"– La question est de savoir quels ont été votre but et vos motifs pour ne peindre que des scènes de vices et de démence.

– Ça a été d’arracher le manteau sous lequel la société, à force de mensonges et de spectacles, dérobe la vue des vices, et de montrer le monde tel qu’il est."

"Me supposez-vous d’autres intentions que d’avoir voulu m’amuser et amuser les autres, écrire une satire badine avec aussi peu de poésie que possible"

Byron, on Don Juan : the law of minimum poetry.

The cant, so troublesome to Byron, is here to stay, this time on the continent. The left and their so called thought, who don't even have aristocracy as a pretext. The left wingers are similar to the cant among upstart plebeians. A possible definition of the cant made by a Welsh Druid whom I happen to know, is :"an insult to what the holy grail really is", which was once the sinister privilege of a specific English class. The real Grail is but one thing: hope. The disgusting left is only disgusting in so far as it fiddles around with hope. It claims to be sole representative of all hope. Nowadays, in France, those who insult the real Grail are members of the Government, they represent the majority, as far as Ideological industry is concerned.

Hamiltonian mechanics: an apologue

In Hamiltonian mechanics, cinetic and potential energy are treated seperately, which isn't the case with Newtonian mechanics. Cinetic energy is a function of moments only, whereas potential energy is a function of positions only. The sum of these energies is a function known as Hamiltonian, or Hamilton function, which describes the total energy of the system depending on moments and positions. In Hamiltonian mechanics equations, it is stated, for each body involved in the system, that the derivative of the moment relative to time is equal to the opposite of the partial Hamiltonian derivative relative to the position and that the derivative of the position relative to time is equal to the partial Hamiltonian derivative relative to the moment. Thus, though apparently independant, the position and moment variables are in fact conjugated in these equations.

My claim, totally different from yours, is that your two dimensional world functions in the same manner. The Economical system (exceptionally, I won't be over precise on the term economical) and the sexual system are only apparently independant ones, they are in fact combined and ruled by the one and only function of total communication. The separation which takes place in one of them is the one which effects the other. The greater the separation in one of them, the greater the separation will be in the other. I am tempted to say according to the law of maximum separation. The difference being that this unique separation has different effects in both systems.

One of the consequences, when we consider the sexual system, being that, in the same way as in dynamics, the greater the separation the greater the bumpotential energy –when considering bums– will be (only to be looked at) to the loss of kinetic energy (you are allowed to touch). Suffering will thus attain a maximum level: you can look but are not allowed to touch. It is to be noticed that the distance which separates bums takes place in a space comparable to the space of phases, or to that of a functional one. The distance in everyday space can be quite tiny, limited to a faint touch, the distance in the space of phases, the only one which matters, remains nevertheless gigantic, poor Tisserand makes the experience of this.

The sexual system reminds us, by the way, of Electrodynamics more than it does of Dynamics, as we are confronted with electrically loaded loads, of contrary polarities, Mars or Venus. Bum potential energy is due not only to gravity but also to erotical loading in the erotic field which seems to walk hand in hand with experience. (Puffs and dikes have no such thing as electrical loading, the only thing for them is gravitation, that is to say, neutral bums).

Another consequence is that if separation in the Economical system decreases, sexual attraction in the sexual system will also decrease. I was able to witness this effect when, in may 1968, everything stopped. On one hand bums are less attractive, on the other, they have become suddenly of easy access. Nevertheless, one still has no access to them as there are other things to do. One is busy elsewhere, which means that bums aren't the only thing in life anymore. It must have been the same for the Greeks when they were forced to march along the Euphrates plains, although they had nothing against some pillaging, accompanied by rape and murder here and there. Once again, the law of attraction of bums bears close resemblance to those of the electromagnetic field. Any creation of an Electromotive force brings forward the creation of a counter one. The more bums are difficult to reach, the more attractive they are, and the more attractive they are, the more they become inaccessible, as if every endeavour to reach them had gendered a counter effort. This explains why electro magnetic waves aren't damped, as every tendency to damping inside the magnetic field, for instance, leads to counter tendency to damping inside the electric field. (Richard Feynman, Physical sciences course, 1962). The less they are inaccessible, the less attractive they are, although they remain, however, quite mouth watering. So anyone confronted to this bait can remain serene and collected as Phidias, and merely say "How beautiful, how vast", which he still says when contemplating the mountains of Auvergne, nothing else but the mountains of Auvergne. I am always struck by the contrast between the gentleness of the scenery, moulded by two thousand years of history, and of how hard life can be in this world and in police stations. Supposing the inhabitants of the Middle Ages and of the Old regime hadn't atrociously deforested the aforementioned mountains, leaving only, here and there, a few squares of spruce trees to enable Debord the poet to pluck his lyre, they wouldn't have remained beautiful to this day. These people behaved exactly in the same manner as town designers do when conceiving a ZUP or a ZAC or the way the COGEMA does, and the CEA, all over France.

As you very well see, in a social democratic system where the right to dismiss workers would be limited and in which adultery would be repressed, everyone could find a job and a Mrs. Please notice that this is one of the virtues society has to offer to us. In the animal world, certain males are separated from females for life. This isn't much of a problem for a cervidae who can graze on elsewhere; but how is it for a lion, this pimp who is fed by the female of the species. What is more, for animals, the mating season is a short one and if torment there is, it will also be limited in time.

There is a better example. For savage tribes there is only one system of total communication, where it is impossible to differrentiate an economical system from a sexual one. In other words, savage tribes hadn't yet invented the atrocious Hamiltonian communication system and its productive and sexual function. There is no productive function for the savages. There is only a productive function in the world of the infamous Locke, the man who didn't bother to give an answer to the inventor of infinitesimal calculations.

I examine, on the way, some of your proposals which are, to my eyes, unjustified.

For example, you declare that the supermarket is the genuine modern paradise, and that struggle stops once one has entered one. You add that the poor, for instance, stay at the door. I won't discuss the fact that you consider the supermarket to be the genuine modern paradise whereas I merely see it as one of the circles of hell, the night-club being another one, what I will discuss is what you hold as evidence: the poor stay at the door. I challenge you to show me one single rich person in a supermarket. To my knowledge, only the poor enter supermarkets, as employees or as customers. The possibility remains, that, to your eyes, only those sleeping in cardboard boxes on the sidewalk are actually poor (they have, obviously, some difficulties to enter supermarkets)? would this be a slip of the tongue on your behalf?

I have doubts that this was a slip of the tongue, as in another passage, you assume that Tisserand and the narrator are winners as far as money is concerned, and losers on the sexual side. How can this be believed. You say that the narrator earns three or four times more than the monthly minimum salary. That's what being a winner on the money side of things means to you! Even considering ten times that amount, you would still be miles away from the truth. In Locke's world, the owners are the only winners (they started winning during the French Revolution). You can find a fine example of what a winner is as far as money and sex are concerned with Mr. Levy. More than two billion French Francs turnover, fifty five million francs profit. He can screw when he feels like it one of the prettiest girls in Paris, and certainly quite a few others. His wife, on top of this, sings. Therefore, he can possess her standing up, in the rear position, when she is singing Santa's ballad. That's what the word luxury means. (This prick isn't even capable of this. It appears that the fact that his Mrs. sings gets on the landlord's nerves quite a bit). I used to have as a friend an Opera singer who enjoyed singing 'Wandern' in the nude while she played the piano accompaniment standing up, and being taken in the rear position. (She used to tell me :"what lovely harmony"). She also enjoyed reading aloud during the act. She also enjoyed being taken simultaneously from the front and from the rear, by two gentlemen. In this case, the singing stopped. One must know when to draw the line. (Berlioz instructs the chorus singers in 'Lélio': "the score shouldn't be held in front of your mouths.") This was her contribution to total art. I have a photograph where she is to be seen. A young communist raising her fist, the Komsomol pennant for only clothing. The least you can say is that she didn't find her skirt constricting, and that there was no fear in her periwinkle blue eyes. This said, what an ill creation this world is, as luck doesn't seem to be sufficient for Mr. Levy. A slave to victory he remains. It seems that no winners are to be found in this world.

 I will also blame you for giving a watered down version of misery. At least your heroes feel disenchanted. In this world, they would be worse. Not only would they vote, they would also vote for Mitterand.

I am also astounded by the fact that you take care to answer the 'perpendiculaire' idiots telling them that Immigration and racism are both a matter of demography. Antiracism –therefore racism– are merely a creation, nothing more than a staging, from the infamous Vichy-socialist Mitterand, from the just as infamous Dray Trotskist, with the help of capitals issued from Bergé, the millionaire. Whoever sows wind will have to harvest in stormy weather. This is just what this unscrupulous trio was after. They are behaving in their own camp as Le Pen does. In the same way, Le Pen 's success is nothing but a Vichy-Socialist invention. However, what a pleasure to see the left wing cant mad with rage when this Moldred character is merely mentioned.

I had the intent to award an honorary reverse swastika to you; until the day I saw you, on T. V, endure a kiss from the Bordeaux whore. Debord, also, had to endure this kiss, at least he had waited until his death for this to occur. Consequently, this medal won't be awarded to you. You will have to be satisfied with, some day, the Académie Française admittance. Professor Bourdieu hasn't developed a taste for Bordeaux whores. He remains a man of taste. Anyone knows that the Bordeaux whore has an odious taste.

While I am writing to you, Mr. Levy is in Commander Massoud's tent. He has made the decision to give away his fair haired beauty to the handsome Afghan. One must admit, the only good thing about this man is his wife.

Jean-Pierre Voyer

M. Ripley s'amuse