Re: reach

I'm with Nate. The problem isn't the articles or their political content. If you look at Foucault's political statments. They are very meticulously argued and well documented (whether you agree with them or not). He would be the last person who would think merely quoting a newspaper article was in itself a political statement. This is not to favor intellectual masturbation. Rather it's because a) documents never speak for themselves and b) the issues are too important not to be engaged in a thoughtful manner.

By the way, you're right. The Israeli army is capable of anything.


>>> rhizome85@xxxxxxxx 07/13/01 19:30 PM >>>

On the contrary. I think both Wousters and I are quite aware of the
relevance of the situation in Israel/Palestine. What's important is that
there's no single "relevance" of the situation. One can read the situation
in terms of bio-political racism, in terms of Western imperialism, in terms
of Orientialism, in terms of the implications and applications of
micro-politics, in terms of the role of the intellectual, etc.

In my parody of Clifford, I likened his posts to articles about Britney
Spears' breast implants. This was not to say that Clifford's posts are
irrelevant, or the Britney Spears' breast implants are. Everything is
political. I'm interested in more politicization, and less information. I
don't care whether Britney Spears is currently a D cup or a C cup. I care
about what Britney Spears' breast implants reveal about the way in which
Beauty, Sexuality, Femininity, the Body, etc. are constructed in
contemporary discourse.

I would applaud Clifford if he'd make these kinds of analyses.
Otherwise, his posts are simply redundant additios to the morning papers.


----- Original Message -----
From: "eldorra mitchell" <manynotone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: reach

> Poor Nate and Wousters pretending not to see the
> relevance of violence and in particular the violence
> of the Israel state against the colonized people of
> Palestine. What was Palestine. Today for instance in
> Hebron one sees what the Israel army is capable of,
> and indeed is willing to do. Under the regime of
> Sharon. Of course this is not related so you say to
> Deleuze, Guattari and Foucault. All I can say is, that
> you must be stupid. A long time ago Felix Guattari
> took public stands on these issues as did Deleuze.
> Unlike the cowards and meticulous gutless ones on this
> list. This list is dead, meaning its value is limited
> to the petty exchange of gossip ie. when is the book
> Immance being printed? and so on. But when some
> members speak of the real Outside you little fuckers
> go beserk screaming that it is not important. That is
> because you, Nate and Wouster and some others like
> Jiveo or however that name is spelled, you at least
> speak out like good maniacs; nonetheless you are sick
> maniacs and you read to jerk off; but whatever, you
> did have the chance to learn you squandered you
> asses... The rest of you are cowards all of you: From
> the ones who never speak and never take a stand, to
> those who play coy behind their silence. You are shit,
> shit shit all of you. And this list is dead, and has
> nearly always been dead, and what could have been of
> value has been destroyed by shits and fuckasses and
> rotten dirty filthy silent American translators,
> (translators the new breed of traitors who second the
> field with their half-truths; and the parasitical
> critics;and Australian translators and other technical
> second rate decadent third rate commentaors. Th

Partial thread listing: