GEORGE SOROS' EVIL EMPIRE IS EXPOSED

This is an excerpt of a Portland Indymedia post I made a while back, which can be read in full at:

 http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=38611&group=webcast

I take direct aim at QuestionsQuestions.net, a website that does indeed ask some very important questions -- and details some great work. But nevertheless, goes overboard at times (see below):

-----------------

excerpt:

"the *fake liberal media* issue"

...

FLAME MODE GOING ON NOW:

I do think there are some folks that take their rage-against-the-pseudo-left gig way too far. Yeah, there are plenty examples of the liberal media being infiltrated, compromised and/or next to useless. But I submit that in the case of the Nation, it's really not all that dire, because they are far more a force for change in our general direction -- regardless of how you define "our general direction," but I recognize that's the weak leg premise of my argument. In fact, in a twisted sort of way, all those CIA types would like nothing more than the left to rage against itself, to throw the baby out with the bath water. The infiltrating intelligence community operatives are no doubt laughing at all the high moral chest pounding by "the real left."

Some of the writers/research over at QuestionsQuestions.Net are a good example of those taking it too far. Yes, CIA manipulation via foundation funding is fact. Yes, the actual CIA documents on Project Mockingbird are now in the public domain. Yes, we all know about how much of our liberal media is in fact fake. But within that very same fake liberal media, there's real liberal media too, real dissent media. As soon as someone starts telling me something is monolithic, my bullshit radar starts beeping as loud as can be.

Yes Virginia, conspiracies sometimes exist. Sometimes, even Congressional committees on Assassinations even say as much (JFK, 1970s), or note in official yet circumspect form of high crimes like Iran-Contra (never mind that all concerned walked!). And yes, I too believe Kennedy was assassinated by conspirators (don't know who, and I'm angry that the Nation can't get a grip and deal with this fact, after all these years, but ultimately, I'm a paying subscriber of the Nation because they deserve support!). And yes, there's far more that is rotten with the National Security State.

And yes, the perpetuation of an official story on 9-11 that is impossible, given inconsistencies of the elements of that official story, is representative of a comatose media at best, seasoned with fear of being the nail that stands up first at the individual reporter level. The "wonderful" thing about 9-11 is that the "official story" is so riddled with inconsistencies that you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that something is seriously wrong, and that alone is the strongest debating point, the first salvo to lob at anyone you're trying to influence. Study 9-11 and you'll quickly learn of these inconsistencies

Mr. Corn and corny kind, at the Nation and elsewhere, have little hope to use ignorance and laziness as their future defense; the magnitude of contradictions in the official story are so vast that history will shred the reputations of Corn and kind -- it's just a mater of time. But all of this is a piss poor reason to piss all over The Nation. Recognize their faults. Use them for what they are worth and recognize that they are a force for marginally pushing society in a direction that's for the better. And yeah, I also recognize that all you hardcore radicals will jump all over my premise that there can be good to come from "liberalism," incremental and "progressive" (progressive literally meaning a progression of incremental steps by some of the word's referents). But the thing is, even all you folks that want revolution would have a hard time arguing that a more educated and true liberal view spread throughout culture and organically rooted wouldn't further the possibility of a ______ revolution (fill in the blank, per your ideological bent). So there. Untenable argument? Perhaps. But to split hairs at that level doesn't seem all that productive to me.

I'm not asking anyone here to agree with the analysis of this dude. I'm just a dude. But we really would be doing ourselves a big favor if we took a deep breath and stepped back a bit before swashbuckling with ideological dogmas. I, for one, find all the questions asked at questionsquestions.net very much in need of sunshine. But they're also a good example of going too far in the rage against the fake left. I pick on them only because their CIA money foundation graph is making the rounds all over the place, but they're a good example of the screw-the-Nation backlash. It's counter-productive, folks. The CIA is laughing at us.

RANT MODE OFF

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

Cheers,

the dude

Hey "dude" you seem to be trying a little to hard to discount work being done to expose the "phony progressive/left" and its sponsorship by US establisment foundations, George Soros, and the friggin' CIA.

You bascially acknowledge the fact that the CIA and other US government agencies have always infiltrated the various "alternative" or "leftists" organizations but you dismiss this issue because it is "divisive." How is the truth ever divisive?

I think that exposing these fraudulent "progressives" is important because 1). They have attempted to silence any critical questioning on the mounting evidence which increasingly suggests that the American government sponsored, directed, and supported 9-11 attacks 2). These same "progressive" media outlets like Mother Jones, Village Voice, the Nation, Salon.com have been engaged in a classic Red-baiting campaign to attack the more radical wing of the antiwar movement such as the Workers World Party/Answer or the NION/RCP.

 http://www.rwor.org/A/V24/1171-1180/1178/rcp-salon.htm

I also noticed that you posted your response only a few minutes after I posted this original article--not only here on Portland Indymedia but also on LA Indymedia as well.

 http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/24903.php

You also quickly reposted your "rant" on the main Indymedia newswire immediately after I posted the Feldman article.

If I were paranoid, I would almost ask who are you working for....

I was over on LA reading stuff in addition to Portland, so it was easy to copy and paste. Big deal.

Again, I agree with the general position you are arguing. I just think it's also true that there are times when it's counterproductive to slam entirely these alternative news sources. To give you one example, when KPFK had some slimy framing of the debate concerning Michael Ruppert this summer, there were many people pounding the table, saying that people should stop supporting KPFK, stop sending contributions. Frankly, I think that's retarded. There are many things that KPFK does that are fantastic. Yeah, OK, so you can make a valid and true argument that some of their actions can be seen in the context of a "parallel left." I'm not arguing that pointing that stuff out isn't cool. To the contrary, I think that's important! But what I do object to is the very slippery slope that often creates.

bottom-line: All of the above is pretty clear in my original post. I'm not attacking QuestionsQuestions.net. My complements are honest. But the world is not black and white, and the left in particular has a problem with nearsightedness that comes from dialectical analysis.

Have a nice evening,

The Dude

Yeah, I was reading the main Indymedia board too and saw your post, so I copied and pasted what I already had written in a text editor. If you posted others, you'll only find the three responses. I didn't post more.

Anyway, I wish I was working for someone -- heh heh. I'm totally unemployed at the moment :-) No "consulting fees" coming my way ;-)

Kidding aside, let me again say that I think there's quite a bit of value in what you're saying. I agree with you. But there are other truths here to consider that exist simultaneously. Let me use your point about the Red-baiting as a case in point. All that bashing against NION/RCP and WWP/Answer was indeed slimy. But you also have to recognize that part of what those squirrelly pundits were harping on was true: most of the protestors are not far leftists, and that many of the protestors would indeed be a little troubled or confused were they to fully understand the embrace of the organizers of the events. Now again, don't get me wrong. I'm not making an argument against those organizations. I'm simply saying that there is some valid ground upon which those "liberal" pundits where standing on. It's fair to slam these liberal pundits for Red-baiting (because some of them were in fact slamming the act of protest, and couching that within their slamming of those pesky Reds). But furthering a grand superstructure argument that all alternative media that has ever taken advantage of crumbs tossed out by Soros and other slime is still silly.

Alexander Cockburn offers another great example. On Nov. 20, he was on Flashpoints

 http://www.flashpoints.net/index-2002-11-20.html

and he lambasted David Corn and others for this very Red-baiting. I've always liked Cockburn. He's got serious integrity. But he also writes for The Nation magazine! Are you catching my drift? The world is not black and white, to which Bob Feldman has NEVER shown any understanding.

Let me use a different example. You probably know how many people on the far left attack and/or mock organizations like Global Exchange, how they criticize protests as nothing more than street theater. This is another similar example of Left's ideological silliness. While some on the far left can argue that ultimate change (per their ideological frame of reference) can't be achieved via the Green Party's vision (ideologically, Global Exchange is akin to the Green Party), NO ONE on the far left can HONESTLY argue that said protest are unproductive. But some on the far left (and a few COINTELPRO stooges thrown in for good measure) do indeed proliferate these arguments all the time.

There. Hand enough? Sorry for being so wordy. I'm tired. I probably could have written the above in half the space on any other day.

The Dude

'While some on the far left can argue that ultimate change (per their ideological frame of reference) can't be achieved via the Green Party's vision (ideologically, Global Exchange is akin to the Green Party), NO ONE on the far left can HONESTLY argue that said protest are *unproductive*. But some on the far left (and a few COINTELPRO stooges thrown in for good measure) do indeed proliferate these arguments all the time'

--i put emphasis on the term "unproductive" (maybe i shoulda HTMLized it, made it real pretty) because i think i understand what that "dude" is talking about. basically, all protests are productive because they are potential fomenters of both mental and social 'revolutions'.

to wit--i wouldn't ever be a member of "(A) The Green Party" because i'm apolitical, but i do see that the party platform is a helluva lot more viable than that of the other party masquerading as 2 parties ;), so i morally suport them.

i'm not big on going to church, but a lot of churches do feed people *WITHOUT STRINGS ATTACHED* and i see offering sincere help to people as a "good" thing, so i morally support certain churches.

To say that calling George Soros on his schitt is "divisive" or "counterproductive" is absurd.

The CIA has, ever since WWII, been doing its best to create a political creature that is unheard of outside of the modern USA, namely, a non-socialist and non-communist "left." To "the dude": do you honestly think that this CIA-created political position is a positive one? Do you think it will bring real change to the world's current order of things?

George Soros has worked with and for and along parallel lines of the CIA his whole life. He is doing his best to create a non-threatening (to the ruling elite, since he is one) "left," that is a "left" which appears to be the flipside of conservative forces but is actually working towards the same aims as the right. The fake left of the US has allowed voters to vote in (not-so) secret warmongers lile Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and other Democrats - people that work for the military-communications-industrial complex yet use the rhetoric of populist resistance towards the very war machine that they serve.

This is dangerous. It is controlling the width and breadth of political discussion. Soros has a "Human Rights Watch" that saw absolutley no problem in the Jenin massacre. Not very good at watching ar ethey? Or at human rights it seems. The fake left is a huge problem. Wake up, "the dude."

An excellent source on George Soros' so-called "Human Rights Watch":

The comments by "dude" as well as "assertion of truth" miss the fundamental point of the Feldman article, as well as my comments.

To repeat what I wrote on the main Indymedia newswire thread on this article, the point of Feldman's article is to analyze the how George Soros's Empire funds various "alternative media" outlets in particular, and, by implication, to interrogate its role in molding and manipulating the substance of putatively "independent media" in the USA.

 http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=225609&group=webcast

If you know anything about Soros, his phony "Open Society" foundation, and the connections to the US government and the CIA, you'd know that hard questions should be asked about Soros' funding of "alternative" media and their impact on the content, shape, and agenda of this media.

The gist of your comments above completely bypass and ignore the thesis of Feldman's article and my comments. Instead, you in essence argue over the political efficacy of Liberal political movements vs. more Radical ones.

Indeed, if you are interested in debating the politics of Liberal and Progressive groups, you should consider Feldman's article. As I said on this main Indymedia thread, Feldman's work dovetails and builds upon the work of James Petras who has written articles concerning the US government's sponorship, support, and creation of an Anti-communist/Anti-socialist "parallel Left" during the Cold War. The agenda--then as now--was to promote political groups which, while wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of liberalism, fundamentally did NOT challenge American Empire at home and abroad.

Isn't that true of Liberalism/progressives today? Whether you are talking about the Antiwar/Peace movement or the issue of 9-11?

 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/FordFandCIA.html

thanks REPOST - excellent article and analysis.


To the reichwing cyberstalking BITCH - do so try to focus on the content of articles instead of trolling around spewing hatred...

 http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=44247


..OK?

I did not see in the list of those funded by Soros, Amy Goodman or any of the organizations mentioned in Feldman's accusatory first paragraph. The closest was a dance company of a "staffperson's domestic partner". There is nothing there to justify a fishing expedition on the say-so of Bob Feldman and a few souls who seem to have little in their lives beyond a maelstrom of hostility.


Gringo Stars is simply uninformed about Human Rights Watch's perception of Janin, for example, "The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes. Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs."
 http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/jenin0503.htm


It is certainly necessary to suspect funding from corporations of any kind, even from individuals who are too generous. The hooks and strings may be subtle or obvious, but they are always there. A persistent curiosity about all operations of all activist organizations is healthy, too.

However, these do not justify listening to and repeating every slander supported a rumour that somebody somewhere thought that something might be possible.

The following is paraphrased from SARA FLOUNDERS article "Massacre in Jenin; Human Rights Watch & The Stage-Management of Imperialism" in Covert Action Quarterly #74, Fall 2002:


On the very day that the UN Secretary General moved to disband the fact-finding team to Jenin, it was hardly treated as news. All the corporate media were conveniently running banner headlines stating that "no massacre" had taken place in Jenin. They gave as the objective authority for this finding the organisation Human Rights Watch.

This let the IDF and the US - which was author of the Security Council resolution and primary supporter of Israel - off the hook.

In fact, the HRW report identifies 52 Palestinians killed during the Israeli operation and devotes 42 pages to describing a whole series of "possible" war crimes and violations of international law that the Israel forces committed. But all this is buried in a report on their web site that few will ever see.

The story CNN, BBC, AP, AFP, network TV, news magazines and all the other corporate media reported globally in bold headlines and sound bites was that a Human Rights Watch investigation had confirmed "No Jenin massacre." As CNN reported on May 3, "Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Israeli troops massacred Palestinian civilians in Jenin... said Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher for the group and a member of the investigative team." This was the news in a sound bite. It was reinforced in countless articles.

His words exactly echoed Colin Powell's statement the week before and Israel's position.

In the news coverage this sounded like it was the finding of an "official" inquiry, with no further investigation needed. This was not the first time HRW has stepped in to reinforce US policy with a veneer of apparently unbiased non-governmental judgment.

HRW is an institution that has acted at every turn to reinforce the policies of the United States and justify its "humanitarian interventions."

HRW claims its reports are objective, balanced and evenhanded. When it comes to Palestine this has meant equating the violence of the illegal Israeli occupation with the resistance of Palestinians to overwhelming military force. Once the HRW declared that "no massacre" had occured in Jenin, the demand for an inquiry and international action against Israeli crimes virtually disappeared. Media coverage shifted sharply. The Bush administration made a new round of demands on the Palestinians to condemn violence while calling Ariel Sharon "a man of peace" and expressing sympathy for Israeli "self-defense" measures. HRW statements echoed these shifts.

In Jenin the Israelis used 25,000 IDF troops and 270 Israeli tanks against 13,000 Palestinian refugees, very few of whom were armed. The NY Times said:

"The mismatch in force of arms was stark. The Israeli army used Vulcan anti-aircraft guns, able to shoot 3,000 rounds a minute, inside the camp. It used Cobra helicopters with thermal detection capability to fire TOW missiles - intended for use against tanks on open battlefields - through walls of houses, some with noncombatants inside. It deployed scores of Merkava tanks and armored vehicles equipped with machine guns. It used bulldozers to raze civilian homes, crushing more and more of them with less warning. Buzzing drones and balloons carrying cameras monitored the fighting from above, and from a hilltop encampment just outside Jenin, officers coordinated the combat, using detailed maps and sophisticated communications."

"funding of "alternative" media and their impact on the content, shape, and agenda of this media."

got it, that's the issue. it would seem important on one hand, but what i consider most important is not the effect such media might have on people but that people are even able to think clearly enough when it comes to entertaining an idealized "alternative" media.

my comments were truly add-on.

The folks who are actually doing 'alternative' media, are calmly going about their doing, without paying much attention to critics quoting suspect sources.

It is impossible to prove purity. Impossible to be pure. Dishonest (or subversive) to demand purity.

The only test we have is to compare what our media have said in the past with whatever verifiable facts we can scrape together. And try to remember that, if IMC should betray us, we will discover it only afterwards -- never before.

If we believe something just because it came from IMC, we might as well suckle up to CNN. OTOH to disbelieve just because someone states the obvious -- that creatures of the oppressors are everywhere -- can only cause Hoover to stain his dress.

Gringo Stars said "Soros has a "Human Rights Watch" that saw absolutley no problem in the Jenin massacre. Not very good at watching ar ethey?" (sic)

comment# 39438 above

HRW said, "Jenin War Crimes Investigation Needed", and, "The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes. Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs."

 http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/jenin0503.htm
 http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502.pdf

To me, "war crimes" is very, very far from "absolutley (sic) no problem"; and if you read the rest of the report, you find HRW is at least as "good at watching" as anyone else with actual live people in the region.


Gringo Stars, paraphrasing Sara Flounders, said "Soros' HRW derailed UN's Jenin investigation".

comment# 39641 above

UN said "Israel had denied access to the fact-finding team".

"A letter from the Secretary-General (document S/2002/504), dated 1 May, describes his efforts to implement Council resolution 1405 (2002). That resolution welcomed the Secretary-General's initiative to gather accurate information about recent events in the Jenin refugee camp through a fact-finding team.

"In the letter, the Secretary-General states his intention to disband the fact-finding team and his regret at being unable to provide the information requested by the Council in resolution 1405 (2002). (The Secretary-General subsequently disbanded the team on 2 May.)

"The letter details events that delayed deployment of the team after it gathered in Geneva on 25 April, focusing on Israeli concerns over: the composition of the team; the scope of its mandate; how the mandate would be carried out; and various procedural matters. Those concerns led to the following announcement by Israel's Ministerial Committee on National Security on 30 April: "Israel has raised essential issues before the United Nations for a fair examination. As long as these terms have not been met, it will not be possible for the clarification process to begin".

"Responding, the Secretary-General said he was drawn reluctantly to the conclusion that while continuing to express its concerns to the United Nations mainly in the form of procedural issues, Israel had developed concerns about resolution 1405 (2002) "that were fundamental in nature". He adds, "In light of yesterday's announcement by the Government of Israel, it seems evident that the team will not be able to proceed to the area to begin its mission in the near future"."

 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sc7391.doc.htm

That was two days before the HRW report was released. As I remember media of the time, the HRW report, far from suggesting "no further investigation needed", lent credence (among white folks) to Arab and African "demand for an inquiry and international action". Three months later, UN published its lame report, "written without a visit to Jenin".

 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SG2077.doc.htm
 http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/ES-10/186&Lang=E

The next day, HRW came forward once again, "The U.N. report on events in Jenin is seriously flawed".

 http://www.humanrightswatch.org/press/2002/08/jenin080202.htm

Ran HaCohen, 'The UN from Qana to Jenin : Why the Secretary General's Report Cannot Be Trusted', August 14, 2002, contains a clear summary.

 http://antiwar.com/hacohen/pf/p-h081402.html

Justin Podur's discussion of the "massacre" issue is also interesting.

((Aside -- and most especially his quotations of Coimhe Butterly : "a real feeling of an autonomous, strong, organized community. It was apparent that it was well armed, yes. But what was remarkable was the organization. There were locally elected committees, and some of these had participation by women. The community organized distribution centers for UN donations. There was emphasis on education." "This was really a 'people's camp'. The leaders weren't in charge and organizing the camp. The people organized it and the leaders found their place." "The biggest effect of the incursions was to break this leadership and organization." The last sentence looms large, in my opinion, as motivation for the invasion, certainly the devastation of Jenin.))

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=2190

Finally, this article by Ali Abunimah, originally published in Electronic Intifada, on Aug 05, should make one question whose cause is served by the waving of the flag, "massacre".

 http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=2187


OK. I have never heard of Ms. Flounders before today. I don't know whether Gringo has grossly misrepresented her, or if she is abysmally ignorant. I was mostly conscious in Apr/May and in Aug when these things were happening. I remember Israeli obstruction and rejection of the UN investigation. I remember, too, the sophists posturing like WWF actors around the word "massacre".

Here comes the test I proposed above. Human Rights Watch reports on Jenin are consistent with those from every other source I trust. Sara Flounders, as paraphrased by Gringo Stars, flatly contradicts what I observed through reports I trust, reports from UN, and reports from the Israeli government and media. Which one should I believe?


Here is another angle. Look at Gringo's fifth paragraph : ''The story CNN, BBC, AP, AFP, network TV, news magazines and all the other corporate media reported globally in bold headlines and sound bites was that a Human Rights Watch investigation had confirmed "No Jenin massacre."'' It looks like it says HRW said, "No Jenin massacre."; however, it actually says that CNN and "all the other corporate media", collectively said it.

''As CNN reported on May 3, "Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Israeli troops massacred Palestinian civilians in Jenin... said Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher for the group and a member of the investigative team."'' Once again, it looks like it is quoting Brouckaert, but it is really quoting CNN.

So, why is Flounders quoting CNN, a source known to be unreliable and probably tainted, when she could as easily quote HRW directly?

Is it because HRW does not really say what her sneaky quotations appear to make them say?

In Gringo's fourth paragraph -- and I remind you that Gringo is paraphrasing and chose to write this sentence -- "But all this is buried in a report on their web site that few will ever see." Sort of looks like HRW hid it somewhere. Like HRW contrived that few will read it.

Yet, they published a press-release, containing a valid link to it. Several North American IMC's picked it up, as did Palestine, the online versions of several British and French newspapers, some Muslim/Arabic sites, some activist sites, ... It is true, though, that "few will ever see" it, if they rely on CNN, or Gringo.

However, the report is not exactly "buried". If you can find HRW,
 link to www.humanrightswatch.org
(1) click in the left column, "Middle East/N.Africa";
(2) click in the right column, "Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories";
(3) then click the seventh article in the center column, "Israel/Occupied Territories: Jenin War Crimes Investigation Needed" -- it is even marked with the date "May 3, 2002".
If that is too confusing or deep, just type "jenin" in the little white box, labelled "search" and click "GO".


Who are you gonna believe?

Put the money in a _plastic_ bag this time, please.

Sara Flounders took part in the International ANSWER delegation to Gaza, Bethlehem, East Jerusalem, Ramallah and Jenin, May 17-24. Flounders has edited and co-authored several books on international affairs, and is presently organising an inquiry into US-backed Israeli occupation crimes. She is co-director of the International Action Center.

She quotes what CNN is saying precisely to prove that what CNN is saying is wrong.

Bill, the fact that you actually trust the Israeli government and Israeli corporate media is telling. And makes me wonder why you deign to visit IndyMedia.

As you well know, the corporate media of any given country is less-than-truthful in stories concerning that government, more or less. This is WHY we have IMC and other non-corporate media. This is WHY we must question who funds any "independant" media and what accountability these medias feel towards its funders.

The fact that Israel denies entrance to a UN fact-finding team would get it bombed by the US (a la Iraq) if it was an Arab-controlled country. But you seem to accept this as a good reason for the UN to decide not to inquire further. Bizarre.

The HRW report IS "buried." It is not hidden, true. But let's compare how many people will see a story online where you have to click through several pages VERSUS how many people will see a misleading soundbite on TV, radio, and major newspapers that simplify and distort the message? As you know, FAR more people will passsively sit and watch TV or listen to the radio to get their (so-called) news, and if they do read, more people read newspapers than go online to sift through different sources. I wish most people weren't so news-lazy, but hey that's the US educational shitstem's legacy for you.

To equate me, as a news source, WITH FUCKING CNN is a less-than-honest tactic. I think maybe you missed the point of the article I posted. Perhaps you should read it over:

 http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/jenin0620.php

"She quotes what CNN is saying precisely to prove that what CNN is saying is wrong."

That may be what Sara Flounders intended.

However, Gringo, when you "paraphrased" you were attempting to prove HRW is wrong. Now you are saying you misrepresented her intention.

Nothing but a bunch of mentally ill conspiracy theory idiots.