 |
| Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin |
(A) Former Catholic Ireland and our New Secular (Insect) Overlords
Ladies and Gentlemen .....The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over, 'conquered' if you will, by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthmen or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
And from the other side - Adolf Hitler: "The final state must be: in St Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side".
I have a previous article on this Blog The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy describing nuns whose current mental and moral status isn't far removed from that described by Hitler. I have an article on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin on my old website IrishSalem.com Unfortunately his antics cannot be explained or excused by Senility!
This current article is, in part, a response to one by the Religious Affairs correspondent of the Irish Times Patsy McGarry on the Archbishop's forthcoming retirement - "Diarmuid Martin’s Successor Must be Cut From the Same Cloth" (subtitle "Fears Rome will impose an archbishop more interested in protecting its own interests") What our secular elite (or Insect Overlords) require is a prelate with minimal concern for the rights of falsely accused priests like Fr Kevin Reynolds or laity like John Waters BOTH libelled by State broadcaster RTE - as child abuser and homophobe respectively. Or indeed for the rights of a family - including four children - driven out of their home on 4 occasions by mobs. I write about the latter case in Section (E) below
.
(B) Archbishop Diarmuid and I
I have had a few run ins with Archbishop Diarmuid over the years. More than a decade ago when I was still (relatively) young and innocent, I sent him two emails regarding false allegations of child abuse against Catholic clergy. I can't locate them just now but they would have been an early version of my article Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland No reply - not even an acknowledgement . A few weeks later I attended the Easter ceremonies in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin which was my usual annual habit at the time (I have since changed it) and ran into his secretary there. I mentioned it to him and he suggested that I put the emails in writing and send them by post. I did so and again - of course - there was no reply. Some time later I spoke about this episode during a public meeting and said I assumed it was because the Archbishop is a "Liberal" and doesn't communicate with Reactionaries like myself. A very liberal priest there assured me that he had the same problem getting a response and that our Archbishop only communicates with VIPs! (Note [1] and [2] )
I describe my most recent run-in with the Archbishop in my article "Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and Cancellation of Seminar on Tuam Children’s Home" The health authorities had approved our History Seminar - to be held in Newman University Church, Dublin on 30 August 2020 with maximum attendance of 50 - as complying with Covid Regulations. However the Archbishop insisted that the event be cancelled. We had to relocate to Galway on 4 October. See "Seminar on Tuam Children's Home (Online) - Transferred to Galway"
My article Irish "Antifa" Attacks Protesters - "Liberal" Irish Media Don't Mind includes a description of an indirect run in with the Archbishop - see section on "The Decadence of Archbishop Diarmuid". I have been at three demonstrations (in favour of Free Speech and opposing the Covid lockdown regulations) at which we were violently attacked by Antifa types - and I barely missed a fourth one which turned out to be the most violent. The Archbishop appears to have said nothing about the attackers but he condemns those of us who were targeted by the thugs. Weimar style decadence!
(C) The Archbishop and Miss Panti Bliss
The Catholic Church’s senior official in Dublin, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, conceded that the church did harbour people with hostile and un-Christian attitudes toward gays. “Anybody who doesn’t show love towards gay and lesbian people is insulting God,” Martin said. “They are not just homophobic if they do that. They are actually God-ophobic, because God loves every one of those people.”
O’Neill, as is his style, had a quip to capture the absurdity of his situation. “I love the fact that the archbishop has essentially come out for Team Panti,” he told the AP.
(D) The Archbishop and the Sisters of Mercy
"..a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish..." Adolf Hitler predicts future of Catholic Church
A few years ago I was told an extra-ordinary story about the Sisters of Mercy and Archbishop Diarmuid. Apparently the Sisters were deeply shocked when the Archbishop threw them to the wolves in the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan Report on industrial schools in May 2009. So the nuns who cheerfully betrayed their own innocent colleagues in a desperate attempt to make themselves popular with "victims", were surprised when the Archbishop did the same to them. Obviously there's no honour among thieves!
I have an article on the Sisters of Mercy in my old website (not Blog) IrishSalem.com This story may be related to the following extract from that article:
Finally and In Conclusion
Bishop Willie Walsh was quoted by Patsy McGarry in the Irish Times on 14 November 2009:He had been speaking recently to the leadership team of the Mercy congregation’s southern province, “women who have given their lives in the service of the church”, and who were “very broken, very sad”. They felt “let down by us, the bishops”.
So that explains nearly a decade and a half of self-degradation by the Sisters of Mercy - and other female religious. It was the Bishops that made them do it!
(E) Is Archbishop Diarmuid Martin a Saviour of the Irish Church? (Politics.ie discussion)
The following is an extract from a discussion on Politics.ie mainly in 2011-12 on the topic "Archbishop Martin - a Saviour of the Church"
Corelli Dec 18 2011: He is liked and disliked in equal measure in Rome, one hears. Liked because he is the only bishop who has handled the clerical abuse issue properly. Disliked because, for the Roman church, he is an extreme liberal, which to most mortals, would make him a mild conservative.
Kilbarry [Myself] Dec 19 2011: I have a long article on the Archbishop on my website and part of it refers to a discussion on Politics.ie over a year ago [i.e. in 2010].
The Archbishop and Mob Hysteria
In June/ July 2010 in Co. Wicklow, a family comprising parents and four children were driven out of their homes on four occasions by mobs. On the last occasion the mob burned down their home in Ashford. The reason for the hyteria was that 18 years previously (in 1992) the husband had been convicted of a sex offence against a minor and got a suspended sentence of six months. There was a discussion on the Politics.ie website entitled "Labour Councillors Join Mob Harassment of Innocent Family" and I wrote (among other things}:Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrassment of Innocent Family - Page 18The family have been hounded out of Kilcoole, Redcross, Rathnew and Ashford. I think they are all in the Archdiocese of Dublin which covers most of Co. Wicklow as well. Ashford certainlly is and that is where their house was burned down. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has become a great hero of the liberal media because of the way he has dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse. He cannot make a speech without denouncing the evils of abuse and apologising for the way the Church dealt with them in the past. He even put pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy Report. (Like the Wicklow mob, the Archbishop seems to believe in guilt by association.) ......Would it be too much to ask the Archbishop to condemn the behaviour of the people who hound an innocent mother and her four children? The mob are abusing these innocents. Moreover the hysteria and fanaticism generated by the mob will rebound on real victims of child sexual abuse in the future. Cynicism is what normally follows after Hysteria.
MY CURRENT COMMENT [Dec 2011]: Archbishop Martin likes to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He has no intention of raising issues that might bother Irish "liberals" - for example why did Labour Councillors on Co Wicklow back up the actions of those mobs?
NotAnotherPolitician said: How come he could spend €94,000 on a kitchen for his palace if he is all you make him out to be?
Kilbarry [Myself] - reply to NotAnotherPolitician Dec 19 2011 The fact that he kept his mouth shut when mobs in his diocese drove a family (including 4 children) out of their home on four occasions and burnt the house the last time, is rather more important that what he spends on his kitchen. So is the following from my article Archbishop Diarmuid Martin,
The Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops of Dublin The most egregious example is the Archbishop's treatment of retired auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony. The Archbishop removed Bishop O'Mahony from his position as director of the archdiocese's pilgrimage to Lourdes on the basis that “I regret that you did not express any public clarification or remorse or apology” (letter dated 2 December 2009). However Bishop O’Mahony had sent a statement to the Archbishop’s Director of Communications Annette O’Donnell on 27 October 2009 which concluded : “I profoundly regret that any action or inaction of mine should have contributed to the suffering of even a single child. I want to apologise for my failures from the bottom of my heart”. The statement was not published by the Communications Office but Annette O'Donnell confirmed that the Archbishop had seen it. He made no apology to Dermot O'Mahony and indeed continued to criticise him. ....
Martin told lies about one of his own auxiliary bishops. Presumably he thought he could get away with it because after all, what could Bishop O'Mahony do about it? Well Bishop O'Mahony passed on the correspondence to the Irish Catholic and from there it got to the rest of the media. This was unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Martin's treatment of Bishop O'Mahony is one of the major reasons why the Archbishop is disliked and indeed despised by his own priests and by the rest of the hierarchy. The fact that anti-clerics love him goes without saying!
borntorum: The fact that you dislike him only raises my opinion of the man
Kilbarry-reply to borntorum Dec 20 2011: In general do you approve of telling lies - or is it only when a "liberal" slanders a "reactionary"?
On a related issue do you think the Archbishop - as a self-proclaimed defender of abused children - should have condemned the Wicklow mobs last year especially the mob that burned children out of their home?
The Herren said: There is no doubting this man's ability or compassion. Pity he wasting so much of these qualities preaching and practicing mumbo jumbo.
Kilbarry -reply to The Herren Dec 20 2011: I will repeat the second part of a previous post:..."On a related issue do you think the Archbishop - as a self-proclaimed defender of abused children - should have condemned the Wicklow mobs last year especially the mob that burned children out of their home?
The mobs were attacking the home and family of a man who had got a suspended sentence in 1992 for the indecent assault of a minor. The man had four children who were driven out of 4 successive houses by thugs who claimed (like the Archbishop) to be acting in defence of children. These were not the kind of children that our beloved Archbishop wanted to be seen defending. He is interested only in Politically Correct causes and these were NOT PC children!
Kilbarry Feb 27 2012: The following letter appeared in the Irish Times today. In fact there IS a connection between the Archbishop's unwillingness to support falsely accused priests AND his unwillingness to condemn mobs in his Archdiocese who drove a family out of their homes on four successive occasions and burned down the home the fourth time. The protection of children is not the issue here - or at any rate it's not what motives our beloved Archbishop!
The Irish Times - Readers Letters and Feedback
A fear among priests
Sir, Breda O'Brien (Opinion, February 11th), in writing about the possibility of complacency regarding child abuse, says: "There is also the very real fear among priests that things have moved so far in the opposite direction that any priest is presumed "guilty as charged". There are some bishops . . . who believe it is impossible for a priest to return to ministry even when it is clear that a priest was falsely accused."
The implications of these attitudes for the working relationship between bishop and priest are far-reaching. The promise of respect on behalf of the priest was to be honoured by the bishop with a duty of care. In the past the exaggeration of respect and honour led to a culture of clericalism but their absence now as a result of the abuse crisis has created a vacuum in which trust has been replaced by suspicion on both sides.
Gathering around the bishop as a sign of unity has lost its meaning since I, and many priests like me, on being summoned to Archbishop's House on any issue would not attend unless accompanied by a witness, if not a solicitor. Yours, etc,
Fr GREGORY O'BRIEN PP,
St Jude the Apostle,
Willington,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Warrior of Destiny Feb 27 2012: If Diarmuid Martin became Pope tomorrow he'd be the FDR of the Vatican.
Kilbarry Feb 27 2012: Does that mean you approve of his silence when a Wicklow mob burned a family - including four children - out of their home because the father had got a suspended sentence 20 years before? And what about the Labour Councillors in Wicklow who endorsed the action of the mob and voted that anyone who "associated with" a sex offender should be denied housing by the Council. They were referring to the wife and children of this man. Diarmuid Martin had no words of criticism for the mob-endorsing politicians either. That's the way FDR behaved is it?
Des Quirell : I was silent on that issue too. What does that say about me? If he is to comment on every arising issue he'll be damned as in interfering fool.
Kilbarry-Reply to Des Quirell Feb 27 2012: Martin specialises in denouncing child abuse. The four homes attacked by the mob were in his Archdiocese. There was political support for the mobsters from the Labour Party. The mobs claimed to be acting to protect children from the father of the family. This is the issue that has defined Martin's role as Archbishop - but the problem is that the victims were the wife and children of a man who had been convicted of a sex offense 20 years previously. THAT is why Martin kept his mouth shut.
LamportsEdge That's a dangerous title to have in the catholic pantheon of the magisterium ('saviour') ... Martin would want to stay away from Calvary-like hills and run like hell should he spot Shatter looking at him quare like...
Kilbarry Feb 27 2012: Martin is regarded as a liberal hero for much the same reason that the [Anglican] "Red Dean" of Canterbury the Rev Hewlett Johnson was similarly regarded half a century ago. The Rev. Johnson denounced the evils of capitalism while proclaiming the "authentic" Christian virtues of Comrade Stalin. He was secretly despised by his progressive friends who regarded him as the greatest "Useful Idiot" of them all.
After Prime Time's case against Fr Kevin Reynolds collapsed, Martin denied that the Irish media in general have any special animus against the Catholic Church. ("Mission to Prey" was just an unfortunate exception it seems.) While I cannot swear that Patsy McGarry and John Cooney see our Archbishop as the CURRENT Most Useful Idiot, I strongly suspect it.
LamportsEdge: Seeing as he has now twice been passed over for a red hat despite being hotly tipped for one I'd say that there is as much evidence for the current Opus vatican to see him as the Useful Idiot in the welter of degeneracy of the Irish church. He was a financial expert seconded to the UN in Geneva and his career was mostly around high finance rather than ideology or ministry- it is possible he was regarded as 'unsoundly liberal' some time ago by the Opus contingent and given the poisoned chalice of an Archbishopric in Ireland to keep him out of the college of cardinals.
Kilbarry - reply to LamportsEdge Feb 27 2012: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. My impression is that Martin is widely distrusted and despised by his own priests as a hack who will say anything to make himself popular with the media. The Vatican are certainly aware of this opinion and one solution might be to kick Martin upstairs by making him a Cardinal and giving him a role in "high finance" or whatever. The trouble is that this will be represented by the media as the Vatican going soft on child abuse by removing our journalists own fake hero (and real clown). There is no easy way out of this dilemma but I favour the "kick him upstairs" approach myself.
Corelli: There is to be about 13 more vacancies in the College of Cardinals in the next 12 months with most of the vacant Cardinatial See's having being filled at the last one. Therefore, if Martin is to get the Red Hat within the life time of this present Pope, there is about another 12 months to do it.
There are a number of factors in play. The rumor amongst the Catholic bloggers and papers, is that Martin, actually, has a very good personal relationship with the Pope, and within the Vatican, has still very good relationships within the Curia, having worked there for so long. There is a suggestion that if the Eucharistic Congress is not a disaster he might get one as reward next time. [Emphasis mine, RC]
However, there is ONE HUGE fly in the ointment. Geography. There presently is a living and serving Irish Cardinal, namely that twit Brady, who, with the best will in the world, has not sufficient intellect, charm or influence to be still in the job. The only way Martin could get one in that situation is to get one of the Vatican which automatically gets the Red Hat. Now Martin would, I am sure, like to be back in the Vatican, but there are limited jobs going and he would not like a token appointment in the Curia which would give him title but no power and totally scupper his chances of the "big" job.
Kilbarry - reply to Corelli Feb 27 2012: I am definitely not an insider where these issues are concerned. However, between talking to my few contacts and what was published in the media, I did ascertain one important fact. The two auxiliary bishops of Dublin Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field understood that they had the support of Archbishop Martin for their initial refusal to resign after the publication of the Murphy Report in November 2009. Then suddenly to their amazement and without warning, Martin indicated in a Prime Time programme in December 09,that he did NOT support them.
So they felt that they had no alternative but to tender their resignations to Pope Benedict. However they both wrote personal letters to the Pope saying the SOLE reason for tendering their resignations was Martin's public repudiation of them! Thus Pope Benedict refused to accept their resignations.
If that is the case - and I have good reason to believe that it is - I cannot see how Martin can possibly have a good working relationship with the Pope. I suspect that the door is being left open for him to return to a high-sounding post in the Curia where he can do a lot less harm than as Archbishop of Dublin. That may account for the impression that he is in good odour with the Vatican. In other words it IS a question of kicking him upstairs as soon as it is possible to do so!
Kilbarry -continued: And the following extract from an Irish Times article dated 21 December 2009 tends to support my view. It quotes Eddie Shaw who worked in the Dublin Archdiocese Communications Office in 2002-03:
Archbishop's Response Criticised Irish Times, Dec 21, 2009 by Patsy McGarry
Eddie Shaw, .... said communications strategy by the archdiocese following publication of the Murphy report had been "catastrophic . . . absolutely catastrophic"
Speaking on RTÉ Radio 1's Marian Finucane programme yesterday, he said: "I think, Marian, it's wrong, the way it was done is wrong. Communicating with people who are your auxiliaries through the Prime Time programme in the way it was done - that was wrong.
"What's going on now this weekend in the papers, with the Archbishop in Rome saying close this matter down until I return to it again in the New Year" , he said. "I will talk specifically for the two men I worked with, Bishop Éamonn Walsh, Bishop Ray Field in particular", he continued. .......
He asked: "How much preparation do you need to prepare for something like this when you know what's coming down the track? How much preparation do you need to be informed, to be advised to have a communications strategy? Can somebody show me where the evidence is of a communications strategy that is based on a church that has a mission to its people?" .......
Asked about Archbishop Martin saying on the same Prime Time programme that since publication of the Murphy report the previous week only two bishops had called him offering support, Mr Shaw said: "I actually don't understand that comment . . . Is that a reflection on the gap that has opened up between one bishop and his brother bishops? Is that a reflection on the way some bishops thought about the way he communicated? I don't know. I can't answer that." ......
"Why not have the people in, talk to them one to one, tell them this is going to happen. Why would you communicate that for the first time, as apparently it was done, across the airwaves on Prime Time?"
Good question and the answer may be that Martin likes the sound of his own voice on TV and just decided - on the spur of the moment - to badmouth his colleagues and his auxiliary Bishops. Nothing would surprise me about that clown!
Toland Feb 28 2012: He seems to me at least a normal, decent human being. In the company he keeps that makes him look like a saint.
Kilbarry - reply to Toland Feb 28 2012: Martin told lies about his auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony and he tried to get Bishop Drennan of Galway (former auxiliary in Dublin) to resign even though NO criticism of him was made in the Murphy Report. The man is a liar and a vicious clown. (In comparison to him the "Red Dean" of Canterbury was at least innocent, although a complete fool!) See in Archbishop Diarmuid Martin
The Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops of Dublin
The most egregious example is the Archbishop's treatment of retired auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony. The Archbishop removed Bishop O'Mahony from his position as director of the archdiocese's pilgrimage to Lourdes on the basis that "I regret that you did not express any public clarification or remorse or apology" (letter dated 2 December 2009). However Bishop O'Mahony had sent a statement to the Archbishop's Director of Communications Annette O’Donnell on 27 October 2009 which concluded : "I profoundly regret that any action or inaction of mine should have contributed to the suffering of even a single child. I want to apologise for my failures from the bottom of my heart". The statement was not published by the Communications Office but Annette O'Donnell confirmed that the Archbishop had seen it. He made no apology to Dermot O'Mahony and indeed continued to criticise him.In November 2009 the Archbishop invited the Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan who had previously been an auxiliary Bishop of Dublin to "consider his position" after the publication of the Murphy Report. While the Report mentions Bishop Drennan, it makes no criticism whatsoever of his conduct! In order to consolidate his status as a media hero, does the Archbishop want to hand the media as many heads as possible on a platter?
Kilbarry - Jan 16 2016
Archbishop Diarmuid - Sins of Omission re Child Sex Abuse
There is an article on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin here - based on a Politics.ie discussion in 2010. A family with 4 children had been driven out of their homes on four occasions by mobs in Co. Wicklow when the mobs discoverer that the father had a conviction for sexual contact with a minor nearly 20 years previously. (He got a 6 months suspended sentence which gives some indication of how grave the offence was.) On the FOURTH occasions the woman promised to separate from her husband so naturally the mob reacted differently this time around; they burned the house down with all the family's possessions inside! Wicklow County Council then passed a motion saying that anyone who "consorted with" a sex offender should not be housed by the Council!
So what did Archbishop Diarmuid do - this "Saviour of the Church", this champion of abused children? Why nothing at all. The 4 children of a man convicted of a sex offence almost 20 years before, merited no word of sympathy from the Archbishop.
Anyway here here is the article Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrasment of Innocent Family - CONTINUED
I believe (aside from issues relating to the ongoing safety of children) that once any offender serves their sentence then they have served their sentence. In times like this people rely on authority to protect them from the mob as a last line of defence, those political whores in that council are the mob themselves.
Kilbarry Jan 16 2016: Two Labour Party Councillors were responsible for the motions that denied housing to people who "consorted with" sex offenders and thereby supported the actions of the mob. However the motions were passed unanimously by Wicklow County Council in June 2010. Presumably the councilors from other parties were afraid to vote against, because public opinion was on the side of the lynch mob! However an article in the Sunday Independent on 4 July 2010 pointed out that one man DID protest:
One lonely figure stands out as the voice of reason and fairness: Michael Nicholson, the director of services with Wicklow County Council, who called what happened an example of mob mentality, and stands over that remark.
Now all praise to Michael Nicholson, but note that he was a civil servant and NOT a politician and so his job didn't depend on the mob.
However there was one other person who could have intervened with complete safety. This was Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the cleric who is a hero to nearly all ANTI-clerics in Ireland! The Archbishop can hardly give a speech without apologising for the (real or imagined) sins of the Church against children. [And when I say "imagined" I refer to his attempt to get Bishop Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy report.] If any OTHER cleric had denounced the Wicklow mobs, he would have been shouted down as a defender of paedophiles but our caring and compassionate Archbishop could have done so - or, at the very least, he could have expressed sympathy for the four children of the family. Archbishop Diarmuid said nothing because he is a fraud whose only concern is to present himself as a hero in the eyes of our "liberal" journalists.
I have a gut feeling that they despise him!
Kilbarry Feb 29 2020: I believe Archbishop Martin is due to retire shortly and there may not be the usual year long extension either. For some reason his period in office and his crawling before the secular power remind me of a classic episode in The Simpsons "Deep Space Homer" [see video at beginning of article]
One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
And a great job Diarmuid made of it. However I get the impression that even his anti-clerical admirers are getting just a little bit tired of the guy - one might even say they are bored with his endless speaking pious platitudes to power!
Rory Connor
She has a particular disdain for that experienced media operator and career Church diplomat, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. Following Martin's description of the latest crop of young priests as "traditional" (conservative) and "fragile", she dissed the Archbishop in vociferous terms in the the Irish Examiner last July [2012]. Querying with ill-disguised sarcasm whether Martin had access to 'fragile' priests psychological assessments, Casey accused Martin of being unwilling to put forward positive solutions to the crisis in the Church. This she argued is because Martin is afraid of what "critics of the church and of religion might say at any given moment", a fear she describes as "crippling". By critics Casey meant the IT [Irish Times] and other liberal pundits whom she believes - not without foundation - Martin is in thrall to.The astute Casey also believes - again with justification - that amongst among its priests, Martin is the most unpopular prelate to head the Dublin archdiocese for many years. This is partly because of his willingness to suspend any priest against whom an abuse allegation is made pending inquiries but also because of an apparent distain both for lowly clerics and for traditional Catholic mores. In short he is a liberal sheep in Bishop's vestments. Casey's broadside on young priests stung Martin as evidenced by his riposte defending his choice of language about newly ordained priests. When it comes to the crisis engendered by sex abuse in the Church, Casey has been stern and censorious in her description of clerics' deviant behaviour and what must be done. However, she is also critical of those in the Church, like Martin, whom she believes are on the run from aggressive secularists."
