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"><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"><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"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:
From: Christopher Gray rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Chomsky?
To: "Situationist" situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org"><situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Cc: "Christopher Gray" rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><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"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com> wrote:
From: Christopher Gray rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><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"><situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Cc: "Christopher Gray" rasputin-AT-teleport.com"><rasputin-AT-teleport.com>, "SMIRK"
smirkers_of_the_world-AT-yahoogroups.com"><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"><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