23:56 ISSUE THREE OCTOBER 1/2 2004

(...)

Dear Kevin,

Via email, you asked a few interested parties, myself included, to summarize the dialogue thus far in relation to your project, claiming that this might result in a dialogue on dialogue. While I see the

value of this exercise, for you and for all of us, I just don’t see that as the result of said exercise. Rather than dialogue, this seems like a collection of mono-logues for you to then collate and reinterpret. It’s a continuation of what, to me, has been an itera-

tive collective endeavour with you as the ringleader, but it hardly seems like a dialogue on dialogue to me.

However, that was your request, so I ’ ll try to honor it. While I disagree with you on this particu-

I guess the idea is that this would be my response to any dialogue about dialogue, whether

it is named radical or not: not engaging in it at all. This little bit is an explanation of

what I mean, and the why, of not engaging. It is a small amount of engagement, but I would

feel like a jerk if I said, “Just don’t bother” and didn’t explain it. That would be more arrogant

than what is coming.

The position is: unless you are affiliated with a university, dialogue of any academic sort

probably doesn’t exist for you in any form, and that is not a bad thing, just common

sense, function. There is usually no benefit from doing it if you are not enmeshed in the

university’s reward/punishment system (course grading, publishing, tenured positions,

conference trips etc.) Except, if you are engaged in some ‘radical’ or academic dialogue

outside the university, there is perhaps the joy of it which you yourself get from it,

rocking out with your friends at what they do best, or whatever you might feel you are

contributing to outside of yourself. Just because it’s ephemeral doesn’t mean it can’t be

fun! If that’s your art then do it. If theorists are viewed as writers, one could say they are off

the hook. Although Edward Said, as an example, was quite explicit of the need to overtly

On the back cover of the previous

issue, I printed a question posed

online by anonymous(1); who the fuck cares about this shit?, placed

over top of an image of an open spread

from the first issue that addressed the idea

of ‘starting an “art” movement’. I pictured

anonymous(1) reading those pages and

thinking in his head, who the fuck do they think

they are? before asking his question out loud,

MA

YA

DR

OZ

DZ

KE

VIN

LO

JO

EL

SH

AN

E

four minutes to midnight3

lar point, I know there is common ground to be found. As I respect and support your project, I will offer whatever assistance and insights I bel ieve may be helpful to you, and also relevant from my own perspective.

ON DIALOGUEThe difference between dialogue and debate is that the goal of dialogue is mutual understanding, while the goal of debate is winning an argument. You claim that your project is concerned with dialogue and so, although I know

that you have st rong beliefs of your own, I have to see the goal of your project as a synthesis of many voices with this goal of mutual under-standing.

This means that you do not, will not, own the

politicize academia as the stakes were high, and he was a living example of ways to do it.

Did he singlehandedly figure out the mess? No, but if there was a wall of activities like his

dedicated ones, we might be better off.

But rather than engage in any talk about talking, or design for that matter, it is maybe more

appropriate for many people to just do some [design or other] work. In the instance

of graphic communication which communicates... say a political message to a general public, rather than design about dialogue, or any single concept or idea one

might be subject to in art or philosophy departments, it might be more appropriate to do

work that operates at a level most people can read. Is this anti-intellectual? It better be! Is it

thoughtful? That’s up to us!

What we already know is that design can happen either for a client that pays you to do stuff

you don’t see any good in, except the paying of your rent etc., OR for a cause/group which

you can get behind... but probably doesn’t pay much.

big, black type streaming from his/her lips.

Then again, it wasn’t really a question, it was

a rhetorical statement. It actually ended with

a period, and in all honesty, he/she probably

never even read those pages.

anonymous (2) suggested that "we all listen to or read again the controver-sial American philosopher Michael Jackson and his masterpiece Man in

the Mirror." Though we were also told quite forcefully to "keep your mouths shut, stop looking in the mirror, and just do your thing." hmm... confusing...

The general sentiment in response to the

first issue seemed to be that we need to walk the talk —to stop bitching and be

on our way. Shoulder to the wheel.

product. You may serve as facilitator, and also as the maker/editor/publ isher of an artifact, a docu-mentation of dialogue, but the product is shared and owned by its many contributors and, ideally, by your audience as well.

ON TRUST The difficulty I see in this project is that of trust. Trust that you can ‘do what you want’ while fulf ill-ing your tutors’ ideas of what you ought to do, and also while satisfying the parameters of your degree program. Trust

that you can make your project known to an audi-ence of strangers who will respect it and who will not publicly humiliate, ridi-cule, or ignore you. Trust that these strangers will honestly contribute, and that our contributions will be respected as such, not

Then there is the alternative to client work, that can be self-generated work, where guerilla postering and more inventive forms of visual communications can come in, OR these can be just as obscurely referenced as academic work or art, or

like white suburban graffiti or tags in white suburban areas, or layered images of whatever

on posters, or huge paintings of colour fields.

When presented to an audience, one of the above approaches might be received with the

viewer’s cognition and then result in some change of BEHAVIOR or thought which leads

to change in behavior: the goal of much visual communication, whether it’s advertising

(feel fear of looking like a wuss so buy this big-ass SUV) or a letterhead (feel free... to

write... WITHIN THIS BOX!) or a political poster (feel fear of re-electing the same guy AGAIN, then maybe go and not re-elect him). But when confronted with anything

academic, the average citizen — who has nothing to do with anything involving the word

“discourse” at any point in their lives — will not register the stuff shown and easily ignore it.

It never even existed: it does not exist. Except for the person who made it. Privately, these

works are fun to do and share with buddies. Outside your circle they dissolve.

An egotistical defense mounts: I’ve made

my fair share of anti-war/anti-Bush posters, anti-design f lash anima-tions, environmental action websites,

progressive cultural brochures. I’ve spent

time nurturing alternative networks, accused the government of genocide on late night television, I’ve marched in

the street, don’t buy new clothes, don’t own

a tv or a car, blah, blah, fucking blah...

I’m a good boy. I’d like to think I try to walk

the talk.

But honestly what kind of contribution is

that to make, 55 cents a day while Baghdad

burns?

So stop talking, stop writing, start doing.

We can’t keep blaming them(as opposed to

us), and they(the other they) need our help.

abused or coopted. Trust that your contributors will not be misrepresented.

From my perspect ive, this issue of trust means that I will ingly engage in a stranger’s project. I give you a piece of myself and trust that you will use

it wisely. I trust that we are all working for a good cause, working toward a genuine mutual under-standing. I have to trust that your request is not opportunistic, that you are not poaching, but are genuinely seeking out contributions because that

is precisely the premise of your project.

ON COMMUNICATION DESIGNI think I am finally coming to understand the critical difference between graphic design and communication de-

eg. Bruce Mau may want to only hire people (or have people pay him to intern) with

masters’ degrees and knowledge of the liberal arts and literature which an incalculably

small percent of the general population possesses — or can relate to. Yet, he makes things

like lettering. For Disney. The academic trade-level knowledge does not exist, and never

existed, for all the people who visit the Roots flagship boutique. It’s not part of a shopping

experience, or ANY part of most people’s experience, EVER IN THEIR LIVES.

This is getting close to the overall point I want to make, which can be unimaginable to

students while studying, or tenured instructors etc. ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN

THE UNIVERSITY STAYS THERE, EVEN IF IT IS PUT ON A POSTER IN A PUBLIC FORUM. Academic writing, design, art, whatever, lives truly in a classroom and is undecipherable to

everyone outside the various departments, and that is difficult to remember but important

to remember, especially if the university is your trade. At the Nova Scotia College of Art,

and from former Yalie instructors I have met in Hawai’i, I can honestly say that I have

encountered my fair share of 40-50 year olds, some of who worked for good stretches

outside the university in studios, who believe implicitly and explicitly that university is

But what if what you do IS writing (graphic

design can be writing, right?) - what if the

only thing you have a shred of knowledge

about is designing communication (don’t

I wish I could grow my own tomatoes).

Then what’s left to do? A lonely fist raised

in the air and the memory of whispered

words? more posters, more websites, more

catalogues...

more...

The central concern for me has always

been to try to understand the difference between doing work for ‘radical’ causes and the possibility of doing truly ‘radical’ work. To understand the

complementary nature of these activities

while trying to imagine alternatives.

sign, two terms that are [in US institutions of higher learning, at least] often used interchange-ably. Graphic design is the design of graphics, i.e. specific artifacts. Commu-nicat ion design is the design of communications, i.e. situations that enable

and foster communication. Seen in this light, commu-nication design can be the manipulation of formal elements on a page, but it can also be the facilita-tion of dialogue, e.g. being an effective ring-leader in a conversation.

ON BEING A RINGLEADERI have earlier likened you to a host at a cocktail party, or an MC. I have also suggested that your task in designing these artifacts is that of a DJ, remixing and editing the contributions of others with the goal of creating

smart, non-university is dumb, that people who don’t understand, appreciate and are all for

what happens in art galleries are just not trying, and that the standard for success

is intellectualization: what words you can get behind your work.

Essentially it says: ‘there is an ivory tower, we all know that, but if you are not in it, and

playing ball, you are a fucking retard. You are worthless. Your little brain makes you

worthless. You had the choice. You could have been like us. But you didn’t. You deserve

nothing. You don’t even exist.’

Tartakover’s graphic journalism comes to

mind, Sheila Levrant DeBretteville’s public

interventions, and the wide variety of inter-

net based activity opposing the invasion—

for all the good that it did. Punk rock and hip

hop tease my ears.

This is what has led me here, and what all

this talk is about. One idea is this, that in this

day and age, when communication is more

and more commodity, simply speaking to each other, openly and honestly, can

be a radical act. And for me, the attempt to translate this into the practice of graphic design, amongst all other forms

of cultural production, is one of the main

goals here.

I mean fuck Damien Hirst and his

slaughtered animals and prett y pills,

something that is yours but also actively engaged in a larger context [in a sense, not yours]. We live in a culture that seems so rooted in these ideas of remixing that your task seems very contem-porary, very much of the Zeitgeist [and I don’t care

if that carries a determin-istic connotation; as an engaged individual and maker your task is not only to shape the future, but also to analyse, interpret, shape, and be shaped by the present moment]. But, what you’re attempting to do is not only to facilitate

intangible conversations; it is also to document them so that they are, in fact, tangible.

These zines serve as a form of documentation.

fuck Bruce Mau and his beautiful books,

fuck Nickleback and... well, just FUCK ’em.

How do we learn to speak to each other

again? And how do we make that speech

meaningful, powerful?

Our words, our weapons.

...

Then again maybe that’s just me, perhaps

there’s nothing beyond the barricades, no

beach beneath the cobblestones. Worse yet,

maybe there are no barricades and I should

be grateful for the luxury I have to

think about these things while Baghdad

burns yet again.

Here again, if anyone can give me the definitive answer on free will and how much choice a kid from a reserve outside Winnipeg has to grow up and become the first tenured First Nations art instructor at the U of M, you

win

a free

tshirt.

Our words, our weapons.

THEY FIND EACH OTHER//THEY FIND EACH OTHER AND TOGETHER BREAK OTHER FENCES: IN RURAL AREAS AND CITIES, IN THE STATES, IN THE NATIONS, ON THE CONTINENTS, THE REBELS BEGIN TO RECOGNIZE THEMSELVES TO KNOW THEMSELVES TO BE

EQUAL AND DIFFERENT. IT’S 3:30 AM HERE IN LONDON AND I DON’T HAVE THE BRAIN POWER TO

RESPOND RIGHT NOW.It even seemed a bit of an analgesic, the juxtaposition of celebratory calls of the left with

the not-so-ironic (almost deadpan) design. At the point where the political is not personal,

there is a problem. I wonder what motivated you to take up this project in the first place.

We love the

power we have over pain.

And it is not clear to me which is preferable. And what hapless human sacrifice ever turned away from his still beating heart? and that sets fatal limits to the real possibilities of this

dialogue-design process. Give something hard and tangible

for people to react to, since that seems to be the goal, or at

least against. GIVE SOMETHING HARD AND TANGIBLE FOR

PEOPLE TO REACT TO, SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE GOAL, OR AT LEAST AGAINST

many of the problems in relation to society come to the

surface where graphic design stands. and I think it suffers.

SILENCE KILLS THE REVOLUTION. and sitting here working to make someone else richer and trying to get my kids educated...

and the writing is great, smart, poetic... i feel like its stuck in some kind of paralyzed angsty crap that is just the opposite of the call to action it wants to be...

NO LOVE IS POSSIBLE IN AN UNHAPPY WORLD.I would very much like to believe this isn’t true, that it is yet another academic parlour game. But looking around after reading it, and reflecting on the past few months of my life leaves me no options. That we are ultimately alone is no great tragedy or revelation. That we cannot overcome that alienation is a tragedy. Or rather, that we have convinced ourselves that we can get beyond it is the tragedy. That sex or love, the way so many of us pretend to “communicate” when really we are just looking for ways to mask the emptiness that suffocates us. That we are a culture of Goldie Locks, looking for something in other people, that we essentially lack ourselves. Until we can overcome the tendency to find meaning in the illusory nature of interpersonal realtionships we are doomed, to shifting empty experiences. I thought I had moved beyond that, and in some ways I think I have, what saddens me, is that beyond a few friends, who have embraced this struggle, most are not even aware. Or when you present it, you are faced with accusations, rather than thoughtful reaction, because it cuts to the core of our constructed identities.

THE TRAGEDY OF 1984 AND THE TRAGEDY OF TODAY, IS NOT BIG EVIL GOVERNMENTS OR CORPORATIONS. IT IS THE ILLUSIONS WE ACCEPT & THE LIMITS WE EMBRACE.

nothing to do but speak and speak until our ears bleed into the wee hours of the morning in places we shouldn’t be about all the things

I WOULD RATHER LOOK TO EXPRESSIONISM AND DADA FOR CUES.

At the point where the political is not personal, there is a problem.

They arrive at the crack of dawn, with cardigans and bottles of water; cruising the perimeter like tigers pacing in cages. The old pressmen have likewise been cajoled

from uneasy retirements to tend their former charges. I told my class about your stories and my teacher

said that you’re being morose and sentimental. I don’t care though, you’re the only person that talks about the past. It’s funny, in a sad way. Sometimes I think you’re playing with me and I don’t believe you.

7. (or this will make little or no sense.) WHAT THE FUCKdissonance is not an unpleasant sound. It is merely unfamiliar to our earsjust as legitimacy is hard sought in a system structured

we shouldn’t know. you need to become real.We’re walking around like lepers, using our arms as tools and smashing them

up, feeling no pain from the misuse of our bodies. The bruises are concealed, instead of revealed. Instead of opening up a situation where we might discover

that people are being hurt, we are hiding pain.

THEY CAN'TSPEAK FOR YOU NOW;

REMEMBER.PAX.LUST.GOAT.

tshirts and posters, billboards, the usual, plus things I haven't thought of, mass flyering, airbombing info cards/stat sheets of presidential track records over a city,

this all started from A BALL OF PAIN. Catalysed by the most

obvious and clichéd of hurts: the failure of love, the end of a two year conversation.

Loneliness. Homelessness. And the hypoc-

risy of saying you can help the huddled

masses when you end a conversation with

someone you love and leave them to drown.

When you walk away and stop talking. We’re

all guilty.

MAYBE IT IS SAY OR DO, and the general consensus is the two ARE different, at a macro

level, the level most citizens live in. Think of it as trade-based. Many citizens have a trade,

and by that I mean whatever you do every day, or enough of so that you know a lot about

it. Take Hawai’i for example: some know a lot about selling more expensive menu items to

tourists who stumble into the Jimmy Buffet restaurant. Others know a whole lot about how

to raise children with next to no money and take care of a billion babies at the same time.

Others know about doing payroll, or filling potholes, or saving pudgy white people in high

surf. Some know a lot about being a Marine, others know a lot about doing stripteases. The

point is that most people do something to get by, and that something has a language of its

own - say the sorting codes known by heart by the postal workers - a language which is not

really interesting to those OUTSIDE their field. The possessors of trade-specific knowledge

don’t see themselves as doing something that has to be communicated outside their realm:

pothole filling technique is useless to those whose job isn’t pothole filling, and the city

workers I have known don’t talk TOO much about what they do on the job.

PAIN IS COMMUNICATION, from one part of the body to the brain. Killing pain is cutting off cellular communication. Social pain (dissent) can be muffled by media-based painkillers, giving autonomy to the ruling class. More and more I feel that autonomy should always be “autonomy from something”. Then we wouldn’t take for granted that autonomy is positive.

I’m confused and I feel cold. I put every image and immediate reminder in a shoebox. All this is so tacky and predictable.

Back to the point. On a misty evening

last December, back in Breda, my theory

professor, Hugues Boekraad, asked me

why I had decided to leave the programme

at St. Joost. I told him it was because I

recognised my own weakness and that I

knew I didn’t have the strength to carry on

studying there while my heart and mind

were shattered. That I needed a different

space with people that spoke my language.

He nodded and said it was good that I could

recognise and accept my own weakness:

“Me, I’ve never had to deal with that, I’m

strong of body, strong of mind, I’m smarter

than most people I know. Yet, I’ve had friends

who were far weaker, far stupider than me,

who managed to achieve more because they

accepted their own weakness. Remember

Kevin, in your struggle against capitalism,

Dialogue itself is the trade one has if one is studying the arts or humanities etc. in the

academy. Dialogue at an exclusionary discourse level is the bread and butter, the thing by

which you are passed or failed, in the university’s [liberal or other] arts - which also have

a certain self-image for being somewhat free-form, interdisciplinary, ‘progressive’. The

problem is that this allows for academics’ real-world motivations to be given the illusion,

often, that they will be be heard, worked on, flushed out as part of course-work or research.

But then what’s the application? It is still hermetic.

The practicalities are simple: you are not passed by how many people you can get to vote

out Bush. This would require a somewhat radical dialogue, whatever that is. I mean this

in the sense that all the sudden you have to take a functioning power structure which

now exists only to keep itself going and produce more producers (students) of product

(papers, design projects, art pieces... or students?) which is produced and consumed only

in the university (only intelligible to, and spread amongst those in the circuit). Then you

would have to acknowledge there is an outside of the university world. Then you would

say to yourself, okay: things are burning outside, we’re taking it easy here,

ON ARTIFACTSI have expressed my frus-tration to you with regard to these very designed zines of yours, and you have admitted your own ambivalence toward them. However, the creation of such an artifact serves as an agent, a catalyst toward

dialogue. It allowed you to have something of yourself to share, something that can be pointed to as ‘what you’re doing,’ even though the real value of what you’re doing [as I see it] is a lot less tangi-ble or specific [or limited] than that. I still see the

crux of this endeavor as everything around the artifacts; in the end, these art ifacts will serve as passive documentation to be internalized by others, which will perhaps even continue to serve as cata-lysts toward future action. But your real accomplish-

what can we do? We might have to abandon - radically - the well-trodden path

we are on, the nature of the reward/punishment system, start getting people to hook up outside of this place and then reassess how important we think theory

is, how important it is to look into the most obscure writing as bread and butter work, and

that maybe most students should be built into people with a primary concern for interacting with the outside world, doing things which are life-affirming,

interactive, living, and if there are those who obviously are differently organized to the

point of not being very good at being involved in real-world issues, but who’s juicy chestnut

brains are so primed for one thing - Lyotard and everything after, then by all means give

them a spot. We still need people to do heavy research, watch the media, to keep track. But

for all those who aren’t doing that, there is the potential with any huge number of people

for somehow shifting the mandate from what is essentially a modernist, formalist practice

of insular wordsmithing and imagemaking, to one that says: you’re spending 4 years of time

and tonnes of money so you may as well get thrown into dealing with people outside the

classroom, you might even end up with a job that feels good to do after this is done.

ment is the cont inual building of a network of like minded souls who have become en-gaged in many of the same questions you have been asking.

ON OWNERSHIPBut here’s the k icker: rather than pr ivately giving you my feedback, I’ve now published it here (www.visualingual.org/2356), where the ownership is no longer yours. I ’ve been fascinated for a while now by the intertwin-

ing conversations you have sparked: your own blog, posts on var ious other blogs, which some-times cross-reference each other, email messages, wh ich somet imes get forwarded to others, etc. The issue of ownership has already been a bit fuzzy,

if you can recognise how truly weak you are,

how small you are, how impotent you are,

then you’ll be able to do great things.”

He was an egotistical, chauvinistic, asshole

that smoked too much, and one of the best

professors I’ve ever had.

What would acknowledging weak-ness entail?

At the time, it meant leaving the Netherlands

and moving to London, giving up on a dream

and driving myself into deep debt. Walking

with my eyes closed.

Acknowledging weakness could mean

accepting the limits of the room from which

I can manoeuvre, that graphic design is a

dumb fucking discipline, and that talking with it may be all I can expect to ever do.

It is kind of like the way I was taught in Jewish school how Judaism operates in regards to

morality and everyday conduct: the thought may be a motivator, but it is about what you

actually do. The thought actually DOES NOT COUNT if you don’t do shit about it. Where is

the thought? Can you see it? Did that thought make a difference? It is important in its potential, in its power to change behavior.

You can love god’s law, but you have to express it by living according to it and treating

other people right. Unlike some concepts of grace, predestination and ultimate faith

as the only route to salvation - that the only thing you need to do is to think the right

thought [essentially that Jesus = messiah] - Judaism doesn’t focus on hell much, as the

idea is everyone is going to get to the same place, maybe with a bit of catching up to do en

route depending on how nice or lame you were to others when alive. But really, it’s love

thy neighbor, do unto others, that’s the core. In a bronze-age dressing from a place that

archaeology (no matter what we are told, common sense dictates) simply cannot tell us

what the hell was really going on, how people talked to each other, who and how people

fucked or played music or what the real slavery scene was.

with publ ic exchanges turning private and vice versa. Now another arti-fact has come to exist as a result of all this, and it is not yours. And didn’t I just say before that, if you accomplish your goals, you will not own the product?Now I have my own soapbox

of sorts, in response to yours. I can continue to support your project, or I can bastardize or coopt your goals. Now you have to trust me and the purity of my intentions, just as I have been trusting you and your intentions.

If dialogue is not owned but exists in the space- between, then this dia-logue exists somewhere between London

But it also means knowing that if all I can do

is talk, I better not shut up...

because what happens when we stop speaking revolution?

and Boston, between the stranger who initiated and the stranger who responded.

On the day of atonement, a very useful holiday, you ask forgiveness from god for your

slip ups that are between god and you, breakings of commandments, victimless crimes so

to speak. But the weeks before, you are supposed to have gotten your shit together with

everyone else FIRST: god is fine, and will deal with commandment breakings on his own

terms, the idea is, but asking god’s forgiveness for things you did to others does nothing

concrete. There are no instant Hail Mary’s and self flagellations, no ritual to take away pain

inflicted on others. You have to go and talk to those you wronged and set things straight,

and until you do that wrong stays open, there’s no clean slate. Adolf Hitler, or some might

say Sharon, will have a lot of afterlife trouble according to that schema, whereas I have seen

on a televised interfaith panel on some Larry-Kingish show, a priest and a minister both say

that indeed if Mr. Schicklegruber, in the bunker as the tanks rolled in, were to confess that

he accepted Jesus as his personal saviour and go through the correct ritual proceedings,

he indeed could be admitted to heaven... but the Rabbi, who spent his days reading and

wrestling with ethical quandaries, was going to spend eternity in hell or whatever, because

he did not possess the right thought.

One Jewish perspective might be this: never mind Adolph’s afterlife. It is about the pain

created in the LIVING lives of millions. It is about the actions, not the thought that results in

a happy afterlife.

Translate this to our dialogue, in and around the university, zine or no: if it is to be radical

then it is about the things which we do as a result of the things we see or make or say or

hear. A radical paradigm shift is not one that just happens in switching from one flavour of

theory to another. It is one that leaves behind the old school, stops talking ONLY for the

art of talking’s sake, and says it’s time to talk to each other with plans of careful, concrete

motion bound to our hearts, and not the endless sound of our own thoughts as the

endpoints. There will be plenty of words and images along the way.

POSTscript

1. Pages 10-11 have been intentionally left (almost) blank not only for the dramatic effect, but for you to fill in with your own ideas, images and words. It's a simple and beautiful concept, just like a kid's colouring book. Likewise, you should make sure to colour outside of the lines.

2. The astute graphic designer or design aficionado might notice a slight resemblance between this zine and issue #34 of Emigre magazine, published in 1995, designed by Rudy Vanderlans. I'll admit that this is no coincidence as I was reading it while I put this issue together, thinking back to that heyday of graphic design that never really existed for me. This should not be construed as blatant plagiarism, nor as a tribute, but perhaps as an attempt to acknowledge history and progress (?).

3. I'd like to share something that Graham Wood wrote to me in relation to this project, not because I think it is true, but because I think it is smart (and funny);

by the way (not advice, just an aside) – marry the next girl you want to go out with. it sorts all the shit out – for a while, if not a lifetime (if you’re . . . lucky) – and you can get on with the things that really matter. a quote i always think of – "i’ve seen too many men driven insane by their distractions”.

4. Please share this zine. or better yet, print out some more to share. or even better than that, contribute to the next issue. this can be done at www.lokidesign.net/2356 or you can email me at kevin@lokidesign.net. at the very least, it would be nice to know that this is in your hands.

5. Finally, heartfelt thanks to Maya Drozdz and Joel Shane (aka. Ham Lancer) for their contributions to this issue. And many thanks as well to the numerous participants in this project who have provided me with invaluable support and textual ephemera. In particular, Tom Gleason, Dirty Baby Jesus, Colin White, Nadine Sinno, and my long standing partner in crime, John Stuart.

6. and yes... pax. lust. goat.

POSTPOSTscript

THE GOOD SIDE OF GLOBALISATION IS THAT YOU GET TO

DEMONSTRATE WITH FRIENDS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.

- Maribor, Slovenia