Professional career of Guy Dauve - father of Gilles

  • Posted on: 25 December 2009
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="">Not Bored</a>

1981: the French FBI against Coluche . . .

At 8:30 pm this evening, on the show Secrets of the News, the French TV channel M6 will broadcast a documentary on the real paranoia that gripped the highest levels of the State in October 1980, when the citizen named Michel Colucci, better known as Coluche the Clown, decided to run for president and the first polls showed him drawing between 15 and 17 percent! The French presidency, then implicated in the affair of "Giscard's diamonds," tasked the Minister of the Interior, Christian Bonnet, to discourage the comic. By any means.

The name of the police officer from the General Intelligence [Service] who was charged with organizing the campaign of surveillance, harassment, calumnies, rumors, and destabilization of the candidate -- which went as far as death threats -- is not unknown to us. It is Guy Dauve, and this successful campaign would be the final touch to an exceptional career that began in the service of the Petainist State and, under the wing of his master, Maurice Papon,[1] blossomed under the Gaullist and Giscardian Republics. In 1997, I had the occasion to quickly sketch Dauve's "professional" itinerary in The Taste of Truth: Response to Gilles Perrault.[2]</td><td><img title="Cops are cops are cops" src="files/pictures/notbored.jpg"></td></tr></table><!--break-->

Guy Dauve became a police officer in the Spring of 1943 and, in October of that year, began part of the first Special Brigade led by Labaume (see the archives of Labaume's trial, held in May 1945, in particular to AN, Z6 61, dossier 968). Before the war, the work of this Brigade consisted in collecting information about "the movements of the extreme Left: the socialists, the communists, the anarchists and their unions." In 1941, on behalf of Boemelburg, the leader of the Gestapo in France, this Brigade infiltrated and destroyed the communist resistance. In the newspaper Franc-Tireur,[3] Madeleine Jacob described the head of the first Special Brigade this way:

"Head Commissioner Labaume was something akin to the Fuhrer of the informers who were tasked with surveilling the milieus of the extreme Left; his position gave him the right to indulgence. It made for good hunting.[4] To the five victims of his informer, Rastelli, condemned to death, he added Picant, Cadras, Politizer, and Jacques Solomon, as well as all those who were deported and perished slowly in the German camps."

A large number of those who had earned their reputations in the Vichy-era anti-communist repressions were called upon for help at the beginning of the Cold War. Guy Dauve never left office and continued to keep his files in his office, which looked out upon the Marche aux Fleurs. In 1955, when dozens were killed in the troubles in Casablanca, he was dispatched to Morocco to determine the structure of the movements that were opposed to the colonial administration. Having never hidden his extreme Right ideas, nor his military service on behalf of French Algeria, he was in Algers the following year, working with the parachutists under [General Jacque] Massu and Bigead, who subjected an entire people to the Question.

Back in Paris, he was the most relentless pursuer of the leaders of the Algeria FLN. It was by the hundreds that pro-independence militants who had fallen into his net were harshly interrogated and detained in camps such as the one at Thol, in the Ain, where Guy Dauve would visit on business several times. A detailed description of this camp appeared in 1962 in Le Nouveau Candide, the weekly publication of the Extreme Right created by the spy service of Constantin Melnik, the head of General Intelligence and Guy Dauve's boss.[5] Jacques Peyrolles, the "journalist" who ideologically promulgated the work of the police, was promised a brilliant career under the pseudonym Gilles Perrault (see sidebar).

In October 1961, Guy Dauve's men participated in raids during the terrifying repression that bloodied Paris. "The Algerians scream like savages," he had the habit of saying. Several weeks later, Guy Dauve received the Merite Civil medal. The prefect of police, Maurice Papon, gave him a handwritten note that said he would in command and carefully guarded until the end of his life: "I know all that you have done. Your leader is proud of you and thank you." A little later, Dauve would receive the Legion of Honor award.

Some of Dauve's work consisted in surveilling the press. Le Canard Enchaine dedicated a few short articles to him, and Dauve threatened several times to release photos showing the journalists in compromising situations. To blow off steam, Guy Dauve wrote a novel that Marcel Duhamel's Serie Noire would refuse to publish, though it did publish, under a pseudonym, the work of another celebrated agent with the General Intelligence [Service], Michel Baroin. The events of 1968 refreshed Dauve's career, and he became a close collaborator with Raymond Marcellin, the minister of the [federal] police, who was at war with the enemy within. Infiltration, manipulation, the formation of fake political groups and newspapers. . . . All this long before Barril and the affair of the Irish in Vincennes,[6] Thurenge d'Hernu's fake spouse,[7] and Pasqua's real-fake passports.[8] The imagination has taken power at l'Ile de la Cite!

It was around then that the son of Guy Dauve [born in 1947], taking on the pseudonym Jean Barrot to avoid identification by his father, becomes active in the ultra-Left. In a curious way, because it was essentially through his channels that the negationist writings of Paul Rassinier and texts that banalized genocide, such as "Auschwitz or the Great Alibi," would be promoted. Without his father's knowledge, Gilles Dauve formed a soldarity group for Puig Antich, a Spanish anarchist assassinated by Franco, and the meetings took place at the home of the Commissioner of the General Intelligence . . . Just like old times! During the Faurisson affair, Gilles Dauve wrote or co-edited several negationist texts that would be published in La Guerre Sociale or Le Frondeur. Later on, he would pursue a, shall we say, more discreetly revisionist project, La Banquise, with Serge Quadruppani. (See our article dated 12 March 2001.)

In 1980, Guy Dauve devoted himself to the destruction of Coluche. The arrival of the Left into power [in 1981] coincided with his retirement. For several years, he worked as a security consultant for an important business. He did not balk at lending a hand to his former masters when it was a question of bringing sensitive parcels from one place to another.

In 1996, Guy Dauve's son was in the news. Le Monde revealed on 8 June that the spokesman for Ras l'Front, Gilles Perrault -- the same person who visited Father Dauve's prisoners at Thol in 1961 -- had published a preface that whitewashed Gilles Dauve's negationist past. For good measure, the reputation of Serge Quadruppani -- who defended the "non-anti-Semite" Faurisson at great length in his books -- was also cleaned up. No one remarked at the time that, seven years earlier [in 1989], Gilles Perrault had helped helped his proteges by writing a preface for Serge Quadruppani's book Anti-Terrorism in France, which was based upon the most mysterious sources. . . .

Today, the author of that hardly ultra-Leftist book [Quadruppani] has re-entered the libertarian movement under the banner of situationism. Guy Debord, the founder of the Situationist International, left behind a critique of Quadruppani's book and Perrault's preface to it. In Debord's letter to Jean-Francois Martos dated 24 February 1990, one reads:

"I read the Quadruppani. He is obviously a disinformer and perhaps a 'type b' disinformer. At least on the borderline? That is to say, manipulated by his dangerous associations (police-related or repenters) and also by the person who wrote the preface."

Debord ended the paragraph devoted to the one [Quadruppani] who adopted his message [about spectacular terrorism] with this: "Remove your mustache, we have recognized you. . . . Ass." This is a remark that one could place in the mouth of . . . . Coluche!

[1] Convicted in 1998 for Vichy-era "crimes against humanity."

[2] Born in 1931, Gilles Perrault (real name Jacques Peyrolles) was a Rightist as a youth. In 1961, he was among the parachutists who descended upon Algeria in order to work covertly against the resistance to French rule. Later that year, he wrote a book about exploits. After 1968, he "became" an ultra-Leftist.

[3] Published between 1941 and 1944.

[4] The literal meaning of the French (Un beau tableau de chasse) would be "A beautiful hunting picture."

[5] Born in 1927 Melkin was an American Secret Service agent before he started working for French counter-intelligence in the late 1950s.

[6] Captain Paul Barril was a high level military policeman and anti-terrorist expert who had to resign in 1983 due to his (mis)conduct in the Vincennes Affair. On 28 August 1982, the president's special antiterrorist squad arrested three members of an alleged IRA group that was supposedly active at the University of Vincennes in Paris. But the arrests were based upon planted and/or falsified evidence provided by Barril, who was forced to resign and become a specialist in "private" security.

[7] A reference to the destruction of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret services on 10 July 1985.

[8] See events of 1997 involved the the Minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua.

(Written by Didier Daeninckx [born 1949] and published 3 April 2001 by Aministia. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! 25 December 2009. All footnotes by the translator.)


looks like bill got banned from libcom. lolz.

this shit on both sides is hilarious.

fuckers need to get over themselves.

again, both sides...

how convenient for you!

Gilles Dauve is fucking awesome. Who really gives a fuck about his dad.

idiots who confuse personalities with if ideas are the singular creation of a mind, and not a synthesis of everything that person has ever seen, read, heard, etc....

fuck people and their names. good ideas live on wthout connection to any name.

Ehh no, fuck-you and your jerk-off name.

I mean really just because the guy was pro-Nazi in WWII, anti-communist in the Fifties, anti-Algerian independence in the Sixties and active until the 1980s etc etc this doesn't mean he wasn't a nice guy, probably just some proletarian just doing his job. Yeah, I'd definitely give him a pass. Papa Guy is OK with me.

And all this is We call that guilt by association, and thats a pretty bad reason to dislike someone usually.

yeah I agree because just because the guy's father was pro-Nazi in WWII and his boss was convicted for crimes against humanity, well this doesn't mean that that _he_ was convicted for war crimes or that we should feel uncomfortable about visiting his house, having a drink with him, meeting his son, listening to his son's ideas about communism, whatever. I mean c'mon who would know better about communism than the son of an anti-communist headhunter! Be serious.

-- sorry I didn't log on for this, just got my account set up

Is that suppose to be sarcasm? I still dont undertsand why we should care about Gilles Dauves father? Why is that relevant when we read and get inspired by Gilles Dauves books and texts? Why should we even take you seriously when you are trying to attack someone by using cheap, disgusting guilt by association to knock him down?

No, you are right. It's actually OK, even cool, that the son denounces fascism and praises communism, while the father keeps files on communists and turns their names over to fascists. No, nothing wrong with that at all, just a normal French family . . .

Yes i do think its Ok. Its not that unusual that the children of parents that are strong one way choose the opposite path either. But you havent answered the question: why is it relevant to know what Gilles Dauves father did? How does that in any way reflect upon Gilles Daue. Its a simple question and you dont seem to be able to answer it - which is prolly in itself more intressting than the article.

What am I, your teacher? You've got questions? Answer them yourself, schmuck! Christ.

What the fuck are you talking about? What kind of moron are you anyway? You are the one who thinks its important for us who likes Dauve to know about his fathers past. So im asking you why is that? You still cannot give an answer which says alot about you and about this piece of shit article that you are defending.

What am I, your thesis advisor? Answer your own questions, schmuck. Damn!

Ok so its pretty safe to say that you are just a lunatic and your so-called criticism should not be taken serious. Good. Im glad we cleared that one up. Move along people, nothing to see here..

You've made a comic mistake. You are addressing a total stranger, and have stupidly thought that I'm BNB, when I'm not. (I'm flattered, though: thank you!) It would appear that the "lunacy" here is your own.

I dont care who you are. All i know and care about is that you are the lunatic in this thread.

weidner! jweidner! your mustache has slipped off! Admit it: you are obsessed with Bill Not Bored and wanna suck his dick! slurp slurp slurp "I hate this guy so much I wanna swallow his cum!" slurp slurp slurp

-- Spike.

NOT BORED! is banned from a "Libertarian Communist" website
Embarrassing text about Guy Dauve is censored

Just a few hours after it was posted to, an allegedly "libertarian communist" website, our translation of a text about Gilles Dauve's father, Guy Dauve, was removed; and, without warning or rational explanation, we ourselves were summarily banned for "pointless smearing and being a general obnoxious arsehole." LibCom is completely alone in their belief that the text we translated should be censored: Infoshop saw no problem with posting it; Anarchist News was OK with it, too. And that's because, in translation or in the original French, the text is a legitimate, significant and valuable piece of reporting. If LibCom rushed to suppress it, the problem lies with LibCom, and not with the text.

To follow the history of this unconscionable instance of censorship, see our original comments concerning Dauve's dodgy text "The X-Filers"; the page that formerly hosted our translation of Didier Daeninckx's text about Guy Dauve; and the text as it currently appears on the NOT BORED! website.

Note well that, now that the messenger has been killed, these alleged "libertarian communists" now feel themselves at liberty to discuss the contents of his message amongst themselves. In the awkward words of "jweidner," "Please keep the discussion to verified, legitimately sourced and preferably english information."

Note well: anything that is written in or translated from the language in which Dauve himself writes is not "preferable" because it cannot be "verified" or considered "legitimately sourced" by people who do not know French and must rely upon translators to read his writings! And so, when the French "edition" of Wikipedia says Ne en 1947, il est le fils de Guy Dauve (commissaire des Renseignements Generaux), while the English "edition" says nothing at all about a "Guy Dauve," this can only mean . . . what? that the former is lying or engaging in a "smear" campaign? is the French "edition," unlike its honorable English counter-part, engaging in what "jweidner" calls "vicious anti-Dauve hysteria and vitriol"? No, of course, not. But in the xenophobic (or at least Francophobic) world of these "libertarian communists," logic and rationality aren't in great supply. For example: Bone-stupid "Steven" can pass for smart among these befuddled people when he realizes that "It would be good if [Gilles Dauve] could just comment himself, because it can be difficult to tell exactly what someone means by their writing" -- especially when "their writing" is only available to you in translation!

In the aforementioned thread, one encounters the following:

"Steven" (same as above), the site administrator who likes to pretend he is even-handed and yet banned us without due cause from his electronic sandbox, concedes that "The role played by Dauve's father in allegedly helping break the communist movement in France during and after World War II is very interesting."

"jweidner," the worst of the ad hominen attackers against the messenger himself, admits that "[Gilles Dauve] often seems a bit glib about taboo type stuff."

"revol68" allows that "in a few of Dauve's texts I think he runs too far in his 'anti moralism' and I can see how it could possibly sit fit with, if not an actual apologism, perhaps a kind of dismissal of the issue as being little more than a side concern of bourgeois morality. Likewise I think his comments about the Holocaust in 'Fascism and Anti Fascism' are too glib and don't address the specific mechanisms of the Holocaust that make it stand out from other genocides."

"Jef Costello" declares that "I think that this [remark by Gilles Dauve] is extremely close to the defences of paedophilia which we are all too accustomed to seeing within anarchist circles and given the nature of the writing it's hardly surprising that I gave up at around this point." Furthermore, "I'm not convinced that [Dauve's text] uses the example of the child in a very sensible or relevant way" and "On the whole I think the problem with this text is that it flirts with these ideas and uses them in what seems to me to [be] a cheap lunge for shock value. I pretty much agree with revol and jweidner on that."

Not content with just one thread to discuss the matter amongst themselves, these "libertarian communists" have created a second page in which to express themselves without undue distractions.

"Vlad336" concedes that "hardly anyone knows anything about [Gilles Dauve's] background," allows that "I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to actually check," and insists that "pro-paed bullshit was published in LB, undoubtedly with Dauve's permission" and that "the issue of Dauve's paed apologism is real enough to merit some discussion."

Someone who hides behind the moniker "treeofjudas" was able to discover, all by himself, that "Pierre Guillaume, owner of the Old Mole, who was, in fact, a supporter of gas chamber negationists, at least according to this Zionist Holocaust-botherer text I've got."

A "Felix Frost" is smart enough to realize that "Dauve's connections with Guillaume and other ultra-leftists turned negationists are the main reason for these attacks against him."

"Jef Costello" realizes -- too late, alas! -- that "Some person started making mental claims about Dauve's Da and Holocaust denial but in doing so brought to light an actual proper issue with Dauve's nonce apologism."

25-26 December 2009

During the night, the privilege of being a member of the LibCom "community" was restored to us. But members of the general public, or even other members of this "community," would be hard pressed to find the bland announcement of this restoration, because it -- "admin: BNBs temporary ban has ended" -- was buried, if not hidden, at the bottom of a post by someone named "lumpnboy" (not within a proper post by the LibCom administrators) and posted to the thread concerning Dauve's dodgy text "The X-Filers" (not in a new thread, nor in either of the two threads [see above] that were started in response to my comments about Dauve, nor in the older, long-forgotten thread that various members of the LibCom "community" found and resuscited with the sole intent of ridiculing our work and insulting us). These injuries were certainly made worse by the preposterous notion that the ban upon us was "temporary." This ban was illegitimate from the start, and so any attempt to distinguish it from a "permanent" ban cannot be taken seriously.

We note with disgust that this restoration of our privileges, like our banning, was delivered without any explanations or apologies. The manner in which we were privately informed of this restoration were just as insulting, inadequate and cowardly: a simple email from a robot indicating that "Your account at has been activated," as if we'd just created this account, and had not been in possession of it for almost an entire year.

What are we supposed to do with such access? And access to a website that is both administrated and (for the most part) visited by cowards, Francophobes, arrogant know-nothings, bullies, and character assassins? We know full well the type of trap that has been sent for us. If we attempt to answer any or all of the dozens of ridiculous comments, calumnies or complaints that have been made about us during our "temporary" absence from the LibCom "community," we will be quickly re-convicted of being an "obnoxious arsehole" and, once again without any warning or rational explanation, we will be "permanently" banned.

But these, of course, are minor matters compared with LibCom's unconscionable removal of our translation of Didier Daeninckx's text about Guy Dauve, which is still censored. This remains unacceptable, and is the worst possible indictment of these "libertarian communists" that we could imagine. Of course, we will never again participate in LibCom, and we will continue to publicize their scandalous behavior, even if apologies are made and this censored text is restored.

27 December 2009

Sounds about right. Your post-situationist antics were never funny, and now they're just irritating. If you have a beef with Dauve, why don't you talk about the ideas? Why should we care about this parlor-room gossip? This has about as much relevance to fight against capital as the articles in a celebrity gossip site. So shut the fuck up.

i know right? this guy and his monomania put me to fucking sleep.

me too, I wish I could focus on what's really entertaining.

exactly! I only turned off the TV set and visited this anarchist news site to be entertained! sheesh.

I wish i had a TV, it'd be more entertaining than this boring ass shit.

bill not bored, follow your leader!

Don't have a TV?! Well, why don't you just go out and steal one? I mean, you are an anarchist aren't you? A real bad-ass, too, no doubt about it.

I'm in a wheelchair, it might be hard for me to get away with it!

That is no excuse,,,it is lame infact,just like you!
There are electric wheelchairs,certain attachments,,but if you be a peasant in a bamboo reproduction,I recommend bicep developement,or forever be effeminate!

"never funny, and now they're just irritating" I agree with you, I think both notbored and that mean article about that nice WWII police officer should be censored too. We must not confuse people with history facts because if you do they won't revolt.

man, if you think it's just this, you have obviously not encountered any more of bill boring's extensive web-logodiarrhea yet. lucky you

OK, OK, if its not just this but there is more than censoring him better idea than ever, I think. why fight me, I agree with censor!!!

stop you are confusing things because censorship is bad and I would only the censor the bad things like notbored and anti-dauve text which are very bad but I would not censor the good things that I like.

For christs sake "censorship" means a government or other powerful institution is attempting to entirely suppress some kind of speech. People are always screaming about censorship when what they are actually talking about is controlling the content of ones own website or some exercise of voluntary association. This is not a comment on bill and libcom, which I don't particularly care about, but at least call it what it is, which is not "censorship" but more like ego and partisanship.

If you read LibCom policy, you see that the removal of Dauve text was not following these policy, also LibCom is not someone property but property of collective and people who use it not some administraitor who censor text he don't like as a person. Besides my english dictionary does no say that ego or partisanship mean removal of what doesn't like. Do Lost Children defend censorship or removal or whatever you English call it? Not sure but I think censorship is bad for anarchist.

We remove baseless antagonistic comments from our blog, if you want to call that censorship, then feel free to have a nice cry about it.

No: removing a substantive nonfiction submission like a news item that is accepted and then removed (not a mere comment) is nothing but censorship. If you actually censor things at your blog -- not just comments, but substantive news items, as well -- then I'd be careful about admitting it in public. Censors are like snitches: bitches who require stitches.

it's not censorship because of the SIMPLE fact that one can start their own motherfucking website! jesus, STFU, none of this BS is censorship.

exactly! if you don't like the New York Times, publish your own fucking newspaper! Same thing with CNN or Fox News: stop fucking complaining because anyone can start their own motherfucking TV station. Everything does not belong to everyone, just as use of something doesn't mean you are its owner, no matter what those smart-ass anarcho-communist theorists say. IT IS SIMPLE: my website belongs to me me me, my newspaper belongs to me me me, my TV station belongs to me me me. Everyone else can fuck themselves.

yes, because a free blog you can set up in 2 minutes is exactly the same as a major corporate media conglomerate. good call.

obsessed with Bill Not Bored, doesn't care what he thinks, but desperately wants to suck his dick. . . . slurp slurp slurp! better get in line.

-- Spike.

You're a fucking idiot.

Yes, censorship exists in the MSM where access is limited by the government and capital.

However, on the internet you can set up your own god dam website for fucking free you idiot. It is not the same situation and you know it, so STFU.

Fucking idiot god damn fucking STFU. . . .

Wow. Take it easy there, sonny. you'll lather yourself up into a condition!

last time I read libcom policy it said it was their website and they can decide what they host on it - as all websites can do, and as Bill does with his own. If libcom asked to put up an article slagging someone off they didn't like personally on Bill's website, and he said no, would that make Bill a censoring fascist like libcom? Of course not.

What makes it extra funny is that libcom also "censored"posts of people accusing Bill of child molestation - but I didn't see Bill complaining about that "censoring".

Maybe Bill should realise that stupidly smearing people is a bad thing in general, and he shouldn't do it either?

Bill please please please! I hate you but I love you, pay attention to me, I wanna suck your dick, too. slurp slurp slurp.

that line to swallow his cum is getting longer and longer by the minute.

-- Spike.

I find this whole thing very suspect. Did Bill Not Bored denounce the Spike's vile and putrid abuse of all of Bill's critics while it was happening? Did he demand that the outing of the real abusers?

No to all questions.

No, you can't get to the front of the line to suck Bill's cock if you mention me. You have to wait your turn like all the other people obsessed with him. Nice try, though.

-- Spike, the vile and putrid.

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to write down such profanity: it indicates a complete and total commitment to homophobia and sexism.

Fuck god in the ass! I'm not only not embarrassed to write PROFANITY down, I also do profane things, at least once a day. Sometimes more. As for homophobia and . . . sexism: I'm a woman, you stupid god-fearing cocksucker.

-- Spike.

Typical sexist double-talk, as if being a female exonerates you from being sexist.

Or maybe it's just a different kind of feminism. A sado-nietzschean feminism. Womens' power with an unquenchable will to power and brutal jouissance.

I'm gonna have to agree with Spike,there should be total profanity,to regain the balance.Her own act of just saying "god gets fucked in the arse"is a more modern interpretation of the "god is dead".This is not a sexist attitude because the sex act is irrelevant,it was the negation of the moral restraints that 'god'is the manifestation of,the destruction of the ethics that run off the religious impositions on free sex and its support of the foundational family and its unnatural perpetuation of control beyond weaning by breeders.With this in mind,it was the god/devil binary that fucked jesus in the arse!

you boys are very sweet. actually when I was your age, I used to model myself on Madame de Saint-Ange (Philosophy in the Boudoir).

-- Spike

Well of course darling,the boudoir is the place where the dreams of liberty found their genesis,from where the attack on moral certitude began by chipping away at the phallic constructs of patriarchal dominance.

So called "supplementary" jouissance is really the best kind. It is the kind best suited to (anti-)political militancy. The Cumming Insurrection and all that. Social War and historical rupture is a full-bodied clitoral orgasm.

My dictionary says: "censorship: 1. the act or a system of censoring. 2. the work or position of a censor." Well, since Roman magistrates haven't served as censors for a thousand years, but nevertheless the practice of censorship has continued in their absence, we can say that "censoring" is an act or system that can be performed or maintained by anyone with the power to unilaterally suppress something that they find inconvenient or embarrassing, even an institution as powerless as LibCom. So how's this, Lost Child: why don't we wait until the admins at LibCom become real live government bureaucrats, and then see if they act like "proper" censors? would that satisfy your petty little pedantic complaint about the definition of the word?

ok, let me boil down what im trying to say:

1. i dont care about gilles dauve's dad, ok, he's an asshole, im just really not sure what that has to do with his son's work or with anything else,
2. i certainly don't care about bill not bored or his drama (he's like bob black for the internet),
3. i dont care about people who troll my blog or other radical websites (and im not calling bill a troll just an attention seeking drama queen), "censorship" boo fucking hoo go work for the aclu!


another one who's obsessed with Bill Not Bored, doesn't care what he thinks yet keeps mentioning his name, wants to suck his dick. . . . slurp slurp slurp! better get in line.

-- Spike.

yuck! ok i'm officially done with this.

slurp slurp slurp (oh Bill, oh Bill, please pay attention to me, please please)


calm down, binky. you'll give yourself a condition!

This is pure and simple character assasination. A lot of people disagree with Bill Not Bored's (often bizarre) ideas without resorting to character assasination, and I wish he could maintain a similar level of principle. But since he won't, let me ask: why exactly did you go to prison, Bill? It's something that's not often talked about, but seems like an amusing-enough story.

First of all, I'm not Bill. From what I've seen he always signs his posts, infrequent though they are. Second, why would you ask such an obviously evil question? Bill hasn't assassinated anyone's character, he's simply translated an article and posted it. If you don't like the content of that article, well that's just fine: don't copy and paste it, don't send it to your friends, ignore it, complain to the person who actually wrote it. But asking evil questions while pretending that you have "principles" is awfully shady of you. What do you care if people start to question Gilles Dauve's essays on the basis of what Bill has translated? What do you have invested in Gilles Dauve? Or maybe your investment is in the good name of his father, Guy, the unindicted war criminal.

Hey! If you really believe that things like character assassination, rumor-mongering and smear campaigns are bad things, why would you engage in them yourself? Do you think attacking Bill personally is a good way to discuss the contents of Daeninckx's article on Guy Dauve? Don't you think engaging in such acts, while hiding behind an "anon," is cowardly? I certainly do. Come out from behind your moustache, ass!

jweidner! jweidner! your mustache has slipped off! Admit it: you are obsessed with Bill Not Bored and wanna suck his dick! slurp slurp slurp "I hate this guy so much I wanna swallow his cum!" slurp slurp slurp

-- Spike.

jweidner, posting to LibCom, still positioning himself to suck Bill Not Bored's cock:

"What's the over-under on whether or not he breaks his pledge not to return?"

slurp slurp slurp.

-- Spike

jweidner, caught in a lie.

Here, jweidner -- would really like to know his first name, Jeff perhaps? -- claims that "I've never posted there [@News] in my life. In fact I think I've only visited once before. "

As if this single visit was somewhere in the distant past. . . As if!

But less than one hour earlier, this same jweider reports that " most responses are generally quite measured and sane."

whatta fucking liar! slurp slurp slurp

-- Spike.

Gilles Dauve's essays comprise a significant level of importance in communization theory. I'd say that makes our interest in his ideas a pretty big investment. Perhaps what remains as the shadow of the Situationist movement is simply afraid that Dauve is beginning to eclipse them and they need to grasp at straws to discredit him in order to ensure their own lofty position in the recent social ruptures?

I'm sorry, the only French we know in the States is from the Eclipse and Re-Emergence of Telefrancais Fantastique in French class.

Living communism and spreading ananas!

hahahaha hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

is this funny to non-stoned people too? because that pineapple guy is fucking hilarious!!!!!!!!

Hilarious in a goofy sort of way,like stoned people are goofy in a funny annoying way.

Here is the response from Gilles Dauvè:

The X-Filers

"(..) the SI should not be judged according to the superficially scandalous aspects of certain manifestations through which it makes its appearance, but according to its essentially scandalous central truth."

Situationist International

"Unfortunately for us, we were right."

Amadeo Bordiga

Faced with the prosecutor Pinard, Flaubert pleaded for the morality of Madame Bovary. Such a role would be less credible for us. (1)

"There can never be an innocent Lettrist", declared the Lettrist International around 1950 when one of its members was accused of theft. Just as it is odious to be treated as guilty, so it is absurd to claim to be innocent after having published an article entitled "For a World Without Innocence".

Armand Robin, the author of La Fausse Parole ( False Speech) insisted that his name should be added to every blacklist.

No point in looking for excuses. Denying is confessing.

For nearly thirty years, we had done various things, and put forward some ideas. Our actions defined what we were.

We were suddenly denounced for not being what we did. According to our more lenient critics, we carelessly supported gas chamber revisionism. Others, whether madpersons or liars, went further: for them, we are shamefaced Holocaust negationists and, to put it clearly, more or less fascists.

Are we to explain that we are not what others claim we are ? Negative proof is nonsense.

We can do nothing for those lost sheep who choose to judge the thousands of pages we have published by a mere fifty lines photocopied for their benefit.

We have nothing to say to the researchers and on-lookers who are only interested in the "ultra-left" if it has links with some ultra-right. How about a history of the German communist left centred around those of its members who turned national-bolshevik ? This is as relevant as reading Nerval through a psychiatric looking glass, re-interpreting Marx

through his love affair with his maid, or studying anarchism solely in terms of the provocateurs infiltrated into libertarian groups.

As for those who had been familiar with our writings and activities, some of them for twenty or thirty years, and who suddenly started shaking in their boots at the sight of a few selected quotes, such an attitude disqualifies them at all levels, including the intellectual level.

Slander has had the success it intended: a media one. But no sooner has the denouncer uttered his words that they are swept away by others. One day everybody shall have fifteen minutes of infame. The curtain comes down. End of show trial.

The derisory character of the anti ultra-left campaign, its meagre connection with reality, is shown in the way we were cast in the role of the villain in a couple of novels, and then a film. Libel turns into fiction - a sure sign that is has reached its terminal phase.

A scandal cannot be refuted. The press and publishing world do not make opinion, they reflect it, speaking only about what is already related to the reader, and has been socially filtered.

When the media encounter something unknown (in this case, La Banquise), they can influence the reader but, as such an article does not have the least relation to the reader's life, how deep is this influence ? how real ? La Banquise becomes about as important as the derailment of a train in China: like a hundred and fifty dead Chinese, it gets a couple of columns and thirty seconds' attention.

In 1984, following the assassination of G‚rard L‚bovici, French readers, knowing nothing about the SI, opened their newspapers to learn that one Guy Debord was reported as having links with "international terrorism". Before forgetting it all, readers merely concluded what they already thought: extremists are decidedly unpalatable.

If communist ideas were honestly portrayed in the New York Times, their mere appearance there would rob them of their meaning. Could a New York Times page hostile to these ideas be any more relevant ?

A CP supporter skimming through Mattick or Socialisme ou

Barbarie in the fifties would have been indignant:" They have to be paid by the CIA to write this stuff !" And a gutter press reader would have exclaimed: "I don't know what the big idea is, but at least they're having a go at the Russians !"

Our texts of 1970, 1979, 1983 or 2000 can only be understood by their readers, not by those who now study them in search of our "revisionism", and who equate history with criminology, and politics with denunciation. When we write volumes on revolution, the average left-winger ignores them. Fair enough. Now if he is shown five lines of ours about Auschwitz, he might be persuaded we are a little bit "over the top". He is wrong on both counts.

It is only possible to bring discredit on yourself in the eyes of those for whom and with whom you exist. Public opinion regards any individual or groups who have radical pretensions as dreamers, imbeciles or trouble-makers. It is as difficult for the average reader of Le Monde or the Guardian to understand that La Banquise never flirted with fascism, as to accept the magazine's historical vision. The non-existence of the flirtation arises precisely from the validity of the vision. There is no other "proof".

Because we are revolutionaries, we have as little in common with fascism as with stalinism. The problem (which won't be overcome for some time) is that this phrase is virtually bereft of meaning for those who see no content in the word "revolution". It would be useless to expect people who have no time for our ideas in general to understand us upon this particular point - we never supported gas chamber negationist Faurisson - especially when the denunciation takes a challenge of antifascism as blatant evidence of complicity with fascism: anti-anti-fascism equals pro-fascism ! As plain as the glass in Lenin's mausoleum.

In other areas, perhaps, the all too blinding logic of this syllogism would unleash some sort of critical reflex amongst the ranks of the left, i.e. that simple minimal dissent which is supposed to differentiate left from right, and, needless to say, left from extreme-right. But this time, the attack was tantamount to a democratic refutation of revolutionary theory, via what current wisdom, now, in France and just about nowhere else, portrays as the conflict of the turn of the century: the confrontation between negationism and anti-negationism. (2)

We are to blame. Not for what we have been accused of, but for why we have been accused. The prosecutors have picked on our strong point, not on our weaknesses, simplifications or provocations. Good or bad taste are not in question here. "All things considered, the sense of provocation is still the most appreciable aspect of the matter. A truth will always take hold if it is expressed in an outrageous way." (Breton,Conference, 17th November, 1922) The propensity of a society to be shocked by an act or an isolated remark goes with its toleration and euphemization of its own inhumanity.

"If my theatre stinks, it's because other plays smell so good."

(J.Genet, L'Etrange mot d', 1967)

Will social criticism ever learn to write with caution?

We are to blame for thinking that nazism is condensed capitalism, and could only have been avoided by revolution; for thinking that mankind can only escape present and future bloody dictatorships by overthrowing capitalist society.

Is it just a matter of vocabulary ? Surely not. Suppose, in order to avoid using the word capitalist, we had said: the existing society, the XXth century, the modern world... produced Auschwitz, the inquisition would have unfolded just the same. What is unacceptable is to trace the nazi horror to its source: the world (dis)order based on capitalism. Too many people have a vested interest in explaining nazism in terms of hatred, rejection of otherness, the politics of exclusion, anti-semitism -- in short by the nazis. Consequently, in France, today, they want Le Pen's National Front to be fought not by attacking the society which produces it, but by defending this very society against it, and logically end up supporting the left, the centre, and any moderate politician as long as he opposes the extreme-right.

Those who have turned "capitalism" into an empty advertising catch phrase are the same who treat "revolution" as a slogan. What distinguishes us from those who denounce us is that at the end of the day they think this society can't be all that bad. They believe that there's "more freedom" today than in 1950, that the riot police are "a lesser evil" than the troops at Peterloo or the Pinkerton gangs, and that young proles are "better off" in an inner-city school than down a mine or on the street. This is exacty where our crime lies: we refuse to compare.

"The concentration camps are the hell of a world whose heaven is the supermarket." (La Banquise, n.1, 1983) Clearly for us there exists neither heaven nor hell. A horrible reality created its infernal representation. The horrors of modern consumerism produce their heavenly images. In both cases, the expression used by La Banquise dealt with images and did not compare the realities upon which either is based, far less deny their existence.

"The "normal" regime of exploitation does not have a different nature from that of the camps. The camp is simply a clear picture of the somewhat veiled hell where so many people live around the world." (Robert Antelme, Pauvre-Prol‚taire-D‚port‚, 1948) Of course the final solution is not specifically referred to in this statement, as Antelme is talking about concentration camps rather than extermination camps. But who would accuse Antelme of wanting to minimise the atrocity of the camps ? (He was no ultra-lefist, rather a radical humanist, who joined the French CP in 1946 and was expelled four years later.) Our only fault is to see extermination as the culmination of concentration.

The concentration camps are the hell of a world whose heaven is the supermarket. Why is this phrase unacceptable ? Why does the leftist, forgetting everything we've just said, forgetting even Antelme whom he may have read, understand this as an odious comparison between a gas chamber and people queuing at Tesco's ? Because, although he does not love supermarkets, he sees no horror in them. Just as he would like a democratic society with reduced wage differentials, he dreams of a consumer friendly shopping centre, with bicyle lanes, linking together the local community, displaying more educational CD-Roms than Barbie dolls, selling organic food and "fair" priced Bolivian coffee. In other words, commodity with a human face. For those who have no critique of the supermarket as a concentration of market relations and a place of overall deprivation, La Banquise's turn of phrase sounds weirdly paradoxical, even abominable.

For us, just as much as for our accusers, it is how we view the supermarket (and society) which determines how we view the camps, not the other way round. So it would be a hopeless task to try and disarm our prosecutors by defending our position on Auschwitz when what matters is to attack them on the supermarket question. The central issue has never been about an analysis of nazism or of genocide, rather a question of how we relate to this society here and now. Basically, nothing has changed since a republican policeman shouted at one of us in 1968: "With your bullshit, you want to lead us to

fascism !" Thirty years later, spurred on by Auschwitz or not, it's the same story.

The accusations against us were based on scandal. But day after day, reality proves to be scandalous, and even caricatures itself. It is economy, not La Banquise, which had plans for a supermarket at Oswiecim. Scandal is what suddenly shocks a world which can't stand its own reflection in the mirror. The commodity is the great desecrator. So said a manifesto which had its 150th anniversary celebrated in 1998.

Our civilization is too rich in horrors to allow itself the intellectual or moral right to establish a hierarchy of its own crimes by deciding which ones the law authorizes and which it represses. This world is not explained by extremes but by the ordinary. The Gulag was not the key to the USSR nor were the extermination camps the key to Hitlerism. Crises, wars and mass slaughter express the paroxysm of society, but do not explain the logic which produces them. However, planned mass murder is what democracy essentially reproaches nazism with -- while revisionists maintain it was not planned. What more is there to say about this debate in the year 2000 than in 1980 or 1983 ? The crime we are in revolt against is the nature and continuation of this society, as this basic crime contains all others.

In the 70's, "new philosophers" in France and Soljenitsyn's admirers replaced Auschwitz with the Gulag archipelago. Twenty or thirty years later, some leftwingers launch a mini-war against a revolutionary critique which they pretend to see as a harbinger of some neo-nazi threat. The democratic injunction remains unaltered: If you do not recognize totalitarianism as the Number One enemy, then you are an accessory to the crime. Those who persist in talking about capitalism when everyone is meant to be worrying about the "real" pressing issues (dictatorship, domination, racism, intolerance) are unaccceptable and are to be hunted down.

This little campaign at least had the merit of showing that everything is not "recuperable" and that the society of the spectacle has problems digesting critiques which are a little radical. Naturally, if any individual or group with revolutionary pretensions is dragged before the public eye, they would want to be so dragged because of what they really are. But the fabrication of monsters is not just a product of the late XXth century. Thiers did not massacre the insurgents of 1871 for their communal democratic programme, but as murderers and arsonists. The French Third Republic did not imprison anarchists for their individualist or collectivist

beliefs, but simply as throwers of bombs. It took years before the press stopped revealing Marx as an agent of Bismark and Lenin as a German spy. La Banquise tried to explain how there are no such things as monsters: it would be ridiculous to attempt to show that we weren't such monsters by proving we're not gas chamber negationists.

Only Stalinism turned slander into a habit for some, an obsession for many. Several decades later, suburban Vichinskys can still make a nuisance of themselves, because they combine common sense and morality, with the virtuous aplomb of those who only support good causes. Living in a popular

neighbourhood, they never forget to show what perfect credentials they have, with parents either manual workers or in the Resistance. They have a family, they work, and if they write, it's certainly not pornographic novels. They also have an audience, and book after book reassure it. They lunch with a union leader and then leave him to march with the Trots. Their Stalinist past was nothing but a long dissidence. They travelled through Maoland with the most critical eye. They embody the rebellious spirit of the 6O's turned realist and aren't scared to put their ballot paper in the box: the self-righteous respects what demands to be respected. Their books are not books but good deeds. How could they go astray ? They are in the right before the act: what is denounced by Good can only be Evil.

But not everyone is so favoured: whoever criticizes democracy loses respectability. Against us, denouncers only need to profess their indignation. Reading La Banquise made our accusers sick, and resulted in them feeling not so much disagreement as nausea. What better argument than suffering ? Such extremes of pain and anger couldn't be wrong. Emotional blackmail turns the opponent into a monster. Decent chaps versus bastards, that's what it's all about.

Every political trial puts intention in the dock. For this reason, nothing is served by turning the accusation back on the accusers. Of course the democracies allowed the genocide of the Jews. Of course the higher ranks of French fascism weren't filled by "bordiguists" -- rather by leaders drawn from ex-socialist and ex-Stalinist ranks. Of course, those who denounce us as hidden anti-semites support a CP whose past and present Russian comrades readily maintain a heavy anti-Jewish rhetoric which dwarfs Le Pen's jokes and insinuations. Of course the ex-leftists who bear down upon us have for thirty years praised a third-worldism often close to national-bolshevism, and indeed shaken many a bloody hand in

Cuba or Peking. Of course we are itching to shout to all the

activists, journalists and academics who support a left which rallied to the defense of the fatherland a century ago: national socialism is your politics. All this is true. But we would miss the point if we too returned the jibe "YOU are the fascists", when what matters is breaking down with any form of stigmatization. Contrary to our enemies, we have no enemies. We do not oppose wage labour because the boss has a secret bank account in Switzerland. Who cares if those who treat us as enemies have dirty hands or not ? Let them valorize a worthiness which is for them both a raison d'ˆtre and a livelihood. For they are honourable men.

Any politics is to be judged by its methods. Social criticism attacks a way of life as well as institutions. The politics of denunciation does the exact opposite: it is soft on social relations and hard on individuals. It calls for ethical cleansing. Purification. Eradication of the evil-doers. It revels in revealing names and demands that others do so too. It informs and loves informers. It presupposes that society would be fine without the profiteer who hoards wealth, without the nazi, without the paedophile. And, what's more, without those who refuse to choose the wrong target, without us. A historical vision where social forces oppose one another is replaced by that of a confrontation between a ruling figure and oppressed persons, between an executioner and his victims, which has no origin other than ideology, hatred, the desire to exclude and dominate -- a desire which is behind the international speculator, the nazi, the rapist, the negationist and their ultra-left accomplice... What is important is to be on the side of good, and to feed the people with hidden inside information.

Revolutionaries have always tried to say: this is how things are and how they could change. Truth is never a secret. It is a matter of understanding not unmasking. It deprives the expert of his privilege. Otherwise only physicists have the right to speak about nuclear power, and biologists are the only people who can talk about genetic modification: in other words, the common man is forever condemned to evaluate the views of specialists who are always one discovery ahead of him. One of the criteria of a revolutionary critique is that of supposing equality: not because it regards anyone as capable of absorbing the knowledge of a Nobel prize winner in six months, but because the questions it asks are different. Social critique is based on facts which aren't obvious, but are fundamental and understandable by everyone. The "secret" is that there is no secret.

The worst expert is the one with expertise in secrets. "Believe the Impossible": conspiracy theory starts from the principle that everything hides its opposite. It assumes there is a faked truth and those who produced this fake. Incapable

of understanding the basis of this society - working, buying, selling, going where the state official tells us to go - it unearths the document supposed to prove the rapacity of the boss, the corruption of the mayor, the shady past of the statesman, the infamous sex life of the billionnaire, and of course some secrets funds. Whether it uncovers the "real" masters of the world, mafia or Moscow gold, the Trilateral Commission, the Moonie sect or the Opus Dei, Mossad agents or

Stasi moles, this point of view puts together segmented facts. It is this impoverished vision which reached the high point of caricature in the recent inquisitorial delirium. When the brain has faith in occult powers, it short-circuits.

For two hundred years, there has been a common reactionary position (held, among others, by fascism) which depicts a society that's rotten but still based on healthy foundations, and which sets out to separate the wheat from the chaff through a revelation of baneful underground influences. Politics as denunciation presupposes an enlightened elite capable of warning the ordinary misled mortal against those who would pervert him. What difference is there between "The Parliament is in the hands of the banks" and "The ultra-left plays into neonazis' hands" ? Nothing much, except that with information inflation, Henri Coston now writes Ph.D.s and contributes to "quality" dailies. (3)

The difference between our denouncers and ourselves:

we don't keep files on them.

Former members of La Banquise: J.-P. C., G.D., J.H., D.M.

(1) cliquer pour revenir
The reader who compares this text with my participation in the book Libertaires et ultra-gauches contre le n‚gationnisme

(Ed.Reflex, 1996) will see that The X-Filers is a self-criticism of the way I defended myself three years ago. The adequate response to slander would have been either silence or counter-attack, not a justification which only added more confusion. (Gilles Dauv‚)

The only revisionism with a stake in history, and hence theoretical interest, would be that which divided the Second International a hundred years ago and has ever since served as a model for reformism, as well as an inspiration for reactionary politics. It called for a cross-class alliance, the reintegration of the proletariat into the nation, a waged community under State guidance, and the acceptance of imperialism. In short, the marriage of the nation and of the workers' movement, summarized a little later by George Valois (founder of the first French fascist group, "Le Faisceau") in the formula:

Nationalism + Socialism = Fascism.

In over fifty years, H.Coston has produced a long series of books, packed with minute pointless data, all leading to the conclusion that the people of France are ruled by an outside minority, be it the freemasons, the Protestants, international banking, and to cap it all, the Jews.

Le Parlement aux mains des banques, published in Contre Courant, November 1956, was written by Paul Rassinier, one of the founding fathers of gas chamber revisionism.

"The proletariat does not wonder just what the bourgeois want, but what they're forced to want."

Marx, German Brussels Gazette, September 12th, 1847

"There is nothing that can't be understood."

Isidore Ducasse, Poésies, 1870

"It says what it says, literally and in every possible way."

Rimbaud to his mother, who was baffled after reading Une Saison en Enfer, 1873

"I watched him with some interest, for it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies -- unless one counts journalists."

Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, 1938

I know this is confusing, especially if you don't read French and haven't been following these events for several years, but this text was written in 1999, which means it cannot be the "response from Gilles Dauvè" to the text that I wrote. Nor is it a "response" from Gilles to Didier Deaninckx's text, which Dauve the Younger has never acknowledged, not to mention responded to.

In truth, it was this dodgy text, "The X-Filers" -- with its complacent fussing around with explanations about why Dauve, et al's previous denials of Holocaust revisionism weren't quite the right ones -- that originally motivated me to intervene in the stagnant waters of LibCom. I pointed out the hypocrisy of Gilles's reference to Debord's plight in 1984, which these fine fellows said and did nothing about at the time, but were happy to exploit 15 years later, rather cynically, when Debord was dead and couldn't denounce the deception on his own.

I know it was written some years ago. But it is still a sufficient response to all that nonsense about how they supported Faurisson - which is the only accusation that is relevant to respond to. Your hangups about the situationists and debord is just sad. It goes against everything the situationists and debord ever stood for and argued for.

Ofcourse, you will never be saticefied by any response so this is for eveyone else who might be reading this.

Of course. I ain't never satisfied. Now if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.

"which is the only accusation that is relevant to respond to."

No one needs you to dictate what is "relevant" and what is not, what must be "responded to" and what must not be responded to. I prefer to do my thinking for myself.

As for this: "It goes against everything the situationists and debord ever stood for and argued for."

Well, when I meet up with Guy Debord in Hell, I'm sure he will let me know what he "stood for and argued for." In the meantime, I'll do what I please. That is, if that is OK with you and the other communists up in Sweden.

isn't bill bored the guy who got arrested for making lewd and harrassing phone calls to some chick awhile back? weird dude.

No, it doesn't work that way. If you too are obsessed with Bill and want to suck his dick, you have to wait on line, just like everyone else.

-- Spike, the vile.

Yeah, im sure you are a woman. Or maybe not...

Re: Guy Dauve:

Just got an email from someone named Dimitri at L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (The Association of Former Amateurs in Stories of Wars and Holocausts). A good friend of NOT BORED! believes it is centered around Pierre Gaullaume. The AAARGH International website is In sum, this is what "Dimitri" had to say.

"BILL 'NOTBORED' and Daeninkxxx are tow big unctuous heaps of shit. Please circulate."

That's what they call a non-denial denial. It doesn't deny any of the accusations -- in this case, that Guy Dauve was an unindicted war criminal and a lifelong hunter of communists, Algerian independents, 68ers, etc -- but prefers to deny the very existence of the accusers (they are heaps of shit, not people who spout heaps of shit).

Of course, we encouraged "Dimitri" to circulate his denunciations of us far and wide.

Am i missing something? I still dont get the whole "his-father-was-a-hunter-of-communists-and-therefore-we-should-hate-gilles dauve"-thing. Could somebody else, who is not a fucking retard, explain it to me? Is anyone else getting this? What is the deal?

I dunno,maybe there's a nazi gene and this makes people suck dicks and slurp,maybe???I'm not a fuckin mind reader or geneticist!!Suck you.

yes, you missing a brain.

Duh!! you also for ïgnoring the paradox of an 'ideological gene' ;?

You English is suck.

I assume you refer to the English language,,,um,,,know what a possessive pronoun and tense is moron?

Well then: if you have a brain, and i dont, you should have no problem explaining the whole thing to me? Again, what is the importance of this?

Well, let's see: First the earth cooled. And, then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died, and they turned into oil. And, then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And, Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it, he took her best summer dress out of the closet, and put it on, and went to town.

What does this have to do with the topic dear one?

shithead wanted "the whole thing explained to me" so I began at the beginning, well, not really the beginning because the earth was already created, but the beginning as far as human beings are concerned because the earth had to cool, you dig? before anything could happen, so I had to start it there, with the chillin' of the earth. What came next? Well, the dinosaurs, obviously. . . .

Sheesh,,,I cant go back that far explaining that shit to you!You should fucking condense that history in one word,passe.Fuck the dinosaurs and their era.

Yeah, keep avoiding to answer the questions. The best evidence against your case is - YOU.

me? me?! and who is me? lemme guess, I'm the same guy, yeah I'm the one! the only one who posts comments on this website! that's me me me and I'm the one -- the only one, don't worry, you're not really paranoid if someone's really out to git ya -- that's right, I be be THE ONE who been following you, scheming against you, plotting against you day and night . . .

There is no YOU for me my dear,,,,,slut.I am tired from working all day doing nothing in particular,,,hoping for,,alas,,,intelligent discourse,,,,,

Is this 'me, me only me,,'your protege? How endearing,to have a moron nibbling at yout kfc

I mean,emerge out of your anonomity to be transparent,or forever hold your tongue except when lashing a penis with it.Comprehend?

Hey you morons,you forgot your crucifixes,,,,fuckin christian scum!!!!

Gilles Dauve: Another discussion of this affair has begun at a blog called Anti-German Translation, which has also added a wealth of information on the subject.