From: "Vikki Riley" <riley.vikki-AT-gmail.com>
Date: 12 May 2008 16:29:34 UTC   (01:29:34 PM in author's locale)
To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>

Dear Mr Chris
No divine excuses and no need to defend the middle classes! Who are
the petty bougeoisie anyway? Some mythical fin du siecle group from
old Europe? There are some 260 million middle class Chinese at present
and I doubt that they have the time or interest in criticising Mao or
any ideologue for that matter.
Dogma is a dog of a word, today's mainstream culture thrives on the
belief that NO opinion is a good thing.
People who live to smell the roses like Miss Zoe are the most
apolitical of all and come the collapse of Western culture will be
slaves for the picking or simply culled like a rabbit

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:
> What a divine excuse!
> It's like saying that criticizing Trotsky, Lenin, or Stalin is only done by
> the petty-bourgeoisie
> or of Mao Tse-tung by "paper tigers" or "lackeys"!
>
> Too bad for those who do believe that crap, because in situationist theory
> we call that a brain disease.
>
> It smells of a closed system, of dogma, of ideology, where any critique is
> exemplified as proof th critique is divine,
> i.e. immunizing it against the critique of inverting reality where
> "criticism is futile".
>
> Give up! Jean has the place surrounded from within!
>
> best,
> chris
>
> Vikki Riley wrote:
>
> The problem with critising Noam Chomsky and Jean Baudrillard as
> humourless bores is that you folk are too immersed, saturated in what
> Monsieur baudrillard calls SIMULACRA, that is, simulations of reality
> via the popular culture of the United States entertainment juggernaut.
> As for Mike Moore he's a celebrity,end of story there, he's a
> protagonist in pepetrating this faux idea of the world as a milkable
> gag. Miss Zoe white seems to think there is a team or race called
> "leftists" out there, perhaps we could send them to some imaginary
> island or US colony down yonder. Whatever Miss Zoe, send me some of
> the drugs you are on, teleport them globally so we can all believe
> your utopian middle class drivel about the world being a beautiful fun
> place, or rather send a few bags full to the people of the third world
> you silly young thang!
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM, zoe white <jpiersall1031-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I like the comment on the humorlessness on the Left. The ones on the
> front line aren't don't posess or incite any socially allowable joy in their
> text or events. Seriously what the fuck! It's like life doesn't register
> with leftists, how ironic that the people who think their means will create
> the most humane and free world yet haven't the slightest capability of
> generating human dialogue or living without deriving personal liberation
> through personal self restraint; [ie codified law] Of course when you try
> to NOT be ironic just a random comment meant to galvanize some short term
> connection in person, In the swamp knee deep in your own feces and its hard
> to come up for a laugh! Alex Jones is still a pretty serious motherfucker
> too though! True, we don't need more critics, we need people to show the
> world that the world after our current state of institutors is a beautiful,
> fun and vibrant place. And none of 'em really do that.
> --- On Tue, 5/6/08, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:
> From: Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: Chomsky?
> To: "Situationist" <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
> Cc: "Christopher Gray" <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
> Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 10:27 PM
> In my understanding of a reality not reduced to ten-thousand book titles
> with rearranged data, Alex Jones has far more credibility and verve than
> Noam "Smile-free" Chomp-sky.
> I'm currently creating a huge section of critiques of Michael Moore, Noam
> Chomsky, and Jean Baudrillard - the three most deified [by the capitalist
> "left"] ideologists whose job it is to make sure that any of the "truth is
> out there" that may be exposed is lost in self-loathing, and boring
> cynicizing drivel - respectively.
> I've been aware of Noam since the 1974(?) Anarchist Conference at Lewis &
> Clark College in Portland, Oregon. His "followers" are swappable with those
> of LaRouche in their characterologicality, irritatingly all devoid of
> humour, a sense of wonder, and undankified vision.... I know the answer to
> the Bill Nelson song lyrical question "do you dream in colour" with respect
> to these two self-bloats. No. They recharge like Borg at best.
> Keep posted and I'll have them all up on point-of-departure.org by the end
> of Thursday....
> best,
> chris
> zoe white wrote:
> I understand the fact that he stops short of any serious discussion of what
> occured on 9/11/01 , but the evidence to indict an already illegitimate
> class is damning enough without demonstrating an irrevocable connection. Is
> it plausible? yes. Is it likely that the Bush admin deliberately allowed
> the event to happen to MANUFACTURE the CONSENT for an indefinite war? That
> was proven when Condi Hemmings Stonewalled the Clarke hearings. Let's not
> forget that his researching skills are first rate, one of the few authors
> that can prove what thousands of others do using conventional media, which
> takes time and patience, something I don't have the luxury to have. I know
> the guy lives in a nice community in Lexington MA, which is just the kind of
> comfort he would lose along with his tenure at MIT if he said anything
> regarding any inside job theory, no matter how evidence based. I suppose in
> that respect he is quite controlled [as we all are with it or externally
> driven to pursue it]. But I don't see how that diminishes any of his earlier
> work, particularly Failed States, Manufacturing Consent, or anything else he
> researched. Don't get me wrong He gets a few grains of salt, but still a
> couple fewer then Alex Jones.
> --- On Thu, 4/24/08, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:
> From: Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal, but
> last act
> To: "Situationist" <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
> Cc: "Christopher Gray" <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>, "SMIRK"
> <smirkers_of_the_world-AT-yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 9:36 PM
> What a crock! I started the thread! I didn't realize you were in control of
> whether discussions continued or not, whether they are groovy or not,
> whether they're politically correct or not?! I will decide what I choose to
> speak about, by myself and in conjunction with trusted associates. You I
> wouldn't trust while you are religious, ever!.
> An idea to share: start your own thread about how religion is more than just
> a multi-level marketing scheme that steals its best foot forward from the
> leg of the poor by hacking it off in some ritual.... And then stop it when
> it closes in on the fact that you have nothing to say towards that topic
> except excuses and diversionary double-talk.... At least you can feel
> pseudo-self-power while threatening nothing in your characterological
> kneeling. That's Islamo-postmodernism for you: the spectacle of change. The
> sleight of hand is that all that changes is masters.
> However, not wanting to upset aspiring liar-to-self types (and the condition
> which makes them possible) who wish to continue along their chosen career
> path to becoming more generalized, i.e., a liar-to-others. Ah yes, every
> aspiring parasite starts with religion. It's apparent that some contentness,
> albeit intellectually indefensible, can be found with one's head up a
> deity's ass. Who am I to disturb such a pretzeling feat. Of course, I'd like
> to help you on to the ascent as soon as possible. Can we help you out of
> this life; you really do deserve the afterlife now. Perhaps you wish to lard
> around for a while like the bulbous, jiggly, pillaging, raping, murdering
> Mohammed/Mohamet, thug-pimping the afterlife to the poor before you head
> there so you'll have slaves here and there?! Great thinking. The first I've
> seen thus far coming from both sides of your mouth, as a matter of fact.
> Doth I impose such an honor too soon?
> The list rarely deals with the troublesome or necessary, and so, once again,
> will most likely die off into a whimper, with unconvincing moans from vacant
> stalls as the e-masturbation begins with some fantasized S.I. past, then
> with King Debord hastening disciples to the Situation Room to be interviewed
> by a bourgeois dreary newscaster about how they've helped bury proletarian
> revolution a bit deeper. The cycle begins again with the cyclical chant.
> Ideology. Duty. Banality.
> While that may bore even a religionist, I suggest you attempt to test your
> faith: Jesus/Mohammed Loves You - Kill Yourself!
> While both groups are stuck in ideology's shadows, some may break that
> 'circular' stride and actually read and who knows, discuss inflammatory
> texts or watch expository films, although I hope so I highly doubt you will
> dare to do so, please contact me off-list so we don't upset the others in
> their their "duh" mantra. The reification-soaked words of and the
> nose-picking tolerance for import-model charlatans, atomizing "projects",
> cynical bleacher-creaturing, and the culturally-psychoticized billows into
> the common air, where it will be noticed by the still-breathing. In the lull
> where one tries to catch the fresh rather than the recycled or lie-farting
> substitutes for 'the real thing', wonder what ever happened to the
> Situationist core critique which is 'the total suppression and supersession
> of all reification'.
> The fact that Islamo-postmodernists are quite at home here, and without much
> reproach, is not all that astounding when one contemplates the coveting and
> non-separated world where liars abound (e.g., anarcho-Stalinists,
> Chomskyholics, religio-primitivists, Clint-O-bama addicts, mystico-Maoists,
> and neolib green[back]ists) and ransack any and everything for its
> exchange-value on the "revolution" marketplace, "diverting" from real
> discussions about reification and its agents. This will be the historical
> path that leads to the new camps: an epitaph for silence tolerance for all
> that rules in common, a single rule followed by the common slave, wearing a
> button "I am not a slave by what I am, do, and become - but because I wear
> this button".
> My "high state" is perceived by you incorrectly. It's just a conscious
> refusal to confuse 'tolerance for miserable critique' with 'intolerant
> critique of the miserable'.
> Lest I forget, neither Islam, Christianity, and Judaism was ever a "race"
> except to a devout idiot.
> my best to those who at least TRY to break free from the chains that bind,
> chris
> NOTE: If you find the following aspect of evolution exciting -- a starting
> point -- as did Feuerbach, Bakunin, Marx, Dietzgen, then please contact me
> offline, at least where cops and the stench of failure to self-expand are
> less. We can start up discussions regarding analysis and interventions into
> the sand where too many heads suffocate in self-sacrificing (and thus,
> unequivocally as a result, in an anti-democratic practice of
> "other"-sacrificing, that is, the sacrificing of us along with themselves)
> oxygen-starved bliss. Contact me at <harpo-AT-smirkers-of-the-world.org>.
> __________________________
> The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio
> pro aris et focis , ["speech for the altars and hearths"] has been refuted.
> Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality
> of heaven, where he sought a supernatural being, will no longer be tempted
> to find the mere appearance of himself, a non-human being ["Unmensch"],
> where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
> The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion,
> religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and
> self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost
> himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.
> Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society
> produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because
> they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world,
> its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point
> d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its
> universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic
> realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired
> any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly
> the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
> Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real
> suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the
> oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless
> conditions. It is the opium of the people.
> The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the
> demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions
> about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that
> requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the
> criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
> Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that
> man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so
> that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism
> of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his
> reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses,
> so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only
> the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve
> around himself.
> It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has
> vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of
> philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement
> in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been
> unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth,
> __________________________
> Andrew oommen wrote:
> i really think that this discussion has lost its point. Mr. Gray, you have
> diverted this issue into one of religion. I only am objecting to the
> generalization of every Muslim anywhere raping 9 year olds and such. this is
> not the case. why would this be productive? how can this be anything but a
> slap in the face to people who would or might start to understand your real
> message? This is the secondary point to this discussion. i would much
> appreciate you treating me as an equal as opposed to some religious
> paranoid. If you could come down from what ever higher state you are not in,
> you would see my criticism as an attack on your method of argumentation.
> your fundamental message may be true, but i haven't contested that. you say
> religion sucks, i haven't disagreed. i do oppose your equally inhumane
> treatment of all Muslims. think about the women in those videos getting
> stoned; did they choose a religion knowing they would be beat to death? its
> not their fault that they don't have the luxury that we do to escape what
> ever religiously illusive situation we find ourselves in. In this case, i
> think your generalization excludes the women who have not choice but Islam
> and are torture for that. That is what i mean when i said you were tolerant
> only insofar that you were intolerant. I don't see this as anything
> different from religious illusion. Your totalizing belief/critique ends
> abruptly because it can't cope with the differences in perspectives. That's
> why i asked for a much more deeper questioning of why. the narrative of the
> immigrant, getting back to the first topic, is important for Bardot because
> it is an issue she has raise in a larger context, that of capital, but
> further to domination and exploitation. Additionally, i think that your
> total critique isn't what is necessary for change, as is explained above. I
> also would say that not every religious teaching is incorrect necessarily.
> sure, thinking of heaven and god might alienate oneself, but the concept
> "thou shall not kill" or Zakaat isn't bad. i think people shouldn't kill and
> people who have should give plentifully to those without. I think this comes
> to mind because the lesson of religious teaching outside of any metaphysical
> pandering is that we should affirm life or critique ought to affirm, not
> simply negate. You can't just be tolerant while being intolerant. Your
> critique has to go further.
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> It amazes me that no one ever reads either what I suggest or pages I
> suggest on my own web site(s). I DO rail against all. What do you think my
> references to "the triad of Middle East religions" is all about. What do you
> think my references to books by James DeMeo and Bruce Lerro are about?! They
> are comprehensive studies, not articles. Educate yourself with real books
> not tv generation "cyber-truths".
> Please stop using false accusations to cover for Islam. That was called
> collaboration in Russia, Germany, and other occupied territories. The triad
> religions (as well as Sainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism) all suck the life out
> of human experience. They all justify hierarchy. Islam just does it more
> obsessively and impolitely than the rest. Is that bad or good? Who cares!
> Again, they all do it BECAUSE reification is a reproducible human malady!
> Now please, please read more and re-present less!!!!!! That
> re-presentation process is called spectacularizing, and it ought to be the
> first thing used on this list that is not tolerated. Hell, hasn't anyone
> read a Situationist text besides that of Reverend Debord (e.g., Vaneigem) at
> all here?!
> Come on. Be more than an internet predator or spectator; it's that
> synthesizing, going beyond, and implementing/intervening zone wherein the
> future will be created, if we are to have one....
> best wishes,
> chris
> Maxwell Despard wrote:
> Why focus on Islam? Why not rail against Christianity? Rail against
> patriarchy everywhere, not just in the religion that the PTB want us to
> fear. Unless you're detourning neo-con propaganda for some strange personal
> irony, you're missing the point.
> Oh, and there's the part about your gross generalizations, raging
> arrogance, and general theme of saying stupid shit. God sucks. That's
> awesome. Move on.
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Christopher Gray <rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> You see, the difference between myself and the Middle Eastern triad of
> religious types is basic. If we don't know each other I approach. You and
> those reptilian beliefs, on the other hand, "stay away". When not raping
> 9-year-olds one has to be wary of one's own ass. They are a hording and
> repugnant tradition, refusing to be open to the fact that "god/Allah/Jahweh"
> (or whatever the supreme alienated power is called by the
> bowing-and-scraping) is a prick who screwed them royally in the ass with
> desertification and a bloated sebnse of importance in the universe. They're
> afraid of his shadow and cower in small exclusive groups awaiting their next
> inevitable spanking. Good dogs in slavery. But bad dogs at heart. I prefer
> the Bakunin assessment: if God existed it would be necessary to overthrow
> him.
> Enough said on this "who's who in the world of fantastic enslavement
> schemes" topic as one always finds the invasion and imperial topic of
> organized fear (er, I mean religion) invading everywhere, because in spite
> of its consecrated reluctance to stand on its own alienated feet, it loves
> company (er, miserable company that cowers as it does). It must spread its
> seed of inauthenticity and fatalism by raping the whole of Earth and the
> universe. Such duty deserves to get fucked in the ass until it can't perform
> pimping tricks for deities any longer.
> As Vaniegem staes in "Contributions to The Revolutionary Struggle,
> Intended To Be Discussed, Corrected, And Principally, Put Into Practice
> Without Delay" at
> <http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/121>:
> ________________________________________________
> Has it ever happened that you spat on a passing priest? Or wanted to burn
> down a church, chapel, mosque or synagogue? If so you have come to realise
> that.
> Religion is the opium of the oppressed.
> All that is religious calls for sacrifices. Anything or anybody
> (militants, for example) that calls for sacrifices to be made, is religious.
> Religion is the universal model for falsehood, for the overthrow of the
> real for the benefit of the mythical world which will, once it has been
> stripped of its sanctity, be the spectacle of everyday life.
> The commodity system de-sanctifies: it destroys the religious spirit and
> holds its gadgetry (the Popes,Korans, Bibles, and crucifixes) up to
> ridicule... but at the same time it is careful to retain religion as a
> lasting incitement, preferral to the apparent over the real, suffering over
> pleasure, spectacle over experience, submission over freedom, the ruling
> system over our passions. The spectacle is the new religion and culture its
> critical spirit.
> Religious symbols testify to the lasting mistrust which hierarchical
> regimes down through the ages have harboured towards men. Take the example
> of Christ alone... Leaders in the field of marketing products of divinity,
> the Christian churches have bowed to the pressures of the commodity system
> and put on a display of contortionism which will not cease until their
> trademark, the chameleon-like Jesus, has been discarded entirety. Son of
> God, son of a whore, son of the virgin, worker of miracles and maker of
> loaves, militant and steward, pederast and puritan accuser and accused,
> convict and astronaut... no role is outside the range of this amazing puppet
> figure. He has been a hawker of suffering, waiter dispensing favours... he
> has been a sansculotte and socialist, a fascist and anti-fascist, a
> stalinist and barbudo, a Reichian and anarchist. He has marched on every
> side under every flag; he has been in every self-doubt and stood at both
> ends of the lash, and present at most executions where he has held the hand
> both of the executioner and of the executioner's victim. He has his place in
> police-station and prison and school, brothel and barrack, department store
> and guerilla-held territory. He has been used as a pendant and dipstick, as
> a scarecrow standing guard over the resting dead and the kneeling living; he
> has been used as torment and short rations: and once the hawkers of the
> blessed foreskins have rehabilitated sin as a commercial proposition he will
> serve as a dildo. Poor old Mahomet and Buddha and Confucious... sad symbols
> of rival firms lacking in push and imagination... Jesus outbids them on
> every front. Jesus Christ... superdrug and superstar... all the images of
> the man who sold out to God, caught up in the hard sell of the Godhead. The
> most accomplished symbol of man as the universal commodity is the scrotum of
> the great father figure staked out on 3 pins and made into an amulet.
> So you see, already you are fighting, consciously or otherwise, for a
> society in which the organisation of suffering will have vanished together
> with its compensations and where each individual being his own master, the
> notion of God will have no meaning. And above all, a society where the
> problems of genuine experience and of passions in need of satisfaction will
> at last take precedence over the problems of proxy living and of passions
> which have to be repressed.
> ________________________________________________
> If you cannot get behind this I suggest trying to synthesize where you
> are and it.... If that doesn't help, try three weeks non-stop sex (therapy)
> with an emancipated wo/man your own age. Whips, hair shirts,
> throat-slitting, diapers, s/m, machete slaughters, b/d, exclusions of any
> that would join in, or other surrogate [self-/other-]sacrificing will only
> deaden the experience of living; timeouts for food/water/bathing/speaking
> are part of the experience. ;-)
> There's more to "situationist" than joining a list... and there's less to
> "religion" than invading another.
> best,
> chris
> Andrew oommen wrote:
> you don't know me, so keep your ass away.
> 2008/4/23 richard haden <richard_haden-AT-yahoo.com>:
>
>
> Ooman of the OH>>MAN tribe,
> Bare with me while I try to add a little light on the subject
> (Perhaps in a scatological sense-- a little Sepia instead)
> Perhaps it is with my ass or brown eye that I spot and judge thee a
> follower of the worlds great religions--as cultural artfact of tolerance. I
> tolerate and console those who wish merely to survive and not live...but in
> their silence I occupy a grater space of freedom. The Christian and Muslim
> Religions, by far the least interesting of his or her stories, managed back
> in the day, through a newly bartering publicist , a lobbying campaign, any
> corporate tobacco CEO would admire--to launch an improved, streamlined myth
> to rule the peasantry--to better subjugate, circumscribe and repress with
> there pre-Birkenstock(ian) sandal. To re-institutionalize and Market a
> vehicle of greater manipulate-able religious nicotine like substance...To
> the astonishment of conscience minds (minds eye) we today are constantly
> reminded of how truly active is the pursuit of that great "Darwin
> Award". www.darwinawards.com/
> Oh so easy to atomize through the medium of Ka-Boom; a view of the
> world how ever it is after the fact.
> I am still leaning towards a Univocity or a nominalistic vectoring
> to avoid the stains. I look for the rot on the root of ....inside.
> users.rcn.com/bmetcalf.ma.ultranet/What%20is%20Univocity.htm If we
> want to understand Deleuze's philosophy, it is important to come to terms
> with his Spinozist Univocity. Or Or that the genus (Bi Pedal) Species
> (Things with wings that look anthropomorphic) are substance abusing,
> homeomorhphic, delusions.
> Something like that
> Richard Haden
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrew oommen <andrewomm-AT-gmail.com>
> To: Situationist <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:51:52 AM
> Subject: Re: the left jab preceding the right jab: not dress-rehearsal,
> but last act
> You are not arguing with anyone but yourself. none of this disproves any
> point from before. you are wrong.
> For your ignorance, i point you to Reza Aslan, who provides two
> translations of the same passage from the Koran.
> "Men are the support of women [qawwamuna 'ala an-nisa] as God gives some
> more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide
> for them).... As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then
> leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them
> (when they are willing).
> Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them excel
> the others, and because they spend some of their wealth... And for those
> [women] that you fear might rebel, admonish them and abandon them in their
> beds and beat them [adribuhunna]" (No God but God, pg 69-70) (all authors
> original notes).
> Clearly people interpret different things. Your authors take one
> extremist translation and call it a pillar holding up the entire religion.
> This author looks at all sides and looks at its contextual history, not its
> political "idiocracy" that has existed in Western culture.
> Concedingly religion is not the solution to the worlds problems, but
> nonetheless, it is not this savage beast you paint it as. Your ignorance is
> so blatant that you don't answer the real arguments i make against your
> position. i say you are intolerant while calling for tolerance (terrorizing
> in the name of democracy, etc.). i say that your game theory is antihuman
> (like capital). i also argue you dont know anything about totalizing
> critiques (deleuze, debord, etc.). you have only made yourself look like an
> ass. stop beating your head against the wall and go outside to real a book,
> because none of these online sources will help you deal with you pathology.
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Christopher Gray
> <rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is Islam, probably be better named "Abyslam". Read the tenets and
> core. The fundamentalists are not "bad examples" of the religion, nut its
> "best examples". Fortified reification is not warm'n'fuzzy; it's an
> abomination of inverted humanness, and casts a murderous shadow o'er
> authentic living. The triad of reifications from the Middle East are
> co-dependently wretched at their very common core. They seethed forth from a
> desertified human geography such that sacrifice, scarcity, hording, and
> rigid hierarchy permeate them all to varying degrees. They are the practice
> of death culture.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Maxwell Despard
> founder, HRPoets
> mdespard.googlepages.com/
>
>
> ________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now. ---- Message sent by the Situationist list. To unsubscribe, send
> "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message to
> requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
> ________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now. ---- Message sent by the Situationist list. To unsubscribe, send
> "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message to
> requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
>
>
> ----
> Message sent by the Situationist list.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
> to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org
>
----
Message sent by the Situationist list.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe situationist" in the body of a message
to requests-AT-lists.nothingness.org