Violence and some clarifications.

	One point, I should have taken out any quotes from previous texts
that may have confused you Melissa. But  any how just so the point is made
really clear. The use of the word "virile" in the text was precisely what
was being "mocked" and put into question. "Virility," another silly word
is not even a concern of the text  sent. In fact, the text speaks to the
formation of violence as something else - to wit that of the
group-in-fusion- (referenced in the text). I think any confusion about the
matter arose because I left in snippets from previous texts.
	I have no comment on Tom's comment because I think he missed my
point of my little portrait altogether.
**************************************

	Mona was made of a thousand little sexes. She had been a worker, a
pants presser in a factory, who knew that smashing a
cop became an action 
where the cells of her body found release after 20 years of oppression.
She
had been reading Fanon when she realized this, and so during the
demonstration, it was utter joy that possessed her body when she fought
back. Surges of joy and sexual energy coursed through her body.	 Later her
little boy said, "Mommie is that what Guattari and Deleuze meant by the
group in formation hitting back at the the State Machine?" She laughed and
held her son close to  to her body. One day her little son (whose name was
Precipice) would understand. He would grow up and become woman. A warrior
girl poet with male parts. She waited for Jill to call so they write
another text. The revolution was coming. Coming. It was Come and Become
and becoming and come.

 **************************************
> 	Mona found a text and detourned it. Jill said she wrote it. She
> sent  it to the d+g list, then they found a mistake. THey forgot who wrote
> it. It was very fast. She was in love with Jill's take on Mona's take of
> the detourne take on violence. Anyhow they the twins fell asleep after
> reading a text they had not written. ANd so the night was one void.
> And flight line went right down the middle of their head.
> 
> 
> ******************************************************************** 
> > > 
> > > 	Violence is always specific. In his preface to the letters of the
> > > Baader -Meinhof gang (1978) Genet wonders about the brutality of society
> > ** at all levels from the simple act of tipping and towards all other
> > levels. Where
> > > does the violence of the State begin and end? Is violence a gesture, and
> > if
> > > it is a gesture is it derealized? Did the Baader-Meinhof gang attempt to
> > > act, or to merely make gestures? When is crime a revoltuonary action? 
> > > > 	***********************	Reason and violence - and who defined the
> > > > game??? Who made
> > > > violence its own weapon, but the State from all time. Armies, chruches,
> > > > States, which Of ALL these Dogs wants to Die - Nietzsche  as quoted by A/O
> > > > p. 63.n
> > > > 
> > > > 	************************************
> > > > 
	  But no one will deny that
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > moments when the gestures of violence are beautiful. For
instance, if
> > > > one were in a crowd demonstrating and then the thing got out of "control."
> > > > Then say the police or army came whamming in and whacking, and hitting the
> > > > people in the demonstration. Say a young woman,or a young man in the crowd
> > > > gets bashed. They get beaten and hit, say. And then the crowd around them
> > > > turns against their attackers. Say at that moment one sees the subjugated
> > > > group becomes the "group in fusion (A/O 257)as they turn against their
> > > > attackers, and seize the praxis out of the mess of the scene unfolding.
> > > > Say they take "down " their attackers. But wait, remember there has
> > been
> > > > blood and  bashing, and the young man or girl is bleeding and
> > seriously it
> > > > looks like they might be gravely injured. Now that is crass. It is crass
> > > > for the subjugating group (the totalizing reps of the State machine) to
> > > > beat and drag their victims across the street. Say that the demonstration
> > > > was about something simple, like welfare rights for single mothers, and
> > > > old people, and pyschiatriatrized persons. Say they are loud vociferous
> > > > and peaceful. Not "violent." Say they have been living out the violence
> > > > and brutality via cut-backs and neglect of the whole of a province or
> > > > state in canada or america.  Say their average income is $550. a month to
> > > > maybe for single mothers with kids $1024. a month. Say you are watching
> > > > all this from across the street at your cafe table. Say you work partime
> > > > and are wondering what all this means. 
> > 	The cops have been really
> > beating now, not
> > > > just the young woman  and man, but the whole of the front line of
> > > > demonstrators. Say you are watching as they begin to really hit and whack
> > > > one old person and one young person. Then the crowd pulls back, but it
> > > > rushs forward a moment later surging into what D *G call the groups
> > in
> > > > fusion . They stampede forward and tear the cops or army away from the
> > > > victims. They retaliate and with great elan, smash the coppers around
> > and
> > > > beat them, perhaps even to the point of senselessness. Or imagine a
> > similar
> > > > moment on the West Bank and Israeli troops are being stoned by kids in
> > the
> > > > Intifata circa 1989. Of course the values and perspectives change slightly
> > > > and the stakes and meanings of the conflicts are different. But who is
> > > > brutal, who is utilizing terror or violence? 
> > > > 	The welfare crowd has beaten say four cops to the ground and now
> > > > their historical rage descends upon one cop in particular and bullets
> > > > finally ring out. There are screams, as now the blood begins to flow,
> > to
> > > > gush, spurting guts and limbs, and the crowd is in sheer terror. Frozen
> > > > and at the same time
> > > > running away in panic, its group fusion is broken,///
> > > > a moment/// while they re-group and gather their wits and courage. The
> > > > single cop now has become a bloody pulp of red skin and smashed off
> > > > helmet.
> > > > 	Where is the manliness of the watcher in the cafe, or you, 
the
> > reader say, ("maniliness" is not my construction but one I am
mocking), a 
> > > > as you read this?
> > > > 	What is blithe about the crowd? - nothing - and then violence is
> > the
> > > > light of the crowd hitting back and smashing at their oppressor.
> > > > 	Then violence is the beauty of the group in fusion taking back
> > > > some of its own space, its own territory. It becomes a little war machine
> > > > in the midst of the State machine. That  machine built on the brutal
> > > > axioms of capital and the blood letting.
> > > > 	Who then can say thought is not cruel, and the need for cruelty in
> > > > action is not required? Yes the body of thought is material and is
> > cruel, the machine of the unconscious is cruel and spits out violence
> > against brutality.
> >  
> > > >Or,  (see the Passion of Michel Foucault by Jim Miller)
> > > > 	Foucault a man of physical courage stood taking truncheon blows
> > > > from cops and fought on the roof top.
> > > > 	There is nothing "wrong" with the war machine when it retaliates.
> > > > Where the state machine has no sense of "wrong" at all, the war machine
> > > > like the nomad stops when the game is over.
> > > > 	"Okay she said let's go the demonstration is over. I've had
> > > > enough, I think they got our point." She was bleeding but they left. Later
> > > > Danny the Red called to see of she was okay."" The war machine is nomadic
> > > > like the revolution machine. It moves on and regroups elsewhere, always
> > > > elsewhere. "To hell with the central party apparatus, she said. They
> > > > headed down the lane like hunted dogs."
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>