#i feel i must publish a manifesto for all those who are yet to be converted

[anythingbyadriannelenker]

i have been tryin g to articulate this thought in real life for like 6 months now and no one seems to fully get it but if anyone has my back it’s the little lgbts in my phone.

lesbianism is not simply a sexuality. it is a state of being. let me explain— i would say most lesbians were not genuinely attracted (at least not in a sexual sense) to any woman prior to like age 9 HOWEVER most lesbians would not deny that they were a young lesbian at that age. there are also just some generational traits of lesbianism that go beyond being attracted to woman as a woman. for example, i and nearly every gen z lesbian i know had a repressed crush on katana in atla at like age 7, had some sort of fandom/special interest that defined their pre-teen years, and now uses making playlists as a love language. similarly, my mother is a lesbian. it doesn’t matter that she is married to my father, everything else about her screams gen x lesbian. any knowledgeable lesbian would come to that conclusion within 10 minutes of talking to her. in conclusion, lesbianism is an identity that goes beyond sexuality.

now that brings me to the gender point— lesbianism also defies gender. identifying as a woman is not a precursor for being a lesbian. if one wishes to identify as male or genderqueer but also as lesbian, one identity does not cancel out the other. if a enby person wishes to be a lesbian, a lesbian they will be. hell, if a cis male really really wishes to be a lesbian (like really), a lesbian they will be. if anyone wishes to be a lesbian, and they commit their entire being to being a lesbian, a lesbian they will be.

now you may be wondering “what, op, is your point??” my point is— remember that one time you looked at someone or met someone and though “i know they’re not a homosexual female and i acknowledge that as true, however, your honor, that is a lesbian.” you were right. that is, in fact, a lesbian.

for example— i committed myself to watching every thing elijah wood has ever been in around 6 months ago. through this exploration of the elijah wood filmography, i started to notice that every character he plays just screams lesbian. frodo baggins? lesbian. wirt from otgw? lesbian. todd brotzman? lesbian. the guy who eats speghetti off some girls tits? LESBIAN. the list goes on. now in my research on the man himself, i noticed that this phenomenon was not exclusive to fictional characters. i watched recent interviews, old teenage interviews, viewed photo shoots on pinterest, read wikipedia and news articles, and with each one i was further convinced he is a lesbian.

i would like to say that i recognize that he is a straight cis male. however, he is also a lesbian. i can give evidence and i have, but i believe this is unnecessary. as with my mother, i believe any knowledgeable lesbian can and will come to the same conclusion.

tl;dr— lesbianism is an identity that goes beyond sexuality or gender. with this premise, i present: elijah wood is a lesbian.

[greenlodgecypher]

Cypher Editorial and Update

by Adria

How things have changed. The community of a person, the society they live in, hasn't disappeared in the modern day; it's moved on.

We made our own communities. We published our manifestos of what we love. We found our own people. Haven't we, here, sought out the creativity and creations of others in our lives? Shared our enjoyments and mutual love? Isn't the Internet an echo of our cries to one another? Surely there is a future there! I hope so. But I wonder if those things can last. How long will a website be maintained? What, when they leave? E-mails can fall silent. Chat rooms die. The friends you have may not bother to stay in contact. There are so many things worth loving that will fall into obscurity. Getting specialty items is hard when they were published years ago and will never be again. There are so many films that have no proper release in this country, or in this time. Home video is an increasingly lacking medium. What will return on DVD? What callous license-holder will simply sit on their hoard of art that, though beloved to us, means nothing save a margin to them? How many passages of some soundtrack must I remember, and be fated never to hear again? It is all water in our hands. The Ensor Zone can be a strange place. People thought that it was rural, safe, and satisfyingly isolated yet conveniently close to the more commercially developed places in the state. But it is insular. Isolationist. It is part of a diverse state, yet people act as if it has nothing to do with the rest of that community. It has a lot of expensive estates, yet it also feels like it's full of houses and places that are slowly decaying away (yes, even before this year). The farm history is disappearing. Who now knows that the area was known for a women's jousting competition as recently as the 30s? Who learns the dark histories of the locale? That north of the Line, people were kidnapped and taken back here to be enslaved? Who remembers the early industry here? The clear-cut fields? How the world has changed. We remember so little of this, as a community. But what community is there? Even before we started having to move, what continuity of culture? Now that there are major pressures to leave, we find that these communities melt away into nothing. There is nowhere back and nowhere forward to move. Those with the money can leave. Families with ties elsewhere, perhaps. Those without any of this are dependent on the goodwill of an increasingly more hapless government to make do. They wanted me to cut that sentence. I don't care what Compliance wants anymore. I'm sending in this print file and they can shut me down for all I care. These things may be only a fig leaf, a remnant of the idea that anything can be done at all. There may be no future. I have a confession to make to you all. Gillian, my partner in the Cypher, has been submitting her articles from Wollstone, and soon may be leaving the state entirely. Her departure is due to several reasons, not the least the growing problems in our area. Kino may be moving to California, after the loss of their stock. Meanwhile, there is a new circle of trees on the field above my family home, where there were no trees before. We're having the yard inspected again shortly. I don't want to leave, but I may need to in the end. Remediation doesn't leave much behind. Because we could not leave before, and because inspections are starting to be made outside the Zone, there may be no more aid for us. There may be no Cypher next month. I don't think I can see this through. Surely, I tell you again, there is a future. But I don't know if I believe it myself.

[srbachchan]

DAY 4831

Jalsa, Mumbai                   May 20,  2021                 Thu 9:14 PM

Birthday  - Ef Gopi Sheth .. Ef Aish TVM .. Friday, May 21 .. our greetings and love on this special day .. be safe be well and be protected .. ❤️🌹

A dear friend sent me this article .. I thought it was a very good read and so thought of putting it here :

Write Tight

What is poetry? Etymology provides more questions than answers.

T. S. Eliot, who once famously called National Poetry Month the cruelest, was also one of many to point out the hopeless semantic tangles that ensue because “poetry” has two opposites. Poetry can be the lined stuff, often with rhymes, as opposed to sentences and paragraphs; poetry can also be the good stuff, as opposed to the plodding or simply informational. But if good prose can be poetic, a novel can be “pure poetry,” and poems can be prosaic, then it’s not clear what anyone is talking about, really. Or rather, it’s clear except to theorists trying to come up with definitions. Poetry is what’s thrilling, while a poem is that poor thing with eleven readers, eight of them members of the poet’s extended family.

Etymology doesn’t help—it only highlights that the apples and oranges here are how the thing is made and how it moves. Poetry is from the Greek poiein, “to make”: a poem is something made, or in English we would more naturally say crafted. Yet everyone agrees good prose is well crafted, too. Prose means, literally, “straightforward,” from the Latin prosa, proversus, “turned to face forward” (whereas verse is all wound up, twisty and snaky, “turned” in every direction except, apparently, forward). Yet we all know that poems can be clear and direct, too, especially when they’re songs.

Sidelining sonnets and quarantining quatrains in the poetry ghetto does produce a certain clarity. But of course it also creates problems when translating from languages that gerrymander poetry differently. In German, for example, writer is a word even more literal than the English “someone who writes”: it’s Schriftsteller, a put-down-on-paper-er (Schrift = “writing,” stellen = “to place, to put”). Autor is a word used a bit less often for pretty much the same thing, unlike in English, where there’s a difference: author expresses a professional and financial identity (there are no “unpublished authors,” unless maybe the manuscript is finished and the contract is signed), while a writer is someone pursuing an activity (published or not, paid or not, read or not).

And then there’s a Dichter, usually translated “poet” but meaning a creator of poetry in the grand sense. The verb dichten means “to write poetry, ” and a poem is a dichten-ed thing, a Gedicht, but dichten means more generally to write poetically and well. The good stuff. The writer as hero of the spirit. How do you say that in English? We don’t have heroes of the spirit.

At least not according to Grimm’s German Dictionary—the equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary, and started by those same Brothers Grimm who brought us “Little Red Riding Hood.” It gloats that dichten means “to create poetically, filled with a higher intelligence,” and that “the word does not exist in French and English: they work around it with s’adonner à la poésie, faire des vers; to compose a poem, to make verses, to versify.” The OED can fire back all it wants—pleading that dight had “an extraordinary sense-development” in Middle English from its original “senses of literary dictation and composition,” to become “one of the most widely used words in the language”—but its efforts are in vain. From that whole extraordinary range of meanings we use exactly none anymore.

“To understand the word,” Grimm’s poetically goes on, “we must go back to an earlier time …” Dichten originally meant to write something down so it could be read or sung, something that had already been worked out in the mind (from the Latin dictare, “to say, to dictate”). It swerved into meaning the mental working-out, too, the originating creative act. A sixteenth-century saying already plays on the same double meaning that causes ambiguity in English: “A good enough rhyme-smith, but hardly a poet” (Reimschmiede genug, aber wenig Dichter). But from there, the word left the confines of verse. In German, you can still call someone a poet in the grand sense without consigning him to the poetry ghetto.

So what is a Dichter in prose? I have caved on occasion and translated Dichter as “poet,” in cases where the character in question may or may not be a poet (e.g., Robert Walser’s story “Letter from a Poet to a Gentleman”), or happens to be a poet even if that’s not really the point. Goethe was a poet, so the title of his autobiography, Dichtung und Wahrheit, can be translated as it usually is, Poetry and Truth, even though the book is not particularly about verse as opposed to other forms. His topic is actually Imagination and Truth, but imagination set down on paper. To put it anachronistically: Creative Writing and the Truth.

Sometimes, though, “poet” risks being downright misleading. A twentieth-century German writer named Uwe Johnson, known as the Dichter der beiden Deutschlands (the Dichter of both East and West Germany), wrote only prose. Call him the “poet of both Germanies” and people will think he’s a poet. He is more like “the voice of divided Germany,” or even “the bard,” despite being neither a songwriter nor Shakespeare. In English, we can get the grandeur (voice) or the job (writer, author, novelist), but not both.

There are cognates of dichten, from the same Latin dictare, but they never took on the same soaring spirit in English, at least since the demise of dight. Very much on the contrary. Our closest cognate, indite, “to put into words, write, compose, give literary form to,” was more or less completely swamped by what was once the same word, indict, “to write up charges, bring legal action against.” (Probably under interference from indicare, “to indicate, give evidence against”; and indicere, “to declare publicly,” compare Italian indicere, “to denounce.”) To translate Dichter as “inditer” won’t do. Even our least sarcastic Dichter is sarcastic about that: “Perhaps my best moments I never jot down; when they come I cannot afford to break the charm by inditing memoranda”—Walt Whitman.

Coincidentally, dicht in German also means “tight,” as in watertight or airtight (from Old Norse þéttr, apparently completely unrelated etymologically to dictare), and the verb dichten is also “to seal, caulk, make impermeable,” as well as “to make more dense or compact.” Ezra Pound played on the pun in his second most well-known slogan for what poetry does (after “Make it new”): dichten = condensare. An imagist manifesto in twenty characters: to write poetry is to condense and supercharge language. (Pound attributed the equation to the poet Basil Bunting “fumbling about with a German–Italian dictionary”; actually, Bunting knew what he was doing, and wasn’t exactly fumbling. Pound = condescendere.)

This may not be a less ambiguous definition of poetry, but it is a good challenge for the Dichters in our midst, in poetry or prose. Don’t just make it new: make it tight.

with admiration for the ones that read and feel read ..❤️

Amitabh Bachchan

[hellomynameisbisexual]

As a nonbinary bisexual, I’m no stranger to people erasing me and telling me that I’m something I’m not. With the rise of terms like “pansexuality” and “omnisexuality,” many people unfamiliar with the true nature of bisexuality now think that it’s transphobic or otherwise binary — some go so far as to claim bisexuals only believe in two genders.

People assert that, while bisexuality allegedly means “attraction to two genders,” pansexuality and omnisexuality, unlike bisexuality, denote “attraction to all genders.” It’s easy to think this way if only examining the terms at face value, but this comparison is an outright lie. Some others say that new labels were a response to transphobic exclusion from the bisexual community — this is similarly not the case. (I’ll be compiling a piece on the history of the “pansexual” label at a later date.) Using this “reasoning” to separate bisexuality from these other terms is woefully inaccurate and disrespectful to bisexual and transgender people.

While there are cissexist definitions of bisexuality, that holds true for “gay” and “straight,” too. Bisexuals have also described our orientation as attraction regardless of gender¹ for decades — at least fifty years or so — and we still do. Before words like “transgender” and “nonbinary” came about, bisexuals still often saw themselves as attracted to people beyond gender.

Androgyny and gender-nonconformity are also a staple in bisexual culture. Major bisexual icons throughout history explored and embraced it. Look at bisexual chic, especially the glam rock era. Some bisexual activists and organizations have historically included and allied with transgender and nonbinary people, and many of us are transgender or nonbinary ourselves.

Below are just a few examples of the hidden secret of our gender-expansiveness. (Including a quote here does not equal my approval of what was said. Keep in mind the times during which they were recorded as well as the footnotes.)

Sources without links can be downloaded for free from ZLibrary, borrowed from the Open Library, or found wherever you purchase or borrow physical books. Sources without a year next to them are those for which I could not find the publish date.

“…the very wealth and humanity of bisexuality itself: for to exclude from one’s love any entire group of human beings because of class, age, or race or religion, or sex, is surely to be poorer — deeply and systematically poorer.”

— Kate Miller (1974)

“It’s easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and that’s the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not genders…”

— Martin Duberman (1974)

“Margaret Mead in her Redbook magazine column wrote an article titled ‘Bisexuality: What’s It All About?’ in which she cited examples of bisexuality from the distant past as well as recent times, commenting that writers, artists, and musicians especially ‘cultivated bisexuality out of a delight with personality, regardless of race or class or sex.’”

— Janet Bode, “From Myth to Maturation,” View From Another Closet: Exploring Bisexuality in Women (1976)

“Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.”

— Janet Bode, “The Pressure Cooker,” View From Another Closet (1976)

“A sex-change night club queen has claimed she had a bizarre love affair with rock superstar David Bowie. Drag artiste Ronny Haag said she lived with the bisexual singer while he was making his new film, “Just a Gigolo,” in Berlin. […] Ronny says: ‘I am a real woman.’”

— Kenelm Jenour, “I Was Bowie’s She-Man!”, Daily Mirror (1978)²

“[John] reacted emotionally to both sexes with equal intensity. ‘I love people, regardless of their gender,’ he told me.”

— Charlotte Wolff, “Early Influences,” Bisexuality, a Study (1979)

“On Saturday, February 9, San Francisco’s Bisexual Center will conduct a Gender/Sexuality Workshop. ‘We will explore the interrelationships of gender feelings and sexual preference… We will discuss sexuality and whether we choose to play out the gender role assigned to us by society or whether we can shift to attitudes supposedly held by the opposite gender, if those feel good to us. We will deal with the issue of the TV/TS [transvestite/transsexual] in transition and how sexuality evolves as gender role changes. We will attempt to present a summary of the fragmented and confusing information on gender and sexuality.’”

— The Gateway (1980)

“J: Are we ever going to be able to define what bisexuality is?

S: Never completely. That’s just it — the variety of lifestyles that we see between us defies definition.”

— “Conversations,” Bi Women: The Newsletter of the Boston Bisexual Women’s Network (1984)

“Bisexuality, however, is a valid sexual experience. While many gays have experienced bisexuality as a stage in reaching their present identity, this should not invalidate the experience of people for whom sexual & affectional desire is not limited by gender. For in fact many bisexuals experience lesbianism or homosexuality as a stage in reaching their sexual identification.

— Megan Morrison, “What We Are Doing,” Bi Women (1984)

“In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.”

— Elissa M., “Bi Conference,” Bi Women (1985)

“I believe that people fall in love with individuals, not with a sex… I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.”

— Ruth Hubbard, “There Is No ‘Natural’ Human Sexuality, Bi Women (1986)

“I am bisexual because I am drawn to particular people regardless of gender. It doesn’t make me wishy-washy, confused, untrustworthy, or more sexually liberated. It makes me a bisexual.”

— Lani Ka’ahumanu, “The Bisexual Community: Are We Visible Yet?” (1987)

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.”

— Office Pink Publishing, “Introduction,” Bisexual Lives (1988)

“We made signs and slashes. My favorite read, ‘When it’s love in all its splendor, it doesn’t matter what the gender.’”

— Beth Reba Weise, “Being There and Being Bi: The National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights,” Bi Women (1988)

“…bisexual usually also implies that relations with gender minorities are possible.”

— Thomas Geller, Bisexuality: a Reader and Sourcebook (1990)

“Many objections have been raised to the use of [“bisexual”], the most common being that it emphasizes two things that, paradoxically, bisexuals are the least likely to be involved with: the dualistic separation of male and female in society, and the physical implications of the suffix ‘-sexual’.”

— Thomas Geller, Bisexuality: a Reader and Sourcebook (1990)

“Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have ‘two’ sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.”

— The Bay Area Bisexual Network, “The 1990 Bisexual Manifesto,” Anything That Moves (1990)

“Bisexuality works to subvert the gender system and everything it upholds because it is not based on gender… Bisexuality subverts gender; bisexual liberation also depends on the subversion of gender categories.”

— Karin Baker and Helen Harrison, “Letters,” Bi Women (1990)

“I tell them, whether or not I use the word ‘bisexual,’ that I am proud of being able to express my feelings toward a person, regardless of gender, in whatever way I desire.”

— Naomi Tucker, “What’s in a Name?”, Bi Any Other Name (1991)³

“Some women who call themselves ‘bisexual’ insist that the gender of their lover is irrelevant to them, that they do not choose lovers on the basis of gender.”

— Marilyn Murphy, “Thinking About Bisexuality,” Bi Women (1991)

“Results supported the hypothesis that gender is not a critical variable in sexual attraction in bisexual individuals. Personality or physical dimensions not related to gender and interaction style were the salient characteristics on which preferred sexual partners were chosen, and there was minimal grid distance between preferred male and preferred female partners. These data support the argument that, for some bisexual individuals, sexual attraction is not gender-linked. […] …the dimensions which maximally separate most preferred sexual partners are not gender-based in seven of the nine grids.”

— M W Ross, J P Paul, “Beyond Gender: The Basis of Sexual Attraction in Bisexual Men and Women” (1992)

“[S]ome bisexuals say they are blind to the gender of their potential lovers and that they love people as people… For the first group, a dichotomy of genders between which to choose doesn’t seem to exist[.]”

— Kathleen Bennett, “Feminist Bisexuality, a Both/And Option for an Either/Or World,” Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism (1992)

“The expressed desires of [female bisexual] respondents differed in many cases from their experience. 37 respondents preferred women as sexual partners; 9 preferred men. 21 women had no preference, and 35 said they preferred sex with particular individuals, regardless of gender.”

— Sue George, “Living as bisexual,” Women and Bisexuality (1993)

“Who is this group for exactly? Anyone who identifies as bisexual or thinks they are attracted to or interested in all genders… This newly formed [support] group is to create a supportive, safe environment for people who are questioning their sexual orientation and think they may be bisexual.”

— “Coming Out as Bisexual,” Bi Women (1994)

“It is logical and necessary for bisexuals to recognize the importance of gender politics — not just because transsexuals, cross-dressers, and other transgender people are often assumed to be bisexual… […] I have talked to the bisexual practicers of pre-op transsexuals who feel they have the best of both worlds because their lover embodies woman and man together.² Is that not a connection between bisexuality and transgenderism? […] Some of us are bisexual because we do not pay much attention to the gender of our attractions; some of us are bisexual because we do see tremendous gender differences and want to experience them all. […] With respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgendered people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives.”

— Naomi Tucker, “The Natural Next Step,” Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions (1995)

“The first wave of people who started the Bi Center were political radicals and highly motivated people. The group was based on inclusivity… for example, in the women’s groups, anybody who identified as a woman had the right to be there, so a lot of transgender people started coming to the Bi Center.”

— Naomi Tucker, “Bay Area Bisexual History: An Interview with David Lourea,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“[B]isexual consciousness, because of its amorphous quality and inclusionary nature, posed a fundamental threat to the dualistic and exclusionary thought patterns which were — and still are — tenaciously held by both the gay liberation leadership and its enemies.”

— Stephen Donaldson, “The Bisexual Movement’s Beginnings in the 70s,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“If anything, being bi has made me hyper-aware of the sexual differences between [men and women]. And I still get hot for both. But I do experience something that is similar to gender blindness. It’s this: being bisexual means I could potentially find myself sexually attracted to anybody. Therefore, as a bisexual, I don’t make the distinction that monosexuals do between the gender you fuck and the gender you don’t.”

— Greta Christina, “Bi Sexuality,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“[A]nd too / I am bisexual / in my history / in my capacity / in my fantasies / in my abilities / in my love for beautiful people / regardless of gender.”

— Dajenya, “Bisexual Lesbian,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“The bisexual community should be a place where lines are erased. Bisexuality dismisses, disproves, and defies dichotomies. It connotes a loss of rigidity and absolutes. It is an inclusive term. […] Despite how we choose to identify ourselves, the bisexual community still seems a logical place for transsexuals to find a home and a voice. Bisexuals need to educate themselves on transgender issues. At the same time, bisexuals should be doing education and outreach to the transsexual community, offering transsexuals an arena to further explore their sexualities and choices. Such outreach would also help break down gender barriers and misconceptions within the bisexual community itself. […] If the bisexual community turns its back on transsexuals, it is essentially turning its back on itself.”

— K. Martin-Damon, “Essay for the Inclusion of Transsexuals,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“As bisexuals, we are necessarily prompted to come up with non-binary ways of thinking about sexual orientation. For many of us, this has also prompted a move toward non-binary ways of thinking about sex and gender.”

— Rebecca Kaplan, “Your Fence Is Sitting on Me: The Hazards of Binary Thinking,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“And so we love each other and wish love for each other, regardless (to the extent possible) of gender and sex.”

— Oma Izakson, “If Half of You Dodges a Bullet, All of You Ends Up Dead,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“Similarly, the modern bisexual movement has dissolved the strict dichotomy between ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ (without invalidating our homosexual or heterosexual friends and lovers.) We have insisted on our desire and freedom to love people of all genders.”

— Sunfrog, “Pansies Against Patriarchy,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“In the bisexual movement as a whole, transgendered individuals are celebrated not only as an aspect of the diversity of the bisexual community, but because, like bisexuals, they do not fit neatly into dichotomous categories. Jim Frazin wrote that ‘the construction and destruction of gender’ is a subject of mutual interest to bisexuals and transsexuals who are, therefore, natural allies.”

— Paula C. Rust, Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution (1995)

“Is bisexuality even about gender at all? ‘I don’t desire a gender,’ 25[-]year-old Matthew Ehrlich says.”

— Deborah Block-Schwenk, “Newsweek Comes Out as Supportive,” Bi Women (1995)

“One woman expressed the desire to elide categorical differences by reporting that she finds ‘relationships with men and women to be quite similar — the differences are in the individuals, not in their sex.’ Others expressed their ideal as choosing partners ‘regardless of gender…’”

— Amber Ault, Ambiguous Identity in an Unambiguous Sex/Gender Structure: The Case of Bisexual Women (1996)

“Most conceptual models of bisexuality explain it in terms of conflictual or confused identity development, [r-slur] sexual development, or a defence against ‘true’ heterosexuality or homosexuality. It has been suggested, however, that some individuals can eroticize more than one love object regardless of gender, that sexual patterns could be more variable and fluid than theoretical notions tend to allow, and that sexual desire may not be as fixed and static in individuals as is assumed by ‘essential’ sexual categories and identities.”

— E.Antonio de Moya and Rafael García, “AIDS and the Enigma of Bisexuality in the Dominican Republic,” Bisexualities and AIDS: International Perspectives (1996)

“I’m bi. That simply means I can be attracted to a person without consideration of their gender.”

— E. Grace Noonan, “Out on the Job: DEC Open to Bi Concerns,” Bi Women (1996)

“BiCon should accept transgender people as being on their chosen gender, this includes any single gender events.”

— BiCon Guidelines (1998)⁴

“The probability is that your relationship is based on, or has nestled itself into something based more on the relationship between two identities than on the relationship between two people. That’s what we’re taught: man/man, woman/woman, woman/man, top/bottom, butch/femme, man/woman/man, etc. We’re never taught person/person. That’s what the bisexual movement has been trying to teach us. We’re never taught that, so we fall into the trap of ‘you don’t love me, you love my identity.’”

— Kate Bornstein, My Gender Workbook (1998)

“Transsexuality and bisexuality both occupy heretical thresholds of human experience. We confound, illuminate and explore border regions. We challenge because we appear to break inviolable laws. Laws that feel ‘natural.’ And quite possibly, since we are not the norm or even average, it is likely that one function we have is to subvert those norms or laws; to break down the sleepy and unimaginative law of averages.”

— Max Wolf Valerio, “The Joker Is Wild: Changing Sex + Other Crimes of Passion,” Anything That Moves (1998)

“From the earliest years of the bi community, significant numbers of TV/TS and transgender people have always been involved with it. The bi community served as a kind of refuge for people who felt excluded from the established gay and lesbian communities.”

— Kevin Lano, “Bisexuality and Transgenderism,” Anything That Moves (1998)

“A large group of bisexual women reported in a Ms. magazine article that when they fell in love it was with a person rather than a gender…”

— Betty Fairchild and Nancy Hayward, “What is Gay?”, Now that You Know: A Parents’ Guide to Understanding Their Gay and Lesbian Children (1998)

“Over the past fifteen years, however, [one Caucasian man] has realized that he is ‘attracted to people — not their sexual identity’ and no longer cares whether his partners are male or female. He has kept his Bi identity and now uses it to refer to his attraction to people regardless of their gender.”

— Paula C. Rust, “Sexual Identity and Bisexual Identities,” Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology (1998)

“Bisexual — being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.”

— The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, “Out of the Past: Teacher’s Guide” (1999)

“There were a lot of transvestites and transsexuals who came to [the San Francisco Bisexual Center in the 1970s], because they were not going to be turned away because of the way they dressed.”

— David Lourea, “Bisexual Histories in San Francisco in the 1970s and Early 1980s,” 2000 Journal of Bisexuality

“Respondent #658 said that both are irrelevant; ‘who I am sexually attracted to has nothing to do with their sex/gender,’ whereas Respondent #418 focuses specifically on the irrelevance of sex: I find myself attracted to either men or women. The outside appendages are rather immaterial, as it is the inner being I am attracted to. […] Respondent #495 recalled that “the best definition I’ve ever heard is someone who is attracted to people & gender/sex is not an issue or factor in that attraction.” […] As Respondent #269 put it, “I do not exclude a person from consideration as a possible love interest on the basis of sex/gender.” […] For most individuals who call themselves bisexual, bisexual identity reflects feelings of attraction, sexual and otherwise, toward women and men or toward other people regardless of their gender.”

— Paula C. Rust, “Two Many and Not Enough: The Meanings of Bisexual Identities,” 2000 Journal of Bisexuality

“Giovanni’s distinction between what he wants and who he wants resonates with the language of many of today’s bisexuals, who insist that they fall in love with a person, not a gender.”

— Marjorie Garber, Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (2000)

“The message of bisexuality — that people are more than their gender; that we accept all people, regardless of Kinsey scale rating; that we embrace people regardless of age, weight, clothing, hair style, gender expression, race, religion and actually celebrate our diversity — that message is my gospel. I travel, write, do web sites — all to let people know that the bisexual community will accept you, will let you be who you are, and will not expect you to fit in a neat little gender/sexuality box.”

— Wendy Curry, “Celebrating Bisexuality,” Bi Women (2000)

“But really, just like I can’t believe in the heterosexist binary gender system, I have difficulty accepting wholeheartedly any one spiritual tradition.”

— Anonymous, “A Methodical Awakening,” Bi Women (2002)

“But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person. For instance, I like people who are good listeners, who understand me and have interests similar to mine, and I am attracted to people with a little padding here and there, who have fair skin and dark hair (although I’m pretty flexible when it comes to looks). ‘Male’ or ‘female’ are not anywhere to be found in the list of qualities I find attractive.”

— Karin Baker, “Bisexual Basics,” Solidarity-us.org (2002)

“Bisexual: A person who is attracted to people regardless of gender (a person does not have to have a relationship to be bisexual!)”

— Bowling Green State University, “Queer Glossary” (2003)

“The bisexual community seems to be disappearing. Not that there won’t always be people around who like to have sex with people of all genders, the community, as I’ve discussed in this book, is a different matter altogether.”

— William Burleson, Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community (2005)

“Although bisexuals in general may or may not be more enlightened about gender issues, there has been, and continues to be, in most places around the country a strong connection between the transgender and the bisexual communities. Indeed, the two communities have been strong allies. Why is this? One reason certainly is, as I mentioned earlier, the significant number of people who are both bisexual and transgender.”

— William Burleson, Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community (2005)

“Amy: […] But my friend’s question got me thinking: given the fact that so many bisexual friends and community members reject the idea that gender has to have a relation to attraction and behavior, why should I reject the bi label? Why did her question even come up? How relevant is gender to the concept of bisexuality? If bisexuals like me don’t care about gender the way monosexuals do, why would my identity label exclude my lovers’ gender variations?

Kim: …Like you, I’m a bi person who sees gender as fluid rather than fixed or dichotomous… I’ve also felt outside pressure to reject my bi identity based on the idea that it perpetuates the gender binary: woman/man. However, this idea reduces bisexual to ‘bi’ and ‘sexual’ and disregards the fact that it represents a history, a community, a substantial body of writing, and the right of the bisexual community to define ‘bisexuality’ on its own terms. Most importantly, this idea disregards how vital these things are for countless bi people. Identifying as bi doesn’t inherently mean anything, and it definitely doesn’t mean a person only recognizes two genders. However, to assume that bi-identified people exclude transgender, gender nonconforming (GNC), and genderqueer people also assumes they are not trans, GNC, or genderqueer themselves, when in fact, many are.”

— Kim Westrick and Amy Andre, “Semantic Wars,” Bi Women (2009)

“The [intracommunity biphobia] problem is very serious, because bisexuals, along with trans folks, are the rejects among rejects, that is to say, those who suffer from discrimination (gays and lesbians) discriminate against bis and trans folks. It is for this reason, at least here in Mexico City, that Opción Bi allies itself with transsexuals, transgender people and transvestites, and works together with them whenever possible. It seems to me we are closer to the trans communities than to the lesbian and gay ones.”

— Robyn Ochs, “Bis Around the World: Myriam Brito, Mexican City,” Bi Women (2009)

“I introduce myself as bisexual, because I am attracted to people, across gender lines, and ‘bisexual’ comes closest to explaining that.”

— B.J. Epstein, “Bye Bi Labels,” Bi Women (2009)

“Bisexuality is not some kind of middle-ground between heterosexuality and homosexuality; rather I imagine it as a way to erode the fixed systems of gender and sexual identity which always result in guilt, fear, lies[,] and discrimination.”

— Carlos Iván Suárez García, “What Is Bisexuality?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)⁵

“To me, bisexuality is a matter of loving and accepting everyone equally — seeing the beauty in the human soul, rather than in the shell that houses it. Being transgender, I know firsthand that love between two people can transcend — even embrace — what society regards as taboo. Bisexuality is a mindset of revolution, a mindset of change. We’re creating a brave new world of acceptance and love for all people, of all the myriad genders and methods of sexual expression that this world contains.

— Jessica, “What Is Bisexuality?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“Bisexuality (whatever that means) for me is about the ability to relate to all people at a deep emotional level. It is an openness of the heart. It is the absence of limits, especially those that are defined by the other person’s sex.”

— Andrea Toselli, “Coming Out Bisexual,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“Considering my personal preferences, calling myself ‘bisexual’ covers a wider territory regarding my capacity to fall in love and to share the life of a couple with another person without taking into consideration questions of gender.”

— Aida, “Why Bi?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“I’m sure I’m bisexual because I can’t ignore the allure and loveliness of a wide spectrum of people — differentiating by gender never seemed attractive or even logical to me. […] For me bisexuality means I don’t stop attraction, caring or relationship potential based on gender; I can have sex, flirtation or warm ongoing love with anyone (not everyone, okay? That part’s a myth). […] And we have enough trouble splitting the human race into two halves, assigning mandatory characteristics, and then torturing people to fill arbitrary roles — I consider that a wrong and inaccurate way to understand human potential, and that’s also why I’m bi. Men and women are different? Honey, everyone I’ve ever met has been different. I think being bisexual lets me see each person as an individual.”

— Carol Queen, “Why Bi?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“But to hell with respectability: the real point about being bisexual, a friend pointed out, is that you’re asking someone other than ‘What sex is this person?’”

— Tom Robinson, “Bisexual Community,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“Being bisexual… allows us to love each other regardless of our gender…”

— Jorge Pérez Castiñeira, “Bisexual Community,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“‘Hello, my name is Jaqueline Applebee… if you want to see me later, or just want a kiss, let me know as I’m bisexual, and you’re all gorgeous!’ […] I have loved men, women, and those who don’t identify with any gender.”

— Jaqueline Applebee, “Bisexual Community,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“[T]here’s nothing binary about bisexuals. Bi is just a provisional term reminding us, however awkwardly, that when it comes to loving, family and tribe, margins and middle intertwine.”

— Loraine Hutchins, “Bisexual Politics,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“My bi identity is not about who I am having sex with; it is not about the genitals of my past, current, or future lovers; it is not about choosing potential partners or excluding partners based on what is between their legs. It is about potential — the potential to love, to be attracted to, to be intimate with, share a life with a person because of who they are. I see a person, not a gender… I demand to be free to legally marry anyone without regard to their gender.”

— Rifka Reichler, “Bisexual Politics,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“To me, being bisexual means having a sexuality that isn’t limited by the sex or gender of the people you are attracted to. You just recognize that you can be attracted to a person for very individual reasons.”

— Deb Morley, “Bi of the Month: An Interview with Ellyn Ruthstorm,” Bi Women (2010)

“Q: Which gender person does a bisexual love? A: Any gender she wants.”

— Marcia Deihl, “Do Clothes Make the Woman?”, Bi Women (2010)

“While the bisexual manifesto being written following a workshop at London BiCon is still being worked on, the tweeters set to work on a shorter, snappier alternative… ‘Love is about what’s in your hearts, not your underwear.’ […] ‘We aren’t more confused, greedy, indecisive or lustful than anyone else. We like people based on personality not gender.’ ‘[W]e believe that lust is more important than anatomy.’ ‘What you have between your legs doesn’t matter. What you have between your ears does[.]’”

— Jen Yockney, “#bisexualmanifesto,” Bi Community News (2010)

“As briefly mentioned above and interlinked with the notion of ‘importance of individuality’, the binary concepts of gender and the stereotypes surrounding these is a notion which each of the [bisexual] women interviewed fundamentally reject. The participants here were keen to distance themselves and their experiences of romantic relationships from any notion of hetero-normative gender boundaries, although they did agree that unfortunately these gender boundaries still exist in contemporary society. Most participants do not link gender boundaries with concepts of romantic love; it was stated that although sometimes gender boundaries can be seen in romantic relationships this is primarily down to socialisation and the unnecessary importance that hetero-normative society places on gender roles. Therefore, gender boundaries seen in romantic relationships are not constrained by gender but instead are a product of gendered socialisation. For these women, claiming their bisexual identity and their romantic relationships illustrates the futility of binary concepts of gender as it is about individual preference or style rather than gendered norms values and expectations.”

— Emma Smith, “Bisexuality, Gender & Romantic Relationships,” Bi Community News (2012)

“And anyway, I’m generally not sexually attracted to men or women. I’m into all sorts of things, but a person being a man or a woman isn’t a turn-on. Certainly not in the same way it’s a turn off to a gay or straight person. I’m never going to think “Wow, Zie is really sexy, shame they’re a ____” because what turns me off isn’t gender.”

— Marcus, “What makes a bisexual?”, Bi Community News (2012)

“I am bisexual. That does not depend on my dating experience or my attraction specifications. It is not affected by my dislike for genitals (of any shape). All it describes is how gender affects attraction for me: it doesn’t. I am attracted to people regardless of gender, and I am bisexual.”

— Emma Jones, “Not Like the Others,” Bi Women (2013)

“I’m generally okay with ‘attraction to more than one gender’ [as a definition of ‘bisexuality’]. I think that the ‘more than’ part is important because there are definitely more than two genders. Some people like the definition ‘attraction regardless of gender’ and I like that too because it suggests that things other than gender can be equally, or more, important in who we are attracted to. I like to question why our idea of sexuality is so bound up with gender of partners. Why not encompass other aspects such as the roles we like to take sexually, or how active or passive we like to be, or what practices we enjoy? Why is our gender, and the gender of our partners, seen as such a vital part of who we are?”

— Robyn Ochs, “Around the World: Meg Barker,” Bi Women (2013)

“It may sound crazy but I’d never thought that carefully about the ‘bi’ part of the word meaning ‘two’. I’d always understood bisexuality to mean what Bobbie Petford reports as the preferred definition from within the UK bi communities: changeable ‘sexual and emotional attraction to people of any sex, where gender may not be a defining factor’. […] Participants in the BiCon discussion rejected the ‘you are a boy or you are a girl…binary’ (Lanei), all arguing that they were not straightforwardly ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’.

[…] Because they discarded the dichotomous understanding of gender, participants rejected the ideas that they were attracted to ‘both’ men and women, arguing that they did not perceive gender as the defining feature in their attraction. Kim said: I don’t think actually gender is that relevant…gender is like eye colour, and I notice it sometimes, and sometimes it can be a bit of a feature it’s like “oo, that’s nice” and I have some sorts of gender types, but it’s about as important as something like eye colour.

[…] As I came to realise that you can actually be bisexual…your desires and your attractions can wax and wane as time goes on, I realised that there was a parallel to gender: you don’t have to clearly define, you don’t have to cast off the male to be female and vice versa. Despite the fact that the conventional definition of the word ‘bisexual’ could be seen as perpetuating a dichotomous concept of gender, being attracted to both sexes, Georgina concluded that it could challenge conventional understandings of gender…”

— “Bisexuality & Gender,” Bi Community News (2014)

“My fellow bisexuals… I stand before you as an unapologetic, outspoken, bisexual activist who has intimately loved women, men and transgender persons throughout my life span of 72 years…”

— ABilly S. Jones-Hennin, “If Loving You is Wrong, Then I Don’t Want to be Right,” Bisexual Organizing Project (2014)

“Coming out as bisexual in the late 80s, when I first came across the label pansexual it didn’t involve any kind of gender nuance: it was how someone explained their bisexuality feeling interwoven with their Pagan beliefs. Back then the ‘bi’ in bisexual didn’t get talked about as having some great limiting weight of ‘two’, it was an “and” in a world that saw things as strictly either/or. As I was pushing at boundaries of discussion around gender and sexuality with people in the 90s I’d sometimes quip that I was ‘bisexual, I just haven’t decided which two genders yet’. When I started to come across people saying that bi was limiting because it meant two, a bit of me did think: oh lord, were they taking me seriously?”

— Jen, “Bi or Pan?”, Bi Community News (2015)

“Pansexuality is sometimes defined as attraction to people of all genders, which is also the experience of many bisexual people. More often than not, however, people define their pansexuality in relation to bisexuality. In response to the question: ‘What does pansexual mean?’ I’ve seen countless people reply: ‘I’m attracted to people of more than two genders. Not bisexual.’ The implication is that bisexual means binary attraction: men and women only.

Since I came out in the late 90s, I haven’t seen one bi activist organisation define bisexuality as attraction solely to men and women. Bi and trans* issues began to grow in recognition at the same time. When I use ‘bi’ to refer to two types of attraction, I mean attraction to people of my gender and attraction to people of other genders. […] …it’s so upsetting to see internalised biphobia leading many pansexuals, many of whom until recently identified as bisexual, telling us we’re still not queer enough. Gay and straight people aren’t being pressurised into giving up the language they use to describe their attractions and neither should they be. As usual it’s only bisexuals being shamed into erasing our identities and our history.

The most frustrating thing to me about the current bi vs pan discourse is that it’s framed as a cisgender vs genderqueer debate. This has never been the case. In reality, many genderqueer people identify as bisexual… To say bisexuality is binary erases the identities of these revolutionary bisexual genderqueer activists, and it erases the identity of every marginalised genderqueer bisexual they’re fighting for.”

— Sali, “Bi or Pan?”, Bi Community News (2015)

“Currently some pansexual people argue that bi is ‘too binary’ and that bisexuals are focused on conventional male/female gender expressions only. This is then taken to mean that bisexuals are more transphobic, whereas pansexuals aren’t locked into a binary so they are open to all gender expressions. However we believe this is not the case since bisexuals: ‘… do not comply with our society’s imposed framework of attraction, we must consciously construct our own framework and examine how and why we are attracted (or not) to others. This process automatically acknowledges the artificiality of the gender binary and gendered norms and expectations for behavior. Indeed, the mere act of explaining our definition of bisexual to a nonbisexual person requires us to address the falsity of the gender binary head on.’

We do not deny that in actuality some bisexuals are too bound by traditional binary gender assumptions, just as many gay, lesbian, and heterosexual, and some trans people are too. Bisexuals, however, have been in the forefront of exploring desire and connection beyond sex and gender. When anyone accuses bisexuals, uniquely, as more binary and more transphobic than other identity groups, such targeting is not only inappropriate but is also rooted in biphobia — a fear and hatred of bi people for who we are and how we love.

Confusing the issue are the definitions in resource glossaries defining bisexual, most surprisingly in newly released books including textbooks. [...] These definitions arbitrarily define bisexual in a binary way and then present pansexual as a non-binary alternative. This opens the doorway to a judgment that pansexual identity is superior to bisexual identity because it ‘opens possibilities’ and is a ‘more fluid and much broader form of sexual orientation’. This judgmental conclusion is unacceptable and dangerous as it lends itself to perpetuating bisexual erasure. The actual lived non-binary history of the bisexual community and movement and the inclusive nature and community spirit of bisexuals are eradicated when a binary interpretation of our name for ourselves is arbitrarily assumed.”

— Lani Ka’ahumanu and Loraine Hutchins, “Bi Organizing Since 1991,” Bi Any Other Name (New 25th Anniversary Edition) (2015)

“Herself a bisexual woman, [Nan Goldin] found that drag queens, to her a third gender, were perfect companions. By transgressing the bounds of the binary, they had created identities that were infinitely more meaningful.”

— Alicia Diane Ridout, “Gender Euphoria: Photography, Fashion, and Gender Nonconformity in The East Village” (2015)

“It is the job of those of us with links to children to continue to promote the language of bisexuality and validity of attraction to all genders — especially when that attraction changes over time.”

— Bethan, “Practical Bi Awareness: Teaching and LGBT,” Bi Community News (2016)

“The persistent use of the Kinsey Scale is another issue. Originally asking about the genders of people you have had sex with, more recently it gets deployed in more sophisticated ways which distinguish between sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and sexual activity. Nonetheless it is woefully inadequate in accounting for attraction to genders other than male and female — a key part of many bisexual people’s experience.”

— Milena Popova, “Scrap the Kinsey Scale!”, Bi Community News (2016)

“Robyn Ochs states where the EuroBiCon also stands for: bisexuality goes beyond the binary gender thinking. There are more genders than the obsolete idea of two: male and female.”

— Erwin, “Robyn Ochs: ‘Bisexuality goes beyond the binary gender thinking’,” European Bisexual Conference (2016)

“I call myself bisexual because it includes attraction to all genders (same as mine; different from mine).”

— Rev. Francesca Bongiorno Fortunato, “Label Me With a B,” Bi Women Quarterly (2016)

“Loving a person rather than a man or a woman: this is Runa Wehrli’s philosophy. At 18, she defines herself as bisexual and speaks about it openly. […] She believes that love should not be confined by the barriers put up by society. ‘I fall in love with a person and not a gender,’ she says. […] Now single and just out of high school, she is leaving the door open to love, while still refusing to give it a gender.”

— Katy Romy, “‘I fall in love with a person and not a gender’,” Swissinfo (2017)

“I’m bisexual so I can’t really come out as gay. When I’m gay I’m very gay. And when I’m with men then, you know, I’m with men. I don’t fall in love with people because of their gender.”

— Nan Goldin for Sleek Magazine (2017)

“I use the word bisexual — a lot / I’ve marched in the Pride parade with the Toronto Bisexual Network / I post Bi pride & Bi awareness articles all over social media / I’m seeking out dates of any and all genders / (not to prove anything to anyone, but simply because I want to)

— D’Arcy L. J. White, “Coming Out as Bisexual,” Bi Women Quarterly (2017)

“BISEXUAL — Someone who is attracted to more than one gender, someone who is attracted to two or more genders, someone who is attracted to the same and other genders, or someone who is attracted to people regardless of their gender. […] Other words with the same definition of bisexual, though they have different connotations, are ‘pansexual,’ ‘polysexual,’ and ‘omnisexual.’”

— Morgan Lev Edward Holleb, The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality: From Ace to Ze (2018)

“In the heat of July [2009], and finally equipped with a word for “attracted to people regardless of gender”, I bounded out of Brighton station with that same best friend. At the time, I didn’t know that we bisexuals have our own flag…”

— Lois Shearing, “Why London Pride’s first bi pride float was so important,” The Queerness (2018)

“Being bisexual does not assume people are only attracted to just two genders. Bisexuality can be limitless for many and pay no regard to the sex or gender of a person.”

— “The Bi+ Manifesto” (2018)

“I realized I was bisexual at age fifteen, but although I am attracted to folks of any gender, I’ve always had a preference for men.”

— Mark Mulligan, “Fight and Flight: ‘Butch Flight,’ Trans Men, and the Elusive Question of Authenticity,” Nursing Clio (2018)

“Bisexuality just became, to me, about that openness — that openness to anything, and any potential to any type of relationship, regardless of gender. Gender is no longer a disqualifier for me. It’s about the person.”

— Rob Cohen, “Where Are All the Bi Guys?,” Two Bi Guys (2019)

“Oh no, Mom. I’m not a lesbian. Actually, I’m bisexual. That means that gender doesn’t determine whom I’m attracted to.”

— Annie Bliss, “Older and Younger,” Bi Women Quarterly (2019)

“A bisexual woman, for example, may have sex with, date or marry another woman, a man or someone who is non-binary. […] If you think you might be bisexual, try asking yourself these questions: …Can I picture myself dating, having sex with, or being married to any gender/sex?”

— “I Think I Might Be Bisexual,” Advocates for Youth

“Although it’s true that people have all kinds of different attractions to different kinds of people, assuming that all bisexuals are never attracted to trans or genderqueer folk is harmful, not only to bi individuals, but to trans and genderqueer individuals who choose to label themselves as bi.”

— “Labels,” Bisexual Resource Center

“My own understanding of bisexuality has changed dramatically over the years. I used to define bisexuality as ‘the potential to be attracted to people regardless of their gender.’ […] Alberto is attracted to the poles, to super-masculine guys and super-feminine girls. Others are attracted to masculinity and/or femininity, regardless of a person’s sex. Some of us who identify as bisexual are in fact ‘gender-blind.’ For others — in fact for me — it’s androgyny or the blending of genders that compels.”

— Robin Ochs, “What Does It Mean to Be Bi+?”, Bisexual Resource Center

“… bisexual people are those for whom gender is not the first criteria in determining attraction.”

— Illinois Department of Public Health, “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Youth Suicide”

“Bisexuality is sexual/romantic attraction to people regardless of sex or gender.”

— “Bisexual FAQ,” Kvartir

“Please also note that attraction to both same and different means attraction to all. Bisexuality is inherently inclusive of everyone, regardless of sex or gender.

In everyday language, depending on the speaker’s culture, background, and politics, that translates into a variety of everyday definitions such as:

Attraction to men and women

Attraction to all sexes or genders

Attraction to same and other genders

Love beyond gender

Attraction regardless of sex or gender”

— American Institute of Bisexuality, “What Is Bisexuality?,” Bi.org

“This idea [that bisexuality reinforces a false gender binary] has its roots in the anti-science, anti-Enlightenment philosophy that has ironically found a home within many Queer Studies departments at universities across the Anglophone world. […] Bisexuality is an orientation for which sex and gender are not a boundary to attraction… Over time, our society’s concept of human sex and gender may well change. For bis, people for whom sex/gender is already not a boundary, any such change would have little effect.”

— American Institute of Bisexuality, “Questions,” Bi.org

Gender-expansive (or -fluid, or -blind) descriptions of bisexuality are nothing new — and with the exception of the Getting Bi quotes, the above compilation is just what I was able to find online. Arguably, the concept of excluding genders never even crossed the mind of many twentieth-century bisexuals — not just because “nonbinary genders hadn’t entered the mainstream” — but simply because many bisexuals understand bisexuality itself as “beyond” gender. Go to any bisexual organization and they’ll tell you bisexuality is broad and can include anyone.

Of course, the above quotes do not reflect the beliefs of every bisexual — no single quote can do that. These quotes were certainly not the only variation of bisexual-given definitions of bisexuality. I’m only pointing out that the “both” descriptions are similarly not the only ones that exist.

Even then, before wider knowledge of and language for nonbinary identities, attraction to “both” men and women was attraction regardless of gender. “Both” does not purposefully keep anyone out; it only (mistakenly) assumes how many groups there are. Gender not being a make-or-break, or not caring about gender in general, doesn’t depend on how many genders there are.⁶

Not to mention, all sexualities automatically include some nonbinary people — “nonbinary” isn’t merely a third gender. The mere notion that someone could just “not be attracted” to nonbinary people as a group completely misunderstands nonbinary identity.

Some bisexuals “see a person, not a gender,” while others, like me, see a person with a gender (that doesn’t stop us from finding them attractive), if they have one. Being bisexual has made me see people in more gender-neutral ways. Our experiences are far too vast to pin down, and there’s immense beauty in that vagueness.

Also, while bisexual activism and transgender activism have frequently overlapped, plenty of cisgender bisexuals are transphobic. But this is because all sexualities have transphobes. Even if we coined a sexual identity that only transgender people could use, some identifying with it would still likely be transphobes. Why allow transphobic bisexuals to erase the attitudes of all the bisexuals before and after them?

I find it incredibly odd that people now task bisexuals with proving our inclusivity considering that, for decades, we never had to. We had always (i.e., consistently throughout history, not as in every bisexual) been warping gender norms, but it was never to debunk a myth or make ourselves look good; it was just how we were. That hasn’t changed.

One of the predominant stereotypes is still that we’re indiscriminate sluts willing to sleep with anyone, but somehow there’s a new wave of folks insisting that we require our partners to obey the gender binary. I have a severely hard time believing this conclusion is based on reality. Almost all attempts to redefine bisexuality as binary come from people who don’t identify as such.

Imagine if we performed this revisionism with the word “gay.” For this example, I’ll use “gay” to describe gay men in particular.

“Gay” only means exclusive attraction to men, so the people who use that word only like cisgender men. I’m androsexual, which means I like cisgender, transgender, and nonbinary men.

Doesn’t that sound ridiculous? So why do we only apply this rhetoric to bisexuals? (It couldn’t possibly be because of biphobia, could it?)

While it’s obviously unrealistic to say that no bisexual person has ever been transphobic, bisexual orientation is not, and never has been, about exclusion. Considering that bisexual activists were seldom (if ever) focused on the prefix in the word “bisexual,” this recent fixation people have on trying to find a way to use “two” in its definition is misguided.

Begging to differ is ignorant and arrogant, contradicting not only history but many current bisexuals who understand bisexuality as all-encompassing. Acting like it’s uniquely binary or inherently limited in any way is indisputably false and biphobic. Please stop speaking over us and erasing our history. It, like the bisexual community itself, is bountiful, beautiful, and never going away.

Here’s one final quote that, while a bit unrelated to the rest, I particularly enjoy:

“I understand bisexuality not as a mixture of homosexuality and heterosexuality as Kinsey did, nor as a particular sexuality on an equal footing with homosexuality and heterosexuality, but as a holistic view of human sexuality, in which all aspects related to human sexuality are taken into account.”

— Miguel Obradors-Campos, “Deconstructing Biphobia” (2011)

[enbychu]

taps the sign since i feel like soon is when people are going to be talking about Bi Discourse again link to full chapter excerpt, The Future of Bisexual Activism by Camille Holthaus the wikipedia page for the periodical Anything That Moves also has a brief about what they were about

[image text:

In 1990, “The Bisexual Manifesto” was published in a new periodical dedicated to the bisexual community, Anything That Moves.1 Written collaboratively by participants in the Bay Area Bisexual Network, the publisher of the periodical, the manifesto has stood the test of time as a representation of the collective consciousness of the bisexual community:

We are tired of being analyzed, defined and represented by people other than ourselves, or worse yet, not considered at all. We are frustrated by the imposed isolation and invisibility that comes from being told or expected to choose either a homosexual or heterosexual identity.

Monosexuality is a heterosexist dictate used to oppress homosexuals and to negate the validity of bisexuality.

Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality, including your own.

We are angered by those who refuse to accept our existence; our issues; our contributions; our alliances; our voice. It is time for the bisexual voice to be heard.2

The frustration of the bisexual activists of the time is clear in this text. They faced monosexism, being told bi equals two equals male and female, and fought against stereotypes. They felt marginalized, ignored, and silenced.

For the purposes of this article, “bisexual” includes all people with the capacity to be sexually and/or romantically attracted to more than one gender while acknowledging that individuals may use other labels to express the great diversity of possibilities within this definition. The bisexual community is made up of all those who meet this definition, whether they participate in the community or not and regardless of the personal label they choose to use, if any.

End image text]

[comrade-meow]

Soviet anti-prostitution poster: “After the destruction of capitalism — the proletariat will abolish prostitution — the great scourge of humanity!”

In the first part of this series, we deconstructed the notion that “transwomen are women” from a Marxist perspective. In that piece I said that notion is perhaps the most destructive facing the left today, but I’m going to have to reconsider that assertion as we tackle the next anti-feminist/anti-Marxist “big lie” facing the left today, the notion that “sex work is work”. Marxism has always recognized prostitution as one of the vilest forms of exploitation; every major Marxist revolutionary has condemned it in unequivocal terms. The Communist Manifesto openly proclaims that the socialist revolution will do away with “prostitution both public and private.”[1] In her first major work, Nadezhda Krupskaya, described how revolutionary workers, during one night of major labor strikes, also directed their rage at the brothels, destroying eleven of them in a single night.[2] And, yet, despite this damning and overwhelming Marxist condemnation of prostitution, the left has started to drink the “sex-work” Kool-Aid. This ranges from assertions that prostitution (and pornography, which is just filmed prostitution) is just a job like any other to outright proclaiming it liberating for women, a strike against bourgeois moralism! Pimps have become re-cast as “managers”, and johns as “clients”. Some so-called “Marxists” have even come out in support of collectivized brothels under socialism! Unsurprisingly, most of these declamations are being made by men who, distraught that the revolution wants to take away “their porn” and “their women”, are now trying to have their cake and eat it too by twisting the Marxist notion of free love and the Marxist attacks on bourgeois morality to suit their own exploitative ends. In this they are assisted by the “PhD Prostitutes”, well-off bourgeois women, often holding advanced degrees, who engage in prostitution as a lifestyle “choice”. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

But for now, we will leave these reactionary elements to stew where they are. First, it is incumbent to debunk the central assertion behind all of this, that “sex work is work”. To tear this apart, we need to first answer the question, what is labor? In his first major published work, The German Ideology, Marx defines labor as such:

“The first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, [is that humans] must be in a position to live in order to be able to ‘make history’. But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life.”[3]

To put it in more succinct terms, labor is the process by which human beings create, and facilitate the use, of products of social value. Does the act of sexual intercourse in of itself have social value? Does pornographic material have social value? The answer is no. Sexual intercourse is not a fundamental human need in the way food, water, clothing, and shelter are. Nor does intercourse in of itself help us interpret and understand the world in the way that science and art do. Intercourse does take on social value when its purpose is reproduction, in that case it becomes reproductive labor. It also holds social value when it becomes a means of interpersonal communication, such as intercourse between lovers, but that is not necessarily labor as it does not produce anything of wider use for a community. In Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It, Alexandra Kollontai said, “prostitutes are all those who avoid the necessity of working by giving themselves to a man, either on a temporary basis or for life.”[4] She is clearly separating it from labor, rather defining it as the last act of the most desperate and rejected members of society. What does prostitution create, then? It creates, and increases, alienation and exploitation of the worst kind. Kollontai also railed against prostitution because it “threatens the feeling of solidarity and comradeship between working men and women, the members of the workers’ republic. And this feeling is the foundation and the basis of the communist society we are building and making a reality.”[5]

But if prostitution is not labor, what is it? The answer is simple. Sexual slavery; contractual rape. Continuing on her points already made, Kollontai reasoned that “Prostitution arose with the first states as the inevitable shadow of the official institution of marriage, which was designed to preserve the rights of private property and to guarantee property inheritance through a line of lawful heirs.”[6] This is a summation of what Engels described in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State; that prostitution allowed for men to engage in carnal relations outside of their marriage. In the society that gave birth to prostitution, women were either the de facto property of men, or their de jure property, as in the case of wives. The prostitute was essentially a slave, with no rights or autonomy of her own; her entire existence was devoted to serving men. This continued in the age of feudalism, where prostitution was highly organized and ubiquitous, in order to maintain the chastity and faithfulness of men’s daughters and wives, who remained their property. But it is capitalism that has brought forth the full horrific nature of prostitution, where now the whole lot of woman is threatened with prostitution if they cannot afford to feed themselves and their families, or pay their bills, afford an education, or any of the other necessities working people struggle to obtain and secure. Again we see the separation of prostitution from labor; the prostitute in capitalist society is the woman who cannot make an existence by labor alone. The prostitute is not even considered a human being, but rather a commodity. They are below even the lumpenproletariat, that great mass that contains both those almost totally squeezed dry by capitalism, as well as the criminal element of society, which are still recognized as human. This is the class to which the pimp belongs to.[7] The pimp is a parody of the parasitical capitalist who profits off the labor of the working class; in the case of the pimp, he profits off the dehumanized woman turned commodity.

The industrial and technological revolutions that have occurred under capitalism have only made the prostitute’s life worse. With the advent of mass pornography, especially in the modern age of mass and instant communication, the prostitute is no longer the commodity of just one john, but of millions of johns, who fuck her by proxy; in turn the pimp’s profits are doubled, tripled, quadrupled beyond anything they ever were. And not just women now, but also homosexual and gender non-conforming men, who as “exiles” from the community of men are increasingly finding themselves subjected to the lot previously reserved almost exclusively for women. Almost every pornography website has a section for “transsexual” porn. In prostitution we see the development of patriarchy and capitalism in microcosm; the mass dehumanization of human beings aimed at smashing our solidarity with one another, leaving us increasingly alienated and isolated, viewing one another not as comrades in a common struggle, but vessels to derive selfish pleasure.

The pro-“sex work” advocates would have one believe that entering prostitution is a “choice” freely made on the part of the prostitute, and to deny this is to deny the prostitute’s “agency”. To illustrate their point, they trot out the “PhD Prostitutes” mentioned above. But Marxists should know better than to take such evidence at face value. The Marxist method looks not at the conditions of individuals isolated from society as a whole, but at the individual within the larger social context they exist in. A study conducted by the Soroptimist International, “an international volunteer organization working to improve the lives of women and girls, in local communities and throughout the world” found that most prostitutes “were sexually and physically abused as children, deprived and pushed into selling sex at age 14, on average.” It also goes on to say:

“In one study of prostituted women, 90 percent of the women had been physically battered in childhood; 74 percent were sexually abused in their families, with 50 percent also having been sexually abused by someone outside the family. Of 123 survivors at the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in Portland, Oregon (an agency offering support, education, shelter and access to health services to clients of all sex industries), 85 percent reported a history of incest, 90 percent reported a history of physical abuse, and 98 percent cited a history of emotional abuse.”

The study also notes that women of color, women from the third world, and indigenous women are even more likely to be forced into prostitution.[8] Additionally “71 percent reported being physically abused and 63 percent reported being raped by a customer. In a rigorous study of pimps in seven cities in the United States, 58 percent of prostitutes reported violence, while 36 reported having abusive clients.” It also challenges the notion that “high-class” “call-girl” prostitution is safer than street prostitution, finding that escorts will be abused by johns at least twice a year. But perhaps the most damning evidence presented in the study to the “choice” argument, is the evidence that “more than 90 percent of prostituted women in various surveys want to leave prostitution, but lack viable options.”[9]

Despite this, the pro-“sex work” crowd insist that prostitution is not contractual rape, because prostitutes are giving their consent. But how can “consent” obtained under economic coercion truly be consent? This sounds like arguments put forward in defense of capitalism as a whole; for example, that workers who do not like the conditions of their work or their wages can always “choose” to get a different job. Marxists rightly recognize this argument as a diversion, because of the external circumstances that prevent individuals from just easily choosing the job they want to do. It is the same with the prostitute; her “consent” is only a passive consent, not the active consent that recognized as being necessary for a truly consensual sexual relationship. The “PhD Prostitutes” who are able to freely choose and screen their “clients” represent an incredibly small minority, and perhaps cannot even be considered prostitutes, but bourgeois dilettantes “playfully” aping the suffering of the classes beneath them.

Similarly, abolitionists have come under attack from the “sex work” crowd, being accused of moralism and puritanism. They argue that criminalization only worsens the plight of prostitutes, whereas bringing them into the recognized workforce through legalization and unionization will ease their suffering. In this first part, they are correct. The criminalization of the prostitute is an expression of not just bourgeois, but patriarchal hypocrisy, because the prostitute is essentially punished for trying to survive, punished for fulfilling the desires of the ruling class. The second part, however, is dead wrong. The countries that have legalized prostitution have seen a dramatic increase in human trafficking, because contrary to the free choice arguments of the “sex work” hypocrites, there exists nowhere near enough women who want to commodify themselves to meet the demand.[10] In Australia and New Zealand, legalization has decreased the agency of prostitutes, and increased the power of pimps, by introducing the “all-inclusive”, a single fee paid to the pimp instead of directly to the prostitute, essentially depriving prostituted women of what little power of negotiation they had.[11] In Germany, a pregnant prostitute was coerced into having group sex with a bunch of men who “wanted” a pregnant woman; under German law, this was perfectly legal. The prostitute in question said she felt like she had no power to say no, as her agency had been usurped by the brothel.[12] Similarly, the “sex worker unions” advocated for by the “sex work” activists are another vehicle for pimps and their supporters to exercise their dominance; the Scarlet Alliance, Australia’s largest “sex worker union” even harassed survivors of the sex industry.[13] Rosa Luxemburg did advocate for the formation of revolutionary unions of prostitutes, but not to “regulate” prostitution, but to smash it. In fact, the advocates of full legalization (with or without regulation) belong in the company of fascists, not revolutionary socialists. The Nazis established an extensive and centralized system of brothels in cities and military camps, as well as in the concentration camps themselves. When Franco seized power in Spain, he overturned the abolitionist reforms of the Republic, and re-legalized prostitution so that men were guaranteed their brides were virgins and not “spoiled goods”.[14]

The most effective method of combatting prostitution has been the Nordic Model, which is made up of two components: 1) The decriminalization of selling sex, and the criminalization of pimps and johns; and 2) The creation and strengthening of state resources, such as education, professional training, counseling, and community support, to help prostitutes make a safe exit from the industry. Countries that have adopted the Nordic Model, such as Sweden, Norway, and Iceland have seen dramatic reductions in prostitution. The Swedish Ministry of Justice found that since the adoption of the Sex Buyer Law in 1999, prostitution has fully halved, and continues to decline.[15] Additionally, no evidence has been found that prostitutes are being forced underground as a result of this policy.[16] And most importantly, not a single prostitute has been murdered by a john since the law came into effect. What the pimps, johns, and their apologists cannot stand about the Nordic Model is that it ends their monopoly on power, and actually punishes their exploitation of women, all while empowering their former slaves. This is why they always try to erect obfuscations against the Nordic Model, even outright crying about how it victimizes the “poor johns”. Some of the more cunning faux leftists argue against the Nordic Model on the basis that it increases the power of the bourgeois state and police; or they claim that there is no use in combatting prostitution since no reform under capitalism will eliminate it. On the contrary, the Nordic Model represents a perfect example of a transitional demand. Trotsky defined the transitional demand as being a bridge between the minimum demands of social democracy and the maximum demands of revolutionary socialism; demands that would allow the oppressed to win not just key reforms, but also to increase their strength and confidence against the capitalist state. Transitional demands are not just calls for reform, but calls for openly revolutionary action that will spark reforms and strengthen existing ones. The Nordic Model is a perfect example precisely because it is a reform that strikes at the heart of the patriarchal and capitalist system; it allows the masses to see just who supports and benefits from prostitution. Eugene Debs, when he was city clerk of Terre Haute, advocated for a kind of proto-Nordic Model, refusing to assess fines on prostitutes, because the police took no action against the pimps or the usually wealthy johns. As for the false concerns about increasing the power of the bourgeois state and police, the Nordic Model, like any good transitional reform, forces the state and the police to actually work for, not against, the people they claim to represent. Would these same “socialists” so worried about the cops being unleashed on pimps and johns have cried the same tears when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to enforce the desegregation of schools in the Jim Crow south? It would, at the very least, be amusing to see a socialist cite this as an example of giving the bourgeois state “too much power”.

To reiterate, every socialist revolution has struck with the full force of its power against prostitution and the sex industry. Every major socialist revolutionary has recognized the emancipation of women from sexual slavery as one of the basic tasks of the revolution. These “sex work socialists” are more than just hypocrites and revisionists, they are outright misogynistic reactionaries. The degeneration of the revolutionary left in the western world, especially in the Anglophone world is what has allowed these trends to sprout and grow. The pernicious influence of neoliberalism and postmodernism have infected the body of the revolutionary left; slowly eating away at it like gradual poisoning. The Marxist concept of free love aims to eliminate the current patriarchal system of sexual coercion and exploitation, and replace it with a humane and open system of actively consensual intimacy. Those who believe otherwise would best be served by dropping the act, and joining the Libertarian Party, because that is where their politics truly lie. The left needs to remember its mission; the liberation of the oppressed peoples of the world, and take an active stand against the pimps and johns playing dress-up as communists.

[safespacepuppy]

Why the Bisexual Manifesto does NOT exclude pansexuality

The ATBefore I start anything: Bisexual people are valid. Biphobia and Bi erasure are real and serious issues. This is, in no way, intended to diminish their struggles or identities. 

My problem lies with BABs, especially their argumentation. A lot of BABs will urge people to “Look up the Bi Manifesto” when they hate on Pan people (In this i will use “pansexuality”, however it also goes for any other sexuality BABs are discriminating against). So, you know what? I did it. But not just the reddit version of it. I decided to look at the real manifesto as it was published.

The Bi manifesto was first published in Issue #2 of the ATM. It says as following

“ATM was created out of pride; out of necessity; out of anger. We are tired of being analyzed, defined and represented by people other than ourselves, or worse yet, not considered at all. We are frustrated by the imposed isolation and invisibility that comes from being told or expected to choose either a homosexual or heterosexual identity. Monosexuality is a heterosexist dictate used to oppress homosexuals and to negate the validity of bisexuality.Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have "two" sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don't assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone's sexuality, including your own.We are angered by those who refuse to accept our existence; our issues; our contributions; our alliances; our voice. It is time for the bisexual voice to be heard.”

This manifesto, in many parts, it directly contradicts the acting of BABs:

 “Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality” directly speaks against BABs claiming that pan people are just “bi people with a different label”. You should never assume the sexuality of someone. Saying they’re actually bi is assuming something about their sexuality - which is something the manifesto is DIRECTLY against

The same goes for the “imposed isolation and invisibility” part - the manifesto does not accept the erasure of sexualities. Which BABs do for pansexuality.

The manifesto often speaks about fluidity. This is just a general point but “fluidity” in no point is exclusing microlabels. 

This just goes for a minority but I saw several BABs argue that the Bi label does not mean “attraction to more than one gender” but actually means “attraction to all genders”, actively excluding people that do not feel attraction to ALL genders. “binary or duogamous in nature” means that obviously bi does not directly mean “attraction towards only two genders”, however it CAN. I’m posting this last since I did not see many BABs argue like this, however I saw some. 

However... a lot of BABs seem to ignore the fact that the manifesto actually continues. Throughout the next issues, there are several paragraphs added. These are

Issue 2: “Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals tend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals.”

A lot of BABs use the manifesto as the ultimite rule and definition of Bisexuality. Which ATM itself, is not agreeing on. 

But the most interesting point, that DIRECTLY GOES AGAINST BABs, comes in issue 3:

Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word "bisexual" to be inadequate and too limiting

The manifesto itself is directly speaking in support of microlabels to specify. THey say that it is okay to not use the bi-label if you find it not adequate for your experience.

The ATM itself is a very inclusive magazine that goes against any discrimination of sexuality and gender. Discrimination against pansexuality and other microlabels is definitely nothing they would support.

I feel like a lot of BABs don’t know the full manifesto and it’s implications. “The Bi manifesto is against pansexuality” is probably a phrase a lot of them heard being used and just copied it. Otherwise, they would not use it to reason their pan-hate. At no point does it excluse microlabels. In fact, it explicitly says it is okay to not identify with the bilabel if you find it unfitting to you.

I know and acknowledge that there are several problematic and biphobic parts in the pan history. These problems should be spoken about.

But using the bi manifesto to justify your hate towards pansexuality is disingenuous. Both to the manifesto itself - which allows us to coexist - and the strong people of the ATM who fought against hatred and discrimination and inclusion based on sexuality and gender

[pergimelaut]

Books I read in 2020.

I was once platonically attracted to a friend. Not only did he tell me the name of the person he liked (not me, of course), but also the reasons why. I could’ve mentioned two or three, but one reason sank me in was, “Because she likes to learn.” He didn’t say that to offend me since that night was one of those meetings in which he is the spotlight of our conversations, yet I couldn’t help but feel offended. I thought, “That certainly can’t be me. I don’t like to learn.” I never did, actually.

It was a wake up call that, all this time, I had been stuck in the peak of Mountain Stupid, one of the stages of Dunning-Kruger effect—a phase where you were filled with nothing but arrogance and overconfidence, before the realization “you didn’t know anything at all” hit you like a bucket of cold water.

Well I didn’t change myself after that, though. But in my defense, I decided to read 70-something books in the third year of my student press organization’s membership (which I later failed) long before I had had the conversation with him. I had had my own reason at first, but whatever it was, it was slowly but surely shifted with an ultimate goal created due to that very night, “I want to like to learn.”

Long story short, I was able to read 33 books in 2020.

It’s nowhere near an achievement to be proud of, so I cancelled my plan to write about it and upload it on a platform where I could gain a higher chance he would read it. I know, I know, I shouldn’t seek validation from another person besides myself—after all 33 books were quite impressive for someone like me who don’t really like books, so I shouldn’t be embarrassed about it nor should I be disappointed with the fact that the plan must be cancelled as I was miserably failing, but, welp, so. Okay. In this post, I would like to tell you the books I read in 2020, sort by chronological order.

Yeah, I uploaded it on my personal blog instead, what a dramatic turn of events.

Manifesto Flora was the first book I read, finished it on 2 January 2020. I believe I started to read it on the last couple days of 2019, so it was kinda cheating. It’s a compilation of short stories. All of them were amazing but there was a short story that I really enjoyed titled “Bekas Teman Baikku”. The author had written a short story for a yearly student magazine organized by a student press organization I later joined.

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez was an amazing novel it earned 5 stars on my Goodreads account. My teacher had been telling us about it as he taught magical realism in Creative Writing class. I finished it in three days—I remember those days where I didn’t do anything besides reading; I woke up in the morning and started to read. That was the only thing I did all day. It almost felt like reading was my hobby. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

Hidup di Luar Tempurung was the third book I read. I wasn’t in the best mood to read at that time, but I pushed myself, ended up finishing it but also regretting it since I knew that this book deserved to be treated well. After that I read Bagaimana Tuhan Menciptakan Cahaya by Raka Ibrahim and O: Tentang Seekor Monyet yang Ingin Menikah dengan Kaisar Dangdut by Eka Kurniawan, ended up disliking both by simply because I didn’t enjoy them, I gave them 2 stars. 

Then, well. Global pandemic left me shell-shocked as everyone else, really.

One month nearly passed but thankfully I managed to finish the first e-book titled Filosofi Teras by the end of March. I liked the book at first, even for a short period of time I felt like I could rely on the book as I was trying to cope with anxiety, but turned out it’s a false hope since I simply couldn’t become that rational LOL. But topics about stoicism still got my attention though—perhaps it’d remain as something I could admire. Pulang by Leila S. Chudori was a really good book, another one with 5 stars. Later I learned that having 1965-ish as a setting for novels is mainstream, but since I hadn’t known that, it left me in awe.

Then I got tired.

I wasn’t in the mood to read any books, so I turned into Japanese books—my admittedly guilty pleasure. I read Naruto Secret Chronicles: Shikamaru’s Story: A Cloud Drifting in Silent Darkness, a light novel from Naruto based on Shikamaru’s perspective. Although I wouldn’t mention it as one of the books I read in 2020, it was surprisingly a good book. It taught me about Naruto’s universe beyond what I knew, such as politics and government involved. It helped set the mood, so I continued with Ichigo Doumei, another Japanese novel. It was a book mentioned in Your Lie in April, one of my anime recommendations. It’s a good, simple wholesome story that taught us to treasure the life we had. I disliked the female lead character, though—I still do.

I read Kubah by Ahmad Tohari, a novel my teacher once mentioned, which I dislike, and much hate later on, since it gave people wrong assumptions about PKI and what’s surrounding the 1965 tragedy. After that I fell into Kagerou Daze fandom where I spent a lot amount of time consuming the songs, manga, anime, and also light novels—making me successfully adding Kagerou Daze Vol. 3: The Children Reason, Kagerou Daze Vol. 4: The Missing Children, and Kagerou Daze Vol. 5: The Deceiving to my Goodreads’ bookshelf. The latter was my favourite among them. As I hyped with Japanese authors, I thought it was best to finish Before the Coffee Gets Cold, a Japanese novel I found from a post about, well, Japanese novel recommendations. It’s a fun experience; an enjoyable story with a heart-warming ending.

Four Japanese novels in a row brought me to cursed loop as I realized I had not “learned” enough. Whereas I did learn something with each Japanese novel I read, it wasn’t “learning” that I’d planned in the first place. 

August was a month where I thought, “Eh, maybe I like books,” because I read 8 books in one month. I read Setan van Oyot by Djokolelono, a book published by Marjin Kiri. The novel was well-constructed from the start to the middle part, but unfortunately NOT until the end. Another note: it didn’t bother giving us the translation of both the local and foreign languages used in the story, which is good! I also had the energy to consume Of Mice and Men, a classic book mentioned in Pulang. 

I had spent days in library and bookstore when I finished Hidup Begitu Indah dan Hanya Itu yang Kita Punya—it made me aspire to achieve the ability to write articles like Dea Anugerah, the author. I also read Ketakberhinggaan di Telapak Tangannya by Gioconda Belli which easily became one of my favourite books of the year.

I read The Heart is A Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, another book with a writing style I would aspire to achieve. It’s a good social-realism novel covering racism towards black people, the life of a curious little girl, a perspective from a blind-deaf man, and the socialist guy—everything was set around the 1930s, written by a brilliant 23-year-old woman. It has some translation issues, unfortunately. Then I continued with Kekerasan Budaya Pasca 1965: Bagaimana Orde Baru Melegitimasi Anti-Komunisme Melalui Sastra dan Film. I’ve been wanting to be able to convey my thoughts in a well-constructed thesis like what the book did.

Tango & Sadimin by Ramayda Akmal was the next, and it was enjoyable even though not satisfying—at least it helped me discover my tendency towards social-realism novels. Then I read Xenoglosofilia: Kenapa Harus Nginggris? by Ivan Lanin—it didn’t help me that much despite its educational contents, but perhaps I just didn’t find what I was looking for.

September was a shameful month as I didn’t read any books AT ALL. I planned to read at least one book per month, that’s why I set 12 books in my Goodreads. My goal wasn’t to read books, but to like them, so what I set up was simply the habit. Looking back at what I did—finishing One Hundred Years of Solitude—I could read book all day if I want to. But I want to become someone who, even if for a few pages, read books every day. And I considered myself failing when September passed without any finished books added to the list.

November came and I read El hablador by Mario Vargas Llosa, a book I had been desperately looking for that my friend finally lent to me. I gave them 5 stars because it greatly helped me in understanding indigenous people and how important it is to support their rights.

Then I desperately turned back to another Japanese novel, this time The Kudravka Sequence by Honobu Yonezawa. It successfully made me fall in love with one specific character because I feel represented, then I looked up Wikia and the synopsis of the next novels, and ended up disappointed LOL. I got tired again and read Sebuah Pertanyaan untuk Cinta by Seno Gumira Ajidarma, a book which I couldn’t believe had written by the Seno Gumira Ajidarma LOL(2). Then in order to set up the mood, I bought my friend’s self-published short stories, Dongeng Sebelum Tidur: Kumpulan Cerita Pendek. It was the first time I added a book to Goodreads. I told her that I uploaded a review and gave her 5 stars. She was really happy and I too was happy because of it.

December approached as well as final exams. So many papers with short deadlines, and despite that, I read books instead on working with my papers—procrastinator as its finest, you see. I read two Agatha Christie’s books, The ABC Murders and Five Little Pigs, two novels I had really wanted to read in years. After exams passed, I somehow gained my energy back. I read Kisah Seekor Camar dan Kucing yang Mengajarinya Terbang by Luis Sepulveda, an enjoyable novella reminding us to take care of animals and protecting the environment from pollution. I wrapped up 2020 with two classic books, No Longer Human by Osamu Dazai and Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell.

 Yup, that’s it!

Now that I’ve just tracked back all the books I read, I realize that my reading experience has its ups and downs. I ain’t good at keeping my mood stable to do the same activities  for a long period of time, and I earned the energy back by—apparently—switching into Japanese novels or light-themed books.

Long story cut short, I failed to read 70-something books. But I also recovered from the heartbreak I guess (LOL), and that’s good news! (Although maybe I forced myself to move on, since the goal was the indicator whether I’m worth it or not, and I failed.) (I shouldn’t have done that to myself, but I had no chance at all in the first place, though. That’s why if I could move on by setting an impossible goal, failed in the process, and helplessly gave up, so be it!)

Thank you for reading.

(And thanks to Anggy who beta read the post! <3)

[tessatechaitea]

Justice League International #8 (1987)

Is it weird that I have a newsstand copy of a comic book when I definitely was shopping at my local comic shop in 1987?

This cover has so many jokes to talk about that I probably won't have time to review the entire issue. My stomach is already sore for laughing so hard! Look at how the box marked "fragile" is about to fall onto the floor thanks to the carelessness of Blue Beetle and Booster Gold! Ha ha! And they're carrying the large box upside down! According to the label on the upside down box, it's going to Paris, France so it must contain Crimson Fox who is almost certainly swearing in French because have you ever tried to masturbate while upside down in a box being jiggled by two men?! The incompetence of those guys is hilarious! But the best joke is the one where the only woman on the team doesn't lift a finger to help and also can't make up her mind about the placement of a gigantic box that hasn't been opened yet! See how funny that is? Because who cares where the box is placed?! It's not like they're moving a desk or an end table and Black Canary is coming up with a floor plan! It's just a box that will need to be opened and then broken down and then thrown out! The other funny part is that yellow spray around Beetle's head and the shape of his mouth because I think it suggests he's about to call Black Canary a bitch! Ha ha! I probably left out the joke about the hernia although that one might just be implied. Also, it'll probably be a blatant joke later in the story. The issue begins with Jack Ryder on his right-wing radio call-in television "news" program fiasco of a show Hot Seat trying to get the masses to shit blood over the Justice League. It'll work because the masses in comic books (as well as the masses not in comic books because we've all seen how people who listen to and watch right-wing radio call-in television "news" programs easily believe the alternate reality fed to them because it speaks to their inherent biases and selfishness) are idiots. (That might be my favorite interruption by parenthetical reference I've ever written.) I also know that it will work because Glorious Godfrey only recently did the same thing a year or two ago and it worked. But comic books don't recognize time and space in the same way that we more logical and real readers do so the masses won't remember that they were fooled just a year ago by idiotic television pundits who don't mind seeing the world burn as long as they can cash a fat check over it. I doubly also know it will work because Millennium is coming up and I think that might be proof that maybe Jack Ryder was sort of right because aliens have infiltrated Earth and are pretending to be heroes and possibly even right-wing radio call-in television "news" hosts. I don't really remember much about Millennium except that it was weekly and there were Manhunters in it.

My favorite comic book characters when I was a kid were Blue Falcon and Dynomutt. I bet Jack Ryder was Sean Hannity's favorite. Tucker Carlson's favorite was probably Hitler.

This issue begins the long running joke that Martian Manhunter is addicted to Oreos. I fucking get it, man. Have you ever tried to melt an Oreo into a spoon, fill a needle with the liquid contents, and inject it straight into your bloodstream? Me neither because that's stupid, you dumb idiot. Why would you even suggest it? You need to inject them straight into your taste buds. J'onn, Mister Miracle, and Captain Atom are setting up the New York Embassy which leads to lots of jokes about shoddy construction and terrible wiring and lazy movers. At one point Captain Atom electrocutes himself and then destroys all of the wiring because he's the guy the United States wanted to represent them on the new international team. I'd say his penchant to escalate a situation straight to violence proves the United States made the right decision. Batman and Guy Gardner oversee the outfitting of the Russian Embassy with a little help from Rocket Manhunter #7.

Even Rocket Red has heard about Guy's serious brain trauma and yet nobody has even discussed getting him a medical check-up. What a bunch of bastards!

This is also the issue that begins the "Bwa-ha-ha-ha" gag (I think. Did it happen in an issue previously? Maybe?! Anyway, it really gets going here). That's the gag where somebody laughs when something terrible happens to somebody else. It's a great team building exercise, to laugh at a co-worker's pain! Or if it isn't, it, at the very least, helps develop personal morale. Nothing better than laughing at your manager after her credit card was stolen by a prospective new employee while the entire company was in a meeting, especially after learning that said card was pretty much just used at The Honey Baked Ham. Does that make if funnier? Or is this one of those dark humor things like when the same manager was super pissed at an employee I was training for not showing up for work the day before Thanksgiving only to learn later that she had died of carbon monoxide poisoning the previous night which caused her to erupt into crying jags for the rest of the day which I'm positive weren't for my poor co-worker but for her guilty feelings of being so angry at her. That's dark humor, right? The "Bwa-ha-ha-ha" gag begins when Booster tries to hit on a Parisian woman and gets shot down. Later, she winds up being the League's Paris Bureau Chief. And also maybe Crimson Fox?

This scene is well done in a book that often tries too hard for stupidly silly humor.

I'd say that these three pages (the scanned page being the third of the three) of interaction between Blue Beetle and Booster Gold is ground zero for what would become a great best friend relationship. Any interaction before this was just of the generic Blue Beetle making a stupid class clown comment to the group. But this foundational scene in Paris already feels like these two at their closest which, admittedly, is mostly Blue Beetle laughing at something dumb Booster Gold did. But I like to view this entire relationship through the lens of a Booster Gold mostly driven mad and insane from having to live through so many alternate timelines. Sure, the reader doesn't know about that aspect of Booster Gold yet (and won't for more than a decade). But I can't help but understand Booster Gold through that lens now. And his need for some kind of consistency and whimsy and, almost certainly, a need to be able to laugh at himself must be expressed through this relationship as a kind of therapy. In a universe where not even the timeline lacks consistency, Booster Gold finds solace in getting his balls busted by Blue Beetle.

Maybe I'm a dick who doesn't understand true friendship but this is totally what it looks like, right?

The issue ends with a Keith Giffen drawn story about the end of the Global Guardians, or at least the end of their United Nations backing. I'm sure it's a set-up for a future story but even if it were just a couple page story acknowledging the Global Guardians and how they're affected by a new United Nations backed team, it would remain an interesting moment. I don't need iron clad continuity in my comic book universe but I am entertained when writers acknowledge the waves their stories are making in that continuity. Plus it's drawn by Giffen which always makes it seem like I'm reading a story from the perspective of a madman. Justice League International #8 Rating: B+. How come when I publish a manifesto, people refer to it as a 'zine?! How do you get the fucking power to have your photo-copied screed with "art" considered a manifesto?! How many people do I have to rant at to get some Goddamned recognition?! "The Truth About Star Trek Transporters" is not a fucking fanzine, people! It's a manifesto of the alternate reality we're being asked to accept! The alternate reality of an alternate reality where people are being sent to their deaths every fucking mission only to be replaced by clones of themselves and nobody fucking cares! Probably because they're all clones of clones of clones and their ability to think rationally has diminished to the point of dogmatic stupidity! Am I the only one witnessing this while others simply think its some kind of retrograde perspective?! Does my antediluvian intellect subquester the means of proliferating the parallax of reality?! Does the inclusion of three hilarious dick jokes deny me the mantle of manifesto writer, oublietting my ego into an infinite mirror trick of endless zineian declarations?! Fuck this shit! And fuck that satellite that's been following me throughout this meandering conclusion!

[showdepremiosclub]

An Appeal to American Workers

Concerning the social and economic status of the United States of America... "...man seems to be in a worse state even than the brutes..." -- Samuel von Pufendorf, "On the Duty of Man and Citizen," Book 1, Chapter 3 Introduction For so long, writers of all ages have made their appeals to kings, to queens, to archbishops, saints and popes.  When trying to advance their own interests, men of letters would correspond with dukes and rulers of provinces.  By contacting those in power, they were confident that their ideals would be expressed to the people in the most succinct and powerful way.  Yet, it has been the trend of Anarchists, regardless of era, to make their appeal not to the rulers, but to the ruled -- not to the presidents or the prime ministers to beg for their mercy, but to the workers of the world's nations, and command them to action.  Since we are advocates of a certain sense of justice, since we are the prophets of social doom and resurrection, we believe that the cause of the condition of the world is the ruling class and its minions, their state-sanctioned slavery of Capitalism.  And, furthermore, we believe that to plead for mercy from those who casually mock the things that stir us, to plead for mercy would be to offer a begging hand to our executioner.  For these reasons and more, Anarchists and Freethinkers make their appeals not to kings or queens, not to "sovereign entities" and their mechanized armies, but to the people themselves, that they might liberate themselves and others.  It is in such an attitude that I present this piece...  An Appeal to the American Workers. Why Revolt? First, when I am speaking to my fellow brethren, my comrade citizens in the United States of America, I want to say this.  At first sight of the Communist and Socialist manifestos, their ideologies, the speeches made by their affiliated parties, when I heard these things for the first time, I was in complete disagreement.  The language used by these demagogues of Communism was burdened by economic vocabulary.  In some works that would be classified as liberal, I've seen the word "aggregate" used five times in a single sentence.  Through these bizarre concepts, these overly technical definitions of a so-called sociological science, these "decline in the wage conditions of proletariat" and "bourgeoise distribution of wealth," through all of these is where we hear the call for Communism.  I first want to tell my readership that I am familiar with these speeches, these pamphlets, these books, and I am familiar with the awkward and almost inhuman way that they have dealt with the economic question.  I have seen men of Socialism do nothing but reprint manifestos and sloganeer, as though their drone-like actions were about to bring about the greatest state of peace, justice, and equity for mankind ever known. While these socio-economic appeals of Communist and Socialist parties are made to the public, they are often ignored; in a way, they are regarded solely as "preaching to the choir."  They use words and phrases that the people are generally unfamiliar with.  Their politics are relatively dreary; whenever a new party pops up, its statement of faith seems to be followed a pattern completely uniform with the last party.  This is not an attack on those who are unfamiliar with the phrases and vocabulary of Communist theory.  Rather, it is an attack on those who are ridiculously stuck with such phrases.  To other Communist and Socialist comrades, those who feel that society would be greatly benefited through collective property, I ask this: that these awkward and almost erroneous phrases are abandoned now.  Not because they are no longer understood by the common people, but because they were never understood by the common people.  People must not be intellectuals that they might be revolutionaries. With that said, I want to say that I wholly and truly believe in the philosophy of Communism.  I am an advocate of the words of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in matters of economics and sociology.  In many ways, I divert from the philosophy that they preached.  I am also a follower of the words of Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and Alexander Berkman -- the late, forgotten Anarchists of yesteryear, whom openly opposed the arguments of Marxian economics.   Again, I diverge from their arguments in many ways.  I am a follower of the words of Thomas Paine, when speaks of doing justice as man's only duty; I am a follower of the words of Carl Sagan, when his words oppose the claims of religious fanatics; I am a follower of the words of Jean Jacques Rousseau when his words are of the corruptability and weakness of a Republican government -- I am the humble follower of Mark Twain, Margaret Sanger, Voltaire, Charles Darwin, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.   But, in so many cases, I find myself in disagreement.  Perhaps it would help my Communist brethren to practice a higher degree of skepticism when reading the works of Marxian economists and other political philosophers. A Revolution -- But Against What? If we are to take an objective and honest look at the situation in the United States today, we will find ourselves looking face to face with some very grim and ugly facts.  Many people are losing their jobs to outsourcing.   Corporate scandals are becoming a daily occurence.  People have lost complete faith in this system that seems to perpetuate unemployment, poverty, and misery.  This is not solely my view, but it is the view of the people.  More than half of the country does not vote.  There can be only one reason for this: people feel that both political parties and their candidates are incapable of redressing the ailments of this dying nation.  Underneath the sloganeering of "rugged individualist" philosophers, underneath phrases like "quarterly corporate gains" and "official company accounting procedures," underneath other phrases that serve to aleniate us from the subject, underneath it all, we become more and more dissatisfied with this country.  We are a modern country living in a modern world!  Yet, when we open our eyes, we still find so much poverty, so much misery, so much homelessness.  We find ourselves face to face with an economic system that nobody has tried to improve upon -- an economic system that is essentially the root of these social ills.  In so many years, with such great strides in all studies, we feel that men have inherently left one field untouched, that is, the field that deals with how to create a social and economic infrastructure, so as to remove these undesirable elements.  We are not moved by self-interest or snobby intellectualism; we are moved by the interest of all of mankind -- it is our interest to eliminate the suffering of the innocent. In a 1997 study by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, for every dollar an employee earned, he made almost six dollars for his employer. [U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Comparative Statistics, Core Business Stastitics Series, EC97X-C52, issued June 2000.]  One dollar of that six earned income goes towards the other expenses, such as replenishing the shelves and electricity. [Business Expenses, 1997 Economic Census, Company Statistic Series, 1997, Issued December 2000, EC97CS-8, US CENSUS BUREAU, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU.]  That means, for every two dollars a Capitalist spends, he is given seven dollars back.  The investor makes money because he has money, and for no other reason.  He is maintained at a situation in life where more money will do him not much better.  And while he is surrounded in elegance, lavishness, and wealth, there are millions of children starving to death in our nation. In 1980, the top 1% of the United States owned more than 25% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 20% do not even own 1% of all the wealth. [U.S. Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Quoted from Contemporary Macroeconomics, by Milton H. Spencer, Worth Publishers, Inc., Fourth Edition, page 45.]  If these facts alone are not enough to disturb anyone of good conscience, then I do not think anything is capable of disturbing them. I could continue to parade statistics around.  I could delve deeper and deeper in to the archives of economic thinktanks, pulling out numbers and equations used to determine the unemployment rate's fluctuation in response to the rate of interest of banks.  I could pull up a historical timeline, showing the general decrease of wages in contrast to the general increase of profits.  There are at least a million articles that discuss the economic question that I have yet to read; each of them from authors of their own particular background, whether Free-Market Capitalists or Marxian Communists.  All of these writers have contributed what discoveries they've made to the intellectual community.  They offer their words in defense of the trends or patterns they discover in economic behavior.  Some of them are motivated by political causes, whether it's the establishment of Statist Communism or the abolishment of Communist political parties in third world nations.  Many of them are motivated by their desire for prestige, to be recognized by the community as men and women of thought -- they figure, that if they can make their words more boring, dull, and formulaic than other authors, they will be recognized as men and women of genius by some university community.  Some authors have no interest, except to explore the sociological field, and find out what it is that really moves the economy, to discover what gears and what cogs in society effect what other gears.  Yes, I could pull out plenty of statistics and many arguments that these economists have utilized in demonstrating their opinions.  But, in this appeal to American workers, I must say what I think: I believe that the average man and woman have enough sense and enough experience to make the decision that the status quo is unsatisfactory. Consider a radical reorganization of the social structure.  For this reorganization to have any merit to it, we must start with the problems we observe.  So, then, let's consider the most obvious problems.  There are men and women whose job it is to hold signs on street corners, many times dressed in costumes, trying to entice people to purchase goods and services.  They make very little money, but there are men and women in corporate firms whose task is essentially the same.  Marketing and Sales executives are making six-digit salaries by devising new and different methods for convincing the public to want their goods.  Their job basically is to convince people that they want and need things that their own wit and intellect wouldn't ever tell them to purchase.  On top of these executives, there are the people of the media, the makers of commercials, billboards, radio advertisements, newspaper advertisements, graphic design for corporate logos; some people spend years doing market analysis, so that they can uncover trends in the consumer choices of citizens and workers.  At the top, there are executives and corporate officials, making millions of dollars a year, and at their disposal is an army of Walmart greeters, sales associates, clerks, manager assistants, and other professionals -- all of them solely exist to entice people to buy things that they otherwise wouldn't have wanted in the first place.  From this point, we find that the purpose of their existence is to subvert, control, and manipulate the general will of the people.  Their meaning to life is inimical to that of a free conscience. Those people who work in low-wage jobs, spending most of their lives taking orders from supervisors and being criticized for "not having company" spirit -- I cannot blame them.  I cannot blame them at all.  If being a Walmart greeter was the only job available, if it was the only thing that could help someone support their family or drug habit or pay rent, then I cannot blame them.  But to those corporate executives and company officers, these CEOs who control billions of dollars of the world economy, they are responsible for this situation.  They have built up a culture of want, consumption, and poverty.  Someone looking at it from an objective viewpoint will say that these people are simply useless, they simply do not contribute to society in any positive way, but that is light view of the situation.  Not only do sales and marketing associates fail to contribute to society in any meaningful way, but they are parasites; they are the thieves of intellectual liberty.  Their fat paychecks are only provided for by the society which they have leached themselves on to.  It is not by noble pursuits and honesty that they make their living; it is by avarice and dishonesty. This is among the first and most notable dilemmas of the Capitalist economy: the advertisement industry.  Whether we are looking at corporate executives, or people dressed in chicken suits holding signs on the sidewalk, I think I am making a fair judgment in saying this: these people do not contribute to society in any meaningful or productive way.  We see, then, the first common and obvious fault of the Capitalist economy.   What is the solution?  It's a rather simple and obvious one.  Those people who are members of this inhuman industry are to be put to productive work.  What does that entail, specifically?  Well, those employees who were stripped of their old professions would be put to work in meaningful jobs.  In particular, they would start to contribute labor to the economy so as to produce goods and services.  That means jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, or transportation and distribution.  I consider these fields of the economy to be productive because they contribute in satisfying the interests of consumers.   Workers on an assembly line, for instance, are creating products that will be consumed: television sets to be watched, clothing to be worn, computers for hobbyists, CDs and DVDs as entertaining media, tools to help other workers accomplish their jobs, etc., etc..  Members of the agricultural economy are invaluable for one obvious reason: they create the food that feeds all of us.  Construction workers produce the buildings that people live and work in; they are simply a different type of manufacturing worker.  Transportation and distribution is essential, in getting the products from the site they were produced to the site they will be used at.  All of these fields are necessary to a healthy and free society. I do not want my opinion on this matter to be misunderstood or misinterpreted.  My contention is not that it should be made a crime for men and women to use their own intellect to change the opinions of others.  I think that the law should reflect a general anti-censorship ethic: whether in matters of politics or economics or religion or philosophy, or any field of study that has been subject to witch-hunts and being burned alive, I think that all should have intellectual liberty.  You should have the right to private discourse, to let the thoughts in your mind mix and meld with memories and experiences, to be the ultimate judge and jury of your own opinion; it is the right to decide that you enjoy something as much as it is the right to say that you dislike something.  You should also always have the right to publish the results of your private discourse, to speak with other members of the community in a way that reflects your thoughts, to try and convert people to your opinion on anything, whether art and culture or politics and society.  The Statists, Fascists, and others of the anti-Democratic tribe will spend hours upon hours, lamenting the tragedies that have occured and will occur again if the people have the right to intellectual freedom.  Whatever tragedies have occured from liberty of thought, they shrink to almost nothing, when one thinks of the tragedies that have occured from the suppression of liberty of thought. We criticize the advertisement industry solely for the sake that it is counter-productive, it works against the general interest and will of all men and women of good character.  It invades communities, turning them in to dry husks, destitute of any real sense of culture and destitute of any real sense of purpose.  It has turned art into a perversity, exploiting painters and sculptors, taking their passion and molding it into "Buy One, Get One Free!"  There is no excuse, no pardon, that could ever be made for this group.  However, when we look at the employment of the distribution economy, we find ourselves looking at the same faults that plagued the advertisement industry.  Distribution centers, whether they're stores or malls or shopping centers, all of them seem to operate on the same principles that the advertisement industry acts upon.  Such an enormous effort is placed on making the products or services look more appealing, so that the consumer is convinced to purchase such items.  It also seems as though these distribution centers are having less and less of specific products.  Many popular chain stores are a combination of department store and grocery.  It seems that almost every store is selling "impulse items" near the counter, including candy and cheap mini-magazines.   These impulse items are in every store, whether it's an office supplies store, a furniture store, or even something as simple as a gift card store.  Many grocery stores are also selling cooked and prepared food, ready to eat.  In their never-ending quest to boost profits and gain stockholder confidence, stores are expanding the line of products that they sell, not to make their selection complete, but to have more income from sales. Distribution centers in an ideal society would not consist in these elegant settings, with employees who act as greeters or make the store look visually appealing, nor would artists be exploited to create artwork for product packaging.  The individuals who fill these positions would be transferred to industry sectors where they can act as productive agents of society.  In examining the American and European economy structures, we have here seen the greatest reforms and changes we would enact.  That is, the greatest reforms and changes we would enact, if the economy was built to serve the interests of mankind, and not built to serve the interests of private corporations and exploiters of labor.  With the abolishment of so many professions, one might think that a massive unemployment might take place.  This is not necessarily so.  Those who would lose their jobs would be relocated to meaningful parts of the economy.  That would mean, that society would produce more goods, at a higher quality, with less hours.  Essentially, yearly wages would be doubled and work time would be halved.  The happiness and satisfaction with life that men and women have would be increased; that is the basic goal of all this discussion and research. Ultimately, in this fair and ideal economy, workers would be paid not according to suggestions and manual aids from the corporate office.  They would be paid according to the value that they create.  Instead of the minimum wage which finds itself the standard of many industrial, farming, and service jobs, workers would be paid upwards of $20 to $30 an hour, a number that certainly can be afforded by the economy.  The primary reason why such workers are not being paid this right now is remarkably simple: those who are the legal owners of capital (mines, farms, stores, factories) want as much money from their business ventures as possible.  That means paying as low as possible so that there is more profit.  It is for these reasons, that all members of the Capitalist class (those who own the productive parts of society) are regarded as the thieves of labor, the enemies of the working class, the exploiters of the proletariat, among other phrases used by Leftist groups. Among the most bitter ironies that history has taught us, it is this: workers in the year 1600 worked only ten hours a day to secure their needs.  When industrial societies arrose, and factories allowed workers to produce ten times as much as when they worked without factories, people started to work 12 to 18 hours a day, sometimes as much as 20 hours a day.  The new economic conditions that came with the industrial revolution allowed the Capitalist class to force people to work for so long, since the members of this class were also the ones who controlled food distribution in society.  And today, when man's productive power is at least several hundred times that of the 1600 worker, the average workday is 8 hours -- and that alone was a struggle that cost the lives of many workers, gunned down by thugs hired by corporate entities, just to obtain. It is for these reasons, these observations and experiences in what has always felt like a dying world, that I am a Communist and a Socialist.  For the motivation of a better world for myself, my fellow human kin of all nations, and the children of the coming generation, that I hold true to these beliefs. Subversive Tactics for Revolutionaries and Reformers There are countless ways in which a willing person can contribute to the revolution of social and economic relations in our world.  If a person becomes interested in social change and political reform, then they only have an entire history of revolution to look to for advice.  The existence of today's conservative, for example, can only be excused for those who were considered radical by society's standards several hundred years ago.  It was once common to think that a king's absolute authority of life and death over every person was just, that the rule of government can be exerted without the authority of the people, that the general will of the population is inconsequential, that the ruling class needs no excuse.  These and a thousand more foul lies were once considered public wisdom by the philosophers of the past age.  And before these things were believed, even more cruel and bitter philosophies were preached as religion.  Before this, there was no conception of justice, no idea of right or wrong.  When men thought of morality, they simply thought of what the men who spoke for god said; when men thought of fairness, they simply thought of what the men of government said.  It is true, that as we look back in history, we find eclipses in timelines, where a people were defiant, revolutionary, and bold -- where men and women dared to live by their own means, not by the guidelines of a king or priest.  But such societies were small and lasted very shortly.  Yet, all of this evidence is clear to all who are interested in changing today's social, economic, and political affairs. If you have this interest, then know this.  There is reason to hope that things will change.  And this hope is fueled by our understanding of history, our own philosophy, and of how today's society operates. The most popular and well-known of the methods of reform is that of the union.  People of a particular trade or business unite together so that they can collectively demand better conditions, through practices like a strike or boycott.  The interest of the common labor union is antithetical to every interest of the Capitalist class.  The labor union demands higher wages, fewer working hours, better working conditions, fair treatment of workers.  These are the things that drive up the costs of the businesses.  A corporation, which the sole interest of gaining power and wealth, looks to union activity as the greatest offense; it is a small group of people who have combined their power together, so that they might force oppressive groups to change their behavior.  The method of the union is the most peaceful method of social change.  The greatest threat its members ever pose to society is the threat to stop working, to start boycotting, and to start picketting.  Their goals are not achieved through violence, but by a very gandhi-like style. The effective goals of the union are simply the improvement of the working class's conditions.  It has always sought economic reorganization, demanding that nobody can be fired except with very good reason (job security) and demanding that the workers are paid fairly according to their labor.  While it is true that these are good and valid causes of any standard labor union, it shouldn't be forgotten that a union can be used as a political tool.  Consider a city council that has just been bribed by corporations to remove the living wage law (a law that provides around $15 per hour minimum wage).  The working class of the city will be greatly hurt.  Their living conditions will start to fall, and in a short while, they will feel that their condition has reached their original position.  They would either see the impending blow to their movement coming, and do nothing, lay still, take the suffering the state thinks they deserve.  Or, all labor unions would combine together, for an enormous general strike.  It must be understood, that products being produced, distributed, and consumed, is the government sanctioned form of slavery.  For everything bought or sold, money is given to taxes, to support the state.  For every hour you work, money is given to federal taxes, to support the state.  For everything owned, money is given as property taxes, to support the state.  If everyone, from every union in the city, from the services unions, the administrator unions, the manufacturing unions, the transportation unions, if every union in the city were to go out on strike at the same time, they would inflict massive, irreparable damage to the government. They could use their power as unions to force the government to change its decision, otherwise the entire infrastructure would collapse under this pressure.  This is also a worthwhile tactic if one union is having difficulty gaining better conditions for itself, and the unions its federated with could go on strike.  They go on strike, to tell their employers, to tell the other CEOs, to listen to their unions and accept some collective bargaining agreement, so that business can proceed as usual and the Capitalist system can continue. It is unfortunate that today's unions fail to see the necessity of a federation of unions and of advocating for political causes that directly effect them.   Unionizing labor today is legal.  That is something they need to realize.  True, the burden of poverty is over their heads; they must work so that they can feed themselves.  It is always the habit of the weaker victim to be less assertive, less bold in their attacks of their enemy.  But we must unite in order that we can oppose our enemies of Capitalism.  We must unite, and we must be strong, in that we can overcome our enemies.  And also, while I said it was a largely peaceful effort at social change, there is no doubt that the Capitalists have done to keep it anything but that.  Investors hired armed police squads to subdue picketters.  The social organization of our society has turned us on ourselves.  We are killing and murdering each other for crumbs.   All the while, an army of police officers are guarding corporate headquarters all across the United States, while people are suffering from poverty and want.  Unemployment is high and the wages are low.  We have a very good reason for revolting at the state of things. Another popular effort to gain control of the situation, and create a worker's paradise is to form a political party, and to try and gain as many positions in government as possible during elections.  However, it has been this method that has received the most criticisms from the general public.  Efforts of the state to achieve a truly Socialist effort has had dismal results: the U.S.S.R., the Dictatorship of Cuba, the murder by the allegedly communist governments of Vietnam and Korea.  And then, the efforts of minor socialist parties and international communist tendencies, these efforts have accomplished so little.  True, there are some European countries that have started to elect Socialist parties, and to enact Socialist legislation.  There are campaigns to reduce the average work day, to give better benefits to workers, to protect the consumers from harmful products, and to pay the workers more.  But most Communists agree that they want the economy to be in the control of the people; so too, must the political structure of a society be in the control of the people.  For this reason, most Communist and Socialist reformers have taken to the method of control via unions; to employ it to obtain political ends on behalf of the working class is to engage in a practice of Anarchy known as Anarcho-Syndicalism. There is also a popular case against voting based on Anarchist principles.  Anarchists often argue that if we refuse to vote, then the whole justification of consent with the government falls apart, and the system will collapse.  I can hardly see any justification for this.  Less than a third of the population votes anyway.  If more than two thirds of a nation is not enough force to gain superiority, then at what point do we become effective?  Many Anarchists maintain this position: that to refuse to vote is to make a revolutionary step.  I hear their arguments, and I don't quite find the logic of their evidence.  I do not see how refusing to vote is doing anything to stop the oppressors from continuing to oppress us.  If they find at least one thing sacred, or at least semi-sacred, and they are willing to respect the will of the people in electing a representative of their interests, then why should we shut off this method of social and political change?  Why should we villify it, destroy it, and inhibit all of its functions, when it is the only method we are legally allowed and encouraged to change the system?   Consider this one scenario.  There is an island with twenty people on it.  There is a Democratic vote on whether this person is to be hung for his crimes or not.  Among those who decide not to vote, they argue, "I do not think the collective should ever be able to vote on the life or death of a commune member, so, I shall not vote, and demonstrate my opinion this way," yet, if the majority votes for the killing, then it's the inaction of the Anarchist that played a great role in the murder.   For this reason, and reasons like this, we are apt to believe that we can use voting to change things, whether we are voting on a measure or a proposal, or for a person who seems to be the lesser of two evils (despite the fact that evil is evil). Perhaps some Anarchists will consider by ideals much less Anarchist and much less Libertarian if I support voting to a certain extent.  Perhaps they will say that I am a reformer, but not a revolutionary, that I am reformist Libertarian, or some other such terms.  I have only called myself an Anarchist because my ideals have been in unison with those of passed history, including Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin.  I disagreed with them on points, of course, but the basic philosophy remains in tact: elimination of the state, communal ownership of all property, mutual organization of social units, abolishing poverty and all drug prohibition, among so many other efforts to create a better, more lasting peace between men on earth.  If this basic philosophy cannot be defined as "Anarchism," then I can see of no other word to fit my arguments. Among many projects of the Anarchists and Communist, there is that project known as a worker colony.  A worker colony is a collection of workers, who live and work together in close quarters.   They are all assigned housing units and jobs, most of these places catering to industrial or manufacturing jobs.  Then they work four to six hours a day, and are given leisure and a suitable pay for the rest of their day.  Sir Robert Owen was a philanthropist businessman of the early eighteen hundreds, and created such a society.  Instead of the fourteen hour workday, these workers were only required to work eight hours a day.  They were given good, high quality food at inexpensive prices and they were given free medical care.  The leader of the collective, Robert Owen, was capable of turning a profit with this business venture.  In fact, many of these communities were started up by many investors, however, they soon became unfashionable at the sight of rising cost and competitive markets.  Many Anarchists of the new era have suggested the creations of such communities, so that people are capable of living as workers and consumers in a society where their happiness is the main end of all productivity.  I am not aware of any situation where Anarchists and Communists combined their finances in order to buy land and create such a community, but it is definitely a valuable idea to be considered, even if it's just on a small scale. Finally, there is the most popular and accepted method of spreading Anarchism and bringing about the revolution.  That method is propaganda.  This can take numerous forms.  It can be everything from marches and protests to picketing to leafletting.  Personally, I find that leafletting is the most effective way of swaying public opinion against their enemies.  A piece of paper briefly outlining our ideals will be something that a person approaches on their own, it is not an argument or a debate, and it allows the person to ingest the ideas at their own speed.  It is almost a re-education process.  People have to unlearn that social organization should be based upon fear and misery, and have tol earn that all social relationships should be cooperative and fair.  Plus, with more people educated and of Anarchist, Marxian, Communist, Socialist, or Libertarian opinions, there will be more people sympathetic to the cause of the unions.  There will be fewer people who will work as scabs at a striking business or shop at stores where unions are boycotting.  More people will vote for Socialist parties, environmental safe propositions, and Socialist measures.  More cities and regions are to obtain a healthy Anarchist and Socialist population. The more people in a city, the more that can contribute to a massive project like a worker colony.  The more who are convinced of the Anarchist position, the more who are likely to bring that issue to the eyes of the public, in spray painting across corporate property or marching in line at a protest.  With all of these methods, I can hardly see these Anarchists and Communists doing nothing to bring about change. A Free Society: The Appeal for Anarchism I can no doubt expect that many of these ideals are enormously progressive in the eyes of today's American worker.  He looks to these principles, these ideas of workers owning the productive forces in society, these revolutionary fundamentals of the workers being paid the wealth they produce, he looks to these, and he might as well be looking in to the future by thousands of the years.  He is impressed, but also intimidated, and almost scared of the change.  What it would take to change society, he argues, would involve moments of poverty and misery, such great reorganization of the social order, that it must be impossible.  And, even if it were possible, it would be necessary that some government should guide it, that some revolutionary vanguard party is necessary to the construction of a new society.  Without a large collection of highly armed, highly volatile, highly greedy men, nothing that we seek to change would get changed.  It is necessary, in the eyes of these men trained to be hopeless, it is necessary that a government always exist, in order that society can have civil discourse, while the cruel element of mankind is subdued by the police forces and the military barracks. I allude to one incident I uncovered in Portland, Oregon.  Fortunately, it is an extremely Leftist town, full of as many Anarchists, Communists, and Socialists, as there are Liberals and Democrats.  This has allowed some interesting experiments to come up, since so many people of the same political beliefs are collected together in this one city, and can work together on massive projects.   There is one particular cafe which advertises itself as "Worker Owned." It is called Back to Back.  In reality, it is owned by the I.W.W., or the Industrial Workers of the World (AKA: "Wobblies").  It just so happens, though, that the people who work there are not the owners, and beyond that, they are 100% volunteers.  The only payment they receive is in tips.  This is not the realization of the worker's paradise, it is the realization of his worst nightmare.  In their vanguardist efforts, the money that is raised with sales should go to two places, in the eyes of the IWW: To other Capitalists, to fund their exploitation of the working class, by helping them sell their products, and to bureaucrats, who can sit around for hours a day arguing with each other over wealth distribution, convinced that they are the essential piece to Proletarian revolution. But, I do not know all the arguments of the IWW.   Perhaps, they will use the same language of Corporate America.  "In recreating the world, we feel that it is necessary that workers are paid nothing, that they are to live humbly off of charity, while all the wealth in the world is concentrated in the hands of a very small number."  We will heard their arguments about cost production, about competition, about inflation.  They will speak on the same terms that McDonald's or Walmart would speak, in justifying cost reduction and retail increases.  We are Anarchists and Communists.  We believe that the Capitalist system must go if there is to be any justice in the economic or social sense; and, above and beyond that, we believe this change in the socio-economic sphere of the world can best be done by our own efforts.  So many great tragedies and miseries in the world have been caused by people doing exactly as they are told, by people who act without thought, becoming the slaves to some inhuman entity.  We do not need new rulers or more party politics; we need the people to rule for themselves, for each man to be his own master and his own slave. My appeal here, then, for the American people, is an appeal for a Communist economy, as much as it is an appeal for an Anarchist society.  The efforts of previous liberation groups has been in a vanguard party, in a despotic government coupled with all capital as public property, these are the greatest of dictatorships.  The essential argument behind each argument, that of Anarchism and that of Communism, is the same.  The idea of people deserving the wealth they create, and the idea of people living in a democratic society are similar in that both are a demonstration of the common will and desire of the people.  They are both based on improving the lot of the majority of people.  Besides, Communism cannot be properly carried out unless the most Democratic of conditions exist in society.  Look at the Leninist revolution.  It was followed and supported by a wide range of social reformers, but the conclusion was the over empowerment of the government, to the point of dictatorship.  Lenin held elections once.  He lost, and then used his military power to dispose of the winning political candidate.  A reign of terror, of secret police, of torture chambers, of a government subverting the natural will of the people to rule themselves.  The same can be said of the Castro-led revolution in Cuba.  At first, it was a hopeful situation for those who wanted a dramatic change in the social order of the world.  But, it was not long before the revolutionaries who sided with Castro quickly turned against him when they found out he chose himself as dictator.  Castro violated the will of the people, while parading around like he was its greatest demonstration.  So did Lenin.  In both of these international cases, it was a revolutionary party that refused to let the people rule themselves.  If we are to be successful, we must pay respect to our Socialist brothers, and understand the faults that they made.  We must create an Anarchist society, if the Communist economy is ever to be justly employed. I hope that the philosophy, the politics, the economics, and the social views displayed in this essay were enlightening or even heart-warming; I hope I have helped many other workers realize that they are not alone in their opposition of their two greatest enemies, the Capitalists and the government.  The first strips him of all his deserved wealth, the second strip him of all freedoms.  It is the poverty of slavery, the chains of misery.  I hope that the suggested methods for achieving our new world prove helpful, and that the workers of the world are bold and strong enough to try these tactics with me.  By uniting, by organizing, we are becoming stronger than the leader of our enemies.  Stay strong, and stay linked together.

[carterusm]

“I think the whole rock’n’roll thing of ‘Yeah! We must go out and bed lots of groupies and get shit-faced!’ stinks!” (Well, Why do it?-Ed)

New Musical Express 10th December 1988, Page 10 - DREAM DEMONS

From sub-Birthday Party clanking to acid fuzz-pop and now on to intense guitar aggression MY BLOODY VALENTINE have become the Noise Chameleons of the 80s. JACK BARRON dives into their slipstream and discovers that the boiling young bloods are the head of a particularly ominous sonic scab that’s surely about to burst. STEPHEN SPELLER provides the oxy.

The journalist, immobilised by a massive student demonstration in Central London, is late. A couple of miles up the road in a Kentish Town bar My Bloody Valentine are getting restless.

The band’s songwriter, frazzle-haired Kevin Shields, absent-mindedly pulls at the crater-sized hole in his jumper. For a minute his mind wanders to his favourite drug - sex - before discarding the thought in favour of his second drug of choice: vegetating.

Bilinda Butcher, who once studied dance at the Laban School before quitting to take up slipstream guitar, looks at her watch and says to bassist Deb Googe: “If the bloke doesn’t turn up soon I’ll have to go.” Meanwhile, Dublin born drumer, Colm O’Ciosoig, who if you look at him through squinted eyes bears a resemblance to Animal out of The Muppets, is recalling one of his favourite dreams.

Has a lot of dreams does Colm, they’re so vivid and fantastical he’d like to turn them into films one day. This afternoon he’s remembering his Apocalypse dream. It occurs two days before a nuclear war in Ireland. Mass confusiong reigns. In the melée Colm meets a girl and falls in love with her.

Inspired, the drummer hot-wires her family’s Rolls Royce and is then chased by government spies who believe he has committed treason.

The pursuit ends in a park by the edge of a cliff. On the green a Bacchanalian pre-Apocalypse party is going on the likes of which would make the local village priest blush if he hadn’t already disrobed his cassock and been making love to a nun nodding out on a heroin jag.

A nude posse is formed to capture the traitorous drummer who flees to the lip of the cliff. With certain death before him and eternal damnation behind him Colm calmy steps over the edge...

Drugs... Sex... Dreams...

The door of The Assembly Rooms pub slams, jerking Colm out of his reverie. The noisy intruder has the hassled demeanour of a journalist very late for an appointment. Colm, the lyricist of the firebrand song ‘(When You Wake) You’re Still In A Dream’ on My Bloody Valentine’s splendid new album, ‘Isn’t Anything’, lights a cigarette - his second favourite drug - and readies himself for the interview.

The journalist makes amends for his tardiness by heading for the pumps. As the pints are pulled he’s still amazed by the demo he sat through for an hour and a half. The ‘80s thus far has been noticeable for complete agitational apathy on the part of students. Now, though, there are Young Bloods exploding with energy and anger on the street of the capital... and it isn’t just confined to protest demos.

Young Bloods are rattling the style bars of rock music in Britain. Until recently, with the exception of The Mary Chain, the guitar might as well, in these isles, have been a hairdryer. For a number of years it has been American bands that have made all the running and found fresh ways to reinvent the trad instrument. You know these people well enough: Sonic Youth, Hüsker Dü, Swans, Dinosaur Jr, et al.

During the course of 1988, however, it has become increasingly apparent that the American noisecore brutalists have had a knock-on effect in Britain. Every week brings a Young Blood band to light that has tapped into the attitude of aggressive psychoto-delic invention pioneered by the Americans. Some we have already told you about: Loop, Spacemen 3, AC Temple, Head Of David and Playground, while others such as God, You Make My Flesh Crawl, and Godflesh are in the wings, waiting to be discovered.

The unexpected King Kongs in this pit of guitar gurus have ironically turned out to be the once-fey wraiths of indie pop, My Bloody Valentine. Their new album, ‘Isn’t Anything’, is colossal. Surging with mutant guitar tones that come from completely unconventional technique, and dappled with disembodied vocals, the record’s song structures are the aural equivalent of a bendy toy with switchblades for teeth, or The Elephant Man looking at himself in a hall of distorted mirrors.

Whether euphoric - as in the gorgeous ‘No More Sorry’ - or skin-flaying like ‘Feed Me With Your Kiss’, the compositions all verge on those moments when psychoses give way to hallucinations. Or, in the blunt vernacular of the publicist, “That LP! It does yer head in.” And for once he isn’t lying.

Besides sartorial scruffiness and mutually acknowledged idols such as The Stooges and The Velvets,, what My Bloody Valentine and the Young Bloods further have in common with America’s sonic brutalists is the the f---the-max guitarpower is allied to introverted and reflective lyrics.

There are no messages, manifestos or instructions to be heard. Instead, these band’s look at their world, through occasionally dilated pupils and report back, obscurely and absurdly.

There are of course exceptions to this. Spacemen 3 have stopped trying to drag their brains out of their nostrils and now exhort and need for ‘Revolution’ on their forthcoming single. In the main, though, inner space, changing states of mind, and emotional turmoil predominate lyrically. And with, as I’ve explained, sex being the number one drug of My Bloody Valentine’s principle songwriter, Kevin Shields, it is hardly surprising that in amongst tunes dealing with suicide (’Sueistine’) and disorientation (’I Can See It But I Can’t Feel It’) there are five songs left on the ‘Isn’t Anything’ album about bonking. You’d be hard-pressed though to name them all, such is the opaqueness of the lyrics.

The tape is switched on in the pub just in time for Bilinda to say “Hello-Goodbye.”

When I tell the remaining three MBVs that their new music has come as a very pleasant shock, especially as I gave up listening to them several years ago following the saccarine ‘Sunny Sundae Smile’ pop affair, they fill in the cracks in my knowledge.

“You know there have been about four different My Bloody Valentines,” says Kevin. “When Colm and I started out in Dublin years ago we were determined not to do anything that wasn’t totally original. So we messed around with excruciating noises.”

“We wanted the next act to be along the lines of The Butthole Surfers.”, continues the drummer. “using tapes to make a total noise that would offend people. So we came up with original music. The only problem was it was boring!”

“Boring” is the most frequently used description by MBV this afternoon. It’s the litmus test they have used on their own music during their career: if it’s a snore, pack it in and find a new format. Which is exactly what they’d done when I caught an earful of the tepid wax of the early singles they released on Lazy, the label owned by the manager of The Primitives’ fly-guy Wayne Norris.

At the time, 1986/7, the Valentines forsook their noiseome experiments, which had got them labelled as Birthday Party rip-offs in Ireland, and became obsessed with coining perfect pop songs with sick lyrics.

“More than anything that was the obsession of our singer at the time, Dave.” says Kevin. “Dave now writes novels, science fiction and horror, thought he hasn’t had any published yet. The idea of composing a sweet pop song that sugar-coated some lyrical horror and sending it hurling up the charts appealed to our sense of humour. Also it was fresh after having made pure noise earlier.”

Lazy Wayne, ever the hustler, hoped to make the Valentines bona fide starts. The band had their own ideas, however, while critics were trying to squeeze them into pigeonholes like “a garage band” or “a legacy of the C86 shamblies”, neither of which fitted.

“Wayne used to tell me all the things we should do to be more professional,” says Kevin. “He said we had to make a commitment to him if we wanted to get on and off the dole. We just couldn’t agree with what he said though. We didn’t want to end up as a second rate Primitives. That was the last thing on our minds.”

Gradually it seemed that My Bloody Valentine were slipping not just into the second division but the Isthmian League of the indie scene. Their first album, ‘Ecstasy’, for example was deleted after a pressing of a mere 2,000 records. Critics and fans still failed to appreciate the evil lyrics behind the pretty song titles. The joke hadn’t worked because few people actually caught on as to what MBV were about.

“Once we’d mastered the art of writing snappy pop songs with our eyes and ears closed,” continues Kevin, “the whole project started to become boring as hell. And we reached a stage at the beginning of last year where we thought there wasn’t much point carrying on any more. Then a couple of things happened. Dave, our singer, left and with him to a certain extent this obsessive pop thing and also Creation Records expressed an interest in us.”

Home of powder-fluff cute pop, Creation wanted the Valentines for the very same lightweight songwriting the band had grown annoyed with. To his credit, Alan McGee allowed the group to forge ahead as they wanted, without restrictions, an act of faith that soon paid off with the remarkable ‘You Made Me Realise’ and ‘Feed Me With Your Kiss’ tinderboxes whose flashfire textures burned MBV’s once dodgy reputation down to a hard cinder. The latest album is a culmination of the band’s ethic of progress-via-boredom.

While MBV admit they have always been big fans of Sonic Youth, Big Black and so on, and that the Americans in turn have had a knock-on influence of the Young Bloods of Britain, pinning down exactly what makes it very distinct, on the face of it, bands gravitate together proves difficult.

“If there is a similarity it would be the one of attitude,” reckons Kevin, “The people involved don’t have any respect for the ‘correct’ way of playing the guitar but are more interested in getting new sounds out whichever way they can.

“It’s an indulgence, yes, but I think it’s important to go along with your whims. Calculation never makes for originality, it’s just limiting. Most originals are original because they have been individuals willing to follow their whims and not because they have formulated some incredibly original idea. But remember, people have been making a loud racket with guitars for years, so it’s not a revolutionary thing.”

Drug use may be prevalent among some of the groups mentioned here - the Valentines have often been linked with acid - but that, as Kevin points out, doesn’t account for the trajectory of the band’s music: “I don’t think weird music is the product of drugs distancing musicians from reality. After all, there are a million and one bands who take drugs and still play shit-horrible music.”

“If I was to try and make music that was acid-influenced it would be pretty unlistenable: it would be very fast for a start, I could only imagine taking one song and repeating it 30 times in three minutes. Maybe that’s because the acid nowadays is low on hallucinations and high on speed, compared to the ‘60s.”

If tabs aren’t the catalysts for the current monstrous waves of psychoto-delia the source for the approach of the Young Bloods must like elsewhere. And Kevin believes he knows where.

“An important ingredient that links the best bands around now is that for them 1976 and ‘77 aren’t musically relevant years,” he says. “That’s because the actual music punk bands made was really nothing compared to what came out of the ‘60s. Punk was very formularised. What it had going for it was the attitude and excitement.”

[elisaenglish]

How John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor’s Pioneering Intimate Partnership of Equals Shaped the Building Blocks of Social Equality and Liberty for the Modern World

“They were imperfect, divided people and went on being so for the rest of their lives, with the rueful knowledge of human contradiction that good people always have.”

Half a century after the 18th-century political philosophers Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin pioneered the marriage of equals, and just as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Margaret Fuller were contorting themselves around the parameters of true partnership, another historic power couple modeled for the world the pinnacle of an intimate union that is also an intellectual, creative, and moral partnership nourishing not only to the couple themselves but profoundly influential to their culture, their era, and the moral and political development of the world itself.

In 1851, after a twenty-one-year bond traversing friendship, collaboration, romance, and shared idealism, John Stuart Mill (May 20, 1806–May 8, 1873) and Harriet Taylor (October 8, 1807–November 3, 1858) were married. Mill would come to celebrate Taylor, like Emerson did Fuller, as the most intelligent person he ever knew and his greatest influence. In her titanic mind, he found both a mirror and a whetstone for his own. They co-authored the first serious philosophical and political case against domestic violence. Taylor’s ideas came to shape Mill’s advocacy of women’s rights and the ideological tenor of his landmark book-length essay On Liberty, composed with steady input from her, published shortly after her untimely death, and dedicated lovingly to “the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement.”

In his autobiography, Mill painted a stunning portrait of Taylor:

In general spiritual characteristics, as well as in temperament and organisation, I have often compared her, as she was at this time, to Shelley: but in thought and intellect, Shelley, so far as his powers were developed in his short life, was but a child compared with what she ultimately became. Alike in the highest regions of speculation and in the smaller practical concerns of daily life, her mind was the same perfect instrument, piercing to the very heart and marrow of the matter; always seizing the essential idea or principle. The same exactness and rapidity of operation, pervading as it did her sensitive as her mental faculties, would, with her gifts of feeling and imagination, have fitted her to be a consummate artist, as her fiery and tender soul and her vigorous eloquence would certainly have made her a great orator, and her profound knowledge of human nature and discernment and sagacity in practical life, would, in times when such a career was open to women, have made her eminent among the rulers of mankind. Her intellectual gifts did but minister to a moral character at once the noblest and the best balanced which I have ever met with in life. Her unselfishness was not that of a taught system of duties, but of a heart which thoroughly identified itself with the feelings of others, and often went to excess in consideration for them by imaginatively investing their feelings with the intensity of its own.

In A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism (public library) — an elegant, impassioned, and rigorously reasoned effort to re-humanise the most humanistic moral and political philosophy our civilisation has produced — Adam Gopnik argues that Mill and Taylor pioneered something even greater than a true marriage of equals on the intimate plane of personal partnership: a vision for the building blocks of equality on the grandest human scale.

Gopnik — a Canadian by birth, a New Yorker (and longtime New Yorker staff writer) by belonging, and one of the most lyrical, lucid thinkers in language I have ever read — recounts trying, and failing, to comfort his intelligent, politically engaged, disconsolate teenage daughter in the wake of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. For consolation and clarity, as much hers as his own, he turns to Taylor and Mill:

My idea of liberalism, while having much to do with individuals and their liberties, has even more to do with couples and communities. We can’t have an idea of individual liberty without an idea of shared values that include it.

A vision of liberalism that doesn’t concentrate too narrowly on individuals and their contracts but instead on loving relationships and living values can give us a better picture of liberal thought as it’s actually evolved than the orthodox picture can.

[…]

Images illuminate ideas, and pictures of people are usually clearer than statements of principle. When I think about the liberal tradition I wanted to show my daughter, my inner vision kept returning to a simple scene, one that had delighted me for a long time. It’s of the nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill and his lover, collaborator, and (as he always insisted) his most important teacher, the writer Harriet Taylor. Desperately in love, they were courting clandestinely, and they would meet secretly at the rhino’s cage at the London Zoo. “Our old friend Rhino,” Taylor called him in a note. It was a place where they could safely meet and talk without fear of being seen by too many people, everyone’s attention being engaged by the enormous exotic animal.

They were pained, uncertain, contemplating adultery, if not yet having committed it — opinions vary; they had been to Paris together — and yet in those conversations began the material of “On Liberty,” one of the greatest books of political theory ever written, and “On the Subjection of Women,” one of the first great feminist manifestos and one of the most explosive books ever written. (One of the most successful, too, inasmuch as almost all of its dreams for female equality have been achieved, at least legally, in our lifetime.)

With an eye to the perilous erasures with which history is often rewritten — history, I continue to insist, is not what happened, but what survives the shipwrecks of judgment and chance — Gopnik points to the curious disconnect between Mill’s own repeated affirmations of Taylor’s supreme influence on his ideas, and subsequent warpings and appropriations of their story:

After [Mill’s] life, generations of commentators — including Friedrich Hayek, who unfortunately edited their letters — aggressively Yoko-ed [Taylor], insisting that poor Mill, wildly intelligent in all but this, was so blinded and besotted by love that he vastly exaggerated the woman’s role, which obviously couldn’t have been as significant as his own. Fortunately, newer generations of scholars, less blinded by prejudice, have begun to “recover” Harriet Taylor for us, and her role in the making of modern liberalism seems just as large and her mind as fine as her husband always asserted that it was.

Gopnik reflects on the intellectual and ideological resonance at the heart of Mill and Taylor’s love, which in turn became the pulse-beat of our modern notions of political progress:

What they were was realists — radicals of the real, determined to live in the world even as they altered it. Not reluctant realists, but romantic realists. They were shocked and delighted at how quickly women and men began to meet and organise on the theme of women’s emancipation, but they accepted that progress would be slow and uncertain and sometimes backward facing. They did more than accept this necessity. They rejoiced in it because they understood that without a process of public argument and debate, of social action moved from below, the ground of women’s emancipation would never be fully owned by women nor accepted, even grudgingly, by men.

They had no illusions about their own perfection — they were imperfect, divided people and went on being so for the rest of their lives, with the rueful knowledge of human contradiction that good people always have.

In that singular Gopnik fashion, he then inverts the telescope, turning from the cultural perspective back to the intimate microscopy of this uncommon bond between two uncommon visionaries. Between their ideals and the their vulnerabilities, he locates one of the largest truths about love:

Theirs is one of the most lyrical love stories ever told, for being so tenderly irresolute. Recognising that intimate life is an accommodation of contradictions, they understood that political and social life must be an accommodation of contradictions too. The accommodation was their romance. That meant that social accommodation could be romantic, too. Love, like liberty, tugs us in different directions as much as it leads us in one. Love, like liberty, asks us to be only ourselves, and it also asks us to find our self in others’ eyes. Compromise is not a sign of the collapse of one’s moral conscience. It is a sign of its strength, for there is nothing more necessary to a moral conscience than the recognition that other people have one, too. A compromise is a knot tied tight between competing decencies.

[…]

The great relationship of [Mill’s] life would be proof of his confidence that true liberty meant love — relationship and connection, not isolation and self-seeking. What we want liberty for is the power to connect with others as we choose. Liberalism is our common practice of connection turned into a principle of pluralism.

When Taylor died of a mysterious malady only seven years into their marriage, and nearly thirty years into their partnership, the devastated Mill erected a monument to her, made of the same Carrara marble as Michelangelo’s David and inscribed with these words:

HER GREAT AND LOVING HEART

HER NOBLE SOUL

HER CLEAR POWERFUL ORIGINAL AND COMPREHENSIVE INTELLECT

MADE HER THE GUIDE AND SUPPORT

THE INSTRUCTOR IN WISDOM

AND THE EXAMPLE IN GOODNESS

AS SHE WAS THE SOLE EARTHLY DELIGHT

OF THOSE WHO HAD THE HAPPINESS TO BELONG TO HER

AS EARNEST FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD

AS SHE WAS GENEROUS AND DEVOTED

TO ALL WHO SURROUNDED HER

HER INFLUENCE HAS BEEN FELT

IN MANY OF THE GREATEST

IMPROVEMENTS OF THE AGE

AND WILL BE IN THOSE STILL TO COME

WERE THERE BUT A FEW HEARTS AND INTELLECTS

LIKE HERS

THIS EARTH WOULD ALREADY BECOME

THE HOPED-FOR HEAVEN

Gopnik’s A Thousand Small Sanities is a worthy read in its entirety, drawing on the personal to illuminate the political, clearing the clouded lens of the past to magnify the most pressing questions of the present in order to answer them with equal parts reasoned realism and largehearted idealism. Couple this particular fragment with Jill Lepore on how Eleanor Roosevelt revolutionized politics, then revisit Henry David Thoreau, writing in Taylor and Mill’s era, on the long cycles of social change and the importance of not mistaking politics for progress and Thomas Mann, writing in humanity’s darkest hour, on justice, human dignity, and the need to continually renew our ideals.

Source: Maria Popova, brainpickings.org (18th June 2019)

[ruminativerabbi]

Poway

At the end of the Yizkor Service last Saturday, I invited the congregation to join me in widening the scope of our prayerful focus as the cantor chanted the twenty-third psalm to include not just our co-religionists murdered while at prayer at the Har Nof synagogue in Jerusalem or in Pittsburgh, but also the members of other faiths who have been similarly killed in their own houses of worship. Foremost in my mind, obviously, were the dead in New Zealand and Sri Lanka. But I also had in mind those poor souls executed in Charleston in 2015 by an individual sufficiently depraved to have been capable of murdering people with whom he had just spent an hour—his victims’ last hour on earth—studying Scripture, as well as the twenty-six innocents murdered during Sunday prayers at the church in Sutherland Springs in Texas in 2017 and the six killed at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek in Wisconsin in 2012. Little did I know that another such outrage would be perpetrated on the Pacific coast in California just a few hours after I was done addressing my own congregation as part of the same Yizkor service at which I was speaking. Or how personal it would feel to me—and neither because Poway is just an hour or so down the road from the town in California in which I used to live nor because Yom Hashoah just happened to be falling this week.

It’s hard to imagine a less likely place for an attack like that than Poway. It’s a quiet place, a suburban/rural community of fewer than 50,000 souls north of San Diego and south of Escondido off of Interstate 15. And although I’m sure many Californians—and certainly most Americans—couldn’t have said exactly where Poway was last Friday, it now joins Sutherland Springs or Oak Creek in our national roster of places people previously hadn’t heard of yet now speak about as though they’ve known where they were all their lives.

Nor was the storyline unfamiliar, at least as the police have pieced it together so far. A disaffected young man, in this case just a teenager, falls under the sway of white supremacist doctrine and concludes that his personal problems—and the problems of his fellow travelers—are being inflicted upon him and them by some identifiable group of others—in this case Jews, but the role also fillable, as we all know all too well, by black people, gay people, Hispanic people, Asian people, or any other recognizable minority. A manifesto—in this case really just a letter—detailing the specifics is composed and posted online or otherwise distributed to the media. And then the young man—almost never a woman although I’m not sure why exactly that is—gets his hands on the kind of gun that can kill a lot of people very quickly. The screed is posted. The die is cast. The killer gets into his car and drives to what he must realize could just as easily turn out to be the site of his own death as well as that of the people he is planning to make into his victims. And then he opens fire and kills none or one or some or many. (For a very interesting analysis posted on the Live Science website regarding the specific theories proposed to explain why so few women become mass killers, click here.)

The next part too feels almost scripted. The police issue a statement and open an investigation. The following day, the front page of America’s newspapers are filled with statements of outrage by public officials of various sorts. A day or a week later, there’s a follow-up piece about the victim’s funeral or the victims’ funerals. The nation shudders for a long moment, then moves on. Except for those who actually knew the victims, the matter dies down and eventually someone shoots up some other place and the cycle of outrage followed by getting over it begins anew. For most, the moving on part feels healthy. And it surely is so that the goal when someone we love or admire dies is precisely to move through the initial shock that almost inevitably comes upon us in the wake of unanticipated loss to a kind of resigned acceptance, and from there to true comfort rooted in a new reality. But can that concept rationally be applied to incidents like the murder of Lori Gilbert-Kaye in Poway last Shabbat?

What surprised me the most about the California shooting is how inevitable it all felt. Indeed, to a certain extent, it felt like we were watching yet another remake of a movie we’d all seen before. There were the expected presidential tweets lauding Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, whom the President has surely never met, as (of all things) “a great guy.” And there was the expected tongue-clucking by the leaders of Congress and by the chief executive officers of every conceivable Jewish and non-Jewish organization, all of them decrying the fact that this kind of violence directed against houses of worship is slowly—and not that slowly either—taking its place next to school shootings and nightclub shootings and military base shootings and concert-venue shootings and movie theater shootings as part of our American mosaic, and that there doesn’t seem to be anything at all to do about it. The traditional debate about repealing the Second Amendment then ensues. Would such a move prevent this kind of incident? I doubt it—but it’s hardly worth debating, given that the chances of the Second Amendment being repealed in any of our lifetimes are exactly zero.

Last November, after the shooting in Pittsburgh, I wrote about a science experiment I recall from my tenth-grade biology class, one in which our teacher demonstrated that you can actually boil a frog alive without restraining it in any way if you only heat the water slowly enough for the rising temperature to remain unnoticed by the poor frog until it becomes paralyzed and thus unable to hop out of its petri dish to safety. (To revisit those comments, click here.) Is that where we Jewish Americans are, then, in an open-but-slowly-warming petri dish? It hardly feels that way to me…but, of course, it doesn’t feel that way to the frog either. And yet the degree to which we have all become inured to anti-Semitic slurs, including in mainstream media, makes me wonder if we shouldn’t be channeling that poor amphibian’s last thoughts a little more diligently these days.

Just last week, the New York Times published in its international edition a cartoon that could have come straight out of any Nazi newspaper in the 1930s. The cartoon, by a Portuguese cartoonist named António Moreira Antunes, was picked up by a service that the Times uses as a source for political cartoons and apparently approved for publication by a single editor whom the Times has not identified by name. Its publication too triggered a storm of outrage from all the familiar sources, but the response the whole sorry incident provoked in me personally was captured the most eloquently by Bret Stephens, himself an opinion columnist for the Times, who wrote that the cartoon—which features a Jewish dog with Benjamin Netanyahu’s face and wearing a big Star of David necklace leading a blind and obese Donald Trump whose ridiculous black kippah only underscores the extent to which he has become the unwitting slave of his wily Jewish dog-master—came to him (and to most, and surely to me personally) as “a shock but not a surprise.” To read Stephen’s piece, in which he goes on to describe in detail and to deplore his own newspaper’s “routine demonization of Netanyahu,” its “torrential criticism of Israel,” its “mainstreaming of anti-Zionism,” and its “longstanding Jewish problem, dating back to World War II,” click here. You won’t enjoy reading what he has to say. But you should read it anyway.

I’m guilty of unwarranted complacency myself, more than aware that I barely even notice untruths published online or in print about Jews or about Israel. After the Israeli election, for example, I lost track of how many opinion pieces I noticed interpreting the Netanyahu victory as a kind of death knell for the two-state solution. (One example would be the headline of the Daily, the daily New York Times podcast, for April 11: “Netanyahu Won. The Two-State Solution Lost.”) The clear implication is that the Palestinians will only have an independent state in the Middle East when Israel finally decides they can have one. But is that even remotely true? Palestine has been “recognized” by 136 out of the United Nations’ 193 member states. If the Palestinian leadership were to declare their independence today and invite the neighbors in (and not solely the Israelis, but the Jordanians and the Egyptians as well) to settle border issues, and then get down to the business of nation building, who could or would stand in their way? But the Palestinians have specifically not moved in that direction…and surely not because the Israelis haven’t permitted it. That much seems obvious to me, but how many times have I just let it go after seeing that specific notion promulgated as an obvious truth? Too many! Just as I haven’t always responded when I see other ridiculous claims intended solely to degrade Jews or Judaism or to deny historical reality. (When the Times published a piece by one of its own reporters, Eric V. Copage, a few weeks ago in which the author denied that Jesus of Nazareth had been a Jew and suggested instead that he must have been a Palestinian, presumably a Palestinian Arab, I didn’t run to my computer to point out that  there were no Palestinian Arabs in the first century C.E. since the Arab invasion of Palestine only took place six centuries after Jesus lived and died, granting myself the luxury of leaving that work to others. Many did speak up and a week later the Times published a “revised” version of the piece that omitted the offensive reference. But my point is that I personally should have spoken out and now feel embarrassed by my own silence.)

It’s true that the Times published a long self-excoriating editorial about the cartoon episode just this week in which it acknowledged its own responsibility for fomenting anti-Semitism among its readers. (Click here to read it.) That was satisfying to read, but it should remind us that the only useful way to respond to Poway is to resolve to speak out more loudly and more clearly when we see calumnies, lies, or libelous untruths in print about Israel or about the Jewish people…and not to just assume that other people will do the heavy lifting while we remain silent.

[lookwhatilost]

i’ve been dedicating a lot of my insomnia time to the incel research because i’m trying to thread the needle where “love-shyness” was less understood as a form of social anxiety, which is how gilmartin analyzes it in his book, and became understood as de-facto association with a hate movement, to the point where brianna wu et all can see a small survey about the millennial/zoomer sex recession and conclude “they must all be incels”.

part of the reason i’m so attracted to looking into stuff like this is my frustration with gamergate being retrofitted as a theory of everything for internet hatred, responsible for everything from trump to qanon. i feel like people who were not Very Online during that era forget how nonsensical gamergate actually was, as is generally the case with anything that involves internet trolls. they come off as a lot more organized than they actually are when they coalesce their anger around common hate objects, but the idea they coordinate is a pretty tough sell for me.

the first thing you’ll notice when playing primatologist to any right wing online space is that the users very transparently fucking hate each other, which is pretty shaky grounds for organization. occasionally you have edge cases like charlottesville, but they’re rare enough that it’s notable when they happen.

it’s also much more annoying when people do this with incels because the isla vista massacre predated gamergate by around 5 months – that was in late may of 2014, gamergate didn’t happen until november. it seems like an obvious chronology oversight to me. my theory broadly is that isla vista was the turning point, tbh. i get the sense it had an effect, one named after a particular debacle involving a certain singer and her house, with internet red pill philosophy.

the next logical point in looking into this stuff has been reading “my twisted world” – rodger’s manifesto – because i never trust how this stuff is reported on secondhand. people leave out the fact that he was biracial a lot, which already is off to a bad start. rodger was a puahate denizen, and if anything, it’s useful insight into what the mental profile of someone who used those websites before they started getting media attention.

“my twisted world” is 141 pages in word processor format – meaning, if this were published as a book, it’d probably be closer in length to 300 pages. it’s broadly beat-by-beat autobiographical and, frankly, a really boring read. but what’s odd about it is that some of his insecure monologuing could have come right out of sixteen candles, but it’s undoubtably racialized.

rodger is fixated on “coolness” and women are a proxy to this – there’s probably something to be said here about rodger growing up in los angeles – but his idea of coolness can’t be uncoupled with proximity to whiteness. and white women. i’m a little less than halfway through it, but a nontrivial amount of rage is directed towards other men who are more sexually successful than he was, and it ratchets up a lot in intensity when those men aren’t white, yet have had sexual success with white women. 

when you take this all into consideration with the fact that a lot of the internet incel demographic is non-white european men, how incles.is is operated by a south asian man, and the existence of terms like tyrones, changs, chadpreets, etc... you start to notice an angle to this that’s been criminally neglected. and the entitled white guy thing starts to fall to pieces.

sometimes i wonder why i do this to myself. every time i dive into topics like this, i feel like i always pick up on glaring omissions from the popular dialogue and it starts to slowly drive me insane whenever the topic comes up in conversation.

[drev-the-ambassador]

It's sometime in the 1200’s. Men have come from the west, and they speak the language some - not you necessarily, but some -of the people on this small strip of sparsely populated land recognize, even if they don’t understand it. You’ve traded with the western men before, been attacked by them as well, just like a while ago, when they came. You and your people struck back, but nonetheless. Someone tells you that you must pay taxes now. You have a king now. You are handed a cross. You have a king now. A Swedish king.

It’s 1809. You are in Porvoo. The war is still ongoing, but yet, here you are, to swear an oath to your new king. No, this is no king, this man is an emperor. Alexander the First. He promises you that you can keep your religion, your old Swedish laws and your rights. The estates swear their oaths of allegiance. At the end of the ceremony, the tsar tells you that you and your people have now been heightened to a nation among nations. You are not sure what that means - there is no nation, no country, just nine provinces, the Åland islands and some land from the north, where Tornio- river marks the border between two countries - the one you belonged to yesterday and the one you’ll belong to from this day on.  Next autumn, the Treaty of Fredrikshamn is signed by the representatives of both, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Russian Empire. Sweden gave up the nine läns, the islands and the strip of land from the north forever, and they would be forever a part of Russia.  You wonder what you should do. Russians have given the citizens three years to decide where they wish to live; Sweden or Russia. You don’t particularly like either option, but there is no third option. There is no land between east and west.

It’s 1899. The tsar, Nicholas the Second, did not agree to meet with the men bringing him the Great Petition to end the February manifesto. The Grand Duchy of Finland does not have its own postal service anymore. The diet can no longer decide the laws; Russians decide them now. You don’t understand how the emperor could do this to his loyal citizens. They’re telling rumours that there are people in Russia who want to take the autonomy away once and for all. You hope those are only rumors.

It’s 1917. Everything is chaos.The Great War is raging. There was a second revolution in Russia; the bolsheviks have the power now. You are at a loss of what to do. The Finnish Parliament declares that it now holds the greatest legislative power in the Grand Duchy. The working class and the middle class are not getting along, haven’t been since the years of oppression. Everything is changing -  you can feel it.

It’s 6th of December, 1917. The Parliament has just approved the declaration of independence made only two days earlier. Now, for the first time ever, you all have to stand on your own two feet - there is no motherland to take care of you if you mess up. You wonder if you’ll survive a decade here, in this sparsely populated land between east and west. You swear to do everything it takes.

It’s 2017. Some teenage girl is writing this pretentious text at 3:15 AM in November. In the independent Republic of Finland.

Finland’s 100 years of Independence 6.12.1917-6.12.2017

Finland is both very old and very young. The ancestors of the people living in Finland today - and of the Sami people especially -  are among the first humans to have settled down in Europe, and the bedrock on which Finland rests is among the oldest in the world. However, the Finnish written language was developed only in the 1500’s by Mikael Agricola and the first books written in Finnish were published in 1870. In the 1700’s, the concept of “Finnish” being separate from “Swedish” regarding the language and some cultural aspects was born, but really being Finnish like we are Finnish today wasn’t born until the latter half of the 19th century.

Parts of the area known as Finland today were annexed by the Kingdom of Sweden at different times. Some areas of Finland were a part of Sweden for around 600 years, some less than 60. As a part of Sweden Finland wasn’t really… Finland. It consisted of the provinces, or läns, though one of them was called Varsinais-Suomi, Proper Finland, or Egentliga Finland in Swedish. Only in 1809, when Sweden lost the Finnish War to the Russian Empire and gave up its eastern areas, did Aleksanteri I, Alexander I, unify the läns under the name “Suomen suurruhtinaskunta”, “the Grand Duchy of Finland” and make the Grand Duchy an autonomous region within the empire.

As a part of Russia Finland was doing quite well, better than as a part of Sweden. It’s impossible to say if Finland would’ve been better off as a part of Sweden all along, but it can be said with certainty that as a part of Sweden Finland most likely wouldn’t have become an independent country. The Diet of Finland wasn’t called until 1863 even though Alexander promised to do so in like 1812, but Finnish people either didn’t mind or didn’t care. Finland was also one of the most peaceful parts of the Russian Empire; the Finnish people were either very loyal to the czar OR, again, they didn’t really care. Nonetheless, Finland gained its own postal service, currency and eventually the Diet was called as well. The Finnish language was to become equal to Swedish in 20 years, and the national awakening was bringing with it the Golden Age of Finnish Art.

A product of the Golden Age, Raatajat rahanalaiset (Kaski) (1893) by Eero Järnefelt, English translation being “Under the Yoke (Burning the Brushwood) ; Wage Slaves / Burn-Beating”. 

In 1899, just as Finland had started to embrace its Finnishness, the Russification of Finland, known in Finland as Sortokaudet, the Years of Oppression, began with the February Manifesto by Nikolai II, Nicholas II. The postal service had been shut down earlier, but now all the power from the Finnish politicians in the Diet was given over to the Russians. The use of Finnish was no longer encouraged, now everyone was forced to learn Russian. Finnish people tried to appeal to the czar, students collecting half a million names (about ¼ of the population) into the Suuri adressi, the Great Petition, by skiing from village to village, only for the czar to decline the delegation. Finnish politicians started to be replaced by Russians. Finland was slowly losing its autonomy.

A famous painting, Hyökkäys (1899) by Edvard Isto. The name of the painting means “An attack”. It depicts the Russian double-headed eagle trying to rip the lawbook from the hands of the Finnish Maiden, the national personification of Finland. It became a symbol of the resistance towards the Russification of Finland.

 In 1905 the revolution ended the Russification, and the Finnish Parliament was formed - it has barely changed since, by the way. With this reform of the Finnish political system, Finland also became the 2nd country in the world to give women the right to vote, and the first country in the world to give everyone, regardless of gender, equal political rights. The first women in the world elected as Members of Parliament were Finnish. After this brief period of time Russification was put into action again. It was only ended by the October Revolution in 1917. Which brings us to our next topic...

End of the Year 1917

In 1917 the two Russian revolutions took place, at the beginning and at the end of the year.This unrest made the working class and middle class, who were not on very good terms with each other otherwise, to agree on one thing: They wanted independence.

On November 15th the Finnish Parliament declared itself to hold the highest legislative power in Finland.

A newspaper article from Viipurin Sanomat from 10.11.1917, telling about the decision the Parliament made to transfer the power (in Finland) that earlier was held by the czar to 3 people chosen by the Parliament.

The suggestion, voting and the final result of the plenary session where the Parliament ended up deciding to ditch their previous idea of electing those 3 people and just having the legislative power to itself.

On 4th of December the government - or P.E. Svinhufvud’s Independence Senate (P.E. Svinhufvudin itsenäisyyssenaatti) - gave the Declaration of Independence.

A picture of Svinhufvud’s Senate and the original Finnish Declaration of Independence. A link to the English translation of the text.

On the 5th, the Declaration was published for all the people of Finland to see - however, the rising tensions between the working class and the middle class, as well as the famine closing in kind of distracted the people.

On December 6th the Parliament voted in favor of Independence. The votes were 100-88, those 88 being the Social Democrats who’d wanted to negotiate with the bolsheviks before independence. This day was chosen as the national day of Finland, the Finnish Independence Day. However, on 6th of December in the year 1917, the newly gained independence did not stir much positive emotions. According to the memoirs of a Finnish author, Lauri Arra, that year, “everyone waited for or sensed that some terrible disaster was going to happen”. This terrible disaster was waiting for the newly born nation in the January of 1918, only a few weeks later.

To be a real country, other countries must recognize the independence first. Right away Finland asked Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Norway and Great Britain to recognize the new country’s independence. You might have noticed that a key player in this becoming-a-country-independent-from-Russia-and-asking-others-to-recognize-our-breaking-away-from-Russia-process is missing: Russia.

No, Finland did not ask Russia to recognize our independence at first. However, all the other countries refused to recognize Finland as independent before the country Finland was trying to break free from approved of said breaking free first, and so Finland had to turn eastward with an apologetic smile and go: “...Please?” I mean, I assume that’s how it went, I dunno, I wasn’t there.

The first ones to make a move were the Social Democrats: they asked their eastern comrades to recognize Finland as a proper nation. Lenin agreed to do so if someone came and asked. On 29th of December Svinhufvud himself, with the other negotiators, traveled to St. Petersburg. The Finnish delegation was forced to wait for hours in some room outside the room where all the important stuff was happening.

Then, just before midnight, literally minutes before the year 1917 came to a close, the Finns were handed a note, a piece of paper, with which Soviet Russia recognized Finland as an independent nation.

Said piece of paper.

Recognition

Soviet Russia was the first country to recognize Finland’s independence on December 31st, 1917. The confirmation for the recognition was given on January 4th, 1918. The next countries to recognize Finland as a country were France, Sweden and Germany, on January 4th as well. Other countries followed, even though countries like USA and Great Britain recognized Finland only after WWI, to make sure Finland wouldn’t go and join the bad guy Germany, so to say. (Krhm.)

A screencap of the Wikipedia article on the Finnish Declaration of Independence because it had the handy list here. On top of these countries, Romania, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Mexico and Hungary recognized Finland in 1920. Paraguay and Luxembourg followed in 1921, Serbia in 1922, and finally Afghanistan and Albania in 1928.

Map of Finland in 1917.

Here’s the end of part 1 of the Finnish Independence post. This focused on the history, but the next part, which I will hopefully publish soon, will focus on how we celebrate our independence. I hope you enjoyed. 

Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivää!

[justforbooks]

Tom Wolfe, Innovative Nonfiction Writer and Novelist, Dies at 88

Tom Wolfe, an innovative journalist and novelist whose technicolor, wildly punctuated prose brought to life the worlds of California surfers, car customizers, astronauts and Manhattans moneyed status-seekers in works like “The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby,” “The Right Stuff” and “Bonfire of the Vanities,” died on Monday in a Manhattan hospital. He was 88.

He had lived in New York since joining The New York Herald Tribune as a reporter in 1962.

In his use of novelistic techniques in his nonfiction, Mr. Wolfe, beginning in the 1960s, helped create the enormously influential hybrid known as the New Journalism.

But as an unabashed contrarian, he was almost as well known for his attire as his satire. He was instantly recognizable as he strolled down Madison Avenue — a tall, slender, blue-eyed, still boyish-looking man in his spotless three-piece vanilla bespoke suit, pinstriped silk shirt with a starched white high collar, bright handkerchief peeking from his breast pocket, watch on a fob, faux spats and white shoes. Once asked to describe his get-up, Mr. Wolfe replied brightly, “Neo-pretentious.”

It was a typically wry response from a writer who found delight in lacerating the pretentiousness of others. He had a pitiless eye and a penchant for spotting trends and then giving them names, some of which — like “Radical Chic” and “the Me Decade” — became American idioms.

His talent as a writer and caricaturist was evident from the start in his verbal pyrotechnics and perfect mimicry of speech patterns, his meticulous reporting, and his creative use of pop language and explosive punctuation.

“As a titlist of flamboyance he is without peer in the Western world,” Joseph Epstein wrote in the The New Republic. “His prose style is normally shotgun baroque, sometimes edging over into machine-gun rococo, as in his article on Las Vegas which begins by repeating the word ‘hernia’ 57 times.”

William F. Buckley Jr., writing in National Review, put it more simply: “He is probably the most skillful writer in America — I mean by that he can do more things with words than anyone else.”

From 1965 to 1981 Mr. Wolfe produced nine nonfiction books. “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test,” an account of his reportorial travels in California with Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters as they spread the gospel of LSD, remains a classic chronicle of the counterculture, “still the best account — fictional or non, in print or on film — of the genesis of the ’60s hipster subculture,” the media critic Jack Shafer wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review on the book’s 40th anniversary.

Even more impressive, to many critics, was “The Right Stuff,” his exhaustively reported narrative about the first American astronauts and the Mercury space program. The book, adapted into a film in 1983 with a cast that included Sam Shepard, Dennis Quaid and Ed Harris, made the test pilot Chuck Yeager a cultural hero and added yet another phrase to the English language.

At the same time, Mr. Wolfe continued to turn out a stream of essays and magazine pieces for New York, Harper’s and Esquire. His theory of literature, which he preached in print and in person and to anyone who would listen was that journalism and nonfiction had “wiped out the novel as American literature’s main event.”

After “The Right Stuff,” published in 1979, he confronted what he called “the question that rebuked every writer who had made a point of experimenting with nonfiction over the preceding 10 or 15 years: Are you merely ducking the big challenge — The Novel?”

‘The Bonfire of the Vanities’

The answer came with “The Bonfire of the Vanities.” Published initially as a serial in Rolling Stone magazine and in book form in 1987 after extensive revisions, it offered a sweeping, bitingly satirical picture of money, power, greed and vanity in New York during the shameless excesses of the 1980s.

The action jumps back and forth from Park Avenue to Wall Street to the terrifying holding pens in Bronx Criminal Court, after the Yale-educated bond trader Sherman McCoy (a self-proclaimed “Master of the Universe”) becomes lost in the Bronx at night in his Mercedes with his foxy young mistress. After running over a black man and nearly igniting a race riot, he enters the nightmare world of the criminal justice system.

Although a runaway best seller, “Bonfire” divided critics into two camps: those who praised its author as a worthy heir of his fictional idols Balzac, Zola, Dickens and Dreiser, and those who dismissed the book as clever journalism, a charge that would dog him throughout his fictional career.

Mr. Wolfe responded with a manifesto in Harper’s, “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast,” in which he lambasted American fiction for failing to perform the time-honored sociological duty of reporting on the facts of contemporary life, in all their complexity and variety.

His second novel, “A Man in Full” (1998), also a whopping commercial success, was another sprawling social panorama. Set in Atlanta, it charted the rise and fall of Charlie Croker, a 60-year-old former Georgia Tech football star turned millionaire real estate developer.

Mr. Wolfe’s fictional ambitions and commercial success earned him enemies — big ones.

“Extraordinarily good writing forces one to contemplate the uncomfortable possibility that Tom Wolfe might yet be seen as our best writer,” Norman Mailer wrote in The New York Review of Books. “How grateful one can feel then for his failures and his final inability to be great — his absence of truly large compass. There may even be an endemic inability to look into the depth of his characters with more than a consummate journalist’s eye.”

“Tom may be the hardest-working show-off the literary world has ever owned,” Mr. Mailer continued. “But now he will no longer belong to us. (If indeed he ever did!) He lives in the King Kong Kingdom of the Mega-bestsellers — he is already a Media Immortal. He has married his large talent to real money and very few can do that or allow themselves to do that.”

Mr. Mailer’s sentiments were echoed by John Updike and John Irving.

Two years later, Mr. Wolfe took revenge. In an essay titled “My Three Stooges,” included in his 2001 collection, “Hooking Up,” he wrote that his eminent critics had clearly been “shaken” by “A Man in Full” because it was an “intensely realistic novel, based upon reporting, that plunges wholeheartedly into the social reality of America today, right now,” and it signaled the new direction in late-20th- and early-21st-century literature and would soon make many prestigious artists, “such as our three old novelists, appear effete and irrelevant.”

And, added Mr. Wolfe, “It must gall them a bit that everyone — even them — is talking about me, and nobody is talking about them.”

Cocky words from a man best known for his gentle manner and unfailing courtesy in person. For many years he lived a relatively private life in his 12-room apartment on the Upper East Side with his wife, Sheila Wolfe, a graphic designer and former art director of Harper’s magazine, whom he married when he was 48 years old, and their two children, Alexandra and Thomas. All survive him.

Every morning he dressed in one of his signature outfits — a silk jacket, say, and double-breasted white vest, shirt, tie, pleated pants, red-and-white-socks and white shoes — and sat down at his typewriter. Every day he set himself a quota of 10 pages, triple-spaced. If he finished in three hours, he was done for the day. “If it takes me 12 hours, that’s too bad, I’ve got to do it,” he told George Plimpton in a 1991 Paris Review interview.

For many summers the Wolfes rented a house in Southampton, N.Y., where Mr. Wolfe continued to observe his daily writing routine as well as the fitness regimen from which he rarely faltered. In 1996 he suffered a heart attack at his gym and underwent quintuple bypass surgery. A period of severe depression followed, which Charlie Croker relived, in fictional form, in “A Man in Full.”

As for his remarkable attire, he called it “a harmless form of aggression.”

“I found early in the game that for me there’s no use trying to blend in,” he told The Paris Review. “I might as well be the village information-gatherer, the man from Mars who simply wants to know. Fortunately the world is full of people with information-compulsion who want to tell you their stories. They want to tell you things that you don’t know.”

The eccentricities of his adult life were a far cry from the normalcy of his childhood, which by all accounts was a happy one.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at http://justforbooks.tumblr.com