Mizzou, OSU, and Bernie

The University of Missouri is in trouble from declining enrollment. The recent SJW kerfuffle is blamed, but people have pointed out potential students may be avoiding college because of the cost.

OSU had an SJW kerfuffle, but put the kibosh on it by threatening to expel protestors occupying the admin building. Speculation is the administration didn’t want the same thing that happened at Mizzou (it’s lame to use the SEC slang name but Mizzou is a lame SEC school).

The reason given was the people working in the building did not feel safe. The protestors apparently crossed an invisible line, where other students and police officers can be bothered but not the people running the place.

The bulk of the potential student population doesn’t want to deal with crazy white nerds and angry negroes, and while they can’t say that they can go elsewhere. The value of a liberal arts degree from a state college hasn’t been much since around 1970 and has gone down a lot so not going is a real option. The typical student is better off going to a community college, staying at home and transferring if they are doing well.

Mandatory education is supposed to provide something useful, and realistically most people don’t need to go beyond 8th grade. “Liberal” college education does not, and has probably for most people for most of history been about acquiring the correct attitudes.

But if people don’t go, they won’t acquire the correct attitudes. They won’t go if it doesn’t have a positive cost/benefit analysis. In a no-jobs environment, paying a lot cannot be justified, so to keep people coming you need free college.

Bernie represents the good-think portion of the Democratic alliance, and a lot of these people work in education. Education used to be a growth industry, and provided lots of jobs for bright people without social polish- like Bernie himself. Free college keeps the students coming and keeps the teaching and administration jobs alive.

I think the universities know they need to keep a lid on the SJW crazies, but also need to make it viable for people to come.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Moldbug Attempts A Climbdown

Moldbug hasn’t been around for a long time, but his secret identity has, trying to transform tech with some software thing people like me don’t understand. Unfortunately his love of Carlyle and 19th century governance has not been forgiven and forgotten, and he wants to explain why he isn’t an evil racist after all.

Short answer- he really is an evil racist. Moldbug wants a narrow definition of racist, in which racism is only holding one race to be morally superior to another. But Moldbug does not get to define words himself. He has to use the meaning everyone else uses, or use a different word.

Note on names- Moldbug writes here under his “real” name which he was careless about concealing. I will not use it since I won’t doxx someone even if they have been already been doxxed, even by themselves. And while he claims he is not Moldbug here, as long as he writes on this subject he will remain Moldbug.

Racism is the belief that non-whites are different in ways progressives don’t think they should be different. Non-whites can be superior, but not inferior to whites in any way. Racism is not the belief that the races are the same or equal, because obviously whites, or a large portion of whites, are inferior.

Believing the races are equal is a kind of racism, because the races are obviously not equal- whites are inferior. Believing the races are not the same or equal in ways which are empirically obvious- like intelligence or behavior- is racism, and if you generously and heroically don’t assign any moral value to these, as Moldbug claims he doesn’t, you are still a racist.

Moldbug roughly believes in techno-capitalism, which if you have been reading here, you know is already pretty much the form of rule we have. He sees the world broken down into naturally occurring castes, and sees the struggle for power as alliances between different castes. He, like George W. Bush, believes in an “ownership society” but one where society itself is owned by shareholders. Primarily what he would like is for people in Silicon Valley not to be troubled by calls for affirmative action, but aside from a few Times articles, I don’t think they are.

He claims here what he opposes is “IQism” or the belief people with superior intelligence are superior. White people are smarter than black people, but that does not make them better.

Moldbug is smart enough to know this still makes him a racist, but he pretends it doesn’t. Furthermore while the correlation is not exact, IQ does in fact make you a better person. Smarter people are generally nicer, better behaved, more cooperative, and more honest. There are exceptions- one of the scariest kids in my middle school was in the gifted program with me. But in general this is true.

Holding constant for IQ, blacks are still worse people than whites. A black of any given IQ will have worse behavior than the equivalent white.

Next he reasserts the concept, or non-concept as he would have it, of human neurological uniformity. The problem is races are actually pretty uniform, that is part of why they are called races. The race of any given individual gives you a lot of useful information about them.

Measuring a person’s IQ further gives you a lot more useful information about what they can do. He then goes on to assert we are ruled by IQism, the rule of the intelligent.

Elite schools certainly do select by IQ- they are schools after all, they can hardly avoid it. But the elite schools that produce our rulers select by much, much more. They are looking for people of certain moral qualities, and also the ability to be molded and formed into the kind of person the school wants to produce. A 4.0 and a 1500 SAT will not get you into an Ivy League school- you have to be the right kind of person. A great deal of Moldbug’s output was about the moral ideas of the elite and how they promoted them.

He gratuitously trashes the Nazis, which he did not do on the blog. I have said my piece on what German National Socialism was and will not repeat myself. But he’s trying to get back into the cool kids’ club. Then he nails Trump. “Why are sh*t-tier whites voting for Trump, a barbarian who can’t even write a grammatical tweet in fourth-grade English?” Why thank you Moldbug! I didn’t know I was a “sh*t-tier white” until you so graciously informed me! I though I was a lower middle-class technical professional with a bad attitude. But when you when to Brown I guess state university is “sh*t-tier”.

Moldbug actually had a name for what Trump is doing, he called it the “Vaisya-Optimate” alliance I think. I can appreciate Trump is not his kind of person, but he knows Trump is not stupid and saying he is to curry favor with SJW computer people is weak.

He ought to know from the old books that aristocrats weren’t necessarily from old families, that a swashbuckler who could get a crowd of illiterate peasants riled up from the back of a horse or a quarterdeck could make quite a name for himself, and while his lack of a notable grandfather would raise eyebrows among the quality, this would be overlooked after the victory. He also holds the conservative belief that human nature does not change, so he ought to know something that happened a few hundred years ago can happen again.

Moldbug would have done better with some basic “game” ideas, roughly  “never apologize, never explain”. He could have said “Yes I wrote a bunch of stuff and put it on the internet a few years ago. Before you trash me on it at least do me the courtesy of reading it. Short version- I don’t believe people are equal. You don’t either, although I won’t ask you to say it out loud. I don’t believe in democracy, and I’m pretty sure if you thought about it for a few minutes you wouldn’t either. The majority of people tell us what to do? Seriously? Do you have any idea how stupid the average person is? No, you don’t, because the stupidest person you deal with is the guy from marketing, and believe it or not he’s quite a bit smarter than average. Again, please read my stuff before you beef with me. OK let’s talk about software.”

I think he got sloppy with his identity because he assumed that a person of his background could never be thought of as one of them. And he isn’t, of course. He is making a living and not living in a cardboard box, like a white nationalist would be. I don’t know how he is received in Bay Area society, but I don’t think he suffers.

What protects Moldbug and Justine Tunney is they are really about keeping all the lower classes under control, including whites, and this is something the elites can agree on. Lower class non-whites do not threaten the system; lower class whites may, so they are the issue. But certain things will not go unremarked upon, even if they are said by the right people.

And so it goes. I think Moldbug should come back and write anti-Trump stuff, that would make him popular and help people forget.

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Easter 2016

“The truth is like poetry- and most people fucking hate poetry”- Michael Lewis, The Big Short

I love poetry. Here’s something I really love, a poem by W.B. Yeats about some of the people who fell in the 1916 Easter rising in Dublin. Irish nationalism was a cause whose time had come, and Yeats seems to think the uprising may have been unnecessary. The people he describes were enthralled, as he sees it, but now that they are dead there is nothing to do but remember.

The world of the first stanza is the pleasant world of the urban white-collar worker, a day spent at not onerous tasks and an evening spent relaxing and enjoying the diversions of the city. This is where motley is worn, were meaning is the smooth functioning of the system, enjoying a comfortable place within it.

Life goes with the flow, in the third stanza. The flow of the stream, the flow of the clouds and birds moving with the wind. The stone does not flow, it is fixed and unchanging. Why not go with the flow, enjoy the social reality we are presented with? But stones do not flow. They are the fixed and immovable things around which other things flow, that make the flow something other than empty chaos.

Or were the four named part of the flow- from the harsh rule by England of its close-in possessions to something else, the harsh rule of England of all its possessions with the velvet glove in the iron fist of progressivism. Wherever the rainbow flag is waved, there England rules, wherever the Negro or Moslem or Jew cries out as he strikes you, there England rules.

Irish nationalism was a brief-lived thing- there was an Irish state for awhile, and it was not a nice place, but it was Irish and not English. Ireland is just another progressive shithole now. The heart at home not in the commercial world but in homeland- wherever the green is worn- was and may only be something dreamed of, but still we dream.

America is a very fluid place, and not much of a home. People come, establish something, and others come and take it away. Thus it has ever been and ever will be, but maybe we can slow the process down a little.

The loyalty of Yeats was to his friends, to the three he loved, but also to the one he did not, who was his countryman. As ambivalent as he was to the cause, he knew loyalty had to extend a little further.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Aryan SkyNet is Live

I just realized this. We don’t need them any more. It’s happening, not quite the way we thought it might, but it’s happening. No one controls it, and no one planned it, but that’s not how it works in any case.

I used to try to post on the Atlantic. I got banned four or five times by Ta-Nehisi Coates and gave up. It’s gotten even worse since then, a clown show of vicious leftists, but the self-parody isn’t worth reading in any case. Comments elsewhere are not as carefully monitored and people blast on leftists a lot.

I sometimes write to leftists journalists, in hopes they will respond in an article. They have, but generally no. But neither the editors, nor the moderators, nor the writers can maintain control any more.

You can suppress or punish unwanted information, but English-speaking society has relied for a long time on ignoring or marginalizing the taboo-breaker. Anonymous comment is easily dismissed, and non-anonymous comment is easily ostracized.

Unless the person is too big to be ignored, and too rich to be starved. Enter Donald Trump. Is Donald Trump a serious person? Is he really a nationalist? Does it matter? Something has happened, and is happening, and it’s bigger than Trump, even if his move on the nationalist position triggered it.

Trump said stuff you’re not supposed to say, and nothing happened. Saying stuff you’re not supposed to say is supposed to make the sky fall, but it doesn’t.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has been tracking and explaining Trump, and says power has passed from the media to social media. He says persuasion skills allow anyone with them to gain power on social media, but not even those are needed.

Social media is usually thought of as SJWs going off. But the very term SJW was invented by anti-SJWs on Twitter, showing that SJWs were full of shit. The truth is very appealing, and very contagious. You can insist people lie and threaten them, or you can serve a partial truth and discourage dissent. But the straight up truth- which works out to be more or less nationalist- is the most attractive to people.

Something has been fundamentally undone, and something else is taking its place. No one can control it, no one can stop it, and it looks a lot like nationalism. Aryan SkyNet is live.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Hedonism Is Horror; Part I of a series on horror

What has pleasure to do with pain? I had a long post on the phenomenon of horror that disappeared in a WordPress crash, but I feel compelled to get back to it, if not in quite the same way.

I have previously wrote on the limitations of pleasure here, but the matter is more profound.

David Goldman/Spengler pointed out that Al Qaeda had succeeded in horrifying us. Terror, he says, is always intended to horrify, that is to create a combination of fear, hopelessness, and despair, and horror is the weapon.

This is true as far as it goes, but it’s just a simple existential question. You are a fragile bag of meat, blood, bone and pus. You can easily be hurt or destroyed, or hurt in a way that makes you wish you had been destroyed. You will die someday, and you may be lucky and die quickly but probably it will take some time and be very unpleasant. No matter how much power you have this is true, and if you do have power, nothing you can do to another human can’t also be done to you.

Most people deal with this by ignoring it. This works pretty well and is usually a sign of mental health. But really most people live in a space where things aren’t so bad they can’t tolerate it- they aren’t seriously ill, they have their basic needs met- but things could be a whole lot better. Extreme stress is a rough place, where for me at least strange things happen. Most people have some experience of this, but few experience the other extreme.

The other extreme is where you have all the good things you could want, and more. All the material possessions, all the personal pleasures, and all the social approval. This is where the very top of the population, the 0.0001 per cent live.

Here’s the thing- from my partial, distant observance of this, I think it can be extremely unpleasant. The body becomes accustomed to the inputs it receives. Whatever it has been exposed to for some time seems normal and right. People in circumstances that would seem unbearable for even a few minutes to you or me, like being homeless in Chicago in the winter, or being in a third world prison, are lived with equanimity by countless people. It’s the deviations from this that people notice. So somebody gives the homeless guy a couple dollars and he’s very happy for awhile, or somebody steals his blanket and he’s very sad for awhile. But day to day, he’s not happy, but he’s not freaking out.

The trouble with having everything a person could possibly want is you get used to it. Things can’t get any better, but they can get worse. What was once wonderfully pleasurable has become routine, maybe boring, but to lose it, any of it, would be a calamity. Again- I think most people in this situation deal with it by ignoring it. But on some level they are aware of this, and it is very disconcerting to them.

Maybe I can best illustrate this with a story. I used to do some work for a financial company with offices all over the world. One of the principals was an English guy, from a middle class background, who became very rich. I got to talking with a lady in the office who sometimes acted as a flight attendant on his Gulfstream V. One time he was flying from London to his primary residence, in a Caribbean tax haven. He requested some red wine. She showed him three different kinds- all the best, I’m sure- but they did not have the kind he wanted. And, she told me, he was very disappointed.

He was living as well as a human being can live, and yet it still wasn’t enough for him. Wealth and plenty had ruined his ability to experience pleasure. So he was worse off than most of the human population. Unless you have terminal cancer with serious pain, there are things you can enjoy.

I think our elite lives in a state of frustration and disappointment that shades, from time to time, into actual horror. They are epicurean or hedonist, or shades between, but even with constant refinement find pleasure fleeting. They hold their position on supposed moral superiority, but are running out of ways to show how much more enlightened and tolerant they are. Tense and uncomfortable, they have to lash out, and we are the dog that gets kicked.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

The Trumpening and Mainstream Conservatism- The Short View

We saw that modern, or mainstream conservatism is a movement that has passed through its life cycle and is spent, like a salmon dying after struggling hundreds of miles upstream. The more urgent causes of its demise are more recent, and associated most closely with George W. Bush.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is an institution that has served as a vehicle for different interests at different times in its history. The Democratic Party started as the voice of the white common man; The Republican Party for those against slavery for either pragmatic self-interest (free soil) or idealism (abolition). In the early 19th century, the Republican Party served as the counterweight of Northeastern and Midwestern businessmen and the small town middle-class against big-city Democratic machines.

This Republican Party was genteel, liberal in the sense of being open-minded and fair, and opposed to the heated rhetoric of populism. It was pro-business, but did not view business as a glorious pursuit not to be bound by any rules.

As the Democratic Party came to be controlled by progressive social radicals, traditionalists and libertarians gravitated to the Republicans. These people worshipped business much more, were much more individualist and and repelled by non-conformity of the bohemian kind. Goldwater and Reagan represented this tendency; Goldwater lost big, after being explicitly rejected by the establishment (including Mitt Romney’s father). Reagan was also regarded as a threat, and lost the nomination in 1976. But he won in 1980, and after HW attacked his “voodoo economics” (that is tax cuts for economic growth, the one defining policy of Republicans since then) made a deal and served as Reagan’s VP. Reagan’s popularity and the weakness of Dukakis made him president in 1988.

HW was not grateful. No, not at all. Not at all grateful to the libertarian conservatives and Reagan who had brought him from a staff man to the most powerful position in the world. He thought it was time to put things right, talked about a “kinder, gentler nation” and agreed to a tax increase. He did not win reelection.

The Bushes blamed this on the rubes not being loyal and grateful enough to them, and put more family members up to lead the great unwashed. Jeb got elected governor of Florida, W of Texas. The pitch to the conservative base in 2000 was this- you’ve had eight years of Clinton, and his liberal shenanigans. A strong conservative won’t get elected. You have to lay off your mean-spirited libertarianism and take a compromise.

The conservative base has long been very obedient, and they bought this. The fundamental incompatibility of the various Republican factions- libertarians, social conservatives, hawks, big business, and the old WASP elite- were just beginning to feel friction.

Then came 9/11. In recent historical terms, this started the destruction of the modern conservative movement and the modern Republican Party.

The 9/11 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and fundamentalist Moslems. Pretty obviously we had an enemy in Saudi Arabia and fundamentalist Moslems, but W was committed to both, via his family business. W promoted the idea that Islam was a “religion of peace”- that Islam means “peace”- and our enemy in the Middle East was not fundamentalist Moslems and the terrorism they support, but secular, Arab nationalist dictators like Saddam Hussein. We would them and secure our safety by overthrowing them and establishing democracy.

People bought it. I know I did. They were ugly times, and we were given the choice to fight the wrong people or fight nobody, apologize for existing, cower, and beg for mercy. Had leftists had a better response things would have been a lot different, but we were told to ask “why do they hate us?”

So we got the wars, and all the terrible things that happened. People have come to understand in the fifteen years since that Islam is our enemy, it is not a religion of peace, Islam is by its fundamental nature terroristic and oppressive, and Moslems hate us and want to kill us, except for the women they want to rape and keep as sex slaves. Moslems in other words are just like blacks.

W deployed the language of political correctness to suppress this, that being truthful about Islam was racist and bigoted. People didn’t like this but Iraq was going to be a democracy any day now, and W would be proven right. Of course it didn’t work out that way, and people remember, although they dare not say.

The next big thing was the attempted amnesty of 2005. (W tried to privatize Social Security in the spring of that year, and this was rejected, and people remember this too, but it didn’t enrage people.) The people reacted negatively, and W pretty much came out and said if you were against amnesty you were a filthy racist. It still didn’t pass- congressmen like to keep their jobs- but it was understood the filthy racist blue-collar rednecks would be cowed into submission eventually.

The financial crisis and the idea of turning Hispanics into Republican voters with no questions asked mortgages was another fiasco, and then Obama. Mitt Romney didn’t get rich firing people- he was plenty rich already- but trashing companies with leveraged buyouts by Bain Capital was supposed to make people who had recently been laid off eager to vote for him.

Mitt was at least able to pretend, sort of. McCain absolutely could not. His open contempt for the voters was too much. “Just build the damn wall” was followed by some pro forma promises, quickly forgotten.

The “Reagan Coalition” as it is called worked because elite Republicans like the Bushes were able to hold their noses and work with blue collar, ethnic Northern and Southern whites, people they viscerally loathed at worst and were mildly contemptuous of at best. The Bushes ruined the thing because they were just too arrogant.

The “pundits” of National Review and Red State, the consultants and the think tank people are socially retarded, like most of the elite these days. If you have been a spoiled brat all your life going to elite schools, getting elite internships and working elite jobs in elite institutions you may not understand that insulting people is actually dangerous in many places, and considered bad manners most other places. I get the feeling that among the modern elite, insulting people and acting like a jerk is considered cool and status-enhancing.

Backing down is something you do when things are a little hotter than you can handle, you made a misjudgment and went a little too far, and now you need to keep from getting your ass kicked. People at the lower level of society have to understand how and when to back down. I get the impression that the elites don’t know how, never having been in a situation where they could get hurt or lose their job, or just don’t think they should ever have to.

It’s this crudeness and arrogance that enrages people. They call Trump rude and arrogant, and vulgar, but he is far from it. He knows what he can say and what he can get away with. He never insults anyone who doesn’t have it coming.

If you are really good friends with a person, maybe they can say something nasty to you and you will let it go. Generally however openly insulting someone means not only are you no longer friends, you are now enemies.

The Republican Party will survive in some different form. The mainstream conservative movement is dead. Its spokesmen, pundits, commentators, authors, talk show hosts, radio show hosts, and consultants will be hard pressed for work. Nobody is going to spend tens of millions for an obviously empty suit like Rubio again. The market for books by Mark Levin and Glenn Beck has certainly shrank a great deal.

Marie Antoinette is rumored to have said, if peasants didn’t have bread, they could eat cake. At least she wasn’t saying they should f*** off and die, like National Review. The NR staff will all keep their heads, and even their titanic egos won’t suffer much, although they lost their credibility and their dignity long ago.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

The Trumpening and Mainstream Conservatism- The Long View

The complete inability of mainstream conservatives to understand what has happened is maddening, and while I continue to maintain official politics is of little to no interest to nationalists, I feel I must explain.

I’m not a historian or a scholar, so I may be wrong in details, but I think I can explain- to people who are willing to listen- the broad historical arc of it.

Mainstream conservatism is an idea that dates approximately to the mid-1950’s. People often don’t appreciate how left-wing the US had been up to then. The US was formally allied with the Soviet Union, a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, to win WWII, and had established a government starting the 1930’s that controlled almost all of society. Communists participated openly in the US government, and why wouldn’t they? Communism was progressive ideology doing great good in the world, and while communism as a whole was not useful in the US, communist ideas certainly were.

The aftermath of WWII in eastern Europe soured a lot of people though. The defeat of Hitler was supposed to mean elections, but the Red Army was having none of that. It was explained to the rubes that elections were not necessary, but they weren’t buying it, and many of the rubes had roots there and did not want to see their religion and culture destroyed in their homelands. (Religion and culture were of course being restored in the Jewish “homeland”).

How the US would respond to Russian imperialism was the question. The progressive left was all in favor of it. The militant right wanted war, but people were tired of that. The compromise was not to interfere with the Soviets but not to let them go further. Countries in the US sphere of influence would develop as social democracies.

It was assumed China would stay in the Western sphere, but Mao won. How and why this happened was a burning issue at the time. “Who lost China?” was a conservative battle cry. The answer was that communist sympathizers in the State Department helped this happen, and the presence of communists, former communists, and almost communists (called “pinkos” because they weren’t quite red) became an issue.

The House Un-American Activities Commission had been around for a long time, looking into undesirable foreign activities like organized crime by Jews and Italians, anarchism and associated forms of violent, terroristic leftism not directly controlled by the CPSU, and communism. Senator Joseph McCarthy began hearings into communist influence in the US government, the State Department but also the Army.

The left gained a massive media victory here, managing to equate inquiring into anyone’s left wing political background with cruel harrassment of idealistic, well-intentioned people. The Venona transcripts showed that McCarthy was unsurprisingly, correct- probably every single person he accused of anything was guilty as hell of that and a lot more.

But the left had portrayed anti-communism as the worst possible thing in English-speaking society, a matter of bad taste, and with this no respectable person could announce conservative political views in public.

Manhattan socialite William F. Buckley decided a new conservatism was needed, a socially acceptable if not fashionable one. Aiding him was the fact a lot of people found communism pretty disgusting. As cosmopolitan as many communists were, it was basically Slavic peasants lining up for bread rations, and while that might be fine for Slavic peasants, no nice person wanted anything like that. Militant, Promethean libertarianism best promoted by Ayn Rand was in backlash against the tiresome alphabet soup of government control. Actual conservatism was still pretty hick, but you could break off anti-communist liberals, and call them conservatives.

That’s all modern conservatives are. Anti-communist liberals. The old American form of conservatism- isolationist, traditionalist, rural and small town whether North or South- never really went away, but it kept its mouth shut and went with the anti-communist liberals to have some support.

This project had some big successes, and some failures. Its resistance to the Soviet Union ended communism in its classic form. At home it kept taxes under control. It did not repeal the New Deal. It did not prevent or significantly restrain the Great Society. It established a strong criminal regime, after the US had gone from a not very strong one based on Protestant reform to a totally Gramscian one.

In the end it was a victim of its own success, or more exactly that liberals saw money was good, and adopted the aspects of it that suited them. In the old days the private sector was not that lucrative, and being a corporate executive wasn’t that much better than being a government employee. With the globalization and financialization of the world economy, that changed, and with Clinton liberals went strong into business and finance.

With the defeat of communism, the victory of globalism and free-market capitalism and its adoption by progressives, modern conservatism had little reason to exist. It had won what it could, and could win nothing else. But conservatives in the 1990’s, like liberals in the 1950’s, thought they were just getting started with their economic program. (Social issues are another matter.) They wanted to reduce government spending and the size of government. But Clinton and the establishment prevented this.

The other source of the weakening and collapse came from within. The old school, liberal Republicans of the Bush family were enraged at the takeover of “their” party by Western libertarians. HW promoted a “kinder, gentler nation”. W promoted “compassionate conservatism”. The rubes were told they had gone too far and needed to back off, and the rubes mostly obeyed.

If everybody is a free-market globalist, a free market globalist party is not needed. If everyone is, or is supposed to be, “socially liberal” then a socially conservative party is a threat to society. The is no need for the Republican Party to exist, and it is in fact a threat to the social order. This is the dilemma the Republican establishment finds itself in, but it does not understand history and could not adapt if it could.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments