here is the text that i’ve been sticking up over the top of the ad-blocking papier-mache.

each paragraph is a different poster, some a4, some a3.

this unsolicited and fundamentally offensive corporate intrusion into public space and your mind (corporate advertisement) has been covered-over (papier-mache style) as a protest against the all-pervasive advertising of profit-driven companies in our media and day-to-day lives. i’ll use this (re)appropriated space in an attempt to partially explain the ‘political philosophy’ underpinning this objection (at the risk of sounding crazy, if only by association with other placard producers, many of whom have questionable mental health).

in the best-case scenario (where we assume advertising has no effect on individuals or the media it funds) the advertising ‘industry’ is a multi-billion dollar investment in the production of waste. in the much more likely case that advertising impacts on individuals, the media, and therefore society more generally, advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry for the corruption of democratic institutions and faculties (such as critical thinking, agenda formation, understanding of important global issues, etc.). the money spent on corporate advertising is ultimately a community expenditure on media forms that would prefer to exploit the community than serve it. when advertising is aimed at adults, we should find it insulting and intolerable. where it is aimed at children (who have had no chance to develop the critical skills necessary to defend themselves) it is nothing short of criminal.

[qr code] visit for further attempted explanation.

corporate/capitalist organisations (c/c orgs) and their interests are a huge impediment to the further development of democracy — they are a global power with enormous influence over even the most powerful democratic nation-states. only global democratic co-operation can bring the c/c orgs under control, rightfully returning power to democracy, and that is something the c/c orgs are determined to prevent. to allow these c/c orgs so much control of our public sphere (by allowing the c/c media/advertising system to dominate our mainstream media) is totally absurd — we are putting a critical function of democracy in the hands of those who have a depraved interest in the continued failure/limited power of democracy. the media institutions that facilitate the operation of our public sphere should be mandated to serve the people (to serve liberal democratic principles), not subject to the world-view of their c/c bosses and advertisers. we need and deserve a quality media to serve our democracies, one that will allow the people to set the agenda so that global justice and sustainability can come before satisfying the demands of the depraved, profit-crazed, ‘business community’.

there is no need for all of our large business operations to be single-mindedly profit-driven, the health of our economy is not dependant on the satisfaction of these types of monsters (as we are so often told in our corporate ‘public’ sphere). our economy would function best and fairest if all our large companies were non-profit and committed to all the social and environmental goods that our for-profit monsters currently, cynically, claim to be for. our current system serves the rich and kills the poor (that is no over-statement), we need to find alternatives that can re-distribute wealth while also enhancing the freedom of our economic activities. free enterprise is not a characteristic of capitalism (as we are so often told by rich ‘elites’ and their lackeys). capitalism is usury. anyone who would use their business operation to gain material advantage from the lives and efforts of others is not practising free enterprise, they are impeding it. to be for a truly healthy economy and in favour of individual initiative is, logically, to be against global capitalism. to be for free enterprise is to be against the usury of capitalism.

corporate/capitalist (c/c) advertising may be the achilles heel of the c/c media/advertising system. advertising is totally objectionable in itself — it is psychologically damaging, it breeds mistrust and political cynicism, it encourages over-consumption and materialism, it is wasteful, it serves no positive function, it is irritating and soul-crushing, etc. etc.. if a social movement could be mobilised against advertising world-wide, and bans could be achieved, not only would we be free of advertising, c/c media would lose its primary source of finance. the hole left by the departure of c/c media companies could then be filled by a truly free and democratic media system. money for this system (and much more) could be raised by appropriately taxing the operations that rake-in billions every year through the fleecing of our communities. this is my hope anyway — and it is why i commit myself in the way that i do.

ATTN: POLICE PERSONS to save you the detective work, as simple as that may be, this here production is the work of kyle magee — i believe you have my number on your system, that hasn’t changed, so feel free to call up for a friendly chat. i’m extremely non-violent and stunningly co-operative (considering what you lot and the courts keep doing to me) so i hope we can have a pleasant interview together. if you are decent to me i’ll be nice in return, maybe we can even share a laugh or two. kind regards and lots of love, kyle anthony magee.

so that’s all of them, a bit wordy, but i simplified it all as much as i could without losing too much of the explanation.

i’ve decided to take out the one about large companies not needing to be profit-driven — it is something that i think is totally absent from mainstream political discussion and needs to be thought about, and it is somewhat relevant, but it is a bit off-point, a bit disjointed, and not something that is possible to explain simply (particularly considering all the implications a change that dramatic would have for our stock-market-based ‘economy’).

it ends up being a string of contradictions to commonly-heard capitalist axioms that can’t possibly attempt to explain itself because of its brevity — so it gets the axe.

i guess these posters will change as i either think i can explain better or just get sick of them and try a different approach (maybe i should get a focus group to pick out the clearest attempted explanations).

Categories: posts