The McNamara Fallacy

Someone put this up on the comments thread following my article in the Guardian this week:

"The McNamara fallacy (also known as quantitative fallacy[1]), named for Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven.

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes.

The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading.

The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness.

The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.

— Daniel Yankelovich "Corporate Priorities: A continuing study of the new demands on business." (1972)"

Zionism, Zionists, Katzism

Richard Burgon MP has apologised for saying that Zionism is an 'enemy of peace'. Leaving that to one side for the moment, let's look at the argument for why Burgon needed to apologise. Here it is:

------

"Mike Katz, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement,said the vast majority of Jewish people identified as Zionists.


“Insulting a core part of their identity and then dissembling about it... [Burgon claimed he hadn't said that Zionism was an enemy to peace]... is shameful behaviour from a senior frontbencher in our party, let alone someone who aspires to administer our justice system,” he said."

-----

This ups the stakes.


Katz is saying that MPs (anyone else?) must not 'insult' Zionism because it is a 'core part' of the 'identity' of the 'vast majority of Jewish people'.

In other words it ups the stakes in what can or can't be said about Zionism,  Zionists, and the 'vast majority' of Jews. Bear in mind that for many decades in the 19th and 20th centuries, there was active, open debate by Jews (and others) about Zionism. Of course there was! Zionism is a political idea. Can't we argue about Zionism? Any Jews like my parents, who lived in London's East End throughout the 1920s and 30s, regularly had debates about Zionism and of course there were times when either side might have said that there were 'insults' flying. But no one could have closed down the argument on the basis that it wasn't really an argument, and that it was, as Katz has implied, an argument against the core of people's identity. Or if they did, you couldn't get away with saying, 'How dare you say that Zionism is an enemy of peace!  Zionism is a core part of my identity, you have just insulted me, Zionists, and (because the vast majority of Jews are Zionists) Jews.' Yes, yes, yes, people would have said, now let's get on with the political argument about whether Zionism is or is not an 'enemy of peace'. 

But to claim that things can't be said in this debate because it's a matter of personal identity - as Katz has done -  is a way to close down the debate altogether.

On this specific matter, what Mike Katz is saying is that a person shouldn't say that 'Zionism is an enemy of peace'. He is saying, something along the lines of: just don't say it! It cannot be said. It's an unsayable thing. 

Note that he doesn't offer an argument against the view itself. He simply says a)  that it is 'shameful behaviour' and b) that it is an 'insult'  on the grounds that c)  for the 'vast majority of Jews', Israel is a 'core part of their identity'. 

Potentially,  if we are to follow the Katz rule, this could remove whole areas of debate about Israel from discussion. Yet, when the IHRA code was introduced we heard over and over again how this wasn't a restriction on criticism of Israel. OK, so Katz isn't talking about criticism of Israel, he's talking about criticism of 'Zionism' - which he has subtly turned into 'Zionists' - who mustn't hear comments like 'Zionism is the enemy of peace'. Is that because it's racist? Or antisemitic? Does Katz really think that? 

Meanwhile let's conjure up this Mike Katz Argument-Free Zone. What are we allowed to say about Zionism in this Zone? What instructions does Katz have for us so that we don't receive his censure? What is this new doctrine? 

(By the way, there are millions of Zionists who aren't Jews. In the US alone there are millions of 'Christian Zionists' who are 'dispensationalists'. These are people who believe that it's not long now before the Messiah will come again (Second Coming). But this depends on more Jews, most Jews, or all Jews going to Israel. At this point, the Messiah will come again and all people will convert to this form of Christianity. Those who don't will be put to the sword. All those who are now believers will ascend to heaven in what is known as 'The Rapture'.

If you think I've made this up, please look up "Christian Zionism" and "Dispensationalism" on wikipedia. Actually, the entry on "Anti-zionism" is very interesting too because it tells the story of who in the 19th and 20th centuries was against Zionism and why. It will be surprising for some to read, for example, that some of the most vocal anti-Zionists were the more conservative and 'assimilated' Jews who thought that Zionism would evoke the accusation that Jews had dual loyalties, or that they weren't really attached to Britain or the USA. Interesting read...)

Classroom teacher David Keyte offers "Things I believe help children become 'readers'"

This list comes from classroom teachers David Keyte from Yattendon School. He posted it on twitter.


Things I believe help children become 'readers'


1. Lots of excited adult talk about books.
2. Regularly share blurbs and extracts of books.
3. Comfy reading.
4. Time for class books every day.
5. Time for independent reading every day.
6. Make authors 'real' through Twitter interactions etc.
7. Make reading 'cool'(pictures of celebrities reading etc)
8. Use recently released books in reading/guided reading lessons.
9. Create opportunities for children to share what they are reading with their classmates.
10. Never dissuade children from trying out a book they like the look of.
11. Walk around school with a book.
12. Regularly ask children 'What are you reading?' when walking around schoo.
13. Create an excitement around your own book shelf at home.
14. Talk about the aesthetics of books.
15. Create bookmarks with your class.

How does Reveal-Conceal work? How do writers do it? Why is it important?

1. BERNARDO

Who's there?

2. FRANCISCO

Nay, answer me: stand, and unfold yourself.

3. BERNARDO

Long live the king!

4. FRANCISCO

Bernardo?

5. BERNARDO

He.

6. FRANCISCO

You come most carefully upon your hour.

7. BERNARDO

'Tis now struck twelve; get thee to bed, Francisco.

8. FRANCISCO

For this relief much thanks: 'tis bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart.

9. BERNARDO

Have you had quiet guard?

10. FRANCISCO

Not a mouse stirring.

11. BERNARDO

Well, good night.
If you do meet Horatio and Marcellus,
The rivals of my watch, bid them make haste.

12. FRANCISCO

I think I hear them. Stand, ho! Who's there?
Enter HORATIO and MARCELLUS

13. HORATIO

Friends to this ground.

14. MARCELLUS

And liegemen to the Dane.

15. FRANCISCO

Give you good night.

16. MARCELLUS

O, farewell, honest soldier:
Who hath relieved you?

17. FRANCISCO

Bernardo has my place.
Give you good night.
Exit

18. MARCELLUS

Holla! Bernardo!

19. BERNARDO

Say,
What, is Horatio there?

20. HORATIO

A piece of him.

21. BERNARDO

Welcome, Horatio: welcome, good Marcellus.

22. MARCELLUS

What, has this thing appear'd again to-night?

23. BERNARDO

I have seen nothing.

24. MARCELLUS

Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him
Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night;
That if again this apparition come,
He may approve our eyes and speak to it.

25. HORATIO

Tush, tush, 'twill not appear.

26. BERNARDO

Sit down awhile;
And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story
What we have two nights seen.

27. HORATIO

Well, sit we down,
And let us hear Bernardo speak of this.

28. BERNARDO

Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course to illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one,--
Enter Ghost

So here are 28 little speeches that happen before we read in the stage directions: 'Enter Ghost'. If, we put ourselves in the shoes of the writer, William Shakespeare, and we have a story to tell, it's clear that he has made some choices here about how to do it. For example, he could have begun this play with 'Enter Ghost'. He could have begun with what is the next line after 'Enter Ghost' which is: 'Peace, break thee off: look where it comes again!' (spoken by Marcellus). Shakespeare could, perhaps, have got all four men to come on to the stage talking about this ghost that they've seen before and then to be suddenly confronted with it again. It's easy to think of different ways this scene could begin.

This leads me to ask, why do it this way? 

Line 1 is a classic example of how writers do 'reveal-conceal'. We pretend that we are revealing a new piece of information whilst at the same time, concealing or withholding another. A character asking a question that he or she doesn't the know the answer of, is one way to do it. If the reader doesn't know the answer - as with this example - then the question is both a question and a cunning way to get the audience to wonder along with the person asking the question. 'Who's there?' says Bernardo. Yes, who? we ask. 

As this is a play and not a story, we don't know exactly how Bernardo says this but we can figure out from how fearful they are later in the scene that a good way to perform this line is to be absolutely terrified. This will add to the 'conceal' element in the question. (Think of the alternatives, e.g.   Bernardo is drunk and he calls out, 'who's there?' as if he's hoping for a bit of company.) Making Bernardo fearful will build up our expectations and fears and - key word for 'reveal-conceal': dread. A lot of fiction works on the basis that we readers and audience fear or dread a bad or awful outcome. We may have this dread confirmed or relieved, depending on what kind of story it is. 

So, the reveal is a guard. The conceal is something along the lines of, who does this guard dread? Who is he afraid of?

It's a great start to a story.

Line 2 from Francisco confirms the dread. It is in a way an echo of what Bernardo has just said. They are equally full of dread. Line 3 is in effect the password that informs the other party that neither is a threat to another. In effect the withholding of what or who it is they dread is being postponed while we have a second of relief along with the two men that the object of their dread hasn't turned up. But what is the object of their dread? Still withheld.

Line 7 tells us that this is the changing of the guard - more reveal than conceal. So far so good. 

Line 8 stokes the dread: Francisco has 'much relief' - a grim Shakespearean pun. 'Relief' from what? Why? That's more conceal at work there. We are given the atmospherics of the fact that it's cold - that's reveal rather than conceal. 

Line 9 is another example of the questioning method of reveal-conceal. We are invited to wonder. Our questioning is informed by the fear that we saw and heard when Bernardo and Francisco first met. A bit more conceal being stoked here.

Line 10 reassures the guards. We are perhaps reassured too but now we are into another form of 'conceal' - the delay. We know in our bones that something is afoot but we are being told that nothing is happening. (Dramatic irony).

Line 21 brings in Horatio and Marcellus - more reveal than conceal. But the next line:

Line 22 we have the question method yet again. This is building up a sense that this group of people really don't know what's going on or perhaps more particularly why the thing that is happening keeps happening. 

Speech 24 is interesting from the reveal-conceal perspective : first we have the word 'fantasy' and then a bit later the word 'dreaded'. Fantasy raises the question of whether they are imagining things. 'Dreaded' chimes with the characters and our sense of foreboding. It stokes the dread - of course. It works as 'what the characters dread so the audience dreads'. 

Then we have the word 'apparition'.  This is a great reveal. We now know what it is that the characters dread but it is sufficiently vague and full of unknown potential to keep the conceal going. An apparition of what? Of who? And why is it here? Lots of conceal in and amongst the reveal.

Speeches 25 and 26 show us that Horatio is the reassuring voice, possibly the more rational voice amongst them. This serves the function of revealing Horatio to us, who will of course later be Hamlet's reassuring and loyal friend. But he also can act in this moment as an echo to our own rational thoughts; e.g. that we might not believe in apparitions. Hiding behind that, though, is the conceal of: 'Well if an apparition does appear, that will outweigh a rationalist's suspicions'. (It's a technique often used on TV shows about ghosts or hypnotism: win over the most rational person in the room!)

Speeches 25-28 are 'delay' methods of reveal-conceal. Notice that Bernardo in 28 has gone into Classical mode of speech, lines that tell us of settings, visuals, states of the weather and the like. We might well feel at this point: 'Get on with it!' but it's being withheld (concealed), right up to the moment that the Ghost appears and is revealed. 

Our sense of anticipation, tension, foreboding and dread should be pretty well stoked up for this moment. 

This opening is a good example of how writers do reveal-conceal. 

I'm interested in why it is that a process that I think is central to how writers write, how and why readers read (excitement, tension, foreboding, confirmation of one's fears or contradiction of them with reassurance) is hardly touched on in the usual school-based criticism. 

I've identified several aspects of reveal-conceal here: e.g. questioning, delay, minor reassurance en route to the object of our dread, stoking fears through use of words like 'dread', talking of an object of our dread in vague terms - like 'apparition' and so on. 

We could call this the beginning of a 'grammar' of reveal-conceal. 

Why 'Grammar'? Response to 'Making Grammar Meaningful' from 'Teaching English' (Spring 2019)

(This blog is a response to an article in 'Teaching English' (Issue 19,  NATE Spring 2019.

The article is called: 'Making Grammar Meaningful. Grammatical subject knowledge and pedagogical principles for grammar teaching'

The sub-title is as follows:

'Ian Cushing and Bas Aarts set out the fundamental principles of subject knowledge and pedagogy that teachers need to know to approach grammar teaching effectively.')

My response below argues against the idea that these are 'fundamental principles' and most certainly argues against the idea that what is offered in the article is something that teachers 'need to know' or indeed need in order to 'teach grammar effectively'. 

It argues instead that we have other methods to analyse literature which offer much more than the narrow grammatical approach. 

--------------------------

The article asks: "Why teach grammar?" There is also a question related to a 'why teach x' question? This other question is: 'why teach x rather than y'? That's relevant because of limited time in the curriculum. I could put that as: 'why teach grammar rather than narratology, rhetoric, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics?'

The article talks of 'knowing something about how language works'. Grammar may or may not tell us how language works. Or, I might say, grammar may not tell us very much about how language works. This is because the grammar that is being taught is mostly a system for describing language at the micro-level - that is, mostly at the sentence level. Whether this is 'how language works' is debatable. I would argue that language 'works' at the macro level, (ie at the social level), and this has consequences on how it pans out at the micro level, (ie the sentence level). 

The form and function model of grammar (as described in the article) has some problems: which comes first: form or function? Aren't they co-dependent concepts each relying on the other for definition. It's a similar problem with anatomy and physiology. We separate or segment things (anatomy) according to the functions that we've discovered that the bits of the body do (physiology). How do we know that it's important to separate a heart from the tubes around it? We only know how to segment because  we observe that the heart is pumping and the tubes aren't? 

Conceptually, 'function' (as described by the form and function model of this kind of grammar) is problematic because, oddly in this scheme, as shown in the article, a 'verb' doesn't have a function. How can the unit under the microscope (the sentence) have some parts which have functions (nouns as 'subjects' and 'objects') and another part - (the verb) which does not? This seems arbitrary - particularly in relation to something as crucial (ie the crux of the sentence) as the verb. What is a verb for? What's it doing? What is its purpose? 

It seems odd to me that the sole reason for these 'functions' is to operate within a sentence. This seems like a strange self-serving, circular idea of 'function'. Language is part of human behaviour. It functions as our means of thinking, speaking and writing to each other and to ourselves. It has social origins, histories and social functions. I'm not sure why or how this social component is missing from the classifications that we ask students and children to learn - and the one described in the article. One example as an illustration: the increasing use of 'so' at the beginning of sentences in our speech. We can describe it and name it but this doesn't actually tell us why people are doing it or where it comes from, or what effect its use might having on speakers and listeners. 

Another example: grammar tells us that the imperative form of the verb is a 'command'. Children are asked to spot a 'command' in sentences or passages and these are always and only the imperative form - according to the grammar test at KS2. In reality, we can 'command' in different ways, not always using the imperative form of the verb. And sometimes the imperative itself is not very commanding. This tells me that a sociolinguistic approach to this idea of 'function' will tell us more about what the article later calls 'choice' than this narrowly 'grammatical' approach to function. 

The article states: 'explore how grammatical choices serve to construct and shape meaning.' Why can't we put that differently as 'meaning shapes grammatical choices'? To take the example of futurity, with, let's say my choice to write or say, 'going to':  I have a meaning that I want to convey - namely that I'm going to do something. I use my desire to make that meaning to inform my choice of words. And while we're on futurity, this kind of grammar really can't explain why I might use 'I'll be going out later' as opposed to 'I'm going out later'. It doesn't have explanatory power. 

There is an analysis of a passage from 'Dracula' in the article. It's interesting because the authors play fast and free with their methods: intertwining what I would call 'literary techniques' with the 'grammatical' ones, as if it's grammar giving the lead. They talk for example of 'verbs of cognition or perception'. This isn't 'grammar' really, is it? There's nothing grammatically different between a 'verb of cognition' and a verb of, let's say, 'consumption'.It's much more interesting, surely, to create tables based on, for example 'lexical fields' and find out whether there are 'words' that are doing the job of looking, seeing (ie perception) etc which might include e.g. 'eyes' (not a verb) .  The non-grammatical approach of producing lexical fields is much more productive.

Sensitive literary criticism can focus on the patterns, themes or imagery without using grammar. Oddly, when the authors come to the 'modals' - indeed a good grammatical thing to spot in the lexical field of 'uncertainty' - they've included the modal verb 'will' which is precisely not 'uncertain'!

In the article there is talk of Dracula emerging, and the use of the 'animal metaphor' in the passage. Again, this is not grammatical. The critical technique here draws on the old art of spotting images and figurative language. Fine by me. But figurative language can be carried in a huge variety of grammatical forms. 

Again, if we are trying to explain why this piece is narrated in a particular way, I'm not sure the grammar has much to offer either. Yes, the 'first person' (as mentioned) is crucial because it is the voice of the involved participating narrator. The moment we say this, though, we get into narratology rather than grammar. And, following John Stephens' work, we can ask questions like, what's the difference between 'I' narration and 'he, she it' narration? (We don't even need to use the grammatical terms!) Stephens argues that these different narrations create different 'distances' between text and reader. Again, this isn't grammatical. It's a literary perception. 

Narratology will also tell us that at crucial points in the passage, the diegesis of the account is broken, to e.g. flash back or to make a generalised comment. Why? Grammar won't tell us. Narratology tells us that this 'thickens' an account, so that it is not 'and then, and then, and then'. Thickening an account allows us to perceive e.g. motive, purpose, and 'character' of the narrator (or the narrated focaliser). 

There is also the question of 'reveal-conceal' - again a non-grammatical concept. All writing simultaneously reveals and conceals. Some writing does this more than others. This passage teases and taunts the reader with what he or she might possibly expect, fear or dread might happen. This is why and how it is 'gothic'. Again, we discover this through narratology not grammar. 

All through the passage, we can spot the lexical tricks which invite us to anticipate or contemplate or conjure up what might happen next but which hasn't happened yet because the author has given us the suggestion. Once we have the tool of 'reveal-conceal' at our disposal, we can spot writers manipulating readers more or less, depending on what kind of narrative it is. There are hundreds of ways of doing this and there is no grammatical common ground for them. It's narratological. 

If we look at the passage from the point of view of how it uses rhetoric, we can see an interplay going on between litotes and hyperbole, as with the phrase 'somewhat amused' versus the words 'repulsion', 'terror' and 'dreadful'. Overall, the casting of the scene in darkness, obscurity, the not-quite seen, is either a matter of imagery or it's a matter of the rhetoric of invoking darkness to signify the unknown. Either way, again, it's not grammar that's going to help us locate and analyse this. 

Similarly, we could run a commentary on how the 'body' is signified in the passage: that is, as fragmented and separated. Why, though? Perhaps in order to break up the coherence of the body or bodies in question? A little trip to Freud's 'Uncanny' reminds us that the 'automaton' is a signifier of horror so if parts of the body appear to function separately from the intention of the person, the passage starts to invoke an idea that parts of the body are self-willed. Again, this analysis does without 'grammar'. 

Summary of critical methods of close textual reading

Narratology explores how narration, time, thought, speech and ‘focalisation’ are presented: eg flash backs/forwards, first person/omniscient, explicit tagging or indirect discourse, covert authoritorial voice, reveal-conceal key to ‘unfolding’ etc

Prosody shows how authors try to create or emphasise meaning through sound: eg rhythm, repetition, parallelism, long-short variation, assonance, alliteration,

M.A.K. Halliday tried to show that ‘grammar’ is the servant of context, genre, and the intention of people to be meaningful within their social contexts of living, speaking, writing, listening, reading. We can try to find those contexts.

Study of Rhetoric shows us that knowingly or not, writers use classic and religious rhetorical forms at the different levels of phrases, sentences, scenes, dialogue, tone, literary form. Sam Leith has an excellent book on it.

Intertextuality shows how writers and readers construct meaning out of the repertoire of texts they have in their minds. This repertoire is socially constructed from the milieus that specific readers and writers live in .

Stylistics is a catch-all name for any aspect of what might be described as the style of a text at whatever level eg the use or non-use of figurative language, of digression, of specified types of allusion, register(s), use of discourse markers etc

If we draw attention to a lexical field in a text, it shows us the author's focus and it may show intentional patterns, themes, motifs at work. 

Flow is a way of describing one aspect of response. It can refer to our changing emotions towards characters, scenes, outcomes.

Ideology in texts is created out of narratology, stylistics, prosody, intertextuality and rhetoric. Follow the contexts and genres of these from M.A.K. Halliday and John Stephens and we find ideology is not simply ‘what is written ‘ but *how* and *why*.

Getting meaning from texts is not an objective act. It is always socially constructed and socially mediated and framed. This social aspect is always historical, full of the ongoing contested meanings created over time.

Canonicity is the means by which the circulation of texts is controlled and regulated. It’s how hierarchies are made. There are ideologies in the process of how canons are created.

Once we see how methods of imposing normative processes on interpretation are at work we can talk of ‘queering’ these in many different ways. We might find that there has been ‘queering’ of the normative in classic texts eg Viola/Caesario played by a boy.

Decolonisation of texts is to dissect how colonial, imperial and racial power is enacted at any or all levels of eg narratology, stylistics, rhetoric, intertextuality, and *outcome* of events in the action (diegesis) eg who or what is affirmed/punished.

(I work through some of these in relation to a specific text in my booklet 'Why Write? Why Read?' . The text I look at is the first few pages of 'A Christmas Carol'.)

My speech from yesterday's Stand up to Racism and Fascism march, London

Sympathy and solidarity especially for the loved ones, families and community of all the victims of Christchurch and also beyond 

to all who feel sadness and fear today.

Today’s demonstration was planned months ago long before the horror and terror of Christchurch, 

but it is that horror and terror we come together today to try to anticipate and to prevent.

It is because we fear it and dread it that we fight against it.

But what is it?

I see the newspapers are busy trying to compare what happened in Christchurch with what they call other acts of terrorism.

No need for that, newspaper people. 

It is what the perpetrators say it is: white supremacism.

It’s been around for a long, long time.

It’s been used  - sometimes by you, yourselves, newspaper people - 

to mock, deride and condemn minorities.

It’s been used - sometimes by you, newspaper people, to justify invading and bombing other people’s countries.

It’s been used by people in power to justify slavery, segregation, discrimination, persecution and genocide.

This tells me that it’s dangerous to trust those in power to fight it. 

Too often, the people in power have been the perpetrators themselves. 

Too often,  it’s people in power who’ve won their power and kept their power by scapegoating and persecuting minorities.

Too often, newspaper people, you’ve helped the people in power do that scapegoating and persecuting. 

It’s people in power who sent vans round saying to migrants: ‘Go home, or face arrest’. 

It’s people in power who created what they called a ‘hostile environment’ for migrants.

It’s people in power who created the Windrush scandal.

It’s people in power who refused to treat Shamima Begum and her baby as British citizens. 

And it was people in power in 1943 who ordered 4 policemen to knock on the door of my father’s uncle’s room at 2.30 in the morning in a little village in western France.

He he had fought for France in the First World War. 

He was a French citizen. 

He had committed no crime, 

He wasn’t ever put on trial.

In a well-organised, orderly way, 

according to the laws of the  day, 

he was deported to Auschwitz 

and never came back. 

This is the kind of thing that people in power sometimes do.

This is why I wrote a warning that I’ll read in a moment. 

It’s dedicated to my parents, Connie Isakofsky and Harold Rosen - who, in the 1930s,  fought Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists on the streets of east London, right where they lived and went to school.  

The Tory government of the day gave permission to that British Union of Fascists to parade through those streets. It was only the collective action of 100s of thousands of people that stopped them. 

My parents showed me that we ourselves have to organise, and to turn up,  to stop the rise of racism and fascism,

and they taught me that we must never forget that fascism often comes disguised. 

It often appears making promises. 

The poem is called:

I sometimes fear...

"I sometimes fear...

...that people might think 

that fascism only ever arrives in fancy dress 

worn by grotesques and monsters 

as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis. 

No. Not always so. 

Fascism can arrive as your friend. 

It can arrive saying that it will... 

restore your honour, 

make you feel proud, 

protect your house, 

give you a job, 

clean up the neighbourhood, 

clear out the venal and the corrupt

remind you of how great you once were, 

remove anything you feel is unlike you...

It doesn't walk in saying, 

"Our programme means:

 militias, 

mass imprisonments, 

transportations, 

war, 

persecution

and mass murder."

They don't say that. "

Solidarity!