Keep the one-drop rule for American blacks

Posted on May 7, 2012 by jewamongyou

The one-drop rule comes in many forms, and its impact on the targeted race/ethnic group will vary. When the ethnic group is small, such as the Cherokee, it can rapidly lead to destruction through dilution. One does not need a PHD to realize that, within a few generations, most “Cherokee” will be Cherokee in name only. They will be about as much “Cherokee” as the rest of us are “Neanderthal“. The Neanderthal are generally considered extinct.
The one-drop rule has been gradually whittling away at the pygmies for thousands of years. According to Livescience:

The Pygmy and Bantu populations separated genetically about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago; then roughly 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, they started interbreeding.
Some Pygmy women, after having sex with a Bantu man, have given birth to half-Bantu babies, a phenomenon that integrates Bantu genes into the Pygmy population. These women and their offspring stay in the Pygmy village, and so don’t mix with the Bantu. However, offspring resulting from mating between a Pygmy man and Bantu woman are rare, so the Bantus don’t have many Pygmy genes…
The data revealed height had a genetic component related to Bantu ancestry: The more Bantu ancestry an individual from the Pygmy tribe had, the taller that individual tended to be. One part of the genome, on chromosome 3, was especially important in this trait, the researchers said.

It would seem fairly obvious that the reason Pygmy women like Bantu men is that they are taller. So the same selection process would be at work among the Pygmies; those Pygmy men who had more Bantu blood would tend to have a mating advantage due to their taller stature. Would the mating prospects of Pygmy women suffer if they are taller? Perhaps, but she could go and get herself pregnant by a Bantu man. Thus the cycle would continue and intensify. Of course, if this trend had been a strong one for the past several thousand years, then by now there would be no Pygmies left. My guess is that interbreeding was minimal, due to transportation limitations and an overall lower population, until recently. Now that Africa’s population is exploding, and jungle barriers are falling, the days of the Pygmy are numbered.
There are not many Pygmies left in the world. For them to take on outsider genes, and then consider the offspring “Pygmy” is a death sentence for their genetic legacy.
American blacks are already a mongrel population. Whenever a black man mates with an Indian woman, or an Arab woman,  or an Asian woman, the offspring are considered “black” (or sometimes “mixed”). Barack Obama is strict in observing this rule. Even in the minority of cases where a black woman mates out, her offspring are still considered “black”. If all immigration from Africa ceased, and black birthrates remained reasonable, the end result would be that “black” in America could mean anything. We would have “blacks” with blond hair and blue eyes, “blacks” with epicanthic folds, “blacks” with Mideastern features and some who retain sub-Saharan African features. In other words, the American black race would become extinct due to the one-drop rule.
So, if the one-drop rule means that we will eventually have a black American population that is so mixed it’s barely recognizable, then let’s keep it. Many problems would be solved this way. There is no chance that the Negro races will become extinct; Sub-Saharan Africa will always remain Negro. It is in our best interest to cease importing more Negroes from Africa. Europe and Asia should do the same. If this is done, then the Africans will be forced to find solutions to their own problems.
If I were king of the world, I would confine Africans to Africa and repatriate their diaspora. Then I would give them guidance to try to make their nations as prosperous and healthy as possible. With African doctors and scholars forced to stay home, Africa would be much better off. With African riffraff forced to stay home, the rest of us would be better off. With Africa confined to Africa, the rest of the world could work on confining Islam as well.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, miscegenation | 5 Comments

"I'm sexy and I know it"

Posted on May 5, 2012 by jewamongyou

A 6-year-old student has been suspended from first grade for singing “I’m sexy and I know it” to a female student. From the headline, we might think that this is yet another case of zero-tolerance polices leading to ridiculous results. But the article goes on to say:

School officials said D’Avonte was suspended for sexual harassment after he sang and the line  to a female classmate who was standing in a lunch line. Unfortunately,  it wasn’t the first time he’d serenaded this girl with this particular lyric.

Aurora School District’s Media Relations Specialist  Paula Hans, said in a statement:

“Aurora Public Schools is committed to providing equitable learning for all students. We have policies and protocol in place to prevent any disruption to the learning environment. Due to privacy laws, we are unable to discuss appropriate disciplinary consequences about a specific student.”

District policy, as outlined in the student handbook, states that sexual harassment “must have negative effects on the learning or work of others.”

D’Avonte’s mother, Stephanie Meadows, told ABC7  News that her son had had disciplinary problems before this week’s infraction.  Last month, she said, he was sent to the principal’s office for singing  the same song  to the same girl.

This time, however, he was “shaking his booty” near the girl’s face, Meadows told ABC7 News.

We don’t know the race of the victim, but whatever it might be, this type of behavior is all too common for black kids. Even if we leave aside any biological theories that black kids are naturally inclined to become sexually active/aware earlier than other kids, we are still left with the cultural reality that this is so. White/Asian kids should not have to put up with this sort of behavior. They do not deserve to have their childhood ruined at the altar of multiculturalism.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Denying racial segregation to our children is a form of child-abuse.

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 8 Comments

How the definition of the word "nation" has been switched

Posted on May 4, 2012 by jewamongyou

I recently bought a copy of “History of the World War” by Francis March and Richard Beamish (published 1919). It’s interesting to read history from the point of view of contemporaries, before enough time had elapsed to sort things out properly and look back objectively. The book is clearly (and admittedly) biased but I still find it very educational.
For example, it’s interesting to see how much American English has changed in less than 100 years. It’s rather shocking really. The authors explain Professor Tomas Masaryk‘s position in favor of a union between the Czechs and the Slovaks and the founding of a common state (pg. 53):

Professor Masaryk called attention to the fact that there is a peculiar discrepancy between the number of states in Europe and the number of nationalities – twenty-seven states to seventy nationalities.  He explained, also, that almost all the states are mixed, from the point of nationality. From the west of Europe to the east, this is found to be true, and the farther east one goes the more mixed do the states become…
Since the eighteenth century there has been a continuing strong movement from each nation to have its own state. Because of the mixed peoples, there is much confusion…

These days we would call such mixing “diversity” – unless it’s in Africa, in which case we would call it “a legacy of colonialism”. Whatever we choose to call it, it is a cause for “much confusion” and bloodshed.
Powerful forces opposed the “continuing strong movement” March wrote of. Though the movement did claim some successes, in the end, its enemies gained the upper hand. They sought to equate “nationality” with “citizenship in a state” and they have largely succeeded. Today, when most people speak of “nationality”, they refer to membership in a political entity (in which an elite possesses a monopoly on the use of force). This membership is usually conveyed by accident of birth. A Pashtun, who happens to be born on the Afghan side of the border is “Afghan”. His cousin, also Pashtun, would be “Pakistani” simply because he was born a few miles away. I am fairly certain that a large number of Pashtun do not accept this new version of nationality. Good for them I say. A nation is blood. Citizenship in a state is incidental. A nation is tradition and heritage. A state is politics and corruption.
Naturally new nations can be founded out of a collection of various nationalities. This is a natural process and the founding of Rome is a good, historical, example. Israel appears to be another example, whose transformation has been occurring before our very eyes.
But the wholesale dividing of all land on Earth (except, perhaps, Antarctica) into various nation-states, at the expense of many smaller nations, is something we should view with suspicion and apprehension – even if it is inevitable. We should be asking: “You want us to give up our bloodline, heritage, language, history and identity so that we can rally under the banner of a bunch of politicians? Why?” If America is a “concept nation”, I want to know which concepts America stands for that other nation-states do not stand for. Do we stand for freedom? Less government? Rock ‘n Roll? Don’t other states have these things? These are questions that even leftists ask. They conclude that a one-world government makes sense – since we all (in theory) believe in the same principles. This is easy for them; leftists generally have no nation at all.

Posted in libertarian thought, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 4 Comments

American History X

Posted on May 2, 2012 by jewamongyou

While visiting a relative recently, she recommended I watch the movie “American History X”. She said it offers a refreshing perspective on racism. I told her that anti-racism is code for “anti-white” and she replied that this movie is anti-everybody, whites, blacks and so on. I replied that I’d spend two hours of my time watching “American History X” if she would, in turn, watch “A Conversation About Race” with me afterwards. We had a deal.
Though my relative is intelligent, she clearly is not very adept at recognizing propaganda. “American History X” is propaganda. Though it does appear to give air time to pro-white sentiments and grievances, it does so in such a way that the vast majority of viewers would not take seriously. Movies are, by nature, visual tools. When things are said, in a movie, by rough-looking teens who sport swastika tattoos, their words do not have as much credibility as the words spoken by a civilized-looking character. This is why defense attorneys make sure their clients are dressed well in front of a judge and jury. People are not rational creatures.
Thus, when the main character, Derek, speaks to his mob about the evils of illegal immigration, his words ring true – until the very graphic depiction of their attack on an immigrant-owned store (and its employees) is shown directly afterwards. At that point, his entire speech loses its appeal. Just as the viewer is repulsed by the destruction and torture that follow, so too will he reject the views that brought about these acts. Clearly this was the intention of the producers.
Similarly, when we see a dinner conversation where Derek’s father is explaining the evils of affirmative action, the audience may sympathize with him – until he makes a general statement about “niggers”. At that point, all his valid objections to affirmative action dissolve into naught.
The movie features several graphic depictions of violence. All but one is perpetrated by whites:
1) The movie opens with some black gangbangers trying to steal Derek’s truck. He responds by shooting one of them to death and then killing the second. After this orgy of blood, the look on Derek’s face clearly shows how delighted he is with his deed. He smiles a very devilish smile for the cameras. The truck theft was simply an excuse for Derek to dispatch some niggers.
2) I have already described the graphically depicted attack on the immigrant-owned store. The implication is that this is what white pride and anti-immigrant sentiment naturally lead to.
3) While in prison, Derek learns that his white friends are not really friends at all. In fact, they have no redeeming qualities. We are treated to a disturbing depiction of Derek getting raped by other skinheads. What provoked this attack? It seems Derek had met a black inmate who was friendly and funny. We are to believe that neo-Nazis (and, by extension, all pro-whites) are oblivious to the fact that there are some nice, and funny, black people. For Derek to meet such a black man is a revelation to him. Apparently, he had lived in a cave until then.
4) In what appears to be a flashback to the original shooting scene, we are shown how Derek forces one of the gangbangers to put his teeth to the curb – and then brutally kicks his head in. Later, we hear a description of the sound that man’s head made as it was smashed into the concrete. Very graphic indeed.
5) The last graphic violent scene of the movie, and the only one committed by a black, is when Derek’s younger brother (Danny) is shot by the brother of one of the gangbangers he’d killed. In contrast to Derek’s satanic expression of joy, the black shooter bears an expression of anger and revenge. He didn’t kill for the joy of killing. No, he killed as revenge for an incident the previous day. This last shooting, though shocking since we’ve come to know and love the victim, is no more graphic than any other shooting we see on T.V. or the movies. It could have been a shooting from an old western.
Not surprisingly, the only morally sound powerful character in the movie is the school teacher (who also has two degrees). This is “Dr. Sweeney”, played by Avery Brooks. Sweeney can do no wrong. He is godlike, morally impeccable, caring, soft-spoken – and black. There were other characters who are morally upright in this movie: Derek’s mother and sister always oppose his evil ways – but they come across as victims. Derek’s mother is a chain-smoking, pitiful character who never even considered that bringing home her Jewish boyfriend might cause a scene with her neo-Nazi sons and friend. His sister is merely an incidental character whose only purpose seems to be to suffer abuse at the hands of Derek and his worthless friends.
American History X would have us believe that the only flavor of pro-white is the neo-Nazi flavor. That white skinheads are the ones mostly responsible for ransacking stores and committing prison rape. After all, blacks would never do such things.
There are a couple of worthy scenes. The basketball scene, where the white teenagers challenge the blacks and beat them honorably is a good one. One of the white teens, at some point, says something to the effect of “Why should we walk with fear in our own neighborhoods?” The school bathroom scene, where some black kids are beating up a white kid for allegedly telling on them for cheating is another good one. In that scene, Danny confronts the blacks with a look of courage and essentially drives them away. Those two scenes do inspire white pride and a wish that more whites could be more like them.
But good propaganda must have some truth mixed in. It must have something its proponents can point to and say, “See! They do show both sides of the story.” In my opinion, the good parts of American History X do not make it a good movie. Instead, they make it good propaganda.
As for A Conversation About Race, my relative enjoyed it and did find it thought-provoking.

The only kind of pro-white there is according to Hollywood

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, examples of propaganda | 15 Comments

Call me a conspiracy theorist but…

Posted on April 30, 2012 by jewamongyou

It seems to me that the internet is getting slower, more buggy and more downright frustrating. It’s gotten to the point where it’s almost unusable. In my daily life, I use various computers, at home and at work. They’re all slow and the internet connection on all of them (each one supposedly “high-speed”) reminds me of the dial-up connections of yore.
It goes without saying that, as more and more of the Earth’s teeming billions get online, there will be more traffic, more demands on already strained systems, more malicious software, more spam and more mistakes at all levels. This is to be expected.
But let’s face it. There are powerful forces that view the internet as a rival, as a dangerous force and as something that needs to be contained – or even controlled. The leftist media, though it uses the internet itself, does not like the freedom of speech that comes with it. It does not like the proliferation of unorthodox, unapproved, opinions. It fears the challenge to its own monopoly on “news” and entertainment.
Government uses the internet, but there can be little doubt that some government entities view it with suspicion and loathing – at least when others (who view those same government entities with suspicion and loathing) have equal access to it.
Conservatives and religious groups also use the internet, but they’ll do anything in their power to prevent others from viewing material they consider “offensive”. For some of them, the internet is a tool of Satan to infiltrate the minds of our young with pornography and all sorts of deviance and decadence.
Lots of powerful people have secrets and sometimes those secrets get leaked – usually through the internet. Witness Wikileaks.
Until recently there has been (we think) a balance of power between the various foes of the internet. The rest of us benefit from this balance, because the result is our own freedom of speech. But would I be particularly paranoid if I wrote that there might be some willful sabotage involved with the recent slowness? I don’t think it’s very far-fetched at all. Perhaps the balance of power is giving way to some sort of unholy alliance. Maybe religious conservatives are working together with government officials and leftist ideologues in order to curb the power of the internet – or at least make it gradually less attractive for the average joe.
I apologize for the lack of links in this post; I’m away from home and working on my very small travel laptop.

Posted in freedom of speech issues | 11 Comments

Roodharigen: A celebration of red hair

Posted on April 27, 2012 by jewamongyou

If you believe the idiot box, newspapers, schools, government and large corporations, it’s commendable to be proud of your black, Native American, Asian or Polynesian heritage – but to be proud of your white heritage is “hate”.
We can take some consolation that it’s still allowed to be proud of your Irish, Italian, Jewish or Russian roots. In other words, subsets of whiteness are still pride-worthy. The same goes for red-haired people, also sometimes called “gingers”. Since 2007, hundreds of redheads have gathers in Breda, Netherlands to celebrate their beautiful locks. The official website gives lots of details, history and suggestions. Notably missing is any explanation why they feel the need to celebrate red hair. Little people also have their own convention and I’ve always assumed this is because they face many challenges and hardships in live. Getting together is a way to give them a sense of community and feel less alone in a tall-peoples’ world.
I’ve read that discrimination against redheads is a real phenomenon in Britain but, as far as I know, it’s not a serious issue in most of the rest of the world – aside from normal discrimination against white people in general. The impression I get, from the Roodharigen website, is not one of solidarity against oppression, but rather one of fun and purely positive feelings.
I wonder if this is a possible prototype we can use for white pride in the future. Of course we should continue to publicize the outrages against whites, but our gatherings should, perhaps, be as fun, happy and carefree as those of the redheads.

Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 28 Comments

Jewamongyou got himself a scooter

Posted on April 25, 2012 by jewamongyou

I’m all excited and happy that my “new” (used) scooter is up and running. It should save me a bundle on fuel expenses. I’d include a photo, but it’s not much to look at; minor body damage and paint scuffs.
On the flip side, it will be a bit more difficult for me to write new blog posts on my laptop while driving; a cop might see me and somehow consider it dangerous. But after I install the laptop stand, and learn to use my legs for steering and breaking, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Other than that, we’ve had a drought here in the Northwest; it went for three days without any rain. So I was out enjoying the sun instead of sitting in front of my computer. Odd choices such as these help explain my rather sparse posting recently. But don’t worry; things will get back to normal – as soon as I get that laptop stand installed on my scooter.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The slippery slope on which we find ourselves

Posted on April 23, 2012 by jewamongyou

I recently posted about Britain’s lack of freedom of speech. But things are not much better in the U.S. Even though, in theory, our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in practice we have de-facto laws against it whenever such speech violates certain taboos.
A school girl’s rant against Asians not only put her in a situation where she was forced to grovel, but she faced disciplinary action and death threats for her trouble.
Two other school girls were forced out of their school for airing their own anti-black rant on youtube. This was after they were made to apologize. When will people learn that apologizing does not help when it comes to accusations of racism; it only makes matters worse.
And now a firefighter in Miami is fighting for his job after some facebook comments he made, against black thugs in general – and specifically against Trayvon Martin – were reported to his empl0yer. According to the Daily Dot:

A firefighter in Miami is feeling the heat after posting a message about Trayvon Martin on Facebook.
Miami Dade Fire Rescue is investigating Capt. Brian Beckmann following a rant against Martin and “urban youth.” The screed was posted last Wednesday, not long after it was announced that George Zimmerman would be charged with second-degree murder in the killing of 17-year-old Martin in February.
A person who had access to Beckmann’s Facebook account took a screenshot and sent it to theGrio, a news community site focused on African American issues.
Beckman, a member of Miami Dade Fire Rescue since 1997, was quoted as saying that:

“Listening to Prosecutor [Angela] Corey blow herself and her staff for five minutes before pre-passing judgment on George Zimmerman. The state seeks reelection again, truth aside. I and my coworkers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, shitbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs Corey, we speak only the truth. They’re just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn’t have anything to do with why people wonder if they’re about to get jacked by a thug.”

In a private message to theGrio, Beckmann defended his comments.
“I am a private citizen and have the same right to freely express an opinion on any subject that anyone else does,” Beckman reportedly wrote. “I choose not to embellish or alter the facts as your employer chose to do.”

Hopefully, Beckman will stick to his guns and not back down. Either way, we are rapidly approaching a state of affairs where constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech ring hollow.

Posted in freedom of speech issues | 10 Comments

Diversity: A lose-lose situation

Posted on April 21, 2012 by jewamongyou

Some London firefighters are being accused of racism, and their department sued, after a case of mistaken identity. According to Yahoo news:

A black firefighter has said he was assaulted, shot with a stun gun and arrested as he tried to help police while he was off-duty, in the latest racism allegation against Scotland Yard.

Edric Kennedy-Macfoy, 28, made a formal complaint after the incident in the early hours of September 4, in which he says he approached police who were dealing with a disturbance to give them a description of a youth he had seen throw a rock at a police van.

The group of six officers, who were dispersing partygoers — some of whom had turned violent — in Harrow, north London, assaulted and insulted Kennedy-Macfoy, according to his account, before deploying the electric shock weapon and detaining him without good cause.

Kennedy-Macfoy was charged with obstructing police, but found not guilty at Brent Magistrates’ Court in February.

The Guardian, which is campaigning on the issue of police racism, quoted Inspector David Bergum as saying in court: “I couldn’t say he was anything to do with the party. The party was all black. He was black. He had driven through the cordon. I had to do a quick risk assessment.”

Race is an important identifier. It goes hand in hand with gender, age, height and clothing. If a group, composed of blacks, is attacking a group of whites, can we really blame the officers for their quick decision to treat the approaching black man as a possible threat? Considering the sad state of affairs in U.K. today, it is almost inevitable that Inspector Bergum will be forced to apologize and Macfoy will win a large sum of money as compensation for the “racial discrimination” he suffered.
This is a built-in flaw of  racial diversity. It’s human nature to notice race – yet the very creed of “diversity”, which puts race above all else, also demands that we often ignore it. There can be little doubt that had Bergum ignored race, and ended up dead as a result, we would not be reading about it on Yahoo news.

Posted in crime and violence, government/corporate discrimination against whites | 2 Comments

"Brilliant scientist" reveals simplistic views on I.Q.

Posted on April 19, 2012 by jewamongyou

Somebody figured I’d enjoy this talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson. As a matter of fact, I did rather enjoy it. He’s a good speaker and brings up some good points. But what he said at the end gave me pause. In case you don’t want to listen to the entire talk yourself, I have transcribed the relevant parts:

We share like 98% plus identical DNA. We are smarter than a chimpanzee. So let’s invent a measure of intelligence that makes humans unique. Let’s say: Intelligence is your ability to like, compose poetry, symphonies, do art, math and science and so on. Let’s say, okay? Let’s make that as the arbitrary definition of intelligence for the moment. Chimps can’t do any of that. Yet we share 98, 99 percent identical DNA. Okay? The most brilliant chimp there ever was maybe can do a little bit of sign language. Well, our toddlers can do that. Toddlers… So… here’s what concerns me deeply. Deeply. Everything that we are, that distinguishes us from chimps, emerges from that one percent difference in DNA. It has to, ’cause that’s the difference. The Hubble telescope, these grand… that’s in that one percent. Maybe… everything that we are that is not the chimp is not as smart compared to the chimp as we tell ourselves it is. Maybe the difference between constructing and launching a Hubble telescope, and a chimp combining two finger motions as sign language – maybe that difference is not all that great. We tell ourselves it is. Just the same way we label our books optical illusions. We tell ourselves it’s a lot. Maybe it’s almost nothing. How would we decide that? Imagine another life form that’s one percent different from us. In the direction that we are different from the chimp. Think about that. We have one percent difference and we’re building the Hubble telescope. Go another one percent. What are we to they? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence. That’s what we would be. They would take Stephen Hawking and roll him in front of their primate researchers and say, “well this one is like the most brilliant among them because he can do sort of astrophysics in his head. Oh, isn’t that cute! Little Johnie can do that too. Oh, that’s so nice…

If I understood correctly, Tyson is implying the following:
A) That the intelligence of an animal is the same sort of intelligence we humans have, that chimps and humans possess differing amounts of intelligence within a continuum. This is far from certain. Many, especially on the Left, even claim that there is no such continuum among humans. Instead, they believe in a multitude of intelligences.
B) That there is a direct correlation between genetic similarity and intellectual ability. This is as stretch, to say the least. I agreed with Tyson when he suggested that aliens might be as intellectually superior to us as we are to chimps. But for him to imply that the 1% difference, between ourselves and chimps, is what determines the gap – and that a 2% difference would necessarily double the intelligence gap between us – seems astoundingly simple-minded even for a layman. I can think of various animals, whose genomes differ substantially, but whose intelligences are similar. For example, dogs and octopuses don’t even belong to the same phylum, yet they seem to have comparable intelligence. Furthermore, who’s to say that the 1% difference is allocated equally to all abilities, including intelligence? Maybe 99% of that 1% has to do with body hair, opposable thumbs and skeletal structure. It’s true that he said “emerges from that one percent” but, as a scientist, he should have been more clear on this.
C) That “genetic difference” is the same thing as “difference”. The ease with which he equates the 1% difference in genome between humans and chimps with the difference between humans and chimps is disturbing – far more disturbing than the point he’s trying to make. Here is a scientist who seems to be unaware that most of our DNA is “junk DNA”, or that major differences in phenotype can arise from minute differences in genotype. For him to imply that the difference between a human and an ape can be accurately expressed as the percentage difference between our two genotypes is absurd. Would Tyson claim that humans are 75% similar to sponges given that we share about 75% of our DNA? I don’t even understand how it could be said that one species, or individual, is such and such percentage points similar to another – unless we are speaking of a specific trait, such as the ability to jump. If a kangaroo can jump 30 from a standing start, and a human can only jump 5 feet, then we may say that humans and kangaroos are 17% similar when it comes to jumping.
I don’t believe Tyson was aware of what he was implying when he made those statements. In truth, he unwittingly revealed an underlying mentality of the Left: That it is our superior intelligence that defines us as human and that this is the only thing that matters. This is why they get so touchy when we bring up differences in average I.Q. between races; to them, it’s the same as saying that some races are more human than others.
Am I making a big fuss over nothing? Perhaps.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments