Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivists are working to save the world from tyranny--isn't that altruism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Living in a rational society...

  • The Ayn Rand Lexicon does have an entry titled "Subconscious." So, Ayn Rand did recognize the existence of a subconscious part of the mind in the human mind, and so, in a general sense, did agree with Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung on this point. 
  • The decision of an individual or a group of persons to operate only at a rational level, and to recognize as real and important only rational arguments, propositions, facts, and conclusions, seems to me to be arbitrary. 
  • I recently watched a lecture by a Harvard professor of psychology who stated that much of the general theory of the subscious as articulated Freud has been verified by repeated scientific experiments. 
  • Any Rand and others can dismiss the Freudian or Jungian theory of subconscious as "mysticism," but while the reality of God, gods, angels, and demons, as found in religions, CANNOT be verified by scientific experimentation, the dynamics of the subconscious mind HAVE very definitely BEEN verfied by scientific experimentation. 
  • Again, one can decide to ignore or reject that science, if one chooses to. But that decision seems aribitrary.
  • Also, that decision may ultimately lessen one's ability to survive, thrive, and to be an effective leader of others.
  • I can't help but speculate that if Aristotle were alive to today, and if he had a chance to learn all there is know in the modern fields of biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, physics, and chemistry, he would not stand by his ancient writings on ethics and metaphysics. 
  • During World War II the U.S. government hired a psychoanalyst to produce a analysis of the psychology of Adolf Hiter, so that U.S. government leaders could make the best possible predictions about what Hitler might do in various scenarios as the war proceeded. As I see it, this was wise, and shows the value of recognizing that human beings operate at more than a rational level. 
  • As I see things, the value and necessity of rational ethics for producing and inspiring good behavior, success, self esteem, personal responsibility, social responsibility, personal produtivity, law-abiding conduct, etc., is not diminished by the recogntion and understanding of powerful irrational dynamics in every human mind (some of these dynamics having their origin in early childhood, when the boy or girl was unable to process events, needs, loves, desires, fears, traumas, relationships, etc., in the manner of Aristotelian logic)
Edited by The Laws of Biology
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not altruism to care about others.  It is altruism to sacrifice oneself for others.

We should use reason alone to achieve knowledge and make decisions.  But in our reasoning we must consider every relevant part of reality, including our own feelings where relevant.

24 minutes ago, The Laws of Biology said:

During World War II the U.S. government hired a psychoanalyst to produce a analysis of the psychology of Adolf Hiter, so that U.S. government leaders could make the best possible predictions about what Hitler might do in various scenarios as the war proceeded.

There are irrational people in the world.  To the extent that they have power, it may be necessary to try to understand them for the purpose of judging what they are likely to do.  This is fully consistent with understanding that they should not be irrational.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can provide some earlier thought Ayn held on the nature of psychology from her first journal.

All instincts are reason, essentially, or reason is instincts made conscious. The "unreasonable" instincts are diseased ones. This—for the study of psychology. For the base of the reconciliation of reason and emotions.

As to psychology—learn whether the base of all psychology is really logic, and psychology as a science is really pathology, the science of how these psychological processes depart from reason. This departure is the disease. What caused it? Isn't it faulty thinking, thinking not based on logic, [but on] faith, religion?

All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease. Religion—the greatest disease of mankind.

[bracketed] were added in a later edit by someone other than Rand. She had also revamped her notion of religion from "the greatest disease of mankind" to "a primitive form of philosophy" along her way.

As to Rand's position on the subconscious being carte blanch dismissed as mysticism, that does not gel with the fact of her recognition of the phenomenon, and such a hasty conclusion on your behalf might not be warranted on the matter at this time.

Given her track record, and the track record of those who interpret her, I lean toward trying to understand and integrate based on what is available from her and by her.

She went on to hold instinct as an automatic form of knowledge, but another passage that has caught my attention more than once over the years wraps up this May 16, 1934 entree:

Some day I'll find out whether I'm an unusual specimen of humanity in that my instincts and reason are so inseparably one, with the reason ruling the instincts. Am I unusual or merely normal and healthy? Am I trying to impose my own peculiarities as a philosophical system? Am I unusually intelligent or merely unusually honest? I think this last. Unless—honesty is also a form of superior intelligence.

Things that could make one go "hmm?"

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LB,

Rand's point is that whatever out-of-context desire, drive or motive the subconscious spits out, it will always get overwriten during the process of raising one's awareness of the situation at hand, and noticing that the 'drive' will prevent you from getting something you want. It's in this sense that mystic impulses and subconscious drives are basically the same principle.

Rand was a pretty good psychologist, going by the testimony of close associates that were helped by her. 'The Romantic Manifesto' is chock full of examples of how one's childhood events, way of thinking and other factors influence one's psychology. Except, she thought that one can identify the source of one's mental disposition through meticulous introspection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It is not altruism to care about others.  It is altruism to sacrifice oneself for others.

  • I suppose this is one of those occasions in which different people are using the same words/phrase to mean different things.
  • Yet, this whole activity of "philosophy," whatever it really is, involves, necessarity, tedious and wearisome definitions of terms.
  • Didn't Wittgenstein write something famous about how philosophy is all sort of word games and is ultimately, mostly meaningless?
  • And then there was that famous instance in which President Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
  • I've heard this all goes back to philosophical topic of "Nominalism" which may have its origins in Plato's theory of forms in which there is, in the abstract heavens, a perfect, eternal, unchanging, unchangeable, ideal form of everything (justice; truth, the good; reason; beauty, honor, love, etc.).
  • But don't trust me. I'm just some random guy on the Internet. 
  • But I will admit to liking lately the thought of Francis Bacon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the OP

 

An important meditation of all Objectivists is "What does human flourishing consist of?"

Now, consider the entire "Sense of life" surrounding non initiation of force, the trader principle, the dire admonition of systems turning individuals simultaneously into Robbers and Victims on some horrid ladder, the strong sense that no one is to be sacrificed, neither oneself to others nor others to oneself.  And recall the comment Rand made about the leash having loops at both ends... And consider the virtues of rationality, justice, independence, and honesty.

 

Even if one were to surmount the extreme adds against its success, becoming a tyrant relies on the vices of others, as well as the vice in oneself, depends on injustice, dependence, dishonesty, irrationality.  It requires the repudiation of all that is admirable, and central to the ethics of Objectivism and its sense of life, which I mentioned above... it entails a direct dependence upon unreality, irrationality, and the worst in humanity... it embraces the essentials of what Rand would have identified as evil.

Is this what human flourishing consists of?

 

Show that, and perhaps you will sway some Objectivists to the merits of the predatory parasitism which tyranny is...  but I suspect it will be a difficult row to hoe with most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 11:12 AM, The Laws of Biology said:

But doesn't the best and safest position, from the point of view of pure practicality (if we take survival and prosperity of ourselves and our small circle of loved ones as the goal of ethics and of life), lie in being one of the tyrants? Don't we see that well-dramatized in the movies (and novels) "The Hunger Games" and Orwell's "1984"?

While I would agree that survival and prosperity is the objective of whatever morality we can devise for ourselves, but the successful reality will determine if it was a rational one. One would have to define a tyrant in absolute terms. Normally a tyrant is considered cruel and oppressive, which would seem to preclude an Objectivist from such actions. Oppressive is usually closely affiliated with the use of force, which is, of course, unacceptable within Objectivism. The possibility does exist that the tyrant ‘could’ be a beneficent dictator but there is no way to ensure the perpetual existence of such a personality. Dictators by definition are made by way of force as well, so the beneficent version would be an exception and an outlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Lone Cypress said:

Normally a tyrant is considered cruel and oppressive, which would seem to preclude an Objectivist from such actions. Oppressive is usually closely affiliated with the use of force, which is, of course, unacceptable within Objectivism.

  • Just looking around the present world, and looking back at history, it seems that tyranny is far and ahead the dominant form of government.
  • Just today I saw a news report that a gov't official in Russia had said that domestic opponents to Russia's current war in Ukraine will be sent to concentration camps.
  • What was achieved in the USA in 1789 (when the U.S. Constitutioin was instituted) may be really anomolous and unsustainable.
  • Even in ancient Greece, in places like Athens, they had democracy from time to time, but I think more often they had tyrants, oligarchs, and so on, and eventually they got Alexander the Great (just as later on other locates got the various Caesars, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin, and so on).
  • Maybe tyranny just follows from the dominant human nature.
  • Thus, the January 6, 2020 riot at the U.S. Capitol can be viewed as a preview of the coming tyranny, oligarchy, or whatever you want to call it. (cf. Beer Hall Putsch of 1923)
  • Maybe the Objectivist conception of a better future is just a beautiful dream.
  • Maybe it is comparable, in a sense, to the very different beautiful dream a better future held by the Democratic Socialists.
  • Maybe. 
  • But, in any case, Ayn Rand is definitely a great novelist and a great philosopher.
Edited by The Laws of Biology
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Laws of Biology said:

Just looking around the present world, and looking back at history...

Reality is absolutely unalterable by human wishing. On a desert island, if you don't produce your necessities, you die; no positive thinking will alter this. Not surprinsingly, when there's more than one person around, nobody wants to give their toil away for free. If anybody tries to take stuff away by force, there is the inconvenient aspect of self-defense. And if the attacked person is too physically weak to defend himself, his self-defense can take the form of pretending to go with the swine's demands, and taking care of him while he is sleeping.

Two things would result from a widespread recognition of reality: productive competition, since innovation actually results in more profit; and widespread aversion to fraud, since nobody wants a smartphone that crumbles in the hand, regardless of who the producer's aunt is. In other words, honest people would gang up on the frauds, because nobody wants that guy to mess their cosy life up.

There does seem to be a way out, however. The information of the senses is not enough to understand reality. If you see a flying stick, you have to integrate that sense data with memorized facts, such as gravity. This is the process of reason, and that process is voltional. Meaning, it's like a TV set. You turn it on when you're using it, turn it off when you don't. And when it's off, your ability to judge what's in front of your eyes is impaired.

Fraud counts on this obliviousness. But this lack of awareness is not an absolute, and may always come up in the form of the victim's ploys. The tyrant lives on the edge for when the sheep will turn wolf.

Incidentaly, tyranism is not the only expression of this drive. Modern art is like that as well. 'I don't like that art is challenging to make, I want reality to be such that anything I feel is good because I feel it'.

There is only one way for the tyrant, modern artist, religious clerk or philosopher to allegedly escape the ironclad laws of reality: cast doubt on man's ability to know facts with certainty. Examples:

- Words are conventions, and have no connection to reality (The nominalists, Wittgenstein).
- You do not know reality, you only know how reality looks to you. The unknowable realm beyond your senses might have God and immortality (Kantianism).
- Man can recognize that his choices will nuke him off the earth, but he has no choice. He can't help it. His knowledge and his emotions are in conflict, because emotions are unalterable (Original sin, 'human nature').
- Your genes/Freudian id brainwash you into thinking you are acting freely, when if fact you're not. Knowledge of this fact does not give you any alternative, since when you are fooled cannot be detected.
- You don't get ideas from sense observation, your ideas are the blueprints that make up reality. Hence, for art you must look at pure ideas, not contingent nature.

LB, you don't seem to suspect that the theory of gravity is infected by traces of the belief in Alchemy, even though Newton was an avid believer in it. In other issues, you seem almost obsessed with the idea that thinkers might be unknowingly influenced by a theory without their knowing. 

If its clear to you that man can peek behind the veil of his 'programming', you can identify what logically follows: that this fact is the decisive blow to any of the theories I mentioned above. Whether you are programmed or not, the ability to adjust your mind to act with full awareness of every piece of related information means that determinism and freedom both lead to the very same path: the paradoxical self-anihilation of determinism.

The fact that man is oblivious without enaging in volition is not a license to condone the mindless things that result from that: injustice, corruption, poverty, nepotism, anxiety, tyranism, genocide, misery and so on. Rand made a crucial distinction in this regard: the metaphysical and the man-made. The metaphysical is facts such as: hydrogen and oxygen turn to water. The man-made: historical contingencies of which countries had the most tyrants.

The man-made is not the fault of reality, but of men. Whatever is not right today, is the result of previous generations acting blindly. This is true regardless of the dishonest copouts that philosophers, pastors and Harvard professors might try to delude themselves with.  It also sheds light on what the business of philosophy is: the study of the facts which have the most implications for the most areas of your life. People like Wittgenstein, one of the richest men in Europe, can afford to act on his hatred of reality's impartiality to his wishes. Rand, who had to flee for her life from a country that pillaged her father's business and the welfare of everyone, knows better than taking those unalterable facts lightly, a pretty intellectual exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

The man-made is not the fault of reality, but of men.

  • This whole response is very well argued and very well written.
  • I will have to study it and contemplate it further so that I may really grasp the flaws in my reasoning, in my data, or in my soul or character.
  • My initial thought is that Ayn Rand and Aristotle disgreed with Darwin and Freud on the matter of human nature.
  • Whereas Ayn Rand and Aristotle viewed human nature as essentially rational, just, ethical, and peaceable, Darwin and Freud viewed human nature as essentially and irredeemably irrational, injust, unethical, and aggressive.
  • The view of Ayn Rand and Aristotle can be seen in the 1949 movie "The Fountainhead" (based on Ayn Rand's book).
  • The view of Darwin and Freud can be seen in the 1968 movie "Planet of the Apes" (written by secular humanist Rod Serling and the one-time Communist Party member Michael Wilson). 
  • I find it fascinating that Shakespeare has his character Hamlet express both views of human nature in this passage (and elsewhere in the play, too): "What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me."
  • But how shall any rational person decide, with integrity (and not arbitrarily, and not with mystical faith, and not with wishful thinking) between the optimistic and the pessimistic view of human nature?
  • I have always thought that modern science, and empiricism, as found in modern biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, is the way to decide with integrity. (I.e., lots and lots of data; and data collected and organized meticulously and analyzed mathematically and statisitically, as per the modern scientific method; I think here of Francis Bacon's criticisms of those of his era who clung to the methods of Aristotle to reach their conclusions about phenomenon in nature and in Man)
  • Also, the modern story of the history of humankind is helpful. Our modern historians know so much more than the ancient historians (e.g., the historians who wrote in the times of ancient Greece and Rome). 
  • But isn't there a danger that people with a pessimistic view of human nature will enact a "self fulfilling prophecy," and thereby prevent the creation of a better future society due exactly to that pessimism?
  • Yes, that is a danger, and that danger is pointed out by the Ayn Rand Objectivists, and also by others, such as the Democratic Socialists, the Rosicrucians, the Catholics for Social Justice, Secular Humanists, and so on.
  • As for me, I feel torn, like Hamlet.
  • I want a better future. I want an ethical society. 
  • But I also want to shun delusions and noble lies.
  • I'm tired of being deceived and deluded by all sorts of utopian and idealistic promises of a better world, and I don't want to join in movements and philosophies that deceive and delude others, even if doing so might be of some materialistic advantage to me. 
  • Furthermore, I tend to think that whatever better future is possible will be achieved by having leaders that shun delusions and noble lies, and who face and deal with the hard realities of existence for biological beings (in this vein, I think of Francis Bacon's praise of Machiavelli's book The Prince for reminding him of how men often or usually tend to act, even though Francis Bacon did not himself approve of cynical, dishonest, manipulative leadership). 

 

Edited by The Laws of Biology
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, @The Laws of Biology, do I get the impression you tend to view man as a helpless plaything of natural forces beyond his control?

You posit some stark contrasting views, then leave them hanging as if they are unresolvable. You're well read, but you seem to be adrift on your sea of information. 

Man is a moral agent. His mind need ascertain what is right and wrong, and not by a consensus based on the fact that not everyone uses language like the nominalist or the subjectivist. 

You are oscillating,at times, between a benevolent and a malevolent universe premise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Laws of Biology said:
  • But how shall any rational person decide, with integrity (and not arbitrarily, and not with mystical faith, and not with wishful thinking) between the optimistic and the pessimistic view of human nature?
  • I have always thought that modern science, and empiricism, as found in modern biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, is the way to decide with integrity. (I.e., lots and lots of data; and data collected and organized meticulously and analyzed mathematically and statisitically, as per the modern scientific method; I think here of Francis Bacon's criticisms of those of his era who clung to the methods of Aristotle to reach their conclusions about phenomenon in nature and in Man)

The crucial reason history has worked out so badly so far is that people have had too little in the way of good ideas to guide them, and too much in the way of bad ideas.   Ayn Rand has provided better ideas which, once they become widely enough known, will make better results possible.

There is plenty of data about how people perform when the mysticism/altruism/collectivism axis of ideas dominates the culture.  How much data is there about how people perform when the reason/egoism/individualism axis of ideas dominates the culture?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Laws of Biology said:

I will have to study it and contemplate it further

LB,

My suggestion is the opposite: self-impose a ban on all reading of this subject - no Rand, no evo psy, no Shakespeare, no statistical overviews of data organized according to the modern scientific method.  For a period of time set by yourself, direct your mind out of books or articles and invest your time into doing something that you've always wanted to do (and monetize it if you can). Whatever is true of human nature, is in you, not in Aristotle or Freud's minds. One century of meticulous study will not replace a single week of closely introspecting yourself as you work to bring into existence something that you actually care about.

At the end, you'll likely find something curious: your interest in other people's theories will diminish. Considerably. There's also a chance that you'll find most of what you've read to be absolutely useless in practice. 

No thinker can be judged without a point of reference, namely a set of principles one is already using - not when arguing, but in regular life choices. This turns ideas into tools and henchmen of a living breathing reality, and refining them becomes no more than that - a means to an end.

Right now, your arguments read like more-or-less accurate overviews of western thinkers. But what you are casually doing is a monumental task - scholars spend many years struggling to accurately communicate the essence of just one thinker and his influences. There is also the danger of the truth being on the fringe, and not in the mainstream. But 'what ifs' are empty talk - only individual minds exist and only individual minds can recognize reality. The test of one's philosophy (and the accuracy of its view of human nature) is ultimately the quality of the practitioner's life, and his liberated status of being able to judge ideas without the aid of an external source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Economic Freedom said:

humans were originally irrational (evidence of that?)

Non-rational (lacking the faculty of reason), not irrational (having it but failing to use it).  There is plenty of evidence, including but not limited to comparisons of genomes, that we share common ancestors with all other animals, none of which are rational as we are.

6 minutes ago, Economic Freedom said:

the faculty of reason (definition of that, please?)

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses.  One crucial feature is the ability to form concepts, as discussed in ITOE.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Economic Freedom said:

In other words, if only a fantasized, factually impossible scenario had been real, things would've been different (and, needless to say, better).

You are the one who contaminated this discussion with an impossible counterfactual.  Maybe I would have done better to ignore that post.  My point is that the evils of history do not show that humans are by nature evil.  They are the result of a lack of good ideas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 11:12 AM, The Laws of Biology said:

Isn't it against the self-interest of leaders to teach the whole population of the earth to pursue self-interest and to never sacrifice themselves for the Nation, the People, the State, the Party, the Leader, the Corporation, the Team, the Movement, or the God of one's religion?

It would seem that it was indeed not in the leader’s best interests to have a population of rational self-interested individuals. They tend to be the least malleable and take the most time and attention to keep in line. Objectivists are not prone to sacrificing themselves for anything but what they determine are legitimate reasons for doing so. None of the things that you mention are credible or valid unless the individual can be persuaded that doing so would be in their own best interests. Each would have to come to their own conclusions. Like democracy, very messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

What has your imagined Objectivist done that requires intervention to "keep in line"?

I must plead ignorance as to your intention with your comment. I was attempting to respond to LB about authority that would not appreciate rational self-interest or resisting the self-sacrifice that we have come to know as ‘altruism’. I would guess any of his examples might be legitimate but I would focus on the articulation of collectivism over centuries in the promotion of self-sacrifice for the greater good, even if not in the self-interest of the individual.

If that is what you are referencing, then I would say that any authority would have difficulty in ‘keeping in line’ (not sure of your reference) those that have an ability and a propensity to self-determination and creating, developing and following their own conclusions as to appropriate behaviour at the risk of conflicting with whatever authority is in power.

I think it obvious that the critical thinker, and the independent individual would be much more difficult to control than the ‘joiner’, the ‘member’, those that embrace ‘family’ and make an attempt to not ‘rock the boat’ or act as an obstacle to the will of the ‘greater good’. If your comment was focused on some other point let me know and I can respond to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists, as I understand, or Objectivism, as a philosophy for living on earth, shouldn't require keeping in line. True becoming part of the collective, and the notion of self-sacrifice are an anathema to one who values their independence and desires to live rather than simply avoid death, should hardly be but a blip to most authorities in power.

In one of Leonard Peikoff's lectures, someone had uttered loudly from the back of the room "Revolution now!" Peikoff pointed out (heavily paraphrased) . . . "and then what? Most of citizens want the type of government that is currently in place, else it would not be the way it is. How long after 'winning' such a revolution would it take for things to return to the way they were?"

Some critical and independent thinkers and individuals are like Rand, seeing the consequences all too clearly, and are afraid not to be outspoken. Some follow another path where "Objectivist are subversive as hell", discovering how to implement changes that don't necessarily grab the attention of the authorities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion about evolution started when, as LB, you stated

On 5/6/2022 at 10:05 AM, The Laws of Biology said:

Darwin and Freud viewed human nature as essentially and irredeemably irrational, injust, unethical, and aggressive.

You did not give any reason why this statement about human nature should be taken seriously in philosophical inquiry.

I asked you to back up your claim about Darwin and, as EF, you said

On 5/6/2022 at 1:48 PM, Economic Freedom said:

n "Descent of Man", Darwin claimed that human morality evolved in the same way that biological organisms presumably evolved: by the two-pronged mechanism of 1) random mutation, sifted by means of 2) natural selection. It's a strictly non-rational viewpoint: random mutation = stochastic event (i.e., chance); natural selection = deterministic event. Teleology – goal-oriented approach – has no part in Darwin's view of human morality. It should be pointed out that this view was also held and extended by later adherents of Darwin's.

It would be more precise to say "Teleology – goal-oriented approach – has no part in Darwin's view of how human morality came to exist."

I then indicated the distinction between acquiring reason and acquiring morality by saying

On 5/6/2022 at 5:41 PM, Doug Morris said:

Evolution in this way is how we acquired the faculty of reason.  Once we had reason, we used it to acquire morality.

You then blew this off by crudely and imprecisely restating my point and comparing it to

On 5/6/2022 at 5:48 PM, Economic Freedom said:

those "Just So" stories by Rudyard Kipling (how the giraffe "acquired" its long neck; how the leopard "acquired" its spots; etc. Highly recommended fiction reading.

I think much of the rest of the debate about evolution in this thread has been a smokescreen generated by you to cover up how weak your argument is philosophically.

Obviously, we could not have acquired the faculty of reason by means of reason.  We acquired it by biological evolution.  This is not relevant to a discussion of what we did once we acquired the faculty of reason, which includes arriving at morality.

 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...