MJ, King of Pop? Yes indeed! : Making sense of MJ, the 'brief version'

"The moon looks all the more expansive when the skies couching it are flanked by the mouth of a well. ~ ed

For all of Michael’s deficiencies, I do have to give him credit for his greatest deficiency – that of being the ‘King of Pop’.

But credit cannot just go to MJ - we have to respect Intellectual Property don’t we – for if it wasn’t for his harem of ‘fans’, we wouldn’t have a market lobotomised enough to elevate ‘pop’ and its epitome, MJ, to its Icaric heights.

In a nutshell, people had to become quite small for MJ to be magnified in stature. Hence, the King of Pop.


Let me explain by drawing a parallel between this situation and my observations of Indians in singapore. The Indians I knew back in the 70s and 80s were relatively intelligent, creative and very adept at looking at things from various angles. Underlying these was passion. Rice on the boil with a dollop and a half of spice, is what comes to mind. Now, after a few decades of living in an increasingly Confucian milieu, the ‘Indians’, and especially the younger ‘Indians’ are, at best, left with the ‘passion’ bit, but minus the aforementioned means by which passion was articulated. We have to thank the top-down enforced, ‘don’t think so much and just eat-cum-do as everyone does’, Confucian/Legalist culture for that.

When I look at the ‘pop’ culture of the 60s through to the 80s, there is one constant. Passion. But the means via which it could have been articulated was diminishing. For instance, the 60s, or the ‘Age of Ideology’, in the ‘pop’ular arena saw music mobilising the common folk against the AAV, or, American Aggression in Vietnam (I don’t like ‘Vietnam war’…seems to detract consideration of causation), racism, for civil rights, etc, in America. Yes, you could point to band-aids of contemporary times and argue for its having continuity. But when one looks at the content of lyrics these days, you’re not going to find the level of metaphysical, introspective, activistic and generally out-of-the-box approaches as one might with Pink Floyd, the Doors, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zep, Dylan, Sex Pistols, The Clash, amongst others. And what’s more, these groups weren’t in the periphery but were the main fare served up ‘rare with no garnish’ for many ‘pop’ular minds.

This began to peter out in the 80s, though we still had the radical spirit around with Prince, New Wave, Gothic styles, Rap, amongst others, and which complemented the general anti-estab spirit that was quite pervasive amongst the youth. After this, ‘pop’ got INC.orporated and all that was left was the passion and vibrancy with as much of a head as a pint neglected for a minute past its pour-by date. Pop became metaphysically and politically ‘secular’. No more highly critical or metaphysical pieces such as Black Sabbath’s ‘War Pigs’, or Jimi’s rendition of the ‘Star Spangled banner’, or Uriah Heep’s ‘The Spell/Paradise’, or Rainbow’s ‘Sixteenth Century Greensleeves’, or Wishbone Ash’s ‘The King will Come’ or ‘Warrior’, or Sex Pistols’ ‘Anarchy in the UK’, or The Doors’ ‘The End’..…

Who had time for such shit. We just wanna feel alive! We just wanna feel young! We just wanna assert ourselves through the former two!

In a sense, we could, in part, blame the elevation of music as the source of mobilisation and enlightenment. People just didn’t realise that music, for all its feel-good vibes, was not really structured for communicating anything truly meaningful given the limitations of the lyrical form of communication. Hence, the best it could do was to give people a signpost, whilst the ‘fans’, already getting quite the kick from the immediate gratification that music delivered, spurned the written and thus ‘verbose’ thesis that provided the blueprints to make their way out of the shite that was piling up faster than their arses could absorb.

So thanks to Lennon et al, people were trained to appreciate the signpost provided by musicians as the destination itself. And these musicians not minding getting paid millions, and hence being further overvalued in the eyes of the increasingly ubiquitous ‘fan’, didn’t help either. So it’s not surprising that the elevation of the musician to heights previously occupied by prophets, saints, gods, and philosophers, led to the undoing of the people. With the immediate gratification that the said elevation of musicians trained the juvenile to appreciate, it was only a matter of time before the tedium of thought that might be induced by more insightful musicians would be less preferred to ‘hoo-ha-ers’ and crotch-jerkers as it delivered gratification without the cover-charge of thought.

Who would have thought that the well-intentioned and overpaid dylans and so on would actually deliver the perspectival docility that it took to perpetuate that which they purported to address?

And with that, the ‘teen’, the future of humanity, got INC.orporated. It became all about asserting youth through youthfulness articulated through the language of self-perception cum self-absorption constructed by The Corporation. That just leaves us with plain old passion unfettered by inquisitive and critically introspective intinerant preoccupation with 'The Meaning of Life', 'Ideology', and 'grand theories' of any sort. In other words, the definition of 'the beyond' was determined by nothing other than the 'sci-fi channel'. The stage was set...

Enter Michael Jackson.


according2,

ed

On the case of the London Jewish Free School

[As a2ed is currently ‘moderated’ on The Guardian since taking issue with Michelle Goldberg’s Zionist/fascist views. Comments posted in The Guardian, most of which aren’t approved anymore, will be published here.]

Said, Simon Jenkins, with regards to the issue of barring a child from a school on ethnic grounds, says,

“In the case currently before the court, a 13-year-old applicant to the JFS had an Orthodox Jewish father and worshipped at an Orthodox synagogue. His mother thought she was Jewish, but only by conversion at a non-Orthodox ceremony. This made the son not Jewish enough for a school place, in the eyes of the JFS.”(source)


Yes, I do agree with Simon in that ethnicity ought never to be an issue.

If ethnicity is linked to faith or culture, it is not because it is divinely ordained that it be so, but because relatively insulated histories caused such an association. Just as said insulated histories caused such associations, a multicultural milieu, such as the UK, ought to be allowed to influence the continued evolution and redefinition of ethnicity and culture just as its prior milieu had done.


ed

In answer to The Guardian's Michelle Goldberg : on bi-nationalisms

[the comment placed on the Guardian's 'comments section' along the lines discussed here was removed by their 'moderator'. Makes me wonder after the meaning of 'moderate' and the possible Zionist inclinations of The Guardian. This site is pro-integration, and therefore, by implication, anti-Zionist.]

Said Michelle Goldberg in the Guardian,

“To plenty of people on the left, and not only on the left, there's an easy solution to the Israel dilemma: a single, bi-national state. Like Communism, this seems just in theory but would be catastrophic in practice. Who really believes that the Israelis and Palestinians could coexist in a way that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians could not? The end of Zionism would merely be the beginning of a new nightmare for Jews and Palestinians alike.

Yet Israel is doing much to make even the pained, conflicted love of liberal Jews impossible. Without a two-state solution, the country will soon consist of a Jewish minority ruling over an oppressed Arab majority. Comparisons to South Africa will become ever more apt. And when the Arabs living under Israel's thumb demand their vote, they'll have justice and the sympathy of the world on their side. The idea of liberal Zionism will become an outright contradiction.”

(source)

Now that sounds like something straight out of the BNP's manifesto, or a paraphrasing of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech, unless I’m reading it incorrectly.

[image by a2ed.com]


Everything can be discounted as 'theory' on the basis of people being trained out of the perspectives required to put a 'theory' into practice reflexively. Habituation is the midwife of reflex, and enforcement is the conceiver of habituation.

Arguing by stating that since it didn't work for the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, it wouldn't work for anyone, seems like the rubbish one might hear in a 'Legalist/Confucian' state where people, regardless of ethnicity, are trained to not appreciate the detail in reality for absorption with the familiar. The Serb, Croat and Bosnian situation, rather than serving as an argument against integration, points out the factors that compromises it. In that, we are empowered to do more. Thus, a 'bi-national' state, as Michelle call’s it, is achievable, prior to it moving on to become a 'national' state via integration.

Perhaps the problem lies in our approaching it as 'bi-nationalism'. That is backward-looking and not progressive as it detracts our attention from the potential of any people to form a unitary whole where all 'nationals' can comprise a singular race of people of different dialect groups. I'd prefer to focus on what people can be through integration instead of relying on their past or existing biases to maintain an exclusive status quo. After all, that is how 'national races’ taken for granted today were united in the past. That is how the 'chinese' became chinese where it would certainly not have been the case a couple of thousand years ago across such a vast land. If they had observed Michelle's stance, they would probably be fragmented like India today - which might not be that bad a thing since this enriches the perspectival arsenal of the people as a whole.

Michelle’s approach toward the issue would not be dissimilar to those that fuel that of some Arabs whom as erroneously think that the best way to resolve this situation is to 'nuke Israel' or 'push it into the sea' since integration or 'bi-nationalism' is just 'theory'. In fact, it isn't 'theory' but an ideal that requires a change in an insecurity-induced mindset for the greater good of what might be garnered from different others via integration. And I don't think much of Michelle's perspectival sleights-of-hand in reinforcing her argument via association with 'communism' which might be 'just' but is just 'theory'. Are all theories to be discounted because one has been proven to be untrue? Is Palestinian and Jewish integration to be assigned to the theoretical bin because of the Yugoslavian situation? Was Hitler justified in slaughtering millions of Jews because one kicked him in the shins? And anyway, I'm really tired of saying this, the USSR and China were 'state capitalist' nations, not 'communist'. Assumptions based on fallacies. Michelle is recommending that a bi-national state is less-preferable to a 2-state solution to get around oppressive Zionism. Quite the paradox. At the end of the day, it seems that her main goal is to maintain the Judaeo-ethnic purity of the Israeli state.

If Michelle Goldberg isn't a card-carrying member of the BNP, she ought to be given one, whilst I’m sure the BNP would appreciate her flashing it outside of the UK.


according2,

ed

Case study: How de-racialisation can deliver a fascist racialisation of politics

I’ve found that one of the means via which fascist intentions are disguised is in fascists using members of the most disadvantaged or ‘less preferred’ communities to forward or front its perspectives. On the one hand, whilst it can serve to feed existing negative perceptions of these communities, it can simultaneously serve to promote the notion that their respective cultures are not of relevance when it comes to fine-tuning the trajectory of democratic movements. Additionally, it can also serve to lump them together with the ‘preferred race’ that holds power. In this sense, the political milieu is paradoxically racialised through the medium of the aforementioned de-racialisation. This way, attention is detracted from the true perspectival and cultural causes and consequence of fascism as the ‘preferred race’ hides behind minorities to exonerate itself form allegations of fascism.


Let’s look at a fascist state that thrives on racialisation and exclusion – that is, associating a particular ‘race’ with a particular culture, promoting the superiority of that culture, and sitting back and thriving on the apathetic and short-sighted by-products emerging from an exclusionary and exclusive worldview. At this point, the empathetic might accuse the government and later, the people, of being biased towards one race, or/and, the culture being promoted being a significant contributor to an oppressive state of affairs. To counter this, those in power can utilise members of the said ‘less preferred race’ to forward and front highly unfavourable perspectives and policies. This, of course, subjects them to critique from the opposition or the disgruntled that would not be dissimilar to that levelled at the ‘preferred race’, or ‘PR’ for brevity, holding the reins of government. Thereafter, the opposition themselves can gradually perceive their conflict with the government as one between ‘democrats’ and an ‘oppressive government’ instead of ‘anti-fascists’ and ‘racial/cultural supremacists’. In this, their attention is detracted from existing culturally-biased perspectives that founds it, the government promoting these, and which the people themselves might increasingly be practitioners of.

This is, of course, complemented by cultural pride gradually induced by one preferred culture serving as the chalice wherein is contained the cause of their success – after excluding others claims to being significant contributors by their being excluded-cum- underdeveloped via discriminatory treatment. With the promotion of the magnanimous-sounding ‘being culturally and racially sensitive’, a further impediment is placed in the way of the development of an anti-fascist persona in the people and ‘democrats’. The main aim here is to pave the way for a unitary view of the government and the opposition that leaves race and culture out of it. Conflict must take place on an opposition vs. government stage. This requires that the masses assume that the government are representative of the entirety of the people instead of being simply ‘white/Sinhalese/Malay/Chinese supremacists’. Thereon, they can be taken to task, at most, for not being ‘democratic’ enough as opposed to ‘being fascist’. If the masses can be detracted from the fascist nature of the government, then enough empathy can be compromised to ensure their continued rule, or at least, the rule of the elite. This is how ‘democrats’ are gradually enlisted in the fascist cause and will always themselves serve as an argument for the continuity of the existing government as they aren’t really that different themselves.

In the case of singapore, for example, there was this actor by the name of Gurmit Singh. Everyone knew that he was a Sikh/Indian, but laughed along at his antics on screen as ‘Phua Chu Kang’ (Chinese name) who exhibited the perspectival mores and language of Chinese of lower socioeconomic status whilst being presented as Chinese himself because of his pale complexion – personally, I found the humour crass and witless and relied simply on acting silly to garner chuckles from a people whom generally can’t laugh beyond a slip on a banana peel. He is a singaporean, a Sikh, but a Chinese on screen. In this, an association between ‘Singaporean’ and ‘Chinese’ is reinforced as other’s cultural take on things is excluded from the media and kept to the periphery of the public’s imagination. In answer to an Indian backbencher in parliament, by the name of Viswa, who took the government to task for its oppressiveness and bias in extremely subtle terms, a while later, the government’s Indian Law minister stands up to speak of how global views on singapore’s oppressive condition are discountable for its bias – few noticed that the logic utilised by him is identical to the logic used by most Chinese in the face of contradiction. Again and again, Indians, and at times, Malays, are used to forward perspectives that are thoroughly ‘Chinese’ in approach. In this, it is no wonder that other cultures are deemed to be quite irrelevant as their voice in the political arena is little more than a transliteration of an oriental one. However, if one was to look at the argumentative and logical skills of Indians in south Indian films with a direct understanding of the language, one will find a sharp contrast between them and the ‘Indians’ serving as mouthpieces for Confucian-style views. But as Tamil is yet to be learnt by people globally because the Indians are quite adept at learning others’ languages, it is to be expected that this misses the global appreciation.

In these two examples, out of numerous others in many arenas, we see the compromising of popular potential appreciation of this entire oppressive state of affairs as one of Confucian/Legalist perspectival origin as members of all races are enlisted to front the notion that it is a ‘singaporean’ problem as opposed to a typically ‘chinese one’ (‘Chinese’, in terms of its being a hallmark of China’s civilisation - which is pillarised by Confucianism, Legalism and Taoism - and not ‘Chinese’ in racial terms.). In this, the opposition themselves can continue to leave the cultural bases for their woes alone whilst attempting to transition singapore from an oppressive state to a less oppressive one. Prior to my taking issue with its government from an anti-fascist perspective, there were, unsurprisingly, precious few, if any at all, whom had taken this stance as it required critical cultural introspection. One article by a prominent Singaporean site, dated some time after a2ed’s take on the issue on this amongst other sites, approached the issue as if writing an obituary for singapore-past as opposed to an issue that had to be actively contended with, and dissected with the aid of an inquisitive scalpel and a microscopic monocle. It shied away from locating it in the cultural sense of the people and its Sino origins and garnished it with enough ambiguity and dispassion for it to be as empowering as coal in a formula 1 race. Hence, this is one of the many instances that serves as the evidential bases upon which I am compelled to recognise the oppositional sector in singapore as, generally, ‘democrats of the fascist left’ that is verifiably and quantifiably tethered to a verifiably and quantifiably fascist perspectival centre.

What their overrated leaders had always failed to do was to take on the cultural basis for their troubles. In this, their nemesis, the ‘Lee Dynasty’, or ‘FamiLEE’, as some wit-challenged writers like to term them, is indeed a highly intelligent sector, relatively speaking that is, for recognising the need for cultural manipulation for control. And given that Chinese culture is indeed borne of 2000 years of oppression, monoculturalism and a relatively static or ‘stable’ state of political and philosophical affairs, promoting its renaissance amongst singaporeans would certainly guarantee their pliability. And as it would be easier to teach the ‘chinese’ to be Chinese than it would be to teach Indians to be so, given their 3000 years or so of multicultural or ‘unstable’ history, the Chinese, it could be said, were the first victims Singapore’s answer to the BNP. Hence, the Lee regime’s pogrom against ‘westernisation’ and ‘difference’, vigorous promotion of Chinese culture – disguised as ‘asian values’ – and maintaining a ‘racial balance’ in favour of the Chinese, amongst a host of others, served to deliver a cultural base that serves as fertile ground for the whinnying and harrumphing emerging from the oppositional sector. But they have constantly maintained the thus-created fascist outlook of the opposition by training them to leave culture alone and associating ‘Chinese’ with ‘Singaporean’ in tandem with confusing everyone for ‘Chinese’, in persona if not in ‘race’, by their being ‘Singaporean’ – one of the reasons why the ‘singaporean’ version of pidgin English, known as ‘singlish’, is still termed ‘singlish’ even though it is now largely a corruption of English with Chinese words and perspectives.

In other words, the problems emerging from politics racialised with a wholly Chinese stock, is maintained by racialising the social and political arena under the catch-all term of ‘singaporean’. So now, the locals can speak of how ‘singaporeans’ don’t have enough sex or can’t last very long in bed; how foreigners are failing to integrate with ‘singaporeans’; how the influx of foreigners is leaving many ‘singaporeans’ unemployed; or how the national pastime of ‘singaporeans’ is eating and shopping. One just has to look, for instance, at the critical and political propensities and pastimes of the average Indian from the subcontinent for proof that light-years of space has to be folded before one can go on to assume that the ‘singaporean’ ‘democrat’s’ woes are not founded on a Chinese perspective instead of a ‘Singaporean’ one.

Putting it extremely simply, when politics is racialised long enough for fascism to become ‘culture’, this leads the members of the ‘preferred race’ to assume similitude amongst all within a catch-all national descriptor, i.e. ‘singaporean’. At this point, the cultural basis is absolved from complicity in one’s woes as all other cultures are rendered irrelevant in tandem. That is why the Chinese in singapore, not ‘singaporeans’, are oftentimes inclined to say, ’it’s like that one’(that’s the way it is) in the face of critique instead of moving on to asking, ‘why it’s like that’, as that would oftentimes require one to engage in a discomforting bout of critical cultural introspection. Movement away from this approach is not likely given the pervasiveness of the practice of ‘cultural pride’. And within a fascist milieu, it becomes a symbiotic part of it.

Hence, within such a perspectival milieu, one of the significant methods that may be utilised to undo this is to racialise politics for the purpose of locating its cultural root, as it would already have a particular ‘race’ to take pride in it whilst assuming everyone else to be the same or to conform-or-else. This would of course be a prelude to deracialising politics after the cultural causes of flawed perspectives are weeded out and integration follows. If not, and overtime, people of all cultures can indeed began to exhibit the traits of a majority defined by race and culture. In this, the cultural causes for problems can indeed one day find its root in a Singaporean cultural basis as opposed to a ‘singaporean’ one. When that happens, and it already is, cultural and fascist mores are ossified as natural and can proceed with impunity. At this point, the best that the people can do, and which will certainly be recognised as ‘the best’ given that they will cease to know better for want of other cultural input, will be a product of a severely contracted field of vision – which, in the Singaporean context, can generally be appreciated as ‘democratic fascism’.


according2,

ed

I'm a PC, and WINDOWS 7 was also MAC's Idea

So some are saying that Windows 7 ‘borrowed’ the look of Mac.[bbc] I’m sure the fanboys and gals of Mac will be whinnying about how the inferior ‘Windows’ can’t advance without peeking under the cassock of the Mac, or, in this case, over the habits of Mac-users. So maybe that would mean that Windows 7 isn’t just the idea of those idiotic ‘I’m a PCs’ out there.



But then again, since when is ‘Mac’ ‘Mac’s’ idea? Isn’t it the creation of the staff of Apple, AND, millions of ideas generated by computer users, be they Windows or Macs users? It all comes down to the common and collective production of ideas that are appropriated by what are in effect, 2 departments of the selfsame operating systems company that create false competition by not bothering with most of the ideas that are produced so that some of them can be included in the next OS x y & z and Windows 7 to 7.9.

So what we have here are 2 versions of one OS. An ‘economy’ or ‘value’ version, that is Windows, and another that doesn’t splutter, crackle and pop as and when it feels like it. With the former comes cheaper hardware, and with the latter, exorbitantly priced ones. When you put it together, you get a 100% of computer uses – save Linux et al users – being screwed all of the time. I’m not saying that there is some secret conspiracy between Jobs and Gates, just that when we look at the consequences and its impact on computer users and their pockets, it might as well be.

And who says corporations and governments respect intellectual property. Nonsense. They protect the acquisition of IP by corporations, etc, as they don’t have to pay you royalties when they fire you even though they are still making money from your ideas. All IP rights are given up upon employment for fear of starvation mate. And let’s not forget those idiots starring in the ridiculous, ‘Hi! I’m a PC, and Windows 7 was my idea’ ads, it may be ‘their’ idea, but guess who’s laughing his way to the bank after getting you to pay for what might very well be version 1.7 of windows as opposed to 7 because 98.3% of the ideas supplied by people have been shelved for the next version of Windows. And by the way, is it just I who thinks that the essential definition of ‘piracy’ refers to the earning of more than a justifiable amount for product x?



a2,

ed

Michael Jackson's, 'This is it' - This is Shite

"It was fitting that this could not be an ordinary premiere. At 1am, a specially invited UK audience became one of the first in the world to watch a film showing Michael Jackson's final weeks." Mark Brown, The Guardian.

Fitting? Yes indeed. A fitting vindication of the notion that humanity is fast devolving with the aid of, amongst others, the mutation of the netherregions of 'celebs' into a alters of worship.

What can we make of the timing for Michael Jackson’s posthumous global premiere of, ‘This is it’?

In the final analyses, it simply serves to further deify this bloke and what he represents as people are united throughout the globe at the same time, despite sleep-time, to honour the memory of crotch-swivelling and hoo ha-ing – a contemporary version2 upgrade of Edgar Rice Burrough’s ‘Tarzan’ – whilst further validating the significance of living vicariously through ‘celebs’.


Think about it. Even the ‘millennium’ wasn’t observed in such a fashion as people across the world woke up to the ‘new’ ‘millennium’ – which actually arrived in the year 2001 – in respect of their localised body-clocks as opposed to the local time in the Republic of Kiribati – which is supposed to be the first human-inhabited locale on the planet to see the ‘new millennium’ according to the Julian calendar….though I think that the fisherpersons plying their trade off its coast might have a first claim on that.

But in the case of Michael, people stayed up to pay simultaneous homage to what intelligent minds of previous epochs would discount as one requiring sectioning – just as everyone whom were accustomed to putting the day before the month started doing the inverse with the Americanised, ‘9/11’.

It doesn’t matter if most didn’t stay up for this event, what is of significance here is that most didn’t deem anything amiss along the lines discussed here. In that, our sense of the significance of time is monopolised by the two complementary and symbiotic stages of ‘work’ and ‘vicarious existence’. But when is global unity expressed on such a timescale as that witnessed with this show of misdirected juvenile vibrancy? – its ‘misdirected’ not because such vibrancy is a ‘bad thing’ in itself, but because it is not expressed in equal scale when it comes to intellectual and humanitarian proclivities. Were simultaneous protests launched throughout the world when America launched its onslaught on Iraq? Did simultaneous protests meet, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Madeline Allbright’s statement, that the deaths of close to half a million children in Iraq arising out of U.S. sponsored embargoes were ‘worth the price’? There seems to be two definitions of the word, ‘simultaneous’, here, and which might indicate that the global popular mindset is out of sync when it comes to issues that matter as opposed to celeb matter, posthumous or otherwise. Humanity isn't going to really be able to appreciate the generic idea of Equity and Empathy till it ceases to undermine the basis for its appreciation at every opportunity - such as this instance.

I suppose that is why I’ve yet to take the vows of atheism as humanity has argued little for its perspectives being the source of progress. I’d rather have Saints whom serve as a sharp contrast to sinners whilst coming across as achievable examples than ‘Celebs’ who thrive by maintaining the divide whilst turning sin into virtue.


according2,

ed

Pope offers Anglicans place in Catholicism

The Protestant Reformation, in retrospect, was a movement to place God in the hands of wo/man, whilst the mind of wo/man was being interned within the diocese of capitalism and nationalism. In this, the choice between God and Mammon was resolved by allowing the former to subsist within the latter.

Perhaps this movement, whatever the intentions of the Pope, is yet another corollary of globalisation straining against the fetters of the illusory borders of the nation-state. Sort of a counter-revolution against the recently instituted national status quo. But one has to also be wary of trading the barb-wired nation-state for perspectival confinement under St. Peter's flip flops.


according2,

ed

click 'show' for the related article on this page Show

.
[source]

BNP fights Fascism

"The BNP – and indeed the entire far-right movement – is no stranger to infighting and claims of splits will be dismissed by its high command. Griffin, a former key player in the National Front, assumed control over the party only after ousting its founder, John Tyndall.
Since then he has shored up his position, surrounding himself with a core of lieutenants and taking control of party finances. This has led to concerns that Griffin has become too powerful. Several senior BNP members quit after he overhauled the constitution to make his position as leader practically unassailable." The Guardian.


Quite hilarious, I’m sure the reader will agree. Fascists fighting fascism.

Whilst promoting the rule or prominence of one 'race', they quibble over the rule or prominence of one man.


Can we call it ‘democratic fascism’ perhaps? Or democrats of the Fascist Left? That is, seeking the equal valuation of different others within a party that seeks to devalue cultural others because of difference. How about if I put it this way, ‘seeking the equal valuation of different others within a party that seeks to devalue others because of difference.' It's a strange pastime indeed to compromise the generic value of 'difference' whilst demanding that it is respected within specific circumstances.

Why does the BNP not simply accept the position and power of Griffin? They are fascists aren’t they? Should they not allow Griffin’s whims and fancies to determine the perspectival ceiling of the party? If one 'race' of people are supposed to hold all the answers to everything, then why can’t one man. They might say, well, we are all different and have different ideas, so the contribution of these differentially produced ideas would definitely serve the progressive evolution of the party since no one individual can possess all that is required to make sense of the entirety of reality. So, I have to ask the BNP, is it too much of a stretch of imagination to apply the same logic to peoples of different cultures?

Well, the BNP ought to be given credit for at least attempting to maintain equality amongst equals. But I have to wonder after their definition of ‘equals’. And they ought to make the most of their democratic impulse in their opposition to the power and prominence of a singular individual to wonder after it as well. For the good of the party of course.


according2,

ed

MJ: on the 'This is Not It' Movement, and why it certainly isn't

So now this sad group of gits have decided to start a ‘This is not it’ movement gnashing their teeth whilst beating their breasts in sackcloth and ashes, probably in tune with ‘Don’t stop till you get enough’, for the exploitative treatment received by what they believe to be ‘the greatest entertainer that ever lived’ in the hands of the corporations. According to these ‘fans’, Michael Jackson, hallowed be His name, died due to the ‘neglect, greed and inhumanity’ of Sony et al.

“Michael Jackson needed help,” goes the Manifesto on the ‘This is not it’ site, “but they were too busy relishing the profits this tour would have generated to acknowledge it. AEG, the tour promoter, and Michael's own entourage, pressed on and did not intervene to stop what clearly looked like a tragedy in waiting. It was inhumane.” This is not it



Well, millions dying all over the world needed help too mate. But because some crotch-clutching hoo haa-ing git thought there was nothing wrong in hoarding millions for doing that ‘like sooo well’, and millions of perpetually pubescent minds were devolved enough to think nothing of it, this tragedy has been in the making. Daily.

Frankly, whilst I’m certainly inclined to do a jig and a half whenever I hear Michael’s ‘Rock with you’, I can now only do so whilst trying not to think about how this bloke actually thought that millions ought to die so that he could play with his train set and chimps, whilst we enable him to do just that so that we could feel like doing the said jig and a half. After all, that is the final cost isn’t it. Of course those whom are too busy getting vicarious erections watching MJ’s impromptu crotch dips and facial contortions, that would probably flabbergast even the most adept plate-balancers from China, would miss this point. And very soon, thanks to these self-absorbed species known by the term of ‘fans’, we’re going to see singers being appointed to the UN, speaking up for the poor whilst crotched in their multi-million dollar living rooms, and heading profit-generating mass song-and-dance festivals for causes which probably wouldn’t exist if all the billions paid out to mere singers and recording companies went directly to the needy. Short cuts past thought frequently takes the route past thought-relieving celebrity-worship. That’s what served as the basis for the emergence of Hitlers, Griffins, Woods, Beckhams, Jackson, et al. It is the devaluation of the individual that serves as the cornerstone for much that is taken as unquestionable ‘culture’ of today and the gross mishaps of history.

It seems that these cultural heroes, be they stick-swinging Woods, ball-kicking Beckhams, or crotch-swiveling Jacksons, just about take the biscuit in the Exploitation Sanitation Department. They whitewash exploitation by rendering it immediately gratifying for the electorate of the morrow. That certainly undermines any movement toward equity in the economic sphere given the pleasures associated with it in the ‘entertainment’ one.

Well, if I have any bouts of indigestion arising from MJ’s death, it is in his not taking his fans with him.

Ooh, that's a bit harsh isn't it.

Yes, it would be, if the systemic and humanitarian consequences of 'fanhood' weren't.

according2,


ed

Making Sense of MJ

As MJ's 'This is it' is set for a global premiere tonight, a2ed is republishing this article - that was first published upon his moonwalking back to the neverland in the skies.

*****

I find much of what is being said in the British media about Michael Jackson to be, generally, analytically superficial and shallow at best, and which tends to feed the pervasive culture of ignorance, and celebrity-worship cum self-diminution. I was expecting more from them given their 'professional' status, but I suppose having a queen would tend to compromise their ability to appreciate the thorns founding the crown.
This article is a response to their celebrity-worshipping nonsense.


“Michael Jackson's art was astonishingly innovative. No one could dance like him, until he showed them how, and then they were never as good as he was. His concept of the dance was utterly 20th century, extravagantly multi-dimensional, and not in the least middle class.” – Germaine Greer, Guardian


“
If ‘Genius’ is 10 percent talent and 90 percent hard work, we could say that the masses ought to be credited for the latter in the production of the phenomenon of Michael Jackson. - ed
(one of the reasons why the concept of Intellectual Property strikes me as an Intellectual Impropriety)

I have said quite a bit on MJ’s dance style in a previous article, and which is excerpted here for its relevance.



“
His dance and music was of the genre of ‘juvenile self-assertion’. The quick definite movements, the angularity of it, short spurts of multidirectional movements, and complemented by a style of singing with it's yells, 'hooos', sharp in/exhalation, self-confident and semi-aggressive facial contortions, says as much and little besides. You could say that, in this, the masses' self-assertive propensities were directed away from anti-establishmentism and intellectual inclinations by way of self-assertion being presented without any intellectual or confrontational qualities. And with him, amongst others, serving as cultural icons, the juvenile masses didn't have much of a reason to seek beyond them for something more. And whatever energy that was diffused amongst the multitudes found articulation through the socio-economic system since it didn't have an ideology or a direction to begin with - unlike in the 'hippie' 60s. You could say that MJ, amongst others, served as the element within the spirit of the 80s that enabled the overthrow of any semblance of anti-establishmentism that was inherited from the 60s and 70s.

Just a bit more on this...

Now you think, amongst other writers in various global newspapers, MJ’s dance style was invented or afforded much innovation by him don’t you. Well, that’s not entirely true.

Michael’s dance style has, amongst others, three significant sources.

The first, and most obvious source, is from the street culture in California and New York City in the 60s and early 70s which includes, amongst others, Breakdance styles such as ‘popping’, ‘locking’, ‘wave’ and the more aggressive, ‘uprock’. Other assertive street styles were also integrated or incorporated into what one of the pioneers of the Universal Zulu Nation, Africa Bambaataa, termed, ‘hip hop’. And the famed ‘moonwalk’ itself can be traced back to James Brown and Bill Bailey, the latter of whom, by the way, was one of the first documented artistes to do the ‘moonwalk’ in 1955.
The main reason why MJ became famous for ‘his’ dance was that fame was already coming his way with his stint in the Jackson 5 and his later solo career. This served as the stage wherein he could expose 'his' other talents such as dancing. You could say that MJ used his relatively prominent position to be one of the first to bring in street dance, as opposed to inventing it. Hence, as he was already becoming popular, the global mass of fans were at the ready to credit him with everything that was of non-MJ origins or state that he was, amongst others, ‘astonishingly innovative’ where appropriative might be more apt – just like ideas not being appreciated unless it issues forth from a renown figure even though it has existed for quite some time or in more insightful form amongst unknowns. He was prominent, so all he had to be was ‘good’ at, for instance, dance, for it to be construed as ‘great’. The prominence of the artiste, hence, served as the Midas touch as opposed to Michael simply ‘being the best’. But,on the downside, once a celebrity appropriates the culture of the masses of unknowns and exhibits what s/he has a preference for, it has the effect of reducing the masses to mere reproducers and innovators. In this, the 'celebrity' does much in regimenting the vibrancy upon which s/he emerges.

The 2nd source of MJ’s dance style was founded on the increasing burst of juvenile predominance in culture, and with pop culture being weeded off its ideological content as it was in the mid-60s up to the mid-70s. Self-assertion without ideology or what I would term, intellectual individualism and depth, would then be well prepared to descend and manifest itself in more abstract forms such as breakdancing amongst other ‘hip hop’ styles that can be crudely perceived as ‘self-assertion and vibrancy without a brain’. I’m not saying that these cultures are problematic. But, when subconscious vibrancy is not articulated through the mind, its next refuge would naturally be through dance, amongst others. It is then that it becomes a problem as it serves as a ‘compensatory mechanism’ that is activated to allay the discomfort ensuing from the human persona not being able to express itself in more deeper forms. One could say that when popular intellectual individualism or/and depth is at a relatively higher level, dance forms usually take on deeper forms. In that, such dance forms complement intellectual individualism and depth as opposed to serving as compensation for not having it. Hence, with the decline of intellectual individualism and depth, or the masses perceiving it as beyond their sphere of rightful interest through socialization in the ‘modern’ understanding of ‘youth’, or as economic units, the stage will be set for the emergence of the likes of Michael Jackson as a ‘star’ and the ‘fans’ necessary to serve as its stage and spotlight.

(I don’t actually feel entirely comfortable with this statement as I too was a ‘breakdancer’ back in the 80s with my own ‘crew’. It really made me feel alive as it still does now. But I do know that if I had not been underdeveloped by my social and class experience and location, I may have engaged in activities of greater intellectual individualistic depth. But if intellectual individualism and depth could be achieved, that does not mean that this dance form would melt away. Rather, this dance form could then serve as primitive fuel for greater ventures. But where intellectual individualism and depth is not achieved or derisively perceived as the ‘obsession’ of ‘psychobabblers’ or ‘know-it-all academics’, such a culture would serve as ‘compensation and distraction’ and work toward depoliticising the citizenry.)

The 3rd reason for Michael’s evolving dance style is the adoration paid him by the global congregation of ‘fans’. Michael’s self-doubt will be decreased along with an increase in his sense of self-efficacy. And with the sense of self-importance amplified within him by swooning ‘fans’, the self-assertive qualities of the dance style of the streets would become more pronounced by his own increasing sense of self-worth. That is why we can see that MJ’s dance style became increasingly self-assertive from the 70s through to the present. From the dance complementing the song in the 70s, it mutated into the song and dance complementing him, the ‘King of Pop’. The posturing became nothing less than megalomaniacal in proportions along with the titling of his albums that moved ‘off the wall’ to ‘bad’ and to a grossly narcissistic, ‘History’. He began to cease to ‘second guess’ or doubt himself and just developed this megalomaniacal dance style to the extreme as seen by the increasingly self-assertive posturing that became the dance. And the masses, already living vicariously off his transfigured grandeur, whilst they lived as mere ‘fans’ and cogs and wheels within a socio-economic system over which they had no control, fell hook, line, sinker, and titanic for the increasingly potent opiate that was MJ, and which served well, and correlated with, their increasing diminution as truly individualistic and cogitating modern citizens.

‘Youth’ was given a new identity. You weren’t here to make a change. You were just here to make a megalomaniacal stand – and the system stepped in to appropriate this valuable mindless resource. That is when what was 'cool' moved from creating your own style to following it. MJ, amongst a host of other factors, along with the socio-economic system, paved the way for the mutation of the masses to the grossly self-absorbed, ignorant, incorporated and arrogant people that they are today. He distracted the attention of the global mass of youth from the foundations of civilisation and ushered them into the superstructure. One could quite plausibly state that MJ was the final and decisive push against the intellectually individualistic ‘hippie’ definition of youth. These ‘stars’ finally became the Gods of the masses, keeping them supple and compliant for the use of the elite. And thereafter, even saw some of these 'stars' taking on roles within the UN, amongst other organisations, and forwarding initiatives for the resolution of problems they, in no insignificant way, helped in creating and perpetuating.
The popular stage shared between singers and philosophers in the ‘hippie’ era, and was itself one of the reasons why it was undermined, was predictably evicted of the latter in the 80s as self-gratification was more immediate when singers were turned into deities as opposed to the relatively lengthy and less-‘entertaining’ observations of philosophers. Hence, as one of the most significant deathblows, MJ, amongst others, and all that he stood for, delivered to the establishment youthful vibrancy without a mind. And insofar as they became fodder, thus they now render fodder of all.

The Devil’s a genius.


according2,

ed

Why MJ was not 'the Greatest Entertainer of his Age'

“
The relative prominence of any celebrity indicates the relative predominance of a singular facet of an otherwise multifarious human persona. The question is, what is being brought to the fore at the expense of what is thus relegated its diminished position in the background of the human persona. ~ ed

“For all Michael Jackson's flaws he was the greatest entertainer of his age. Richard Williams, The Guardian.


Nonsense.


Michael Jackson was the greatest entertainer of the Juvenile Age. That is, he appealed to the juvenile amongst and within us in his juvenile vibrancy, self-assertion, arrogance, self-absorption, animation, youthfulness – not all bad, but not all good either. But the bad and good of it all is determined by the degree we might be inclined to view him as ‘the greatest entertainer of his age.’ I’m sure Mickey Mouse might be the greatest entertainer of those of a particular perspectival age, but who might be confused for ‘the greatest entertainer of his age’ amongst toddlers just as do those who think likewise of Mike. In a sense, this nonsense is just another man-infestation of western cultural hegemony.

But entertainment is not a singular phenomenon in itself. That which we are entertained by is diagnostic of what we are. For myself, the youthful, fun-loving and self-assertive aspect of my persona is ‘entertained’ and reinforced by, amongst others, MJ, but when it comes to the intellectual, inquisitive, spiritual, aesthetic aspects of the potentials of personality, a personality I did not allow MJ to completely define (though I’m more of a Prince person myself), I look elsewhere.

In relation to this, the singularly developed might think that MJ was a great dancer.

Again, nonsense.

His dance and music was of the genre of ‘juvenile self-assertion’. The quick definite movements, the angularity of it, short spurts of multidirectional movements, and complemented by a style of singing with it's yells, 'hooos', sharp in/exhalation, self-confident and semi-aggressive facial contortions, says as much and little besides. You could say that, in this, the masses' self-assertive propensities were directed away from anti-establishmentism and intellectual inclinations by way of self-assertion being presented without any intellectual or confrontational qualities. And with him, amongst others, serving as cultural icons, the juvenile masses didn't have much of a reason to seek beyond them for something more. And whatever energy that was diffused amongst the multitudes found articulation through the socio-economic system since it didn't have an ideology or a direction to begin with - unlike in the 'hippie' 60s. You could say that MJ, amongst others, served as the element within the spirit of the 80s that enabled the overthrow of any semblance of anti-establishmentism that was inherited from the 60s and 70s.
That was, in essence, what Michael Jackson stood for - but it's going to take more than the ubiquitous 'fan' to realise that.

Dance is a many-splendoured thing. We have the gracefulness of ballet, the philosophical depth of Bharatanatyam, the earthy tones of the Aboriginal dance form, the confrontational spirit of the Maori and certain Zulu dance forms, the supernatural qualities of the Indonesia ‘horse dances’, etc. To allow one wo/man to monopolise the idea of ‘the greatest dancer’ or ‘the greatest entertainer’, hence, is, another form of cultural fascism that narrows the appreciation of oneself in more ways than that which is afforded a spotlight led by an increasingly juvenile and ill-educated mass. In this light, I would recognise MJ as the abstract epitome of the arrogant, self-absorbed juvenile individualism that was brought about by a myriad of factors, that MJ fed and fed on, and which has become the hallmark of these times. In this sense, I suppose one could say that MJ was the 'greatest entertainer of his age', amongst those sharing his mental age and having it define a significant portion of their persona that is - and I have to admit, I was one of them in my rebellious teen years in the 80s. But instead of allowing MJ, amongst a host of others to incorporate my rebellious streak and just have it articulated through pop culture, I used the rebellious spirit which they aided in enhancing, to overthrow their hegemony over the entirety of my personality.

Hence, I do not stupidly believe that a singer ought to earn millions for it as it, compared to humanitarians, thinkers, and activists, does far less for the all-round progress of humanity. For all you weeping, mourning 'fans' out there, go get a multifaceted life. If not, that aspect of your personality which is brought to the fore by the pre-eminence granted these 'stars' will see you forking out millions for a vicarious existence, along with ensuring that those who come after you will know no better for the miscast spotlight you helped in directing.

But, I still appreciate the ‘self-assertive’ and youthful essence contained within MJ’s songs – which is a resource that bears fruit when applied in higher planes of life – especially in the 70s which was more youthfulness-cum-vibrancy as opposed to the brash-cum-self-absorption numbers he churned out in the decades thereafter.

Thanks for the primitive fuel Michael, and...

...Keep well in the next life.


according2,

ed

Is the Police ‘Domestic Extremist’ Scheme going to deter yet-to-be-Britisher activism?

“Police are gathering the personal details of thousands of activists who attend political meetings and protests, and storing their data on a network of nationwide intelligence databases…

Senior officers say domestic extremism, a term coined by police that has no legal basis, can include activists suspected of minor public order offences such as peaceful direct action and civil disobedience.”

Upon reading this, I wondered after the integrational schemes for those hoping to be granted an ‘indefinite leave to remain’ and, thereafter, citizenship. For either, one has to exhibit knowledge of British affairs, culture, exhibit proficiency in English, and so on. Now I have to ask if abstaining from supporting political causes and confining empathy to a couple of quid a month to the RSPCA is one of the unstated criteria.


I can just imagine many a yet-to-be-Britisher reading this and telling her/imself to ‘keep out of politics’ lest they be blacklisted upon application for the above after a period of stay. I have to wonder how this might serve to dilute the alternative camps in the country as British-hopefuls are trained during their stay to keep out of it. Some might argue that, well, after they become citizens they still have the choice of signing up with pamphleteers. However, choice is not simply a matter of having the freedom to effectuate a decision in the face of alternatives, but can be impeded by the said decision being put off and coping strategies being formed to compensate for not effectuating a decision with immediacy. In other word, the longer we procrastinate upon being confronted with a choice, we have as much time to get used to not having it.

So what alternative do the anti-fascists, environmentalists, and a host of others have when it comes to ensuring a steady stream of supporters for their cause whatever their point of origin? Turn to fascism so that they might not be diluted with future migrants whom are going to be trained via the aforementioned to turn the apathetic cheek? In some southeast Asian regions, their respective governments bring in foreigners to ensure a growing supportive and subservient base or for the maintenance of a ‘racial balance’. Here, I wonder, if potential migrants are being relied upon to ensure a growing apathetic base via the aforementioned means to counteract the ‘domestic extremists’. And why is the term ‘extremist’ now being associated with alternative streams of thought in the UK? And what does this mean for the future definition of the term ‘moderate’? One who questions the status quo only when it comes to fashion?

click 'show' to read the entire article without leaving this page.Show

(source)



according2,


ed

In support of, and designed for, F.I.T. (Forward Intelligence Team) Watch

F.I.T. Watch is a movement dedicated to protecting the right to peaceful protests from police surveillance of protestors directed by the underlying view of participants as 'domestic extremists'.

Read the manifesto at F.I.T. Watch.

The above 'logo' comprises a Custodian, or Centurion helmet, aka, 'Bobby's helmet', with a superimposed magnifying glass to illustrate scrutiny of public 'custodians'. The magnified image in contrasting white within the magnifier represents the police under scrutiny in the 'clear light of day'.

[The above is a 'png-24' image and can be placed on background of any colour, except black, without aesthetic conflict. For one that goes with a black background, click 'more'.]


for black backgrounds

On Indian Anti-Colonialism, the perspectival union of Sri Lanka and China, and the future of Nazi Asia

Timesonline : “On the southern coast of Sri Lanka, ten miles from one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, a vast construction site is engulfing the once sleepy fishing town of Hambantota.
This poor community of 21,000 people is about as far as one can get on the island from the fighting between the army and the Tamil Tiger rebels on the northeastern coast. The sudden spurt of construction helps, however, to explain why the army is poised to defeat the Tigers and why Western governments are so powerless to negotiate a ceasefire to help civilians trapped on the front line.

This is where China is building a $1 billion port that it plans to use as a refuelling and docking station for its navy, as it patrols the Indian Ocean and protects China’s supplies of Saudi oil. Ever since Sri Lanka agreed to the plan, in March 2007, China has given it all the aid, arms and diplomatic support it needs to defeat the Tigers, without worrying about the West.”


I find the anti-colonial movement in India to be the subcontinent's most significant break with an otherwise and relatively all-inclusive history – stained mainly by the caste system. I don’t see any reason why in movement toward egalitarianism, the Indians had to exclude the British for being of non-indigenous origins. As I had stated in a previous observation, if they found it justifiable that the British be evicted for being oppressive, then why did they not evict the descendants of the Muslim invaders for doing likewise earlier along with existing rulers? Rather, time and tide, fortunately, saw a significant amalgamation between them, just as it could have been the case with the British.

However, I can understand this given that the British did not really see India as their home whereas the Muslims did, and much of that which was produced in India was done for the enrichment of Britain. But the Mughals did have close to a 1000 year head start to become part of the Indian tapestry, and the Indian subcontinent had as much time to integrate them into an amalgamative whole – the Taj Mahal, with its Islamic architecture, whilst serving as one of the significant symbols of a ‘Hindu’ India, is one of the greatest and most salient testament of its essentially non-fascist nature. The British finally leaving, serves as evidence of their growth in magnanimity and appreciation of human rights. Their being told to leave, and their leaving at this juncture, reminds me of how dissenters were executed in Orwell's '1984' only upon learning the 'error' of their ways. What a waste. If I was in the position of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, I would have responded to their lowering the British Flag prior to their departure with an approving clap on the back and invite them to stay.

I’ve often wondered, with greater integration between the British and Indian peoples, if it is not possible to envision a greater ‘United Kingdom’ cutting across geographical regions and including a perspectivally similar people – of course, without the Queen being the official head of India, but rather a political union between both countries. Perhaps if that had happened, then we might not see an ‘EU’ today as people might be thus-trained to accord greater significance to perspectival unions over geographical ones, and thus, even potentially undermining the perspectival basis upon which the BNP might emerge or exist at all. All this fascist talk of maintaining a 'racial balance' in favour of 'the natives' might have been undone by the dilution of such tendencies in both India and the UK with a healthy concentrated dose of masala in a Yorkshire pud. 'The Native' might have been redefined and the BNP might now be an acronym for British of Naturist Persuasion.


I wouldn’t expect China or Sri Lanka to accord such respect to the peoples of Tibet and Xinjiang or the Tamils respectively anytime soon, if at all – I really feel for the Tamils, they are really buggered in quite a bit of southeast Asia, i.e. Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka. They will all be conforming to the perspectival standards of their oppressors so that they too might one day be included – just as women sought to be included in patriarchal societies throughout the world and ended up becoming just like their oppressors upon inclusion…the endpoint of fascism is to include more in its ethos. Of course, the people as a whole will not attain maximal perspectival development given that the overarching imposed culture will not see contribution from another take on reality as afforded by integration with different and ‘minority’ cultures. Neither will they enjoy the added perspectival benefits that comes with an empathetic appreciation of another as might be seen in the west. That is the loss of Nazi Asia. But, of course, the people will eventually be underdeveloped enough to value their gains in terms of what had been achieved as opposed to appreciating what could have been achieved if their multicultural perspectival resources had seen maximal development through egalitarian integration.

Well, in the case of Sri Lanka and China, I am hardly surprised that they would prefer closer ties with each other as they might have realised the greater perspectival similarities between themselves with their shared and militarily imposed aversion to difference and belief in the significance of ‘racial’ numbers, continuity and cultural inbreeding, as opposed to the added value of a boost in IQ any monocultural people might be afforded upon integration with difference. Besides the economic advantages, closer ties between two fascist states – with China being the older fascist of the two by about a couple of thousand years – is certainly preferable to an alliance with an India that has taken the opposite and multicultural stance for most of its history – and from whom comes much popular support for multiculturalism in Sri Lanka as opposed to fascist monoculturalism and Sinhalese racial supremacy.

I suppose it is indeed fascistically prudential of the Sinhalese elite to seek an economic upgrade with aid from the Chinese. After all, to validate the supremacy of the Sinhalese ‘race’ and associated ‘culture’, they will have to show that it can deliver ‘first world’ status to the people via the preferred culture and race alone. Once that is achieved, the fate of non-Sinhalese culture in Sri Lanka will see permanent relegation to irrelevance and inferiority. The sooner this can be delivered, or the sooner economic progress can be perceived to be taking place, the sooner can the western frivolity of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘mutual respect’ can be tossed aside as a ‘western fetish’.

In the longer run, Sri Lanka will certainly be, in spirit, a member of the ‘asian democratic’ movement that is picking up pace and hollering, ‘respect our culture!’. And the west will most probably turn the culturally magnanimous cheek – as it already is doing, in part, to compensate for their bigotry in the colonial era – in the face of ‘asian’ attempts to disrespect and marginalise other cultures for the purpose of effectuating a well-ordered, unquestioning, and thereafter thoroughly un-‘asian’ (given that it will be representing fewer asian cultures in the face of their cultural pogroms and post-fascist assimilatory measures) automatonic march toward ‘affluence’ and ‘progress’.

The self-validating part of southeast Asian fascism lies in marginalisation delivering a less developed ‘other’ that in turn serves to enable a racially and culturally-associated ‘preferred’ race to inevitably outdo those whom will then be perceived as the practitioners of ‘inferior cultures’. This can serve to assimilate the former practitioners of these ‘inferior cultures’ and more and more might be thus enlisted to validate these fascist movements and perspectives as ‘cultures’ worthy of respect, or at least, afford it unquestioning conformity – For instance, I’ve often heard many a time in Singapore, that Indians are told by their parents to not think too much, be critical, or ask too much questions lest they are bypassed for jobs and promotions. Hence, paradoxically, in these states, one might see many Indians, but one would be hard-pressed to recognise any that are. Overtime, the west will have lesser reasons to take them to task on human-rights violations and championing perspectives of neo-Nazi persuasion as there would be a unilateral effort by the children of the previously marginalised to assimilate with a marginalisation-produced ‘superior’, or at least, an ‘economically pragmatic’ culture.


according2,

ed

In Defense of the BNP, Nick Griffin & Fascism

It’s not just about the colour of one’s skin is it. It’s about culture.

Not so much about the culture of the ‘other’, but one’s own culture isn’t it. Let’s not talk about racism, discrimination, and whatnot. Let’s just focus on respect and preserving what we respect in honour of those whom had built that which demands nothing less than respect.




Let’s talk about respecting those who came before us. Let’s talk about respecting our forefathers. ‘Forefathers’ mind you! Without them, we wouldn’t be here. Don’t we owe them to respect the cultural conduits via which the present was delivered. Do we not maintain the graves of those whom came before us. Do we not honour our war dead? Do we not ensure that our monuments are not eroded by pigeon excrement?

And should we not care about the descendants of all whom contributed to this milieu wherein we thrive? Should we not accord respect to the children whose fathers fought in battlefields past and shared a fire thereafter whilst comparing the size of the wounds they suffered out of love for us? Isn’t this all about respect. So let’s not talk about kicking out those whom aren’t one of us. Let’s just talk about respecting the artistic, economic, cultural progeny of our forefathers. Let’s give it the utmost respect and see that it’s memory is honoured by its continued replication in the present and future. So it’s not that we shouldn’t respect other cultures and races. It’s about respecting our own. It’s about empathising with our own. It’s about loving our own. Hence, it is all about preferring our own. For without the notion of ‘our own’, those who came before us wouldn’t have done as much would they. If we can have such preference when it comes to food, or clothing, and the way we fashion our homes, ought we not to respect such preference when it comes to more meaningful things such as the culture and people whom had cradled us through the ages.

Thus spake the Angle and Jute and Saxon and Viking and……

…hence, we still live the way we always did and have yet to dream of planes and skyscrapers and ipods and globalisation and the internet and television and bifocals and hearing aids and …

…all out of respect for the achievements of our forefathers, and in honour of which we accord nothing less than preferential love and respect and empathy for all whom are descendants of our past, by replicating the past in the present and future and doing our best with the little we thus have for want of the much we could have gained by including others as the forefathers of the children of the morrow.

Now isn’t this the kind of love that is worthy of respect, given that we are willing to do without all that we have yet to be able to imagine for want of integration with those whom aren’t a part of our past?


according2,


ed

In retrospect : on the Fascist state of Singapore & how it taught me to fear the BNP

"Sir Stamford Raffles once said, 'What malta is in the west, that may Singapore become in the east'. Now, it can be said, 'What the BNP is in the west, Singapore is in the east.'

The whole ‘Speak Mandarin campaign’ started in Singapore in 1979, and pursued with increasing vigour ever since even though the claimed reason for it - 'unity amongst the Chinese' - was achieved, was flawed and fascist from the start – unless the goal was to turn it into a perspectival and racial satellite of China. I wouldn’t say that it was intentional at the outset and might just have been a natural reaction arising from those whom have never had to contend with difference; exacerbated by the fascist nature of the anti-colonial movement; and with ‘race’ becoming an issue given the difficulties that arose when people with relatively disparate histories had to contend with living together for the first time – and of course the capitalist class system didn’t help either. Unfortunately, the path chosen by many was to simply favour the majority or the natives and get on with the business of living – Singapore and Malaysia respectively.

[The above image is for illustrative purposes in view of the perspective contained in this article. The central part of the above logo contains the party logo of Singapore's ruling 'People's Action Party'. This year is its 50th anniversary since it first came into power. This article is written to commemorate its ongoing legacy..]



“The government-sponsored campaign to promote Mandarin began in 1979 to unite under one language Singapore's disparate Chinese communities that spoke a multitude of dialects passed on by their ancestors who came from China in the 19th and early 20th century.

Unifying the Chinese majority in a country with sizeable Malay and Indian minorities was a priority and in the early days the Speak Mandarin Campaign discouraged ethnic Chinese from speaking the dialects that prevailed such as Hokkien.

Now, with a majority of Singaporeans speaking Mandarin in their homes, according to government figures, the focus is on improving fluency in spoken and written Mandarin.

"In two generations, Mandarin will become our mother tongue," said Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at the launch of the 2009 Speak Mandarin Campaign earlier this year.” (China Daily)

It is nothing short of shameful how the country was ripped from its potentially multicultural bosom; one culture replicated amongst a people whom were taught to appreciate themselves as Chinese as opposed to gradually forming an amalgamative ‘Singaporean race’; before it is finally being claimed via implication in numerous instances that Singapore is synonymous with ‘Chinese’. Of course, the west would term this ‘fascism’ or neo-Nazism’, but of course, being ‘Asians’, they can simply claim that it is the ‘Asian’ way of doing things – which can also be paraphrased with, ‘an ‘Asian’ way of replicating the intentions and aims of the Nazis’. It is, of course, a mistake by the west to reserve the term ‘neo-Nazi’ for western fascist movements. The term ‘neo-Nazi’ raises many a hackle in the west given their contention with Nazi German in world war 2. But reserving this term for western fascist movements whilst being culturally magnanimous in the face of such fascist movements in other parts of the world simply allows such movements to proceed with impunity. And if this is ignored long enough, then the thus-successful efforts of these neo-Nazi movements of non-western origins can ossify into ‘culture’ and be rendered the respect all ‘cultures’ ought to be accorded.

The question I’ve been inclined to ask in recent months, after I finally realised that I too had bought into this need for Chinese unity via linguistic similarity for most of my thus-unnatural existence is, why should unity amongst the Chinese be sought at the expense of integration with the native Malays or the Indians? Doesn’t this unity come with the price of racial fragmentation and replication of the races of an antiquity borne of disparate histories and spaces? What’s the use of an integrative English ‘first-language’ when it is undone by special attention given to one group of people racialised along ancestral lines whilst they and everyone are taught to recognise the primacy of the said group over all when they finally become the ‘majority’ in a country taught to associate ‘majority’ with race and nothing besides? The fact is, to speak the language of ‘creating racial unity’ and ‘appreciating one’s culture’ is the first step toward fascism. In this, ‘cultural pride’ founded on ‘what we have always been’ as opposed to ‘what we can be’. If we are to appreciate ‘our own’ it must be accompanied with a system to ensure that it does not come at the price of developing an equally appreciative respect for other cultures. If not, a thus-created racial exclusivity will certainly be brought about. And the history of singapore has proven this to be true – and which hence presents this nation’s history as the ‘dos and don’ts in avoiding fascism’.

What the Chinese never got, given that they had just arrived from a nation and culture of uniformity and subservience and thus deemed nothing amiss in the barrage of campaigns similar to what the reviled BNP might initiate if they ever came into power in the United Kingdom, was that there was never any need for a ‘unity amongst the Chinese’ where it could be brought about via unity amongst all despite any ‘inherited’, or more aptly, imposed, heritage. When it comes to culture, nothing is ‘inherited’, it is replicated – an act of will by those controlling the means of socialisation one might say. The ‘speak mandarin, ‘appreciate Chinese culture’, ‘mandarin is cool’, ‘speak mandarin, it’s an advantage’ campaigns, whilst appreciating and lauding the value of one over others, and for the stated purpose of garnering ‘unity’ amongst the Chinese actually served not to ‘unify the Chinese’, but to create a greater and self-preferential distinction between them and the natives of the country and the Indians. And once this had been achieved, the native Malays and Indians are now being ‘integrated’ into a multicultural nation-turned-Chinese country and the world can confuse this phase as evidence of cultural magnanimity for want of hindsight.

The ex-PM, and currently ‘minister mentor’ to subsequent PMs, Lee Kuan Yew, stated that given the ‘sizeable Malay and Indian minorities’, ‘unifying the Chinese majority’ was ‘a priority’. If this isn’t a statement of BNP proportions, I really don’t what is. This reeks of a siege mentality in the face of difference and the path that was chosen was to discount difference and relegate it a position in the periphery of a thus-narrowed cultural imagination. In this, it was not only the Indians and Malays who became victims, but the Chinese as well as they were not afforded the opportunity to finally be rid of the shackles of a uniform one-way history via integration with culturally different others. A more preferable statement would be,

“given the sizeable Malay and Indian minorities, unifying the Indians, Malays and Chinese must be a priority’.

And hence, with the institution of a singular ‘English as a first language’, it would be multiculturally prudential to observe a hands-off policy in cultural matters and let integration take its course, whilst instituting proscriptions on discrimination on the basis of race, gender and religion to undermine any culturally exclusive propensities that might come about from the intermingling of past experiences with a milieu of difference. In this, all languages will become, over time, ‘dialects’ of a singular Singaporean race, and all races will likewise become dialect groups of the said ‘race’. Why this was not done can only now be appreciated with hindsight given that Singapore is now transitioning into a Chinese country whom are moving toward integrating others into a Chinese country.

However,

With the pogrom initiated against ‘westernisation’ in the 80s, which is just a catch-all term for any perspectival element of western culture that frowned on cultural exclusivity and democracy; the increase in central celebrations of Chinese culture, the advent of SAP (special assistance plan) schools prior to the 80s that provided exceptional education for the Chinese – even though they were relatively well-off economically relative to the natives; the dispersion of the Malays and Indians throughout the country with the claimed purpose of integrating the population via a housing quota system whereby only a certain number of Malays and Indians could occupy any blocks of flats; the introduction of the ‘mother-tongue’ policy that forbade all ethnic groups from learning each other’s languages in schools as a second language; the banning of the donning of the Muslim headdress in schools; the separation of television channels on the basis of race; the fragmentation of the minorities by a channel not being afforded the Indians whilst the Malays were given one; gross media misrepresentation and under-representation; self-help organisations being setup by the government along racial lines; amongst a host of others, served to replicate the association between the race and culture of antiquity in contemporary times, created an overarching Chinese environment that served to dilute other cultural perspectives and propensities that might see and egalitarian opposition against any political party’s aspirations toward political longevity, and trained the people to deem nothing amiss when a race-defined majority ‘preferred itself’ in the media and the work and social arenas with nothing more than a ‘we majority what!’ – which is often heard amongst the peoples of the Singapore of today by all races whom have become fascists and apologists for fascism and who deem racism as nothing but ‘preference’.

In evaluative retrospect, one cannot but state that upon the departure of the British colonialists, the Chinese were taught by a BNP-style party to take its place. That is why I cannot but shudder in the face of the BNP as I know what can transpire if they ever came into power and allowed a lengthy tenure in the halls of power given my experiencing the transition of Singapore from a multicultural state to a monocultural one wherein all other cultures exist as tributary sectors appreciating the magnanimity of the suzerainty of a dynastic overlord.

Hence, today I wonder after the effects of a seemingly innocuous sounding ‘speak mandarin’ and ‘appreciate Chinese culture’ campaign that started when I was 10 and how it served to pave the way for what later turned out to be a Legalist/Confucian fascism of neo-Nazi proportions but which can be perceived as a refinement of the methods of the forebears of the ‘Legalist/Confucian’ that turned the forcibly associated ‘Chinese’ people into the next level of elite. Whilst I am well aware that it was the elite that had initiated this oppressive scheme of things, I am also aware of how this has turned a people taught to associate themselves with the elite’s idea of ‘the majority’ into marginalisers themselves. That is one of the greatest evils of a fascist state where, upon the successful institution of fascism, the ‘preferred’ race will eventually serve as the chasm between the elite and the multicultural egalitarians. Any attack on fascism will have to avoid implicating the people lest they be taken to task for ‘inciting racial hatred’ and nobody notices that it is the fascist elite that founded the basis for it via the preferential treatment accorded one replicated race over others. This is when it becomes impossible to address and minorities move from 2nd class citizens to being grateful for whatever that falls from the table of a wholly oriental banquet.

That is the basis upon which I view the term, post-fascism, as not descriptive of a state emerging from fascism, but from its successful institution to the point that it can present itself as culturally magnanimous by integrating others with open arms whilst detracting one’s attention from the fact that this multicultural magnanimity has come after the country has been claimed for one created-race despite others. And upon the masses accepting this, others can be integrated, not into a multicultural nation – as it originally was after independence – but into a Chinese one. I am under no illusions that this brief perspective is going to change anything, but it has to be said lest humanity mistake the multicultural progress of the morrow for one on the basis of their ignorance of its fascist foundations.

It is indeed a major victory for ‘Minister Mentor’ Lee, Singapore’s very own Nick Griffin, to state that ‘in two generations, Mandarin will become our mother tongue’. He has taken the country from its multicultural foundations, given it to one created-race, and then will soon be including others in a Chinese country where it would be deemed prudent to learn the language of the ‘natives’ – Mandarin – and conform to their cultural perspectives. His victory lies in his bringing about a perspectival state of affairs where precious few deem anything amiss with such a statement. When I look at the plight of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, when I look at the plight of the Tibetans, and when I look at Singapore, I cannot but turn away in utter disgust in the knowledge that they are distinguishable only in terms of the methods utilised, and as variably placed points along the selfsame fascist developmental curve.


according2,

ed

Why We Must Stop the BNP in their tracks

The problem is, when we appeal to the ‘cultural sense’ and ‘pride’ of a people for the purpose of creating a ‘shared identity’ – insofar as that cultural sense is not inclusive in its core – and promote it over ‘others’ on the basis of ‘respecting and being proud of one’s culture’, we turn fascism itself into a culture wherein ‘heritage’ is interned. And the culture that is afforded a renaissance through these means will itself serve as evidence of the value of an overarching fascist and exclusive facebook-style view of things. In that, others might be more inclined to do similarly with their own cultures and all societies can began to culturally implode in a domino effect.

Stopping Griffin and his swastika-d hordes in their tracks will prevent this malaise from affecting nations all across the globe and others will have less reason to look to ‘their own’ because they have none other to be a part of or have as a part. I have seen how this is increasingly the case in s.e.Asia (i.e. malaysia, singapore, china) and how this disease can attain pandemic proportions when everyone begins to culturally individuate in the face of, and as a defence against, a similar stance by others. I’ve often heard, for instance, numerous Chinese in singapore imply that there is nothing wrong with racism since, ‘everywhere also like that’. To allow Griffin to do what he intends is to found the basis upon which people all across the European hemisphere might one day likewise state, albeit in better English or in ‘foreign tongues’.


according2,

ed

In answer to Nick Griffin’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ and 'lynch mob' remark

“As for London being ‘ethnically cleansed’, I’m all for ‘ethnic cleansing’ where one is freed from viewing one’s ethnicity as of any consequence when it comes to the objective appreciation of any culture of non-fascist persona. ~ a2ed

"That was not a genuine Question Time; that was a lynch mob," Griffin told Sky News.

Nick Griffin said today he was the victim of a "lynch mob" audience drawn from a city that had been "ethnically cleansed" and was "no longer British".”


“He also said that he wanted to challenge justice secretary Jack Straw, who was on last night's panel, to a one-to-one debate on the issues of the day, and called on David Cameron to disassociate himself from the protests outside BBC Television Centre where the programme was recorded.”


It’s all too obvious what Griffin intends here. He aims to appeal to what might be termed, ‘familial pragmatism’ (a term borne of study of Legalist/Confucian culture) – appealing to the immediate interests of the family unit in economic terms – so that empathy is contracted enough to enable the family unit to think of no other but itself. The contraction of empathy is one of the main foundational strategies of fascist parties as it serves as the basis for the realisation of the rest of their agenda. The said agenda is that of mobilising the nation to take pride in culture and leave politics in the tentacles of the ‘professionals’ as opposed to it being pliable in the hands of open-eyed, cosmopolitan and empathetic citizens – which always compromises any party’s aim toward political longevity. Fascists like Griffin forward a hierarchy of needs to the public, focus their attention on its pinnacle which is oftentimes occupied by familial and self-interests, and from there, develop a new definition for ‘pragmatism’.

One could say that fascism is bourgeois socialist in spirit as it serves and aims to maintain the class hierarchy whilst directing the need for mass self-validation to mere cultural pride and in opposition or condescension in the face of different others. In the longer run, successful fascism will have completely associated the ‘preferred race’ with an elite-aggrandizing-cum-empowering scheme of things that will thereafter be recognised and respected as ‘culture’. Thereafter, all critique will be forestalled as ‘inciting racial hatred’, ‘being insensitive to culture’ or simply ‘racist’.

Anyway,

Fascism doesn’t require a ‘lynch mob’ as Griffin puts it. It just requires empathy to confront it, and thereafter, it is the fascist who puts his head in the noose and is borne down by the weight of her/is own insensible beliefs.

aside: Thank the Gods that the BNP is not the ruling party, if not, unlike some fascist states, it is the empathetic who will be hung, drawn and quartered.

As for London being ‘ethnically cleansed’, I’m all for ‘ethnic cleansing’ where one is freed from viewing one’s ethnicity as of any consequence when it comes to the objective appreciation of any culture of non-fascist persona.

click 'show' to read the entire related article without leaving this page.Show

according2,

ed

Fascist BNP's Nick Griffin on Question Time [video]

This series of videos is recommended for all whom claim or aspire to being empathetic - with regards to race relations and integration. It is too easy to claim to be 'democrats' but not as simple to be aware of how one might be fascist especially when such a condition has served as the overarching milieu wherein one was reared. There is, if truth be told, a great difference between accepting others as 'minorities' and integrating with others as 'equals'. The former is of fascist inclination, and the latter is not. And if the latter is true in singapore, much of the policies and perspectives that has now taken root amongst the people will not be.

I cannot but notice how the 'whites' in this video series vigorously clap and cheer in support of egalitarian multiculturalism whilst in some states, many simply turn the apathetic cheek with a 'majority what!' to discount all arguments for egalitarian multiculturalism. It evidences that fascism has taken root in the soul of the nation. Hence, to the 'democrats of the fascist left' and to the members of the 'fascist right' in fascist states, it's time for some critical introspection and an appreciation of the fascist perspectival 'centre' from whence both take its meaning. The fools may cower behind the argument, 'that is the west and we are we'. But till these people can prove that bigotry ceases to be bigotry upon one's crossing the international dateline, that cannot but be perceived as a nonsensical fascist argument of neo-nazi persuasion.

It's prudential to err on the side of caution and assume the existence of fascism amongst us for the purpose of critical intro/extrospection, than to presume ourselves democrats and allow our oversights to serve as a conduit for the reinforcement of fascism of past times in the present.




[click 'more' to view the entire series]