The best description of culture and one which gives an unintended nod to our view that economics underpinning it comes from the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. We were critical of the Liberal Elite and their stupidity in not really understanding why in modern Britain we have people with a temperament and opinions which cut across the freedom and humanity we have created in the west over the last five hundred years but which we are now quickly undermining.
In the Parekh report culture is described as “The habits of mind, the intellectual-reflexes and the professional sensibilities which are historically ingrained and typical of the behaviour of a particular group of people…the unconscious understanding and assumptions concerning politics, social life and justice”.
This report seems to understand the right things and offered the hope that there would be a greater understanding of why for example anti Semitism exists in the Labour Party or why certain groups take a biblical view of adultery as a “crime”. However, it didn’t deliver what it promised. The reason seems simple to us. Firstly it has no idea where culture comes from. We at Blue Revolution know culture comes from the economic realities of life all over the planet and at various historical periods. And secondly, the report seems to have enshrined within it a belief that moral relativism and liberal bureaucracy are somehow vectors for change amongst various immigrant communities. We have seen that in too many situations this integration just hasn’t happened.
The reasons are simple. Traditional values hark back to an area (Pakistan for example)or an era (7th century Arabia) where rigid values around gender etc helped to preserve society. In the modern free market not only is there no need for rigidity around what is acceptable behaviour for men and women and what is not but the free market itself throws up many moral challenges to people of all faiths and many of no faith.
The solution to the problem of lack of integration and tolerance of western values is therefore very simple. Accept that western culture is in many ways appalling and also acknowledge why some people of faith harbour intolerant views about the legitimate behaviour of others……and don’t shy away from the debate!
The liberal elite; those custodians of our two party state and binary Parliamentary system have come in for a rough time recently. It’s been one disaster after another with the most recent being the inability of most of them to call the recent General Election result. The binary two party system with its fetishizing of adversarial politics has started to fail because it is reliant on promoting tribal self-interest underpinned by a docile and obliging population encouraged to see the benefits of buying into the benign state idea but only as long as the “State” works for them. The British Broadcasting Corporation colludes shamelessly with the political party elites and far from swerving allegations of “bias” actively promote bias against new entrants to the political system. They are allowed to do this by the absence of law preventing it, we presume to encourage “strong” government.
Unfortunately, they are naive to think this is the right way of doing politics in the 21st century. In a socially engineered pluralist and diverse nation shoehorning opinion into two camps creates the very environment for apathy and the slogan politics so loved of the hard left and far right. It leaves most people feeling angry and un represented but no one from moderate left or right will challenge it or the right of public bodies like the BBC to promote it with their lazy “reductive polarities” masquerading as debate. It won’t be challenged because huge party political bureaucracies will decline and with their decline will decline opportunities for lobbying, promoting vested interests and the maintenance of the self-interest of politicians themselves. Just like UKIP has declined so would the Labour Party and Tories if the paradigm was to be broken, as of course, it should be. It is clearly time for a change.
So that is the nieve bit. The belief by the elite that the Westminster or Washington political machine an essentially 18th-century systems still work for the benefit of the many, not the few. Of course, it works after a fashion, but only for them! The many find themselves paying for the few and that few includes Corbyn’s Labour party. So what about stupidity?
Well, having created a diverse cultural community which in some social and economic contexts has worked against the interests of the indigenous working classes and moreover having done it within a collapsing or indeed collapsed capitalist system, the liberal elite has allowed a new type of business environment to develop, the post industrial “free market”. This new business model relies on indebtedness to create wealthy people via mass consumption by poorer people plus bogus state investment like HS2, mass housing, welfare etc. The state itself, of course, spends billions on maintaining its own army of £100K+ consumers both employed and retired. All This government spending or waste is of course paid for by tax payers and their children’s children. The economics are bad enough but the morality which goes with this system blows a great big hole in any notion of moral convergence towards a liberal moral consensus. It promotes the sale of immorality as a fashion accessory. However, to avoid the calamity of moral conflict, moral relativism comes to the rescue for the liberal elite. They thus ignore people with appalling moral ideas that would if heard offend them, they simply don’t ask the questions.
In the world of the “stupid” liberal elite, no one considers the implications of a planet gobbling free market commodifying everything for consumption including families, relationships, even peoples genitalia on porn channels is marketed aggressively. TV shows like “Love Island” or “Naked Attraction” become a good recruitment film for domestic ISIS sympathisers. As abroad ISIS struggle to maintain their “rubble” age culture they see that we in the west are morally no better than them. But they would satisfy themselves that there is religiously sanctioned male authority underpinning their abuse, as opposed to the moral free for all that reflects our low moral “free market” standards. They recognise the extent of the excrement of western civilisation in a way we can’t and rather than see our Shakespeare and Mozart as reference points for Western culture they see only our “shame” and they, of course, believe they have the answer to our shame and sinfulness.
To the stupid liberal elite, all this is Ok. People can be free to waste their hard borrowed money on consumer tatt whilst the elite cream off our debt as income and lord it over the increasingly impoverished masses. The stupid elite doesn’t see that the middle, lower middle and working classes are in decline as more of them through indebtedness and paying for education and “care” morph imperceptibly into the new pauper class, the now fabled underclass. The underclass is a horrible term for a class created by the political elite from industrial and agricultural workers who had their jobs exported and class consciousness undermined. Debt and the immorality funded by debt, plus the underclass funded by welfare offends many who are religious or observant. Drunk feral women for example, or drunk feral men not only outrage public decency they are a rallying point for the demand for a new strict moral framework that advocates sanctions which are not only pre industrial they are almost pre Biblical. But the stupid elite doesn’t see that. They turn a blind eye and keep on forking out taxpayers cash to maintain demand and GDP.
The state of western culture may explain the casual way a few second and third generation immigrants of perhaps Pakistani or North African descent in 21st century Britain will refer to stonings and amputations as a way of tackling these essentially “moral” social problems. To the Elite the underclass is a class in need of health care and welfare to the intolerant religious bigot they are an irrelevant social nuisance, a nuisance to be controlled or eradicated. When confronted by the reality of their underclass the liberal elite quickly move on. No Tim Farron type interrogations of the Muslim faithful from them. It might prove them to have been at best nieve and at worst stupid, creating their “diversity” and then tolerating sexual and racial discrimination within that diversity and finally giving up any notion they understand the social and political environment they have created.
And that brings us nicely to evil. Is any of this, as the lawyers would say, done with intent. Well, much of it is, unfortunately. The liberal elite will avoid any “narrative” that would question the legitimacy of the Saudi’s to buy our weapons whilst promoting with their savage technological feudal system; stonings, crucifixions and beheadings. They also know that it is the poor and increasingly the middle classes who are getting into debt either by themselves or with the connivance of the state. We have seen wars and financial crises but one thing is always clear, once debt is monetized in the hands of the wealthy it becomes their passport to a new life, a life in a sunny part of the world where morality might be strict, and far away from “Love Island” and the workless underclass but where wealth buys privilege for those who can behave themselves and can afford it. Think Blair et al.
Within our western culture, the elite is slowly bankrupting us, undermining our values with welfare and a lack of proper economically valuable employment or valuable social employment, destroying our planet and creating a political environment that could herald a return to discrimination, hatred and fear via polararised debate. When it happens, when the western hegemony collapses, the rich and their elites will abandon us to what ever fate befalls our once hardworking, decent and tolerant culture. Nieve stupid or evil? Probably all three.
The western world has morphed from a capitalist hegemony into a so-called free market. The transition began after World War two and culminated we believe in the final collapse of capitalism in the 1980’s. The legacy of the West’s capitalist past remains its economic and legal vestiges of contract, choice and consent which whilst granting freedoms also, underpin the growth through debt obsessed ‘free market, the new hegemony of the free world. This debt based free market is the basis for the West’s managed decline. A sad declining world where we are not alienated from our human essence by the capitalist means of production, that went east decades ago, but by our personal obsessions be they consumption, sex or dreams of celebrity. Whilst this is alienation, Marx would have recognised few of the symptoms and none of the cause.
Young people on the continent riot with flags that proclaim “we are fucking angry”. But we don’t really understand what they are angry about. They seem troubled by what they call Capitalism but whilst now gone this system gave them the free market, freedom and democracy and the right to be a woman and equal to a man or gay or transgendered and free. Arguably the West’s hegemonic structures such as the IMF, governments and banking system etc ensure that there is a ready supply of largely valueless wealth to slosh around the globe ensuring that the decline of the West will be almost imperceptible to the naked eye so no need to panic and riot.
The bankers and the elite will, of course, take a generous slice of this valueless debt based wealth and will ensure their survival in some middle eastern kingdom once the global system finally forecloses on the western world’s largesse. At that point, it will be time to riot but it will be too late all the freedoms the rioting youth currently enjoy will be gone and a morality which is coherent with crisis and shortages and anger will replace them, something like fascism or Sharia perhaps.
The rioting youth need to understand that the basic factors that underpin our so called western values are economic not just social of theological. The engine of the economy drives values which over time take on a social character and become’culture’. Once the economic fundamentals are gone, in our case capitalism has gone and the free market is bankrupt and will be going so, the rights and freedoms those systems offer will go too. Unless we seek to understand where they come from and preserve them.
It is no good rioting when you have freedom and your belly is full and you are the beneficiary of a system you claim to hate, a system which puts the individual in the west above the rest. Change the system peacefully or as Marx would have said ‘raise your consciousness’ and don’t wait too long to do it. You might end up rioting for your life or find yourself being treated like a woman or man as defined by someone else.
So if the Islamic paradigm is twisting in the wind all over the middle east, (except in Saudi where money keeps it going) and the West is facing nemesis for its debt based hubris what will a new paradigm look like. Well, quite simply we should live a life of modesty and self-restraint largely unimpeded by an expensive state or exploitation by one group over another. There must be a recognition nay celebration that in post-capitalist times our capitalist legacy has given us freedoms no other culture has had or currently enjoys to the extent we do, and that to preserve our freedoms we must preserve capitalism’s core values and not out of greed or stupidity seek to destroy them.
In the Uk, the Grenfell Tower tragedy has illustrated numerous flaws in our democracy and the tendency of the elites to straighten out the story ahead of the enquiry. The problem with Grenfell is that the actual residents were somewhere down the pecking order when decisions were being made about their block. The experts made decisions that have resulted in a bleak but safe 197o’s tower block being turned into a slightly less bleak death trap. Now is not the time for emotion. But emotion seems to be the order of the day served up by an emotionally promiscuous media.
The Judge who has been identified to head up the Public Enquiry is described as too remote from the victims to be fair and impartial. What the victims want is someone who can emote about the tragedy. Senior Judges leap to the Judge’s defence. The problem here is that the demand for an emotional reaction is as problematic in 21st century Britain as posh Judges being seen as remote because they are posh. With the establishment and their 18th-century institutions unable to adapt so that ordinary people can prosper among them, one-half of the regrettable binary which seems to unite the muddle-headed supporters of the left is emotion. Emotion versus rationality. The ’emotional’ is the key to Corbyn’s success and it explains not only the Tories failure but also how Corbyn can unite Mumsnet, students, hard middle and soft left, public sector workers and luvvies.
The emotional and rationality binary is just another dispiriting binary in modern 21ct century Britain. A binary that includes political left and right as well as Leave and Remain on Brexit, Islamophobia and the observant Muslims fear of secular western culture and it’s corrosive values particularly on issues such as family life and debt based economics. Until we tackle our binary culture and the institutions which support it including the party system, Parliament and Courts we will see emotion moving centre stage and Corbyn’s left with it. Our enlightenment values which triggered our Capitalism and industrialisation and modern cultural identity are in retreat and with them, our rights and freedoms will start to disappear too. In some cities and in some communities for women and Gay people they have gone already.
The western world has progressed from tribalism through to the current “free market” which is an evolved form of capitalism. Capitalism, of course, required the creation of economic value. This economic value is essentially the profit after labour and other costs have been deducted from the sale price. Economic value is necessary whether one is a fan of capitalism or one is a Marxist. For fans of capitalism, the economic value is ‘rightly’ owned by the capitalist making him or her very rich. For the Marxist, the economic value is ‘stolen’ by the capitalist and is rightly the property of the workers. This is where the Marxist axiom “all property is theft” comes from.
The process of capitalism required as we have said before the development of the legal concepts of contract, choice and consent. Over two hundred years or more these legal concepts have taken on a ‘social character’ and are widely understood in the western world to underpin all social rights, equalities and freedoms including women’s rights, rights to ones sexuality and our different types of democracy. However, within the context of capitalism whether one agrees with the way value is distributed or not our freedoms were underpinned by a moral system that created value via production of goods for sale. This productive context has been replaced with the largely amoral ‘free market’ which sells product but doesn’t produce it.
So here is the crux of the problem. The western world has become dependent not on production to create value but by debt to create consumption. The whole thing is geared through various markets which drive the industrialisation of activities from marriage to education to pornography. Some people get very rich as actual production goes on in low wage economies whilst indigenous workers get low wages or welfare for servicing the ‘consumption economy’.
With debt driving consumption and consumption driving the free market the planet is put under increasing strain. There is no balance to this system. Debt based money is easy to come by as the price of assets like housing underpin the debt which then drives the consumption. It will fail again and spectacularly. That is the number one reason why many non-western countries dislike our western culture. They can see it is unsustainable.
Reason number two that there is a widespread dislike of the western world is that the ‘free market’ turns everyone into a tradable commodity. No longer an employee within an economic context based on work and production but a consumer to either consume or be consumed or both. This disassociation makes people lose their humanity and engage in activities that would in any more traditional society be seen as shameful, illegal or immodest.
We used the phrase ‘secularphobia’ to describe the fear of western culture by more traditional people of faith. This secular phobia is really a fear of the free market and its drive to expand consumption with debt. If we don’t find a way to stop the relentless drive for debt based growth our culture of freedom based on contract, choice and consent will end with the inevitable collapse of the free market. With that collapse will end the economic necessity for contract choice and consent will also end and we could find those who perhaps find our culture has no appeal will have the last laugh. What will happen to our western values then. We and we mean the vast majority of middle class, lower middle and working class people could end up being pauperised with a new political elite acting as overlord in a system that owes more to feudalism than democracy. A bit like China today!
Let us just take a few issues. A lack of cultural integration, a debt based economy, an inefficient state sector that is barely democratic, a legal system too elite, remote and expensive for most to access, a political system designed to promote the interests of groups in binary opposition, a criminal justice system that still sees imprisonment as the ultimate sanction irrespective of whether the criminal is a danger to the public, a housing bubble that feeds the economy with debt and services the financial sector whilst relying on immigration and family breakdown to fuel the demand for more housing. A student demographic who can anticipate a form of pauperism as they progress asset-less and debt-burdened into the mid 21st century. We could go on but it is too depressing.
What is needed is a revolution but not the big state oppression promised to the youth by Corbyn. His brand of socialism will not offer the young what they want, freedom, equality and opportunity but more state indebtedness, a lack of freedom in the economy and a perverse array of special pleading that will capture and sustain inequality within Labours various client groups. This is as we have said before largely gender inequality but could conceivably be anti-Semitic or homophobic so large and weird is Labours “big tent”.
The problem for the Tories is that Labours rubbish revolution is the only one in town and whilst he is moving backwards at least Corbyn is moving. The Tories, by contrast, have lost the optimism and vision that saw many of them, quite rightly lead the Brexit campaign on the basis of a global role for Britain in a world crying out for a new form of efficient values based 21s century leadership in a western world full of creaking and expensive post-war bureaucracies, just like the EU run by elites on behalf of elites.
The problems we have highlighted at the top of this post will not go away and those problems will get worse. Labour offers jam tomorrow but at a huge cost to future generations and as we have said there is too much weirdness making a prediction of what Britain might look like under a Labour government impossible to predict. It is possible that Corbyn will become the heir to Blair and we will have a return to the middle ground. But whether it is the middle ground from the Tories or Corbyn or 1970’s socialism from Corbyn, neither are the revolution Britain, the EU and the rest of the western world needs. We need a Blue Revolution to save us from ourselves save us from those who hate us and to save the planet. for more read ABlueRevolution.com.
Complicated but we sensitively pick our way through the issues. But no holds barred. The western world and Islam have totally differing values and expectations and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The western world, shaped by the Enlightenment and then the slow relentless march of progress from feudalism through capitalism to the debt funded and amoral “free market” contrasts with a faith still in many ways wedded to traditional notions of gender, tribe and caste. The “free market” is the response to the collapse of capitalism. It maintains the capitalist systems ability to create wealth and concentrate it into a few lucky hands but it extends the commodification of the proletarian as having only his labour to sell allowing anyone to sell anything about themselves, free of moral restrictions and constraints. The wealth generated by the free market is, unlike its capitalist forerunner, largely debt derived. This makes the free market doubly amoral and utterly dependent on government and taxpayer to maintain it.
This system we call secular western-ism. It is a western hegemonic structure that is promoted by corporations, banks and governments and leads to behaviour that in any other time or place would be seen as utterly intolerable. Whilst in the West we go on carousing and living on a diet of self-interest and greed in places like Saudi Arabia people loose their lives for living like we do in the west unless of course, they are well-connected. This is particularly true for women as in Islam the basic differences are not “class” but gender. Moral relativism fails women as it does not evaluate culture on any moral basis but accepts moral equivalence. However, for us, “class” is more significant than gender and class-based social progress underpins our progress and determines the freedoms we enjoy male or female gay straight or whatever.
Whilst the observant Muslim quietly practices their faith they promote through their devotions and their dress a social structure that has no link to the class based evolution of western culture. The treatment of women in Islam (which is theological in character) represents a period which has not experienced the evolution of women’s rights from male chattel to proletarian in her own right and hence to her liberation from male oppression as a man’s equal in the labour market (whatever the morally relative feminists of the left might argue). This reality affects perceptions and gives rise to what is called “Islamophobia”. Ask any person who has not been schooled in Western liberal guilt what they think of Muslims and all too many will express hostile opinions. For ordinary people particularly women the differences cannot be ignored or argued away with platitudes. The differences are raw and frighten the Western person who has no experience of cultures that practice overt culturally determined control which is gender, or sexuality based.
So what we have is a clash of phobias. Islamophobia versus Secularphobia. The latter being the observant Muslim’s fear of us. And fear our culture they should in its amoral form just as we should fear them their observance of a way of life unreformed by the Enlightenment and capitalism.
It is so sad that up to 100 people have been engulfed in fire.
The community affected is poor multiracial and multicultural and so has no voice. The council’s response betrays the typical reaction of a bureaucracy being defensive and camouflaging responsibility until stories have been straightened out. The lack of emotion from politicians suggests that they have finally mastered “disassociation” the psychological condition which renders ordinary people unworthy of concern or empathy. This is precisely the issue we at Blue Revolution have noted over the last seven years or so.
Politicians unavoidably represent the interests of their party and themselves. The party all too often reflects the interests of a lobby and special interest groups. The parliamentary system provides a framework for this disassociative process. Binary politics makes everyone prone to denounce opposition and makes every politician defensive and quick to condemn others or be condemned. This type of politics works when the binary system reflects the interests of two equally powerful interests groups but those interests (landowners, capitalist, or industrialised workers) no longer exist and whilst the system tries to reflect the needs of ordinary people, ordinary people are now too diverse so it can’t.
Binary politics can’t deal with the complexity of the North Kensington community, it really does not and cannot connect with most of that community with its racial, cultural and class and age-related diverse dimensions. The tower block had been renovated but there was disquiet about the quality of the work by residents. Where were the champions standing up for the ordinary people? There were no champions, experts and politicians seem to have been unconcerned about the safety of the tower block and as for our old friend the judiciary is concerned, well who could afford to get them involved. It is the time the politicians stopped propping up their 18th century legal and political systems and an array of other expensive old institutions and started to listen to and empower ordinary people. Only then will people feel heard and safe and behave like active participants in the features of their lives that most affect them. This is the antidote to an obvious growing public anger.
It is so hard to explain the real nature of the conflict between Islam and the Western world as the liberal sensibilities of the elite render the issue too fraught with potential allegations of discrimination. Any critical comment about Islam is thus stifled to the point where western values are set aside in a desperate attempt to avoid perceptions of racism. When criminals use Islam to justify their criminality be it terrorism or sexual abuse of children the only acceptable response for the brainwashed western liberal is “it is nothing to do with Islam”. But of course it is and at the same time, it doesn’t have to be. We have seen the effects of the liberal establishment ignoring abuse because of fear of being labelled Islamaphobic and whilst it is pathetic the costs to the vulnerable are real. So we will explain our position again.
Firstly the Koran is a book that prescribes a lifestyle which is at best hostile to some western behaviours, for example, homosexuality and sexual freedom for women and at worst is brutal in its treatment of transgressors. But the Old Testament and certain parts of the New Testament suggest that the Bible has pretty much the same values. So like a loaded gun, the books themselves are neutral. They both contain authority and prescribe and proscribe behaviours. What makes the books, like the loaded gun, dangerous is the mind of the person who uses the book or wields the gun.
In the case of the West, the mindset of the European and those countries that were influenced by the West experienced firstly enlightened thinking in the 16th and 17th century and then capitalism and finally industrialisation. These phenomenal changes took received wisdom and put it into a historical dustbin. The idea began that people had economic rights, the right to contract to choose and consent which eventually took on a social character and arising from this we have liberal and freethinking democratic people who can put the tenets of their faith into a liberal framework. This framework recognises the rights of others. The tension with Islam is that too many observant Muslims can’t do this or won’t do it, believing that people have obligations to behave as willed by God. Thus women, Jewish people and Gay people have rights or perhaps no rights that are prescribed and may be not of their choosing.
The issue of terrorism, therefore, is not just about criminal acts of terror, it has to be put into a broader theological context. The question all people of faith should be asked is this, “are you personally able to accept the right of others to have a lifestyle that they want to have, be that a Gay lifestyle or to be sexually liberated as a woman or to believe in a faith other than your faith”. A question like this should be asked of all people who profess faith and hold public office (not just Tim Farron) to confirm that the liberating effects of Western culture has left its imprint on them and they are not colluding with or encouraging discrimination of any kind and perhaps inadvertently fueling crime in the name of religion.
It was undoubtedly the young, the mums and the returnicks from UKIP who collectively swung the vote for Labour and did for the Tories. The Tories and we mean the whole Parliamentary party have no-one to blame but themselves. Rather than have a charismatic male or female leader, the other charismatic males and one female agreed to have Theresa May lead them, thus avoiding a contest for leadership involving another ego driven charismatic. They knew her and rather than have say, Boris Johnson, or Andria Leadsome, they turned a blind eye to Theresa Mays obvious campaign failings and now they are paying the price, and so potentially is the country.
It has allowed Jeremy Corbyn to go all virtue signalling and economically illiterate on electors and they have lapped it up. However, the politics of Jeremy Corbyn are half-baked, and in his case half understood, ideas plucked from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) combined with a desire to survive fractious and sometimes dangerous hard left Islington politics by ‘sort of’ agreeing with every nut job on the left wing, but over a “nice cup of tea”.
Jeremy Corbyn is an ideological lightweight but can ‘work’ a crowd. This is particularly so if the crowd is made up of people with a feeling of entitlement to ‘state’ money. He is a kind of old, grey Arianna Grande of politics. People love to be seen supporting him and he has done the Labour party proud, as you can sense from the amount of ejaculate issuing forth from the now grateful Blairites. However whilst Corbyn may have learnt how to survive Islington politics, when the Borough was (and may still be) home to the headquarters of an array of global militants and ‘people’s armies’, all hell bent on suppressing women, killing Jewish people, blowing people up, his style of politics hides the reality that these people have moved mainstream into the Labour Party. Just look at the threats and trolling!
Jeremy Corbyn’s style of politics hides the reality from people because the pacifist he was and is, would cause him to listen to them ‘non-judgmentally’ and in a spirit of agreement and thus he would not be able to disagree, possibly out of fear. The fact that people like this have moved into the mainstream Labour Party and yet are invisible to the Mumsnet voter who only sees Blairism with a cuddly old fuddy-duddy face promising them money for poor people, is truly frightening.
Corbyn’s handlers present him as a harmless old geezer with a bunch of Blairites as a party. This is not what the Corbyn Labour party is about. It has a mainstream party membership generally confused about their identity but with a Marxist-Leninist establishment steering the Corbyn bandwagon to victory. It is so desperate for members it doesn’t know who is a member or what they believe.
Labour Party core values have been disposed of in the Bureaucratic proto Marxist-Leninist hell-hole that is Corbyn’s Labour. “Of course, we will talk to men who beat women and exclude them from local councils, and support gender segregation”. “Yes, of course, we will talk to violent thugs who hate the West and its values, we don’t like capitalism either”! Yes, of course, we will talk to those who would persecute or even kill Gay people or Jewish people, or suppress assertive females, but please please let’s do it over a nice cup of tea”! You could make this stuff up but you don’t need to.