Radio shows

Jeff Nyquist & Greg Nyquist On Crisis Sep15 2009 mp3

  • Download Faster
  • Download torrent
  • Direct Download
  • Rate this torrent +  |  -
Jeff Nyquist & Greg Nyquist On Crisis Sep15 2009 mp3

Download Anonymously! Get Protected Today And Get your 70% discount


Torrent info

Name:Jeff Nyquist & Greg Nyquist On Crisis Sep15 2009 mp3

Infohash: 5D90C3F07DAFED46724E1E6002C6077AF3B4DD48

Total Size: 52.00 MB

Seeds: 0

Leechers: 0

Stream: Watch Full Movie @ Movie4u

Last Updated: 2014-07-16 17:49:02 (Update Now)

Torrent added: 2009-09-24 05:36:46






Torrent Files List


Jeff Nyquist & Greg Nyquist On Crisis Sep15 2009.mp3 (Size: 52.00 MB) (Files: 1)

 Jeff Nyquist & Greg Nyquist On Crisis Sep15 2009.mp3

52.00 MB
 

Announce URL:

Torrent description

geopolitical.us


http://jrnyquist.com/

http://strategiccrisis.com/



The Investment Climate in 2059
by J. R. Nyquist


While visiting the court of Attila the Hun in A.D. 448, a Roman diplomat named Priscus was greeted by a barbarian who suddenly began speaking Greek without an accent. Priscus couldn’t believe his ears. The man was dressed as a Hun, lived as a Hun and fought alongside the Huns. How could this possibly be?

The man’s story was simple: he had been born in Greece, had moved to Viminacium on the Danube, became a merchant and married a very rich wife. Then, one day the barbarians overran the frontier. They plundered the town, scattered its inhabitants, and took him into captivity. Adapting to new circumstances he worked and fought for the Huns, earned enough money to buy his freedom, married a barbarian wife, had children, and was welcome at the table of a leading barbarian chief. “He considered his new life among the [Huns] … better than his old life among the Romans,” wrote Priscus.

The Greek-turned-barbarian explained that the Huns had more leisure time than Romans, and weren’t constantly harassed by worries. In time of war, Romans were more likely to die because their safety depended on cowardly generals “who cannot support the conduct of war.” Even worse was the condition of Roman subjects in peace time, “for the exaction of taxes is very severe, and unprincipled men inflict injuries on others,” he said, using the wealth they have stolen to bribe judges and exempt themselves from legal penalties.

This reminds me of a passage in The Consolation of Philosophy, where Boethius argues that political power has a sinister aspect. It supposedly imparts dignity and importance. But there is nothing intrinsically good in this. If it was good, he noted, it would “never fall into the hands of evil men, since incompatible things do not usually associate…. There is no doubt, then, that for the most part it is evil men who hold the offices….”

“Power,” wrote Boethius, “does not make a man master of himself if he is imprisoned by the indissoluble chains of wicked lusts; and when high office is bestowed on unworthy men, so far from making them worthy, it only betrays them and reveals their unworthiness.” Such is true of individuals as well as nations. Rome’s great power over the ancient world enervated and corrupted civilization until it rotted and collapsed. And so, we should not be surprised if life under the barbarians was preferable to life under the corrupt judges and tax collectors of the late Empire.

It is interesting, in light of this, to think of our own civilization. Today’s individual enjoys wealth and power unknown to previous generations. We have the power to travel great distances in a short time. We have instantaneous communications, the accumulated learning of the centuries at our fingertips, but the scope of our thinking is narrow and our minds more ignorant than ever. The power of modern civilization has not made us better people. Instead of bestowing worthiness on us, our wealth and technology merely reveal our unworthiness.

We think that we are more sophisticated than our grandfathers. But we are less sophisticated, by far. Our descent into darkness is best demonstrated by listing old artists beside new artists; by listing old statesmen beside new statesmen; by comparing the lives of our grandparents to our own. The sociologist notices that more children are born outside of marriage, that epidemic cheating has taken our schools by the throat, that we have incompetence in business and government, that we find banality and ignorance on all sides. What conclusion can he draw? The powers and advantages of modern life haven’t made us worthy. They merely serve to amplify and accelerate our unworthiness.

I am amazed by those who think the U.S. economy is going to recover, that global peace is attainable, that American liberties are going to survive American barbarism. Look at our culture today: men are no longer men, and women are no longer women; capitalists no longer uphold free market principles; constitutional government no longer adheres to the Constitution; enemies are treated as friends. Nobody reads the signs. Nobody sees what is coming. Look at the birthrate among Europeans. Look at the abandonment of European culture. Look at the Muslim birthrate. Europe will be Islamic in fifty years. Long before that, the Russians and Chinese will achieve nuclear dominance of the globe. What do you think the investment climate will be in 2059?

How to Immanentize the Eschaton
by J. R. Nyquist


In 1969 a sixteen-year-old boy wrote to conservative columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., “to discover just what, in God’s name, the phrase ‘to immanentize the eschaton’ means.” Buckley replied: “Eschaton means, roughly, the final things in the order of time; immanentize means, roughly, to cause to inhere in time. So that to immanentize the eschaton is to cause to inhere in the worldly experience and subject to human dominion that which is beyond time and therefore extraworldly. To attempt such a thing is to deny the transcendence of God; to assume that Utopia is for this world.”

Buckley’s answer strikes me as humorous because “to immanentize the eschaton’ basically means to bring about the end of the world (i.e., “the final things in the order of time”). It may be said, that those who deny the transcendence of God carry within themselves the apocalypse as they attempt to build their silly Utopia. For what better way is there for bringing about the “end times”? Those who would free us from racism, sexism and classism, seeking to make “the world as one,” fail to realize that humanity isn’t perfectible; that any attempt to make men perfect is likely to confuse essential instincts, breaking up whatever workable order we’ve managed to achieve.

One is reminded of the results of socialism – in Russia and the West. One is also reminded of President Bush’s Utopian attempt to bring democracy to Iraq. There is a passage from a novel by David Ignatius about Middle East espionage, titled Agents of Innocence. It expresses the damning verdict of an Arab who had been working for the Americans. At first he thought the Americans had the toughness to persevere. He thought they were “cynical enough” to liberate the Arab world (and t hereby do something good).

The disillusioned Arab wrote to his handlers: “I was wrong. Americans are not hard men. Even the CIA has a soft heart. You want so much to achieve good and make the world better, but you do not have the stomach for it. And you do not know your limitations. You are innocence itself. You are the agents of innocence. That is why you make so much mischief.”

The great teaching of David Ignatius may be condensed, as follows: Men who are not sufficiently cynical, who are soft-hearted, who do not have the stomach for what they propose, cannot do anything good. If you want to level nations and kill millions of men, adopt a Utopian foreign policy. Ignatius’s Arab tells his American handlers, “You convince people to put aside their old customs and allegiances and to break the bonds that hold the country together. With your money and your schools and your cigarettes and music, you convince us that we can be like you. But we can’t. And when the real trouble begins, you are gone. And you leave your friends, the ones who trusted you, to die.”

There is, indeed, a millenarian spirit at work. This spirit now contaminates American domestic policy as well as military policy. “You urge us to open up the windows of heaven,” wrote Ignatius’s Arab. “But you do not realize that the downpour will come rushing through and drown us all.”

There is no better way to immanentize the eschaton. And today we are directly on course, trying our level best, to hurry the Last Trumpet. We rudely expect that we will achieve Utopia on the installment plan – with slightly higher taxes. We have had eight years of a Republican Utopian, and now we are in for a Utopian Democrat. They are “agents of innocence” every one, determined to “open the windows of heaven” and drown us all.

President Obama is going to Moscow next week in order to assure that our Utopia becomes a “nuclear free” Utopia. Here the “audacity of hope” meets Stalin’s grandbaby henchmen. It is believed that the Russians and Americans will agree to reduce their nuclear forces to below 1,700 warheads on each side. Meanwhile, the Russians prepare another invasion of Georgia as their agents of influence stage provocations in Ukraine and flex their muscles in Latin America. The leadership of the United States, in the name of Utopia, is ready to agree to anything so long as they can plausibly move forward with unilateral American disarmament. In other words, they will be immanentizing the Eschaton.


Why Most Things Do Not Matter
by J. R. Nyquist


Imagine you are on the Titanic, and the ship is sinking after sideswiping an iceberg. Does it matter if you need a haircut? Should you be worrying about your investments? Under life-and-death circumstances, only life seems to matter. The trivia that clogs our existence is swept away by the sudden realization of what is actually at stake. In this sense, true philosophy is found on the deck of the Titanic. It leads us to discover what really matters; that is to say, why most things actually do not matter.

Using the Titanic as an analogy, we all find ourselves on a ship of state. And for Europeans, Russians and Americans – at the least – a figurative iceberg has torn through the underside of our ship. In other words, something cold and dangerous has damaged us from underneath. Of course, this is something we strenuously deny. We say to ourselves, “The ship of state is not fatally damaged.” We therefore continue our vain activities, imagining that the latest rearrangement of the deck chairs constitutes a move in the right direction. People do not consider their actual position, where they are headed or what vessel they have embarked upon. The passengers and crew of many countries have deluded themselves with rhetoric and ideas that are utterly at variance with reality.

Cold bureaucratic words seem harmless enough, like the ocean rolling endlessly along. But sometimes whole icebergs are hidden in such words. The recent meeting of the BRIC countries is a good example. BRIC stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. Combining these four countries into a new economic powerhouse was the brainchild of a KGB general. In such waters, cold and forbidding, one finds ice in abundance. “We the leaders of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China,” etc. What does it mean? The joint statement says: “The emerging and developing economies must have a greater voice and representation in international financial institutions….” Note the sharp edge of the iceberg itself: “We also believe that there is a strong need for a stable, predictable and more diversified international system.” (Dominated by Russia and China.) “The poorest countries have been hit hardest by the financial crisis. The international community needs to step up efforts to provide liquid financial resources for these countries.” (Read “bailout.”) The BRIC statement also proposes to deal with “climate change based on the principle of common differentiated responsibility….” (Read “the Americans pay” to lower global temperatures.) “We underscore our support for a more democratic and just multi-polar world order … and collective decision-making for all states.” (Read, “We support socialism and an international redistribution of wealth, and taking America down a peg or two.”)

In the name of stabilizing the world, Russian President Medvedev encapsulated the destabilizing principle of BRIC when he said, “The idea of fairness is probably one of the key terms that we should use today.” The reader may ask, in this context, what is fairness? It is a codeword for the redistribution of global power from rich to poor countries. It is “communism” writ large, yet disguised behind innocuous language. To make a revolution that will ultimately kill billions of people through starvation, famine and war, you must emphasize “fairness.” There is no better slogan for promoting global catastrophe. Here is a thinly disguised assault on the U.S. dollar, capitalism and the protecting hand of America.

If the United States was the all-power malignant cancer that so many prefer to denounce, then why hasn’t this malignancy devoted its vast treasury to the construction of a successful pro-American mythology? Why are the people of Brazil and India allowing themselves to be used by Moscow and Beijing? To answer simply: The United States does not defend itself rhetorically, and does not have a coherent strategy – failing to recognize its enemy. The Americans believe in freedom, and they believe that the “truth will prevail in the market place of ideas.” They believe that their benevolent intentions will persuade others to adopt the American way. In a speech given to senior Party cadres in 2005, Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian once noted, “In Chinese history … the ruthless have always won and the benevolent have always failed.”

What is true for Chinese history, however, has not been true in American history. Only those who appreciate this fact will understand what the elimination of the United States would signify. No country is perfect, of course; but the intentions of the United States are not those of China or Russia. The strategic misdirection of these two countries will ultimately produce the most devastating war that the human race has yet experienced. BRIC is part of that strategic misdirection. Much of the poison that circulates on the internet, entering our political discourse, belongs to that same mode of information warfare once referred to as “active measures.” Consider, in this context, the words of yet another Chinese general, Li Jijin: “Unconsciously accepting an opponent’s strategic misdirection causes a nation to be defeated or collapse, and not know why.”

Is this really possible? Decades of information warfare – through active disinformation – has already had an effect. The process touches on topics as unrelated as religion and art, diplomacy and child-rearing. The subtle poison of certain ideas, the mischief of new disciplines, has sometimes arisen through a generalized nihilistic tendency. But also, there is a positive design at work. For nobody has yet explained civilization’s sudden unwillingness or inability to crush pathological growths that have sabotaged our collective sanity. The serious strategist, looking at society’s gradual surrender to one suicidal idea after another, says to himself: “An enemy could not have devised a better engine for our ultimate destruction.”

I am reminded that society does not automatically promote its own health, or its defense against enemies (foreign and domestic). Somebody has to know what is needed and do something. The problem we face today is best described in the words of Cato the Younger, when he characterized the Roman Senate in the midst of a plot to destroy the state as “each waiting for someone else to act.” That seems to be our position, today. We do not see the danger as it approaches, or maybe we don’t want to see the danger. The evil of our time is not easy to cope with. One might say it is “inconvenient.” As General Chi explained to his Party comrades four years ago, “Death is the engine that moves history forward.” This totalitarian admonition is not put forward as a principle of American foreign policy, but as a hint regarding Chinese and Russian intentions.

That others are promoting conditions leading to your demise should be understood; that language itself is a tool in the promotion of life or death, should also be understood. But we understand next to nothing. We are too busy with things that do not matter. Meanwhile, we ignore something of great importance. We ignore something that is a matter of life and death.


American Imperialism, Part I
by J. R. Nyquist


W hen we give something a name, it is a common error to think we understand it. But we often don’t understand. Even worse, it is possible to misname things and build a false set of understandings leading to disaster. For example, the outgoing president has attempted to build democratic institutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with this, Islam has been called “a religion of peace.”

When politicians are allowed to mislabel things, to attribute false capabilities or attributes, to apply solutions for insoluble problems, then you know that something wretched is in the works. But have we given that wretched thing the right name? Is the attempt to build Muslim democracies a case of “imperialism”?

I am looking at my grandfather’s 1943 Webster’s New International Dictionary for the definition of imperialism. Here is what I find: “(1) The power or government of an emperor; imperial authority or system. (2) The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion or empire of a nation….”

The official position of the United States in its “war against terror” is not imperialist. It is something worse. In fact, we need a new word to describe it – and a new set of understandings to see our way out of it. If you read President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, you will discover its foundation. According to President Bush, “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

The president’s statement is logically correct, but strategically nonsensical. While the “expansion of freedom” is desirable for America, it is prohibitively costly and beyond our capabilities. It antagonizes every despot on the planet, and causes them to join with our enemies. In the Middle East, Bush’s policy of spreading democracy has a destabilizing effect. It promises nothing less than revolutions and civil wars. This, in turn, could disrupt oil supplies – promising ruin to the developed world. If the West suffers economic collapse due to chaos in the Persian Gulf, democracy may not survive anywhere. In that event, the attempt to spread democracy could actually destroy democracy.

As to whether Bush’s policy signifies “imperialism,” it clearly does not fit the definition – though it comes very close. Bush is not advocating “the extension of control, dominion or empire….” He is advocating the extension of popular control through “democratic” institutions. In accomplishing this “popular control” the use of American ground forces becomes necessary in order to suppress non-democratic elements. Now that this is supposedly accomplished in Iraq, the American forces are set to leave. Once again, this is not imperialism. In fact, it is liberalism run amok.

The Nazis were imperialists, and openly advocated “the extension of control, dominion or empire” for the German people. It is useful, in our analysis, to compare President Bush’s policy to Nazi policy. Seeing the differences, we can better understand President Bush’s position. The Nazis misnamed many things, creating a false interpretive system as the foundation of their bloodlettings and conquests. They did not advocate democracy, but the “Fuhrer Principle.” An imaginary enemy and scapegoat was their forte. Hitler saw Germany beset by “Jewish” capitalists on one side and “Jewish” Bolsheviks on the other. The Nazis said history was a struggle for survival and dominance between culture-creating and culture-destroying races. The Nazis, curiously enough, saw themselves as culture-creators; the Jews were defined as culture-destroyers. The Germans were the “master race” while the Jews had allegedly infected mankind with “slave religion” – the inversion of nature’s order. In Nazi thinking, words like “might” and “right” became interchangeable; the word “race” assumed primacy; the word “culture” justified war; the actor, Hitler, impersonated greatness and seduced a nation. After thirteen years of Nazi government in Germany, Central Europe was in rubble and 55 million people were dead.

Now let us consider the “imperialism” of George W. Bush.

“History always repeats itself twice,” wrote Karl Marx. “The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” When the Left compares Bush to Hitler, we ought to make use of Marx’s formula – turning it back on itself. A farce is a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations. When President Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the world did not mobilize against him. There was no Battle of Stalingrad, no holocaust, no raving Fuhrer in an isolated bunker, and no “bomb plot” by disgruntled military officers. Instead, Bush ended his campaign with a press conference at which shoes were hurtled at his head by an “Iraqi journalist,” who shouted to the president: “This is farewell … you dog!” With youthful agility the president ducked both projectiles and smiled into the camera: “That was a size ten shoe he threw at me, you may want to know.” Bush later described the encounter as proof of victory. In a democracy, he explained, people wave at you without showing all their fingers. So Bush claimed victory, saying: “We made good progress.” And America’s enemies are repressing giggles.

Like Hitler’s blitzkrieg, George W. Bush’s blitzkrieg initially appeared unstoppable, victorious, sweeping all before it; but like Hitler, he overextended, became bogged down, found himself at odds with his generals, issuing a “no retreat” order in the face of collapsing morale. While Hitler filled the concentration camps and exterminated “undesirables” in conquered territory, Bush was determined to fill voting booths and elect the undesirables.
When the Gestapo captured insurgents, they were brutally tortured; when the Americans captured insurgents, they were forced to wear women’s underwear. Hitler attacked the Russians because of their treachery. Bush invited his treacherous Russian “partner” to a barbecue at his dad’s house. Facing the end, Hitler married an actress and promptly shot himself. George W. Bush, on the other hand, shook hands with his African-American successor and smiled at the prospect of retirement.

Here is the face of American imperialism as it ducks an incoming size ten shoe: “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation,” Bush said in his Second Inaugural: “The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.”

This was not a call for the “master race” to conquer the world. In fact, America’s enemies had reason to smile. Some of them probably laughed. “Iraq is lost, Iran won it,” noted former CIA operative Robert Baer. Because of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Iran will be the dominant power in the region. In Baer’s latest book, The Devil We Know, Bush’s invasion is described as a self-inflicted defeat. This is not imperialism. It is a case of misapplied philanthropy that promises to undo the philanthropist. “For eight years,” wrote Baer, “Iran tried, and failed, to defeat Iraq. Then, in the span of just over two weeks between March 20 and April 9, 2003 … [America] obliterated the Iraqi army, unintentionally handing Iran a victory it could never have achieved on its own. The United States was the instrument of its own defeat in the Middle East. By decimating Iraq’s army, we opened the door for Iran to annex Iraq and its oil through proxies – a process that is well under way.”

America is no Third Reich. Though its military knows the technique of blitzkrieg, the politicians don’t know what to do with the resulting “victory.” The American people are not an imperialist people. They do not particularly like foreign adventures, or telling other people what to do. The “war on terror,” therefore, tends toward farce. It is not imperialism, but misguided philanthropy in which many people are killed and America’s enemies gain the advantage.

Next week I will discuss the fallout of Bush’s “imperialist” policy in northeast Asia.


When Fantasy is Fatal
by J. R. Nyquist


We all live in two worlds. One is the real world, the objective world, and the other world is inside of us: the world where sensory data is received and processed, where experiences are sorted, where thoughts and dreams swirl, where imagination reigns and reality is interpretted. While we are drawn by our senses to what is real, we are drawn by hopes and desires to what is imaginary.

Over 100 years ago, in his study titled The Crowd, Gustave Le Bon wrote: "Concerning the faculty of observation possessed by the crowd, our conclusion is that their collective observations are as erroneous as possible, and that most often they merely represent the illusion of an individual who, by a process of contagion, has influenced his fellows...." According to Le Bon, "It is legendary heroes, and not for a moment real heroes, who have impressed the minds of crowds."

The human mind craves fantasy. But fantasy itself isn't stable. Myths and legends are constantly shifting. What was believed yesterday, is laughed at today. Every age thinks itself wise and looks back with disdain on the folly of earlier ages. But the lesson we should draw is this: If people in earlier times were foolish and gullible, then we are fatally foolish and gullible ourselves. We ought to have learned something, especially regarding our own nature, by studying the past.

Given the deadly situation we find ourselves in today, our fantasies must prove fatal. A fatal fantasy is one that gets people killed. The Nazis, for example, were homicidally obsessed with their own racial superiority. In earlier centuries the Spanish Inquisition burned thousands as heretics, and various communities throughout Europe burned thousands more as witches.

This last example illustrates my point. Witches are now considered fantastical. The casting of spells, flying through the air, the summoning of spirits and reliance on feline familiars no longer occasions judicial inquiry. Yet we are no less fantastical in our beliefs than our witch-burning forebears. Instead of burning witches, we destroy entire industries in order to save spotted owls; we squander trillions fighting imaginary man-made global warming; and we dehumanize ourselves with the unstated assumption that consciousness is the epiphenomena of chemical reactions within the brain. And what testifies to this bottom-line assumption of ours better than modern psychiatry? If you feel bad, take a pill. (There is no question of properly ordering one's conscience.) As we become increasingly depressed and deranged, the final remedy is to prescribe drugs. We even prefer to medicate our children instead of spanking them. And with regard to our political and economic fantasies, medieval and ancient thinkers would ridicule us as the greatest fools of all history; for we believe in universal human equality and the U.S. dollar.

Our fantasies are many, and fatal. We think that society necessarily advances toward greater and greater prosperity; that world wars belong to the past; that ideologists inherently hostile to our Constitution can carry forward the legacy of the Founders without disruption or discontinuity. It does not occur to Americans that material progress produces psychological deficits, as well as financial deficits; that prosperity contains in itself the seeds of its own undoing; that peace is the prologue to war; that egalitarianism prefigures administrative fascism.

The fatal fantasy, in each instance, begins with the irresistible allure of a charming myth that leads to a series of unsustainable civilization-wide experiments (with the unwinding of instinct and the contradiction of common sense). For what are we to make of permissive child rearing, the displacement of paternal authority by bureaucratic authority, the retreat of the sacred and the decline of character? Consider, as well, the politicization of sex, class and race; the emasculation of masculinity; the cheapening of the feminine; the celebration of the deviant; the elevation of the celebrity in place of the hero; and the eradication of nobility by the ennoblement of the victim.

The United States has entered a crisis. Will this country exist in four years time, or will it crumble and collapse? But I forgot that nearly everyone believes in the absurd notion that America is somehow indestructible. In this way, you can curse America and behave as irresponsibly as you please. Nothing catastrophic is going to happen because we are dealing with a country that can "take a licking and keep on ticking."

Here is the distilled essence of our fatal fantasy. Everything in this world is breakable, destructible and mortal. Everything passes away. Everything is overturned. Everyone dies. What is precious, what is breakable, deserves to be handled with care. Yet we are determined to break the foundation of all that we possess as a people. We are determined to make a revolution, even as we balk at a few intermediate steps (like universal "free" health care). We might as well be illiterates now, for all our the good our educational establishment has done us. Learning today merely serves to reinforce the fatal fictions that promise our undoing. Gustave Le Bon once wrote: "All civilized societies inevitably drag behind them a residue of degenerates, of unadapted persons affected by various taints...."

And what happens when the degenerates themselves posses a sophisticated organization, sophisticated methods and tools? What happens when we all slip into degeneracy? "In ordinary times," warned Le Bon, "these waste products of civilization are more or less restrained by the police. During revolution nothing restrains them and they can easily gratify their instincts to murder and plunder."

I am told that the word "counterrevolution" is a bad word because it is "negative." What then shall we make of that great counterrevolutionary document, Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke? Here is what Burke said that is relevant to this column: "Who will labour without knowing the amount of his pay? Who will study to increase what none estimate? who will accumulate, when he does not know the value of what he saves? If you abstract it from its uses in gaming, to accumulate your paper wealth, would be not the providence of man, but the distempered instinct of a jackdaw."

related torrents

Torrent name

health leech seeds Size
 


comments (0)

Main Menu