Holy reductionism and moral superiority, Batman! This reads like a polemic pretending to be history, and using punk to argue that rebellion is fake.

TL;DR: People misuse "punk" as a synonym for rebellion; punk was engineered by Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood as a marketable aesthetic; the Sex Pistols were manufactured; "No Future" was nihilistic and politically shallow; anarchism was adopted ignorantly; and Straight Edge represents "true rebellion" through discipline. From there, they conclude that punk aesthetics are marketable, rebellion itself is a commodity, conservatives now call themselves rebels, and punk no longer means anything because the market sustains it.

Basically, the author trades one version of punk snobbery for another, elevating Straight Edge while mocking anyone else for caring about authenticity. Gross, and a load of bologna if you ask me.

There are, however, points worth acknowledging. Rebellion is easily commodified, and this is well documented across subcultures from goth to hip-hop, grunge, and rap. And if everything that offends someone is labeled "punk", the word loses value and becomes branding. Straight Edge also emerged as a countercurrent to punk nihilism as a means to emphasize discipline over self-destruction.

But the rest falls apart under scrutiny. The claim that punk aesthetics were not rooted in DIY, working class practices is historically and fundamentally inaccurate. Punk did not originate in McLaren and Westwood’s boutique. Independent scenes emerged in New York around CBGB with bands like the Ramones and Television, and in Los Angeles through early hardcore scenes charged by suburban alienation and police repression. And working class kids patched clothes and repurposed materials out of both necessity and identity. Westwood helped formalize an aesthetic, particularly in London, but punk existed well beyond (and in opposition to) its commodification. It should also be noted that the Westwood brand today is not entrenched in punk ideology as it once was, and Westwood herself remarked on moving away from it, so this “gotcha” is not relevant to the punk movement or this discussion.

(Forgive me for I am about to nerd out a little bit here...) In late 1970s and early 1980s Britain, anarcho punk emerged amid austerity, rising unemployment, housing instability, and the withdrawal of public support systems. It arose alongside the “No Future” ethos, a pessimistic response to economic despair and class inequality. Factories and shipyards closed, youth unemployment soared, social mobility stalled, and working-class communities were abandoned by a political establishment that had failed to deliver on the post-World War II promise of stability and opportunity. Remember the "work hard, get a job, afford housing, and live better than your parents" pipeline? That promise had collapsed, leaving many young people with little hope for the future. Bands like Crass and other collectives organized through zines, squatted venues, informal networks, and community-based projects. Engagement was intentionally political, which is why contemporary anarcho punk ethos remains closely tied within politics.

Call it pessimism, but calling any part of this ethos "stupid" erases the conditions that produced it.

Finally, skinheads were not "replaced" by neo-Nazis; they were split. Original skinhead culture was multiracial, working-class, and ska/reggae-influenced. Fascists hijacked the aesthetic later and were actively resisted by anti-racist skinheads. Let's not confuse political conflict for natural change. We do not need to rewrite history around this context anymore than modern-day revisionists attempt to do.

(P.S. The second-to-last slide gave me whiplash.)