Now, some thoughts about religion and inceptism
Inceptivism is a form of atheism that reconsiders the universe and human affairs without a God. Atheism has previously only existed as a polemical against religion. As the inventor of this "religion" I strive to form a complete philosophy and discipline and give atheists a direction that leads to something less sterile than opposition to religions.
You will find here nothing spiritual, no scriptures, no divine revelations. Just my thoughts reconsidering humankind in its relation to the universe.
It is all materialism or a function of the material, but not in the financial sense (though that has to be included.) You will also find a public journal of my life and my political opinions here.
I'll start this with an online conversation I've had recently:
Yes, I am a Christian, but not an evangelist... (at least not by modern standards)
Posted by [BD], 11/29/2006 11:56:20 AM
"Born-Again" is a whole topic onto it's self, I'll save that for a future post...
First, let me start with the "Yeshua ben Yosef" name, which of course isn't his name at all... His name would be "Yeshua ben YHWH" (pronounced "Yahweh") "Jesus - son of - God" for those who are already lost...
Yosef did have two sons, Yeshua was not his son, he was concieved of by the Holy Spirit of YHWH(God) to the virgin Mary before Yosef took her as his wife.
Jesus didn't spread his Holy seed on this earth and left no off-spring.
But the true understanding of the origin of this mythology come from understanding the history of the Gnostics...
It is a little-known fact, but the Gnostic occultish religion predates Christianity by over 300 years, and is was an religion of oral-tradition until at least 200 years post the Resurection. They are a patch-quilt of mistical beliefs which also include some pieces of Christianity, which merely filtered into their culture over time and added fodder to their mythical ramblings...
The common figure of a "lady with child" (Goddess Sophia) goes back to ancient Babylon, hence it's woven into the thread of many occultic/pagan beliefs. (including Catholicism! I imagine I made some more enemies with that statement! lol!)
The lady-with-child was already a familar figure of worship to the Gnostic pagans, so writing Jesus into the script was an easy thing for them to do during the time their traditions were passed orally, then 300+ years later, while under persicution by Orthodox Christians(partly decieved in their own right!) They scribed their Mythical beliefs and further mixed it with their Christian teachings and WROTE FROM SCRATCH the Gnostic Gospels, which are more ticklish to the ears of pagan cultures than the flee-from-sin-embrace-manogomy message of the Orthidox Church.
Thus the Pagan/occultic culture of ancient France which had a very sexually based system of beliefs was eager to blend these gospels into their worship of fertility and Eros, which is obviously still woven into French culture today!
As far as my thoughts on Da vinci... Just as with many savant-genius people throughout history, he was a pervert, a sexual deviant, and an internally tortured man, the trouble with IQs over 200 is that the extra "Illumination" that they bring often drives the person mad as well.....
Glad to meet you [BD]-- meet a total atheist.
Posted by zinaval , 12/3/2006 1:44:57 PM
Copied from the thread below that's about to be turned from page 1.
Sorry it took so long to get to this thread. For total contradiction: I believe Jesus never existed. He wasn't Jesus ben Yahweh neither was he Jesus ben Pandira or Jesus ben Joseph. The reason why I concluded he never existed (which I concluded last year after 12 years of atheism) was in reading about it, the details of his life got filled in 100-200 years after he purportedly died. There are *no* contemporary records of his having lived, Including by well-educated people living in Judea at the time. That includes Philo of Judea who wrote on every topic imaginable and was well connected to the priesthood. The charismatic Christ seems to seems to have passed without notice of people at the time.
Plus, early church fathers, such as Esebius and Clement are on record as writing that lying in the service of God was moral and, in fact, glorious. Forgeries from the first thru third centuries about Jesus abound.
Some secularists might believe that Jesus was a man who was promoted by legend to Godhood. I believe he was more like a God who became man.
For Jewish sources, the Rabbinical writings never mention the name Jesus. There are characters in them with names that have been taken to be pseudonyms for Jesus. These "comparisons" are easily debunked, and say more about the desperation of scholars to find something more or less contemporary about him.
Moreover, the Talmuds, of which there are two: one the Palestine Talmud written in the 3rd century CE does not mention Jesus at all. The Babylonian Talmud, written 500 years later, does have details about Jesus. Again, the further away in time and geography you go, the more details about Jesus's life are filled in.
Dr Gonzo's reference to Yeshu ben Yoseph comes from a source called the Toldoth Jeshu. It was a tract, or literary tradition that started much later. As the Jews were further and further oppressed by the Christians, they wrote some anti-Christian tracts. These came much later than the life of Christ and are now known to have any attachment to an historical Jesus.
The argument gets stronger if you read the books that did not make it into the Canon. You will say these are all gnostic, but it is surprising how much of it ended up in Christian tradition. There are some embarrassing contradictions and omissions in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They show that details of his life were a source of disagreement (simple things like how many disciples he really had and what their names were.)
More damning: the Apostle Paul, for all of his teachings about accepting Christ as one's savior and the Lamb of God **never quotes Christ's teachings even once.**
Perhaps the most damning evidence: in Mark, the earliest accepted Gospel, the name Jesus is written with "the" in front of it. Jesus was not used as a name there, but as a title. It means "the savior" from Greek, and was only later associated with the name Joshua. To me it shows that Jesus evolved from a mystic ideal, to a legend, to a pseudo-hisory.
This is an ironic name, BTW, and should have been the tip-off to everyone that he was some kind of Messiah.
I could go on. This is just some of it.
**************
I would like to answer your point about pagan culture: You forget to say how much even the Christian God as a concept, is pagan himself. The God, introduces himself to Abraham as El Shaddai. (Gen 17:1) El was really the father of a pantheon of pagan deities widely worshipped in what's now Palestine. El Shaddai was one of his sons. Elohim-- a plural name of all the Gods of the pantheon, occurs 1500 times in the first 15 books of the Bible-- in which there's only supposed to be one God. This has been a source of embarrassment for Jewish and Christian scholars.
BTW, besides Yahweh, God introduces himself as El Elyon (Most High God), El roi (God of Vision) El Sabaoth (God of Heavenly Host, with the heavenly hosts being the army of the other El gods.)... and there are plenty of other variants. Monotheism was only forced on the story later.
Lest you think it was the early stories that were rather confused about the identity of God: Psalm 82 shows God getting quite angry at his brothers and sisters at the council of El.
The word Israel itself might be a compound of the names of three Egyptian gods: Isis, Ra, and El.
**************
I have a few comments on what you wrote to Jack concerning having a moral code and failing or bending morality to fit your desire.
Bending morality to meet your behavior will usually lead to the same results as having a moral code and not following it. Usually the latter is is worse in terms of results, because you are holding and judging everyone else by the stricter morality than the letter you chose to live by. At least with the former, there's not as much danger of doing that.
Foremost, what you really mean by "having" a moral code is having adopted one pre-assembled by some other people, such as the ones who wrote the Bible. In doing so, you also get to "bend" moral law to fit your own life. I doubt that you follow the kosher laws. I doubt that you'd marry your brother's widow if he dies childless, or bathe yourself before you pray. You have, for all intents and purposes, have bent morality to your will. Rather, you've let other people bend it into a form in which you're willing to buy it.
I've developed my own moral code. In many ways, it parallels Judeo Christian morality, but there are some profound differences. One of them pertaining to sex. I don't feel I bend my morality to fit my behavior, but I think that any moral code that could be written can not explain it completely. It's more like aesthetics.
Re:Glad to meet you xxx-- meet a total atheist.
Posted by [generic christian], 12/3/2006 6:56:23 PM
Zinaval:
I am confused by your posting. Are you:
1) Advocating a position as an atheist?
2) Stating that Jesus Christ our savior does not exist?
3) Or both.
[Answer to Confusion]
Posted by zinaval , 12/3/2006 8:46:40 PM
I can't advocate atheism. You either think a supremo created and/or is in charge of this universe or you don't. Reasons for believing it might be good or bad, but God is at least a viable hypothesis.
However, atheism is also a viable hypothesis, and there is no doubt that consideration of it is given short shrift due to the monotheism that predominates in our society. I just tell people that the history of monotheism and its concoction would surprise them if they look into it, or even look at their own scriptures.
The existence of Jesus Christ is a different issue entirely. Till quite recently even as an atheist, I thought the Jesus the man must have existed. Looking into the scholarship closely has changed my mind. The hypothesis that he might not have existed is under-considered even by atheists.
Atheism doesn't recommend itself. It doesn't fulfill the role that religion has in peoples' lives. Unlike most atheists, I don't think people as a whole can do without religion.
But religion does not have to be monotheistic, or even theistic. One might develop a religion with atheism as its basis. I believe communism might serve as an example, but a failed one. Besides this exception, any possibility of an atheist religion has always been crushed very quickly.
I'm still confused??
Posted by [ generic Christian] , 12/3/2006 11:22:27 PM
help me understand, what do you mean monotheism and Jesus Christ are different issues? I'm curious and interested in your thought process. Atheism is a idea not in my realm of thinking. How do you explain the advancement of human civilization without the divine guidance of God? How do you explain love, the soul, the differences in species etc.
The idea that, "that religion does not have to be monotheistic or even theistic". Yes so, paganism, and voodoo are religions also? Finally, communism is a social and economic system not a religion.
Deep Deep complex concepts that I have to write about very fast.
Posted by zinaval, 12/4/2006 2:00:41 PM
To your first question about existence of Christ being separate from monotheism:
Not all monotheistic religions include Jesus Christ. This is why I think of it as a separate issue. In fact, Christ by himself is not even a complete deity. His presence as a God on earth s nonsensical without his relation to Yahweh the Father.
*****************
Before I answer other questions, there are a few concepts I have to describe to you.
First is belief irrelevance. In monotheisms, belief in God is central. Denying God will bring you closer to hell faster than anything.
I reject this. In my judgment, belief does not effect your destiny. It does not effect the outcome of anything unless it effects the way you behave, and that's the only direct effect it can have.
The second is anti-spiritualism. I believe there is no spiritual world and no spiritual processes. Everything is either material or part of a material process. The closest thing to a spiritual event would actually be psychological. Beside that, it could be a material event in which the material basis unknown. Fire and lightning were once considered quite spiritual. By my thinking though, this is the only definition of the spiritual that makes any sense.
Now, restricted with these two concepts, atheists have to reject monotheism, and they can logically believe in superior beings as long as they are material. They would also have to reject all dominant forms of paganism as well, for there's no spiritual process by which pagan gods could exist.
There is also no medium by which prayers could be heard.
*********************
Now I'll answer more of your questions, the next one being about the advancement of human civilization. To answer this, I first have to ask what you believe the necessary role in human advancement you think God played? I realize this is disappointing, but I must know this before I can answer.
**************
Next, I now answer your question regarding the existence of the soul. This has to be heavily re-defined just so atheists could minimally communicate with theists about it. I believe one does not have to reject the soul in atheism. It's really not a concept that depends on a God or spiritualism.
The first important difference is the soul is self-generated within the person, not something given by a super- or supreme being.
The soul is as mortal as the body. When the person dies, the soul is gone forever. Pretty much like a snuffed candle-flame.
The soul is part of consciousness, which itself is a generated function of the brain. It is the matured, developed, and humanized ego (the ego being something that all animals have). The soul is decision-maker-- the will of a person. It is distinct from the other functional units of consciousness: the mind, the memory, the emotions, the senses.
**************
I've originated these concepts, BTW, and I call my variant on atheism inceptivism: a reconsidering of concepts about people and the universe on the hypothesis of a godless universe.
*****************
Love: to quote Alexander Waugh (not an atheist himself) "Love is the vaguest of terms which can be used to encompass any number of indefinable feelings that living beings have toward other living beings or places or things." (God, pg.149)
I can't explain it better.
It does leave a loose end as to what emotions are. They are individual programs developed and rewritten through evolution. They run in our consciousness and act upon on it and cause us to act. Many times they do this quite against our wills.
**************
Now I'll answer your question about the difference of species. The short answer is it's explained through evolution.
The longer answer is something different. Observing life processes at every stage and manifestation, the once anticipated "hand of God" has never been present. You might not be able to detect it, but you can detect what it isn't. There's nothing in biology that would even suggest it. Such a "hand" must be inferred, or rather rescued as a concept, for the processes go on very well by themselves.
An argument is sometimes raised that these processes couldn't have developed without a mind behind it. My counterargument: without seeing the "Hand of God," you are more likely in a universe where unminded processes do major creation all the time. Perhaps it's the minds that depend on the unminded, and not the other way around. Every day life would actually suggest this (examples given upon request.) It certainly looks like our minds evolved.
A related question: so, in what universe would God's mind have evolved?
**********************
About communism: I should have been more specific about this. Bolshevism was a religion.
*********************
Other etc questions?
To be continued tomorrow. That's all I have time to cut n paste edit and re-font right now.
You will find here nothing spiritual, no scriptures, no divine revelations. Just my thoughts reconsidering humankind in its relation to the universe.
It is all materialism or a function of the material, but not in the financial sense (though that has to be included.) You will also find a public journal of my life and my political opinions here.
I'll start this with an online conversation I've had recently:
Yes, I am a Christian, but not an evangelist... (at least not by modern standards)
Posted by [BD], 11/29/2006 11:56:20 AM
"Born-Again" is a whole topic onto it's self, I'll save that for a future post...
First, let me start with the "Yeshua ben Yosef" name, which of course isn't his name at all... His name would be "Yeshua ben YHWH" (pronounced "Yahweh") "Jesus - son of - God" for those who are already lost...
Yosef did have two sons, Yeshua was not his son, he was concieved of by the Holy Spirit of YHWH(God) to the virgin Mary before Yosef took her as his wife.
Jesus didn't spread his Holy seed on this earth and left no off-spring.
But the true understanding of the origin of this mythology come from understanding the history of the Gnostics...
It is a little-known fact, but the Gnostic occultish religion predates Christianity by over 300 years, and is was an religion of oral-tradition until at least 200 years post the Resurection. They are a patch-quilt of mistical beliefs which also include some pieces of Christianity, which merely filtered into their culture over time and added fodder to their mythical ramblings...
The common figure of a "lady with child" (Goddess Sophia) goes back to ancient Babylon, hence it's woven into the thread of many occultic/pagan beliefs. (including Catholicism! I imagine I made some more enemies with that statement! lol!)
The lady-with-child was already a familar figure of worship to the Gnostic pagans, so writing Jesus into the script was an easy thing for them to do during the time their traditions were passed orally, then 300+ years later, while under persicution by Orthodox Christians(partly decieved in their own right!) They scribed their Mythical beliefs and further mixed it with their Christian teachings and WROTE FROM SCRATCH the Gnostic Gospels, which are more ticklish to the ears of pagan cultures than the flee-from-sin-embrace-manogomy message of the Orthidox Church.
Thus the Pagan/occultic culture of ancient France which had a very sexually based system of beliefs was eager to blend these gospels into their worship of fertility and Eros, which is obviously still woven into French culture today!
As far as my thoughts on Da vinci... Just as with many savant-genius people throughout history, he was a pervert, a sexual deviant, and an internally tortured man, the trouble with IQs over 200 is that the extra "Illumination" that they bring often drives the person mad as well.....
Glad to meet you [BD]-- meet a total atheist.
Posted by zinaval , 12/3/2006 1:44:57 PM
Copied from the thread below that's about to be turned from page 1.
Sorry it took so long to get to this thread. For total contradiction: I believe Jesus never existed. He wasn't Jesus ben Yahweh neither was he Jesus ben Pandira or Jesus ben Joseph. The reason why I concluded he never existed (which I concluded last year after 12 years of atheism) was in reading about it, the details of his life got filled in 100-200 years after he purportedly died. There are *no* contemporary records of his having lived, Including by well-educated people living in Judea at the time. That includes Philo of Judea who wrote on every topic imaginable and was well connected to the priesthood. The charismatic Christ seems to seems to have passed without notice of people at the time.
Plus, early church fathers, such as Esebius and Clement are on record as writing that lying in the service of God was moral and, in fact, glorious. Forgeries from the first thru third centuries about Jesus abound.
Some secularists might believe that Jesus was a man who was promoted by legend to Godhood. I believe he was more like a God who became man.
For Jewish sources, the Rabbinical writings never mention the name Jesus. There are characters in them with names that have been taken to be pseudonyms for Jesus. These "comparisons" are easily debunked, and say more about the desperation of scholars to find something more or less contemporary about him.
Moreover, the Talmuds, of which there are two: one the Palestine Talmud written in the 3rd century CE does not mention Jesus at all. The Babylonian Talmud, written 500 years later, does have details about Jesus. Again, the further away in time and geography you go, the more details about Jesus's life are filled in.
Dr Gonzo's reference to Yeshu ben Yoseph comes from a source called the Toldoth Jeshu. It was a tract, or literary tradition that started much later. As the Jews were further and further oppressed by the Christians, they wrote some anti-Christian tracts. These came much later than the life of Christ and are now known to have any attachment to an historical Jesus.
The argument gets stronger if you read the books that did not make it into the Canon. You will say these are all gnostic, but it is surprising how much of it ended up in Christian tradition. There are some embarrassing contradictions and omissions in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They show that details of his life were a source of disagreement (simple things like how many disciples he really had and what their names were.)
More damning: the Apostle Paul, for all of his teachings about accepting Christ as one's savior and the Lamb of God **never quotes Christ's teachings even once.**
Perhaps the most damning evidence: in Mark, the earliest accepted Gospel, the name Jesus is written with "the" in front of it. Jesus was not used as a name there, but as a title. It means "the savior" from Greek, and was only later associated with the name Joshua. To me it shows that Jesus evolved from a mystic ideal, to a legend, to a pseudo-hisory.
This is an ironic name, BTW, and should have been the tip-off to everyone that he was some kind of Messiah.
I could go on. This is just some of it.
**************
I would like to answer your point about pagan culture: You forget to say how much even the Christian God as a concept, is pagan himself. The God, introduces himself to Abraham as El Shaddai. (Gen 17:1) El was really the father of a pantheon of pagan deities widely worshipped in what's now Palestine. El Shaddai was one of his sons. Elohim-- a plural name of all the Gods of the pantheon, occurs 1500 times in the first 15 books of the Bible-- in which there's only supposed to be one God. This has been a source of embarrassment for Jewish and Christian scholars.
BTW, besides Yahweh, God introduces himself as El Elyon (Most High God), El roi (God of Vision) El Sabaoth (God of Heavenly Host, with the heavenly hosts being the army of the other El gods.)... and there are plenty of other variants. Monotheism was only forced on the story later.
Lest you think it was the early stories that were rather confused about the identity of God: Psalm 82 shows God getting quite angry at his brothers and sisters at the council of El.
The word Israel itself might be a compound of the names of three Egyptian gods: Isis, Ra, and El.
**************
I have a few comments on what you wrote to Jack concerning having a moral code and failing or bending morality to fit your desire.
Bending morality to meet your behavior will usually lead to the same results as having a moral code and not following it. Usually the latter is is worse in terms of results, because you are holding and judging everyone else by the stricter morality than the letter you chose to live by. At least with the former, there's not as much danger of doing that.
Foremost, what you really mean by "having" a moral code is having adopted one pre-assembled by some other people, such as the ones who wrote the Bible. In doing so, you also get to "bend" moral law to fit your own life. I doubt that you follow the kosher laws. I doubt that you'd marry your brother's widow if he dies childless, or bathe yourself before you pray. You have, for all intents and purposes, have bent morality to your will. Rather, you've let other people bend it into a form in which you're willing to buy it.
I've developed my own moral code. In many ways, it parallels Judeo Christian morality, but there are some profound differences. One of them pertaining to sex. I don't feel I bend my morality to fit my behavior, but I think that any moral code that could be written can not explain it completely. It's more like aesthetics.
Re:Glad to meet you xxx-- meet a total atheist.
Posted by [generic christian], 12/3/2006 6:56:23 PM
Zinaval:
I am confused by your posting. Are you:
1) Advocating a position as an atheist?
2) Stating that Jesus Christ our savior does not exist?
3) Or both.
[Answer to Confusion]
Posted by zinaval , 12/3/2006 8:46:40 PM
I can't advocate atheism. You either think a supremo created and/or is in charge of this universe or you don't. Reasons for believing it might be good or bad, but God is at least a viable hypothesis.
However, atheism is also a viable hypothesis, and there is no doubt that consideration of it is given short shrift due to the monotheism that predominates in our society. I just tell people that the history of monotheism and its concoction would surprise them if they look into it, or even look at their own scriptures.
The existence of Jesus Christ is a different issue entirely. Till quite recently even as an atheist, I thought the Jesus the man must have existed. Looking into the scholarship closely has changed my mind. The hypothesis that he might not have existed is under-considered even by atheists.
Atheism doesn't recommend itself. It doesn't fulfill the role that religion has in peoples' lives. Unlike most atheists, I don't think people as a whole can do without religion.
But religion does not have to be monotheistic, or even theistic. One might develop a religion with atheism as its basis. I believe communism might serve as an example, but a failed one. Besides this exception, any possibility of an atheist religion has always been crushed very quickly.
I'm still confused??
Posted by [ generic Christian] , 12/3/2006 11:22:27 PM
help me understand, what do you mean monotheism and Jesus Christ are different issues? I'm curious and interested in your thought process. Atheism is a idea not in my realm of thinking. How do you explain the advancement of human civilization without the divine guidance of God? How do you explain love, the soul, the differences in species etc.
The idea that, "that religion does not have to be monotheistic or even theistic". Yes so, paganism, and voodoo are religions also? Finally, communism is a social and economic system not a religion.
Deep Deep complex concepts that I have to write about very fast.
Posted by zinaval, 12/4/2006 2:00:41 PM
To your first question about existence of Christ being separate from monotheism:
Not all monotheistic religions include Jesus Christ. This is why I think of it as a separate issue. In fact, Christ by himself is not even a complete deity. His presence as a God on earth s nonsensical without his relation to Yahweh the Father.
*****************
Before I answer other questions, there are a few concepts I have to describe to you.
First is belief irrelevance. In monotheisms, belief in God is central. Denying God will bring you closer to hell faster than anything.
I reject this. In my judgment, belief does not effect your destiny. It does not effect the outcome of anything unless it effects the way you behave, and that's the only direct effect it can have.
The second is anti-spiritualism. I believe there is no spiritual world and no spiritual processes. Everything is either material or part of a material process. The closest thing to a spiritual event would actually be psychological. Beside that, it could be a material event in which the material basis unknown. Fire and lightning were once considered quite spiritual. By my thinking though, this is the only definition of the spiritual that makes any sense.
Now, restricted with these two concepts, atheists have to reject monotheism, and they can logically believe in superior beings as long as they are material. They would also have to reject all dominant forms of paganism as well, for there's no spiritual process by which pagan gods could exist.
There is also no medium by which prayers could be heard.
*********************
Now I'll answer more of your questions, the next one being about the advancement of human civilization. To answer this, I first have to ask what you believe the necessary role in human advancement you think God played? I realize this is disappointing, but I must know this before I can answer.
**************
Next, I now answer your question regarding the existence of the soul. This has to be heavily re-defined just so atheists could minimally communicate with theists about it. I believe one does not have to reject the soul in atheism. It's really not a concept that depends on a God or spiritualism.
The first important difference is the soul is self-generated within the person, not something given by a super- or supreme being.
The soul is as mortal as the body. When the person dies, the soul is gone forever. Pretty much like a snuffed candle-flame.
The soul is part of consciousness, which itself is a generated function of the brain. It is the matured, developed, and humanized ego (the ego being something that all animals have). The soul is decision-maker-- the will of a person. It is distinct from the other functional units of consciousness: the mind, the memory, the emotions, the senses.
**************
I've originated these concepts, BTW, and I call my variant on atheism inceptivism: a reconsidering of concepts about people and the universe on the hypothesis of a godless universe.
*****************
Love: to quote Alexander Waugh (not an atheist himself) "Love is the vaguest of terms which can be used to encompass any number of indefinable feelings that living beings have toward other living beings or places or things." (God, pg.149)
I can't explain it better.
It does leave a loose end as to what emotions are. They are individual programs developed and rewritten through evolution. They run in our consciousness and act upon on it and cause us to act. Many times they do this quite against our wills.
**************
Now I'll answer your question about the difference of species. The short answer is it's explained through evolution.
The longer answer is something different. Observing life processes at every stage and manifestation, the once anticipated "hand of God" has never been present. You might not be able to detect it, but you can detect what it isn't. There's nothing in biology that would even suggest it. Such a "hand" must be inferred, or rather rescued as a concept, for the processes go on very well by themselves.
An argument is sometimes raised that these processes couldn't have developed without a mind behind it. My counterargument: without seeing the "Hand of God," you are more likely in a universe where unminded processes do major creation all the time. Perhaps it's the minds that depend on the unminded, and not the other way around. Every day life would actually suggest this (examples given upon request.) It certainly looks like our minds evolved.
A related question: so, in what universe would God's mind have evolved?
**********************
About communism: I should have been more specific about this. Bolshevism was a religion.
*********************
Other etc questions?
To be continued tomorrow. That's all I have time to cut n paste edit and re-font right now.
posted by Zinaval at 8:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home