/lit/ - Literature

With identity

>>15755295
Sex. Just constant sex. When babies will be raised to be super kids by philosopher kings/queens, that will be the freedom of nature, the peak of civilization, two people will be left alone to enjoy and just produce as many babies they can before they die without any obligations for work or anything, just babies. Right now the beta version of that is finding someone whose compatible and making a life of fucking, and when it’s possible procreate

>>15755311
Elaborate.

Each identity necessarily has a negative quality to it. The "not-this, not-that-ness", a thing that separates you from some other identity.

>>15755347
With One identity without limits

with the angel of dialectic

>>15755529
Can you point to this "One identity" then?

>>15755539
>Rosen was born in Cleveland, Ohio, to a jewish mother
Dropped

>>15755554
Look inside you

>>15755295
personally i found some escape through hegel. i think another good one was Hume and hos categorization of abstractions and concrete things. you cant quite delete dialectics, but understanding it is simply a way, not the way of understanding things.

>>15755579
I'm not an advaitist.
Yes, there's the Self, something more than simple ego but this Self is still localized and bound to me.
There's this Self - other distinction, and one can start a dialectical process from here.

>>15755295
Be yourself and subsume the Universe.

>>15755626
>Yes, there's the Self, something more than simple ego but this Self is still localized and bound to me.
You are a transmission receiving itself, you are the radio as well as the transmission, and you can even broadcast anew.

>>15755637
>and you can even broadcast anew
Am I not bound to my human condition in doing it?
One can't just "broadcast" anything.

>>15755651
>Am I not bound to my human condition in doing it?
Yes but not your interpretation of it. Your mental simulations of yourself are lacking; believe in yourself and achieve beyond your expectations.

>>15755295
Allah.

>>15755295
By not thinking

>>15756017
This one seems like it could work

>>15755876
I CAN DO ANYTHING!

I schizoposted my way out desu, but that was with the help of 5 o'clock. Wonder what he's up to now. Anyway, it was a "wittgenstein's ladder" sort of thing, basically nonsense now.

>>15758040
I missed you, cooperposter. Any new nuggets of truth you care to share?

>>15755295
Death/apophasis. Or, conversely: you don't. Pic related.

>>15758058
Hmm, with a response time like that, you could very well be glowing me, but at this point there's no harm in the old game. I know the rules pretty well.

Off the top of my head? The only cardinal truth I've picked up (and, really, this is just common sense) is that Gnosticism is just dollar-store Pessimism, and that Pessimism is the arch-heresy which perverts Man against God and creation. Doesn't matter if you're a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu, or even a stock monist (if I'm not mistaken, you were some kind of solar pagan at the time of our last chat, an Aryanist, right?). Monotheism is opposed to the hatred of life and the world, it's in the name! Embracing Being, without systematic expectation or justification, much less logical skepticism, is the true foundation of Joy, and Joy is foremost among all of the pillars which uphold Love.

Aside from that great truth, I realized recently that the Sentinelese are practicing anarcho-primitivists. Also (common sense again) that the Chinese are actively working to destroy organized civilization, ala the Posadists, but through a more long-form destabilization of world agriculture, hence their keen interest in Africa. Can't think of much else right now.

Besides all that, how've you been? Anything new on your end?

>>15758381
>Doesn't matter if you're a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian
Stop worshiping semitic desert demons!

>>15755295
Reverse becoming from past->present to present<-future as Land does.
There is also a Bergsodeleuzian mode that goes from (past(future))->present, but seems quite dialectical to me.

>>15758417
I don't, I worship the Triune God, the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; simply put, I worship God.

If you just meant the whole Girardian, mimetic "satan casting out satan" thing, I haven't gotten around to reading that yet, but it's on my list.

>>15758381
You're sharp as a tack so it bothered me to know I might have lost your interest. I think I've done a decent enough job grounding the gnostic mentality in something a bit more than just kooky mythologies and inversions of Jewish bedtime stories, but this isn't the time or place to proselytize.

Don't misunderstand me, the Voegelinian thrust of your argument is well-taken. There is absolutely something "denaturalized", maybe even perverted, in the gnostic mind. A lot of the new stuff I'm doing is trying to reconcile these two, antithetical strands, eg modernity is just gnosticism in a world-affirming ("syntonic") mode.

And I've been okay. Something is gestating but I'm getting tired of repeating myself, too. I may or may not post again.

>Also (common sense again) that the Chinese are actively working to destroy organized civilization, ala the Posadists, but through a more long-form destabilization of world agriculture

Kek, on the money as usual. Good to see you. Post more. Your takes are always a treat.

>>15758450
You're an anti-monist, correct? but also an unabashed monotheist? Very interesting. Your religiosity never came out like this before, this a new development?

>>15758496
>I might have lost your interest

Not at all! I just had to reorient my thinking, and I figured it was time to take a lit break in order to speed the change along. Like I always said, you were the one poster keeping me tethered to lit, but we all need solace and contemplation from time to time.

>modernity is just gnosticism in a world-affirming mode

Precisely right! Gnosticism has a fear of thought, of anxiety and of the passions, and a way of affirming the world in order to escape it. Admittedly, I was deep in gnostic and even direly pessimistic thinking, and I'm occasionally tempted to fall back into it. I suspect every modern is tempted in that way, often without knowing it, though their natural connection to God actively fights it. There's a great deal of hope to that.

>I may or may not post again.

Post at your own pace, I won't mind a bit! After all, it's just a board, and Lord knows how many times I've gotten tired of spinning my wheels on here.

Good to see you as well. With a renewed reason to post more, you can certainly expect it!

>>15758450
Is YHVH God?

>>15755295
You find the antithesis of dialectics and then you synthesize them, duh.

>>15755347
>Each identity necessarily has a negative quality to it. The "not-this, not-that-ness"
thats a human illusion. there isnt actually an opposite to anything. it is only the human mind that creates the negative. "salt and pepper are just two spices trying to get by"
>a thing that separates you from some other identity.
thats another human illusion. "distinction" simply isn't. its only a functionalm tool we use in our dailt lives. nothing is seperate.

>>15758572
>Precisely right! Gnosticism has a fear of thought, of anxiety and of the passions, and a way of affirming the world in order to escape it.

Precisely right, too. Of course, this has occurred to me.

it helps to be a self-loathing philosoweeb because I've got a little Nietzsche on my shoulder always trying to separate truth from personal pathology. And when sharp-as-tack posters like you suddenly articulate these concerns without any prompting, well... the ride never ends.

>Good to see you as well. With a renewed reason to post more, you can certainly expect it!

I'd just hate for this board's small contingent of Individuals to move on to brighter climes without at least sending a postcard. But: agreed, and same.

>>15758501
>You're an anti-monist, correct?

I was, formerly, a "dialectical monist," and I was also a great deal of other nasty things which undermine the soul and it's connection to God.

>but also an unabashed monotheist? this a new development?

Very much so! That aforementioned reorientation of my thinking culminated in a complete, diametric change in perspective, in my philosophy of life. A simple way of putting it is that I no longer take struggle and suffering to be the signs of evil in the world; instead, I view privation, "lack," as I always liked to put it, as not only the sign of evil but Evil itself. Still a bit of a gnostic/manichaean holdover, an Augustinian stopgap, but as soon as I see myself through some Thomistic works (and with the grace of God, produce some good works!) I'll be in a better spot. Again, very much a new change.

>>15758602
Yes. YHWH is the Trinitarian or Triune God.

>>15758758
Honestly fascinating, and you even sound happier. I would have never expected a Thomist turn in you. Especially after thoroughly grasping Zizek/Lacan.

>A simple way of putting it is that I no longer take struggle and suffering to be the signs of evil in the world; instead, I view privation, "lack," as I always liked to put it, as not only the sign of evil but Evil itself.

This is my block, too, how to affirm Being without also affirming the suffering and struggle that it entails. It feels like an affirmation that is also a betrayal. I can't get around it.

But I'm happy for you. It really sounds like you've come out of the pessimal, gnostic woods I'm still stumbling around in.

>>15758821
Poor thing

>>15755295
The flow of dialectics is the only truth, embrace it and let yourself dissolve into it.

>>15758828
>Especially after thoroughly grasping Zizek/Lacan.

De Certeau was an associate of Lacan's, as well as a close reader of Freud, and even cofounded the École Freudienne. And the big sniff is a mystery even to himself, he splits hairs about it, but (just like Lacan) he's ultimately a Catholic. Both are exceptional cases of near-apostasy, and both definitely slip into heresy every now and then (I blame Kierkegaard, the loveable buffoon), but an ampule of ecumenism is necessary in these trying times.

>how to affirm Being without also affirming the suffering and struggle that it entails.

This is called, in a succinct but mildly trite sense, Pessimism. It requires a systematic explanation, normally one of a skeptical bent, and after enough time, quite literally works it's way into the neuronal patterns of our behavior. Hence Schopie, Zapffe, U.G., etc etc. There was a time for them, in their youth, to have repented and simply let their brains refresh and recycle it's established way of thinking. More direct to you:

>pessimal, gnostic woods

Your "systematic explanation" would be gnosticism rather than skeptcism/etc, though any particularly pessimistic way of thinking is prone to becoming established and calcified, with enough time, into a formal system of Pessimism; that is, the undergirding logic and behavioral chain of reinforcement mechanisms which turn a thought into a way of thinking and then on to a personal perspective (a pessimistic thought becomes a way of thinking which, with enough time, transcends thinking and becomes a belief, a Faith) which is held without being thought, or felt.

See, gnosticism is a rather pernicious form. Whereas skepticism or scientism or some other, more accepted and modern form can be easily battered down in youth by a vigorous engagement with the world, with Joyous struggle and righteous struggle, gnosticism is rather inward; it requires this inward turn in order to access the (negative) Outside just as the outward turn requires, as you aptly put, affirming the struggles and suffering of (positive) Being. It can fool one into thinking an engagement with an evil thought, rather than outright avoidance, is itself the already-reinforced system of negation which leads to Evil, whereas a healthy mind can easily repel a moderately evil thought and is, in all truth, fully prepared to do battle with a traumatic Event. Unfortunately, the modern world rips away much of this healthy form of thinking, leading to a (perverse, and incredibly deceptive/diabolical) sense that one must further rely on willpower, on personal perspective, to combat basic and minor/moderate evil thoughts, leading to a fatigued Spirit, which is then further susceptible to a reinforced wave of evil/negative thoughts, often of a renewed and directly sinful form (pride, etc), eventually forcing the poor, gnostic thinker to rely entirely on inward gnosticism to connect to this, though they know it not, negative Outside (or, Hell). [1/2]

>>15758882
Indeed, we are all in quite a poor state, but it's no cause for shame or sadness, quite the opposite! Our meagerness, our lowness, our wretchedness, if it be borne out of life and the trials of living rather than lack and sin, unites us with God and His trials in the flesh.

>>15755295
Applied process-relational philosophy.

>>15759371

>>15758828
[2/2]
The answers to suffering will not be found in explanation, though writers like Chesterton, Wittgenstein, Angelus Silenus, etc could absolutely be helpful in showing you precisely why answers will do you no good. Of course, the scriptures can provide answers, and are ultimately the only place to find the unadulterated Answer, but to interpret them properly requires years of theological study (even just lay study), which would have to come long after your gnostic patterns of thinking have decayed and been replaced with Christian ways of thinking. Seeking answers, seeking objective knowledge (reason) rather than the objects of experience (passions) is, fascinatingly enough, a modern trick: your ancient body is more ready to accept Christ than your modern mind.

Seek struggle, rather than assuming struggle to be an obstacle to your seeking: it is the object. Now, this doesn't mean you should tilt at windmills, much less look for danger or pain, but it means that when you struggle with tragedy, when you spar with your fellow man, when the inevitable "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" strike: rejoice! Do not be proud, and confused as to why you or another should be leveled by the tragic, or why you or another should be leveled by your ego or the ego of another, for pride confuses the achievements of life with success, and thereby confuses the struggles of life with failure; be humble instead, and accept those struggles with prayers for mercy and of the glory of God. Thank God for every one of your blessings, of course, but thank God also for your curses.

All of that is just a thimble's worth of what a True Christian could tell you, I'm still deeply fallen and lacking grace in my language and behaviors. Ultimately, it's your choice to place faith in Christ, to take a leap of faith and embrace the suffering inherent to being, I don't want or mean to compel or command you to accept Christ, only to make clear that those "pessimal, gnostic woods" can be stepped beyond, even cleared, by the mercy of Our Lord. I can say with confidence that taking those steps has not only made me happier, but has shown me the path to true Joy, and from there on to true Love.

>>15758828
Oh, one last thing: what I mean by skepticism and other modern forms being easier to grapple with is that they don't require your experience of being to be perverted, to follow a strictly pessimistic and world-denying path, they merely co-opt ways of thinking, not thought itself. Gnosticism, the more and more it is accepted a system, requires active disengagement with suffering as a positive, and instead instills a drive for the Outside; but I'm repeating myself.

Reject sin, this much I can command you to do, but that much you already knew. I've already lapsed into moralizing your gnostic/pessimistic thinking, but that's because I know it well from my own experience and feel within my bounds to speak as a fellow traveler.

>>15755579
Fuck off with your eastern bullshit. Have you never read an actual philosophical book?

>>15759120
>>15759437
>>15759497
Don't mistake how clipped this response is for your posts going in one ear out the other. I'm on my phone and I'm tired of inflicting my what-about-this, what-about-thats of my inner dialogue on others, anyways. I'll take what you said and sit with it. Tomorrow's pay day, couple blunts, handle of Jameson, and I'll be mulling over a lot of this.

I'll just say: I think a True Buddhist would look at someone like Jonas, who says that we have to deepen our alienation with the world to force a climactic rupture, and laugh and laugh. He'd say aversion is as much a move in the Game as anything else.

I think what you're saying, if I'm interpreting you correctly, is to let go of the belief that engaging with evil affirms the system of negation that leads to evil in the first place, where avoidance implicates it all the same.

I've struggled with darkness and ugliness in my own soul. It's not that I can't affirm that struggle for myself (and it is glorious, there is no feeling in the world that compares to crushing a personal demon under your heel) but that there are those who are not in a position to affirm it. To affirm Being and all the suffering it entails, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater (which is absolutely the crux of the issue, and I can tell you understand), would also feel like (to me) a betrayal of that Manichaean compassion for plants and animals: the passive sufferers of this whole drama.

This is my fundamental roadblock. Tiantai Buddhism has a very interesting answer to this, one that really made me reconsider some fundamental assumptions, but I won't belabor the point... I'll just acknowledge gnosticism doesn't have a monopoly on the answer.

I'm at peace in my own soul. Where there isn't peace, it always seems to be where the world is, also. I have to clarify that gnostic formula: gnostics love Life, but hate the World. They love life so much they'd rather die - and, of course, I understand how denaturalized a response that is. It is a lust for an Outside, no question.

And you're not moralizing. Arriving at this kind of unabashed Faith THROUGH gnosticism, as a calibre of mind I respect, is making me listen. Thank you for your time, as always.

>>15759120
>>15759437
>>15759497

One last thing, on my end. These two lines:

>a healthy mind can easily repel a moderately evil thought and is, in all truth, fully prepared to do battle with a traumatic Event.
>for pride confuses the achievements of life with success, and thereby confuses the struggles of life with failure;

Resonate very well with some movements I've been on the fence about making. I've got a lot to think on.

>>15755295
You don't.

>>15759437
>>15759497
>embrace the suffering inherent to being
As a fan of Deleuze's take on Nietzsche, could you tell me where or why you think Nietzache fails? They argue that Christianity falls into the same trappings of what I'm reading here as "pessimism." Are Deloose and Neetz charlatans?

with strong drink

you cannot escape it but you can learn to know its there and its effects

Take the Sanatana Dharmapill. Unlike the Gnostics, the Hindus have a more optimistic and wholesome approach when it comes to Samsara. We all have our roles in Lila, the divine play. As long as you press 'Start' at the 'Continue?' and not let it countdown to the GAME OVER screen, you'll always have another chance and do a little better (or worse) in life until you reach moksha. We will all make it there, even if it may take a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time.

>>15759746

No worries, I know the feeling well. To every thing there is a season. Don't feel obligated to respond any more than you feel inclined to.

>I think a True Buddhist would look at someone like Jonas, who says that we have to deepen our alienation with the world to force a climactic rupture, and laugh and laugh. He'd say aversion is as much a move in the Game as anything else.

Aversion is certainly a move, often a very important one ("Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding."), but it cannot become a self-reinforcing mechanism, it has to be uniquely chosen each time.

>let go of the belief that engaging with evil affirms the system of negation that leads to evil in the first place, where avoidance implicates it all the same.

Exactly, engagement with and aversion from evil thoughts both occur in the World, in Being. In a healthy mind, each have their due places.

>here are those who are not in a position to affirm it. To affirm Being and all the suffering it entails would also feel like a betrayal of that Manichaean compassion for plants and animals: the passive sufferers of this whole drama.

A more radical phrasing: suffering itself is affirmation, and all Life is the affirmation of suffering, of Being. Now, that isn't to say that we don't have a moral perspective on life and a duty to civilize nature, it's to say exactly the opposite: that nature is anarchic, pure affirmation, free of Man's moral perspective and owing no duty to any civilization beyond what rote instincts of socialization or kinship are already present in their blood; hence, Man has "dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We must limit unnecessary suffering in nature, for though it is not sinful (unnatural), we are obliged to by natural law and our God-given power of morality.

I feel like I'm on shaky ground, my lack of theological rigor and understanding is palpable.

>Tiantai Buddhism has a very interesting answer to this...I'll just acknowledge gnosticism doesn't have a monopoly on the answer.

Buddhism is among the more close-to-the-bone of pessimistic schools, the image of Pessimism (in the scheme of pessimistic thought –> pessimistic logic/way of thinking –> Pessimism as personal/unconscious moral philosophy) itself, a direct gateway to the negative Outside. Tread lightly, it easily ensnares the modern mind.

>gnostics love Life, but hate the World. They love life so much they'd rather die

Of course, authentic spirituality is will to martyr one's body in the name of the Body, the issue is when this becomes a schematic tendency which overrides the (romantic/transcendent) Body for the sake of the (phyiscal/immanent) body, suffering being the widest gateway for this sort of placing of the immanent over the transcendent. Gnosticism is tricky that way, it bemoans the body in order to later say that the Body is too good for it.

As always, glad to chat & respond at your leisure.

>>15760136
>>15760136
Simply put, they embrace that animalistic sort of "pure affirmation" which is free of moral perspective (what they might consider "perspectivism" and claim is owed to a pathological genealogy). Admittedly, Nietzsche is marginally better than Deleuze, in that he ultimately attempts a moral perspective of personal power (originally the logic/dialectic of master morality, later personalized/elevated to the transcendental unconscious as the aspiration Ubermensch) which replaces Divine morality and it's offspring in Man, moral perspective. Marginally better means that it only leads to insanity with possible redemption via the loss of control over sinful mental patterns and the eventual reduction in conscious pride of thought/unconsciously immoral perspective, whereas Deleuze's "becoming animal" is truly a pure affirmation without recourse to any morality, even a morality which lacks the Divine. This way lies the path to hell, hence Deleuze's supremely unnatural death of suicide upon the loss of his ability to fully "be," as an animal might; in his case, the loss of the ability to "be" a philosopher of relevance (I don't mean this as snark or snide, this is quite literally the impulse which drove him to suicide, the sense that his "is no longer" when he is out of his preferred mode of time, the previous era of philosophy in which he fully existed). Pure affirmation, that is, when acted from the perspective of Man, pure anarchy, is immensely sinful.

When kept in their respective cages, they (like all other gifted though ultimately destructive literary figures) have much to offer, but left to run rampant, they are harbingers of modern peril.

Did girardfag turn into a Gnostic? That is an unexpected turn of events.

>>15760358
*and desire to with our God-given power of morality.

>>15760358
>but it cannot become a self-reinforcing mechanism, it has to be uniquely chosen each time.

I'm seeing your point, as if the gnostic can't really rise up to the challenge of a patient, SELECTIVE dismissal or aversion to the world; it's just easier to impulsively damn the whole thing to hellfire. You know I've had this exact same impression? There's a relief and almost an elegance in just tossing the whole thing out, but also a refusal to sift the wheat from the chaff, spiritually (or, the refusal to believe that that act of sifting won't just produce more chaff as a by-product, as it were: cleaning a spill with Hegel's dirty mop, if you want it dialectically).

>A more radical phrasing: suffering itself is affirmation, and all Life is the affirmation of suffering, of Being.

Interesting you say that, and then bring up Buddhism, Tiantai's answer to the whole dilemma is that the liberative negation the “gnostic” craves (contorted towards an Outside), is always-already being accomplished as the incessant arising and passing-away of forms... this really did me a think, the idea that (crudely put) reality is already “compensating” or “correcting” for suffering just by being what it is. As you say, Life is suffering as affirmation, affirmation as suffering.

One of my core thematic concerns has always been the problem of consumption. I cannot reconcile my intuition of God with predation on any level. I CAN sort of accommodate the intuition that nature probably transcends us in its “anarchic” equanimity to such an extent that the Zizekian picture of (civilized, human) Good being the exception to all-pervasive Evil, is itself inverted... and, of course, we're back to a more optimistic, classically ordered cosmos (I understand this isn't exactly what you're saying, but I struggle even with a qualified interventionist approach).

>Gnosticism is tricky that way, it bemoans the body in order to later say that the Body is too good for it.

I experienced a very powerful vision looking at pic related a little while ago. I approached it with a gnostic interpretation: the Lamb is, of course, Christ, but as Christ, the archetypal passive sufferer, light crucified on matter, the murdered World-Soul, etc. I won't say anymore about that vision because I don't want to do any violence to it. Its philosophical content I might divulge in a future thread, if it ever happens, though it won't be news to you, I imagine, and honestly tangential to your own concerns.

(1/2)

I'm a childless, autodidact wagecuck. Whose gonna listen to me casting judgment on Being? But then again, the hypothetical person who has a stake in all this, what else are they going to do but affirm it? Why should I listen to them?

Maybe it's this hermeneutics of suspicion that has to go. Couliano traces a direct line of continuity from Platonic hermeneutics, down through the gnostic inverse exegesis of the OT, to the talmudic deconstructionism of someone like Derrida... and I agree with that. But the problem has always been whether this reflexive, “standing-apart” from Being (that decouples light from illumination, Being from beings, Life from life, blah blah blah) discloses something TRUE about our condition, or is itself the principle of illusion – which is really what gnostics pivot on in their interpretation of Genesis, whether the fruit reveals the inherent shamefulness of our original condition, or induces that shame itself (the traditional perspective, of course). Whether we have crossed a threshold of awareness that is irreversible and true, or even worse, irreversible AND illusory (both?).

Two things about why I brought up that painting: Christian imagery is still extremely resonant with me. I will take what it told me to the grave.

The second thing is, I can't make the leap of faith required to embrace the world, compared to destroying it (in me). BOTH look like the easy way out relative to a specific angle of approach.

Fundamentally, the idea that I shouldn't feel “guilty” for engaging evil, and that I can affirm Being without letting my awareness of the ugly bits poison that affirmation – these are dilemmas near and dear to my heart. I'll cut the rhetoric off for a moment: don't know whether to cling to the escapist intuition that Things Are Fucked, or just cling to the faith that Things Are Okay in spite of that intuition.

Anyways, these things you understand, I doubt any of this is news. And I get what you're saying is that the leap of faith consists precisely in leaving this hermeneutic circularity behind, the lust for that totalizing answer (incidentally, your suspicion of totalizing experiences has influenced me for awhile now).

I'm gonna take a day and just try to hash this out. Your insights are always perspicacious and welcomed.

>>15760470
Thank you for the response. I'm starting to fall out of love with Deleuze recently despite his work being what primarily got me started on this ride, one reason among many being a growing suspicion towards his treatment of Hegel, especially in that book on Nietzsche.

>>15755295
The dialectics of man, as in the western/orient etc man is good to note just as much as the 80's vs 90's western etc man is interesting but in reality man isn't discrete. You can't look at 90's man to find out what 00's man will be you have to refer to 90's man in reference to how man is in order to go from one step to the next. You can impose dialectics of man, or any subject, all the way down to nothing but it loses its speaking power the more levels you go down.
You accept it as a necessary thing in life but it's not the most important

bump

The desire to escape means you believe yourself trapped to begin with and trying to escape itself creates the entrapment

I found a bulletin board where you can talk with people all over the world
This bulletin board has automatic translation function


Babeller

>>15755295
bump

>>15755626
You're wrong though

>>15755328
Based

>>15755328
OH NO BROS