Rejecting Zero Community Transmission Strategy is causing Irrational Economic and Health Harms

"In non zero community transmission strategy States the COVID19 policy choice is a false position between the health of the people and health of the economy. They do not say this, yet that is what it means to not pursue ZCT. It is, of course, a false dichotomy. A good policy protects both. 23% of global population and their economies are currently being protected by ZCT. Bad policy harms both. Just look at the deaths and economic harms in the differing countries. Go on. Compare Vietnam or New Zealand's outcomes with USA or England's outcomes. Use yer google and compare the outcomes."

“Australia not only flattened that curve, it destroyed that curve ... That didn’t happen by accident, it didn’t happen because of luck.” Mike Ryan @WHO We are now bringing this expertise to the Indo-Pacific region with COVID-19 vaccine access initiatives.pic.twitter.com/qWlGH79U3T
— Dr Stephanie Williams (@AusAmbRHS) March 25, 2021

A global pandemic demands a global coherent response to minimise harms, no question.

Compare New Zealand's Zero Community Transmission strategy with UK Herd Immunity slow spread tactical approach that has become a war of attrition that the most vulnerable lose.

1. 1.8 billion people (23% of global population) and their economies being protected by Governments and populations deploying proven Zero Community Transmission strategies right now across East Asia and Oceania, Europe, South America and elsewhere. Stopping the spread of the virus is possible and it works. It could be a global strategy to avoid causing vast harms. It should be the global strategy. Stopping the Spread is spreading the Love.

2. The English Government have rejected Zero Community Transmission strategy from the outset. They have rejected Science and Epidemiology best practice out of hand. They cited 'data modelling' and 'behavioural science' as the basis for their policy choice. The never cite epidemiology or virology as the basis of their policy choices.

3. The English Government deliberately allowed the virus to be imported and to be spread in January, February and March and beyond in 2020. They refused to quarantine the borders. They had chosen a policy of allowing 'natural herd immunity' to take it's course. They denied this, even as on multiple occasions they and their chosen advisors urged Herd Immunity as the only resolution to the epidemic. Of course publicly they disavowed that policy, but the effects of policy choice has led to spread of the virus, time and time again. Slowing the spread is a herd immunity strategy. Stopping the spread would be an non-herd immunity policy.

4. The English Government scaled down NHS contact trace in February, March 2020 rather than scale it up. They deliberately allowed transmission of the virus to run out of control by claiming it was too late to stop the spread.

5. The English Government ignored WHO guidance and East Asian experience.

6. The English Government bragged about this position. British Exceptionalism.

7. Here is Johnson bragging about this position February 3rd 2020

https://youtu.be/baWbWpOtJnc?t=536

Here are his words, read them, understand them.

"And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic

8. and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage..."

9. Here is the real and unnecessary economic damage the government's deliberate policy have caused

a. 130,000 and more HORRIFIC painful frightening deaths.
b. 300,000 and more Long Covid cases.
c. Hundreds of thousands of of acute health care issues set aside as hospitals are repeatedly swamped by COVID19.
d. 75,000 pub jobs lost.
e. Live Entertainment Industry crushed, 170,000 jobs lost
f. Tourism crushed.
g. Hundreds of thousands of people in rent arrears, at risk of losing their homes.

h. 3 million self employed small business people excluded from support.

i. Immense psychological stress.
j. Immense economic damage.
k. GDP way down,

10. "beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage"

All of this is absolutely irrational damage to the health of population, it is irrational damage to the people's economy and all of it was 100% avoidable. No question. and so let us look at the bragging -

11. "then at that moment Humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth "

Johnson claims Humanity, the Global Population, needs a brave government like the UK Government! Blatantly not the case then, and certainty on that now.

12. "and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other. And here in Greenwich in the first week of February 2020, I can tell you in all humility that the UK is ready for that role."

Humility is something alien to Boris Johnson and indeed alien to the English Government as an international State.

13. "We are ready for the great multi-dimensional game of chess in which we engage in more than one negotiation at once and we are limbering up to use nerves and muscles and instincts that this country has not had to use for half a century."

The Game of Chess - an institutional anti-human attribution that speaks of people as pawns, that speaks to Power rather than Humanity.

14. "Limbering up" : contact tracing FAIL, PPE procurement FAIL, Testing FAIL, Quarantine FAIL, Isolation Treatment FAIL, Care Homes FAIL

15. "Use Nerves" : blustering, hand shaking, pretending to care, clapping for heroes, eat out to spread it about, bullying teachers, offering to support school students with laptops and broadband and not delivering, bullying parents, making public claims they will 'beat' the virus.

16. "And muscles" : gaslighting, misleading, lying, bullying and ignoring the evidence. co-ordinated misinformation and slander campaigns with News Media and on line political grooming operations.

17. "And Instincts" : cronyism, blanking English suppliers of PPE and other equipment out to pass contracts (and cash) to friends who had no prior experience in such supply business, £250,000 on personal flat redecoration using crowdfunding to mask irregular donations, whilst prevaricating on school meals, refusing to offer immediate support for quarantine and isolation treatment.

Owen Jones TV : who is making a lot of money and profit out of the pandemic?

18. And there was no need for any of this. And Johnson claimed that Humanity needed his policy stance!

Well when it comes to the realities right now 23% of global population are protected by zero community transmission strategy and we in the UK could be getting that protection too. Humanity needs a global zero community transmission strategy.

http://Zerocovid.uk - UK web portal for zero community transmission support - check it out, get informed.

1.8 billion people and their economies being protected by zero community transmission strategy right now across East Asia and Oceania.

THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT CANNOT BE DENIED

19. Thus Johnson lied in Parliament, when he said 'there is, therefore no credible route to a Zerocovid Britain, or indeed a Zerocovid World'.

20. Parliamentary privilege allows Johnson to pass that lie, and the co-ordination with Oligarchy owned News Mefia enables that lie, and so Johnson and the UK Government dismissed Zero Community Transmission strategy as 'impossible' and 'impractical' without ANY rational discussion of the strategy.

Then Johnson brazenly cites the harms caused by his policy when he says "we cannot persist indefinitely with restrictions that debilitate our economy, our physical and mental well being and the life chances of our children and that is why it is so crucial that this roadmap should be cautious but also irreversible." to push for worsening policy options of re-opening schools before they are safe, which is guaranteed to initiate a surge in community transmission. The first indications of that surge is the plateau of new cases of disease and deaths, and the rise in infections recorded by testing.

21. Johnson therefore dismissed the evidence out of hand without discussing any of it. Because he knows that if he opened that discussion, the position he and the Government have taken would collapse. That he uses his Parliamentary privilege to do so is bullying.

22. The harms I have cited were all avoidable. The position of the UK Gpvernment and various groups and lobbies and other agencies who are citing the harms caused by deliberate bad management to argue for worse management rather than better management is untenable.

23. Here's a short interview with an Australian doctor recounting their recent two cases, how they traced all contacts, quarantined each and every one of them and have suppressed the spread, with some insight as to why they jump on every case - how one person can spread to 30, then to 150 and beyond really quite rapidly.

24. Australia's federal Government, ruled by The Liberal Party, wanted to reject zero community transmission strategy at the outset, back in 2020 and all the Australian State Governments said no. They all met up and agreed to follow zero community transmission strategies and to work together, using different strategies as they needed, and they told the Federal Government which is ruled by The Liberal Party that they were implementing zero community spread strategy and they suggested very strongly that the Federal Government toe the line or else. The Murdoch press and broadcast tried to support the Liberal Party and keep the economy open, and they failed. The State Governments duty of care to the people prevailed.

25. Recent elections in Western Australia have decimated the ruling Liberal Parties candidates, as the population supported the ZCT promoting parties. It is likely to repeat across Australia in future elections. ZCT works. As it should.

26. In England there is a Government and News Mefia Taboo. Do not discuss the evidence that zero covid can work if and when it is correctly implemented. Dismiss it. Use all means, including psychological operations to undermine awareness of zero community transmission.

Authoritarianism. Lethal Authoritarianism.

27. Evidence of malfeasance in public office is abundant. I wrote this blog article last May. Since then more evidence of malfeasance has emerged.

https://dwylcorneilius.blogspot.com/2020/05/cummings-need-not-resign-they-should.html?m=1

28. An 80 seat majority should not allow such anti Democratic inhumane harm causation by Government policy to persist.

That is an abuse of Power beyond reason, beyond bearing, beyond any claims of representation of constituents.

29. Johnson is inflicting upon the English people a similar degree of harm as Blair inflicted on the Afghani and Iraqi people 18 years ago, in 2002 and 2003 onwards, which is a continuation of the harms inflicted by Austerity in 2008 onwards, the support of violent overthrow of a legitimate Government in Libya in 2009, and an attempted overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria in 2011 and the continued Saudi war against Yemen. All actions supported by the English Government. Abroad and at home,. they are causing harm to vulnerable citizens.

30. These are in effect Late Elizabethan Holocausts - where millions of lives have been shattered or adversely affected by wholly avoidable actions and policy choices made by UK Government policy.

This cannot stand.

This cannot be allowed to continue.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Thank you for reading this blog.

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.

https://patreon.com/corneilius

https://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius

https://www.corneilius.net

https://www.soundcloud.com/coreluminous

The word 'woke', when used by bullies, is an insult. Which is a compliment.

The word 'woke' is being used by right wing bullies as an insult.

What they don't get is that it is a compliment.

I am woke (ish). I'd rather not be acutely aware of Racism, in the sense that Racism is just so un-necessary, a cruel invention, designed to set workers at each other in order to prevent us from joining hands and confronting the Ruling class owners. I wish it did not exist. I am not glad to be aware of it. However Racism was invented, and until we un-invent it, I think I need to be acutely aware of it, and how it functions within existing hierarchies of power, wealth and violence as an institutionalised weapon in the class war because that class war is causing so much harm. Being asleep to the existence of that war is no longer an option.

Origins of 'woke'.

The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious. A few years later, the phrase “stay woke” turned up as part of a spoken afterword in the 1938 song “Scottsboro Boys,” a protest song by Blues musician Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly. The song describes the 1931 saga of a group of nine Black teenagers in Scottsboro, Arkansas, who were accused of raping two white women.

"Lead Belly says at the end of an archival recording of the song that he’d met with the Scottsboro defendants’ lawyer, who introduced him to the men themselves. “I made this little song about down there,” Lead Belly says. “So I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there — best stay woke, keep their eyes open.”

Lead Belly uses “stay woke” in explicit association with Black Americans’ need to be aware of racially motivated threats and the potential dangers of white America. Lead Belly’s usage has largely stayed the common, consistent one ever since, including during one notable brush with the mainstream in 1962, via the New York Times.

That year, a young Black novelist named William Melvin Kelley wrote a first-person piece for the Times called “If You’re Woke You Dig It; No mickey mouse can be expected to follow today’s Negro idiom without a hip assist.” In the piece, Kelley points out that the origins of the language of then-fashionable beatnik culture — words like “cool” and “dig” — lay not within white America but with Black Americans, predominantly among Black jazz musicians."

Source: Vox - really interesting article, well written and obviously worth the read, gives a way better history of 'woke' than I am presenting here, and brings the recent 2000s story to the forefront.

Turning gold into lead, and failing.

When 'woke' moved from within the African American community into wider use, over the last decade or so, the alt right tried to turn it into an insult, without realising it is a compliment.

The alt right white supremacist misogynists hated that the African Americans had such a cool, clear and simple word that indicated an acute and historically accurate political awareness: that really boiled their piss into steaming clouds of rage. Cool and right.

They are also really, really irritated that they cannot use their own word 'N8gg8R', yet African Americans can and do use it freely, lovingly among themselves. lolz.

It's a really interesting dynamic. You can feel the dirty, gagging yet impotent rage when the bullies try to turn the word 'woke' against people seeking a pathway towards confronting and impeding racist oppression.

For the alt-right and white supremacists, labelling me or you as 'woke' is their attempt at being insulting.

It is a way of dismissing the other person, as a put down and as a way to avoid the evidence. It is always used at the other person.

Being dismissed in the middle of a discussion or interaction can trigger a reaction, hacking the amygdala, shutting down cortex.

The bullies know this.

That usage of the insult is designed to trigger the target into anger, derailing the frontal cortex, the thinking part of our brain.

That is a trap.

Never react with a counter strike.

Just point out the truth. "Why thank you, I am woke! So kind of you to notice!"

What ever it is, what ever the discussion. Just place the evidence.

Don't worry about convincing or persuading. Just place the evidence, calmly.

That way the bully has no traction. That way the bully loses. Watch the steam from his or her ears, notice the reddening of the cheeks, the thin beads of sweat, the squirming incoherent rage. Let it sizzle.

Which is why Piers Morgan walked off set.

He lost, in public, to the truth, calmly told.

Some one asked on twitter : "what is the opposite of 'woke'?"

I wrote the following.

Bully.

Bully is the opposite of woke.

The opposite of woke is not asleep. Being asleep is not the opposite of woke. It's possible to not know something, to be genuinely unaware. If someone is genuinely asleep, one cannot blame them for not hearing or seeing an emerging danger.

Being awake and a bully: that is the opposite of woke.

Racism is bullying.

Misogyny is bullying.

Xenophobia is bullying.

Nationalism is bullying.

Nativism is bullying.

Hating the vulnerable, the poor, the disabled is bullying.

Externalised Costs is bullying.

Profiteering is bullying.

Hierarchies of Power and Violence are bully cultures.

All of these are the opposite of woke.

When an Oligarchy or Plutocracy is occupying democratic legislatures, excluding the people, and in co-ordination with those who mediate existing public discourse by controlling the bulk of public news media - that is bullying.

Online political grooming is bullying.

Free Speech is a responsibility to be honest, truthful.

Free Speech is not a licence to be a bully.

Free Speech is not a right to groom, manipulate or exploit others through use of lies and various logical fallacies targeting vulnerabilities.

The bullies hide behind Free Speech - to do this they deliberately describe it inaccurately.

The origin of Free Speech is that a Government may not block or harass or oppress a citizen from speaking truth. That is what it means. Nothing more than that. There's an element of Religious Freedom associated with it though that is the least part of the meaning. Religious truths vary, are relative to one another and often do not mirror social material reality. That is why Religion is less than useful when deliberating on policy that concerns the shared spaces between us, the commons. The care of the commons demands honesty and evidence above all else.

The meaning of Free speech is that those in Power cannot be allowed to sanction anyone for speaking truth to the community, in public, about the behaviour, actions and outcomes of those in Power. That honesty is critical to any democratic system.

Whistle-blowers are essential to any community's integrity and they must be protected.

Transparency makes any system safer.

Evidence matters.

When the British Prime Minister dismissed Zero Community Transmission strategy as impossible and impractical in spite of the evidence that it is protecting the lives and economies of 1.8 billion people across East Asia and Oceania, that was bullying. He was using the power of his position to make sure that no honest discussion of ZCT would be allowed in Parliament, thus undermining Free Speech.

Free Speech was never meant to suggest anyone can utter whatever lies, falsehoods or misinformation they like as manipulative tools in any public fora, as tools that exploit other people's vulnerabilities in order to secure any economic, ideological, political or religious advantage.

I think that kind of behaviour is criminal in intent. I know it is criminal behaviour.

Exploiting another human beings vulnerability in order to groom and then exploit that person is a criminal action. It is pure evil. In the sense of a lying nasty venal assault on the integrity of the psyche of the other person for personal gain.

I do not subscribe to any concept of Evil as outside of human action - there is no Satan, no Santa Claus, no force of Evil outside of human behaviour and action.

my song, Bully, Bully, Bully

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Gavin Williamson, Teachers, Parents, Sanctions, Evidence, the WHO and Zero Community Transmission Strategy - Saving Lives Matters.

image source :

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/21/is-gavin-williamson-the-worst-education-secretary-ever

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson cites 'harms' for which he does present any reliable evidence, in order to argue for reopening schools before Easter, even as community transmission levels are above the levels they were on March 23rd 2020.

The reason for this is simple enough. He knows exactly what harms his atrocious governance and policy has caused, and he cannot cite those harms without incriminating himself, as outlined in a recent National Audit Report. Once again we see the tactic of citing the harms caused by bad management of the epidemic to argue the case for worse management rather than best management - zerocovid.uk
Bylinetimes described it well :

“This report confirms what parents and teachers have known for a year: that a whole generation of children and young people have been let down by an Education Secretary who lurched from one crisis to the next, wreaking havoc on their lives,” Daisy Cooper, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Education, said.

“From the free school meal U-turns, the ‘A’ Level grading fiasco, the shamefully slow roll-out of laptops, the botched schools re-opening plans, and the failure to take decisive action on this year’s exams, Gavin Williamson is the worst Education Secretary in England in a generation. He’s made such a hash of it, it is quite frankly beyond comprehension that he’s still in post.”

Meanwhile, Meg Hillier, Labour chair of the Commons Public accounts Committee, said that, with no contingency plan, the Department for Education’s reaction was slower and less effective than it could have been.

“DfE’s failure to do its homework has come at the expense of children – and has hit those who were already disadvantaged the hardest,” she said. “DfE must now ensure its support is properly targeted to prevent the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers from widening even further.”

Mr. Williamson claims that 'children are falling behind due to being out of school' even though we know that remote learning has been operating efficiently and for many, many primary schools and secondary schools it has been effective, given the circumstances. he cites no numbers, no qualitative or quantitative survey data to prop up his case.

"Although based on self-reported views, the findings from our YouGov survey show that three-fifths of the teachers responding were quite confident that they were providing a high-quality education through their school’s remote education solution when this was needed.

In addition, just over half were confident their solution was sustainable for the future. On this basis, it is likely that a large proportion of schools in England providing a remote solution are doing well at mitigating the amount of learning loss that children experience"

source : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/remote-education-research/remote-education-research

What we do know is that where there are difficulties it is most often due to a lack of resources and funding, localised poverty and deprivation. The Government promise to provide laptops to all families experiencing poverty never materialised, as did the promise to provide free broadband to the poorest families to assist with remote learning. The fact that £22 billion can be set aside as a budget for an inadequate contact tracing system and a testing system equally inadequate suggests Government inertia and disdain rather than technical difficulty as the underlying reasons for these failures to provide for remote learning.

The reason families in poverty are having difficulty with remote learning then is beyond mere attendance at school and this speaks to the Conservative Governments historical and generalised approach to the children of poorer families - they can do with minimal support, they can endure using foodbanks, they don't 'deserve' free school meals and as a demographic their parents are to be dehumanised in media as work-shy scroungers, and a burden on the tax payer - thus Williamson cites harms caused by Conservative policy which the Government has refused to address. Gaslighting again, Mr. Williamson!

We know most schools are open for vulnerable and at-risk children and for the children of key workers, all of whom are benefiting from smaller class sizes and the extra attention they gain as a result. Teachers are doing superb work in this regard.

We also know that teaching staff are working flat out to provide remote tuition, and the vast majority of children and parents at home are succeeding in meeting the curriculum time tables.

We know that teaching staff in schools are feeding, counselling, clothing and nurturing vulnerable children at every turn and doing a very fine job under very difficult circumstances not of their own making, when all other social services are hampered by the repeated shut down cycles.

Parents are doing superbly, for the most part. For everyone these are indeed trying times, made more trying be the deliberate inadequacies of this Conservative and Unionist Government, behaving as an elective dictatorship.

It bears repeating - the evidenced harms the Education Minister does not cite in his gaslighting approach to the welfare of students, teachers and parents are many. These unmentioned harms are indeed caused by the proven bad management of the epidemic for which he and his Cabinet colleagues are wholly responsible and thus his current proposition is to argue for worse management rather than argue for better management of the epidemic.

He is not arguing for approaching a zero community transmission status. In fact he and his colleagues have dismissed any discussion of attempting to approach a zero community transmission status, in spite of advice and expertise from the global science, virology, epidemiology and public health community and World Health Organisation and partners. They dismissed zero covid in parliament because to discuss it is to reveal the central weakness in their stance since January 2020. They are not following science or evidence at all. Their position is ideological, seeking political gains, enhancing their powers over duty of care for the lives and well being of the citizens.

1. Gavin Williamson is demanding that all children return to schools, and that schools be run fully open. He is demanding that all remote tuition be ceased in order to coerce this move. He is demanding that Schools fine and penalise parents who refuse to bring their children to schools that we all know are unsafe. That is bullying.

He is using the institutional power of the Office of Education Secretary to impose these conditions.

He claims the power to enforce attendance lies with Local Authorities and Heads, not with the Government, exploiting the sanction based legislation governing school rolls and attendance which government has imposed - which the government set aside during the shutdowns. Cake and eat it, he likes.

2. He is demanding they do this when community transmission is above the levels recorded in March 23rd 2020 when the first Lock-down was imposed, a lock down that was made necessary by the Governments failure to limit community transmission of the virus. That guarantees future spread. That is profoundly irresponsible and dangerous.

3. He is demanding that children, who are proven spreaders of the virus, (through no fault of their own) be exposed to the virus, which will carry the virus to their families, to teachers and to other students, some of whom will develop symptoms, 20% of whom will be asymptomatic and thus unaware of their status as transmitters of the virus. This is assured to lead to surges within 4 to six weeks, with the attendant illnesses, fatalities and another shut down to prevent uncontrolled transmission surging through the affected communities..

4. He is claiming a majority of children are falling behind, but he cannot cite the evidence to support that claim as it incriminates him and his policies this past year. Thus he is misleading in public to push a bad policy.

5. Mike Ryan in the WHO Live Q&A broadcast on March 3rd was unequivocal that we must look to countries where the levels of community transmission are low, where they are on top of the virus, where deaths and illness are kept very low as exemplars of the correct strategy in managing and suppressing the virus and bringing local epidemics and the global pandemic under control.

6. Boris Johnson and his entire Cabinet are deliberately ignoring the evidence. They are individually and collectively responsible for the excess fatalities and all other costs that their policy choices have caused.

7. Is it not the case that in order to protect children, adults, elders and the vulnerable, the NHS frontline workers and ancillary staff and shop staff and all others that we therefore need to stop this government from implementing it's current inhumane policy which is causing so much harm?

8. Is it not the case that we need to bring in a government of national unity to implement an efficient, humane zero community transmission policy so that we can end these cycles of shutdown, open up, shutdown, open up and bring our economy and social system back to a more balance state as Vietnam and New Zealand and the Governments of 1.8 billion people across East Asia have ably demonstrated this past 12 months?

9. The coercion being deployed against parents, students is carefully laid out by a barrister, Mark McDonald. This is a hugely important matter. The stress imposed upon hundreds of thousands of parents is one thing. The combination of existing legislated school registration sanction regimes with Government intransigence is really unjust. Using those sanction regimes to coerce parents whose genuine wish is to protect their children and relatives, especially CV and CEV cases is inhumane.

There are examples of clear cut cases of bullying tactics being deployed against genuinely concerned parents.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Being biologically male or female is an accident of conception - time we got over it, don't you think?

In the most simple terms, I am a person before all else.

All the cultural labels are imposed upon the person and they form a cultural persona - a mask, a veil worn for approval and through dull habituation internalised - thus 'fitting in' to a hierarchically violent cult.  Babies are people, persons from the get go. We all are. Rather than externalise our emergent selves, we are forced to endured internalisation of the cult's approved proxies.

My maleness is an accident. Of conception. Of something that happened in the womb. Nothing I did. It just happened that way. Nonetheless I am a man. Male body.

When I was a late teen I recognised in myself, within, that I was 'androgynous' in that I was neither male nor female as played out by those around me, in the character of my mind and psyche. Or at least when I discovered the word 'androgynous' and put it into that context I felt it made sense of my inner reality. I did not feel the roles laid out by culture fit within me. I could not talk about 'women' the way other men did. I wanted to meet minds. I was interested in bodies too, and shy with that, yet it it was the mind that I was really interested in. The person. Who are you, what do you think?

And because I did not understand that the discomfort I felt (around culturally imposed male and female roles) and behaviours was accurate I thought that there had to be something wrong with me, and no matter how hard I tried, I could not internalise those values. I have always felt deeply uncomfortable around the typical male - female behavioural dynamic. When members of either biological sex talk of the others as if they were another species I always felt something was deeply wrong.

I think I need to get over it. I am not the only one. Women are not a separate species, a mystery. Women are person, minds embodied. So here goes. I now understand that those cultural imposed conditioned roles are intrusions into the psyche of the person, they are what we call part of poisonous pedagogy.

Poisonous pedagogy, in Katharina Rutschky's definition, aims to inculcate a social superego in the child, to construct a basic defence against drives in the child's psyche, to toughen the child for later life, and to instrumentalise the body parts and senses in favour of socially defined functions.

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Poisonous_pedagogy

There's a long history of culturally male behaviour that punishes women for not complying with male demands for sex as if access to women's bodies was some kind of inherent right. Incels are one expression of that. Women as chattels is another. Pornography has elements of that too. Eroticism less so. The idea that masturbation is not really sex. The bluster that penetration is an expression of that 'right to sex' by virtue of phenotype that is entirely a cultural construct.

There is no inherent right to sex with anyone other  than oneself. There is a need, indeed, but it is primarily for intimacy and for procreation - and even so it must be governed by informed egalitarian consent unsullied by any form of power differential, formal or informal.

We see a long of anger in the male culture, a lot of pain around this.

We see a lot of punishment of women around this.

It is there. It cannot be denied or played down. The impacts are too vast, too disruptive of conviviality, mutualism and collective coherence.

I do not feel in any way diminished when a majority of women protest - "too many men, too many times, too much impunity". I know they are not talking about me. I get how they must feel. Not least because of what my close female friends have disclosed and what I have seen myself, and how I have intervened at different times in my life to stop harassment and abuse. I do not feel the need to say 'not all men'. At all.

----

Being biologically male or female is :

a) an accident of conception, yet not in the same what that the class one is of is an accident of birth. Class is created by a hierarchy cult. It is not natural at all. Class is artificially imposed. Obviously the Hierarchs hold that class is natural. They have to believe that or their self assured stated withers before their eyes.

Being biologically male or female is :

b) really easy, I don't have to do anything at all. Being proud of it is silly. Humility is a more accurate approach. 

c) Avoiding the dominant culturally imposed definitions of what maleness/femaleness means is difficult. That is something to be proud of, glad of. It is difficult. It is scary.

And yet it must be done to become the full person I am. My body and mind is in evolutionary terms so much older than this dominator culture, by a million years or more.  Personhood is older than this culture. Personhood is deeper than anything this culture has ever philosophised. I laugh at the history of Philosophy mostly for it's lack of sensitivity. Way too serious, not playful. Not like my being at all. Where is the philosophy of nurture?

d) I experience my natural personhood as asexual, non gendered and I feel this sense of self is way more sensitive than the dominator cultural value sets delineate. Super alive. Super alive to the world and to feeling. Super sensitive. Playful. Creative. Joyous. Kind. Vulnerable. My music is not male. My writings are not male. They are both of the person I am. And when I feel maleness and this male sexuality, I delight in it, on my own and with my partners. It's got nothing to do with anyone until I consent. It's nobody's business. Until I choose to invite contact and that is always in the context of the other person. It's personal, it's person to person.

e) The struggle or discord between that natural ancient evolutionary base - the person - and the cultural overlay - the persona - is immense and intense and it is a taboo subject. The cultural overlay is a wound. 

I internalised an identity given to me by a bully cult.  It never fits. I have never been comfortable with that inside me. I have learned that it is not of me, does not belong with me. I decide what maleness means in as much as I am a person, who just happens to be male, and the maleness is a small part of me, it is not the whole of me, not by any stretch. Maleness is an aspect of my body and how that relates through my personhood is for me to define, to decide. Emergent.

f) I think there are many culturally conditioned males who are taking it personally when women are speaking as persons in such large numbers demanding that this misogyny, this unwanted attention, harassment and sexualised violence that is happening as a daily occurrence in so many lives MUST STOP. Now!

I also know there are bullies and professional predators who are gaming all of this, for power. They are grooming the cultured males and females for political, economic and psychological advantage. 

I know there are cultured males and females who do see the wound of this behaviour and want it to stop and are confused as to why it is happening at all. I get that some feel a strong male or female identity and that it's a big part of who they are. I hope it is emergent for them, rather than a cultural internalisation.

All of us are caught between a rock and a hard place within the culture that is a hierarchy of power and violence.

f) I think that there is a fear to see the wound that the women are drawing attention to. And  I think it is in part that for culturally indoctrinated men to see it, to be really honest here, to submit to the truth as it really is to lose that culturally imposed identity, that internalised value set of the good male, or the bad male, whatever - it was not what I was born with, but by golly it is who I am now - is something can be perceived as, or imagined as a loss of self, a dissolution, a death of sorts. 

When it's a liberation. It IS a liberation.  To be truly male is to nurture.

g) What if we are not really men, not really women, we are really persons, and we need to meet and live as persons in order to deal with this dreadful wound?

h) How much of the dominant culture collapses in that realisation?

Boys! Our maleness is an accident. 

Of conception.  Of something that happened in the womb. Nothing you did. It just happened that way.

I think we need to get over it.

Free our minds. Our hearts. Come home to who we really are.

You do know there is no such thing as a male brain, a male liver, a male kidneys, or even male lungs?

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

"It is too many men, too much of the time" , with too much impunity - it is the culture we live in.

If, as a male, a man, a person and my response or reaction to the calls of women on the issue of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, misogyny and gender prejudice is 'it's not all men" and if I make that statement to defend myself, if I make that statement because I feel personally insulted, slighted, labelled or that I am being made the object of prejudice, as one of a class, then it's pretty certain that I am missing the point.

More importantly it's clear that my reaction is about me, rather than the quality of the welfare, the health and and the safety of women who live with being mistreated by many men, within a culture of misogyny and sexism. women. Which is missing the point. I'm not the point here. The lived experience of women. Matters.

A woman wanted to speak at the band stand and was impeded by police action.

The women have not said that it is all men, they have said it is too many men, too much of the time, with too much impunity. Black Lives Matter do not say it is all white people, they said it is too many Racist police, too much of the time with too much impunity. And that is a fair point, because it is true. There are too many Racist policemen causing harm to black citizens because they hold wildly inaccurate views about Race, and too many of those who get away with the harm they are causing.

It is too many women, who too often endure gendered, sexist and sexualised abuse and never receive justice within a patriarchy rooted social power system.

Too many men, too much of the time, with too much impunity. It's not aimed at me, as a personal attack.

I know I am not that kind of person. and that it has nothing to do with the accident of my maleness.

Yes, I did not chose my born sex, nor did I chose the role dynamics the culture imposes. It's an accident of birth. I can choose to reject those culturally imposed values and I do. Because the culture that imposes those 'values' is a rooted in patriarchal violence and bullying. I saw through that a long time ago.

That said, I do und erstand that when meeting a woman who does not know me, that if her lived experience has shown her that some men are predators, that some men can make a predatory move when it is least expected, and that there is no accurate measure or means to predict this, and she has been hurt, wounded, terrorised by that behaviour, and she knows other women have similar experiences such that it is common place, then she will be wary of me. Well yes, of course.

If I were in her shoes, I'd be wary too.

I have been assaulted a number of times. I understand. I don't fully know what it is like to be subject to uninvited stares, sexual advances, lewd comments, 'banter' day in day out. It can't be comfortable.

-----

The men who react with "it's not all men!" have not heard the majority of women cry "It is all men!"

There may be a few women who do make that assertion. They are a minority. Elevating them to the majority in defence of a fragile sense of maleness is a logical error, and it is also a tactical play generated by the bully culture, the macho culture, the authoritarian culture. It's important to not to fall for that tactic.

"It's not all men!" means that I am not listening and I am not hearing what is being said, and instead I am taking it personally. That aligns me away from the women who are making a fair and honest statement.

That inadvertently aligns me as a bystander, a faux neutral position that flows with the abusers and with the abuse system itself. Even if I oppose the abusers with all my heart. Unless I do so with action, I am mute.

I really must just listen to the women, and hear them, and be with that for a while. I need to understand that because most men are not active in confronting misogyny it continues. Just as most 'White' people are not actively confronting Racism, it continues.

What women want is my fullest empathy, moral, practical and active support to confront this awful systemic misogyny.

It is partly because I am a Survivor of childhood abuse and violence, and have also survived three physical attacks on my person in adulthood that I join with these women and say to those who are misogynists, sexual predators, gender bullies and otherwise violent men - there are too many of you, and what you do afflicts us all, too much of the time. Enough is enough. As a man I disavow your behaviour as evidence of maleness or of masculinity. It's abuse, that is all it is. Nothing more than abuse. Ugly. Dysfunctional. Harmful. Abuse.

The issue of dealing with too many men, too much of the time causing harm to women with such degrees of impunity is also a Cultural Problem, because it is too many men, too much of the time.

And in that sense, the ubiquity of this harmful behavioural pattern means that all men and all women living within the culture are involved in this.

Some men, too many men, are predators and bullies, other men are bystanders, they watch and do nothing, others are willing to stand with the victimised and the oppressed and a few are actively working to prevent the harm, by education, by presence, by their own learning and by seeking to enact better legislation and better practices in all areas this problem affects.

A cultural problem.

It is a cultural problem in that most incidents of sexual abuse are not reported and often that is because when they are reported, formally or informally, most reports of sexual abuse do not lead to justice.

It is a cultural problem in that most police forces are still inadequately trained in trauma informed responses to this kind of harm causation being reported. It is a cultural problem in that known abusers of women can be elected into the highest positions of power in any democracy.

It is a cultural problem, in that the most honest histories are those that record the insight of ordinary folk who live through whatever historical patterns are driven by the decisions of the powerful - the lived experience of those most harmed by Power tells the truth that Power dares not utter, and we see quite clearly that the Establishment narrative is blind to the truth of the lived experience.

Johnson claims hundreds of thousands of avoidable fatalities from an infectious disease is a 'world beating' success. Keir Starmer decries the organic removal of Statues that celebrate historical abusers. Tony Blair claims Iraq is better of without Saddam Hussein, having caused more harm than Saddam Hussein could possibly have caused in Iraq and beyond. Osborne claims Austerity is a necessity. Iain Duncan Smith claims Universal Credit is a benign benefit system whilst extolling the need for sanctions against poor, disabled and vulnerable people to nudge them into better behaviour. Johnson claims the British Empire was a good experience for the world. His father claims that over population is the problem, and that the ideal population for England is 12 million.

Establishment history is a dishonest cultural hagiography.

The British Empire was a force for good. Invading Iraq was about bringing Democracy to the Middle East. The Hillsborough Fans were drunk and disorderly and caused their own deaths. The Police Forces are innocents, doing their very best to protect and serve the communities. These are all well known establishment lies promoted as truth.

Feminism?

Women joining in in the systemic abuse of Power already entrenched and dominated by a Patriarchy is not Feminism, it is not equity.

It is compliance with and enabling of the Patriarchy systemic abuse system. In posing as Feminism it is another culturally approved establishment lie.

The so called glass ceiling is, de facto, a see through lid on the coffin of the natural and equitable aspiration of women and men who genuinely work towards an egalitarian culture. Theresa May, Priti Patel and Cressida Dick are part of the power structure, they are not a challenge to the power structure nor do they confront problems of this power culture in any way, shape or form.

The Culture of Power

The policing of the vigil on Clapham Common is a case in point.

A young woman disappears on a routine walk at late evening night time. The young woman was abducted off the streets of London. Calls go out to locate her.

Then it is discovered, a week later, that she was abducted by a serving police officer, who was already known to be an serial sexual harasser and yet was still able to wear the uniform, do shifts.

When it became clear that he murdered this young woman, there arose an emergent sense of disgust, outrage and anger that became a coalescence of the feeling among women, who as a class are exposed to so much sexualised abuse that they feel oppressed within this culture A feeling not alleviated in any way by the sheer frequency of harassment and assault, the rareness of a conviction when they report, the lightness of sentencing and a general indifference by bystander men to their plight.

Spend a day reviewing the statistics on ONS. Spend a day listening to women tell you the truth of their lived experience. There is a cultural problem here.

Witness

A Vigil was called to express grief at the loss of another young life, to express a collective solidarity with all women who experience sexualised assault, who are subjected to physical, psychological and emotional harm at the hands of too many men, too much of the time, and for whom justice and prevention are a foreign land, bordered by a male dominated patriarchy on permanent guard duty.

The London Metropolitan Police, advised by the Home Office, objected. On the grounds of protecting people from spreading the virus. Whilst schools are forced to re-open without the necessary systems in place to detect and suppress outbreaks. Laughable. Irrational when subjected to a critical analysis.

The Vigil people went to court to assert their right to hold a well organised, covid19 safe Vigil. The Court asserted that the Vigil was indeed lawful, that the organisers had proven they could manage it in a covid19 secure manner, and that the London MetPol interpretation of covid19 regulations as permitting them to ban the vigil was in error and thus unlawful.

What a respectful Vigil looks like. Even without organisation. Just women calmly grieving.

source : New York Times

The organisers had 1 steward for every 30 attendees. They had PA systems and all the infrastructure to manage the Vigil well. Local Police (Lambeth) and Council agreed. The Home Office and Scotland Yard dissented. The MetPol conceded the point in court, and then withdrew from the case in order to avoid a court declaration that the Vigil could proceed - they did this to allow for their own 'discretion'.

They still opposed the Clapham Common Vigil.

Media reported that as a stalemate. That was not quite true. It was more a matter of London MetPol stonewalling a legitimate gathering, using clever tactics to leave open an act of discretionary policing.

Tactics to obscure the truth, to mute the voices of survivors.

I remind readers of the recent tactical settling a case of unfair dismissal against a senior civil servant that would, if it had been allowed to proceed, proven that the Home Secretary had bullied her staff and others below her in rank. The settlement meant she could avoid the truth being publicised. A bit like the Vatican settling with survivors of child sexual abuse by clerics. "Here's some cash, take it or we will make your life hell. Good, take it and now just Sshhhsssshhut up!"

"We have an image and status to protect!" and Institutions will and do use every tactic to do that.

The London Met Police did not stand with the women who grieve in public - they did not openly criticise the murderous man who was a team member, a team player, one of their own, they do not decry alpha male ideology, they do not train in empathy and de-escalation, and they do not prevent sexual harassment and assault. They do close ranks when ever one of their own is exposed as an abusive bully.

"How many bad apples in that barrel, Inspector?"

"You knew he was abusive?"

"None of your business!"

The organisers of the Vigil proceeded to cancel the Clapham Common event, and others then moved ahead with well organised Vigils elsewhere in England, Wales and Scotland. They all went really well, and as far as we know they were facilitated with sensitivity.

Bristol

Compare and Contrast

Rangers: No arrests at Ibrox as police urge fans to follow Covid restrictions.

Apart from the Vigil on Clapham Common.

That Vigil was a respectful gathering, and it was exercised without the infrastructure the RTS organisers had been ready to put in place. Police were told that, even as the RTS organisers used all means to cancel their Vigil, used their extensive media and online presence to communicate that their participation as an organiser would not go forward, that it would not prevent people who are grieving and upset and angry from gathering. The Police acknowledged that.

Therefore it looks very much like the Police tactic was to let the gathering happen, then to use force to break it up which, given the context of the court hearing and rulings, looks like a deliberate set up.

People gathered in the late afternoon, in daylight. Peacefully, respectfully.

People in the out doors with masks, taking care to reduce virus transmission to a minimum.

A peaceful and genuine Vigil, a public prayer meeting of sorts, that was an act of respectful, grieving solidarity. It was outdoors, people were all masked and everyone was being respectful.

"No, it's not all men.

It is too many men, too often.

It is too many women, too often."

The London MetPol could have stood by, they could have chosen to facilitate the gathering, they could have stayed there all night, in rotating shifts, to ensure that no harm would come to anyone.

They could have done that. Given the circumstance they really ought to have done that.

Think of the PR coup that might have represented. The Police standing with the people!

The London MetPol could have demonstrated solidarity with these women, these men, and thus by practical means have publicly condemned their team mate (and any others like him, lurking behind the cover of uniforms and institutional defence lawyers) and shown that they too stand with the people, as the protectors of the people.

Their Command chose not to do that. They waited. Until it was dark. As people wanted to hear the speakers on the bandstand some moved in closer. Social Distancing was reduced. Masks were being worn. People were chanting.

Witness:

Writing in Bylinetimes Sian Norris gathered evidence of what happened during the Vigil on Saturday evening.

“There were more and more police around the bandstand and then they marched single-file into the bandstand,” she added. “That moment felt very uncomfortable. Very unnecessary. And it was not clear at all from a close bystander’s point of view why they were doing it.”

Flora told Byline Times that it was this moment when things started to shift.

“Nothing was kicking off – it was very static, the atmosphere was unpleasant but nothing was changing,” she said. “Then, all of a sudden, they filed in – almost as if they had decided enough was enough, ‘let’s move things on’. They intervened and it changed because of their actions.”

Sophia witnessed the police move onto the bandstand, “making themselves the focal point of our hurt and sadness,” she said. “Everyone was looking at the bandstand and then suddenly we were all looking at the police. I turned around and the police had also moved in behind this. We were caged in.”

“It was quite intimidating for the crowd,” said Katie.

Sisters Uncut said: “It’s important to be clear that the anger was felt in our bodies. It was not one we enacted. The people who were aggressive and weaponising anger were the police.”

Other Agendas

While the vast majority of women and men had come to Clapham Common, and to similar impromptu vigils across the UK, to pay their respects to women who have been killed and to make a statement against gender-based violence, “there were people there who hadn’t come to fight for women’s rights or against state violence,” Katie told Byline Times.

“That really upset me,” she said, describing how some male attendees were aggressive towards the police or vandalised police vehicles. “It took away from what was happening.”

This was typified by a man who took to the bandstand to give an uninvited speech against lockdown and the police more widely.

“The first person to speak was a man – no one asked him to,” Katie said. “People started chanting ‘not your place’.”

“As I was leaving, it became apparent that a lot of people were arriving who weren’t there for the reason I was,” Coleman said.

So what we see here is that there were people within the setting who were hijacking the event, (more about that below). People, men, whose publicly stated opinions, beliefs and attitudes feed into more spread of the virus - anti-lockdown, anti-zerocovid, which is aligned with the reality in outcome terms of UK Government strategic position - Herd Immunity is the way out of the Epidemic - and the Police, who are an arm of Government using force to break up a Vigil, claiming to wish to prevent the spread of the virus, whilst also citing the behaviour of the people who were hijacking the event, all co-inciding as part of the news and online media led protection of the policing as it was handled.

Power not wisdom.

What reason, what exactly gave the police the excuse to push through the crowd and break up the gathering on the bandstand, with 'reasonable force', in order 'to prevent spread of the virus'?

A gathering of mostly women, mostly in quiet mournful respect, quiet enough to listen to a non amplified female voice speaking from the bandstand, all wearing masks, all outdoors?

Was that a wise move? Who ordered it, on what basis?

Or was it because within the culture of power, to urge to be dominant (which is the driver of sexualised assault) also drives the command chain. Impose your will. Assert the Power of the command chain, from Home Office to the streets. The Home Secretary's power will not be challenged!

Compulsory Education is every child's introduction to the realities of Institutional Hierarchy, Authority and Power.

You are compelled to be educated.

Compelled by a greater power than any parent or child can muster. Dominance.

No Child Left Behind.

Compulsion Education instructs children what to think, in ways that ensure that they never learn how to think. School children who leave secondary school and who do not know what the English Civil War was about. School children who leave secondary school and who do not know what their Human Rights are, and why and how they are enshrined in Law. School children who leave secondary school and who do not know that Racism was invented, as a legal instrument, in Virginia in 1681. That's just irresponsible in educational terms.

That is the utilitarian instrumentalization of education as a part of how oppressive bully cultures function.

Self education is every child's responsibility - removing that response ability by coercion is key to the maintenance of the bully cult.

Bullying in schools.

1 in 5 school children in England report being bullied on School premises in 2018.

Compulsory Education is key to maintaining the practices of nationalist indoctrination, is key to sustaining the myth of a benign patriarchy and essential to the inculcation of approved gender role identifications and behaviours that separate men and women as persons, and classifies us as separate genders, with exclusive lingo, behaviour and memes rather than unite us as persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonous_pedagogy

"Poisonous pedagogy, in Katharina Rutschky's definition, aims to inculcate a social superego in the child, to construct a basic defense against drives in the child's psyche, to toughen the child for later life, and to instrumentalize the body parts and senses in favor of socially defined functions. " Boy's don't dry.

Thus compulsory education is a toxic mime of self directed education and it serves to undermine the person in favour of approved persona. Look to the celebrity role models. Persona. Images. Faux Reality.

Power and powerlessness entrenched by disempowering dynamic structures.

Hence the inability of parents, teachers and students to unite even as they are being abused by Government and News Media in the midst of an epidemic. Gavin Williamson bullies millions of people by virtue of the Office he holds and gets away with repeat offences that cause thousands of deaths. The Media refuse to confront his obvious gaslighting. Starmer refuses that analysis and supports the Government.

Power

Sexualised Assault, Misogyny and Racism are all extreme bullying behaviours rooted in false premises.

"I have a right to your female body because I have a Penis, Men are Superior to Women, White skinned people are Superior to Black skinned people, Disabled people are freaks, the Poor are lazy." All falsehoods.

This is all about power, a pecking order of who exercises power over others.

Co-opting the Vigil

Bylinetimes published an article showing how some of the people attending the Vigil had other agenda's to promote, exploiting the situation for their political viewpoints. Anti-lockdown, anti-vaxxer, right Libertarians among them.

"Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union and editor of the Lockdown Sceptics site, has also used the events of Saturday night to promote an anti-lockdown narrative.

Writing on Lockdown Sceptics, he said that the people criticising the police response were “the very same people who’ve enthusiastically supported the lockdowns, including the suspension of the right to protest, and who’ve condemned anti-lockdown protestors for being ‘selfish’ and ‘irresponsible’”. Young stated that the arrests of women in Clapham “were on you”.

A woman who attended Saturday’s vigil told Byline Times that the Metropolitan Police’s decision not to engage with the grassroots organisers of the event was, in part, responsible for how she believed it could be co-opted by those with different agendas.

“When the Metropolitan police refused to work with the organisers, and the organisers stepped back, that left a vacuum which was filled by people who had a different agenda,” she said.

Again the dishonesty of those who claim to oppose abuse of power yet whose own actions amount to an abuse of their position, status and power that favours more abuses of power is made clear. Misogyny is shameless.

We want to change the culture?

Tell the children the truth. Stop lying to the boys and girls.

Prevent people like Michael Gove and Gavin Williamson from leveraging institutional power to cause harm to our children, our teachers, our families.

Tell the truth about Power Hierarchy. Tell the truth about Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Externalised Costs, Patriarchy, Racism, Conquest, Misogyny and Gender Roles.

Make telling lies in Parliament a criminal offence, with a mandatory custodial sentence. Make publishing misinformation and lies as 'News' a criminal offence.

Thus we will be better situated to prevent the youth growing into the kinds of dysfunctional adults that are exploited by power, to sustain power over the people. Ensure children leave school equipped with critical analysis and thinking skills.

Brexit, the parachute that opens on impact - Brexit was of course a vast political grooming exercise, exploiting vulnerable people, exploiting people who lack accurate information. Austerity was a national scale act of deliberate abuse of vulnerable people, protected by gaslighting the public about lack of Government funds due to 'debt', which was a lie.

Zero Community Transmission is dismissed as 'impossible' - that is a lie.

Critical thinking would make such lies unlikely to survive more than a few days at most.

There is no truly single issue - there is one cultural issue, we are ruled over by bullies. That fact distorts all of our lives.

Tell the truth.

The truth is essential to the Working of Mutual Democracy. WMD.

Obviously lacking an equitable voice across English Institutional Power, obviously lacking an equitable voice in the English News Media, nonetheless the truth of the lived experience of the powerless is everywhere among the decent people, who stand apart from the minority of bullies, the politically groomed, the woo woo woolly eyed, the nativists, the xenophobes, the Racists and the misogynists who largely defer to the systems of power, who walk in our midst.