Author Topic: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit (Read 9728 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:50:20 PM »

Mercy seasons justice (the greatest of all Shakespearean speeches):

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:51:44 PM »

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:53:11 PM »

Commentaries by Dr. White: Worth much more than you will pay for them

http://stmarcelinitiative.com/bookstore/products/The-Christian-Comedy-of-Shakespeare%27s-The-Merchant-of-Venice-%252d-Part-I.html

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:54:17 PM »

The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I
[The quality of mercy is not strained]

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jєω,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2019, 11:18:25 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 31, 2019, 10:50:20 PM

Mercy seasons justice (the greatest of all Shakespearean speeches):

Rather pertinent in view of the manufactured controversy surrounding Cardinal Newman:

Note that at 8:04, Antonio asks for Bessario's hand, as he is about to receive the Jєω's knife.

They profess their love for eachother.

Not in foul sodomite fαɢɢօtry, but in the highest Platonic sense (Recall Bessario is, in the play, engaged to marry his beloved lady/fiance), according to elevated Christian charity, which is one of the primary sub-plots of the entire play.

Dr. White, in his conferences on the play, notes that once again, Jєωιѕн Hollywood contrived a different version of The Merchant of Venice (i.e., not the version posted above) where in fact the two are queer, which Dr. White rightly describes as either miserable or disgusting, and adding, "who can stand it!"

This kind of chaste, pure, Platonic charity has more or less passed from the modern world, and when examples of it are encountered by the modern, sullied mind, quite naturally, the basest rash suspicions become firm judgments of condemnation (and given the prevalence of the sodomite infestation in the modern world, that is almost understandable).

Nevertheless, I could not let Shakespeare's example pass without drawing attention to the equally and perfectly chaste and pure case of Cardinal Newman (whom also had a similar friendship).

Kazimierz · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2019, 11:18:03 AM »

"A pound of flesh the Jєω doth seek?
Grant him bacon each Sabbath eve.
Such a portion give each week.
to he whose perfidy makes him deceive."

And now to bedlam to obtain some rest,
for mine bowels do fiercely protest. :)

HOOLIGAN4HIRE · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2019, 11:23:25 AM »

Read "ѕуηαgσgυє Rising" by Hugh Akins or "The Plot Against the Church" by Maurice Pinay and all of your questions will be answered.

Joseantoniano · « **Reply #8 on:** August 02, 2019, 04:44:43 AM »

I guess the Jєωιѕн spirit is where you control the media and financial system and yet claim to be the most oppressed people on earth

Mark 79 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 02, 2019, 12:39:48 PM »

Quote from: Joseantoniano on August 02, 2019, 04:44:43 AM

I guess the Jєωιѕн spirit is where you control the media and financial system and yet claim to be the most oppressed people on earth

“Jєωs are the most oppressed people in history and I know this because they used their extraordinary wealth, their near monopoly of mass media, their massive political influence, and their censorship of alternative viewpoints to make sure I got the message.”

Thoughts on the Protected Race
by Andrew Joyce • April 11, 2019
http://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-the-protected-race/

Incredulous · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2019, 06:46:19 PM »

Thoughts on the Protected Race

Andrew Joyce • April 11, 2019

Quote

“Know that we have taken into our hand, custody, and protection Leo the Jєω our goldsmith and all his affairs. And therefore we command that you keep ward and defend the said Leo and all his affairs, doing no hurt or injury to him.”
Proclamation of King John of England, 10 Nov. 1199
“My office was created by law and designed to protect the Jєωιѕн people throughout the world. Think about that. The world’s greatest power is focused, by law and design, on protecting the Jєωs.”
Elan Carr, U.S. State Department Envoy on Anti-Semitism, February 2019

By almost every metric, Jєωs are the most protected ethnic group on earth. At the frontline of this protection, Jєωιѕн institutional security is heavily subsidised by taxpayers throughout the West. In Germany, the government provides an annual stipend of $15 million to the Central Council of Jєωs. In the UK, the government spends around $20 million annually on both security for Jєωιѕн institutions and “h0Ɩ0cαųst education” designed to combat “anti-Semitic ideas.” This is in addition to the UK pledging almost $70 million for a new h0Ɩ0cαųst memorial designed to achieve the same ends. Hungary has promised $3.4 million to “fight anti-Semitism in Europe,” and Sweden has handed over 2 million kronor for increasing security at Jєωιѕн institutions.

France has invested $107 million in “fighting anti-Semitism” since 2015. This brings us to a grand total of over $215 million in “protecting Jєωs” and “fighting anti-Semitism,” and doesn’t even take into account spending in the United States (somewhere between $20 million and $50 million annually for frontline security at Jєωιѕн institutions), or the spending of Jєωs on their own defense (the ADL’s annual budget alone is in the region of $58 million). One gets the distinct and remarkable impression that, globally, diaspora Judaism probably requires something approaching $1 billion simply in order to feel safe.

Jєωs are protected in other ways. Since mid-2018, resolutions and other legal measures against anti-Semitism have been gathering in pace and increasing in spread. In May 2018, South Carolina became the first US state to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which effectively shuts down speech against Israel on college campuses by requiring South Carolina’s public institutions of higher education to “take into consideration the [State Department’s] definition of anti-Semitism for purposes of determining whether the alleged practice was motivated by anti-Semitic intent” when “investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of a college or university policy prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of religion.”

In February 2019, President Macron of France announced a “crackdown on anti-Semitism” that would involve dissolving three pro-White organizations, defining anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, and introducing new laws against “hate speech” targeting Jєωs on social media. Just a few weeks ago, Florida passed legislation defining anti-Semitism and making it illegal under state law. Tennessee has attempted to pass an Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill, and recently passed a resolution “fighting anti-Semitism” by declaring unequivocal support for Israel. This, of course, follows hot on the heels of the House resolution “condemning anti-Semitism” in the aftermath of Ilhan Omar’s now notorious remarks on the Israel lobby.

There simply isn’t another ethnic group elsewhere on earth that enjoys the same level of financial and legal protections enjoyed by Jєωs. Of course, the uninformed, when confronted with such a fact, might reply that this level of support is both needed and deserved. According to the received narrative, recent history suggests that Jєωs are the West’s most vulnerable and victimised group. All of these laws, and all of this funding, is therefore merely a response to an acute need. But recent history has nothing to do with Jєωιѕн protection, and nor are these measures responsive to any real immediate threat. In order to gain a full appreciation for what exactly is going on, we need to go much further back in time.

Should you ever happen to visit the English town of Lincoln, I recommend you pay a visit to the Jєω’s House restaurant. As well as enjoying some fairly good cuisine, it will give you an opportunity to look inside one of the five surviving houses of Medieval England. The building was once, as the name suggests, a Jєω’s house from the middle of the twelfth century until the expulsion of the Jєωs from England in 1290. Its last Jєωιѕн owner is said to have been Belaset, daughter of the moneylender Solomon of Wallingford. Belaset was hanged in 1279 for coin-clipping, a 13th century practice whereby (predominantly Jєωιѕн) money dealers would lightly shave gold and silver coins, eventually accuмulating enough shavings to create new, illicit money. Jєω’s House is not the only medieval home still standing in Lincoln. A short walk away is Norman House. Like Jєω’s House, it was built around 1170 for a Jєωιѕн moneylender, Aaron of Lincoln, and also housed Jєωs until the expulsion.

‘Jєω’s House’ Lincoln, England: This 12th century home is one of the oldest surviving town houses in England, due largely to the fact it was built for maximum security and durability.

The fact that England’s oldest houses are almost all Jєωιѕн in origin, and that two of them are in Lincoln, is no accident. Lincoln Jєωry was both the most affluent and the most numerous of all medieval Jєωιѕн communities in England, and the survival of these dwellings owes much to two factors – Jєωιѕн wealth and the Jєωιѕн need for security. Jєωs had the money to build homes with expensive local limestone, and they had a desire to build very strong, almost impregnable, homes that could withstand the onslaught of both Man and Time. A key architectural feature is asemi-sunken undercroft that would have provided secure storage for the wealth of those residing in the living accommodation above. This relatively luxurious style of living was pioneered by the Jєωs who moved to Lincoln as part of the Norman conquest, and was based on the Jєωιѕн experience of living closely with Norman elites in the ducal halls of Normandy. The construction of such homes in 12th century England thus sent a clear message: Jєωs were an intimate part of the new elite; Jєωs were arriving predominantly as dealers in money; and, Jєωs expected to be hated and to require high levels of protection. One thousand years has now passed, and yet it is one of the remarkable features of world history that these three aspects of Jєωιѕн life haven’t changed at all. Jєωs remain an intimate part of the elite, Jєωs retain a ‘special’ relationship with money, and the facts outlined at the beginning of this essay suggest that Jєωs fully expect to be hated and require high levels of protection.

The Jєωιѕн strategy among Europeans has always been predicated upon high-risk, high-reward ventures. For much of the last thousand years, this primarily involved exploitative financial relationships that were incredibly lucrative but contributed to tremendous hostility among non-elite European populations. The standard method of balancing profit and danger was to form a relationship with very strong elites, and to implicate those elites in the sharing of profits (thus also ensuring they would suffer a loss from any attack against Jєωs). Throughout European history, when attempts to forge or maintain such relationships failed, the results of high risk ventures were disastrous for Jєωs, as resentment from below was finally allowed to fully vent. This can be seen in instances where the power of the monarch weakened (e.g. the expulsions of Jєωs by Edward I as a response to the rise of the barons), where there was a break between the death of a king and the coronation of another (e.g. killings of Jєωs around the coronation of Richard I), where the monarch was immovably hostile to Jєωs and their interests (e.g. the creation of the Pale of Settlement by Catherine the Great), and where popular support for government elites and their authority collapsed rapidly (e.g. Weimar Germany and the subsequent rise of Adolf Hitler).

Very high levels of elite protection are thus seen by Jєωs, not entirely without reason, as absolutely essential to the continuance of Jєωιѕн communities and their behaviors among European populations.

Writing on Jєωs and the State in medieval Europe, Robert Chazan writes that “the Jєωs were normally accorded substantial protection by the secular authorities. This meant warnings against violence when passions were inflamed, efforts to put down violence when it did flare up, and finally the imposition of penalties when the attempts at protection failed and Jєωs suffered loss of life and property. The basic thrust of governmental policy towards the Jєωs was protection.”[1] [emphasis added]

Kevin MacDonald has argued that Jєωs have excelled as flexible strategizers, and this ability to adapt to circuмstances is certainly in evidence in relation to the need to secure privileges in the form of elite protection. Jєωιѕн historian Yosef H. Yerushalmi has pointed out that wherever Jєωs lived they tended to establish liaisons with “the highest governmental power available, whether that of emperor or caliph, count, duke, or king, bishop, archbishop or pope.”[2] Yerushalmi described such relationships as a “direct vertical alliance.” Magda Teter has laid emphasis on the flexible manner in which Jєωs approach the establishment of direct vertical alliances:

At the beginning of their settlement in Poland, Jєωs forged a strong relationship with monarchs, who issued privileges and assured the Jєωs’ protection. When Poland’s balance of power shifted from a strong monarchy to a decentralised nobles’ republic, the Jєωιѕн relationship with the king was transformed into a symbiotic relationship with the powerful nobles. Jєωs’ reliance on royal protection was transferred to reliance on the nobles. First kings, and then the nobles, often placed Jєωs in positions that often gave them authority over Christians.[3]

As well as blending financial interests with the nobles, another feature of the early modern period through to the nineteenth century was intermarriage between Jєωs and the European aristocracy. This was quite literally the physical joining of interests, perhaps the ultimate protection against suffering a backlash from the elite. By the early 20th century, the scale of Jєωιѕн intermarriage with the British aristocracy was such that it led L.G. Pine, editor of Burke’s Peerage from 1949–1959, to write in 1956 that “the Jєωs have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual.” Given the trends of history in the centuries prior to the 1950s, it’s extremely difficult to imagine that this occurred by accident, or without some level of conscious or unconscious design.

As flexible strategizers, Jєωs were more than capable of handling the transformation from aristocratic rule to social democracy that occurred between the 19th and 20th centuries. As an interregnum of sorts, however, there were early problems with Jєωιѕн security while the new form of direct vertical alliance was established. A general rule worth operating by is that where the elite is pro-Jєωιѕн or tied to Jєωιѕн interests, Jєωs are likely to be reliable supporters of the governmental status quo, to support strong government, and to be against the freedom of the individual (e.g. see overwhelming contemporary Jєωιѕн support for gun control). Conversely, when elites are perceived as less inclined to support Jєωιѕн interests, Jєωs are likely to be vastly over-represented among anti-elite elements, as radical socialists, and as regicidal revolutionaries (e.g. the Bolshevik Revolution).

Where the form of government merely weakens, Jєωs are forced to reconfigure their strategies in a more time-consuming, but no less pressing, manner. Indeed, a key feature of 19th century socialism was a strong anti-Semitism that rejected Jєωιѕн claims to being part of “the people,” and many anti-Jєωιѕн socialists portrayed such claims as opportunistic and cryptic strategies to secure power anew under the new form of government.

One of the most memorable statements of the era in this regard is the French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s remark that far from being a genuine socialist, Karl Marx was “the tapeworm of socialism.” Proudhon (1809-1865), seen by many as the father of anarchism, regarded apparently socialist Jєωιѕн “allies” like Heinrich Heine as “nothing but secret spies” whose hidden agenda was merely to secure Jєωιѕн privileges and protections under the guise of social justice – a perspective apparently lost on the ignorant hordes who today believe themselves to be anarchist “Antifa” while striving to protect similar “tapeworms” in their midst.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: “Marx is the tapeworm of socialism.”

As social democracy became ascendant, Jєωιѕн strategies to maintain privileges and security had to make significant adaptations. Most obviously, social democracy was ostensibly the move to protect mass interests over those of an elite. Since Jєωs were an intimate part of the elite, this would necessarily lead to a decline in power, unless Jєωs could undergo a transformation in the popular mind into a more generic “mercantile elite,” “bourgeois elite,” or even most audaciously, masquerade as part of the proletariat. It was in eastern Europe that the clash between Jєωs and the interests of the masses became most acute. Faced with increased calls for freedom and democratic representation, the Tsars sided with the masses rather than the Jєωs, freeing the serfs and withdrawing protections and privileges from Jєωs. I would argue that this move, rather than the specific content of Bolshevism or Communism, was the most decisive factor in the eventual rise of the Jєωs against the Tsar and the Russian aristocracy during the Bolshevik revolution.

The apparently incongruous position of Jєωs fighting alongside the peasant class against the elite wasn’t altogether lost on contemporaries. As one Ukrainian Communist put it in 1876, “The weight of the Jєωs’exploitation is great and their harmfulness unlimited … If we find it possible to preach revolution, and only revolution against the nobles, how can we defend the Jєωs?”[4] But Jєωs did want to be defended, and if they weren’t going to be defended by the Tsar, and they couldn’t trust the masses, then they would simply disguise themselves as part of the proletariat (Proudhon’s “secret spies”) and establish their protections and privileges themselves.

The perceptivity of figures like Proudhon and the Ukrainian Communist was lacking in the overall movement, where Jєωs were dominant in intellectual and activist roles. Within weeks of the revolution, Jєωs were able to cancel all restrictions imposed on them by earlier Tsarist regimes and abolish the Pale of Settlement initiated by Catherine the Great. Between 1918 and 1930, anti-Semitism was legislated against and massive amounts of literature purporting to debunk anti-Semitic attitudes were disseminated as part of a society-wide “education” campaign. Plays and films were made portraying Jєωs and anti-Semitism is a strongly philo-Semitic manner, and trials of individuals convicted of “anti-Semitic crimes” were made very public. It was the 20th century equivalent of building the Jєω’s House of Lincoln, now constructed not of heavy limestone, but of slick lies and oppressive legislation.

Today, Jєωs still reside safely, if a little paranoid, in a house built with lies and legislation. They have established “direct vertical alliances” with every Western elite, including the most “populist.” I smile wryly at the theatre of Viktor Orbán toying with George Soros, while he pumps millions into Jєωιѕн education programs throughout Europe educating people on the “dangers of anti-Semitism” and provides a European “hotline” for concerned Jєωs to call in the event that they feel a little insecure. The same situation prevails with the “populist” boy wonder Sebastian Kurz in Austria. Kurz recently unveiled a “Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism.”

The policies, endorsed by Kurz and later to be introduced to the entire European Union, include:

a commitment of a percentage of GDP annually to fighting antisemitism;
barring antisemites from political parties and public office;
committing financial and other resources to guaranteeing security for Jєωιѕн communities in Europe;
making Internet companies liable for antisemitic content on their platforms;
and advising companies not to do business with countries or organizations that support antisemitism in any way.

Sebastian Kurz receives award from the European Jєωιѕн Committee’s Moshe Kantor for his compliance in a modern day “Direct Vertical Alliance”

These measures reach a level of protection for Jєωs not seen since the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, and only contribute to the growing reality that much of our politics now seems to exclusively revolve around the issue of anti-Semitism. It used to be the case that Jєωs considered everything within the framework “Is this good for the Jєωs?” Today, it seems that our governments, media, and academia are preoccupied with the same question. This reality, of course, clashes dramatically with the narrative that Jєωs have no overarching influence in our politics and society.

On this note, I might add that I was recently axed from Twitter for the ninth time. On my last two Twitter accounts, I pursued a strategy of presenting such glaring contradictions in short, witty comments – just enough information to make the point clearly, and just enough humor to make it stick in the mind. In very short periods of time, I amassed many thousands of followers before the accounts were invariably suspended for “targeted harassment” even though I never interacted with other users, and merely presented facts or witticisms. I don’t think I will now return to Twitter, but one of my last parting shots, before being reported by a delusional neurotic named Gabe Hoffman (who apparently claimed I insulted him personally, without evidence, despite the fact I never interacted with other users), was:

Jєωs are the most oppressed people in history and I know this because they used their extraordinary wealth, their near monopoly of mass media, their massive political influence, and their censorship of alternative viewpoints to make sure I got the message.
This is the central paradox of our time. Jєωs enjoy extraordinary privileges while presenting themselves as the most oppressed people in history. Were they oppressed when they lived in the fortress in Lincoln? When they received the personal protection of King John? When they received charters and special protections to live in the German principalities, complete with reinforced walls for the streets in which they lived? When they intermarried with the aristocracy? Were they oppressed when the Tsar and his family were butchered? Were they oppressed when they made anti-Semitism illegal, had show trials against αnтι-ѕємιтєs around Russia, and flooded the schools and universities with information on how marvellous they truly are? Are they oppressed when they produce legislation for the European Union and have it imposed at their will? Are they oppressed when they dictate to Big Tech what is and isn’t allowed on their platforms, under legal penalty? Are they oppressed when they demand a percentage of the GDP of each one of our nations to protect them? Are they oppressed when a leading figure at the U.S. State Department says: “The world’s greatest power is focused, by law and design, on protecting the Jєωs.”

No. They are not oppressed. Oppression is having your hands cut off by the King’s men because you refused to pay your debt to Aaron the Jєω. Oppression is being told what you can’t say in your country, your own land that your fathers sweat and bled on in the hope that you could one day walk on that soil a free man. Oppression is being made to hand over your taxes and a percentage of your GDP, without any vote taking place on the matter, so that it can be passed to a population already influential and extraordinarily wealthy. Oppression is being banned from participating in politics because you happen to object to the influence of foreign actors in the business of your own people and country. Oppression is when the wealthy and powerful use their influence to starve you financially into submission to their interests. Oppression is when you go to prison because you disagree with something written in the history books.

The situation, I will admit, doesn’t look hopeful. But just as history relates a tale of direct vertical alliances, and all that they entail, it also relates the stories of collapsing elites, uneasy interregnums, and the rise of figures who side with their people and reject such alliances. One day in 1290, the Jєω’s House of Lincoln stood silent, cold, and unoccupied, its money vaults emptied, its past residents hanged or exiled. It stands today, to my mind, not as a testament to durability, but as a monument to hubris and a mockery of pretensions to invulnerability. I see a time when our contemporary hubristic constructions are hollowed out and left vacant by the sweeping rush of history.

Notes
[1] R. Chazan, Church, State, and Jєω in the Middle Ages (New Jersey: Behrman,1980), 11.
[2] Quoted in M. Teter, Jєωs and Heretics in Catholic Poland: A Beleaguered Church in the Post-Reformation Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 28.
[3] Ibid.
[4] R. Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, The Jєωs and Israel (University of Nebraska Press, 2012), 187.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

Syracuse · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2019, 07:31:02 PM »

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2019, 10:40:17 PM »

"The Jєωιѕн religion was the foundation of our own;" Pope Pius X

https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/herzl1904

Incredulous · « **Reply #13 on:** August 04, 2019, 02:06:11 PM »

Quote from: poche on August 03, 2019, 10:40:17 PM

"The Jєωιѕн religion was the foundation of our own;" Pope Pius X

https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/herzl1904

"The Jєωs are the enemies of Jesus Christ and our Holy religion."

Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, O.F.M. Cap

Mark 79 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 04, 2019, 05:37:48 PM »

Quote from: poche on August 03, 2019, 10:40:17 PM

"The Jєωιѕн religion was the foundation of our own;" Pope Pius X

https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/herzl1904

How typically dishonest of Poche to elide the full quote without indicating the elision.

"… but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity."

Damnable Judaizers have a penchant for conflating Mosaic Judaism with Pharisaism and its post-Christian offshoot, тαℓмυdic Judaism.

Pope Pius X inferred the distinction. The damnable Judaizer omitted the distinction. Our own religion is not founded upon Pharisaism or тαℓмυdic Judaism… no matter how hard Poche and the Great Rabbi Bergoglio insist otherwise.

Author Topic: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit (Read 9728 times)

SeanJohnson

Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

SeanJohnson

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

SeanJohnson

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

SeanJohnson

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

SeanJohnson

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

SeanJohnson

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Kazimierz

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

HOOLIGAN4HIRE

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Joseantoniano

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Mark 79

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Incredulous

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Syracuse

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

poche

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Incredulous

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit

Mark 79

Re: Jєωιѕн v Christian Spirit