The mind of Obama

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 22 March 2008 12:32.

By Bo Sears

Most of us diverse white American people have had a hard time understanding US Senator Barack Obama’s mind. We now know about his policies toward European Americans (more LBJ-syle set-asides, affirmative action, and quotas), but he has also provided us with a window into his mind about how he views us.

Taking offence vs. analysing the speaker’s mind

The Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s seem unable to discuss Obama’s willingness to label and describe us without getting tangled up in the concept of “giving offense.” Their lack of intellectual acuity doesn’t speak well for us.

Resisting Defamation has made it clear that slurs, slanders, names, labels, descriptions, and definitions don’t need to be offensive to us. They simply give us permission to look into the mind of the speaker to find out more about him. This is an important distinction—being “offended” is a highly specialized skill set, and most white American people do not realize that hours are spent in training in college dorms, human rights seminars, and minority-run segregated professional and occupational meetings to know when to shed one tear, two tears, or three tears for maximum impact; when to gasp in pain on hearing any of over 200 words that “give offense”; how to share with a left-wing racialist reporter one’s distress; and when to claim “I’m so afraid!” in public discourse.

Yes, dear reader, the “spontaneous” outbursts about offense are almost always fraudulent, but reporters who are in on the secret make a great to-do about minority claims of offense, frankly, as part of the campaign of defamation against the diverse European American peoples.

As sensible adults, we diverse white American peoples don’t claim offense, but we do find speech that denigrates, stereotypes, and uses code words or phrases worthy of analysis to determine the mind of the speaker.

So let’s take a look at Obama’s mind.

Acting white

Obama made these stereotypical code words (“acting white”) part of his famous July 27, 2004 Democratic Convention speech. He claimed that the context was when some black American students mock more studious black American students. And he even remarked in his speech that this was a slander! But he neglected to speak out against the way these code words mocked and denigrated diverse white Americans, smothered our diversity, tended to divide our nation on a racial basis, and implicitly claimed that African Americans had the right to convert our skin color into a remarkably unpleasant slur.

That Obama would arrogantly use these stereotypical code words in public was telling, but his high-handed refusal to apologize for using them was unforgivable. Imagine a European American having to define or explain an anti-black slur in public. We may be sure that an apology for even speaking the term would be called for, notwithstanding that the term may be in common usage within the black American community. Blue-collar and white-collar workers have lost employment for failing to conform to this multicultural rule. Should we grant Obama an exemption? Resisting Defamation says we should not excuse Obama’s use of “acting white” without an apology because it shows an underlying claim to supremacy on Obama’s part, the kind of supremacy that claims the right to name, label, describe, or define the other.

In short, he has abandoned any effort to promote a slur-free society. Tell us again just how he bridges the black-white gap?

White resentments

Obama memorialized this arrogant description (“white resentments”) of the diverse white American peoples’ feelings and emotions in this multicultural society in his March 19, 2008, speech on race. Once again we see his underlying claim to supremacy, the kind that claims the right to describe and define the other. As code words, they are also an attempt to smother our diversity, to name our feelings, to mock legitimate emotional responses, and to trivialize the social and economic disadvantages placed in the way of the past generation of the diverse white American peoples.

Once again, he has failed to make any effort to promote a slur-free society. What is that gap he wants to bridge again?

Typical white person

Obama used this code phrase during a radio interview on March 20, 2008, in his shocking reference to his grandmother. (He had “thrown her under the bus” in his March 19, 2008, speech on race in an unforgivable way already. Poor grandmother, to be mocked by her grandson. There is something of the King Lear and post-flood Noah narratives in his disgusting and loathsome reference to his grandmother.)

The notion of “typical white person” is another effort to belittle diverse white Americans, to smother our diversity, to divide the nation on a racial basis, and to use a formulation that has long since been identified as an unacceptable way to describe people in the African American, Asian American, and Latino American demographics. Try using “typical black person,” “typical Asian person,” or “typical Latino person” in public discourse and watch the metaphorical pitchforks and torches advance, double-time, toward your person, your family, your home, and your employment. Of course, Obama knows that this formulation is inappropriate and arrogant. His sense of supremacy, however, tells him that he is entitled to use this code phrase without social or political harm to himself.

And once again, he fails to promote a slur-free society. The famous bridge seems to have collapsed.

The indictment

European Americans do not take offense at Obama’s rude and arrogant naming and describing code phrases.

But we do indict him for displaying these disturbing characteristics:

1) His claim to supremacy, the claim that gives him the right to name, label, define, and describe the other.

2) His arrogance that works in tandem with his claim to supremacy.

3) His willingness to smother the diversity of the very diverse white American peoples.

4) His claim to have insight into a uniform and non-diverse emotional life of European Americans, a state of resentment.

5) His willingness to use language that divides the nation, not unifies it.

Conclusion

These five charges, taken together, demonstrate the state of Obama’s mind toward European Americans. Taken together with the three code words and phrases, we find him disqualified him from posing as a unifier, a bridger, an innovator, or a change agent.

Bo Sears, ResistingDefamation.org

Tags: U.S. Politics

Comments:

Posted by rocket on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:54 | #

no no no ...you missed the point . Ralph Nader said it best ‘‘Barak Obama has the art of abstractification down to a science’‘.

in other words—he is not really saying anyting. its rock star talk . that is why he is where he is . he is a very artful dodger . his speaking is good becuase of that. but there is no substance one way or another.

and since we live in such a superficial media culture , its perfect for him . the man really does not stand for anything . the race talk on boths sides of this primary is just red herring . becuase hilary isnt saying anything either.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:19 | #

The Immigration Lawyers have just revealed at their web-site that according to their analysis, of the three individuals vying to become the next president John McCain is the most likely to advance the race-replacement agenda and is therefore the one they support. They like Obama second and Hillary least of the three because they think Hillary’s too polarizing a figure to deliver the goods on race-replacement no matter how hard she tries.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:07 | #

All right, exactly how bad is McCain on immigration? ... Uhhh, you sure you wanna know? (It’s not pretty, I warn you ...) Yes? ... You do? ... OK, take a look. (Hey, I warned you it wasn’t pretty ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:35 | #

Incidentally, in John Slagle’s letter to Vdare.com linked in my comment above, where he refers to a figure of “10 million illegal aliens” for whom McInsane has repeatedly sought amnesty, Slagle is going strictly by the book, using the longtime official figure — the Jewish figure, one might think of it as — which has it that there are “eight to twelve million illegal aliens in the country, there were eight to twelve million in the year 2000, since then three million a year, every single year without let-up, have poured in from Mexico alone, at most a small fraction of those have gone back, and in the year 2008, eight years later, i.e., eight to twelve million plus eight times three million minus some small fraction who’ve gone home, makes ... (according to Jewish math) ... eight to twelve million illegal aliens in the United States today.”

Every single Euro-race eye-witness to the areas of the United States which the Jews have encouraged the Mexicans to overrun says this official figure of eight to twelve million is complete propaganda: the feds are lying through their teeth.

My figure: there are upwards of forty-five million non-white Third-World illegal aliens in the United States today.

And every single solitary one of them enjoys Jewish protection against deportation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:52 | #

Furthermore, every non-Euro-race person admitted under the It’s-Good-For-The-Jews 1965 Jewish-Vengeance-And-Payback-Against-Euros Immigration Holocaust Bill is an illegal alien since that bill was passed illegally: there’s the letter of the law and there’s the spirit of the law, and that bill was passed in the most brazen, flagrant contravention of the spirit of the law and of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention of the all of the founding realities, principles both written and unwritten, and understandings of this republic (I say the founding of this republic, not of this nation, for the founding of the nation was at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, not Philadelphia). The 1924 immigration law is still in force and every person admitted by the Jewish usurpers since 1965 who wouldn’t have been admitted under the 1924 national origins law is here illegally.

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:19 | #

“My figure: there are upwards of forty-five million non-white Third-World illegal aliens in the United States today.”

The elites are going to keep the boarder wide open until there are enough Mexicans in the USA to reach critical mass. (Critical mass meaning their will be enough non-whites to ensure that whites will soon become a permanent minority.) By your calculations, it looks like they’re pretty close to that mark. The next President, along with a Congress controlled by Democrats and RINOs, will have a filibuster proof majority; they will most assuredly pass an amnesty bill. Then the ‘chain migration’ starts ....

Make no mistake about it, this so called invasion of Mexicans into the USA was carefully thought out by the people in power. It fits right into their plan to merge the USA, Mexico, and Canada and form an ‘economic region’ called the NAU. The NAU is using the same blueprint as the EU. Both the EU and the NAU’s immigration and multicultural policies spell death to the European genotype and phenotype.

It really doesn’t matter if Obama, McCain, or Hillary becomes President ... all three are for making the illegal aleins legal citizens. McCain in my book is the most disgusting traitor of the three.

BTW—How is it that the three absolute worst candidates ended up as our only choices? McCain certainly is the most unpopular on the Republican side, and Hillary and Obama are the least qualified on the Democratic side. Yet this is what we have to choose from. Truly frightening!

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:28 | #

Fred,

The issue of legitimation is key. A governing elite which secretes its motives from the public, and treats the public will, of which it is well aware, with contempt cannot claim that its actions are legitimated.

In my country, no black immigrant from the time of the Windrush onward, no Indian, no Pakistani, and certainly no alien from the genocidal wave of the New Labour years can lay claim to a legitimated presence among us - and much less can he or she demand our recognition of common citizenship. Our natural and righteous desires were held in contempt by our leaders in 1948 as they are today. Either we cling to them now, withhold legitimation and fight for our collective life, or we embrace the alien and die.

Not a difficult choice really, but a difficult course of action presently.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:14 | #

A governing elite which secretes its motives from the public, and treats the public will, of which it is well aware, with contempt cannot claim that its actions are legitimated.

With respect, GW, how can it be a secret motive? It’s been in the Republican party platform at least since 1860.

Republican Party Platform of 1860
May 17th, 1860

Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:

14. That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:22 | #

Desmond, I don’t know exactly what the circumstances were behind that plank in the 1860 Republican Party platform — Prozium would know — but I sure as hell know what the circumstances were in 1965 and I can assure you the American people didn’t have the faintest idea what was coming down the pike then, and would’ve rioted in the streets if they had. The 1965 bill was an élite operation all the way and hidden as much as possible from the public in terms of what actually was afoot — doing away with this country’s Euro-race majority — and the inevitable consequences thereof. There was NO DEBATE THE PUBLIC WAS AWARE OF and whatever piddling discussion took place deliberately obfuscated all relevant issues, keeping their true import carefully under wraps. The bill was dishonestly passed and therefore as law is illegitimate.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:59 | #

Democratic Party Platform of 1952
July 21st, 1952

Progressive Immigration Policies

Solution of the problem of refugees from communism and overpopulation has become a permanent part of the foreign policy program of the Democratic Party. We pledge continued cooperation with other free nations to solve it.

We pledge continued aid to refugees from communism and the enactment of President Truman’s proposals for legislation in this field. In this way we can give hope and courage to the victims of Soviet brutality and can carry on the humanitarian tradition of the Displaced Persons Act.

Subversive elements must be screened out and prevented from entering our land, but the gates must be left open for practical numbers of desirable persons from abroad whose immigration to this country provides an invigorating infusion into the stream of American life, as well as a significant contribution to the solution of the world refugee and overpopulation problems.

We pledge continuing revision of our immigration and naturalization laws to do away with any unjust and unfair practices against national groups which have contributed some of our best citizens. We will eliminate distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens. We want no “second-class” citizens in free America.

Republican Party Platform of 1956
August 20th, 1956

Immigration

The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.

We believe that such a policy serves our self-interest, reflects our responsibility for world leadership and develops maximum cooperation with other nations in resolving problems in this area.

We support the President’s program submitted to the 84th Congress to carry out needed modifications in existing law and to take such further steps as may be necessary to carry out our traditional policy.

In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons, and undertook in the face of Democrat opposition to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice.

We believe also that the Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this we give our wholehearted support.

Democratic Party Platform of 1960
July 11th, 1960

Immigration

We shall adjust our immigration, nationality and refugee policies to eliminate discrimination and to enable members of scattered families abroad to be united with relatives already in our midst.

The national-origins quota system of limiting immigration contradicts the rounding principles of this nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man. This system was instituted after World War I as a policy of deliberate discrimination by a Republican Administration and Congress.

The revision of immigration and nationality laws we seek will implement our belief that enlightened immigration, naturalization and refugee policies and humane administration of them are important aspects of our foreign policy.

These laws will bring greater skills to our land, reunite families, permit the United States to meet its fair share of world programs of rescue and rehabilitation, and take advantage of immigration as an important factor in the growth of the American economy.

In this World Refugee Year it is our hope to achieve admission of our fair share of refugees. We will institute policies to alleviate suffering among the homeless wherever we are able to extend our aid.

We must remove the distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens to assure full protection of our laws to all. There is no place in the United States for “second-class citizenship.”

The protections provided by due process, right of appeal, and statutes of limitation, can be extended to non-citizens without hampering the security of our nation.

We commend the Democratic Congress for the initial steps that have recently been taken toward liberalizing changes in immigration law. However, this should not be a piecemeal project and we are confident that a Democratic President in cooperation with Democratic Congresses will again implant a humanitarian and liberal spirit in our nation’s immigration and citizenship policies.

Republican Party Platform of 1960
July 25th, 1960

Immigration

Immigration has historically been a great factor in the growth of the United States, not only in numbers but in the enrichment of ideas that immigrants have brought with them. This Republican Administration has given refuge to over 32,000 victims of Communist tyranny from Hungary, ended needless delay in processing applications for naturalization, and has urged other enlightened legislation to liberalize existing restrictions.

Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy require that:

The annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.

Obsolete immigration laws be amended by abandoning the outdated 1920 census data as a base and substituting the 1960 census.

The guidelines of our immigration policy be based upon judgment of the individual merit of each applicant for admission and citizenship.

-but I sure as hell know what the circumstances were in 1965 and I can assure you the American people didn’t have the faintest idea what was coming down the pike then, and would’ve rioted in the streets if they had.

Sorry, Fred, no sale for that B.S.!

Posted by onlooker on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:00 | #

The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was made under false pretences, but it is a separate issue from the ongoing mass ILLEGAL invasion of Mexicans and the inevitability of a forthcoming amnesty bill. The American people know full well the negative effects of the mass third-world invasion. They also know about the complicity their elected leaders have in it, yet the white masses sit quietly on their hands and barely do diddly-squat about it. Pathetic!!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:41 | #

Fred, Desmond,

I agree that the hiding of elite intent is not strictly necessary or necessarily pursued. If one looks at European countries today, the two issues which are simply bulldozed through all resistance are the federalisation of the EU and, of course, the dedicated enaction of race replacement. Both are internationalist interests. The latter, being a racial issue, is accorded the skills of the Chosen. But the drive for global governance, of which the EU is but a staging post, requires no such attentions, and is accorded a straight political treatment. It makes no difference in the end, since we European peoples are simply not permitted to interfere with either. The will, or decision, of the power elite is absolute.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:04 | #

Desmond, thanks for posting those informative documents which show how Jewish money and Jewish string-pulling combined with the efforts of the cheap-labor lobby were dictating not just the wording of the immigration planks of both major parties but the presence of immigration planks to begin with: why were there “immigration planks” at all? After 1924 no immigration planks were needed: immigration had been arranged and settled. That certain interests were trying to pry the immigration doors open ever since their defeat in 1924 comes as no surprise — Jewish Member of Congress Emanuel Celler never once paused in his efforts to undo the Jewish defeat in all the years between 1924 and 1965 and he was backed by massive Jewish assistance all the way. The ADL had Jack Kennedy write a book extolling immigration prior to the 1960 campaign. Kevin MacDonald’s scholarship has blown the wraps off this whole ugly phase of systematic Jewish nation-murder. The Jews had been toiling day and night for decades prior to 1965 to open the country’s borders. That they got their hooks into the writing of both party platforms is no surprise whatsoever but it helps to actually see their work in print — you’d think you were looking at something straight out of the Talmud it’s so unmistakably Jewish in its wording, its preoccupations, its Euro-hatred.

And no, the implications of that which was being proposed by the Jews and the cheap-labor compradors were never significantly debated prior to the passage of the 1965 bill. The public had no idea what was being fobbed off on them, none, not an inkling. The general public is too busy earning a living to pore over the fine print of every detail of each party’s platform but trusts that those in charge are not going to stab the nation in the back. In this case its trust was ... misplaced.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:04 | #

The last white riot over immigration in the US apparently is the “Zoot Suit Riot” in LA.

At about 1:57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-16yMnfrj0U&feature=related

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:21 | #

When I was in high school we were taught that the “Jewish stab in the back that had caused Germany’s defeat in WW I” cited by the German National Socialists as one of their main grievances in their rise to power had been a lie. It never happened. It was made up by the Nazis out of age-old anti-Semitism arising from who knows what sickness in certain classes of human beings.

My whole life I believed that, of course. Everyone did. Everyone still does.

It turns out it wasn’t a lie. It turns out the lie was the claim that it was a lie.

The German Jews did stab Germany in the back, helping to cause its defeat in WW I. They stabbed their own country in the back.

And the U.S. Jews stabbed the United States, their own country, in the back in 1965, in prying open its borders after decades of non-stop effort. They’re stabbing it in the back right now, with all they’re doing to insist the borders stay open. The U.S. isn’t dead yet but the Jews will keep stabbing until it is. In the back.

That’s how they repaid this country for its kindness shown them: they dealt it its death blow.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:32 | #

Desmond is asking, in his last comment, why U.S. whites don’t riot? That’s another question. Maybe they will. Rioting is a last resort. If ever they do, it will be time for their tormentors to catch the first plane out. But talk is cheap, as the saying goes. We’ll see what’s going to happen. And we’ll see who’ll win this thing.

Posted by onlooker on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:50 | #

Obama, the deformed mind of a mixed race man vs Ward Connerly, the clear thinking mind of mixed race man.

Article by Pat Buchanan:

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=974

Posted by Peter on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:01 | #

My God! Jew this and Jew that…I am glad i am not a Jew after reading all this. This site makes me want to educate myself on the “atrocities” caused by the Jews fast!
Guessedworker what country are you from? Estonia? Latvia? you seem to be the most insensitive…
I live in Canada and i love it here! I totally believe and support human rights. Being gay that is understandable…Also i promise i will never propagate with white women…I can’t.
Please tell me you guys are happy to have me here? in the West. I just feel so much hate and “unwelcomeness” here. I am a good citizen…I am going to graduate school next year, I am kind and polite, I never use foul language or hurt anyone’s feelings. I dress decently. I immigrated here…Why should i not be here? You guys make me feel sad :(
I am sure many of the immigrants are nice people like me and keep to their own communities?
Someone tell me what this race replacement is!? Does it mean White people will eventually disappear due to race mixing and low birth rates?
Ok I don’t mean this in a racist way but i didn’t want Obama to be the president of the United States initially. But i guess everyone should be treated equally? He does bring to mind the future in a way…Half white and Half black…you guys know what i mean?
If he does win, it will be a little “different” having a Black president of the USA a “White” country. Mais Que sera sera. Bonne Chance Obama!
Au revoir Les tous!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:51 | #

“Someone tell me what this race replacement is!? Does it mean White people will eventually disappear due to race mixing and low birth rates?” (—Peter)

Yes. Among other things. And there have been homosexuals commenting at this site who’ve been vigorous opponents of what’s going on. One who had his own web-site just passed away recently: Alisdair Clarke.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:58 | #

Another homosexual sympathizer with our concerns who for a time, early-on, was a semi-regular commenter who signed as “Marc.” He too had his own web-site, where he devoted considerable space and passion to critiquing today’s liberal abortion laws. There have been yet others.

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18 | #

I’m not sure which is more damaging to Western culture: The Jew lobby, or the Gay and Lesbian lobby? The answer is obviously the combination of the two. They’re working in tandem to promote the destruction, by way moral corruption, of the white race.

Posted by Peter on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:38 | #

My Darlings!
I am not for the destruction of anyone and i am going to hate admitting it but i support West/White culture totally because obviously i get my “freedoms” from it. I don’t like interracial marriages! I like diversity. I like seeing Nordic people, I like seeing Black people, I like seeing Asian people. So in all i support you guys when you want to preserve your genotypes and phenotypes and can understand why you are concerned with the increasing number of foreigners amongst your midsts.
Fred Scrooby i like you due to some nice comments you made regarding Indian women lol unlike some others. Thank you
onlooker What exactly is the Gay lobby? I am guessing your a “religious” person since your talking about moral corruption.
I am not for race replacement, I am for diversity which means no interracial marriages (not too many). I love your culture (Western culture). I can only say good things about it. It has given me the confidence to say i am gay to some “haters” that are here and pursue my educational pursuits among other things.
I am so excited about graduate school next year. Maybe i should consider race replacement! I am kidding…I will probably do public health. So in other words i am contributing to your society and love it. Does that make me acceptable?...and whats more i am not going to be involved with any European woman (or any woman) so that leaves more European women for you guys! so please don’t hate me. I am not that bad really….

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:49 | #

“onlooker What exactly is the Gay lobby?”

Ask Fred. He’s undoubtedly an expert on the subject.

But seriously, here’s a good source of how the Gay and Lesbian lobby are corrupting our culture ... and especially our children:

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Right-Wrong-Exposing-Assault/dp/1400052947

Posted by Reiv on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:20 | #

unsubscribe me immediately

Posted by Peter on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:36 | #

Wow i am really spending time here!
onlooker i looked at that and the only mention of “gays” was them trying to “sex-ed” kids. What is wrong with that? Kids are maturing early these days and with the number pedophiles and STD’s around isn’t it good they have some basic understanding about what “sex” is and how to protect themselves? Like they already don’t know! Don’t get me wrong i am not talking about Children under 10 years of age getting that education.
Or are you criticizing that kids shouldn’t know what/who gays are? Let me tell you Kids already know!
I haven’t read the book so i can’t comment more but thats what the review mentioned.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments