Some woman: "In the end, infertility can make you feel less human. As cultivated as we are, we hold on to a deep-rooted belief that our worth is tied to how well, and how much, we reproduce. I've seen women and men shrink like salted slugs during IVF treatment. [. . .] Many women are still listening to their bosses instead of their gynecologists and their guts. They still trust that their mid to late 30s is a fine time to start trying for children. True, they could get lucky. But the question should be asked: Would you prefer to have children earlier and naturally or later, by dosing yourself up with drugs, submitting to surgery and paying tens of thousands of dollars? [. . .] The first thing I'd like to tell women ages 26 to 34 is: Start having babies. I know it's not polite or funny. But I don't want others to go through what I'm going through now." (Holly Finn; My Fertility Crisis; We hear about fertility treatments when they're successful. But for millions of women, they mean regret, heartbreak, shame and silence.)
Winston Churchill: "There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies" - radio broadcast, 1943. "You must have four children. One for Mother, one for Father, one for Accidents, one for Increase".
Julian Huxley: "If we want to maintain the race, at a high level, physically and mentally, everybody sound in body and mind should marry and have enough children to perpetuate their stock and carry on the race."
34 comments:
That's fine and good if you want men and women to get the family they want with realistic expectations about fertility.
But keep in mind we have to be realistic about the state of families and the current rights that fathers have. Right now women unilaterally decide whether or not to go through with pregnancy. The man gets no say, even when he wants the child to livecand she doesn't. However if she decides to keep the baby he MUST become fully commuted to the child, as if his paternal instincts are a switch for women to play with. Essentially women have the rights but no inherent responsibilities and men have the opposite.
So now you have women deciding when the family starts and when you consider the fact that women initiate 2/3 of divorce women are mostly deciding when the family ends. And that can easily translate into the mother getting more custody and the father having to pay child support, ie fathers have become atms in a biased court that enables women to do so.
"Many women are still listening to their bosses..."
No, its their egos that tell them they can wait till their mid thirties and that they can raise a kid without the solid presence of a father. Their not victims.
The problem I tend to find with white nationalists is that I pretty much never hear them criticize women. They seem to put women on the pedestal as if their p. was that golden...
Along with unrealistic expectations we need to hold women accountable for some of what their doing to men and family. We also need to be honest about what men face.
princenuadha,
(1) Life is not fair. (2) As others have pointed out, the likelihood of a college-educated couple divorcing remains low. (3) I don't want people to have the family they "want". I think people should be expected to marry and have children regardless of what they want. Not everyone will, but that should be the very strong default expectation.
To the extent current laws disincentivize marriage and reproduction by productive men, the laws should be changed. But the laws have no bearing on your individual responsibility to marry / have children.
Marry wisely and none of the issues you enumerate are likely to be real problems. Even if they were, it would not make voluntarily choosing to forgo reproduction out of supposed personal self-interest/self-preservation the best option. Nothing would. You will die regardless. Nor does a white man's failing to reproduce somehow spite the system.
"Right now women unilaterally decide whether or not to go through with pregnancy."
Legally that may be the case. But any man for whom this is the reality on the ground needs to man the fuck up and/or move on to a different partner.
Speaking for myself, I've never "put women on a pedestal". But as concerns the content of this post, you don't need to worry about "women". All you need to do is find a single woman that meets your minimum standards.
I don't see it as a generic fertility issue but an issue of eugenic Nordish fertility. Fertility among the right people is the problem. The rabble, non-Whites and miscegenists unfortunately don't have a fertility issue.
Along with unrealistic expectations we need to hold women accountable for some of what their doing to men and family. We also need to be honest about what men face.
I agree but at the same time quality men in general find quality women, albeit with much searching. If a man finds himself involved with dysfunctional women then perhaps he is dysfunctional himself.
The problem a lot of men have is they're complacent and lazy. They take whatever comes to them. No wonder they have problems. It takes work to get what you want.
I'm a young childless single rootless cosmopolitan in a big city, and don't expect that to change soon. Would it be too big an invasion of your privacy to ask you are walking the Darwinian walk?
"Nor does a white man's failing to reproduce somehow spite the system."
Very true.
I've often considered the whole MGTOW movement to be a case of cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Anonymous,
"Fertility among the right people is the problem."
I agree, of course. But as you said the wrong people are already having kids. They're also unlikely to be reading this.
TGGP,
I'm not much older than you. I have no real deep personal desire to be married or have children, but I have no doubt that I will. I'd like to think my own (temporary) excuses are slightly less frivolous than the MRA/PUA ones I've argued against, but I don't deny that they ultimately are no more valid or that my own life is probably symptomatic of some of what I'm railing against. I also don't hold my own life trajectory up as an example. If I'm not married in five years, you can call me out on my hypocrisy; but that still won't affect the correctness of what I'm saying.
n/a, just how old are you? For some reason I had assumed you were middle-aged (50+).
I'm surprised to hear you say you have "no real deep desire" to marry. The duty to marry and raise a family is one thing, but what about the joy of it? You don't see any?
I'm 34. For the longest time I felt oh so superior to friends and relatives, both older and younger, who married and had children. And their envying me for the "freedoms" I enjoyed only reinforced this sense of superiority. I look far younger than my age -- most mid-20s women assume I'm their age (or younger) -- so though I could maintain this lifestyle for at least a few more years I'm horrified by the choices I've made and very eager to find a wife and start a family.
Marriage and family is the real adventure, not the aimless wanderings of a dissolute, profligate hedonist or the rapt accumulation of "stuff." Marriage and family amid the fellowship of racially related, like-minded peers, that's the secret to good living.
In 5-10 years I'll buy a villa in a village in northern Greece. If only the dopey dipshits of WN could get their act together so that more of my compatriots could be (indirectly) tempted to follow suit. Man, wouldn't that be something? "The Great Return." We'll leave the American mess for TGGP and his fellow niggerlovers to clean up.
n/a, just how old are you? For some reason I had assumed you were middle-aged (50+).
Yeah, you'd love to collect biographical information on the participants here wouldn't ya?
Marriage and family amid the fellowship of racially related, like-minded peers, that's the secret to good living.
Here you go, Silver:
http://i41.tinypic.com/29qjyok.jpg
In 5-10 years I'll buy a villa in a village in northern Greece.
Please be a Greek nationalist anti-immigration Eurosceptic, otherwise the Greeks would be better off if you stayed in Australia.
If only the dopey dipshits of WN could get their act together so that more of my compatriots could be (indirectly) tempted to follow suit.
What do you want the "dopey dipshits" to do exactly?
@n/a
It is a bit ironic to talk about duty while at the same time suggest that I find an educated or "better" woman as a way of dealing with a raw hand dealt to me (and men).
There are good women just like there are bad ones but it is not enough for me to just find a good one for myself and let the rest of the men deal with the bad ones so I don't have to. I think men already do enough of this behavior, whereby they don't mind stepping over other men so long as they get what they want... Even if their leaving behind a more toxic environment. I think that is exactly what judges do when they hand down bullshit rulings that either empower women to hurt men or protect them from taking responsibility (there is a proven bias against men in court). Or male politicians who betray their own gender and create things like VAWA. They must somehow think they are immune when they lift themselves up by striking other men down. And look at the environment they create.
Women profiting off divorce, profiting off getting the father away from the children, getting away with false accusations, getting away with domestic violence, and somehow their child abuse (women commit more) nearly flies completely under the radar while men are labeled as abusers.
You might even think men can take it.... Well now you have boys without role models, even male teachers are on decline in part because of abuse scare, and boys that ARE DOING WORSE IN SCHOOL. Yet nothing is bring done because women are the ones who ALWAYS need help.
Now I'm not saying don't go for the best woman. I'm just saying that is not enough... In the long run that is. I am actually quite arrogant because I believe that I can pick out a good woman who HS very unlikely to do any of these things when she is pissed and push comes to shove... But that is hubris on my part. Regardless though I feel a connection to my fellow man and if I see women essentially dominating men when it comes to everything that matters, I will step in. Not only for those men but also for any world I want to bring kids into.
BTW I initially wrote my first post just to point out the bullshit statement that women are smoky the "victims" of their bosses and that women aren't actively ducking over families out of motives like greed and arrance.
Not all women of course, but a lot. Too many think its good to get rid of a husband and MUCH worse, the father.
Relevant:
http://www.groin.com/marriage/
http://www.groin.com/mens-rights-victims/
Hilariously, the entire Men’s Rights Movement seems to want to emulate feminism and with it, the principle of victimhood. It’s like a group of men deciding to cut their balls off and cry with each other.
Your grievances are legitimate; your methods — well, let’s just say that emulating a failed movement like feminism is not the brightest of ideas. It’s emotionally comforting. But do you really need a teddy bear?
"MRAs want you to think all marriage is bad; as I’ll demonstrate, they are actually working against their own best interests."
Sounds like he's trying to convince others in order to assure himself that he made the right choice, and that things are good.
Anyways, the real men now days are the ones speaking up.
It's high time Northern Europeans the world over started having more children and, more importantly, raising them to be proud of their ancestors -- and their noble cultures.
This world would be a very dark place without the civilizational light that the Northern Europeans, and close kindred peoples, bestow upon it.
nuadha,
Men compete with other men. That is what men do. Men also form coalitions, but forming a coalation of all men kind of defeats the purpose (leaving aside the fact that it won't work). The description of the "Men's Rights Movement" as "a group of men deciding to cut their balls off and cry" is apt. In addition to opting out of fathering children, men are to forgo competitiveness and territoriality. Not everyone calling himself an MRA on the internet is that far gone, but faggots like Paul Elam who get misty-eyed about the number of black men in prison certainly are.
Feminism should be opposed, but not by creating a mirror image movement that's similarly destructive. Men and women can have conflicting interests, but all men will never share interests vis-a-vis all women (the reverse of course also being true).
Silver,
Under 30.
what about the joy of it? You don't see any?
I imagine I will see some after the fact.
Feminism should be opposed, but not by creating a mirror image movement that's similarly destructive. Men and women can have conflicting interests, but all men will never share interests vis-a-vis all women (the reverse of course also being true).
You're a very, very intelligent observer and commentator on the important issues of our Existence, n/a.
God bless you, and keep up the fantastic work.
Under 30.
Interesting. I remember Guessedworker once calling you "old man" in a comment. I assumed you were a senior :) But this age fits more with your pop culture references and interest in MMA.
The stories about kids being a lot of work are true. And most of the intelligent women one meets are likely to be educated with at least some level of career interests. All of which eats into your free time. If one's interests are neo-Darwinian, it's worth considering what course of action is most rational. Depending on how things turn out, you could make a case that Salter and KMD did more to advance their genetic interests by their writing than they could have via families of their own. Just encouraging male friends to pursue stable relationships can go a long way (I would like to think that I played at least a minor role in the decisions of 2 friends, one of whom is definitely nationalist, to settle down at relatively young ages and have kids).
The Mainstream Media Is Beginning To Accept The Truth Of Game
"Yahoo, one of the most MSM-y of the MSM outlets, has a dating advice column that lifts techniques straight from the game literature. In order to stay ahead of the PC police, the author couches it in terms of attracting either men or women, but the reality well-known to those who are actually out there mud-deep in the scrum of the sexual market is that these courtship tactics are more effective when used on women. (Ladies, the only techniques you need to attract men for sex are the following: look hot. To attract men for love, you’ll need more than a young pretty face, but that is a discussion for another day.)"
[...]
@ n/a
Men compete is your simple answer? So does that mean we should not look more than two feet in front of their faces and act like cut throat criminals stealing and murdering each other just like the prisoners you seem to despise?
And what of of law and civility? In fact law can even be seen as an alliance, something you brought up, whereby people consider each others interests and agree to behave in certain ways to create better solutions for those involved. (I have no delusions that this results in "equality"; it is just a way of creating agreeable rules that produce better outcomes.)
When you take out "criminal" type behavior, or simple greed, you open up the door to a lot more productivity. It then becomes worthwhile to invest in many things that otherwise would not have been such as hunting, farming, building, research and invention, etc... In fact nearly all human behavior is based on agreements such as jobs, marriage, and consumption. This says that incentive (keep in mind men are getting less of this in marriage) matters to the individual and even matters to society. And when civility and willingness holds our productivity booms. That is the reason we are not living in huts and have a population of over 6 billion! (Obviously this negate the idea of a simple zero sum game were overall outcome can't be improved).
In creating law there is an understanding that my behavior affects your and vise versa so it is wise for us to consider each other, make some agreements, and not just create a more productive environment but a safer one too.
There are caucasian rams in which the males stay together as a group and figure out a hierarchy without the presence of females. Doing things this way (of course not equality) as opposed to battling for each moaning females prevents a lot of bloodshed for all of them. The males are creating a safer environment for each other!
There was also a recent study on how female moose actively incite fighting between males. The males will naturally fight less, even during mating, unless the female makes the calling. The female calling, done selectively, makes for a more dangerous environment to all males and highlight the fact that the overall male interest can be different from the females. (Males want a bit more safety while the females want the males to do more fighting.)
Right now the deal is bad for men (so for nothing but personal interest men should resist), certain criminal judges or politicians are handing down Bullshit rulings, and women have collectively cockolded men to an extent and used government as hubby (necessitating a male interest).
"Feminism should be opposed, but not by creating a mirror image movement that's similarly destructive. Men and women can have conflicting interests, but all men will never share interests vis-a-vis all women (the reverse of course also being true)."
Ok, how do you propose taking down feminism?
I don't like speaking in so much theory so ill just be more direct.
I think the mrm is a good way to give fathers shared parenting, stop vawa, stop or curb bias in criminal court, stop so much spending on women's health, balance divorce, balance reproductive rights, help boys in school, and stop double standard female quotas.
You already said the laws should change so is your problem with the mrm just their approach or that they have some dumb end goal like no competition amongst men?
Im mostly focused on changing institutional misandry but i also wanna change cultural issues (not through force of the law though). I want society to stop assuming women are good and pure. Their not always pro children nor pro relationship. I want men to be less homophobic. That one may piss you off but I absolutely hate how straight men are afraid to act towards each other because of some jackass who pathologized homosexuality. Imo it killed male bonding making men less happy and more dependant on women to fulfill their needs. I don't even know what maleness would be without all the homophobia. its so fucking easy to shame men when when it comes to their bonding. Again, I'm actually more concerned with straight men.
Some others have said that mrms play the victims like feminists... It true. I do that in argument too, to shift more sympathy to men but also because saying I'm a victim too does help. I basically think we need to get rid of the glorification of the victim, lower women's victim status, but also raise men's... Because I think there is a lack for help in men even though men get more troubled than women.
Lastly, if you don't already know I'm jot just fighting feminism. Id probably happier fighting chivalry, what feminism feeds on, as it is more basic. I'm tired of women coming first and I'm tired of men taking responsibility for women.
^ Autism is a horrible affliction.
I was typing with my phone you fool. I coulda understood you saying I am a foreigner..
Men and women can have conflicting interests, but all men will never share interests vis-a-vis all women (the reverse of course also being true).
I find the modern idea of grouping all men and all women against each other ridiculous. Grouping by race/sub-race, ethnicity, IQ and personality traits is much more meaningful.
Men and women are homologous. Men and women of the same sub-race for example share similar traits and need each other to reproduce their kind, they are not natural enemies.
"I find the modern idea of grouping all men and all women against each other ridiculous. Grouping by race/sub-race, ethnicity, IQ and personality traits is much more meaningful."
There are things that are common to men. In quite a few instances the law will treat you like a man in ways that hurt men such as alimony, child support, criminal cases, any male to female crime or accused, and overall health services. And men across the board work later in life while dying sooner, have poorer health, suicide much more, take their parents divorce worse (white ppl too!), take different jobs, and have different voting tendencies (men prefer less government).
"Men and women are homologous."
And yet something like feminism, clearly a woman come first and sometimes anti male movement, was able to take such strong hold. It must have had enough support from people's prejudices of men and women, which is say is largely chivalry.
For the most part id agree that men and women are not natural enemies. I can tell you that some of the most sympathetic people to men are women and many of the most misandry individuals are men, which is not an exaggeration! Even feminism is not simple and can sometimes be seen as an unholy alliance of certain women and alpha males.
But do you really think there is balance between the genders as we speak?
And your also right that my life overlaps with similar women a hell of a lot more than it does with black men or poor men. But if you ask me who is most likely to screw me over or get some benefit, like job preference, it is a woman!!!
That's actually one reason why I hardly give a shit about quotas for blacks even though I'm against the principle. It just doesn't really effect me that much. I don't compete with blacks at the school or at work. I don't eat, shop, party with, or marry black people.
It's women who I do these things with and its women who could most easily hurt me. The closeness of women to men is why it matters when things are out of balance.
I could agree with you in so far as the idea that men and women should not be pitted against each other, but its a little late in the game to take such passive "let's just get along" attitude and not take a stake in the matter. (I don't think I have an anti woman attitude. I actually plan on being committed to a woman and be honest about my thoughts.)
nuadha,
Competition can and among humans usually does take forms other than the direct application of physical force. Petty criminality is not typically a path to success in the modern world. Competition for status/money/women doesn't need to be scary or destructive. The question of law and society is tangential to the point I was making (but see below).
The point is: men are not women, and sex roles are not arbitrary. Sexual differentiation is a biological reality. Male humans/primates/mammals compete with other males because over millions of years of evolution those who failed to compete did not pass on their genes. That won't change. The world will not stop for you or shape itself arbitrarily along any line you might wish.
Radical feminism, created by sexually unattractive women (who I must add often belonged to a particular minority ethnic group hostile to the majority), encourages women to abjure the female role. From what I've seen, the "Men's Rights Movement" too often seems to be the direct male analog: sexually unattractive males calling on men to stop being men and attempting to stir up discontent over sex roles.
"Ok, how do you propose taking down feminism?"
To start, as I said, in "taking down feminism" one should not exacerbate the damage of feminism. Keep a wider view of things. Understand and accept human nature (including both sex differences and the salience of race/ethnicity and intergroup competition). Understand and accept the reason you exist -- sexual reproduction by male/female pairs going back thousands of generations. Possibly the "MRM" could be salvaged, but I believe it would require changes in tone and direction. I don't see anything of value coming out of the brand of whining adopted by many "MRAs". And castration cults do not have a history of success.
"Right now the deal is bad for men (so for nothing but personal interest men should resist)"
The order in which individuals legitimately share interests with others goes something like self>family>tribe>nation>race. Possibly I'm not explaining this well, because it's so obvious to me. When you work for the interests of "men" in some universalistic sense, you are not advancing your own interests. Your immediate and extended family contains women, with whom you share genes and with whom your interests align to a greater degree than they could ever possibly align with the interests of all men belonging to some other tribe/race. Most fundamentally, as Anonymous pointed out, men and women need each other to reproduce. A legitimate men's movement would be one that sought to restore balance and create a functioning society, not one in which resentful men who perceive themselves as sexually unattractive attempt to "get back at" women. And one can't create a functioning society by ignoring race.
If "the deal" is bad for men, it is unbelievably bad for white men. But from the little I observed at sites like "The Spearhead", those who point this out are shouted down by non-white males who seem particularly animated on this front. So you have a large majority of white "MRAs" working altruistically for the supposed benefit of all men, while non-white males maintain an awareness of their own particularistic interests and vocally attempt to repress any similar awareness on the part of white men, white site-owners readily folding to this pressure in the name of unity.
On society / social order: I like society. I particularly like living in a society created by and still for now to a large degree populated with Northwestern Europeans. Africans and Asians do not create societies I would want to live in. Moreover, competition in a homogeneous NW European society can be expected to take much more constructive forms than competition in a low-trust, multiracial society.
"I want men to be less homophobic. That one may piss you off but I absolutely hate how straight men are afraid to act towards each other because of some jackass who pathologized homosexuality. Imo it killed male bonding making men less happy and more dependant on women to fulfill their needs."
Pretty sure you have this exactly backward. If there has been a recent decline in tolerance for "male bonding", it has coincided with the ever-increasing celebration and promotion of open homosexuality by the mass media and academia. This normalization of homosexuality was/is along with feminism and multiculturalism another prong in the attack on the erstwhile majority culture.
But if you ask me who is most likely to screw me over or get some benefit, like job preference, it is a woman!
What job are you doing that you would lose it to a woman?
I find a lot of these MRAs to be miscegenists. Like feminists they tend to be extremely self-centered and only concerned with their emotional well-being. So they don't care what race the female is, as long as she's a good maid, cook and sexually submissive.
One cannot be a true racial preservationist male and hate White women. Whatever flaws the modern Western woman has they are still the best looking and have the best personalities on the planet.
Your relationship with them might not be perfect but let's not be so selfish. The next generation is more important than having the ideal relationship. You will get to the point in your life, or at least you should, where it's not just about you anymore, and you start living for your children or future children, your legacy.
"Your immediate and extended family contains women, with whom you share genes and with whom your interests align to a greater degree than they could ever possibly align with the interests of all men belonging to some other tribe/ race."
Yes, here is the heart of it.
Some things you must realize about gender and politics are that one, women as a WHOLE get benefits you don't. Essentially you are paying for the benefits of women who aren't a part of your family or even race. The workplace has bended to women at a cost, females are better educated yet still get more funding, and women get more funding for their health. I don't think you want to pay for privilege... Also whether you like it or not women, family or not, can hurt you and also get away with it much more easily. The most likely ways are probably divirce, children, and accusations. And even if you think you have a sure way of preventing this what about the males member of your family who meet Ms great... That is until divorce gets nasty.
"men and women need each other to reproduce".
Agreed, I'm not trying to create a utopia away from women : )
I think that yours and mine bargaining power as an individual has been messed up... Really badly!!!
For example look at the absurdity of alimony. Today, a woman can marry you, retire on your ass, divorce you, then keep you working for her via alimony. WTF! Marriage is an arrangement where each partner supports the other but in alimony only one person does that! Worse of is that she never had to do anything for you during the marriage and she can still get bank at divorce. It as if you have more responsibility to her after marriage than she did during marriage.
Most importantly is who really owns the kids... By the bias in the courts id say women do. You need to have power over your offspring even if you get a divorce.
In summary, Im ok with women. I don't expect guys to not compete... There is no world where people don't go for more and don't compete. But the rules are out of wack to say the least. In the shortest way to say it I am for equal opportunity, not equal outcome... I accept and am fine with differencs.
"If there has been a recent decline in tolerance for "male bonding", it has coincided with the ever-increasing celebration and promotion of open homosexuality by the mass media and academia."
If I understand you correctly then I am in total agreement. What I meant to say is that the most important thing to be is that homophobia between straight men needs to stop. You can solve that how you want.
"But from the little I observed at sites like "The Spearhead", those who point this out are shouted down by non-white males who seem particularly animated on this front."
I have to be honest I did do that once. I did not want the race issue coming in and dividing us. Power in numbers kind of thing. I figured black men were getting the least of the "women and minority" benefits that I want to get rid of. Black women have the most welfare, more minority scholarships, and move up the ladder more with diversity quotas. Keep in mind I want to get rid of privileged groups.
And like my last post its just a fact that my competition comes from women A HELL OF A LOT MORE than blacks and Mexicans. I'll probably get a job in engineering or the finance sector and I know women get the most privileges in tech... So I care about "WOMEN and minority" benefits a lot.
"I don't see anything of value coming out of the brand of whining adopted by many "MRAs". And castration cults do not have a history of success."
I actually did think about this. I'm very prideful in general so I'm generally willing to make sacrifices... Which can make it hard to know if I'm having high standards or being a self defeating/coward. Odd.
"The world will not stop for you or shape itself arbitrarily along any line you might wish."
Most the time I don't go for impossibilities. There are a few things I'm quite stubborn about that veer from typical traditionalists. One is that women should work. The other is that if men are in the draft so should women. I am flexible in the application but if left unchanged I find it very insulting to men especially in our society.
I do try to mend these ideas with tradition. I've since realized that women used to do valuable and productive work when homes were areas of production (pre industrial). So it is traditional for women to work, but the home is no longer "traditional".
As for the draft, women need to be a part of it. They don't have to take the same jobs but they need to taken at will and put at risk as the men would, especially when women vote.
Reflections on Frost’s Analysis of the Sexual Revolution
I find a lot of these MRAs to be miscegenists. Like feminists they tend to be extremely self-centered and only concerned with their emotional well-being. So they don't care what race the female is, as long as she's a good maid, cook and sexually submissive.
I noticed that "Ferdinand Berdamu" at the "In Mala Fide" blog often links and cites various hard right, WN, racialist, etc. writings and bloggers. But he often attacks or criticizes WN bloggers or commenters and WN-ish views. He also supports non-Whites like "Advocatus Diaboli" who blogs occasionally at In Mala Fide and on his own blog. "Advocatus Diaboli" is East Indian and is anti-White.
"Ferdinand Bardamu" and "In Mala Fide's" role seem to be to police young White males and "moderate" them, especially for any potential hard WN views.
Post a Comment