Posts by conseismal
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Paul, sachawitchit is an insecure lump of prehumiliated p-lard who permanently defines this place
see? takes two to do the abusivetango -
what else do i have to say to this sacha who seems surely lamed by insecurity?
what do you mean by this 'whims of progress' comment? -
Insachacurity
-
the whole point is the deferring power of the sign "sovereign", is it not? and where/from what direction does that one come from? Sooner or later you do have to seriously consider what it is that manages to displace a sacred center then just as surely/swiftly comes to believe that its own one must be the source of all violence!
-
actually not. conseismality is a concept y'all might wanna check out sometime. anagrams are just time out to refertilize a little.. what i wish to really talk about is cultural/scenic encounters, period! Why does Gio apparently wish us to believe that Maori ever had something called 'sovereign rights'? What they really had was an insufficiently credible threat of violence, is it not so?
-
(rather ripping array of anagramsoil out of 'misspelt foreign words'
http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=misspelt+foreign+words&t=1000&a=n) -
i believe my basic questions remain outstanding. i cannot quite believe that a person whose warblings have actually been published in the past resorts in a flash to pottymouthing me the second the going gets unorthodox...
-
parenthetically, why should anyone be automatically interested in what Maori 'sounded like'? Is it not at least as astonishing trying to imagine what the first 'kiwi' sounded 'like'? or, much more to the point, why he sounded the way he did, even more to the point, why anybody iterated the mad new sounds that he made? These are events, it seems to me, way more worthy of consideration than some kind of shot at .."ear-insight" HELLO? (usa)
-
WRITTEN changes everything. the idea that the written is but a rough approximation to the 'primordial oral' is foolish to the max. perhaps even as foolish as attempting to ask what punters hereabouts have in mind when they speak of new zealand being 'conservative' (with the same sort of basic recklessness they evince when they speak of the 'centre'.. WHAT (sic) is it that we say new zealanders are trying to conserve, exactly? And HOW - or perhaps via what mediative center - may that be compared to what the Maori (and all their earnest white educators) are frenetically trying to conserve?
-
"Labour moved up to the centre in order to set up 1999, National moved down to the centre in 2008 and yet the centre is going to be the deathslide of this country. The centre is stale and sterile.
...The centre is just a concept that was thought up to sell newspapers."
without the (sacred) centre, nothing; without a centre, not a moment of human Mediation would be, or have ever been, possible. But with the market that is modernity this centre is rightfully ultra-elusive, and no single figure can ever occupy/fully represent it (for longer than ten minutes). And thus may our resentment/alienation from this very centre be recycled ever more fully (and economically) on the periphery..
((psst: i have indeed noticed SW that greenies are mostly bourgies who think the poor's habits are not up to speed))