In this post, for about the next two dozen paragraphs, John Galt gets into the prevailing popular morality, which we shall henceforth call the bourgeois morality (since it isn't strictly Christian), based on sacrifice. In the process Ayn Rand / John Galt has set up a straw dog, why bother even calling it a straw man? for the purposes of flogging, no doubt to impress those who she would hope to persuade; the producers, within which she includes traders, most of whom do not strictly speaking produce much of anything. We will notice that Rand, as with so many others, never bothers to question the basic assumptions regarding business practices, especially usury. We may come to consider this omission the fatal flaw in her system (we have encountered enough serious flaws so far anyway).
But increasingly it matters just who this Ayn Rand person was. Jean-Paul Sartre, who was born the same year as Rand, sometimes described it as “authentication;” the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures. Ayn Rand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in 1905, which was the year of the Russo-Japanese War and twelve years before the Bolshevik revolution. She grew up in tumultuous times for her family and herself, though she did manage to become quite well read. Despite schooling, for which she seems to have had an ambivalence, she comes across more as a genuine autodidact. In 1925 she came to America where she stayed with relatives in Chicago before making her way west to Los Angeles. She became an American citizen in 1931. We'll keep this brief sketch handy and add to it as we continue.
Over the years, Ayn Rand has been thought of as a materialist (which she really is) who is trying to subsume ideas and concepts which are part of a mystical understanding of reality, including its metaphysical ideas of a “spirit” or “soul,” or as a spokesperson for business ethics as we have come to know them; corporatism, or of an exponent of radical conservative philosophy (which she certainly isn't). Others have sought Rand out as she seemed closest to the rational philosophy of Aristotle. However, having gone this far, we really think that Rand, like most of us, cannot escape her own background, her own upbringing or her own experiences, in this case growing up in Lenin's Soviet Union, and that these experiences strongly colour John Galt's ... rhetoric.
John Galt continues,
You who are worshippers of the zero-you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death.
You in this case is specific and general at the same time and refers to those who assume they are alive, but are not really living in the fullest sense of which Rand is attempting to articulate. It might be that despite her activity and energy, that she herself felt dead while living and wanted to write her way out of her own personal dilemma. It's certainly possible. But weird things are to follow.
Joy is not ‘the absence of pain,’
intelligence
is not ‘the absence of stupidity,’
light
is not ‘the absence of darkness,’
an
entity is not ‘the absence of a nonentity.’
These statements are in the form, A is not the opposite of A. Either the apparent opposite is not the real opposite of any of the A's or the statements themselves are flawed or meaningless, unless she has something else going on which she is trying to articulate, a transcendental definition of these things; joy, intelligence, light, existence. Our hazard lights are flashing idealism already. Will she press her arguments on toward a full blown ideology? It is likely.
Building is not done by abstaining from demolition;
centuries
of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single
girder for you to abstain from demolishing-
Abstinence was something Rand regarded as useless, worse than useless as it never accomplished anything, never produced anything of value, and those who habitually abstained, monks chief among them perhaps, were held up to ridicule and worse. Rand values achievement, rugged individualism, all that which was thought to have built America and the other Western nations. But she is critically unaware of the financial forces behind the scenes that were as much corrosive and destructive as human energies were productive.
and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: ‘Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production.’
This sounds exactly like what many of the farmers in the Ukraine and other industrialists might have been told by Lenin and certainly she would have been aware of the violence that resulted.
I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void.
Her answer to the collectivists; die in your own nothingness!
Existence is not a negation of negatives.
Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation,
evil
is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us.
The first sentence may explain the series of A is not the opposite of A statements we read above.
Perish, because we have learned that a zero cannot hold a mortgage over life.
Again, Rand's metaphors from finance, an occupation you can certainly bet she never criticizes. By holding a mortgage is implied that life is something most people are engaged in buying on the instalment plan, and boy aren't they? Again she is telling these would be collectivists who produce nothing, but demand it of the producers, to go off somewhere and die. It's doubtless exactly how she felt for much of her first 20 years in Soviet Russia.
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness.
You
exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of
earning rewards.
Threats
will not make us function; fear is not our incentive.
It
is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.
Let's take as givens the following; the achievement of happiness, earning rewards, fear is not our incentive, life that we wish to live. These are all reasonable, but the reasons why people do not achieve happiness, earn rewards, succumb to fear or act as if they are being dragged through life kicking and screaming, may have little to do with individual volition or the refusal to think. Rand seems carelessly unaware that these are real impediments. Would she have amounted to anything in the scheme of things, had she remained in the Soviet Union? It's doubtful.
You, who have lost the concept of the difference,
you
who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-
and
secretly add that fear is the more ‘practical’-
Who would the you be here except a commissar, especially the bit about fear being practical. Many wicked politicians and bureaucrats think that to make people afraid is great sport and besides which it gets them to do as they are told.
you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned.
You
dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you
have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you
dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your
dread of the only act that could save you: thinking.
Thinking as the only act that could save each human being? Then learning how to think, not what to think, is the means whereby the commissars and others of their ilk might be saved? Fundamentally, there are those on a path of evil that becomes for them so dense that they cannot escape it and thought, of the rigorous kind Rand insists upon, is all but impossible. Watch carefully as Rand attempts to set up a new good vs. evil morality that's based on something like ... doing business, and you'll understand how where she came from and who she was matters greatly to her philosophy.
The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
Speaking of collectivists, their morality is clearly of death, for “the masses” not themselves. But I guess it's not as she supposes, for she has accepted the favours of the moneyed elite to write a screed against the collectivism of her youth. We accept, as if it is not already quite obvious, that Rand's contempt for collectivism is also our own. However she will seem uncritical toward those factors in an economy that STEALS real value from producers, even when there really is no benefit to those who are supposed to be benefited, because that's not the real agenda and I sincerely doubt that Rand knew what it was.
Death is the standard of your values,
death
is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no
escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the
knowledge that that pursuer is yourself.
This is quite revealing and as far as we may know, might actually be true. Why wouldn't the same profile we observed before, that even the most rational actually occasionally behave in the most obvious irrational ways, be many times as prevalent among the looting class at the top?
This is quite revealing and as far as we may know, might actually be true. Why wouldn't the same profile we observed before, that even the most rational actually occasionally behave in the most obvious irrational ways, be many times as prevalent among the looting class at the top?
Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.
Here then is the straw dog of conventional bourgeois morality ...
Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
This would obviously seem a slap at the common morality, not only mis-taught by many Christians, but actually employed by the commissars to set up their new social order. What's the difference really between the common man of “the masses” who must accept ownership by the state, turn over any and all production for the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” creed and the hopeless sinner in need of salvation through the strenuous activities of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) ?
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him-it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
We remind our audience of the word Soviet, that it implies management or advice, the directed man of the Soviet commissariat is no different than the terrified little man made sick over his sins and expecting nothing but hell. The profiteer may be either the state or the church.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
There is a pause here in the text, this sentence is made to stand out for added emphasis. Original sin is a theological idea that is taught and used to convince people to follow a plan set out for their salvation; create the need and provide the solution, but that doesn't mean that it is literally true or even that it has any basis in the original scriptures. We're not going to deal with any of that here, but we are going to maintain throughout that this whole animus against conventional bourgeois morality (so she can attempt to set up her own) is a straw dog.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.
If a wrong action is not perceived by the actor as wrong, how can the actor be condemned?
If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral.
We hasten to add that just as it is unwarranted to consider a man evil by birth, so it is equally valid not to consider him good. A is not the opposite of A; evil is not the opposite of good, indeed they are two often quite separate things.
To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.
I beg your pardon? We do this all the time. Maybe it's time we tried something else, our analysis of reality might become clearer.
To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature.
Do we hold it against an animal that it is only an animal? The concepts involved here are similar in that we hold nature and man as somehow wrong, but who cares if it is a mockery of nature? Nature is not mocked or evaded without peril. Nature does not care about such things, it is nature.
To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice.
To
hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of
reason.
To
destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single
concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched.
Yet
that is the root of your code.
I broke it up for easier reading. Well, at least Roman Catholicism was / is part of the ruling structures and Christian Orthodoxy in the east was very often the prop of despots, and it is easy to see this attack as gratuitous; “hey, I get to attack Christianity, so why don't I, since my criticism is in accordance with my basically materialistic philosophy?” If it makes her happy, and it makes lots of people who were brought up in these repressive religious systems happy, then flogging popular notions of Christianity becomes socially and intellectually acceptable, even respectable. But what she has said could just as easily be applicable to a secular collectivist orthodoxy. “The masses” need leaders to guide them through the dictatorship of the proletariat to the working man's paradise. Yes, it was very similar.
Unfortunately, the Christianity that is taught is at considerable variance with the original scriptures in the original languages, which may be even more radical than anything that has ever been taught in the name of God or Christ. This is certainly not the place to discuss these things, except to say again that it is common, low and expected to be able to slap Christianity with impunity, especially when one is propounding a morality that is based primarily, let's face it folks, on material acquisitiveness.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a ‘tendency’ to evil.
In other words, don't try and make us imagine that your morality thinks well of man when it doesn't.
A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favour of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
Well and good I suppose as far as it goes. Now as regards the authenticity of Alisa Rosenbaum, she was from a middle class Jewish family that were not particularly devout and later she declared herself an atheist. She is an outsider slapping a straw dog, which could be applicable to either a bourgeois Christian morality or a collectivist one. But she certainly has a sensitive spot regarding guilt, as frankly do I.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being.
That's not the real story, but notice how this interpretation has become quite popular over the years.
It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labour-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labour, without love-he was not man.
This is standard modern critique. It stands as a critique of theologians and scholastic pundits more than primary sources.
Man’s fall, according to your teachers,
( ... yes, according to our teachers, who may obfuscate or imperil the actual truth, because maybe the real truth is far too radical for even themselves to bear ... )
was that he [man] gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.
Maybe, but it sounds simplistic ...
They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.
No,
they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that
alien object: his body.
No,
they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him
lose his body.
They
seek to help him, they say, against his pain-and they point at the
torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels
that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that
splits his soul and body.
We are going to state with some emphasis that all of this is a convoluted parody of the real morality being slapped; something invented by theologians and not accurately reflected by the literal scriptures, but no matter.
They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other.
They
have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies
engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures,
contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to
injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but
his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth-and
that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of
patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which
leads into the freedom of the grave.
... or so it has been made to seem for untold thousands of years.
They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death.
A
body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost-
yet
such is their image of man’s nature: the battleground of a struggle
between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil
volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that
everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable
exists.
The last part is a certain slap at Immanuel Kant, the irrationalist philosopher who took philosophy and society with it off on a left hand turn from reliance on reality and reason as primary guides. But I suppose that I really have to just pass over much of this, as I don't personally believe this represents authentic Christianity at all, nor is it anything I personally believe. However that may be, there are many who have been harmed by these dogmatic systems, who have a need to find themselves on more solid ground outside this largely man made mess.
Do you observe what human faculty that doctrine was designed to ignore? It was man’s mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart.
It was man's mind that had to be negated in order to make him a slave to the authorities of the day, whether they be princes or commissars.
Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations-he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone.
I suppose this is meant to sound clever ...
And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help of a morality that proclaims that he’ll find no solution and must seek no fulfilment on earth.
Much of this is true, but what of the organizing leadership, and what of their much better more comfortable lifestyles based on what they have STOLEN from their subjects? Does she ever get to them? Or perhaps these are her heroes, whose real motives and characters she doesn't know. Much is assumed, even by someone that's supposedly thoroughly rational.
Real existence, they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent-and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.
Mystical claptrap, surely ...
As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness.
Wow, finally we may be getting somewhere ...
Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes.
Ah, she missed her chance. It would have been better stated, one to their revelation, the other to their revolution.
No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.
The goals of Church and State are thus one and are equally invalid; the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, but Rand's critique is badly skewed so that she doesn't see the political dialectic behind it, something that was certainly not part of the message of Christ or of authentic Christianity. Frankly, when one really doesn't know, and she frankly doesn't know, and steps up to criticize, it only serves to weaken one's own arguments. Rand may have striven to reach a rational morality, but she should have avoided the easy approach to criticize religion, that's way too easy. How about paying attention to the wilful disregard for reason that every human being will tend to show, whether they ever came in contact with a religion or not? People act irrationally and will do so as a deliberate counter to rational actions they perhaps would prefer to do, but do not. She has already explained much of this, but as we have already seen, she had to take a considerable leap off the Objectivist bridge by basing ultimate authority in the individual's mind. It may be a more clever appeal to authority, but it is still just the same.
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence.
Turn this around and eliminate God from the equation entirely and what do you get? Is there anything that might be knowable that exists beyond man’s power to conceive? We must answer yes or we declare man to be a know it all, which of course is ... not realistic.
The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself.
And this is not entirely honest. The mystics of muscle DO embody their Society in single individuals; Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, any number of present and past dictators would do.
Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society.
We discount the former as an inherently false teaching and are far more interested in the latter ...
Man’s standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith.
This is more beside the point rubbish, frankly ...
Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgement and must be obeyed as a primary absolute.
Again, we are far more interested in the latter ...
The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.
... and lately we hear more about zombies, don't we?
His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.
We know nothing about rewards beyond the grave, but we can and do know about what the mystics of muscle promise and everything they say is a lie; they have no regard for anyone's grandchildren except perhaps their own.
Selfishness-say both-is man’s evil.
Selfishness as properly defined is evil, what Rand wants to elevate is that quality of being self-concerned, which the language pretty much lacks the correct terms to express with precision, therefore she rather lavishly chooses to elevate selfishness as part of her, sorry, essentially materialistic morality.
Man’s good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.
In a sense, we have come full circle, but all we really see is that behind the scenes are those who seek to manipulate the mind of the public, public relations, advertising, etc. for political and materialistic gains for those who are on top. You may have noticed that Rand never dares criticize them, as after all, they paid her. Perhaps her typical anti-Christianity screed was after all, what the people that paid her really believed and wanted her to write. I certainly wouldn't doubt it.
Whoever is now within reach of my voice, whoever is man the victim, not man the killer, I am speaking at the deathbed of your mind, at the brink of that darkness in which you’re drowning, and if there still remains within you the power to struggle to hold on to those fading sparks which had been yourself-use it now. The word that has destroyed you is ‘sacrifice.’ Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You’re still alive. You have a chance.
I suppose it makes no difference that self-sacrifice isn't really a central part of the Christian message at all! It IS the teaching of many moral teachers within Christianity (and perhaps other religions as well) and those teachers may have to explain themselves, as they have led many astray, because primarily the powers that be wanted compliant people and would seek to make them compliant using any means possible, including religion.
‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious.
‘Sacrifice’
does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but
of the good for the sake of the evil.
‘Sacrifice’
is the surrender of that which you value in favour of that which you
don’t.
These are pretty general statements. We would step back and suggest that clearly ANY coerced sacrifice is of the good for the sake of the evil, someone else's evil, as history has repeatedly shown, usually calls to go to war to support or expand the domain of the ruling classes, whether they be churchmen or secular potentates.
If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is.
If
you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not
a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is.
If
you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is
not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbour’s child and let
your own die, it is.
If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is.
If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is.
If
you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if
you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a
partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give
him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of
sacrifice in full.
No, these kinds of “sacrifices” are NOT correct! It is a mistaken interpretation and to the extent that it persists, it of course serves a coercive, usually political, purpose.
If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love.
If
you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater
virtue.
If
you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of
the virtues you can practice.
This too is completely wrong, she doesn't know anything but the usual slanders, and she fails to recognize the power exerted from behind the scenes, so that people conform, obey, etc.
A sacrifice is the surrender of a value.
Full
sacrifice is full surrender of all values.
If
you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return
for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no
self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace
of any gain dilutes your virtue.
This IS what a lot of people out there sincerely believe and of course they are sincerely wrong in their belief.
If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
... according to this bourgeois morality. There may be many theologians and other mystics who think this way, but Rand is making statements taken out of context. There is actually very little that is ever required of anyone to attain virtue in any religious system; Islam might be the simplest of them all. Virtue remains, that which can not help but be good, as in a virtuous action.
You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man-and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
And now being dead herself, whether gratefully dead or not, what was the worth of her life except to herself? Was she well loved or even well liked by countless millions? Hardly. But would even that have sufficed to make Rand a really happy person? Some, like Florence King, certainly didn't think so. She branded Rand a misanthrope. But probably, we'll never know.
If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice.
It
is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted.
It
is not a sacrifice.
It
is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your
personal desire.
To
achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love
it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the
splendour it can give you-you must feel the twist of every knife as
it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out
of your body,
... really quite florid writing ...
It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.
One wonders whether Rand experienced these restrictions personally. It was one thing to withstand what the state was doing where she was young, it may have been another to confound whatever religious experience she saw around her too. Yes, she decided at a fairly early age that she was an atheist. Many ethnic Jews of her status were in the same position at the time. But something else, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendour it can give you sounds a great deal like the earth mother religions that are starting up and supported by the same elitist powers from behind the scenes. We'll take up this discussion in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment