The fifth annual EsoZone Portland event will be held this weekend at p:ear, Friday evening November 18th and Saturday November 19th (see the website for schedule and location information).

EsoZone is festival celebrating alternative culture and thought. It follows a hybrid unconference/conference model, meaning that in addition to pre-programmed content, participants can propose their own sessions to share their own ideas, projects and skills with the group.

This years presentations include:

• Tom Henderson, author of the forthcoming book Punk Rock Mathematics, on illusory nature of self.
• Eric Schiller of Beyond Growth on “digital hipsterism” and the rise of anti-intellectualism in social media.
• Yoga for Slackers lead by Loren mccRory.
• Grant Writing for Artists and Other Alien Beings lead by Amanda Sledz.
• Anarcho-Sewing lead by Jillian Ordes-Finley.

Plus music and performances, and whatever sessions are proposed by this year’s participants.

David Graeber likes to say that he had three goals for the year: promote his book, learn to drive, and launch a worldwide revolution. The first is going well, the second has proven challenging, and the third is looking up.

Graeber is a 50-year-old anthropologist — among the brightest, some argue, of his generation — who made his name with innovative theories on exchange and value, exploring phenomena such as Iroquois wampum and the Kwakiutl potlatch. An American, he teaches at Goldsmiths, University of London. He’s also an anarchist and radical organizer, a veteran of many of the major left-wing demonstrations of the past decade: Quebec City and Genoa, the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia and New York, the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002, the London tuition protests earlier this year. This summer, Graeber was a key member of a small band of activists who quietly planned, then noisily carried out, the occupation of Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, providing the focal point for what has grown into an amorphous global movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

It would be wrong to call Graeber a leader of the protesters, since their insistently nonhierarchical philosophy makes such a concept heretical. Nor is he a spokesman, since they have refused thus far to outline specific demands. Even in Zuccotti Park, his name isn’t widely known. But he has been one of the group’s most articulate voices, able to frame the movement’s welter of hopes and grievances within a deeper critique of the historical moment …

More: Bloomberg Business

Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent – which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society – at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others …” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no’, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

For more than three weeks, you’ve been out in the streets, raising your voices in unison to make a change. Not just a little change — there’s no law to tweek here or there that’s going to fix “the system.” Even the most right wing arch conservative republican knows that. This is why you’re demonstrating against Wall Street, against the slow corporate takeover of our government, against endless wars and endless greed. Your list of demands changes and grows. Your democratic process to make decisions beneficial to all who participate in the movement grows.

It’s beautiful.

It’s also one of the most difficult endeavors you’ll face in your entire life.

None of this will come easy.

We’ve already seen how police and other authorities have reacted to your kindred spirits in New York, Boston, LA, Seattle, and dozens of other cities. We’ve seen thousands of people arrested, beaten, gassed, and assaulted in the streets. We’ve seen shouting matches between police and protesters, between passersby and protestors and between occupiers themselves. It is anger, frustration and fear that fuels these confrontations, that causes humans to act so violently towards each other and has set our species into a downward spiral where we all suffer. None of this needs to happen. You have shown this. You continue to show this each day you adapt to new situations. Each time a confrontation is avoided, each time someone decides to use words instead of weapons, each time someone decides a conversation is better than an altercation.

While it feels good to act out in anger, to use that bottled up emotion to transform a symbol of corporate personhood into rubble, to resist becoming a captive of the police state, to tear every single cell that makes up this thing we call “the system” to shreds — you must not act out of anger. You must act instead, out of love. The system, the capitalist hegemony, the patriarchal structure, the empires that once were and are now, built themselves on the same emotions — anger, fear and frustration. Even the most democratic revolutions have seen the faces of the oppressed transform into the faces of oppressors. You do not have to let that happen. You must not let that happen.

Change is a constant in the universe. Change is what’s happening in every occupied city. Change is what’s happening right now to each one of you. Change is what’s happening to society as a whole. You are agents of that change, as are your friends and foes. No empire lasts forever. No nation lasts forever. No movement lasts forever. In the eyes of time even the largest empire is smaller than a grain of sand. You must remember this. Even if tomorrow, every occupied city clears out demonstrators and arrests and jails them, you will still go on, possibly together with friends and comrades in arms, possibly alone. But what you have done in the past three weeks, what you may do in the coming weeks, what you have learned and experienced, what you have seen — those things will carry on with you for the rest of your life.

Even if tomorrow all of your demands are met, you must not let it end there.

Read the full post at Diatribe Media

Modern civilisation may not be quite as safe as we thought. Britain’s security services have been privately warning their staff that western societies are just 48 hours from anarchy. MI5’s maxim is that society is “four meals away from anarchy”. In other words, the security agency believes that Britain could be quickly reduced to large-scale disorder, including looting and rioting in the event of a catastrophe that stops the supply of food.

The maxim will provoke debate over whether MI5 is over-egging the threat, partly to justify its rapidly growing budget. It also opens a wider question as to whether civilised societies could so quickly revert to primitive behaviour. MI5 — whose motto is “regnum defende”, defend the realm — uses the “four meals” rule to assess the threat levels from attacks on strategic installations, such as computer networks and power stations; natural disasters; or widespread strikes and civil disobedience.

Read More: Times

My name is R. Talmadge Lacy and I was born on 12/13/1979. (12 = number of Apostles + Jesus = 13) // (1+2+1+3+1+9+7+9=33) 33 is called the Christ vibration for reasons that are mysterious and weird. On top of all that my dad was a carpenter and my mom’s name is Virginia: (Virgin)ia.

Now what exactly makes me the “Anti”-Christ? Well according to mainstream Christianity, Christ is something separate from yourself; an external authority figure one must submit to in order to be saved. I, however, do not believe in this model of Christ. You might even say I believe the exact opposite is true. Now I’m not the first or only person to hold this point of view — from Jewish mystics to gnostic Christians, many have associated the Messiah (the morning star) with our personal consciousness. Thereby by the light of consciousness every man & every woman was likened to a star — therefore one must follow one’s own highest light in order to become one with God. This is Resurrection.

Furthermore, one will find this is in keeping with the narrative found in the Bible … According to the serpent in Genesis (commonly associated with Satan) upon eating the forbidden fruit, the naked hippies will ‘awaken’ and become like God. And let’s not forget Lucifer means ‘light bearer.’ As far as being the ‘Prince of Lies,’ consider that all I have said is in fact FALSE as a written word is not a word, but an image of an idea one hath spoken. Therefore I have no use for Truth; I just want a LIE that will deliver unto me: ANARCHY, CHAOS, SEX, DRUGS & MONEY.

SURPRISE!! You were expecting maybe Keanu Reeves? Well, let’s get down to business.

• ANARCHY. To be blunt, the Apocalypse is happening right now underneath our very noses. To be sure it is the battle between Good & Evil, but such generic and malleable terms do us little good; instead let’s use the terms ripened & unripened souls. And to be precise let’s call it the battle between the animal & Man •OR• the beast & God.

The animal has an instinct for hierarchy; to divide people into two classes: leader & follower. Each type is destructive for their respective reasons. Followers are destructive because of their willingness to be manipulated by leaders: fighting wars or engaging in mindless consumerism or just generally ignoring the pain of suffering of others are but a few examples. Leaders are destructive because they have no vested interest in anyone’s well-being other than their own. However, Man, having transcended the animalistic instinct, being possessed by consciousness and following his highest light (God within You), is synchronized with others on higher mental levels. Indeed, Man, by virtue of consciousness, possesses empathy and embodies all moral principles without the need of “authority figures” to enforce ‘good behavior’ because he understands the intrinsic value of love thy neighbor as thyself & do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Anarchy then becomes the only logical conclusion for Mankind! But do not try to join the revolution — that’s impossible. Only try to realize the truth – there is no revolution. Then you’ll see it is not the revolution you have joined — it is humanity. You are already monarch of your own skin — your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs. Thus, the only possible society is that of lovers. The only possible society is that of lovers.

•CHAOS. In studying turbulence, chaos scientists have realised that apparently a-causal phenomena in nature are not only the norm, but are measurable by simple mathematical equations. A successful magical act causes an apparently a-causal result. A properly executed magical release of energy creates a wave form (visible by Kirlian photography) around the magician causing turbulence in the aetheric space.

And by being aware of that process via the Collective Unconscious we can have a more direct influence ON that process thereby allowing us to perform even more spectacular mind-blowing feats. To wit … The promise made in Matthew 21:21 by Jesus is literally possible because REALITY is a living hologram that is manipulated by Consciousness via quantum fluctuations.

Basically the Collective Unconscious is how we’re all connected telepathically. So by tapping into this ‘cloud of consciousness’ we can influence the behavior of others to our own benefit. Think of your desire like a puzzle and the actions of individuals as the puzzle pieces. One piece fits another and another culminating in a butterfly effect that makes your desire a reality when all the pieces are ‘put in their place.’ And yes, I know the pieces fit, because I watched them fall away.

Freewill has not been neutralized because the Collective Unconscious itself confirms we are all one consciousness experiencing itself. “As the individual becomes more collective, the collective becomes more individual.”

All of this is just a more complicated way of saying that by following your highest light (God within You), you are synchronized with others on higher mental levels … even with REALITY itself.

• SEX. The concept here is “SEX-HYPNOSIS.” Now we all know what regular hypnosis is — the induction of an altered state of consciousness by means of guided meditation. Self-hypnosis means you guide yourself through meditation to achieve an altered state of consciousness. With sex-hypnosis we use sex as the means by which we meditate to achieve an altered state of consciousness.

The altered state of consciousness we wish to induce is something like a hyper-lucid dreamworld. The idea is this ‘dreamworld’ is the gateway to the Collective Unconscious. The symbolic key to opening the gateway to the Collective Unconscious is the 3rd EYE. Therefore we have sex in the name of the 3rd EYE. So as a matter of convenience we call the 3rd EYE “MONITOR.” We have sex in the name of MONITOR.

• DRUGS. The 3rd EYE has always been associated with the pineal gland, and although no conclusive findings have been made; the pineal gland has been implicated in the production of DMT. However, it matters little if DMT is produced in the pineal gland or even how much DMT the body is capable of producing, because fundamentally we use sex-hypnosis to tell the mind to start hallucinating, and through this rabbit hole in our heads we wish to fall into the abyss (or “void”) of the Collective Unconscious. To leave earth and dive obliquely between those spaces that Lovecraft celebrated in his nightmare tales.

• MONEY. In the beginning there was no money; only the primal flow of energies that constituted the balance of power i.e. the trade of Light. But as relentless logic made all possibilities apparent it was decided a representation of Light could be made. And so it was done; a first Dollar, and it was called Art & it was good.

WANTED: Females interested in experimenting with sex hypnosis. Religious affiliation not important. I also hope to establish a NEW CALL for contemporary artists to invent “radical new forms” & apolitical ART. For us, there is no “tradition.” The symbols and myths of history’s sects, orders, and faiths, are constructs, useful fictions, “games.” By ripping mystic techniques and sensibilities from their traditional “occult” contexts and applying them to the concept of “PLAY,” Consciousness absorbs itself in synaptic fury – spewing out the genetic code of a new posthuman language. • verbum fiat • If interested please contact me via Facebook (R. Talmadge Lacy) or email (Talmadge613(-at-)gmail(-dot-)com) •• Satan loves you. > >

Photo: revolution cycle (CC)

This article in the Washington Post raises a very interesting question:

A meeting of anarchists, progressives, a self-described “surly feminist” and others on the far left of the political spectrum is underway. They’re young and radical. They’re organizing intently. The matter at hand could be oppression, or the police state, or revolution.

But it’s not. It’s walking dogs.

They sit in a circle in the living room of a Petworth group house and tick off their “route updates,” which mostly consist of details about the new canine clients they’ve signed up.

That’s because business is booming.

The seven people present belong to Brighter Days, a dog walkers’ collective founded on anarchist principles. Last year, the five-year-old business grossed more than $250,000. Its members have equal ownership and make business decisions by reaching consensus during weekly meetings such as this one. Any of them can block any decision. They split their earnings evenly, have a group health insurance plan and cover for each other on days off. They even get paid vacation — seven weeks of it.

Moving from would-be anarchist to successful business owner brings a few quandaries. If you oppose the idea of a state, should you pay taxes? Is it ethically sound to care for the animals of professionals while they are at work at institutions such as the International Monetary Fund? And if you don’t believe in corporations, should you buy health insurance from one?

From the start, Brighter Days has taken a path in the middle, keeping as close to its anarchist ideals as possible while running a legitimate business…

[continues in the Washington Post]

Note: The truth is the last thing anyone wants to hear. I’m expecting to get abuse for this, if certain people end up reading it.

The march 26th demonstration was … interesting: Very dull, very boring but very neccesary. There was a desperate, depressed atmosphere in the crowd. They were led along, often corralling themselves behind arbitrary barriers in the road. Several times I went into the unoccupied side of the road as it was becoming dangerously overcrowded in the main march. They were just so depressing.

Then there were the anarchists. At first I liked the cut of their jib as they had a bit more life to them; while the criminal damage seemed fairly minor and tokenistic, but then after I got home I saw the footage. I noticed, not for the first time, the way the so-called Black Bloc were always surrounded by camera crews and strangely inactive police officers, and I thought: SET-UP.

Why do smart people do stupid things? Usually it betrays deep-seated emotional problems. My guess is that their leaders are almost certainly secret policemen — like Mark Kennedy — and they are generally a bunch of cops and messed up kids with Daddy issues, total patsies. So why didn’t the ordinary demonstrators eject them or restrain them or anything? See above — we were all so cowed that we barely scraped it together to turn up. Violence from our own ranks would simply make us more apathetic. I include myself in this — I like to think I would have got angry, but what would I say? There was no sense of unity like there usually is on demos; we were all just alone in a crowd.

For comparison, this is how to deal with provocateurs:

So you’ve got the crazy rioters led by the secret police, and then you’ve got the great mass of depressed and repressed ordinary people. This isn’t going to change a thing.

Conclusion: Politics is entering its final phase of degeneration. The fact that such obvious police provocateurs as the Black Bloc can infiltrate peaceful demonstrations at will and then set the entire media tone for a march of 500,000 people, shows just how cowed and apathetic most ordinary people are, even those who demonstrate.

Prediction: Very soon, new police powers will manage to completely stifle all dissent, except the pumped-up pseudo-dissent of the fake anarchists / secret police. The State needs something to put people off demonstrating and a sponge for popular rage, and these people are both. They are so contemptible as to defy description.

Read more here.

Photo: Kashfi Halford (CC)

Site editor’s note: This post from D.J. Pangburn originally appeared on death + taxes.

Mo Karn, alias of a ‘known anarchist,’ filed a Freedom of Information Act requrest with the Richmond, Virginia police.  The department delivered the documents, now they want them back.

Karn (a member of Richmond Copwatch) and others filed under the Freedom of Information Act to learn police procedures during protests, so that they could better plan and coordinate their efforts in direct action.  According to Karn’s (she is a member of the anarchist collective The Wingnut), the group “wanted to get copies of the police protocols so we could know when the police are breaking their own rules.”

Perfectly legal, it would seem. We should all know when police are breaking their own rules or the law.

However, the documents weren’t merely standard police protocols but homeland security and crowd control guides.  Essentially a how-to manual on how to control protests. Wingnut published the police protocols on their website around Christmas.  Richmond Police then filed an emergency court order on January 4th to stop Karn and Wingnut from publishing the documents, but it was already too late: the documents had been downloaded and posted elsewhere on the internet.

Richmond Police Chief Bryan Norwood claims in the court documents that he did not give permission to Angela Harrison, Program Director at the Richmond Police Department, to release certain of the protocols (those dealing with police tactics in emergency situations). Norwood and the City of Richmond claim in the court order that the release of this information endangers his police force.

As citizens in a democracy, it could be argued that we have the right to know how the police conducts itself in emergency situations. History has shown that police do not always ‘protect and serve’ in legal ways. In protests, in fact, they are used as storm troopers and often initiate or escalate violence themselves. See the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 (“The Battle in Seattle”), in which protesters who were sitting peacefully were hit with pepper spray.

But why was Karn served with the court order? According to the court documents, ”Defendant Mo Karn is a known and admitted anarchist.”

Even if Karn and the members of the Wingnut collective are anarchist by philosophy and action, as Americans they do have the right to file a FOIA and to have that request honored by authorities.

It’s highly unlikely that these documents will endanger the Richmond Police Department. Many of America’s police department’s tactics have been observed by protestors for years and exploited for counter-tactical or comical effect (check out Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal This Book”). Wingnut’s knowledge of police tactics during protests (or “emergency situations”) will only allow them to escape without taking a baton to the head or gas to the face.

And what of Norwood’s request for the return of the documents? It seems rather absurd. Karn actually put it best:

“Apparently they want their information back. I don’t think they understand the internet. You can’t really get that information back. We’ve got it, the internet has it, and hundreds of people have looked at it.”

Touche, Karn. Just the latest battle in the war for free information.

Every little act counts.

[Read More on death + taxes]

Like the unbaptized and virtuous Pagans whose torture is the inability to imagine something greater than their rational minds can conceive, the tourist never ventures beyond the predetermined image of the places they visit. The tourist deals only in images, whether it is the image of the Grand Canyon that was promised to him by the travel agent, or the image he must make of it (by snapping a picture) in order for it to become real. The tourist cannot know the mystery or grandeur of the Grand Canyon as it stretches across the horizon, she can only seen it in comparison to the image she was promised. If what she sees before does not match the image, then she is disappointed. The terrain labeled the “Grand Canyon” simply does not exist for her. Likewise, we are lead to see the function of photography for the tourist. Far from a trafficker of experiences or adventures, the tourist deals only in images, her experiences only becomes real when they are reproduced. It is here that we may see the tourist’s world as a shadow world….

You co-create the space in which you travel. Time works similarity. That is to say time and space are both negotiations. Existential morphology, then, is at the heart of travel, or, at least it is “at the heart” of that which we are attempting to conceptualize when we use the term “travel”.

Leaving aside that people, like cities, can be heartless we shall turn our gaze to this morphology, or, more particularly, the modes that can be undertaken by “travelers”. The term “traveler” is in scare marks so as to indicate how the word itself is caught up in assumptions, implications, directionalities that form a momentum which carries us to a place that we may not necessarily have chosen or even want to be at. Stated plainly, a traveler is a someone. Being, or playing rather, that someone, that character, may in fact prevent us from being something more pleasing, erotic, satisfying….

The space between traveler and self is a site for negotiation, evasion, and creation. Like all good negotiations we have something that is wanted and provided we know what we want we should not be afraid to bribe, strong-arm, or coerce our way to it. The battleground for this negotiation is our mentality, the currency is our imagination. So, refuse the label “traveler”, construct a no-name name. While it is tempting to use the word “traveler” it is far too impoverished a concept to help us move through time and space. (Plus, it may helpful to keep in mind that part of the term’s bankruptcy can be witnessed in the unseemly connotations that are attached to the people who use that term uncritically.)  Clearly, we are not even interested in “tourist” either. But that is not to say we are not interested in “tourism”, or “traveling”. We are. We want it all. We are psychic mercenaries, and as such we are free to ransack any sociological category for tools to help us move through time and space.

Holy Pilgrims, Anthropologists, Monkeywrenchers, Graffiti artists, Thieves, Hashish Connoisseurs, Sex fiends, Science fiction writers… We assume these roles through time and space. Their ends are our ends, but ours ends is not theirs.

Christian Greer is the author of the free book Endroit: The Art Of Traveling. Download it here.

The Italian anarchists who have claimed responsibility for the letter bombs that exploded in the Swiss and Chilean embassies in Rome Thursday want to make it clear that they consider themselves part of something bigger. “We’ve decided to make our voice heard once again, with words and with deeds,” read a note written in Italian found in the remains of a crude bomb that exploded in the Chilean embassy. “We will destroy the system of domination.”

The note was signed by the Informal Federation of Anarchy, a loose union of Italian anarchist groups that authorities say is the largest such organization in the country. It said the bombs were the work of the organization’s “Lambros Founas Cell,” named after a Greek anarchist killed in a shootout with police in March, and expressed solidarity with other anarchist groups in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Spain and Greece.

“Even the choice of targets was not an accident,” said Alfredo Mantovano, vice minister of the interior, to the Italian daily Il Giornale. According to Mantovano, the bomb that exploded in the Swiss embassy a bit before noon, severely injuring a Swiss national’s hands, had been sent in response to recent arrests of anarchists in Switzerland. The Chilean embassy — where a blast shortly after the one at the Swiss embassy injured a staff member in the hand, chest and eye — was targeted for the Chilean government’s fight against anarchist Mauricio Morales, who died in Santiago in 2009 when a bomb he was carrying exploded.

But while there’s little doubt the group shares an ideological affinity with violent activists in other parts of the world, it’s less certain that their capabilities rise to the level normally associated with international terrorism. The bombs, made from video cassette boxes stuffed with gunpowder and metal shards, were triggered by a nine-volt battery. Officials say they were mailed from within the country, using the Italian postal system. “It is a small group of individuals, not really capable of organizing themselves,” says Gianfranco Pasquino, a professor of political science and expert in terrorism at the University of Bologna, adding that the anarchists had few supporters in Italian society…

[continues in TIME]

Signing of the Constitution. Painting by Howard Chandler Christy.

Article V is the only part of the US Constitution that tells how we can change the Constitution. The states, not Congress, propose amendments at an Article V Convention. An Article V Symposium was held at Cooley Law School on September 17, 2010 in Lansing, Michigan. Bill Walker, cofounder of Friends of the Article V Convention, shared how he filed two federal lawsuits stating that Congress was obligated to call an Article V Convention. The latter lawsuit (Walker v. the Members of Congress in 2004) was appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declared, as it had in three other separate decisions, that Congress must call for an Article V Convention. But Congress has simply refused in violation of the US Constitution.

To listen to Bill Walker’s speech and to the other scholars at the symposium, who all argue that we should want, not fear, an Article V Convention, click on this link. In all fairness, I will provide a link to the best arguments of those who fear an Article V Convention, but I do not share their beliefs.

Bill Walker has collected photographed copies of 750 applications for an Article V Convention that have been submitted to Congress from 49 states.  The Constitution mandates that an amendment proposing national convention (consisting of one delegate from each state) be called when 2/3 of the state legislatures (or 34 state legislatures) propose it.  As already mentioned, the Supreme Court has declared over the years in four separate decisions (without dissent) that Congress must call an Article V Convention, and yet Congress has never obeyed the Constitution regarding an Article V Convention. Nor has Congress compiled the applications into a single public record.

Aided by opponents of an Article V Convention and a complacent Judiciary, Congress has kept the applications buried in the congressional records and has thus deliberately and willfully vetoed the Constitution. Therefore, every member of Congress should now be held accountable for this violation. At the symposium, Bill Walker addressed four lies that are often used to support Congress in its vetoing of the Constitution.

First, is the lie that an Article V Convention would be a runaway convention like the first Constitutional Convention held in 1787. But the convention delegates in 1787 did what they were authorized to do by Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  Then their new plan of government had to be ratified by ¾ of the 13 states. It was not a runaway convention. Remember ¾ of the states must ratify any amendment proposals under our current Constitution. Would ¾ of the states, or 34 states, ratify something ridiculous?  No.

Second, is the lie of the Chief Justice Burger letter, often used by the John Birch Society; the letter warns of the dangers of this type of convention. Mr. Walker argues that the letter is bogus because Justice Burger is on record supporting such a convention.

Third, is the lie of the balanced budget amendment. It concerns the actual number of applications submitted by the States. The John Birch Society only discusses a single amendment issue (the balanced budget amendment) saying that 32 states have applied for this amendment, thus implying that these are the only applications there are. In this way, Bill Walker argues, the John Birch Society avoids mentioning all the other 718 applications.

Walker said that if you go to his website and take a look at the applications, you will find nearly 200 applications in the section called “Balanced Budget,” and the public record shows that 36 states have applied for a balanced budget, not 32. If having proposals on a singular subject were the basis for calling an Article V Convention, then on this issue alone there must be a Convention.

Fourth, is the lie that an Article V Convention is a Constitutional Convention, which it is not. A Constitutional Convention involves creating an entirely new constitution and government. If you look at Article V (it is printed here a few paragraphs down) of the US Constitution, it only discusses who (Congress or the States) can propose amendments, and how at least 3/4 of the state legislatures or state conventions, either one, must then ratify the Amendments. Bill Walker has provided proof that the public record, history, and the Constitution itself prove that Article V of the US Constitution is only about proposing and ratifying amendments, just that, and nothing more.

Since Congress can choose that proposed amendments be ratified by state conventions instead of state legislatures, some people wrongly fear that Congress, not the states themselves, would choose who actually attends the 50 state ratifying conventions.  But the people of the 50 states would rise in protest if Congress tried to do that.

The research of Walker’s two mandatory lawsuits also disproves legal experts who say that a Convention cannot be held because there are no laws addressing the exigencies that would occur when a national Amendment Convention is requested by the state legislatures. After five years of research, Walker said he found 208 Supreme Court decisions affecting and dealing with the legal aspects of an Article V Convention.

In previous articles posted at Disinformation, I argued for the more radical Constitutional Convention (not an Article V Convention). Thomas Jefferson in his beginning words of the Declaration of Independence said we have a right to abolish our government, which means we can totally rewrite the Constitution.  In other writings, Jefferson actually recommended a new constitution for every new generation, arguing that successive generations should not be bound by the mindsets of previous generations. To me, that sounds like wise advice.

The wording of Article V is tortuous to read and confusing in general. As you may know, 27 amendments have been added to our Constitution, but in every case, Congress introduced and approved the proposed amendments, but then afterward, 3/4 of the state legislatures, at their separate locations, had to ratify Congress’s proposed amendments. But the other method, which has never been tried, involves delegates from all the 50 states meeting together at a national convention to create proposals that later must be ratified by either 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the state conventions, whichever method of ratification Congress chooses. Article V is printed in the paragraph below.

Article V of the US Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

In a previous essay, I also proposed a Twenty-Eighth Amendment (its latest revision is included at the end of this essay) that would revise Article V. My main purpose is to show how a Constitutional Convention (to create an entirely new constitution and government) can be done in a fair, safe, and orderly way.  Regarding any amendment proposals (that would be added to the current Constitution), I also propose that 2/3, not ¾, of the state legislatures (state conventions are no longer allowed) are needed to ratify any amendment proposals of Congress or the states.

The percentage required to ratify proposed amendments is reduced because political apathy sets in if we make it too hard to change our government.  Many individuals fear that Congress might choose state conventions to ratify amendments (which it has never done before).  Not only that, they fear that Congress might even select who attends the conventions. Therefore, I propose that state legislatures only (not state conventions) can ratify amendments proposed by Congress or the states.

We the people are entitled to a Constitutional Convention when we desire it even though our current Constitution does not specifically address how it should be done. In my previous efforts of proposing a Constitutional Convention to totally rewrite the Constitution, I discovered that the far right, the far left, many in between, and various types of anarchists were very fearful of a Constitutional Convention for different reasons. Libertarians fear socialists, and vice versa. Some Americans believe our government is a Constitutional Republic (with enumerated individual rights that a mob democracy cannot take away).  Others believe we need a Bill of Rights, but, at local levels, we should engage in more participatory, face-to-face decision making—ideally consensus democracy, not just majority rule.

The second group believes our Constitution is a “living document” that changes with the times. The first group wants to follow the Constitution as it was originally intended by our founding fathers.  Originally, only white men who owned property could vote.  With the 17 amendments added to the Bill of Rights (which were the first 10 amendments), our government has changed over its 221-year history, since the Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 and implemented in 1789 when George Washington became our first president.

I have also written a new constitution called the Third Constitution of the United States (remember the Articles of Confederation was the first government and constitution that we had). My proposed constitution would implement a  downsized federal government that gives more power and self-determination to states, counties, townships, and precincts, building government from the bottom-up, which has never been tried before, not from the top-down, the usual way.

In my Third Constitution of the United States, free market capitalists in some counties could trade freely with democratic socialists in other counties. And if many Mormons, Muslims, secular humanists, and Hindus decide to congregate in particular precincts (there are about 600 precincts in Indianapolis), then the public schools in those precincts would reflect the thinking of the residents who live there. There would be neighborhood control of neighborhood schools.

I support, encourage, and want to join the individuals at FOAVC.org, TenAmendments.org, and article-V-convention.com who are working to empower the people with an Article V Convention. It is an important first step.  Congress has ignored the will of the people, so the people need to urge their state and federal lawmakers to implement an Article V Convention immediately. If out of fear we discourage Congress from calling an Article V Convention, then Congress, will its 9% approval rating, will carry on as before.

Under our current Constitution, I repeat, there is no need to be apprehensive about an Article V Convention. If Congress refuses a balanced budget amendment, for example, then the people can take matters into their own hands. I personally like the idea of requiring that the bills introduced by Congress should deal with single issues; that Congress (not lobbyists) should write the bills; and that members of Congress must read each bill in its entirety.

Many liberals (in some ways that is what I am) may not like the fact that decentralists have proposed amendments that empower state legislatures to veto legislation passed by the federal Congress.  If that is the case, then liberals (who want a strong federal government) should work to get their own proposed amendments addressed at an Article V Convention.

Though I personally like Dr. Ron Paul’s ideas about auditing the Federal Reserve, legalizing marijuana/hemp, and not intervening in the affairs of foreign countries — I noticed recently on television that he has supported Obama’s recent proposal to cut taxes for the super wealthy.  Is it right that 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation’s net worth, and that the bottom 80% of Americans own 15% of the nation’s net worth?  (Examine the research of G. William Domhoff, updated December, 2010, at this link.)

America represents 5% of the world’s population and owns 25% of the world’s wealth. (see politicalleft.blog)

I am deeply troubled that half of the world, over three billion people, lives on less than $2.50 a day, and at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. (see globalissues.org)

When I was a libertarian, I supported the flat tax rate, and I was very critical of big government. And I am still irritated that our national debt is 13 trillion dollars. But I have learned since my retirement that there is very little “liberty” for the hard-working people who have no choice but to compete for minimum wage jobs that provide no health benefits in private companies that have dictatorial and autocratic chains of command.  I now support workplace democracy in companies that have more than 6 employees.  Corporations should be heavily taxed when they move their operations overseas where they get away with paying workers 17 cents an hour. Moreover, I am sympathetic with philosophical anarchists who are against all forms of hierarchy, whether it is found in government or the workplace.

Now I support a steep progressive income tax up to 90%, and I support the Single Payer Health Plan, which essentially would provide Medicare to all Americans. As the rich keep getting richer, and the poor, poorer — how does that solve the world’s problems? Many social problems stem from the vast disparity between the rich and the poor.  But I am just one voice.  You, the reader, are a voice too.

According to the CIA-World Factbook, in 2009 the global per capita income in US dollars was $10,400, down 2% from the previous year. That figure is the total GNP of all the countries of the world divided by the world’s population. Here is the link.

I personally would accept a $10, 400 annual income if it meant creating true peace and harmony in the world. In regards to helping the disadvantaged and exploited peoples of the world, I share the sentiment that says, “Instead of giving a person a fish, it is better to teach that person how to fish.“

Wealthy individuals and powerful corporations finance both the Republicans and the Democrats, which is why there is very little difference between the Bush and Obama administrations.  Our elections are shams, which is why many people do not even bother to vote. All average Americans should be filled with rapture about an Article V (Amendment) Convention. It levels the playing field and gives power to the people, not to elitists who have hijacked our government.

If the Twenty-Eighth Amendment that I have proposed was ratified, there would be no need to fret about a Constitutional Convention. My guess is that a lot of the activists who support an Amendment Convention are petrified about having a Constitutional Convention as everyone else seems to be. So, for right now, I am willing to join the Amendment Convention advocates.

With an Article V (Amendment) Convention, and even more so with a Constitutional Convention, more Americans would walk away from TV sports and shopping malls and start participating in the great philosophical, political, and economic debates of our day. Then our nation could truly be a light unto the world. Below is the latest edition of my amendment proposal that could be added to our current US Constitution.

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment

The United States government can be modified through amendments added to its current Constitution, or the federal government can be changed completely as the result of a Constitutional Convention.

To change the federal government by merely adding amendments to the current constitution, there are two ways that this can be done:

In the first way, both Houses of the United States Congress must pass their proposed amendment with a 2/3 majority.  Then 2/3 of the state legislatures have a year to ratify the amendment recommended by Congress.  Ratifying with a 2/3 majority, instead of the ¾ majority that was required in the past, makes it easier to change the government.  Citizens will feel helpless and hopeless, or politically alienated, if it is too difficult to change their government.

The second way to add amendments to the current constitution is for 2/3 of the state legislatures to call for a national Amendment Convention for any reason. Once a state makes a request for a convention, it cannot be rescinded. Each state legislature shall choose one person to attend the national Amendment Convention.  Then the 50 state legislatures, at their separate locations, will have a year to ratify any proposed amendments made by the national Amendment Convention. A new amendment will not be added to the current Constitution unless 2/3 of the state legislatures ratify it.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  As mentioned in the first paragraph of this Amendment, a radically new constitution and government can be formed through a Constitutional Convention.  It can be achieved in a fair, safe, and orderly way. The American people have a right to make a new government based upon a new constitution. Therefore, the decision to create a new supreme document will be considered by the American people at every presidential election. If at least 2/3 of the American voters request a constitutional convention at that time, then the Constitutional Convention will start meeting one year later. Each state will thus have less than a year to pick one delegate to attend the Constitutional Convention.

Each state shall send one delegate to participate in the Constitutional Convention based on the Instant Runoff Voting method. Voters of each state will rank 7 candidates in the order of their preferences. The seven most numerous political parties of a state will offer the voters of that state a proposed constitution and a potential constitutional delegate, who might be the one selected by the state to represent it, at the Constitutional Convention.  For example, here is how one voter from Indiana might rank her votes, based on the seven most numerous political parties in Indiana:

1. Republican Party 2. Constitution Party 3. Libertarian Party 4. Democratic Party 5, Green Party 6. Socialist Party 7. Communist Party.

If no candidate in Indiana gets a 51% majority, then before the second round of voting begins, the candidate who had the least amount of votes in Indiana would be dropped from the list of choices (making the total now 6).  If after the second round of voting, still no candidate has a 51% majority, then the candidate who had the least amount of votes would be dropped (making the list of choices now 5).  If after the third round of voting, the Republican Party (which may have proposed to not change the current Constitution) received at least 51% of the votes, then its candidate would be the delegate to represent Indiana at the national Constitutional Convention.

The 50 Constitutional Convention delegates will first meet the first Tuesday of November, one year after the previous presidential election date. The Colorado State Legislature (chosen because of its somewhat geographically central location) will choose beforehand a meeting place and the initial chairperson (who will not have voting privileges) of the Constitutional Convention.  The delegates may later choose one of the attending delegates, who would have voting privileges, to be the chairperson of the Convention. Formal discussions and debates of the Convention will use parliamentary procedure.  The 50 state legislatures will assist with the costs of the Convention, which should be kept at a minimum.  If the Colorado State Legislature does not want its designated responsibility, then it is imperative that it ask another state legislature to do the job.

The Convention delegates will work on several revisions, if necessary, of the newly proposed Constitution, in the constant effort to get 51% of the American people to accept it, as expressed in public opinion surveys. Two years after the previous presidential election, the American people will vote on the latest, proposed constitution. Without a 51% majority vote of approval by the American people, the proposed constitution will be null and void, and the current Constitution will continue as before.  In summary, there will be one year to pick delegates and another year for the actual constitutional convention.

The much greater fairness that Instant Run-Off Voting provides in the selection of Constitutional Convention delegates is why only a 51% majority is needed to ratify the newly proposed Constitution.

The spoken and written words of the delegates must be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their own opinions in the process. The US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to control an Amendment Convention or a Constitutional Convention. They can, however, express their opinions and recommendations in the process.

Readers may send this essay to family members and friends, to lawmakers, and to other websites. Disinformation is the only website I have found that freely allows me to share my ideas for which I am very grateful.

Roger Copple retired at age 60, in May 2010, from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis. He has been trying to integrate the Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and Anarchist political theories. His political essays can be found at www.NowSaveTheWorld.com. He can be reached by email at rogc77@att.net.

LaMonica: Voltaire said, “God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.” Is that not your view of nature?

Graffin: *laughs* No, I don’t think so. See that implies there’s a design and of course Voltaire was a deist and a famous one at that and I think he thought that there was some design but I would say that there is no design to nature.

LaMonica: But you certainly have a pedantic sense of humor. You say, “As far as I’m concerned, if a philosopher or theologian wants to interpret scientific data as divine, he or she has a right to do so. (Maybe they can write with a quill pen, too!).”

Graffin: That’s because it seems comedic to me that even modern people think that the debate is such, and maybe it is with the atheist debates, that you can’t believe in God and believe in evolution.

I’m saying that there were many great naturalists before Darwin’s time who were very pious people and who knew more about nature than most of us. These were great naturalists; people I would admire for their knowledge of natural science given the time. But that was at the turn of the 18th Century, in the first decade of the 1800s, and what I’m talking about is that there are people today who still want to think like that, basically ignoring any contributions that Darwin made to the subject.

If they want to do that, it’s perfectly valid, but they’re using a philosophy called natural theology that was popular before Darwin came along.

[Listen to the full interview at CNN]

For those who have far better things to worry about, a recap: Recently, at a worker-owned Portland anarchist cafe, Red And Black, a police officer was asked to leave by a co-owner. A local blogger was outraged (enough so to revisit the subject), the insipid Portland hipster yuppie press picks it up and the national media has a field day yukking it up over the bizarre notion that some people don’t think cops are acceptable in polite company.

Meanwhile, no one (except Infoshop News in their roundabout, “let’s pretend we’re trying to be objective to avoid the political fight” identity politics-laden “anarchist” sort of way) asks the crucial question: Why is a police officer going into an anarchist cafe in the first place?

Full Article at Red Star Times

I was contacted this morning by Bay Area National Anarchists founder Andrew Yeoman. He felt that I had unfairly maligned his group in my recent article on radical traditionalist website Alternative Right. I don’t really want to get into the specifics of our exchange, however, I would now like to present the videos I referenced (but did not post) in my previous article. The event they are protesting is the Folsom Street Fair, which is a leather / BDSM event, not explicitly a gay pride event.

I stand by my claim that harassment takes place on these videos and that the demonstration attempts to target homosexuals. Indeed, Folsom Street Fair is largely (if not predominantly) an event for the gay leather / BDSM community.

As I generally do not feel comfortable presenting fascistic material “without comment”, I would like to say a few things before presenting readers the video:

1. Why is this event being protested? There are no videos on YouTube of BANA protesting wars that are more harmful to children, nor the proven international conspiracy to rape children within the Catholic Church. Why not? Why this?
2. Note the signs: “FOLSOM ST. FAIR / BE THERE BE QUEER / BUT LEAVE YOUR KIDS AT HOME!” and “PERVERSION IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE.”
3. What are the politics of describing the Folsom Street Fair as “child abuse?”
4. Andrew Yeoman, while getting the troops ready for battle says that the city government is ignoring Folsom Street Fair and “we need to do something about it.” What do you suspect that “something” means? What would BANA do if they had 100 members? 1,000? 10,000?
5. “Is it unreasonable to think that those who get off on abusing one another might also get off on abusing children?”–AY, ~3:40
6. One of the “shocking” banners at the Folsom Street Fair is about homosexuality being compatible with Christianity. Who would find this scandalous? Similarly, what are the politics of focusing on a painting of Barack Obama at a leather booth?
7. Does following a man and his child with a camera and implying that the man is pimping his child amount to harassment? Similarly, does implying that a woman gave her child drugs on camera amount to harassment? Consider the long history of the far-right in relation to using cameras and videos to harass and intimidate the left.
8. Note the amount of homosexual men and women videotaped. Yes, I think it’s safe to assume that many of the men in chaps and / or skirts are gay. If BANA are not there to harass gay people, why do they spend so much time focusing on them?
9. Context matters. What does all of this mean in the context of high praise given to Troy Southgate (a veteran of fascist groups such as the International Third Position and the British National Front, as well as the premier worldwide theorist of “national anarchism”) by BANA founder Yeoman?

I apologize to my readers for presenting this information in list, rather than essay form. I suspect that National Anarchism may require more insight and writing than I can give it at the moment. However, I did feel that it was necessary to put this up in a timely fashion. For further information, I recommend the Southern Poverty Law Center’s article on the matter. While I give no political support to the SPLC’s methods of cops and courts, they run good intel on these kinds of groups, detailing all their quirks in an easily digestible format.

Welcome to a new feature on Red Star Times, right-wing blog watch. I am introducing this feature for the sake of keeping a close eye on right-wing blogs, ranging from hardline conservative to outright fascist. My first subject of study is Alternative Right, a particularly noxious website that brands itself as “radical traditionalist.” For those who aren’t familiar with the term, radical traditionalist is a term used by hipsters, goths and faux-erudite who espouse fascist ideology but want a term with more intellectual cache.

Radical traditionalist favorites include Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola and Alain de Benoist. Associated (allegedly) political movements include Eurasianism, metapolitics, third positionism and national anarchism. Alternative right is an exemplar of radical traditionalism and fascism in as much as it begins with hatred of minorities, women and the working class and proceeds to construct a bizarre mish-mash of gobbledygook as “ideology” after the fact.

I first came across Alternative Right when a friend of mine posted this article to his Facebook page. After posting a reasoned argument against the groundless nonsense espoused in the article, a predictable shitstorm ensued. The shitstorm was predictable in as much as it happened. What was not predictable was homophobic slurs thrown my way for suggesting that the Holocaust and atomic bombing of civilian populations in Japan might have been a bad thing. It’s worth noting that most of the more inflammatory rhetoric is found not in the articles, but in the comments section. I strongly urge readers to peruse the comments of the articles I post in addition to the articles themselves.

Full Article at Red Star Times

The Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab creates insight into how computing products — from websites to mobile phone software — can be designed to change what people believe and what they do.

Yes, this can be a scary topic: machines designed to influence human beliefs and behaviors. But there’s good news. We believe that much like human persuaders, persuasive technologies can bring about positive changes in many domains, including health, business, safety, and education. We also believe that new advances in technology can help promote world peace in 30 years. With such positive ends in mind, we are creating a body of expertise in the design, theory, and analysis of persuasive technologies, an area called “captology.”

By arriving at this page, you’ve reached the main website for our research lab, directed by Dr. BJ Fogg. On this site you’ll find an overview of captology, learn about examples, have access to captology resources, and be invited to receive our lab’s free newsletter. We also share some insights in our blog, Captology Notebook.

If you want to watch persuasive technology in action, go to Captology TV. This site has dozens of short videos showing how companies use the web today to influence people’s thoughts and behaviors.

An overview of captology

Captology is the study of computers as persuasive technologies. This includes the design, research, and analysis of interactive computing products created for the purpose of changing people’s attitudes or behaviors. As the graphic shows, captology describes the area where computing technology and persuasion overlap.

This area continues to grow quickly. Each week more computing products, including websites, are designed to change what people think and do. We expect this trend to continue, especially as mobile phones become more capable of running software from third parties and the Internet.

Captology is global

Beginning at Stanford in the 1990s, the study of persuasive technology is now a global area of research and design. In the early days, we were doing research, conducting classes, and organizing events at Stanford. But we did not organize the first global conference. We appreciate our colleagues at the Eindhoven University of Technology for organizing this in 2006: First International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being. Since then, the conference has been an annual event, bringing together researchers and practitioners from around the world:
Stanford University hosted the 2007 International Conference on Persuasive Technology.

Oulu University and Aalborg University hosted the 2008 International Conference on Persuasive Technology.

Claremont College will host the 2009 International Conference on Persuasive Technology.

More on the Stamford Captlogy site