A cup

of vinegar

in the hands

of a man

who can't

make his way

to the well.

Dearest One,

You tell yourself you failed

But, let it go, that ship has sailed

Nineteen years ago, this very day

You meant the very vows you did say

You WILL love him till your very death

Just can no longer smell the boozed breath

To live authentic didn't break vow

It is time you show your daughter how

To live a life of kindness, serenity too

To be authentically, wholly you

Your head, this day, begs a second guess

This letter seeks to put that second-guessing to rest

Be at peace, you're doing the best you can

Know that he, flawed and beautiful, is just a man

Sleep well, know with each exhale

Letting go, you did not fail

Don't test my patience

Don't prod a smiling face

These bones were made tough and strong

Don't bother starting a war

Throw some brick bats my way

Or some needles on the floor

These feet will skip over them

And remember the entire forest rumbles

When a sleeping lion wakes up and roars

Ritika.Jolly

I take your words and hack away at them, slashing them to pieces, rearranging them again and again so they look better on the page and sound better when they're read out loud. I slap down new words and try to coerce you into using them in place of your own. Of course, you're under no obligation to oblige, but what damage will be done if you don't? And I'll hand you back your copy, bleeding with red ink, with a smile and a bill for my services. You're welcome.

I know almost everything about you. I know where you live. I know your significant other's name. I know where it hurts. I know all of this because you tell me. 

My colleagues subject you to more questioning. They poke and probe you with you sharp and sterile objects. In this confined space, everyone can hear you scream.

After it is all said and done you are allowed to get dressed. Before we release you back into the world, I have the nerve to ask you for money for services rendered.

I'm the registration clerk in an Emergency Room.

There are no poet heroes

At least as far as I can know

In whom pure reason grows.

There are no philosopher kings

In this age when insanity sings

To the bell's off-key ring.

I wonder what tomorrow holds

For those who feel the heavy load

And wish someday to grow old?

I thought I could write the end

But now I'm tempted to spend

A little ink urging us to think again.

Here am I anxiously waiting

For that flash of inspiration

That comes from God or Satan.

What if the spark refuses to start

My mind turns down the part

And I find that I have lost the art?

Unless I recover the power of rhyme

And reason reigns at least a time

The truce ends; justice is blind.

But then I think, words are empty

Chaos is what destiny sent me

And I should just breathe deeply.

I wonder how the world would name

The first responder they send

To write about the pretty flames.

Some introductory food for thought...

"The war was not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance... The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia of East Asia, but to keep the very structure intact" 

  - George Orwell

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas"

  - Joseph Stalin

"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy"

  - Aldous Huxley

Terrorism as an ideology amplified by Western intervention?

As is well known, Western nations in the NATO alliance, particularly North America and Western Europe, have had a steady and extensive involvement in the Middle East since the beginning of the Century and even before. This intervention by such nations has been widely criticised for its dubious motives in the region and for the unnecessary damage inflicted upon them, in human life and in infrastructure. Once whatever goal(s) by the occupying nations have been reached, often involving an obliteration of any normality in the region, then they deescalate, leaving a power vacuum and a state of extended warfare, particularly by Militia groups, still active, often the most prominent of which are extremist religious groups. 

However, it is necessary to pay attention to the circumstances of the region prior to escalated conflict, i.e. the origins of extremist religious groups, their motives, and who shares their motives elsewhere. There has been a trend symptomatic of the last dozen countries to have had western intervention, and that has been, a majority democratically elected secular government has been voted into power, who are often elected by the majority for their stance of independence toward global centralisation and control over their country, often making reforms such as private to public banking, currency reform, improved secular education and gender equality. What is most import to notice here is the secular aspect of the Governance and also the non-Globalist stance. This means that Terrorists and and Globalists have something in common, that is that they both oppose the Government of the nation in question, and wish to see regime change. 

It is not a radical thing to assert that Transnationals who have vested interests in these nations, such as Banking, natural resources and ultimately political power, would help mobilise already established anti-government forces in the such regions, and in fact, this does and has happened, quite blatantly. Such as in the Soviet-Afghan war in the late 1970's and early 80's, the US Government funded the Mujaheddin (that would later become Al-Qaeda) against the Soviets, despite them being an extremists Islamist group. A similar situation has manifested currently in Syria, which the origins of ISIS being in Western funding of anti-Government Militia groups. Simple logic would also infer that various weapons like advanced hand-held surface to air rocket launchers and truck mounted high calibre turrets do not appear from prayer, but have quite clearly been provided by some outside source. 

Ultimately, it means that Western intervention not only expedites Terrorist activities in these regions, as shared motives hastens toward that, but in the wake of escalated involvement, leave behind an environment that allows such groups to thrive in the chaos. And as their ideology dictates, their radicalised activity of terrorism and extremism manifests in other secular regions of the world. 

Why policing of the internet is innately a breach of freedom and will not be successful in tackling terrorism...

There has been a quip circling the internet recently surrounding May's response to the spurt of terrorist incidences in London, along the lines of, "May didn't get the memo; 1984 wasn't an instruction manual".  Amusing. However, this is not too far from the truth, with policies coming forth of amending the deceleration of human rights, which would legally give the Government a backdoor method to suspend the citizenship and rights of an individual. Clearly this is a dangerous power to willingly hand over to the State, almost resembling a form of quasi-Martial law, and as the international threat of terrorism expands, the West has seemed to motion into a perpetual state of wartime governance.

However, toward the notion that the policing of the internet, which is simply the instantaneous free flow of ideas, transcending distance, is the answer to security from terrorism, is an absurd one. Practically, this would in fact only serve to hinder the monitoring of radicalisation over the internet, for, like all things that are suppressed, it would simply be driven underground, rather than being out in the open, like it is for the most part currently. Take the period of prohibition in the United States during the 1920's as a perfect example of this process, as, after outlawing of the sale, transport, distribution and production of alcoholic drinks, the entire industry was simply driven underground and into the hands of organised crime, whilst the maintenance of enforcing prohibition was completely unsustainable and ineffective. By outlawing the transmission of ideas, it will simply drive that process underground too, i.e. into the dark net, or elsewhere. This, as during the prohibition era, will only entail an even more extensive effort to enforce the law, which whether it will be successful or not is not the question, simply, it is far easier to monitor the promotion of violence when it is said aloud, rather than in secret. 

In a less practical sense however, this proposition should be opposed by all who claim to value freedom, particularly the most important of freedoms, which is that to freely express ones thoughts and ideas. There is always much talk in the wake of these devastating attacks, of not allowing their actions to injure our spirit, and particularly with the most recent in London being so close to an election, to inhibit our democracy or our freedom. Yet this talk is rather blatantly juxtaposed to the action taken by the State in response, which is a direct assault on the freedom to express ideas (though only a toe in the water) which is the total prerequisite for a democratic society. What concerns me mostly however, having discussed the concept of gradualism applied to governance frequently, is that propositions of this nature are never the end of the matter, but make up the first step of many that are inevitable if we allow the first to be taken. If you open the door to a salesman, he will not leave your home without the sale, however, if you keep it shut, he will leave. The key is to not be fooled by the rhetoric of salesmen. In reality though, it is where the line will be drawn, for there are many factors to such a criminalisation of ideas, and that is:

 • To what extent is the term 'radicalisation to be applied?

 • To what extent is the term 'terrorist' to be applied? 

 • And; who will be determining these factors?

Taking the US as an example, they define a terrorist as anyone who opposes the interests of the United States. It is then necessary to ask, what are these 'interests' and who is the 'United States', for these terms are very loose and rather indiscernible. Is the United States simply the Government of the United States, or is it the people? Though, it is a democratic Republic and so, theoretically, the Government is the representative of the people. But then, to what extent can the State be representative of its people if slowly the very ideas of the people become suppressed by the very power of the State itself? Sure, you could say it is a leap to correlate this seemingly small adjustment to a future State of totalitarianism, but is it really so wild? 

 - an essay by FabiusSideman

It's nicer now,

A slower pace.

Sweeter than those

Chaos days.

We roamed the earth,

Not yet awake.

Restlessness,

A clearing haze.

Asleep no more,

Un-afraid.

Upon the edge

I sat my gaze.

With eyes wide open,

I jumped from grace.