File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1998/nietzsche.9811, message 109


From: Sean Saraq <sean_saraq-AT-environics.ca>
Subject: RE: To Lambda C, a waste of good oxygen
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:31:09 -0500 


p.s. oh, I almost forgot. I also promise not to read _2600_ magazine or
to get involved in computer hacking ever again. Thanks grandpa!

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	lambdac-AT-globalserve.net [SMTP:lambdac-AT-globalserve.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:10 PM
> To:	nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject:	Re: To Lambda C, a waste of good oxygen
> 
> OK, Mr. Lots-of-Hot-Air & Mad-as-the-wet-hen, so we're finally getting
> to you and your fond puerile, misinformed, disinforming, commentaries.
> 
> You - who wanted to give shit to the hegelians etc, are eating it big
> time: caught on those banal generalizations so dear to academics who
> could never succeed were it not for the regime of mediocrity that
> favours their selection.  Explain now how you can make those
> judgements
> about Hegel or Heidegger without having read or understood them!  And
> explain now too how you move from the anecdotal hear-say quote you
> provided, where Deleuze is said to protest (how?  By signing another
> of
> those petitions, etc?) the extradition of the RAF's lawyer from France
> to Germany, to your insidious, insinuative _conclusion_ that Deleuze
> "supported" the lawyer's clients, not just in terms of their release
> from jail, but in terms of their ideology, analysis (if they ever had
> one!), tactics, strategy, etc, as if Deleuze supported the RAF!!  
> 
> You see, we actually did read what you so fatuously wrote-
> 
> >I simply
> >pointed out that Deleuze supported Baader Meinhof - and not only once
> >they were in prison, but all the way through their career.
> 
> Not only once, you said-  _but all the way through their career_ no
> less!  Now, the quotes from Guattari, if nothing more, might have
> provoked in that pompous thick head of yours some vague inkling of the
> extreme betise you were, and are again, insisting on serving us.  And
> even that exemplary whorish quote you provided _from a third party_ at
> least still has a speck of hesitation in making such grandiose leaps
> of
> stupidity-
> 
> >"He [Foucault] had no
> >intention of supporting people he considered to be "terrorists". And
> >that is precisely what he seemed to reproach Deleuze for doing.
> 
> Foucault _seemed_ to reproach Deleuze for supporting the RAF members
> in
> prison...  Not that he reproached - he _seemed_ to be reproaching
> (reference to Foucault please, if you don't mind?).  Not to mention
> that
> supporting the RAF members in prison has a whole other gamut of
> connotations - was it support for Holger Meins' refusal to be force
> fed?, etc, etc.
> 
> May we suggest you are not being very well served by the shameful
> readings you choose to make?  Or, in a less kind tone, we could ask
> who's paying you for this disinformation?  What odd purpose could it
> serve- the relaying of such gossipy-tidbits, for clearly neither D nor
> G
> are well served by it; nor is anybody's understanding either.  Your
> claim is gratuitous.
> 
> Lambda Carbonmonoxide
> (aucuns talents)
> 
> PS1  And what to say of the deemed refusals of Foucault to support
> terrorism in the late 70's?, when, in 1972, he said-
> 
> "On the contrary, our action does not seek for the soul or the man
> behind the condemned, but to erase the profound border between
> innocence
> and culpability.  It is the question which Genet already proposed
> following the death of the judge of Soledad or about that airplane
> hijacked by the Palestinians in Jordan.  While the newspapers cried
> over
> the judge and those unfortunate tourists held in the middle of the
> desert for no apparent reason; Genet, instead, asked: "Is a judge
> innocent, and is innocent an american lady who has enough money to
> carry
> on with tourism that way?" "
> 
> Can we then conclude that this woman is guilty of existence (or is she
> guilty for being a tourist, american and having enough money to carry
> on
> that way?) and deserved whatever terrorism gave her?  Then too, it is
> no
> longer just a matter of the efficacy of an action (no hope of course
> that terror will change anything) - and so is anything in principle a
> go?  Aren't there too many assumptions here?  Or proletarians do not
> fly?  They don't drive either?  They bicycle then...
> 
> PS2  "The elimination of the concept of the practice of terrorism is
> thus correlative at once to the negation of out-dated political points
> of reference - even if spontaneist - and the affirmation of a radical
> materialism.  This as well we have learned during the '70's, with
> their
> awful terrorist interlude." (Guattari & Negri)
> 
> 
> 	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005