This gets us to the third objective of this campaign—bringing forward a core of dedicated, ardent fighters who are going to passionately advocate for this revolution and make it a driving dynamic force in society and the world. Fighters who are going to come at this not from what my friends think, or what my family thinks, or how backwards things are out there, or how brutal and heartless these monsters at the top are—but from what humanity needs and what is really possible.

I was enthralled by this passage, and it started me thinking.

Then, today, I read something from the blog of Bradley Kuhn, who is on the Free Software Foundation‘s board of directors. In the post linked above, he argues why saying that one “has to” use proprietary software is entirely relative, and quite often is not the case at all.

If you’ve seen my site, you know how adamant I am about software freedom. I firmly believe that all software should be free, and in fact must be free if we are ever going to live in a world where our computers are working for us, the users, in our own interests and for our own purposes and with our needs in mind, and not those of various bourgeois sects as the situation currently stands with the widespread use of proprietary and other non-free software.

And then I considered the two together. I see in my struggles for revolution many who provide an almost infinite number of reasons (excuses) against revolution. For the most part, though, I tend to focus my arguments on the oft horrific problems with our current political and socioeconomic system, because something in my brain is telling me that those arguments would be the most likely to convince my intellectual sparring partner of our collective need for revolution. In short, “Things really suck, let’s change them.” This is ultimately not a good argument, and it completely misses the point presented above. We need to focus on what humanity needs.

Likewise, I usually present my arguments in favor of free software by simply exposing the innumerable and multifaceted problems with proprietary software. Once again, I’m missing the point. Software freedom is what humanity needs. Free software is a system (albeit on computers) that serves our interests and respects our rights, protecting us from the abuses of the system of oppressive proprietary software that has grown completely out of control—and at which few are even batting an eye.

Surely, one cannot reasonably propose that we need revolution without good justification and a deep analysis of the sickness of our current system; they go hand in hand. And they go hand in hand with software, that you must be able to explain and expose the offenses of the currently popular system in order to have a sound and complete argument.

But these are not the main points of either. The focus is that this is what is right for humanity as a whole, and if the masses were truly educated in these matters from that perspective, they could not help but agree. There may always be struggles in both fields, but one thing I know for certain: we as a people need emancipation.

Emancipation, from Wiktionary:

1. The act of setting free from the power of another, from slavery, subjection, dependence, or controlling influence
2. The state of being thus set free; liberation; used of slaves, minors, of a person from prejudices, of the mind from superstition, of a nation from tyranny or subjection.

You know what people don’t like? They don’t like it when the very words they say—and mean—are said back to them. They don’t like it when logical and practical contradictions in their words and actions are shown to them. They don’t like it when two or more conflicting stances of theirs are enumerated and explained. And they don’t like it when they admit a very core fault to their system of living and are then told to do something about it.

Not only do they not like it, but they do not tolerate it, and will fight tooth and nail to retain the illusion of moral and practical self-certitude, in spite of—no, because of—these starkly prevalent contradictions.

“Do you consider yourself to be a communist?”

I took a moment to ponder the question before answering, and here’s my answer: The question at this point isn’t so much “Am I a communist?”, as much as it is, “What can I do to help bring about communist revolution?”

The Revolutionary Communist Party is the only accurate and logical approach I’ve found to the innumerable problems we as human beings face today in society at large. It’s the only one that makes any sense, by means of methodical and dialectical analysis, in this wholly fucked up world of ours. And the solution the party proposes, that of the revolution of the proletariat in this country (and the world), is the only reasonable and actually thought-out solution I’ve ever heard.

To answer the question, I don’t need to be convinced to be a communist; that’s given. That’s the only reasonable and logical thing to be. The question is, what do I do now? And guess what, the RCP has an answer for that too.

I recommend going to this web page and finding a topic you’re interested in. Read a couple of articles in that section, and see if it makes sense. Of course, you are absolutely invited (and encouraged) to do your own research, discuss these issues with others, and come to your own conclusions, but please please please be methodical and scientific in your struggle. Sticking a mysterious and somehow all-encompassing band-aid such as “It is God’s will,” or the lazily ignorant proclamation of “But this system’s the best, despite it’s bad spots,” over the problem doesn’t do a damned thing to help, it just sets us back a few thousand years.

Most importantly: think. No matter what you do, don’t stop thinking.

1. One who has power and authority; a master; a ruler; a
governor; a prince; a proprietor, as of a manor.
…
4. A husband. “My lord being old also.” –Gen. xviii. 12.
…
7. (Christianity) The Savior; Jesus Christ.

Other definitions almost exclusively have to do with the feudal system of government and the various degrees of “lordship” in that oppressive system.

The term “lord” is almost wholly masculine when used, implying in that first definition that those who have power and authority and rule (including Our Savior Jesus Christ) will be male. This is reinforced very strongly in the second definition provided, that of “husband.” That definition quotes scripture, so I took a little walk over to Genesis. The quote in question is from the story of when the LORD came to Sarah and told her that, despite her advancing years, she would bear a child (a son, to be specific. Allow me to show a bit more of the passage to demonstrate just how misogynistic the word “lord” really is, from Genesis 18:10-12.

Then the LORD said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my master* is old, will I now have this pleasure?”

Aha, “lord” has been replaced with “master” in the New International Version, probably due to the prevalence of the term “LORD” to describe God throughout the rest of the passage. So Sarah, being the good woman/wife (this identity is inseparable in the Old Testament) she was, she acknowledged that Abraham is her lord and master. NOT ONLY THAT, but she describes having a child to be a pleasure. Surely, it can be a pleasure to have children, but if this god of theirs had any understanding of human biology, he’d know about the absurdly increased health risks (for child and mother alike) that happen the later a woman becomes pregnant. This is scientific fact.

I also noticed that up to this point in the Mosaic books, menstruation is not yet mentioned, so Sarah’s fertility in regards to human biology isn’t in question at all. It shows how much, at the time these books were written by human beings, men dominated the culture to the point where that “disgusting girl stuff” wasn’t even a matter they concerned themselves with. It wasn’t until Exodus and Leviticus that “God” started making decrees about not having sexual relations with women while they are “unclean,” probably because somebody leaked the secret: WOMEN BLEED! This is how I imagine the conversation going down:

“Well, we didn’t want it to get out, but there we have it.”
“What shall we do about it, m’lord?”
“Hmm, since it’s fucking gross, let’s make a law saying… GOD says not to touch them while that’s happening. YEAH! That’ll absolve us from having to take care of our women during that time. Let’s do this shit.”

Okay, back to our little story of Sarah. She describes childbearing as a “pleasure.” Um, excuse me? Let me quote something else from Genesis, found in Genesis 3:16.

To the woman, he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

So despite the immense pain involved in this whole situation, women are the property of their husbands, and they like it. They really do like it, you can see that right there in the bible.

This leads me to a nice little story about the “lordship” of men over women as presented by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but this whole sense of “propriety” for women is one of the most misogynistic precepts of the bible. Quite literally, propriety is what is proper, as commanded by the ownership of the property in question. “Propriety” is all about property, and as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy, as “God” and Abraham say in Genesis 18, and as “God” says in Genesis 3, this is the sole purpose of woman.

That is what a LORD is. According to the Catholic Church and this creed, Jesus is LORD and has dominion over this world.

By the last definition of “lord” presented above, Jesus is the Savior. What exactly is he saving? Judging by the bible and the practices of the Catholic Church, I’d say he’s saving (or more aptly, preserving) pretty much whatever the Catholic Church says he is, including the tradition of the subjugation of women. St. Paul’s writings were, of course, inspired by Jesus/God, and are God’s inerrant Word.

Jesus was, quite vitally, the only Son of God, and with that penis of his came dominion. It is key to understand why Jesus is said so constantly in Christian dogma to be the only Son of God. Who were passed inheritance by the patriarch in the family? The son. If one dies, then the next son. If that one dies, the next son. If only daughters remain, then and only then can daughters receive inheritance. These instructions are throughout the Old Testament, but they explain quite clearly the patriarchal domination of humanity at the time of Jesus. You see, God only had one son, the loss of which would be unimaginable! To lose your only son… I’m tearing up right now, just thinking about how horrible that situation would be for me is I were all-powerful. (*sniffles*)

So God sacrificed himself (his son) to himself, thus performing the ultimate sacrifice conceivable in the understanding of the peoples at the time the scripture was written. Because God in his omnipotence can only have one son, who has to die because God is loving, but because God is a construct by man, God’s powers, limitations, and priorities are that of humankind’s, particularly of the patriarchs in power.

Whew that’s enough for today. Tune in next week for perhaps one more line from the Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty
Right there in the first line. Father. Because the ultimate creative force in the universe not only has a human sex, it is also male and not female. The greatest thing in the universe is male, hereby declaring that men are innately superior because they are in and of themselves more like this fatherly god, created more directly in his image than that chattel we call woman.

Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen
What we can’t explain by simple observation, attribute it to this male god and his professed understanding (through scripture) of “the unseen”. I have some serious problems with the concept of heaven as presented in the bible. One of the most “inspirational” concepts of heaven put forth in the New Testament (allegedly by Jesus) is that in heaven, the last shall be first and the first shall be last. In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus begins, “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.” So in the kingdom of heaven, there are “haves” and “have nots”, the same class-based system we have on earth currently, where a few have control of resources and the rest labor on those resources. Perhaps I’m being too literal, but the final words in this passage read, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Those who have undergone tremendous suffering and labor in this life will be eternally rewarded in heaven by being placed before others. The landowner in the story is of course male, as has been the case in all patriarchal capitalist-imperialist societies for millennia, and he hires workers (the assumed lesser class) to work his land. The consolation that those who work themselves to death in this life under oppression is nothing more than an attempt to justify subjugation of others by the predominantly male bourgeoisie and to keep these people, effectively slaves of the class system, from rising up against them. “Be thankful that you’re being oppressed, because in this heaven described by my one true god, you’ll be eternally rewarded for it.” Ah, the beauty of autocracy.

In my next post, I’ll approach the next couple of lines of the Catholic Nicene Creed.

Me taking part in an SB1070 protest. So many signatures!

I helped design and spray-paint a banner which read as follows:

FROM SEATTLE TO AZ
STOP SB1070
TODOS SOMOS ILEGALES

The last line of this means “we are ALL illegals,” both a sentiment of solidarity with those being unjustly persecuted and discriminated against in Arizona (and elsewhere!), and also an accurate portrayal of the United States and its history. We stood on Capitol Hill near the block party that was going on, and as people passed we talked to them about the issues and had them sign the banner, often with supportive comments. One person wrote, “I can’t believe this shit’s still going on! This is CRAZY!” One person was an immigrant from France, and wrote a message of solidarity in French. We’ll be sending the banner down to Arizona for the July 29th protest there, which is the day the bill is expected to be signed into law. There will be a state-wide day of protest, where many will refuse to carry identification.

The article linked above does a great job explaining the very serious problems with the SB1070 bill, the history of migrant work in the US, and it even proposes a better solution: revolution. This whole capitalist-imperialist system is screwed, from the ground up.

Another incredible article from the RCP is titled “Why DO People Come Here?“, which in part discusses the harm the US’s policies have had on Mexico, contributing directly to the influx of immigration in recent years.

I’ll be posting more about the RCP and my journey with them as time goes by.

You were never supposed to hear these songs. These songs lost me my management, my record deal and a lot of nights of sleep.

Yes, I rapped one of them. Im as surprised as you are. But here is the thing you need to know about these songs and the ones coming next: These are all me. Love them, or hate them, but dont mistake them for anything other than an entirely personal, un-tethered-from-the-machine, free for all view of the world, refracted through my own crazy lens.

This is my journey. Ill keep sending you postcards.

Liz, you’re my fucking hero.

A "Phair" appraisal of Liz Phair's awesomeness as compared to you.

As you can see, Liz Phair’s awesomeness is clearly much bigger than you are or ever will be. Not only that, but it’s pink.

Judging by the reviews I’ve seen by amateur music enthusiasts around the web, I see some interesting trends. First, they didn’t listen to the album before saying that her new album Funstyle sucked. Second, Liz hit the nail on the head in the last track on the album, “U Hate It”, when she says the following:

No wonder that you hate it, ’cause it’s all about you… funny you should say that, ’cause it hates you too.

She may not have directed that at the general listening population, but I think she very well could have. I could summarize my responses to most of the “haters” out there with the sarcastic remark, “I’m so glad you’ve expressed your informed opinion, since your opinion is what really matters.” For an explanation of the sarcasm, consult the graph above. Do you honestly think Liz cares what you personally think? She’s had so much shit thrown at her professionally, and I’m glad to see she’s still “got her own thing; feel it, it is strong.”

Third, no musician has ever created a song that everybody likes. Not everybody likes Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance” (despite it’s YouTube view-count), not everybody likes their respective national anthem, and not everybody likes your own personal favorite band of all time. The deal is that I’ve listened extensively to all of Liz’s released music, and even I (the Phair-head extraordinaire) have had difficulty with a few of the songs* on each of her albums. The fact is that after extensive listening (or perhaps a few months away from those tracks), the tracks I originally viewed cautiously became some of my favorite tracks by her. It’s all in cycles, but one thing I know for sure: Liz has something special that you don’t see enough in musicians these days, especially the ones that reach the masses. Liz tackles this very issue on Funstyle, implying that it’s not really fair that a certain four-letter-word of a “publishing house of Ursa Minor” (the RIAA) controls and influences so totally the musical culture to which we are exposed most prevalently. They pick what you can listen to and what will end up in the record stores, and Liz gave a huge middle-finger to that obscene practice.

Find your own culture. Love it, hate it, think about it. Just don’t jump on the bandwagon with what an overwhelmingly vocal portion of the Internet is claiming. Her album’s only $5.99, it’s DRM-free, high quality, and not restrictive to iTunes or Windows Media Player or wherever you usually get your music. It’s also independently released by the artist herself, which is always a plus.

One more word for all of the sites saying that Funstyle is “experimental” and that makes it bad. Any musician worth his or her salt is experimental in some way. If they aren’t experimenting with their music at least a little bit, then they are nothing but cookie-cutter copycats. If this album weren’t “experimental” then I don’t think I’d be praising it quite so heavily.

Finally, I’d like to share my own personal favorites from the album, which I have to yet to see in any review out there. “Smoke”, “And He Slayed Her”, and “Satisfied”. I hope she performs “Satisfied” on a late show.

* The songs that have gradually become my favorites are as follows:

• From Exile in Guyville, “Shatter”
• From Whip-Smart, “Support System”
• From whitechocolatespaceegg, “Only Son”
• From Liz Phair, “Love/Hate”
• From Somebody’s Miracle, “Got My Own Thing” (quoted above)
]]> http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/07/a-phair-appraisal/feed/ 0 http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/07/liz-phairs-funstyle/ http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/07/liz-phairs-funstyle/#comments Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:16:54 +0000 Andrew Gray http://libre.sweetandy.net/?p=15 Well it has finally happened. I’ve been waiting years for Liz Phair to release a new album, and a few days ago she released an album titled Funstyle on her website. That’s right, she is NOT releasing this through a greedy label as she has in the past. The album is available for only $5.99 in DRM-free formats, both MP3 and Apple Lossless, though I’ll be converting the Apple Lossless (ALAC) to FLAC (a free lossless codec) as soon as I download it.


Liz Phair rocking out. Rock on, Liz!
Photo by Melanie Vyvyan, CC-BY

The sample song “Bollywood,” which unfortunately is only available for streaming through a flash interface, has me remembering exactly why I’ve been waiting to hear from Liz for so long. Slate Magazine released a podcast (please excuse the MP3) where various critics analyze the sample song, and though it gets a little bit of flack, it is generally liked among them. They focused on the fact she was rapping in the song and parodying pop music while doing what many pop artists do these days, which is sing about their music careers. Liz has been attacked since 2003 when she released her self-titled album Liz Phair which was heavily produced by the same production team that gave us Hilary Duff and Avril Lavigne, and many believed she had sold out completely to Hollywood. Since, she’s been trying to go back to her “roots”, as she puts it, and she’s been doing this quite successfully.

What the crack analysis team at Slate failed to mention was that not only were the lyrical content and vocal stylings parodies of popular culture, but so was the musical theme. The song is reminiscent of Bollywood, which is essentially a sell-out, bastardized amalgam of a genuinely innovative culture (that of India) and the capitalist pigs at Hollywood, whose only intent is to appeal to the masses in a way that makes money. Liz Phair makes her point very firmly in her song “Bollywood.” She says that although this is the crap Hollywood would be willing to put out solely for profit and cheat her out of her artistic integrity, she’s going to do things her way whether they like it or not. The style of the song is so incredibly not her own that it borders on hilarity, while maintaining a hopelessly honest yet addictive nature signature to Liz.

I praise Liz for making this statement and releasing her album on her own terms! I’ll be buying the album from her site tonight, and I’m fucking ecstatic that the whole of my payment is going to her. If I could repurchase all of her albums again with most of the proceeds going directly to her, I would. She’s an artist I respect, infinitely more than the god damn Recording Industry Ass-rapers of America (civilly known as the RIAA).

Liz, you inspire me! You’ll never read this, but I hope you know just how freaking awesome you are. I’ll be a fan long after you close up shop, may it be many years from now.

]]> http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/07/liz-phairs-funstyle/feed/ 0 http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/06/feminist-reading-from-some-amazing-authors/ http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/06/feminist-reading-from-some-amazing-authors/#comments Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:18:56 +0000 Andrew Gray http://libre.sweetandy.net/?p=14 I’ve read a few books recently, and I’d like to comment on them.

The first two books I read were written by Jessica Valenti, founder of the Feministing blog. They cover basic feminism and are written with young women in mind. Despite being male, I found them very enlightening and interesting, as well as very witty and at times quite funny.

First book: Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters (amazon). I recommend this book to anyone, but young men and women in particular. It covers issues reproductive rights, violence, and popular culture, along with myriad other issues that are of interest to young feminists (or feminist sympathizers) everywhere. It’s pretty short, and a pretty quick read. If you know pretty much nothing about feminism, this is a great place to start.

Second book: He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know (amazon). This book is exactly what the title suggests. It’s an exploration of double standards between the genders… effectively, everything that pisses me off about our exceedingly patriarchal society. Also directed primarily toward young women, this book’s enough to make anyone’s blood boil, complete with humor and touching insight. Each chapter concludes with a “What to do about it” summary, so it’s good for the beginning feminist who just finished reading her other book, Full Frontal Feminism. Though it’s great as a companion, it stands on its own very well.

The last book I’ve read recently is not by the fabulous Ms. Valenti, but by Maria Raha. It’s called Hellions: Pop Culture’s Rebel Women (amazon). The book talks about various women in popular culture, considered “rebels” of the time, and the positive and negative effects each has had on feminism and feminist issues. From Marylin Monroe to Thelma & Louise, this book covers both real and fictional rebel women and the comparable male rebels for each. It’s a very interesting read, and references a lot of other good reading. I found a great passage that referenced the book Female Chauvinist Pigs, which I have on hold at the library now.

I’m currently reading the new book by Susan J. Douglas called Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s Work Is Done, and I’ll be blogging about that as soon as I finish.

Feminists of the world unite!

]]> http://libre.sweetandy.net/2010/06/feminist-reading-from-some-amazing-authors/feed/ 0