Shot across the bow

Handle sounds the call to arms for the communism debate in response to Moldbug’s latest.

(The thoughts herein owe something to a conversation with Loper-OS at the last DC meetup. If he’s reading this, he should really speak up.)

In this post, I’m not going to argue that Moldbug is right, but I will try to show that TGGP is wrong.

TGGP says:

There’s an expression: “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”. Stalin’s Russia & Mao’s China look like each other in many important respects. Such as mass murder, rather than discrimination lawsuits. The United States doesn’t.

If we follow the logic of this definition, the post-Stalin USSR and the post-Mao China aren’t communist anymore. That’s an absurd result, and so the argument is absurd.

If Breshnev doesn’t fit in your definition of “communist,” your definition may be a wee bit too narrow.

TGGP’s view of communism is a caricature of the system of government that emerged in late-stage USSR. As Loper said, it’s akin to believing that the US is still governed by an assembly of dudes in Philadelphia wearing tri-cornered hats. In addition, this sort of fact would be impossible if his view was correct.

Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China may look very different from the modern US. However, if you focus on Gorbachev’s Russia and Deng’s China (or modern China) it’s impossible not to notice that the picture is getting pretty blurry.

I’ve been to China (more than once) and you certainly seem to be able to discuss some ideas more freely there than you can here, for example.

TGGP’s view, followed to its logically conclusion, then requires us to reach the conclusion that self-identified communist countries were not in fact communist. To the extent that they were ever Communist, they seem to have oscillated back and forth between periods of communism and non-communism (whatever this is called in his nomenclature). The definition is so narrow as to become meaningless, and we’d have to come up with a new word to replace the perfectly good one we’ve already got to described the ideas that it already describes. Why would we do that – we not progressives after all?

34 Responses to Shot across the bow

  1. jamzw says:

    Both Orwell and Huxley described communist worlds. Orwell’s was Stalinist, Huxley’s was Tocquevillian, that is to say, a democratic despotism for which the majority volunteers. Huxley’s nightmare has far more staying power.

  2. thrasymachus33308 says:

    Moldbug is oversimplifying for rhetorical effect. A totally Jewish thing to do.

  3. Steve Johnson says:

    TGGP is the king of the narrow objection that is blind to the full implications of the original statement.

    I have always found his comments to be totally worthless.

    • P says:

      Nah. TGGP is easily one of the best commenters around.

    • vcvvvvcv says:

      TGGP is the king of the narrow objection that is blind to the full implications of the original statement.

      I have always found his comments to be totally worthless.

      I couldn’t agree more.

    • TD1 says:

      TGGP’s presence is often the main reason I avoid directing friends to otherwise excellent posts/threads. His narrow objections, as you call them, create the false appearance of easy objections (when in fact they’re stupid red herrings).

      When you’re trying to coax others to consider Dark Enlightenment arguments, you don’t need them to be immediately greeted by some neurotic’s misleading rebuttal. This fool must have an alarm set to Moldbug’s RSS feed, because his goofy comments always sit high in the thread. It’s annoying.

  4. Josh says:

    Mold it is using communism as the name for a broader historical phenomena, revolutionism. This is perfectly reasonable as it is one of the monikers by which revolutionism has called itself. I would like to write more, but I hate this iPad.

  5. SMERSH says:

    Moldbug is right but the objection voiced by TGGP is obvious and plausible enough to ruin AIACC as an effective red pill for the masses.

    You’re going to have to make the same tiresome arguments and explanations over and over, every single time you try to deploy AIACC.

    • Thales says:

      With respect, I believe MM’s semiotics on this are spot-on.

      Every possible “red pill” will be met with semantic defense mechanisms, period. Orwellian twisting of words, thus thought, is their stock and trade. Nothing will change that.

      The point is not, cannot be, mass-conversion. At best, any such red pill is going to be received by 2-3% of the population. The point is to memetically infect those people and let the idea do its work over time. The point is to get those people on-board, those who reject the programming of the Matrix, but would otherwise wander in a fog with no alternatives or only false alternatives.

  6. jshan says:

    It’s perhaps useful to remember that Moldberg runs a blog, and he would be the first to admit that it is strictly for entertainment purposes. AIACC is not meant as an actual thesis; it’s a polemic that shouldn’t have to be pointed out, much less debated. Commies are better for the bashing. Simple as that.

    To their credit, most modern American liberals, except for the very youngest and dumbest, still bristle at being called commies, which is why it’s so amusingly effective. They have in mind something more like European or Scandinavian democratic socialism, whereas anyone with a brain is picturing something more like Hong Kong or Singapore — or perhaps China’s xian system.

    OTOH, all of the Chinese I run into, outside of the business and econ departments, are still actual communists, which is understandable. Except maybe the ones from Hong Kong — and everyone wants to go to Hong Kong, regardless of their priors!

    • Handle says:

      Regardless, what I ask is that someone treat it as an actual thesis especially for the purpose of illustrating the challenge involved in trying to draw meaningful distinctions between the ideological content of political systems.

      The challenge is related to the difficulties in trying to draw lines between species or dialects or literary genres or market spaces or any evolutionary phenomenon. Degrees of relatedness /admixture is probably as good as we can do with these matters. If every economy is a ‘mixed economy’, is the question just ‘how mixed?’ or not?

  7. Leonard says:

    In a society in which “we are all socialists now” is acceptable public discourse, what can you say of America that will get you shunted into the progressives’ “coverup” bin? “America is a communist nation” works, I think. “America is a liberal nation”, or any other variation on “communist”, does not work.

    The lower-brow solution: talking about “BRA” — Black Run America. The late Mr. Auster had a bit of discussion about that, in which I pointed out that it is really quite inaccurate. Still, the phrase works from the POV of triggering progressive crimestop (and coverup).

    There is also the ZOG for the really low brow.

  8. asdf says:

    I loved this Moldbug. It gets to a topic I was trying to explain in the last post, but he has a term that is wonderful: “callous altruism”.

    Here is a quote from another source (you can substitute all of mankind for 21 year olds, it was in context to behavior amongst the young):

    “So to start with, there’s a real problem with needing 21-year-olds to make ethical choices. They pretty much can’t–at best they can respond to social programming and peer influence and make a choice that is accidentally ethical. This suggests that appealing to [editor: their reason] directly is a waste of time. It’s not their ability to reason things out that is in question, because reasoning things out plays a very small role in ethical behavior. It’s moral intuition that matters, and they simply don’t have the firmware to run an advanced moral program that involves being nice to other people at no immediate profit to themselves.

    The question is: Do you feel connected? If you don’t feel connected, your ethical options increase exponentially, and ripping someone off in a small, transactional way doesn’t seem very significant….And it’s easy to come up with “how is it any different from…” reasons that reduce moral principles to inane commandments.

    What people are missing in such discussions is that it’s all about moral intuition–how you feel when you do something, not how you think about it. Moral intuitions leave an emotional impression behind and compel us to make up reasons to follow them. On the other hand, moral reasoning has never been very important to society, because it’s so easy to come up with self-serving arguments that free you to do whatever you want.

    In Christianity, connectedness can be boiled down to: What you do to others, you do to Him. This aphorism amounted to a great moral leap forward, allowing connectedness to work on the moral intuitions of believers, giving them the ability to massively cooperate and build better groups. Technology has created a new man with stunted moral intuition (but a big brain for coming up with selfish rationalizations), rendering him immune to the idea that God is in all of us and wiping out entire categories of moral meaning.”

    To this I replied:

    “*After finishing this I realized it became a bit of a rant.*

    This really gets to the crux of it all. We philosophize a lot about intellectual concepts, but they have near zero effect on moral action. Take something like Rawls. It makes sense, but it doesn’t really effect how people act. A progressive will talk about it as a concept, but they never actually do anything about it (other then shame people and call for the government to solve it).

    The truth is for something like Rawls to drive real action you’ve got to see yourself in the other person. If I meet someone with a similar personality, habits, manners, values, religion, ethny, etc then I can see myself in their shoes. It especially helps if I actually see the person day to day, because we share a neighborhood, go to the same church, participate in the same activities, etc. This allows Rawls make sense at an intuitional level. If they are down on their luck or weren’t born with a lot of currently marketable skills I can see a version of myself like that and would pay taxes or do something else to support them not out of guilt or force, but gladly out of empathy. Only empathetic sacrifice is sustainable sacrifice. The more technology, multiculturalism, and immigration drive us apart the less we are able to empathize and the more people try to resort to universalist intellectual ideas or managerial legalistic coercion, which are bound to fail in the long run because people will resent them and rationalize around them every chance they get.

    This is part of what makes the breakdown in morals a compounding problem. When the chips are down I understand morality not based reason but on my experiences. For instance, I think fathers and families are important because I had a great father. It’s memories of doing things with my Dad and the sacrifices he made that give one strength, not statistics about what happens to households without fathers. That’s why so many people growing up without fathers is so damaging, it informs their moral intuition for the rest of their lives. These failures get passed down through the generations and compound. The immorality of today forms the base of the immorality of tomorrow. It’s one reason why seemingly innocent things that you don’t think immediately hurt anyone tend to have second and third order effects by changing societies moral intuition. Its why people sinning around you tends to increase your propensity to sin.

    What this all comes back to is that all of us are not as smart and in control as we think we are. A lot of what we consider ourselves and our decisions is really just intuition from the accumulation of social experience. At church group on Thursday we talked about a passage on sin and forgiveness. We got to the point where we all admitted that we had sinned in ways we didn’t know where sins because we thought we knew what we were doing and didn’t. The Bible said not to do it but we rationalized a way around it and it blew up in our face. One person related a story about how she commented that if only a person could live their whole life, accumulate all that experience, and then be transported into the body of an infant how much wisdom they would have. Her friend responded that wisdom already exists, its called the Bible. It lends us the experience and moral intuition of all those that came before, even if we have not yet accumulated it ourselves.

    I don’t mean to denigrate reason too much. It was given to us for a for a purpose, and occasionally you are able to use to understand your on a bad path and begin the process of trying to change. My conversion started with Christian apologetics. However, that isn’t what drives me to Christian action or keeps my faith in hard times. It’s things like that church group and the shared solidarity that are part of a process of changing your moral intuition over time through experience, not a switch that goes off because you read an argument.”

    There are all sorts of reasons to doubt the ability to perform charity for those to whom you have no connection. The easy one, which I’ll get out of the way and most already know, is the lack of information/understanding. How does person X know what is good for person Y if they don’t have any connection to X (and thus understanding). This is what I was talking about when discussing colonialism. How could I possibly understand what would make an 80 IQ of a different race happy?

    “I live in a place where I do not gather wood and no-one hunts. The women do not call me to go kill fish. Sometimes I get tired of being in the house, so I get angry with my husband. I go to the stores and look at clothing.”

    “It isn’t like in the jungle. People are separate and alone. It must be that they do not like their mothers.”

    So, she went back to the Amazon, leaving Professor Good to raise their three children in New Jersey.

    This woman would rather live in a mud hut where violent death, rape, famine, and disease where common then the first world. Honestly, the idea that we know better for others has its limits. This is not to say that people don’t ever know what’s better for others. However, to really do what’s best for someone we need connections that allow us to understand.

    That of course is the easier issue. The other issue is that even if you were capable of understanding, would you choose to understand or would you choose to believe whatever you want to believe to aggrandize yourself. In this I would like to voice a fundamental view of man. I view man is inherently sinful and easily prone to sin. His championed mental faculties and will overblown. I believe this because I’ve witnessed, and been a part of, a great deal of sin. To overcome sin one needs genuine love for another. The only reliable way to create love is through genuine connections, and those are not the result of accepting an argument or principal, but through constant effort, experience, habit, and action that take an incredible amount of time (often more then a lifetime) to build. In evolution terms, building a in-group is hard.

    This still leaves the matter of out-groups. How do we relate to people that we have no connection with? Christ offered a way to forge a connection through him. That is why Christ the person, rather then God the concept, is so important. That he came down and forged a real human connection with us by sharing in our nature and suffering. Such a bond can put all of humanity in an in-group. An act with the potential to eliminate incredible suffering (how easy is it to mistreat those of the outgroup, as the cruelty of Christ’s age and his crucifixion should show).

    It’s not all encompassing, its pretty clearly outlined in the Bible that all sorts of things are the purview of the material world and not the religious world (hint: render unto Ceaser that which is…), but it did represent a moral leap forward. People who try to turn that relationship into some intellectual universalist principal miss the point, and often do so not out of a desire to really love another and exercise Christian charity and empathy, but for all the same sinful reasons wrapped in the garb of Christianity. The people you are “helping” remain an out group when the chips are down and real moral action is required, but you pretend you are treating them as an in-group.

    I think everyone should be in an in-group, but there are many kinds of in-groups, and each has different kind of obligations based on the amount of connection we have to them. Your children deserve unconditional love, people in Africa deserve that you should not commit genocide against them to take their resources, and everything in between.

  9. Jefferson says:

    Can they both be wrong? All Fascists are reactionaries, and all fascists are reactionaries, but not all reactionaries are fascists. Communism and communism, as I understand them, owe quite a bit to the economic theories of Karl Marx. Our economy has hints of that, but you have to squint to view it as communist (yes, paper money makes everything free to the person who make the paper, but that’s fairly convoluted, and did Mussolini use fiat money?) The issue with the Cathedral is more cultural and deeper reaching than communism, which was a more specific form of demotism than MM wants it to be.

    That said, I think MM has realized that there are idiots reading his posts now, and so he’s laying out a form of his argument in terms that any idiot can understand. The idea that America is a communist country is a verbalized nails on a chalkboard to almost anyone older than 25, I suspect. It’s a great way to get those who don’t and can’t comprehend MM’s more nuanced points (the evolution of an idea) or aren’t solid on history, but know that Commies are bad and Freedom is good. Is it possible that this is MM making a play at the Republican base (and 95% of the enlistedmen in the Army)?

    • josh says:

      “commuism” is a bit older than Marx. Real indigenous US communism has never been particularly Marxist.,cdr:1,cd_min:1850,cd_max:1872&lr=lang_en

      While I agree that it is reasonable to say that America is a communist country, Moldbugs identification of American with communism is retarded. He even claims that America introduced communism into Russia! For someone who loves history so much, he may want to push his reading back a few hundred years. Europe wasn’t sitting around waiting for England to provide it with a history. Also, I know there’s a big ocean between them, but there was two way cultural transmission between America and Europe from the time of Columbus.

  10. Since I was summoned by name, I should probably respond…

    Personally I find the question of whether ‘X’ is ‘Communist’ distinctly uninteresting. For any value of X. Or rather, about as interesting as the question of whether, say, the Mormon Church is Christian. The preoccupation with labels – ones which do not convey much useful information – is pure wankery which drops the effective IQ of everybody involved in the discussion.

    Let’s say the U.S. is “[C|c]ommunist.” Now what? Do we need a Gorbachev to flip the sign bit on the mass propaganda organs, zap what remains of the economy, invite foreign meddlers in to trash the place? Fly in a necromancer to resurrect Steve Jobs and hand him the Ring of Fnargl? (Do we need a verdict on “[C|c]ommunism” to judge the wisdom of this proposal? Why?)

    I am far more interested in practical differences. Who cares whether, say, the railroads are owned by an absentee lord wearing a crown – or holding a piece of paper he purchased with the Crown’s fiat largesse? I’d rather contemplate: what kind of man is this lord? Has he intelligence? taste? What becomes of the railroad under his control? What kind of successor does he appoint?

    The national wealth of the U.S. was once at least partially in the hands of people not entirely bereft of intelligence, creativity, and future-orientation. It had Bell Labs, the MIT AI Lab, countless other wonders. The national wealth of the Russians was once at least partially in the hands of people with these same characteristics. They had a Valhalla of the physical and mathematical sciences that has never been equaled, before or since. “Stalin received an empire with hand-ploughs and left one with atomic bombs.” The Chinese accomplished a similar feat. I shudder at the idiocy of libertarians who believe that transitions like these – from idiot agrarian pesthole to industrial superpower – can be accomplished with market mechanisms. The market favors whoredom, on the personal and national scale both.

    Whoredom on the national scale results in colonization and all that entails. Not Moldbug’s benevolent Cromer – Herr Schicklgruber’s kind. Think back to Thatcher’s: “How many Russians do we need alive? At most fifty million, to keep the pipelines in good repair.” That kind of colonization. The efforts of certain Russians, Syrians, Libyans, Chinese – to invite foreigners to manage their affairs should be seen in exactly this light.

    As for the piles o’ skulls: whether a government engages in ‘mass murder’ in fact says almost nothing about the ideology of said government – only about the tech level at which it operates.

    The Cathedral doesn’t need to march you off to the Arctic circle and work you to death in the uranium mines. It presently has far subtler tools at its disposal – mass media orchestrated irrelevance for the heresies, ‘Richwining’ for the recalcitrant heretics. And neither of these is called for while the ‘policeman in your head’ is working properly. Should these instruments of control begin to hiccup, cruder ones will be made use of. All the way down to the rack and hot coals.

    The real difference between how the modern ‘USG4’ rolls and Stalin / Mao’s playgrounds isn’t ideological. Think ‘humans’ vs ‘orcs’ instead. The ‘orcish’ world works in certain ways, in many respects more honest and straightforward than our own.

    Heresies Actually Matter there, so heretics and their accomplices tend to end up dead, maimed, or otherwise physically uncomfortable. But among the overcivilized ‘humans,’ any actual threat to the Stationary Bandit is nipped in its ideological bud through the gentle massage of ‘Social Consequences.’ And, on top of that, creatures who regard climate control, broadband, pizza delivery, etc. as necessities won’t be ‘going Pashtun’ on anyone. You can do virtually anything to them without fear. We are all capons here.

  11. Christianity (the one which built Western civilization) croaked with the Victorian age, as described by Orwell. ( It cannot be brought back to life, any more than the religion of the ancient Greeks could be. You can worship Zeus, or you can go through various odd motions and call it Christianity, but it won’t turn you into a J. S. Bach – and won’t let you move into a world inhabited by Bachs.

    There have been attempts, since then, to cook up a substitute – with episodic success.

    In the USSR (circa 1960s) there was a (very typical) song about “the apple trees of Mars.” (

    A (1980s ?) Chinese translation exists. Notably, there is no English version, and I’m not surprised. The Anglos do not dream, not any more.

    What dreams do modern Westerners dream? Are they more or less realistic than the Apple Trees of Mars? More or less inspiring to worthy men? What dreams does the “Alt Right” dream, beyond dreams of victory and the humiliation of the present crop of idiot tyrants and their toadies?

    • Handle says:

      The allowed dreams today are green energy and those related to dogmatic egalitarianism – eradication of racism, elimination of all the ‘gaps’, etc. Dreams like this are very useful as a formula politically, because while they will never be achieved in our lifetimes most people still think such achievement is plausible.

      I think we could build a peopled greenhouse on Mars if we really wanted to (NASA folks really want us to want to), but so what? Martian apples for the lulz? It’s technologically within our grasp, but not politically.

      In the years that it took the US to rebuild one damn tower – in ‘ultra-dynamic’ NYC of all places – China built another China.

      But actually, there are humble dreams and dreamers. You know what most young, smart people in America really want – especially our Progressive friends (all the ones I talk to)? They want to live in NYC’s or DC’s or SF’s that have some fun and culture nearby, but are also safe, affordable, and have ‘good schools’.

      We all know what that requires. They all want it, that alternative mundane utopia, but no one is putting it on offer. I want to tempt them – to offer them this little, practical dream (not so little, really, though without the techno-glamour of sci-fi futures that excites the inner geek). There’s just the little matter of price.

      • My point wasn’t about individual aspirations (as in “American Dream”) but societal ones. The whole concept seems bizarre, alien, and, well, Soviet to virtually everyone I mention it to – which is exactly my point. The Anglos dream as individuals, but not as a people. Certainly not since the 1950s or thereabout.

      • asdf says:

        I agree with the point in general. The problem is that the system as designed does give anyone that could be a threat a way to succeed, it just comes at the expense of everyone else.

        Let’s say I want a family. Maybe the current dating market is fucked up by Cathedral nonsense, but if I become rich I’ll get a wife pretty quick. All I have to do to become rich is sell out to a large institution that is running a Cathedral scam. It will hurt lots of other people trying get the same thing, but most of those people don’t have the ability and opportunity to threaten/support the system so they don’t get the same offer. Anyone above the IQ threshold necessary to matter to the system is offered a place in the system. The more of a threat you are the more the system will reward you to co-opt you.

        This isn’t new. When my Dad’s union was on strike in the 80s they offered him a spot in management if he would sell out the union (my Dad was one of the few college grads and an unofficial leader). My Dad said no. He did so because he cared about the people he had a connection to also doing well, it wasn’t enough for him to do well at their expense.

        So when we say that we are offering people a way to be successful what do we mean? Because under current circumstances selling out and going along are the best paths to individual success. What does the entire HBD/reaction field offer besides some techniques to bang a few chicks on the side, which gets old fast. If you want to build something that matters for yourself the easiest way is to sell out, that gets you access to the best loot of the system.

        It’s only if you care about others because you are connected to them in a meaningful enough way to genuinely put aside you own narrow interest for the collective good that you can ever fight power in a way where everyone can win.

  12. Tarl says:

    TGGP’s view, followed to its logically conclusion, then requires us to reach the conclusion that self-identified communist countries were not in fact communist.

    Which is… exactly what the useful idiots in the West always said — and still say.

  13. teageegeepea says:

    It is not my position that all communist regimes must be characterized by mass murder. It’s just an obvious difference that makes a handy example. The more important bit is the state owning the means of production. Post-Deng China is arguable based on what one thinks of the state run enterprises, I say they’re a small enough portion of the economy relative to the private sector that it’s no longer communist economically.

    Interesting you mention eugenics in China. Eugenics was once highly popular among socialists. If you want to criticize liberals for being irrationally opposed to discussions of eugenics, bringing up communism doesn’t seem very helpful.

    Josh, is America revolutionist because of the American revolution, English civil war & “glorious revolution”? I find that less helpful than Mencius’ depiction of the Cathedral as a force which propagandizes on behalf of the people in power.

    • Try this small (but perhaps very tough) philosophical experiment. What’s the opposite of mass murder? I don’t mean sainthood and good statesmanship, but rather something equally repugnant – but with “the sign bit flipped.” Think about the kings and kingdoms who are getting away with (let’s call it) ‘redruM’, simply because the crime has no proper name yet.

    • Josh says:

      I have a full explanation, but not on my wife’s g-d iPad.

  14. I am unenthusiastic about this. AIACC is more of a burden than a benefit, and now a lot of development will have to be retrofitted to accommodate this, simply because Moldy’s promulgation is sufficient to cement it to the neoreactionary memeplex. Communism and democratic socialism are related political philosophies, but they are certainly not equivalent or identical. Any attempt to explain the AIACC would amount to “Well the reasons it can say it isn’t is what makes it what it is.”

    The two political philosophies should not be confused with each other. While they both stand under the same ideological (egalitarian) bent, both are separate approximations of that ideology through practically different means. The morphological distinctions on the political theory level make it a useless and, if embraced, hindering meme.

  15. spandrell says:

    Calling the Cathedral “communist” sounds like the kind of rhetorical point that libertarians and other free market types would like. It lacks a lot of nuance really.

    Rhetorical points must be judge for whether they enrich the discussion or they dumb it down. Calling Clinton, or Bush with the same name as Stalin doesn’t really enrich the discussion, does it?

  16. Scott Locklin says:

    I figure, best case, Moldbug was playing his usual “ooo, lookie at the red pill” rhetorical tricks which appeal to his readership of people who have time to read 6000 word stemwinders with 500 words of actual content. Kind of like when he noticed (much more accurately) that the US is a modern day Puritan theocracy, minus the God part. Perhaps he’s been reading old Bircher pamphlets instead of the Paul Gottfreid he got the Puritan idea from. He should read more Gottfreid.

    Cultural Marxism doesn’t need “communism” to flourish. And of course, the US was much more “communistic” in the days of price controls, 90% marginal tax rates and central economic planning, which were not all that long ago. In the 50s, for example, this country built a huge network of national labs (which are presently in a sad state of decay), it had Lincoln and Bell Labs, its small arms were designed and manufactured in National Armories (dating from the beginning of the nation), it built enormous centrally planned highways, it had a huge spy network, and the central design bureaus more or less designed little things like Moon Rockets and the Digital Computer. This system; far more communistic than the present situation, worked reasonably well: better than what we have now. Probably because the people who administered it were pragmatists, rather than ideologues who are really, really concerned that kindergarteners know the proper way to put a condom on a banana.

  17. […] famous free-speech related court case of the era just before the Great Depression. Foseti made his shot across the bow, and now I’ll make mine.  We’ll get to the case in a bit, but first a little […]

  18. […] the metaphysical grounds of neoreactionary thought, as rumored by Moldbug’s AIACC and the attendant discussion pursuant. Yet there is also war and rumors of war, foretelling a potential Moldbuggian/techno-commercialist […]

  19. トリーバーチ コインケース

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: