Game is beta

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, 12 September 2010 00:05.

by PF

For the cogniscenti of Citizen Renegade.

I personally think that Game is beta, here’s why:

1. Loss of life

What behavior is more submissive and slavish than spending a fair portion of your life analyzing women’s behaviors with a view to having sex with them?

One fundamental sociobiological constant is this: the day has 24 hours. I field-tested the bonkers out of that last part so don’t even question it.

People who don’t practice Game might be mislead into not realizing how time-consuming it is. What is time-consuming? Talking to tons of random girls; getting their numbers; phoning them back; arranging stupid dates with them so you can proceed along some imaginary time-line towards sex, which will justify the entire enterprise and turn it into a fount of wisdom to be disclosed to other guys on the internet.

Game is a very imperfect model of social dynamics which might give something like a 20% explanation of the things it purports to explain. This means it will always be extremely hit-and-miss. Where true believers might grow disaffected with this reality model is when you realize that you have success without it, and ruin lots of things with it. But the point is that Game is always/often expounded as a system that reliably produces results, but the guys who test it are testing it against the null hypothesis of either never going out, not being sociable, or not being ‘romantically engaging’ to women at all. Game triumphs because the opposite of it is nothing. It fills the void where before there was no social attempts, only Call of Duty raids and other video-game triumphs. Or Game triumphs because it discloses this profound truth: “You have to risk rejection and ask for a phone number.”

All subsequent elaboration and systemic analysis is piggy-backing off of this fundamental success of Game. It allows people who have determined to make a life-style out of trying to bed women - and as I said above, the amount of time investment required makes Game more of a lifestyle than even a hobby - it turns these people into paragons of wisdom who are leading groups of male followers to the holy grail of ‘abundance with women’. Something our evolved sociobiology really exists to prevent: one man accumulating massive hordes of a precious resource.

So the first realization is that there is a loss of life - you must actually forgo doing stuff. This means if its more than a phase you have to look back on some chunk of your life that was eaten by Game.

“You need to collect a lot of numbers. No-calling one chick means there is a 99% chance you will never bang her. No-calling 100 chicks means the chance you will bang any one individual chick just tripled. There seems to be a mysterious “law of large numbers” that takes effect when you are no-juggling lots of girls — opportunities begin to present themselves with little effort on your part.”

In other words, roll up your sleeves - approaching strange women is your life now.

2. Programmed Inauthenticity

Keeping directions on how to behave in certain situations is inauthentic - you are not doing what you want. I know there are lots of rationalizations for this but I don’t believe them. The training wheels metaphor - really? Does this abstract calculus of how-to-get-into-her-pants ever get streamlined enough to be downloaded to the viscera?

How come this goofy loserish nonsense is still all over all these people’s blogs:

“You need to have ice running through your veins. When that no-called chick runs into you with desire in her eyes she is likely going to shit test the hell out of you for not calling her. Steady on, governor. You’ll need to remain as aloof in her company as when you were not calling her. Hint: act like she is the one with the problem.”

Oh wait, I’ll store that in the empty space I keep available for how to deal with chicks (1) with desire in their eyes (2) whom I haven’t called. I’ll index that next to the other information about how to deal with chicks (1) with curiosity in their eyes (2) whom I haven’t texted recently.

Needless to say it is impossible to act like a man when your mental hardware is full of complex instructions on how to manipulate different classes of people. It’s hard enough remembering how to get dressed in the morning.

What I’m saying here is that in addition to time, a man’s resources are constrained: he has limited mental resources and limited social chances at self-expression. Using one’s brain as a storage space for Game strategies means that your head fills up with this stuff, inevitably to the exclusion of other more interesting things. Your social life also comes to increasingly consist of these attempted manipulations of classes of person. We are losing daylight, brain space, and opportunity to be real with people. What will we not sacrifice to the female sexual organs?

3. Unnatural disposition towards sex

Game capitalizes on a newfound tendency in post-religious man, which is the swing of the pendulum from sex-repression to sex-craziness. There is no way that guys who are into this stuff have a natural disposition towards sex or their own bodies. In place of this there is porn, “I-am-a-machine-programmed-to-get-sex” understandings justified from evopsych, and the constant hunt that is justified by this.

Why do men like sex and for what purposes do they use it? For me its clear, mentation-stuck persons use sex to momentarily inhabit a reality that is larger than the purely mental. This is to have an increased experience of self which other people might get through metaphysical pursuits. In other words, they are meditating. Romance junkies are using bonding hormones to achieve the same thing - a moment where reality feels more real. People do not have many means of escaping from the mental - and usually they achieve this by jacking another system into overdrive so they can experience that system (emotion, viscera, sexual) along with mentation.

What happens when you are bored to death with yourself and your life and use sex as a means of escape? You have to keep running. You need bigger and bigger highs, more and more. Porn is already a treadmill on which guys can run themselves to near-craziness with visual stimulation.

So Game for me is an elaborate form of drug addiction: one is simply addicted to an endogenously-generated set of chemicals that come from the high of pursuit, physical contact and ultimately intercourse. There is actually an in-house coup going on with an older generation of drug addicts who liked to get high off of the bonding chemicals and dopamine that would be released in moments of romantic fantasy. These are the true older Betas who the make-believe Alphas view themselves as replacing.

What is actually a generational conflict between different types of codependent persons - Beta (romance/fantasy addict) and Alpha (pure sex addict) - is construed instead as a fundamental sociobiological dichotomy which takes place across time. All human status struggles throughout history are retroactively fitted to reflect this divide in the newly-unleashed “Alpha’s” analysis. Many “Alphas” who are blogging will have begun as “Betas” or had phases where they were into romantic ideas or where they idealized women. The “Alpha” is a former “Beta” who has stripped away the fantasizing and analyzed out Sex!!!!!!! as the primary Factor which is to extracted from a woman. He thinks this is a heroic leap forward in getting what he wants and a major gain in honesty - and is partially right.

The “Betas” have a genesis which I will explain. They harken back to a period where porn was not so super-abundant and guys could be confused enough to blend society’s remaining idealism with their love of their mothers and spin out a romantic fantasy in their minds based on a beautiful woman they had seen. This is the true romantic - and his behaviors (around the deified woman) would clearly mark him as a “Beta”. These behaviors make forming a relationship with the desired woman near impossible, because they strangle authentic relationship with fantasies, images, and the whole nervousness that attaches to the enterprise of courting someone who has now become a goddess (in one’s mind). At the same time, listen to the popular music of the last 40 years and you will find in something like 50% of songs, an implicit recommendation of some form of co-dependency. This cultural trend is what brought “Betas” to life - post-Christian scientific western society, and the only suggested way to escape your mind was to experience something wonderful with someone of the opposite sex - the deification of love. This is socially-acceptable endogenous drug addiction for well-socialized middle class guys. 

Its this type of person, much more than European feudal serfs or second-tier hunter gatherer tribesman, who form the archetype of the “Beta”. These people are now disillusioned and their frustrations have been vented in the cultural creations of men for the last 20 years or so. The “alpha” is more aggressive and knows what he wants: to reenact what he sees in porno. Game is the only thing that promises to turn your life into a porno movie. Its actually the next natural step in the progression from a childhood that included watching porno movies.


4. Relationships without emotion

Game is marketed to emotionally dead males because only those who are emotionally dead can ever view sexual relationships as being so simple as scoring with a series of random, semi-anonymous chicks who one doesn’t like or respect. Every initiate into Game is invited to accept or reject tentatively this radical hypothesis: that sex can become a meaningless safari of hook-ups whose only residual effect is to raise one’s status within ‘the Game’ and thus credentialize one’s ability to write blog posts. I should also mention that one shores up increasing Alpha-status with each lay and therefore protects against the much feared onset of ‘Beta-ness’.

Its obvious that this emotional problem is what lies between many initiates and having a normal, monogamous relationship with a woman in their age group. It’s a reason that Game appeals to people who are severely self-estranged and guys who are so fucked up that they can’t have relationships with anyone. I’m not obliquely calling out the Roissy readership, since I believe that given the internet, all types of people end up everywhere. I’m making a generalization based on a knowledge of the originators of Project Hollywood and the first people to develop the methods of Game. By dint of a personal investigative interest, I know way more about the originators of this social sport than anyone should know - and the result is that every long-termer was in some way psychically unhealthy or just autistically retarded. You have to investigate this for yourself though because its gossip and thus, boring.

The cold reality with which the happy fantasy of Game must collide head-first is this: female reproductive scarcity. Unfortunately its a reality not amenable to a few cleverly-placed ‘hacks’. Women really have evolved very good pair-bonding mechanisms, and women who do not pair bond are broken. Yet the women that are broken are the ones on heavy rotation - and thus the natural audience of Game consists and always did consist of low quality chicks.

A man sitting by himself with a knowledge of what tricks the Game paradigm suggests, must inevitably reach the conclusion that it is aimed at stupid, shallow people. Some of the techniques might as well be used to screen out intelligent, self-aware women. Those techniques related to emotional manipulation screen very effectively *for* chicks from broken homes and those who have had an abusive family life. What else could be the meaning of being super aloof as a prelude to physical intimacy? Besides the fact that the Gamer is scared to share anything about himself.


5. Unwillingness to screen

The whole Game paradigm means you dedicate a significant portion of your life to pursuing sex-as-a-goal. It follows by definition that you are pretty much up for it when a decent woman is around and wants you. In other words, you don’t really screen the women in your life - except for superficial things like her resemblance to your favorite porn actors. Remember that the whole endeavor has already been so framed - the woman’s place already drawn up in such a way - that there is going to be very little depth and consonance to the relationship. In fact, there is very little that will actually resemble a relationship - it will be more like a hazily described progression of pretend dates leading up to a lay. Game isn’t big on ‘connection’ - but it scores a big win by leaving a space open as if you would implement all its paradigms and still decide to be a sweetheart: so of course you can play the ‘connection’ game, should you be so foolish to still believe in that thing. Again, Game can piggyback off the residual emotional health of its practitioners and score another win in allowing lays to blossom into relationships.

Some schools of Game make a big deal about “qualifying the girl” - which is basically making her jump through verbal hoops while you pretend that you have standards beyond the physical. In reality, Gamers are usually male whores - meaning anything above a certain hotness threshold gets invited into their lives. I don’t say this because the “moral dimension” (don’t believe in it) of guy’s mating behavior is interesting to me - I say it for reasons of strategy and authenticity. Building a relationship requires a pretty cunning screening procedure, the development of a felt touch for what irks or potentially will irk you. Also the ability to read women and understand the differences in their characters and how it relates to your character.

There is no way to develop this touch and instinct while you are whoring it up with a bunch of wierdos. The disconnect is even bigger for guys who allow themselves all sorts of disrespectful thinking about the girls they are chasing. These people use Game as a way to keep relationships in a state similar to musical chairs, where they can never attain the depth or meaning that they would otherwise have.

At the same time many guys who are driven to embrace Game are smart guys, who simply had a few bad turns here and there in life’s rich pageant. Here is a point I wish to underline: Many guys who are into Game are guys who will have to screen, in order to find women of commensurate intelligence with themselves. Crafting clever theories and then implementing them in a dare-devil style social adventure means you are awake to life’s possibilities, whatever damage also comes with this. Not teaching these guys to screen for the 1-5% of women who can match their conversations, is setting them up for a life of disastrous mesalliances. Yet Game not only does not teach them to approach the non-slutty girl in the library, it even creates a paradigm where this treasured creature cannot be hunted because she cannot be seen. The woman of substance is theorized simply not to exist.

This is the only real point of contention I have with Game that would merit a dissection in a blog post: that, instead of setting men up where they are in a place to mature into an understanding of what relationships are - and thus grow out of their porn-sex fantasy coccoon - instead of this, it points them in almost the exact opposite direction. It sets them on a collision course with the most vapid, uninteresting, sexually permissive segment of the female population and then confirms them in this practice. Game urges you to continually rediscover a female demographic which you should categorically shun: the un-pre-screened, provocatively dressed masses.

It also offers you a false freedom from the demands of more respectable women, who have higher standards in relationships. These are precisely the demands that you want to mature into a man who is able to fulfill, though. You do not want to skimp out on them because they are ‘more than women deserve’ or because sluttish women don’t demand so much. It is catastrophically bad relationship training, unless of course the alternative was World of Warcraft.

6. Alpha as Sex-and-Status-Slave

Just listen to what defines Alpha-ness among these cohorts and you will soon enough learn how superficial an understanding of man underpins this sexual safari. Man is defined by how much of a splash he can make in the world of impressions. A lower-IQ demographic might think this means bling, but at the level of white “Gamesmanship” (cringe) we are looking at, it usually means going on adventures. Having a successful career or a nice car. Having traveled the world, swum in the Amazon, defused a ticking Tiger, and learned all sorts of sophisticated dances or having mastered arcane nonsense. Basically anything to grease the wheels of one’s whorish, other-oriented conversations, which are after all just a means to an end.

This Alpha male who grimaces (because he’s tough!), and then smiles (because he’s lovable!), and then jumps down a fire-escape (because he’s not risk-adverse!), before dancing the tango with you - reflects the wildly proliferating imaginational world of men who are sculpting themselves into some kind of amazing Character for the admiration of a future chick. It’s more inauthenticity, in essence it’s wimperingly supplicative behavior in the same way as the classic “Beta” would fawn with his nice-guyism. But it’s forgivable, and to each his own with this type of nonsense.



Comments:


1

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 01:38 | #

Søren wrote:

Probably even commenting on that post is Beta.

Whoa! At least Matt Parrott only trolls to divert.


2

Posted by Doug on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 02:07 | #

True alpha males are supposed to have multiple partners due to the wider bell curve for men vs. women. There are more alpha-level high IQ/athletic/attractive males than alpha females, but there are also more retarded-level males. Monogamy guarantees each of the retarded males a mate, when naturally they wouldn’t have access since the alphas would attract multiple females. Consider how many women would honestly rather share Brad Pitt than be stuck with a monogamous garden-variety overweight couch potato football fan.


3

Posted by john on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 03:12 | #

Game is the opposite of feminism. It’s about getting smart, sneaky and mean - something all white men should do. We’re human too!!!
The question is - will game expand it’s providence?


4

Posted by Reginald on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 03:29 | #

There is no way to develop this touch and instinct while you are whoring it up with a bunch of wierdos.

Or people who can’t spell…


5

Posted by Reginald on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 03:43 | #

Every initiate into Game is invited to accept or reject tentatively this radical hypothesis: that sex can become a meaningless safari of hook-ups whose only residual effect is to raise one’s status within ‘the Game’ and thus credentialize one’s ability to write blog posts.

Are their way more Game Blogs than I thought?

If you look at Roissy’s traffic, it massively outstrips the number of comments he gets.


6

Posted by Michael Ventura on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 05:08 | #

Breeding with horses is fun.  It’s immensely pleasurable.  (By the way, I’m Reginald.)


7

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 06:04 | #

At first I thought Michael Ventura was indulging in some sort of high order spam.

But no.

So I’ve added http://www.statsaholic.blogspot.com/ to the permanent links.


8

Posted by yohami on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:18 | #

I agree with most parts, but I would reprase it by saying Game is played by betas - and thats why it was created, to help the fool romantinc mimic some incomprensible, unnatural alpha behaviours so he can get some pussy

And since thats the whole intention of Game, saying its beta is redundant

I used Game to learn stuff to become alpha (not the porn definition) and I wish there was a method for this that wasnt so pussy centered


9

Posted by danielj on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:10 | #

I used Game to learn stuff to become alpha (not the porn definition) and I wish there was a method for this that wasnt so pussy centered

Reading books, holding down a job and working out ought to do the trick.


10

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:31 | #

After wondering wtf this was all about I skipped 273 lines down to just below 6.

Then I see it’s about a guy who wants to dance the tango with me, which feat will make “chicks” admire him.

I’ll say!

Well, it’s not that I’m a bit stiff in the joints, or have two wooden legs: I’M A MALE for heaven’s sake!


11

Posted by Matt Parrott on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:14 | #

A lot of the pro-tips that are the foundation of game are the kind of stuff men in earlier generations learned from modeling their manly male relatives and interacting with their female relatives. I believe Roissy summed up game one time as treating women you’re courting with the same air of confidence and dominance one would accord to his little sister. Many White American males were raised without female siblings, by dominant and distracted single moms.

In many ways, “game” is a positive development, an effort to reconstruct traditional gender relationship dynamics from the ruins of modernity.

Where it gets decadent is in the sort of ideologies and pathologies that get associated with “game”. An honest Christian man with an eye toward a lifelong marriage and a large happy family can stand like Captain Morgan, apply a gentle neg, and refrain from the kind of cloying and submissive behaviors that repel the ladies. This idea that men ought to use these tricks to contract herpes and die alone is the problem.

It’s no more decadent for a man to play himself up during courtship than it is for women to wear lipstick and bras. That’s courtship. Watch the Discovery Channel if you don’t believe me.


12

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:39 | #

There seems to be a lot of hatred in this Game nonsense ... hatred of self and hatred of “modern women” who have no higher station in life than that of a whore.

The whole thing looks deeply silly and mistaken.  Unless, of course, the inventor is not, in fact, a European, so to speak, in which case it is deeply offensive and racist, as usual.


13

Posted by Donald on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:19 | #

Now this is a genuine evolutionary strategy

As J. Phillipe Rushton wrote, this is the difference between European populations and Black populations. I’d guess the Roissy followers such as yourself would have us ape the behavior of blacks as the gold standard.

The reason for this aping is that acting like a K is a loser in modern dating, because the provider role has been substantially taken up by government and philanthropic organizations.

Well, no. Your point is taken but it is exaggerated. It isn’t just about food and shelter. The provider does more than just bring material comfort - he is about stability and the association of a nurturing environment with that stability.

Basically, you would have us believe that the average ghetto thug with no marketable job skills who can “game” women is equal or superior to the 130 IQ white college educated professional (lawyer, executive, etc.) in terms of sexual appeal for a white female partner, or for that matter, actual reproductive success.

This is about what people are evolved to want, not about evolution per se

Gotta love the unfounded scientific claims of the Roissyites.


14

Posted by Rusty on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:25 | #

Game is the logical outcome of radical Feminism, materialism, and the dumbing of our culture.  It is expected that many boys should never grow into men under such a regime, and that masturbatory activities such as Game and extended video/online fantasy play would become their obsession.  This, like liberalism in general, will have to run its course. 

I wonder what the unrepentant ones will be like in a another 10-20 years.  A guess: drug abusers, sex-offenders, paedophiles, psychologists, religious leaders, and politicians.


15

Posted by Donald on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:48 | #

Not a Roissy follower, except in your imagination

Says the one who just cited a Roissy article.

And, yes, I’d say that aping Blacks is better than celibacy, don’t you?

False dillema.

Your example is absurd - you’re comparing the lowest status rs to the highest status Ks.

Did it ever occur to you that those traits are correlative and not indepenent of each other?

What’s unfounded?

Your claim that this is what “people are evolved to want”.

And if yes, *why* do you think that Ks are not only acting like rs, but even coming up with a whole system to do so?

Sexual frustration, social ineptitude, and resentment.


16

Posted by Wexler on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:49 | #

Of course Game is beta. As the point was made, it is mimicking alpha behavior. The real alpha is not imitating, he is doing.

But, Game in itself is not degenerate. It is functional behavior in a degenerate environment. (Sorta like the Beatles or the Stones ... laughs.)


17

Posted by ATBOTL on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:06 | #

This post is retarded.  Game is just handling women more effectively.  You can invest as little or as much time learning about it as you want.  It’s just as effective on a women you’ve been married to for 20 years as one you just met in a bar. 

Matt is right that much of it is stuff that men from a few generations ago learned automatically.  In many cultures, that’s still true today.

The only thing pathetic is that modern American men have to learn to be men from books.  But it’s still better than not learning.


18

Posted by Wanderer on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:45 | #

[From OP]
Game is marketed to emotionally dead males, because only those who are emotionally dead can ever view sexual relationships as being so simple as scoring with a series of random, semi-anonymous chicks who one doesn’t like or respect.

Game is the only thing that promises to turn your life into a porno movie. It’s actually the next natural step in the progression from a childhood that included watching porno movies.

Profound points.

A disturbingly-unhealthy situation. Seems induced largely by the poison of pornography.

Also remember that the terminology “alpha” and “beta” was lifted, directly, from the studies of chimp groups in the jungle.


19

Posted by Wanderer on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:54 | #

StatsAholic has a post up titled “How to Avoid Divorce”.

White women born in mid-20th-century USA were much more likely to divorce if they reported they had had multiple sex partners before marriage.

This proves what should go without saying—that the sexually-promiscuous are less stable, more petty and childish, more socially-destructive—to coin a term, Untermenschen.

People of Honor build societies; “Game”-losers and sluts (to repeat myself) destroy them. That is the way it has always been.


20

Posted by Wanderer on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:58 | #

from “Sex and Culture”, by J.D. Unwin, PhD (1934)

Indeed, as sexual opportunity becomes easier—which always takes place in concert with female emancipation—the society’s mental energy weakens, it cannot continue to invent things or maintain what it has, and in a few generations it is easily conquered by a robust monogamous patriarchy, which is bursting with the mental energy of repressed sexuality.

(i.e., the power of sexual sublimation.)


21

Posted by SMC on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:24 | #

Alex Zeka and others here, the things you said were easy to understand and good.

You are dealing with old timers and creationists here. They don’t know where lightning comes from. They certainly are not in tune with how reality works in the even more complicated modern social spheres.

“Game”—while something I don’t do—is good because it pisses off all the right people. Feminists and creationists. And traditionalists too. Don’t every doubt that their head up ass ness—especially regarding females—is why we are in this mess in the first place.

“Game” IS a distraction from other once deemed “higher” pursuits. (That is why I don’t do it.) But other things said in the article were silly. And some of the comments were worse. They belie an ignorance of what game actually is(“it is black culture”); the culture at large (eg single fem parent and social engineering to neuter the male); and the needs of sexually desirous YOUNG males (ie not old timers who can take or leave wimmins).

GW [while I don’t think he is that bright anyway] is a shock here saying what he is.

How did you GW miss what “game” is as a social phenom? One of us is seriously misinformed. (I see it the way the non-old timers above do: “K abolished so compensatory R learned”. Behaviors of the bronc-ing males—rattling their chains. As said it is pissing off all the right groups.

Males posturing like lotharios is not new. But in the second half of the 20th century (and now beyond), maintaining eye contact with the `oh so precious is new (again).



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Does William Hague bat for the opposition?
Previous entry: The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 4)

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:02. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

affection-tone