finally me new layout for welcome the new year has been completed, 
hopefully next year we got a lot of blessings ...  
Good-bye 2009 welcome 2010 ..

=]

Oh shit it was morning ... rainy and humid ... I have to finish my work today, if not finished, I could not enjoy my Christmas holidays.
Happy Christmas Holiday...

today is the ceremonial of Mothers Day, not much I can do, but I'm trying to become a better person, as a gift for my mother.

These days I feel tired to continue working. But this job was not finished. There is only one who can give me the spirit of ... I hope to meet with her today ...


The Dead Work

noveus | MySpace Video

I tired to trace and copy paste, do I have to change my blog theme, but I am proud to be a true plagiarist. Quite tiring indeed cheating writings of others, sometimes does not match what's on my mind, so from now on I write my own writing, but do not let me change my blog theme?
I think you also do not care if I plagiarize from the various blogs that are here. so like it or not, you will enjoy my writing, because I was tired to plagiarize other people. =?.

Hi Pals.., My friend Jacie, have a DIY radio station streaming. Help us to grow up this radio with your support. And this is a profile of TERD.

Name:			The Evil Rubber Duckie [READ MY BLOG 4 INFO]
Bio:			The Evil Rubber Duckie is a FREE punk internet radio station that is currently under construction but will be up at times to test until finished. Any bands that want to get promoted and want to add their music to the shows on the station leave me a message here : http://www.punkrock.org/TERD/ [[[ STATION IS NEW SO PLEASE BARE WITH ME...I WILL BE HAVING THINGS ADDED ALONG THE WAY TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR YOU GUYS ]]] HERE IS THE LINK U CAN COPY & PASTE IT IN A SEPARATE WINDOW SO THAT U DO NOT HAVE TO CLOSE OUT PUNKROCK.ORG :: http://67.61.193.224/radiodestiny.html .......ALSO IF U REALLY LIKE IT AND WANT TO DOWNLOAD THE PLAYER WHICH IS TOTALLY FREE AND BETTER LISTENING QUALITY AND CAN ALSO SEE NAME OF ARTIST & SONG PLAYING AS WELL. DOWNLOAD THE PLAYER FROM HERE::: http://www.pirateradio.com/downloads/ Please leave me some comments and requests if there is something u need to ask or say then SAY IT! Thanks Everyone! Cheers! ~Jacie~ *****ALSO....ANY BANDS WANTING ME TO PROMOTE UR MUSIC I WILL BE HAPPY TO DO SO AND PLAY UR MUSIC ON MY STATION. JUST MESSAGE ME. I WILL ALSO MAKE GIG/EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS AS WELL.****** EMAIL ME ANY COMMENTS,QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS AND IF U ARE A BAND WANTING TO SEND ME UR STUFF TO PLAY I WILL SO PLAY IT! =======E-Mail: theevilrubberduckie@hotmail.com=====

20040530065 http://agicubby.blogspot.com/2008/07/punk-bukan-sekadar-musik.html

by gabriel sayegh
In the growing resistance to capitalism within the United States, many white activists consider Seattle as the 'beginning of a movement', and gauge anti-capitalist work using Seattle as the measuring stick. As the U.S. anti-globalization movement continues to build steam, the 'Spirit of Seattle' gets invoked everywhere from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. Extensive efforts have been made by organizers of all stripes to replicate both the coalitions and tactics which enabled us to shut down the WTO. But the success in Seattle was not without its failures, perhaps the most glaring of which could be found amongst white activists: a dangerous absence of any analysis of white supremacy. And while the white Left has not been entirely successful in replicating another Seattle, it has found great success in perpetuating racism and upholding white supremacy.
Racism, subtly complex and historically consistent, has been both divisive and destructive in the struggle to build movements of liberation, including this "anti-globalization" movement. Of late, we are seeing more and more white activists beginning to discuss white supremacy and the role white privilege plays in anti-globalization efforts. Yet despite this growing dialogue, the current trend amongst most whites in the anti-globalization movement (particularly those in leadership positions) is to ignore white supremacy altogether. While I recognize that all oppression intersects, and that these intersections themselves demand attention, in this article I intend to focus explicitly on white supremacy and white privilege in the anti-globalization movement. I feel this focus is necessary to explore why and how white activists either limit or entirely avoid an examination of white supremacy.
I am a white, queer male from a working class/working poor background. I live in Seattle, Washington, and was intimately involved in the direct action organizing here to stop the WTO. Over the last few years I've had the privileged opportunity to participate in protests and actions across the country, and I've interviewed whites and people of color coast to coast about this movement against global capital. From these experiences, I've gained a bit of perspective into the ways white folks avoid dealing with white supremacy and white privilege.
I believe that this avoidance is made easier, in part, by the way success is now defined by many white activists and organizers. As Seattle was a watershed event on the Left, many white activists have reduced the idea of 'success' to 'numbers of people in the streets and the levels of disruption of trade meetings, business summits, political pomp and flair gatherings (like the Democratic and Republican National Conventions).'
Measuring success in these narrow terms does not push white activists to challenge the very systems, such as white supremacy, which enable institutions of global capital, like the WTO, to exist. Indeed, it is systemic and institutionalized oppressions that uphold and maintain the structures of globalization- and white supremacy is one of them. The flipside to white supremacy is white-skin privilege. It would follow, then, that to be truly successful in the struggle for collective liberation, confronting and destroying white supremacy and white-skin privilege (and oppression overall) should be a focal point for white people. Organizers and writers of color (and some anti-racist whites) have been identifying this necessity for many, many years. Most white activists, however, have failed to connect capitalism to white supremacy. In fact, as a general group, we have continuously replicated racism in our organizing efforts. When we fail to challenge white supremacy and take responsibility for white privilege, we perpetuate the very systems that, like glue, hold institutions the WTO, the IMF/World Bank, and indeed, the U.S. government, together.
People of color have been mobilizing resistance since the first days of colonization, and that history of resistance continues strongly today. Unfortunately, white activists in the U.S. often ignore this history or are completely ignorant of it. And in turn, we often frame ourselves as the 'leaders' along a path of struggle that has been forged by people of color. Such a contradiction makes liberation impossible, and needs to be seriously examined by white people.
As an organizer, it is important to me to identify the strengths and weaknesses in any organizing effort. As a white organizer, it's crucial that I bring an anti-racist analysis to all my work. In the first half of this article, I will identify how racism was perpetuated and white supremacy upheld by whites during the organizing in Seattle. I will show how white organizers have continued to carry forth this dangerous weakness in one hand, while holding onto the measuring stick of Seattle in the other. The second half is a closer look at the Los Angeles organizing efforts against the Democratic National Convention in August of 2000. These actions were crucially different than those of Seattle, and within that difference we can find effective ways to move forward.
Questions
More and more white activists are beginning to ask questions that have answers rooted in white supremacy: Why is this movement so white? Why don't people of color come to our meetings? Why is it that people of color are not working with us to organize these large mobilizations? White folks respond to these questions in a variety of ways which I will address later on. First, though, I think it is important to look at what people of color are saying about whiteness in the movement. In this way, we can find direction by listening. These questions have been analyzed by writers such as veteran Chicana organizer Elizabeth (Bettita) Martinez in her widely distributed ColorLines article, 'Where was the Color in Seattle?'; (Spring 2000); Andrew Hsiao's Village Voice article 'Color Blind' (19 July 2000); and Colin Rajah's ColorLines article, 'Globalism and Race at A16 in D.C.' (Fall 2000). These are just a few of the many articles in which the question of whiteness in the movement has been, thankfully, examined and critiqued.
These writers and organizers of color have clearly identified a number of recurring problems: when organizing these large actions, white organizers and activists have been talking to rather than with people of color. With reliable consistency, white activists start organizing for an action and then, paternally, invite people of color to join. In essence, white activists have been focusing on including people of color for aesthetic diversity rather than actively building true solidarity.
These critiques are vital directional tools for white activists: they offer us a crucial perspective from which we can see how our behaviors, attitudes, privileges and actions often maintain and perpetuate racism- whether we think it does or not. Most white activists in this movement have not displayed much, if any, commitment to dismantle white supremacy. We rarely challenge each other around racism and white privilege, and when some whites do speak up, they are most often silenced. While we won't listen to other white activists who challenge us to dismantle white supremacy, we also conveniently ignore what people of color are telling us, too. Were we to listen, we'd discover our real successes: not in our attempts to shut down the institutions of global capital, but in alienating people of color in these efforts.
Context: Seattle- Not the Beginning, but a Good Place to Start Looking
This movement did not begin in Seattle, but there were many things that happened in Seattle that set a precedence for the organizing and actions that have followed. In her fabulous essay Where was the Color in Seattle?, Elizabeth (Bettita) Martinez examined 'why the great battle was so white'. As Martinez made clear, the whiteness in Seattle was neither happenstance nor anomaly: it did not 'just happen that way'.
I worked with the Direct Action Network (DAN) in organizing against the WTO. DAN was composed of a broad coalition of direct action activists, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's), students, labor rank and file, and more. The coalition came together for a single action: to stop the WTO. By examining the origins and focus of our organizing efforts during that time, we can gain a better understanding as to why the actions were so white*.
From DAN's inception in the spring 1999 and through its development the following summer, DAN was focused on and committed to the complete shutdown of the WTO. However, in our collective analysis of capitalism and the WTO, we did not have a commitment to challenge white supremacy (or oppression in general, for that matter). Our lack of commitment to developing anti-racist work was evidenced in how we organized: while we verbally denounced all forms of oppression, discussions about white supremacy were few and far between. There was no collective anti-racist commitment, and there was only one person of color even remotely involved in DAN's creation and planning. Our 'commitment' to anti-oppression was mostly rhetoric. As the network grew there was never a collective effort to address the obvious and particular issues of racism that developed within DAN, or the white privilege which would come to define the group. A small number of white organizers actually did address racism- fairly consistently, too- but they found themselves shut down by other white organizers who opined that 'racism was not the issue; the WTO was.'
There was no genuine effort to share the ownership of anti-WTO organizing with people of color because there was no collective (or even majority) recognizance that such co-ownership. Indeed, there was only a paternal effort to include people of color in our work, and we did not support work being done by people of color-led groups in the Seattle area. Community organizations of color were very active in anti-WTO organizing, and included such groups as the Northwest Labor Employment Law Office (LELO), Community Coalition for Environmental Justice (CCEJ), People of Color Against Aids Network (POCAAN), and Bayan/People's Assembly Against the WTO. We made no effort to work with these groups, save one instance when DAN activists joined a People's Assembly march. This one instance, however, hardly amounts to a commitment of solidarity- and, was, more truthfully, a kind of tokenism. Thus we largely excluded people of color from our own organizing efforts and ignored the extensive work being done by organizations of color throughout the Northwest.
The anti-WTO Convergence began in mid-November 1999, two weeks before the big WTO protests. The Convergence was a gathering to share various skills and ideas, build networks, and prepare for the actions against the WTO; the Convergence Center was where said gathering took place. There were trainings on legal rights, nonviolent direct action, consensus decision-making, affinity group structure, and street medic skills. We also built puppets, practiced dance steps, created spoken word, and developed street strategies. These were some of the tools people took with them to stop the WTO; and this sharing of skills enabled many people to stick together while being shot at, beaten, poisoned, and otherwise brutalized by an out-of-control paramilitary police army.
Trainings on challenging white supremacy should have been included in the Convergence, but were not. We had no training's or workshops to teach white people about white privilege and racism (they're not what Webster's Dictionary will tell you), no discussion about the implications of direct action for people of color, no commitment to make the Convergence space culturally accessible and relevant to anyone but white people. Thus the Convergence Center was a space created exclusively by, and thus for, white people. (Whether this contributed to the almost universal whiteness of the Convergence Space is not of primary importance, because white activists should not expect people of color to join us or come to our spaces just because we're talking about racism.)
Predictably, the very center where activists were meant to learn skills to shut down the WTO was thus largely inaccessible to people of color.
Talking Racism; Resisting Dialogue
By teaching each other skills to stop the WTO but not the skills to attack and challenge white supremacy, we created and perpetuated a number of contradictions in our actions that week. We engaged in nonviolent direct action tactics (historically developed by people of color) but failed to discuss how these tactics have different implications for white activists and activists of color. We enthusiastically confronted police lines and encouraged everyone to join us, but failed to realize that people of color have to face hostile police forces everyday, without getting to decide, as white people do, when and where such confrontations will occur. We had not worked with organizations of color before the WTO, did not develop an anti-racist analysis of globalization, and after the WTO we made peripheral comments amongst ourselves about the 'low turnout of people of color to the protests'. The well-known chant 'this is what democracy looks like!', was common on the streets that week, but after the WTO (and, it would seem, ever since) white activists and organizers have failed to recognize that our vision of 'what democracy looks like' successfully excluded most people of color.
To be sure, there were a handful of white organizers who did articulate the problem of racism and white privilege in WTO organizing. In the months leading up to N30, white organizers in both Seattle and nearby Olympia made repeated attempts to challenge white supremacy within our organizing. Sadly, they were most often met with anger, resistance, and, ultimately, avoidance by most folks in DAN (all of them white). Efforts to develop awareness of, and responsibility for, white privilege in organizing and direct action were very difficult because even a discussion about racism was met with hostility and denial. The number of white organizers committed to challenging white supremacy was dwarfed by the much larger contingent of whites who wanted put racism on the 'back burner'- it was 'something that could be dealt with after the real work was done'. This avoidance to tackling racism is too common, and there is vast historical evidence of what the 'back burner' approach to oppression has in revolutionary movements: it unravels them, or turns them into oppressive, bureaucratic, authoritarian nightmares.
There is, sadly, a distinguished history of movements being fractured in this way- where a privileged group fails to recognize and take responsibility for its power. This power always comes at the expense of the disempowerment of other people (be they women, poor folks, queers, disabled, people of color). How this history played out in Seattle was historically consistent, and as such was (and is) easily overlooked and ignored by white people.
When racism within DAN became too prevalent to be ignored, resistance to addressing it was intensified. For example, immediately after the WTO actions, a white affinity group from Olympia that played an important role in anti-WTO organizing distributed an open letter to white leadership within DAN, identifying racism as a major problem in the group. They called for the immediate halt of all DAN organizing so that racism and white privilege within DAN could be evaluated and effectively addressed. The white men in receipt of the letter- all of whom played leadership roles in DAN- dismissed and ignored it, chastising the authors for being 'too anal'. The vital points in the letter never got addressed, and the Olympia affinity group left DAN soon thereafter. Thus the problem of white supremacy became a dividing line for many white activists in the Northwest, and eventually led to a decisive split in the activist world here.
While we had helped to stop the WTO, we could not collectively address our own weaknesses, particularly our failure to challenge white supremacy. In effect, we created a divisive wedge in the movement and amongst ourselves by perpetuating oppressive behaviors and then refusing to acknowledge this fact. Seattle was a victory in some ways, and a familiar failure in others.
Globalization: Targets and Misconceptions
Whiteness in the anti-globalization movement gets explained by many white activists/organizers in terms of the shortcomings of people of color rather than in terms of the dominance and privilege of white folks. Some white activists have explained the whiteness of Seattle, or of the 'movement' in general, like this: People of color don't do direct action. This issue doesn't concern people of color. Or, more ominously, They just don't care. These comments are unfortunately common, but incorrect. We need only look at past and current history to see why.
People of color throughout the world are leading the fight against capitalist globalization. From small farmers in India fighting multinational agribusiness, to the unions, students and peasants of El Salvador organizing to fend off privatization of public services; from students in Mexico City striking to keep their educational institutions from becoming privatized, to the family farmers of Nigeria battling the huge oil interests that poison the land- examples of resistance abound.
The struggle has been led by people of color here in the U.S., too. From Indigenous People's in North and South America fighting for centuries against continued attempts at genocide, to the recent fight against racist, youth-phobic prop 21 in California, to current environmental justice work in the Bronx. People of color continue to organize everywhere, and have been doing so for centuries. The fight is worldwide and severe.
Capitalist globalization targets people of color explicitly for cheap labor, appropriation, exploitation and destruction. When I say people of color are targets of globalization, I do so thinking of who globalization affects most. Whether we talk of children making shoes for 16 hours a day in the sweatshops of Los Angeles and Singapore, women making clothes in forced-factory settings in San Francisco and Brazil, or entire families laboring in the factory fields of the U.S. and Mexico with little pay and no benefits- we are talking about people of color. Whether we examine communities in the U.S. (and entire cities and regions in the Global South) being displaced by neo-liberal development, or examine the appalling rise in the prison populations and the justification of the military intervention in Columbia through the so-called drug war, it is a majority people of color who are constantly facing the barrel of a gun or the bars of a prison.
When white people in the U.S. make such ridiculous statements like 'people of color just don't care about fighting globalization' (as we often do), we reveal how privileged and insulated we really are in relation to capitalist globalization.
White Privilege- Globalization and Protest
Since globalization has one of its roots in white supremacy, white people thus receive certain privileges from globalization. According to my dictionary, a privilege is a right, favor, advantage, immunity, specially granted to one individual or group, and withheld from another. With regards to globalization, one of the most notable institutional privileges that white people receive is a particular exemption, though not universal, from being primary targets of capitalist globalization. One of the reasons white supremacy operates so well is because unless we as white people learn to identify racism everywhere, we just don't see it. I'm not talking about cross burnings and lynching- that can indeed be clear to see and identify. I'm talking about the so-called subtle racism that is subtle only to us because we're not targeted by it. In this way we often neglect, as we did in Seattle, to recognize the contradictions we can create in our organizing. Our idea of success was to shut down the WTO, which we did. But this success was limited in that we did not challenge white supremacy, which gives strength to the WTO.
This is not to suggest that working class and poor whites aren't targeted by globalization. We most certainly are, and we have to face many of same problems that people of color do in this regard. However, poor and working class whites, as all white folks, are afforded privileges that are denied to people of color. These privileges have a long history, going as far back as the colonies preceding the creation of the United States. For example, in the colonies white people were exempt from chattel slavery, land grabs, and genocide. Today, white communities are the last to be gentrified (whites are almost always the ones doing the gentrifying); whites are not the subjects of 'racial profiling' by police; whites are not targets of racist terror. Thus, many privileges often come in the form of being excluded from something.
In terms of privilege and protesting, white people, as I have stated above, most often get to choose when we confront the police. That is, we know that when we protest, we'll have to square off with the cops. Thus we get to choose the time and place for these confrontations. In choosing, we can also prepare: with trainings, legal prep-work, media outreach, etc. We didn't expect the cops to riot in Seattle, but we knew they'd be out in force and we were prepared for it.
Most people of color do not have the privilege to choose such confrontations. Communities of color have to survive police repression every day- whether they're protesting or not. By looking at the demographics of the U.S. prison industrial complex, we can see who is being targeted by the criminal justice system: the vast majority of the two million people in prison are people of color. Since many whites aren't subjected to comparable police terror or imprisonment, we often don't think about who is when we're organizing. In this way, our privilege is in not having to consider such realities.
We need to examine our histories and privileges critically. And in being critical of ourselves, our actions, behaviors, thoughts and privileges, it is equally important that we do not get caught up in the paralyzing stagnation of white guilt. Feeling guilty will not contribute to challenging white supremacy. One thing that will help destroy white supremacy is white people working with other white people to undo our internalized racial superiority and our overwhelming sense of entitlement.
White Privilege: the Great Simplifier
I had a conversation with a white organizer friend who argued that "the WTO protests were so white because Seattle is one of the whitest cities in the U.S." True, Seattle is a predominantly white city, but this kind of thinking simplifies the problems of privilege and racism within the United States. The 75,000-plus people that turned out in the streets that week were not all from Seattle- folks traveled here from all over the country and world. When these large anti-globalization mobilizations are called, we see again and again that those who attend are largely white, middle-class youth who have the money and time to travel afar. Additionally, when white folks travel around the country from protest to protest, following the elite like we're following the Grateful Dead, we can be reasonably assured that wherever we go, we'll be able to rely on this societies white supremacy power structure for freedom of movement and access to resources. Because white supremacy (and being middle class) affords white folks a kind of safety net for movement, many of us have little connection to our communities (outside of our activist circles), which makes leaving them much easier.
People of color cannot rely on the same safety net if they travel across the country to attend a protest. As Elizabeth (Bettita) Martinez shows us in Where was the Color in Seattle?, many activists of color wanted to come to Seattle but couldn't travel here, because of lack of money, community priorities at home, and concern for being caught in all-white groups.
My friend's geographic 'logic' proves still weaker when considering other mass actions. In April 2000, at the IMF/World Bank protests in Washington D.C.-- a predominantly African American city with a long history of international action-- the vast majority of the twenty thousand participants were white. As Colin Rajah points out, "A significant number of people of color participated in the D.C. actions, as they had in Seattle. Still, A16 was proportionately even whiter, and, since labor departed early, younger than the WTO protests." Rajah interviewed one of the A16 participants, Eric Tang of Third World Within, who said of the actions: "A16 was indeed a sea of white."
There certainly was a greater presence of people of color in D.C. than in Seattle, but this probably had more to do with organizing by people of color than with geography. The Mobilization for Global Justice- the coordinating coalition for the A16 protests- hired Asantewaa Nkrumah-Ture specifically to do outreach to black communities in D.C. There were a large number of organizers and organizations of color from across the country that mobilized for the actions as well, including JustAct from the Bay Area, the Brown Collective from Seattle, and Third World Within from New York City. Despite these efforts, however, D.C. was still washed over by the sea of white crashing in from Seattle. If neither geography nor lack of organizing by people of color can satisfactorily explain this sea of white, where then do we look for answers?
Many of the answers for questions of whiteness in the movement are to be found amongst white people: in our behaviors, actions, thoughts, and words. As a general group we have a terrible track record on dealing with racism, being aware of our privilege, or being respectful of people of color. But perhaps this point can be best illustrated by Elizabeth (Betitta) Martinez in her article. A number of people Martinez interviewed expressed feeling uncomfortable with the idea of working with a group of predominantly white people. One woman interviewed, Coumbe Toure, said that in her organizing with people of color she encountered a

"legacy of distrust of middle class white activists that has emerged from feelings of 'being used'. Or not having our issues taken seriously. Involving people of color must be done in a way that gives them real space. Whites must understand a whole new approach is needed that includes respect."

Major Transitions: New Models and the Need for Listening
So what does a more effective way look like? How can white activists do better work? Where do we begin to take cues from organizers of color? It might be useful to examine another mass action that was spawned from Seattle-style mobilizations: the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Los Angeles. I was in L.A. doing support work in the Convergence Center, as I had in Seattle. Seattle and L.A. were in some ways very different from one another: how were organized and the strategies and tactics utilized reflected different intentions. Once clear difference in L.A. was the various strategies to bring together multi-racial coalitions- this was due, in part, to the majority of people of color who were organizing for the L.A. actions, and their commitment to multi-racial organizing. In my mind, another important differences between L.A. and Seattle was that the L.A. actions were organized with a strong commitment to anti-racism, as well having a very strong commitment to organizing locally.
The organizers in L.A. were well aware of the problems created by hoards of white activists descending on a city- and into a community of color- to protest. In D.C, white activists convened in Black neighborhoods, with little contact with leaders from that community. This created tension between the neighborhood residents, who might otherwise have been supportive, and white protestors, who were largely clueless. The L.A. Convergence Center was in the Macarthur park area, which is a predominantly Central American neighborhood. The L.A. organizers made great effort to go door to door to hand out Spanish and English information and talk with residents about what was transpiring. They explained what the Convergence Center was, what the actions against the DNC were about, and, if people were interested, how they could participate. Neighborhood residents were given a heads-up on what to expect when thousands of protestors- who would most certainly be all white- showed up in L.A. to take on the Democrats. Great effort was made by the organizers to minimize the impact of incoming activists. This preparatory work meant that many of the local residents and small business owners in the Macarthur Park area were supportive of the protestors. L.A. organizer Kimi Lee said, "The actions against the DNC would have happened whether white people showed up from out of town or not. We were just worried about what to do with them once they got here."
Part of this prep work was providing anti-racism trainings for white activists along with many of the same training that had been offered in Seattle. Anti-oppression principles were discussed at length in the anti-racism and other anti-oppression training's held throughout the convergence. RiseUP/DAN, one of the coordinating bodies for the DNC protests, printed up their 'Principles of anti-oppression organizing'; these were included in the Action Packet handed out free to every activist and were also blown up into posters and hung from the walls of the Convergence Center. I think these principles are important in terms of their scope. They read as follows:

1. Power and privilege play out in our group dynamics and we must continually struggle with how we challenge power and privilege in our practice.
2. We can only identify how power and privilege play out when we are conscious and committed to understanding how racism, sexism, homophobia, and all other forms of oppression affect each one of us.
3. Until we are clearly committed to anti-oppression practice, all forms of oppression will continue to divide our movements and weaken our power.
4. Developing an anti-oppressive practice is life long work and requires a life long commitment. No single workshop is sufficient for learning to change one's behaviors. We are all vulnerable to being oppressive and we need to continually struggle with these issues.
5. Dialogue and discussion are necessary, and we need to learn how to listen non-defensively and communicate respectfully if we are going to have effective anti-oppressive practice. Challenge yourself to be honest and open and take risks to address oppression head on.

An anti-racist and anti-oppression analysis and practice was the foundation of the organizing in L.A. The organizers also made great effort to connect local struggles, particularly within the community where Convergence space was found, to national and international struggles. An example of this was the march and civil disobedience action at the corrupt L.A. Police Ramparts Division. As Chris Crass, one of the march participants, wrote:

Ramparts is currently under federal investigation as a result of police brutality scandals. The march had demands that were specific to L.A., but the connection to police violence (particularly against communities of color) throughout the United States was made clear.

The L.A. organizers chose to approach organizing differently, moving past the limiting formula of numbers-of-people + street-disruptions = success. They had observed with a critical eye the mistakes made in previous mass actions, and they worked hard to integrate anti-racism into the L.A. mobilization.
A great amount of debate has been spawned amongst white activists about the L.A. actions, much of it focusing around the organizers' decision to not shut down the DNC. In various conversations I've had with white folks, and in articles written by whites, many have expressed that L.A. was 'not radical enough' because, among other things, 'there was no shut-down' called for. Disappointment has been expressed with L.A. because the organizers chose tactics which included getting permits for some marches and rallies- a tactic which many white organizers were critical of as 'legitimizing the State'. Whereas L.A. was certainly not a direct action spectacle, direct action is not the only tactic available to us. Nor should success be measured only by shut-downs.
While I may not be interested in pursuing a permit for a march or action, I must recognize that as a white man I face different circumstances than people of color do when confronting State power. In squaring off with the Ramparts police, I faced a brutal police force- whereas people of color from the Macarthur Park area of L.A., squaring off with the same cops, faced a brutal police force responsible for numerous murders of their own community members. Such vicious brutality is not my everyday experience, and as often as I may be harassed by the police, I can be reasonably assured that it is never because of my skin color.
I find it revealing that so many white activists are quick to call a permitted march 'leftist' or 'liberal' or 'reformist' when it is clear that as white folks we can often afford not to get a permit. Living in a white supremacist society, we know, consciously or unconsciously, that we can often rely on our whiteness when we get in a jam. People of color have no such 'ace in the hole', so to speak. From my perspective, the decision to seek permits was part of a broader strategic effort to make the actions accessible not only to activists, but also to some people who for very good reason might not otherwise participate. State-sanctioned terror is what people of color face every day whereas many white folks only face it when we decide to protest and resist. And in the Macarthur Park neighborhood, due to institutionalized racism, where many people have to contend with immigration agents or three-strike-you're-out legislation, there is no 'ace in the hole' to rely upon.
No Easy Solution
While there were clear commitments in L.A. to challenging white supremacy and incorporating such a challenge visibly into the organizing efforts, this is not to say that the actions in L.A. were perfect or that they couldn't have been improved. There were, of course, difficulties that arose in the organizing, in the actions, and things that could have been done better. And though L.A. was different from Seattle, there were also some unfortunate similarities, particularly around racism and white privilege.
There number of tangible instances in which racism was perpetuated by white activists and became a divisive element in the work to organize against the DNC. (The following comes from my own participation in various meetings as well as discussions I had with organizers in L.A.)
For example, many white organizers/activists attempted to take over the organizing efforts in L.A. -which had been initiated by people of color- rather than work with the organizers who had been doing that work for some time. When I asked some of these white organizers about this, they responded that it was because the L.A. organizers (read: people of color) had "never organized a mass action before" and didn't "know how to put it all together". Such patronizing statements were fairly commonplace amongst white organizers. Certainly there were skills both white organizers and organizers of color could have learned from one another, but this sharing was inhibited by the paternalistic behavior of many white organizers. Learning does not happen through dismissal or by taking over, as many white people, myself included, have been prone to do.
Another problem in L.A. was the complications resulting from the influx of white activists, like myself, into a community of color- the very problem that Kimi Lee said organizers in L.A. worked hard to address. In one spokescouncil meeting, the arrival of white activists into the community and our subsequent impact was addressed by L.A. residents. There were specific concerns about the increased police presence and the striking new-ness of having groups of white faces march through the neighborhood of color. Some out-of-town white folks seemed genuinely interested in being accountable to these concerns, and made suggestions of ways we could respect and give back to the community- such as picking up trash in the park or helping to cook more food and to serve to people in the area. However, the more common sentiment among whites was summed up clearly when one white activist from out of town stood up and said, 'I didn't come here to deal with these peoples' trash or their problems. I came here to protest the DNC.'
Such actions and behaviors on the part of white activists resulted in the refusal by many people of color to even come to the Convergence Center - including, and most notably, organizers who had helped put the Convergence and the actions together. Days before the Convergence was to begin, in a Convergence Center meeting of organizers and support people, an organizer of color who asked to remain anonymous commented,

These meetings used to be mostly people of color, and now it's mostly white folks. Some organizers of color won't have anything to do with the Convergence Center because they feel like this space has become dominated by white organizers. I myself wouldn't come back here if I didn't have to, but my community is coming here and I want to make sure they feel welcome.

Perhaps these white organizers could have benefited from one of the eight Anti-Racism For White People trainings offered at the Convergence. There was extensive efforts to encourage white people to attend, but only four of those trainings could be held due to lack of participants.
Thus, in spite of the incredible commitment by most L.A. organizers to anti-oppressive organizing, there were still problems created by the oppressive behaviors and attitudes of white activists. Clearly, there is a necessity for anti-racist work. No one workshop, or one action organized in an anti-racist way, is going to end white supremacy or 'cure' the 'seas of white' we make when we gather for an action. In L.A., racism and white privilege led to divisiveness in the actions, a fouling of relationships, a replication of dominant systems, and, subsequently, a weakening of the anti-globalization movement as a whole. Perhaps this highlights the problem of rhetoric- that as white activists we cannot simply say we are anti-racist, nor can we settle for posting principles of anti-oppressive organizing onto our walls- we must make the commitment personally and be responsible for our actions and behaviors. If we're entering in to someone else's community, we should be willing to do tasks which may not coincide with grandiose visions of street takeovers. In short, we must embody the kind of organizing we would like to see. If we say we're committed to anti-oppression, then we must actually reflect that commitment in our actions. Otherwise we become like so many politicians and bureaucrats and pay a bunch of hollow lip service to things that 'sound good'. When white activists begin to exhibit, through our actions, a commitment to anti-racism, perhaps then organizers of color will start to take us seriously.
Important Developments: Where To Go Now
The organizers in L.A. challenged white activists to seriously confront white supremacy- they did this by making anti-racism and anti-oppression overall one centerpiece of their organizing work. L.A. also challenged the conception of how to define success in this fledgling anti-globalization movement. If we are to learn from these experiences, we need to engage in reflective self-criticism. We need to listen to what radical people of color are telling us: that until we challenge white supremacy, we will never be part of building a multi-racial movement for liberation.
As we are working now, our participation in such a movement is impossible, particularly when white organizers on the Left are divided over the necessity to engage in anti-racist work. The question is not should we- the real question when will we start? We need to re-define success completely, and begin to ask ourselves questions that we have been avoiding for too long.
The mistakes we made in Seattle- and I have only covered a few of them here- don't negate the incredible victories achieved there. Nor do our mistakes negate the potential of this movement- but they will stagnate and destroy this movement if we don't address them seriously. Shutting down a trade meeting or disrupting business gatherings does not equal total success: when we shut down the WTO, they focus on regional agreements like the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). They'll come up with 10 new institutions for every one we break down- so we also must fight the systems that give power to those institutions. One of these systems is white supremacy. Until white activists begin to challenge this, we will be unable to forge the alliances and coalitions necessary to bring about a new world.
Notes
* It should be noted that this is not a critique of DAN- it is a critique of white organizers in general, and white organizers during that time in particular. Any attempt to place the responsibility for our racism at that time solely on the network of DAN fails to hold accountable the people who made up that network. For an excellent in-depth analysis of DAN's origins, including an overall critique of the actions in Seattle by one of the organizers of those actions, see 'An Organizer's History of Seattle,' by Stephanie Guilloud- forthcoming in Summer, 2001.

gabriel sayegh is a writer and organizer living in the Seattle, Washington area. You can contact him at odea@lycos.com
Special thanks to Chris Dixon, Sonja Sivesind, Alan Rausch, and Therese Saliba for their feedback on this article. Thanks to Trevor Baumgartner, Jennica Born, Lydia Cabasco, Chris Crass, Stephanie Guilloud, Hop Hopkins, Kimi Lee, and scott winn, for the discussions that helped flesh out these ideas.
For an in-depth analysis of white supremacy, and a list of definitions which are extremely helpful, check out the Challenging White Supremacy Workshop webpage at: www.prisonactivist.org/cws
For excellent analysis and critique on white supremacy and the anti-globalization movement, check out Colours of Resistance at: www.tao.ca/~colours

by Otto Nomous

"Yes that's right, punk is dead ... Punk became a fashion just like hippy used to be and it ain't got a thing to do with you or me." - lyrics by Crass, The Feeding of the Five Thousand (1978). Ever since the historic protests against the WTO in Seattle at the close of the last millenium, anarchism as a revolutionary theory has been sought after by an increasing number of people from wide ranging walks of life than ever before in recent memory. However, the undeniable fact remains that the make-up of the anarchist movement in the U.S. for the last couple of decades has been a largely homogenous one, i.e. predominantly white and middle class. It also happens to be the case that the vast majority of people who identify themselves as anarchists in the U.S. today are connected to “alternative” subcultures, such as punk rock, in varying degrees. As a person of color and an anarchist with roots in punk rock, I have become deeply concerned with the lack of diversity within the anarchist movement. As long as we fail to attract significantly diverse participation, thus remaining isolated and politically weakened, and fail to link-up with and support anti-racist struggles, we shouldn’t keep our hopes up for any radical social transformation in this country. I began to realize that a significant part of the problem lies in the subcultural lifestyle of many anarchists, including myself. What follows is an attempt to offer insight in finding answers for the ever-pressing quest for “diversity” within the anarchist community.
From the numerous situationist slogans that graced the lyrics of early punk bands, to the proliferation of anarcho-punk bands such as Crass and Conflict in the early eighties, punk rock as a subculture has had a unique history of having a strong relationship with explicitly anarchist and anti-capitalist political content over the years. Many anarchists today, including myself, are by-products of punk rock, where most become politicized from being exposed to angry, passionate lyrics of anarcho-punk bands, “do-it-yourself” zines, and countless other sources of information that are circulated within the underground punk distribution networks. Some are introduced to punk through the introduction to the anarchist social circles. Regardless of which comes first, the correlation between the punk scene and the anarchist scene is hard to miss, especially at most anarchist gatherings and conferences. It is by no coincidence that the punk scene also shares the familiar demographic as its counterpart, of mostly white, male, suburban, middle class youths.
It should be clear then, that the problem of the lack of race/class diversity within the U.S. anarchist movement will exist as long as it remains within the boundaries of any one particular culture, such as punk. To ignore this reality as merely an insignificant annoyance in an otherwise “politically correct” movement, and pretend that it can be solved as long as we recruit folks of color by being more “open,” or if one analyzes the connection between global capitalism and white supremacy, would be a short-sighted mistake, albeit a frequently made one. It is critically important to realize how cultural boundaries can alienate other communities, how subtle forms of denial and guilt-complexes prevent real solutions, and why many of our attempts in the past have failed to provide new, effective approaches in achieving a truly diverse anarchist movement.
Looking at the fact that most people who rear their heads at anarchist “movement” events are roughly between 16-30 years old, with background influences of “punk” or other “alternative” persuasions, it is easy to understand why such “movements” tend to alienate most people than interest them. Punk has primarily appealed to middle-class, straight white boys, who, though they are " too smart" for the rock music pushed by the multinational corporations, still want to "rock out." It is also a culture that is associated with alienating oneself from the rest of society, often times in order to rebel against one’s privileged background or parents. There’s really nothing wrong with any radical counterculture having its own, distinct character, of course. Indeed, it’s probably very good for those included. But we have to admit it is exclusive. Plus, the anarchist movement today has determined its issues of importance. Rarely do these include community organizing or working for social change around issues that most people prioritize, such as against the more subtle forms of racism, ageism and sexism, for a living wage, health care, and so forth. We are often more interested in promoting anarchism and so-called revolutionary organizations than working to provide real alternatives among everyday people. The current anarchist movement, for this reason, is not very relevant to the actual lives of most oppressed people.
Quite disturbingly, my experiences have shown that instead of acknowledging their impact and actually addressing them, many white anarchists rely on either constant denial of their responsibilities or engage in patronizing, token gestures out of privilege-guilt complexes. For example, I have received quite a few very negative and defensive reactions from white anarchists whenever I would mention the words “white” and “middle class” in the same sentence. Some of them defiantly point out that they’re actually “working class” because they grew up poor or have to work. What they fail to realize is that it doesn’t change the fact that they are able to blend in and benefit from the current anarchist scene which is predominantly middle class, and from white skin privilege.
It seems as though a fairly extensive arsenal of denial and rationale has been developed within the anarchist scene over the years. One of my favorite examples is from when I approached some members of a group that was organizing the anarchist conference that happened in L.A. during the Democratic National Convention with the fact that the group was almost entirely white punks. Many of them defended it by saying, “I believe in ‘Free Association.’” or “I’m not stopping anyone from joining our group. In fact, we’d like other people to join us, but they never do.” Such remarks indicate just how little they understand that it is because they operate in comfort zones that suits their subcultural lifestyle or upbringing, which many people cannot relate to. I believe this is one of the most serious and significant obstacles that anarchists face today. Until white anarchists figure out that they actually need to proactively break through race/class/cultural boundaries, they will only continue to perpetuate the isolated anarchist ghetto. One of the more insulting things I’ve heard not too long ago from a local anarchist, however, is “c’mon, I work with YOU. And you’re not white... so I can’t be racist.” The thought of my(or any other person of color’s) mere presence somehow legitimizing someone’s attitude on race that is implicit in that statement is painfully absurd. But it reflects the reality that a lot of people still think in those ways. I have also encountered a slightly more subtle form of denial from anarchist discussion lists of people who insist that since the concept of race is a social construct, we shouldn’t acknowledge racial identities and instead pretend as if such categories do not exist. What’s funny is that they almost always identify themselves as being “white.” It sure must be convenient as a white person to pretend that issues of race didn’t exist, which reminds me of the similar line associated with the anti-Affirmative Action campaigns of how we now live in a “colorblind society” with “equal opportunities.”
Of course, not all white anarchists are clueless about racial/class relations and their positions of privilege. In the Minneapolis anarcho-punk zine Profane Existence, Joel wrote circa ‘92, “We are the inheritors of the white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist world order. A prime position as defenders of the capital of the ruling class and the overseers of the underclass has been set aside for us....as punks we reject our inherited race and class positions because we know they are bullshit". However, no matter how well-intentioned, the anarchist scene has been for the most part so deeply entrenched in the lifestyle of the know-it-all, punker-than-thou, vegan/straight edge-fascist, fashion victims or young, transient, train-hopping, dreadlocked, dumpster-diving eco-warriors that not only do most people find it hard to relate to them but they themselves are at a loss when they actually try to reach out to other communities. A typical scenario I find when this is attempted usually only amounts to the aforementioned fluffy, token gestures of solidarity, such as visiting a local black revolutionary group’s headquarters and staying just long enough to take pictures with a fist in the air or inviting a person of color to an all-white group just to ease one’s guilt. But, to be fair, I must acknowledge that I know of a few exceptions of white/punk anarchists that actually attempt to do serious work with people of color and/or are committed to community organizing. The point I’m making basically is that the general tendencies of most white/punk anarchists tend to be to settle for the symbolic, and fail to support the real struggles of people to change the world precisely because they have a choice as opposed to people who have to struggle for their livelihood.
It would be useful to look at anarchist groups and projects such as Anti-Racist Action, Earth First, Food Not Bombs and various other anarchist collectives to find out the extent to which such groups are influenced by subcultural lifestyles and how they deal with the issue of diversity. They tend to be good at politicizing lots of people who may identify or feel comfortable with the distinct counter-culture, but they almost never go beyond the boundaries of their comfort zones. Our closest comrades aren’t people chosen because of their politics alone—plenty more share our principles and political beliefs—but we never see them, because they don’t share our style or cultural preferences. Furthermore, we have seen numerous infoshops spring up in many cities over the years. They usually stand out like an eyesore by becoming more of a punk activist hangout and turning off the people who live in the neighborhood who may have been interested in the project otherwise. We should also be conscious of the fact that many times these projects contribute directly to gentrification of low-income neighborhoods, as punk and anarchist subsocieties are not well-known for their ability to pay high rents. It will ultimately depend on whether they operate as trendy, social gathering spots for punk/anarchists or a place that is respectful of and actively involves the local community.
Undeniably, there is a strong connection between cultural lifestyles and comfort zones and the extent of diversity within any movement. Groups cannot make their racial nature and composition into side issues, an ongoing "process", or working groups. They've got to be right next to the groups' foremost goals. We can keep our subcultural milieu in tact, but our organizing efforts have to step well beyond it. At this point at least, it makes more sense to organize according to neighborhoods and values than according to aesthetic tastes and specific ideologies and develop a culture that draws people together. Anarchism will not solve racism without the people affected by it. And we certainly won’t be seeing any kind of a revolution made up of subcultural lifestyle ghettos.
[Feel free to read, copy, and distribute this article as often as your heart desires.]

Ok folks...this is the real thing. You've all been waiting for it. I know you have. This is "how to be a really real punk"!!


Basics

First things first...forget hot topic and pop culture. You have to start making your own clothes now. Why? Well, nobody really knows, but it's pretty cool anyway. You have to get a vest or a leather jacket and stud it. Get your patches from some kind of punk store or make them yourself. Paint logos on your vest too. Everytime somebody says the word system (even if completely out of context), you have to shout "FUCK THE SYSTEM!!" really loud. That way, everyone knows how punk you are. To be a really real type of punk, it's best to live at home with your mom and it also helps to be in high school, since you know the most about the world when you're living at home and not making your own way in life. It's ok if you live by yourself, just be sure to keep your mouth shut when the KNOWLEGIBLE punks are talking. Make sure you complain about oppression and capitalism, but never suggest alternatives...just complain, like liberals. Regurgitate song lyrics from well-known punk songs so people know you're the real-deal (Exmpl: "NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF!"). You have to go to lots of punk shows like the subhumans and the UK subs. Make sure not to listen to the lyrics, just jump around and hit people next to you. Being big into the scene is really important, since punk is a fashionable music scene, not a culture. You should go to punk shows even if you hate the bands playing, that way people will see how committed you are. If other punks start talking about politics or whatever just agree with whatever they say (unless they start bashing anarchy). Tell everyone you're DIY, even if you don't know what DIY stands for. Get a mohawk or spike your hair, otherwise you aren't punk. Always proclaim your hate for hippies and "punks" who don't look like you. Be sure to just copy other punks in general because that's how it's done.
Anarchy

You have to be an anarchist. Anarchy = Punk. Make sure you smoke, since smoking is cool, and all anarchists smoke. Anarchy...what is it? Who the fuck cares! The sex pistols sang about it, and all the other punks seem to like it, so why not jump on the bandwagon? Be sure to shout "ANARCHY!!" at random people. This will show them that you mean business and you aren't just playing around. Since anarchy is about, like, chaos and destruction, you have to go around spraypainting stuff on walls and making taxpayers repaint public buildings since taxpayers are part of the system and...yeah, fuck the system. It's ok to hate the system since you take NO part in it whatsoever.
Clothes

Remember to get everything from punk stores or thrift shops. That way, you pay less for them or something like that.
Pants

Wear tight pants. Simple as that. Sew some patches onto them so if you forget your jacket or something, people will still know you are really punk.
Shoes

Wear second-hand combat boots or skinhead doc martins. Converse high cuts (nevermind the whole NIKE thing) are cool too.
Shirts

Get band shirts of bands who sing about anarchy and stuff. Stay away from afi, rancid and nofx, they're posers. Get Unseen shirts and Exploited "punks not dead" shirts. Maybe sex pistols or ramones. They have to be tight shirts, or you're a poser. This is where you can forget that whole DIY thing. Since punk is about fashion and looking cool, you have to make a few compromises, right? Right. Oh, and remember to get lots of Casualties shirts. The Casualties sure are punk! They have really spikey hair. That's punk.
Underwear

Get whitey tighties since boxers bunch up in your tight pants.
Jacket

Get a denim vest or a leather jacket. Buy studs and put them in yourself. Sew on patches. If you are lazy, you can probably find a jacket on ebay for around $50. Wear this everywhere since it is proof of how punk you are. Make sure you put lots of Casualties and Exploited patches all over it, since it's punk to like those bands. Make sure you wear your new jacket all the time. Even if it's 90 degrees out, wear your leather jacket to prove to everyone how punk you are. Also remember...the more studs, the punker you are. It should weigh AT LEAST 30 pounds after all the studs are on there.
Examples

Alright here's what real punks look like. Looks are everything, so all you have to do is copy these people and you will be 100% punk! Pretty easy, huh? Yeah, that's what I thought too until my mom's sewing machine broke. Anyway...



These guys are really punk, probably because they're wearing Exploited and Casualties shirts. Also, look at all the studs and patches. Remember, studs = social status. People will respect you more if you have more studs. Have you ever seen a more clean-cut looking bunch? I'm sure these guys would kick fucking ass in the pit if they didn't have to worry about messing up their hair.






Getting arrested is cool. Make sure if you get arrested, it's for partying too loud or for being drunk in public. If you get arrested at an action or protest, you are a stupid sandal-wearing hippy. Cops are assholes! You should hate them. Why? Cops keep you from drinking in public and swearing at people!! You should be able to do that stuff whenever you want!! Anarchy man!!











Make sure you talk on your punk cell phone. I can't use mine because it's in the shop right now...I found out the hard way that you can't stud a cell phone. You can still paint band logos on it though...if you are truly punk, that is. Cell phones are punk if you have dyed hair and a studded leather jacket.

Conclusion

As you can see, being punk is about appearance and proving to everyone just how punk you are. Be sure to go to lots of shows and drink a lot of beer. Fuck the police! Woooo! Just try to be home before 7pm or your mom might get mad and take away your dessert for a whole week (happened to me, and believe me, you don't want it to happen to you). I used all the time I would have spent eating dessert on studding my jacket though, so the joke is on her!!!!! ANARCHY!!

"Putting out a lit cigarette on somebody's wrist created a permanent circular white scar, so getting a Germs burn was definitely a full commitment, especially if you were branded by Darby personally, although anyone who already had a burn in the Germs' circle was officially empowered to give anybody else one. Darby also believed that all events in our cosmology, especially the rise and fall of different civilizations and cultures were all cyclical -- ideas he'd bagged from Oswald Spengler, a controversial German social theorist with an authoritarian streak that he'd boned up on in private." Jim Ruland interviews Brendan Mullen, author of Lexicon Devil: The Fast Times and Short Life of Darby Crash and The Germs.

COPYRIGHT © 2002, 3 A.M. MAGAZINE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



3AM: How did you come to be interested in The Germs and Darby Crash?

BM: I opened up a band rehearsal business off Hollywood Boulevard in June 1977, which gradually morphed into an illegal BYOB club space on weekends called the Masque, and met the Germs and Darby through Chris Ashford who was a clerk in one of the hip record stores at the time. He was their friend-manager who talked me into letting them play a gig there, and, of course, the night they did changed the entire direction my life would take.

3AM: Tell us about the cigarette burns, which were, allegedly, a sign of allegiance of the band's fans.

BM: Nothing alleged about that at all! Darby launched the cigarette burn insignia soon after he changed his original stage name from Bobby Pyn when I first met him in '77 to Darby Crash by early '78. He was big on the symbolism of circles, hence Circle One and the blue circle armbands he designed. And putting out a lit cigarette on somebody's wrist created a permanent circular white scar, so getting a Germs burn was definitely a full commitment, especially if you were branded by Darby personally, although anyone who already had a burn in the Germs' circle was officially empowered to give anybody else one. Darby also believed that all events in our cosmology, especially the rise and fall of different civilizations and cultures were all cyclical -- ideas he'd bagged from Oswald Spengler, a controversial German social theorist with an authoritarian streak that he'd boned up on in private.

3AM: What do you know about Darby's trip to England and his subsequent obsession with Adam & The Ants? Who did Darby hang out with in England?

BM: He went to England for a month or so in early summer of 1980 with a woman named Amber, his latest patron, a woman he lived with for a while who picked up the tab for everything. They stayed with Amber's friend Jordan who was a key designer-stylist in the classic Britpunk fashion look. According to Amber, Darby asked Jordan to give him what people called the "Mohawk" hairdo, although "Mohican" was actually the correct name, something Darby kept pointing out, but to no avail. Mohawk stuck in the vernacular. Mohican didn't. Still is that way. Darby's role model for the Big Make-Over-in-London was clearly Adam Ant and his Antpeople entourage of post-punk fashion casualties.

3AM: What was the music scene like in the UK by the time Darby got there?

BM: It was not a good time from Darby's perspective to be seen as a "punk rocker" in trendy London in 1980. We can speculate he was probably pretty embarrassed to present himself as some quaint anachronistic punk at that point. Britain's "Punk and Disorderly" wave of Crass-inspired anarcho-hippie-punks and "Punk's Not Dead" GBH/Discharge/Exploited of "ethnic" punks with bristles, leather, and studs hadn't quite kicked in yet.

3AM: The UK version of hardcore …

BM: Right. That scene made an overlooked, undocumented impression on the development of SoCal hardcore in the '80s, the partial influence of these sped-up post Sham 69 Oi! soccer chant-type punk bands -- more of an influence than some of us cheerleaders of pioneering SoCal skatecore would care to admit. Many of these bands headlined a series of amazing shows promoted by Gary Tovar, founder of Goldenvoice Productions, at the Olympic Auditorium on bills made up of all the best hardcore bands, from Southern California's South Bay to Oxnard.

3AM: Did Darby distance himself from punk when he was in England?

BM: According to Amber, he was a subdued fish out of water. He was not used to being a nobody. Not a soul in London even knew of The Germs, much less cared about them. Even worse, the British rock media had written off '77-style punk as long-gone stone dead.

3AM: Why do you think the British music media wouldn't cover any of the L.A. bands?

BM: I guess they didn't think they had to. There was no hype. Nobody credible to champion it. Those who actually got to make records in L.A. were on tiny labels, many with no budget for professional recording or distribution outside of the L.A. Basin. I saw a mention in Melody Maker or NME in '78 or '79 where the L.A. punk band scene was dismissed as irrelevant, absolutely not to be taken seriously. It wasn't until 1981 that one of those rags finally acknowledged with a snicker that something was going on in L.A. with punk rock. I think it was rock journalist Mick Farren, freshly arrived in L.A., who finally blundered into the twin phenoms of "slamming in the pit" and stage-diving! Understand that by 1980 Britpunk had already broken off and dispersed into different regional factions and sub-genres.

3AM: Can you give us some examples?

BM: Ah, it was all about Manchester style post-punk proto-Goth rock like The Fall, Joy Division, et al according to the arbiters of all things groovy in the UK. Or it was about Adam and the Ants in London, or it was all about a Mod revival with a bunch of inter-racial ska bands in the Midlands. But rather than coming back a Brummie Rude Boy or a Mancy Goth created by the Factory-Hacienda scene, Darby returned to L.A. with the new Boy of London look accessorized with Antpeople-style feathers and Indian warrior make-up. He was ridiculed locally for being a "fashion casualty" and for being a lame follower rather than the leader he once was.

3AM: A question about Darby's sexuality: did it influence the band's aesthetic? Did it play an important part in Darby's confusion and chaotic lifestyle?

BM: Of course it did. It obviously totally affected his personal lifestyle, but I don't think it was a part of the musical aesthetic of the band at all, although perhaps there was the odd hint in a line or two of his lyrics if you look close enough, like perhaps "Sex Boy" or "The Other Newest One" are examples of ambiguous meanings. As for lifestyle, how many people can live a double life without confusion and chaos, especially if they're out of their tree on drugs and alcohol the whole time?

3AM: Why do you think he hid his homosexuality?

BM: One of the many myths about the early Hollywood punk scene, which pre-dated the suburban hardcore explosion in the South Bay and Orange County, was that it was despicably anti-gay, that we were a colony of punk homophobes. Personally I believe that it was nowhere near as bad as has been made out, although perhaps others who were there will disagree. I think the source of the homophobia in the old Hollywood scene actually came more from gays themselves than it did from straights! Some of the most disgusting anti-gay things I've ever heard in my life actually came from the mouths of closeted gay punks around the early scene -- pure, staggeringly hateful vitriol that freaked ME out, and I'm not even gay!

3AM: Lexicon Devil cites numerous examples of Darby spouting off…

BM: I clearly remember Darby saying incredibly mean, spiteful things about "fags" and there were others. Frankly, most of the straight punks I knew didn't care a rat's bum if Darby or The Screamers or Black Randy or any one else in the scene was gay. There were as many key women on the scene as there were guys -- gay, straight, and bi -- and homophobia is rarely as big an item with women outside of extreme-right Christian and Islamic fundamentalist circles.

3AM: So why did Darby feel so threatened?

BM: Once again, I don't want to seem like I'm blaming all the suburban punks from the beaches and Orange County for everything, 'cos that definitely distorts the whole Big Picture of what most of the beach kids and the bands they followed were really like -- especially since hardcore did come into its own, later on, as a positive social force, but sadly there was a definite correlation between the rise of suburban hardcore at the very beginning and open hostility to the gay lifestyle. What can I say? The origins of hardcore aren't as PC as some people would like to believe.

3AM: A question about Darby's death through overdose: did it contribute to turning him into a punk icon?

BM: Absolutely. Fetishized Western Death Obsessive Bloodlust Culture. Creepy Islamic Extremist Warrior Culture isn't the only culture that canonizes martyrs, you know. We're just as whacked-out in the West with our insistence on the preservation of youth and projecting immortality through our celebrities or icons. I agree it's kind of sad and pathetic to have to admit there may not have been this book if The Darb hadn't offed himself, but then you or I wouldn't be talking right now, would we? So does that implicate us as guilty ghouls, too? Of course it does!

3AM: So why did you do it?

BM: I was hoping that something could be learned. I was hoping I could learn personally, and boy did I ever. I was also hopeful that the reader might come away from the book having learned something from this tragedy.

3AM: Such as…

BM: That Darby was a role model, a new archetype for socially alienated kids -- a role model of how NOT to be!

3AM: What role did Rodney play in Darby's celebrity?

BM: The word-of-mouth street buzz on the Germs created by the 'zines became unstoppable, but Rodney gave Darby and The Germs widespread radio exposure in SoCal. Rodney had a better time slot than now, and at the time KROQ was blasting out on FM and AM simultaneously, the only station in SoCal to broadcast on the twin bands. This gave Rodney's Sunday night show massive influence, especially far out in the 'burbs, at least as far south of Los Angeles as the beaches of the South Bay and Orange County. Darby was a regular live-in-the studio guest who frequently phoned in on Sunday nights and Rodney always gave him huge chunks of airtime, more than anybody else on the entire scene, I'd say. Darby was smart enough to be polite and not alienate Rodney. Rodney basically introduced DC and The Germs to a new generation of teens out in the 'burbs who were just getting their first driver's licenses.

3AM: How did the LA punk scene differ from the NY or London scenes?

BM: On the surface it looks like all three played out the same way in many respects. Small tight circle of decadent rock 'n' rollers too young and too late for glam (but still wanting to emulate it), junkies, record collectors, drifters, grifters, graphic artists, hookers, rock crits, runaways, angry hippies, rag trade designers, male hustlers, 'zine publishers and art school groovers -- all come together to resuscitate raw '60s garage rock and bring it back from open fields to small clubs, pubs, and art galleries, originally with wide-eyed egalitarian ideology.

3AM: Did you say "hippies"?

BM: The Psychedelic Stooges (as they were originally called for their first few gigs) were originally a failed bad acid hippie rock band from suburban Michigan in the late '60s who were sort of the segue into this mid-to-late '70s movement which gradually made it okay for beginner garage bands to play in clubs and charge money for it. The MC5 were another band of hippies, garage musicians and drug addicts who were not-quite-up-to-it as rock musicians or songwriters but substituted a paucity of skills with political rhetoric and, according to a bunch of rock critics, got to "re-invent" rock 'n' roll. But it was obviously only a matter of time before opportunistic skilled non-garage musicians playing beneath their chops moved in on it -- the dreaded New Wave which we won't talk about.

3AM: How would you define California punk?

BM: Somebody pointed out in Neutron Bomb that while Jimbo Morrison never put a needle in his arm onstage a la Uncle Lou ("Heroin") but he did say he wanted to fuck his mom and kill his dad ("The End")! Anybody who shot up junk in the New York version of punk gets to be a red-hot punk. So the difference between punk L.A. and NYC as defined in Please Kill Me is that New York was basically all about derelict heterosexuals who shoot up heroin and fall about the set; while the L.A. version, according to Neutron Bomb, is about killing your parents. Which is more anti-social, which is more dangerous? Which strikes more fear into the status quo than killing and fucking your parents? Awaking at dawn with a machete for your Dad and a boner for your Mom or Waiting for the Man on some stench-ridden street in uptown Manhattan? Which is more "punk"? Which will provoke and upset more people?

The fact remains, the California punk pre-dated the East Coast version. If you go back to the garage band era, and if you take L.A. proto-punk as far back as Arthur Lee, Sky Saxon, Jack Nitzsche, Spector, Kim Fowley, and Jimbo Morrison -- even Zappa and Beefheart -- all weirdo iconoclasts with varying degrees of musical talent and influence, all of whom had varying degrees of psychopathic tendencies, all of whom were openly contemptuous if not downright hostile to Flower Power and the hippie scene on Sunset Strip. Some even put Charlie Manson in this category. It hardly took Lou Reed or the V.U. to show L.A. the way with rejecting Flower Power in favor of creepy teeth-gnashing methedrine ghoul music served up with a scowl. This is the thin ice on which the case is made for V.U. being the first "punk" band. Even Arthur Lee himself, the O.G. king of hippie-punk eventually concluded that the music scene in L.A. was for the birds with the tune "Bummer in the Summer" (from Forever Changes), a song written prior to the Velvet Underground's smacked-out abhorrence of West Coast get-back-to-the-garden LSD culture as depicted in Please Kill Me. Does Reed's psychopathic surliness apparently brought on by electro-shock treatment in his teens make him the first "punk rock archetype"? Dream on, New York! As for use of the word punk, everybody knows the term was used well before that silly comic book came out of the same name in late 1975 ...

3AM: Here's a cool line a line from Bibbe Hansen in one of your other books about punk rock, We Got the Neutron Bomb: "There was always more garage rock in California because there were always more garages out here."

BM: Dead on, mate. I think the West Coast pre-dated the East culturally during the pre-rock critic era brought upon by Meltzer, Bangs, Tosches, Greg Shaw and so on, but rather than declaring it's on to some silly East-West punk beef I'll settle for equal billing, mother fuckers! I'll settle for Meltzer's declaration in late '79 of the simultaneous East-West "twin heart of darkness". Richard thought the harsh-vibing Velvets and the Doors were the joint template for American proto-punk with Iggy being the next generation mating of Lou 'n' Jimbo as anti-hippie prototypes. Interestingly, in this same piece -- his review of the Germs' G.I. album -- Meltzer cast Darby Crash as the bastard grandson who could write better than any of them. And that even went for Iggy, too. Meltzer wrote in the L.A. Times in 1979 that Darby made all of 'em look like "coffee table poets."

3AM: Is there any explanation for the power and beauty of Darby's lyrics? They are as astonishing now as they were then.

BM: Not really. We tried our darndest to present a few possible explanations in the book, but we'll never really know.

3AM: So let's get it on with the reparation…

BM: It was always more about the kids in London and L.A. In New York -- all the way back to the early '60s, even the Greenwich Village coffee shop folknik rebels -- it was always much more about intellectuals and other weirdo cerebrals. L.A. was about kids who may not have been as sophisticated in self-conscious "bohemian" culture or cool pop art movements, but knew what they wanted to do intuitively.

3AM: Elitism versus populism?

BM: In a way, I suppose. Punk in all three places was basically a '60s garage-rock revival by '70s kids dressed in different threads with help from slightly older disillusioned media-savvy hippies who created the 'zines and mass-marketed the home-made customized clothing the kids created back to them. Except that the "kids" in New York tended to be older people, like hippies and rock critics. There was a culture of Bowie club kids out here which basically set up the culture for punk rock to follow, which is another thing New York takes credit for. They dismiss the size of Bowie's musical talent, and because he wore a dress when he first came out West they claim he must've ripped off the old drag queens who hung around Max's! That's what the old guard goes around saying to this day! Yet none of these minimally talented queens could hold a candle to Bowie musically and they know it, but still they try to say he ripped them off! For what? A dress, a flippity-floppity hat? So fuckin' what? We're trying to talk Big Picture 20th Century historical shit here. Bowie (himself washed-up in England after going too much against the hippie grain with seven consecutive flopped singles) championed Lou (washed-up commercially after his post-VU solo career died at the gate) and Iggy (at the time a failed acid rocker from the Mid-West who openly wanted to be Jim Morrison) both as a producer and a fan in interviews he gave at the time. Sure, Bowie used them for social access to the New York club and nightlife scene, but being a ruthless social manipulator-careerist and an artistic appropriationist doesn't diminish his basic talents as a pop songwriter and a musician light years ahead of anyone in New York circa '70-'71. The glitter rock thing came from Bolan-Visconti, it originally had nothing to do with New York or even Bowie, but according to all the revisionist New York scribes, Bowie's career in the 70's depended on him hearing the Velvet Underground just 'cos he did a cover of "White Light/White Heat" in his live show and wrote a song about Andy Warhol. In other words, according to New York: no VU, no Bowie, and that's too preposterous. He may have been inspired by them to write songs about them, but Bowie was going to happen with or without the New York scene at Max's and all the other shooting galleries. In addition to himself, Bowie even tried to make Lou and Iggy over as "Britglam" (Transformer and Raw Power respectively) but all of it failed commercially. And there's the true story, stripped down to its basics: three desperate washed-up rock star "beneath-the-radar" neverweres -- one Brit, one Long Islander, and one Mid-Westerner -- all three of whom have failed commercially in everything they've done so far, try to get up on Bolan's tip in New York, but New York cries foul and cuts Bolan out of the credit completely and then slags Bowie's talents because he wore a dress in a desperate bid to get noticed. I'm sorry, but I just don't hear much Velvet/Lou influence in Bowie's 70's music at all, although the Warhol influence is obviously all over it, but that's something different. I'm talking pure music here, not image or marketing. That's Andy, that's NYC, but remember this, the last word on Warhol: Andy's first ever one-man gallery show was in Los Angeles, 'cos originally he couldn't get arrested in NYC! Suck on that!

3AM: How does New York fit into the punk rock equation?

BM: The fabulously feted Dolls were another 60's garage band, an attempted knock-off of T. Rex, the early Stones and their good buds the early Pretty Things -- in drag. But they came after Bolan and Bowie with that one. All the Dolls' influences were British, including the image! The Dolls even had to come out West 'cos Anglophile Hollywood/L.A. was the glam rock capital of the world, not New York, and there were better gigs in L.A. than in New York where they were limited to playing toilets and art galleries. Television were an amped-up West Coastin' hippie guitar jam band gone VU with a legendarily inept bass player in a torn shirt who were quickly blown off the stage by the Damned the first time they left the safety of CBGB's. The Ramones were absolutely great in every way, a band that I love, but basically they began as a non-ironic Britpop band with a SoCal surf beat. Patti so badly wanted to be Rimbaud via Jimbo Morrison of the Doors rather than via the original source -- she even said so in print. Iggy wanted to be Morrison also at the beginning -- read Ron Asheton's testimony in We Got the Neutron Bomb. So there's just a wee dram of shakiness in New York's version of the origin of all things punk. Some whacko even wrote a whole book canonizing Patti as the punk connection to the beats and the French symbolists!

3AM: Well you know what they say about history -- it's all about whoever gets the book deals…

BM: How true.

3AM: Was L.A. radically different from the other scenes?

BM: Not really. The same thing was happening in L.A. that was happening in other places. These art people in their mid-to-late 20s helped to editorialize punk for the smarter, cooler teens who were behind the energy and the social scenes of punk in the commercial rock mags and even the hand-stapled Xerox zines of the day. The zines, especially the ones out here in L.A., tended to be put out by real teens who were attempting to wrest rock 'n' roll away not only from the record industry, but also from the rock critics and the old hippies who created the New York scene all for themselves. And now the rock critics were crying foul that L.A. dared to have their own band scene without first checking with the arbiters of all things groovy in New York!

For a while it seemed that nearly every band that managed to crawl onstage at CB's in the mid-70's got a major record deal! Seymour Stein, head of Sire Records was the New York scene's sugar daddy who signed up everybody with Warner Bros money, so the New York "punk scene" was co-opted as straight-ahead business-as-usual corporate rock and roll before it was even out of the gate! L.A., of course, had no sugar daddies, although A&M tried with The Dickies, and when it didn't happen, the record industry looked at Sire and all the "new wave" and "punk" acts who were stiffing commercially (Ramones, Talking Heads, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, the Dead Boys) and wrote punk off as stone dead by early 1978! But for our purposes, the smart thinking in L.A. is that the major labels left us alone in total isolation from business it gave the L.A. music scene time to develop unsupervised, something New York business was never gonna let happen.

In all three places -- L.A., London and New York -- these loose movements wrench rock 'n' roll away from elitist classically-trained rock musicians, from English public schools who'd infiltrated rock 'n' roll with prog-rock in Europe during the '70s, while over here, their US counterpart would be the dreaded jazz-rock fusion thing -- where instrumental chops got played endlessly and mindlessly by dullard technique geeks with little or no musical imagination who were simply enthralled by the math side of music theory and composition. In each case the original Big City core collective of misfits, music fans, and malcontents create the template for a re-birth of rock as the somewhat egalitarian force it originally was if you go back to the Rockabilly Rebel days of '50s blue collar Memphis, or the surf rebels of the early 60's, and succeeding it in the same decade, the psyched-out garage punk movement documented in the Nuggets re-issue series. In each case the original fresh-faced punk ideologists of the '70s feel their movement is either betrayed or ignored by the record industry before it becomes hijacked and dumbed down by suburban yobs and skinheads who subsequently destroy it. Much backstabbing, open jealousies, and scrambling attempts at revisionism plague all three. Many die from the combined effects of despair and addiction, and there is much psychic wreckage left by the roadside in all three cases.

3AM: So where's the pay-off?

BM: Some amazing, amazing music got created, some of my all-time favorite rock songs came out of punk rock -- some of the best I heard throughout my whole life of listening to rock 'n' roll. I've been listening as a keen fanatic for more than 40 years now, and I'm sorry, but I still think of punk as nothing but kick-ass rock 'n' roll. I just happen to like a lot of the songs that came out during the epoch-period of L.A. punk' s first round. I can't buy into the theory that punk was something completely new and original that supplanted all rock 'n roll before it, although I'm very aware there's many hardcore thrashheads out there who'd vehemently disagree. There's the thinking that thoroughly PC straight edge veganist hardcore was the only true clean break with punk's rock 'n' roll ancestry.

3AM: That sounds retarded.

BM: It's an incredibly boring argument. Hardcore is another important sub-genre, a split-off gene of rock 'n' roll, and I still love nearly all the seminal HC bands because most of 'em rock the fuck out with good tunes, especially SoCal HC -- the best in the world. Many of these OG HC bands are still rockin.' But I don't want to drone on about HC anymore 'cos to tell you the truth that petty narrow-focused Maximum Rock 'n' Roll mentality always bored me. Too restricting. Hardline fundamentalist groups with strict rules and codes of fashion and behavior scare the shit out of me. By nature I'm a person with a psychic allergy against authoritarianism. I'm an anywhere, anytime, any place I choose type of hippie way too slack and undisciplined for the demands of HC contemporaneousness, but I still love a lot of the music. I feel cursed to have witnessed and loved the development of the SoCal hardcore scene. I loved it and hated it.

3AM: You seemed to be lobbying quite hard in your other book We Got the Neutron Bomb for Morrison to be canonized as some sort of L.A. punk archetype who was as far away from hippies as Lou Reed. Was Jimbo Morrison a punk or a rock god?

BM: I'd say both, but I'm sure Morrison was the kind of guy who would have insisted a punk was somebody who got butt-fucked in jail -- a person coerced into receptive sodomy for protection of life and limb by a physically stronger specimen trapped for life inside an iron barred cage. I mean what's your archetype? Casting a punk as a sniveling Sid-style brat with a loutish attitude? A wormish petty criminal straight out of Dirty Harry? Or, according to Webster's, someone regarded as "inexperienced or insignificant"? Is a punk also a bit of an anarcho-intellectual leftist type with an unresolved Oedipal Complex, or is it someone who gets forearm-fucked in jail?

3AM: Was Darby ever a hustler? Did he ever peddle his body for drugs?

BM: Not that I know of, although Amber claims to have had sex with him. And according to people who were closer to him than I was, she picked up for most of his living expenses, including drugs. She freely admitted she knew every heroin dealer in town, and that she accompanied him to score on many occasions. She was not a heroin user herself; she said she only helped him to cop drugs to keep him off the street.

3AM: Is The Germs' story the story of punk rock?

BM: The Germs were well beyond punk rock -- as some sort of paradigm of cartoon psychopathy and criminally antisocial behavior. I wouldn't say they were the definitive story, but obviously their saga is one of the best punk yarns ever, and an achingly sick tragedy at the same time.

3AM: How would you characterize it?

BM: At the risk of seeming puke-up pretentious, I'd rate it a classic turn-of-the century mini-epic, a sick, street-level fin de siecle re-run whose mythology has lived on to become an indelible hieroglyphic in late '70s L.A. folklore. "Richie Dagger's Crime" was so much more overtly criminal, more outlaw than any other version of punk. The Germs, as one of the L.A. punk scene's original events, became so much more threatening to the status quo, much more, I'd say, than all those relatively benign hetero-megalo rock 'n' roll heroin addicts falling downstairs at Max's and CB's at the height of mid-'70's NYC decadence. I think Saint Genet would've been tickled to orgasm by Darby & Co. That's my fantasy -- that Daddy G would be piqued by the tale of Lexicon Devil.

3AM: What happened to the rest of The Germs?

BM: Pat Smear chills in Atwater after seasons with Nirvana and the Foo Fighters and is producing a girl band called Harlot, or Harlow, or something, I don't know anything about them, or what label the record is for. Lorna Doom said she couldn't participate in the book because she was "afraid of tape recorders". She lived in NYC for many years with Gary Moss, a high school bud of Donnie Rose. Gary was Joan Jett's bass player in the Blackhearts for years. We begged for Lorna's co-operation in the book, but she refused for no clear reasons. She'd moved back to Cali and was living with her parents in Thousand Oaks for a few years, but now I'm hearing she may have gone back to NYC. She's very, very mysterious. Won't respond to phone calls or e-mails. Don Bolles is still whoopin' it up every night like the old days. He once swore to me that he would never do anything he didn't wanna do, even if it meant he wound up pushing a shopping cart! Pray for Bolles. He's a very talented guy. Fuck, pray for all of us.