PDA

View Full Version : Punk Rock, Diversity, and the Gonzo Conservatives



Betty
12-22-2004, 11:20 PM
I was doing some punk rock research and happened upon this article that I quite enjoyed, so felt I should post it.

By: Dave Smalley (from Down By Law for those not in the know)

Punk Rock, Diversity, and the Gonzo Conservatives

In 2004, punk rock fans don't have to all be the same. Sheep are the same. Lemmings are the same. But punk rock fans should never demand sameness, be it from the left or the right. A healthy democracy depends on a free thinking, engaged citizenry -- and a healthy punk rock scene should be the FIRST to welcome ideological diversity.

I call punk rock conservatives gonzo conservatives. This is not your father's conservatism. Gonzo conservatives have done and seen things their fathers never could have imagined, and right alongside punks on the left. Gonzos are inked and scarred and concerned about problems in the world. They love the Bad Brains and the Sex Pistols, and grew up believing the very essential punk rock notion of "think for yourself." Some have been part of the punk rock scene for years, and helped it grow. Some are new to the scene and discovering that punk's ideals can lead to more than one way streets.

Many have been on the left at some point and become disillusioned with it, and started to believe that the other perspective just might have some good points.

Gonzo conservatives see some people who claim to be punk rock fans wanting to enforce a "one-mindset" mentality -- precisely the opposite of what we fought for all these years. Some punk fans don't see how anyone can claim to be conservative and punk simultaneously -- whereas gonzo conservatives don't see how anyone can demand conformity and still claim to be punk. Demanding conformity is the essence of fascism (or communism, which, depending on what political model one uses, can be seen as one and the same).

In 2004, there are a growing number of gonzo conservatives. They don't like being told they're supposed to think like everyone else. They are not sheep, to be herded by others who would dictate in our community. They are human beings, deserving of common decency and respect. Gonzo conservatives believe that punk rock is about being smart, and caring, and changing the world -- but only when and where it needs it. "Being punk" does not mean hating the world, or the president, just for the sake of it. If something is good, support it. There are more than enough problems in America and the world to work on without reflex demonization.

Punk rock means seeing the problems in the world and fighting (which sometimes means, well, fighting) to make it better. And if there is some disagreement about what is bad in the world, so be it: Gonzo conservatives see world government as wrong -- it makes slaves out of human beings. The problem with the Taliban, the former Soviet Union, the Saddam Hussein regime, et al, is that they tried to contain the human spirit. And the human spirit cannot be contained. Not forever, anyway.

It is for that reason there is opposition to those in our own country who seem to want us to give up our rights to a poorly run, monolithic United Nations bureaucracy. And there is support for those who want America to act in our own vital interests in the world -- together with others when we can, alone if the cause is just. Consensus where possible, but action where necessary. These are words for a nation to live by.

Gonzo conservatives see unnecessary taxes as another danger to the nation, to be opposed. Income taxes did not exist in the United States until Abraham Lincoln forced them onto an unhappy public to finance a war. Still they remain, sapping the economic lifeblood of working families and the very economic engine itself -- and some in America continually want to raise them.

Gonzo conservatives oppose tax hikes as oppressive and demeaning to the human spirit. They're surprised when they see some punk rock fans -- often the same punks who argue that the government is fucked, fascist, etc. -- supporting the party that favors giving more money to the government -- taken from the wages of millions of working Joes. Let's be truly a fair society, and let people keep as much as possible of the living that they work so hard to earn.

Gonzo conservatives see racial quotas as an Orwellian twisting of good intentions. Not hiring someone because of their color? Hiring someone because of theirs? It's racist, and illogical. Imagine if "affirmative action" extended to one's favorite band. The Beatles were four white men. Should they have had to hire "someone of color" to fill a quota? How about if the Bad Brains had to hire a white person on drums? If racial quotas seem like a poor idea for a band, it's an even worse reason for someone getting admitted to medical school. Let's be truly a colorblind society, and let all people's talents shine, regardless of the color of their skin. Where there is discrimination, we must fight it -- but we must not make the remedy one of discrimination itself.

Gonzo conservatives see the current state of public education in America as not just bad, but disastrous. Despite spending more per pupil than most other democracies, we come up short time and again in science, math and now computer programming competitions with other countries. The upper echelons of public education have been so co-opted and warped by politicized teacher's unions that millions of desperate parents of all colors and creeds are pulling their kids out, opting for private schools they can't afford, or home schooling. Statistically, very few politicians, including the ones of the "education party," send their kids to public schools. They must believe what so many are saying: too much dogma controlling the curriculum, too many schools filled with drugs and violence, with no discipline allowed, and a "teach to the bottom, never to the top" philosophy. Perhaps the most disturbing question: Why do the rich, mostly white politicians in the "education party" fight against school vouchers -- something that helps poor minority kids escape the chaos? Gonzo conservatives believe the true education party is the one fighting to make sure No Child is Left Behind. Real reforms, real results required.

Gonzo conservatives know that there are thousands of excellent teachers out there -- but there are others who use their jobs to advance a political agenda over real learning. And that's wrong, and it has the potential of killing this country for the long-term. Let's be truly an educated society, one which teaches all points of views, but real history -- not try to use our teachers as ideological bullets in a dogmatic gun. When Harriet Tubman is given more ink than George Washington in the history books, there is a serious distortion of learning. Both were brave and noble Americans doing the right thing -- but one was the first and most influential president of the United States, whose decisions and actions set standards and shaped the world from that time onward.

These are just a few of many issues where gonzo conservatives draw a line in the sand and fight for positive change. Gonzo conservatives are here to stay. Perhaps they have always been here and just feared to speak out. In the end, they are punk rockers who believe in the government staying as small as possible, keeping taxes low and acting when necessary to defend the country. They trust the people with their own money, and their own choices, within reason. They admire and respect the men who wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- documents that have served as the model for democracies the world over.

And as punk rock fans, when they see intolerance in the world, or oppressive economic practices, or people afraid to speak out, they fight. They just don't let others pick the battles anymore.

Izie
12-23-2004, 12:04 AM
Let's be truly an educated society, one which teaches all points of views, but real history.

(Jesus)
Then he probably wouldn't write this amount of bullshit, although i dunno what "real history" is.
Anyway, more importantly does Break still like Down By Law?

Betty
12-23-2004, 12:08 AM
I don't know, but he was a pretty big fan what...? two years ago? A theory I toyed with was that it had something to do with Samantha.

Noodles
12-23-2004, 12:56 AM
Wow! How some "punk rock research" led you to a fairly standard right wing political essay, I'll never know, but that's cool. I absolutely agree with Dave that punk rock means never having to share a brain. And that's not where our agreement ends either. I would back up alot of what he says here. I would also call him on a couple of points.

Let's look at this first:

"Punk rock means seeing the problems in the world and fighting (which sometimes means, well, fighting) to make it better. And if there is some disagreement about what is bad in the world, so be it: Gonzo conservatives see world government as wrong -- it makes slaves out of human beings. The problem with the Taliban, the former Soviet Union, the Saddam Hussein regime, et al, is that they tried to contain the human spirit. And the human spirit cannot be contained. Not forever, anyway.

It is for that reason there is opposition to those in our own country who seem to want us to give up our rights to a poorly run, monolithic United Nations bureaucracy. And there is support for those who want America to act in our own vital interests in the world -- together with others when we can, alone if the cause is just. Consensus where possible, but action where necessary. These are words for a nation to live by. "

As for this first paragraph, I would only add that a big part of the problem of those countries' regimes is that they killed a lot of people too. I think that is the most important issue. I mean FOX news is trying really hard to contain my spirit, but I'm fighting really hard to keep that from happening. At least they haven't killed me yet.

In this second paragraph, Dave seems to make quite a leap from the Taliban, Stalin, and Saddam to the United Nations. The only poorly run monolith I feel I'm qualified to critique is that of the United States. But I love my country and absolutely agree that we must, "act in our own vital interests in the world -- together with others when we can, alone if the cause is just. Consensus where possible, but action where necessary." My Question would is; How does this apply to our invasion of iraq? I disagree that our cause was "just" and "necessary."

I agree with Dave that, "the human spirit cannot be contained." I also know that Saddam's regime was on it's last legs before we invaded. The human spirit could have overcome Saddam without all the death and destruction that we've seen there these last 21 months. There were forces already inside Iraq, forces led by their "human spirit" that were working to depose Saddam and could have been helped by us, without all the chaos and bloodshed of war. There are far too many fewer human Iraqis than there were two years ago, and the spirirt of those that remain feel more contained today, not less. I just want an explanation as to why this was necessary. How is this just. If Dave believes so much in the human spirit, then why didn't he believe the Iraqis could handle Saddam without the full force of the American military machine?



I'd also just like to make fun of the whole "gonzo conservatism" thing. It is exactly like my father-in-law's conservatism, except for the tattoos. My father-in-law even listens to some punk rock. I guess the word "gonzo" is designed to add some crazy, ballsy, I-will-really-fuck-you-up kind of attitude the the whole father-in-law kind of conservatism, but Zell Miller already did that, and he's supposedly a Democrat. Besides I just keep thinking about that blue, furry muppet character.

I would like to address this more when I'm not so tired and drunk.

Vera
12-23-2004, 05:07 AM
If there's something I've learned in the years I have listened to punkrock, surfed punkrock-related online communities and discussed things with "punks" or "punkrockers" from both all over the world online and from my own country offline, it is that punks truly are the most contradictive people I have ever known.

On the other hand, it's all "Be yourself, do your own thing!" but fuck me, if anyone actually IS different from your standard punkrock crowd. Kill the motherfucker, kill 'im!

I do sort of understand the idea that a punk cannot be right-wing or a conservative because punk has always been an ideology known to stand up against old values and such. This is just a traditional way of thinking. In Finland, most punks I've met have been activists and politically they have supported the Green Party. So I guess you could say there's a new group that exists nowadays, not so much left-wing or right-wing, eco-punks more than anything.

It still feels rather weird to me. I remember a funny stunt by a singer of Finland's most popular punkrock group (okay, nowadays they're more rock, but whatever). He tattooed a symbol of the right-wing party on his butt cheek and tried to run for the EU parliament.

I'm really iffy about people who not only critisize the UN but downright oppose it. Critisizing it is all good and well but I consider it quite alarming that someone would oppose the one international organization that's basically making sure there won't be a WW3.

But then again I'm just a silly, scared teenager. :]

Little_Miss_1565
12-23-2004, 09:40 AM
I've become v. interested in the whole punk-rock conservatism thing, because I'm definately a political moderate. The idea that to be into punk rock means that you have to be of the most left-wing mindset ever really alienated me, so I never really felt like I "belonged" in the scene in the same way that I hear people all the time going on about how the togetherness of the punk rock community at large saved their lives. It was honestly kinda nice to hear about other people into the same music as me that didn't think hating the president just for the sake of hating the president was particularly fun, or that the government was to be fought no matter what rather than working within the system to affect positive change.

But like Noodles said, it still definately is one's father's conservatism underneath the liberty spikes. I agree with everything on which you called Smalley out. I'd also ask, though, since it's not addressed in the article, what about their stances on some of the real hotbutton issues that tipped the election like gay marriage and abortion? I don't see anything particularly punk rock about telling people who they can marry or what a woman can do with her body.

Also, though I don't like the idea of a big powerful central government, we can't just cut the ropes of things like social security, education, university research, etc. and set them adrift in the private sector. Income tax has become central to funding many programs that really can't be run by private companies in such a cutthroat capitalist economy, an idea that doesn't seem to have occurred to Smalley.

Redmatt
12-23-2004, 09:47 AM
I'm left wing, therefore I believe in government intervention. It's not all bad though, it all depends on how you do it. Like in the 50s, without the Prime Minister Clement Atlee, Britain wouldnt have the National Health Service and free healthcare. Although if you are a power mad despotic dictator like mr Stalin, there might be a few problems... :rolleyes:

As for Punks and being non conformist, it can't happen, because they all have the same idea on how they're not going to conform, therefore conforming! Argh! It's a vicious circle. The only way to be a non-conformist is to be yourself. Do what you want (within reason obviously), say what you want, wear what you want etc. If some of your actions or the things you wear happen to conform to something or other, so be it. It will only be conforming in a superficial way so it doesn't matter.

It's all good... :cool:

Moose
12-23-2004, 09:48 AM
well...just take a look at this board...its a "im right, your wrong" all the time, especially in the political forum...and many here consider themselves punk...but if everyone truly believed in there is no wrong or right answer, such as there is no truth, then what is the point of even discussing anything or living or standing up for something or believing in something. what would be the point of the political forum even? of course punk is going to be contradictory and hypocritical, it just really depends on how much and on what. everyone is a hypocrite, it is inevitable, it really just depends how bad of one you are.

Redmatt
12-23-2004, 09:51 AM
The art of politics is to see and understand both sides of the argument, and then put your side accross and make it sound the most attractive. I reckon what alot of people forget to do (me included alotof the time) is to aknowledge that you see where the other person is coming from. Everythings too adversarial all the time.

Moose
12-23-2004, 09:57 AM
shut up, youre wrong, im right. :D

Redmatt
12-23-2004, 10:00 AM
ooh! Touché! ;)

shatskater
12-23-2004, 10:13 AM
I'm left wing, therefore I believe in government intervention. It's not all bad though, it all depends on how you do it. Like in the 50s, without the Prime Minister Clement Atlee, Britain wouldnt have the National Health Service and free healthcare. Although if you are a power mad despotic dictator like mr Stalin, there might be a few problems... :rolleyes:

As for Punks and being non conformist, it can't happen, because they all have the same idea on how they're not going to conform, therefore conforming! Argh! It's a vicious circle. The only way to be a non-conformist is to be yourself. Do what you want (within reason obviously), say what you want, wear what you want etc. If some of your actions or the things you wear happen to conform to something or other, so be it. It will only be conforming in a superficial way so it doesn't matter.

It's all good... :cool:

yes and no i am a "punk" if u will.

i dont agree with ur vicious cycle of conformation. becuase that is what we do. we be ourselves, we act how we want, we dress how we want, we listen to music, who and how we want. its not like we are conformists. its people like you who label us as conformists and then denote our way of life. this isnt a fuckin costume, its a way of life.

ya no. i dont have a mohawk. i mean, for the most part, i look somewhat normal, usually. sometimes some spiked hair or blue hair, whatever. and i am still a punk. ya no. so dont label me as something im not.

i mean, sure i am a punk, anarchist, skater, call it what you will. but that is me. nobody else. those are things that make up me. and i will not change them for you nor anyone else. sorry but that is me.

UgLy_eLf
12-23-2004, 10:43 AM
On the other hand, it's all "Be yourself, do your own thing!" but fuck me, if anyone actually IS different from your standard punkrock crowd. Kill the motherfucker, kill 'im!





Well thats not necessarily true in my case. We've got a quaint punk scene here in MPLS and the kids are all very different we come from all walks of life, some are rich some are poor, suburbanites, city kids, some have spiky leather jackets and mohawks while others look like your average citizen, no one cares; we all have different opinions and heads DO clash fists do fly over them, but by the end everyone is everyone elses buddy. Sometimes I'll over here a few guys screaming about policies in the U.S. next thing you know they're giving eachother a hug and drinking a beer, no one's really cast out of the "punk" society we've created for ourselves.



Contradictions, contradictory people fuck yeah, best example I can think of here is--we've got two groups of "punks" and I find this absolutely ridiculous.... the TCSP, a group that believes in fighting for what you want whether it be with words or fists, they aren't PC, and they'll get in your face if you cross them, and then we've got the "PUNK POLICE!" (Profane Existence) they censor our scene by not allowing certain bands to play especially bands that have ever had anything to do with the TCSP in the past. They're extremely left wing, anti-anti everything but for some reason feel the need to censor our lives, and our scene.

Noodles
12-23-2004, 10:45 AM
I don't even know where to begin with this:

"Gonzo conservatives see unnecessary taxes as another danger to the nation, to be opposed. Income taxes did not exist in the United States until Abraham Lincoln forced them onto an unhappy public to finance a war. Still they remain, sapping the economic lifeblood of working families and the very economic engine itself -- and some in America continually want to raise them.

Gonzo conservatives oppose tax hikes as oppressive and demeaning to the human spirit. They're surprised when they see some punk rock fans -- often the same punks who argue that the government is fucked, fascist, etc. -- supporting the party that favors giving more money to the government -- taken from the wages of millions of working Joes. Let's be truly a fair society, and let people keep as much as possible of the living that they work so hard to earn."

That fucking prick, Lincoln, who only freed the slaves to enslave us all, right? Is Dave arguing that Lincoln should have let the south secede and keep enslaving human beings, because income tax is wrong? Which America would he proudly be living in then? How great would either of those two countries be? Income taxes seem to be at least part of the reason that our country stands as strongly as it does today.

Apparently the only similarity between Lincoln's party and today's republicans is that that they love spending the taxpayer's money on the military and Defense. There has always been way too much pork in defense contracts, but that's not where republicans want to cut spending. They'd much rather cut medicare, but only after insuring that the pharmaceutical companies won't share in that cut. They'd rather leave their great "No Child Left Behind" act unfunded so that we can spend more on our military adventures. Now they want to put social security into the hands of Wall Street.

Unlike that prick Lincoln, Bush refuses to roll back any of his tax cuts to pay for the war in Iraq. So we pay lower taxes today, but our country is going into debt at an alarming rate, and that debt will have to be paid by someone. That's going to fall on our kids and their kids and possibly even their kids. Oh those great and fiscally wise republicans. They've really proven themselves over the past four years by making a budget surplus disappear and replacing it with the biggest deficit this country has ever seen.

And how have the money managing magicians helped our economic engine? They haven't. Bush is the first president since Hoover to suffer a net job-loss during a presidential term. The dollar is rapidly sliding and we are seeing a growing trade deficit. Jobs are being shipped overseas, and great American corporations like Haliburton are setting up shop in the Bahamas to avoid paying great American taxes. That doesn't stop Haliburton from accepting lucrative government contracts that are paid for by those taxes.

But here's what really pisses me off. While all these "patiotic" republicans are bitching about taxes sucking our "economic lifeblood," soldiers are spilling their actual lifeblood in a war that the republicans don't feel responsible about paying for. How can you bitch about paying taxes when people are dying in a war that you support, but not enough to help pick up the tab. Supporting our troops means more than cheering them into battle and being reluctant to ctiticize the President who sends them. President Bush believes he can give tax cuts predominately to the wealthy, and also cut veterans benefits, and send our soldiers to war. That's Patriotism? That's being smart? I don't even know how any conservative can face himself in the mirror; While people are dying in a war that they support, they remain smug in the fact that their president has cut their taxes and they won't have to pay for that war. Some fucking patriotism.

Yes, we need to be vigilant when it comes to insuring that our elected officials aren't wasting our tax dollars. We need to give them credit when they do right by us, and criticize them, or vote them out, when they do wrong. Stating that government will always waste our hard earned money seems like "reflex demonization" to me. The taxes we've paid as Americans have helped us through war and depression. If we are truly the great country that I believe we are, it's come from sacrifices that we've all made. If income tax is just one sacrifice I have to make in order to help make my country great, then I have no problem with that. I would only ask that our government spend more on Americans, including veterans, and less on an unnecessary war.

Little_Miss_1565
12-23-2004, 11:44 AM
Noodles just totally pwned Dave Smalley.

SicN Twisted
12-23-2004, 11:46 AM
I don't really like how people act like punk rock is a significant system of thought that can be the basis for any sort of ideology. Punk rock is really, when it comes down to it, fast paced three chord music and liberty. It doesn't deserve so much discussion, it really has nothing to do with individuality or thought process.

That being said, Down by Law is a pretty good bad, this essay looked to me like a bunch of empty points thrown in the air with no basis. Using punk rock to justify to right wing tendencies is just as silly as using punk rock for leftism.

Mr. Noodles
12-23-2004, 02:56 PM
NOODLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're online!!!!!!

Talk with me!

greencows12
12-23-2004, 03:34 PM
this is too much for me to read, but I'm gonna post here anyways, just because I can. And since everyone else wrote so much, I think i'll write alot too, but the onlt difference is i'm gonna babble on and on and on and on and on and on and on.......................................blah blah blah blah blah blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *out of breath

Redmatt
12-23-2004, 03:37 PM
shatskater, I didn't mean anything by it, and im not labeling you or anything. I dont know you.

The people who Im talking about are the ones who try excessively hard to stand out or to be different. If you take a choice to dye your hair or whatever it doesnt mean you're trying excessibvely hard, does it?

UgLy_eLf
12-23-2004, 04:34 PM
shatskater, I didn't mean anything by it, and im not labeling you or anything. I dont know you.

The people who Im talking about are the ones who try excessively hard to stand out or to be different. If you take a choice to dye your hair or whatever it doesnt mean you're trying excessibvely hard, does it?


You've got to be one confident head strong fucker to look like you stand out, I had a mohawk for 4 years, none of this sissy comb up bullshit you see these days I mean 1ft long spikes, 7 inches fanned out, different styles to suite my mood, and looking back on it, I went through almost too much shit for that alone, I felt like, "big deal its just hair," oh no no others dont think that way they take it upon themselves to pick fights with you, shout shit from their cars, some people were so uncomfortable they felt as if they have to greet me, I got insulted every single day, people, strange as it seems felt so happy to meet a "punk" they've never seen someone like me around before, but considering Im a normal fuckin person I was baffled by the way people would act around me, different lives different opinions *shrug*


It's just so awkward to take the city bus, and have 10 different people start talking to you, ABOUT you, like they're having a fuckin conference.


Don't get to angry with kids who want to stand out Im sure they get their share of shit from people. My hair was my choice I fuckin loved it to death, if wasn't about attention to me, infact I fucking hated it most of the time I ignored people and kept walking, didn't work once though got jumped from behind by four wiggers....anyway... I'll bring it back in the future but for now a hat is mighty fine, atleast I dont have to have a fuckin sit-in with people on the bus anymore, fucking wacko's, as if I was the weird one, PSH.

Betty
12-24-2004, 12:23 AM
Sic, I tend to agree with you that the whole "punk rock" idea is overemphasized. However, I can see where it is coming from. I have never been able to consider myself a "punkrocker". I have listened to a lot of the music, am familiar with some of the history, go to punk rock shows and have associated with punk rock crowds. So, there is still some sort of organization of people into this group called "punk" and I have been associated with this. Therefore I feel very uncomfortable knowing that I am so different in ideology from all of these people that I enjoy being able to associate with, and that they look down upon it SO MUCH, like, they don't just say what they agree with, but they also very strongly oppose people that support what they don't agree with. And the point of the article is to say that you don't have to be the same to even associate yourself with this crowd/movement/music style/etc... and I believe this can be taken as a point regardless of the actual importance of "punk rock" in terms of a way of thought, y'know?

I guess I just don't think the article is trying to use punk rock to justify right wing tendencies. But that it's preaching acceptance of diversity (to those who accept diversity) and then trying to justify right wing tendencies, while throwing in the occasional "punk rock" example.

Anyway, it is not overly amazing... I'd say it basically only says general things I have said previously, although summed up fairly nicely. What is interesting however is the difference in response it generates when the commentary is coming from an actual "punk rocker". I won't go into detail about this, but some observations I noted were interesting, at least I thought.

I guess what I think is that it is important to realize that neither Dave's explanation nor Noodles' explanation is entirely complete and they both give different sides to a story. Some maybe better than others, but there is always another side. I think I am quite central in many of my views, even though I normally argue one side more than the other.

Like, basically the major thing that was picked apart was the issue of the war. I know Noodles and a lot of people disagree with this wholeheartedly. And I would certainly not say that I agree with it. Although I can't strongly disagree because I hear totally different stories from different sources. You know: for oil/not for oil, WMD/no WMD (yes, there weren't any, but there were supposed to be), Sadam a threat/Sadam not a threat, Iraqis happy with their previous lives/happy with their new lives, etc, etc... and these are just the big ones. How can I believe one side more than the other? To me it makes sense that Sadam was seriously a threat, but maybe he wasn't. Also, people like WCM genuinely think the Iraqi system was good or better as it was, whereas I find it hard to understand... I personally would not want to live like that, so why would they? That sorta thing. I guess I just find the right argument more convincing, but certainly not enough to sway me... and I seriously question the validity of the war. I like to see it as something that started with "good" (you know, as good as they can be) intentions and that just got messier and messier and now we sorta have to get it over with. That may be way too optimistic.

Another thing that was brought up by 1565 was the stance on abortion, gay marriage, etc. And for these, I think the left ideas are much better.

But then I still think the issues of education, racial quotas, etc, brought up by Dave are quite valid too.

I don't even know how I want to sum up... maybe just to say that it's possible to synthesize different positions in your beliefs, and that this is not necessarily wrong.

And beliefs are beliefs and people should not be condemned as much as they are for them, unless they don't support them in any logical fashion of course.

That was a lot of babble...

Moose
12-24-2004, 11:23 AM
unlike most poeple on this board betty is rational and also not an asshole. for that i give you congrats. I basically have the same kind of thought process on the war as you do, and also WCM says the people were happier before or were better off, well when someone has only experienced one thing in their life, they do not know the good of the other...basically for good there has to be bad, for pretty there has to be ugly, and so on. i believe in time these people will be much better off, id say 20 years from now there will be a stable democracy in iraq and i think the people of iraq who may be upset now, may be happy later. However, i fear the idea of having more wars with other countries that may or may not have terrorists, because we all know every country has terrorists and certain corrupt people in power or with the position of many may keep them hidden, but i still believe it would not be a wise idea to go to war based on that, however according to mr. bush, they are considered a threat as an entire nation and we must attack them. But that may mean 50 years of war, if not longer, and that is something i do not want.

on the article, to sum it up, also he tried to make what the beliefs were and why of a "gonzo" conservative, i think the more important message of the article was that different social and political views, obviously kept within logic, should not be labeled to any group, especially the one they call punk. Punk is supposed to be about individualism, and if you want to combine the ramones and the sex pistols, then its about having fun and not caring so much and bringing down the establishment (more or less a corrupt one.) I dont not consider myself a liberal, or a democrat, or a republican, or a conservative, or a punk, or anything, maybe just being, because i dont want to put a stupid label on myself, and have people say i believe in this and that and think this, when they dont know what i think or how i feel. so i dont even go by that shit to begin with, but i think the article made a good enough point on how its ok to believe in some conservative ideas and not be condemned by other punks who will probably say something stupid like "thats not punk"...thinking is punk, being yourself is punk, being you is punk. but then again, there is no such thing as a true individual anyway, but that is a totally different discussion all together.

wheelchairman
12-27-2004, 10:12 AM
Okay, I must warn y'all I've read about half the posts here.

I don't see how you can be a conservative punk. All that we got from this essay was a political program. It was useless in every sense to describe or explain the phenomenon of conservatism amongs punks.

Going out from the idea that punk is a form of rebellion. Then how can you be a rebel while toting the line of the governing powers? I mean that seems kinda ridiculous. And assuming that punk is a nihilist movement, then you certainly can't call them moral-conservatives. Anyways that's just my thoughts on Punk conservatives, just a tad dumber than normal punks.

And Betty, as far as Saddam goes, I most certainly would prefer to live under Saddam's Iraq than Bush's Iraq. I would find it hard to believe that many people would choose to live in that shithole now.

SicN Twisted
12-27-2004, 10:42 AM
That's a tough one, but I'd have to say I'd prefer living in Saddam's Iraq, although if I was I'd probably be part of some sort of an underground resistence group staging my own revolution (like most Iraqis, I rightly wouldn't trust the Americans to come and give me freedom.) Saddam's Iraq was tyranical but at least it was stable. I'd be able to live peacefully as long as I kept my mouthshut. Iraq now is a warzone, which is much worse.

wheelchairman
12-27-2004, 10:54 AM
That's a tough one, but I'd have to say I'd prefer living in Saddam's Iraq, although if I was I'd probably be part of some sort of an underground resistence group staging my own revolution (like most Iraqis, I rightly wouldn't trust the Americans to come and give me freedom.) Saddam's Iraq was tyranical but at least it was stable. I'd be able to live peacefully as long as I kept my mouthshut. Iraq now is a warzone, which is much worse.
Just thought I'd note. The CPI (Communist Party of Iraq) was leading the resistance against Saddam for decades. And are now active participants in the resistance against the foreign occupation forces.

lousyskater
12-27-2004, 07:18 PM
i always found it funny when i would go to a punk show and get hassled by by a bunch of guys with huge mohawks, tatered jeans, and tatoos all over(i just where your average pair of jeans and a T-shirt). i mean, punks are supposed to be these people who welcome change and could care less about what other people do and say to them, right? punks are always given a liberal tag when in fact, they're one of the most conservative groups out there right up next to religious junkies.

i've noticed that most of the people here in america think that being liberal automatically makes you a democrat and being conservative makes you a republican. it's easy to asscociate the one with the other, but it is entirely possible to be a conservative democrat and vice versa.

Satanic_Surfer
12-27-2004, 07:44 PM
You are right in your second statement, that Conservative does not mean Bush supporter and Democrat actually means everything BUT Kerry supporter!
But dont slag off us Punks just because our jackets or our hairs!
Of course we're for equality and we dont give a shit what you dress like or what your sexuality is like.
But the problem among us (well yeah, all groups have problems in some kind) is that many of us are annoyed by these quasi-Punks, you know?
Those little guys who are so into that whole MTV generation shit.
Punk is to be meant "thinking for oneself" and to actually THINK!
Of course, some of us make missjudgements sometimes, especially when it's in a Punk show when the crowd is supposed to be Punks and none the less, there happens quite often that a very few decides to slag off some people for not dressing "Punk enough", yes it's true and it certainly is pathetic.
It's just that those Good Charlotte-Blink 182-Sum 41-The Offspring fans actually label themselves "Punks" too and that is even more pathetic, yeah éven i hate that shit.
But dont generalize all Punks for that, please!

However it's really true that all news papers have the people's trust, and they can do what they want with that trust.
By telling people how many WHITE people died in that nature catastrophe, every fucking time something alike happens, people will put their trust i nthat when white people die, it's bad, when black people die, we get a cleaner world.
Now that is most pathetic of all!
Yeah i hate that more than ANYTHING else!
Especially the USA has a tendence to turn everything into racist propaganda, when white people die in THEIR country, it becomes a whole fucking propaganda gun that fires right through every country in the whole western "civilizations"!
It's tragic what we see here, all those people dying.
It is true that every single one who lost someone in that nature catastrophe DO remember the 9/11 attacks and they are FORCED to care for those people.
That disgusts me, of course it's a tragedy and of course we care more for our family and friends, the people we are related to.
BUT WE ARE NOT RELATED TO OTHERS JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT COLOR OF THEIR SKIN THEY'VE GOT!!!
The whole society is buildt up this way and it's a rich man propaganda!
And when a non-white man is killing a white man, it's a catastrophe over everything else, you may not believe that you think so.
But when you hear of how black Christian religionists burn down villages, killing men-women-children in Africa, how much do you care?
When you hear Arabians killing WHITES in America, do you happen to spend more thoughts on THAT?!

It's all such a shitty world we live in, and fro myour birth you're fed up to think in a racist way wich opens up for Christianity and Capitalism.

You know you cant tell me im wrong because you know what im saying is right... i even say that the only way for solution on the problem is to put an end to the existence of Capitalism and government!

Vera
12-28-2004, 05:53 AM
You fucking scare me. And not just because half the time you argue something, you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about, you overuse the word "propaganda" and "capitalism". It's mostly because you're nearly always more or less off-topic so you can tell us what a rotten place our capitalist society is.

lousyskater
12-29-2004, 01:22 PM
You are right in your second statement, that Conservative does not mean Bush supporter and Democrat actually means everything BUT Kerry supporter!
But dont slag off us Punks just because our jackets or our hairs!
Of course we're for equality and we dont give a shit what you dress like or what your sexuality is like.
But the problem among us (well yeah, all groups have problems in some kind) is that many of us are annoyed by these quasi-Punks, you know?
Those little guys who are so into that whole MTV generation shit.
Punk is to be meant "thinking for oneself" and to actually THINK!
Of course, some of us make missjudgements sometimes, especially when it's in a Punk show when the crowd is supposed to be Punks and none the less, there happens quite often that a very few decides to slag off some people for not dressing "Punk enough", yes it's true and it certainly is pathetic.
It's just that those Good Charlotte-Blink 182-Sum 41-The Offspring fans actually label themselves "Punks" too and that is even more pathetic, yeah éven i hate that shit.
But dont generalize all Punks for that, please!

i'm not talkinng about the stupid good charlotte fans who think they are punk, i'm talking about the hardcore ones you find at underground shows that hate MTV and all of it's followers.