The Harbinger of Ferocity

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@catchamber

If you use a very atypical understand of modern conservatism, yes, they are certainly more classical conservatives in the sense of "valuing and preserving tradition", though I would not necessarily choose that term. It poses the same issue as calling modern leftists "liberals" when they are only socially and fiscally liberal. Either way, I suppose the point being that let us try not to mince words when we are attempting to be accurate about who or what they are. They are proposed apolitical identitarians and nationalists by their own claim, easier to go down that route and use it as the classifying mechanism than make it any more convoluted.

As for the "metapolitics" business, they are indeed using it in a way that while not wrong is certainly odd. I do think it has something, if not in large, to do with the narrative and audience they are trying to reach. However, I do not think it is so much a sales point as it is them attempting to state they are using politics, the various parties and peoples, to drive a goal home that isn't so much limited to the spectrum of Left-Right, Authority-Liberty biases. It is my understanding they are making a concentrated effort to be apolitical and appeal to playing outside the rules to meet their objectives.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@catchamber

Not supporting them at all beyond the fact they have just as much a right, perhaps even more a claim to than others who are similar political factions, in voicing their opinions and not being silenced for "thinking wrong", as it were.

Generation Identity's political ideology, as I have explained at length elsewhere in this topic, is neither Left nor Right and that they have their own motives and are essentially independent agents looking to push identitarianism as its own entity. Perhaps much in the same vein as a Green or Libertarian party, though with even more dubious claim to their ends. For whatever reason they wish to stand by being their own thing, which I note is not going to succeed well, at least in the United States. No less, to quote them on how they use "metapolitics":

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE TERM META-POLITICS?
As Generation Identity, we emphasize that we operate in the area of “meta-politics”. We believe that political change is not only possible in the parliaments and party politics, but also in cultural activities, public debates, the media and on the streets. We therefore act in a kind of “pre-political space” which determines discourse and thus serves as the basis for direct and concrete political decisions.

We strive for a normal, patriotic state of affairs and therefore our activity affects various areas of social life. With our actions and campaigns, we shape public debates about the issues of identity, mass immigration and border policies. We want to influence public opinion in a peaceful and democratic way and thus serve as an impetus for the electoral decisions, political awareness and the activity of the people.

WHERE DO YOU STAND POLITICALLY? ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH A POLITICAL PARTY? ARE YOU FINANCED?
We see ourselves as extra-parliamentarian opposition movement. We act on public opinion in the UK and in Europe and, through actions, campaigns and political education work, we address central grievances within the framework of identity and immigration policy.

In doing so, we always act independently of political parties. We offer a peaceful political space for action for young people so that they can channel their discontent about the state of their country in an effective but none- violent way. Therefore, we don’t fit into the pre-fabricated left-right political scale.

For us, patriotism and love of our native country are central societal values that don’t need to be forced into party political templates. The affirmation of our own identity is for us a self-evident basic consensus which does not require any party programs.

We finance ourselves through the donations of our supporters and the financial and idealistic support of our activists on the front line. If you also want to support patriotic youth work and strengthen young activists, you can do so with a small donation.

To the other point, they are seeming fair-weather friends to the "Alt-Right" and the Alt-Right by their account and are obviously opposed by the Left-wing on all ideological fronts alone in virtually all circumstances. To be direct, they are certainly no real allies or real authority, let alone power, to or for anyone but themselves.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Thank you, @Pepperm1nts, for actually posting links to suggest some forming backing. While I am not confident in some of their validity, they are only tangentially related to Generation Identity, one might actually have potential grounds to it but it stays almost exclusively to an individual. However, you did indeed prove the point finally there is information suggesting they act on more than they state based on affiliations, but is very inconclusive. As in return my searching on the matter noted Generation Identity was and is influenced by Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, two who have reported contact with Richard Spencer and have appeared at events associated with the Alt-Right. Contrarily I noted no obvious evidence to suggest they adhere to any of the three names put forward to any notable extent.

To note, attempting to tie any of these names together to Generation Identity largely failed in results - off the cuff remarks, almost all opinion pieces or known Left-wing affiliates, but nothing substantial even in those. They are correct in a few regards, such as suggesting the Generation Identity factions in Europe are influencing activities of similar, but radically different groups in the United States, namely their audience, but are not finding the same success; largely because the social and political associations, such as the issue I have said many times over that the "ethnic, cultural, national, and racial" lines they seem to focus on do not so much exist in parallel to the United States. A wonderful example of this is how the United States is not suffering a literal invasion brought on by their government of Middle Eastern, namely Muslim, descendants who are not immigrating and are starting to methodically dismantle the countries - the United States has severe illegal immigration issues of its own, but not a "replacement" sort. No less, there are factions and even standards of law that are strongly entrenched in the philosophy of Americans that are more resistant to these, even in their own government, but I digress.

To call on a source that is vehemently against Generation Identity and identitarianism, and has seemingly superior research, Hope not Hate;

Defend Europe received initial wider attention via North American vloggers Brittany Pettibone and Lauren Southern, had crowdfunding coming in from across the world on US alt-light troll Charles C. Johnson’s WeSearchr site, and had media support from figures including Frauke Petry (previously of Alternative for Germany), Nigel Farage, Katie Hopkins, Breitbart News, David Duke (former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan), alt-right figures Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor and leading Nazi website The Daily Stormer.

This is perhaps the strongest direct link I can note out of all I could find that more or less had any sponsors of racism to it and could be validated, however I note this is, for lack of better words, utterly unsurprising. The actual Alt-Right has inherent elements of identitarian politics in it and some of the so-called "Alt-Right" hold similar values or objectives with it. It only stands to reason that with a common interest, validity of an ethno-state, they make for convenient bedfellows despite having professed and well known oppositions to interests in one another, namely that the proposed objectives of Generation Identity are ideologically at odds with anything political; they aim to be their own entity, not an arm, let alone sponsoring related tactics. There is other accounts of their activity involving "Alt-Right" personalities who these other factions are opposed to.

I consistently note this theme by many stating the differences in portrayal from the accusations. I believe with confidence, to close this out, that the controversy surrounding Generation Identity revolves around a few things. First and foremost, any nationalist system, especially one that has any sort of ethnic or cultural leaning, will be right or wrong judged against those that have come before it, many of which have committed tremendous, grievous, and heinous crimes against humanity. This, in conjunction with an unfriendly media to their ideology - see the following point - has spun their power, influence, and angle greatly out of proportion. They have been made into the "other" and further divided along lines of the New Left and New Right, even further by American versus European politics.

Second, it is my belief and understanding that the hysterical media, quick to label anything not kosher with their agenda, will portray anything - especially any patriotic, national, or culturally aimed approach, even more so all three - as racist and supremacist. They have repeatedly done so, crying wolf in the United States and abroad, especially so in this case of Europe, where Generation Identity formed in France and then spread. The concept Generation Identity is rallying around, preserving their historical Europe, their classical people and nations, is an admittedly scary thought thanks to history. However, I can find nothing legitimate to these claims - at most I keep seeing continual, constant reporting that it more or less "Isn't nice to say the illegal immigrants, migrants, and refugees to Europe need to go home." and that they take issue with the Islamization of Europe. In fact, a fair number of these claims make it a point to nudge that their voicing of this opinion is what "They call this process 'freedom of speech'." and that somehow being against political correctness is wrong, but back to the topic.

Third, it is my understanding in my brief assessment that Generation Identity as an organization is not engaged in actual crimes that would clash against their systems of belief, outlined on a previous page; they are not disparaging, mistreating, or inflicting harm on seemingly anyone, contrarily I see reports of their counter-protesters attacking them. At most they seem to have done is attempt to intercept refugee boats and been found guilty of wrongthink, but that is not the focus. I see that the perceived threat is drummed up more than the actual threat because it is politically convenient to their opponents, namely those predominantly in power, and who also hold strong, beneficial relationships with the media.

Fourth, there appears to only be very loose ties to individuals who share similar opinions, in that is not the issue, but their endorsement is. I have addressed this before, but it bears repeating again; it should be utterly no surprise actual known white supremacists, or their organizations, support a movement as the preservation of the historically white continent of Europe and are against immigration, refugees, and Islam. To put this more directly, this is a "no-brainer", in that yes, of course they are going to endorse something that furthers their ideals. Let alone so called and so accused "Alt-Right" factions being tossed into it, see above for the media references and how the media has, for the past few years, effectively labeled any dissenters a part of the Radical Right. I must note I cannot find this being reciprocated by Generation Identity, who seem adamant on an ideological basis that they do not want to be any part of that and wish to be their own entity.

To conclude, I find the accusations lacking in proportion to the freely available facts about them and the responses against them, down to some of their members or those associated with them, by government agencies an infringement of actual freedom of speech; as goes the origin of this entire endeavor and conversation. Ultimately, my assessment holds that there is a blatant double standard enforced and in play. Not to be neglected, while I do not agree with a number of concepts and pursuits of the organization, Generation Identity, I cannot find reasonable ground to confirm or believe that which is being shouldered on them is anything short of feigned, artificial hysteria, disproportionate to any actual, legitimate concerns.

I have no further comments to add to the matter of my belief or findings, so I will close with this; the reaction is ill proportioned to the proclaimed transgressions. The accusations stand far larger in scope than the reality presented. However, it is with utmost importance I note that an organization as this does indeed have tremendous incentive and potential to seek less noble or honorable interests in their pursuits as history has taught us time and time again. While I cannot speak for them, or the future, I do not believe this faction to be a credible threat as claimed.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Pepperm1nts

That would be wonderful if someone would provide a shred of that evidence rather than a rambling eighteen minute video that covered only the details I listed and spoke to at length in my reply on it. Thus far I have one person whose motives I am deeply suspicious of and now your account, which I too am suspicious of.

I would like to see the "peaceful ethnic cleansing" evidence and the fact that only whites are permitted in their state. I am not sure how many times I need reiterate that based on what has been presented there is no real suggestion of that.

No less I am certainly not painting them as anything of those just wanting to "preserve American culture". I have before and will again state their mindset does not match with the ideals of the United States and the historical American intetests, let alone my own, examples being they appear flat out against immigration and imply they are against any sort of assimilation. Does that mean that is what they believe? No, thus far I haven't seen that and the sole reason I haven't a care to is because of the fact they have yet to prove to be a threat or concern.

As far as protest goes, certainly, but one might recall this goes back to the United Kingdom and how they temporarily barred people as if they had commit a crime, essentially under the premise they "thought wrong". If one is looking for the point I am making in all of this, the true root of it, it is that it is a glaring double standard. The accused organization might legitimately be wrong in ideological process to me, but there is no ground to do what was done unless something is being withheld.

To further emphasize this I am asking anyone to prove otherwise, yet no one has as of yet. Note the utter lack of denial by my hand that the accused do believe these things or that I stand defending them against their accusers simply because they are "my opposition".

As a late addition, I posted their demands on the previous page, which outline their vision and intended process. Does this mean they adhere to it? Of course not, but I cannot find any mention of or implications to the suggested in their core identity. I presume the accusations deal with members who do hold more extreme belifs than those stated, which goes back to an organizational issue and not so much an ideological one.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane

At what point did I say they were not a "racist movement", as their goal is at least in part based around race, as they define it, and focusing on the differences there of, if any? No less, as they themselves spoke about, they are more interested in preserving a national identity and culture than a race and are apparently against violence to achieve these ends. Is there something wrong with allowing them to hold that belief when they are displaying no apparent illegal activity?

Considering you showed me an eighteen minute long clip on an organization I know nothing about and then demanded I find it "racist" and them "white nationalists", consider me skeptical of your motives when they said nothing at large about "not regarding non-white Europeans as part of their desire demographic". The most I consistently heard is they want immigrants removed, a term they themselves never define, meaning you could well be as right as you could be wrong; I, as the uninitiated audience, do not know the answer either way. It is not selective ignorance to state, firmly as I have, "Based on what little I do know of them and what I have seen, they do not seem that bad.", which is why I previously in the extended dialogue spoke to the lines that you might well be withholding information or evidence from me in a blatant attempt to make your point. I am going to err on that as truth because I distrust you and your motives in this argument.

I am not defending their organization at all, I have repeatedly said from what I know of them they are not meeting the wildly thrown about labels being used, something which they themselves acknowledge happens; it is no secret the concept they are backing is going to naturally be pinned with any number of other things, some of which are, by themselves, neither right nor wrong while others are certainly evil. Why is this? Because other groups who they share a sphere of interest and overlap with did these things. It isn't "mental gymnastics" to sit back and say accusing them of more than what we have on hand, in this case the video, and suggest things are not being portrayed fairly. Again, if you have actual proof of them taking actions that harm or discriminate against people, by all means do share it.

Yet here we are again on this topic, why do you continue to assume I am protecting James Allsup? I have told you repeatedly and will again state I do not know much about him, do not care at all about him, and that while there is evidence to call him a racist, suggesting it is more likely than not, I am not going to go around accusing people of wrongthink or of being whatever label of the month is popular. Why not? Unlike others I believe that so long as he is doing no harm, he is free to hold his opinions, even if I am not fond of them. This is the third time you have accused me of somehow backing Allsup when I have repeatedly said, "I haven't seen convincing reason or evidence to so much as care about him."

You are the one throwing around "Move on." yet here we are, on a topic you said you had neither the time nor energy to explain, declined to provide your evidence of why you are outright correct, but are harping on it and crowing as loud as you can. To borrow the same sort of mentality you are executing consistently now with this, "Get off your high horse." If you have something to prove the organization is more insidious than it seems to be based on what you have shown, do so. Show Generation Identity starting and leading a riot, show them mistreating or disrespecting others, show them acting against national interests by disparaging race of their own countrymen, on, and on, and on.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane

No, you again continue to shove words into my mouth as to what I do or do not believe, see anything about how I do not necessarily note wrong with what was said on the sample size, but so too noted it has no interest or connection to me, and that I had ample disagreement with their philosophy or approach. What you are attempting to do is play a game of "Gotcha!"; it isn't clever or new. You are still gravely out of line for attempting to label me something I do not stand by, believe, or even adopt for myself - I will repeat again that I do not follow them, let alone anyone else, and that so long as their political beliefs system is not causing actual harm, as in with this case it is not causing the maltreatment social or otherwise to other people's, cultures, or races, I do not care.

Carrying on, you asked me what I would call "white nationalism", so do not attempt to get all up in arms when I gave my opinion about what I would find alarming or worrying about their movement based on what little I do know of them. As far as I am concerned and likely will continue to be, you have an ineffective identitarian movement that is openly aware it cannot readily sway the American public, because as they admit, the concept goes against the core identities of the United States, and that it is attempting to be utterly apolitical.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane

Considering you did not want to participate in actually breaking down who or what Generation Identity is or is not, consider me deeply amused you have now performed a heel-turn on the matter, but I digress. To the topic at hand I did listen to your link and assessed it as an outsider, which I am.

Here are the following notes I derive from it, of which might vary in length or response, but that is not the point.

Extensive Notes on the Link

The first three and a half minutes establish the idea of "preserving cultures, identity, and ethnicity" while not "hating or disrespecting others", which is something I can get behind. That is a respectable opinion, even if I disagree that how they perceive that it must be an either a melding of culture or secular identities of them. No less, they do a wonderful point to note that it is natural to love one's own family and nation before others and that it has been made into evil if you are less than fond of outsiders. Again, I disagree it should be priority over real concerns - such as crime or threats to national security - but I can sympathize with the fact that people, in this case, must choose if it is the "United States or an outpost of the third world".

They themselves state the goal of their movement is to make it as its own thing completely unrelated to any other political movement, at least in the United States. They spend nearly a minute harping on how they only want to ask the aforementioned question and how they are, by and large, linked to a great number of things that have nothing to do with that and that they are indeed labeled that way, right or wrong. The "simplicity" of it is their harping song.

Carrying on, we have two very profound statements at over seven minutes, "It is about love for your culture, love for your identity." and "It should be born out of love for your people - and not hating other people. You respect their right to exist and then your own, that is how it should be." I see absolutely zero issue with this philosophy at all, in that it recognizes others have a right to their life and identity; it leaves to question, as I write this, if one can become a part of that identity, but hence why I am watching this and writing as I go.

Continued, as the man in the center goes off about a "civil rights movement" he speaks about a right to exist as an identity and not be forced to become an arm of the globalism element. Again, no issue there, but the only suspicious thing he does mention is how he wishes to be a "cohesive nation", though I would say that might be me reading into it too much. They then go on to transitioning to their points and demographics and "three basic tenants".

As someone who does not understand the idea of focusing primarily on a identity culture, the "incentivizing birthrates" is just strange to hear let alone think about. The second, regarding closed boarders and halting immigration I largely agree with; I have stated before only the best candidates or immigrants should be allowed in. Remigration is, essentially, deporting people who do not belong or immigrated to the nation without providing for it, which as I understand it, hearing them speak, is anyone who isn't an asset; if true, that too I support. Returning to the first, they are correct, it is always "hire someone else, usually outside the United States" and at the same time, "stop having kids, it is bad for all of these reasons", coming from the same sources. Do I consider it an issue? Not so much, the population isn't in some sort of dire straights, but we as a nation should be using our own assets and not importing others.

At eleven minutes on they go on to rambling about identity for a while, no real surprise there given their stated objective and purpose. They handwave economics and other actual issues, as health care by their own words, but then again they apparently are totally uninterested in the Left-Right divide. The only comment they refer to on it is that those who voted for Donald Trump and the movement to restore the country to its tradition are, obviously, more favorable to them in rolling the metaphorical border. The only point they lose me is when they speak ill of civic nationalists, but again, coming from their perspective and motive, they are not interested in negotiation, either a "Yes" or a "No" for multiculturalism versus cultural identity.

However, at roughly fourteen minutes on, they do hit a nail on the head that somehow it has been made evil and terrible to fight for, believe in, or support your own country, especially for young men. Absolutely a statement I believe is true, that somehow people have been lost to the reality of it. The individual on the far left camera, after that bit, takes over to note something true about Europe that it does appear to be a strong taboo to follow this, especially because of its history and how it has gone awry more recently and that they need a new mechanism to specifically state what they are looking into, doing, and feeling.

Toward the end the center speaker starts about how white Americans are blamed for essentially every bad thing, granted this is almost memeing and not entirely dishonest, it is blown greatly out of proportion in a number of cases and is very much true that it is held over their head; "reverse racism", rather racism towards white Americans is now socially acceptable to an extent, but not so much so as I believe he thinks it is.

Final assessment? Not to my taste or interest, but they are certainly not striking me how you are attempting to portray them unless you are willingly withholding that information.

What do I believe white nationalism is? If you took everything just described, militarized it, removed the protection and acknowledgement of other peoples and races right to identities and life, a sense of superiority and supremacy, and then went on the offense of it. That is the shortest, most summed way I can describe to you when, where, and how you would see my opinion shift on the examples you gave. Mind you I am utterly far from being invested in their message or movement, but I do share some agreements with them and to be perfectly frank, found nothing they said ideologically offensive or alarming.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane

And what personality? Please market Lauren's personality to me in a way that would make want to listen to her if I didn't know what she looked like. You know for a fact her followers would be a fraction of what they are if she wasn't an attractive girl. Tell me why brittany pettibone is popular, I'm curious to see why you think she is? Her personality?

In essence the argument suggests she's famous only because she's white and a woman, not because she holds relatively popular, easily exploited political beliefs at the moment - this I noted prior and repeated several times. There's no real attack, approach, or criticism of her politics in it, let alone acknowledging just how she seems to have gained her base. As a whole, the context of what I am speaking to refers back to this; there's no actual, legitimate critique of her other than that which I have engaged to as of late. More importantly, I am not expressly claiming that is your opinion or sticking it on you because of the reality you are not claiming it as that, at least where I have bore witness to.

Carrying on, however.

So you have no issue with white nationalism now? Okay well I'm a little surprised that someone 'right of center' is defending it. But considering some of the positions I've seen you take in this thread I guess this day was always going to come. I have nowhere near enough energy to explain to you the moral and ethical problems with white indentitarianism. Good day to you sir.

I have no issue with people, nations, or societies wanting to keep their individual identities in their own homeland. That is radically different from sponsoring white nationalism and to be direct, I have and will always believe it is the duty of immigrants to adopt the ways, customs, and natures of their new homelands and attempt to fit themselves to it. I pulled the information directly from Generation Identity to have a discussion on the matter, not how the media portrays them or what the rumor mill says, but now you have stooped to the low of accusing me of "white nationalism" simply because I am "Right of Center" and question the validity of it being wrong or right to preserve cultures, then have so chosen to claim the moral high ground and attempt to bow out. Does that not strike you as odd in any fashion?

However, do note that is pretty petty and the sole reason I am not pursuing it is simply because you do not wish to discuss it, to say utterly nothing of how you just blatantly attempted to villainize me. Good day to you indeed.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane

You again return to James Allsup, who I have previously stated I know little to nothing about and only ever came to read into the name when you brought them up. If I recall correctly, there is question if that person is, but there is suggestion they might well be an actual racist. I would need retread that ground because, in all honesty, it was a meaningless point; everything is called racist now, to be frank. Too many times has wolf been cried. To not end there on the matter, no it does not bother me you have proof suggesting he might well be. Why would it? Should it bother me you have something to support that? Continued, why would I care about who James Allsup is? Especially to the point I should seemingly be irked by this apparent disparity?

As to my specificity, what I am saying is that it is somehow reasonable to consider Lauren Southern "Alt-Right" just as it is to call many others "Alt-Right", but only because she's a woman and white. My point is, she is probably popular because she's "Alt-Right" and having a level of attractiveness is not going to harm her standing there.

As for Generation Identity? Let me see what they have to say for themselves.

Generation Identity's Demands - Information in Full

An open debate about identity
We finally want an open debate on the identity issue in the 21st century. The established opinion spectrum narrows this question only to the utopia of a unified one-world ideology.

Remigration
Illegal immigration must not become normalized. We need the return of all illegal immigrants in a humane manner and a movement in demographic trends towards remigration. The large population exchange that has been and is underway in Europe requires a clear reversal of the migratory flows. That reversal will serve the preservation of peace, security and freedom in all European countries.

Preservation of ethnocultural identity
Appreciation for one’s own ethnocultural identity
We demand a world of diversity, peoples and cultures. The preservation of our ethnocultural identity must be anchored as basic consensus and as a fundamental right in society.
We, on the other hand, demand a world of diversity, peoples and cultures. The preservation of our ethnocultural identity must be anchored as basic consensus and as a fundamental right in society.

Defence of What’s Ours
We need a healthy relationship to patriotism and love of one’s home place as well as true freedom of expression. For many years, the political left has dominated the media and culture. Now it is time for an identitarian counter-voice to enter the stage. Love of one’s home place is not a crime, but something completely normal. We want everyone to be free to openly and honestly acknowledge their own culture and tradition without having to experience exclusion or discrimination.

Help in Place
Mass immigration destroys Europe and emigration destroys Africa. Let us, therefore, support the regional development of those countries that are characterized by war and poverty, thus creating options for people to remain and to find opportunities in their own homelands.

Secure Borders
Our borders must finally be protected again and the nation-state must regain its sovereignty over border policies. We need immediate government action to regain the security and control of our own territory. Current immigration flows require the immediate implementation of measures to ensure peace and stability in our country.

Preservation of ethnocultural identity
Appreciation for one’s own ethnocultural identity
We demand a world of diversity, peoples and cultures. The preservation of our ethnocultural identity must be anchored as basic consensus and as a fundamental right in society.
We, on the other hand, demand a world of diversity, peoples and cultures. The preservation of our ethnocultural identity must be anchored as basic consensus and as a fundamental right in society.

Generation Identity

I imagine this is the issue taken?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane

Thanks for admitting your lack of information on these individuals, maybe get back to me when more research has been done.

I know enough about them to confidently say they are not what you are accusing them of and that is through just cursory insight and information, the sort of thing anyone can spend five minutes on. But please, by all means do keep labeling people in an effort to rally the side of the argument against them and that somehow they are all truly bad, diabolical people, some of them so dangerous they must be kept out of a country because their opinion is bad-wrong. I am sure that a woman described as having no relative substance to her other than her appearance is truly a threat.

No less, if you have evidence to support your accusations against them, then do lay them out for us to see what apparently the majority do not know on them.