The Rise of the Centrist

Yokel

LE
Only in part, (just to see how many remember it).
The centre being the bit where the best ideas coalesce, with occasional good or new input from the left or right of politics.
It seems to be the direction of current government. Having got elected, and realizing that Brexit included a few unwanted consequences, the party has moved a bit too far to the left, taking the original analogy with it. :)

To carry on with the metaphor of navigating and steering a ship, staying in the centre is where you do not run aground and keep your eyes open for unexpected things like other vessels, and remain alert to emergencies like stormy weather or machinery breakdowns.

Personally the analogy I would use is an aircraft landing on a ship - but that would need explaining to many people. They should understand the concept of a ship not running aground, having a collision, or a storm.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Don’t kid yourself mate. I don’t envy these people. I wouldn’t mind what they do if they paid their fair share into the common good that is society as a whole.

They don’t and I despise them and the corruption they create in their quest for supremacy over the rest of us.

So, pick an example - a real person, not some invented fantasy trillionaire - and show where they're failing to pay what they owe.

Explain why following the tax law is "corruption".
 
So, pick an example - a real person, not some invented fantasy trillionaire - and show where they're failing to pay what they owe.

Explain why following the tax law is "corruption".

Hilary Benn
Ken Livingstone
Margaret Hodge
Tony Blair

for starters....
 

Yokel

LE
So, pick an example - a real person, not some invented fantasy trillionaire - and show where they're failing to pay what they owe.

Explain why following the tax law is "corruption".

I had meant to comment on this discussion between you and @rgjbloke - and I have sympathy with both sides. In a much earlier post I said I thought that I was appalled by the idea that people should be judged solely by their economic output. Could the same be said for the wealthy who have created and support hundreds or thousands of jobs?

Just a thought - and this thread after all is about nuance and the lack of is in modern political discourse.
 
I suspect that you wrote that in jest, but you have actually hit the nail on the head. Every natural system, such as ecosystems and the climate, are kept in balance by negative feedback. Every control system is kept under control the same way - just thinking of the controls of a steam engine being controlled by the spinning metal balls. If they spin too fast, centrifugal force pulls them up, which reduces fuel inflow. Too slow, and the fuel supply gets increased. Or perhaps an electrical heater that turns off when the temperature reaches a certain level, and turns back on when it falls below a certain level.

Likewise social and political systems need feedback for stability. I suppose that Parliament is the classic example. The Government and Opposition talk to (or perhaps at) each other, and it gives the opportunity for the Government to be held to account, exposing poor policies and curbing the excesses of proposed legislation. The system depends on both sides being able to listen. The problem is when this breaks down due to people playing the identity game. Nobody should ever be considered above legitimate and reasoned criticism, but they should never have their ideas dismissed because of their background or personal characteristics.

A small amount of negative feedback keeps you honest. If nothing else it helps you make your argument stronger and more cogent.
In Control Theory, Negative Feedback is what you require.
Positive Feedback is deadly, because it causes overreaction and loss of control.
The only honest control is negative.

Likewise in politics. Chasing Positive feedback (approval) turns you into a populist bottom feeder, chasing the worst and lowest drives of the herd, giving them reassurance that they aren't moronic ignorant bigots in exchange for their loud approval.

Negative feedback is when the loudest, screamiest elements of society aren't pandered to, but damped down and ignored, because they have nothing worthwhile to say.
 
I see now what you meant was, it was the use of the 'We', in "I happen to believe we have a new short cut" that confused me. I missed the ironic nature of its use.




Indeed those who dismiss history and its context and nuances, are deemed likely to repeat the mistakes... Communists for instance, always claim that Communisms murderous failures, are because it was not done right, and the citizens failed to put in the effort. it's never that the core ideology of Communism is poison.

Just one more time, they say to get it right. Of course the authoritarian and centralised nature of the bunk, that is socialism, which then always morphs into fascism, its natural bed fellow. I don't see much difference between 'Progressivism' and Communism other than a rebranding of label. As for the Globalist agenda being floated by the intellectually illiterate, 'has much in common with Italian Fascism' and as I say is a bedfellow Communism... The only difference is all for the state or all for the party.


What real difference was there between the 'Brown Shirts' and 'Antifaschistische Aktion' during the turbulent period of the Weimar Republic, and then compare them both too today's 'National Action' or 'Antifa'. Such street thugs and ideologues don't care about the silent majority or other centralist, if you are not with them absolutely, then you are as much an enemy and valid target as each of there political polar opposition.
Think of the 'climate pledge' and then all the myriad of other social programmes that business are encouraged to sign up to. If progressives tried to push change entirely through democratic challenges, they're would meet outright resistance (farage or trump style), so they've gone after the private sector.

What I long ago realised was its quite hard to co-opt the public sector because the law is obliged to operate equally. So you create the dream of public-private partnerships that change the societal norms and then it allows you to entirely derogate opposition, because anyone who opposes progressivism is thus both opposing the public and private and that is the essence of a totalitarian state, or a democracy where all the parties are essentially the same.

The extremes like NA or Antifa, are useful to the progressives to scare the centre and like I said in an earlier post, the socially conservative are the first significant group to openly begin to rebel, but they're are an older demographic that itself is deeply split between the myriad of faiths and ideologies that define a conservative and are a significant obstacle but so far one that can be dealt with.
 
^I never thought of my lack of faith as a burden.

Age and infirmity yes but not atheism.
 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
Hilary Benn
Ken Livingstone
Margaret Hodge
Tony Blair

for starters....
All making use of existing tax laws to pay the minimum required.

The trouble with those you cite is that they don’t walk the walk.

Used to work for a print company that supplied the Labour Party with election material, and I got into a rather loud conversation with a senior member of their team who had promised their candidates they would be exempt VAT and she got quite upset with me for pointing out the rules. “How do we make this go away?” was her response, as though I could just magically not charge VAT.

Of course there was a way to legally reduce the charge by changing the printing package - probably not the way HMRC expected the rules to be operated, but this is what you get when you make the rules complicated.
 
^I never thought of my lack of faith as a burden.

Age and infirmity yes but not atheism.
The overused niemoller quote. Philosophically, I think he argued that people have to recognise that the community as a whole, has to defend itself and very few people believes a states public sector or globalist private, work for us and within that grey area is the progressives pushing for change and using increasingly authoritarian means to derogate the ballot box by keeping people misinformed.

Your lack of faith leaves you vulnerable to 'go along to get along' without even realising the warning signs. The churches I happen to think have already broken its own faith and that surrender is why everything has accelerated in recent years and no single conservative institution exists anymore.
 
Thinking on of much of what has been said throughout this thread, about the centre, i was struck by this monologue on GB News by 'Neil Oliver'... I would consider him to be somewhat reflective of the 'centre' politically and societally. Like many posters here I have been a public servant be it Military or Civil Service, for the majority of my life.

Both politically and societally, I have thought that the Institutions of State to be a vital element of maintaining the nation state and our democracy. That was not to say I thought everything was a well oiled fully functioning machine, but the elements that didn't work well was more from incompetence than malice. I believed in the State and the system as imperfect as it is... I believe most of the citizenry of the nation have always thought much the same.



For some reason link is broken? So try Googling Neil Oliver: 'Hey Government, we are not stupid'" To watch as it is pertinent to what i have written below, I will check back later to see if the link is still broken, just gonna get me tin foiled hat first :razz:


That much presented by 'Neil Oliver', I would suggest is reflective of a growing disquiet within the centre that while trying to assign incompetence rather than malice, to why much of modern day life is dysfunctional. It's becoming harder not to think a 'Tin Foil Hattery of a shadowy cabal' are pushing things.

I don't subscribe to the whole 'shadowy cabal', rather as modern politics has particularly of the last decade or two embraced, 'saving the world from humanity' rather than governing for the national good, but add in a sprinkle of the hyper rich, who think they know better... Of course "saving the world" and "governing for the national good" are not mutually exclusive positions or simple concepts, like it or not while connectivity has made the world smaller, it has not perhaps made it better.

I mentioned further up this thread about the 'Nudge Unit' interestingly when I first posted that link there was no mention of that organisation being plainly, Independent of the UK government as a 'header bolded banner', perhaps it is just a routine re-working of gov.uk web design... Or that more people are become both aware and disquieted by its very existence.

Behavioural Insights Team is now independent of the UK government


I think we can all agree that we are not naive enough to say that all Governments are clean handed and benign, for the 'common good', and that with the 20/20 hindsight of history we can all look back and say 'Ouch' but what other choice was there, given the time and situation.

I don't know about you centrists but I am disquieted and sadly losing faith in the State and Institution playing by the rules in day today life, the Nudge Unit I find particularly repulsive, and being something more like using the 'Cold War' era soviet tactics by the Politburo in a single party state...

Two thoughts come to mind 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and 'all that is required for evil to take root is for good men to do nothing'... It's becoming rather hard to keep the glass half full, these days.

edited to check broken link?
 
Last edited:
Thinking on of much of what has been said throughout this thread, about the centre, i was struck by this monologue on GB News by 'Neil Oliver'... I would consider him to be somewhat reflective of the 'centre' politically and societally. Like many posters here I have been a public servant be it Military or Civil Service, for the majority of my life.

Both politically and societally, I have thought that the Institutions of State to be a vital element of maintaining the nation state and our democracy. That was not to say I thought everything was a well oiled fully functioning machine, but the elements that didn't work well was more from incompetence than malice. I believed in the State and the system as imperfect as it is... I believe most of the citizenry of the nation have always thought much the same.



For some reason link is broken? So try Googling Neil Oliver: 'Hey Government, we are not stupid'" To watch as it is pertinent to what i have written below, I will check back later to see if the link is still broken, just gonna get me tin foiled hat first :razz:


That much presented by 'Neil Oliver', I would suggest is reflective of a growing disquiet within the centre that while trying to assign incompetence rather than malice, to why much of modern day life is dysfunctional. It's becoming harder not to think a 'Tin Foil Hattery of a shadowy cabal' are pushing things.

I don't subscribe to the whole 'shadowy cabal', rather as modern politics has particularly of the last decade or two embraced, 'saving the world from humanity' rather than governing for the national good, but add in a sprinkle of the hyper rich, who think they know better... Of course "saving the world" and "governing for the national good" are not mutually exclusive positions or simple concepts, like it or not while connectivity has made the world smaller, it has not perhaps made it better.

I mentioned further up this thread about the 'Nudge Unit' interestingly when I first posted that link there was no mention of that organisation being plainly, Independent of the UK government as a 'header bolded banner', perhaps it is just a routine re-working of gov.uk web design... Or that more people are become both aware and disquieted by its very existence.




I think we can all agree that we are not naive enough to say that all Governments are clean handed and benign, for the 'common good', and that with the 20/20 hindsight of history we can all look back and say 'Ouch' but what other choice was there, given the time and situation.

I don't know about you centrists but I am disquieted and sadly losing faith in the State and Institution playing by the rules in day today life, the Nudge Unit I find particularly repulsive, and being something more like using the 'Cold War' era soviet tactics by the Politburo in a single party state...

Two thoughts come to mind 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' and 'all that is required for evil to take root is for good men to do nothing'... It's becoming rather hard to keep the glass half full, these days.

edited to check broken link?
The thing about secret cabals and conspiracy is they're do exist, but are entirely in plain sight.. So the German or Russian who claims they're were unaware of the murderous nature of the Nazis or Communists, clearly had never read any of the literature pre-revolution and applied any critical thinking.

In the present; the public and its private partners are going through a period of changing everything in plain sight, but allowing it to appear that nothing really has changed (Peter Hitchens is wholly right on that point). The goals are couched in language such as zero carbon, sustainability or any number of minor societal changes which will demand the global public simply do as they're are told ! at some point, the lights will go out and the friction(clausewitz) will occur and I think your already seeing it in those places of the world most susceptible to feeling the pain first (Lebanon et al).

My point is the ruling classes have always waged war of one sort or another with the poor. But never have they're so allied themselves with each other in other countries to create a global system of oppression and so long as you have the money you will be excluded from having to change at all.
 
The thing about secret cabals and conspiracy is they're do exist, but are entirely in plain sight.. So the German or Russian who claims they're were unaware of the murderous nature of the Nazis or Communists, clearly had never read any of the literature pre-revolution and applied any critical thinking.

In the present; the public and its private partners are going through a period of changing everything in plain sight, but allowing it to appear that nothing really has changed (Peter Hitchens is wholly right on that point). The goals are couched in language such as zero carbon, sustainability or any number of minor societal changes which will demand the global public simply do as they're are told ! at some point, the lights will go out and the friction(clausewitz) will occur and I think your already seeing it in those places of the world most susceptible to feeling the pain first (Lebanon et al).

My point is the ruling classes have always waged war of one sort or another with the poor. But never have they're so allied themselves with each other in other countries to create a global system of oppression and so long as you have the money you will be excluded from having to change at all.
Utter boolocks from start to finish as usual.

Firstly, secret cabals and conspiracies either don't exist for long, or certainly don't exist in plain sight. Cover ups persist, but that isn't a conspiracy to bring about change, as to avoid blame. If they are in plain sight, by definition they aren't secret.

Secondly, any German or Russian who read any of the pre Revolution literature is 1) nearly two hundred years old or 2) a political scientist, not a man in the street. If they applied any critical thinking they might wonder why Communism (started by Germans) failed and Fascism (adopted by Germans) has successfully replaced Communism in Russia, which now has an effective Fascist government. For the residents of the prisons, not much has changed.

The second paragraph is so garbled as to be meaningless, but at least you save time and telegraph this as bollocks by praising a polemicist like Hitchens.

The third is, perhaps, understandable, but still wrong. Garbled Marxism it may be, and fundamentally wrong class war theory.
The rich do not wage war on the poor.
The rich wage war USING the poor. They require the taxes paid by the poor to buy equipment, and the bodies of the poor as soldiers. Quite honestly, if you haven't grasped that simple fact, you have no knowledge of human history from the Bronze Age onwards. (ah, it's you, isn't it?...)
There is no alliance of the rich against the poor, so much as a commonality of interests. Like tax evasion.

The true alliance is of the malignant autocrats (Russia, China, Iran, and all their clients) who think that State control over the masses is a necessity for their own survival, so that the pigs can continue to plunder the farm.
 
Utter boolocks from start to finish as usual.

Firstly, secret cabals and conspiracies either don't exist for long, or certainly don't exist in plain sight. Cover ups persist, but that isn't a conspiracy to bring about change, as to avoid blame. If they are in plain sight, by definition they aren't secret.

Secondly, any German or Russian who read any of the pre Revolution literature is 1) nearly two hundred years old or 2) a political scientist, not a man in the street. If they applied any critical thinking they might wonder why Communism (started by Germans) failed and Fascism (adopted by Germans) has successfully replaced Communism in Russia, which now has an effective Fascist government. For the residents of the prisons, not much has changed.

The second paragraph is so garbled as to be meaningless, but at least you save time and telegraph this as bollocks by praising a polemicist like Hitchens.

The third is, perhaps, understandable, but still wrong. Garbled Marxism it may be, and fundamentally wrong class war theory.
The rich do not wage war on the poor.
The rich wage war USING the poor. They require the taxes paid by the poor to buy equipment, and the bodies of the poor as soldiers. Quite honestly, if you haven't grasped that simple fact, you have no knowledge of human history from the Bronze Age onwards. (ah, it's you, isn't it?...)
There is no alliance of the rich against the poor, so much as a commonality of interests. Like tax evasion.

The true alliance is of the malignant autocrats (Russia, China, Iran, and all their clients) who think that State control over the masses is a necessity for their own survival, so that the pigs can continue to plunder the farm.
Some famous american suggested he could 'hire half the poor, to kill the other half'. Capitalism is more than capable of abusing the poor and the rich either wage war on the poor, or eventually they're will be consumed by them.

One could argue the original promise made back in the bronze age. Was to create a market and religious centre and ally the many tiny tribes to this new City and in return, the collective community will protect each other against raiders. Gradually minor kings allied with a larger monarch and empires were founded where your king/ruling class owes fealty to somebody a 1000 miles from your home and will tax you, conscript you and generally treat you as a slave when commanded.

Your twisted conclusion is to cherry-pick a few obvious suspects and its simple minded stuff. Its almost too easy to draw the connections between Russia/China and the Capitalist west and they're are all now united behind a current system that works for the wealthy and like I said, the conspiracy sits in plain sight and the policies and world speaks for itself.
 
Some famous american suggested he could 'hire half the poor, to kill the other half'. Capitalism is more than capable of abusing the poor and the rich either wage war on the poor, or eventually they're will be consumed by them.

One could argue the original promise made back in the bronze age. Was to create a market and religious centre and ally the many tiny tribes to this new City and in return, the collective community will protect each other against raiders. Gradually minor kings allied with a larger monarch and empires were founded where your king/ruling class owes fealty to somebody a 1000 miles from your home and will tax you, conscript you and generally treat you as a slave when commanded.

Your twisted conclusion is to cherry-pick a few obvious suspects and its simple minded stuff. Its almost too easy to draw the connections between Russia/China and the Capitalist west and they're are all now united behind a current system that works for the wealthy and like I said, the conspiracy sits in plain sight and the policies and world speaks for itself.
Once again, your arguments have the consistency and logic of a bucket of old Lego bricks in a nursery school. Full of odd bits that don't fit, and the occasional bit of cat shit.

"Some famous American, so famous you can't even quote him in a spurious anecdote." Wow. This is supposed to be debate?
If you want quotes about capital, just use Marx, but then, that might make people wonder about your track record of cringing submission to authoritarianism.

Don't try and play anthropology when you haven't got a clue about it. You "could argue" but you would lose, because your proposal is an unsupported fantasy, and there is no evidence for it.

Your third paragraph falls apart into bits of Lego and cat shit.

It is quite obvious that several of the 'obvious suspects' , the ugliest, most corrupt authoritarian regimes are in loose alliance, but you claim that they are in alliance with the capitalist West? That is fatuous nonsense.
To use a quote usually assigned to Lenin:"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them."
The Axis of Authority (which you are a fanboi for) ARE in alliance with Capitalism. Sort of. Because they are Capitalists. They are gangster regimes (in Putin's case, quite literally.) They need fences and money launderers.
They do not want the downfall of Capitalism. They are all in favour of it. They want the downfall of law and good government, and the neutering of democracy to a facade. They are oligarchs.

What they want is to win the moral argument by making the West as morally and ethically depraved as they are.

Then they can point and say to their own serfs.
"Look. There's no escape. The West is just as bad as we are. They are just hypocrites. We just tell you you're slaves and we're in charge. Suck it up."

There is no conspiracy. There is an open alliance of shared interests to EXPLOIT the West's gullibility and greed for their own ends. They are USING a system that already exists for their own ends.
 

Boris_Johnson

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
In Control Theory, Negative Feedback is what you require.
Positive Feedback is deadly, because it causes overreaction and loss of control.
The only honest control is negative.

Likewise in politics. Chasing Positive feedback (approval) turns you into a populist bottom feeder, chasing the worst and lowest drives of the herd, giving them reassurance that they aren't moronic ignorant bigots in exchange for their loud approval.

Negative feedback is when the loudest, screamiest elements of society aren't pandered to, but damped down and ignored, because they have nothing worthwhile to say.

^ I love this ^ (especially as an aviation engineer - we wouldn't have autopilot without it....!)

But economically, politically - spot on. Even when we run our courses here at work - negative feedback is the only mechanism which promotes change. Positive feedback (nice though it is) only serves to reassure the less confident they're on track or - as you say - has potential to turn said person into a populist.

I think perhaps people often confuse negative / positive feedback with criticism.

In my view, the ideal debriefing model should be a combination of negative feedback and positive criticism. If you want excellence, positive feedback is worthless and negative criticism is destructive.

This is why I think Insulate UK / XR are going about their business in the wrong way. When you consider how far we've come as a nation in 4 decades, back in the days of 2* 3* 4* leaded petrol, big engines, plastic everything, dirty diesel, CFCs etc - and we've seen the introduction of unleaded, E10, A+ energy efficient appliances, smaller more economical cars, hybrid engines, cleaner emissions, HFCs, bio-diesel, recycling plants, nuclear energy, conservation programmes, etc... There's so many positives to focus on. Not least of which is our world standing when you compare the likes of the US still motoring around in gas-guzzlers, China still producing tonnes of CO2, Indonesia's infamous "River of Plastic" etc.

Activists fail to capitalise on the positive criticism and encouragement but instead claim "we're not doing enough" which, as you can see by the tiny amount of changes I've mentioned above (and being no expert), is simply not true.

Instead they infuriate people by sitting on slip roads and just like a child, the nation rolls its eyes at the "noise" and nobody gets anywhere, both literally and metaphorically.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This was posted in the End of Black History Month thread by @Sexton Blake. It's worth a read as it discusses how the Centrists are getting crowded out by the noisy outliers.
An interesting, disturbing but unsurprising piece.

What’s clear again is that language is being deliberately reversed. Liberals are illiberal. Freedom of expression is in fact only an opportunity to counter and shut down challenges to an orthodoxy. The places where the greatest debate should be happening are where the least is being allowed.

Something really needs to be done.
 
Details hmmm. Yeah ok!


And very likely just the very tip of the iceberg!

Look at the headline.

Now look at the text.

The former implies, actually, no, it states all the super wealthy only pay 20% tax.

The latter says that actually it’s only 10% of them.

As has been alluded to endlessly, and rightly in this thread, MSM at its very finest. It’s not as if the laughably titled “Independent” has an agenda now is it?

Details, hmmmm. Yeah. OK!
 
Once again, your arguments have the consistency and logic of a bucket of old Lego bricks in a nursery school. Full of odd bits that don't fit, and the occasional bit of cat shit.

"Some famous American, so famous you can't even quote him in a spurious anecdote." Wow. This is supposed to be debate?
If you want quotes about capital, just use Marx, but then, that might make people wonder about your track record of cringing submission to authoritarianism.

Don't try and play anthropology when you haven't got a clue about it. You "could argue" but you would lose, because your proposal is an unsupported fantasy, and there is no evidence for it.

Your third paragraph falls apart into bits of Lego and cat shit.

It is quite obvious that several of the 'obvious suspects' , the ugliest, most corrupt authoritarian regimes are in loose alliance, but you claim that they are in alliance with the capitalist West? That is fatuous nonsense.
To use a quote usually assigned to Lenin:"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them."
The Axis of Authority (which you are a fanboi for) ARE in alliance with Capitalism. Sort of. Because they are Capitalists. They are gangster regimes (in Putin's case, quite literally.) They need fences and money launderers.
They do not want the downfall of Capitalism. They are all in favour of it. They want the downfall of law and good government, and the neutering of democracy to a facade. They are oligarchs.

What they want is to win the moral argument by making the West as morally and ethically depraved as they are.

Then they can point and say to their own serfs.
"Look. There's no escape. The West is just as bad as we are. They are just hypocrites. We just tell you you're slaves and we're in charge. Suck it up."

There is no conspiracy. There is an open alliance of shared interests to EXPLOIT the West's gullibility and greed for their own ends. They are USING a system that already exists for their own ends.
I had assumed your enormous intellect could find out for yourself the quote. But it was Jay Gould and the old style robber baron have being replaced by the sharp suits and the banks, who will dole out cash to its mates on zero interest rates and foreclose on ordinary people after a couple of missed payments.

The conspiracy has always existed. Because the system of a ruling class who derives its wealth from exploiting people has always existed. Marx argued the system could be turned inside out and the proletariat could run themselves and I've always argued that was wrong and in fact, the only way the system can function cleanly is if the media and the law functions as protection to the citizen. In the bronze age a King who flaunts his debauchery and breaks sacred laws, was usually in deep trouble.

Your own critical thinking is off key. You don't seem to grasp you've actually echoed my own point and agreed with me that the 'conspiracy' is an open alliance and that's exactly what I've being trying to argue all along. You inserted the usual suspects and all you've highlighted is they're operate a nakedly exploitative system( China or Russia) and in the west we use language and a sharp suit to disguise it.

The conspiracy exists and flourishes because the media and law have become corrupted and the old left/right have being distracted by identity politics to leave the money men in charge.
 
An interesting, disturbing but unsurprising piece.

What’s clear again is that language is being deliberately reversed. Liberals are illiberal. Freedom of expression is in fact only an opportunity to counter and shut down challenges to an orthodoxy. The places where the greatest debate should be happening are where the least is being allowed.

Something really needs to be done.
We can see conspiracy plainly in the authoritarian/totalitarian state, by the jackboot or secret police.

In the west, the conspiracy is also in plain sight and that is the demand that all institutions both public and private are now obliged to stick to a particular language and messaging that shapes the narrative a ruling class rather likes. So the plebs in the ghettos can think anything they're want, but woe betide anyone who steps out of line in a position of any authority.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top