[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can we get over this nonsense? Is there really a parallel between Objectivism and real cults such as Jonestown and Heaven's Gate or the Branch Davidians? This is a really a smear used to ridicule Objectivism so that the ideas don't have to be taken seriously. And yes there are some Objectivists who are somewhat more condemnatory or somewhat more ecumenical than others, so what. Most Objectivists give off clues where their hot buttons are or how far they will go in debate or have some subjectivist bohemian streak on some issue. Objectivism is an individualist philosophy. Galt said an error made on your own was better than ten truths accepted on faith because the former leaves the means to correct it. Ayn Rand is gone. What's left is her works and her writings, read objectively, can hardly be construed as an invitation to cultism.

Jim




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah, I checked out the link -- and became disgusted with it. The point about cults is that they're anti-Reason, which makes them anti-Individual, which makes them anti-Man, which makes them anti-life. I cannot -- for all the inward effort I can summon -- view THAT in a value-free environment. It would be like turning my back on life itself.

It's the mystical part about cults, that is the defining part -- and this pivotal point should not be lost when trying to reason objectively on the subject of cults. Here's relevant Rand on the matter (caps replace italics):

==============
Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing."

Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality -- other than the one in which we live ...
==============


==============
A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind ...

At the crossroads of the choice between "I know" and "They say," he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to BELIEVE rather than to think.
==============


==============
... faith and force are corollaries ... mysticism will always lead to brutality.

REASON is the only OBJECTIVE means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their OBJECTIVE standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And THAT is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind -- a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence.

Anyone who resorts to the formula: "It's so, because I say so," will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later.
==============


==============
All the centuries dominated by mysticism were the eras of political tyranny and slavery, of rule by brute force -- from the primitive barbarism of the jungle -- to the Pharaohs of Egypt -- to the emperors of Rome -- to the feudalism of the Dark and Middle Ages -- to the absolute monarchies of Europe ...
==============


==============
The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialects and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their own senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality -- is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their WISH.
==============

Sarah, after reading these quotes, I cannot remain "neutral" on the subject of cults. In fact, I find "neutral" talk of cults -- to be like corrosive value-acid. My mind is my proper King, anyone or anything attempting to dethrone this King is, ipso facto, a death-dealer -- and may, if found to be entirely unreasonable, have to be paid back in kind. There is no viable middle-ground between life and death.

Ed



Post 22

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Exacting, James, intellectually exacting! Bravo!

Ed



Post 23

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

You're missing the point here. What you're saying with cults is like saying all religion is theism. You're creating a definition based on your aversion to some cults and generalizing that to all cults.

Sarah



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
SOLOHQ is perceptual, conclusive evidence that Objectivism is not a cult. Here's a hyper-analysis of Lifton's 8 with regard to this point:

============
1. Milieu Control.  This involves the control of information and communication ...
============

Nope, not here. There is a predominantly-free flow of information here. Opposites sides of debates each rage on here (e.g. Valliant thread).


============
2. Mystical Manipulation.  There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift ...
============

Nope, not here. See Adam Reed's work on the value of "mystical manipulation."


============
3. Demand for Purity.  The world is viewed as black and white ...
============

Nope, not here. Alright, alright -- so I'm a little guilty of this. But even I've been touched by Joe Rowlands' reasoning on this very point. You remember Joe, don't you? The guy who friggin' manages this place!


============
4. Confession.  Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group.  There is no confidentiality ...
============

Nope, not here. See Andy Postema's new-puritanical work on "Confession."


============
5. Sacred Science.  The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute.  Truth is not to be found outside the group.  The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism. 
============

Nope, not here. "[S]pokesperson for God or for all humanity ..."?! Yeah, right! Good one! "[A]bove criticism"?! Yeah, right! Good one! Our leader (Linz) has been criticized as if criticism was going out of style!


============
6. Loading the Language.  The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. 
============

Yup, guilty (but with an explanation!). Using old things in "new ways" is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. One must always, ALWAYS ask, whether the new is objectively superior to the old. All human progress hinges on this. All human progress. Language, to serve its human purpose, OUGHT to be loaded (with something of value). Loading language with value is right and good.

Think about the opposite, where words were unimportant. Where words didn't pertain to really existing wonders, and to really existing atrocities. Think about Orwell's novel 1984 -- where language was systematically "unloaded." Now ask yourself: What purpose did THAT serve?


============
7. Doctrine over person.  Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted ...
============

Nope, not here. We are a cosmopolitan, individualist bunch. And, while some would cite reaction to Michael Stuart Kelly's recent work on addiction, as evidence of instantiation of this criterion; (1) a good third of the responses were empathetic to Michael's past plight and subsequent wing-growing (ie. they VALIDATED HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE), and (2) Joe Rowlands' and Robert Bidinotto's work on value-focus re-instated each individual's PERSONAL life as his/her own standard for all valuing.


============
8. Dispensing of existence.  The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not.  This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. 
============

Nope, not here. Though conversion of the masses would be valuable, there is a deontological nature to the command: "they must be converted." As if the purpose of your life is not to live it. As if you are a sacrificial animal toward some intrinsic good. Bollocks!

Here at SOLOHQ, we realize that our individual lives are the pinnacle of our existence. As no one but ourselves is in possession of the intimate details of each of our individual moral paths, no commandment-to-convert, no friggin' commandment to do anything, is acceptible rhetoric here.

There it is. One strike out of 8 (not bad at all!), and THAT particular one was successfully explained away!

Hmfph!

Ed



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No Sarah, I'm generalizing to (1) all cults, (2) all religions, (3) all theisms, (4) all mysticisms, (5) all revelations, (6) all magics (whether black or white), (7) all superstitions, (8) all mindless mantras -- anything and everything that endeavors to sever man's mind from reality.

Cult (operational def'n): anything and everything that (1) some folks believe, and (2) endeavors to sever man's mind from reality

Clear now?

Ed



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James, thanks for your fair and balanced reply. It's more than I have come to expect from orthodox defenders of Rand's philosophy. I have been associated with and have studied her philosophy for over 40 years, and I can tell you that the kind of dogmatism I've been discussing was alive and well under NBI no less than under ARI. What has appalled me is the manner in which Objectivists have typically dealt with dissenters, and it can be the most mild kind of dissent. You can't disagree with anything; even something as simple as a question is often viewed with suspicion and as evidence of hostility towards "all that's good and moral." I could cite you chapter and verse from my encounters with Objectivists over the years, but I'll spare you the details. It's ridiculous, and it doesn't seem to be improving, if my interactions on Diana's blog are any indication. She has now banned me from posting there, because of my latest SOLO article, citing her aversion to "tolerance." In addition, I am now being smeared by other posters in the most intellectually dishonest fashion, while being denied an opportunity to reply to anything they say.

You write, "I do not think that everything that Rand ever said can be included in what we call her "philosophy." Rand held philosophy to be a distinct field of study, and that, properly, it must be an integrated set of ideas and principles. Where an expression of Rand's is not both: 1. philosophical in nature, and 2. not integrated by her into the wider context of her ideas, I'm not sure that Rand herself would have included it as being part of her philosophy."

I don't think you can say that if a philosophical view that she held cannot be integrated into the wider context of her ideas, it is not part of her philosophy. If it is philosophical in nature but cannot be integrated into the rest of her philosophy, then that simply means that her philosophy is not entirely consistent.

You continue, "In addition, there is the entire realm of what Rand called 'optional' issues (still objective, of course.) Peikoff explains this distinction at some length in his lecture series 'Understanding Objectivism' from 1983, if memory serves."

Yes, I've taken that course, and I have no problem with the concept of "optional" values. The fact that Rand liked a certain kind of music, for example, does not mean that she considered it the only kind that is aesthetically acceptable.

You write, "As I acknowledge, Rand's use of the term 'immoral' suggests something philosophical to her view on homosexuality. (The whole of Rand's statement is something with which I personally disagree.) It's just that without Rand connecting this assertion to the rest of her ideas for us, I cannot see how 'it fits,' if you will. And, as Rand insists, to be philosophy, especially her's, it must 'fit'."

Well, again, I don't think that it "must" fit in order to considered a part of her philosophy. All that says is that her philosophy ~must~ contain no contradictions, but if it contains contradiction, then it contains contradictions. You cannot excuse a philosopher's inconsistencies by exempting one or the other of his or her views in order to resolve the contradiction. A philosopher is responsible for being logical and consistent, and cannot be excused from that responsibility simply in order to make his or her philosophy less vulnerable to criticism.

Her article on a female president was written for _The Objectivist_, a publication dedicated to the presentation of her philosophy. In the article, she writes that no rational woman can ever want to be president. If this isn't considered a philosophical position, I don't know what is. She is not simply presenting a view of how she personally would feel about being president. She is speaking about what is rational for woman qua woman, which must be considered a part of her philosophy.

You write, "However, Rand was a human being, and she did have flaws. Peikoff himself has commented that Rand's anger was sometimes unjust. And there can be no doubt that an objective biography will need to address such things. Britting's book, despite its many virtues, cannot be said to be the in-depth biography that the subject deserves. It was hardly the place where any such considerations would be 'essential,' in my view. That's not the same thing as evading -- or denying -- those issues, either."

You know, of course, that by identifying Rand as having flaws, you could well be accused of diminishing her stature - of making her out to have "feet of clay," which is a common response to those who have the temerity to suggest that she might not have been a perfect philosopher or a perfect human being. But if you write a biography, isn't there an implication that you are presenting a complete and balanced portrayal of the subject, not a one-sided view that is either positive or negative? To be sure, if the subject is a saint, then a fair and balanced portrayal ~would~ be entirely positive. But you certainly shouldn't sanitize a biography in order to create a false or misleading impression.

"As for ARI, I cannot speak for them, as I am not affiliated with them."

My apologies for suggesting otherwise.

"However, the Ayn Rand Archive was nothing but open and cooperative with me. Leonard Peikoff and Rand's estate were extremely generous and open with me, as well. I have heard the complaints of others, but I have experienced nothing like it myself."

Well, that's certainly good to hear.

"From personal knowledge, however, I can confirm that many have treated Rand and her ideas without the critical thought and care necessary to qualify as being 'objective.' Certainty often attracts those who seem to need its aura overmuch, I think."

Yes, and it does a disservice to Rand and to her philosophy for her to be associated with this kind of conformist mentality.

"At least irrationality and conformism are inconsistent with Rand's ideas -- ideas that can be classified as being part of her 'philosophy.'"

Precisely! And sometimes I think that she would roll over in her grave, if she saw how her devoted followers were behaving.

Bill




Post 27

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

What's not clear to me is why you necessarily associate cultism, or religion for that matter, with severing man's mind from reality. You're taking a contemporary notion saying that it applies to all people for all time.

Sarah



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

You guys, I thought this thread was about whether Objectivism was a cult, not what is a cult. No definition-mongering is necessary here. Bill Dwyer already laid out what he means by cult. According to Bill - and correct me if I’m wrong – the relevant cult elements here include:

 

1. Main advocates of a group are not open to admitting shortcomings or errors of the group’s leader(s).

2. Members of a group act more like attorneys for the group’s leader(s) than like truth-seekers.

3. Members fear disagreeing with some tenets that group-members are “supposed to” espouse.

4. Members who disagree with other members risks alienation from their colleagues.

 

The question is whether Objectivism (or Objectivists?) meets these elements. Whether we should call them cult elements is really a side issue to this thread.

 

That said, I agree with Dwyer in that I see these elements play out prominently time and time again in Objectivist circles.

 

Jordan




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, yes, I'm well aware of the tangential nature of my posts. The topic of the thread, though, has been covered so many times that I don't see much point in going over it again. As to the importance of whether those elements really are cultish, maybe I should just start a thread accusing capitalism of being driven by misanthropy, then say anyone claiming otherwise is definition-mongering. Yeah, sounds like a good plan to me.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 9/28, 12:58pm)




Post 30

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 Sarah,

I don't want folks to get bogged down here with what the word "cult" means. Dwyer has outlined the concept he's interested in discussing. He named that concept "cult." You may not like his word choice, but the concept by any other name still smells as sweet. And we should be mainly concerned with the concept Dwyer is discussing, if anything here, not whether we think he named it right. Besides, it's not fair to hijack a thread just because the thread's topic is hackneyed. The best thing I think you can do with subjects you're tired of is...ignore them.

Jordan




Post 31

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
sigh

Fine, to all points: yes, some Objectivists or groups of Objectivists display these characteristics. Hey, pick any reasonably sized group and you'll find that behavior. Ever read about the experiment where a person was put in a room with a bunch of other people "in on" the experiment, then started pumping smoke in through the vents which the "in" people ignored? Most times, the "out" person didn't say a word. Or when the "in" people were asked which of two lines were shorter, they picked the longer one. Again, the "out" guy folds under pressure more often than not. Evolution has seen to it that the vast majority of people want to be the in the "in" group (I'd be interested to look at the effectiveness of those cell phone commercials asking, "Are you in?"). These aren't characteristics of a cult, they're characteristics of humanity.

Sarah



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill said:
I don't think you can say that if a philosophical view that she held cannot be integrated into the wider context of her ideas, it is not part of her philosophy. If it is philosophical in nature but cannot be integrated into the rest of her philosophy, then that simply means that her philosophy is not entirely consistent.
Hey, Bill.  Well put.  It's always refreshing to read your posts.
Thanks,
Glenn




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah writes:
>The topic of the thread, though, has been covered so many times that I don't see much point in going over it again.

I agree, let's all move on to more philosophically important issues, like whether the Brandens are big fat liars or not...oh, bugger...;-)

Actually, I think it's pretty obvious that Objectivism has strongly cult-like aspects. It can hardly be, as James Heaps Nelson suggests, a "smear", as the criticisms are being made from within - on this thread, for example, by old hands like Bill Dwyer, who's studied it for 40 years, and serious if somewhat newer hands like Jordan, who's studied it for 8 years. Even Ed's point by point rebuttal entirely ducks the issue, as he refers only to SoloHQ in his refutation - as if that was all, or even most, of Objectivism. Clearly it is not. Likewise, if the issue is perennial it indicates a persistent problem, not an easily-dispensed-with fallacy.

As an outsider and interested critic I don't think the cult-like aspects stem from outside "smears", whether by Jeff Walker, the Brandens or whoever. The more I've looked at it over the years, the more I think that while the cult-like aspect may have originated with Rand's forceful personality, it seems to be sustained by more subtle means - chiefly:

>6. Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand.

This has been the dominant theme in my own admittedly amateur and lightweight criticism, and I was interested to see it so strongly echoed when I picked up Greg Nyquist's very thorough "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature".

Nyquist writes (as I quoted elsewhere):
"...As I will seek to demonstrate over the course of this book, Rand's philosophy is open to many serious objections. Rand was a surprisingly sloppy and even maladroit thinker who apparently believed that matters of fact can be determined by the manipulation of logical and rhetorical construction. *Indeed, some of the most important doctrines of her philosophy are based on nothing more than a mere play on words...*"
(emphasis DB)

Control the language. That seems to be where it all starts.

- Daniel





Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel,

Most Objectivists don't attend functions or post to websites. They live their own lives. Objectivists feel free to criticize their leaders if circumstances warrant. We don't have any strings and we're not drinking poison Kool-Aid, neutering ourselves and taking video game quarters to the afterlife or burning ourselves up.  The word "cult" to describe the mild tribal mentalities of a few Objectivists is an injustice.

Jim




Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah, if you go back and read my original essay, you'll see that I answered this question - "Is Objectivism a cult?" - in the negative. I do not think that the philosophy of Objectivism is a cult. What I did say is that I thought there were elements of cult-like behavior and cult-like attitudes among Objectivists, in the sense of a tendency to dogmatism and a refusal to tolerate dissenting opinion in the study and evaluation of the philosophy. The key elements that I isolated as cult-like were nicely summarized by Jordan. That doesn't mean that if these elements are present, they constitute a cult in the normally understood sense of the term. In order for a movement to qualify as a cult, a number of other important features must be present (e.g. mysticism, heavy indoctrination, etc.), which are clearly absent from the Objectivist movement.

Bill



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Jim here. I mean, sheesh. How can you guys interpret ... how can you guys integrate the idea that Objectivism is necessarily cultish (I'm taking this to be the thesis of the thread) ... how can you guys square a belief that Objectivism is cultish with these following words, words from the leader/discoverer/author of the damn philosophy?

================
Self-esteem is reliance on one's own power to think.
================


================
The man of authentic self-confidence is the man who relies on the judgment of his own mind. Such a man is not malleable; he may be mistaken, he may be fooled in a given instance, but he is inflexible in regard to the absolutism of reality, i.e., in seeking and demanding truth. ...

There is only one source of authentic self-confidence: reason.
================


When you guys can square these 2 quotes with the idea of a necessary cultishness in Objectivism, well you just let me know then, alright? In the meantime, if you want to talk about human psychology and necessary cultishness in various temperamental inclinations, well go right ahead. But do me a favor (would you?): Start the thread with an appropriate title, not a stolen concept or floating abstraction. Here's a suggestion to get you started:

The necessary cultishness of interaction between choleric temperaments and phlegmatic temperaments.

Ed






Post 37

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Isn't one of the main features of a cult that differentiates it from a religion is the idea of being a closed society as opposed to one that is open and/or proseyltizes?



Post 38

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,

Thanks for the insightful reply.

I would labor to integrate Rand's assertion on homosexuality if only it had been part of her published writings, or if it had been more than part of a mere Q & A, or if there were other ideas in Rand's philosophy already there for me to "hook it up with," or if Rand had placed any mention of (much less emphasis on) such things as being part of philosophy.

The psychological aspect of her assertion is not part of philosophy, but psychology, and, I think, understanding this subject is a necessary prerequisite to answering the moral question. Rand herself held that emotions are outside of one's direct volitional control and that only the volitional is properly subject to moral evaluation. She possessed an actively "pro-sex" orientation. In none of this can I see support for the conclusion that it is "immoral." Nor does Rand state it as a "conclusion" of any kind, logical or otherwise.

The other part of her assertion, I think, gives it away -- when she says that she personally finds it to be "disgusting." This is not a philosophical assertion, at all, and clearly only something about Rand, rather than Objectivism, is being asserted. This suggests to me that she was expressing her own attitude. Yes, she should have been more clear about the philosophical status of this, but, apart from that, why can't Rand express her personal preferences and attitudes, too? Does being a "philosopher" mean that she can't express a favorite flavor of ice-cream?

However, if her use of the term "immoral," by itself, qualifies the statement as being part of philosophy, then, to that extent at least, I ain't no Objectivist. Even so, it's no matter -- see how easily it can be excised?

Ed and Jim,

Agreed.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/28, 3:52pm)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about this? If the focus is on human psychology (instead of human philosophy), then why not start a thread entitled:

The propensity of type-A personality types to be psychologically attracted to those thought systems involving really clear thinking.

or

The propensity of type-B personality types to shun those thought systems involving intellectual certainty.

or

The "addictive personality" and thought systems involving measurable certitude.

or

Who needs to KNOW? Those psychological types that put a relatively high emphasis on either knowledge, certitude, or finality.

or

The Oedipus Psycho-epistemology: How potty-training affects late-life choices in belief systems.

or finally (I can hear your sighs)

The Pavlovian underpinnings of various belief systems: Does the mere "ring" of truth make you "salivate"?

Ed







Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.