1941-2011: se fermassimo il ritorno al nazismo?

Il 2011 è un anno sacro della Memoria.

70 anni da – TRA I VARII PRELUDI DI SHOA’ – il democidio delle donne e uomini di Berdichev, in cui morì anche la mamma di Vassili Grossman, il sublime scrittore ebreo comunista. Il preferito di Emmanuel Levinas,  è attraverso lui che sono arrivato a conoscerlo quando in Italia veniva beatamente ignorato e non era ancora stato tradotto, PER DECENNI! Togliattismo stalinista? Maybe, quello instaurato dal criminale Togliatti era un regime culturale illiberale ed oppressivo; poi inerzialmente ha continuato nelle radici marce del cattocomunismo nostrano, ancora marxista ed in larga parte stalinista (leggete la D’Alemiana Italiani Europei sui dissidenti dell’Est e resterete ALLIBITI!!!) MA ANCHE neoliberista o neopopulista, così a caso.

Sulle stragi tedesche di ebrei in Russia (in cui rientra Berdichev) vedi, ad es., è soltanto una lista:  http://www.storiaxxisecolo.it/deportazione/deportazionecampitede6f.htm

La sinistra beota ed idiota, se ha neuroni (1 bene scarso), rifletta ora sulla morte del suo militante filo-Jihadista Arrigoni per fuoco amico di compagni salafiti che sbagliano.

In che casino è andata a ficcarsi? Non poteva INVECE aiutare i pacifisti israeliani, gli eroi di Haaretz e dintorni, i laici e cristiani palestinesi?

Dada Engine

Neomodern theory in the works of Burroughs

Thomas D. J. Long
Department of Literature, Carnegie-Mellon University

Linda N. von Junz
Department of Sociology, Oxford University

1. Burroughs and textual predeconstructive theory

The characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is the role of the reader as writer. However, the main theme of Geoffrey’s[1] critique of socialism is the defining characteristic, and eventually the rubicon, of neotextual society.

Sartre uses the term ‘constructivist nihilism’ to denote a presemiotic whole. But a number of sublimations concerning socialism exist.

The characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is not narrative, as constructivist nihilism suggests, but neonarrative. However, if neomodern theory holds, the works of Burroughs are an example of mythopoetical objectivism.

2. Discourses of absurdity

“Sexual identity is elitist,” says Lyotard; however, according to de Selby[2] , it is not so much sexual identity that is elitist, but rather the collapse, and some would say the defining characteristic, of sexual identity. The subject is interpolated into a socialism that includes language as a reality. In a sense, la Tournier[3] suggests that we have to choose between neomodern theory and precultural appropriation.

The subject is contextualised into a socialism that includes culture as a paradox. But Derrida uses the term ‘dialectic discourse’ to denote a posttextual totality.

The subject is interpolated into a neomodern theory that includes truth as a whole. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term ‘capitalist feminism’ to denote not, in fact, dematerialism, but predematerialism.

Several theories concerning a mythopoetical paradox may be found. Therefore, the primary theme of Hamburger’s[4] model of constructivist nihilism is the bridge between culture and sexual identity.

3. Socialism and subconceptualist desublimation

“Society is part of the genre of consciousness,” says Derrida. The meaninglessness, and eventually the rubicon, of neomodern theory intrinsic to Smith’s Dogma emerges again in Chasing Amy. However, the main theme of the works of Smith is the genre, and subsequent absurdity, of textual class.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of neodialectic language. Socialism states that society has significance. But the primary theme of Dahmus’s[5] critique of neomodern theory is not discourse, but postdiscourse.

The main theme of the works of Smith is the absurdity of capitalist class. A number of theories concerning neocultural dialectic theory exist. Thus, if neomodern theory holds, we have to choose between socialism and prepatriarchial Marxism.

The subject is contextualised into a subconceptualist desublimation that includes culture as a whole. Therefore, Finnis[6]suggests that the works of Smith are not postmodern.

If neotextual narrative holds, we have to choose between neomodern theory and patriarchialist discourse. But Debord promotes the use of socialism to attack capitalism.

The characteristic theme of Hanfkopf’s[7] essay on neomodern theory is a semiotic paradox. Therefore, Derrida uses the term ‘socialism’ to denote the rubicon, and eventually the economy, of neocapitalist society.

The premise of dialectic dematerialism states that reality is capable of truth. However, the subject is interpolated into a subconceptualist desublimation that includes sexuality as a reality.

Many discourses concerning not destructuralism, but predestructuralism may be discovered. It could be said that Debord’s analysis of neocultural conceptual theory implies that culture may be used to reinforce sexism.


1. Geoffrey, Y. (1989) Realities of Rubicon: Neomodern theory and socialism. And/Or Press

2. de Selby, V. U. ed. (1996) Socialism in the works of Koons. O’Reilly & Associates

3. la Tournier, A. (1981) Textual Theories: Neomodern theory in the works of Smith. Cambridge University Press

4. Hamburger, T. D. J. ed. (1970) Socialism in the works of Eco. Yale University Press

5. Dahmus, U. (1994) The Futility of Narrativity: Socialism and neomodern theory. University of North Carolina Press

6. Finnis, L. A. S. ed. (1979) Rationalism, materialist discourse and socialism. Schlangekraft

7. Hanfkopf, O. (1980) The Meaninglessness of Expression: Neomodern theory and socialism. Cambridge University Press


The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

Thanks to Enzo Michelangeli for signalling the Dada Engine to my atn!