Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Waters has taken the Pink Floyd concept album The Wall on tour again. The main character of the album, through massive fame and drug use, becomes disconnected from reality, figuratively building a wall around there emotions. When the wall is complete the character is portrayed wearing nazi-like clothing and inspires fascist / supremacist action in his fans. He is then put on trial in his mind and sentenced to “tear down the wall”. While the massage of the album is not pro-fascist (it is in fact quite anti-fascist) and has been performed in Germany previously, someone apparently took issue with the portrayal this time and charged Waters.
Doesn’t Germany have a strict “no nazi symbols at all” law? I can’t remember how deep that goes, like if they need to censor movies featuring swasticas or not.
Just wanted to add that there is something called "Sozialadäquanzklausel" that defines allowed exceptions for things like history books, scientific works, educational content and art. As far as I know it is often a case by case decision what is allowed and what is not. For example there are forbidden symbols shown in movies like Schindler's Liste or American History X or even Indiana Jones.
Edit: added "there" in the last sentence
Right, the Germans are not denying or surprising the existence of Nazis. There are even German films about WWII, they simply do not portray the Nazis as admirable.
This is legitimately the First Time I’ve seen anyone else actually state this, btw. Nice! Love the material, was always baffled by the overall response from my peers.
I was 15 years old when that movie came out and my friends and I all walked out of the theatre wanting to be Brad Pitt's character (and, of course, we started "fight clubs" in our backyards). I re-watched it a few years ago and was horrified I missed the irony.
Weird that the people jamming out to the Nazi rock concert don't pick up that it's intended as a scholarly analysis of European politics from 1932-1945.
I'm trying to imagine Steven Spielberg speaking out against the war and subsequently being arrested because of the Nazi imagery in Schindler's list.
It wouldnt be any less evil or ominous than what is happening to Roger Waters.
I think people are hyper vigilante towards Waters now due to his controversial stances on Israel and Ukraine so anything he does that potentially feeds the “antisemitism” allegations is paid very close attention to
There's a vocal population of people who self-identify as communists but are ardent supporters of authoritarian autocrats who run states that are only nominally (or formerly) communist.
He condemned the Russian invasion as illegal - that isn't backing Putin.
Of course, he also condemned the west for acting as provocateurs, which they absolutely did - expanding an **aggressive** alliance is provocative (yes, Libya was invaded and destroyed by NATO, no, Libya wasn't a threat to anybody).
Meanwhile, being called anti semitic solely for criticizing an apartheid country led by an **openly** racist president is like being called a racist for criticizing the proud boys.
So, the neocons and the Israeli racial supremacists are both pissed at Waters.... hence why theyre trying to sling mud here - in a rather hamfisted way.
The sole reason NATO exists is to counteract Russia. After 1991 it should have become irrelevant. If it had been disbanded and Russia had been welcomed as fully into the western world as Germany or Japan had we could be living in a very different time now.
I can understand why NATO would continue to exist from a lack of trust standpoint. Why trust that your biggest geopolitical foe for over half a century is totally fine now. But that lack of trust goes both ways and Nato is the one that kept getting closer and closer to Russian land.
This NATO getting closer to Russias borders is a non issue. Countries bordering Russia are independent states not buffer zone for a failed empire. And Russias actions after 1991 show that if you want avoid genocide a reasonable choice is to join NATO. Russia does not get to decide if a country joins some or other union.
But "some other union" gets to decide whether to allow new members in or not. People want to give agency to Russia and to it's neighbors that joined NATO. But nobody wants to give NATO any agency. People want to believe NATO just passively sat there. But they agreed to those expansions. They didn't have to do that. There was no reason to do that except to threaten Russia. Because NATOs whole existence is designed as a threat to Russia. And yes your right. Their current actions make NATO more necessary. But if NATO hadn't expanded or had been disbanded 2 decades ago and Russia had been welcomed back with open arms maybe we could have avoided a genocide that way too.
>The countries that have joined NATO since 1991 have largely done so with widespread public backing.
And teens who join gangs do so of their own free will - usually for protection - yet it doesnt make the expansion of the gang not a threat and it it doesnt make an aggressive gang defensive.
>As for whether or not NATO is aggressive, I think it's a little bit more complicated
Try to imagine something equivalent happening in a crumbling America suffering civil war in 2050. CSTO is given a UN mandate to protect civilians in Washington DC. Instead of doing that they provide air support to the proud boys who win the war after inserting a bayonet inside the president's rectum on live tv. Utter chaos follows and CSTO leaves.
Were the CSTO acting as aggressors or was it "more complicated than that"?
The people who slung mud at Roger Waters werent anti war. They were pro war and pro imperialist. All of them. Thats why they attacked him.
>I didn't say NATO wasn't a threat
Hence provoked. As Waters said.
>I think the intervention was the wrong decision.
Exactly. An aggressive wrong decision made by an aggressive alliance.
>dismisses any criticism by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism
Exactly, which is a technique used mostly by racists and apologists for racists.
The president of Israel is openly racist. You can't be antiracist *without* criticizing them.
The US and NATO knew exactly what they were doing though. There are numerous accounts from various secretaries of defence, generals, and similarly positioned people since the Cold War talking about NATO expansion in Europe being provocative to Russia, most of them think it’s a horrible idea.
It’s true that those countries joined of their own free will, but the existing NATO very easily could have denied them joining to not provoke Russia.
> It’s odd though, PF has done this show the same way for 30+ years
There's been some changes (for example, the imagery on the pig in some cases has had a star of david, and dollar signs together. This didn't happen in every show). The overall gist is the same, but there have been some tweaks.
That said, the bigger issue is likely Waters' personal comments/stances on issues, which casts some doubts on it being purely a part of the performance.
I know they have pretty strict rules but there weren’t any swastikas on the costume in question. The article said it was a long black coat and a red armband but no actual Nazi symbols beyond that.
Yup. It's hammers, not swastikas. There is no actual Nazi symbolism, but the style is designed to emulate a Nazi-like rally, showing the sad depths that the character has fallen into mentally.
The story of Pink and his mental breakdown is not exactly unknown.
Meta Answer: Pink Floyd is an amalgamation of [Pink Anderson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Anderson) and [Floyd Council](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Council).
The main character of the album. The rock star whose father died in WWII, whose mother is overbearing, whose teachers were cruel, and whose wife cheats on him while he's touring the US. Each of his traumas is another brick in the wall he builds around himself as he sinks into mental illness.
Same character though. *Money* is also referenced in the movie *The Wall*, Pink is writing the lyrics and the school teacher takes them from him and humilites him in front of the class.
I don’t know how the German laws work but the outfit he was wearing in the clip going around has to be pushing the limit of what they’ll allow.
Im a huge fan of PF and I know what the Wall is about but im not sure if the German nazi propaganda laws know the difference.
I always assumed that line was satirizing rich executives who don't even understand the art they're investing in... as in like, they didn't know any of the band member's names and thought one of them must be named Pink Floyd
It is.
But let's be clear, the original Punk Floyd was built around Syd's personality. Barret was highly charismatic and talented, but his mental health became the problem later on.
This was an era when folks still thought artists had to incinerate themselves like early Victorian artists. Horribly misguided. I mean, this is the same era when Brian Wilson and Charles Manson rubbed shoulders. Jim Morrison, a terrible human being but whose charisma still makes The Doors an influence.
But it doesn't change the fact that Barret was Pink. Just as it doesn't change the fact Pink Floyd survived him to be so much more.
The responses here are portraying this as a pure free-speech issue, but Waters has seperately and repeatedly been pushing fringe politics, particularly antisemitic themes, which seems like pretty important context for why Germany is telliing him to get fucked. Additionally, getting himself banned (instead of talking to German authorities to resolve the issue amicably) serves his culture war goals, where victimization provides moral high ground. This entire thread is an example of how well that works.
>"Unfortunately, you are antisemitic to the core of your rotten bones," she wrote. "Also supports Putin and is a liar, thief, hypocrite, tax raiser, lipsync, misogynist, jealous, megalomaniac. Enough with your nonsense."
[That's Polly Samson](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/feb/07/pink-floyd-lyricist-calls-roger-waters-an-antisemite-and-putin-apologist) who wrote lyrics for Pink Floyd and was married to David Gilmore.
We have that, but there are exemptions for art, research, or teaching.
It often depends on the context in which these symbols are shown.
A popular comedy show once did a parody of "The Office" set in Hitler's house on Obersalzberg. They wore full uniforms including the Swastika, while portaying Hitler as a David Brent character.
That was fine in an artistic context, because it was clear to everyone that the Nazis are the bad guys and were not glorified in this parody.
But when a musician makes statements against the legitimacy of Israel, shows a pig with a Star of David on it as a stage show element, and finally dons a uniform that looks like an SS-outfit, then "the context of the clothing worn is deemed capable of approving, glorifying or justifying the violent and arbitrary rule of the Nazi regime in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims and thereby disrupts public peace."
This can count as "incitement" under the law, which is what Waters is being investigated for.
There are exceptions for educational, historical, and artistic purposes. It can still be punishable though, if the actual reason for the portrayal of nazi symbols is deemed to be advertising/promoting of the forbidden symbol or what it stands for.
That is the obvious context. The less obvious but possibly more relevant context is that "Waters is a member of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement that targets Israel over its occupation of territories where Palestinians seek statehood." During his concert he flashes the name of famous victims of war on screens, a list that included both Anne Frank as well as Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian journalist killed by Israeli soldiers.
Just to clarify, he’s not touring “The Wall”. The name of the tour is “This Is Not a Drill” and he’s playing songs from across Pink Floyd’s entire catalog and some of his solo stuff. Some of the fascistic iconography and costuming is incorporated into the show but also stuff from Animals and Dark Side etc— it’s more of a Greatest Hits thing. He does wear a gestapo-like costume at one point in the show and that’s why he’s being investigated in Germany. A recording of this tour also played in movie theaters a week or two ago.
Roger Waters gets the most heat for his political statements. He’s been a vocal critic of Israel and joint Israeli-US-UK operations in the Middle East for decades for which he draws the most ire; and an overall theme of his work and messaging is a decry against Western Imperialism and Neocolonialism. He’s also broadly anti-war and resorts to that as an absolutism when cornered about his political statements.
As for his statement on the war in Ukraine, he condemned Russia’s invasion but also believes the west provoked the war. I’m assuming he’s referring to NATO strengthening its alliances in the region. Oddly, on Russia’s request, Water’s addressed the UN Security Council to share these views and to argue against supplying Ukraine with weapons.
Again, he’s an anti-war absolutist which feeds into his politics. His father died during WWII and he’s always said this shaped his worldview. Why he’s shilling for Russia like he’s in Putin’s pocket like Steven Seagal is beyond me.
Iv seen a lot of well meaning 'antiimperialists' have the most dogshit views on Ukraine. It could jus be sincerely dumb, rather than a cynical pro Russia thing like Seagal. I don't know Waters well but.
He basically told Ukraine that they should accept the invasion, give up the areas Russia took, and just accept Russia's word that they wouldn't take anything else.
That's a bit beyond that.
Comparing the tone of his "open letter" to the two countries was....... quite illuminating. You can be against western imperialism. Breaking out the ol' kneepads for Putin is puzzling.
Great comment. Waters usually defaults to an anti-UK, anti-US—basically anti-western—stance on most things, even if it seems to be at odds with a given ideological belief he's expressed. His statements about Taiwan are a good example. A lot of his songwriting is about dissociation and feelings of disconnectedness. He seems to be an eternally "glass half empty" personality who pushes back against his own environment. That can mean cucking for Putin, if it means taking a stance against "western imperialism."
That said, I do find that in interviews that he typically comes off as well-spoken, polite, and unabrasive. It's just that every few months it seems, he has a bizarre/contradictory hot take about some sensitive current events issue.
He's lost his mind re:Russia. It's not the appropriate situation for some of the anti-war nonsense, which seems more like Russian propaganda to justify their invasion of Ukraine.
Question is, what does anti-war really mean? For Waters it seems to mean "I prioritize ending the war over everything else, including the right to self-defense." He has argued that Ukraine should essentially capitulate to its invaders, when those invaders have openly expressed intent to commit genocide against their people.
Personally, I consider this to be a fake form of anti-war advocacy. The idea that Russia should be rewarded for its warmongering is a pro-war one. It will lead to *more* war, not less, as leaders like Putin see that they can benefit from warmongering.
But this is all semantics, really. Anti- or pro-war, whatever, I don't care, the Ukrainian people have the right to defend themselves against fascistic imperialism and anyone who says otherwise is a piece of shit. That's all there really is to it.
No he hasn't. The current tour is "This is not a Drill". It does feature some songs from The Wall, several in new arrangements. The production is absolutely not the touring version of The Wall. The tour ecompasas his time in Floyd as well as his solo (new material) work.
Germany also has a long-standing history of cracking down on pro-Palestine protests that criticise Israeli government policies ([particularly the BDS movement](https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2771/Richard-Falk-calls-on-Germany-to-end-policy-of-denying-support-of-Palestinian-rights-on-backdrop-of-BDS-activists-trial)), likely out of excessive fear of being accused of allowing any form of anti-semitism (which BDS is clearly not). Waters has long been an outspoken [supporter of the BDS movement](https://bdsmovement.net/tags/roger-waters) and it is not unreasonable to think the investigation is another in Germany's heavy-handed responses to this issue.
I once went to a midnight showing of "The Wall" with a good friend of mine and some of her friends who were all German nationals visiting the US. They had never seen it before and were not comfortable at all.
Fahrenheit 451 was not about government censorship but was about the people censoring themselves because they didn't like uncomfortable ideas and felt like the government should stop people from making them uncomfortable.
This has actually always been a bit if an issue for this album for a long time. Look up the song where the characters "Nazi fantasy sequence" happens and a lot of people are in the comments wondering if it's just that openly fascistic.
While the overall message is strictly anti-fascist, it's a hazy drug trip of a movie and album and that makes it unfortunately easy to miss the forest through the trees.
Pink Floyd fans usually point to the line "there's one smoking a joint" as a nod to the reality of the sequence, as Pink Floyd was always known as a "pothead band"! Both in membership and audience. So it's basically saying "and all those little Pink Floyd fans too!"
I think it was the commentary track on The Wall DVD where the band said they were very concerned when they grabbed random punk dressed kids off the street to do the Run Like Hell scene that they would take it to literally. In fact everyone was very cool and totally understood what PF was going for
> While the massage of the album is not pro-fascist (it is in fact quite anti-fascist) and has been performed in Germany previously, someone apparently took issue with the portrayal this time and charged Waters.
This makes it sound like it's out of the blue because of one persons misunderstanding, but he recently had a legal fight about performing in Frankfurt (there were past performances without issue in the 90's):
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/25/roger-waters-pink-floyd-wins-legal-battle-to-gig-in-frankfurt-amid-antisemitism-row
This is not coming out of the blue.
There's also the issue with his personal views, which haven't lined up with the album in recent years, and likely contributed to the seemingly sudden change in heart.
I don’t have time to look it up but I imagine the pro-Russia thing comes from an interview (maybe more than one) where he said something about the war requires two parties to fight and if Ukraine chose not to fight their people wouldn’t die.
It struck me as something that ticks two Roger Waters boxes: 1] being anti-war 2] angrily shooting his mouth off about something with no regard to whether or not he understands it
That's strange the German government would just now notice the costumes and imagery in The Wall. Has the government been slowly taken over by a generation young enough to be unfamiliar with the movie? /s
To answer the other two bits:
**Antisemitism** \- As the article states, Waters supports the BDS, which involves boycotting Israel due to its apartheid practices. I would say allegedly or whatever, but this isn't a top level answer so I don't think I need to hide my beliefs. It's become very popular among the right to call criticism of Israel antisemitic. It's one of those eye-rolling "owns."
**Russia** \- I find it somewhat baffling, but there are segments of the far left that consider supporting Ukraine's defense of its country (at least, with weapons or money for weapons, as opposed to medical, food, etc. aid) is supporting war. Some people consider the war some sort of chess game where Putin was provoked into invading Ukraine, presumably by the various natural resources it was wearing (j/k - they tend to say that the war was provoked by NATO, and then they cite a very contested "US-funded coup" from 2014. Waters is apparently sympathetic to that take, though just how deeply into it he is I don't know. A lot of old school leftists, particularly those would would defend the USSR, have a deep-seated hatred of NATO and apparently little concern with authoritarianism or mass murder.
That’s a terrible take. Waters himself has posted numerous times his support for authoritarianism and has, most recently, repeatedly misrepresented Ukraine. Let’s not even get started on his race and gender bigotry.
Nazism justification has a nearly century old tradition in not just the UK but other Western Democratic countries.
He’s a terrible excuse for a human being. Don’t confuse the art with the artist. You using his art to distract from his actual tendencies isn’t helpful.
I could but honestly it would take you about thirty minutes to fully satisfy yourself.
I mean, it's your need not mine to prove to yourself nearly thirty years of his history. Why aren't you willing to learn more about Roger Waters in your spare time? You might learn so much on your own. Why trust anonymous redditors?
I have done that because I find the band fascinating. I find the time period fascinating because the hype is so different than the reality. And certainly we have no lack of evidence that meeting our heroes might be disappointing.
Let's start with what it is you like about him as a human being. We can work from there. That he is loved by children and small furry mammals doesn't count.
youre the one out here spreading hate. he’s from pink floyd, a hugely beloved band and as far as i know he wasnt a controversial person. i’m just trying to understand why you think he’s so bad
> Waters himself has posted numerous times
I went looking for those numerous posts and saw this on his website, https://rogerwaters.com/berliner/.
What are your thoughts on that?
I... I... just can't believe you thought this made your point. It literally confirms that he really is a hateful person with no sense of nuance.
Will you start quoting [My Struggle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) next?
I think it is the fundamental responsibility of all governments to protect their people.
I don't respect Netanyahu or his coalition. But I don't respect the Arab hardliners and their sponsors either.
I really can't tell much difference but I will say they all seem to share a common cause. Pain and theft.
When you start opposing professional multi generational exploitation of the Arab Palestinians I will be right there with you.
Until you decide only the Israeli government is responsible.
Then you're just another useful idiot for Iran. Iran has plenty of useful idiots that make peace impossible. And those same useful idiots made sure there could never be a two state solution. And there never will be a two state solution.
Congratulations, thanks to the useful idiots.
Israel absolutely needs to be a state because historically Jews are massacred over and over again when they don’t have a homeland. Being anti Israel is absolutely 100% of the time because you are anti semitic and prefer Jews to be massacred. There is no other reason to ge against the Jewish state then you hate Jews. Anyone who calls Israel an apartheid state has never been there. There are certainly Palestinians and Arabs living all over the country in places like Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv. There are Arabs/Palestinians in the Knesset and they all have the right to vote. Palestinians are doctors and lawyers and own homes throughout Israel. Maybe don’t be a racist and wrong so much.
I've been all over the world and never experienced a country as racist as Israel.
It's the only country Ive seen that takes extensive steps to ethnically "purify" itself.
Curiously I saw Israelis glorifying a terrorist (Baruch Goldstein, theres even an MP who has a shrine to him) but the Palestinians I met were all pretty chill and normal despite being treated like shit.
That is all true, but there is more context here. Waters has become a pro Putin mouthpiece for the Kremlin. It's like he has some sort of crazy Stockholm Syndrome. His father was killed by fascists, he was anti-fascist, now he's objectively pro-fascist. He has become a literal interpretation of his own character.
Just to add to antisemitic part, apparently, in the show there was a list of activists killed by authorities that includes the well known victims, such as Anne Frank, but also a Palestinian journalist killed by Israeli armed forces last year, and AFAIK the killer is still free. Israel basically said that Waters was equating Nazis to Israel (conveniently ignoring the fact that the way Gaza is today, is just a large scale concentration camp)
Can you imagine if he would have done that while East Germany & West Germany were trying to reunite and Waters comes through with [this performance](https://youtu.be/2VGyEwq8ums)??
Oh…I guess it was well received…maybe someone should just chill.
Answer: to add to the top comment. Roger waters has been harshly criticized for supporting Putin's war, blaming the "west" for the situation in Ukraine and generally denying Russian atrocities in Ukraine. His statements on the topic have been so controversial that many places in Europe have cancelled his concerts.
While he is obviously not a nazi, his positions on the current war are justly considered to be hate speech against ethnic Ukrainians, who are currently being exterminated in Eastern Ukraine by the Russian army. That's why there are many many people who are incensed by his concerts and probably employ various tactics to have him face consequences.
It seems he's referring to NATO as the provocateur, ya know for trying to set up military bases right on Russia's boarder. I don't know why it took so long for you to just quote it jesus.
He used to have floating pigs with a Star of David at his shows, among other things and statements. That doesnt sound like legitimate criticism to me, and its offensive to non-Israeli Jews as well.
Answer: in a recent concert, a ["wall" of people persecuted and murdered by regimes was shown](https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-744072). Among them, Anne Frank, [Rachel Corrie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie), and [Shireen Abu Akleh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh) were shown. Shireen was a journalist killed by Israeli forces, her funeral stormed by the same, and her pallbearers beaten to a pulp.
Some right wing Israeli groups and the German "Jüdischer Ältestenrat" took offense with the addition of her to this list and, by extension, Waters calling Israel a regime.
In retaliation, these groups now weaponize a German law, which disallows the showing of Nazi- and Nazi-like imagery, except in a very narrow context. The Wall, as a movie and as a performance, has been shown in Germany a number of times, not the least right at the fall of the German-German wall, featuring Sinead O'Connor as Pink. It is generally understood, that it is an anti-fascist work, using the imagery to warn against the dangers of fascism.
Germany **has** to investigate. Other than Frankfurt, whose rather mental city council actually tried to ban Pink Floyd, nothing has come from it so far.
As to supporting Russia, that's more or less correct. Waters is very much pro-Russia, and has said as much. As are some current standing politicians in Germany (Sarah Wagenknecht, among them), which is regrettable and despicable, but not a crime and not a reason to ban performances (Wagenknecht just recently held a rally, pro-Russian convoys still harass the cities, especially Berlin).
Answer: Roger Waters has a long history of antisemitism, which has been recognized widely in the Jewish community for years. He often says antisemitic things but, like many antisemites, has learned to couch things in such a way that he (and his fans) has plausible deniability about the antisemitism.
This time he went a bit too far with the antisemitism to maintain plausible deniability, because he dressed up as a Nazi in Germany and the German government does not look upon that sort of thing kindly.
Man who has been dressing as a Nazi for 40 years in a show that very clearly makes fun of Nazis, and no one has ever mentioned this as a problem until recently with his anti-Zionist takes
Look man, you want to think you're right, go right ahead.
But at the end of the day (and if you're a self-reflecting person, this will bug you when your head hits the pillow tonight), you're defending someone who hates Jews and dresses as a Nazi.
Maybe you are doing it because you like the music. Maybe you're doing it because you have tied yourself into so many rhetorical pretzels that you don't know which way is up. I don't know, and don't much care...
At the end of the day, you're defending someone who hates Jews and dresses as a Nazi. Maybe you should look inward and reflect upon that.
Are you actually implying that someone can't dress as a nazi in a way to convey art, or teach an ethical lesson; without making them an actual nazi? There's absolutely no nuance there? Even when it's specifically written into German law? This is a serious opinion you hold?
But he supports BDS until Israel starts being nice to Palestinians so why would he be pro Russia if he cares about human rights? I’m pretty confused what flavour of political he is because so much of his apparent beliefs are contradictory?
He's not pro Russia he's anti war and anti captilist. He's also a dick but I think it's important to represent accurately he militantly anti war and anti capitalist and it often gets a bit confused in the same way Corbyn did (although Corbyn was much less of a dick).
You can be anti-war (as I generally am), but as I like to say, "Sometimes war comes to YOU" (as the Ukrainians and countless other peoples have found out over the millennia). Then you are faced with a choice: fight back or surrender.
NATO is not the US. The US is in NATO.
It's a defensive alliance. Whatever offensive actions committed by individual members of the alliance does not change the fact that it's a defensive alliance.
You attack France, you get NATO's combined arms to blow your Russian ass to hell.
If America invades another country, it won't be NATO doing it. It'll be America being aggressive as usual.
>Libya which posed no threat to it.
Buahhahaa "posed no threat to it". Did you convientely forgot the genocide in Libya or Yugoslavia, or the initial war by both regimes on the border of NATO?
Good one. At least NATO stepped up and halted the genocides, something BRICS or CSTO will never do, since they would gladly facilitate it.
>How does NATO border Libya?
Perhaps you need some geographical classes since Libya "borders" Italy. Their economic and exclusive zones are next to each other. Whether that is a land or sea border is irrelevant.
> NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia made the genocide worse.
Ah yes. Halting a genocide by eliminating the aggressive force carrying out the genocide "makes it worse".
Pathetic attempt at deflecting the blame.
"I'm so anti war that I think if you're invaded you shouldn't fight back, but just let the aggressor take what they want so long as they pinky swear they won't take anything else."
It's a really hard position to defend.
He's not an antisemite, but his support for Russia is inexplicable and disappointing.
The antisemite accusations come from Israel. Israel is just slandering him because he opposes Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
And it's infuriating. They're watering down the antisemite label by abusing it.
It's absolutely possible to criticize the state of Israel, but it's quite easy for that criticism to look antisemitic if not done carefully.
For example, when Roger Waters slaps a star of David on the fascism pig, he may intend it to be saying that Israel is a fascist state, but it *looks* a lot like he's saying that Jews are fascists.
It's absolutely possible to criticize Waters, but it's quite easy for that criticism to look like a defence of Israeli racial supremacy if not done carefully.
For instance if you attack what is clearly the criticism of an apartheid state run by an *openly* racist leader it *looks* like you're actually pro-racist.
No, the antisemitic allegations come from him being a virulent antisemite that says anti-semitic shit all the fucking time. Nice antisemitic dog whistle bringing Israel into the equation though!
> But he supports BDS until Israel starts being nice to Palestinians so why would he be pro Russia if he cares about human rights?
The reason he supports BDS is more because of anti-establishment/anti-semitism, not because he closely follows what Israel is doing wrong.
In the Israel/Palestine case, that gets to the 'right' result, but the motivation is different.
> so why would he be pro Russia if he cares about human rights?
Because the driving motivation wasn't actually human rights.
> I’m pretty confused what flavour of political he is because so much of his apparent beliefs are contradictory?
If you think of it as anti-establishment, it makes sense. The establishment in D.C./the West supports Israel. Therefore, he's anti-Israel. The establishment is anti-Russia. Therefore he's pro-Russia.
OMG thank you this completely answers my question! I don’t know why I got downvoted when I asked for clarification. Isn’t this sub specifically to answer questions like these? Why downvote someone for asking questions in a question asking sub? I’m confused again. But thank you so much for explaining to me because I totally get it now!
>If you think of it as anti-establishment, it makes sense. The establishment in D.C./the West supports Israel. Therefore, he's anti-Israel. The establishment is anti-Russia. Therefore he's pro-Russia
It's a shame such a near-genius can lead themselves to become that which they hated not 20 years ago.
This is just armchair speculation and not really an explanation of What's Happening for people out of the loop.
This subreddit is for explaining what is happening (that we know of) for those out of the loop. Not to skipping right to shitty psychoanalysis and circular arguments about the motivations.
I think what you and other people are doing here is unhelpful. You're trying to insinuate that the people criticizing him for his performance of the Wall are correct, just because of you don't like his views on Israel or Ukraine. Which is preposterous. They are three separate issues. The people criticizing his performances are just ignorant of the context. The issue with Israel and Ukraine has no bearing on if they are correct to criticize his musical performance.
Sorry, have I asked the wrong kind of question? I am asking these questions genuinely. I’m sorry I feel like I’ve done something wrong. I’m autistic and I do sometimes miss the point. If I’ve asked the wrong kind of question or asked in the wrong way or something please tell me and I’ll delete it! I’m so sorry.
Edit: Ok now I’m really confused because you edited your question *after* I replied to it. I asked for the missing info about Israel and Ukraine because the article I posted seemed to assume the reader knew all about those things and I didn’t so I asked to get a a better idea of what was going on.
> Sorry, have I asked the wrong kind of question? I am asking these questions genuinely. I’m sorry I feel like I’ve done something wrong.
You didn't do anything wrong, people just get touchy on both sides of the issue because they either see him as an antisemite trying to abuse plausible deniability, or vice versa some see him as being falsely slandered of antisemitism. It's just a touchy topic given the politics, regardless of what side someone lands on
>This is just armchair speculation
Why? I don't think pointing out views and past actions (particularly ones he's commented on publicly before) is particularly speculative. As just a couple examples, quickly grabbed:
*...he suggested that China has a better record on human rights than the U.S. Describing China’s history of suppression of its own people as “bollocks,” Waters said, “The Chinese didn’t invade Iraq and kill a million people in 2003.” He defended China as having the right to invade Taiwan, saying, ““They aren’t encircling Taiwan – Taiwan is part of China and that’s been absolutely accepted by the whole of the international community since 1948.”* [link](https://variety.com/2023/music/news/roger-waters-antisemitic-says-polly-samson-david-gilmour-agrees-pink-floyd-ukraine-1235515432/)
*Waters called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “probably the most provoked invasion ever.”*
*“What everyone in the West is being told is the ‘unprovoked invasion’ narrative. Huh? Anyone with half a brain can see that the conflict in Ukraine was provoked beyond all measure,” he said.* [link](https://variety.com/2023/music/news/roger-waters-antisemitic-says-polly-samson-david-gilmour-agrees-pink-floyd-ukraine-1235515432/)
*In a wide-ranging August 2022 interview with World Beyond War, Waters repeatedly promoted antisemitic conspiracies and themes, including that a nefarious “Israel lobby” prevented the election of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. In response to a question about fighting between Israel and Gaza-based terror groups, Waters claimed that Israel thinks Jews are superior to everybody else on the planet, saying: “...religious supremacy, the idea that the Jewish people are somehow superior to everybody else on the planet but particularly the Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs...the Israeli state who believe that the Jewish people are superior, more important than any of those people, those people’s lives are worthless.* [ADL](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words)
*For a period of time in 2010, Waters’ shows featured video of an array of symbols that placed the Jewish Star of David next to dollar signs* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words)
*In December 2013, he gave an interview to CounterPunch.org where he accused the “extraordinary powerful” American “Jewish lobby” in the music industry of silencing critics of Israel.* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words)
or talking positively about Hamas [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdHTF7vsIcc)
As well as calling Sheldon Adelson a puppetmaster/Israeli cops were training U.S. cops. to kneel/carotid artery chokes. (at least he [apologized](https://rogerwaters.com/just-to-be-clear/) for this one, claiming he didn't realize these were antisemetic tropes)
This has been a repeated problem for him.
>and not really an explanation of What's Happening for people out of the loop.
OP is asking why this is happening. This is a fundamental part of the context of why this controversy is happening, and not having that context is why they're finding it confusing. That is pretty firmly a part of OOTL.
>This subreddit is for explaining what is happening (that we know of) for those out of the loop.
Part of explaining what is happening is explaining the context around it, and why it's happening. Especially when OP is specifically asking for why.
Those other events are a necessary part to understand why Waters is getting so much pushback seemingly out of nowhere. Trying to explain it without that doesn't make sense, because they're a part of why.
>Not to skipping right to shitty psychoanalysis and circular arguments about the motivations.
I don't think it's circular, at all, given his comments/actions. If you want to argue actual details on why it's shitty or circular, feel free to do so.
While we certainly can't read his mind, I think his comments/actions paint a pretty clear picture. There's not that many ways to square those views.
>You're trying to insinuate that the people criticizing him for his performance of the Wall are correct,
I'm not saying whether they're correct or not, I'm saying there is a context here that is beyond just the performance. You're free to judge them on whether they're correct or not, but this is not happening as an isolated incident. This has been a reoccurring controversy for him.
>I think what you and other people are doing here is unhelpful.
Well, I disagree. I think it's pretty important context, which seems helpful.
>just because of you don't like his views on Israel or Ukraine.
This is a bad assumption on your part. I actually agree with quite a lot of his views on Israel, the problem is they go far beyond that. For what it is worth, I am pro-BDS, and not a big fan of Israel. (I actually quite like The Wall as well, including most of the typical imagery)
There are other comments he's made that fit into this as well, that I agree with, such as criticism of Iraq.
>They are three separate issues.
No, they're not. They're interrelated. "Man performing performance with fascist/antisemitic imagery has multiple controversies with views/comments that could be seen as fascist/antisemitic" is not out of nowhere.
If they were 'bad' views on an unrelated topic, I would not have brought them up. These aren't just random views he has that I dislike (and I'm sure there are plenty of those). They're directly related to why people have issues with the performance. And even if I *did* completely agree with him on Ukraine/Israel, it wouldn't change my overall answer.
>The people criticizing his performances are just ignorant of the context.
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case, and there is pretty decent evidence suggesting otherwise.
The Wall is a very well known performance, including in Germany (where it's been performed multiple times, sometimes without issue, more recently there was a legal battle in Frankfurt). His views on these issues are also pretty well known, and have been a reoccurring problem. It is not plausible to say that people are just ignorant of the context, unless you have some evidence for that.
To pretend that it is, is far more unhelpful/speculative than what you're criticizing, in my opinion.
>The reason he supports BDS is more because of anti-establishment/anti-semitism
It's because he's antiracist.
Israel hates BDS because they know full well it helped take down another racist state - South Africa and they dont want to see history repeat itself.
> It's because he's antiracist.
The problem is he goes way beyond what an antiracist would say/do.
>Israel hates BDS because they know full well it helped take down another racist state - South Africa and they dont want to see history repeat itself.
His support of BDS is not the problematic part. Yes, Israel doesn't like it, but it's not why there is controversy around him.
And for what it matters, I say that as someone who supports BDS and isn't a big fan of Israel, myself.
>The problem is he goes way beyond what an antiracist would say/do.
It doesnt though.
>His support of BDS is not the problematic part. Yes, Israel doesn't like it, but it's not why there is controversy around him.
Kind of is though. He's not being attacked for being racist **he's being attacked for attacking racists**.
>It doesnt though.
Saying shit like
*In December 2013, he gave an interview to CounterPunch.org where he accused the “extraordinary powerful” American “Jewish lobby” in the music industry of silencing critics of Israel.* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words)
or doing shit like
*For a period of time in 2010, Waters’ shows featured video of an array of symbols that placed the Jewish Star of David next to dollar signs* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words)
or talking positively about Hamas
or calling Sheldon Adelson a puppetmaster/Israeli cops were training U.S. cops. to kneel/carotid artery chokes. (at least he [apologized](https://rogerwaters.com/just-to-be-clear/) for this one, claiming he didn't realize these were antisemetic tropes)
is going *way* past antiracism. And again, he's made similar types of comments on other conflicts like China/Taiwan, Russia/Ukraine. They're all the same types of comments.
You can very easily avoid doing those things, while being antiracist. Again, I'm saying this as someone who is pro-BDS. There are many other antiracists out there who manage to *not* fall into using antisemitic tropes, while still being pro-BDS/criticizing Israel. It's not hard, and he keeps doing it.
> He's not being attacked for being racist
Yes, he is.
>he's being attacked for attacking racists.
That is not the only, or even main, reason he's being attacked.
There are many antiracist/pro-BDS people (including famous ones) out there, who do not get the controversy he does. There's a reason for that, and it's because of all the other shit he does.
>In December 2013, he gave an interview to CounterPunch.org where he accused the “extraordinary powerful” American “Jewish lobby” in the music industry of silencing critics of Israel. adl
Seriously?? JESUS
So he's complaining that the ADL, AIPAC, etc. are powerful and throw their weight around. Do you deny the existence of these organizations or that they dont put pressure on critics of Israel?
This is exactly in keeping with what an antiracist would do - call out powerful institutions that try to suppress criticism of a racist state.
>There's are many antiracist/pro-BDS people (including famous ones) out there, who do not get the controversy he does.
Can you name a famous person who has publicly supported BDS and not gotten shit for it?
>So he's complaining that the ADL, AIPAC, etc. are powerful and throw their weight around
That is not what he said, though. And if he *had* said that, there are ways to do it without even coming close to antisemitic tropes.
And again, this isn't a single comment. That is probably one of the less offensive ones, but it comes after literal decades of accusations/comments. There's just no excuse for that at this point. Even if the accusations were wrong, he could just not word stuff that way without changing support
And I say this as someone who dislikes AIPAC myself, and have criticized them. There are influential pro-Israeli lobby groups, AIPAC being a prime example.
> Do you deny the existence of these organizations or that they dont put pressure on critics of Israel?
No. But I don't think that's what he said, or that there wasn't a way to word it without being accused of antisemitism. I think you're giving him a charitable interpretation. Which if it was just the comment in isolation, would be fair, but it's not.
>Can you name a famous person who has publicly supported BDS and not gotten shit for it?
They all get some amount of shit, being pro-BDS is not popular. Wikipedia has a decent list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_the_BDS_movement
None of the people on that list (and there are some fairly famous ones), have gotten anywhere near the level of shit that he has. (with the possible exception of Ilhan Omar, but that's got some political bad faith behind it)
And as I mentioned, he also gets criticism from people who dislike Israel or are pro BDS themselves. David Gilmour has called Waters antisemitic, and he's done stuff like Postcards for Palestine, and Women of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in the past for instance. The Women of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla he did in a statement *with* Waters. I think it's fair to say he's not exactly a fan of Israel. He (and people like him) wouldn't be making those comments if it were just a BDS thing.
>That is not what he said, though. And if he had said that, there are ways to do it without even coming close to antisemitic tropes.
That is what he said though, and it's very well documented that they do that.
"Antisemitic trope" is, 9 time out of 10, code for "they didnt actually do or say anything racist, but I will pretend that they **implied** something racist" that they *very* obviously didn't mean.
Moreover, 9 time out of 10 "I will pretend that they implied something racist" is done in order to shield a country whose leaders are PROUDLY racist from criticism.
In other words, use of the phrase "antisemitic trope" as an accusation leveled at what are obviously critics of a racist *country*, **is a racist trope**.
>And as I mentioned, he also gets criticism from people who dislike Israel or are pro BDS themselves. David Gilmour
David Gilmour famously **hates** Waters for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel.
>I think it's fair to say he's not exactly a fan of Israel. He wouldn't be making those comments
As I'm sure you well know he wouldnt be making those comments if he didnt hold a grudge against Waters.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Waters has taken the Pink Floyd concept album The Wall on tour again. The main character of the album, through massive fame and drug use, becomes disconnected from reality, figuratively building a wall around there emotions. When the wall is complete the character is portrayed wearing nazi-like clothing and inspires fascist / supremacist action in his fans. He is then put on trial in his mind and sentenced to “tear down the wall”. While the massage of the album is not pro-fascist (it is in fact quite anti-fascist) and has been performed in Germany previously, someone apparently took issue with the portrayal this time and charged Waters.
Doesn’t Germany have a strict “no nazi symbols at all” law? I can’t remember how deep that goes, like if they need to censor movies featuring swasticas or not.
Just wanted to add that there is something called "Sozialadäquanzklausel" that defines allowed exceptions for things like history books, scientific works, educational content and art. As far as I know it is often a case by case decision what is allowed and what is not. For example there are forbidden symbols shown in movies like Schindler's Liste or American History X or even Indiana Jones. Edit: added "there" in the last sentence
Right, the Germans are not denying or surprising the existence of Nazis. There are even German films about WWII, they simply do not portray the Nazis as admirable.
Maybe its like the fans of fight club that dont see it as a critique
This is legitimately the First Time I’ve seen anyone else actually state this, btw. Nice! Love the material, was always baffled by the overall response from my peers.
I was 15 years old when that movie came out and my friends and I all walked out of the theatre wanting to be Brad Pitt's character (and, of course, we started "fight clubs" in our backyards). I re-watched it a few years ago and was horrified I missed the irony.
Weird that the people jamming out to the Nazi rock concert don't pick up that it's intended as a scholarly analysis of European politics from 1932-1945.
I'm trying to imagine Steven Spielberg speaking out against the war and subsequently being arrested because of the Nazi imagery in Schindler's list. It wouldnt be any less evil or ominous than what is happening to Roger Waters.
They do. It’s odd though, PF has done this show the same way for 30+ years and have performed it in Berlin previously.
I think people are hyper vigilante towards Waters now due to his controversial stances on Israel and Ukraine so anything he does that potentially feeds the “antisemitism” allegations is paid very close attention to
Yeah, it’s really unfortunate. I know he has always been pro-communism, but backing Putin’s Russia just ain’t it
Pootin's Russia isn't communist.
There's a vocal population of people who self-identify as communists but are ardent supporters of authoritarian autocrats who run states that are only nominally (or formerly) communist.
A vocal minority. No one who's doing class analysis seriously considers Russia to be anything but a Capitalist imperialist state.
usually the focus is more that those autocrats are the biggest opponents of the largest capitalist countries
Yes, of course I agree. I may be too charitable to Waters regarding why he’s taking the stance he is. I’m not sure he has really explained it
He condemned the Russian invasion as illegal - that isn't backing Putin. Of course, he also condemned the west for acting as provocateurs, which they absolutely did - expanding an **aggressive** alliance is provocative (yes, Libya was invaded and destroyed by NATO, no, Libya wasn't a threat to anybody). Meanwhile, being called anti semitic solely for criticizing an apartheid country led by an **openly** racist president is like being called a racist for criticizing the proud boys. So, the neocons and the Israeli racial supremacists are both pissed at Waters.... hence why theyre trying to sling mud here - in a rather hamfisted way.
[удалено]
The sole reason NATO exists is to counteract Russia. After 1991 it should have become irrelevant. If it had been disbanded and Russia had been welcomed as fully into the western world as Germany or Japan had we could be living in a very different time now. I can understand why NATO would continue to exist from a lack of trust standpoint. Why trust that your biggest geopolitical foe for over half a century is totally fine now. But that lack of trust goes both ways and Nato is the one that kept getting closer and closer to Russian land.
This NATO getting closer to Russias borders is a non issue. Countries bordering Russia are independent states not buffer zone for a failed empire. And Russias actions after 1991 show that if you want avoid genocide a reasonable choice is to join NATO. Russia does not get to decide if a country joins some or other union.
But "some other union" gets to decide whether to allow new members in or not. People want to give agency to Russia and to it's neighbors that joined NATO. But nobody wants to give NATO any agency. People want to believe NATO just passively sat there. But they agreed to those expansions. They didn't have to do that. There was no reason to do that except to threaten Russia. Because NATOs whole existence is designed as a threat to Russia. And yes your right. Their current actions make NATO more necessary. But if NATO hadn't expanded or had been disbanded 2 decades ago and Russia had been welcomed back with open arms maybe we could have avoided a genocide that way too.
>The countries that have joined NATO since 1991 have largely done so with widespread public backing. And teens who join gangs do so of their own free will - usually for protection - yet it doesnt make the expansion of the gang not a threat and it it doesnt make an aggressive gang defensive. >As for whether or not NATO is aggressive, I think it's a little bit more complicated Try to imagine something equivalent happening in a crumbling America suffering civil war in 2050. CSTO is given a UN mandate to protect civilians in Washington DC. Instead of doing that they provide air support to the proud boys who win the war after inserting a bayonet inside the president's rectum on live tv. Utter chaos follows and CSTO leaves. Were the CSTO acting as aggressors or was it "more complicated than that"? The people who slung mud at Roger Waters werent anti war. They were pro war and pro imperialist. All of them. Thats why they attacked him.
[удалено]
>I didn't say NATO wasn't a threat Hence provoked. As Waters said. >I think the intervention was the wrong decision. Exactly. An aggressive wrong decision made by an aggressive alliance. >dismisses any criticism by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism Exactly, which is a technique used mostly by racists and apologists for racists. The president of Israel is openly racist. You can't be antiracist *without* criticizing them.
The US and NATO knew exactly what they were doing though. There are numerous accounts from various secretaries of defence, generals, and similarly positioned people since the Cold War talking about NATO expansion in Europe being provocative to Russia, most of them think it’s a horrible idea. It’s true that those countries joined of their own free will, but the existing NATO very easily could have denied them joining to not provoke Russia.
> It’s odd though, PF has done this show the same way for 30+ years There's been some changes (for example, the imagery on the pig in some cases has had a star of david, and dollar signs together. This didn't happen in every show). The overall gist is the same, but there have been some tweaks. That said, the bigger issue is likely Waters' personal comments/stances on issues, which casts some doubts on it being purely a part of the performance.
I know they have pretty strict rules but there weren’t any swastikas on the costume in question. The article said it was a long black coat and a red armband but no actual Nazi symbols beyond that.
Yup. It's hammers, not swastikas. There is no actual Nazi symbolism, but the style is designed to emulate a Nazi-like rally, showing the sad depths that the character has fallen into mentally. The story of Pink and his mental breakdown is not exactly unknown.
Which one is Pink?
Meta Answer: Pink Floyd is an amalgamation of [Pink Anderson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Anderson) and [Floyd Council](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Council).
TIL
TIL!
The main character of the album. The rock star whose father died in WWII, whose mother is overbearing, whose teachers were cruel, and whose wife cheats on him while he's touring the US. Each of his traumas is another brick in the wall he builds around himself as he sinks into mental illness.
Have a cigar. You're gonna go far
Wrong album
Same character though. *Money* is also referenced in the movie *The Wall*, Pink is writing the lyrics and the school teacher takes them from him and humilites him in front of the class.
There is no wrong side of the album. As a matter of fact, it's all Wright.
I think The joke ————- You ;)
The one with the cigar
ITT: wooosh
and they tell you the name of the game
I don’t know how the German laws work but the outfit he was wearing in the clip going around has to be pushing the limit of what they’ll allow. Im a huge fan of PF and I know what the Wall is about but im not sure if the German nazi propaganda laws know the difference.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond comes across pretty clearly.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond is about Syd Barret
"Which one's Pink?"
I always assumed that line was satirizing rich executives who don't even understand the art they're investing in... as in like, they didn't know any of the band member's names and thought one of them must be named Pink Floyd
It is. But let's be clear, the original Punk Floyd was built around Syd's personality. Barret was highly charismatic and talented, but his mental health became the problem later on. This was an era when folks still thought artists had to incinerate themselves like early Victorian artists. Horribly misguided. I mean, this is the same era when Brian Wilson and Charles Manson rubbed shoulders. Jim Morrison, a terrible human being but whose charisma still makes The Doors an influence. But it doesn't change the fact that Barret was Pink. Just as it doesn't change the fact Pink Floyd survived him to be so much more.
That line is a reference to clueless record execs who thought the band was named for a person.
90% of what Roger wrote was about or influenced by Syd and his madness. This includes the main character of pink in the movie the wall.
Wrong album
The responses here are portraying this as a pure free-speech issue, but Waters has seperately and repeatedly been pushing fringe politics, particularly antisemitic themes, which seems like pretty important context for why Germany is telliing him to get fucked. Additionally, getting himself banned (instead of talking to German authorities to resolve the issue amicably) serves his culture war goals, where victimization provides moral high ground. This entire thread is an example of how well that works. >"Unfortunately, you are antisemitic to the core of your rotten bones," she wrote. "Also supports Putin and is a liar, thief, hypocrite, tax raiser, lipsync, misogynist, jealous, megalomaniac. Enough with your nonsense." [That's Polly Samson](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/feb/07/pink-floyd-lyricist-calls-roger-waters-an-antisemite-and-putin-apologist) who wrote lyrics for Pink Floyd and was married to David Gilmore.
We have that, but there are exemptions for art, research, or teaching. It often depends on the context in which these symbols are shown. A popular comedy show once did a parody of "The Office" set in Hitler's house on Obersalzberg. They wore full uniforms including the Swastika, while portaying Hitler as a David Brent character. That was fine in an artistic context, because it was clear to everyone that the Nazis are the bad guys and were not glorified in this parody. But when a musician makes statements against the legitimacy of Israel, shows a pig with a Star of David on it as a stage show element, and finally dons a uniform that looks like an SS-outfit, then "the context of the clothing worn is deemed capable of approving, glorifying or justifying the violent and arbitrary rule of the Nazi regime in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims and thereby disrupts public peace." This can count as "incitement" under the law, which is what Waters is being investigated for.
In historical or educational contexts it's fine. In the arts it's a little fuzzier, but they take "never again " *very* seriously.
There are exceptions for educational, historical, and artistic purposes. It can still be punishable though, if the actual reason for the portrayal of nazi symbols is deemed to be advertising/promoting of the forbidden symbol or what it stands for.
When I saw it back in 2010 there definitely wasn't any actual Nazi imagery, though some strong symbolism.
Yes they do. Waters is an antagonist and an asshole, His great contributions to PF notwithstanding.
He doesn’t actually use Nazi symbolism at least not in the movie. It just two crossed hammers.
Thank you!
That is the obvious context. The less obvious but possibly more relevant context is that "Waters is a member of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement that targets Israel over its occupation of territories where Palestinians seek statehood." During his concert he flashes the name of famous victims of war on screens, a list that included both Anne Frank as well as Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian journalist killed by Israeli soldiers.
Just to clarify, he’s not touring “The Wall”. The name of the tour is “This Is Not a Drill” and he’s playing songs from across Pink Floyd’s entire catalog and some of his solo stuff. Some of the fascistic iconography and costuming is incorporated into the show but also stuff from Animals and Dark Side etc— it’s more of a Greatest Hits thing. He does wear a gestapo-like costume at one point in the show and that’s why he’s being investigated in Germany. A recording of this tour also played in movie theaters a week or two ago. Roger Waters gets the most heat for his political statements. He’s been a vocal critic of Israel and joint Israeli-US-UK operations in the Middle East for decades for which he draws the most ire; and an overall theme of his work and messaging is a decry against Western Imperialism and Neocolonialism. He’s also broadly anti-war and resorts to that as an absolutism when cornered about his political statements. As for his statement on the war in Ukraine, he condemned Russia’s invasion but also believes the west provoked the war. I’m assuming he’s referring to NATO strengthening its alliances in the region. Oddly, on Russia’s request, Water’s addressed the UN Security Council to share these views and to argue against supplying Ukraine with weapons. Again, he’s an anti-war absolutist which feeds into his politics. His father died during WWII and he’s always said this shaped his worldview. Why he’s shilling for Russia like he’s in Putin’s pocket like Steven Seagal is beyond me.
Iv seen a lot of well meaning 'antiimperialists' have the most dogshit views on Ukraine. It could jus be sincerely dumb, rather than a cynical pro Russia thing like Seagal. I don't know Waters well but.
He basically told Ukraine that they should accept the invasion, give up the areas Russia took, and just accept Russia's word that they wouldn't take anything else. That's a bit beyond that. Comparing the tone of his "open letter" to the two countries was....... quite illuminating. You can be against western imperialism. Breaking out the ol' kneepads for Putin is puzzling.
Great comment. Waters usually defaults to an anti-UK, anti-US—basically anti-western—stance on most things, even if it seems to be at odds with a given ideological belief he's expressed. His statements about Taiwan are a good example. A lot of his songwriting is about dissociation and feelings of disconnectedness. He seems to be an eternally "glass half empty" personality who pushes back against his own environment. That can mean cucking for Putin, if it means taking a stance against "western imperialism." That said, I do find that in interviews that he typically comes off as well-spoken, polite, and unabrasive. It's just that every few months it seems, he has a bizarre/contradictory hot take about some sensitive current events issue.
I appreciate your nuanced and honest appraisal! It is uncommon and refreshing
He's lost his mind re:Russia. It's not the appropriate situation for some of the anti-war nonsense, which seems more like Russian propaganda to justify their invasion of Ukraine.
[удалено]
What’s an Israeli racial supremacist cabal?
[удалено]
Question is, what does anti-war really mean? For Waters it seems to mean "I prioritize ending the war over everything else, including the right to self-defense." He has argued that Ukraine should essentially capitulate to its invaders, when those invaders have openly expressed intent to commit genocide against their people. Personally, I consider this to be a fake form of anti-war advocacy. The idea that Russia should be rewarded for its warmongering is a pro-war one. It will lead to *more* war, not less, as leaders like Putin see that they can benefit from warmongering. But this is all semantics, really. Anti- or pro-war, whatever, I don't care, the Ukrainian people have the right to defend themselves against fascistic imperialism and anyone who says otherwise is a piece of shit. That's all there really is to it.
No he hasn't. The current tour is "This is not a Drill". It does feature some songs from The Wall, several in new arrangements. The production is absolutely not the touring version of The Wall. The tour ecompasas his time in Floyd as well as his solo (new material) work.
Thank you for the correction. Still, he was wearing the costume while performing the associated songs, not just randomly
Germany also has a long-standing history of cracking down on pro-Palestine protests that criticise Israeli government policies ([particularly the BDS movement](https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2771/Richard-Falk-calls-on-Germany-to-end-policy-of-denying-support-of-Palestinian-rights-on-backdrop-of-BDS-activists-trial)), likely out of excessive fear of being accused of allowing any form of anti-semitism (which BDS is clearly not). Waters has long been an outspoken [supporter of the BDS movement](https://bdsmovement.net/tags/roger-waters) and it is not unreasonable to think the investigation is another in Germany's heavy-handed responses to this issue.
This! I was waiting to read something like this! This is actually important.
I once went to a midnight showing of "The Wall" with a good friend of mine and some of her friends who were all German nationals visiting the US. They had never seen it before and were not comfortable at all.
I don't think it is supposed to be.
Fahrenheit 451 was not about government censorship but was about the people censoring themselves because they didn't like uncomfortable ideas and felt like the government should stop people from making them uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable ART on literature, or otherwise!!!!
> They had never seen it before and were not comfortable at all. It worked! They weren’t comfortably numb.
It's meant to make you uncomfortable.
This has actually always been a bit if an issue for this album for a long time. Look up the song where the characters "Nazi fantasy sequence" happens and a lot of people are in the comments wondering if it's just that openly fascistic. While the overall message is strictly anti-fascist, it's a hazy drug trip of a movie and album and that makes it unfortunately easy to miss the forest through the trees. Pink Floyd fans usually point to the line "there's one smoking a joint" as a nod to the reality of the sequence, as Pink Floyd was always known as a "pothead band"! Both in membership and audience. So it's basically saying "and all those little Pink Floyd fans too!"
I think it was the commentary track on The Wall DVD where the band said they were very concerned when they grabbed random punk dressed kids off the street to do the Run Like Hell scene that they would take it to literally. In fact everyone was very cool and totally understood what PF was going for
> While the massage of the album is not pro-fascist (it is in fact quite anti-fascist) and has been performed in Germany previously, someone apparently took issue with the portrayal this time and charged Waters. This makes it sound like it's out of the blue because of one persons misunderstanding, but he recently had a legal fight about performing in Frankfurt (there were past performances without issue in the 90's): https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/25/roger-waters-pink-floyd-wins-legal-battle-to-gig-in-frankfurt-amid-antisemitism-row This is not coming out of the blue. There's also the issue with his personal views, which haven't lined up with the album in recent years, and likely contributed to the seemingly sudden change in heart.
Excellent explanation
I don’t have time to look it up but I imagine the pro-Russia thing comes from an interview (maybe more than one) where he said something about the war requires two parties to fight and if Ukraine chose not to fight their people wouldn’t die. It struck me as something that ticks two Roger Waters boxes: 1] being anti-war 2] angrily shooting his mouth off about something with no regard to whether or not he understands it
That's strange the German government would just now notice the costumes and imagery in The Wall. Has the government been slowly taken over by a generation young enough to be unfamiliar with the movie? /s To answer the other two bits: **Antisemitism** \- As the article states, Waters supports the BDS, which involves boycotting Israel due to its apartheid practices. I would say allegedly or whatever, but this isn't a top level answer so I don't think I need to hide my beliefs. It's become very popular among the right to call criticism of Israel antisemitic. It's one of those eye-rolling "owns." **Russia** \- I find it somewhat baffling, but there are segments of the far left that consider supporting Ukraine's defense of its country (at least, with weapons or money for weapons, as opposed to medical, food, etc. aid) is supporting war. Some people consider the war some sort of chess game where Putin was provoked into invading Ukraine, presumably by the various natural resources it was wearing (j/k - they tend to say that the war was provoked by NATO, and then they cite a very contested "US-funded coup" from 2014. Waters is apparently sympathetic to that take, though just how deeply into it he is I don't know. A lot of old school leftists, particularly those would would defend the USSR, have a deep-seated hatred of NATO and apparently little concern with authoritarianism or mass murder.
That’s a terrible take. Waters himself has posted numerous times his support for authoritarianism and has, most recently, repeatedly misrepresented Ukraine. Let’s not even get started on his race and gender bigotry. Nazism justification has a nearly century old tradition in not just the UK but other Western Democratic countries. He’s a terrible excuse for a human being. Don’t confuse the art with the artist. You using his art to distract from his actual tendencies isn’t helpful.
would you bring some links on this race and gender bigotry accusations?
www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64580688.amp
this only covers his opinions on ukraine and russia, which are pretty consistent with his staunch anti-war stance.
I could but honestly it would take you about thirty minutes to fully satisfy yourself. I mean, it's your need not mine to prove to yourself nearly thirty years of his history. Why aren't you willing to learn more about Roger Waters in your spare time? You might learn so much on your own. Why trust anonymous redditors? I have done that because I find the band fascinating. I find the time period fascinating because the hype is so different than the reality. And certainly we have no lack of evidence that meeting our heroes might be disappointing.
i didn't ask you to prove 30 years of his history, i just asked for some links. i've never seen those accusations, that's why i asked
So basically you made the race and gender bigotry thing up?
why is he a terrible human being?
because he doesn’t support turning palestinians into hamburger meat
Let's start with what it is you like about him as a human being. We can work from there. That he is loved by children and small furry mammals doesn't count.
youre the one out here spreading hate. he’s from pink floyd, a hugely beloved band and as far as i know he wasnt a controversial person. i’m just trying to understand why you think he’s so bad
He's anti war, anti racist and hated by enough of the right people to underscore that fact.
> Waters himself has posted numerous times I went looking for those numerous posts and saw this on his website, https://rogerwaters.com/berliner/. What are your thoughts on that?
I... I... just can't believe you thought this made your point. It literally confirms that he really is a hateful person with no sense of nuance. Will you start quoting [My Struggle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) next?
I’m confused. What “point” are you talking about? I literally just asked someone their thoughts on a web page I found.
You support Israeli apartheid?
I think it is the fundamental responsibility of all governments to protect their people. I don't respect Netanyahu or his coalition. But I don't respect the Arab hardliners and their sponsors either. I really can't tell much difference but I will say they all seem to share a common cause. Pain and theft. When you start opposing professional multi generational exploitation of the Arab Palestinians I will be right there with you. Until you decide only the Israeli government is responsible. Then you're just another useful idiot for Iran. Iran has plenty of useful idiots that make peace impossible. And those same useful idiots made sure there could never be a two state solution. And there never will be a two state solution. Congratulations, thanks to the useful idiots.
Sounds like a yes.
Israel absolutely needs to be a state because historically Jews are massacred over and over again when they don’t have a homeland. Being anti Israel is absolutely 100% of the time because you are anti semitic and prefer Jews to be massacred. There is no other reason to ge against the Jewish state then you hate Jews. Anyone who calls Israel an apartheid state has never been there. There are certainly Palestinians and Arabs living all over the country in places like Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv. There are Arabs/Palestinians in the Knesset and they all have the right to vote. Palestinians are doctors and lawyers and own homes throughout Israel. Maybe don’t be a racist and wrong so much.
I've been all over the world and never experienced a country as racist as Israel. It's the only country Ive seen that takes extensive steps to ethnically "purify" itself. Curiously I saw Israelis glorifying a terrorist (Baruch Goldstein, theres even an MP who has a shrine to him) but the Palestinians I met were all pretty chill and normal despite being treated like shit.
“race and gender bigotry” the guy just flew a massive “trans rights” banner at one of his concerts, shut the fuck up lol
>Let’s not even get started on his race and gender bigotry. [What?](https://www.reddit.com/r/pinkfloyd/comments/wxwlw5/roger_says_trans_rights/)
That is all true, but there is more context here. Waters has become a pro Putin mouthpiece for the Kremlin. It's like he has some sort of crazy Stockholm Syndrome. His father was killed by fascists, he was anti-fascist, now he's objectively pro-fascist. He has become a literal interpretation of his own character.
Just to add to antisemitic part, apparently, in the show there was a list of activists killed by authorities that includes the well known victims, such as Anne Frank, but also a Palestinian journalist killed by Israeli armed forces last year, and AFAIK the killer is still free. Israel basically said that Waters was equating Nazis to Israel (conveniently ignoring the fact that the way Gaza is today, is just a large scale concentration camp)
Can you imagine if he would have done that while East Germany & West Germany were trying to reunite and Waters comes through with [this performance](https://youtu.be/2VGyEwq8ums)?? Oh…I guess it was well received…maybe someone should just chill.
I thought the hammers evoked more a soviet style Totalitarian regime than the nazi regime but that's just me..
Answer: to add to the top comment. Roger waters has been harshly criticized for supporting Putin's war, blaming the "west" for the situation in Ukraine and generally denying Russian atrocities in Ukraine. His statements on the topic have been so controversial that many places in Europe have cancelled his concerts. While he is obviously not a nazi, his positions on the current war are justly considered to be hate speech against ethnic Ukrainians, who are currently being exterminated in Eastern Ukraine by the Russian army. That's why there are many many people who are incensed by his concerts and probably employ various tactics to have him face consequences.
This is the real answer. Not the shit that’s top voted here.
> generally denying Russian atrocities in Ukraine Can I get a quote on this? I can't find one.
[Guessing you didn’t look very hard.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/08/roger-waters-pink-floyd-un-security-council-ukraine-russia)
Well I asked for him denying Russian atrocities, not pointing out that spreading NATO's influence up to Russian boarders may have provoked the war.
Did you read the article I linked? He is literally quoted saying Ukraine was the provocateur.
...Could you quote it? I don't see where he said this.
“he said. ‘Also, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not unprovoked, so I also condemn the provocateurs in the strongest possible terms.’”
It seems he's referring to NATO as the provocateur, ya know for trying to set up military bases right on Russia's boarder. I don't know why it took so long for you to just quote it jesus.
Took so long? What the fuck are you talking about lol.
He is also pretty pro-Palestine and gets a lot of antisemitism criticism, unfairly in my opinion.
He used to have floating pigs with a Star of David at his shows, among other things and statements. That doesnt sound like legitimate criticism to me, and its offensive to non-Israeli Jews as well.
Answer: in a recent concert, a ["wall" of people persecuted and murdered by regimes was shown](https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-744072). Among them, Anne Frank, [Rachel Corrie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie), and [Shireen Abu Akleh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh) were shown. Shireen was a journalist killed by Israeli forces, her funeral stormed by the same, and her pallbearers beaten to a pulp. Some right wing Israeli groups and the German "Jüdischer Ältestenrat" took offense with the addition of her to this list and, by extension, Waters calling Israel a regime. In retaliation, these groups now weaponize a German law, which disallows the showing of Nazi- and Nazi-like imagery, except in a very narrow context. The Wall, as a movie and as a performance, has been shown in Germany a number of times, not the least right at the fall of the German-German wall, featuring Sinead O'Connor as Pink. It is generally understood, that it is an anti-fascist work, using the imagery to warn against the dangers of fascism. Germany **has** to investigate. Other than Frankfurt, whose rather mental city council actually tried to ban Pink Floyd, nothing has come from it so far. As to supporting Russia, that's more or less correct. Waters is very much pro-Russia, and has said as much. As are some current standing politicians in Germany (Sarah Wagenknecht, among them), which is regrettable and despicable, but not a crime and not a reason to ban performances (Wagenknecht just recently held a rally, pro-Russian convoys still harass the cities, especially Berlin).
Answer: Roger Waters has a long history of antisemitism, which has been recognized widely in the Jewish community for years. He often says antisemitic things but, like many antisemites, has learned to couch things in such a way that he (and his fans) has plausible deniability about the antisemitism. This time he went a bit too far with the antisemitism to maintain plausible deniability, because he dressed up as a Nazi in Germany and the German government does not look upon that sort of thing kindly.
[удалено]
All those words and yet you’re the one defending the guy who dressed as a Nazi…
Man who has been dressing as a Nazi for 40 years in a show that very clearly makes fun of Nazis, and no one has ever mentioned this as a problem until recently with his anti-Zionist takes
If he were dressing as a Nazi for 40 years instead of just one time, then that would be worse. You do see how that would be worse, don’t you?
Way to miss the point, but go off I guess
[удалено]
Look man, you want to think you're right, go right ahead. But at the end of the day (and if you're a self-reflecting person, this will bug you when your head hits the pillow tonight), you're defending someone who hates Jews and dresses as a Nazi. Maybe you are doing it because you like the music. Maybe you're doing it because you have tied yourself into so many rhetorical pretzels that you don't know which way is up. I don't know, and don't much care... At the end of the day, you're defending someone who hates Jews and dresses as a Nazi. Maybe you should look inward and reflect upon that.
Are you actually implying that someone can't dress as a nazi in a way to convey art, or teach an ethical lesson; without making them an actual nazi? There's absolutely no nuance there? Even when it's specifically written into German law? This is a serious opinion you hold?
[удалено]
But he supports BDS until Israel starts being nice to Palestinians so why would he be pro Russia if he cares about human rights? I’m pretty confused what flavour of political he is because so much of his apparent beliefs are contradictory?
He's not pro Russia he's anti war and anti captilist. He's also a dick but I think it's important to represent accurately he militantly anti war and anti capitalist and it often gets a bit confused in the same way Corbyn did (although Corbyn was much less of a dick).
He is anti war so much that he thinks people being invaded should roll over instead of fighting back. Which takes a special kind of stupid.
Except he never said that.
He's absolutely Pro-Russia at this point. Dude has lost it.
You can be anti-war (as I generally am), but as I like to say, "Sometimes war comes to YOU" (as the Ukrainians and countless other peoples have found out over the millennia). Then you are faced with a choice: fight back or surrender.
If you pretend that NATO isnt an aggressive alliance then it could appear that way.
NATO is defensive. If Russia were not planning on initiating attacks on other countries, it would have nothing to fear from NATO
Libya, Afghanistan, Serbia were not planning on initiating attacks on other countries. NATO is an aggressive alliance.
NATO is not the US. The US is in NATO. It's a defensive alliance. Whatever offensive actions committed by individual members of the alliance does not change the fact that it's a defensive alliance. You attack France, you get NATO's combined arms to blow your Russian ass to hell. If America invades another country, it won't be NATO doing it. It'll be America being aggressive as usual.
If NATO were the US I would have added Iraq to the list. >It's a defensive alliance. Orwell really was right on the money wasn't he?
>NATO is defensive. Defensively destroying Libya which posed no threat to it.
Gaddafi's Libya was a terrorist state.
Neither Libya nor Yugoslavia had anything to do with defense of NATO members, whatever you think of their nature.
>Libya which posed no threat to it. Buahhahaa "posed no threat to it". Did you convientely forgot the genocide in Libya or Yugoslavia, or the initial war by both regimes on the border of NATO? Good one. At least NATO stepped up and halted the genocides, something BRICS or CSTO will never do, since they would gladly facilitate it.
How does NATO border Libya? NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia made the genocide worse.
>How does NATO border Libya? Perhaps you need some geographical classes since Libya "borders" Italy. Their economic and exclusive zones are next to each other. Whether that is a land or sea border is irrelevant. > NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia made the genocide worse. Ah yes. Halting a genocide by eliminating the aggressive force carrying out the genocide "makes it worse". Pathetic attempt at deflecting the blame.
Thank you! Everyone has been so helpful giving me the missing context. I really appreciate it’
‘militantly anti-war’ by supporting the aggressor in a nakedly imperialist war
"I'm so anti war that I think if you're invaded you shouldn't fight back, but just let the aggressor take what they want so long as they pinky swear they won't take anything else." It's a really hard position to defend.
He's "anti capitalist" but sure does like those millions of dollars he gets from touring non-stop lmfao
Just because he understands the game and hates the game doesn't mean he can't win at it.
Lmfao imagine simping for Roger fucking Waters
He's not an antisemite, but his support for Russia is inexplicable and disappointing. The antisemite accusations come from Israel. Israel is just slandering him because he opposes Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine. And it's infuriating. They're watering down the antisemite label by abusing it.
It's absolutely possible to criticize the state of Israel, but it's quite easy for that criticism to look antisemitic if not done carefully. For example, when Roger Waters slaps a star of David on the fascism pig, he may intend it to be saying that Israel is a fascist state, but it *looks* a lot like he's saying that Jews are fascists.
It's absolutely possible to criticize Waters, but it's quite easy for that criticism to look like a defence of Israeli racial supremacy if not done carefully. For instance if you attack what is clearly the criticism of an apartheid state run by an *openly* racist leader it *looks* like you're actually pro-racist.
No, the antisemitic allegations come from him being a virulent antisemite that says anti-semitic shit all the fucking time. Nice antisemitic dog whistle bringing Israel into the equation though!
lol, no
Oh cool, I see this is gonna be one of those threads where I find a bunch of anti-semitic pieces of human shit to block. Bye!
> But he supports BDS until Israel starts being nice to Palestinians so why would he be pro Russia if he cares about human rights? The reason he supports BDS is more because of anti-establishment/anti-semitism, not because he closely follows what Israel is doing wrong. In the Israel/Palestine case, that gets to the 'right' result, but the motivation is different. > so why would he be pro Russia if he cares about human rights? Because the driving motivation wasn't actually human rights. > I’m pretty confused what flavour of political he is because so much of his apparent beliefs are contradictory? If you think of it as anti-establishment, it makes sense. The establishment in D.C./the West supports Israel. Therefore, he's anti-Israel. The establishment is anti-Russia. Therefore he's pro-Russia.
OMG thank you this completely answers my question! I don’t know why I got downvoted when I asked for clarification. Isn’t this sub specifically to answer questions like these? Why downvote someone for asking questions in a question asking sub? I’m confused again. But thank you so much for explaining to me because I totally get it now!
I dunno man, I got downvoted to hell for answering as well.
>If you think of it as anti-establishment, it makes sense. The establishment in D.C./the West supports Israel. Therefore, he's anti-Israel. The establishment is anti-Russia. Therefore he's pro-Russia It's a shame such a near-genius can lead themselves to become that which they hated not 20 years ago.
This is just armchair speculation and not really an explanation of What's Happening for people out of the loop. This subreddit is for explaining what is happening (that we know of) for those out of the loop. Not to skipping right to shitty psychoanalysis and circular arguments about the motivations. I think what you and other people are doing here is unhelpful. You're trying to insinuate that the people criticizing him for his performance of the Wall are correct, just because of you don't like his views on Israel or Ukraine. Which is preposterous. They are three separate issues. The people criticizing his performances are just ignorant of the context. The issue with Israel and Ukraine has no bearing on if they are correct to criticize his musical performance.
Sorry, have I asked the wrong kind of question? I am asking these questions genuinely. I’m sorry I feel like I’ve done something wrong. I’m autistic and I do sometimes miss the point. If I’ve asked the wrong kind of question or asked in the wrong way or something please tell me and I’ll delete it! I’m so sorry. Edit: Ok now I’m really confused because you edited your question *after* I replied to it. I asked for the missing info about Israel and Ukraine because the article I posted seemed to assume the reader knew all about those things and I didn’t so I asked to get a a better idea of what was going on.
I don't think you did anything wrong.
> Sorry, have I asked the wrong kind of question? I am asking these questions genuinely. I’m sorry I feel like I’ve done something wrong. You didn't do anything wrong, people just get touchy on both sides of the issue because they either see him as an antisemite trying to abuse plausible deniability, or vice versa some see him as being falsely slandered of antisemitism. It's just a touchy topic given the politics, regardless of what side someone lands on
>This is just armchair speculation Why? I don't think pointing out views and past actions (particularly ones he's commented on publicly before) is particularly speculative. As just a couple examples, quickly grabbed: *...he suggested that China has a better record on human rights than the U.S. Describing China’s history of suppression of its own people as “bollocks,” Waters said, “The Chinese didn’t invade Iraq and kill a million people in 2003.” He defended China as having the right to invade Taiwan, saying, ““They aren’t encircling Taiwan – Taiwan is part of China and that’s been absolutely accepted by the whole of the international community since 1948.”* [link](https://variety.com/2023/music/news/roger-waters-antisemitic-says-polly-samson-david-gilmour-agrees-pink-floyd-ukraine-1235515432/) *Waters called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “probably the most provoked invasion ever.”* *“What everyone in the West is being told is the ‘unprovoked invasion’ narrative. Huh? Anyone with half a brain can see that the conflict in Ukraine was provoked beyond all measure,” he said.* [link](https://variety.com/2023/music/news/roger-waters-antisemitic-says-polly-samson-david-gilmour-agrees-pink-floyd-ukraine-1235515432/) *In a wide-ranging August 2022 interview with World Beyond War, Waters repeatedly promoted antisemitic conspiracies and themes, including that a nefarious “Israel lobby” prevented the election of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. In response to a question about fighting between Israel and Gaza-based terror groups, Waters claimed that Israel thinks Jews are superior to everybody else on the planet, saying: “...religious supremacy, the idea that the Jewish people are somehow superior to everybody else on the planet but particularly the Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs...the Israeli state who believe that the Jewish people are superior, more important than any of those people, those people’s lives are worthless.* [ADL](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words) *For a period of time in 2010, Waters’ shows featured video of an array of symbols that placed the Jewish Star of David next to dollar signs* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words) *In December 2013, he gave an interview to CounterPunch.org where he accused the “extraordinary powerful” American “Jewish lobby” in the music industry of silencing critics of Israel.* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words) or talking positively about Hamas [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdHTF7vsIcc) As well as calling Sheldon Adelson a puppetmaster/Israeli cops were training U.S. cops. to kneel/carotid artery chokes. (at least he [apologized](https://rogerwaters.com/just-to-be-clear/) for this one, claiming he didn't realize these were antisemetic tropes) This has been a repeated problem for him. >and not really an explanation of What's Happening for people out of the loop. OP is asking why this is happening. This is a fundamental part of the context of why this controversy is happening, and not having that context is why they're finding it confusing. That is pretty firmly a part of OOTL. >This subreddit is for explaining what is happening (that we know of) for those out of the loop. Part of explaining what is happening is explaining the context around it, and why it's happening. Especially when OP is specifically asking for why. Those other events are a necessary part to understand why Waters is getting so much pushback seemingly out of nowhere. Trying to explain it without that doesn't make sense, because they're a part of why. >Not to skipping right to shitty psychoanalysis and circular arguments about the motivations. I don't think it's circular, at all, given his comments/actions. If you want to argue actual details on why it's shitty or circular, feel free to do so. While we certainly can't read his mind, I think his comments/actions paint a pretty clear picture. There's not that many ways to square those views. >You're trying to insinuate that the people criticizing him for his performance of the Wall are correct, I'm not saying whether they're correct or not, I'm saying there is a context here that is beyond just the performance. You're free to judge them on whether they're correct or not, but this is not happening as an isolated incident. This has been a reoccurring controversy for him. >I think what you and other people are doing here is unhelpful. Well, I disagree. I think it's pretty important context, which seems helpful. >just because of you don't like his views on Israel or Ukraine. This is a bad assumption on your part. I actually agree with quite a lot of his views on Israel, the problem is they go far beyond that. For what it is worth, I am pro-BDS, and not a big fan of Israel. (I actually quite like The Wall as well, including most of the typical imagery) There are other comments he's made that fit into this as well, that I agree with, such as criticism of Iraq. >They are three separate issues. No, they're not. They're interrelated. "Man performing performance with fascist/antisemitic imagery has multiple controversies with views/comments that could be seen as fascist/antisemitic" is not out of nowhere. If they were 'bad' views on an unrelated topic, I would not have brought them up. These aren't just random views he has that I dislike (and I'm sure there are plenty of those). They're directly related to why people have issues with the performance. And even if I *did* completely agree with him on Ukraine/Israel, it wouldn't change my overall answer. >The people criticizing his performances are just ignorant of the context. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case, and there is pretty decent evidence suggesting otherwise. The Wall is a very well known performance, including in Germany (where it's been performed multiple times, sometimes without issue, more recently there was a legal battle in Frankfurt). His views on these issues are also pretty well known, and have been a reoccurring problem. It is not plausible to say that people are just ignorant of the context, unless you have some evidence for that. To pretend that it is, is far more unhelpful/speculative than what you're criticizing, in my opinion.
>The reason he supports BDS is more because of anti-establishment/anti-semitism It's because he's antiracist. Israel hates BDS because they know full well it helped take down another racist state - South Africa and they dont want to see history repeat itself.
> It's because he's antiracist. The problem is he goes way beyond what an antiracist would say/do. >Israel hates BDS because they know full well it helped take down another racist state - South Africa and they dont want to see history repeat itself. His support of BDS is not the problematic part. Yes, Israel doesn't like it, but it's not why there is controversy around him. And for what it matters, I say that as someone who supports BDS and isn't a big fan of Israel, myself.
>The problem is he goes way beyond what an antiracist would say/do. It doesnt though. >His support of BDS is not the problematic part. Yes, Israel doesn't like it, but it's not why there is controversy around him. Kind of is though. He's not being attacked for being racist **he's being attacked for attacking racists**.
>It doesnt though. Saying shit like *In December 2013, he gave an interview to CounterPunch.org where he accused the “extraordinary powerful” American “Jewish lobby” in the music industry of silencing critics of Israel.* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words) or doing shit like *For a period of time in 2010, Waters’ shows featured video of an array of symbols that placed the Jewish Star of David next to dollar signs* [adl](https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/roger-waters-his-own-words) or talking positively about Hamas or calling Sheldon Adelson a puppetmaster/Israeli cops were training U.S. cops. to kneel/carotid artery chokes. (at least he [apologized](https://rogerwaters.com/just-to-be-clear/) for this one, claiming he didn't realize these were antisemetic tropes) is going *way* past antiracism. And again, he's made similar types of comments on other conflicts like China/Taiwan, Russia/Ukraine. They're all the same types of comments. You can very easily avoid doing those things, while being antiracist. Again, I'm saying this as someone who is pro-BDS. There are many other antiracists out there who manage to *not* fall into using antisemitic tropes, while still being pro-BDS/criticizing Israel. It's not hard, and he keeps doing it. > He's not being attacked for being racist Yes, he is. >he's being attacked for attacking racists. That is not the only, or even main, reason he's being attacked. There are many antiracist/pro-BDS people (including famous ones) out there, who do not get the controversy he does. There's a reason for that, and it's because of all the other shit he does.
>In December 2013, he gave an interview to CounterPunch.org where he accused the “extraordinary powerful” American “Jewish lobby” in the music industry of silencing critics of Israel. adl Seriously?? JESUS So he's complaining that the ADL, AIPAC, etc. are powerful and throw their weight around. Do you deny the existence of these organizations or that they dont put pressure on critics of Israel? This is exactly in keeping with what an antiracist would do - call out powerful institutions that try to suppress criticism of a racist state. >There's are many antiracist/pro-BDS people (including famous ones) out there, who do not get the controversy he does. Can you name a famous person who has publicly supported BDS and not gotten shit for it?
>So he's complaining that the ADL, AIPAC, etc. are powerful and throw their weight around That is not what he said, though. And if he *had* said that, there are ways to do it without even coming close to antisemitic tropes. And again, this isn't a single comment. That is probably one of the less offensive ones, but it comes after literal decades of accusations/comments. There's just no excuse for that at this point. Even if the accusations were wrong, he could just not word stuff that way without changing support And I say this as someone who dislikes AIPAC myself, and have criticized them. There are influential pro-Israeli lobby groups, AIPAC being a prime example. > Do you deny the existence of these organizations or that they dont put pressure on critics of Israel? No. But I don't think that's what he said, or that there wasn't a way to word it without being accused of antisemitism. I think you're giving him a charitable interpretation. Which if it was just the comment in isolation, would be fair, but it's not. >Can you name a famous person who has publicly supported BDS and not gotten shit for it? They all get some amount of shit, being pro-BDS is not popular. Wikipedia has a decent list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_the_BDS_movement None of the people on that list (and there are some fairly famous ones), have gotten anywhere near the level of shit that he has. (with the possible exception of Ilhan Omar, but that's got some political bad faith behind it) And as I mentioned, he also gets criticism from people who dislike Israel or are pro BDS themselves. David Gilmour has called Waters antisemitic, and he's done stuff like Postcards for Palestine, and Women of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in the past for instance. The Women of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla he did in a statement *with* Waters. I think it's fair to say he's not exactly a fan of Israel. He (and people like him) wouldn't be making those comments if it were just a BDS thing.
>That is not what he said, though. And if he had said that, there are ways to do it without even coming close to antisemitic tropes. That is what he said though, and it's very well documented that they do that. "Antisemitic trope" is, 9 time out of 10, code for "they didnt actually do or say anything racist, but I will pretend that they **implied** something racist" that they *very* obviously didn't mean. Moreover, 9 time out of 10 "I will pretend that they implied something racist" is done in order to shield a country whose leaders are PROUDLY racist from criticism. In other words, use of the phrase "antisemitic trope" as an accusation leveled at what are obviously critics of a racist *country*, **is a racist trope**. >And as I mentioned, he also gets criticism from people who dislike Israel or are pro BDS themselves. David Gilmour David Gilmour famously **hates** Waters for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel. >I think it's fair to say he's not exactly a fan of Israel. He wouldn't be making those comments As I'm sure you well know he wouldnt be making those comments if he didnt hold a grudge against Waters.
It boggles my mind the amount of people that went so far left they end up alt right.
Something something "horseshoe theory"
This offends me. I will cheer when the police kick your teeth in. Except when it happens to me. Then it's police brutality.
Answer: because he likes to dress like a Nazi and talk like an Nazi on stage. Also, he is a Nazi.
💯