Sunday, April 5, 2015

"Furious 7" (2015): Movie Review

Taken by Karimelmahalawy
It’s all about family, this one.

The light scent of Spring that waltzed in late in 2015 was blasted away this weekend by a windstorm of exhaust, carbon, screaming rubber and NOS—like only Vin Diesel’s (Dominic Toretto’s) Dodge Charger can spit out. With this chaotic heated haze also comes both the revisiting of established onscreen romances and the reiteration of reinforced iron-hard bromances in “Furious 7” (2015), the latest model of the “Fast and the Furious”.  

The investment in infectiously amusing characters over the past 14 years reaches a timely maturity period in “Furious 7” to save the movie from much criticism, rendering it almost immune from the usual wrath of critics for these types of movies. Especially true following the heart wrenching tragedy that unfairly stole the ever-smiling blue-eyed Paul Walker (Brian O’Conner) from our lives in late 2013.  

True to its first appeal, “Furious 7” does it right by going back to its roots—flashy cars, high-speed tracking shots, cloth shy women, immersive locations, and outrageous stunts (each one outdoing the next by both spectacle and also, unfortunately, ridiculousness). “Furious 7” screenwriter Chris Morgan and horror film director James Wan (“Saw”) also include improved combat scenes—the main highlight featuring Vin Diesel and Jason Statham (Deckard Shaw). Filmed with quick cuts, and an occasional sprinkle of point-of-view frames, at times even viewers are forced to tumble with the onscreen characters and their metal toys—plunging you face first into the dizzying effects of this turbo charged world.

The need for speed is real but the plot is pretty “meh”. In a nutshell: super villain Shaw is on a rampage to avenge his brother via a manhunt of the Furious gang (of course he is), and in an attempt to make the movie contain an added layer of “complexity” we are also given a tech object of desire, the “God’s Eye”, that is being arm wrestled for by a covert US Government agency and Djimon Hounsou (Jakande)—an angry West African dude on a helicopter ready to blast apart LA as if he’s on some midnight can’t-sleep session of GTA 5.      

The formation of the gang, in their recognizably assigned color-coded cars (or other vehicles like the Jeep Wrangler and Bugatti Veyron), reminds one of Transformers and the Autobots, or even possibly of a group of superheroes (hint*)—each with their own unique story to tell and skill to deliver. This all works well and fine, and provides for enough high-speed loud entertainment to keep viewers satisfied. Meanwhile, occasional comic relief is provided by Roman (Tyrese Gibson) and also The Rock who has some great one-liners in there, while baritone Diesel keeps repeating the word “family” every 10 minutes. However, it is disappointing that the logical gaps between plot elements were sometimes as big as Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s biceps. For instance, how does Decker know to keep appearing in the correct place every time? The gang does all that damage in the Middle East and then meet at midnight after blowing up two towers, abusing Royalty and…it goes on. But then again, sigh, you learn to go with it. You’re in for the ride, the speed, the adrenaline and not for the intricacies of structure, logic and synthesis. Buckle up; don’t question—you’ll be fine.

I have an inclination to believe that critics went soft on this movie for sympathy’s sake, and instead turned a blind eye on the overly dramatized acting, stilted dialogue and the cubbyhole of clichés. It reminds one of action movies in the 90’s, and the "The Expendables" (2010). This is what sets apart movies like the Dark Knight trilogy which have equally explosive scenes but far more substance in writing and plot development.

But honestly though, to me, the success of “Furious 7” rides in another special place—in the metanarrative space between Walker’s tragedy and the winding down story of “Furious 7”. The movie almost speaks to us through the screen, as if it knows too and feels our tugging. Throughout the movie we are on pins for Brian’s fate, knowing Walker’s already. The producers handle this tactfully and respectfully without ever evoking too much of this trauma for the audience, presenting Brian as normal as normal can be. But the end-sendoff is indeed, like another critic put it: “poetry”. A graceful sendoff both in terms of writing and symbolic cinematography—that we never truly say goodbye and that each of us has our own road to ride along when the time comes. Eyes in the theater ranged from dry, misty to downright: dam broken!

For those who’ve already seen the movie—you’ll appreciate that while walking out I overheard one girl, between her sniffles, saying “I want to just cut all those damn trees down so I can still see him!” And that’s it, really, sometimes the last taste in your mouth is what can really shape your overall estimation of something. The sendoff to Paul was flawless, and for that we are very forgiving. Regardless of what critics say, this is a movie you won’t want to not see—I know I personally saw it in the theater for Paul’s sake. The curiosity of the human condition propels us in many ways, and this was one of them. “Furious 7” receives a 6.5/10. Adieu.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Risk of Happiness

Remy Sharp - Untold Happiness (flickr)
The defect in happiness is that it fleets, leaks, and seeps. 

Like a bucket with a gun hole at its bottom, the happy liquid escapes, however slowly (or quickly), to ultimately leave one hollow with an empty pail that is ready for the next filling. 

Much of our aspirations tend towards living a happily ever after life. This notion, or abstraction, of the "happily ever after" for the majority of us, was first drilled into our skulls when we were children. The happily ever after nails were screwed in with color, story, song, and dance, all neatly wrapped in the form of fairy tales. Thank Disney for this.

After Cinderella and Snow White were rescued by their dreamy princes they gallop into the horizon to live "happily ever after." With the thud of a closed book, we, the readers, imagine and know only of their happy closure because we see no more, and assume no morewe believe their happiness must be frozen/sealed. Yet, most of the time this happiness only appears as a flash at the very end: the vanishing tail of the fairy tale. The main chunks of these stories tell tales of struggle, sadness and evil. Happiness is the last wrapping we see, or the tied bow that covers the coarse gift. Who is to say that the gift does not come loose, and then unwrap when it is whisked from our sight after the end-page is turned? 

While to think so would be to think beyond the text, we cannot but wonder. We also cannot deny that we see happiness only when the story ends. We know not how long it lasts for. The "ever after" is meant to be a final resting place for the story so that these questions need not be asked. But still, would we believe it until we see it? Have we ever seen happiness last for an ever after? Our best approximation of this is in divinity and the realms of theology that exist beyond our mortal realms where happiness is eternal for those whose souls are blessed. Aka: Heaven.

So then what are we to make of this earthly happiness that we hold now? I'm of the impression that if we understand how happiness works in this life we might be better prepared to live with it and accept it for what it really is. I see it as a wave, ebbing and flowing, coming and going, never here for extended periods of time but always able to return to oneself. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a resting point, or a plateau, that you reach and set camp in. Not in this world anyway.

They say expectation is the root of all heartache. That is, if one has no expectations then one will never be disappointed. That is true. But to have no expectations runs the risk of not aspiring for happiness. With no expectations you will succeed in never being disappointed, but won't you also risk succeeding in never relishing in the joy of anticipated happiness? Think about love here. Love is a risk. The irony of love is that it proclaims to be absolute and ever lasting, but is it? We've seen time and time again how "love", the eternal binding cord that ties two lovers together, 
can come loose. And yet, knowing this, we still love. Why? Because the risk of happiness is worth it. The risk of happiness is that by having it you also expose yourself to the debilitating possibility of losing it and then missing it. Expectations might be the root of all heartaches, but you expect from lovers with faith that they will spare you from those heartbreaks. For if not, then what else?

Commons WikiMedia
So if your bucket of happiness is at its last drop, remember, you still have a bucket. It only needs its next filling. In this world, it will not be forever empty and neither will it be forever full. We carry that bucket with us, and how fast we want to fill it up again is all in our hands. Would you say so? Adieu. 

Saturday, November 29, 2014

AOIS21 Annual Literary Magazine

Nazran Baba, Chief Creative behind the Literartist, was among a handful of artists selected to feature in AOIS21 Publishing, LLC's inaugural yearly literary magazine: "AOIS21 Annual."

The magazine has a wide circulation and describes itself as "a compendium of poetry, short stories, book excerpts, photography and art" that features thirteen contributors from around the world whose works comprise of the 76-page literary magazine.

Copies of the premier issue are available in both digital and print format. Details may be found using the link below:

AOIS21 Publishing is a cloud-based publishing service for authors and readers everywhere, providing key marketing infrastructure, tools and guidance to new authors starting out, and titles that span all genres to entertain every generation of readers.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

INTERROBANG (2014): Music Review

A sonic interrogation with a bang! "INTERROBANG" (2014) by local D.C. artist Navid Azeez (“Navi”) is a potent, purposeful mash-up of quip raps, quick beats, and a whole lot of indie funk. Needling through its musical fabric is a sort of loud lament (both vocal and textual), a longing call, for our attention to focus on the ordinary, all the while using a patchwork of extraordinary deliveries to orchestrate the larger vocal stunt of Navi’s fourth solo EP.

Vividly different from the back-story sounds of “Grayscale” (2010), “ITERROBANG” peels itself apart from the ethnic narratives and drops into a world, or a mode, of hyperrealism. The album aims to poke at the ordinary until the ordinary pops out its extraordinary essence. An English major in college, one finds no lack in analyzing Navi’s source texts for their own verbal mastery. A multitalented Sri Lankan-American hip hop artist by profession, he is also a producer, writer, graphic designer, illustrator, and a co-founder of the Washington DC-based collective/record label: Delegation Music. Note that all the images in this article, and the album cover, are Navi's original artworks.

First and foremost, I must admit—I did learn a new word: interrobang.

in·ter·ro·bang noun \in-ˈter-ə-ˌbaŋ\

Merriam-Webster defines this oddity as “a punctuation mark ‽ designed for use especially at the end of an exclamatory rhetorical question.” True to its semantics, all seven song titles are trite puzzles—left solely for the listener to disentangle. So disentangle we shall then. The verdict?

Navi - El Jefe!? (8.3/10)
Arguably my favorite of the lot, for anyone whose had that eccentric landlord from Hell (pretty much everybody) welcome to your “you get me!” song. The witty lyrics play on a multitude of themes, from economic lingo to pervasively political themes such as rent, real-estate, Morgan Stanley and even the Sandusky ordeal and wiretapping—all the while aiming to portray the landlord as that annoyingly successful all-seer, the One who sees through Febreeze and Lysol. The wild Western music in the background sets the aura for a showdown type narrative, further abetted by Navi’s on and off rapid fire raps which occasionally flit and then slowdown to a borderline mocking, yet infectious chorus that chants “El Jefe!?” This one's definitely a download for that morning commute.

Navi - Expiration Date!? (7/10)
The familiarity is itching, and the drawl in the vocals is somewhat reminiscent of Drake—I know not if that is a good thing or a bad thing—but I personally liked it. Most sentences are almost the length of phrases and the abrupt “I” that interjects the popular Tove Lo’s chorus is well delivered and even better received. Definitely a different track from the rest of the album, and that kind of variety is a good thing.

Navi - Picnibus!?(6.5/10)
If anything this will make one somewhat hungry; and the music in the background takes you to an almost nomadic trance. It reminds me of gypsies and European travel. Not the easiest song to digest from the bunch.

Navi - Alexandra's Clean Jeans!? (7/10)
Sound Cloud notes that “[t]his song is about laundry” but I’m willing to bet a lot that this is anything but. Once again, loyal to the theme, the song draws on a banal object, this time apparel. But the thrust of the song is in the expression of an awkward momentary infatuation that spins into a day dream!? There is a ghoul-like chorus that wraps itself like a mummy around the song and holds it in place. It plays into the adoration theme, like as if Alexandra is Cleopatra—only in this case it is somewhat mocking. Once again though, this song has an interesting story behind it under all that dirty laundry. The lyrics give us some insight but not enough to make any airtight conclusions.

Navi - Dead Man's Things!? (6.7/10)
As the title suggests, this is an investigation into the remains of a personal history that is now covered with dust. The music itself isn’t the main act, since Navi’s vocals alone carry the weight of the track. A bit more musicality may have helped blend the tome-type preachy feel that hovers till the last note. But then again the current somberness, perpetuated by the depressed mellow tunes, perhaps work to create that sound image of stagnation and mechanic narration—you almost see an investigator poring over a dead man’s things, his thoughts becoming the audible rap.

Navi - The Honey Spot!? (8.3/10)
You can’t deny giving merit to all the different elements that congregate to make this song work. The opening's choppy electronic beats and their hypnotic repetition evoke the type of beehive pulp image that make this song work. The lyrics are sexually charged, almost sickly sweet like the nectarous honey they try to ooze out. Overall this release  hits the sweet spot.

Navi - Expiration Date (Fatback Remix!?) (6.2/10)
A darker version of the previous un-remixed track. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t do as much to warrant itself a place in the album, especially when “Expiration Date” itself does such a stellar job on its own. Not really a bad track, but more a question of—why do we need this one again?

Overall, "INTERROBANG" is quite the intriguing mix of tracks, and its true value resides not only in the sound waves but also in the textual ink. Some of these tracks are without doubt already on queue for download to my iPhone. For doing it right "INTERROBANG" earns a solid 7.2/10 in our books. Adieu.

Be sure to have a listen: 

Friday, September 26, 2014

Neighbors (2014): Movie Review

Neighbors Official Poster - Universal Pictures Copyright
The last time I laughed this hard was probably for one of the better “Hangover” movies. In “Neighbors” (2014) Zac Efron (Teddy Sanders) and Seth Rogan (Mac Radner) team up to throw you a bash that is nothing short of epic.

Efron’s performance is solid; and his intentional flaunting of his own chiseled physique only adds to fuel the mild envy of the audience. After hearing the calls for Seth Rogan to take on a different role from all his ever similar movies—especially audible from the meta-criticisms hurled by his fellow cast members in “This Is the End” (2013)—we see this manifest, somewhat. While different from the typical “Pineapple Express” (2008) type roles he usually puts on, he hasn’t exactly diverged from his stoner days altogether. Here he is more of a husband stoner, really, as the remnants from his foggy days still cling to him like a smoker’s breath. It really is Rose Byrne (Kelly Radner) who blindsides us all with her laugh-out-loud comic chops. Her infectious Aussie accent coupled with her quirky lines and slapstick stunts give her character some well-earned comedic respect.

Directed by Nicholas Stoller, and written by Andrew Cohen and Brendan O’Brien, the plot is as follows: A young suburban couple just moved into a perfect neighborhood and plan on fitting into their quintessential yuppie lifestyle and age happily ever after into the American Dream until—the Greeks descend! Yes, of course, next to them in move a fraternity led by the alpha stud Efron and his henchmen, with their Delta, Beta, Gamma letter cutouts and all.

Commons - Wikipedia
It’s an intellectually non-taxing comedy, rolled tight with reams of slapstick humor. Sometimes it gets so ridiculous, and so outrageous, that we don’t even question the logic because the thunderous waves of laughter ram the theater and fill in for all the lack of reason. Interestingly, the movie tiptoes along the border of the generational divide, swaying between Generation X and Generation Y by picking two age groups of characters who are not too far apart from another: so much so that they almost recognize themselves in one another. It briefly stumbles into the terrain of seriousness, however, when it reflects on the brevity of college life and that lifestyle—that the frat’s lifespan is as short as the major that sustains it. For those who think otherwise, they are in for a rude awakening as with the case of Teddy.

Commons - Wikimedia
As with any fraternity-type movie the need to play on male homoerotic desire is high, and that card is well erected, stretching all throughout the movie and then doused with typical college accompaniments of binge drinking, pledges, rush, sex and all that good college stuff. Scene after scene the movie builds up well, from funny to funnier, with a plot line that knows oh too well how to steer away from stupid.

Rogan’s dopey antics and Efron’s self obsessed airheaded mantra huddle  at the core of this movie. Around this nucleus, the story is secured by the awkward bandwagon cast seen by the likes of the bumbling Ike Barinholtz (Jimmy); the dashing Dave Franco (Pete)—who injects the lessons learnt tingle of the movie; and the gorgeous Halston Sage (Brooke) who literally appears to be the living embodiment of every jock’s dream girl.

I loved this movie mostly because it was all good fun. It was laugh out loud college humor with a good looking bunch that can be aesthetically appealing and still not too dumb to not tell you a good story. For this and more “Neighbors” graduates with first class honors with an 8.8/10. Adieu.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

The Literartist Hits 50,000 Views!

Will keep this real short.

I honestly didn’t think I’d reach this milestone anytime soon. I also hadn’t set a timeframe for myself when I began because The Literartist bubbled from my own self-interests, particularly the need to express myself. Along the way, however, article after article, I noticed that my writing seemed to trickle its way down to certain audiences who wanted more. I still find it hilarious that my most popular post to date, the spine of this blog really, is my review of a Beyoncé song—"The Best Thing I Never Had" with 10,636 views alone. The month I released my critique on Queen B was the month I realized that a couple of hidden literary engines, buried deep inside the Literartist’s vaults, had suddenly roared to life. Even more enlightening is knowing where my readers are coming from. Sri Lanka, my home country, accounts for less than 6% of total readership; while curiously, this site has attracted readers from a 157 countries to date including Israel, Iceland, Belize, Sudan, and even one visit each from Rwanda and Burma (Myanmar).

I express my sincerest gratitude to you, the avid reader, for helping The Literartist hike through its ongoing journey of expression. Some of you have been with me and “it” from the start, and some of you are reading this announcement as your very first post. Regardless, I thank you for your visit(s) and for your support. I encourage you to sign up for updates on the top left via email, and to also become members and follow the site using your Google/other accounts (scroll down to the Followers widget on the left). I also pledge to you that together we will make this milestone the stepping stone for sprinting to greater heights. There are a lot more treats coming your way in the form of articles, reviews, pages, and interactive user interfaces via social media. Feedback is always welcome and encouraged. Tell me what you like, and what you don’t, that which you want and that which you won’t. Once again, THANK YOU dear reader. Without you this would not be this. You are truly my Literaudience. So read on! Adieu.

Monday, September 8, 2014

To Kill Another Person

How does a human rip the pumping life out of another? And then have the conscience to toss that victim's sacred soul into the air like some rag cloth?

Knife - PublicDomainPictures by Pixabay
Why is this act so inconceivable to me, to you, to us? Is it that we were brought up right, that we are so anchored down by empathy, ethics and morality to feel so alien when pushed up against this barbaric idea? Or have we not yet been confronted with the possibility? Even if we ever were, I still think we would emerge from the trial the greater person, victoriously hoisting our righter choice: to save.

So if the problem, then, is not "us", it has to be "them". The irony is that the "them" is a conjoined part of our larger "us". They breathe the same air as you and me, and occupy the same physical spaces on this one finite Earth. Yet between us and them dwells difference. Why?

Politicians become killers, their hands sticky with blood, when they bless wars. Soldiers turn killers when they jog into the thick of battle. Militants ripen more killers when they renegade against their foes. And we, the baffled harmless bystanders, become paint scabs on walls, watching with wide eyes, while we crack from disbelief as we witness it: The darkest nature of human nature—the ability to kill.

Commons Wikimedia 
Did Colonel Tibbets, the pilot of Enola Gay, really know what he had nesting in his undercarriage as he cruised through the strong icy headwind before dropping Little Boy at 08:15 A.M. on Hiroshima: 80,000 people dead. When a psycho ex-wife revengefully stabs her husband, does she know she is shutting off his breath as her knife twists in and out, slicing gut, muscle, and artery, bleeding the soul. 1 dead.  When a few individuals of a roused up mob in Aluthgama open fire on their own Sri Lankans and their bullets sear through bone, marrow, and skull, do they know they’ve robbed the lives of their victims: 3 dead. When Hamas launches a cluster of rockets that are vaporized by the Iron Dome, and when Israel's jets streak through the breaking dawn, raining fire bombs on a dome-less wedged strip, do they blink twice from their actions? 2000+ dead.

Humans have killed, are killing, and will keep killing humans. But why, damn it!?

A large existential question to wrestle with, and one that cannot be pinned down here. It is like trying to open Pandora's box to retrieve a precious truth soaked with reason. Because we cannot open it in this blog, this is more like sinking your arm into the box to scoop out one serving of truth so that we can then ladle it out, onto this article, to create meaning. My hope is that the essence of truth can flavor the whole.

Religiously, human acts are ordered to be pristine. The Bible remarks that "You shall not murder" (Matthew 5:21). The Torah specifies that "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). The Veda that "you must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever” (Yajur Veda 12.32). In Buddhism, of the Five Precepts the first is “No Killing”. Likewise, the Quran's elucidates that "whoever kills a soul... - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely" (5:32).

Tree Bark Texture - Deviantart
As a young adult I never understood what it meant when it said "it is as if he had slain mankind entirely". I thought it was being rhetorical or melodramatic until I heard an explanation. It warns of how the death of the one leads to the death of entire generations. Generations that could have been but will now never be. For example, that the murder of a young man prevents his child(ren) from being born, which then prevents his offspring's offspring from being born and so on. When the initial branch is cut, the bloodline meant to course through future branches will never flow. In essence, the killing of the one is the killing of the sacred lineage of humanity.

So why do we kill? The motives are many. Here are some broad strokes I've copied from others' writings. I take no credit for their work or their research. The remainder of this article contains direct extractions from two sources that I found to be very interesting and accessible. I have condensed them for the interest of time but their full versions can be read by clicking the original links below.

The first is from the writings of Dr. Sohail, who notes that unlike animals, who kill only in self defense or when they are hungry, humans can display malignant violence (which means humans add meanings to their violence). In his words:

If we review human murders we can classify them into the following seven groups based on emotional, social, religious, economic or political motivation:



Those who kill strangers, we call them serial killers and mass murderers. Serial killers, who were usually physically, emotionally and sexually abused as children, became revengeful against a particular group, be they blacks or women, gays or Hispanics, whom they killed indiscriminately until they were caught by police. Many such serial killers have psychopathic and sociopathic personalities.


As more and more people move from villages to cities and adopt an urban lifestyle, they face the pains of migration, social alienation and unemployment and some of them become involved in violent gangs. It is fascinating how these gangs provide a sense of identity and belonging to young men and women who feel lost, confused and isolated in big cities.


Some suffer from schizophrenia, manic depressive illness and paranoid psychosis. When these emotionally disturbed people feel threatened and attacked, they may think they need to kill before they are killed. Such people, rather than going to prison, are sent to hospitals for psychiatric treatment.

Harvest of Death by Family Tree Magazine

As nationalism became popular in the West, states created national armies. Over the centuries, soldiers in the uniform of one country killed only the soldiers of the enemy army. As guerrilla war became popular, both sides have been killing innocent civillians. Some call it using human shields while others call it collateral damage. Human beings can be executed by their own governments, under capital punishment laws ordered by the courts. These are murders committed by legalized state violence.


Some of those killings are done to create theocratic states. Many such murders are ordered by religious leaders who have charismatic and cultish personalities.


In the recent past, governments have been sending their armies to other countries and invading sovereign states in order to topple their governments; they have killed innocent civilians and then rationalized their murders in the name of democracy, human rights and freedom. We are all aware that they are economic wars aimed at establishing the aggressor’s military presence all over the world, selling weapons and ensuring access to the conquered countries’ resources.

Similarly, “How Stuff” (an unconventional choice of a source, I know) also gives us further insight into the condition of violent consciousness. They write that:

A person with antisocial personality disorder feels no empathy toward others. This psychological designation includes people we call psychopaths and sociopaths. They feel very little emotion at all and may seek out dangerous or thrilling situations to get an emotional response. They tend to be deceitful and feel no shame or guilt for misleading others. While they may recognize right from wrong, they may not care about the distinction. Many serial killers and mass murderers fall into this designation -- they kill because they lack the inhibitions and empathy the rest of us possess.

What about acts of genocide? How do societies justify wiping out an entire subsection of people? According to a hypothesis posed by Ervin Staub, genocide is a result of a combination of environmental hardships and psychological coping. Staub suggests that when times are hard, people look for an excuse or scapegoat. That can include identifying a subsection of the population as being responsible for the hardship the community experiences. Wiping out that population is a way to cope with the hardship.

What about the rest of us? What could drive us to kill? Since our decisions are based upon both emotions and reason, we can sometimes favor one over the other. In emotionally charged situations, we may allow ourselves to act impulsively, ignoring rationality. These so-called crimes of passion can happen between people with strong emotional bonds. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 30 percent of all female murder victims were killed by their spouses. Another 18.3 percent were killed by ex-spouses. Only 8.7 percent of all female victims were killed by a stranger [source: Bureau of Justice Statistics].

Peace Please by IAP Community
It is sad to realize that violent consciousness is on the rise and that the borders between just and unjust wars have blurred. Even in the 21st century we have not risen above a tribal mentality. I am afraid that if we do not develop peace consciousness and do not feel compassion for all of humanity, we might commit collective suicide and may not evolve to the next stage of human evolution.

With all that said, I'll leave you with this. I love being left alone in peace. I think others would too. Peace people, peace. Adieu.

Text extracts from: