/lit/ - Literature

>>18171135
I do not believe that Max Stirner even existed.

BTFO by bug

>>18171588
You can visit his grave in Berlin. Why conduct such an elaborate hoax?

>>18171135
Lawrence Stepelevich's "As a Hegelian" and "Max Stirner: The Last Man" are crucial resources to understand the context behind Stirner's work and what he wrote. A lot of ignorant internet egoists who attempt to merge his thought with communism, anarchism, or call everything a spook i.g. apply "solipsism" are not even close to understanding his point. The more interesting schools of thought are ones who attempt to enhance Stirner's base with Nietzsche's insights. Nietzsche and Stirner both have some very interesting similarities;
Nietzsche and Stirner both admonish the state for its supposed absolute authority over morality
Nietzche and Stirner both speak of the rise of the "Last Man" - the nihilistic consumer at the end of history we speak of now. Stirner embraces this position as "Der Einziger" position - while Zarathustra attempts to overcome it.
Both were influenced by Hegel - although Nietzsche considers dialectics are for idiots, and attempts break it. Stirner makes use of it to attack his philosophical critics.
Both thinkers believed socialism, communism would result in a depotism thorough state control. Nietzsche was extremely anti-socialist to the point of supporting the suppression of the Paris Commune. Stirner favored socialism narrowly - arguing for a socialism that wasn't competitive, but also did not elevate "workerism" i.g. the fetishization of the proletariat as the primary vehicle for change. Stirner seems to have a preference for vagabonds or lazybones as he puts it and co-operatives. Nietzche and Stirner also have a nihilistic attitude towards work itself - seeing it as a simply a vanity, a means of existence. Nietzsche believes work only has value if its creative and artistic. Stirner believes work should be something you do consciously for your own well-being and pleasure.
Nietzsche rejects free will. Stirner does not - he however believes free will is constrained by environment conditions, and that courage is the overriding factor. Stirner's concept of "courage" is very similar to Nietzsche's concept of "will power."
Both are thoughtful anti-democratic against Christianity, and anti-liberal. Stirner sees any state as a despotism, even if it is democratic or liberal (i.g. limitations on liberty). Nietzsche sees democracy as decadent - a product from the rise of socialism's appeal to decadent classes such as proletarians.
Stirner and Nietzsche both are critical of capitalism. Stirner believes competition under capitalism isn't true competition because it denies him the tools he needs to compete due to the state denying him these tools. Nietzsche argues capitalism is responsible for the rise of the Last Man by making life less of a struggle.
Nietzsche and Stirner were both very influential in fascist circles. Evola, Mussolini, Sorel, and Gabriele D'Annunzio were all personally aware of Stirner and Nietzsche, and adopted their rhetoric.
Both Nietzsche and Stirner were buried in East Germany.

>>18171671
Neat writeup. Is this copy-pasted from somewhere?

And to add, Stirner and Nietzsche both see communism, and socialism, as a product of Christianity for elevating the love of humanity as a sacred principle, and promoting phantasms such as "equality." Both also point out that communism, and socialism, are really just products of psychological resentment, and obsession, towards not having property. Interestingly enough - not enough people really acknowledge, or even attempt to figure out, how Engels and Marx became socialists. Little do they know - Engels and Marx expose to communism were highly influenced by the utopian socialism of early Protestant Christians in the United States. If you want further information on this connection I suggest reading Engel's Communist Colonies, "Socialist Turnips" by David Leopold, and "Protestant Communalism" by Lockley.

>>18171677
No, I just wrote it off the bat actually. Stepelvich recently wrote a book with new Stirner translations called "On The Path of Doubt" that was released in December of 2020. You can find some articles on Stirner every now, and then, if you just google his name in the news.

Ayn Rand was aware of Stirner, and quite a few libertarians such as Harry Browne were influenced by him. Libertarianism.org has quite a few resources on him, and so does the Union of egoists.com. And - I don't the word "egoism" is appropriate to describe Stirner's thought because it runs amok because there are people who make the assumption that Stirner argued for a sacred, absolute egoism - when he rejected this explicitly as a criticism of Fichte. He simply describes actions one can do with his life; he does not try to be prescriptive to avoid the trap many philosophers fall into - becoming sacred ... a cult of personality. Some of Nietzsche's biographers argued that Nietzsche was aware of Stirner, but did not mention him because he was worried that people would do the later without getting the point. Nietzsche attempted to avoid this by calling himself a clown in Ecce Homo, and at the end of Zarathustra - he tells you not to follow or emulate him.
Stirner does a similar thing at the end of his book telling you at the end of his book to do what you wish with his book, and he doesn't care either.
>I sing not because you listen, I sing because you have ears.

>>18171135
Oh, and Nietzsche and Stirner were both critical of anarchism. Nietzsche saw anarchism as decadent because of its obsession with moralist violence and humanism. Stirner shared these criticisms, and levied them against Proudhon and Edgar Bauer. Stirner explicitly rejects revolution - seeing such as a simply replacement of rulers with another. His form of resistance is insurrection... which is very similar Nietzsche's Overman creating their own values.

And yes, there is actually a connection between Spinoza and Stirner.
>"This Nothing upon which Stirner grounds his unique and exclusive being has its metaphysical ancestor in Spinoza’s “negatio. ” In the perspective of this metaphysic, finite or limited being is particularized and set over against Absolute Substance by reason of its essentially negative character. Insofar as “determinatio negatio est, ” determinate being can pass only into absoluteness, into Being as Substance, through an act of self-destruction, through the negation of its own negativity. The echo of Spinoza is heard in Hegel when he decides that “The particular has its own role to play in world history; it is finite, and must, as such, perish. “37 Stirner, as Nietzsche after him, 38 was well aware of these philosophical"
Bruno Bauer, another young Hegelian, levied the criticism that Stirner was clearly too influenced by Spinoza's nominalism. If you want to read the critique check out: "The Subject as Substance: Bruno Bauer’s Critique of Stirner"
There is another critique of Stirner by Karl Schmitt, another obscure Young Hegelian "The Individual and The Realm of Understanding" which is quite interesting too. Welsh has a section his book "Stirner's dialectal egoism" that discusses it.

What did he say about cunny

>>18171770
I mean, the dude who introduced Stirner to the English would talk about his love for young boys and a homosexual - Mackay. Lots of homosexuals found sympathy for his free love.

>>18171784
The original says man, as in the human, not men.
Anglos...

How much of Hegel should I have read to really appreciate and understand Stirner's work?
I've read PoS and Logic.

>>18171784
You’re the one who loves the young boys

>>18171794
is this quote in Ego an his property?

>>18171968
>I also love human beings, not just a few individuals,[358] but every one. But I love them with the awareness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because love is natural to me, it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments me, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill, not torture, them.

>>18171990
>>18171968
This is the correct version from the Wolfi Landstreicher book.

>>18172001
>>18171960
The Ego and Its own says "Men." Wolfi changed it to "humans." I also think it is appropriate to determine which one is "correct", but which one is useful since obviously anyone who is introduced to Stirner will have their own take on him - as he believed they would.
>"Stirner is unlikely to have regretted these disputes about the nature and influence of The Ego and Its Own. In considering various interpretative accounts of the Bible, he declines to adjudicate between the judgement of the child who plays with the book, the Inca emperor Atahualpa (c.1502–1533) who threw it away when it failed to speak to him, the priest who praises it as the word of God, and the critic who dissects it as a purely human invention. The plurality of interpretations of his own work might well have amused Stirner and encouraged him in his view that there could be no legitimate constraints on the meaning of a text. Stirner once described himself as writing only to procure for his thoughts an existence in the world, insisting that what subsequently happens to those ideas “is your affair and does not trouble me”

>>18172001
Is that the only proper translation? Heard that the other had some things censored.

>>18172001
>the Wolfi Landstreicher book.
yeah, I have no idea what that is.
and before you say feral faun, i have no idea who that is either.

>>18172033
I am German. The Wolfi version is closer to the original writing. He says
>Ich liebe die Menschen
which means "humans".

>>18172860
No idea, but I have found the text excerpts to be more accurate to the German version I have read.

>>18172890
It is another translation of the Stirner work
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property

>convinced by Stirner and Nietzsche and realizes my decision to become an academic is bullshit
what do i do now? keep going with the full awareness that everything I write, all the concepts and ideas that I spend weeks and months poring over are all mere images made up for people to be compliant? cynically accept that fact and participate in it anyways because it's in my interest to be a self-conscious charlatan?

>>18173493
the second because it's more fun when you're aware of the joke

>>18172922
I second this menschen means humans take the example of Menschenverstand (literal 'human reason/understanding') which means common sense

>>18173493
The same happened to me. I have decided to practise the second and then, once I have the doctoral degree, to leave. It is actually freeing.

How do you recover from Stirner? Where do you go after? Just stop caring?

>>18173744
Read the Bible

Ego is a spook.

>>18173792
no

>>18173813
Yes.

>>18173744
>recover
there's nothing to recover from
just keep having fun

>>18173744
Why would you want to recover? You’re now free

>>18173839
how

>>18173849
>just keep having fun
theres that word again

>>18173872
Your sense of self in not your self, it is a construct. Your unique is more than your constructed ego, it is what constructs everything including ego; it defies conception with it's magnitude and is only be expressed through manifestation. You are not a concept.

>>18173872
did you even read the book? stirner himself says this

>>18173898
i did but i don't remember him saying that. I perceived Stirner's egoism as the absence of spooks, the absence of desires that are not your own

>>18173976
He talkes about it more specifically in Stirners Critics.

>>18171727
>insurrection
Sorry if I'm retarded, but isn't revolution and insurrection pretty much the same ?

>“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
>Mao Tse-tung

>>18173851
>>18173849
But you still have to live in a world full of spooks.

>>18173897
>>18173792
Stirner wasn't a solipsist - he speaks of a nominal egoism. Your "egoism" can be considered a "spook" because what we conceive as "selfish" is nominal. However, your flesh, your blood, and the things you experience with your senses are not spooks. Der Einziger, the unique one, is nominal. "Egoism" exists only in name. Again, Stirner isn't prescriptive - so there isn't a set way to analyze the unique. He only gives you ideas for you to play with.

>>18174242
I didn't say he was a solipsist

>>18174213
Not that Anon, but for Stirner they are different (iirc insurrection is spontaneous and it spring from the individual for the individual, revolution is planned, needs authority and just replaces one hierarchy for another). Some anarchists have also made a differentiation between the two (Kropotkin, for example, and I think Bakunin too, influenced by Stirner no doubt).

>>18174229
Spooks are in your head, he’s not saying you’ll be free from physical consequences (such as getting arrested) but free from spiritual consequences (such as not stealing something you could’ve easily stolen because that’s not a ‘good’ thing to do)

Solipsism is schizophrenia, mental illness.

>>18174213
Insurrection, in Stirner's sense, doesn't necessarily seek a replacement in masters as revolution does. Stirner explains here:
>"Revolution and insurrection should not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in a radical change of conditions, of the prevailing condition or status, the state or society, and is therefore a political or social act; the latter indeed has a transformation of conditions as its inevitable result, but doesn't start from it, but from the discontent of human beings with themselves; it is not an armed uprising,398 but a rising up of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged, but rather to arrange ourselves, and sets no radiant hopes on "institutions." "
Think Bellum omnium contra omnes

>>18174305
Kropotkin and Bakunin were more so influenced by Proudhon. I don't recall Bakunin ever mentioning Stirner - I believe Kropotkin did once, but he explicitly said his thought comes from Proudhon. Stirner's "anarchist" tradition was more influential on American anarchists and Italian Anarchists. Bakunin and Kropotkin were more influential on Russian, Asian Anarchism. There were also quite a few Nietzscheans who were influenced by Stirner. There was one anarchist who was influenced by Stirner who took part in Russian Revolution, but I can't remember his name off the top of my head.

>>18174229
>"Nevertheless, I can only break the tyranny of the spirit through the "flesh"; because it's only when a person also perceives his flesh that he perceives himself completely, and it is only when he perceives himself completely that he is a perceiving or reasonable being"

>>18174229
>"You long for freedom? You fools! If you took power, then freedom would come of itse lf. See, one who has power stands above the law."

>>18174229
>"I safeguard my freedom against the world to the extent that I make the world my own, i.e., "win and take it" for myself, by whatever force it requires, by force of persuasion, of req uest, of categorical demand, yes, even hypocrisy, fraud, etc.; because the means that I use for it depend upon what I am. IfI am weak, I have only weak means, like those mentioned above, but which are still good enough for a considerable part of the world. Anyway, fraud, hypocrisy, and lying look worse than they are. Who has not deceived the police, the law? Who has not quickly put on the appearance of respectable loyalty upon encountering the sheriff's henchman, in order to hide an illegal act he may have committed? Whoever has not done this has simply let violence to be done to him; he was a weakling from-conscience."

>>18174398
Neat

>>18174309
Yes, but you can still be sad about your environment, even though you may be spiritually free. Same as you can be distraught about the loss of a loved one.

>>18171135
Currently reading his book, he's extremely based wtf. Where do I go after that ? Seems like he solved philosophy

>>18174612
Yeah he pretty much did, nothing else to consider after you read him

>>18174332
Seems like Stirner absolutely BTFO Mao quote's here then

>>18174647
Well, we can certainly say China's "revolution" only led to a change of arrangements. Functionally, the despotism remains. Its very interesting how Stirner and Nietzsche both argued socialism would result as such - nepotistic bureaucracies.

>>18171135
Who draws these?

>>18174612
Zen, Taoism, Nietzsche - make your own philosophy to fuck with people for your own entertainment

>>18174362
>Kropotkin and Bakunin were more so influenced by Proudhon. I don't recall Bakunin ever mentioning Stirner
Certainly they were, but I do recall Bakunin mentioning Stirner as an influence. I'd have to look for the source, but maybe I am misremembering after all.

>There was one anarchist who was influenced by Stirner who took part in Russian Revolution, but I can't remember his name off the top of my head.
Emma Goldman, without a doubt. I'm not sure if Alexander Berkman was also influenced by Stirner, but Goldman was.

>>18174362
>>18174720
You were right, Bakunin doesn't mention Stirner, but there are some intersections between their philosophies: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjao87HxbDwAhUFLKwKHRQNA-sQFjABegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.uvic.ca%2Findex.php%2Fadcs%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F17141%2F7356%2F0&usg=AOvVaw1QRZHBA8uNLjLXXbHz9SqR

>>18174712
Idk, I have started to collect rare stirners.

>>18171135
Can someone paste the part where he explains why he wrote his book ? Like why he share his "knowledge of egoism", I don't find it

>>18174778
>Let’s choose another obvious example. I see how people are frightened in dark superstition by a swarm of ghosts. If, in accordance with my strengths, I perhaps allow a bit of daylight to fall on the nocturnal phantasmagoria, is it because love for you inspires this in me? Do I write out of love for human beings? No, I write because I want to give my thoughts and existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would take away your rest and peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the destruction of many generations sprouting from this seed of thought:—still I would scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that’s your affair, and I don’t care. You’ll perhaps only have sorrow, struggle and death from it; a very few will draw joy from it. If your welfare lay at my heart, then I’d act like the church did, which withheld the Bible from the laity, or the Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty to “protect the common people from bad books.”

This one?

>>18174871
Yes that's it I believe, than you anon

e g O L u + | 0 n

>>18175079
Egolution?

>stirner

>>18171135
where do I start with him?

>>18171135
To me, the best moment in Stirner is when he can find for his philosophy no better exemplar than Christ.

>>18174712
Probably some russian autist
A while ago I stumbled upon some deviantart account that had hundred of drawings of Leonhard Euler like this. Some were very borderline gay.

>>18176660
DAE find this particular moment to be in some sense Girardian? Stirner is of course not quite a Christian in that he thinks that the latter inaugurated the pattern of the sacralization of thought (concept, generalization, hypostatization, etc.), but when he finds Christ as being prototypical of what he calls 'insurgency', and one begins to consider whether or not the Gospels contain anything like a doctrine of the sacralization of thought, one can hardly come to regard early Christianity as actually representative of such notions. For example, how can the directive of Christ to his apostles:
> [11] And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say; [12] For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. (Luke 12: 11-12)
be interpreted as not being in accord with Stirner's notion of 'freedom from thought'? Under such a directive from their master the early Apostles would have exemplified such 'freedom from thought' and through this proved adepts in 'insurgency', since they spoke not in argumentative, dialectical fashion with others, but spoke out of the mysterious depths which the Holy Ghost gives to them.

>muh spooks
>muh unique
>oh wait spooks are okay if they resonate with the unique lol
>reject stirner's retarded postmodern nihilistic drivel on this sole basis
One day you people will grow up and stop reading this infantile midwit trash.

>>18176791
hey everyone look at how smart this guy is

>>18176791
what are you rambling about

>>18174741
Which one is your best/rarest?
i got like 70 thus far

>>18177054
That his philosophy is purely self-refuting, it's all semantic abstractions that inevitably leads to the same conclusion you had from the very beginning. That is unless you misinterpret Stirner and start LARP'ing as some anarchist egoist faggot which would make you even more spooked and crazy than before.

>>18177769
But Stirner wasn't an egoist or an anarchist. He doesn't have a "philosophy" because he doesn't follow the aristotelian arguments of Aristotelian reasoning. People who become "anarchists" or "egoists because of Stirner doing it based on their own interpretation of him - which pretty much everyone does anyway with their own favorite "philosopher." The person who sees value in Stirner is simply the Nietzsche Last Man - the man who lives their life for their self enjoyment.
>it's all semantic abstraction
Just like every form of philosophy, reasoning, language we use. It went over your head, huh? Its all just concepts we give meaning to from our own unique experiences. For you, it will lead to "the same conclusions" because you have your own take, and that's fine. Stirner himself said few people would take joy in his work, and you are one of the many who don't. I find Stirner's work useful because it is a powerful critique against communism, the fertilization of liberal progress, and be used as a critique of pretty much any collective movement. I think your problem with Stirner is that you're used to being told what to do, and Stirner enrages you because he forces you to think for yourself.

>>18177769
He is useful because he gives a good argument why we shouldn't value your insights - its all semantic abstractions of duping yourself into being a "rational human being." when reason alone is simply a semantic abstraction used to condition human behavior. You obviously want humans act in a certain way, and that's just something we don't have to really do if we choose not to.

>>18171671
the "last man" concept is just as retard as "god" one

>>18177849
>>18177895
Inane gibberish that doesn't address my criticism of Stirner's all-encompassing "Unique" concept that falls apart after any serious contemplation. If the "unique" cannot exist after explicitly rejecting the "unique", and if the "unique" allows the "unique" to be rejected, then it is a pure zero sum. Congratulations, you've spooked yourself into buying the buck of Stirner's bullshit.

>>18177992
You're not explaining your actual problems with Stirner; you're just looking for attention.
>If the "unique" cannot exist after explicitly rejecting the "unique", and if the "unique" allows the "unique" to be rejected, then it is a pure zero sum. Congratulations, you've spooked yourself into buying the buck of Stirner's bullshit.
The problem is that you seem to miss the point because you are heuristically obessesed with finding deeper meaning with Stirner when you don't really have to be or have to find it at all. If you just don't like Stirner - why waste your time screeching on 4chan about him? You choose to come to this thread - don't you? Why don't you consciously make choices for your own sake, and just leave. Why care about some dead men from the 1840s; don't you have other dead mens' ideas to fight over with all those belfries in that wonderful mind of yours... that you're so insistent to share with us.

>>18177992
>You're buying into buck of Stirner's bullshit
As opposed to yours? You clearly aren't a bullshitter - oh sacred one of infinite, pious wisdom. You clearly have the superior philosophy, and you have life figured out. Stirner isn't being prescriptive - so why bother with him? Just go about your life.

>>18177925
>"And here ended the first speech of Zarathustra, which is also called“The Prologue,” for at this point he was interrupted by the yelling and merriment of the crowd. “Give us this last human being, oh Zarathustra” –thus they cried – “make us into these last human beings! Then we will make you a gift of the overman!” And all the people jubilated and clicked their tongues. But Zarathustra grew sad and said to his heart:“They do not understand me. I am not the mouth for these ears."

>>18177925
The way Nietzsche uses it - certainly could be. One simply does not have share Nietzsche's humanitarian goals of overcoming the flaws of humanity. Aren't "flaws" just as spooky as "sins"? Stirner's rapprochement to the Last Man is indirect - he doesn't say it, but he speaks of it. A lot of things that Stirner says are implicit, and it goes over the head of a lot of people.

>>18177217
this one now

>>18174702
It's not particularly interesting, even people during knew what would happen.

>>18172922
I'm thinking if typesetting this and getting it printed.

>>18174490
>Yes, but you can still be sad about your environment, even though you may be spiritually free. Same as you can be distraught about the loss of a loved one.
Right but that's nothing you need to "recover from". The other quotes anons posted cover his intent here.

>>18171135
Something that you should have mentioned OP is the "Egoist" which are commonly on the internet. Generally people who say "this is in my ego therefore it's not spooked". People who overuse the word "spook". People who call themselves " post left anarchist" or "ego-communist" or "ego-mutualist". People who use Stirner to support the sanctification and elevation of certain groups who they see as "oppressed". Using Sterner to support religious/ political myths such as prejudice,x-phobia and racism.

>>18177217
Not sure. Just getting started. I only have like 30.

>>18179112
But I did not know there is this much neko Stirner

>>18179121

>>18171135

>>18171671>>18171677
>>18178177

>Nietzsche believes work only has value if its creative and artistic.
art is hedonism, this is what Nietzsche and NPCs dont understand in Nietzsche and why they support him to this day.

artist = last man

i havent read any philosphy before. and my friend who is majoring in political theory wont shut up about stirner, so I bought a copy of "Ego and its own" what am I in for?

>>18178719
Not a single internet egoist has read Stirner
They just watched jreg

>>18179121
because neko stirner is fucking epic

>>18179691
First of all you should have bought Unique and its Property, it is a better translation. Speaking as someone who has read the original in German.
The book is mostly dunking on Christians, liberals, communists, socialists, anarchists for being caught in their ideologies. It is a fun, tongue-in-cheek read. I believe you have to be at a certain stage in life to truly love it.

The coper and its cope

>>18176744
To develop further, why should the dominion of 'spirit' be attributed to Christianity and not, say, Platonism? A thinker versed in 20th century media theory would be inclined to trace the prevalence of rationalism indeed to the alphabet and not to a Semitic man-god. What Stirner finds in Christianity might just be its Platonic double. Stirner himself searches for that third thing, beyond tribalism and beyond rationalism. Why should he have been the first to realize it?

>>18171135
What's the biggest spook of them all?
Is the concept of "deconstruction" just a form of despookifiication?

>>18171135
I read somewhere that Demons by Dostoevsky was a response to Stirner, because the main character is an egoist, and Dostoevsky apparently read The Ego and it's Own (it's also funny to think that Nietzsche apparently read Demons)

>>18181127
the biggest spook is identity, which is a mere contingency of thought; without identity there is just consciousness, which has no identity or name; any identity entertained in thought is a construction or product of the mind working upon given perceptions; identity means identity of two things; 'I am' means nothing by itself, 'I am such and such' can only have meaning as: these two things are alike or identical; we cannot even say, 'I am consciousness', because in this case I refers to nothing and consciousness gives no data; we can only meaningfully say things like, 'I am male', 'I am a plumber', etc. etc., and in such cases we simply identify appearances of ourselves (the body of which we are always immediately aware along with memories of it) with other appearances; as to our substance, our essence, we have no cognition or perception, and insofar as we do not actively think we are conscious only of perception and make no associations, i.e., identities, so that all that is left is mere awareness of a flow of relatively unorganized perceptions; of course, we do not die without thought, or even without perception, but as for what 'we are' at such times we can have not understanding

>>18181424
Stirner went full Spinoza in Critics

>>18171665
All orchestrated by Big German Idealism.