Mind Control and Surrealism
Nikolaus Maack
Andrea Chen wrote me email and asked me to step into the midst of all of
this to explain my take on the various alt.surrealism characters who are
being controlled by alien technology.
Not all that long ago, I stepped into alt.surrealism, hoping to play. Of
all the artistic movements, surrealism, one would think, would be most
open to playfulness.
In my mind, society doesn't play enough. I don't mean games of chance,
chess, or entertaining ourselves to death -- I mean play. Spontaneous
bursts of excited, uncontrollable enthusiasm expressed in delirious acts
of wonder.
A few of the surrealists -- we know who I am talking about -- are against
play and, surprisingly, against experimentation. They talk about
surrealism as though it were a solid, well-measured cube of lead.
"Thou shalt not question the size, nor the shape, nor the density of the
lead cube we call surrealism," they said when I first encountered them.
This baffled me. Surrealism is about unconventional thinking, is it not?
And yet here were supposed surrealists being as conventional and staid as
prohibitionist grandmothers at a saturday night square-dance.
Then I became aware of Andrea Chen's hypothesis that alien technology is
responsible for this limited vision among certain surrealists. Makes
sense.
In olden times, the symbol of satanic possession would have been more
appropriate. Except those posessed by the devil tend to be the exact
opposite of what we see in these certain surrealists -- a demon-haunted
man would dance, sing, scream, shake his fists at things he can only see.
These men are worse than satanic. They have had their souls surgically
removed, and now worship the dictionary. That is what grey mind-control
does to a man.
Yes, worship the dictionary. Despite the fact that surrealism is about
breaking down barriers, I was constantly told by these mind-controlled
surrealists that I could not simply make things up as I went along. They
claimed there was a process that had to be followed. There is no room for
personal feelings, personal experiences, and personal beliefs in
surrealism. Surrealism is a movement about politics and boredom, not the
personal.
They branded me a "personalist".
Baffling. I pointed out to them that surrealism is about expressing the
personal irrationality we all suffer from, in an attempt to show the world
at large that rationality is a mask. This "rationality mask" includes the
god damned dictionary and any set of encyclopedias you'd care to mention.
We pretend all is ordered and sane, but it is obvious that is not. Words
carry no weight -- they splinter if you so much as breathe heavy upon
them. Definitions don't work.
"No," said the mind-controlled. "It is not so."
"Why is it not so?" I asked.
"You are so incredibly foolish," they said, "that there is no point in
talking to you. You obviously haven't studied surrealism. Examine the
works of Breton. Read Marx. Study all communist doctrine."
But why? Why on earth would a movement that claims to want to free the
minds of others link itself up with a failed movement like communism?
Shouldn't it be acknowledged that communism didn't work, that in fact it
is one of the most mundane and confining of ideologies? In practice, it
limits human experience more than any other political system.
Can't surrealism CHANGE to adapt to new data?
"No," the mind-controlled said. "Surrealism is DEFINED. Definitions
don't change. If you want a movement to represent what you want, you're
going to have to get a new word. The word 'surrealism' belongs to us, the
soulless. We won't let you have it."
The greys, in many ways, are the ultimate communists. They are all
identical, and they act upon us with great secrecy. What purpose their
behavior has, we can only speculate. They act as though they've been
granted authority over us. Like nazis from space, they automatically deem
us as an inferior race. They pretend to act for our best interests, when
in fact they are using us to reach their own goals.
These certain surrealists are obviously under grey control. They mock and
belittle anyone who doesn't follow the surrealist party line, never
noticing that the very existence of a "surrealism party line" belittles
the entire movement. Instead of encouraging insanity and diversity, they
crush it, and replace it with empty philosophy and dogma.
If you ever visit alt.surrealism, you will see, over and over, discussions
attempting to define the term "surrealism". It's the subject that won't
die. People don't actually want it defined -- it's the mind-controlled
who want a definition carved in stone.
The lead cube must be acknowledged, they say over and over again. It is
of a specific size, a specific weight, and has a specific purpose.
The cube is meant to hold down our minds, keep them in place. Surrealism,
according to these lost surrealists, is no longer about mental freedom,
but about toe-ing some intellectual line, being small and mean and petty,
being controlled by aliens from outer space.
I spend my days trying to blow the cube up. The cube represents
everything I hate.
They spend their days keeping the cube together, worshipping it. They
adore straight lines and angles.
It's not really their fault, of course. The greys own these surrealists
souls. If the movement is kept in check, the human spirit is kept in
check. Surrealism becomes another faux rebellion, one that lets off a
little steam, but keeps the human population in line.
We all don leather jackets, and ride our terrifyingly large motorcycles
back and forth between point A and point B, until the ditch dug by our
spinning wheels hides us from view.
Nik
--
You laugh too hard and so milk comes out of your nose.
Wait a minute. That isn't milk! And that isn't a nose!
Augh! What *did* I put on my cereal this morning?
Brandon J. Freels
You're just pissed off because we told you Taoism and Surrealism aren't the
same thing.
SHIT.
Run away like you did before.
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
> Not all that long ago, I stepped into alt.surrealism, hoping to play. Of
> all the artistic movements, surrealism, one would think, would be most
> open to playfulness.
It is, but even children know when someone is inept at a game. Your
various attempts at playing were ham-handed and stank of the ordinary.
Your inablity to see your shortcomings in this area will (of course)
make it unlikely you might eventually do it well enough to amuse anyoine
other than the dullest of children; luckily for you (since momma Andrea
breeds her little dungbeetles at an alarming rate) you might never be
alone in your chosen ball of waste. So cheer up. Mama loves!
> In my mind, society doesn't play enough. I don't mean games of chance,
> chess, or entertaining ourselves to death -- I mean play. Spontaneous
> bursts of excited, uncontrollable enthusiasm expressed in delirious acts
> of wonder.
This is true, but still you are not the one to carry the message very
far. Nothing about you is spontaneous; you even needed Mater A.C. to pop
your ass back into the low gear it will go into.
> A few of the surrealists -- we know who I am talking about -- are against
> play and, surprisingly, against experimentation. They talk about
> surrealism as though it were a solid, well-measured cube of lead.
How little you know. A lie...
> "Thou shalt not question the size, nor the shape, nor the density of the
> lead cube we call surrealism," they said when I first encountered them.
>
> This baffled me.
I bet it did, especially asnobody actually said this besides you. A
lie...
> Surrealism is about unconventional thinking, is it not?
In part yes, but the problem here is (based on your "presentations")
that your thinking IS painfully conventional.
i> And yet here were supposed surrealists being as conventional and
staid as
> prohibitionist grandmothers at a saturday night square-dance.
>
Again, please show us all where this was requested of you. A lie...
> Then I became aware of Andrea Chen's hypothesis that alien technology is
> responsible for this limited vision among certain surrealists. Makes
> sense.
To an absolute moron maybe. That explains it in your case, no? The truly
amusing thing here is that Andrea doesn't believe this absurdity, but
she knew you would be stupid enough to front it again as a real "idea."
Momma picks her saps so well...
> In olden times, the symbol of satanic possession would have been more
> appropriate. Except those posessed by the devil tend to be the exact
> opposite of what we see in these certain surrealists -- a demon-haunted
> man would dance, sing, scream, shake his fists at things he can only see.
> These men are worse than satanic. They have had their souls surgically
> removed, and now worship the dictionary. That is what grey mind-control
> does to a man.
Again a baseless set of disconnected lies... "Satan" "demons" "souls"
"greys": what a truly embarrassing parade of ill-considered "thoughts"!
You're not interesting enough to be funny... Damn, this paragraph is
insipid.
> Yes, worship the dictionary. Despite the fact that surrealism is about
> breaking down barriers, I was constantly told by these mind-controlled
> surrealists that I could not simply make things up as I went along.
This isn't true either; you were informed that surrealism was not
compatible with Buddhism. One can "make up" anything, but only a madman
will come to believe (as you did) that simply stating that "a shoe is a
rocket" will make shoes into rockets without some further poetic labor.
Your conventional thinking, revealed in your hamhanded "slogans" (for
instance) is not up to the task of poetic revolution, and your
"re-thinking" of surrealism was rejected not becuase it was too radical
but because it was too conventional. You are the "Brown Shoe" of Mental
Liberation. As such we might keep you around for Hopfrog duties (and
surely Andrea has that planned for you), but never as a companion.
You're too much like Dad...
> claimed there was a process that had to be followed.
A lie...
>There is no room for personal feelings, personal experiences, and personal beliefs in
> surrealism.
A lie...
> Surrealism is a movement about politics and boredom, not the
> personal.
A lie...
> in an attempt to show the world at large that rationality is a mask.
Are you to be one of Andrea's new managers? Got a memo pad? A Palm Pilot
perhaps?
> This "rationality mask" includes the god damned dictionary and any set of encyclopedias you'd care to mention.
> We pretend all is ordered and sane, but it is obvious that is not. Words
> carry no weight -- they splinter if you so much as breathe heavy upon
> them. Definitions don't work.
Actually they do have a small burden they carry well. And even one of
your fellow "managers" (gvw) goes to a lot of trouble to tell people
about "squinting adverbs." Why don't you talk to him about this heresy,
before it gets out of hand? Nobody I know was out to hold up the
dictionary as a Bible. Why however, since you do such lip service to
this radical reorganization of words and our relation to them, do you
continue to use words in such a conventional manner? Or do you realize
that (sometimes) sharing a common defintion might clarify communication?
> "You are so incredibly foolish," they said, "that there is no point in
> talking to you. You obviously haven't studied surrealism. Examine the
> works of Breton. Read Marx. Study all communist doctrine."
You've lost the original postings, haven't you? This is a very
conventionally written piece of bad stagecraft. Your radical notions
about language serve you very badly.
>
> But why? Why on earth would a movement that claims to want to free the
> minds of others link itself up with a failed movement like communism?
I haven't; Breton and others did and then quickly regretted it. Why
would someone like you (who claims to free all words from their
connotations) link up with a movement that insults others for using "a
squinting adverb" (that must be facistic from your "radical" view?).
> Shouldn't it be acknowledged that communism didn't work, that in fact it
> is one of the most mundane and confining of ideologies?
This is a wonderfully dull speech that attempts to compact 80 years of
philosophy and social actions into a conventional piece of thought.
Actually, since "democratic socialism" is an outgrowth of communism, and
continues to be a viable force in modern politics, the crash of Russia
(brought about by a wide spectrum of events partly forseen by Marx, who
felt that communism would best flourish in an industrial country like
Germany, rather than a huge agricultural sloth like Russia) is not the
criticism of communism that you (and a myraid of other equally
conventional thinkers) would seem to want us to believe. However, I am
no communist. I acknowledge that soviet communism (obviously) has
"failed"; but the history of "collective" versus "competitive" systems
is much older and wider a concept than this piece of middle-class
diatribe. But I am sure it delights the other barflies that buzz about
your head.
> Can't surrealism CHANGE to adapt to new data?
>
Breton thought so; that's why he kept rewriting the mainfestos. That's
why he rejected the communists when they exhibited insular controlling
aspects. Like the ones you and Andrea love like ugly children.
> "No," the mind-controlled said. "Surrealism is DEFINED. Definitions
> don't change. If you want a movement to represent what you want, you're
> going to have to get a new word. The word 'surrealism' belongs to us, the
> soulless. We won't let you have it."
Never said by any human. Again, very bad dialogue-writing, and bad in a
very conventional way. A lie...
> These certain surrealists are obviously under grey control. They mock and
> belittle anyone who doesn't follow the surrealist party line, never
> noticing that the very existence of a "surrealism party line" belittles
> the entire movement. Instead of encouraging insanity and diversity, they
> crush it, and replace it with empty philosophy and dogma.
A drunken science fiction fanatic yelling into the face of an
intelligent woman he will never manage to interest in anything but the
open bar? Bizarre and yet still conventional. A lie...
>
> If you ever visit alt.surrealism, you will see, over and over, discussions
> attempting to define the term "surrealism". It's the subject that won't
> die. People don't actually want it defined -- it's the mind-controlled
> who want a definition carved in stone.
This is intriguing, since it is your little subcutaneous insectae who
are constantly asking for a redefinition of surrealism, who wish (now!)
to contain its mass within some new FAQ wirtten by a loathsome bottom
feeder who likes to tell people they have "little penises" and (again!)
that they are misplacing adverbs! I have never called for a definition
of surrealism, since I view surrealism as rather naturally evolving from
precepts as easy to understand as it is "baffling" to read your
badly-constructed (and Momma sanctioned) piece of mind-offal. Its
integrity is at question. Its dullness is without question.
> The lead cube must be acknowledged, they say over and over again. It is
> of a specific size, a specific weight, and has a specific purpose.
>
A lie... A redundant lie... A dull, redundant lie...
> I spend my days trying to blow the cube up. The cube represents
> everything I hate.
You spend your night trying to blow up what? You seem to hate your mind
and intellect equally as you hate this imaginary cube of yours. Your
"document" is an appalling piece of drivel. I see your vacation has not
refreshed your capabilities...
>
Nik
>
> --
> You laugh too hard and so milk comes out of your nose.
> Wait a minute. That isn't milk! And that isn't a nose!
> Augh! What *did* I put on my cereal this morning?
You must have secretly assumed that your text was beyond comedic, (being
the brunt but never the source of the humor), so you placed this at the
end so as to act the "prophet" when several of us did actually laugh at
your dreadfully inadequate pronouncements?
Damn! You are dumber than ever...
DMH
Mark Shippey
: Nikolaus Maack:
: You're just pissed off because we told you Taoism and Surrealism aren't
: the same thing.
From reading some of your posts, I would think that what you
call "Surrealism" is not Taoism. It is a different religion. You
mention "absolute reality" and "freedom" in contexts that are
religous, in relation to the "Surrealist Project". And you called
"capitalist society" some kind of "artifcial" state.
So, please outline the non-artificial state and how it would
function in the real world. I am interested. We do not live in a
vacuum. If surrealism as you define it is not a religion, then
you must have some ideas about how society and a state would
function according to your project. And could you be specific
instead of just chanting, "absolute reality"? You live in this
society, partake of it, so what would you replace it with since
you claim it is "artificial"?
I can't help but wonder if Andrea is not onto something here,
and what you are promoting is gery mind control designed to
obfuscate the real role of surrealism.
Bud
must use such harsh tactics as to use the word "lie". It reduces the
rebuttal to less than the author is most obviously capable of.
I guess what I am saying Dale, is that you are obviously gifted. You don't
need to use this type of approach.
Dale Houstman
I use "lie" as a precise term in this case. It is perfectly true in
each case, and N.M. knows it. I am not in the least concerned with being
"gifted" or being seen as "less than" some arbitrary evaluation. "Lie"
is not harsh in this instance, it is kind: more to the point would have
been "This is filthy spew from your usual anal cavity perched beneath
your nose."
So, give me credit: I let the little bug off easy.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
"Bud" (now...@notU.com) writes:
> Some interesting word play here. But I, for one, fail to understand why one
> must use such harsh tactics as to use the word "lie". It reduces the
> rebuttal to less than the author is most obviously capable of.
Bud, you are quite correct when you say that Dale is capable of so much
better. He does possess intelligence. I will not deny this.
Perhaps, offline, Dale is an entirely different human being. He paints,
he writes, he does whatever he has to do. Online, he becomes Dale-X, a
stagnant intellectual combatant. His goal is not to discuss but to
triumph. This forces him to do everything he can to become the alpha
male. This is painfully obvious.
"Lies! Lies!" he bellows. Yet everything I have said is accurate, as I
perceived it online. The problem lies in the fact that I only have what
Dale tells me, using his online persona.
Dale -- and the other false surrealists -- reveal nothing personal in
their posts in alt.surrealism. This is a deliberate tactic on their part
to win arguments. If they tell us anything, we might use it against them,
and thus challenge their position as alpha males.
(They seem unaware that I personally do not want to be the alpha male.)
I know absolutely nothing about the false surrealists, and I have spoken
to them for months and moths.
Where do they live? How old are they? What do they do? What do they
want? How do they feel? No one knows. Perhaps even they don't know.
Perhaps their grey masters don't let them know who they are.
Mark Shippey
: Where do they live? How old are they? What do they do? What do they
: want? How do they feel? No one knows. Perhaps even they don't know.
I don't care about how old they are, what they do or where they
live, but I can tell you this. I have been asking straightforward
questions about what they want, and they won't answer with anything
specific. Just vague concepts. They keep posting about what they
call the "artificial state" but they only give unclear answers
about how the non-artificial state would operate. Capitalist is
bad, one said he wanted "no state", but not one will tell me just
exactly how this will work.
They seem like very intelligent people, but darn if they won't
tell me what it is they really want.
: Perhaps their grey masters don't let them know who they are.
Or what they really want.
Bud
Bud
I know *zero* about what you and Dale are arguing about. But regardless...I
have to say, I enjoy the "conversation". You probably wouldn't think
so...But I would think that it would be a pretty good entertainment to see
you two in a debate. (and I dont mean that in a bad way..) hehhehehe I just
wish I could argue as well dang it!
Ohhh well.
Brandon J. Freels
really want, and apparently I am not giving you what you really want.
If you are truly curious about how freedom can be translating into everyday
life, why not try the anarchist newsgroup?
Robert Meek
the realist side of the fence I was perched upon...a position of
self-validation and thus comfort which I had acquired in a "fixed" game of
chess against a lonely nymph...thus losing what little balance had been left
me by all those years of drug indulgence and falling face-first into the
cold dirt of surrealistic rule over everything that truly exists, I can only
surmise from the "conversations" I've witnessed so far within the confines
of this topical group, that the definition of surrealism has evidently
escaped most of you! ( The satirical analogy in which I've covered this
plea for escapism will most likely go miss-understood by most, however
should you manage to Grok an entry unto a truly surrealistic and tangent
reality, by all means PLEASE send a Hallmark announcing your new address and
if I should bring potatoe salad! )
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:7lp8ig$t...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
>
> "Bud" (now...@notU.com) writes:
> > Some interesting word play here. But I, for one, fail to understand why
one
> > must use such harsh tactics as to use the word "lie". It reduces the
> > rebuttal to less than the author is most obviously capable of.
>
> Bud, you are quite correct when you say that Dale is capable of so much
> better. He does possess intelligence. I will not deny this.
>
> Perhaps, offline, Dale is an entirely different human being. He paints,
> he writes, he does whatever he has to do. Online, he becomes Dale-X, a
> stagnant intellectual combatant. His goal is not to discuss but to
> triumph. This forces him to do everything he can to become the alpha
> male. This is painfully obvious.
>
> "Lies! Lies!" he bellows. Yet everything I have said is accurate, as I
> perceived it online. The problem lies in the fact that I only have what
> Dale tells me, using his online persona.
>
> Dale -- and the other false surrealists -- reveal nothing personal in
> their posts in alt.surrealism. This is a deliberate tactic on their part
> to win arguments. If they tell us anything, we might use it against them,
> and thus challenge their position as alpha males.
>
> (They seem unaware that I personally do not want to be the alpha male.)
>
> I know absolutely nothing about the false surrealists, and I have spoken
> to them for months and moths.
>
> Where do they live? How old are they? What do they do? What do they
> want? How do they feel? No one knows. Perhaps even they don't know.
> Perhaps their grey masters don't let them know who they are.
>
Sans Realist
Well, you know, Bud; your aunt Andrea and I think Larry's newsdad,
CronusBlud, over at a neighbor's santacisms group, probably said
it best with the following immortal, theology tone-poem:
¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·>
From: CronusBlud <cronu...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Naked Telephone Pole Climbing Contest
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 23:31:50 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <7loqt7$5pp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.204.234.168
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jul 04 23:31:50 1999 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.204.234.168
One time I thought it would be a good idea to take the lifesized
painted picture of Jesus that my grandmother gave me and cut out the
face of Jesus so I could poke my head through and walk around town and
make people think that the messiah had come. It didn't work though. I
forgot to take the picture out of the frame and wound up cutting my
face off with the glass. When I did that I stomped the painting and
screamed "Fuck you Jesus, Fuck you!" It didn't make me feel better
though because I had forgotten my face was still on the ground under
all the rubble and I really deformed it. I kept it anyway. I have it
on display for anyone who would like to see it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·>
Sure, sure, sure...
But, can you do THIS? --> http://www.FUQQER.com/fotm/glora073a.jpg
Michael Voytinsky
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> "You are so incredibly foolish," they said, "that there is no point in
> talking to you. You obviously haven't studied surrealism. Examine
> the works of Breton. Read Marx. Study all communist doctrine."
> But why? Why on earth would a movement that claims to want to free
> the minds of others link itself up with a failed movement like
> communism?
> Shouldn't it be acknowledged that communism didn't work, that in fact
>it is one of the most mundane and confining of ideologies? In
>practice, it limits human experience more than any other political
>system.
Yet how do you account for the link between surrealism and communism?
Socialist realism is an artform that is not all that far removed from
surrealism. I suppose one could say that socialist realism is what
Salvador Dali would have produced had he been lobotomized, but that
would be vastly inaccurate. A lobotomized artist's works would evoke
no emotion, produce to sensation, they would be dead and lifeless.
Works of socialist realism do evoke emotions and sensations,
specifically disgust and nausea. A soulless automaton could not have
produced those feelings so intensely.
Then there is Stalinist architecture. Where North American suburban
architecture is soulless, Stalinist architecture is evil. The
suburban architecture is a spiritual Limbo, Stalinist architecture is
hell.
So what I am saying here is that that communists are merely surrealists
using their imagination for evil.
> noticing that the very existence of a "surrealism party line"
>belittles the entire movement.
And you do not find this surreal?
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Mark Shippey
: really want, and apparently I am not giving you what you really want.
You seem unable to answer the basic questions which would define
the terms you use. Again, you use the terms "artifical state", what
would be a non-artifical state and how would this function?
: If you are truly curious about how freedom can be translating into everyday
: life, why not try the anarchist newsgroup?
So, are you now saying that surrealism as you see it is anarchy?
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> His goal is not to discuss but to triumph.
You align yourself with those who shout "welcome the new kings of
alt.surrealism" and "welcome to the new management". This says all that
has to be said about who is trying to "triumph." I have repeatedly said
that "winning" or "losing" this bastardized forum means absolutely
nothing to me, or to any surrealist who cares about the larger issues.
Your reading comprehension is crabbed by your need to triumph.
Projection (I think unconsciously on your part, and purposefully on the
others: maybe your realtive innocence is to be applauded?)
>This is painfully obvious.
I imagine all sorts of things that involve thinking are painful to you.
> "Lies! Lies!" he bellows.
Actually I merely (quietly) wrote "This is a lie..." Your hysteria is
illuminating, and your inability to accurately quote a letter only a day
old reflects badly upon all those bits of bad stagecraft you stuck to
the board with your spittle. But do not worry: Momma will come and wipe
your chin...
> Yet everything I have said is accurate, as I perceived it
Says a lot. But perception causes you pain, doesn't it? And pain can
distort memory so wickedly...
> The problem lies in the fact that I only have what Dale tells me, using his online persona.
I have no online persona that differs from that I possers offline,
unlike your comrades in fakery. They admit to manipulation; hell! momma
even got you to stick your substandard snout back into the grinder. Talk
about a clique. Brandon and Barrett have never told me what to do (and
they better not!). Somehow the surrealists seem able to ambulate without
a Motherbox.
>Dale -- and the other false surrealists -- reveal nothing personal in their posts in alt.surrealism.
Untrue, but poignantly so.
>This is a deliberate tactic on their part to win arguments.
>Untrue, but desperately so.
> If they tell us anything, we might use it against them
Let's say this Nick: it so happens I did tell the group avbout both my
working life and my educational life; this is obviously (though not
painfully) true, since Andrea and the others instantly (as you so weakly
say) "used it against" me. This was no truly large problem, especially
as Andrea's replies were so ineptly constructed and full of half-truths
as to render them mere slander rather than revelatory. But the truth
remains, Nick: I have revealed personal details. You are simply (and I
emphasize "simply") incorrect. You are either willfully lying, or you
are being directed to forget by the Motherbox. She does seem to act like
a mind-corrosive on the experimental animals she sets loose in the
compound. But that may be kindness on her part: it is perhaps best you
forget your dismal past. If only you could forget your even more dismal
future.
> (They seem unaware that I personally do not want to be the alpha male.)
Strangely enough, we care nothing about the state of your canine
psychology.
>
> I know absolutely nothing about the false surrealists
Then how do you know we are false surrealists?
> and I have spoken to them for months and moths.
You have never "spoken" to any of us, only "at" us, and now
(admittedly!) upon the instructions of your loving mother. Kind of
creepy...
>
> Where do they live?
I told you; Minneapolis.
> How old are they?
Since your Motherbox (only a few posts back) said we had left high
school 30 years ago, this might have been a clue to you that I had
indeed revealed my age. For one thing I have consistently spoken of my
involvement in the 60s; if you cannot make a fairly accurate estimation
of my age from THAT, I can only consider that Momma's corrosiveness has
gone further than even she wanted it to AT THIS STAGE.
> What do they do?
Talked about already.
> What do they want?
This is something we discuss endlessly (much to Andrea's disgust).
> How do they feel?
I feel like you are a drowning weasel. But do not worry: momma will pull
you out and dry you off.
> Perhaps their grey masters don't let them know who they are.
You know, I read science fiction, and have read it since I was a child,
but I never confuse its symbols and motifs ("aliens," "spaceships,"
"teleportation," etc.) with its intent. Most S.F. writers (since Hugo
Gernsback left the publishing field) have not been disingenuous in
relation to their material; many were scientists and mathematicians
themselves, and knew that their creations were only potentialities or
useful as "proxys" for human psychologies. Your repetition of Andrea's
silly "grey theory" only paints you into the Moron Corner. But (it
seems) you are quite cozy there. Don't worry: Momma loves...
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
Mark Shippey (kpri...@dfw.nationwide.net) writes:
> I don't care about how old they are, what they do or where they
> live, but I can tell you this. I have been asking straightforward
> questions about what they want, and they won't answer with anything
> specific. Just vague concepts.
As I see it, the problem is that they want to keep their philosophy and
political beliefs pure by not talking about them in a practical and
personal way. By doing so, they can pretend that their way is simply the
right way, a position reached by logic and careful thought.
An example of this from my life:
I ran into someone who was making vaguely right-wing ranting noises about
welfare. Tear the whole system down, welfare people are bums, etcetera.
I asked him WHY he felt the way he did. His response was to continue to
speak in purely philosophical terms, as though he'd reached his position
through logic alone. As he spoke this way, he grew angrier and angrier
and shook his fist at me. It infuriated him that I simply couldn't "get
it".
I pushed some more, trying to get him to talk about personal experience.
After all, shouldn't our beliefs have some connection to what we
experience in our lives?
Finally, after some struggle, he told me a story about how he was once on
welfare.
He'd just quit the military and was an utter basket case. He said the
military is all about breaking your will and then building you up again.
He'd quit just after they finished breaking most of him. So he was
unemployable, near crazy, and ended up on welfare.
Six months later, he got his head back together again. Time to get off
welfare.
When he tried to save some money to buy a set of nice clothes for job
interviews -- saving money on welfare was painfully difficult to do, what
with the tiny amount of money he was getting -- the powers that be
instantly noticed the extra money in his bank account and cut his welfare
payments in half.
"The money we give you is the bare minimum for you to live," they said.
"If you have EXTRA money, you don't need our money."
The system was specifically designed not to hand out too much money, but
this has the side effect of keeping people on welfare for their entire
lives.
My friend was hit with a wave of intense despair. He was trapped. He
told me that he came pretty close to simply giving up and staying on
welfare forever. Instead, he got a manual labor job, worked at that until
he had money to buy clothes, then got a job in an office.
He said it scared the hell out of him that he could have been stuck there,
forever, a slave to the system. He also told me stories about his
experiences with other people on welfare, living in low-income housing,
and that sort of thing.
In my mind, his stories about his personal experiences allowed me to
understand his beliefs far better than if he merely tried to convince me
his stance was "the correct one" using "logic" and "debate".
I have tried, many times, to get the false surrealists to tell me their
personal stories. It would go a long way in helping me understand their
positions on all sorts of surrealist issues. Unfortunately, they seem
unwilling to tell me what CITY they live in, let alone personal stories
about their politics and art.
Also, there are some people in this world who have beliefs that have NO
link to their personal lives.
I was having a conversation with a former friend of mine about racism.
His stance was that the immigration system in Canada is completely screwy,
as it lets in violent, uncontrollable, and unproductive members of
society. He didn't see this position as racist, despite the fact that his
main complaint was with visible minorities. WHITE immigrants were simply
less evil, in his mind.
Once again, when I pushed, asking for more information, he stayed on the
logical, formal level of intellectual debate. He felt he could convince
me through rational thought alone.
An aside: I have actually seen, in debates, people say things like:
"You're obviously not thinking about these issues. If you stop and really
think about what I'm saying, you'll see that I am right."
People constantly assume that they reached their own positions through
serious thinking, as opposed to personal experience AND thinking. They
also assume that their "opponents" in the debate are simply NOT thinking
at all. Otherwise they'd "get it".
In any case, I tried to explain to this guy my view that all belief should
have a link to personal experience, and that arguments can be quickly
resolved if people talk about how their lives relate to their ideas. So
why did he feel the way he did about immigration? What personal
experiences did he have that could illustrate his point?
After some back-and-forth, this person realized that his beliefs really
didn't have much of a link with his personal experiences at all. He had
many immigrant friends who were productive members of society. The ideas
he believed in seemed to float freely in his head, untethered to anything
in his life.
So where did these beliefs come from? He didn't know. He then got really
quiet and wandered away from the newsgroup to figure his shit out.
> They seem like very intelligent people, but darn if they won't
> tell me what it is they really want.
Maybe they can't tell you what they want. Maybe they've spent too much
time considering "the life of the mind" to the point where they're lost
inside their own heads. Maybe, for them, there is no practical, personal
level any more.
Their behavior can be described as cult-like. Cults don't so much program
people as give them a language that only other cult members understand.
By physically isolating them from "outsiders", and giving them a language
that only "insiders" understand, cults trap their members quite neatly.
The beliefs of cult-members quite often have no actual relationship with
reality. The beliefs allow them to socialize in the goup, nothing more.
If you ask them why they believe what they believe, they tend to stay on a
very logical or intuitive level.
"That's just the way it is."
"It's simply the truth. If you think about it, you'll see that I'm right.
"If you let Jesus into your heart, you can experience it too."
But how do these beliefs relate to their personal experiences? Quite
often they don't. And if the person ever realizes that, they tend to
leave the cult.
I'm very much opposed to organized religion -- as opposed to PERSONAL
religion -- as they tend to value group ideology over person experience.
They hold that your beliefs and experiences MUST coincide with the groups
experiences.
In my mind, the boy scouts, the nazi party, and the surrealist movement --
as described by the false surrealists -- can be called organized
religions.
Mark Shippey
: If you are truly curious about how freedom can be translating into everyday
: life, why not try the anarchist newsgroup?
Because I was asking you. You posted phrases like, "artifical state",
"no state", as part of what you call the Surrealist Project. But you
faile to give even one simple explanation how you would accomplish
this and how you would like this non-state to function. You said you
want to keep things like emergency medical services in your non-state
but never explained how this would function without some type of
control by a state.
You said you want "no money" and that everything should be
dstributed according to need and want, but you did not say what
infrastructure you would use to do this.
You attacked capitalism but never outlined your replacement
strategy for an ecomony.
You were critical of authority, but never explained how your
non-state would deal with violations and intrusions on the rights
and or property of others.
I know what many anarchists think about these things, I have
read some of their literature. I am asking you, as a "surrealist".
If you make claims of "artificial state" etc., then explain
as a surrealist what you would replace it with in some detail.
Otherwise, you are another religion. Beliefs, no plan for
reality.
Andrea Chen
> : If you are truly curious about how freedom can be translating into everyday
> : life, why not try the anarchist newsgroup?
>
> So, are you now saying that surrealism as you see it is anarchy?
>
>
>
Mark:
He did say last week that he was an anarchist and implied that
surrealism is anarchistic.
Late last year he was arguing that it was communistic. Contrary to
what he's written elsewhere in this thread his debate with Nik wasn't
purely over Taoist ideas (eg. the bamboo bends with the wind, the tree
is broken) as a legitimate approach, but with *everything* Nik wrote.
One of Nik's claims (as mentioned in several paragraphs in the article
which set off this thread) was that "communism isn't compatible with
surrealism."
This idea was ridiculed by Brandon and offered as further proof that
Nik wasn't worthy of the "surrealist project" (though we have now made
him a charter member of the neu surrealist project.)
So (according to Brandon) surrealism was communistic in 1998 and
anarchist in 1999.
Unless he wants to admit that he was wrong, but that would entail
admitting that Nik was right.
Therefore we can predict that this post will be ignored or some attempt
will be made to wiggle out. Hopefully the Texas AG militia will grill
Brandon on this point. We can't keep lettiung these aliens squirm out
of our grasp.
And yes I'm now convinced that Brandon is an alien and not simply an
abductee. His complete ignorance of communism, the hash he made of
trying to explain the dialectic, the incredible ignorance he shows on
this and almost every subject makes me think "he" must be trying to
learn our culture.
I'm also convinced that "Barrett" is a "pompous tautology generator"
who seeks to lock our memes into loops.
Did you bother to follow his "logic" when he was trying to educate
you? Reread it and you will see this is what it says.
What is a surrealists? A surrealist is someone who does the surrealist
project.
What is the surrealist project? The project is what surrealists do.
How do you tell a surrealist? They're in the project.
How do you know they're in the project? Because other surrealists in
the project recognize them as such.
Who is in the project and thus able to recognize surrealists?
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! It's Barrett.
It's thus established that Chen isn't a surrealist.
I claim that this "logic" while common is alien to "true" humanity and
whether natural (intrinsic in the functions of the brain) or artificial
(created by society) imposes restrictions on our possibilities which we
neu surrealists deem intolerable.
Brandon J. Freels
historically Surrealists were Communists, but as I investigated this claim,
which is all too true, I came to believe that this was contradictory of
them. I have now taken the position that Nik was correct to assume that
Surrealism, when in the realm of politics is Anarchistic. This does not mean
I am an Anarchist, since at this point in my life I have decided to stay
away from political movements, but at this point as a Surrealist if I was to
dabble with politics it would only be along the side of the Anarchist.
Now, Mark Shippey, since I fear your original kindness and interest in the
Surrealist movement delving into the realm of a Chen-like flame, this will
be my last post to you.
1. All state are artificial.
2. The artificial interferes with the natural state of things.
3. Abolish the artificial.
4. Preserve the natural state of things (i.e. absolute reality, surreality)
I never said *I* wanted to keep things like the emergency medical services,
YOU said that we must keep things like that.
How would this non-state function? Non-states have functioned before.
There would be no strategy for an economy. The inferstructer is called
empathy (its natural).
Violations only happen when authorities are involved. Murders and thieves
became what they are due to past situation where they have been abused by an
authority, no matter how insignificant this "authority" may have been (i.e.
parent, teacher, police).
There is no difference in politics between my Surrealist view, and what I
see as classic anarchism.
Surrealism is a religion? I am a materialist. I don't believe in an
authority (such as a god). I don't sing Surrealist hymns. SHIT. You could
have done better by calling Surrealism a philosophy. Is existentialism a
religion to you too? Not to mention your own *movement* or should I say
crusade, against *unseen* visitors. How is what you doing any different than
a religion?
Nikolaus Maack
Of course there are rumours -- started by yourself? -- that you don't even
exist. And all rumours are true. Especially the ones which are false.
You're no surrealist. I prefer to think of you as a committee in an
underground bunker in Carp, Ontario. Or a psychology thesis in the works.
Or perhaps an archetype that has slipped out of the collective unconscious
and now runs rampant on the internet. You are shadow and fog and mirrors
and laser light.
But isn't everybody?
I'm almost certain I'm a woman pretending to be a man, or a homosexual
pretending to be straight, or a primate pretending to be a homo sapiens.
A friend of mine, who doesn't understand the female experience -- he's a
computer programmer -- was bitching about "chicks" hating "men".
"They all say they get unwanted attention, that all guys are the same.
That's crap. A few guys act like jerks, and these broads assume ALL men
are the same."
"So why dontcha take on a fake female name and troll the newsgroups for
would-be Lotharios?"
Not surprisingly, he chose an Asian name for the added mystique. For
reasons I don't understand but which should be explored, North American
men seem to find Asian women especially exotic.
Heck, Asian men find blonde North Americans really hot, so I guess it's a
cultural sexism exchange program or something.
My friend's little experiment isn't going very well, because he makes for
a very unattractive woman. See, he's an anti-communist, anti-scientology
intellectual. He's trolling for sexism in politics newsgroups for fucks
sakes.
"Do you think that capitalism functions properly given a government which
attempts to govern all financial transactions into a politically correct
stance?"
Yeah, that'll make all the boys come out of the woodwork, waving their
erections before them. *sigh*
I'm sorry, I'm rambling.
Leo Sgouros
than to put a cork in the militia repeaternews:7lrdu4$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
Andrea Chen
spare) I'm nit sure that surrealism (as opposed to individual
surrealists) should align itself with any ideology.
However I do think surrealism should call into question the
assumptions which govern society.
In the mid eighties I used to go to a doughnut shop in Santa
Clara Ca. called Ricardi's.
The first time you came you were a "tourist," they got
you your doughnuts, took your money and gave you change. But this was a
nuisance because they had to stop what they were doing, so after that
you were expected to go behind the counter, get your doughnuts, open up
the cash register, pay and take your change. They were robbed (as far
as they know) once in years of business.
There was also a jar in front of the register which said, "if
you meed money, take some, if you have some to spare, then leave some."
These people weren't radicals. The owener was a heavy, chain
smoking woman with for the most part conventional values.
But in a fundamental way, they challenged assumptions about who
can be trusted. Over the years thousands of people came in and
were at least mildly flipped out, also feeling a little bit better about
themselves (instant community of sorts.) It was also good business, not
only in terms of public relations, but in the thousands of hours saved
over the years.
Every year this society spends hundreds of millions as a
response to theft and potential theft. Our attitudes towards each other
are also shaped by the resulting paranoia.
Such experiments don't end the problem or disruption, but thety
do say "that at least in some cases, we can reverse the prevailing
assumptions and it not only works, but it works better."
Though the people at Ricardi's would not consider themselves
either anarchist or surrealist, I would say that in a pragmatic way they
did more than many who grandly attach revolutionary titles to
themselves.
Which is one reason I lay claim to all such titles, to make them
ridiculous and remind people that it's the reality not the rhetoric
which counts.
elag
To ensure safety for Trains entering the platforms from the
southbound line, the home signal locking will not be released until the
front of the Train reaches the south end of the platform. All Trains
must, therefore, draw well up to the south end of the platform.
B2.- MORDEN DEPOT-WASHING PLANTS
(a) (i) A Train approaching the washing machine on No.
54 road in the northbound direction must be drawn up to the entrance to
the machine. Provided that it is switched on and working correctly, a
"READY TO WASH" sign, situated inside the entrance to the machine, will
be illuminated, and the Train Driver must then drive his Train through
the machine at a speed not exceeding 5 m.p.h. If the "READY TO WASH"
sign fails to light up, the Train Driver must stop the Train and operate
the "CANCEL" plunger, and then proceed through the machine at a speed
not exceeding 5 m.p.h.
(ii) A Train approaching the washing machine on No. 55 road
in the northbound direction must be drawn up to the entrance to the
machine. Provided that it is switched on and working correctly, a "READY
TO WASH" sign, situated at the entrance to the machine, will be
illuminated, and the Train Driver must then release the brakes and allow
the Train to coast through the machine without power. Signs positioned
at the end of the machine and adjacent to the track north of the machine
indicate the Train's speed through the machine, and the Train Driver
must apply the brakes as necessary to ensure that the maximum speed of 5
m.p.h. is not exceeded. If the speed indicator signs are not working,
the Train Driver must coast through the machine at a maximum speed of 5
m.p.h. and report the fault to the Station Manager on his arrival in
Morden platform, in accordance with clause (c).
B3.- MORDEN: DETRAINING AND ENTRAINING PASSENGERS
During weekday off-peak periods and on Sundays, the doors of
Trains entering Nos. 41 and 42 roads must be opened on both sides of the
Train before the Guard changes ends. The following instructions apply:
(a) Trains arriving in No. 41 road
During peak periods: the doors must be opened on No. 1 platform
side only. Guards must then change ends, open the doors on No. 2
platform side and close those facing No. 1 platform.
During off-peak periods: the doors must be opened immediately on
No. 1 platform side, then the doors on No. 2 platform side must be
opened to permit passengers to entrain. Guards must then change ends and
close the doors on No. 1 platform side.
(b) Trains arriving in No. 42 road
During peak periods: the doors must be opened on No. 4 platform
side only. After changing ends Guards must open the doors on No. 3
platform side and close those facing No. 4 platform.
During off-peak: the doors must be opened immediately on No. 4
platform side, then the doors on No. 3 platform side must be opened to
permit passengers to entrain. Guards must then change ends and close the
doors on No. 4 platform side.
(c) Trains arriving in No. 43 road
The doors must be opened on No. 5 platform side only.
Mahatma Rice Camazotz
>
> Well, I see y'all are still at it, arguing about this surrealism
> I want a red Jaguar. When will the Surrealist Project be going
> strong so I can pick it up?
> Okay, so, how about just ONE real suggestion about how y'all
> are going to make things happen in the real world?
Nineteen Principles of Surrealism [Historic Conclave Document]
1. Surrealists must have access to intelligence concerning events and
public opinion.
2. Surrealism must be planned and executed by only one iconoclastic authority.
a. It must issue all the Surrealism directives
b. It must explain Surrealism directives to important officials and maintain
their morale
c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have Surreal consequences
3. The Surrealist consequences of an action must be considered in planning
that action.
4. Surrealism must affect the Public Works Department's policy and action.
a. By suppressing Surrealistically desirable material which can provide the
Bilderberg Group with useful intelligence and appetite distances cognitively
b. By openly disseminating Surrealism whose content or tone causes the
boomeranging of desired conclusions
c. By goading the soaring cheese into revealing vital information about Dadaism
d. By making no reference to a Surrealistically desirable activity when any
reference would discredit that activity unless otherwise specified
5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a
Surrealism campaign
6. To be perceived, Surrealism must evoke the interest of an audience and must
be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.
7. Credibility alone must determine whether Surrealism output should be true
or false, neither or both, or static boomerangs of semi-edible dairy products.
8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of Surrealism; the strength and
effects of an expose; and the nature of current Surrealism campaigns determine
whether storm drain Surrealism should be ignored or refuted.
9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine
whether Surrealism materials should be censored.
10. Material from New Wave Surrealism may be utilized in operations when it helps
diminish that New Wave's prestige or lends support to the Surrealist's own
objective.
11. Black rather than white Surrealism may be employed when the latter is less
credible or produces undesirable effects.
12. Surrealism may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
13. Surrealism must be carefully timed with Walter's breakfast.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing Surrealism.
b. A Surrealism campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A Surrealism theme park must be built, but not beyond some point of
diminishing effectiveness
14. Surrealism must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in quasi-appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof
15. Surrealism to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which
can be blasted by future events.
16. Surrealism to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Surrealism must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Surrealism must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of
defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves
17. Surrealism to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective
18. Surrealism must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the
targets for hatred.
19. Surrealism cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it
must offer some form of action or diversion, or both, or all of the above.
Mark Shippey
Brandon J. Feels wrote:
: 1. All state are artificial.
Would you call the artifical police if I steal everything
you own? Should we call artificial 911 if we find you with a
broken back trapped in a car accident? Do you use any kind
of artificial public system, water, sewage, transport? And
how would you keep a society with millions of people
functioning without these things?
: 2. The artificial interferes with the natural state of things.
: 3. Abolish the artificial.
: 4. Preserve the natural state of things (i.e. absolute reality, surreality)
Just words. This still does not explain how the non-artifical
state would operate with millions of people. But then you say......
: How would this non-state function? Non-states have functioned before.
Where? When? And was it with a large complex population? We are
talking about reality here, millions of people. Water, power, medical,
ciminal justice etc. What example of a non-state do you have that
functioned with millions of people? Did they live in close quarters,
say like one of our larger metropolitan areas? How would we do this
given our current reality?
: There would be no strategy for an economy. The inferstructer is called
: empathy (its natural).
No strategy for economics with millions of people needing goods,
services, medical care, power. This is nonsense. How do you move
the water, food etc. with a "natural" infrastructure, whatever that
is? Explain what it is. Empathy does maintain public health without
a system of sewage. What would you do with your crap? How would
you treat it? What is the natural way to do this if our current
system is artificial?
: Violations only happen when authorities are involved. Murders and thieves
: became what they are due to past situation where they have been abused by an
: authority, no matter how insignificant this "authority" may have been (i.e.
: parent, teacher, police).
Really? So take away this "authority" and everyone will be nice to each
other? Parents, teachers, police are the source of all crime? This is
is truly a mental disneyland you live in that has very little relation
to reality and human history. Obviously authority can be abused and
misused, but if you really feel that without it everyone would just
be nice and kind to each other well, you either don't have much
experience in the real world, or you are blocking it out in favor
of illusions.
Tex Adams
enough, you surrealists STILL aint said one clear thing about
what you want to do. Hell, anyone can say things like all states
are artificial but it is something else again to deal with the
shit and garbage of 1,000,000 people in a city.
I'm still waiting for one, just one, uno, one surrealist to
tell Tex here how y'all are going to make things happen inside of
your Surrealist Project Not A State. Y'all have get your paws
dirty here, get down to work, and tell me how the hell y'all are
make this work. One hombre said he wants "no money". Well, now,
wouldn't that be sweet? Everyone just shares, and I walk into
the old Tom Thumb and they just GIVE some beans and tacos. Right.
Get real here pardners. Money sucks in many ways, just a
bunch of stupid numbers, but hey, how the hell else you going
to make things work without some form of trading medium? What
are you going to do, just give everybody anything they want? Cool.
I want a red Jaguar. When will the Surrealist Project be going
strong so I can pick it up?
Okay, so, how about just ONE real suggestion about how y'all
are going to make things happen in the real world?
CronusBlud
Mark Shippey
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> I never said *I* wanted to keep things like the emergency medical
> services, YOU said that we must keep things like that.
Could be, sorry if I was mistaken. Perhaps you don't think
we need things like EMS and other such services.
So, then, please tell us in detail how you would deal with
situations like multi-car accidents, natural disasters,
medical emergencies, fires, chemical spills etc.
I would assume if your family or friends were trapped
inside of a burning building you would want help? Yes? No?
Would you call on the EMS and fire services of the "artificial
state" as you call it? And if these services are not
accetable for the surrealists non-state, then would you
replace it with anything else. Is so, what?
Gene Hatch
<snip>
>
> Now, Mark Shippey, since I fear your original kindness and interest in the
> Surrealist movement delving into the realm of a Chen-like flame, this will
> be my last post to you.
>
> 3. Abolish the artificial.
> 4. Preserve the natural state of things (i.e. absolute reality, surreality)
>
> YOU said that we must keep things like that.
>
>
> empathy (its natural).
>
> became what they are due to past situation where they have been abused by an
> authority, no matter how insignificant this "authority" may have been (i.e.
> parent, teacher, police).
>
> see as classic anarchism.
>
> Surrealism is a religion? I am a materialist. I don't believe in an
> authority (such as a god). I don't sing Surrealist hymns. SHIT. You could
> have done better by calling Surrealism a philosophy. Is existentialism a
> religion to you too? Not to mention your own *movement* or should I say
> crusade, against *unseen* visitors. How is what you doing any different than
> a religion?
This discussion is all very interesting. I always thought surrealism was
just painting funny pictures, now I discover it's a movement.
I have a lot of questions, but they're mostly like Mark's questions.
Who is going to milk the cows and bale the hay when you surrealists
win the revolution? How are you going to pay us if there's no money?
All this talk about freedom and finding the Ultimate Reality
and such sounds nice, but the cows still have to be milked every
morning and every evening. Should I rail against the tyranny of cows?
The best answer was (if i got it right) that surrealism is'nt a
recipe for Utopia, it's a way of thinking that lets us find freedom
within ourselves. Or maybe it isn't freedom, it's Ultimate Reality.
Or something. But that's just words.
I think Andrea has it right. Let's Do Something, even if it's wrong.
Let's
change a variable or two or ten and see what happens. Let's expirement!
If surrealism isn't about breaking boundries what is it about?
Dale Houstman
Gene Hatch wrote:
>
> I have a lot of questions, but they're mostly like Mark's questions.
> Who is going to milk the cows and bale the hay when you surrealists
> win the revolution?
Cow-milking surrealists.
> How are you going to pay us if there's no money?
Money is a substitute for and a control device of resources. It is worth
nothing without an honorable promise, and there are not enough honorable
persons to back it all if all its value were called up into reification.
We "float" debt by temporarily imaginiung a world in which goods are
paid for "only" by promises of intent to pay in resources. It's very
ephemeral; this is why money is so often mentioned in poems. Money is
poetry. We will pay you in poetry? Or (banish the thought!) you will
work for the betterment of your neighbors and yourself, and come to see
they are interlinked.
> All this talk about freedom and finding the Ultimate Reality
> and such sounds nice, but the cows still have to be milked every
> morning and every evening. Should I rail against the tyranny of cows?
Certainly; try and imagine this in poetic terms. We will help.
> The best answer was (if i got it right) that surrealism is'nt a
> recipe for Utopia, it's a way of thinking that lets us find freedom
> within ourselves. Or maybe it isn't freedom, it's Ultimate Reality.
> Or something. But that's just words.
"Just words" is the beginning; the rest is up to you and those you find
to collaborate with. Language however cannot be dismissed so lightly.
Find your own signifiers, if the seeming (and possibly actual)
cloudiness of these disturbs your sense of completion. Utopian thinking
is just one aspect of surrealist thinking, or another way to poeticize
the state.
> I think Andrea has it right. Let's Do Something, even if it's wrong.
> Let's change a variable or two or ten and see what happens. Let's expirement!
> If surrealism isn't about breaking boundries what is it about?
Breaking boundaries is a tool to promote the intent behind surrealism.
By itself the phrase "breaking boundaries" signifies nothing: if I
uriniate in a public park, is that different from urinating on a
priest's cassock, and why? What are the goals of the boundary breaking?
Surrealism is not so much "about" unconventional thinking as it is about
making surrealist thought the convention. It isn't only about "breaking
away from" or "breaking through" but also about rejoining the disparate
segments of man's original marvelous state. It helps when planning an
action, to have some set of goals in sight. These goals might have to be
criticized (by yourself and/or others) to determine how they are
attainable, and whether they are worth attaining. This is some of the
work to be considered. Then act. Or, if you are "pushed to the wall of
the realist tyranny" you might just act, and hope the pieces fall right.
From recent personal experience, I am not particularly enamored with the
group actions initiated in the name of local anti-war or social justice
organizations. Besides the tired staidness of their preoccupataions (the
old chants, the old signs and slogans, the tired dreaming), the society
which surrounds them is either sated with physical goods, or afraid
their involvement will separate them from the promise of same. The
reactions (both "for" and "against") seem almost bought and paid for,
safely packaged. It's as if no one expects anything to change: this is
where Utopian thinking (for me) comes in; NOT as a blueprint for actual
communities as much as an energizing sense of potentiality. A century
that cannot envision a Utopia seems lacking. One likes the wacky schemes
of Fourier, and "Herland" and countless other dreams that could only
bloom out of hope.
DMH
Andrea Chen
> see as classic anarchism.
>
What you see as classic anarchism is bits and pieces you picked up from
TV. Classic anarchy would include Bakunin and several others. They
spent a great deal of time addressing issues you feel are of no
importance.
Your "anarchy" is something like the child's simplified guide to
Rousseau. You should know that in many quarters the idea of the natural
man is considered reactionary. Before the French Revolution the
nobility adored the concept and used to dress up as shephards getting in
touch with themselves. Variants of this concept and the perfection of
the Russian peasant were also popular amonmg conservative Russian
slavophiles.
Your approach is "let's pretend." For example your claim that theft is
purely a result of the artificial constraints of society. Dogs fight
for food and will sometimes piss on it so others can't have it. Many
children love to take something that another has and will chose *that*
toy among a room full. Failure to have noticed this is why so many
women just laugh at men's pompous proclmations of history. You have
grand schemes to make society perfect and raise children into perfect
beings, but you've never actually spent 15 minutes watching children.
Theft has been controlled precisely because of "artificial" choices.
It's social rules and conditioning which deep a group to shar rather
than letting the biggest and strongest take what he choses, give the
rest to his mates with further distribution down the hierarchy. Indeed
we have been so successful in many communities and cultures that casual
threat isn't a problem among neighbors. On this "micro scale" the
problem is partially solved. The issue is on a macro scale, the
organization of property and the values attached to it. No arrangement
is "natural" (different primitive cultures arrive at different
solutions), when one gets to the point of industrial society certain
arrangements have been "natural" for the development of wealth,
attempting to rearrange these through several communism has partially
solved certain problems, but increased others.
In anarchism there is no "natural" arrangement of property, attempts to
claim that one method is so is propaganda. There are a number of
competing models on how to organize things. Some of these are
sophisticated.
I will stress that no one can be considered a serious anarchist until
they attempt to address the problems that you dismiss as already
solved. By your Disney land wish upon a star mentality you make casual
observers of anarchism think it's a totally flakey approach completely
out of touch with things.
It isn't. It struggles with real problems of organization. And no
Dale. This doesn't happen automatically. You are something like 50
years old, you boast that you dropped only Oswley acid and that you can
still get the stuff today. You're that hep.
But it seems in all those years of being like supercool daddy you never
once spent a few hours in any of the various organizations or
collectives which was trying to provide an alternative. If organization
was as natural and spontaneous as you claim, then these would be all
over the place. They were staffed by eager sincere people, willing to
work for little or nothing, who wer not (theoretically) bound by the
ruts of conventional business, from a purely competitive view they
should have been able to provide better products and services and take a
good part of the economy. They didn't.
Look check out a rainbow gathering (which can be studied on the net.)
It has all these parts which you claim are unneccessary.
1) Planning and Decision Making. eg. People decide when and where the
gathering will be.
2) Rules and Restrictions. eg. alchohal drinkers are segregated.
3) A peace keeping force. eg. certain individuals are part of a group
which intervenes in disputes.
4) A complex service providing infrastructure. Being the sort of
individual you are, you probably just walk into such places and find
just as you expected everything is taken care of just like at
Disneyland. You might even put in a few hours at the cook tent talking
about surrealism and sneaking some munchies and putting on that old,
cute, helpless oh my gosh I really don't know how look when they ask you
to clean some pots and being so grateful when the girls show you and
then in the next hour making one almost clean yourself and being so
proud and showing it to everybody...
BUT some people spend a good part of the year and a lot of money
building basic infrastructure like latrines and preparing. Another
minority work almost full time. There are resentments between those who
work and those who don't and if this was a year round community required
to support itself the tensions would be greater.
This is reality.
Just as it's reality that a few communes managed to struggle on through
the seventies when they were poor and needed to share the brown rice,
but when the pot money startd flowing they usually broke up and most
people moved to a conventional lifestyle.
It isn't easy Dale, it isn't automatic. Right now we have a very
important development in alternative organization taking place, it's
called the GNU/Linux project. It could radically change the nature of
property in a key industry and it's being done by volunteers. Believe
this isn't automatic and easy.
So stop living in a dream world Dale. If you want to call yourself an
anarchist learn something about it's theories, the practical experiments
(mostly failed) and recognize that this is something (if you want it)
that will take lots of hard work (shudder!) and not something Dale is
supposed to get bcecause if he was a good boy and everytuing would be
perfect if people only listened to him.
Asian Pirates
The International Maritime Bureau, a division of the ICC Commercial
Crime Services, reports an upsurge of pirate attacks off the coast of
Somalia and in Brazilian ports.
At the same, the IMB is concerned about the constant nature of piracy
in Southeast Asian waters. Ships travelling to the affected region are
being advised to be particularly cautious when transiting the waters
between the South China Sea and the Java Sea. These pirates are using
relatively heavy weaponry (mortars and rocket-propelled grenades)
against vessels sailing in East African waters. The IMB advises vessels
to remain at least 50 nautical miles offshore when transiting the coastal
regions of Somalia. In recent incidents, the pirates off Somalia pretend
to be coast guards, there have even been such instances with corrupt
law enforcement officials. Their deception often begins with vocal
warnings through loudspeaker or radio, followed by attack with
automatic weaponry. It’s believed that some attacks are aimed at
gaining control of a ship in order to seize others, as the pirates' own
craft is usually too small and too slow to really be effective. Recently,
the pirates attacked a British registered racing yacht off the coast of
Somalia. The small pirate craft fired a mortar at the yacht in the Gulf of
Aden, and some of the pirates attempted to board the vessel.
Fortunately, the pirates quickly fled when a container ship and a
Canadian Navy vessel came to the yacht's rescue.
These recent piracy problems have been under the observation of the
United States, which is growing increasingly concerned about armed
gangs attacking vessels in the country's ports.
Asian Pirates
>
..........
Easy ---> http://www.FUQQER.com/fotm/bof4.jpg
Bud
like Dale and Andrea are saying the same thing and yet, at the same time,
arguing. Well, I don't get it.
One thing seems certain to me though...all of the ideas I just read are
pretty pictures in a fantasy book. We are doomed to live the path we are on.
And no amount of surrealism is gonna change that. What a pity.
Damn if it isn't a pleasing thought that we (humans) could have the power to
actually live a better way of life. Or even a different way of life. (on the
whole)
But we don't. We never do. We are just a teaming mass of idiots bent on over
populating and self destruction without one shred of hope. Ka-Blooey! There
goes the world...now where are all the pretty people?
Gene Hatch
>
> Gene Hatch wrote:
> >
> > I have a lot of questions, but they're mostly like Mark's questions.
> > Who is going to milk the cows and bale the hay when you surrealists
> > win the revolution?
>
> Cow-milking surrealists.
>
>
> nothing without an honorable promise, and there are not enough honorable
> persons to back it all if all its value were called up into reification.
> We "float" debt by temporarily imaginiung a world in which goods are
> paid for "only" by promises of intent to pay in resources. It's very
> ephemeral; this is why money is so often mentioned in poems. Money is
> poetry. We will pay you in poetry? Or (banish the thought!) you will
> work for the betterment of your neighbors and yourself, and come to see
> they are interlinked.
>
But..but.. I don't want to be paid in poetry! I want to be paid with
something
like a bag of potatoes. Or a trip to the dentist to fix my rotten
teeth, but
the dentist doesn't have cows to milk. Money may not be an honorable
promise,
but it is at a least reliable promise. I have no objection to working
for the
betterment of my community; Money is just a way of keeping track.
> > All this talk about freedom and finding the Ultimate Reality
> > and such sounds nice, but the cows still have to be milked every
> > morning and every evening. Should I rail against the tyranny of cows?
>
> Certainly; try and imagine this in poetic terms. We will help.
>
> > The best answer was (if i got it right) that surrealism is'nt a
> > recipe for Utopia, it's a way of thinking that lets us find freedom
> > within ourselves. Or maybe it isn't freedom, it's Ultimate Reality.
> > Or something. But that's just words.
>
> "Just words" is the beginning; the rest is up to you and those you find
> to collaborate with. Language however cannot be dismissed so lightly.
> Find your own signifiers, if the seeming (and possibly actual)
> cloudiness of these disturbs your sense of completion. Utopian thinking
> is just one aspect of surrealist thinking, or another way to poeticize
> the state.
>
I should find my own signifiers? Ok, in a sense we all have to do that.
But don't you think we should at least try to figure out what the
speaker
intended? Just a minute, I just made a strawman. Sorry.
The thing is, I can find very little meaning in such abstract talk.
Words
have to connect with reality or it's just empty wind.
> > I think Andrea has it right. Let's Do Something, even if it's wrong.
> > Let's change a variable or two or ten and see what happens. Let's expirement!
> > If surrealism isn't about breaking boundries what is it about?
>
> Breaking boundaries is a tool to promote the intent behind surrealism.
> By itself the phrase "breaking boundaries" signifies nothing: if I
> uriniate in a public park, is that different from urinating on a
> priest's cassock, and why? What are the goals of the boundary breaking?
> Surrealism is not so much "about" unconventional thinking as it is about
> making surrealist thought the convention. It isn't only about "breaking
> away from" or "breaking through" but also about rejoining the disparate
> segments of man's original marvelous state. It helps when planning an
> action, to have some set of goals in sight. These goals might have to be
> criticized (by yourself and/or others) to determine how they are
> attainable, and whether they are worth attaining. This is some of the
> work to be considered. Then act. Or, if you are "pushed to the wall of
> the realist tyranny" you might just act, and hope the pieces fall right.
>
This is confusing. If I understand you right, no art (or action) is
surrealistic unless the artist intendes it to be? If someone like
Dr. Seuss produces stuff I consider surrealistic, then I must be
deceived
unless he had purity of surrealist intention?
Dale Houstman
Gene Hatch wrote:
>
> But..but.. I don't want to be paid in poetry!
Poetry (in a poeticized world) will be a resource, not just words on a
page, and (since the dentist and the cow puncher will gladly take the
poetic in exchange for the poetic : an even trade you see : they will be
glad to give you their poetic services). But don't think me naive: I
don't "expect" this to occur in the world of real-politik , but I do see
it as a poetic potential. Poeticize your own world and the world of
those around you. And try not to frighten away the kind women in phone
booths; they may share your distrust of Ma Bell.
> This is confusing. If I understand you right, no art (or action) is surrealistic unless the artist intendes it to be? If someone like Dr. Seuss produces stuff I consider surrealistic, then I must be deceived unless he had purity of surrealist intention?
Dr. Seuss had a goal of revivifying the staid areana of children's books
by poetic processes. It isn't a matter of "declaring" yourself a
surrealist (or a "new surrealist" or a "new manager of surrealists"),
but of having in mind a specific goal attuned to the breaking of
repressive forms, liberation of language and imagination. In this regard
Dr. Seuss can be considered surrealist, although the application of the
word itself seems beside the point to me.
The phrase "purity of surrealist intention" implies thatsurrealism (as
the "new managers" will have you believe to further their own
intrusions) is a set of rules rather than a (self-critical) system of
instrumentaion. All I was saying was that merely "breakling barriers"
means nothing (surreal or otherwise) unless SOME intention is
discovered, and if this intention fits the mold of elevating the
individual and condemning the powers-that-be then we are somewhere
useful. Merely scaring a poor woman in a phone booth is not productive,
since it is an action without consideration. What is being critqued? Who
is benefiting? How will the act further liberation of the individual (as
opposed to a group)? Etc. These are not questions for the sake of
asking, but central pointers to the public surrealist act.
DMH
Drainage Worries
>
> Daily House Tenting Man wrote:
> >
> > Genital Hatcheries wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a loathing for questions, but they're mostly like Question Marks.
> > > Who is going to drink milk and fornicate with cows eating bales of hay
> > > when your teeth run away with the polymer elastic revolutionaries?
> >
> > Cow-sucking militarists declaring marshal phone sex do voodoo.
> >
> > > How are you going to call us collect if there's no fungus?
> >
> > Mold is a substance for and a control of device ridden autocrats. It is
> > worth noting that any horney premise, and there are not enough horney
> > premises to back light all of the factory valued refrigeration bladders,
> > will "float" fluidly by temporarily mining a whirlingness in good series
> > paid for "only" by premises of intentional tomato paste. It's very
> > ephemeral; this is why moaning is so often mentioned in pre-menstrual
> > monkeys. "Pottery will pay you in potato!" Cry our banshees of thought.
> > Work for the battering of your neighbor's fluids, and come to see
> > that they are interlinked by a menacing plumbing. We Shall BIFURCATE!
> >
>
> But..but.. I don't wear plaid! I want to be!
Mind
Mind
Mind