A Freebie from Freemont

If you’ve read the blog lately, you know that a lot of what I have been posting has been the political philosophy of my leftist idealism. This philosophy is based upon the notion that the top 3% wealthiest people of this country have hijacked the political power and influence of the people and that it will require a social revolution in order to restore a proper social balance. My politics are based upon this underlying notion. And the job of a leftist radical is to keep the government in check by putting outside pressure on the established system in order to create change. This mission is ongoing regardless of what party or what president is in office.

So, when I speak of a particular political figure, be it in vain or in agreement with, I do it only in the name of advancing the revolution. Part of being a radical is also being a pragmatist and not to copping out by giving yourself up to the populist movements of society. That is the reason why I have a deep distrust both for the conservative panderers who work to maintain the status quo and the liberal politically correct who only want to create symbolic change so that we’ll misinterpret the actual state of things.

I share many concepts with socialist and communist radicals, but I do not advocate either political institution. The reason why many left-leaning people today who support a “liberal” agenda are being demonized as socialists is because it is an easy way for conservatives to copout and deem those individuals who want to change the system as being dangerous. This way, they are able to scare enough people in the middle to maintain the power necessary to prevent change. If the middle remains complacent, then the balance of things stays the same and the status quo is preserved.

The reality is that revolutionaries like myself are not communists at all, but, rather, “Democraticists” that see the current condition of our democracy in a state of great inequality. The comparison to Communism only exists because most of the literature that a radical can find in relation to social revolution is that of the socialist and communist upheavals. This is not to say that every radical is a communist or a socialist, but that every radical is most likely schooled in the ideals of socialist thought as it relates to our current class, economic, and political system.

It is with these ideas that I encourage you, Friends of Freemont, to be weary of such copout tactics of both conservatives and liberals. Examples of such can clearly be seen this week in the NAACP’s discussion of possible Tea Party racism buttressed by the far right agenda of these political newcomers who continue to veil their greed for power with the idea that an unchanging Constitution will benefit everyone equally and the concept that organizing for the purpose of political change is a communistic ritual. Here, the liberals remain attached to the tactics of the past and are not thinking creatively to find new ways to affect the nature of the system. They are either too dumb to realize this or they are apathetic and comfortable with the continued state of things. By the same token, the Tea Party far right conservatives have no answers to our current social problems, but they find a threat in the possible upheaval of our social order. As such, they use scare tactics that are packaged with the unifying concepts of patriotism and pride. In this way, both sides are blurring our image of the social order and preventing us from advancing the revolutionary agenda.

And until we are able to recognize these realities and use our Democratic influence to change the current social structure, we will continue to be ruled by the powerful few and will eventually drown in our own apathy.

- Freemont Barrington       

Same old shit:

The Inner Party thrives, while the Proles eat their leftover excrement like the street dogs that they are. It’s time for a fucking revolt.

(If you are not getting the above references, Google Eric Arthur Blair).  

- Freemont

If the Republicans put him up to this, they have successfully unleashed the Greene Turd Squall of Bullshit.

The Elena Kagan Supreme Court hearings began this week and as much as I hate the theatrical, sound bite-pandering bullshit of it all, I must say that it continues to be striking to me how sacred Republicans hold the original document of the United States Constitution as if they perceived it in a higher regard than their first favorite book—the Bible. In fact, if the Constitution had a dick that could be sucked, I think conservatives across this grand nation would be searching out every glory hole in every highway rest stop and every airport bathroom in hope to find it and drink up its hallowed jiz. It is this same kind of cooked-up fetishization of the United States Constitution and the founding fathers that created it that’s been adopted recently by the Tea Party movement. And I would like to quite simply put forth in this blog that such feelings are nothing more than a contrived crock of shit. The idea that the U.S. Constitution—a document that was created more than two-hundred years ago by a group of white Christian men some of whom owned slaves—should not be interpreted through a more modernistic perspective of American social justice is absolutely insane. It’s about as fucking crazy as the belief that there is an old man in the sky watching over us and, with all the death and destruction and heartache in the world, what he’s really worried about is whether or not we have impure thoughts about our neighbor’s wife. I would argue, therefore, that, similar to the religious extremists who interpret the words of the Bible as literal, the true activist judges on the Supreme Court are those unwilling to view the constitution through the historical context of the present day and, in doing so, have perpetuated a grave injustice on the American public—one that continues to be a clear misrepresentation of our current population.

During Monday’s opening statements, the Republican Senator John Cornyn from the state of (brace yourself) Texas spoke of the troubling notion that Elena Kagan had sited Thurgood Marshall as a Supreme Court Justice that she admired. It was stated by the Texas Senator that due to the Justice Thurgood’s deep connection to the civil rights movement before his nomination that he became an activist judge throughout his tenure on the Supreme Court who ruled on behalf of his own self-interests. Personally, I’d guess that Senator Cornyn is most likely correct in this assumption and I believe that, if it weren’t for such judges standing up for the rights of all citizens from the perspective of their own personal passions, that the social progress of this country would have been further inhibited in the years that followed. I also contest that it is due to the continually simplistic interpretations of the United States Constitution on behalf of the conservative side of the Supreme Court that it’s become increasingly difficult for judges to establish precedents which properly represent the greater good of all United States citizens.

I find it no coincidence that the U.S. Constitution, a document written by a group of white landowners, is being used by conservative groups such as the Tea Party movement whose intent are to maintain the status quo so as not to upset our current social order. A perfect example of this can be seen in the latest 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. This recent decision appears to void Chicago’s 1982 handgun ordinance that banned city residents from possessing handguns for their personal use. After the ruling, one local woman praised the decision saying: “To those who would prey upon the citizens of the city of Chicago, to the criminals — I would like to say the Chicago crime buffet is over. We are not prey.” To me, such a statement has always been a scared cry of ignorance that is deeply rooted in self-interest and does not view city and state gun control laws and statues through the practical eyes of the present day—a time when the city of Chicago is so plagued by the disproportion number of handgun-induced homicides. I do, however, like the way this woman uses the word “prey” because clearly the ruling of this case sets out to define who exactly we deem as defenseless prey. I’m sure that the mothers of children lost to handgun fire in the streets of Chicago may have a different perception of that word. And it would seem to me that the true prey in this latest Supreme Court decision are not the guns-rights activists, but those Americans who continue to be directly affected by these stringent interpretations of the United States Constitution and those narrow-minded individuals who like to hide behind it.

So, perhaps it’s time for such constitutional-loving folks to step out from beneath their sacred document as a new group of Americans finally decide it’s worthwhile to exercise their mutually-defined rights under the second amendment.

- Freemont Barrington

The buzz in Washington today was of course the General Stanley McChrystal article that appeared in the Rolling Stone this past week. After reading the fucker today, I have come to several conclusions:

1.)   While the Rolling Stone does more interesting reporting on politics than they do on music, their writers tend to rely on gotcha journalism over intelligent reporting and they use childish adjectives to (I assume) make themselves sound hip.

2.)   It seems General McChrystal’s staff, much like the musicians that normally populate the Stone’s pages, got hammered with the writer during the fucking interview and became a bit loose lipped.

3.)   This self-induced quagmire that we’ve found ourselves in Afghanistan appears as equally fucked as our current situation at home.

4.)   Jann Wenner remains creatively bankrupt. (This is not actually related to the article, I just think he’s a pussy whose magazine has not been relevant for years and I thought I’d throw that in there).

I say all of this having (to the dismay of many of my followers) supported President Obama’s decision for the troop increase in Afghanistan. I maintain that it’s been the only real promise he’s kept from his campaign.

What I think is important to take out of the Rolling Stone article is not the drama it will cause to unfold tomorrow (as the mainstream media runs with the story of McChrystal’s visit to the White House to be reprimanded for his comments), but, instead, this concept that I have continued to put forth that we must become more conscious of the fact that we are a people controlled by those in power. And, unless we are willing to stand up and fight, we will continue to be mired in bullshit much like our current position in Afghanistan.

Look at it this way:

- As our soldiers are fighting this war on the ground, their superiors are getting drunk with Rolling Stone journalists and disparaging every colleague and White House official who questions their decision making.

- As the oil spill continues to gush in the Gulf and good people are volunteering their weekends with their children to initiate the cleanup effort, the CEO of BP is attending a yacht race with his son.

- As the Obama White House continues to blame the failed attitudes of the previous administration that let us into much of our current mess, the president spends a leisurely fucking day at the golf course with his VP.

Does that put my political vision into perspective a bit better?

I never said any of this shit was going to be easy, but it’s most important to put ourselves in a shared mindset before we achieve the first steps towards revolution.

So, fuck golf. And, once again, fuck Jann Wenner (whose revolution died decades ago).

- Freemont Barrington