Prefacing that I detest punk and find it musically useless except from a purely socio-historical perspective, and that I can't stand the fifteen-year-old punk girls running around with green mohawks and Ramones or Sex Pistols t-shirts, this review is well-written. And I actually like the album.
Shouldn't you be judged by how you wear your hair? It’s not about judging, it’s about observation. I am deeply convinced that the punk girls I mentioned earlier suffer from childish egocentrism, and I find them not very different from the little communists who go around with "viva Che Guevara" or "Modena City Ramblers 4ever" written on their backpacks, alongside the hammer and sickle. I feel sorry for them because in their brains, they are still stuck in 1968; they practically live there "remembering" (what, then?) without realizing that it is 2007. Just like punks, who still dress like clowns today, believing themselves to be "different from the crowd," alternative, rebellious. Dear punks, you seem a bit pathetic today in 2007; let's say you've remained at the end of the '70s, when the punk phenomenon concluded.
"For what else should I be judged? For how I wear my hair?": I have nothing against you, but I will answer you, yes. Do you know that one of the main punk "slogans" is "Punk is a way of being, not a way of appearing"? So what you present isn't a way of appearing, but a way of being. You are what you wear, let's say. With your clothing, you want to prove something. So yes, you should be judged for how you dress and how you wear your hair. But I’m not the one saying this; you are saying it yourselves. A good wake-up call to understand that we are not in '77 wouldn't hurt. Or at least, and this applies also to the little communist girls, if you are really punk or communist, live like one. Have the guts to put into practice your utopian ideals and dreams. Live as if it were '68 or '77. But I've noticed that you don't do it. No. You prefer to keep buzzing around professing justice and equality, dressing in a way that makes it obvious from a mile away that you are punk (or communist), that you are rebellious, that you are different, and you don’t even realize that you are conformists like everyone else.
I find the punkabbestia much more coherent, as they at least do not resort to useless compromises based on appearances, but take the bull by the horns and follow their ideals. I may not agree with their ideals, but at least they are coherent, and I respect them for that. The same goes for the communists (often punks are also communists, especially those under sixteen): do you want to live in '68? Do you want to live like it’s '68? Fine, if you can do it, then do it. If you can’t, step back and realize that perhaps society has changed. If you can follow your ideals, great. Just don’t annoy me by giving that superior air of an altruistic and generous person who preaches the world's poverty, how great it was in '68, etc., and then at home, you have a computer, a plasma screen TV, and pull out a phone that costs 300 euros and an 80-gig iPod. A little consistency would be appreciated. Oh, and then maybe read "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels so you realize that it’s not how you think, as your friends tell you, that communism is a beautiful dream of peace, equality, and assorted nonsense. The problem is that, in the age group of 13 to 17, while fascism is defined — meaning that 70% of those who are fascists know what they’re talking about (excluding those who are fascists by trend) — around the word "communism" there’s this large foggy cloud: it’s not clear what communism is, but it’s nice, it’s right, it’s peace, it’s equality. Incredibly, the little fascists are often more informed about communism than the little communists. Without delving into what punks then consider to be punk (Green Day?! Blink 182?! Simple Plan?! Chemical Brothers?! Lost Prophets?), I’ll conclude this discussion, emphasizing that I agree with Vortex
