Ep132-Hoi Polloi of cluesforum.info

likes this

When? Sunday, January 18, 2015 6:11pm EST
Who? Hoi Polloicluesforum.info ‘s top essayist and philosopher

Guests: Ro11o, Delcroix

Listen Live on AudioNOW via a telephone call FakeologistRadio (17128328124)


On the present artificial limit to public dialogue
Why we should discuss what we can do about it

We claim free speech is free, and that is still mostly true. But how thankful are we for it? In our freedom, we rarely talk about the rights that free speech entails, to make changes in our world. Free speech is about the free exchange of not just abstract ideas but useful ideas about the world we live in. The fact that any ideas are vilified and labeled 0;extremist” because they relate to violence is antithetical to the realization that we live in a world that is physical, is violent and we should be able to talk about it in order to control our relationship to that violence. Hence, the concept of “extremist” thought is antithetical to the notion of free speech.

The idea that extremist thought should be prosecuted and changed with extremist thought is the position of the media. We should explore that topic more. The psychopathic method seems to be to talk about controlling the human relationship to violence in terms of controlling violence itself: dominating violence, creating violence and using violence in order to prevent its direction toward the self until one is too weak to resist and faces fate. That is not called an extremist position by the media, but it is in fact just a variation of the jihad or crusade or Zionist or other super-tribal positions. What is the media’s motivation for constantly promoting the most extreme positions and pitting them against one another? Perhaps it is an exercise in venting steam built up by a human proclivity for violence. Perhaps this also explains the high prevalance of in the selections of mainstream broadcasts available in the most heavily promoted media.

But let us examine this and see if it really is the best idea for people who lead extremist positions to maintain control. In fact our free speech and the useful demonstration of different approaches is increasingly constrained by the extremist view point that we don’t have room in our public dialogue for anything but discussions of A vs. B, black vs. white, yin vs. yang, baseball sports teams, Red Sox vs. Yankees.

We can observe only a few major extremist dialogues of any significance in our present dialogue that have escaped the media’s direction. I hold a conviction that we shouldn’t be clamoring for more amongst ourselves unless it is one that allows us to escape the quagmire of all of them. We have the power to escape the typical dialogues and we have the power to craft our own.

Therefore, the most useful extremist position to hold is that we should avoid extremist positions, including those posited by the media. We could go into a metaphorical scenerio where putting one’s self in a situation where “kill” or “be killed” are the only options is itself on the same level of evil as murdering. But I am assuming you are intelligent and you understand the point already, and you could even argue for or against this idea effectively.

Back to those dialogues that have escaped the mainstream media’s patient attention. As I presently see it, there are only a few that are not specifically tribal or specific to cultures.

Yes, there are only a few of any universal relevance which have been ostracized by the media or at best featured as jokes, and therefore promoted only in the sense that considering them means the one doing the considering is a childish insane fool.

Because there are only a few of these universal ideas, though they happen to be important, is to me the main reason why most people do not consider the mainstream media to be biased. It is because the media carefully selects that which they wish to inexplicitly downplay that – for most people – the media is mostly a hero of free speech and is only (at worst) guilty of what they call “spin”. That is, the common myth is that the media allows discussion of all topics except a few. And these few they will happily dismiss because both the left and right channels of the mainstream stereo treat these ideas with equal derision.

The average person is too bombarded by information to make time to consider those derided ideas, because of the limited time and patience of the average person to conceive of things that aren’t immediately socially useful. Regardless of longterm social relevance of an idea, if it does not help someone navigate the extremist positions blasted at us from all angles, it is actually considered “dangerous”.

The mainstream media makes no mistake in calling peaceful concepts dangerous. They actively and willfully do it with the tacit understanding that they have forced on all people inside earshot of a speaker that considering peace leaves less time for considering danger, and therefore less time considering how to navigate the artificial and largely fictional war metaphorically dangled over our heads.

So the concept of peace, and the pursuit of it, is one of the ideas that is downplayed by the media. They will call some things peaceful, such as the triumphant ends of drama movies in which the male hero is rewarded with fame, popularity, sex or other exciting ideas for the largely artificial male imagination. They will also call peace that which depicts people bonding over some particular ostracization of a group or group member. Peace through hierarchy. These are not useful concepts of peace because they are not really REAL concepts of peace or what peace could and should look like in our era. There are plenty of books written on what real peace looks like, but there is no time given to it in movies of today, except under the guise of sneaky escapes from a dominant message of constant fear and war.

Useful navigations toward peaceful pursuits are also demonized as that all-consuming force of post-post-modernity: boredom. Peace is boring from the perspective of a mind in “war mode”, therefore it is universally boring in our culture. The idea that we must check our brains out of “war mode” and enter “peace mode” is not considered.

Another idea that is ridiculed by the mainstream is that the mainstream does in fact censor these ideas, or any ideas. It protests adamantly that it is free and allows discussions of all topics, but when you point out topics that are not discussed, it reaffirms the idea that these non-extremist positions are absurd to hold, let alone hold dialogue over.

Another idea practically humiliated and vilified more than the others is the concept of false flags, mass scale hoaxes and ongoing media lies using fictional characters or the characters of real-life chronic liars in the form of actors, celebrities and computer animated entirely made-up people. The idea that synthetic events and synthetic characters are treated real is absolutely either taken for granted as if to force consent on the beholder, or denied rabidly to the point of making the denier appear disgusting for even discussing the topic. The topic becomes disgusting to talk about because of the manner in which the media talks about it. Two of the only places on the entire Internet where discussions about technology do not sound utterly disgusting and can be considered on their own merit are very near you, speaking in terms of links.

I was asked to be an administrator at by Simon Shack, and we created the site together. That is one of the sites. I am composing this essay for use on the Fakeologist audio program by Ab. Ab’s site is the other one I mentioned. The reason I am writing this is to attempt to use my words to sway people in a way that I haven’t attempted before.

Normally, I write in essay format under the handle hoi.polloi in response to posts on CluesForum, typically related to my friend and fellow administrator Simon’s pronounced goal of spreading the word about technology. We created this forum in response to public demand for a place to discuss these subjects without unnecessary reprisal or distraction. It’s not as easy as it sounds: setting up a forum and expecting discussions to happen based on interest.

The truth is that people are docile and lazy and almost totally bombarded by A vs. B dialogues rather than frank discussions and considerations of modern scientific concepts and evidences. For most people, the most exciting debates and discussions that the public talks about with basic assumed interest are the result of Public Relations assignments to put those topics into the minds of every person within ear shot of a speaker. The debate is pre-debated and pre-digested for easy feeding, the left is pre-lefted, the right is pre-righted, the undiscussible is pre-repulsivized, the frame is pre-framed and the main opinions of the sponsor are well prepared.

This power of controlling dialogue through drama is real. This power is real because people have a limited capacity to handle stress and drama in their lives; and simulation technology is increasingly, acceleratingly capable of replacing direct human experience with completely – I repeat – completely artificial, human group or corporation or other group-interest-designed dramas that attract and hold human attention for being partially relevant to almost all walks of life.

Access to the pre-conceived opinions expressed as artificial drama is not only undeniable but begged for and paid for by the public. We pay for TV access, newspapers, magazines and even weather information. We become excited to even participate in the slightest broadcast event for the sake of being the drama rather than being subjected to it. We are increasingly paying for Internet access, but I believe this could be a good thing if it continues to remain freer in speech than the increasingly obsolete and extremist alternative.

For all the drama we pay to be a part of (or often, at best, a target of) created by the most promoted artists, the knowledge we acquire about the world comes with a price. In exchange for providing us the wide world in tiny consumable YouTube packets, the prepared opinion is backed by hoaxes like the Nuclear Bomb race, the Space race, the race for control of drugs or the race to own and control all extremist thoughts.

This is a barter we did not intend to sign up for, but it is one made for us by our politicians and elected officials who claim to represent our interests. This is why we should do something about this. We may be able to make a more peaceful world if we simply choose to believe we can, but to do so means discussion and debate about what options could be agreed upon by those interested.

Instead of looking at the actual evidence for such things, it is taken for granted by the mainstream that we have all made this agreement to be manipulated and that they will work to put a stop to the nasty, invented nightmares and boogeymen they created. Two of the only places that these ugly, artificial competitions for attention are examined for clues about what they might actually be, are CluesForum.info and Fakeologist.com. On these sites, the former of which I help moderate and on the latter of which I have sometimes been a guest discussion participant, we have never – to my intent or purpose – fought for an extremist position or for some extremist control over all dialogue. Instead, I have only argued, if sometimes passionately or hotly, for my right and the right of every person to have this discussion.

As such, the topics in question – fakery technology, fraudulent events, lies from trusted celebrities or lies from trusted strangers that appear and disappear within a single news article – sometimes lose place to the discussion of the merits of even holding the dialogue.

I don’t want to spend too much time on that any more. To me, the fact that so often our families’ and friends’ main public positions are pre-crafted, staged or otherwise the result of steering committees is enough to simply cry, “Enough of that here, for now!” and move on to the important topics being discussed, and now, finally, with our established forum, their implications.

Many forums of all kinds in this world happen because of sponsorship.
The fake debates and superficial digging of people like Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper and others are literally a product of the mainstream military intelligence community carefully herding the left into a predictable shape. Its ally ‘The Daily Show’ purports to be a satire but in fact, it is the best imitation of a satire by those who would prevent fake events from being truly satirized for what they are. All of this is sponsored by the typical media owners, who won’t have their media effectively mocked but will have it ineffectively celebrated by shill-in-a-can John Stewart, even while ostensibly representing the interests of people within “the feeling of belonging” product as defined by the media-intelligence complex. The more hopeful and more independent ‘The Onion’ takes an almost neutral position on everything popular of consequence due to its truly neutral or philosophical position on most everything that isn’t immediate pop or hype. Its sponsorship relies on the harmless and superficial consumerism of our culture, and its desperation for attention, its ads and interests are suit to match. The Coast-to-Coast, Alex Jones and David Icke media empires are helped similarly, by sales of books, trinkets and tickets to gatherings. This itself does not seem too suspicious a crime, since it’s just about the most innocuous way to ask for financial support of an idea from the average rich Westerner that could hold the reins of its own government if it grew some balls. However, even these groups find it hard to argue with the mechanisms of their control of the popular dialogue, so they find themselves offering platitudes and ignoring the most informative evidence of our world’s functions. Not to mention the “cross over” appeal when they interview one another or define the next big PR release, false flag non-event as a real problem created by some evil, perpetually new order. One is reminded of the invincible fictional enemy of Big Brother when these types of people discuss. While some dialogue is allowed on conspiratorial sites like Democracy Underground, We Are Change, Above Top Secret, Society, God Like Productions, David Icke and Alex Jones forums, many of them eschew examination of evidence and allow people to be insulted for even bringing up the idea of actors, liars or the powers of simulation and how it connects to grand political plays sparked from the very invention of each technology of illusion.

In contrast, Simon and I and occasionally some members actually pay for the existence of the CluesForum space on our own, with absolutely no patron, sponsor, lobby or even much of a social group. And that loose social group hasn’t even attempted to direct the religion of consumerism to itself. We probably could try, and I do think Simon is working on a book to basically spread the information in case the Internet is demolished by a policy passed through the next false flag event, but we really do not succeed at marketing. And I think the reason is that we are not in the same kind of cultural place as where the majority of western thought has found itself captured and controlled.

We don’t fully believe in marketing because it is connected to the extremist position of arguing for everyone’s minds with a sort of intellectual violence, not to mention physiological weapons experiments by the military. Where does that leave us? If we are pacifists in the war of information, how do we hope to change the world for the better? This is the topic I want to bring up and stick with for this show.

We must realize we are part of some kind of weird, unique culture of intellects spawned solely by the spare time with which we express that we are people who like people and who like peace, and want to see an end to the addiction to extremist paradigms. We can believe this has happened before and it will happen again. But we have no proof of either, only the false assurances that such a belief would give us in moving forward with little knowledge of what lays ahead. I say we go forward anyway, as blindly as we are, but boldly and bravely in the interest of truly making a better place for the generations ahead.

What has been considered so far? Well, not much.

Some of us seem to think marketing like Alex Jones or David Icke would be beneficial and we have entertained ideas of this. Some of us seem to think a revolution of some kind is in order, even though most also have the sinking feeling that most revolutions are controlled military intelligence-sponsored events to coalesce power structures we have no interest or business in considering. Some of us are artistic and we have written words of poetry or lyrics that might explain to future generations what it was like to create what may ultimately be an obscure cultural artifact. Or even a popular one, which perhaps delays obscurity by a meager number of lifetimes at best.

Some of us think we should do nothing but keep talking about it amongst ourselves and occasionally pray and feel gratitude for what allies we have, and this seems to be the most effective solution since it expects no actual result to come about. In any case, the latter is a healthy place to rest while we consider what, if anything, we might actually do to change things without resorting to the typical power plays of our intellectual enemies that would treat everyone as insentient sheep.

All of us has a warrior in us, just as all of us has a peacemaker, bargainer, deceiver, leader, follower and many other archetypes. But with conscious patient effort we can work to design our own curiosity about this world and take the reins on it. We can literally make ourselves less curious about a violent world and more curious about a peaceful world and therefore transform the world in the interest of what that peaceful world looks like. We have the proof it is worthwhile. The question now is how to go about it.

It is with this consideration or accession or for lack of a better English word, this “understanding”, that I would ask you to join me, join us, me – I go as hoi.polloi, and my host who goes as Ab – on his show today to help us start a new kind of dialogue that freely and  playfully explores answers to questions such as: “What can we do to reduce our addiction to fighting words, to promote peace and collaborative human happiness, and to reduce conflicts, while acknowledging and honoring our full human spirit?”

In the interest of avoiding perfectionism in framing a question we could debate forever at the expense of our tiny sample of eternity, I choose to hope you know what the fuck I’m talking about and let’s chat.

No tags for this post.

20 thoughts on “Ep132-Hoi Polloi of cluesforum.info

  1. xileffilex

    I listened to the show as it happened. I was interested in Delcroix speaking about his [non] TV
    I don’t have a TV either. [it’s around 54:50] I don’t live in a cocoon either and I hear radio broadcasts or find newspapers on trains, in stations. Much of it is fake or lies, but I don’t see much difference between them and TV. What are we ourselves doing a lot of the time? Analysing and discussing images and “witness” stories on TV, in the newspapers or on the radio. Is there really any other way of finding out what is going on, real or unreal? Citizen journalism has already been adopted by the MSM – insider twitter and facebook accounts are standard channels for propagating a staged event nowadays to their chums in the MSM – and many so-called witnesses to events are just additional bodies on the payroll.
    So I have no really no objection to TV. How do we get people to see through this fantasy haze?? They have to find their own way to analyses of these staged events and drills, whether in blogs, podcasts, videos or fora: but remember, all of these are based on MSM reports and their subsequent deconstruction. In fact those who have realised what the collaborative MSM is up to are probably not going to be fooled by TV or radio or the papers ever again, and have immunity from all the lies which are pumped out daily. It’s just a matter of not wanting to waste one’s money on subscriptions for lies and deceit. I think the MSM is in a state of panic about what happens when everything will have to go behind a pay wall. But it won’t, the message has to come across.

  2. UNreal

    “In the interest of avoiding perfectionism in framing a question we could debate forever at the expense of our tiny sample of eternity, I choose to hope you know what the fuck I’m talking about and let’s chat.”

    thank you Hoi Polloi for your invitation to debate, and also thank you for all the effort you deploy and share with all of us.

    contrary to Ab’s active literacy and your accomplished ‘passive literacy” i guess i’m in the position where i dispose of neither of the aforementioned skills as my mother tongue is of limited reach and/or interest, and that i live in country which language i do not completely master much like my battle to express myself in english through this site (and as of late on Cluesforum).

    just as religion before meant ‘to bind us’ and effectively did so with a book, today the term government can be understood as to ‘control or pilot our mind’ and it effectively does exactly so with the ‘free press’ aka ‘mainstream media’…

    if the above really translates into our present day situation, are we not simply trying to make a very minute but important point and message;
    – the mainstream media is not what we are told –

    taken the above into consideration, free speech probably never have been widely available for any majority of people anywhere, and this might constitute our major grief and battle.

    in our ‘community’ discussions, we are time and again discussing the very fact that mainstream media is contrived (Psy’Op etc.) and while the tactics and minutia differs, we still fight to convince ourselves of this very fact. this is in itself testimony to how pervasive the weapon of ‘mass media’ really is.

    maybe this is the point and question Hoi Polloi points to; what shall we do when we have the necessary proof as to convict the media and its commander the government (aka ‘shadow’ government aka PRC) ?

    it would seem that the obvious manufacture of ‘fake’ alternative media proves that we are on the right track, but we need to get ahead of the counterintelligence, however limited our numbers might be today*.

    i’m inclined to believe we have 2 main points to focus on; in point one, i refer of course to our own movement, and in point two are the movements we inherently can devolve our free-thinking mind-set to with much needed input (and relief at a later point) for common people.

    1. convey our ‘movements’ insights and facts in layman’s terms, forms and media available to anybody
    2. battle for causes directly linked to ourselves in our daily lives like the right to (true) free speech, the right to peace, the right to privacy, the right to optimal health for everyone.

    as to point n°1 i feel that forums like Cluesforum.info and websites like Fakeologist.com are good starting points from where to build more inviting forms, expressions and outlets. ‘marketing’ & ‘doing nothing different than what we do now’ falls into this category,,

    i’m not very educated as to point n°2, but this is a place i feel that we might need to elaborate on if we would like our world to truly promote peace and collaborative human happiness. ‘art’ and ‘revolution’ falls into this category,,

    “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”
    ? Albert Einstein (even though it is doubtful he ever wrote any of his own citations)

    *as to the outlets that seems to have escaped the mainstream media’s attention i would consider to add Chris Kendall’s Hoaxbuster’s show (discussion with Markus Allen excluded) that does seem like coming from an unbiased perspective.

    1. Hoi Polloi

      Thanks for your well considered points, UNreal.

      It sounds like a very optimistic position. You have identified what we need to do (your points 1 and 2) and have even categorized what we have already come up with under those points. My concern is that we are missing something yet, but maybe that just comes from the feeling of anticipation for those “sparks” or “breakthroughs” that happen after doing the same thing for a long enough period of time. That would mean all we need to do is keep going. In any case, it is probably what we will do until we come up with something more.

      For me you have added the elements of realizing that “the mainstream media is not what we are told” and the point that we must constantly reinvest in peace when we would otherwise be pushed toward a fight by and for counter-intelligence purposes.

      Thanks for letting me know about your vetting of Chris Kendall. There are definitely people who seem to understand the dilemma we have all tried to present to those around us. John Friend is sometimes cited as one of the ‘good guys’ as well. I sometimes forget that a ‘forum’ can extend to pure social art forms like radio interviews and the like. Let’s try to get Chris Kendall’s and John Friend’s minds in on the same forum all together and see if we can’t come up with more? It’s too bad that coming to trust and vet people really does just take time and patience, but I am glad we at least have that method and I hope it’s working.

      1. UNreal

        hello Hoi,

        completely agree that “we are missing something yet”,,,

        money and audience by any chance ?

        i have not of course come up with any concrete way as to achieve the goals listed in my simple 2 way strategy , but in regards to point 1 (our own movement) we do lack, as mentioned, both funding and exposure. this is of course true for point 2 as well, but only if we fail at point 1,, so if point 1 indirectly solves point 2, wouldn’t this make our efforts more meaningful ?
        under are some initial cents/2cents (non limited list of course):

        – crowd funding initiatives of future common projects, ex: film on ‘nuclear science’
        – e-publishing of essential material, books and articles*
        – mediapedia (brianv’s idea)*

        *the use of advertising platforms like ‘the deck’ is (or equivalent) seems both appropriate as well as expected when a project gathers a wider public,,, or maybe create our own ‘deck’ ?

    2. smj

      when a patriotic kid enlists in the military and is ordered to hop on a plane to fly across the planet to help kill some people he knows nothing about so that he can make his parents proud; he has entered a double bind.

      gregor(y) bateson was a co-founder of cybernetics, an o.s.s. officer, the godfather of nlp, and the man behind the double bind theory of schizophrenia… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_b…pressblog.uchicago.edu/2012/06…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_…

      his father, william bateson, was the popularizer of the rediscovered work of friar mendel and the man who taught us to say “genetics” we are told. here’s the story as told by their cousin sir patrick bateson, the eminent (of course) biologist… www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol81No2/…

      here’s a little film brought to us by the scottish rite of gregory and his ole lady, margaret mead… www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn3CGi…

  3. rickpotvin

    Hi Ab & Hoi– I’ve been looking at as big a picture as I’ve ever considered.. fakery in media is a SYMPTOM or ELEMENT of ongoing war on all fronts– not just hot war or corporate profit war or financial war. There is an overall frame of reference I might call MACRO-WAR. So have yu’all considered what this macro war we’re in is ABOUT? I’ll leave it there for the moment to see if yu’all agree on that point. It might be off-topic to consider what fakery is PART of… and we don’t have to “go there”… and fakery analysis is MOST effective when doing fakery analysis BUT– are we thinking about fakery in an of itself– or should we consider what fakery is PART OF? As far as spreading the message wider and waking others up– is that best done by continuing to expose fake events OR… might we consider that BIG PICTURE of which fakery is a symptom or element? What do you think Ab, if you’re here– or Hoi and others if you’re here. Are we victims in one major historical overall macrowar? Or are there just various factions that are cooperating on fooling us for the their own gain?

    1. Hoi Polloi

      I am skeptical of the macro-war narrative unless absolutely undeniable and paranormal levels of information can be added to the picture. I think that’s what people like Jordan Maxwell and David Icke and others do in order to cement their marketing for their “message for sale” in the minds of the public.

      If we are “victims” of this large drama, then we would be somewhat conceding the point of the extremist media and even demanding some kind of arch-narrative to place us all in an equal “victim-hero-monster” drama triangle. This seems to me to be the sadomasochistic position. There are people who are heavily invested in it, and indeed the slave-master attitude is an inextricable part of all of us.

      I think if you want to find a “sickness” that the fakery is a symptom of, we might start by considering the idea that for Anglos anyway there is a war going on inside ourselves and in our instincts. This war is something we should try to examine and if possible diminish because it causes harm to all systems of life on the planet. Why do we crave to be part of a macro-war? What is satisfying about this story? This is our personal problem. We should live a story about a macro-peace instead.

      1. rickpotvin

        Aha. Point made, Hoi-thanks. I’d like to see Ab chime in too. So Ab- – leaning toward my macrowar or Hoi’s internal conflict with ourselves?

        If you can, Hoi– I noted your point stated as… “the slave-master attitude is an inextricable part of all of us”. Let me ask you this– Would that be due to nature or nurture do you think? Is that in our genes? Or is it drummed into us through the education-nightmare?

          1. rickpotvin

            I agree. So how is it concievable that mankind’s DNA is set up with a slave mentality? Could it be that we were genetically designed to BE slaves to “ancient alien” masters? You might guess that’s where I’m going with this by now. The MACRO WAR might be one in which ancient alien slavemasters, who still operate behind the scenes today, are party to creation of media-illusions as a tool of control and suppression of humans in general…. humans who have had most of their higher-level dna awareness turned off in their original design… some of whom succeed in gaining higher awareness… and so the answer to how we create more peace– is to first recognize that there are alien entities that will not negotiate and will not relent or compromise– that they are absolutely committed to our annihalation. There are other aliens committed to our survival. See Sitchen– Wars of Gods and Men. And THAT is the CONTEXT in which I now believe we should look at these media illusions. Once that is fully accepted, it then becomes a situation of “every man for himself” — uplifting others around us one by one, forum by forum, and situation by situation. How about that?

          2. rickpotvin

            To Ab and smj– I’m a bit taken aback that you’all are pleading ignorance on ancient alien theory. There are 4.3 million hits on google for the idea and it’s been widely circulated.

            Sacharia Sitchen wrote his first popular books in the 1970s, translating ancient Sumerian clay tablets indicating an alien species created humans.

            Gerald Clark says they’re still here and fighting it out behind the scenes, which fight is being manifested partly in the media wars we’re seeing– and the fakery. True supporters of humanity would not be faking the news.

            Anyways, as I said earlier– this macrowar is between two factions of aliens called Anunnaki and we don’t have to go there in this forum. I was just curious as to how you’all thought about this developing story of the history of humanity — on the large scale– the macro scale. Since there is no resonance for that here, I’ll discontinue that approach here. If you ever get to wondering more about it, though, I’m working on it. See youall later.

  4. Hoi Polloi

    Ab, thank you for doing a bit of spell-check on that thing, I didn’t get a chance before sending it to you and didn’t expect you to post it as is. I noticed another typo. I spelled “denier” as “deniar”. If you have a chance to get in and edit again, please change it. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.