HTML> You mentioned the word show (Jean-Pierre Voyer)

You mentioned the word show

Dear Mr. Bueno,

Thanks to the Internet edition of "An Investigation", I have been able to make a quick list of the way in which the word show is used with the help of an ordinary F- key. This confirms what I had previously told you: I usually make a transitive use of this word.

Satisfaction show

Unsatisfaction show

Only details make a show (so definitely not a show of society or a show of the world; and the world never appears except through Industrialised propaganda in the form of T. v. , Advertising, Police, Culture. If society or the world appeared directly, everything would be so easy. Which is specific about the inhabitants of this world is precisely their poverty to the world, that is to say the poverty of access they have to the world. The only means of access they have to it is their salary and industrialised propaganda.)

The unsatisfaction show is to show unsatisfaction in details (Antiracists, Puffs and Film-makers, tomatoes, Plutonium and beer.)

End of the world show

The show of the Garbage men's bitter complaints around the world (the Ecologist's complaints, actually, limitless space for big business)

The Crisis show

Ridiculous show of Decomposed Domination (you have to see the way in which Debord and others have made a total turnaround: previously, leaders were perfectly incapable of being made fools of, they are fully capable now, notably, of doing anything.)

Show of The Species as threat to The Species

Show of World Difficulties

Economy is nothing but The World's Bourgeois adventure show (Economy according to this definition only exists on T. V. and in the press.)

The show is Materialised Religion (intransitive definition. In fact, the show isn't Religion made material, it is Commerce which is a materialisation of God. And the show —advertising, T. V. , culture and so on— is nothing but the religion of that God. Rather than materialised, it has been industrialised, as all the rest.)

The Proletariat show

The Difficulties for Goods show

The Bourgeoisie intends to fascinate crowds with its own personal show.

As it appears increasingly clearly that real human misery is the only real thing that occurs in this world (the centre of the world "the way in which we are entitled to live" according to Debord's early work as Le Manach has pertinently pointed out in his "Artichaut de Bruxelles". I don't think today that it is appearing increasingly clearly... Actual human misery —poverty to this world, communication misery— remains a secretive and shameful one. It takes a Houellebecq to reveal it. Propaganda does its utmost not to let this misery appear. In so doing, by its own pathetic misery, it nevertheless reveals misery by the wish to portray wealth. Advertising wants to portray wealth, but what misery in its portrayal. Thus, more so than directly into this world, it is in advertising that true human misery appears although indirectly, through the misery with which wealth is portrayed. Clones, robots, human resources are all you can see while the sound track whispers being, being.) The Bourgeoisie giving the show of its own calamities...

The Bourgeoisie drains new blood from the show of its own ignorance and impotency.

The only thing The Bourgeoisie can say against itself is the show of crisis of what it is doing.

Bourgeoisie's true ill fate resides in the fact that business relationships, goods themselves, are equal to total lack of human relationships. The achievement has occurred, it has fully occurred, things have had some kind of activity, a show has been taking place. (Here is to be found a non transitive definition, as erroneous as the intransitive ones I may have endeavoured to find. The show would be the activity of things. However, I fail to see any activity of things taking place anywhere. All I can see is lots of clones and human resources moving about, everywhere. The absence of human relationships is only felt, it is never to be seen. Being absent means that one has had to leave, a self evident truth. And this is valid for human relationships. They fail to be here because they have had to leave. They are, therefore, somewhere else, and they can't be seen. Nothing but nature is to be seen. In the words of the poet, there is an elsewhere, but how can the venue be located. When human relationships are to be seen, it is only as the caricatures T. V. and Advertising portray. Another bunch of clones, more human resources. Human relationships are still further along the road, yet neither in their display nor in anything visible. In this world, all recognition has wandered along the road and has found a gathering place among money. However, money, which is a social relationship, doesn't appear as such, but as something quite unspectacular. To stretch the point, money is invisible. It only appears as value, a swap with money made in thought. Otherwise, it is carefully concealed in temples and wallets. The fact that in this world every single thing is swapped in thought with money, owing to the fact that everything has a value, holds no specific spectacular value.

The Bourgeoisie's actual impotency resides in the fact that it can't prevent human relationships from increasingly emigrating into things, and, by so doing, they only become general as world show, universal show. Of universality. (The universal show of universality only takes place on T. V. The world show of the world only takes place on T. V. and not directly in this world. Human relationships emigrate but not in things although they can leave their mark in things, noticeably, in value, a swap made in thought. Human relationships emigrate but are not displayed. Their display, on T. V. , in Advertising, are nothing but a grating caricature of misery. In my previous release I wrote that poverty doesn't appear in this world. Actually it does appear as a display in Advertising, on T. V. , indirectly and negatively so. The reason why I can't watch T. V. is that poverty there grabs me by the throat. I can feel this misery and still, I am unable to name it, to see it, to formulate its concept . The kind of wealth which appears in advertising is miserable, it is a sign of poverty. The same misery occurs on T. V. sets, not even misery, merely miserabilism. This is what I have been able to witness, each time I've been there, on one of these sets. I was stunned by such miserabilism, as in the scene where the Wizard of OZ is unmasked by a small dog which is passing by behind the curtain. Miserabilism doesn't occur in Houellebecq novels; it is really there on T. V. sets. The essence of misery is to be found in Advertising, not in this world. The misery which appears in this world conceals the essence of misery. It is nothing but misery and no trace of wealth ever appears. The misery which appears isn't antinomic to wealth, misery in wealth, misery to world; yet accidental, unessential. One may say that it is thus spectacular, a pretence of essential misery. Wealth, as it appears in Advertising and on T. V. is both miserable and obscene. It nevertheless claims to portray wealth. In this way, it deals both with misery and wealth. By chance, I fell upon a quotation from Heidegger who said: "Animals are poor to world". The thought struck me immediately that the same was true for men, when they happen to be poor. The only essential wealth is the world, the only essential misery is the misery to the world, that is to say, knowledge, as the world is knowledge. Poverty to this world doesn't appear. You have to be Heidegger to see it. Daily life is life from which the world has withdrawn, life poor to this world, although it must necessarily take place in this world. Made even poorer to this world by the fact that this world is world wealthy. The only access of daily life to this world is wages, Advertising, T. V. and so on. And no direct access to this world whatsoever).

The modern show is the destiny of world goods, the substantiality of this world. The show is really the materialisation of religion. The world has now real substance as opposed to the previously only Divine one. (Intransitive definition. The world always possesses real substance, or rather, it is substance by definition. Unlike God's substantiality, which persisted as a pipe dream for ages. Let us not forget the playful Hegel, the Atheist and the Antichrist: "God is a result". Substance has always been around, not God. This doesn't however explain what this mysterious show really is, and what more have we got when God's achievement is called the show. God remains just as invisible and silent. Only his cherubs are to be heard on Canal plus T. V. channel.

A wage earner is a slave who has access to the market, the venue where money can spread out its power, show off its splendour. (Its power to be sure, a show of its splendour, this remains to be seen. By the way, anything that can be seen, wealth or misery, beauty or ugliness, town or country, sheep farm or Nuclear plant, is a work of money. Therefore, yes, in this way, anything that can be seen is a show emanating from money's splendour.)

The culminating point of this is the modern show (intransitive reference).

The spectacular proletariat has disappeared. Shite To the spectacular proletariat. Shite To the proletariat show .

The proletariats have become clandestines. They are, in this way, essentially anti-spectacular, they are what doesn't appear. They are, definitely, free from all display, from all show, from all Police. (How true. Such a thing as an essential misery trade union couldn't be, whereas there are puff's trade unions.)

Some will regret the good old days of the spectacular proletariats. And in fact this progress is due to the show itself. The aim of the show is to eradicate the proletariats in a spectacular fashion. It has only been successful in eradicating the proletariat show. (How true, even though the disappearance of the proletariat show, that is to say, of its display, isn't among the works of the show, nor the work of propaganda, but of what the world has done. I have used the word show twice here, in an intransitive, substantial meaning, omitting any definition. One can understand whatever one cares to, that is, nothing, as in Debord's prose.)

The proletariat as a social class is a proletariat show.


Where, according to these transitive definitions, do these shows take place? Not directly in this world, but indirectly, in propaganda. Thus, it isn't the world that goes through a period of change every ten years (crisis years, big cash years, morality awareness years, my arse years, and so on), this is only true for propaganda, propaganda and nothing else. The intellectual fuckers, in charge of stuffing propaganda, propagandastaffel, remain unchanged. The same have been seen and heard for the last thirty years. Please notice, also, that the word show, in its transitive meaning, is to be understood as it is most commonly used when the word show occurs.

As regards intransitive or substantial definitons, they are all wrong.

You forget, Mr. Bueno, as many others do, that here, there are only "why's?", which is a welcome change from Auschwitz camp and the International situationists, where there were none.

Jean-Pierre Voyer

M. Ripley s'amuse