Pogo {derivation from the concept pogo stick} gained popularity in the punk scene of the 1970s [1], but was also widely performed by followers of New Wave and Industrial, e.g. Electronic Body Music (EBM, also: “Front Music”) in the 1980s. [2] The traditional style is jumping up, usually based on a 4/4 beat, but the dancer may introduce numerous variations of complexity by bouncing in any direction or flailing his arms. The ferocity of movement reflects the emotional state of the individual, the urge to jump is coupled with the amount of inner tension built up. Although in a state of pure self-centeredness, intense body contact with the other is usually desired and may occasionally lead to bruises and lacerations. Despite the rawness, comradeship has top priority and good care is taken of fallen or weaker associates.

The way of doing it has
             •   nothing to do with “fun” or a “welcome form of diversion”
             •   nothing to do with expressing a political statement, a-political
             •   but to do with hate and anger

The mentioned movements rejected escapism and willfully sought confrontation with reality. Cold War, the inevitability of a nuclear apocalypse and the end of history, which can be assigned to the last but intense period of political and social change in the 1960s, created both an atmosphere of departure and an alluring dystopia. No history - no future, once again the post-political generation turned toward futurism, fully aware, that there is no way out of the ever tightening control machine, now propelled by digital technologies.

I                                    ARBEIT, SCHWEIß & MUSKELKRAFT
was the leitmotiv of the vanguard EBM band DAF, who have been suspected of propagating fascism. [3] Unconcealed callousness, militant aesthetics and the aggressive (KAMPFBETONT!) dance style might resemble signifiers of a grossly violent system, but are actually subversive, because any provoked outrage merely exposes the flatness of the political and cultural landscape. From the cybernetic perspective, homogeneity marks the completion of perpetual regulating measures by infinite feedback loops, which arose from the final aggregation and conjunction of all machines into a “machine of all machines”. The incurred amount of entropy and energy consumption assumes alarming proportions and calls for agitation. As pointed out below, this proves challenging. Firstly, the slick surface and vaporous ideologies of a device-governed world hardly offer potential points of attack, whilst regimental leadership and firm statements usually lend themselves for effective response. Secondly, the state war-machine has adopted and exploited the essential strategies of insurrection, based on the principles of speed, autonomy, self-organization, exchange and information gathering, also referred to as the dromocratic revolution (see Virilio).

   “The host and parasite entwine in one another until they’re indistinguishable.”
Thirdly, the superstructure has absorbed the very agencies competent of disrupting the ruling order by appropriating their alternative objectives. This keeps noise levels low and ensures a nonviscous information flow. Debord expressed this as the recuperation of the spectacle, and humans previously classified as risk factors, notably those allocable left of the political spectrum, work now devotedly under the schemes of “democracy” and “participation” to iron out the last rough edges of society and carefully mind if free expression is subject to political correctness. Since it is a democratic duty to endorse any deviance and “open-mindedness” became compulsory, subculture and any acts of rebellion pale into insignificance. No fringe community remains unsolicited; the arts, academia and their offspring, “the activist” are not only on spot when authorities fail to assume social responsibility but downright impose their ideals and desired utopia upon people, who claim to think and act autonomously. This has proved counterproductive and Reed (2013, p.189) remarks, that “the endgame of didactic preaching is dogmatic tyranny, and any ideological specificity becomes a fixed point to be pinned down and coopted by control machines”. Innovative creatives and start-ups concerned with designing a “better future” mushroom but the potential dissident, who questions the social construct in its entirety and refuses to propose a concrete alternative mode of life by referring to the principles of individuality will be deemed as imbecile. Mere criticism must be silenced, as it is an open-ended act, which the closed system is unable to process and equivalent to loss of control. The boundaries of technofascism are defined by the task of maintaining itself but have the ability to expand ad infinitum when system queries can be coupled with response, therefore suggestions for improvement or pragmatic solutions just build upon predefined norms.

Today democracy prompts everyone to “have his say” and the bodies of power even greatly welcome interactivity between them and its citizens, which might generate a feeling of greater freedom and thus also the readiness for collaboration. Previously the symbiosis of culture and commodity-based economy could be identified by conform products that appeal to the broadest possible consumer range, now data exchange and the mining thereof became the most valued asset, marking the shift from fetishization of the object to the fetishization of the process of interaction. The harvest of large amounts of data is aimed at the attributes and habits of groups and individuals and accounts for imaginative combination and the computation of statistical models and speculative forecasts. The more predictive calculations, the more they become affirmations of a likely future, and thus change the way of anticipation, because a determined outcome validated by substantive data leaves no room for vision. The future is semi-automated, without featuring imagination or somewhat justified by truth, just composed of the immaculate optimization of data, which is stripped from any essence of human nature. It must be borne in mind that not technology itself rules over mankind but human inventiveness and traits, in particular greed and the will to dominate others, which are inherent to the machine, its structures and its intended purpose. Governance is the sole decision maker and selects between signal | noise, futility | economic profitability and rule of law | terrorism but can easily rid itself from responsibility by referring to computational evidence.