Tag Archives: Victorian morality

Is Banning Hoop Skirts Something Worse than Southern Cultural Genocide? Yes, it is an attack on all our 19th Century ancestors’ values….and quite Ironically, it is an attack on the Status of Women as anything other than “Sex Objects”—Hoop Skirts defy the Hyper-sexualization demanded of all modern women and girls….”the world of Miley Cyrus has no room for hoop skirts”—I guess!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/removing-the-southern-belle-from-her-inglorious-perch/2015/08/14/ea929b2a-3f96-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html

This ban on Hoop Skirts at the University of Georgia is a very interesting attempt to ban “expressive clothing or costume.” For one thing, as a State University, this is subject to an immediate First Amendment challenge. But this is not just “more Southern Confederate heritage” bashing—it is an attack on the grace and gentility of a different, pre-modern, morality in which women were treated as something other than “Sex Objects”, both culturally, artistically, and stylistically.

Now, quite aside from the fact that the hoop skirt was neither uniquely Southern or even American… it was very much a Victorian rejection of expressly sexual garb for women. No dress form ever adopted hides the female figure more than a hoop skirt does.

The grace of a hoop skirt is undeniable, and worn properly it is extremely feminine and graceful, but it is not at all “sexual”. The Modern (I would call it) Marxist norm is to hypersexualize all aspects of life and especially expressive aspects of clothing and costume, so as to reject “Civilization and its Discontents” and all associate neuroses and repressions, as Sigmund Freud categorized everything Victorian, Christian, and otherwide traditional or pertaining to European (and “Upper Class”) American Civilization.

The South was indeed uniquely devoted to the preservation of the concepts of “Ladies and Gentleman”. But the modern world is equally devoted to promoting “Sex Everywhere, all the time”. For one thing, it makes people feel good and so distracts them from the fact that they are, in fact, much more politically repressed than the inhabitants of the Victorian world would ever have tolerated.

The modern Marxist hypersexualization of the “feminine mystique” and the rejection of traditional norms of marriage and family—these cannot tolerate a fashion which says that women can be beautiful without showing even the outline of their hips and legs.

So this move in Georgia is much more than an attack on the heritage of the South—it is an attack on the remnants of Christian morality and traditional values, closely related to the Rainbow movement for “LGBT Liberation”—which can have no possible effect other than the final burial of the traditional family in an unmarked tomb somewhere near the largest of city dumps and landfills…

And so I earnestly hope that the ladies, young and old, of a traditional Southern or Victorian mindset will do everything in their power to launch a First Amendment Lawsuit to preserve the right to express themselves in a feminine but non-sexual manner, at least on special occasions….for old time’s sake…

The Family is the Template and Tool of the State: the Importance of Keeping Children as Chattel Slaves—or, why Megan Stammers was a Threat to the U.K. Nanny State’s Socialist Public Order

Back in “the bad old days” before the Nanny State, children ran away all the time.  There are no statistics on such things, for the most part, because keeping careful statistics is also a feature of the Nanny State.  A hundred years ago, it is reasonably certain that the major scandal involving Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest is that they didn’t get married.  As I have commented before, given how anxious they were to be together, I’m quite sure that if marriage had been an available option, and especially an available “cure-all” option, Jeremy and Megan would now be man and wife—and given the status of modern marriage, that would surely be punishment enough for the both of them.  

But “morality” is not even remotely at issue in the Forrest-Stammers arrest and trial and (now) conviction.  And on the whole, that’s a good thing for the both of them—about the only good thing for them in the whole bloody picture in fact.   They are as immoral as Tristan und Isolde, Tannhauser and any number of the denizens of the Venusberg, the incestuous brother-sister couple Siegmund and Sieglinda, and the maidens of the Perilous Castle in the story of Parzifal.   But in fact, the Wagnerian couple of most relevance to the story of Jeremy and Megan is the Flying Dutchman and Senta.  

To relax my mind from the horrible stress of wanting to go over to Lewes in East Sussex and set off rocket launchers in the direction of the Court and prosecutor’s office (it’s a long shot from the South Jersey Shore, and I lack the necessary technology….unfortunately), I have been celebrating the eve of the Summer Solstice watching fireworks out my window and listening to the Flying Dutchman (a really peculiarly staged and set up 2010 Production of the Netherlands Opera, Netherlands Philharmonic, and the Amsterdam State Theatre; how peculiar? try to imagine Act II, if you can, the spinning scene, with a single spinning wheel in the middle of a rather luxurious modern lady’s spa, complete with swimming pool and totally out of place black men randomly stalking around [trying to pick up blonde Norwegian girls I guess?] with most of the girls wearing white terrycloth bathrobes and some walking around topless or in their underwear—yes, ahem, THAT peculiar).

Anyhow, the  plot of Der Fliegende Holländer juxtaposes an “Ordinary Mortal” Sea Captain, Daland, against the mysterious and effectively supernatural, vampiric, Captain Hendrick Vanderdecken (whose ship is called “The Flying Dutchman).  

The Dutchman is infinite in every way, unhappily immortal by a curse he invited upon himself, from which curse he can only be released by the eternal devotion of a woman who will be treue zum Tod.  It is one of the hard lessons I, and so many other men, have had to learn that women willing to true to until death are as rare and, at least in my generation, entirely as mythical as selkies, mermaids, and sea captains who sail the sea forever, but apparently R. Wagner knew this when he was 30, because it was at that age that he wrote and produced this opera, for the first time in Dresden, and Daland’s daughter, Senta, is in fact almost as eerily abnormal as Vanderdecken himself.

The way that this story bears on the story of Megan and Jeremy is just this—the Dutchman offers Daland literally a boatload of treasure if he will introduce him to his daughter.  This refers back again to “the bad old days” when children who DID not run away from home, especially girls, were often treated as chattels for exchange or barter.  Now, as it happens, Senta had already fallen in love with the myth of the Dutchman before the met the reality, but that is just the trope fantasy of the age of arranged marriages.  (Cf. Fiddler on the Roof: “Matchmaker, Matchmaker…..playing with matches a girl can get burned”).  

In the story of Megan Stammers, and the case of Jeremy Forrest, I think we see the darkest side of the Brave New World of Socialism in action: children must be controlled, and their residence and mating habits must be controlled, if the Socialist State is to have effective control over the future (and by this we mean the replacement and extermination) of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic populations of England (and the Anglo-European population of America, as a whole).  

All slave societies seek to control mating habits.  The biological definition of a “domesticated animal or plant” is one whose reproduction is controlled by human agency.  The biological definition of a slave is, likewise, a human being whose reproduction is controlled by other human beings.

On this auspicious Summer Solstice 2013, I had occasion to speak several times to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, a really dear and very respected friend now resident in Ashtabula, Ohio.  By some coincidence Thursday, June 20, in my Forward Day-by-Day Pamphlet not only celebrates the reckless love of God or quest for God’s love implicit in the Widows’ Mite, but also urges us to pray for the Diocese of Ohio, where Melinda is a devoted Church of Englander aka “Anglican Province V: Episcopal Church).  Melinda is a loving grandmother as well as conservative-libertarian activist who has done more than her share to save the White Race, and she was sadly recounting the story of one of her highly intelligent daughters (Dawn) who had made the decision not to have children.  Melinda is one person I know who is critically aware of the government’s ambitions to replace the current population of Western Europe and North America with a race of slaves.  

But slave-conditioning is unnatural, and that’s why the Stammers-Forrest case was so incredibly important, in my opinion, to the modern British government.  An example had to be made of this mad, reckless couple, to deter other couples who might be both more moral in the traditional Christian and Victorian senses and more reproductively oriented.

This is not just my opinion as a mad radical.  The “Child Custody” and “Family Protective Services” rackets in the United States are just that, and are being widely recognized as such, see, for example, Children_as_Chattel by Kurt Mundorf, (http://www.parentsinaction.net/english/Children_as_Chattel.pdf).

The life of my son and at least one of my son’s neighbors in Cedar Park, Texas, are examples of the nightmare that convinces me that Megan Stammers’ case is part of a very sinister plot against children’s freedom to choose.  

It is hard for me to accept and believe that it was eleven years ago, more than 20.7% of my life, since my wife Elena and I broke up at the end of July 2002, for the last and final time, leading to my son apparently developing some very severe developmental and emotional problems.  I have so often written about the villains in this psycho-drama, chief among them Attorneys J. Randall Grimes, Laurie J. Nowlin, and Judge Michael P. Jergins of the 395th District Court in Georgetown, Texas, in and for Williamson County.  It has been ten years since Grimes, Jergins, and Nowlin took control of my son’s life, and effectively destroyed it, and his psyche, and his will to freedom.  I have already sworn a vow never to forgive or forget them, but always to remind the world of where I first learned of the conspiracy to enslave all our children and make them prawns, I mean pawns, in the Brave New World game.

The issues were really quite simple: did I, as a father, have the right to discuss my son’s welfare with my son?  I have recently heard from a mother in Williamson County, reporting that Judge Jergins only recently compared her communications with her children as child abuse equal to her husband’s drinking.  Daniel Louis Simon, John Henry Franks, Michael Houghton, Rhonda Moe Malmquist, and so many more were the victims of this trio of criminals in Family Court and their relentless assault on freedom of speech and the rights of parents to talk to their children about what they wish and want.  Rhonda Moe was actually jailed for two months for her conversations with her son (Jergins’ original sentence against her was four months).  

Jergins’ told me that my open and frank discussions with my son amounted to “felony child abuse.”  Judge Jergins’ simply included illegal injunctions against free speech against all of the parents and children over whom he presided.  When John Henry Franks was enjoyed against discussing anything with his daughter, his daughter was barely a year old (and thus highly unlikely to be discussing anything at all).  Despite the fact that Judge Jergins’ injunctions against all manner of freedom of speech were utterly illegal and contrary to Federal and State Precedent regarding the issuance of “prior restraint” censorship against free speech, both the State and Federal Courts in Texas refused to review the matter meaningfully, and sanctioned me (and Dan Simon) for trying, rather severely, too. Judge Walter S. Smith of Waco particularly faulted me for spearheading a crusade to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional as applied, to restrict fundamental, enumerated, “Footnote 4” rights.

My son Charlie tragically bears the scars of all this ordeal to the present day.  A friend of his from just down the street, whom I will call “Chris B” suffered even worse because he was a repeat runaway from home—and knowing me and who I was and what I stood for, he always ran to me.   I did what I could to protect him and give him the freedom he wanted.  But the State of Texas, those fine Williamson County Judges, found reason to go and get him from my home in Lago Vista.  And he too was scarred for life.  Arresting a runaway and treating him as a criminal is about as counter productive as any kind of law enforcement could possibly be.

I see no reason to think that parents know better how to make their teenage children happy than the teenage children do themselves.  That is why I believe in a fundamental right of teenagers to engage in exactly the same “self-emancipation” as runaway slaves.  Keep in mind that in the early 19th century, runaway slaves were treated alternately as insane or criminal, or as insane criminals.  

That is how our children who choose freedom are treated today.  The result of this treatment is that our children are being turned into one of three things: good slaves, criminals, or insane people.  I am more than slightly mortified that my own son, now an adult, has, as a result of Laurie J. Nowlin’s conditioning, at least in part, chosen a life which appears to linger at the border between the good slave and the insane person.  He has dropped out of college and apparently attempted to continue his own education with the remnants of my library, I guess, at our old home in Cedar Park under his mother’s watchful eyes and firm thumb.

And that is why I urge all freedom loving Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Europeans to demand the immediate release of Jeremy Forrest and immediate and final emancipation for Megan Stammers, that they may live their lives, happy, sad, or indifferent, be a couple or not according to their own compatibility, not state control, and above all, that they serve as a beacon of hope and a template for the freedom of all children in the English speaking world to choose and determine their own future without state interference. 

Parents can and should always and eternally provide for, teach, counsel and advise their children, but the best way to teach them freedom is to let them be free.  The State should have no role in this at all except to give both parents and children a safe world in which to live and attempt to thrive as best they can.  But the State that exists to “protect and serve” on any micro-level, is a Slave-holding state.

IN OUR LAWLESS SOCIETY: ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM/FREEDOM OF SPECH—and so STAND WITH LANDEN GAMBILL—is reporting a rape on campus to be deemed “disruptive or intimidating behavior?” To the best of my knowledge, no one has questioned this young lady’s honesty, but a dishonest accusation should be the ONLY possible grounds for any accusation of “a violation of the Honor Code”

To the Administrators of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the litigants among the “Survivors of Sexual Violence” Civil Rights Action:
         I am a Tulane Alumnus, class of 1980—and I discovered this group cause in the U.C. Lobby on a recent visit to “the old school” campus in New Orleans of which I am so fond.  
        Since I left Tulane I earned both a Ph.D. and a J.D. from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, clerked for two Federal Judges, and made many more enemies of Judges through Civil Rights Activism, ultimately leading to my disbarment but not to my retirement from civil rights crusades.    
       I would like to lend my support to SAPHE and Landen Gambill.  Mainly I do not understand what is going on very well, but from what I have read it sounds as though a severe injustice has been done.  
          The University of North Carolina is, of course, a branch of the State of North Carolina and so it is bound by the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment to respect the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
         I am horrified that a student could, in this day and age, be accused of “disruptive or intimidating behavior” for reporting a crime.  I asked the students at the SAPHE desk in the University Center Lobby whether anyone had ever challenged Landen Gambill’s honesty or accuracy and was told “no.”
   Only a CONFIRMED, CLEAR and CONVINCING ACCUSATION OF DISHONESTY (which appears not to have been made by the alleged rapist or anyone else)  could possibly justify a charge of an “honor code violation”, whether at a private or public institution, if the word “honor” can have any meaning.* (but see note on “False Rape Culture” below—which I find less than a “clear and convincing” denial of anything—but more of a political rant about the possibility of false accusations, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Right to Petition.)
             Obviously, by threatening any sort of disciplinary action against a student for filing what she believes (and no one has challenged or questioned) to be a legitimate complaint of criminal conduct, the State Officials at the University of North Carolina are attempting to infringe upon Landen Gambill’s rights to freedom of speech and more importantly to PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, broadly defined, under the First Amendment.  
             No exercise of First Amendment Freedom should ever be grounds for any sort of punishment, so Gambill’s right to substantive DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is also being violated here.
               I would further submit that the right of to speak out in any way regarding the injuries one has suffered is a fundamental right and power reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment.
      Throughout my lifetime, the tortured question of relationship between the sexes has been evolving and changing.  Nothing is more essential (literally) to the preservation of our species on earth than a stable and successful relationship between men and women, but the competing philosophies and moralities of the “bad old world” and “brave new world” have left a tremendous amount of uncertainty and doubt in everyone’s mind about everyone’s status, standing, and situation.
           As I was commenting to one of the students at the SAPHE desk at the Tulane UC on Friday, there was a time when a woman’s deadly response to male rape or sexual assault was deemed praiseworthy and beyond reproach, much less prosecution, in the State of Texas and elsewhere throughout the South.  
          How have we come from that state of mind to this, where complaining of rape could be called “disruptive or intimidating behavior?”  
          I remain profoundly confused by the description of events.  If there is no charge of dishonesty, then Landen Gambill’s charges must be heard, and Landen Gambill is entitled to the full protection of the law afforded by the State of North Carolina.
            Obviously Landen Gambill’s fundamental federal rights are at stake here.  No rights are more important than the rights to control over one’s own body and “personal space”.  No situations in our radically disintegrating (i.e. diverse and non-uniform) society present more opportunities for abuse of each individual’s body and personal space than sexual relationships and dating situation.
              Because the old Victorian and pre-Victorian normative systems have collapsed and/or failed, all that remains for us today is the “social contract” which must be negotiated between individuals at all times and in all places.  
            Everyone bears the responsibility in society for maintaing the respect to be afforded each individual for his or her fundamental rights to personal integrity, but none bear this responsibility more than the administrators of the Universities and Colleges into which today’s youth go in major part for the purpose of adjusting to the normatively disintegrated society in which we live and discovering their own place—and the dimensions and boundaries of their place—in the remnants of society that now remain.
         To the Administrators of UNC-Chappel Hill I would say: The Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution must inform all dialogue concerning individual rights and responsibilities, and above all the role of our institutions of higher learning in assuring the rights of each individual to speak and petition regarding the most intimate and difficult phases of human life, which for young people today, as much as in the time of Abelard and Heloise, is most endangered and “risky” in the College and University Setting.  I would also say: if you harbor any doubts about this woman’s veracity or honesty, you must be open and honest about your doubts and you must submit to a trial on the merits of the question—you might even want to initiate such a trial (with real rules and standards of proof, possibly even as a declaratory judgment in court) rather than standing spinelessly idle.

             To those who are plaintiffs in the Civil Rights Suit I would say this: your cause and claims for constitutional vindication just, but focus on the basic constitutional rights and not on the ephemeral modern civil rights statutes which pit one group against another.  The strength of your claim lies in reliance on the First Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Realize that by defining and describing your experiences in the uncertain and undefined world of modern moral uncertainty, ideally you are working towards the formulation of a new set of norms, of a new moral code where once again predictability and certainty will replace randomness and confusion.

I have found that standing up for the right to complain, to criticize, and to attack the system for offering remedies which do more harm than heal can be hazardous to one’s professional health and career.  It was only after filing a series of seven civil rights suits in Texas against an abusive police department in Travis County that certain judges found it more advantageous to attack me and slander me than to listen to me, but that quite simply has not stopped me.

So to Landen Gambill and all her supporters, I hope that you will find the strength similarly to persevere I your quest for justice and to demand redress of grievances concerning the system that purports to protect you when in fact it does not.

*(Note: Since writing the above, I found at least one male interest group which DOES not only strongly question but attack Landen Gambill’s honesty and reputation for truthfulness, regarding which doubts, whether clear and convincing or not, see:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/unc-landen-gambill-and-false-rape-culture/

            I have repeatedly written that we live in a lawless society—a society in which our values have become so “relative” and so “circumstantially dependent, that there is no longer any such thing as “right” or “wrong”.  And yet, Nietzsche notwithstanding, our world is not “Beyond Good and Evil.”   All that is constructive is good and all that is destructive is evil, and yet truth is ALWAYS good and lies are ALWAYS evil, even though truth can be used to destroy lives and societies while lies can be used to build careers, cultural monuments to the liars, deceitful empires, and unnecessary wars….
            The debate over the right to charge “rape” on a crowded campus may be one of the areas of lawlessness in America where abuse is not only possible but tolerated.  
           Nevertheless, we have to choose which type of error to make: the error where we repress legitimate complaints or the error where we allow false complaints (related to but not entirely co-extensive with the more serious philosophical and statistical problems sometimes referred to as errors of false affirmation or false negation).
       In the Arena of Freedom of Speech, it is my position that NO COMPLAINT should ever be suppressed; NO DIALOGUE should ever be silenced, and so I support Landen Gambill until and unless she is herself charged and proved criminally guilty of or held civilly liable for (a) defamation, (b) malicious prosecution, (c) conspiracy to commit either offense.
              About a decade ago, I lost custody of my only son, Charlie IV, because I continued (a) to listen to HIS complaints about his mother and her treatment of him and (b) accordingly continued to question his mother’s fitness and her psychological (and physical) treatment of him.  Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County actually rendered an injunction against my ability ever to speak to my son regarding his own happiness, even during my own periods of custodial “possession”.   I investigated, and it turned out this was a standard order of his: he had a custom, practice, and policy of suppressing parents’ freedom to discuss the welfare of their children or to discuss family “issues” of any kind with their children.
              Since I absolutely refused to allow any judge to limit my speech, I was deprived of the right to see my son.  Eventually, my son sought me out and I took him to summer school at Harvard.  Then my son started college at St. John’s College in Annapolis after spending three summers with me. And then after one seemingly happy year, he turned on me, at his mother’s urging and indeed her insistence.
                My son refused to go for a summer abroad in Rome after I had paid his tuition and then abruptly dropped out of College and has come (now as an adult) under his mother’s complete and unfettered control, totally refusing any contact with me at all (and since he is an adult, I have nothing to say about his choice).  
             But I will say this, “In the best interests of the child” (as if that really were the purpose of Family Courts): I should have been allowed to maintain my complaints, especially since they were always based either on what I saw with my own eyes or what my son reported to me directly and graphically).  
          To suppress freedom of speech and the right to petition, either by injunction or to punish the exercise of these rights without appropriately clear and convincing findings of abuse, is to destroy every individual’s humanity.  To invoke the power of the state to limit by censorship or sanction by any means any one person’s ability to complain of perceived wrongs, especially by such a socially unusual and stigmatic sanction as expulsion from school, embodies the antithesis of the American ways of life and justice (but do see the “False Rape Culture” article above regarding a contrary opinion).  
                Perhaps I was a reprehensible Father for listening to my son’s complaints about his mother which wee not only consistent with what I had seen his mother do but also consistent with what I had seen his mother and HER mother do to another male member of the family (my son’s Uncle George, who died in Cancun, Mexico, several years ago at the ripe old age of 51, basically abused and abandoned but totally controlled by his mother and sister—who coincidentally were my son’s grandmother and mother).  
 
               And perhaps Landen Gambill is a compulsive liar who continued to date a man who raped her on every date (as the “False Rape Culture”) article above suggests.   But even so, she must be allowed to speak.  My very guilty wife (my son’s mother) always remained silent, and never even so much as took the witness stand or wrote an affidavit to specifically deny the charges against her (which at one point included felony injury to a child).   Landen Gambill’s accused has likewise remained silent—and it is greatly to his discredit to do so.  
             In criminal courts and procedings we preserve the right to remain silent as sacrosanct and do not allow comment upon the maintenance of silence—but in all civil contexts, silence is confession.   The manufacturer falsely accused of making dangerous products who remains silent will lose.  The boyfriend falsely accused of raping and assaulting his girlfriend deserves precisely the same fate in a civil context.   

         Despite the possibility, whether it is a strong one or a weak one, that Landen Gambill has made false accusations of rape, I categorically refuse to withdraw anything that I wrote above about the way SAPHE at Tulane has presented Landen Gambill’s case, or my endorsement of her claim that the Administration must either listen to her or prove her wrong and lying by a preponderance of the evidence.  

            Where insufficient evidence exists for a criminal prosecution, but this much noise has been made, someone needs to file suit for declaratory judgment and a civil adjudication of the matter.

           A false accusation of rape is such an outrage, represents such “hubris” that for the male party involved not to respond by public action in his own vindication, with other values, such as that male’s honor and dignity, at stake, landen gambill must be accorded a presumption of truth.

         The First Amendment right to speak out (complain) and to petition for redress of grievances IS paramount.  If there is any insinuation of a “false rape culture”, it is because of the collapse of traditional morality, as I mentioned above: the death of the Victorian and Pre-Victorian standards and norms of sexual behavior and their replacement with, in essence, NOTHING except the power to negotiate and speak and discuss and define.  

              But if men are falsely accused, then they have to say so–and “act like men”—even if that itself is a victorian or even viking standard of honor.

           The  contrary article above on the “False Rape Culture” raises some disturbing but altogether unsubstantiated claims about why we should ignore Landen Gambill.  But the fact that a men’s activist group attacks her credibility does not automatically mean that Landen Gambill should be sanctioned for her complaints and freedom of speech, does it?  especially when her “silently” charged (presumably by now completely ex-) boyfriend has not stood up publicly to defend himself.   Our society and culture have indeed lost absolutely all integrity if even the falsely but very publicly accused center of a controversy remains silence.

         Supposedly, now, this “false rape culture” article says that she continued to date the man (boy?) whom she accuses of raping her—if true, that would indeed tarnish her credibility substantially.  But why then has the young man (boy?) in question not stood up for himself and cried “false”, “defamation”, “Malicious and perfidious lies”????   He has the same right to freedom of speech that Landen Gambill possesses.  I still find this entire story confusing in the extreme.  

           If a man can be publicly accused of rape and say nothing, i believe that  his silence constitutes a confession—either of guilt or of soulless, spineless indifference to the concept or Code of Honor.  “manhood should be made of sterner stuff”.   And for violations of this code of honor, there must be the sanction of enduring continuing complaints and accusations.


Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht, 
denn alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”
Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia