Hatecrime equals Thoughtcrime
Mark Lond | 08.06.2003 23:31
Hatecrime equals Thoughtcrime
Mark Lond writes about the assault on the ancient European concept of "free speech".
The phrase 'thoughtcrime' was made used in George Orwell's famous novel, 1984 which was published in 1949. Everyone has heard of this book and the terms used in it, such as 'Big Brother', 'thoughtcrime', 'Room 101', even if they haven't read it. In 1984, Orwell imagined a dark, sombre postwar world where people were imprisoned as punishment for speaking out against the ideology of the ruling party and distributing subversive literature that questioned the ideology put out by 'the state'. In other words, denial of freedom of speech. We can all imagine the scene- young armies of secret police in shiny uniforms and shiny boots, marching into the homes of dissidents and arresting them for their 'thoughtcrimes'. The idea is shocking to us all- but ironically, the very same people who recognise the Orwellian nightmare are willing to turn on their television and believe 'anti-racist' propaganda from the BBC, subtlety disguised as 'news'. The truth is, thoughtcrime is here with us today in the guise of 'anti-racism', 'anti-fascism'. Instead of being implemented by the Jack-boot police, it comes from a nice young lady with a big smile, so we won't notice.
Freedom of speech an ancient tradition
For our younger readers educated under the rule of Tony Blair, who may be unfamiliar with the concept of freedom of speech and free thought, it has always been a British tradition that a man has an ultimate right to express his beliefs without fear of arrest or persecution, even if those beliefs do not conform to what New Labour defines as 'acceptable'. This long-held belief has now been shelved ,with the introduction of New Labour's legislation that makes 'Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred' a crime. This legislation was rushed through in a desperate response to inter-racial hostility fuelled by the uncontrolled influx of 'Asylum-seekers'. The message behind this piece of disaster-management legislation was clear- if white British people refuse to bow down and accept with open arms the Moslem invasion of our country, they will be forced to do so. Any resistance from the BNP to save our culture and identity would have to be crushed, hence the laws making 'incitement to racial and religious hatred' a criminal offence. And this is where the thoughtcrime comes in- you see, the offence of 'Inciting Racial and Religious Hatred' implies that it is a crime to hate someone on the basis of their race or religion, in the same way that 'Incitement to Murder' is a crime. The difference is that if someone has been incited to hate someone because of their race or religion, there is actually no victim! Of course if someone was actually attacked and injured as a consequence of incitement that would be a separate crime, but Incitement to Racial/Religious hatred on its own is not a real crime- it is a thoughtcrime, which occurs only in the mind of the person thinking it! Apparently no-one in parliament seems to have spotted this one.
Dissident Gaoled in Scotland
This is not the fantasy of a conspiracy theorist because it has claimed its first victim, Glasgow BNP member David Wilson, who as I write, is serving a 4-month prison sentence in Glasgow's Barlinnie Prison for distributing a leaflet that criticised Islam. New Labour's totalitarian legislation has effectively 'bullet-proofed' Islamic extremists, allowing them to spread their poisonous messages of evil and hate while decent white British people have to be 'tolerant'. What has happened to David now is surely just the thin end of the wedge and a taste of what is to come in future as the liberal elite try their best to turn Britain into a third-world ghetto, against the wishes of the British people. As more people decide to stand up and state the truth about what they see with their own eyes, more people will be locked up for dissent.
So where does this leave those clichés that we hear constantly about 'hatecrime' and 'racism'? Well for a start, there is no legal definition of these words- the actual definitions are left 'flexible' so they can be twisted into any potential story that implies that all white people are evil and tyrannical, while all ethnics are law-abiding victims of 'white racism', who cannot do any wrong because they are 'victims'. There are too many examples to go into here but a prime example is the way that white murder victims like Gavin Hopley, murdered in 2002 by an Asian gang in Oldham, are merely victims of 'everyday' crime that is not worth reporting, while any black man (e.g. Stephen Lawrence) murdered by a white men in 1992, automatically qualifies as a victim of 'hatecrime' and 'white' racism', and therefore is guaranteed a frenzy of media hysteria on television and can even get a sports centre named after him because he is regarded as a 'martyr'.
All victims of crime suffer
Now don't get me wrong- crime against anyone of any race is wrong. But here's the problem- the only person who really knows if a crime qualifies as a 'hatecrime' is the person who commits it, and more often than not the motives are never 'black and white'. For example, is a fight between a white gang and an ethnic gang a hatecrime? Or is it mainly because the gangs are simply rival gangs? More importantly, does it matter? If a white man is mugged by a black man for his mobile phone, how does anyone know that it was not a 'hatecrime'? If the black man wants to mug someone for their mobile, and chooses to choose a white man as his victim rather than one of his own 'brothers', is that a hatecrime? Anyone who is expected to pass judgement on whether such crimes are racially motivated will always be in the dark, since unless you are a mind reader, it is impossible to look inside someone's head for a little label that says 'this is a racist brain'. This is not a trivial point, because racially motivated crimes receive much harsher punishment than 'ordinary crimes'- part of the sentence is a punishment for the crime, the other part is punishment for being a 'racist', a crime considered by many in the liberal establishment to be worse than 'real' crime. A far better and less 'Big Brother' approach would be to judge crimes such as assaults and muggings as they used to be judged before political correctness reared it's ugly head, i.e. make judgments based on the physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence laid before the jury.
So much for 'hatecrime', what about 'racism'? In British law, racism is not actually a crime- yet. To be wary of somebody because of their race does not actually hurt anyone- it is a remnant from our biological roots when humans, being social animals, had to stick together with others of their own kind to survive. It also comes from the natural instinct to feel closest to those who are biologically closest to us- our families-and when someone is living in a homogenous racial culture, they unconsciously feel that they are living in part of a large extended family. 'Racism' is an attitude that exists only in the mind, like love or anger. Like I said, there is no legal definition of what is 'racist'-it can be used as a stick to use against any nationalist who is winning an argument against a liberal! In fact, the only way to tell if someone is 'racist' is by getting them to confess by interrogation and bullying, not necessarily physical. If you think it will never happen in Blair's Britain- just wait and see!
Political Correctness
If like me, you ever wondered where the monster of political correctness came from, then the best article I have seen on this is 'The origins of political correctness' by Bill Lind of the Free Congress Foundation in America (1).
He says...
"Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well qualified, the white student is expropriated..."
The same Marxist principle of subdividing society into 'good' and 'evil' groups applies to subdividing crimes into those that are 'justified' because they are favourites amongst ethnic minority communities (drug dealing, streetcrime etc) and those that are simply evil personified, ie 'hatecrime' and 'racism'. The media has always tried to give the impression that 'hatecrime' is something evil that white people inflict upon non-whites, but nothing could be further from the truth. According to Home Office figures, two-thirds of all racist attacks are actually carried out against white people, by non-whites. Of course, this is never mentioned when 'racism' is discussed!
The solution
I once heard on the television that most mobile phone thefts are committed by black men but the ethnic origin of those involved is impossible to obtain on the internet, because the ethnicity of those involved in 'ordinary' crimes is not recorded. Most white people are so used to the idea of being terrorised and attacked by ethnic criminals, it has probably never even occurred to them that the mugging or the beating is actually a 'hatecrime', because most of them have themselves probably been indoctrinated by the tide of 'multicultural' propaganda in the media. If we lived in a truly free country, the race of criminals and victims for all crimes would be freely available via the internet, and we could then look at the figures ourselves and make our own judgments. However, under New Labour we are not allowed to think for ourselves - we have to be told which side to cheer for.
I do believe however that there is a solution to all this that treats British people with the respect that we deserve, rather than as a class of naughty schoolchildren. We are all quite capable of looking at tables of crime figures on the internet and drawing our own conclusions, so why not give an ethnic breakdown of criminals and victims for all crimes and let us decide for ourselves from these tables if any particular ethnic groups are to blame for the muggings, the drug dealing, the car theft etc that has become endemic in our towns and cities? If you want to see an example of such crime tables, check out the crime figures for London (2).
So what has this got to do with the concept of thoughtcrime? The concept of 'Racism' comes from the agenda of political correctness (1), which is designed to forcibly take power from Western societies and give it away to third-world cultures such as Islam. Because people can see for themselves that practice of political correctness is illogical, repressive and brutal, the only way it can be enforced on people is by totalitarian laws that are designed to suppress freedom of expression on matters of race, by making it a 'thoughtcrime' to challenge the cosy liberal consensus on race. Anyone who does so is a 'racist' of course.
Making up our own minds
'Hatecrime' is a term designed to prevent us from looking objectively at the subject of crime committed by non-whites. If we were able to view all crime figures by ethnic breakdown on the internet and draw our own conclusions about the presence of evil in the ethnic minority communities by rational, even-handed analysis , the resulting newspaper headlines would probably destroy once and for all the myth that there is no such thing as a 'race of criminals'. The only way to artificially redress the balance is to invent a category of crime that by definition, only white people can be found guilty of- i.e. 'hatecrime'. Of course, this so-called 'crime' is designated to be morally worse than drug dealing, GBH and murder. Today if a white man should dare refer to a black man as a 'nigger' he will probably lose his job, his career and his life will be ruined, not because of something he did, but for something he said or rather, for something that he was shown to be thinking by referring to a black man as a 'nigger'. And NO - a plea of being drunk or on drugs will not get you off this one! Neither will reciting the old maxim that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". The distinction between what is a real crime and what is merely rudeness and bad manners is being eroded and British society is on a downhill slide because of it. If you think I am exaggerating, I will leave you with a quote from the surreally named Commander Cressida Dick (3), head of the Metropolitan Police Diversity Directorate (I can assure you it is not April the first!):
Commander Cressida Dick, head of the Diversity Directorate, said: "The Met is committed to cutting out hate crime and unmasking domestic violence offenders in the streets and in the home. People should not have to go through life being subjected to abuse because of who they are or what they believe in. We want the offenders who hate, hurt and harm others to know the Met will do everything in its power to find them out and put a stop to their crime. "'Cut Out Hate Crime' and 'Unmask the Abuser' adverts will appear in newspapers and in a number of gay, ethnic and disabled press titles, and on the Underground. There will also be a hate crime and domestic violence radio campaign as well as posters appearing on washroom panels, the underground, and on some trains.
And there was me thinking that it was the job of the police to go out and catch criminals. Perhaps Commander Dick is one of the named minorities himself. Anyway, things have certainly changed since we used to watch 'The Sweeney' on television. If only George Orwell were still alive!
References
1) The origins of political correctness Bill Lind
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm
2) Metropolitan Police home page
http://www.met.police.uk/index.shtml
3) Metropolitan Police Hate Crime Page
http://www.met.police.uk/publicity/hatecrime.htm
Mark Lond writes about the assault on the ancient European concept of "free speech".
The phrase 'thoughtcrime' was made used in George Orwell's famous novel, 1984 which was published in 1949. Everyone has heard of this book and the terms used in it, such as 'Big Brother', 'thoughtcrime', 'Room 101', even if they haven't read it. In 1984, Orwell imagined a dark, sombre postwar world where people were imprisoned as punishment for speaking out against the ideology of the ruling party and distributing subversive literature that questioned the ideology put out by 'the state'. In other words, denial of freedom of speech. We can all imagine the scene- young armies of secret police in shiny uniforms and shiny boots, marching into the homes of dissidents and arresting them for their 'thoughtcrimes'. The idea is shocking to us all- but ironically, the very same people who recognise the Orwellian nightmare are willing to turn on their television and believe 'anti-racist' propaganda from the BBC, subtlety disguised as 'news'. The truth is, thoughtcrime is here with us today in the guise of 'anti-racism', 'anti-fascism'. Instead of being implemented by the Jack-boot police, it comes from a nice young lady with a big smile, so we won't notice.
Freedom of speech an ancient tradition
For our younger readers educated under the rule of Tony Blair, who may be unfamiliar with the concept of freedom of speech and free thought, it has always been a British tradition that a man has an ultimate right to express his beliefs without fear of arrest or persecution, even if those beliefs do not conform to what New Labour defines as 'acceptable'. This long-held belief has now been shelved ,with the introduction of New Labour's legislation that makes 'Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred' a crime. This legislation was rushed through in a desperate response to inter-racial hostility fuelled by the uncontrolled influx of 'Asylum-seekers'. The message behind this piece of disaster-management legislation was clear- if white British people refuse to bow down and accept with open arms the Moslem invasion of our country, they will be forced to do so. Any resistance from the BNP to save our culture and identity would have to be crushed, hence the laws making 'incitement to racial and religious hatred' a criminal offence. And this is where the thoughtcrime comes in- you see, the offence of 'Inciting Racial and Religious Hatred' implies that it is a crime to hate someone on the basis of their race or religion, in the same way that 'Incitement to Murder' is a crime. The difference is that if someone has been incited to hate someone because of their race or religion, there is actually no victim! Of course if someone was actually attacked and injured as a consequence of incitement that would be a separate crime, but Incitement to Racial/Religious hatred on its own is not a real crime- it is a thoughtcrime, which occurs only in the mind of the person thinking it! Apparently no-one in parliament seems to have spotted this one.
Dissident Gaoled in Scotland
This is not the fantasy of a conspiracy theorist because it has claimed its first victim, Glasgow BNP member David Wilson, who as I write, is serving a 4-month prison sentence in Glasgow's Barlinnie Prison for distributing a leaflet that criticised Islam. New Labour's totalitarian legislation has effectively 'bullet-proofed' Islamic extremists, allowing them to spread their poisonous messages of evil and hate while decent white British people have to be 'tolerant'. What has happened to David now is surely just the thin end of the wedge and a taste of what is to come in future as the liberal elite try their best to turn Britain into a third-world ghetto, against the wishes of the British people. As more people decide to stand up and state the truth about what they see with their own eyes, more people will be locked up for dissent.
So where does this leave those clichés that we hear constantly about 'hatecrime' and 'racism'? Well for a start, there is no legal definition of these words- the actual definitions are left 'flexible' so they can be twisted into any potential story that implies that all white people are evil and tyrannical, while all ethnics are law-abiding victims of 'white racism', who cannot do any wrong because they are 'victims'. There are too many examples to go into here but a prime example is the way that white murder victims like Gavin Hopley, murdered in 2002 by an Asian gang in Oldham, are merely victims of 'everyday' crime that is not worth reporting, while any black man (e.g. Stephen Lawrence) murdered by a white men in 1992, automatically qualifies as a victim of 'hatecrime' and 'white' racism', and therefore is guaranteed a frenzy of media hysteria on television and can even get a sports centre named after him because he is regarded as a 'martyr'.
All victims of crime suffer
Now don't get me wrong- crime against anyone of any race is wrong. But here's the problem- the only person who really knows if a crime qualifies as a 'hatecrime' is the person who commits it, and more often than not the motives are never 'black and white'. For example, is a fight between a white gang and an ethnic gang a hatecrime? Or is it mainly because the gangs are simply rival gangs? More importantly, does it matter? If a white man is mugged by a black man for his mobile phone, how does anyone know that it was not a 'hatecrime'? If the black man wants to mug someone for their mobile, and chooses to choose a white man as his victim rather than one of his own 'brothers', is that a hatecrime? Anyone who is expected to pass judgement on whether such crimes are racially motivated will always be in the dark, since unless you are a mind reader, it is impossible to look inside someone's head for a little label that says 'this is a racist brain'. This is not a trivial point, because racially motivated crimes receive much harsher punishment than 'ordinary crimes'- part of the sentence is a punishment for the crime, the other part is punishment for being a 'racist', a crime considered by many in the liberal establishment to be worse than 'real' crime. A far better and less 'Big Brother' approach would be to judge crimes such as assaults and muggings as they used to be judged before political correctness reared it's ugly head, i.e. make judgments based on the physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence laid before the jury.
So much for 'hatecrime', what about 'racism'? In British law, racism is not actually a crime- yet. To be wary of somebody because of their race does not actually hurt anyone- it is a remnant from our biological roots when humans, being social animals, had to stick together with others of their own kind to survive. It also comes from the natural instinct to feel closest to those who are biologically closest to us- our families-and when someone is living in a homogenous racial culture, they unconsciously feel that they are living in part of a large extended family. 'Racism' is an attitude that exists only in the mind, like love or anger. Like I said, there is no legal definition of what is 'racist'-it can be used as a stick to use against any nationalist who is winning an argument against a liberal! In fact, the only way to tell if someone is 'racist' is by getting them to confess by interrogation and bullying, not necessarily physical. If you think it will never happen in Blair's Britain- just wait and see!
Political Correctness
If like me, you ever wondered where the monster of political correctness came from, then the best article I have seen on this is 'The origins of political correctness' by Bill Lind of the Free Congress Foundation in America (1).
He says...
"Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well qualified, the white student is expropriated..."
The same Marxist principle of subdividing society into 'good' and 'evil' groups applies to subdividing crimes into those that are 'justified' because they are favourites amongst ethnic minority communities (drug dealing, streetcrime etc) and those that are simply evil personified, ie 'hatecrime' and 'racism'. The media has always tried to give the impression that 'hatecrime' is something evil that white people inflict upon non-whites, but nothing could be further from the truth. According to Home Office figures, two-thirds of all racist attacks are actually carried out against white people, by non-whites. Of course, this is never mentioned when 'racism' is discussed!
The solution
I once heard on the television that most mobile phone thefts are committed by black men but the ethnic origin of those involved is impossible to obtain on the internet, because the ethnicity of those involved in 'ordinary' crimes is not recorded. Most white people are so used to the idea of being terrorised and attacked by ethnic criminals, it has probably never even occurred to them that the mugging or the beating is actually a 'hatecrime', because most of them have themselves probably been indoctrinated by the tide of 'multicultural' propaganda in the media. If we lived in a truly free country, the race of criminals and victims for all crimes would be freely available via the internet, and we could then look at the figures ourselves and make our own judgments. However, under New Labour we are not allowed to think for ourselves - we have to be told which side to cheer for.
I do believe however that there is a solution to all this that treats British people with the respect that we deserve, rather than as a class of naughty schoolchildren. We are all quite capable of looking at tables of crime figures on the internet and drawing our own conclusions, so why not give an ethnic breakdown of criminals and victims for all crimes and let us decide for ourselves from these tables if any particular ethnic groups are to blame for the muggings, the drug dealing, the car theft etc that has become endemic in our towns and cities? If you want to see an example of such crime tables, check out the crime figures for London (2).
So what has this got to do with the concept of thoughtcrime? The concept of 'Racism' comes from the agenda of political correctness (1), which is designed to forcibly take power from Western societies and give it away to third-world cultures such as Islam. Because people can see for themselves that practice of political correctness is illogical, repressive and brutal, the only way it can be enforced on people is by totalitarian laws that are designed to suppress freedom of expression on matters of race, by making it a 'thoughtcrime' to challenge the cosy liberal consensus on race. Anyone who does so is a 'racist' of course.
Making up our own minds
'Hatecrime' is a term designed to prevent us from looking objectively at the subject of crime committed by non-whites. If we were able to view all crime figures by ethnic breakdown on the internet and draw our own conclusions about the presence of evil in the ethnic minority communities by rational, even-handed analysis , the resulting newspaper headlines would probably destroy once and for all the myth that there is no such thing as a 'race of criminals'. The only way to artificially redress the balance is to invent a category of crime that by definition, only white people can be found guilty of- i.e. 'hatecrime'. Of course, this so-called 'crime' is designated to be morally worse than drug dealing, GBH and murder. Today if a white man should dare refer to a black man as a 'nigger' he will probably lose his job, his career and his life will be ruined, not because of something he did, but for something he said or rather, for something that he was shown to be thinking by referring to a black man as a 'nigger'. And NO - a plea of being drunk or on drugs will not get you off this one! Neither will reciting the old maxim that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". The distinction between what is a real crime and what is merely rudeness and bad manners is being eroded and British society is on a downhill slide because of it. If you think I am exaggerating, I will leave you with a quote from the surreally named Commander Cressida Dick (3), head of the Metropolitan Police Diversity Directorate (I can assure you it is not April the first!):
Commander Cressida Dick, head of the Diversity Directorate, said: "The Met is committed to cutting out hate crime and unmasking domestic violence offenders in the streets and in the home. People should not have to go through life being subjected to abuse because of who they are or what they believe in. We want the offenders who hate, hurt and harm others to know the Met will do everything in its power to find them out and put a stop to their crime. "'Cut Out Hate Crime' and 'Unmask the Abuser' adverts will appear in newspapers and in a number of gay, ethnic and disabled press titles, and on the Underground. There will also be a hate crime and domestic violence radio campaign as well as posters appearing on washroom panels, the underground, and on some trains.
And there was me thinking that it was the job of the police to go out and catch criminals. Perhaps Commander Dick is one of the named minorities himself. Anyway, things have certainly changed since we used to watch 'The Sweeney' on television. If only George Orwell were still alive!
References
1) The origins of political correctness Bill Lind
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm 2) Metropolitan Police home page
http://www.met.police.uk/index.shtml 3) Metropolitan Police Hate Crime Page
http://www.met.police.uk/publicity/hatecrime.htm
Mark Lond
