Facebook


from the self-produced album, 'REM'.

composed, produced, by, ed

Way Too Much Eurocentric Ado About David Bowie



All of the following were published as comments on the Facebook pages on the British, The Guardian, and BBC.  They received rave insults and swearing by a large number of English readers.  One of it, probably due to complains by readers and perhaps The Guardian themselves, led to the a2ed's post being deleted and access temporarily blocked for 24 hours.

The white man, and the God he's made in his likeness, cannot be challenged I suppose. ��

Whatever the creativity of Bowie, he certainly didn't do much to ease the affliction of gross Eurocentrism in the west.  If anything, and if the response to his demise is anything to go by, it both revealed and reinforced the affliction.


*******



OK OK.   So he was the messiah.  A godsend. A demigod.  The answer to all of humankind's woes.  Forget the produce of the cultures of more than 5 billion people which the west know nothing about, he's the best, and were going to get everyone in the world to think as such with a combo of downplaying all other cultures and saturating the global media with what we valuse in our finite wisdom....and you better not vocalise otherwise.  That's what makes this pro-white propaganda, albeit unwitting.

I like Bowie.  He's on my Walkman.  But I'm also exposed to other cultures.  And hence, I'm not fooled into thinking all of the above.  But I do know that in the west, pop culture comprises a significant bulk in the bulge of their culture.  And so I think I know why all this fuss and news after news after news after news about it.

Methinks, all this indicates, not the existence of a culture, but what people get fixated on when they don't have much of one.

Let's just forget that he made millions and millions from it at the same time whilst people keep begging each other for pennies to end poverty to finding a cure for diseases.  So, in effect, these 'star' worshippers are actually sacrificing their lives and the lives of their loved ones to maintain these 'stars' over themselves.  What a bunch of dimwits.  I suppose this is what we end up with when we passover traditional saints for singers, etc.  I dare say there is far more fuss over this than there was when half a million kids were killed by US-UK embargoes in Iraq not too long ago.

Many in the UK criticise and ridicule the religious and religion.  In truth, their criteria of religion is based on what traditional religion is.  By doing thus, they leave out the evolving faces of religion which would include their religion of popstar/celeb/royalty/wealth/materialistic worship.  They do not realise that fans and consumers comprise the congregation of their uniquely western religion.  And the problem with all that is that they replace traditional saints of virtue and humility for mere wealthy singers and etc.

Methinks, all this indicates, not the existence of a culture, but what people get fixated on when they don't have much of one.

Sometimes, I think,  people in the west are just, well, the very definition of weird.

P.s. the above critique is actually a challenge to my own biases; a reprimand to myself to reconsider my views which are like quite a few in the west.


*******



The following article was deleted by Facebook from the news site it was published in, and Facebook blocked facebook/according2ed for 24 hours.


David Bowie, like many of his ilk, is an ineffective rebuttal of the deficiencies in the west's socio-cultural-economic milieu, and hence became one of its enduring deficiencies as well as people confused it for an effective one.  He is an icon of how the people have been led to, and underdeveloped by the vision of just one person, or clan of popstars.  They are an opiate, or sedative, that serves a cathartic function of stress-relief to leading people to think that they can change society with a pied piper at the helm.

There is only so much a singer can do to change a society.  After all, the lyrical form is limited by its structure and can only go so far in supplying people a map out of the mess they've made out of their society.  And so, with the ascendence of western popstars as cultural icons, the potentials of the people, and especially the young, to be more than fans and consumers, was severely narrowed.

So many in the west confuse Bowie for a great artist.  They forget that he's more like a small sticky plaster on a gaping wound of western civilisation.  Pretty much insignificant and shallow when it comes to civilisations that had yet to adopt the ways of the white man.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.  For instance,  if you love in Utopia, the idea of the rebel would not make sense.  Same thing here.  Much of western music makes sense only because it helps one make sense of western civilisation.  But it's intrinsic worth is another matter. (I realised thus upon analysing myself as to why I like western pop as much as I do, or why his death did indeed bother me)

That is why the BBC televised report I just saw showed a guy telling the reporter that this fella Bowie was proof that the UK was the 'most creative' in the world.  Man, the arrogance and cultural inbreeding of the white man is mind-boggling.   Childish fellas.

The death of the philosopher went in tandem with the reduction of the citizen to a mere and diminutive corporate and celeb-led consumer and fanboy/girl.


*******



Funny.

When Charlie Hebdo came out with their ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad, people in the west stood up for the freedom of expression.  (I) Analyse this mass breast-beating mourning about some popstar (David Bowie), and the volley of insults and hatred.

Amusing indeed.  And some people say the white man is Godless.


*******



No. Bowie wasn't a 'shape-shifter'.

He just shifted shape within a western mould.  It is only multicultural people whom are the true shape-shifters.

In fact, the Japanese are greater 'shape-shifters' given how they shifted from tradition to Western modernism, and even grew, or underdeveloped enough, to appreciate western popstars like Bowie etc.  It is within the post-colonial context of the psychological and culturally-hegemonic hold of the West that one can understand the popularity of Bowie.  To confuse it as evidence of Bowie's intrinsic worth is self-serving, unintelligent, and pro-Western propaganda.

It is within the post-colonial context of the psychological and culturally-hegemonic hold of the West that one can understand the popularity of Bowie.  To confuse it as evidence of Bowie's intrinsic worth is self-serving, unintelligent, and pro-Western propaganda.

Basically, the Japanese, along with much of the rest of the world were thrust into westernised civilisation and forced to discard much of their own cultures.  Western music then stepped in to serve as an interpretational filter through which sense could be made of being interned within western modernism.  This, together with the self-esteem loss at being overwhelmed by the west, along with the association of all that was western as good, served as the foundation via which much of the tripe that flowed from the west was confused for cordon bleu.

David Bowie, like most western allegedly 'avant-garde' western popstars did what he did on the basis of the little that he knew, based on the much that was made of western culture, and the next to nothing that was and is known about the rest of the 80+% of the planet.

Compared to the produce of quite a few ancient regions of the world, David Bowie, amongst others, are pretty much shallow and juvenile...though there is an aspect of my persona that likes him much.


Ed

'The world'?
Shakespeare to Ballad is 'the World'? 



The World?


BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU POST ANYTHING CRITICAL OF THE WEST ON FACEBOOK



Click to see the censored post on David Bowie



"Interesting isn't it.  When it comes to Charlie Hebdo, the west is all 'likes' for freedom of speech.  But when it comes to systematic and rational critique of the West, you'll have to tread on eggshells around western appetites and their media powerhouses.  Especially if you stand out, in appearance or views, and aren’t white, or a Jew.


THE CENSURED ARTICLE

"David Bowie, like many of his ilk, is an ineffective rebuttal of the deficiencies in the west's socio-cultural-economic milieu, and hence became one of its enduring deficiencies as well as people confused it for an effective one.  He is an icon of how the people have been led to, and underdeveloped by the vision of just one person, or clan of popstars.  They are an opiate, or sedative, that serves a cathartic function of stress-relief to leading people to think that they can change society with a pied piper at the helm.

There is only so much a singer can do to change a society.  After all, the lyrical form is limited by its structure and can only go so far in supplying people a map out of the mess they've made out of their society.  And so, with the ascendence of western popstars as cultural icons, the potentials of the people, and especially the young, to be more than fans and consumers, was severely narrowed.

So many in the west confuse Bowie for a great artist.  They forget that he's more like a small sticky plaster on a gaping wound of western civilisation.  Pretty much insignificant and shallow when it comes to civilisations that had yet to adopt the ways of the white man.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.  For instance,  if you love in Utopia, the idea of the rebel would not make sense.  Same thing here.  Much of western music makes sense only because it helps one make sense of western civilisation.  But it's intrinsic worth is another matter. (I realised thus upon analysing myself as to why I like western pop as much as I do, or why his death did indeed bother me)

That is why the BBC televised report I just saw showed a guy telling the reporter that this fella Bowie was proof that the UK was the 'most creative' in the world.  Man, the arrogance and cultural inbreeding of the white man is mind-boggling.   Childish fellas.

The death of the philosopher went in tandem with the reduction of the citizen to a mere and diminutive corporate and celeb-led consumer and fanboy/girl."

_____________________________________________________________


Facebook frowns upon any efforts to undermine western cultural hegemony.  Any efforts to insinuate that there is anything wrong, or biased about western trends and fashions, and especially if it is with regards to that which is popular in the west, might result in temporary blocks or permanent disabling of your account.

That, is one of the hidden manifestations of western Racism.

This is the 2nd time this has happened. The first time was when I had argued with some English posters on the English penchant for dog-walking as a compensation for not having warm and close relationships with people.   I had attempted to show that there are other forms of social relationships pursued in other cultures.  After quite a few vicious insults had been directed at my comments and person, with implications that they know better and hence need not consider how other cultures operated, I had put this reaction forth as a result of 'cultural inbreeding', which was logically and historically true.  Facebook stepped in at that point and removed the comment in The Guardian's Facebook page.  And, now a second time round, probably from my post on The Guardian

(I’m suspecting that it might actually be The Guardian newspaper themselves whom are initiating these removals and censures from Facebook.  This makes me recall another incident a couple of years back when I posted a comment beneath an article on The Guardian website itself by a Jewish woman who stated that Israel can not be a two nation state.  I had commented that there shouldn’t be any reason why the Jews and the Palestinians could not live together, and perhaps form a coalition government.  This comment was promptly removed by The Guardian because it went against the guidelines according to the Guardian.  I’m seeing a trend here.)

There are a few reasons for the need of critiques of the West from non-whites or/and people from other cultures.  One, people from any culture would always be accustomed to particular deficiencies within their culture that they have already compensated for.  Generally, only people from other cultures that do not share such deficiencies,  or whom have yet to compensate for it, will be able to identify these.

Secondly, for non-western people to see another non-western person critiquing the west would go some way in addressing whatever cultural self-esteem issues they suffer arising from the post-colonial psychological aftermath.  You can call it Post-Colonial Self-Diminutive Syndrome. ;)  And by ‘critique’, I mean ‘critique’, and not just some pointless insults or swearing.  That does nothing for the self-esteem of non-white peoples or inspire intelligent respect for their own cultures or potentials as intelligent human beings of as much or more cultural worth in quite a few respects.

Finally, if the west has positioned itself as the cultural determiner for the entire planet,  surely the people have a goddamn right to criticise the content of that which it puts out, or even racistly presents as the best that humanity can come up with.  I think Facebook, amongst others, are highly averse to both raw insults and highly analytical and effective critique of the west,  especially where it goes right down to the very core of that which the west presents as incontrovertible truth.  They may allow it some of the time, but not too often.  There may be some justification for censuring just gross insults without analysis, but to treat analysis in a similar manner because people find it ‘offensive’ is censorship in favour appetite, and in this post-colonial day and age, simply presents all that is western as immutable truth.

Interesting isn't it.  When it comes to Charlie Hebdo, the west is all 'likes' for freedom of speech.  But when it comes to systematic and rational critique of the West, you'll have to tread on eggshells around western appetites and their media powerhouses.  Especially if you stand out, in appearance or views, and aren’t white, or a Jew.

That’s racism.


Ed



is Marriage 'Romantic Narcissism'?



Ed:
All these sites basically aim to match people with versions of themselves - Romantic narcissism, is what it is.

For me,  I like difference and mutual adaptation.  Become more that way.  But in these grossly self-centred times, it's difficult to find someone like that.

Sometimes, the more i look at relationships these days, methinks, there might be some virtue to arranged marriages as when two strangers get together, there is an understanding that it would require mutual learning and adaptation for it to work.....provided it is not undertaken within a patriarchal scheme of things.

But when it comes to many 'love marriages', 'romantically narcissistic marriages', there is an expectation for it to work WITHOUT much mutual learning or adaptation.  Such a stance is reserved only for work or 'careers'.  Hence, such relationships wane in passion with the passage of time, or where significant differences persist, the relationship ends, or is reduced to two people living separate lives together.

Anna Louise :
the problem with that is ideology, if you're not ideologically similar to someone from my experience it's just not gonna work, but surface deep stuff it's good to have differences. i think there are things people can't adapt to like deeply held moral positions etc.

Ed :
Anna Louise Kathleen Jane,  in all my relationships, both romantic and otherwise, I've always stipulated that it should not be myself or the other who ought to rule, but reason.  The perfect woman, to me, is not one who is a good match to myself, but one who attempts to realise it.  The same goes for my matching her too.

Even in matching, I identify 3 types.  Matching down/neutral/up.  For instance,  picking up alcoholism just because the other is one would be matching down.  Picking up some of the others gastronomic tastes, provided it is not injurious to health, would be matching neutral.  And picking up exercise because the other is into it, would be matching up.  The latter 2 is good.  I expect and deliver both.


ed

Trump, the true face of America



In a way, Trump appeals to the American Spirit of not giving a F###!  He is the underdog,  the rebel, and, at the core, the voice of a people who have been reared to think there is no other way but The (white) American Way.

He embodies the spirit of the West,  trampling over the natives and just about everyone who gets in the way of their brand of progress and civilisation.  He is a white supremacist in that he believes, like most of the West,  that they have a greater right to life and self-defence even if they shot the first volley, 2nd and 3rd volley of projectiles ranging from missiles to embargoes to the installation of rogue states and governments for their own gain.

So you could say, that Trump has a little something for everyone over yonder in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.  And hence, he's still up there doing what he's doing.....pushing forth The American Way, in just simply a more blatant fashion than others.

In essence and subconsciously, much of the opposition he faces is from those who dislike him baring what they do under the cloak of political correctness and propaganda.

Trump is, The True Face of America.  Their very personal is his Trump card.


ed


quip.......UK'S January Pre-sale



If they keep starting the January pre-sale earlier and earlier, the January pre-sale will become the January post-sale.


ed



Why Donald Trump Is One of the Most Popular Persons in America Now




Actually, I dare say that old Donald is just about the most popular person amongst the non-Muslims in ye good ole US of A.... .....Amongst those who hate him and those who love him.

Pour quoi?  Because those who love him.... Well, agree with him.  And those who hate him, can pretend to be great egalitarians in their condemnation of him - just like how the war against the Nazis enabled much of the west to cast themselves as our saviours in the face of transnational belligerence and gross racism whilst they were doing likewise globally but less obviously so.

Come on man. Lets be honest here.  Nobody is saying much about how terrorism, in essence, is retaliation.

Or how the selective application of the term inoculates the west from the examination of their complicity in the production of these dire state of affairs.

Nobody is fussing over the deaths of half a million children in Iraq via US-UK embargoes in the 10 years preceding 9/11 as much as they are over the recent attacks in France.

I could give more examples, but methinks you get the gist.  Blatant racism always enables us to make ourselves feel good in our stern and self-righteous opposition to it.  And that, oftentimes, keeps the path well-tarred for the perpetuation of internalised and normalised racism.

Remember.  If it wasn't for the latter, it's more blatant counterpart wouldn't exist most times.



ed



why I don't Mobzom






You ķnow why I do not Mobzom (Mobile Zombie - my own term for walking around with my eyes glued to a mobile device)?

Simple.  By doing so, I'm basically telling people that they are insignificant.  If I need to text someone, I usually steer to a side wall or something, text, then back into my bag it goes.

Paying each other some degree of significance, whether by little glances, consciously giving way, perhaps that rare smile, or look of recognition when seeing someone you pass daily, or giving or being aware of looks of curiosity, or....or....or....  You know, even when we walk with our chins up, and give way to another, we are GIVING WAY to another.  Not like when one Mobzoms, one does not give way, one AVOIDS another whilst our eyes are affixed in the direction of reclusive self-interest.

So keeping our chins up.....are ways we indicate to each other that you, me, we, matter.  That you, me, we are OF matter, that we are more than mere bits and bytes projected from our mobile devices to ourselves, and each other.

ed



Paris Attacks and The 3-Dimensionalising of The West




  Our Consciousness of an atrocious act determines the degree to which it conflicts with our Conscience. The less explicit the act, the less conscious we are of it, and the less it conflicts with our conscience.

What a beautifully mephistophelean equation.



Ask yourself, "How do I feel after seeing the above?" 

What if you were given just statistics instead of all of the above?  How would you feel then?


I have to admit, reading these accounts really got my stomach turned. The word, 'Terrible', isn't enough to appreciate these horrendous atrocities in Paris.

But, that's the problem isn't it. When i read about how US-UK embargoes killed half a million children in Iraq via embargoes, or this or that drone attack, or invasion, etc, I am just given the information, and statistics.

  This is what I term, 'the 3 dimensionalising' of such deaths in the west, whilst others are just a uni-dimensional statistical print on paper.


But when it comes to 9/11, the London Bombings, these killings in France, i'm given a Blu-Ray version of it, with all the minute details, first-hand accounts, videos, pictures, feelings, fears of children, commemorative expressions ‘worldwide’, speeches, resolutions, songs, etc, etc. We are shown real life people whom are dead, and dying, not just the 'numbers'.  Same thing with 9/11. We're told of all the twins who died, someone's daughter, someone's son, someone's lover, someone's fiance, someone's wife, their plans for the future, accounts of the loved ones they left behind.  But then again, when it comes to 'others', it is just numbers.




This is what I term, 'the 3 dimensionalising' of such deaths in the west, whilst others are just a uni-dimensional statistical print on paper. (I had first written about this back in 2005)


And the mode and medium of killing plays a part as well.
With the west, their killing of others are done via 'impersonal' ways, like a drone attack from a distance, a bomb here and there, or worse, a silent 'embargo bomb' which nobody hears but inflicts far worse damage than any single gruesome beheading, or killer-on-the-rampage with a machine gun or machete. Looks like they save their special gruesome effects for their snuff, aka, slasher/horror movies, but are very subtle about it in real life.

So, with the absence of a sensational and 'personal' way of killing, the west gets off with a mere slap on the wrist at best by either the west-worshipping people across the globe, or those who think that a killing is only a really bad thing if it is an explicit one-on-one eyeball-to-eyeball face-to-face venture.  One bloke with a loud machine gun is terrible because it seems very personal because it is an identifiable individual vs bystanders. But with the west, it is some guy from a distance in the sky pressing a button that releases bombs, or just ‘economic sanctions’, or gunfire in an area designated as a ‘battlefield’.  It is such innovative killing strategies on the part of the west that enables people to ignore it because it isn't as 'personal' as a lone or group of gunman who get down and personal with the people and do what the west does from a distance. (same thing with the death penalty in the US which is ‘humanely’ afflicted, as opposed to a bunch of police officers stabbing a person sentenced to death.  That just makes it more palatable to the public.) 

Consciousness of an atrocious act determines the degree to which it conflicts with our Conscience.  The less explicit the act, the less conscious we are of it, and the less it conflicts with our conscience.  What a beautifully mephistophelean equation.

And it is these that compromise the empathy and outrage I or anyone might feel when it comes to 'others' who die because of the west's 'impersonal' actions that simply leads to 'collateral damage'.


When it comes to the killing of others (non-whites), not only is it impersonally effected, but in the aftermath, it is presented as faceless statistics embellished with justifications and topped with the cherry of 'let's move on to other news'.  We don’t get the kind of ‘hi-res’ information on them.  No stories about their lives and loves.  No stories about their feelings and reactions.  (We get a movie about Pearl Harbour, but no movie about a similar American attack that took place on Tokyo Bay a hundred years before that to force the Japanese to ‘open up’ to western imperialism.)

And it is just such presentations, and lack off, that determines how we feel in favour of the west as opposed to ‘others’.  And it is this that founds the basis for upon which enough empathy can be withheld from others long enough for them to turn insane enough to do what they did in before and after what they did in Paris.





Ed




Blogger Template by Clairvo