The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 06 July 2014 19:47.

calabritto 1

Calabritto, where Samnites holed-up after pilfering the Roman legions, the valley below where Spartacus led his uprising of slave forces against Rome.


3,228 words


Post Modernity, properly defined, serves the purpose of acknowledging and delimiting the negative implications of Modernity. That is why the Post Modern concept was developed - to establish limits on the epoch, the project, the otherwise runaway logics of meaning and action of Modernity.

As such, Post Modernity puts a halt to the impervious linearity of Modernity, which has a propensity to run rough-shod and rupture our biological systems, ways and boundaries; but as Post Modernity prompts the employment of judgment in the hermeneutic turn - with engaged, circular process of inquiry from larger to smaller units of analysis - it can use that judgment to reconstruct traditional European forms and ways; and it can also make use of the positive aspects of Modernity’s logics of meaning and action (also characteristically European), as well.

Modernity having good and bad properties for the reconstruction and growth of a people and Post Modernity as a way of managing its two sides are thus important conceptual tools for us to maintain. Nevertheless, and although Modernity has a good and a bad side, it is the bad side that is especially important for us to maintain sight-of, for its propensities to wreck us in impervious liberalization and unaccountably obliterate our “borders” - the concept of Modernity unchecked in that regard is one of our greatest concerns.

Modernity is a quest and world view stemming from western traditions of objectivity and pursuit of universal, foundational truths. It has been the most determinedly evangelical and far reaching world view that the world has ever known. While continually putting ethnic resources at risk, its pursuit has nevertheless gained consensus by yielding fantastic results of technology, scientific insight and more; translating politically in the unburdening, simplifying belief that freedom, liberalism and universal rights will progress toward foundational truths; casualties and destruction on the way are cast aside as an experimentally necessary hazard.

Given its pervasive influence and its taken for grantedness by people in general, as facticitous, “the way it is”, it is especially important to understand its logics of meaning and action correctly, including how Jewish interests, and others unconcerned for European interests, would play Modernity’s “objectivity” and other properties (e.g., passivity, as in “the suicide” meme) against us.

It is also important thus to understand how Jewish interests in particular, would distort the concept of Post Modernity, to where most people would apprehend its concern to be some sort of obfuscating Marxist ruse, a shallow “dada” movement for varieties of trivial indulgence, if not hyper-relative, polymorphous decadence.

On the contrary, Post Modernity as a project is one which corresponds with the most serious issues of reconstructing our people, literally, and maintaining them.

Moreover, because Post Modernity can view both sides of Modernity, it can allow us to not only foster but to further our people, using its positive side, where we should, without losing our characteristic forms.

The negotiative logics of Post Modernity, properly understood and managed, can allow peoples to manage and reconstruct traditional practices and time immemorial forms while availing themselves of Modernity where its “change”, “progress”, “innovation” etc., is advisable.

However, it is for its enormous power, its propensity for vast and universal reach, its impervious objectivity, its non-accountability, its obliviousness to boundaries and borders, its destruction as opposed to maintenance and reconstruction of our cultures /peoples, that accurate understanding of the pejorative side inherent in the logics of meaning and action of Modernity is most important to maintain a conceptual bead-on.

Modernity/Post Modernity, as such, is such an important conceptual orientation to maintain a bead-on, but particularly as its apprehension and remedy has been so distorted by Jewish interests, I have been insistent upon its accurate understanding - its use for its focus on Modernity’s propensity to run rough-shod over the boundaries and qualities of our people is invaluable.

As the negative side of Modernity corresponds with how “civilization”, in Bowery’s definition, wreaks havoc with boundaries and the quality of people, I had been averse to it (“civilization” as pejorative) as not entirely necessary, obstructive at first blush, particularly in some of his more extravagant inferences - ranging from the alien idea of eusociality to what would undoubtedly be an unpopular call for civilization’s entire take-down. Nevertheless, it is clear that civilization entails problems that call for critical attention. I did not summarily dismiss his line of thought, but did have initial aversion to the framework, the potential comprehension of its negative aspects by the negative aspects of “Modernity” being just one viewpoint that caused me to short shrift understanding and integrating the utility of the logic of civilization that he was tracing.

Both the pejorative side of Modernity and the pejorative side of civilization hazard the boundaries of our peoples and their reconstruction. As concepts, they are taking a view toward much the same problems. So where is the conflict in theories? I hope to show that there need not be one, necessarily, by redressing misunderstandings and oversights that have occurred given different perspectives. For this in particular, I am thankful to James for prompting this discussion.

The idea of “civilization take down” was averse to me. I rather saw civilization in a fairly positive sense - Plato’s definition of it being the gradual victory of persuasion over force (good), a matter of our western technology, medicine, freedom from arbitrary affliction and drudgery, to pursue more ambitious human endeavors (good). That we, of all people, should not sacrifice these crowning rewards of our creation. In addition, that most European peoples would apprehend the matter as I had – that “taking down civilization”, en toto, would not be appealing; that it is a hard sell; moreover, an unnecessary sell. As its pejorative effects might be comprehended within the concept of Modernity/ and Post Modernity’s management thereof, we might begin to look at a positive and negative side of civilization as well, as we have with Modernity. With that we might have an easier “sell”, since we are appealing to outliers anyway, who can focus on taking down the pejorative aspects of civilization, the parts doing most harm to our boundary maintenance while yielding the least reward in return for its hazard.

However, with the facility of my conceptual tools and other aversions, I was as overly disposed to ignore the utility of Bowery’s pejorative definition of civilization as he was apparently averse and overly disposed to ignore the utility in the pejorative definition of Modernity. I now have the working hypothesis that a fair approximation of the pejorative side of civilization that he cites not only can, but should be maintained for its utility along with, and integrated with, a focus on Modernity’s pejorative side.

It seems we have missed the mutual utility in these concepts as both concerned for our boundaries and quality of life within. One reason for the misunderstanding stems from the Jewish distortion, as noted, but there is also objectivist (naiive or disingenuous) misapprehension of the concept of Modernity/Post Modernity. Correspondingly, another reason that has emerged would be the Nordicist and scientific entering point and perspective that Bowery, like many, if not most, take, in entering into advocacy of EGI.

Nordicism is a first step into EGI and White Nationalism for many, but because I was disinclined to the Nordicist perspective, I was not sufficiently appreciating the necessity for not only redressing what might be some of its oversights but also for a more thorough collation of its more useful concepts.

Indeed, the “Nordicist” entering point was not, and would not be, my natural entering point into White Nationalism. Being half Italian, having spent much time among Italian Americans and indeed, in Italy, among the Campanian villages of my grandparents, having experience and affinity with the people, I understand the qualities and differences of them - as with all Europeans, some good and some dicey - as in all regions and nations, there are people that I can understand others not wanting to marry. That is, it is not necessarily the case that southerners are eager to intermarry with northerners either. I fancied the possibility that the embarrassing phenomenon of adolescent Italian males’ dogging of blond girls is didactic, to discourage any more of the all too prevalent incursion into Italian genotypes (no more big, blond Italian women, please!). In any event, I maintained that if people don’t like Italians, well then, don’t visit there and don’t marry them; further, as with whatever dicey elements or degree of non-European admixture that might exist in some particular nation of European people, I take the theory that it might be quarantined through national boundaries and local prejudices. Reconstructing the validity of nations, borders, boundaries, prejudice and discrimination is, after all, the rubric under which we meet.

Even so, that’s a bit facile of me and the Nordicist entering point would be fairly opaque to me as I would not be inclined to take a view that people from European regions once under the dominion of ancient Roman civilization or the Catholic Church, would necessarily be adversarial to European interests let alone be considered non-European – quite to the contrary.

Thus, when David Duke spoke of disembarking a plane from Rome, so glad to be setting foot once again in Europe as he stepped onto the Munich airport, I felt my indignation barely required explanation; I took for granted that anyone should be able to see in that statement the seedy representation of some nasty and narrow contingent.

Nevertheless, a bracketed Nordic perspective apparently is the entering point of many, probably most, White Nationalists. That is probably due in large part to the predominant north/west European make-up of American Whites, a sense of loyalty, pride and vulnerability in its northern genetics; and with that, a general Nordic bias in what has been circulating among pro-White literature, such as from Madison Grant, Adolf Hitler, William Gayley Simpson, William Pierce, Arthur Kemp and Kevin MacDonald.

It is necessary then to understand, with a working hypothesis, what the Nordicist perspective generally is, based on its literature and exponents: It basically provides a narrative of Northern Europeans in particular, as becoming distinct in having evolved where fierce cyclical cold and lack of resource was the chief “enemy.” These circumstances compelled ingenious foresight and the inventive evolution of sovereign individualists on the one hand; but for ethnocentrism not having been quite so helpful in their evolutionary circumstances, a people who are, on the other hand, susceptible – particularly to group strategies of those evolved in warm climbs; where seasonal changes are less challenging and/or resources are more abundant, co-evolution rather collectivizes in defense against competition of other collectivized groups.

But that is not the end as the Nordicist saga normally goes. This perspective typically casts ancient Roman civilization as a cautionary tale of a people transformed into mongrels if not non-Europeans through race mixing with the slaves and mercenaries it took-up along the way to its hellacious and genocidal incursions against other people – the impact of most concern, northern Europeans. Roman civilization was reflecting the more collective, non-White, evolutionary strategies of the warmer climbs, where natural necessities were secure enough, but also where evolution of inter-group conflict was endemic and reciprocally perpetuating. Over and against the Roman collective assault, the heroism of figures such as Boudica, in her battle against the Roman legions in Britannia, or Armenius and the defeat of Roman legions in the Tuetoburg forest, are seen not only as victories over Rome, but as the triumphs of true Europeanism.

Despite that, after the fall of ancient Rome, southern collective assault was carried-on through the Catholic Church (to a lesser extent, later on, through mafia gangs). Thus, where not perhaps adopting the aloofness of an Enlightened Modernist or reverting to Odinism, the Nordicists adopted variants of Protestantism which could go to extremes of co-opting what was a narrative originally in service of Jews, for their overthrow and release from Roman control (i.e., the New Testament, particularly the Revelation) - the Catholic Church as beast 666 and so on to promote their separatism from southern and other Europeans. Roman civilization, its collectivizing, mongrelizing and expansive “catholic” church, became a perennial demon, attacking the Nordics, taking advantage where it could, of their truthfulness, natural goodness, their openness, altruism, their self reliance, individualism, their lack of clannish and calculating ethnocentrism.

With that, another reason why it, the wonders of Nordic individualism, with Rome as the enemy, could tend to gain currency and cause less consternation among many White nationalists - particularly in the vast northwestern European demographic of The U.S. – is that such a narrative would be complimentary, not insulting to them. Whereas, again, I would not be inclined to view Europeans from areas once controlled by ancient Rome and the Catholic Church as quite so different or antagonistic to other Europeans and our mutual interests. Nevertheless, beyond complimentary, the virtues of Nordic individualism as opposed to evil southern collectivism would be additionally serviceable to the American notion of rugged individual rights, to unburden them of social relations to motley and distant demographic mixes in The U.S.

My natural inclination to be done with this burdensome narrative would have me quip that what I dislike about Nordics is their lack of properly measured ethnocentrism; either “morally superior” to “racism”, or saying things like, “oh, blacks are not so bad, we care about the black family” (as if we need the misleading, Jewish, positive spin on blacks compounded; to allow unsuspecting persons or those in vulnerable circumstances to experience their brunt, by not confirming apprehension).. or, blacks are “just stupid” (as if it is good to underestimate them and how White women might view this).. or on the other hand, they draw the line too narrowly - Italian, now that’s a line of difference important to emphasize, whereas blacks - no big problem (maintain aloof appearance of objectivity, “more secure and manly”, but really cowardly and just safer to criticize southern Europeans than blacks ..pandering, stay cool with the PC chicks that way).

Crap such as that some Nordicists incessantly spew; along with other minimization, exaggeration and bizarre speculations taken-on in denial or pseudo warrant of prejudices - such as the aforementioned expressions of Christianity. I would not feel guilty for Catholicism, nor defend any form of Christianity, as it comes back to the same Jewish text. Nor am I about to feel guilty about or defend Caesar, not in his genocide of The Gauls, the invasion of Britannia or the destruction of European people and cultures along the way – it is horrible, terribly wrong, I wish it did not happen, I would not do things that way; it is history; the same would hold true for Hitler and his campaigns against other Europeans. I would neither expect Germans to feel guilty nor to be proud of Hitler (explanation is different than endorsement). By contrast, the mutually buffering human ecologies of Europe are most likely an asset.

However, the Nordic perspective would not only be an entering but an enmeshing narrative for many, as it would have some additional currency for its coherence for those entering into White nationalist awareness. Except for the suicide meme of northern individualism/ lack of ethnocentrism, now being promoted by Jewish interests, it has been less trammeled and corrupted by Jewish interests in recent times - seen as a largely dead horse, given the popularization of “Civil Rights”, Boasian Anthropology and other PC; with that, the Jewish instigation of Nordicism as didactically narrow and rightist, a nebulous altercast which Nordicists (and naiive/ disingenuous objectivists – modernists) have generally acted-into, for aversion to the Jewish controlled definition of “The left”, an aversion which allows conversation to some coherent extent on absolving interlocutors of guilt-trips from non-Whites; however, coming at the price of profounder incoherence through the reflexive arbitrariness of objectivity; contributing to the Jewish obfuscation of White Leftism, its organizational capacity, social responsibility and humanitarianism (I.e., from Whites to Whites); and dividing them against other people who are essentially native European, who should be looked upon as such, having essentially kindred interests.

Besides pushing the suicide meme of individualism and lack of ethnocentrism, or associating it with didactic rightism, Nordicism would be a narrative less corrupted by Jews and having more currency and coherence among WN’s than would the Modernity /Post Modernity distinction – the corruption of the latter concepts being still more serviceable to Jewish interests, viz., to sell over-expanded “inclusiveness” and anti-White criticism talk in the big business of academia; then bury what otherwise would have been concepts by which Whites could have defended themselves, promulgating instead perverted versions through the media to the detriment of Whites.

Though “Post Modernity” has been more useful to distort for them in recent times, distortions of Modernity have been useful - as in the case of “Civil Rightslegislation - and continue to be useful, resurrected in “the suicidal blindness of Northerners to the necessity of ethnocentrism”, as a meme - presently amplified and promoted by Jewish interests, as “not the fault nor the responsibility of Jews, but only necessary to report as ‘a mere fact which must be passively accepted.” This is another case where they are twisting a Modernist argument against Whites. Nevertheless, the tendency to liberal individualism at the expense of ethnocentric defense is a very real problem for European interests, and yet another hazard to our boundaries of our own making, just as Modernity is and, as we will see in more detail in a moment, civilization has been.

From my perspective, I would be inclined to see this narrative as exaggerating the evolutionary if not circumstantial differences in individualism versus collectivism between Northern and Southern Europeans – wishing that indeed Southern Europeans would be effective in collective defense. In order to get on with defending all of us (instead of having to defend myself from people who I am trying to help, for god’s sake), I would be inclined to put it aside as quickly as possible and thus ignore what is for many the currency for understanding these issues and thus for me the necessary task of collating it in reconciliation to the symbiosis of European world views and nationalisms.

Thus, I am grateful to have my attention drawn to redress misunderstandings, as it is a great opportunity to increase our overall understanding of our mutual interests, in our struggle for native European sovereignty.

Be my good will as it may, since I will be accused of not dealing with “facts” or what “Is”, the first fact of what Is that I have attempted to deal with Is where I had been disinclined to see Bowery’s description of the rule structure entailing the negative side of civilization as a useful conceptual tool.

In further correction, we need to look a little more into where it Is helpful in organizing attention on clear and present dangers and where it is speculative and less helpful, if not an obstruction as a concern - e.g., perhaps exaggerating the prescriptive value of individualism and necessary social cooperation as pejorative in that regard. Then we might begin the process of trying to map and match what appear to be large similarities and symbiotic concern between the pejorative side of civilization and Modernity.

 



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:18 | #

Before taking a detour through Rome in order to explain some the course of Modernity through its civilization, I must say that this is the perfect place to invite the commentariat to take the Post Modern turn with me; for it is precisely the Cartesian model that would have me proposing myself as the all-knower, having received truth from pure reason and transmitting it to a passive third person audience. Whereas the comments allow for joint participation for the correction and construction of knowledge, cultural resource - indeed, the White Class (race) and selves.

Thus, rather than trying to solve this Gordian knot, by myself trace and fully detail all relevant connections of Modernity’s logic as it made its way through ancient Rome, and so on, I would be much more honest and better advised to make the more modest attempt to indicate important general discursive structures of the times and ask for help in elaboration where necessary – or adding corrections and relevant discursive structures where I am not seeing the necessity.

I also need to ask for understanding from Dr. Lister. There is a lot of mention of the B word in this essay as it was conceived as a necessary response and beginning of reconciliation between pejorative aspects of civilization and modernity.

However, I am neither uncritical of Jim’s arguments not do I set about to destroy his entire being, as you sometimes seem wont to do.

Moreover, I ask your patience, because my next effort will be directed at a concern that you have called special attention to and with that, especially, I would hope for your help; that my using the B word here would not have you turn your back for good on my efforts to valence your participation.


2

Posted by Bill on Tue, 08 Jul 2014 07:35 | #

And then there’s the migration problem. To make the central scenario work, Europe and the USA each have to absorb 50 million migrants between now and 2060, with the rest of the developed world absorbing another 30 million. Without that, the workforce and the tax base shrinks so badly that states go bust.

The main risk the OECD models is that developing countries improve so fast that people stop migrating. The more obvious risk – as signalled by a 27% vote for the Front National in France and the riotous crowds haranguing migrants on the California border – is that developed-world populations will not accept it. That, however, is not considered.

The best of capitalism is over for rich countries – and for the poor ones it will be over by 2060

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/capitalism-rich-poor-2060-populations-technology-human-rights-inequality


3

Posted by Bill on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:00 | #

Occidental Observer has an article by Kevin MacDonald (about soccer of all things) which signal America is emerging from a lost culture war to an overtly racial one. 

Peter Beinart’s Jewish Triumphalism: Jettisoning the White Working Class July 9th 2014.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

The same thing is happening here in Britain and Europe.

Voters are beginning to subliminally vote along lines of race, it’s slow process that can only but take hold.

Perhaps the smart people here will say, we knew all this would happen, what’s taken you all this time to figure it out?


4

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:55 | #

In the David Harvey book that Dr. Lister recommended for the sake of orientation, some points jump out as important in the quoted passage below.

First, as a general perspective on economics he is articulating the capitalist motives of elites (those whom I would call disingenuous objectivists) for promoting neo-liberalism; i.e., to be consumed as naiive objectivism, taken for granted as such

While I do not lose sight of capitalist interests (normally referring to them as objectivists - disingenuous or naiive), I have tended to focus on Jewish power and influence in manipulation of trends. Harvey is helpful in articulating the capitalist side of the assault on native European interests, but also instructive in his conspicuous non-differentiation of the Jewish role - for example, as it were behind the movement of ‘68 or the Berkeley Free Speech Movement (as such, these Jewish movements are disingenuously lumped with hippies and their “generation of bad White men”); nor does Harvey emphasize the Jewishness of Austrian school economics, central though it/they were to Neo Liberalism being taken for granted as “the way it is.”

Nevertheless, the analysis is useful as Dr. Lister suggests: Neo liberalism used the promotion of freedom of choice, in consumerism as well, of course, to combat the state being used as a corrective for social justice; there had been a tension between values of social justice and freedom; they used the promotion of freedom to drive a wedge against state apparatus which might function to regulate social justice. This served the purpose of expanding markets, consumers and getting state intervention off the backs of capitalist elite (both Jewish and White objectivist) by playing into popular sentiments of its being the grand dragon in opposition to individual liberty.

What is more, the neoliberals are also shown to have a market motive for misrepresenting “post modernism” in the ‘dada’ hyper-liberal sense - to create more market choice. There again, showing a capitalist/objectivist motive, not only a Jewish one for misrepresentation to the naiive populace.

“For almost everyone involved in the movement of ’68, the intrusive state was the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation: hence the threat to capitalist class power. By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called ‘post-modernism’ which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s”


5

Posted by Machiavelli, the founder of modernity on Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:34 | #

Machiavelli, the founder of modernity - his philosophy deviates from the Aristotlean biological telos and Platonic ideal telos; instead advising action to be based on the effectual truth.

That is, he is prescribing that the political actor base his actions on what “is” as opposed to “oughtness” and what is necessary as opposed to principles of good and bad.

He is prescribing practical force over prefigurative force.


6

Posted by Epicurean Texts in Herculaneum on Tue, 25 Dec 2018 09:53 | #

Herculaneum’s Lost Library: Includes fragments of Epicurean Texts.



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: The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2
Previous entry: Friends & Enemies – 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