ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 09, 2017

Immigration and transformation

I was reading Oman's history of the Byzantine empire at the gym today, and this passage struck me as rather timely, in light of my reference to Lombardia during a Darkstream earlier this week:
The empire held undisputed possession of Italy for no more than fifteen years after the expulsion of the Ostrogoths in a.d. 553. Then a new enemy came in from the north, following the same path that had already served for the Visigoths of Alaric and the Ostrogoths of Theodoric. The new-comers were the race of the Lombards, who had hitherto dwelt in Hungary, on the Middle Danube, and had more frequently been found as friends than as foes of the Romans.

But their warlike and ambitious King Alboin, having subdued all his nearer neighbours, began to covet the fertile plains of Italy, where he saw the emperors keeping a very inadequate garrison, now that the Ostrogoths were finally driven away. In a.d. 568 Alboin and his hordes crossed the Alps, bringing with them wife and child, and flocks and herds, while their old land on the Danube was abandoned to the Avars. The Lombards took possession of the flat country in the north of Italy, as far as the line of the Po, with very little difficulty. The region, we are told, was almost uninhabited owing to the combined effects of the great plague and the Ostrogothic war.

In this once fertile and populous, but now deserted, lowland, the Lombards settled down in great numbers. There they have left their name as the permanent denomination of the plain of Lombardy. Only one city, the strong fortress of Pavia, held out against them for long; when it fell in 571, after a gallant defence of three years, Alboin made it his capital, instead of choosing one of the larger and more famous towns of Milan and Verona, the older centres of life in the land he had conquered.
Americans are not going to make Americans 3.0 of Mexicans and the other post-1965 immigrants any more than the Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, Italians, and Jews became Americans 2.0, or the English settlers became American Indians, aka Americans 1.0. In fact, given the adulteration of America 2.0, it would be as reasonable to refer to the much-anticipated Not-White Post-America as New Mexico II.

I was a little surprised by Sarah Hoyt's recent take on the legitimacy of recent immigration into the United States, given our differences on what is, and is not, American, but provides an effective rhetorical point to demonstrate that post-1965 immigration is, and has been, wrong.
Immigration is like a marriage, because in essence it is a marriage.  It is an individual throwing in his/her fate with a people.  It is a “and marry our fortunes together” it is a “Wherever thou goest I shall go.”  Your throwing your genetic inheritance in with those people.  You’re submerging yourself in a sea of them.

There is, at least in Portugal a tendency for emigrants to move to a new country and try to keep their kids from intermarrying/staying there.  One of the things we often heard from visiting relatives from other countries was “We have to return before he/she/they start dating.”  Nine times out of ten, it didn’t work.  In fact, I knew only one case in which it worked, which was a neighbor whose daughter seems to have been kept more or less under house arrest in South Africa, so that when they returned and she attended college with me, she was much older but completely drawers at socializing or dating.  She did eventually marry a Portuguese man and she lives in the village, but let me tell you, few parents would go to the extent of abusing their kids just to make sure they “return” to their place of origin.

So, immigration means melding your destiny and that of the people you join.

Now, as above, some immigrants don’t want that/aren’t aware of that.  These are mostly economic immigrants, and they’re often buoyed by the fond idea that they’ll return to their place of origin, with the kids, as soon as the kids hit puberty.  This is more likely/perhaps only likely for countries you can drive/walk to.  There’s something about crossing the ocean that makes that more difficult and Irish and Italians eventually stopped keeping track of whether their kids married in the community.

At any rate, some Mexican immigrants might intend to go back, and some might even do it.  And some of the kids of those might come back too after being dragged back to a “home” that was never theirs.  Keep that mind.

On the other hand many people getting married don’t intend to have it be forever.

Why do I keep bringing marriage up?  Because marriage is the best metaphor for immigration, and because, unlike in immigration, no one doubts that BOTH PARTS TO THE MARRIAGE have a say in it.  Or that when one part doesn’t have a say in it, it is wrong.
The American people were lied to by the architects of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. They never consented to the alteration of the demographic balance, and, in fact, they were told the precise opposite. Which means that the marriage was invalid from the start, and therefore, must be annulled.

Labels:

57 Comments:

Anonymous Icicle February 09, 2017 6:01 PM  

In fact, given the adulteration of America 2.0, it would be as reasonable to refer to the much-anticipated Not-White Post-America as New Mexico II.

New Mexico? Low energy! Sad!

Anonymous smh February 09, 2017 6:02 PM  

They have to go back.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 09, 2017 6:07 PM  

I had an epiphany...or at least an insight that was new to me...earlier this week.

The Romans themselves had destroyed their own culture with early and ill-advised experiments in open borders and multiculturalism. The massive immigrant invasion came in the form of slaves. Roman tradition held that you paid your slaves a small salary or Peculium with a view towards buying their own manumission. Once freed, the newly minted freedman became his former owner's client and thus raised the former owner's status within Rome. The problem being that the Freedman never really abandoned his own culture. The fact that he was now a citizen (of any rank) debased Rome's. By 300 AD Roman culture would have been completely unrecognizable to Gaius Julius Caesar.

Anonymous Donald Trump February 09, 2017 6:09 PM  

I'm working to redefine birthright citizenship. No more anchor babies! This is not an open harbor. They have to go back!

Anonymous Icicle February 09, 2017 6:12 PM  

The Romans themselves had destroyed their own culture with early and ill-advised experiments in open borders and multiculturalism. The massive immigrant invasion came in the form of slaves.

Sounds familiar.

"We just need to pick a little cotton..."
"We just need a housekeeper for a bit..."

Anonymous Mark Auld February 09, 2017 6:16 PM  

A fine analogy and an argument I'd love to see you have with an
MSM anchor .

Anonymous Cantostop February 09, 2017 6:17 PM  

smh, you beat me to it. They have to go back.

Post-1965ers need to be stripped of citizenship and reapply. Anchor babies permanently, unless an extraordinary case is made in the application.

A bureaucratic nightmare, speed it up where possible, but... look hombre....you just have to go back.

Blogger haus frau February 09, 2017 6:24 PM  

Any bets on when or if Bill Kristol finally flees to Israel? He has fully embraced his irrelevance to the right wing.
"“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” asked Kristol.

“You can make a case that America has been great because every — I think John Adams said this — basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two or three generations of hard work everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled — whatever,” he added.
“Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed and really want their kids to live better lives than them and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and meanwhile grew up as spoiled kids and so forth. In that respect, I don’t know how this moment is that different from the early 20th century.”
Kristol was apparently nervous about his comments being recorded despite making them at a public event.

“I hope this thing isn’t being videotaped or ever shown anywhere. Whatever tiny, pathetic future I have is going to totally collapse,” said the founder of the Weekly Standard.
http://www.infowars.com/bill-kristol-lazy-white-working-class-americans-should-be-replaced-by-immigrants/

Blogger SamuraiJack February 09, 2017 6:24 PM  

OT: Check out the anti white hate show being produced by Netflix called "Dear white people". I cancelled my account today and I hope others do the same.

Blogger Dr Caveman February 09, 2017 6:25 PM  

Muslims in Europe are very resistant against marrying ethnic Europeans. They still (IE 4th generation) find their partners in their home/country/village/tribe, importing new backwardness with each marriage

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 09, 2017 6:34 PM  

Three judge panel of the 9th Circus unanimously rules against border control

So the 9th Circus has bumped up the ante. The administration can ask for an en-banc hearing or just take this to the Supreme Court.

The panel’s ruling in favor of immigrants is a victory not only for Washington and Minnesota -- the states that sued -- but for Facebook Inc., Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which said in court papers that the measure would hinder their global businesses.

Because global business.

Do the states actually have standing to sue the Feds over border control? Oh, wait, there I go ghost dancing again.

Blogger Jed Mask February 09, 2017 6:38 PM  

LEGAL immigration is good.

ILLEGAL immigration must be dealt with. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Anonymous Icicle February 09, 2017 6:39 PM  

"“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” asked Kristol.

I think replacing Bill Kristol would be faster.

Blogger Mr. Excitement February 09, 2017 6:40 PM  

Sarah Hoyt certainly has a clunky writing style.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 09, 2017 6:41 PM  

Jed Mask
LEGAL immigration is good.


Why?

Blogger VD February 09, 2017 6:47 PM  

LEGAL immigration is good. ILLEGAL immigration must be dealt with. Amen.

Legal immigration is not good in any significant quantity. Legal immigration is fundamentally transformative and societally destructive. Why do you hate America so much that you wish it to be transformed and made more like the nations of the immigrants?

Blogger Matt February 09, 2017 6:53 PM  

The (((boy))) cant help himself

Anonymous 11B February 09, 2017 6:56 PM  

Muslims in Europe are very resistant against marrying ethnic Europeans. They still (IE 4th generation) find their partners in their home/country/village/tribe, importing new backwardness with each marriage

Do we really want them to intermarry with Europeans?

Blogger weka February 09, 2017 6:57 PM  

The main reason they do not have social mobility and the reason they are vulnerable to pogroms

Anonymous Hitler February 09, 2017 7:01 PM  

Yes Kristol... yes... piss them off some more.

My plan is coming to fruition.

Blogger SteelPalm February 09, 2017 7:24 PM  

@12

LEGAL immigration is good.

ILLEGAL immigration must be dealt with. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed


Speaking as a legal immigrant myself, we should put a complete moratorium on all legal immigration. America is too screwed up already to try to assimilate anyone else. Even white Christian Englishmen.

I think a better slogan is;

"Legal immigration bad, illegal invasion worse."

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY February 09, 2017 7:30 PM  

Why didn't to go to Israel ?

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 09, 2017 7:30 PM  

"LEGAL immigration is good.

ILLEGAL immigration must be dealt with. "

No. As Steelpalm said, it's bad and worse. We have no need for immigrants. We have too many already.

Anonymous Clay February 09, 2017 7:33 PM  

22. jOHN MOSBY February 09, 2017 7:30 PM
Why didn't to go to Israel ?

Put them glasses on, brother.

Blogger James Dixon February 09, 2017 7:34 PM  

> Do the states actually have standing to sue the Feds over border control? Oh, wait, there I go ghost dancing again.

They didn't under Obama, but this is different because???

Blogger Thurston Pilgrim February 09, 2017 7:34 PM  

I don't see enough discussion over the deadly compassion and sentimentality the left feels. It is the fuel of their delusions, the "virtue" that they so desperately signal. We have to expose this gross appeal to emotions over rationality. Sentimentality leads to the gas chamber.

Blogger Nxx 14 February 09, 2017 7:41 PM  

They are only immigrants if they come to assimilate. If they come to impose their own cultural norms, as they do, then the proper term for them is colonizers.

Anonymous Clay The Swamp Spartan February 09, 2017 7:46 PM  

Tho, I never figured it really...and I hate Star Trek...the BORG come to mind.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY February 09, 2017 7:48 PM  

24. Clay
Got 'em on now. Damn, I must edit my posts.

Blogger Lazarus February 09, 2017 7:51 PM  

Why do I keep bringing marriage up? Because marriage is the best metaphor for immigration, and because, unlike in immigration, no one doubts that BOTH PARTS TO THE MARRIAGE have a say in it. Or that when one part doesn’t have a say in it, it is wrong.

The term she is seeking is Arranged Marriage. Common in traditional societies.

It is a tool of the Patriarchy.

Why do the left love the Patriarchy so?

Blogger Lazarus February 09, 2017 7:55 PM  

Unintended consequence of open borders:

To most people, immigrants imply destitute illegals and desperate refugees, but the super wealthy are also coming. If they target your city, you can quickly be priced out of your home. Just think of London, Sidney, Auckland, Vancouver or the San Francisco Bay Area. Advocating for open borders, the nose-ringed crowd don’t know they’re hankering to be homeless, and not just underpaid.

The writer, Linh Dinh, posts on the Unz Review.

http://www.unz.com/ldinh/postcard-from-the-end-of-america-phillys-italian-market/

Anonymous Clay The Swamp Spartan February 09, 2017 7:56 PM  

Good job, hog boy:)

Blogger Were-Puppy February 09, 2017 8:00 PM  

@12 Jed Mask
LEGAL immigration is good.
--

NO it is not good. How many tens of millions can't find a job because of H1B visas and that sort of thing?

Or do you consider it good because it is displacing the actual Americans you disfavor over foreigners?

Anonymous Clay February 09, 2017 8:27 PM  

Lord knows, we have enough people in the US as it is now. A few hundred more, and we might tip-over. Cause, a Tidal wave, and wipe-out Japan, Korea, China, and those loving Filipinos. (yeah, I know the waves don't work that way.)

Yeah, I know better, too.

Anonymous A Texan February 09, 2017 8:30 PM  

Someone needs to point this stuff out to the libtardians over at Economic Policy Journal and other libertarian minded blogs. I can't get it through their heads that some middling IQ black Muslim or Mestizo or even those with a paler complexion don't give a damn about NAP or limited government principles or come from places that have a functioning first world society. Even those immigrants with a higher IQ and alleged education can be a problem.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 09, 2017 8:33 PM  

Ya can't fix stupid

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 09, 2017 8:34 PM  

@25 James Dixon
> Do the states actually have standing to sue the Feds over border control? Oh, wait, there I go ghost dancing again.

They didn't under Obama, but this is different because???

Because them evil rayciss Arizona badwhites different from DieVerse Washington and Minnesota. Or maybe just "it's different when WE do it"?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 09, 2017 8:35 PM  

@35 Texan
Someone needs to point this stuff out to the libtardian...

Just write it on a blank slate. See if they can figure that out. Probably not.

Blogger SteelPalm February 09, 2017 8:59 PM  

@35

Even those immigrants with a higher IQ and alleged education can be a problem.

This is the key. Just because someone is higher IQ doesn't mean they will support the founding principles of America.

It's not just libertarians who miss this. Even some Alt-Righters, who will often recognize this with American Jews, are utterly blind to this with regards to high-IQ Asian immigrants, who are even more rabidly leftist and socialist on the whole.

And hell, the vast majority of high IQ white European immigrants don't understand or believe in the values of the US, either.

Ergo, while high-IQ, law-abiding immigrants are certainly preferable to low-IQ, violent savages, it's better to stop immigration for the present moment altogether.

Blogger Lazarus February 09, 2017 9:09 PM  

Immigration Sabbath.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair February 09, 2017 9:20 PM  

To respond to Hoyt, it's an invalid marriage! There was much material we were lied to about.

Blogger Johnny February 09, 2017 9:28 PM  

I regard the country as an asset and letting new people in reduces my personal share of the asset. The solution is to let people in on the basis that they add value in some way. Letting in non contributing, disagreeable people is crazy, and that is currently what we are doing.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs February 09, 2017 9:54 PM  

@36: actually you CAN fix stupid. However, if you do it without his permission, someone will complain.

Anonymous Avalanche February 09, 2017 10:51 PM  

@12 "LEGAL immigration is good.

I'm sorry, but no. Legal immigration is ONLY good if it is shut down and disallowed entirely. Legal immigrants ALSO way, way overuse welfare and all the tax dollars taken from the native population, the folks who MADE this land into America. They are not 'a part' of this nation, merely folks who wanted to come RIDE on the host population, instead of fixing their own nations and homelands.

And yes, I say that applies to ANY immigrants who came here from other than the original 'source nations' going way back even before 1965! NO person has any "right" to come here.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 09, 2017 11:38 PM  

Jed Mask wrote:LEGAL immigration is good.



Anything over 5% of a general population and you're looking at trouble. Even legal immigration.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl February 09, 2017 11:41 PM  

@44

Pretty much. Work Visas help, but immigration is still immigration.

While we can argue about the 1800s waves in the US, at least they were Western Civs, largely Christian, and typically capitalist.

A little different than Juana the obese bean eater and her eight kids, or Mohamed Mohamed Mohamed, the bean eater and his eight kids and battery acided face who, maybe/maybe not, likes to assault teenage girls. All of whom collect welfare for some strange reason!

Blogger bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) February 10, 2017 1:06 AM  

Sarah "more American than you" Hoyt
Why do I keep bringing marriage up? Because marriage is the best metaphor for immigration, and because, unlike in immigration, no one doubts that BOTH PARTS TO THE MARRIAGE have a say in it. Or that when one part doesn’t have a say in it, it is wrong.



in Christian marriage, the husband decides AND THE WIFE VOWS TO HONOR AND OBEY.

Hoyt, by asserting that the 'husband' in this relationship ( the Native born citizens of the US ) is required to accommodate the desires of the wife ( the immigrants ) even though he has decided that more wives is not a good idea, is telling us explicitly that she is ANTI-Christian and ANTI-Christ.


which is no great surprise, given that she thinks Socialist, atheist, wife swapping, open marriage Robert Heinlein was the archetype of American society and ideals.


does anyone doubt that she models this in her own marriage? or that her politics are an expression of her in home expression of the Female Imperative?

Blogger SteelPalm February 10, 2017 1:24 AM  

Heinlein was a socialist who loved big government up until the 50s. From the 60s until his death, he was an anti-government, right-wing libertarian.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Glory Road, and Friday are among the greatest right-wing, anti-leftist books ever written.

And while he was an atheist, Heinlein had great respect for the fruits of Christian civilization and even priests. Hat tip to John Derbyshire;

"He went on to write about his local priest, whose "goodness and charity and loving kindness shine in his daily actions. … If I'm in trouble, I'll go to him."

http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/losteden.html

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 10, 2017 1:41 AM  

@SteelPalm,
Heinlein may have "respected" Christianity and specific Christians, but he always and everywhere preached the Sexual Revolution. It was as near religion as he got.

Anonymous Clay February 10, 2017 1:55 AM  

Maybe we should just adjust the "rules", so that if you're an immigrant, you will not receive any benefits supplied by the American tax-payers, until you are FULLY recognized as an "American tax-payer".

That might slow their butts down.

Blogger SteelPalm February 10, 2017 2:34 AM  

@49

but he always and everywhere preached the Sexual Revolution.

No disagreement there. However, that fits in with a lot of right-wing, libertarian types.

I was the same way when I was slightly younger. And, judging by his Periscope today, so was Vox in his music days.

Anonymous Clay February 10, 2017 2:41 AM  

Clay wrote:Maybe we should just adjust the "rules", so that if you're an immigrant, you will not receive any benefits supplied by the American tax-payers, until you are FULLY recognized as an "American tax-payer".

That might slow their butts down.


ie.. forget the "green card"....show me your W-2.

Blogger bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) February 10, 2017 8:34 AM  

48. SteelPalm February 10, 2017 1:24 AM
Heinlein was a socialist who loved big government up until the 50s. From the 60s until his death, he was an anti-government, right-wing libertarian.



a - the point, dear SteelPalm, is that Sarah Hoyt wouldn't know what a classical American was to save her damn life ... at the same time that she asserts that she's more American than most Americans

b - George Orwell also hated the totalitarian excesses of Stalin and Mao and the big governments that accompanied them. this is no way makes Orwell "not a Socialist". just as writing "1984" and "Animal Farm" in no way make Orwell "not a Socialist".

it just means he was over on the Anarchist / Trotskyist side of the Left.

c - Heinlein started writing professionally in 1939. by your own admission, more than a decade of his work was overtly Socialist.

nor are Libertarians any more popular in the US than the standard Leftist Marxists are.

so in either case, Heinlein is *still* a poor exemplar of what it means to 'be an American'.

and the fact that YOU cannot see this indicates that you are also an immigrant who really has no idea what America is all about.


49. Snidely Whiplash February 10, 2017 1:41 AM
Heinlein may have "respected" Christianity and specific Christians,


'Job' ( 1984 ) shows respect for Christianity? 'Friday' ( 1982 ) shows respect for Christianity?
'Stranger...' ( 1961 ) shows respect for Christianity?

that is not true. Heinlein may have respected certain Christian individuals and would have preferred to have them as neighbors over one of Stalin's commissars or Mao's Cultural revolutionaries ... but that's setting the bar pretty damn low. who would not?

i dare say that's a question even Sarah Hoyt could choose rightly on.

how DARE you seek to disallow immigration from Soviet Russia and Red China? that's discrimination on a religious and political basis. it's UN-AMERICAN to have religious or political litmus test!


52. Clay February 10, 2017 2:41 AM
ie.. forget the "green card"....show me your W-2.



you think Hoyt doesn't pay taxes?



51. SteelPalm February 10, 2017 2:34 AM
And, judging by his Periscope today, so was Vox in his music days.



*facedesk*

and Vox, in his Atheist, free love days would ALSO have been a VERY POOR example of what it means to be an American, culturally, religiously or politically.

he would have been little better than a short haired hippy.

Blogger McChuck February 10, 2017 10:32 AM  

So, more confirmation that illegal immigrants are rapists.

Ted Kennedy told his family, one day when he was drunk just before his death, that he was glad he wouldn't be around to see it all collapse.

Anonymous Pennywise February 10, 2017 11:03 AM  

As always, Americans will decide who is an American, not Americans who live in foreign lands, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 10, 2017 11:08 AM  

So by Sarah's two-party consenting marriage metaphor, since one party's concent was obtained under false pretenses and thus contractually void, post-1965 immigration (legal or not) is RAPE.

Finally, a little clarity.

Thank you, Sarah. No wonder I feel like a victim.

Blogger Jed Mask February 15, 2017 12:08 PM  

@12

"Why do you hate America so much that you wish it to be transformed and made more like the nations of the immigrants?"

... Lol. A better question to ask Mr. Vox is why you seem to have such a problem with "legal" immigrants immigrating into America the "right way" regardless of the current chaos of multitudes of illegal immigrants?

Smh... So many "Americans" here seem not to what to acknowledge how they "ended up here" in the first place if it wasn't for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and on generations of people who came to the States in particular, many "European immigrants".

Forget about the Mexicans and Hispanics who came and took over your precious "White America" you think is "the ideal America", right lol?

What's wrong with the "nations of other immigrants"? Huh... Vox? They pretty "inferior" and debase, huh?

Oh yeah, they don't fit the "superior" European "white ideal" is that it?

What constitutes a "superior nation" if that's what you're inferring to?

Smh... Why do YOU "hate on" people you (may) deem "inferior" to you and your "ethnicity" (or "race" or however you want to call it)?

Lol, you wanna play that game then I'd say besides the Americans that have already been here during the long-term establishment of the United States... the UNITED STATES was built on the back of black AFRICAN SLAVES of whom many were taken against their will (don't matter if the Africans' own people sold them off; the white settlers should have done the morally "Christian thing" to do which would be to deny the slave trade and rebuke the African chiefs; so don't use that petty *EXCUSE* argument lol [lame]) to "build up" America from all the manual labour it took for the good ol' U.S. to get to this point.

Smh at you, Vox. You only see "America" from the WHITE MAN'S PERSPECTIVE and seem to dismiss the credibility of other Americans of different ethnicities who have been in this country as long as yours or longer than your own European peoples.

It ain't a "white people" vs. "minority" issue here.

I'm pointing out your very *LIMITED*, narrow and "incomplete" view of America's rise as a nation seen from the perspective of a white man in a nation facilitated by many different peoples.

Now you may choose to rectify a broader perspective or "deny" what's said. Your call. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts