.


My musings found the rhythm,
tap, tap, tippity-tap,
military drums of times past,
bleating, pleading their reminder,
across the arid folds of Desert's lap,
the famed Buffalo Soldier passed,
and Infantry regiments patrolled.

Nearby dust devils pick up the tune,
whriling a dirty spun dance,
courting adobe wall remains,
sifting life into an abandoned fort,
as ghosts court us through subtle glance,
our respectful stroll stirring ancient planes,
this brutal relic provided the peace which we count.

Listen carefully for the message,
and strive to see canon's shined brass,
and you may hear ancient Apache song,
and faintly glimpse young Billy ride by,
these frontier people were a sturdy class,
having backbone to believe in right and wrong,
hearty traits lost in modern world gone awry.

Like the crumbled adobe walls,
their ways were far from perfect,
but from their wabi-sabi conviction we glean,
if we continue to ignore our historic calls,
cultural evolution goes stagnant and Nature reject,
for only through inclusion can we transcend to new meme.

 

This blog is a continuation of  On Liberty and Responsibility as discussed in a group in God Pod here  .  Specifically considered in the following discourse is a short article entitled The Myth of Capitalism.


~~~

 

"The country is headed toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and monied incorporations and if this tendency continues it will be the end of freedom and democracy, the few will be ruling and riding over the plundered plowman and the beggar . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  

                                                                        Thomas Jefferson

First, let me point out that from what I can discern, social freedoms and economic freedoms are inseparable. 

Time itself limits us, and causes scarcity.  It is an integral part of nature.  Liberty is having control over one's life, destiny and activities.  In other words, how each of us spends our time in this dimension and what we choose to put our mind, body, and energy.  Since time is limited - is linear - in this dimension, we are forced to live from the start in an environment of linear scarcity.   The very behavior of "acting" is one in which, at any given moment, forces each individual to choose among a range of possible actions.  Once an action has been chosen, we choose not only to expend energy, but also to "spend" a commodity that is absolutely nonrenewable (e.g. cannot be replaced); we have to choose how the limited capital of time is spent.   Worker, manager, politico, independent - one naturally imposed commodity is common to us all - on this earth, in this dimension, we are all equal in the face of time as it applies to us this very moment.  By choosing any one action, we forego any others at this very moment.

Experiencing freedom means we, as individuals, must choose at any given moment among any existing possibilities.  If allowed to make this choice, then the very subjective marginal costs of different actions (and the inverse, inaction) are by necessity of the linear commodity weighed.  From the simple individual choices (writing poetry, reading a book, watching television) to more complex "classic" liberal freedoms outlined in the 18^th Century such as thought, speech, assembly, each of us weigh the costs of partaking of these choices.  You chose to read this very writing, so congratulations, you are a form of a capitalist who is "dooming" democracy.

Looking back upon the experience of North Americans who were the architects of modern democracy and liberty, they espied from George the III that the origin of the state was in the requirement, if not the desire, to tax.  They saw a monarchy that established a monopoly to tax rather than one established to secure the lives and property of the citizens in the society.  Here's a key difference between this fact and what I think is being bandied about by pundits here on Gaia (and many in politics, on both sides of the isle), that a corporate entity does not automatically equate to a monopoly.  Earning income and profit through voluntary exchange and production is not the same as taxation and/or state-sponsored redistribution of wealth.

There is no argument that corporations are collective entities - but they are voluntary collectives; they are entities that are distinct from the owners or founders and allow for a wider and more dispersed ownership of property, increased production, and employment.  The idealistic notion of workers being "equal" with their employer (or firm) would enslave, not liberate, them.  By being part of the ownership, their freedom is curtailed significantly and their risk is increased; they cannot diversify their property and reduce risk by selling part of the ownership and investing elsewhere - they cannot cleanly break and seek employment elsewhere.  This quickly devolves into feudalism, when "ownership" replaces "land" due to a requirement of other "owners" since all are dual or triple hatted as capable workers.  Situations like this are not liberty, but is indenture to the majority (democracy).  The separation of owners, managers, and laborers makes modern liberties possible.  Separating these roles allows the most efficient application of choices and hence utilization given human individual differences, capabilities, and desires.  Indeed, diversification (striation) of labor and competition, along with production and wealth, are in direct proportion increased but the key here is a voluntary connection involving choice.

The founding fathers recognized that the problem with a central government is that it is not a voluntary collective, but that it is in essence a monopoly (of many commodities!) and hence an involuntary collective.  Jefferson's fear of the aristocracy of bankers, as mentioned in the opening quote (this quote chosen as a guess at the true historical root of some of the concerns expressed in this forum) are only possible through the existence of a monopoly (not because they own productive corporations).  Without the direct meddling of a Federal government, banking might very well carry a different face; a face resembling more the "warehousing" and "safekeeping" of property (capital) as opposed to the mad scramble for credit which we witness today.  True free-market banking would earn a majority of "profits" from the business of warehousing capital as opposed to profiting from the lending of capital.

Again, Liberty is inseparable from capital, which is constrained by time, since each individual express social freedoms by calculating the cost and pay-off between different potential actions at any given time.  Without thorough checks and balances (in my blog I have outlined one or two Constitutional checks and balances removed, in a future blog I will cover another one, changed in the 17^th amendment, where the legislature is not an extension of individual states' legislatures by allowing them to choose the two senators, but rather freely elected, which throws democracy to the extreme yet allows majority rule of population centers to choose representation, as opposed to more balanced choices to protect individual liberty as opposed to imposing the rule of the majority), governance can quickly become a fearsome enemy of liberty in restricting the ability of individuals to cooperate voluntarily by introducing misconceptions (tell me the US Federal Government doesn't spin these!) that serve to mislead individuals in their choices and to divide. 

Capitalism is not de-facto the enemy of liberty.  It is monopoly that is the enemy of liberty - whether that monopoly grow out of the market or in the form of the State.  I pose to you - what greater monopoly do we witness in today's markets than the US Federal Government? Ultimately, whether we live free and in harmony with the laws of economics or stumble in the dark thrall of serfdom is an issue of individual responsibility and the character of personal courage.

~~~

 

If you had purchased $1,000 of shares in Delta Airlines one year  ago, you will have $49.00 today.

If you had purchased $1,000 of shares in AIG one year ago, you will have $33.00 today.

If you had purchased $1,000 of shares in Lehman Brothers one year ago, you will have $0.00 today.

But, if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the aluminum cans for recycling refund, you will have received $214.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment plan is to drink heavily & recycle.

It is called the 401-Keg.

Plus, when the market crashes, you are in a much better mental state with which to deal with the "crisis."

It is also good for the enviroment!  Look at this as an "alternative fuel" and transportation option -

A recent study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found that Americans drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year.

That means that, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon at current trends!  If we drink more beer, and then walk to more places, imagine the hydrocarbon emission reduction!

.



Advice on the bailout -


Keep skunks and bankers at a distance. 

                                     ~Author Unknown


Now, if you thought this Western Wisdom was anything other than the remarkable culture that resides in the US west of the Mississippi and east of Californ-Aye-Ay, then I can't help your conclusions.

The more weird things happen around me, the more I learn to appreciate the sage wisdom of the folks who populate my corner of the world.

Listen y'all.  "W" is not a quintensential Westerner.  Got it?  So take any European romanticism and derision of a gun-slinging harsh population and can it, then endeavor seek the tenderness and wisdom that is truly resident among most of the people.

Is it Mythic Purple?  Hell yeah.  At times it can be shades of beige, red, and blue, too.  Remember "transcend and include?"  I didn't think so...



Yup, look again.  That's a cowboy hat on that skunk....

.


As I drove my kids to school today, they were happily singing along to the following words -




I don't want your millions, Mister,
I don't want your diamond ring.
All I want is the right to live, Mister,
Give me back my job again.

Now, I don't want your Rolls-Royce, Mister,
I don't want your pleasure yacht.
All I want's just food for my babies,
Give to me my old job back.

We worked to build this country, Mister,
While you enjoyed a life of ease.
You've stolen all that we built, Mister,
Now our children starve and freeze.

So, I don't want your millions, Mister,
I don't want your diamond ring.
All I want is the right to live, Mister,
Give me back my job again.

Think me dumb if you wish, Mister,
Call me green, or blue, or red.
This one thing I sure know, Mister,
My hungry babies must be fed.

Take the two old parties, Mister,
No difference in them I can see.
But with a Farmer-Labor Party
We could set the people free.

So, I don't want your millions, Mister,
I don't want your diamond ring.
All I want is the right to live, Mister,
Give me back my job again.

~~~~

So, we are in a new era requiring change, say you? 

Think again.

How many of our current problems and "crises" have we encountered before?  How many do we encounter today, yet those who follow us will painfully encounter again?

I learned long ago, that at times you just have to let some folks pee on the fence.  The meaning behind this is embodied in a Western saying:

"There are three kinds of men, The one that learns by reading, The few who learn by observation, and the rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."

What I have learned, teaching and mentoring younger minds on occassion, is that many of them just have to pee on that fence themselves to get it.  Often, entire cultures and/or societies also just have to pee on that fence.

Then there are those few, who learn by observing.  They observe past, present, future - and the entire Kosmos.

The problem, I think, is that we neglect to include as we transcend; we are too arrogant to include, to embody, the lessons of others around us and those who came before us.

Such sad, such devastating, arrogance.

Take a look at the lyrics that start this blog. 

Does, perhaps, "We worked to build this country, Mister,
While you enjoyed a life of ease. You've stolen all that we built, Mister, Now our children starve and freeze. " resonate with the Wall Street (now, for your enjoyment, expanded to world markets) fiasco? 

Does, perhaps, "Take the two old parties, Mister, No difference in them I can see" resonate with the two parties in the US?

Does, perhaps, "Think me dumb if you wish, Mister, Call me green, or blue, or red." resonate with such seemingly arrogant, if not blatantly ethnocentrically convenient, classification systems?  Does it smack specifically of SDi (Spiral Dynamics Integral)?

Indeed, this could easily reflect the society of today.

Yet, it was written in 1931.  Woodie Guthrie wrote this about Jim Garland, the song's author, and the song itself -

"Jim Garland was here in Leadbelly's house, and Jim's wife and their three children. Jim's children were sick lots of the time, and his wife took down with the fogs of TB. Then Jim got down with it, and for a long time he walked and fought it....

Jim got up the strength to play his guitar here, and he tried to tell us with his songs and ballads the stories of the ones that went down fighting. Half a song would be a clear story..., and the other half of the song would be Jim's slogans, his sermons, his plea, his newspaper editorial, his whole appeal for you to come over onto the union side and fight. Jim made up several pieces, I never knew the exact number, I never tried to find out, I never tried to call a verse good or bad, I never had the energy to say that one of his lines needed to be rewritten, another line rubbed out, another one skipped, another one added. I found something bigger and better than all of this is the war that Jim Garland was fighting."
 
~ Woodie Guthrie, "Leadbelly is a Hard Name", American Folksong, New York, 1961, page 11 (originally published in 1947)

Like those that came before me,

"So, I don't want your millions, Mister,
I don't want your diamond ring.
All I want is the right to live, Mister,"

and All I Want, is for all of us to include, transcend, and know - the lessons we have learned, are learning, and will learn in the future will be the same lesson, time and again, as the Kosmos unfolds.

All I Want, beyond what is embodied for me in that song, is to not be the one peeing on the electric fence.


.
 

.

 

Traditions in Shambhala teachings in Tibet,

Warrior code of bushido in Japan,

Ancient Greek warrior scholars,

And knights of chivalry in Europe.

The ancient tradition is not one of blood,

For bloodlines fade in ego-induced bloodbaths.

The ancient tradition is one of Spirit,

For spiritlines are strengthened by character.

King David an example for all to see,

Dropping Goliath when needed with ease,

Singing to Saul and playing the harp,

Balance between mind and body embodied.

The Warrior Poet guides with courage and wisdom,

Immersing themselves in intellectual study and reflection,

Maintaining proficiency in the crafts of warfare,

Always using one extreme to guide the other.

Through life and oft surrounded by death,

The Warrior Poet understands what is precious,

Discerning the relationship of heaven and earth,

And in their mind body balancing this representation.

Gentle in soul yet fierce in spirit,

Unlike the sheep to whom they sing,

and the wolves to whom they do battle,

These dogs of war embody both to protect all.

By facing the horrors of evil,

They are the ombudsman of earthly to heaven,

By writing and singing of ethereal beauty,

They are representatives of heavenly to earth.

Traditions in Shambhala teachings in Tibet,

Warrior code of bushido in Japan,

Ancient Greek warrior scholars,

And knights of chivalry in Europe.

While it is the poet that you espouse to love,

The gentle spiritual model of art and beauty,

It is the warrior that you secretly admire and desire,

To be nearby when you are faced with a Goliath.


.

It is my experience that things in reality very seldom meet the expectations of my perception.  We draw logical conclusions to that which we observe.  As a species, I believe we are hard-wired to apply our massive computing capabilities to predicting outcomes, and this is one of our evolutionary tools for survival.

Really, that which we do know is the inter-relatedness of  life history, ecology, brain size and sociality; we just do not know exactly how these are connected to each other (see Understanding primate brain evolution ).

So, my view that survival by application of our enormous brains to social situations is as good as any.

Yet, the assumptions that we make in any given situation could be completely amiss. 

Sometimes, a girl may not be quite so "silly" for digging a big-assed hole for a tiny goldfish. 

Oh, yeah, and never underestimate the power of being candid in any situation.

~~~

From a first tier perspective, it probably seems that Integral is crazily irrational.  To those in developmental memes of archaic, magical, mythical, and pluralistic, the perceived rational approach of second tier makes little sense.  Similarly, to those in the developmental meme of rational, second tier's homage to spirituality probably appears as grossly irrational. Those based in pluralism seem to find hierarchy embraced by second tier as irrational and immature, if not heretic.

This irrational aspect of Integral is good.  It is natural, and it belongs.

One of the problems with most economic theories is that they originated in rational stages of development, and hence are based on the belief that humans make rational choices.  The problem is, humans, collectively, do not.  In fact, even at the individually they do not make rational choices when it comes to economics.

Back in the 1980s, I attended an economic conference for up and coming High School students (I believe it was a conference for those in advanced placement programs).  Now that I've divulged far to much about myself (age, academic propensities, et cetera), let's look at one of the many experiments (also known as "games") in which we partook.  Some of us were given 20 $1 bills.  We were told that we could keep all or some of the money if we shared it with another student who received no money.  It was up to us with the wad of greenbacks exactly how much we should share, and that as long as the other student accepted our offer, we both would get to keep the agreed upon money.  However, if the other student refused our offer, neither of us would get nary a penny. 

The "logic" or "rationality" behind economic theory would lead economists to expect the individuals in this situation to be "rational".  In this scenario, that I would offer the lowest possible amount ($1) and the other person, recognizing that $1 is greater than nil, would accept that offer.

Apparently, to economists, I am not "rational."  I immediately offered a $10 - $10 split, for the mutual benefit of all, since, after all, I had to hang out with this other student for at least four more days, and I had a reputation - a social standing perception - to uphold.  The split, in other words, in a societal context, was "equitable."

Little did we students know that our little pea brains were being messed with.  Apparently, this "experiment" had been prevalent throughout the 80's and was called the "ultimatum game."  A full three years of this experiment ran, and it became apparent that nearly half of the $20 individuals immediately offered to split the money dead-even (ah-ha, so I wasn't so "irrational" after all!), and in these cases the other party immediately agreed.  Most of the time, when the $20 holder offered $9 or even $8, the other agreed.  The clear cut line was $7, where the other individual would refuse the deal, walk away, and both individuals went away with a sad face since they received nada.

Clearly, something more is going on beyond the "well, something is better than nothing?"  What is indeed going on is a societal sense of "fairness."  At a certain point, the person without the $20 would rather refuse a few free bucks to gain a societal "profit" of punishing the person who violated society's rules of fairness.  For social creatures, this sense - this impulse - is not lacking logic.  This impulse for balance and fairness in social reciprocity is essential.

Essential?  Huh? 

Indeed.  Essential.  That is because those evolutionary forces that gave us the gifts of empathy and social cooperation are the same forces that make us prickly.  Believe me, I know about prickly.  A leading theorist in "moral psychology" from the University of Virginia, Dr. Jonathan Haidt (Associate Professor of social psychology, and author of The Happiness Hypothesis - http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/), states that the emotions with which we are hardwired - vengeance and gratitude - are also paired, if not linked directly.  These paired emotions allowed humans to become the ultra-social, ultra-successful (ultra-integral?) species.  The two are an evolutionary check-and-balance, he points out, since gratitude paves the way for expanding social network and forging new alliances, while vengeance ensures our new allies do not take advantage of the situation.

Now, tell me that pairing gratitude and vengeance is seemingly anything but irrational.

Neurologist Antonio Damasio demonstrates in Descartes' Error:  Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, expands on the irrationality of any being that is completely rational (sorry, Spock, in the end you are irrational, with the exception of your seven year itch period).  In this great book (get it at Amazon here - http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222543845&sr=8-1 or at least read the summary) demonstrates through historic cases and in his own more modern cases that individuals who behave as purely rational beings are, in essence, brain damaged.  He demonstrates conclusively through patients who suffer damage to parts of the brain that control emotions yet retain complete cognition (intellectual) abilities yet most often act socially aberrant.

Great, so now we have a purely rational being, in a social context, is in fact irrational.

How did this come about?  Dario Maestripieri, an evolutionary biologist who specializes in the study of macaque monkeys (check out his article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024144314.htm), maintains that macaque monkeys demonstrate an ability to monitor and maintain the social stature.  In macaque troupes, dropping in the social order can become a matter of survival - or lack thereof.  The socially low monkeys are fringe-livers, where they eat leftovers after the higher-order monkeys (Republicans?) have eaten their fill, and now that we're on the subject of eating, the lower-level monkeys on the fringe serve as bait for predators, protecting the troupe.  It doesn't take a great ape to quickly realize that if an individual can avoid being on the lower tier, which makes them also less "successful" in an evolutionary sense, then they should.  Maestripieri continues to extend the logic to the fact that primates, the social animals that we are, require us to be in tune and constantly monitor social nuances in order to be successful (although when the higher-order members do not pay attention, these fringe monkeys do partake in furtive sex, he admits), a key force for evolutionary success was a small step in brain cc size, but a huge leap for apekind, is expanding intelligence.  Face it.  We are group creatures.  Look no further than the fact that solitary confinement, short of death, is our most severe "punishment" for individuals who do not "behave" (in Integral speak - not behaving according to the right-hand domain rules).

Oh boy.  Reciprocity (fairness) is embedded in us.

We have fairness as an absolute vital axiom in a society.  Green meme rejoices, and if any are reading this (most likely I lost most of them by pointing out the monkeys have a hierarchy), are probably nodding their heads that all are created equal.  Redistribute resources, and get to it soon, they mostly likely will quip.
 

Well, here's where Green (pluralists) begin to deplore me (if not call me names such as "fascist").  I love the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, which is probably fairly apparent in my writing.  Through this adoration, I would like to address a popular misconception.  That misconception is that "all men are created equal." 

Um.  No, they are not.  Even in the Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies, an explanation follows that people are created equal with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  Fairness/reciprocity does not mean "equality."

Genetically, people are different.  This is Nature, which the Creator has offset by unalienable rights.  The brutal fact of the matter is, from an anthropological perspective on evolution, free an equal people never existed.  Frans de Waal writes in Primates and Philosophers that as a species that is descended from creatures that are highly social, namely primates (layman's terms, apes), and have been living in groups since we were conceived (macro conceived, not micro - individual). De Waal states directly "Free and equal people never existed.  Humans started out - if a starting point is discernable at all - as interdependent, bonded, and unequal."

Sorry, folks, the evolutionary process is natural system of inequality.  Little fish are eaten by big fish.  That's a brutal fact of life, and the system the Creator put into motion.

"What?  Did he just use evolution and the Creator in the same thought?!?!?"  Yup.

Let's get back to Haidt, since he wrote that evolutionary natural selection seems to have favored the success of groups (and individuals in those groups) that found the ways (both cultural and by extension genetic) to use Gods in reinforcing societal commitment mechanisms such as cooperation and trust.  Religious beliefs - the God or Gods - provide mechanisms that tamp down our selfish tendencies and bolster our social tendencies, which in turn reinforces this evolutionary morality bred into our species. 

Science has not killed God.  God is quite relevant, and in an irrational way, science is getting around to realizing this point.  It is little wonder that second-tier (integral) embodies elements of spirituality.

So, here we are, hard-wired through several mechanisms with a sense of "fairness" in societal terms.  Remember the $20 game?  The sense of fairness goes beyond individual perceptions of personal violations.  Imagine yourself walking your dog in a school zone with a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.  This is a societal "fairness" to the children in ensuring their lives are spared as they head to school.  You espy a driver not heading the speed limit, and ripping through at 35 miles per hour.  What would you do?  Most folks will walk along, fuming internally, but not doing a damn thing about the situation.  There are, however, a select few who will pause to yell and scold at the driver (admittedly, I'm one of those few).  Perhaps expand this example to someone clearly not handicapped and on a mission to purchase beer pulling into a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store.  Do you fume or go at the driver?  Well, those few "moral" or "fairness" police are vital to society.  De Waal, mentioned above, also looks at macaques monkeys (there they are again, ubiquitous little balls of furry primates) and notes that if the few "moral police" in a social system are removed, hostilities increase throughout the entire troupe.

So, we have not "equality" but a system of "fairness."  We also have a demonstrated requirement for "moral police."  This is probably why Ken Wilber (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/iraq.cfm) sees that a second-tier governance would necessarily prevent first-tier memes from harassing all other memes.  Even in a second tier society, first tier memes exist, since every individual is conceived and born back at beige.  Some level of protection is required from those not evolved from a worldcentric - a second tier that is perhaps more balanced between "vengeance" and "cooperation." 

Some folks, we have even seen it here on Gaia, interpret this requirement as an "integral government, which in form appears no different than many current systems which easily disenfranchise individuals and groups not in compliance with that status quo."

Well, yes.  But, I disagree with the "disenfranchise" piece.  Closer to the truth, perhaps, would be "ensure the fairness in allowing all individuals in society to evolve to the highest level which they desire, and protecting all memes."  This is not "equality," since it probably is not wise to give most first tier memes as free a range as second tier memes.  As KW eloquently highlights " this police force is NOT allowed to tell people what level of consciousness they should be at; it is NOT allowed to govern what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes or dwellings; it is NOT allowed to coerce or intimidate people who are not at the average level of social development. It is, however, allowed to prevent (or punish) those whose public behavior stems from a less-than-worldcentric stance. For example, in the privacy of my own home, if I wish to think about burning at the stake all people who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior, that is my right. However, if I actually shoot you because you do not believe in Jesus, then the State ... can arrest and incarcerate me."

Probably to the dismay of all first tier memes - there apparently will always be a "higher authority", which from the perspective of all those memes, especially higher altitude memes within first tier, is likely completely irrational for any authority to emanate from any meme other than their own.


~~~

~ 

And the Beast came down with intent to reign,

Suggesting with taps upon my window pane,

Tap.  Tap, tap, tippity-tap.  TAP.

A cold reminder falling in this dark rain,

The gloom of clouds a reflection of soul's pain.

Lighting flashed the bright lights of war,

While thunder boomed the evil chants,

Boom.  Crack, crack, crackity-crack.  BOOM!

The wet patina one that those below wore,

Suggesting our lives are nothing more than mere chance.

Borne upon the twilight damp reminder in the morning,

Small droplets cutting to the soul as an ethereal sword,

Schling.  Clank, clank, clankity-clank.  Scchhlinnngg!

To those looking out their sadness lead to mourning,

As the black clouds fed on this and continued their soaring.

Yet one warrior stepped forward despite the attempts to vail,

Knowing doors open to those with joy and courage is allowed,

Clank.  Creak, creak, creakity-creak.  Creak.

Seeing the glory and exhilaration through the gloom's thin veil.

Stepping outward into the rain and proclaiming joy aloud.

In the midst of the storm upward the warrior's hope found ascent,

That the reminder was one of gladness not one of guilt,

Hum.  Ohm, ohm, ohmmy-om.  Hummm.

Conquer the Beast by embracing it came the people's assent,

Inspired by the warrior they lived Life and were gilt.

Rise up to the occasion and turn the Beast with an embrace.