Fantastic Discussion about Islam and other Religions


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

I trust anyone, muslim or otherwise, who doesn't shy away from the truth.

Ah, "the truth," quite an evasive and clever entity it is...

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

So Richard...

“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

Careful, think this through before you answer...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that. Fighting a religion merely sanctions it by acknowledging it making it easier for more to repair to it to defend just those parts under (secular--not in this age Christian) attack which ironically powers what should be identified and attacked: fascism. Who knowingly fights for fascism? Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology which lets them do anything they want. (The converse is it lets them do nothing for no religion [or philosophy] is an actor.) The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock. The West needs be anti-fascist. Let the Muslims deal with their religion as such. That takes centuries. Fascism can be crushed soon enough.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are bigoted against bigotry are you really a bigot? Is another word needed to replace "bigoted"? "Prejudiced" seems to represent the same problem in a slightly less severe form. How can someone in a shorthand way use a positive to declaim against a negative?

--Brant

To be clear I was tongue in cheek, with "bigoted against collectivism". I might be wrong, isn't bigotry a fully subconscious and instinctual fear/hatred of anything superficially different to oneself? It was probably necessary in our animal and tribal past. Prejudice, otoh, implies conscious (erroneous) forethought about people which may also contain bigotry, but both are irrational and unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are bigoted against bigotry are you really a bigot? Is another word needed to replace "bigoted"? "Prejudiced" seems to represent the same problem in a slightly less severe form. How can someone in a shorthand way use a positive to declaim against a negative?

--Brant

To be clear I was tongue in cheek, with "bigoted against collectivism". I might be wrong, isn't bigotry a fully subconscious and instinctual fear/hatred of anything superficially different to oneself? It was probably necessary in our animal and tribal past. Prejudice, otoh, implies conscious (erroneous) forethought about people which may also contain bigotry, but both are irrational and unjust.

I love my animality. I love to embrace my inner animal.

--Brant

I don't let it embrace me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a profound thought I've seen by Nathaniel Branden, which roughly goes along the lines of:- Holding another person to the lowest standards, or no standards, is an expression, not of acceptance, but of contempt.

In other words, you don't think he/she is worthy, so don't expect anything of them.

I've seen it termed, the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust anyone, muslim or otherwise, who doesn't shy away from the truth.

Ah, "the truth," quite an evasive and clever entity it is...

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

So Richard...

“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

Careful, think this through before you answer...

A...

My comment should be pretty clear. It was not referring to "The Truth, but the truth about Islam. If you're suggesting to me that there's no such thing, that Islam's content is so amorphous as to conform to anyone and everyones wishes, then it's as good as saying that there is no Islam. However, that isn't the case. When Muhammad said in the Hadith, kill those who leave their (Islamic) religion, it is clearcut. I trust any muslim, or anyone, who doesn't act to evade or obscure those kinds of facts. A Muslim who does not do that, is an honest Muslim. I guess that is what I seek. Honesty. But it is in very short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am strongly bigoted against collectivism and all groupism.

Tony,

The very nature of a bigot is to be a collectivist. That's the conceptual hierarchy. A bigot is a type of collectivist.

You can no more be a bigot against bigots than you can be a human being who is not an animal or a number that is not part of math or an automobile that is not a vehicle.

Avoiding bigotry at all costs does not entail moving to its apparent (and false) opposite, that of non-critical acceptance: this is only a step away from apologism, which looks like an expression of contempt to me.

I don't know about the "all costs" thing. This way of saying it suggests to me the normative before cognitive form of thinking, i.e., evaluating before you have correctly identified.

I use the identify correctly so one can judge correctly model.

Getting back to hierarchy, bigotry is a form of collectivism. So is the opposite of collectivism your term "apologism"? How does that make sense? That's an evaluation.

As I understand it, that only works when you remove the conceptual hierarchy and/or base the foundation of the concept on a prejudice (an evaluation, a normative thought), not a fundamental identification (a cognitive abstraction based on observation).

You can compare as opposite love of collectivism and contempt of collectivism. These are normative. You cannot compare as opposite collectivism itself with an evaluation of it and be within Rand's method of concept formation. The identification of collectivism is cognitive and loving or hating it is normative.

The opposite of collectivism is individualism based on individual rights.

Apropos, Rand herself called racism (one form of bigotry) "the lowest form of collectivism."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about snobbery? If I believe myself (individually) to be better than others, is it wrong for me to treat the others with disdain?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a profound thought I've seen by Nathaniel Branden, which roughly goes along the lines of:- Holding another person to the lowest standards, or no standards, is an expression, not of acceptance, but of contempt.

In other words, you don't think he/she is worthy, so don't expect anything of them.

I've seen it termed, the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think it is true.

The soft bigotry of low expectations. Right, never heard it before - but very good.

It explains "double standards"; and guilty attitudes of the West toward African and other 'backward' countries; and why radical Muslims are sometimes excused their 'excesses', or appeased.

It's basic subjectivism, stating: We will judge everyone changeably, either by your own high standards which some hold, or, by our own low expectations of you (hardly ever by objective and civilised standards).

I must say, I take it for granted that in every sector of humanity there are going to be the several brave, outspoken ones who stand up against wrongs in their countries or religion. I don't quite know if that makes me any more, or any less cynical about human nature, than those who think that is extraordinary. Far less, I should think, my "expectations" of mankind are high.

When are many, many more going to stand up and join them, for themselves and in defence of the integrity of their religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When are many, many more going to stand up and join them, for themselves and in defence of the integrity of their religion?

Tony,

I have already asked about Egypt.

Does a country the size of Egypt not count as "many"?

ISIS is the direct fruit of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt rejected that faction of Islam about as rejected as rejected can get. Talk about protests. How about effective action like shutting the damn thing down and jailing its members?

Doesn't that count as "many" standing up for themselves in your view?

Or is that what the "soft bigotry of low expectations" looks like to you? :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am strongly bigoted against collectivism and all groupism.

Tony,

The very nature of a bigot is to be a collectivist. That's the conceptual hierarchy. A bigot is a type of collectivist.

You can no more be a bigot against bigots than you can be a human being who is not an animal or a number that is not part of math or an automobile that is not a vehicle.

Avoiding bigotry at all costs does not entail moving to its apparent (and false) opposite, that of non-critical acceptance: this is only a step away from apologism, which looks like an expression of contempt to me.

I don't know about the "all costs" thing. This way of saying it suggests to me the normative before cognitive form of thinking, i.e., evaluating before you have correctly identified.

I use the identify correctly so one can judge correctly model.

Getting back to hierarchy, bigotry is a form of collectivism. So is the opposite of collectivism your term "apologism"? How does that make sense? That's an evaluation.

As I understand it, that only works when you remove the conceptual hierarchy and/or base the foundation of the concept on a prejudice (an evaluation, a normative thought), not a fundamental identification (a cognitive abstraction based on observation).

You can compare as opposite love of collectivism and contempt of collectivism. These are normative. You cannot compare as opposite collectivism itself with an evaluation of it and be within Rand's method of concept formation. The identification of collectivism is cognitive and loving or hating it is normative.

The opposite of collectivism is individualism based on individual rights.

Apropos, Rand herself called racism (one form of bigotry) "the lowest form of collectivism."

Michael

Michael, I did explain my 'bigoted against collectivism' remark - a joke, right? :smile:

I also said (more or less) that "non-critical acceptance" is perceived [wrongly today] as the opposite to bigotry - and that it is this non-critical acceptance which in turn [wrongly] leads to "apologism". Not that in reason they are opposites, only by popular perception.

'Bigotry - uncritical acceptance', then is a false alternative, though I didn't mention that.

Of course, we know that any prejudicial, biased, bigoted, or racist, tenets and attitudes - are subsumed under collectivism.

No argument from me.

I must differ on one subtle but important thing:

"The opposite of collectivism is individualism based on individual rights."

Individualism is a composite, as I've always read it:

"Individualism is at once an ethical-political concept and an ethical-psychological one. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that man is an end in himself...As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that man should think and judge independently, valuing nothing higher than the sovereignty of his intellect". [Counterfeit Individualism - N. Branden]

"Ethical" is common to both, so the base of individualism is ethics, (i.e. rationally egoist), not individual rights, per se. When I mention individualism, (like in a few posts back, talking to people) it's always the "ethical-psychological" branch - otherwise I distinguish it as 'individual rights'. Or else it makes for confusion, I've noticed.

By that token, collectivism too should be considered both political and psychological. I think the latter is often overlooked, especially as in the 'ethics' of "altruism-collectivism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

I meant reason-based individualism based on individual rights and I could qualify it further. I just get tired of qualifying all the time. There comes a point in discussions when we are talking about the same concepts with fewer words. Maybe I misjudged this in this case.

My point is in one's social thinking, one either thinks about people as individuals first--and that part can't be changed, then the groups they belong to (which can be changed), or one thinks about people as collectives first--and that part can't be changed, then the individuals that make up the group (which can be changed).

I call the first individualism and the second collectivism. In the first, the individual can move from one group to another (even with race, gender, etc., with medical aid). In other words, the individual can sacrifice the collective by leaving it. In collectivism, the individual can be sacrificed for the collective by being banned, imprisoned or killed.

And this is precisely what the bigot does. He always says he doesn't, but he does. Notice that if a bigot gets enough power, he stops saying he doesn't and just kills off those individual he doesn't like or who don't fit the collectives in his mind.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Brant: Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

Brant: The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

Sure, educate about the Muslim religion. I'm all for that. Those seeking to establish the Caliphate, however, are merely riding the Muslim horse. Shoot them off and the horse drinks and eats and sleeps and fucks the mares. The horse itself, however, is a figment of a Muslim imagination. Shoot the "horse" and there's 1.3 billion to shoot to go.

Good luck with that!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Brant: Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

Brant: The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

Sure, educate about the Muslim religion. I'm all for that. Those seeking to establish the Caliphate, however, are merely riding the Muslim horse. Shoot them off and the horse drinks and eats and sleeps and fucks the mares. The horse itself, however, is a figment of a Muslim imagination. Shoot the "horse" and there's 1.3 billion to shoot to go.

Good luck with that!

--Brant

Merely riding the Muslim horse? What do you mean by that exactly? Are you suggesting they are not really Islamic?

Good luck with that!

It should be amply clear to you that I am not out to destroy Islam. It would be absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Muhammad said in the Hadith, kill those who leave their (Islamic) religion, it is clearcut. I trust any muslim, or anyone, who doesn't act to evade or obscure those kinds of facts. A Muslim who does not do that, is an honest Muslim. I guess that is what I seek. Honesty. But it is in very short supply.

I just realized something important about your assumptions about Islam.

Which Hadith is the one that you are referring to above?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Brant: Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

Brant: The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

Sure, educate about the Muslim religion. I'm all for that. Those seeking to establish the Caliphate, however, are merely riding the Muslim horse. Shoot them off and the horse drinks and eats and sleeps and fucks the mares. The horse itself, however, is a figment of a Muslim imagination. Shoot the "horse" and there's 1.3 billion to shoot to go.

Good luck with that!

--Brant

Merely riding the Muslim horse? What do you mean by that exactly? Are you suggesting they are not really Islamic?

Good luck with that!

It should be amply clear to you that I am not out to destroy Islam. It would be absurd.

They're Islamic, all right. There's plenty of fascism in Islam for those who want it. Those who want it and use it. If against fellow Muslims, that's their problem. They can ask for help. Against "Infidels" the Infidels get to shoot them. This is self defense. Those who are not fascist get left alone.

--Brant

bloodthirsty SOB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The soft bigotry of low expectations. Right, never heard it before - but very good.

It explains "double standards"; and guilty attitudes of the West toward African and other 'backward' countries; and why radical Muslims are sometimes excused their 'excesses', or appeased.

The other side of the coin is the unreasonably high standard demanded of the West - a perfection that cannot be achieved. We should not have given flu to the natives. We should not have traded land for rugs. We should not have... and we should all feel collective guilt for it. Sadly many people have taken it on.

It's basic subjectivism, stating: We will judge everyone changeably, either by your own high standards which some hold, or, by our own low expectations of you (hardly ever by objective and civilised standards).

Objective standards are the enemy.

When are many, many more going to stand up and join them, for themselves and in defence of the integrity of their religion?

The thing is, the global jihadists, the violent and non-violent, have not attacked the integrity of Islam.
When are many, many going to stand up? I don't think ever, in any effective way. It hasn't happened in 1400 years, so why will it suddenly happen now, unless enlightenment ideas have seeped into the minds of large numbers in the Islamic world. I don't think that's the case though. Michael cites Egypt as an example, but I don't see this as an example. Egypt is just as oppressive as ever towards non-Muslims, apostates and insulters of Islam. There was a rejection of the Muslim Brotherhoods wholesale brutality, but that is just a matter of degree, not principle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: Richard seems to want to fight a religion. Good luck with that.

No. I want to see the jihadists made impotent. An essential part of achieving that is a widespread understanding of their ideology. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and all the other PC crap that abounds will probably ensure that never happens.

Brant: Perhaps only those at the top of jihadism (and ISIS) who publicly default in all cases to a crappy theology

Their crappy ideology comes from Muhammad himself. This is what is being evaded, and a major reason why we are losing. Unless things change, we will lose.

Brant: The war is against fascism but can't be properly fought if what is really going on is kept under a rock.

What's really going on is that fanatical muslims are seeking to reestablish the Caliphate and dominate the world under Islam in accordance with the teachings of their prophet Muhammad. This is not about abstract principles of fascism, but a specific kind of fascism. If people are incapable of recognising it, due to ignorance fostered and sustained by political correctness, then they cannot possibly fight it. They are like possums in the headlights. That's why we send soldiers to foreign countries to fight, while those soldiers hometowns become breeding grounds for the very enemy they've gone to other lands to fight. Sheer suicidal insanity. Hopefully the days of political correctness are numbered. It might be the case, given that more leftists appear to be waking up and joining the ranks of "the bigots".

Sure, educate about the Muslim religion. I'm all for that. Those seeking to establish the Caliphate, however, are merely riding the Muslim horse. Shoot them off and the horse drinks and eats and sleeps and fucks the mares. The horse itself, however, is a figment of a Muslim imagination. Shoot the "horse" and there's 1.3 billion to shoot to go.

Good luck with that!

--Brant

Merely riding the Muslim horse? What do you mean by that exactly? Are you suggesting they are not really Islamic?

Good luck with that!

It should be amply clear to you that I am not out to destroy Islam. It would be absurd.

They're Islamic, all right. There's plenty of fascism in Islam for those who want it. Those who want it and use it. If against fellow Muslims, that's their problem. They can ask for help. Against "Infidels" the Infidels get to shoot them. This is self defense. Those who are not fascist get left alone.

--Brant

bloodthirsty SOB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Muhammad said in the Hadith, kill those who leave their (Islamic) religion, it is clearcut. I trust any muslim, or anyone, who doesn't act to evade or obscure those kinds of facts. A Muslim who does not do that, is an honest Muslim. I guess that is what I seek. Honesty. But it is in very short supply.

I just realized something important about your assumptions about Islam.

Which Hadith is the one that you are referring to above?

A...

What are my assumptions, Adam?

I think you will find them al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. There are many examples of Muhammad saying kill those who leave their religion. This is what the apostasy laws are based on. All mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence sanction death for apostasy. This is not something I have assumed, Adam. It is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're Islamic, all right. There's plenty of fascism in Islam for those who want it. Those who want it and use it. If against fellow Muslims, that's their problem. They can ask for help. Against "Infidels" the Infidels get to shoot them. This is self defense. Those who are not fascist get left alone.

--Brant

bloodthirsty SOB

Not disagreeing with you, but that really is only half the battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Muhammad said in the Hadith, kill those who leave their (Islamic) religion, it is clearcut. I trust any muslim, or anyone, who doesn't act to evade or obscure those kinds of facts. A Muslim who does not do that, is an honest Muslim. I guess that is what I seek. Honesty. But it is in very short supply.

I just realized something important about your assumptions about Islam.

Which Hadith is the one that you are referring to above?

A...

What are my assumptions, Adam?

I think you will find them al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. There are many examples of Muhammad saying kill those who leave their religion. This is what the apostasy laws are based on. All mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence sanction death for apostasy. This is not something I have assumed, Adam. It is a fact.

Good, so you do accept the "fact" that the words attributed to the big M are not necessarily his, correct?

He has a completely oral record as far as I understand.

A lot like the J man from Bethlehem.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, so you do accept the "fact" that the words attributed to the big M are not necessarily his, correct?

He has a completely oral record as far as I understand.

A lot like the J man from Bethlehem.

A...

It doesn't matter whether they are his or not (there is apparently some question over whether Muhammad even existed), it is what mainstream Islam has accepted that matters. Mainstream Islam treats Muhammad as if he did exist, as if he did say those things, and it has based Islamic jurisprudence on that acceptance. Currently Western leaders are taking great pains to separate Islam from the actions of the global jihadists, while the global Jihadists themselves explicitly ground their actions in mainstream Islam. Our leaders are lying to us. Whether or not they are lying to themselves too, I do not know, but I know that you cannot tackle the problem by lying about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our leaders are lying to us. Whether or not they are lying to themselves too, I do not know, but I know that you cannot tackle the problem by lying about it.

Let's stay on point here.

The unity of religion and law is a serious problem in Islam.

There we, and Muslim friends of mine agree.

How much contact have you directly had with Muslim families?

That is a completely "non-trap question."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our leaders are lying to us. Whether or not they are lying to themselves too, I do not know, but I know that you cannot tackle the problem by lying about it.

Let's stay on point here.

The unity of religion and law is a serious problem in Islam.

There we, and Muslim friends of mine agree.

How much contact have you directly had with Muslim families?

That is a completely "non-trap question."

A...

What is the relevance of that? The most I have had to do with muslims is in Indonesia, where I met many wonderfully friendly muslims, and befriended one in particular, who a mate and I befriended after she was robbed on the bus we were travelling on. I know there are many decent muslims. This is not the issue is it?

Link to comment
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