Thursday, 6 June 2013

'The Serpent of Sex-Perversion' (11 March 1932)

Sydney police with the aid of the Consorting Act have driven most of the infamous womenkind from the streets. As the means of banishing this eyesore, the Consorting Act has more than justified itself. But by skimming this scum off Sydney's well of foulness, the Consorting Act has laid bare a much greater menace to the health and morals of this city. The serpent of sex-perversion...

Bizarre Tribe: Access Denied (An Open Letter to Sony)

In the digital economy, we'll soon all be working for free - and I refuse

New York



HERE
Via

HA!

Via

Review of Ken Wark's 'The Beach Beneath The Street' & 'The Spectacle of Disintegration'

Wark’s two books work sequentially, although they also loop around the same figures and concepts. They could be treated as histories of the Situationist milieu and its aftermaths, but to do so would miss entirely what makes them such compelling and, at times, hilarious reading. Wark does not set out to write a conventional scholarly account of the Situationists. As he reminds us at numerous moments, his work has no claim to originality. He does emphasise some of the more neglected figures associated with the movement, but what really drives The Beach Beneath the Street and The Spectacle of Disintegration is their impatience with contemporary cultural and intellectual institutions that, for all of their posturing, are largely complicit with the prevailing political order. Wark is himself a Professor of Culture and Media at the New School in New York City, and while I am guessing that the New School isn’t as obviously neo-liberal as many other universities in the U.S., the sense of him writing angrily about institutional conditions he knows all too well is partly what gives his work its verve and energy.

Low Theory

+

Totality For Kids

Shepard Fairey: Free download of Ataturk image

HERE

Samantha Power on the limits of 'Holocaustization'

How the Pro-Israel Right Will Attack Samantha Power: Like They Did in 2008

♪♫ Jon Hopkins - We Disappear


Open Eye Signal

Revealed: NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily

Orhan Pamuk: Memories of a Public Square

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

23 Skidoo footage from WOMAD (1982)

23 Skidoo live @The Half Moon, Putney (22/2/13)
(Thanx Fritz!)

Noam Chomsky: How to destroy the future

♪♫ The Orb feat. Lee Scratch Perry - Fussball

If the video above is blocked in your country. Try this link instead

Julian Assange on Bradley Manning's trial

Bradley Manning may not give evidence as to his stated intent (exposing war crimes and their context), nor may he present any witness or document that shows that no harm resulted from his actions. Imagine you were put on trial for murder. In Bradley Manning's court, you would be banned from showing that it was a matter of self-defence, because any argument or evidence as to intent is banned. You would not be able to show that the 'victim' is, in fact, still alive, because that would be evidence as to the lack of harm.
But of course. Did you forget whose show it is?
The government has prepared for a good show. The trial is to proceed for twelve straight weeks: a fully choreographed extravaganza, with a 141-strong cast of prosecution witnesses. The defense was denied permission to call all but a handful of witnesses. Three weeks ago, in closed session, the court actually held a rehearsal. Even experts on military law have called this unprecedented.
Bradley Manning's conviction is already written into the script. The commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, Barack Obama, spoiled the plot for all of us when he pronounced Bradley Manning guilty two years ago. "He broke the law," President Obama stated, when asked on camera at a fundraiser about his position on Mr. Manning. In a civilized society, such a prejudicial statement alone would have resulted in a mistrial.
MORE
Trial Transcripts