luka

Well-known member
version had already revealed that anyway hes always quoting things he said on there in our groupchat
 
  • Angry
Reactions: sus

craner

Beast of Burden
Except for the part where he mentions the secret dudes chat, that was irresponsible and unconscionable and threatens the future of our political maneuvering as a forum block

Yeah, that was a serious setback for you.
 

version

Well-known member
Ivory Pearl, Jean-Patrick Manchette

Very lean. Opens with a group of men smuggling a child into a house, being ambushed by a couple of gunmen and all but one dying after a shootout, knife fight and a car bomb going off. There's a horrible description of a character slicing off someone's hand, still holding the gun, then opening up his throat and chin with some sort of machete.

Apparently it was to be a change of direction for Manchette and was intended as the start of some sweeping cycle of historical novels, but he died before he could finish it and even get started on the subsequent ones.


“The Position of the Solitary Crime Novelist”
An Interview with Jean-Patrick Manchette

Jean-Patrick Manchette was born in Marseille, France in 1942 and
died in Paris in 1995. In the 1960s, he was active in far-left politics:
he wrote articles and created illustrations for La Voie communiste and
later became strongly influenced by the Situationist International.
Over the course of his career as a writer, he wrote dozens of novels
(some of them “crime novels”), screenplays, adaptations and
translations (English to French). Conducted in 1991, this was his last
interview.

 

version

Well-known member
There's an upload of Nada on YouTube, but it's age-restricted and I'm not sure it has English subtitles.



This one looks interesting as well


Have you seen Missing? That's a good one by the same director. It's about an American disappearing during the Chilean coup.

 

dilbert1

Well-known member
Nope, and yet to watch Munich. Building up a new to-watch list, all it is are these political thrillers so far!
 

version

Well-known member
Nope, and yet to watch Munich. Building up a new to-watch list, all it is are these political thrillers so far!

Some other good ones:

The Mattei Affair (1972)
Azor (2021)
The Day of the Jackal (1973)
Illustrious Corpses (1976)
Slap the Monster on Page One (1972)
Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (1970)
 

version

Well-known member
@version I **was** **particularly** convinced by their stuff for a while, but the tapestry of inscrutable philosophy stuff is what really sucked me in and then eventually left me a bit cold. The patent corniness was always something I tried to look past, as the deluge of literary references and provocative Foucault citations convinced me that they must be deeper than something like Crimethinc. I don’t necessarily mind a bit of esotericism, but since that time and after a lot of reading I recognized their thought and politics as for my taste (which certainly evolved as a result of this investigation) far too antinomian, antisocial, atavistic, illiberal and ‘ethical’… pretty much all the worst aspects of the New Left, which their sardonic dunking on ‘68 and embrace of its further degeneration in the following decade only proves. The bit at the end of The Coming Insurrection with the rocket-launcher attack, along with so many of their other base appeals to nihilist exuberance, really brings to mind the hopelessly self-righteous guerrilla group in Children of Men.

Don’t get me wrong, as I wrote here recently, as a kind of aesthetic document of y2k cultural and political inertia (in the same way you might look at Crass or Throbbing Gristle in their moments), I find the journal beautiful and intriguing. I really prefer the first issue; “What is Critical Metaphysics?”, “Silence and Beyond,” “Theses on the Imaginary Party” and “Theory of Bloom” are some of the more interesting theoretical excursions. “The Cybernetic Hypothesis” I found disappointing, just watch The Net by Lutz Dammbeck.

If you’re curious at some point, I would really highly recommend reading these two critical pieces which highlight the rather under-appreciated religious motifs and eschatological logic of Tiqqun’s project.

The first is a general critique of the journal immediately subsequent to the release of the first issue, focusing on the Heideggerianism and nihilism, but it also delves deep into the Kabbalist aspect. It is written by other Frenchmen and so the tone is amusingly similar in its polemics, but its coherent, and the best and most comprehensive critique I’ve ever read of their stuff (I’ve read every critique/commentary I could find on them), and on the level of thought rather than picking apart the Tiqqun “type” (which the article also just happens to identify as “bullshitting college kids” lol).


This second article, very recent, focuses solely on the Kabbala stuff, but in much more detail (and more sympathetically). Apparently around the time of the journal the group would summon their metaphysical shoplifting powers to procure pasta for Agamben to cook them, as over dinner he discussed Jewish mysticism’s influence on his contemporaneous book project, The Coming Community.


You read this one? Took me fucking ages. Main takeaway's I'm glad I've nothing to do with Anarchist groups. The comment section's something...


And this one and the subsequent comments are funny:

 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________

version

Well-known member
I recently read a transcript of Agamben and some others dully discussing Tiqqun and that was funny too. They were waffling and people in the audience were like "What are you actually talking about it? How does this help us?" and eventually Agamben stormed out.


G.A.: (very angry) What a bizarre idea you have to be interested in someone… You say you don’t know the books and that you’re not interested in them, you don’t have the faintest idea of what we’re discussing? What are you interested in? In who I am? You’re interested in my body, what do you want from me? (he gets up and leaves)

Agamben leaves the room.

Voices: he did not just say that.
 

dilbert1

Well-known member
You read this one? Took me fucking ages. Main takeaway's I'm glad I've nothing to do with Anarchist groups. The comment section's something...


And this one and the subsequent comments are funny:


I recently read a transcript of Agamben and some others dully discussing Tiqqun and that was funny too. They were waffling and people in the audience were like "What are you actually talking about it? How does this help us?" and eventually Agamben stormed out.


G.A.: (very angry) What a bizarre idea you have to be interested in someone… You say you don’t know the books and that you’re not interested in them, you don’t have the faintest idea of what we’re discussing? What are you interested in? In who I am? You’re interested in my body, what do you want from me? (he gets up and leaves)

Agamben leaves the room.

Voices: he did not just say that.

No, I’ll have to check those out for my own curiosity and penance’s sake, the anarchist insider baseball stuff is always so funny, typically they competitively split hairs and agree much more than disagree with each other but I still usually get a kick out of it.

And yeah I remember reading that transcript, it was for a book event with Eric Hazan who I believe was republishing their stuff prior to semiotext(e) and MIT Press getting their hands on it. All parties look stupid in the end and people are generally right to mock the political posturing. With them and Agamben there’s always some lip service paid to “not separating theory and practice” as if that somehow guarantees greater integrity in their radical politics. Of course when you think that you can assign a lot more significance to the act of writing a book, to the point where you deny its a book at all but instead a “textual virus” and “an attempt to shift the plane of political phenomenality.” The whole Tarnac/Coming Insurrection thing was definitely a feather in their cap in that respect.

Still, showing up to a book talk without having read it and complaining about its contents is a bit idiotic, but its exactly what you should expect at that kind of book talk. There was one particular bout of confused rambling at the Situationist event I attended here, not incendiary but painfully awkward, yet the speakers still found the resources to continue on. Agamben simply wouldn’t have his style cramped it seems.
 
Top