The Self Illusion

Sam Harris has to vowed to publish a book on the self sometime next year. The idea is to show is that self, or a sense of self, or whatever about that, is inherently an illusion. I hope that I would be able to read it and reflect on it. In the meanwhile I have found a rather suitable image that was floating on facebook. The image has a verse from the holy Quran that literally means that "life of this world is nothing except an illusion." It is interesting to note that Sam Harris agrees with the Holy Quran in some sense. It would be interesting to read his argument and to see how he would systematically disagree with religion on this issue, on which the religion basically almost assumes the same position as that of Sam Harris.  This image is a part of my preparation to read, and hope to understand, his upcoming book.

This is the 85th verse of the third surah of the Holy Quran, named surah Al-Imran. Imran (AS) was the father of prophets Musa and Haroon (AS) (Moses and Aaron). Al-Imran means the family of Imran.

 
Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

Worship Places of non-Muslims, Their Rights and Our Obligations

This is the title of a new book by hakeem Tariq Mehmood Chughtai. I have not had a chance to read the book itself. However, excerpts and essays from this book are published in the monthly Ubqari magazine. The author has written this book with tremendous curious inquiry. Examples are taken from the conduct of early Muslims viz a viz non-Muslims. Some parts of the book are also inspired by the writings and findings of Ibn-e-Zeb Bhikaari, who writes a column titled Islam and Tolerance in the monthly Ubqari magazine. Overall the articles are nice and specially thought provoking. In some instance one cannot avoid getting impressed. It is also an attempt to groom Muslims all over the world. 

It is specially very nice to read a few examples. I would really like to quote a couple of them about the disposition of early Muslims regarding non-Islam. Perhaps this would help us in developing nice and better traditions for a better prospective future. Following are the examples:

1 Episode 56 – February, 2011

When Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) sent an army on the expedition of Syria, he addressed the emir of the army: ”You will find a nation which has devoted itself for the worship of Allah (i.e. the Christians). Leave them. I make ten recommendations for you. Do not kill any woman, child, or an old person. Do not cut a fruit bearing tree. Do not ruin a place that is inhabited. Do not slaughter goat or camel without need for eating. Do not burn any oasis. Do not cheat in the property that has been confiscated due to battle. And do not become cowards.

Similarly another example is as follows:

19 Episode 77 – November, 2012

When Ameer-ul-momineen hazrat Umar (RA) went to the church of Kaneesa and the time of prayers approached there, he said to Venice Batareeq, ”I want to offer my prayers.” Batareeq replied, ”Ameer-ul-momineen, you can offer your prayers here.” You (RA) refused to do so. Batareeq went to the church of Constantinople, but you (RA) did not offer your prayers there too. You (RA) offered your prayers outside the church in front of the door. And said to Batareeque that I did not offer the prayers inside the church so that in future Muslims do not capture the church following the logic that Umar (RA) had prayed there. After that you (RA) wrote a letter and gave it to Batareeque. In which it was written, ”Any Muslim cannot pray in the church with Azaan and jamaa (as a group prayer), although he can pray alone.

I find this second example quite impressive. Even if you do not like it, you can refer this to another Muslim you know. Perhaps this might be helpful in some sense. Every little helps!

The cover of the book is quite interesting in itself. It has a mosque, a church, and possibly a synagogue in it, which is a nice symbol of interfaith harmony. The location of Ubqari institute in Lahore is also very interesting. In its neighborhood lies a huge campus of Pakistan's council of churches. The view from the top of the institute in the morning is very nice. Upon looking around one finds a number of  huge churches surrounding the institute from all around.

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

Geopolitical Weekly

We live in a world that is both peaceful and turmoiled at the same time. One moment we hear about a great technological breakthrough in a part of the world and the next moment we hear about a catastrophe in the vicinity of the same area. World's political landscape changes its facade very abruptly. As soon as one tires to catch up with the details of one event, another incident happens to conceal the details of the previous one under the mist of massive information. In order to keep us up with the pace of swiftly changing geopolitical scene, members of StratFor provide us with their geopolitical weekly reports.  In what follows is a reflection of various of StratFor's geopolitical weekly articles that were published over the last decade. The primary reason to write this article is to try to understand the basis of political dynamics of our world.

Around six years ago (possibly in 2007 or 2008), StratFor published an article concerning developments in Russia, China and Iraq. Precisely at that time the US troops were busy in trying to conquer a territory in Iraq. It was possibly a part of their exit strategy. At the same time Russia was gauging up itself to see if it could halt the oil and gas supply to the central Europe (possibly through Belarus) to see if it could achieve any political leverage from such a move. It was possibly a part of Russia's never ending desire, and inherent necessity, to be an expansive hegemony. At the same time Chinese had invented a sort of a thing by which they could destroy shuttles in the outer space. This sort of a thing could be useful in space warfare and could also possibly threaten US domination of world's oceans by challenging them in the space. The article was detailed and in a way provoked a reader loyal to the US to lament its futile and aimless struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article ended in a very nice way, as it normally does, with a catchy phrase from George Friedman, the founder and CEO of StratFor. That was possibly like: In six years the US would regret that while it was fighting for a few streets in Baghdad, it must have thought about its higher stakes. We are probably living in that part of the history now.

Through StratFor we can learn many interesting things about many interesting places, events and phenomena. Through StratFor we learn that why geography necessitates some countries to be expansive and allows a few others to be conveniently adventurous. Russia is an interesting example of an expansive land that is not necessarily so due to its vanity and lust for power, but also due to its geographical constraints. In order to protect itself from foreign intruders it has to expand its borders closer to other countries so that, in time of need, it can fight wars with them in their own territories, closer to their capitals. 

Through StratFor we also learn that why the US is actually not only not an expansive country but also that it does not need to be. It is possibly detrimental for the US to be expansive. The US philosophy is to invade a country, keep it conquered for a while, disrupt its critical infrastructure, such as communications infrastructure, grab the resources and try to get the hell out of the place as soon as the things begin to look bad. Good examples of this are Vietnam and possibly Iraq. 

But these are not the only things we learn from StratFor. It offers us a lot more interesting perspectives and rationale for stimulus various nations have in doing whatever they are doing. The recent US decision to not intervene in Syria is a very good case in this regard. It is quite important to understand the US perspective in this regard. 

The traditional impression in the Muslim world has always been that the US is out to get them. This is so possibly since the early 80s when the US was in a cold war with Russia and had Pakistan and Afghanistan allied to it. The jihad was alright and the relationships were cozy. But there was an air of distrust at least on the Pakistani side. In the Muslim world the US has always been perceived as a villain who is out there to grab resources of technologically impoverished countries no matter what it costed. Incidentally many Muslim countries rich in oil and petroleum resources such as gulf and Arab countries. This explained reasons for keen US interest in those countries and also stimulus for invading Iraq. It is worth emphasizing that the invasion of Iraq was always seen as an attempt to grab Iraqi oil reserves all over the Muslim world. 

Recently the US decided to not to intervene in Syria in wake of the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. It is interesting to see what could have prohibited the US from intervening in Syria this time. 

What happened was that president Obama had announced at some point that it would not interfere directly in Syria until chemical weapons were used. In saying this what he had actually done was that he had raised the bar for its involvement in such a matter. Despite this announcement chemical weapons were allegedly used by the Assad regime. This was possibly an attempt to lure the US into the conflict. And despite some international pressure, particularly from Russia, the US managed to keep away from getting involved in Syria. 

The question is that why did it do this? The answer is provided by StratFor's geopolitical weekly article Obama's tightrope walk, and a series of related reports on Syria. In this article the binary choice that US had in either getting involved or staying away from the conflict in Syria is presented as a moral problem. Use of chemical weapons was a morally bad idea and to stay quiet on this was morally bad on part of the US so something had to be done about this. This is interesting to see as a matter of looking at the American moral landscape. This is also important to understand. The other choice, that is not to interfere in the Syrian conflict, is complicated to look at from an American perspective. However, this has also had a moral perspective. The simplest explanation of this is that the US have been very deeply involved with the Muslim world for more than over a decade. Although they have tried very hard to reform them (for good, from their vantage point) but their efforts have not borne much fruition. As a result a choice was to leave the Syrians on their own and let them evolve while they try to handle their problems themselves. In the article it is also stated very clearly that if the US had gotten involved there would definitely be at least a few deaths and atrocities, as it was inevitable, and that the US would have to bear the blame for all that in the media and elsewhere. As a conclusion, the US abandoned a position of higher morality to choose a position of weaker morality with fewer political consequences and did not get involved in the action. 

This is extremely important to understand and to analyze. Understanding this could have collateral intellectual advantages, even if there weren't any monetary rewards. Specially if the problem of this binary choice is presented to a congregation of Muslims and tell them that the US had to ponder over it for a while to decide which way to go, either no one would believe that the US looked at it from a moral perspective, or people would be disinterested. On the other hand, if you ask people on as to who is messing up Syria, Libya or Egypt, chances are that a large number of Muslims would point to the usual suspect, the US. That is why it is important to at least prolong this discourse a little bit so as to develop a better reflection for the people and also to provide them with more light to reflect upon. It could be good for you to read on irrespective of which part of the world you are from. 

Any idea that the US can act morally in handling conflicts or solving wars in nearly incomprehensible in the Muslim world at least. Moreover, Muslims believe in the superiority of the morality of war of Islam as well as they believe in the superiorities of moralities of other aspects of Islam. But a theological discussion is beyond the scope of this article. The truth is that the US has acted a lot more responsibly in dealing with the episode concerning the chemical weapon attack this time specially as compared to its all the previous interactions and interventions in the Muslim world. This must be appreciated. This precedent could also set a trend that could be better for the future of the whole world. President Barrack Obama and his cabinet must be applauded for this decision.

The question is that why does the US have to intervene and find an intervention morally binding? Good intentions, if any, always get diminished under the smog of negative criticism and the potential animosity that the US invites as a result. This has been answered more comprehensively by George Friedman that there is a moral camp in the US too that finds it imperative to intervene and deal with issues in which oppression is involved and atrocities are inflicted. Irrespective of whether this camp of humanists belongs to the civil society or elsewhere, the camp is important and interesting in its own right. That this camp of humanists is actually humane should be taken for granted on the face value. And this camp should be kept engaged for better appreciating various cultural ideas. Such camps can be useful in bringing about meaningful changes in the overall political climate of our world.

StratFor teaches us many other things too. It is a stated policy of StratFor that they are non-partisan and unbiased in preparing and presenting geopolitical intelligence. They also state that they pledge to do this despite the fact that pure non-partisanship and objectivity are impossible. Of course, if you are a Cuban then most of your loyalties will be Cuba, no matter how much you tend to favor a party that is in conflict with Cuba. This is a decent expectation as well. National pride, patriotism and loyalty are emotions worth cherishing. To this end, StratFor lives up to its stated objectives as much as possible as well. Recently StratFor republished a 2005 article that it published in 2005 concerning possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and its permanent dilemma. The article was reposted in light of the recent death of Ariel Sharon. It is a very detailed and indeed enlightening article. In this article George Friedman admits that jews encroached the lands of Palestinians as an aftermath of the holocaust. George also throws considerable light on aspects such as the Israeli methods of reducing Palestinian presence in Israel, Gaza and elsewhere. This is commendable in its own right. It is commendable specially given that the US has almost unanimously been believed to be a backer of Israel in almost all of the Muslim world. Any acknowledgement from a mainstream American think tank that uses words like "encroachment" to state the nature of, well, encroachment of Palestinian lands by Israelis is not only commendable but also extremely surprising. It would be additionally very nice of StratFor to find a better word for the struggle of Palestinians for this type of extreme oppression. StratFor continues to use the word terrorism to color all sorts of actions of Muslims. Or either the term terrorism should be described more broadly. I think that this comment of mine is self explanatory and does not need any further explanation apart from the fact that I am not advocating terrorism but only asking for its application to be limited to contexts in which it is actually terrorism that is being referred to. Where the oppression against a group of human beings is so extreme that they have to retaliate with unusual means to express their discomfort, the word terrorism should either not be used or it should be stated that it is being used with slightly different connotation. That no matter how minute that difference in connotations is intended would be less meaningful than the expression of the gesture itself. 

StratFor teaches us many more things than geopolitics of conflict, or merely geopolitics itself. Elections don't matter, institutions do is a very enlightening article written by Robert D. Kaplan. Apart from learning that the author knows that prevalence of widespread bribery in countries where institutions are poorly administered, it is nice to know that how the various Western institutions work. It is indeed a very liberating personal experience to have lived in the European countries and to have interacted with their bureaucrats in various offices such as police stations and passport offices. In the Western countries if the state owes you a right, it delivers it you immediately without any further mention or hint of an extraordinary favor that has been done, possibly by going out of the way. Whatever is your right is yours and the personnel feel naturally obliged to deliver it to you irrespective of whether you are affluent or destitute, an orphan or a son of an influential bureaucrat does not matter at all. This is a beauty of the organization of the Western countries and their institution that no amount of admiration can do justice to its elegance. Honesty comes for free in the European countries with a smiling face. We should hope that this remains like this forever. We also hope that it would change in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and India as well.

Another relevant article is about American Public's Indifference to Foreign Affairs. It is a pity to learn that an average American does not even know how to locate various countries on the world map. Michael Moore covered this to some extent in his Fahrenheit 9/11. This article also depicts the same. That americans are merely bothered about what is happening in the world unless it really starts to bother them. As a matter of fact it is a good thing that they do start getting bothered when it needs to be bothered. Otherwise, rest of the world would be at complete and isolated mercy of American foreign policy.

One of the very interesting things about the above mentioned article is that american foreign policy is now bent on taking a more hands-off approach to overseas conflicts. This is incredible.  

StratFor also does not shy away from writing about seemingly minor issues that apparently have no relevance with geopolitics. Have you ever considered that what is the role of a calendar, that possibly only has an aesthetic value at best in our daily life, with the grand geopolitical schemes? StratFor thinks that it does. Read geopolitics of the Gregorian calendar to find the appeal of one calendar system over the others.

In Asian status quo one learns about the nature of conflict between the Japanese and the Chinese. For many people of the world this would be an altogether new thing. They resemble a lot and it is hard to tell apart a Japanese from a Chinese. Their languages also possibly sound similar to the novice. Why then a conflict? But don't Indians and Pakistanis look alike and speak almost the same language?

If you have a decent basis in finance, then new investment platforms raise questions about China's banking system is for you. This is fun to read. At least one develops a view of how financial markets function in wake of hostile banking systems. 

I shall bounce back to where I started this discourse. In the beginning we were talking about StratFor and its prediction of Russia's resurgence as a regional hegemony. Reports Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge and Ukraine and the Little Cold War talk about how Russia is playing its hand in Ukraine. It is also worth noticing that how it affects the Western European countries. It is also quite interesting to read that how the US is shaping its behavior relative to it.

George Friedman used to write very well. He still maintains his tradition. Now StraFor has a whole team of seasoned writers with it. Robert D. Kaplan's articles are very enlightening and shows a picture from different perspectives. 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Achilli Family | Journeys 

Soft Power

If you have decided to read through this article a little bit then surely you must have read the title and you may have found it eye-catching. So lets do a small thought experiment before you go any further with your reading. Just close your eyes for a few seconds and think about what ideas come to your mind regarding the term "soft power". It really depends on the mental associations you may have developed with the term over the course of your life. Let me elaborate a little bit from the point of view of my conscious mind. There are actually two ideas that come to my mind by default as I try to contemplate about the term soft power. 

One way of thinking about soft power is process of dominating a group of people with the application of force, either covertly or overtly, with the help of some useful tools of force, such as military equipment. Moreover, to make use of effective incentives in a way that they are enwrapped in appropriate diplomatic wheedling of the group that is being coerced or motivated. And to do it so effectively that the party being dominated cannot refuse the offers that are being made to them. Clearly, this method of applying force resembles that of the people like mafia and  gang leaders. One thing that is obvious about this way of coercion or motivation (or whatever) is that no matter how much the group that is being dominated may be allured about the beauty of the offers, their decision to accept the deal may still be a function of the underlying threat and its consequences if they did not accept the offer.

The other idea that comes to the mind concerning soft power lacks the use any conventional tools of force. According to this theme a person, or a group of people, is motivated in doing what you want them to do in a way that they also love to do it. This is the theme of the paper titled soft power by Joseph Nye. It is basically a theory to make people want what you want them to do. This is quite obvious and self explanatory. This also makes a lot more sense too. The previous explanation given in the paragraph above is not really of soft power, but actually of hard power made to look like soft power.

This theory of Joseph Nye and his whole paper is very important in many respects. Late Samuel-P-Huntington also made passing references to the concepts of hard and soft powers respectively in his clash of civilizations. It has become quite important to comprehend this theory in order to understand the demands of the era we live in. In his paper Nye also gives rationale for why it is important to apply soft power, as opposed to hard power, when it comes to dominating people.

According to Nye the most important question while defining power is "Power to do What?" According to Nye in our times there would be overlapping yet disparate areas that would define a periphery of their own for exertion of power. For instance, while military remains one institution, economics is another independent institution with its independent power structure and interplay not only with its counterparts across borders but also with other disciplines like military and sports etc. Nye suggests that it would be the complex interplay among all such important institutions that would define and shape the geopolitics of our world. According to Nye this would also shape the geopolitical landscape from the vantage point of hegemony. Lastly, and quite importantly, according to Nye, this need for a complex interplay across important and independent institutions would also constrain the employment of hard-power based solutions. Thus, this would give rise to the need of adopting soft power based solutions. 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Dominic's pics 

Marriage for Beginners

As soon as I got Marriage for Beginners in my hands, I wondered why I should read a book like this specially immediately after reading clash of civilizations.After all both books belong to entirely disparate disciplines. One deals with the institution of marriage and the other is about international affairs and affairs surrounding them. However, I immediately decided to read the book for two reasons in my mind. 

Even though clash of civilizations contains a set of indicators and predictions on as to how various civilizations will interact, and possibly come in conflict, with each other in the future (which is possibly the era we are living in now), it is, nonetheless, a book about civilizations too. In order to understand a civilization it is important to understand its culture and social norms. And I think that marriage is one institution that comprises of a set of rituals through which a culture, and in return, a civilization can be understood fairly easily. 

Marriage for beginners is a marvelous book written by Mary Williams as a guide for newly weds. It covers all the small and deep nitty-gritty details that prospective candidates of marriage may want to know. She has covered almost everything one can think of coming across as a married person. This includes, all the dos and donts, how to cook, how to clean, how to shop, how to window shop, how to make a budget and how to do budget shopping. It also has lost of valuable advice for people getting betrothed. Small emotional aspects like how to live with parents, how to deal with in-laws when they are bad and good, how to have due regards for them when they are being supportive. The book also has quite large tables to assist the reader in planning various things such as budgets and things like that.

It is a very nice book, even though it is quite old (it was written in 1967). It advocates on the adoption of simplicity and austerity in living one's life. To this end, the book has a very nice agenda for grooming people. It is a suitable guide and a family manual for almost any time and era and for any family. It even talks about the role of religion and religious beliefs and rituals on overall happiness in a marriage. Ms Williams has a very peculiar way of conveying her ideas. On the role of religion she says something like that every religious person believes in a heaven and that pursuit of heaven should be made easy for that person on this earth. This comment is both very funny and profound. 

The other, and main, reason why I picked up the book so quickly was that I had a strong idea that it must have been written very nicely. Moreover, and due to this, reading this could be quite useful for improving on reading comprehension and consequently on English. The book is indeed very nicely written. The author has made a very balanced use of vocabulary. The writing style is very nice. And the author also has a very nice expression indeed.

I have to mention that this book was given to me by my mother who was about to give it away in charity (or sell it off as a cheap book) but then she changed her mind just at the spur of the moment. I am happy that she did change her mind.

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  firemedic58 

Will of God

Thinking too much has its own benefits and drawbacks like any other thing. Long time ago I used to have really excessive thinking habits. I used to think about almost any thing. Think about it for the while that if you are thinking for a very prolonged time on things that are seemingly so petty. Just think about it for a while that you restrain your natural spontaneity of carrying out apparently trivial tasks by devoting an additional portion of your thought process to, no matter what you do, to think about additional, and apparently, useless things. For instance, if you are thinking about on as to who has the control of your hands as you type in the keyboard. Or think about something so fruitless as when you are going to blink your eye next time as you read this article. Clearly, if you are trying to acquire conscious control over the timing of your eye blinks and, moreover, also thinking about some could-be consequences of that blink, you have naturally, unnecessarily, restricted yourself and there are many practical disadvantages about that. To name but a few, you have sacrificed your focus, attention and a great deal of enjoyment that you could otherwise have availed if you were not thinking like this. 

But think about it like this that there is a person who is trying to optimize his/her life and wants to take all the steps very carefully. If you are living in a socially perilous, for instance, you may also start thinking like this. Well, of course, you may not think about the consequences of your  each and every eye blink, or even a few of them for that matter, but you would definitely be wary of some other things. For instance, consider that you are living in an area that is highly prone to undergoing a bomb explosion. You will be quite watchful about most of the moves you make. You will be watchful about your surroundings as you go outdoors. And possibly, given to the lack of predictability, you might also wonder about the will of God in your moment by moment experience of life.

One may think that this is quite true about the highly religious people, irrespective of whether which religion they come from. That a religious person would be wary about the will of God in, say, predicting the favorability, or lack thereof, of outcome of things. However, one may argue that an atheist would also wonder about will of God, albeit in other ways, and often also possibly quite critically.

For instance, an atheist or an agnostic, or a student of theology for that matter, may wonder about the will of God in connection with his/her ability to step his/her feet. How did I acquire an ability to step my feet in the first place? That who does it, apart from me? How does it happen? How did I learn to step my feet in the first place? How can I become better at this? And for how long, in the distant future, I would be able to keep on doing this? All of these questions may be considered naive at times and cogent at others. However, they can be posed to pass time in a good way over a cup of tea.  

It may sound like a very naive idea to scribble down one's thoughts like this. However, while we wonder about a topic so esoteric, and apparently pointless, as whether or not we have free will or not, it also make quite a lot of sense to wonder about will of God. After all what the folk out there believe about free will is that human beings have free will and have all the freedom to do whatever pleases them. So why wonder about free will? One of the answers possibly is to dig deep into human personality.

Around a year ago I came across an article by famous Urdu writer and philosopher, lat Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad. Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad was worth listening to always and he was very highly educated and well travelled across the world. He was also extremely well read. The article I found was in his book Zaawiyya. It is a collection of his short stories, inspired by his sensitive experience of life. The article was titled Ahkaam-e-Ilaahi. Its literal meaning in English would perhaps be commandments of God. However, after reading the whole article and appreciating its theme, I would rather call it Mansha-e-Ilaahi, or Will of God in English. The crux of the article is as follows in my own words:

We see weird things happening around us in every day of our life. For instance, we see that a crooked person keeps on climbing the ladder of success as his life progresses (and also keeps on becoming more and more crooked). On the other hand, we also see a very nice, and possibly extremely pious, man drenching further into problems and so on. Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad argued that this phenomenon has been been widely studied both in the West and in the Orient. At the end he argued that West finds alternative reasons for it (such as studying it from different perspectives), oriental people refer to it as the will of God. 

I liked the approach of the writer a lot. Although what he wrote was not universally true, but he did make a point. Allah Karim!

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  eviljohnius