprehensive list here - any noble and good and high ideal is worth being put into art.

so the next question would be, *how* to put these ideas into? well it should be obvious - just do it. use vocals or lyrics to achieve this, or the direction of your music, the general structure of your art. also there are many many more ways. and, in the end, if you are guided by high ideals when doing your art, they doubtless will end up in your art!
so go ahead.