10 posts tagged “celebrities”

 

 

There is only one thing that I learnt from JBJ, who will always have my respect, and that is, the significance of the individual in attempting to see beyond what is being promoted via the prominent, powerful, and popular.  Even where many ignored him, and I couldn’t help noticing that the Chinese attending a Chinese martial arts performance at a well-lit stage a placard’s throw away significantly outnumbered those attending a memorial candlelight vigil for JBJ at a hardly-lit ‘Speakers Corner’, he still plodded on.

 

Unfortunately, the people, on both sides of the illustory divide between the proposition and 'opposition',  well-practiced in following the prominent or/and powerful, never appreciated this point, and to this day, they still abide by the Confucian notion of, ‘if you aren’t someone, then your ideas are not worthy of discussion or consideration.’.  That is the problem with many activists, be they Chee or JBJ or their bevy of sheep.  They fail to realise that whilst they are occupying the limelight amongst those whom are inclined to be mesmerised by the visual pitter patter of fairy lights, they are simultaneously devaluing the significance of the individual whom they hope to fight for.  That is a paradoxical situation that generally arises within societies used to leaving politics in the hands of the politicians. 

 

Hence, when you look at the ‘activists’ of today in singapore, they are most inclined to only discuss the ideas of the prominent, be they Obama, their own oppositional leaders, and those of the party they purport to oppose.  But there is little equitable appreciation of each other.  It seems that the formula by which one’s ideas might be given serious and popular consideration requires little more than the propensity to be burdened with government-initiated lawsuits, be seen to oppose, and be arrested for it.  Originality of ideas, or true insight seems to have little to do with it as, I have to admit, none of the ideas of JBJ or Chee can be accused of it.  They were just aping western methods and approaches for the realisation of democracy without appreciating how local conditions and culturally-induced biases had to be taken into account, and added steps taken to counter these.  Not appreciating this led to them being undone by these oversights.  It is all too easy to blame the authoritarianism of a government than to consider the impotence of one’s methods.  Hence, people are still inclined to hero-worship Chee or JBJ as an unwitting and subconscious effort to relieve themselves from doubt-inducing introspection whilst absolving them and their respective cultures and perspectives from complicity. 

 

In Chee’s reverential homage to JBJ, he presents him as one who constantly fought against apathy and indifference.  Unfortunately, as JBJ and Chee, rarely, if ever, touched on cultural factors, all that one can say is that both put up the 'good' fight whilst indifferent to the cultural foundations and means upon and through which apathy and indifference is based and reinforced.  The party in power, however, and unfortunately, did not make this mistake. 

 

Hence, today, thanks to their oversights, activists are inclined to simply follow their leaders; not give as much consideration for each others’ ideas; view critique of the opposition as indicative of one’s support of the party in power; discuss ideas of the prominent; whilst embodying in practice and oversights, their ethnically and hierarchically ordered depreciation of reality which is nothing short of culturally and racially fascist.  A wholly Confucian/Legalist paradigm seems to encapsulate and insulate the populace and singaporean ‘activists’ from that degree of empathy and appreciation of each other’s significance that is required to enhance their understanding of the essence of democracy.  How does one attempt to promote that which one has little understanding of? 

 

That is why the ‘opposition’ is, today, not truly a product of the insights of the past, but of its oversights.  The significance of ‘ed’, in the context of the title and this observation, is not about the author, but of the significance of the individual which Confucian/Legalist cultures is by definition incapable of grasping.  Whether people are on the side of the proposition or ‘opposition’, they always seem to engage from within the overarching paradigm instituted by Confucian governments.  In that is their undoing, or in the best case, slows down democratic progress immensely whilst the redefinition of the idea of ‘progress’ is itself redefined via the socialisation of subsequent generations.  The significance of ‘ed’ lies in the significance of every individual to see beyond the perspectival fashions of the day.  That is, to question their leaders, to deem oneself worthy of going past these leaders in perspective, to appreciate revered icons not only in terms of their achievements, but also in terms of their oversights.  In other words, not to live within the shadows of the giants of the past, but to realise that the ‘giants’ of the past and present appear as such on the basis of our ignorance as opposed to their aptitude.  (Hence, my being able to produce perspectives appreciating the phenomena of democracy, indifference and apathy in consideration of local/foreign cultural factors that verifiably cuts deeper than the perspectives of Chee and JBJ put together.)

 

Tto ask JBJ to move over for ‘ed’ is to direct the local populace to appreciate the value of their own significance in building upon and past the giants of the past and present, and to focus on both their achievements and oversights so as to present the best challenge to the Confucian/Legalist/Orwellian milieu that can be afforded it by way of horizontal valuation – that is, the popular appreciation of each other and oneself as opposed to the reverence of leaders and those whom are more known for a resume of arrests as opposed to insight.  That is the essential and only valuable message that is the stance and approach of JBJ.  And it is only in replication of it that we honour his memory.

 

 

 

according2,

 

 

ed

 

 

 

 

 

 

“it acted as a counterweight to the mainstream media's "mawkish" coverage of the story…..In the eyes of most comics, their role is to push the boundaries of what the public will accept.”

“

If the content of the counterweight is determined by the value of the weight it attempts to counter, then, in that, these 'comedians' are as much a product of ‘Jacko’, than they would like to think.  Idiocy counterweighted with idiocy reinforces it.

~ ed

What is the west thinking about?  They produce the ubiquitous and idiotic ‘fan’ on a global scale, and as a ‘counterweight’, overpaid jesters who joke about the demise of celebrities.

 

These idiots calling themselves ‘comedians’, do not, as they like to think, provide a ‘counterweight’ to the ‘mawkish’ media coverage of a celebrity’s death.  Rather, they complement idiocy with idiocy.  What is gained at the end of it all?  Greater insight?  Understanding?  No.  Rather, the whole event simply serves to further and generically reinforce the idiocy it takes to produce the ‘fan’, just as it reinforces the gross stupidity and inhumanity it takes to lunge like laughing hyenas over the corpse of their deities.  Is this the best the west is capable of?  Countering stupidity with inhumanity?  Ever heard of an intelligent ‘counterweight’?  If the content of the counterweight is determined by the value of the weight it attempts to counter, then, in that, you are as much a product of ‘Jacko’, than you like to think.

 

And, additionally, to ‘push the boundaries of what the public will accept’ must be done intelligently.  Given that what the public generally appreciates is founded on a superficial appreciation of reality, laughing at their sensitivities does little to undermine the basis upon which their superficial perspectives are produced.  Rather, what it does is not to increase the collective intelligence, but push the boundaries wherein superficial perspectives are utilised.  And when all is profaned, and all love of the potentials of the self is labelled as ‘narcissism’, all that remains and which is taken seriously is your role as cogs and wheels of an elite orchestrated system of which you would have played a crucial role in delivering.  

 

Now, I dare say, this brief article does more as a true counterweight to the weight of the west’s stupidity in this matter than the contribution of all their celebrities, jesters and their global harem of ‘fans’ put together.

 

 

Ed

 

 

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. - Why MJ was not the ‘greatest entertainer of his age’, ed.

 

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 2^nd 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 3^rd 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.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

I was fast asleep when I was awoken by the following text message yesterday morning.

“

UCLA hospital admitted Michael jackson for cardiac arrest and went into coma and died :-( announced in radio and all his songs played now in 97.6fm now. 50 yrs old..

26 june, 2009, 8.34am

 

My responsorial psalm via text message :

“

Yawn

(which, I thought, would be a good way to 'unsubscribe' to such silly messages in the future.)

And I went back to sleep. 

As I drifted back to sleep...

“

…so many people dying all over the world, so many catastrophes, so much evils, and all these monkeys can whine about is this pelvic-thrusting clown….zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

When I awoke later, whilst having my usual 3-in-1 coffee, I received a call from another local,

 

Local : Hey, you heard about MJ? 

Ed: Yeah, some idiot woke me up from my sleep this morning with the info (and I thought that would be hint-enough for him to drop the issue, but being a local...)

Local : So you mourning for him? 

Ed:  For what?  It’s not like this guy had to live life like the rest of us in the drain right?  I’ll leave the mourning for the pets in his zoo.

Local: haha. So how about going down to Excalibur tonight? (pub that plays, mainly, 70s and 80s music videos)  I’m sure Leroy will be playing MJ whole night on the telly.

Ed:  Yeah, I’ll try man.  Don’t mind checking out his earlier music videos.  Good stuff.

Local : ok man, I’ll call you again later to confirm.

Ed: ok man. Talk to you later.

 

I sat back on my sofa whilst puffing on my beedi (Indian cigarette) with my coffee plonked precariously on my leather sofa.  Looking up at the blues and whites breaking through the thickly-clad trees outside my window, and the wafts of smoke, I thought,

 

“

Idiots.  When JBJ (the only local opposition bloke who managed to wag a finger that was reinforced by more than half a brain at the government) died, I had to find out about it whilst surfing the net.  No calls.  No messages.  Nothing.  Maybe JBJ should have worn a glove on one hand and punctuated his speeches with an MJ-like ‘hoo’ and ‘haaa’.”  

 

In the night, before and while at the pub, the following compresses my expressed thoughts to some with me.

 

“

I suppose it’s not that I dislike MJ.  But when people tend to go all blurry-eyed all over the world when some mere singer – no matter how many pelvic thrusts he can manage in a minute - drops dead, and hold vigils at the Hollywood ‘walk of fame’ where his holiness’ name is embossed on some tile on the floor, as opposed to, say, the half a million children who died in Iraq thanks to U.S. initiated embargoes, I can’t help not responding with a ‘yawn’ upon hearing of his buggering off to the next life.

 

Personally, I quite like some of his music and dance form.  I actually went to the cinema twice to watch Moonwalker when it first came out.  And that’s saying much because I didn’t really like MJ then, and nor did I like going to cinemas.  But I also do recognise MJ for the self-absorbed and ignorant idiot that he was and is.  Death is no absolution.  I mean, this fellow obviously thinks that there is nothing wrong with earning millions for a song.  My, my.  The vicarious life doesn’t come cheap does it?  Just serves to indicate the degree to which a people have been diminished personality-wise to the point that they are willing to fork out enough for a singer to have his own private zoo, train track, etc, etc, etc.  Only fools turn singers into a God whilst hiding behind the innocuous word, ‘fan’.  And some of these pets of his can actually call themselves ‘atheists’ and 'free-thinkers' too!  In this sense, MJ was nothing more than a drug-trafficker keeping a people sedated through a vicarious experience of life so that they wouldn’t believe in their own personal worth to the point that they might make trouble for the elite.  Both the elite and these 'stars' rely on the same thing for their fame and fortune - idiocy of the masses.  That’s not Michael’s intention of course.  As I said, he’s an idiot, so he wouldn’t know these things.  But that’s certainly the consequence.  So long as singers and 'stars' know their place, as opposed to relying on and reinforcing the idiocy in the population for their elevated status, I'll have no problem with them.  But when they imagine themselves as beacons of the pop-ulation, then I'll be there to smack them down because I'm well aware of the global problems that it significantly contributes to.”

 

Alright.  Enough of MJ.  I’ll leave the pets in his extended zoo to mourn and bury their dead.

Ed

 

 

 

re-edited

“

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

 

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-splendored 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 preeminence 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.  The following, is my all-time favourite number by MJ.  Thanks for the primitive fuel Michael, and... 

...Keep well in the next life.

 

Ed

 

postscript: This article was written with the following album playing, and the youthful part of myself moving in rhythm to a beat that simultaneously fuelled the more inquisitive facets of my persona.  I appreciate Mike for the cross-applicational potential of the raw youthfuel he supplied.

 

I'll let the picture speak the proverbial thousand words....provided the viewers have the perspectival vocabulary to appreciate it's significance to the fullest.

Anyway, I was speaking to my mother about this a week or so ago, and I said that it seems that A.R. Rahman's music only gets appreciated when it is played in a whiteman's movie, and when it conforms to the whiteman's standard of what 'music' is - colonialism is far from over.  Sad.  And these Indian stars get a heroes' welcome for receiving a pat on the head by the whiteman.  Sad.  When it comes to much of the pop of the west, it pales in quality compared to the non-pop classical music of India.  Too bad the good is conforming to the superficial.  And too bad the rest of the world generally gets to appreciate an India only when it is whitewashed.  Anyway, it's a British film, not an Indian one.  For intellectual input, i generally turn to s.Indian films, not to contemporary Hollywood-style films.  But, if you don't know better, you wouldn't know better would you.

Ed

 

Whilst the rest of the serfs have to put up with sirens, car horns, train delay announcements, the jollities of the inebriated at the neighbourhood pub, barking dogs at 3 in the morn, car alarms at 3:01, police sirens, ......, we are glad that we can maintain you in an aurally insulated environ so that you might be inspired to take issue with an Italian who is loud enough to ruffle your people-sponsored hairdo.

We must understand that the Italians, generally, compared to those who are 'stiffed but not stirred', are a passionate lot.  So taking offence at Berlusconi's jollity might just be due to a case of being adamant about replicating the familiar wherever one goes.

...well, I just can't wait for the sequel to the above story, 'Queen is not amused by a buzzing bee in her private garden'.

Well, if Liz wasn't 'amused' by Berlusconi, this homegrown band must have given her a right royal tummy-ache. (unfortunate that youtube, amongst others, have all removed the music video for the following song by the Sex Pistols at the behest of Warner Music Group - which illustrated the Sex Pistols' disdain for the monarchy - ahh, well, the elite must stick together right.)  Here's to you Lizzie.

Ed

The BBC elected to place the second of the two on the top-right hand corner of their home page whereas the former of the two was featured in the Socialist Worker site.  A chinese friend of mine working in the UK told me, 'I don't know how it was there when you were studying there, but the people are becoming more american now.'  Yes, given the increasingly juvenile posturing of their media produce in recent years, i suspect she is right. 

Michele Obama?  ‘Who cares.’ Was my first reaction.  Oh lots of people apparently.  There is an 'aura' about her eh?  Yes, and only those who are reared to treat america as the first amongst celebrities, prior to which they have to be underdeveloped enough to be receptive to this celebrity-worshipping nonsense, are able to detect this aura – just as a child is more receptive to fanfare and fairy lights as opposed to logic and reason.   For myself, I'm appealed to by the aura of, say, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Marx, Jesus, the Buddha, Guru Nanak, amongst others. But it's not enough to be american, you also have to be rich, and hog a limelight that is managed by the americans themselves.  Do it long enough, and the rest of the world will be queueing to maintain the flame of worship around this hadean altar.  But i suppose considering that quite a few brits do not see anything amiss with maintaining a monarchy at the door of their economic plight, i suppose they would be more receptive to the religion of celebrity-worship.

There are far more important things to concern ourselves with than a so-called 'fahionable' woman.  Perhaps it might ease the psychological impact of the economic crisis to distract ourselves with this woman who has enough change of clothes to feed quite a few families for a year and a half, but it is exactly this nurtured ability to be distracted by such rubbish that comprises the foundation of our woes.  Wake up people.

And i have to add, with regards to the first article, the rich do not want you to pay for their crisis.  The crisis is yours.  They just want you to pay enough to maintain their privilege of getting you to maintain your status relative to theirs.

Ed

 

Another celebrity bites the dust...

...and joins her 'fans' who always lived in it because they are too busy living vicariously to appreciate the significance of ALL life simply because it isn't cast in the hallowed spotlight of the overly-publicised entertainment stage.   

ed

 

When a citizenry sees nothing amiss at the heading, ‘Duffy crowned Queen of the Brits’, it indicates an ongoing mutation of the ‘citizen’ into a ‘fan’.  I know that it is the 'Brits' award, and it is a play on words, but the phrase 'Queen of the Brits'  does have generic undertones that is quite the insult to a personality that has grown beyond that of a mere 'fan'.  Some might say, ‘Hey mate, its just for a laugh.  Chill out.’…a statement which requires as much intelligence to state it as to mistake it for a rational argument.  S/he who finds cause to laugh at everything – as the brits, amongst others, are inclined to do – will find that her/is mirth is founded on the only identity she is left with, and which s/he hence does not laugh at.  That of the omni-impotent ‘worker’.

 

When you do not notice as much attention, fervour, or adulation when it comes to professional humanitarians, activists, related academics, etc, you will begin to understand why the said ‘citizenry’ do not see anything amiss with a mere singer being given the above accolade by quite a few major news sites, and without the ‘queen of the brits’ being enclosed with inverted commas indicating their subjective value.

 

What does this say of the ‘citizen’?  It indicates, amongst others, the abdication of Life and its subsequent appreciation vicariously, and a redefinition of Life as a vicarious one.  One could write a thesis on this, but suffice it to say, if anyone was to wonder after the origins of terrorism, global warming, the reason why a cure for cancer/etc is yet to be found, the true reasons for economic recessions, rest assured you’ll find it in the growing idiocy of the masses in all their forms – activists, bloggers, professionals, etc, etc, etc.

 

Anyway, I think much of contemporary western/ised music is an insult to the term, ‘Music’, which is supposed to make more of a person and not compensate and excuse them from not making more of themselves outside of the work milieu.  However, if you don't know better, you wouldn't know better.  But that is for another discussion.

 

Thankfully, I took a significant portion of ‘the red pill’ some time ago. 

 

 

ed