A Freebie from Freemont

There’s been much discussion over the use of vulgarity within the world of Freemont over the last few weeks. And, quite frankly, I’m getting fucking sick of it. If you tuned into Roger Nicholson’s show this past Sunday you saw this discussion first hand as we tried to hash it out with the Executive Director of CCTV, Susan Fleischmann. Susan was a good sport to come on air with us and I think it provided for some interesting real life content for the show. But, I also feel that it is necessary for me to further clarify here the purpose behind my use of vulgarity on this blog. Because it will become quite important as I move forward with the creation of my own program, The Freemont Show, which will air on Somerville Community Access Television in the weeks ahead and will be a cleaned-up version of what you may have caught on CCTV and read on this blog.

Let me start by saying that every revolutionary like myself knows that vulgarity is an important part of the revolution. That is because the human experience can be brought down to its most basic level when we completely free ourselves from such societal constraints such as the ambiguous obscenity standards that exist within the United States of America. As a radical, I believe in a revolution in which the middleclass must embrace the vulgarity and the abrasiveness that exists on the streets among the poor and downtrodden folks of our community. By doing this, they will be able to more freely open themselves up to joining with the lower classes in the revolutionary fight of restoring the power back to the people—a power that has been politically highjacked by the wealthiest people of this nation for decades. For me, vulgarity is the focal point at which we radicals must make a connection with the middleclass because it is the everyday willingness of the middleclass to adhere to the cultural norms of the rich and powerful that prevents the progress of a revolution. And, until the middleclass realizes this, the revolution will not be able to achieve its fullest potential for success.

The opposite of a revolution is the maintenance of the status quo by the rich and powerful. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the rich to preserve a middleclass that is both obedient and apathetic. Only when the middleclass becomes willing to embrace the culture of the struggle (by shedding their loyalty to the social standards that are dictated by the rich) will they be ready to join our revolution. I believe that the easiest way to crack the middleclass’s shell of social apathy is through the use of vulgar and sexual politics. That is why I embrace the use of vulgarity with open arms and that is why, within this blog, I aim to create political satire through the use of vulgar words and images. I am not simply trying to shock. My goal is not to pollute the minds of America’s youth. Instead, I am working to change the way that people think about the world around them and how they confront the political challenges that continue to prevent a more rich state of social equality within the United States of America. So, despite possessing a dirty mouth that could use a good soap washing, I also lay claim to a mind that is deeply concerned with the advancement of equality and firmly founded in the intellectualism of social thought. 

That is my philosophy on vulgarity. And, as I move ahead with The Freemont Show, I will adhere to the rules of Somerville Public Access Television in order to spread the Good News of Freemont Barrington over their local airwaves. But know that the true nature of my revolution will remain here on this blog and on the tongues of the people that make up the Friends of Freemont across this battered nation.

Power to the Friends of Free,

Mr. Freemont Barrington   

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