"The Center" was just as far off base as Elizabeth, though I suppose they were working off of her assessment of Paige. Her fanaticism did blind her. Her hatred of America and capitalism played a role I think. Philip told her it would destroy her and them. Elizabeth nearly yelled back "At least she will know who she is!" That indicates she was thinking emotionally instead of rationally. 'So what if we all go to jail, at least she will know she is not a goddamned American.' That is basically what she was saying. But I think you're right that she wanted to believe that Paige was just like her, and in her mind, Paige and she would bond in some mother-daughter fanaticism, or something like that. She believed what she wanted to be true instead of what was right in front of her: blinded by fanaticism. What idiot would think the best time to drop that bomb on their daughter was when she was in her most rebellious, and deviously manipulative phase? Momentous retardation indeed. "I'll tell you, but you can't tell anyone!"That is like the most sure way to spread a rumor. Every gossip has a good friend who they are sure can keep a secret. This was a major weakness in the plot. Philip and Elizabeth have shown they are experts at presenting contingency lies to fool people, and they would know how to talk to their daughter and shut her down better than anyone.

I guess Stan and Oleg were willing to believe the trade could work because they were both in love with Nina. At least the story was true in showing the reality of the crushing brutality of the Soviet system; Nina was done for as soon as she turned herself in. They strung her along, utilizing her as best they could until they got all they wanted from her.

I think the Martha storyline was weak where she accepted that Philip was a liar who loved her and tricked her into committing treason. Then she learned he committed murder to take suspicion off of her. And that shook her, but not enough to make her leave him. I suppose she felt hooked, and maybe she was just so lonely and weak that she felt he was her best bet. She really got screwed. She believed Philip loved her. He did sell that part well.

Novichok is supposed to be the most deadly family of nerve agents. Just a dab will do ya. That makes it so dangerous to bystanders, investigators, etc. If they put some on a car handle it will kill the driver, but what about those who take possession of the car after that? Anyone else who comes in contact with it is in trouble as well. Terrible stuff. It is usually meant to be inhaled I think, but skin contact can work. Terrible because it also causes collateral damage. The same with other poisons though. Nicotine base is a poison easily absorbed through the skin. Nicotine sulfate was once used as an insecticide and there were deaths from farmers who got too much skin contact with it. Someone with a basic knowledge of chemistry could extract nicotine from tobacco leaves and use it as a deadly agent. But again, whatever residue was left behind would likely kill others as well.

With the Novichok case it was their complete disregard for innocent civilians that was so sickening - they put it on Skripals door handle - both he and his daughter nearly died - they didn't give a toss who touched it afterwards. I think they carried it into the country in an aftershave or a scent bottle - they tossed that into a dumpster when they had finished with it. Two people went dumpster diving (something I can never understand) and the woman sprayed herself with it - she died - her partner nearly died. But children could have done the same thing - what kind of people are they? Martha is on the run now - and about to be exfiltrated after screaming threats at Gabriel in the middle of the street. She was pretty stupid - a strange guy approaches you and asks you to plant a listening device in the F.B.I and she does? Her life was over right then. In any case I can't understand why an F.B.I building isn't swept for bugs at least once a week and preferably every day. Same with Nina - she could have gone and reported Stan's approach immediately and offered to work him - she would have had a reprimand maybe for stealing stuff but feeding false info to an F.B.I agent would more than have made up for that. I am not sure that they ever intended to release her once she had done all she could for them - I suspect not - but she put the tin hat on it when she tried to smuggle out a note for a man she had no allegiance to - that didn't make much sense. It annoys me that Stan seems to be the only one escaping unscathed. I am on Season 4 Ep 8 at the moment and the Korean family are about to become victims - I can't remember why - something about the husband having access to a key or codes or something. I will be watching that now.

I am a couple of episodes behind you at the moment. I will watch more this evening as I have some errands to run today. Here is something that seems stupid to me. Gabriel got upset with Philip because Philip told him Martha has seen him without his toupee so "she knows what I look like". hahaha. Like that toupee really changes his appearance that much. You recall the scene when she confronted him saying she met the man who has his job, and asked him who he really is? He dramatically removed his toupee to prove that he trusted her with seeing him as he really looks. And Martha, being terminally naive and stupid, was so emotionally moved by this great expression of vulnerability and trust on Philip's part that her mood softened (though she did tell him she already knew he wore a toupee, which surprised Philip).

I will grant that some of his disguises do alter his appearance substantially. In one operation he wore a mop top type wig, like a Beatles cut but with somewhat longer hair. I did a double take when I first saw him in that. But anyone who knows his face would quickly pick him out no matter what sort of wig he was wearing. Adding facial hair helps, but he doesn't often do that. So I found it comical that Gabriel was upset that "Clark" removed his toupee in front of Martha. "You mean she knows what you look like?!?" That is so ridiculous that it is funny. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes or something. Everyone is supposed to pretend that the different looking hair is a disguise. That is as dumb as trying to hide behind a blade of grass and expecting no one to notice you there.

As far as building sweeps at the FBI, I imagine that in real life they do that, but this is Hollywood so they make up the rules to fit the story, like having a group of agents open fire on a couple of unknown subjects who present no threat to them. And isn't it funny how with all their resources and surveillance technology the spies are always able to slip away from them, even though a swarm of agents is pursuing them. Once in a while, OK, anything is possible. But every time? It is TV, that's all I can say.

I think it is essential sometimes that in order for a plot to develop there has to be some implausibilities somewhere - but not rank stupidities in the hope that your target audience is a bit thick. Elizabeth's disguises are somewhat better because of the wigs and the spectacles and the make-up etc - but for the most part they are pretty easy to see through. I mean if Stan had a picture of both of them then a lot of people would say - yes - that's them. I wont rattle on any more until you catch up.

Watching episode 6 now. Elizabeth came to Gabriel's to give some stuff to Martha and talk sweetly to her. She goes into the kitchen and sees Philip without his toupee and is stunned speechless. Philip sheepishly explains that he already showed her his real appearance, i.e. sans toupee and glasses. Elizabeth can't think of anything to say, she shakes her head as though Philip's decision has boggled her mind. This still gets me. PHILIP LOOKS THE SAME AS CLARK. I agree with you that Elizabeth does a better job of changing her look. Her hairstyles are very different, and she can use makeup to alter the appearance of the contours of her face. But Clark is just Philip with different colored hair and glasses, and they are pretending that Martha is fooled by the disguise.

Hell, why do they worry about trying to get away from FBI agents? If they are being followed, all they have to do is duck around a corner and slap on a toupee or a wig. Then the FBI agents will catch up to them and ask:

"Hey, did you happen to notice someone wearing the same clothes you're wearing, same height and build, but who looks different than you around here?"

Philip could say, "why yes, he ran that way, really really fast."

FBI agent: "Thank you. After him boys. Don't let him get away!"

And the crowd of agents would go running down the alley Philip had pointed to. I mean, with such fantastic toupee disguises, there is no real need to hide or run away. Because they are just SO effective.

I think they tried to put a human face on the Soviets. Normally you don't become friends with your assets; you may act like friends but they are assets you use to get information or perform certain tasks. In reality their lives are secondary to the mission. You try to keep them safe, but you don't develop attachments to them the way they show the Soviets doing in this show. Sometimes friendship and genuine affection happens, but I believe it is discouraged. It is dangerous work and you can't get distracted by anything other than handling the asset and getting the mission accomplished. I don't think I would be good at that. I empathize with people too much. My friend told me as much. If I had gone into the 'business' he did, and if something went wrong and an innocent person was injured, I would have a very hard time dealing with that. It would kill me. I would probably have a very difficult time killing someone who needed to die, like a terrorist. Unless I was being shot at, I would have a hard time shooting someone. My friend knew this about me also. He didn't want me to ever have to kill anyone. He knew what it would do to me. Thankfully, I have never had to hurt anyone in my life, and I hope I never do. I could defend someone, but as far as planning to eliminate a bad person and carrying out that task, I don't think I am cut out for that. Besides, I would always question where the order came from. Is the target truly a dangerous threat who needs to be stopped at all costs? Or did some politician get caught with his pants down and order someone killed to prevent a public scandal? As corrupt as the world is these days, that is a valid concern.

second comment: I know that Martha is an old maid who fell in love with Clark. But I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have reacted more when she discovered that he had lied to her about everything. And then when she found out he was KGB she looked like she was going to break down, and then fell into his arms. I find it hard to believe that her feelings of love could withstand so much betrayal and lying. And once she learned she had been played by the KGB into betraying her country, I would have thought she would react more violently, more emotionally. That would turn her whole world upside down. She worked for 10 years in that office, monitoring the KGB in America. She just found out that a KGB agent lied to her about everything they ever talked about, except perhaps how he felt about her. But she would have had to have doubted that as well. She should have melted down. She should have felt a range of emotions. She should have been angry as hell, and despaired at having become a traitor. We finally saw that despair when she was walking in the park and phoned her parents. She was thinking of killing herself at that point. But she didn't show the emotions toward Clark I would have expected her to show.

Think about what a colossal screw over was done to her. She was forced to switch sides, to leave her country and go to live in the country she had spent years working against. She found out two days beforehand that she had married a KGB agent. Her world was turned upside down. Not only did she have to go to a foreign country where she couldn't speak the language, and knew no one, her 'husband' told her he would not be joining her. She would be alone. Really alone. She would have to be so depressed.

third note: season 4 episode 12: It happened again. Paige manipulated her parents with her emotional blackmail thing and they capitulated. They rewarded her and went against themselves. They told Paige that they won't lie to her but they can't tell her everything. And Paige said she understood. Some days later Philip got a call and had to leave. Paige demanded to know what was going on. Work said Philip. But what Paige said. You said you wouldn't lie to me. Elizabeth said we can't tell you everything. Paige: Do you trust me or not? The Eliz. and Philip look at each other and there is a long pause, then they share with her that Philip is getting something for the USSR that could be used if they went to war.

I can't stand the way Paige acts, but I also hate the way her parents handled that. They already told her they can't share everything with her, but that they wouldn't lie to her. Paige tried to act like not telling her everything is the same as lying. They should have slapped her a few times for trying that. Perhaps they should just drug her unconscious and send her to the USSR to wait for them there. She is too much of a pain in the ass.

I think they are trying to show the dilemma between love and duty with both Martha and Paige really. I think Philip does have feelings for Martha - he is not in love with her - but he does have an affection for her and he shows this by trying to protect her and get her away from a life term imprisonment and to let her parents know - he goes against Gabriel in his determination to do the best he can by Martha - that does show he had some feelings for her and remorse for what they did to her. I think Martha still believes that he loves her and she harbours the faint hope that they will be together again at some point. That is why she didn't kill herself or go more beserk than she actually did. She is going to Russia - he is Russian - he loves her - he may come home someday - that is probably the way her mind works. She keeps asking about him as I recall even when she has been in Russia for some time. She really fell hard for Clark. Philip is more empathic with Paige also - he knew she wasn't emotionally mature enough to accept their true status - but Elizabeth - she thinks she knows her daughter but really she is just projecting her own feelings and desires onto her. I think both Philip and Elizabeth were emotionally damaged by their training - but Philip has retained more of his humanity than Elizabeth - I think that is why he loves her no matter what she does or doesn't do - because he understands what she went through. Paige - the writers are overdoing the dominance she is exerting over her parents - most parents know that you CANNOT give in to a child - to do so is to be in their power forever - if you say yes once - they'll remind you of it if you try to say no the second time - and indeed - annoyingly - they are right !! They are now acting like children obeying Paige's every demand - they should realise that the more she knows the more power over them they are handing her. This character was always the most annoying in the series - they went way overboard with her to create conflict at home and in the field - poor Henry is just there for decoration it seems - he is always "over Stan's" - playing in his room" - "over Doug's" if anyone is justified in acting out it is this poor ignored sibling !!! I think they lied to Paige about what it was they were doing anyway so serve the brat right !! And that incident where two guys attacked Paige and Elizabeth on their way to the car park - that kind of put the boot in "do you kill people" "No - of course not" I mean surely Elizabeth had enough training to know how to put a guy down without killing him? Then she admits that she has lost count of the times she has killed people "in self defence" and Paige doesn't seem fazed by this. It is an inconsistency in the character. They now have Oleg appalled by the breaking of the forbidden chemicals treaty - I don't know why they bother with these things - as if one country is going to stop producing this stuff in the belief that the other country will do the same thing - same with nuclear disarmament - it's just noise - nobody is going to take that risk and leave themselves weak and defenceless. This business of the affection that Gabriel claims to have for Elizabeth and Philip - they don't really explain why that should be so - they don't give details of any prior relationship between them that would suggest that - although they seem to know him when he replaced Claudia - He came out of retirement for them - which suggests a prior relationship and yet Philip doesn't seem to like him too much whilst Elizabeth does. It's odd. I have the feeling I have missed some piece of dialogue here. I am glad that you are an empathic person - I am the same - in fact I am over the top empathic - I can't watch any program that involves cruelty to people or animals - not even wild life programs where it is nature that is cruel - I can't tolerate seeing anything suffer. Even in fiction - if cruelty to an animal is portrayed I turn it off. I know with people it is faked - but I am not so sure about animals. They are showing Elizabeth displaying some conscience with regard to the Korean couple - it's too little too late for it to be believable I'm afraid. All the horrendous violence she has committed and she regrets destroying the happiness of one family? Nahh - not our Lizzy!!!

I think they are trying to show the dilemma between love and duty with both Martha and Paige really. I think Philip does have feelings for Martha - he is not in love with her - but he does have an affection for her and he shows this by trying to protect her and get her away from a life term imprisonment and to let her parents know - he goes against Gabriel in his determination to do the best he can by Martha - that does show he had some feelings for her and remorse for what they did to her. I think Martha still believes that he loves her and she harbours the faint hope that they will be together again at some point. That is why she didn't kill herself or go more beserk than she actually did. She is going to Russia - he is Russian - he loves her - he may come home someday - that is probably the way her mind works. She keeps asking about him as I recall even when she has been in Russia for some time. She really fell hard for Clark. Philip is more empathic with Paige also - he knew she wasn't emotionally mature enough to accept their true status - but Elizabeth - she thinks she knows her daughter but really she is just projecting her own feelings and desires onto her. I think both Philip and Elizabeth were emotionally damaged by their training - but Philip has retained more of his humanity than Elizabeth - I think that is why he loves her no matter what she does or doesn't do - because he understands what she went through. Paige - the writers are overdoing the dominance she is exerting over her parents - most parents know that you CANNOT give in to a child - to do so is to be in their power forever - if you say yes once - they'll remind you of it if you try to say no the second time - and indeed - annoyingly - they are right !! They are now acting like children obeying Paige's every demand - they should realise that the more she knows the more power over them they are handing her. This character was always the most annoying in the series - they went way overboard with her to create conflict at home and in the field - poor Henry is just there for decoration it seems - he is always "over Stan's" - playing in his room" - "over Doug's" if anyone is justified in acting out it is this poor ignored sibling !!! I think they lied to Paige about what it was they were doing anyway so serve the brat right !! And that incident where two guys attacked Paige and Elizabeth on their way to the car park - that kind of put the boot in "do you kill people" "No - of course not" I mean surely Elizabeth had enough training to know how to put a guy down without killing him? Then she admits that she has lost count of the times she has killed people "in self defence" and Paige doesn't seem fazed by this. It is an inconsistency in the character. They now have Oleg appalled by the breaking of the forbidden chemicals treaty - I don't know why they bother with these things - as if one country is going to stop producing this stuff in the belief that the other country will do the same thing - same with nuclear disarmament - it's just noise - nobody is going to take that risk and leave themselves weak and defenceless. This business of the affection that Gabriel claims to have for Elizabeth and Philip - they don't really explain why that should be so - they don't give details of any prior relationship between them that would suggest that - although they seem to know him when he replaced Claudia - He came out of retirement for them - which suggests a prior relationship and yet Philip doesn't seem to like him too much whilst Elizabeth does. It's odd. I have the feeling I have missed some piece of dialogue here. I am glad that you are an empathic person - I am the same - in fact I am over the top empathic - I can't watch any program that involves cruelty to people or animals - not even wild life programs where it is nature that is cruel - I can't tolerate seeing anything suffer. Even in fiction - if cruelty to an animal is portrayed I turn it off. I know with people it is faked - but I am not so sure about animals. They are showing Elizabeth displaying some conscience with regard to the Korean couple - it's too little too late for it to be believable I'm afraid. All the horrendous violence she has committed and she regrets destroying the happiness of one family? Nahh - not our Lizzy!!!

Paige asked her parents if they weren't afraid that the people they spoke with might not call the police on them. Well, we take precautions. Paige: Like what? ans: We don't use our real names. Paige: So they just think you're like, other people?

At that point Philip should have turned and angrily slapped Elizabeth across the face and shouted "No child from my loins could be that slow. Who did you sleep with?"

The girl who plays Paige doesn't have a large range of facial expressions. She has one she uses a whole lot and in various situations. I think that is one reason I get so tired of her.

I agree with everything you wrote above. Well thought out and well said. Well, I might not agree completely on everything. I was in a subdivision of Homeland Security for a while. In one of our training classes a doctor I know who headed our state organization said that after Nixon signed that treaty with the Soviets the US did stop developing biological weapons, except for the research at Fort Dietrich. But that was for the purposes of developing countermeasures, studying what we knew the Soviets had, and so on. After the cold war ended we found out that the Soviets thought we were lying so they continued their program in secret. They produced thousands of tons of weaponized smallpox for example. You spoke of the paranoia the Soviets had. Well, you are right.

You may be aware that there are a couple of types of smallpox. The one with very small bumps has about 90% fatality rate. They worked on making this type more virulent. Smallpox has a latent phase where the patient doesn't yet exhibit visible symptoms, yet they may easily transmit the disease to anyone they breathe upon. This was and still is a major concern. We began a program to start inoculating ourselves again with smallpox. I was inoculated as a child, before it was eradicated. But after a couple of decades the protection drops off somewhat. And most people alive today were born after we stop the inoculation program against it. If smallpox were used against us we would respond as if we had been nuked; that is what we tell our enemies. The effect on the nation would be more lethal than a nuclear attack.

Just imagine one suicide jihadist infected with smallpox in a major US airport which only has domestic flights. He walks around asking one person after another 'hey brother can you spare a dollar for (whatever cause)? In one day he would infect hundreds or thousands of people flying to destinations all around the country. Those people would infect those they came into contact with for three days before they began showing signs. Other suicide jihadists could do the same in large metropolitan areas, at train stations, subways, etc. Most of the nation could be killed off in this manner in a very short time.

And smallpox is just one of the deadly pathogens they weaponized. We had and have a great concern that none of these agents get sold to terrorist groups and nations. When the USSR fell, and for some time afterward, there were soldiers who had not been paid for months. We worried that some of them might try to make money selling some of that stuff. After 9/11 people were scared of radicalized terrorist groups acquiring such weapons.

The trouble with these deadly and highly infectious agents is that they make very poor weapons of war because you cannot control them. That was the reason for the treaty in the first place. If someone were to attack the US with smallpox for example, it wouldn't stay in the US. People fly to various nations every day from America. The likelihood that the nation which attacked us with smallpox would find itself decimated by the same weapon they deployed against us is fairly high. As soon as the news got out, people would begin fleeing as fast and as far as they could go, and some of them would be infected. The whole world would be affected. Maybe Nepal would escape, until people in neighboring areas decided to try to hide out there and carried the disease up into those mountains.

Anyway, my point is I disagree with this one idea you expressed:

"as if one country is going to stop producing this stuff in the belief that the other country will do the same thing - same with nuclear disarmament - it's just noise - nobody is going to take that risk and leave themselves weak and defenseless."

Nukes? I agree with you. But as to biological weapons, I don't. Because not having them doesn't make you defenseless any more that having them makes you stronger. Developing countermeasures against them improves your defenses, but using them is suicide. Everybody loses with those highly infectious biological weapons.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me - you have deeper insights into a lot of stuff than I do - I am always willing to consider a different viewpoint - it's how you learn. You say (and it's true right now) that "Using them is suicide" - but countries keep on developing them - why? The only reason I can think of is that they hope to be able to weaponise them in such a way that they can control the size and spread of any outbreak. Given weather patterns they can't control and the movement of people they can't control this may well be an impossible task that they obviously haven't achieved yet - but - do we know what caused the outbreak of Aids in Africa and why it is still ongoing? That came out of the blue and nobody seems to know where or how it originated. Russia and America have a habit of fighting their wars via smaller countries - they probably use them for experiments also - it's not beyond belief. It's the devil and the deep blue sea - you have to produce the product in order to produce the countermeasure. It will never end. Personally (don't laugh) I think it would be a good thing if Russia and America started trusting each other and joined forces against a far more dangerous enemy - terrorism. Anyway - back to Philip's loins !! "Who did you sleep with?" Gee - how long have you got?!!! Yes - Holly Taylor (Paige) has very little range of facial expression - and for a dancer she has a very clunky kind of gait. She doesn't give the impression of grace you would expect. I don't know where you are up to so wont comment further.

If you recall AIDS started in the late 70s I believe, not really sure on the date. But in that time period homosexuality was still illegal in many states in America, and it was definitely looked down upon. The communists had been working to destroy our conservative morality for decades. They actually call it their demoralization of a country. It is one of several steps they use to break down resistance to socialism/communism in countries they seek to take over. This includes not only loosening up of sexual mores, sex before marriage, sex with multiple partners, and so on, but also what used to be called sexual perversions. (There are efforts now underway to decriminalize pedophilia in the United States, which is astonishing to me.) The movement to normalize homosexuality was aided by communist agents.

Someone with extensive knowledge about classified covert actions once told me that AIDS was a created disease, and he said it was intended to hit the gay community. In the 70s in America gay men used to frequent "bath houses". These were indoor heated swimming areas. Gay men were known to go there for sex and it was common for them to have multiple partners there. The idea, according to this source, was to introduce AIDS into the gay community where it would rapidly spread. And it did spread rapidly in the gay community. It was called the Gay Plague in the early years. My source said that it was a surprise that it spread to the straight community the way it did. I guess there must be many more bisexual people than they counted on. I wasn't told this, but I speculate that if what he said is true, then AIDS might have been intended to condition people to revert to a conventional morality, as a counter force to the demoralization program the Soviets were using. I have no way of knowing whether this person's information was correct. Did they test it first in Africa and then release it here in America once they knew it would 'work'? Who knows? If anyone has firsthand knowledge about this, I am sure they will never talk.

Why do countries still develop bio weapons? I don't know what the strategy would be. If the agent is highly contagious, then it may boomerang back at them. If not, then it has limited use as a weapon. Perhaps if someone developed a bio weapon which could not survive long outside certain conditions, perhaps a limited temperature range, and if it could only infect humans, so other animals could not act as vectors, it might be useful in certain situations. What if it were only contagious if orally ingested, i.e. not airborne? If agents were able to infiltrate and adulterate the food supply of an opposing army, then the bio weapon could be used like a poison. This would limit the likelihood that it would spread much beyond the targeted population. But it would greatly limit the usefulness of the agent. One would have to have agents in place at each cooking area. It would be most effective to use it at a large base so as to affect a large population. But it would be less effective than slow acting poisons like polonium.

Or, if those using the bioweapon intended to hide away for an extended period while the disease wiped out much of the world's population, then it could make sense. There are DUMBs (deep underground military bases) where people can live for years without any contact with the surface. The world's elites have written of their goal for reducing the world's population to somewhere between 500 million to 2 billion. That is down from the current nearly 7 billion. The Club of Rome actually published a short book in the early 90s which speaks about this. Bill Gates has spoken about the need to reduce the world's population. He is a member of the Club of Rome along with many other billionaires. Many others have spoken about it or written about it. Now I am straying into the conspiracy nut realm a bit here. But if some elitists ever decided that the time had come to take drastic measures to cull the population it would not be too difficult to have a false flag "terrorist attack" and release one or more bio-weapons. A very deadly flu would kill off the sick, elderly, young, and immunity deficient among us. And there are many indiscriminate agents which would kill in greater numbers. The select few could be vaccinated beforehand. Once the disease had done its work and died out, the elite could reemerge upon the surface.

I never thought I would say anything like this, but I tend to trust Putin more than many American politicians. Not that I consider him a trustworthy person necessarily, but I cannot trust many of our politicians one bit. Putin at least is independent of the deep state. This is one reason there is so much trash talking about Russia at present. But China is the real threat. They have emerged as a technologically competent and very strong military foe. They have about 2 million active service members, and another 2 million in reserve. Those numbers should give any western nation cause to worry. America still has millions of gun owners, hunters, etc. An invasion of this country would not be an easy task for any army. But rifles don't fare well against armored vehicles and artillery. I am more worried about China than Russia. I think we can find common ground with Russia if we try.

What you say makes a lot of sense. I had heard somewhere (I read and watch so many documentaries that I can never recall where I heard anything!!) that the Aids virus was developed in a secret facility in Africa and it somehow escaped and infected the local population. They blame lorry drivers for spreading it across the continent but despite a virtual cure being found it is still rampant in Africa. It is probable that air travel was responsible for it's spread to the West. We were told forcibly here in Britain that it was not a gay plague at all - this - in the face of the decimation of the gay community - why not just admit what is undeniable? I would like to see the Elite emerge from their safe places all bright eyed and bushy tailed and expecting the remaining survivors (whom they abandoned to the fate they created for them) to start working for them and serving them again. I think they would end up ON the dinner table rather than around it. China is indeed the most dangerous nation on the Earth today - they procreate so quickly they simply have to colonise other nations - there is no other alternative. America and Russia want to wake up to this fact and stop letting China buy so much of their land and businesses. Britain would probably be quite easy to invade as we have no gun toting population who could defend themselves against attack. I think that's why we want to remain friendly with America. I think if we weren't an Island we would have been conquered long ago. It is the same in Britain regarding paedophilia - people high in government are working towards lowering the age of sexual consent which is 16 I think at present - it's the back door approach - 16 this year - then 15 - then 14. But I have to say - and this you probably will not agree with - but I speak from actual cases - girls of 12/14 years of age are selling themselves to Asian grooming gangs in exchange for cigarettes and alcohol. Girls of 11 are posting nude photos of themselves online and children as young as 6 are bypassing security protocols on adult dating sites and chatting with adults of all sexual persuasions. Sometimes it is a case of who is grooming who. I blame sexual education that includes deviant practices given to children as young as five (and whose idea was that - a gay male teacher) it is bound to make them curious and they are so computer literate today they can access most anything. I am just glad that my child is grown up now and wants no children of her own.

why not just admit what is undeniable?

Political Correctness raises its ugly head once again. Some excuse about shielding gays from prejudice was offered, I think. But denying the truth isn't the answer, yet it is the path always chosen by the PC police. Label something as PC and you can promote it as truth even though conscious people know it is a lie. It is a preferred means of propagandizing our citizenry today. When I think of how ridiculous the PC dumbasses act and sound I often recall Baghdad Bob. The Iraqui Information Minister is famous for his outlandish quotes on Iraqui military supremacy. In a legenday news clip he insists that the Americans are nowhere near Baghdad and certainly not inside the city. The camera panned up and showed American soldiers on the other side of the street! That is how ludicrous the PC police sound to me.

I don't know how to explain what has happened to our children. I have to think that we are to blame, we being modern society. First, we have failed to protect them from pornography everywhere, not just on the Internet. And we see young girls, 5 and 6 years old, entered in beauty contests who are taught to dance provocatively, and dressed in slut-wear. The children see virtual porn and sexual dances by famous singers and actresses and learn to mimic it. It has crept into everything. We are basically training them to act like bait for pedophiles. They have no innocent childhood. Those young girls you mentioned see older girls twerking, shaking their asses in a sexual way, and they learn that boys like this. If they want some older boy to like them, they learn the quickest way to get his attention is to show some skin, the more skin, the more attention. If a young boy is skinny, slow to bulk up, many of them are encouraged to dress like girls. There are school events where boys are encouraged to dress in female clothing; I don't know what rationale is suggested for this. But when boys are dressed up like girls, and complemented and told how attractive they are, and probably told they could get a boyfriend they are so pretty (after all, since there is nothing wrong with being gay, there can be nothing wrong with suggesting that to them), they are psychologically affected. I have to believe that many of the femboys we see were encouraged by adults to go that route. Some teaching material desensitizes children to their parents values and beliefs, encouraging them to choose their own. But of course, they are subtley guided to the approved values and beliefs by the "change agent", i.e. teacher. This whole subject is really depressing to me. At times I am glad I am getting older now, even though that means I may be wiped out by a killer flu when the elites decide it's time. lol

Cheer up ol buddy - not everybody in the world is stupid enough to allow their children to be manipulated like this. Most parents in Britain are busy and/or naïve in what is happening to their children - but not - I would say - complicit and there is enough publicity and outrage regarding these cases that make sure they are aware of what is going on and most parents will take some kind of steps to protect their children from it. I think children are quite capable of making up their own minds what sexual path they wish to follow - I don't think a person born straight can be influenced to turn gay or vice versa - for a new experience maybe - but not permanently. We must not underestimate our children's natural intelligence. Have faith - as Pastor Timbo would say!! How far up are you now with "The Americans" - I may watch another episode tonight. When it's finished I may dip into "Peaky Blinders" - I am taping it as it airs on BBC. I like to have the entire series done before I watch it though. Just reading that they are hinting at making a film of it. Actually I hope they don't. I can't remember a tv series that became a successful film. They tried with "Steptoe and Son" ( a very successful old British comedy series about a pair of rag and bone men) and it was dreadful - the same with "Morecambe and Wise" (a much beloved male comedy duo whose Christmas shows would attract quite big name guests) but the films they made were awful. Any way - or should I say - anyhoo! - Brad Pitt wants a role in Peaky Blinders because apparently he loves it !! Did you ever watch the old American series of "The Man from Uncle" ? I used to love that with Robert Vaughan and David Mc Callum. (When I was young and foolish!) I watched the fairly recent film of it - it was OK - but it was misnamed really.