Last week, Nick Griffin — the head of the racist and fascist ‘British National’ Party — was given some air time on BBC’s “Question Period.” There were protests, and a lot of controversy.
Here is some selected coverage and commentary -
“Lenin” on the Lenin’s Tomb blog -
“Springboard for Griffin”
An article on the BBC web site -
“BNP support in poll sparks anger”
(Anti-BNP bias actually isn’t a problem that anyone should complain about.)
Brian Wheeler on the BBC web site -
“What did voters make of Griffin?”
(I’m not exactly recommending that article. I’m just pointing it out because I think it captures how the BBC airtime has tended to feed into the BNP.)
—
“Lenin” (in this post) -
“It has been pointed out that the arguments over Griffin’s appearance are analogous to those that erupted over Le Pen’s television appearance in 1984, after which support for the Front national doubled. Now Jim Wolfreys has explained in more detail the similarities between the tactics of the BNP and FN. These involve precisely the strategy of normalisation, distancing themselves from the explicit symbols, regalia and language of the traditional far right, and tapping into more socially accepted forms of right-wing politics, such as anti-immigrant racism.
We have to take note of such tactics, and make sure as many people understand them as possible.”
—
“Lenin” on the Lenin’s Tomb blog -
“Protest outside BBC”
Caroline Davies and James Robinson in The Guardian -
“Nick Griffin arrives for BBC debate despite mass protest outside TV centre”
[via Waging Nonviolence]
Brendan Montague on his site (the-sauce.org) -
“A Question of Support (BNP and Question Time)” (in late September)
—
According to Brendan Montague -
“Eight students were attacked with what is believed to be pepper spray by police at the gates of the BBC head quarters.”
Another individual “was left with a 3cm gash to his head after being struck with a truncheon.”
—
This blog post suggests that denying the BNP a platform would feed in to them (to some extent) because “a core element of their propaganda is a persecution complex where the BNP are victimised by powerful forces for daring to tell the ‘truth.’ ” (The author also presents other points — including statements about how common Brits should know better than to support the BNP. But I’m just going to respond to the point that I had quoted.)
Regarding that statement about “persecution” and supposed victimization -
It’s true that shutting the BNP out of the mainstream press wouldn’t be enough to make them go away, and it’s also true that the BNP would try to re-frame their marginalization as some form of greatness, but I also think it’s now clear that casting any spotlight on the BNP — and a ‘respectable,’ ‘legitimate’ BBC spotlight at that — easily can help them to draw in more supporters. Although the BNP are bound to get official or otherwise mainstream platforms at times, for as long as they have elected officials in office, they still haven’t had much access to major outlets (like the mainstream press). The BNP have been around the fringes of British society; so just landing a place on the mainstream agenda easily can leave them with some more support — from a proportion of the audiences that they gain. Amidst the controversies before, during, and after the recent BBC/BNP broadcast, more people have come to the BNP with sympathy, curiosity, and other openness or support. The BNP also have provoked more opposition, at the same time — but not effective opposition (so far).
It’s very difficult to confront a party that veils their views, and their goals, and their ties to a wider range of racism and fascism (including racist assault in the streets); so BNP marketing and spin must be exposed and challenged. If they won’t be forthcoming about who they are and what they are trying to do, then they shouldn’t be given platforms, and room on prominent agendas; they simply should be condemned and shut out.
Brits should hear about what the BNP is, but the BNP tends to avoid blunt and accurate accounts themselves (in public). And, regardless of how open they are about their views and goals, they are bound to try to cultivate an air of up-standing ‘democratic’ officialdom (as a veneer over their racist fascism). Obviously they’re not the only party spinsters out there though. I don’t think we should take any party politics for granted — whereas allowing the BNP to enter into the mix of established parties extends the scope of party politics, by adding in their neo-Nazi approach (that is, their support for hate crimes, their WWII fascist holocaust denial, etc).
Outsiders generally will have to outline BNP’s stances more clearly than the BNP will. Since it wouldn’t do to just ignore them, others should be calling attention to the BNP’s approach — without reproducing their sinister subterfuges, or their pretensions about supporting democratic nationalism. I hope that this video is shown on television — repeatedly. I also think that people should be questioning the name “British National Party,” which suggests that the BNP is standing up for “British National” interests (in a country that obviously does include coloured immigrant populations — who certainly should be just as welcome to participate as citizens, and as members of communities). The name “British Nazi Party” would be more fitting, but that term is just a form of name-calling, rather than a more substantial critique. BNP/Nazi interconnections certainly are among the issues that people should be highlighting though (in part, because of how the Nazis actually shelled the British nation during WWII air raids).
But we shouldn’t be debating questions like whether or not immigrants are human, or whether mass murder is OK. The BNP also shouldn’t be allowed to dance around their positions on such issues, if they’re given or allowed to have platforms — if not an air of legitimate acceptance on platforms like the BBC.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Paul // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Racism begins with our families, parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, people we admire, respect and love.
However, as we grow and mature we come to the realization that what we were told by our family when we were children were slanted lies base on their prejudices. We realize that most people are like ourselves and not so different and want the same things, like a home, steady work, a Medicare plan and schools for our children (if you travel you will see this). We realize that most people are of good hearts and goodwill.
This reminds me of a parable from the good book where a Levite and Priest come upon a man who fell among thieves and they both individually passed by and didn’t stop to help him.
Finally a man of another race came by, he got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy and got down with the injured man, administered first aid, and helped the man in need.
Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his fellow man.
You see, the Levite and the Priest were afraid, they asked themselves, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?”
But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”
That’s the question before us. The question is not, “If I stop to help our fellow man (immigrant) in need, what will happen to me?” The question is, “If I do not stop to help our fellow man, what will happen to him or her?” That’s the question.
This current climate of blaming others for our woes is not new. We have had this before and we have conquered it.
Remember “Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing”. Raise your voices with those of us who believe we are equal and we can win this battle again.
2 fellist // Oct 27, 2009 at 9:36 am
“Brits should hear what the BNP is, but the BNP tends to avoid blunt and accurate accounts themselves (in public)”.
Turn it around: the establishment parties are FOR race-replacement - of European peoples only. Naturally, they tend to talk it up as open-ness and anti-racism, but race-replacement’s what it is.
That’s why open debate with nationalists - if they happen to be white - is rare to no-existent. Confronting the BNP? Kinda hard when they can simply say ‘let us live; leave us alone; this land is ours; we don’t want to be colonised; and why are you doing this?’
***
Paul said: “Racism begins with our families, parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, people we admire, respect and love.”
True, but not in the way you mean. Ethnic-feeling is an extension of family feeling. One’s race is one’s largest extended family.
I have some quotes up at my blog from a book edited by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, the founder of the scientific discipline of ‘human ethology.’ One of the essays I quote is his own and called ‘Us and Others: the Familial Roots of Ethnonationalism.’ In it he demonstrates that the nutrurative and affiliative feelings towards one’s ethnic group are an extension of the feelings we have to close(r) kin relations.
I also quote his introduction to the book, this is the last paragraph of that intro:
In evolutionary terms, individual survival means nothing if it does not contribute to the survival and reproduction of genetically related kin. The resulting patterns of loyalty and competition have traumatized our history. Yet as far back as the historical record allows us to infer, ever since humans first reflected upon the uniqueness of life they became concerned about the sufferings imposed by war, including the sufferings of those not belonging to their own communities. Is there a chance for peace in an overcrowded world? And can a sustainable peace be compatible with the preservation of ethnic diversity? It must if we are to avoid a global repressive regime, since the human tendency to experiment with new ways of group living is pronounced. Life has always tended to diversify — a tendency that has served as pacemaker of evolution. And after all, only through diversification has life continued and grown in richness on this planet.
/endquote
The universal nationalism of the BNP is the right approach for all those who desire peace and who value true diversity.
Peace, dudes!
3 Toban // Oct 27, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Before I get to the rest of what you’ve said, I’m going to ask -
Could you explain what you meant in these parts of your comment?
“the establishment parties are FOR race-replacement - of European peoples only. Naturally, they tend to talk it up as open-ness and anti-racism, but race-replacement’s what it is”
“they can simply say ‘let us live; leave us alone; this land is ours; we don’t want to be colonised; and why are you doing this?’”
4 fellist // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:42 am
I don’t feel very much inclined to restate simple sentences in different words, Toban. What ya struggling with?
5 Toban // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:55 am
All right, I’ll start by responding to what you say after the three stars — in the part that was a response to Paul -
You write about race conflict as though it would be a road to peace.
Are you aware of the ongoing interconnections between the BNP and violent hate crimes?
Would you say that it would be peaceful to deport the coloured people who are living in the UK right now?
Do you think that the UK should shut out refugees — leaving them to suffer or die — because they’re not European enough?
It gets worse, though, since the BNP is bound up with the Nazis, and their WWII holocaust (through holocaust cover-ups, for instance);
so there is BNP support for mass extermination that is anything but peaceful.
Also -
You describe a big incestuous family as some sort of ideal. That vision isn’t just unsettling (to say the least), it also
is based on a myth. Races are not biological. (Superficial features like skin colours, and nose shapes, and hair textures, are not as deep as a ‘race’ is supposed to be, so those biological characteristics are not at odds with what I have said about. Those superficial features are not racial features; they are just the traits that race is attached to.) Races are social constructions that don’t have the same biological grounding as families (which are more biological, but which have been changed in different contexts). Anyone who actually looks at races in the same way as families is deluded. People keep telling one another that skin colour is important enough to justify slotting someone into a racial category, and a racial hierarchy, but that system is based on delusions and lies.
To try to pretend that nations are the same as races is even more of a stretch. Do you realize that pre-modern British history is a blend of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, French people, and Danes? Where’s the one pure race in that mix?
As for what you’re saying about “diversity,” you haven’t offered any explanation to back up that language; and since you were writing about a ‘white supremacist’ party — i.e. one ‘white’ race — I can’t even begin to imagine how what you’ve said makes any sense.
6 Toban // Oct 31, 2009 at 12:03 pm
As for the rest of what you’ve said -
You don’t explain what “race-replacement” is supposed to be. Who is it that you think is replacing who, and what do you even mean by “replacement”? And why is this supposed “replacement” important, anyway?
Then you talk about people saying “let us live; leave us alone”, etc, without mentioning who you are even talking about.
As for what you say about “nationalists” who “happen to be white” -
If the BNP were true nationalists, they would appreciate and respect all British citizens, wouldn’t they?
Or do you think that only people with light skin have a claim to the UK?
The BNP are not “nationalists” who “happen to be white”; they are ‘white supremacists,’ who pretend that their biology is superior to other people’s (even as they behave like nitwit thugs).
7 fellist // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:53 pm
You write about race conflict as though it would be a road to peace.
On the contrary, universal nationalism means the end of ‘race conflict’ — there is no race conflict within homogenous societies or between homogenous societies respecting each other’s sovereignty. How anyone can describe a strict policy of live-and-let-live as one promoting conflict is beyond me.
Are you aware of the ongoing interconnections between the BNP and violent hate crimes?
In absolute numbers most victims of racially motivated crimes in Britain are White, in relative numbers the disparity is astounding. Even if all those Whites who commit racially motivated crimes are BNP members the party culture would still appear to be less of a catalyst for violent crime than the ‘Blame Whitey’ culture at large. Your righteous indignation should be focused elsewhere.
Would you say that it would be peaceful to deport the coloured people who are living in the UK right now?
I don’t think they like being called ‘coloured’ these days. But my answer is no. By definition, however, it would be peaceful to say, ‘let’s halt immigration for now, “coloured” and European, and try and find some way for the people already here to live together peacefully,’ and that is the BNP’s policy.
Do you think that the UK should shut out refugees — leaving them to suffer or die — because they’re not European enough?
Generally, I think refugees ought to seek asylum in the first country they come to after fleeing their own. The people in the camps in northern France aiming to come to Britain seem to be shopping around for a good deal — you don’t do that when you’re desperate.
In the ongoing and special case of Iraqi and Afghani refugees I would confiscate the wealth of those most responsible for their plight, starting with media barons, journalists, think-tanks, politicians, oil and gas companies, and the state of Israel, and give it to the Iraqis and Afghanis on condition they return to their homelands when we withdraw - which I’d have us do immediately. Many of the individual warmongers I would hang for war crimes following Nuremberg protocols. (These are my views on asylum seekers, more relevant to the discussion is the BNP’s policy which I understand is to conform to its obligations under UN law.)
It gets worse, though, since the BNP is bound up with the Nazis, and their WWII holocaust (through holocaust cover-ups, for instance); so there is BNP support for mass extermination that is anything but peaceful.
This does you no credit, no-one reading this would agree that to question parts of the orthodox holocaust narrative is equivalent to ‘support for mass extermination.’ Even outright holocaust denial, which no-one in the BNP seems ‘guilty’ of, appears to be the exact opposite of what you say it is - surely it’s the refutation, not the celebration, of a mass extermination?
I’m appalled as well that you describe an unorthodox reading of history as being ‘worse’ than violent crime. Presumably then no punishment is too severe for those who question the details of this aspect of WWII? I thought the Allies were fighting for ‘freedom’?
It seems to me that in 2009 the most important thing about the holocaust is the way it is exploited for political ends: On the one hand to sanctify the ethnic nationalist program of the Jewish people, on the other to prejudice the ethnic nationalist programs of all other peoples, but especially Europeans and Palestinians. This is hypocritical and objectively racist.
You don’t explain what “race-replacement” is supposed to be. Who is it that you think is replacing who, and what do you even mean by “replacement”? And why is this supposed “replacement” important, anyway?
Google ‘Replacement Migration’ — it is the UN’s preferred term for the high levels of immigration they advocate as remedy for population decline in the ‘economies’ (not societies) of Europe, Korea and Japan. In Britain ‘replacement migration’ has been the effective policy of governments for decades, and whether immigrant groups’ fertility rates adjust to native levels requiring ever more immigration to compensate, or they maintain the high fertility rates of their home countries, a policy of replacement migration means that the English, Scots and Welsh will over time make up progressively less and less of Britain’s population.
This article explains the eventual and inevitable outcome:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928
quote: We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants. /endquote.
Japan and Korea wisely ignore the UN’s illogical propaganda preferring that Japan and Korea remain Japanese and Korean: thus, no race-replacement for the Japanese and Korean peoples.
Are for what you say about “nationalists” who “happen to be white” - If the BNP were true nationalists, they would appreciate and respect all British citizens, wouldn’t they?
A ‘nation’ is an ethnic group, I think you confuse ‘nation’ for ‘state.’ The British citizenry is made up of people of dozens of nationalities: I’d estimate it may be as high as 100 or more. While the BNP does respect and appreciate all British citizens unless there are particular grounds not to, you’re right that it isn’t an orthodox nationalist grouping, working as it does for the interests of several ethnic groups/nations (those indigenous to Britain) rather than just one.
Or do you think that only people with light skin have a claim to the UK?
I’m not a child so don’t confuse race with skin colour, or ethnicity with race. Do you think all Black people are the same - with no ethnic distinctions between them? Do you think a light-skinned Japanese is White and English?
And I come at this as an Englishman, not a Brit. England belongs to the English. If you don’t accept this you’ll find you don’t have any moral groundings from which to oppose other forms of colonisation, or imperialism, or even ethnic cleansing. Native peoples’ priority claim to their territories is what makes all these things wrong.
The BNP are not “nationalists” who “happen to be white”; they are ‘white supremacists,’ who pretend that their biology is superior to other people’s (even as they behave like nitwit thugs).
Believing this, or pretending to, licenses aggression against the native Britons in their homeland. That is it’s entire worth. A couple of hundred years ago it was the African and Asian ‘knuckle-draggers’ we were encouraged to despise so that they could be colonised for the benefit of financiers and industrialists, today it is European ‘knuckle-draggers’ whose supposed deficiencies justify the colonisation of Europe for the benefit of the same crowd.
Also - You describe a big incestuous family as some sort of ideal. That vision isn’t just unsettling (to say the least), it also is based on a myth. Races are not biological. (Superficial features like skin colours, and nose shapes, and hair textures, are not as deep as a ‘race’ is supposed to be, so those biological characteristics are not at odds with what I have said about. Those superficial features are not racial features; they are just the traits that race is attached to.) Races are social constructions that don’t have the same biological grounding as families (which are more biological, but which have been changed in different contexts). Anyone who actually looks at races in the same way as families is deluded. People keep telling one another that skin colour is important enough to justify slotting someone into a racial category, and a racial hierarchy, but that system is based on delusions and lies.
To try to pretend that nations are the same as races is even more of a stretch. Do you realize that pre-modern British history is a blend of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, French people, and Danes? Where’s the one pure race in that mix?
As for what you’re saying about “diversity,” you haven’t offered any explanation to back up that language; and since you were writing about a ‘white supremacist’ party — i.e. one ‘white’ race — I can’t even begin to imagine how what you’ve said makes any sense.
I’ll pretty much pass on all that for now, even were race a mere social construct it wouldn’t make any difference to the political questions we’re discussing. The ‘social constructs’ known as races and ethnic groups would still have conflicts of interest with other such social constructs absent some universal - and it would need be universal - awakening to the fact that all these groups do not really exist as such. If you had cared to check out the extracts from the article by Eibl-Eibesfeldt I mentioned earlier:
http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-and-others-familial-roots-of.html
you’d have found that point is addressed.
Even so, I believe you’re profoundly wrong on race. Here’s a coupla links, more for your readers than yourself:
John Goodrum’s Race FAQ
and
Steve Sailer’s Race FAQ
and some quotes I put together from the Oxford University Press’s Reference series
http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/06/race-does-not-exist.html
beginning with:
Race: 1. (in biology) A category used in the classification of organisms that consists of a group of individuals within a species that are geographically, ecologically, physiologically, or chromosomally distinct from other members of the species. The term is frequently used in the same sense as subspecies. Physiological races, for example, are identical in appearance but differ in function. They include strains of fungi adapted to infect different varieties of the same crop species. 2. (in anthropology) A distinct human type possessing several characteristics that are genetically inherited. The major races are Mongoloid, Caucasian, Negroid, and Australoid.
“race” A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
8 Toban // Nov 15, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Well…
you’ve let people know where you stand. Clearly you think that (a) ‘white’ people need to be defended because they’re under siege — from pretty much everyone in the UK, (b) people are far too concerned about racism toward coloured immigrants in the UK, (c) holocaust deniers deserve more credit, (d) superficial bodily features (like hair textures) are enough to divide humanity into “sub-species,” based on supposed ’science,’ (e) there’s something wrong with coloured immigrants
… etc
I’m not going to continue to provide you with a platform for those views — or for some other claims that you have or might make. In other words, the interaction between us is largely or entirely over (hence, the questions below pretty much are hypothetical). I won’t let you use this blog to try to pretend that you have a case for ‘white supremacy’ (e.g. your opposition towards African and Asian immigration into the UK). If you want to type more racist bullshit here, I’ll just delete it.
——
“there is no race conflict within homogenous societies or between homogenous societies respecting each other’s sovereignty. How anyone can describe a strict policy of live-and-let-live as one promoting conflict is beyond me.”
Even if this idea of a “homogenous” society made sense, that ‘purity’ would have to be upheld by…
(a) forcing everyone within the ‘pure’ society to live within those boundaries.
(b) deporting or killing off anyone who is ‘impure’
(c) tightly restricting inter-societal contact (e.g. sexual intercourse leading to child birth) in order to prevent ‘contamination’
Such ‘us-and-them’ divisions often have been tense. It’s strange that you would try to associate those divisions with peace, given how those ‘us-and-them’ conditions are heightened during wars (e.g. in propaganda about the ‘other side’ — who are portrayed as some other species).
Besides, that imaginary society would be stifling and boring and stagnant.
But I don’t see how this idea of a “homogenous” society makes sense, anyway. Are you calling for cloning and/or eugenics to uphold your standards of ‘purity’? (Maybe you think that ‘impure’ babies should be thrown off of cliffs?)
Would you ban all culture that is tied to other countries?
(How far back would such a purge reach into history? Are ties to classical Greece — on the periphery of the Middle East — somehow acceptable?)
These very shallow notions about ‘purity’ don’t hold up to even a minimal degree of scrutiny.
There actually isn’t consensus about what ‘true’ ‘British’ culture is, and there is no consensus among ‘white supremacists’ regarding what a ‘white’ person is either. To have such agreement about ‘whiteness,’ you would have to define an acceptable range of ‘pure’ skin tones, and nose shapes, and such; AND/OR some sort of acceptable definition about culture would be needed.
(Are ‘pure’ British people allowed to eat curry, for instance? Or would you like to see all curry banned from the UK?)
The UK is not a homogenous society; it won’t meet some standard of ‘racial’ ‘purity’ without mass deportation or mass extermination — as well as a cultural purge (e.g. book burnings) that also would be like those of the Nazis.
“the English, Scots and Welsh will over time make up progressively less and less of Britain’s population. ”
You imply that people with ancestors in India, in African countries, and in various other places aren’t really ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ or ‘Welsh.’ Those claims are based on silly fictions — and a lack of historical study.
Your ‘pure’ Britain already wasn’t just British — even before it was ‘contaminated.’
‘British’ tea is from China, and ‘British’ Christianity is from the Middle East, where there also was pioneering work on mathematics. The list of cultural interconnections goes on and on.
As I’ve already pointed out, there are important history interconnections between the UK, France, and Denmark. (The French basically brought feudalism to the UK, for instance.)
The ancient tribes of the British Isles are long gone. Subsequent British society hasn’t been so isolated. Calling the ancient British tribes ‘pure’ would make more sense; evidently your ‘pure’ Britain existed at some point during the past few hundred years though — at some point after nationalism was a reality.
“In absolute numbers most victims of racially motivated crimes in Britain are White”
You haven’t provided any support for these vague claims. I don’t accept your claim about a wave of anti-’white’ hate crimes.
You say that WWII Holocaust denial
“… appears to be the exact opposite of what you say it is - surely it’s the refutation, not the celebration, of a mass extermination?”
I’m appalled as well that you describe an unorthodox reading of history as being ‘worse’ than violent crime.”
Millions of Jews were slaughtered by WWII fascists. There is room to disagree about certain aspects of what happened (as in controversy around Arendt’s book about Eichmann), but there is no denying that millions of Jews were killed in death camps.
To say otherwise is to defend the fascists, by denying the consequences of their racism — and the various other features of their fascism. As I’m sure you know, that holocaust denial has gone hand-in-hand with anti-semitism — and, at times, neo-nazism.
Holocaust deniers generally do not condemn racist hatred and violence; quite the opposite.
(As for what you say about how the WWII holocaust has been “exploited for political ends”: I’m setting aside those issues, right now.)
“A ‘nation’ is an ethnic group, I think you confuse ‘nation’ for ‘state.’ The British citizenry is made up of people of dozens of nationalities”
This pedantic talk about word choices isn’t warranted. The BNP claim to speak for the “British Nation” — i.e. the UK, as it is defined by nation-state borders. They also are a government party, so the British state is very relevant here. You also are taking the borders that are upheld by the British state for granted here. You have mentioned immigration, for example. As you know, immigration entails crossing state borders.
I don’t have time for silly games like this.
“Do you think all Black people are the same - with no ethnic distinctions between them? Do you think a light-skinned Japanese is White and English?”
I don’t know why you’re asking me these questions. I’m not trying to slot people into these sorts of categories, which I tend to reject.
“A couple of hundred years ago it was the African and Asian ‘knuckle-draggers’ we were encouraged to despise so that they could be colonised for the benefit of financiers and industrialists, today it is European ‘knuckle-draggers’ whose supposed deficiencies justify the colonisation of Europe for the benefit of the same crowd.”
I don’t know what you’re trying to say, but I also am not interested.
I’m not going to respond directly to everything you’ve said, but some of my remarks (e.g. at the top of this comment) apply to parts of what you’ve said that I haven’t quoted.
Evidently we’re not going to reach an agreement. So be it. Hopefully someone else can change your mind, but I don’t think that I’m going to accomplish that by typing words out here.
Leave a Comment