Drug addled mass murderer Jared Loughner was under the spell of monetary and financial conspiracies interlaced with anti-Christian and anti-American calumnies spun out by cynical leftists wishing to advance the socialist idea of a money-less, resource-based economic system, and other leftist fallacies as old as Marx and Owen. Stacy McCain reports here and here and here.
UPDATE: New information here.
{ 73 comments }
Phase 1: Abolish the monetary system.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: A higher standard of living for everyone!
LOL!
Well, everyone is free to go full-out messianic and alterplanic and there is nothing wrong with Tai Chi and A Scanner Darkly (and Philip K. Dick in general – in his case, being maladjusted and under drug influence lead to some really good writing, not really bad shooting).
Does anyone remember the X-Files btw? It started it all. Ah, the good old times.
Re: El Tonno,
Phase 2: People trade in whatever they want, instead of whatever the government wants.
Thanks!
Partially true, but some form of money is necessary because it is hard to find exact trades in general goods. What is true is that it is unnecessary that money be supplied and controlled by government. Like other essential commodities the supply of money is best left to the market. This is called Free Banking. See also Hayek “The Denationalisation of Money”.
> Does anyone remember the X-Files btw? It started it all. Ah, the good old times.
For you, maybe.
For everybody else… not really. People getting all insane and irrational is nothing new. Neither is political assassinations carried out by deranged individuals.
Thanks for the links, Greg. I have posted my response to an e-mail from a Zeitgeist cultist, prescribing Mises, Hayek and Sowell as the vaccine against this rabid nonsense. It is my experience that, once cured of the socialist delusion, people’s disagreements about religion and other matters tend to be less disagreeable.Once we can agree what the answer to humanity’s problems is not, our arguments about the what the answer is become less contentious. And I would point out that the quest for an answer to humanity’s problems depends upon the question of what those problems are, and whether any “answer” to them is actually possible.
If this person was really a lunatic, then even in the absence of socialistic economics he would have found something else to latch onto in order to justify his rage. Even the drug use may be a symptom of his unbalance, not a cause of it. Many people use drugs and do NOT go out and massacre people. I’ve read he was also wearing a hooded sweatshirt of some kind; perhaps we should then infer that all people who wear hooded sweatshirts are potential threats? Bill Belichick, I’m looking at you!
I’m forming the Citizen’s Committee to Arrest Bill Belichick.
Hey I will contribute to that committee. I think that drawing we were always shown of the Unibomber before he was caught also depicted him in a hoodie; the evidence continues to mount!
You’re gonna have problems with my Committee for Public Safety Generally and Protecting the Right to Wear Hooded Sweatshirts in Particular (i.e., the CPSGPRWHSIP).
Of course, one must admit that the Hoodie-Rights Movement took a blow this week, what with the whole Loughner thing and the commission of 6 of the 15,000-16,000 murders that will occur this year in the US, but please, people, hate the homicidal-hoodie-wearer, not the hoodie!
There may be something to be said for people in their 20′s feeling like they can’t win (forced into being a loser). Combine the diminishing free market and diminishing opportunities that come along with it, a political system that steals without really solving any problems, and an increasingly homogeneous society. And, he was a lunatic on top of it all….
People who wear hoodies are more likely to be low-class, gangster, violent, drug-using people. Therefore the solution is obvious: ban hoodies!
How many fallacies did I commit in the above statement?
The CPSGPRWHSIP would like a word with you.
A sad effort at spin; we now know that Lougner was a devout Misesian; embracing the gold standard, denouncing government as evil, embracing various fringe right-wingers holding variations on the theme that government authority is inherently illegitimate and people can and should “refuse to be governed,” reject the legal system, and create their own laws, their own money.
The sad effort to re-frame Loughner as a leftist, coming on the heels of a long at awkward silence in the face of this Austrian school thug, shows the anti-government ideologues in damage control mode, desperately trying to deny the association with the man who is now the most famous proponent of the ideas they promote.
Can you direct us to any information indicating that Jared Loughner was any sort of Misesian or believed in Austrian economics or ever actually heard of the Mises Institute in the first place, or are you just sandwich-smearing people you don’t like together?
Let review:
* Aryn Rand on his book list.
* Hated the government.
* Favored the gold standard.
* Eager consumer of radical anti-tax conspiracy theory.
* Went back and forth between rejecting the Constitution as evil, and accusing the government of making unconstitutional laws.
And, perhaps most distinctively:
*Wrote a lot of ungrammatical, semi-incoherent nonsense, and often invoked logical fallacies in a way that made it obvious he didn’t understand what they meant.
Sounds like a Miseian to me.
If your opinion of the LvMI and its adherents is so low, then what motivates you to repeatedly comment here?
It’s called being a spook. Maybe the same one that set up Loughner.
Re: Robert,
Kettle, meet pot.
You still have yet to substantiate your claims with links or evidence.
Karl Marx on his book list…what does that prove anyways?
Hitler and Marx were on his book list too.
Sounds like you and Loughner are of like mind to me.
“Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. – Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.”
Yeah, a devout Misesian.
That said, I hesitate to draw any conclusions of this sort from this event. There are plenty of socialists, even those who advocate resource based economic system, that wouldn’t raise a hand to harm any one. This was one troubled, misguided and delusional individual, acting as such.
If you keep up a constant drumbeat of loathing for the government, accusing the government of being tyrannical and totalitarian, equating a social safety net with Stalinism and taxes with violent crime, what are you saying but that the government is evil? And so we reach the day where Loughner “proceeds . . . bodly against it.”
Yeah. Telling the truth about a crime is potentially harmful to the perpetrators of the crime. So let’s all shut up and let the crimes be unspoken of.
Incidentally, government is loathsome, tyrannical and totalitarian, social safety nets as they exist are Stalinism and taxes are a violent crime. Are you disputing any of these or just saying that we should not be stating the obvious?
Incidentally, the conclusion is that “government” is evil and not any particular government. Combined with the non-aggression principle, it gives no justification for a “Misesian” to go around attacking individual government functionaries in the name of “fighting government”. It takes a deranged mind (such as yours and Jared’s) to see such a justification.
Hey, you’re back. Like jock itch.
Any insights into my earlier question — if your opinion of the LvMI and its adherents is so low, then what motivates you to repeatedly comment here?
@ Phinn
Simple: Robert is an arrogant, close-minded, aggressive jerk who likes to make himself look intellectually superior to those he hates or has an ideological phobia of. The only honor in life he deserves is being the Mises.org #1 Troll.
You forgot “carries a chip on his shoulder”
Robert, was he a right-winger or a devout Misesian? These terms are contradictory. Did he embrace the gold standard or believe that goverenment authority is inherently illegitimate? These views are contradictory also.
I didn’t say he was a right-winger; I said he embraced various right-wing conspiracy theories, which is true of many Miseians.
And left-wing conspiracies as well. What does this all prove? It only goes to show that ultimately we may never know what motivates people precisely.
“A sad effort at spin; we now know that Lougner was a devout Misesian; embracing the gold standard, denouncing government as evil, embracing various fringe right-wingers holding variations on the theme that government authority is inherently illegitimate and people can and should “refuse to be governed,” reject the legal system, and create their own laws, their own money.”
A) Who’s this “we”? What is their evidence? Did Lougner mistakenly attribute ideas to the Austrian school that were not Austrian? Or was he really of the Austrian mindset, but also happened to shoot someone? Was his ideology a mix of several schools of thought? Prove any of that. Try your damnedest. I will be there to shatter your illusions. That line of debate is irrelevant.
B) Where do Misesians create their own laws? There’s a difference between laws and spontaneous order. Nor do they create their own money. That wouldn’t work in an unhampered market, because the money would become insolvent and valueless. In fact, it does that in a hampered market, only slower because people with guns keep telling us we have to use it. A Misesian would probably prefer to create their own wealth, which is different from money.
“The sad effort to re-frame Loughner as a leftist, coming on the heels of a long at awkward silence in the face of this Austrian school thug, shows the anti-government ideologues in damage control mode, desperately trying to deny the association with the man who is now the most famous proponent of the ideas they promote.”
I doubt it can be proven one way or the other if he was a leftist or a devout, if misinformed, Austrian. If you read the articles posted above, you will say that they are biased or lying, with total disregard for the fact that the exact same can be said of wherever you received your information. But neither one should matter. His personal motives and the ideologies that might have influenced that motive are two different things. I don’t see any Austrians having awkward silences. Can you point them out? To me this is a shrug of the shoulder and a “Hey. Some idiot killed people.” How do his actions change any of the arguments made by Austrians? How do his actions make the Austrian school illegitimate? Are you making the claim that if people actually read materials by Mises or Hayek that they will automatically turn into killers? That there is no free will in the matter? Is that what you believe? Because I bet that guy also sent an email or two in his life. Or posted on a message board. So have I. So have you. Why are we still sitting here? Shouldn’t we be spraying bullets? This is your logic. You present no case. You present no evidence. You spatter. Do you force yourself to be this incapable in a discussion just to spite me?
Damage control indeed. Typical of the logically defunct. Damage control? You can’t even understand the most basic of fallacies. If guilt by association was a reality, then it has to apply across the board. Anyone who has every fired a shot in the name of anything has cast that onto those who share that belief.
No one can prove what this man was thinking, and even if they could, his actions do not add or subtract anything to his any particular ideology. It’s a one way interpretation on his part. I can learn to make pizza, but I cannot shoot someone in the name of pizza to make the recipe ineffective. Using that as a basis of argument for or against an ideology is bush league. My little, gray cells will not tolerate it.
“You can’t even understand the most basic of fallacies”
So we see the Miseian need to invoke logical fallacy, presumably to try and appear intelligent, without any clear understanding of what they mean or how they apply. Compare:
“If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.
You call me a terrorist.
Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.”
They could be twins. It’s creepy.
Given that Lougner reads “The Communist Manifesto ” and “Mein Kampf”, core parts of the Democrat play book, at a first glance we would think he was a Democrat. However, his friends say that he was not interested in politics and was incapable of rational thought, the latter of which would make him a honorary Democrat. However, the reason he was incapable of rational though was the public school system that does not teach analytical thinking. People who can not win rational arguments tend to resort to violence, or try to silence those who oppose them. So, if we are looking for somebody to blame, blame the public school system.
i think the mein kampf thing was less about fascist scholarship per se, and more about winding up his mother, for whom that book would be particularly offensive:
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/01/12/2742519/loughners-jewish-mother-not-so-much
Some people would say there is relentless trolling going on in this thread.
In other news, “The Iron Dream” is an excellent read.
Again, we have an example of the deluded thinking shared by Loughner and admitted Miseians, in this case Walt: the irrational fantasy that the “Democrat play book” includes “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Democrats apparently are both Nazis and Communists . . . quite a feat. If a person really believed this, how might they act on it? Maybe by shooting a Democratic congresswoman in the head?
Walt + balls = Loughner
Third time I’ve asked this: If your opinion of the LvMI and its adherents is so low, then what motivates you to repeatedly comment here?
“Austrian school thug”? WTF!? Seriously? This is outrageous. I can’t believe you actually believe anything you just wrote. It’s literally beyond words how deluded you are.
Robert, it’s ok man, you picked up a particularly bad batch of acid. It’ll be ok.
Re: Robert,
When you say “We”, do you mean yourself and those voices that talk to you?
This is a very good insight. It can be simplified even further, I think, by stating that the only human right worth considering is property (starting with self-ownership). If you are considering any intractable conflict, religious or otherwise, it is helpful to ask, “Whose property is being violated?” If there is no property being violated then there is hardly ever any conflict.
I was just reading Thomas B. Costain’s historical works about the Plantagenet monarchs of England in the middle ages. The endless fighting among and between British, Europeans and Arabs (in the crusades) makes no sense until you realize that the entire chivalric code, the dynastic concerns, the conflicts over feudal rights, the battles between state and church for primacy, the crusades, almost every incident that occurs in mainstream history books, is really about nothing more than gangs of thieves, kidnappers and murderers fighting with each other and their victims over money and power. The definition of a mainstream historian is, one who can write 20 volumes of history focusing on abstract and practically meaningless terms like honor, chivalry, theology, etc. and never once admit that even his most admirable subjects – so-called “good” kings, ministers, and clergymen – are nothing but brigands. The reason why they cannot bring themselves to do so is that this could only lead to the logical conclusion that the heirs of these historical subjects, who inherited their money and power through the institutions of parliament, dynastic inheritance, law codes, and so on, are also brigands.
Likewise the majority of commentators on this deranged shooter will not be able to recognize that a large part of the motivation was a confusion over the meaning and the desirability of private property. To do so would lead to questions about the congressman’s own confusion over property, which of course is a reflection of the entire state’s existence as violator of property. That is why you will see the shooter quickly dismissed as “crazy” or “tea party activist” depending on whether the writer is allied with either the ‘R’ or the ‘D’ association of brigands.
>>>That is why you will see the shooter quickly dismissed as “crazy” or “tea party activist” depending on whether the writer is allied with either the ‘R’ or the ‘D’ association of brigands.
It’s been an amazing display, hasn’t it? The way the statists geared up to take advantage of this incident?
The first reaction, of course, was to shore up the people’s faith in statism generally. That’s always their first order of business. Gaining power is second in priority only to ensuring the continued existence of power.
These murders represented one-sixth of the total number of murders that took place elsewhere in America that day, and one-sixteenth of the number of people who died driving on the state’s road system that day, but the entire country was expected to stop and wring its collective hands and search our souls about what it all means. The way they have been using the little girl, in particular, as a propaganda tool since the day she was born (9/11/01) is especially disgusting.
The media’s reaction to this event reminds me of how most people live in a world of symbolism. Actual violence means very little to most people. But symbolic violence is the big attention-getter. I find that very odd.
Yeah, kind of like when a journalist gets murdered – the media coverage is sickening when it’s one of their own. When a”gang banger” or the “enemy” gets blown away, it’s great.
It’s pretty funny how the same people who decry the knee-jerk reaction to blame the “right” for these shootings are now trying to blame the “left”. These are also the same people who claim that the indiviudal should be responsible for their actions and not society. The same people who believe in “fringe” economic and political theory.
There’s something tragically ironic in people who are called kooks for following mises/hayek/rothbard and believing the fed should be abolished calling a documentary that attacks the monetary system kooky while making inferences about it’s role in the shooting. Clearly those who prefer “socialist” critiques of the monetary system are part of a dangerous cult but those who prefer “reactionary” critiques are completely rational, balanced, enlighted human beings.
I think the real problem people have with this documentary is the christianity part. When people’s mysticism gets attacked there’s bound to be trouble.
The “kooky” and “reactionary” followers of mises/hayek/rothbard have not killed anyone, nor do any of them advocate violence as far as I am aware (and I’ve read a lot of their books and articles and listened to a lot of their speeches and lectures). Those who understand the value and morality of private property the most are the ones who respect it most in their words and actions.
Those who are either confused about private property rights or who understand but disrespect private property you may call whatever you like – but the fact remains that when private property is not understood and respected, violence follows.
Stick around and read some more mises/hayek/rothbard … there is nothing reactionary or fringe about them, nor is Austrian economics or libertarianism a cult.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don’t consider mises/hayek/rothbard fringe or reactionary(well not in a bad sense), but others do, so I used the quotes. I was just trying to point out the irony of calling others kooky when one’s own beliefs are considered cooky by some. Same thing with trying to connect socialist/leftist critiques of the status quo with the shooting event in response to people trying to connect libertarianism to it .
My whole point was that it was HE, and he alone, who was responsible – not society, ideology, documentaries etc.
btw, I agree completely about private property
Well said. haven’t read that anywhere else.
Complaints about Palin’s crosshairs map being excessive may be justified, but they have nothing to do with Loughner. Palin did not work with Loughner.
“Complaints about Palin’s crosshairs map being excessive may be justified…”
No, they really can’t be justified.
I find that Ludwig v. Mises points out what the problem seemed to be in ChapterII. The Epistemological Problems Of Human Action in “Human Action”.
Breaking news – “Police seize photos of Loughner with gun — dressed in red G-string…”
Now what?
Does this mean that he is a red Democrat/Communist (as in the red flag, reds under the bed)?
Or is he a red Republican (as in red states/blue states)?
Unfortunately, if you believe in a “resource-based” non monetary economy than you’re necessarily either an idiot or a lunatic. This kid was probably both.
Although extremely sad, particularly the death of a bright, beautiful nine-old girl, the incident in Tucson in which a federal judge was killed and a congresswoman wounded hardly qualifies as a crisis. Put it in perspective: while 6 were being killed and 13 wounded in Tucson, in Afghanistan Americans far better trained and much more skilled at killing than Jared Loughner, and with weaponry to make his 9mm Glock look like a peashooter, were actively engaged in trying to kill young Afghans by the busload, people who pose no threat to America or Americans, other than those who are in their country trying to kill them.
But America’s leftist talking heads are calling it a grave crisis of violence fomented by the inflammatory political rhetoric of rightist politicians and talking heads. Following the advice of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s attack dog who once rallied the left with these words of wisdom, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” progressives are now beating the drums for an end to violence by enacting stringent gun-control legislation.
While the left and right are loudly using the “crisis” to castigate each other, Voluntaryists and other anti-statist should also capitalize on the event by Inviting Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives and reactionaries, and all who are sickened by violence in our society to join us in pledging to personally refrain from using force and violence in all of our human affairs–except in self-defense. Later, we shall inform them that by virtue of their pledge they can no longer send tax collectors around to frighten those of us who would rather not pay.
Ned go to Afghanistan and scew some goats along with your beloved young Afghans and don’t come back.
Lars, what did I say that maakes you so angry? Are you in favor of killing Afghans by the busload?
He probably believes that the Afghans we are killing are “the bad guys.”
I believe Lars is a religious zealot who dislikes people who choose a different set of “facts” to blindly believe in.
(if I have the wrong Lars then I take it back)
@Walt D.”People who can not win rational arguments tend to resort to violence, or try to silence those who oppose them.”So, if the government sends the military to bust open your door to take away your guns like what happened at Katrina or to take you away at a fema camp, do you think you can win with rational arguments ?Do you think that sometimes it’s okay to fight fire with fire or must we always be rational and always argue even when confronted by force ?Please let me know. So violence is NEVER the answer, even when we are confronted by violence ?
Must we always talk things, even when talk fails ?
If talk fails, must one let himself become a consenting victim ?
Those who are truly genius can prevent violence and can stay out of trouble. But what if you are not that much of a genius that you cannot talk your way into defending your rights and your freedoms ?
Does this means that you have less rights than those who know how to talk ?
See, I talk a lot, LOL !!
I think that you’ll find most people here are not pacifists, but pragmatists. If you were a member of the Branch Dividian Compound, you certainly had the right to open fire on the tanks that were approaching you – but you would have been much better served to turn tail and survive than engage in a fire-fight that had no good outcome.
On the other hand if a burglar has broken into your home and is approaching you or your spouse with small arms (knife, ax, handgun, etc.), it is probably a good idea to take a head-shot at the guy imminently harming you.
As a general rule, the govt is never going to be fended off by using violence against it – they have a far superior arms collection, and vastly superior man-power to use against you. And even if you are able to defend your rights against the first wave of G-men in a bloody shootout, the public opinion will be turned against you because the govt still has popular support in the media, and you will not be able to hide forever because the govt has much more surveillance than any one person has obfuscatory power (except maybe Bin-Laden, but he has/had the advantage of the Pakistan/Afghanistan mountain region and an extensive network of local support in the area), and they won’t let a mere mundane get away with the killing of even one of their own, let alone a whole team of them.
Your rights are absolute, including your right to defend the same with retaliatory force, but the choice to exercise the right to use force is only an option when it is the last option available to you (e.g. after talking has failed). And even then, you might do better in letting your rights be violated than dying in attempting to defend them.
What of the American Revolution? Sometimes you can beat the system.
Or the French revolution. The overburdened taxpayer unleashed his fury that day.
Or “Afpak” for that matter. 10 years in and the “Most powerful and advanced military in the world” still can’t subdue tribesmen armed with home made small arms.
And even then, you might do better in letting your rights be violated than dying in attempting to defend them.
op-ed?
“On the other hand if a burglar has broken into your home and is approaching you or your spouse with small arms (knife, ax, handgun, etc.), it is probably a good idea to take a head-shot at the guy imminently harming you.”
A head shot is only a good idea if you are a murderer acting out your hatred of the government by killing a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl . . . for self-defense, aim for the central mass. And remember, when you bring a gun into your home for protection, the person it is most likely to injure, statistically speaking, is someone living in the house, you or your family member.
“And remember, when you bring a gun into your home for protection, the person it is most likely to injure, statistically speaking, is someone living in the house, you or your family member.”
How about a source for that one, troll? I would like to compare your biased source to some other biased sources.
The government did a survey were they had government employees call other governmentt employees working in the Washington DC area.
They asked them if they own a gun and if they engaged in any incident were they used to defend themselves.
The people that they talked to ended up indicating that no they did not use a handgun any time recently.
This survey was use as the basis for innumerable articles and studies.
IT’S SCIENCE!!
>for self-defense, aim for the central mass
The rule is: two to the body, one to the head.
Well, this is not rec.guns either.
Yeah I remember that study.
I also remember that it included in its data set 1) known criminals of various types and 2) suicides (in fact suicides comprised most of the deaths in the study).
Classic case of a study done to support a desired result.
Robert, if your opinion of the LvMI and its adherents is so low, then what motivates you to repeatedly comment here?
Phinn, if I may: I believe that the above commentary speaks for itself. Some people acquire happiness and fulfillment from creating or crafting something, from running a business, from teaching, parenting, sports or leisure activities.
Robert gets his pleasure from crafting incoherent but provocative arguments and gleefully observing the anger and outrage he causes. He smiles every time someone reads his brainless regurgitation of left-wing rhetoric and attempts to engage him in logical argumentation, a truly hopeless task. We’re not even people to poor Robert, not really. He’s already dismissed us as nutjobs in his own sadly narrow take on the world, so in his mind it’s hardly worth his time to critically examine anything said in response to him. Your best bet is to ignore him and hope that he matures beyond his current phase of intellectual infancy. He’s not here to change minds, just to inflame passions. Ignore the troll and he’ll have to forage elsewhere.
Hang on, this is a regular drug user who states that his favourite book is A Scanner Darkly? Phil K Dick’s semi-autobiographical account of how drug use caused he and his loved ones to develop chronic mental and physical illnesses, that describes how people he knew lied, stole and whored themselves out for their next fix, and finally how most of his friends are now dead or permanently insane because of drugs? I don’t understand some people.
Also, don’t feed the obvious troll.
This is not amazing.
This book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Dream , an obvious in-your-face exposition of the pathology of national-socialism and the prevalence of nazi attitudes in popular literature, is (was?) on the reading list of the National Socialist White People’s Party.
The person to be worried about here is the village idiot, Robert. He could be well along the way to committing his own murderous atrocity any time now.
Consider the facts. He is unable to describe his philosophy in a rational, sane and reasoned manner. He dislikes others who post on the site with seethingly obvious emotion and passion. He seeks to demonise. He has not read Von Mises, Reisman, Hazlett or any of the other Austro-libertarians to any meaningful extent and yet he hates them. He randomly picks fights with all and sundry. He is illogical in his disjoint statements (hard to call them arguments for they are not really up to that level- not unless you are being very charitable). He refuses to answer any questions directly. He resents those who clearly know more than he does. He is a socialist and dishonest. He’s a loner and very, very strange.
Whatever you do, do not let Robert near any sort of gun, weapon or sharp impliment. If anyone knows his whereabouts, for goodness sake inform the Feds!
Sione
Maybe Robert is Jared Loughner. His posts here sound a lot like Loughner’s rants on YouTube, which have been featured on the news lately. They certainly exhibit about the same degree of rationality. Do you suppose Loughner has access to a computer and the Internet in the Pima County Jail? It would make sense that he has, given the fact that the jail is run by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who initially thought Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh were Loughner’s co-conspirators. On the other hand, maybe he is Paul Krugman, for he makes about as much sense in his posts as Krugman does in his NYT column.
Ned
Crikey! This is much more serious than I realised. Could be real bad when Robert eventually tosses his ring.
Could Robert be in the helicopter with mad Ben? If so, perhaps he’ll jump out and smush himself on the concrete- splatarino magnifico! At least that’d be better than doing what his intellectual bed-mate did.
Sione
Comments on this entry are closed.