The Illogic of Evil

So, an Australian murders worshippers at a mosque in New Zealand, hardly a homeland of the white race, in defence of European civilisation? It sounds like the opening to a bad joke, but it’s what passes for logic in the warped mind of someone who sets out to kill strangers who have done them no harm.

At least European nationalists have some basis for their beliefs, even if they usually evince a simplistic view of history by not understanding how modern and ancient populations seldom correspond geographically, if at all. But, there’s a definite illogic to the thinking of the descendents of colonists worrying about the ethnic and cultural effects of immigration, especially to a country that isn’t even their own.

Sadly, the same warped logic also justifies the use of violence against strangers who pose you no harm. Campaign against immigration if you wish, that’s the freedom democracy offers, promote your culture, but nothing justifies this kind of random violence. Nothing.

Can’t Leave It Alone…

A friend once asked me if it was possible to be critical of Israel or opposed to its activities without being an anti-semite. Of course. The way to tell if someone who is critical of Israel is an anti-semite is to see whether they criticise other countries for similar issues. Unless they’re an Israeli or a Palestinian, fixation upon Israel is a sure sign that the problem isn’t oppression, neo-colonialism, or human rights, but Jews.

Which makes Jeremy Corbyn’s conference speech interesting. Given the scandal that has surrounded him, you might have thought he would avoid mention of Israel or that he might show his concerns are nothing to do with Jews by bringing up, say, the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar or the Uighur in China. Or, more apt, given they’ll be his responsibility if he becomes Prime Minister, the continued exile of the Chagos Islanders from their homeland. Or, indeed, any number of other similar issues that exist around the world.

Did he? Nope. The man has a fixation with Israel that goes beyond the reasonable and one in which, despite his bluster about wanting to encourage discourse, he has shown no interest in talking to Israelis. The only credible reason for his fixation is because he has issues with Jews and referencing Israel gives him a fig leaf against accusations of racism.

It is only to be hoped that most voters will refuse to vote for someone with an overtly racist agenda. The problem is – can anyone provide a credible alternative?

Scapegoating

I was aware that the case of Doctor Bawa-Garba, struck off following the death of a child from sepsis, was dodgy, given the many failings by the hospital, but the Medicine Balls column in the latest issue of Private Eye (number 1477) reveals just what a farce it was.

Yes, Doctor Bawa-Garba made a serious error, which she admitted to, but she was overworked due to a shortage of doctors and lacked proper equipment to do her job, while the consultant, a man with more experience and authority, refused to examine the child, despite having been giving the abnormal blood results that should have alerted him. Indeed, it is to avoid such things being missed that more than one pair of eyes is necessary – when one pair abdicate responsibility, the system fails. Doctor Bawa-Garba made a mistake – but, she was doing her job despite all the difficulties she faced. Doctor O’Riordan didn’t do his.

To compound matters, O’Riordan not only refused to take any blame, but accused her of being the sole individual at fault, before disappearing off to work in Ireland without any sort of investigation into his behaviour. There are also accusations that he deliberately turned the family of the dead child against Doctor Bawa-Garba, leading to the media witch hunt.

Then, there is the revelation that a far more serious error contributing to the child’s death was a decision to give him a drug that Doctor Bawa-Garba had declined to, due to the risk it presented given the health issues involved. An hour later, the child’s condition deteriorated. Yet this error has been ignored in the rush to blame her.

So, we have a doctor who was failed by the system, by her superior and her co-worker, yet has received the entirety of the blame when her blame is minimal – and, as a result, she has suffered a fine, the loss of her home, the threat of jail, the loss of her job, racial abuse and threats. Meanwhile, Doctor O’Riordan continues to work without a blemish and no information appears available as to whether her co-worker faced any sanction.

It’s no wonder doctors are leaving the NHS in droves, when a single mistake in difficult circumstances can destroy your life, while your superiors and the managers and ministers who are to blame for the mess go free.

Not the Crime they Claimed

After the EU referendum vote, there was a surge of accusations that Leave voters were racists. Strangely, at the time, I saw virtually nothing Leave-related that could be called racist, while Remainers were warning of the ‘brown tide’ that would overwhelm Britain if we left the EU and abusing anyone who supported the Leave campaign. (Things haven’t changed much – I’ve just read a Remainer’s letter in a local paper that bemoans Britain leaving Europe to the rule of the evil Germans.) After the vote, with many Leavers seeming stunned at their success, the only vitriol was the hatred spewed by Remainers.

Then came the death of Arkadiusz Jozwik and the Remainers rejoiced to have a genuine and serious crime to blame on Brexit. No more unsubstantiated claims of abuse and vague accusations of nasty looks in restaurants, but a murder.

Never mind that the police were uncertain whether Jozwik had been attacked for being a Pole and that locals were blaming youths who were accused of harassing everyone, regardless of race, the Remainers leapt to the attack and the authorities acquiesced, bringing in Polish police to patrol Harlow and wringing their hands at the thought of hatred.

But, now that we’ve had the trial, it turns out the Remainers had it all wrong. Jozwik was killed in a drunken altercation in which he was as much to blame as the youth who felled him with a single punch (not, as Remainers had claimed, a mob carrying out a sustained attack). Indeed, while the allegation remains unproven, it seems Jozwik may himself have racially abused a black youth during the altercation, prompting the attack.

So, if there was any racism involved, it seems it was on the part of the man who died, not his killer. Strangely, this is not a fact the Remainers have been keen to admit. But, then, I suspect many of them would secretly agree with such racist sentiments, preferring a white Europe to a multi-racial Britain.

Hopefully, we can relegate such people to history and build a better Britain with a brighter future for everyone.

Unimpressed

I wasn’t surprised that the AfD did well in the German elections, nor was I that surprised to see ‘anti-fascists’ protesting at their success. Nor can I say I was impressed.

Besides the fact that complaining that the democratic process produced the ‘wrong’ result being dangerously close to fascism, once again, the ‘anti-fascists’ demonstrated that they are long on shouting and short on ideas.

It really is no good complaining if you have no practical alternatives of your own. People have real concerns about issues including the EU, immigration, aggressive Islamists, terrorism, crime and disenfranchisement by an uncaring political elite. Just telling them to shut up and calling them racists, Islamophobes, xenophobes and fascists resolves nothing. In fact, it makes things worse as fears fester into hatred and the problems only grow worse.

Only by tackling these issues, separating fallacies from facts, and by proposing genuine solutions can the power of the hatemongers with their pandering quick-fixes be broken. Refusing to do so may massage the egos of virtue-signallers, but is an abdication of responsibility.

Rather than shouting slogans or tutting in disgust, those who would oppose fascism must show that it is not the only alternative to current problems and that a better approach exists.

Unfortunately, achieving that isn’t going to be easy. Unlike shouting and ranting.

In Defence of Offence

It’s sad that, after my last post, this one should largely be inspired by a very different and rather unpleasant gathering of people and that, in a sense, it should be a defence of such awful people.

Do something!

You can’t blame people, though. Whether it’s a van driven by a Wahhabist terrorist or a car driven by a white supremacist, it’s only natural to demand something be done. Indeed, something must be done. These things shouldn’t be happening.

Sadly, too many people leap immediately to the extreme that these hatemongers want. They want an end to tolerance and free speech. They want to undermine our freedoms and make us turn on one another. That way they get their religious conflict or race war. We mustn’t give it to them.

It certainly true that there seems to be a paradox at the heart of tolerance. You may have seen the cartoon doing the rounds: If we’re tolerant of intolerant people, it allows them to gather the strength to impose their intolerance upon us, destroying tolerance. Thus, it is argued, we can only safeguard tolerance by being intolerant of the intolerant. That’s great if your idea of tolerance is stifling all conflicting ideas, but that’s more usually called fascism or oppression.

Yes, tolerance and freedom make it harder to combat threats, just as pacifism can leave you prey to the violent and honesty can leave you disadvantaged against liars. But, abandoning principles achieves nothing. There’s no point to defending freedom if doing so erodes the very freedoms you’re defending. Embracing violence and lies to combat those who are violent and lie only makes the world a worse place. That’s why hatemongers and terrorists behave the way they do. Our responses to them frequently achieve the ends they seek.

Tolerating the Intolerant?

So, does that mean we just sit back and tolerate hate? Can racists abuse people in the street and get away with it? Can terrorists plot with impunity? Of course not!

We are primarily talking about freedom of expression here. (For ease, I’ll refer to it as freedom of speech, but it does, of course, cover things like the freedom to write what you wish, to protest, to hold opinions and such.) Such freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms. But, while such freedom is, in one sense, unlimited, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have boundaries. It is the failure to grasp this that features in the straw-man arguments of those who demand we curtail freedom of speech.

You have the right to say whatever you wish. That is why, at the beginning of this post, I say I am, in one sense, defending the right of white supremacists to say what they wish. They do. But, there are limits, which is why, in another sense, I’m not.

Wait! Limits? Doesn’t that mean I’m contradicting myself? Haven’t I just said people can say whatever they want? Yes, I did, and they can. The limits do not affect their right to speak, but refer to its consequences. You have the right to say whatever you wish, but you do not have the right to be listened to. People are free to block or unfriend you Facebook. People are free not to read your blog. People are free to change the channel and watch something else. People are free to not buy your book. A right to speak doesn’t guarantee an audience.

Nor is there a right to avoid a response. We are entitled to provide counter-arguments, to point out flaws, to present alternatives. Of course, just as with anyone, we are not guaranteed they will listen to us, but we do have the right to present our case.

Nor does the freedom of speech provide protection from consequences. If you advocate illegal behaviour, such as encouraging violence, prosecution is not a violation of your rights. If you abuse someone (or, in the broader sense of expression, assault someone), prosecution is not a violation of your rights. Note that this doesn’t mean you cannot advocate a change in the law (such as supporting the death penalty, wanting to ban homosexuality or seeking the legalisation of drug use) as long as you aren’t advocating doing so in an illegal manner (such as rigging elections or overthrowing the government) or calling for lynch law or lawbreaking in opposition to the law. Peaceful protests are fine, riots are not.

(I’ll set aside the consequences stemming from the responses of others as things like the justifiability of boycotts are complicated and go beyond the scope of this post and have been addressed by me in the past.)

If we properly enforce the law to protect people against violence and abuse, and if we oppose hate with counter-arguments and the provision of good examples, tolerance and freedom succeed. It’s not easy, of course, which is why so many people would rather cede their freedom for an illusion of safety.

The Threat to Freedom

Ironically, trying to quash freedom of speech often has the opposite of the intended consequences as it polarises opinion and people who might have moderate views can be pushed towards an extreme when either their views were legitimate (for example, in the Confederate statues case, people who don’t agree with the airbrushing of history or people whose relatives were commemorated on memorials to Confederate soldiers but aren’t racist) and amenable to compromise (such as putting the statues in museums) or whose views are unpleasant but mild (casual racists and the like) and who can potentially be persuaded out of such views if addressed logically and without rancour.

Also, by suppressing freedom of speech, it becomes much harder to monitor and counter unpleasant views. People don’t stop thinking unpleasant thoughts, they just move out of sight and become more cautious and, then, one day, resurface and catch us by surprise.

But, most of all, quashing freedom of speech turns you into a fascist. It’s become something of a meme that “we shouldn’t have to explain that the people who oppose Nazis are better than Nazis.” Apparently, most people have forgotten that Stalin opposed Nazism. Sometimes, those who fight Nazis are just as bad as Nazis, they just have a different agenda, and we need to be able to tell the difference between them and good people. Otherwise, we inaugurate a tyranny as bad as the one we thought we were fighting…

In Defence of Offence

I’ll continue to defend the rights of others to defend my own, even if it means defending those who view me as evil, stupid or subhuman. But, then, as I’ve said before, if it comes down to it, I’d rather have someone living next door who hated me, but left me alone, than someone who professed to like me, but kept interfering in my life. Without freedom, we have nothing and we must continue to defend it against threats from all sides.

In future, I hope I’ll get to write more about people who are like the Ahmadiya than those who are like the Wahhabists.

Post-Referendum Racism

Following the EU referendum, there were claims of a sudden surge in racist incidents. Remain campaigners made the inevitable claim that this surge was due to the Leave campaign, as if it had magically caused decent people to transform into racists. Which, of course, is nonsense: there were no more racists the day after the referendum than they were the day before, whether or not the scumbags had been emboldened by the result.

In fact, it was difficult to be certain if there was a direct link to the referendum. Aside from the fact that the Remainers had immediately started a campaign to record all incidents of racism and xenophobia, which raises the possibility that incidents that would previously have been ignored were being recorded, in the same period, we’ve seen a number of terrorist incidents and the ongoing, high-profile reporting of the migrant crisis, which could easily offer justification, if any is needed, for people to launch attacks and abuse. For example, monitoring of online anti-Islamic abuse shows that it spiked after Brussels, Paris and Orlando, none of which had anything to do with the referendum; clearly the same people abusing Muslims then, are the ones who are abusing them now.

And, those people are not the majority of Leave voters. Indeed, I wonder if the sort of ignorant thug who behaves in this way actually bothered to vote, or understood the issues. Leaver voters are not a homogenous bunch and had many and varied reasons to vote as they did. In fact, many are immigrants – a large number of people of Asian origin voted Leave for the simple fact that they trade with Pakistan, India and China rather than with Europe and see no reason for the red tape the EU brings as they don’t benefit from the single market. Nor are the white-British Leave voters insular – a surprising number of those interviewed have Chinese wives, and even Nigel Farage’s wife is German – and, while two-thirds of Jews voted Remain, a third voted Leave, making the throwing about of Nazi as an insult all the more unpleasant, especially when so many in the Remain campaign have expressed anti-Semitic views.

Now, there have been around 6000 incidents reported since the referendum, representing a 50% increase on the year before. Now, those numbers do sound like a lot, but, if you pause to consider them, the picture being drawn from them isn’t accurate as there were 4000 incidents reported the year before without the excuse of the referendum to justify them. Whether 4000 or 6000, it’s too much – one incident is too much – but such is the way that the numbers have been used (or misused) that we end up discussing the numbers rather than condemning the abuse. If you were to listen to some Remainers, it would seem that 4000 cases of racial abuse and assault is acceptable. Of course, that’s not what they intend to imply, but they seem to lose track of the people who are the victims and the people onto whom they are attempting to shift the blame. Remember, even if we assume that every incident involved a separate attacker (and, I’m sure, plenty were carried out by the same thugs) and that each of those attackers is a Leave voter, they would still only represent one-twentieth of a percent of the over-17 million people who voted to leave the EU. Even if several attackers were involved in an incident, they still represent less than one percent. It is unjustifiable to try and use such a tiny fraction to tar the morals of the majority.

However, while I do not believe the increase in incidents is a direct result of the referendum or reflects the views of Leave voters, I do think there was a link between the referendum and the rise in incidents, but not for the reasons most commentators have given. The referendum debate was a particularly febrile and unpleasant one with a lot of abuse being thrown about and I believe that this has created an atmosphere in which people, who previously would have remained civil, feel that it’s acceptable to abuse strangers. Indeed, at the same time we had reports of people being racially abused and Remainers complaining that they felt unwelcome in their local pubs, there was a torrent abuse unleashed against Leavers, who were accused of being racists and Nazis merely for the way they voted, and also reported similar incidents of being made to feel unwelcome. It was all part of the same political disease afflicting Britain – polite disagreement and reasoned debate have been replaced by hatred and abuse.

In the same period, we’ve seen the abuse released by the Labour leadership contest, during which Angela Eagle received death threats, a bus passenger being punched in the face in Brixton during a ‘Black Lives Matter’ protest, and a Jewish university student being bombarded with anti-Semitic abuse after winning a two-year battle against York University Student Union for anti-Semitism. These incidents are part of the same lack of respect for others that is becoming horribly prevalent in the country.

In fact, the attempt of the Remainers to dismiss the Leavers’ position by labelling them as Nazis continues the course of ignoring the views of a large number of people which not only led to the success of the Leave campaign, but has the potential to push people into the arms of the extremists.

Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle, expressed a clear assessment of the situation in his comment in the 1^st July, 2016 issue, saying “It is the refusal to take any notice of the views of large swathes of the population that gives extremists life. Our freedom from the EU will make extremism less, not more likely, as the pressure cooker is released.”

Ironically, as well as devaluing the very real evil of racism by trying to co-opt it as a political weapon, the Remainers have shown naivety in their reaction to the ‘spike’ as if it represents some new and previously-unknown racism and bigotry in the UK, when anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, in particular, have been disgustingly common in recent years. Indeed, a lot of that abuse has come from sections of the same people now bleating about it, as well as heaping abuse on those whose politics they disagree with!

We desperately need to restore a sense of decency to public discourse, so that nobody feels they have the right to be abusive towards others. Everybody is entitled to their view, but how they express it is a different issue entirely.

The Ins and Out of Racism

There has been a furore in the British media over a poster released by Operation Black Vote intended to encourage black and minority ethnic voters to register to vote in the EU referendum. Said poster features an Asian woman sitting serenely opposite a skinhead jabbing his finger towards her on a perfectly-balanced seesaw with the slogan “A Vote Is A Vote” (some non-Britons may be a little confused at this point, but Black is regularly used as an umbrella term for anyone who isn’t white, regardless of actual skin colour or ethnicity).

The intention of the poster was to remind minority voters that their vote has as much influence as anyone else’s (and, by extension, that by not voting they could be handing undue influence to racists), which is a perfectly reasonable message. The problem, of course, is that the image looks suspiciously like one intended to demonise the Out the campaign by associating it with thugs, given that charges of racism are regularly laid against UKIP and anyone who expresses a desire to see immigration curtailed. Given that the message could have been conveyed just by showing a non-stereotyped white person (ie that all votes are equal regardless of skin colour) only encourages the suspicion that this was intentional.

The response of OBV only emphasises the likelihood that this was the intention as, while they do make the point that both camps have descended into the gutter at times (a point that the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, a keen supporter of the EU, has made about the In campaign), the only politicians they quote are the Out-supporting Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Ironically, while immigration has been a major issue of the debate, it’s immigration from Europe that is the primary focus, while immigrants from the rest of the world have a harder time getting into Britain or leave to remain (just consider the plight of Zimbabweans, for one example). Indeed, by offering restrictions on immigration from outside the EU, the In camp are a bigger threat to non-European immigrants than those who want to leave.

It should also be noted that the quotations used by OBV in its response are taken out of context to imply a racism not inherent in the original statements. When Boris Johnson spoke about Obama’s attitude towards Britain being shaped by his ‘half-Kenyan’ heritage, it referred (perhaps a little clumsily) to the fact that his father claimed to have been tortured by British troops during the Mau Mau campaign, a fact that has clearly coloured Obama’s feelings towards the British. Meanwhile, the quotation attributed to Nigel Farage that Labour had encouraged excessive immigration to “rub our noses in diversity” is one that has been confirmed by Labour sources, making it a statement of fact not opinion. In fact, excessive and mismanaged immigration, such as failing to vet or deport violent criminals and terrorists, and not ensuring there is sufficient housing and services, has done much to stoke racial hatred.

Of course, as with any movement, especially on an issue like this, which affects everyone, it will be possible to locate members of either camp who are racist, but the debate isn’t about race (xenophobia would be a more plausible accusation to throw at some members of the Out camp). But, despite this, race is an issue that should be considered, but not for the reasons usually implied. Europe is essentially a rich white men’s club of cultural chauvinists, inward looking and regressive despite how it likes to portray itself. It is also beset with neo-Nazism and a rise in rightwing governments who have no love for minorities.

One slur hurled by supporters of the EU is that those who support Brexit are yearning for ‘the white commonwealth’. Probably some do, but most of us would like to be reunited with the broader Commonwealth, which is a rainbow of races and cultures and offers far more opportunities for the future than the stale and paranoid Europeans-only club we find ourselves stuck in at the moment.

Stoking The Fires of Hatred

Recent events in Cologne have only served to exacerbate the febrile atmosphere enveloping Germany and much of Germany. We can only be grateful that Britain remains fairly calm and level-headed in comparison. Not that anyone in authority is doing much to maintain the calm.

Now, I must admit that if there’s one thing about modern politics that I can never reach a satisfactory conclusion on, it’s whether those with a politically-correct agenda who create these messes are stupid or actually want to stir up racial violence. The latter contention may sound crazy, but it would be the best explanation why people who claim to be against racism do their damndest (in the name of preventing racism) to stoke the fires of hatred. Whether it’s because they want a conflagration to destroy Western society in order to birth some Leftist utopia or because they are really neo-Nazis intent on a purifying race war is largely immaterial. Nor does it need to be an organised conspiracy – people with an agenda don’t have to be working together to cause chaos.

The problem is that the cover-up that occurred in Cologne, much like that which happened in Britain surrounding the grooming of underage girls by (largely) Asian gangs is that, whilst carried out ostensibly to prevent giving fuel to racists, it has provided not only plentiful fuel by both highlighting the issue once it comes out and by exaggerating the race element, but has added an additional frisson of fear through the failure of the authorities to tackle the issue due to political correctness (which, somehow, is never the fault of the white politicians, but that becomes the sin of the entire non-white community). Had the police intervened properly (potentially preventing such large scale disorder in the first place) and the press reported the incidents honestly there never would have been the sense of injustice and victimhood that has come to pass.

Of course, things weren’t helped by the fact that, after proving singularly incapable of (indeed, if we believe the leaks, being barred from) deterring multiple sexual assaults on defenceless women, the German police were suddenly all too willing and able to intervene against anti-refugee protestors. Not that there was much they could do, unless they wanted to give neo-Nazis a free hand in Cologne, but, and it’s always image that applies in these situations, it gave the impression that white Germans were being abandoned to migrant gangs, while the migrants were being protected from those they had wronged – and that is a powerful image, if you want to stir up hatred. Given that anyone who was (reasonably) worried about how the situation was handled or the levels of migrants arriving as refugees was pilloried as racist and the Mayor of Cologne decided to lecture women on how they should behave to avoid being sexually assaulted by Muslims, as if the women were to blame, only served to exacerbate the situation.

Which is why I wonder how much of the authorities’ incompetence is orchestrated deliberately stir up racial hatred. It’s just too perfectly calculated. It may be that I am just attempting to impute logical reasoning to human behaviour which may be every bit as stupid as it seems, but it’s a feeling I cannot shake.

But, whether idiocy or deliberate misrule, we need to reject the stupidity of such politically-correct approaches without replacing them with the equally stupid approach of fear, hatred and injustice. We need a robust approach that works to ensure those we offer sanctuary to are deserving of our hospitality and which deports those who abuse that hospitality. Being tolerant, kind and decent does not entail being stupid or weak. Indeed, genuine refugees are depending upon us not to be – if we allow the people they are fleeing a foothold in Europe, we are endangering them every bit as much as ourselves.

Failure to reject the current political quagmire will only result in hatred and fear festering until full-scale violence erupts. Whether it is the racists who seek to purge migrant communities or terrorists who have taken advantage of the gullibility of our governments and law enforcement to infiltrate Europe won’t matter much. What will matter is that the innocent will be the ones to suffer, not the bloated elites responsible for the situation we will find ourselves in.

Because, if history has taught us one thing, it is that the guilty seldom suffer the consequences of their actions, indeed, often profit from them, while the innocent always do.

Save Us From The Tolerant!

Tolerance is a wonderful virtue. Unfortunately, whenever someone proclaims loudly for all to hear that they are tolerant, you can be certain that intolerance is not far from their agenda, for tolerance is a marvelous fig-leaf for the intolerant. Too many people claim to be tolerant as a mask for their own intolerant views or as a means of feeling good about themselves. If it wasn’t for the fact that they are the sort of people who troll those they hate, who spew abuse at those they disagree with and threaten, and sometimes even attempt, violence upon the objects of their bile, they would be a delightfully amusing group of hypocrites to observe.

Personally, I would much rather dwell in a world full of honestly intolerant people who were willing to confine their views to their own private sphere (the traditional British way of doing things, really) than to live in a society where everyone affects a tolerant stance whilst seeking out thought crimes in their neighbours.

Perhaps strangely to some, I’ve been good friends with people who hold radically different viewpoints to my own, occasionally even ones that should effectively make me their enemy. With some I’ve enjoyed vigorous debate, with others it has been a case of keeping our relationship purely on a social and not political level. Yet, when it comes to the self-proclaimed tolerant, reasonable debate proves impossible and their ability to keep their political views to themselves nonexistent. People who should hate me have treated me decently, whilst those who like to explain at length how tolerant they are have turned abusive when I fail to condone their hate-filled rantings.

So, if you like to think of yourself as a nice, tolerant person, pause and consider whether you really are one or whether you are, in fact, a hypocrite. And, if you do have your prejudices, be honest about them and consider just why you hold them and what they entail; you might find that you can tolerate even those you hate to an extent…