The defect with the Alt-Lite is the same problem the Buckley Conservatives had a generation ago. They have no antibodies to resist entryism, because they lack a timeless definition of what it means to be Alt-Lite. Western Civilization, after all, includes Karl Marx and Hitler. Nazism is just as much a part of the West as John Locke. In fact, Hitler currently casts a longer shadow than any of the men of the Enlightenment. On what grounds can the Alt-Lite reject Hitler, but embrace the slave owning Jefferson?One of the reasons I've been harping on the subject of Fascism lately is because best it illustrates the entryist problem as it pertains to right wing politics. Ask almost anyone about Fascism, and where it sits on the political spectrum, and more likely than not they will locate it on the Right. Yet, as this blog and the objective historical record shows it was a child born of the Left, riddled with its genetics and from its outset was ready to wage war against traditional European society and its underlying foundations.
The same is true of anti-racism and egalitarianism. How can these be rejected when they are inventions of the West? Of course, the Alt-Lite makes no attempt to reject these as that would get them in trouble with the Left. That’s what opens the door to, and requires them to accept, the defining feature of the dominant orthodoxy. That feature is the blank slate. As McInness goes to pains to point out, if a hotep brotha is on the Trump Train, he has a place at the table of the Alt-Lite, a cherished place.
That’s the fatal flaw that was the undoing of the Buckley Right. The Alt-Lite has no affirmative argument. Instead, it is a list of things it is not and most of those things are to their Right. That firewall they are building to their Right, just as Buckley did with Kirk and with the paleocons, comes at the expense of any defensible line of demarcation between themselves and the Left. That leaves them open to entryism, corruption and subversion, which is why the leading opponents of Trump are all Buckley Conservatives.
How does an movement become considered a member of the Right when the ideas of Marx are its conceptual foundations is not something that gets talked about much in Rightie circles, yet, if you think about it, it would appear to be a rather serious problem.
It's my contention that one of the reasons why the Right has been a continual losing proposition in the 20th Century is because it has failed to develop an doctrine, or litmus test, on what it means to be "Right". This failure has led to "infiltration" into the ranks by elements which are subversive and thus the Right is caught in a continual pincer grip, attacked from the over Left from the outside and the covert Left from the outside. It's hard to defeat the enemy in front of you when you're being stabbed in the back.
How we arrived at this state of affairs deserves a book length treatment, but briefly, I think a lot of this has got to do with the fact that prior to the French Revolution the world was Right wing by default. Anyone attempting to change the world had to argue for the change first with the result that Left wing tradition of justifying itself developed quite a formidable body of supporting argumentation which gave it some form of superficial intellectual coherence, Right wing ideas, on the other hand, were simply assumed by many and not much thought was given. Furthermore, the Christian religion did the lions share of Right wing defence by prohibiting by morality that which could not be rebuked by argument. With the collapse of the Christian religion, the whole "Right" defence was dealt a mortal blow.
The significance of this latter collapse shouldn't be underestimated. With the demise of Morality all that was left was intuition and tradition, with the preference for tradition, when it all comes down to it being a temperamental matter, the so call "Conservative disposition."
The problem with this "dispositional" approach to politics and culture is that things are assumed to be Right wing by virtue of them "feeling" right wing. Therefore any ideology which emphasises order, authority, patriotism and identity is assigned to the right of the political spectrum by its associated qualities with the "Right" disposition. Fascism, Catholic Integralism, Neoconservatism and the Soviet "hardliners" are all put on the right despite totally incompatible underlying philosophical foundations.
Then there is the problem of political "framing". Perhaps the greatest victory the Marxist-Leninists ever achieved was convincing everyone else that theirs was the only "authentic" interpretation of Marx™, and labeling everyone who opposed them as "Reactionaries". How conservatives ever played along with this idea is beyond me--further proof that they really are the stupid party-- however the historical record shows that the rebranding of Fascism was hugely successful, allowing Nationalist Marxism, i.e. Marxism v2.0™to be percieved as of the Right. After all, all those Nuremberg rallies feel "Right" don't they.
The successful branding of Fascism, and other ideologies as a right wing phenomena meant that membership to "Right Club" was based on the feels rather than pedigree. However the differences in their respective philosophical underpinnings meant that the members of Right Club were, in the end, incompatible. Furthermore, the pragmatic attitude of "you don't punch to
The solution to this problem is for the Dissident Right to develop a litmus test of membership. Yes, in a sense, it is a sort of 'purity" test but it needs to be done in order to stop the movement from being subverted from the inside. I think if any other bloggers are interested, I think it would be worthwhile to make a concerted effort on this subject over the next few weeks.
The Z man proposes this as a sort of test:
The great chain of causality is Biology→Culture-→Politics-→Economics. It’s why Libertarianism, in its current form, not right wing. The Reason Magazine crowd are sure that all you have to do to fix Haiti, for example, is end the licensing of barbershops and other small businesses. And legalize weed, of course. In other words, they get things backward and end up rejecting the human condition. This is the crack in the foundation of all Left Wing movements. It’s what they share in common.I think he's nearly there but just misses the mark. The Natsocs satisfy the above criteria and as we have shown on this blog they're clearly they're from the Left. In fact, the more you think about it, even most of the Left can in someway be made to fit that schema of things. The Left have their notions about biology as well as the libertarians, the point is that they are wrong.
This leads us to the what is the distinguishing feature of Right wing belief is its commitment to Realism. The reason I don't believe in the blank slate approach to human nature is because it is disproved by the empirical observations of human life. The reason on I don't believe in biological Calvinism is because education does make a difference, but there are limits.
The great error of 20th C Rightism has been that it has been based on the "feels" rather than the "thinks". And any litmus test of Rightism has to go beyond the "feels" with all the "will to power", "comfort in Tradition", and other associated intellectual shit and concentrate on reality calibration. The underlying principle of Rightism is that 2+2=4 no matter how inconvenient or how bad it makes us feel. Chesterton saw where we were headed years ago and saw that in the end it will be a battle between those who asserted the Truth and those who preferred something else.
Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.
26 comments:
Then we have the 'social pathologist', who spends a good 15 odd paragraphs flailing at the straw man, in a vacuum.
His argument, or a hash of unsupported assertions tortured into the equation that balances out to, if we were good Christians and so on (this from most antagonistic systematized aetheists that exist!) we should surrender to Gnon?
Bruce, like NRx, you are selling the neocon line. It is you that is not 'right', and never have been. No one wants your camouflage Trotskyism.
It's hard to impossible to construct a litmus test (it should be noted that Reason/CATO crowd are left-libertarians). Without the revolutions and the rise of parliamentary democracies I don't think there would've even been left and right. In the age of monarchies rulers enacted what policies they wished, and what worked worked, what didn't didn't. There were no ideologies.
To further confuse the things by defining left and right with respect to status quo, if anyone who supports the status-quo is right-wing, and everyone who opposes it is left-wing, means that Progressives are, by virtue of being in power, right-wing, and all of the Dissident Right, left-wing.
If we define left and right according to the time factor, far-right means wanting to return to older arrangements, but that still doesn't solve the problem. What older arrangements? Roman Republic, Athenian Democracy are they hyper-hyper-reactionary?
If left and right concerns the empirical question with regards to human equality it still doesn't solve the problem. John Rawls, for example, did accept the innate inequality of all, but he advocated policies which he believed would make everyone get more, or less equal opportunities (and outcomes). But if inequality of opportunities (and outcomes) is the mark of right-wing that still means there's a spectrum of mutually contradictory stuff that is all right-wing.
Likewise with family values, and cultural conservatism. Whereas the practice of infanticide would be widely seen as left-wing today, in the ancient world it was Christian positions that were seen as revolutionary.
If cold Machiavellianism is the mark of right, then you'll find no one more right-wing than Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
Clearly there is as much disagreement inside the Dissident Right, as there is between the Dissident Right and the (any) Left. Even inside the single ideology there is as much disagreement. Since labels don't mean anything, it would probably be for the best for everyone to just list their preferred method of governance together with policy points and leave it at that.
In all fairness, I want your camouflage Trotskyism.
As always, respect for the truth is it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's name should ring through the ages because, general lefty that he was, when confronted with evidence that it didn't work, he changed his mind. Lee Kwan Yew was the same.
Confirmation bias is the hallmark of the pseudo-right NatSocs. Diversity doesn't work, except when it does. The centuries long history of the great empires doesn't count because they failed (eventually, after centuries). Northern Europeans were as violent and uncivilized as any tribe in Africa before Christianity, but that's just coincidence you understand because some current churchmen are foolish.
Mankind is messy and complex, empirical evidence matters far more than perfectly coherent ideologies that suffer from a mess of false premises and false but clear ideas.
I think on a heart level the left doesn't understand that Christians think of Christianity as true, not merely a socially useful arrangement. Revelation trumps tradition, however tradition does reveal the cumulative experience of mankind. However it is not the standard of good and evil.
I believe that your tracing of the problem to a naive intuitionism which considers everything that somehow praises "order," "authority," and "identity," as right-wing, is largely accurate.
Another problem is that the Anglosphere has a very narrow conception of conservatism. It was in the Continent that we saw people like the Monarchiens and the French doctrinaires combining liberalism, royalism, aristocracy and bourgeois propertarianism into a truly unique tendency that I believe deserves the genuine mantle of "conservatism." Not Burke. Certainly not Buckley by any stretch. These people included Baron Malouet, Comte de Montalembert, Charles de Remusat, Francois Guizot and others.
It is this "aristocratic liberalism" that will be the subject of my next essay(s), in fact. To be fair, they did not build concretely defined sets of ideas, either. But they were much closer to doing so than others. It's more resistant to the "iron law," I'd think.
@Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur
But don't left-wingers of all stripes and sorts save for the anarcho-communists also say that they believe in "order," "authority," and "identity?"
Is Antonio Rosmini-Serbati on that list? He was a nobleman and a priest. He grew up on de Chateaubriand, de Bonald, de Maistre, etc. but later came to be influenced by classical liberalism. He opposed democracy, but in my opinion went overboard with liberalism (still... I am not sure that he can, ultimately, be called a liberal).
One of the problems here is that you and I don't get to define the Right. The Right are simply Not-Left as defined by the Left.
Another problem is that nobody wants to get rid of the modern state. So, we might march back to Bismarck, but never further. Despite being deeply concerned about their low birth rate, the Japanese government can't make logical connections to estate taxes, or even the anti-natal, pro-consumption incentives a devalued yen causes.
So I have a small hope some that when extremely rich dude gets into office, he does a few things for himself. Oh, please, please, be a little selfish. Lay that groundwork, not because you've got any idea what you are doing, but because it is in your personal best interest.
The Natsocs satisfy the above criteria and as we have shown on this blog they're clearly they're from the Left.
Interestingly, seconds before I read this post, I learned about Lebensborn, the Nazi program to increase Aryan births by any means necessary. This included everything from aiding unwed Aryan mothers to taking rape babies of Norwegian women to kidnapping children from conquered territories believed to be useful.
Needless to say, it did not end well.
SP: This leads us to the what is the distinguishing feature of Right wing belief is its commitment to Realism.
The problem with this? Far less than 1% of humanity have the needed brains to distinguish truth from falsehood. Or even to grasp this reality. Human brains are simply not built this way; they are designed mostly to try to stop other people (the most dangerous animal) from taking advantage of them, not to perceive what is truth. Thus, basically nobody is "right wing" by your truth standard. And since politics is the art of the possible, your "right wing" is a historical curiosity.
Dumbness is the standard human condition. Quick check: Take an older GRE practice exam's logic & math sections. If one can actually process logical data at a reasonable level, they would get a perfect score on the logic part, and could at least study their way to a perfect score on math too. Yet only graduate students at the most prestigious universities (say CalTec, MIT, etc.) generally ace these exams. So we are talking about less than 1/20 of 1% of humanity here, and certainly less than half of this for women.
SP: The reason I don't believe in the blank slate approach to human nature is because it is disproved by the empirical observations of human life. The reason on I don't believe in biological Calvinism is because education does make a difference, but there are limits.
The problem I have with the dislike of blank-slate? While not true it's far closer to truth than the average modern person's understanding of reality. So those who criticize blank-slate generally pit it against their own false liberal ideology. And thus those rare birds who actively seek truth and have the equipment to do so tend to find the blank-slate types a welcome relief. While wrong, BS at least points in the an honest direction. So criticizing BS is like bitching about Newtonian physics or the Bohr model. Yes, not true, but it at least brushes away some of the cobwebs!
@Marlowe
What straw man have I constructed?
@Michael Rothblatt
Without the revolutions and the rise of parliamentary democracies I don't think there would've even been left and right.
I'm not well versed in Medieval history but well before parliamentary democracy Kings were putting down rebellions, well before there was any Left or Right. Furthermore, prior to the French Revolution French society had culturally divided itself into two factions. Having a King does not stop people from developing their own opinions.
As I said before, the principle of Rightism is reality acceptance.
@Hoyos
Daniel Patrick Moynihan's name should ring through the ages because, general lefty that he was, when confronted with evidence that it didn't work, he changed his mind. Lee Kwan Yew was the same.
Include Orwell on that list. He would have been horrified at the idea of being called a Conservative and yet he was a firm believer in the Truth and one of the fiercest opponents of the "smelly little orthodoxies" of our age. That's why many Rightists feel a kindred spirit with Him despite calling himself a Socialist. (The reality is that Orwell's conception of Socialism was not the Socialists conception of it. Orwell summed up his idea of Socialism was a system of government to treat people decently.) Towards the end of his life he was turning far more politically Right.
Revelation trumps tradition, however tradition does reveal the cumulative experience of mankind. However it is not the standard of good and evil.
True. I've been meditating on this quite a bit as much as I loathe the Left I've come to realise that a lot of harm has been caused by the Traditionalist Right.
@August
One of the problems here is that you and I don't get to define the Right.
Says who? Who gave them taxonomic rights? I think this state of affairs (Left frame control) has come about because the Right has been, in the main intellectually light in the 20th C, and has let the Left do its thinking for it. I think one of the fundamental problems of Conservatism is that it has become the "not official Left club". If you think about it it means that if we accept the Leftists definition, the Right is amalgamation of the the True Right, misfits and the unofficial Left. This inability to define our own boundaries has mean that subversive influences have been chipping away from the inside.
I think we're in interesting times now. Mainstream Conservatism is brain dead and the only life in the Right at the moment lays in the Dissident Right. We now have a chance to redefine the rules.
@Ingemar
How the Natsocs ever got called Right wing by serious historians is beyond me. When they stated that their own heritage was Left wing.
@MK
The problem with this? Far less than 1% of humanity have the needed brains to distinguish truth from falsehood. Or even to grasp this reality.
Hence the functional problem with democracy. Question: how long can a system run on popular falsehoods?
Thus, basically nobody is "right wing" by your truth standard. And since politics is the art of the possible, your "right wing" is a historical curiosity.
I think you're beginning to grasp the depth of the problem here. Democracy vX.X is not going to save us. What's possible and what's calibrated with reality are two different things, and possible but "not calibrated to reality" can run for quite a long time till it collapses.
So we are talking about less than 1/20 of 1% of humanity here, and certainly less than half of this for women.
Are trying to make the case for a natural aristocracy? Btw, I'm not an IQ fetishist. Lots of stupid high IQ people.
So criticizing BS is like bitching about Newtonian physics or the Bohr model. Yes, not true, but it at least brushes away some of the cobwebs!
A part truth is the most dangerous truth of all. Intellectual simplifications are the de riguer habit of cognitive misers. Genuine intellectualism understands that complexity and subtlety are a fact of life. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but NOT simpler.
@MK
Sorry, Dyslexia kicking in. Should be:
Are you trying to make the case for a natural aristocracy? Btw, I'm not an IQ fetishist. Lots of stupid high IQ people.
@NTSS
I believe that your tracing of the problem to a naive intuitionism which considers everything that somehow praises "order," "authority," and "identity," as right-wing, is largely accurate.
One of the "big" ideas I have in my head is the notion that Western Anthropology has been very sloppy with its understanding in regard to "Man", particularly with regard to his rationality. Lots of evidence coming from cognitive science and psychology showing that people are pseudo rational with thinking styles being strongly influenced by temperament.
There are repeatedly demonstrable temperamental differences between conservatives and liberals which when expressed through "cognitive miserliness" dispose people to unthinking "Left" and "Right" orientations. Interestingly this dispositions can also be modified by environment so that in periods of stress people drift towards rightward dispositions and during time of plenty they go "Left".
Anglo-Saxon Conservatism seems to be particularly dispositional. I haven't read up much on the Continentals but the Frieberg schools of Ordoliberals seem pretty switched on.
As a civilisation, I reckon we peaked between "1870-1914" precisely because the people who were running the show were "aristocratic liberals", they dropped the ball, however, because of an over optimistic assumption with regard to human rationality among other things. The other big problem they missed was "massification" and how to deal with it. But this can't be adequately dealt with in a combox discussion.
If I understand correctly doctor, it seems that you see your and your religious kin's task as reconciling the human and biological sciences (evolutionary biology, genetics, HBD, and so on) with the Christian worldview, or at least in a manner not inconsistent with it, in a fashion similar to in some ways to what St. Thomas did with the faith and ancient pagan thinking. This is clearly a worthy and necessary endeavor, with there being a need for a pious Steve Sailer or Charles Murray or Steven Pinker (i.e. for a member of the Church who is an effective counterpart to those secularists like the three mentioned who unlike others of their ilk address this very difficult problem humanely, with caution and respect). Alas, you would be a groundbreaker here I feel, for while there are other Christians who have taken a crack at this, even the more successful ones seem to have such personal peccadilloes that their output in my opinion is at best a mixed bag (and too often even they seem to just go off the deep end at times). In plain English, their characters - even more than their intellects - do not seem to be congruent with the immense mission they have chosen to embark on.
Anyway, sorry to sound schoolmarmish or like a Jewish mother here. It does seem to me though that when "policing" such a grouping as the Dissident Right, perhaps as important as the soundness of a member's views is again the character he or she has. However necessary it is to talk about these issues, it is important to bear in mind that this is still dangerous stuff, and discussing in a mature way gender or racial differences can be as much a matter of spiritual depth as it is of brainpower. But even if I'm off base with this, well FFT.
@Jason,
If I understand correctly doctor, it seems that you see your and your religious kin's task as reconciling the human and biological sciences (evolutionary biology, genetics, HBD, and so on) with the Christian worldview
Yes, but that only part of it Jason, the other part is letting good science i.e natural revelation, inform Christianity as well. St Thomas saw Truth as a "seamless garment", it was he who said that if the the Faith conflicts with our understanding of the facts, then either the facts are wrong or our understanding of the Faith is.
"Anyway, sorry to sound schoolmarmish or like a Jewish mother here. It does seem to me though that when "policing" such a grouping as the Dissident Right, perhaps as important as the soundness of a member's views is again the character he or she has."
You're not sounding schoolmarmish at all. Still, I think it's going to be hard to find "unspotted" men. Can you elaborate on what you mean by bad character as it pertains the Right?
"However necessary it is to talk about these issues, it is important to bear in mind that this is still dangerous stuff, and discussing in a mature way gender or racial differences can be as much a matter of spiritual depth as it is of brainpower."
True.
@The Social Pathologist
I don't think that people thought in such patterns before the French Revolution. There were cliques and disagreements about how social order should look like but it wasn't given being. French Monarchy supported the American Revolution, for example.
@ Michael
Civil Wars in the Middle Ages
@The Social Pathologist
So? Wars were constant in the Middle Ages, but none was waged for establishment of democracy and LGBTQQIA+ rights.
@The Social Pathologist
I am not sure if Medieval communes can exactly qualify as left-wing. Thomas Aquinas, for example, advocated what is essentially "right to revolution," but I don't think that many people would think Aquinas has anything to do with Jacobins.
I know about the Protestants. Before them there were Gnostics and Circumcellions. But as I was already unfortunate many times to find out, many on the Internet far-right would agree with those groups on about everything save for free love (some even measure their right-wingness by how much they oppose the concept of private property), so you should understand my quibbles. Yes, I very much like von Kuehnelt-Leddihn definition of Right as being about reality and truth, but it's not what we have in practice. The fact is that people who consider themselves right-wing frequently possess mutually conflicting views. I am thinking that Spandrell was onto something when he said that 'right' is defined in opposition to the 'left':
http://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/fighting/
It seems to me doctor, that a lot of the altright - vs. the more thoughrful Dissident Right - just lack the deiform and mundane virtues conducive to good character: faith, hope, love, and moderation, prudence, courage, justice. As a result, such figures say things that harm their credibility because they do not have a effective lense, if you will, to filter their ideas and to display a sense of proportion. Consider somebody like Roosh, who has gotten on the "Let's Revive the Decadent West" bandwagon, which is great, yet who in other breaths praises the most unsavory aspects of the PUA-lifestyle. ("What should I incude in my latest edition of 'Bang'?") Or "The Thinking Housewife," who has been inflicted with the virus of the "Jew thing" and progressed,. or regressed rather, from legitimate criticisms of Jewish power to the typical boilerplate of Holacaust denial (or similarly countless bloggers or commentators who use (( )) around the names of Jews who do anything they don't like). Or the Christian Manosphere, many of whom at this point appear to just delight in despairing (a great sin, after all) rather than incanating the above-mentioned spiritual virtues and actually doing something to reform their own churches.
Contrast all this with somebody like Steve Sailer, who makes intelligent arguments about delicate subjects without losing it, without causing needless controversy and offense (by "eschewing rancor," as the very Catholic William Buckley described his publication's mission). He makes lots of observations about the African-American problem, for instance, how both genetics and modern culture combine to make life destructive for that particular minority, and difficult for Americans at large. Yet he also makes constructive proposals for solutions, and raps the knuckles of those who miss the obvious and think the black dilemma should simply be solved by some form of ethnic cleansing or expulsion. ("African-Americans have every right to be here," Sailer has rightly written, or at least something to that effect.)
I'll admit though that knowing where to draw the line concerning a lack of moderation, of chairity, of hope, and bloggers is a challenge, since naturally different observors will come to different judgements about the matter. Perhaps just thinking about the issue is the beginning of wisdom.
@Michael
but I don't think that many people would think Aquinas has anything to do with Jacobins.
Aquinas was all about the Truth. Right error is just as objectionable as Left error.
Note: the original point was that error is a product of parliamentary democracies. My point is that error can arise anywhere and that there is no administrative system that can hope to effectively stop its generation. Monarchies may have their advantages as administrative systems but they're not particularly effective error suppression mechanisms.
The fact is that people who consider themselves right-wing frequently possess mutually conflicting views.
What you consider yourself and what you are in reality are two different things. There are lots of people who feel that they are Right wing but dig a bit deeper and they're off the mark. Hence the importance of definition. Not Left =/=Right.
@Jason
I see your point. All of us have our (cognitive) faults and biases, myself included. What I try to do at least is calibrate my beliefs with objective empirical evidence, as far as is possible. My own view is that the defining feature of men of goodwill (atheist or otherwise) is that there is a commitment or obedience to the Truth, and there is a willingness to change one's views when confronted with new facts. I don't think it's as much of an issue of character as it is of intellectual honesty. Then again, perhaps that is a fundamental facet of Character.
Unfortunately, what's become apparent to me is that many of the "Right" are nothing more than the mirror image of the Left, and are unable to see beyond their particular cognitive bias and are devoid of any intellectual honesty. Holocaust denial is the mark of stupid and it's hard for me to take a Trad Catholic like The Thinking Housewife seriously when she acting in a way which is inconsistent with orthodoxy as well.
I agree, Christian Sailer type guys are needed.
SP, Are you trying to make the case for a natural aristocracy?
No. If I have any point, it's just a practical acceptance that "right wing" is always going to be just a group of people who work together politically against leftists. Beggars can't be choosers.
Btw, I'm not an IQ fetishist. Lots of stupid high IQ people.
I'm just an IQ realist; it's needed for a grasp of the truth. I'm not saying high IQ is not going to reject God, or low IQ is doomed. But politically in a democracy? Low IQ is a disaster. Even look at low SES trads, for example, whose heart is in the right place but many still take Church teachings and twist them like crazy (all the way to SSPX and beyond). That's just IQ.
Thanks for this great post! -This provides good insight.You might also be interested to know more about generating more leads and getting the right intelligence to engage prospects.pegasimediagroupimplements new lead gen ideas and strategies for generating more leads and targeting the right leads and accounts.Pathology email list
Nice article so interesting to read.Check here to visit new website.
gclub casino
goldenslot casino
บาคาร่าà¸à¸à¸™à¹„ลน์
Comments on Zman's Iron Law of Conservatism. Recently a blogger by the name of Zman put up an interesting post, The Iron Law of ...
goldenslot
สูตรบาคาร่า
Post a Comment