Do Not Interfere in the Business or the Fates of Non-White Peoples

According to this article about 20 million Blacks face starvation in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen.

So, what are Whites being urged to do?  Why, donate money, time and resources to prevent Blacks from starving.  And, what will this accomplish?  It will result in an increase in the biomass of Black DNA and it will produce more Blacks surviving to produce more Blacks who will face starvation in the years to come and it will produce more Blacks who will invade White nations, and cause the extinction of Whites through miscegenation.

And, while the physical extinction of White individuals and White family lines goes on, White cities and nations will be made into hell holes for any Whites who remain there. Doubt it?  Look around you at formerly great White cities that are now majority Black.  The first president George Bush lived in then White Compton, Ca, back in the 1940’s. Today,  it is a non-White hell hole. And, that’s just one of many examples of what happens when Whites are forced out of an area and the area goes non-White.

And, it is worth mentioning that  JEB Bush has now turned his part of the Bush family line from White to Brown which is one of the effects we see when the number of non-Whites increases and Whites then forget that what is  absolutely essential for our survival is the White genome and instead begin to believe in the false idea that all humans are the same and thus should have no compunction about miscegenation.

Whites have to start looking out for Whites and White interests both in the short term and in the long term and Whites must start seeing the harm their violations of nature’s (read God’s natural laws) cause, if not today, then in the years to come.

Whites must ask of everything: Is this good for White people?  And, they must be able to extrapolate whatever it is they are asking that question about into the future.  For example, if Whites had asked if WWII was good for White people and if they had thought through what all the millions of deaths of Whites would mean to our present day world, they would have found a way to avoid that war that killed off millions of Whites and left us with the present dystopian non-White world where White genocide is a reality and where White extinction is a very real possibility.

What should be the ethical position of thinking, awakened Whites when we read of problems with non-White peoples? It should be to mind our own White business and not butt in.  We should let nature (or God, if you prefer) handle this.  Natural selection works in the affairs of humans as it does with all other living organisms.  Some live and some die and this is how evolution moves forward and hopefully upward towards ever greater consciousness. And, this is how the world will be made more holy and righteous.

For too long, too many Whites have felt it is somehow good and righteous for Whites to help non-Whites survive and this is often portrayed as some sort of wonderful compassion.  But, when you scratch the surface you’ll find that many of these do-good Whites are full of noblesse oblige racism and feelings of White supremacy.

The present day Whites who are bounding off to darkest Africa to help Blacks are the psychological descendants of the Whites who “helped” the American Indians, the First Nations people in Canada, and the aborigines in Australia.   As you are probably aware, these Whites in trying to do good, harmed these non-White peoples in many ways and caused many of these non-Whites to hate Whites who destroyed their cultures, religions and ways. Over the past few years, the governments of the U.S., Canada and Australia have all officially apologized for the butting into the business and fates of these non-Whites by Whites in these three nations.

Each distinct people must find its own way and must survive or go extinct as it struggles for existence.  There are no free rides in nature and Whites giving free rides to non-Whites is violating the laws of nature and of God. This applies to Whites as it does to all other kinds.  And, for us as Whites, we must individually and as the distinct people that we are decide that we want to survive and thrive and we must do what is necessary to make this so.  As with all other kinds, there is no free ride for us as Whites and nature doesn’t care if we live or die. We ourselves, we alone, must care.

Here, once again, are three of the most important quotes that Whites should always remember:

“[T]he varieties of mankind are so different that similar differences found in any other animals would warrant their classification in different species, if not in different genera.” –Charles Darwin

“Living organisms must necessarily compete, for food, for mates and for living space, especially with other members of their own species [i.e. those they can breed with]. They must avoid predators and other dangers. For all these various reasons, some will leave more offspring than others, and it is the genetic characteristics of such preferred replicators which will be passed on preferentially to succeeding generations. This is the essence of natural selection.” — Francis Crick (Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the shape of DNA)

“Man is something that shall be overcome.Man is a rope,tied between beast and overman – a rope over an abyss.What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”– Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

By H. Millard © 2017

# # # #

JOIN WESTERN SPRING

Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:

# # # #

 

17 thoughts on “Do Not Interfere in the Business or the Fates of Non-White Peoples

  1. “Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the
    description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered
    cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of
    a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which
    graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to
    himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he
    cannot define”
     
    “We might as well attempt without any definition to decide
    whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town,
    or city” – on whether mankind is one species or several.

    Chapter VII – On the Races of Man, Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
    Charles Darwin [ 1809 – 1882 ]

    https://infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html

    I doubt the accuracy of the unsourced quote attributed to Charles Darwin.

  2. I would just like to point out that the supposed Darwin quote which appears in this article (and in others written by this author previously) appears to be falsely attributed. An online search of the exact phrase reveals the quotation attributed to him across a variety of exclusively right-wing and nationalist blogs. Sometimes it is given in a form beginning with the additional phrase “It is true as Darwin declared in the Descent of Man…” which allows the quotation to be traced back to a text called “The Racial Basis Of Civilization: A Critique of the Nordic Doctrine”
    (https://archive.org/stream/racialbasisofciv031934mbp/racialbasisofciv031934mbp_djvu.txt), written in 1926 by an American sociologist called Frank H. Hankins.

    Searching for phrases contained within this wording in Darwin’s “Descent of Man” (https://teoriaevolutiva.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/darwin-c-the-descent-of-man-and-selection-in-relation-to-sex.pdf) yielded no obvious match and so these are likely to be Hankins’ words, not Darwin’s, and are therefore probably a paraphrasing of what Darwin said, and may even be an inference drawn from his work. A careful reading of Chapter VII of that book will show that Darwin’s thinking on the question of how to classify races of mankind is far less clear and one-sided than the quotation would have one believe, and he offers a decent criticism of the idea of classifying them as separate species. I will not attempt to sum up his thinking in a single passage, as that would likely be just as crude, but to give one example, he points out that races are inter-fertile and capable of producing fertile offspring, which is a common definition of belonging to the same species. He also notes that without a strict definition of species, the labeling is arbitrary, and draws an analogy to classifying a settlement as a village, town or city based on the number of houses.

    A search for information about Hankins further reveals (http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/ark:/99166/w6445zbd) that not only did he criticise Nordic Theory, of the kind promoted by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg during the Third Reich, but he was apparently also a signatory to the Humanist Manifesto, opposed “racist policies” and even seems to have promoted the mixing of races, which would presumably be contrary to the message of this article and website.

    It is also important to remember that while Darwin was one of the seminal thinkers and scientists who brought us our early understandings of evolutionary biology, and the most famous of those in history to the layperson, he was very much of his time and knew nothing of some very important later discoveries in his field, such as (crucially) the discovery of DNA as the medium for heredity. Anyone who reads the chapter of his book which I recommended will note how heavily his arguments depend instead on examples, counterexamples and even anecdotes, instead of data. As a consequence, today’s average biology undergraduate almost certainly understands evolution and biology in general far better than Darwin himself did, as is evidenced by some of the tentative speculations in his works and what would later be shown to be outright mistakes. Virtually all modern biologists and anthropologists now agree that humanity is one species, and commentary on this matter from the 1870s is now only useful in the field of the history of science.

    In summary, while it makes sense to try to convey an ideologically useful understanding of race, to do so using falsely attributed quotes, poorly referenced and unchecked as they are, is to make the author’s position look weaker to anyone with the diligence and care for truth to investigate, and may even imply a lack of those qualities on the part of the author (especially when the quotation is described as one of “the most important quotes that Whites should always remember”). If anybody believes I have any of this wrong, or simply wants to berate me for what might seem like a trivial nitpick, I will be happy to hear their response.

    1. Hello John, thank you for your comments, which I will look into and I will try to ascertain the source for the quotation attributed to Darwin by H. Millard.
      .
      As to the taxonomy of mankind, it is true that virtually all modern biologists and anthropologists now ‘agree’ that humanity is one species, however this was not always so and prior to WWII the opposite was the case. It is worth considering that there was not a gradual change of consensus regarding this issue in response to scientific advances in the field of genetics, or even in response to a single significant scientific revelation, the change was prompted for political reasons in the aftermath of WWII, and any scientist of whatever stripe who voiced a contrary view since has faced varying degrees of persecution and denigration at the hands of the media and left-wing zealots. Naturally therefore, those who disagree with the current orthodoxy keep their thoughts to themselves in order to protect their careers.
      .
      There is no objective test that can be used to determine species distinction. You quote the matter of capacity to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, however there are many documented instances showing that creatures belonging to different species can indeed interbreed and produce fertile offspring, just as humans drawn from various disparate groups can.
      .
      Species distinction in humans therefore remains a matter of opinion.

      1. Excepting the work of Darwin, I am mostly ignorant of the history of the scientific consensus on race and species vis-a-vis humanity, and it would interest me to see your sources evidencing this sudden postwar change. The scientific consensus is of course capable of genuine rapid change in response to improved evidence and understanding, and so it is not necessarily suspicious – that would need to be demonstrated, not assumed. It is also possible for even a dubiously contrived consensus to be right.

        Some scientists have made pronouncements greeted angrily by the mainstream, proving it possible despite ensuing unpleasantness, but absent any data we can make no assumptions regarding the stance of the quiet multitude. However, I care far more for the outcomes of the research published in the scientific literature than I do for public pronouncements or private opinions. Evidence must support claims, even those of esteemed experts. Claiming a lack of evidence to arise from its suppression risks making an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and fails to persuade.

        I think we agree that notions of sub-species, race, species and the higher levels of classification will always be arbitrary since nature has no innate labels. Any meaning or ordering can only be that which is imposed by us. This does not automatically render those concepts useless, but their usefulness does nonetheless need demonstrating if we are to use them to determine policy. I did give one definition of species as a group of individuals able to produce fertile offspring. Other definitions may be used; none are perfect. You argue however that “there are many documented instances showing that creatures belonging to different species can indeed interbreed and produce fertile offspring”. Under the definition I gave, this is self-contradicting – if creatures interbred and produced fertile offspring, they were not of different species in the first place, so this fails to discredit that definition. It simply means that we had classified those organisms incorrectly.

        You also say there is “no objective test” and that it is a matter of opinion, and here too I disagree. The definition I mentioned is an objective test as to whether two groups belong to one species, and humans are easily tested, confirming that the races are one species. While the value of a definition is part opinion, it must still be justified using facts, and whether two groups are distinct species under a given test is generally more fact than opinion. It is not up to each individual to decide whether they feel humans are one species or many. To call races species, I would need a rigorous and testable definition of species, a convincing argument for its usefulness, compelling evidence the races really are species under this definition, and a rigorous definition of race to confirm that the identified races are the identified species.

        One can select a definition of species to perform the job of the definition of race, but it may not be meaningful or useful to do so, and in this article it is a mere rhetorical device. We gain the ability to refer to other races as separate species, but the actual biology remains constant, so any new policy or perspective is unjustified. It also raises the question of what race means. After promoting races to species, are we forced to classify Germans, Scots and Italians as separate races, or are there now no races?

        There may be further consequences. Pretending we are all the same entails obvious difficulties, but on the opposite extreme, calling other races different species entirely stands to be highly inflammatory – it is tantamount to labeling other races not human. Do human rights apply equally to members of a foreign species? This becomes a temptation to the worst elements of human behavior: oppression, slavery and genocide. I believe and hope we can make the case for racial self-determination, independence and survival well enough while refraining from the arbitrary relegation to ever more alien categories of those who are, after all, fellow humans.

        1. Hello again, John. You have already mentioned the analogy of when a village becomes a town, and I could provide other similar analogies such as when does a stream become a river. These distinctions rely on the perception of the person devising the taxonomy. If you had made a study of the development of palaeoanthropology and combined this with more recent physical anthropology, you would be aware of the fact that the taxonomy of Hominid species, both extinct and extant has been subject to frequent change. For example, the Neanderthal people were early on designated Homo neanderthalensis, indicating a common genus with anatomically modern humans, but a different species. It is now known however, as a result of the human genome project and the sequencing of both Neanderthal and anatomically modern human genomes, that Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern humans and so Neanderthals are now designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
          .
          Similarly, Homo erectus, currently designated a different species to anatomically modern man, was originally designated to a different genus to that of later hominids. Specimens found in Java were designated Pithecanthropus erectus and were considered on the basis of physical morphology to be a different genus to other specimens found in China, which were designated Sinathropus pekinensis. Today, these different groupings of hominid remains have both been designated within the genus Homo, the former designated as Homo erectus erectus, while the latter is designated Homo erectus pekinensis. This redesignation has been accomplished without evidence from DNA sequencing however, but merely on the basis of morphology, in that some living individuals — some Australian aborigines — appear to be dangerously close to providing a morphological ‘bridge’ between prehistoric erectoid and modern sapient population groups.
          .
          As the sequencing of the human genome is refined and more specimens included in the analyses, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Australian aborigine and certain far eastern populations also interbred with a relatively newly discovered group, a further prehistoric hominid species referred to as Denisovans, and that sub-Saharan African populations also interbred with a pre-sapient hominid species that lived in West Africa, possibly Homo erectoid.
          .
          All of this would appear to show a progressive broadening of the range of genetic variation that we are now supposed to regard as Homo sapiens, and it has accompanied an abandonment of the designations: Homo sapiens europaeus, for Europeans; Homo sapiens asiaticus for Orientals; Homo sapiens Afer for sub-Saharan Africans, in favour of the inclusive Homo sapiens sapiens, which is intended to include all extant human groups merely on the basis of interfertility.
          .
          The danger in all this is that the morphological differences that exist between disparate extant human groups, is greater than, or at least comparable to the morphological difference between extant animal species that are also interfertile. For example, certain subspecies of the brown bear Ursus arctos are interfertile with the polar bear, Ursus maritimus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid), and there is interfertility between the coyote Canis latrans, and the wolf, Canis lupus. The dog/dingo/New Guinea singing dog/Holarctic wolf species (Canis lupus) can interbreed with the coyote (Canis latrans), the golden jackal (Canis aureus), and the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) and produce fertile offspring (https://retrieverman.net/tag/algonquin-park-wolf/). If we compare a typical Scotsman with a native of Papua New Guinea, for example, there is clearly a greater morphological difference than exists between a wolf and a coyote, or between a brown bear and a polar bear. There is also a massive difference between in behavioural/cultural terms between the population groups from which these individuals would be drawn, more than enough to warrant separate species distinction in the animal world.
          .
          Clearly therefore, species distinction both in the human and animal world is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of applying an objective yardstick. Furthermore, the yardstick is often changed to suit the prevailing political orthodoxy.

          1. I don’t think I disagree with any of that, and the broadening of Homo sapiens is very intriguing indeed. I am aware that morphology has also often been a consideration when classifying species. Even using DNA analysis however, it is possible to tune classification algorithms to divide a population into as many or as few races or species as is desired by the programmer, since there is much branching and structure in the tree of life even within classification groups we recognise, and so DNA offers no easy escape from subjectivity.

            I think we are agreed that there is a degree of arbitrariness and preference involved – by saying it is not a matter of opinion, I meant that some sort of system has to be justified and rigorously applied rather than just picking a place for the line to go or dodging the need for a rigorous definition in the first place. Whichever classification system is chosen, I think it is important to make it clear what meanings classifications have, if any. The simple act of classifying different races or species can have profound political implications (whether it is us doing so or the liberal establishment, as you have pointed out) as most people will not grasp the complex and arbitrary nature of the problem.

            Thank you for spending the time to engage in this discussion; it’s been interesting.

            1. My pleasure, John.
              .
              Regarding the ‘natural’ process of speciation, an original largely uniform population would become separated geographically, separated by sea, an impassable mountain range, a desert or some such like.
              .
              Over time, the separated groups would be subject to different environmental conditions and in response to these would then undergo a degree of genetic drift, such that distinct differences between them would evolve. These differences could be physical or behavioural, or both, and should the barrier between the separated population groups subsequently be removed, allowing contact once more, one of three possible situations would emerge:
              .
              First, the differences might be so small as to be overlooked, and the re-united population groups might happily begin to interbreed causing the evolved differences to disappear;
              .
              Second, the differences might be sufficient to cause the two or more evolved groups to remain separate, even though it would be possible for them to interbreed should they be induced to doe so; and
              .
              Third, the differences might have become so great that the two or more evolved groups are no longer inter-fertile and cannot interbreed even if they wanted to.
              .
              In the first instance cited above, speciation will not have occurred and the evolved groups will simply reflect variation within the same species.
              .
              In the third instance above, speciation will have undoubtedly taken place. The level of genetic difference here may even have reached the chromosomal level, in that different numbers of chromosome pairs may have evolved, and this is usually the level of difference that makes different genus’s within the dog family, Canidae, lack interfertility. The wolf (Canis lupus) is interfertile with the coyote (Canis latrans), and these are interfertile with the dingo (Canis lupus dingo), but these species, members of the Canis genus are not interfertile with the red fox, (Vulpes vulpes) because foxes have a different number of chromosome pairs.
              .
              In the second instance cited above, a disinclination to interbreed between separately evolved groups originally within the same species, would be sufficient to distinguish the two or more groups as different species, even if they could be induced to mate and produce fertile offspring in captivity. In the animal world there are rarely political considerations and therefore, a more consistent principle can be adopted in the classification of animal species. Despite this, a number of documented natural matings between Kodiak bears — the most northern subspecies of the brown bear — and polar bears, has not affected there continued designation as two separate species. Similarly, the occurance of a number of documented natural matings between wolves and coyotes where their ranges overlap, has not affected their continued designation as two separate species.
              .
              In man, there are political considerations and whereas, there was originally a marked disinclination on the part of some separately evolved human groups to interbreed with others despite their mutual interfertility, this tendency has been deliberately eroded in recent times, for political reasons, not withstanding significant physical, mental and behavioural differences, and consequently massive cultural differences.
              .
              Had the political will existed in the early 20th Century, speciation was the obvious next step for mankind with the two most distinct and culturally distinguished groups — Homo sapiens europaeus and Homo sapiens asiaticus — maintaining their separation from each other and from the rump of humanity. In time, genetic drift would have caused genetic differences sufficient to preclude interfertility and the process would have been complete. As it is, universalism, both religious and political, has muddied the waters to a significant degree in the intervening century, such that this issue and the differing positions taken by differing political traditions have made this issue politically, the hottest of hot potatoes.

              1. I am familiar with the mechanisms that drive speciation, which you have summed up quite well in your comment. In the case of humans, I have always wondered to what extent our development of technology has worked to prevent the ordinary forces of natural selection from operating us, although other mechanisms of evolution such as genetic drift are undoubtedly still at play. Still the question remains in my mind as to how long it would be until speciation occurs (potentially many tens of thousands of years – who can say?) and whether it would ever occur at all. There are, as you are no doubt aware, species which have evolved very little over extremely long periods of time, and none of these have even been technological as we are today. I think we can both agree that speciation is very unlikely to be our future if current political trends continue, as we shall end up with a mono-race.

                1. I think if current trends continue we will see the White race re-absorbed into the rump of humanity, thereby negating the last 60,000 years of evolutionary divergence that created the White race in Europe as a distinct population group. Other ethnic/racial groups do not display the same universalist outlook that characterises the current liberal/left elite amongst White people and so there is no reason to assume that a mono-race will evolve. Humanity will simply suffer the loss of the White race as a distinct racial group.
                  .
                  Our technological advance has created a situation in which Western nations are no longer subject to the natural evolutionary forces that shaped our race in the past and if beneficial evolutionary change is to take place in future, we must adopt eugenic principles and direct our evolution ourselves, towards the enhancement of the racial characteristics that we regard as attractive and desirable.
                  .
                  As for speciation, it would take place immediately if a breeding population of White people decided not to miscegenate and to preserve themselves as a distinct racial group, separate from the rest of humanity. This would be the equivalent of the second scenario that I cited in my previous comments, where a group becomes identifiably different from the rest of the initial species and chooses not to interbreed even though it would be biologically possible. It would then take some time as you suggest, before genetic drift or self-directed evolution created the genetic distance needed to make interbreeding impossible.
                  .
                  Speciation is a matter of will. At the moment the liberal/left leaders of Western nations lack the political will to facilitate speciation, but a change of government could change that overnight.

  3. “.. risk of mass starvation … rapidly rising … the UN refugee agency has warned.”
    That’s significant. Where is the African-run agency for ecologically-viable development, and action on arms trade wars? Non-existent. The Jewish promoters of white extinction immediately turn to invasion by ‘refugees’.

  4. The following poem by Rudyard Kipling, penned around about 1899, illustrates the dilemma we face as White/Aryans in dealing with our Coloured co-habitants. In my view it’s neither moral nor practicable to simply pull up the drawbridge and let them rot. Alternatively, we’re only too aware of the genetic threat they pose to our identity and future evolution.

    The White Man’s Burden

    TAKE up the White Man’s burden –
    Send forth the best ye breed –
    Go bind your sons to exile
    To serve your captives’ need;
    To wait in heavy harness
    On fluttered folk and wild –
    Your new-caught sullen peoples,
    Half devil and half child.
    Take up the White Man’s burden –
    In patience to abide
    To veil the threat of terror
    And check the show of pride;
    By open speech and simple,
    An hundred times made plain,
    To seek another’s profit,
    And work another’s gain.

    Take up the White Man’s burden –
    The savage wars of peace –
    Fill full the mouth of famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The end for others sought,
    Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
    Bring all your hopes to nought.

    Take up the White Man’s burden –
    No tawdry rule of kings,
    But toil of serf and sweeper –
    The tale of common things.
    The ports ye shall not enter,
    The roads ye shall not tread,
    Go make them with your living,
    And mark them with your dead !

    Take up the White Man’s burden –
    And reap his old reward,
    The blame of those ye better,
    The hate of those ye guard –
    The cry of hosts ye humour
    (Ah slowly !) towards the light:-
    “Why brought ye us from bondage,
    “Our loved Egyptian night ?”

    Take up the White Man’s burden –
    Ye dare not stoop to less –
    Nor call too loud on Freedom
    To cloak your weariness;
    By all ye cry or whisper,
    By all ye leave or do,
    The silent sullen peoples
    Shall weigh your Gods and you.

    Take up the White Man’s burden –
    Have done with childish days –
    The lightly proffered laurel,
    The easy, ungrudged praise.
    Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through all the thankless years,
    Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
    The judgement of your peers.

    The poem, admired by Teddy Roosevelt, was sent as a warning to America when she was about to take on colonial responsibility for the Philippines.

    1. I think a good compromise between opening our gates to the world and leaving them to “rot” is to trade. Trade is mutually beneficial, assisting in the growth of the economies of all parties, and allowing for the purchase of goods which would ordinarily not be available. It also need not involve the free movement of people.

  5. Chapter 1 of The Origin of species … has a section on Difficulty of distinguishing between Varieties and Species. Chapter 8 has examples of And The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex is online. Darwin has many inconclusive accounts, and I’m not surprised H. Millard has made heavy weather of trying to extract a clear statement from Darwin!
    May I suggest that A R Wallace’s works, and maybe T H Huxley (the ‘bulldog’) in Man’s Place in Nature, might provide insights and quotations. (I haven’t looked for myself – sorry!)

    1. It seems to me that the quote isn’t extracted from Darwin at all, and so maybe you are right that it isn’t easy to get a clear impression of his views in a single sentence. However, I would rather have our picture of the world based on as modern evidence as possible rather than 19th century thinking, even just for the sake of a stronger position rhetorically.

      1. It appears that the quote attributed to Darwin does not come from one of his major works. I have not been able to find it in ‘On the Origin of Species’, or in ‘The Descent of Man’, but it may have been taken from one of his many letters or other minor writings. Let us give H. Millard an opportunity to respond.

Leave a Reply