RadicalGraphics.org :: Censorship :: 5


Radical Graphics


Gmail: Googles approach to email


it’s been one of my fantasies since, oh, about the birth of the web, that I will one day be able to wait for the results on a 50 million quid Euro Lottery rollover, note that no one has won it, then email myself the winning numbers in an email just like this…


this is so demeaning it’s embarrassing to witness. Americans are becoming spies for the State because some of them are so desperate for money that they can be bought for trivial “rewards” of a few hundred dollars. How cheaply can you buy a Soul? How low can a nation sink?

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Somerset | Rag and bone legacy is pure gold


and why doesn’t this happen to me either!

ID Thieves Target LifeLock CEO


‘king excellent!



UK to outlaw cartoons of child sexual abuse • The Register


Excellent Reg Article.

Strangely, I’m not particularly worried about this even though, as Lord McIntosh puts it in a previous related reg story.

What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about.

The reason for my apparent complacency is that the British Juror has an excellent track record in this field. That’s how we struck down the censorship in the 60’s (They tried to prosecute book sellers for “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” and the Jury said fuck off) and will no doubt do so again, when the first of these cases gets to court. Of course, I am annoyed by the totalitarian “thought crime” aspects of their attempt, but that has the useful benefit of illustrating just how incompetent and dangerous the bastards are and makes it easier for me to push my main message.

Sign in to read: Science rules OK: Running societies the rational way – life – 21 May 2008 – New Scientist


One of the most important articles recently published in the NS. Evidence based politics is one of the most fundamental requirements in a Democracy. Any Law implementing a policy for which there is either no evidence or contra-evidence, like the examples discussed in this article, should, in a Democracy, be automatically invalidated. If not by Governments, then by Juries.

Scien | Tom | Music Mp3 | Buy | Bose Radio | Karaoke Cds | Tickets All Concerts at Scientomogy.com


thanks to Rumplesmigskin for reminding me of this (in the context of discussion we had over this. As Rumple says, there are hardly any “Scifags” in Ireland (where he lives) because most potential recruits have seen this South Park episode. True or not, (and this story lends weight to his argument) I’m sure that this kind of satirical attack against the childish meme of Scientology is far more effective than physical confrontation – which runs the risk of making THEM look persecuted…


forget all that physical training and extreme conditioning. Forget Shaolin. All you need is the right t-shirt and you’re set. Why didn’t I think of that?

On Truth & Reality: Philosophy Physics Metaphysics of Space, Wave Structure of Matter. Famous Science Art Quotes.


hmmm… as I was saying
we cannot deduce ethics from reality. Deal with it!

Carbon mesh pins down universal constant | COSMOS magazine


Read the comments. If they’re not a troll, they are even more fascinating than the article…

Japanese customs dish out free dope • The Register


will someone please tell me why this never happens to me!

A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty


this is an eloquent rendition of one aspect of the philosophy of the American Libertarians. As an anarchist myself I am sympathetic to many of their conclusions but their arguments are woolly. Their starting point is the raising of non-coercion to a philosophical or ethical principle. It isn’t. It is merely an aspiration (which I share). The difference is crucial.

Consider the “driving on the roads” case which Molyneux nimbly sidesteps. It is obviously the case that if we do not enforce the decision to drive on one side of the road, we will cause large numbers of road deaths. This is more than enough to justify the “coercion” required to persuade people to conform, purely on the basis of our right to self defence (which the libertarians support).

So there cannot be a blanket ban on coercion. The real questions are:
a) when is such coercion justified
b) who should make the decision
c) who should implement the decision and
d) what means are acceptable when implementing the decision (and who should decide that and so on)

The only clear ethical principle we can voice in regard to coercion is that we cannot oblige ANYONE to accept it as just or fair. Like the Democratic Cannibals, each of retains the right to fight for our own interests regardless of consensus against us.

We may well submit to the coercion for sensible tactical reasons (we are clearly outgunned) but that does not imply that we “accept” the coercion in any way other than, as Molyneux suggests, a slave accepts lunch.