Posts
Al Qaeda Finds Its Rock Star
By Josh Strawn / May 3, 2007
Now, after having spent the majority of his career in existential self-contemplation (or flagellation, as it were), Reznor seems to have found his political voice on the new concept album, Year Zero. The album revels in apocalyptic imagery – the blood of the guilty, the blood of the pure – and features a homegrown video chronicling the last days of a righteous resistance. Al Qaeda has finally found its rock star.
For most, this kind of tortured posturing is a phase that passes as one gains a bit of perspective on the universe. Usually it fades the instant you get a nice girlfriend. For Reznor, the pose is a paycheck, which was fine ten years ago when New Orleans was associated with Anne Rice novels, and a gaunt, absinthe-swilling vampire could ride that phantasmagoric death cab into the Billboard Top Twenty. But in the age of sacred terror, when the macabre needs no special effects department, do we really need a goth showman filtering his lethal Romanticism through the sieve of jihad?
Year Zero is, to be fair, a fictional tale. Set 15 years in the future, it portrays a world where, according to Reznor, “greed and power have run their course [sic].” In this fairly humdrum dystopia the American government has used the terrorist threat to create a theocratic Big Brother State. Police murder club-goers and Muslims, the population is drugged into complacency, and all the while folks are having visions that the oppressive hand of God is reaching down from the heavens to rub their noses in the dirt. It's the end of the world as we know it, but Trent feels fine because there’s hope in a courageous “resistance” comprised of the wretched of the earth. The rebels are fed up with the world around them and they’re exploding in fits of violence that appear more therapeutic than strategic. In other words, it's a half-baked hodgepodge of V for Vendetta, Frantz Fanon, and the Book of Revelation.
The lyrics are mostly recycled from old NIN records, with familiar lines about whoring, drugs and nothingness. But a few telling new chords are struck that make it clear Trent has swapped his narcissism for a different ism altogether. Consider “My Violent Heart.” Ostensibly an anthem for those in the world of Year Zero who have taken to militant struggle against the Administration, it actually sounds like an anthem for suicide bombers: “Into the fire you can send us / From the fire we return / You can label us a consequence of how much you have to learn.” Echoing the manifestos of the Muslim Brotherhood, it announces the triumph of the righteous over the enemy: “Time will feed on your weaknesses / And soon you'll lose the will to care / When you return to the place you call home we will be there.”
In a song entitled “The Warning,” Reznor graduates to a category other than that of misguided rebel when he sings: “We've come to intervene / You can change your ways / And we will wipe this place clean.” The inclination toward revolt is one thing, but the drive toward purification has been at the heart of genocidal thinking from National Socialism to Stalinism to Islamism. Add to that the sinister allusion to 9/11 as a rallying cry for the wretched of the earth in this song’s opening stave: “Some say it was a warning / Some say it was a sign / I was standing right there / When it came down from the sky / The way it spoke to us / We felt it from inside / Said it was up to us / Up to us to decide.” Too soon, or long overdue for the gaunt maestro of nihilism?
Wars over religion (not to mention ideologies of more recent vintage) have always centered on the idea that the impurity of the infidel or thought-deviant must be eradicated by any means necessary. Marketplace bombers in Baghdad are agents of God-ordained purity. Misguided Western radicals, however, turn on their own societies, which they see as greater dangers to the erosion of individual freedoms and civil liberties. Reznor has written their magnum opus: “We think we've climbed so high / Up all the backs we've condemned / We'll face the consequence / This is the beginning of the end." So now the pious, homicidal few are the purifiers. We are a “virus,” and this record charts one possible self-created apocalypse.
In a video interview for Best Buy (presumably Wal-Mart will be engulfed by the cleansing fire of Islamist revolution), Reznor claims that this new project is the outcome of his fear of where America is headed—with “how we treat the rest of the world and how we treat our own citizens.” He’s tried to get inside the heads of several people who live in this dark future, and the songs on Year Zero are like vignettes portraying the experience of morally conflicted soldiers, by-standers, lovers, and the so-called resistance.
Make no mistake, though: this isn't an exercise in pure fiction. Reznor states plainly that he wants to “comment on” the state of the world. It’s not a stretch to imagine that he hopes the record will function the way the philosopher Slavoj Žižek explained the film that Year Zero most resembles, Children of Men; to make our reality “more what it already is.”
Reznor dons a keffiyeh for the album’s videos and photo shoots. Of course, the traditional Arab garment has no essential connotation of Islamism or terrorism. But given Trent’s myopic focus on the state of America and what she’s got coming, it’s quite hard to believe that he means to make some T.E. Lawrence-like gesture of solidarity with stateless Palestinians or embattled Muslim reformists, who are themselves the targets of jihadist depredations. He’s far too interested in roosting chickens: as “My Violent Heart” puts it, we’re “about to reap what [we] have sown.” So it makes more sense to think of Reznor’s new fashion accessory as an update of the PVC and fishnet days. The keffiyeh is his 21st century bondage gear.
The romance with blood, extremity and Orientalist eschatology calls to mind the poet Stephen Spender's observations about a group of British spies who had worked for the Soviets during the Cold War. Spender said their “faith in a creed whose mixture of sanctity, bloodiness, and snobbery gave them a sense of great personal superiority.” Of course, “sanctity, bloodiness and snobbery” sounds like the name of an outtake from Pretty Hate Machine. If those in the “Not In My Name” Left, those who see self-immolating mass murderers as anti-imperialist activists, were ever going to find their John Lennon, what better candidate than a male dominatrix thrashing about the stage as if in search of a safety word?
In order to lend more credence to his prophecy of doom, Reznor reverts to Blair Witch verité in a massive viral advertising campaign to generate hype for the record. At Another Version of the Truth, distorted, seemingly abandoned web pages, mp3 recordings, and viral videos comprise a sort of digital history museum full of mysterious clues as to how Western Civilization declined and fell. Still, Reznor claims this fabricated backstory is not marketing—it is the “experience of Year Zero.” The Marketing Campaign Did Not Take Place, declares Reznor, mixing Baudrillard’s pomo sophistry with a Jedi Master's sleight of hand. “These aren't the ads you're looking for.”
A few years ago, Reznor exchanged his heroin habit for books by Noam Chomsky (the great sage even enjoyed a link on the official Nine Inch Nails website). He's no longer just a brooder—he's now a brooding do-gooder. It would be unfair to deny Reznor credit for attempting to infuse his work with themes that reflect his desire to make some sort of civic contribution through art. But it appears as if, in a haze of artistic passion, he’s ended up a sounding board for the worst neo-fascist ideology. I wouldn’t bet that Trent’s bookshelves are overrun with the screeds of Wahhabism, but his visions and fantasies sync seamlessly with those of Bin Laden.
Reviewers have already lamely invoked 1984 as a conceptual forebear of Year Zero. But where Orwell's novel was freighted with fears over the very legitimate horror of Stalinism and its supremacy over liberal democracy, Reznor’s album prefers to traffic in cartoonish paranoia about where liberal democracy itself is headed. (If we were well on our way to the kind of totalitarian nightmare he predicts, would Year Zero even be saleable?) The result is a studio-mixed political treatise that contributes to the shrinking vocabulary of the far left, which now views Islamist martyrdom as sexy and revolutionary.
Like so many of his cultural contemporaries, Reznor's bleak vision is paralyzed when it comes to envisioning anything palatable or sane about the future. Instead, he does what he's always done best—makes a masturbatory spectacle out of violent self-destruction.
Read more about Josh Strawn and his band Blacklist:
POST A COMMENT
I love my countrys but, the US and Israel make some pretty fucked up mistakes.
Josh Strawn,
 It wasnt clear who you were replying to, but if you are going to insist on polishing the turd allow me to point something out. The whole "rockstar" thing is a mutually accepted lie between a performer and audience which cant continue without the willing participation of people who write about it as if it were real. "Reznor as rockstar/poet/artiste" is more of the same.
Lets uncover the big lie. There is no such thing as a rockstar. Being an entertainer is a job just like any other except that most people who try and get into the business will fail. One part of what makes an entertainer successfull is the willing participation of the media that the person on stage isnt just another schmoe with a guitar, but someone special. Reznor, despite all odds, manages to make a decent living with the anxt show, end of story. Its a skill, he’s good at it and I don’t begrudge him his earnings at all. His recent marketing tactics of releasing music for the price of signing up to his marketing machine are well timedand will probably earn back the costs of recording and distribution through ticket sales for live shows. Fanbois will see this as "sticking it to the man" and the great myth of rock n roll rebellion will continue for a few more years, or as long as the journalists play along.
 Showbiz is hard work, its a wonder more people dont die of it.
I just frikkin’ noticed this a day after you posted it…and yes, I frikkin’ appreciated your post ;-)
You know, on second reading, I think your analysis is quite good. You make some good points, but I think you go a bit overboard in saying that, even amongst the far left, Bush is considered wore than Osama. That’s not the left, it’s a cartoon version of it. Sure, you could probably find some wackos who think this, but I certainly haven’t run into them. I still think you were stretching, because Reznor’s work is fiction. Thinly veiled and paranoid fiction, but fiction. I saw it as more of a 1984 kind of effort.
OK, maybe you were BOTH stretching, but now I think you were stretching less than I originally thought.Â
BTW, I love that even when I disagree with you, I find your arguments well thought out and well explained.Â
Let’s take a moment and revisit that, shall we? As one also positioned
in front and center of stage, and (judging by your moniker, you should
Frikkin appreciate this), I take rather seriously what kinds of
pseudopolitics masquerading as art get the chance to fuck with the
brains of masses of music listeners.
In order to work on the imagination at all, Reznor’s record required
the assumption that America COULD become, as the result of George W.
Bush and the Republican Party, a neo-fascist Islamophobic Big Brother
state. If the listener finds this scenario beyond the pale, it has no
power to engage him or her in its fearful imaginings. Therefore it
depended upon both the notion that it could happen and it posited a
jihadist-like enraged resistance as a kind of masochistic band of
hero-rebels. That’s hardly a stretch.
Now it’s 2008 and I have a two word retort. Just seven years after
being attacked by a man named Osama and four years after toppling a
dictator named Hussein, the United States has elected to office a man
that–in my opinion–any American citizen can be proud to have as
president. A man who, if America were so irreversibly gone down the
path of GOP reaction and xenophobia would NEVER have elected the most
liberal member of the left party whose name is Barack Hussein.
So I declare myself the winner in this non-battle. Reznor’s record was
liberal fearmongering that DID, even if not explicitly, glorify the
righteous destructor who in our real world is embodied by al-Qaeda. It
relied on a kind of Demon-Haunted World outlook of the LEFT–that the
right-wing apocalpyse is just around the corner. The 2008 elections
disprove that bit of nonsensical thinking and lay waste to any gravity
that Rez hoped his political fiction might carry. CFS, do you object
only to the demons of the right?
And those to took the piss out of me in that thread as if I was
proffering pro-Bush right wing ideas by expressing revulsion at the
inanity of the record now must reconcile something. No longer does
George W. Bush speak the language of defeating global terror on behalf
of the United States. Barack Obama does too. CRUSH AL-QAEDA, I think
were roughly his exact words. Let’s recall too, that one of the
recommending things about Mr. Obama for a world leader is his
upbringing as a secular humanist (which almost certainly informs
whatever brand of Christianity he professes these days).
The future of liberal politics in America and in the world now comes
into even shaprer focus. Will the left, who should claim as a victory
for their years of struggle the election of Barack Obama as leader of
the free world, now splinter into factions? A John Pilger faction
echoing al-Qaeda and deploying racial slurs like ‘Uncle Tom’ and ‘house
negro,’ and a pro-Obama faction? Whatever will the masochistic vampires
do now that their dark visions have been permanently drained of sale
value? (for the record, I count myself firmly in the Obama faction).
In the 90′s after 3 terms of Republican rule, liberal masochism was
literalized and commercialized. Remember Nirvana? Beck? With no outward
bogeyman to direct loathing toward, self-hatred and self-immolation
came in-vogue under the thin disguise of ‘authenticity.’ I’m a loser
baby. I swear I don’t have a gun. Now, thanks to the smoothly-running
propaganda mythmaking machine of VH1/MTV, any 13 year old discovering
music will also discover the "correct" opinion about Kobain, that his
band was a miraculous articulation of suburban angst, etc. etc.
Similarly, Trent Reznor now may as well be the Jim Morrisson of the
1990s–a sort of "classic rock" fixture, to be heralded for his
‘innovations’ in alternative music.
Kobain and Reznor were/are both actually capable songwriters whose
music I have enjoyed and some of which I still do enjoy. What they
represent in terms of their cultural status or the ideas they’ve
popularized through what they write or what they did/do, is another
question entirely. If I didn’t say it in the original piece, I’d still
hold up the ‘Broken’ EP as one of the most inspired bursts of sheer
rock anger, unrequieted sexuality and disintegrating spirituality. And
Kobain could write a great melody, an amazing rock riff and at times
master the soul-laid-bare intimacy in rock that can be moving, good art
even if the soul laid bare isn’t an impressive one.
But these things don’t prevent one from saying that Kobain was at
bottom a whiny little man who spent his life preparing for the
spotlight and who made a pathetic example of himself to a generation
because he couldn’t deal. And to the stomach trouble retort, see Nick
Kent. Kent was an expert on all forms of rock decadence, having
indulged in the best and worst of it with everyone from Keith Richards
to G n’ R. Kent noted that his "… the years he
spent punishing his intestines with all manner of cheesy pain pills washed
down with most disgusting codeine—infected cough medicines available almost
certainly provided the direct reason why his poor old guts ached so
viscously."
And why did Kurt do all those drugs? Because he was trying to be a rock
star, that’s why. And according to the mythos, getting fucked up is
part of the job description. Woe was him my ass.
Nor does it prevent one from saying that Reznor is a masochist and a
narcissist (perhaps a recovering one) who got this political issue
wrong. My point with that article was to point out that such a person
made a nice pop cultural spokesperson for the narcissistic, masochistic
politics that had sprouted up on the fringes of the left…which also
got it wrong, I might add. Narcissism is part of the job description
for rock star and for president, so don’t let it be said that I claim
me, Trent or Obama are without it. It’s more about how its channeled
and what it’s mixed with. Channeled into self-destructive playacting,
mixed with masochism, it’s problematic. Â
At bottom it’s about not creating demons where there aren’t any. Aren’t
there enough already? And honestly, who was doing the stretching,
Reznor or me? Was America on the path to severe culturopolitical
destruction or was Reznor carried away by overblown paranoid fantasies
of the left who saw more of an enemy in George W. Bush than in
al-Qaeda? I for one welcome the Obama era as hopefully a
corrective–both in the world of music and politics proper–to both the
stupidity of Bush policy and the stupidty of those who opposed it on
grounds that were nothing short of superstitious.
despite the slavish defence by NiN fanbois, the author had a real point here. Renzor’s lyrics are as deep as a mudpuddle and about as politicaly insightful, but to his credit Renzor does know how to milk cash from the pubescent CD buyer. His angsty packaged rebellion might have been cute years ago, but by now its just repackaged leftovers.
Hey Josh. Just came upon your blog as I’m researching for a "Cultural Artifact" paper on the Year Zero phenomenon. Just wanted to say that I respect your ideas, but I think you’ve missed a major point concerning the basic plot of Reznor’s story, which is the extraterrestrial interference. Perhaps one could argue that the "Presence" is merely a manifestation of humanity’s guilty conscience, but I think it’s rather clear that Reznor was explicitely implying actual alien-type beings inserting themselves into the human drama as an authority figure. The problem with postmodern theory is that its ideas are primarily construed with such linguistic ambivalence that anyone can bend their perspectives around them. I am familiar enough with Reznor to know that he doesn’t have a black/white ideology on issues such as cultural relativism and political corruption. You openly acknowledge the chaos that is the political drama, but rather harshly file down Reznor’s ideas to a simplistic mantra about stupefying leftism. You can talk about Baudrillard and Zizek and Virilio and of course Lacan until your tongue separates and still not come to the greater message of Year Zero (as I envision)–internal, immaterial revolution; in fact, I see more Descartes. The Presence appears as a great equalizer; all who witness it experience some level of their ego falling away. Year Zero is about the problem of identity, of identities falling away or being consumed with other identities; it is not a call to violence or a sympathetic declaration to those who desire to destroy anything connected to Western life. Lyrically, I believe Meshuggah’s "Obzen" occasionally articulates much of what Year Zero says much more clearly.
STOP WRITING IN ITALIC YOU CRAZY ITALICISED BASTARDS
wondering why you hate reznor so bad? but any way "cool guy"ur so uber
You're drowning yourself and your readers in a sea of rhetoric…
even if a message is in here, don't you realize it's been lost?
Your grasp of political jargon, ideologies and philosophy is vast, I'm sure. But, as so many authors do, you are hiding pretty old and conventional ideas behind a veil of academia.
What's more, this was supposed to be about Trent Reznor's album. Instead of moderating these forums as I assume you're supposed to, you take every opportunity you can to preen the feathers of your ideological beliefs as though they're self-evident. Rolled up in this entire article are the pretenses of your beliefs, and your desire to show everyone how learned you are.
Intellectual discourse is good and important. But I have trouble taking you seriously, and I wonder if you do yourself? A solid and straight response will win you way more respect than this masturbatory intellectual posturing. Name dropping and obscure references ignores your audience; ordinary people who are searching for the truth. Stop making things more confusing and be straight – if connecting with your audience is what's really important to you.
With you 99.9%, Strawn. The irony of anti-capitalist vitriol selling well in capitalist societies persists, and anti-Americanism from artists is so passé at this point that it's hard for me to admire Reznor as a brave and revolutionary creative force any longer. (Loved him in the 90s, tho'.)
Good Job on the review. Screw the people that come on here and bad mouth you for expressing your opinion, if they don't want to hear it then don't read it!
I personally don't care what you think about Trent Reznor. I already think he's an arrogant prick who will use any controversial theme to con teens into buy his recycled ideas. Â
No need to have everyone come on here and show off how revolutionary-hip they are, isn't that what colleges and coffee shops are for?Â
you need to stop being paranoic.
really.
i mean, …c’mon.
“Here’s my guess: you, like a lot of other rock and roll fans, take refuge in art that you love and treat it with a certain holiness. The discovery that artists you like might not be so great all the time really upsets you therefore you require a great deal of apologetics from people who call them into question–I didn’t give you enough.”
I can agree with your above statement in that there are a LOT of rock and roll fans who fit into that description. Many NIN fans do. But I personally do not think that Trent Reznor is some sort of saint who can’t be called into question. He’s a former alcoholic and drug addict – not the greatest track record there. I also think he needs to be a little smarter about his mouthing off. I (maybe immaturely) love it when he goes off on the current US administration’s blunders, the RIAA, the thieving and dated record industry – but he talks a little too much smack about other artists, former band members, etc., for my taste. I’m not going to defend that behavior because I’m a fan of his music. And I think he should have to pay huge fees if he uses the words “pigs” or “decay” in any songs for the next 10 years. And “swine” is pushing it. (…trying to insert some humor here.) I do NOT think the man has no flaws. But I still think your review was over dramatizing the Year Zero/Al Qaeda connection, even if I do not want to nominate Trent Reznor for canonization.
Yes, your ideas are possible. Are they probable? Not in my opinion. But terrorism is enough of a hot-bed topic to get anyone riled up when you throw around ideas that someone might be (albeit unknowingly) courting Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or any militant terrorist group. And throwing in a picture of the burning towers? I don’t care if you were reviewing Britney Spears, that’s just distasteful. And even you yourself said that “most here aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject matter to engage with what I’ve written in any meaningful way.” So, if that’s the truth, then why allow discussion about it at all?
I’ve been continuing this discussion with you because I think this has a lot more importance than just you making fun of one of my favorite bands. For me, I think it brings up questions about censorship, freedom of artistic expression, the role of modern music within the Jewish and Islamic community, how the Jewish community sees those of us who are not Jewish (including Muslims, militant and non-militant), and what responsibility artists like Nine Inch Nails may have when it comes to promoting or discouraging terrorism. I know that sounds like some heavy stuff, but I think it all comes into play here. If I just got upset because you called Trent Reznor a name, I would have posted one of those charming “DIE” replies. This has really brought up some interesting and important issues that have just a little to do with Year Zero. But yes, I was originally drawn here because some nin fans were saying, “hey, look at what this jerk said about Year Zero!” But after reading the review and some of your comments, I think this has a lot more to it. I really do want to understand your point of view, even if I don’t agree with it. That’s the only way I will be able to open my mind and learn about different people and different cultures, and even get some incite into a lot of the turmoil that we’re all having with each other today. And I think that as a writer, one of your main concerns would be to try and get all your readers – especially those with different opinions – to learn something from you. But in my opinion, your review is just inflammatory enough that it keeps people who initially disagree with you from even entertaining the notion that you might have some interesting ideas to think about. And I think that being able to engage those “others” who feel differently than you for even just a moment, even just getting them to consider your point of view for a second – then that would be your greater goal and hugely important in the larger scheme of things.
"maybe that's because you didn't dumb it down enough for me." No, that's not the answer. Here's my guess: you, like a lot of other rock and roll fans, take refuge in art that you love and treat it with a certain holiness. The discovery that artists you like might not be so great all the time really upsets you therefore you require a great deal of apologetics from people who call them into question–I didn't give you enough. But again, I've said it before and I think I'll sign off posting on this thread from here on until somebody actually cares to respond to the argument, i.e., "Josh, I've read the manifestos of radical Islam and the charters of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and I think that your points are invalid for this reason or that." That I'd be interested to hear. The admitted intentions and fantasies of radical Islamists are crucial to my argument and there's no way you could make any informed critique of what I've written if you have no knowledge of what they say. So, no, I'm not saying anybody here is stupid. But most here aren't sufficiently knowledgable about the subject matter to engage with what I've written in any meaningful way. That has nothing to do with being dumb–you can all go out and read any of it right now but none of you have done so. You can understand it too because it's quite dumb what these people say and think–it doesn't take a genius to get it (its also rather boring listening to Sayyid Qutb explain what exactly defines an infidel–or jahiliyya–and how they will be crushed to make way for the Caliphate). But also, don't idolize people who tell you to kill your idols. Rip them to shreds, too, if they deserve it. That's the lesson here that I don't think anybody here wants to face. I just recently found out that two of my favorite artists, David Bowie and Bryan Ferry, have said some rather unsavory things in the past about fascism and Nazism. I still like the artists and still listen to their music. But I can't change the fact that they said those things–I can only be disappointed a bit and then go on listening to 'For Your Pleasure' and 'Heroes' with the full knowledge that even the artists I love the most aren't incapable of some incredible flirtations with bad ideas.    Â
No, I do not need things to be dumbed down to understand them. I take that statement as quite insulting. And I did catch your small “explanation” about Reznor not really intending to court terrorists, but I think you made it such a small part of your review as to make it almost non-existent. And quite frankly, I think your writing style is superfluous (a good word for you) and – especially after your above post – pretentious. No, it’s not more interesting writing, it’s over-blown to the point of being down-right boring. Whether you actually do this or not, your review reads like you’re sitting there with a thesaurus. You might think that makes for better writing, but no, it doesn’t. “A good writer should be able to get across a point in as few words as possible…” I actually laughed a bit when I read that and thought, “No….a guy who writes like this didn’t really write that, did he?” Follow your own creed. And I stick to my conclusion that your review basically manipulated this album’s lyrics until you came up with the meaning you wanted to find in them: Year Zero supports terrorism. And no matter how much you NOW twist your posts around or pretty much call me or anyone with my opinion dumb, I will still hold to my above conclusion about your review.
And anonymous photographer, I’m a painter, so understand the whole thing about people’s strange interpretations of your art. I guess I just didn’t get the meaning of your post. But then maybe that’s because you didn’t dumb it down enough for me. ;)
The great thing about art is that every single person can have their own twisted, right-winged, left-winged, literal, religious, sexual, what have you… interpretations of what the artist is expressing. Whether it be music, painting, sculpture, literature, photography, and (just for the hell of it) fashion design.
I myself am a photographer and it’s definitely a trip to hear critics pontificate on what I’m “really” trying to say. Some are very intuitive and others either read too much into it or TRY really hard to invent new hypotheses.
I said Trent was gay because that was my FIRST instinct when I read the lyrics to the song. If I’m wrong, great. My point is still valid though – art is open to interpretation no matter how ridiculous it may sound.
Just today I was having a conversation with someone about a Dali illustration from the Divine Comedy called ‘Minos’. I immediately saw a penis and after looking longer I saw breasts and arms and knees and a 2 sided head, but the “penis” was just there staring straight at me. My cohort vehemently said there was no penis and that I see penises in everything. HAHA! (I’m a female by the way) I also happen to think silos are the phallic symbols of the farmlands.
The point I think I’m trying to make is discussions like this – right or wrong – are beneficial. You learn more about yourself. Maybe I accidentally saw a penis as a child and it’s in my subconscious. I don’t know! To be able to say, “Hey this is my opinion, what do you think?” is invaluable.
Hell in a few weeks I may think he’s singing about hair plugs or a religious conversion of some sort.
Penises. It’s a love/hate relationship and at this moment in time I think Trent loves them. I don’t think any less of him at all. If it’s true though it would be a VERY interesting exposure of his soft little under belly he’s been trying to hide for so long. At least it makes you think right?
A good writer should be able to get across a point in as few words as possible and shouldn't waste too many words repeating him/herself. I made clear that I didn't believe Reznor was consciously doing this when I wrote, "It would be unfair to deny Reznor credit for attempting to infuse his work with themes that reflect his desire to make some sort of civic contribution through art. But it appears as if, in a haze of artistic passion, he’s ended up a sounding board for the worst neo-fascist ideology. I wouldn’t bet that Trent’s bookshelves are overrun with the screeds of Wahhabism, but his visions and fantasies sync seamlessly with those of Bin Laden." It's up to the reader to be savvy enough to understand that in this passage I'm clearly saying that the old boy didn't set out to write a book condoning Wahhabism or terrorism. Once I've said as much, I don't need to say it again. And, from a writer's perspective, the above sentences are a far more interesting way of putting the point than saying "For all you NIN fans out there, I'm not saying Trent did this on purpose, or that he knowingly sounds like he does, blah, blah." That's bad, boring writing and its not my job to dumb down my work so that NIN fans don't get their feathers ruffled. As for "ALL" art being able to be misconstrued, I'm not so sure about that. It might be odd if the Tamil Tigers took "Born in the U.S.A." as their theme song. Clearly, the lyric has a message that only a strange person could interpret as speaking to the cause of Tamil nationalism. What I mean to say is, you can't be so categorical in saying that all art can mean all things to all people. That's a very common but very mistaken view of art. I will grant that Reznor's lyrics don't have a single interpretation–I never said anything in my essay that suggested that my interpretation was the only one possible (though many posters here have accuseded me of that). But just because it doesn't have one interpretation doesn't mean its open to any. And if one possible interpretation is both likely and problematic, it deserves to be pointed out.   Â
BTW….here’s a thread from a nin fan board where members of the military are giving some interesting and varied opinions on Year Zero. http://www.echoingthesound.org/phpbbx/viewtopic.php?t=22672
I thought it might add some interesting perspectives to this discussion in an indirect way.
I thought your post was really adding up to something (hey, NIN boards can be a pain in the ass…) until you came up with the “Trent is gay…” crap. What does his sexuality have to do with his music promoting terrorism? And why would this be a great revelation that anyone would care about when it comes to this subject? And dude….you think about that shit way too much.
Josh,
I think you make some really good points in your posts, even though I feel your review didn’t express those points in a way that made them clear. Maybe it’s because I’m not that great at reading well-written essays, but your review read to me as if you were saying that Reznor pretty much wants to support terrorism. And whether you intended it or not, that idea alone is going to piss people off enough to where they aren’t going to want to spend the time trying to figure out what you’re really trying to say. I agree with you that even if Trent Reznor did not mean for his album to become an inspiration for Muslim terrorists, that some of his album’s themes could definitely be construed by terrorists as a promotion to commit violence against those who they disagree with. That said, I still hold to my opinion that ALL art can be misconstrued and used to inspire actions that the creator never intended. Someone who is extremely set on thinking and behaving a certain way is ALWAYS going to turn things around to support his own ideology. I’m sure you didn’t intend to have a bunch of raving-mad NIN fans come in here and call you an idiot, but they reads your review as it fit in with their own opinions. (Not that I’m equating NIN fans with terrorist…I’m not.) That is a risk we all take when we have freedom of speech and artistic expression. And I personally think that’s a risk worth taking.
Frst off I’ve been a rabid NIN fan since PHM, traveled extensively to shows, spent entirely too much money on imports, etc.
But… *pauses* You know a big BUT is coming.
Forgive the following essay, but I’ve been banned for over a year from a NIN Anti – V FOR VENDETTA (BTW I thought of this movie immediately upon my first listen. It’ll be interesting to see if he “borrowed” some of the dialogue) ideology message board which has in turn become a Big Brother police state for fear of angering some “moderator” who may or may not like your opinion. Apparently NIN fans don’t like to discuss NIN anymore and would much rather prefer to post what they eat for lunch and how they hate their jobs. It’s irony at it’s best and all members are monitored in very invasive unnecessary ways if they say something some menopausal woman glued to her thesaurus doesn’t agree with on that particular day. Ok I’ve said my piece and I appreciate the forum you’ve set up here.
**************************************************
On the first listen to YZ, I enjoyed it very much. I indulged in a glass of cabernet and sat down reading the lyrics along with music. It could have been the wine, but I had finally thought that Trent had grown, gotten a little “deeper” and had matured from his temperamental brooding persona.
I know nothing of this alternate future world he’s supposedly created. I was simply happy to have a new cd attacking new topics and yet still seeing he is choosing his words very carefully (almost) with his characteristic simplicity.
I’m not as politically knowledgable of the author’s review, but it takes an idiot not to know what is going on the world.
Having said that, in an effort to join the 2022 bandwagon, I sat alone and rewrote all the lyrics for all the songs in an effort to unravel exactly what his message is. My conclusion is that the music, the new vocal styles, and his “Hollywood” image change overpowered the lyrics tremendously.
What a disappointment! I still enjoy the multiple interpretations and clever metaphors, but in rewriting the lyrics myself a realization hit me over the head leaving me speechless. Trent has a big secret that he’s been struggling with for a very long time.
Trent Reznor is gay (or bi). In ‘me, i’m not’ it couldn’t be more obvious. Imagine your reputation as an S&M, Marquis De Sade reading, angry goth guy clad in leather and pvc knowing you can shag any girl you want. He revelled in it. Who wouldn’t? Money, drugs, women… it’s what rock stars do.
It’s crystal clear in PHM that he was burned bad by a girlfriend. Psychology tells us that his trust in relationships will never be pure and his fascination for the kinky erotica opened him up (so to speak) to a plethora of experimentation and opportunities afforded by his new found rock star fame.
I couldn’t care less if he’s gay. I just find it laughingly ironic. For someone who is currently focussed on being honest and informing the public on the state of the world as he sees it, it’s preposterous (in this day and age) that his sexuality is his biggest lie. It’s obviously weighing heavy on him. I think he wants to get discovered, but he fears all the fishnet laden horny obsessed goth girls will be turned off and thus record sales would suffer.
For an album based on a fictitious world in 2022, doesn’t ‘the warning’ just scream with Hurricane Katrina imagery?
Almost every track utilizes the double imagery of S&M sex play and politics. I almost feel like the kinky sex references are his way of assuring us that he’s straight and that no one should think otherwise. Unfortunately, it’s like a repeat crime offender, he wants to finally be “caught” so he can truly live an honest lifestyle free of whatever any asshole may think.
One more thing, Trent was into heroin? I always thought it was coke and tequila. You learn something new everyday don’t you?
Thanks for your article Josh. I may not agree with all of it, but it got me thinking and has inspired me to do some more of my own research. Inspiration is the best compliment I could give.
All of the above is MY interpretation thus far. I could be very wrong, but my analyses came so quick that I’m going with my gut. Disussions and debates are for listening and learning. Calling people you don’t even know racists, terrorists, or whatever uneducated and quick judgments I’ve skimmed so far on this board is a sign that many of you are close-minded and won’t accept others’ opinions.
Grow up. Use your intellect. Make your own assumptions and back them up. You’ll learn more and you won’t look like such immature buffoons.
You'd be surprised how much time I've spent with the Year Zero lyrics, Reznor's interviews, and the marketing/ARG stuff. I'm well aware that it's fiction, and I understand the 'plot' points. 'V For Vendetta' was also fiction but that hardly means that it doesn't project something quite relevant (and, to me, disturbing) into political opinions today. What I think many of the posters here misunderstand is that it doesn't matter what Reznor means to say. I never sought out this record, nor did I need Nine Inch Nails to make my point about al-Qaeda or about the elements in our culture that are unknowingly adopting some of their attitudes and opinions. I happened to come across the ad campaign and I was just amazed at what I saw. So I researched, and I researched some more. I think what would do many of my detractors her some good would be to do their own fact checking–read up on the manifestos of radical Islamism and see if they find any similarities, THEN come back and let's chat. My point is that there is are astonishing similarities–regardless of whether it is accidental. For instance, if a person writes a story not meaning to give it racist undertones, but then is shown an already existing story that bears remarakable resemblance in tone, attitude and structure, then it isn't incorrect to say that the author has written a story that could as easily have been written by a racist author and that a racist audience might enjoy. I understand what 'The Warning' is, I understand this malevolent force, the supernatural ghostly hand, etc., all that. But this is the nature of writing fiction. The author has his or her own dreams and nightmares and fantasies. These are manifested in fiction but speak to real feelings. It's extremely common among well-meaning liberals today to look at war and global warming, etc. and see humanity as a disease to the otherwise pure earth. It's not uncommon for artists who feel this way to create fiction that expresses this feeling. While 'The Warning' is fictional and supernatural, it still expresses a sort of Biblical/prophetic notion that 'if you don't change your ways, horrible things will happen.' We heard this after 9/11, when the late Falwell informed us that the tragedy was the result of out having ignored God's 'Warning' as regards our sexual preferences, etc. Being cleansed by fire and death is common to both religious and genocidal thought (often the two inform one another), therefore a song that speaks in a similarly prophetic doom-ridden voice about this impending horror and consequence can't be written off as an entirely separate thing. The problem with both this kind of misguided liberal thought and with most kinds of religious thought is that it focuses on death and doom as a supposed means of accomplishing something better. Real progressive and humanist thought lies in the belief that humans can make a better world for themselves–its about envisioning it and about paying attention to others. Sitting around and saying, 'look at us, don't we suck' is tiring, obnoxious and has little value for the future. This is why for me, an example of the opposite of the spirit this record would be songs like 'Mothers of the Disappeared' or 'Miss Sarajevo' by U2. Even 'Beds Are Burning' by Midnight Oil. Outward looking compassion and solidarity, not self-obsessed self-destructiveness.     Â
“Muslim hater?
Before you accuse me of hating Muslims, perhaps you might take a moment to go read some of the debate in this magazine over whether or not the U.S. should bomb Iran (particularly the comment threads, where I was vocally opposed to bombing Iran–I even devoted a good deal of time to arguing with people whose views I considered the height of anti-Muslim bigotry). You’ll notice that I’m quite preoccupied with the positive elements of Islam, Islamic history, literature and culture. One of my main interests is the diversity within Islam. al-Qaeda does not speak for Islam and there are many Muslims who find al-Qaeda as aberrant as I do. There are alliances of Islamic clergy and jurists who have composed tracts and statements denouncing al-Qaeda and violent Islamic extremists. Even the Saudi Arabian government has recently enacted a program aimed at rehabilitating al-Qaeda members–one person in charge of this program refers to the group as a cult.”
See….when I get some more background on you, then I can make a more educated judgement as to your stance on Muslims. You are obviously NOT a Muslim hater. And since I know the background story of Year Zero better than you, I know that the story is NOT just a promotional tool for violent resistance (violence is actually kind of down-played as the “bad” way of going about things in the story). Maybe you should go and read up more on the story surrounding the album so that you yourself can make a more educated assessment of it’s meaning and influence. This page has a cache of all the websites that were found during the ARG that are officially related to Year Zero: http://www.exhibit24.net/default.htm (And you did get some of the lyrics wrong, and they do make a difference with your argument.)
And before you write the ARG off as just a marketing scheme, realize that it’s a lot more complicated than that. If that’s all that Reznor wanted, he would have told his record label about it and had them pay for it. But he actually paid for every bit of it out of his own pocket and purposefully didn’t tell his label about it because he didn’t want the label screwing it up by trying to make it a big marketing thing. It was actually a Hell of a lot of fun and very interesting.
And for people who know the story, we can say that you got a lot of the point of the album wrong. You are WAY off on The Warning – it has nothing to do with genocidal purification. And you can say, “but people with genocidal tendencies – such as Al Qaeda – could twist this song towards their purpose.” Of course they can. Charles Manson took the Beatles song Helter Skelter and twisted it towards his evil purposes. Murderers have watched movies with violent images and used them to fuel their own violent rages towards people. People will ALWAYS do this with any kind of art form that expresses intense emotions – whether it’s music, movies, paintings, books, or even essays. Shoot, someone could read my post and SWEAR that I was telling them to go hack up everyone they see wearing a red hat. (*Note to the unstable: I am NOT telling you to go hack up everyone you see wearing a red hat.) But just because there is a risk that people will use controversial art as an inspiration for doing wrong deeds, it doesn’t mean that people should stop creating this art. Should we suggest that Reznor start singing about butterflies and puppies just so no one gets the wrong idea? Or maybe he should just go back to singing about how miserable he is about life? No. I’m personally glad he’s grown up a bit.
…and keffiyeh are interchangable by the way–they both refer to the same thing. Â
Before you accuse me of hating Muslims, perhaps you might take a moment to go read some of the debate in this magazine over whether or not the U.S. should bomb Iran (particularly the comment threads, where I was vocally opposed to bombing Iran–I even devoted a good deal of time to arguing with people whose views I considered the height of anti-Muslim bigotry). You'll notice that I'm quite preoccupied with the positive elements of Islam, Islamic history, literature and culture. One of my main interests is the diversity within Islam.  al-Qaeda does not speak for Islam and there are many Muslims who find al-Qaeda as aberrant as I do.  There are alliances of Islamic clergy and jurists who have composed tracts and statements denouncing al-Qaeda and violent Islamic extremists. Even the Saudi Arabian government has recently enacted a program aimed at rehabilitating al-Qaeda members–one person in charge of this program refers to the group as a cult. Â
“Do you really have to respond or react, at all?”
No, I guess you’re right. I really don’t have to respond. I can just continue to think this guy is a jack ass and maybe also think that his views are held by most other young Jewish people. Why should I try to understand his point of view at all? I should just go on being ignorant. But I consider comparing someone’s music to a battle cry for Al Qaeda as extremely offensive. And even if the reviewer has a right to say what he said, I have a right to say that his views offended me and that I think he’s wrong. That’s the great thing about freedom of speech.
Meh, he’s already been associated with Satan, I hardly think he cares …
this guy did not give trent reznor ANY fucking thing. controversial attention my ass, trent has enough attention right now, i doubt he needs somebody to put his name and al qaeda in the same fucking essay.
“My immediate response after reading that was to think, “this guy is a Muslim-hating jack ass!” And I don’t think that’s what the goal of this site is. Or what the author of this review really wants me to think. I hope not.”
Do you really have to respond or react, at all?
Isn’t the beauty of being a free individual include not only this writer’s ability to analyze this album and juxtapose it with various beliefs (even if the album was written without those intentions), but also your right to think “wow, he made some good points and I don’t agree with him BUT … I will defend to the death his right to say it?”
In criticizing this guy for writing a simple essay, you guys sound a lot like these NeoCons running around trying to shut everybody up and claiming they have all the answers and we just don’t “get it.”
You have no real idea what was in Trent Reznor’s head when he wrote this album. What Trent Reznor “says” to the press in order to support a project he is trying to sell in order to make a living and what is REALITY can be two different things. But your blind trust in your NIN leader is not really much different than the blind trust Americans have had in their leader, yes? Why is this so important that many of you people are busting arteries over it? If anything, this guy did your Hero a favor with controversial attention.
i hope you die in a fiery car crash, this is despicable
This review just feels like a high-falutin’ way for the author to take the disdain of an album he honestly doesn’t like and use it to fuel his own paranoid agenda. Yes, I was led to this review because I am a NIN fan. And I understand that they can be quite rabid in their devotion. I also understand that the reviewer does not like this album, and I think that is his right. Not all NIN fans like it. But I do like it, and I understand that will affect my argument here. But I am also knowledgeable enough of the whole back story and ARG behind Year Zero (which was one of the most fun and entertaining experiences I’ve had on the web…) to know that the album’s intentions had nothing to do with what the author of this review is claiming. Yes, there are some characters in the Year Zero story who want to act by extreme measures (http://www.anotherversionofthetruth.com/violent.htm ), but others who in the same story are saying, “no, don’t act with violence.” Thus the whole “Art Is Resistance” campaign ( http://www.artisresistance.com/ and http://opensourceresistance.net/ ). The songs on the album are supposed to be told through the points of views of many different characters in the story – from soldiers losing their faith in their missions to those who want to resist the government through violent means, from blind supporters of the government to those who want to resist through non-violence. It covers a lot of different perspectives. But I feel that the reviewer here pretty much missed the point of Year Zero because he filtered the album through his own worries and fears. And I guess that is the risk that Trent Reznor and any artist takes when he expresses strong opinions in his work.
I really would have liked to have come to this site and had my first impression be one that would have made me feel open-minded and willing to learn, but I’m afraid that was not the case. I am not Jewish. I am not Muslim. I was raised Christian, and now I consider myself more of a Universalist thinker – I believe all religions are worthy of consideration and tolerance. I do NOT believe in terrorism. But I would have like to have been directed towards this site – which seems to be filled with a great amount of information that I could use to educate myself more about the modern Jewish community – and have found a more non-biased seeming article. My immediate response after reading that was to think, “this guy is a Muslim-hating jack ass!” And I don’t think that’s what the goal of this site is. Or what the author of this review really wants me to think. I hope not. I really want to try and educate myself enough to be able to understand and tolerate the views of those who have different socio-economic and religious backgrounds than I have. I think that’s the only way to make this world work. But a review like the one above is just so extreme that all it does is bring up divisive feelings in me towards you and your opinions. And that doesn’t do anyone any good.
And forgive me….I am obviously not a good writer.
It’s as simple as this – if you are going to criticize anything, have your facts straight. Especially if you are going to be making a sweeping generalization and very critical assumption such as this.
Or, in this case, application of philosophical criticism, and deconstruction of the text. The author of the text (in this case, Reznor) becomes “absent” and separate from the text; the text takes on a life of its own (with or without the intention of the author).
“As a writer, unless you are writing fiction, you should have checked your facts a bit more thoroughly. If you would have taken the time to read some interviews or watch some videos of Mr. Reznor discussing the album, you would know that what he is trying to convene here is anything BUT what you have spun it as.”
Generally, literary critics don’t interview the authors when using critical lenses to analyze text. For example, a writer would not be able to dig up Jane Austen while applying Marxist literary theory to “Pride and Prejudice.” Is the literary critic then “wrong” for applying these criticisms without at least getting Jane Austen’s opinion voiced? In the world of literary criticism, that’d be a big fat NO. Otherwise, there would be thousands and thousands of literature professors and students who’d be wandering around aimlessly.
This author applied criticisms to an album, treating the album as “text.” This is not the first time this has been done, of course. Generally, criticisms spark discussion. So far, except for the first 3 or 4 posts before the NIN fans jumped in here, none of the arguments made in these comments directly and intellectually argue the criticisms by and through the criticisms used. See, that’s the way it’s generally done … he applies postcolonial criticism to argue the negative “Othering” aspects of this work, and you’re supposed to use that same theory and criticism to argue why that’s not true. Or, use another criticism that refutes his application.
What an ignorant and utterly ridiculous post.
I have to agree with one of the earlier replies that stated that you are quite the talented writer and have a stellar command of the English language, particularly when it comes to your persuasive skills.
Unfortunate that such talent can’t be combined with simple logic and reason.
As an educator, I can say that just because something is “well-written”, it does not constitute “smart”, nor “correct”.
You hide behind your SAT words and elaborate sentences to just spew your own opinions on subjects that have virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Did you just feel like talking about this and then decided through a Rolling Stone and picked out an album to work into your little master plan?
As a writer, unless you are writing fiction, you should have checked your facts a bit more thoroughly. If you would have taken the time to read some interviews or watch some videos of Mr. Reznor discussing the album, you would know that what he is trying to convene here is anything BUT what you have spun it as.
Furthermore…since when were music lyrics supposed to be taken so damn seriously? If you would have looked into the storyline that Mr. Reznor provided to back up the CD, you would have seen that it contained a “character” that was a giant hand that came out of the sky. Should we be writing about that too? Complaining that he is supporting the hatred of those with big hands by saying associating one with an evil figure in the story?
Come on… you seem like a smart guy that just made a bad judgment on this album and I wish you would be an adult and admit to it.
Actually, it’s unlikely that most of Reznor’s fans can spell “Wahhabism” let alone know what it is. You’re way over their pointy little heads, here.
The “point” of “Year Zero?”
Cash. Lots and lots of cash.
While most NIN fans are very loyal, to the point of being blind sometimes, I must disagree with you in one point: Reznor is alive, he has stated his opinions and the concept of this album through interviews and what-not. Never has he come out even vaguely like the author of this post believes Year Zero to be. The arguments are all refutable.
All you wrote above is your perception of it, although you act like it’s a fact, the only known truth and anyone that disagrees with you are wrong.
that was a good laugh… oh wait… you were serious about this?
sorry pal, you totally missed the point of year zero.
Considering it’s a shemagh and is of the British military issue variety… do some fact checking.
*wakes up*
oh sh…. sorry. The review was too boring for me…
All i can say is…
*falls asleep*
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………
where should i start……….
*falls asleep*
You are definitely missing the point of the album.
Wow, I think you made some pretty good arguments and this is an engaging critical essay.
Too bad so many NIN fans are too rabid (or stupid) to read it that way.
Coming right out of the gate with “Trent Reznor loves terrorism” and ending it there with the attendant goon-worthy headliner image would have saved us all a lot of time and been just as substantial. I might even have let you get away with descending into analysis of rock lyrics (which are never more than a notch or two above stupid, ever, and here are misquoted all over the place, which is even worse) on the level of political theory – but not without any attempt to consider the context provided by the artist. It’s one thing to pick this stuff apart for fun, but to do so seriously without paying much attention at all to the elaborate back story (and no, it’s not only “marketing” – though that is part of the equation, as Reznor does NOT deny) is to deny any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. And for the love of any God you pick, don’t attack someone for not fact-checking when you can’t copy-and-paste anything yourself without screwing it up.
The fact that you added “[sic]” right next to a bit you got wrong out of Reznor’s e-mail promo gives away how much this diatribe amounts to: bad form and laziness. Let me provide you with an actual, undistorted quote from Reznor, speaking about his new album (the first one attached to this page yet, I believe): “it’s entertainment.” Doing as you have done – that is, taking song lyrics as a workable set of policies – is rather silly, particularly given the lengths to which any actual messages behind this experimental fantasy record are embellished and distorted in the subsequent critique (killing whatever credibility this publication might have had). Meanwhile, the author comes across as a frustrated kid venting disappointment about how his former favorite pop singer is just not deep enough for him anymore.
This review accuses Reznor of equivocating and then does – guess what? – just that: it equivocates all over the place. Where should we begin? The decades-old charge that all of Reznor’s “tortured posturing” is purely the domain of adolescent glamorization and not a symptom of failed outlets for depressive tendencies? That Reznor “revels” in fantasizing about spilling “the blood of the guilty” (perhaps I need to be clued in, but what exactly are you even referencing there, by the way)? That everyone in the so-called resistance of Year Zero is ever proclaimed “righteous” and “courageous” (check out the dialog between characters in the actual Year Zero alternate-reality sites, not just out-of-context fan-made “viral videos” – there isn’t a concrete good and evil depicted, is there)? Did the reviewer actually read anything at all of the painstakingly crafted material on those websites, by the way? Was it not made completely clear that “The Warning” is a third-person account of a supernatural/extraterrestrial message, which goes unheeded by humanity?
But hey, we can fashion a ridiculously thin argument from that conclusion, too! BIN LADEN’S AN ALIEN THAT ABDUCTS ROCK STARS! It all makes sense now! Hmm, I caught something about “down from the sky” – wait, don’t tell me – it’s an office building! It couldn’t be the image on the album cover, because that would make sense. Besides, it’s more convenient for me, a narrow purposed hack, to take Reznor’s lyrics as the actual “manifesto” of him and his audience – just as other like-minded morons did when he wrote about characters flirting with guns on The Downward Spiral! But of course, that was when NIN was still cool, right? My mistake. I’m equivocating. Let’s see, what’s an intellectual-sounding and suitably impenetrable phrase for me to insert into this increasingly boring rock album review? How about “Orentalist eschatology”? Boy, this is fun!
Thank you. We’re all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
“Reznor’s record will be little more than a reminder of a paranoid alarmism that existed for a brief moment in our history.”
While I didn’t agree with your review (who cares its the internet). The point above is excellent, and really proves the whole point of the Year Zero concept.
It was written as a warning this is the worst that could happen type situation. Unfortunately you seem to have hung yourself on Reznor’s keffiyeh. While his transformation into political commentator is largely far-fetched after all 12 months ago he looked like the Hulk singing about his new found sobriety. All addicts exchange one thing for another and it looks like he’s put the weights down and started reading the morning paper.
You have used Year Zero as an ineffectual crutch for your own opinions.
I just read this review, and my first thoughts were, “Batshit crazy”.
What were you smoking before writing this drivel? Spend some time playing around with the ARG websites to get some back story rather than deciding to write your own. FFS…
This is the most ignorant review of any CD I’ve EVER read. Good job.
Reznor gave up coke. I hate emo. If you think Reznor is a 'real artist' when there are records out there by Scott Walker, The Comsat Angels, Kate Bush, Bjork, Love, PJ Harvey, The Zombies, Suede, The Sound, New Model Army, Primal Scream, The Chameleons, etc., then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't yet heard any 'real artists' yet and you don't know any better. Believe it or not in 1995, I was a dedicated NIN fan. I just can't relate to it anymore–haven't been able to for years, but this new record really kind of stirred a discomfort in me. I know Trent Reznor would say bin Laden is a bad guy and probably mean it and I know he means well with the statement he's trying to make. Neither of those points can really change the fact that, taken side-by-side, the manifestos of radical Islam and Reznor's new album have lots in common. Writers aren't required, though, to waste wind giving you all those disclaimers. You cut to the chase and come right out and say that 'Year Zero' has things in common with the fantasies of al-Qaeda. It's simply true and I'd dare anybody who disagrees to go out and buy some of the writings of these thinkers. I only know this mental mistake so well because I've made it.  It gave me the willies to watch promo videos for Islamic Jihad Army and find out that I was literally saying the same thing. Did that make me a spokesperson for Islamic Jihad Army? What do you think? If my intentions are different or if I'm unawares, but I am saying the same thing where does that leave me? I'm actually as certain of Reznor's good intentions as I am of Sayyid Qutb's. Qutb saw racism in America, he saw corruption in Egypt, he found bankruptcy in communism and captialism–how could you not sympathize with that? He wrote 'Milestones' while being tortured in an Egyptian prison. He wanted to envision a political movement that would counter all of the ills he had experienced. That political movement today lives and uses the indiscriminant murder of innocent people as a tactic. At such a point, good intentions are out the door. I couldn't be bothered to care that he meant well, nor would I defend his work or his intentions. As it happens, his ideas have brought a great amount of misery upon the very people he hoped to liberate. Qutb and Islamists therefore become the enemies of most Muslims, not their spokespeople. They say so themselves–their definition of jahiliyyah is vast and actually far more focused on cleansing the world of bad Muslims than it is on cleansing the world of Western evils and infidels. The Muslim who believes in democracy is a worse enemy to them than any Western or Jewish or Christian person. Their movement is an obstacle to the development, progress and peace it proclaimed to be creating. As for Trent's record–I can't let it slip past on good intention. It feeds into a very dangerous near-sympathy with these groups, but more than that, it reinforces a very erroneous and factually false impression of the degree to which the U.S. is becoming a fascist state. As for trenchant Chomskyian critique in rock and roll, I can be totally fine with that sometimes. I do like Radiohead and I keep repeating I think Primal Scream's 'XTMNTR' is almost the most wicked political rock record ever. But does the track 'Swastika Eyes' on that record rub me wrong? It does–just as much as 'Year Zero' does. But that's one track–other tracks talk about the military-industrial complex, and the ills of our prison systems, the corruption of our legal system, etc.–all of that I can still appreciate. But Reznor, it seems to me, made a record full of 'Swastika Eyes.' It's just gone too far. The imagery and equivalency simply don't hold up. I don't know what kinds of music you listen to, but listen to the Clash or New Model Army–these bands sang tunes about working class experience, about class politics, and much of it still matters today. When George W. Bush is gone in a year, when the Iraq war is finally over, what will 'Year Zero' represent? If you can honestly tell me that you believe that in 15 years America might be a full blown totalitarian theocracy, then I just disagree. In 15 years, America will likely be the same flawed place–but it may be a better place not a worse one. Regime change for us doesn't require military force (that's the whole point)–we're all about to enjoy one in a year or so. If we elect a decent person who can clean up the mess Bush has made, America might look even better in 15 years and Reznor's record will be little more than a reminder of a paranoid alarmism that existed for a brief moment in our history. It will be a record of dismal angst and doom-ridden fantasy in a time when progressive people who are worried about the state of the world should have their mind focused not on bad politicians or on people who blow themselves up to fight against the "Evil Empire" but rather on people who are fighting for a better world, both for a better America and for a better global situation. Those people today don't have anybody writing anthems about them–do you know of any?Â
you think reznor the atheist is al qaeda's frontman? you must be high. He's getting a lapdance or snorting coke off a stripper as we speak. I think it's jackasses like you who represent hard-line fascist movements, not real artists like reznor. ps, your fake emo band probably sucks.
You know Anon, I used to be a flag-burning, gas mask-wearing, IWW card-carrying anti-capitalist community organizer. I've grown up a lot since then but that doesn't mean I reject all premises of anarchist critique out of hand–that's for David Horowitz, going from radical new left to radical new right. If that's what you see in me, you're the one who's batshit. While I've read Strauss, the 'Neocon Reader' and other such texts, I read them as a matter of education, not with slobbering sympathy. I like Strauss' rejection of relativism–his belief that Greek political philosophy is relevant for today is positively absurd (imagine that–a fellow with both clever and stupid things to say!). But I still sympathize most with left-ish thinkers who are skeptical of nationalism and state power. Israel is no exception, neither is the United States. If you read my comments above carefully, you would notice my sympathies lie with a civil society uprising in Iran, not with a military intervention by the U.S. or Israel. The fact is, I never once mentioned Israel. That you found Israel when Israel wasn't in there says a lot about you. What superceded my zealous leftism was not neoconservatism, but rather humanism, something more in the style of the late Mr. Carl Sagan rather than Robert Kagan. Humanism doesn't take a definitive position on the good or ill of capitalism, nation-states, etc.–only on whether or not such a judgment is level-headed and supported by strong evidence and argument. I despise superstition, fantasy thinking, disregard for facts because I think these things, whether manifested in religious extremism, postmodernism, Stalinism, blind political partisanship, or what have you, are deadly. Voltaire comes to mind: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." That goes for paranoids like you. Some people see evil ghosts in the world if they don't understand electrical fields or the sundry tricks the human brain is able to play on itself. Folks like you, who can't cope with the chaos of politics, see neocons and Israel wherever something you don't like happens. Just like the spiritualist, you engage in lazy thinking–you entertain absurdities and fall so in love with them that you substitute them for argument. Not that you asked, Anon, but if I claim an affiliation to a political ideology these days, it is the one articulated by Robert Conquest: A United Front Against Bullshit. I go batshit when somebody looks at the Is-Real funny–somebody like you who may as well, in my eyes, be reading sombody's palm, tea leaves, or Tarot, in order to make sense of the world. What's most predictable–and also very apropos–is that I don't actually know who I'm addressing right now. So many Anonymous comments, you could all be different folks. The brilliance of it is that it doesn't matter–your non-arguments coalesce into one big cluster of assertions. Assertions are rather different from arguments–I can assert the proposition 'All monkeys can fly' but it's quite a bit harder to argue it. States are big messy machines they do awful things and good things. The U.S. Government ushered in Augusto Pinochet, ousted Mossadeq, and ALSO liberated the Kurds, Bosnians and parts of Europe from genocidal movements. Some of my Native American ancestors were displaced and/or murdered by American settlers. Yet the United States is also the world's only state not founded on some allegiance to ghosts and is regarded even by the beloved Mr. Chomsky as the freest land on Earth. Even most Afghans appreciate U.S. help in defeating Soviet imperialism but remain angry since the U.S. didn't keep its promises and instead let the country descend into civil war which led to the rise of the Taliban. Can you handle these paradoxes, contradictions, and complexities, ye Anons, or must politics be a matter of haloes and split-hooves? Can we not criticize wiretapping and the Patriot Act while acknowledging that Iraqi liberals, leftists, and trade unionists don't wish for troop withdrawal any time soon? Can we not criticize the appropriate Israeli politicians and criticize crazed homicidal theocratic mass murderers at the same time? In a world of angels and demons, magic spells and doomsday conspiracy fantasies (like those of the Okhrana, St. John, or Reznor) are all you have. Once you start seeing these affairs for what they are: namely human and manifesting the same flaws and contradicitons as humans themselves, you realize that you must learn to live with contradiction, stop seeing ghosts, and decide merely who you can live with. The moment you start focusing on the life and future of Pakistani women like Mukhtaran Mai, the life and future of Afghans and Nigerians and Somalians–on life and future in general, you stop focusing on when and how everything will come to an end. Once you have goals, once you have brothers and sisters, there is little time to wallow in destructive fantasy. Once you know what you positively believe in, who you stand beside, your enemy comes into focus. If you start by choosing your enemy, and if, like a ghost or demon, your enemy can pop up anywhere, what you believe in gets blurry and eventually you will believe anything no matter how absurd. And if I've gone batshit at all over your Israel comment, it's only because you dreamed it out of thin air and couldn't possibly have gathered what my opinion is on the state of Israel or its activities from anything that I said. You could have replaced 'Israel' with 'Leprechauns' for all I care–it's the mere casualness with which folks like you expect me to make your demons my own–or to to subscribe to the theory of demons whatsoever–that irks me so. When the day comes that regular people won't settle for dreams and illusions, or nonsense culled from the aforementioned thin air, but opt instead for reality, no matter how complicated or confusing, corrupt states and politicians will lose one of their primary assets.
Yeah, I was kind of curious which Israel-related material the anon was referring to. But then I thought, nah.
I don't get it. Are we batshit crazy zionists, or are we anti-semites running a cleverly disguised Neo-Nazi website? We get called both weekly.
As predictable as a Jewcy writer going batshit crazy if someone even thinks of looking at Isreal funny?
Nick Cohen described the peculiar case of Kanan Makiya, a fellow whose core argument never changed much–he was a friend of the left when Saddam was America's friend but was abandoned and deemed a 'neocon' when Saddam became America's enemy. I believe the turn of phrase goes something to the effect that he crossed from one side of the political spectrum to the other by standing still. Call me what you like, fascist, neocon–the most entertaining thing from my perspective is listening to the improvisation, wondering what I'll be labelled tomorrow for doing the same thing I'm doing today: speaking in favor of democratic, civil society, gender, and labor movements who live under the yoke of authoritarianism and decrying my neighbors at home who advocate, glamorize, or apologize for those who sabotage their efforts to change things. The labels don't depress me so much as the lack of creativity.
Do they have some kind of neocon exam to write here, even for the cool rock guy?
So Anonymous, let me see if I've understood….number 1) liberal democracies under emergency law have approximated the repression of a country whose president is re-elected by "99%" of the population every election, and number 2) total freedom of speech is a form of censorship because it deprives the most narcissistic anti-war slogan of all time of its meaning? National socialists having a say or no, I pretty much got the 'don't get my hands dirty' gist–a slogan which takes no notice of all the people who will continue to suffer so that your hands might stay clean. I do care where we're going: we're going someplace where a great many on the left who I once considered my colleagues, who claim to tout the values of human rights and freedom, are enamored of a figure who is more concerned with showing solidarity with Hezbollah than with the Iranian student democratic movement. So, while, Ansar-e Hezbollah, the Iranian wing of Chomsky's Khomeniist buddies, murders and jails students fighting for an end to religious totalitarianism, our good MIT professor visits their ideological cohorts in Lebanon and gives them his seal of approval. And too many of our rock stars think him and his politics are all so bad-ass. You have the nerve to put "liberal democracy" in scare quotes when chances are, you've known nothing of rape rooms, random arrests, kidnapped or murdered relatives. You claim I should be more careful before I say a country that makes men sit naked on broken glass until they bleed to death and sends a videotape to their family is fascist. I say you should be more careful before you say living under the Patriot Act is the equivalent or some new form that only us folks who have read Negri, Zizek and Deleuze can comprehend in our brains while others experience fascism as an actual noose around their very physical neck. One should criticize and resist bad wartime policies and legislations, but false equivalencies like that are nothing but a matter of drama queen distortion. (by the way, the quote from Zizek is as follows: "A good portrait loks more like the person who's portrayed than the person themself–a good portrait is more you than you are yourself. This is what the film does with our reality. The changes that it introduces do not point to ultimate reality–they simply make our reality the more what it already is.")
you really had me almost all the way to the article: yes, it should make us listen closely when an artist who’s done practically nothing but proclaim how bad he feels about his own existence for his whole artistic career all of a sudden turns to politics.
yes, even a metaphorical approximation to the vocal outbursts of fanatics, purists, fascists,… (you name it) of any couleur, be that religious or not, should be tackled with the greatest of care… which you do not, at least not when it comes to the political context:
the “liberal democracy” which you keep referring to, is right now involved in a war which has cost not only thousands of civilians, but also american soldiers their lives. the same “liberal democracy” has cut back on its citizen’s personal rights in a sort of emergency law reminding strongly of similar situations in totalitarian regimes like egypt.
and the fact that this “liberal democracy” chooses to perform a different form of censorship than that practised in most european countries, namely allowing complete freedom of speech to everyone, including hate groups like national socialist parties or white power groups, and thereby robbing any serious political utterance (like “not in our name”) of its inherent worth, is no disproof of any distopian vision of where this country is going, quite the contrary; it only proves that too many people are busy formulating too many worthless opinions instead of “setting their queer shoulders to the wheel”, as allan ginsberg put it, or to rephrase that to your own situation, dear josh, unless you’ve done your part to defend liberality and democracy in a society that is (in the eyes of a hell of a lot of people all over the world) on its way to a new kind of fascism, you’re simply in no position to comment spitefully on someone who cares.
“Kinda weak on the zizek (hard to know what you’re trying to say). I mean, it sounds like your saying (Zizek says) that because Children of Men has a trenchant political subtext it’s “more real than reality”? Kinda sets a low bar, don’t you think? Especially given what a bunch of simple agit prop that movie was about one level removed…And I’m not sure what that has to do with Reznor’s movie unless your saying that all political-themed fiction also makes reality “more real…” hmmm. But anyway, good job holding that ditz, Reznor’s, feet to the fire. You’re right, he should stick to animal fucking.”
Did you even read what Zizek said about Children of Men? He starts off saying that the film was a great film because it abandoned the didactic of the novel it is an adaptation of—the underlying theme of the novel being that “we are all infertile” or some religious Jesus-esque political psychobabble like that. The thing that made Children of Men a good movie wasn’t the plot; it was the background of the film. Understanding the background of the film became necessary to truly understand the world in which the story took place—in this sense, the background of the film is more important than the foreground. And we can say the same thing about the real world, also, that the background, the underbelly, is more real than the vocal media. Children of Men is entirely believable in its dystopia of terrorist-like pious zealotry. We can measure reality by means of the passive phenomena imbedded in the tone of our media. In that sense, we can have a film, like Children of Men, which is “more real than real” because it assumes the end of the passive background and creates a conflict between background and foreground. We now see the background of reality in the foreground of the film, thus seeing more of reality than we can percieve by means of societal reality.
The point Zizek makes (it's his point, not mine) is that, like Hegel's saying that a good portrait is more real than its subject, 'Children of Men' functions to help us see our own reality the more for what it is.  What is supposedly a future projection is more of a magnifying of the present so that we see it for what it actually is.
Kinda weak on the zizek (hard to know what you’re trying to say). I mean, it sounds like your saying (Zizek says) that because Children of Men has a trenchant political subtext it’s “more real than reality”? Kinda sets a low bar, don’t you think? Especially given what a bunch of simple agit prop that movie was about one level removed…And I’m not sure what that has to do with Reznor’s movie unless your saying that all political-themed fiction also makes reality “more real…” hmmm. But anyway, good job holding that ditz, Reznor’s, feet to the fire. You’re right, he should stick to animal fucking.
I guess anything other than praising Israel or the US government gets a negative review…..pathetic. Choose another line of work, kid.
Josh,
I entirely agree. I listened to Capital G (a promo mp3 from Trent’s marketing site.) While I’m a fan of the music and found it the tune to be very catchy, the political points are weak and objectionable. It’s incredibly irritating to listen to someone spouting such simple rhetoric.
You have an awesome command of the English language. You manipulate words with a delicate touch and carry the reader along every vowel and through every consonant guiding them into the heart of your piece.
You’re a great writer…
You’re completely full of shit, but you’re a great writer nonetheless…
A man of your talent needs to grow to find his own voice. Being the mouthpiece for an agenda or a dogma is not a good look.
the more you know the less you understand.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. It’s as if you’ve tortured Reznor’s lyrics into a pretzel in order to fit your conclusions.
Steve Earle is an example of why artists should do a bit of fact checking before they put pen to paper. John Walker Lindh wasn't "raised on MTV" and "sodapop commercials" as the lyrics suggest. He was deeply obsessed with an obscure anti-commercial strain of hip-hop that centers around black nationalism and, by extension, Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. JWL was not so different from any music fan, nor is he emblematic of the ennui of American life. As a fan of the Manic Street Preachers, I found myself delving deeply into the lives and work of folks like Paul Robeson, to the point of becoming a community and labor organizer in impoverished Philadelphia neighborhoods. Only where my identification with the Manics' Marxism took me into the homes of poverty-stricken widows, JWL landed in an Islamist army. I personally don't care what left or right said about "John Walker's Blues," as I imagine it was a truckload of partisan rattling nonsense. The fact remains that the facts don't seem to matter much to artists who want to make political statements–that's my gripe.
The image that comes to mind here is that of a multitude of oppressed, liberal-minded Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, and Syrians quizzically titlting their heads in unison at the suggestion that "understanding" the people who brutalize them is more worthwhile than standing in solidarity with their struggles for liberty. They're fighting for things liberals should love: universal suffrage, equal rights for women, freedom of speech and press. Have the good commentators above considered that a moment spent on Shirin Ebadi, Ramin Jahanbegloo, Maryam Namazie or any of a multitude of dedicated liberal activists and feminists fighting against ultraconservative radicalism might be more fruitful, not to mention becoming, for those who fancy themselves the liberal champions of the "Other?" If we're all so learned in critical theory, we might remember a major contribution of feminist theory–the idea that lumping different people with different struggles together and then claiming to speak for them isn't such a good idea. It's paternalistic and condescending to put our own words in the mouths of Islamists and liberal activists. If bin Laden says he wants an Salafist Islamic Empire and Anzar Nafisi says she wants freedom for Iranian women, who is the more racist, those who take them at their word or those who make them their own mouthpiece when they say bin Laden is against imperialism and Nafisi is in the service of a neocon cabal? The Other in this case is not a nebulus "Islamic World" for whom bin Laden is the spokeperson. In fact, more careful examination of the milieus we're speaking of show a dramatically tense social situation, where–believe it or not–extremists and liberals coexist. I know this is hard for many racist Western leftists to swallow, but not all Muslims are fundamentalists, and plenty of Muslims despise the radicals that beggar their countries. So which "Other," precisely are we proposing to engage and who is more deserving of our time, energy and passions? And if one can't start from the admittedly simple premise that terrorism–in our case the random mass slaughter of civilians–is 'bad,' then isn't the moral compass guiding discussion in dire need of realignment?
I echo the first comment. Fundamentalism–of several kinds–threatens the way of life of those of us who believe in pluralism. Terrorists perpetrate suicide bombings; politicians perpetrate the erosion of our civil rights. Why must we answer these frightening happenings with simplistic responses (Terrorism=bad)? I’ve read Zizek. And Jean-Luc Nancy, and Robert Paxton, and Fanon, and Bhabha, and Foucault, and… And I can use that critical theory in approaching Reznor’s album, which I would never have bought until I read your article. Examining how our collective fear of the Other has contributed to the polarization of Muslim and Western (in the terrorist outlook) can be helpful in motivating us to do the philosophical and political work of healing the damage we have done. The West and its choices or “lifestyles” did not cause 9/11, as the Falwells of the world would have us believe, but attempting to create a world devoid of Others is not the answer. We need to use our brains to respond to contemporary times, and sometimes our brains need to think through to the limits. I suppose I’m a utopian thinker at heart, but I believe provoking thought is a good place to start.
Reminds me of the reaction from the right to Steve Earle’s John Walker’s Blues. Have we really come so far that we can’t (even artistically) attempt to engage the Other? If so, that doesn’t bode well for the future of liberal democracy.
Also, for the masses. Euston, we have a problem…
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!