- Search Results
The Existential Question of Who to Trust
Robert Parry
Strategic Culture Foundation
1st May 2017- Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra Affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard’s Nieman Foundation in 2015. He has been the editor of Consortiumnews since 1995
The Problem
The looming threat of World War III, a potential extermination event for the human species, is made more likely because the world’s public can’t count on supposedly objective experts to ascertain and evaluate facts. Instead, careerism is the order of the day among journalists, intelligence analysts and international monitors – meaning that almost no one who might normally be relied on to tell the truth can be trusted.
- US Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus. CIA Director George Tenet is behind Powell to the left
The dangerous reality is that this careerism, which often is expressed by a smug certainty about whatever the prevailing groupthink is, pervades not just the political world, where lies seem to be the common currency, but also the worlds of journalism, intelligence and international oversight, including United Nations agencies that are often granted greater credibility because they are perceived as less beholden to specific governments but in reality have become deeply corrupted, too.
In other words, many professionals who are counted on for digging out the facts and speaking truth to power have sold themselves to those same powerful interests in order to keep high-paying jobs and to not get tossed out onto the street.
Many of these self-aggrandizing professionals – caught up in the many accoutrements of success – don’t even seem to recognize how far they’ve drifted from principled professionalism
A good example was Saturday night’s spectacle of national journalists preening in their tuxedos and gowns at the White House Correspondents Dinner, sporting First Amendment pins as if they were some brave victims of persecution.
They seemed oblivious to how removed they are from Middle America and how unlikely any of them would risk their careers by challenging one of the Establishment’s favoured groupthinks. Instead, these national journalists take easy shots at President Trump’s buffoonish behaviour and his serial falsehoods — and count themselves as endangered heroes for the effort.
Foils for Trump
Ironically, though, these pompous journalists gave Trump what was arguably his best moment in his first 100 days by serving as foils for President Trump as he traveled to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Saturday and basked in the adulation of blue-collar Americans who view the mainstream media as just one more appendage of a corrupt ruling elite.
- The photograph released by the White House of President Trump meeting with his advisers at his estate in Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017, regarding his decision to launch missile strikes against Syria
Breaking with tradition by snubbing the annual press gala, Trump delighted the Harrisburg crowd by saying: “A large group of Hollywood celebrities and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom” and adding: “I could not possibly be more thrilled than to be more than 100 miles away from [the] Washington swamp … with much, much better people.” The crowd booed references to the elites and cheered Trump’s choice to be with the common folk.
Trump’s rejection of the dinner and his frequent criticism of the mainstream media brought a defensive response from Jeff Mason, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, who complained: “We are not fake news. We are not failing news organizations. And we are not the enemy of the American people.” That brought the black-tie-and-gown gathering to its feet in a standing ovation.
Perhaps the assembled media elite had forgotten that it was the mainstream U.S. media – particularly The Washington Post and The New York Times – that popularized the phrase “fake news” and directed it blunderbuss-style not only at the few Web sites that intentionally invent stories to increase their clicks but at independent-minded journalism outlets that have dared question the elite’s groupthinks on issues of war, peace and globalization.
The Black List
Professional journalistic skepticism toward official claims by the U.S. government — what you should expect from reporters — became conflated with “fake news.”
The Post even gave front-page attention to an anonymous group called PropOrNot that published a black list of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other independent-minded journalism sites, to be shunned.
- The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)
But the mainstream media stars didn’t like it when Trump began throwing the “fake news” slur back at them. Thus, the First Amendment lapel pins and the standing ovation for Jeff Mason’s repudiation of the “fake news” label.
Yet, as the glitzy White House Correspondents Dinner demonstrated, mainstream journalists get the goodies of prestige and money while the real truth-tellers are almost always outspent, outgunned and cast out of the mainstream. Indeed, this dwindling band of honest people who are both knowledgeable and in position to expose unpleasant truths is often under mainstream attack, sometimes for unrelated personal failings and other times just for rubbing the powers-that-be the wrong way.
Perhaps, the clearest case study of this up-is-down rewards-and-punishments reality was the Iraq War’s WMD rationale. Nearly across the board, the American political/media system – from U.S. intelligence analysts to the deliberative body of the U.S. Senate to the major U.S. news organizations – failed to ascertain the truth and indeed actively helped disseminate the falsehoods about Iraq hiding WMDs and even suggested nuclear weapons development. (Arguably, the “most trusted” U.S. government official at the time, Secretary of State Colin Powell, played a key role in selling the false allegations as “truth.”)
Not only did the supposed American “gold standard” for assessing information – the U.S. political, media and intelligence structure – fail miserably in the face of fraudulent claims often from self-interested Iraqi opposition figures and their neoconservative American backers, but there was minimal accountability afterwards for the “professionals” who failed to protect the public from lies and deceptions.
Profiting from Failure
Indeed, many of the main culprits remain “respected” members of the journalistic establishment. For instance, The New York Times’ Pentagon correspondent Michael R. Gordon, who was the lead writer on the infamous “aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges” story which got the ball rolling for the Bush administration’s rollout of its invade-Iraq advertising campaign in September 2002, still covers national security for the Times – and still serves as a conveyor belt for U.S. government propaganda.
- New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)
The Washington Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, who repeatedly informed the Post’s readers that Iraq’s secret possession of WMD was a “flat-fact,” is still the Post’s editorial page editor, one of the most influential positions in American journalism.
Hiatt’s editorial page led a years-long assault on the character of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson for the offense of debunking one of President George W. Bush’s claims about Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger.
Wilson had alerted the CIA to the bogus claim before the invasion of Iraq and went public with the news afterwards, but the Post treated Wilson as the real culprit, dismissing him as “a blowhard” and trivializing the Bush administration’s destruction of his wife’s CIA career by outing her (Valerie Plame) in order to discredit Wilson’s Niger investigation.
At the end of the Post’s savaging of Wilson’s reputation and in the wake of the newspaper’s accessory role in destroying Plame’s career, Wilson and Plame decamped from Washington to New Mexico. Meanwhile, Hiatt never suffered a whit – and remains a “respected” Washington media figure to this day.
Careerist Lesson
The lesson that any careerist would draw from the Iraq case is that there is almost no downside risk in running with the pack on a national security issue. Even if you’re horrifically wrong — even if you contribute to the deaths of some 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis — your paycheck is almost surely safe.
- President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney receive an Oval Office briefing from CIA Director George Tenet. Also present is Chief of Staff Andy Card (on right). (White House photo)
The same holds true if you work for an international agency that is responsible for monitoring issues like chemical weapons. Again, the Iraq example offers a good case study. In April 2002, as President Bush was clearing away the few obstacles to his Iraq invasion plans, Jose Mauricio Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], sought to persuade Iraq to join the Chemical Weapons Convention so inspectors could verify Iraq’s claims that it had destroyed its stockpiles.
The Bush administration called that idea an “ill-considered initiative” – after all, it could have stripped away the preferred propaganda rationale for the invasion if the OPCW verified that Iraq had destroyed its chemical weapons. So, Bush’s Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton, a neocon advocate for the invasion Iraq, pushed to have Bustani deposed. The Bush administration threatened to withhold dues to the OPCW if Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat, remained.
It now appears obvious that Bush and Bolton viewed Bustani’s real offense as interfering with their invasion scheme, but Bustani was ultimately taken down over accusations of mismanagement, although he was only a year into a new five-year term after having been reelected unanimously. The OPCW member states chose to sacrifice Bustani to save the organization from the loss of U.S. funds, but – in so doing – they compromised its integrity, making it just another agency that would bend to big-power pressure.
“By dismissing me,” Bustani said, “an international precedent will have been established whereby any duly elected head of any international organization would at any point during his or her tenure remain vulnerable to the whims of one or a few major contributors.”
He added that if the United States succeeded in removing him, “genuine multilateralism” would succumb to “unilateralism in a multilateral disguise.”
The Iran Nuclear Scam
Something similar happened regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2009 when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the neocons were lusting for another confrontation with Iran over its alleged plans to build a nuclear bomb.
- Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat and director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
According to U.S. embassy cables from Vienna, Austria, the site of IAEA’s headquarters, American diplomats in 2009 were cheering the prospect that Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano would advance U.S. interests in ways that outgoing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei wouldn’t; Amano credited his election to U.S. government support; Amano signaled he would side with the United States in its confrontation with Iran; and he stuck out his hand for more U.S. money.
In a July 9, 2009, cable, American chargé Geoffrey Pyatt said Amano was thankful for U.S. support of his election. “Amano attributed his election to support from the U.S., Australia and France, and cited U.S. intervention with Argentina as particularly decisive,” the cable said.
The appreciative Amano informed Pyatt that as IAEA director-general, he would take a different “approach on Iran from that of ElBaradei” and he “saw his primary role as implementing safeguards and UNSC [United Nations Security Council] Board resolutions,” i.e. U.S.-driven sanctions and demands against Iran.
Amano also discussed how to restructure the senior ranks of the IAEA, including elimination of one top official and the retention of another. “We wholly agree with Amano’s assessment of these two advisors and see these decisions as positive first signs,” Pyatt commented.
In return, Pyatt made clear that Amano could expect strong U.S. financial assistance, stating that “the United States would do everything possible to support his successful tenure as Director General and, to that end, anticipated that continued U.S. voluntary contributions to the IAEA would be forthcoming. Amano offered that a ‘reasonable increase’ in the regular budget would be helpful.”
What Pyatt made clear in his cable was that one IAEA official who was not onboard with U.S. demands had been fired while another who was onboard kept his job.
Pandering to Israel
Pyatt learned, too, that Amano had consulted with Israeli Ambassador Israel Michaeli “immediately after his appointment” and that Michaeli “was fully confident of the priority Amano accords verification issues.” Michaeli added that he discounted some of Amano’s public remarks about there being “no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons capability” as just words that Amano felt he had to say “to persuade those who did not support him about his ‘impartiality.’”
- U.S. Army Pvt. Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning
In private, Amano agreed to “consultations” with the head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, Pyatt reported. (It is ironic indeed that Amano would have secret contacts with Israeli officials about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, which never yielded a single bomb, when Israel possesses a large and undeclared nuclear arsenal.)
In a subsequent cable dated Oct. 16, 2009, the U.S. mission in Vienna said Amano “took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded ambassador [Glyn Davies] on several occasions that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
“More candidly, Amano noted the importance of maintaining a certain ‘constructive ambiguity’ about his plans, at least until he took over for DG ElBaradei in December” 2009.
In other words, Amano was a bureaucrat eager to bend in directions favored by the United States and Israel regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Amano’s behavior surely contrasted with how the more independent-minded ElBaradei resisted some of Bush’s key claims about Iraq’s supposed nuclear weapons program, correctly denouncing some documents as forgeries.
The world public got its insight into the Amano scam only because the U.S. embassy cables were among those given to WikiLeaks by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, for which Manning received a 35-year prison sentence (which was finally commuted by President Obama before leaving office, with Manning now scheduled to be released in May – having served nearly seven years in prison).
It also is significant that Geoffrey Pyatt was rewarded for his work lining up the IAEA behind the anti-Iranian propaganda campaign by being made U.S. ambassador to Ukraine where he helped engineer the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Pyatt was on the infamous “f~~~ the E.U.” call with Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland weeks before the coup as Nuland handpicked Ukraine’s new leaders and Pyatt pondered how “to midwife this thing.”
- Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin in Kiev, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016.[State Department Photo)
Across the mainstream of politics and media, there are no longer the checks and balances that have protected democracy for generations. Those safeguards have been washed away by the flood of careerism.
The situation is made even more dangerous because there also exists a rapidly expanding cadre of skilled propagandists and psychological operations practitioners, sometimes operating under the umbrella of “strategic communications.” Under trendy theories of “smart power,” information has become simply another weapon in the geopolitical arsenal, with “strategic communications” sometimes praised as the preferable option to “hard power,” i.e. military force.
The thinking goes that if the United States can overthrow a troublesome government by exploiting media/propaganda assets, deploying trained activists and spreading selective stories about “corruption” or other misconduct, isn’t that better than sending in the Marines?
While that argument has the superficial appeal of humanitarianism – i.e., the avoidance of armed conflict – it ignores the corrosiveness of lies and smears, hollowing out the foundations of democracy, a structure that rests ultimately on an informed electorate. Plus, the clever use of propaganda to oust disfavored governments often leads to violence and war, as we have seen in targeted countries, such as Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.
Wider War
Regional conflicts also carry the risk of wider war, a danger compounded by the fact that the American public is fed a steady diet of dubious narratives designed to rile up the population and to give politicians an incentive to “do something.” Since these American narratives often deviate far from a reality that is well known to the people in the targeted countries, the contrasting storylines make the finding of common ground almost impossible.
- Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
If, for instance, you buy into the Western narrative that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gleefully gases “beautiful babies,” you would tend to support the “regime change” plans of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists.
If, however, you reject that mainstream narrative – and believe that Al Qaeda and friendly regional powers may be staging chemical attacks to bring the U.S. military in on their “regime change” project – you might favor a political settlement that leaves Assad’s fate to the later judgment of the Syrian people.
Similarly, if you accept the West’s storyline about Russia invading Ukraine and subjugating the people of Crimea by force – while also shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for no particular reason – you might support aggressive countermoves against “Russian aggression,” even if that means risking nuclear war.
If, on the other hand, you know about the Nuland-Pyatt scheme for ousting Ukraine’s elected president in 2014 and realize that much of the other anti-Russian narrative is propaganda or disinformation – and that MH-17 might well have been shot down by some element of Ukrainian government forces and then blamed on the Russians [see here and here] – you might look for ways to avoid a new and dangerous Cold War.
Who to Trust?
But the question is: who to trust? And this is no longer some rhetorical or philosophical point about whether one can ever know the complete truth. It is now a very practical question of life or death, not just for us as individuals but as a species and as a planet
Citation
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/01/existential-question-who-trust.htmlAre Prostitutes Better Than Normal Women?
A Short Essay by John DoeIs it cheaper to have sex with normal women than with prostitutes? No, and here is why.
When you have sex with a normal girl, it’s by no means “free”. You have to take her out to dinner, buy her drinks, and you might have to go on two or even three dates before you will have sex with her. If you add up the total costs of these three dates, it would be approxiately around 400 dollars.
Now let’s look at the cost of the average high quality prostitute. You can bang a prostitute for 2 hours for 250 dollars.
What are the benefits of using prostitutes instead of dating normal women?
1. The average prostitute is far hotter than the average normal woman you can date.
2. YOU get to do the choosing, and the power of choice is in YOUR hands, instead of in the woman’s hands
3. With a prostitute, you have sex with her and that’s it. No emotional drama, no mind games, no bulls~~~, like there is with normal women.
4. You don’t have to waste hours of your valuable time that you could otherwise spend on making money, taking women out on dates or trying to pick up women in bars and clubs. No, instead you pay a prostitute for one or two hours of her time, have sex with her, and leave.
5. You choose WHEN you want to have sex. So let’s say you’re a busy businessman, instead of wasting 5 hours at a bar or on a date, instead you’d spend only one or two hours with a prostitute, and that at your convience too. YOU are the one who chooses WHEN, and so you save a LOT of time.
6. Prostites are DEFINITELY cheaper than getting married. Overall, through a 10 year marriage and divorce, you’d end up spending at least 250,000 dollars. Now let’s take that number and divide it by 250 dollars, which is the average price of a high quality prostitute in a Western country. That is sex with 1000 different high quality prostitutes. Now if you talk to any married man, who is HONEST, he will admit that sex with the wife after the first 6 months or year starts to get boring. And this is why people in long term relationships barely have sex, because it’s BORING having sex with the same person time after time. Variety is the spice of life! You could have sex with 1000 different women for the same price it would cost to marry one woman and have sex with her. And considering how unstable most western women are nowadays, the chance of divorce is around 60%, with the woman initiating the divorce 90% of the time. You are likely to lose at least 50% of your assets and savings in a divorce, and so marriage to a western woman may end up costing you up to 500,000 dollars or even a million dollars, once you add in the divorce costs and long term child payment and alimony costs.So let’s take that number, one million dollars, and divide it by 250. That’s 4000 DIFFERENT women you could pay to have sex with, instead of marrying one woman who will just end up turning into a ***** and divorcing you anyway. So it’s your choice guys. Would you rather marry one woman, who will get bored of sex after 6 months, and end up stealing all your assets and savings in divorce, or would you rather have sex with 4000 different beautiful women for the same price?
Another very relevant point is that the world of modern dating has become quite risky. Most women see nothing wrong with making a false rape accusation against a man. Most rape cases are fake and are done out of a motive of REVENGE by the woman. Did you break up with your girlfriend? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation against you just to get revenge. Did you cheat on your girl with another girl? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation just to get revenge on you. Forgot to tell your girlfriend “happy birthday”? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation against you in order to get revenge on you. At least 90% of rape cases are FALSE, the sex was CONSENSUAL and the woman later changed her mind AFTER the act and decided “oh it was rape”. LOL. And this is why the police no longer take rape cases seriously, because literally 90% of women who claim to have been raped are LYING!
So that is another HUGE benefit of prostitues. A prostitute won’t make a false rape accusation against you.
What’s another GREAT reason that men choose to use prostitutes? Because by paying for sex, they can have sex with a MUCH hotter quality of woman than they would normally. For example, if we rate women on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of beauty. The average guy will be able to pick up and have sex with a 4 or a 5 from a bar, a club, or Tinder. Meanwhile, if the same man paid for sex with a high quality prostitute for $250 dollars (about the same amount of money he would spend picking up a 4 or 5 from a bar, club, or Tinder), the prostitute he would have sex with would be an 8 or 9 on the beauty scale. So for the same amount of money, he can have sex with a much hotter woman, and with much less effort too. Think about all the effort you have to put in to go to a bar or club. You have to buy good clothes, you have to spend lots of money on drinks and food, and also have to spend a lot of money on making sure your apartment is cool and stylish so the girl will feel comfortable there. So unless you’re a man who was blessed with the looks of Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and have women chasing after you, the easiest and cheapest option for most men to have sex with the hottest quality of women is to simply PAY for sex with a hot prostitute. One guy was asked why he paid to have sex with prostitutes and his reply was “If I’m being brutally honest, the hottest women I’ve ever had sex with have been prostitutes … I would never be able to have sex with women who are ridiculously hot unless they were prostitutes.” I can also personally testify to this point. The types of chicks I was getting from Tinder were mostly fat or at best mildly hot, I would have rated them between a 3 and a 6 on the attraction scale. Then the first time I went to a prostitute, I was blown away with the options and the QUALITY too. Here were super hot girls who I could bang for such a cheap price. Needless to say, I gave up on dating and ONLY bang prostitutes now. I’m a much happier and peaceful person as a result.
Another couple of reasons that men gave as to why they choose to have sex with prostitutes are:
“Getting a prostitute is so easy: no strings attached, you can choose the woman you want before you purchase, then they arrive at your door. Couldn’t be easier.”
I can also testify to this. Getting a normal girl to have sex is a real pain in the ass and involves so much struggle, drama, and mind games. Then of course after you have sex with her, you have to deal with her stalking you, calling you so many times, and with her unrealistic expectation that you are going to have a committed and exclusively relationship with her. All that compared with the EASE of banging a hot prostitute, and the choice is simple. I chose to not waste time trying to date women anymore and only bang hot prostitutes now.
“We want to have sex without all the bulls~~~ of pretending to be really interested in a girl. When you pay for sex, you don’t have to swap numbers at the end when you know you won’t call. You pay, have sex, she leaves. Everyone’s happy.”
This goes along with the above point. With normal women and dating, you have to PRETEND to care about her and PRETEND to be interested in her, when in reality all you want is to have sex with her. With a prostitute, there is no pretensions and that really is a beautiful thing because ultimately then sex becomes about the raw physical act as well as the pure attractiveness of the woman, and thus you are able to enjoy sex a lot more.
Lastly, let’s touch on the issue of legalization. On average surveys, 70 percent of men said they would vote to legalize prostitution, meanwhile 60 percent of women said they would vote to keep prostitution illegal. Now it’s pretty obvious why women want to keep prostitution illegal. Women use sex as a weapon to control men. So it would disrupt the economics of women’s control over sex if prostitution was legalized, because then MEN would have control over WHO they want to have sex with and WHEN. Forget all those arguments about morality, the REAL reason women want to keep prostitution illegal is so that they can CONTINUE to control men with sex. In effect, women are like a mafia that is desperate to keep control of the sexual marketplace. If prostitution was legal, men would be a lot less inclined to put up with women’s bulls~~~ just to get sex from them, when they can go pay for sex from a much more attractive woman and without all the hassles and drama that dating and normal women bring.
What about STDs some of you might say? Well the whole STD scare is mostly a MYTH that has been blown way out of proportion by feminists and conservative religious leaders in order to scare men away from having sex. In reality, the rate of transmission of AIDS is 1 out of 700 during heterosexual sex. That is, if a man had penis to vagina intercourse with an AIDS-infected woman, it would take 700 times on average before he would contract it. The only way people get AIDS is through using needles to inject drugs, or having anal sex, especially with homosexuals. So the whole AIDS thing is a huge scare, a MYTH, that has been blown way out of proportion.
What about Herpes? Well studies show that 80% of the US population already has Herpes in one of it’s forms, so that is not really an issue.
The only other STD that you would have to worry about is Chlamydia, and it can be easily cured within 3 days with antibiotics.
Now, that is UNPROTECTED sex. If you are using condoms to have sex with, then the chances of getting any of these STDs becomes less than zero. And that includes oral sex as well. Most prostitutes will insist that you always use a condom, even during oral sex. So as long as you are using condoms, then STDs are nothing you should even remotely worry about.
So what are some of the main reasons why prostitution should be legalized?
1. If prostitution was legal, it would reduce the STD transmission rate by about 50% amongst prostitutes.
2. If prostitution was legal, it would reduce rape by at least 150%.
Many studies have shown that legal prostitution reduces rape, sexual assault, and other sex crimes by a lot. The same studies have shown that legal prostitution reduces the STD rate amongst the general population by about 50%.3. The real number of human trafficking victims in the prostitution industry is actually less than 5%. But if prostitution was fully legal, the tiny number of women who are forced into prostitution involuntarily would be able to go to the poliec to get help and escape from their pimps. Keeping prostitution illegal hurts prostitutes the most, so it’s funny how feminists want to keep prostitution illegal and yet at the same time claim they care about women’s health and women’s rights. Feminism is nothing but the biggest pile of bulls~~~ hypocrisy the world has ever seen.
4. Feminists say “my body, my choice”. So if 95% of prostitutes are VOLUNTARILY engaging in prostitution, then why should those women have the RIGHT to choose what to do with their own bodies, even if that includes trading sex for money? What right does the government or anyone else have to tell two consenting adults that they cannot exchange money for sex?
5. It would save a lot of money and resources from our police and government. Tens of millions of dollars a year are wasted by our police and government arresting and putting prostitutes in jail. If prostitution was LEGAL, on the other hand, and taxed and regulated, it would bring in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year in tax revenue for our government, as well as freeing up valuable police time for REAL crimes like rape, theft, murder, assault, etc.
6. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes would have legal rights and would not longer get taken advantage of by pimps and other shady figures, including corrupt police officers. Yes, the police also contribute to the oppression of prostitutes because there are many corrupt police officers out there who blackmail and extort prostitutes for money and/or sexual favors. If prostitution was legal, all of this would end and prostitutes would finally have legal rights.
7. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. It is NEVER going to stop no matter how much the police or government tries to stop it. There are ALWAYS going to be men who are willing to pay money for sex, and there are ALWAYS going to be women who are willing to give sex to men for money. Prostitution has also been an integral part of many cultures and thus trying to stop it is literally impossible. And why should it be stopped? No one has the right to tell two consenting adults that they cannot exchange money for sex. So rather than waste time trying to stop it, just legalize it and tax it, the same way we do with cigarettes, alcohol, and now marijuana.
All in all, I believe in personal freedom. I believe that no one has the right to force their own sense of morality onto others. In some very ancient cultures, prostitutes were actually given very high status in society and considered as spiritual people who could heal men of their problems through sex. That was thousands of years ago though, before self-righteous modern western religions were invented and started violently forcing their concepts of morality onto people. Funny how societies that were thousands of years old were actually far more advanced than we are in the modern age in terms of sex and prostitutes.
It took almost a century for people to wake up and legalize marijuana, which is a completely harmless natural plant that hurts no one. In the same way, society and people in general have to EVOLVE and realize that they have no right to force their own sense of morality or control onto others. The modern society is actually a very sexually restrictive society, compared to cultures and civilizations of the past. And it’s this sexual restrictiveness which contributes to so much psychological neurosis, sex crimes, and frustration in general. Is it a coincidence how people in America are so quick to anger and lose their temper, whereas in a place like Thailand where prostitution is legal and accepted, people are very laid back and cool headed? People need to stop seeing sex as such a big thing, and just realize that sex is a normal and acceptable part of life.
With that said, I believe that I have covered all the points as to why prostitution should be legal and an accepted part of society, and so this essay comes to a close. Please feel free to copy, paste, and distribute this essay as my goal is to influence and educate as many people as possible, the only thing I ask is that you do not change it or edit it in any way whatsoever. Thank you very much
Sincerely,
John DoeTopic: An email to my wife
Hey guys. I want to share the following email exchange between me an my soon-to-be ex wife that occurred this past weekend. In order to protect our privacy, I changed the names and places. Some of you guys who are going through similar situations my find it insightful.
_______________________________________
Joe,
What happened to the Joe I dated for 5 years and then Married?
Everything was good until about the 2nd year of our marriage and then they started to change. What happened to the” I love you and want to take care of you? I did a lot of things for you because I felt that was something that would make you happy. And now we are here,
Zelda
_______________________________________________
Zelda,
You have repeated this question to me several times during our breakup. I will do my best to present my perspective on our marriage and the reasons it failed. Your initial reaction to what I’m about say will be denial and anger. But, if you can put those emotions aside and reflect on this narrative, you may find the closure you seek.
People our age don’t change. I haven’t changed. You haven’t changed. What changed is the dynamic between us.
You came into my life at a time when I felt very alone. We met almost exactly one year after my divorce from Roxanne and my Mother’s death. You showered me with the love and affection that I desperately craved. In hardly anytime at all I fell in love with you. For the first time in a very long, long time, I felt validated as a man. You had me hooked!
The following years were some of the best years of my life. My career at The Daily Planet really took off. I became the technical guru for digital advertising. I was admired and respected at work. I had, my own place. I really enjoyed my newly won independence. I got back into my outdoor pursuits, climbing all the tall peaks. I had a great circle of friends. And best of all I had you. We went to concerts, museums, movies. We went camping. I bought you a kayak. We enjoyed paddling together. I enjoyed cooking for you. Times were good and life was great!
I did my best to help you when you had your knee replaced. When you got laid off, I was there for you. I coached you on your interview skills, I helped you with your resume and cover letters. I helped you navigate the online job application process. I did my best to encourage when you felt hopeless. I gave you money on several occasions.
Finally, after you were out of work for almost a year with no health insurance, I married you. I worried about your health. I got you on my health insurance. Without the mortgage and other costs for your condo in Springfield, you would have options. With my help, you could work part-time or not-at-all if you wanted to. And guess what? That strategy worked. In a very short time, you got a part time job at Standby Healthcare. In a few short months you transitioned to a full-time employee with a full benefit package.
I busted my ass to help you get your condo in Springfield ready for sale. I scrapped ceilings, sanded and stained cabinet doors, repaired drywall, cleaned your deck and anything else you needed. When it finally sold, I helped you move. I drove truckload after truckload of your possessions to Vernon. I built a monster shelving unit in my garage for you. And I did it all because I really did love you and wanted to take care of you.
You need to understand. Giving up my independence to help you was a HUGE sacrifice. I enjoyed having autonomy for the first time in my life to make my own financial decisions, eat what I wanted to eat, cook, do as much or as little house work as I wanted.
During that first year you got sick. You spent four days in Mercy Hospital. You were still working part-time at Standby at that time. Even though I had lousy coverage. It did pay the lion’s share of your costs. Without that coverage, you would’ve been financially devastated.
Also, during that first year, I noticed changes in your attitude towards me. This was noted by members of your family before I picked up on it. You became critical. On more than one occasion, you told me you felt uncomfortable with your new life. Even then, I had a very uneasy feeling that you were searching for an escape hatch.
During the second year, things at work really went to s~~~. The Daily Planet got sold to Richie Rich and then to Hellhole Media and then to Slaughterhouse Media. The job I loved became a f~~~ing nightmare. I went to work each day stressed out wondering if this was the day the axe would fall. I watched as my colleagues were all outsourced. Dedicated hard-working people were dumped at the curb like yesterday’s garbage. Worst of all the corporate vultures dismantled and discarded all of the truly innovative work that I and my colleagues had done. At one time, our small online team had built one of the best and most innovative websites of any regional newspaper in the country. And in a matter of weeks, all our accomplishments were gone. Simply vanished!
This experience caused me to undertake a deep and profound examination of my professional life. For four decades, I have been doing the practical thing, the responsible thing, the corporate thing. So, I started developing new skills. Mostly video since that was an area I felt that I needed to strengthen. I also started exploring entrepreneurial options including freelance and/or consulting. I also saw an opportunity to make a living as a YouTube content creator. In the course of that pursuing that option, I learned other valuable skills such as search engine optimization, Email marketing and social media marketing. I started using my photography skills again. You resented the time and energy I was putting into all of this. You saw it as frivolous waste of time. I saw it as survival. Well, you should know that of some of those new skills I acquired are a big part of my new job at Universal Telecommunications. It was NOT wasted time.
But, I believe there was something deeper going on. You saw my desire to leave the corporate world as a threat to your own security. Deep down inside, you didn’t simply believe in me and my abilities. You wanted me to remain a mule, pulling a plow on the corporate plantation and not taking risks. From that point forward, the complaints condemnation and criticism became much more frequent and severe.
My first marriage was to a very stoic woman, who avoided confrontation and emotionally charged discussions at all costs. For these reasons, I never developed the skills to defend myself effectively in an argument. You shamed me incessantly and then demanded a response. When I did manage to stammer out a few words, you blew off my concerns and immediately launched a counter attack.
Nevertheless, I did try to communicate to you. I told you about my hopes and dreams. I shared my vision of a life together free from the demands of corporate life and the never-ending cycle of consumer spending and debt that effectively enslave most people these days. I tried to involve you in my video production. I wanted you to have a stake in what I was doing.
Your negativity and lack of empathy caused deep resentment in my part. You complained about everything including the gifts I gave you! I don’t ever recall you apologizing to me for anything in any meaningful way.
Over time, It became increasingly difficult to be around you. So I retreated to my office and worked on my projects.
Men are conditioned from a very young age. We are taught to not express our feelings. Everyone knows, “Big boys don’t cry”. Instead, we just suck it up and keep on keeping on. The dam finally broke, the morning I accepted the buyout offer from the Daily Planet. I cried for the first time since my mothers funeral nine years before. Do you remember that day? Do you remember me telling you,“I hate my life. But I don’t hate you”? Even with all the s~~~ you were putting me through, I STILL LOVED YOU!
The breaking point came in December. I had been out of work for five months with no viable job prospects. I was down to 8 or 9 weeks of unemployment. Things were so bleak. I applied for a menial job in plastics factory! At the very time I needed you most, you ditched me. You walked out my front door leaving me to spend Christmas alone. That was the day my love for you finally died.
All I needed was encouragement, some kind words and reassurance. The same kind of emotional support I showed you when you were out of work. Unfortunately, you are simply not capable of it. I’ve also seen it in your interactions with members of your family. You act as if you’re the only person in the World that hurts. That lack of empathy killed the “Joe I dated for 5 years and then Married”.
___________________________
Here is the contact information for my attorney
<attorney info redacted>
Joe
"Nobody loves me, but my mother, And she could be jivin` too." - B. B. King
AnonymousDespite “50 Shades of Grey” depicting what many modern journalists and activists would outline as rape, abusive and coercive, it sold 70 million copies in the U.S alone, has been translated into 50 languages, and outsold Harry Potter as the fastest selling paperback. This caused me to look into the “Bodice Ripper” genre [4] of “romance novels” to see if there was a pattern to them that gives insight into why such stories hold such an appeal.
You may know a man through his choices of vice and his imagination. If one were to dig into the production and distribution of male sexual fantasies in the pornographic industry, it becomes quite clear what many men fantasize about. One could by analyzing this develop a framework, to the end of determining the nature of male desire. Pornographic movies made for men, are often focused on an absence of foreplay, the women are ready to go and to engage in any act the man desires. It is often a non-emotional encounter, where one expects little would take place in the aftermath other than potential booty calls. In a funny sense, it is a safe space where the man can openly embrace his sexuality and sexual desires free of the normal psychological and social barriers.
Assuming that the female variant of pornography, romance novels follows a similar patterns, I selected to explore the seedy world of best selling romance novels in the “Bodice Ripper” genre. For those who are unfamiliar with the genre, it normally features a heroine, who despite being very beautiful is also quite naive when it comes to carnal pleasure. Often she has been betrothed by her father or male guardian, to a classic Beta male provider archetype quite a few years her senior, in what has been deemed an appropriate marriage. She then meets the alpha male, often in the form of a rogue of some variety who is the opposite archetype of the Beta provider. While highly attracted to the rogue, she faces a conflict between her ego, super ego and ID. Her super-ego is offended that such a brute would behave the way he does, yet her ID is on fire with desire. Over time her ego seeks to mediate the two, rationalizing that her Beta fiance is a safe future and would make a good husband and father by social standards, yet she cannot forget the rogue. Finally, they find themselves alone and he overpowers her and familiarizes her with a world of carnal pleasure unlike no other.
The Bodice Ripper and reality
The “Fifty Shades of Grey” trilogy, starts off as a traditional romance novel, with the alpha male protagonist in a position of power and dominance over his young, innocent female friend. He is in full control of the relationship, the dynamics and their time together. As the trilogy progresses, the relationship slowly twists and turns, ending as a classical happy ending with the couple married and expecting their second child. This represents a trope very common in romance novels, that of the unrepentant Alpha male that falls head over heals in love with the female, and thus elects to leave behind his former lifestyle and become beta bucks for his woman. This is a subtle power dynamic, wherein the relationship starts with the male in the leadership and dominant role, ending with the role reversal with the female holding the power. This is representative of the female fantasy of “Taming the Alpha“, in which the power dynamic itself is the focus, not the relationship. A female does not doubt her ability to be the sexual conquest of an Alpha, however she doubts her ability to get him to settle down for her, thus the fantasy is one in which the Alpha falls so head over heals in love with his unicorn, that he throws caution and trepidation to the wind, and fulfills the goal of the feminine imperative.
The sub-genre in the romance novel industry, known as bodice rippers was mostly popular in the 1970s, however as the 80s, 90s and 00s rolled by they gave up their place for more “feminist inclusive” romance novels featuring stronger heroines, less rapacious male characters, in short a more feminist friendly romance genre. Gone was the virginal, innocent and naive heroine who is simply too much to resist for the strong, muscular, long-haired, rebellious alpha, who ripped her clothes off and threw her in a haystack. Enter the strong, independent woman, with a troubled past, who really wasn’t looking for romance, but in a weak moment gave in to her urges and found herself falling for her fireman/police office/billionaire/[insert tired cliche here].
What comes to mind at this point, is that seeing as the “bodice ripper” had been out of fashion for 30 years, how did the modern variant become so popular? [6] While the physical coercion is somewhta absent from the 50 shades trilogy, it does tackle other forms of pressure, such as psychological and emotional consent. 50 shades follows the classic trope of Alpha meets young, innocent, naive woman. Woman enters into relationship on the Alphas terms, doubting herself substantially along the way, yet ends up married with children. The Alpha having given up his sexual strategy and accepted the one she prefers.
A red thread in the bodice ripper style is that the relationship between the heroine and the male character develops out of a situation, where at first she despises him, as representative of everything she perceives as being wrong. The form of a Byronic hero is quite common. The hero is frequently the direct opposite of the heroine, if she is poor, he is noble, if she is noble he is poor and so on. As they spend time together, however an uncomfortable attraction forms within her, that forces her to review everything she knows about right and wrong.The heroine tortured and troubled by the conflict between her mind and her body, pines over him, yet despises him for some time, often to build tension. Supporting characters help build his character as hard, yet vulnerable, perfect yet flawed, Alpha yet beta. If the male character was a real person, he would be suffering from a severe case of dissociation identity disorder, as his entire personality consists of inconsistent dichotomies.
The heroine’s conflict is often carried on, chapter after chapter. She tries to forget about him, then randomly meets him, she dreams of him, reasons with herself that her body is leading her astray for a hundred pages or so, until they are finally alone, he throws her on a pile of hay, rips her bodice and has his way with her. Once this takes place the pacing of the piece of writing takes a predictable path, where they fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. Thus, she gets her now tamed and neutered alpha, who turns into her husband, provider and father of her children.
In this situation, one could argue that the Hero throwing her down on the haystack, is in fact validating her innate narcissism, she is so attractive to him that he cannot help himself and has to have her then and there. Never mind that this is set in a time where this would ensure his death should she report him to the authorities. He does not care if he is killed in the aftermath, it will all be worth it as long as he can have her now. His desire for her is so strong that it overrides his rational thought, his innermost values, even his sense of self-preservation. What brings her satisfaction is not the sex itself, but the idea that the man has placed his very life into her hands, it is the power over him that is her aphrodisiac. Through his consumption of her flesh, she consumes his soul.
To contrast with the reality of a rape, a woman is grabbed from behind, by an unseen assailant, or she falls asleep after ingesting copious quantities of alcohol or other drugs, and wakes to find herself being penetrated by another party against her will, is quite a different situation. Rather than hand her the feeling of power, it is the taking away of all her power. Physically in that she is overpowered, mentally in that the Machiavellian machinations that she engages in are now worthless to her. Finally, evolutionary, in that she has lost control of her hypergamy, in that the man who took her by force was not selected by her, thus she has no idea of his genetics, however by implication it would follow that a man who could easily liaison with women would not rape.
Her solipsism, is exposed for what it is; hollow. Despite her self-image as strong, independent, capable, intelligent and however else she views herself, it does not matter because force can always override it. It breaks one of the cultural delusions of our modern societies, that despite our progress, our civility and our culture, a forceful animal lurks beneath, threatening to crush the veneers of polite society. In the bodice ripper case, the woman is ultimately in control, and being ravished represents her femininity conquering the stronger male. The male is also the male of her choosing, and one that optimizes her hypergamy. He affirms her feminine power and her desirability to the Alpha male, therefore validating her narcissistic self-perception.
In the reality case, the man was merely looking for a target of opportunity, thus it does not validate her innate narcissism. The rapist is not likely to optimize her hypergamy as great looking, alpha male billionaires tend to not need to hide in the bushes wearing a ski-mask on the prowl for targets of opportunity. Rather than being seen as a unique snowflake among her gender, for whom the male cannot control his animal desires, she is seen as “whatever woman walks by when nobody is around to help“, it is completely random. A useful contrast is perhaps “50 shades of Grey” as opposed to “Irreversible” or “Last House on the Left“.
The Dichotomy
My contention would be that case A: The Bodice Ripper serves to satisfy solipsism and hypergamy, in that it the male character in such novels is created in order to hit all the “Yes” buttons a woman has. Thus the “fantasy of being ravished” works to satisfy her hypergamy through the male always being the embodiment of traits that give him a very high sexual market value. Christian Grey for instance is aloof, good looking, very rich, dominant and is not afraid to be demanding (outcome independence), he embodies both alpha and provisioning. The addition of the male not being able to control himself, and risking everything for her, also adds an extra spice as it represents that his desire for her is so overwhelming that he would lay down his life for just a fleeting moment with her.
Furthermore, the ultimate end of such bodice rippers is a long term, monogamous relationship with the woman taming the Alpha, who then rapidly approaches the Beta traits, accepting the female relationship frame and compromising his own sexual strategy in order for hers to take center-stage. The bodice ripper predictably ends prior to him fully falling to Beta provider status, and the women branch swinging to another alpha, or engaging in liaisons with the pool boy at her 17th century mansion.
This fantasy is about the woman having the ultimate power over her ideal male archetype, a power so complete that she possesses his very spirit, and that he would happily sacrifice every moment remaining in his life in exchange for just one moment of carnal desire with her. In essence, this casts the woman in the role of succubus. Thus, while the act may appear to be against her will, in reality it is not.
If we compare with case B: The actual rape, this does not satisfy solipsism or hypergamy. For one, the man is most likely not an alpha. This means that a man with below par genetic material may impregnate her, thus saddling her with offspring that has poor genetics. Historically during our evolution, this would be a high risk situation for the woman, as it may compromise both her short-term mating efforts, and her long-term security.Furthermore, long term social conventions could have doubled up this risk. Thus it compromises her hypergamy. Furthermore, the perpetrator is not doing out of targeted desire but out of general desire. It is not the desire for her, that leads to his risk taking, it is his desire for anyone this offends both narcissism and solipsism in that it contradicts her self-image. Thirdly, it robs her of all her perceived power, in that rather than her covertly selecting and signalling him, the male takes what he desires by force, bypassing all the civilized covert communications. Forth, rape is a crime for a reason.
The reality of this situation is that it is the opposite of the power dynamic, she is literally powerless, while the man has all the power. The man performs an act against her will.
Summary and Conclusions
As I’ve outlined throughout this essay, there is a distinct difference between the fantasy and the reality. Also within the fantasy, there are two types, the erotic and the aversive [12]. The former is embodied in romance novels, the latter in more nightmarish regards. This distinction is of importance, to outline the difference between what the female fantasy actually is, versus what the female fantasy is not.
There is a very distinct difference between the fantasy and the reality [1,2,8] in reality the female is seeking out the power dynamics and dominance that she craves from a masculine man in a scenario where she has very little risk, with the ultimate goal being that of “catching” the ultimate man. This is why the term “rape fantasy” is inaccurate, as the fantasy itself is the equivalent of someone having a “being murdered by Jason Voorhees” fantasy because they watch “Friday the 13th“. If one accepts the argument that rape is about power, namely the man overpowering the women by force. The bodice ripper is a reversal on this scenario, where the woman overpowers the man psychologically prior to the act, and the man then overpowers the woman physically with her approval. Her approval in this case being implicit rather than explicit. According to a study:
Three explanations of rape fantasy were tested: openness to sexual experience, sexual desirability, and sexual blame avoidance. Women who were higher in erotophilia and self-esteem and who had more frequent consensual sexual fantasies and more frequent desirability fantasies, particularly of performing as a stripper, had more frequent rape fantasies. Women who were higher in erotophilia, openness to fantasy, desirability fantasies, and self-esteem reported greater sexual arousal to rape fantasies. Sexual blame avoidance theory was not supported; sexual desirability theory was moderately supported; openness to sexual experience theory received the strongest support. [13]
The results of which support the conclusion of this post that sexual desirability is a major factor within this genre of fantasy. A second dimension not tested for in the study is the presence of power dynamics and a test of the dichotomies of aversive and erotic fantasy.
It is a fairly common and accepted axiom in Red Pill circles that the sexual market place is arranged in accordance with the feminine imperative. Meaning, the sexual freedom for women to engage in their dualistic sexual strategy, of Alpha F~~~s, Beta Bucks. This translates into needing an ability to seek out the Alpha genes and ideally be the mother of Alpha children. However, it also translates into locking down a provider to ensure her long term security and that of her children. Thus, we see situations such as the mother of an Alpha gang member’s children becoming the housewife of the boring, beta accountant from Irvine. The Alpha gang member is bound to have multiple stints in prison, a very low level of income security and a high chance of being shot at some point. However, he is most likely an embodiment of traits that give the impression of high genetic fitness, and thus optimal for reproduction.
However the ultimate female fantasy is to lock down the ultimate alpha, who is so enamored with her that he surrenders all power and control to her. He is both the source of highly fit genes, and of unparalleled long term security. Of course, the Bodice Ripper always ends shortly after the star-crossed lovers get married and have children, otherwise it would rapidly be followed by her disillusion at her former Alpha now becoming a boring beta. Her branch swing to the next Alpha or better Beta, the inevitable divorce rape and her renewed longing for a happiness which she will never obtain. A colloquialism for hypergamy is “marrying up” however this is a gross oversimplification. While marrying up outlines the form hypergamy often takes, in that a woman wants to lock down a man of higher SMV than herself. Outlining the means as the end, ultimately means accepting the feminine relationship frame of long-term monogamous relationships being the desired outcome. Hypergamy in reality comes down to the optimization of female reproduction requirements combined with female security needs, and the balancing of short-term mating opportunities with long term security needs.
The romance novels offers this promise, and this is one major and interesting distinction within the genre, where the romance novels of the early 70s often had the Alpha – Beta dichotomy, in that the woman would fall for the broke, outlaw alpha and thus select her short term mating prospects over her long term security. The trend in more recent hits such as “50 shades of Grey” or “The Billionaire Boys Club” that offers the ultimate in hypergamic optimization, in that the same man satisfies both the short term mating and the long term security needs.
The bodice ripper is a “safe and controlled danger” much in the same way that a person can experience fear and suspense in a safe manner through watching a horror movie. It is the ultimate expression of danger, passion and desire without any real danger actually being present. It is a story of how she tames the alpha, turning an activity that is inherently dangerous into one where no real danger is present. It is a story about how her feminine powers are so strong that the man lost control of himself, and put his very life on the line for a single fleeting moment. This validates her need for security, power, hypergamic optimization and validates her narcissistic solipsism in one single scenario. It is the taming of the Alpha.
Anonymous
Anonymous
AnonymousI just watched this documentary “Soaked In Bleach.” I grew up in the 90’s and Kurt Cobain was larger than life in my world. When he died, everyone cashed in on his sound and played copy cat. Everyone slagged him for being a loser junkie, who killed himself and abandoned his wife and daughter. It always seemed to me and my friends that his wife may have had something to do with it. I remember bringing it up and the girls in my class thought it was terrible. “How can you suggest that?” “His wife was devastated, didn’t you see her on TV?” Everything I ever heard about Courtney Love was how she was an abusive psycho c~~~.
Turns out Courtney Love has made almost $1 Billion dollars off of Kurt Cobain’s estate.
Here are some fun facts:
Kurt and Courtney were getting a divorce. Courtney was cheating on him and under their prenuptial agreements she would not have gotten half of his estate. According to their attorney Courtney would have gotten almost nothing. This is because Courtney was worth more money at the time of the marriage and wanted to protect her assets in case of the divorce. The plan back fired on her, when Kurt became the biggest act in rock and roll.
Kurt’s “suicide” came a few days before finalizing the paper work to divorce. The supposed suicide note was actually Kurt’s farewell letter to his fans because he was retiring from show business. Courtney added the last few lines to the note to make it suicide oriented. Courtney was found with hand writing work books in her back pack with the same letters used in the last line.
Multiple people have stated Courtney love approached them with an offer of $50,000 to “kill her old man.”
Courtney’s Father and Kurt’s Grandfather both think Courtney had Kurt murdered.
Courtney’s attorney Tom Grant has exposed the truth about what really happened to Cobain. Check it out for yourself. Everyone loves a Rock and Roll suicide, but what about Evil Wife kills Husband for Money? That just isn’t going to look good in the gynocentric MSM.
Also check out the documentary “Soaked In Bleach.” You can also find interviews on Youtube from Tom Grant, Courtney Love’s Father Hank Harrison, and Kurt’s Grandfather Leland Cobain.
China and The Trump Administration
This is a composite piece from articles written by Alexander Mercouris, Editor-in-Chief at The Duran and my favourite The Saker. Citations are at the end of the post.
The Undeclared War
- “….I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China”. It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives, and an army fighting there would be engulfed by what is known as the Ming Bing, the people’s insurgents….”
- VISCOUNT (FIELD MARSHAL) BERNARD MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN
As the US Navy steams towards the Korean peninsula, North Korea threatens counter-attacks on US bases and on South Korea, and as China warns of war, the unanswered question is whether there is any real strategy behind these moves.
US carrier deployments near the Korean peninsula are hardly new whilst US threats to take unilateral action against North Korea have been made many times before. It is known that the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations all seriously considered pre-emptive strikes on North Korea, with the Clinton administration in 1994 coming closest.
All three previous administrations however – in the end – pulled back when they assessed that the possible consequences might be a war which would ravage the Korean Peninsula.
In the case of the Clinton administration, the assessment was that possible North Korean retaliation could involve massive artillery strikes against South Korea’s capital Seoul, which might cause up to a million casualties. That looks wildly exaggerated. However since then Seoul has grown in size, more suburbs have been built closer to the North Korean border (bringing them within closer range of North Korea’s artillery) and North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and (possibly) the means to use them. What may have been an exaggeration in 1994 might no longer be so now.
Beyond that there is huge uncertainty as to what exactly the US would strike at if it did attack. The North Korean nuclear programme is known to be heavily defended and widely dispersed, with many of the facilities buried deep underground. A limited cruise missile strike such as the one the US has just launched in Syria would achieve nothing that would justify provoking the probably strong North Korean reaction. By contrast a full-scale attack on North Korea – which is now a nuclear power – would risk an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula, which would be potentially devastating, and which given North Korean missile capabilities might conceivably even spread as far as Japan.
On any rational calculation a US military strike against North Korea makes no sense, and under any other administration one would be inclined to rule the possibility out, and to dismiss the latest US moves as empty bluff.
The New Face of America
The reason it is now impossible to to dismiss the latest US moves as empty bluff is not because anything in the Korean Peninsula has changed since previous administrations considered and then rejected the option of military action, but because following the US missile attack on Syria no-one any longer can be sure that the foreign policy decisions of this President and of this administration are being made in an orderly and rational way.
Instead it seems policy is being driven far too much by impulse and by concerns about ‘face’, with the President making decisions on the fly, with his advisers unwilling or unable to restrain him.
To the extent that it is possible to see any strategy behind the latest US moves, it seems to be to frighten the Chinese into abandoning North Korea by threatening them with a war in the Korean Peninsula if they don’t, with a big trade deal thrown in as a sweetener.
This is the sort of approach that might make sense in the cut-and-thrust US property industry which Donald Trump knows. However the trouble with this frankly amateur approach is that it gravely underestimates the strength of feeling in China.
Whilst it is doubtful that most Chinese think or care much about North Korea, the Chinese leadership would face a severe internal crisis if it appeared to back down in the face of US threats. An actual or pending US attack on North Korea would therefore be far more likely to strengthen Chinese support for North Korea than to weaken it.
President Trump’s hopes that by ramping up talk of war with North Korea he might force China to ramp up pressure on that country has suffered a blow in the form of a strongly critical editorial of his whole foreign policy stance in the Chinese English language daily the Global Times.
China’s Backyard
Because it is one step away from the Chinese leadership, Global Times is able to express the Chinese’s leadership’s views in a more forthright way than more ‘official’ media outlets such as the People’s Daily and Xinhua can.
There is no doubt therefore that the latest editorial about Donald Trump’s foreign policy in the Global Times reflects the opinions of China’s leadership, and both its tone and its contents are scathing.
Firstly the editorial strongly criticises the unpredictability and drift towards increasingly belligerent militarism that is become a feature of President Trump’s foreign policy
- In less than three months since Trump’s inauguration, the US military has launched at least two strikes that grabbed the world’s attention, the first being the airstrike on a Syrian airfield, and the second being the use of “Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan. Trump uses military force more aggressively than Barack Obama. He has demonstrated a certain level of obsession and pride toward US military prowess.
- Even for George W. Bush, who fought two wars during his presidency, every attack had to go through lengthy procedures, and starts of war had been widely expected. However, the two recent attacks came rather abruptly. With this frequency and speed in use of force, Trump may go down in history as the “war president.”
However by far the most telling comments are those the editorial makes about US sabre rattling against North Korea. It makes crystal clear its view that this sabre rattling – which in its opinion includes the dropping of MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan – is completely misconceived and counter-productive:
- North Korea must have felt the shock wave traveling all the way from Afghanistan. It would be nice if the bomb could frighten Pyongyang but its actual impact may just be the opposite.
- Pyongyang’s logic in the recent years has been that, without nuclear weapons, what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi would befall its own administration. The “Mother of All Bombs” may once again misguide Pyongyang, leading it to believe that it is crucial to upgrade its explosives.
- It’s been widely speculated that North Korea is preparing for its sixth nuclear test and its leader Kim Jong-un is weighing his options. The message sent by the US military is not conducive to helping Pyongyang make a reasonable decision.
In other words far from scaring North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons programme, all President Trump’s threats are doing is persuade North Korea to pursue its nuclear weapons programme even more vigorously. This is because President Trump’s military actions are showing to the North Koreans the danger the US poses to them.
Though the editorial makes it clear that China strongly disapproves of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme – something China has repeatedly and publicly said – it also shows that the Chinese think President Trump’s entire strategy towards North Korea is completely misconceived.
Needless to say, given the tone of the editorial, whatever hopes President Trump might have had of scaring China into taking a firmer line with North Korea, have been shown up as false. On the contrary, the Chinese – as the editorial makes clear – are barely able to conceal their anger at the reckless and dangerous actions of someone they have clearly come to consider an erratic and unpredictable President.
The Syrian Gambit – Declined
The President and his advisers made the same mistake following the US missile strike on Syria. In the days following the missile strike the President and his advisers appear to have believed – and were encouraged by the British to believe – that the missile strikes would cause the Russians to reduce their support for Syria’s President Assad. As with the bribe of the big trade deal they are now offering China, they also offered the Russians the prospect of better relations with the US to sweeten the deal.
In the event the Russians were neither intimidated by the missile strike nor impressed by the bribe. Instead, rather than pulling out of Syria or reducing their support for President Assad, their response was to increase it.
China has come in for some criticism for its failure to speak out strongly against the missile strike immediately after it took place. However it is difficult to see what from a Chinese point of view doing so would have achieved.
Critics of China’s reticent stance on Syria need to remember that Syria is not of fundamental importance to China as it is to Russia. Just as the Russians are relatively reticent on issues which are of fundamental importance to China but which are of less concern to Russia – such Tibet, Taiwan, North Korea and the South China Sea – so the Chinese tend to be relatively reticent about issues which are of fundamental importance to Russia – such as Syria, Ukraine or NATO expansion – but which are of less concern to China.
As soon as Xi Jinping returned to Beijing however- the Chinese leadership made its strong disagreement with the US missile strike immediately clear in a way which was – somewhat unusually – picked up even by the New York Times in this article. On the question of the missile strike here is what it says:
- “With President Xi Jinping safely out of the United States and no longer President Trump’s guest, China’s state-run media on Saturday was free to denounce the missile strike on Syria, which the American president told Mr. Xi about while they were finishing dinner.
- Xinhua, the state news agency, on Saturday called the strike the act of a weakened politician who needed to flex his muscles. In an analysis, Xinhua also said Mr. Trump had ordered the strike to distance himself from Syria’s backers in Moscow, to overcome accusations that he was “pro-Russia.”
- That unflattering assessment reflected China’s official opposition to military interventions in the affairs of other countries. But it was also a criticism of Mr. Trump himself, who Mr. Xi had hoped was a man China could deal with…
- [Xinhua] mentioned American missile attacks on Libya in 1986 and Sudan in 1998, and scolded the United States for not achieving its “political goals” in those instances.
- “It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles,” the article said…..
- Chinese analysts, whose advice is sometimes sought by the government on foreign policy questions, were scornful of the strike, which they viewed as a powerful country attacking a nation unable to fight back.”
The New York Times also mentioned this profoundly cynical but also realistic and typically Chinese comment made by Chinese analyst Shen Dingli
- Mr. Shen [said] that many Chinese were “thrilled” by the attack because it would probably result in the United States becoming further mired in the Middle East.
- “If the United States gets trapped in Syria, how can Trump make America great again? As a result, China will be able to achieve its peaceful rise,” Mr. Shen said, using a term Beijing employs to characterize its growing power. “Even though we say we oppose the bombing, deep in our hearts we are happy.”
This assessment may be cynical, but it touches on a profound truth. On any objective assessment by far the greatest challenge the US faces as it tries to preserve its global position comes from China. Yet instead of responding to this challenge the US has frittered away the last 16 years picking fights with countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and of course Russia.
China Rising
In the meantime China has quietly continued becoming more powerful whilst attaching Russia with its boundless resources ever more closely to itself. Were the Trump administration to involve the US in the war in Syria it would merely reinforce this dynamic, whilst giving China even more time and space to grow even stronger. No wonder some Chinese are “thrilled” at the prospect.
The New York Times also grasped something else: in terms of concrete results the US-China summit was a failure, with the Chinese making no concessions to the US, and the US securing none of the trade deals President Trump had hoped for
- On trade, Mr. Xi and Mr. Trump agreed to a “100-day plan” that Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross said would include “way stations of accomplishment.” American business executives took that to mean there had been no deep negotiations on whether China would further open its markets to American companies.
- Business leaders had expected the Chinese to announce investments in the United States that would create jobs, as a way to offset some of Mr. Trump’s complaints about the country’s trade imbalance. But Mr. Xi made no such offers, at least publicly. According to an account in Xinhua, the Chinese invited the United States to participate in a program it calls One Belt One Road, an ambitious effort to build infrastructure projects across Asia to Europe, for which China hopes it can attract some American investment.
President Trump came to the White House selling himself as a dealmaker. His idea – taken straight from the cut-and-threat commercial world he has up to now lived in – seems to be to ‘soften up’ his potential adversary by threats and bluster in order to wring concessions from him as he aims for ‘the deal’ which is most advantageous to the US.
That approach may work in the commercial world. As the Chinese have just shown him, and as the Russians are in the process of showing him, the world of international diplomacy doesn’t work that way.
There is no reason to think the Chinese response to any US attack on North Korea would be any different to the Russian stance in Syria. On the contrary, given traditional Chinese sensitivity about questions of prestige, a hardening of China’s position in the face of US ‘aggression’ on the Asian mainland is a virtual certainty.
The trouble is that having allowed tensions to ratchet up to this level the US President may feel he cannot pull back without being humiliated, and given his own over-sensitivity about ‘face’ and the inability of his key foreign policy aides – Mattis, McMaster and Kushner – to restrain him (Tillerson – or as in political circles T. Rex. – seems to be barely in the loop) the potential consequences of that are alarming, to say the least.
It is however desperately important in this situation that the President either comes to his senses and accepts whatever face-saving proposal the Chinese put to him – however empty of content it may be – or that his advisers finally stand up to him and restrain him. A failure to do so could set the scene for catastrophe, either now or in the future
The Sino-Russian Alliance
The pace of Russian-Chinese contacts has suddenly intensified with Russian President Putin hosting this month no fewer than three senior officials of the Chinese government, each one following the other in quick succession.
The first was Zhang Gaoli, the First Vice-Chairman of China’s State Council (ie. China’s deputy prime minister). He has now been followed by Zhang Dejiang, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (China’s parliament), who met with Putin yesterday.
On 27th April 2017 Russia’s President Putin has met in the Oval Hall of the Kremlin with Li Zhanshu, Director of the General Office of the Communist Party of China, and chief of staff of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The meeting was held directly after Li Zhanshu held talks with his Russian counterpart Anton Vaino, who is the head of the Russian President’s Executive Office and who is President Putin’s chief of staff.
Li and Vaino can be described as the chiefs of the staff of their respective leaders, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. Moreover it has been clear for some time that contact between China and Russia does not take place through the foreign ministries of the two countries (their foreign ministers – Wang Yi and Sergey Lavrov – rarely meet), but at some other level, and it is likely that it is conducted by Li and Vaino, who have immediate access to their chiefs, Xi and Putin.
At the most basic level it is likely that Li’s visit, like those of Zhang Gaoli and of Zhang Dejiang, is intended to prepare the way for Putin’s visit to China next month. It is clear that this visit is going to be a major visit, and is seen as such by the leaderships of the two countries. It is likely that intense discussions are underway to fine-tune arrangements for this visit, and to complete the details of whatever agreements are expected to be signed during it.
However it is difficult to avoid the impression that at least in Li’s case his visit is in part intended to coordinate with the Russians in light of the Trump administration’s ham-fisted attempts to cause trouble between Beijing and Moscow. What suggests that this is the reason for Li’s visit is that there was so little advanced notice of it, suggesting that unlike the visits by Zhang Gaoli and Zhang Dejiang it was not arranged long ago but was arranged hurriedly at short notice.
That the Trump administration is indeed trying to make trouble between Beijing and Moscow has been all but confirmed by no less a person than President Trump’s National Security Adviser, General H.R. McMaster, who in an interview with ABC television said the following
- What we do know is that, in the midst of responding to the mass murder of the Syrian regime, the president (Trump) and the first lady hosted an extraordinarily successful conference, summit, with President Xi and his team. And not only did they establish a very warm relationship, but… they worked together as well in connection with the response to the mass murder on the part of the Assad regime in connection with the U.N. vote.
- I think President Xi was courageous in distancing himself from the Russians, isolating really the Russians and the Bolivians… And I think the world saw that, and they (Xi) saw, well, what club do you want to be in? The Russian-Bolivian club? Or the — in the club with the United States, working together on our mutual interests and the interests of peace, security
This comment serves as a further illustration of the inexperience and naivety of US diplomacy in the age of Trump. It confirms that China abstained in the vote in the UN Security Council on 12th April 2017 following a personal request from Trump to Xi Jinping. However it completely misconstrues the meaning of that act.
The Chinese almost certainly cleared their decision to abstain in the UN Security Council vote ahead of the vote with Moscow. From their point of view and that of the Russians a decision by China to abstain would have meant little. There was no possibility that the draft Resolution would pass because Russia had already made known it would veto it.
What was undoubtedly intended by the Chinese as a simple diplomatic courtesy to the new US President over an issue which for China is of secondary importance, is however now being misconstrued by the Trump administration as a big step by China against Russia.
It is however fully understandable that in light of the sort of comments that have been coming out of the Trump administration the Chinese leadership should now be pulling out the stops to make clear that China’s alliance with Russia is unaffected and as strong as always.
The result is a series of articles which have appeared in the Chinese media, which have been strongly critical of the Trump administration’s actions (citations [2] and [3]), a strong statement reaffirming support for Russia’s position in Syria rushed out by the BRICS group, which is unofficially led by China and Russia, and the visits by the three important Chinese dignitaries to Moscow.
Li Zhanshu’s pending visit to Moscow is almost certainly connected to these steps.
The Kremlin’s transcript of Li Zhanshu’s words reads as follows:
- Before my departure, I went especially to see President Xi Jinping and asked him what he wanted to pass on to you. He told me to say that today, Chinese-Russian relations are going through their best period ever in our history.
- Today, our relations are deservedly called an example of relations between great powers, characterised by cooperation and mutual benefit. Today, our relations are very solid, mature, and are distinguished by strategic cooperation and a lasting nature.
- He also said that despite the serious changes in the international situation, we will continue to work with you unfailingly adhering to three constants, namely: regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity, will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping.
The “serious changes in the international situation” of course refers to the change of administration in Washington, and the new administration’s attempt to make trouble between China and Russia. President Xi Jinping in his personal message to President Putin went out of his way to say that this attempt could not succeed, and that China’s strategic partnership with Russia “will not change”.
The message is of course primarily intended for the Trump administration. The Chinese and the Russians scarcely need to reassure each other about the depth of their relationship, which they are of course far more informed about than anyone else. However Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are anxious that there should be no illusions about it in Washington. Alas, given the chaos in Washington, it is doubtful whether anyone there is paying attention.
The idea that China can be sweet-talked out of an alliance with Russia it has spent 25 years creating as a result of a single meeting between the US and Chinese Presidents during which nothing of substance was agreed, is fanciful in the extreme. It is a further illustration of the lack of understanding or experience of international diplomacy within the Trump administration.
President Trump is right to believe that establishing good personal relations with foreign leaders is critically important for the successful conduct of diplomacy. The fact that he spent time meeting and talking to Xi Jinping and made a serious effort to establish a personal rapport with him promises well for the future. It contrasts with the arrogant disdain towards foreign leaders of Barack Obama, who as President barely communicated with foreign leaders on a personal level at all.
However President Trump has to be realistic about what such personal diplomacy can do. If he over-invests in it, and thinks he can change the entire foreign policy of a superpower like China by a single meeting and a few phone calls, then he is setting himself up for failure and disappointment.
The alternative, however humiliating, would at least teach this inexperienced President and his advisers that the first law of international relations is never to bluff China, because it is a bluff which is always called – sooner or later.
Citations
1. http://theduran.com/trump-miscalculating-north-korea-china-war/
2. http://theduran.com/china-criticises-us-missile-strike-syria-trump-xi/
3. http://theduran.com/china-slams-trump-north-korea/
4. http://thesaker.is/breaking-personal-message-from-xi-jinping-to-vladimir-putin-our-friendship-is-unbreakable/
5. http://theduran.com/chinese-visitors-russia-alliance/Topic: Young, From Blue to Red
AnonymousBACKGROUND ABOUT MYSELF BEFORE THE STORY:
I am 18 and close to finally graduating high school. Now I may be young, but being young or being (say in your late 20s) does not change the fact that you can experience pain from love. Over the course of my 4 years in high school, I must say that love hurts, a lot. I have fallen for some wrong people when I was young, and it really sucked. From getting fake numbers, to being ignored, to even seeing the girl talk to multiple guys at the same time. Hell, there was even a time where person had interest in me and just fell off of the face of the Earth to me one day. I was of course young at that time, but it still has a small impact and makes me think sometimes.
Some interests I have are playing video games on a few different systems, (Xbox, Wii U, PC). I also ride my motorcycle to cleanse my mind from stress and have fun every second I’m doing it. I don’t have a huge career goal after high school. I don’t plan on going to a college since I have been opposed to it. I would rather just go straight into work or go to a trade school if it came to needed that. I plan to work on cars with my dad after enough years of build up from experience.
———————————————————————————————————–
I’m not very good at doing things like this, but I can work with what I can.November of 2015, I had interest in a girl who had many of the same interests as me. We talked frequently, until I heard about her boyfriend/exboyfriend (I don’t know who he was to her to this day). In the midst of us having a usual conversation, I get a text from him. He threatened to hurt me and bring his friends along. Huge red flag. (My luck having my first love go sour). She was naive and gave him my number… I couldn’t understand what logic that could have consisted of. She consistently said sorry and told me not to call police on him. I wish I did do it.
Second comes from February of 2016, where I met a girl at my workplace. She admitted to me that she was interested in me, and just broke up with her ex. We talked for awhile and even hung out a few times. Until, the red flags started sprouting like wildfire. She began to ignore me at work sometimes, barely bat an eye to my existence. I saw on social media that she would be hanging out with her “ex” a lot more. Interesting. I think one of the funniest posts, was that she said she was seeing a movie with him, 10 minutes after she told me that she has a lot of homework to do. Must not be that much homework then. I even confronted her numerous times about it and she said over and over that she didn’t care for him anymore (Lies). I did get back at her overtime at work however. Short on staff? Sucks I just left at the time that I was supposed to. I’d leave her more work to do.
At this point, I started to become numb to relations~~~s. I tried over and over to people I stupidly fell for. Rejection after rejection. Ignore after ignore (one word answers as well). Left at read after left at read. I was at the point, where I didn’t want anyone unless they’d come to me. I began to realize at that point, that I shouldn’t give my time for someone who doesn’t do the same. I had this thought only until something that happened about two weeks ago.
A girl began to talk to me. I thought, for once I don’t have to bust my ass trying to find a person who doesn’t appreciate me. There was one red flag that was probably larger than the Chinese flag. She already had a boyfriend, that she was seriously into. We talked about an assortment of stuff. Some of the things, I don’t even talk to my closest friends about. Very private things that stayed close. I really thought that down the road, I could get her. I really did. I really DID. I really thought that I could steal her away from her boyfriend (Sorry not sorry). We talked all hours of the day via texting, and we even hung out a few times. Behind the boyfriend’s back. I kind of liked this, because it was secretive. At the same time though, it proves she isn’t loyal (how do I know she isn’t talking to someone behind my back and his?) I asked her a serious question about why she is talking to me while already in a relationship. What she told me next really began to rewire my brain together.
She told me she has a history at playing with guys hearts and leaving them. Really? I honestly regret asking that in hopes of getting something out of whatever ‘this’ was. WAS. We didn’t talk at all for the next two days. She didn’t even talk to me in school. I, being the idiotic fool who thought there was still hope, wanted to fix things. I decided to message her about the whole thing and tried to fix things and make them right again. We talked about so much, it would hurt to throw it all behind and walk away from. I thought it was going good again when I was trying to repair it, and then it turned into being ignored. Fantastic.
I think I had enough with doing this. I cannot keep doing this if failure is the only thing I get out of anyone I like. In times of loneliness and being depressed, I found MGTOW and began to research more on it.
———————————————————————————————————–
I have realized that it’s not worth it anymore to try and get someone. If they don’t put time into you, you DON’T put time into them. They become an obstacle in your life that never had to be there in the first place. I still believe that NAWALT, but at the same time I don’t see a major point in getting married and/or having kids. I’ve read number of stories, with wives leave the man, take the kids, money, car, and everything the man worked for. I’ve also seen stories of women cheating, and completely destroying men’s confidence and care for finding someone else. On top of this, the double standards are also not fair between women and men. The system is rigged, and needs to be fixed. The problem is, whether it is too late or not.Being asked where is my girlfriend, why am I a virgin, get annoying after a while. But I’ve realized, that they are not everything. My goals and happiness go farther than a person to fall for. My self-esteem to finding someone one day has been shattered, and I don’t think I care anymore. The red pill hurts at first, but eventually it feels good. It feels good to see the truth in many situations.
Who am I to talk though? Since I am just a ‘kid’ with no relationship experience, my words don’t matter. I have no experience so I must be forced to live the stereotypical life that others do. I must be forced by society to go to college, flush away thousands on student loans, get married and be forced to start a family, and pass it all down. Knowing nowadays, the chances that a marriage may last are 50/50. (Hence, I have read a number of forums listed under Relations~~~s and Dating. If I can’t even find a woman to fall in love with for a short period of time, hell will freeze over when I find someone that will last forever. I’d rather focus on what makes me happy. Forget double standards. Forget the women who wrong me. Forget the ones who don’t support me. After all, there should be more men going their own way nowadays. Just saying.
“I have finally taken the red pill. I have seen how deep the rabbit hole is.”
“Wolves don’t lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.”
925069
924988
922113
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
