New Inert Element Discovered - Governmentium

The recent hurricanes and gasoline issues are proof of
the existence of a new chemical element. A major
research institution has recently announced the
discovery in 2007 of the heaviest element yet known
to science. The new element has been named
Governmentium. Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25
assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198
assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of
312. These 312 particles are held together by forces
called morons, which are surrounded by vast
quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert.
However, it can be detected, because it impedes every
reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute
amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that
would normally take less than a second to take over
four days to complete. Governmentium has a normal
half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead
undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange
places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually
increase over time, since each reorganization will
cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some
scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed
whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This
hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes
Administratium -- an element which radiates just as
much energy as Governmentium since it has half as
many peons but twice as many morons.

Georg Washington Meets George Bush

Have you ever read the chapter of Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" titled the Grand Inquisitor?

Jesus Christ comes back to earth at the time of the Spanish Inquisition and He is sentenced to death and jailed in a dungeon for impersonating the living God and fomenting radical ideas. The night before He is to be burned at the stake, the Gran Inquisitor visits Him in His cell.

The Inquisitor recognizes that He is in fact Christ, and apologizes, but says that things have changed, that the people cannot hear such ideas of freedom, that is dangerous to the church and so for the good of the world, Christ will have to be put to death again.

If Washington or Jefferson were to visit us today, I am afraid that the same thing would happen. I am afraid that after getting over the shock of modernity that Washington would look at the size of government, the 1000 page tomes of Federal law, the endless list of taxes, the military bases all over the world, the thousands of bureaucrats and lobbyists, the information that the government collects about every one of us and he would begin to preach freedom. He would exort us to throw off our blinders and our shackles and walk free once more as free men and women do. I think that he would be seen to be a novelty at first, but people might begin to listen to his message. Some would begin to question every bit of indoctrination fed to them. And then Washington would have to be eliminated, just like the Gran Inquisitor sentenced Christ to die en el auto de fé, Washington would have to be sent to Guantánamo to be silenced.

So General Washington is being held in handcuffs chained to leg restraints in some featureless CIA basement in Virginia, where he recieves a visit from the President and the vice President.

Dubya looks at the great founder of our nation, bent double and dressed in an orange jump suit suit with his hands chained to his feet. Dubya looks surprised and a bit guilty, he looks around, but only finds Dick Cheney there. Dubya smiles a little to Cheney, the old man doesn't look very intimidating now. He doesn't look so big and dignified doubled over like that in the garish orange suit. Now with a hint of scorn in his voice, Dubya directs himself to General Washington:

“Well – see uh - thangs are a lil difernt now, an uh, Ah mean they're difernt from whan you was here before, you know, uh we uh now we gotta pertect the worl from dangerous people. Terrorishts. An uh we're shtrengthening democrashy now, an uh that means that the people gotta uh they gotta reshpect authority, an uh thats me. So uh Ah know you’re a great man, but for the good of our country and our freedoms we’re gonna have to make the hard deshishion”

George Washington stares silently into Dubya's face and Dubya looks up at Dick Cheney with doubt in his eye. Dick gives a little nod of the head and directs his cold glare at President Washington. "He's a very dangerous man Mr. President and he knows too much to ever be released. I'm afraid Guantánamo is too risky, we'd better render him over to the Syrians, they'll know what to do". Cheney's snear reassures Dubya and they leave the room without another word.

George Washington looks at his feet and asks God quietly: "why did You send me back here? I have failed and our great dream is become hell on earth"



I wake up sweating in my bed, heart throbbing and a tear sliding down my cheek. What happened? Thank God its but a dream, or is it? Have I been given a responsibility from beyond?


The morning finds me knocking on an unknown door in my town - "Good morning ma'am, my name is Chris and I would like to talk to you for a minute about recovering our freedom by voting for Dr. Ron Paul....."

Letter to Linda Chávez in Response To Her Smear Of Ron Paul

Mrs. Linda Chávez wrote an article named "The Stakes in Iowa and New Hampshire" on Decmber 28th. It was published in Yahoo News as well as other places. The article was the normal prattle about polls and frontrunners without any new insights. However she did make a point by calling Ron Paul a "bona fide crank".

Click here to read her article



Mrs. Chávez,

I'm writing you this letter in response to your article of Dec. 28th.

I have read your columns over the last two and a half years since I returned to the US after 18 years in South America. I can't say that I have always been in agreement with you, in particular because you have the unfortunate modern Republican concept of America Uber Alles, that we must push and dominate the entire world, but I have liked your points about immigrants. And I know your husband from work with the marriage movement. At any rate, I always try to read your column on Yahoo News, but with your latest column you lost me forever.

You have bought into the Fear Regime, Mrs. Chávez. You are afraid and think that we should turn our back on our Constitution and our liberty because you think that we all ought to be as afraid of the world as you are. Well Mrs. Chávez the world has always been a dangerous place, but that has not bothered Americans because the "home of the brave" is more than a line in a song. We have shown our bravery by granting everyone their rights, by assuring fellow citizens that we can keep the government out of our homes and our lives. We have gladly run any risks that might imply. Americans have traditionally not been afraid.

I am an American. I am not afraid of terrorists. The danger from second hand smoke is more likely to kill me than some pathetic, frustrated Saudi in search of a glorious martyrdom. There was one preventable moment on 911 2007. We do not need to run scared for the next century because our policies for dealing with hijackers were completely wrong.

I am not afraid of terrorists, but I am afraid of something. I am afraid of living in a country where people have to be careful with what they say, where the police are to be feared, where people disappear. The quantum growth of the intelligence services under increasingly lax supervision is taking us down that path. I will not accept it lying down, and I am afraid for my family if this continues because I WILL rebel. I will not be cowed by ubiquitous surveillance cameras. I will not be a good little boy who does what he is told. Sorry, I am an American and I am not accustomed to being pushed around. I will rebel even though I know that this government and those that follow its course towards totalitarianism will step on rebels if this careen towards state power is not stopped NOW. We do not need more security Mrs. Chávez; we need to recover our liberty.

So what did you do in your article? You ridiculed the one candidate that is a brave American. One man who realizes that our rights are much more important than any unlikely danger that we may run here in America. Give us our second Amendment rights and let the terrorists try to kill us here in the home of the brave. It won't look like a very inviting proposition to your average Arab terrorist. The idea of it is absurd and if it happens once (and it already did on 911) it won't happen again. I can assure you that no plane that I am on is going to be flown into the World Trade Center. 100% guarantee. There are millions of American men like me Mrs. Chavez.

Since you infer that Ron Paul is a crank because he opposed the Iraq war, then you must believe that the Iraq war was a good idea. Was it a good idea to invade Iraq, even though there were no WMDs and Iraq had nothing to do with 911? You think that Dr. Paul is a crank because he believes that killing 4000 Americans and wasting a trillion dollars is a bad idea. Do you think that it was a GOOD idea?

And then you scoff at the notion that the Civil War was unnecessary. You scorn the concept that America could have ended slavery peacefully, the way that every other civilized country did. You scoff that we could have paid the plantation owners to free the slaves. No, that’s ridiculous, instead lets finance five years of total war. It’s so much cheaper. Do you know that buying all the slaves at almost any price would have cost less than 1% of the Civil War? 650,000 men died in the Civil War, Mrs. Chávez. Almost all the young men in America were forced into a situation where they had to kill other American men or die trying. More than a half million Americans were killed by other Americans. They died in excruciating pain with their arms and legs blown off, trying to hold their guts in, they bled to death. By saying that Dr, Paul is a crank, you opine that the idea that there was a way to avoid all that death is the thinking of a crank. No trying to avoid all that death for Mrs. Chávez, no. Kill them, kill a half of a million Americans and if you think that there might be an alternative to all that government sponsored death, then you are a crank.

I suggest that you think a little harder about Dr. Paul and his policies. They are much better conceived than your hateful little article.



Christopher Ferrell
January 1st, 2008

Sage Advice From Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, May She Rest In Peace

When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

From her book, "A False Choice for Pakistan"

Islamo-Fascist or Neocon-Fascist?

Our Middle Eastern foreign policy is being written and put into practice in order to strengthen the state structures of the United States and Israel. It is not being designed or run for the benefit of Americans, Israelis and certainly not for promoting peace in the Near East. Our current foreign policy in the Middle East supposedly dates from after 9/11, 2001 but the truth is that our actions since the Twin Towers fell coincide perfectly with the program drawn up by the new American Century before the year 2000.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

The principal “neoconservatives” of today drew up this program. Here is a list of the members of the New American Century: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Eliot A. Cohen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Francis Fukuyama.

Do you recognize the policymakers of the Bush doctrine in that list? They are all there: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Podhoretz. The policies laid out by these men and women in 2000 was to change the Middle East by using American military power to overthrow a regime in the area and convert that country to Democracy. Read it, amazingly their papers are still posted on the website. But now that their grand experiment hasn’t come off quite as well as planned, they have changed course and identified an enemy. They need an enemy to continue to fuel the war machine, since the Democracy idea hasn’t panned out. The enemy is “Islamo-fascism”.

So now all of the movers and shakers behind the neoconservative Middle Eastern foreign policy have taken to referring to the “war against Islamo-fascism”. After the sparkling results of elections in Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon that empowered the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas, the neocons seem to be shelving the Democracy justification for war. Instead they are painting the Islamist movement as fascist.

But what we are seeing is not a political-economic movement like fascism was in Italy and Germany. It is not a nationalist grab for power. The Islamist movement today is something much more ancient and motivated by deeper sentiment. Whereas the Nazis may have dreamed that their movement might become something as powerful and all encompassing as a religion, it was not and never could be. Islam does not have to dream of becoming a religion that motivates its adherents to sacrifice; it is that religion. And it controls the actions of its adherents in a completely different way than National Socialism does. Fascism controls the population through fear of the state apparatus and coercion, Islam controls the population through fear of God and faith.

Unlike fascism, Islam is ancient. It is designed in such a way as to produce warriors and religious scholars. It does not envision economic development; it actually leads its adherents away from industry. Industry is seen as somewhat unclean. Commerce is better, but the pinnacle that man can reach on earth is the ghazi warrior or the saintly cleric and sometimes both occupations in one man as in the case of the prophet himself. Industry was often left to non-Muslims.

Fascism is a modern political construct designed to strengthen the governmental apparatus in all areas of endeavor until it is the only power in a State. It means to control all aspects of people’s lives through the threat of punishment at a very terrestrial level. It is designed to work together with corporations and make them dependent on the state until the two fuse into one integrated system. It is designed to produce wealth for the powerful and to keep its people complaisant. It is a modern institution.

Islam’s idea of a worldwide Caliphate is certainly not similar to the Nazi dream of the Third Reich. The Muslims’ vision of the Caliphate is a loose federation of very devout Muslims who band together for religious and jihadi wars. Their cooperation is expected because of their shared faith; a complex state organization of coercive secret police and continual propaganda is not necessary in the Caliphate. This is true in theory, but it was also proven true under the powerful caliphates whether they were Umayyad, Abbasid, or Ottoman.

So, I find the term fascist a very bad fit for the Islamist movement that has been killing non-Muslims and working for world domination for the last 1400 years. That all took place more than 1300 before there was a concept of state controlled corporatism or fascism. Was Mehmet II a Nazi? Suleiman the Magnificent, was he a Nazi? Were the ghazis fascists? Of course that is absurd, they predated the Nazis by centuries. The Islamist radicals today are a continuation of the ghazi tradition, not an Arab version of the SS. Therefore the designation Islamo-fascist is inaccurate and is employed for purposes of effecting public opinion, or in other words: propaganda.

That brings me to the last and most uncomfortable point. If there is a resurgence of fascism in the world and it is not in the Islamist movements around the world, where is it? Where do we see state and corporate propaganda that creates enemies from whole cloth and loads the populace with fear and senseless nationalism?

Isn’t it ironic that the very people that employ the term fascist are the ones that evidence every characteristic of being that very thing?

What Does Freedom Really Mean? by Dr. Ron Paul

What Does Freedom Really Mean?

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

By Ron Paul

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

12/26/07 "ICH" -- - We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state– but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

We Are All Prisoners Now by Paul Craig Roberts

"They’re locking them up today
They’re throwing away the key
I wonder who it’ll be tomorrow, you or me?"
~ The Red Telephone (LOVE, 1967)

At Christmas time it has been my habit to write a column in remembrance of the many innocent people in prisons whose lives have been stolen by the US criminal justice (sic) system that is as inhumane as it is indifferent to justice. Usually I retell the cases of William Strong and Christophe Gaynor, two men framed in the state of Virginia by prosecutors and judges as wicked and corrupt as any who served Hitler or Stalin.

This year is different. All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress, by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running roughshod over the Constitution, by a bought and paid for media that serves as propagandists for a regime of war criminals, and by a public who have forsaken their Founding Fathers.

Americans are also imprisoned by fear, a false fear created by the hoax of "terrorism." It has turned out that headline terrorist events since 9/11 have been orchestrated by the US government. For example, the alleged terrorist plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower was the brainchild of an FBI agent who searched out a few disaffected people to give lip service to the plot devised by the FBI agent. He arrested his victims, whose trial ended in acquittal and mistrial.

Raising doubts among Americans about the government is not a strong point of the corporate media. Americans live in a world of propaganda designed to secure their acquiescence to war crimes, torture, searches and police state measures, military aggression, hegemony and oppression, while portraying Americans (and Israelis) as the salt of the earth who are threatened by Muslims who hate their "freedom and democracy."

Americans cling to this "truth" while the Bush regime and a complicit Congress destroy the Bill of Rights and engineer the theft of elections.

Freedom and democracy in America have been reduced to no-fly lists, spying without warrants, arrests without warrants or evidence, permanent detention despite the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, torture despite the prohibition against self-incrimination – the list goes on and on.

In today’s fearful America, a US Senator, whose elder brothers were (1) a military hero killed in action, (2) a President of the United States assassinated in office, (3) an Attorney General of the United States and likely president except he was assassinated like his brother, can find himself on the no-fly list. Present and former high government officials, with top secret security clearances, cannot fly with a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water despite the absence of any evidence that extreme measures imposed by "airport security" makes flying safer.

Elderly American citizens with walkers and young mothers with children are meticulously searched because US Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between an American citizen and a terrorist.

All Americans should note the ominous implications of the inability of Homeland Security to distinguish an American citizen from a terrorist.

When Airport Security cannot differentiate a US Marine General recipient of the Medal of Honor from a terrorist, Americans have all the information they need to know.

Any and every American can be arrested by unaccountable authority, held indefinitely without charges and tortured until he or she can no longer stand the abuse and confesses.

This predicament, which can now befall any American, is our reward for our stupidity, our indifference, our gullibility, and our lack of compassion for anyone but ourselves.

Some Americans have begun to comprehend the tremendous financial costs of the "war on terror." But few understand the cost to American liberty. Last October a Democrat-sponsored bill, "Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism," passed the House of Representatives 404 to 6.

Only six members of the House voted against tyrannical legislation that would destroy freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and that would mandate 18 months of congressional hearings to discover Americans with "extreme" views who could be preemptively arrested.

What better indication that the US Constitution has lost its authority when elected representatives closest to the people pass a bill that permits the Bill of Rights to be overturned by the subjective opinion of members of an "Extremist Belief Commission" and Homeland Security bureaucrats? Clearly, Americans face no greater threat than the government in Washington.

Ron Paul and Jim Cramer Slam the Fed!

Real Men Must Rebel

The role of a real man is to set aside his desires and become a husband and father. Willing acceptance of these responsibilities defines maturation in a man. Until the boy has reflected at length on these duties he will balk at all or part of them and continue, like a child, to protect his “rights”, his toys and his free time. If the man is never in an atmosphere of quiet that facilitates a process of reflection he may never progress to the stage of maturation where he finds fulfillment in the well being and happiness of his family, instead he will continue to selfishly pursue childish pleasures.

A young man does not come to this acceptance from one moment to the next, but rather it occurs gradually through meditation. This way a man learns to cherish not his rights but rather his responsibilities. The real man is the leader and protector of his family, and his willing acceptance of this role, rather than his resignation to it, incites him to put the welfare of his wife and children before his own. An adult man embraces these responsibilities through the love he feels for his family and the love he feels for God.

An adult man does not worry about obtaining and protecting his toys and free time because the benefits of his adulthood show them to be childish and chimerical things that leave him empty. He prefers the respect of his wife, children and community. He prefers to pray with a clear conscience, knowing that although he stumbles on his journey, he puts the needs of others ahead of his own and is a true leader, humbly trying to do his God given duty.

In our modern American culture, moments of quiet are few and far between. We are taught to surround ourselves with “entertainment” every waking moment of the day. We are taught to take great pride in being busy as if perpetual movement is a goal in itself.  Meditation and quiet reflection are seen as strange, deviant behavior. We are pelted with advertising on the radio, TV, billboards and internet that teach us to consume, in fact they teach us to define ourselves by which products we consume. We are educated to be selfish and greedy and we are tempted to drug ourselves with permanent entertainment so that we do not think about our responsibilities or the nature of God and our role in His creation.

A young man must confront this modern culture, turn off the noise and find the space, time and tranquility to reflect on his role and purpose in life. This is how he will mature and become a good father and husband. This was historically easy to do, but today in order to become an adult he must first rebel against this culture that teaches consumerism, feminism and the constant and selfish pursuit of happiness. Maybe we should challenge men to be rebels, to confront and denounce the establishment. Perhaps we need to incite them to throw off the chains of all this worldly garbage and redefine themselves. If a man accepts the paradigm of modern America he will not mature, he will not receive respect and he will feel unfulfilled. He has to extinguish the noise around himself long enough to hear the voice of reason. What we crave as men is respect and today to earn respect we must follow the example of Christ and rebel.

Mother Theresa of Calcutta taught us the following:
The fruit of silence is prayer
The fruit of prayer is faith
The fruit of faith is love
The fruit of love is service
The fruit of service is peace

To follow this guide is to rebel against the modern world. To follow this guide is to grow up. So, look for quiet, be honest and be humble. Do not believe easily what the noise blares into your ears; question authority and follow the example of the greatest rebel of all time: Jesus Christ.

3 de Mayo - por Francisco Goya - Un comentario sobre la barbaridad sin sentido