Jerry Biggers

N. BRANDEN'S COMMENTARY ON RAND'S CRITICS

Recommended Posts

As discussed elsewhere on OL, the liberal critics of Ayn Rand have predictably used the resurgence of interest in her books,and the occasion of the publication of two new biographical studies, to unload their vitriolic personal animosity to all things Rand.

In 1962, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's book, Who is Ayn Rand? was published. In its first essay, "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged" (now available as a separate pamphlet from The Atlas Society), Nathaniel Branden made the following comments regarding attacks that appeared in the press about Atlas Shrugged (and it is astounding that these comments could have been written today, 48 years later, about the recent "pseudo" reviews of these biographies, and not require any substantial change):

It is hard to say which is the more eloquent proof of its signal relevance to the crucial issues of our age: the widespread admiration and enthusiasm it has inspired – or the hysteria of the attacks unleashed against it. The nature of those attacks is an instructive index of the current intellectual condition of our culture.

Rand’s antagonists have unfailingly elected to pay her what is, perhaps, the greatest tribute one can offer to a thinker whom one opposes: they have all felt obliged to misrepresent her ideas in order to attack them.

No one has dared publicly to name the essential ideas of Atlas Shrugged and to attempt to refute them. No one has been willing to declare: “Ayn Rand holds that man must choose his own values and actions exclusively by reason, that man has the right to exist for his own sake, that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force – and I consider such ideas wrong, evil, and socially dangerous.”

Rand’s opponents have found it preferable to debate with strawmen, to equate her philosophy with that of Spencer or Nietzsche or Spinoza or Hobbes and thus expose themselves to the charge of philosophic illiteracy – rather than identify and publicly argue against that for which Rand actually stands.

Were they discussing the ideas of an author whose work was not known to the general public, their motive would appear obvious. But it is a rather grotesque spectacle to witness men seemingly going through the motions of concealing from the public the ideas of an author whose readers number in the millions.

When one considers the careful precision with which Rand defines her terms and presents her ideas, and the painstaking manner in which each concept is concretized and illustrated – one will search in vain for a non-psychiatric explanation of the way in which her philosophy has been reported by antagonists. Allegedly describing her concept of rational self-interest, they report that Ayn Rand extols disregard for the rights of others, brutality, rapacity, doing whatever one feels like doing and general animal self-indulgence. This, evidently, is the only meaning they are able to give to the concept of self-interest. One can only conclude that this is how they conceive their own self-interest, which they altruistically and self-sacrificially renounce. Such a viewpoint tells one a great deal about the man who holds it – but nothing about the philosophy of Rand

(excerpts from pp 38-39, in the TAS pamphlet used here; original version, pp 58-59, Who Is Ayn Rand? 1962: Random House).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it except for the ad hominems in the last paragraph.

Ad hominems? Are you referring to the comment of "searching in vain for a non-psychiatric explanation?" Or his speculation that Rand's critics are projecting their own view of their self-interest onto Rand's?

In the first, Branden is being sarcastic. In the second, he is speculating as to why Rand's critics distort or misrepresent her view of rational self-interest. Oh, I get it, you are saying that speculating about the motives behind the attacks is ad hominem?

Well,....uh,...maybe :unsure:

(but I like It!) :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an oldie, but another goody by that adequate writer Gore Vidal, of the recently condemning of O'biwan fame.

Comment, July 1961

Gore Vidal may not like New York Times' critic Orville Prescott, but he dislikes Ayn Rand's "philosophy" even more.

By: Gore Vidal

"Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux. The muddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from the deep. Trolls walk the American night. Caesars are stirring in the Forum. There are storm warnings ahead. But to counter trolls and Caesars, we have such men as Lewis Mumford whose new book, The City in History, inspires. He traces the growth of communities from Neolithic to present times. He is wise. He is moral: that is, he favors right action and he believes it possible for us to make things better for us (not “me”!). He belongs to the currently unfashionable line of makers who believe that if something is wrong it can be made right, whether a faulty water main or a faulty idea. May he flourish!"

Find this article at: http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vidal-archive/comment-0761

I remember laughing my ass off at this when it hit the newspaper stands...yes in 1961, you would have your favorite newspaper stand with a real English speaking person, who cared whether you came back to his stand.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great quote. Thanks for posting.

My thoughts sometimes run on similar lines reading some of those on this forum who would "rebut" Rand, but betray not even a basic understanding of what she wrote.

Bill P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Branden quote is right on target about the pervasive misidentification of Rand's ideas - we are seeing it again in the reviews of the Burns and Heller books. And it is a very serious problem.

But the psychologizing about motives by Branden is both dumb (it will turn off any neutral readers) and inaccurate. Rand has painstakingly explained her ideas, but the explanations are often short, not book length with a wide range of examples allowing time to absorb them. He -- and pretty much all subsequent Oists and Rand herself -- grossly underestimate how different these ideas are from what people have learned before...as are the thinking methods needed to understand them.

Apparently even people like Burns tend to reduce her to other thinkers who seem to be saying the same thing, like Spencer or Nietzsche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are you referring to the comment of "'searching in vain for a non-psychiatric explanation?'"

Yes.

"Or his speculation that Rand's critics are projecting their own view of their self-interest onto Rand's?"

Yes.

"[Y]ou are saying that speculating about the motives behind the attacks is ad hominem?"

Yes, if you do it in the public prints.

Peikoff published a very good reply to Vidal in the letters column of Esquire column a few months later saying among other things that he displays "an ignorance of the history of philosophy that would be shocking in a college sophomore." The magazine captioned it "Atlas Shrieked".

Mumford was one of Rand's sources for Ellsworth Toohey. He was also the Librarian of Congress who wrote Rand in the 60s to ask for her manuscripts. Not least, he was a friend of FLlWright. Mr. Roark did think of Mr. Toohey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As discussed elsewhere on OL, the liberal critics of Ayn Rand have predictably used the resurgence of interest in her books,and the occasion of the publication of two new biographical studies, to unload their vitriolic personal animosity to all things Rand.

In 1962, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's book, Who is Ayn Rand? was published. In its first essay, "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged" (now available as a separate pamphlet from The Atlas Society), Nathaniel Branden made the following comments regarding attacks that appeared in the press about Atlas Shrugged (and it is astounding that these comments could have been written today, 48 years later, about the recent "pseudo" reviews of these biographies, and not require any substantial change):

It is hard to say which is the more eloquent proof of its signal relevance to the crucial issues of our age: the widespread admiration and enthusiasm it has inspired – or the hysteria of the attacks unleashed against it. The nature of those attacks is an instructive index of the current intellectual condition of our culture.

Rand’s antagonists have unfailingly elected to pay her what is, perhaps, the greatest tribute one can offer to a thinker whom one opposes: they have all felt obliged to misrepresent her ideas in order to attack them.

No one has dared publicly to name the essential ideas of Atlas Shrugged and to attempt to refute them. No one has been willing to declare: “Ayn Rand holds that man must choose his own values and actions exclusively by reason, that man has the right to exist for his own sake, that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force – and I consider such ideas wrong, evil, and socially dangerous.”

Rand’s opponents have found it preferable to debate with strawmen, to equate her philosophy with that of Spencer or Nietzsche or Spinoza or Hobbes and thus expose themselves to the charge of philosophic illiteracy – rather than identify and publicly argue against that for which Rand actually stands.

Were they discussing the ideas of an author whose work was not known to the general public, their motive would appear obvious. But it is a rather grotesque spectacle to witness men seemingly going through the motions of concealing from the public the ideas of an author whose readers number in the millions.

When one considers the careful precision with which Rand defines her terms and presents her ideas, and the painstaking manner in which each concept is concretized and illustrated – one will search in vain for a non-psychiatric explanation of the way in which her philosophy has been reported by antagonists. Allegedly describing her concept of rational self-interest, they report that Ayn Rand extols disregard for the rights of others, brutality, rapacity, doing whatever one feels like doing and general animal self-indulgence. This, evidently, is the only meaning they are able to give to the concept of self-interest. One can only conclude that this is how they conceive their own self-interest, which they altruistically and self-sacrificially renounce. Such a viewpoint tells one a great deal about the man who holds it – but nothing about the philosophy of Rand

(excerpts from pp 38-39, in the TAS pamphlet used here; original version, pp 58-59, Who Is Ayn Rand? 1962: Random House).

It looks like N. Branden saw certain things about AR's philosophy a good deal more critically as the years went by.

Quote:

"Former Ayn Rand associate Nathaniel Branden argues [NB, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement". 1984.] that Atlas Shrugged "encourages emotional repression and self-disowning" and that her works contain contradictory messages. Branden claimed that the characters rarely talk "on a simple, human level without launching into philosophical sermons." He criticizes the potential psychological impact of the novel, stating that John Galt's recommendation to respond to wrongdoing with "contempt and moral condemnation" clashes with the view of psychologists who say this only causes the wrongdoing to repeat itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

We ALL know this information. What is your point? <<<< this by the way is what a question looks like.

Care to answer a direct question?

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

We ALL know this information. What is your point? <<<< this by the way is what a question looks like.

Care to answer a direct question?

Adam

Can't you see the point? You ALL know this information but commented on the old article without even mentioning it.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

We ALL know this information. What is your point? <<<< this by the way is what a question looks like.

Care to answer a direct question?

Adam

Can't you see the point? You ALL know this information but cited the old article without even mentioning it.

Nope.

Back sliding already. You refuse to answer. That is your response to my question? <you realize that this is another question.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As discussed elsewhere on OL, the liberal critics of Ayn Rand have predictably used the resurgence of interest in her books,and the occasion of the publication of two new biographical studies, to unload their vitriolic personal animosity to all things Rand.

In 1962, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's book, Who is Ayn Rand? was published. In its first essay, "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged" (now available as a separate pamphlet from The Atlas Society), Nathaniel Branden made the following comments regarding attacks that appeared in the press about Atlas Shrugged (and it is astounding that these comments could have been written today, 48 years later, about the recent "pseudo" reviews of these biographies, and not require any substantial change):

It is hard to say which is the more eloquent proof of its signal relevance to the crucial issues of our age: the widespread admiration and enthusiasm it has inspired – or the hysteria of the attacks unleashed against it. The nature of those attacks is an instructive index of the current intellectual condition of our culture.

Rand’s antagonists have unfailingly elected to pay her what is, perhaps, the greatest tribute one can offer to a thinker whom one opposes: they have all felt obliged to misrepresent her ideas in order to attack them.

No one has dared publicly to name the essential ideas of Atlas Shrugged and to attempt to refute them. No one has been willing to declare: “Ayn Rand holds that man must choose his own values and actions exclusively by reason, that man has the right to exist for his own sake, that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force – and I consider such ideas wrong, evil, and socially dangerous.”

Rand’s opponents have found it preferable to debate with strawmen, to equate her philosophy with that of Spencer or Nietzsche or Spinoza or Hobbes and thus expose themselves to the charge of philosophic illiteracy – rather than identify and publicly argue against that for which Rand actually stands.

Were they discussing the ideas of an author whose work was not known to the general public, their motive would appear obvious. But it is a rather grotesque spectacle to witness men seemingly going through the motions of concealing from the public the ideas of an author whose readers number in the millions.

When one considers the careful precision with which Rand defines her terms and presents her ideas, and the painstaking manner in which each concept is concretized and illustrated – one will search in vain for a non-psychiatric explanation of the way in which her philosophy has been reported by antagonists. Allegedly describing her concept of rational self-interest, they report that Ayn Rand extols disregard for the rights of others, brutality, rapacity, doing whatever one feels like doing and general animal self-indulgence. This, evidently, is the only meaning they are able to give to the concept of self-interest. One can only conclude that this is how they conceive their own self-interest, which they altruistically and self-sacrificially renounce. Such a viewpoint tells one a great deal about the man who holds it – but nothing about the philosophy of Rand

(excerpts from pp 38-39, in the TAS pamphlet used here; original version, pp 58-59, Who Is Ayn Rand? 1962: Random House).

It looks like N. Branden saw certain things about AR's philosophy a good deal more critically as the years went by.

Quote:

"Former Ayn Rand associate Nathaniel Branden argues [NB, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement". 1984.] that Atlas Shrugged "encourages emotional repression and self-disowning" and that her works contain contradictory messages. Branden claimed that the characters rarely talk "on a simple, human level without launching into philosophical sermons." He criticizes the potential psychological impact of the novel, stating that John Galt's recommendation to respond to wrongdoing with "contempt and moral condemnation" clashes with the view of psychologists who say this only causes the wrongdoing to repeat itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Ms.XRay:

It is best to read that whole article to get the full context of Branden's remarks. You can find the complete article on his website, www.nathanielbranden.com in html fomat and also in pdf downloadable format for your reading pleasure.

Yes, in his discussion of the "Hazards," he is quite critical of what he views as passages in her novels which can be interpreted as encouraging psychological repression and engendering a dogmatic approach to philosophy.

However, note that the first part of the title of his article also has the word, "Benefits," and in that section, Nathaniel makes it quite clear that he is in agreement with all the essential principles of Objectivism. There is also a passage about the response of critics to Atlas Shrugged in which he reiterates what he had previously said in my quote from his essay in the earlier book, Who Is Ayn Rand?

As further indication that he is still in agreement with the philosophy of Objectivism, please see his forthcoming book, The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism. This is the original course that was given at Nathaniel Branden Institute, from 1958 to 1968, and which had the explicit endorsement of Ayn Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

We ALL know this information. What is your point? <<<< this by the way is what a question looks like.

Care to answer a direct question?

Adam

Can't you see the point? You ALL know this information but cited the old article without even mentioning it.

Nope.

Back sliding already. You refuse to answer. That is your response to my question? <you realize that this is another question.

Adam

Adam, this is why I gave up interacting with her.

Her standard method is to ask questions instead of actually answering the questions asked of her.

Her answer to a question is almost always a question that drags the argument off track.

She does this so often I have wondered if she's Jewish :)

Jeff S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

We ALL know this information. What is your point? <<<< this by the way is what a question looks like.

Care to answer a direct question?

Adam

Can't you see the point? You ALL know this information but cited the old article without even mentioning it.

Nope.

Back sliding already. You refuse to answer. That is your response to my question? <you realize that this is another question.

Adam

Adam, this is why I gave up interacting with her.

Her standard method is to ask questions instead of actually answering the questions asked of her.

Her answer to a question is almost always a question that drags the argument off track.

She does this so often I have wondered if she's Jewish :)

Jeff S.

Oh no! Bad cooking, guilt and we all know the third one. Ahh would that constitute a "shondah"?

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms.XRay:

It is best to read that whole article to get the full context of Branden's remarks. You can find the complete article on his website, www.nathanielbranden.com in html fomat and also in pdf downloadable format for your reading pleasure.

Yes, in his discussion of the "Hazards," he is quite critical of what he views as passages in her novels which can be interpreted as encouraging psychological repression and engendering a dogmatic approach to philosophy.

However, note that the first part of the title of his article also has the word, "Benefits," and in that section, Nathaniel makes it quite clear that he is in agreement with all the essential principles of Objectivism. There is also a passage about the response of critics to Atlas Shrugged in which he reiterates what he had previously said in my quote from his essay in the earlier book, Who Is Ayn Rand?

As further indication that he is still in agreement with the philosophy of Objectivism, please see his forthcoming book, The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism. This is the original course that was given at Nathaniel Branden Institute, from 1958 to 1968, and which had the explicit endorsement of Ayn Rand.

Mr Biggers,

I wasn't implying NB has abandoned Objectvism. My remark was about aspects of AS he came to change his mind about, and about pointing out that her works contain contradictory messages.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Heller's book has given me a new outlook on this. In the section on the aftermath of Atlas Shrugged, she documents that the critics themselves used ad hominems shamelessly (as well as the other techniques Branden describes). So he was (and still is, as the reviews of Heller and Burns have shown) merely replying in kind. I still can't see Howard Roark doing this, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, this is why I gave up interacting with her.

Her standard method is to ask questions instead of actually answering the questions asked of her.

Her answer to a question is almost always a question that drags the argument off track.

She does this so often I have wondered if she's Jewish :)

Jeff S.

What you missed is that that I did answer Selene's question.

Imo Selene is not taking his recent question-asking too seriously. :)

Her answer to a question is almost always a question that drags the argument off track.

Examples please where I allegedly did that. For I recall the exact opposite happening. As soon as the questions touched Objectvism's premises, checking them was avoided by many.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> So [branden] was (and still is, as the reviews of Heller and Burns have shown) merely replying in kind. I still can't see Howard Roark doing this, though. [Reidy]

Neither can I. One doesn't lower oneself to the level of one's worst critics no matter how prevalent they are for a time and no matter how angry or disgusted they make you.

And if one does, when the time comes for a higher and better type of scholars or critics or ordinary people to research you, you have the tar baby stuck all over you and they may skip quickly past, thinking that you are just another bottom feeder substituting slander for substance.

Edited by Philip Coates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illustrative examples of arbitrary categorizing:

"She does this so often I have wondered if she's Jewish" :) (Jeffrey Smith)

"Oh no! Bad cooking, guilt and we all know the third one. Ahh would that constitute a "shondah"?" (Selene)

- and, into the bargain, Xray is allegedly an 'NLPing Valkyrie' as well. Truly shocking! :o:D

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff S.

What you missed is that that I did answer Selene's question.

Imo Selene is not taking his recent question-asking too seriously. :)

Her answer to a question is almost always a question that drags the argument off track.

Examples please where I allegedly did that. For I recall the exact opposite happening. As soon as the questions touched Objectvism's premises, checking them was avoided by many.

"Mr Biggers," <<<< mirroring technique>>>> alert alert

Blue means she is intending you to actually believe that I am not deadly serious in my questions.

However, she "appears" compliant stating that she did answer, while at the same time causing you to subconsciously doubt that you have "read" post x,y or z.

Finally, she imputes a bad motive to my questions in order to enable herself to avoid answering.

It is actually tedious. The kid with the sunburn is still floating out there...

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illustrative examples of arbitrary categorizing:

"She does this so often I have wondered if she's Jewish" :) (Jeffrey Smith)

"Oh no! Bad cooking, guilt and we all know the third one. Ahh would that constitute a "shondah"?" (Selene)

- and, into the bargain, Xray is allegedly an 'NLPing Valkyrie' as well. Truly shocking! :o:D

Xray, perhaps you're missing some cultural humor that may be more familiar to Americans than Europeans:

It's a stereotypical habit of Jews (indeed, enough of a habit that it's Jews who make the most jokes about it) to answer a question with a question.

Peter O'Murphy asked his neighbor, Fievush Berkowitz, one day:

"Why do you Jews always answer a question with another question?"

Answered Berkowitz: "You're asking me? How should I know?"

Jeffrey S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mr Biggers," <<<< mirroring technique>>>> alert alert

Blue means she is intending you to actually believe that I am not deadly serious in my questions.

However, she "appears" compliant stating that she did answer, while at the same time causing you to subconsciously doubt that you have "read" post x,y or z.

Finally, she imputes a bad motive to my questions in order to enable herself to avoid answering.

It is actually tedious. The kid with the sunburn is still floating out there...

Adam

Here's entity identity for you, Selene: I answered your question "What is your point?" in # 10.

Still waiting btw for your answer to my question I asked you here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=180, (post # 190)

The kid with the sunburn is still floating out there...

See you on the other thread where you asked me about it.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither can I. One doesn't lower oneself to the level of one's worst critics no matter how prevalent they are for a time and no matter how angry or disgusted they make you.

And if one does, when the time comes for a higher and better type of scholars or critics or ordinary people to research you, you have the tar baby stuck all over you and they may skip quickly past, thinking that you are just another bottom feeder substituting slander for substance.

Phil,

I have a problem with this kind of contextless rule-making and speculation about the future. I think it greatly depends on who the critic is and what the issue is. Some wars are worth fighting, even if you have to get dirty doing it. For example, when the alternatives are worse than the war.

Here is an example of extreme vituperation that has not tarnished the reputation of a creative person one whit: Richard Wagner versus Eduard Hanslick. The public stuff got really nasty. Wagner even went so far as to use racist arguments against Hanslick.

The result and the tar baby?

Where the hell did Bre'r Rabbit go?

People currently flock to attend Wagner's operas the world over and his position as one of the top contributors to mankind's cultural wealth is assured.

Ain't no tar baby... Just a colorful story for fans...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither can I. One doesn't lower oneself to the level of one's worst critics no matter how prevalent they are for a time and no matter how angry or disgusted they make you.

And if one does, when the time comes for a higher and better type of scholars or critics or ordinary people to research you, you have the tar baby stuck all over you and they may skip quickly past, thinking that you are just another bottom feeder substituting slander for substance.

Phil,

I have a problem with this kind of contextless rule-making and speculation about the future. I think it greatly depends on who the critic is and what the issue is. Some wars are worth fighting, even if you have to get dirty doing it. For example, when the alternatives are worse than the war.

Here is an example of extreme vituperation that has not tarnished the reputation of a creative person one whit: Richard Wagner versus Eduard Hanslick. The public stuff got really nasty. Wagner even went so far as to use racist arguments against Hanslick.

The result and the tar baby?

Where the hell did Bre'r Rabbit go?

People currently flock to attend Wagner's operas the world over and his position as one of the top contributors to mankind's cultural wealth is assured.

Ain't no tar baby... Just a colorful story for fans...

Michael

Well, it helped that Hanslick was "wrong", in so far as you can apply that term to musical criticism. His other most famous contribution to music history was to abominate Tchaikovsky's violin concerto.

But I think Wagner's case is an instructive parallel for Rand. He was, as a person, somewhat nasty, extremely self centered and arrogant, abandoned his wife to run off with a friend's wife, blantantly anti-Semitic, etc. etc. But he wrote some of the world's greatest music. So people tend to differentiate between Wagner the musician and Wagner the person. As Leonard Bernstein is supposed to have said, "I hate Wagner on bended knee."

It's possible to apply the same method to Rand: acknowledge that she was in many ways an unlovely person, but that her contributions to philosophy are not invalidated by those personal faults.

Jeffrey S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK, your point is good but your example is bad. From the ban on performing Wagner in Israel, to the classic Woody Allen joke “I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland”, Wagner’s bad behavior haunts his reputation. Critics still try to claim anti-Semitic themes are part of his actual work. I’ve seen Jews wince at the very mention of his name.

If you look into it though, you’ll find that his anti-Semitism was almost entirely opportunistic, for example he trashed Meyerbeer (qua Jew) while remaining friendly with Halevy. He’d step on anyone to get his way, and not just to get his work performed, but have luxuries like his all-silk wardrobe. Compared to him, Rand bore the burden of genius with considerable grace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now