"What incensed Miller (and others) was that Turner—a rich, forty-something man—made it his bullying mission to destroy a struggling twenty-something female artist, who was already medicated for depression, as a way of making himself feel bold and virtuous—a kind of vampire nourishing himself on the blood of a young woman."
There it is. Once someone is assured that their actions are virtuous--with the special emphasis that others are watching--the mantle of a Noble Intention (like "social justice", a worthy but so often woefully ill-defined goal) confers the illusion of being indemnified against challenge, and, incidentally, justified in the use of any tactic. The Extreme Right and the Extreme Left both indulge in this conceit; the chief differences are their disparate means of group identification. Style points. The unscrupulousness is the same. And also the kindling of self-intoxicated individual egos, in the name of The Cause.
Social activism used to be thought of as the Muckraking Journalism of the Gilded Age, or the Freedom Riders, or the lone resistor facing the tanks in Tiaanmen Square. Now it's partisan mobs on social media retweeting someone else's Hot Take- or, for a real player, writing them up. Taking it personal, targeting someone and Making Them Wrong, as a Vocation. As Activism. So much like the most mindless excesses of Puritan Chistianity at its worst, with public stocks, shunning, and branding. Only, as Paul Kingsnorth pointed out, without the saving grace of God and forgiveness. The reason (arguably!) why American Puritan Integralism was succeeded by other versions of Christianity that valued forgiveness over public shaming. But the Woke feel no need to forgive, or to check themselves, or to exercise ethical constraints. Because. The Cause.
The end result of that direction is Darkness At Noon. A fiction book, but a roman a clef about Soviet Russia that is not that far from documentary journalistic history. 20th century history, much more recent than that of the Puritans. (As is the history of the Soviet antipode, the Twelve Year Reich.)
I think that underneath all of the hoary ideological template details embraced by political partisans- especially the extremes of Left and Right- a lot of the appeal of Politics is the way individual egos can feel rewarded and fueled as members of the same Egregore (great word, that I just learned!) There's also a huge element of Play in doxxing, organizing Internet flash mobs, exhibitions of public denunciation- and then, from there, vandalism, physical assault, threat and intimidation. That sort of "activism" is a form of Participatory Entertainment. But very unlike nuts and bolts of authentic political activism to effect a positive policy change within the corridors of power, or the pursuit of authentic journalism or history, which is actual Work. In fact, some of the activists will pretty much tell you outright that they don't care if they're effective, by using the statement "I don't care what you think" as a discussion closer. Ergo, increasing the possibility of a successful result is secondary to the Performance. As for Long Term Effectiveness, the concept is hardly even recognized as a priority worth discussing. Fewer and fewer in the audience for the performers are impressed by their Narcissistic Situationism (with an occasional undercurrent of violence, for spice). Many of us view their chosen form of "activism" as degraded, Animal Farm herd behavior, with overtones of dystopian parables like The Lottery and The Trial. But that reality hasn't gotten through to the Political Performance Artists yet. The Hypocrite Guild puts a lot of energy intro screening it out.
What a great comment! Narcissistic Situationism is brilliant. At times I felt like we were involved in a bizarre sadistic art project that had confused images with politics with morality with money with psychology...
Assuming a role, as in Political Theater. Playing to the crowd. No sincerity, integrity, honesty, or impartial logic required. In fact, it’s clear that all of those qualities are potential impediments to the single-pointed end of the Performance, which is Pleasing the Crowd. Public Acclaim. Being an Influencer.
If this took place in the US, my first question would be to wonder who funded Turner in this effort. Plenty of censorship activity was connected to NGOs, quasi-government groups, and govt funding directly. I might bet that Turner found this advantageous career-wise in terms of influence and opening doors for a wider audience. This kind of activity has also been advantageous for careers in the US.
In court he stated that the actor Shia LaBeouf had given him money (although all mention of LaBeouf has been scrubbed, Stalin-airbrushed-like, from Turner's website: "He has collaborated with Finnish artist Nastja Säde Rönkkö since 2008." This is presumably because LaBeouf is now facing charges of "sexual battery, assault and infliction of emotional distress" against FKA Twigs. I don't think Turner ever put out a statement either saying "I'm standing by my friend and collaborator in this difficult time" or, alternatively, distancing himself. He just...airbrushed him out, as if people would somehow forget about "He Will Not Divide Us" etc.).
The rest of Turner's money apparently came from his father, who runs a textile firm, of which Turner Jr is a director. Mishcon de Reya and a KC (Silk), not to mention all the intimidating letters, would have been insanely expensive, we think around £1.3million in total. Turner also paid to make me bankrupt, knowing he would get nothing.
We know that one of the people he worked with to try to smear us was a woman named Lulu Nunn, who works for a Cherie Blair NGO. She set up a fake campaign called "TERFs out of Art" dedicated to losing women in the artworld work and reputation, which sadly succeeded sometimes.
Thank you for illuminating, Nina. These things make perfect sense to me - the money, the cowardice, the political clout and motivation, the "perfect" almost senseless NGO which seems linked to a broader political influence than simply personally to C. Blair.
One has to ask why a business would be willing to lay out money on an endeavor that will not reap obvious profit to its interests if successful (risk v. reward analysis), private fortune notwithstanding.
When the Cherie Blair employee started coming after me, I did point out that she worked for the wife of a war criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Yet I was the evil one for saying "hang on a minute, can we discuss the implications of changing the meaning of male and female, and how might we better help unhappy children?"
As far as the business aspect goes, I have one foot in the business world, but I don’t know a great deal about family businesses. However, I think if you’re part of the inner circle, particularly by blood, there’s a certain amount of discretionary money available to you. Sort of a private slush fund if you will. This guy having some FU money out of company coffers was like VPs at Goldman flying first class.
Since everyone here is interested in reasoned dialogue and would never dare pile on, I'm going to throw caution to the wind and out myself as your "concerned friend" and “unnamed acquaintance.” I do so because I also consider you a friend, not to mention one of the authors I’m proudest to have published, but also because I think you've left quite a bit of important contextual material out of your post.
For starters, the thing that pissed me off online that led me to comment publicly (on X/Twitter) in the first place wasn't Power's alleged sins/thought crimes/whatever; it was the (to my mind) absurd suggestion (by the Cambridge prof James Orr retweeting Kathleen Stock's similar suggestion) that progressives somehow engineered the downfall of Nina Power. Turner may be a Grade A asshole (though more on that later), but Miller and Power brought the suit that led to this result, a result that includes the to-my-knowledge-as-yet-completely-unexplained resignation of Power from "postliberal" Compact Magazine just after the partial transcripts/screenshots were released by Turner.
Maybe the resignation somehow has to do with the declaration of bankruptcy and not with the online content that so many found objectionable (including you; cf. your early response on X to Mary Harrington). I don't know (how could I?) but the available evidence for Power's resignation certainly didn't point in the direction of some progressive conspiracy (we’re supposed to believe Sohrab Ahmari caved to that?). What was available pointed in the direction of consequences for her own ill-advised behavior, online, in court, and perhaps otherwise. The people constantly whining about cancel culture trying to make this too about cancellation—despite the fact that it comes as the result of the legal process being invoked against an enemy—deserve to be called out for the hypocrisy, imho. They want to have it both ways—shut your idiotic progressive enemy up, with the power of the state if necessary, *and* whine about being canceled by lunatic progressive enemies. Puh-lease.
I don’t know any of these people personally, and I wish nothing ill of any of them. I was responding on the basis of the ruling and having read the transcripts of messages/online content posted by Turner. Allow me to share some of what the judge wrote that you chose not to include, content that suggests the judge did not experience Turner in the way you’ve chosen to characterize him in your post.
First, on the question of the character of those involved, there’s this:
<< 91. Where Mr Miller and Ms Power responded to Mr Turner directly, or referred to him by name, the full lexicon of Twitter trolling is objectively recognisable. There is the crude personal invective of which a sample from @dcxtv has already been cited (this account was in due course shut down altogether for breach of the Twitter rules on ‘hateful conduct’). There is material of this sort from Ms Power too. Then there are, from both, the arch demands for evidence or proof of both his own history and the opinions he criticises, and faux-naïve insistence that he is constantly mistaken in his understanding of their views. There is more than disagreement – there is denial of any possible legitimacy, rationality or tenability of Mr Turner’s opinions, and a plain imputation of malice.
92. There is, in particular, a relentless pursuit of the theme of his mental deficiency or mental illness (in addition to the casual use of ‘retard’) – ‘low IQ’, ‘sociopathic’, ‘paranoid’, ‘deranged’, ‘obsessive’, ‘paranoid schizophrenic’, ‘dangerously mentally ill’ and so on and on – sometimes accompanied by messages to ‘get help’. (Ms Power told me from the witness box that the latter proceeded from genuine and empathetic concern. I was unconvinced.) There was also mutually-reinforcing group participation in all this conduct, involving a range of other participants sympathetic to Mr Miller’s and Ms Power’s views, who shouted Mr Turner down by saying the same sorts of things to or about him in the same sort of way (or worse).
93. This could, on an objective basis, fairly be described as bullying. It was asymmetrical. Mr Miller and Ms Power found Mr Turner’s views offensive, and his labelling of them personally offensive, but he did not express himself in an offensive manner. They considered his viewpoint unreasonable, but he expressed it moderately, rationally and on a reasoned basis, with a view to engagement and eliciting answers to questions or challenges. As already noted, Mr Turner’s side of the interactions is recognisable as an exercise in ‘calling out’ – that is, an exercise in labelling Mr Miller’s and Ms Power’s words and deeds (and others’), on the basis of what is entirely apparent was his genuine and articulated belief that they merited those labels. Their response was to attack him. They did so persistently. (I observed a little of the flavour of this myself in their conduct of this litigation, in their oral evidence, and in the choices made, presumably on instruction, about the cross-examination of Mr Turner. He responded, and assisted the court, with presence of mind and composure.) >>
Second, the judge found credible Turner’s belief that he was being threatened with violence: “Mr Miller and Ms Power advanced from the witness box interpretations and understandings of their speech to distance it from any possible taint of a literal mindset of violence towards Mr Turner. From an objective and contextualised perspective, however, it is not too difficult to see the basis on which Mr Turner concluded he had reason to fear the contrary.”
Third, there’s this biting assessment of Power and Miller’s behavior with regards to allegations of antisemitism by Turner: “In the particular context of the well-understood history of HWNDU, the personal consequences for Mr Turner which he was at pains to set out in his own tweets, and an aggressive and unpleasant course of bullying behaviour, it is hard not to conclude that the risk of creating an experience of antisemitism was one which they were especially well placed to understand and which they were not equivalently scrupulous to avoid.”
Fourth, I did not find the ruling to have hinged on some arcane legal precedent. They alleged defamation, and the judge found she didn’t have evidence to prove that whatever damage was done (and she doesn’t deny damage was done) could be attributed directly to the specifically charged behavior of Turner, and she gives easy-to-understand reasons for not being able so to find.
Fifth, despite your concerns about the loose attributions of “fascism,” you neglect to mention that Miller had accused Turner of being a “normie fascist,” which the judge notes might have been related to why he and Power chose not to include being labeled fascists in their defamation suit. The judge goes on to explain why that decision had significant consequences for their case (i.e., the harm they experienced could have been related to their being called fascists, but they weren’t pursuing defamation charges for that, making it harder to demonstrate conclusively that any actual harm was attributable to what/who they were charging instead of something [or the behavior of someone] else).
Lastly, I was not interested in joining “the tackle-pile” and have said little else on social media about the case. My question to you about what trans people have done to make neo-fascism appealing, sent via DM, was rhetorical and, admittedly, question-begging. I’m not fond of your own position on what you call “genderwang”, but you don’t seem to “fuck around” in these ways. I have no idea why Nina Power and DC Miller found it “playful” to impersonate “groypers”, why Miller found it crucial to defend LD50 from antifascists, some of whom were understandably concerned about the display of artwork by Brett Stevens, whose artwork inspired Anders Breivik and who then wrote of Breivik: “I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.” How much space should we hold for honest dialogue about the ideas that inspired Anders Breivik? I don’t know why they thought it was fun to “fuck around” musing about Mein Kampf and what it would mean to discover that Hitler had been right about everything. No idea why they would chuckle about setting up a publishing company “with no fatties, no women, no homo etc . . . and definitely definitely no trannies unless it’s to admit they are just sick mfs.” I think it’s insane to think any of that would be funny or worth joking about. Nor do I understand why they decided to publish anonymously at Parallax Optics, when they acknowledged in court that the Twitter version of Parallax Optics had tweeted out loads of horrifically antisemitic content. I have no idea why they did what they did. Clearly, I was clutching at straws.
1. "progressives somehow engineered the downfall of Nina Power"—there is indeed a group of people in the UK, trans activists and antifa, who have systematically and in a coordinated way sought to excise me from public life, collected dossiers, emailed employers at scale, written anonymous "open letters" and so on. I can give you the names of around 15-20 of them if you'd like. Hope Not Hate—as the more public face of doxxing and demonising—have publicly tweeted their support of Turner in the past. Turner's latest entirely unnecessary attack was immediately boosted by people who knew it was about to drop.
2. As I outline in my response https://ninapower.substack.com/p/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been Turner locked us into the case by counterfiling and then spending £1.3 million on lawyers. He wouldn't talk, he wouldn't drop hands and walk away. All we wanted was for him to delete the defamatory lies he'd published—which he admitted and were proven to be lies in court, via police witness and his own admission. The only way to avoid trial would have been to accept unacceptable terms. We were not going to admit we had harassed him, because we had not (he lost his case against us) and we didn't have however many thousands he was demanding we pay him. We would have been made bankrupt either way.
3. Turner tried to suggest that there was a chain of events and conspiracy between people who had criticised his HWNDU project and people who later "called him out" over his bullying and harassing of Deana Havas, Daniel Keller, Benjamin Bratton, the Walker Arts Centre, the Athens Biennale, and many other people and institutions which he would relentless target (remember—always accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty)—which involved Turner provoking and paying people to turn up and say antisemitic things, as outlined in The Dividers documentary, which I strongly suggest you watch: [EDIT: once again, the doc has been taken down due to legal threats from Turner]
We are clearly not retroactively responsible for people's response to this itself divisive art work, which I didn't even know about at the time.
4. The judge may not have been convinced by my genuine desire that Turner get help (I had suggested he was paranoid and lying out of guilt over his wealth, which was in tension with his progressive politics around privilege etc.) but I really did and do mean it. The judge also suggested we all move on with our lives, but Turner has manifestly chosen to ignore that: we did move on. He seemingly cannot.
5. Turner had accused repeatedly accused *us* in public, online, in repeated emails, open letters etc. of waging a "violent antisemitic harassment campaign" and had accused Daniel of sending death threats and writing an article defending Hitler, both of which were not true, as the trial showed.
6. As I say in my piece, Turner has not only chosen—with his own free will, after the judge has explicitly cautioned all parties to walk away—to revive his vendetta (he began coming after me by the way in 2018 after I laughed when his name was mentioned on a podcast), but to take material which we disclosed in the trial out of context, give it his own framing and palter and lie again.
7. These were private chats not meant for anyone else, written six years ago from out of the depths of ostracisation and unemployment. People were already calling us "Nazis" because I had publicly (and very gently - but it matters not) suggested the new gender ideology was harmful and destructive, politically, legally, medically and socially. Daniel had counter-protested the shut down of the LD50 gallery after antifa had decided it needed smashing up, because Trump had been elected and they were angry.
8. On the specific "with no fatties, no women, no homo etc . . . and definitely definitely no trannies unless it’s to admit they are just sick mfs" This was a reference to a story at the time that the phrase "no fats, no femmes, no Asians" was being used by gay men on Grindr to indicate their sexual preference. It was also a joke against myself, seeing as I am a woman, and was overweight at the time. "No homo" is a joke about the exclusionary nature of the "no fats, no femmes, no Asians" in the first place, i.e. we exclude those who exclude. I do think some of the men involved in the "trans" project are sick—pornsick by sissy porn, among other things, as described by Long Chu, who publicly wrote "The “barest essentials” of “femaleness” are “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes". I do hate these men, and I hate everyone who has facilitated the prescribing of cross-sex hormones and surgery to children (see the testimony of detransitioners). I do hate the Drs and the NGOs who pushed the lie that human beings can change sex and indeed that they ought to on the basis of identification with stereotypes and a feeling of sadness about their body. I do not agree that surgery and drugs are the answer.
9. People should read leftwing and rightwing extremist literature, the better to understand the arguments made and why they might have been persuasive. We should also not be afraid of extremist arguments otherwise they will—as Turner's invocation of "Nazi" demonstrates—continue to operate as a kind of black magic, as opposed to an object of discussion and understanding.
10. I do think we should engage in dialogue with people we disagree with. This does not make us responsible for what they believe, nor does it mean that people are even aware of what everyone has done or said—could you say of even close friends that you knew everything they'd thought and said in the past? Is there anything in the Cults dialogue in particular you disagree with?
No one would have seen any of the (again - private) chats (he extracted a few lines out of 200+pages) if Turner had not explicitly gone against the judge's wishes and done this. Does he have any responsibility in this, or is he just performing a public service?
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your reflections and the spirit with which you offer them. I know this has been a deeply unsettling affair for you.
Let me start with some agreements.
1. I agree that we should read extremist literature—left, right, and Thomas Friedman (or choose your own extreme centrist). I don’t think this really gets at what people find objectionable about the reference to Mein Kampf in the chats—context is everything, as everyone acknowledges just before accusing the other side of missing it—but I affirm what you say about the importance of reading literature with which we might personally be in deep disagreement, and I appreciate the point about “black magic”: treating texts as too dangerous to read grants to them an eerie power that they don’t actually possess.
2. Same w/r/t dialogue, in principle, though there’s a limited amount of time in any life, and we have to make choices and be responsible for the choices we make. Actually entering into dialogue with people is not something that happens in principle or the abstract, but in the concrete realities of everyday life and in the midst of particular discourses, which have their own particular histories. Those concrete realities, often politically charged, are the context by which I have to be held accountable for the dialogues I choose to / choose not to enter into. I don’t personally see a good reason to spend much of my limited time entering into dialogue with someone who believes the earth is flat or that Texans are the master race or whatever. Also, “dialogue” is vague enough to cover a multitude of interactions. Am I seeking to understand? Persuade? Opening myself up to persuasion? The particulars matter.
Before turning to disagreements, some questions I have:
1. You’ve repeatedly said that Turner admitted lying in court. I’ve read where he admits he was wrong and is willing to state that for the record. That’s not the same thing as admitting he was lying, which requires knowingly asserting a falsehood with the intention to deceive. That is not in the court record, to my knowledge. Can you point me to evidence to support your claim that Turner admitted to lying?
2. What do you mean by “the Cults dialogue”?
Moving to disagreements:
1. I’ve read your Substack post and some of the comments there, your comments here, and the ruling. I am still not clear on why you resigned from Compact. You seem to believe you have been the victim of Luke Turner and a mob of antifa/progressive activists, and that you need not take responsibility for anything. You give your innocence as a reason not to concede to Turner’s demands in court, and you defend, or at least try to recontextualize as harmless, everything that was written in the private chats/anon social media accounts. In a comment to your Substack response, you indicate the offer to resign was yours. But if you’ve done nothing wrong, why offer to resign? Your partner in the lawsuit has turned “resignation” into a verb with Compact as the subject and you the object of the action, removing your agency. This comes off to me as evasive, irresponsible, and unserious, to be perfectly frank, not to mention a clear sign of weakness—an inability to do something, i.e., take responsibility!—which is highly ironic given the substance of Miller’s post.
2. On the “no fatties, no women, no homo . . . “ stuff that was leaked, thank you for offering some background. I can appreciate how allusions to then-contemporary online discourse can take place in casual personal communication without that being easily discernible to future readers. I also don’t doubt that some men in the trans community (not a great word, I admit, but preferable to “project,” as I do not share your sweeping contempt nor the implication that this is some diabolical and coordianted plan) are sick. There are unwell folk in every community, not least my own, "the Christian community." You seem to identify their sickness with their “gender ideology,” whereas I’m not convinced every trans person is a deluded, manipulated, unwell victim of a conspiracy. I’m more than happy to listen to detransitioners, just as I’m willing to listen to transitioners. I will say that decades of hearing from evangelicals about the powerful testimonies of ex-gays who successfully completed “conversion therapy” makes me more than a little reticent to move from a handful of detransition testimonies to sweeping conclusions about the evils of “the trans project”. In the case of ex-gays, the successes of “conversion therapy” turned out to be a house of cards. And the testimonies/witnesses of gay and lesbian friends and family speak more clearly to me, as do the testimonies/witnesses of friends who are trans or the parents of trans children. One of my friends has a doctorate in theological ethics, has a trans child, and has argued in writing for transgender affirmation from the perspective of Christian ethics. It’s hard to read of your hatred and not conclude that you must hate him as well, encomiums to dialogue notwithstanding.
3. I have no interest in defending Turner. You’ll notice that I didn’t offer his version of the events versus your version. I appealed to the judge’s ruling because she’s as close to an impartial observer as I can find. Of your and Miller’s behavior, the judge wrote that it “could, on an objective basis, fairly be described as bullying.” Far from taking any responsibility for this judgment, I read you as basically saying, in so many words, Turner made you do it.
4. The judge also writes, “There is more than disagreement – there is denial of any possible legitimacy, rationality or tenability of Mr Turner’s opinions, and a plain imputation of malice.” I think this “more than disagreement” and “denial of any possible legitimacy” probably extends to your and Miller’s assessment of contemporary antifascist thought and action and gets at the heart of what I find unconvincing in your framing of all of this in terms of openness and dialogue. It’s also why I think I come down much closer to the antifascists than to you and Miller. I’m a pacifist (because I’m a Christian) and think “antifa” (scare quotes because it’s not a typical organization or unified movement) errs when it becomes violent. Tempting as it might be, I do not want to or encourage others to “punch a Nazi.” However, as you presumably appreciate, I have tried to listen to and understand what antifascists think is at stake and why they are doing what they’re doing. I live in Portland, Oregon, famous (or infamous, depending on your politics) for street clashes between antifa and various right-wing groups. What many do not know is that local antifa and the strategy of violent street confrontation grew out of the experience of white supremacist violence in the 80s and 90s. The murder of Ethiopian immigrant Mulugeta Seraw in 1988 was a watershed event, with some antiracists concluding that leaving the racist skinheads alone was a mistake; the only way to prevent the spread (the so-called “fascist creep”) of their toxic ideology and actual lethal violence was to beat them out of town, which they successfully did (there’s a podcast about it: https://www.itdidhappenherepodcast.com). When I observe the contemporary political environment, I share worries about “the fascist creep” and I understand why some activists are convinced that the challenge must be met head on, forcefully if necessary, and that leaving murderous supremacist movements alone can be a fatal mistake, especially for the inevitable scapegoats of fascist movements (and of course “sexual deviants” have always been among the scapegoats). I don’t pretend to have a peaceable answer to an art gallery (LD50) choosing to exhibit a video by Brett Stevens, but I can certainly understand the concern and the outrage (he had already inspired one mass murderer and vocalized pleasure at that inspiration). You’ve chalked it up to “because Trump had been elected and they were angry,” which tbh doesn’t convince me of your seriousness about dialogue—unless “dialogue with extremists” here means the need to listen subtly and openly to fascists but not antifascists, which of course is a choice one can make, a choice like any other, with consequences.
Thank you for this compassionate and thoughtful response, Charlie. I don't have time right now to reply as I wish, but I will in due course. One thing I will say is that I became a Christian (by which I mean baptised and confirmed) in the past years. I was a different person in 2018 in some ways but not others. I'd also like to strongly note that these chats (or really selected lowlights) were not online and certainly not circulated by me. Despite the judge making it clear we should both walk away, which we did (I didn't post a single thing when the verdict came out, but simply got on with my life and then job, believing it was all at an end), it was Turner's decision alone to publish them. No one would be responding to anything-Stan, you, Compact, Daniel, me- if he hadn't made a choice to do that, in explicit contravention of the judge's wishes. I will get back to you, though, as it's useful to try make myself as clear as possible. Have a good Sat!
"What incensed Miller (and others) was that Turner—a rich, forty-something man—made it his bullying mission to destroy a struggling twenty-something female artist, who was already medicated for depression, as a way of making himself feel bold and virtuous—a kind of vampire nourishing himself on the blood of a young woman."
There it is. Once someone is assured that their actions are virtuous--with the special emphasis that others are watching--the mantle of a Noble Intention (like "social justice", a worthy but so often woefully ill-defined goal) confers the illusion of being indemnified against challenge, and, incidentally, justified in the use of any tactic. The Extreme Right and the Extreme Left both indulge in this conceit; the chief differences are their disparate means of group identification. Style points. The unscrupulousness is the same. And also the kindling of self-intoxicated individual egos, in the name of The Cause.
Social activism used to be thought of as the Muckraking Journalism of the Gilded Age, or the Freedom Riders, or the lone resistor facing the tanks in Tiaanmen Square. Now it's partisan mobs on social media retweeting someone else's Hot Take- or, for a real player, writing them up. Taking it personal, targeting someone and Making Them Wrong, as a Vocation. As Activism. So much like the most mindless excesses of Puritan Chistianity at its worst, with public stocks, shunning, and branding. Only, as Paul Kingsnorth pointed out, without the saving grace of God and forgiveness. The reason (arguably!) why American Puritan Integralism was succeeded by other versions of Christianity that valued forgiveness over public shaming. But the Woke feel no need to forgive, or to check themselves, or to exercise ethical constraints. Because. The Cause.
The end result of that direction is Darkness At Noon. A fiction book, but a roman a clef about Soviet Russia that is not that far from documentary journalistic history. 20th century history, much more recent than that of the Puritans. (As is the history of the Soviet antipode, the Twelve Year Reich.)
I think that underneath all of the hoary ideological template details embraced by political partisans- especially the extremes of Left and Right- a lot of the appeal of Politics is the way individual egos can feel rewarded and fueled as members of the same Egregore (great word, that I just learned!) There's also a huge element of Play in doxxing, organizing Internet flash mobs, exhibitions of public denunciation- and then, from there, vandalism, physical assault, threat and intimidation. That sort of "activism" is a form of Participatory Entertainment. But very unlike nuts and bolts of authentic political activism to effect a positive policy change within the corridors of power, or the pursuit of authentic journalism or history, which is actual Work. In fact, some of the activists will pretty much tell you outright that they don't care if they're effective, by using the statement "I don't care what you think" as a discussion closer. Ergo, increasing the possibility of a successful result is secondary to the Performance. As for Long Term Effectiveness, the concept is hardly even recognized as a priority worth discussing. Fewer and fewer in the audience for the performers are impressed by their Narcissistic Situationism (with an occasional undercurrent of violence, for spice). Many of us view their chosen form of "activism" as degraded, Animal Farm herd behavior, with overtones of dystopian parables like The Lottery and The Trial. But that reality hasn't gotten through to the Political Performance Artists yet. The Hypocrite Guild puts a lot of energy intro screening it out.
What a great comment! Narcissistic Situationism is brilliant. At times I felt like we were involved in a bizarre sadistic art project that had confused images with politics with morality with money with psychology...
Your last sentence works well as a succinct capsule review of Foucault-thought.
I was working on Foucault for our "Blame Theory" project at Compact.
Here’s some next-level sophistry for you, courtesy of one of Foucault’s intimate disciples—their critical appraisal of the Great Man himself:
“the world’s greatest intellect, the man who went beyond the nostrum that “knowledge is power” to figure out that power produces knowledge…”
to which I can only respond “lol wut”
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/blowing-the-philosophers-fuses-michel-foucaults-lsd-trip-in-the-valley-of-death/
Correct. A morality play in multiple senses: playing successfully at morality (i.e. going viral) IS being moral now.
The root of the word “hypocrite” is, from the original Attic Greek, “"acting on the stage; pretense." https://www.etymonline.com/word/hypocrisy
Assuming a role, as in Political Theater. Playing to the crowd. No sincerity, integrity, honesty, or impartial logic required. In fact, it’s clear that all of those qualities are potential impediments to the single-pointed end of the Performance, which is Pleasing the Crowd. Public Acclaim. Being an Influencer.
^^^what that guy said
Great take!
Thank you, Stan, for doing the due diligence and taking the time to write this. The knee-jerk pile up on Nina has been distressing and dispiriting.
If this took place in the US, my first question would be to wonder who funded Turner in this effort. Plenty of censorship activity was connected to NGOs, quasi-government groups, and govt funding directly. I might bet that Turner found this advantageous career-wise in terms of influence and opening doors for a wider audience. This kind of activity has also been advantageous for careers in the US.
In court he stated that the actor Shia LaBeouf had given him money (although all mention of LaBeouf has been scrubbed, Stalin-airbrushed-like, from Turner's website: "He has collaborated with Finnish artist Nastja Säde Rönkkö since 2008." This is presumably because LaBeouf is now facing charges of "sexual battery, assault and infliction of emotional distress" against FKA Twigs. I don't think Turner ever put out a statement either saying "I'm standing by my friend and collaborator in this difficult time" or, alternatively, distancing himself. He just...airbrushed him out, as if people would somehow forget about "He Will Not Divide Us" etc.).
The rest of Turner's money apparently came from his father, who runs a textile firm, of which Turner Jr is a director. Mishcon de Reya and a KC (Silk), not to mention all the intimidating letters, would have been insanely expensive, we think around £1.3million in total. Turner also paid to make me bankrupt, knowing he would get nothing.
We know that one of the people he worked with to try to smear us was a woman named Lulu Nunn, who works for a Cherie Blair NGO. She set up a fake campaign called "TERFs out of Art" dedicated to losing women in the artworld work and reputation, which sadly succeeded sometimes.
Thank you for illuminating, Nina. These things make perfect sense to me - the money, the cowardice, the political clout and motivation, the "perfect" almost senseless NGO which seems linked to a broader political influence than simply personally to C. Blair.
One has to ask why a business would be willing to lay out money on an endeavor that will not reap obvious profit to its interests if successful (risk v. reward analysis), private fortune notwithstanding.
When the Cherie Blair employee started coming after me, I did point out that she worked for the wife of a war criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Yet I was the evil one for saying "hang on a minute, can we discuss the implications of changing the meaning of male and female, and how might we better help unhappy children?"
As far as the business aspect goes, I have one foot in the business world, but I don’t know a great deal about family businesses. However, I think if you’re part of the inner circle, particularly by blood, there’s a certain amount of discretionary money available to you. Sort of a private slush fund if you will. This guy having some FU money out of company coffers was like VPs at Goldman flying first class.
What an outstanding piece of writing.
thanks
Since everyone here is interested in reasoned dialogue and would never dare pile on, I'm going to throw caution to the wind and out myself as your "concerned friend" and “unnamed acquaintance.” I do so because I also consider you a friend, not to mention one of the authors I’m proudest to have published, but also because I think you've left quite a bit of important contextual material out of your post.
For starters, the thing that pissed me off online that led me to comment publicly (on X/Twitter) in the first place wasn't Power's alleged sins/thought crimes/whatever; it was the (to my mind) absurd suggestion (by the Cambridge prof James Orr retweeting Kathleen Stock's similar suggestion) that progressives somehow engineered the downfall of Nina Power. Turner may be a Grade A asshole (though more on that later), but Miller and Power brought the suit that led to this result, a result that includes the to-my-knowledge-as-yet-completely-unexplained resignation of Power from "postliberal" Compact Magazine just after the partial transcripts/screenshots were released by Turner.
Maybe the resignation somehow has to do with the declaration of bankruptcy and not with the online content that so many found objectionable (including you; cf. your early response on X to Mary Harrington). I don't know (how could I?) but the available evidence for Power's resignation certainly didn't point in the direction of some progressive conspiracy (we’re supposed to believe Sohrab Ahmari caved to that?). What was available pointed in the direction of consequences for her own ill-advised behavior, online, in court, and perhaps otherwise. The people constantly whining about cancel culture trying to make this too about cancellation—despite the fact that it comes as the result of the legal process being invoked against an enemy—deserve to be called out for the hypocrisy, imho. They want to have it both ways—shut your idiotic progressive enemy up, with the power of the state if necessary, *and* whine about being canceled by lunatic progressive enemies. Puh-lease.
I don’t know any of these people personally, and I wish nothing ill of any of them. I was responding on the basis of the ruling and having read the transcripts of messages/online content posted by Turner. Allow me to share some of what the judge wrote that you chose not to include, content that suggests the judge did not experience Turner in the way you’ve chosen to characterize him in your post.
First, on the question of the character of those involved, there’s this:
<< 91. Where Mr Miller and Ms Power responded to Mr Turner directly, or referred to him by name, the full lexicon of Twitter trolling is objectively recognisable. There is the crude personal invective of which a sample from @dcxtv has already been cited (this account was in due course shut down altogether for breach of the Twitter rules on ‘hateful conduct’). There is material of this sort from Ms Power too. Then there are, from both, the arch demands for evidence or proof of both his own history and the opinions he criticises, and faux-naïve insistence that he is constantly mistaken in his understanding of their views. There is more than disagreement – there is denial of any possible legitimacy, rationality or tenability of Mr Turner’s opinions, and a plain imputation of malice.
92. There is, in particular, a relentless pursuit of the theme of his mental deficiency or mental illness (in addition to the casual use of ‘retard’) – ‘low IQ’, ‘sociopathic’, ‘paranoid’, ‘deranged’, ‘obsessive’, ‘paranoid schizophrenic’, ‘dangerously mentally ill’ and so on and on – sometimes accompanied by messages to ‘get help’. (Ms Power told me from the witness box that the latter proceeded from genuine and empathetic concern. I was unconvinced.) There was also mutually-reinforcing group participation in all this conduct, involving a range of other participants sympathetic to Mr Miller’s and Ms Power’s views, who shouted Mr Turner down by saying the same sorts of things to or about him in the same sort of way (or worse).
93. This could, on an objective basis, fairly be described as bullying. It was asymmetrical. Mr Miller and Ms Power found Mr Turner’s views offensive, and his labelling of them personally offensive, but he did not express himself in an offensive manner. They considered his viewpoint unreasonable, but he expressed it moderately, rationally and on a reasoned basis, with a view to engagement and eliciting answers to questions or challenges. As already noted, Mr Turner’s side of the interactions is recognisable as an exercise in ‘calling out’ – that is, an exercise in labelling Mr Miller’s and Ms Power’s words and deeds (and others’), on the basis of what is entirely apparent was his genuine and articulated belief that they merited those labels. Their response was to attack him. They did so persistently. (I observed a little of the flavour of this myself in their conduct of this litigation, in their oral evidence, and in the choices made, presumably on instruction, about the cross-examination of Mr Turner. He responded, and assisted the court, with presence of mind and composure.) >>
Second, the judge found credible Turner’s belief that he was being threatened with violence: “Mr Miller and Ms Power advanced from the witness box interpretations and understandings of their speech to distance it from any possible taint of a literal mindset of violence towards Mr Turner. From an objective and contextualised perspective, however, it is not too difficult to see the basis on which Mr Turner concluded he had reason to fear the contrary.”
Third, there’s this biting assessment of Power and Miller’s behavior with regards to allegations of antisemitism by Turner: “In the particular context of the well-understood history of HWNDU, the personal consequences for Mr Turner which he was at pains to set out in his own tweets, and an aggressive and unpleasant course of bullying behaviour, it is hard not to conclude that the risk of creating an experience of antisemitism was one which they were especially well placed to understand and which they were not equivalently scrupulous to avoid.”
Fourth, I did not find the ruling to have hinged on some arcane legal precedent. They alleged defamation, and the judge found she didn’t have evidence to prove that whatever damage was done (and she doesn’t deny damage was done) could be attributed directly to the specifically charged behavior of Turner, and she gives easy-to-understand reasons for not being able so to find.
Fifth, despite your concerns about the loose attributions of “fascism,” you neglect to mention that Miller had accused Turner of being a “normie fascist,” which the judge notes might have been related to why he and Power chose not to include being labeled fascists in their defamation suit. The judge goes on to explain why that decision had significant consequences for their case (i.e., the harm they experienced could have been related to their being called fascists, but they weren’t pursuing defamation charges for that, making it harder to demonstrate conclusively that any actual harm was attributable to what/who they were charging instead of something [or the behavior of someone] else).
Lastly, I was not interested in joining “the tackle-pile” and have said little else on social media about the case. My question to you about what trans people have done to make neo-fascism appealing, sent via DM, was rhetorical and, admittedly, question-begging. I’m not fond of your own position on what you call “genderwang”, but you don’t seem to “fuck around” in these ways. I have no idea why Nina Power and DC Miller found it “playful” to impersonate “groypers”, why Miller found it crucial to defend LD50 from antifascists, some of whom were understandably concerned about the display of artwork by Brett Stevens, whose artwork inspired Anders Breivik and who then wrote of Breivik: “I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.” How much space should we hold for honest dialogue about the ideas that inspired Anders Breivik? I don’t know why they thought it was fun to “fuck around” musing about Mein Kampf and what it would mean to discover that Hitler had been right about everything. No idea why they would chuckle about setting up a publishing company “with no fatties, no women, no homo etc . . . and definitely definitely no trannies unless it’s to admit they are just sick mfs.” I think it’s insane to think any of that would be funny or worth joking about. Nor do I understand why they decided to publish anonymously at Parallax Optics, when they acknowledged in court that the Twitter version of Parallax Optics had tweeted out loads of horrifically antisemitic content. I have no idea why they did what they did. Clearly, I was clutching at straws.
Dear Charlie - a few responses.
1. "progressives somehow engineered the downfall of Nina Power"—there is indeed a group of people in the UK, trans activists and antifa, who have systematically and in a coordinated way sought to excise me from public life, collected dossiers, emailed employers at scale, written anonymous "open letters" and so on. I can give you the names of around 15-20 of them if you'd like. Hope Not Hate—as the more public face of doxxing and demonising—have publicly tweeted their support of Turner in the past. Turner's latest entirely unnecessary attack was immediately boosted by people who knew it was about to drop.
2. As I outline in my response https://ninapower.substack.com/p/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been Turner locked us into the case by counterfiling and then spending £1.3 million on lawyers. He wouldn't talk, he wouldn't drop hands and walk away. All we wanted was for him to delete the defamatory lies he'd published—which he admitted and were proven to be lies in court, via police witness and his own admission. The only way to avoid trial would have been to accept unacceptable terms. We were not going to admit we had harassed him, because we had not (he lost his case against us) and we didn't have however many thousands he was demanding we pay him. We would have been made bankrupt either way.
3. Turner tried to suggest that there was a chain of events and conspiracy between people who had criticised his HWNDU project and people who later "called him out" over his bullying and harassing of Deana Havas, Daniel Keller, Benjamin Bratton, the Walker Arts Centre, the Athens Biennale, and many other people and institutions which he would relentless target (remember—always accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty)—which involved Turner provoking and paying people to turn up and say antisemitic things, as outlined in The Dividers documentary, which I strongly suggest you watch: [EDIT: once again, the doc has been taken down due to legal threats from Turner]
We are clearly not retroactively responsible for people's response to this itself divisive art work, which I didn't even know about at the time.
4. The judge may not have been convinced by my genuine desire that Turner get help (I had suggested he was paranoid and lying out of guilt over his wealth, which was in tension with his progressive politics around privilege etc.) but I really did and do mean it. The judge also suggested we all move on with our lives, but Turner has manifestly chosen to ignore that: we did move on. He seemingly cannot.
5. Turner had accused repeatedly accused *us* in public, online, in repeated emails, open letters etc. of waging a "violent antisemitic harassment campaign" and had accused Daniel of sending death threats and writing an article defending Hitler, both of which were not true, as the trial showed.
6. As I say in my piece, Turner has not only chosen—with his own free will, after the judge has explicitly cautioned all parties to walk away—to revive his vendetta (he began coming after me by the way in 2018 after I laughed when his name was mentioned on a podcast), but to take material which we disclosed in the trial out of context, give it his own framing and palter and lie again.
7. These were private chats not meant for anyone else, written six years ago from out of the depths of ostracisation and unemployment. People were already calling us "Nazis" because I had publicly (and very gently - but it matters not) suggested the new gender ideology was harmful and destructive, politically, legally, medically and socially. Daniel had counter-protested the shut down of the LD50 gallery after antifa had decided it needed smashing up, because Trump had been elected and they were angry.
8. On the specific "with no fatties, no women, no homo etc . . . and definitely definitely no trannies unless it’s to admit they are just sick mfs" This was a reference to a story at the time that the phrase "no fats, no femmes, no Asians" was being used by gay men on Grindr to indicate their sexual preference. It was also a joke against myself, seeing as I am a woman, and was overweight at the time. "No homo" is a joke about the exclusionary nature of the "no fats, no femmes, no Asians" in the first place, i.e. we exclude those who exclude. I do think some of the men involved in the "trans" project are sick—pornsick by sissy porn, among other things, as described by Long Chu, who publicly wrote "The “barest essentials” of “femaleness” are “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes". I do hate these men, and I hate everyone who has facilitated the prescribing of cross-sex hormones and surgery to children (see the testimony of detransitioners). I do hate the Drs and the NGOs who pushed the lie that human beings can change sex and indeed that they ought to on the basis of identification with stereotypes and a feeling of sadness about their body. I do not agree that surgery and drugs are the answer.
9. People should read leftwing and rightwing extremist literature, the better to understand the arguments made and why they might have been persuasive. We should also not be afraid of extremist arguments otherwise they will—as Turner's invocation of "Nazi" demonstrates—continue to operate as a kind of black magic, as opposed to an object of discussion and understanding.
10. I do think we should engage in dialogue with people we disagree with. This does not make us responsible for what they believe, nor does it mean that people are even aware of what everyone has done or said—could you say of even close friends that you knew everything they'd thought and said in the past? Is there anything in the Cults dialogue in particular you disagree with?
No one would have seen any of the (again - private) chats (he extracted a few lines out of 200+pages) if Turner had not explicitly gone against the judge's wishes and done this. Does he have any responsibility in this, or is he just performing a public service?
Dividers link is down
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Luke Turner"
Dear Nina,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your reflections and the spirit with which you offer them. I know this has been a deeply unsettling affair for you.
Let me start with some agreements.
1. I agree that we should read extremist literature—left, right, and Thomas Friedman (or choose your own extreme centrist). I don’t think this really gets at what people find objectionable about the reference to Mein Kampf in the chats—context is everything, as everyone acknowledges just before accusing the other side of missing it—but I affirm what you say about the importance of reading literature with which we might personally be in deep disagreement, and I appreciate the point about “black magic”: treating texts as too dangerous to read grants to them an eerie power that they don’t actually possess.
2. Same w/r/t dialogue, in principle, though there’s a limited amount of time in any life, and we have to make choices and be responsible for the choices we make. Actually entering into dialogue with people is not something that happens in principle or the abstract, but in the concrete realities of everyday life and in the midst of particular discourses, which have their own particular histories. Those concrete realities, often politically charged, are the context by which I have to be held accountable for the dialogues I choose to / choose not to enter into. I don’t personally see a good reason to spend much of my limited time entering into dialogue with someone who believes the earth is flat or that Texans are the master race or whatever. Also, “dialogue” is vague enough to cover a multitude of interactions. Am I seeking to understand? Persuade? Opening myself up to persuasion? The particulars matter.
Before turning to disagreements, some questions I have:
1. You’ve repeatedly said that Turner admitted lying in court. I’ve read where he admits he was wrong and is willing to state that for the record. That’s not the same thing as admitting he was lying, which requires knowingly asserting a falsehood with the intention to deceive. That is not in the court record, to my knowledge. Can you point me to evidence to support your claim that Turner admitted to lying?
2. What do you mean by “the Cults dialogue”?
Moving to disagreements:
1. I’ve read your Substack post and some of the comments there, your comments here, and the ruling. I am still not clear on why you resigned from Compact. You seem to believe you have been the victim of Luke Turner and a mob of antifa/progressive activists, and that you need not take responsibility for anything. You give your innocence as a reason not to concede to Turner’s demands in court, and you defend, or at least try to recontextualize as harmless, everything that was written in the private chats/anon social media accounts. In a comment to your Substack response, you indicate the offer to resign was yours. But if you’ve done nothing wrong, why offer to resign? Your partner in the lawsuit has turned “resignation” into a verb with Compact as the subject and you the object of the action, removing your agency. This comes off to me as evasive, irresponsible, and unserious, to be perfectly frank, not to mention a clear sign of weakness—an inability to do something, i.e., take responsibility!—which is highly ironic given the substance of Miller’s post.
2. On the “no fatties, no women, no homo . . . “ stuff that was leaked, thank you for offering some background. I can appreciate how allusions to then-contemporary online discourse can take place in casual personal communication without that being easily discernible to future readers. I also don’t doubt that some men in the trans community (not a great word, I admit, but preferable to “project,” as I do not share your sweeping contempt nor the implication that this is some diabolical and coordianted plan) are sick. There are unwell folk in every community, not least my own, "the Christian community." You seem to identify their sickness with their “gender ideology,” whereas I’m not convinced every trans person is a deluded, manipulated, unwell victim of a conspiracy. I’m more than happy to listen to detransitioners, just as I’m willing to listen to transitioners. I will say that decades of hearing from evangelicals about the powerful testimonies of ex-gays who successfully completed “conversion therapy” makes me more than a little reticent to move from a handful of detransition testimonies to sweeping conclusions about the evils of “the trans project”. In the case of ex-gays, the successes of “conversion therapy” turned out to be a house of cards. And the testimonies/witnesses of gay and lesbian friends and family speak more clearly to me, as do the testimonies/witnesses of friends who are trans or the parents of trans children. One of my friends has a doctorate in theological ethics, has a trans child, and has argued in writing for transgender affirmation from the perspective of Christian ethics. It’s hard to read of your hatred and not conclude that you must hate him as well, encomiums to dialogue notwithstanding.
3. I have no interest in defending Turner. You’ll notice that I didn’t offer his version of the events versus your version. I appealed to the judge’s ruling because she’s as close to an impartial observer as I can find. Of your and Miller’s behavior, the judge wrote that it “could, on an objective basis, fairly be described as bullying.” Far from taking any responsibility for this judgment, I read you as basically saying, in so many words, Turner made you do it.
4. The judge also writes, “There is more than disagreement – there is denial of any possible legitimacy, rationality or tenability of Mr Turner’s opinions, and a plain imputation of malice.” I think this “more than disagreement” and “denial of any possible legitimacy” probably extends to your and Miller’s assessment of contemporary antifascist thought and action and gets at the heart of what I find unconvincing in your framing of all of this in terms of openness and dialogue. It’s also why I think I come down much closer to the antifascists than to you and Miller. I’m a pacifist (because I’m a Christian) and think “antifa” (scare quotes because it’s not a typical organization or unified movement) errs when it becomes violent. Tempting as it might be, I do not want to or encourage others to “punch a Nazi.” However, as you presumably appreciate, I have tried to listen to and understand what antifascists think is at stake and why they are doing what they’re doing. I live in Portland, Oregon, famous (or infamous, depending on your politics) for street clashes between antifa and various right-wing groups. What many do not know is that local antifa and the strategy of violent street confrontation grew out of the experience of white supremacist violence in the 80s and 90s. The murder of Ethiopian immigrant Mulugeta Seraw in 1988 was a watershed event, with some antiracists concluding that leaving the racist skinheads alone was a mistake; the only way to prevent the spread (the so-called “fascist creep”) of their toxic ideology and actual lethal violence was to beat them out of town, which they successfully did (there’s a podcast about it: https://www.itdidhappenherepodcast.com). When I observe the contemporary political environment, I share worries about “the fascist creep” and I understand why some activists are convinced that the challenge must be met head on, forcefully if necessary, and that leaving murderous supremacist movements alone can be a fatal mistake, especially for the inevitable scapegoats of fascist movements (and of course “sexual deviants” have always been among the scapegoats). I don’t pretend to have a peaceable answer to an art gallery (LD50) choosing to exhibit a video by Brett Stevens, but I can certainly understand the concern and the outrage (he had already inspired one mass murderer and vocalized pleasure at that inspiration). You’ve chalked it up to “because Trump had been elected and they were angry,” which tbh doesn’t convince me of your seriousness about dialogue—unless “dialogue with extremists” here means the need to listen subtly and openly to fascists but not antifascists, which of course is a choice one can make, a choice like any other, with consequences.
Thank you for this compassionate and thoughtful response, Charlie. I don't have time right now to reply as I wish, but I will in due course. One thing I will say is that I became a Christian (by which I mean baptised and confirmed) in the past years. I was a different person in 2018 in some ways but not others. I'd also like to strongly note that these chats (or really selected lowlights) were not online and certainly not circulated by me. Despite the judge making it clear we should both walk away, which we did (I didn't post a single thing when the verdict came out, but simply got on with my life and then job, believing it was all at an end), it was Turner's decision alone to publish them. No one would be responding to anything-Stan, you, Compact, Daniel, me- if he hadn't made a choice to do that, in explicit contravention of the judge's wishes. I will get back to you, though, as it's useful to try make myself as clear as possible. Have a good Sat!
Blessings to you, Nina. I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend!