ARC error: why we should reject Peterson’s call to self-sacrifice
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Trevor Watkins
Feb 24, 2025, 2:48:14 AMFeb 24
to Individualist Movement
I copied this article by Colin Bower from The Daily Friend.
I thought it worthy of further discussion under more controlled circumstances.
Bliss, wrote Wordsworth, was it in that dawn to be alive. It is similarly bliss to be alive in the time of the Trumpian cultural revolution that is sweeping through the sterile institutions of wokedom, returning us gratefully to an age of common sense and a state of reverence for the achievements of our forebears.
I don’t want to play a part in bursting that bubble of euphoria – which I also inhabit − but I am increasingly susceptible to an inchoate fear that all is not well in the brave new world of “free market capitalism”, the “Judeo-Christian” tradition, the promotion of “conservative values”, and − at the moral level − the claim now made with increasing frequency and intensity by Jordan Peterson, that we bear a burden of “sacrifice” for the well-being of society.
My particular point of departure in expressing these fears is the recently concluded conference of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) that took place in London, where speaker after speaker of illustrious reputation and provenance was accorded warmly grateful (alternatively sycophantic) rounds of applause for their espousal of the values I have referred to, not least of those in the appreciative ARC audience being our own Rob Hersov, whose forthright political and cultural contributions I welcome, in spite of his expression of unqualified support for the concerns expressed at the conference.
Judeo-Christianity
The first of these concerns centres on the now commonly expressed view that the achievements of freedom, tolerance and generosity that characterise Western civilisation can be attributed to the two-millennia influence of the Judeo-Christian religion, and it is a re-affirmation of our allegiance to that tradition that is now being recommended to us.
Notwithstanding my unquenchable love and regard for the King James Bible, my sense of spiritual serenity and upliftment conferred by exposure to the Anglican liturgy, my interest in and respect for the great myths of the Old Testament and my recognition of the benign influence on children enacting the Nativity, who rediscover by doing so the values of kindness and love, and despite the fact that I am not in the least bit offended by Trump’s claim that his life was saved by God, and even though I kneel in humility before the mystery of the creation, this invocation of “Judeo-Christian” values is retrogressive tripe.
Judaism did not introduce humanity to the “Golden Rule,” neither did Christianity introduce charity, as we know from the parable of the good Samaritan. In his book The Closing of the Western Mind, the scholar Charles Freman provides an extensively documented and scholarly account of the tragedy resulting from the destruction by Roman state-sponsored early Christian fascism of the 500-year Greek tradition of rationality and open enquiry, a fascism inspired as it was by Paul’s intellectually and culturally iconoclastic instruction, Perdam sapientiam sapientium (“We must destroy the wisdom of the wise”).
The invention of the unparalleled Western tradition of the Common Law, codified in the time of the Roman Republic, owes nothing to Christianity. Even though I have many Roman Catholic friends and family members who I both love and respect, I have no qualms in asserting that the Roman Catholic Church, which even today holds out and imposes upon its adherents indefensible doctrines which are an insult to human intelligence, such as the belief that the Pontiff is literally the representative of God on Earth, speaking in a voice that comes straight from God and which is accordingly infallible, with its perverted insistence on the virtue of celibacy, or its demand for absolute obedience, to say nothing of its unspeakable cruelty in the persecution of what it called “heresy”, and its Inquisition, is one of the most malign institutions ever to have besmirched the human race. Anti-Semitism was given birth by the Roman Catholic Church.
For well over 1,000 years from the First Council of Nicaea until Martin Luther pinned his Ninety-Five Theses to a church door in Wittenburg, Christianity doomed humanity in the Western world to ignorance and servility. And this is the tradition that the new mandarins of conservatism want us to admire?
And even after Luther, Christianity continued to impede the development of the free human spirit, and the sterile and suffocating influence of Anglicanism is endlessly attested by the great British novelists of the 19th Century – George Eliot, Trollope, Thackeray and others.
By insisting on the Judeo-Christian tradition as the informing spirit of Western civilisation, we overlook the transformative sea change wrought on that civilisation by the Enlightenment, with its re-incarnation of the Greek spirit of open-minded rational enquiry free from the inhibition of revealed truth.
Our practice of freedom, inclusive of the freedoms of speech and conscience, our respect for individual sovereignty, and our reliance on the scientific method in medicine, engineering and cosmology were all born in the formulations of thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill, and it is their legacy we should honour as we overturn the new orthodoxies of social justice, equality of outcomes and statism.
Rather than a return to “Christian values,” we should return to the values of the Enlightenment that were so barbarously violated by the arrest of a woman silently praying on a pavement outside an abortion clinic in England.
“Free market capitalism”
While the word “capitalism” was not actually coined by Karl Marx, he took it up as an essential tool in his lexicon of destruction, and I don’t understand why we have any use for it today. I recommend that those campaigning for a better polity abandon it, particularly in the misleading mishmash formulation, “free market capitalism,” for what is capitalism anyway? Who is a capitalist, and who isn’t? Anyone and everyone who trades in anything whatsoever (unless it is a criminal trade) is a capitalist. Anyone who produces anything for sale is a capitalist. Indeed, anyone who owns an asset of any kind and earns a return on the ownership of that asset, even a non-monetary return, is a capitalist.
Even those who call themselves socialists are capitalists, for their wealth is stolen from people who in the first place made it by trade. The production of goods and services for sale is neither more nor less than the exercise or expression of freedom, and whenever we use the word “capitalism” we can better use the word freedom.
Capitalism, as has been noted many times over, is not a system, and not being a system it is not in competition with socialism, which is a system, nor is it the “opposite” of socialism, for the opposite of socialism is freedom, and it is freedom that is at war with socialism, not capitalism.
A speaker at the ARC, and a very poor one at that − Paul Marshall, a British hedge fund manager − told his audience that “free market capitalism” was born with the establishment of the East India Company in 1599, the world’s first joint stock company. This is not so. The joint stock company was undoubtedly a minor innovation to expedite trade and mitigate its risks, but it was not the invention of a belief system.
Trade has taken place since time immemorial; it has taken place under conditions of extreme risk, it has impoverished some and enriched others. It was expedited by Arab moguls, risk takers and entrepreneurs in entrepot ports that dotted the sea routes from west to east and vice versa for the last 3,000 years. I have coined my own description of the first human beings: homo tradiensis. Instead of straitjacketing ourselves with that ghastly phrase “free market capitalism” why don’t we just use the formulation “free trade”?
Marshall, as it happens, went on in his speech to designate what he called three mutant strains of “free market capitalism” – monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism and woke capitalism. This is a serious category error. The “mutancy” is not caused by some kind of systematic failure of big business or “market failure,” it is universally caused by the substitution by governments of trade or statutory law for common law and freely elected consumer preference.
When that happens the unholy alliance between state and business is born, and the phenomenon of “crony capitalism”, which Marshall wrongly identifies as “a mutant strain” of business, occurs. A belief in free markets is not a belief in the probity of business, it is a sense of confidence that under conditions of freedom there will always be risk takers competing to satisfy our consumption needs, and we need not trouble ourselves either by admiring or by deprecating business.
Conservative values
As someone who is happy to be labelled a Trumpian, I am offended when it is assumed that I must therefore be a “conservative.” Trump is not a conservative, nor am I, and I suggest that those who are leading the charge against both statism and wokism do their cause a disservice by publicly admiring “conservative values,” and assuming that their fellow travellers are uniformly conservative.
In doing so they create yet another artificial binary: “conservative vs liberal,” one similar to other misleading binaries, “capitalist vs socialists,” or “left wing and right wing,” the last of which gives rise to no recognisable difference of view or attitude.
I am a child of the rock revolution of the late 50s and 60s and I would betray my life’s adventure if I capitulated to the very norms and standards we rebelled against. I loved it when Paul McCartney scandalised royalty watchers by singing: “Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she doesn’t have a lot to say. Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day. I want to tell her that I love her a lot but I’ve got to get a belly full of wine. Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, someday I’m going to make her mine.” So irreverent, so insouciant, so unimpressed by the demands of convention!
More to the point, a famous school principal at the ARC, Katherine Birbalsingh, told an admiring audience that in her north London multi-cultural school where “conservative” values are strictly adhered to, the pupils are obliged to sing the national anthem once a week, and are taught to love England.
Taught to love England?
Few people in the audience seemed to appreciate the irony of having the need to teach pupils to love their country. But in any case, this is an abysmal didactic principle. As a former some-time English teacher, I didn’t regard it as my task to require the pupils to love anything or anyone they were not disposed to.
Sacrifice
In his address, Jordan Peterson returned to a theme he has been addressing regularly of late. I am an unqualified admirer of Peterson, and have been since he took on the threat of serious judicial punishment by refusing to use mandated personal pronouns. I am happy to disclose that his comments and views are in most cases nothing short of inspirational for me.
But he has begun to lose me with his insistence on the notion of sacrifice as the foundational principle of a humane or merit-worthy society, and – at least among the ARC delegates − he does not seem to be alone in this insistence.
I recognise the nobility in sacrifice for a cause higher than your own self-interest. But – even though he qualifies his recommendation by framing it as “voluntary self-sacrifice” − Peterson comes very close to creating an obligation to sacrifice our self-interests in the interests of the community, or making a mandatory requirement of it, in the same way as Christianity has made charity a Christian obligation, thereby voiding it of its human value.
I draw on the insights and recommendations of literary authors as nominally different as William Blake and D H Lawrence − who would both have been appalled by Peterson’s suggestion – to distance myself from Peterson’s insistently held view, and to reject the imposition of such an obligation as the necessary building block of a better society.
Nobility does not necessarily lie in doing what you are expected to do rather than what you want and freely elect to do; I see absolutely no reason why I should love my neighbour, and I am certain that my destiny lies in doing my best according to my own lights.
To take two substantially different cases, neither Elon Musk nor John Lennon fulfilled themselves and delivered thereby in spades to the general good of humanity by making sacrifices of themselves, and there are endless such examples – think of Gaugin, who did not budge an inch to accommodate the needs of those around him, even those who helped him, but left a legacy of artwork that has the potential to transform lives for the better (as it were). I grew up in an era when it was common for parents to hold their children to account for the “sacrifices” they, the parents, had made for their children’s well-being and privileges. It was a practice rotten to the core.
I recognise nobility in the sacrifice Sydney Carton makes when he elects to go to the guillotine in place of an innocent man (in Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities), and I know there are many occasions in life when self-sacrifice is indeed called for. But when self-sacrifice is regarded as having a functional value serving a social end, rather than being a spontaneous and personal action undertaken in love, it loses the quality of virtue.
We need to get it off the agenda for change.
I don’t want to play a part in bursting that bubble of euphoria – which I also inhabit − but I am increasingly susceptible to an inchoate fear that all is not well in the brave new world of “free market capitalism”, the “Judeo-Christian” tradition, the promotion of “conservative values”, and − at the moral level − the claim now made with increasing frequency and intensity by Jordan Peterson, that we bear a burden of “sacrifice” for the well-being of society.
My particular point of departure in expressing these fears is the recently concluded conference of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) that took place in London, where speaker after speaker of illustrious reputation and provenance was accorded warmly grateful (alternatively sycophantic) rounds of applause for their espousal of the values I have referred to, not least of those in the appreciative ARC audience being our own Rob Hersov, whose forthright political and cultural contributions I welcome, in spite of his expression of unqualified support for the concerns expressed at the conference.
Judeo-Christianity
The first of these concerns centres on the now commonly expressed view that the achievements of freedom, tolerance and generosity that characterise Western civilisation can be attributed to the two-millennia influence of the Judeo-Christian religion, and it is a re-affirmation of our allegiance to that tradition that is now being recommended to us.
Notwithstanding my unquenchable love and regard for the King James Bible, my sense of spiritual serenity and upliftment conferred by exposure to the Anglican liturgy, my interest in and respect for the great myths of the Old Testament and my recognition of the benign influence on children enacting the Nativity, who rediscover by doing so the values of kindness and love, and despite the fact that I am not in the least bit offended by Trump’s claim that his life was saved by God, and even though I kneel in humility before the mystery of the creation, this invocation of “Judeo-Christian” values is retrogressive tripe.
Judaism did not introduce humanity to the “Golden Rule,” neither did Christianity introduce charity, as we know from the parable of the good Samaritan. In his book The Closing of the Western Mind, the scholar Charles Freman provides an extensively documented and scholarly account of the tragedy resulting from the destruction by Roman state-sponsored early Christian fascism of the 500-year Greek tradition of rationality and open enquiry, a fascism inspired as it was by Paul’s intellectually and culturally iconoclastic instruction, Perdam sapientiam sapientium (“We must destroy the wisdom of the wise”).
The invention of the unparalleled Western tradition of the Common Law, codified in the time of the Roman Republic, owes nothing to Christianity. Even though I have many Roman Catholic friends and family members who I both love and respect, I have no qualms in asserting that the Roman Catholic Church, which even today holds out and imposes upon its adherents indefensible doctrines which are an insult to human intelligence, such as the belief that the Pontiff is literally the representative of God on Earth, speaking in a voice that comes straight from God and which is accordingly infallible, with its perverted insistence on the virtue of celibacy, or its demand for absolute obedience, to say nothing of its unspeakable cruelty in the persecution of what it called “heresy”, and its Inquisition, is one of the most malign institutions ever to have besmirched the human race. Anti-Semitism was given birth by the Roman Catholic Church.
For well over 1,000 years from the First Council of Nicaea until Martin Luther pinned his Ninety-Five Theses to a church door in Wittenburg, Christianity doomed humanity in the Western world to ignorance and servility. And this is the tradition that the new mandarins of conservatism want us to admire?
And even after Luther, Christianity continued to impede the development of the free human spirit, and the sterile and suffocating influence of Anglicanism is endlessly attested by the great British novelists of the 19th Century – George Eliot, Trollope, Thackeray and others.
By insisting on the Judeo-Christian tradition as the informing spirit of Western civilisation, we overlook the transformative sea change wrought on that civilisation by the Enlightenment, with its re-incarnation of the Greek spirit of open-minded rational enquiry free from the inhibition of revealed truth.
Our practice of freedom, inclusive of the freedoms of speech and conscience, our respect for individual sovereignty, and our reliance on the scientific method in medicine, engineering and cosmology were all born in the formulations of thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill, and it is their legacy we should honour as we overturn the new orthodoxies of social justice, equality of outcomes and statism.
Rather than a return to “Christian values,” we should return to the values of the Enlightenment that were so barbarously violated by the arrest of a woman silently praying on a pavement outside an abortion clinic in England.
“Free market capitalism”
While the word “capitalism” was not actually coined by Karl Marx, he took it up as an essential tool in his lexicon of destruction, and I don’t understand why we have any use for it today. I recommend that those campaigning for a better polity abandon it, particularly in the misleading mishmash formulation, “free market capitalism,” for what is capitalism anyway? Who is a capitalist, and who isn’t? Anyone and everyone who trades in anything whatsoever (unless it is a criminal trade) is a capitalist. Anyone who produces anything for sale is a capitalist. Indeed, anyone who owns an asset of any kind and earns a return on the ownership of that asset, even a non-monetary return, is a capitalist.
Even those who call themselves socialists are capitalists, for their wealth is stolen from people who in the first place made it by trade. The production of goods and services for sale is neither more nor less than the exercise or expression of freedom, and whenever we use the word “capitalism” we can better use the word freedom.
Capitalism, as has been noted many times over, is not a system, and not being a system it is not in competition with socialism, which is a system, nor is it the “opposite” of socialism, for the opposite of socialism is freedom, and it is freedom that is at war with socialism, not capitalism.
A speaker at the ARC, and a very poor one at that − Paul Marshall, a British hedge fund manager − told his audience that “free market capitalism” was born with the establishment of the East India Company in 1599, the world’s first joint stock company. This is not so. The joint stock company was undoubtedly a minor innovation to expedite trade and mitigate its risks, but it was not the invention of a belief system.
Trade has taken place since time immemorial; it has taken place under conditions of extreme risk, it has impoverished some and enriched others. It was expedited by Arab moguls, risk takers and entrepreneurs in entrepot ports that dotted the sea routes from west to east and vice versa for the last 3,000 years. I have coined my own description of the first human beings: homo tradiensis. Instead of straitjacketing ourselves with that ghastly phrase “free market capitalism” why don’t we just use the formulation “free trade”?
Marshall, as it happens, went on in his speech to designate what he called three mutant strains of “free market capitalism” – monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism and woke capitalism. This is a serious category error. The “mutancy” is not caused by some kind of systematic failure of big business or “market failure,” it is universally caused by the substitution by governments of trade or statutory law for common law and freely elected consumer preference.
When that happens the unholy alliance between state and business is born, and the phenomenon of “crony capitalism”, which Marshall wrongly identifies as “a mutant strain” of business, occurs. A belief in free markets is not a belief in the probity of business, it is a sense of confidence that under conditions of freedom there will always be risk takers competing to satisfy our consumption needs, and we need not trouble ourselves either by admiring or by deprecating business.
Conservative values
As someone who is happy to be labelled a Trumpian, I am offended when it is assumed that I must therefore be a “conservative.” Trump is not a conservative, nor am I, and I suggest that those who are leading the charge against both statism and wokism do their cause a disservice by publicly admiring “conservative values,” and assuming that their fellow travellers are uniformly conservative.
In doing so they create yet another artificial binary: “conservative vs liberal,” one similar to other misleading binaries, “capitalist vs socialists,” or “left wing and right wing,” the last of which gives rise to no recognisable difference of view or attitude.
I am a child of the rock revolution of the late 50s and 60s and I would betray my life’s adventure if I capitulated to the very norms and standards we rebelled against. I loved it when Paul McCartney scandalised royalty watchers by singing: “Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she doesn’t have a lot to say. Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day. I want to tell her that I love her a lot but I’ve got to get a belly full of wine. Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, someday I’m going to make her mine.” So irreverent, so insouciant, so unimpressed by the demands of convention!
More to the point, a famous school principal at the ARC, Katherine Birbalsingh, told an admiring audience that in her north London multi-cultural school where “conservative” values are strictly adhered to, the pupils are obliged to sing the national anthem once a week, and are taught to love England.
Taught to love England?
Few people in the audience seemed to appreciate the irony of having the need to teach pupils to love their country. But in any case, this is an abysmal didactic principle. As a former some-time English teacher, I didn’t regard it as my task to require the pupils to love anything or anyone they were not disposed to.
Sacrifice
In his address, Jordan Peterson returned to a theme he has been addressing regularly of late. I am an unqualified admirer of Peterson, and have been since he took on the threat of serious judicial punishment by refusing to use mandated personal pronouns. I am happy to disclose that his comments and views are in most cases nothing short of inspirational for me.
But he has begun to lose me with his insistence on the notion of sacrifice as the foundational principle of a humane or merit-worthy society, and – at least among the ARC delegates − he does not seem to be alone in this insistence.
I recognise the nobility in sacrifice for a cause higher than your own self-interest. But – even though he qualifies his recommendation by framing it as “voluntary self-sacrifice” − Peterson comes very close to creating an obligation to sacrifice our self-interests in the interests of the community, or making a mandatory requirement of it, in the same way as Christianity has made charity a Christian obligation, thereby voiding it of its human value.
I draw on the insights and recommendations of literary authors as nominally different as William Blake and D H Lawrence − who would both have been appalled by Peterson’s suggestion – to distance myself from Peterson’s insistently held view, and to reject the imposition of such an obligation as the necessary building block of a better society.
Nobility does not necessarily lie in doing what you are expected to do rather than what you want and freely elect to do; I see absolutely no reason why I should love my neighbour, and I am certain that my destiny lies in doing my best according to my own lights.
To take two substantially different cases, neither Elon Musk nor John Lennon fulfilled themselves and delivered thereby in spades to the general good of humanity by making sacrifices of themselves, and there are endless such examples – think of Gaugin, who did not budge an inch to accommodate the needs of those around him, even those who helped him, but left a legacy of artwork that has the potential to transform lives for the better (as it were). I grew up in an era when it was common for parents to hold their children to account for the “sacrifices” they, the parents, had made for their children’s well-being and privileges. It was a practice rotten to the core.
I recognise nobility in the sacrifice Sydney Carton makes when he elects to go to the guillotine in place of an innocent man (in Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities), and I know there are many occasions in life when self-sacrifice is indeed called for. But when self-sacrifice is regarded as having a functional value serving a social end, rather than being a spontaneous and personal action undertaken in love, it loses the quality of virtue.
We need to get it off the agenda for change.
Lionel Spilkin
Feb 24, 2025, 4:02:32 AMFeb 24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I must admit I like your thinking Trevorius. Would it be ok if I shared this essay on my philosophy group.
Regards
Lionel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkgzRkmTvy-nK1p0aOjGBP-4ia0Y9YfmMfHujonGm_mmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Gabri Rigotti
Feb 24, 2025, 4:35:57 AMFeb 24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Wow, this article by Colin Bower is fantastic ... !!!
Written with a sensitive assertiveness, he is on the button on all the aspects he raises.
Especially on the term "capitalism" ...
The market is either free as in the market that would manifest in a genuine libertarian/individualist society ... or it ranges from zero to quasi free in all other forms ...
Much of what we have in the Western world is a hodge podge with most pro "free" market economists at best only using the term in a nominal sense.
They mean free but not "free" in an absolute sense, only sufficiently "free" to the extent that it does not disrupt vested interests who fund their intellectual and career lifestyles or their own view of how "free" it should be.
Similarly on Christianity.
Albeit I am an atheist and cultural Catholic, Christianity mostly does not coincide with the concept of The Christ, be that concept a myth or not.
Most of Christianity as a system has been a myriad and one strategies and tactics to manipulate people into subservience.
Christ is not at fault for this ...
Also, there are far older traditions that predate Judaism and Christianity, so anchoring ourselves into the Judaeo/Christian traditon will not promote individual freedom to the maximum that it could.
"Let he who is without sin" cast the first stone is sheer Taoism, sheer Wu Wei.
As for Jordan Peterson, for libertarians/individualists at least, "sacrifice" should really be about whatever self disciplne an individual requires in order to do what they need to do, without violating the Harm Consent Rule, HRC, at the very least in order to secure the lives they seek for themselves and or their loved ones ...
An altruist tends to act for others, an egoist only for themselves ,,, but as long as they do not violate HRC it is their business to do as they please, either way it is no mortal sin deserving of the fiction of Hell ...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkgzRkmTvy-nK1p0aOjGBP-4ia0Y9YfmMfHujonGm_mmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "
—Anna Hazare
SASI SA School of Individualism
Feb 24, 2025, 6:41:24 AMFeb 24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Hi
I pinched it... why shouldn't you.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAEjDDZy6KGdGGi2uNK-Xvt_hUdSfHb0BaupjBd%2BLUU-cD24y3g%40mail.gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
Feb 24, 2025, 8:09:40 AMFeb 24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
The first of these concerns centres on the now commonly expressed view that the achievements of freedom, tolerance and generosity that characterise Western civilisation can be attributed to the two-millennia influence of the Judeo-Christian religion, and it is a re-affirmation of our allegiance to that tradition that is now being recommended to us.
Jesus Christ brought the new and original idea of "Love your neighbour" to the western philosophical debate.
According to the Bible, the phrase "love your neighbour" is attributed to Jesus Christ, specifically in the book of Leviticus 19:18 where it says "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" - meaning the concept of loving your neighbor as you love yourself originated in the Hebrew Bible, with Jesus further emphasizing this teaching in the New Testament.
This probably seemed like a good idea to the endlessly bullied Jews, but did not appeal to or appear in the Greek or Roman militarist tradition. It is a fundamentally unworkable idea, requiring explicit definitions of "love", "neighbour", and even "your". People who say this do not really mean it, do not practice it, and if they have any claim to rationality, do not believe it. It is a feel-good phrase in the best tradition of woke progressive politics. It makes you seem kind and good and caring, and stupid. As Colin says: " this invocation of “Judeo-Christian” values is retrogressive tripe". Love thyself is all that is needed.
The invention of the unparalleled Western tradition of the Common Law, codified in the time of the Roman Republic, owes nothing to Christianity.
the Roman Catholic Church, which even today holds out and imposes upon its adherents indefensible doctrines which are an insult to human intelligence
I wish I could have read this essay as a youngster of 15. It would have save me a lot of regret (requiring my future wife to convert to Catholicism), time (endless Sundays in church participating in humiliating rituals), guilt (for everything from masturbation, pre-marital sex, putting too little in the collection plate). I have now taken all this on board, but it was a slow, tortured process.
the transformative sea change wrought on that civilisation by the Enlightenment
The good news is that we are witnessing a new enlightenment, the triumph of common sense by Trump and his acolytes. Let's not waste this unique opportunity, for the sake of our descendants.
Rather than a return to “Christian values,” we should return to the values of the Enlightenment that were so barbarously violated by the arrest of a woman silently praying on a pavement outside an abortion clinic in England.
As rational individuals, free thinkers. libertarians, we are going to be called on to explain to our grandchildren how a travesty like wokism occurred in our time and on our watch. Thank Donald that we are laboriously clawing our way out of that swamp.
I will tackle other sections of Colin's magnum opus at a later date.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 09:48, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ernst
Feb 24, 2025, 8:17:29 AMFeb 24
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
It is not a matter of accepting or rejecting Trumpism.
I go along with (say) 80% but look with a jaundiced eye at for example, the religious aspect.
Whereas I accept that a need for religion/ god is deeply engrained in humans, the monotheistic Abrahamic religions are a huge step backwards from the foundations laid by the Greeks.
During the World Wars Christian nations claimed that God was on their side - as is happening in Gaza where Abrahamic religion adherants are at each other's throats.
No "Love they neighbour"
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMmz%3DJPkW33O1SxtK9Szr9GZU4F8Sar2TtCCyRwqMZvEfSVyhA%40mail.gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
Feb 25, 2025, 2:11:55 AMFeb 25
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Reply from Johann du Toit on Daily Friend comments
What a load of Anti-Christian (particularly Anti-Catholic) bile. Saying the Catholic Church "doomed humanity in the Western world to ignorance and servility" when it founded the university system of higher education and the study of science (to the point that many craters on the moon are named after Jesuit scholars) is absurd. Saying the Church "invented Antisemitism" when Antisemitism predated the advent of Christianity by centuries-and when the Popes, for all their flaws and failure to stop all persecution, specifically forbade pogroms against Jews, under penalty of Excommunication-is libelous. I guess the Church also "Besmirched" the West by building the first hospitals and providing the first social safety net for the poor. In it's place the author calls for returning to the values of the "Enlightenment", which paved the way for the French Revolution and the Reign of terror, and eventually the Communist revolution of 1917 and the genocide of 100 million people in the 20th Century. I'm sorry, but if the OP can be so spectacularly wrong on these cardinal (pardon the pun) issues, his opinion on Jordan Peterson or anything else really doesn't matter.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 09:48, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Weissenberg
Feb 25, 2025, 3:51:42 AMFeb 25
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Various responses below refer..
Ya, the hyperbole, occasional ad-hominem and irrational bouts make it difficult (for me) to contribute.
Like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, it is a near-perfect philosophy and concept, just not particularly suited to humans. I think Leon is right in postulating that Libertarians are a mutation. Objective, fully rational Libertarians, probably a mutation of a mutation or a black-swan event. J
Sincerely,
Ron
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lm6io2y3A663OOZddTetzC1FSuYfyVLegXOFJLAZZasrA%40mail.gmail.com.
viv...@iafrica.com
Feb 25, 2025, 4:18:53 AMFeb 25
to individualist
Thanks Ron, for highlighting the anti-human or dishuman nature of certain ideologies. In a similar vein, I wonder if Black Swan Humans (like Musk) then be taken seriously as a solution to human problems? Do we want to be ruled/guided by superhuman people or people who are superbly human? Should we look for people who are like us (normal humans, not mutations like mutated mutations of alleged libertarians) or are we ok with people who would rather want to live on another planet? Shoudl it matter that people are psycopaths or not? why?
Viv
From: "Ron Weissenberg" <r...@micronized.com>
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:51:34 AM
Subject: RE: IM: ARC error: why we should reject Peterson’s call to self-sacrifice
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:51:34 AM
Subject: RE: IM: ARC error: why we should reject Peterson’s call to self-sacrifice
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AS8PR08MB68227DEEE8FF1967D5F68AE1C0C32%40AS8PR08MB6822.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com.
Trevor Watkins
Feb 25, 2025, 5:05:39 AMFeb 25
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Do we want to be ruled/guided by superhuman people or people who are superbly human?
I don't want to be ruled/guided by anybody other than me, no matter how wonderful the candidates. That is the essence of the HarmConsentRule.
Shoudl it matter that people are psycopaths or not? why?
At least 5% of any human population are certifiable psychopaths, and probably 90% are latent psychopaths (you should see how I torture ants, mosquitos and flies.) Probably 60% of this country are psychopaths, based on crime stats. I would prefer it were not so, it does matter, it has affected me directly. I try to persuade people to leave others alone if you do not have their consent, but mostly I just try to avoid the psychopaths.
TrevorTo view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/1363972415.49488179.1740475099498.JavaMail.zimbra%40iafrica.com.
Sid Nothard
Feb 25, 2025, 8:19:16 AMFeb 25
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Virtually impossible to avoid psychopaths
Sid Nothard cSASI
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmMgvD1PJumRExytRVLyfQ%2BS71eOLF27XJnfot98qe1wA%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Feb 25, 2025, 2:01:16 PMFeb 25
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I agree Ron. There is so little real substance here, I keep trying to comment, but there is nothing substantial to comment on.
S.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AS8PR08MB68227DEEE8FF1967D5F68AE1C0C32%40AS8PR08MB6822.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com.
Trevor Watkins
Feb 26, 2025, 2:11:22 AMFeb 26
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I can only assume you have read very little of this material.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7ihQEr%3Dvo%2B%3D87BY39q-i-nTcg-0D_Uck5pQSV1_zrtpw%40mail.gmail.com.
Ron Weissenberg
Feb 26, 2025, 10:04:49 AMFeb 26
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Hi Viv,
“Do we want to be ruled/guided by superhuman people or people who are superbly human? Should we look for people who are like us (normal humans, not mutations like mutated mutations of alleged libertarians) or are we ok with people who would rather want to live on another planet? Shoudl it matter that people are psycopaths or not? why?..”
I can only speak for myself. I don’t want to be ruled by any human/s. I was called in to speak to the role players of our local (Western Cape) municipality about how to manage, restore, rehabilitate and operate the local authority. The Muni is in a failed condition, similar to the majority of local, provincial and national government structures. Several civic-minded residents who are mostly retired and resourced, try and manage the rot and succeed in some Band-Aid patching.
My suggestion was to dissolve the council and replace it with an AI Bot. The bot would be programmed to take decisions and release money to manage the municipality. It’s all about controlling the resources, and it is not a good idea to leave that aspect in the hands of humans, even Libertarians. ‘But what and who controls the algorithms?’ they screeched.
A rotating, independent set of Swiss bots would do that, with fixed programming.
On average, I dislike my own species. Even likable people have their myriad pathologies and higher order primates should limit interaction with their own. Perhaps for breeding purposes, validation and grooming each other (the social kind)? I don’t limit my human interaction enough, but that in itself is a pathology and as an anti natalist-in-recovery, I try.
So, I would prefer being ruled by an AI bot, with the appropriate governance and oversight by other bots.
And, get a domesticated pet with whom one can interact.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/1363972415.49488179.1740475099498.JavaMail.zimbra%40iafrica.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Feb 26, 2025, 10:09:28 AMFeb 26
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Oh, I read it. I just think it's a load of clap trap. A large part of that might be the writing style - some people like lyrical embellishments, I'm not one of them. Taste differs and that's fine - we're all free to like or dislike what we please.
S.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lk3jhWV8Vu-Ae%3DpAnqhcye7qY4NWCrnGRsQmaPtwNX7qw%40mail.gmail.com.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Feb 26, 2025, 11:51:04 AMFeb 26
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
Trevor, I think the dismay with my statement was palpable in your single sentence below... so setting my better judgement aside, let me expand on my admittedly subjective view. That may well cause even more dismay, but I hope that it will shed some light on my position and that it will reduce the dismay... or at least displace it with something else. In short, the piece below is 2249 words of which 90% is, in my opinion, completely superfluous and the remaining 10% adds little to no value to the existing body of knowledge as far as I can tell. How can I say such a thing ?
| What he wrote | What I read |
| Bliss, wrote Wordsworth, was it in that dawn to be alive. It is similarly bliss to be alive in the time of the Trumpian cultural revolution that is sweeping through the sterile institutions of wokedom, returning us gratefully to an age of common sense and a state of reverence for the achievements of our forebears. |
| Ah, the good old days ! I am a Trump supporter. A slight minority in a foreign election leads me to believe that the entire world is shifting to my conservative world view now. |
| I don’t want to play a part in bursting that bubble of euphoria – which I also inhabit − but I am increasingly susceptible to an inchoate fear that all is not well in the brave new world of “free market capitalism”, the “Judeo-Christian” tradition, the promotion of “conservative values”, and − at the moral level − the claim now made with increasing frequency and intensity by Jordan Peterson, that we bear a burden of “sacrifice” for the well-being of society. |
| I like very long sentences with ambiguous meaning… like this one; there is something wrong capitalism but also the capitalists have gone commie on us. |
| My particular point of departure in expressing these fears is the recently concluded conference of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) that took place in London, where speaker after speaker of illustrious reputation and provenance was accorded warmly grateful (alternatively sycophantic) rounds of applause for their espousal of the values I have referred to, not least of those in the appreciative ARC audience being our own Rob Hersov, whose forthright political and cultural contributions I welcome, in spite of his expression of unqualified support for the concerns expressed at the conference. |
| Some wankers gathered in London. I was there and so was some rando called Rob. I like Rob even though he supported the wanking, which concerned me. | |
| Judeo-Christianity | Jewish Christians; |
| The first of these concerns centres on the now commonly expressed view that the achievements of freedom, tolerance and generosity that characterise Western civilisation can be attributed to the two-millennia influence of the Judeo-Christian religion, and it is a re-affirmation of our allegiance to that tradition that is now being recommended to us. |
| I don't like that western religion gets some of the credit for the successes of western culture. |
| Notwithstanding my unquenchable love and regard for the King James Bible, my sense of spiritual serenity and upliftment conferred by exposure to the Anglican liturgy, my interest in and respect for the great myths of the Old Testament and my recognition of the benign influence on children enacting the Nativity, who rediscover by doing so the values of kindness and love, and despite the fact that I am not in the least bit offended by Trump’s claim that his life was saved by God, and even though I kneel in humility before the mystery of the creation, this invocation of “Judeo-Christian” values is retrogressive tripe. |
| I'm a Christian like Trump, but disagree that Christianity deserves the credit. |
| Judaism did not introduce humanity to the “Golden Rule,” neither did Christianity introduce charity, as we know from the parable of the good Samaritan. In his book The Closing of the Western Mind, the scholar Charles Freman provides an extensively documented and scholarly account of the tragedy resulting from the destruction by Roman state-sponsored early Christian fascism of the 500-year Greek tradition of rationality and open enquiry, a fascism inspired as it was by Paul’s intellectually and culturally iconoclastic instruction, Perdam sapientiam sapientium (“We must destroy the wisdom of the wise”). |
| People don't history. |
| The invention of the unparalleled Western tradition of the Common Law, codified in the time of the Roman Republic, owes nothing to Christianity. Even though I have many Roman Catholic friends and family members who I both love and respect, I have no qualms in asserting that the Roman Catholic Church, which even today holds out and imposes upon its adherents indefensible doctrines which are an insult to human intelligence, such as the belief that the Pontiff is literally the representative of God on Earth, speaking in a voice that comes straight from God and which is accordingly infallible, with its perverted insistence on the virtue of celibacy, or its demand for absolute obedience, to say nothing of its unspeakable cruelty in the persecution of what it called “heresy”, and its Inquisition, is one of the most malign institutions ever to have besmirched the human race. Anti-Semitism was given birth by the Roman Catholic Church. |
| Europe is better than China. |
| For well over 1,000 years from the First Council of Nicaea until Martin Luther pinned his Ninety-Five Theses to a church door in Wittenburg, Christianity doomed humanity in the Western world to ignorance and servility. And this is the tradition that the new mandarins of conservatism want us to admire? |
| Christianity doomed humanity. |
| And even after Luther, Christianity continued to impede the development of the free human spirit, and the sterile and suffocating influence of Anglicanism is endlessly attested by the great British novelists of the 19th Century – George Eliot, Trollope, Thackeray and others. |
| Revamping Christianity didn't help. |
| By insisting on the Judeo-Christian tradition as the informing spirit of Western civilisation, we overlook the transformative sea change wrought on that civilisation by the Enlightenment, with its re-incarnation of the Greek spirit of open-minded rational enquiry free from the inhibition of revealed truth. |
| Go ancient Greece ! |
| Our practice of freedom, inclusive of the freedoms of speech and conscience, our respect for individual sovereignty, and our reliance on the scientific method in medicine, engineering and cosmology were all born in the formulations of thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill, and it is their legacy we should honour as we overturn the new orthodoxies of social justice, equality of outcomes and statism. |
| Europe is awesome. |
| Rather than a return to “Christian values,” we should return to the values of the Enlightenment that were so barbarously violated by the arrest of a woman silently praying on a pavement outside an abortion clinic in England. |
| Screw the 10 commandments, we need rule of slightly more recent laws. | |
| “Free market capitalism” | Capitalist capitalism (or free market free markets); |
| While the word “capitalism” was not actually coined by Karl Marx, he took it up as an essential tool in his lexicon of destruction, and I don’t understand why we have any use for it today. I recommend that those campaigning for a better polity abandon it, particularly in the misleading mishmash formulation, “free market capitalism,” for what is capitalism anyway? Who is a capitalist, and who isn’t? Anyone and everyone who trades in anything whatsoever (unless it is a criminal trade) is a capitalist. Anyone who produces anything for sale is a capitalist. Indeed, anyone who owns an asset of any kind and earns a return on the ownership of that asset, even a non-monetary return, is a capitalist. |
| People don't economic history. Free markets exists even when they are not free. |
| Even those who call themselves socialists are capitalists, for their wealth is stolen from people who in the first place made it by trade. The production of goods and services for sale is neither more nor less than the exercise or expression of freedom, and whenever we use the word “capitalism” we can better use the word freedom. |
| Socialists are stupid. |
| Capitalism, as has been noted many times over, is not a system, and not being a system it is not in competition with socialism, which is a system, nor is it the “opposite” of socialism, for the opposite of socialism is freedom, and it is freedom that is at war with socialism, not capitalism. |
| Freedom is not a system. |
| A speaker at the ARC, and a very poor one at that − Paul Marshall, a British hedge fund manager − told his audience that “free market capitalism” was born with the establishment of the East India Company in 1599, the world’s first joint stock company. This is not so. The joint stock company was undoubtedly a minor innovation to expedite trade and mitigate its risks, but it was not the invention of a belief system. |
| Some wanker at the gathering of wankers (in London) was also an idiot. |
| Trade has taken place since time immemorial; it has taken place under conditions of extreme risk, it has impoverished some and enriched others. It was expedited by Arab moguls, risk takers and entrepreneurs in entrepot ports that dotted the sea routes from west to east and vice versa for the last 3,000 years. I have coined my own description of the first human beings: homo tradiensis. Instead of straitjacketing ourselves with that ghastly phrase “free market capitalism” why don’t we just use the formulation “free trade”? |
| [Skipped for now] |
| Marshall, as it happens, went on in his speech to designate what he called three mutant strains of “free market capitalism” – monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism and woke capitalism. This is a serious category error. The “mutancy” is not caused by some kind of systematic failure of big business or “market failure,” it is universally caused by the substitution by governments of trade or statutory law for common law and freely elected consumer preference. |
| [Skipped for now] |
| When that happens the unholy alliance between state and business is born, and the phenomenon of “crony capitalism”, which Marshall wrongly identifies as “a mutant strain” of business, occurs. A belief in free markets is not a belief in the probity of business, it is a sense of confidence that under conditions of freedom there will always be risk takers competing to satisfy our consumption needs, and we need not trouble ourselves either by admiring or by deprecating business. |
| [Skipped for now] | |
| Conservative values | [Skipped for now] |
| As someone who is happy to be labelled a Trumpian, I am offended when it is assumed that I must therefore be a “conservative.” Trump is not a conservative, nor am I, and I suggest that those who are leading the charge against both statism and wokism do their cause a disservice by publicly admiring “conservative values,” and assuming that their fellow travellers are uniformly conservative. |
| [Skipped for now] |
| In doing so they create yet another artificial binary: “conservative vs liberal,” one similar to other misleading binaries, “capitalist vs socialists,” or “left wing and right wing,” the last of which gives rise to no recognisable difference of view or attitude. |
| [Skipped for now] |
| I am a child of the rock revolution of the late 50s and 60s and I would betray my life’s adventure if I capitulated to the very norms and standards we rebelled against. I loved it when Paul McCartney scandalised royalty watchers by singing: “Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she doesn’t have a lot to say. Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day. I want to tell her that I love her a lot but I’ve got to get a belly full of wine. Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, someday I’m going to make her mine.” So irreverent, so insouciant, so unimpressed by the demands of convention! |
| [Skipped for now] |
| More to the point, a famous school principal at the ARC, Katherine Birbalsingh, told an admiring audience that in her north London multi-cultural school where “conservative” values are strictly adhered to, the pupils are obliged to sing the national anthem once a week, and are taught to love England. |
| [Skipped for now] | |
| Taught to love England? | [Skipped for now] |
| Few people in the audience seemed to appreciate the irony of having the need to teach pupils to love their country. But in any case, this is an abysmal didactic principle. As a former some-time English teacher, I didn’t regard it as my task to require the pupils to love anything or anyone they were not disposed to. |
| [Skipped for now] | |
| Sacrifice | [Skipped for now] |
| In his address, Jordan Peterson returned to a theme he has been addressing regularly of late. I am an unqualified admirer of Peterson, and have been since he took on the threat of serious judicial punishment by refusing to use mandated personal pronouns. I am happy to disclose that his comments and views are in most cases nothing short of inspirational for me. |
| I like Jordan Peterson. |
| But he has begun to lose me with his insistence on the notion of sacrifice as the foundational principle of a humane or merit-worthy society, and – at least among the ARC delegates − he does not seem to be alone in this insistence. |
| I disagree with Peterson when he says society is built on sacrifice, which the London wankers agree with. |
| I recognise the nobility in sacrifice for a cause higher than your own self-interest. But – even though he qualifies his recommendation by framing it as “voluntary self-sacrifice” − Peterson comes very close to creating an obligation to sacrifice our self-interests in the interests of the community, or making a mandatory requirement of it, in the same way as Christianity has made charity a Christian obligation, thereby voiding it of its human value. |
| Sacrifice is noble and Peterson says it should be voluntary, but he comes close to saying the sacrifice should be obligotary, which has parallels in Christianity. |
| I draw on the insights and recommendations of literary authors as nominally different as William Blake and D H Lawrence − who would both have been appalled by Peterson’s suggestion – to distance myself from Peterson’s insistently held view, and to reject the imposition of such an obligation as the necessary building block of a better society. |
| I read a lot and reject Peterson's view that sacrifice for the greater good should be obligotary. |
| Nobility does not necessarily lie in doing what you are expected to do rather than what you want and freely elect to do; I see absolutely no reason why I should love my neighbour, and I am certain that my destiny lies in doing my best according to my own lights. |
| Obligation stinks. |
| To take two substantially different cases, neither Elon Musk nor John Lennon fulfilled themselves and delivered thereby in spades to the general good of humanity by making sacrifices of themselves, and there are endless such examples – think of Gaugin, who did not budge an inch to accommodate the needs of those around him, even those who helped him, but left a legacy of artwork that has the potential to transform lives for the better (as it were). I grew up in an era when it was common for parents to hold their children to account for the “sacrifices” they, the parents, had made for their children’s well-being and privileges. It was a practice rotten to the core. |
| Great people leave behind great things without sacrificing themselves. |
| I recognise nobility in the sacrifice Sydney Carton makes when he elects to go to the guillotine in place of an innocent man (in Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities), and I know there are many occasions in life when self-sacrifice is indeed called for. But when self-sacrifice is regarded as having a functional value serving a social end, rather than being a spontaneous and personal action undertaken in love, it loses the quality of virtue. |
| Self-sacrifice is noble, but making it mandatory removes the virtue from it. |
| We need to get it off the agenda for change. |
| We should stop others from talking about it. |
Some bits I agree with and others I don't, but I think my main problem is the enormous surplus of words. That makes it really hard to distill any meaningful substance from the piece. Looking at my 240 word summary (less than 10% of the original), you could probably still trim half the words and yet come to the same conclusions. I agree 100% with Ron's comment below: "Ya, the hyperbole, occasional ad-hominem and irrational bouts make it difficult (for me) to contribute."... and I wasn't going to, but then couldn't help myself and did it anyway.
S.
Jim Powell
Feb 27, 2025, 2:41:28 AMFeb 27
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
I do not see many from the WEF etc. sacrificing
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S705EdrAHHcse7XqSZPYZ__TABHART800UjO_U209s9Nw%40mail.gmail.com.
Trevor Watkins
Feb 27, 2025, 3:52:02 AMFeb 27
to indivi...@googlegroups.com
OK, I concede you probably have now read the piece- well done.
Unlike you, I mostly enjoy dramatic language, interesting hyperbole, expressive language. Of course, it can be overdone and the original message may get lost in a sea of artistic allusions. In this respect, I found your comments in the table useful, and a good summary of what was being said. However, your brevity sometimes loses the gist of what is being said.
Unlike you, I mostly enjoy dramatic language, interesting hyperbole, expressive language. Of course, it can be overdone and the original message may get lost in a sea of artistic allusions. In this respect, I found your comments in the table useful, and a good summary of what was being said. However, your brevity sometimes loses the gist of what is being said.
I still think that "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" says more to me than "Be annoyed that you will die".
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S705EdrAHHcse7XqSZPYZ__TABHART800UjO_U209s9Nw%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages