diff --git a/content/md/003_dont_come.md b/content/md/003_dont_come.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..923b53c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/md/003_dont_come.md
@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+# Don't come with those tales
+
+> @published 2019/05/05, 12:00 {.published}
+
+I love books. I love them so much that I even decide to make
+a living from them---probably a very bad career decision. But
+I can't idealize that love.
+
+During school and university I was taught that I should love
+books. Actually, some teachers made me clear that it was the
+only way I could get my bachelor's degree. Because books are
+one of the main freedom devices in our shitty world, right? Not
+loving books is like the will to stay in a cave---hello, Plato.
+Not celebrating its greatness is just one step to support antidemocratic
+regimes. And while I was learning to love books, of course I
+also learn to respect its “creators,” until I desire to be one
+of them.
+
+I don't think it is casual that the development of what we mean
+by book is independent from the developments of capitalism and
+what we understand by author. Maybe correlation; maybe intersection;
+but definetly not separates stories.
+
+Let's start with a common place: the invention of printing. Yeah,
+it is an arbitraty and problematic start. We could say that books
+and authors goes far before that; therefore, they aren't a product
+of what it would became capitalism. But what we have in that
+particularly place in history is the standardization and massification
+of a practice. It didn't happen from day to night, but little
+by little all the methodological and technical diversity became
+more homogeneous. And with that, we were able to made books not
+as luxury commodities, but as objects of everyday use.
+
+And not just books, but printed text in general. Before the invention
+of printing, we could barely see text in our surroundings. What
+surprise me about printing it is not the capacity of production
+that we reached, but how that technology normalized the existence
+of text in our daily basis.
+
+Newspapers first and now social media relies on that normalization
+to generate the idea of an “universal” public debate---I don't
+know if it is actually “public” if almost all popular newspapers
+and social media platforms are own by corporations and its criterias;
+but let's pretend it is a minor issue. And public debate supposedly
+incentivates democracy.
+
+Before Enlightenment the owners of printed text realized its
+freedom potential. Most churchs and kingdoms tried to control
+it. The Protestant Church first and then the Enlightment and
+emerging capitalist enterprises hijacked the control of public
+debate; specifically who owns the means of printed text production,
+who decides the languages worthy to print and who sets its main
+reader.
+
+Maybe it is a bad analogy but printed text in newspapers, books
+and journals were so fascinating like nowadays is digital “content”
+over the Internet. But what I mean is that there were many people
+who tried to have that control and power. And most of them failed
+and keep failing.
+
+So during 18th century books started to have another meaning.
+They ceased to be mainly devices of God's word to be _a_ device
+of freedom of speech. Thanks to the firsts emerging capitalists
+we got means for secular thinking. Acts of censorship became
+evident acts of political restriction instead of acts against
+sinners.
+
+The invention of printing created so big demand of printed text
+that it actually generated the publishing industry. Selfpublishing
+to satisfy internal institutional demand openned the place to
+an industry for new citizens readers. A luxury and religious
+object became a commodity in the “free” market.
+
+While printed text surpassed almost all restrictions, freedom
+of speech rised hand-to-hand freedom of enterprise---the debate
+between Free Software Movement and Open Source Initiative relies
+in an old and more general debate: how much freedom can we grant
+in order to secure freedom? But it also developed other freedom
+that was fastened by religious or political authorities: the
+freedom to be identify as an author.
+
+How we understand authorship in our days depends in the process
+where the notion of author became more closed to the idea of
+“creator.” And it is actually a very interesting semantic transfer.
+_In one way_ the invention of printing mechanized and improved
+a practice that it was believed to be done with God's help. Trithemius
+got so horrified that printing wasn't welcome. But with new Spirits---freedoms
+of enterprise and speech---what was seen even as a demonic invention
+became one of the main technologies that still defines and reproduces
+the idea of humanity.
+
+This openned the opportunity to independent authors. Printed
+text wasn't anymore a matter of God's word or authorities but
+a secular and more ephemeral Human's word. The massification
+of publishing also openned the gates for less relevant and easy-to-read
+printed texts; but for the incipient publishing industry it didn't
+matter: it was a way to catch more profits and consumers.
+
+So authors without religious or political authority found a way
+to sneak their names in printed text. It wasn't yet a function
+of property---I don't like the word “function,” but I will use
+it anyways---but a function of attribution: they wanted to publicy
+be know as the human who wrote those texts. No God, no authority,
+no institution, but a person of flesh and bone.
+
+But that also meant regular powerless people. Without backup
+of God or King, who the fucks are you, little peasant? Publishers---aka
+printers in those years---took advantage. That is why I did a
+very problematic analogy, the fascitation to saw a work printed
+with your name is similar to see a Wikipedia article about you.
+You don't gain directly anything, only reputation. It relies
+on you to made it profitable.
+
+During 18th century, authorship became a function of _individual_
+attribution, but not a function of property. So I think that
+is were the notion of “creator” came out as an ace in the hole.
+In Germany we can track one of the first robust attempts to empower
+this new kind of powerless independent author.
+
+German Romanticism developed something that goes back to the
+Renaissance: humans can also _create_ things. Sometimes we forget
+that Christianity has been also a very messy set of beliefs.
+The attempt to made a consistent, uniform and rationalized set
+of beliefs goes back in the diversity of religious practices.
+So you could accept that printing text lost its directly connection
+to God's word while you could argue some kind of indirectly inspiration
+beyond our corporeal world. And you don't have to rationalize
+it: you can't prove it, you just feel it and know it.
+
+So german writers used that as foundations for independent authorship.
+No God's word, no authorship, no institution, but a person inspired
+by things beyond our world. The notion of “creation” has a very
+strong religious and methaphysical backgrounds that we can't
+just ignore them: act of creation means the capacity to bring
+to this world something that it didn't belong to it. The relationship
+between authorship and text turned out so imminent that even
+nowadays we don't have any fucking idea why we accept as common
+sense that authors have a superior and inalianeble bond to its
+works.
+
+But before the expansionism of German Romanticism notion of author,
+writers were seen more as producers that sold their work to the
+owners of means of production. So while the invention of printing
+facilitated a new kind of secular and indepent author, _in other
+hand_ it summoned Authorship Fog: “Whenever you cast another
+Book spell, if Spirits of Printing's Invention is in the command
+zone or on the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Author creature
+token with flying and indestructible.” As material as a printed
+card we made magic to grant authors a creative function: the
+ability to “produce from nothing.”
+
+Authors as creators is a cool metaphor, who doesn't want to have
+some divine powers? In the abstract discussion about the relationship
+between authors, texts and freedom of speech, it is just a perfect
+fit. You don't have to rely in anything material to grasp all
+of them as an unique phenomena. But in the concrete facts of
+printed texts and the publishers abuse to authors you go beyond
+attribution. You are not just linking an object to a subject.
+Instead, you are grating property relationships between an object
+and a subject.
+
+And property means nothing if you can't exploit it. At the beging
+of publishing industry and during all 18th century, publishers
+took advantage of this new kind of “property.” The invention
+of the author as a property function was the rise of new legislation.
+Germans and French jurists translated this speech to laws.
+
+I won't talk about the history of moral rights. Instead I want
+to highlight how this gave a supposedly ethical, political and
+legal justification of the individualization of cultural commodities.
+Authorship began to be associated inalienably to individuals
+and _a_ book started to mean _a_ reader. But not only that, the
+possibilities of intelectual freedom were reduced to a particular
+device: printed text.
+
+More freedom traslated to the need of more and more printed material.
+More freedom implied the requirement of bigger and bigger publishing
+industry. More freedom entailed the expansionism of cultural
+capitalism. Books switched to commodities and authors became
+its owners. Moral rights were never about the freedom of readers,
+but who was the owner of that commodities.
+
+Books stopped to be sources of oral and local public debate and
+became private devices for an “universal” public debate. Authorship
+puts attribution in secondary place so indivudal ownership could
+become its synonymous. A book for several readers and an author
+as an id for an intellectual movement or institution became irrelevant
+against a book as property for a particular reader and author.
+
+And we are sitting here reading all this shit without taking
+to account that ones of the main wins of our neoliberal world
+is that we have been talking about objects, individuals and production
+of wealth. Who the fucks are the subjects who made all this publishing
+shit possible? Where the fucks are the communities that in several
+ways make possible the rise of authors? For fuck sake, why aren't
+we talking about the maintenance of means of production?
+
+We aren't books and we aren't its authors. We aren't those individuals
+who everybody are gonna relate to the books we are working on
+and, of course, we lack of sense of community. We aren't the
+ones who enjoy all that wealth generated by books production
+but for sure we are the ones who made all that possible. We are
+neglecting ourselves: change my mind.
+
+So don't come with those tales about the greatness of books for
+our culture, the need of authorship to transfer wealth or to
+give attribution and how important for our lifes is the publishing
+production.
+
+* Did you know that books have been mainly devices of ideological
+  reproduction---most best-selling books aren't critical thinking
+  books that free our minds, but school books with its hidden
+  curriculum and selfhelp and erotic books that keep reproducing
+  basic exploitable stereotypes?
+* Did you realize that authorship haven't been the best way
+  to transfer wealth or give attribution---even now more than
+  before authors have to paid in order to be published at the
+  same time that in the practice they lose all rights?
+* Did you see how we keep to be worry about production no matter
+  what---it doesn't matter that it would imply bigger chains
+  of free labor or, as I prefer to say: chains of explotation
+  and “intellectual” slavery?
+
+Please, don't come with those tales, we already reached more
+fertile fields that can generate way better stories.