#— paxton. / isms. —

[brckensociety]

WHAT'S YOUR ROLE IN A FOUND FAMILY DYNAMIC?

april riley is... the brains.

people are not so much your forte. you are more at home with thoughts, ideas, hobbies, skills. as such, you probably have to learn how to work well with others--but once you do, hey, it has its moments. while you are treasured for your ability to solve problems, people also have this unique love of novelty. when you break from your schedule, when you say something no one is expecting--that's novel. you are as curious and lovable as the subjects you study. you are family. this place is not the same without your witty comments and wry observations. you definitely feel more comfortable when someone needs a straightforward answer than a shoulder to cry on, but it's not impossible to give both. know that your family loves you for more than that, though, and will (usually) remember to respect your boundaries.

warner is... the silent sufferrer.

you love your friends, but the truth is, you go through most of the real things alone. it's better that no one sees you like this. you'll be fine, really, because you're used to feeling this way. it'll pass. it always does. that's what you believe, anyway. you're more likely to give someone advice on a lesson you've learned without telling them how you learned it. you've come to realize that, if they're coming to you for advice, they'll be too preoccupied to ask. it stings, but it's... that's just the way feelings work sometimes. when you're around others, most of these problems seem to vanish, and you're better able to love the person you are. only on the worst days do you continue to hear that insistent whisper that it's, "all a lie because they don't know what's *really* going on." it's not a lie. you are loved. those moments together are real. there are times when you can afford not to be so strong.

arachne is... the brains.

people are not so much your forte. you are more at home with thoughts, ideas, hobbies, skills. as such, you probably have to learn how to work well with others--but once you do, hey, it has its moments. while you are treasured for your ability to solve problems, people also have this unique love of novelty. when you break from your schedule, when you say something no one is expecting--that's novel. you are as curious and lovable as the subjects you study. you are family. this place is not the same without your witty comments and wry observations. you definitely feel more comfortable when someone needs a straightforward answer than a shoulder to cry on, but it's not impossible to give both. know that your family loves you for more than that, though, and will (usually) remember to respect your boundaries.

cyrus is... the "comic relief".

yes, alright, you tell your jokes and do your bits. you break awkward silences and sing silly songs. but what about when you're not keeping the levity? what else makes up the person who makes others feel good? you're kind. you connect with people. you hate to see others sad. you have a vice or two--who doesn't--but the point is, you are the epitome of what it is to be human, and you are able to encompass the absolutely zany improbability of life as we know it. people are comforted by you. they cherish your spirit and relate to you. but it can be difficult when you're not laughing. comedy becomes a wall to keep worse feelings out, or in. a person who feels any emotion to the extreme will undoubtedly feel others the same way. laughing is great, but... perhaps a big reason you appreciate your family is because there's something you can't stand in a silence.

valkyrie is... the silent sufferrer.

you love your friends, but the truth is, you go through most of the real things alone. it's better that no one sees you like this. you'll be fine, really, because you're used to feeling this way. it'll pass. it always does. that's what you believe, anyway. you're more likely to give someone advice on a lesson you've learned without telling them how you learned it. you've come to realize that, if they're coming to you for advice, they'll be too preoccupied to ask. it stings, but it's... that's just the way feelings work sometimes. when you're around others, most of these problems seem to vanish, and you're better able to love the person you are. only on the worst days do you continue to hear that insistent whisper that it's, "all a lie because they don't know what's *really* going on." it's not a lie. you are loved. those moments together are real. there are times when you can afford not to be so strong.

paxton is... the protective one.

it does not require much for you to take someone under your wing. you have a knack for seeing the best in others and rooting for them, and they look up to you in turn. they feel that you are safe to go to in times of chaos or strife, and are calmed by your presence. you take extra measures to make sure everyone feels supported. things that others might not even consider, you have already likely accounted for. in most scenarios, you are "the leader." your struggles tend to come from your desire to provide things to others. you want to give, to see those you love happy, to make wherever you are a place of comfort. your failures hit you hard because you see this as your responsibility, and you hate to let people down. ...okay, yes, there's no avoiding it: this is the parent friend.

stevie roberts is... the heart full of faith.

at some point in your life, you've probably been told you're "the glue" keeping a certain group of people together. you look on the bright side of things. you are able to convince someone that everything will be alright. your (found) family walks away from you feeling strengthened by your faith and--let's face it--wisdom. hopefully, you aren't being taken for granted in this. keeping morale up comes naturally to you. you probably do plenty without even realizing it. you're a good listener, thoughtful, kind. even leaders come to you for guidance. you may or may not be keen on being in charge yourself, but you are trustworthy, and you do right by the people who depend on you. the only person you can't always see clearly is yourself. it's easy to tell someone their potential but incredibly difficult to realize your own. you need the support of others just as much as they need you--but once you're put to the test, you'll realize you had the right stuff in you all along.

axel is... the hermit who helps.

at first, you were a resource for the established characters to turn to, but you quickly began to steal the show due to your personality, your usefulness, or your inherently interesting perspective on life. you were pretty much already able to provide for yourself, but the next thing you know, these people are growing on you. instead of asking favors, it becomes an invitation to socialize. you find yourself sticking around for no apparent reason other than you like it here. the people are fun to watch, if nothing else, but ultimately they're just--oh no. oh no, you care about them. you always thought you stayed away from this "relationship" stuff for a reason. it gets messy and isn't worth it unless it really works. for some reason, this group really works. these weirdos are now your weirdos, and if anything happens to them, there will be hell to pay. you were basically already looking after them before this, after all. welcome to the family, hermit.

tagged by: @ruinedsoulsrp tagging: @cfthesoull, @angelsdvsts, @wefxundwonderland & whoever else wants to do it and sees this!

[brckensocietyarchive]

tag drop | paxton striker

[metamatar]

Definitions are inherently limiting. They frame a static picture of something that is better perceived in movement, and they portray as “frozen ‘statuary’ ” something that is better understood as a process. They succumb all too often to the intellectual’s temptation to take programmatic statements as constitutive, and to identify fascism more with what it said than with what it did. The quest for the perfect definition, by reducing fascism to one ever more finely honed phrase, seems to shut off questions about the origins and course of fascist development rather than open them up. It is a bit like observing Madame Tussaud’s waxworks instead of living people, or birds mounted in a glass case instead of alive in their habitat.

(...)

In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name. Fascism is “true” insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other peoples in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason. The first fascists were entirely frank about this.

We [Fascists] don’t think ideology is a problem that is resolved in such a way that truth is seated on a throne. But, in that case, does fighting for an ideology mean fighting for mere appearances? No doubt, unless one considers it according to its unique and efficacious psychological-historical value. The truth of an ideology lies in its capacity to set in motion our capacity for ideals and action. Its truth is absolute insofar as, living within us, it suffices to exhaust those capacities.

(....)

The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity,historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a vast collective enterprise; the gratification of submerging oneself in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination. Fascism’s deliberate replacement of reasoned debate with immediate sensual experience transformed politics,as the exiled German cultural critic Walter Benjamin was the first to point out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate fascist aesthetic experience, Benjamin warned in 1936, was war.

(...)

We do not doubt the utility of communism as a generic term because of its profoundly different expressions in, say, Russia, Italy, and Cambodia. Nor do we discard the term liberalism because liberal politics took dissimilar forms in free-trading, Bible-reading Victorian Britain, in the protectionist, anticlerical France of the Third Republic, or in Bismarck’s aggressively united German Reich. Indeed “liberalism” would be an even better candidate for abolition than “fascism,” now that Americans consider “liberals” the far Left while Europeans call “liberals” advocates of a hands-off laissez-faire free market such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Even fascism isn’t as confusing as that.

Introduction to The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O Paxton

[nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany]

Robert O. Paxton’s “The Five Stages of Fascism”

Digital Elixir Robert O. Paxton’s “The Five Stages of Fascism”

By Lambert Strether of Corrente

The word “fascism” has been much in the news of late. Here is a chart of the year 2019 from Google Trends:

Interestingly, usage is more or less flat until the first spike, when President Trump put tanks on the National Mall for July 4, and then a second, larger spike, when he gave his Greenville, NC speech, and the crowd chanted, of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, “send them back.” Omar reacted as follows:

Rep. Ilhan Omar called President Trump "fascist" and said she fears for people who share her identity, after a crowd at his rally led a "Send her back!" chant about the Somali-American congresswoman https://t.co/zpsZ02qtbS pic.twitter.com/06iZXDT7mY

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 18, 2019

Omar is a serious person and that’s a serious charge, so it’s worth looking at. Certainly my left/work corner of the Twittersphere was consumed by the word “fascism,” to the extent that RussiaRussiaRussia was drowned out. Notably, however, the two spikes, and the resulting moral panic, were caused by symbols: Tanks on the mall, and a speech. (Interestingly, words about the border, like “concentration camps,” and “fascism” do not spike simultaneously, even though one might expect them to. We’ll see more about symbols in the Appendices.) However, although fascist deliverables often have excellent symbolism — graphic treatments especially — fascism is about more than symbols, although you might not know it from the ruminations of our symbol-manipulating poltical class.

So I thought it would be worthwhile to take a deeper look at the work of Columbia historian Robert O. Paxton, who is a scholar of fascism. Basically, this post will be the notes for the class I wish I had taken with him; Paxton writes as lucidly as another great scholar of fascism, Richard J. Evans, author of The Coming of the Third Reich and two wonderful successor volumes. I’m going to quote great slabs mostly from Paxton’s article “The Five Stages of Fascism” (The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. Mar., 1998, pp. 1-23), but also from his later book, The Anatomy of Fascism (2004). “Five Stages” is only 24 pages, and easy, so do consider reading it in full, because I’m not really doing it justice; I’m leaving out all the historiography, for example.

And so to Paxton. I’m selecting passages partly when they contain useful ideas I just don’t see in today’s discourse, but mostly to give us tools to assess the current “conjuncture,” as we say.

Fascism and Democracy

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 3:

The fascist phenomenon was poorly understood at the beginning in part because it was unexpected. Until the end of the nineteenth century, most political thinkers believed that widening the vote would inevitably benefit democracy and socialism. Friedrich Engels, noting the rapid rise of the socialist vote in Germany and France, was sure that time and numbers were on his side. Writing the preface for a new edition in 1895 of Karl Marx’s Class Struggles in France, he declared that “if it continues in this fashion, we will conquer the major part of the middle classes and the peasantry and will become the decisive power.” It took two generations before the Left understood that fascism is, after all, an authentic mass popular enthusiasm and not merely [1] a clever manipulation of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or [2] by capitalism in crisis.

I think most “hot take” analysis by liberals would fall into the bucket labeled [1]; by the left, label [2]. I think the idea that democracy is, as it were, the host body for fascism deserves some thought. Certainly there was no fascism as such until democracy was well advanced.

Fascism: Made in America?

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 12:

But it is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some former Confederate officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel to the legal state, which, in its founders’ eyes, no longer defended their community’s legitimate interests. In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group’s destiny, the first version of the Klan in the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe. It is arguable, at least, that fascism (understood functionally) was born in the late 1860s in the American South.

(As an aside: It’s probably coincidence, but Civil War tactics, especially by the time of the Overland Campaign, were also a “remarkable preview” of World War I. Intuitively, I feel that fascism does not take hold of the body politic without a lot of organic damage, whether in the entrenchments of the Civil War, the trenches of World War I, or — just possibly — the opioid crisis, deaths of despair, and falling life expectancy.) Hitler’s American Model shows that Nazi jurists and lawyers came to America to research Jim Crow, and thought very highly of the legislation; they saw Jim Crow as an example of modernity — how advanced the United States was. Of course, by their lights, Jim Crow was misdirected.

Mutability of Fascism

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 4:

[Individual cases of fascism] differ in space because each national variant of fascism draws its legitimacy, as we shall see, not from some universal scripture but from what it considers the most authentic elements of its own community identity. Religion, for example, would certainly play a much greater role in an authentic fascism in the United States than in the first European fascisms, which were pagan for contingent historical reasons. They differ in time because of the transformations and accommodations demanded of those movements that seek power.

And page 5:

Fascists deny any legitimacy to universal principles to such a point that they even neglect proselytism. Authentic fascism is not for export. Particular national variants of fascism differ far more profoundly one from another in themes and symbols than do the national variants of the true “isms.” The most conspicuous of these variations, one that leads some to deny the validity of the very concept of generic fascism, concerns the nature of the indispensable enemy: within Mediterranean fascisms, socialists and colonized peoples are more salient enemies than is the Jewry. Drawing their slogans and their symbols from the patriotic repertory of one particular community, fascisms are radically unique in their speech and insignia. They fit badly into any system of universal intellectual principles.

One result of the “Lost Cause” propaganda and the historiography of the Dunning School — William Dunning, ironically enough, professed at Columbia as well — is that the notion that there might already have been an American Fascism (see above) is not available to us. Hence, we often see Nazis (and generally Nazis, not even Mussolini) as the quintessential fascists. The argument can be made that globalization has, in fact, created fascism of export — some in my Twitterverse had no problem believing that Trump was simultaneously a Russian puppet and a fascist — but I just don’t see how that helps fascism to root itself (see below) in any given country, which is a requirement for it to grow.

The Stages of Fascism

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 11:

But one must compare what is comparable. A regime where fascism exercises power is hardly comparable to a sect of dissident intellectuals. We must distinguish the different stages of fascism in time. It has long been standard to point to the difference between movements and regimes. I believe we can usefully distinguish more stages than that, if we look clearly at the very different sociopolitical processes involved in each stage. I propose to isolate five of them: (1) the initial creation of fascist movements; (2) their rooting as parties in a political system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the exercise of power; and, finally, in the longer term, (5) radicalization or entropy.

And stage 2, the importance of parties, pages 12-13:

The second stage—rooting, in which a fascist movement becomes a party capable of acting decisively on the political scene—happens relatively rarely. At this stage, comparison becomes rewarding: one can contrast successes with failures. Success depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies seems to condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner. Some fascist leaders, in their turn, are willing to reposition their movements in alliances with these frightened conservatives, a step that pays handsomely in political power, at the cost of disaffection among some of the early antibourgeois militants.

That underlined portion does seem familar, doesn’t it? However, it’s worth noting that there’s no “seem” to American decline; how is a nation with dropping life expectancy not in decline? It’s also worth noting that “frightened conservatives” doesn’t necessarily equal Republicans; it was not, after all, the Republican Party that painted the anti-semitism target on Ilhan Omar’s back. It’s worth asking, then, whether centrist Democrats would seek a bipartisan alliance against the left.

Fascism Today

Here is Paxton’s first definition of fascism, from the Five Stages of Fascism pages 22-23:

Where is the “fascism minimum” in all this? Has generic fascism evaporated in this analysis? It is by a functional definition of fascism that we can escape from these quandaries. Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline. Its complex tensions (political revolution versus social restoration, order versus aggressive expansionism, mass enthusiasm versus civic submission) are hard to understand solely by reading its propaganda. One must observe it in daily operation….

And his second, from The Anatomy of Fascism, page 218:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim- hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Speaking as an amateur, I think the two definitions map to each other, and both to the present day (“liberal democracy stands accused” v. “abandons democratic liberties,” but I like the second one much better, because the language is crisper, and is testable. For example, “redemptive violence”: During Reconstruction, the states that came under control of the former Slave Power, a process achieved by great violence, were referred to as “redeemed.”

More from the Five Stages of Fascism, page 23:

Can fascism still exist today, in spite of the humiliating defeat of Hitler and Mussolini, the declining availability of the war option in a nuclear age, the seemingly irreversible globalization of the economy, and the triumph of in- dividualistic consumerism? After ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the rise of exclusionary nationalisms in postcommunist Eastern Europe, the “skinhead” phenomenon in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, and Italy, and the election of `

Mirko Tremaglia, a veteran of the Republic of Salo, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Parliament during the Berlusconi government, it would be hard to answer “no” to that question.

The most interesting cases today, however, are not those that imitate the exotic colored-shirt movements of an earlier generation. New functional equivalents of fascism would probably work best, as George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time. An authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days, anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile. We may legitimately conclude, for example, that the skinheads are functional equivalents of Hitler’s SA and Mussolini’s squadristi: only if important elements of the conservative elite begin to cultivate them as weapons against some internal enemy, such as immigrants.

Rather prescient for 1998, I must say. (And much as I loathe black bloc, it may be that they have their place in making these “functional equivalents” less easy to form.) Nevertheless, we do not have a “mass-based party of committed nationalist militants,” Yet. Paxton goes on:

The right questions to ask of today’s neo- or protofascisms are those appropriate for the second and third stages of the fascist cycle. Are they becoming rooted as parties that represent major interests and feelings and wield major influence on the political scene? [TBD] Is the economic or constitutional system in a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities? [Yes] Is a rapid political mobilization threatening to escape the control of traditional elites, to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge? [TBD] It is by answering those kinds of questions, grounded in a proper historical understanding of the processes at work in past fascisms, and not by checking the color of the shirts or seeking traces of the rhetoric of the national-syndicalist dissidents of the opening of the twentieth century, that we may be able to recognize our own day’s functional equivalents of fascism.

And from Anatomy, page 218:

Fascism exists at the level of Stage One within all democratic countries—not excluding the United States. “Giving up free institutions,” especially the freedoms of unpopular groups, is recurrently attractive to citizens of Western democracies, including some Americans. We know from tracing its path that fascism does not require a spectacular “march” on some capital to take root; seemingly anodyne decisions to tolerate lawless treatment of national “enemies” is enough. Something very close to classical fascism has reached Stage Two in a few deeply troubled societies. Its further progress is not inevitable, however. Further fascist advances toward power depend in part upon the severity of a crisis, but also very largely upon human choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social, and political power.

Our immune system kills off little cancers all the time; a metastatizing tumor takes a lot of effort to create. Stage One fascisms are little cancers, killed off by a healthy body politic. Stage Two fascisms, without treatment, will metastatize.

Conclusion

I think we’re somewhere in Stage Two: Rooting — or, to be optimistic, Uprooting. I invite the views of readers!

APPENDIX I: “Cosmopolitan”

Stoller tweeted, of a speech by possible Trump 2.0 Josh Hawley:

Liberals are freaking out about these comments, but Hawley is correct. Does anyone doubt Wall Street/Silicon Valley and their weird globalization fetish has harmed the middle class? Beating Hawley is going to require better policy, not better tantrums. https://t.co/yyfbSgBMuK

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) July 18, 2019

Then ensued the most moralizing and banal Twitter discussion I’ve seen in some time, and that’s saying something. Hawley used the word “cosmopolitican” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry here), which Stoller’s detractors felt proved Hawley was sending an anti-semitic dog whistle, and hence Stoller, in defending him, was an anti-semite too. (Paxton: “not by checking the color of the shirts or seeking traces of the rhetoric….”). To show how useless the entire episode was, I’ll quote The Nation’s Jeet Heer:

All politics is based on a division between friend & foe. A left-wing populist-nationalist can make big business the foe. The right-wing nationalist can't because they accept capitalism & are often financed by wealthy, so their foe is the (cough, cough) cosmopolitan

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) July 20, 2019

Of course, the view that “all politics is based on a division between friend and foe” could be traced right back to Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt, whose doctrine that was, and so Heer could be said to be sending an anti-semitic dog whistle. Of course that’s absurd, because context matters. Our symbol manipulating professional friends in the political class would do far better to look at function instead of checking their Index Expurgatorius of words suitable for censure and calling out. Liberals, and the left, have been calling out “dog whistles” for twenty years, at least. It hasn’t gotten them anywhere. Yet still they do it!

Robert O. Paxton’s “The Five Stages of Fascism”

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2GqOyJP via IFTTT

[beigeloaf-blog]

Album Review: CTRL

SZA’s CTRL isn’t just a debut album, it’s the climax of an essential chapter in her journey towards self-realization in love, self-worth, and purpose. With tracks penned for Rihanna and Beyoncé, we knew SZA had the writing chops and with CTRL there is no doubt that she is a force to be reckoned with. 14-tracks deep, this project is rich with potent lyricism, multilayered production, and pushes a powerful theme that creates a space for open exploration in defining our womanhood through concepts of control.

CTRL opens with “Supermodel.” Driven by a poignant guitar riff, this song is an open letter depicting revenge, insecurities, and a deep thirst for the thing that both destroys and completes her being. Pharrell tops off the track with rhythmic whispers and the seemingly hollow production lays an open foundation for the intricate and varied aural skeleton that frames this album’s soundscape.

Next is, “Love Galore.” Assisted by Travis Scott, this track offers listeners a little bounce. The visual, directed by Nabildo, supports the story of regrets in love. “Should’ve never let you hit it / I split it with you / I regret it / You gots a fetish / You gots a problem / Now It’s a problem.” In the end, SZA gets the laugh and finds a way to put self first, fully escaping her lovers control over her self-worth. The video ends with Travis Scott, love interest, savagely murdered.lovers control over her self-worth. The video ends with Travis Scott, love interest, savagely murdered.Nabildo, supports the story of regrets in love. “Should’ve never let you hit it / I split it with you / I regret it / You gots a fetish / You gots a problem / Now It’s a problem.” In the end, SZA gets the laugh and finds a way to put self first, fully escaping her lovers control over her self-worth. The video ends with Travis Scott, love interest, savagely murdered.

With a guest appearance from fellow TDE-mate Kendrick Lamar, “Doves In The Wind” is a tale of pussy power. Kendrick snaps on his verse delivering each line with his signature texture of pocketed rhythm and melody, “Niggas’ll lose they mind for it / Wine for it, dine for it (pussy) / Spend time for it, see no colored line for it (pussy).” Followed by lead single “Drew Berrymore” and “Prom,” “Doves In The Wind” is a brief reprieve from finding answers by grappling with control in the sense of what a man does to women and rather articulates the blinding power a woman can have over men.

The sixth track, “The Weekend,” is definitely a stand out. But more importantly, it’s a side chick anthem… After listening to the song I felt the strong desire to join in on the fun and shout from the depths of my soul, “These niggas for everybody!” SZA doesn’t deliver a modest or defeated explanation for side chick-ism. She re-appropriates the concept, empowering women to not get caught up in the mess of a man, but to simply get what we each need and keep it pushing. The hook reads, “My man is my man is your man / Heard that’s her man too / Tuesday and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday / I just keep him satisfied through the weekend / You’re like 9 to 5, I’m the weekend / Make him lose his mind every weekend.”

During an appearance on the Breakfast Club SZA explained the next track “Go Gina,” as being somewhat in the vein of character Gina from the classic 90s series Martin. “Gina was always like the semi-corporate, kind of stuck up, but also really beautiful and had a sense of humor, but she looked like if she lived like Pam she might have more fun.” SZA caps everything off with the idea of just living your life and not being afraid to be crazy.

Soothingly bright, “Garden (Say It Like Dat)” departs a bit from the more vibey tone of the project, but stays on the mark with the overall theme, showcasing a desire to be wanted and reassured by a lover. This track delivers the line that just might get the most Insta-caption/Twitter play, “Lie to me and say my booty getting’ bigger even if it ain’t.”

“Broken Clocks,“ released on June 2nd is a vibe for sure. If I had to pick a song that showcases the muscle of SZA’s vocals and syncopation, this would be the one. The next track “Anything,” backed by a fluttering, technology-esque beat, reminiscent of the album cover, also highlights her ability to create a trance with her raspy, yet buttery, vocals and her rhythmic flows.

If James Fauntleroy is on an album, you know it’s good. He pops up on the album’s interlude, “Wavy.” SZA mentioned on Twitter that a full version of the track exists, thus prompting us all to desperately salivate until it’s dropped. Tracks “Normal Girl” and “Pretty Little Birds,” the latter featuring another TDE artist Isaiah Rashad, prepare us for the final song of CTRL… “20 Something.” This track seamlessly puts a face to the angst that is so central to the experience of living, growing, and finding yourself as a 20-something year old. “How could it be? / 20 something, all alone still / Not a thing in my name / Ain’t got nothin’, runnin’ from love / Only know fear / That’s me, Ms. 20 Something.” I’ve been extra thirsty for this song since hearing a preview at the beginning of the short behind the scenes/documentary piece, “SZA — Where Have You Been: Road to CTRL,” released back in February. It’s the perfect conclusion to CTRL and offers a point of relief for young 20-somethings wondering if we’re in this alone.

Prior to the CTRL rollout, it wasn’t clear where SZA was going to take her career. After tweeting “I Quit,” and tagging Punch, The president of her label/management company, TDE, fans speculated that she was having issues with the TDE team. She recently mentioned during an interview, with Nessa of Hot 97, that the tweet was more about quitting music all together, but triggered by a conversation with Punch. “I am very dramatic, and I’m like easily angered and I was having an exorbitantly bad day, completely unconnected to music, on some family shit. And then I got into an argument about some music with Punch and it just took me over the edge. And I was like wow this is a hobby I don’t want to continue anymore.”

Thankfully, after four years of hoping and waiting, CTRL is out and this project is crucial for, not just urban music culture, but music culture as a whole. It’s one of those projects that are hard to box in with the, sometimes limiting, label of a genre and it’s one that could become a definitive marker or soundtrack for an entire generation. As her official debut album, CTRL, hits hard and solidifies the foundation for SZA’s freshman chapter in music, setting her up to become one of the greats.

Composer Credits - 

1. Supermodel - Tyran Donaldson / Terrence Henderson / Greg Landfair, Jr. / Solana Rowe / Pharrell Williams

2. Love Galore (Feat. Travis Scott) - Cody Fayne / Terrence Henderson / Carter Lang / Solana Rowe / Jacques Webster

3. Doves In The Wind (Feat. Kendrick Lamar) -  Kendrick Duckworth / Solana Rowe / Trevor Smith / Cam O'Bi 

4. Drew Barrymore - Tyran Donaldson / Terrence Henderson / Carter Lang / Solana Rowe / Macie Stewart

5. Prom - Tyran Donaldson / Carter Lang / Solana Rowe

6. The Weekend - Cody Fayne / Timothy Mosley / Solana Rowe / Justin Timberlake

7. Go Gina - Tyran Donaldson / Adam Feeney / Carter Lang / Solana Rowe

8. Garden (Say It Like Dat) - Craig Balmoris / Solana Rowe / Daniel Tannenbaum

9. Broken Clocks - Cody Fayne / Adam Feeney / Thomas Paxton-Beesley / Solana Rowe / Angela Simmons

10. Anything - Pete Bellotte / Tyran Donaldson / Carter Lang / Giorgio Moroder / Solana Rowe

11. Wavy (Interlude) [Feat. James Fauntleroy] - James Fauntleroy / Cody Fayne / Lukasz Plas / Solana Rowe

12. Normal Girl - Tyran Donaldson / Terrence Henderson / Carter Lang / Solana Rowe

13. Pretty Little Birds (Feat. Isaiah Rashad) - Tyran Donaldson / Carter Lang / Josef Leimberg / Isaiah McClain / Solana Rowe

14. 20 Something - Tyran Donaldson / Carter Lang / Solana Rowe

[sundayluv-a]

.

[videogcmesmovedagain]

TAGS 2

[brckensociety]

tag drop | paxton striker, peach chapman & quinn frost

[brckensocietyarch]

tag drop | paxton striker