Calling Texas Anti Grey Militia!!!!
Andrea Chen
We down here in alt.surrealism are throwing a party. We're not sure if
anyone will come, but the more people who come the bigger the party will
be.
Like you we're tired of grey aliens, we want red white and blue aliens,
we want pink aliens, black, purple, brown, yellow you name it, anything
but grey!
We also want to help people and we've tenatively identified some (who
you might remember Mark) with names like Brandon, Dale and Bartlett as
victims of grey alien mind control implants.
Anyway we were hoping you could come on down to alt.surrealism and do
just like you do on your abductee hotline and explain their symptons to
our 3 victims and anyone else who shows up who might be a victim and
just be friendly and say howdy a lot and if you're really wild you might
even want to try and do some surrealism.
I'm really just about begging you boys (and I know as southern
gentleman you can't resist a lady in distress) to get on down here and
help us and maybe think of joining us in our crusade when the neu
surrealist hordes start sweeping over the Nazi groups and stuff doing
surrealism and trying to identify those with grey alien implants.
I realize that you'r awful busy in aav, but grey aliens are a society
wide problem and if were going to beat and barbeque (grey aliens the
other grey meat!) we've got to stop our defensive tactics and go on the
offensive to places where the infestation is really thick like
alt.surrealism and alt.tv.teletubbies Rather than concentrate our
forces we should visit groups for a couple days so that the oppressed
downtrodden masses have hope, I am proposing that we move to mobile
guerilla warfare and I personally would like the Texas anti grey militia
to be in the vanguard as we liberate this nation and changing the nature
of reality by electing Dan Quayle president (Bush and Quayle in 2000 and
it don't matter if Quayle is officially vice president, he wouldn't know
the difference.)
Also I suspect if we uncover enough grey aliens and grey alien plots
there is a book in it somewhere ("Aliens On The Net" perhaps bundled
with "Alien Mind Control Through Arranging Music."
In other words this isn't just the noble, decent thing to do, there's
money in it. And I don't see what could be more American tan that.
So please drop by alt.surrealism and try to identify the grey alien
mind control victims so we can help them.
Thankyou.
Andrea Chen
> victims are in such need of help, I will give it another whirl.
> But I can tell you right off, the greys might own this place and it
> is so infested that there is no help for them. But compassionate as
> I am, willing to try.
Thankyou Mark:
What I recomend is that you stick to your area of experise and just
point out possible symptoms of grey mind control (you can tell it's grey
cause it's dull!) and also help us answer certain question.
For example our research so far as indicated that the
Barrett/Dale/Brandon entity is some sort of hive mind. What we're not
sure is whether it's controlled by a separate brain or whether it's 3
tiny brains linked by sybchronicity possible through an orgone control
unit.
Feel free to speculate. Remember on this kind of thing we must follow
the example of our leader Doctor Frager. We should probably think about
drawing up abductee lists and stuff so people will know who to be
careful of.
I'm convinced that the ALIEN MIND CONTROL PROJECT HAS INFILTRATED
USENET and that alt.surrealism is the center. That's why we need
experienced people to come over here and help us diagnose the program.
We also are getting some newcomers over here and I feel (and your
experience on aav may help you agree) speculation that they are
controlled by the greys (or the praying mantis folk or the reptilians or
the ocealiens) might make them feel welcome (especially if they're a
nice alien species) and help make the environment surreal.
My own experience tlls me that someone making a nice little post who
gets a reply that indicates that the person replying thinks that the
first person is an alien makes any group a special place.
It can kind of relax things and let people have fun and we can work on
building up our alien cosmology.
Let me tell you Mark there are a *lot* of groups which need new
material (alt.conspiracy and alt.mindcontrol are among them) and I think
one sensible place to develop such material is through surrealism.
We who control the myths control the world or something like that.
I mean there's already a lot of potential here. One of the first
things our neu surrealist group has done is expel Breton. When that hits
the NY Times Book Review there's going be sparks a flying and when it
turns out we have the best aliens on the market...
Mark I'm talking big time.
Of course probably nothing will happen, but the potential of this
medium is awesome. And I mean just think about it. What if we trained
a cadre of alien spotters and put them in hundreds of groups.
Believe me people are never quite the same after being accused of being
an alien. This is the kind of thing that surrealism is about. And when
people start to realize that ALL their neighbors are aliens, Mark we're
talking about neu neutopia!
Call me an idealist and a dreamer, but I feel this is important!
Brandon J. Freels
please do something a little more in the horror (or was that whore?) genre?
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:377CFF...@earthlink.net...
Brandon J. Freels
What you have failed to realize is that Andrea Chen was that Fundamentalist
Surrealist Preacher.
Andrea Chen and her secretary G.V.W. IV have been trying now for months (and
in Andrea's case for years) to steal the land of the natives here at
alt.surrealism through tactics of sabotage and misinformation. She
underestimates the connection these natives have with their land, and has
attempted several times to form somesort of racist treaty with us. We
refuse, and while she may sweat-talk some of our more relaxed inhabitants
she will not prevail with her attempt at robbery.
This is her third try to overtake our land in my short lifetime. When will
she learn that the native's bond is to strong for her? When will she realize
she can do nothing to stop us from living on our land?
Andrea Chen is the invader. She, and her cronies are the only aliens in
alt.surrealism.
Brandon J. Freels
> What aspect of surrealism could be threatened by Usenet sabotage and
> misinformation? I am curious about this.
No aspects of Surrealism can be threatened by the gray alien Andrea Chen,
for that is why her attempts at tyranny here at alt.surrealism, and I assume
at other newsgroups, have failed.
Her sabotage, via misinformation, only effects the outer perception of this
newsgroup, so that those outside of the alt.surrealism regulars, have an
eschewed view of how we decide to conduct ourselves.
Her gospel is a pure form of anti-Surrealism rhetoric. Do we not have the
freedom to be who we are without being prosecuted by this Inquisitor? Why
does she feel we needs to accept her implantation of outside morals? I ask
you, what is with her imperialistic ambitions?
Tex Adams
After reading your important post, I went to this surrealism
newsgroup and checked it out. Whooa now, you can see alien mind
control written all over most of these posts. Looks to me like
we got a real infestation here. I am glad you had the concern to
point this out, because I think we can help some of these poor
folks. I have even seen signs of the hive mind operating in this
newsgroup.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark Shippey
(el snippo)
: In other words this isn't just the noble, decent thing to do, there's
: money in it. And I don't see what could be more American tan that.
: So please drop by alt.surrealism and try to identify the grey alien
: mind control victims so we can help them.
Howdy Andrea!
Well, I don't know. Last time I had some dealings with this here
surrealism crowd, some Surrealist Preacher got ants in his pants and
started whining about how people should not post in his newsgroup
without Official Approval and unless they were Traditional Surrealists.
It was really something to see. About as unsurreal as anything I had
seen on Usenet. And coming from a surrealist newsgroup, it was almost
embarrassing. Fundamentalist Surrealism some guy named it.
Mark Shippey
: What I recomend is that you stick to your area of experise and just
: point out possible symptoms of grey mind control (you can tell it's grey
: cause it's dull!) and also help us answer certain question.
Okay, I will do my best. The Grey infestation is strong in this
newsgroup so we do have our work cut out for us.
: For example our research so far as indicated that the
: Barrett/Dale/Brandon entity is some sort of hive mind. What we're not
: sure is whether it's controlled by a separate brain or whether it's 3
: tiny brains linked by sybchronicity possible through an orgone control
: unit.
The hive mind infestation is clearly obvious in this newsgroup. One
can see many examples of posts that are variations on a dull theme,
which is one of the symptoms of alien hive mind control. I don't
know the extent of it yet.
: Feel free to speculate. Remember on this kind of thing we must follow
Mark Shippey
: Andrea,
: After reading your important post, I went to this surrealism
: newsgroup and checked it out. Whooa now, you can see alien mind
: control written all over most of these posts. Looks to me like
: we got a real infestation here. I am glad you had the concern to
: point this out, because I think we can help some of these poor
: folks. I have even seen signs of the hive mind operating in this
: newsgroup.
Alien Mind Control(AMC) on the Usenet may now be the largest
threat to the security of the world. In our upcoming book, Aliens
On The Internet(tm), we will show the extent of this. Published
by NUTS (National UFO Training School). Andrea may be right,
this a.s. newsgroup may be the center of the Usenet infestation.
Mark Shippey
: Mark Shippey,
I have to know the answers......
"Invaders"? Invader of what? "Land of the natives"? Natives of what?
Do you have some sacred territory that you believe Andrea has defiled
somehow? These are possilbe symptoms of grey alien mind control. The
word invader implies that you have something to defend. What is it
in this group you feel you must defend?
These statments sound quite fundamentalist and traditional.
Mark Shippey
: Andrea Chen and her secretary G.V.W. IV have been trying now for months
: (and in Andrea's case for years) to steal the land of the natives here
: at alt.surrealism through tactics of sabotage and misinformation.
"Sabotage"? "Misinformation"? Is surrealism somehow threatened by
these two words? These sound like political words. Just the other
day on CNN someone from the Christian Coalition used these exact two
terms to describe attacks of their organization.
Dale Houstman
Mark Shippey wrote:
>
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> : Andrea Chen and her secretary G.V.W. IV have been trying now for months
> : (and in Andrea's case for years) to steal the land of the natives here
> : at alt.surrealism through tactics of sabotage and misinformation.
>
> "Sabotage"? "Misinformation"? Is surrealism somehow threatened by
> these two words?
He doesn't say that surrealism is threatened by these words (surrealism
is threatened by no words), but that alt.surrealism's integrity as a
collaborative ground for people actually interested in surrealism
(rather than in empty rhetorical "victories") is shaken by the acts
designated by these words.
>These sound like political words.
So?
> Just the other day on CNN someone from the Christian Coalition used these exact two
> terms to describe attacks of their organization.
I heard Hitler use the words "love" and "freedom" in his Nurembourg
speech; is this any less relevant to the discussion than your example?
So what is some buffoon from the Christian Right wants to use certain
words (maybe they used the word "shirt" also; does that say something
about the next person who uses the word "shirt"?)
> What aspect of surrealism could be threatened by Usenet sabotage and
> misinformation? I am curious about this.
Again; Brandon DID NOT SAY surrealism was threatened by any disease
Andrea and her cadaver hounds (and all their fleas) might be carrying;
he merely said alt. surrealism (as a useful forum for those who believe
in the continuing utility and explosive power of surrealism) was being
used as a sounding board for a series of willfully and pointlessly
antagonistic statements meant merely to bolster the "high profile" of
one A.C. It does little or nothing for Ivy and Little Bobby, because
their linguistic skills exist merely in their angry minds. They are a
sort of barricade chaff, a dust in which A.C. might slip about in. They
are mightily out of any depth, but are unable to see it, because their
egos are in crisis.
A.C. has not touched one hair of surrealism's head; she does not know
where it lives and cannot find it. To her these tiny pyrhhic defeats on
Usenet constitute her world. And (horribly enough) she thinks she's
amusing.
Andrea is a bore.
DMH
Andrea Chen
>
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> : Andrea Chen and her secretary G.V.W. IV have been trying now for months
> : (and in Andrea's case for years) to steal the land of the natives here
> : at alt.surrealism through tactics of sabotage and misinformation.
>
> "Sabotage"? "Misinformation"? Is surrealism somehow threatened by
> day on CNN someone from the Christian Coalition used these exact two
> terms to describe attacks of their organization.
> misinformation? I am curious about this.
Mark:
With this and other posts I think we're arriving at a pattern. As you
know I only have models of a few other grey mind control victims and I
wasn't certain what to look for. However we do seem to be getting a
type (what some psychologists call anal retentive.) It seems the
implants work by stimulating those areas of the brain which control the
teerritorial impulse (among others.) This may help to explain some of
the methods. As we well know the technology is crude and the greys
currently lack the resources to micro manage through quantum message
passing. However by creating behaviors of a general pattern,
indoctrinating their victims in some ideology and strategically placing
them they are able to block progress.
I know you and I have long wondered how the greys (and others) were
able to keep Internet from reaching full potential. Clearly a very
small number of implantees of this type placed in key groups could limit
debate and drive out noncomformists. Simply by playing the averages
this will work. Curious people might come once or twice a week. Over a
year this would add up to 50 or more. However since they are always in
small cobncentrations the cooridinated efforts of the grey agents would
drive them out thus keping a critical mass from forming.
However if we are able to build a critical mass and move it from group
to group we might clog lose the constipation (so to speak.) It should
also be expected that if Usenet becomes known as a more interesting
place, then readership will grow creating a positive feedback system
which will eventually allow the people to control and use this, the MOST
POWERFUL PRINTING PRESS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
I really appreciate your help. In just a few hours you and the posseee
have confirmed some things we expected and added clarity to our models.
Of course this is only the beginning, but I for one feel it's a good
start.
You're really helping the revolution in alt.surrealism
Brandon J. Freels
"move from group to group" is only an attempt of yours to obtain supreme
dominance over all newsgroups. This critical mass of yours would turn Usenet
into a concentration camp, expelling all those you detest. I suspect you'd
name Gilbert your first in command. What you fail to realize Chen is that
once these poor fools who consider themselves your follower realize your
selfish ambition to be named Queen of Usenet, they too will revolt against
you, and your elimination is all that one needs to preserve freedom on
Usenet. You, Chen, are the one attempting the mind control. You are the
tyrant waving your propaganda in your posts.
Leo Sgouros
We could have a coronation and the whole shebang, everybody can get trashed.
What did Andrea do to you?
Would it make you feel better if I told you what she had planned for me?
Woosh, dude, you are lucky.
_L_
What is a name, anyway?
Mark Shippey
: Andrea Chen, you are the grey alien. Your sad critical mass that should
"concentration camp" "queen of usenet" Hmm. I think we have
a clear problem here.
I think this talk about concentration camps is odd, very odd.
What would cause this extreme mental allergic reaction? Is it
that your territorial impluse has been stimulated? What is going
on here?
Mark Shippey
: What is the matter with a king and queen of usenet?
: We could have a coronation and the whole shebang, everybody can get trashed.
I agree. It could be one hell of a party. And then there could be
revolutions. 'DOWN WITH THE KING' and all that. And then more parties.
: What did Andrea do to you?
Mark Shippey
: He doesn't say that surrealism is threatened by these words (surrealism
: is threatened by no words), but that alt.surrealism's integrity as a
: collaborative ground for people actually interested in surrealism
: (rather than in empty rhetorical "victories") is shaken by the acts
: designated by these words.
Okay. I understand. But who here decides what is actual interest
in surrealism and what form that should take. Do you have surrealism
priests who decide what is heresy?
Mark Shippey
:> What aspect of surrealism could be threatened by Usenet sabotage and
:> misinformation? I am curious about this.
: No aspects of Surrealism can be threatened by the gray alien Andrea Chen,
: for that is why her attempts at tyranny here at alt.surrealism, and I assume
: at other newsgroups, have failed.
: Her sabotage, via misinformation, only effects the outer perception of this
: newsgroup, so that those outside of the alt.surrealism regulars, have an
: eschewed view of how we decide to conduct ourselves.
: Her gospel is a pure form of anti-Surrealism rhetoric. Do we not have the
: freedom to be who we are without being prosecuted by this Inquisitor? Why
: does she feel we needs to accept her implantation of outside morals? I ask
: you, what is with her imperialistic ambitions?
I understand. But by what criteria do you decide how it is appropriate
for surrealists to conduct yourselves? This is interesting to me. I have
always had a concept of surrealism being more free than this. Maybe the
grey aliens have taken over here.
Tex Adams
> "move from group to group" is only an attempt of yours to obtain supreme
> dominance over all newsgroups. This critical mass of yours would turn Usenet
> into a concentration camp, expelling all those you detest. I suspect you'd
> name Gilbert your first in command. What you fail to realize Chen is that
> once these poor fools who consider themselves your follower realize your
> selfish ambition to be named Queen of Usenet, they too will revolt against
> you, and your elimination is all that one needs to preserve freedom on
> Usenet. You, Chen, are the one attempting the mind control. You are the
> tyrant waving your propaganda in your posts.
>
you? You sound like a mad fire ant here Brandon. Seems to me, you
should be more of a gentleman.
Now, way I see it, if y'all have to overreact like this and
start yelling about concentration camps and what have you then
y'all have some real problems here. Just why would you get so
many fire ants in your pants like this?
Hell, folks are just trying to see if they can help y'all, and
they get treated like this. Makes me think there is something to
the idea that grey aliens have taken control of this newsgroup.
Sure makes a man wonder after seeing this kind of reaction like
you posted. Maybe the greys are defending their turf?
God only knows. But try to take it easy and think it through
next time before posting with such bad manners.
Tex Adams
way of determining who is "actually interested in surrealism".
Now, I for one would like to know how they do this. Unless surrealism
is some kind of stagnant system, you would think that it could take
many forms and evolve in many ways. Am I wrong here? It is really
not like this? I would be mighty pleased if y'all filled me in on
this one.
Meanwhile, I'm still wondering if maybe. just maybe, the reason
why surrealism has stagnated here, is because of those darn grey
aliens having infested your minds.
Dale Houstman
Mark Shippey wrote:
>
>
>
> : He doesn't say that surrealism is threatened by these words (surrealism
> : is threatened by no words), but that alt.surrealism's integrity as a
> : collaborative ground for people actually interested in surrealism
> : (rather than in empty rhetorical "victories") is shaken by the acts
> : designated by these words.
>
> Okay. I understand. But who here decides what is actual interest
> in surrealism and what form that should take. Do you have surrealism
> priests who decide what is heresy?
If you see one, please spit on him for me. I will even help you hold
him/HER down. This "priest" notion is an entirely fictitious calumney
invented by those who feel some (incomprehensible) need to disrupt the
rather simple process of human discourse, surrealist or otherwise.
But forget the word "surrealist" for the moment; if this were a
newsgroup devoted to (say) dairy farming; would it be difficult to
identify as "disruptive" a person who first declared that there were no
living cows, and then refused to even engage you (who might be a dairy
farmer yourself) in reasonable, non-antagonistic communication about the
crazy "living cow" theory you had somehow been deluded into? Of course
not.
Surrealism is NOT a set of inflexible rules, and evolved in several
directions even within the first few years of its existence as an idea.
There are (as has been discussed when we are allowed to do that without
the childish interruptions of those merely interested in "new
management") several areas in which the original surrealists "fell
short" as it were; the role of woman beyond a poetic asymptote of
desire, and the role of homosexuality in the world at large. That some
of these un-evolved (or only partly-evolved) notions were the "fault"
of Breton's own prejudices and proclivities is not only not debatable
but so obvious as to be barely worthy of consideration; what idea isn't
beset by such a limitation? That some of this shortfall also is a matter
of people operating within the strictures of their own upbringing and
social classes, etc. is also true. So?
YET (as is true of ANY object or idea) only so much damage or distortion
can be visited upon a philosophy before it must cease to be called by
its own name and must become "the other"; either a close relative, an
enemy system, or some point in-between. It is silly to say (for
instance) that if a man ceases to believe in God, Christ, the Bible, the
Pope, the Saints, redemption, etc. that his public insistence (assuming
that there are those who do go through this exact psychological schism
privately) that he remains a Catholic is particulary viable even to the
atheists among. I would be amused, even congratulatory, but I would
understand (though not care about) his excommunication; in such a case,
the individual has himself moved away from the definition, not the other
way around. To continue to insist upon "membership" in a group you have
rejected all the core elements of strikes me as self-destructive.
So, are there central motifs, or rituals as it were, or stances, or (as
Andrea - who is all surface - would have it) techniques that distinguish
surrealism from (say) Buddhism,or Republicanism? If so, what are they,
and are they valuable to you? If not, why pretend to be engaging
surrealism at any level, unless you are only here to disrupt? Which (I
repeat) is your right; despite all the blather to the contrary, this ng
DOES NOT represent a crucial space in the ongoing and (as I redisvover
every week) quite vital experiment that constitutes surrealism.
Surrealists continue to disagree amongst themselves, and there exists no
Constitution or Bible that (forever) mandates an unshifting plane upon
which surrealists must perch. Breton's Manifestos were re-visited by him
every few years in an attempt to keep up with the growth of surrealism
IN THE REAL WORLD. Even a cursory reading of the worst history written
about surrealism will reveal both its essential elements, its seondary
features, and the manner in which it tried to be a barrier against its
own complacencies. You will read of its mistakes and re-inventions.
But something distinguishes surrealism from its surroundings, and I can
easily inform you (even as Manager Gilbert adjusts his tiny paper hat
and scrapes the grease traps), this "something" will NEVER be any
statement or series of statements by Andrea and her cadaver dogs.
But you are at liberty to think so. It is difficult (maybe impossible)
for the gilbertians and andreaggies and maughanites of this world to
realize that their pyrrhic defeats represent nothing, but it is
nevertheless true. Their bile cannot corrode surrealism, only soften the
fat of their own swallowed shit.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Tex Adams wrote:
>
>
> >
> Unless surrealism is some kind of stagnant system, you would think that it could take
> many forms and evolve in many ways.
Yes, just as a mouse can evolve bigger ears and a longer tail. But once
it develops wings and a beak, we had better either call it a bird or
assign it another name altogether. You can evolve (as human history
shows) out of a system, no matter how flexible that system might be. At
some point nomenclature (no matter how clumsy a system this must seem to
those who just want to "flow free") must stand for some system of
distinction or it stands for nothing. Different words mean different
things, even if some symbolize huge processes and ideas. This is not a
matter of some power-mad individual attempting to betray liberty into
the hands of repression. Personally the loss of this ng is no great
concern except to those who find their stinky little pleasures in the
act of "winning." It is natural evolution. Surrealism two years into the
original experiment was a different (though strongly-related) animal
than the original idea. This continued to occur, and continues (despite
all the empty rhetoric to the contrary) today. I personally find this
growth within a serious consideration of the original "Big Bang" to be
gratifying and not restrictive. If I were in deep disagrrement with
surrealism on some central point I would be happy to depart. I would see
no need to browbeat those left behind (in my egoistic view) into
accepting my definitions.
DMH
alex
Tex Adams wrote in message <7llf6q$9q1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Mark Shippey
What you are saying here is very interesting. I know that this
may be a question that has no easy answer, but, what the heck.....
How then can you define the "system" that is called surrealism?
And since you mention "cental point" in relation to surrealism,
what makes the framework or surrealism?
All kidding aside here, I am curious about this.
jeff wiel
: Andrea, I told you before that science fiction cliches bore me. Can't you
: please do something a little more in the horror (or was that whore?) genre?
Damn! The giraffe's on fire again. Where's that fire extinguisher at?
[schnip]
jeff wiel
: What you have failed to realize is that Andrea Chen was that Fundamentalist
: Surrealist Preacher.
Y'all got yourself a real easy like solution to hand. Convene a kangaroo
court and expell her little ole fascist ass from the group, just like the
surrealists did to Salvador Dali.
: Andrea Chen and her secretary G.V.W. IV have been trying now for months (and
: in Andrea's case for years) to steal the land of the natives here at
jeff wiel
: Mark Shippey wrote:
: >
: > Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
: > : Andrea Chen and her secretary G.V.W. IV have been trying now for months
: > : (and in Andrea's case for years) to steal the land of the natives here
: > : at alt.surrealism through tactics of sabotage and misinformation.
: >
: > "Sabotage"? "Misinformation"? Is surrealism somehow threatened by
: > these two words?
: He doesn't say that surrealism is threatened by these words (surrealism
: is threatened by no words), but that alt.surrealism's integrity as a
: collaborative ground for people actually interested in surrealism
: (rather than in empty rhetorical "victories") is shaken by the acts
: designated by these words.
There you go crying for your dada again. Dada dada dadadada.
dadadadadadadadadadadada.
[schnip]
jeff wiel
: > What aspect of surrealism could be threatened by Usenet sabotage and
: No aspects of Surrealism can be threatened by the gray alien Andrea Chen,
: for that is why her attempts at tyranny here at alt.surrealism, and I assume
: at other newsgroups, have failed.
Sir, are you aquainted with the highly esteemed Herr Professor Doktor
Peter Nyikos of talk.origins and talk.abortion fame? If not, y'all should
strive to ally yourself with him.
Andrea Chen
> Y'all got yourself a real easy like solution to hand. Convene a kangaroo
> court and expell her little ole fascist ass from the group, just like the
> surrealists did to Salvador Dali.
The problem is that they're not the *real* surrealists. We are. We
already had our first trial and expelled Breton. The anti surrealists
are saying we can't do this, but I talked to Breton (through Madame
Thelma of the Hastings UFO society) and he said he wished it happened
years ago. He said if he'd been expelled instead of Dali he would be
the one who got rich and famous.
Because we real surrealist(tm) are actors and not talkers we're getting
a big show trial underway for the grey influenced Dale/Brandon/Barrett
entity. In it we hope to play upon the major issues and have a
wonderful show like a play from Genet, but we still need lots more
people to be lawyers and judges and jurors and to shout "off with their
heads."
This is why we're encouraging people to come over here and be
surrealist in which way they can think of so that we can truly make this
trial into a fine piece of performance art, lots of fun for the whole
family while sneaking in a bit of education (examination of the
surrealist project and issues relevant even to anti surrealists.)
Plus after the trial we hope to break into lots of schisms and every
once in a while the schisms can put each other on trial.
I think the fact that you happened on this idea independantly indicates
synchronicity (which according to Brandon is proof of real surrealism.)
Once again logic and truth are on our side!
Brandon J. Freels
Mark Shippey wrote
> How then can you define the "system" that is called surrealism?
> And since you mention "cental point" in relation to surrealism,
> what makes the framework or surrealism?
The motion towards complete freedom, which, by stripping away societies
artificial obligations, will enhance what we know today as reality. For me,
this is the "central point" of Surrealism. Each turn of the Surrealist
Project seems to follow this one simple guideline.
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
> The problem is that they're not the *real* surrealists. We are.
No real Surrealist would embark on calling herself part of "the management
team of alt.surrealism" like you have so insisted you are. You are just
frustrated that your restrictive policies are not accepted by those who
occupy alt.surrealism.
> I think the fact that you happened on this idea independantly indicates
> synchronicity (which according to Brandon is proof of real surrealism.)
I never implied synchronicity had anything to do with Surrealism. Still
spreading your misinformation, I see.
barrett john erickson
Mark Shippey <kpri...@dfw.nationwide.net> wrote in message
news:7llmht$7f0$1...@news.IAEhv.nl...
> What you are saying here is very interesting. I know that this
> may be a question that has no easy answer, but, what the heck.....
> How then can you define the "system" that is called surrealism?
> And since you mention "cental point" in relation to surrealism,
> what makes the framework or surrealism?
> All kidding aside here, I am curious about this.
although "surrealism" is a very badly abused word (one need only read
alt.surrealism to verify this), if one chooses to use it correctly (that
is, as a surrealist would, when one does, which is not that often) i think
it can best (only?) be defined as the aggregate activity (global and local,
social and personal) of surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist
project.
[ all those parentheticals were to entertain iv ]
because i'm lazy, too lazy to try to reformulate things i think i've
already said as well as i can, i'll now resort to a repost of the relevant
definitions first posted last fall:
surrealist (n.)
a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as
well
as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
colleagues.
surrealist project (n., process)
the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
transformation as well as a personal one.
the only thing difficult about these definitions is that too many people
are unable to recognize the openness and fluidity they describe, while also
clearly understanding that it does establish a _conceptual boundary_. it
doesn't prescribe or proscribe behavior or attitude, it describes a
surrealist approach to living which may then take a near infinite number of
compatible directions.
arguments about who is or isn't a surrealist or what is or what isn't
"surrealism" misses the point. it is the actions of an individual which
other surrealists will find as being either within or without the
conceptual boundary of surrealism.
"surrealism" is a self-regulating process in that sense.
although they challenge and are challenged often, surrealists never mistake
that conceptual boundary for a fence.
[ sorry for the "teachy" tone. i'm tired. ]
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
>
Mark Shippey
: Mark Shippey wrote
:> How then can you define the "system" that is called surrealism?
:> And since you mention "cental point" in relation to surrealism,
:> what makes the framework or surrealism?
: The motion towards complete freedom, which, by stripping away societies
: artificial obligations, will enhance what we know today as reality. For me,
: this is the "central point" of Surrealism. Each turn of the Surrealist
: Project seems to follow this one simple guideline.
This and John's longer explanation are both interesting. Thank
you both for taking the time to explain. But I am still unsure what
phrases like "stripping away socieities aftificial obligations" mean
to a surrealist. Any way someone could elaborate and give an example
or two or three?
Also, this Surrealist Project fascinates me. What is the goal of
this? John mentioned transforming society as a whole as well as the
individual. So, could you elaborate a little bit on this Project?
How does it view economics, politics and other social issues that
we all live with? Or is it just a series of beliefs, some type
of mental blueprint, an artistic religion of sorts?
Andrea Chen
>
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> : Mark Shippey wrote
> :> How then can you define the "system" that is called surrealism?
> :> And since you mention "cental point" in relation to surrealism,
> :> what makes the framework or surrealism?
>
> : The motion towards complete freedom, which, by stripping away societies
> : artificial obligations, will enhance what we know today as reality. For me,
> : this is the "central point" of Surrealism. Each turn of the Surrealist
> : Project seems to follow this one simple guideline.
>
> This and John's longer explanation are both interesting. Thank
> you both for taking the time to explain. But I am still unsure what
> phrases like "stripping away socieities aftificial obligations" mean
> to a surrealist. Any way someone could elaborate and give an example
> or two or three?
Since I have now been accused of being a grey alien agent and
disrupting surrealism, I will give several examples.
1) I find that many of societies "artificial obligations" are coerced
through the use of loaded language (in neu neutopian terms "buttons).
Therefore I almost always use words like "liberate" ironically. Much of
the world has historically been enslaved by grand semantic creations,
the communist system is certainly example. No educated person can be
aware of this.
In addition to using "good" (even double plus good) words satirically,
I lay claim to despised words. For example rather than the "downtrodden
masses" I refer to terms like "market."
I find one interesting effect of this is people don't see beyond the
images. I am one person with a keyboard and have no more power in this
medium than anyone else yet I'm accused of masterminding some vast
conspiracy (see previous posts in this thread).
My basic claim (and Dale etc.) have heard it many times is that we the
people (yay!) have been given the most powerful medium in the history of
the world and that by clustering interesting thoughts we can build
readers and influence offering a challenge to the corporate owned press.
Perhaps I am evil, but I think the idea remains sound. It is dismissed
as dictatorial even there is no way I can control the writers who
gather.
I would say that this is symptomiac of a "socially imposed restraint."
W are programmed to be helpless. My claims are not examined, but simply
accused of being tyrany.
2) Another tool of social restraint is "my enemy is always up to no
good" (the messenger is the message.)
For example a member of our surrealist group posted a thing dealing
with (as I read it) the contradictions of Breton. This idea intrigues
me. It suggests the creation of some sort of chaos machine in which
different schisms adapt different parts of the dogma, the disputes
leading to new dogmas and schisms, a dynamic mechanism superior to a
consistent ideology. I also feels it has connections to Batesons
"double bind" theory (taken up by RD Laing) as a source of schizophrenia
(and surrealism is concerned with madness and to a degree celebrates
it.)
I crossposted a brief piece of these ideas to groups I thought might
have an interest in such a subject, I think the ideas could be
fascinating and help move surrealism in lin with "systems theory."
The response from the official surrealists was another post, "please
don't answer this, this person is trying to disrupt our group."
The validity of the notion wasn't a consideration. "Whatever my enemy
does is bad" was the logic. This may be a "natural" restraint built
into the pack, but none the less I would claim it hinders human
potential.
3) I think Breton is an interesting figure (though I distrust his
inspirational rhetoric,) but I would argue that as an authority he
imposes "artificial restraints." Thus I claim that surrealists should
expell him. We can always bring him back. A surrealism without Breton
in which each of is free to be a prophet offers a chance to experiment.
Later on ideas can be debated and perhaps brought into line with an
ideology.
---------------------------------------------------------
These are my 3 examples Mark. They are pragmatic. They offer nothing
like complete libration of the unconscious or the imagination. I am not
a grand thinker, I don't trust all defining definitions, I think we can
partially free our imagination by changing roles and making stories (and
yes I like stories about aliens I find them a powerful symbol just as
writers of the 19th century liked ogres and faeries.)
I claim that I fit the definitions of surrealism according to the vague
model given above. I also predict that the reply you get from the
*real* grey mind control victims will consist of more rhetoric and
generalizations. They are using the same methods employed by churchs
and ideologies.
Brandon J. Freels
interrupt man's existence in his primary state. In other words, those parts
of our culture that restricts the "primitive" in us all. I cautiously use
the word "primitive" for I truly am implying the natural, and not the
undeveloped. Examples of these artificial obligations vary on an individual
basis, but most notable I could site religion, family, and state as
examples. The goal of Surrealism is simply to achieve, through the movement
towards freedom, the absolute reality, the unmolested reality, the
sur-reality.
Brandon J. Freels
> Family and state are artificial obligations?
Yes, family is an artificial way of controlling the population through
sub-leaders (i.e. parents). The family is the most important element to
controlling personal freedoms. Parents, acting as authorities, are
constantly trying to play King and Queen over their children. They do not
let their children develop freely, but instead look to manipulate the
natural process of growth. The parents, acting as sub-leaders, are only
puppets for the authority of the state.
>How then would the Surrealist Project deal with facts that we all face on
> a daily basis such as economics? Any structure of society has to
> determime some form of economy. And how about raising children? Since you
call
> family artificial, how would the Surrealist Project deal with this?
I don't have all the answers.
> When you use words like "absolute reality", you are nearer to
> the world of religion than anything else, and this you call
> artificial. What is the meaning of this absolute reality and how
> does it translate into daily life?
I believe absolute reality is an accepted accumulation of dream, fantasy,
and other unrecognized elements through the process of complete freedom,
into an experienced whole. It is always in everyday life. To some extent it
is everyday life set loose from the chains of boredom, and logic.
> We know that surrealists have to eat, wear clothes, take a
> crap, throw out their garbage, trade, buy, work, pay rent,
> buy computers etc. How does the Project plan to create a world
> where you surrealists do all these things? What type of "state"
> would you have.
No state. Individuals should be free to do these things as they please. I
support the right to be lazy.
> Surely you are not taling about some nebulous mental
> artifical construct here, you must have ideas about how the
> world should operate on a practical level.
I would never talk about an artificial construct. Are you implying that
freedom is artificial?
Andrea Chen
> you have to put some burritos on the table. This takes money
> right? You do use money right? And you do eat right? Okay,
> so, you have to come up with some money. Just like the rest
> of us, right? So, what is the surreal way to do this? Hell,
> don't do much good to be worrying about aboslute reality when
> the stomach is growling like a bear. Seems to me, that y'all must
> be really comfortable folks. Hell, only people with a full belly,
> nice place to live, good clothes and lots of gadgets have time to
> worry about things like the Surrealist Plan or project or whatever
> the heck it is. Hunger aint too much fun.
You know Tex. I talk to homeless people. Especially the
interesting
ones. I'd say a few percent consciously chose something close to this
extreme imperiative. And a lot unconsioucsly chose it or were driven to
it by their insanity.
I'd also say a number of these people were functioning in ways
which I
find fascintating, a small number. I think about a guy named Edmond who
hangs in the lower Filmore. He's got his own mythology, he's a
patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church with this whole set of
mythologies expanding the world which I'm going to try and tape some
time. He's also a castoff from some underground people, he looks it big
and granite like face which is why his mother told him never to go near
tunnels and he knows about the secret tunnels going all through SF from
the secret government where they started the UN. When he says he has a
picture in the NY Gallery of Modern Art, you're not sure if it's true.
He really melds his life into his mythology (which is better than
published stories) like he sees a young girl and whispers she's an
apprentice mason and you can tell cause she "flies like a butterfly and
stings like a bee" (which is better when he tells it just like his story
about this mushrooms and how at the end these little flying people shoot
at you with arrows and the only way you can stop them is to take off
your clothes and roll in the cowshit. And he functions. The last time
I met him he was making money hanging up posters for a concert over the
no parking and all the other traffic control signs where people were
sure to see them.
If you asked him he would admit he ws a surrealist though he's a
lot of
other things including patriarch of the Orthodox Church (I know if he's
got religion he can't be a surrealist) who knows all the mystical
connections dating back to ancient Ethipia and right dow the street
there's a restaurant named after the ancient capital, is this
synchronicity
or what?
Then there was another guy I met. Quite functional and he told
me how
one time he went for months without bathing to push the limits of
society or some odd reason, but it made sense as an extreme (and
logical) example of what we are hearing.
There are hunter gatheres out there, people who have lived the
surrealist project with little compromise. I like and respect some of
them.
jeff wiel
Y'all wanna be primitive, y'all go live in a cave and hunt bears with a
sharpened stick. Let me know how it works out.
Tex Adams
confusing. On the one hand y'all talk about freedom and big
ideas like this "absolute reality" deal, but you never tell
us how this is really supposed to work. Down here in the real
world, we have to open up the hood and fix the engine when the
car aint running and we can't just sit around and talk about
absolute reality. Now, I don't know what world y'all live in,
but I don't know how this here surrealism is supposed to put
the tacos on the table. Unless of course y'all make some
money by sellling each other books with fancy writing.
So, let's get our paws dirty and dig in some dirt here.
How does this surrealism really work? Okay, let's say
you have to put some burritos on the table. This takes money
right? You do use money right? And you do eat right? Okay,
so, you have to come up with some money. Just like the rest
of us, right? So, what is the surreal way to do this? Hell,
don't do much good to be worrying about aboslute reality when
the stomach is growling like a bear. Seems to me, that y'all must
be really comfortable folks. Hell, only people with a full belly,
nice place to live, good clothes and lots of gadgets have time to
worry about things like the Surrealist Plan or project or whatever
the heck it is. Hunger aint too much fun.
to the real world, I'm afraid I might have to agree with Andrea
that y'all are a herd of alien mind control victims.
And I still think some of y'all should learn some manners
especially when you post to lady. Didn't your mamas and papas
teach you about manners?
Mark Shippey
: Societies artificial obligations, in my opinion, are the elements that
: interrupt man's existence in his primary state. In other words, those parts
: of our culture that restricts the "primitive" in us all. I cautiously use
: the word "primitive" for I truly am implying the natural, and not the
: undeveloped. Examples of these artificial obligations vary on an individual
: basis, but most notable I could site religion, family, and state as
: examples. The goal of Surrealism is simply to achieve, through the movement
: towards freedom, the absolute reality, the unmolested reality, the
: sur-reality.
would the Surrealist Project deal with facts that we all face on
a daily basis such as economics? Any structure of society has to
determime some form of economy.
And how about raising children? Since you call family artificial,
how would the Surrealist Project deal with this?
the world of religion than anything else, and this you call
artificial. What is the meaning of this absolute reality and how
does it translate into daily life?
crap, throw out their garbage, trade, buy, work, pay rent,
buy computers etc. How does the Project plan to create a world
where you surrealists do all these things? What type of "state"
would you have.
Brandon J. Freels
How does a Surrealist deal with hunger? Well, I eat food. Surrealism is all
about giving free reign to your hunger. This does not mean to be in an
everlasting state of hunger, but to let hunger take its course. You'd be
surprised, but not everyone believes that one should eat when they are
hungry. A repressor might say that we have those artificial obligations of
breakfast, lunch, dinner for eating. A Surrealist eats when a Surrealist
wants to eat. Eating is a natural obligation.
As for "absolute reality," or surreality, I see it as an accumulation of all
these freedoms. Freedom of the mind, the heart, the desires, the hungers,
etc. so that they all can run their natural courses, uninterupted.
As for money, Surrealism has nothing to do with finanicial growth. For the
most part, most Surrealists I know, including myself, only work when this
capitalist society (i.e. the artificial state) requires us too. We appear
to be very lazy.
Mark Shippey
: most part, most Surrealists I know, including myself, only work when this
: capitalist society (i.e. the artificial state) requires us too. We appear
: to be very lazy.
Oh oh. You used the loaded phrase "capitalist society". Okay, then
you must have some idea how you would like to see the state operate.
If capitalism is artificial, then what is not? By singling out
capitalism, this enters the politics and economics of that state.
What does surrealism say would be the non-artificial state?
Tex Adams
>
> How does a Surrealist deal with hunger? Well, I eat food. Surrealism is all
> about giving free reign to your hunger. This does not mean to be in an
> everlasting state of hunger, but to let hunger take its course. You'd be
> surprised, but not everyone believes that one should eat when they are
> hungry. A repressor might say that we have those artificial obligations of
> breakfast, lunch, dinner for eating. A Surrealist eats when a Surrealist
> wants to eat. Eating is a natural obligation.
>
> As for "absolute reality," or surreality, I see it as an accumulation of all
> these freedoms. Freedom of the mind, the heart, the desires, the hungers,
> etc. so that they all can run their natural courses, uninterupted.
>
> most part, most Surrealists I know, including myself, only work when this
> capitalist society (i.e. the artificial state) requires us too. We appear
> to be very lazy.
>
don't ever say anything a man can get his teeth into. Just what
the hell does all this talk matter if y'all don't know what it
is you really want? Hell, anyone can mumble about "capitalist
society" and "absolute freedom" but it don't mean squat when
the plumbing plugs up or someone pulls a pistol to rob you.
If all this here is "artificial", would y'all call the
artifical sheriff or cops if I steal everything from your house?
Or how about the artificial emergency medical system if your
papa had a stroke?
See what I mean here? You are just talking, without really
saying anything. Y'all aint said a thing yet that tells old Tex
here just how you really think about life.
This sounds like grey alien propaganda all the way. Trying to
convince folks that they should accept some pie in the sky surreal
thing over practical thinking.
Now listen parnder, I want to know how y'all would really make
things happen if you had your ideal world. Tell me, and I will
ramble on my way. Just how is this Project or whatever it is going
to make lights stay on, keep the hospitals working, keep the
murderers in the slammer and the water running? You get my drift?
Andrea Chen
> As for money, Surrealism has nothing to do with finanicial growth. For the
> most part, most Surrealists I know, including myself, only work when this
> capitalist society (i.e. the artificial state) requires us too. We appear
> to be very lazy.
>
>
We have now achieved a partial definition of a real, genuine, non
artificial society. One that feeds surrealist so that they don't have
to work!
Cool! That's why I'm a surrealist.
But once again I appeal to pragmatics. Is this going to provide us
with the style of living to which we're accoustumed? No way! If it
involves the government or living off mom (a part of the family) these
things are artificial (as explained by Dale.) Besides that they tend to
be tingy. We surrealists deserve more. After all we are liberating the
imagination, freeing the unconscious and fighting fascism.
So what's the plan? We take over Internet. From what we've seen of
the stockmarket it's worth trillions.
Once again the false surrealists offer an ideal. We real surrealists
offer a plan for it's implementation.
Mark Shippey
:>
:> As for money, Surrealism has nothing to do with finanicial growth. For the
In another post one of these fellows said he favors "no state".
But I have yet to see one of them explain how the Surrealist Project
would structure society to provide the comfortable lifestyle they
all partake in. It is easy when you have a full belly to complain
about the "artifical state". But how would they operate the
infrastructure of the non-artificial state?
For example, the state provides services for public health,
like a sewage system. Would they rather that all the people living
in a city poop in the street?
They talk about "freedom" but never explain how they would
structure society to in terms of the economy, public health,
crime etc. Without such plans, this is all just a nebulous
artificial mental construction. I would not say this, if they
were not living in, benefiting from and using the comforts
of the society they call "false". And posting it using the
products of "capitalist society". This is a contradiction.
This is exactly the kind of confusion the greys would
implant into though to disrupt society.
Brandon J. Freels
> Oh oh. You used the loaded phrase "capitalist society". Okay, then
> you must have some idea how you would like to see the state operate.
> If capitalism is artificial, then what is not? By singling out
> capitalism, this enters the politics and economics of that state.
> What does surrealism say would be the non-artificial state?
All governmental states that I can think of now are artificial. I used the
word capitalism because I do in fact live in a capitalist state. I wasn't
meaning to single out capitalism. The procedure of the states economic
morals seemed appropriate for the discussion with Tex. It is impossible for
me, living in this state, to achieve complete freedom from work. I can only
try my best to be free from this artificial construct as much as I am
capable of doing. Similar types of "restrictions" would appear in other
states that are non-capitalist, I assume.
Mark Shippey
But this does not answer the basic question. If all governments
are now artificial, what type of government would be non-artificial?
We don't live in a vacuum and we have to structure a state somehow.
How would you do it?
See
Mark Shippey wrote in message <7lo5sm$ae4$1...@news.IAEhv.nl>...
Mark, the real Surrealists live in a dream world, a phenomena of the
subconscious. They look with the eye of the subconscious rather than the
conscious. In art they paint/sculpt... with the hand of the subconscious.
They don't take over diddly-doo for they are incapable as their world is a
world of the subconscious imagination and not the conscious reality. As
such, there are similarities with the UFO/Alien phenomena.
See
Dale Houstman
Mark Shippey wrote:
A marvelous misreading of a simple declaration of freedom from labor.
Just becasue one "works as little as possible" doesn't mean someone else
is supporting them. It might mean (and I know this might be difficult to
understand) that the person involved has eliminated as much of the
crapulence passed off as "necessary items" as they possibly can, and
thus reduced the need for endless labor.
Capitalism may be considered "artificial" becuase it takes a natural set
of resources and arbitrarily assigns a very few persons to "own" said
resources. This leads to (say) people having to work for endless hours
to procure necessities at artifically-elevated prices (prices not
directly linked to worth or actual labor, but to fluctuating gamble
points and a million considerations unrelated to the product itself).
Surrealists do not "want more" of the crap you seem to glorify; they
actually want less of it. It is not sick to cure oneself of obsessional
urges towards aluminum-coated gum and gold-tinted underwear. The
production of such superfluous slag adds artificial price to necessary
items.
A rational approach to implementation need not require an overbearing
state, although I do not insist that these will disappear.
Your talk of "greys" remains as childish as ever. It is like a tumor on
your thoughts.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> But this does not answer the basic question. If all governments
> are now artificial, what type of government would be non-artificial?
> We don't live in a vacuum and we have to structure a state somehow.
> How would you do it?
While I continue, through my open discuss I have come to fear that this
conversation will reach Chen levels. I must state that I am not here to turn
you into Surrealists, or even convince you of the Surrealist Project for
that matter. Also, keep in mind that other Surrealists from our newsgroup
may have a different take on politics than I do.
I believe mankind is good and it is only artificial interference that
creates the elements of the negativity in "our world." In that case no
government is needed, but a break from all things that interrupt the natural
flow. Why such a call for authority? I would hope to be as distanced from
dependency as possible.
Brandon J. Freels
Mark Shippey wrote
Your Chen-like responses have been detected, and I hope they do not reach a
level to which this conversation would evolve into a flame war.
Believing, as I do, that mankind is naturally good, and that we all hold
within ourselves empathy for the other as well as compasion, creations such
as 911 and other such "help" structures would not be desolved, only those
that enforce certain types of authority based beliefs.
As for laziness, it was far more prevelent in prehistoric and ancient times.
One hunt could feed an entire community of people for days. They lived well.
The community structure functioned on empathy and compasion, not due to an
authority who made the community work together. Today's use of the rational
system is set up to milk people of their energy for profit, not to ease
hunger.
As for Chen's notion of pragmatism, the capitalist system we live in is only
built to support one culture, the white culture. The notion that the
capitalist system is advantagous for everyone is a farse. Columbus sailed to
America a pragmatist. His understanding was that the murder of 300,000 or
more Native Americans is all right since it is advantagous to Spain. Does
that make his actions right according to you Chen?
Why must a society agree to rules? How would surrealists structure the
economy? Get ride of money. Objects could be supplied to those who need or
want them. Public health? Most public health workers and emergency service
workers that I know do what they do not exactly for the money, but because
they "care." Criminal justice? Criminals are usually only criminals to the
subjective views of the state. Murders, those who imbark on others freedom
by taking life, such as Jeff Dahmer, are usually victims of artificial
restrictors themselves. I am of the believe that Dahmer's father's hard ass
Christian moral basis clashed with Dahmer's homosexuality, and turned him
into a killer. What I am saying is that the elimination of the original
artificial supressor will also eliminate the disease to opress.
What makes you assume I have a full belly?
Mark Shippey
"No government is needed"? "Natural flow". So, who would you
call if you sustain a serious injury? 911? Yes? And if so, why?
Why call this artificial system run by the state? If you have
a car wreck and are stuck in a vehicle injured, would you rather
be left, or should someone call the state? Yes? If so, why?
This is all nonsense you are talking about. You are as
depenedent upon functions of the state as any of the rest of
us, you just live in this artificial mental disneyland you
are imagining.
Leo Sgouros
I am getting a picture of this place.
Picture a tropical island paradise-one lands on the beautiful beach to find
lovely nymphs prostrating themselves before giant metallic objects, while
little pointy caps paint a lithium sunset onto the scene so you only see
bits and pieces of the pain sticking out.
All art is surrealism then.
Mark Shippey
: Mark Shippey wrote:
But you still have not explained what type of state structure
a surrealist would not call artificial. What is this rational approach
you are talking about? Explain how you want to do this, if you can.
Any society must agree to rules to function. How would surrealists
structure the economy, public health, criminal justice, emergency
services etc.? If you claim that what we have now is "artificial"
how would you do this better and less artificial?
To sit around using the products of the very society you claim
is artificial, and have the free time, full belly etc. to do it,
is a gigantic contradiction. This is the dog biting the hand that
feeds it. It is this society that allows you the freedom and
comfort to be able to be "lazy".
Tex Adams
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Shippey wrote:
>
> A marvelous misreading of a simple declaration of freedom from labor.
>
> Just becasue one "works as little as possible" doesn't mean someone else
> is supporting them. It might mean (and I know this might be difficult to
> understand) that the person involved has eliminated as much of the
> crapulence passed off as "necessary items" as they possibly can, and
> thus reduced the need for endless labor.
>
> Capitalism may be considered "artificial" becuase it takes a natural set
> of resources and arbitrarily assigns a very few persons to "own" said
> resources. This leads to (say) people having to work for endless hours
> to procure necessities at artifically-elevated prices (prices not
> directly linked to worth or actual labor, but to fluctuating gamble
> points and a million considerations unrelated to the product itself).
>
> Surrealists do not "want more" of the crap you seem to glorify; they
> actually want less of it. It is not sick to cure oneself of obsessional
> urges towards aluminum-coated gum and gold-tinted underwear. The
> production of such superfluous slag adds artificial price to necessary
> items.
>
> A rational approach to implementation need not require an overbearing
> state, although I do not insist that these will disappear.
>
> your thoughts.
Oh yea right, and you folks posting about things like
"artificial state" and "absolute reality" is not childish? Ha!
Y'all aint backed up one thing you have posted with any sense
at all, and you keep preaching the same nonsense.
Now, could we get down to some real absolute reality here? Okay.
Try to stop preaching these surrealist quotes and sermons and
tell me how y'all want things to operate. What I mean is, instead
of telling me about the concepts rattling around in your brain,
tell me how to make it real. How does this Project of yours plan
on making things work in the real world. It is one thing to have
a bunch of thoughts in your head about dinner, and another to
actually cook it.
So, come one now, tell me something here. If y'all know what
is "artificial" then the obvious correlation to that would be
that y'all can tell me what is not artificial.
You don't like "capitialism"? What do you like?
Stop pussy footing around here and tell us. If you can't then
y'all are nothing but Southern Baptists with fancy words, if you
get my drift.
Dale Houstman
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
>Also, keep in mind that other Surrealists from our newsgroup
> may have a different take on politics than I do.
>
But Brandon, you forget the coven rules! You should have sent this
posting to central control first, so it could be reviewed and edited for
possible cutting of "independent thought." Then it would be copied and
mailed to all members of the "dead surrealists' club" so they might work
up appropriate copies of the same message to be posted at controlled
intervals. Personally I find this breach of protocol serious enough for
you to be referred to The Star Chamber of Bretonic Justice. Please be so
good as to pack a small overnight bag with emollients and sausages, and
report to the Artaud Building at half past Wildebeest. There will be a
short mid-wildebeest tea, followed by the tapdancing Hitlers (a
wonderful twin act from Detroit) and a re-education film "Duchamp Told
You Not to Smile!" Then Roberta Desnos (no relation) will beat you silly
with a toilet brush and leave your body out behind the Mattarama,
downtown Poughkeepsie. There shall be no charge for this act of strict
surrealist jurisprudence. And please, unlike last last year, don 't wear
the Desi Arnez underwear. It disturbs the anteaters...
Corporal DMH
Mark Shippey
: Why must a society agree to rules? How would surrealists structure the
: economy? Get ride of money. Objects could be supplied to those who need or
: want them. Public health? Most public health workers and emergency service
: workers that I know do what they do not exactly for the money, but because
: they "care." Criminal justice? Criminals are usually only criminals to the
: subjective views of the state.
Okay, but how do you accomplish these things? What structure would
supply everyone according to their needs or wants? Remember, we are
talking about reality here, millions of people. How would you do this?
And above all, how would you do this unless the society agreed to
some form of rules?
Concerning public health, all you post about is money and caring.
How would you structure a society to provide emergence relief to
thousands of people made homeless by a natural disaster? Would
you want a "state" to coordinate it or is that "artificial".
How about the state infrastructure to deliver water services? How
would you accomplish this for millions of people?
Now, about criminal justice. Are you saying that society should
not determine a set of values and punish those who violate this
set of values? For example, if I decide to steal everything you
own, should a state punish me if caught or is this artificial?
If what we do now is "artificial" please give specifics of the
system you are promoting.
And how you would do it without money, with agreement to rules.
This sounds like an illusion to me.
Mark Shippey
: Believing, as I do, that mankind is naturally good, and that we all hold
: within ourselves empathy for the other as well as compasion, creations such
: as 911 and other such "help" structures would not be desolved, only those
: that enforce certain types of authority based beliefs.
Well, okay, but you if you believe in "no state" as a surrealist
posted, then how would you operate these help structures? How for
example, would you coordinate response to a large scale disaster,
much less response to a heart attack? This requires planning,
structure, equipment, people.
And what is an "authority based belief"? Obviously, all governments
have faults, some worse than others, but for a society to function,
some authority has to be granted to a state of some kind. How else
would even a minimal order be established? You can't be suggesting
that we have no laws? How then would you suggest we deal with
even simple intrusions by one person on the property or life of
another?
scot...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>But this does not answer the basic question. If all governments
>are now artificial, what type of government would be non-artificial?
>We don't live in a vacuum and we have to structure a state somehow.
Water is a biological necessity for human beings. We have to have it.
Is there some kind of biological necessity that requires human beings
"have to structure a state somehow".
We don't live in a vacuum. We live among other human beings.
Human beings are fully capable of freely choosing to cooperate and
work together to meet human needs, defend themselves when necessary,
and live fulfilling lives.
Is there some kind of biological necessity that requires human beings
to formalize their relationships beyond an ethic of freely chosen
cooperation?
sgoo
Absolutely not
as a matter of fact, I am using these described*surrealistt movement
techniques*
I hope to discover art through who makes an attempt to discover my
surrealsim/
this is a purely Breton-style ethic
--
.-.
/ o \_
._ | _.'
| `.____.' /
| |
`. /
`.______.'
_/\_
_.' `._
> SQUEEK <
`. .'
)/\/\(
(badeg#ksu76529jdt4t)
Wlecome to teh jungel
wes got funs adn gams
we gots aynting yuo wnat
Mark Shippey
: Is there some kind of biological necessity that requires human beings
: to formalize their relationships beyond an ethic of freely chosen
: cooperation?
Interesting question. Before answering this one, I would have to
know what you mean by these terms. For example, if I decide to
steal everything you own, do you think we need some kind of formal
relationship called the state to deal with this according to laws?
Or do you think this would be covered under "freely chosen cooperation"
somehow?
dudalb
OK , now I get it. Surrealism as meant by the poster is just another bunch
of College Students/Academics who have developed a elaborate theory to
justify their trying to deny objective reality. Once you get rid of
objective material reality as a basis of proof anything goes. You DOn;t
event have to prove it. the Original surrelist movement as practice by
Salvador Dali was a way of looking at reality through the use of symbols. It
did not deny reality it self the way these
"Surrealist" do. What this amounts to is "If I don't like it I don't have to
beleive it" or "WHen facts get in the way of a theory, get rid of the
Facts." Hopefully when these people get off the campus into the real world
reality will give them a real hard kick in the pants and wake them up.
barrett john erickson
> scot...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> : Is there some kind of biological necessity that requires human beings
> : to formalize their relationships beyond an ethic of freely chosen
> : cooperation?
>
> Interesting question. Before answering this one, I would have to
> know what you mean by these terms. For example, if I decide to
> steal everything you own, do you think we need some kind of formal
> relationship called the state to deal with this according to laws?
of course not.
what we need is a social understanding -- which can be negotiated among
individuals or groups of individuals. humans are social beings. we must
interact socially. but what makes you think we need the pre-structured
hierarchy of POWER, the mediation of an inhuman abstract entity like a
nation-state, in order to do this?
surrealists recognize that the first thing rejected must be this concept
that one "needs" a hierarchy of POWER relationships, because it is precisely
that belief in hierarchy which is the major obstacle to the full liberation
of the imagination.
"surrealism" isn't an exercise in utopian philosophy, it's a project of
(perpetual) revolution on a personal and social scale. it is the act, here
and now, which matters, not some future goal. there is no need to posit
what a post-revolution society would be like, because there's no way of
knowing.
there is only a need to act in accordance with our commitment to the larger
surrealist project.
if one acts according to one's desires (and i don't mean those falsified
"wants" and "needs" which produce thieves, rapists and murderers, all of
whom have _surrendered_ to the patterns of dominant culture), if one avoids
or counteracts _as much as possible_, the multitude of complicities in which
we reinforce such hierarchies every day of our lives, then one is acting in
such a way as to promote the kind of liberation sought by surrealists.
conversely, there is no justification for acts which betray that liberation,
or assume any validity for POWER's hierarchies. you would never hear the
kind of "ends justify the means" arguments from a surrealist that we hear so
frequently from "Andrea" and her traveling flea circus.
"surrealism" is about taking your dreams for reality, and recognizing that
_this_ is the only valid basis for a revolution.
when we do this, every act has revolutionary potential, however minor.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
news:uC1qO4xx#GA.181@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> OK , now I get it.
obviously not, since almost nothing you said is accurate.
i hasten to add that this is not a "flame".
it would be asking too much to expect anyone wandering into alt.surrealism
over the past 6 months or so without already having sufficient grounding in
surrealist theory to be discerning enough to come away with anything but a
very inaccurate picture of what "surrealism" is all about.
unfortunately, it is also true that the assumption must now be that posts
like yours are intended only to provoke a response on which the "Andrea"
fleas can feed.
if that is not the case, and you seek a more accurate understanding, some of
us can help.
Leo Sgouros
Excellent YAY!!!
I like this answer.
Oh how the plans of the wicked smoulder.
> "surrealism" is about taking your dreams for reality, and recognizing that
> _this_ is the only valid basis for a revolution.
>
> when we do this, every act has revolutionary potential, however minor.
>
>
>
Dave W.B. Cawdel esq.
paranoid delusional conspiracy X-files group!
Well you might call it SF, but to quote Larry Niven,
some people couldn't tell Science Fiction from Zardoz.
jeff wiel <jw...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:FEB88...@world.std.com...
> Brandon J. Freels (fre...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : Andrea, I told you before that science fiction cliches bore me. Can't
you
> : please do something a little more in the horror (or was that whore?)
genre?
>
> Damn! The giraffe's on fire again. Where's that fire extinguisher at?
> [schnip]
Andrea Chen
> _this_ is the only valid basis for a revolution.
>
> when we do this, every act has revolutionary potential, however minor.
>
>
Yet you have argued that posts in this medium are irrelevant.
You have even opposed taking guerilla theatre to the Nazis and Jew
baiters in certain groups and conducting an orgy of mockery.
You have claimed that trying to attract a large number of people and
then offering them ideas of ways to play and act in this medium isn't
surrealism and in faci is anti surrealistic.
I have offered dozens of possible ideas and games, some serious, some
whimsical. For example I have proposed that we define the people we are
acting with as various types of aliens listing their traits. This would
give us a fun way of making a model of the people we are interacting
with. And as others (including lurkers) see such lists they will start
to see the "players" and get some ideas of the interactions in the group
thus giving them a better idea of the "system"
I could go on for hours listing things I have propsed to make this
medium more "revolutionary." You have ignored or rejected all of them.
You have rarely offered a reason except for the argument that if it
comes from Andrea Chen it isn't surrealistic (because Andrea Chen isn't
a part of the "surrealistic project.")
You have not offered any ideas of your own about how to use this medium
or if you have they have been vague and you've made no attempt to carry
them out.
Therefore given both your statements and your behavior you must admit
your statement to: every act has revolutionary potential, except acts on
Usenet.
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3780C7...@earthlink.net...
> Yet you have argued ...
one thing that makes "Andrea" so tiresome is that answering any of "her"
replies requires a complete restatement of the previous post, or several
previous posts over several months, so as to correct her manipulations and
misrepresentations.
barrett john erickson
> barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> : what we need is a social understanding -- which can be negotiated among
> : individuals or groups of individuals. humans are social beings. we
must
> : interact socially. but what makes you think we need the pre-structured
> : hierarchy of POWER, the mediation of an inhuman abstract entity like a
> : nation-state, in order to do this?
>
> without a pre-strutured justice system of some kind? Humans interact
> socially, agreed, but without some kind of laws, how would you deal
> with violations of the rights, space, property of others?
> And considering that we are dealing with reality, which is millions
> of people, how would you structure the services and infrastructure
> they require for health, food, water etc. without some form of
> state structure?
> Even without the "nation-state" that you mention, we still would
> need some form of abstract entity called government to provide and
> maintain the basic functions of a society. How would you do this
> without such an entity? Remember, we are talking about reality,
> millions of people. "Power" is not the correct word in this
> context, these basic operating functions of society are not
> power, unless of course you think of the water company as having
> power by providing such a service.
> You express yourself well, I am curious about how you would
> view the functioning of a society of millions of people without
> some type of abstract entity called government.
POWER is the correct word, but didn't explain my somewhat specialized usage:
<<< quoting from another text:
Our relationship to POWER is at the base of the great unchallenged
presumptions of our time. It is both the functional dynamic and sole
purpose of all hierarchical relationships -- social, political, and
economic. It is never neutral.
POWER is about accumulation, dominion and control. It wants "more" not
"better". It is an insatiable lust for empty moments, the compulsion for
artificial conquest, a passion for pyrrhic victory.
But this POWER is not personal (the possession of individuals), nor is it
organizational (the possession of Mega-Multinational Corporations, or even
well-armed governments). POWER is Freddie Kreuger, socio-economic dreams
turned Nightmare On Elm, a mass hypnosis, a collective hallucination which
threatens our lives.
POWER perpetuates itself through mediations and manipulations which alienate
the general population from socio-economic reality (even those who are
believed to be "in power"). It becomes "the way things are" while focusing
all attention on artificially "important issues". It consumes individuals
as individuals consume commodities.
>>>end quote
[ this tract can be found at:
http://www.magneticfields.org/enACTion/poverty/poverty.html ]
sure, i can imagine many possible answers to your questions, many ways a
society might function without a governing hierarchy. but it simply doesn't
matter to the point i'm trying to make which (if any) are practical options
or likely outcomes.
your _assumption_ that we "need" governments, that that's just "the way
things are" [alluding to my text here, not quoting you] makes you miss the
point and ask questions which are irrelevant to my perspective, while
insisting that they are "important issues".
repeating myself:
"it is the act, here and now, which matters, not some future goal. there is
no need to posit what a post-revolution society would be like, because
there's no way of knowing.
"there is only a need to act in accordance with our commitment to the larger
surrealist project.
"if one acts according to one's desires (and i don't mean those falsified
"wants" and "needs" which produce thieves, rapists and murderers, all of
whom have _surrendered_ to the patterns of dominant culture), if one avoids
or counteracts _as much as possible_, the multitude of complicities in which
we reinforce such hierarchies every day of our lives, then one is acting in
such a way as to promote the kind of liberation sought by surrealists."
i haven't any idea how large a viable post-revolution society might be or
how it would function. and i don't worry about it because there is nothing
i or anyone else can do that can determine that.
outcomes are simply unpredictable.
Mark Shippey
Mark Shippey
: i haven't any idea how large a viable post-revolution society might be or
: how it would function. and i don't worry about it because there is nothing
: i or anyone else can do that can determine that.
: outcomes are simply unpredictable.
Thanks for making this clear. If I understand, you are saying
that you do not have any ideas how society will function after the
"revolution". This is interesting. And material that preceeded
this that I snipped for brevity explained what you are talking
about.
But I can't help but wonder about this.
Any "post-revolution society" would most likely be faced with
the exact same types of problems that we have now. The only way
this would not be the case would be if millions and millions of
people did make it to the post-revolution society. Otherwise,
you are back dealing with the problems of infrastructure to
deal with supporting large numbers of people. This takes
organization. Resources.
Aren't you even curious what the world would be like after
the revolution you are working towards? Don't you have any
ideas about it you could share? Without some form of practical
vision of what such a world would be like, to the uninitiated
into surrealism, this sounds more like daydreaming than
anything else. Like religion in many ways. "After Jesus returns,
everything will be better", if you know what I mean.
But just for debate sake, since you don't have any idea
what form it would take, could this society conceivably be
worse than what we have now? Or, are you convinced it would
be better? Just curious.
Andrea Chen
: i haven't any idea how large a viable post-revolution society might be
or
: how it would function. and i don't worry about it because there is
nothing
: i or anyone else can do that can determine that.
Failure to worry *is* horrifying. We saw how post revolutionary
society worked in the Soviet Union.
In the United States we have certain forces well organized and suited
to grab the fragments. These include the Christian right with literally
hundreds of thousands small locally organized, tightly integrated
churches loosely united on a national scale. Many of them are armed and
stocked for adversity.
You call for a revolution and not only do you not have not tested (even
on a small scale) your ideas for a new order (a common failing of the
left;) you don't even have the slightest idea of what might be done.
Your model seems to be one Lebanon or (currently) Sierra Leone.
It's an intellectual game with no concern for the tangible consequences
on peoples life. The only fortunate thing is that you are so
incompetent that you can do almost nothing that will bring us closer to
your "vision."
barrett john erickson
> barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>
> : i haven't any idea how large a viable post-revolution society might be
> or
> : how it would function. and i don't worry about it because there is
> nothing
> : i or anyone else can do that can determine that.
>
>
> Failure to worry *is* horrifying. We saw how post revolutionary
> society worked in the Soviet Union.
but in my opinion, there was no "post revolutionary society" in the Soviet
Union, because by my standard there was no "revolution" in Russia leading to
the Soviet Union, merely a struggle for POWER -- a change in the leaders
means no change for me.
> In the United States we have certain forces well organized and suited
> to grab the fragments. These include the Christian right with literally
> hundreds of thousands small locally organized, tightly integrated
> churches loosely united on a national scale. Many of them are armed and
> stocked for adversity.
these "certain forces" are all the natural enemies (and targets) of
"surrealism".
> You call for a revolution and not only do you not have not tested (even
> on a small scale) your ideas for a new order (a common failing of the
> left;) you don't even have the slightest idea of what might be done.
again, the new order is of no concern because it cannot be predicted.
true revolutions are like a point of bifurcation following a period of
chaos. the nature of the new stability is not predictable.
you can argue that current surrealist activity is inadequate, and poorly
explored relative to the necessary struggle, and i'd agree, but not that it
will fail to bring about some unpredictable outcome. the "goal" of a
surrealist revolution is simply to overthrow any thing or concept which
prevents the full integration of a liberated imagination into every day
living. that includes all plans to shape any post-revolution order, rather
than allowing that new order to find its natural shape autopoietically.
it is only what we do now that matters.
[ maybe you are having a difficult time with this because you're so used to
claiming that i have this rigid concept of "surrealism" that i'm trying to
force on everyone else? ]
> Your model seems to be one Lebanon or (currently) Sierra Leone.
> It's an intellectual game with no concern for the tangible consequences
> on peoples life.
on the contrary it is totally concerned with the every day reality of
peoples lives _as they must be lived now_ -- not in some unknowable future.
jay...@my-deja.com
And the following relates to BL&U how?!?!?.....
jw...@world.std.com (jeff wiel) wrote:
> Brandon J. Freels (fre...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : Societies artificial obligations, in my opinion, are the elements
that
> : interrupt man's existence in his primary state. In other words,
those parts
> : of our culture that restricts the "primitive" in us all. I
cautiously use
> : the word "primitive" for I truly am implying the natural, and not
the
> : undeveloped. Examples of these artificial obligations vary on an
individual
> : basis, but most notable I could site religion, family, and state as
> : examples. The goal of Surrealism is simply to achieve, through the
movement
> : towards freedom, the absolute reality, the unmolested reality, the
> : sur-reality.
>
> Y'all wanna be primitive, y'all go live in a cave and hunt bears with
a
> sharpened stick. Let me know how it works out.
Mark Shippey
: on the contrary it is totally concerned with the every day reality of
: peoples lives _as they must be lived now_ -- not in some unknowable future.
Interesting. But what does this mean when translated into
every day reality? How should our lives be "lived now", according
to the model you are referring to? What specifically would you
give as examples? And please if you would, be specific, perhaps
with examples you know of in the real world, not just general
mental images. Real examples.