Thanks for replying so thoughtfully to my post. I would like to comment on what you wrote. Your comments pique my interest on just what kind of disagreements might have been responsible for the group's demise. "Noisy self-interest" covers a lot of ground. It seems to me that in the aftermath of the fall of communism disagreements on the left compounded. 1938 brought a similar crisis to the left. For or against Stalin. Three years earlier Breton's Surrealists experienced a similar debacle. There was no bridging the gap between the poet's investigation into experience and the Party's requirements of practical administration. But it arguably brought to light an irreducible toggle at the very core of the revolutionary project: does the collective or the individual have the ultimate say in charting direction of the revolution? The Surrealists never satisfactorily resolved this problem, and even as late as 1952, Breton indicated that his answer to the question "does the revolution require that social liberation must occur before individual liberation can?" was yes. I don't believe he really thought out all the possible implications that attend to this issue.
If social liberation is primary, doesn't it follow that individuals are reduced to an instrumental role? This question goes to the core of the entire Marxist project. My reference to your manifesto being "a little too sweeping" should be explained, I suppose. What I meant was that to assert that nothing of note has happened since the, what? The 1947 International Surrealist Exhibition perhaps?
Was going a bit too far. Personally, I find some of Matta's 1960's works a real extension of the Surrealist outlook. Even Pop has a role in furthering our ideas of personal liberation. Of course, I look at the best of Pop as being heavily laced with irony, so that it can be read as a critique of commodity capitalism. I agree with you the the "balkanization of the universal" is something we need to transcend. I too am an autodidact, to a large degree. I do have 24 semester hours' credit from Roosevelt University in Chicago dating from 1972-74.
My first great epiphany came at attending the Marcel Duchamp retrospective at the Art Institute of Chicago in March 1974. His work and life showed me that formal education provided more obstacles than opportunities. I find academia to be one of the principal obstacles to both individual and social transformation. My second great epiphany came from understanding the intimate connection between Duchamp and Max Stirner in 1989. My course has been set ever since. The bulk of the fruits of my interest in this connection is forthcoming, but it won't be too long now.
Collectives that legislate what’s good for the others against their consent is no good. Self-directed anarchism could avoid these problems if brutality could be expunged form the consciousness of the millions. That if is so big you can drive a truck through it, I know. But the revolution is impossible without it. Start small, get bigger. Revolution from below.
You really shouldn't lift whole sections of material from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Stirner and present it as your own thought, although you chose a reputable source. George Woodcock, although prone to some of the same collectivist biases as so many other commentators on Stirner, did do a pretty good job at characterizing his thought.
I guess you're already surmising that I vehemently disagree with your characterization of Stirner as "yet another status quo philosopher". Your evaluation sound a lot like Karl Marx's ideas on the subject, and I am painfully aware that the situationists used Marx as their basic philosophical substrate. Do you know a book that came out in 2002 by Kristin Ross called "May '68 and its Afterlives"? She, too, decries the "creeping individualism" that has seeped into the discourse on May '68 and related phenomena. But that is material for another post.
The thing that is important now is to indicate just why Stirner is not just another apologist for the small-time shopkeeper. The key point has to do with the irreducible toggle in the individualism/collectivism question: can I keep my own prerogatives intact if I allow a collective entity to be primary in my own mind and, by extension, in the world?
The answer, I'm afraid, is no, and if this is true, then my own instrumentalism at the hand of the collectivity is inevitable. This engenders what Stanley Milgram (yes, that Milgram) calls the "agentic state", in which I sign away my right of decision in favor of one "in authority". I presume you are aware of the infamous Milgram experiments of 1960. One look at the results of these experiments should be enough to convince that ours is not a world in which "enlightened" egoism rules, only the debased kind, the infantile kind. Where vulgar egoism leaves off, Stirner begins. It is possible to trace a trajectory of an increase in "affective individualism" (as the historian Lawrence Stone terms it), beginning in the late 17th century and continuing up to the present time. Kinship ties have weakened, and individual prerogatives strengthened, in a fairly unbroken progression ever since this began. One of the main problems, in my opinion, is that this process has only gone halfway through its cycle.
Individual empowerment is what we all need, not a centralized plan of forced income redistribution. This will only result in endless counterrevolution. It is moralism run wild, what confounded the French Revolution and the communist one as well. Collectives that legislate what's good for the others against their consent is no good. Self-directed anarchism could avoid these problems if brutality could be expunged form the consciousness of the millions. That if is so big you can drive a truck through it, I know. But the revolution is impossible without it. Start small, get bigger. Revolution from below. Because there will always be struggle. Civilization is not a given. Each generation struggles anew with different, and if not different the same exact variables as the generation of their fathers. Without the foundation of the individual, a civil structure cannot be retained for long.
I believe we are not so very far apart philosophically. Breton, as well as Picabia, Max Ernst and Duchamp, all found Stirner to be quite compelling. It is only a question of continuing to resolve all the inconsistencies attending to the implementation of collectively constituted projects that keeps us from moving forward. Only.
We are not talking small-time stuff here, n'est ce-pas? Please respond if you care to.
Apologia From Gabriel
Apologies to Mr. Westling for taking the liberty, a liberty he may indeed characterize as overreach in re-publishing our short tet-a-tet without his expressed permission. But I find our brief work here worthwhile in pointing up a few crucial ideas central to any thriving philosophy which, by definition, must thoroughly engage the contemporary situation (where the individual finds himself threatened and made inert) at every level in both leaping tall buildings like storied men of action and crawling upon hands and knees thorough the filthy sewers of a collpasing infrastructure like rodents of an unrepentant generation, if we are to move beyond the fine words of old heroes and other remarkable curvatures of the spine.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 03:07:35 +0000
BEGIN ANOTHER SWILL, THIS ONE WON'T LAST FOREVER
Rebunk: What I was trying to do was prime those kiddies for the sworg perspective.
Am I correct in thinking that Spud eliminated the REVIEW command from nothingness' listserv? Methinks that far from being kiddies the list principally consists of insincere old gits like the aptly self-apellated "m.e.". If nothingness is ever going to make either a useful forum ever again or a useful meeting place then it will require repopulation (and therefore a massacre of incumbent diseased entities). But to that our attention some other time...
Rebunk: This does not endear me any less to the project of actually CONTINUING the situationist method as it developed before during and after the SI's existence (and not resting happily and absolutely on its conclusions) as opposed to REJECTING the SI altogether in terms of cigars and hairstyles in order to promote my shitty new record.
This too seems to raise another unresolved issue. Here's a dead un-PC point of view for you, Reebm but in my opinion (now) Malcolm Maclaren is the most (only) noteworthy situationist since the doors closed on the old SI. Without Maclaren there would have been no 1980s situationist revival, no reprint of the R.O.E.L. and so on. Punk basically was situationismalbeit stripped of its privileged intellectual kultural trappings, and no one more consciously tried to ensure that fact than the much loathed Maclaren. But Maclaren poses two clear problemsFirst, that he was shamelessly capitalist; Secondthat he was a showman and manipulator and thereby challenges the simplistic black hats/white hats definition of spectacle and situation (as does everything which captures our imagination if you see what I mean).
These endless twistings of meaning and attitudes are not a phenomenon "tacked on" to the real world, they ARE the real world (Phenomenology)and as such they cannot be eliminated or judged in the black and white moralistic terms which have been inherited from the SI (as from the contemporary worldview in general).
Now I suspect that my answer to these two challenges are still not wholeheartedly (or not at all) your own. Namely, that....
First we have to live in the REAL world, the world as it actually is, in which power is necessary in order to determine the nature of our present and future that power is invested in money, and therefore that enterprise and remuneration are necessary to further revolution or change in general (personal or collective). Yes, money might even lead to capitaland yes, capital might even lead to advantageous circumstances given appropriate responses to opportunity. In other words BAMN as we used to say By Any Means Necessary. This is more than a cheap opportunismit is an ethical principle because as I have so often tried to argue, all moralities are necessarily SPECTACULAR and the aspiration for some inverted kind of revolutionary morality is FATAL to real integrity. We cannot even reluctantly reconcile ourselves to the world as it is even this is a SICKNESS : we should not be in the business of judging the world except in terms of appropriate activity to desirable possible consequences. Or in yet more wordsit is time we treated history as a TECHNOLOGICAL not a theological problem, and if that is to be the case these taboos must be banished along with our fetishes.
Secondl;as I have also argued perhaps fruitlessly, the distinction between SPECTACLE and SITUATION as originally intended by the SI is clearly UNTENABLE. From a philosophic point of view I guess this is the most obvious reason why its fairly absurd to talk about being "situationist", (but then absurd is okay : I can live with absurdjust a technical observation). Likewise, and for the same essential reason, the distinction between recuperation and detournement is equally in error. The manipulation of images and ideas, far from being a mere manifestation of a certain phase of capitalism, is in fact FUNDAMENTALLY HUMANit has always being going on, it will continue to go on indefinitely. It can only be judged, (which is to restate the point made above) in terms of whether the said manipulation (charm, hex, hypnotic spell, suggestion, spin) furthers or does not further a better ensuing situation/scenario. These endless twistings of meaning and attitudes are not a phenomenon "tacked on" to the real world, they ARE the real world (Phenomenology)and as such they cannot be eliminated or judged in the black and white moralistic terms which have been inherited from the SI (as from the contemporary worldview in general).
This idea requires an entirely different mode of consciousnesswe must teach ourselves to OBSERVE the actual transmission of this karma, of the way a certain phenomenon or event or quality turns a persons mind to left or to right (or often in many directions at once). So far as I'm concerned that is what this project IS ALL ABOUT and it is not possible to proceed so long as we are to be subjected to a historically transmitted ethos about immutable GOOD and EVIL...
Naturally I am not refuting materialism here because they are extrusions of material necessities, but of material necessities which will continue to exist with or without a revolution. GamePlay, and not an abstract political philosophy, will determine right from wrong in these matters.
It follows from this (or at least, it may certainly follow in principle, and whether it follows or not depends solely upon tactical considerations in any particular context) that it may indeed be for the BEST if Debordianism gets free advertising as a result of someone seeking to recycle Debord to advertise their shitty new record. In most cases (though this cannot by any means be an absolute statement) all publicity is good publicity and this virginal desire to avoid being sullied with the sins of the world show a positively CHRISTIAN mind-structure where instead there should be a dextrous determination to ride the perpetual flux of KARMAof good and bad consequences of phenomenae which are ALWAYS a mix of good and evil. This idea requires an entirely different mode of consciousnesswe must teach ourselves to OBSERVE the actual transmission of this karma, of the way a certain phenomenon or event or quality turns a persons mind to left or to right (or often in many directions at once). So far as I'm concerned that is what this project IS ALL ABOUT and it is not possible to proceed so long as we are to be subjected to a historically transmitted ethos about immutable GOOD and EVIL...
Date: 23 Feb 2001 03:07:35 +0000
BEGIN ANOTHER SWILL, THIS ONE WON'T LAST FOREVER
Rebunk: The title might need a little adjustment in order to differentiate it first of all from the slew of post-situationist "critiques" of the SI that appeared in the 70s and early 80s, more often than not prey to gross misreadings and historical misunderstandings (e.g. Barrot, Winks, Home).
Well, how about Transcendence or Supercession of the 1st SI? More to the point, though less challenging perhaps. (Challenging is good innit? or notdepending really on how highly you rate the current crop of phoney situationists...). But in any case, this is a brief 10-odd point declaration we're aiming at here, not a literary career a la Home et al.
Rebunk: ...and secondly, from the tendency to fetishize the 1962 split between the SI's "artistic" and "political" factionseffectively into "first" and "second" Situationist Internationals
The POINT remember is to compose a scientific method for critique, to examine how reality and historical change are ordered. This is exactly what Marx and Engels hoped to be developing in dialectical materialism (and yer empirio-criticism, too, of course) and what has subsequently been LOST.
Okay. So how about Supercession of the 57 varieties of the Situationist International. I see this document with a can of tomato soup backdropor has that been done? Hell nothat was Campbell's but this is Heinz.
Of course the reference to "First" also possessed a threatening spin. One does not have to STATE that one intends to reconstitute a 2nd or 3rd Sit International (which as I see it would make little sense from a semantic point of view) but the implied suggestion that the past be replaced with a present and a future...this would bring out the woodlice or at least set them squirming a little in their rotting crevices...no? Oh well, I'll settle for the soup can then.
Article 1 read:
The SI inherited the incomprehension of dialectics that was already rife amongst (so-called) Marxists. Whilst on the surface the objection may seem merely one of perspective, to think of dialectical "opposition" as the motor of historical social change is in fact a fatal errorit results in several weaknesses which include (amongst others!) the failure to resist the transformation of subversion into a posture supporting the status quo.
Rebunk: This is a good point in terms of its acknowledgement of the potential recuperation of oppositional poses.
The only social contract worth having is the one that guarantees to us the world we want to live in and none of these wankerscommunists, anarchists and situationists, has anything to offer which doesn't come cheaper when it's stolen.
Nope, nope, nope. I mean a lot more than thatthere's no "potential" about it. What is being stated here is a general scientific objection to the law of dialectics as framed in Marxism and the alternative postulate does not apply simply as a warning re politico-poseurs but as a general description of reality. The POINT remember is to compose a scientific method for critique, to examine how reality and historical change are ordered. This is exactly what Marx and Engels hoped to be developing in dialectical materialism (and yer empirio-criticism, too, of course) and what has subsequently been LOST. (Hence the reversals of the late 20thC which floundered along instead by leaning on slogans and comprehending nothingleast of all itself.)
Rebunk: ...but such a co-optation occurs even to those scientific Marxists who reject dialectics, and those self-styled anarchists who reject Marxism.
Exactementand more besides. In Varela's terminology, such "dialectics" are in fact enactments, static phenomenological entities, fields, states which emerge and constitute themselves through a self-preserving tension. However co-optation only occurs if you play the game of taking sides in these games. It's a FRAUD to take sides in thema decision to maintain a certain static posture in conspiracy with the "opposition" which is therefore nothing of the kind but in fact a co-conspirator. How you deal with this fact is a matter for you according to circumstances, but the fact I.S.. Supercession and transcendence in their various ways are, or should be, on the contrary (just like detournement) an escape from such predicamentsa genuine betrayal of the conspiracy. But the conspiracy will try to retrench itself on the basis of the new betrayal, and must be betrayed again and again...The only social contract worth having is the one that guarantees to us the world we want to live in and none of these wankerscommunists, anarchists and situationists, has anything to offer which doesn't come cheaper when it's stolen.
I have no such aspiration: I declare my interest from the very start, I declare myself to be a LIAR and a CHEAT (if you like) and thereby become not an icon like Derrida but that "contradiction" in termsa tangible enigmaa liar with an honest intent, a monster with a beautiful dream. Better that by far than the converse.
Rebunk: Indeed, the SI's grasp of dialectics as theoretical device is actually pretty good, despite the fact that it didn't really reach its full critical potential until after the group's dissolution (in Debord, Sanguinetti and Sebastiani's later writings).
Point us to these better grasps of dialectics Reeb. If they are actually good enough they should form part of the declaration.
Rebunk: You can prove anything with dialectics (whereupon he proceeded to justify the development of Stalinism).
Well, of course. In fact, you cannot prove anything WITHOUT dialectics since so-called meaningful language is composed entirely of words which depend upon a dialectic in order to exist (except, arguably, the word *TAO* but lets skip that one for now). However, the notion that you can prove anything is demolished as soon as you overthrow the false understanding of dialectics itself. Which (to cut a long story short) soon brings us to the subject of Derrida. Derrida however seems to have succumbedor permitted Deconstruction to succumbto the (dialectic) illusion of having transcended dialectics: of claiming (albeit in a novel kind of way) to have attained true PURITY, true detachment. I have no such aspiration: I declare my interest from the very start, I declare myself to be a LIAR and a CHEAT (if you like) and thereby become not an icon like Derrida but that "contradiction" in termsa tangible enigmaa liar with an honest intent, a monster with a beautiful dream. Better that by far than the converse.
Originally written to a young American cohort, Matthew Manus, who requested that I reserve this domain name and web server for him. I had visited Matthew and his girlfriend Michelle in Paris a few months before with my wife, This email is dated February 5, 2001. The website was never deployed by Manus, and the project-oriented relationship ended abruptly in May of that year, having never really recovered from the Paris event.
Cheerio my friend. Welcome back to the Gabriel of oldyour web site is ready and already has a default page loaded, and this works during testing. Note that the default page must be named "index.html" to match 'XusNET webserver configurations. You have full FTP privileges. You can create new directories, read from, write to, and download anything from your domain's directory. The following information should be entered into your FTP client so that you can access your web site.
Your new web account is configured. Check it out mon frere! Let me know if you have any troubles or questions.
Look forward as always to your cheerful voice once you return to France from the land of Joyce. Me, I'm still properly sick with the flu, no day better than the next, a week now of fever, scorched throat, pain in both ears driven with ice pick precision, the usual sinus stuffiness and upchuck too. But I am as inspired as I've been in years to focus on our global critique, but tire easily and return to bed often.
Rebunk has sparked a flame under me toonce and for alldraw the lines of where I stand on this Debord crescendo. Of course, it looks as if I'm going to have to torch his own Aussie canopy with a direct hit of GT phlegm since, as Kubhlai pointed out recently, he has never ever really put his own two cents on the line, but continues to hide in silence or behind the SI bulk of work he has archived. It's time to quit pussyfooting around. The imperative that I slash away this fog that's been hovering over me for some three years now has reached illuminating proportions.
The Jappe book on Debord is helping pin the Frenchman down for me, and as I suspected, there is so much that I find self-contradicting, just as I find much of the Christian outlook self-contradicting, that I must keep good notes and finally put my own sorry self to the test of my fellow sworgsters. I will start with that very last fragment Zizek (a new name to me, but a piece full of typical dishonest extrapolation) Bunkee sent over the SWILL. I know Kubhlai and I are on the same page, whatever that happens to be, and I think you are there as well. But Rebunk and Crash have shown us nothing but bookmarks from the past, and no clear definition on who in the hell they are as individual credits to their race for humanity's sake.
I cannot help but believe that within the common parallels nee inconsistencies (notwithstanding some quite distinctive divergences) I find in the comparative Situationist-Christianity creeds lies the answer to my own special dilemma as to which spectacular point along the political scale I stand or AM SUPPOSED TO STAND (according to my own nature, and self-interests).
We can make metaphor and we can mix metaphor, poorly or insightfully, forever my friend, but sooner or later, and NOW is MY time, I just have to know what IT IS I KNOW. And there is much I've soaked up in pieces that Debord (the braggart who said he learned nothing from scouring books, but everything by dallying along the streets) touted that I do not believe is true, sweeping generalizations absurb on the face of all things self-evident (relying on dubious constructions such as nearly everybody else's false consciousness while touting the reality of his own desire to make his every point), and even more absurd considering his call to action, knowing the chain of corruptibility people everywhere will die to protect.
You and I have agreed on this point before. But what we must do, or perhaps this is my own chore, is prepare a solid critique of Debord, taking agreement where we can, and marking void those points of fantasy we find impossible to swallow, given that our own cultural bias will never be his, and therefore quite interestingly enough, absent the francophilian and xenophobic texture of many of his assumptions.
While France has its immigrants, America is worshipped by the hordes and hated by another substantial group as well. Paris, well, it's merely a city of glamour, now mostly in the past, for better or worse. However, I suspect that this heady investigation will lead me to suggest that Debordism is very close to Nazaritism (the words and praxis of Jesus) and that any rejection of Debord is a rejection of Jesus on the very terms that I have long been availing the old prophet and dismissing the more recent one. But I must know where I stand with both men.
This exploratory surgery may not interest you at all. But nothing less than this exacting sort of critical analysis will set me free of my own confusion and foster the next step towards defining ourselves as AMIST, SIFTOLOGIST, GEOSOPHIST, in that order.
Debord writes often about the essence of humanity, while ignoring the general corruptibility of that same humanity. This was the point Kubhlai tried to make in his most recent post trying to draw Rebunk into the ring. Yes, a lot of this teasing might sound like retrograde religiosity. Perhaps it is, perhaps it ain't when brought up to date in modern terms we wish to introduce, perhaps with very different social schematics, although we'd be hard pressed to suggest a singular Christian scheme given the complexity of the Catholic-Protestant fillibuster. Your recent remark that originality is not the aim, but rather, relevance is the cornerstone of our endeavor is brilliant!
Remembering our own initial urgency in SWORG terms to embrace the man in the street, Debord fails this universal test, a victim of his own cultural inheritance. His patented exaggerations and smug dishonesty hardly qualify him as the honorable man of action he had aimed to be. He was a man of books and eloquence, staged harrumph and star egotism, and could not feign ignorance, or even virtue long enough to save his own life. Considering he didn't consider writing or contemplation worthy of the nameactionhis greatest action was putting a gun to his heart. That greatness rests solely in its finality. Deborg boasted that almost everyone he met wanted to follow him; well, I seriously suggest one cannot comprehend the truth of an intrinsic vision without feeling the floodwaters of petty and trifling rejection.
So after I get the Paris Summit site fully completed and uploaded, I would hope that we might collaborate on a few nails in staking Debord to the cross side by side with the praxis of Jesus, not Pauline Christianity mind you, or at least not until summarizing the similarities and disparities between the two primary men in focus. This exploratory surgery may not interest you at all. But nothing less than this exacting sort of critical analysis will set me free of my own confusion and foster the next step towards defining ourselves as AMIST, SIFTOLOGIST, GEOSOPHIST, in that order. To humor the clowns, I await your response.
By the way, I ordered two copies of [Henry] Miller's The Cosmological Eye a couple of days ago, one to replace my ragged copy, and the other to toss into your care package. You should return in person to the VV and request a refund, pocket the francs, and think of the sad state of business affairs some find acceptable in a world seething with shoddy co-operation. Uh, long live the revolution. Don't you just despise us impatient Americans!!!! Unfortunately I tossed the receipt in a momentary lapse of judgement just days before your recent call, not that you had anything to do with me tossing or not tossing the receipt. I was supposed to be saving ALL those receipts, and have most of them, but alas.
Ihaven't been keeping up with these rad dudes since the list became a book selling booth and then something's screwed up to where I'm on the list twice (get everything in duplicates) but can't respond or unsubscribe because of some unexplained cosmic glitch. However, I decided to peek and see you getting mutilated by some humanoid. I can't say if I agree or disagree because I don't have the whole story but the hostility is acidic. I know, however, that you can take it and I'm sure you're just laughing on this.
Landry, I've thought about your newsgroup problem. How does this sound? Pick out what you find pertinent, disregarding the rest. Spud really doesn't monitor the newsgroup. It's automated. You signed up beaucoup months ago when you had another address. In order to UNSUBSCRIBE, you have to UNSUBSCRIBE with that same address. You get duplicates sometimes because I forward you stuff and the newsgroup forwards you the same stuff because you are still on the list. Your company E-mail server still accepts mail from your old address. Unsubscribe twice using both your current E-mail address and your former, then SUBSCRIBE afresh should you still be interested in receiving the list. Other than that I'm clueless. Yes, I am laughing, saddened by this sorry state of affairs, but laughing nevertheless. It's my only refuge.
I want to note that I believe that a lot of the people on this list are graduate students or something and are disappointed at the thin intellectual conversation spewing from their lip-fingers. How sad. I would love to get paid to spew. They don't know what they possess. Looks like academia is nothing more than a booksellers guild where they reshape sentences of sentences written about thinkers of the past. Who's doing the original thinking?
Not this crew. That is certain. I think I am wiggling towards the next wave of logic, but I can't get a word in edgewise. It's funny because I never mention g-o-d, but these people truly run for cover whenever I quote anything remotely Hebrew, even though I've tried to point out over and over again the wholesale ransacking and theft of the literature by Marx and Debord. Dead silence or the petty voice you quoted below is all these "great thinkers" can manage. Strange, I didn't receive that unsigned text. Maybe Spud has indeed axed me from the group.
Was Marx the highest point intellectual thought could attain? I keep waiting for the next thing, the next evolution on the food chain of an attempt to organize the human condition but I see only rehash rehash rehash. Art is rehashing cubism with slightly different variations. Literature is dancing around the macabre Faulkneresque trip into the dark side of family life with modern therapy heavy judgment thrown in. Music is nothing but push button computer masturbation.
They claim a desire to elevate the man without quality but when I present a self-portrait of that very man without quality they attack me with strange wordy affairs from their own contrived bible, contrary to the schematic of universal understanding, and sink into the abyss, well-deserved victims of their own lack of quality.
Well, the "next" thing was Debord. Of this I am positive. At least, the Situationists group as chaos, which is what I saw happen under the iron thumb of Debordian authoritarianism. A very good starting block for this clearinghouse of competing ideologies swarming around like angry hornets with an endless supply of stingers. However I seek not to clarify but to modify Debord, present a plan of action (or action by inaction) for which we stand. But of course these yahoos are too busy worshipping at the altar of Debord to ever "say" anything much less something of substance. It's the same numbing stagnation of thought they claim the spectacle creates and holds the world as hostage, that they practice. Duh, what a waste of fine godfodder, oops, I finally used the word.
Your text above describes what Debord was howling against. He was aware of the rehash, and wanted to "revolutionize" everyday life, but I believe he failed rather miserably*, just as Jesus** did in his own revolutionary pose (although his effects are as well-documented as this modern messiah***), but GODSPEAK on the other hand IS very much alive conducting his press upon the stage of HISTORICAL TIME, that Hegelian phrase that seems to have only one meaning for all that I can uncover: the spark that leads to the Len Bracken generation's own personal civil war. Debord was an athiest; Bracken confesses the same.
Civil war is the great god they worship. Capitalism the devil. Their own historical time, their own dirty war in the name of the zeroworker theory interlaced with an abrupt dismissal of all things proprietary, a ridiculous idea of course betrayed by their own hypocrisies. I say, like Zachariah, the great and terrible day is coming in nuclear spades but woe to those who would wish for its arrival, especially to those by whose hands it is accelerated. Of course I am dismissed as a mere fool and a preposterous godlover. It seems to me they actualize, accentuate, and love the Great and Terrible Lord of Theosplatz more than I do, but that's just my opinion, uncouth, unhip as it is. The mark of the beast. The fall of mercantilism. No copyrights. No work. Hot BOG & BOR topics****, but all these wankers can do is strut about in their task to mark me as declassé. They claim a desire to elevate the man without quality but when I present a self-portrait of that very man without quality they attack me with strange wordy affairs from their own contrived bible, contrary to the schematic of universal understanding, and sink into the abyss, well-deserved victims of their own lack of quality.
Aaah, the wonders of the intellect . . .
A few notes: * in his exclusionary practices ** in his inclusionary practices *** in this case I see Debord as Barrabas, and still no messiah on the horizon. **** BOG (Book of Genesis), BOR (Book of Revelation)
"I see pieces of men marching trying to take heaven by force . . ." -Bob Dylan
Do Curtiss Leung and Sam Hutchinson know that there are empty subpages loaded for them at your website? Are these people on someone's enemy's list? Were these people contacted and informed of these postings before they were put up? Were they informed at all? What do they think about it?
This collecting and posting of information about personae non grata (people critical of Bracken) is both a trivialization and VERY ominous. Why these people, and not others? How much information is going to be posted about these people? Hey, GT, why is there no subpage created (grave dug) for you at this site? Do you presume to be a neutral facilitator (a spectator)?
Well Spike, thanks for asking. Curtiss Leung & Sam Hutcheson are merely names without links now and will probably remain so for some time as I must move on to other sections of my site barring unforeseen disturbances you have forecast for me as a result of my efforts to build a comprehensive site from the ground up. No I didn't ask them for their approval, or disapproval, but now that you have inferred that something dubious is taking place, they certainly have the opportunity to measure in. All that is intended is to reproduce notes written directly to me or about my own writings FROM THIS GROUP in the past. Now Spud may claim ownership of these notes and the authors may do the same. Both Spud and the authors may even take refuge in current copyright laws, but hey, this is after all a post-Situationist newsgroup, which I would hope could sustain a little more howling from one of its own than say, Time magazine. My own sunshine perspective warrants that folk stand behind what they believe. If I dare wish to highlight these texts beyond the ephemeral past, whom in this group is hypocritical enough to stand up and boast claims contrary to their so-called "revolutionary" pose? I'm sure Debord might, were he alive, but . . .
WHY these two names and not others? Because THEY wrote the most provocative notes within the context of combative argumentation some time ago, albeit things have certainly quieted down over the past few months once again. And since all of the writing not signed with one of these or some other name on the Scenewash site is written by me (this is MY site, after all) I saw no reason to have a specific link with my name on it, my own facilitations (scientific neutrality is not possible) to be included under the third party sub-sections in dialog form.
This is not some conspiracy to ridicule or trivialize. Quite the contrary. The BIG picture is always more interesting than the "official" slice of propaganda certain types love to spew and hack, rally in pose and antipose which of course festers in the mind of onlookers and subverts the truth, all in the name of fame and self-promotion. If you find my own sort of reporting trivial and ominous, how do you react to the accusation Bracken levied at the Lefebrve piece you (Bill Brown?) published rather recently after I mentioned it to him? A paraphrase:
"Oh Lefebrve, bitter grapes. He found himself outside the loop. That interviewer didn't get Debord's side of the story, or even press Lefebrve, et cetera, ad nauseam..."
After all, by far the greatest irony in all in my investigation of the SI is the preposterous notion that a world governed by zeroworker councils will somehow universally toe the doctrinal line that linguistic vivisectionists like Bracken and a few other sloganeers maintain must be observed, or face vigorous accusations of being an “emotionalist” or a “dupe” or a “confusionist” or worse. Shades of Stalinism, echoes of Debord the authoritarian. Enemy to the people and all that crap.
Dirt is dirt. And we all know the flowers of truth grow and flourish in good organic dirt. While theory is fine and dandy for swashbucklers of every rank and riddle, the pertinent ironies of the EVERYDAY LIFE is what lends hypocrisy (and rightfully so, outside criticism) to other such thinkers and true believers from the most superstitious religionists to old book hardline Marxists, from cold helmet feminists to hard-boiled situationists. There have been thick reams of great theory handed down to us from the ages up to our own time, scarred by human frailty and despite its best intentionssloshes through each generation ever slowly, impetuously, muddily up the ground systems of exploratory thought and critical actionwhere we continue to crawl and rant and self-consciously maneuver through the dank inertia of our own Age ripe with ecclesiastical heroes of the past and overwrought slogans which tickle and twist and turn through our minds making us "feel" good or making us "feel" bad, always depending upon the exploitive quotient of the self as we gang up on the unnamed masses and spit vitriolic accusations at THEM, while claiming ourselves enlightened, superior to the rich, the bourgeoisie, the poor fool in the street, et cetera, ad nauseam.
To recoil upon your earlier questions, I found Sam to be a breath of fresh air in those early NOTHINGNESS postings. We found ourselves allies against the likes of buzzword Curtiss. I have nothing against Curtiss. Instead I have opted to draw him out with an inclusion on my site. What he does in the wake of this inclusion is his own call. I intend to highlight the obvious discord among those who would carry the torch and those who are simply too rich in "real" thought to be bored or aching for a point blank delivery of death and mayhem with only their own "boredom" to be paid as the admission price to the revolutionary stage. I have certainly weighed the consequences of my own "ominous" behavior. One or more of you might threaten a lawsuit as Bracken recently mouthed in response to his own detractors. Spud could kick me off the listserv. I could be attacked from every angle in whatever venue my detractors have at their own fingertips and mental disposal. Or I could be simply ignored. There is even the remote possibility some assassin might stalk me in order to silence me. Now how's that for paranoid delusional romanticism? Lastly, my own cannibalistic work could help shed some light on why I find myself in the middle of this rhetorical swamp, and that is to say what I've already said: that Debord's own dialectic work elbows both ends of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition in its urge to return to the Garden of Eden, or at least the modern version of such a mythological place as well as its call to radicalize or accelerate the crashing of the oppressive and redundant financial structures of this globe as predicted in the Book of Revelation (in bold vivified language) signaling a tragic apocalypse followed by the ushering in of a brave new world. You see, I am not an enemy of the process of creating a better world. Nor am I opposed to a string of situational "in your face" tactics in order to get the attention of the parties to which I am opposing.
Maybe it is piffle, but several chapters at the beginning and several chapters at the end describe the world stage Debord and his "followers" would imagine as their role in history. It baffles me why these followers are duped into an "ignorance" of such a volume which has effected millions of people in the past and millions more today. Perhaps chafing under the catholic tradition in France, Debord and most European "thinker" movements must authoritatively slash the book while stealing from it every idea they can to repackage and sell as fresh meat. Even the idea of the spectacle is Hebrew in origin via the stipulation that man not reproduce any likeness of anything in heaven or upon the earth, strong enough of a thought to include in the BIG BAD TEN COMMANDMENTS.
I have lived the greater part of my 42 years in this fashion, believe me. My own bad reputation was earned in the trenches. I am impressed by the clarity of Debord's insight more often than not as he described the world in which he and most of us live. I do happen to disagree with many of his methods for attaining this grand scale change, and would like to move past this "true believer" approach where every nuance of every word uttered by the "master" is the only thing that matters to this cluster of would-be disciples. To energize the man in the street, obscure references and sloganistic shell games just won't get the job done. After all, by far the greatest irony in all in my investigation of the SI is the preposterous notion that a world governed by zeroworker councils will somehow universally toe the doctrinal line that linguistic vivisectionists like Bracken and a few other sloganeers maintain must be observed, or face vigorous accusations of being an "emotionalist" or a "dupe" or a "confusionist" or worse. Shades of Stalinism, echoes of Debord the authoritarian. Enemy to the people and all that crap.
Bracken has ranted in his frequent visits to my house about the stockpiles of throwaway commodities at landfills as indicative of overproduction of useless junk that people buy but soon toss away. I responded that yes, maybe so, but he would replace that stockpile of plastics and metal and paper with stockpiles of bone and flesh and blood in this fantasy revolution he would trigger if he only had the power. Was it Bracken or some other wit in the room at the time who then commented, "Yes, but at least body parts are biodegradable!"? Another persona non grata? No, a thought is a thought is a thought, wherever it floats in from. As for the aforementioned persona, Bracken actually knows these people. You may not, but does it matter? Whole scale slandering of the "duped" masses is no different than that which you accuse me. The SI dialectic is full of invective against these nameless faceless populations of which every detail, every motivation, every nuance of their lives is ransacked by this revolutionary hype. Yet, as is usually the case, here I find myself closer to the heartbeat of reality with an action I have chosen in my attempt to smoke out the truth of a rhetorical game this generation is playing with Debord, and yet stand accused of inflammatory notions. Again, I am a worker. I have worked at Bethlehem Steel in the coke ovens on Lake Michigan. I have worked as a chicken farmer fingering some 40,000 birds per season in Florida. I have made signs. And drawn maps. I have worked as a land surveyor in nine states. I have worked at a porno bookstore here in DC. I have driven a cab in Corpus Christi. Worked as a roofer in Atlanta, never been to college but sold Time-Life books for four whole shifts until I was fired after my supervisor thanked me for my candor when I combatted her notion that my phone presentation was most excellent but I was failing to come in hard with the third and fourth sell tactic, instead opting, and here was my candor, to accept what these people were rejecting as the truth, that they truly did not want to buy a set of "do-it-yourself" plumbing books. I knew I didn't want to plumb, and didn't want any books to teach me how no matter what deal Time-Life was offering. I ran down the street kicking my heels after I was canned. A truly despicable job. That was fifteen years ago. The man in the street. That's the issue here.
The approach Debord and his troop of "followers" take is counterproductive as far as I can confirm. Now the bible. That's a book people have heard of and can relate to in some sort of way, even if negatively. Yet the situationist approach is to dismiss the whole phenomenon as so much piffle, and superstitiously even refuse to discuss it except in graffiti rant. Maybe it is piffle, but several chapters at the beginning and several chapters at the end describe the world stage Debord and his "followers" would imagine as their role in history. It baffles me why these followers are duped into an "ignorance" of such a volume which has effected millions of people in the past and millions more today. Perhaps chafing under the catholic tradition in France, Debord and most European "thinker" movements must authoritatively slash the book while stealing from it every idea they can to repackage and sell as fresh meat. Even the idea of the spectacle is Hebrew in origin via the stipulation that man not reproduce any likeness of anything in heaven or upon the earth, strong enough of a thought to include in the BIG BAD TEN COMMANDMENTS.
I just think Bracken should quit shadowboxing all these phantoms of fame, and begin to live his philosophy, his revolt for himself to the best of his ability instead of coat-tailing Saint Guy in trashing every other living human being on the face of the earth he cannot control for not measuring up, but then that's the quasi-academian lion roaring within him, even as he proclaims, just as Debord did, his own anti-academic profile.
"Why not?" questioned the fifteenth century Renaissance artist cartel, and the rest is commodity-driven history. Could it be some great thinker already knew the tragic influence of this kind of image manipulation whereby people's minds and hearts would be sidetracked from the natural, the real? Bracken won't even "allow" me to discuss anything proto-biblical in his presence. A sad and sorry stance, if you want my opinion. The whole of situationist thought could use a lesson in reality. Revelations are everywhere the same. What does the last book in the bible say about the modern world of religion, politics, commerce, art, and war? Withdraw from her, withdraw from that whore of vipers and swamp gas. Withdraw! Only then is the true life available to be embraced, to be lived. This smells remarkably Debordian, shaded in terms of individual action, but then, Bracken admits that Guy Debord was often accused of being just some hackneyed boring Jesuit. Oh well, I've shot my wad for today. Obviously this was more than you bargained for when you doubted my motivations, Spike. But uh, why didn't you sign your name to your note? There's this other twit from AOL who's been harassing me of late, and I of course know him only by his screename Anarchi4Me@aol.com. More pseudo-informed Debordian game-playing no doubt on his part.
Meanwhile I hope I have clarified a few things for you. If not, well, one might presume that's par for the course. There "seems" to be little "love" lost among those wearing the situationist stripe, although I can admit with the pride of influence that so far Bracken has shown susceptibility to friendship, in my case at least, even after I have roared his face and ears red singeing his eyebrows in a gust of GT flames on several occasions after he starts trying to annex MY life and MY toil to serve HIM as I hunker down in my own house doing MY bit for the just cause. That kind of rude appropriation just "don't" wash around here, and it won't wash anywhere else. The revolution will be cancelled due to inept leadership. I just think Bracken should quit shadowboxing all these phantoms of fame, and begin to live his philosophy, his revolt for himself to the best of his ability instead of coat-tailing Saint Guy in trashing every other living human being on the face of the earth he cannot control for not measuring up, but then that's the quasi-academian lion roaring within him, even as he proclaims, just as Debord did, his own anti-academic profile. Certainly his actions are no great shakes. Sigh. Hiss. Kaboom.
Originally published Mar 20, 1997; this discussion took place in the founding days on The Spectacle SI listserv between Sam Hutchinson in italics, and myself.
I don't want to dis your friend too hard here, but are you kidding me? If we are going to set up such a silly Marx/Engels parallel, then undoubtly the most apparent Engels would be Vanegiem. Now I will go out on a limb here and say that the truest heir to Debord's paper throne was Malcolm Maclaren. I recognize punk as more than a passing fad. It was a very subversive passing fad... The only significant press time Situ theory has received since '68 was that insane summer of '77. Count the ego drive that inevitably destroyed the movement each was so critical in creating and you have the beginnings of a very subtle parallel to be drawn.
True. Bracken acknowledges this, but still draws heavily from the language of Marx, while like the original situ thinkers, rejects the Soviet model, and rightly so, doesn't say too much about the Chinese model, but loves himself a Chinese woman, or two, actually can rarely ignore the opportunity to add several Asians to his whistling sidecar.
I question this Bracken's thinking concerning Situ theory. Capitalist pig? Situationism was not Marxism. it grew from a distrust of Marxism as well as a distrust of capitalism and a refusal of the polar dialectic the two combined to create. anarchy, if it is good, attempts to break out of these convenient structures of left and right and find a new form, a new city, a new avenue to the conditions of freedom... What have we learned these past few days? Me, I have basically decided that situationism can not be revived. it would be like this "punk-revival" that is so big these days. in mimicing the stances and attitudes of punk, you essentially repress you ability to create new stances and forms. punk was a violent refusal to allow that freedom, the freedom to create new stances, the freedom to be revolutionary, to disappear from the zone that is pop.music.rock-n-roll, for lack of a better term. as Peter Buck once said of the early days of R.E.M.: "When we would go to New York and play, everyone was like, no, that's not punk. Punk is three chords and spitting. But we always saw punk as being able to so whatever you wanted, even if you wanted to be a folk-punk band..." I think we can easily substitute "situationism" for punk in all of the above sentences. To relive the exploits of the past is to deny a creation of a now. If we are to be situationists of a contemporary epoch, we must at least have the nerve to bury the remains of the past. Otherwise we are just necrophiles fucking a long dead corpse. To sum up: I don't live in Paris, 1968. I live in Atlanta, 1997.
I wouldn't change a single syllable above. Bravo! Why can't Bracken fathom this? I think he was off on some island, too conservative, too young, or just too damned preoccupied with books and scholarly pretensions, and therefore not a part of the punk scene to admit that the world has screamed past 1968. But then, I'm not a textbook revolutionary. I'm an observer observing the observers, executing bad policies, that is to say, putting to death bad policies I have tested and found wanting....and as my doubts are eyeball high, the jury's still out given the book I'm just been paid to typeset, it's probably best for me to duck from this discussion for now.
At this point, I don't think any of us on this list are revolutionary. I bought this computer.
To your point, Sam, I shelled out big money on this upscale computer so that I could join the world of blips and bleeps, to face the fears of the future with ev'ry article of faith I have to exploit my need to communicate from the best beaches of childhood memory to the most stormy seashores chanced by aman in search of the most valuable one liner ever heard in the English language, and live out a simple life making simple choices, one or two maybe a few at a time, but I certainly do not feel qualified to speak for, or against, this bustling deaf world at large, except in spoonfuls of salt or vinegar meant for beggars and brothers who prove themselves not on the field of battle but upon the waves of friendship. I'm not neither parrot, nor paratrooper, sheep or wolf, victim or executioner until I have no other choices. It's time we realized that we cannot control the entire world with a well-placed verb, noun, or screaming decibel of a three-minute song, but it is the almighty decimal point that is being propped up by controlling powers pacing strategically around the globe that must be analyzed, attacked, and destroyed in due time. But most of us don't want to be around when that happens.
Bracken drives a Beemer, or is it a Volvo? I have no problem with that, and neither does he, obviously, but why if a typewriter is a revolutionary's best friend, tell me in the name of Bill Gates (my own nominee for Anti-Christ of the hour), does buying a computer make one "unrevolutionary"? This is one aspect of the materialism/born with nothing, die with nothing question I have never quite understood, although in some respects I feel the same burn because my wife has a tendancy to want to buy a new house, or the latest anything all the time. I confess to a degree the same desires, but mine are generally focussed entirely on software and hardware, and of course books. I don't need clothes or car. My house is satisfactory except for the inner city warzone where it's located keeping me juiced on paranoia with a nearly debilitating fear to tread outdoors.
Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonableas a member of a crowd he at once becomes a blockhead.Friedrich Schiller
The question of Marcus is a tricky one. He was my introduction to the SI and I agree that it's a great read, but on re-reading him last year in the midst of hundreds of other people's versions (I kid you not, I can send the 8-page bib.!), it is clear that Marcus either knows little about the politics of the SI post- '62 and/or glosses over many things in order to push his 'bohemian losers' line. There is a certain aestheticism and romanticism in Marcus' account that renders everything in the book as simultaneously crucial, vital, necessary and doomed, marginal, pointless. From what little I know of Len Bracken, I think he's just taking these kinds of qualms and magnifying them (in best pro-Situ fashion) into a stance of unwavering enmity.
I think you are probably right about this. The only flaw in this argument however is Bracken's own romanticism about everything Debordian to the point that he disagrees with damn near anybody who publishes an opinion concerning his master, so that his own opinion remains prominent in the minds of any potential acolytes. I rely upon Bracken's real life example in these matters because he is my strongest closest contact with all this revolutionary posture, and I'm new to the specifics of the SI, despite have been an independent rebellious sort while struggling for self-awareness for much of my life. Bracken, like myself, is a sports enthusiast, although I'm way past my prime. Yes, I had read Lipstick Traces, already. Still have my original hardcover on the bookshelves. But Bracken is local. He stormed in wearing this Debordian crown of thorns. He claims a certain pride of Debordian discipleship, so I'm sure he would not appreciate these "non-dialectical" details of his life coming off my keyboard, but to me the reality is that everything is dialectical or nothing is dialectical. I do not understand this solipsistic need to get social approval for one's revolutionary postures. Either one is revolutionary or one is not. The label is nothing but air and alphabet. Aestheticism, however, is not among Len's own bag of tricks, except as it regards his own personal hygiene and that of women. Is the situationist spiel merely a thinly disguised front for bagging women, I ask. With Bracken, it seems so. I hardly think the SI is Sports Illustrated. But thanks for the perspective...
Well, it's finally finished. The Debord book is packed off to Portland. Took data to service bureau to have my Syquest media converted to Zip, and printed out a color proof of the cover. Nearly a month's worth of work is in the can. Now I can address what happened over New Year's, settle back into my own themes, but first I need to awaken afresh. I am tired, needing a night's rest. Tomorrow I shall begin the prologue promised those long brackenish weeks ago. The details will no doubt seem shallow now, since most of you no doubt have struck conversations of some sort or another with the exiled in the meantime, but since I am urged by inner demons and outer banks of recoil to capture the essence of my own perspectives, I will presume some of you are still interested in hearing these details, despite their tardiness, but maybe far enough away to be free from kneejerk.
Thanks Landry for the personal update. Been swamped with Bracken's biography of Guy Debord, that Situationist International revolutionary Frenchy fellow I've namedropped a few times in your direction. A decent book I must say, if only because it is the first so-called biography in ANY language of this rather famous dialectician, according to its author, although Greil Marcus writes about him extensively in LIPSTICK TRACES, a book with which I believe you are somewhat familiar.
Still haven't even begun to compose the New Year's Day, the Day After Massacre tale of Tim, Jennifer, Steve and all the 1980s throwbacks, but it's right there waiting for me when I get my breath back from Bracken. Ninety-nine photos have been scanned, 400 pages of text converted from Windows to Mac, and all laid carefully into PageMaker.
Currently busy proofreading with an interested eye; although I loathe the man's politics, his philosophical insights are pure poetry. Beaucoup typos, misspellings, missing words, et cetera, so gotta keep my eye on the ball. I also designed the cover. Bracken's hip to it, so all things are hunky dorey. Will get paid (underpaid but satisfied) and appropriate acknowledgements.The publisher is Feral Books, currently of Portland, Oregon soon to be moving to sunny LA. Whew! Be glad when all this REAL WORK is behind me...
Notes is a bust, can't find a use for it, but I guess before I'll ever get around to affording Director 5, Avid VideoShop is a decent start, so again, rather than webbing I was reading for pleasure this afternoon. Like Tom Howell once said to me, "Any fool can spend money...." Most interesting concept, hiding as it was in his mouth. Little green apples...
What I'm concerned about right now is the olfactory packaging assault. Hardware and literature needs no sniffing, but aromatically introduces itself with gusto to the nostrils as soon as the box and ever more powerfully when the plastic wrapping is unfurled. Taking delivery on new hardware is absolutely a fresh breeze in the nostrils. The absence of the 1710AV display undercuts what would surely be some sort of full frontal euphoria though. A call to Apple just now netted me nothing more than what I already knew. Two more weeks may pass before all the backorders are filled. Or then again it may show up tomorrow. Credit card is billed as each portion of the order is shipped.
According to the set-up manual the 8500 is shipped with voice recognition software enabling user-scripted commands to perform tasks as well as rendering responsive feedback from the Mac itself. Uhmmm...wonder how well that will work out of the box; I have my suspicions...
We are exactly the same, me and that bum. We are both messed up because we cannot control the nature of need nor the nature of corruption. Life is the mathematical ratio of one to the other.
When at Microcenter I did ogle over a 200mhz Performa that spoke the application names when the mouse passed over them, but I was completely ignorant that the Mac had voice recognition capabilities already out on the 8500/120...
I do believe I'm gonna get a kick out of wearing the QuickTime movie producer's cap. All that video footage collecting dustbunnies will finally serve a purpose as I push to integrate multimedia into the iMote core premise: the cult of personality exposed for what it truly is, nothing more than reality itself. Understatement and pomposity explored from the historical and futuristic prespectives. The perilous dichotomy explained as the everbroadening gulf between inexplicable social aloofness and seamless integration into the fabric of worldly imperative.
From Jesus to Debord (did I mention Bracken confessed last week when forced into the corner of my argument that among some dissenters Debord is ridiculed as just another Jesuit poseur?) I wish to stake a claim for what ails the world in general and will use the tracks of classicism to upbraid the apostles of the classes. I believe I have been laying in the groundwork, and now I have nearly all the tools of production.
Is premature death or irrepressible riotous living the only two acts separating me from my destiny, or am I merely a hollow shell of a pretender? That is the test I have always dared to wait while all the pieces are gathered onto the board (bored?). I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us, to borrow a phrase. Like I have said to Bracken in several a lucid moment, revolutions are a dime a dozen. If it ain't the bum on the street asking for a dime, it's me asking for a dollar twenty. We are exactly the same, me and that bum. We are both messed up because we cannot control the nature of need nor the nature of corruption. Life is the mathematical ratio of one to the other.
So to quote YAST, of course ripe in a rebellion of his own with SAST...
Let's Mac on! dudes and dudettes! Or is that more properly put, LET'S MAC ON DISKS AND DISKETTES?
"Ignorance and virtue suck on the same straw. Souls grow on bones, but die beneath bankers' hours.""