User:BulimicMind

Consent

Ye that harm none, do what ye will. That, where harm is defined as the violation of consent (coercion), is the beginning and end of ethics.

Are We Fighting For Freedom, Or Loving For Liberty?

Freedom is a detriment to all liberty. For too many years, man has enjoyed the freedom to wipe himself off the face of the Earth with the pressing of a few red buttons. For too many years, he has enjoyed the freedom to vote, the freedom to murder, the freedom to rob and deceive. It is this freedom that enjoys an oral fellatio in the rhetoric of the common anarchist. This assertion is a bit offensive to the finer senses. After all, aren’t liberty and freedom simply two different words for the same “good” destiny, looming paramount on the horizons of every revolutionary psychoscape? Even if they were, it would fit comprehension for the ardent hair-splitting truth-seeker to carve a new connotation into the raw marble of familiar and reoccurring nomenclature; if such a motion were to, but for the extent of a single article, enlighten or entertain the inquiring mind. In that dedication I must express my distaste for all freedom, and all the crimes it has ever helped commit against liberty. I also purge myself of all these denunciations of slavery. Anyone speaking words unkind toward the concept slavery is a hypocrite. Slavery is a requirement for all life. In order to live, you are slave to the time it takes to eat food, you are slave to favorable weather, favorable ideas, favorable sexual partners, and favorable temperature. In this way even the cynics and cavemen are contradictory, claiming to be “free” – the adjective itself, generalized and unmodified. To be wholly free is to be dead. That is the esoteric essence of the cry “give me freedom, or give me death!”, the yearning of a spoiled child for an idealized womb to return to, either maternal or sepulcher. Freedom is a degreed, quantitative measurement. In the 1000’s, my previous incarnate, if there was one, possessed the freedom to stab a duel-deemed opponent through the heart, but not the freedom to pull a magnum and riddle his soon-to-be corpse with lead. Once the portable firearm was invented, this changed. Freedom became something more valuable, more powerful, more colorful in all of it’s facets. This happened because mankind discovered a new way to harness nature that they hadn’t previously perceived. Liberty, however, retained it’s infinitive perfect value, unaltered by this happenstance utilization. Liberty, the generalized unmodified adjective itself, scorned at this new method of achieving madness that the men had commandeered. A murderer employing the power of a gun thereby makes liberty his murderee for the sake of some arbitrary personal freedom. In slaying a fellow human being, without their consent, the killer has dictated to another what freedoms they will enjoy, how, and when. Given that this scenario may only have been possible in a world of sufficient freedom, it is not too alienating to say that freedom is in fact equivalent to the largest threat to liberty: power. Power to take, power to kill, power to lie, power of every shape and size is just another freedom given a different name. The freedom to keep and bear arms? It is nothing beyond the power the reception of that freedom possesses. Without that power, their arms would be taken from them by some other, greater power, or its imaginary mandate. The mandate might say something like, “it’s too dangerous for a person to possess a gun, therefore no guns are needed”. This mandate, in presuming what constitutes dangerous and why this constituency is undesirable, defies liberty - but by farce rather than force. Liberty. As Bakunin put it, “the liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, & not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual.” From a personal perspective therefore, liberty may be inversely defined as the relegation of any and all power to two places: pure autonomy, and unanimous consent. So it may well be wrong of us to “fight for freedom”, or at least misleading. There are many freedoms that any anarchist must abandon to fully embrace a subservience to liberty. All freedoms to coerce, specifically. It does not flatter us to make vague denunciations of either mastery or slavery in the abstract, the two are eternally occurring and inseparable. It is more to the point what we control and are controlled by. The true anarchist, (sayeth the Scotsman), is a slave to liberty, and conversely, master of their freedoms.

OverArching Anarchy?

(preface: generally speaking, I abuse a lot of the terms I use below. At the time of it's writing, I was looking for responses - critiques in order to make sure I knew what I was talking about. I still agree with all of the points I make, but all things considered anarcho-communism is not the "best" anarchy - there is no "best". The fact remains that what a person produces, they have a right to use. Not a right to monopolize, but a right to use. Ultimately, my vision is a world where the MoP held in common by all homo sapiens, and all individuals freely produce for themselves what and when they will - complete "equality of opportunity" economic collectivism, complete social "independence of accomplishment" individualism.)

Anarcho-communism is the most permissive of all anarchies, period. Capitalism can exist within it, Primitivism can, Syndacalism can. Let’s tackle them each one at a time.

Capitalism.

If there is one socioeconomic influence more passionately loathed and egregiously misunderstood in today’s world than Capitalism, someone needs to unplug the cord from the back of my neck. Capitalism is a wonderful word. Because it’s so general. What do you mean by it? Globalism? Western values? The use of money? Materialistic philosophy? Or “An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, also promoting a free market regulated by supply and demand”? I don’t know about you, but I say we define Capitalism as the dictionaries and encyclopedias do. Then start to examine why so many people who call themselves Capitalists embrace so many other “isms” under the cloak of their blanket term. “Isms” like Monetarism. Now, when I refer to Monetarism, I am not referring to the mere study of income and expense. Oh no. I’m referring to the practice of using money itself. That is, the practice of bartering with the aid of (almost exclusively) state-regulated notes of promise. This is something UNEQUIVOCALLY SEPARATE of nature in relation to the definition of Capitalism. Yet Monetarism is taken as both a fact and requisite for Capitalist action by so many Capitalists. Because money is just so darn cute. And harmless! And where would we be without it? We’d be back in the dark ages when people “bartered” with one another. This false equivocation of Monetarism and Capitalism is probably the most dangerous and unhelpful thing to ever have arisen, however it happened. Taking the definition of Capitalism as my standpoint, I have no qualms claiming to be an Anarcho-communist that loves and supports true Capitalism. Private ownership is an undeniable right. If I choose to produce whatever it is I want to produce, I should be able to, and I should be able to ALONE, if I’m willing to take that responsibility. So then it comes down the realization that public, as far as freedom froms are concerned, is nothing if not also private. In an Archist society, public is the private property of one or a few (the government). In an Anarchist society, it is the private property of all. Because if it was the private property of any less, it wouldn’t be Anarchy we were living in. In Anarchy, public freedom froms entails private freedom froms. Meaning the right to not cooperate with your fellow producers and produce all by your lonesome self. So then how will opportunities for production naturally be consumed? By Capitalism and Communism working side by side free of Monetarism. Sound impossible? Think again. Behold the tenets of Communism: Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves. With no government, private becomes truly private and public becomes truly public. QED. Monetary Archo-capitalism of course, we are already living in. What is the state but a large corporation w/ it’s own “private” police force? Unfettered Capitalism is inherently Anarchistic, but when it is also Monetaristic, it pays and fuels the government, making Anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron only in Monetaristic societies, and merely redundant in any other. In an Archist society, the word “private” has no meaning to the governed, for YOU are the private property of the government, your soul bought and paid for by the promises made before your birth.

Primitivism.

I do not have a problem with Primitivism. If you wish to don a loincloth and go foraging for grapes and small mammalia to consume, you go right ahead, but you kindly leave me the fuck out of it. Anarcho-primitivism, it must be understood, is more and therefore less than the simultaneous occurrences of both Anarchism and Primitivism in a person’s political imagination. It is the assertion that, by practicality, the existence of any other person’s need for technology is a violation or infringement of YOUR rights. The stretch in logic required for this line of thinking is massive and borders on delusion. It must be understood that I am not hostile to those who are both Anarchists and Primitivists, rather to those who are Anarcho-primitivists. In fact, I encourage Primitivism in the light of today’s economic, political, and social crises. Quite frankly, I think it would do everyone a damn lot of good, and I am willing to fight and die (well, write and lie) for your right to be as much of a hunter/gatherer as you want to be. But I will demand in return that you be willing to defend my right to be as technologically empowered as I wish, provided I am not destroying the environment of the Earth itself, which is a related but entirely separate concern.

Syndacalism.

Now here’s where things get a little slippery. Syndacalism says that, internally, all members of the producing class should share the benefits of their labor equally. Now, it must be realized that the ultimate “benefit” of any organized labor is... the product of that labor. However, there exists a state of affairs in which this is not the only benefit. Monetarism. Unless you were to count the artists struggling to print up enough to meet the Federal Reserve’s whimsical demand, it could be said that the producing class was inherently Syndicalist in any egalitarian society. But we aren’t living in an egalitarian society absent of a Federal Reserve. We’re living in a world where promises are sealed upon our lips the day we are born, the promise to refrain from providing a fellow citizen with any product should he or she lack a particular quantity of glorified hall passes cheif among them. There is only one term for it: Negative Blackmail. All humen require food and some semblance of shelter to live. The deal is simple – agree to Monetarism or starve. Period. Monetarism is the exploitation of natural selection, survival of the greediest and most cowardly. Syndacalism, to get back on point, employs interesting logic in that it distinguishes between external and internal benefiters of it’s production. Intuitively, this conjures the idea that there are two classes of people: producers and consumers. This is an unproductive but not necessarily counterproductive division. Because it must be understood that all people produce and all people consume. To hypothesize the existence of a parasitic social mooch in a society absent of Monetarism and it’s welfare checks is a completely unfounded assertion. In a world where everyone produces anything they want and everyone consumes anything they need, Sydacalism survives intact but redundant.

The Collusion of Domain and Property, and the Critique of Pruvlic Allocation

What is public? Were the “whites only” and “blacks only” water fountains of the racist USA, respectively, public property? They certainly weren’t private property. Yet, a black person couldn’t drink from a public water fountain. And a white person either, for that matter, if there ever were any whites in want of drink from the “blacks only” fountains. So we must then ask, what is private? We must eschew the Hegelian duality of these terms in order to properly understand them. Most people will agree that private property is that which is owned by one person. Most people will also agree that public property is that which is owned by all people. So what were the color-specific fountains of old, in reality? They were Pruvlic property. The property of a few. The property of the function f = (2, n - 1), where n is the number of people eligible to possess property in existence. There has been, until this time, no recognition of this state of ownership, with a continual argument taking place from the peaks of the ivory tower to the slums of the cardboard ghetto, with one side arguing that all that is not private must be public, and the other, vice versa. Whole ideologies and economic systems have been established and destroyed in terms of these two “p” words. Just look at the definitions of Capitalism and Communism. One espouses the immortal divinity of the private, the other, the public. Then examine their realities. Both of their primary incarnations possessed a government. Both of them possessed massive violations of human rights in some form or another. It was Stalin’s regime, after all, that initiated the Great Purge, in aim of silencing dissent by robbing people of the ownership of their bodies, health, and life. And the homeless and starving of the United States remains an uncalculated number, not to mention their government’s conquests outside their territory, which arguably rival their inner crimes. But wait! What was that we just tripped over? A clue to this unnavigable puzzle, perhaps? The United States territory. Ah. The United States owns something. What does it own? Perhaps it owns it’s citizenry? Well in that case, how can it’s citizenry own anything? Are there differing degrees of own? Whose ownership is final, the government’s, or it’s citizen’s? Well, according to US law, any citizen’s property may be confiscated by the government, aside proper monetary reimbursement, at any time for any “public” project. Well that answers that question. What say you? The United States owns merely the property of it’s citizens, but not the citizens themselves? Okay. So if I were to abandon my property and travel to Mexico, there would be no one to stop me? What are border guards there for, then? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Maybe it would be easier to say that the US owns the space in which all the collective property of it’s citizenry is owned. So then if all the US citizenry were to move to Mexico with me, what would the US own? How many different types of owning are there? Personal, material, spacial, spiritual? And how is it that under the Patriot Act, I can be detained and even tortured without due process of law? How can I be detained and tortured with due process of law? If that’s not the absence of private ownership of yourself, slavery, I don’t know what is. But now we know the truth. The designation of a state excludes public. The USSR was living a contradiction, and the USA still is, a lie. You see how much easier the distinction of Pruvlic makes things? It’s quite simple. You are the material property of any government you are living under. If it is a government of one person, like a monarchy or dictatorship, then you are privately owned. If it is a gerontocracy or plutocracy, you are pruvlicly owned. Owned by some. To be owned by all, is a state that requires as a prerequisite the fact that you own yourself, rendering null and void the concept of ownership, government, itself, as ownership is in any personal respect, a binary measurement. You either do, or you don’t. Same with property. So to regard the whole of Japanese land as the “public property” of the Japanese citizenry is blatantly false, on multiple levels. Not only do I not own it, but even they don’t own it. It is the pruvlic property of the Japanese government, or just Japan, for short. Those that have yet to equivocate private property and government could argue that point, (communists, lovers of the government, and anarcho-capitalists, lovers of private property) but straight down the ticket anarchists know better. If the entire island of Japan was forklifted into the air, dropped over the Asian continent and found itself smack dab on top of Beijing, would the island now belong to China? Or would it still belong to Japan? Wouldn’t a theft of this magnitude depracticate retribution and restoration? This is the example by which I shall advent the differenciation of material ownership, and spacial ownership. Material ownership, or property, is the claim to the rights to alter and unalter a certain substance. Spacial ownership, or domain, is the claim to the rights to dictate what material comprises a certain space. The difference is subtle, but as illustrated with the following example, important. Imagine a person in the comfort and privacy of their own home. They are sitting in their favorite lazy chair reading a book, smoking a pipe, in dim but suitable lighting. Suddenly, a stranger bursts through the door, walks into the homeowner’s kitchen, and begins to fix himself a sandwich. Now, the capitalist would claim that the main problem with the above scenario was the fact that the stranger has taken the man’s sandwich, which he presumably materialistically owns. The communist might retort that the only reason the stranger would ever dare enter another’s home was that the stranger must have been starving/abused/enslaved, and call for the abolition of the private ownership of sandwiches. What they both fail miserably to realize, is that amongst all this generalizing and posited justification, there is literally no economic difference between these two scenarios that is worth arguing about. In either case, you have the same net worth of sandwich to distribute, and regardless of how it is distributed, somebody is going hungry to whatever extent they don’t end up consuming said sandwich. The real problem with the scenario is not that the stranger is doing anything in particular, rather that he or she was there in the first place, whether they needed to be there or not. What we have, really, is a person reading a book peacefully under the presumption that they can do so alone and in peace, (exerting spacial ownership) and having this presumption violated by a person with no respect for privacy, or the concept of private domain. It would have been just as bad had the stranger walked in and attempted to read over the homeowner’s shoulder. Yet the difference (or similarity) between these cases has no recognized legitimacy by so many of all the political pulpits. Pruvlic property is kept invisible by the silent collusion of property and domain, and only a few other sleights of mind. In Anarchy, however, these differences are faced and tackled head on, because Anarchy is the best (only) organizational system there is, willing to not just identify but SOLVE these non-ad-hominem problems and others like it. Abolish pruvlic property, be controlled by neither some nor one. An Anarchist pwns the State that owns.

Equality Applied And Equality Apparent

There is an old saying amongst libertarian socialists, that goes a little something like this: “any that are free are not equal, any that are equal are not free.” These two ideas – equality and freedom, are the bones of any meaningful social organization, and they have endured a long and turbulent love/hate relationship with one another for quite some time. On one side of this relationship stand the egalitarians, clamoring for equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, equal social standing. On the other stand the unrelated myriad of individualists, anarcho-fascists, and egoists, raising their fists in support of personal drive, master morality, unregulated opportunity, and freedom. This is such a divisive split, in fact, that it has long held anarchist ideas back, because many see the two concepts as irreconcilable. A schism that all may wish to be healed. To begin, we must observe the world around us. This is the basis upon which all truths are established, a somber examination of reality. We must look around and ask, “are all people equal?” To even begin to answer this question, we must ask another: What is a person? Of all ethically philosophic questions, this is by far one of the most important. At one extreme, you might be tempted to say that nothing could be called a person, at the other, everything. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. From my response there, even, you can deduce that I have addressed this populace known as “people”. That is, most people think there are things that are and are not other people. For the purposes of this examination, let us presume the following: Any living Homo Sapien is a person. There are people (white supremacists) who think that people with darker skin tones either aren’t or should no longer be people. There are people (animal rights activists) who think that animals are or should be people. But for now, the equivocation of human and person will suffice. But are they equal? “Equal” meaning of identical quantity and quality for any given measurement. The answer any sane person must arrive at is no. Some people have higher IQs than other people, some people are better painters than others, some people are taller, faster, thinner, stronger than others. By the strictest definition of equal, the only way to be all of the following:

a. sane

b. of the conviction that all people are equal

Is to believe that people do not exist. So, from the understanding that people are not equal (or do not exist), we must proceed to the central argument of egalitarianism – that people should be treated as equal, whether or not they are. Here is a tempting scenario. Let’s propose I am a bricklayer. I am capable of laying 3 bricks a minute, as opposed to my friend, who is capable of laying 4 bricks a minute. Being that we are both people, we should be treated as equals, to be paid the same amount. My friend and I, then, continue working, but my friend works lethargically now, three-fourths his usual rate. He knows it is useless to work any harder than that because there will be no benefit beyond the product of the job itself. Whether his effort goes up or down doesn’t matter – his pay is the same. And since his pay is the only way to survive in a nonautarkist society, it is his profane God. Now let’s propose a different scenario.

We are both paid in ratio to our rate of production. My friend works the same total of time I work, yet he (working at the maximum of his capabilities) receives four-thirds my paycheck. Which of these two scenarios is the fairest? Well, both of them actually. In both the former and the later you have decided to treat both people the same way – in one scenario, as worth their employed personhood, in another, worth their labor. Yet how often have so many of us read, in all the unfurling papyrus of anti-socialist literature, a condemnation of the former and a worship of the later! In truth, paying all workers as worth the fact that they are working, and paying all workers as worth the degree to which they are working, is in either case, completely egalitarian! So the apologists of capitalism must rethink their arguments, because in either system all people (minus the bosses, that is), are being being treated equally, they are just being treated worse or better as their method of reimbursement dictates. That seems to be the capitalistic mistake – to talk of equality in a reductionist frame, holding the personage of the boss as “seperate” from the personage of the worker. Now lets try this. Say it is my friend who is paid for the fact that he is working, while I am paid for the degree to which I work. So my friend is given, say, $5 a minute, and I am given $1 a layed brick, which translates to $3 a minute. Is that fair? Not in any sense. There is neither equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome, as opposed to both preceding cases, where equality of opportunity was assured, whatever it’s prosperity. Then there is a fourth case. The one where my friend is paid to the degree of work and I am paid by the fact that I work. In that case as well, there is no equality at all. Here at last is the fifth and final case. No one is paid. In every of the other cases, we presumed a boss that payed a worker with money, thereby refuting any workplace egalitarianism. True, the first two scenarios were egalitarian counting only the workers, but you have to count everyone! Remember our definition of people, after all, a person’s personhood doesn’t fluxuate with his/her energy output or social standing. And counting everyone, equality of opportunity is ONLY possible in a world without the mandated employer-employee dynamic. In this brave new anumismic world, people work out of respect for and in the form of the scientific, physical, mechanical, and thermodynamic sense of the word, rather than the socioeconomic one. That is, what a person invents though the exertion of their body’s recycled energy, they reap the consequence of. Play is work, work is work, even sleep is work; the word loses it’s clockwork beaurocratic connotation and returns to the realm of natural law, the only law humen must submit to, and even then only out of necessity. Voluntary associations can be formed on the basis of interest or service – and the flamboyantly servile “over the counter” jobs are abandoned, along with other outright unnecessities. In these conditions, no rulers exist to enforce any rules agreed upon by participants in a system. All is of either autarkic or mutually consensual operation. Of course, in this rulerless world, why artificially apply equality where it wouldn’t otherwise exist? Ruling in favor of, and attempting to apply, equality to anyone but oneself where it is not naturally apparent, is as authoritatively compulsive as applying inequality where an absence of such exists. So here is the truth – do not apply equality. Do not apply inequality. Do not deny apparent equality. Do not deny apparent inequality. Ignore the entire concept, it is meaningless. Liberty for all is the ultimate good, if that means equality, so will it, if it doesn’t, so won’t it.

Golden Numbers

Bubble in your eccentricities,

On the dotted line,

This strip owes you an IOU

For a chiseled piece of shine.

Those sacred golden numbers

Chaining the Ego to it's master the Id.

Necessity is exemplified succinctly

In what we know as the kid.

Yet as we the things purchase,

with every person possessed,

It suffices to suffer humanity to society obsessed.

This gift is our curse,

Cherished like the grandkids in your purse.

But in order to see it you'll first need to buy it.

And in order to buy it, you'll first need to pay.

Okay?

The Con Text

Fame, a fatal familiarity, bloody, massacred,

A reputation ravaged from the grave.

Their message in reaction, take it, forsake it,

Put the class into a class with a martyred octave.

A mockery! Contempt, with a jealous ferocity!

Ideas adhered to minds with a lucrative viscosity!

Kill us; kill us already, the dead men scream

To the world busy scribing letters to their law -

It's the most ironic sight you would never wish you saw.

And still the educators ream.

They're quite a precocious predatory team, it would seem.

The Mathew, Luke and John of the Beast

Convulsions.

Rolling, roiling, rupturing, rapturing eruptions of scintillating tachyon ethos.

Lingering schisms of cataclysmic collisions herald the formations of

broke baroque marbles, warbling as notes in a pitch black requiem to eternity.

Embody repose as you pause for the first cause,

but forgo muse upon the whenabouts of the last,

such consideration is the theorization of some unborn fantast.

Just know, and feel; drink, and reel –

indulge the masochistic sorrow of a thanksgiving meal.

For rapidly approaches the great judgment of God;

the pit, the hellfire, the locust, the rod!

Ration your rationalization betwixt the crux of every transsolipsistic faith;

you’ll fulfill the prophecy of your own worst nightmare, and embrace the wraith,

when the pulse at life’s end slips from your weary grasp – your voice a coarse rasp.

One complete life of fury and sound,

teething squeals and ebullitions profound,

checks out!

DNA so tightly wound, consumed, by a ritual ground.

But not to worry, there’s no need to fear.

You’ll be nowhere near. Let us praise your sacramental semetic seer!

We are but fig leaves on his burning bush,

and as each angel in every heaven screamed,

“Push! Push! Push!”,

we were stripped from divine rind as a figment in his Father’s mind.

Quakes upon Titan,

lakes upon Mars,

all varieties of shakes and bakes in all the stars,

grazing the graces of Apophis’ scars;

such is the unmattering matter warping the great race of space,

yet it is we that must make haste.

Lest we forget, in death we won’t be present to regret our acclimation

to our evolving Stag Nation.

And to think – we mock the value of our basic elation!

Is this necessary? What is the point?

Why the blue-white rock, as it careens about a solar joint?

Which eligible holy brow does every tide anoint –

whipping their cranium

to the melodious malady of metal uranium?

It’s quite unfortunate, you must digress –

that there weren’t any less to which your coveted rosary must confess.

What a mess.

FREE!dumb

Oceanic mists assaulting monochromatic cliffs,

floating, gloating, deterministically undisturbed.

Blastocysts adorning a uteran wall,

Nutrient circulation, nary a single cell curbed-

Liberty! Autonomy! Enviable perfection of indomitable self-rule!

What traits thusly shared with an American fool?

The resident president, fax assessor extraordinaire,

Tax exempt, in a justice so fair!

Preside such majesty, but don’t call that a King!

Throw your lexicon into the propagandist’s ring.

Representative, executive, commander-in-chief:

Such are the praises the patriots sing!

With a congress assembled of four thirty-five,

What connotation of freedom three-hundred million could derive,

I would not venture to describe.

Incarcerated, the stigmatized sum a whopping one percent -

The moralled and mannered, cultured and catered, reply “repent, repent!”

Buy this, and get five free!

Clear your acne, just scrub and see!

Now hiring: the enthusiastically employed.

All to fund your cousin’s crusade to Iraq deployed.

Tap our water, tap the trees, tap the mail we earn in fees –

behold this populace that walks on it’s knees!

Arise, subordination – conjure caring coordination!

Self-summon, revolt – urge the social phoenix's molt!

Emerge, freethought – inquire of what has taught!

Cast away these chains as the Cynic abandons his cup:

To nonrepresentatives, indies far and near,

the servant indentured to yesmen and year,

the whole of a nation embroiled with fear -

Serfs up!

War

War is waged, upon the lands

Where justice holds, and glory stands?

War is fought - and for what reason?

Control of land, or for treason?

Blood is spilled, upon the place,

Where nature once stood, once full of grace.

Plains are burned, upon the soil

Where bodies lie, and corpses spoil.

Trumpets sound, and soldiers cry,

Battles rage and people die.

They've kept on fighting, through and though,

I don't think they'll ever stop. Do you?

Note To The Reader

Unless I alone possess the copyright, you possess the right to copy as well as I.

But beware that you don't then lie. Hello, my name is B. M. Burner, goodbye.