No one is in charge.

October 11, 2009 by Ian
Filed under: Announcement, Rant, Response

I’d just like to clarify something. As activists were leaving after gathering in front of Eli Rivera’s home as part of a candlelight vigil for the man Rivera attacked, Kurt Hoffman, other Keene police officers showed up and engaged us in conversation. During said conversation, one of them, Matt Griffin suggested that I was the “leader” of the activists.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are no designated leaders. I understand Matt’s confusion – after all, his organization is structured from the top down with very distinct roles of who’s-in-charge. It’s only natural for him to presume we are structured similarly, however we are not. This is a decentralized movement. No one is in charge. Each activist decides what interests him or her and does it. Other activists that agree will join in.

Is my voice a little more prominent because I have a radio program? Sure, but I’ve never told anyone what to do. They don’t follow my orders, and I wouldn’t give orders in the first place. It wasn’t I who put together the cannabis celebrations and candlelight vigils in front of Rivera’s and Burke’s homes. Those were other people. I merely supported these events.

Hope that makes it clear. Each activist is his or her own leader, and none is in charge of another.

END GAME

LV maybe the definition of Plunder could be subjective?

What if everybody has the opportunity to receive the plunder(municple leaf pick up)they just refuse it. Or the plunder is for the advancement of society(public education) not all who are plundered use it, but all eventually reap its benefits at one time.

You will be plundered it is who you want to be plundered by.
Lpviper

When I look at a monument like that, I always think about how it was paid for. And the answer almost always is, through taxation.

Thus, a monument like that is always a symbol of plunder, for there are always those who were forced to pay for it that did not wish to do so.

This is a perversion of law, and a disorganization of justice.

What does the monument symbolize for you, End Game? For me it represents injustice, unless it was constructed entirely through voluntary donation.

But then the monument is placed upon the 'public' land, which is a misnomer, for all cannot possibly make use of the land without a confict of rights. What of the members of the public who did not wish for a monument to be placed upon 'their' land?

Justice, for them, has miscarried. And the perversion of Law is manifest.
http://www.obscuredtruth.com SamIam

Perhaps that's because I pose questions that cut right to the core of your arrogance?

Perhaps your belief that government is a necessary evil rests on your assumption that everyone else agrees and believes as you do. That might makes right.

Perhaps that's what creates such anger and animosity within you.

Hate only hurts the hater, not the hated. ~Peace Pilgrim

Think about that End Game. There's really no reason to go on suffering. It's okay if what you believed in was destroying lives. I forgive you and hope you find peace within.
END GAME

The monument to me represents the sacrifice that forefathers made for the sanctity of the union. That is all, and to decorate it in propoganda is dishonorable. I believe that the majoruty of funds for war memorials were donations, however I would state it as fact.
http://xrindustries.com xrazorwirex

"I will not think outside any indoctrination, we have decided as a nation to have laws."

What a good little slave; now go back to your stable to bleat to the other sheep….

The plunder came from violence (theft) which is wrong; what you use it for is irrelevant.

But please, keep trying to desperately justify your insane, violent system so that the rational people who read this can see how irrational it really is to support this violence.
END GAME

Thanks Sam for pointing out my short comings. I am well aware that people do not believe the same as I and I am ok with that. I think you have misread me….I just dont like you.

and I am sure your OK with that
Lpviper

Again we return to Bastiat, for he knew you would ask about plunder…

When a portion of wealth passes out of the

hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent,

and without compensation, to him who has not created it,

whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated,

that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly

what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If

the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say

that plunder is still perpetrated, and even, in a social point

of view, under aggravated circumstances. In this case, however, he who profits from the plunder is not responsible

for it; it is the law, the lawgiver, society itself, and

this is where the political danger lies.'

Dig?
END GAME

Razor wire, I was more of a fan of snowball. or the horse.
http://xrindustries.com xrazorwirex

Does it matter when the only ones with power were the pigs?
Lpviper

'The monument to me represents the sacrifice that forefathers made for the sanctity of the union.'

Your representation of the monument is based on a false premise.

A reading of the Federalist Papers reveals clearly that the Founders did not believe in the sanctity of the 'union' at all. They strongly believed in the sovereignty of individuals and the States (I personally disagree with them on the 'sovereignty' of a 'state') as a check against the general government.

Abraham Lincoln changed all that and destroyed the true nature of the Union by force in the 1860s. That is what your 'civil' war monument represents to me.
END GAME

LV

I dig………however if you pay a property tax, you are receiving the right to live in the community. If you dont like it change the law. We can do cirles all night, we are on oppostie ends. I respect your opinion, and you despise mine. I am really OK with that.
END GAME

whether false pretenses or not it was unkown to the soldiers that died. It is and effigy to those who served.

I wouldnt deface a monument dedicated to killed liberty activists out of respect of their sacrifice. I wouldnt be right…

Razor….either way snowball or not the pigs would have power. Govt or not the strong will have power. It is just how you choose your poison
Lpviper

No, End Game, we have the rights, and the government is created to protect them. The government does not create rights. It does not and cannot create anything. That is the major flaw inwhat you are saying.

I don't 'despise' your opinion, I'm just trying to explain with logic why it is flawed. This, to me, is the calling of our time, and it means a lot to me. I am happy to try to convince you, as every man I convince is one fewer to enact tyranny on my vhildren and their children.

It really is that important.
END GAME

LV- Everyone has rights, but who sets them? What you are saying is that their are no formal rights. What if I believe my rights are different or more important than your rights. Who determines?
Zeus

if you pay a property tax, you are receiving the right to live in the community.

No one can give you rights. You already have them and they are unalienable.

If paying taxes bestows some sort of privilege I wouldn't otherwise have, that's another story. If the only privilege is that I won't be thrown in a cage, assaulted or robbed, that's not much of a privilege for a free man.

If you dont like it change the law.

There's no need to beg the state masters for the right to live as free men and women. We just need to live our lives and go about our business as such. Begging or bribing the state into letting us exercise our right to life, liberty and property is a fool's game.
Lpviper

There is no way for you to know what the soldiers did or did not know. Histories have recorded fierce opposition by many Northerners to war against their countrymen for no other purpose than to guard a protective tariff and prevent the rightful secession of those states.

Most of this opposition was quashed by Lincoln, who was one of the most feared and despotic dictators in history. He shut down hundreds of (Northern) opposition newspapers, suspended the Writs of Habeas Corpus without Congressional approval, deported his most vocal opponent (a Representative from Ohio), and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Many did not want to fight for this man. All knew what would happen if they did not. Add to this the crimes of the disgusting Ulysses S. Grant, and that should give you an idea of what I think of that monument
Zeus

Everyone has rights, but who sets them? What you are saying is that their are no formal rights. What if I believe my rights are different or more important than your rights. Who determines?

Logic and reason. Many philosophers have fortunately already traveled this road, End, and figured out how to tell which rights you have, and which you don't. I would highly recommend reading the works of Lysander Spooner but, so as not to bore you, perhaps you should start with the basics:

http://is.gd/4eZaM
Lpviper

Rights are negative. Basically it amounts to you have the right not to be aggressed against, so long as you do no harm to others.

Any perceived rights that conflict with this axiom are not rights, but excuses for aggression, tyranny, or plunder.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

End Game, I am going to quote you here, because a number of posts have passed in the mean time:

"Paul

While unfortunate it is survival of the fit. The above scenario is unfortunate, but regardless one person will lose out in the end. Whether govt gang, or privatley organized."

I wasn't asking about whether they could steal the person's property — they absolutely have the power to do so. I was asking whether it is morally right.

You are right that one person against any gang looking to steal from them will lose out. You're right to note that government is only one way we can have tyranny. Private gangs can be tyrannical too. What I'm proposing is that the "one persons" stand together and oppose the gangs. All of the "one persons", taken together, are far more powerful than any gang, because there are far more people who only want to be left alone than there are people that want to go mug their neighbors.

In a free society, individuals could join together for their common defense. They could also subscribe to services which provide protection from gangs and common criminals. Their combined economic power blows away anything a street gang could put together. It would be not much different than some aspects of police work now — except that it would be funded voluntarily, open to competition, focused on crimes with real victims (their subscribers!), and probably focused on restitution more than jail time.
Lpviper

I gotta hit the hay, folks. This is one of the better discussions I can remember having. I recommend we all go back and re-read it and try to absorb all the points of view contained within, and use them to further our understanding of our fellows.

Thanks for listening, End Game. Maybe I didn't convert you tonight, but remember that I care whether or not I do. I think every person is so important, and I want you to be free, just as I want to be free.

Take Care All
http://www.dooms-day-device.com Puke

Wow! 70 comments so far.

Seems people are confused by this "There is no leader" thing.
jlg

eli rivera is a good man and you freestaters just need to leave him and his family alone. end of story. oh, and thanks for deleting my post on the anti-pot rally blog. i didnt swear once and it got deleted because you guys can't accept another opinion. i didnt know that grown men act so immature about things.
http://newhampshirefreepress.com Kat Kanning

No one in charge?!? What is this, anarchy or something?
Lpviper

Eli Rivera is a manifestation of the perversion of law. I understand the temptation to lick the boot that kicks you. It helps avoid another kick. Problem is, that won't remove the problem of bad law enforced by men who don't understand what law should be, if it is to be codified at all.
Zeus

eli rivera is a good man and you freestaters just need to leave him and his family alone. end of story.

You know, we keep giving Eli The Neckbreaker the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps we've misunderstood him and his intentions and that maybe he's not so bad after all, and yet he keeps disappointing us not only with his violence time and time again, but his revelry in it (i.e. "Louder, LOUDER! They can't hear you [cry out in pain].").

oh, and thanks for deleting my post on the anti-pot rally blog. i didnt swear once and it got deleted because you guys can’t accept another opinion. i didnt know that grown men act so immature about things.

I find it more likely that a person unable to master simple capitalization screwed up their own post rather than someone deleting it.

When you hear the kind of fictions your irrational opponents attribute to you, it's a sobering look into their own psyches. More often than not, they assume everyone is like them and thus attribute to you the kind of wickedness and malfeasance they would perpetrate themselves.

Seeing how difficult it is for such violent people to deal with peaceful people, it sometimes makes me think this whole "peaceful evolution" thing just might work after all… assuming the bloodthirsty, pitchfork-wielding mobs of Keene busybodies, blowhards and bureaucrats don't murder us all first.
Lpviper

I don't know about that, Zeus. People want to be free deep down. Problem is, the temptation to take the easy money is very great, rooted as it is in the human nature of avoiding pain. Working for one's sustenance is a pain, and government in its current form offers people gain without pain. It is immoral, but people take it anyway.

Our job is to make plunder more of a pain than real gain by real labor. It is the challenge of our lifetime, and I doubt that there are many in Keene who genuinely feel inclined to do violence on liberty minded folk. They just haven't wrapped their head around the reasons why there is no such thing as a free lunch. People want to be free. Giving them an understanding of what that really means is our calling. A part of that is teaching people about the nature of law and how moral law protects the liberty of all.
Zeus

Vipe, the longer I live the more I notice that people in general have no principles at all let alone consistent ones. That's why this country is where it is despite having unparalleled historical advantages that should have ended in a society of free and prosperous individuals instead of an illusion of such.

Not only do you have the uphill battle of convincing the statist masses their line of thinking is illogical, immoral and unreasoned but then educate them on the philosophy of liberty, non-aggression principle and so on.

In many cases the reaction is thus:

"Me Krom no like what you say. Krom SMASH!"

We're a long ways away from true liberty but it inevitably has to come just due to the sheer ineptitude of the bureaucrats and politicians screwing up the country beyond repair.
Lpviper

The 'country', to me, is just a concept, Zeus, and imaginary lines drawn on pictures of the world.

Real freedom will not be geopolitical. It will be a choice that each makes for himself.

When it begins to happen in earnest, geopolitical motivations will become moot, because people will put those fictitious considerations behind the implications that governmental action have for their own liberties.

The biggest part of that, imho, is the understanding of mutual liberty. One cannot be free if he also wants to abridge the freedoms of others.

Progress is being made in this regard. I myself had no clue about it as recently as two years ago. How many others besides me have picked up on it in that short span of time? It's only a matter of time before the liberty concept goes viral, and then, things will get very interesting as the state lashes out to protect its monopoly on violence.

But by then, it will be too late, for the people will understand and will ignore the tyrants and their bleatings about the 'common good' and their vision of a 'civilized society'.

The perceived legitimacy of the state and its perverted law is on the clock. It would be best for them to acknowledge their error and step back, but unfortunately, they are too accustomed to having their way, so it will linger for a while before it finally atrophies into irrelevance.
GRAFFITI

Don't believe the whole leaderless thing…

Mr. Big is really Puke and his monkey minions!
freddie

Ian, don't lie, you love that you lead this group of monkeys. You're the one with sound bites and the one with all of the face time. Your the leader of the pot cult. Way to be. You're really going places.

You have your own sort of law within your group and you Ian, are the government.
Zeus

Ian, don’t lie,

Ian has no need to lie. He isn't running for election.

you love that you lead this group of monkeys.

What Ian loves is seeing people stand up for themselves and letting the state bureaucrats and the busybodies know that what a person does with their own body (be it drink alcohol, be a vegetarian, eat greasy hamburgers or smoke a plant) is no one else's business but their own so long as it doesn't harm someone else or their property.

You’re the one with sound bites and the one with all of the face time.

By that logic, Ronald McDonald must be the CEO of McDonald's.

Your the leader of the pot cult. Way to be. You’re really going places.

A "pot cult"? I can't imagine how there could be such a thing considering you're not going to do much "culting" once you're stoned and getting the munchies.

You have your own sort of law within your group and you Ian, are the government.

Now you're just being obtuse. The only law we recognize is the same law the Founding Fathers did i.e. "natural law". Look it up on Wikipedia. The names Locke, Bastiat and Spooner might also be useful in your research.

As for Ian being the government, I'm not aware of him forcing people to give him a portion of their wealth in return for not kidnapping them and putting them in a cage. I'm also not aware of him getting together with others and invading foreign lands in order to steal their wealth and kill their people.

That government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, Ian most certainly doesn't meet that definition so I think you're mistaken on all fronts.

The only honest thing you could possibly say about Ian is that he's very skinny, determined and vocal, none of which are bad things let alone crimes.
freddie

"Look it up on Wikipedia."

That explains alot. Wikipedia is not a credible source. Think what you want but Ian runs the show.

He has just brainwashed you into believing that what you say and do is your own idea. He is very manipulative and eventually it will burn you. You'll see.
Zeus

Wikipedia is more credible that the nightly news which does indeed brainwash people into being scared and obedient tax cattle.

As for Ian brainwashing me, I wasn't aware what a Svengali he was. Is he a mutant, an alien or did he acquire his hypnotic powers from a scientific accident/meteor shower?

Don't click here.
http://www.11at40.com Jim Davidson

Officer Rivera and his family should be afraid. They should be very afraid. They represent brutality and violence. They should be afraid of the people in their neighborhood. The people in government, and their families, should be afraid of the people generally, the people outside government especially.

It is not right for Rivera to smash the face of Hoffman and get away with it. It is not right for Rivera to pepper spray anyone and get away with it. It is not right for Rivera to smash cameras, or put finger prints on lenses, and get away with it.

New Englanders used to tar and feather scum like Judge Burke and Officer Rivera, strip them of their offices, and ride them out of town on rails. New Englanders, in a more festive time, used to shoot redcoats and other authoritarians from behind trees. The bloody trail from Lexington and Concord back to Boston was littered with the dead and wounded British imperial troops who were in Concord to disarm the militia.

So, yes, Rivera's wife's reaction to a crowd on her street obviously upset with her vicious, brutal, nasty, lying husband was a sensible reaction. She sensed that these people had come to her home because of the filthy, evil, horrid things her husband does to peaceful people. And perhaps some of them were armed.

People should be armed. Police should be afraid of them. That's the natural order of things. There are far more people than police, and police are lazy, fat, and stupid. So there is no way for police to protect anyone. Therefore people have to be armed to protect themselves.

On this occasion, the people were having a vigil and carrying candles. On another occasion, other people might be having vigilance and carrying guns and torches. The people who showed up to object to the violent, brutal, unrestrained torturing of their friend by Rivera were, in this case, peaceful, sensitive, and restrained in their protest.

But it need not be that way. Police who live in wood houses should not inspire Molotov cocktails. Sic semper tyrannis.
theKINGofKEENE

YO! END GAME! &all you other knee-jerks, Eli Rivera *tresspassed* on my property, *IN MY HOME*, without lagal authority to do so, threatened me, hurt my elderly widowed mother(caused her exteme emotional distress…), and caused a bogus "Trespass Notice" to be delivered to me, (the little shit slipped it under my back door…), then, after his Lt., Jay DuGuay voided the bogus notice, Rivera & Randy Tefft conspired w/John Arnold to deliver an equally fraudulent *EX PARTE* "Stalking Temporary Order*("STO…), after *STALKING **ME** to deliver it…, then, Tefft & Rivera *CONSPIRED* to fraudulently arrest me on Christmas Eve 2005…No, assholes, a peaceful, candle-light vigil at Eli's & Burkes' homes is ***EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR, & DESERVE***!!!…the feces are hitting the fan, & we've got a near unlimited supply of both fans & feces…We shall never give up in pursuit of justice & Liberty…
PaulO

Harrassing officers at home is a bold move isnt it?

I would not call that harassment. Compare what happened to Eli Rivera to what happened to Rich Paul. He was kidnapped. Or what happened to Kurt Hoffman. Who was truly, in the most objective and moral sense, being harassed?

The law and the democratic process are not my god. I do not worship them. I do not view them as infallible. I do not believe anyone should act unjustly to a fellow child of God for its sake. We are all responsible for our own actions and will be held accountable, if not in this life then in the next.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Freddie, I was a voluntaryist long before I'd ever heard of Ian.

A few years ago I was a conservative. As I seriously considered the long term negative impact of our aggressive foreign policy, and recognized that the vast majority of domestic federal government action greatly overreaches it's original intent, I became a constitutionalist.

I still think a government that obeyed the Constitution would be many, many times better than what we have now, but I also recognize that the constitution does not fully protect natural rights, and does permit the use of aggressive force — most notably for taxes, but also eminent domain, and in other cases.

Ultimately, there is no logical justification for the idea that a government can morally commit acts that would be immoral for any other person or group. There is no magic to the name "government" which places men above the moral law. It is an organization, like any other.

People cannot delegate authority to representatives that they themselves do not have. If I cannot morally steal from you, it does not become moral if my representative does so on my behalf.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, immoral and aggressive behavior does not magically become ok because it is supported by a great number of people, or it is perpetrated by someone wearing a fancy hat, costume, or claiming a title.

Slavery was immoral even when it was supported by the majority, and enshrined in the constitution. Slavery would have been immoral even if every person in the country supported it, except for the one slave. It was immoral because it was a use of aggressive force on an innocent person in order to violate their liberty, and in order to steal from them.

Taxation is not as bad as slavery, but it is fundamentally immoral for the same reasons.

It may be hard to believe, but there was a time when slavery was as popular as taxes are today, and the reaction to abolitionists was as vociferous. It's also interesting to note that the arguments made at that time in support of slavery were remarkably similar to the ones made today in support of taxes.

For example, here's one from apologist William Harper, in 1852:

"The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society."

Replace slavery with taxes, and reduce the quality of the grammar, and you've got the same exact argument I've heard a hundred times in support of statism.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Jim, I get why you're angry, but I suggest that a peaceful way is better. Your rhetoric sounds violent to me – it's the natural human reaction to injustice, but I think we must choose to put that aside, and look more to Gandhi as an example than the American Revolutionaries. I do not want a war, now or ever, and I do believe we can gain freedom by peaceful means.

Besides, most of these people (ok, perhaps not Rivera), are well meaning, well indoctrinated people, who just don't know better. It is a very hard thing to stop, honestly reconsider your viewpoint, and decide to change.

Although Rivera certainly has anger issues, he probably also does not fully realize that what he is doing is wrong. I think it's likely he finds himself angry because the ideas that are being presented to him clash with, and expose the injustice of his little cozy paradigm, which he does not want to reconsider.

This is no excuse, of course, for his actions. But now is the time to peacefully stand for and present what we believe in, not run for the tar and feathers.
Court Poler

Inspired by Sam and a few others, I put together my own little poem:

Cry Me a River, Rivera

You pretended pain and shock

When you saw us on your block.

This one last avenue remained

To address your many scandals.

We mock a brute who whines he's pained

From seeing a few lousy candles.

No one believes that you're afraid–

This happened because you displayed

A pre-pubescent bully's personality.

Cry me a river, Rivera.

You brought this on yourself with your brutality.

The truth, it's often noted, hurts–

But your pain's nothing close to Kurt's.

When you feebly tried to make

Us seem like crooks, then you of course meant

To conceal the rules you break

In your lawless law enforcement.

Unlike you, we have hearts, and this is

Why you tried to cite the Mrs.

Hoping to give heartstrings just a tug.

Cry me a river, Rivera.

She needs to know she's married to a thug.

The world now jeers at what you did–

It's captured in a YouTube vid:

Foaming at the mouth, complaining,

Set to take things all too far.

Your colleagues interfered, restraining

You, just like the beast you are.

Your cruel, routine abominations

Demand more peaceful demonstrations.

Wait and see what else we have in store . . .

Cry me a river, Rivera.

Cry louder! louder! so they hear you more!
lol wut?

That explains alot. Wikipedia is not a credible source."

No, it just explains that you're an imbecile and a poor excuse for a troll. By your logic, Locke, Bastiat, and Spooner must be fictitious characters since they're mentioned in the oh-so-not-credible Wiki. Right, dolt? 'Cause if it's in the Wiki, it must be erroneous! Nevermind reading about those people from other sources; research requires time and thought which is a waste of time! Who'd want to do that when we can rely on the effortless regurgitation of insults, found in a state of blissful mental surrender, and read from only a few lines out of Goebbels' play book.

He has just brainwashed you into believing that what you say and do is your own idea. He is very manipulative and eventually it will burn you. You’ll see.

Oh, how quaint! Ian the Brainwasher Extraordinaire! Beware, he's out to get you! Don't mistake the gentle demeanor and his objection to violence fool you! His demonic horde of pot cultists might go on a Reefer Madness rampage and… gasp… raid your fridge! Quick! Hide your non-perishables! lol
http://www.spam.com ilove_cristinakirchn

If I was the US Attorney in Concord I'd be looking at prosecuting the Free State movement as an ongoing criminal enterprise and adding a "kingpin" sentencing enhancement for Ian. Oh shoot, Ian said he wasn't the leader in a blog post so I guess that won't work, ha ha.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian

Wow, a "kingpin"? I'm honored.
Peacemaker

Ian, I've just decoded your latest dispatch and will be passing it down through all the proper "unofficial" channels so everyone gets a copy. As always, we will those orders to a T and then wait for your next command. In the name of more Liberty, to our Commander and Cheif, our leader, Ian Freeman.

******

But seriously, this is a dream scenario for me to shamelessly promote my parady video (as well as other activists) via "Homeland Security Visits Burning Porcupine" as it was an effort to find this person.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnarchyInYourHead#p/a…
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Dear Ian the thin, supreme ruler of all libertydom, I have sorted all the M&Ms by color, and acquired the shiatsu. Awaiting further orders.

Edit: Oh noes, I posted this in public view! Abort!! Abort!!
http://soundclick.com/thinkliberty thinkliberty

Kingpin as in you are trying to pin him as a king?

King of what? The anarchists? LOL. That's rich.
Peacemaker

For our leader,

I've almost completed the organzatioanal power chart that will inform everyone of their positions and what they can and cannot do per your orders.

I know everyone's excited about attending the underground evening bonfire (secret training) to be held at the eyes only location in Grafton, Nov. 5th.

PS: We just got a truck load of "Jiffy Popcorn" in and need to know who to sort it.
Zeus

You're supposed to encrypt these messages with the new secret decoder rings per the orders of our Glorious Leader, Peace. If they haven't arrived yet, send a carrier pigeon to the usual location.

And remember: ETAOIN SHRDLU CMFGYP WBVKXJ QZ!

Tell no one.
http://nhunderground.com Russell Kanning

the codebook says use template 1 if Bastiat is quoted

2 if Gandhi is referenced

and 77 if wikipedia is going to be our law for the event
Anton Lee

Endgame, please keep it up you're really cracking me up.