Everyone dies

but how many lived?

Every productive person I know is going or has gone Galt. They’ve all reduced their work hours to the minimum, every woman and every man and even kids are half-arsing “homework” that doesn’t count on their grade.

Homework is one of the first lines of this brainwashing.

People who get it can come from all walks of life.

Rows of desks and a manager who pretends to be your friend or replace your parent, it all fits.

Every person who could express their reason is essentially rebelling.

“I’m sick of my work going to people who hate me”.

Who can argue with that?

One example stuck with me, a guy intimated:

Why get that raise if you’ll make less money post-tax to pay for the mosque down the road popping out dependents YOU will be held financially responsible for?

That’s where England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are right now.

Socialists can’t spend revenue the producers refuse to earn.

They want Cloward-Piven but it also relies on a dragged-out timescale.

This is key.

Communists rely on a smooth transition period of gullible chickens laying eggs to replace themselves.

Nah.

As predicted in Best Post, strike strike strike strike! The worker’s revolution the Left always claimed to want?

You want to spend on PC bullshit like diversity hiring in a company? We leave and let it fail because the top workers aren’t from Asia. The visa Asians are corporate locusts and when the bonuses and special treatment stop, they go too!*

You can make a lot of money off that one, actually. I won’t explain how.

[search calculation average + national IQ of highest % of workforce…. etc.]

Suddenly, there’s a dearth of creativity in various key industries.

Oh noes, what a pity. The Left seems to be stalling for some reason, as the bottom of the pyramid is increasingly hot air!

Why aren’t the Indian IT workers superior replacements to the evil white man?

Hollywood wouldn’t lie to us, they tell us Asians are always smarter than Europeans.

The fact they still live in their own shit is immaterial.

Betrayal? Well, who betrayed whom first?

Who owns the West? Who founded the West? Who developed the West?

Who is owed by the West? Whose birth right is the Western culture?

Answer these then speak to me of traitors.

*Asians also rely on gossip heavily for career decisions, particularly from HR, gossip central. Buy HR something sugary. Suggest to accounting that remittance might be illegal according to national tax law. Have fun.

Gif is completely, totally relevant.

Remember:

They require our co-operation.

They also rely on our information. They’re hardly about to do the grunt work of getting off their fat arses in person.

Countless examples of passive resistance, across the country. Freedom of association is a natural right, whether or not the current Parliament recognises it in statute.

I guess we can take our white privilege elsewhere.

#whitestrike?

It isn’t like I’ve been planning and building toward this very state for literally years.

But if I had….

Ideally, you want every dunce holding a hot potato by the next stock crash.

Call it, if you will, Operation Wipeout.

Encourage every immigrant to buy as much property, way above any earning potential, as humanly possible.

“You have to get on the property market, look at the gains! You don’t wanna miss out!”

Every bachelor must buy a family home! No! Two! Three! Many! “Just rent them out, lol.”

Property is the world’s largest casino. People won’t bet 500k on black but they’ll buy a shithole in a crappy neighborhood for it. Consider it a wealth transfer back to the rightful owners.

Investing in the future of a foreign country is hilariously stupid.

Ideally, get in on the transaction somehow. Offer them halal, interest-free loans, if you have to!

A spoonful of sugar helps. We need debt addicts who act like crack addicts.

Keep that amygdala nice and weak.

The housing “crash” was actually a blip of the coming one, government was about to cease supporting post-war housing for immigrants. The markets told them no, can’t do that, keep supporting them. They’ll do that now…. until they cannot.

What do indebted immigrants do to avoid consequences? Leave.

What do IQ morons who lucked into a high IQ economy do, when their one gamble fails? Leave.

Who do they sell to, at rock bottom prices? The only people who wanna remain, the natives.

The collective effort of their kind selling off desperately at once to all move home drives prices even lower.

They won’t question your help because they expect white guilt and gibs.

After all, give them what they want, wouldn’t wanna be racist, would we?

So desperate for approval, the Guardianistas. Perfect situation if you sit down and think about. For years.

Do not plug into the poison system, as much as possible. Encourage every Marxist teacher (they have forums) to buy into the stock market, because Soros is our ally. Those silly Brexit racists don’t believe in the EU, invest, rub it in their faces when the Eurozone recovers! Brag to your students that you’re putting your money where your mouth is! Then everyone clapped.

When stocks go, that includes construction companies, hotels, every place that has a vast need for buildings. Like Amazon. Totally scorched earth, business-wise, to develop properly.

Minimise your own dependence while financially skewering your enemies like a kebab shop going out of business.

Age of Economics: Castamere Edition.

Invest in your culture, stop buying Chinese crap especially. Shrink the economy.

Traditionally, insecure investors with money to burn go to housing and stocks. Perfect.

Workers have rights again. If you’re unemployed, you’re still a consumer.

We can do it all now the EU is retreating its corrupt business from our shores and domestic workers are seeing a shift of power, subtle but beginning to grow.

Even I’ve gone quiet, moving things around, helping others IRL to minimise themselves is taking time.

People who want to look in the enemy’s faces and say:

I said, years ago, stop engaging with the Left. Ignore them. This has paid dividends.

Tactical retreat of eyeballs, energy, attention, money. They become more milquetoast the more irrelevant they feel, scrambling for the centrist position, which shifts right.

Now we have the EU’s prime defenders arguing for shades of Brexit.

Every Leftist prediction has failed. Never forget this. Every single one.

The idiots are running out of supply, even fiat. Crunch, crunch, crunch.

Grinding gears slowing to a halt. Excellent. Starve the leeches on our civilization.

As the weather gets colder, literally and fiscally, you can always fuck off home?

Would be a shame if protein supplies became more expensive, forcing gang-supporting ‘shops’ out of business, wouldn’t it?

Would be a shame if all the Welfare Harems buying widescreen TVs found they couldn’t eat them.

White people have the Ice Age genes, we just need the practical reminders of how to prepare for hard times.

Or you can buy another iPhone like the boat people. Your choice.

It’s quiet. Too quiet.

It’s a very old British sense of humour for the situation. Like the Russians starving out…. everyone.

Smart people don’t fear a leveling based on the intelligence of self-reliance.

Workers want a recession. The goods are cheaper than labour wages can drop.

The boss has to sell his yacht, boo sodding hoo.

Also, the West has purchasing power to continue the supply of goods, outcompeting third world buyers e.g. for food, which we largely produce, still.

Now, some (wet blankets) have suggested this may be, kinda, financial sorta ‘terrorism’ but we’ve looked it up in depth and humouring idiots with delusions of grandeur is just business, it isn’t personal. They want status, they’re free and have full agency as intelligent human beings not to stake their entire future, and that of their extended family nest, in the white homelands on unicorns, rainbows and fluffy clouds of truly ironic anti-white supremacy.

Nobody is forcing them, it’s completely kosher. According to hypothetical lawyers.

And we’re all LARPing anyway here, aren’t we?

Ivies don’t care about consent

They are only the ‘top’ places because they have their pick of the top IQs (let’s ban GPA, IQ in different wrappings, if I’m wrong).

nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-league-nude-posture-photo-scandal.html

Blackmail material (obviously) and “elite” eugenics.

Sounding an ominous note, Hersey declared that the photos “had nothing to do with posture . . . that is only what we were told.”

Don’t trust authorities.

Hersey went on to say that the pictures were actually made for anthropological research: “The reigning school of the time, presided over by E. A. Hooton of Harvard and W. H. Sheldon” — who directed an institute for physique studies at Columbia University — “held that a person’s body, measured and analyzed, could tell much about intelligence, temperament, moral worth and probable future achievement. The inspiration came from the founder of social Darwinism, Francis Galton, who proposed such a photo archive for the British population.”

Never actually did it though, and would’ve made it voluntary.

And then Hersey evoked the specter of the Third Reich:

“The Nazis compiled similar archives analyzing the photos for racial as well as characterological content (as did Hooton). . . . The Nazis often used American high school yearbook photographs for this purpose. . . . The American investigators planned an archive that could correlate each freshman’s bodily configuration (‘somatotype’) and physiognomy with later life history. That the photos had no value as pornography is a tribute to their resolutely scientific nature.”

It seems nobody was allowed to object.
Why?
Some of them must have tried.
Anything that could be used as blackmail is illegal.
This is why you teach children modesty, it actually protects them.

Open changing rooms are creepy, bring back cubicles in schools.

This is why No must be respected where bodies are concerned.

If the government/college/institution owns your body in practice, they can do anything they want with it.

“From the outset, the purpose of these ‘posture photographs’ was eugenic. The data accumulated, says Hooton, will eventually lead on to proposals to ‘control and limit the production of inferior and useless organisms.’ Some of the latter would be penalized for reproducing . . . or would be sterilized. But the real solution is to be enforced better breeding — getting those Exeter and Harvard men together with their corresponding Wellesley, Vassar and Radcliffe girls.”

They didn’t exclude Hillary so they weren’t selecting for fitness.

I almost feel sorry for her.

This was the original conformity experiment.

What became of the photographs?

As for the last question, Hersey thought there’d be no trouble locating the photographs. He assumed that “they can probably be found with Sheldon’s research papers” in one of the several academic institutions with which he had been associated. But most of those institutions said that they had burned whatever photos they’d had. Harley P. Holden, curator of Harvard’s archives, said that from the 1880’s to the 1940’s the university had its own posture-photo program in which some 3,500 pictures of its students were taken. Most were destroyed 15 or 20 years ago “for privacy scruples,” Holden said. Nonetheless, quite a few Harvard nudes can be found illustrating Sheldon’s book on body types, the “Atlas of Men.”

This is why you have legal rights to your likeness and people in photos have to sign model releases as to their use.

For scientific studies, you’re told the full extent of why it’s done beforehand and can say no. Data is usually anonymous.

What a despicable violation of male dignity, those published photos are.

They started when photography was very expensive so… I smell blackmail material. At the time, only prostitutes were photographed nude. Some examples are online, if you look, they’re surprisingly dignified, closed legs, partially exposed breasts, very artistic. We’re told what the Daily Mail posts everyday is normal when it’s clearly softcore porn and more risque than the former underground postcard photos. Now of course children are told that hookers are “porn stars” and to emulate them by producing amateur child porn with ‘boyfriends’, much healthier. Men are told taking photos of their anatomy is, far from shameful, something to be proud of because…. having one is an accomplishment? Reasoning unclear but men are doltish on this topic. They’ll complain about sex scandals and ignore their pixelated part in them.

Stopping prosecution of minors for making child porn of themselves was part of the pedo move to eradicate ‘age of consent’ and make them porn ‘stars’. Prosecute all makers of child porn, including the minors themselves, it’s the only way. They wanted to be mature, they knew it was wrong.

Radcliffe took posture photos from 1931 to 1961; the curator there said that most of them had been destroyed (although some might be missing) and that none were taken by Sheldon.

“missing”

Somatotypes are BS, too generic and almost entirely about ways men put on fat.

Kibbe is a detailed respectful system of female anatomy and proves nothing.

Sheldon believed he could assign every individual a three-digit number representing the three components, components that Sheldon believed were inborn — genetic — and remained unwavering determinants of character regardless of transitory weight change. In other words, physique equals destiny.

He didn’t look at the brain because he was an idiot.

Galton looked at the brain. Be like Galton.

Nonetheless, in the late 40’s and early 50’s, Sheldonism seemed mainstream, and Sheldon took advantage of that to approach Ivy League schools. Many, like Harvard, already had a posture-photo tradition. But it was at Wellesley College in the late 1920’s that concern about postural correctness metamorphosed into a cottage industry with pretensions to science. The department of hygiene circulated training films about posture measurement to other women’s colleges, which took up the practice, as did some “progressive” high schools and elementary schools. (By the time Hillary Rodham arrived on the Wellesley campus, women were allowed to have their pictures taken only partly nude. Although Lanier assumes that Sheldon took the Rodham photo, Wellesley archivists believe that Sheldon didn’t take posture photos at their school.)

Allowed?

ALLOWED?

ALLOWED?

Of all the times to channel Emma Watson, I’m mortally offended by this.

Students are not guinea pigs, you can’t abuse them. These are people.

Yes, even Hillary. This would be enough to mess anyone up.

Lanier also filled me in on the cause of Sheldon’s downfall: his never completed, partly burned “Atlas of Women.” In attempting to compile what would have been the companion volume to his “Atlas of Men,” which included hundreds of nude Harvard men to illustrate each of the three-digit body types, Sheldon made the strategic mistake of taking his photo show on the road.

Equally offensive and intrusive, those men had rights!

What happened was this: In September 1950, Sheldon and his team descended on Seattle, where the University of Washington had agreed to play host to his project. He’d begun taking nude pictures of female freshmen, but something went wrong.

The cult sprang a leak?

One of them told her parents about the practice. The next morning, a battalion of lawyers and university officials stormed Sheldon’s lab, seized every photo of a nude woman, convicted the images of shamefulness and sentenced them to burning.

That’s called mob justice.

“Take off your clothes, stand in front of the camera, don’t ask where it goes and don’t tell your parents” – Ivy Leagues.

The angry crew then shoveled the incendiary film into an incinerator. A short-lived controversy broke out: Was this a book burning? A witch hunt? Was Professor Sheldon’s nude photography a legitimate scientific investigation into the relationship between physique and temperament, the raw material of serious scholarship? Or just raw material — pornography masquerading as science?

Did she get a medal? I hope so but you say nothing so I guess no.

Forcing teenagers to undress for photos is borderline pedophilia – how many freshies would’ve been below 18?

They burned a few thousand photos in Seattle. Thousands more were burned at Harvard, Vassar and Yale in the 60’s and 70’s, when the colleges phased out the posture-photo practice.

“posture”

then why include the genitalia? why not wear underwear (as doctors permit) or black it out or provide modest coverings?

“posture” my arse

You should’ve hanged the bastards. Making porn of your children for decades.

But thousands more escaped the flames, tens of thousands that Sheldon took at Harvard, Vassar, Yale and elsewhere but sequestered in his own archives. And what became of the archives? Lanier didn’t know, but he said they were out there somewhere.

So he kept the ‘nudes’ but we’re gonna act like that’s normal?

To Elderkin, Sheldon was no mere body-typer: he was a true philosophe, “the first to introduce holistic perspective” to American science, a proto-New Ager. Elderkin became Sheldon’s research associate, his trusty cameraman and a kind of private eye, compiling case histories of Sheldon’s posture nudes to confirm Sheldon’s theories about physique and destiny. He also witnessed Sheldon’s downfall.

Wouldn’t happen to involve the Frankfurt school, would it?

The Bonfire of the Nude Coed Photos in Seattle wasn’t Sheldon’s only public burning,

Clear sign the photos were non-consensual…..

Elderkin told me: “He went through a number of furors over women. A similar thing later happened at Pembroke, the women’s college at Brown.” In each case, the fact that female nudes were involved kindled the flame against Sheldon. Toward the end, Sheldon became a kind of pathetic Willy Loman-esque figure as he wandered America far from the elite Ivy halls that had once housed him, seeking a place he could complete the photography for his “Atlas of Women.”

Entitled, much?

And why didn’t the women agree without college pressure? Hm?

“That’s how I found out about the burning at Pembroke,” Elderkin recalled. “I was trying to get someone at Brown to accept them, and he said, ‘That filth? We already burned the ones we had.’

The hippies hated this guy.

The hippies.

For all their faults, they did value liberty and telling the Man NO.

Down a dimly lit back corridor of the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, far from the dinosaur displays, is a branch of the Smithsonian not well known to the public: the National Anthropological Archives.

In 1987, the curators of the National Anthropological Archives acquired the remains of Sheldon’s life work, which were gathering dust in “dead storage” in a Goodwill warehouse in Boston. While there were solid archival reasons for making the acquisition, the curators are clearly aware that they harbor some potentially explosive material in their storage rooms. And they did not make it easy for me to gain access.

Hang on, did they reach out to the subjects and offer to return the photos?

In Box 43 I came across a document never referred to in any of the literature on Sheldon I’d seen. It was a faded offprint of a 1924 Sheldon study, “The Intelligence of Mexican Children.” In it are damning assertions presented as scientific truisms that “Negro intelligence” comes to a “standstill at about the 10th year,” Mexican at about age 12. To the author of such sentiments, America’s elite institutions entrusted their student bodies.

Try to replicate it before dismissal. Yawn.

Appeal to incredulity doesn’t work on IQ. You could easily debunk it with one study… unless it’s true.

Finally and most telling, I found a letter nearly four decades old that did something nothing else in the files did. It gave a glimpse, a clue to the feelings of the subjects of Sheldon’s research, particularly the women. I found the letter in a file of correspondence between Sheldon and various phys ed directors at women’s colleges who were providing Sheldon with bodies for the ill-fated “Atlas of Women.” In this letter, an official at Denison University in Granville, Ohio, was responding to Sheldon’s request to rephotograph the female freshmen he had photographed the year before. Something had apparently gone wrong with the technical side of the earlier shoot.

Sure it did.

But the official refused to allow Sheldon to reshoot the women, declaring that “to require them to pose for another [ nude posture photo ] would create insurmountable psychological problems.”

Surely the women also had a say? Apparently not.
Never trust a PE teacher.

Insurmountable psychological problems. Suddenly the subjects of Sheldon’s photography leaped into the foreground: the shy girl, the fat girl, the religiously conservative, the victim of inappropriate parental attention. Here, perhaps, Naomi Wolf has a point. In a culture that already encourages women to scrutinize their bodies critically, the first thing that happens to these women when they arrive at college is an intrusive, uncomfortable, public examination of their nude bodies.

Inhumane.

An affront to Christian modesty especially.

Negatives. Full length views of nude freshmen men, front, back and rear. Includes weight, height, previous or maximum weight, with age, name, or initials.

Sick.

Negatives. Made in 1950. Full length views of nude women, front, back and rear. Includes height, weight, date and age. Includes some photographs marked S.P.C.

Twisted to force innocent women into this especially.
People would resent their dog being treated like that.

There were also undated photos from the Oregon Hospital for the Criminally Insane (which I could not distinguish in any way from the Ivy League photos). All told, there were some 20,000 photographs of men — 9,000 from Yale — and 7,000 of women.

If you needed further proof that ethics was not a concern.
It is likely a sexual sadist, who likes the idea of forcing people to pose for photos.
They won’t allow it in the DSM because among certain types, it’s so common. Those types pay to keep it out so it can’t be used against them in court and they can’t be studied.

In flipping through those thousands of images (which were recently transferred to Smithsonian archives in Suitland, Md.), I found surprising testimony to the “insurmountable psychological problems” that the Denison University official had referred to. It took awhile for the “problems” to become apparent, because, as it turned out, I was not permitted to see positive photographs — only negatives (with no names attached).

Trauma is common among the innocent.

Predators try to minimise this but basic rights to dignity are on the books for good reason.

But the faces of the women were another story. I was surprised at how many looked deeply unhappy, as if pained at being subjected to this procedure. On the faces of quite a few I saw what looked like grimaces, reflecting pronounced discomfort, perhaps even anger.

The monsters encouraged and condoned this.
This is ritual sexual humiliation and overt scientism.
Why would they want fresh teenage women, the vast majority of whom would be virgins?
Considering the tribal beliefs about photos, one could assume a creep might consider it a theft of innocence. Odds are those women had never been nude in front of anyone before….

Most unusually –

WHY were the faces necessary?

There’s no logical reason to photograph the face.

And since the bodies don’t finish developing until the 20s, teenage photographs are scientifically invalid.

This would have been known at the time.

But what about the perpetrators? What could have possessed so many elite institutions of higher education to turn their student bodies over to the practitioners of what now seems so dubious a science project?

Why did they make it compulsory and on what grounds?

Still no answer.

It’s a question that baffles the current powers that be at Ivy League schools.

Like the mysterious correlation between Asian teachers and cheating, even at Eton?

The response of Gary Fryer, Yale’s spokesman, is representative: “We searched, but there’s nobody around now who was involved with the decision.” Even so, he assures me, nothing like it could happen again; concerns about privacy have heightened, and, as he puts it, “there’s now a Federal law against disclosing anything in a college student’s record to any outsider without written permission.”

Uhuh.

America not great but immigrants still attracted? – SJWs Always Lie

Mind cancer typical of Cultural Marxism. Remember, once an idea is in your mind, you can never pluck it out.


Her ancestors had the great societal culture of rice farming and famine, they continue to rip off Western technologies, unable to come up with much themselves. Meritocracy a myth, unless it’s your SAT score. It’s interesting that she describes her own toxic conformity to academic culture. I’m familiar with this.
Liberals hate property rights (r-types are consumers, not producers) and originality (jealousy). Picasso could actually paint, he conned the art market with crap and got a laugh out of it. It started off as one big joke involving a urinal. They were literally taking the piss.


Liberals distort epistemology, mis-perceive or falsely convey the labels of symbology as the symbols they distinguish and deny empiricism or objective fact-testing in definitions. e.g. Geometry is a settled science, not up for debate or opinion. Feelings like Asch’s lines do not change factual definitions. This is peer pressure and brainwashing under the guise of open-mindedness and ego-boosting (her sickly sweet tone of voice, like speaking to a child). Their brains have fallen out. If they hate labels so much, they should quit coming up with trendy new terms for sexuality, because orientation theory is a gigantic Victorian labelling system. If they hate labels so much, they should quit with the ad hominem: like Hitler, literally Hitler, bigoted, sexist, racist, phobic etc. Or maybe the purpose of language is communication and that requires labels, rather than crazed gesticulation? She likes consensus and conformity, but not the consensus of what a shape is, or the conformity of shapes to objective rules? ~cuckoo noise sounds~


Liars. Not even liberal. I love the part where she says she doesn’t want to dominate the conversation, even though it’s her opinion or you’re wrong, but all opinion counts and also, there is no such thing as truth, in full postmodern trash, so nobody can technically have an opinion regardless.
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t apply to idiots. They don’t flag these as errors.
PC lies by filling the air with nonsense words and hoping you’ll be distracted long enough they can get power over you.


“top-down?” you mean teaching? and that isn’t what top-down means, it’s a processing term based on neuroscience and computer metaphors
Teachers not important in colleges? Really? Authority figures bad? Why are you paid so much?
“Who gets to judge?”
…Experts. People with the facts. Bloody Hell.

Top kek comment: “Wouldn’t this reduce art to propaganda, like Socialist Realism was?”
In one, son.
Also “Bombastic nonsense. Epistemology has nothing to do with politics; sjws are trying to look cleverer than their content normally allows by appropriating philosophical terminology.”
Stealing. The term is stealing.

Philosophy and science are apolitical because they align with the brutal, unvarnished, inconvenient truth, not the specific groups of people with vested interests.

Critical theory is a nag. A whiner. All it does is complain, it cannot create anything new. It attacks everything but in failing to have positive assertions, it is impossible to falsify itself. It is purely destructive and intends to divide people and sweep up power in the chaos. These people can’t come up with new words at least, they must pinch those from other topics and abuse them.

Cultural Marxism and World Cup propaganda

http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/big-brothers-rugby-world-cup-propaganda.html#more

Cultural Marxism is often misunderstood as having, or wishing to create, something new, it isn’t, it is a wrecking ball with no further purpose than to destroy. This is why its internal logic is so often paradoxical and, generally, an incoherent mess. One example of this is the way the modern Left claim to stand simultaneously for Islam and Gay Rights. It doesn’t make sense, it isn’t supposed to, what matters is that both gays and Muslims are groups lining up to attack the traditional society Europeans have created. Placing blacks as aristocrats, or coming soon, characters in Beowulf, opens up yet another paradox in New Leftist thought. If blacks are a historically oppressed and abused group at the hands of racist Europeans then by the Left’s own logic it is absurd to cast them as being a historically integral part of European civilization, as aristocrats and viking warriors etc. If we are now supposed to believe that blacks made up the classes of the British ruling elites are they, then, culpable and guilty for slavery too? what do today’s blacks think of this?.

If they can convince you into insanity once, they never need do it again.

Asch’s lines. How many lines do you see?

“Three.”

*slap*

“F-F-Four?”

Or Moscovici’s blue/green study appropriately dubbed “minority influence”.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html

In many of the conformity studies described so far it was a minority group who were conforming to the majority.  Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different lines.  He claimed that Asch (1951) and others had put too much emphasis on the notion that the majority in a group has a large influence on the minority. In his opinion, it is also possible for a minority to influence the majority.  In fact Asch agreed with Moscovici.  He too felt that minority influence did occur, and that it was potentially a more valuable issue to study – to focus on why some people might follow minority opinion and resist group pressure.

They want all histories on a wiki so they can edit as times go on as is expedient.

Moscovici made a distinction between compliance and conversion. Compliance is common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch) whereby the participants publicly conform to the group norms but privately reject them.  Conversion involves how a minority can influence the majority. It involves convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility).  Conversion is different to compliance as it usually involves both public and private acceptance of a new view or behavior (i.e. internalization).

Why does that push for “awareness” and “acceptance” sound familiar?

“Or is it your reputation that’s bothering you? But look at how soon we’re all forgotten. The abyss of endless time that swallows it all. The emptiness of those applauding hands. The people who praise us; how capricious they are, how arbitrary. And the tiny region it takes place. The whole earth a point in space – and most of it uninhabited.” ~ Marcus Aurelius

Emma Watson thinks she’s an economist now. Here’s why I wouldn’t trust her to run a lemonade stand. #Davos #10x10x10

It’s almost as if she is slowly changing into Hermione, whom no one really liked for her politics <SPEW joke>, because her career is panning and she’s approaching the Hollywood leading lady Wall. It’s no coincidence they cut that irritating interlude to a passing mention in the films. I didn’t cover HeforShe first time round because I knew it would be a bust (as she hilariously admits in the speech at Davos) but it seems her inane #firstworldproblems are becoming a quarterly feature so my hand is forced. Side note: did she take a private jet like the other suffering millionaires?

 first world problems priorities

Let’s go to the press release first, the official line, predictably called UNWomen because women are the centre of everything don’tchaknow.

http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/01/emma-watson-launches-10-by-10-by-10

What do you want?

unveiled the HeForShe IMPACT 10X10X10 pilot initiative to galvanize momentum in advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment. The HeForShe campaign’s IMPACT 10X10X10 initiative is a one-year pilot effort that aims to engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality and that have the greatest capacity to make and influence those changes. Each sector will identify approaches for addressing gender inequality, and pilot test the effectiveness of these interventions for scalability.
Translation: Holding democratic institutions (governments) to ransom, alongside private bodies owned by private citizens (shareholders, MDs/CEOs) and Universities who already favour girls too much with intake ratios. One year deadline or else. As if this ask is new. Who voted for her? Ah. Nobody. She can deliver a speech, but as we’ll see, there is little point of delivering a speech where the primary indicator that she wrote it herself was unoriginality. These claims have already been addressed. Perhaps if Mz Watson were less self-absorbed, she would have bothered to take the time to fucking Google it. The truth is out there.
Still don’t see what the number ten has to do with any of this.
The report highlights a large current gap between men and women in terms of political engagement and opportunity and little improvement in equality for women in the workplace since 2006.
The economic downturn? Then called the Credit Crunch? Are women alone in suffering since then? Is that what you’re trying to argue? Have you looked at the labor force participation rates for men? Unemployment?
As for political engagement, we don’t put ourself up as much as men do. We don’t want to. Politics is called showbiz for ugly people so I find it deeply amusing that Mz Watson is giving the speech when women put themselves up for film/TV/theatre camerawork without a problem.
“Ultimately we need everyone to get involved if we are to turn the tide.”
You aren’t making this sound like a free choice, more of a mandate with a pretty smile.
I still have no idea why it’s called 10x10x10 and I read the whole page about it. I’m surprised IMPACT isn’t in huge letters in the Impact font and zooming into a Powerpoint presentation like a rocket.
It links to this tweet

https://twitter.com/HeforShe/status/558522851373105153

Here, have some groupthink! It goes lovely with that delusion that everyone agrees with you and knows your opinion is the only good one. This is why people rightfully call social justice a cult, but strangely, the term isn’t used. PR hiccup? Even when that’s the entire point of the move. It’s redistribution of wealth to the people who, by definition, do not create it. Irony bounds we need one of the most privileged women in the world asking for the average man’s money as if she is oppressed by her sex when HR departments already hire according to SJ diktat and she made the bulk of her fortune off being a comely woman by modelling (professional objectification).

social justice definition

sjrobot

google search men can't beThat last image was a sardonic reference to the last feminist UNWomen campaign, which used Google autocomplete as if it were totally serious.

Serious scientific data you guys.

Serious scientific data you guys.

n.b. “Male feminists” are anecdotally more verbally abusive to women such as myself (non-feminist) than any female feminist I’ve encountered. They seem to think they’re justified behind that non-sequitur shield of “I’m a feminist, I can’t be a cyberbully” (a masked man fallacy). I have frequently been told to kill myself, always by a male feminist. One notable example was actually a campaigner against cyberbullying which he didn’t like when I pointed out such hypocrisy. If anything, you should be telling them to calm the fuck down. Rather than target other women on behalf of a minority of cultists who clearly cannot logically defend themselves against their own sex. Or don’t these normal, non-feminist women know what’s good for them?

Yet this eloquent, illustrious man in the tweet, also a spearhead for the move ahead of a whole list of experienced men, is barely covered in the media. It’s almost as if sex sells, or to be more precise, Mz Watson’s sex.

jessica stam wink sexy

I found another press release, although believe me it took some digging.

http://www.noodls.com/view/B3AB8791692C77A82FCDA610905B702D96DFCE1C?3394xxx1422000694

IMPACT 10X10X10 prioritizes legislative bodies and corporations in view of the gender inequality that exists in these areas, confirmed by findings from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2014.
There are quotes from about half a dozen men who support it. Champions of industry with decades under their belt, weirdly not covered by the MSM. I’m sure going round the backdoor of democracy is totally legitimate and their report is in no way biased to support their personal ends at all.
toasting raising glass cheers leonardo da vinci congrats well done demons
Why would the UN lie to us?
Before we begin on her speech (procrastination what?), may I remind you I sadly live in the same country as this narcissistic shrew. Our government has a dedicated Centre for Social Justice. We don’t need her. They tackle the same old poverty issues which will never disappear, because poverty is relative and it has diddly squat to do with sex, unless she’s arguing physical sex differences impede women. We have an heiress covering poverty issues. Jump-shark-much? Search women in that poverty document: ~5 hits in 73 pages. It isn’t a problem for women. The data from her own country proves it. All but one stat by comparison confirm that poverty hits men harder than women. Almost as if there’s a lack of sympathy for male suffering, we should outlaw whichever bigoted ideology caused that injustice!
I will add in one more SJ definition, the one they officially use which never ever happens in practice (that would be meritocracy, a blind, non-identitarian process). Justice is blind?

Mutual obligation? At no point does HeforShe accomplish anything for men, except some vague promises that, trust us, patriarchy is bad for men too! Even though it’s run by men for men (a male safe space?) and their exclusive benefit according to …feminist theory.
From their own mouths: ”

“The patriarchy hurts men too” is a set of silencing or derailing tactics in feminist discussions…. Men are, as a class, the group advantaged by the patriarchy…..men who want to discuss male identity, masculinity and the patriarchy need to create new discussions in spaces that aren’t marked as women-centred. [DS: like a manosphere? mens’ rights groups?] This tactic is sufficiently well known that the acronym is sometimes used to identify it: PHMT.

Ignore the cognitive dissonance behind the curtain.

We have equal opportunities. We do not have equal outcomes because women are free agents who make personal choices and reap the consequences, both positive and negative.

I invite anyone to prove that above bolded incorrect on a factual level. Truly.
There is a performance differential on any metric you care to measure. Men and women (if you choose that sex binary as the independent variable) differ in their colour perception, for example. Something as basic as saying red or orange. As this Cell link states in passing, it’s such old news, the perception differential is biological. Innate. Immutable. “Furthermore, despite abundant evidence for sex differences in other visual domains, and specifically in other tasks of color perception-”

I’m sure Mz Watson knows better than biology. I’m sure there’s some rock-hard science, unless she’s calling Newton’s Principia a “rape manual” like some other feminists. She can’t be coasting on personal attention-whoring, emotional appeals and political philosophy. I can’t put it off any longer.

and here we go joker come on

1st thing I noticed: No like/dislike ratio data. No comments. Yes, what a welcoming invitation from HeforShe. I want to be a part of this “discussion.”

11 million views. How many unique? No, that’s asking too much. I watched it about 10 times to pick apart all the subtle jibes at supposed male dominance. And for laughs with free-thinking friends over drinks.
“Response” is great n’ all, but she isn’t really selling the real-world changes implemented as a result of her September edition [Vogue reference]. Were there any? Any at all? Surely she would point them out unless this is five minutes of self-congratulation that a few million men probably masturbated to her in a tight-fitting suit on mute.

1.2 billion social media conversations. I would wager at least 1 billion of those were arguments. Attention isn’t always positive deary. And going by the statistic you pulled a moment before, that means most people discussing your speech, didn’t watch it.
howmanypeoplewatchedemmawatsoninseptember

That’s right. Less than 0.01% of people talking about you actually listened to what you had to say.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

She name drops. Keep it classy.

Marathons. Don’t people run those anyway? Merchandise? No sales data? None? You’re leaving it up to our imagination? That single 15 year old boy who wrote into his newspaper did it on a whim. I’ve seen more people write into papers about Bigfoot and UFOs.

Young girls collecting hundreds of signatures.

How many? How many girls and how many did each collect? If it were thousands of girls and that’s all they got, it wouldn’t seem as impressive, so I’m not surprised you missed out half the data. And only hundreds? At least two hundred then. Where is the link Emma to check for ourselves? Let’s see another petition in the ranks of 15k.

From their own website, out of billions of men worldwide: 208,003.
From this count, 3,665,665,350 men in the world at the time of checking (rounded a dozen or so down to 50) divided by 208,000 (rounded down by three).
Average 17,623 men per country. Is that it?
Average population of a country: 34,020,600.

averagemenwhosignedHeforSheaccountingforpopulationoftheircountry

That isn’t a “stunning” response Emma. That’s a rounding error.
Less than 0.001% of men in the average country. That’s a level of (in)significance a biomedical study could be proud of!
In your own country, where support should be sky-high: 26,942 men signed. 1 in 7 daily Guardian readers signed your petition. [192881/26942= 7.1]

Back to her first two stats. 11 million views/208,003. I’ll give you the three. 52.88. For every (non-unique) view of your speech, you persauded 1 in 52 men (rounding up for you because I feel pity) to sign your bloody petition.
Of the 1,200,000,000 social media conversations, bearing in mind you double that number of participants because you need at least two people to have a conversation (unless on tumblr);
Conversations on HeforShe by the number of men they induced to actually sign the fucking petition, expressed as percentage.

conversationsonHeforShebymalesignaturesonpetition

0.0002%, kindly rounded up. I can see those social media conversations were very fruitful.

laughing rdj crack up

Go on Emma. Tell us what a success this effort was. Try to sell us this again. Try to justify more money poured into it. How much did September cost? How much for each individual male signature? Four whole months?

“I couldn’t have dreamed it, but it’s happened. Thank you so much.”

Yeah. Sounds more like a nightmare. As you are speaking at an ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

“Thank you so much for watching-“

see above stats

“-and thank you so much for your support.”

Is that sarcasm? She can’t be that deluded to be serious, could she? And such eloquence, she comes across as SO educated. Like wow. so educated.

Reading off a speech card what the 10^3 campaign is. Isn’t her entire job in that role to memorize? Isn’t her acting non-career also based on her memory? It’s five minutes of monologue. *sigh*

“but I want to hear from the human beings that are behind these organisations.”

You already can. They send out these things called press releases and do interviews and sometimes even documentaries, so you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about more reading.

“I spoke about some of my story in September.”

#eloquence
If I were her editor I’d change it to: I shared my experience-. That’s all she wants to do. Talk about herself. Now she’s trying to justify her childish entitlements by asking for other people’s anecdotes too. Other people in power. No room for poor people in this warfare. A war of the sexes long outpaced Marxist class warfare in focus: “Class struggle is the women’s struggle! Women’s struggle is class struggle!” Two+ instances of logical fallacies don’t make for logic. Let’s all empathize with the poor rich people who need your help, poor people. Have a care for those in need. In Parliament. The C-suite. Ivory Towers.

“What are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? [implied boys cannot have mentors because masculinity is toxic to boys but masculine behaviour isn’t for girls] Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally? [instead of fairly] If so, how have you done it? [ignoring their biology and sex-specific needs, I imagine; girls need to be taught about periods, for example] Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner [DS: I think the word you refuse to use is wife] privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too? [ignore the male NEETs, 73% male homelessness and how female NEETs chose to have children young, have more mental health problems or don’t even look for work] Young men, [poor men] have you spoken up in a conversation when a woman was casually degraded or dismissed? [there are so many things wrong with that I shan’t bother] How did this affect you? [as a man, even if 97% feminist-leaning you will be casually degraded by feminists and your opinion is dismissed as mansplaining, trick question] How did this affect the woman you stepped up for? [the part where she was spoken over and for like a paternal figure would or the implication that she cannot defend herself and requires a White Knight to protect her?] Businessmen, [only men? What Sisterhood?] have you mentored, supported or engaged women in leadership positions?”

“18% of SMEs are female led, and 22% of FTSE100 board members are female.” ~ A report written by your Government – why don’t you read?

“Using these data we can estimate that 32.9% of TEA was accounted for by women in 2011. In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.” Seems rather fair to me. They’ve had equal opportunity and ample incentives. In fact, excluding men would be the most unfair, sexist things you could do-

2015targetwomenonboards

are you kidding me rn seriously wtf da vincis demons

Hidden away in another report by your own Government freely available online if you bother to look, it reads: ” In the FTSE 250 – the 250 next largest companies after those in the FTSE 100 – 13% of company directors were women. This figure has doubled in the last seven years.”

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.

Worst of all, this is terrible news for the UK economy. Measured in Tobin’s Q, more women on the board, even on the lowest rung, makes the quantifiable company profits drop in reduced performance.  Don’t worry your head about it Mz Watson, I’m sure your political ideology is more important than the economy. You’re rich, it hardly matters to you on a personal level.

She goes on (and on and on);

Writers,

Daily Mail I presume, with among the highest levels of female journalists employed? [n.b. The Guardian doesn’t report its own figures]

have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28Marxism%29

CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?

And why would they do that?
Note how she doesn’t claim it will make them better off. Interesting omission. They hushed up on that false claim as they began to study it and they didn’t like the real-world results going against their dream. [see above Tobin’s Q]

What change have you seen?

Less money. More lawsuits.
They’ll call you.

Are you someone that has persauded men to become HeforShes?

Sounds like a transsexual thing. By someone, do you mean feminist or the hardcore SJWs? Weasel words.

-and collecting their signatures for our website.

We’ve seen. What a bang-up job they did of that.

Most media nowadays has a real brevity to bullshit issue

How many have you got?

You don’t want to ask that question. Wait… you don’t know. You really don’t know. Are you telling me you haven’t bothered to pull out a calculator once? You had the numbers before me. Nobody told you. Oh my God. Awkward.

Let them glory in their vices, we'll have the last laugh at the hags

We want to know.

They do. The UN already must. They didn’t tell you.

We want to hear from you.

*crickets*

One of the biggest pieces of feedback I’ve had … is that men and women want to help but they aren’t sure how best to do it. Men say they’ve signed the petition [over muffled laughter] – what now?

Here we go. This is it. This is the bold decisive action from a woman in your position of power and leadership. You may not be the feminist we deserve but… Be the feminist we need, Emma!

The truth is, the What Now? is down to you.

…………………………..wait, what’s your job again? ….Why are you even here?

Of all the anti-climaxes. You do the stereotypical female verbal defence mechanism of throwing the need for a logical answer back onto the persons asking the question, in a monologue speech in support of female assertiveness. I didn’t even know that was possible. You deflected with a tag question. To yourself, because the audience can’t talk back and give you that feedback, making the question rhetorical (and online there are no video comments, like/dislikes etc). You’re asking a rhetorical question about the need for and function of the very movement you’re meant to be promoting.

Ask Brown University for your money back.

What your HeforShe commitment will be is personal.

If we know one thing about human nature, men love commitment.

And there is no best way.

Is there a worse tactic than this? Give us a way. One single way to extrapolate from. Use your brain and come up with something. One thing. Is the best you can do to say: figure it out yourselves? Underwhelming.

Everything is valid.

Can I order this on a t-shirt.
It’s such a mindless, empty platitude it would sell like hotcakes.

Decide what your commitment is, make it public, and then please report back to us on your progress.

Like good little tin soldiers. Those are your marching orders.

-so that we can share your story.

Hang on, so the justification of this campaign is to gain information to justify this campaign?

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

We want to support, guide and reinforce your efforts. IMPACT 10^3 [lazy] is about concrete commitments to change, the visibility of these commitments and the measurability of them too.

We don’t care what you do for us, just do something for us, and then tell us what you did, and make sure whatever you do is really obvious and annoying to your friends and you measure it somehow for us, even in feels, to use it for some reason for this campaign that really needs you to do stuff for us because stuff needs to be done for us.

What.

This is bringing back hard flashbacks of that classic study on automaticity. If you give people an order, whatever it is, if you give a non-reason as a reason, most of the time, they’ll still do it. Why? They don’t process the reason. There is no higher brain function and use of logic involved. They’re just following orders.

How has the campaign impacted me so far?

Well you’ve been getting paid, you’ve got more publicity than the last few years of your acting ‘career’ combined and numerous photoshoots.

I’ve had my breath taken away-

SOMEONE hire this girl a speech editor. CHRIST.
A domestic abuse case story …ended by the victim. The victim had the power to make the abuse stop? Bad example Emma. *makes cut motion rapidly*
Men in your life use a sudden excuse to talk to you and be your shoulder to cry on. Didn’t you stop to consider why?

Terrible attempt at “I have a dream”. “Economic and political parity?” Ah, when are you redistributing some of your wealth to me, from one woman to another? When can I expect the transfer? A tenner? How about some third world shithole, they could do great things with your millions? Oh, you want to keep all of your own money but lecture average people who are by definition poorer than you to give away theirs. That isn’t parity, it’s hypocrisy.

-This campaign and the result of it are a result of my incredible speechwriting skills. I know that it is not.

First instance of self-awareness. 4/5 in.

It is because the ground is fertile.

Sweeping statement. Evidence? No, I give up expecting any.

It is my belief that there is a greater understanding than ever that women need to be equal participants.

Let’s hope your understanding of that belief is better than your grasp of statistics.
How about the understanding in the past two centuries? In fact the first person to call for female suffrage was a man in 1818. When “Only 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918.” Government source again: “In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. …The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19.” Votes here with names listed: 385 Ayes to 55 Noes. Or how about when “the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 [stated] that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men.”As wikipedia admits: The act was passed by the Conservative Party without much opposition from other parties.

Ever, Emma? Ever?
There’s your ‘political parity’, you don’t want to see it.

 In our homes, in our societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces.

NOWHERE IS SAFE FROM US.
Weasel use of the collective pronouns. Like the patronizing ‘We’.

And they KNOW, that the world is being held back in EVERY way [name one], because they are not.

Again, prove my opportunities statement false in the First World societies aka civilizations. You can’t. You don’t even bother pretending to prove that claim which dismisses the entirety of feminism up until now, you just say: You know. Oh, you KNOW. Vaguely paranoid assertion. Generic You. Switching to they is an us v. them confrontational paradigm assuming the audience agree, when you just said you want peace, harmony and men working with for women, did you mean as servants instead? Is that your idea of equality for women? If women=men doesn’t that go both ways? And it’s a black/white fallacy to throw one group up against another like the only options (they/we). If they did hold you back, how are you able to make this speech at all? You speak nonsense. There is no sense in it. You can’t be consistent for five fucking minutes??? [4:35]

Right side of history‘ myth tied to Marxism’s ripoff of misread Hegel. History isn’t teleological [1][2][3]. If you’re so sure you’re going to get your own way eventually, you wouldn’t be pushing so hard because it’d be like gravity, effortless. Your very actions betray insecurity in your ideology.
Ten Tell-Tale signs of Deception:
http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294971184
I won’t bother to apply that to this. Check most of them, inc. #3 “Answering questions with questions

Women share this planet 50:50.

Ah. Oh. Uh. Um. No.
I see what you did there. Women like to claim minority status when it’s a mathematical status.
Women are the global majority.

Lots of pink, very little green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

Why?

“In a study around 2002, the natural sex ratio at birth was estimated to be close to 1.06 males/female.[5] In most populations, adult males tend to have higher death rates than adult females of the same age (even after allowing for causes specific to females such as death in childbirth), both due to natural causes such as heart attacks and strokes, which account for by far the majority of deaths and also to violent causes, such as homicide and warfare 6] resulting in higher life expectancy of females.”

I guess that information wouldn’t sound as good in your speech, would it love? No, say the populations are equal mathematically, without support from the actual maths.

 And they are under-represented.

You believe. It’s an ever-moving goalpost.
You want more women to make a different choice. One you haven’t actually made yourself e.g. to board a company, go into STEM. You wanna force them? Forcing women to do what you want? That’s the only way it can happen. And you wonder why the term feminazi exists. Comments on #womenagainstfeminism?

Their potential astonishingly untapped.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4272918.ece
Stats from your own Goverment yet again: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html Whereas in full-time, men earn more but in part-time, women earn more in £/hr. [chart] Why? More women are in part-time work. [chart] Men work more overtime so their full-time pay is bound to be higher for literally more hours of productive work. [chart] What equality, you say? This equality. [chart] And this equality: “At the same time (2013 Quarter 2), the Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the UK workforce consisted of approximately 12.8 million men (51% of the employee workforce) and 12.5 million women (49% of the workforce).” If anything, women earn more than men for contributing fewer productive hours. In that sense, they are untapped.

ONSmaleearningsfulltimelesscomptowomen

See where the % change in earnings for full-time women was higher than men and the ‘All’ average of both sexes combined? Let’s look at the inequalities in part-time.

Part-time women earn more per hour than part-time men. [8.4 to 7.95] Women in part-time work earned more per hour than the sexless average of 8.29 would suggest they should.
ONShourly2013mfpartfullcomparison

“The mean weekly paid hours of work for full-time men were 40.1 hours compared with 37.4 for women. For part-time employees the mean weekly paid hours worked were 17.5 hours for men and 18.3 for women.”

Where men earn more: 556.0 median gross weekly earnings for full-time men in 2013 for 40.1 hours of work.
Where women earn more: 164.3 median gross weekly earnings for part-time women in 2013 for 18.3 hours of work.

a) Men earned 13.86 per hour weekly. b) Women earned 8.978 per hour weekly. Where each in their category earned more than the opposite sex under the same conditions. Simple explanation? Male overtime for (a) [chart above]. The female earnings exceeded men in part-time work because they worked longer hours than their sex competition, behaving like men in a! It comes down (result – amount paid) to N hours that are chosen to work, irrespective of the sex of the worker (proven in b) or the type of work employed (ft/pt).

Untapped = lazy. Women are 49% of that workforce.

To bring HeforShe into its next phase.

What phase?
What was the phase before?
What are you doing aside from passing the buck for feminist failures?
She does the question thing again. MLK didn’t say “What’s your dream?” Why make a huge mistake once when you can make it twice?

We want to know and we want to hear from you.

That can’t have been it.
What a gigantic waste of time covering this has been.

Taken to its logical extreme, a serial killer could daub HeforShe on the walls of his victims in blood and they’d wanna know about it. That’s how silly this entire thing is.