Reading thru a number of zines I find their response to Sept 11th and its aftermath to be pretty disappointing. Of course the reasons given by the media to justify war (v. Iraq) were pretty feeble but that’s because they didn’t DARE tell the truth as it was/is too explosive and would have raised angry questions about the extent of the power of the Israeli lobby as well as leading to the naming France and Russia as being part of the ‘axis of evil’. (as for their backing of Saddam that can be dismissed by saying ‘that was then – this is now’). The REAL scenario Blair faced was this: the sanctions regime was crumbling and would soon be unenforceable leaving Saddam free to import whatever weapons material he wanted (from France Russia and many other countries). Not that it would have got him anywhere as sooner or later Iraq would have been obliterated in a massive Isreali pre-emptive strike (Saddam being the enemy of Israel and Iran – not Britain or America). However this would have inflamed the ‘Arab street’ and forced the Gulf monarchs to punish us (for being the chief ‘friends of Israel’) by not buying American and British weapons + consumer goods.

It’s true this was not ‘all about oil’ – it was about oil WEALTH (as Blair in particular, needs Arab money to finance his pet projects). As a war about peace, this war was a dismal failure as the world is no more peaceful now than it was before the war.

However as a war to neutralize Iraq it was a great success as there is now nobody in Iraq for France or Russia to sell WMD’s to. Whatever we are told, Saddam’s Iraq was a regional problem to be DEALT with by the region. However this would have left Iraq outside the control of Bush and Blair (or the money men and powerbrokers who stand behind them).




As for the ‘future of punk’ the point to be made here is that punk itself was/is part of a long tradition that can be traced back to the 1930’s when actors like Frankie Darro and John Garfield played ‘punkish’ characters in the (American) social conscience drama’s of the period.  The term ‘punk’ of course was an American one for young street hoodlum and the original punk rock started as an American attempt to out‘stone’ the Rolling Stones. None of these bands though had any political gripes – that was provided by another (U.S.) 60s trend, the folk protest movement before that the ‘statements’ were made by artists, writers, poets etc.

I’d have thought the problems facing (UK) punk are the same as they’ve always been, starting with low demographics, even in its heyday punk was a minority taste. Then there is the workings of the British pop process (described here by one of the Moody Blues 70s pomp rockers Finally there was the emergence f other forms of ‘rebel’ music. Back in the late 70s punk was pretty much the only rebel music/scene on offer, now there’s rap, rave, indie etc EVERYBODY’s a rebel these days... Which leaves.. well, the only real option open to punk (the only real option there has always been for ‘youth culture’) It strikes me that most people involved in ‘punk’ are pretty satisfied with their (and its) present level and don’t WANT to take it any further.