From Ahnenkult, here's an interesting picture illustrating the logic of the Australian humanitarian progressives now reviled as racists for the "Stolen Generations:"
Before the development of antibiotics, full-blooded Australian Aborigines were dying off at a rapid rate from tuberculosis and other Afro-Eurasian diseases. The half-white children of Aboriginal mothers tended to be more resistant to diseases, but they tended to be neglected and abused by their often alcoholic Aboriginal relatives. So, reasoned the social workers, why not raise them in white ways in boarding schools, allowing them to find a place in white society and marry whites? Because Aboriginal looks tend to be relatively recessive when mixed with European looks, as compared to Sub-Saharan African looks, within a couple of generations you get a kid who looks like a cross between Prince Charles and Bing Crosby, so their descendants would be largely indistinguishable from the general population. Problem solved.
Of course, as we all know now, those reformers were The Worst People of All Time.
And yet, antibiotics aside, sensitive 21st Century Australians are better at feeling superior to their ancestors than at actually solving the problems that their ancestors confronted. For example, when Australian director Philip Noyce made the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence a decade ago condemning Evil Old Social Workers by showing girls who run away from their boarding school to return to their Aboriginal mothers, his adolescent star ran away from the set and had to be rounded up. Then when filming was over, Noyce saw what a disaster her Aboriginal home life was, so he ... paid to put her in a boarding school.
Posts
66 comments:
"Because Aboriginal looks tend to be relatively recessive when mixed with European looks, as compared to Sub-Saharan African looks, within a couple of generations you get a kid who looks like a cross between Prince Charles and Bing Crosby..."
Perhaps this is true for American Indians, too. I know a few people who call themselves Native Americans, and they all look like Irishmen with Italian complexions.
The remaining aboriginal pureblood population is an important scientific resource for the world, and at least as deserving of preservation as pandas and tigers.
The best answer to this dilemma is: How to the people of the "Stolen Generations" themselves feel about it?
Isn't that what happened to the Maoris in New Zealand? I remember reading a statistic that said most New Zealanders were part Maori even though they look as white as any other European.
1/ There was no consultation with the indigenous families; children were taken from good families and bad families alike.
2/ Miscegenation was an active player. Some Bureaucrats wanted to breed out or assimilate the indigenous population, and not out of love.
3/ The removal of children often involved violence against dissenting families.
4/ The children that were removed were often exposed to further violence and sexual assault.
Try doing some basic research next time.
For example, when Australian director Philip Noyce made the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence a decade ago condemning Evil Old Social Workers by showing girls who run away from their boarding school to return to their Aboriginal mothers, his adolescent star ran away from the set and had to be rounded up. Then when filming was over, Noyce saw what a disaster her Aboriginal home life was, so he ... paid to put her in a boarding school.
The cognitive dissidence of liberal-left types crack me up! Its like this stuff comes from the Onion.
Irony of ironies: all is irony.
> The best answer to this dilemma is: How to the people of the "Stolen Generations" themselves feel about it?
Now that they've been basted in agitprop for four hours at 370 F?
"Half blonde-half black kids seem to look like tan white people. But half brunette-half black kids seem to look more black than white.. Anyone genetics people know why this is?"
And the children of blonde white people and black people look just as black (or rather half-black) as any other white-black children. They only ones who might come out looking like tan white kids are the ones whose black parent isn't fully black to begin with (ex. Rashida Jones...her father is a lighter black man, probably has at least a quarter or a third white ancestry himself)
> 4/ The children that were removed were often exposed to further violence and sexual assault.
Probably less, though, then they were by a bunch of drunks who I don't think were super-gentle even back when they were sober. (Even though people are probably nicer to their biological children - in general, ceteris paribus.) Which is not to say that I blame them for lying drunk - I know that the cause of that is biological, so how am I supposed to be indignant about it.
I admit, your other points seem pretty good, assuming all your facts are true. Great comment.
"Half blonde-half black kids seem to look like tan white people."
You don't know what you're talking about.
Here's a few pics of Heidi Klum's kids:
http://cdn.hellobeautiful.com/files/2010/10/heidi-klum-seal-kids.jpg
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2009/05/heidi-klum-wedding-vows-mexico-swine-flu-strips-for-ellen.jpg
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/10/08-15/heidi-kissing-seal-henry-pumpkin.jpg
"within a couple of generations"
People that are 7/8 white will look white no matter what else the other one eighth is.
anon:
"The children that were removed were often exposed to further violence and sexual assault"
But at a much lower rate than in their original families.
***Philip Noyce made the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence a decade ago condemning Evil Old Social Workers***
Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has suggested that movie is "grossly inaccurate".
There may be good reason to question the 'Stolen Generation' claims made by Anonymous.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/flawed-history-keeps-myth-alive-about-the-stolen-generations/story-e6frg6z6-1225824632357
"Try doing some basic research next time."
Which research has been left unbiased by left-wing Australian historians?
Is it even permissible in Australia to suggest that the "Stolen Generation" might have been something other than genocidal racism?
Here is a picture of Boris Becker and his three kids, all three kids have a mulatto mother.
http://www.blackcelebkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/borisandthreekids.jpg
The two blond kids are creepy looking. Must be the mix of sub-Saharan facial structure with white skin and blonde hair.
Bob,
Heidi Klum is not a natural blonde.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103122858AAAqXoa
Note that what I said is based on repeatedly seeing this in people walking around real life, so I'd be very surprised if the pattern I've seen over all these years is completely wrong.
"People that are 7/8 white will look white no matter what else the other one eighth is."
This is not true. Look up Alexander Pushkin in the Wikipedia. I've posted here a pic of one of his daughters (1/16th black) a few weeks ago and even she had some remnants of African features.
Adoption didn't solve the original problem of TB deaths. The cause of TB vulnerability was the white man's diet. The Aborigines native diet was protective against infection disease. When they adopted the white man's food, they became vulnerable. Refined grains and sugars aren't as nutritious as the meat and various plants found in the outback. A dentist, Weston Price, took pictures of Aborigines who stuck to the native diet and who adopted the white man's foods. Those who stuck to the native diet had perfect teeth and facial development. The others had many cavities and malformed faces. Dental health serves as a marker for general health.
Weston Price's pictures of Aborigines:
http://www.yourreturn.org/Articles/Images/Aborigines_Full.jpg
The probable mechanism for vulnerability to disease would be:
Consumption of grain -> decreased Mg absorption -> decreased vitamin D -> lower immune response -> vulnerability to TB
Pity the hard-up Irish guy who had to start that thing in motion.
My late uncle's wife is 1/8 Chippewa and quite Celtic-looking (her father was a Scotsman). She has a family picture of her mother, grandmother and great-grandmother standing together so one can see the evolution of their looks (they all maried whites). They had the same advice for all their daughters: "Don't marry any drunken Indians."
Diet anon,
After initial contact European diseases spread much faster than Europeans. It's why for eg. the pilgrims found an almost empty wilderness. The aborigines are well-adapted to parasitic infections, not tuberculosis, measles, etc. Even today they have coordinated genetic differences that crank up the inflammatory response.
Dang, those are some short generations -- maybe 30-35 years between grandma and grandson, or 15-17 between parents and children.
Probably another factor that concerned the white social workers.
Speaking of whites, Australian aborigines, and rabbits, check out this lauded Australian picture book called "The Rabbits":
http://www.shauntan.net/books/the-rabbits.html
The story is about white rabbits that invade the land of the natives, steal their babies, and destroy the environment. The message of the book is that white people are evil and should be exterminated from the land like rabbits.
The intermarriage rate among aborigines and white Australians are high 80's. Oddly enough, most with Aborigine fathers identify as aborigine.
Its likely that aborigines will cease to exist as purely aborigine except in the most remotest of Northern Territory regions.
It still doesn't justify the stolen generation of state kidnapping at all though.
rob,
When European contact happened, the natives of the Americas largely ate grain, ie corn. Since they ate grain, they had nutrient deficiencies which left them vulnerable to disease. Where the natives were hunters, eg the Great Plains, the natives did not fall to disease. The Australian Aborigines did not eat grain until the white man gave it to them.
Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?
Speaking of odd racial admixture, how about NBA star Blake Griffin?
Extremely black father and white mother. He has very light skin, but black hair and black hops (slang for jumping ability).
One of our neighbours died a few years ago – call that 2003. We have lived here, one of Vancouver’s better areas, since ’63 – call that 40 years of neighbourhood kids/parents knowing the family. The neighbour was unusual only in that she was a single mother. The obituary noted that she was Nishga i.e. Northern British Columbia Native Indian. We had no idea. Given the time period, she was likely a full blood Aboriginal product of the Residential School System (church-run boarding schools). It is heresy in B.C. to suggest any possible positive result of these boarding schools. But wasn’t she one? And her daughters, one now a Social Worker, I believe, in one of the largest Indian Reserves in B.C.? Wasn’t that a credit to all – Mother, the schools, the present recipients of her Social Work? Could there be other success stories?
"Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?"
Same reason so many Scots-Irish intermarried with the "civilized tribes" of the southeast (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek)
They were poorer than the average Austrailian back in the day. Maybe thus more likely to have settled in undesirable areas near Aborigine territory - in the same manner that the Scots-Irish did in the Appalachains in the 17th century.
'Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?'
Beer goggles.
Enough of your haphazard bull!
Who was that cute Jewish guy?
Where was he from?
'n where did he go?
(Michael Farris)
I don't think I trust the picture, the first generation Aboriginal looks more like a Bulgarian transvestite truck driver than any indigenous australian I've ever seen....
The plains indians, particularly the Mandans and the Blackfeet, were destroyed by smallpox, which often preceded the actual European contact. Almost all indians of North America had mixed diets, including meat, and no anthropological evidence exists that they had nutritional deficiencies. All early contemporary accounts clearly suggest the indians were larger, stronger, and healthier, than the European colonists. Until disease killed them.
Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?
Why do so many white Australians have an Irish origin? (And so many white Americans, for that matter.)
The intermarriage rate among aborigines and white Australians are high 80's. Oddly enough, most with Aborigine fathers identify as aborigine.
Yeah, that's just so darn odd, isn't it? To people on the left, the world must seem this totally perplexing place.
Look up Alexander Pushkin in the Wikipedia. I've posted here a pic of one of his daughters (1/16th black) a few weeks ago and even she had some remnants of African features.
The cartoon racists are coming out to play today!
Australia has been blessed with a cadre of leftie historians who find actual Australian history unforgiveably dull, and so have been keen to exaggerate any aspect of that history that puts their countrymen in a poor light.
This sort of mass kidnapping of children, even if done for the noblest of reasons, usually goes horribly wrong.
And I thought that the church and state of that time was supposed to be pro-family. I can't see how that woudl apply to breaking up thousands of families.
Steve you see this pattern even today in Australia
Young men with 100% European ancestry who happen to be born with low IQs tend to marry females who are part aborigne.
Young men with 100% European ancestry who happen to be born with very high IQs tend to marry females who are part Northeast Asian.
Assortive mating is if anything stronger in Australia than in the USA
The rare White aborigine criminal in a black-crime world: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/suspect-in-brooklyn-killings-captured-after-subway-stabbing/?ref=nyregion
'Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?'
Beer goggles.
Irish (and Brits) seem to have a higher testosterone level like West Africans; a common epithet for Irish has been "the (N-word)s of Europe". Consequently, Irish men are more likely than Irish women to mate with other ethnicities and races.
In Australia, the poor whites there were disproportionately Irish (although there were a lot of poor English and English convicts sent over too). Poor Irish men would have been considered dregs by white women, but Aboriginal women wouldn't have cared.
And, admittedly, booze undoubtedly does play a role.
It would be interesting to see how many Australian whites have mtDNA of aboriginal haplotypes. And how many Aussie men have Y DNA of aboriginal origin. I would expect more with mtDNA.
"like a cross between ..." That was classic, Steve. I met Bing Crosby on the golf course in 1971, and even at that advanced age, you're right, he looked JUST like that kid with smaller ears. Friendly guy.
"All early contemporary accounts clearly suggest the indians were larger, stronger, and healthier, than the European colonists. Until disease killed them."
No to mention at least 100 IQ points smarter! The American aborigines had moon colonies as early as 1200 B.C.E., quantum computing, and penises up to 6 inches larger on average than indigenous Europeans! The women stood on average 5 feet, 11 inches tall and almost uniformly had measurements we would today recognize as 36-24-36.
And all this came to an end because of European filth, disgrace, and degeneration. How dare you, white eyes? How dare you?!?
"And I thought that the church and state of that time was supposed to be pro-family. I can't see how that woudl apply to breaking up thousands of families."
How can one think that those kids would have been better off with their mind-bogglingly dysfunctional "families"? Of course they would have been better off in state institutions. So the only reasons for leftists to be against the whole thing would be Abo-nationalist reasons (those kids were taken away from their culture). But I thought leftists hated nationalism on principle. Hmm...
And this word family - to me it means a couple raising their biological kids. As we all know, large parts of humanity never developed this particular concept, this particular institution. I kind of doubt that the aborigines would have developed it. "Family", "rights", any number above 2 - wouldn't all those concepts have been introduced to them by the Brits in the first place?
"In Afghanistan, 12 year old girls are often married off to 60 year old men, in tribal marriage ceremonies."
Sadly enough, I also have read about this. A Nat'l Geographic recently had a story about a 12 yr old being forced to marry a 70 yr old man. When she was unable to take care of him, she was sent to a crude prison, and is still there more than a decade later.
In Australia, the poor whites there were disproportionately Irish (although there were a lot of poor English and English convicts sent over too). Poor Irish men would have been considered dregs by white women, but Aboriginal women wouldn't have cared.
The white women in Australia would have been heavily Irish as well.
However, considering its use as a penal colony, I imagine that the male/female ratio would have been pretty high. That would have given all the white men an incentive to cast their eyes at the aborigines.
The "Stolen Generations" concept is premised that the Australian government had a policy of forced removal of half-castes based on racist reasons, i.e. breeding out Blacks.
No one has yet been able to demonstrate this case. There was one notable test case, that of Gunner and Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia.
Gunner and Cubillo were half-caste Aboriginals who were removed by the authorities and sent to children's homes. The court found that this was based on consent and that the assertion that there was a wide spread racist policy of removal was unfounded. The matter was dismissed.
Note arising from evidence:
Further material before the Court casts a different light. The Court was informed that previously Mr. Gunner had made a written statement in which he had said, "My mother wanted to kill me and she wanted to let the ants eat me alive, and apparently my mother's sister was the one that went and got me back from the ants' nest and kept me and grew me up." It was also indicated that Mrs. Dora McLeod, the wife of a station owner, recalled Mr. Gunner's mother, Topsy Kandrilba, saying the baby had on one occasion been put in a rabbit hole to be left to die, and that on another occasion when the baby was unconscious his uncle Jimmy was going to bury him and dug a grave for that purpose. There was also evidence that Mr. Gunner's mother, Topsy Kandrilba, had spoken with welfare authorities for at least a year before she finally agreed to his being educated in a mission.
In the case of Mrs. Cubillo, the Court was informed that she was an orphan whose grand-mother had died and whose aunt had left her. (source)
Andrew Bolt, a well known "conservative" columnist, avowed anti-racist and raging philo-Semite, has an open offer to name just 10 people "stolen" for racist reasons. There has been no success on that front so far. I urge our anons above who assert racist removal policies to demonstrate at least one person stolen for racist reasons.
Mr Bolt is currently being sued as part of a class-action under the Racial Discrimination Act for a column White is the new black where he states "MEET the white face of a new black race - the political Aborigine." I urge you to go this linked article and click on all the linked Irish and English surnames of Aboriginals who you will find are whiter than the average Swedish rape victim.
My own experience can attest that northern "full-blood" Aboriginals despise what they call "Yella Fellas", that is the mostly Sydney or Melbourne Aboriginals that look starkly different to Territorian Aboriginals. I should add that there is a vast difference between say a Kakadu native hunting and burning off the bush and a Sydney Aboriginal subsisting off race based prizes and scholarships. (More modern Aboriginal faces at the link).
Anons linked photos of Aboriginal teeth I also find interesting in that a common Aboriginal initiation (besides penile subincision with oyster shells, which I doubt Sydney and Melbourne Aboriginals would be too happy to try) was to punch out one of the two front teeth.
A missing front tooth indicated a fully initiated man and was the main reason for the Aboriginals encountered by the First Fleet admiring and trusting Gov Phillip who, had a missing front tooth.
Human society often assumes that parents have the best interests of the children at heart...Aborigine children do not need to be protected from Aborigine parents.
Well, there's more than one human society. Most people have noticed that. Anyway, in general parents do act in the best interest of their children. But alcoholics and other drug addicts, they tend to act in the interest of getting their next fix and recovering from the last one. Many people have noticed that as well.
Don't get me wrong. White people have no obligation to keep Aboriginal parents from beating or starving their kids to death. But if every so often they try, it ain't so evil.
I can see the argument that letting selection take its course to weed out alleles that contribute to alcoholism is kinder in the long run. Is that what you would propose?
No to mention at least 100 IQ points smarter! The American aborigines had moon colonies as early as 1200 B.C.E., quantum computing...
And all this came to an end because of European filth, disgrace, and degeneration...
There's this technique, it's called "looking." By looking, one can see how tall another person is, whether or not they have pockmarks, whithered limbs...Even if no one way back when was very good at "looking," there are people today who can "look." They sometimes do this to old bones.
We know the vast bulk of disease exchange was from Old to New World. How would people who had never been exposed to smallpox have pockmarks from it, or people never exposed to polio have gimpy limbs caused by polio?
"...sensitive 21st Century [fill_in_the_blank] are better at feeling superior to their ancestors than at actually solving the problems that their ancestors confronted."
Brilliant observation, Steve. Please don't tire of repeating it.
Pat Hannigan
Those Andrew Bolt links are really quite something.
They make me think of the Crocodile Dundee films. Where, Crocodile Dundee, who appears to be a white man, has all these strange mystical powers from his aboriginal ancestors. Like that time he hypnotised an ox by staring at it, making a humming sound and twiddling his fingers.
I had no idea that this was actually a reality and that Melbourne and Sydney have many white men who are actually aborogines, who like Crocodile Dundee, have mysterious powers that enable them to get grants and preferential treatment and are able to convince other people that they are an oppressed minority.
Australia, truly is an upside down world.
Yes, it's a land of primordial mysteries that's for sure Whinging Pom.
Many people have been labouring under the misapprehension that Trugannini was the last of the Tasmanian Aboriginals yet, even today her ancestors live on. Take one Michael Mansell for instance, carrying on the ancient traditions of Aboriginal lawyer and activist.
Many people confuse Michael with the famous English F1 racing car driver Nigel Mansell but, take another look at Trugannini's and Michael Mansell's pics, side by side, and you'll see the uncanny resemblance.
Mr. Sailer has strong libertarian views
Which Mr. Sailer are you referring to, WayneJ? Surely not our host.
Carleton Coon, in Races of the World, devotes some special words to the Australian Aboriginals. Although black, and resembling Negroid Africans, they were not "Negroes" -- respecptable word used for sub-Saharan blacks before 1968 or so. Their genes are different, and they have (like the Indians (dot kind), less genes for melanin. The meaning of that for mixed-race is that an Aboriginal look "bred out" surprisingly fast. Coon has pictures of half-Aborignals he thought looked just about white. They really did tend to turn out much light than expected. Also, their bone structure is Caucasoid, not Negroid.
And this word family - to me it means a couple raising their biological kids. As we all know, large parts of humanity never developed this particular concept, this particular institution. I kind of doubt that the aborigines would have developed
You are speaking of the monogamous nuclear family, which is just one type of family, and largely a Greek and pre-Islamic Middle Eastern innovation.
I'll admit that I have no knowledge of the family dynamics of traditional Aborigine society. Maybe someone who does, can add to this discussion.
Anonymous: I'll admit that I have no knowledge of the family dynamics of traditional Aborigine society.
Perhaps these observations don't generalize beyond the tribes of the interior desert, but here's one account by Jens Bjerre:
The basis of the Aborigines' family system is extraordinary. Before trying to comprehend their patterns of marriage and family relationships, one must exclude from one's mind our own familiar conception of such relationships which are, of course, based upon consanguinity. The fundamental difference is caused by the fact that the Aborigines do not regard children as simply the result of sexual intercourse, but as spirits appearing yet again in a process of reincarnation. Their communities are not made up in our sense of families related by blood, but by groups and sub-groups formally distinguished by the different ways in which they pronounce the names of the individuals within their groups. The child's name is given according to the group or subgroup to which its mother and father belong. Its given name, moreover, subsequently determines which members of the group or sub-group are possible marriage partners for the children. The syllables of these basic names are capable of numerous arrangements as elaborate as a complicated game of patience. The child's name provides, so to speak, the child's permanent identity disc within the group relationship. When we use the word 'father' we mean our actual parental father. The corresponding word in the Aborigines' language does not, however, signify one man, but several, the others all being members of the group to which the 'real' father belongs. All the members of the main group, similarly, are regarded as brothers though they are not related by blood. The son or daughter of any one of them calls them all 'father'. It is easy to see how there emerge from this habit such paradoxes as that a man may sometimes be older than one of his 'fathers'. Or, similarly, that a child may call his real father, 'uncle'. […]
The logical result of these automatic procedures is that no form of marriage ceremony exists among the Aborigines. A girl belongs to her husband as much in her early childhood as later when he makes her his real wife. These family relationships sound elaborately confusing to us and appear to involve flights into higher mathematics; but ask a little Aborigine about his present and future family identity and he can at once point out and name all uncles, aunts, in-laws and possible wives; further, he can tell the names of all his future children and to whom these will probably be married!
" I can't see how that woudl apply to breaking up thousands of families."
As other commenters have pointed out, the definition of family here is problematic. Anthropology and history now give us revisionist Garden of Eden accounts of pre-colonial 'communities' which cannot be trusted. But what I have actually witnessed is full bloods as recently as thirty years ago defecating on the move as if this was the most natural thing in the world. (And, yes, I guess it is, but still.) Lynn posits the average IQ as in the seventies. Almost all eloquent 'community' spokesmen are mixed race Aborigines to this day, so we are talking about serious difficulties even achieving empathy in the literal sense of the word.
I guess assimilation was always going to fizzle out even without prohibition as options improved for the settlers. It's just fortunate for some Australians that sexual 'busing' was not contemplated in the 1960's. Urggh.
Many people have been labouring under the misapprehension that Trugannini was the last of the Tasmanian Aboriginals yet, even today her ancestors live on. Take one Michael Mansell for instance, carrying on the ancient traditions of Aboriginal lawyer and activist.
I think you meant descendants there mate. Or is this some weird non-linear dreamtime thing going on?
No doubting the similarity between Nigel and Michael. Is it possible they are actually related in some way?
I once met an Australian girl, blonde haired, blue eyed, straight nose delicate features with a German surname.
On a visit to some a Roman arcaheological site in Britain she made some joke about it not really mattering to her, they werent her ancestors.
When challenged she didnt even attempt to claim aboriginal ancestry of which I guess she had roughly - none.
Of course she could have just said that she was German but somehow I dont think thats what she was trying to imply ie that she was 'Australian' some wholly new ethnic group.
Are Asian features dominant or recessive? I get the sense that it's not as dominant as African features, but not as recessive as Amerindian features either.
Anyone know?
"Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?"
Because originally, when Australia was a penal colony the prisoners where largely Irish and white women were virtually unknown.
"Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an Irish origin?"
You could also ask "Why do so many of the White-Aboriginal mixes have an English origin?" and the answer is that many Australians have an Irish or English ancestry (got it right that time ;-)
Surnames like:
Cathy Freeman
Anthony Mundine (and all the various Mundine Aboriginal activists)
Noel Pearson
Patrick Dodson
The afore mentioned Michael Mansell
all these are English derived surnames worn by famous Australian Aboriginals.
Contrary to popular notions of themselves, the English enjoyed sexual relations with the native population every bit as much as the Irish did. I know this will rock American anglophilic sensibilities but the facts remain. Your people are just as susceptible to base desires, wants and needs as the rest of mere humanity.
I assure you that I only present these facts to gently lever those anglophiles in this thread into the real world and not to simply scandalise this forum.
Where the hell have I landed ? I need to go bleach my eyeballs.
Post a Comment