No one really denies that Singapore is the most functional society on earth, which is interesting in itself. Everything works here (even multiculturalism (of which they have the superior Confucian hegemony version, rather than the ethno-masochistic late-Christian fiasco)). Practical civilization reaches its zenith in the orchid zone of the Singapore botanic gardens, or somewhere close to it. This drives a lot of people — even those who profoundly admire the place — into a sulfurous rage.

No one likes an apple-polisher of Gnon (or scarcely anyone, I’m exempting myself, along with a few others). By demonstrating social functionality, Singapore makes everyone look bad, which doesn’t go down well. The Sings make us all look like useless scum. Yes, there is that.

Conversation snippets:

“How much crime is there in Singapore?”
“Not much. I saw a sign saying ‘Warning! Five bicycles have been stolen from this area in the last three years.’ People were leaving them there unlocked.”

“I’ve known a lot of Singaporeans, but I’ve never really had a Singaporean friend. … If you’re used to going out on a Friday night, getting hammered, and waking up in the morning feeling like crap, it’s hard. No one does that here. The Singaporeans are sensible all the freaking time …”

The stairwell door to the apartment where we’re staying has a biometric identification system (plus two redundant human security guards).

The demographic problem — I’m increasingly convinced — is hugely about education costs (in money and time). It’s k-selection catastrophe. That’s a can to be kicked down the road for the time being, though, because no one has a solid solution to offer right now. Mentioned here because it’s deep, highly general, and the only criticism of Singapore that deserves to be taken remotely seriously.

3.5 million citizens, and 1.5 million permanent residents. (‘PRs’ are obligated to do national military service.)

I’ll try to update this further (and if I was Singaporean I’d almost certainly deliver).

January 7, 2015admin 50 Comments »


50 Responses to this entry

  • Singapore | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Singapore […]

    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 2:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jay Money Says:

    That Singapore is inherently unsustainable cannot be overstated.

    We have a policy in the world of software development to build something that works first, and worry about performance optimization later. Singapore would be dismissed out-of-hand in any attempt to find a working model of civilization.

    Its a bit of a running joke of the alt-right that the NRx folks love Singapore so much yet don’t actually move there, except of course, the crazy Nick Land.

    I somehow doubt that any meaningful (or non-zero) percentage of the 341 votes for Techno-Commercialism in Anissimov’s last poll find themselves living in Singapore. (


    Erebus Reply:

    Unstable? Perhaps. But what, specifically, are you basing that statement on? Demographics, solely? And please forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but why the condescending tone? Are you implying that Singapore is an inherently broken and unworkable model? Do you think that Singapore faces challenges more severe than those of, say, the UK?

    As for the poll… I moved to Hong Kong several years ago for business purposes. Needless to say, Hong Kong is similar to Singapore in that it’s well-governed, public services are efficient, crime is extremely low, it’s business-friendly, and so forth. I work in chemistry/nanotechnology/engineering, and Hong Kong is a particularly great place for that, as the industry is less regulated here than it is in Singapore, taxes are actually lower, and I have easier access to resources in and from China. (Which has become the world’s chemicals/materials hub.) I have very few complaints, in general. In the USA or Europe, I’d be taxed to hell and back, and I’d have nothing to show for it. It does occasionally get dull here — for, as in Singapore, Hong Kong has no nightlife scene worth mentioning, and the locals generally don’t like drinking — but Japan is only a couple of hours away, so I spend much of my leisure time there.

    It may be worth mentioning that, at least as far as I can tell, Hong Kong has no demographic problems at all. 55,000 Chinese mainlanders immigrate to the city every year, and many others commute into the city from Shenzhen, so the low birthrate isn’t too much of a problem.


    Jay Money Reply:

    Yes, demographics. The West has its own problems, absolutely. Even so, I do not believe the West has anything to learn from the East. If the current regime looks at Singapore and feels bad when they compare it to New York, I’m not sure why NRx should care.

    Hypothetically, if the West miraculously defies cyclical history and produces an NRx state – and for whatever reason some non-Western city remains superior in crime statistics (or what have you) – the appropriate feeling of a NRx state is not embarrassment or even curiosity, it is indifference.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    This lifestyle like it or not …and it is a lifestyle + commerce – is like the very commerce that sustains it utterly dependent on the American Hegemony. Completely, with the possible exception of Hong Kong, which will however lose it’s export markets with the American collapse. Export to..who? And how to ensure it gets there?

    The Americans – I am one – defend the global commons and underwrite with military power and an interlocking system of trade and of course a debauched dollar this entire scheme. No one else has the power and fleet put together.

    With the collapse of the American Hegemony the worlds commons are undefended. Never mind could who can do it now? Today? For we may well go this year.

    We may well go this year, our Flagship Police Department just turned it’s back on power. The people have had enough for some time now. As far as the American Military one way or another it’s going to have other things to do than hold up Asian Trade.

    We’re going. This is now hard baked. Now this is great cause for celebration in some quarters, say like when the Romans left Britain to buy some time for Italy.

    You’d better start thinking about what the world’s like when we’re gone. The Chinese are very unlike the last 500 years of European dominance, never mind Pax Americana.

    We’re leaving. We’re going. This scheme is utterly contingent on us. Singapore may be Venice at the present, but it doesn’t have Venice’s fleet. That’s us. Neither does China, no one. Everyone’s been quite happy to enjoy the security we’ve provided while cursing the cop. Well…get ready for at best Global Argentina, if not Venezuela.

    And do enjoy your popcorn.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Before you begin to throw out alternate security schemes, do provide the numbers from Janes. What do you have right now?

    Erebus Reply:

    I understand what you’re saying about economic ties. Although my business interests are headquartered in Hong Kong, and although most of the equipment and raw materials we receive come in from Germany and China, respectively, the very vast majority of our customers are located in the USA. The UK is a distant second place. I’m trying to balance things out by focusing on domestic Chinese sales (e.g. to the extremely large Chinese academic community) but that’s a hard row to hoe.

    My question to you is: If not here, then where? Let’s assume that everything you’re saying shall come to pass. Global Argentina. Would I be better off in the post-collapse USA, the UK, or elsewhere? My own stance can only be one of watchful pragmatism. I can merely do my best to pilot my boat through whatever troubled waters it encounters. Today, my primary concern is the corporate tax rate & government regulation of the industries I work in. Tomorrow, it might be security, or a stable currency. Today, Hong Kong is the place I call home. Tomorrow, it might be whatever other place suits me — and, indeed, I could move to Monaco, London, or Tokyo within a month if I so desired. Blut und boden eth-nats can’t think too highly of this sort of approach — but you must admit that it’s practical, if nothing else.

    …In any case, I’ll be sure to enjoy the popcorn. Thanks for that.

    VXXC Reply:


    Things will change and get worse, then sooner or later get better. It’s the end of an era is all. It’s not the end of the World [hopefully]. Now there will be blood, wars and so on.

    For just security reasons I can only recommend – sorry – blood and soil and indeed family/community ties during the initial adjustments and shocks.

    Now as things after being unsettled either are resolved, or settle into a predictable pattern of conflict or conflicts then you can pick up the old contacts/business and so on.

    I can recommend a history = The Great Sea by David Abulafia There is much to learn for you Sir frankly in any history of Mediterranean Trade from ancient times to at least 100 years into the discovery of the New World – when Trade moved to the Broader Oceans.

    Hanfeizi Reply:

    From what I understand, Mr. Land still lives in Shanghai (where I also lived until Fall of 2013).

    I may be returning to Shanghai- but I’m also considering possibly moving to Singapore in the near future. My efforts to start a financial career post-MBA back in my hometown have met with less success than I hoped, probably due to an accurate fear that I’ve only come back to try to burnish my credentials before getting a higher paid job elsewhere (six years in China and an International Business MBA just doesn’t play well with the HR at banks in South Dakota). It looks like Singapore has no problem with hiring foreigners for entry level positions (unlike Shanghai, where it’s just about impossible outside of sales), and my b-school has an extensive network there as well, so it’s worth considering. Not to mention, I’ve always had a fascination with the place and the Lee Kwan Yew School at NUS is my top choice if I ever do decide to return to an academic career.


    Zimriel Reply:

    Love your handle, anti-Mencius.


    Alan J. Perrick Reply:

    No, it isn’t sustainable. But, maybe something could be gained from it, still?

    It isn’t likely though.



    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 3:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    “The demographic problem — I’m increasingly convinced — is hugely about education costs (in money and time). It’s k-selection catastrophe. That’s a can to be kicked down the road for the time being, though, because no one has a solid solution to offer right now. Mentioned here because it’s deep, highly general, and the only criticism of Singapore that deserves to be taken remotely seriously.”

    Well, Singapore is a city, and cities are generally population sinks for the best and brightest of the hinterland. As long as they keep drawing off the cream of China, India and Southeast Asia and the talented also-rans of the rest of the world, they should be fine. Remember that one of the PAP’s four principles is multiculturalism- which is strange for an organization often accused of being fascist by critics, but there it is- and their slogan could practically be “we make it work, goddamn it!” (As New York was doing under the very Lee Kwan Yew-esque administrations of Giuliani and Bloomberg… but sadly, all good things must come to an end.)


    First Bayes Reply:

    Regarding the fascist accusations, I remember the PAP running campaign ads during the last elections that unironically extolled the virtues of multiculturalism using an image of a bundle of sticks tied together. OTOH the government may have evolved a racial calculus by itself which makes its fascist underpinnings a whole lot more philosophically coherent


    Hanfeizi Reply:

    That’s brilliant. And knowing the sophistication of their political class, probably intentional.


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 5:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Athrelon Says:

    Lee Kwan Yew’s memoirs should be required reading for reactionaries. A man educated in the British liberal tradition, who through experience outgrew it.


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 5:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    This is a pretty neat fiction piece by Colin Liddell on Oswald Mosley in Singapore.


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 5:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Singapore | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 7:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seigi Landsmann Says:

    It is always nice to see those outside of Singapore give credit to what my country has done right, but unfortunately I must state that there are dark clouds looming over the horizon: there is a yawning gap between the middle-class and the elite that is growing wider and wider. I refer to the “educati” as the elite here, meaning the university-educated, supposedly “global” group of people.

    Unlike the older generation of politicians, this new elite no longer pretends to sympathise with or even understand the middle-class; witness the constant calls of “xenophobia” and “conservatism” at ordinary Singaporeans when it comes to their liberal pet projects like immigration and homosexuality. My fear is that the very Singaporean desire to maintain a stable lifestyle as well as not wanting to disturb others will lead to the middle-class keeping quiet all the while until the nation can no longer bear the dead weight of the educati ignorantes. These agitators, for all their cries of wanting to develop a Singaporean identity and throwing off the “veil of post-colonialism”, ironically worship the liberalness of the West which has led to the latter’s decay.

    My country will celebrate its 50th year of independence this year. I am not sure if she can make it to a 100.


    Muhammad Chang Reply:

    Are you a real Sinkie?

    PAP is now dominated by evangelical Christians opposed to homosexuality. “Liberals” are far from dominating Singaporean politics.

    Sinkies don’t want to breed so they have no choice but to allow immigration.


    Seigi Landsmann Reply:

    “Are you a real Sinkie?”

    Born and raised, and I served my two years as well.

    “PAP is now dominated by evangelical Christians opposed to homosexuality. “Liberals” are far from dominating Singaporean politics.”

    I realise I wasn’t clear in what I wrote: the current generation of politicians hails from a more conservative time, so at this moment, it is true that leftism/liberalism is unable to get a foothold. The newer generation, however, has little qualms about embracing the Left. Simply ask around the new educati, especially those who have been educated overseas. Once the generational change occurs, I predict there will be a large shift in the general thinking of Parliament. LKY’s not getting any younger either, and his passing will likely be perceived as the starting point for a paradigm shift in SG’s politics.

    “Sinkies don’t want to breed so they have no choice but to allow immigration.”

    I don’t disagree. Many younger women have little intention for raising children. This is exactly how a country commits demographic suicide, which is why I said I was unsure if SG could even make it to a 100.


    Muhammad Chang Reply:

    Older generation of PAP leaders are mostly agnostic/atheist with Confucian leanings. It is the younger generation who are evangelicals.

    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 8:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Besserwisser Says:

    “‘PRs’ are obligated to do national military service.”

    You probably meant to say “male PRs” or is Singapore actually one of the handful of nations with a gender-neutral, or close to it, draft?


    admin Reply:

    Or, ‘PRs are obligated to surrender male offspring of appropriate age for military service …’ — it seemed unnecessarily pedantic, but that’s to bypass the gender issue, for sure. (Singapore remains unapologetically gender discriminatory when it comes to deterring Indonesian invasion.)


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 9:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rob Says:

    NRx doesn’t seem like a very useful or meaningful label. It suggests some sort of ideological unity that isn’t and was never really there.

    It seems to have started with Moldbug and other libertarians to refer to a kind of libertarianism. Then some nationalists, ethno-nationalists, racialists, etc. adopted the label as well. As a result of disparate people and groups adopting the same label for themselves, there arose a belief that there was some sort of ideological unity among them where there really was none. And that’s when the notion of a “trichotomy” and the endless debate and bickering developed. Significant confusion has developed as well with different people using the label to refer to quite different things. There have been pointless debates ultimately grounded on the fact that people are using the same word to mean different things.

    I think there should be some sort of mutual understanding reached whereby the different factions agree on which faction should get to use the label from now on. It does seem that the libertarian-ish types did originate and adopt the label first, so on the grounds of priority they would get to use the label. On the other hand, it’s hard to see some nationalists giving up the label, especially the more public among them, since the label does have less baggage than labels like nationalist and other related labels tend to have. So perhaps the libertarian-ish types should agree to give up the label.

    I don’t know how exactly it should be resolved, but at present it does seem to be a source of pointless bickering and confusion.


    Izak Reply:

    I enjoy pointless bickering and confusion; it’s awesome.


    admin Reply:

    There is no unambiguous ideologically-weighted language. Might as well make it an explicit fight (or poly-tendrilled triangular-combinatorial brawl).


    Rob Reply:

    The various flavors of nationalism that adopt the label “NRx” aren’t especially ambiguous or ideological though. Furthermore, nationalisms often purport to be anti- or non-ideological.

    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 10:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • William Newman Says:

    “No one really denies that Singapore is the most functional society on earth”

    I do. It’s a contender, OK, I’m very impressed with various things about it, and particularly impressed with its high per-capita GDP. But until/unless it starts punching above its weight in technical things (research, manufacturing), it doesn’t seem to be comprehensively more functional than a big technical nation like the USA or a little technical star like Israel, and I don’t know whether it’s decisively ahead of any of the other Asian tigers either. And until/unless it somehow gets many times bigger it is tricky to compare it properly to much bigger countries, because security is part of functioning, and no one has convincingly solved the problem of long-term national security for a city-state, and because policy tradeoffs don’t necessarily scale up in any reasonable way from a big city to a small country (as opposed to an exceedingly tiny countryette). It’s like claiming that some city-state or other was the most functional society in pre-modern Europe: it’s not even quite clear what that would mean. And a less-enormous but still important issue is that it’s tricky to compare a relatively young government to one that has ruled for many generations while distributional coalitions grow: Mancur Olsen had a reasonably plausible thesis in 1982, and looks even more convincing to me today.

    I think it’s most likely that foreseeable tech advances (esp. semiconductor-based general AI, or failing that molecular biologists making smarter humans and/or chemists and applied physicists making custom materials and catalysts that rival those from evolution) will turn the world upside down before we have a stable generation or two for current trends to play out. (That is part of the reason that I don’t think a society can be undeniably the most functional society on earth if it’s not undeniably a major bright spot for tech progress.) Failing radical tech change, I rather suspect high intensity war would turn the world upside down before we have a stable generation or two for current trends to play out. But if for the sake of argument I assume instead that tech change and hot war are played out, and that we’ll enjoy scientifically dull and mostly nonradioactive decades of foreseeable progress along current lines, I rather doubt Singapore is going to look as relatively impressive in 40 years. Some of the important things it does “right” are just avoiding shooting itself in the foot in obvious ways that are common among its rivals (e.g. aggressive macroeconomic mixed-economy and fiat-money and pension-scam weirdness, taxing above the Laffer maximum, not just failing on police protection but attacking private protection and freedom of association) but technically not challenging to stop. (Perhaps requiring regime change to stop? Maybe, but even if so, very straightforward for a new regime to stop.) So its major rivals seem to be only one Ludwig-Erhard-style just-stop-doing-that away from matching various of Singapore’s strengths, while Singapore is at least two daunting changes of scale (e.g. to Florida scale, then to USA scale, without going off the rails somehow) away from being able to match various of its rivals’ strengths. Switzerland, other Asian tigers, USA (or perhaps parts of USA), mainland China (or perhaps parts of mainland China), and maybe even England or Germany look to me as at least as likely to pull themselves together as Singapore is to retain its strengths while enduring more generations and scaling up to defend itself for more generations (or mutating itself to fit into a defense coalition with teeth).


    cassander Reply:

    the age thing is a big part of the reason I tend to uphold switzerland as having the best system of government in the world. Singapore beats it on quite a few metrics, but switzerland has been extremely well governed for a at least a couple centuries now, and they didn’t need a fantastic benevolent dictator to get there.


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 10:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    *No one really denies that Singapore is the most functional society on earth, which is interesting in itself*

    I deny it absolutely. Singapore is one of the least functional societies on earth. Demography isn’t a can that can be kicked down the road; you can’t make up that ground later. All of Singapore’s prosperity is built on munching seed corn.

    It hardly takes any competence at all to maintain a veneer of current prosperity while drawing down your capital stocks.


    forkinhell Reply:

    It hardly takes any competence at all to maintain a veneer of current prosperity while drawing down your capital stocks.

    Come on… read that sentence again in isolation (or with wider applicability). I dare you not to snigger.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Dare accepted.


    Posted on January 7th, 2015 at 10:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    Would it really be all that difficult to simply bar women from employment? It would solve your fertility problem within a generation. It’s that or slow K-death.


    admin Reply:

    You don’t think it would be difficult?


    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Of course it would be.

    But it’d be much easier if the threat of K-death could be made more imminent.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    To make it work as intended it would be as easy as removing suffrage from woman. Not something that can be accomplished within the system until it’s too late. I could see them ban them from work in the context of government giving them all an income, technically it would improve the birthrate, but at the price of favoring r selection. Think about it, women hate betas, the last thing they want to do is have sex with betas. Patriarchy is all about getting the majority of women to have sex exclusively with a beta (unless you think most husbands can be trained into accomplished practitioners of LTR game, though with the right institutions in place inherent betaness can be mollified). Given the choice between civilization and never having sex with alphas, they’d have to think about it. Sure it’s possible to ignore woman’s opinion and implement it anyway, but doing so would necessarily involve overturning the existing political system.

    Posted on January 8th, 2015 at 3:19 am Reply | Quote
  • tony Says:

    I’d like to see how your views on Singapore change after you’ve read Baudrillard’s America and his views on hyper-reality.


    admin Reply:

    Already did my stint in the Baudrillard salt mines decades ago — including America. I can vaguely see the relevance, but need more for this reference to truly bite.


    Posted on January 8th, 2015 at 7:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Y.Ilan Says:

    Singapore sounds and looks like wonderful place; almost alien in it’s highly civilized, highly organized existence. In the vast majority of measurements, Singapore is a huge success story. Besides demographics, as you said. The only Singaporeans I met were a couple of bomb disposal chaps who came here to learn a bit about IEDs and such, and they seemed very surprised at the IDF’s lack of formality and hierarchy, which is understandable. We don’t give much importance to hierarchy here, while it is of extreme importance in Singapore.

    Anyways, the question to Singapore, and also to the civilized world in general, is why exactly are they not making babies? I’ve read all the talk about women’s education and participation in the workforce, and while a good explanation, is not enough. One can still establish a proper family under such circumstances if one actually wants it enough. I think a good explanation is where people derive their meaning, their joy for life, from; here in Israel even a completely secular family is likely to aim for four children, because children is the thing that gives the parents their meaning, their self-fulfilment. If I asked a working professional in California why he doesn’t want to have kids, he’d likely answer that it’s about self-fulfillment as well. Funny.


    scientism Reply:

    Singapore has a long history of anti-natalism:

    The problem is that everybody was very eager to make being a mother low status, but nobody is now willing to make women’s education or careerism low status, especially not under the ever watchful eye of the West. Singapore first tried to reverse its anti-natal policies for educated couples only, now it’s trying to pay people to get married and have kids (since 2009), but they can’t say “maybe women going to college isn’t a great idea” or “maybe women working isn’t a great idea.” These are still considered points of pride. They’re trying to pay educated women to have kids because they think educated women are of such great value.


    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    Working/educated women 1) brings down education/productivity; 2) disrupts the workplace; 3) requires inefficiency to cater to women; 4) deludes women with a capital-subsidized pseudo-financial independence (ie women can make it working on their own only because of the larger economic structure’s surplus); 5) Makes women less feminine/attractive; 6) uses their time at best looking/most trainable/most fertile in making them second-rate librarians; 7) alienates them from their proper position vis-a-vis men. Just wanted to get that out there.


    A.B Prosper Reply:

    Children are a huge financial and opportunity cost for the Working Class and up. Having them means having no money, no time and no freedom to do what you want for years and years.

    There is also no reward for having them from society for many people and as such, it rational to avoid them.

    Now in case anyone is wondering, there really aren’t policy choices anyone can make that can create a huge rise in fertility rates although heavy immigration restriction more stable employment would help.


    Y.Ilan Reply:

    “Children are a huge financial and opportunity cost for the Working Class and up…”

    Rationally, for a self-centered actor whose main care is his own personal prosperity, this line of thinking makes sense. Yet middle-class families here in Israel still aim for three/four children, even though the price of living here is very high. So, the main difference probably lies in the level of individualistic atomization/the importance of family life between societies. I would say that individuals here are rewarded by being considered “successful” for having big, nice families.


    Posted on January 8th, 2015 at 10:49 am Reply | Quote
  • A.B Prosper Says:

    A society that’s a near police state and has among the worst fertility on earth is no model for functionality unless you count “technology” as the only worthwhile function.

    Frankly speaking Afghanistan is more functional in the long run, in a century there may be no Singapore, There will be an Afghanistan

    I wouldn’t want to live in either mind you but there you go.


    Rob Reply:

    There won’t be an Afghanistan either. Because there isn’t an Afghanistan today. There’s no genuine polity called Afghanistan.


    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    Singapore is not a ‘police state’, even the USA isn’t and their cops are more militarized. There aren’t assaults and no-knock Stasi attacks; Singapore uses common law and they won’t even prosecute you for finding weed on the ground as long as you toss the joint before the cop sees you. No idea what the Hell you’re talking about. Yeah, they beat criminal scum, who deserve it.


    Posted on January 8th, 2015 at 8:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • A.B Prosper Says:

    Well true enough Rob but there will be families and people those tribes, Pashtun, Dari others will be scratching out a living in the rocky pest hole, practicing their faith raising their kids to be like them and passing on their memes.

    I’m not so sure Singapore will


    Posted on January 8th, 2015 at 10:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2014/01/09) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Something tells me it’s high time #NRx had an honest and open conversation about Singapore, love it or hate it or both. Nick Land gets started on an outline. […]

    Posted on January 10th, 2015 at 3:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2015/01/14 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Singapore works. […]

    Posted on January 14th, 2015 at 6:03 am Reply | Quote
  • That Word Called ‘Order’ – Social Matter Says:

    […] antonym to order. Multiculturalism can find a place in reactionary thought as a base for otherwise differentiated cosmopolitan cultures, but universal toleration could never be an essential principle of order. Et in Arcadia […]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 2:00 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment