Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Suprematist Documents


The real art
Of murder comes
When old age

Capitalizes on gr[ef
Extending a hand
Drinking a flagon

Of misery combined
Without thinking about
the stage presence

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Suprematist Documents


Enabled by law to proceed
forcing meat on the others
without mention

Now seduced against preiction
willing time factors
intrusion by forcible entry papers

trying to get by
rivers of hate and futility
Now falling away without regard

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Suprematist Documents

Boats in the water

a bit longer
freely accepting this virtue
appeal to all voters

This frequency of value
arranged as a book.
Non capital offenses will be tried

Another time,
A certain formlessness
in the music

Friday, March 11, 2011

11 March 2011


Over in oblivion

based on a story from tue life

Based on a true story

from truth

bent around a tree.

with boats

away at sea

Friday, March 4, 2011

"What are we to say to this? Again, the problem resides in the implicit qualifications which can be easily discerned by the “concrete analysis of the concrete situation,” as Lenin himself would have put it. “Fidelity to the democratic consensus” means the acceptance of the present liberal-parliamentary consensus, which precludes any serious questioning of how this liberal-democratic order is complicit in the phenomena it officially condemns, and, of course, any serious attempt to imagine a society whose socio-political order would be different. In short, it means: say and write whatever you want — on condition that what you do, does not effectively question or disturb the predominant political consensus. So everything is allowed, solicited even, as a critical topic: the prospects of a global ecological catastrophe, violations of human rights, sexism, homophobia, antifeminism, the growing violence not only in the far-away countries, but also in our megalopolises, the gap between the First and the Third World, between the rich and the poor, the shattering impact of the digitalization of our daily lives... there is nothing easier today than to get international, state or corporate funds for a multidisciplinary research into how to fight the new forms of ethnic, religious or sexist violence. The problem is that all this occurs against the background of a fundamental Denkverbot, the prohibition to think. Today’s liberal-democratic hegemony is sustained by a kind of unwritten Denkverbot similar to the infamous Berufsverbot in Germany of the late 60s — the moment one shows a minimal sign of engaging in political projects that aim to seriously challenge the existing order, the answer is immediately: “Benevolent as it is, this will necessarily end in a new Gulag!” The ideological function of the constant reference to the holocaust, gulag and the more recent Third World catastrophes is thus to serve as the support of this Denkverbot by constantly reminding us how things may have been much worse: “Just look around and see for yourself what will happen if we follow your radical notions!” And it is exactly the same thing that the demand for “scientific objectivity” means: the moment one seriously questions the existing liberal consensus, one is accused of abandoning scientific objectivity for the outdated ideological positions. This is the point on which one cannot and should not concede: today, the actual freedom of thought means the freedom to question the predominant liberal-democratic “post-ideological” consensus — or it means nothing. "

Wednesday, March 2, 2011