Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 1, 2023 Author Share Posted September 1, 2023 Peter, incarcerating innocent people is violence. Once Trump gets back in power, watch that crap change. btw - If you want to know who died and why they died on that day, the info is out there. in fact, it's right here on this very thread. The only person who died of a gunshot wound on J6 was an unarmed Trump supporter who was murdered by a DC cop. It's all on video. Watch Tucker's video at least. If Trump supporters were trying to overthrow the government with a violent revolution, say take over government buildings and hold the politicians hostage, they must be the stupidest people in history. They showed up without guns. How does one do a violent revolution without weapons? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 Michael wrote: If Trump supporters were trying to overthrow the government with a violent revolution, say take over government buildings and hold the politicians hostage, they must be the stupidest people in history. They showed up without guns. How does one do a violent revolution without weapons? end quote I certainly agree that the riot / violence / invasion of the Capitol was spontaneous for the most part. But I was also thinking about the term “true believer.” I don’t push ideas without evidence. Nor would I want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. I was thinking about the Trump troubles in Georgia. Wouldn’t this be the perfect time for him, and all those supporters being charged, to come forward with some massive evidence of election fraud?” Where is it? In the Wikipedia quote below, it only addresses “left wing” believers. Peter Notes from Wikipedia on Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”: Hoffer argues that mass movements such as Fascism and Communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and Communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either. From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Choosing One's Own Beliefs Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:11:59 GMT Ellen Moore wrote: "Your present thinking and actions will reduce to the sum integration of your choices since birth." Jens Hube wrote questioning Ellen Moore's statement: "Where did the free will go?" Though Jens was asking a direct question of Ellen, he was writing to Atlantis and not offlist, and because Kate has already responded, I will throw in a few thoughts too. By this statement, Ellen is not inferring that past thinking CAN be changed, or that present thinking is NOT amendable to volitional choice, or that future thinking, for any human is determined. She would not pose and post a syllogism such as this, divorced from reality. She is speaking about the total CONTEXT of a person's psycho-epistemology. As Kate responded, "She's talking about the causality that follows from free choices: choices constrain one's future context similarly to deterministic influences . . . ." A person's ability to think straight in the present, will be affected by such past thinking habits as shown in these questions: Are a person's basic premises correct? Is the knowledge (or assumptions) a person has gained, true or false? Has a person's subconscious been programmed to respond with the correct automatized actions, and correct emotional responses for rational living? So, at the point at which Ellen is speaking (the present) a person can have as a part of their total mental package, the logical faculties, and the volition to do the right thing. Does this mean that a person cannot overcome past bad thinking? No. Even a person with mixed rationality can still prevail. It will just require more effort, and the desire to "snap out of it!" Peter Taylor From Objectivism and Rage by Barbara Branden delivered in 2006 at The Atlas Society summer conference: . . . I have seen so many instances in which newcomers to Objectivism become rigid, fearful true believers in order to escape censure—or else they are driven away to lick their wounds in hurt and bewilderment. And sadly, often the victims in their turn become victimizers—spewing the poison that sickened them onto the next young Objectivist they encounter, having learned to treat even the most polite and reasoned disagreements with contempt and insult and morally-outraged fury . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 Here you go Peter, here is your evidence my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 1, 2023 Author Share Posted September 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Peter said: I don’t push ideas without evidence. Peter, I know that. My problem is with the places you get your evidence from, not you. The fake news industrial complex gives you "evidence" out the gigi, tainted evidence, and you often post that so-called "evidence" as support for what you are saying. Also, the fake news industrial complex ignores true evidence anyone can see with their own eyes. On the positive side, I notice from your comments that some of the reality I harp on is seeping in despite the blackout of the news channels you like. In my view, that happens because you are a good man with a good mind. In other words, I do not blame you for trusting the fake news industrial complex. After all, they did do all right (not great, but all right) for decades. The problem is that they now broke bad. Real bad. Evil bad. They are now lying-ass enemies of the USA and, for good people, that's hard to take. (Their god is globalism and they need to destroy the USA to promote that.) It's like finding out your spouse started cheating on you after a long time in a good marriage. It's hard to take. Want proof that the mainstream media lies on purpose against the USA? Here is a list of hoaxes Scott Adams compiled (see here). ALL of the mainstream media pumped these hoaxes as truth over and over and over for months on end. At that link, I also mentioned hoaxes involving the pandemic, Ukraine, and BLM, but there are many, many others. Notice that the fake news industrial complex keeps getting busted. What do they do when that happens? Easy. They come up with new hoaxes. What's worse, go to any search engine and look for "fake news." All you will see is a hoax itself. You will see results saying these lapdog toadies are truthful and the hoax busters are the fake news. And this happens at the same time that the fake news industrial complex outlets admit--over and over in the fine print--that they were busted. How many times does a person have to tell bald faced lies in one's face--and admit it--before one begins to believe that the person is a liar? How many times does a spouse have to have a headache at lovey-dovey time, and "work late at night" the rest of the time before one begins to feel something is off in the cheating department? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 3 hours ago, Peter said: Michael wrote: If Trump supporters were trying to overthrow the government with a violent revolution, say take over government buildings and hold the politicians hostage, they must be the stupidest people in history. They showed up without guns. How does one do a violent revolution without weapons? end quote I certainly agree that the riot / violence / invasion of the Capitol was spontaneous for the most part. But I was also thinking about the term “true believer.” I don’t push ideas without evidence. Nor would I want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. I was thinking about the Trump troubles in Georgia. Wouldn’t this be the perfect time for him, and all those supporters being charged, to come forward with some massive evidence of election fraud?” Where is it? In the Wikipedia quote below, it only addresses “left wing” believers. Peter Notes from Wikipedia on Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”: Hoffer argues that mass movements such as Fascism and Communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and Communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either. From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Choosing One's Own Beliefs Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:11:59 GMT Ellen Moore wrote: "Your present thinking and actions will reduce to the sum integration of your choices since birth." Jens Hube wrote questioning Ellen Moore's statement: "Where did the free will go?" Though Jens was asking a direct question of Ellen, he was writing to Atlantis and not offlist, and because Kate has already responded, I will throw in a few thoughts too. By this statement, Ellen is not inferring that past thinking CAN be changed, or that present thinking is NOT amendable to volitional choice, or that future thinking, for any human is determined. She would not pose and post a syllogism such as this, divorced from reality. She is speaking about the total CONTEXT of a person's psycho-epistemology. As Kate responded, "She's talking about the causality that follows from free choices: choices constrain one's future context similarly to deterministic influences . . . ." A person's ability to think straight in the present, will be affected by such past thinking habits as shown in these questions: Are a person's basic premises correct? Is the knowledge (or assumptions) a person has gained, true or false? Has a person's subconscious been programmed to respond with the correct automatized actions, and correct emotional responses for rational living? So, at the point at which Ellen is speaking (the present) a person can have as a part of their total mental package, the logical faculties, and the volition to do the right thing. Does this mean that a person cannot overcome past bad thinking? No. Even a person with mixed rationality can still prevail. It will just require more effort, and the desire to "snap out of it!" Peter Taylor From Objectivism and Rage by Barbara Branden delivered in 2006 at The Atlas Society summer conference: . . . I have seen so many instances in which newcomers to Objectivism become rigid, fearful true believers in order to escape censure—or else they are driven away to lick their wounds in hurt and bewilderment. And sadly, often the victims in their turn become victimizers—spewing the poison that sickened them onto the next young Objectivist they encounter, having learned to treat even the most polite and reasoned disagreements with contempt and insult and morally-outraged fury . . . . "Insurrection" - is to - Jan 6 as "Attempted Murder" - is to - trespassing, walking up to a person in weird clothes, waving a flag, and making them feel bad 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 31 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said: "Insurrection" - is to - Jan 6 as "Attempted Murder" - is to - trespassing, walking up to a person in weird clothes, waving a flag, and making them feel bad It is funny, not funny, but January 6 was a Coup the other way, by the rightful losers of the "election". Then the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae was doing the deed in the middle of the night. #pence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 3, 2023 Share Posted September 3, 2023 I follow the truth. If you follow "the truth" you believe in, You are not an objectivist. Get it? There are so many sites who support your view, AND many who are against your view, . . . yadda yadda yadda. Stop following your slant and look at the truth. Objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 3, 2023 Author Share Posted September 3, 2023 7 hours ago, Peter said: ... look at the truth... Peter, That's very good advice. I don't find much truth to look at on electronic screens these days. Truth is like a fine wine. Once someone pisses in the bottle, I don't feel like drinking that bottle of wine anymore no matter how fine the wine is. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted September 3, 2023 Share Posted September 3, 2023 16 hours ago, Peter said: I follow the truth. If you follow "the truth" you believe in, You are not an objectivist. Get it? There are so many sites who support your view, AND many who are against your view, . . . yadda yadda yadda. Stop following your slant and look at the truth. Objectively. Rand said that she was the only Objectivist and that everyone else was a student of Objectivism, as Barbara Branden explained to me in her apartment in LA but maybe they were both wrong. As for the truth my man about J6, tell me what your truth is please without quoting MSM. Why would you donate funds to our President if you believe that he orchastrated a coup? I am glad that you do because we can use all the money that is donated but why? Seriously my man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 4, 2023 Share Posted September 4, 2023 Crypto quiz from Remind Magazine: What do you call the government department that deals with spying? The Department of the Treachery. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 4, 2023 Share Posted September 4, 2023 7 hours ago, Marc said: Why would you donate funds to our President if you believe that he orchastrated a coup? I never insinuated that or said it. You are full of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 4, 2023 Share Posted September 4, 2023 7 hours ago, Marc said: as Barbara Branden explained to me in her apartment in LA You lying piece of shit / I don't believe you, and why after all this time you would bring that Up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted September 4, 2023 Share Posted September 4, 2023 On 9/3/2023 at 12:30 AM, Peter said: I follow the truth. If you follow "the truth" you believe in, You are not an objectivist. Get it? There are so many sites who support your view, AND many who are against your view, . . . yadda yadda yadda. Stop following your slant and look at the truth. Objectively. Peter, I apologize but I understood that you meant this to mean that you did believe that there was an "insurrection" on J6. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I misunderstood and apologize. As for Barbara, yes, we were friends and I have stated that here many times on OL. She was a beautiful person and she did explain that to me about Ayn Rand on many occassions, re Objectivists and students of Objectivism. Not sure that I understood it then or now but she did explain it to me. By the way, I also went for dinner with Barbara and my daughters to Nathaniel Branden and his wife's home for dinner one night which was a pretty great night! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 4, 2023 Author Share Posted September 4, 2023 Peter, Marc is one of the good guys. I know for a fact Marc knew Barbara. I don't want to go into details, but near the end of her life, he helped her in ways that most of her friends did not. I know because I was part of that. (When you are old and worn out, that's when people disappear. I don't walk away because of age and neither does Marc. And it was not easy because Barbara pushed her friends away near the end. She did not want to be a burden on anyone and, in a weird manner, I think she was embarrassed to be sick. There were a few others, too, but we were there for her.) I also talked a lot with Barbara about Marc. She cared for him. Deep down heart level. Fun fact. Marc is like me. I have two sons named after Ayn Rand characters (Roark and Ragnar). Marc has two daughters (Kira and Dominique). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 Just as there are armchair scientists and armchair philosophers so too ... there are armchair Objectivists. They do not take Objectivism seriously, they don't really take Atlas Shrugged seriously. They profess understanding and belief, they speak and espouse principles, syllogisms, ... identifications... but they err in identifying important truths in AS and application of those truths to reality at large. AS is oft labelled science fiction and rightly so, as it takes liberties identifying certain physical truths or falsehoods about sound... and how it could be harnessed as a weapon... and liberties identifying certain physical truths and falsehoods about the atmosphere and what energies in what amounts could be extracted therefrom. All Objectivists are able to suspend disbelief of these fanciful plot devices to enjoy and obtain the important substance, including identification of moral and political truths, truths about the nature of Man and Man's mind. Some however, some of the armchair variety, choose also to suspend their belief... ignore.. blank out and evade other truths in AS. The inconvenient truths about the nature of vice, and corruption, of how humans following statist, and collectivist ideas and ideals behave... how utterly corrupt markets and governments can (as they have throughout history) become.. and the utter villainy of many in places of power, of many entrusted with power by others. As comfortable as they are in their chairs, the armchair Objectivist squirms at and dismisses the corruption and treachery of industry and government at the highest levels as quickly as if not quicker than they wave away a machine that takes energy from the atmosphere... after all such things are incredibly implausible... one being pie in the sky and the other an uncomfortable conspiracy theory. What the armchair Objectivist misses, is the flip side of the coin, the other edge of the sword's lesson, that the discovery of the morality of rationality and selfishness is a light in the contrasting darkness of collectivism, corruption, petty power mongering, and authoritarianism which tendencies and personalities always and continually walk with society. Today is NO exception to this truth AS fully explores. We have no reason not to take AS seriously, and wave away ONLY the science fiction, as the rest: philosophy, principle, morality, human nature... all of it... is a wide integration which constitutes truth and a warning we would be wise to heed. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 6, 2023 Author Share Posted September 6, 2023 S, I am not as harsh about "armchair Objectivists" as you are here, but I am just as harsh as you are, if not more so, about chosen hypocrisy. I believe a lot of people in O-Land have a limited and incorrect view of the human mind. That means the part they are not aware of rules them at times and they don't even realize it. On the contrary, they prance about as enlightened. This is why they easily fall prey to peer pressure and a host of other things they believe they are above because they read Rand. Part of human nature includes living within dominance hierarchies. It's biology. Nature. But tell that to most Randians... (If you don't say Law of Identity, they won't even know you are talking about biology or nature. ) In other words, I don't blame people for not living up to Objectivism so much as I blame them for not using their goddam brains, starting with their own independent observations and thinking things through. Once they get that part right, using the principles from Objectivism over peer pressure becomes easy. This is a long subject, more than I have time to write at this point. But I used to think exactly the way you expressed yourself. And you are not wrong at root. Just incomplete for the time being... Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 14, 2023 Author Share Posted September 14, 2023 Lara Logan is now doing an exposé on what really went on during J6. Her approach is to tell the individual stories of different people involved. btw - She used to be a 60 Minutes star so the production of this series has the same quality. Here is the first installment and it is heartbreaking. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 15, 2023 Author Share Posted September 15, 2023 Steve Bannon gushes about Lara Logan's first installment. He said she is one of the embodiments of Andrew Breitbart's dream of changing the culture, seeing how politics is downstream from culture. "Incredibly Powerful Piece": Steve Bannon Discusses Lara Logan's Latest Film On Jan. 6's Truth RUMBLE.COM "Incredibly Powerful Piece": Steve Bannon Discusses Lara Logan's Latest Film On Jan. 6's Truth Here is another version of Lara's first episode on Steve's War Room channel. Lara Logan's Rest of the Story Docuseries RUMBLE.COM Matthew Perna was a Bernie Sanders fan until Trump came along. Then he was treated as a terrorist. Find out how a man who’d never been in trouble in his life ended up on the FBI wanted list after Janu Seriously, the way Lara did it, this thing is an emotional punch in the gut. This is the way TV used to be. There will be 12 episodes in this series, one each Thursday. I will put them all in this thread as they come out. We are watching history unfold as a new culture replaces the mainstream culture with the same production values, distribution channels, talent, everything. But notice one difference. The mainstream has a traditional propagandized audience that is now dwindling. The new culture's audience is exploding in volume. It's common for a production to get tens and hundreds of million viewers. Just look at Tucker. I predict Lara's series will go the distance, too. And why is the mainstream being supplanted? People are tired of the bullshit. That's why. Those who spread truth suffer in the beginning (don't I know it? ), but in the end, the truth is the final revenge. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 21, 2023 Author Share Posted September 21, 2023 The truth is finally coming out in raw footage form. Here You Go, America: The Gateway Pundit Uncovers MASSIVE J6 DATABASE Engineered by 'SEDITION HUNTER' DHS Front Group [Part 1] | The Gateway Pundit | by Alicia Powe, with Benjamin Wetmore WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM The Gateway Pundit has obtained THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF J6 FOOTAGE from “Sedition Hunter” online crowdsourcing groups. Here is the gist. The government does not allow the public to see the full footage of the J6 event. It does not even allow the lawyers of defendants to see it in cases against those who were there. Why? Because this footage shows that the government's official storyline is false. Hell, even Kevin McCarthy and Marjorie Taylor Greene don't want the public to see it. (I love MTG, but fuck her on this. And fuck the horse she rode in on.) But there is a deeper and more sinister reason. The Democratic party side of the Predator Class have a not-well-publicized group called "Sedition Hunter." The members of this group have full access to ALL of the footage and they spend hours and hours using facial recognition software and other forms of computer analysis on it so they can have the FBI and other law enforcement agencies hunt down the people who were there, including the innocent. Gestapo level shit with modern technology. Well, as always happens when the powers that be try to keep something this rotten and this big a secret. It gets leaked. Now everybody can see it. All of the footage. And boy are people looking at it. Guess who else is going to be identified and doxed. Hmmmmm? How about the infiltrators? Betcha those assholes did not see that coming. So fuck them. And, just to be clear, who is them? The control freaks who orchestrated and propagandized the J6 false flag attack, of course. What's more, they are now going to face severe consequences. Get your popcorn and just watch it all unravel over the next few months, piece by piece. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 23, 2023 Author Share Posted September 23, 2023 On 9/15/2023 at 2:26 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here is another version of Lara's first episode on Steve's War Room channel. Episode 2. Lara Logan's Rest of the Story Docuseries Episode 2 Matthew Perna RUMBLE.COM Prosecutors knew Matthew Perna was suicidal when they tried to lock up this non-violent January 6th defendant for as long as they could. It was more than he could bear. The punch in the gut part is just as intense as before. I hope the name Matthew Perna becomes widely known. The voluntary flag ceremony some members of the US military gave him at his funeral (even though he was not a member of the military) was powerful. They told Matthew's brother, on handing over the folded flag, that he was more of a patriot than others they had performed this ceremony for. Lara Logan is a fabulous reporter. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 28, 2023 Author Share Posted September 28, 2023 Lara Logan, Episode 3 of The Rest of the Story - Brunson Brothers Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2023 Author Share Posted October 2, 2023 Because of J6, a bunch of lawsuits have been filed against Trump to keep him off the 2024 ballot bases on the 14th Amendment. Bye-bye 14th Amendment bullshit. SCOTUS ain't even gonna look at it. So all those lawsuits are worthless now. Gotta try something else, losers. U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Remove Donald Trump from 2024 Presidential Ballot | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM In a landmark, the U.S. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 On 9/28/2023 at 6:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Lara Logan, Episode 3 of The Rest of the Story - Brunson Brothers Here is Lara Logan in Episode 4 of The Rest of the Story - The Brunson Brothers Still Fighting Lara Logan, ass-kicker journalist supreme. Lara is a journalist for real, not a paid bootlicker of Establishment masters like most of the media. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 11, 2023 Author Share Posted November 11, 2023 Lara Logan's two episodes on Ray Epps. (Man, what a weasel. Epps, that is. ) Lara Logan's Rest of the Story Docuseries: Ray Epps Part 1 RUMBLE.COM Why was Ray Epps treated as victim by the same people who condemned almost everyone around him as a threat? We try to answer some lingering questions about the one "election-denying-Donald Trump-suppo And Lara Logan's Rest of the Story Docuseries: Ray Epps Part 2 RUMBLE.COM Was Ray Epps the victim of right wing conspiracies and speculation? Or was he being used, like everyone else on January 6th, but for a different purpose? They caught him on camera stalking and taking pictures of Baked Alaska in a rally before Jan 6. And on Jan 5, he whispers (on camera) to Baked Alaska, "We're here to storm the capitol." He says he ain't a fed, even sues people about it, but the more info that comes out, it sure looks like he was a man on an undercover mission. Like I said, what a weasel. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 17, 2023 Author Share Posted November 17, 2023 I don't know if the following includes all of the J6 videos, but about 5 minutes ago, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson released 22.9 GB of J6 videos to the public. Just to repeat the link to the Reading Room, the videos are available here: CHA Subcommittee Reading Room CHA.HOUSE.GOV U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration We can expect a lot of hell raised from this. There are tons of people just waiting to review these videos and find the crimes committed by the government. Guaranteed, a lot of dirt is going to surface. And it will be by the real criminals, not mainstream press edited clips played on loop. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now