Author Archive

A City of Artists

Posted: August 16, 2011 by jungleboots in Uncategorized

God i hate this city’s infestation of idiot hipsters.

They all talk about taking the city back with art. Building a real people’s art culture in the city. But they havent got the gumption to start anything. they havent got the intelligence to realise that what they are doing right now with their small exclusive galleries filled with their friends and fellow alumni’s selfishly motivated impenitrable subjective human-less story-less pointless art about how weird it is to see a hammer hanging from the ceiling isnt speaking to anyone that needs to hear it.

Galleries are the bane of art in this city. Galleries are the.very reason there will never be a peoples art culture in this city. A handfull of modestly wealthy pretenders come to look at art to realise or feel something profound and if the art seems a good enough investment the art gets bought.

The people who havent the wealth nor the education nor the articulation to understand this art let alone the intrest to come veiw it are the people that need its realization its feeling and its profundity the most. These pretenders these idiots these kids i went to school with think its a fault of these uncaring uneducated people that they dont understand or dont want to understand. These people are crying for something to fill their heads with. But its you that makes shit art that says nothing to them. Its your fault you dont MAKE them understand with your art. Its your inarticulation that keeps them from becoming interested. Worst of all its your foolish pride and your lack of understanding that keeps you so steadfast in your shity galleries with your shitty friends and your shitty art as if your comfort in “self discovery” is more important than the people outside your doors starving for a whole hell of a lot more than just food.

Your art, your loves, your friends, your aspirations, your life means nothing to them. And its your fault. 

This is the failure of this city. This is the failure of your expected city of artists.


Who the hell are you? (PC culture)

Posted: August 2, 2011 by jungleboots in What a world what a world...

This is a youtube episode from an independant internet news group known as The Young Turks.

As to the nature of this The Young Turks episode I feel it is pertinent that I express my views as to what i find to be a hyper-sensitive and all together racially/culturally damaging movement towards absolute political correctness (PC).

It seems to me that this is a reactionary display of growing and well articulated white guilt initiated by an ignorance to cultural differences and the dynamics of cultural difference pushed foreword to become a foolish responsibility toward becoming “racial police” to protect races from racism that whites have little to no understanding of.

What i feel political correctness does is attempt to homogenize culture, and race into what is ideally a society with no race consciousness. It seeks to eliminate the offenses of a certain action words or stereotypes, but inadvertently bars the display of any cultural difference between one race and another in order to avoid revealing conflict between the two.

Its almost an act of gentrification of culture, of race itself. Taking the culture from a given race and replacing its native identity and function with that of a more comfortable one, a more politically correct one. I say gentrification because if a person of color cannot be popularly portrayed with any sense of their mannerisms and lingual norms (exaggerated or otherwise accurate) without assuming someone somewhere is going to be offended by it *where the reaction is to say it must be*suppressed. Suppressed but more quietly replaced (as nature as well as social existence abhors a vacuum). But replaced by what? The norm… which especially in politically correctness is White culture.

Thus much like a neighborhood that was once poor and black that slowly grows white and wealthy. Where in, inadvertently,*the whites push the native blacks out of the neighborhood; this is gentrification. slowly the proliferation of white cultures prescribed political correctness will push out the native culture of blackness, of afro-centrism, of black power from the black culture and reduce its black people with black culture to black people with white culture and it will truly solve none of the real ignorance of race and of different cultures (via PC culture.)

I think the popularity of the politically correct movement has been said before “White americans have no concept of racism as a reality. As they never experienced a minoritization of them selves or their race en masse.” Instead they learn about racism through text books, and media pundits (such as The Young Turks). The white american perception of racial consciousness is that historic racism still persists (which it does) and they are thusly still guilty of the crimes of their great great great grandfathers because they look at race historically rather than practically or modernly. Essentially they get hung up collectively on the history of slavery, Jim Crowe, and historical white class privilege. Which is true in a sense, but it is not the cause, nor the continuance of racism in America ignorance of different races, and different cultures is, and ignorance of the pain and reality of contemporary racism is.

White americans assume an action against what they suppose is historical racism, based on language, and law rather than what is based on lack of exposure to race, fear of race and ignorance of race. They resort to an activity which they think will mask the reality of racism, and thus eventually eliminate the functions of racism.

However, this action is motivated by confusion and deep down a persistent expectation that white culture is the normal culture which then more mistakenly is assumed to be the correct culture, why? because it is the culture that subscribes most to (and invented) politically correct culture. Politically correct culture of course reveals this mentality in its own name. It reveals that those that perscribe to it assume it is the most correct manner with which to deal with racial dialectics.

White culture is professional culture, white culture is media culture, white culture is consumer culture. If you do not subscribe to these cultures you are invariably incorrect, and this is definitely applied (especially in the professional, and politically correct cultures) to different races labeling them thusly incorrect, or at least undesirable.

The danger of it is that whites know about racism through the “educations” of PC culture and language, which seeks to eliminate the conflict between racial dialectics and homogenize culture. But then, once eliminating the conflict what still resides is that whites still hold the power in this country, and thus their expectations of propriety reflect, or are without a doubt focused mostly on White cultural propriety.

People portraying people of different races stereotypically IS damaging, it is backwards to a degree… but what really motivates modern racism, what really IS modern racism is the unspoken expectation (inadvertently reassured by the popular politically correct movement) that White culture is the proper culture. and that is by far where the majority of racial discrimination lies in contemporary racism. It exists within the side effects of PC’s proliferation that the idea of a proper, professional, family friendly, and politically correct culture does, and should exist, what more that it is the only Correct institution with which to approach cultural and racial dialectics.

So basically my long winded hard to understand post begs to ask the question of those of you whom are offended by these videos or at the very least feel uneasy about the controversy brought on by them in this discussion.

“if these commercials portray different races stereotypically and inaccurately what then is the correct way to portray different races? But more so; Why could you specifically assume any knowledge of correct and incorrect portrayals of race, especially if you are not a member of the race in question?”

Punx Is Metaphysix: Part 2: A Manifesto

Posted: December 2, 2010 by jungleboots in Uncategorized

Continued from

Heidegger tells us that in fact that we as humans have no real autonomy… that we are historical and social creatures with personalities based on experience, nurture, and environment. Psychology tells us that our decisions are determined by our (subconscious and conscious) memory and environment. Cause and effect tells us that our environment is determined by previous states and events of and within that same environment. This environment being manipulate-able makes us manipulate-able. And who but those most powerful and influential humans are the ones with the greatest position upon which to manipulate the rest of us.

Yet it might be that we are not left at the whims of powerful men; we are not left at the whims of powerless insignificance. However it is with the same metaphysics, the same concepts, the same empty promises that allow for evils, that we may also find our salvations. But the question then becomes how does one put distance to that which has made them what they are?

Following Heidegger’s existentialisms we find ourselves in a self-less situation; the magnanimity of the Universe tells us that we are insignificant in comparison, that we are an accumulation of atoms without objective purpose. It tells us that we human beings, we living things, can only grasp out at abstracts to find purpose, to find identity, to find existence, and that these abstracts we ourselves invent.

However, the Universe also tells us that as we are purposeless, it provides no objective purpose for its own existence. It only provides only objective truth as to how it does or does not exist. We truly have even ground in that respect, limitations of physical and mathematical laws aside, the Universe certainly never stopped us from thinking about… even inventing purpose for ourselves, or even a purpose for the Universe itself.

So we do invent. We invent autonomy; we invent the brotherhood of man, humanity, justice, truth, responsibility, progress. We invent our self conception.

But as we stated these inventions become the very tools that keep us in line for the interests of those most powerful and influential humans. It is with the idea of humanity that the Nazis were allowed to commit horrendous acts of inhumanity. Manipulation of our idea of humanity allows for a twisting of what we define as human, what we define as justice, as responsibility, progress, so on and so forth.

How are we to step away from this manipulation is simple. Ignore it. Ignore the stations of value that are twisted into our definitions of culture, faith, and civilization.

When we negate the values of dominant culture we subvert the powers that assert them.

When we negate the values of dominant faiths (secular, and sacred) we subvert the powers that praise them.

When we negate the values of those who dominate our civilization we subvert the functions they rely on.

When we negate the values of dominant definitions of humanity we subvert the functions of inhumane interests.

When we negate the stations of our existence we were born into without our own choice we subvert the manipulations that define us without our own choice.

When we define ourselves on our own experiences, we gain true autonomy as is abstractly possible.

We are not left at the whims of powerful men; we are not left at the whims of powerless insignificance.


To start things off, in this series of posts, id like to say… I’d like to see things end.

Id like to see a purer music industry, I’d like to see a purer means of music appreciation, a purer means of experience. I feel there are  a series of major issues in the punk rock world… an innate and so far unavoidable set of issues that have doomed the autonomy of the movement, as well as many other musical movements. One of these major issues is the commodity music has become. A commodity that removes music as an art and develops it as a business venture, this as a means to allow the powerful elite to engrain their influence into the very trains of thought that desire to defy them.

I want to key in on certain philosophies and critical theories that focus on this phenomenon of commoditization. To do that I would like to start with a conversation I’ve had before with a freind:

Him: “People that enjoy that kind of music [bubble gum pop] don’t really like “music”. They like songs. And shitty songs at that, but the point is that they don’t enjoy music as music, just the 3 minutes of catchy crap. ”

Me: “I recently read an article by the writer and critic Theodore Adorno…

“specifically look at the 2nd chapter of this article, Musical theory, and even more specifically the first paragraph of that chapter and the exerpt on Marxist theory. It pretty much expresses entirely what you are saying, only it was conceived and foreseen at the advent of recorded music.
Marxists are always attempt to be so prophetic, at least some times they hit their mark.”

“(The music industry) seems every year to make more and more cultural artifacts of less and less quality that are consumed with some disgust by their “fans”. – (an alteration of a quote from the wikipedia article previously linked)

“Music specifically is more and more commoditized every year. Music is no longer an art but an industry. it is no longer artistry but business.

“Adorno said this stating (as a Marxist would) that the consumer is quietly aware of the dying credibility of the commodity of arts. But they continue to purchase because it is what is available. He believed eventually however that the consumer would become frustrated with this (among other innate oppressions)  to the point of revolution.

“But the Situationist International member Guy Debord (also a Marxist in a sense) sees the consumer’s accept of the commoditized recordings with oblivious glorification. and theorizes that the Music industry exists as a commodity provider to create an illusion of art and satisfaction in the consumer, when really it provides very little intellectual stimulation or value as an art. This commodity is thus keeping the consumer from thinking too deeply about their station within the capitalist system, and within the spectacle of the system’s commodities and media.

“Just trying to affirm your feelings towards pop music with solidly respected theorists. Though the two of them would probably still distain even the most obscure and challenging bands you listen to as still contributing to this commoditization. ”

Him: “Thank you for clarifying that.
This is all too true.
But you will always find artists who play not just for money and fame.
So it’s all good.”

Me: “Its not so much who plays music for money and who plays for the sake of the art. Its who says what with their music. Because a lot of “indie bands” are still just pop bands. And a lot of no name bands are just artless believers in failed revolutionary ideals.(ie punk, metal, grunge, rave, rock and roll, definitely the modern indie scene) thus only diverting the consumer from a true revolutionary consciousness. Again they are firm believers in serious Marxism so everything comes down to setting the stage for the global proletarian revolution.

“Not to mention it’s not even so much what the music is saying or how sincere or timely it is to modern culture and the revolutionary spirit. It’s that commodity of music itself has (although made music as an art only experienced by the elite now available to the masses) become less an art and more a system due to the process of recording. Something that can’t be experienced without paying a great deal of money, which is a shame, since music is probably the most approachable and emotionally investing for the experience of all fine art. and now we have to pay to experience it.

“You see though, the reality is desperate and impossible. guy Debord killed himself when he came to the realization of this. the realization that the depth of commodity in not only music culture but all culture, global culture. the reality that the situation is completely irreversible. it is essential to our modern world entirely. that is how well commodity has been burned into human consciousness. that we all, all, have been mind controlled to an inconceivable depth.”

Our self concept of autonomy is a sham because of it… and any movement that finds itself expressed in music, in art, in literature suddenly becomes sucked into a catastrophic self-evolving deception. A deception that makes all too clear that we creatures have very little real autonomy if any at all.

Heidegger tells us that in fact that we as humans have no real autonomy… that we are historical and social creatures with personalities based on experience nurture, and environment. This environment being manipulate-able, makes us manipulate-able. –(A quick summary of Martin Heidegger’s philosophies on the subject from “Letter on Humanism.”)
However I disagree there, its not completely irreversible. i think that the only means of reversing this however would require the complete destruction of modern culture. Or at least the complete destruction of modern culture within the individual. If real autonomy does not exsit… if the idea of humanity does not exist thusly, that these things in their never truely present state, in there entirely metaphysical state do not have any real physical foundation, then this alone allows the evils we experience against us. Truth is not a physical pressence, thus it can be twisted, justice can be subverted, rights can be ignored, and humanity thus can be deceived and damaged.

However we are not left at the whims of powerful men, but with the same metaphyiscs, the same concepts, the same empty promises that allow for evil, may also be salvations. But the question then becomes how does one fight that which has made them what they are?

[to be continued]

What It Aims For

Posted: November 8, 2010 by jungleboots in What a world what a world..., What the Fuck is Sparx?
 My cross hairs land on beautiful things.
Lovely and beautiful are two very very different words; Similar but not the same, definitely not interchangeable. This is because they both have a sensitivity to connotation that separates them. By this i mean; technically, traditionally, according to most thesauruses these words are absolutely synonyms. However individually these two words mean different things.
Lovely is a stimulation of our senses and our mind, a stimulation of delight.
Beauty is a stimulation of our senses and our mind, but is a stimulation of awe, and wonder. 

(Cloaca, Aka: The Shit Machine, is a machine created by artist; Wim Delvoye that takes food and mechanically and chemically brakes it down producing shit on a rotating disc similar to a human digestive system)

(image probably of the inside of the Pakard Plant Detroit, MI)

To me lovely seems more like a whimsy, fluttery, pretty thing, ethereal maybe. But more so i compare it to beauty like I compare food to bubble gum.
Lovely, pretty, even gorgeous are bubble gum words. Wonderfully tasting, savory, mouth-watering, and delicious. However bubble gum flavoring is artificial, and it offers no true sustenance, no true value.
Beauty is like food, it may not always taste as brilliant and deliciously as bubble gum, but it offers sustenance in a way that bubble gum cannot; beauty has a fuel that keeps us running.
This becomes a difference between delight, and wonder. Delight is a quick, impermanent thing, quick to gain quick to lose. Something that may make one happy, ecstatic even, however it does not continue very far into the future. It is only delightful, entertaining. Wonder is a questioning, and understanding. ”I wonder”; it is seeing something we cannot explain, so we must ask ourselves about it, perhaps obsess ourselves over it.  We must then figure out how we will deal with it, how we will live with it, this beautiful thing we experience. It stimulates an abstract of our mind that delight comes no where close to.
This questioning is how it fuels us… it’s essence is not spent quickly as entertainment and delight’s essence does. It brings us carefully, slowly to understandings, and those understandings stay with us, fueling more questioning, more wonder.

("The Young Family" by Patricia Piccinini

The beauty of Beauty, as a thing that makes wonder, does not have to be just beauty in the traditional sense. Like art, beauty can be grotesque, it can be shocking, it can be harsh and critical and mean. Beauty yet becomes great to us because it can be all of those things. While lovely remains simply lovely.
This may be superficial on my part, frivolous to compare. But I hold beauty to be important, and i aim to seek it out, and knowing the difference keeps me focused.
 I figure before any of us go on to introduce ourselves, or go on to start our normally planned postings it would be a good idea to define, in a sense, what we all share in common as the collective; Dirty Punx. And that would be Punk itself, not just the music, not just the philosophy, not just the attitude, not just the culture… but the one idea that links all three together. So what is punk? what does it mean?

We know what a punk looks like right? we know what punk sounds like right? we know what being a punk means right? do we?… the answers ive gotten over the years seem so off base, so subjective, so different it becomes really hard to place a finger on what punk really means. All in all if you ask most self-proclaimed punks they wouldn’t be able to give you a universal definition for the term punk… but I’m going to give it a try.

We all recall the stories and history of the creation of punk rock, punk culture, punk style, punk life style. We all know the political intrigues that punk grew up in; the anti-nixon youth, the growth out of hippie/beatnik revolutions, the evolution of recreational drugs in those revolutions, and the cold war itself. The details arent important, the reasons are… the objective… the idea… the goal… that’s whats important. The goal… being punk fucking rock right? the more points you gotz… the more punx you is… the closer to God you seem to be. But let’s be serious…. Punk was a goal… an achievement… like a perfection of theory, a practice of idea, a need was evident and punk was the solution.

The RAMONES claim punk rock to be a purification of rock and roll. A recantation of bubblegum rock bands, and a recantation of what we now call dad rock; After the death of Hendrix we hear endless blues riffs and jack offs nawwing away at their guitars like  themselves were Hendrix. But none of them were…

David Lee Roth is a good example of BULLLLLLL SHIIIIITTTTTTTTTT

“Who started punk? who made it this punk? who made it that punk? who invented this that and the other thing?” is pointless to the reality of what it was. I pick the RAMONES not because they invented punk rock, not because I neglect Patti smith, or MC5, or Iggy, or the pistols… but because The RAMONES told it as simply and truthfully as i can seem to find.

Fuck'n Ramones yo... fucking Ramones

Punk was a purity of spirit and energy, it was an elimination of bull shit. In music; a rebellion against egoism and hyper-technical under-expressive nonsense. It was a simplification of the rock and roll structure down to is core foundations; three chords… and three rules… loud, fast, and furious.

 -1:40 is about where this video becomes relevant to the conversation-

In spirit punk became a philosophy of take no bull shit; No bull shit politics, no bull shit bureaucracy, no bull shit institutions. Just pure human living, pure brother hood, nothing in between.

It grew out from there into an enormous musical and cultural practice. It broke into little cool kids clicks of its own. And depending on perceptions it became even more smothered in bull shit than anything the hippies ever managed, to a point of suffocation, to a point of death. But that’s beside the point…

the point is