Date: 8 Nov 1997 16:43:26 -0500
Subject: Re: BRACKEN
A Spectacle wrote:
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..."
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.
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.
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.
Good day folks.