The Blair Way To Heaven
The headline in The Times last week that made me froth a little was:
“Censored: Blair’s links with Rwanda”
Apparently, your friend and mine, Tony Blair has been granted a special constitutional status which no other previous premier has had. This status has led the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to refuse Freedom of Information Act requests to disclose its communications with Tony about Rwanda. Tony denies any commercial interests in Rwanda, and I’m sure that’s true. His involvement is via a registered charity called “The Tony Blair Governance Initiative” which provides mentoring to African leaders, including Rwanda’s premier Paul Kagame. Tony likes Paul, they are big mates, it seems. However, Mr. Kagame has a somewhat dubious reputation when it comes to human rights, operating a sinister security machine with accusations of murder, false charges, unlawful detentions, and plots to assassinate dissidents in the UK. For more detail I commend this post from The Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/04/tony-blair-s-latest-intervention
In the same week, we witnessed a ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill. Two Prime Ministers, two very different men. Could they in any way be comparable? One thing which I would suggest they do have in common is that they were of course skilful orators. I give Blair credit for that. His speech to the US Congress post 9/11 was excellent.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jul/18/iraq.speeches
However, whilst I always regarded Blair as a highly effective public speaker, there is no sense in which he could match the awe-inspiring mastery and delivery of Churchill, particularly in the depths of what seemed to be impending national catastrophe. There are other matters too. One is, of course, that Churchill wrote his own music, so to speak. I think Blair always had a coterie of writers. Another is that a speech from Blair was always like a Chinese meal. You felt full and satisfied for a while, but very soon after you felt a bit empty. Churchill was prime roast beef with all the trimmings.
Blair’s knack was to be all things to all men, to tell people what they wanted to hear, and appear sincere. As the saying goes, “if you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made”; and that was, in essence, Blair summarised. Churchill, on the other hand, was a conviction man. He was willing to speak out about the threat from Germany when it was unfashionable to do so, and to spend time in the political wilderness. Blair honed in on power at all costs like a heat-seeking missile. More, Churchill had seen something of the world as a soldier and a journalist who saw war at first hand. He showed that courage and principle in his indomitable stance when the country seemed doomed to inevitable defeat, and he would have known his fate had the Germans invaded. I read somewhere that only a threatened mutiny by his service chiefs prevented him from actually taking part in the D Day landings.
Blair, of course, has no direct knowledge of such things. He has always remained safely cloistered in the cosy world of the Bar and the Westminster elite. Contemporaneous accounts record Blair’s opposition as a rookie Parliamentary candidate to the Falkland’s War. He was in favour of some unknown “compromise”.
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/blair_on_the_fa.html
He has since changed his tune, and seems to have become enamoured of the whole process of war. Some have speculated that he learned this lesson by the popularity afforded to Margaret Thatcher after that conflict. I suspect it may be part of a more complicated “busy body” complex. But in any event these are not wars where there is any possibility of direct come back on him or his family. I don’t think he felt any real connection with or understanding of the men and women that his governments have asked to fight and bleed and die.
There is a book someone in the muddle of my bedroom called “Apache” by Ed Macy. Macy had been a paratrooper with the goal of making it into Special Forces, until a random accident when he was out training damaged his body too greatly for him to realise his dream. Undeterred, he “blagged” a medical and then ended up in the Army Air Corps, ultimately flying the deadly Apache helicopters in Afghanistan. His job was close air support for the troops on the ground. In short, to kill the Taliban with the wide variety of hugely powerful weapons systems that the helicopters posses, and this he and other such pilots did with aplomb. In the book Macy recounts how one day they got the pleasure of a visit from Blair at Camp Bastion. Blair was thoroughly charming and shook everyone’s hand in proper style, and asked the boys (and girls – there was at least one female pilot) of the squadron what they did. They explained they flew Apaches. Blair said that was great, but made some comment about what wonderful humanitarian work they were doing which made it perfectly plain that he had absolutely no idea what an Apache was, or what their job entailed.
Churchill had a rapport with servicemen. Churchill would have known what an Apache was, and would have been keen to have a brew with the pilots, inspect one, and if possible have a go in one. Again, buried somewhere in a jumble of books are four volumes entitled “A History of the English Speaking Peoples”, by Winston Churchill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_English-Speaking_Peoples
It is a magnificent work, easy to read and digest because of the clarity and precision of its prose. It is the work of a rigorous man who understands the history of his country, and how the values which he defended as a wartime prime minister had come to be forged. These are not, I think, qualities which I would ascribe to Blair, who seems to have a grasp of contemporary media techniques but no grasp at all of his country’s past. This is not to say that Churchill didn’t have his faults and errors of judgment. He could be dogmatic, his military strategies can be criticised, not simply the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
I read somewhere that Churchill once proposed dropping Gas bombs on the Kurds; unfortunate. I recently learned that Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer oversaw Britain’s disastrous return to the Gold Standard, which resulted in deflation, unemployment, and the miners’ strike that led to the General Strike of 1926. In fact, when I thought about writing this post I did wonder if in fact there could be more parallels in qualities. The further I thought about it the less there seemed to me. Blair the great seducer, the persuader, the charmer and the fixer, now with his snout in the trough of shadowy consultancies and back stage deals; Churchill the soldier, the maverick, the ultimate leader in crisis, the man of letters.
No comparison at all. That is why Churchill will always be remembered, and ultimately, Blair will be consigned to the wilderness of ignominy.
Gildas the Monk
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:47 am -
*Blair will be consigned to the wilderness of ignominy.*
I have to admit that I don’t fully understand the rationale behind my loathing for Blair and my contempt for Brown. But both cause me to an anger unmatched by any of the others during my lifetime. If your expectation comes true and is the worse that happens to Blair he will have had quite a result.
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:48 am -
The strange tail of Humphrey , chief mouser to the cabinet office, told me all I needed to know about Tony Blair…and nothing since has led me to revise that first impression.
-
February 4, 2015 at 1:22 pm -
Blair did a lot of harm for the country! Aside the Iraq adventure which cost British and Iraqi lives, he introduced the Human rights act which is a lawyers paradise. Also in the Bosnia wars did we back the right side?
Blair did f all for working people and pandered to special interest groups squandering money left,left and centre!
Steered no doubt by the lovely Zippy.Brown was no better and as for Milliband , prime architect of the Climate Change Act, which is blowing billions down the dunny .
Then there was further integration with the Eu, bend over boys and girls here it comes again.No doubt some of you will disagree with me.
-
February 4, 2015 at 2:15 pm -
… and yet we are told Labour are odds-on to get the most votes. Sheep and woolly-thinking.
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:46 pm -
Well the conservatives haven’t done much either, whilst a lot of working people are suffering the effects of austerity, Dave and his banker chums are still coining it in with huge bonuses. Most people on tax credit or benefit would never vote Consv any way. Additionally the Labour Party changed the parliamentary boundaries to help them so the Tories have to gain a greater number of votes to equal the same number of Labour seats. The Lib Dems are having a lot of trouble as well, having finally got in power the electorate don’t seem impressed.
Ukip can promise a lot , but some of Farages views on the NHS will kill some of his vote— we have health care for everyone in the country , not just those that can afford it.
The Greens have some strange policies which I don’t think are realistic, but they appeal to a section of the electorate and are taking votes of Lib dems and Labour.
That’s the thing people think and feel in different ways so what is an issue for one person is not for another.
Then there is then SNP, desperate to get rid of the rule of Westminster and the English but happy to be part of the Eu , and ruled from Brussels, perhaps it’s the Special Brew that’s got to them.
Me its Monster Raving Looney Party all the way
-
-
-
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:50 am -
I was only watching the 1995 Adam Curtis film The Living Dead the other day that examined Winston Churchill, and then Margaret Thatcher who’s admiration for Churchill and belief in his/her vision of ‘Great Britain’ shaped her reign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu4RymE14xs
That Churchill’s heroism led him into the arms of America, who ensured the UK was effectively bankrupt at the end of WW2 and a shadow of the “power” it had been for hundreds of years was something few wanted to accept. When Maggie took ahold of the mess of a country in the 1970’s, she copied Churchill but fell into the same trap with our wondrous “ally” – most of our industry obsolete, she didn’t realise how unwise deregulating the banks was – until Black Monday.
Her successor tried to fight it but was beaten by the banks (Black Wednesday) – and then New Labour came along.
Tony Bliar used the same formula Churchill mastered (surrounded as he was by experts in ‘media’ like Mandelson & Campbell) and Thatcher lovingly copied (‘strong leader’, ‘of the people’) to sell out what was left of “power” in the UK – including, as we can plainly see, handing our entire political system over to multi-national banks & big business during a meticulously executed ‘Ten Year Plan’. This has left us with what we have today – an illusion of party politics played out by actors whilst society is bled dry, engineered by the upper middle-class socialists who resented the likes of Airey Neave and Margaret Thatcher for NOT being part of their “establishment”; hence the ‘sex abuse’ smears and todays faux-Conservative cartoon demolition-men.-
February 4, 2015 at 10:05 am -
Adam did a good piece in one of his doco’s about Blair being acclaimed as a hero IN THE 1990’s in whichever bit of Yugoslavia he wasn’t bombing at the time and the adulation went straight to his already religiously-inspired head and he decided he was truly annointed by God. In the footage you can see his breast almost visibly swelling with pride.
The reciprocating relationship at states-person level with the US and the UK is quite simple. The US provides the army that allows the British leaders to perpetuate their cultural feeling of World Empire. As far as my D.Day Grandad was concerned the Yanks were overpaid, oversexed and over here and like many of the workers of the UK he had a softer spot for the Russians…
-
February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am -
“Beaten by the banks”.
There’s the history of this country in one phrase, the history of the entire West, in fact.Ever since the Dutch General William Stradholder was engineered onto the throne of England, taking a loan of £1,250,000,
the banksters have been increasing their grip.The terms of this loan:
1) Anonymity for the lenders, & a Charter to establish the Bank of England.
(The banks’ shareholders are anonymous to this day. It is a private Limited Co. It is not owned by the UK people.)2) The Directors of the BOE be granted the legal right to establish the Gold Standard for currency by which –
3) They could make loans to the value of £10 for every £1 value of Gold they held in their vaults on deposit.
( Pretty handsome profit margin :))4) That they be permitted to consolidate the National Debt; and secure payment of amounts due, principal & interest, by direct taxation of the people.
Thus, for the sum of £1,250,000, King William of Orange sold the English people into bondage. That bondage has deepened, year by year, to this day.
Book: Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.
250 page paperback, £20, worth every penny. Published 1955, after 40 years research by this Canadian Intelligence Officer.
It foretells the Jewish/Muslim Middle East conflict, it’s all been planned, & WWIII, which is warming up nicely in Syria, Ukraine & the economic sanctions on Russia. Putin, fortunately, is not playing ball.You think our muppet politicians run anything? They are creatures of the money men, the banksters, who by control of the Main Stream Media, control the zeitgeist, the mood of the times, & thereby control our “democratic” politicians, the populist creatures.
Stony Bliar I would love to see in the dock, accused of War Crimes & Crimes against Humanity.
http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html
Banking Cartel is the Cause of Humanity’s Woes
A June 2002 article.-
February 4, 2015 at 11:14 am -
PS: Carr was a staunch (to be polite) Catholic.
Wherever he writes Jew, mostly read Bankster.ALL divisions, social, religious, national, regional are exploited by the Imperial Banksters, in accord with the timeless Imperial strategy:
Divide & Conquer, Divide & Rule.JD.
-
February 4, 2015 at 11:36 am -
A super little book I have is this one:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519eeWxGHpL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
The dust-cover is brilliant. It is also written by an ex-Military man but he never mentions Jews once, just Americans…-
February 7, 2015 at 7:32 am -
Thanks, Moor, but I believe the Brit Empire marches on, under the banner of the mad US/UK/EU/NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation) Empire.
Who we can’t enslave to debt, we invade, bomb & set up civil wars.
Lots of money in wars, they can only be financed through debts, bearing interest.7 countries we’ve invaded & bombed in the last 13 years, on various lies.
May I recommend: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
&
http://www.paulcraigroberts.orgFrom personal contacts, I never refer to Jews, only to Banksters.
George H W Bush’s father, for example, financed Hitler, & he was Episcopalian.Banksters have allegiance to no religion & no country.
Their creed is profit & control.I reckon you would enjoy & learn from Carr’s book.
All feedback gratefully received.
JD.
-
-
-
February 7, 2015 at 3:55 am -
Sorry, but your story of the Bank of England is just nonsense.
“Dutch General William Stradhouder”? ‘Stadhouder‘ is a title, not a name (usually in English ‘Stadtholder’). William III was effectively head of government in the United Provinces. And of course married to James II (and VII)’s older daughter Mary.
The loan was raised in this way to finance the rebuilding and enlargement of the Royal Navy – after William III had been on the throne for nearly five years – because no-one would lend money to the English government at affordable terms (or even at all). The Bank was founded in 1694.
The Bank of England is not a private company – it was nationalised in 1946, nine years before the book you reference was published. The shareholders are not anonymous. There is only one: the Treasury Solicitor.
The bank did not ‘establish the gold standard’. They were granted a right to issue bank notes. This was common amongst private banks (as previously with notes issued by goldsmiths) until the 1844 Act – that’s why we still have non-BoE notes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Some suggest that this act established the gold standard. Certainly it required the Bank’s notes to be backed by Government securities (to a maximum of GBP15 million) or by bullion deposited. But the notes were convertible to gold/silver coins on demand (as it said explicitly on the notes). This requirement has been suspended by the Government on occasion, such as during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and is no longer the case since Britain left the gold standard in 1931.
“Consolidate the national debt”. I think you have confused the Bank of England with the South Sea Company (of bubble infamy). The Bank did manage the Government’s accounts and was its source of loans to finance spending. It did not “secure payment of amounts due, principal & interest, by direct taxation of the people”.
-
February 7, 2015 at 7:12 am -
Pete, I would suggest you read the book in its entirety.
Also, I recommend you google the following videos:
Bill Still Money Masters 3.5 hrs
&
Bill Still Wizard of Oz, a financial allegory. ~1 hrI just googled “Who owns the Bank of England”. There’re quite a few to choose from. This is instructive:
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/01/who-owns-the-bank-of-england/Have you ever heard of an audit of the BOE? No, nor have I.
The Fed in the US exists on a charter from the BOE, & issues money at interest to the US Treasury.
Why should the US Govt (IE the downtrodden taxpayer) pay 6% interest to a group of private banks for what is essentially a book keeper’s function?The Banksters don’t even have to print the money any more: 97% of “currency” is created as debt, out of thin air, by the click of a mouse.
Only 3% of currency is created as notes & coin.Alan Greenspan admitted that there was no govt agency which was in control of the Fed, which is a group of private banks, answering? only to the BIS in Switzerland, The Bank of International Settlements, the central bankster for central banksters.
Ron Paul (best President the US never had, IMHO) spent 20 of his 23 years as a Texas Senator, trying to secure an audit of the Fed. He Failed. Who’s in control? The muppet politicons, or the banksters?
Back to this country, where the situation is identical, but better hidden. The previous to last time the banksters got themselves in trouble, the Brit govt issued the Bradbury £, issued at no interest, & backed by the credit of the nation. Luckily, WWI chanced along & mucho dinero was made by the banksters. Mysteriously, the £Bradbury disappeared.
2008, the last time the banksters got themselves in stook, despite having the privilege of creating virtually limitless funds out of thin air, for which the technical term is fractional reserve banking, & a more honest description, IMHO, is fraud, our muppet politicons deemed the banks “Too Big To Fail”, & lumped their debts on the backs of future taxpayers. They have enslaved our children & grandchildren to the banksters debts.
To me, this marked the point at which this sad country stopped pretending to be a capitalist democracy & became a fascist oligarchy.
Google: All Wars are bankers wars.
& look into ukcolumn.org, they cover the £Bradbury.JD..
-
February 7, 2015 at 8:03 am -
Pete, I just checked.
Carr refers to plain Mr. William Stradholder being elevated to Captain-General of the Dutch forces.
Not that this detail is important.
JD.
-
-
-
-
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:55 am -
The Duke of Edinburgh wrote a learned paper on Churchill and Gallipoli, which I can’t find online. In essence, Churchill provided conditions that had to be met for the operation to start. The conditions were not met but they started anyway.
-
February 4, 2015 at 11:19 am -
On my book shelves are the 4 volumes of Churchill’s History of the English Peoples; bought for me in 1958. They contain all that an English child needs to know of our history, no matter what their ethnic origin is. I did think of giving them to my grandchildren, but even if they read them they would then be conflicted with everything they are taught in school. Instead, I gave each family a copy of “our Island Story”. They sit on their bookshelves in pristine condition – never opened, let alone read.
-
February 4, 2015 at 11:43 am -
‘…Churchill had seen something of the world…’
Sums it up for me.
For all his faults, real or alleged, he wasn’t informed by focus groups, he’d been there, life at risk.
Reputation at risk too because he had real convictions & wasn’t embarrassed to pursue them even if out of step, or plain wrong.A giant, but a man of his time.
Hard to imagine anybody in politics today being fit to wipe his a**e. -
February 4, 2015 at 1:45 pm -
The difference between Churchill and Blair: Churchill said and did what he believed was right, Blair believed that what he said and did was right.
-
February 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm -
Another difference is that Churchill won his war after five years and failed to be re-elected whilst Blair failed to win his war after five years and was re-elected, demonstrating that War War War beats Jaw Jaw Jaw any day of the week so far as the British are concerned.
-
-
February 4, 2015 at 1:58 pm -
Churchill did what he believed was best for the country; he may not always have been right, but he acted with the right motives. He was prepared to stand alone, as he did during the thirties when disarmament and appeasement was the politics of the day. My father visited Germany many times during this period and used to say that anyone who was willing to open their eyes could see that Germany was preparing for war; Churchill was one of the few who did so. Churchill was never rich and didn’t make money out of politics, it came from his writing.
Blair on the other hand, in my view, did what was right for Blair. Was his enthusiasm for the EU because it was good for the UK or was it because it was good for Blair? Who knows, but I suspect the later. Were all his foreign trips necessary as part of his job, or were they so that he could make contacts for when he resigned as PM? Fortunately someone must have seen through him as he didn’t get the top job in the EU that everyone believes he was expecting, but his other contacts elsewhere have clearly paid off. Unlike Churchill, Blair has become very rich, all on the back of his time as Prime Minister
-
February 4, 2015 at 1:59 pm -
Paul Kagame seems to have been instrumental in ending the Rwandan genocide while the West sat on its hands (judging from the book by the Canadian general in charge of the UN mission at the time), so perhaps it’s not so surprising that Tony should like him. He may be no worse than the Josef who was Winston’s chum for a while.
-
February 4, 2015 at 5:45 pm -
Possibly. But also seems keen on killing enemies of “the State”. But there we go….
-
-
February 4, 2015 at 3:24 pm -
Churchill was motivated by a deep love for his country and all that it stood for. Blair was motivated by power and money.
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:48 pm -
Sounds about right!
-
-
February 4, 2015 at 3:50 pm -
“…However, whilst I always regarded Blair as a highly effective public speaker…”
So, I believe, was one Adolf Hitler.
-
February 4, 2015 at 4:39 pm -
Bliar disgusts me. New Labour digusts me. But Miliband does also. I don’t know what Churchill would have thought, but I can imagine.
But Churchill was also an opportunist – he grandstanded all the time, the Finland crisis (’39-’40) being the best example, which led to the fiasco in Norway. But – Gallipoli was, although a disaster, not one entirely of his making. The myth started by one Keith Murdoch did much to perpetuate the idea that Gallipoli was an Australian battle. In truth, more French soldiers died than anyone else. But they were mainly from W. Africa, so didn’t count.
But Bliar has never had an original idea in his stupid, misshapen little head. Why people pay money to hear him speak is quite beyond me. At the time of the 1997 election, an ancient and prescient cow-whacker (don’t joke – that was his job) was heard by me to say:
“New Labour this year; hard fucking labour next year…”
How right he was. I agreed and bought him a drink…
It’s been shit ever since. What is wrong with the voters? Labour must never govern this country again. Ever.
-
February 4, 2015 at 5:28 pm -
I agree with all of the above – thanks. Just venting!
-
February 4, 2015 at 9:49 pm -
Second that
-
-
February 4, 2015 at 8:22 pm -
Churchill had the serendipity to be absolutely the right person, in the right place, at the right time, and the rest is history – that was his moment, he took it, worked it and now rests with the glorious legacy from it. Was Churchill lucky, or was Britain luckier ?
Blair too arrived on a scene desperate for his skills – he took the Labour Party by the scruff of its chaotic neck and made it multiply electable, by a combination of oratory, threats, message-management, back-stairs scheming, whatever – it worked. Historic baggage was dumped and the voters’ doubts were successfully assuaged, more than once.
Did they both do it for different reasons ? Probably, but we will never truly know what those reasons were. At different levels, we can be thankful for both of them. They both made mistakes, only some were more lastingly serious than others. On balance, I’m a Churchill man, but I can still recognise the positive bits of Blair’s time.
-
February 5, 2015 at 7:24 am -
“I read somewhere that Churchill once proposed dropping Gas bombs on the Kurds; unfortunate. “
He wasn’t referring to ‘poison gas’ though, was he? I thought he meant tear gas.
-
February 5, 2015 at 3:44 pm -
“He wasn’t referring to ‘poison gas’ though, was he? I thought he meant tear gas.”
Nope, he meant poison gas as well as tear gas. Here’s the relevant extract from a 1919 War Office memo that he wrote:“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”
But as others have pointed out, he was a man of his times – plenty of people thought the same way, as shown by existing British military law which stated that the normal rules of war (i.e. gentlemanly conduct, fair play etc) didn’t apply to “uncivilised tribes”. (So Churchill was probably directly referencing that law in the passage above.)
And in the end, no gas of any kind was used, at least according to expert historians; it appears to have been something of any empty threat.
-
-
February 5, 2015 at 11:14 am -
Blair, Blair, 60% air is a quote I heard once. Rather a subtle play on his name. Blair typifies our modern idea of politician image. Grooming the public by good looks, a youthful air of confidence, and a big smile with plenty of teeth displayed. I can honestly say, pre election, I totally distrusted him, and heartily disliked the man. I spent from 1994-2009, when I retired, helping to solve peoples debt problems. I witnessed the total foolishness of Blair and Brown’s money policies, seducing the British public into believing they were onto a good thing . Borrowing money heavily. I lost count of the number of clients who said it was so tempting to be begged to borrow money all the time. Blame Brown? Blame the Bankers and money lenders? Blame the goodies hungry public for falling for the tempting offers? Or blame the politicians? I blame the the scheming politicians, for using easy money to seduce the British public into electing Blair 3 times in a row. Thus inflating his ego. Tripping around the world, alleging he is a peace maker, and not a warmonger.
-
February 5, 2015 at 3:30 pm -
Look simple kid: Have you ever heard about Blackwater? Now the Yankies claimed that those US mercenaries have been in Iraq on their own private doing and that the USA could not be held accountable for their actions – since they act as private people.- Now, for one minute, can you grasp why I am bringing this to your attention when you tell Putin to get out of the Ukraine?– There are no regular Russian troops in the Ukraine. Hence Putin is not responsible what is going on there. At best there are some Russian “Blackwaters” floating around in the Ukraine. Now for godness sake be a bit consistent in your arguments.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }