(no subject)
I was pondering something...and I was doing it by posting a comment on a bunch of wankers community over at slashypunkboys....now then, let me paste this comment here and elaborate on it now that it is no longer 4 am...
Let me make a couple of comments.
Blink 182 as far as I know is not punk, I am still not aware that at any time punk was about being immature and using humor from the fourth grade to sell records. Matter of fact, since when has punk been about anything but getting a message heard? I believe that message used to be dissent. I say used to be because I believe in anarchism, or the right of the people to freely vote. If the majority of people thinking themselves punk are infact the kids listening to Blink 182 and New Found Glory, then punk indefinately in my eyes is whatever they shape it to be. But, if it is truly what these kids want it to be, the bands they support are bands that have no dissident voice from society. Sure, pulling your pants down may not be usual, and it may even be offensive (or "funny") but since when is that dissidence from the norm? How is that standing up for something different or asking for a change? It isn't.
Maybe you're asking yourself right now who is s/he to say what punk is? Well, no one anymore than you are my friend - but I will once again emphasize that punk hasn't always been about token tantrums..or ploys to make money. Remember history that not even you participated in, and maybe you can enjoy that history - otherwise punk itself, as defined today by the majority - is nothing like punk defined in 1969, by majority. Hence, punk - in the 1969 sense - the one that so many people seem to look up to - is dead.
Reviewing - if punk from 1969 is dead, then punk today must not be punk, for punk was first in 1969! So today's "punk" as society would have you believe it, is infact, something else. What could this something else be? Well, pop stands for popular culture. Look around.
I believe I am missing the key point of my argument - the ability to offer a solution. but as an anarchist...that is quite hard because, quite simply, people don't want to be led in any one direction, but my own leading is contradictory to anarchism. this also ties back into propaganda....is infact, being an anarchist possible in todays society? no...it cannot be, because of all of what i have just said. so what am i when i say i am an anarchist? a liar. plain and simple. im not an anarchist anymore than a communist is.
so what do i do? well, the attraction to anarchism was it's lack of vanguardism - vanguardism has shown to be the cause in EVERY revolution of people becoming too full of themselves. being vanguardist was form the start the downfall of communism, hence...should i be even remotely vanguardist in attempting to further my anarchist ideals? well i presume i must, because if i did not, how else am i to send anarchist ideals out to the people.....?
Let me make a couple of comments.
Blink 182 as far as I know is not punk, I am still not aware that at any time punk was about being immature and using humor from the fourth grade to sell records. Matter of fact, since when has punk been about anything but getting a message heard? I believe that message used to be dissent. I say used to be because I believe in anarchism, or the right of the people to freely vote. If the majority of people thinking themselves punk are infact the kids listening to Blink 182 and New Found Glory, then punk indefinately in my eyes is whatever they shape it to be. But, if it is truly what these kids want it to be, the bands they support are bands that have no dissident voice from society. Sure, pulling your pants down may not be usual, and it may even be offensive (or "funny") but since when is that dissidence from the norm? How is that standing up for something different or asking for a change? It isn't.
Maybe you're asking yourself right now who is s/he to say what punk is? Well, no one anymore than you are my friend - but I will once again emphasize that punk hasn't always been about token tantrums..or ploys to make money. Remember history that not even you participated in, and maybe you can enjoy that history - otherwise punk itself, as defined today by the majority - is nothing like punk defined in 1969, by majority. Hence, punk - in the 1969 sense - the one that so many people seem to look up to - is dead.
Reviewing - if punk from 1969 is dead, then punk today must not be punk, for punk was first in 1969! So today's "punk" as society would have you believe it, is infact, something else. What could this something else be? Well, pop stands for popular culture. Look around.
I believe I am missing the key point of my argument - the ability to offer a solution. but as an anarchist...that is quite hard because, quite simply, people don't want to be led in any one direction, but my own leading is contradictory to anarchism. this also ties back into propaganda....is infact, being an anarchist possible in todays society? no...it cannot be, because of all of what i have just said. so what am i when i say i am an anarchist? a liar. plain and simple. im not an anarchist anymore than a communist is.
so what do i do? well, the attraction to anarchism was it's lack of vanguardism - vanguardism has shown to be the cause in EVERY revolution of people becoming too full of themselves. being vanguardist was form the start the downfall of communism, hence...should i be even remotely vanguardist in attempting to further my anarchist ideals? well i presume i must, because if i did not, how else am i to send anarchist ideals out to the people.....?