The aim of liberalism is white dhimmitude

A friend yesterday put into exact words what I had felt on election night and wrote about here. What is it that liberals and blacks want? What is it about the Obama advent that they are celebrating? It is not racial equality. It is black superiority. It is an America that no longer has an identity as a European-based country. It is a society in which white people, particularly white men, will be immersed everywhere in a multiracial environment in which they will be subdued, in which they will constantly defer to nonwhites, in which they can never express their own power. I would add that just as the aim of Islam is the political and spiritual subjection of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, the aim of liberalism is the political and spiritual subjection of whites under nonwhite and liberal rule.

It was this condition of demoralization and powerlessness that I momentarily glimpsed, but had not articulated as clearly, in the hour after Obama’s election was announced. And I think that many conservative whites are having the same feeling of despair. They are seeing the final goal of liberalism appear—and some of them think that it has already been reached—in the election of Obama and in the rapturous celebrations of the “new America” that Obama has wrought. That new America is one in which whites can no longer be themselves, can no longer assert themselves as whites, can no longer express the truth as they see it, but must defer to the new, nonwhite order.

That is the world that liberals want to bring into being, the world that, with their triumphalist crowing, they want to make us falsely believe has already been brought into being, so that we will offer them no further resistance.

- end of initial entry -

Rachael S. writes:

I also felt powerless and demoralized. It was less about Obama being elected than it was about the indifference whites are showing to moral issues by voting so solidly for the Democratic agenda. My parents, brothers, and husband are the only people I know who have consistent, principled positions on conservative issues.

In contrast, most whites I know are not passionate about protecting marriage, the rights of the unborn, public morality, etc. They are free consumers of our culture of unmitigated media garbage, and when you criticize things you see on TV or in the movies, they look at you like you’re the Church Lady or some fanatic. If you argue your point well enough, they may concede that you are right, but they don’t change their opinions and promptly forget everything you said.

The dhimmitude of whites includes a loss of their morality, which turns them into hypocrites if they criticize the immorality of someone else. In order to do what feels good to you, you have to let others do what feels good to them, even if it is on a horrendous scale, because to define someone’s perversion as worse than your own, one has to discriminate between two subjective opinions—this is a big no-no.

I can’t stress enough how the fuzziness of thought and lack of substance amongst today’s rootless whites is contributing to the decline of society. Where is the hard thinking?

Anthony Damato writes:

Excellent post. I’ve felt this way about the “black power” movement, which is disguised as a quest for equality, for some time. Do you then see America as a South Africa soon? I do.

Gintas writes:

“The aim of liberalism is the political and spiritual subjection of whites under nonwhite and liberal rule.”

I’d would qualify that thusly: “subjection of whites who adhere to the Western Christian tradition” because it would explain why so many whites—the alienated liberals—are in favor of this subjection. It’s the white-Western-Christian combination they hate, not just whites.

Do liberals think that they will enjoy, when they are a white minority, the status they do now? For the moment anything is worth being rid of the white Christian West. When the devil comes to get his part of the bargain, it will be too late for them to care.

James N. writes:

I was listening to Dennis Prager, whose radio program is the instructional tape for how to be a right-liberal.

He was going on and on about how wonderful it was to have a black president, how he had longed for such a day to come. Of course, he says, it’s unfortunate that the black President has to be THIS black president, but, blah, blah, blah.

The question this calls to mind is WHY? WHY is it wonderful to have a black President? Why isn’t it neutral (neither wonderful not terrible)? What if you DON’T think it’s wonderful? What does that mean? And, even worse, what if you think it’s terrible? What would THAT mean?

The point of view that the election of Obama represents “progress,” or that it means something wonderful about America (regardless of who Obama actually IS, or what he actually DOES) is seriously disordered. These are the same people who don’t understand why Obama got 80 percent of the “Hispanic” vote. “How could they overlook all the wonderful things McCain has done for them, and how much he promised them?,” they ask.

Why don’t they understand?

Hispanics didn’t support McCain because….

He’s white. Anti-whiteness is the central unifying principle of the leftist coalition now coming to power. Of course, the fact that many of its leaders and supporters are white is in the realm of psychopathology.

And, speaking of psychopathology, did you know that 71 percent of single women, many of whom are on the pale side, voted for Obama? What’s THAT all about? A famous Swedish feminist said recently, “I will NEVER bear a white child!”

How many of our white single females feel the same way?

LA replies:

This remains a mystery to me too. I can understand blacks’ joy of course. Blacks have an intrinsic problem with America because the majority race is very different from them racially, is their historic oppressor, and is better off than they. Blacks feel uncomfortable, unhappy living in a white-dominant society. So to see a black president. makes them happy. That’s understandable.

But why would a supposedly thoughtful right-liberal like Prager make such a deal out of it? Does he feel that blacks were oppressed until four days ago, and only now are they free? Does he feel that white Americans were racist until four days ago, and only now are they confirmed as non-racist? But Obama only got 43 percent of the white vote with 57 percent going to McCain.

In fact, Prager’s response is no mystery. Prager, while thought of as a conservative leaning liberal, is an extreme right-liberal liberal when it comes to race. He has said that if a white person prefers to marry a white woman, that makes him a racist. You’ve got to be pretty far out to believe something like that. For Prager, race should make absolutely no difference, and the election of Obama proves that in America it doesn’t.

So, blacks are happy about a black president because race matters to them. Prager is happy about a black president because race doesn’t matter to him. But then of course there’s the little problem that if it doesn’t matter to him he should not make a big deal out of it.

Josh F. writes:

And the irony of course is that the original dhimmi, Obama’s mother, can be seen paraded throughout the media. It was the single white female that put Obama over the top and the media has made every attempt to show us just how happy white women where to vote for Obama and assert their dhimmi status.

Philip M. writes from England:

Well said. Last night I watched BBC’s Question Time and was almost tearing my hair out with annoyance at the triumphalism over the Obama election. The black American playwright Bonnie Greer said she would like to see a black prime minister in Britain in the next 15 years or so. It sounded like a demand—which it was. She didn’t mention whether Kenya would be reciprocating with a white leader. On a later question about the BBC she complained that there were too many white middle-class males in the BBC and it needed to change (i.e. employ more blacks in management) if it was to fulfill its motto of “Nation shall speak unto Nation.” She didn’t say whether there’d be any room for the odd whitey to do a bit of the old nation-speaking, but I get the impression that the demands by blacks in this post-election world are coming thick and fast—which may be their undoing.

What is sad is that so many whites celebrate their own dispossession, labouring under the delusion that blacks and non-whites with a racial inferiority complex the size of the Rio Grande do not count “nice” white people like them as part of the problem, when they clearly do.

First impressions are that Obama has the ability to polarise the race issue as never before, with new demands coming hot on the heels of every capitulation.

LL writes:

Just read your latest posting re white dhimmitude. It helps to explain why since the Obama victory his myrmidons and the media, not content merely to bask in their triumph, have deemed it imperative to leverage their advantage by insisting that those who did not support Obama at least acknowledge what A Fine Thing it is (not to mention HISTORIC) to have a nonwhite achieve the American presidency. I was first struck by this phenomenon the day after listening to Steve Malzberg’s radio show while he was interviewing Chris Wallace. At the conclusion of the segment, Wallace essentially told Malzberg that even though he may not have backed Obama, didn’t he think it was a great day in American politics and history to have finally elected a black president? (I don’t recall the particulars of Malzberg’s response, except that he managed to say “No, not really” with a follow-up explanation that seemed satisfactory to his guest, as no outraged retort followed.) I thought, “Why is consensus so important to you? You won, isn’t that enough?” But then consider the black inclination, as exemplified by sports figures, to dance and gloat and essentially rub the vanquished’s nose in the dirt (the “sack dance,” as you termed it). So no, it’s not enough just to win. As with Muslims, domination is insufficient without humiliation.

As for Obamageddon: although the initial shock and awe have passed, clearly it remains difficult not to anticipate this presidency being a total disaster. BHO: Maximum Leader or Jimmy Carter. You decide.

Adela G. writes:

You write: “The aim of liberalism is white dhimmitude.”

But of course. That is exactly what I meant (though I failed to express it so succinctly) when I wrote in response to your announcement of Madelyn Dunham’s death:

The liberal utopia needs and wants white drones exactly like Madelyn Dunham, people who will willingly—or unwittingly—foot the bill for the liberal agenda and [sic] be cowed into believing that their own instincts for survival are the racist reactions of a “typical white person.”

For isn’t “white dhimmitude” just a pithy way of describing “white drones” who “foot the bill for the liberal agenda” and can be “cowed into believing that their own instincts for survival are the racist reactions of a ‘typical white person’”? Maybe not all such drones can be cowed into believing anything but of those who can’t, most sure as heck can be cowed into acting as though they do.

Actually, I just woke up from a nap and my first waking thought was that we can summarize the liberal agenda re conservatives as a process of six “ize.” They want to demoralize most conservatives (but not all, liberals love to hate and they need a nearby enemy for that, since ostensibly they love everyone in the world, save their fellow white Westerners). They want to stigmatize, marginalize, and criminalize the thoughts, words and actions of those conservatives they cannot humble. And I believe now that they are also willing to brutalize at least a few of the latter group. All this, of course, to be consistent with their forcing conservatives to subsidize their regime. In other words: white dhimmitude.

And as the election of you-know-who shows, the ize have it.

Gareth W. writes:

This is it exactly. You have hit the nail on the head:

“A friend yesterday put into exact words what I had felt on election night and wrote about here. What is it that liberals and blacks want? What is it about the Obama advent that they are celebrating? It is not racial equality. It is black superiority. It is an America that no longer has an identity as a European-based country. It is a society in which white people, particularly white men, will be immersed everywhere in a multiracial environment in which they will be subdued, in which they will constantly defer to nonwhites, in which they can never express their own power.”

Which is where I came in, landing in the U.S. in 1996 as a fresh sophomore on a rugby exchange to UC San Diego. They couldn’t get the white guilt insults to stick to me, a multilingual European. So I challenged them. My line of attack was this: Multiculturalism and Diversity have to be redefined and expanded to include Euro-Americans … otherwise Diversity is just a slogan to cover minority triumphalism. I argued that there should be a place at the table for Euro-American community.. there should be Euro-American Heritage Month, etc.

I know that many conservatives are emotionally wedded to the concept of unhyphenated Americanism, but that battle has been lost. Moreover, the only way to undo the “hyphe-nation” of America is maybe to go through a transitional phase in which white Americans demand “parity of esteem” as Euro-Americans.

For some reason, I as an Anglo-American patriot have been born into a time in our history when our people are at our weakest. Instead of giving up, instead of walling ourselves in a siege mentality, we should try to co-opt the left and their symbols and talk about Diversity and Reconciliation and phrases that make white Obamaphiliacs go all warm inside such as “the healing of our nation.”

I want to turn this sense of being an “oppressed majority” into one of being a “resistance” and a “remnant.”

Rocco DiPippo writes:

Another brilliant take. There’s one snag for the bastards along the road to serfdom however; guys like me won’t go quietly.

LA to Rocco:
Thank you.

In my original posted version of this entry, the ending went like this:

That is what the liberals want to achieve, and that is what they want, with their triumphalist crowing, to make us falsely believe that they already have achieved, so that we will offer them no further resistance. The correct reply to them is the rejoinder Rocco DiPippo says conservatives should have made to the left for the last 40 years: “[Expletive Deleted]”.

But then I felt that ending a VFR article with a barely disguised obscenity was not exactly appropriate, so I deleted the last sentence.

Rocco replies:

My God, I’m still laughing!

Larry, Berlusconi pulls a [Expletive Deleted] on a US reporter. He displayed the precise attitude required in such situations.

Viva Italia!

LA replies:

Berlusconi had said that Obama is “handsome, young and also suntanned.” And the PC crowd throughout Europe went crazy over this amiable, unobjectionable remark. And we thought the Europeans were so sophisticated. They sound as stupid and touchy as the American blacks (and whites) who would fire an employee for innocently saying “niggardly” or speaking of a “black hole.”

But here’s another possible silver lining—maybe Obama, with his affability about such matters, will help turn down the volume on the insane PC sensitivity about race. Unfortunately, at his president-elect website, he has also proposed beefing up anti-hate legislation, and perhaps he wants to make us like quasi-totalitarian Europe in that regard. Again, where he will actually go as president we simply don’t know at this point.

November 8

Van Wijk writes:

Rachael S. wrote:

“I also felt powerless and demoralized. It was less about Obama being elected than it was about the indifference whites are showing to moral issues by voting so solidly for the Democratic agenda. My parents, brothers, and husband are the only people I know who have consistent, principled positions on conservative issues.”

Indeed. Some people (a very few) have thought about the fate of the white West critically and have recognized the danger. Some feel it in their guts but have not formulated a logical argument. A good many are liberal now but will begin to see the danger over time as they are increasingly “mugged” by reality. And all the rest can be considered collateral damage.

With the recognition of the incredible danger we are in comes acceptance that our only hope is secession and separation. Many true conservatives are not yet comfortable with this, and I respect that. All they have to do is wait and watch as, day by day, liberalism reveals just how far it is willing to go to destroy us. Wait and watch as every attempt at self-defense through voting and protests comes to nothing.

So, I am not as perturbed by these events as most conservatives are. When I close my eyes I can already see the burning buildings, the starving urban populace, and the raiding soldiers.

Rachael S. replies:

Van Wijk writes:

“With the recognition of the incredible danger we are in comes acceptance that our only hope is secession and separation.”

I tend to agree. America was not always the same size and shape, so I do not reject the idea of a smaller future version of it, if it was a place where whites could live out their lives being comfortable in their own culture. How this would be realized successfully in the face of the globalist behemoth is beyond me; I have a feeling the ruined buildings would be ours, and the raiding soldiers would be theirs… militias have guns, but the federal government has “non-lethal” weapons, nukes, and who knows what else.

Larry, thanks for the interesting post, which addresses what many conservatives have been thinking about.

The black conservative Elizabeth Wright declares:
You write:

“That new America is one in which whites can no longer be themselves, can no longer assert themselves as whites, can no longer express the truth as they see it, but must defer to the new, nonwhite order.”

Well, no kidding, Lawrence. But isn’t it just a bit late to be reaching this astounding conclusion, that which has been clear even to the brainless for years and years? Isn’t it much too late, now that white men have devolved into cowards who behave like dumb rocks? Having spent so much of their energy defending themselves against charges of “racism,” while elevating black men into prestigious positions, the white man might as well keep his mouth shut. Whites will deserve what they get. There’s no reason to feel anything but contempt for them.

Of course, it’s deference that blacks want, for God’s sakes! What do you think Oprah has been planting over all these years but the seeds that are already flowering in those silly, awestruck white women, who diligently socialize their offspring with positive messages about the significance, equality and even, in some cases, the superiority of “black culture.” And now, with the public acceptance and adulation of Obama, the product of black-white fornication, those silly white girls will be further conditioned to yearn to make brown, instead of white babies. It won’t be immigration that changes the nature of the competition; it will be the wombs of white women.

It’s all about power, as I wrote in one of my blog posts . It has never been about anything else but power. It’s just man-to-man warfare, and the cowardly white man has chosen to pretend that it’s about “social justice,” so he would not have to deal realistically with it, while the black man kicks his butt out of power in his own domain. But, hey, that’s okay, right? After all, harmony is the goal—at any price.

To maintain this harmony, Whitey has spent a lot of energy beating up on other whites who refuse to defer, jumping on the bandwagon of tainting them with the “white supremacist” smear, in order to deflect such taint from himself. The shutdown of David Duke’s conference is a disgrace in this Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. You haven’t seen any whites standing up for constitutional rights in this case, did you? The white man deserves what’s coming his way. And it’s going to be a humdinger!

You claim that “white men will be immersed everywhere in a multiracial environment in which they will be subdued,” but only after white women have been subdued. It begins with the women, only because the white man has reneged on his duty to compete like a normal man, and prevent the outsider from usurping his societal role. While you were sleeping, as the saying goes, the liberal media has been crafting the Ideal Black Man, for the edification of any women, but most especially for white women

After reading that long post of yours the other day, claiming that Obama was sui generis, which came off as so naive, I simply gave up on you. Before that post, I thought you were one of the few who got the full picture, but that post left me with the impression that you’ve crawled into that safe cave with most other white men.

And then this, from you: “maybe Obama, with his affability about such matters, will help turn down the volume on the insane PC sensitivity about race. Unfortunately, at his president-elect website, he has also proposed beefing up anti-hate legislation…” You better believe it. As I wrote in my previous email, that federal “hate crime” bill will finally breathe life, since shutting down the loud noise of dissent will be paramount. Turning down the volume on PC sensitivity? Surely, you jest!

LA replies:

Since according to Miss Wright the entire truth about the leftist agenda and what the left has in store for whites has been evident “even to the brainless” for many years, the fact of this leftist agenda announcing itself more clearly with Obama’s victory is and should be of no importance, because everyone, even the brainless, should have already understood everything that needs to be understood. Thus there was nothing further to be revealed by the left, nothing further to be understood by the right. Any response to unfolding events, any further insights into these realities, is simply a confession of brainlessness.

In any case, since Miss Wright informs me that she has given up on me, I bid her farewell.

Mark Jaws writes:

Dhimmitude, Schlimmitude! We whites have been experiencing dhimmitude for over 30 years already. I agree with some of the posters here. We need to co-opt the language and tactics of the left. Given Obama’s background as a “pro-black community organizer,” his election offers us moral cover and a gold-plated opportunity to organize along racial lines as well. It is simply up to us to act.

Eric E. writes:

“The aim of liberalism is white dhimmitude.”

This is a wonk statement. Only your readers will get it, the average person in America (white, black, whatever) has no clue what a dhimmi is.

So say it for what it really is: white male castration.

The idea that a black man could rule over the white men is a matter of sexual symbolism, and everyone realizes it, even if they can’t verbalize it.

It was well known that lynchings were routinely prefaced by actual castration of the black victim. This was a message to all the others: you have no power over us. We can take your manhood.

Do a little research on it. Much has been written about this.

It is even more significant that Obama is the son of a white female and a black man: Your day is done, white man. We have your women now, too. We will take them and make you extinct.

Many people will deny this symbolism as crude, but it is real. Liberalism has always been the domain of white homosexuals, because they are already psychologically castrated, which is to say, submissive. They understand this crude symbology, and want to see it inflicted on those they blame for their own sexual subjugation. If you look at the people demonstrating in San Francisco the last few days over the outcome of Prop 8, how many black men do you see in the crowd? It’s well known that blacks and Hispanics put Prop 8 over the top.

Your analysis of liberalism and its intent with respect to white men is correct, but the terminology is obscure. Again, say it for what it is: the symbolic castration of white males.

To be followed by the very real physical castration in larger numbers…. remember the Knoxville Horror, and the murder of the white male / black female couple in Riverside just a couple of days ago.

Things like that are going to become quite commonplace under this “president.”

LA replies:

“This is a wonk statement. Only your readers will get it, the average person in America (white, black, whatever) has no clue what a dhimmi is.”

First, I hope Mr. E. notices that this site is not written for the average person in America, but for people interested in traditionalist conservatism.

Second, “dhimmitude,” a term coined by Bat Ye’or, is based on the Arabic word dhimmi meaning a non-Muslim person subjugated under the power of Islam according to a one-sided contract, the dhimma, whereby the dhimmi is allowed to live so long as he accepts his subjugated, humiliated and, yes, emasculated, status. More than any other factor, the dissemination of this “wonk” term, as Mr. E. truculently calls it, has woken up the conservative reading public of the West to the real nature of Islam.

Words exist to convey realities. Dhimmitude conveys the reality of how Islam treats non-Muslims. And what I realized, from my friends’ picture of the goal of liberalism as a society in which white men will be immersed in nonwhiteness, deferring to it, not allowed to express their own power, was that this was racial dhimmitude. So I think the term white dhimmitude conveys a great deal. It’s also useful because it connects the parallel phenomena of the Islamization of the West, whereby Westerners are becoming subject to Islam, and the demographic/ethnocultural transformation of the West, whereby whites are becoming subject to nonwhites—or, rather, subject to nonwhites and liberal whites who will remain the real rulers, at least for a while.

You write:

“Your analysis of liberalism and its intent with respect to white men is correct, but the terminology is obscure. Again, say it for what it is: the symbolic castration of white males.”

Why not simply contribute your ideas on the subject, rather than tell me that I must not use the words that I want to use but must use the words that you want me to use? I agree with you that the removal of white men’s power has a sexual dimension that could be described as symbolic castration. Nevertheless the two phrases are not the same. While there is some overlap, “symbolic castration of white males” does not convey the totality of meanings that “white dhimmitude” conveys. That’s why the term “dhimmitude” is needed.

Philip M. writes:

What a weird comment by Elizabeth Wright. Normally Elizabeth is reasoned and measured, yet she tells us not once, but twice that:

“Whites will deserve what they get.”

And then follows this with:

“There’s no reason to feel anything but contempt for them.”

Is she saying that this is what other blacks feel, or what she herself feels? It seems like the latter. This goes way beyond analysing white people and their flaws and frankly sounds more like someone rather excited by some genocidal Brave New World she is imagining. She doesn’t sound like a “conservative” to me.

Her breathless excitement at the idea of the white man’s imminent demise seems to induce a kind of frenzy which weakens her usual calm prose style to use curious metaphors like:

“White men have devolved into cowards who behave like dumb rocks.”

What, cowardly, dumb rocks? As opposed to the brave, articulate kind?

Having written off all white men as contemptible extinction-worthy cowards, she then contradicts herself by saying;

“Whitey has spent a lot of energy beating up on other whites who refuse to defer, jumping on the bandwagon of tainting them with the “white supremacist” smear, in order to deflect such taint from himself.”

Are these whites also dumb, cowardly rocks? As one of the whites who has “refused to defer,” I’d like to ask if Elizabeth could find it in her heart to spare me from whatever “humdinger” of a fate she reluctantly contemplates that her people have in store for us?

Elizabeth seems to have a lot of anger and bitterness at the moment. Why?

LA replies:

Thanks for reading it thoughtfully. I had not taken it in, except for the anger and contempt. And what set it off? Something I said that seemed naive about Obama. That was enough to make her “give up” on me.

Two months ago she wrote this about me at her website:

One of the best Internet discussions on the probable future impact on the conservative cause due to the selection of Sarah Palin was held at Lawrence Auster’s View From the Right. I am not in agreement with Auster on foreign policy, especially as regards the Middle East. But what’s there not to like about a man who stands foursquare for the preservation of what’s left of Western culture? Where do you find a white man these days who professes the desire to see his own race prevail in their own lands, instead of taking delight as Western countries are overrun with immigrant invasions? On this subject, we’re in agreement. And we’re on the same page in regard to those who purposely, or inadvertently, promote or condone illegitimate pregnancy.

But now she writes, after expressing her view that whites are dumb cowardly rocks deserving of extinction:

After reading that long post of yours the other day, claiming that Obama was sui generis, which came off as so naive, I simply gave up on you. Before that post, I thought you were one of the few who got the full picture, but that post left me with the impression that you’ve crawled into that safe cave with most other white men.

So a single post by me where I apparently discussed Obama’s unusual qualities instantly demoted me in her eyes from one of the few white men of understanding and courage who get it and who want to see whites prevail in their own lands, to one of the vast majority of dumb cowardly white men who are deserving of extinction.

Philip replies:

It seemed a leap too far to say, but much of her post is about how white women are being conditioned to be attracted to black men, and that white men are redundant. Well, if this scenario makes white men redundant, it doesn’t look to good for black women either—and I wonder if this is the cause of her bitterness. I can’t believe it was just what you said, which was worth saying.

November 12

Joseph writes (from arimathea.org):

You have a fascinating site, and I am always glad to read people who do not constantly lie to themselves and to everyone else out of some perverse sense of noblesse. However, your wording in the entry, “The aim of liberalism is white dhimmitude,” reminds me of the very people whom you find objectionable—the post-modern types who fetishize power, victimization, and narrow tribal perspectives. Have you been engaged so long with the enemy that you have adopted his ways? I empathize with you if your disgust at the obnoxious (and orgiastic, as you put it in another entry) display of racialist insanity over the past week overwhelmed your sense of balance. Yet, this sort of nonsense has been a Trojan horse for many folks. Pretty soon, you might end up a Marxist!

LA replies:

I’m making a simple point, that as the numbers and power of nonwhites in America and the West grow, the power of whites over what was once their country will be steadily reduced. Either that statement is true, or it’s not. Fetishing victimhood, emulating the leftist mentality, has nothing to do with it.

So, is it true that turning America into a nonwhite country is going to subject whites under nonwhite power, or not?

Did the handover of power to blacks in South Africa subjugate whites to black power, or not?

Do you live in the real world, where these realities of power exist and can be discussed, or not?

[My exchange with Joseph, and his resulting article about VFR, are further discussed here.]


Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2008 04:00 PM | Send
    

Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):