ed encourages people to get informed, get involved, and vote. i've never heard him urge anyone to start blowing up civilians like the iraqi insurgents. rage has. and that's why it's hypocrisy. i dont doubt rage is honest in their convictions or ideas, nor do i doubt they have been committed to various causes. i just think it's bullshit for a rich rock star to stand on a stage and encourage violence he is not willing to engage in himself. same goes for you. if you think we need different tactics, how about you join a militia next time instead of running and hiding in a commune?
sure ed encourages people to get informed and involved, but he makes a ton of money while doing it. I think its great that Pearl Jam is a so politically active. Its great that some money from each ticket goes to a local charity or organization. Its great that ed and the band are so giving with the ten club. Its a great band, and it feels great that they are actually out to make a difference.
But even that is somewhat hypocritical, and it would be ridiculous to not delve into this issue, just because we all love this band.
They charge a pretty penny for tickets, despite the fact they could charge alot less, given they are all set financially for life.
They are all activists and genuinely care about the disenfrancished among us, yet will that poor person they care about so much be able to afford a ticket to their show?
They continue to make money via all the live cd's, studio albums, dvd's, and shirt and merchandise, and alot of that stuff costs quite a bit of cash.
Take a show at a big arena. Assuming they get a crowd of maybe 20,000 they are getting a TON of money via that ONE SHOW alone. Yet ed will likely stand up their and talk about politics and activism, and advocate for helping the poor among us.
I dont feel I have to defend my love of this band. They are special and magical, and amazing. But lets not act like ed and the guys are playing for free and are charging 5 bucks for their shows or the new dvd or the new gorge box set. They make a lot of money off political advocating.
Again, its fine to critique zack but lets not act like ed and the guys are the equilivant of christ. They make money. They have nice cars. They have fancy guitars. They have guitar techs. They have bodyguards, they have fancy houses. They probably have multiple houses and multiple fancy cars. They can afford to take trips to ANYWHERE in the world etc...
And thats fine with me. But lets not act like they are "one with the people" at least in terms of financially and quality of life
There's a difference between having a social conscience and calling for an outright violent revolution. Like soulsinging said, Ed and those other bands encourage people to learn for themselves and make the decisions for themselves. All of the rhetoric spewn from Zack makes it sound like he wants people to blindly follow him without making a decision on their own.
There's a difference between having a social conscience and calling for an outright violent revolution. Like soulsinging said, Ed and those other bands encourage people to learn for themselves and make the decisions for themselves. All of the rhetoric spewn from Zack makes it sound like he wants people to blindly follow him without making a decision on their own.
sorry markymark, your wrone. If that was the beef people had with zack via this thread, why did references to his lack of committment to activism, the fact that he is a millionaire, that he is a hypocrite, get spewn on this thread?
You really think Zack wants everyone to follow him and not think for themselves?
it was continually brought up that zack called for revolution while being paid millions. My whole point is that one needn't look any further than our favorite band Pearl Jam to see another example of this.
it was continually brought up that zack called for revolution while being paid millions. My whole point is that one needn't look any further than our favorite band Pearl Jam to see another example of this.
But your point is flawed since Pearl Jam has never called for a revolution. They just want people to become aware and less apathetic. Whereas, with RATM and their message, you can't just become aware, you have to actively participate.
If you don't think that Zach would join a violent revolution against this country you would have to ask yourself why the FBI has been on RATM from the very beginning. I understand that many of you wouldn't agree with their tactics, but one thing is for sure, Zach is serious about revolution, change, equality, and making a difference.
If you don't think that Zach would join a violent revolution against this country you would have to ask yourself why the FBI has been on RATM from the very beginning. I understand that many of you wouldn't agree with their tactics, but one thing is for sure, Zach is serious about revolution, change, equality, and making a difference.
They've been popular as a band since what 95 or 96? That's over a decade to start a revolution. With each year that goes by and no uprising from de la Rocha, you start to see how much was really just bullshit.
I love how you act like you know me but you have no goddamn idea about anything about my life. Stick to being a pushover jerk. It suits you well.
No. It is because you are posting under the moniker Che Guevara who is blindly idealized by revolutionaries and your initial Rage quotations seem to indicate that you, yourself, advocate violent revolution. You have said that is not the case in later post and are simply advocating for new tactics because peaceful protest and voting do not work. Ok I will bite - what tactics?
Secondly, I assume you are proposing a system of socialism. How do you propose that such a system would work? No such government or revolution has ever accomplished the objectives that were used to rally the people to rebel simply because power corrupts and every time there is a Castro or Bolshevik revolution whoever is in power takes absolute power and does nothing for the poor and downtrodden that they used as a means in their path to power. They end up no better off or in most cases worse off than before and there is no allowance for protest by dissenters as this system affords yourself and Zack De La Rocha.
No. It is because you are posting under the moniker Che Guevara who is blindly idealized by revolutionaries and your initial Rage quotations seem to indicate that you, yourself, advocate violent revolution. You have said that is not the case in later post and are simply advocating for new tactics because peaceful protest and voting do not work. Ok I will bite - what tactics?
Secondly, I assume you are proposing a system of socialism. How do you propose that such a system would work? No such government or revolution has ever accomplished the objectives that were used to rally the people to rebel simply because power corrupts and every time there is a Castro or Bolshevik revolution whoever is in power takes absolute power and does nothing for the poor and downtrodden that they used as a means in their path to power. They end up no better off or in most cases worse off than before and there is no allowance for protest by dissenters as this system affords yourself and Zack De La Rocha.
First of all Zack has joined the Zapatista movement in Mexico which, by last check, is a revolutionary entity. Just because he hasn't killed W. yet, doesn't mean he hasn't been a part of violent uprisings - or maybe he hasn't - but neither you or I can be sure. Just to state that he hasn't been a part of a revolution b/c you haven't seen it is the equivalent of W. saying we should go to war because there are weapons of mass destruction "we just haven't found them". In other words its true b/c you say it is, not necessarrily because it is.
Secondly, if you really believe in the power to dissent in this country then you have a very closed view of what is really going on around us. Everything you watch, see, hear is about one thing - profit. Corporations have the power to silence by not allowing alternative voices into the media, the US government silences by putting the FBI on bands like Rage, people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Henry Giroux and others. It works to fracture the people and keep us from realizing that a bunch of us are pissed off about what's going on in the country by not reporting the growing numbers of people who come out to see the aforementioned people speaking.
Finally I always like how when the empire of neoliberal corporate capitalism (the real term for what you might like to call free market democracy, because it sounds nicer), is rightly criticized for being inhumane, indecent, and generally terrible for nearly every single person in the world people point to the fact that socialist systems failed in other countries. Yet you do this without stopping to think that sometimes these systems were democratically elected (for example Chile), yet b/c a socialist democracy is a danger to America was wiped out by a bloody revolution sponsored by the United States (Peru, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). We are not a nice country, we are not a safe country, we are a selfish, pillaging, war mongering, bald faced lying country that IS NOT working for the many in its own 50 states (evidenced by the fact that nearly 30 percent of our children will live in poverty conditions during this year and the number consistently rises), that Cuba has a better voting record, and literacy rate, that socialist medicine works for the many in every country except Canada - which has taken on some "free market" tendencies, that CEO's make 500 to 1 in large corporations over their employees, that we spend 1 billion dollars a day on a war to benefit the rich (see: Halliburton, Oil Companies) we can't even send our kids to schools with running water, new books, and good lighting. Thus dissent in this country is silenced in a far worse way than threatening jail time, it's removed before we even get the chance.
As Zack says "They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em".
First of all Zack has joined the Zapatista movement in Mexico which, by last check, is a revolutionary entity. Just because he hasn't killed W. yet, doesn't mean he hasn't been a part of violent uprisings - or maybe he hasn't - but neither you or I can be sure. Just to state that he hasn't been a part of a revolution b/c you haven't seen it is the equivalent of W. saying we should go to war because there are weapons of mass destruction "we just haven't found them". In other words its true b/c you say it is, not necessarrily because it is.
Secondly, if you really believe in the power to dissent in this country then you have a very closed view of what is really going on around us. Everything you watch, see, hear is about one thing - profit. Corporations have the power to silence by not allowing alternative voices into the media, the US government silences by putting the FBI on bands like Rage, people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Henry Giroux and others. It works to fracture the people and keep us from realizing that a bunch of us are pissed off about what's going on in the country by not reporting the growing numbers of people who come out to see the aforementioned people speaking.
Finally I always like how when the empire of neoliberal corporate capitalism (the real term for what you might like to call free market democracy, because it sounds nicer), is rightly criticized for being inhumane, indecent, and generally terrible for nearly every single person in the world people point to the fact that socialist systems failed in other countries. Yet you do this without stopping to think that sometimes these systems were democratically elected (for example Chile), yet b/c a socialist democracy is a danger to America was wiped out by a bloody revolution sponsored by the United States (Peru, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). We are not a nice country, we are not a safe country, we are a selfish, pillaging, war mongering, bald faced lying country that IS NOT working for the many in its own 50 states (evidenced by the fact that nearly 30 percent of our children will live in poverty conditions during this year and the number consistently rises), that Cuba has a better voting record, and literacy rate, that socialist medicine works for the many in every country except Canada - which has taken on some "free market" tendencies, that CEO's make 500 to 1 in large corporations over their employees, that we spend 1 billion dollars a day on a war to benefit the rich (see: Halliburton, Oil Companies) we can't even send our kids to schools with running water, new books, and good lighting. Thus dissent in this country is silenced in a far worse way than threatening jail time, it's removed before we even get the chance.
As Zack says "They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em".
OK I will try to respond to your points in turn.
Firstly, I have not been one of the ones to accuse Zack to be a hypocrite and think he sincerely believes what he says. I just disagree with the notion of violent revolution and have faith in the ability to effect change from within the framework of our current government. Also, I scoff at the notion that socialism is the answer and am frankly tired of people blindly idealizng Che Guevara given his brutal human rights record and then turning around and criticizing Bush or America.
As to your ability to dissent comment - those people ARE getting their voice heard. Rage has sold millions of albums, including three to myself. Millions watch Michael Moore films so it isn't like their voice has been suppressed.
I do not think America is perfect, that we have been justified in all actions taken in our history foreign or domestic. This nation does at least work to change for the better and students in public schools are taught past attrocities committed. We learn about the shameful history of slavery. We learn about some shady dealings and propping up totalitarian dictatorships during the Cold War. In contrast, Vladimir Putin is now turning Russia into a virtual fascist state with government controlled media and is now teaching students that Stalin was a hero with no mention of the millions he had slaughtered. At least America does reflect on its past history and teach its citizens that the government has been wrong in the past.
As for socialized medicine - yes it has worked well in some nations, most notably in the Scandinavian nations. Those nations are also entirely homogenous. I, as well as many think tanks, believe that to institute such a system in the US would be impossible given the diversity of the population in the US though I do think there need to be improvements in access to medicine and serious overhaul of Medicare.
Finally, I do not know that Cuba's voting record is something to brag about given the intimidation tactics used to keep Castro in power. Dictators are frequently "elected" but that does not mean they were actually elected by a free and popular vote. Aside from perhaps the illiterate being de facto disenfranchised (although there is assistance available at polls for them) please do tell who in America today you think is disenfranchised?
People have the right to vote (aside from criminals of which W. should be one, but that's for another time), but we have elections on a Tuesday and that's it...not a Saturday or Sunday, or a week, but on a Tuesday. Now, by law, I understand that you cannot prevent a worker from voting, however, you can choose not to pay someone for the time it takes to go do that. Interestingly it is the very poor who cannot, or do not vote. Are they disenfranchised? No, but is there an opportunity for them to really get a chance to vote, not really.
Dissenting voices do get out, but its clearly a trickle vs. the power ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and the movie houses, and newspapers have. Also we still do not get that critical a view of our history....Rockefeller was a mere monopoly guy not a murderer...The Stars and Bars are "the confederate flag" and stand for southern heritage (although it is actually the battle flag used quite explicitly in the '50s and '60s to promote racial segregation). Obviously we haven't learned much from the pains of the past because we still have widespread racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, etc. Finally social medicine wouldn't work here b/c corporations wouldn't make enough money from it. That's it.
anyone willing to answer my question? Seems to me the antiZack people are saying "he is a hypocrite because he makes millions off calls for activism and revolution"
My question is this: how is Zack any different from Ed, Uncle Neil, REM, Bruce, etc...? They all have a social conscience, but make millions off of it.
Why all this hatred for Zack and not all this hatred for any other musician who wears their politics on their sleeves?
how is zach different from ed, neil, rem, bruce etc.? well lets see the people you are comparing him to all oppose the bush administration and the war in iraq, true. i oppose it as well. the difference is with the first post you made about zach's tirade calling for the revolution, saying president bush should be hung and calling for the iraqi youth to stand up....come on. that's just calling for more violence. i thought we were trying to end all the violence, not add more fuel to the fire. i don't hear ed or anyone else you mentioned calling for a lynching of the president. come on, it was a ridiculous thing to say, and it's even more ridiculous that you are applauding him for it. that kind of shit is the problem i have with zach de la rocha. i have no problem with him being anti anything, and speaking his mind in a peacefull way, but saying shit like that almost makes him sound like a terrorist. it's just a little to extreme for my taste. sorry. why don't you start the revolution if you think it's so cool.
i have no problem with him being anti anything, and speaking his mind in a peacefull way, but saying shit like that almost makes him sound like a terrorist. it's just a little to extreme for my taste. sorry. why don't you start the revolution if you think it's so cool.
He didn't say anything about lynching it was being put on trial as a war criminal, like mr hussein and hanging him when he was found guilty of said crimes. He didnt say march into the white house drag W out and hang him, he wanted to put him through the processes.
People have the right to vote (aside from criminals of which W. should be one, but that's for another time), but we have elections on a Tuesday and that's it...not a Saturday or Sunday, or a week, but on a Tuesday. Now, by law, I understand that you cannot prevent a worker from voting, however, you can choose not to pay someone for the time it takes to go do that.
come on, man. you make it sound like the only time you can vote is during working hours. christ, get up a little earlier one day every 4 years. oooh, that's tough to do. revolutions have to be planned, right?
zack wants a violent revolution, i think he should be the first one to march to the white house and start that violent revolution. that's pretty much what everyone here is saying. he's done this, he's done that, he was at a rally......bfd. he obviously wants to lead the disenfranchised youth of this country into a bloody coup, so get going. lead, not just in lyrics, but in actions. actions other than rallies. throw that molitov cocktail at the president's limo, don't try to tell some teenager to do it instead.
"PC Load Letter?! What the fuck does that mean?"
~Michael Bolton
Plus, through their website and the Evil Empire liner notes they included recommended radical books. You dont think anyone read those books do you?I sure as hell read them.
I'm net even necessarily disagreeing with you on your other points, nor agreeing with you, but your arguments about "others being told what to listen to" or "what to like"....how are you any different?
You hear music or lyrics, like them for whatever reason, then support those who make that music.
How is that any different than a conservative? Listening to, whatever the hell it is conservatives to.....
come on, man. you make it sound like the only time you can vote is during working hours. christ, get up a little earlier one day every 4 years. oooh, that's tough to do. revolutions have to be planned, right?
Agreed. And if you work at a place that wont pay you when you go the voting booths, then thats one less CD you buy yourself that year.
He didn't say anything about lynching it was being put on trial as a war criminal, like mr hussein and hanging him when he was found guilty of said crimes. He didnt say march into the white house drag W out and hang him, he wanted to put him through the processes.
okay okay. you're missing the point. the point is if we've learned anything about this war it's that violence doesn't solve anything. whether bush is executed after a trial or just assassinated, it's not gonna solve anything. no one will benefit from that, it will just be another casualty linked to this senseless war. his terms almost up anyway, so if zach de la rocha wanted him to be executed, it would've been a good idea for him to do something about it 3 years ago...not that he would have or could have anyway. oh and yeah, i'm sure that would work out well for him with dick cheney taking over office for the rest of the term. i guess we'd have to kill him then too. this guy is basically promoting and calling for american terrorism....whether you agree with the current administration or not, at least admit that this revolution zach speaks of, if carried out successfully would ruin our country. luckily there's no way that could ever happen in our lifetime.
okay okay. you're missing the point. the point is if we've learned anything about this war it's that violence doesn't solve anything. whether bush is executed after a trial or just assassinated, it's not gonna solve anything. no one will benefit from that, it will just be another casualty linked to this senseless war. his terms almost up anyway, so if zach de la rocha wanted him to be executed, it would've been a good idea for him to do something about it 3 years ago...not that he would have or could have anyway. oh and yeah, i'm sure that would work out well for him with dick cheney taking over office for the rest of the term. i guess we'd have to kill him then too. this guy is basically promoting and calling for american terrorism....whether you agree with the current administration or not, at least admit that this revolution zach speaks of, if carried out successfully would ruin our country. luckily there's no way that could ever happen in our lifetime.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, assassinating Bush would just really put the man who is running this country at the forefront. It wouldn't solve anything because it would be the same administration.
Whats your definition of a terrorist? That word is thrown around so much, were American's terrorist when we threw that tea overboard in Boston? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am not condoning any type of terrorism by any means but you can't just label someone a terrorist, they need to be a terrorist to something like a terrorist to a nations security, or to civil rights not just a terrorist.
A terrorist is not the word I would use to describe Zack De La Rocha, more of an extremist or a radical.
I don't think a violent revolution is the solution to the nations problem, I think more people need to come out to vote and have a revolution that way. The people should never be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people. The Democrats did it in the Congress the last election in '06 hopefully they can do it again in '08.
Also the polarization of the government is the worst possible thing. The politicians need to work together to solve the nations problems not veto everything, politicians should be looking out for the best of the country, and its people, not what they think some deity thinks or what their party thinks.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, assassinating Bush would just really put the man who is running this country at the forefront. It wouldn't solve anything because it would be the same administration.
Whats your definition of a terrorist? That word is thrown around so much, were American's terrorist when we threw that tea overboard in Boston? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am not condoning any type of terrorism by any means but you can't just label someone a terrorist, they need to be a terrorist to something like a terrorist to a nations security, or to civil rights not just a terrorist.
A terrorist is not the word I would use to describe Zack De La Rocha, more of an extremist or a radical.
I don't think a violent revolution is the solution to the nations problem, I think more people need to come out to vote and have a revolution that way. The people should never be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people. The Democrats did it in the Congress the last election in '06 hopefully they can do it again in '08.
Also the polarization of the government is the worst possible thing. The politicians need to work together to solve the nations problems not veto everything, politicians should be looking out for the best of the country, and its people, not what they think some deity thinks or what their party thinks.
well to answer one of your questions, i meant a terrorist to our nations security. because i think the violent revolution he's calling for could be considered a form of terrorism. i'm not really calling zach de la rocha a terrorist, but i think his words could possibly incite terrorism. anyway other than that i have nothing to say to you because what you said was very well put and i actually agree with all of it, so i guess we're on the same page.
Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!
You'd have been disappointed if you had been there. My daughter just got home from New York ... she said RATM was great, the only disappointing thing was the near-total lack of response from the audience to Zack's political talk. Everyone was like, "Yeah, yeah, whatever .... play some more music."
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
i thought people were like that at the wembley gig when ed played no more and talked about terence young...no one really gave a shit, one guy actually yelled: shut the fuck up to ed!!!
people dont like hearing what isnt easy and safe. sad fact.
i think zak is an inspirational figure because he is eloquent and has used his medium to raise the profile of a cause...but at the same time a hypocrite. what does he do with his millions exactly?
If the government and economy that allows Zach to not only "continue to call for revolution," but also make millions of dollars while doing it, is so bad, let Mr. De La Rocha lob the first grenade. The mob mentality is bullshit, and Americans in general have had their asses powdered for so long that to hear a U.S. citizen call for revolution smacks of an absurd cry for relevance. So here's a challenge for Zach: Put your money where your mouth is. If you want to preach about some idealistic utopian socialism that only exists in a political vaccuum, that's fine, knock yourself out...God knows it's your right. If you want to represent your cause through charity, go right ahead, it can't hurt anything. However, if you are going to call for a bloody revolution (and glorify guerilla tactics), don't stop at rhetoric, and don't rely on a mob of your fans to do the dirty work. March your free ass to Washington, and make the morning papers. Otherwise, shut the hypocritical hole in your face.
sure ed encourages people to get informed and involved, but he makes a ton of money while doing it. I think its great that Pearl Jam is a so politically active. Its great that some money from each ticket goes to a local charity or organization. Its great that ed and the band are so giving with the ten club. Its a great band, and it feels great that they are actually out to make a difference.
But even that is somewhat hypocritical, and it would be ridiculous to not delve into this issue, just because we all love this band.
They charge a pretty penny for tickets, despite the fact they could charge alot less, given they are all set financially for life.
They are all activists and genuinely care about the disenfrancished among us, yet will that poor person they care about so much be able to afford a ticket to their show?
They continue to make money via all the live cd's, studio albums, dvd's, and shirt and merchandise, and alot of that stuff costs quite a bit of cash.
Take a show at a big arena. Assuming they get a crowd of maybe 20,000 they are getting a TON of money via that ONE SHOW alone. Yet ed will likely stand up their and talk about politics and activism, and advocate for helping the poor among us.
I dont feel I have to defend my love of this band. They are special and magical, and amazing. But lets not act like ed and the guys are playing for free and are charging 5 bucks for their shows or the new dvd or the new gorge box set. They make a lot of money off political advocating.
Again, its fine to critique zack but lets not act like ed and the guys are the equilivant of christ. They make money. They have nice cars. They have fancy guitars. They have guitar techs. They have bodyguards, they have fancy houses. They probably have multiple houses and multiple fancy cars. They can afford to take trips to ANYWHERE in the world etc...
And thats fine with me. But lets not act like they are "one with the people" at least in terms of financially and quality of life
i never acted like they played for free or that they were christ. they make money. but they also don't build their entire band's image around violently overthrowing capitalism. so there is nothing hypocritical in them making a good living when the core of their message is simply to try and make a difference. the core of RATM message is "let's kill innocent people in the streets to bring down the rich people." RATM are rich people, and they've never lifted a finger to kick start any sort of violent revolution in america. thus, they are full of shit and they are hypocrites.
sorry markymark, your wrone. If that was the beef people had with zack via this thread, why did references to his lack of committment to activism, the fact that he is a millionaire, that he is a hypocrite, get spewn on this thread?
You really think Zack wants everyone to follow him and not think for themselves?
the references were to the fact that he is calling for violence, yet has never used violence cos he's too chickenshit to risk his own neck. he calls for a socialist society and bringing down corporations, yet he is a millionaire thanks to his band and benefits plenty from the capitalist system.
pearl jam has never advocated for anything onstage that they have not already done themselves. there is a difference. and im not using pearl jam as the be all end all, just a good counterpoint everyone will know.
it was continually brought up that zack called for revolution while being paid millions. My whole point is that one needn't look any further than our favorite band Pearl Jam to see another example of this.
pearl jam has never called for a violent revolution. ever.
Comments
sure ed encourages people to get informed and involved, but he makes a ton of money while doing it. I think its great that Pearl Jam is a so politically active. Its great that some money from each ticket goes to a local charity or organization. Its great that ed and the band are so giving with the ten club. Its a great band, and it feels great that they are actually out to make a difference.
But even that is somewhat hypocritical, and it would be ridiculous to not delve into this issue, just because we all love this band.
They charge a pretty penny for tickets, despite the fact they could charge alot less, given they are all set financially for life.
They are all activists and genuinely care about the disenfrancished among us, yet will that poor person they care about so much be able to afford a ticket to their show?
They continue to make money via all the live cd's, studio albums, dvd's, and shirt and merchandise, and alot of that stuff costs quite a bit of cash.
Take a show at a big arena. Assuming they get a crowd of maybe 20,000 they are getting a TON of money via that ONE SHOW alone. Yet ed will likely stand up their and talk about politics and activism, and advocate for helping the poor among us.
I dont feel I have to defend my love of this band. They are special and magical, and amazing. But lets not act like ed and the guys are playing for free and are charging 5 bucks for their shows or the new dvd or the new gorge box set. They make a lot of money off political advocating.
Again, its fine to critique zack but lets not act like ed and the guys are the equilivant of christ. They make money. They have nice cars. They have fancy guitars. They have guitar techs. They have bodyguards, they have fancy houses. They probably have multiple houses and multiple fancy cars. They can afford to take trips to ANYWHERE in the world etc...
And thats fine with me. But lets not act like they are "one with the people" at least in terms of financially and quality of life
sorry markymark, your wrone. If that was the beef people had with zack via this thread, why did references to his lack of committment to activism, the fact that he is a millionaire, that he is a hypocrite, get spewn on this thread?
You really think Zack wants everyone to follow him and not think for themselves?
No. It is because you are posting under the moniker Che Guevara who is blindly idealized by revolutionaries and your initial Rage quotations seem to indicate that you, yourself, advocate violent revolution. You have said that is not the case in later post and are simply advocating for new tactics because peaceful protest and voting do not work. Ok I will bite - what tactics?
Secondly, I assume you are proposing a system of socialism. How do you propose that such a system would work? No such government or revolution has ever accomplished the objectives that were used to rally the people to rebel simply because power corrupts and every time there is a Castro or Bolshevik revolution whoever is in power takes absolute power and does nothing for the poor and downtrodden that they used as a means in their path to power. They end up no better off or in most cases worse off than before and there is no allowance for protest by dissenters as this system affords yourself and Zack De La Rocha.
First of all Zack has joined the Zapatista movement in Mexico which, by last check, is a revolutionary entity. Just because he hasn't killed W. yet, doesn't mean he hasn't been a part of violent uprisings - or maybe he hasn't - but neither you or I can be sure. Just to state that he hasn't been a part of a revolution b/c you haven't seen it is the equivalent of W. saying we should go to war because there are weapons of mass destruction "we just haven't found them". In other words its true b/c you say it is, not necessarrily because it is.
Secondly, if you really believe in the power to dissent in this country then you have a very closed view of what is really going on around us. Everything you watch, see, hear is about one thing - profit. Corporations have the power to silence by not allowing alternative voices into the media, the US government silences by putting the FBI on bands like Rage, people like Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Henry Giroux and others. It works to fracture the people and keep us from realizing that a bunch of us are pissed off about what's going on in the country by not reporting the growing numbers of people who come out to see the aforementioned people speaking.
Finally I always like how when the empire of neoliberal corporate capitalism (the real term for what you might like to call free market democracy, because it sounds nicer), is rightly criticized for being inhumane, indecent, and generally terrible for nearly every single person in the world people point to the fact that socialist systems failed in other countries. Yet you do this without stopping to think that sometimes these systems were democratically elected (for example Chile), yet b/c a socialist democracy is a danger to America was wiped out by a bloody revolution sponsored by the United States (Peru, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). We are not a nice country, we are not a safe country, we are a selfish, pillaging, war mongering, bald faced lying country that IS NOT working for the many in its own 50 states (evidenced by the fact that nearly 30 percent of our children will live in poverty conditions during this year and the number consistently rises), that Cuba has a better voting record, and literacy rate, that socialist medicine works for the many in every country except Canada - which has taken on some "free market" tendencies, that CEO's make 500 to 1 in large corporations over their employees, that we spend 1 billion dollars a day on a war to benefit the rich (see: Halliburton, Oil Companies) we can't even send our kids to schools with running water, new books, and good lighting. Thus dissent in this country is silenced in a far worse way than threatening jail time, it's removed before we even get the chance.
As Zack says "They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em".
OK I will try to respond to your points in turn.
Firstly, I have not been one of the ones to accuse Zack to be a hypocrite and think he sincerely believes what he says. I just disagree with the notion of violent revolution and have faith in the ability to effect change from within the framework of our current government. Also, I scoff at the notion that socialism is the answer and am frankly tired of people blindly idealizng Che Guevara given his brutal human rights record and then turning around and criticizing Bush or America.
As to your ability to dissent comment - those people ARE getting their voice heard. Rage has sold millions of albums, including three to myself. Millions watch Michael Moore films so it isn't like their voice has been suppressed.
I do not think America is perfect, that we have been justified in all actions taken in our history foreign or domestic. This nation does at least work to change for the better and students in public schools are taught past attrocities committed. We learn about the shameful history of slavery. We learn about some shady dealings and propping up totalitarian dictatorships during the Cold War. In contrast, Vladimir Putin is now turning Russia into a virtual fascist state with government controlled media and is now teaching students that Stalin was a hero with no mention of the millions he had slaughtered. At least America does reflect on its past history and teach its citizens that the government has been wrong in the past.
As for socialized medicine - yes it has worked well in some nations, most notably in the Scandinavian nations. Those nations are also entirely homogenous. I, as well as many think tanks, believe that to institute such a system in the US would be impossible given the diversity of the population in the US though I do think there need to be improvements in access to medicine and serious overhaul of Medicare.
Finally, I do not know that Cuba's voting record is something to brag about given the intimidation tactics used to keep Castro in power. Dictators are frequently "elected" but that does not mean they were actually elected by a free and popular vote. Aside from perhaps the illiterate being de facto disenfranchised (although there is assistance available at polls for them) please do tell who in America today you think is disenfranchised?
Dissenting voices do get out, but its clearly a trickle vs. the power ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and the movie houses, and newspapers have. Also we still do not get that critical a view of our history....Rockefeller was a mere monopoly guy not a murderer...The Stars and Bars are "the confederate flag" and stand for southern heritage (although it is actually the battle flag used quite explicitly in the '50s and '60s to promote racial segregation). Obviously we haven't learned much from the pains of the past because we still have widespread racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, etc. Finally social medicine wouldn't work here b/c corporations wouldn't make enough money from it. That's it.
how is zach different from ed, neil, rem, bruce etc.? well lets see the people you are comparing him to all oppose the bush administration and the war in iraq, true. i oppose it as well. the difference is with the first post you made about zach's tirade calling for the revolution, saying president bush should be hung and calling for the iraqi youth to stand up....come on. that's just calling for more violence. i thought we were trying to end all the violence, not add more fuel to the fire. i don't hear ed or anyone else you mentioned calling for a lynching of the president. come on, it was a ridiculous thing to say, and it's even more ridiculous that you are applauding him for it. that kind of shit is the problem i have with zach de la rocha. i have no problem with him being anti anything, and speaking his mind in a peacefull way, but saying shit like that almost makes him sound like a terrorist. it's just a little to extreme for my taste. sorry. why don't you start the revolution if you think it's so cool.
He didn't say anything about lynching it was being put on trial as a war criminal, like mr hussein and hanging him when he was found guilty of said crimes. He didnt say march into the white house drag W out and hang him, he wanted to put him through the processes.
well you're a fucking moron.
come on, man. you make it sound like the only time you can vote is during working hours. christ, get up a little earlier one day every 4 years. oooh, that's tough to do. revolutions have to be planned, right?
zack wants a violent revolution, i think he should be the first one to march to the white house and start that violent revolution. that's pretty much what everyone here is saying. he's done this, he's done that, he was at a rally......bfd. he obviously wants to lead the disenfranchised youth of this country into a bloody coup, so get going. lead, not just in lyrics, but in actions. actions other than rallies. throw that molitov cocktail at the president's limo, don't try to tell some teenager to do it instead.
~Michael Bolton
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
I'm net even necessarily disagreeing with you on your other points, nor agreeing with you, but your arguments about "others being told what to listen to" or "what to like"....how are you any different?
You hear music or lyrics, like them for whatever reason, then support those who make that music.
How is that any different than a conservative? Listening to, whatever the hell it is conservatives to.....
Nuclear fission
Agreed. And if you work at a place that wont pay you when you go the voting booths, then thats one less CD you buy yourself that year.
Or one less Mocha Latte.
Nuclear fission
okay okay. you're missing the point. the point is if we've learned anything about this war it's that violence doesn't solve anything. whether bush is executed after a trial or just assassinated, it's not gonna solve anything. no one will benefit from that, it will just be another casualty linked to this senseless war. his terms almost up anyway, so if zach de la rocha wanted him to be executed, it would've been a good idea for him to do something about it 3 years ago...not that he would have or could have anyway. oh and yeah, i'm sure that would work out well for him with dick cheney taking over office for the rest of the term. i guess we'd have to kill him then too. this guy is basically promoting and calling for american terrorism....whether you agree with the current administration or not, at least admit that this revolution zach speaks of, if carried out successfully would ruin our country. luckily there's no way that could ever happen in our lifetime.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, assassinating Bush would just really put the man who is running this country at the forefront. It wouldn't solve anything because it would be the same administration.
Whats your definition of a terrorist? That word is thrown around so much, were American's terrorist when we threw that tea overboard in Boston? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am not condoning any type of terrorism by any means but you can't just label someone a terrorist, they need to be a terrorist to something like a terrorist to a nations security, or to civil rights not just a terrorist.
A terrorist is not the word I would use to describe Zack De La Rocha, more of an extremist or a radical.
I don't think a violent revolution is the solution to the nations problem, I think more people need to come out to vote and have a revolution that way. The people should never be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people. The Democrats did it in the Congress the last election in '06 hopefully they can do it again in '08.
Also the polarization of the government is the worst possible thing. The politicians need to work together to solve the nations problems not veto everything, politicians should be looking out for the best of the country, and its people, not what they think some deity thinks or what their party thinks.
well to answer one of your questions, i meant a terrorist to our nations security. because i think the violent revolution he's calling for could be considered a form of terrorism. i'm not really calling zach de la rocha a terrorist, but i think his words could possibly incite terrorism. anyway other than that i have nothing to say to you because what you said was very well put and i actually agree with all of it, so i guess we're on the same page.
By the end, my IQ dropped sixteen points.
I may have to go to a new school for mentally handicapped children.
This sucks.
Damn.
Let me just finish by saying, I like dogs.
OutZ
people dont like hearing what isnt easy and safe. sad fact.
i think zak is an inspirational figure because he is eloquent and has used his medium to raise the profile of a cause...but at the same time a hypocrite. what does he do with his millions exactly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxFW8kJ5IhA
YUP!!!!!!
i never acted like they played for free or that they were christ. they make money. but they also don't build their entire band's image around violently overthrowing capitalism. so there is nothing hypocritical in them making a good living when the core of their message is simply to try and make a difference. the core of RATM message is "let's kill innocent people in the streets to bring down the rich people." RATM are rich people, and they've never lifted a finger to kick start any sort of violent revolution in america. thus, they are full of shit and they are hypocrites.
the references were to the fact that he is calling for violence, yet has never used violence cos he's too chickenshit to risk his own neck. he calls for a socialist society and bringing down corporations, yet he is a millionaire thanks to his band and benefits plenty from the capitalist system.
pearl jam has never advocated for anything onstage that they have not already done themselves. there is a difference. and im not using pearl jam as the be all end all, just a good counterpoint everyone will know.
pearl jam has never called for a violent revolution. ever.