Page 29 of 54 FirstFirst ... 1925262728293031323339 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 802

Thread: Okay, like the mod said, let's continue our discussion about Wagner and nazis...

  1. #421
    Senior Member AbsolutelyBaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    ^^^Just so you know, AB, NLAdriaan is leveling his accusations at me, not at you. My frequent discussions of Wagner on the forum, my appreciation for various aspects of the composer's work, and my refusal to put up with the incessant reiteration of insubstantial memes and cliches concerning "associations" or "connections" between Wagner and Hitler are apparently indicative of an intolerable fanaticism posing a grave danger to our civilization.
    Fair enough. It's just that he's de-friended me in the past day or so, so I assumed it was me. Perhaps we are now both the targets of his ire? It's a shame if so.
    Last edited by AbsolutelyBaching; Sep-15-2020 at 18:52.

  2. #422
    Senior Member annaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Haha. I heard that someone suggested that AbsolutelyBaching is me in disguise. If that's the case, I'm currently having a bit of an argument with myself. I do hope the two of us can remain on good terms. The other me seems quite an intelligent fellow.
    If that's the case, you must be simply extremely bored.

  3. #423
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    16,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbsolutelyBaching View Post
    Fair enough. It's just that he's de-friended me in the past day or so, so I assumed it was me.

    It makes me curious about the rumor that you and I are the same person. Two people have brought this up to me, but no one is naming the source.

    Having someone think you're someone else is amusing. In the past another member here was convinced I was the composer Robert Kyr, also a resident of Oregon, wanted to commission a piece from me, and wouldn't believe me when I insisted that I wasn't who she thought I was.

    I do think one of me is quite enough, and I suspect that most people would agree.

  4. #424
    Senior Member annaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbsolutelyBaching View Post
    Sorry if I wasn't being clear.
    Nah, I can probably blame my prejudiced reading according to which your post says that Wagner attacked Levi and took his baton away, or something of the kind .

  5. Likes AbsolutelyBaching liked this post
  6. #425
    Senior Member annaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    It makes me curious about the rumor that you and I are the same person. Two people have brought this up to me, but no one is naming the source.

    Having someone think you're someone else is amusing. In the past another member here was convinced I was the composer Robert Kyr, also a resident of Oregon, wanted to commission a piece from me, and wouldn't believe me when I insisted that I wasn't who she thought I was.

    I do think one of me is quite enough, and I suspect that most people would agree.
    *Cough cough* if you multiple the meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky by million, you get the source of this new theory, according to which you aren't necessarily an American at all.
    Last edited by annaw; Sep-15-2020 at 18:03.

  7. Likes Woodduck liked this post
  8. #426
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    16,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    If that's the case, you must be simply extremely bored.
    During this time of virtual quarantine, that's uncomfortably close to the truth. Here on the west coast of the US, unbreathable air from fires must be added to the things keeping everyone locked up.

  9. Likes annaw, AbsolutelyBaching liked this post
  10. #427
    Senior Member AbsolutelyBaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Can you see that the question of whether Wagner's antisemitism is "of a different nature" from Hitler's is basically a semantic one?
    Honestly? No. I don't think I do, but I'm willing to be lead there if you think it is.

    The question, to me, is mixing expression of an idea with the idea itself. If you are what Barenboim called a "salon antisemite", you may whistle through your teeth at the thought of being seated at a dinner party next to a Jew. You don't draw up blueprints for gas chambers; you're far too polite to do that. But, to me, the hatred being expressed is exactly the same as if you did build gas chambers for a living.

    It's why, for example, I don't think that antisemitism is "just another bigotry", or "a different form of racism". It's got a character all its own, and no matter how it's expressed, at root, it's all about a loathing for Jews and a feeling that somehow they are cheating you, and probably need a day of reckoning to atone for the injuries they have done you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Answering it by saying that "antisemitism is antisemitism" - a rose is a rose - is really an evasion. Words are not things, but merely classifications of things, and how we classify depends on our purposes.
    I was essentially saying that the Nazi expression of antisemitism is the same as Edward I's in 1290 when he assented to the Edit of Expulsion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    It may better suit your purposes, on this question, to be able to categorize and label something called "antisemitism" than to describe what it actually IS in each separate instance, but although I share the dislike of all right-thinking people for antisemitism, or for any irrational prejudice and hostility directed at groups of people unlike ourselves, I think it fallacious to talk about the different possible forms and expressions of such prejudice as if they are either morally or practically equivalent
    I'm going to interrupt you there since I didn't see a full-stop approaching and felt there ought to be one.

    I understand your viewpoint, but I won't subscribe to it. To me, the underlying 'idea' and the different expressions of that idea are separate issues. It's why a Caravaggio canvas is the same to me as a Picasso one: both are paintings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    [...], and to be led by such a mistaking of words for realities into thinking that one form or expression of prejudice is destined to evolve into another.
    Ah. There it was (the period!). No, I never said anything about one form of expression evolving into another. On the whole, I'm not into slippery slope arguments when it comes to deeds. I think the expression of antisemitism has been different in different times and places because of those differences in time and place. Edward I probably could have killed all the Jews in England (there wouldn't have been that many of them back then), but he didn't because it just wasn't something conceptually acceptable to do back then. But when you've seen 2 million of your countrymen shot to pieces on the Western Front 630 years later, that's something you would conceive of as being plausible.

    It's not that the expression evolved; nor that the underlying idea changed. It's just the conjunction of circumstance, practise, technology and a bunch of other factors I wouldn't care to iterate through that changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Being unable or unwilling to tell one breed of rose from another may be inconsequential to anyone but a horticulturist, but obscuring, by means of an inclusive label, the difference between a person capable of prejudice (which includes a very high proportion of us) and one being willing to murder (which includes far fewer) may have important consequences. It looks to me as if by assuring us elsewhere that you do recognize such differences you're merely trying to have your cake and eat it too.
    See, that's why I spent the first few pages of my engagement here trying to make the distinction between "mere prejudice" and antisemitism very clear. Antisemitism is unique, in that it's not just a prejudice. It doesn't just make you think you're different from someone else; it makes you think you're better than someone else. It also makes you think in groups, rather than in individualistic terms. And it's not even that you think you're better than the Jews, so you should be privileged. It's that you think the Jews threaten your better-dom, so they need dealing with (one way or another). There's a lot of puss in that particular boil!

    Anyway, I won't rehash that argument here. But it's why I won't say I'm not racist (there's a lot of it about, and unthinking, institutionalised racism can catch the best of us off-guard), but I will say I'm not antisemitic.

    So, no, I don't accept the premise of your comment. It's not a question of "I may be prejudiced, but I wouldn't murder". It might be "I hate Jews, but I couldn't countenance killing them' (because you're too middle class and fear the application of law) versus "I hate Jews, and I will kill them all" (because I happen to lead the government which makes the law). But both statements begin the exact same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    I do indeed disagree that "the moment you think of an identifiable group of people as being less human or being of less 'worth' than another group, you've crossed the Rubicon." To "cross the Rubicon" means to take an irrevocable action. There is nothing irrevocable about prejudice as such. Feelings and opinions can change, and often do, both in individuals and in cultures. What is irrevocable is being gassed to death in a concentration camp.
    Perhaps not about "prejudice as such", but that's you equating antisemitism with "mere prejudice" once again. I don't accept the equivalence, which is why I think the minute you are an antisemite, you really have crossed the Rubicon (and my capitalisation of the word perhaps indicates that I know precisely where it comes from and what it means, and I used it deliberately accordingly ).

    I think, on the whole, we agree as regards a lot of things. But call me an absolutist (or worse, if you like ), but my view of antisemitism is that it's a fairly binary thing. Either you hate Jews in the aggregate or you don't. If you do, you have made your move. Where it takes you, and what the consequences are: well, that I couldn't predict. But that it will lead to no good of some kind, and hurt to plenty of people, I'm confident in any event.

    But (I swiftly add) that doesn't mean I hate Wagner for being a Nazi. He wasn't, and it's ahistorical nonsense to suggest otherwise -and on that, I believe we do agree!
    Last edited by AbsolutelyBaching; Sep-15-2020 at 19:03.

  11. #428
    Senior Member AbsolutelyBaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    It makes me curious about the rumor that you and I are the same person. Two people have brought this up to me, but no one is naming the source.

    Having someone think you're someone else is amusing.
    I didn't find the idea of it so funny: it's then something that one can never disprove, since you cannot prove a negative.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    In the past another member here was convinced I was the composer Robert Kyr, also a resident of Oregon, wanted to commission a piece from me, and wouldn't believe me when I insisted that I wasn't who she thought I was.

    I do think one of me is quite enough, and I suspect that most people would agree.
    Do you like Glenn Gould?

  12. #429
    Senior Member fluteman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,870
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    ^^^Just so you know, AB, NLAdriaan is leveling his accusations at me, not at you. My frequent discussions of Wagner on the forum, my appreciation for various aspects of the composer's work, and my refusal to put up with the incessant reiteration of insubstantial memes and cliches concerning "associations" or "connections" between Wagner and Hitler are apparently indicative of an intolerable fanaticism posing a grave danger to our civilization.
    The only 'connection' between Wagner and Hitler that I can see is that both used antisemitism as a ploy to further personal agendas that actually had little to do with Jews or even their attitudes towards Jews. As you repeatedly point out in these threads, Hitler's personal agenda was more harmful than Wagner's, or that of almost anyone else one could name, by many orders of magnitude. I suppose one could call the fact that Hitler was a classical music fan, that Wagner was one of his favored composers (though probably not his top favorite), and that he favored the use of classical music for Nazi propaganda purposes (over the objection of his top aides), as another connection between the two.

    That is all there is to this topic as far as I can see. I don't think these connections, as tenuous as they may be, are nonexistent or unworthy of discussion. Alex Ross recently wrote intelligently on this topic, iirc. But the sheer volume of posts on this topic suggests there is something to it I have yet to find.

  13. #430
    Senior Member AbsolutelyBaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fluteman View Post
    The only 'connection' between Wagner and Hitler that I can see is that both used antisemitism as a ploy to further personal agendas that actually had little to do with Jews or even their attitudes towards Jews. As you repeatedly point out in these threads, Hitler's personal agenda was more harmful than Wagner's, or that of almost anyone else one could name, by many orders of magnitude. I suppose one could call the fact that Hitler was a classical music fan, that Wagner was one of his favored composers (though probably not his top favorite), and that he favored the use of classical music for Nazi propaganda purposes (over the objection of his top aides), as another connection between the two.

    That is all there is to this topic as far as I can see. I don't think these connections, as tenuous as they may be, are nonexistent or unworthy of discussion. Alex Ross recently wrote intelligently on this topic, iirc. But the sheer volume of posts on this topic suggests there is something to it I have yet to find.
    That's a good point, and I wish someone like NLAdriaan would explain it in plain words.

    To my mind (and I'm probably not a fair source for what follows, except it sort-of reflects my own personal journey over many years), it probably starts from the feeling that the awful horror wrought by the Nazis cannot, surely, be the result of 'mere men'. Surely, it must have come from 'deeper well-springs' or something?

    Merely by way of analogy, and expressing due hesitation in lobbing this hand-grenade into the discussion, but to me it's like the people that are convinced the Mob, the oil industry, the Cuban exiles, the CIA or maybe all four did for JFK in Dealey Plaza. It's the reluctance to believe one moron with a rifle and a grudge could so change history. The conspiracy theory makes unpalatable history comprehensible. (OK, let's not go there further!!)

    Hitler doesn't help: he's such an ordinary, boring little man. Surely he alone cannot be the reason for Auschwitz? But, of course, if he was "inspired" to his dreadfulness by someone greater, infinitely more creative and heroic... well, that explains Hitler, then, doesn't it?!

    I suppose, too, that in part it comes down to the "mystery" I've mentioned here before: how is it that great art comes from the pen of someone who was capable of such poisonous attitudes? I mean, Bach could be grumpy and Beethoven could be angry, but no-one encapsulates the art/personality divide so extravagantly as Wagner. It's a hard pill to swallow, that you don't need to be a lovely person to produce great art. That 'dangling tail' of poison must be explicable somehow: the Nazis seem like prime candidates, don't they?

    So on the one hand, you want to "explain" the Nazis. And on the other, you want to 'resolve' Wagner's art/personality contradictions. The antisemitism common to Wagner and Hitler make it easy to join the dots (erroneously, in my view), but the motive for dot-joining in the first place surely comes from some such psychological -and perfectly understandable- need for answers and neat resolutions.

    Edited to add: I assume your reference to Alex Ross was about this article? It's a good read, if so.
    Last edited by AbsolutelyBaching; Sep-15-2020 at 18:55.

  14. Likes fluteman liked this post
  15. #431
    Senior Member annaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I agree that Wagner was an antisemite and Hitler was an antisemite. I also agree that, fundamentally and definition-wise, their antisemitism is similar or the same. Meaning that de facto they both had "a hostile, prejudiced attitude toward Jews", which is the dictionary definition of anti-semitism. I doubt Woodduck disagrees with that and I feel this is basically what AB tries to say. So, AB considers antisemitism as something categorical and anything beyond the definition itself isn't inherent to antisemitism. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    However, there is a clear contextual difference between the antisemitism of 19th and 20th century which was also the difference between Wagner's and Hitler's antisemitism. Not inherently different but contextually different. Namely, the latter was, in reality, much more cruel, "practical" and inhumane. What for Wagner remained a mere philosophy, became practice for Hitler. There was no atmosphere of similar post-war bitterness and even oppression during Wagner's lifetime but there was during Hitler's. Antisemitism of the 19th century almost definitely had to be a cause-response reaction. I'm not saying that this was the correct response, but to cause such a widespread hatred toward Jews, there needs to be a cause for that. I think Wagner points that out in his essay as well - Jews were rich and the Western economy felt threatened. On the other hand, during the 20th century, antisemitism became an ideology which was almost like picked up or sought and strongly exaggerated into some major cause of the whole humankind. It also mustn't be forgotten that Hitler didn't stop at antisemitism but created a whole racial theory and hierarchy, which Wagner arguably wouldn't have supported, a Romantic spirit that he was. From his other essay it could be understood that Wagner acknowledged the existence of superior and inferior races to some extent (although some would say that I've misunderstood the essay, which is even more difficultly written that the Judaism essay) but he goes on and says that this matters nothing before compassion and suffering which redeems the humankind. Wagner thus takes the whole matter to some semi-philosophical semi-theological realm where Gobineau's racial hierarchy doesn't matter anymore.

    TL;DR: Hitler's and Wagner's antisemitism is de facto the same thing but Hitler's being part of a racial ideology which lead to cruel action gives it a very different colour and taste from Wagner's antisemitism, which took form of an occasional joke or a try to persuade Levi to convert into Christianity.
    Last edited by annaw; Sep-15-2020 at 19:30.

  16. #432
    Senior Member Merl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    5,143
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Im suspecting that Woody and NLA are the same person. Since Woody returned NLA has hardly posted in this thread! Coincidence?
    Last edited by Merl; Sep-15-2020 at 19:35.

  17. #433
    Senior Member annaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merl View Post
    Im suspecting that Woody and NLA are the same person. Since Woody returned NLA has hardly posted in this thread! Coincidence?
    And as we cannot prove the opposite...

  18. Likes Merl liked this post
  19. #434
    Senior Member AbsolutelyBaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    I agree that Wagner was an antisemite and Hitler was an antisemite. I also agree that, fundamentally and definition-wise, their antisemitism is similar or the same. Meaning that de facto they both had "a hostile, prejudiced attitude toward Jews", which is the dictionary definition of anti-semitism. I doubt Woodduck disagrees with that and I feel this is basically what AB tries to say. So, AB considers antisemitism as something categorical and anything beyond the definition itself isn't inherent to antisemitism. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    No, I think that's a fair summation. You don't invite a Jew to your party; you line 5 Jews up against a wall and shoot them: antisemitism is the underlying cause of both. Only circumstance and the 'tide of history' dictates whether you do the one or the other, in my book.

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    However, there is a clear contextual difference between the antisemitism of 19th and 20th century which was also the difference between Wagner's and Hitler's antisemitism. Not inherently different but contextually different. Namely, the latter was, in reality, much more cruel, "practical" and inhumane.
    Well, what happened was Gobineau and Galton (and Darwin, I guess). Antisemitism got a gloss of the scientific behind it, so that hating Jews was just a hatred any more, but you were doing your bit for the gene pool, etc etc.

    I don't deny this layers on top of antisemitism to give its expression a different character between the two time periods you cite. I merely say that, at base, it was antisemitism in both cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    What for Wagner remained a mere philosophy, became practice for Hitler. There was no atmosphere of similar post-war bitterness and even oppression during Wagner's lifetime but there was during Hitler's.
    I don't fundamentally disagree with any of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    Antisemitism of the 19th century almost definitely had to be a cause-response reaction. I'm not saying that this was the correct response, but to cause such a widespread hatred toward Jews, there needs to be a cause for that. I think Wagner points that out in his essay as well - Jews were rich and the Western economy felt threatened. On the other hand, during the 20th century, antisemitism became an ideology which was almost like picked up or sought and strongly exaggerated into some major cause of the whole humankind.
    No, I don't agree with you there, I think.

    19th Century antisemitism developed because of the 'liberation' of the Jews that had been inspired by the Enlightenment in the 18th Century. Jews had been excluded from society before then; the Enlightenment let them become doctors, lawyers, civil servants. Increased visibility allowed the old prejudices to resurface. I don't see that as a cause-response mechanism. It's just they're in your face now, when previously you had to search for them.

    And 20th Century antisemitism is just antisemitism, as practised by the Soviet Union post-1945 or Hitler's Germany before. Not a lot of ideological difference in their aversion to Jewishness.

    That Hitler and Stalin were ideological creatures, I don't dispute. Did their wildly different political ideologies make a lot of difference to the way they thought of Jews? Not really.

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    It also mustn't be forgotten that Hitler didn't stop at antisemitism but created a whole racial theory and hierarchy, which Wagner almost certainly wouldn't have supported, a Romantic spirit that he was.
    And we're back in total agreement! It's that added 'geneticism' element that is certainly distinctive in Hitler's case. Where Wagner could say, "First, stop being a Jew!", Hitler said, "If three grandparents were Jewish, you're a Jew and there's nothing you can do about it. And if two grand parents were Jews, and you marry a Jew, you're a Jew, and there's nothing you can do about it". That is distinctively different. I would argue it's merely a difference in a belief about the nature of Jewishness, however, not about the deplorableness of Jewishness.

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    From his other essay it could be understood that Wagner acknowledged the existence of superior and inferior races to some extent (although some would say that I've misunderstood the essay, which is even more difficultly written that the Judaism essay) but he goes on and says that this matters nothing before compassion and suffering which redeems the humankind. Wagner thus takes the whole matter to some semi-philosophical semi-theological realm where Gobineau's proposed racial hierarchy doesn't matter anymore.
    I think I agree, but I would point out that his racism (perhaps Gobineau-inspired, perhaps not) is a separate matter to his antisemitism, in that Jews are inherently bad in Wagner's mind because they are Jews, not because they are part of an inferior race. And I think you've said earlier, Wagner rejected Gobineau's Aryan theory of races, pretty much outright.

    Quote Originally Posted by annaw View Post
    TL;DR: Hitler's and Wagner's antisemitism is de facto the same thing but Hitler's being part of a racial ideology which lead to cruel action gives it a very different colour and taste from Wagner's antisemitism, which took form of an occasional joke or a try to persuade Levi to convert into Christianity.
    I definitely don't disagree with your characterisation of a difference "in colour and (lack of) taste"! Spot on, I think. I just don't see that as being a difference in the nature of the antisemitism, which is a pretty much constant foundation on which Wagner and Hitler built very different constructions.
    Last edited by AbsolutelyBaching; Sep-15-2020 at 19:44.

  20. #435
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    16,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    All arguments become semantic at best when terms don't have fixed, agreed-upon definitions. An argument that Wagner's antisemitism is "of the same nature" as Hitler's depends on what one conceives of as "antisemitism" and how one defines its "nature." A statement that Wagner's antisemitism is "the same" as Hitler's is a statement not about Wagner and Hitler but about one's own idea of antisemitism and, implicitly, about one's own purposes in making the assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by AbsolutelyBaching View Post
    If you are what Barenboim called a "salon antisemite", you may whistle through your teeth at the thought of being seated at a dinner party next to a Jew. You don't draw up blueprints for gas chambers; you're far too polite to do that. But, to me, the hatred being expressed is exactly the same as if you did build gas chambers for a living.
    So it's only politeness that prevents people from murdering each other? I don't have much personal experience with antisemitism, or racial or ethnic prejudice of any kind, but I can say that my father was inclined to speak disparagingly of many groups, including blacks, Jews, and women, yet would have been horrified at the thought of murdering them (and I do remember him denouncing Hitler). I don't think his disapproval of gas chambers can be explained as "politeness."

    I don't think that antisemitism is "just another bigotry", or "a different form of racism". It's got a character all its own, and no matter how it's expressed, at root, it's all about a loathing for Jews and a feeling that somehow they are cheating you.
    So the way in which different people act out their dislike of Jews is of no relevance the question of whether one person's antisemitism is "of the same nature" as another's? Do you attach greater importance, and perhaps greater moral significance, to how a person feels about others than to what he does to them? I'm generally much more concerned with what people actually do to me than with how they feel about me, and if I'm going to judge them as people, I'm more likely to do so on the basis of their behavior than of their inner lives and verbal expressions.
    Last edited by Woodduck; Sep-15-2020 at 19:46.

  21. Likes Resurrexit liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •