It's again song which is in keeping with Bad Religion very well. Not a mere rebellion raising from honest emotions but a rebellion in addition enshrouded by the thorough analysis of a situation. Very resembling with the song "Fuch You" in that sense.

It's again song which is in keeping with Bad Religion very well. Not a mere rebellion raising from honest emotions but a rebellion in addition enshrouded by the thorough analysis of a situation. Very resembling with the song "Fuch You" in that sense.

It's again song which is in keeping with Bad Religion very well. Not a mere rebellion raising from honest emotions but a rebellion in addition enshrouded by the thorough analysis of a situation. Very resembling with the song "Fuch You" in that sense.

It's again song which is in keeping with Bad Religion very well. Not a mere rebellion raising from honest emotions but a rebellion in addition enshrouded by the thorough analysis of a situation. Very resembling with the song "Fuch You" in that sense.

It's again song which is in keeping with Bad Religion very well. Not a mere rebellion raising from honest emotions but a rebellion in addition enshrouded by the thorough analysis of a situation. Very resembling with the song "Fuch You" in that sense.

It's a classic BR punk rock song. The band is always promoting free-thought. Resisting the opposition and standing your ground without fear. Refer to: Requiem for Dissent and Empty Causes.

I've written a pretty long interpretation of this song before, but forgot to fill in the anti-spam-question, hence it got deleted... so now for the reader's digest version - I think the song is about not just becoming a fundamentalist yourself in your resistance: You have to be critical of everything, even your own ideas and "side". It's quite ironic since Brett basically stated he won't criticize Obama now because he's a good guy and doing what he can. This song is pretty much against the very idea of becoming dogmatic and non-questioning yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic_of_enlightenment is pretty much a more pessimistic view on this, stating that even the very idea of enlightenment is bound to produce dogmatic ideas sooner than later. Either way, you always gotta watch out and check each and every step. Stay aware, don't just do as they do with a reversed direction (as the song puts it, "clinging to your convention").

I don't agree with noparadigm for the reason that I think it's a pro-resistance song.
I agree with the statement that you always have to be careful not loosing grip, and always have to scrutinize your beliefs even in resistance.
It says resistance is essential in the world we live in, because otherwise you end up like an animal in a farm under control of a "farm keeper"...but you have to be careful not becoming a fundamentalist.
Even in resistance scrutiny is the highest aim.

I'd say it's pretty pro-resistance. Looks to me like the song's about the dangerous potential for any kind of resistance to be corrupted with or doomed by fundamentalism or dogmatism. The song says that "in the spirit of resistance, you gotta hold your grip" so as not to fall down "the dangerous slip", because "lest the state of your resolve makes you quickly devolve to a fundamentalist".

To rephrase the part of third stanza: when you cling to all convictions like a farm animal in its stall, you make yourself an archetype that they can pin to the wall.

"And the verdict won't be kind 'cuz they're desperate for a viable alternative" - This line addresses the danger of not basing your ideas in the real world. You'll be disregarded by the people who're looking for a real viable alternative.

This song is part of why I like Bad Religion. Dylamite summed it up quite nicely. It's not just another hollow resistance song (of which there are way too many in [pop] punk rock - anti Bush, anti the government, anti "the elite", anti capitalism, anti the rich, whatever monochfrome, oversimplified bullshit the average idiot comes up with), but rather an anti-resistance song (in that it questions the concept of resistance and portrays its potential downside). There is no value to resistance as a means to an end, if it isn't thought through but dogmatic. In reality, most of what they call the punk or "alternative" subculture today is exactly what this song is against. And I love Bad Religion for being intelligent and "unpunk" enough to shed light on facts like this...
p.s.: And while I'm convinced this song is not about the Tea Party movement, it would be a fitting example (however, so would maaaaany other movements, BY FAR not all of which on the political right).

This song is about The Resistance. It's anti the fraud of history. History has been crafted by movements of money by the greatest power that be during any time period.

Look at now, for example. The biggest Wall Street and financial companies, and military companies, are laughing to the bank, while the rest us stare forever-depression in the face.

This song is about the resistance to the fundamentalist status-quo.

There are people who are elitists, and there are people who are populists. Elitists want what is best for elites, while populists want what is best for individuals, society and the planet in general.

"Don't give the bastards the satisfaction"

It's about thinking for yourself & making up your own decisions, at least that's what I get from it. As for the 'Tea Party' suggestions; Greg told Jay he didn't have that intention when writing it. Although I suppose it could be a good anthem against the kind of moronic nonsense the Tea Party represent.

This song underscores the merit of taking a stance against something that you don't agree with, but it cautions all of us to not lose ourselves to rebellion where we become indistinguishable from that which we are rebelling against.

If you rebel/dissent against something in such a dogmatic fashion that you become a caricature of your beliefs, you are as one-dimensional as your opposition.

For me, the line "Because passion unabated will be readily conflated with belligerence" sums up the whole song. Many people taking a stance against something feel that they are critical and analytical thinkers, but passion often taints their original motives and leaves then as angry, cynical fundamentalists, unable to even recall why they rebelled in the first place.

Someone somewhere once said it sounded like it was about the Tea party, and I think that just about sums it up.