‘Inclusion’ is the new buzzword of the progressive Left. It is the latest in a long line of words intended to programme the public into accepting the victim narratives of post-modern Marxism, while simultaneously disarming anyone who disagrees with the progressive agenda. It follows hard on the heels of the other ‘go to’ concepts of multiculturalism, tolerance, diversity and equality.

The idea of inclusion develops the language of the culture war a step further. Its leverage as a concept lies in its apparent rectitude or virtue: who would not want to be inclusive? If you consciously exclude someone, then you must be bad. You are thus rendered helpless to disagree with the progressive agenda at the cost of being named and shamed as a bad person. If you do not accept multiculturalism, then you’re a racist. If you do not tolerate and celebrate every demand of the LGBTQQIAAP* (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual and *, meaning ‘the umbrella of queer’) collective, then you are homophobic and transphobic.

‘Inclusion’ means that you must actively include every group conferred with a protected characteristic by the Equalities Act 2010. Refusal, however valid the reason, can make you a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a disablist and an Islamophobe to boot.

What it means is that your liberty, or right, to choose not to include certain people goes by the board. In a free society there are some people one may wish to exclude, with very good reasons. An employer may well want to exclude someone he or she thinks is likely to spend most of the time whining about identity politics rather than doing a good job.

But despite all this noble-sounding virtue signalling from progressives, one group of people is actively excluded from the inclusive Utopia: anyone with a traditional or conservative viewpoint. Anyone, for example, who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that there are only two genders determined by chromosomes, risks not just naming and shaming but being disciplined, fired or prevented from having a job where there is any contact with anyone else, as happened last year to volunteers at the National Trust who refused to wear LGBT badges (before the Trust was forced to climb down).

Now we read that primary schools have been told to ‘block’ parents who complain that they want their children to learn the true science of male and female sex, not the dangerous nonsense of genderqueer theory, soon likely to be forcibly served to primary schoolchildren.

It is one thing to be tolerant, but quite another to be made to affirm or celebrate ideologies and behaviours you do not agree with. To be ‘inclusive’, everyone must actively affirm the same post-modern Marxist ideologies which undermine the nation, the family, marriage and now even the concepts of male and female. This is what makes ‘inclusion’ so much more invidious than the previous tolerance and diversity demands.

Take the latest debacle of a (transgender) man sent to attend to a female patient who’d requested a female nurse for a cervical cancer test.

Despite this being the most personal of procedures, under the inclusion agenda a male nurse is actually a female nurse if he self-identifies as such, and anyone who disagrees becomes a transphobic bigot. In this case, the hospital backed down and apologised, but that they sent a male nurse in the first place suggests they’d either lost the plot, were afraid of being called bigoted themselves, or wanted to avoid being sued and dragged through the courts by the very powerful LGBTQQIAAP* lobby for being ‘non-inclusive’.

Even the military has fallen foul of this new dogma. The Army’s ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit’ wants to ditch the slogan ‘Be the Best’ for being ‘non-inclusive’. But the whole point of the Army is that it is cannot be inclusive if its aim is to be the best – physically, mentally, technologically – to do its job effectively.

Most people were probably blissfully unaware that such an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit existed in the Army, but the reality is that the inclusion industry is now big business across Government.

It’s the latest drumbeat of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. With a budget of £20million per annum, the priority to justify inclusion has come as a godsend. A veritable army of Diversity and Inclusion Officers pervade the public sector. In every public body, from schools to hospitals to police forces, there is at least one Inclusion Officer, if not a whole team.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds a year is thrown their way to enforce rules or regulations to counteract ‘non-inclusive speech’, all the while hastening the removal of conservatives from all areas of public life. And, without even realising it, taxpayers contribute to the demise of their own freedoms.

The private sector, too, is in the grip of the inclusion brigade. The pressure on businesses to comply with the inclusion agenda mounts. Almost inevitably this will lead to jobs being awarded, not on the basis of individual talent and skill, but of characteristics. At every level of every company there will have to be 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women, and simultaneously 2 per cent LGBTQQIAAP*, 14 per cent BAME, 6 per cent Muslim and 16 per cent disabled, in order to avoid allegations of institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, racism or disablism.

Many government departments already state in their job advertisements that ‘women, BAME, LGBT and disabled people are particularly welcome to apply’, implying that able-bodied white heterosexual men are not. The tyranny of inclusion is that it forces compliance with the progressive – or more accurately the regressive – Left agenda, and excludes conservative and traditionalist thought and opinion under threat of unemployment or trumped-up charges of ‘hate speech’ or phobia.

The silent majority needs to wake up, demand an end to the false narrative of ‘inclusion’ and return to a meritocracy where freedom of speech is enshrined as a guiding principle. Only by abandoning this hideous creation of the Left can we be a society that is truly free and prosperous, and effortlessly includes everyone with every characteristic and every opinion.

70 COMMENTS

  1. From breitbart.com/london/2017/12/14/primary-celebrate-trans-block-complaints/ :

    “Guidance released Wednesday by the National Association of Head Teachers
    (NAHT) — which represents nearly 30,000 school leaders, most of whom
    are primary heads — instructs schools to ‘ensure the visibility’ of
    transgender perspectives in the classroom.”

    There are probably more “school leaders” (note the gender-meganeutral phrase for what used to be headmasters and headmistresses) than there are actual transgender people in the UK. Yet our legal system, our culture, our schools and even the language are turned upside-down, to indulge a few eccentrics.

  2. In a few months, it will be a half-century since the so-called Rivers Of Blood Speech was given.

    One wonders if anyone who condemns it has ever read it.

    Mr. Powell MP, were he alive, would likely tell anyone who would listen that, had they dealt realistically with the subject of attempting to integrate large numbers of foreign-born Third-World people back in 1968, instead of mouthing all the usual virtue-signal pieties, much of what is happening today might have been averted, at least on the racial-ethnic side of things.

    But, it seems that, like the gambler who thinks that by doubling his bets he’s bound to make up his losses when the desired result ultimately eventuates (assuming he hasn’t run out of dosh in the meantime), the politicians must believe that by increasingly doing everything they can to raise a crop of docile white able-bodied heterosexual males, that somehow some balance will be magically redressed. When these efforts are shown not to produce their desired result, well, double down, old chap!

    At what point will anyone seriously discuss that it ill serves a nation to tell a goodly number (though not obviously a numerical majority) that under any and all circumstances, whatever they feel or think is of no concern, because “You’ve got it made, mate, so quit whinging!”

    One is put in mind of the meme showing Donald Trump pointing upwards as he often does, with the text (which, in context, is used to refer to some Leftie screed posted immediately above the meme), “[Stuff] like this is why I won.”

    • Even the worse predictions from the 1960s/70s re immigration have turned out to be spectacular underestimates. And that is a huge problem.

    • I think one of the best memes I have seen along those lines is a young white man, with his arm around a small boy, and all around them is ruins of a once European town, and an obvious 3rd world new town in its place. The man says something like, “never mind Son, but at least we fought the Nazis”

  3. Inclusion is nothing more than building a bloc of voters.

    …future party faithful.

    Our problem is that we know this, see this and seem powerless to stop it even when we’re nominally in charge.

    Let’s at least correct the inherently biased voting boundaries.

  4. Come on now everybody , let’s have some visually challenged soldiers or some deaf airline pilots or how about some wheelchair bound firemen/women ? It would be reasonable to think that such things would be unreal but in our current climate of “inclusiveness” ?

    • That may be tongue in cheek but is, sadly, actually conceivable. Reasonable adjustments is the clue. In the public sector, depending upon employers interpretation, you do have employees that actually have personal assistants to carry out the job function

    • It’s already happened in the armed forces. Men and women are held to different fitness standards and yet apparently they are equally as effective. The fact, for example, that to be considered fit for service an 18 year old female member of the RAF has to perform less well in her fitness testing than does a 55 year old man speaks volumes.

      • It’s terrifying that we are lowering standards in our Armed Forces just to fit quotas. Does anyone really believe ISIS are doing this or North Korea or the countless other terrorist groups wishing to do us harm? Not a chance.
        I could imagine a scenario where the UK is under threat and we wheel our soldiers to the border along with the Village People tribute act to defend us.

        • Again, there have been female police officers for a long time but in the past they weren’t expected to take on physical fights. I saw some UK footage recently where a woman PC attempted to restore order to a group of aggressive men. They treated her with contempt and she had to call for support. Some burly male PCs arrived and … job done. I also noticed that the men (who were Muslim) had zero respect for the female officer. So in a multicultural society frontline woman PCs face even more problems which, of course, the inclusion brigade ignore in favour of ideology.

        • I worked along side women in the forces who were physically incapable of doing some engineering tasks because they were not physically strong enough to lift the boxes in and out of position when they required replacement. As a man manager I was forced to give all the physically taxing jobs to the guys while the women did the easy stuff. They got the same pay though – and I definitely was not allowed to mark them down on their annual appraisal for it either.

          • I can confirm that from my own experience – I had great trouble carrying a rifle in basic training because of its weight. Luckily, as I’ve already said, it wasn’t essential to women’s role in the army at the time.

      • To be fair, the army Battle Fitness Test has always been different for men and women. I know because I did it (and – miraculously! – passed) when I was in the TA*. The difference between then and now was that women didn’t serve in combat roles. I was one of the first women to serve in a mixed unit but we were behind the lines, so the fitness testing wasn’t crucial to our performance.

        * Territorial Army (ie reserves) for readers across the pond.

        • Not as crucial maybe. But even in rear areas, it can be important to run away to fight another day. Doesn’t happen often in our forces, but it can happen. I know what you mean, I was amazed that I passed my AF physical.

          Somewhat off topic, and likely you know it but one of the reasons that our military is so supported by the (red state, anyway) citizenry is that our reserves are constantly deployed along with our regulars. It changed after Vietnam, and has helped to keep the military from being isolated from the larger society, which I read is increasingly happening there.

          • There is a fundamental difference in the military legacy of the two
            countries. In the USA the military was founded on a militia that was
            essentially viewed as protective, essential and ultimately fought for
            the independence of the nation. In Britain the public were long
            suspicious of a standing army and then of regular forces which had a record of being deployed domestically to oppress civil insurgency and protest. When militia units were formed towards the end of the 18th Century they were often ridiculed or lampooned and in the 19th Century Kipling’s famous poem “Tommy” was well founded. The relationship of the British left with the military is problematic to this day.

            In the USA hostility to the military only really began with the Vietnam war but subsided relatively quickly afterwards and there is now a much stronger veterans settlement than here in the UK. Here the military legacy is polarising. When veterans march there are numerous groups, from CND to the White Poppy movement, who vociferously express their hostility. Those various groups are co-ordinated around left wing movements like the Socialist Workers Party and Communist Party with links into the Labour Party and will be stronger now with Corbynism. They are also linked to pro-Palestinian activism and radical Muslim agitation so that peace protests produce all the usual suspects, many of whom advocate anything but peaceful discourse.

          • You speak correctly of what our legacy is now, but that is due to a lot of work. mostly by the military, and its war veterans.

            “In Britain the public were long
            suspicious of a standing army and then of regular forces which had a record of being deployed domestically to oppress civil insurgency and protest.” is exactly the legacy that regular army forces started with here. Well it should be, it was the British army.

            The first thing the founders did was disband the Continental Army, and completely rely on the the militia. Alone of every federal organization the army can not be budgeted beyond two years to this day.

            In the old west, the army would get used on civilians when the civilian constabulary couldn’t handle it, thus bringing forth legislation (at the army’s request, if I recall) that regular forces may not be used domestically. When you see troops in the street here, with only one exception I can think of (Little Rock, 1954) they are invariably National Guard troops under state command, essentially territorials in your terms.

            So yes, our military has become the most trusted part of the government, and they’ve worked very hard to make it so, but they have earned it, and it wasn’t always so. We disliked the Lobsterbacks even more than CND did, and for cause, and it carried over to our regulars, as well.

            By the way, the Kings misuse of regulars in the Civil War is why it is the British Army, while it is the Royal Navy and Air Force. It was thought only the people through Parliament could be trusted with an army going forward.

          • “. . . that is due to a lot of work. mostly by the military, and its war veterans.”

            Indeed, and commendably so.

    • My fire service says that all you have to do during the recruitment process is ‘be the best version of you’

  5. I have my fingers crossed that the James Damore lawsuit against Google will be successful. It would be a massive victory against the regressive Left and their ilk.

      • I have a feeling he’ll have plenty of exceedingly rich backers if it goes the distance.

        Although i’ve not read the entire complaint some of the highlights that I have seen are shocking. If the target was anyone other than conservative minded white men it wouldn’t even make it to court before they’d be offering to pay him off.

        • One hopes. And you’re correct, I haven’t read it all either, but it is shocking.

          It’s funny, just yesterday I was reading an article that documented that companies that advocate political positions especially sort of extreme ones – either left or right – lose money because of it, compared to ones that concentrate on the bottom line.

  6. Does anyone doubt that David Kurten would have been a better UKIP leader than Henry Bolton who has made little impact except by leaving his young family and running off with a 25 year old? There is a real need to articulate conservative values, and neither Henry nor Mrs May are able or willing to do it.

  7. Our country is governed in reality by an unelected left wing blob consisting of quangos, fake charities, various campaign/lobby groups and Twitter mobs which collectively are transforming us into a state resembling East Germany. Even a supposedly “conservative” government is intimidated by this blob to the extent of accommodating it, pandering to it, back-tracking from anything it expresses outrage over and appointing its champions into empowered positions which influence policy. The recent examples of Toby Young and Maria Caulfield show who has the real power in Britain and it is not the government but an unelected left wing mob. May spoke out against Toby Young to appease the mob and he resigned because of it, leaving yet another left wing quangocrat to mould the OfS into yet another unelected agent of left wing subversion.

    All totalitarian states have been based on creeds which everyone is forced to conform to and which claim absolute and exclusive primacy. Britain is heading that way however much the architects of the changes and their useful idiots bleat about tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories. The level of government and state interference in private lives is staggering when compared to the England I grew up in.

  8. So if society excludes Christians, among others, because many are pro life and anti gay marriage, then that means they are excluding a section and must therefore be seen as mad? Inclusion, exclusion, acceptance, equality – it’s all bollocks! It doesn’t exist because one section of society will always be discriminated against in favour of the more fashionable trend.

  9. Why can’t the Army’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit be sent to fight ISIS? Casualties are inevitable in a war but the price would be acceptable.

  10. The inclusion and diversity squad are of course the ones most obsessed with categorising everyone based on their race, sex or disability. Not since the Nazis has a society been so focused on collating data on everyone’s characteristics, it’s downright sinister to think what this could be used for in the future.

  11. A classic case of non inclusion of the inclusivisity ideologues is the banning of the Daily Mail by Virgin. An absolute disgrace, but entirely in line with long standing trends.

    PragerU, the American organisation set up by Dennis Prager which produces short videos advocating conservative and libertarian positions has had no less than 40 of its videos banned by Google / Youtube for ‘violating their ‘Community Guidelines’..They are ‘not appropriate for a younger audience’ according to Google / Youtube.

    Anyone such as myself who has watched PragerU’s videos knows that there is nothing remotely offensive about them, at least to anyone who agrees with the idea of free speech in a liberal society .

    These videos have addressed topics ranging from Religion and Freedom of Speech to the Korean War.

    Prager is suing Google / Youtube.

    The closing down of non-PC opinion has been a long-standing feature of the Universities and Colleges, The list of distinguished academics who have fallen fall of the ‘offended’ is extremely lengthy.

    Of course, non-PC opinion has been routinely and systematically excluded from the ‘Balanced and impartial’ BBC for decades.

    • Interestingly I also came across a senatorial climate debate video where the climate doomsayers were getting a pasting. It had been put in limited state.

  12. In our apathy we have given away western society.
    I would suggest all able bodied, northern european, heterosexual males emigrate to Eastern Europe and find a nice girl to have lots of babies with and leave our pampered women and PC zealots to their enriched demise.

    • My girlfriend and I both voted for David Kurten. I think you’re right – many members are looking at the lack of activity (unless you count his personal ones) from Henry Bolton and wondering why they voted for him. For members, it’s been virtually radio silence ever since he became leader. The most vociferous campaigner appears to be the one who wrote this article.
      Bolton needs to man up or disappear and allow Kurten the chance to take UKIP forwards.

      • The problem for Henry and UKIP is that voters thought their job had been done and voted for parties who claimed to support Brexit. When May scuttled over to meet Junker after his ‘sanction’ and agreed to pay them the extortion money and and continue their regulation and court rulings the BBC had all the party spokesmen saying what a breakthrough had been achieved. Henry was put on briefly and said that we might as well have stayed in the EU and that it was a sell out. Then he was talked over for the rest of the interview. If David Kurten had been leader, would it have been any different?

        The scale of the inclusion racket is staggering. The general public are only beginning to realise what their taxes are being wasted on and how eductation is about brainwashing. Well done for another brilliant article. But how to make the point on the broadcast media is the question. They are riddled with equality fanatics.

        • Typo- education. ‘eductation’ could be the new word for leading political education of young people by Marxist Liberal teachers.

        • ‘The problem for Henry and UKIP is that voters thought their job had been done and voted for parties who claimed to support Brexit.’

          Not all members of UKIP joined because of Brexit – I certainly didn’t (I joined because of UKIP’s excellent education policies and believe I’m one of two members from our branch who didn’t join because of Brexit). UKIP have many great policies and many have been pilfered by both Labour and the Tories. If UKIP could use their place on MSM to sell the party, which they’ve had the opportunity to do time and time again, maybe we’d be in a better position. After the referendum, UKIP representatives were asked time and again ‘you’ve done your job. What’s the point in UKIP?’ They could have espoused our policies and sold our party to a public desperate for true conservatism but every time they expanded on UKIP’s vision for a proper Brexit, which the country knows anyway. Why tell people what they do know when you can point them to the places that they don’t?
          I don’t know if Kurten would have been any better in selling our party to the public but he’s much more engaging than Bolton and that’s what we need – someone to reinvigorate an interest in UKIP.

          • Did you see Bolton on the last question time?

            His answers were delivered without an ounce of conviction

            Polar opposite of Farage

    • Any of AMW, Kurten or Whittle would have been infinitely better than that philandering pandering mealy-mouthed LibDem damp rag Bolt-on.

  13. As a jew and a member of a group which represents only 0.35% of the current population I can only work for a company where there are at least 300 employees else jews are over-represented.

    • I see your problem. If a company of under 300 employed you they’d likely be attacked for Zionism. But that means you’ve been discriminated against. Only Mr Corbyn can solve that one

    • FFS and thank the Heavens I do not live in the insane racist & sexist & anti-religious country known as the UK !!!

  14. When I withdraw my children from things at school, I ask what would happen if I decided to be a C21st minority and demand that the lesson is changed in order to ‘include’ me.

    I then make the point that by voluntarily excluding myself, both school and I are exercising our liberty, they to teach what they want, me to teach what I want, a liberty mostly denied to themselves by their own ‘inclusion’ policies.

    It is when we are no longer able to voluntarily exclude ourselves (compulsory education, compulsory PSHE, compulsory this and that) that we will know tyranny has become absolute.

    • I think excluding ourselves is a good way to fight back, in large enough numbers it’s worth a try in any and every area we can, legally of course.
      As a Mum myself I feel that in some ways we are almost held to ransom, because although we may wish to remove our children from certain aspects, we then have to weigh that up with how our children feel about being the one leaving the class.

      • I sympathise with that…but the government also knows that’s how parents feel. It’s emotional blackmail and we must not succumb.

      • I had to fight tooth and nail, not excluding extraordinary personal sacrifices, to keep my poor mum from being treated like a dog during her final years of life.

        I had to use the same sort of attack strategies that some in here may know me for against the doctors who wanted her permanently drugged up on sedatives, for no other reason than their own convenience. And yes, I most certainly did use personal insults against their moral values to their faces.

        individually, we’re too weak to destroy the infantilisation industry, but we’re certainly never too weak to protect ourselves and other individuals around us from that destructive ideology.

        Except of course for those among us who have given in and surrendered to the passive, socialist, hateful, and cretinous ideology of “common good”.

        • Good on you! I have a friend, you nearly died of cancer in a NHS hospital a few years ago, it took threats of neglect charges from a well connected friend to get a priest in to her. Worth the fight though, a miracle cure two days after she received last rites.

        • I have a theory that most people don’t know their rights.
          In a fit of extreme distress while my sister was dying of cancer, and had been treated with unbelievable callousness ( all during Blair’s tenure, the party of NHS) I blurted out a threat to the nursing staff, thinking they’d laugh or give me chapter and verse on how it wasn’t possible. They didn’t, just shrugged their shoulders and said ok. I had also threatened to involve the Police.
          I didn’t know that what I was saying was actually my right.

          People don’t believe me when I tell them what happened, but to cut a long story short, a dying woman didn’t seem to be as important as a habitual drug/alcohol soaked young woman.
          Upshot is the family worked out a rota where we took turns to stay in the hospital to keep my sister safe from further attacks until she could be moved to a hospice.

  15. It’s been a Long March through the institutions, but seems to be nearing its end, or at least I hope so, or heaven only knows what they will inflict upon us next.
    A house divided cannot stand.
    It can’t stand, because it’s a falsity. It is causing deep divisions in society and families, between those that see it for what it is and those who don’t see the harm and utter ridiculousness of it all (of course those growing up with this as a “normality” will know no difference)

    The so called Conservatives seem to be hell bent on proving they can go one further than the other party on this.

  16. It’s exactly the same as the very common Protestant delusion that all who profess Christ are Christians — except for Catholics.

  17. So-called “diversity” is the antithesisis of genuine tolerance — the second is a moral value ; the first is just trite reality. Want to see actual diversity ? Just open your eyes, and look about at the random passers-by …

    Campaigning for “diversity” is like campaigning for the seas and the oceans to stay in the lower regions of the planetary crust. It is to campaign for that which exists.

  18. There’s already plenty of diversity among the white,native, heterosexual population which is enough for me.

  19. Meritocracy is the only sensible way to run things well. I don’t care about skin colour, religion, gender or other such things so long as the most able person gets the job/promotion or whatever. I suspect most people share my view on this. When people are appointed to positions based on sex/skin colour etc, the message it sends is that identity counts more than ability which is ludicrous.

  20. David Kurten is absolutely spot on..
    Its only when we can elect people like him will this country be recovered from the cesspit it has become.

  21. An inclusive society can only ever include those who make a commitment to be inclusive. Those who want to exclude certain groups render themselves incapable of participating in an inclusive society because they stand against its basic principles.

    The problem with conservatives is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be included but refuse to include in their turn.

    Inclusion is a two way street. If you won’t be inclusive then don’t expect to be included. And don’t moan about being excluded. You’re only experiencing what you want to visit on others. How’s that for Judeo-Christian morality? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You exclude and are therefore excluded. Shouldn’t you be praising your Lawd at the justice of it all?

    • What a load of half-digested nonsense.

      The moral value in question here is tolerance, and neither “inclusion” nor “diversity”.

      What characterises the Lefty SJW “moral majority” PC brigade is their hypocritical intolerance of anyone or anything contrary to their utopian ideologies and desires.

      • Righties are badly placed to lecture others about tolerance. Intolerance is what the Right specialises in. Conservatism has always been about punishing and suppressing those who do not agree with its narrow point of view.

        What makes you so angry is that you no longer have the power to punish and suppress. You have complete freedom to live by your values. But you no longer have the freedom to impose them on others. As far as you’re concerned, that constitutes intolerance. It’s not of course, but a sense of entitlement as great as yours can’t see a loss of power in any other light.

        This blog is the cri de cœur of the spoiled child who’s forced to share his toys with others and just hates it. Tantrums abound. And none of the other children want to play with you.

        Poor diddums…

        • What makes you so angry is that you no longer have the power to punish and suppress

          oooooh !!! Can you please explain to me when, exactly, I have “enjoyed” such “power” ???

          PS your rather cretinous contribution is devoid of any nor all value.

          • Ooooh! Little b*tch in the playground loves to hurl insults, doesn’t she? She probably comes from a difficult family though. So I pity her rather than anything else.

            Being as it’s impossible to have a meaningful exchange with a malevolent street urchin, this conversation stops here.

          • So what — “the cri de cœur of the spoiled child who’s forced to share his toys with others and just hates it. Tantrums abound. And none of the other children want to play with you.

            Poor diddums…

            … is somehow a “meaningful contribution” ???

            As stated : it’s cretinous.

            Anyway, as this is obviously just the latest moronic sockpuppet from the usual puppeteer : Blocked.

Comments are closed.