Despite the straw person attacks, few strict followers of genetic or environmental determinism exist. Ethnoracial fact facers mostly care both about genes and the malign environmental influences of cultural Marxism.
Multiculturalists care about genetic issues related to health and trivial traits. Anti-genetic fanaticism pours out of multiculturalists mainly when someone starts making well-reasoned arguments about behavioral genetics.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Monday, May 30, 2016
Third Wayism Versus Contemporary Progressivism: a Guide for the Suplexed
When comparing the similarities and differences among Third Wayisms (Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Steve Israel, John Kerry, Robert Rubin, Angela Merkel, Haim Saban, David Axelrod) and Contemporary Progressivisms (Bernie Sanders, Cornel West, Tim Wise, Raúl Grijalva, Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison) I will rely on the record of past behaviors, not the falsehoods in platforms.
Third Wayism: tolerates or stealthily supports neoconservatism.
Contemporary Progressivism: opposes neoconservatism, except the cultural Marxism in neoconservatism.
Third Wayism: tolerates almost no dissent on cultural and ethnoracial issues, immune to well-reasoned ethnoracial arguments.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports Wall Street.
Contemporary Progressivism: opposes Wall Street but sometimes in hamfisted ways.
Third Wayism: supports legalized bribery.
Contemporary Progressivism: opposes legalized bribery, except when good for the cause.
Third Wayism: supports militarism against Infidels, Northern Eurasians, and opponents of Sunni Gulf States.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports militarism against Infidels and Northern Eurasians.
Third Wayism: supports cash-for-clunkers, cap-and-trade, and other pro-rich schemes on environmental issues.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports bans, personal responsibility, government investments, or rarely, Pigouvian taxes on environmental issues.
Third Wayism: supports rule by an unaccountable, global ruling class.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports rule by a different unaccountable, global ruling class.
Third Wayism: pretends to support democracy.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports dysgenic mass destruction.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports small increases in the minimum wage during election years, which if passed, are eroded by inflation.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports $15 per hour minimum wage, welfare for any applicant, universal childcare funding, paid family leave, and paid vacations.
Third Wayism: supports small increases in taxes.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports large tax increases on the wealthy.
Third Wayism: pro-austerity and pro-quantitative easing.
Contemporary Progressivism: anti-austerity.
Third Wayism: ridicules straw person opponents to promote own thoughts of superiority.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: encourages individuals to attend colleges and acquire debts while being indoctrinated.
Contemporary Progressivism: free public college indoctrination, plus tuition debt jubilee.
Third Wayism: uses trade agreements to support global rule and redistribution to the top.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports fair trade.
Third Wayism: supports stealth affirmative action quotas more than explicit quotas.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports explicit and de facto affirmative actions quotas.
Third Wayism: supports genocide of whites.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports tokenistic infrastructure projects.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports large increases in infrastructure spending, often misspending.
Third Wayism: supports public sector unions.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports most unions.
Third Wayism: supports the Affordable Care Act.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports Medicare for all or a Canadian style health system.
Third Wayism: supports freedom of association, except for whites and any other perceived enemies.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports stealth opening of borders in white majority countries.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports explicit open borders in white majority countries.
How do you pay for the above with billions of aggressive, low productivity welfare and affirmative action seeking migrants and their descendants?
Third Wayism: tolerates or stealthily supports neoconservatism.
Contemporary Progressivism: opposes neoconservatism, except the cultural Marxism in neoconservatism.
Third Wayism: tolerates almost no dissent on cultural and ethnoracial issues, immune to well-reasoned ethnoracial arguments.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports Wall Street.
Contemporary Progressivism: opposes Wall Street but sometimes in hamfisted ways.
Third Wayism: supports legalized bribery.
Contemporary Progressivism: opposes legalized bribery, except when good for the cause.
Third Wayism: supports militarism against Infidels, Northern Eurasians, and opponents of Sunni Gulf States.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports militarism against Infidels and Northern Eurasians.
Third Wayism: supports cash-for-clunkers, cap-and-trade, and other pro-rich schemes on environmental issues.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports bans, personal responsibility, government investments, or rarely, Pigouvian taxes on environmental issues.
Third Wayism: supports rule by an unaccountable, global ruling class.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports rule by a different unaccountable, global ruling class.
Third Wayism: pretends to support democracy.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports dysgenic mass destruction.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports small increases in the minimum wage during election years, which if passed, are eroded by inflation.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports $15 per hour minimum wage, welfare for any applicant, universal childcare funding, paid family leave, and paid vacations.
Third Wayism: supports small increases in taxes.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports large tax increases on the wealthy.
Third Wayism: pro-austerity and pro-quantitative easing.
Contemporary Progressivism: anti-austerity.
Third Wayism: ridicules straw person opponents to promote own thoughts of superiority.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: encourages individuals to attend colleges and acquire debts while being indoctrinated.
Contemporary Progressivism: free public college indoctrination, plus tuition debt jubilee.
Third Wayism: uses trade agreements to support global rule and redistribution to the top.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports fair trade.
Third Wayism: supports stealth affirmative action quotas more than explicit quotas.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports explicit and de facto affirmative actions quotas.
Third Wayism: supports genocide of whites.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports tokenistic infrastructure projects.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports large increases in infrastructure spending, often misspending.
Third Wayism: supports public sector unions.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports most unions.
Third Wayism: supports the Affordable Care Act.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports Medicare for all or a Canadian style health system.
Third Wayism: supports freedom of association, except for whites and any other perceived enemies.
Contemporary Progressivism: same.
Third Wayism: supports stealth opening of borders in white majority countries.
Contemporary Progressivism: supports explicit open borders in white majority countries.
How do you pay for the above with billions of aggressive, low productivity welfare and affirmative action seeking migrants and their descendants?
Genocidal Contradictions
Multiculturalists claim to oppose cultural and genetic genocide. Yet the peoples most at risk of cultural or genetic genocides or are the peoples multiculturalists and their allies actively try to genocide--whites, Copts, Mandeans, Tibetans, Yezidis, etc.
The peoples least at risk of genocide--Jews, Africans, Hispanics, Muslim Arabs, and many Asians--are the protected peoples and the peoples working hardest to genocide whites.
As on most ethnoracial other issues, multiculturalists' beliefs about genocide are riddled with despicable self-contradictions. And I doubt most multiculturalists have the genetic and cultural wherewithal to notice or fix their wrongs. Their causes matter more to them than noticing or fixing contradictions.
The peoples least at risk of genocide--Jews, Africans, Hispanics, Muslim Arabs, and many Asians--are the protected peoples and the peoples working hardest to genocide whites.
As on most ethnoracial other issues, multiculturalists' beliefs about genocide are riddled with despicable self-contradictions. And I doubt most multiculturalists have the genetic and cultural wherewithal to notice or fix their wrongs. Their causes matter more to them than noticing or fixing contradictions.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
The Missing Truths
Most multiculturalists tell the truth most of the time. The problem is that their truths are irrelevant or otherwise fallacious, including straw person attacks, especially errors of omission. Other irrelevancies include appeals to origins, novelty, popularity, momentum, and most ad hominem attacks.
Some reasoning errors result from historical causal factors. A causal factor is a factor that changes the probability of thing(s) occurring. The legacy of slavery is a causal factor. It increased probabilities of various African-American behaviors, mainly because without slavery most African-Americans would not be in America. But the legacy of slavery is seldom an ethically important causal factor today. Nearly all of it cannot be undone. A big current legacy of slavery is unethical white guilt, not the sort of legacy multiculturalists mention.
On another side, manorial feudalism was a causal factor. But manorial feudalism cannot be undone and manorial feudalism is not coming back. Manorial feudalism is ethically unimportant now.
Multitudes of currently unimportant factors changed history. Everything from super volcanos to the acts of powerful individuals. In general, historical causal factors are seldom ethically important today, except when used in studies to make prescriptions, explain current actions, and predict future actions.
Other historical factors, the MAOA gene variants, for example, are with us today and their frequencies can and should be changed. They are very, very important.
In addition to irrelevancies, the other major category of "true fallacy," is the small sample fallacy. Mass media and cultural Marxian wars against whites sometimes rely on small sample fallacies, often cases of police attacks on African-Americans. But nonmulticulturalists know the reality that African-Americans are dozens of times more likely to commit stranger-on-stranger, interracial assaults. And those assaults will rise exponentially as whites become weaker and less numerous, with massive support from Muslims, Asians, and Hispanics.
In mass media and cultural Marxism:
1. It's true that small sample fallacy X happened.
2. Therefore white guilt and holy war against whites.
3. Mass destruction and anti-white genocide.
4. Profit.
Every establishment political ideology is cover for rent seeking.
Other types of true fallacies include circular claims, misleading stats, and unrepresentative sampling.
Sometimes multiculturalists make good points, but then try to use the good points to support atrocious conclusions, often because they know almost nothing about alternative prescriptions. No matter the situation, they see more establishmentism and cultural Marxism as solutions. The fixation on prescribing more wrongs as solutions is a feature of all types of totalitarianism. Their straw person attacks also often result from the fact they know almost nothing about the alternative right and other political alternatives.
When multiculturalists make outright false claims, multiculturalists still think they are telling the truth, primarily because humans tend to believe the truth is what they hear first and most often. And multiculturalists dominate nearly all the mass media. Groupthink, avoidance of ostracization, and absence of cognitive dissonance add to the likelihoods of telling falsehoods.
Some reasoning errors result from historical causal factors. A causal factor is a factor that changes the probability of thing(s) occurring. The legacy of slavery is a causal factor. It increased probabilities of various African-American behaviors, mainly because without slavery most African-Americans would not be in America. But the legacy of slavery is seldom an ethically important causal factor today. Nearly all of it cannot be undone. A big current legacy of slavery is unethical white guilt, not the sort of legacy multiculturalists mention.
On another side, manorial feudalism was a causal factor. But manorial feudalism cannot be undone and manorial feudalism is not coming back. Manorial feudalism is ethically unimportant now.
Multitudes of currently unimportant factors changed history. Everything from super volcanos to the acts of powerful individuals. In general, historical causal factors are seldom ethically important today, except when used in studies to make prescriptions, explain current actions, and predict future actions.
Other historical factors, the MAOA gene variants, for example, are with us today and their frequencies can and should be changed. They are very, very important.
In addition to irrelevancies, the other major category of "true fallacy," is the small sample fallacy. Mass media and cultural Marxian wars against whites sometimes rely on small sample fallacies, often cases of police attacks on African-Americans. But nonmulticulturalists know the reality that African-Americans are dozens of times more likely to commit stranger-on-stranger, interracial assaults. And those assaults will rise exponentially as whites become weaker and less numerous, with massive support from Muslims, Asians, and Hispanics.
In mass media and cultural Marxism:
1. It's true that small sample fallacy X happened.
2. Therefore white guilt and holy war against whites.
3. Mass destruction and anti-white genocide.
4. Profit.
Every establishment political ideology is cover for rent seeking.
Other types of true fallacies include circular claims, misleading stats, and unrepresentative sampling.
Sometimes multiculturalists make good points, but then try to use the good points to support atrocious conclusions, often because they know almost nothing about alternative prescriptions. No matter the situation, they see more establishmentism and cultural Marxism as solutions. The fixation on prescribing more wrongs as solutions is a feature of all types of totalitarianism. Their straw person attacks also often result from the fact they know almost nothing about the alternative right and other political alternatives.
When multiculturalists make outright false claims, multiculturalists still think they are telling the truth, primarily because humans tend to believe the truth is what they hear first and most often. And multiculturalists dominate nearly all the mass media. Groupthink, avoidance of ostracization, and absence of cognitive dissonance add to the likelihoods of telling falsehoods.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Gene Genie: Don't Let Yourself Go
Let's imagine person X with the world's best genes for ethical character. Person X shares 99.5 percent of her genes with person Y and 99 percent of her genes with person Z. But X shares nearly all her best character genes with Z while Y has two mutations that have a high probability of causing major evils.
By ethical character, I do not mean individuals prone to misplaced altruism and establishment respectable egoism. I do not mean those the mass media worship. I mean someone who reasons well and acts on well-reasoned ethical conclusions.
Person X would be right to help Z reproduce, before helping Y reproduce, though she shares more genes with Y, all else being equal. Genes for earlobes and other non-moral traits should not matter to us, except when they affect health. In short, we should care most about health and character related genes when making reproductive decisions, not overall genetic similarity of junk genes and other unimportant genes.
If high IQs make individuals more ethical, then we should support IQ eugenics for ethical reasons. If it is someday proven that genotypic IQs above 150 cause sufficient harms or insufficient benefits, then we should reduce the birth rates of above 150 IQ individuals.
Some individuals might select for genes related to beauty and other traits, but there is no moral imperative for doing so. In many cases, selection for non-moral traits could lead to mutually destructive status competitions, for example, producing millions of extra tall athletes, having health problems, competing for a handful of professional sports jobs.
We would be more right to help some peaceful cetaceans than nonwhites waging demographic and other unconventional wars against whites, though we share more genes with nonwhites than cetaceans.
The above is not an argument for whites to breed with nonwhites. Why? Biracial children have more health and behavior problems. Mixed race children adopt the dominant culture of anti-white bigotry. Mixed race children cause massive harms to their white parents and whites in general. They often make a white parent's life living hell. They're not bundles of joy when they become teenagers. Biracial children do not respect the difficult task of improving Western Civilization. Every land dominated by biracial individuals is or was a divide-and-rule disaster. Parents are more cruel to mixed race children once the warm, fuzzy multicultural superiority feelings wear off. Parents care about children in proportion to how closely related the children are to the parents. Mixed race children, having black fathers, are born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers overwhelmingly often.
And it is no argument for nonwhite immigration, since almost all conscious, nonwhite adults support anti-white totalitarianism, plus multiracial states are almost always long-term disasters.
White women can almost always find a healthy, higher character white man or sperm sample to breed with if they make an honest effort to do so. White men without decent white women should not breed in Western countries or should do so by sperm donation. In most cases, the problem is lack of effort. Most whites who make an good effort to interact with thousands of other whites, and ask many whites on dates, will find decent to excellent spouses.
What about rights? A legal right to miscegenation exists in many countries. That does not make it a moral right. No moral right to cause self and others undeserved harms exists. A key point about well-reasoned moral claims is that they override other claims. For example, saving a good life overrides the right to make a good painting.
By ethical character, I do not mean individuals prone to misplaced altruism and establishment respectable egoism. I do not mean those the mass media worship. I mean someone who reasons well and acts on well-reasoned ethical conclusions.
Person X would be right to help Z reproduce, before helping Y reproduce, though she shares more genes with Y, all else being equal. Genes for earlobes and other non-moral traits should not matter to us, except when they affect health. In short, we should care most about health and character related genes when making reproductive decisions, not overall genetic similarity of junk genes and other unimportant genes.
If high IQs make individuals more ethical, then we should support IQ eugenics for ethical reasons. If it is someday proven that genotypic IQs above 150 cause sufficient harms or insufficient benefits, then we should reduce the birth rates of above 150 IQ individuals.
Some individuals might select for genes related to beauty and other traits, but there is no moral imperative for doing so. In many cases, selection for non-moral traits could lead to mutually destructive status competitions, for example, producing millions of extra tall athletes, having health problems, competing for a handful of professional sports jobs.
We would be more right to help some peaceful cetaceans than nonwhites waging demographic and other unconventional wars against whites, though we share more genes with nonwhites than cetaceans.
The above is not an argument for whites to breed with nonwhites. Why? Biracial children have more health and behavior problems. Mixed race children adopt the dominant culture of anti-white bigotry. Mixed race children cause massive harms to their white parents and whites in general. They often make a white parent's life living hell. They're not bundles of joy when they become teenagers. Biracial children do not respect the difficult task of improving Western Civilization. Every land dominated by biracial individuals is or was a divide-and-rule disaster. Parents are more cruel to mixed race children once the warm, fuzzy multicultural superiority feelings wear off. Parents care about children in proportion to how closely related the children are to the parents. Mixed race children, having black fathers, are born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers overwhelmingly often.
And it is no argument for nonwhite immigration, since almost all conscious, nonwhite adults support anti-white totalitarianism, plus multiracial states are almost always long-term disasters.
White women can almost always find a healthy, higher character white man or sperm sample to breed with if they make an honest effort to do so. White men without decent white women should not breed in Western countries or should do so by sperm donation. In most cases, the problem is lack of effort. Most whites who make an good effort to interact with thousands of other whites, and ask many whites on dates, will find decent to excellent spouses.
What about rights? A legal right to miscegenation exists in many countries. That does not make it a moral right. No moral right to cause self and others undeserved harms exists. A key point about well-reasoned moral claims is that they override other claims. For example, saving a good life overrides the right to make a good painting.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Status and Cultural Marxism
More than the political system is threatened by inconvenient facts. Most respected individuals in contemporary societies have been exposed for engaging in evils and unmitigated buffoonery. How do we not laugh at every establishment celebrity?
In the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, humans gained status by hundreds of methods, including:
Alternative righters prefer prepping over consumer junk. Arbitrary sports teams don't matter much when your country is being conquered and subjugated by unconventional warfare. Nonmulticulturalists aren't fooled by assertions of noble savagery. Coolness is little more than banal shtick. Most white collar jobs are drudgery. Prestigious universities charge students massive sums to be indoctrinated. Establishment writings deserve derision. Xenocentrism is increasingly and correctly seen as vice, not virtue.
Almost any white adult tainted by unrepented cultural Marxism gets the low status treatment from the alternative right.
Establishmentism relies on the folk psychology of special people, cultivating the impression that establishment individuals are wiser and better than other humans. Unfortunately, for the establishments, nonmulticulturalists know quite a bit about psychology and philosophy, often more than psychologists, philosophers, and establishment writers, at least on the important issues.
In the 1960s and 1970s, baby boomers mocked traditional sources of status, but were co-opted for various reasons, including the fact that the fashionable utopian attempts were worse than establishment utopianism.
Nonmulticulturalists must channel rising skepticism about establishments into something better. We must not fall for those who sell out or pursue their own evils.
In part, opposition to cultural Marxism represents a partial return to acquiring status for moral actions. In some prior societies, you gained status by being a dedicated mother or father to several children. You gained status when each hand washed the other. You gained status for telling a larger portion of the truth. Even if you knew little about logic, you weren't easily distracted or intimidated by demonization from outgroups.
This is likely to return.
Multiculturalists are already apoplectic about the fact that their demonization tactics aren't working as well as they once did.
In the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, humans gained status by hundreds of methods, including:
- having expensive consumer junk.
- being athletic in team sports or at least cheering for the same teams as peers.
- being nonwhite.
- being cool.
- being famous.
- having a white collar job.
- having a degree from a prestigious university.
- practicing popular pedantry.
- practicing egoism mixed with xenocentrism if white ("virtue" signaling).
Alternative righters prefer prepping over consumer junk. Arbitrary sports teams don't matter much when your country is being conquered and subjugated by unconventional warfare. Nonmulticulturalists aren't fooled by assertions of noble savagery. Coolness is little more than banal shtick. Most white collar jobs are drudgery. Prestigious universities charge students massive sums to be indoctrinated. Establishment writings deserve derision. Xenocentrism is increasingly and correctly seen as vice, not virtue.
Almost any white adult tainted by unrepented cultural Marxism gets the low status treatment from the alternative right.
Establishmentism relies on the folk psychology of special people, cultivating the impression that establishment individuals are wiser and better than other humans. Unfortunately, for the establishments, nonmulticulturalists know quite a bit about psychology and philosophy, often more than psychologists, philosophers, and establishment writers, at least on the important issues.
In the 1960s and 1970s, baby boomers mocked traditional sources of status, but were co-opted for various reasons, including the fact that the fashionable utopian attempts were worse than establishment utopianism.
Nonmulticulturalists must channel rising skepticism about establishments into something better. We must not fall for those who sell out or pursue their own evils.
In part, opposition to cultural Marxism represents a partial return to acquiring status for moral actions. In some prior societies, you gained status by being a dedicated mother or father to several children. You gained status when each hand washed the other. You gained status for telling a larger portion of the truth. Even if you knew little about logic, you weren't easily distracted or intimidated by demonization from outgroups.
This is likely to return.
Multiculturalists are already apoplectic about the fact that their demonization tactics aren't working as well as they once did.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Marc Mezvinsky, Wall Street, and the Clintons
The hedge fund of Chelsea Clinton's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, collapsed after making a preposterous bet that Greece's economy would rebound in the face of grinding austerity.
The above suggests one of the following is likely:
Now Hillary is even more psychologically in debt to Wall Street after seeing her Wall Street partners lose with her son-in-law. "I gave your son-in-law my money, and I didn't even get a t-shirt." Lloyd Blankfein doesn't invest money with a neophyte hedge fund for fun and games. The Clintons have a history of rewarding donors.
The above suggests one of the following is likely:
- Bill or Hillary (or both) had information that Greece would get an adequate rescue, which reached Chelsea's husband, but the rescue fell apart.
- Mezvinsky believes in the cleansing powers of austerity for reasons that have nothing to do with the Clintons.
- Bill or Hillary (or both) believe in the cleansing powers of austerity, which they imparted to Chelsea's husband.
Now Hillary is even more psychologically in debt to Wall Street after seeing her Wall Street partners lose with her son-in-law. "I gave your son-in-law my money, and I didn't even get a t-shirt." Lloyd Blankfein doesn't invest money with a neophyte hedge fund for fun and games. The Clintons have a history of rewarding donors.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Introducing Alternatives to a Smart Individual
Let's imagine you know a bookish person starting to show doubts about her beloved cultural Marxism. Like most bookish individuals, she thinks she's open minded. She regards intellectual outgroups with kneejerk contempt while viewing herself as tolerant. She thinks she has most of the moral universe figured out.
But you and I know better than that. We know she believes based on manipulation. She is far from being who she thinks she is.
How should you go about introducing her to nonmulticulturalism? You don't want to scare her away with poorly reasoned rants.
If she wants books, I would suggest The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris first, then Race, Evolution, and Behavior by JP Rushton, then Future Human Evolution by John Glad.
If her fanaticism hasn't yet overpowered her, and sent her fleeing, then I would introduce her to some edgier stuff: The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald and Gregory Hood's upcoming book.
If her fanaticism hasn't yet overpowered her, and sent her fleeing, then I would introduce her to some edgier stuff: The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald and Gregory Hood's upcoming book.
Maybe she prefers internet articles. I would start with the Judith Rich Harris homepage, then Cousin Marriage Conundrum by Steve Sailer. Most Americans despise the Iraq War by now, so she won't need to move her soul far. I'd continue with this book review, then some stuff by JP Rushton, plus Thomas Jackson's archives, then Gregory Hood's archives here and here, then Amren print archives, then some resources on secessions.
At some point, she might realize she has been told too many political lies via the mass media.
Let's hope that this realization motivates her. Let's hope she doesn't get bogged down in genetic infotainment. Let's hope she continues to move toward supporting ethnoracial self-determination.
It's time for her to grow.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Public Intellectuals
Greg Cochran devoted a post to naming "ideal" public intellectuals. Note that Cochran doesn't name anyone in his original post, which hints at what Cochran thinks of other public intellectuals. Many commenters nominated intellectuals having mediocre to atrocious writings. Only a few commenters named Cochran while others named intellectuals with inferior track records to Cochran.
I doubt Cochran was fishing for compliments, but the results should irk him.
I doubt Cochran was fishing for compliments, but the results should irk him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)