Paris: Neither their War, nor their Peace

  • Posted on: 17 November 2015
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

“We must annihilate the enemies of the Republic… and strip those who besmirch the French spirit of their nationality.”
Manuels Valls, Prime Minister, 14th of November 2015

If one has to recognize a certain continuity of the French Republic, its for sure the continuity of mass murder. From the State Terror of 1793-1794 which gave birth to the word terrorism to the slaughter of the insurgents of 1848 and those of the Commune of 1871; from the colonisation or the deportation of Jews made possible by prior screening and filing to the massacres of Algerian demonstrators in 1961 in the heart of Paris, all French Republics have massacred without counting so that the powerful might continue to dominate and exploit everyone. The French Republic is a mountain of corpses of which the filth that composes the summit has only be able to stay in place by crushing its true enemies, the rebels and revolutionaries who fought for a world of justice and freedom. The “French spirit”, if this enormous stupidity would ever exist, would be a closet filled up until the point of bursting with voices crying for vengeance against the bourgeois, the politicians, the cops, the soldiers and the priests who have trampled them to establish their power.

Ah, but that’s all rubbish from the past, isn’t it? Do the decades of civil participation, commodity integration and generalised dispossessing really made forget those who still preserved a slightest touch of sensibility that firing randomly into the crowd is not an exclusivity of remote terrorists? That since several years the French State is making its great return on the international scene of state terrorism by multiplying its military attacks in the four corners of the globe (Libya, Mali, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Central Africa, Iraq, Syria)? The pretext changes each time, but the reasons stay the same: to maintain control of strategic resources, to win new markets and influence zones, to preserve its interests against competitors, to avoid that insurrections are transformed into experiments of freedom. And if it was still needed, warnings have been given also to avert the indolent that this war logic will not know any territorial limit: the death of a demonstrator last year in Sivens or the bodies riddled with shrapnel in Notre-Dame-des-Landes and in Montabot recall that the offensive grenades in khaki do not hesitate, also not here, to be launched against crowds as to sow terror.

Because what else is terrorism than randomly hitting the crowd with the aim of preserving or conquering power? A bit like the rich do by killing and mutilating daily millions of people on the job in name of the money generated by their exploitation. A bit like the industrialists and their white collar lackeys do by poisoning durably all life on earth. A bit like all the States do who lock up behind four walls and slowly torture those excluded from their commodity paradises and those who rebelled against their laws. A bit like the grrreat democracies who turned the Mediterranean Sea into a cemetery of thousands of undesirables who did wrong by not having the right piece of paper in their pockets. But the peace of the State and of capitalism comes at this price. The peace of the powerful is war against the dominated, on the inside as well on the outside of their borders.

The 13th of November 2015 in Paris, the rule of the game has been respected. They may call themselves Islamic or Republican, Caliphate or Democracy, a State is a State: an authoritarian power whose mass violence applies to all those who do not bow for their sovereign order. One of the principles of all States is to only recognize subjects. Subjects who have to obey the laws dictated from above, it is to say, the exact contrary of free individuals who can self-organize without being commanded and without commanders. From the bombardments of Dresden and Hiroshima to the villages of Vietnam wiped out with napalm or the cities of Syria wrecked by barrels of TNT, States never hesitated in their dirty wars to sacrifice a part of their own population, or of their competitors. By randomly killing Parisian passersby to punish their State, the small soldiers of Daech did nothing else but reproducing the implacable logic of their adversaries. A terrible logic, as terrible as any state power can be.

The state of emergency is declared in France since yesterday, a measure of internal war of a government who places the country in conformity with its politics of international terrorism, is just a step further in the basic practices of any government, aiming to forcibly normalize life, to its institution codification, to its technological standardization. Because what is the State seeing when looking to the future? Economical cracks, mass unemployment, exhaustion of resources, international military conflicts, civil wars, ecological disasters, exodus of populations… In short, he see an ever more unstable world where the poor are ever more numerous and concentrated, a world sweating despair which is becoming a gigantic powder keg, engulfed by tensions of all kinds (social, identitarian, religious). A world in which the lighting of the smallest spark, whatever it might be, should not be tolerated by an ever more totalitarian democracy. So, just as “civil” is another word for “cop”, the “war on terrorism” means above all the war against all those who are breaking away from the ranks of power. To all the deserters of social pacification, to all the deserters of the wars between the powerful and the authoritarians, lets sabotage the National Unity…

A bad subject,
enemy of the Republic and of all States
Paris, 14th of November 2015

Pamphlet spread in Paris, originally published on November 15th 2015.
PDF in French here.

category: 

Comments

Et je veux dat française. *in a bad Texan/Southern accent*

Given that this text was hastily published within 24 hours of the massacre, I guess it's not too bad, even if it's kind of banal. As non-fides said ( http://www.non-fides.fr/?Paris-Ni-de-leur-Guerre-Ni-de-leur ) in its critical introduction to this text, it could have been written 30 years ago or 30 years from now and would have been "Correct".

Although I distributed it (in French) I find it too reactive to dominant ideology and sets up a counter-ideology.

what else is terrorism than randomly hitting the crowd with the aim of preserving or conquering power? A bit like the rich do by killing and mutilating daily millions of people on the job in name of the money generated by their exploitation. A bit like the industrialists and their white collar lackeys do by poisoning durably all life on earth. A bit like all the States do who lock up behind four walls and slowly torture those excluded from their commodity paradises and those who rebelled against their laws. A bit like the grrreat democracies who turned the Mediterranean Sea into a cemetery of thousands of undesirables who did wrong by not having the right piece of paper in their pockets

.

This is silly. Such relativism makes every kind of unnecessary death equivalent, interchangeable. Whilst we have to avoid making a hierarchy of horrendous deaths (with, say, Auschwitz at the top) making an equivalence of capitalist horrors is not merely unstrategic, and excessively emotionally detached, but reduces all critique to "capitalism is horror today, horror yesterday and horror tomorrow" (Lenin). It's as if all precise experience and conditions are as interchangeable as commodities, as if significant differences can be wiped out by a very general critique. It's a rather typical expression of French ultra-leftism which tends to flatten out distinctions in order to maintain a superior theoretician role that always provides the general picture, a picture that remains largely static.

But that quote is not ' reactionary ideology'. Its honesty is basic down to earth fact, which makes it 'correct' unto eternity. It is not silly, maybe you are?
"Preserving or conquering power" is the antithesis of anarchist sentiment. To conquer power non-fides realize the binary relationship which leftist activism feeds, they are just describing the common form of power domination existing in the world today, commodity identity and the ethical justification of wealth as a State's blueprint in maintaining the capitalist ideal of making everyone live by a system of grand lottery whereby 1 in 1000 can hit it rich ; but you gotta work your life away for us and our accomplices, the State, will tax you also, but you will consume and live in slavery for that one chance to succeed, the odds are against you, you're a loser, whereas, the anarchist spontaneously says fuck you, like non-fides do. They're not Marxists, they might seem to be to someone lacking in critical analysis.

You put 'reactionary ideology' in quotes as if this is what I said, but everyone can see I said: "I find it too reactive to dominant ideology and sets up a counter-ideology." Not the same thing at all, particularly as dominant ideology is often reactionary. And something that is "correct unto eternity" misses out everything that is not eternal (eg events, individuals). One might just as well say "the sky is blue".

The rest of what you say is incomprehensible - maybe you forgot to type in a word or 2 - e.g. this about non-fides - "To conquer power non-fides realize the binary relationship which leftist activism feeds". Non-fides are anarchists and have no desire to conquer power, which you then later acknowledge - "the anarchist spontaneously says fuck you, like non-fides do. They're not Marxists, they might seem to be to someone lacking in critical analysis." I know they're not Marxists. What's more, though (along with other sites) they published this text,written by someone unconnected with them, they did so with a critical introduction which to a certain extent covers some of what I said above.

I put it in quotes to cut to the chase, seemed to work, this isn't 'bout linguistic accuracy, its 'bout honesty. OK maybe I read/projected what I thought you were implying and got it wrong, let's leave it at that. It was a reflex action from you describing the quote as "silly ", that's all.

Also, I wouldn't describe the quote as an expression derived from a relativist viewpoint, like compared to what? Slaughter has no benchmark from which to judge from, anyone, the victim or aggressor, the good the bad, what is that but a culturally acquired binary set of values? So, the quote is not silly , its correct, amirite?

I think you shouldn't be wasting keystrokes and reading time with that troll, who is as much unworthy of attention -for the attention whore he is, as Emile.

Entirely agree, though the same old French ultra-left rhetoric isn't just doing that... They're also -by design- omnitting any attempt at understanding the motives, rationality behind every single statist organization's violence, singling out every action as caused by some blurry vapid "capitalism", not even actaully explaining HOW did capitalism did, in fact, caused this horror, more or less directly. Or what connects British, German, French and US imperialism in the Arab-dominated regions with the Takfiri Wahhabis building up, become always stronger and resolved to push their own vision of a pan-islamist State. Or why did Henry Kissinger had been talking about this on CNN on the eve of the attack on the World Trade Center, why Sam Huntington, the master of no one else than Francis Fukuyama, already wrote about such conflict of "civilizations" back in the early '90s, as a new vision of a post-Cold War global conflict. These people are the same Neocons behind the very instrumentalization, financing and training of the mujaheedin and other fanatical Muslim groups all over the ME and northern Africa. Yes, this is rooted in capitalism, but it goes further than that. Just like with Nazis, those people also have a VISION, they have an agenda. This big money isn't just for their villas and sex slaves... it is to fund their operations. And these Takfiri have been a profitable business, not a nonprofit.

So where relativities fail: even though the French government and its BS pretense at a "Republic" has been committing mass murders and violences against immigrants, poor and protesters, its State reason cannot be compared with that of the IS or any other jhadist organization. In its logic, the murder of Remi Fraisse was a "collateral damage" or and "accident". The mass-murder of Algerians by the French state in the early '60s was seen as some necessary massacre to rid the Republic from dangerous enemies. The French police and army cannot be used in a way to commit genocides by design... this would cause way too much internal opposition and discipline issues. Not that they are nicer or more humane people than the jihadists, just that it's not how they were made to be. Historical proof of this, even in the French police you've had some agents who helped Jews away from the execution stadiums.

In the case of the Islamic State and other jihadists, ultra-violence, or the "shock doctrine", is a way to GAIN power. Brutal murders and torture are also the central condition to be in the in-crowd, jsut liek with the SS Totenkopf, and to some extent the CIA.

As the goal is to shock and destabilize the people they perceive as the Enemy (here, it's of course, the PROLES who are not under ther cultist control). So it is the same for their invisible capitalo-fascist benefactors, just as the Bush admin went as far as officially using the concept of "Shock and Awe" through their military operations. Those who have actaulyl studied the history of global capitalism in relation to the ME, especially over the past few decades, will know that these two nefascist political factions -one from the Muslim Middle-Eastern world and the other from the Christian conservative Western world- have been workign together, just liek the Nazi regime with the Muslim nationalist movement in the '30s-40s and also beyond.

No youamnotrite.

The experience of misery is different in different circumstances and if you don't connect to this difference as well as what they have in common, then you don't connect to people's experience, you don't communicate anything other than an eternally "correct" counter-ideology to the dominant ruling class one. The experience of someone having their child machine gunned (or having to hide oneself under dead bodies pouring with blood in order to not be shot) is very obviously different from their child having to go to work or being imprisoned, as the quote implies (even if it adds that the 3 are "a bit like" each other, they are also a lot not like each other). It's lazy thinking - which we all do sometimes (I do, at least) but that's no reason to justify it, especially when it's been written down and therefore not some spontaneous thing one might say in the heat of the moment.

Its gross sentimentality to differentiate between the circumstances that lead to the same net result, connecting between types of misery is a subjective call, you cannot say that 10 yrs in prison is better or worse than 50 lashes of the whip or having ones hand cut off for thieving. Its not as lazy a form of thinking ( I've never been a lazy thinker ) as the argument justifying collateral damage is for the child victims of napalm bombing, and I think this is non-fides unstated point. Relativity to an ideology is not an excuse, and I actually prefer the passion of spontaneity when it is written down in the heat of the moment, that's the essence of poetry, it cuts through all ideological barriers!

I repeat: non-fides did not write this. I repeat: they put it on their site with a critical introduction that includes some of the points I raised above. I repeat: several other sites have also published this, which was clearly written by one person in the 24 hours after the massacre. I repeat: I distributed some copies of this text despite my misgivings.

I shall not respond to your repeated arguments which do not honestly deal with anything I've said - you seem impervious to anything other than what's in your head.

PS
I generally agree with the Anonymous person whose post began with "Entirely agree...", who developed some other points. I should add that if Kissinger said what you said he said in the 90s I'd guess that this was after the Gulf war with Iraq, which some people at that time indicated was part of neoliberalism's crusade to wipe out any forms of materialised ideology that did not conform strictly to commodity logic, in the wake of the fall of East European "communism" (ie state capitalism), which was the dominant previous form of statist ideology that did not conform to neoliberal logic. The Islamic world, with its faith-based form of state power & wage slavery, was a terrain ripe for colonisation by modern commercial Western interests which was a necessary replacement for "communism" as Public Enemy no.1 (even as these neoloiberal mass murderers funded certain Islamist gangs to undermine what at that time were more powerful enemies).

That should read "Sam Huntington" not "Kissinger" (re. what I just said above)

Shitty relativities... no matter how sociopaths like Valls are using the French government for their ugly games, this is another wod than making mass-murder, torture, rape you primary, self-serving official war tactics. What is really fascism? Only Statism turned inside out, coming to terms, open-wide, with its "inner demons" as it unleashes a demonic force against mankind. Evil crooks going after the lesser-evil crooks... I wouldn't mind having Western democratic hypocrisy break open, once and for all, so we can put an end to its States, but here it ain't its political priest class that's being attacked, but its lay people that are the products not the designers of this whole spectacle.

...may still be possible. ;)

Not name!

but it may still be possible! ;)

To dream!

Dream on, baby!

Another world already exists in the negation of the present order. It's there in all the non-hierarchical and anti-hierarchical forms of association. Whether or not "communism" (ie a global organisation of social relations without class, money or states) ever comes to a positive fruition is not the point - living, fighting, arguing, struggling against what exists is the only community/way of living that makes sense, that gives meaning and passion to life, regardless of whether victory is an empty dream or a tiny possibility. The rest is self-destructive cynicism, eternal ego battles, despair, madness, suicide, .

That should read "Sam Huntington" not "Kissinger" (re. what I just said above)

Good point, since Kissinger is a global sythesist, seeking a global superstate which goes beyond cultures and civilizations, with the pipedream of the planetary society. But Huntington's mad theory isn't contradictory with it... It could have been integrated to this grand scheme as dialectical strategy of destroying both "civilizations" (Western Christian vs Muslim Middle-Eastern) with the aim of creating a new unified cultural paradigm.

A friend from Paris writes about this text:
"The text "Neither their war nor their peace 'is certainly typical of French reductionist ideology in " theory ". But, "in practice," we must see why it is so well received in France in libertarian and neo-autonomous milieus: because this reductionism that ignores the criticism of religion, in this case of Islam, tends to suit those opportunists who think they can make contact with suburban Islamised (to varying degrees) youth . It's a recycling, under the current conditions, of the old demagoguery that Maoists (which I used to be !) practiced over forty years ago in the slums of migrant workers: at that time it was Third World nationalism which was ignored using similar pretexts."

well that's just one person's opinion. right?

well your question is just one person's question. right?

I picked up on your lingering Maoist remnants coursing through your mind! I'm avoiding you from now on!

Whilst I am very grateful that you have decided to avoid me from now on, I recommend that you learn how to read, because it might help you respond to what has been written rather than the remnants of thought coursing through your mind seem to want to tell you what has been written regardless of what has in fact been written. What I wrote states quite clearly that this was written by a friend and not by me. Moreover, this friend says clearly that he was a Maoist - in fact he stopped being a Maoist 40 years ago, in his mid-20s.

the quote compares 'actions' on their own, as if each action, terrorist, sovereignist, whatever, is able to have some justifying reason or moral value (positive or negative).

in other words, absolutisms are the foundation of relativism.

in russell means and ward churchill's observation that what is being called 'terrorism' is 'people-pushing-back', the action is no longer 'absolute' as in having positive or negative value-in-itself, but is instead an effort to restore balance to a relational dynamic that is 'out of balance'. such actions arise from relational dynamics, as when one crony group has hijacked all of the water-holes, game-filled thickets, berry patches, fishing holes, grass and grain-filled plains, and shut off access to these essential resources as the colonizers did to the indigenous peoples of north america. when the indigenous tribes could no longer stand watching their children die of starvation, people like Geronimo launched 'push back actions' to break the suffocating stranglehold the colonizers stronghands had around their neck. the push-back action derives from relational context. where is the relational context in this statement?:

"what else is terrorism than randomly hitting the crowd with the aim of preserving or conquering power? A bit like the rich do by killing and mutilating daily millions of people on the job in name of the money generated by their exploitation. A bit like the industrialists and their white collar lackeys do by poisoning durably all life on earth. A bit like all the States do who lock up behind four walls and slowly torture those excluded from their commodity paradises and those who rebelled against their laws. A bit like the grrreat democracies who turned the Mediterranean Sea into a cemetery of thousands of undesirables who did wrong by not having the right piece of paper in their pockets"

'terrorism' can be 'push-back' to restore balance. Robin Hood's emptying of the King's granaries was 'pushback' aimed at restoring relational balance. If Robin Hood succeeded only in slaughtering a bunch of the King's followers, it would still be 'push-back' aimed at restoring relational balance.

on the other hand, terrorist attacks to seize control of the water-holes, game-filled thickets, berry patches, fishing holes, grass and grain-filled plains, and shut off access to these essential resources as the colonizers did to the indigenous peoples of north america, ... is aimed at extorting labour and services and making slaves and prostitutes of others, or possibly a program of cultural genocide [Christian colonizers believed that non-believers did not deserve to live].

The relativism in the quote derives from the absolutism of trying to impute value to pure out-of-context content of the 'what things do' variety [the sound of one hand clapping]. the value we attach to actions-in-themselves is purely subjective;

an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

"the aim of preserving or conquering poweris a context-free proposition. power is not a 'thing-in-itself', it lies in relations. the group that acquires control over essential resources has power over those who are in desperate need of them. if a crony group monopolizes control over access to essential resources, it can make others grovel and suck cock because they don't want their children to starve to death. such power disappears thanks to push-back that restores balance. the push-back may come from protest, but if protest is stone-walled by those who have hijacked monopoly control over essential resources and succeeds only in having protestors killed and imprisoned, then the push-back may grow into terrorism.

terrorizing push-back [ as in 'indians terrorize colonizer settlements'] aimed at rescuing one's children from unnecessary starvation and/or a life of slavery and prostitution controlled by colonizers, does not fit into the category; "the aim of preserving or conquering power.

As Ward Churchill said the day after 9/11, there is 'justice' in the symmetry of balance (and thus in taking the necessary actions to restore balance);

“Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.
.
“You’ve got to learn, ” the line went, “that when you push people around, some people push back.”
As they should. ... As they must. ... And as they undoubtedly will.
.
There is justice in such symmetry”.

in other words, 'relations are all there is' and to impute thing-in-itself subjecthood to 'power' as in "the aim of preserving or conquering power is, as Nietzsche says, 'a great stupidity'.

hmmmmm, yes, yes -- and ISIS is pushing back against French imperialism. Speak truth to power, brother!

it is not really about 'ISIS' and 'French Imperialists'. that is too simple.

beneath the pseudo reality of subjects and verbs, there his a relational reality that is beyond the intellectual idealizations of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar; i.e. beyond 'discursive reason' and it is the physical reality of our natural, actual experience.

this is where 'people get bewitched' when they confuse the 'operative reality' that is in terms of discursive reasoning for 'reality'.

the problem, as nietzsche has pointed out is that we impute 'jumpstart power' to the 'subject'; e.g. 'ISIS' and/or 'The French Republic'.

"The notion of “absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original” is a definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. This “God died around the time of Machiavelli…. Sovereignty was … His earthly replacement.” Walker, R. B. J. and Mendlovitz, Saul H. “Interrogating State Sovereignty.”

insofar as you have people believing in the power of the state or the group, and giving themselves and their actions over to this power, this is where the power will be; i.e. in relational dynamics, not in the 'thing-in-itself'.

The concept of the sovereign state imputes the power to reside in the state, just as the ego imputes the power of a human to reside in the human. this is like saying the power and direction of a sailboat resides in the sailboat when it in fact derives from the relational dynamics the sailboat is uniquely, situationally included in.

the push-back that russell means and ward churchill are talking about is relational influence and it could manifest in all manner of tactics, from reasoned protests to Robin-Hood tactics, Zapatista tactics or takfiri tactics. we know that if we try to pen up people in a reserve where living conditions are intolerable, they may push-back with (a) rhetoric telling us how much they don't like it, (b) arrows up our arse, (c) scalp taking. christians didn't like scalp taking or beheading so the resolved to eliminate all scalp-takers and then something. what happened about the intolerable conditions on the reserve that induced the push-back? still there.

some hot-headed youths may come to the conclusion that extreme tactics are needed, which seems like a good intuition as you are being decimated by cultural genocide and being mocked for your inability to do anything about it.

those bewitched by language assume that the power of groups like Robin Hood's merry band, or ISIS takfiri band, jumpstarts from these groups themselves, from their dark intellectual idealizing. this is just intellectual conceptualizing; i.e. the animating power is relational and is push-back against king's and/or colonizer's push-down.

Western justice is itself bewitched by language; i.e. it attributes full and sole responsibility for violent push-back actions (any actions) to the alleged 'independent being' through whom the push-back action manifests.

the mission of Western justice seekers is simply to eliminate unauthorized agents of violence. this is consistent with the notion that the violence is jumpstart authored by the individual through whom push-back violence manifests. [no wrap around and back to those meting out justice].

this means that the most extreme manifestations of push-back are imputed to be locally incipient in the individuals through which they manifest so that Western justice is blind to the justice in the symmetry of restoring balance, which is very convenient to the sovereigntist colonization that continues to 'push down' people selectively and to extort labours and services from them and/or simply pushes them down in reservations or in disopportunized classes.

Hell yes! Testify brother! Daesh -- I mean Arab indigenous anarchism -- is proud of you.

Can I just interrupt here? There does exist a living modernized version of Semetic tribal mythological belief systems, though they evolved genetically from their paleolithic ancestors, which even in the pre latter ice-age epochs, little remains of any recorded relics. But as Jarred Diamond pointed out, the latitudinal positioning of the northern hemisphere's main continental mass extending from the north pacific to the Atlantic (which isn't romantic at all!), even the early paleolithic inhabitants of the middle-east pre-Sumerian were a polyglot nomadic wish-wash of desperate nomads, the richness of the habitat and the competition between different tribes resembles the latter North American native competition, brutality and warfare. Only on isolated islands have cultures existed with a cumulative data base of knowledge longer than 10,000 years. But back to the topic, the Jewish ritual of Kosher meat preparation is an ancient indigenous rite which ensues the humane death of an animal for human consumption.

another victim of brain damage, it would appear: "humane death of an animal." -- No, idiot, "humane" can only refer to PEOPLE, you know, humans, not animals, which ain't people. Whatever the attitude of the killer, the animal still dies. Stick that in your, er, um, manifesto.

People are animals, an expert in grammar has informed me that the sentence 'The decapitation was a quick and humane end for the suffering Gerbil ' is correct.

Riiiight. But it was only "humane" for the killer. The gerbil knows not "inhumane," "humane" or even "human" behavior. How would you know otherwise? Unless you yourself are a gerbil and know what your fellow creature was thinking at the moment of its execution. No doubt there is a chapter on gerbils stuffed up your, um, manifesto.

Good point, chaps.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
U
D
N
A
R
8
e
Enter the code without spaces.