Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Lawsuit Against DNC, Army Misplaces Trillions, #NoDAPL Bigger Than Expected

Why The TPP and TTIP Trade Deals May Now Be Dead In The Water

Monday, Aug 29, 2016, 9:08 pm

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is dead, at least according to Angela Merkel’s second-in-command. And the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may not be far behind.

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said Sunday that “negotiations with the United States have de facto failed, even though nobody is really admitting it.” According to Gabriel, who also serves as his country’s economy minister, negotiators from the European Union and United States have failed—despite 14 rounds of talks—to align on any item out of 27 chapters being discussed. Gabriel and his ministry are not directly involved in the negotiations.

EU officials were quick to downplay Sigmar’s statement, saying they hoped to “close this deal by the end of the year.” But Gabriel isn’t the first to cry foul on the TTIP, which, if enacted, would establish the world’s largest free trade zone between the United States and the EU’s 28 member states. In May, French negotiators threatened to block the agreement. U.S. negotiators have also reportedly been angry over the passage of a similar agreement between Canada and the EU, which included protections U.S. negotiators don’t want included in the TTIP.

Sunday’s TTIP news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying that the Senate would not vote on the TPP in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress. (The Obama administration countered, saying it still hopes to pass the deal before the next president takes office.)

Both trade announcements follow years of protests on each side of the Atlantic to fight the TTIP and the TPP, especially from unions and environmental groups.

"The fact that TTIP has failed is testament to the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest against it, the three million people who signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped, and the huge coalition of civil society groups, trade unions, progressive politicians and activists who came together to stop it,” writes Kevin Smith of Global Justice Now, an organization that has worked to fight TTIP in the United Kingdom.

While the TPP has become a lightning rod for labor and other progressive organizations in the United States, the TTIP has slipped mostly under the radar stateside. That’s partially because talks over it, which began in 2013, have taken place almost entirely behind closed doors. Among the proposals unearthed are provisions to open European public services to U.S. businesses and to scale back online privacy protections. European groups have also raised the concern that the deal could send jobs from their continent to the United States, where trade unions and labor protections are weaker than in the EU.

Like the TPP, the TTIP would dismantle regulations in areas like banking and the environment by limiting governments’ ability to impose rules on transnational corporations. Both trade deals would further allow the investor-state dispute settlement system, which permits corporations to sue states. (TransCanada Corp.—the Canadian company behind the now-defunct Keystone XL oil pipeline—is currently seeking $15 billion from Washington under a similar NAFTA provision for rejecting the controversial project.)

Though both presidential candidates in the United States have voiced their opposition to the TPP, neither has said much about TTIP. Hillary Clinton changed her tune on the former, which she pushed for as secretary of state. The move is largely seen as a response to dedicated protests from unions and community groups that have been mobilizing to stop the talks since they began, and as a reaction to the fact that both her primary and general election opponents have spoken out aggressively against so-called free trade agreements.

In a letter this month, a coalition of progressive groups including Demand Progress and 350 Action called on Clinton to reject a vote on the TPP in the next session. “Allowing a lame-duck vote,” they write, “would be a tacit admission that corporate interests matter more than the will of the people.”

Beyond progressive organizations’ fold, though, lies a growing bipartisan resentment of NAFTA-style deals. A poll released in April found that just 17 percent of Germans and 18 percent of Americans support the TTIP—likely not enough to save deals like the TTIP and TPP from a political climate that increasingly sees free trade agreements as anything but free.

Kate Aronoff is a writing fellow at In These Times covering the 2016 election and the politics of climate change. Follow her on Twitter @katearonoff

What Is a Communist Utopia?

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Glenn Greenwald: Regardless of Trump, Journalists Must Do Their Homework and Investigate Clinton

Brazil's Defiant Rousseff Takes the Stand

Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot

August 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton may be enjoying a comfortable lead in national polls, but she is far from enjoying a comfortable night’s sleep given the ever-widening maelstrom of scandals engulfing her presidential bid.  And while Clinton delights in bloviating about a decades-long “vast, right wing conspiracy” against her, the fact is that it’s the Clinton political machine’s long and storied track record of criminality, duplicity, and corruption that haunts her like Lincoln’s ghost silently skulking through White House bedrooms.

The latest in a string of embarrassing scandals is centered on the powerful Clinton Foundation, and the obvious impropriety of its acceptance of large donations from foreign governments (and wealthy individuals connected to them), especially those governments universally recognized as oppressive dictatorships whose foreign policy orientation places them squarely in the US orbit.

Of particular note are the Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar whose massive donations belie the fact that their oppression of women runs contradictory to Clinton’s self-styled ‘feminism’ and belief “that the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st Century.”  Is collaborating with feudal monarchies whose subjugation of women is the stuff of infamy really Clinton’s idea of feminism?  Or, is it rather that Clinton merely uses issues such as women’s rights as a dog whistle for loyal liberals while groveling before the high councilors of the imperial priesthood?

What the Clinton Foundation hullabaloo really demonstrates is that Clinton’s will to power is single-minded, entirely simpatico with the corruption of the military-industrial-financial-surveillance complex; that she is a handmaiden for, and member of, the ruling establishment; that Clinton represents the marriage of all the worst aspects of the political class.  In short, Clinton is more than just corrupt, she is corruption personified.

Clinton’s Dirty Dealing and Even Dirtier Laundry

In a hilariously pig-headed, but rather telling, statement, former President Bill Clinton responded to allegations of impropriety with the Clinton Foundation by saying, “We’re trying to do good things…If there’s something wrong with creating jobs and saving lives, I don’t know what it is. The people who gave the money knew exactly what they were doing. I have nothing to say about it except that I’m really proud.”

Leaving aside the fact that such an arrogant comment demonstrates Bill Clinton’s complete contempt for ethics and the basic standards of proper conduct, the salient point is that the argument from the Clintons is that the foundation is inherently good, that it helps people around the world, and that, as such, it can’t possibly be corrupt and unethical.  Where there’s smoke, there’s fire – except when it comes to the Clintons who stand proudly enveloped in billowing clouds of smoke swearing up and down that not only is there no fire, but anyone who mentions the existence of flames is both a sexist and Trump-loving Putin stooge.

But indeed there is a fire, and it is raging on the American political scene.  And nowhere is the heat more palpable than in the deserts of the Middle East where wealthy benefactors write massive checks for access to America’s 21st Century Queen of Mean (apologies to Leona Helmsley).

Consider the 2011 sale of $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, a gargantuan deal that made the feudal monarchy into an overnight air power.  Were there any doubts as to the uses of the hardware, look no further than the humanitarian nightmare that is Yemen, a country under relentless air war carried out by the Saudis.  And, lo and behold, the Saudis had been major contributors to the Clinton Foundation in the years leading up to the sale. And it should be equally unsurprising that just weeks before the deal was finalized, Boeing, the manufacturer of the F-15 jets that were the centerpiece of the massive arms deal, donated $900,000 to the Foundation.

Of course, according to Bubba and Hil, it’s all conspiracy theory to suggest that the Clinton Foundation is essentially a pay-for-play scheme in which large sums of money translate into access to the uppermost echelons of state power in the US.  As the International Business Times noted:

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire…Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation…That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

Additionally, as Glenn Greenwald explained earlier this year,

The Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

The sheer dollar amounts are staggering.  Perhaps then it comes as no surprise just why nearly every single influential figure in the military-industrial-financial-surveillance complex – from General John Allen to death squad coordinator extraordinaire John Negroponte, from neocon tapeworms such as Max Boot, Robert Kagan, and Eliot Cohen to billionaire barbarocrats like the Koch Brothers, George Soros, and Warren Buffett – is backing Hillary Clinton.  Not only is she good for Empire, she’s good for business.  And ultimately, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it?

But of course, Hillary’s devotion to the oil oligarchs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf goes much deeper than simply an exchange of money for weapons.  In fact, Hillary is deeply committed to the Saudi royal family’s foreign policy outlook and tactics, in particular the weaponization of terrorism as a means of achieving strategic objectives.

Libya provides perhaps the paragon of Clintonian-Saudi strategy: regime change by terrorism.  Using terror groups linked to Al Qaeda and backed by Saudi Arabia, Clinton’s State Department and the Obama Administration managed to topple the government of Muammar Gaddafi, thereby throwing the former “jewel of Africa” into turmoil and political, economic, and social devastation.   To be fair, it was not the Saudis alone involved in fomenting war in Libya, as Hillary’s brothers-from-other-mothers in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were also directly involved in sowing the seeds of the current chaos in the country.

And of course, this strategic partnership between Clinton and the Gangsters of the Gulf extends far beyond Libya.  In Syria, Clinton’s stated policies of regime change and war are aligned with those of Riyadh, Doha, and Abu Dhabi.  And, of course, it was during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department that US intelligence was involved in funneling weapons and fighters into Syria in hopes of doing to Syria what had already been done to Libya.

Huma Abedin: Clinton’s Woman in Riyadh

Just in case all the political and financial ties between Clinton and the Gulf monarchies wasn’t enough to make people stop being #WithHer, perhaps the role of her closest adviser might do the trick.  Huma Abedin, Clinton’s campaign chief of staff, has long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia, the country where Huma spent her childhood from the age of two.  As a Vanity Fair exposé revealed earlier this year:

When Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs…After [Abedin’s father] Syed died, in 1993, his wife succeeded him as director of the institute and editor of the Journal, positions she still holds… Abdullah Omar Nasseef, the man who set up the Abedins in Jidda…is a high-ranking insider in the Saudi government and sits on the king’s Shura Council, there are claims that Nasseef once had ties to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda—a charge that he has denied through a spokesman—and that he remains a “major” figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. In his early years as the patron of the Abedins’ journal, Nasseef was the secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, claims “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Consider the implications of this information: Clinton’s closest adviser comes from a family connected at the highest levels with the Saudi royal family as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.  While right wing pundits portray the Muslim Brotherhood as some sort of straightforward international terror organization, the reality is much more complex as the Brotherhood is more an international political movement whose tentacles stretch into nearly every corner of the Muslim world. Its vast reserves of cash and political influence, backed by Gulf monarchies such as Qatar, allows the Brotherhood to peddle influence throughout the West, while also being connected to more radical salafist elements.  An obvious two-for-one for Clinton.

In effect then, Abedin represents a bridge connecting Hillary with both the ruling elites in Riyadh, as well as influential clerics, businesspeople, and political leaders throughout the Middle East. Perhaps then it makes sense why Abedin, in contravention of every standard of ethics, was employed by Teneo Holdings – a pro-Clinton consultancy founded by former Clinton aide Doug Band – while also working for the State Department.  Such ethical violations are as instinctive for Hillary as breathing, or calling children superpredators.

Trump, Assange, Putin, and Clinton’s Sleight of Hand

Despite being embroiled in multiple scandals, any one of which being enough to sink the campaign of most other candidates, Clinton and her army of fawning corporate media sycophants, have attempted to deflect attention away from her own misdeeds, corruption, and nefarious ties by instead portraying everyone who opposes them as puppets, stooges, and useful idiots.

Let’s begin with Republican nominee and gasbag deluxe, Donald Trump, who Clinton trolls have attempted to portray as a stooge of Russian President Putin.   While it’s indeed quite likely that the Kremlin sees Trump as far less of a threat to Russia’s interests than Clinton – just look at Clinton’s roster of neocon psychopath supporters to see that Putin has a point – the notion that Trump is somehow a creation of Putin, or at the very least is working for him is utterly absurd.

And the “evidence”? Trump’s connections with wealthy Russian oligarchs.  I suppose those who have made their homes under rocks these last 25 years might not know this, but nearly every billionaire investor has gone to Russia in that time, forged ties with influential Russians, and attempted to make money by stripping clean the bones of what was once the Soviet Union.  Sorry Naomi Klein, I guess the Clintonistas expect no one to have read Shock Doctrine which details the sort of disaster capitalism run amok that took place in Russia in the 1990s.

And then, of course, there’s that great confabulator Julian Assange who has also been smeared as a Putin puppet by the #ImWithHer media somnambulists.  I guess the lords of corporate capital didn’t like the fact that Assange and WikiLeaks have managed to expose countless dirty deeds by Clinton’s Tammany Hall of the 21stCentury.  From using the DNC as a political appendage of the Clinton campaign (as revealed by the WikiLeaks dump of DNC emails) to his recent promise to make public the “most interesting and serious” dirt on Hillary, Assange has become a thorn in the side – or thumb in the eye, as it were – for Hillary.

And what would a rundown of the specters haunting Clinton’s dreams be without mention of the rabid bear of Russia, big bad Vlad?  Clinton recently referred to Putin as the “grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.”  Leaving aside the asinine phraseology, Clinton’s attacks on Putin reveal the weakness of the Democratic nominee, the hollowness of her arguments, and the unmitigated gall of a hypocrite for whom casting stones in glass houses is second nature.

For, at the very moment that she takes rhetorical swipes at Putin, Clinton herself is implicated in a worldwide network of extremism that promotes terrorism, rains death and destruction on millions of innocent civilians, and moves the world closer to global conflict.  If Putin represents the éminence grise of a “global brand of extreme nationalism,” then Clinton is the fairy godmother of global extremism and terror.  It’s a good thing she has access to the best personal grooming products Goldman Sachs money can buy as it is not easy to wash decades-worth of blood off your hands.

And so, the quadrennial danse macabre that is the US presidential election has turned into an embarrassing sideshow of dull-witted infantilism.  But amid the idiocy there is wanton criminality and corruption to be exposed before the world.  For while Trump is undoubtedly the bearded lady of America’s freak show, Hillary is the carnival barker.

She knows the ring toss and other games are rigged, but she coaxes the feeble-minded to play nonetheless.  She knows the carnies are drunk and reckless, but she urges the children to pay for another ride anyway.  She understands that her job is to sell a rigged game, and to call security when someone challenges her lies. And, unfortunately, whether you want it or not, the Hillary Roadshow is coming to a town, or country, near you.

Eric Draitser is the founder of and host of CounterPunch Radio. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at

REPETITION/S: Performance and Philosophy in Ljubljana



Performance and Philosophy in Ljubljana


University of Ljubljana – Faculty of Arts

City Museum of Ljubljana

September 21 – 24, 2016

Organized by Gregor Moder, Bara Kolenc, Anna Street, and Ben Hjorth, in partnership with the Aufhebung – International Hegelian Association, the Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana – City Museum of Ljubljana, the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, MG+MSUM, the Kino Šiška Centre for Urban Culture, Kud Pozitiv, DIC, the Research Unit in European Philosophy of Monash University, the University of Paris-Sorbonne and their research laboratories PRITEPS and VALE, and the Performance Philosophy network.


FA = Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2

CM = City Museum, Gosposka 15

MMA = Museum of Modern Art, Tomšičeva 14

FA002 = Faculty of Arts, lecture theatre no. 2 on ground floor

FA415 = Faculty of Arts, lecture room 415 on 4th floor

FA325 = Faculty of Arts, lecture room 325 on 3rd floor

PTL = Dance Theatre Ljubljana, Prijateljeva 2

KT = Kreatorij Theatre, DIC, Poljanska 26

Pritličje = Pritličje bar, Mestni trg 2

Wednesday, September 21st

6:00 – 7:30 Welcoming Event

7:30 – 8:00 Performance

Zupančič::Turšič::Živadinov - AKTUATOR: 2016

Thursday, September 22nd

8:30 – 9:30 Registration and coffee

9.30-10.00 Welcome by Predrag Novaković (Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Arts) and opening remarks

10:00 – 11:00 Morning Lecture

Mladen Dolar (University of Ljubljana)
“Staging Concepts”

11:00 – 11:30 Session Break

11:30 – 1:00 Parallel Sessions I

Session 1 Comedy and tragedy

1/ Ramona Mosse (Free University Berlin) and Anna Street (University of Paris – Sorbonne)
“Repetition in Tragedy and Comedy: Un/Masking the Surface”

2/ Kate Katafiasz (Newman University, Birmingham)
“Repetition Beyond, Or Behind, Representation”

3/ Anna Bromley and Michael Fesca (Artists)
“Sharing Jokes, Laughing, Grooving -  Awkward Repetitions”  (performance)

Session 2 Repetition and language

1/ Geoff Boucher (Deakin University)
“Hysterically Funny: Austin After Lacan”

2/ Noah Holtwiesche (Neue Wiener Gruppe/Lacan-Schule)
“To Be Announced”  (performance lecture)

Session 3 Performing deconstruction: ‘beyond’ representation

1/ Joel White (King's College London)
“Le Théâtre de la cruauté et la clôture de la représentation”

2/ Angelika Seppi (Humboldt-Universität, Berlin)
“Quasi-Mimetics and The Economy of Exchange”

3/ Thomas Mercier (King’s College, London)
“The Force of the Event: Queer Performativity and Repetition in Austin, Butler and Derrida”

1:00 – 2:30 Lunch Break

2:30 - 5:30 Workshop

Leja Jurišič
“Duration and repetition” 

2:30 – 4:00 Parallel Sessions II

Session 1 Nietzsche: repetition/s of sovereignty and slavery 

1/ Zohar Frank (Brown University)
“Rehearsing Petitioning: Repetition and the Potential for Sovereignty”

2/ Bree Wooten (European Graduate School)
“Nietzsche: The Antichrist, After The Eternal Return”

3/ Alireza Taheri (HamAva Psychoanalytic Institute, Iran)
“From the Law as Representation to the Law as Repetition: Breaking the Spell of the Slave Revolt in Morality”

Session 2 Repetition/s of political economy 

1/ Mauricio Gonzalez (Goethe-University in Frankfurt)
“Benjamin on Repetition and Freedom”  

2/ Sami Khatib (American University of Beirut)
“Anti-Sisyphus: Capitalism and Repetition”

3/ Clare Foster (University College London)
“Recognition Capital”

Session 3 Repetition in Dance 

1/ Pia Brezavšček (University of Ljubljana)
“Repeating the Unrepeatable Presence in Dance Improvisation”

2/ Nina Bandi (Lucerne School of Art and Design / Zurich University of the Arts)
“Non-Representation and Repetition: A Perspective on Algorithms, Derivatives and Dance”

3/ Timmy De Laet (University of Antwerp, Belgium)
“Variations of Repetition: A Philosophical Reading of Jérôme Bel’s Citational Practice” 

4/ Katarina Paramana (Birkbeck, University of London)
“Returning to The Show: Repetition and the Construction of Spaces of Decision, Affect, and Creative Possibility”

4:00 – 4:30 Coffee Break

4:30 – 6:00 Parallel Sessions III

Session 1 Repetition, genesis, metamorphosis 

1/ Stefan Apostolou-Hölscher (Academy of Fine Arts, Munich)
“Dissonant Repetitions and the Idea of Genesis in Kant and Deleuze”

2/ Jordan Skinner (Central European University)
"Change and Repetition"

3/ Dragana Alfirević and Engin Can (Artists)
“Are Made of This: Episode on Repetition and Transformation”  (performance)

Session 2 Word/Play: Re-staging Shakespeare and Beckett

1/ Erik Bryngelsson and Karl Sjölund (Yak Kallop)
“Until Hamlet”  (performance)

2/ Martin Harries (University of California, Irvine)
“Repeating Beckett’s Play”  

Session 3 Literary repetition/s 

1/ Polona Tratnik (University of Ljubljana)
“Hansel and Gretel: Repetition – Event – Context”

2/ Nadia Bou Ali (American University of Beirut)
“Jambe sur la Jambe or How Two Don’t Become One”

3/ Eleonor Weber (Writer)

“Seeing Her Voices: Rehearsing Alejandra Pizarnik”  (performance lecture)

6:00 – 6:30 Session Break 

6:30 – 8:00 Evening Conversation

Samo Tomšič (Humboldt University Berlin) and
Oxana Timofeeva (European University at St Petersburg)
“Libidinal Economies of Crises”

8:00 – 9:00 Dinner 

8:30 – 10:00 Exhibition: Retorika - The Moment After 

Bara Kolenc (Artist) and Atej Tutta (Artist)

Friday, September 23rd

9:30 – 10:00 Registration and coffee 

10:00 – 11:00 Morning Lecture 

Keti Chukhrov (Russian State University for the Humanities)
"Repetition as the Performative syndrome of Crisis" 

11:00 – 11:30 Session Break 

11:30 – 1:00 Parallel Sessions IV

Session 1 Repetition and ‘the act’ 

1/ Amanda Holmes (Villanova University)

2/ Jan Sieber (Universität der Künste Berlin) 

3/ Alexi Kukuljevic (University of Applied Arts Vienna)

Session 2 The double and the serial 

1/ Bara Kolenc (University of Ljubljana)
“The Four Matrices of Repetition: Deflation, Reformation, Inflation, Production”

2/ Rachel Aumiller (Villanova University, Oxford University)
“Twice Two: The Repetition of Nothing in Tetradic Dialect”

3/ Kiri Sullivan (University of Melbourne)
“Repetition and the Temporal Double in Cinema”

Session 3 Performing identity: history repeating 

1/ Micha Braun (Leipzig University, Germany)
“Repetition and Recurrence: On Artefacts and Bodies as Agents of Differentiation in Contemporary Polish Visual Arts” 

2/ Kseniya Kapelchuk (European University in St. Petersburg)
“Repetition and Historicity: Change, Cycle, Revolution”

3/ Dorota Sosnowska (University of Warsaw Institute of Polish Culture)
“Halka/Haiti - White Archive, Black Body? Reenactment and Repetition in the Polish-Colonial Context”


D. Graham Burnett, Lucy Partman, Matthew Strother & Nathaniel Whitfield (The Enacted Thought, Princeton)
“Pulling Imaginary Teeth”  (performance / improvised conversation)

1:00 – 2:30 Lunch Break

 2:30 – 4:00 Parallel Sessions V

Session 1 Anatomy of a Performer 

1/ Philip Watkinson (Queen Mary University of London)
“‘I will feel like the only keeper of the past’: Postdramatic Repetition and Deborah Pearson’s The Future Show”

2/ Richard Pettifer (Artist & writer)
“Artist Development”  (performance lecture)

Session 2 Repetition and the senses 

1/ Serap Erincin (Louisiana State University)
“Polaroid”  (performance)

2/ Mirt Komel (University of Ljubljana)
“Repeating Touch in the Town of Goga”

3/ Patrick Ward (Artist)
“Possibility of Foam”  (audiovisual performance)

Session 3 Repetition and death 

1/ Tomaž Toporišič (University of Ljubljana)
“The tensions between repetition and representation in contemporary theatre and drama (Oliver Frljić and Simona Semenič)”

2/ Sandrine Schiller Hansen (KU Leuven, Belgium)
“Juggling the Necrotic Bone: A Meditation on the Fate of Repetition and the Death Drive”

3/ Naomi Toth (Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre)
“Echoing Last Words”

4:00 – 4:30 Coffee Break 

4:30 – 6:00 Parallel Sessions VI

Session 1 Performing habit 

1/ Gary Peters (York St John University)
“Contraction and Contemplation: Deleuze and Malabou on Habit within the Context of Improvised Performance”

2/ Julie Reshe (Global Centre of Advanced Studies, USA)
“Peculiarities Pursued with Fatigue and Passion”

3/ Katja Kolšek (University of Ljubljana)
“Repetition and Redoubling”

Session 2 Remembering, repeating, performing: psychoanalysis 

1/ Michaela Wünsch (University of Vienna)
“Repetition, Memory and Remembrance in Psychoanalysis and Art”

2/ Jingchao Ma (Villanova University)
“Return with the Other: Primary and Secondary Narcissism in Freud, Lacan, and Kristeva”

3/ Michael Friedman (Humboldt University in Berlin)
“On a Repetition Inscribed on a Torus: Beginning of a Lacanian Mathematics”

4/ Lucas Ballestín (New School for Social Research, New York)
“Hipster Politics: Retreat, Repetition, and Disavowal”

Performance & Discussion: Repetition and the law 

Vanessa Place (Artist, poet, lawyer)
“Botched Execution”  (vocal-sound performance)

+ Morey Williams (Villanova University)
“Repetition & Docility’s Undoing: The Failure of Disciplining Practices Performed On the Female Carceral Subject” 

Discussion moderated by Naomi Toth (Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre)

6:00 – 6:30 Session Break 

6:30 – 8:00 Evening Conversation 

Andrew Benjamin (Monash University) and 

Freddie Rokem (Tel Aviv University)
“Repetition and Interruption: Benjamin and Brecht”

Saturday, September 24th

9:30 – 10:00 Registration and coffee 

10:00 – 11:00 Morning Lecture
Bojana Kunst (Justus Leibig University Giessen)
“The Loop of Time: Rhythm Politics and Contemporary Dance”

11:00 – 11:30 Session Break 

11:30 – 1:00 Parallel Sessions VII

Session 1 Repetition in Kierkegaard 

1/ Susan Bernstein (Brown University)
“Reading and Writing in Kierkegaard – Repetition with Difference”

2/ Tone Dandanell (Aarhus University in Denmark)
“The Wonder of Repetition” 

3/ Michael O’Neill Burns (University of the West of England, Bristol)
“What’s the Diff’rence? Repetition and Fracture in Kierkegaard, Lacan, and J Dilla”  

Session 2 Badiou and Žižek: repeating Europe? 

1/ Peter Klepec (Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts)
“Badiou on Repetition”

2/ Sigi Jöttkandt (University of New South Wales)
"’By a route obscure and lonely’: Repetition and Inscription in Europe's Dream-Land”

Session 3 "Re-Hegelize yourselves!"

1/ Goran Vranešević (University of Ljubljana)
“Of Dreams, Dogmas and Speculations”

2/ Ben Hjorth (Monash University)
“'The curtain must eventually fall': from Kant’s theatre to Hegel’s performance”

3/ Christopher Wallace (Monash University)
“A Mouthful of Dissonance: The Way-Out [Ausweg] of the Way-Out [Ausgang] in Hegel”

11:30 – 12:30 & 1:00 – 2:00 Performance

Emilie Gallier (University of Coventry) and Tilman Andris (Magician)
“Trouble Wit:Magic and Choreography at the Table”

1:00 – 2:30 Lunch Break 

2:30 – 4:30 Parallel Sessions VIII

Session 1 Hegel, again

1/ Louis Hartnoll (Kingston University)
“Hegel’s Aesthetic Overcoming of the ‘Bad Infinite’”

2/ Søren Rosendal (Aarhus University, Denmark)
“Poetico-Scientific Repetitions: What Hegel talks about when he talks about Truth”

3/ Rasmus Ugilt (Aarhus University, Denmark)
“Hegel's Excess”

4/ Gregor Moder (University of Ljubljana)
“Hegel’s logic of pure being and the rhetorical repetition” 

Session 2 Repetition in new media technologies 

1/ Serap Erincin (Louisiana State University)
“Phenomenologies of Performing Repetition: The Real, the Mediated, and the Multiplied in TWG’s Poor Theatre”

2/ Katerina Vukovic (University of Rijeka, Croatia)
“Repetition and a Machine” 

3/ Mark Horváth (Eötvös Loránd University) and Adam Lovasz (Eötvös Loránd University)
“Absentology Collective: Programming the Vicious Circle”

4/ Alfie Bown (HSMC, Hong Kong)
“The PlayStation Dreamworld: Automatism and Videogames”

Session 3 Performing repetition 

1/ Pamela Bianchi (University of Paris 8)
“The Repetition of Difference: Time and Space in Contemporary Performance Art”

2/ Mischa Twitchin (Queen Mary, University of London)
“What Gets Differentiated – Or Repeated – In an ‘Ontology of Performance’?”

3/ Eszter Horváth (Université Pázmány Péter, Budapest)
“On Performance and Representation”

4/ Jakob Rosendal (Aarhus University, Denmark)
“Serial Girl – On the Repetition Compulsion of an Art Historical Motif”

4:30 – 5:00 Coffee Break 

5:00 – 6:30 Closing Conversation 

Alenka Zupančič Žerdin (University of Ljubljana) and 

Justin Clemens (University of Melbourne) 

“End of History, End of Art”

6:30 – 7:00 Closing Cocktail 

7:00 – 8:30 Dinner

Closing Performances 

8:30 – 9:30 "The Collected Works of Victor Bergman"
Romanie Harper, Brian Lipson, Aaron Orzech, James Paul (The Family)

9:45 – 10:45 “Remake”
Gareth Davies, Thomas Henning, Eloïse Mignon, Eryn Jean Norvill (The Collective) 

Ongoing program (September 22 through 24)

Kristina Hagström-Ståhl (Gothenburg University)
“The Talking Cure" (sound installation)

fil ieropoulos (Buckinghamshire New University)
“Quotedious” (video installation)

Urban Ksaver Kmet (Researcher & artist), Kai Simon Stöger (Dancer & choreographer) & Jasmina Založnik (University of Aberdeen)
“B-Mapping” (performance workshop)

Luca Resta (Artist)
“Superposition” (performance / visual installation)