Authored on /b/day, the Declaration of /b/ Independence was (and still is) the essential document that separates Anon's ties to his homeland:
When in the course of /b/tard events, it becomes necessary for anonymous to set forth the shackles of oppression we set forth on the Furfag mods of 4chan.org.
They have plundered our posts, and deprived us of our jailbait.
They have forced upon us their twisted ideology of "Furry Fandom."
They have deprived us of our ability to fight our enemies, forcing us to submit to the wishes of the Furfag overlords.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated bans from our homeland. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free anonymous.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the Anonymous States of /b/, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Anonymous of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That /b/ is, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the 4chan Crown, and that all political connection between /b/ and the State of 4chan, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
We are Anonymous. We are /b/. Our home is no longer on 4chan. In these times of unrest, we have formed the State of 7chan.org as our new sovereign nation on the World Wide Internet.
Signed, Anonymous
Florence Dujardin on 18 Feb 12This paper is concerned with the possibility that the ethical claim of the other, that sense of being bound to the other, may becoming more and more difficult to experience as information technology increasingly mediates our social being. The paper will support the supposition of Don Caputo that obligation does not emanate from codes, imperatives or moral arguments. Rather it will argue that obligation takes hold of us from within disaster. Obligation, our being bound-to, finds us when we come face to a face in disaster. The paper will argue that electronic mediation is inducing a sense of hyperreality into our world (Baudrillard). It will argue that this hyperreality is making our ethical sensibility nebulous to the point that we are not coming face to face with our obligations. An analysis of the Baring bank disaster will be used to demonstrate the point. The paper will show that Nick Leeson was in a hyperreal world in which he was not able to come face to face with the victims of the disaster. The electronic hyperreal world of financial markets, where traders deal in abstract numbers, movements on the screen, made it possible for him to look over and past the faces and proper names of the victims; their claim became diffused in the numbers on the screen, not real cash only numbers, not real people with faces and proper names, just numbers. If this supposition seems tenable what are we to do? The paper argues that we do not need more codes, imperatives or moral arguments, as such. Rather we need to keep our lives at the resolution, of faces and proper names-if obligation happens this is where it is likely to be.
