Monday, January 10, 2011

Jared Loughner: is the Christian right to blame?

It seems that the shooting in Tucson is going to be blamed on Christian, far-right, Tea Party, Palin supporters. Some even want it to be called an act of Christian terrorism (presumably to counterbalance criticism of Muslim terrorism).

On existing information this seems wildly off course (and not only because it's nonsense to describe either Palin or the Tea Party as far right). Here's what we know about the shooter, Jared Loughner, so far:
  • Catie Parker, a former classmate, said "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy." The 2012 prophecy is based on an ancient Mayan timeline predicting a cataclysmic event in December 2012.
  • He posted some videos on YouTube outlining his personal vision. This vision can't be described as either left or right wing. It consists of rambling ideas involving currency, grammar, conscience dreaming and mind control.
  • He was suspended from college and was not permitted to return until he obtained a mental health clearance. Class mates were fearful that he was mentally disturbed and might commit an act of violence.
  • He spoke to people about his marijuana habit and was picked up by the police for possession of drug paraphernalia.
  • Grant Wiens, who went to high school and college with Loughner said that Loughner used to speak critically about religion, and liked to smoke pot.
  • In one of his online rants, Loughner writes: "I’m a Nihilist, not someone who put who put trust in god!"
  • It's been reported that one of his YouTube videos shows him burning the US flag.
At this stage, it sounds like he had paranoid delusions, possibly brought on by his marijuana habit. I doubt if he will turn out to have a consistent set of political beliefs, except perhaps a distrust of the government. He seems to have been non-religious or even anti-religious rather than motivated by Christianity.

Lawrence Auster has some discussion on this issue at VFR here.

Update: those looking for clues to Jared Loughner's behaviour might like to consider his taste in music. According to a friend he used to listen to a left-wing American rock punk band called Anti-Flag.

The message of the Anti-Flag songs is that those in power in government are non-human corporate types using religion and flags to control people.

Although Anti-Flag take an anti-war line at times they also urge their fans toward violence when it comes to the government elite. For instance, they have a music video called "Kill the rich" (see here for the video and here for the lyrics).

In the lyrics we get themes of mind control and violence ("put the trigger to the man").

A billionaire chatting with his friends
They've gotta stop and laugh
"We've really got those suckers fooled,
We've gotta 'em trained like rats!"

The riches plot, control your thoughts, to make you blame yourself
"The rich are rich because they're smarter than me.."
You're taught this is right, that it's your fault

KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!

They throw a war like a party saying,
"It's for a moral cause.."
Telling you if you're a patriot that

"YOU BETTER DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD!"

You burn a flag, you're gonna hang,
Brainwashed nationalism makes you a tool
They're getting rich by selling weapons to both countries,
You never think to question what you're told!

KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!

They're gonna give you nothing
They want to take way the little they call something
You know you're being used still you play along
If you're not complacent,
You're doing something wrong
One day they'll push to far

That marks the beginning of their end
We'll being them crashing down until they're all dead
They're all dead, they're all dead!
The time is growing near..
Put the trigger to the man...
Ok, let's go, kill 'em!

KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
KILL, KILL, KILL!!!

Here are some Anti-Flag lyrics from a song "We want to be free":

The schools that they send us to are prisons
The same can be said for their churches too
I don't want my mind or my arms tied in bondage
I don't want to be another cloned state tool

Anyway, here we have a leftist influence on Jared Loughner, one that might have fed ideas of mind control, flag burning, hostility to religion and violent hostility to those in power.

Update 2: Another Anti-Flag lyric, this time from "Want an Anarchy"

They call the U.S a free country well,
it's not it and you know it.
It's nothing but facism, capitalism, and fear.
They're lying and we're crying out to everyone here.
 
There are laws against the cubans, there are laws against the gays.
We can fight back, we can fight back!
There is freedom of religion, we can choose any of them all,
We can fight back, we can fight back!
But the christians rule this country and the priests are above the law.

We want an Anarchy!
We won't take, no we won't take!
We want an Anarchy!
We won't fight back, we will fight.

Again, the anti-Christianity comes out here and also an identification with anarchism.

98 comments:

  1. Even if they do try to blame it on the Tea Party it is neoconservative, right-liberal or libertarian movement (NOT a traditional conservative movement). Beck and Palin themselves are not traditional conservatives and more of entertainers, cultists or artists looking to get rich, famous and be celebrities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anarchism is right-wing, not left-wing. It goes totalitarianism > democracy > republicanism > anarchism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alte, I disagree.

    The political spectrum as it is commonly used defines how people think society should be regulated.

    Those who prefer it to be regulated by the free market are commonly put on the right. Those who criticise market regulation and prefer some kind of state or community regulation are put on the left.

    The band Anti-Flag is strongly against the *corporate* state. Therefore, they are associated with a left-wing anarchist type politics.

    On the other hand, you get libertarian types who are anti-statist but strongly free market. They are considered to be right-wing.

    The spectrum doesn't work so well when it tries to measure non-liberal politics.

    Where, for instance, do traditionalists go? We'd probably have to be put in the middle, since we have criticisms of both free market regulation and excessive statism.

    But that places us next to mainstream political parties, such as the Democrats and Republicans, where we don't really belong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic who once said "science is my religion." Yet to this day most people identify him as a right-wing Christian. Loughner is being painted with the same brush and I expect it to stick just as well. The Left is going to get a lot of mileage out of this shooting; it will be used to bolster anti-2nd Amendment policies and may even revitalize Napolitano's infamous report. Establishment conservatives can be expected to fold immediately, as they always do.

    I knew several self-described anarchists growing up. None of them came close to being conservative in their views. Their understanding was anarchy = anti-capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems the anti right speculation is being fuelled by the arresting sheriff jumping to conclusions. Good job goon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thought it was a spectrum between extreme statism and total anarchy (no state). So aren't leftist-anarchists really just revolutionaries who wish to overthrow one form of state and replace it with another? Like Maoists?

    Traditional conservatives always struck me as being center-right, moving further to the right depending upon their libertarianism (right-liberalism, to non-Americans).

    But now I'm just plain confused. Does someone have a diagram, or something? It's confusing in the States because both parties are more left-wing (statist), I think. So when they say "left" or "right", I'm never sure what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Their understanding was anarchy = anti-capitalism.

    Okay, now that's really confusing! Anarchy and capitalism are a package deal. Isn't that why they call themselves anarcho-capitalists? Maybe they mean anarchy = anti-corporatism?

    ReplyDelete
  8. So aren't leftist-anarchists really just revolutionaries who wish to overthrow one form of state and replace it with another? Like Maoists?

    I'd say that's exactly what they are, though few would admit it.

    Traditional conservatives always struck me as being center-right, moving further to the right depending upon their libertarianism (right-liberalism, to non-Americans).

    Traditionalist conservatism has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarians like to co-opt certain things from other philosophies (e.g. small government, individual liberty) and then claim them as their own special property. They are in error.

    Anarchy and capitalism are a package deal.

    If that were true, anarcho-capitalists wouldn't need to refer to themselves as such. They would just call themselves anarchists. I'd bet that Loughner's version of "anarchy" is essentially the same as the little children who like to break windows and loot shops when the WTO comes to town. Multinational corporations are seen as the sole source of evil in the world. The state only appears on their radar when there is a "right-wing fascist" Republican in the White House. In other words, the philosophy they espouse is incoherent at best, and at worst simply an excuse to start structure fires.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The fact that the left are blaming Palin before the bodies are cold when the EXACT same people spent about 6 months trying to find alternate explanations for the Major Hassan massacre [despite the latter screaming "Allahu Ackbar" as he went around spraying bullets].

    This is pathetic, hopefully people in the states will see through it, here in Oz we only ever get the left narrative from the States so it is already a lost battle here, they can lie as much as they want.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ""It seems the anti right speculation is being fuelled by the arresting sheriff jumping to conclusions.""

    The Sherrif in question is a registered Democrat and a personal friend of some of the victims.

    Yet his words have been transmitted non stop on ABC radio and tv over here usually without reference to his relationship to the victims and NEVER mentioning his political background.

    At least in the states the view seems a little more balanced, but with the hate our political classes hold for the US we were never going to get two sides of this story.

    Can I also say that while i feel sorry for the bystanders, I don't give a damn about the injured congresswoman? Why should i care about someone whose record indicates she hates and wants to destroy people like me?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Leftists are trying to blame this on Lawrence Auster and his ''racism'' --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018371.html

    Truly pathetic. Leftists are blaming this on white supremacy, the evil boogeyman religious right, bankers, anarcho- capitalists, libertarians, the Tea Party, Neo-Nazism and things alike. It's disturbing. Americans are seeing through it thankfully. The reactions I've seen are mostly shock but then curiosity and they go to the Internet searching for information.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Alte,

    Anarchism used to be a big deal in the C19th but the movement was basically subsumed by communism. Anarchism isn't really a political movement today and just exists in punk songs. The WTO guys are against, *sigh* stuff. Sorry doing things right now and I can't be bothered to decode their nonsense. Basically they're all lefties.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Marxist Frances Fox Piven just called for violent revolution and riots in the streets of America to usher in marxism, was Jared Loughner a result of her vitriol and call to violence???

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/frances-fox-piven-rings-in-the-new-year-by-calling-for-violent-revolution/

    www.smashabanana.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. james said...

    The fact that the left are blaming Palin before the bodies are cold when the EXACT same people spent about 6 months trying to find alternate explanations for the Major Hassan massacre [despite the latter screaming "Allahu Ackbar" as he went around spraying bullets].

    This is well said. It can't be observed too often that the so-called "liberal/left" operates on double standards with a concentrated hypocrisy that would eat through metal.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "But now I'm just plain confused. Does someone have a diagram, or something? It's confusing in the States because both parties are more left-wing (statist), I think. So when they say "left" or "right", I'm never sure what they're talking about. "

    Alte,

    There seems to be competing visions of left and right. I happen to prefer the one you just identified, as it quite clearly distinguishes between left and right by how much presence government has in society. Far left is totalitarianism, while far-rightism is anarchism.

    Trouble is, that definition conflicts with how the left-right divide is defined in common usage. Mr. Richardson identified one way left and right are defined--via how each philosophy views the market's role in society. But there is another way that left-right is defined in common usage, and that is one's outlook on objective morality vs relative. If one's morality comes from an exterior locus--i.e., God, one is right-wing; if situationally defined or determined individually, then one is left-wing.

    Thus it is that religious folk are popularly considered "right wing", whilst the more libertine secularists among us are considered "left wing". Often no attention is paid to the individual's opinions on the role of the State in a citizen's life.

    It's confusing. And it just goes to show that labels such as these fail to describe very well.

    Loughner was a leftist. There are lots of indicators, his dislike for religion being one of them. And his taste in music suggests he dislikes corporatism; that's nice, so do I, but his taste in books suggests that he wants to go further than corporatism and go direct to straight-up public ownership and control of production and the marketplace. In other words, communism.

    Loughner is a left-wing fruit loop. Too bad he'll be branded as a right-winger as a way to demonize/punish those who oppose the Left in the States. It's already started to happen, and it was completely predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I thought it was a spectrum between extreme statism and total anarchy (no state).

    It would be nice if the spectrum worked more neatly, with big state anti-capitalists on the left and small state free marketeers on the right.

    It mostly does work this way, but at the most radical end of leftism it gets a bit complicated. The Marxists are for a big workers' state initially, but this is then supposed to gradually wither away. Left-wing anarchists are both anti-capitalist and anti-state: they identify the state with corporate interests.

    That's why statism doesn't work quite as neatly as attitudes to the free market in terms of where people stand on the political spectrum.

    Remember, though, that this kind of spectrum measures how you answer the question: how should a society made up of millions of atomised individuals be regulated? By the free market? By a class of "neutral" state experts?

    Traditionalists don't fit in easily because our politics doesn't assume the validity of the question itself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If anyone wants to know what modern anarchists are, here is a short primer:

    Modern "Anarchists" want to destroy the state because they believe that the "Capitalist state" is the only thing stopping people from living a life of pure equality and harmony.

    It's the "Noble Savage" myth writ large.

    I know this because when I was a teenager I was one.

    It stems from the left wing belief that all things that are negative in their worldview ["racism", "Sexism", inequality etc] are caused by Capitalism, and that Capitalism itself is only possible by using the state and the evil right wing media to oppress noble anarchists like themselves and brainwash people into acting against their natural instincts [which are to live in perfect equality in a commune, presumably].

    In Australia it exists as a part of the punk music scene, and not much else.

    I could go on, but why? Outside of Europe they don't exist as a force, although they are pretty scary there.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The WTO guys are against, *sigh* stuff.

    That's exactly right... they're against "stuff". LOL. Any excuse to get angry and smash things. At least, that's how it seems to me.

    Traditionalists don't fit in easily because our politics doesn't assume the validity of the question itself.

    Nice dodge. Ferdinand is trying that one today, as well. We can call it the "we're just special butterflies" defense.

    I guess I'm right, right, right in all categories, then. Does that make me Ultra Right? Super Right? Completely Right? :-)

    Can I also say that while i feel sorry for the bystanders, I don't give a damn about the injured congresswoman?

    That depends upon whether you think it was just a random shooting, or the opening salvo to a revolution and you're mourning the collateral damage. I think this guy was just a nutcase, but I think the revolution is warming up.

    This will be an interesting year.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nice dodge.

    It's not meant as a dodge.

    Think of it this way. Let's say this site continued to grow and the mainstream media caught notice.

    How would they describe my politics? Most likely, especially if they wanted to do a hatchet job, they'd describe it as "far right".

    But if we go back to how we were previously defining the political spectrum, the further right you go the more you get to anti-statist, pro-free market politics.

    So someone like Ayn Rand or some of the libertarians are at the far right.

    But I am not a Randist or a libertarian. So why would I be described politically the same way as them?

    I think the answer is that the terms left and right are used both to describe how people line up in terms of regulating liberal society and how they line up in terms of their distance from liberalism itself.

    I think this might have come about because the clasical liberal parties (the right-liberal ones) tended to draw on the socially conservative vote. So the term "right-wing" meant not only small state, pro-free market right-liberalism, but also non-liberal, social conservatism.

    This might make the political spectrum seem clumsier, but things don't work otherwise. Traditionalists want a small state but we are not libertarians. We support the free market in some aspects, but would regulate it in others. So that would make us centre rightists - well within the mainstream of the regular spectrum.

    But we are not mainstream. We don't share the same political assumptions as the more orthodox left and right parties.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If Jared Loughner is anything, he is a radical autonomist; and without a doubt influenced unconciously or consciously by "autonomy theory." His incoherent "philosophy" is one piece of evidence. His possible schizophrenia - perceived in many radical corners as an impositional label that need be cast aside - is also more evidence of his "radical autonomy." His reference to brainwashing can be seen as an impediment to his self-creation. But it isn't clear at all that Jared rejected the Created Order; it is only clear that he rejected the order he was in. So he may or may not have been an anarchist.

    I think many radical autonomists know that Jared was one of them, fundamentally. The effort to cast him as "right-wing" seems not much more sophisticated than providing smokescreen for Jared's SELF-JUSTIFIED radical autonomy. He has really only "pushed the envelope" (pushed the limits of radical autonomy) and gave us a glimpse of what shall be acceptable at some time in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually Fox news has been just at least as bad as the left over this issue.

    THE Department of Homeland Security mentioned some vague link between Loughner and American Renaissance. Fox then ran with it described American Renaissance as a "staunchly anti-semitic" "anti-government" and anti-Israeli organisation.

    Even the leftist SPLC came to Am Ren's defence somewhat and said Jared Taylor wasn't anti-semitic and the ADL also claimed that the American Renaissance link wasn't very plausible or logical.

    Neo Cons never miss an opportunity to put down their rivals on the right.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Malkin has documented some of the "Hate speech" against Palin that the left did not mind, including a Jewish comedian hoping that Palin would come to Manhattan so that she could be raped by black men:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

    Zombie has a reminder of the years 2000-2008..

    http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

    Seems the shooter believed that 9/11 was a U.S government cover-up:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gutbUc8KWEv3iMUewPN445D4uSYw?docId=c09a07a17e1b4aaa82815779cbf6f758

    And has anyone else noticed that one of the main people being quoted blaming the "Extreme" rhetoric of the evil right wingers is JANE FONDA!?

    It is clear that the left across the world has finally stopped listening to anything outside it's own narrative.

    Facts, reality, these things mean nothing now, even less than they did a decade ago.

    The thing i hate most about the left is that they make me defend people like Howard, Palin and Bush. You almost have to even if you don't agree with a word they say, the lies told about them are simply too big.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you believe in "autonomy theory" then you attempt to exist autonomously; which is, by definition, radical. But one must manifest (show your face and be "known") because one has confined themselves to the strictly physical realm. This physical realm has no REAL order, but the autonomist still tries to "liberate" from this unreal "order." The radical autonomist is stuck in the is-ought question. He IS a radical autonomist BUT he OUGHT "liberate" to prove it. How else will he "know" that he is radically autonomous? Jared Loughner IS a radical autonomist that OUGHT "liberate" a la "autonomy theory." He did and radical liberals are trying to provide smokescreen and get us in a game of who says more hateful things.

    Jared may be a dark sign of things to come and the radical autonomists in the "default elite" must know this intellectually.

    But make no mistake, these murders will first and foremost restrict the autonomy of the masses while increasing the autonomy of the "default elite."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Another Loughner quote. In one of his online rants he states: "I’m a Nihilist, not someone who put who put trust in god!"

    ReplyDelete
  25. ""But make no mistake, these murders will first and foremost restrict the autonomy of the masses while increasing the autonomy of the "default elite."""

    Doesn't nearly everything government does?

    ReplyDelete
  26. james,

    The problem is that this incident was the act of a radical autonomist and yet will serve as an act that maximizes the autonomists in the "default elite."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Several websites are reporting that Jared Loughner may be Jewish, and his parents (mother) may be a member of the same synogogue Giffords attended.

    Mother Goose, Politico, Yeshiva, another jewish paper have these articles for those who want to google.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dig deep enough and you will find that the liberal-left views everything has having a (covert) political character - even an incident like the Tucson shootings which any sane person would attribute to the machinations of a madman.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, the lyrics of Anti-Flag are disgusting, and yes, they do advocate violence. Let's just say that I'll never be a fan of Anti-Flag, unless they do a total transformation.

    I will pray that God will reveal the lies and slander of those who unfairly blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or the pro-life movement. Pray that God causes the public to see through the lies and slander. It will cause people to have more sympathy for Sarah Palin and pro-lifers as people who are unfairly scapegoated.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I like non-violence. I like it a lot. I do NOT like violence. If the pro-life movement and/or Sarah Palin were promoting terrorism, I'd not support them like I do.

    The pro-life movement has non-violent elements (the majority), and a violent element (a tiny minority that isn't accepted in the rest of the pro-life movement). I my younger day, I was involved in the anti-war movement. They too had both violent and nonviolent elements. Just as I do now with the pro-life movement, I cleaved to the nonviolent side of the anti-war movement.
    People who try to say that all pro-lifers are terrorists are either desparately hoping it's true, so that they can be heroes for going against them; or they just want the PR points of having their opponants be the violent. Or they just want to slander the pro-life movement, without concern for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cecilia,

    Wars that we win is a good thing ;).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cecilia Beck/Palin are either misguided or liars. They are right-liberals.

    They are symbols --- http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018389.html

    Fight the left on it's lies about Jared Loughner but don't fall for it's misconceptions about Beck/Palin being ''far-right'' (aka reactionaries/traditional conservatives).

    ReplyDelete
  34. Andrew Bolt, despite not being a traditionalist, has nailed this cold...

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the/

    Loughner:

    • Did not watch TV or listen to political radio, says his friend.

    • Did not mention Palin, Tea Party politicians, Right-wing radio hosts or their causes in his rantings on his MySpace or YouTube accounts.

    • Was actually “left wing, quite liberal”, according to fellow classmate and band member Caitie Parker.

    • Was not Christian, opposed the war in Iraq, thought the Constitution was full of “treasonous laws”, and cited as his favourite video one showing a US flag being burned.

    • Was actually quite mad, to read his angry writings on bad grammar, thought control, “conscience dreaming” and a “third currency”.

    • Had disliked Giffords since he met her 2007 – well before the rise of either Palin or the Tea Party movement – and failed to get an answer to this question: ”How do you know words mean anything?” (The evidence of Parker and another friend, Alex Montanaro.)

    • Had been questioned over a previous threat to someone else.

    • Had been feared by fellow students and teachers, with campus police at Pima Community College asking him to provide assurances from a mental health professional that he was not a danger before he could return to his classes. (He instead dropped out.)

    • Shot only once at Giffords, but up to 30 times at people around her, killing or wounding 19, suggesting this was less of an assassination attempt than another mass shooting by a deranged man.


    These facts compared with the insane knee jerk reaction of the media tells you everything you know about the fourth estate today.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Look up facts before you post utter bullshit. Anti-Flag promotes peace, not violence. Your interpretation of Kill the Rich is wrong. They're clearly stating a theory that the rich or those rich in power control others -military, etc. The repetition of the word "kill" is merely to emphasize the amount of killing in war. They're talking about war and their dislike towards it.

    Read this from the band's page:
    http://www.anti-flag.com/NE10.php?news_item=524

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon,

    You haven't made your case adequately. In the song, there is a "they" (mind controlling rich elite) and a "you" (the mind controlled people). The final stanza goes:

    "One day they'll push too far
    That marks the beginning of their end
    We'll being them crashing down until they're all dead
    They're all dead, they're all dead!
    The time is growing near..
    Put the trigger to the man...
    Ok, let's go, kill 'em!
    KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
    KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
    KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
    KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
    KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
    KILL, KILL, KILL!!!"

    The most obvious reading of this is the idea of violence against the rich, mind-controlling elite by a popular uprising.

    If there's another explanation, then by all means put it forward, but don't just assume you're right.

    Anyway, you can hardly deny that Anti-Flag might have influenced Loughner in his hostility to the flag, in his anti-religious views and in his beliefs about mind control.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I hear this "Lefties like peace" alot, but you support militarily backed regimes like Cuba and Venezuela. The soldiers you like become "revolutionaries" and "freedom fighters", Che Guevara was a soldier right? Whilst those you don't are "warmongers". Money = war? Communism = peace? ... Heavy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Richardson...
    Did you read the band's post? I don't think you can honestly blame a band for what this guy did to these people. It'd be nice if you could blame something tangible in these cases so that you can sleep at night thinking, "If we rid this, tragedy wont occur."

    I'm not going to argue with your interpretation anymore, because honestly that's a matter of opinion and it seems like yours can't be swayed. Anti-Flag is a band for peace and harmony. You've taken their name at face value. If you actually read their post and anything they've done for their hometown (Pittsburgh) area as well as around the world, you'd put your foot in your mouth.

    Anti-Flag isn't "anti-everything American." Their against the divisions of countries by flags. War is caused by flags -in a sense. They don't brainwash their fans. I'm (obviously a fan) and have seen them a few times live, and whilst they do preach their politics -they all supported Obama in the election as a "step in the right direction."

    AF states in the post I've linked about twice that they stand for "... peace, equality, justice, and health care (including mental health care) for all people of America and the world."

    You can't blame the acts of a mentally unstable citizen on a band or genre of music. The media have used this as a scapegoat so that they don't have to mention the idea that maybe Loughner couldn't afford the mental help he needed. No one wants to mention the need for basic health care anymore.


    Blaming a band or genre of music for the acts of

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anti-Flag are undoubtedly a peace-promoting band. If in doubt, watch any interview with them, or live shows. They're all about equality and peace.

    To people claiming that the lyrics to Kill the Rich prove otherwise, note that the song was from their first album, which was released in 1996. Consider for a moment if you had different views 15 years ago. Regardless of how they might have felt when they wrote that song, Anti-Flag are a group of level-headed, peaceful people.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anti-Flag are a group of level-headed, peaceful people.

    Hopefully you will not tell us what notions you entertain about warmongers... Now that would be terrifying...

    @ Mark and Alte: perhaps the solution lies in breaking the left/right spectrum and instead adopt Nolan's diagram where the horizontal axis represents economic views (statism vs. free markets) while the vertical axis is a depiction of social views (authoritarianism vs. libertarianism). Of course, it will not entirely solve the problem of where traditionalists or conservatives stand, although I assume most conservatives would be close to the middle of the horizontal axis or slightly inclined to the right while occupying the upper part of the diagram. On the other hand, people like Milton Friedman would stand at the end of the right extremity and down the vertical axis (loose morality).

    ReplyDelete
  41. I personally know anti flag and they are all pretty timid people. They're a bunch of skinny vegetarians living normal lives with families of their own and everyday responsibilities. Why isn't somebody dissecting a Doors song? This BS notion that music can be blamed for one's actions has been beat to death. It's an inflammatory band name the press seized upon and all you morons are taking tha bait. Whatever happened to critical thinking and research?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Southern Cross, I take it you don't believe me then?
    I'm assuming you aren't familiar with the band at all. Nor is anyone who thinks they promote violence.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Mark Richardson: I don't want you to get angry because I don't know you, but you really don't know anything about the band Anti-Flag!!!
    http://www.anti-flag.com/NE10.php?news_item=524

    ReplyDelete
  44. You can't blame the acts of a mentally unstable citizen on a band or genre of music ... No one wants to mention the need for basic health care anymore.

    I agree. Let me make it clear, I'm not blaming Anti-Flag for the shooting. Loughner ideally should have been placed in an institution for the mentally disturbed. There were plenty of signs that he was becoming unhinged.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @annonymous
    Agreed, just look at these lyrics by The Doors!
    "Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill"
    song: The End

    Yeah, we need to place more blame on The Doors in this.

    (Yes, I am being sarcastic and making fun of the people who don't understand what Anti-Flag is about. I hope that was obvious, but I'd hate to make someone think I am supporting their twisted views)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wait a minute, this article was refuting the claim that "the Christian right" were to blame. Were they to blame? Did Palin's etc rhetoric get him fired up? Turns out no, he liked things like anti-flag not Palin. Ok apologies to the "Christian right". Does this mean anti-flag are to blame? Well it hurts to have the lyrics of a "peace" band examined too closely.

    We all know that "anti flag" like peace because they're a bunch of pussies. That doesn't mean though that they don't throw themselves into the rhetoric of violence and revolution. Are the WTO rioters, the ones who are professional violent protesters, peaceful?

    ReplyDelete
  47. We all know that "anti flag" like peace because they're a bunch of pussies.

    LOL.

    Southern Cross,

    I think such a diagram/classification would be much more useful. But wouldn't the vertical axis be conservative vs libertine? It's possible to be both authoritarian and a hedonist, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anti-Flag isn't "anti-everything American." Their against the divisions of countries by flags.

    Ah, so their not anti-American. They're simply anti-human.

    AF states in the post I've linked about twice that they stand for "... peace, equality, justice, and health care (including mental health care) for all people of America and the world."

    That would make a lovely coat of arms. Peace, Equality, Justice, Health Care. Since Latin is, like, totally Western and oppressive, you could write it in whichever indigenous language is most fashionable this week. Of course, that language probably won't have a term for "health care," so that part will have to be written in English, unless you wish to substitute it with a shaman's skull-rattle.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ""Did you read the band's post? I don't think you can honestly blame a band for what this guy did to these people.""

    AFAIK Mark is not, he is merely pointing out that if you want to randomly blame people for the shooting, then the absurdly low burden of proof required by the media to blame "Da eveeel righties" can be used to blame the band, or practically anyone.

    BTW the "James" above defending anti-flag is a different one to me, sorry to be confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous said...

    "" but I'd hate to make someone think I am supporting their twisted views""

    So people who interpret anti-flag calling for the killing of people they consider to be killers and mind controllers as a call for the killing of the rich murdering mind controllers has twisted views?

    AF is a fake rebel band for middle class uni kids just like RATM but without the fairly decent musical skills of the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Southern Cross, I take it you don't believe me then?
    I'm assuming you aren't familiar with the band at all. Nor is anyone who thinks they promote violence.


    No, I do not believe you, and I do not want to be more familiar with the particulars of "Anti-Flag" considering I do not consider such filth as music. The lyrics already tell me I would not like this "band". This howling with a backdrop of incoherent noises I will never classify as music when J. S. Bach, Strauss, Vivaldi, Wagner, Albinoni are readily available and give you a taste of genuine music in its beauty and originality.

    I think such a diagram/classification would be much more useful. But wouldn't the vertical axis be conservative vs libertine? It's possible to be both authoritarian and a hedonist, after all.

    I agree, Alte, but I think that is what Nolan meant by this diagram; he just substituted "libertarianism" for "libertine". Now, of course, there is an important distinction to be made between the two terms. Libertines are not necessarily keen on free markets while libertarianism implies a broader adherence to both economic and social "freedom" (the way they see freedom, anyway). So yes, I think you are right, and the vertical axis is an indicator of the degree of social "freedom" you would allow. Most online tests (such as The Political Compass) placed me in the upper part of the diagram (slightly inclined to the right), indoubtedly because of my views on abortion, homosexuality, pornography, family and religion. If you take the test, I am convinced you will be in the upper part as well, although I would wager you would be closer to the right end of the horizontal axis.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am a socialist/anarchist, and i am a fan of Anti-Flag, what people are not getting is that the lyrics to "Kill The Rich" are metaphorical, and honestly, no one who listens to Anti-Flag is stupid enough to act on a sarcastic comment, Loughner was a nut, partisan politics can't come into that, let's remember that he killed people, not Anti-Flag, or Sarah Palin, I disagree with Palin on many issues, but I do not hold her, or anyone except Loughner responsible for this tragedy

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kind of disappointing that people who know nothing about a band will take the lyrics of a song provided by someone who knows nothing about the band provided by someone who knows nothing about the band and so, do a simplistic analyzation of the lyrics (out of context at that). And even after making an unenlightened conclusion of the band, they wont keep it a personal judgement but will put forth their disinformation to continue the chain of people who know nothing about a band passing on "facts". Even worse that it is used to criticize and scapegoat a band.

    "Kill the Rich" could have influenced Loughner. But it would be at the result of a simplistic analyzation of the song. Is it really their fault that he was stupid? Well I guess you could say it is since most of their songs are simplistic enough that you don't have to think, so I guess when they when they do have a song that requires thought you can't blame people for not thinking.
    But if he listened to Anti-Flag at all (most people don't listen to just one song of a band.. especially one from the bands first work that is like 15 years old) it would mean he agreed with their views, where every other song is like "VIOLENCE IS NEVER AN OPTION EVEN IF SOMEONE HAS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND IS GOING TO PULL A TRIGGER VIOLENCE IS NOT AN OPTION TO SAVE YOURSELF".

    Anti-Flag is scapegoated for his actions because of the possibility of the influence of their song. Why aren't we scapegoating the influence of the song, the "rich". If things weren't the way the song criticizes, then there wouldn't be the song!... What can we scapegoat for the existence of the "rich"? And then what can we scapegoat for that?

    Anyways, "Kill the Rich" is a play on the Dead Kennedys "Kill the Poor". Should I even bring that up, or are people going to start blaming the name of that band for influencing the death of Kennedys without even finding out what the name means first?

    ReplyDelete
  54. james, that is an wicked thing to say. You don't care about someone getting shot in the head, just because they don't agree with you politically??? With this kind of rhetoric flying around from you lot, it is no wonder the sheriff jumped to conclusions!

    You have no idea what you are talking about. She was elected in a Republican district and survived the democrat purging. To quote from last October "At a press conference today, Republican leaders from across Southern Arizona endorsed Gabrielle Giffords’ reelection in Arizona’s 8th District."

    Gabby met with anyone to hear their concerns and suggestions. In fact, one of the victims there to see her, Phyllis Schneck, was a lifelong conservative republican.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Irony fail. Don't you know that "Kill the Rich" was a parody of "Kill the Poor" by Dead Kennedys. I also noticed that you haven't mentioned the song "911 for Peace" (we don't want to kill...) or the fact that their logo is a broken rifle.

    But if my word isn't enough...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Henry Calway said...

    ""I am a socialist/anarchist, and i am a fan of Anti-Flag, what people are not getting is that the lyrics to "Kill The Rich" are metaphorical""

    I get the strange feeling that AF fans are outraged on facebook or a forum somewhere.

    They still don't seem to get the point of what Mark was saying. But really who cares, if they want to think that people are trying to blame the shooting on AF lyrics they will probably continue to think so regardless.

    ""Is it really their fault that he was stupid?""

    NO! Mark was merely implying that on the burden of evidence that the MSM needed to convict 'Da right" you could convict a hell of a lot of other people first. But they chose not to.

    The dude was nuts, that should have been the story from the start. The fact that it wasn't is the object of the article above.

    Anonymous said...

    ""james, that is an wicked thing to say. You don't care about someone getting shot in the head, just because they don't agree with you politically???""

    I agree it is wicked, but to be honest after the hate the left has been spewing for most of my life I feel numb. I don't even care anymore and TBH it shocks even me.

    ""With this kind of rhetoric flying around from you lot, it is no wonder the sheriff jumped to conclusions!""

    The Sheriff had some less than honourable motives for throwing a red herring, check up on the net and see for yourself.

    ""You have no idea what you are talking about. She was elected in a Republican district and survived the democrat purging.""

    Even though I am Australian I do know what "Blue Dog" means. We used to have left wingers like that here in Australia as well, sadly most are gone now. They were the sort you could agree to disagree with because you knew that their motives were usually born from growing up in the same working class suburbs and a genuine sympathy for working people.

    ""Gabby met with anyone to hear their concerns and suggestions. In fact, one of the victims there to see her, Phyllis Schneck, was a lifelong conservative republican.""

    Which makes it even more strange that the MSM jumped to conclusions, this woman was not an ultra-liberal, surely a crazed right winger bent on murder would have gone after one of the far left representatives from southern Arizona before a mostly harmless creature like Giffords?

    Maybe the reason i don't care is the distance factor, i am on the other side of the world and experience tells me that the smell of blood spilt usually has a limited range.

    Whatever the cause I am not really all that happy to discover this in myself, but I just couldn't be bothered turning on compassion for a democrat when that parties supporters in the media both at home and abroad seem to believe I don't deserve the right to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  57. since most of their [Anti-Flag's] songs are simplistic enough that you don't have to think

    Precisely; why should we bother to think? Liberal anti-thought incarnate. The decline in literary and musical taste epitomises this anti-intellectual "thinking" (as well as sitting in front of a computer playing video games the whole day, substituting figments to true life, pale and bland imitations to reality). People prefer to read Harry Potter and listen to idiotic "bands", modern dumbness at its height. They seldom or never read serious books and genuine literature.

    They still don't seem to get the point of what Mark was saying.

    Nor will they ever get it. There is no way you will manage to cram their empty skulls with the simple notion that Mark was not saying Anti-Flag is responsible for the shootings. On the other hand, he was just demonstrating with telltale examples that this "band" produces distasteful "music" (again, I am very reluctant to brand this meaningless hurly-burly music). Jared Loughner is responsible for his own action, not Anti-Flag (no-one wrote they are), and the recent photographs found by the police seem to testify to his degenerate morals (he posed while wearing women's underwear and sticking his guns down there). The bloke is obviously a lunatic from the stories told by people who were afraid of him (chiefly in college).

    ReplyDelete
  58. No, it was said that Anti-Flag take an anti-war stance "at times" when anyone who knows anything about them would know they clearly have an enduring anti-war stance. It was also said that they urge their fans towards violence thus blaming a factor of the shooting on the band when in reality the author's knowledge of them is limited to what has been told of them. Considering they never urge their fans towards violence but the urge the opposite of that. It was an attempt to smear the band and the values they stand for - which undoubtedly smears fans of the band and those who agree with the value. It all comes at a failure to understand irony which may in part be due to the author knowing little about the band besides one of their earliest songs says "kill the rich" in it.

    Southern-Cross, you go on to take the statement of the simple lyrics of the band as a bad thing. The statement says most of the lyrics over their entire career are laid out in a way that they are not open to interpretation of what they mean. Those lyrics clearly state the position of the band. However, they are a mere statement of their views, they are not telling fans what to think. In fact when they do tell their fans what to think, they tell them to think for themselves.

    The point about the simplistic lyrics goes towards the fact that it is not poetry, not that they suggest you don't think and adopt their thoughts. They put forward what they think in a song and in response you think about whether you agree with them or where you disagree and what points they've made that you think could be improved upon. It opens discussion. I don't know where you're coming from in terms of "anti-thought" just because they don't write songs at a level of someone with a masters degree in literary arts.
    It is definitely not necessary to be indirect and ambiguous to encourage thought...

    Modern "dumbness" because people enjoy entertainment? It would be interesting what your hobbies are so they can be dissected on how intellectual they are. If one is interested by "genuine" literature rather than Harry Potter, does that make them better than anyone? To what benefit does one have being entertained by this genuine literature rather than popular stuff? Maybe there is a slight enlightenment but as far as I see it, they are just different interests.
    "Idiotic 'bands'"? Er, why are they idiotic? Because their values differ from yours? When people who share the same values of the Anti-Flag or similar bands discover these bands, it often sets a political spark that they didn't know was inside them. No, it doesn't tell them to adopt the values of the band, but they realize they actually have an interest in politics and the issues of the world. Which inspires them to read and research more "intellectual" "serious" sources about politics and political systems as well to get involved with volunteering and get active in their community. Yeah, modern dumbness at its height.

    No one was even saying that the author was saying that the shootings were responsible because of Anti-Flag. But he certainly did say they were to blame for a factor of the shootings, otherwise brining it up would be irrelevant. The article also states that "the message of the Anti-Flag songs is that those in power in government are non-human corporate types using religion and flags to control people," when that is just a general ignorance of the bands actual message. In fact, that is pulled from one of their earliest songs written by someone who was only in the band for the first album. The unfamiliarity with the band in the article obviously causes distortion of their messages, in turn smearing the band as well as their fans.

    ReplyDelete
  59. No one was even saying that the author was saying that the shootings were responsible because of Anti-Flag. But he certainly did say they were to blame for a factor of the shootings, otherwise brining it up would be irrelevant. The article also states that "the message of the Anti-Flag songs is that those in power in government are non-human corporate types using religion and flags to control people," when that is just a general ignorance of the bands actual message. In fact, that is pulled from one of their earliest songs written by someone who was only in the band for the first album. The unfamiliarity with the band in the article obviously causes distortion of their messages, in turn smearing the band as well as their fans.

    It also says that they are an anarchist band because of lyrics to another early song, when they obviously aren't.
    It was suggested of one of their songs, "The Economy is Suffering, Let it Die", should be changed to "The Economy is Suffering, Tweak it Slightly" to reflect their actual views. That is coming from people who actually know anything about the band before making blind assumptions.
    The article also takes lyrics to mean that they are an anti-Christian band, when the lyrics state that they are for the separation of church and state, not anti-christian or anti-religion.

    I know it was all brought up to prove that Christian/the right was not to blame for Loughners actions. Whether those suggesting that it was or not were trying to smear Christians/the right, I don't know. But you don't respond to that by smearing the opposite and smearing a band that gets caught in between with misinformation. And you also don't bring it up in a way that associates part of the responsibility of the actions to the band.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Anonymous

    Relativistic tosh. I should have expected it, really. If you need me to tell you the difference between Harry Potter and, say, Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, then there is nothing more I can do for you. Genuine literature is about depth, beauty and reflections on mankind. In other words, genuine literature elevates the mind. It is indisputably above books such as Harry Potter in these regards. Besides, genuine literature has stood the test of time. Who will remember Eragon in a century? People will, at any rate, still remember Shakespeare's works. The same requirements may apply to music. Who will remember "Anti-Flag" in a hundred years? On the other hand, people living in 2100 will probably know of Mozart, Beethoven, Strauss or Bach. That is, if we are not colonised by Wahhabits by then. "Anti-Flag" rant and sing nonsense, their exhortations to kill rich people or their slur on flags, which they were name suggests, insult millions of people who died to defend their respective countries or people who got rich through an unflinching work ethos.

    ReplyDelete
  61. See, you continue to draw conclusions out of thin air resulting from assumptions. E.g. their name being a slur against the American Flag, you obviously have done your research considering it's not. It's anti-flags in general. It means unity. We are one people, the people of the world. It doesn't mean fuck the American Flag, burn it, burn it, as you so like to think by jumping to conclusions. If I recall correctly it was a name chosen in reaction to the overuse of flags in the music scene at the time of their formation.

    And then you choose to jump to conclusions that they slander those who have died to defend their country. Again showing that you know NOTHING about the band because they don't do that. No where have they said they were glad people have died. No, their message is clear: THEY DON'T WANT THEM DEAD AT ALL. They are against "bright futures exchanged for profit". Because the call for peace and no more dead, all of a sudden they are insulting the soldiers who have fought and soldiers who have died? No, anti-war means they are against the soldiers dying. They don't want them to die. Caring about people all of a sudden becomes insulting dead soldiers. How about we stick up for the living before they're dead instead?
    And you're still on about kill the rich. They never intended it to be about literally killing the rich, is that hard to understand?

    It was never said that popular works such as Harry Potter could pull weight against genuine literature. It was said that you have this "I'M BETTER THAN YOU" attitude where you think because you are entertained by genuine literature rather than Harry Potter, that makes you better than anyone. Of course from a literary perspective it is much better. But just because someone isn't interested in it makes them lower than you? Yeah, okay. That was the point. Not that Harry Potter was the best book of all time.

    No doubt that bands like Anti-Flag will not be remembered years from now. Thats because their music is written for now. Their music speaks to this time period, the present. And believe it or not, the legacy will in fact live on. Similar bands and people in other medias continue to inspire people to get active in their community and get active in issues and volunteer work to make positive change. And the impact of the involvement will have an impact and whether you want to believe it or not it would have spawned from this music. And you can not deny that the impact, no matter how small, or if it only helped one person, will continue on and affect the future. And it's going to take a lot more than people with holier-than-thou attitudes who want to slander these people and prefer to listen to classics to maintain their sense of being more elite than everyone else to stop that.


    Dislike it all you want. Think it is shit and serves no purpose all you want because it will not stand the test of time. Think the lives it touches and the involvement it influences are not important. That is your opinion. Jump to conclusions, think of yourself as enlightened while you fail to get facts on things before making serious judgments. Assume their message is to kill the rich all you want. Assume it inspires hate, inspires violence. Slander it as you will. It wont change the reality of what it does, the lives it affects and the good it does. Close mindedness is not a trait of the informed.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Their name is not a slur against the American Flag, it's anti-flags in general. The term stands for unity, that we are one people, the people of the world.

    Another conclusion jumped to is that they slander those who have died to defend their country. At no point have they said or hinted that they were glad people have died. Their message is clear: they don't want anyone dead at all. They are against "bright futures exchanged for profit". They call for peace and the end of death, fighting, and destruction, I don't think that means they are insulting the soldiers who have fought and the soldiers who have died. Anti-war means they are against the soldiers dying, they don't want war. Not insulting soldiers does not involve wishing for their deaths. I think we should be sticking up for the living before they are dead and not criticized for it.

    I don't think it is hard to understand that "kill the rich" was never meant literally and anyone who has knowledge of the band and a stable mind would understand that.

    I definitely know popular works (i.e. Harry Potter) can not pull weight against genuine literature; I never said they could. What I did say is that you are coming across with an "I'm better than you" attitude where it is thought you are entertained by this genuine literature rather than popular works and thus you are better than everyone. Of course, from a literary perspective, genuine works are of a finer quality. However, that doesn't mean because someone isn't interested in them that it makes them lower than you. That was the point made, not that Harry Potter was the best book ever written.

    I also definitely know that bands like Anti-Flag will not be remembered years from now. I don't think anyone would tell you that they will be. A large factor of that is because they write their music for now, of the issues of today. Their music speaks to this time period, the present. However, of this I am sure, their legacy will live on. That is undeniable. Similar musicians and bands and artists of other medias have already and continue to inspire people to get active in their communities and involved in issues and volunteer work striving towards positive improvement. The impact of this involvement has had and will have an impact. Whether it is a big impact or as minor as touching one person, the work inspired the music will continue to have an affect. Anti-Flag will not be remembered by the world, but people will certainly remember how it helped them. And the involvement of those people will be remembered, maybe not hundreds of years from now, but definitely by the people it affected. I think that is far more important than withstanding the test of time.

    You may dislike it all you will. You may think it is shit and serves no purpose at all because the music will not live on itself. You may think the lives enhanced by it and the involvement it influences are not important. That is but one opinion of many. You can consider yourself enlightened while you jump to conclusions and fail to get facts before making serious judgements. Continue thinking that their message is to kill the rich. That it inspires hate and violence. You can continue to slander it but it wont change the reality of what it does. It wont change the lives it affects or the good it does do, whether denied or not. Close mindedness, however, is not a trait of the informed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I find it hard to respond to you because, while I'm completely respectful, my comments continue to get deleted.

    It is certainly disappointing because I don't think there is any reason for it. Maybe somewhat expected. I thought the distortion of the truth in the article was based on a lack of knowledge of the band. But I suppose when points are refuted or logical opposing points presented in a civil fashion are immediately removed, that there is intent in the distortion.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Jay,

    Are you finding them deleted straight away? That's because of the anti-spam filter on blogger. When Mark gets on he'll release them from the junk bin.

    Anonymous said,

    "In fact when they do tell their fans what to think, they tell them to think for themselves."

    Lol ok I disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This guy was a loner with mental health issues. No one band is responsible for that, obviously, but we do have a culture where violence in music is quite acceptable. Often the more violent the lyrics the more groundbreaking the music is.

    Why is violence in music acceptable or trendy? Because all limitations should be thrown off. We should do what we want and not be told what to do. Ok this guy did what he wanted and he wanted to kill people.

    Ironic or not music today is loaded with violence.

    ReplyDelete
  66. ""most of their [Anti-Flag's] songs are simplistic enough that you don't have to think""

    Good point.

    I would compare them [unfavourably] with the lefty "rebel" bands of my youth like Rage Against the Machine, who simply created a simple rebel theme and tried to tie it in with left-anarcho-marxist ideology. Most fans grew up to be "good" mainstream liberals.

    AF appeal to young folks from middle class backgrounds who want rebel against mummy and daddy, and bands like AF are the socially acceptable, sufficiently liberal face of rebellion.

    If they really wanted to rebel against the norms of their society they would rebel against liberalism, but I can't see that happening, they don't have the balls to be actual rebels.

    ReplyDelete
  67. In fact when they do tell their fans what to think, they tell them to think for themselves.

    There is an intrinsic contradiction in this statement, considering their exhortations to "kill the rich" are precisely a command and it is implied the lead of the "band" should be followed. Now, again, whoever follows the lyrics and carries out the principles laid out in the songs are responsible for their own actions. However, no-one will make me swallow the lyrics are not nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To Southern Cross:

    Anti-Flag's message is that violence shouldn't be used for political means.

    Consider the song "You Can Kill the Protester, but You Can't Kill the Protest": it ends with "BULLETS CAN'T SILENCE IDEAS." If Loughner had followed that ideal, then this whole thing wouldn't have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @ Anarcho-Punk (the name is telltale)

    Once and for all, neither Mark nor I laid the blame of the shootings upon "Anti-Flag". People must take responsibility for their own actions, and Jared Loughner is alone responsible for the Tucson shootings. However, "Anti-Flag" seems to me, and many other people present here, to be a despicable, hateful "band".

    ReplyDelete
  70. As outsiders looking in, I don't think we're able to pass judgement about this group. Reading this discussion, it seems the same thing really back and forth, lol. One person will say that they're not hateful and you just don't know anything about them, then the next person discredits that stating they are a hateful band because of the lyrics of the song and so on etcetera.
    Personally I feel these people who are familiar with their message and overall lyrics who are saying they're not hateful must know something I don't. I mean, I haven't read their interviews or any other of their lyrics or watched and read their ramblings so I don't feel I can go and denounce them when there are people telling me I am misinterpreting based on my lack of familiarity. I looked into this song and apparently it was made in 1996 and this is the only time I've ever heard of them and the song. If they were spreading hate wouldn't there be more incidents of their fans acting on their urging of violence? Maybe they are just so ridiculous the fans find their lyrics funny.
    I listened to the song and it definitely felt like there was a big possibility the lyrics aren't literal, though. I don't agree with the song either way but it seemed that the "kill" part about it is used to get across frustration as well as passion. You know how you say, "I'd kill for something to drink right now?" Well, you wouldn't literally kill anyone but it's kind of metaphorical to show that you really want something to drink... I think it might be something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dylan H.,

    I don't think the argument is essentially whether the band caused this incident or incited hate, its whether they're part of a broader idea that its ok to act irresponsibly/uninhibited and that violence, symbolic if not literal, is an acceptable way to take out your frustrations. This shooter did act on his frustrations in an violent uninhibited way and so we had a killing. This guy feels no shame because he felt that what he did was justified. Anti-flag or leftist rebel bands feel no shame as well in telling people to "attack" the system because they feel that what they're doing is justified.

    There's a reason this guy chooses to listen to these kinds of bands.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dylan, it's great that you bothered to think for a minute before making mindless accusations. But no, that is also not what the song is about. It doesn't really have anything to do with attacking or killing the rich - or anyone - in any instant, figuratively or literally.

    The "killing" of the "rich" is them being killed in a war (no, not a war of the poor vs rich, a war of a country vs country). The song says if "the rich" are going to start a war for their profit, then they should fight the war themselves and not convince and send "the poor" to do it for them (i.e. tell them it's for a moral cause, that it's the patriotic thing to do). The kill part of it is people killing and dying in the war. I guess kind of like how does it feel when it's you who dies or someone you care about dies in the hands of war... rather than the poor dying for your profit.
    Essentially: if the rich are going to start a war for profit, it should be them who feel the affects of it.
    And "the rich" is used so loosely... It's more the people in power I guess, not anyone who is wealthy.

    I don't know why there is even any argument over this (well I know why, poor analyzations and taking lyrics out of context). Aside from the violence of war, the song has nothing to do with violence. And there is not really any hate involved, but it is an angry song... which when you are criticizing people who send others to their death, I think you have a right to be angry.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I wonder if I put out a song called "kill the muslims", not really meaning muslims but people in ... well not really meaning muslims, you would be as forgiving.

    ReplyDelete
  74. What? How can that even be answered when you have established no context. What is the direction of the song going to be?

    If it needs to be broken down:
    "The rich" has been used previously to refer to those in power. I don't see why there should be an exception when these people use it.
    The corporations in power are quite wealthy. They are rich.
    They believe some wars are done for profit: rich.
    They are playing on the song "Kill the Poor" (which must obviously be about killing poor people because the title says it). Antonym of poor: rich.
    If one person was to die and one person was to benefit from that death, well the person who died would be very unfortunate... the situation would be poor. Antonym of poor: rich. The benefitting person could be considered in a rich situation (as rich doesn't necessarily mean wealth).
    So there are five reasons "rich" was a fitting word to use in the title, where "kill the rich" is not even a lyric to the song.

    As for "Kill the":
    You are against sending people to their deaths in war... you believe it should not be the poor (in many of its definitions) that are sent -> the poor are killed. Instead, if the war benefits what you have referred to as the "rich" and you think they should send the rich instead... well "Send the Rich Instead" isn't necessary a good title. But what happens in war? You get killed. And if you are sending what you have referred to as the rich instead, you are sending them to be killed. "Kill the Rich".
    Also: You are playing on the song "Kill the Poor".
    Two reasons for "Kill the" to be part of the title.

    So yeah, if you were to say "Kill the Muslims", I would react negatively to that. If you were to say "Kill the Rich", I would react negatively to that. If you put in the context provided by the rest of the song other than the title, where the context is reasonable and isn't about actually killing anyone and is in fact about "hey, if it was you or people you cared about being killed, you wouldn't be waging these wars, so why are you doing it because it isn't you?".

    The problem is that "rich" can fit into this context. "Muslims" doesn't, and I'm not sure of an instant where it would.


    (I also notice where some people are criticizing them for spreading hate that they are taking some hateful jabs at them as well... lol)

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Southern Cross

    The thing is, though, that they aren't hateful. That line I cited earlier, "BULLETS CAN'T SILENCE IDEAS!" is an example of their anti-violence. They even have a song called "Anti-Violent." The message of this band is that violence is a counterproductive action, and we should not sink to the level of the state in using it.

    And yeah, the name is a giveaway. :p. An "anarcho-punk" refers to an anarchist punk rocker.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ Brian: anger is a sin. In addition, it is often useless as it lacks righteousness. People who indulge their beastly impulses are uncivilised. I am not going to waste time engaging into the same restless, compulsive "intellectual" masturbation on the meaning of such a ridiculous "song". However, I would definitely like to witness your reaction if someone came up with a "Kill the Muslims" song as Jesse suggested. Because you assume the context is clear does not mean it is. Where you see easy and infallible associations, I see plot theories and hazy thinking, if any thinking at all.

    I would very much like to know how much money they make bellowing this rant, probably enough to be classified as "rich" in today's world. So perhaps they should consider to blow up their own brains. It does remind of these lunatic lefties we have in France, one of whom pretends to hate the rich and owns several houses whose combined value is more than €2 million, not to mention perks and all, now that is rich.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Holy Jesus so many people in here hate muslims !! o_O!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous said,

    "Holy Jesus so many people in here hate muslims !! o_O!"

    They hate you too mate. You probably more than us.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I do not hate Muslims. I found Jesse's hypothesis adequate, and I could have picked a random title for a prospective song. It is not about hatred, a feeling that exists in human hearts, but that we must strive to root out (or at least relegate to the recesses of the mind) if we are to follow Christ. I do not care whether Muslims hate us or not, whether they loathe our ways of life or the idiotic, lunatic left is wide off the mark. As far as I am concerned, hatred is a poison, and I will not stoop that low because of some reciprocity principle. We are worth better than that. However, I do support the extirpation of Islam from within our borders, i.e. repatriation of Muslims--for their sakes and ours--or their abandoning their alien ways and fitting in for the tiny minority that can bring themselves to do it. I have never exhorted people to kill Muslims, that is, to kill people because of their beliefs. If they want to practise their religion, that is fine with me, except we do not want mosques, headscarves, burqas, sharia in our Western countries, because this is simply not the Western way. If they want to stone "adulterers" to death, that is also fine with me as long as they do it in Iran--although that hardly prevents me from deeming it barbaric--not in my country (the NIMBY principle), they will be judged afterwards, and not by me. Period.

    And, yes, Jesse, I would wager they hate the left more than they detest us. Perhaps they give us the credit of standing for something definite and strong, unlike the weaklings who have become so emblematic of post-modern West, and would gladly surrender to rape (I am thinking of this German feminist who said it was better not to resist to rapists, lest they should kill the victim) and humiliation in order to save their dull lives.

    ReplyDelete
  80. There is nothing more Western then establishing a foreign worship and forcing it on others and erecting temples dedicated to that foreign worship.

    You definitely have a long way to go to rooting out your personal hatred, the way you have been addressing everything that opposes you and your views. Not with everything you say of it; although, there were instances where your points are pure animosity, but you would often add in a side note on things, or just name calling in general. I'm not saying this because I want to critique how you conduct yourself, but it is very hypocritical to say that your goal is to root out the hate you have with the way you do act. Unless you are a very hateful person inside and you are actually trying very hard.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Lol Anonymous,

    You don't hate anyone of course. Except the "rich".

    ReplyDelete
  82. Uhm did you not see how I wasn't the one who said in order to follow Christ that you must try to root out your hatred?
    I personally don't believe that, I'll hate anyone I naturally hate, but I have self control and logic to not act on it. If that means that I'm going to hell, well alright then I don't want to go to heaven anyways.

    But you are very crafty, I think you purposely are trying to inspire people to smash their head in with a hammer in frustration (is frustration also a sin?). Because it's kind of been established that kill the rich isn't even about rich people or killing them or hating them yet people who allegedly can understand the literary devices used in Shakespeare plays cannot come to grips with understanding lyrics that use little to no literary devices seem to make no attempt at apprehending it, or just can't.

    I don't hate the rich. Define rich anyways. I am far more well off than so many people in this country let alone the entire world. But yes, who the song actually addresses, I think I do hate. I find it hard to not have animosity towards murders.

    I only make light of that because he went on about the need to root out hate that naturally exists in humans when he has been the most hateful person in the entire comments. And I stress again his hatred is not in his views.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous said,

    "And I stress again his hatred is not in his views."

    That's good to know.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Animosity" is not apposite here. I take it you did not fully read my comment, otherwise you would have known combating hatred is an everyday struggle, precisely because it is such an ingrained thing. Nowhere did I say that I always succeed in warding out this tendency, I mentioned attempts and goals, Christ himself once passed by a fig tree, stopped and stretched out his arm to pluck the fruit. There was none to be had, and he cursed the tree; it never bore fruit again.

    However, you are confusing everything in your comment; I use precise terms, and I call a spade a spade. Do not expect me to water down my ideas, the more so since they are purportedly countered with the same rant I have been hearing for years. Besides, contempt and anger are not the same thing, as you have repeatedly been trying to frame me as a prig. As for following Christ, you did not point out anything at all. I suspect you are not even familiar with Christianity from what I have read. Feeling anger will not lead you to hell. Feeling is a natural state, as long as you control it and resist temptation, it is not that bad. Christ too felt anger, fear, a sense of being forsaken, thirst, hunger, love, etc. We are not automatons, we are not cogs in this gigantic machine-society, even though they would definitely like us to be just that. By the way, although this will indoubtedly not strike a chord with Roman Catholic soteriology here; as far as I am concerned, we cannot ever be deserving of heaven and God's mercy, but he eventually forgives us out of sheer mercy, nothing else. That is why Christ died on the Cross; to wash away our sins and give us a fresh start.

    Frustration means you are not satisfied your situation is optimal, and that you are striving for more. While it can be an engine for improvement and a better condition, it can also mean you live with pent-up aspirations you fully well know you will never be able to fulfill, and that you have not the courage to confess it.

    I have no time for your "Anti-Flag" nonsense while so much else of far higher beauty is within my reach, Ovid's Metamorphoses for instance. I prefer to spend hours dissecting Shakespeare's plays rather than contending with the mass-mind that has produced little of interest in the past four decades, and has contributed to the general dumbing down of Western populations, mesmerised by the television. The decline in literary and musical tastes is but a symptom of the infection; people are increasingly unable to focus on a written piece for more than a quarter of an hour, they prefer to watch cheap "sitcoms" or "Big Brother" rather than concentrating, and looking for knowledge and ethics. They listen to junk that appeals to their beastly emotions, violent music that sates their ineffable lust for chaos. The anarchic impulse, in short, reigns supreme over what has become a lobotomised mob incapable of basic reflection, which explains why such idiocies are widely watched or listened to.

    As for defining the rich, that it the very issue I dredged up in my previous comment. You have brought up the issue yourself: considering you live in a Western country, you must be at least four times richer than the world average. So would not that be enough to qualify as a rich person? No-one gave an exact definition of "the rich"; do we speak in national or global terms? In absolute or relative terms? Again, I pointed that out in my previous comment, too bad you did not see it, and still you claim the credit for it!

    ReplyDelete
  85. I know you said combating personal hate is an everyday struggle, to which I noted it doesn't seem that you are trying very hard. I don't know whether or not you are a prig, but in some comments you do come close to one.
    I wasn't confusing contempt with anger. Sure you think a lot of things are worthless, but you have been using a lot of hateful modifiers when referring to things you feel are lower than you.

    I bring up Shakespeare because you enjoy spending hours analyzing the works yet when coming across straight forward lyrics (whether you think they have value is irrelevant) you do not want to understand them as they are written, rather understand the lines with your first impression of the title. It has nothing to do with spending time on what you consider to be junk because it takes no thought to understand them, which does not include agreeing with it.

    I did see your comment on defining rich, and I agree with it. Except that you were still dwelling as if the song is about killing rich people and you were suggesting that they kill themselves over the irony.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Southern Cross:
    In case you are not aware, we are not arguing for the mainstream. The punk rock movement is a reaction against the mainstream. Your arguments share much with ours: that mainstream society has become lobotomized. However, your solution differs with ours. You see tradition and order as the solution to the sheep of modern society.

    Punk rock sees it differently. The emptiness of society is not caused by lack of order; it is caused by an excess of order. The machinations of the state and the corporations have robbed life of its meaning in their competition for total control. Beauty is found in disorder, divine chaos, the release of raw emotion. Anarchism is not nihilistic revolution; it is based on the ideals of peaceful cooperation and mutual aid, without the force of government.

    You also claim that the repatriation of Muslims would be for "their sake as well as ours." And Islam is not necessarily "un-Western." Cultures are an amalgam. There is no Muslim monolith, just as there is no Western monolith; there is Italian culture, Spanish culture, Germanic culture, French culture and Anglo-American culture. Just Islam has had the Iran-Iraq War and Black September, the West has had North Ireland and the Falklands War.

    "Islamic" culture is really made of many distinct cultures: African culture, Arabic culture, Indo-Iranian/Indo-Persian culture, Turkic culture and Indonesian culture. Many of the stereotypes of Muslims are either practiced only in one culture, not practiced any more or simply pulled out of thin air. What of the Muslims who call the West their home, the ones who have lived there for a majority of their lives. I am a Persian Shi'ite Muslim, born and raised in America. Kicking Americans out of their homes to be sent to a foreign country is, as you conservatives love to say, "un-American."

    You have to look behind "us vs. them," whether referring to movements, political groups or entire cultures.

    ReplyDelete
  87. And if you think that all anarchist music has no deeper meaning, I suggest that you look at the group "Propoghandi." Their lyrics are some of the most profound political and social commentaries of the modern world.

    http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/P/propagandhilyrics/propagandhithestatelotterylyrics.htm

    http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/propagandhi/albrightmonumentbaghdad.html

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anarcho-Punk said,

    "The emptiness of society is not caused by lack of order; it is caused by an excess of order....Beauty is found in disorder, divine chaos, the release of raw emotion"

    So what concepts should guide our conduct? Should I be able to do whatever I want to you? Can I steal from you? Beat you? Hurt you? If you were to marry would you mind if you were divorced? Is it ok to mistreat children? Are all of the things I've just described "beautiful". If its fun to do what you want, how do you feel when others do what they want to you?

    You can hardly say this shooter was an "ordered" personality. You'd think he was quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  89. @Jesse_7: Simply put, natural rights. The only reason to infringe on someone's life, liberty or safety is to prevent them from taking another's.

    Most people, expect for a few outliers, naturally respect this; the good vastly outnumber the bad. Jared Loughner was an outlier, and he was stopped by good people (a bystander jumped on him before he could reload).

    ReplyDelete
  90. So the release of raw emotion, divine disorder is great, except, if it means someone else is hurt. That’s a fairly thin basis, the absolute minimum standard of human conduct, for the running of society wouldn't you say.

    If the "rich" feel no obligation to you, they're engaging in divine disorder etc, you can hardly complain then if they're off making money rather than doing something that may be more beneficial to others. If everyone does their own disordered thing you can hardly complain if people don't seem to care about each other. If people feel that everything they do is justified, because they do it, raw emotion etc, you can hardly be surprised if people act in anti-social ways, the penultimate anti social act being the killing of another society member.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I have given up trying to have a reasonable conversation with anarchists since long. No, thank you. Jesse has written but a few lines, and they have already exposed the inconsistencies of your doctrine of sectaries. If you want your lunatic utopia, go on some deserted island with your pals, and have fun slaughtering one another.

    As for the lyrics of this "band", I have nothing more to say as it is unworthy of further commenting. Anger, hatred and contempt are different. Period. I have but contempt for your "band", which means I cannot be bothered to have a closer look, hence hatred is wide off the mark as I have no time for them.

    ReplyDelete
  92. this blog complains about how the "left" is blaming the right and chritianity as a whole. At the same time they are blaming a punk band(whos job it is to shock and entertain)along with the ideas of anarchism.

    Whos worse you all seem to be ignoring the fact that most christians, right wingers, punks,and anarchists dont kill or want to kill congresswomen.

    Loughner was crazy, he clearly needed help. This blogger is no better than the people HE claims are the cause of this.

    stop chasing red herrings. we need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people. that means if a person is identified as being totally nuts (as was the case with the Virginia tech shooter) then they should not have a gun.
    yes we wont be able to keep guns away from everyone who "snaps". for some people though, the "snap" came long before the shooting and we can identify it.

    stop blaming random people who are blaming other random groups who blame others for random events that may or may not have happened if said group did not exist.

    shut up!! and do something productive with your time.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anonymous said,

    "At the same time they are blaming a punk band(whos job it is to shock and entertain)"

    Is that a good job? Does it come with health benefits? Have we always had people employed to shock? It seems that they don't shock everyone just a relatively limited number of people, while others seem to get by without needing to be shocked all the time.
    Its also good to know that the Christian right aren't to blame. Would you still be saying that if he was an obvious member of the christian right? As what was first guessed. Also where does mental illness come from again? Is it purely chemical or are some people’s political philosophies mentally ill?

    On the point about keeping the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, how are you going to do that? America is awash with guns. Its one of their freedoms.

    I'm happy that you've got better things to do than blog.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I consistently find the right is always taking jabs or blaming the left for things, and the left is always taking jabs or blaming the right for things. Things that are traits of humans, not political leanings.

    For example, "You know the left is going to try to smear you, dig things up about your past, etc."
    Well, of course it's going to come from the left if they're your opponent. If you are right wing do you expect to come from within the right? No... obviously it's going to come from the opposite side. It always get into blaming everyone in an entire political leaning, associating traits of humans to only one leaning, it's ridiculous. Sometimes it isn't even traits of humans, it's the trait of a select group of people or person.

    And then I'm sure you would find people saying like "the right is always associating traits of individuals to the left to smear them". Not noticing the irony that they're now doing it, the cycle continues.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Here you go. It is the same nonsense all over again: when they run out of points to make, they get hysterical and angry (even though they berated their opponent for throwing a wobbly before). And the very fact that we can disagree with their views gets their panties in a twist ("Shut up!"). Verily, that is the moment when they show they would gladly silence every kind of opposition. That would spare them the discomfort of thinking for themselves; they would only have to follow the rest of the herd, meekly bleating all the way long ("four legs good, two legs bad"). So ludicrous and usual. I do agree on one point, though; this is a waste of time, you are still misconstruing what we have been telling you since the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Southern Cross,

    I think this is a different anonymous. Political groups may be broad but they are a way of categorising ideas. Anonymous you yourself are not a unique, separate from the world, individual but are influenced by your surroundings and we can pick which of your ideas come from where.

    I don't think we're saying all lefties and anarchists are mad but we are saying that certain ideas can encourage inappropriate behavior. Loughner tried to live his life as a pure individual and showed contempt for community standards, we still need community standards if we are to thrive as a society.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Well, my mistake, then. However, this does still bear true; they frequently resort to irrational emotions when they have exhausted all the points they wanted to make.

    Pure individualism is wrecking Western society. Individualities do exist and should be encouraged. However, individuals are no detached atoms, hovering around a translucent nucleus. Rather, they are rings in an eternal chain, linked to both their ancestors and their descendents through a common history, language, religion, ethnicity and so on. Without common cultural references and remembrance of the past, without local attachments and the family, the individual turns into an aimless wanderer, astray in a world he no longer comprehends, having lost the milestones of his life. We need anchorage in tradition, otherwise we are lost. Individualism is the apotheosis of the Individual, pictured as if he really were Nietzsche's Übermensch dispensing with God as Zarathustra (not the founder of Zoroastrianism) did. It is the most blatant manifestation of egotism you could possibly envision, it is the fulfillment of the anarchic impulse and flings open the doors to mindless consumerism, soulless materialism and atheism. The Individual itself is made into a God, religious creeds are as numerous as there are individuals. The Individual is extolled and his basest instincts are made into commandments to be heeded at all times. Liberty becomes licentiousness, and licentiousness becomes liberty. This is today's society, as anticipated by Alexis de Tocqueville.

    ReplyDelete
  98. @Southern Cross: You should read The Coming Insurrection. It's an anarchist manifesto from France that shares many of the same sentiments.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.