Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: What's Left for Men?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 01:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    792
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Post What's Left for Men?

    This article comes from the Cynic's sanctuary and laments the decline of male power.



    Rick's January Tirade What's Left for Men? Men are in trouble. The signs are subtle, like an afternoon sun sliding almost imperceptibly toward the western horizon. But signs are signs, and the sun seems to be hanging a little lower in the sky for men these days. Our generation is witnessing the slow descent of the bearded ones, those bold and brawny toolmakers who wear their reproductive organs on the outside and never stop to ask for directions.

    I've long suspected that all was not well in the fraternity of men. What finally convinced me was the release of three separate studies that reveal just how disadvantaged a minority we've become.

    One report discloses that women now significantly outnumber men at U.S. institutions of higher learning. Despite marginally higher standardized test scores, men have been shying away from academia like vampires from sun-lamps. It might be true that union bricklayers earn more than teachers and White House interns, but bricklayers don't influence the course of society or read Salon magazine. These practical young men are selecting themselves out of our culture.

    Male liberal arts students are scarcer today than honest politicians. Women will be carrying the torch of learning into the new millennium, much like the medieval monks who copied the works of Plato and Aristotle while the rest of us burned peat to warm our huts and backsides. Just as important, women will be deciding whose work is worthy of perpetuation. I think it's safe to predict that, given the current biases of our scholars, future generations will be reading more Toni Morrison and less Jonathan Swift.

    The second report — a study of work habits — shows that women are more inclined than men to toil steadily over long stretches of time. Men, by contrast, expend their energy in short bursts and need regular breaks to recover their senses.

    What this study suggests, of course, is that women are better adapted to the modern corporate environment, where a cheerful acceptance of monotony and long hours significantly boosts one's survival odds. As a grudging participant in corporate life myself, I've noticed that women seem to fit the mold more readily than men. They're relentlessly organized, always pointing to the facts in their little portable planners. Unlike most men, they're willing to accept the realities of the tribal hierarchy; they don't fume excessively and curse their stars for being mere middle managers. They're neat and hygienic. They communicate effectively, especially when they want something. They leverage their superior social skills by forming alliances with people who can yank them up the ladder. They're nimble, efficient and maddeningly productive. And, of course, they're able to tolerate nine or ten hours of the most stultifying work, day after day, and make it seem like so much needlepoint. A woman's true place is in the office.

    The third study compares men's and women's physiological responses to shopping, and (no surprise here) finds that men's blood pressure is more likely than women's to shoot skyward during the hot pursuit of merchandise.

    The significance of this finding is twofold: that men are more sensitive to stress, and that one man's stress is a woman's reason for living. Shopping excursions, typing, two-hour phone conversations, church socials, obligatory visits with neighbors and in-laws, catered parties and even, for God's sake, WEDDINGS — you name it, women revel in it. Not only do these activities NOT raise their blood pressure, they probably send a euphoric wave of endorphins coursing through their lithe bodies. For men, such activities only serve to hasten death.

    Let's look beyond the trio of studies for further evidence that men are an endangered sex:

    • The traditional male role of breadwinner is already a lost legacy as women close the pay gap and exhibit an alarming fanaticism for work.
    • Women no longer require the brute strength of males for protection against large carnivorous mammals and club-wielding foes; they simply need to pack a semi-automatic.
    • Despite several documented cases of men outliving women, males in general are statistically more likely to perish from virtually every affliction known to our species — including suicide, overwork and driving into telephone poles.
    • Men are chronically overrepresented among the ranks of idiots and psychopaths. Whenever you hear about a serial killer who stashes body parts in a basement freezer, you can reasonably assume the perpetrator is a lifter of toilet seats.
    • Male politicians are a public disgrace, leaving the door open for any female candidate with a halo and wings.
    • Male clergymen, once the spiritual leaders of our communities, have shown a lamentable penchant for dallying with choirboys and loose women. By contrast, female clergy tend to project an admirably sexless aura.
    • What few remnants of moral authority men haven't squandered through their own stupid behavior, hard-line feminists have stripped away during their equally stupid thirty-year assault on "phallocentric" institutions like sex and grammar.
    • Men have been forced to give up their exclusive colleges and clubs, including Yale, Princeton and the United States Marines.
    • Viagra has robbed male sexual performance of its macho bravado; any retired male librarian can achieve the same effect now by popping a pill.
    • New Age culture is essentially a celebration of passive, spiritual, non-invasive, quiescently vegetarian (i.e., anti-male) values. No arterially clogged beefeaters need apply. Men must wear sandals and smell of incense at all times.
    • Political Correctness has served primarily to curb the natural male impulse to accost attractive women and mock the unfortunate. Where will men find their merriment now?
    • The so-called Men's Movement was an abortive comedy: clandestine pow-wows in the woods, participants wearing antlers and beating drums, and the ghastly sound of grown men sobbing over their lost Cub Scout uniforms.
    • The widespread use of artificial insemination has reduced the need for biological specimens of manhood in the population, other than an occasional shirtless gardener or movie stud to whet a woman's fancy. The rest of us could be culled like young roosters. As a wise cynic once said, men have planted the seed of their own obsolescence.
    What's left for men, then? The golden orb is descending ever lower in the sky, taking on the bloody hue of sunset. Men have been deconstructed, devalued and debunked. We've been toppled from our venerable position of provider/protector/inseminator. Sisterhood outsells brotherhood in the bookstores and magazine stands. Rude jokes about male members are mouthed by sarcastic actresses on evening sitcoms. Where will it end? The former tribe of spear-carriers and master-builders appears to be headed for a prolonged and depressing eclipse, if not outright obsolescence.

    Granted, men will continue to dominate selected fields of endeavor; the lumber business, strip-mining and metallurgical engineering seem safe for the moment, as do the Mafia and model railroad clubs. Women will always require the services of men to move furniture and extract dead rodents from roof-gutters. No woman will ever whack seventy homers in a season against major league pitching — unless the pitchers are women.

    But aside from performing prodigious physical labors with our rippling muscles, what can we men do to reverse our sickly decline into a second-rate sex? We can take pride in our past, for one.

    Look upon the achievements of our fathers, O ye men, and rejoice! It was men — yes, my friends, MEN — who built such memorable monuments as the Step-Pyramid of King Djoser, the Baths of Caracalla, the Woolworth Building and the first Wal-Mart. MEN composed Pachelbel's Canon and all of Beethoven's string quartets. It was a MAN who penned the immortal lines, "Hail to thee blithe spirit, Bird thou never wert!" MEN wrote the popular songs "Massa's in de Cold, Cold Ground" and "Yes, We Have No Bananas." A MAN invented the lightning rod, bifocals and the Franklin stove. The Battle of Hastings was fought primarily by MEN.

    And look at the great names we've bequeathed to civilization — names like Samuel Gompers, Rutherford B. Hayes, Pericles, Enrico Fermi, Canute the Dane, Calvin Coolidge and Kenesaw Mountain Landis. All of them MEN.

    MEN have discovered and named many fine places, like Hispaniola and the Bay of Fundy. We're more proficient than women at arm-wrestling, fresco-painting, ice hockey and particle physics. We make better cabinets, sun decks and booster rockets. We know how to read a map. In the movies, most Westerns and martial arts films would be poorer without our presence.

    We may die younger, on average, but we tend to enjoy ourselves with greater gusto during the heady years that count — driving fast, chugging beer by the six-pack and dropping water balloons onto unsuspecting pedestrians. This is life as it was meant to be lived... the good life as delineated by Socrates, Epicurus and the other great moral philosophers — most of whom were MEN, by the way.

    So let's renew our male mission and wear our antlers high on our heads. Let's stand up straight, aim well, and exercise our prerogative to leave the seat up. After all, we're MEN, and we hold a proud heritage in our hands.

    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 05:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,179
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    22 Posts

    Post Re: What's Left for Men?

    Good article. One of my more influential university teachers once presented the idea that we are entering a new Matriarchy, possibly as dark and unfair as Patriarchy, only in different ways (to demonstrate his thesis, the other students tried to have him removed from teaching for being "sexist" and "racist" ).

    If I remember fairly, his theory was that the role of the mother in the upbringing of boys/sons have reached a point where it is too strong. Or something like that. Anyone having a link or a book that deals with the subject?

    The Traditionalist/Fascist Julius Evola also thought along these lines, in the article Do We Live in a Gynaecocratic Society?

    Since Thompkins-Cariou are very strict on copyright laws, I won't copy/paste the text, but only make the link available. It is a good article, so a debate would be welcome.

    Are we entering a Gynaecocratic society?

    Is this a good or bad thing?

    If so, what can be done to reverse, or increase, the process?

    http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id8.html

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 03:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    32
    Thanked in
    32 Posts

    Post Re: What's Left for Men?

    There is still hope. Feminism has waxed, and is now waning. There is still a place for the macho alpha-male in the world of tommorrow.






  4. #4
    Renewed
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    QuietWind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    Jaded
    Posts
    2,206
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: What's Left for Men?

    Who says it is about feminism? Studies about female productiveness in the workplace may create fuel for the feminists fire, but they are hardly feministic in themselves. The fact that more women are going to college also has very little part in feminism. I attended grad school with a girl whose only goal in life was to get married, have children, and be a stay at home mother. I will be, Hopefully, beginning my PhD in April and I also am a stay at home mother who homeschools my children. I know women who were formerly doctors and lawyers who now stay at home with their children. In today's society where almost half of all marriages end in divorce, a woman must protect herself. I can assure you that many men do not send child support or help in any way with the offspring that they brought into this world. What's a woman to do? She must toil alongside the males and earn a living for her family. Women of yesteryear worked hard inside the home, providing good, happy places, and received no pay for all that they did. It is no surprise that these same qualities are carried over into the workplace and a woman is able to steadily work for long periods, not care about being in low positions, and all the other things. Women also must still come home and work, even after being all day in the workplace. When men come home, their work is over. Women know that theirs is just beginning. She comes home and must make dinner for the family, give the kids a bath, and do housework. Some ancient societies were female centered and led by women. These societies were generally found to have been very peaceful, harmonious societies. Maybe if men did less criticizing of women and more understanding and learning from them then feminism would have never come about. Think about it.......
    "I do not know what horrified me most at that time: the economic misery of my companions, their moral and ethical coarseness, or the low level of their intellectual development." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

  5. #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 03:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    32
    Thanked in
    32 Posts

    Oh... you must mean the Minoans!

    LOL. You mean like the Minoans? Ripping men in half? I don't think peaceful is what I would've called them. :eyes :giggle






  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 05:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,179
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    22 Posts

    Post Re: Oh... you must mean the Minoans!

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
    LOL. You mean like the Minoans? Ripping men in half? I don't think peaceful is what I would've called them. :eyes :giggle
    You got a point there

    And so do you, Jennifer. A great post that most male members of "the movement" would have good use reading.

    From what Evola says about these Matriarchies, they were as bad as Patriarchies, only in different ways (I think these are the cultures he refers to as Pelasgian, ie. Pre-Hyperborean). They were very collectivist, often with dark, cthonic cults. Stagnant. And probably the males didn't have a very fun life.

    My view on the question of feminism is that originally, our ancestors had a pretty good balance between the genders. There were complementing roles for males and females, but no gender was looked down upon as inferior, and the power of women was substantial. Also, there was an awareness that individual women could go beyond the gender-roles if they didn't fit them (female warriors for example).

    However, with the changes in society, and the coming of Christianity, this changed, and a social process started that ended with women being inferiors. The time was ripe for a reaction, and it came in the form of feminism. The reaction was legitimate, since Patriarchy had taken away too much.

    The problem is that the feminisms that triumphed are harmful to a functioning society, and to both genders. There are several feminisms, but the one that has the hegemonic position in most academia and media, is the one called radical feminism. It denies any differences between males and females, and wants to abolish all gender roles. Also, the language of radical feminism (RF) is similar to the language of it's ideological father, Marxism, and it preaches gender war. Women who choose the mother role are viewed as brainwashed traitors by RF. Many of the leading rf:s are Jewesses, but rarely do they criticise the misogynies of Judaism. Also, they are very fond of using legislation to force families to live according to RF ideology.

    There are feminisms out there that are more healthy, like liberal feminism (making choices the womans own, and thus allowing her to choose the mother role), and what in Sweden is called "särartsfeminism" ("difference feminism"). The main idea is that men and women in general are different, and that the feminine characteristics need to be valued higher. And also that the opportunities for women to make their own choices should increase. I suspect that most Nationalists are difference feminists.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, January 28th, 2005 @ 01:18 AM
    Subrace
    Norðvestrid/NW. Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: What's Left for Men?

    This is the worst article I've read in quite a long time.

    I think it's safe to predict that, given the current biases of our scholars, future generations will be reading more Toni Morrison and less Jonathan Swift.
    Sincere scholars do not follow these petty trends, and it is a mistake to assume that all women judge the merit of a work based on the degree to which it reflects their own experiences. I am a woman who has read Swift on her own accord and would never touch anything of Morrison's.

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 03:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    32
    Thanked in
    32 Posts

    Post Re: What's Left for Men?

    I doubt it. Liberal colleges are based more about social conformism than they are about furthering one's education.






  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 05:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,179
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    22 Posts

    Post Re: What's Left for Men?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
    I doubt it. Liberal colleges are based more about social conformism than they are about furthering one's education.
    I tend to agree. The person who reads Swift instead of Morrison today (regardless of gender) is probably a high-quality exception. Most of the students I met in university only read books within a very limited sphere. However, it is usually the high-quality exceptions who shape the future, so I agree that the writer of the article is unnecessarily pessimistic.

    But the question that we all ask is: What would Savitri Devi say?

    Savitri Devi on Feminism

    Another extremely important feature of our Nazi education (and of our whole system) is its absolute opposition to the pernicious "feminism" of our epoch -- that product of decadence, of which the effect is nothing less than a still further lowering of the level of the race.


    We hate the very idea of "equality" of man and woman, forced upon the Western world more shamelessly than ever since the time of the First World War. For one, it is nonsense. No male and female of the same living species endowed by Nature with complementary abilities for the fulfillment of complementary destinies, can be "equal." They are different, and cannot be anything else but different, however much one might try to give them the same training and make them do the same work. It is also a nefarious idea; for the only way one can, I do not say make man and woman "equal" -- that is impossible -- but force them, willy-nilly, into the same artificial mould, accustom them to the same type of life, is by robbing woman of her femininity and man of his virile qualities, i.e., by spoiling both, and spoiling the race. (In modern English literature, no author has exposed the feminist fallacy more brilliantly than D.H. Lawrence, in nearly all his works.)

    I do not deny that there are and always have been isolated instances of women more fitted for manly tasks than for motherhood, or equally capable of both. But such exceptions need no "feminism" in order to win for themselves the special place that Nature, in her love of diversity, has appointed to them. Around about 3,200 before Christ, Azag-Bau, a wine merchant in her youth, managed to raise herself to such prominence as to become the founder of the Fourth Dynasty of Kish (Cambridge Ancient History, 1924 ed., vol. I). In those days, women did not vote -- nor did men, by the way -- any more in Sumeria than elsewhere. Nor did they, in general, compete with men in all or nearly all walks of life, as in modern England and the USA. [Image: Azag-Bau, queen of the Sumerian city of Kish, here divinized as Kubaba.]

    Curiously enough, the most fanatical female feminists are, as a rule, those in whom virile qualities are the most lacking. Masterful women, as Nietzsche remarks, are not feminists. Most remote Azag-Bau, or Queen Tiy of Egypt, or Agrippina, or, nearer our times, the little known but most fascinating virile feminine figure of Mongolian history, Ai Yuruk, who spent her life on the saddle and, along with her father Kaidu (son of Kuyuk, son of Ogodai, son of Genghis Khan) "held the grazing lands of mid-Asia for nearly forty years" (Harold Lamb, The March of the Barbarians, 1941 ed., p. 244), all would have burst out laughing at the idea of "women's emancipation" and all the twaddle that goes with it -- in fact, at all the typically democratic institutions that our degenerate world so admires.

    But exceptions need no special education; or if they do, they educate themselves. Our National Socialist education for the present and future welfare of a healthy community, was -- and will still be, when the time comes to enforce it once more -- based upon the acceptation of the fact that men and women have entirely different parts to play in national life, and that they need, therefore, an entirely different training; that "the one aim of female education must be with a view to the future mother" (Mein Kampf, vol. II, Chap. II, 1939 ed., p. 460.)

    We did not "force" every woman to become a mother. But we gave every healthy woman of pure blood the necessary training and every opportunity to become a useful one, if she cared to. Girls were taught to consider motherhood as a national duty as well as an honor -- not as a burden. They were trained to admire manly virtues in men, and to look upon the perfect warrior as the ideal mate, as is natural. Not every girl, also, could marry every man, even within the Party. The greater the man's qualifications, the greater were the woman's to be. For instance, a girl who wished to become the wife of an SS man -- a great honor -- had not only to prove that she was of unmixed Aryan descent (as every marriageable German was expected to) but also to produce a diploma attesting that she was well­versed in cooking, sewing, housekeeping, the science of child welfare, etc., in one word, that she had been tested and found fit to be an accomplished housewife. [Image: NS Art Poster.]

    This does not mean that, in a National Socialist State, women are not to be taught anything else but domestic sciences and child-welfare. In new Germany, they were given general knowledge also. And Point Twenty of the Party Program, which stresses, among other things, that "the understanding of the spirit of the State (civic knowledge) must be aimed at, through school training, beginning with the first awakening of intelligence," is to be taken into account in the education of girls as well as of boys.

    Also, seldom was there, on the part of any State, a more sincere and serious attempt to provide every child with the maximum possibilities of development and advancement. "We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class and occupation, at the expense of the State," said the Führer, again in the same Point of his program. And he kept his word to the letter and gave the German people in that line as in others, even more than he had promised, as his enemies themselves are forced to admit.

    Edited by R.G. Fowler from Savitri Devi's Gold in the Furnace (Calcutta: A.K. Mukherji, 1952), ch. 11, "The Constructive Side," pp. 281-4. The title was provided by the editor.

    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/feminism.htm

    (Devi was one of the leading proponents of the "Occult NS", creating a synthesis of National Socialism and Hinduism. Thanks to Kalki for the article)

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, January 28th, 2005 @ 01:18 AM
    Subrace
    Norðvestrid/NW. Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Oh... you must mean the Minoans!

    Quote Originally Posted by Oskorei
    My view on the question of feminism is that originally, our ancestors had a pretty good balance between the genders. There were complementing roles for males and females, but no gender was looked down upon as inferior, and the power of women was substantial. Also, there was an awareness that individual women could go beyond the gender-roles if they didn't fit them (female warriors for example).

    However, with the changes in society, and the coming of Christianity, this changed, and a social process started that ended with women being inferiors. The time was ripe for a reaction, and it came in the form of feminism. The reaction was legitimate, since Patriarchy had taken away too much.
    Agreed. Most "feminists" (especially "difference feminists") and "anti-feminists" exaggerate gender differences and downplay the significance of individual differences within genders.

    Individual men and women should be allowed to choose what "role" they play in society based on what they are suited for. This makes for a more productive society than roping everyone into certain "role" that is determined by their gender, which is what far too many people -- especially "feminists" -- desire.

    The problem is that the feminisms that triumphed are harmful to a functioning society, and to both genders. There are several feminisms, but the one that has the hegemonic position in most academia and media, is the one called radical feminism. It denies any differences between males and females, and wants to abolish all gender roles. Also, the language of radical feminism (RF) is similar to the language of it's ideological father, Marxism, and it preaches gender war. Women who choose the mother role are viewed as brainwashed traitors by RF. Many of the leading rf:s are Jewesses, but rarely do they criticise the misogynies of Judaism. Also, they are very fond of using legislation to force families to live according to RF ideology.

    There are feminisms out there that are more healthy, like liberal feminism (making choices the womans own, and thus allowing her to choose the mother role), and what in Sweden is called "särartsfeminism" ("difference feminism"). The main idea is that men and women in general are different, and that the feminine characteristics need to be valued higher. And also that the opportunities for women to make their own choices should increase. I suspect that most Nationalists are difference feminists.
    "Difference feminism" promotes gender stereotypes and is just as counterproductive and repressive (for both sexes) as "patriarchy".

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do Men Want Children, Too? / Are Modern Men Afraid of Commitment?
    By Adalheid in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 7th, 2020, 04:12 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, July 8th, 2017, 11:04 AM
  3. The Power of the Left: Where Does It Come From?
    By Nachtengel in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Sunday, March 19th, 2017, 07:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •