This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Place To Go When War Starts

Pivotfarm's picture




 

As one humorist once said “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and so it has been since time immemorial. Complain and vociferate in the public space and you will get the attention that you need, or at least crave. The grease gets thrown onto the axel in lashings. But, sit silently in the back seat and be driven along and nobody will look over their shoulder and see you slumped in the back of the car. But, that doesn’t mean to say that you aren’t there on that back bench somewhere. Just because you aren’t squeaking, doesn’t mean to say that you don’t get from point A to point B. The others just don’t notice that you are there.  The quietest ones are usually the safest anyhow, aren’t they? The ones that will look after you when all hell breaks loose. 

Nobody can deny that the chances of war are increasing in the world.

Any amount of theory in international relations about how when a country gets a McDonald’s fast-food restaurant, then they will no longer wage war because they will be too busy worry about the burgers that fill their stomachs (the Golden Arches Theory) will only go down the tubes and get smacked in the face by Ronald McDonald. History has a habit of creating repetition. Bis repetita placent or ‘those things that please just get asked for again and again’.  We might well look around and so the growing number of repetitions in history that were announcements of the impending outbreak of World War II that are present today in the modern world in which we live. The unlikely alliances in the world, the  invasions and annexing of certain lands, the internal ethnic conflicts that are coming to boiling point not to add the burning fuel to the fire of the financial crisis that has reduced some to cinders.

So, when war breaks out, where should we go? According to the Global Peace Index from the Institute of Economics and Peace, the places to be when war does finally happen would be the following states.

 

 

 

Safest Places in the World

The ten highest ranking countries are all relatively small democracies that make few waves in the world.

10. Norway

09. Belgium

08. Japan

07. Canada

06. Finland

05. Switzerland

04. New Zealand

03. Austria

02. Denmark

01. Iceland

Is Iceland the top country in the world simple because it has a small population? There are 325,000 people in the country and as such it’s far less likely to have crime than with big populations. Or is it because the Icelandic people have one of the world’s oldest democracies with the parliament being established as early as the 10th century in the country? The Althing was one of the first systems of representative democracy with elected officials representing the common people.  Some have even suggested that Iceland is peaceful because it has great ethnic similarity, with a very small proportion of people coming from non-Icelandic heritages (4-6% of the country). Others might believe that diversity brings strength.  Is it because health care there is free and university and schooling are also free and provided for by the state? Their basic needs met, they have little cause to find conflict with others, perhaps.

Who knows why Iceland is the most peaceful country. There are many suggestions that are made, whether they be the real reasons or not.

Seven of the world’s top most-peaceful countries are in Europe. There are the usual ones that are there at the top. The Danes and the Finnish, the Swiss and the Norwegians. Say what you will but every time there’s and index published they are always at the top of the list, aren’t they? But, these are the countries that sit quietly in the back seat driving along. They don’t squeak and they certainly don’t need greasing up like the others do. There’s a link there somewhere between greasing someone’s axel and somehow going down the slippery wrong road of corruption and instability.  

 

Global Peace

The Global Peace Index has been produced now for 8 years and there are 162 countries in the ranking (standing for 99.6% of the world population). So, apparently this is the most peaceful century in the history of mankind and yet there are growing signs that the dangerous are rearing their ugly heads. Where there are no dangers there are the bastardized twin brothers of analysis which are conspiracy thinking and rumor. Where proof lacks, the twins prevail and ensure that what wasn’t happening will.

·         The index looks at three broad themes which are :

 

1.       Level of safety and security in a society.

2.       Extent of domestic and international conflict.

3.       Degree of militarization of the country.

There are 22 indicators that are both quantitative and qualitative.

·         Out of the 162 countries there has been deterioration in the level of peace in countries for 111 of them since 2008.

·         Not surprising really since our society was founded on the development of trade, inter-locking us into a global market to prevent putting our own prosperity into danger by making it woven into the fabric of others’ economies.

·         But, since the free-for-all fight that ensued after the fall of the financial markets, that has somewhat changed. Since 2008, it has been every man for himself.

·         500 million people are currently living in countries that are considered to be at risk of instability and possible theatres of conflict.

·         200 million of those people are considered to be below the poverty line in their country intrinsically linking conflict and instability with levels of wealth.

·         The countries that are most at risk of falling into violence and instability today are:

1.       Zambia

2.       Haiti

3.       Argentina

4.       Chad

5.       Bosnia & Herzegovina

6.       Nepal

7.       Burundi

8.       Georgia

9.       Liberia

10.   Qatar

·         But, the most violent countries in the world are the following 11 countries in which 85% of all terrorist activity in the world is taking place today (despite what the local media might be trying to make you think, scaremongering and panic-selling to the masses):

1.       Syria

2.       Afghanistan

3.       South Sudan

4.       Iraq

5.       Somalia

6.       Sudan

7.       C.A.R.

8.       D.R. Congo

9.       Pakistan

10.   N. Korea

11.   Russia

·         You are more likely to have a homicide rate in those countries that are 12 times the average in peaceful countries.

·         The Global Economic Impact of violence has been estimated to stand at US$1,350 per person in the world or a total of US$9.8 trillion (2013).

·         Africa has a combined GDP of less than 50% of that figure that impacts the world.

·         The total figure also represents 11.3% of global Gross Domestic Product.

·         There is a rise in the number of internal and domestic conflicts in states and violence is no longer just between states but also from within.

·         Overall only 4 indicators changed for the better with less money being spent in the world on the military (as a percentage of GDP) globally  and less money being spent on nuclear and heavy weapons as well as the armed forces in the world.

·         But, the other criteria all seemed to do worse than in previous years and they included:

1.       Terrorist activity

2.       Homicide rate

3.       Likelihood of violent demonstrations

4.       Violent crime

5.       Incarceration rate

6.       Political instability and access to small arms, amongst others.

·         It is not surprising that South Sudan saw the largest fall between 2013 and 2014 in the ranking of Global Peace it and became the country that suffered the most severe deterioration. It now stands at 160th place in the ranking. It fell by 16 places.

·         Egypt fell by 31 places and ended up in 143rd position in the world rankings.

Will the figures above remain just figures and rankings? They are all well and good just as long as they have an impact. The trend in the figures has been getting worse over the past 8 years in which the Global Peace Index has been carrying out the study so it would seem that the figures are destined to be relegated to the back office of the corridors of power. Why would we want world peace, anyhow? For a moment it might just bring the poor out of poverty and provide them with the same living standards as the rest of the world. That would be no good, would it? How would we recognize the rich as being overly rich if they didn’t have the poor to gauge themselves by it? It seems that it would be far better to maintain them in instability and violence and that way the old adage stands very true of seeing your enemies fighting amongst themselves in their own back yards means that they don’t try to climb over your fence and get into your little oasis.

So where does the USA stand?

·         The USA is 101 out of 162 in the world rankings for the World Peace Index.

·         That means that it comes in just after Turkmenistan, Armenia, Bangladesh and even Haiti and Benin. It’s just one rank ahead of Angola. No comment.

·         It is 30th place in world rankings for the Terrorism Index.

Do you think the USA is the 101th most peaceful country in the world out of 162? 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 06/25/2015 - 21:56 | 6235850 LithiumWarsWAKEUP
LithiumWarsWAKEUP's picture

Just think, Memphis is twice the population of Iceland. Same percentage inbreeding, though.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 13:10 | 6225998 skipjack
skipjack's picture

Stupid list. Look back at history and see which countries were occupied - that takes up a bunch of the top choices on the list-Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Far East, North Africa... Belgium ? That nation of pussies in the middle of bankster wealth ?

Secondly, most European countries have been overrun with Muslims and other third-worlders. Go to Malmo Sweden and see the result - you won't survive for long.

India, China - too many people, too poor outside elite enclaves, outsiders too obvious a target. Both have been known to be foreigner-adverse for centuries.

South and Central America - lots of resources but too much poverty and corruption. You are a target. The Nazis bought their way into Argentina after WW II, so be prepared to pay for the privilege.

Iceland - too damn cold but it does have geothermal springs. Go if you like cold water fish. They survived austerity and the bankster-driven crisis, so they have the right idea.

Brazil, Patagonia, Australia, western US etc - crippling drought.

Nowhere blacks are in power is safe. That goes for Africa as well as DC, Baltimore, Chicago, Newark and Detroit etc.

In short, pick a nice climate like parts of Argentina, New Zealand, the southern US, Costa Rica, then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

No where is really safe. Stand up and fight.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:38 | 6226364 Seer
Seer's picture

Stay strong, whitey!  Your genes are counting on YOU!

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 13:24 | 6226051 optimator
optimator's picture

Skipjack, Iceland was also occupied -- by the U.S., and before we were even in the war.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 13:05 | 6225990 den1313
den1313's picture

Stupid list, for example, almost 25% of the population of Denmark is Middle Eastern or African. Large populations in the rest of Scandanavia.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 13:00 | 6225977 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Iceland as number one is funny.
They will either acquiesce to Europe and Zion, or one day find they to have WMDs that must be secured by an invading force.

Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium are hilarious, unless one truly supposes themselves riding things out in the Lion's mouth.

And Japan?! Nothing like being a foreigner in an impoverished, Xenophobic, and plundered by Zion land while it is being occupied by the Chinese--you'll have two enemies for the price of one.

Canada will either be occupied to "protect" them from the DC US, or invaded by the DC US.

As for the rest, we'll see.

Liberty is a demand. tyranny is submission..

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 12:45 | 6225908 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

"Place To Go When War Starts"

To your arsenal and food stores.

Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..

 

And to where the guillotine is stored.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 12:05 | 6225736 mastersnark
mastersnark's picture

The Gonzalez family has deep roots with Iceland, many burritos were consumed on the slope of Hvannadalshnúkur, and I hope they warmly accept us when the Third Great Bankers’ War starts.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:36 | 6226351 Seer
Seer's picture

Might have a chance if the winning bankers aren't stockpiling [Mexican] pesos!

BTW - That's fucking funny!  Well done!  You are a credit to your namesake!

Wed, 06/24/2015 - 09:13 | 6229165 mastersnark
mastersnark's picture

Thanks!

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 11:37 | 6225597 dogismycopilot
dogismycopilot's picture

Canada.

 

You are less likely to get shot by a US cop.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:34 | 6226341 Seer
Seer's picture

But first you have to make it across the border!

And then, well, there's all those Asians that you'll have to make it past on your way to the netherlands- if you can avoid being killed from their bad driving then you deserve your newfound freedom!

</sarc>

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 11:44 | 6225634 tc06rtw
tc06rtw's picture

 
  … unless he’s on vacation.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 11:29 | 6225564 Dragon HAwk
Dragon HAwk's picture

Anybody who thinks a Bug Out Bag, is good for anything more than getting to your Uncle's farm to lay low.. is delusional

 and yes i own a very nice one.. I call it an evacuation bag. if you have to get out fast in your car, you may find yourself camping along side of the road for weeks. traffic jams, no gas. they ordered you out now fend for yourself. your odds of finding a motel at the evacuation point.. zilch..

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:33 | 6226334 Seer
Seer's picture

Exactly!

My bug-out is basically for natural disasters and industrial disasters (though I'm a bit less likely to experience such).  Believing that one is going to out-run rioting masses is ludicrous, for those kinds of things should be front-run: get out BEFORE.  That said, I've got vehicles for myself and my wife that, if fueled up, can go a LONG fucking way (baring, of course, cratered roads and angry mobs).  My PLAN, however, is to survive, to live exactly where I am (being fully aware of the associated risks- I'd rather die on my property than die in flight from it).

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 11:19 | 6225525 strangewalk
strangewalk's picture

Japan is on the verge of war with China, on the verge of being nuked by North Korea, is being poisoned by Fukushima, and it's the most earthquake prone place in the world. Europe is pretty safe, it was also pretty safe in 1939. China and India are safe for about 2 years, that's how long it takes the pollution to kill you. Then you have Latin America, North America, Russia, Africa, the Middle East--no comments needed. It's not a matter of individual countries anymore. In a globalized world you can run, but you can't hide. 

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 10:56 | 6225444 Evil Peanut
Evil Peanut's picture

I am confused why Canada is on the list of small democracies because it is a Constitutional Monarchy, the government even says so here http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/Monarchy/senmonarchy_00-e.htm

However ignoring that, I would choose Canada as my #1 destination simply for the amount of natural resources available for ones survival needs.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 10:40 | 6225391 MansaMusa
MansaMusa's picture

Japan is safe?  Hahahahaha, tell that to China...

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 10:54 | 6225441 pine_marten
pine_marten's picture

Japan's inclusion is curios.  I'd easily have Northern ID, WA or MT ahead of a few more on the list.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 10:25 | 6225342 Thisisbullishright
Thisisbullishright's picture

The USSA is THE most dangerous country in the world....BY FAR!!!!

Fucking war-mongering assholes!

 

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 10:12 | 6225301 Argentumentum
Argentumentum's picture

It will probably not be about "countries", these all will go down when financial system will be taken crushing down...more about regions with suitable climate, with available water resources, with fertile land (food growing capability) to name the most important factors. Safer from potential war, of course. Not many countries have regions with these qualities. One option here:

http://visa4brazil.com/why-brazil/why-leave-your-country-and-relocate-to...

 

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:27 | 6226309 Seer
Seer's picture

I agree with your general premise.  I don't agree that Brazil is going to be free from strife.  When "countries" fail you're going to then be under the influence of local powers, tribal leaders and such.  What happens with this I have no idea; but, I urge thought as to whether being an outsider is going to be immune from racism/xenophobia (for many [those adverse to "diversity"], this could end up presenting quite the irony!).

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 10:06 | 6225270 Calculus99
Calculus99's picture

Crazy list. 

Anywhere in North America or Central is a no-no. 

Anywhere in Europe is a no-no. 

Anywhere in the Far East is a no-no. 

Only 2 places left, South America and Aus/New Zealand.  

My safest place would be Chile, far away from anywhere of risk and who the fuck wants to mess with Chile, nobody. 

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:22 | 6226288 Seer
Seer's picture

"My safest place would be Chile, far away from anywhere of risk and who the fuck wants to mess with Chile, nobody. "

It's not external threats that I'd be concerned with, it would be the INTERNAL ones.  Being a "gringo" one might think about all the gringo-y things that have been done down there.  Rich gringos are going to be targets... can't escape all the risk that's been built up.  Perhaps not necessarily in the biblical way, but I really do  figure that "Judgment Day" is going to happen- I'm just looking to push it off as far/long as I can.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:58 | 6225258 'argar the 'orrible
&#039;argar the &#039;orrible's picture

I beleive the title of this tome should be ' The place to go BEFORE war breaks out' good luck trying otherwise, however I will concede the point it will be difficult to know when to do a runner, so, when you read of the 0.01% leaving their usual place of abode, time to pack and skidadle yourself. Nuff said ?

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:18 | 6226273 Seer
Seer's picture

If one were to take the cue of the "0.01%" then would one not be endorsing their behavior, and essentially escaping to be WITH them?  How different from "them" would one be?

I for one believe that it's a good idea to avoid looking like a target.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:52 | 6225239 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Here in the US I would suggest standing outside when WW3 breaks out and be vaporized immediately.  Get it over with. 

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:46 | 6225227 large_wooden_badger
large_wooden_badger's picture

Suggest living your life until some reality-based event should cause you to think otherwise. EMP, nuclear blast, solar storm, severe drought, earthquake, Al Sharpton, the list of shit that can happen is endless. Many folks thought the USA would never survive Obama's 2nd term, yet here we are with only about 20 months to go. I guess a lot can still happen, but it's really beyond anyone's control, what the bankster lizard-elites do to fuck with us "folks".

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 12:14 | 6225778 Seer
Seer's picture

Yup.

Most folks, instead of just making their life what they want (within the constraints of reality), just want to blame others.  It's all pecking-order shit, there's no escaping it as long as one is IN that game.

Even the banksters are locked into the game.  It's the story of The Scorpion and the Frog.  If there's no water crossing then the deal wouldn't exist; yet, folks continue to insist that we play that game, and, well, it's their nature!  Don't repeat things and then expect different results.

"Many folks thought the USA would never survive Obama's 2nd term, yet here we are with only about 20 months to go."

Same as it was with Bush II, same as it ever was... Lots is pumped via Party Pussies (political soldiers/pawns).  No "heads" or "tails" is going to save the game when it's  all about a failed currency (which is failing because the fundamental premise is based on perpetual growth [on a finite planet]).

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:33 | 6225184 RagnarRedux
RagnarRedux's picture

Most of those quiet peaceful countries are intentionally being flooded with third world people who arent so peaceful and who also have lower Average General IQ's. 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ9n0hibSS4

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/category/immigration/

 

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 12:04 | 6225733 Seer
Seer's picture

IQs?  More human hubris.  Isn't this the kind of mindset of the "0.001%-ers?"

And there you probably sit, unwilling to change, unwilling to relocate even if it meant survival; no, people like you expect others to change FOR your edification.

I have so-called higher IQ people around me, and I have so-called lower IQ people out here in the country as well.  When you remove all the virtual, human-hubris-manufactured crap my money's on the "lower IQ" folks.

It's highly unlikey that your lineage started where you currently are; therefore, you, I, nearly everyone, is an "immigrant."

Not in defense of anything other than logic...

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:16 | 6226266 Seer
Seer's picture

Good luck with what?  Logic and facts?

You're digging shit up from entities that exist through the mantra of "perpetual growth on a finite planet."  Yeah, that's some sure-fired wisdom for survival!

If humans  hadn't diversified we wouldn't be here today.  Sorry if those facts are troubling your genes...

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:25 | 6225160 nickt1y
nickt1y's picture

"diversity brings strength" F'n Bullwhacky Leftist platitude.

Tell me how diversity brings strength??????

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 11:55 | 6225695 Seer
Seer's picture

Xenophobia/racism aside, Nature abounds due to diversity.

NOTE: I don't promote anything.  I will, however, tell you what will happen: I cannot change what will happen in the larger context, only how one can change oneself.  Tribes/clans, that's our "destiny," so, yeah, you'll get your wish of living amount a rather static group of folks.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:34 | 6226326 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

"Nature abounds due to diversity"... tell that to TPTB who seem to be in the process of creating a single brown race of big-eyed, borderless, genderless, Keane dolls...in the name of "diversity"...

AKA "Eloi"

Can't tell you how many PC ads I've seen showing a blonde, blue eyed gal with her 3rd world "office-mate" hovering over the desk...not a whitey dude in sight

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:38 | 6225199 PTR
PTR's picture

Collapse/failure is contained better.  

 

If you have mono- anything, negative effects have a more widespread effect.  

 

Example, trees.

Diversity:  Elm tree disease kills off a large chunk of elm trees, but a small percentage of the overall tree population (the other trees are able to fight off the elm tree disease.) Repurcussions on the overall ecosystem minor.

Monoculture:  All trees are elm trees, disease hits, a large chunk of the overall tree population is killed off.  Repurcussions on the overall ecosystem major, perhaps catostrophic.

 

As far as the human mind goes, "if everyone is thinking the exact same thing, no one is thinking."

 

As far as platitudes...

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:53 | 6225242 large_wooden_badger
large_wooden_badger's picture

Japanese culture. Not diverse by any means, homogenious culture rooted in probably 5000 years of tradition. Not much gun violence, most people think the same. Contrast with American culture: diverse, violent, fragmented. I guess the Japanese never had Elm Tree disease. Shit, they survived Fat Man, Little Boy, Curtis LeMay, Gozirra. If Mothra landed on our shores you wouldn't see a united citizenry driving model tanks in self-defense, you'd only see rioters looting the Korean stores and the President mobilizing a working group to figure out how to frame the event as racist.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 12:22 | 6225819 Seer
Seer's picture

I don't think you can wrap up Japanese "culture" into such a tidy package.  Yeah, there's a fairly limited amount of DNA variance, but there's variance.  Little internal violence also comes with an overly complacent population, obedient to follow over the cliff: can you say Fukushima?  Pokemon.  Robots.  And now an issue of a failure to procreate, as the population is rapidly aging.  Nothing says group-think than an homogeneous population.

Oh, and ask the Chinese how non-violent the Japanese are!

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:14 | 6226255 Seer
Seer's picture

Huh?  A downvote for What?  For believing that an hierarchical, elitist dominated culture is keen?  Darwin is laughing at you from his grave!

Sorry for placing facts ahead of your hope....

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:23 | 6225156 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

A song comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98KeKV_F9g
Barry McGuire  Eve Of Destruction

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 08:55 | 6225058 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

The problem with cold places is that they will get even colder in a nuclear winter. Unless you pre-position a lot of fuel and food you will be in trouble.

Looking at contries on the author's list, nukes may not be his intent. Rather he is looking more at violence, unrest, social upheaval, government control, etc. It's a fair list in that regard, but most of these places do not speak English and are very expensive - plus, none of them are looking for more American immigrants -- and especially not poor American refugees fleeing from US Martial Law.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:11 | 6226243 Seer
Seer's picture

And cold places will one day get warmer, for a bit, as the next glacial period sets in motion.  My point of this remark is that anyone trying to guess how things are based on how they are now is likely going to be in for a surprise.  In a way I think that those promoting a life at sea, e.g. on a sailboat, are closest to being right, but as much as I like sailing I'm not liking the idea of the potential of being driven from my "land" (which, in the case of being at sea, would amount to being cast into the water).

I've got a connection to a foreign land, but I'm not really thinking I'd take that option: foreign land, sins of our fathers...

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 08:43 | 6225011 Normalcy Bias
Normalcy Bias's picture

...Under your grade school desk! Am I right?

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:06 | 6226214 Seer
Seer's picture

Ha ha!  I'd initially read that as "Under your GRAD school desk!"

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 08:38 | 6224999 VW Nerd
VW Nerd's picture

I didn't see Chicago on any of the places to avoid lists.....

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 14:05 | 6226212 Seer
Seer's picture

[aside  from the  fact that this is about countries\ It's because we're talking IN THE FUTURE.   Chicago won't even be a thought for the power-elite to run ramshackle over (they've already done it).  Not that I  have any aspirations of moving there (now That is a harsh climate!).

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 09:31 | 6225173 PTR
PTR's picture

Yes.

 

Funny that...

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 08:38 | 6224994 Rhal
Rhal's picture

I've noticed that the more peaceful countries are colder. Certainly the more violent ones are warmer. Perhaps depending on each other for survival teaches us more peaceful ways.

Tue, 06/23/2015 - 11:51 | 6225672 Seer
Seer's picture

Has to do with population sizes, which is based on available resources (ability of environment to support population size).  Lower-populated places are lower-populated because there's little change on those places supporting higher populations.  Of course, humans will eventually over-run any given location and experience some form of popuiation decrease.  Warmer climates that have swelled populations will undergo "adjustments" in a more visible fashion.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!