ageless, timeless traveller
I recognise that thin, wild mercury sound.
This guy does a really good job of looking 16 and 70 years old at the same time.
Wild. Cool voice. Amazing song writing.
I like the song--it has the potential to be great. The delivery seems muddled somehow.
No, I take it all back. It is great, and I love this song!
Big time 70's protest singer vibes, even in how he looks.
I love his voice
Yeah he is really killing it. But that's not murder.
Super unique and stirring, I was looking for it on Spotify afterwards
Did you find it?
no but the vids only 3 days old and he has other songs on spotify
song came out today!
Woo! I’m so excited, ty for the heads up
it came out today!
Oh wow, thanks!
was this filmed in the early 70s by a time traveler? The film quality is almost the only thing that couldn't exist/fit in from that era where this clearly comes from. Even the ironic lyrics of protest...
nah iphone 7 lmfao
"Give it up for Tom Hanks" had me rollin.
This is art.
Just got this guy on my feed a few days ago. Really like it.
M * A * S * H "Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell and of the two, war is a lot worse.
Father Mulcahy: How do you figure, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me. who goes to Hell?
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell War is chock full of them- little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander."
This song as well as this quote is insanely powerful. Confuses the fuck out of people when I tell them the mash quote and let them know I'm a marine.
Who is this dude?
Jesse Welles I believe, he only has 2 songs on Spotify and this isn’t one of him. I really loved it.
He used to go by "Welles" looks like hes using his full name now. https://open.spotify.com/artist/6jobcjsqxweTygItqxfN5l?si=InKjaIWqT2mmtr05mqDLYA (other songs)
I hope he makes more
he released the song on spotify today :)
Hell ya! Tysm for the comment, adding it to my playlist now.
Both this one and his other song posted on his channel are great. Hope to see hear more soon.
War is controversy and politics, and those topics bombarded the comments, everyone likes free speech until every second comment is political gymnastics.
His description: come for the music stay for the music. And that's exactly how it should be
The implication seems to be that if "war" isn't "murder", then war isn't bad. Can "war" not be "murder" and both be unspeakably horrible?
I interpret it at: warmongers ignore the horrors of war, and talk about people killing people as if it's not murder. And if it is murder, it's okay because we're murdering devils or we're just enacting god's will or some crazy talk like that. It's not that war and murder are the same thing, but there is generally a lot of murder involved in a war so it's a major thing to ignore or justify if you're a warmonger, along with women and children dying, generational trauma etc.
warmongers ignore the horrors of war, and talk about people killing people as if it's not murder
It's not that war and murder are the same thing, but there is generally a lot of murder involved in a war
You seem to be doing the same thing. Unless I'm making a category error, there is a lot of killing involved in war, not murder. By definition, murder is premeditated and illegal. Those are the qualifiers. Of course, the government responsible generally doesn't deem their killing during war to be illegal. I think other commenters in this thread have pointed out that it doesn't really matter what word is used, its a horrible act, which...sure....but words have meaning and what are we doing when we subvert that meaning?
I guess you could reference another country's laws, or some innate set of laws, religious laws maybe, or a personal set of laws, that the killing is against. And its not like killing needs to be illegal to be morally wrong. I guess I don't really understand what people are trying to do by deeming it "murder". Are they pointing out that laws are arbitrary? Governments are hypocritical? Society is a farce?
The point is to force a reframing - calling it “murder” forces an uncomfortable acknowledgement of the horror and injustice in the killing.
It’s using language non-conventionally to reveal hidden bias in the conventional phrasing: “killed” is relatively neutral with no implication of blame, “murdered” is decidedly perpetrated by a culpable party
"Died" is neutral with no implication of blame. "Killed" for sure implies something or someone is responsible. "Murdered" also implies blame but adds that law was violated. And I'd argue that none of those really address whether the occurrence was just or not. Ideally laws will follow what is just, so "murdered" does imply that, but I think we can all agree that there are historically and currently plenty of laws that were/are unjust.
I think what's happening is the use of language non-correctly to purposefully spread propaganda. Which isn't new, I'm learning. Pick a word with long established meaning, give it a slightly altered meaning, then leverage the original meaning in the word's new usage.
Either that or people just don't care to know or learn what words actually mean. Just google "define" followed by whatever word you're curious about. At least then we'll all be on the same page, even as the definitions change. But again, I fully believe many people have no interest in us all being on the same page.
The point being made is that language can be used as a tool to hide the atrocities committed in war, and allow for us to justify horrible acts based on semantics. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you call it, people being killed in war is a tragedy which we should be trying to avoid, however we often don't because "There's money at stake".
...language can be used as a tool to hide the atrocities...
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you call it...
It can matter and also it doesn't matter. Got it. Yes, deaths in war are tragic. I agree.
It's simply what others said, it's an artistic way of challenging how people undermine the horror of war (like by talking of "casualties" or "collateral damage"), by using the much more brutal and blunt word "murder". Again it's art, it's not mathematics or science so nitpicking like that is kind of missing the point, but you're free to do so if it makes ya happy :)
"It's art", is lame.
I mean maybe u just don't like poetry? Idk man. Have a good one tho
It's very clearly showing that we make up new meanings and distinctions in language to soften the realities of what is happening. I think you know that though. Honestly I get the feeling that you disagree with his message so are deciding to say it doesn't make sense instead of facing the actual meaning of his art.
what matters to you might not matter to someone else, its all perspective. unfortunately the language being used in the media matters to the general public, and language is an extremely useful tool for propagandists. I’m glad we agree on that last point though, you would be surprised at the amount of people who see death in war as a necessary evil.
actually listen to the lyrics.
Oooooooooooooh. Cool. Wiil do.
The song critiques how warmongers use euphemisms to downplay the very real atrocities that result from war.
You can nitpick if “war” is technically “murder” or not, but the use of the phrase “war isn’t murder” makes perfect sense in the context the writer used it.
“War is murder” or “war = murder” has been used consistently by war protestors for decades. Warmongers don’t like that type of direct and negative phrasing. The song writer is parodying how warmongers will attempt to sell the idea of the opposite - i.e. “war isn’t murder”
They aim to justify war, glorify death associated with it, downplay the byproducts (ex. broken families, lost limbs, severe trauma, etc.), and generally make it more palatable for society to accept the negatives of war as inevitable and necessary.
These efforts have been effective, hence some would point fingers at this song as subversive propaganda. Pretty ironic…
I do like to nitpick.
it seems you're intentionally missing the point then? George Orwell also knows that animals don't talk, that's why it's art right. The meanings of words are also a social construct you know right? So by using it in the "wrong context" he's really making a comparison that war is in fact similar to murder, in that we think of murder as horribly wrong and as war as a justified killing, whereas he's claiming that killing innocent people in a war is not much different from murder. Think of it as a metaphor or something mate
"It's art", is lame.
Well shucks maybe art just isn't for you then... Don't know what to tell u man, everyone is telling u that ur nitpicking in a way that's totally missing the point of this use of language and that art is not literal, but you're too focused on dictionary entries to see that. Seems like you'd be more interested in textbooks, but hey maybe this song just isn't for ya, who knows maybe ur actually super into art and poetry lol. Have a good one
lol
It seems like you don’t understand what irony is
Two weeks later and I'm still getting these little intellectual jabs popping up to flavor my day. Thanks for your high quality, timely contribution.
poopy poop pee and fart
Sorry didn’t realise you had been involved in lengthy and tedious discussions on this topic since your original post. I replied on a whim. Anyway. I think the song is great 👍😂
Aww. To the comment that was deleted, here is my reply:
I definitely agree with your interpretation of what is being implied (all killing in war is murder). And nitpick is a perfect framing of my issue, as I don't disagree that all war is bad and that we shouldn't sanitize such deaths. I think my actual issue is with the english language seemingly missing a word that should be used in place of "murder" to accurately describe the situation.
I went an additional step and searched for a legal definition. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. Murder in the first degree is punishable by death.
The key word here is unlawful. We're not talking about right or wrong. We're talking about laws being broken. It strikes me as completely not the point the song is trying to get at. Who gives a flying frick if the killings are or are not against a law? Maybe I'm wrong and that is the point, but what I feel like people who say this are trying to convey is that is is morally wrong. Unjustified. Something wrong is happening, whether there has been a law written for it or not. If there isn't a word for that, there should be.
I think your dissection into lawful vs justified (in the vein of "committed a crime" vs "convicted of a crime") is where the artist is drawing attention. When one nation invades another, it's never considered unlawful (and the people killed aren't "murdered") but it can often be even MORE heinous exactly BECAUSE it is "legal". Of all the ways people can die on this planet, war is the absolute least justified.
Do you believe that the killing of Hind Rajab and the paramedics trying to resue her was "lawful"?
Edit: More broadly, do you believe that Israel has not, or is not, committing war crimes?
Laws are specific things with specific jurisdictions. I'm unaware of the details of the event you describe so I couldn't say if it was "lawful" or not. It sounds tragic though.
I don't feel compelled to go from discussing "War isn't murder" to taking hard stances on ongoing international confrontations. I think what's going on in that region is terrible and I wish it wasn't happening.
War is sometimes necessary.
Imagine if people just tried to send Hitler a strongly worded letter to get him to stop and then when he didnt, we just kinda stepped aside and refused to escalate things to war.
We would all be speaking German now and Larry David wouldn't exist.
This is exactly the excuse the song is calling out. WW2 started because Hitler invaded. War is murder, because it always starts with someone invading someone else. Nobody declared war on Germany to start WW2, Germany declared war on others when Poland said they wouldn't give their own territory away, so your example doesn't even remotely work anyway.
The Nazis said they were "defending" German people in Poland when they invaded. The song is also calling out that exact kind of attitude of saying "I'm only defending myself/someone else" as you kick in the door of someone's house and gun them down. Israel uses the Holocaust as an excuse to wage a genocide on Palestinians.
It's a strategy that dates back to the Ancient Romans, who were always waging defensive "pre-emptive" wars on their neighbors, and conquered the western world in the process.
Using the one exceptional case of WW2 to push back at the universal statement that War is Murder is odd, to be sure.
Every enemy is the Nazis, Putin even used the same excuse to invade Ukraine.
"When you're fighting the Devil, Murder's okay"
Nobody declared war on Germany to start WW2, Germany declared war on others when Poland said they wouldn't give their own territory away
That's not exactly true...
Germany attacked Poland on 1st September 1939, with no formal declaration of war.
The first declarations of war came from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Tonga and Transjordan, on 3rd September. (Against Germany, obviously.)
Germany attacked Poland on 1st September 1939, with no formal declaration of war.
Are we really being that semantic, to act as if an unprovoked attack is not in itself a declaration of war? Just the same as the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour was before a formal declaration of war, but functionally is a declaration of war long before the US officially declared it so.
The song is all about war in actual function, not the legalistic aspects. Otherwise there'd be no debate because, legally, killing in war isn't murder. That's the whole point of the song.
If you are arguing what is an isn't murder every needs to agree what the words mean.
This whole conversation is arguing semantics.
The song is making the statement that murder is murder, and that the convenient cloak we cast over murder in war is semantics in and of itself.
It's encapsulated in the lyric "If War isn't murder, good men don't die"
And the murder in war is always justified because "the enemy is the Devil" and so "Murder's okay"
That's always how it goes.
Not all killing is murder.
You wouldn't say a self defense killing is murder.
So you can't just say war is murder if you don't agree what murder is.
Are we really being that semantic, to act as if an unprovoked attack is not in itself a declaration of war?
I was only pointing out an incorrectness in your comment. Besides, there are a few points where you might claim WW2 actually started - e.g. Germany reintroducing military conscription (1935) and then remilitarising the Rhineland (1936), both acts violating the treaty of Versailles. Or Japan invading China (1937). Or Germany annexing the Sudetenland (1938). Or Germany invading the rest of Czechoslovakia (March 1939).
Germany invading Poland (with no formal declaration of war) on 1st Sept 1939 is probably the most commonly chosen event for "The start of WW2", but pinpointing one specific event as the "start" can be tricky. As I said, the conflict wasn't "officially" a war until 3rd September when a bunch of countries declared war against Germany.
For example: Israel and Iran are not at war right now, but they've both attacked each other. If an official war does start between them, then who exactly "started it"?
You argument is for when a country attacks another country. I'm not even convinced it's always immoral to attack another country (or someone who considers themselves a country, like the "Islamic State").
That still leaves the option open to not surrender when another country declares war in you. Then you are choosing war over peace. I'd say it's legitimate. (Technically Putin doesn't consider the conflict in Ukraine a war, but it's certainly an armed conflict, so it's close enough.)
Is it okay to defend yourself or others with violence if it prevents even greater harm? Some people say yes, some people say no. If not everybody is allowed to use violence to prevent greater harm, should at least a police be able to? I'm sure you heard these arguments before. When you don't allow a little violence to prevent a greater harm, then you are choosing the greater harm.
If you agree that violence is sometimes okay in defense, then that leaves the door open for any violent actor to claim that in their particular instance they are waging a just war. I think that is just what we have to live with - we have to judge every violent act individually.
The problem in every war are civilian deaths.
Those are in fact murder.
Sometimes war is needed to prevent atrocities. If America / England / Russia refused to go to war, then evil wins. My point is that war is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil.
"Evil" is often subjective
Sometimes war is needed to prevent atrocities.
And yet it never is. War is always started and causes atrocities. When was the last time a war was started to stop a genocide? Not even WW2 counts for that, they went to war for other reasons. The allies didn't fight WW2 to stop the Holocaust, it was a by-product of defeating the Nazis, who as previously stated, were the ones who started the war.
If America / England / Russia refused to go to war, then evil wins.
What is this even in relation to? WW2? War was already started, by Germany. England backed up Poland who was invaded due to being allied, Germany also invaded the USSR, America joined when Japan attacked it. You're proving my point. Even the most "justified" war is only happening because someone invaded and the other is defending themselves from murder. War is still murder.
My point is that war is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil.
That's like saying a home invasion is a tool used for good as well as evil because defending yourself from someone trying to murder you in your home is justified. And once again, this song is calling out that idea for the hypocrisy it is, because so often it's the justification for murder.
What is your fucking argument? That war isn't justified because the Nazis shouldn't have gone to war?
Alright? I agree, they shouldn't have gone to war too. But guess what, as long as humans exist, evil is going to exist, and sometimes, like with Hitler, evil is going to do evil things like start wars and holocausts, and the ONLY way to stop things like that from continuing is to go to war with these evil forces.
We didn't start the war, but we needed to participate in it, which means we declared war on the Axis powers. There was literally no other alternative to peace without simply allowing Germany to keep gassing Jews.
Do you not consider it "war" when a country is defending itself? Cause that's still war, dude. You can have completely righteous reasons for going to war, but it's still war.
What is your fucking argument? That war isn't justified because the Nazis shouldn't have gone to war?
Try actually reading the first thing I posted in the thread, it might come to you lol
We didn't start the war, but we needed to participate in it, which means we declared war on the Axis powers. There was literally no other alternative to peace without simply allowing Germany to keep gassing Jews.
The US declared war because Japan attacked it. Japan started the war, was an ally of Germany, so the US was declaring war on both, and helped the allies. Nobody fought WW2 to stop Germany from gassing the Jews. The Holocaust being stopped was purely a by-product of defeating Germany. No one went to war over their treatment of Jews beforehand, and nobody would have gone to war with Germany purely to stop it if it had become public knowledge. It's not like it was some secret what the Nazis intended. Just as nobody is going to war with China as they actively genocide the Uyghurs. Because that's never what wars are started for. There must always be a profit incentive.
Do you not consider it "war" when a country is defending itself? Cause that's still war, dude. You can have completely righteous reasons for going to war, but it's still war.
Maybe you don't get it, but war takes two to tango. If someone didn't invade, the other wouldn't need to defend themselves in the most strictly "justified" side of wars. But it's war all the same, and it's murder. This is pretty easy to see because everyone brutalizes everyone, and not even the holy "justified" defending side is clean from atrocity in any war.
The vast majority of wars are not WW2. But people love to use it as an example to try justifying that "war isn't murder", which is ironic. And the song is calling that hypocrisy out. People always say they're "defending" someone, like the US in the Middle-East, Israel in Gaza, Russia in Ukraine, on and on. In reality, they're always just murdering someone else. They're not preserving life, they're taking it.
Sometimes war is necessary to justify war when the only example one can truly pull is WW2 shows how unnecessary war is.
"War isn't murder
Good men don't die
Children don't starve and all the women survive
War isn't murder
That's what they say
When you're fighting the Devil, Murder's okay"
See you around, space cowboy. :)
when the only example one can truly pull is WW2 shows how unnecessary war is.
It's a recent example, but an example that directly contradicts your point so you're trying to pretend it doesn't mean anything. Ukraine is at war with Russia right now. Should they have simply not gone to war and sat on their asses while Russia took their whole country over?
What is the precedent you're trying to set? Countries are wrong for entering into defensive wars? If you run a country and I run a country, and one day I decide I want to enslave your people and I fly my planes over your borders and start carpet bombing your civilians, what do you as your country's leader do?
If war is off the table for you, then can you just let me enslave your people and holocaust the fuck out of them? Pretty please? It would be rather hypocritical of you if you went to war with my country for that.
I think the point they were trying to make is that killing = bad, and this includes the invasion of other countries because that involves killing, they aren't arguing that it is wrong to defend your citizens, just that it is wrong to kill other people's
Their logic is conflicting tho. My argument is that there are some situations where it is necessary for the greater good.
I understand that, but I also understand them as meaning that those situations would not be created if conflicts (both on a large and a small scale) did not exist, for example, the holocaust would not have happened if WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles hadn't impacted Germany's economy so much that people were looking for scapegoats (Jewish people) and a man who promised a solution to all their problems and who said he wanted to punish the scapegoats, and WW1 wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which in turn wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Russo -Turkish war. meaning their point was, I think, that war makes war and the only time war is justifiable is when the events that justify it were made by war, making them feel that war is bad. Sorry If I misinterpreted
That's called appeasement and it's exactly what happened. You don't know your history, brother
I live in a reality where America went to war with the Axis powers. What reality do you come from?
The one where Germany was able to amass an army and invade land without any pushback. Without any time to prepare due to appeasement, Europe was unable to defend itself. Germany was able to establish the Axis Powers and blitz rush the entire landmass of Europe. America entered the war after 2 years
That's my entire fucking point. War was used as a tool to stop the Nazis since peace was never an option.
...or we could just kill hitler. Bang, one bullet and no need for war.
That only works if there weren't tens of thousands who rallied behind him, and the hundreds of thousands more who fell in line right after.
If he was entirely alone and by his own, he'd never have managed to take power.
Yeah, but we can't know what would goering or himmler do with hitler gone as in maybe they wouldn't push that much for war, or maybe they would be even worse.
Fantastic stuff. Honestly this generation needs a Bob Dylan-type to cut through the scene, and from this song alone this guy seems to have it. I mean, i love pop music but something about a raspy voice and guitar showing our society’s reflection back at us is so needed.
The part from 0:46-1:44 is such a masterful punch wow. Definitely gonna check out his other videos/songs
When I’m killed, I sure hope they use the right verb to describe it, that’ll make me feel much better.
Shallow platitudes. Are you being killed by a mugger in an alley, or are you being killed in self defense while mugging someone in an alley?
Ridiculous and disingenuous to say it doesn't matter.
Well, I’m dead, so from my perspective it most definitely does not matter.
Lol you're right, but it might matter to your potential victim if you were the mugger. Or to other potential victims you might've gone on to kill or victimize. It probably matters to them and their families.
If I murdered their family member, the thing they care about is the verb attributed to their death? I'm gonna disagree.
No, if you were killed by your potential victim in self-defense while trying to kill someone then they'd probably be happy that people wouldn't consider your death a "murder".
Literally, legally, definitively, no. It is not. Murder is premeditated, intentional, unjustified homicide.
That's a terrible definition. Depending on jurisdiction non-premeditated, unintentional, and justified homicides can all be classified as murder. That's what the degrees are for
I mean if the US did that it would probably be nuclear war.
This isn't really saying anything new, but I like it as a throwback to the 60's anti-war folk songs, and the message is pretty timeless.
Murder is the unlawful or unmoral act of killing.
Good song but bro is the biggest industry plant I have ever seen. He dropped 3 songs in one week about Cancer, Fentanyl, and War. 3 of the most controversial topics in recent years.
Who would be planting him lmfao? The anti-war, anti-opioid, anti-cancer lobby? Yeah they’re really flush with cash
Glad this lady wasn’t in charge in 1941.
The problem with violence is almost always who is doing the violence, not the violence itself. Expansionist, unprovoked, or zealous war is wrong, where defense and protection is not. This is why Vietnam and the war in Iraq were evil, but World War 2 was not. You could argue that my definition labels the revolutionary war as wrong, but citizens fighting against the state is kind of an essential verb. I don't always agree with the people and reasons, but I'd never call rebellion "wrong" outright.
You weren’t even alive, shush
Please don’t mention the practical implications of my gauzy peace anthem. It feels good to marinate in stupidity. Sing lady, sing!
Subscribed. This is pretty good. But maybe the next one could be about beer and fishing instead of war and cancer...
Or finish out a trilogy with a tax man ballad.
"And that guy is 14!"
"Ok"
"I'm just kidding. He is 41."
"I believe that as well."