The London Olympics are already achieving the number one aim of the politicians who brought them here, which is making our politicians feel very important indeed.
The media is quite frenetic in its efforts to make us all believe we should be terrifically proud of the fact we are hosting the Olympics, as though there were something unique in this achievement. If we can’t competently do something that Greece, Spain and China have done in recent years, that would be remarkable. Of course the Games will be on the whole well delivered, sufficient for the media and politicians to declare it an ecstatic success. Some of the sporting moments will be sublime, as ever.
But did it have to be in London? We won’t know the total cost of the Games for months, but it will cost the taxpayer at least £9 billion and I suspect a lot more. I also suspect the GDP figures will, in the event, show that the massive net fall in visitor numbers has hurt the already shrinking economy further.
But to take the most optimistic figure, holding the Olympics in London has cost every person in the country an average of £150 per head in extra taxes. That is £600 for a family of four. Actually it is in the end going to be well over £2,000, as of course the money has been borrowed on the never never, and taxpayers are going to be paying it off their whole lives, along with the sum ten times higher they are already paying direct into the pockets of the bankers through their taxes.
The very rich, of course, don’t pay much tax, so they are not worried.
But to take just the figure of £600 extra taxes for a family of four, the lowest possible amount, and not including the interest. Is having the Olympics here really worth paying out £600 for? If Tony Blair had approached the head of the family and said “We are going to have the Olympics in London, but it’s going to cost you £600, would the answer have been from most ordinary people: “Yes, great idea, this is that important to us”?
People are not disconcerted because they don’t see that they have to pay. There is no special Olympics tax, and they pay their taxes in a variety of ways, and individuals are not the sole source of taxation. But this is nonetheless real money taken from the people in pursuit of the hubris of politicians.
I love sport. I hate the corruption of the International Olympic Committee, Fifa and the rest; I hate the vicious corporatism and militarisation of our capital and absurd elitism of the transport lanes; the sport itself I love. But with the economy contracting, and the NHS being farmed out for profit, is it really worth £600 for a family – and many families are really struggling in a heartbreaking way – is it worth the money to have the Olympics here rather than in Paris?
Of course it isn’t. I think many of us will feel an extra pleasure watching the Opening ceremony because it is British. Patriotic pride will surge. It is not wrong to enjoy the spectacle tonight on TV. The corporate well connected and ruling classes will enjoy it in the stadium.
But after you have watched it on TV, ask yourself this question. How much more did you enjoy it than enjoy watching the Beijing ceremony, and was that margin of extra enjoyment something that everybody in the room would have paid out £150 for?
Because they just did.
Much of the discourse here, the mistrust in dealing with serious issues, personal preferences, views, up bringing, seems compounded by the time people spent alone, communicating.
.
Nothing ever can replace personal contact, seeing each other and debating talking these issue face to face. many of us are becoming electronic monotones, only getting out when we make an effort.
If the computer is the first thing you deal with in the morning and can’t get away from it after an hour, then that is a good indication. If you sit there still at night with a fat arse burn after hours sitting in limbo, almost blood clotting, then you have a problem with communicating.
.
Unless we all meet up this exercise is futile. Our electoral ambitions and democratic wishes will never come by themselves, inactively typing, communicating in solitude in front of a computer.
.
what I’m trying to express is that this could be far more than a blog, take this whole caboodle to a new level. When people can replicate guns via the internet, just imagine what we could do off it.
I’m off for the day, my best wishes to all, please think about meeting up.
Cheebacow – informative post, thanks. I still think that population density has a lot to do with the general perception of mass immigration; probably more than absolute population does. After all, if there is room for everyone, resentment of incomers is missing a major support. If you’re cheek by jowl, and if the place down the road where Granny used to live is now a vibrant ethnic enclave, perceptions might be different. No?
“I think you make a mistake to raise the issue of English threatening the Welsh language in context of the debate surrounding immigration into the UK. The situations are not comparable …” – CheebaCow
.
Well said, CheebaCow. They’re not comparable at all. Minority languages are disappearing all over the globe because of the predominance of English. Even this “mass immigration” that people talk about here is not going to threaten English in the UK.
.
“Komodo has an agile mind and a sharp tongue (poison notwithstanding) and I’d rather he wasn’t muzzled.” – Nextus
.
I don’t think there’s any fear of that – although of course you’re not moderating here, as you say. I see that his “agile” mind has now decided that, “If you find it personally entertaining to aggravate those who are passionate about certain issues, rather than debating in a sincere fashion, I suggest you take your nasty shitstirring somewhere else” could be taken to mean
“We don’t want your sort round here: fuck off back to where you came from”
rather than, “If you’re not going to debate sincerely, take your shitstirring to another board” as I clearly intended.
How very opportunistic.
I have just had a look at the Independent in a cafe. What a rag. It had the look and feel of a comic. £1.20 for the privilege I see. I cannot imagine that many people buy it.
.
It contained this editorial. They seem to think that a bit of jingoism doesn’t hurt.
.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-welcome-return-of-the-union-jack-8015628.html
.
This jarred particularly when they speak of Gordon Brown. I see him as yet another war criminal who followed in Blair’s footsteps.
.
‘There is politics to this, as Gordon Brown, ++that great enthusiast for a new definition of Britishness++, knew. One of his first acts on becoming Prime Minister in 2007 was to decree that the Union Jack should be flown more often from government buildings.’
Komodo:
.
“I still think that population density has a lot to do with the general perception of mass immigration”
.
Can you please clarify what the precise argument you’re making in regards to population density? Is the UK (or England as some have argued) physically full? Does the UK not have the financial resources to expand housing to accommodate the population growth? Or have governments just done a terrible job at handling population growth? I would be surprised if the UK or England was literally full. The last two issues seem to be issues of bad governance, and not really related to immigration at all.
.
“and if the place down the road where Granny used to live is now a vibrant ethnic enclave, perceptions might be different. No?”
.
Just to be clear, it’s not like Australia just dumped immigrants in empty bush land. Most immigrants settled in big cities in existing communities. In virtually every ethnic enclave, Grannies of a different ethnicity (‘white’) used to live there.
Suhayl: Let’s forget for just a moment about me and my possible motivations, hang-ups and biopsychosocial pathologies (“passive-aggressive”, “bullying”, “stoic” or whatever)
– Let me reiterate that I’m talking about philosophical argumentation, not psychological diagnosis. FYI, the term “passive-aggressive” refers to a mode of interaction: you get passive-aggressive tactics, for instance (but not ‘depressive’, ‘schizophrenic’ or ‘dyslexic’ tactics). I used the term “anti-bullying” only in the context of a strategy for dealing with bullies, which is what my enquiry was about. And “stoic” of course is a quintessentially philosophical term.
.
My question was genuine, and relevant. See the article on Auntie’s news this morning: Anti-social behaviour training ‘could defuse conflict’.
.
Nextus, it would be really good if Komodo would consider the possibility of responding to my seven questions … the fact is, the questions remain, unanswered.
.
I notice that your questions are addressed specifically to Komodo and concern his personal reasoning rather than the issues he was raising. Why are you so obsessed with the beliefs of one reptile – unless you’re lining him up an
ad hominemad reptiliem attack? (He has a thick skin, mind.) These political issues can be dealt with by anyone: Mark Golding, for instance, advanced the discussion about Enoch Powell (which is well worth further exploration). I’d like to see the debate kept open to all.Mervin King has owned up that for the last two years output has been flat (ie depression), the illustrious stenographers present in the news conference have sat there and singularly failed to put a simple question to Mr. King.
,
What about QE Mr. King? ie the massive amounts of monies that have been printed and handed over to the banksters? If the output has been flat, then why on Earth should the nations tax payers and workers forgo all manner of benefits ranging from the less frequent bin collection to putting up with potholes, to long working lives and less in pension pay. Whilst the inflation (with all the money slushing around in the system, speculators borrowing at near zero rates and speculating on food, and all manner of other commodities for daily use), their savings and assets are eaten away and turned to dust.
,
The ideological crap that is being fed to the Joe Punter is; “banks will lend at lower lending rates”! This flawed and fraudulent proposition overlooks the simple fact that no one is fucking doing any borrowing because there is no fucking business to be done on high street. Anyone with a modicum of sense or logic would fully understand; people cannot afford shit, they have no money left in their purse/pocket/in the back of the sofa, simply put people are broke. Therefore what the fuck is point of giving huge amounts of free money to banksters, and stuffing the banks with all the money in the world to lend at fuck all rates?
,
At least Alan Greenspan had the decency of coming out and saying he got it wrong, and banksters took advantage of him and fooled him. As it stands Mervin is still pumping money into the system to create even a greater opportunity for the parasitic banksters to further gamble away on the commodities and push the prices higher, so that people can afford even less? This is not a new phenomenon, Japan has been caught up in a shitty mess for nearly three decades now, and everyone but their pony is in the knowledge of the extent of QE in Japan, and the consequences of the QE in Japan.
A Syrian whom I follow on Twitter claims to be able to confirm (via a third party) that Prince Bandar was indeed injured in the attack that killed his deputy. It must be what’s keeping him in seclusion. There were no details.
Nextus, no. Komodo made certain statements and so I am seeking clarification of those statements to better understand what s/he meant by them. The views which possibly relate to the statements are worthy of discourse as they may not be uncommon among the general population. I think that is an entirely reasonable request.
.
I am not closing off the debate – anyone else is entirely free to comment, as you have done. The debate has run for some time in various directions and no-one seems to have felt they needed to stop commenting, in spite of repeated adjurations from various parties to not close off the debate. Komodo now has answered one of the my seven questions, for which I am grateful, and has indicated that s/he will address the others if there is time.
.
So I’m not sure what, precisely, is worrying you, Nextus, so much about this. You seem to feel you need to protect Komodo. I do not think they need protecting. I am not attacking Komodo, simply requesting clarification. Right through this long thread, I have been eager to seek clarification from Komodo on various points they have made. If you read my posts addressed to Komodo, they actually have been solicitous, enquiring. I am genuinely puzzled by certain statements. While I appreciate your solicitous attitude, I have to say that your intervention in this thread has made a simple interaction, unnecessarily complex. It has diverted attention away from the issues and moved it towards personal dynamics. So it’s been counterproductive (assuming your intent was the opposite).
.
If you wish to write about, for example, your views on Enoch Powell, please feel free to do so – no-one is stopping you (or anyone else) from doing so.
Following the massacre at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, a second mosque has been burned down in Missouri. We are back in the olde country with KKK used to burning down the unwanted churches, these days they burn the unwanted Mosques. What elegant consequence of hate mongering of the Bu$h Blair era? We all can sit back and watch the spectacle:
Segregation today!
Segregation tomorrow!
Serration forever!
,
Keep them Musseloom sandni****s down I say!
We only want their oil, that is all.
Your explanation sounds very reasonable and plausible, Suhayl … provided you don’t keep hectoring Komodo in the same manner you did to others in the past – and at the moment it seems you intend to. Let’s strip out the sarcasm and the leading questions, then. I look forward to watching how this develops.
.
Enoch Powell was a very intellectual, courageous and principled man, a renowned academic and rhetorician, but his imperial worldview was unable to adapt to modern social realities and his ultraconservative views were rightly criticised and rejected. Towards the end of his political career he found a home in Ulster Unionism, which was still anchored in historical prejudices. However, he was principally concerned about economic protectionism and national allegiances rather than race, but the way that he was stigmatised as an archetypal xenophobe meant that the the immigration debate stalled for decades and others were tainted by association. I believe that if you think someone is morally misguided, it’s more constructive to understand and elucidate their mistakes than to condemn them.
Nevermind when you come back, you said: “You clearly thought that I would support the violence on the jewish community” Good grief, man. Nothing was further from my thoughts. You raised Golders’ Green as an example of a ghetto, that was why I was discussing why it might seem so.
As for the moderation here: I have been variously accused of ‘not arguing in good faith’, ignorance, dishonesty and/or evasion, by the moderator. Tchah.
Cheeba, Crab, Nuid: really value your sensible and realistic and factual posts. I repeat, I still have to see one post from the ‘we must lump all these people together and debate them’ side which actually addresses the facts about this topic. I sense a lot of fear, from people like Clark, which is similar to that held by my relative. The difference is that my relative, with a clear awareness of where those views can lead, did not want to hold them. In fact most people don’t want to hold them. A few hold on to them and nurture them.
Clark, do you not agree that emotive words like ‘horrendous’ and ‘overwhelmed’ in this context are ones which scare people?
Komodo,
“I’m afraid Nuid and Technicolor seem to be using identical tactics” – indeed. Asking straightforward questions, providing facts, arguing on behalf of the moderate majority: those kind of “tactics”. “An agenda is indicated” – in my case, my agenda is clearly set out at 4.22 yesterday. I suspect Nuid might agree with it, but it is all my own work, I am happy to say.
Otherwise, you claim to have been generally arguing on behalf of ‘a bit of a cunt’. How interesting that, nevertheless, several people here have supported you.
At the same time, in your own charming persona, you slip in statements like “replacement of the long-term inhabitants and their culture is being conducted without any effective controls.” Oooh, they’re coming to get you. All eleven percent of them! After years of ‘horrendous’ figures and being ‘overwhelmed’. Hide under the beds!
Honestly, silly.
Cheeba, Is GB /England physically full?
As I said before, England’s* density of population, most of it housed in cities, is around the same as what Tasmania would look like if every Aussie went to live there. One way of examining that question might be to ask some Tasmanians their opinion of the idea. My guess is that at least some of them would be a little concerned about their island getting concreted and tarmacked over. Yes, Australia now welcomes immigrants. It can afford to. Indeed the argument that immigrants are good for an economy may well be a good one in the Australian case. You have tangible mineral resources in abundance, you have room for urbanites to complete their metamorphosis into suburbanites, and your economy is in reasonable shape. The demand for labour may yet (you can tell me) match or exceed supply. I don’t think the cases are comparable.
.
*Scotland’s density is nothing like this, of course. However, even immigrants are reluctant to live on bare and unproductive mountains, which rules out almost everything N of Glasgow, and while you could build homes and industries for immigrants on farmland, that would be a little Israeli of you, wouldn’t it?
.
Due to the excess demand for my words of wisdom I shall be answering one question per poster at a time, in my own good time. Apologies to anyone who may be disappointed.
*obligatory smiley for mouthbreathers*
“… provided you don’t keep hectoring Komodo in the same manner you did to others in the past…” Nextus.
.
You mean Alfred, don’t you? Alfred, who stated that he believed (among other things) that the town of Leicester had been subjected to “genocide”. I simply asked Alfred whether, in light of his oft expressed views, had he been living in Britain (he was an immigrant in Canada), he would have voted for the BNP if it had been a more politically effective/successful party. This was before Moderators were in place on this blog and Alfred seemed to divert virtually every thread onto his pet subject. The blog – that of a whistleblower – also had been subject to multiple attacks by gangs of, and individual, trolls, including some who, allegedly, had been well-known disruptors of other blogs for well over a decade. It was an entirely different context to now. It was the ‘Wild West’.
.
My approach to contentious discourse has changed accordingly. Even on this contentious thread (as it became), I have not attacked people, I simply have requested clarity and have tried to put what I saw as evidence. I also have tried to heal some of the divisions that have occured, eg. b/w Clark and Technicolour. I am a writer and I use language and humour sometimes in an expressive manner. But I think that have been polite to everyone, including to you.
.
Why am I having to explain all this?
.
Thanks for your input wrt Enoch Powell. Much appreciated.
Thank you for explaining your change of approach, Suhayl. Nevertheless, my point is that in context that’s not what you were “simply” doing: there were other rhetorical dynamics in play. I’ve given several reasons above, related to word choice, dialectical tactics and previous form. As it happens, I think Komodo is responding in a mature, responsible and characteristically cool manner, so all is well. I don’t think his views are based on prejudice, as certain leading questions might presume; I think they’re based on reasoned principles and I’m very interested in seeing how persuasive his argument is.
Technicolor, if I were to say that your agenda is to mislead and misrepresent any statement which contradicts your hard-to-locate point of view, I would support it with this:
At the same time, in your own charming persona, you slip in statements like “replacement of the long-term inhabitants and their culture is being conducted without any effective controls.” Oooh, they’re coming to get you. All eleven percent of them!
.
If you had read the post before the smart rejoinder occurred to you, you might have grasped that the statement referred to Israel. Where immigration is, of course, encouraged by the State. And, paradoxically, for the most blatantly racist motives.
.
No-one’s pure. *
.
[* Jon/mod: minor item redacted. I realise some insults are playful, but nevertheless this is a charged thread. Please tread carefully]
Technicolour
.
Will you be apologizing for your misrepresentation of my position above?
Ach, Komodo,I see that one misreading makes you happy. So sorry I have not made more. I was misled by the “where….deep breath…”, as though there was something contentious about the facts vis a vis Israel. You neglected to mention the slow starvation of the Gazans too.
Given that omission, it was quite an easy mistake to make, since “replacement of the long-term inhabitants and their culture is being conducted without any effective controls. By completely alien people” seems to be close to your position vis a vis immigration into the UK. Don’t tell me I have fallen for your inner ‘bit of a cunt’ again? How foolish of me. Nextus probably doesn’t believe a word he’s saying either which, given his peculiar attitude to Suhayl’s posting, is probably a good thing too.
But really, I love the way you (or your ‘bit of cunt’) just makes stuff up. So mature and reasoned. What if the entire population of Australia were suddenly transported to Tasmania, indeed? Crikey, I should think the people there might have some objections, as might a lot of very surprised Australians. But what if the entire population of Tasmania were suddenly transported to Hawaii, eh? What then?
To try and read sense behind your rhetoric, you are suggesting that immigrants to the UK have been busily tarmacking and concreting everything over. And that the UK is effectively full. You acknowledge that there is, in fact, empty space, but “even” immigrants (even?) would not like to live on a bare mountain. In this way you manage to conflate population density in cities with population densities in the rest of the country. It is yet another red herring. There are hundreds and thousands of empty houses across the country. There is no shortage of housing in London, or Manchester, or Brighton, or in any city you care to look at.
What has changed is the artificial inflation of prices; both rent and mortgages. Immigration is not the cause of this, as anyone who has studied anything about social history knows. Rachmanite landlords and massive, top end salaries for bankers, media execs, advertising execs, and company execs in general are among the major causes. But, like Powell, you prefer to focus on ‘immigrants’.
Herbie, what misrepresentation? Crab explained it very well. I was contrasting your view with Komodo’s; had no time even to question it. I could.
Nextus. Instead of pontificating on specifically my possible motivations and literary tactics (is this the thought police?) and on the other hand, giving fullsome praise to the very mature Komodo (might this be the “parent-child” interaction?) in the face of my clearly irresponsible infantilism, for which I am sure s/he will be most grateful, one might be more interested in learning of your own views of the subjects at hand. These seem to be: The Olympic Ceremony, the nature of Britishness, immigration (and the manner in which that subject is instrumentalised) and how all these might relate to one another.
.
Could we, Nextus, possibly now bring it back to the issues – in essence, to my questions, which are indeed very simple and straightforward and which were all based on Komodo’s own statements – and move it away from your study of my personality and/or subtextual motivations based on an appraisal various aspects of literary style?
.
Perhaps some Real Ale would help.
.
You see, I simply cannot stop being a naughty boy among all these mature, wise men.
Technicolour
.
On the matter of your misrepresenting my view.
.
Crab initially gave a casual, trite and literalist reading of my statement, as clearly you did too.
.
Crab then reread taking into account, I’d imagine, context and the fact that I was agreeing with something Suyhayl had previously said, and Crab then deemed the statement neutral with regard to the conversation you’re having with Komodo.
.
So even Crab would have to agree you misrepresented my position.
.
So I ask again, are you going to apologize for misrepresenting my view?
Furthermore, I have made no ad hominem attacks. Yet you, Nextus, suggest that I am “lining [Komodo] up” for one. So, now I am being accused of something (or it is being insinuated that I may do something) which I have not done at in this whole, 1,000 post-long thrad or anywhere else since Moderators were introduced, but which you think I might do. Is this not thought-crime? On the other hand, we find no criticism from you – nor did we, with Alfred – of some other posters who have made abusive comments (and whose comments rightly have been deleted by the moderators), some of which I think were directed at me and who continue to post other comments here. No questioning of their rhetorical or other flourishes. No criticism whatsoever. People can make up their own minds as to whether or not that is of any significance.
Herbie, I made no judgement on your view. As far as I can see, you were approving of the contributions made by recent (in your words ‘relatively recent’) immigration. Is this correct?
Komodo, if you’ve get time, it’d be really super if you’d be so kind as to respond to the questions. Rest assured, I am not trying to entrap you or to do whatever it is Nextus seems worried about. I just want to understand your position and the arguments thereof. I may disagree with you, who knows? But that the way of things. As Jon said, we can agree to disagree.
.
I would really appreciate it.
.
Thank you.
Jon, you’re a rock (and not in the Frank Zappa sense).
Qualification: “There is no shortage of housing in London, or Manchester, or Brighton, or in any city you care to look at” – but there is a shortage of *decent* housing, as the poor are increasingly exploited by landlords and otherwise left to stew in state orchestrated poverty.
Technicolour
.
Of course you made a judgement. A negative judgement.
.
You said:
.
“I think it is striking that some of the contributors are saying ‘oh, the ones who came here recently; they’re alright’ (Herbie)”
.
It’s obvious there that you’re attempting to claim for me a view that I think recent East European immigration is “alright” in contrast to previous waves of immigration.
.
But if you’d read the discussion you’d see that I’m actually talking about post-war immigration in terms of their contribution to the NHS and transportation and music etc. That’s why I say “relatively recent”. I’m very directly specifying in a positive way that post-war immigration.
.
You’d also see that I was agreeing with Suhayl, hardly a proponent of the view you’re challenging.
.
You see. You really do have it badly wrong here.
.
If you’d just apologize for or at least acknowledge your error we can move on.
Herbie, honestly, I didn’t mean that: eastern european immigration hadn’t crossed my mind! I was contrasting your view with a view that recent immigrants hadn’t ‘integrated’, and I certainly apologise for giving you or anyone else the wrong impression.
Technicolour
.
OK. That’s fine. Thanks for clearing that up.
Suhayl, you’re sounding more like your old self now; the passion is back. However, I see you’re still intent on denying any rhetorical intent other than simple enquiring. Perish the thought I should raise the spectre of passive-aggression, because the response would be predictable – ‘Who? Me? Whatever could you be suggesting by such unwarranted accusations? Surely you’re not attempting to limit my free speech, are you? I think you should tell us what, precisely, you’re trying to say. And what, precisely, you think about various other issues that I’m going to raise (with sly insinuations that failing to comment on them reveals your true beliefs). I mean, come on, they’re only simple questions! Why won’t you answer, etc.’. (Pardon my sarcasm.) Of course, denying any such intent is an integral aspect of the approach. I can subject you to the same treatment if you like: maybe it would bring home to you how easy it is to lead people into a double-bind like this. But it would be a very distracting exercise.
.
Why do I care enough to comment on this? Because I’ve watched you treat several people (not just Alfred and his aliases) in a similar way before – mostly, but not exclusively, on the issue of race. I found those debates very interesting and enlightening, at least initially: they gave me insights into alternative points of view. You initially found some arguments offensive and battled back, but you then discovered a different approach which made it very difficult for people to justify themselves or ignore you without being tarred with derogatory connotations, which you then repeated continually. It seemed to me that it swamped the productive debates, and that was disappointing. I once tried to join in and accordingly found myself being tagged, by insinuation and inference, with all sorts of views I hadn’t expressed. It’s a rhetorical trick, much beloved of the ancient Sophists (and Socrates wasn’t above using it either) and it obstructs progressive debate. As far as I see, you’re the only one who has deployed it systematically. I would prefer it if you didn’t; but if people sidestep the bait, as Komodo did, it won’t become an issue.
.
There are many relevant books by Doug Walton, who runs the Centre for Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric in Canada. Such techniques can be used constructively in consultations, to interrupt patterns of thinking, but they don’t facilitate open debate.
.
I’m not being partisan here. Rest assured if Komodo did the same to you, I’d call him out on it too. But then, how could I even suggest such a thing?
Nevermind and Guano – i hear you,
Chris Jones – The lexical(sic?) error was the switch between the similar words ‘english’ and ‘british’. And that was all the error i saw in that post to follow with ‘you are ignorant’
.
I didnt read the origonal provocative comments which kicked this off days ago, and some part of them was even removed. So i took a dimmer view on the response to the ‘multiculti’ provocation than i reactively would have. But moving on i welcomed Nexus’s interrogation of Suhayl’s thrust, i see Komodo as still being read harshly – England Is heavily populated and contained for now in cities, probably unable to feed itself without helpful trading conditions. In the context of immigration strategy that would be a relevant note, well before deciding how to place it. I do personally enjoy and welcome multiculturalism and push for maximum freedom of movement and socialisation but not to ignore related difficulties and challenges where they are found.
.
It is funny how besides the fray, old Apostate has tested the bounds of his probation from his last banning, in the course managing to mention the all too chilling and plausible existence and possible involvement of crazed military mind control assassins in the American gun massacres. It might lead to psy-fi but i think there could sadly madly be some truth in it.