When I write a post describing a positive political strategy or some political work that is happening on the ground I often get comments that assert grandly that some factor beyond our control renders all activity useless.
It's a bleak attitude, one that denies the effect on the world of our own creative spirit. It is this creative spirit that is mostly responsible for making history (though factors such as the economic organisation of a society or technological changes can influence things as well.)
For all their materialism, liberals are very much attuned to exercising their creative spirit on the world. This might even be one reason for their success over past centuries.
Liberalism might even be seen as an impatience with any "limiting" factors on an individual's creative spirit. Liberals want to be able to express this spirit in a wholly "unencumbered" way, as an abstracted "uncreated" individual inhabiting an "uncreated" environment.
Traditionalists don't go to this extreme. We gladly accept our position as created beings, as it is through our identity and our particular relationships that we find our deeper loves and fulfilments. So it is within a definite context that we express our creative spirit.
The contest ought not to be between "creative spirit liberals" and bleak spirited traditionalists. If it is, then of course we deserve to lose.
We will make a real contest of things when we prove ourselves to be stronger as creative spirits, stronger because we begin as meaningfully embedded human personalities rather than as abstracted individuals.
Mark
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have a strange understanding of liberalism. It is certainly not creative. The liberal period has been one of the least creative in Western history and one of considerable demoralisation and destruction.
Liberalism has gained dominance through force and not creativity. Traditionalists (and most people who claim to be traditionalists are actually liberals) have been weak and passive and have failed to effectively resist the force of liberalism and have meekly succumbed to it.
Traditional people need to develop the resourcefulness and imagination to resist and subvert liberalism and its aims. This creativity. There is little point in creating a fight with liberals as this plays into their hands by granting them the conflict they seek and giving them the opportunity to defeat by force.
How is History made?
ReplyDeleteIn the words of David Starkey, British historian "history is made top down and not bottom up". That means that the wealthy and powerful elites make history and the majority of the human race passively follow.
"People Power" does not in itself work alone. In the cases where it has appeared to work it has always been with the backing of an elite. And so liberalism will fall only when another elite decides to battle it and make it fall. And that most likely will be the Generals, in the USA at least.
First Anon,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you're looking at it the right way.
There is a powerful aspect of human nature which seeks creative expression.
I don't mean by this an artistic impulse. I mean a drive to express oneself in shaping the world one exists in.
If you follow this drive you have a big advantage when it comes to politics as you are likely to seize the initiative and be active in the world. You certainly have an advantage over those in whom this drive is weaker and who wish to justify a retreat from the world.
I'd like traditionalists to follow the drive toward creative expression in the world as much as liberals do, whilst at the same time acting from within a created reality rather than seeking a false freedom from it.
Mark
ReplyDeleteI don't think you understand the points which I am making.
You state "I'm not sure you're looking at it the right way.
There is a powerful aspect of human nature which seeks creative expression."
I am not denying the creativity of human nature. I am making the point that irrespective of the human creative impulse, politics is predominantly about power and particularly the power of the elites. And this is something to be borne in mind in the process of formulation of political strategies which have to be aligned with realistic goals and targets and not wishful thinking and exuberant fantasies.
I made the point that liberals are not creative. They are hard headed people who have successfully captured the political process and manipulated its agenda by force. Liberalism is in essence a soft tyranny. There is nothing creative about it. It is intentionally destructive.
Traditionalists will not shape the world by dreaming and creative expression. They require hard headed strategies with realistic objectives. This requires creativity but also a degree of ruthlessness and hardheadedness.
Second anon,
ReplyDeleteYou are taking a partial truth too far.
Yes, it's important to have the support of an elite. One thing traditionalists have to consider is how to organise a community in a way that an elite with sectional interests won't dissolve it.
But you then go on to conclude that change can only happen from the generals.
Change has come in the past, to a considerable degree, from the political class - from those people who shape the philosophy and political trends within a society. It is those people who have instituted a liberal philosophy in the West and who have pushed for its unfolding in society.
I don't see how people can expect things to go our way when the philosophy within the political parties and the churches and the educational institutions is a liberal one.
We need to push back when it comes to the culture war and the battle of ideas. And this means attracting people who, just like liberals, are connected to the creative spirit I have been trying to describe, rather than to a more passive, fatalistic one.
Anon (22:52),
ReplyDeleteObviously I haven't expressed myself clearly.
I have been trying to contrast two different personality types: the person who is connected to the creative spirit within them which seeks to shape the world and the person who is disconnected from this creative spirit and who is passive and fatalistic.
In cleaning up our own act we need to ditch the passive fatalists, who are merely a burden to us, and attract the creative spirits.
This has nothing to do with being a dreaming or hard-headed person. If you really wish to shape the world then you will mostly likely be both.
Also, politics is not just about power but about what people wish to do with the power they obtain. What do people consider to be just? What do people understand by freedom? How do people conceive of solidarity?
The way that these questions are framed and answered is significant to what those in power choose to do.
Liberals began as a small weak force in the 17th century. They only gained control of a society with the American Revolution.
ReplyDelete18th century French Revolutionary Leftists, European Socialists & Marxists in the 19th century, Nazis, Fascists and cultural Marxists in the 20th century, all began as small weak forces. In many cases they co-opted, subverted, or persuaded existing elites. In the US the old WASP Liberal intellectual Elite was mostly replaced in the 20th century by an Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual Elite of cultural Marxists and Neoconservatives. In the UK by contrast much the same WASP elite has retained power since well before the 20th century, really from the late 17th century at least, but their views have been altered in the 20th century from Liberal to cultural Marxist, and underwent similar if less radical shifts previously.
Two thousand years ago, Christians were small in number and very weak. They didn't start off as the Elite.
Starkey is right about Elites making history. The most effective way to win is to persuade, co-opt, or replace the Elites, and this has been done many times.
"Change has come in the past, to a considerable degree, from the political class - from those people who shape the philosophy and political trends within a society. It is those people who have instituted a liberal philosophy in the West and who have pushed for its unfolding in society."
ReplyDeleteYes, but politicians as such are almost always short-termists who blow with the prevailing wind. They see which way things are going, then go that way. If they think the wind is blowing your way, they go your way.
And people power does influence politicians - the Western media class and the politicians' paymasters want to bomb Syria, but the people are against it, and many politicians are actually listening to the people.
Nil Desperandum.
ReplyDelete"And people power does influence politicians - the Western media class and the politicians' paymasters want to bomb Syria, but the people are against it, and many politicians are actually listening to the people."
ReplyDeleteThe politicians may listen to the people but that ultimately is not the deciding factor in war. (the majority of the UK population were opposed to the Iraq war and more than 1 million demonstrated in London). So far there is no march planned re Syria.
What is presently influencing the politicians is the Generals and the evidence they have which may lead to the impeachment of Obama and the collapse of the present USA Government.
"Yes, it's important to have the support of an elite. One thing traditionalists have to consider is how to organise a community in a way that an elite with sectional interests won't dissolve it."
ReplyDeleteMark this statement is contradictory. You admit that the support of an elite is essential. And then you admit that an elite (and this applies to the present elite) will try to dissolve traditionalist communities.
This is essentially the key to the strategy. How do you intend to create and order a traditionalist community in such a way that the elite cannot destroy it by infiltration and subversion?
You also state "But you then go on to conclude that change can only happen from the generals."
The political system has changed from times of old. Power and wealth and control of the economy is now concentrated in a small group of people. Power has been consolidated. Democracy as President Carter said no longer exists. Therefore change originating in the political process is inherently unlikely.
At the moment it is obvious that the USA is paralysed by a standoff between Obama and General Martin Dempsey, the military being the only force who can remove the Government.
"Also, politics is not just about power but about what people wish to do with the power they obtain. What do people consider to be just? What do people understand by freedom? How do people conceive of solidarity?
ReplyDeleteThe way that these questions are framed and answered is significant to what those in power choose to do."
This is idealistic in the extreme and totally detached from current political reality. Most of the West is an elective dictatorship and hence these questions are not relevant to the present.
anon:
ReplyDelete"The politicians may listen to the people but that ultimately is not the deciding factor in war. (the majority of the UK population were opposed to the Iraq war and more than 1 million demonstrated in London). "
Not true - at least according to the polls, the UK media-govt axis was able to generate majority support for war in 2003. And while much of the Left did oppose the war, the Right supported it and the centre was ambivalent. I remember my Left-wing office colleague marched against the war, and I to my shame did not support him. In fact that experience was what started me on the path away from Liberalism, and a re-evaluation of our previous 'Humanitarian' wars such as our criminal attack on Serbia in 1998.
Most of the public haven't journeyed as far as I have, but clearly Iraq did make a big difference to people's willingness to be fooled by government.
I'm definitely not discounting the power of the Generals BTW - a General MacArthur (US) or even a General Dannatt (UK) is always a real threat to the civilian government. The 2012 Olympics here cemented the British peoples' love of our military, and probably most of us would initially support a military coup replacing a Far Left or Islamist elected government, just as in Egypt - the government would have been elected by less than 25% of the population and a bunch of fake vokes, so it's not hard for the opposition number to be greater. Military governments struggle to maintain legitimacy over time, though, and even though they tend to be successful in most respects they are usually vilified after they're gone.
ReplyDeleteStill, Traditionalists in UK & Oz should certainly look to the military for likely allies. Unfortunately the US military leadership seems to be corrupt, although I'm sure there are still good people in there.
Good post. To the commenters, good points on both the creative spirit, the pessimists and the elite power/backing plus people's voices.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYou've clearly got an idea in your head regarding the loss of democracy and generals.
I loathe your idea not only because it's simplistic and ahistorical but most of all because it is yet another permutation and combination (and haven't I heard a lot of them) on the theme that "some other force has all the power, all we can do is moan and gripe".
It's exactly the mindset we need to move away from.
I know that I'm not going to change your mind on this. More likely I'm just going to have to delete your comments.
There have been too many of you on the non-liberal right, really since at least the early 1900s. It creates a losing culture on our side of politics.
I would rather have 100 readers with a winning mindset than 1000 with a losing one.
Anon, this may come as a surprise to you, but I actually intend to try and do things to improve the situation we find ourselves in.
If you are one of the "we can't do anything, [insert name of force] will stop us" defeatists, then go somewhere else. This is not a site for you.
This has to be one of my favorite post so far on this blog. I really like the can do spirit Of Mr. Richardson.
ReplyDelete@Simon, if a military coup d'etat would happen in the UK the British armed forces would just transfer power to the monarch. In America you would have a power vacuum and eventually a full blown civil war on your hands.
Fatalism is the opiate of the coward.
ReplyDeleteChristopher and Canadian,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments - it all helps in creating a positive political culture at this site.
What makes history? Killing. Lots and lots of killing.
ReplyDeleteGlad I could clear that up for ya.
Christopher Grieb said...
ReplyDelete>> This has to be one of my favorite post so far on this blog. I really like the can do spirit Of Mr. Richardson.<<
Agreed, yup.
>> @Simon, if a military coup d'etat would happen in the UK the British armed forces would just transfer power to the monarch. In America you would have a power vacuum and eventually a full blown civil war on your hands.<<
Agreed, the first vow of the British soldier is to the ruling monarch, the king or queen, followed by the monarch's government. And if it ever did happen here (very unlikely), the military govt would appeal to a reigning or deposed monarch for legitimacy, which would give a lot more stability than in the US system. In France the military can put a President on the throne, as more or less happened with deGaulle at the end of the Fourth Republic, but in the US the only legitimate authority would be the States, which are supposedly the source of authority for the Federal govt, so the federal military could only act in the name of stopping an illegitimate federal usurption of State power. And the reality of course is that the US military is far more likely to act to enforce such a usurption. :)
Anyway, military coups are more a Catholic-country thing (sorry Mark!) >:) - even in Orthodox nations like Russia it's notable how the military stays apolitical.
Things change, though. But any such upheaval could as easily turn out worse as better, and by far the best thing would be for our societies to be restored through peaceful change in attitudes and beliefs among the existing leadership class/elites and the general population. And this sort of change is certainly possible, it has happened before, and if we continue to exist it will happen again. It does need people to believe in it and work towards it.
"some other force has all the power, all we can do is moan and gripe"."
ReplyDeleteMark you are misrepresenting the comments made and refusing to deal with the issue the reader makes and that is the following:
1: You have not detailed a coherent political strategy for attaining specific goals within the current political order.
2: Meetings and blogs, whilst allowing readers to exchange views on interesting topics do not in themselves lead to significant or measurable political outcomes. The late Lawrence Auster created a wonderful collection of work and educated many readers but the political influence was nil.
3: Any political strategy, in order to succeed in the prevailing political order must contain strategies of resistance and subversion of the liberal order. I see no mention of how you attempt to do this on your website.
by far the best thing would be for our societies to be restored through peaceful change in attitudes and beliefs among the existing leadership class/elites and the general population.
ReplyDeleteWell put.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWhy should I waste valuable time playing silly games with you?
If I spent half an hour typing a comment carefully repeating the strategy I had laid out you would ignore it completely and complain that I had not laid out a strategy.
When you get serious about having a political discussion, then I'll invest some time in it. Until then I again suggest you either make a positive contribution or find another site.
"by far the best thing would be for our societies to be restored through peaceful change in attitudes and beliefs among the existing leadership class/elites and the general population."
ReplyDeleteYes, this is an ideal solution but how can it be achieved within the current social and political situation? The existing elites are compromised and treasonous and have persistently worked against the interests of their own countrymen. The extent of current treason and corruption is probably greater than at any previous time in Western history.
They are unlikely to change their ideas or behavior and in recent years the political and economic power of these elites has increased at the expense of the mass of the population. These elites are not going to change either their ideology, their interests or their behavior. And they are unlikely to relinquish power voluntarily. Removal by force looks increasingly like the only realistic option.
The situation of Western nations, particularly the Anglosphere, is without historical precedent. The extent of moral and financial corruption is greater and the ethnic composition has been so radically reshaped that the power of the founding WASP populations to restore the societies to the historically traditional WASP nations is severely compromised.
The existing elites are compromised and treasonous and have persistently worked against the interests of their own countrymen. The extent of current treason and corruption is probably greater than at any previous time in Western history.
ReplyDeleteOK, but why are they treasonous? I don't think there is any single reason. But one part of the answer is that the set of values that is held by the elite makes it moral to act the way that they do.
So we need to win a section of the intelligentsia over to a different view of the world, one in which it makes sense, and is held to be moral, to be loyal to your own tradition.
Let me be even more specific than this. We need to get to a point where a young thinking Westerner will not only see as part of the landscape of ideas available to him a right-liberalism or a left-liberalism but will also be exposed to a well-presented traditionalist world view.
If you win even ten per cent of young, well-adjusted, intelligent, thinking Westerners over then you have the human capital with which to create a political culture of your own and from there to secure an institutional base, which is what gives a degree of political power in society.
As I have written many times before, I believe as well that a traditionalist movement should also seek to predominate in a certain area (to concentrate numbers or forces) in order to build up community institutions and to provide a living example of what a traditionalist community could be.
Mr Richardson, why not ease your own blood pressure and avoid your leisure being wasted, by the simple act of putting a total, absolute, and explicitly stated ban on anonymous comments?
ReplyDeleteThis is what many other webmasters do: prohibit such comments, announce that they are prohibiting such comments, and confine comboxes to those who are prepared to identify themselves somehow.
For instance, one prominent and intelligent Australian blogger has written the following: "But please, do give yourself a name. It doesn't have to be your own name (though that is preferable), but something to facilitate conversation. Much as I love comments, I will henceforth reject any posts that fail to include a reference identifier!"
http://www.australiaincognita.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/commenters-please-give-yourselves-name.html
Too easy.
Clearly the present system, or rather non-system, is indefensible. When almost every thread gets commandeered by several different protesters vociferating from behind the same moniker "Anon", the outcome is chaos, and it conveys to outsiders the impression that the chief raison d'être of OzConservative's comboxes is to serve as creative-writing therapy for lunatic poltroons.
Is that the impression Mr Richardson actually wishes to convey?
Those who are not lunatic poltroons will happily enough avoid signing themselves merely as "Anon".
Mark
ReplyDeleteYou write "OK, but why are they treasonous? I don't think there is any single reason. But one part of the answer is that the set of values that is held by the elite makes it moral to act the way that they do."
There are many acts taken by the liberal elite which demonstrate that they are treasonous. A small number are the following:
1: mass third world immigration in a drive for low skilled and low income labour for big business as well as a source of left wing votes. This was driven by left wing parties and harmed their own native supporters. The opening of a country's borders to alien invaders is an act of treason.
2: the declaration of wars on sovereign states without UN authorization leading to massive state debt and casualties in USA and UK armed forces. The declaration of an illegal war on a sovereign state in circumstances which provide no benefit to and are actually detrimental to the population of a country is an act of treason.
3: Outsourcing of labour and corporate tax evasion. This destroys the white collar and some professional jobs markets and depletes Government revenues.
The elites are not acting "morally" in the above actions. They are ruthlessly acting against the interests of the nation and inflicting economic and social destruction on large sections of the population and Government finances.
There is nothing moral about encouraging Third World immigration. Elites act to destroy the national consciousness, ensure left liberal rule and destroy the jobs and finances of the less skilled workers.
Would you not consider these to be treasonous acts?
You state "So we need to win a section of the intelligentsia over to a different view of the world, one in which it makes sense, and is held to be moral, to be loyal to your own tradition."
The traditional view of the world would be the Christian Protestant one on which the Anglosphere is founded. However, this has been firmly rejected by the ruling elites and indeed many of the elites are no longer WASPS.
James Roberts,
ReplyDeleteI agree that ideally people should adopt a sensible moniker and post comments under it. It would help to give focus to discussions. Perhaps I do need to write a comments policy and keep it in the sidebar.
But would that solve everything? Even if our anon did call himself something else the substance of his comments would remain the same.
Anon (21:05),
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that the elites haven't been treasonous. I asked why they have been so.
Nor did I suggest that they elites were, in an objective sense, acting morally.
I was pointing out that within their own framework of values it was possible for them to believe that they were acting morally.
Therefore, it is important for us to challenge this framework of values, particularly with young Westerners who are forming their world views.
Although I am Christian, I don't believe it's enough to say that the answer is Christianity.
The late Lawrence Auster once wrote:
The order of being is the tripartite order of existence in which we live: the natural order, the social order, and the divine order. Everything that exists is a part of one or more of those realms, with man in the middle, a part of them all and experiencing them all.
The task of trying to realise such an order of being within a community is a complex one that draws on much that exists within human experience and understanding.
Contemporary Christianity has been pushed too much to the sidelines to even attempt to fulfil this role. At its worst, it has simply picked up a few themes from the New Testament and attempted to apply these reductively to society, without caring a great deal what the consequences would be for the Western tradition or the Western peoples.
In short, contemporary Christianity has given up the role of being civilizational. We can try to bring it back to this role, but for the time being I don't think we can simply say that the answer is Christianity.
Mark you state "I didn't say that the elites haven't been treasonous. I asked why they have been so.
ReplyDeleteNor did I suggest that they elites were, in an objective sense, acting morally.
I was pointing out that within their own framework of values it was possible for them to believe that they were acting morally."
It is quite apparent from the behaviour of the elites that they do not act morally within their own framework of values. Their apparent framework of values is simply, at best, a camouflage for their own immoral and ruthless behaviour. There is nothing within their values which makes it moral to evade taxes on a massive scale and at the same time promote policies which consume tax payers money on a massive scale. Corporate tax evasion and falling and stagnant worker pay reduces Government tax revenue and means that the liberal social programmes must be implemented from a declining revenue base.
Similarly elites dumb down mass education but buy their children places in the best private schools which do not provide dumbed down education.
I am afraid that your assertion that elites behave morally within the context of their own framework of values is not borne out by reality.
You state "n short, contemporary Christianity has given up the role of being civilizational. We can try to bring it back to this role, but for the time being I don't think we can simply say that the answer is Christianity."
Western civilisation is founded on Christianity. Its institutions are based upon Christianity and in the Anglosphere this means Protestant Christianity. The other basis for civilisational foundation is ethnic tradition and culture. These are the two strands of Western Civilisation and without a return to these basic values and traditions, then no civilisation revival is possible.
The Bible deals with the natural, social and divine orders, mans place in these orders and God's sovereignty over all of these orders. And they key to traditional societies is to recognise God' sovereignty over all other orders as without this recognition there can be no coherence in society. Therefore a return to traditional Christianity is essential to the restoration of Western civilisation.
It is quite apparent from the behaviour of the elites that they do not act morally within their own framework of values.
ReplyDeletePeople are motivated by a variety of things. But I think it's difficult for those who don't have an "intellectual personality" (not talking about intelligence but about a personality type) to understand how important it is for some people to have a world view with which to find meaning and to make sense of reality.
Such people are a minority in the general population but are significant within the intelligentsia. Over time their views trickle down into society.
Such people do look for consistency. And what tends to happen is that one generation will take the principles governing society to a certain distance and then stop; the next generation will pick up on what the shortfall is and take things yet further and so on.
That process will continue unless the underlying philosophy governing society is challenged.
Mark
ReplyDeleteAll people have a world view and a perception of reality. In traditional societies an individual's world view and values are inculcated by family members and the individual is raised to uphold the values and traditions of their own family.
Without significant family strength and direction, most individuals will passively follow the values and world view of the herd and in liberal societies, these are shaped by a combination of corporate interests and intellectuals.
Liberalism isn't just materialism; in fact, liberalism has actually vascillated between materialism and an insane idealism, but it is important to remember that it contains both tendencies.
ReplyDeleteLiberalism only recognizes scientific knowledge and subjective consciousness as being really real. But some liberals emphasize scientific knowledge more, while others emphasize pure consciousness. Often the two come into conflict, as for example, when many liberals seem to think that merely thinking something will make it so.
Mark
ReplyDeleteyou are married and have aa family. I pointed out to Larry Auster on several occasions that the effect of his proposals would be to render large numbers of sincle men de facto monks. Auster's only response was to huff and puff and wave his arms wildly around and, at that point, I lost interest in what he had to say.
one reason for anonymous commenting is that it is probably a passive aggressive method of payback for bloggers who do not offer a systemic defense of their positions.
I was pointing out that within their own framework of values it was possible for them to believe that they were acting morally.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess as long as a traitor believes he is acting patriotically "within his own framework of values" we should not execute him as a traitor?
That pretty much describes all the Brits and Americans who betrayed their countries to the Soviets in the 1930s and 1940s - in their own "framework of values" (Marxism) they were not traitors.
Actual patriots totally rejected this excuse.
You all seem to be missing the upside of moral relativism which is that in order to justify killing you dont need to establish grievous moral fault in your target but, merely, that they are the enemy.
ReplyDelete"Actual patriots ..."
ReplyDeleteNo true Scotsman ...
Mr Richardson asks, apropos my plea that he ban anonymous commentators: "But would that solve everything?"
ReplyDeleteNo of course it wouldn't deter every craven trouble-making nut-job, just as having a decent lock on one's front door will not deter every single burglar, and just as having a non-directory phone number will not deter every single crank caller. But there is such a thing as seemly prudence.
Having a decent lock on one's front door does deter lots of burglars, and having a non-directory phone caller does deter lots of crank callers. There is no reason to suppose that having a no-anonymous-comments policy would not be equally effective. There is, furthermore, every reason to suppose that such a policy would work as well for Mr Richardson as it has for plenty of others.
Being a conservative and not a liberal, I have only a very limited desire to save people who fundamentally don't want to be saved. I merely emphasise this: sooner or later, Mr Richardson will need to institute (as virtually all other webmasters have needed to institute) a no-anonymous-comments rule, if only for his own health, sanity, and time-management considerations. Whether Mr Richardson allows one more maniac or 1,000 more maniacs to use the "Anon" moniker is, of course, entirely his own business.
Asher is my real life first name, however, p7tting down any name to one's comments is a huge emotional investment. Adversaries who post antagonistic comments like to come back and having anon as their identifier allow them to pick and choose what responses their brain registers as directed at them. Lets say I post seven comments as "anon", three being substantive and the rest being total crap. Not having my own idenifier allows my brain to pretend that the worthless comments werent really me. Conjectural but, also, likely.
ReplyDeleteAsher writes, and I reproduce his orthographic genius intact: "p7tting [sic] down any name to one's comments is a huge emotional investment."
ReplyDeleteNot, though, as huge an emotional investment as learning to spell would presumably be.
In the (parallel?) universe in which I live, kindergarten was long ago finished.
Hmm, yeah I mostly comment via smartphone and just move from one with a slide out keyboard to one without. Presumably even the worst spellers don't replace a letter with a number, so, that it was typo should have been the obvious explanation. Further, the word in question was "putting" and the number "7" sits right above the letter "u".
ReplyDeleteWould I have seen someone else making a comment with that typo my mind would have instantly recognized it as coming from a smartphone.