Not as ugly as your mom *huarr huarr huarr*

Sounds amazing

Behold, a pale horse

Incarnations of Immortality was a great series in lots of ways. Shame Piers Anthony turned out to have so many issues. :/

I wish that it was true that war was the last resort of those who have nothing else. But it's not. War is just politics through non political means. It's the poor dying for the rich, or for religion, or for those who control them.

War is raw and costly dealings with the reaper of souls

The first qoute is actually "Those who trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security" -Benjamin Franklin

Ironically this rabbit hole has so far led me to Dawson's Christian

I’m in the same boat! It’s been a great dive.

So the same story mate 😅

Same and I am Here For It

Tale as old as time it would seem

I choose to also interpret it as "the son is also a warrior," meaning that a person can be both constructive and destructive

@@candiman4243that makes a lot more sense. That particular verse was confusing me. Seemed a cheap filler but your interpretation makes more sense.

Yo just wanted to say your username is great.

@@Soundwave._ Thanks, I appreciate it! Don't forget to hydrate, you beautiful bean :)

@@TreespeakerOfTheLand Right back atcha mate

fi was short of fidelis. what sto is short of?

@@EllAntares Sto means "I stand", thus the name means "I always stand". Also, I since changed my name from Solace the Satanist Girl. Just for the record :P

There's a BBC iirc interview with a Palestinian rebel that stuck with me. Journalist asks him why he doesn't make peace, stop fighting, He asks if he means for him to surrender, accept the status quo, and the interviewer says surely that is better than all the death and suffering the fighting causes His reply was that to them, life without freedom on their own lands is not worth living

I have always thought something similar. The Man appeals to the Old God of Knowledge and Wisdom assuming that those will be the key to Peace. The Old God reminds the Man of what he has forgotten, that the Old God is also a God of War. The Old God removes all Five causes and eventually the Man begs for release from his wish. The Old God restores only Four and bids the Man to remember this. Of course, Man will once again forget this Knowledge and Wisdom as he himself restores the Fifth. I feel the key here is the reference to 'Four of Five'. The Man and the Old God are not referencing the same 'Four'.

@@sabotabby3372 Ghassan Kanafani of the Poopular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Why not just talk? No. I have never seen any talk between a colonialist and a national liberation movement But despite this, why not talk? Talk about what? Talk about the possibility of not fighting Talk about stop fighting, why? Talk to stop fight to stop the death and the misery, the destruction and the pain The misery and the destruction and the pain and the death of whom? Of Palestinians. Of Israelis. Of Arabs Of the Palestinian people who are uprooted, thrown in the camps, living in starvation, killed for twenty years and forbidden to use even the name "Palestinians"? They are better that way than dead though Maybe to you. But to us, it's not

@@ThePodVon Quite possible. Though the old man himself is listing his 4 when he laments the peace the god created. The one he isn't "missing" is the war "because of some kings lies" . Which is most likely the one thing humanity itself will bring back in time. Then again, one could also wonder what cause of war is the one the man sees as able to appease the dead. Life in itself or freedom as something precious ? depending on the answer, the song can shift somewhat in its possible interpretations.

That’s just human nature

Which generation? I am between 15 and 25, and I am taking a class in classical mythology (Greek and Roman mythology) and love learning about differences in mythology and religions. I think it's more the older generation discourages us from looking at things that are "fables" because its "not real". Yet it affects history so much, same with religion.

@@juliannedewitt4288 no its about understanding the human condition. We will always fight and make war, without that drive for freedom we will not progress

Old music is way better History is the best, i like mythology and religion stuff aswell since it links into history

I'm between 15 and 25 as well and I really enjoy talking about and analyzing old religions and myths, particularly the greek and roman ones. I am not religious myself though, beyond a vague sense of 'everything comes from something and everything goes back to it once it dies'.

If you like leslie fishs' work here, you should look up filk music. You'll find a lot of her stuff, and a lot more artists that you may enjoy.

That would be a beautiful interpretation but I doubt is the intent and certainly not how I interpreted it. I saw it that the first Four reasons were within the power of the Gods, but the Fifth was purely a creation of Man himself and not within their power to permanently abolish. Man acknowledged the Five causes of War and deemed Four entirely inadequate and thus asked for Peace; and so the Old God took away all the causes of War, including the one he himself was the God of and the one he had no power over as a consequence. The One Lord simply had no need for the Man created 'Lies of Kings' once he controlled the Four God given causes of War. I believe the Old God to be a god of Knowledge, Wisdom, and Freedom. We speak casually of 'Painful Truths' but the hardest one is that Freedom has a Price.

@@ThePodVon It's specifically the author's intent that The Old God is a representation of all the gods of war of the past, Ares, Mars, Thor, Tyr, Perun and more.

Glad you liked it! Yup, there are two versions of the album. I just put the "full" version back on Spotify a few months back. -- Eli

@@lesliefish4753 oh ive followed you on facebook! Im happy you replied!

Understanding terrible truths (such as the necessity of war), is still wisdom, but since those truths are in fact terrible, there's no joy in that wisdom

I will also say, sometimes wisdom is just understanding that the answer you've found, even if it's not a great answer, is the best one currently available. And that also is not a realization that is filled with joy either. But sometimes an important one.

Yes pacifism is no virtue But weakness in disguise

@@gewuerzwanze5627 Pacifism is a virtue, but not everyone's virtue.

Damn right!

@@tantamounted, pacifism is not a virtue, and only leaves the innocent defenseless

Pacifism plus militancy is a necessary balance.

I think you missed the point of the song. War isn't good, in fact its contemptible. But without war we would be slaves to tyranny, and freedom is worth killing and dying for.

"Killing tyrants is based" - Leslie Fish

@@OspreyKnightso…it’s good. Considering that in such a sense, war is the equaliser and ability by which man remains free.

@@OspreyKnight That means it's good. Chemotherapy is good even though it makes you sick.

​@@Florp777 I think this is more of a semantic argument. I don't think of good or bad as right and wrong. I would say that having liberty and freedom is good and tyranny is bad. However in a situation where ultimate survival(avoiding extinction of a group) depends on tyranny, then it is better to have a tyrant until the situation has passed. It is the right thing to do in that moment to do evil. As a very simple example. Rule of law. Law and rulers inherently oppress natural rights like the right to steal and the right to kill. The situation is that society would struggle to function and other rights would be damaged without that oppression. Its fine if we're a tiny village or hunter gatherer society, not so much if we want to develop the technology to leave the planet. However once we were to leave the planet, assuming we can solve individual scarcity and manufacturing, then the situation where we need that oppression passes and we can return to tiny village or hunter gatherer style of society. Right and wrong are paths to the goal. Good, Bad, and Better are moral judgements on actions, with Better being the goal we can never reach.

Oh wow - do you sing her songs, or have you done videos of them, too? Would love to see anything you've posted.

you can't have freedom while denying the people's rights

No, the one reason is presumably life. Since the line following that one right after in the song is ‘are not enough to please the dead’. Which implies that the man believes that as long as people are killed war is wrong.

@@jameskowanko7574 This, the first half is "only defense of life is worth waring for" The second half is realizing the other 3 causes he might regret (freedom, wealth, land) are worth fighting for sometimes at the cost of life, though neither side defends "some kings lies" all the kings lies that might exist on some level come from the other 4, for though there were no lords in the immediacy as power structures redeveloped (what humans do) the kings lies too would return.

@@janehrahan5116 "we starve and die under his command"

The god explicitly removed ALL FIVE of war's sources, no trickery required

A little late,but the message is basically that war is necessary for freedom.

Me too

She does and go forth and conquer writing music. Trust me, she will be interested in hearing your songs.

@@chriswhittle4564 aw i write books and stories not songs but thank you :D

Well, politicians often lie to the public so they can get all the votes they want. That's a really harsh reality of life. We can't really get away with it, y'know.

For life was not removed

All were removed. Then all but "some king's lies" were given back.

That was my impression, but we still war over king's lies....@@frantisekvrana3902

@@frantisekvrana3902 No, all but Life was given back. The people who had already died were dead.

The thing that the god could not give back is Life. The people who had died under the honest supreme ruler were already dead and could not be restored. Also, the war that resulted from the 4 being given back would end many lives. When the man initially says "four of those five...are not enough to appease the dead," the one he is leaving out is Life--because being returned to life would obviously appease the dead. When the god says "four of those five you may still regret," the one he is leaving out is "some king's lies." No one wants to fight a war for a king's lies, but Wealth, Land, Freedom, and Life are all things that people are willing to fight for.

​​@@celiamalm129 He said life is one of the sources of war. And when he said he would give back 4 of the five sources of war, it depends on how you interpret life as a source. Is it the value of life and to preserve life? Or is it life itself which can cause war? If it is the prior, the old god likely would have given that back. Despite dying and starving under the king, they did not treat life as a source of war because that was part of the deal and could not. Freedom seems like it would factor in here, and in a sense it does. Freedom is typically defined as freedom of something or from something. If you cannot declare your freedom from anything, you can be enslaved by anything. So freedom is kind of broad and is usually paired with explanations as to what you are freed from. Because freedom itself as a word is far too broad. It needs to have a cultural, societal, explicit or implicit elaboration. Therefore, depending on the nature of the restrictions as part of the deal, well it can vary... If it means that freedom itself, whatever that may be, simply cannot be used as the only excuse to wage a war, then perhaps that means that life is an appropriate excuse to wage war. So from the human's perspective, freedom would be a selfish reason to wage war, unless it had to do with freedom from death because the ultimate prioritization here is an attempt to minimize death and maximize life. So this would work as some kind of overriding factor, where freedom itself is deemed as unworthy a cause to wage war, unless it is multifaceted and considers the reason of life. Of course another interpretation could be, that because freedom from death is life, it could be that the restriction on freedom as a source for war, could function in a way that makes it so that life as a source for war simply cannot ever be brought to fruition because in this case, an aspect of the broad term freedom intermingles with the desire for life. But since the restriction states that war cannot be waged for the cause of freedom, this means that it cannot be waged for the cause of life. In this particular song, This is represented by an incompetent or cruel rule, in which the aspect of freedom is kind of straightforward here. But you can see how these two intermingle within the song. After there is forced peace, there is just as much, if not more death due to other sources such as starvation. The desire then is for freedom from said factors, but no one can wage war for the cause of freedom. So would this mean that the goal of preserving life could not be achieved because wars cannot be waged for the cause of freedom, or, do the restrictions work in a different way which I already explained would be that the source of life would override any restrictions regarding freedom, and even if freedom could be associated with the war for life, it is not the highest exalted reason, therefore is simply overridden and does not play in as a factor? Or, as I also explained, are the restrictions like, if one of the boxes are checked that aren't justified, the whole thing is unjustified? Can you not wage war if any of the categories are part of the cause for war? In that case, if the cause for freedom happens to align with your cause for life, well, the freedom overrides what is deemed as and acceptable cause for the dead. And because things are intertwined, such as wealth and land can also play a part in the minimizing of death, because of these core factors that are restricted, the cause for life simply is always impossible to justify, because it relies on so many of the others, which are banned. So then the human would see that wars are waged for these purposes solely for greed, but what he forgets, is that it is not so simply defined, and he is only focusing on the worst aspects of them. And in such, he forgets how they could possibly be used as a good or justified reason. The reason I brought all that up, is because it's a question I had and it never really was answered in the story. Because the old god simply removed all five of the reasons, including life. Though I was pondering what the potential ramifications could have been, the song conveniently kind of just ignores whatever restrictions it was trying to play, by making it simplified. Which, fair enough for it. I don't really blame it for that. It just leaves me questions that I want to ponder in a what if scenario. Which potentially is simply unavoidable for any type of song or story, because things just go a certain way and there are possible alternatives that you will simply ponder about. I think that the implication is that he cannot take away at least 3 of the sources without taking away the fourth or the rest. I think that may be rather vaguely implied that it was an all or nothing deal. And perhaps the human, assumed that giving up the capability to wage wars for the preservation of life, was a good enough price to pay for restricting the other seemingly greedy ideals. Meaning he thought that overall it would result in less deaths. It is kind of skimmed over and I'm not surprised that people missed it. Because, it's very loosely implied. And it's also retroactively implied, and when he says he removed all five reasons when the human said four of them weren't justified, then you retroactively reason. Well, that's how the deal simply must have worked. Unless you want to try and argue otherwise, but the rules are vague enough that we don't really have an answer one way or another, we just need to assume. Assume that the old god did not just arbitrarily take all five away when he didn't need to, because that kind of taints the whole lesson, because then it could be argued that the main consideration or take away from the story was only caused by an intentionally sabotaged "answer," essentially equating to a strawman. However, if the interpretation of life as a source of war, is the latter, in that life causes war, then your interpretation would make more sense. He either can't or refuses to give back the lives that were lost. The problem with this interpretation, is that if life is the cause of war, then when the old god said he would give back all but one source, that doesn't really make sense, because life would still be a cause of war at least when we regard their words and meanings in a manner of consistency. There is obviously still life, and It can still wage war. Yet he didn't give it back? I guess this could potentially be answered if the interpretation is that he is not being literal, and when he says he will give four back, It is symbolic of the lives that are lost, therefore again he is not being literal. What does that mean about the first part of the song? When life is considered one of the sources for war? My only answer is that even then he was implying that life causes war or is a cause for war, yet always seems to persist in the equation, and he was only truly able to take away four of the factors, but by proxy that affected life, (but then why didn't he say he took 4 away instead of all 5) and so that is essentially taking away life, because as we saw, people still died at huge rates, the source of war that was life, was actively being taken away, rather than strictly taken away and banished like the other four reasons. My problem with this is that it is quite a stretch and it is a bit extrapolated. I don't think it is well enough represented by the language of the song to imply this, it's just one of the potential conclusions you can come to when you really try and dissect the song. It's one of the potential logical conclusions, but that doesn't mean they're writing or the song itself necessarily portrayed it very well. Alternatively, the cause for war being life is different in the first half of the song, then the last half of the song, allowing him to equate not giving back life with the lives that were lost, even though this wouldn't really make sense in the first half of the song. The issue with this, is that again, this is extrapolated and it's simply inconsistent, and you can't blame anyone for not catching on to it. There is no notable change of language or categorization where you can notice a subtle shift in what is being talked about. There are not many reasons to believe either of these theories when dissecting the words and meaning of the song itself. These are only retroactive ways to justify what was said. The problem with the prior interpretation, is that it implies when he says he will give four of the five back, that the one he does not give back, are king's lies. However, this doesn't really tie into the song, it doesn't have a direct correlation, in fact, it is said that the cruel king did not ever even utter a lie. So why is the culmination of all this, the removal of a king's ability to lie? It doesn't make symbolic sense. There are no parallels drawn. It also makes me wonder, what is the purpose of even addressing the "king's lies"? Is it simply a red herring? This song does come across as vague and I do think that reflects on its writing. It is catchy though. My main question is though, what is the meaning of "the sun is also a warrior?" Does it mean simply that the sun gives life, or is required for life, yet can also kill... Does it actively kill or does it just have the capacity to kill potentially? And if so, how does that categorize one as a warrior? That would of course be based on one's subjective differentiating perception of what the word warrior means.

Yes! That's the Society of Creative Anachronism - they're definitely still active! (And so sorry about the disabled comments, for details on that, just Google for "KZfaq comments are now disabled on all auto-generated music" and you'll see lots of other frustrated people -- including me.)

@@elig9401 Thanks mate! I'm glad to hear that it's a youtube being stupid thing rather than something worse.

Y'know, we tried doing a video with Kanef a few years ago, but I think both he (and the animator) lost interest and stopped following up - so I had to cancel it. Nowadays there's too many filk album projects we're trying to finish to spend money on anything else. If you want to make a video and post it on KZfaq, I'm guessing he'd be supportive - I know Leslie would be!

@@elig9401 The only filk video I ever made was one for Tom Smith's "Dark Country" a number of years ago (Still on my channel as my demo video), but I no longer have the hardware or software I used to edit the dang thing...

Maybe how the Sun brings life but can also bring immense amounts of death so in this it is also a warrior even if it has often been worshipped as Life incarnate.

violates ur nap

It means that 4 out of the 5 reasons for war which he took he will give back.

It's different in each verse. The only one the man thinks is a good enough reason for war is Life. The god is pointing out that everything except a king's lies is something that the man will regret losing. Eventually, the god gives back everything except Life, which he can't give back because all the people who died are already dead.

Yes! It is indeed a shame that KZfaq disables comments on all "art tracks", including Leslie's songs, without recourse. We miss the comments, and the ability to have meaningful interactions with listeners. But KZfaq has decided that they know better.

@@elig9401 I see. I'm glad to hear it was just KZfaq's dumb decision though. Thanks.

@@manauser362 Yeah. Feel free to Google for 'youtube art tracks comments disabled' and you'll find a lot more about it. I'd share links but YT hides the comments. ;-( - Eli

My opinion? Freedom. They had to take that for themselves.

I took the 5th, in a convoluted way, to be "some king's lies." The one lord does tell the truth, owns all land, all wealth, all freedom, and the power of life and death; the overthrowing war is to regain the last four, and doing so isn't based on a lie, so the 5th isn't in effect/isn't something the god needs to restore for the war to happen. It is also symmetric, because the man earlier says "four of those five are not enough to appease the dead;" presumably he's leaving out lies as being obviously not even worth mentioning as a worthy motivation.

@@TomG1555 My interpretation is he considered 'Life' a worthy justification for war, in the face of the alternative for their people if they didn't fight, whereas the other four weren't worthy in his eyes.

@Leslie Fish Does anyone else know the meaning to the chorus? It’s quite hard to decrypt.

@@lifelongstudents233 what about it is confusing for you

Been thinking that too. I have a couple speculations. Maybe the ruler is a silver tongue who gained his power through guile, technical truths, and charisma, and with the causes of war removed nobody can unseat or outfox said ruler. Another idea is maybe the ruler is well meaning, but incompetent and unwilling to step down. The power was mutually offered under the promise of centralized efficiency but then refuses to give it up as his edicts fall apart.

War and violent coersion are not synonymous. But even without explicit use of physical force, it is entirely.possible to attain and keep power. War is specifically the organised and directed use of violence to achieve some goal.

There are plenty of things to threaten a man with, even if you can't kill them direcly. You could take his food. You could take his shelter. You could take his freedom. And you could take his family. You can't kill them. But you can make them unable to be part of the society. If everybody is too afraid to speak up, then you could even fake a 100% aprooval rating when you have 5% (and the 5% are those that directly enforce your will). Of course such situation could be broken by somebody being brave or desperate enough to publicly denounce you, but if war is impossible, toppling a tyrant is almost impossible.

@@egoalter1276 You cannot keep power without the sword, foxes and snakes do not last long, Lions rule

@@alexmag342 I would very strongly disagree with that. The core of power is in gaining and maintaining loyalty, not gathering and excercising force.

Sounds like Mithras to me (Sun and War), but there's a lot of sun/warrior gods in many mythologies

I was put in mind of Baldor, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.

@@EniochHL Leslie answers in the liner notes -- prometheus-music.com/print/Avalon_is_Risen_Booklet.pdf "...a hymn to Apollo, Mars or Mithra, this is another commentary on the hard realities of life." - Eli

@@EniochHL the sun-warrior dichotomy makes sense if you notice that historically most wars were fought during the summer months

@@gewuerzwanze5627 spring and summer, war season began at spring

I have found several of Leslie's songs to be powerfully applicable to various events during my life. Knowledge can destroy, Wisdom can bring sorrow, Kindness may necessitate killing, and Remember what is worth fighting for! History repeats because we forget its lessens. I once spent three days humming 'The Day it Fell Apart' as an emotional defence mechanism. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m5qpa5NjxLXYXZ8.html&ab_channel=quizzlie I lived in a small town, there was an explosion in the chemical plant, I happened to work (thank god not in a hospital but) at the environmental laboratory responsible for monitoring the cleanup of the site - a shit ton of contaminated water from putting out the fires. The Lab where I worked was 15 miles away from where I lived, the Plant was a half mile away - I was off work sick that particular day and I heard/felt the explosion. Other than that song, and the constant update reports we could get hold of about the injured, that week passed in a blur for me.

If Russia stops fighting, there is no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, there is no more Ukraine. Just becuase war is terrible does not mean that Ukraine should stop fighting.

Also remember, "A Ramboing" - that can be relevant too.

@@RedwoodTheElf In a sort of "RIP AND TEAR!!!" way.

Just curious, which of the numerous versions of Leslie's performance do you associate as being 'the original'? ;-)

@@elig9401 Good question. I guess whichever version i heard like at least 15 years ago. There was no male part in the chorus and there was a bit more of a flow to it. This one has some distinct pauses that weren't there before. Now that i think on it, it might have been closer to 20 years ago? I think i got it from a friend on IRC chat.

To me it seems to be about war and peace actually

@@Bruh-hq1hx educate yourself on the reality of communism and you'll understand.

Not communism. In communism, there would be no lord. That is part of the point of communism. But failed attempts at communism did have such results. And in this age, any attemt to create a large communism is doomed to failure, so you are close enough.

nature can't be stamped out and babylon always falls