Nihilism and Destiny

Readers of Nietzsche, or of Eugene Rose, are already familiar with the attribution of a cultural teleology to modernity, directed to the consummate realization of nihilism. Our contemporary crisis finds this theme re-animated within a geopolitical context by the work of Alexandr Dugin, who interprets it as a driver of concrete events — most specifically the antagonization of Russia by an imploding world liberal order. He writes:

There is one point in liberal ideology that has brought about a crisis within it: liberalism is profoundly nihilistic at its core. The set of values defended by liberalism is essentially linked to its main thesis: the primacy of liberty. But liberty in the liberal vision is an essentially negative category: it claims to be free from (as per John Stuart Mill), not to be free for something. […] … the enemies of the open society, which is synonymous with Western society post-1991, and which has become the norm for the rest of the world, are concrete. Its primary enemies are communism and fascism, both ideologies which emerged from the same Enlightenment philosophy, and which contained central, non-individualic concepts – class in Marxism, race in National Socialism, and the national State in fascism). So the source of liberalism’s conflict with the existing alternatives of modernity, fascism or communism, is quite obvious. Liberals claim to liberate society from fascism and communism, or from the two major permutations of explicitly non-individualistic modern totalitarianism. Liberalism’s struggle, when viewed as a part of the process of the liquidation of non-liberal societies, is quite meaningful: it acquires its meaning from the fact of the very existence of ideologies that explicitly deny the individual as society’s highest value. It is quite clear what the struggle opposes: liberation from its opposite. But the fact that liberty, as it is conceived by liberals, is an essentially negative category is not clearly perceived here. The enemy is present and is concrete. That very fact gives liberalism its solid content. Something other than the open society exists, and the fact of its existence is enough to justify the process of liberation.

In Dugin’s analysis, liberalism tends to self-abolition in nihilism, and is able to counteract this fate — if only temporarily — by defining itself against a concrete enemy. Without the war against illiberalism, liberalism reverts to being nothing at all, a free-floating negation without purpose. Therefore, the impending war on Russia is a requirement of liberalism’s intrinsic cultural process. It is a flight from nihilism, which is to say: the history of nihilism propels it.

Outside in is far more inclined to criticize Dugin than align with him, or the forces he orchestrates, but it is hard to deny that he represents a definite species of political genius, sufficient to categorize him as a man of destiny. The mobilization of resistance to modernity in the name of a counter-nihilism is inspired, because the historical understanding it draws upon is genuinely penetrating. Through potent political alchemy, the destruction of collective meaning is transformed into an invigorating cause. When Dugin argues there will be blood, the appeal to Slavic victimology might be considered contemptible (and, of course, extremely ‘dangerous’), but the prophetic insight is not easy to dismiss.

Modernity was initiated by the European assimilation of mathematical zero. The encounter with nothingness is its root. In this sense, among others, it is nihilistic at its core. The frivolous ‘meanings’ that modernizing societies clutch at, as distractions from their propulsion into the abyss, are defenseless against the derision — and even revulsion — of those who contemplate them with detachment. A modernity in evasion from its essential nihilism is a pitiful prey animal upon the plains of history. That is what we have seen before, see now, and doubtless will see again.

Dugin gazes upon modernity with the cold eyes of a wolf. It is merely pathetic to denounce him for that.

ADDED: Sunshine Mary has some closely-related thoughts.

ADDED: An absorbing debate between Alexandr Dugin and Olavo de Carvalho.

40 Responses to this entry

  • Thales Says:

    Teleology sans teleos.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Or zero-teleology (to put it more ‘positively’).

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 18th, 2014 at 5:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    One could say the same thing about Dugin, though. Does his project make much sense without liberalism as its bete noir?

    The same thing could, of course, not be said about NRx.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Dugin is fizzing with projection — but my hardened racism would see that as a Russian thing.

    [Reply]

    Artemisia Reply:

    Dugin is fizzing with the belief in Russian exceptionality. That we do a lot (because, really, we are quite something, after all, in one sense or another). Projection – not so much.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Dugin is projecting energy and initiative onto confused and terrified liberal opponents, at the very least.

    Posted on March 18th, 2014 at 7:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    Ex-nihilo and an-nihilo. Their blank slate is actually the bottomless pit.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 18th, 2014 at 7:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    It is a pretty interesting way of looking at it. If liberalism basically is the way a society deals with nihilism and the relativism that accompanies it, then we are just another branch of it and suffer from many of the same problems of democratic liberalism or private-law liberalism.

    In a book about western history seen from a Buddhist perspective, western restlessness is attributed to a great extent to our attempt to ground our existence in some thing, which essentially is impossible, since we are but an aggregate and don’t have a stable self due to our ’empty’ nature and the same goes for the thing. Our failure to ground our self results in a sense of lack, which frequently gets attributed to a political or economic issues and often results in a means-end reversal when it comes to money.

    The writer argues that initially the sense of lack present in the classical world was resolved by the Catholic church, but due to certain changes this stopped working and resulted in the reformation and a renaissance of lack. Nietzsche argues along similar lines in his “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” piece.

    Our attempt to subvert liberal democracy basically originates from the same drive as that of other subversives and this drive could just as easily be used against a neocameral state. While living in such a state would serve to dampen our sense of lack, it is unlikely that it would be the case for everyone. Our descendants would find an excuse to project their sense of lack on the neocameral state if the issue didn’t get resolved.

    The big question is how can the genie be put back into the bottle now that God is as good as dead and utilitarianism, communism and other proposed alternatives can’t be scrutinized without dying as well. The answer of many traditionalists is to give God CPR, but this is rather pointless as long as Reason and Skepticism keep stabbing him. The same goes for most other traditionalist solutions i.e. white nationalism, Eurasianism, neo-Luddism, neo-paganism and so on.

    Nietzsche had some proposals and the writer of the book obviously proposes some form of Buddhism, which seem like a plausible solutions to the problem. Neither Nietzsche’s solution, nor the Buddhist solution rely on agreeing on a lot of unreasonable things, so they both seem like good options to me. In the orient it was frequently the case that people were Taoists or Buddhists in their private life and Confucians in their public life, Perhaps we need a specific type of traditionalism to compliment our political position to avoid the painful gnawing of bad faith.

    Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong’s inability to ‘inspire’ people to reproduce due to it’s citizenry being too busy collecting large quantities of money, without it being directed towards a sensible end, and with both Hong Kong and Singapore moving towards the left, the situation would certainly seem to suggest that good governance consists of more than creating an environment characterized by low crime, low political participation and high economic freedom.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    WRT your paragraph about Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong – a worthwhile point and I concur with it.

    WRT your point re: the genie – the solution is to refrain from reasoning as much as possible. Reason corrodes understanding by debasing the clarity of intuition. It is by the means of his intuition that man possesses those sufficiently irrational beliefs to conduct his body and soul in a disciplined, virtuous, and peaceable manner.

    No instrument/result of his reason can inspire man, for reason erodes his intuition and, more fundamentally still, no product inspires its creator.

    Reaction is sooner a way of understanding Progressivism than a blueprint for how to live life. The Reactosphere is worthy in many ways, but misguided in a sense, for communication itself is the realm of empiricism, which is the wellspring of Progressivism epistemologically. Moldbug himself alluded to this when he asked what it is we have built on the occasion of Auster’s passing.

    It’s true that all men must find their own paths – but it’s especially true of Reactionaries. Were the ineffable inspiration man requires to live a meaningful life rational (let alone communicable) then we surely would have found a way to stamp it out of plastic for three bucks a unit by now. Personally, I suspect Traditionalist Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews are the three primary engines the Western world possesses for what might be recognized to us as Reactionary ascendance.

    [Reply]

    elsid Reply:

    SW, what’s the name and the author of the first book about western history from buddhist perspective.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 18th, 2014 at 8:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    SGW touches on the real challenges of NRx.

    The stuff like Neocameralism/Monarchy/Narrow-franchise republicanism is all the low hanging fruit. And the current NRx answers are less than compelling at this point in time.

    NRx governance is an engineering problem, but is only the tip of the iceberg of the issues that need to be addressed. Dubai and HK can be pleasant places to live, but they have not solved the wider problems to provide a foundation for civilizational longevity.

    1) Finding some sort of treatment for Nihilism. Traditional religion will no longer work for many, but there needs to be a solid grounding of the Good and True in the culture that firewalls it from the corrosive forces of relativism and nihilism.

    2) Figuring out how to address the problem of Supernormal stimulus. Facebook, Porn, Processed Food, low barriers to sex, the lack of toil are all seductive advances that we are loathe to give up. Yet as newly evolved primates, many of us are neurologically incapable of handling these stimuli rationally. The seven deadly sins have not dissipated, they have just become digitally and materially ubiquitous.

    3) Rebuilding Patriarchy and Tradition out the ashes of Modernity. Yes, women might embrace Patriarchy in some sort of gang infested environment of constant civil conflict. That does not sound particularly appealing. How do you get women to give up the “freedoms” of feminism, get them to focus on early family formation, and in most cases put off their career ambitions until the kids are in school and a second post-mom career is more appropriate. How do you get the economy, to support that as well. And given a few decades of beta men opting out of marriage, how do you entice them to stand up to the plate?

    Dugin is giving Russians some easy answers with his post-Liberal approach to nationalism. His analysis is intriguing, but his solutions fall far short of what is required to thrive post-Modernity. It’s going to be a long haul with lots of false starts, but slow and steady will win the race. At least I hope.

    [Reply]

    j. ont. Reply:

    These are, I think, THE questions. Political speculation is fun, but often quite abstract. I’m interested to know; how do these (admittedly often very intelligent) NRx writers live? What is their health like? Are they happy? Do they have families? I ask these questions not as some sort of ad hominem critique, but because I’m curious to know how their overhanging philosophies plug into their immediate ways of life. Things are more explicit in the manosphere, but not in other areas.

    [Reply]

    Jefferson Reply:

    This gets at what I see as a key distinction between Neoreactionaries and Reactionaries. It seems that a prerequisite for the Neoreactionary conversion (most often from Libertarianism or some other form of right-leaning progressivism) is family formation. Looking out towards the infinite void of a progressive future for one’s progeny has a sobering affect.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    “NRx governance is an engineering problem”.

    Especially in context of the 20th century, that is insane. The engineering part.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 12:18 am Reply | Quote
  • sunshinemary Says:

    I’m glad to see this analysis here, as it is along the same lines as my own. Mr. Dugin explains the inherent nihilism of liberalism concisely, but modernity itself is the larger issue, at least for my purposes as a traditionalist Christian. Also, fascists tend to be either evil/scary or mystical/silly, neither of which gives one a strong sense of patriotism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 1:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    When people here use the word, “liberalism”, I can’t tell if they mean classical liberalism or progressivism. There are probably some who don’t make a distinction between the two, but that also would be good information to have.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    For the Dugin-types of the world, the more the two are confused, the better. Sadly, much of the NRx shares this agenda.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Thank you. Classical Liberalism =/= Nihilism whatever it’s flaws.

    And again any goverment form or substance has flaws. The flaw being humanity.

    Rather a big fan of starkly delineated limited form, the substance in society myself.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    It’s not reaction if you just want classical liberalism. It’s classical liberalism. AKA American “conservatism” or libertarianism.

    If there is one thing reactionaries should agree on it is that the failure of those ideologies to resist modern liberalism was baked into the cake.

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    Right but they are quite different things, which helps in trying to figure out what a critique (such as Dugin’s) is talking about specifically. Classical Liberalism so-called is the boots of a philosophy, merely a negative ‘freedom’ which assumes (as it did at the time) other things to ‘complete’ the man, which almost assumed traditional forms (though twasn’t required.)

    Liberalism, whether classical or modern sans anything else is nihilism. Classical liberalism with something else is by-in-large just political nihilism, which might be suitable for some types whom are not responsible for the political.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    When people use the words “Peter Taylor”, do they refer to the 2 year old baby Peter, or the grown up Peter?

    Same thing.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    This.

    [Reply]

    Hawk Spitui Reply:

    I don’t think it makes much of a difference. As much as the libertarians may scream, progressivism is the legitimate heir to classical liberalism. If you don’t believe that, just thumb through a recent issue of Reason magazine. While there are still differences, the one seems to inevitably evolve into the other. Pretty much everything Dugin wrote about liberalism applies to mainstream libertarianism as well.

    If you can’t tell which one is being discussed, that ought to tell you something, right there.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 4:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Cathedral counter-narrative (apologies if someone’s flagged up this before):

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372353/eurasianist-threat-robert-zubrin

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 7:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    The problem for NRx is that of our three branches, the most compelling arguments come from the branch with the least likely vision of the future. As previously noted, our exemplary city-states (and even our exemplary nations/empires) have frighteningly low birth rates, and are susceptible to leftward drift. That tends to diminish the arguments in favor of the techno-capitalist action plan (sorry, Moldbug). The next best thing (in terms of an outcome that meshes with Western Civ) is for the tradcon future. Any sort of restoration, even to just to the days of the old republic, would require a restoration of traditional values to stick. However, we didn’t end up where we are by accident. Traditional values have huge weaknesses that were exploited to collapse them in the first place, and won’t go away in a restoration (as an aside, if the tradcons win I will personally suffer a fair amount). So that leaves the ethno-nationalists. Black ethno-nationalists seem to be having plenty of kids, likewise Jewish (Israelis), Arab, Kurdish, Chechyn, and some Amerind. The LDS aren’t too far off if they can stave off progressivism, but the rest of the Western World isn’t. How the branches of NRx reproduce themselves will determine how the future looks.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Not if techno-commercialism, as progressivism, pulls a canine venereal sarcoma and mutates from a living organism into a memetic cancer, infecting the kids that those tradcons and nationalists have painstakingly brought to this world.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I only wish I shared your confidence in techno-commercial cultural virulence. (But I agree your ‘gene-shredder’ argument remains unanswered — and absolutely crucial.)

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Genetic evolution can respond to memetic cancers. Does anyone seriously think that susceptibility to progressive or techno-commercial memetic infection is completely unconnected with genetics? I don’t.

    Unfortunately, the major evolved resistance to these memetic infections appears to be stupidity and irresponsibility.

    If that weren’t so, techno-commercialism would be a harmless infection that would evolve towards commensalism. In every generation a few percentage points would leave to techno-commercial city states where they would create vast wealth to the benefit of everyone. But its not harmless. The resistance it induces is deadly, like sickle cell anemia.

    Until that minor point is dealt with, techno-commercialism appears to be yet another elaborate exercise in milling seed corn.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    That’s a good one.

    Singapore, Republic of Milling Seed Corn

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 12:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • ultraZEN Says:

    I read Dugin’s last book, The Fourth Political Theory. In it, he muses that the Logos of western civilization, birthed first amongst the Greeks of antiquity, has exhausted all contained possibilities. It has now turned into self-consumed autocannibalistic frenzy, devouring its own labyrinthine trails as it slimes ahead into the great nothingness.

    As a meditation upon the new ontology needed for a new political philosophy, Dugin claims that instead of Zero, we must invoke CHAOS. The pre-socratic form of Chaos, where Logos is but one of endless potential possibilities, constitutes the reservoir wherefrom the now dying remnants of Logos at last can be utterly drowned. The opposite of order is not chaos, but rather disorder. Chaos isn’t a gaping pit, it is more like nature unbound – a ladder leading everywhere and nowhere: a zero with all the other numbers jotted down inside.

    We must therefore turn to forgotten gods, forbidden gods and long dead gods: ours shall be the necropolis of all progressivist mind-viral syndication.

    Against disorder, support chaos.

    When in Jerusalem, do as the Romans.

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    My problem with this view is that chaos is not generative in and of itself. This is a classic Progressive mistake (how it gets transmuted to being antiprogressive I’ve got no clue;) Old Night is invoked only to destroy, not to create. Logos is all there is aside from it. Lovecraft of course predicted all of this. Chaos cannot destroy Logos but it can and will destroy absolutely everything else (thankfully, it will destroy disorder.) This is like invoking death as a cure for disease. It is a cure, but it is only a ‘final’ solution.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Can Hesiodic Chaos be so easily assigned to ‘progressives’?

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    Chaos is not progressive, at all, but a naive trust in the generative power of chaos is ‘progressive’, of a flavor. That conservatives turn to chaos is identical to God turning to death in the garden, “that they may not eat of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever.” (in the state of disorder.) This cure however turns into a secondary cause of further error, men doing evil to avoid death instead of facing its reality and what that means for their actions and the judgment of them. Chaos, like death, destroys disorder, but it also destroys order. The only solution that remains once this lever has been pressed is eat Chaos itself, but who could do it, since it took God to eat death.

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 1:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Didn’t the Chinese send a mission to the United States in the Early 2000s and conclude our success in America and the West was Christianity and they were “quite sure of this”?

    I wonder what Neo-Confucians think?

    I think if I was Chinese [I’m not] and was drawn to my own history I’d conclude that Christianity in my country served the function of Agent Smith, the genocidal program that has run in China at least 4 times if we count the 7 Kill Stele/Hoison/Sichuan autogenocide. Then Taiping, Sun-Yet-Sun and the fall of the Ming, followed by Mao?

    I think if I’m Chinese and my middle class [such as it is] is being drawn towards Christianity I’d wanna head that off at the pass.

    And perhaps there’s a background to this debate/meme going on here that’s not about the West at all?

    Which is fine, I’m not Chinese and it’s not my business what happens in China.

    China should know however that no matter how clever they think they are, and how bad ass their nearly all non-blooded military thinks they are if the United States doesn’t find sanity in itself than then whoever and whatever else wins here will plague the earth as it has never seen before for the notion that we disappear is pure fantasy. It possible we’ll limp on into Brazil, but it doesn’t appear likely. If we really were entirely wrapped up in Jersey Shore and welfare as some conveiniently believe* then that might happen, and who knows humanity might suffer less.

    It won’t.

    *again if you are in DC you have to negatively discount your view of America and humanity in general by -200% or more. You’re seeing all the worst in people subsidized and indeed celebrated, like DC’s TMZ zone of politicians and media. You’re so far from truth and light you just can’t trust any of your conceptions. Except about DC.

    [Reply]

    SGW Reply:

    Ruiping Fan wrote an interesting book where he tries to reconstruct Confucianism. He basically argues that the cathedral has perverted Confucianism into being another peace, love and equality hippie ideology (Neo-Confucianism), and that communism basically functions as a mental disorder generator and that it is not a valid alternative. He proposes a return to traditional Confucianism.

    He lays the smack-down on democracy, the welfare state, human rights, individualism, social justice, environmentalism and practically every other pet project of the left, and quite a lot of the right, as well, Instead of democracy he proposes aristocracy, instead of elections he proposes examinations, instead of social contract theory he proposes private property and the particularism that it implies. At the end he argues for the right of parents to bind the feet of their children just in case he hadn’t horrified progressives enough with all the other things.

    He basically treats the Confucian system of rites/rituals as some sort of proto-formalism and argues for a directed benevolent market polity, i.e. Singapore. I certainly would recommend the book to everyone on here, since it argues for quite a lot of the same thing we argue for, but from a different direction. If you want to read it you can simply Google “reconstructionist confucianism pdf” and it should be one of the first hits. A quote for those who are still on the fence:

    “Benevolent governance (ren zheng) requires the acquisition of people’s safety and welfare. But this objective cannot be achieved by establishing egalitarian welfare rights, because such rights are in tension with the Confucian family-oriented ideals and values.”

    “Indeed, many East Asian regions draw elements from Confucian philosophy that are at their core familist in two decisive ways. First, political structure and governance are understood neither in terms of a Rawlsian hypothetical rational contract nor in terms of an Lockean actual historical contract, but rather in terms of a comprehensive moral vision where society is regarded as a large family of families. Just as claims of civil liberty and equality and participation in active protests should not be central to family life, or at least to the functioning of traditional families, so, too, such behaviors are regarded as out of place in a directed benevolent market polity. Second, political theory and governance are aimed at recognizing and nurturing families as entities that are responsible for the welfare of their members. Normally, individuals should rely on their families, rather than government, to secure their welfare in general and health care in particular.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 7:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • J. Says:

    “The first-person is a selective precis of this totality, one that poses as the totality. And this is the trick, the way to unravel the kink and see how it is that Heidegger could confuse his semantic vision with seeing. The oblivion behind my thoughts is the oblivion of neglect. Because oblivion has no time, I have no time, and so watch amazed as my shining hands turn to leather. I breathe deep and think, Now. Because oblivion constrains nothing, I follow rules of my own will, pursue goals of my own desire. I stretch forth my hand and remake what lies before me. Because oblivion distinguishes nothing, I am one. I raise my voice and declare, Me. Because oblivion reveals nothing, I stand opposite the world, always only aimed, never connected. I squint and I squint and I ask, How do I know?

    I am bottomless because my foundation was never mine to see. I am a perspective, an agent, a person, just another dude-with-a-bad-attitude—I am all these things because of the way I am not any of these things. I am not what I am because of what I am—again, the same as you.
    […]
    Ghosts are the incorporeal remainder, the something shorn of substance and consistency. This is the lived life of Heidegger, an empty dream that flew the day. Insofar as Dasein lacks meat, Dasein dwells with the dead, another shade in the underworld, another passing fancy. We are not ghosts. If lived life lies in the meat, then the truth of lived life lies in the meat. The truth of what we are runs orthogonal to the being that we all swear that we must be. Consciousness is an anosognosiac broker, and we are the serial sum of deals struck between parties utterly unknown. Who are the orthogonal parties? What are the deals? These are the questions that aim us at our most essential selves, at what we are in fact. These are the answers being pursued by industry.

    And yet we insist on the reality of ghosts, so profound is the glamour spun by neglect. There are no orthogonal parties, we cry, and therefore no orthogonal deals. There is no orthogonal regime. Oblivion hides only oblivion. What bubbles up from oblivion, begins with me and ends with me. Thus the enduring attempt to make sense of things sideways, to rummage through the ruin of heaven and erect parallel regimes, ones too impersonal to reek of superstition. We use ghosts of reference to bind our inklings to the world, ghosts of inference to bind our inklings to one another, ghosts of quality to give ethereal substance to experience. Ghosts and more ghosts, all to save the mad, inescapable intuition that our intuitions must be real somehow. We raise them as architecture, and demur whenever anyone poses the mundane question of building material.”

    http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-ontology-of-ghosts/

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 9:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    This is somewhat on topic—anyone ever read Hardt and Negri’s “Empire”? The reviews/summaries paint an absolutely horrifying picture of the future—a potentially accelerationist Duginesque utopia?!?

    http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Michael-Hardt/dp/0674006712

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 24th, 2014 at 5:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Quote notes (#90) Says:

    […] Zubrin’s intense (and appalled) discussion of Alexander Dugin’s revolt against the New Atlantis […]

    Posted on June 19th, 2014 at 5:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Niilismo e Destino – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on March 23rd, 2017 at 11:55 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment