NationStates Jolt Archive


On The Brink Of Madness

RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 21:05
Here is an excellent article from the National Review, by Victor David Hanson. I urge you to read and consider it:

"When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel: “When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].” Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S: “To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon, despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel.

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe, an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around."
Kecibukia
04-08-2006, 21:07
Hint: Cutnpasting articles w/o sourcing them and w/o comment is against the rules.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=
Teh_pantless_hero
04-08-2006, 21:07
You fail.
Philosopy
04-08-2006, 21:08
Hint: Cutnpasting articles w/o sourcing them and w/o comment is against the rules.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=
Good find.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 21:12
In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.Actually, a better thing would be to look at what was happening in Europe in 1933. Demonize, then round up the opposition and create a scapegoat on which to pile all the blame.
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 21:15
Hint: Cutnpasting articles w/o sourcing them and w/o comment is against the rules.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=
You're right. My bad. I editted the entry.
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 21:17
This is proof that good writing ability is just that, good writing ability, and that is has no bearing on one’s reasoning skills or even one’s ability to properly assign and use political phrases.
Sinuhue
04-08-2006, 21:17
You're right. My bad. I editted the entry.
Why don't you make it clear at the very top that you are not in fact the author?

Then, because cutting and pasting is not allowed on its own, you should include another section with your comments on the piece.
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 21:23
Why don't you make it clear at the very top that you are not in fact the author?

Then, because cutting and pasting is not allowed on its own, you should include another section with your comments on the piece.
I did that too. I'm just afraid that because it's from a conservative magazine, most people on this forum will immediately disregard it.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 21:25
I did that too. I'm just afraid that because it's from a conservative magazine, most people on this forum will immediately disregard it.Nah, the bullshit about appeasement and such is enough to toss it out of the window. ;)
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 21:25
I did that too. I'm just afraid that because it's from a conservative magazine, most people on this forum will immediately disregard it.
Well I read it because I enjoy good writing. It was still bullshit, though.
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 21:26
Nah, the bullshit about appeasement and such is enough to toss it out of the window. ;)
Appeasment pwns.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 21:28
Appeasment pwns.
If it buys you time to build up the RAF, why not?
IDF
04-08-2006, 21:30
You fail.
Now that's an intelligent response:rolleyes:
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 21:30
If it buys you time to build up the RAF, why not?
Red Army, RAF, either/or.
LiberationFrequency
04-08-2006, 21:34
The reason Europe did nothing about the growing insanity in the 1930s is because it had been the battleground for a World War, America has no excuse.
ConscribedComradeship
04-08-2006, 21:34
Now that's an intelligent response:rolleyes:
Oh, I love the way you used a different colour:rolleyes:
Call to power
04-08-2006, 21:34
never understood why everyone always seems to be so interested in WWII and Hitler

I think today’s world is more like a late 1800 world globalisation (though still not as strong as it was back then) is growing sparking age old ethnic tensions that caused much of the wars of the 20th Century there are the new central powers coming into play these are the nations with large or growing populations (like Iran whose population is growing like a spot on a adolescents face) the nations are reducing the inefficiency that made them backwards during the past few centuries which will lead them to eventually dominate the globe once are western nations collapse under are own lack of breeding (like how Germany threatened the British empires industries by industrializing themselves)

Actually you can compare are present moment in time to any period if you look closely enough which either means that history has been repeating itself for centuries or that the future will be something completely different and unexpected
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 21:37
The reason Europe did nothing about the growing insanity in the 1930s is because it had been the battleground for a World War, America has no excuse.
Great Depression? The average American not being aware of the holocaust? 300,000 wounded and 50,000 dead in World War One?
Laerod
04-08-2006, 21:37
Red Army, RAF, either/or.
Nah, the Red Army Fraction didn't come around until much later. Royal Airforce is what I was talking about :p
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 21:39
If it buys you time to build up the RAF, why not?
More like the Wehrmarcht.
Baguetten
04-08-2006, 21:41
Actually, a better thing would be to look at what was happening in Europe in 1933. Demonize, then round up the opposition and create a scapegoat on which to pile all the blame.

You hit the nail with that one.
Call to power
04-08-2006, 21:42
America has no excuse.

wouldn't say that America had its own problems and though they did do little fighting at the end of WWI (which nearly caused us to lose the war thanks to Uncle Sams lack of training) they still had a very bad experience of what war between industrialised nations was like and felt little need to repeat such a thing ever again

also note that Uncle Sam was racking in the money from not being in the league of nations and thus being one of Italy’s only trading partners (which it would of lost had it gone to war with her allie with an army that was only big enough to maybe defend its own borders)
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 21:43
wouldn't say that America had its own problems and though they did do little fighting at the end of WWI (which nearly caused us to lose the war thanks to Uncle Sams lack of training) they still had a very bad experience of what war between industrialised nations was like and felt little need to repeat such a thing ever again

also note that Uncle Sam was racking in the money from not being in the league of nations and thus being one of Italy’s only trading partners (which it would of lost had it gone to war with her allie with an army that was only big enough to maybe defend its own borders)
If it wasn't for "Uncle's Sam's" doughboys in the trenches, you would be speaking German right now.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 21:44
More like the Wehrmarcht.If you compare the status of the militaries of France, Great Britain, and Germany, the odds were much more in favor of the Nazis before the Munich conference. Chamberlain bought Britain time to set up RADAR dishes and produce an airforce capable of barely withstanding the Luftwaffe. Your statement is totally erroneous.
Laerod
04-08-2006, 21:46
If it wasn't for "Uncle's Sam's" doughboys in the trenches, you would be speaking German right now.Bullshit. The royal navy had a lot more to do with the end of WWI. Germany's war economy was crippled through the blockade. A few more soldiers only made the inevitable outcome more obvious.
Call to power
04-08-2006, 21:46
If it wasn't for "Uncle's Sam's" doughboys in the trenches, you would be speaking German right now.

nope I would be speaking perfect English boasting about are huge Empire and how we gave Harry Hun a tracing in the WWI of the 1930's (the victory of WWI was more to do with who offered peace first really)
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 21:51
Bullshit. The royal navy had a lot more to do with the end of WWI. Germany's war economy was crippled through the blockade. A few more soldiers only made the inevitable outcome more obvious.
If I recall correctly, Britain was a few months from starvation thanks to Germany's highly successful U-boat campaign, and Russia, which had borne the brunt of the fighting, exited the war in 1917, thus freeing a lot of German divisions to pummel the Allies on the Western Front. Also, the French Army almost imploded from a mutiny that same year.

Face it, WW1 was the first of many precedents in which America saved freedom and democracy from tyranny and oppression.
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 21:54
A few more soldiers only made the inevitable outcome more obvious.
And quicker. Which, admittedly probably did save more than a few lives.
NERVUN
04-08-2006, 21:55
Why is it that those in favore of the war must always try and compre it, no matter how it doesn't fit, to WWII? Current events don't even come close to matching events back then.

The only reason I can come up with is the notion that WWII was the "good fight" so a desprate attempt is made to establish a link; and, in the case of this article, use the "villians" of the battle to paint those who disagree with the current situation as cowards and appeasers.

Sad, really.
Fooneytopia
04-08-2006, 21:57
If I recall correctly, Britain was a few months from starvation thanks to Germany's highly successful U-boat campaign, and Russia, which had borne the brunt of the fighting, exited the war in 1917, thus freeing a lot of German divisions to pummel the Allies on the Western Front. Also, the French Army almost imploded from a mutiny that same year.

Face it, WW1 was the first of many precedents in which America saved freedom and democracy from tyranny and oppression.

What? I'm sorry, what? America saved nobody's ass in WWI.

The naval blockade by the Royal Navy made the biggest impact, German troops had over-stretched their supply lines on the Western Front in 1917/8 after Russia pulled out, and the introduction of the tank on the Allies side turned the tables once and for all.

If I remember rightly, American troops took part in 1 major battle in WWI.
Skinny87
04-08-2006, 21:57
If I recall correctly, Britain was a few months from starvation thanks to Germany's highly successful U-boat campaign, and Russia, which had borne the brunt of the fighting, exited the war in 1917, thus freeing a lot of German divisions to pummel the Allies on the Western Front. Also, the French Army almost imploded from a mutiny that same year.

Face it, WW1 was the first of many precedents in which America saved freedom and democracy from tyranny and oppression.

What bloody history books have you been reading? The U-Boat menace was crap by late 1917 early 1918. The Germans were the ones starving and in submission, starting riots and refusing to fight in areas. The French recovered from Verdun and started some excellent offenses during 1918, and after the Michel and George offensives were stopped as the Germans ran out of steam, the allies began advancing into German territory. The US troops were a help, but they did fairly litle compared to the French and British; their supplies and weapons were of more use, although the US troops fought bravely and effectively in the areas they were stationed.
Ollieland
04-08-2006, 21:58
If I recall correctly, (1)Britain was a few months from starvation thanks to Germany's highly successful U-boat campaign, and (2) Russia, which had borne the brunt of the fighting, exited the war in 1917, thus freeing a lot of German divisions to pummel the Allies on the Western Front. Also, (3) the French Army almost imploded from a mutiny that same year.

(4) Face it, WW1 was the first of many precedents in which America saved freedom and democracy from tyranny and oppression.

1 - Totally false. Britain at this time was pretty much self sufficient agriculturally and German U-boats of the era were littoral craft incapable of deep sea operations, unlike their WWII vounterparts.

2 - Russia had not borne the brunt of the fighting. The German Schlieffen Plan had more resources afforded to it in the western front as the German plan was to knock out France quickly before the development of a war of attrition with Russia.

3 - Almost, yes, but nowhere near definite. French military discipline was quickly restored by brutal methods in the minority of units which mutineed.

4 - Not this time. WWI was primarily won by 3 factors; the Franco British defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the middle east, superior British and French troop numbers from their colonies, and the defeat of the German high seas fleet at Jutland. As for tyranny and oppression, the German Empire of WWI was no better or worse than other oligarchical monarchys of the time. Really, where do you get these strange ideas?
NERVUN
04-08-2006, 21:59
If I recall correctly, Britain was a few months from starvation thanks to Germany's highly successful U-boat campaign, and Russia, which had borne the brunt of the fighting, exited the war in 1917, thus freeing a lot of German divisions to pummel the Allies on the Western Front. Also, the French Army almost imploded from a mutiny that same year.

Face it, WW1 was the first of many precedents in which America saved freedom and democracy from tyranny and oppression.
*snorts* Face it, you need to read an actual history book and not get your history from Hollywood or the National Review.

The appearance of US forces was the final nail in the coffin, but many were no where near the front when Germany surrendered, a fact that had a lot to do with internal pressures as well as the sudden appearance of a fresh face on the lines.

The US troops helped, but it was the promise of new waves of troops against already excaused forces and an internal change of goverment (and the collapse of Germany's allies) that prompted WWI to stop.
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 22:00
The only reason I can come up with is the notion that WWII was the "good fight" so a desprate attempt is made to establish a link; and, in the case of this article, use the "villians" of the battle to paint those who disagree with the current situation as cowards and appeasers.

Sad, really.
Very sad considering both sides in World War II did terrible things. Nobody involved should be proud, neither on a personal nor national level.
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 22:01
What bloody history books have you been reading? The U-Boat menace was crap by late 1917 early 1918. The Germans were the ones starving and in submission, starting riots and refusing to fight in areas. The French recovered from Verdun and started some excellent offenses during 1918, and after the Michel and George offensives were stopped as the Germans ran out of steam, the allies began advancing into German territory. The US troops were a help, but they did fairly litle compared to the French and British; their supplies and weapons were of more use, although the US troops fought bravely and effectively in the areas they were stationed.
I'll begrudgingly admit that America's 100000+ dead are nothing compared to the millions on the French and British side, however, the Allies were BEGGING for America to enter the war by then, and America's entry helped the allies immesurably.
Shatov
04-08-2006, 22:02
If it wasn't for "Uncle's Sam's" doughboys in the trenches, you would be speaking German right now.

Sorry but no. Having studied World War One as part of my degree, I can safely say that we would still be speaking English had the Americans not come. Victory in World War One primarily belongs to the British and French armies - the Americans arrived too late in the course of the conflict to make any real difference to the outcome. They were also utterly unaccustomed to the trench environment, which reduced their fighting efficiency severly.
Kecibukia
04-08-2006, 22:02
*snorts* Face it, you need to read an actual history book and not get your history from Hollywood or the National Review.

The appearance of US forces was the final nail in the coffin, but many were no where near the front when Germany surrendered, a fact that had a lot to do with internal pressures as well as the sudden appearance of a fresh face on the lines.

The US troops helped, but it was the promise of new waves of troops against already excaused forces and an internal change of goverment (and the collapse of Germany's allies) that prompted WWI to stop.

To be fair, collapses were occuring on both sides. Russia had dropped out, Germany was moving forces (albeit tired forces) west, and France was experiencing anti-war riots.

I will agree though that it was the effectively inexaustible waves of fresh troops that tipped the scale though.
Deep Kimchi
04-08-2006, 22:02
You fail.
It's still an excellent article.

Based on your views in the past, I'm sure you would have been cheering on Chamberlain, and not believing that Hitler was a threat to anyone.
RockTheCasbah
04-08-2006, 22:03
*snorts* Face it, you need to read an actual history book and not get your history from Hollywood or the National Review.

The appearance of US forces was the final nail in the coffin, but many were no where near the front when Germany surrendered, a fact that had a lot to do with internal pressures as well as the sudden appearance of a fresh face on the lines.

The US troops helped, but it was the promise of new waves of troops against already excaused forces and an internal change of goverment (and the collapse of Germany's allies) that prompted WWI to stop.
So according to you it was the psychological effect of millions of enthusiastic young men from America that helped to end the war. Way to defeat your own argument.
Ollieland
04-08-2006, 22:03
I'll begrudgingly admit that America's 100000+ dead are nothing compared to the millions on the French and British side, however, the Allies were BEGGING for America to enter the war by then, and America's entry helped the allies immesurably.

Again not true. American entry into WWI was due to Wilson wanting to start his idea of the League of Nations and to try to introduce democracy to central and eastern Europe. He could hardly do this as a neutral.
Neo Undelia
04-08-2006, 22:03
I'll begrudgingly admit that America's 100000+ dead are nothing compared to the millions on the French and British side, however, the Allies were BEGGING for America to enter the war by then, and America's entry helped the allies immesurably.
50,000 dead.
Skinny87
04-08-2006, 22:03
I'll begrudgingly admit that America's 100000+ dead are nothing compared to the millions on the French and British side, however, the Allies were BEGGING for America to enter the war by then, and America's entry helped the allies immesurably.

US troops helped push German troops back in several Northern Sectors of the Front, and their Tank Brigade was a help in the later 1918 offensives, but the majority of US troops were nowhere near the front by the time of the defeat. It was US political pressue that helped more than anything, as well as their supplies. More was done by the Royal Navy blockade and internal German pressures. Please, don't make such generalised and ignorant statements.
Sinuhue
04-08-2006, 22:04
I did that too. I'm just afraid that because it's from a conservative magazine, most people on this forum will immediately disregard it.
Sorry...you included comments on the article? Where? They actually need to be in that first post.
Kecibukia
04-08-2006, 22:04
Sorry but no. Having studied World War One as part of my degree, I can safely say that we would still be speaking English had the Americans not come. Victory in World War One primarily belongs to the British and French armies - the Americans arrived too late in the course of the conflict to make any real difference to the outcome. They were also utterly unaccustomed to the trench environment, which reduced their fighting efficiency severly.

So you think the rioting and exausted French and British armies could have held against the new waves of Eastern German troops w/o the admittedly green US troops supporting them?
NERVUN
04-08-2006, 22:05
So according to you it was the psychological effect of millions of enthusiastic young men from America that helped to end the war. Way to defeat your own argument.
Helped, not rode in to save the day. Go back to start and re-do.
Skinny87
04-08-2006, 22:05
So you think the rioting and exausted French and British armies could have held against the new waves of Eastern German troops w/o the admittedly green US troops supporting them?

Yes. The Michel and George offensives were broken up by extending themselves too far and fragmenting without enough training. It would have taken longer and been much bloodier, but the US troops were not vital. US political support was, as were their supplies; but concerned with troop numbers, no.
Tactical Grace
04-08-2006, 22:06
Try putting forward your own ideas, rather than someone else's.

Locked for absence of original content.