How exactly should we react when a cultural icon (or person with a decent amount of cultural significance) is revealed to be a Zionist?
I know there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, but seeing cultural figures be openly pro-Zionism especially when the Zionist entity is engaged in an overt genocide and mass-starvation is honestly disgusting. I was told that the main purpose of BDS isn’t to “crash” the Zionist entity’s economy but rather to expose how engulfed modern culture is in Zionism, like when you realize boycotting is near impossible because entire industries have ties to the Zionist entity such as the music and film industries.
Soft power is a lot more powerful than we realize and even using a term like “Israeli salad” or working with a Zionist settler normalizes Zionist colonialism and genocide. What must we do to end this? And how should we treat notable figures who are pro-Zionist given that they normalize Zionism and manufacture consent for genocide at all times?
>>2403722Their words matter though.
Also there are celebrities who have spoken out for Palestine like Kehlani.
>>2403717>How exactly should we react when a cultural icon (or person with a decent amount of cultural significance) is revealed to be a Zionist?I think it's a bit strange for a supposed anti-colonial liberation struggle to care what celebrities think.
>I was told that the main purpose of BDS isn’t to “crash” the Zionist entity’s economy but rather to expose how engulfed modern culture is in ZionismWho was telling you this? I don't know who is saying that, but I find this idea completely bizarre. The point of BDS is to purify the heavy metal scene of Zionist influence? Doesn't make sense.
>>2403872This is a bit up in the clouds. So people are more "aware" and then what? Be more specific and try to avoid these abstractions. Ozzy Osbourne did
what exactly? He performed in Israel and signed a letter, and that's bad because [tell me why here]. And instead of supporting Israel, I want you [tell me what to do here / in other words this is the part where you shove your own letter, petition, etc. into my hands]."
But these guys don't do that. What they care about is talking to the already radicalized, that's why they tend to speak in terms of ideology over everything else. What matters is whether one is a "Zionist" or not. There's the correct ideology and then people who don't share that are the wrong ideology and that is Zionism.
I want to complicate this picture somewhat because English rock musicians like Ozzy Osbourne are kind of moronic. I mean they are not very smart people. They are circus performers and what concerns them is (a) how am I going to get wasted tonight (b) did you see those chicks in Poison, blimey, oh wait those weren't chicks at all, those were dudes and I was even fancyin' one of 'em (!), and then somewhere down the alphabet, Ozzy played a concert in Israel and signed that letter because his widow Sharon is Jewish and she likes Israel, and he has a vague feeling that being against Israel is about not liking the Jews, and that's about it.
>>2403950This TBD.
Pro-Palestine activists are starting to sound a lot like Evangelicals in terms of being outraged over nearly everything.
>>2403722This, but to expand upon it further, nothing will get done without permaculture and DIY since being dependent on capitalist industry itself is the boerbourgiehaviourists greatest strength and is more or less the ONLY reason why there is capitalism.
Trying to "change culture" or whatever is completely pointless without dismantling capialist infrastructure as anyone can have any reaction to a piece of media.
>>2404095It wont matter if it actually helps Palestinians but Palestinian activism ONLINE literally does not help Palestinian people or the Palestinian cause.
White people has literally gentrified the Palestinian cause. Sorry for the crass comparison but this reminds me of how straight women make pride events about themselves and their struggles, inadvertently hijacking it from gays and lesbians
Which, again, would not be a real problem if it mobilizes people against Israel. But de facto a lot of these literally just devolve into online debatebro shit against literally whos like Contrapoints
>>2403717Is it wrong that I absolutely despise pages like "Zionists In Music" and "Zionists In Film" for their absolutism and moralism?
Palestine won't be liberated by 10,000 people doing BDS correctly; it will be liberated by 4 billion people doing BDS incorrectly.
Berating people for not being as morally absolutist as you will not help Palestine. It will make things worse for the movement since people will give up on BDS altogether if they think they can't do it well enough. Even worse when pages like "Zionists In Music" equate anyone who can't do BDS in the most extreme manner to a full-blown genocidal Zionist. Hell, their page even goes after Israeli anti-genocide/anti-war activists who fight for coexistence. Is that really useful?
>>2404095>>2404097>>2404162A much better question here isn't "WHY IS NO ONE DOING ANYTHING?" but rather: "Why has nothing we've done so far worked?".
People know a genocide in Gaza is happening. Mainstream news has reported on it 24/7 for the past 21 months. We've seen the largest mass protests IN HISTORY in response to the genocide. We've seen comrades trash the shit out of one of the most elite universities in the world (Columbia) for the sake of Gaza. And yet nothing has worked. Mass protests didn't work. Getting loads of people on board with BDS didn't work. Beating up random Jews on the street didn't work (in fact, it made them even more pro-Israel). Blockading weapons shipments didn't work given that the weapons were simply shipped the next day. You know how Elias Rodriguez killed those two Israeli embassy workers? They were replaced the next day. So, righteous anger sporadic political violence didn't work so well either. Voting? Forget it; individual politicians won't do shit.
NOTHING has worked in stopping the genocide. Nothing. What we need to ask ourselves is why that is the case.
>>2404355>>2404357I don't think any Palestinian will be saved by boycotting Alc's music.
To be honest, a major reason for the failure of BDS is that it focused way too much on cultural issues and keeping everyone morally pure rather than targeting the corporations most complicit in genocide and apartheid.
>>2404360I don't hate people I maybe hate(but maybe that is not the right word) their actions. I understand where he is coming from. No one has ever produced once really controversial quote from him.
This is maybe the worst:
> "he never expected to feel so at home in Tel Aviv, and he emphasized it will always be home for him".[47]Anyways I'm a guy who has banned so many times for being too antisemitic. I don't hate people, I just wish they don't do bad things.
>>2404360>>2404357I like his work too, even the Israeli salad album is good (it has a lot of arabic middle eastern sounds for obvious reasons, which I always like) and I'm not one to moralize to people about what they consume. I just personally cannot listen to people who I know are open zios, even when I like their work. It makes me feel sad, but I cannot really separate living artists from their art. This is not a political act really tho, it's just a personal thing
>BdsThe BDS movement has never really been all that much about purity or moralism regarding cultural issues. If you look at their official statements it's almost always about very concrete things, companies who work with settlements, manufacturers who build the bulldozers that demolish Palestinian homes, etc.
I think the reason there's been no major success with BDS is simply because Israel is too important to America and they do everything to protect their specialest little ethnostate project, which includes neutralizing the effectiveness of orgs such as BDS
>>2404383Yeah it's not so bad as others, but I really really really despise Israel bro. Like someone saying it feels like home to them makes me sick to my stomach. Because I know exactly what that feeling of "home" means right, for the Palestinians. It's not his home, it's their home and his feeling of "it will always be a home to him" are literally directly at their expense. He can go there, anytime he wants and get citizenship and whatever else, while Palestinians are stateless, refugees, in concentration camps, dead whatever. All so that he and other people that share some arbitrary designation from birth can feel like "it will always be a home to them". Does he give a fuck about what that feeling means? Why he feels like that? What the cost of that feeling is?
No, of course he doesn't. And I just can't forgive shit like that.
>>2404701I’d add to this by saying Palestine is actually quite insignificant when it comes to global imperialism. If the DRC underwent a communist revolution, nationalized all the conflict minerals, and charged the West exorbitantly high amounts for said minerals, that would do much, much more to put a hole in global imperialism than Israel becoming Palestine again.
People who obsess over Palestine largely do so because the like the image of Arabs with guns, not because they see Palestine as having any real importance aside from going after an American ally in the region.
>>2404355The Alchemist deserves the Julius Streicher treatment for normalizing Zionist colonialism and apartheid as do all other Zionist musicians and public figures.
>>2404600Standing Together and B’Tselem ARE Zionist normalizers and fully complicit in genocide.
>>2404701>the root of the system i.e. imperialism and western finance capitalpretty sure the
root is capitalism and not a specific industry or country
>>2404859yes the root is capitalism, but imperialism is just the newest phase of capitalism. without differences between capitalisms, mercantile, colonial and imperialist capitalism are
all capitalism and what good is that definition of capitalism?
>without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
>>2404868>which would give the Palestinians an opportunity to rise up and seize power.the palestinians? really? not an organization capable of wielding state power and having dual power already? but
the palestinians?
i am begging you to read and reread the books until you get it
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ >>2404872>imperialism is the fact that all countries have to compete with each other under capitalismno, read the fucking book ultra
>We now have to examine yet another significant aspect of imperialism to which most of the discussions on the subject usually attach insufficient importance. One of the shortcomings of the Marxist Hilferding is that on this point he has taken a step backward compared with the non-Marxist Hobson. I refer to parasitism, which is characteristic of imperialism.
>Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-150,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons,” who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.
>The income of the rentiers is five times greater than the income obtained from the foreign trade of the biggest “trading” country in the world! This is the essence of imperialism and imperialist parasitism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ >>2404867>>2404701>>2404876It's incredible that leftoids still regurgitate (badly!) a literal pamphlet that Lenin himself said not to take too seriously as there are far better works on the subject matter (starting with Marx!).
Lenin's imperialism writing is a little treasure chest of "bourgeois morality," which hurls righteous and reactionary reproaches against the world of capital and state. And its decades-long success with the state-loyal labor movement around the whole world is based solely on the method of this worldview, which permits no objective judgment.
Even after the fascist distinction between parasitic and productive capital the epigones do not consider Lenin's invention of the finance monopolists completely objectionable and the charges impugning them as useless coupon clippers who dupe the good industrialists and fleece the whole society. Even less does it cross the minds of the repeaters of Lenin's theory to discontinue the appeal to the "decaying," parasitic character of monopoly capitalism. They see themselves, as members of an opposition movement, a group of people actively fighting for a revolution, in conformity with, as they find in Lenin's teaching, the tendency of historical progress. Overdue capitalism justifies the anti-monopoly-capitalist democracy, the real people's government; the main tendency = "revolution…" (no wonder, the slow pace of the tendency allows such people to become greens and much worse!).
>>2404878>the fascist distinction between parasitic and productive capitalhey man, that's just you projecting. it's pretty clear what lenin (and bukharin, for that matter) have said on the topic and it's not this edgy, critical and borderline interpertation you have.
from lenin's preface to bukharin's book
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/
>The scientific significance of N.I. Bukharin's work consists particularly in this, that he examines the fundamental facts of world economy relating to imperialism as a whole, as a definite stage in the growth of most highly developed capitalism. There had been an epoch of a comparatively "peaceful capitalism," when it had overcome feudalism in the advanced countries of Europe and was in a position to develop comparatively tranquilly and harmoniously, "peacefully" spreading over tremendous areas of still unoccupied lands, and of countries not yet finally drawn into the capitalist vortex.
>Of course, even in that epoch, marked approximately by the years 1871 and 1914, "peaceful" capitalism created conditions of life that were very far from being really peaceful both in the military and in a general class sense. For nine-tenths of the population of the advanced countries, for hundreds of millions of peoples in the colonies and in the backward countries this epoch was not one of "peace" but of oppression, tortures, horrors that seemed the more terrifying since they appeared to be without end.
>This epoch has gone forever. It has been followed by a new epoch, comparatively more impetuous, full of abrupt changes, catastrophes, conflicts, an epoch that no longer appears to the toiling masses as horror without end but is an end full of horrors.
>It is highly important to have in mind that this change was caused by nothing but the direct development, growth, continuation of the deep-seated and fundamental tendencies of capitalism and production of commodities in general. The growth of commodity exchange, the growth of large-scale production are fundamental tendencies observable for centuries throughout the whole world. At a certain stage in the development of exchange, at a certain stage in the growth of large-scale production, namely, at the stage that was reached approximately at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, commodity exchange had created such an internationalisation of economic relations, and such an internationalisation of capital, accompanied by such a vast increase in large-scale production, that free competition began to be replaced by monopoly.
>The prevailing types were no longer enterprises freely competing inside the country and through intercourse between countries, but monopoly alliances of entrepreneurs, trusts. The typical ruler of the world became finance capital, a power that is peculiarly mobile and flexible, peculiarly intertwined at home and internationally, peculiarly devoid of individuality and divorced from the immediate processes of production, peculiarly easy to concentrate, a power that has already made peculiarly large strides on the road of concentration, so that literally several hundred billionaires and millionaires hold in their hands the fate of the whole world.прочитать книгу, ультра
>>2403736That entire album is pure fire.
Too bad streaming it funds genocide.
>>2403717Frankly, that sad, old, sick man was a puppet in the hands an unscrupolous manager - his own wife - who btw happens to belong to a very specific ethno-religious group. And no, that group is not the Brummies.
That said, certain "music icons" are only considered such because they belong to the boomer generation and they were to other boomers what Taylor Swift or people like that are to kids today or what Frank Sinatra was for teenage girls in the 30s and 40s. If you consider them on their artistic merit, they were boiling crap. I mean, do you really think shit like Black Sabbath ever had any musical value? Come on…
Actually, Hulk Hogan having kicked the bucket makes me more sad than the "prince of darkness" passing, despite being a mIga-tard recently and having always been a massive pathological narcissist - in the 80s he ratted out on Jesse Ventura when he wanted to unionise the pro wrestlers after he saw the benefits of unionisation in the cinema industry after he starred in Predator. That was fucked up, not least because Governor Ventura is a chill guy and he managed to get elected governor running against both Rs and Ds.
>>2406065I don't know, really… I mean, he's been fucked up for decades. I remember he was already a trembling husk like in the early 2000s when they put up that awful "reality show" about him and his family on mtv, which also served to launch their two children's "careers" - Kelly put some music out and everyone quickly forgot about it, while her brother tried like to be a tv host or something and he failed big time too. If you ask me if I think he was
legally incapable or something, I would say no, and I guess his opinions were his own after all, yet when someone has clear limits to his personal autonomy, I wouldn't be so clear cut he couldn't be under a greater degree of influence by someone close to him than an average person that hasn't got delirium tremens and god knows how many other neurological troubles after decades of alcohol and drug abuse - and a bat head eaten raw live on stage.
So, in the end, fuck him, fuck Sharon, fuck Kelly, fuck Kelly's brother - so bland I can't even remember his name. They had another daughter too, but she's always had the good taste to never appear in public during their shenanigans.
>>2406097If BS deserve to be remember, it's 99% because of Iommi's guitar sound. That was a long lasting influence. Around 2011/12 I've listened to every BS album from the Ozzy era. Back then I started downloading flac files like there were no tomorrow. I wanted cd quality stuff, not scrumpy mp3s. And I didn't want to pay. I guess they'd just released a remastered edition of their whole catalogue. I remember enjoying their first albums, but the last two or three - from the mid 70s - where really forgettable. I also got like the first album with Dio and the one with Gillan. The Gillan one had a shitty mastering, supposedly due to some damage to the original tapes.
As far as solo Ozzy is concerned, his 80s works were basically mtv-compliant hair metal, with some cool guitar leaks - Randy Rhodes first, then after he died, the other guy with the guitar painted with circles, can't remember his name now. That was when he was already under the complete professional control of his wife. Her father was the original BS manager, she learned the ropes working as her secretary and when Ozzy was kicked out of the band because he was fucked up with booze and drugs all the time, she brought him to America and launched his solo career, while also having a nasty break up with her father, like they only get back to friendly terms decades later and he couldn't meet his grandchildren until they were already in their teens.
>>2403717Boycott them entirely.
Palestinians aren't buying your excuses.
>>2406008>That said, certain "music icons" are only considered such because they belong to the boomer generation and they were to other boomers what Taylor Swift or people like that are to kids today or what Frank Sinatra was for teenage girls in the 30s and 40s. If you consider them on their artistic merit, they were boiling crap. I half agree. You're not wrong that Black Sabbath is considered important because of the boomers, but they've would've seemed fresh in 1970. You have to give the boomers credit for making a lot of original stuff at one point. It's just that it has been more than 50 years since then because these zombies just won't die, and there's like 10,000 Black Sabbath boomer tribute bands playing their songs in bars because they're not that complicated to learn. Dummmm Dummmm DURM DRUM DURRMMRMMMM.
But Ozzy was also too trashy, canivalesque and schlocky to get the overloaded treatment that David Bowie did. I like Bowie but he's the sort of musician that art critics would get carried away praising as some human godling. I almost have to hate on Bowie a bit because no human being can possibly be that good. It's even worse with Lou Reed because he didn't have any talent at all. Ozzy is at less of a disadvantage because he was dumb enough and his music tastless enough to scare off the art critics while remaining appealing to the hoi polloi. He also came from a working-class background of factory workers and kept his highly regional English accent.
>I remember he was already a trembling husk like in the early 2000s when they put up that awful "reality show" about him and his family on mtvAmerican trash TV at its finest.
>>2406541>I half agree. You're not wrong that Black Sabbath is considered important because of the boomers, but they've would've seemed fresh in 1970. You have to give the boomers credit for making a lot of original stuff at one point. It's just that it has been more than 50 years since then because these zombies just won't die, and there's like 10,000 Black Sabbath boomer tribute bands playing their songs in bars because they're not that complicated to learn. Dummmm Dummmm DURM DRUM DURRMMRMMMM.Yeah, I guess their esthetic - the dark themes, the name of the band, the heavier sound - was something new compared to the hippie/flower-power/fake eastern philosophies thing of the time, even if they were basically the same as almost every other 20-something of the time: long hair, psychedelic shirts, bell-bottom trousers, a few of them even sporting big moustache, the whole thing basically.
It has to be said, tho, that others were already experimenting with certain themes: take Arthur Brown for example or Screamin' Jay Hawkins many years before, then Alice Cooper, who got inspired by Grand Guignol and Vaudeville theatre. Also, mainstream bands like the Kinks, the Yardbirds and others already had an heavier, more distorted sound than the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.
The thing is, especially in the musical press, many boomers are still active and influential and even when they retire or kick the bucket altogether, they have still groomed later generations to their own tastes and proclivities, so you often get comparisons and references to muh Lennon-MacCartney or muh Jagger-Richards or muh Twentyseven club. If instead of them, cultural egemenony in that field were wielded by women who were children or teenagers in the early eighties, we'd constantly got references to Simon Le Bon, Tony Hadley, Howard Jones, Gahan and Gore and so on.
>But Ozzy was also too trashy, canivalesque and schlocky to get the overloaded treatment that David Bowie did. I like Bowie but he's the sort of musician that art critics would get carried away praising as some human godling. I almost have to hate on Bowie a bit because no human being can possibly be that good. It's even worse with Lou Reed because he didn't have any talent at all. Ozzy is at less of a disadvantage because he was dumb enough and his music tastless enough to scare off the art critics while remaining appealing to the hoi polloi. He also came from a working-class background of factory workers and kept his highly regional English accent. Well, there couldn't be a better contrast than between Ozzy and Bowie, really! DB was the quintessential art school kid, he was all conceptual and intellectual, and he reinvented himself a few times, like when he created all his personas and then he killed them to open a different chapter. And he definitely had full artistic control of his output. On the other hand, Ozzy, after his brain was completely gone in the late 70s and he was sacked from BS, was "reinvented", yes, but by his own wife-manager, they moved to America and then, after they had him detoxed enough to make him look somewhat functioning, they jumped on the early mtv-driven train of so called "hair metal", with him being backed by younger, cooler and technically competent musicians, while selling his "prince of darkness" angle: he was a thirty something - and quite knackered - guy with a wife and kids, so he couldn't do the Motley Crew routine - 24/7 cocked up and sexed up with a bunch of playboy's playmates always around - and instead they pushed for the "satanic" thing, a cunning play in America, with all that moral panic and crazy evangelicals.
>>I remember he was already a trembling husk like in the early 2000s when they put up that awful "reality show" about him and his family on mtv>American trash TV at its finest.To be fair, all that shitshow looked very classy and cultured if compared to later radioactive waste like the Kardashians. At least, they were quite natural and they were capable of genuine humor at times, while the plasticky heiresses of the notorious Armenian lawyer are the non plus ultra of fakeness in every aspect of their being.
>>2406579>Yeah, I guess their esthetic - the dark themes, the name of the band, the heavier sound - was something new compared to the hippie/flower-power/fake eastern philosophies thing of the time, even if they were basically the same as almost every other 20-something of the timeYeah, awhile ago I watched much of a show from 1970 and they struck me as part of that whole psychedelic generational vibe. It does not look like a distinct "genre" thing with all its cliches as metal does now, more "a rock band from 1970." But also edgy and aggressive by the standards of the time with the headbanging. They really took off in the U.S. and it was their success here that made them big.
>It has to be said, tho, that others were already experimenting with certain themes: take Arthur Brown for example or Screamin' Jay Hawkins many years before, then Alice Cooper, who got inspired by Grand Guignol and Vaudeville theatre. Yeah. But I'd say Alice Cooper was more of a pop act for teenage girls. Men would listen to Ozzy. You could sell his t-shirts at Hot Topic and play his music at biker bars.
>his own wife-manager … being backed by younger, cooler and technically competent musicians, while selling his "prince of darkness" angleHahaha yes.
>and instead they pushed for the "satanic" thing, a cunning play in America, with all that moral panic and crazy evangelicals.That too. His act was devilish enough to get a reaction in the 1980s.
>To be fair, all that shitshow looked very classy and cultured if compared to later radioactive waste like the Kardashians. At least, they were quite natural and they were capable of genuine humor at timesYeah it seemed like they just let the camera roll and it was comedic because of the contrast betwen Ozzy Osbourne the famous rock star living a Simpsons-like family life with his dog shitting on the carpet. Reality show later turned into its own schtick where you have "reality show" actors who are putting on an act.
>>2403717Meh I still enjoy art made by reactionaries and libs, to loosely paraphrase Aristotle:
"it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
>>2403717if you want to be rich and successful as a musician, actor etc you pretty much have to pledge allegiance to israel, criticising it is social/career suicide
>>2403722This, kind of
>>2407158>This is actually where I take a Nietzchean approach … Who gives a shit if popular musicians aren’t Hamas warriors?I'm similar to you on this one. Through an act of Nietzschean will to power, if I like a musician, I'll be like "this rocks." If I don't like it: "this sucks." It doesn't matter how popular they are or what the rock critics said about them. I have a very transactional attitude towards these people: I pay them, they entertain me.
People are crazy about musicians. But what's that saying, "don't meet your idols?" I understand teenagers who gather near a band's tour bus in the hope of meeting some singer. But the last time I saw that happen (a few weeks ago), I saw a bunch of grown men doing it as I was leaving. It was a metal concert. I'm like, man, I dunno. I enjoyed the show, but I got what I wanted and don't have an interest in extending this relationship further.
>>2407191>If you criticized Ukraine and took Russia’s side in the war you’d also be cancelled in a heartbeat.If you took Russia's side in the war, yeah. I liked what Limp Bizkit did where Fred Durst was deepfaked Putin and Zelensky was on the keys. It made fun of Putin a bit, but it wasn't an anti-Putin song like you'd think. It was a "let's all get along, we're actually all on the same team."
>>2408190I can't believe she's still touring.
Anyway, I remember the theatre kids digging this song in high school.
Unique IPs: 57