Page 2 of 16 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#47875 - 02/02/11 09:00 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
You never took the rope, Fnord, but I promised a rejoinder, so here goes. When I use the term "reactionary" to determine the Satanic stance of Anton LaVey, I am not using it as a political descriptor (pace Aquino). What I am saying is that his "satan," and hence his Satan-ism is a reaction to Christian memes and mores. The 9 Statements reduce to : "this instead of that". And I seem to remember another sage who spoke in terms of "you have heard it said . . . but I say".

Postmodern Satanism opens with a word cloud for the book, but I also did one on TSB, which can be viewed here. It is interesting to compare them, and to see how certain words (god, devil, christian, hell) make his cloud but are absent from mine. And the converse comparison sheds further light, as progressive terms such as science, consciousness, process, and energy occupy roughly the same relative positions in my cloud. Also, LaVey's obsession with sex will be evident, especially in the top-left quadrant of his cloud.

In short, postmodern Satanism begins with the ontological realization that the world is adversarial to the core, i.e. Satanic. This is not because a "bad guy" exists in a religious story, but because the world is what it is. It is not a re-action, it is a bald recognition of states of affairs in their natural equanimity. I'm not a Satanist because I want to be "different," I'm a Satanist because it is the most natural understanding of the world of phenomena. I'm not re-acting, I'm recognizing and ACTing.

JK
_________________________



Top
#47889 - 02/02/11 01:49 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Simon Jester]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Simon Jester

For the OP: Do you feel there is anything of relevance in TSB?


Sure I do.

I’ve never regarded The Satanic Bible as an operations manual for Satanism though. It never struck me as the kind of book that attempts to explain anything (like the Christian bible) and is more metaphorical in nature than it is anything else. To me it serves as a sort of personal call to arms to question that which is most evidently hypocritical in most people’s lives (religion).

TSB is a primer that introduces the power of the individual to begin questioning the long held ‘truths’ around them. Let’s face it, Christianity has a great marketing plan that is reinforced throughout the year via the vehicles of various holidays and the existence of subtle (and non subtle) social pressures that encourage people to become involved as well as to discourage folk from investigating things that are off the path of societal norms.

In my view, TSB is great at what it does. I can’t really see how any of it could possibly be outdated because it doesn’t really espouse any concepts that have a shelf life. I can understand theinsane’s issues with the language of the text, though I tend to like to read fiery and dramatic diatribes with the occasional clever turn of phrase. I think the ideas introduced in TSB are indeed representative of the foundational bedrock of Satanism.


Is Satanism, as codified by Anton LaVey, reactionary? Indeed it is. TSB is reactionary to Christianity and I hold that this stance is valid today. Ask any Satanist where they came from and at least the preponderance of those questioned will say that they have some form of Christianity (or the abrahamic 3) in their past. That TSB begins by dismantling the obvious is not troublesome to me, it is a primer. The most valuable sentence in the work is “Satanism demands study.”


Once one begins to break down the religious memes around them, where do they go then? Those with a mind will begin to turn the vastly important tool of DOUBT onto any and everything. The ‘studying’ in Satanism is really the application of doubt to external definitions of everything under the sun (and beyond) with the goal of applying individual meaning. The former I would liken to Dread’s Autodiabolic Method and the latter could be illustrated by Aquino’s concept of The Grail Quest.


I want to explore the idea of Satanism being reactionary. The consensus seems to be that a key component to Satanism is the understanding that the universe is adversarial (JK, among others). I agree with this concept. I don’t believe that ‘adversarial’, though, can exist in a vacuum. You have to have something to be adversarial against or you produce a null set\division by zero.


In my view, a reaction is often times the impetus for one to become proactive. The definition of being proactive is to recognize some future event that may occur and react to that by taking steps to avoid it (or work the conditions favorably). If I want to be a proactive Satanist, for example, I might look to the future and attempt to identify something that would block my progress or the progress of Satanism and react to those ideas by proactively dealing with them the best I can. If, by being a proactive Satanist, I am simply “act” ing in the now to promote myself and/or promote Satanism, I’m really reacting to the idea that Satanism isn’t strong enough, isn’t well regarded enough, or even to the idea that Satanism doesn’t have enough good promoters. There is nothing wrong in this, though the foundational ideas of personal power are in TSB.


My own experience is that I’m often presented with an idea (either self generated or obtained externally). I will generally automatically doubt anything that comes my way and begin to explore it (the opposite of Faith). This exploration leads to wherever it leads, the scrap pile or the impetus to move forward. Loosely, it could look like this:

Idea > Doubt (reaction) > Test (reaction) > Result (discard or become Proactive).

These basic foundational tenets are woven throughout the Satanic Bible (in metaphor and in plain English). Is that the only place to get them? Of course it isn’t. To a Satanist though, or to one interested in Satanism, TSB should be a compendium of recognizable foundational tenets (and probably illustrative of thoughts that the reader has had prior to reading the work).


I’ll take my position now. It’s not outdated. I hold that it is an integral and necessary part of the study of Satanism.

I’ll close this post with a quote from our new friend:
“The Satanist is not looking for a book to DEFINE their worldview … The best that can be accomplished is for a signpost to be offered…” –Jason King


Take TSB like that. Apply it and move forward.


(PS, King, just saw your links in your last post... will watch and comment soon... busy day today!)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#47891 - 02/02/11 03:17 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Fnord]
myk5 Offline
member


Registered: 01/24/11
Posts: 137
Well, I consider the Satanic Bible to be as much a work of entertainment as an occult manual, similar to Ambrose Bierce perhaps.

But I will argue for the virtue of the TSB. I was first exposed to TSB after struggling to make sense of the writings of A Crowley, who was a very obnoxious and self absorbed read but non the less provided more intellectual meat than I found in classic grimoires or the Hoodoo books I found. Understand that this is occurring as I'm entering my teen years, and I'm already arriving at my own ideas of how and why magic works.

The Satanic Bible for me was a real revelation. Anton LaVey, it can be argued, presented no new idea, but what he did establish was putting together all the elements of a complete magic system and in such a way that was crystal clear , a coherent magical theory not at all obfuscated (As Crowley loves to do).

The Satanic Bible matched many of the conclusions i'd been arriving at anyway. That it was so reactionary, as in reaction against Christianity, it was off putting to me as I'd been wanting to leave Christianity and a paradigm reacting to those beliefs is the opposite of leaving them behind. I did use the Satanic Bible straight (I still begin any new paradigm straight, I feel it's disrespectful not to), and did produce a profoundly unexpected result that was exactly my intention the very next day.

Because the magical model presented by A. LaVey is so mature and the reaction against Christianity so lighthearted - it's a simple thing to take from TSB it's magical paradigm as an independent module and apply it as you wish. I believe Chaos Magic (which with Zen Buddhism are paradigms that largely mirror what I already believe) owes a great deal to Anton LaVey, the principles he established are principles accepted by most Chaos magicians.

As for any magical model being out dated - your magical practice is your own. If you start with one thing and move to something else, the thing you started out with for you may exist as out-dated. But another may start with what you have moved to and then move to what you started from believing that the upgrade. Depending on your talents, aptitudes and interests - you may both be right.

Perhaps it's like wanting to know what the best martial art system is. And largely the answer is determined by how you want to defend yourself and what your body and instincts best lend themselves to. There may be a best martial art for YOU, there is no best martial art for everyone.

Top
#47913 - 02/02/11 08:00 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Fnord]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Okay, another post.

The key point as usual is this: who or what is Satan?

Here are some quotes:

“The semantic meaning of Satan is the "adversary" or "opposition" or the "accuser". The very word "devil" comes from the Indian devi which means "god". Satan represents opposition to all religions which serve to frustrate and condemn man for his natural instincts. He has been given an evil role simply because he represents the carnal, earthly, and mundane aspects of life.” LaVey TSB

“In short, postmodern Satanism begins with the ontological realization that the world is adversarial to the core, i.e. Satanic. “ JK 600C

“Most Satanists do not accept Satan as an anthropomorphic being with cloven hooves, a barbed tail, and horns. He merely represents a force in nature - the powers of darkness which have been named just that because no religion has taken these forces out of the darkness. Nor has science been able to apply technical terminology to this force. It is an untapped reservoir that few can make use of because they lack the ability to use a tool without having to first break down and label all the parts which make it run. It is this incessant need to analyse which prohibits most people from taking advantage of this many faceted key to the unknown – which the Satanist chooses to call "Satan". LaVey TSB

“Postmodern Satanism opens with a word cloud for the book, but I also did one on TSB, which can be viewed here. It is interesting to compare them, and to see how certain words (god, devil, christian, hell) make his cloud but are absent from mine. And the converse comparison sheds further light, as progressive terms such as science, consciousness, process, and energy occupy roughly the same relative positions in my cloud.” JK 600C

I have two questions here:

1. Hasn’t Dr. LaVey (in TSB) already set down the basic conceptual framework for the ontological shift and the new ontological position, which re-contextualises the word Satan as adversarial and predominantly universal, such as an adversarial universe, an adversarial conscious/unconscious relation, an adversarial force, being, or energy, even if this is not yet been articulated and clarified (or obscured) in scientific terms?
2. Doesn’t the naming of Satan, in any form, as adversarial, require one, from the outset, to start from the work of Dr. LaVey; that is with the definition of Satan as the adversary, as the opposition, or as the accuser, as per the Judeo-Christian system and the deeply oppositional stance LaVey takes with regard to that system?

I personally do not think The Satanic Bible by Dr. LaVey will be superseded, built on, maybe.

It still remains the most basic piece of Satanic literature, in my view, and it still must be studied by all who come knocking at this door.

Top
#47920 - 02/03/11 12:13 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Fnord]
Harvey Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 39
Howdy Fnord. Your "voice" seems a little familiar.

TSB might serve as a primer for someone who hails from a religious background/environment. For me though, it contains little of value. Very little. My awakening came about while sifting through old bookstores. Sure, I bumped into LaVey along the way, but found infinitely more value in Sade, Wilmot, Nietzche, Redbeard, London, Seutonius, Machiavelli and the legends of old. Some things very nearly jumped off the shelves. And so it went.

 Quote:
Once one begins to break down the religious memes around them, where do they go then? Those with a mind will begin to turn the vastly important tool of DOUBT onto any and everything.


Quite so. Now, let's apply this method to LaVey, "Satanism" or what you will: Thesis + Antithesis = TA DAA! It's gone...

 Quote:
I hold that it is an integral and necessary part of the study of Satanism.


I like the way you phrased that. ;\)

Top
#47923 - 02/03/11 12:56 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Harvey]
JWG Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 68
 Originally Posted By: Harvey
Howdy Fnord. Your "voice" seems a little familiar.

TSB might serve as a primer for someone who hails from a religious background/environment. For me though, it contains little of value. Very little. My awakening came about while sifting through old bookstores. Sure, I bumped into LaVey along the way, but found infinitely more value in Sade, Wilmot, Nietzche, Redbeard, London, Seutonius, Machiavelli and the legends of old. Some things very nearly jumped off the shelves. And so it went.


I'd find that many similar core messages are found in those individuals. As far as I've hard, many if not all of them were influential in Anton's own synthesized philosophy that was later manifested as Satanism and the Church of Satan.

Satanism and the Church of Satan certainly uses antinomianism focused around the Judeo-Christian faith to send it's message across. I can certainly understand someone who isn't familiar with that faith would not find the metaphorical delivery very potent as one who was (the majority of the audience of the CoS: the United States, where it was founded).

While the message and philosophy that Satanism holds at it's core may be packaged for such an audience, the message itself delivered is still the same in my opinion.
_________________________
In every real man a child is hidden that wants to play.
-Friedrich Nietzsche


Top
#47979 - 02/03/11 03:41 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Fnord]
Meatl Gear Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 41
I do not think Lavey's Satanism is outdated, it is merely narrowly defined. For instance, to Lavey a devil worshiper isn't a satanist because Satanism is supposed to be about self-worship.

The debate comes more from different perspectives, then from Lavey being oudated.

With the rise of the internet, the actual Church of Satan may be less important.


Edited by Meatl Gear (02/03/11 03:42 PM)

Top
#47980 - 02/03/11 03:53 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Meatl Gear]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
It isn't at all narrowly defined. Your understanding is narrow.

I'm almost at the point where I'm willing to offer you a bribe to simply stop posting.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#47984 - 02/03/11 04:06 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Fnord]
Meatl Gear Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/11/09
Posts: 41
If as noted in other posts, Satanism (along with most other left hand path views) is a reaction to Christianity, then Satanism cannot be outdated because Christianity is not outdated. Therefore the reaction to it is still relevant.

Edited by Meatl Gear (02/03/11 04:16 PM)

Top
#47985 - 02/03/11 04:17 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Quote:
1. Hasn’t Dr. LaVey (in TSB) already set down the basic conceptual framework for the ontological shift and the new ontological position, which re-contextualises the word Satan as adversarial and predominantly universal, such as an adversarial universe, an adversarial conscious/unconscious relation, an adversarial force, being, or energy, even if this is not yet been articulated and clarified (or obscured) in scientific terms?
2. Doesn’t the naming of Satan, in any form, as adversarial, require one, from the outset, to start from the work of Dr. LaVey; that is with the definition of Satan as the adversary, as the opposition, or as the accuser, as per the Judeo-Christian system and the deeply oppositional stance LaVey takes with regard to that system?


If I answer both with a simple "no," I'll be guilty of the infamous one-liner. So I'll give a brief pair of rejoinders:

1) When I scour TSB for an understanding of what I deem The Current, I find the closest comprehension given on the ultimate page of Wolfe's Introduction, not in any of ASL's own words.

2) I take nothing away from LaVey as a doorman, but he neither coined the term "satan," nor was he the first to understand the mythic Satan as a protagonist (as opposed to religious antagonist).

When I say "ontological adversarialism" (i.e. the Satanic Current) I am referring to how the world operates. Its mechanism for producing change and betterment. Lions hunt gazelles and gazelles elude lions. This process makes both the lion and the gazelle (or the surviving members of said species) stronger. THIS is the adversity. THIS is the Satanism. Thus I can say, with a completely straight face, Christianity (and all its precursors and heirs) is a facet/manifestation of ontological Satanism, and not vice versa.

JK
_________________________



Top
#47994 - 02/03/11 06:43 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Jason King]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thank you for your post Jason.

Ultimately, by naming this ontological adversarialism Satanic you have had to draw on a meaning - connection provided by the Judeo-Christian system. You may have been able to remove much of the semantic detritus connected with this word Satanic, as it functions within this Judeo-Christian system, by stepping out of that system and into this larger ontological adversarialism, but this tenuous and yet critical connection still exists.

Because this specific word Satan emerged within the Judeo – Christian system and because they had control of it, any philosophy, which purported to be Satanic, had to first of all step in and take control of this word and make it speak from the point of view of a Satanist, within and against the framework of the Judeo-Christian system. It must articulate its oppositional and adversarial stance in regards this Judeo-Christian system, in some detail, as the first order of business.

This is the pioneering work of Dr. LaVey and his organisation.

I do, however, draw a distinction between Dr. LaVey’s thoughts in relation to the behaviours and actions of a Satanist, and the ontological or cosmological viewpoint of LaVey.

I would like to draw on a couple more quotes from Dr. LaVey to clarify, what I believe his position is:

In Relation to God/Gods

“It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept of "God", as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best. Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him. God is, to some, benign - to others, terrifying. To the Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live.” LaVey TSB

“The Satanist realizes that man, and the action and reaction of the universe, is responsible for everything, and doesn't mislead himself into thinking that someone cares.” LaVey TSB

In Relation to Satan

“Most Satanists do not accept Satan as an anthropomorphic being with cloven hooves, a barbed tail, and horns. He merely represents a force in nature - the powers of darkness which have been named just that because no religion has taken these forces out of the darkness. Nor has science been able to apply technical terminology to this force. It is an untapped reservoir that few can make use of because they lack the ability use a tool without having to first break down and label all the parts which make it run. It is this incessant need to analyze which prohibits most people from taking advantage of this many faceted key to the unknown – which the Satanist chooses to call "Satan". LaVey TSB

In Relation to the Satanic Current as adversarialism

Satanism has been thought of as being synonymous with cruelty and brutality. This is so only because people are afraid to face the truth - and the truth is that human beings are not all benign or all loving.” LaVey TSB in relation to Love and Hate.

“In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign
proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!” quoting MIR. LaVey TSB

There are a lot of Might is Right passages in the Book of Satan that I could quote to show how Dr. LaVey’s thinking about this Satanic current ran.

I still maintain that Dr. LaVey had identified this Satanic current and spoken about it long before you did. His thoughts on Satan as the dark force of nature are enough for me. The fact that his reflections regarding this adversarialism also may have been filtered primarily through an oppositional stance to the Judeo-Christian system does do him credit. Why? Because he is a Satanist laying down the principles of a specifically Satanic religion and he muct work against the those who defined the word first.

Top
#47996 - 02/03/11 07:03 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Jason King]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
1. Hasn’t Dr. LaVey (in TSB) already set down the basic conceptual framework for the ontological shift and the new ontological position ...?

 Originally Posted By: "Jason King"
...the closest comprehension {is} given on the ultimate page of Wolfe's Introduction {for an understanding of what I deem The Current}.

He had 2 (1969, 1976), though I haven't tried to compare them. Something like this?
 Originally Posted By: "Burton Wolfe, 1969"
...the great contribution to civilized thought made by the Church of Satan is its celebration of the complete human being instead of the spirit alone. The signs are everywhere that humanity is striving to burst the restrictive bonds of religion. ... Man is no longer willing to wait for any afterlife that promises to reward the clean, {'pure ...spirit'}. There is a mood of neo-paganism and hedonism, and from it have emerged a wide variety of intelligent individuals ... who are interested in carrying the liberation of the flesh all the way to a formal religion.

Or more like this?
 Originally Posted By: "Burton Wolfe, 1976"
There is a ceaseless universal quest for entertainment, gourmet foods and wines, adventure, enjoyment of the here and now. Humanity is no longer willing to wait for any afterlife that promises to reward the clean, {'pure ... spirit'}. There is a mood of neopaganism and hedonism, and from it there have emerged a wide variety of brilliant individuals ... who are interested in formalizing and perpetuating this all-pervading religion and way of life. ... Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal philosophy. It is based on the belief that human beings are inherently selfish, violent creatures, that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive and the earth will be ruled by those who fight to win the ceaseless competition that exists in all jungles - including those of urbanized society.

 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
2. Doesn’t the naming of Satan, in any form, as adversarial, require one, from the outset, to start from the work of Dr. LaVey ...?
 Originally Posted By: "Jason King"
{LaVey} neither coined the term "satan," nor was he the first to understand the mythic Satan as a protagonist (as opposed to religious antagonist).

Indeed, the Jewish 'Satan' angel was an antagonist to human beings (and the fictional Job in particular; the better to provide a cautionary tale about hubris in the face of worldly success). The Christians recast a resolved Satan as an adversary to the Jesus character and the whole of Christian religious authority (the better to calumnize their competition). Romantic poets, at least, vivified Satan into heroic proportion, even as occasional Christians sought to use him to criticize Christians ("Letters from Earth" by Twain amongst them).

 Originally Posted By: "Jason King"
When I say "ontological adversarialism" (i.e. the Satanic Current) I am referring to how the world operates. Its mechanism for producing change and betterment. ... Christianity (and all its precursors and heirs) is a facet/manifestation of ontological Satanism, and not vice versa.

Operations of their own are too often supposed an over-estimated betterment outcome. Theories of evolution, for example, are too often supposed to yield 'the fittest' outside the terran particularities of their development. Is there reliable criteria by which we may evaluate this 'betterment' in the terran Satanic Current you are describing?


Edited by nocTifer (02/03/11 07:05 PM)
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#48002 - 02/03/11 08:33 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: nocTifer]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To Noc,

Thanks for providing these Burton quotes.

A couple of questions popped into my head when I read them:

1. Wouldn't Burton's thinking here reflect Dr. LaVey's thinking as well. I mean surely LaVey wouldn't have let Burton do the intro in his book if Burton's words didn't reflect LaVey's thoughts.

2. How did Burton reach this conclusion regarding the Satanic current? Maybe he had always known this; maybe he had read other works (along with TSB) which expressed it; or maybe he had discusssed these things with Dr. LaVey himself and other members of the Church. Wasn't Burton a member of the Priesthood of Mendes?

LaVey knew of this Satanic current for sure. Why didn't he say more about it at the time in his book? Who knows, maybe he didn't want to scare the shit out of the natives? Maybe it was a bit of Lesser Magical knavery?

Sheesh, anyway Jake and Dr. Aquino can no doubt explain it better than I can if they can bothered rehashing the same old thing again.

I know one thing: I'm sticking with LaVey all the way.

Top
#48037 - 02/04/11 08:52 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: JWG]
Harvey Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 39
 Originally Posted By: JWG


I'd find that many similar core messages are found in those individuals [Sade, Wilmot, Nietzche, Redbeard, London, Seutonius, Machiavelli etc]. As far as I've hard, many if not all of them were influential in Anton's own synthesized philosophy that was later manifested as Satanism and the Church of Satan.


True. But most of the individuals that I mentioned were more apt to apply their various philosophies. They are typically remembered for their deeds.

For instance - LaVey is reputed to have been a passionate Darwinist/Lamarckian, with precious little to substantiate such a claim. How seriously can he have taken Ragnar, Darwin, Nietzche or even himself? Can a man really claim to be elite if his accomplishments amount to a flamboyant but financially unrewarding imposture? I would consider him a failure.

Top
#48041 - 02/04/11 11:23 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Harvey]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
And YOUR claim to success would be? Really. If you're going to pass judgement on who you consider a failure, you need to come up with some indication as to why you have this supposed authority.

Where's your claim to such earthly success that you can declare the life's work of someone else to be a failure?
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
Page 2 of 16 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.