Globalism Series - Open Borders

The ultimate goal of the globalist is a united world society, governed by a singular government enacting universal laws, enforced by a world court. This is a goal which is not only incompatible with the vision of the United States and the will of her people; it flies against many other governments and nations and peoples as well. To suggest that this would be a simple task if people would just "cooperate" is to make an ill-informed statement at best.

As discussed in the previous article, the only answer to radically alter the acceptance quotient of the world population is the total elimination of contrary thought. That can be done by the use of social pressure to deviate from independent thought and adhere to the normative mindset defined by those in power. It can be done through the use of political power, by means of criminalizing deviant behavior, expressions, and acts of will. It can be accomplished through the use of mass media's influence on the so-called "Low Information" populous. The ultimate method was demonstrated by Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin.

The introduction to this series discussed how this is done via society and the changing of language and expression. This subtle change allowed those with a globalist agenda to radically alter the willingness to accept socialistic and communistic philosophy within a few generations. The change is most evident in the fact that while there have been socialists and communists that have run for office in the US before, none have ever enjoyed the support that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now see.

The previous article ended with a statement: "The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders."

As anyone who has followed the news during the Trump Administration is aware, the phrase "Open Borders" has been discussed at length. In fact, it has gotten to the point that few people within the news media are using it any longer. This does not by any means indicate that the drive to establish open borders has ended. If anything, like a shark, the time one should really be on guard is when it can no longer be seen.

Proponents of Open Borders philosophy are not all necessarily globalists. However, every globalist must by necessity support open borders. The difference between the two is that one wants more peace, love and dignity; the other recognizes the reality, which is total power and control. Make no mistake, Globalism uses the first group to drive forward the agenda of the second group.

At this point in play, discussion of no walls or fences on borders has run its course. That conversation will surface again, but for the time being, it has served its purpose. Now is the time to dial back the verbal debate. Now is the time to once more return to working in the shadows. Behind the backs of freedom loving people.

And as such, enter The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

By Hypergio - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 

Within the halls of this massive compound, trials are held and verdicts are handed down which supersede the justice systems already in place within the countries that have signed on to the Rome Statute. (Text of Rome Statute) Not all countries which have signed the statute have justice systems. Of those that do, not all such systems work as they should. Thus the ICC serves a needed purpose, yet it can be exploited.

This statute is the same one that former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to sign. In both cases, signatures was not ratified by Senate and were later revoked by the succeeding president. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have mentioned their support for the ICC several times, as well as their desire to see the US come under its jurisdiction. Obama has echoed these sentiments, even going so far as to declare the US a "cooperating observer."

It is through this back and forth relationship with the ICC that the United States of America; which withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and has most recently reversed the Obama era cooperation; has now found itself in a battle for sovereignty.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the backdoor to Open Borders in the US.

The Rome Statute explicitly allows the ICC to work and maintain jurisdiction where the signatory nation has no justice system in place, or has a corrupted system in place; think of the trial one might receive in China under Mao. (Incidentally, China is not a signatory.) The ICC has no jurisdiction over nations which have not signed; nor over nations which have rescinded their signatures; nor over nations which have a fully operational justice system and the capacity to prosecute and try criminal cases within that system. Nor does it have jurisdiction over the citizens of those countries, which seems a very redundant thing to write. Unfortunately, as will soon be seen, it must be put into words.

In short, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over  the United States, nor its citizens, nor any part of its governmental workings up to and including the military. Those are the guidelines by which the ICC was organized, they are not the opinion of any one person.

Right now, in The Hague within the walls of the International Criminal Court, members of the United States Military are being accused and tried. Not directly, but rather it is being argued that those who are accused of "war crimes," (think Nazi - These are the definitions for the phrase), should stand before the ICC. The information gathered by the ICCs Prosecutor against the US military service members; if indeed it exists; has not been turned over to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible. Rather, it is currently being argued that the ICC can force jurisdiction upon the US, because Afghanistan is a signatory.

While this may not seem like much; indeed, it may seem as though the United States should cooperate in this instance; nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that just by showing up, an official attorney for the US; say a member of the Attorney General's Office; gives the Prosecutor and the ICC at large carte blanche in any matter concerning the United States.

Some will and have argued that that would be fine, as it would apply only in this single case. Again, this is an erroneous statement made from either a grievous lack of insight, or a globalist perspective. Granting the ICC jurisdiction, even in a single matter, establishes precedent. That precedent is the foundation upon which the Globalist agenda seeks to override the sovereignty of the United States. Once the ICC has jurisdiction, the laws of that country become subject to those enacted by the United Nations, and other international bodies (e.g. INTERPOL).

This is the picture of a United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. A Marine is accused of killing a child in front of the child's mother. This is considered to be a war crime according to the case currently being presented in The Hague. The United States Attorney General tells the ICC Prosecutor that the US will handle the matter internally. The ICC at this stage can then point to the Rome Statute and claim that the US is in violation of implied acceptance of the Statute and the rules therein, subjecting the nation as a whole to disciplinary action. This is done by referral to the Assembly of States Parties; their referral to the United Nations with recommendations; and the acceptance by the United Nations to put those recommendations into force.*

To be clear on this last point: Even though the United States has a fully functional and generally sound justice system; and the ICC supposedly operates by the doctrine of complimentarity; the end result is either the loss of sovereignty for the Unites States and increased power for the ICC, or the economic damage such actions as embargoes can have upon a nation's economy.

For the sake of clarity, the doctrine of complimentarity simply states that "[t]he ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." The ICC Prosecutor is at this stage arguing; whether literally or by implication; that the United States is subject to the Statute because of its actions within a member nation (State), and that it is unable to prosecute trials involving accused military members genuinely.

It should be noted that this tribunal in the International Criminal Court in The Hague is going on right now. In fact, it has been going on for the last two days, and has only a day of oral argument left. This is not fiction. This is not sensationalism. This is not "fake news." If ever something was truly deserving of being called fake, it would be every news network and outlet that has failed to cover this story as it should have been.

This is the backdoor by which the Globalists seek to enter. And this is the biggest fight against that agenda yet.




This is the second in a two part series. The previous article in this series can be found here. The introduction can be found here.



*Please forgive the obscene oversimplification of this process. It is far more complicated than presented, however such detail carries with it the threat of boredom in the average reader.

Confessions Of An Angry Driver

So I have a confession to make.

I am a recovering angry driver.

No, no. It's really true. I'm the driver that will slow down to five under the speed limit when another driver decides to tailgate me. I'm the driver that will match the speed of the vehicle next to me when some moron behind us is weaving back and forth trying to continue their forty over ride to Hell.

I know it's not good. It might not even be "Christian." You know what? There's a reason I don't have any Christian themed stickers or other adornments on our vehicle. Truth is, I genuinely don't want my poor handling of such situations to reflect badly on my Savior.

When a person becomes a follower of Christ, they do change. Sometimes it happens quickly, and other times it happens slowly. Most of the time, it's a varied pace. For instance, an addiction may disappear in a moment, but the swearing might last for years later. Most of the time, things hang on because they aren't so much problems as symptoms of a major issue. Once that big thing is dealt with properly, the symptoms tend to fade away.

Back to driving.

The people that drive with their blinkers on but never turn or change lanes tick me off. When people change lanes with less than a car length between us- My temper flares. When folks go through red lights; not accidentally, mind, but with birds flying; I fight back genuine rage.

I tend to be like Clive Owens' character in the movie Shoot 'Em Up. "Look. I move my finger one inch and other drivers know I intend to change lanes. This guy can't move his finger one lousy inch? What makes him so special?" His character rants a bit more and punctuates his statement by running the guy off the road.

I haven't done that; nor would I; but the temptation has certainly been there!

When bikers decide to ride up the double yellow line, I have to fight the urge to open my door. When they ride up the breakdown lane, I fight the urge to suddenly put on my hazards and pull over. When they tailgate me, I have to keep myself from hitting my brakes.

I'd like to claim that these things are issues of the past. They're not. I'm getting better at handling myself in these situations, but the temptation is absolutely and in no way any less than it was before.

The thing that has changed is that I don't view myself as a bastion of Justice any longer. I used to- I was a rescuer, addicted to injecting myself into situations I had no business being involved with just to say I had rescued someone from something.

That's been dealt with in a large part, though there are still times when that old urge resurfaces. The more it dies away, the more my driving anger simmers down.

It is strange to think that something like a savior complex could directly influence; even birth; a form of angry driving. Yet for me, the connection is unmistakable and undeniable.

In a society that medicates every little issue as if it were the end all be all, the concept of a root issue causing other issues seems to have gone by the wayside. Yet I truly believe that the more we recognize and acknowledge this reality, the more healthy we will become.

This ends the current sidebar. Now back to the regularly scheduled series, which really is in progress. More information was brought to my attention, which after extensive research, has required a total rewrite of part two.

Globalism Series - Globalism

This series was introduced in the last post, which can be read here. The gist is that Globalism, and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders, is perhaps the worst idea mankind has had. Well, apart from genocide. It is not only unrealistic, it is an open door to global catastrophe, likely ending in a return to the Dark Ages. Globalism was initially viewed as a flight of fancy and usable only for science fiction. Today it has become the delusion that many believe possible. Forwarded slowly and patiently by proponents through various means, Globalism is this era's Imperialism; but with a far more disastrous potential set of consequences.

The "Big Problem"

The biggest problem with Globalism is the existence of enemies of state. That is not to say that there are not other great problems, but this is by far the most immediate. 

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The concept of Globalism when put simply is this: No individual or sovereign nations, just a single world ruled by a group of individuals. While there are proponents who adhere to a more watered-down variant, the ultimate goal of the Globalist agenda is a singular world government. This means that all currencies, resources and laws must eventually be unified. It also means that all individual systems of government must fall. 

Initially this was one of the biggest reasons why many thought that Globalism could never be advanced as a viable possibility. It was suggested that the only way of doing this would be to court anarchy, and anarchists and governments don't readily mix. Thus, if the globalist were to incite anarchy within the nations; and then attempt to set up a world government; it was believed that they would fail miserably. 

Proponents of Globalism set upon a far different approach than the one previously mentioned. Rather than inciting anarchy, they simply worked subtly to breed dissatisfaction. It was a far more laborious process that required a long-term commitment, but globalists were willing to make that sacrifice. They introduced the concept of a singular government into every form of media, from educational to entertainment. At the same time, subtle changes were made within society to foster a growing dissatisfaction with current governments specifically, and life in general. An emphasis was placed upon the importance of dreams in the mid to late 1900's, and mass media underscored this message. At the same time, movies, theater, books, art and games were pushing a constant supply of dream material. It was suggested that the current system could not work, resulting in a dreary, post-apocalyptic world. Other offerings suggested that a Utopia could be achieved if only mankind could band together in a common bond. This approach worked.

The problem with the approach was that it did not address the major obstacle to the success of Globalism. That problem was the continued existence and growth of enemies of state; more specifically, those individuals and groups that would seek to work havoc in areas of the world populated by people they hated. Many of these enemies are not dissuaded from mass destruction today, even with the threat of reciprocity, annihilation, trial and imprisonment or execution. Think about this combined with a global society that doesn't restrict travel, and the problem becomes frighteningly clear.

The Attempted Solutions

"AOC"

The way to deal with enemies of state, and for that matter opponents of Globalism, has been debated. Some suggest that the simple act of opening national borders and allowing unrestricted travel will be a grand enough gesture of good will that enemies will simply cease to be enemies. For people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it seems as though belief in the magical solution is all there is to the problem. 

Others suggest turning to technology. Utilizing ground sensors, listening posts and video towers to monitor hypothetical borders; without implementing walls, increased border security personnel, or other practical forms of enforcement; will certainly discourage those with vile intent. Andrew Yang, a Democrat Presidential hopeful, has actually laid out something very similar to this approach. (It should be noted that as of yet, he has not openly endorsed Open Borders; but he is on board with AOC's "Free Income" stance, calling his concept "The Freedom Dividend." This alone would require another article.)

Still others suggest that what must happen is to simply do away with national identity. This has already been seen in practice on a smaller scale with attempts to color patriotism as "exceptionalism," describe a desire for secure borders as "racism" and "white supremacy," and various other methods. These individuals are not above twisting a movement to suit the purpose. For instance, the concept of "White Privilege." While originally describing a very real social problem, has also been hijacked for the purpose of shaming a large segment of the population into silence on any national issue. While some still utilize it for its original purpose, be aware that others use it for the sake of virtually bludgeoning a critic into silence. In spite of these guerrilla tactics the Big Problem remains the same, because they have not addressed reality.

The Actual Solution

What few globalists will admit, especially in this political climate, is that there is an extremely obvious and thoroughly effective solution to the Big Problem. Few if any proponents of Globalism will discuss this, because it clearly illustrates the carefully concealed double standard by which they and others of a similar mindset have come to thrive. Make no mistake: Those most powerful proponents embrace Globalism not because it requires harmony, but rather that it demands subjugation. Their altruism is shattered when motivations are broken down to the simplest denominator. They want more power. 

The aforementioned Big Problem, then, is a genuine obstacle. It cannot be properly addressed, however. Not until the majority of the population is on board with the life-changing answer to all things, which is the public relations campaign of Globalism. 

Photo by Václav Pluhař on Unsplash

The actual solution has also historically been called "The Final Solution." No, not "die Endlösung der Judenfrage," but something far more diabolical. In keeping with the theme, call it "die Endlösung für die Staatsfeinde." 

Pure and unaltered Globalism cannot function without unanimous consent. The most powerful proponents know this, and perhaps some of the lesser proponents recognize it also. The answer then is not a pie-in-the-sky alternative to immigration. Nor is it the delusional fantasy of making friends of enemies simply by treating them as friends. These do not address the core failings of humanity, and though Globalism is built upon a solidly humanistic foundation, it recognizes this as fact. Thus the actual solution is the termination of all opponents. 

Allow this to sink in for a moment.

Globalism cannot function without everyone agreeing to it. Not everyone does agree. Not everyone will agree. In order for it to be properly implemented and maintained, those in opposition must be dealt with à la Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. No other approach actually eliminates the greatest obstacle to the globalist agenda. Unlike the three beacons of awesomeness mentioned however, this must take place on a global scale. 

Breathe Easy... For Now

For those who view the world through the lens of transhumanism; for those who are hopeful agnostics or atheists; or those who hold some other view that takes a greater-than-deserved optimistic view of humanity; the idea of genocide on a global scale is abhorrent. When the summary of this article was shown to a professor emeritus of philosophy, his reaction to the last section's conclusion was a combination of horror and denial. He gave permission to be quoted in whole or in part, but only on the condition of anonymity:

"...I can find no rational reason to dispute your logic, yet I cannot accept it as being a possibility, let alone a probability. Though humanity is capable of great evil, it is also capable of great good. The more humanity evolves, the more likely the tendency towards good. ...Humanity's growth as a species from the earliest examples unto the present day, from physical attributes to ethical reasoning [demand that] ...I can neither dispute nor accept your conclusion due to conflict of interest."

For those who hold fast to the notion that this the only life one gets, and after comes the grave and nothingness, the following advice is given: Breathe Easy. The globalist agenda has been one of slow, steady and subtle change. This makes it highly unlikely that any planet-wide genocide will happen within the next several years. While the growth of Globalism has certainly accelerated, it is unlikely that any large segment of the population will accept such a solution... Yet. 

For those who believe that the Bible is real and trustworthy: Breathe Easy... For Now. The book of Revelation clearly shows that the Antichrist rules a one-world government, it is true. It is also clear that only under this same leader does the aforementioned genocide take place. Contrary to popular belief, while the last few presidents may be (or have been) possessed of a spirit of antichrist, not one is the Antichrist. 

The real problem facing our society today is not a sudden materialization of Globalism. The real problem is what absolutely must come before Globalism can be achieved. 

The real problem is not the "Final Solution" being ratified tomorrow. The real problem is what is being talked about now, on Capitol Hill. 

The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders.

Globalism Series Introduction

There is a myth going around that ought to be addressed. Truthfully, it should have been addressed when it first starting gaining steam, around 2012 or so. However it would appear that few people are willing to bite the bullet and actually give a rational and intelligent rebuttal to this myth. This is due to the fact that to do so would be to court a political maelstrom, and few people know if they could survive such a storm of controversy. As an individual that has dealt with more than his fair share of withering criticism, the idea is not foreign nor is the aversion. 

With that stated, it is time to place cards on the table. When first faced with the damaging ideology of globalism, many people chuckled and suggested that it could never gain traction. People are smart. People are intelligent. The idea of a unified world without first taking radical measures to ensure its feasibility could never happen, they said. 

Unfortunately, these folks did not foresee the 1960's and 1970's, with their rising emphasis on socialist and communist philosophy. They did not foresee the recession of the 1980's; the persecution of small businesses and self-employed operators in the 1990's; and ultimately, the wide acceptance of socialist and communist philosophy within mainstream society as a result of Bernie Madoff and the Wall Street movement in the early 2000's. 

What the political gurus of the 1940's did not foresee has come to pass, and today the myth of Globalism; and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders; has gained greater traction than could ever be thought possible. It has done this, not by taking such radical measures as would be needed to ensure success, but rather by far more nefarious means. It has gotten to this point by subtly and quietly changing small things within the United States: Language, Identity, and Perception. 

No one should be so gullible as to assume that globalists are behind every subtle change in our society. It should still be noted that as people came forward with ideas that fit the globalist agenda, these found immediate funding and support from very powerful folk. For instance, in 1970, the term "politically correct" was used in an essay by Toni Cade Bambara in reference to her concept of proper masculine behavior.  This phrase was then slowly introduced into society over the next twenty years. By 1991, even the New York Times recognized a cultural revolution of sorts was taking place in regards to the phrase. Nowadays, it is unlikely that one can tell a joke without being labeled "politically incorrect" and "insensitive." (The likelihood of this leading to the death of stand-up comedy ought to be another article entirely... Hmm...)

The result of subtle changes within society has been the acceptance of Globalism as a viable possibility, rather than its reality of being a Utopian pipe dream. The truth is that it is a grand scale delusion, much the same as the philosophy of Socialism. That philosophy when implemented as a governing political system has led to destruction in every nation in which it was attempted. Globalism, if implemented, would go much farther: It would lead to global destruction. 

To be clear, the term "global destruction" should not be understood as being the same as apocalypse, wherein the world has come to an end and is unable to sustain life on the whole. Rather, it means that everything which allows this planet to function as habitable for human life in modern times would cease to exist through systematic elimination and unanticipated consequences. That statement may seem heavy-handed, but it is not made without serious consideration and thought. 

In the next two article, Globalism as a whole will be examined, as will the Open Borders philosophy. It is the hope of this writer that there are enough genuinely free-thinking people left in the world to combat this myth. Otherwise, we may be thrust back to the Dark Ages as early as 2020.

What Has Been Will Be Again

This may be an excellent likeness of someone you know...

Hysteria. Delirium. Panic. 

These words describe the mental and emotional state of nearly every lawmaker in the United States, from those in the US Congress to those at state and local levels. The only individuals not affected by these problems can generally be seen in two groups: Those who don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect their lives, and those who are not possessed by an irrational hatred of a particular president. 

The reader should take two things into account at this point. The first is that this problem has been seen before. It is not unique to our current President, nor is it unique to one political party. It has affected folks from every walk of life, from every ethnic background, from every educational level and from every career path. The second thing is that "irrational hatred" is here defined as an emotional state which compels words and deeds that would otherwise violate one's own ethical, moral and professional codes of conduct. Such a state might be an issue for readers of this article, but affected readers likely wouldn't have made it this far, so... 

Memoria Venellam *

Was he waving at the person on the phone?

During the Obama administration, many in Congress took issue with then-president Obama. Sometimes it was over serious things, such as his cavalier use of the executive order and national emergency declarations. Other times, it was over excessively petty things, like his use of prompt screens. Of those who were obsessed with petty problems, most were Republican; most lacked the ability to recognize anything good done by the President; and nearly all refused to work with him out of personal spite, as opposed to genuine principle. 

At the time, many of the Democrats in Congress couldn't figure out what the problem was. Many lamented the stubborn refusal to work with Obama on anything. Not only were Republicans refusing to work with the President, they were also refusing to pitch their own solutions. On top of that, they were proposing legislation that directly countered Obama's agenda, and were running time and money wasting investigations and hearings. 

Conservative talk show hosts were having a field day with every little thing they could dig up. Born in Kenya. Not an American citizen. Communist. Socialist. Corrupt. Friends with a terrorist. Pastor's a radical. Father's a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein. There's no college record. It went on and on. 

Ultra-conservative talk show hosts were having an even bigger conniption fit. There were connections being made every which way but up. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was being used by Iran. He was being used by Syria. He was being used by Libya. He was also reportedly covering up FEMA camps; Big Pharma human testing; gun running; drug smuggling; and the human trafficking of his enemies. They said that he was breaking the Constitution so that it would no longer work; that he was going to do away with elections; and that he was the Antichrist. 

Veritas Utrum

Many were cartoonish in their hysteria.

While some of what the pundits and talking heads and alarmist writers were putting out there was accurate, there really wasn't a lot of genuine and factual accounting. He may have been born in Kenya, but he was also legally granted a Hawaiian document of birth. His birth father may have been Muslim, but by most accounts he barely knew the man. His pastor may have said some crazy things from the pulpit, but so have a number of other big name preachers. None of this means that he is not responsible for some of the worst abuses of power our nation has ever seen; it just means that there was a whole lot of petty crud that didn't need a fraction of the attention it received. 

There were also the straight-out lies by which even this writer was taken. For instance, one of the earliest pseudo-facts was that Obama was a full-blown Muslim. The deception didn't last long, fortunately; yet the fact that it had managed to capture the attention and energy of intelligent and rational writers such as myself remains a source of consternation. Another lie: Obama was attempting to repeal the Constitution. A few of his executive orders were strung together, along with a few statements from his campaign, which gave the appearance of an all out assault on the supreme law of the land. This one didn't last as long; in fact, it was proven to be a fabrication while researching the story for the sake of an article on this very blog. 

So what has brought on this seeming nostalgia? 

Nothing New Under The Sun

Well, as the saying goes: "New boss same as the old boss." Or if preferred: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There was also this saying from a young man who grew up in several African countries: "A cheetah may change his spots to stripes, but his heart remains set upon your life." 

In the eyes of this author, Obama was and continues to be a scumbag. That personal opinion does not change the fact that he did a few things which were beneficial. It simply means that in the process of weighing what was good and bad about his administration according to subjective judgment, the resulting conclusion puts Obama and most of those people he surrounded himself with firmly in the "scumbag" column. This may be painfully obvious to those who are long-time readers; however what ought to be just as obvious is the fact that not everyone feels this way. Those who are capable of rational thought and logic; and who have the enviable position of accounting for the historical impact of US Presidents; have suggested that apart from his actual election, Obama's notability and historical significance is negligible. 

In the same way, President Trump currently sits in the "Meh" category. He's not yet to be cheered, nor mocked. He's done a lot of good for the country, but this has been nullified by his negative speech. He's already written his name in the history books due to five different events which were halfheartedly reported by the mainstream media. At the same time, those events have not all been seen positively, so once more he's "Meh." 

Yet as in the days of Obama, so too is it now in the days of Trump. People are losing their minds. There are those who are so consumed by irrational fear and/or hatred that they are incapable of rational thought. There are those who are so stubborn that they have turned their backs on lifelong goals solely because Trump thinks those goals are worthwhile. There are insane accusations being made. There are lies being told. There are charges being filed, hearings being held and investigations being conducted - All of which are wasting time and money. CNN is to Trump what FOX was to Obama, in a manner of speaking. 

Basically, we've stepped through the looking glass, Alice- And to fracture more idioms- The grass may be greener on the other side, but it is always full of thorns when we cross the fence. Though the only constant is change, this applies solely to that which is superficial. The heart of humanity, without any form of external influence, remains hopelessly devoid of redeeming qualities; and this explains why the basket still rolls steadily towards Hell... Exempli gratia, Concessus abortus et educationem ordinatur optimum.

* It should be noted that the author is aware of his atrocious grasp of Latin and is using it regardless for the sake of adding a lighthearted touch to an otherwise heavy handed article.