Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:05 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:[his stuff except a few dis-contexted quotes.
And in these statements, you are full of foolish presumption, and attention getting behavior, as the megalo that you seem to be.

You can call me a megalo as much as you like, but whilst you are ignorant of Nietzsche there is no question as to who is ion the know.[/quote]
And I submit that the nature of knowledge eludes you, as evidenced by your "more knowledgeable than thou," tired, old stance. No educator here, just a pathetic, lost, ego boosting, child, you are!

Edit: Color

Posted: **Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:23 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...her 'directs' your attention?
What you need to do is to stop writing and start reading.
True one can never read too much, but I shall not read shit of destruction of evil minds.
You are clever enough
Yes, on a given day, if everything goes well, my logic is not flawed. Though sometimes I'm misunderstood.
with your adolescent sophistry
So as to pat yourself on the back whilst ignoring my intellect.
but you are not fooling me.
As if you could possibly know me, you the impersonator!
Stop asking dumb questions about Nietzsche, and start finding out for yourself.
All my 'active' profs said there was no dumb question, so what does that make you, you (note red)
"Student as always. Teacher if necessary. Studied for Phd in Ancient History and Archaeology, and an MA in Intellectual History. Also teaching qualification"
Are you active, or actively seeking, and I suggest that if this forum is any indication of your method, your activities won't be long lived.

Posted: **Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:16 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...her 'directs' your attention?
What you need to do is to stop writing and start reading.
True one can never read too much, but I shall not read shit of destruction of evil minds.
You are clever enough
Yes, on a given day, if everything goes well, my logic is not flawed. Though sometimes I'm misunderstood.
with your adolescent sophistry
So as to pat yourself on the back whilst ignoring my intellect.
but you are not fooling me.
As if you could possibly know me, you the impersonator!
Stop asking dumb questions about Nietzsche, and start finding out for yourself.
All my 'active' profs said there was no dumb question, so what does that make you, you (note red)
"Student as always. Teacher if necessary. Studied for Phd in Ancient History and Archaeology, and an MA in Intellectual History. Also teaching qualification"
Are you active, or actively seeking, and I suggest that if this forum is any indication of your method, your activities won't be long lived.

Either read the Nietzsche or don't. But I''l not be answering anymore of your dumb questions.

Posted: **Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:17 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...her 'directs' your attention?
What you need to do is to stop writing and start reading.
True one can never read too much, but I shall not read shit of destruction of evil minds.
You are clever enough
Yes, on a given day, if everything goes well, my logic is not flawed. Though sometimes I'm misunderstood.
with your adolescent sophistry
So as to pat yourself on the back whilst ignoring my intellect.
but you are not fooling me.
As if you could possibly know me, you the impersonator!
Stop asking dumb questions about Nietzsche, and start finding out for yourself.
All my 'active' profs said there was no dumb question, so what does that make you, you (note red)
"Student as always. Teacher if necessary. Studied for Phd in Ancient History and Archaeology, and an MA in Intellectual History. Also teaching qualification"
Are you active, or actively seeking, and I suggest that if this forum is any indication of your method, your activities won't be long lived.

Either read the Nietzsche or don't - its up to you. But I'll not be fielding any more of your stupid questions.

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:18 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...teacher 'directs' your attention?

chaz wyman wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:What you need to do is to stop writing and start reading.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:True one can never read too much, but I shall not read shit of destruction of evil minds.
You are clever enough
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes, on a given day, if everything goes well, my logic is not flawed. Though sometimes I'm misunderstood.
with your adolescent sophistry
SpheresOfBalance wrote:So as to pat yourself on the back whilst ignoring my intellect.
but you are not fooling me.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:As if you could possibly know me, you the impersonator!
Stop asking dumb questions about Nietzsche, and start finding out for yourself.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:All my 'active' profs said there was no dumb question, so what does that make you, you (note red)
"Student as always. Teacher if necessary. Studied for Phd in Ancient History and Archaeology, and an MA in Intellectual History. Also teaching qualification"
Are you active, or actively seeking, and I suggest that if this forum is any indication of your method, your activities won't be long lived.
Either read the Nietzsche or don't. But I''l not be answering anymore of your dumb questions.

Yes I know, don't you understand you dipshit, I went into this KNOWING that you were incapable of really answering any of my questions, because you're a poser, and an egomaniac to boot!

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:22 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...teacher 'directs' your attention?

chaz wyman wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:What you need to do is to stop writing and start reading.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:True one can never read too much, but I shall not read shit of destruction of evil minds.
You are clever enough
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes, on a given day, if everything goes well, my logic is not flawed. Though sometimes I'm misunderstood.
with your adolescent sophistry
SpheresOfBalance wrote:So as to pat yourself on the back whilst ignoring my intellect.
but you are not fooling me.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:As if you could possibly know me, you the impersonator!
Stop asking dumb questions about Nietzsche, and start finding out for yourself.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:All my 'active' profs said there was no dumb question, so what does that make you, you (note red)
"Student as always. Teacher if necessary. Studied for Phd in Ancient History and Archaeology, and an MA in Intellectual History. Also teaching qualification"
Are you active, or actively seeking, and I suggest that if this forum is any indication of your method, your activities won't be long lived.
Either read the Nietzsche or don't - its up to you. But I'll not be fielding any more of your stupid questions.

Yes I know, don't you understand you dipshit, I went into this KNOWING that you were incapable of really answering any of my questions, because you're a parrot, and an egomaniac to boot!

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:37 am**

Well here's evidence that some agree with me:

Beyond Good and Evil
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
© Cambridge University Press 2002

Excerpt from the Introduction page viii

"There are quite a number of thinkers who would insist that it makes no sense at all to attribute greatness to any of Nietzsche’s works. For these readers, all of Nietzsche’s writings are flawed by serious shortcomings that justify fundamental complaints, ranging from accusations that they are utterly irrational, or devoid of informative content, to the conviction that they contain nothing but silly proclamations based on unwarranted generalizations – or a mixture of both. According to proponents of this view, the best way to think of Nietzsche’s works is as the disturbing documents of the creative process of someone who was on the verge of madness. To call any of his works great would therefore amount to a categorical mistake. Interestingly enough, this bleak evaluation is not based on any disagreement with what the work’s admirers tell us we will find in it, or even any disagreement with the claim that it gives us the quintessential Nietzsche."

I somehow feel much better, thanks Cambridge University!

Come on, he partook of opiates, never had a wife, and wrote a book he called The Gay Science. He was a closet case, that couldn't bare the pressures on his kind, by the Christians, so he lashed out.

A couple more quotes. These two are from his preface in The Anti-Christ, © Cambridge University Press 2005 page 3:

"There are ears to hear some people – but how could I ever think there were ears to hear me? – My day won’t come until the day after tomorrow. Some people are born posthumously."

"...and who cares about the rest of them? The rest are just humanity. You need to be far above humanity in strength, in elevation of soul, - in contempt…"

megalomania
[meg-uh-loh-mey-nee-uh]
meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a /ˌmɛgəloʊˈmeɪniə/ [meg-uh-loh-mey-nee-uh]
noun
1. Psychiatry . a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.
2. an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.

Remember he died of mental illness.

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:33 pm**

I think the problem is some people can't bare to entertain the idea that merely reading a book will not make them become that person or share that person's beliefs. I never understood the thought. "I can't read that person because they are from a place I don't agree with." First of all, how can you know you don't agree if you don't know what they have said? Secondly, are you so weak willed that even if you do disagree ...you think somehow reading it will cause you to go over to that "side."

I am not trying to put you down or anything...this mentality just always blows me away. But it is what N was talking about...people can't even bare the thought of thinking something different than they were taught...or more importantly...questioning whether or not their beliefs are 'in the right.' I believe it is because we want to see ourselves as good...we want it so badly we could never ever think that someone could actually be better...i.e. more moral...than us.

But ya can't know that unless you read and think about what the author is saying in an honest and humble way.

Anyway, a while back Chaz mentioned that he would not read K because of his preconceived idea that K was a christian or promoting christian ideals....or something to that affect. In lieu of how SOB is reacting, I wonder if Chaz will change his mind and read K. I wonder if Chaz sees himself behaving like SOB.

There's a challenge.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing Kierkegaard with Chaz.

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:20 pm**

artisticsolution wrote:I think the problem is some people can't bare to entertain the idea that merely reading a book will not make them become that person or share that person's beliefs. I never understood the thought. "I can't read that person because they are from a place I don't agree with." First of all, how can you know you don't agree if you don't know what they have said? Secondly, are you so weak willed that even if you do disagree ...you think somehow reading it will cause you to go over to that "side."

I am not trying to put you down or anything...this mentality just always blows me away. But it is what N was talking about...people can't even bare the thought of thinking something different than they were taught...or more importantly...questioning whether or not their beliefs are 'in the right.' I believe it is because we want to see ourselves as good...we want it so badly we could never ever think that someone could actually be better...i.e. more moral...than us.

But ya can't know that unless you read and think about what the author is saying in an honest and humble way.

Anyway, a while back Chaz mentioned that he would not read K because of his preconceived idea that K was a christian or promoting christian ideals....or something to that affect. In lieu of how SOB is reacting, I wonder if Chaz will change his mind and read K. I wonder if Chaz sees himself behaving like SOB.

There's a challenge.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing Kierkegaard with Chaz.

I see that you want to be special, more smarter than you really are and that you'll do anything, even read Satan's manifesto, if someone said it was beyond mortal men, that he was an 'overman.' If you read him and believe you understand him, then you are some how equal to him, this is a common misconception, of the deluded. Your allusion is an illusion! I have read him and of him and believe he's inconsequential in terms of my edification. In other words I already see his points, that you claim, so I guess they're actually yours, such that for me, they go without saying, Of course I don't see him as meaning the opposite of what he says. Mainly because he believes he's better than every one else, as evidenced by the excerpt of his preface that I sited above. He was at least an egomaniac, and quite possibly a megalomaniac. It is obvious to me that he was always quite mad, his writings together with his life's course, indicate as such.

So you go ahead and read him, I see it as a defective gene attributed to your brown skinned Mexican heritage, and not the psychological results of socioeconomic pressures attributed to the white mans belief of his superiority, in all walks of his construct. <- THERE'S A POINT HERE, DON'T LET IT GO OVER YOUR HEAD, READ AND THINK CAREFULLY! Or don't, it's up to you, just remember what I said during the intermission!

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:50 pm**

artisticsolution wrote:I think the problem is some people can't bare to entertain the idea that merely reading a book will not make them become that person or share that person's beliefs. I never understood the thought. "I can't read that person because they are from a place I don't agree with." First of all, how can you know you don't agree if you don't know what they have said? Secondly, are you so weak willed that even if you do disagree ...you think somehow reading it will cause you to go over to that "side."

I am not trying to put you down or anything...this mentality just always blows me away. But it is what N was talking about...people can't even bare the thought of thinking something different than they were taught...or more importantly...questioning whether or not their beliefs are 'in the right.' I believe it is because we want to see ourselves as good...we want it so badly we could never ever think that someone could actually be better...i.e. more moral...than us.

But ya can't know that unless you read and think about what the author is saying in an honest and humble way.

Anyway, a while back Chaz mentioned that he would not read K because of his preconceived idea that K was a christian or promoting christian ideals....or something to that affect. In lieu of how SOB is reacting, I wonder if Chaz will change his mind and read K. I wonder if Chaz sees himself behaving like SOB.

There's a challenge.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing Kierkegaard with Chaz.

My opinion of K is not to be dismissed so easily as "preconceived" I know a fair bit about him. He is interesting in that he figures in that time when existentialist ideas were being brewed up and for that he is interesting. But there is a tendency which he shares with many of his contemporaries to be in a state of existential angst whilst they wrestle with the contradictions of religion and science but fall on the side of retaining god whilst attempting to rationalise science. In this they have to reject conventional religion and damn the history of humanity as misconceiving God and then figure out why god did not seem to mind that no one has every understood him before. What you are left with is yet another historically contingent view of the "almighty", which, it is clear, there is no compunction to believe, as it is as incredible as any other.
Although he was unlucky to die so young, he was lucky to have died before Darwin published, for his own sake.
Whilst I understand how a loss of faith can be devastating, and I can sympathise with his anxiety I'd rather follow other more forward looking philosophers of the 19thC who took the braver step to make their move to humanism, atheism or other god non dependant modes of thinking. So many Philosophers so little time!!
So, no it is not from ignorance that I speak, and that 'challenge' does not put me in the camp of SoB.
But if you think about it - I would only qualify to be put in the camp of SoB if I mad huge pronouncements about SK that I could not back up with background reading.

Posted: **Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:11 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
artisticsolution wrote:I think the problem is some people can't bare to entertain the idea that merely reading a book will not make them become that person or share that person's beliefs. I never understood the thought. "I can't read that person because they are from a place I don't agree with." First of all, how can you know you don't agree if you don't know what they have said? Secondly, are you so weak willed that even if you do disagree ...you think somehow reading it will cause you to go over to that "side."

I am not trying to put you down or anything...this mentality just always blows me away. But it is what N was talking about...people can't even bare the thought of thinking something different than they were taught...or more importantly...questioning whether or not their beliefs are 'in the right.' I believe it is because we want to see ourselves as good...we want it so badly we could never ever think that someone could actually be better...i.e. more moral...than us.

But ya can't know that unless you read and think about what the author is saying in an honest and humble way.

Anyway, a while back Chaz mentioned that he would not read K because of his preconceived idea that K was a christian or promoting christian ideals....or something to that affect. In lieu of how SOB is reacting, I wonder if Chaz will change his mind and read K. I wonder if Chaz sees himself behaving like SOB.

There's a challenge.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing Kierkegaard with Chaz.
My opinion of K is not to be dismissed so easily as "preconceived" I know a fair bit about him. He is interesting in that he figures in that time when existentialist ideas were being brewed up and for that he is interesting. But there is a tendency which he shares with many of his contemporaries to be in a state of existential angst whilst they wrestle with the contradictions of religion and science but fall on the side of retaining god whilst attempting to rationalise science. In this they have to reject conventional religion and damn the history of humanity as misconceiving God and then figure out why god did not seem to mind that no one has every understood him before. What you are left with is yet another historically contingent view of the "almighty", which, it is clear, there is no compunction to believe, as it is as incredible as any other.
Whilst I understand how a loss of faith can be devastating, and I can sympathise with his anxiety I'd rather follow other more forward looking philosophers of the 19thC who took the braver step to make their move to humanism, atheism or other god non dependant modes of thinking. So many Philosophers so little time!!
So, no it is not from ignorance that I speak,
Ignorance doesn't necessarily have anything to do with non exposure to any particular given thing, but rather an inability to understand the dynamics present in any particular given thing, as they pertain to all things, and thus having the ability to illuminate those things one has yet to be exposed to. This to me is the true test of intellect. Not the ability to memorize something you've read, that you can then spout like a parrot. It's not the ability to memorize the answer to a problem, but that of 'working' the problem.

and that 'challenge' does not put me in the camp of SoB.

Certainly not, and thank 'god' for that!

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:24 am**

chaz wyman wrote:
artisticsolution wrote:I think the problem is some people can't bare to entertain the idea that merely reading a book will not make them become that person or share that person's beliefs. I never understood the thought. "I can't read that person because they are from a place I don't agree with." First of all, how can you know you don't agree if you don't know what they have said? Secondly, are you so weak willed that even if you do disagree ...you think somehow reading it will cause you to go over to that "side."

I am not trying to put you down or anything...this mentality just always blows me away. But it is what N was talking about...people can't even bare the thought of thinking something different than they were taught...or more importantly...questioning whether or not their beliefs are 'in the right.' I believe it is because we want to see ourselves as good...we want it so badly we could never ever think that someone could actually be better...i.e. more moral...than us.

But ya can't know that unless you read and think about what the author is saying in an honest and humble way.

Anyway, a while back Chaz mentioned that he would not read K because of his preconceived idea that K was a christian or promoting christian ideals....or something to that affect. In lieu of how SOB is reacting, I wonder if Chaz will change his mind and read K. I wonder if Chaz sees himself behaving like SOB.

There's a challenge.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing Kierkegaard with Chaz.
My opinion of K is not to be dismissed so easily as "preconceived" I know a fair bit about him. He is interesting in that he figures in that time when existentialist ideas were being brewed up and for that he is interesting. But there is a tendency which he shares with many of his contemporaries to be in a state of existential angst whilst they wrestle with the contradictions of religion and science but fall on the side of retaining god whilst attempting to rationalise science. In this they have to reject conventional religion and damn the history of humanity as misconceiving God and then figure out why god did not seem to mind that no one has every understood him before. What you are left with is yet another historically contingent view of the "almighty", which, it is clear, there is no compunction to believe, as it is as incredible as any other.
Although he was unlucky to die so young, he was lucky to have died before Darwin published, for his own sake.
Whilst I understand how a loss of faith can be devastating, and I can sympathise with his anxiety I'd rather follow other more forward looking philosophers of the 19thC who took the braver step to make their move to humanism, atheism or other god non dependant modes of thinking. So many Philosophers so little time!!
So, no it is not from ignorance that I speak, and that 'challenge' does not put me in the camp of SoB.
But if you think about it - I would only qualify to be put in the camp of SoB if I mad huge pronouncements about SK that I could not back up with background reading.

Spoken as a true constituent of the religion of atheism.

.

It is very interesting our existential conversation here. It is very revealing in the continuing problem, the issue at hand , and the polemics that arise from it. Chaz I do thank you for you informed position.
I feel the points of K and N go further, and this extent shows the validity of their position (singular).
The end result is really that no one is really communicating, that we are caught within the functioning of our own consciousness that is really making an interpretation of what has akready happened .05 seconds ago, that this reality defies rational thought, that rational thought as a mode of personal agency us really a delusion, that this delusion is of the inescapable transcending motion that occurs in every positing of Truth. And that this ironically reveals a universe of two effective 'powers'. It are these 'powers ' by which N and K find their voices. And do it becomes absolutely True that there is an effective unposited personal God that reveals itself in the negative expression.
O
SOB, you have said many times to Chaz that he won't or can't answer your simple question (which is often Chaz mode of operation, once he has stated what should be obvious). So I ask you Sob to state your question and I will attempt to answer it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:31 am**

You know AS, a while back some threads, I proposed that Chaz and Sob, who were in a heated polemical match at the time, we're really saying the same thing. It is funny that you noticed this now (a post or two up) also. But you say 'behaving'. So great.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:45 pm**

sob:I see that you want to be special, more smarter than you really are and that you'll do anything, even read Satan's manifesto, if someone said it was beyond mortal men, that he was an 'overman.'

AS: No I do not think I am smarter...I have said as much all over this forum. Yes I would read Satan's manifesto and I could do it without the fear that I would become evil or a follower. I would read it in order to know what it said so I could make up my own mind. I live without a fear that I am easily swayed you see....so I could read just about anything and still be the moral person I think I am. In other words...I do not believe in 'spooks.'

SOB:If you read him and believe you understand him, then you are some how equal to him, this is a common misconception, of the deluded. Your allusion is an illusion!

AS: Sort of....If I read someone and understand them...I just think they have written to me on my level...that is...in verbiage I can understand. That does not mean they are better or worse than me...it only means they spoke in a language I understand. There are plenty of writers that you could understand and I might not. However, we both would have to read them and go point by point in order to come to that conclusion. You won't read him so you have no idea if chaz, lance or I are right.

SOB:I have read him and of him and believe he's inconsequential in terms of my edification. In other words I already see his points, that you claim, so I guess they're actually yours, such that for me, they go without saying, Of course I don't see him as meaning the opposite of what he says. Mainly because he believes he's better than every one else, as evidenced by the excerpt of his preface that I sited above. He was at least an egomaniac, and quite possibly a megalomaniac. It is obvious to me that he was always quite mad, his writings together with his life's course, indicate as such.

AS: You got that all from a few pages did you? I am not saying you are wrong....but as you will see in the first part of this thread I said basically the same of him...however...there is one thing we disagree on....while you think since he is "a megalomaniac" he can't 'be right' ...I say even though he may be polemic, he can be correct as I don't think a person's personality dictates whether or not they make a good argument.

SOB:So you go ahead and read him, I see it as a defective gene attributed to your brown skinned Mexican heritage, and not the psychological results of socioeconomic pressures attributed to the white mans belief of his superiority, in all walks of his construct. <- THERE'S A POINT HERE, DON'T LET IT GO OVER YOUR HEAD, READ AND THINK CAREFULLY! Or don't, it's up to you, just remember what I said during the intermission!

AS: You can be quite the dumb blond when you want to be...lol. Maybe theres a gene responsible.

See this is what I mean....in the black crime thread...you did not read me correctly. You read me the way society taught you to read someone. No where did I say that "defective" genes where attributed to "non white" humans. It could very well be that some aggressive "whites" have the "aggression" gene...or brain anomaly that I theorized about. You wanted to go on and on about "dog psychiatry" and talked about pit bulls being gentle when raised in a certain environment. But that is just not true...because if we had 100 pit bulls...and 100 collies....there would be more probability that we could trust the collies to have a gentler nature. And that is just speaking about domesticated dogs....what about wolves? They are dogs....let's suppose we raised 2 pups the same...one a wolf and one a collie...I don't believe the wolf would be less aggressive. Now let's suppose we bred the 2....each puppies would have a bit of both genes...but one may look like a collie and have a more dominant "Wild" gene. One could look like a pit bull and have a more gentle nature of that of a collie. You can't tell by looks honey.

Now...that being said...do we know all there is to know about genes? No. Do we know all there is to know about the brain? No. So you can not say for certain environment is all to blame for a person's behavior. You just say that because that is what society has taught you to say....and THAT in a nutshell is what N is asking you to question.

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:08 pm**

lancek4 wrote:You know AS, a while back some threads, I proposed that Chaz and Sob, who were in a heated polemical match at the time, we're really saying the same thing. It is funny that you noticed this now (a post or two up) also. But you say 'behaving'. So great.

What I find odd is that they can't see it. Is it that horrible of a thought that they can't come to terms with it? Also, remember when you mentioned n worried that our thoughts would lead us to nihilism...or something to that effect. Well, what I see here in SOB and Chaz is passion so great they cannot admit certain truths they think are "bad." But here you and I (sorry if I am grouping you in with my thoughts..you might not think this but we will find out) can stand back from a less emotionally charged place (perhaps a nihilistic place) and see the similarities between chaz and sob in this respect.

Is this what you meant about your statement regarding nihilism and N? Perhaps it is only from a nihilistic point of view that we can see things more clearly...that is when we have purged ourselves of "good vs. bad" that society has instilled in us.

But then I go on to think...why then...is nihilism bad? If I can look at myself and say, "I am not right...and perhaps my opponent is"... without prejudice, then isn't that a more "honest" place to come from? If nihilism takes us to that place, what is wrong with that? How can nihilism...which is the ultra 'neutral" be bad in all cases? If the world came from a neutral place, what would there be to fight about?

Also...one last thing....why does it seem that...when we hear things we don't understand...we usually go to the negative side of such things...i.e. "I don't understand N, therefore he must be evil" Or "I don't agree with such and such....therefore he must be wrong/evil/stupid."

I hope you can understand what I am asking.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist