Posts by son of little p
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
i think there is a very workable and satisfying definition of 'multiculturalism' given in the body of my B O'N quoted-text. I state ihe thing "like it is a fact", because everything the killer proclaims fair reeks of a multiculturally-disoriented person seeking the sacrality of victimhood , now does it not?
-
dear Rob, i do thankyou for the engagement. Yes, it is true - i am trying. PA remains the only blog at which i have ever met with such naked hostility and by this am i muchly challenged and yes, aroused. (i see no point in engaging the Kracklite who appears to be one thoroughly mean-spirited, nasty, and literally sarcastic (ie flesh-eating) man! (he recalls those very monsters-of-pedagogy i encountered in private school from whom mine entire spirit fled 'instinctively' from the first) But i am muchly puzzled; for you appear to have bypassed the content of my post altogether, haven't you? That the killer is, most paradoxically, as much a product of what we call 'multiculturalism' as anything else? Why pray tell, is fearlessly looking at this wild aspect of things, ipso facto, aligning oneself with or condoning in any way his sentiments?
-
heh. sorry about the misfire 'ick' But my initial post is an entirely legitimate one and, i firmly believe, most worthy of discussion, I defy anybody here to demonstrate why it is not! 'The perspective may be somewhat different from that most generally held here, but what is wrong with that? Twas also an attempt to start afresh, and who can possibly prefer, and on what ethical basis, that a person's past errors must forever shadow what that person tries to do next.? As i say, there was. within my post, plenty of room for exploration for anybody w/ the slightest intellectual curiosity (please do refer back), and i fail altogether to see the sin i committed there. 'Sofie Bribesca' is a swell name, but her comment pretty much flies in the face of all that has been said here not so long ago regarding those who don't fit in so easily, most particularly following a blogpost by Emma Hart, wherein 'twas recommended that one pause... to examine the nature of one's responses... before, well, before turning on the 'troll' like a hundred raging toucans; why, there was even - and this got me really excited - a suggestion thereabouts by Mr Brown to work more with mutually scene-resetting 'auxiliary verbs', if i may put it so.. okay, i have tried to do this, now let us see what you can do..
-
ick
-
hmmm... so it would appear that the likes of "spoilt, angry little shit" represents the limit of PA's currently uncontested psycho-social analysis?
-
well okay, it looks to me that what Mr Brown (in writing about Mr Norway), has quite overlooked, as has it would seem almost everyone here in his wake, is the acutely paradoxical - thus most revealing as always - aspect of the Norwegian fellow's whole mindset and and its culminating need to bring about this slaughter.. i'm talking of course about the realization that it may well be the very parameters of what is called 'multiculturalism' itself that are most responsible for his mental formation, that is, the desperate sense that his "cultural identity" is not, has not been, sufficiently respected.. Among many others, this recognition has been well expressed by the likes of the never less than fully astute Brendan O'Neill, who writes "
"In his claim that he wanted to protect ‘white Christian identity’ from being overrun and crushed by an external powerful force - in this case Muslim immigrants - Breivik is merely indulging in an alternative form of multiculturalism. In different ways, both the 7/7 bombers and Breivik express the same sense of cultural paranoia, of cultural siege and victimhood. In recent years the right-wing critique of multiculturalism has ironically been shaped by the ethos of multiculturalism itself. From the English Defence League (which Breivik apparently had contact with) to authors who fret about Muslim immigration into Europe, there has been an attempt by right-wing elements to transform whiteness and Christianess into threatened identities, under siege from an almost colonialist tidal wave of Otherness. This sounds remarkably similar to the outlook of radical Islamists. Both groups accentuate and advertise their victim status and effectively compete for the respect of the overlords of identity-management in the multiculturalist elite. Where right-wingers warn of the rise of ‘Eurabia’, Islamists fret about the return of Christian crusaders; where right-wing activists claim their ‘white identity’ is not being accorded respect, Islamists claim their ‘Muslim identity’ is treated badly. The outlook of both groups is informed very powerfully by the victimology and craving for recognition inherent in multiculturalism".
i am trusting here in making this post that the PA people present at this time will refrain from resorting once again to tiresome yapping about 'trolls', and simply, solemnly try and address the matter at hand -
"When cultures clash there is very often no discernible right or wrong–just difference. Who are we to say that our western model of jurisprudence and political thinking is superior?"
i hotly disagree. When cultures clash 'tis not a matter of difference, for when cultures clash 'tis coz they have discovered themselves to suddenly occupy the same stage/scene-of-representation.. If violence is to be avoided, this co-presence requires now nothing less than the displacement of what heretofore was the understood orientation of all to a fixed sacred centre.. thus we have a problem of terrifying 'sameness', not mere difference.. -
Hard News: Perverse Entertainment, in reply to Islander,
you are so far away ma'am from the awful truth of mimesis (as the pre-eminent 'cognizant' property of all higher animals and thus the one that has gotten us in to all of this most human, human trouble) that i must conclude you have become, over time, almost pathologicallly behooven and helplessly bound to the idea and/or conceit of the 'biological', sporting as you do however a daffy fondness (nonetheless) for what you like to call 'language' in your spare, some might even say "spiritual" time...
-
although the idea of an 'osmosis' neatly omits to mention the key active element coursing constantly throughout the whole shebang - that is, mimesis (or largely unconscious imitation of that judged to be in closest proximity to the collectively-desired object(ive')
-
solly i dropped the -ly, i was under definite stress - muchly 'preciate your grandly suggestive expansiftications..