Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

Craig Biddle (of The Objective Standard) suggested that the left-right spectrum be slightly redefined, so that the "right" was associated with freedom from the coercion of other people, and the "left" is associated with the coercion.

I generally like that idea.

"I judge candidates according to where he/she fits on my ranking scale from -10 to +10, where -10 = totalitarian and +10 = advocates equal, optimal freedoms for all, the state doing only its proper functions. The extremes being -10 = maximum coercion or bullying and +10 = minimum coercion or bullying would be a good scale, too" (link).

The same scale is useful re how for others judge candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

22 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I will grant you that the left leaning pundits have a dominant position in the media (TV radio).

But I will not grant you that the left is widely accepted SERIOUSLY. If it were, South Africa, with a communist constitution would have already outlawed ownership. If it were, Europe would have had actual socialist medicine as in no private institutions. 

Leftist ideas may be in fashion but the majority of the world do not want communism. Even leftists will attack communism. Meanwhile, there is no laissez fair capitalism in the world, only different degrees of crony capitalism i.e. some degree of fascism. 

The actual danger is what Rand thought, fascism with leftist slogans. That is the imminent danger in this country (US).

Collectivism is the problem, but you label what you don't like as collectivism. What you do like i.e. Trump's agenda is collectivism too.

The moral high ground has been seized by the Left, widely - *seriously*. I cannot see why this isn't clear.

Where the morality leads, i.e. altruism-collectivism, the politics follows. Not altogether immediately. Give it time.

It could be rightly said that Trump's agenda was collectivist too. But he didn't invent 'identity politics' (I believe that term was a leftover from his predecessor). His support base was/is the forgotten conservative middle class, so they say.

However his agenda was NOT altruist. All Americans benefited or could have, from his erratic striving to place the nation and people, first. A self-interested USA more committed to individual, economic opportunities and freedom. That's what I liked.

(That is too what went unacknowledged by his Objectivist opponents).

Now, after him, what? Runaway collectivism PLUS sacrificial altruism. 

South Africa doesn't have "a communist constitution", although the ANC's original top dogs were Moscow trained and Communism imbued - it has a superficial, toothless "human rights" one. On an ad hoc basis the Govt. can change property rights, etc. has outlawed white employment etc. All it needs is the ideological encouragement from a (perceived) Capitalist America's example to go further Socialist. Nationalization of some industry and the banking sector is quite possible.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whYNOT said:

The moral high ground has been seized by the Left, widely, *seriously*. I cannot see why this isn't clear.

At some level, you just need to live in America to see that it isn't as widely seized as you would believe. It's not as bad as you might think, it really does imply more than talking to a few people from America. I'm not saying you can't understand. I'm saying that the moral high ground has not been seized, and it's very hard to see that unless you interact with the average American regularly. Clearly, the air of collectivism is all around, but most people really are receptive to the general idea of individual rights if you talk to them about it. Sure, no one should sit idly by and let collectivism dominate, and the extreme positions still exist, but you need to talk to the people themselves. Are you just looking at media headlines (even those that are not mainstream by any definition), or are you looking at the way people live? 

14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Now, after him, what? Runaway collectivism PLUS sacrificial altruism. 

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who wasn't for Trump is a raging altruist. By reading your posts in general, America sounds like a terrible place to live. The posts are always quite pessimistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who wasn't for Trump is a raging altruist. By reading your posts in general, America sounds like a terrible place to live. The posts are always quite pessimistic.

That's projection. I said merely that Trump in his intentions and actions wasn't an altruist. And why that was not of some favorable significance to the people who understand altruism, I want to know? Those who know what Rand warned about America and altruism?

I might have got across that I despise the USA's Left media and far Leftists and the damage caused to the country by their barefaced ~divide and rule~ tactic.

A nation's media are a reflection of the state of events, but simultaneously a power to affect further states. Like art, in a way, both a mirror on humanity and an influence to change humanity.

I know that on the surface, for an individual, lives don't change dramatically with a change of political party, but this is not a road you have any travel experience with. Not "a terrible place", but not the place it was, since now there are an increased quantity of fresh tensions around. I like to say avoid the pessimism trap, but be awake to the ostrich's head in the sand syndrome, that was Zim's and SA's flaw.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

And why that was not of some favorable significance to the people who understand altruism, I want to know?

In case it isn't rhetorical: I think very many people find him to be a disingenuous pragmatist, and/or a narcissist. I think Rand unfortunately emphasized the danger of altruism at the cost of the equal danger of narcissism. Perhaps narcissism is less common, but that might be why it is easy to see narcissism as an erroneous application of selfishness, rather than as the emotionalism and deliberate avoidance of thinking that it actually is. 

17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

A nation's media are a reflection of the state of events

if you want to talk about this, I prefer that you watch the Malcolm X video I linked earlier and make a new thread. This thread is way too long already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

In case it isn't rhetorical: I think very many people find him to be a disingenuous pragmatist, and/or a narcissist. I think Rand unfortunately emphasized the danger of altruism at the cost of the equal danger of narcissism. Perhaps narcissism is less common, but that might be why it is easy to see narcissism as an erroneous application of selfishness, rather than as the emotionalism and deliberate avoidance of thinking that it actually is. 

if you want to talk about this, I prefer that you watch the Malcolm X video I linked earlier and make a new thread. This thread is way too long already.

So you say some O'ists have the problem of not discerning individualism and rational selfishness from narcissism? I can't see why Rand should have done so for us, the latter is obviously a psychological disorder not remotely close to selfishness. So much unrelated, it is not even apposite. Or is this for most other people at large? Then it's up to each to discern that reason, rationality and objectivity is the prerequisite of (rational) selfishness - not one's feelings, psychology and subjectivity.

But you see, you bring in "it's all about Trump the person" as the whole world did. That's what intensive media focus and endless psycho-analysis has brought. And you seem have taken it in like everyone. Do you think that Biden would get anything near such intimate focus, let alone critically hurtful? Ha! They can't stop gushing over his "empathy" and suchlike. Obama, a probable narcissist I thought at the time - having had experience of a few narcissists (despite that I'd have voted for him at first) - was and is still revered. But he had style.

Right, double standards by media.

I've said a dozen times it is not the first concern, what a leader's psychological make-up and physical style may or may not be. What he intends doing and what he does do - is. One might be horrified at learning of the psyches of hundreds of leaders who did alright for their countries. I claim Trump's words and actions set him apart as anti-altruistic (which doesn't make him a rational egoist) on behalf of the US. And was there a mention of his drive for US self-interest and independence? (from no one and Objectivists, not a peep)

Btw, the "anti-racists" who pegged him as "racist" have no clue and committed an insulting disservice. A genuine NON-racist isn't even aware of people's skin colors, is color blind, as it were. I met businessmen who are much that way, people who deal regularly with all ethnicities (like Trump) all over the world, from artisans to prime ministers. One CEO was a major resort constructor and a friend of Trump's.

BUT, because of this feely, sensitized, racial time we are in, one is obligated to pay *special* heed to a person's race, pandering to him/her BECAUSE of their color. 

That is not the act of an individualist who recognizes others as individuals and only wants to know their character, or abilities, it is the act of a racialist. One as much conscious of race as is the racist. Trump did not bow and scrape to the myriad racial minorities you have (evidently - he knows them all to be ... Americans) - ergo - is a racist!

Pragmatism also, US presidents have come from a long line of pragmatists, one is told, but Trump gets specially called out for one by O'ists?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

if you want to talk about this, I prefer that you watch the Malcolm X video I linked earlier and make a new thread. This thread is way too long already.

The play by media is intricate to this topic. I think they can't be separated. We hear what the MSM wants us to hear and see. This blast at media by Alan Dershowitz, (one of the admirable, honest Lefties, by me) serves as reminder: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/wow-liberal-law-professor-alan-dershowitz-blasts-fake-news-cnn-pbs-msnbc-dishonest-editing-president-trumps-words/

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the latter is obviously a psychological disorder not remotely close to selfishness

I'm still trying to figure out the best concept to use for what I'm referring to. It's something like "secondhander" but more expressly using words that refer to oneself (absent of any mention of rationality). I don't mean narcissist in the clinical sense, more like narcissism in the sense of extreme vanity. 

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The play by media is intricate to this topic. I think they can't be separated.

I'm not sure what you mean, what do you mean play by the media or can't be separated? Anyway, I will start a new topic on that tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

However his [Trump's] agenda was NOT altruist.

That's true.  It amounts to the collective sacrifice of everyone else on Earth to the "interests" of America and is based on the false belief that whatever helps China (or Mexico or Cuba, but primarily China) necessarily harms America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

However his agenda was NOT altruist. All Americans benefited or could have, from his erratic striving to place the nation and people, first. A self-interested USA more committed to individual, economic opportunities and freedom. That's what I liked.

(That is too what went unacknowledged by his Objectivist opponents).

See, this sounds an awful lot like "I liked his self-centered rhetoric; at least it wasn't altruistic" (which is basically how I felt about him until November).  But the fact that his rhetorical style might've struck a chord with you or I does not mean that the actual content of his policies ever could've been a good thing; indeed, I would argue they never were.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

So you say some O'ists have the problem of not discerning individualism and rational selfishness from narcissism?

That's actually a very interesting notion.

 

I've often found that people reflexively apply the label of "narcissism" to O'ism when they first come into contact with it.  It's an extremely widespread (even dominant) misconception; they've been marinating in the slogans of altruism for so long that the first time they see any sort of alternative the only way they can make sense of it is to tag it as some mental defect of those who lack a sufficient degree of "social responsibility".

The key, when judging someone who thinks quite highly of themselves, is to ask them why.  A proper sense of pride is based on objective facts which can be pointed to, measured and weighed; it's only a problem if it's divorced from that.

 

If the same sort of misconception was also prevalent among everyday O'ists then that would go quite a long way in explaining a number of the things that're going on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

That's true.  It amounts to the collective sacrifice of everyone else on Earth to the "interests" of America and is based on the false belief that whatever helps China (or Mexico or Cuba, but primarily China) necessarily harms America.

Untrue. Partly true. "Everyone else on Earth" has been helping themselves to America's largesse, for yonks. Good will, financial aid, military might.

Ie. money, know-how and lives. For that, from the altruists receiving those benefits, America and Americans have been always taken for granted and often despised, "hatred of the good for being the good..."

With the slightest deviation from that accustomed standard - cue Trump - the *appearance* might be of sacrificing everyone else to the US. Not the reality.

"Everyone else" can learn to stand on their own two feet. Then, like self-respectful individuals deal, form friendships and trade as equals.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If the same sort of misconception was also prevalent among everyday O'ists then that would go quite a long way in explaining a number of the things that're going on here.

I think so. I think it's due to the fact that the moral flaws of Rand herself were narcissistic in nature. Keep in mind I'm talking about "extreme vanity" and I don't know a better word to use right now. So in her own nonfiction writing, I don't think we would find much criticism or reflection on how one can have an inflated/vain display of their own qualities. It's not immediately obvious or easy to see the differences in a person who shows pride from a person who exaggerates or has inflated the impression of what they accomplished  I think the result is that even the everyday Oist is kind of grasping at how to deal with such people or even recognize them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

See, this sounds an awful lot like "I liked his self-centered rhetoric; at least it wasn't altruistic" (which is basically how I felt about him until November).  But the fact that his rhetorical style might've struck a chord with you or I does not mean that the actual content of his policies ever could've been a good thing; indeed, I would argue they never were.

 

Harrison, I have explained often that I wasn't taken in by any of Trump's "rhetorical style", as you call it.

To emphasize again, not one way or the other. I did not love his delivery nor loathe it. I am aware of the visceral effects he had on people, and myself I don't go by such aesthetic feelings in leaders. Politicians are mostly all actors and maybe today have to be extra skilled at that craft. Some of Trump's self-promoting bombast I am sure was acted, some most likely because no one in the media would credit him with ANY act, and modesty or false humility would have gained him no attention.

He didn't strike a chord with me, I liked that he was making, in action, the USA matter for its own sake, and rattling all the cages which have demanded a sacrificial America. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Harrison, I have explained often that I wasn't taken in by any of Trump's "rhetorical style", as you call it.

To emphasize again, not one way or the other. I did not love his delivery nor loathe it. I am aware of the visceral effects he had on people, and myself I don't go by such aesthetic feelings in leaders. Politicians are mostly all actors and maybe today have to be extra skilled at that craft. Some of Trump's self-promoting bombast was acted, some because no one in the media would credit him with ANY act, and modesty or false humility would have gained him no attention.

He didn't strike a chord with me, I liked that he was making, in action, the USA matter for its own sake, and rattling all the cages which have demanded a sacrificial America. 

Alright.  The bit about "rattling the cages which have demanded a sacrificial America" does not sound dissimilar to that very rhetorical style in question, but alright.

When Trump gave his moral sanction to Kim Jong Un, the bloodthirsty dictator of North Korea, do you think that will lead to good or bad things for Americans (or even the American government per se) - or for the North Koreans themselves?  Hell, do you think it's good even for whatever that bastard's rational interests ought to be; the one who so clearly "loves his people very much"?

I actually am curious to know precisely what you think that man was making, in action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I think so. I think it's due to the fact that the moral flaws of Rand herself were narcissistic in nature. Keep in mind I'm talking about "extreme vanity" and I don't know a better word to use right now. So in her own nonfiction writing, I don't think we would find much criticism or reflection on how one can have an inflated/vain display of their own qualities. It's not immediately obvious or easy to see the differences in a person who shows pride from a person who exaggerates or has inflated the impression of what they accomplished  I think the result is that even the everyday Oist is kind of grasping at how to deal with such people or even recognize them. 

You could be reminded of the fact that rational selfishness is not an ethics for others' sake. It is for oneself and one's own life. Here is an ethics not for presentation to or approval from others, primarily (with all the caveats of others' value to one and the respect and good will paid to others). That's a person in reality and I don't know how you view a hint of narcissism in there. To be narcissistic negates the rationality of selfishness. There could be the solipsistic primacy of consciousness within narcissism, straight off, a self-contradiction. But no matter.

It would be an impossible feat to assess Rand's immense conceptual knowledge and therefore her value hierarchy and so her emotional range. The greater the first, the more expansive the last. (The more you know the more you care, tritely) Were her read-of and heard about emotions "the moral flaws" of which you speak?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Alright.  The bit about "rattling the cages which have demanded a sacrificial America" does not sound dissimilar to that very rhetorical style in question, but alright.

When Trump gave his moral sanction to Kim Jong Un, the bloodthirsty dictator of North Korea, do you think that will lead to good or bad things for Americans (or even the American government per se) - or for the North Koreans themselves?  Hell, do you think it's good even for whatever that bastard's rational interests ought to be; the one who so clearly "loves his people very much"?

I actually am curious to know precisely what you think that man was making, in action.

He was dealing with enemies of the West and the USA. He tried it his way as a trader not a diplomat - we can make a deal and we both get to benefit-- as always pronouncing compliments, "So and so is a good fellow...we had a good talk .. Etc.

The overture made, perhaps something comes from it later.

I didn't mind that he eschewed the normal diplomatic channels which usually result in kicking the can down the road and leaving the problem to future generations, and did not get excited over the principle of a US President lowering himself to bad and horrible people. I think he went on the instincts of his past business experience, I also believe he is a pretty good judge of character. Ultimately something must have paid off. No new conflict zones happened in his time.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Here is an ethics not for presentation to or approval from others, primarily

That's what I'm saying, someone should not intentionally try to inflate the appearance of who they are. It's like a way of inflating who you are to yourself because your self-esteem only comes from when people praise you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That's what I'm saying, someone should not intentionally try to inflate the appearance of who they are. It's like a way of inflating who you are to yourself because your self-esteem only comes from when people praise you. 

Do you think, conversely, that one should try to DEflate their personality for the sake of appearance and praise from others? Self-repression is another pitfall, one would believe.

Reminds of the studies of a narcissist's craving for his constant Narcissistic Supply: not only the more obvious types, look out for the quiet, modest-acting ones too, I learned, they also have need of it. How much are many politicians and public figures within the narcissistic range? Might even be a job requirement. The adulation from the masses must be quite a lift. And how would a politician (or actor) find popularity and be effectual without some of that drive?

Also goes into psychology and behaviorism. E.g. A loud and brash person may have low self-esteem, and 'be compensating', while not necessarily.

If a second hander, his distinctly essential nature by AR: "Second handers have no sense of reality".

"They have no concern with facts, ideas, work. They're concerned only with other people. They don't ask "Is this true?" They ask "Is this what others think is true?"."

That - is the hallmark of the social metaphysician, and many a modern Leftist public figure, for me. It's as if there is no one there, no self, no sense of reality, only others. Which goes towards explaining their shameless hypocrisies, equally their lust for power over others.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Do you think, conversely, that one should try to DEflate their personality for the sake of appearance and praise from others?

Of course not, because in either case, the primary concern of such people is how one appears rather than how one is

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard".

 

I'm not sure what you mean, what do you mean play by the media or can't be separated? Anyway, I will start a new topic on that tomorrow.

Play by media means the MSM's intentions to propagandize events, reality, in favor of the Democrat party.

By them, Trump 'incited' the attack.

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" - was unheard by most viewers.

Just like "And I mean to exclude Nazis and White Nationalists..." went unheard by viewers of the Charlotteville riots.

 America's Leftist, second hander media has sold out the citizens.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 11:10 PM, whYNOT said:
On 2/1/2021 at 10:27 PM, Eiuol said:

I think so. I think it's due to the fact that the moral flaws of Rand herself were narcissistic in nature. Keep in mind I'm talking about "extreme vanity" and I don't know a better word to use right now. So in her own nonfiction writing, I don't think we would find much criticism or reflection on how one can have an inflated/vain display of their own qualities. It's not immediately obvious or easy to see the differences in a person who shows pride from a person who exaggerates or has inflated the impression of what they accomplished  I think the result is that even the everyday Oist is kind of grasping at how to deal with such people or even recognize them. 

You could be reminded of the fact that rational selfishness is not an ethics for others' sake. It is for oneself and one's own life. Here is an ethics not for presentation to or approval from others, primarily (with all the caveats of others' value to one and the respect and good will paid to others). That's a person in reality and I don't know how you view a hint of narcissism in there. To be narcissistic negates the rationality of selfishness. There could be the solipsistic primacy of consciousness within narcissism, straight off, a self-contradiction. But no matter.

It would be an impossible feat to assess Rand's immense conceptual knowledge and therefore her value hierarchy and so her emotional range. The greater the first, the more expansive the last. (The more you know the more you care, tritely) Were her read-of and heard about emotions "the moral flaws" of which you speak?

This isn't necessarily relevant to the topic at hand, but I'm getting a bit tired of that topic anyway.

 

I wouldn't characterize Rand's personal failings as "extreme vanity".  Indeed, as WhyNot pointed out, the degree of self-aggrandizement which is proper to accord oneself (as opposed to humility, on the one side, or empty puffery on the other) depends on how great of a person one objectively is.  I'd characterize her personal flaws (which didn't appear until rather late in her life, as far as I know) much more as pertaining to wrath.

Her life was recently summarized in an episode of Biographics, which you'll find below (I believe it's around ten or twenty minutes long).  It mentions Nathaniel Branden towards the tail end; how he served at minimum as someone for her to bounce her ideas off of, while writing Atlas Shrugged, how he helped her extensively in writing The Virtue of Selfishness and later, when she discovered that he was having an affair with another woman (just like her other relationship with her husband except that it'd been kept a secret) she denounced him as evil and a fraud, cut off all ties with him and wouldn't speak to anyone who chose to continue dealing with him in any way.

That's not an excess of pride; if anything, she may not have let herself admit just how great and brilliant she truly was.  That's an excess of wrath out of all proportion to the actual events which prompted it.

This isn't to say that I think Branden was totally in the right.  He had been keeping his other relationship a secret (unlike what she did, when she wanted to sleep with him - which was tell her husband in advance) and all the lies that would've required to maintain certainly would've justified her breaking up with him, and perhaps not speaking or dealing with him for some time afterwards.  But she declared that everything he'd ever said and even who he was as a person was a lie before having his name stricken from most of the records of O'ist history.

So I don't think that side of it is necessarily related to how certain people have a hard time distinguishing narcissism from properly earned pride.  But both things (however unrelated) are intriguing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 11:38 PM, whYNOT said:

I think he went on the instincts of his past business experience, I also believe he is a pretty good judge of character.

Oh, boy.

 

Did you know that when Kim Jong Un first rose to power he called all his top aides to a meeting in which he disassembled a machine gun and force-fed the pieces of it to several dogs (who presumably had a very rough time of passing said machinery through their digestive tracts) to convey what he intended to do to anyone who wasn't 100% loyal?

Also he has no butthole; he doesn't need one (since he DOES NOT excrete that way) so he was simply born without one.  That story I'm slightly more skeptical of but anyone in North Korea who's caught contradicting it is simply executed.  Also all the birds in Korea sang in Korean when he was born and the dolphins he talks to know the cure for cancer and wish they could give it to mankind, if only the evil empire of America wasn't actively preventing it.

Either he or his father have also erased the word "I" from the North Korean lexicon - just like in Anthem.  This is a perfectly normal and common word in South Korea and yet nobody in North Korea has ever heard it before.

 

Either your love of Trump is clouding your judgement over other, only tangentially-related issues or you just don't know what it's like to live under that monster's thumb.  If it's the latter (and if you're comfortable taking my word for it) then I'll just say that Kim Jong Un is easily as evil as Hitler was, if not worse.

How would you feel about a president who shook Hitler's hand and said that he "obviously loves his people very much"?

On 2/1/2021 at 11:38 PM, whYNOT said:

No new conflict zones happened in his time.

"Peace in our time" as Chamberlain put it ...

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...