Counter-Currents
883 words
Greg Palino responded to my recent “American Restorationist Fashion” article at Counter-Currents with a frank admission of anti-American sentiment . . .
I guess I am an “American traitor” because I most definitely “cast a jaundiced eye on American heritage and culture altogether.” I am with Yockey in believing America is a European bastard who stabbed our father/motherland in the back (albeit under liberal-judaic influence). Our founding fathers were (classically) liberal nutcases who caused revolutions around the world, and a nation that exports it’s degeneracy throughout the world. There is a direct link from what they proposed then to what we have now. It was destined from it’s inception to create something like what we have today. The fact of the matter is, they believed too much in the lemming, they were smart but had no concept of wisdom. They spread poisonous ideas amongst the masses and rejected what was left of the already declining positive traditions of Europe. The only part America that was ever worth anything was the Aristocratic South (Georgia and South Carolina mostly), and even they were only half worth anything.
I’m sorry, but our hope lies in greater Europe, not America. We are more likely to meet with success in South America than the United States, and that’s a serious statement.
There’s more than a little truth in his narrative, and I suspect that it summarizes the most popular narrative among European New Right intellectuals and adherents. Before Dr. Johnson goes through all this trouble of attempting to build up an American New Right, we should probably figure out whether America and the New Right are even compatible.
America’s founding fathers were explicitly hostile to both Europe’s nobility and its priesthood, even to the point of explicitly forbidding titles of nobility and imposing a “separation between church and state.” According to their worldview, which is the worldview more or less retained by a large but atrophying subset of White Americans, the American experiment constituted a clean break from both martial tyranny and managerial “popery.” It was definitely a clean break from Medieval Europe’s Ancien Régime.
But was this a clean break from Europe and Tradition, altogether?
In Medieval Europe, power was shared by a martial nobility that ruled by force and a Catholic priesthood that ruled by influence. In some ways, the aristocratic and Catholic traditions are European tradition. Yet, these two elites can’t seriously purport to have a monopoly on being “European.” For one, Catholicism’s origins aren’t even primarily European, and Europe’s aristocracy was so thoroughly interwoven with Christian tradition that its pagan origins are barely recognizable.
The indigenous elites were caught flatfooted when economic exchange became the primary source of power. Hence the rise of the bourgeoisie, peasants, and the Jewish merchants. While both Freemasonry and Jews collaborated in toppling the Ancien Régime, and while Jews has had considerable influence on the Masonic elite, it’s incorrect to conflate them as “Judeo-Masonic” and dismiss them altogether as anti-Traditional and anti-European.
I am with Yockey in believing America is a European bastard who stabbed our father/motherland in the back (albeit under liberal-judaic influence).
America didn’t stab Europe’s elites in the back. It threw them off its back. This is just as well, given that those elites had abandoned their functions and become humiliating parodies of their original forms well before the American nation was envisioned. Prince Charles, heir of the nobility America defied, now wanders about aimlessly, talking to trees and spying on his house guests. The Catholic priesthood has become infiltrated by pedophiles, is syncretizing the faith with every form of witchcraft in primitive villages ’round the world, and fears Abe Foxman more than it fears God.
Our founding fathers were (classically) liberal nutcases who caused revolutions around the world, and a nation that exports it’s degeneracy throughout the world. There is a direct link from what they proposed then to what we have now. It was destined from it’s inception to create something like what we have today.
It was only destined from its inception to create what we have today because it did not recognize and react to the threat of Jewish influence. Those loyal to Europe’s non-mercantile elites may well wish that they weren’t rendered obsolete by the rise of capitalism. However, that’s independent of the much more serious problem of a hostile invasive elite commandeering our civilization and driving it off a cliff. The Masonic, Protestant, and Republican influences at the heart of American Tradition are thoroughly European and arguably Traditional.
The fact of the matter is, they believed too much in the lemming, they were smart but had no concept of wisdom. They spread poisonous ideas amongst the masses and rejected what was left of the already declining positive traditions of Europe.
Our founding fathers were deeply suspicious of the lemmings, attempting to carefully integrate a limited democratic check against numerous anti-democratic balances. All institutions can be perverted into parodies of themselves by Jewry if those safeguarding the institutions aren’t vigilant. The well-constructed government they designed has been distorted into one that is directed by a hostile invasive elite from at the top who control an ignorant (increasingly invasive) mass at the bottom. Our founders envisioned a nation under the thoughtful stewardship of classically educated landed country gentlemen of European descent, not this nightmare.
19 comments
Yes, the Americans threw off the Ancien Régime‘s Three Estates to found a Tripartite government comprising the exact same functions (priests=judges, military king=President, and aristocracy=legislature comprised of the landed gentry). The more things change, the more they stay the same. The problem is not the form of government, per se; the problem is the liberal democratic tendency. The democratic man living in an oligarchic society, regardless of his nation of origin, has always been a vulgar and repulsive creature.
Cladrastis,
I believe that the military king and the aristocracy are different parts of the same martial oligarchy. I also think of the legislature, particularly the house, as essentially mercantile. Any democracy larger than the thing assemblies and directly democratic Hellenic setups is a market, one in which votes are the currency and economic considerations dominate the entire process.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by liberal and democratic. I’m not being dense, I believe the term “liberal” is too often used to define both value-systems derived from mercantile elites and the outright decadent. I challenge the notion that Masonic/Enlightenment/market-oriented ideals are as integrally associated with Jewry and degeneracy as the European New Right tend to believe.
Sir, you are correct about both the Three Estates and the Three branches of government. In its economic (and idealistic) aspect, the legislature is associated with the wealth/fertility function, just as the Third Estate (more correctly the peasant class) is associated with the produce of the land; unfortunately there is some bleed-over in terms of the legislature’s ability to legislate the friend/enemy distinction, thus confusing its activities with the military function. But I digress…
Liberal is one word with a thousand associations. I used it here to indicate the belief in equal and inalienable rights, and I used democracy to refer to a political system that emphasizes universal suffrage, annual (or n*annual) elections, and political parties.
The problem with the market is not its wealth-generating capacity – the problem is market-dominance (or the “totalitarianism of the market”). Going back to the first part of this comment – rule by the fertility class is a direct subversion of the functions (esp. when that class also has the ability to “name the enemy”). I hope I’m not being too obscure.
Matt, this thought of yours makes a purely scholastic critique insofar as the Yockey you criticize is a caritature, misrepresented by your source — which means you have not read him.
What Yockey actually said was that the true America was European and it could never be anything else — without ceasing to be America.
How can you not hate this America, then, now that it has become an alien, beaked-nose, blood-sucking, televised spectacle of a parasite — who’s slowly poisoning us to death?
Michael O’Meara,
I deliberately avoided Yockey altogether in my response. I’ve selectively read Yockey enough to refrain from accusing him of simple anti-Americanism.
The authentic European America is still there. No nation should be judged by its behavior at the height of infestation, as it’s not that nation at work. The early Soviet Union was not actually Russia, yet we have generations of Americans who were led to believe that Russians are the villains. Now, you’re making the same elementary mistake, only against Americans in this generation.
Had the Fugu Plan come to fruition, East Asians would now be despised the world over.
Agreed.
Michael O’Meara,
“Matt, this thought of yours makes a purely scholastic critique insofar as the Yockey you criticize is a caritature, misrepresented by your source — which means you have not read him.
What Yockey actually said was that the true America was European and it could never be anything else — without ceasing to be America.”
Yockey certainly didn’t use language as harsh as mine, but he did have quite a few things to say about America. His belief that America was based on very weak roots and that it revolted against its Mother/Father Europe and your statement about his belief of America above are not mutually exclusive.
Yockey believed colonies were always somewhat weakly rooted, but dependent on their Mother country for guidance. So America can be both a bastard and European, a European bastard. Lol. But seriously, he was not unfairly anti-American, he was just Euro-centric. He believed all the great Americans were great not because they were Americans but in fact because of truly being more European than American. The best of the colonies found were actively playing a part in the greater Idea of the High Culture (based in Europe, not in America).
If you find you disagree on this point, and would like me to, I can find quotes to back this up that will be able to reference in Imperium.
Cordially,
Greg Palino
Matt,
As I see it, the North American New Right needs to take a “White Americans, yes. The United States of America, no” stance. Moreover, I would argue:
1. “American exceptionalism” is a false and pernicious ideology. We affirm the racial, cultural, and historical continuity of European Americans with mother Europe.
2. The United States of America under the present Constitution is just one chapter in the search of European peoples in North America for good government. From the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to the final ratification of the constitution in 1790, 183 years passed, during which many political experiments took place. Eventually, European Americans will accept that the USA was a failure, and we will create something better.
3. The US Constitution is in many ways a brilliant document, drawing upon the Republican tradition of the mixed constitution going back to the First Founding Father, Aristotle. Yet we have to face facts: The Founders may have been giants, but they were not products of the system that they created, and the statesmen created by their system have degenerated steadily with every passing generation.
4. I do not think that the decline of America can be pegged solely on the Jews. Jews certainly were not the instigators of the Civil War, for instance. That was a product of our indigenous culture of critique. Jews came to control our society and exacerbate our decline because of weaknesses in our indigenous culture and political system.
Think of an alcoholic. It’s ultimately the alcoholic’s fault that he’s an alcoholic. He wasn’t a perfect man before he started drinking. Even while drinking, he’s still accountable to a degree for his behavior. But it is the drinking and failure to stop drinking which is at the heart of his failure to work through his flaws, overcome his obstacles, and move on to the next adventure in his life.
Mob rule or One-Archy. It boils down to that; those in favor of a new one-archy system will lean towards revolution, and those in favor of mob-rule will play the game by the systems rules, hoping for catalysistic events to sway the mob their way.
I have seen the results of a “mob-rule” society… And it is not a society that I want passed onto my children.
Matt,
American history is a sorrowful saga of White men’s indifference to other White men and to their own posterity. The selfishness and shortsightedness that impelled Southern planters to import a couple million Africans for labor is now threatening the very lives of their children in a little more than five generations since emancipation. Ironically these Southerners are the ones White nationalists revere!
Was it only Africans they enslaved? No, it was also their own fellow English and Irishmen as well…the “surplus poor,” many euphemistically called indentured servants…really just slaves. Here is an excerpt from Hoffman’s research on the White slave trade The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain
:
More recently, what did Americans have to gain by involvement in the First and Second World Wars? We know that FDR maneuvered America into war with a number of provocations which virtually guaranteed a Japanese response. What kind of man does this? What kind of Congress goes along with this?
Or 9/11.. what kind of President pretends that the attacks were “unprovoked”? Really, the sheer audacity! Send billions of dollars in aid to a little ethnocracy in the middle east, act as their bully boy in the area and then pretend to be shocked? How much more dishonest can you get?
The very Declaration of Independence enshrines this selfishness in the notion of “Pursuit of Happiness.” as a national American elites of every era had nothing but disdain for those less wealthy or educated or “lowly bred.” The same might be said with great truth of European history but no European nation imported a couple million Africans!
It is high time that we recognize our kinship with other Whites regardless of where they come from and fight together in what is a global race war with the American state favoring those who wish us dead. Do not confuse the state with the nation (O’Meara?). Your race is your nation and the state that favors the colored and Jewish alien is the enemy. Acknowledging the faults of the system at its foundation can help us build a better future as we are forced to think in new ways about our society, our race and how we relate to other Whites. The American “Conservative’s” fascination with Libertarianism/Constitutionalism are just more dead ends leading to more atomization and alienation as we go extinct one by one. If we are to die, then let us do so in each other’s company. Not alone.
Chubby,
I don’t believe my race is my nation. I believe that race is a necessary but insufficient condition of membership in a tribe, which is itself a necessary but insufficient dimension of the combination of tribe, tradition, and transcendence at the foundation of the world I intend future generations of my people to enjoy.
It’s about more than chromosomes.
I don’t disagree with a lot of your criticisms of America’s past and present. But I believe America, warts and all, still possesses a creativity and vitality surpassing the other nations in our European family of nations. I’m not a chauvinist, and I believe all the nations should consider it a friendly competition to be at the forefront of the restoration. I think America’s still in the game.
Thanks for the reply Matt. You’re a good writer. Keep up the good work!
Chubby,
I hope you’re not implying that “O’Meara?” confuses the state with the nation.
Here is the link to the article which was excerpted:
The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain
Matt,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments.
–“In Medieval Europe, power was shared by a martial nobility that ruled by force and a Catholic priesthood that ruled by influence. In some ways, the aristocratic and Catholic traditions are European tradition. Yet, these two elites can’t seriously purport to have a monopoly on being “European.” For one, Catholicism’s origins aren’t even primarily European, and Europe’s aristocracy was so thoroughly interwoven with Christian tradition that its pagan origins are barely recognizable.”
I never defended the Catholic church, and I certainly never said it was was of European origin. Personally, I despise all forms of Christianity. At the same time though, I will not withhold credit where credit is due, and Christianity, especially Catholicism has been altered from its very Semitic origins to fit European Archetypes. Catholicism never would have taken in Rome if it didn’t make attractive concessions to the European. Basically, all of the positive things about the Catholic church were due to Pagan influence and the Aryan spirit, and they were/are almost always in conflict with the actual biblical texts. Which is less of a problem in Catholicism, since they rarely use the Bible, except when it’s to their liking. There are many historical positives to that can be credited to the Catholic church (such as uniting Europe and giving them a sense of European identity) but my view remains these were not results purely of Catholicism, but were mainly due to our inherit European and Aryan affinities. My view of Christianity is accurately described by the following:
“No matter how much Christianity has been Paganized (or Europeanized), in it’s essence it remains a Semitic cult from the desert of the Middle East. Anti-Semitic European Christians are the epitome of hypocrisy as they worship a dead Jew on a piece of wood (which, to make it even clearer, had “I.N.R.I” [“Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”] written on it)…”
– Constantin von Hoffmeister, Preface of Imperium Europa, P 26-27
(Don’t even bring Hoffmeister into this, we are of vastly different opinions on most things)
I strongly suggest reading Revolt Against the Modern World for some very good observations on Christianity, its roots, and history etc. Many of Evola’s other texts are good on this too.
–“While both Freemasonry and Jews collaborated in toppling the Ancien Régime, and while Jews has had considerable influence on the Masonic elite, it’s incorrect to conflate them as “Judeo-Masonic” and dismiss them altogether as anti-Traditional and anti-European.”
Who is “them?” Those that overthrew the Old Order?
–“America didn’t stab Europe’s elites in the back. It threw them off its back. This is just as well, given that those elites had abandoned their functions and become humiliating parodies of their original forms well before the American nation was envisioned. Prince Charles, heir of the nobility America defied, now wanders about aimlessly, talking to trees and spying on his house guests. The Catholic priesthood has become infiltrated by pedophiles, is syncretizing the faith with every form of witchcraft in primitive villages ’round the world, and fears Abe Foxman more than it fears God.”
America revolted against its European Traditions (again, even though they had degenerated considerably), and because of the hyper-individualistic, classically liberal tendencies that America fostered, is partly responsible for the the French revolution and the infection of overtly-merchant values in the rest of Europe.
May I point out that you are comparing the modern day degenerated status of these groups to something that happened in hundreds of years ago? Besides this, America has played a huge role in influencing Europe in a very negative way. Thank the gods they still find some innate revulsion to it, though it is certainly fading.
Again, I am not friend of the Catholic church, and it has obviously degenerated considerably (but this was foreseeable long ago, and was almost inevitable given it’s roots.
The Aristocracy had been degenerating for a long, long time by the time of the American
revolution. In France, the aristocracy was especially degenerate, and even took to letting themselves be instructed by, and adopting bourgeois morals and philosophy (more so then in other European countries).
The Aristocracies of Europe fell as a result of their own faults. There was of course help and final pushes by Yahweh’s chosen, and idiots who followed them and the American lead, but essentially it was their fault. They allowed themselves to degenerate.
–“The Masonic, Protestant, and Republican influences at the heart of American Tradition are thoroughly European and arguably Traditional.”
They are only European in so much as they either represent a degenerated stage of European history, or they are a blemish on our people. For example, the jaded excessive materialism of America has its roots in Anglo Saxon tradition, a tradition that is only a tradition in that it is ant-traditional, but goes back for a long time. It was something that should have been nipped in the bud, or justifiably given universal scorn by our European brothers and sisters elsewhere. It is no surprise that Jews had and have some of their strongest influence among the English and Americans, they were susceptible culturally to the Jew’s promise of material wealth. The English have been historically distorted because of this. The Jews made this a trait that was adaptive and viewed as successful in England. So yes, the trait is inherent to them, but has also been made artificially adaptive more so than it would be otherwise.
–“Our founding fathers were deeply suspicious of the lemmings, attempting to carefully integrate a limited democratic check against numerous anti-democratic balances. All institutions can be perverted into parodies of themselves by Jewry if those safeguarding the institutions aren’t vigilant. The well-constructed government they designed has been distorted into one that is directed by a hostile invasive elite from at the top who control an ignorant (increasingly invasive) mass at the bottom. Our founders envisioned a nation under the thoughtful stewardship of classically educated landed country gentlemen of European descent, not this nightmare.”
Yes they were, but even with their suspicion they still held many idealistic views that gave the masses much more credit than they deserved. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that: “Our founders envisioned a nation under the thoughtful stewardship of classically educated landed country gentlemen of European descent, not this nightmare,” the result of their rhetoric and governmental structure should have been clearly discernible. This fast degeneration process was started even before the Jews had a major role in it. Christian dispensationalism only added to the rhetoric that needed to merely be applied one step further, and then one step further extending “rights” here and there.
The American experiment failed. Plain and simple. And it would have failed with or without Jews. They only sped the process up. In fact, maybe we should thank them for helping us to realize how stupid an idea it was in the first place. They targeted all the chinks in our armor impeccably. They easily were able to seize control with such a faulty system of governance, foundation, and inadequate cultural roots.
Finally, I would like to end on an agreement. Your statement:
” Think of an alcoholic. It’s ultimately the alcoholic’s fault that he’s an alcoholic. He wasn’t a perfect man before he started drinking. Even while drinking, he’s still accountable to a degree for his behavior. But it is the drinking and failure to stop drinking which is at the heart of his failure to work through his flaws, overcome his obstacles, and move on to the next adventure in his life.”
Is well put. I would only clarify that it was his internal faults (genetic and otherwise) that lead him to drink in the first place, that he doesn’t deal with. The same can be said about our relationship with the Jew. If we had been our best Aryan selves, the Jew would have never gained a foot hole in the first place. It is essentially our fault, even when the Jews are leading the way.
Another example would be a being walked on by others. It is the “victims” fault for not standing up for himself. Everyone knows bullies only bully those who don’t stand up for themselves. The same can be said about us.
Sincerely,
The American Traitor, Greg Palino
Greg,
If C-C is creating a place where we can calmly and respectfully parse these critical issues, then it’s already a huge asset for the movement.
Another way of perceiving the Christian religion is as a rebellion against the Pharisaic value system that was heavily Hellenized from the outset. I disagree with Nietzsche’s assessment of Christianity. It’s a broad attack against any and all priesthoods/managerial elites in favor of his cloudy and vague but decidedly martial value system. As for Evola, his thoughts on Christianity are too complex to fit in a blog comment, but I don’t believe they amount to a firm dismissal of the Christian tradition.
Who is “them?” Those that overthrew the Old Order?
Yes. The Masonic elites who orchestrated the revolutions against the Ancien Regime. I believe theirs is an integrally European tradition that is unfairly maligned in European New Right circles because those circles are loyal to traditions that Freemasonry competed with.
[T]he result of their rhetoric and governmental structure should have been clearly discernible. This fast degeneration process was started even before the Jews had a major role in it.
In hindsight, the vulnerabilities in any oligarchy are clearly visible, as they’ve been brought to the fore, exaggerated, and warped well beyond their original scope.
The American experiment failed. Plain and simple. And it would have failed with or without Jews. They only sped the process up. In fact, maybe we should thank them for helping us to realize how stupid an idea it was in the first place.
The American experiment unlocked an historically unprecedented burst of creativity and innovation. While the American experiment was flawed, none of the other oligarchies or their value systems fared better. I intend to demonstrate, in due time, that perfecting and restoring the White American nation is preferable to any of the serious alternatives that have been presented.
It is the “victims” fault for not standing up for himself.
Our organization protested an Al Sharpton event here in Indy this July. A few days later, I watched a recording of the event we protested. While this is not an endorsement of Sharpton, I found one of his witticisms amusing…
“If I walk up to your pew and throw you on the floor, that’s on me. But if I come to church next Sunday and you’re still lying on the floor, that’s on YOU!”
Matt,
Agreed. I am not sure if that was a response to anything I said, or a general statement, but C-C is definitely one of the best websites on the net, IMO the best website of it’s kind (articles on greater WN topics).
Sure, you can take the whole “positive Christianity” outlook. There are even a few like this that I highly respect, such as Coreanliu Codreanu. But when you really get down to it, his beliefs were a highly Paganized form of Orthodox Christianity (which is already rather Paganized compared to protestant Christianity). Besides him, a few others, and people who existed in Europe when there was no other choice but to be Christian, the list isn’t exactly long for recent history.
You can have whatever opinion you want, as can I. Spirituality is an important motivating factor for our cause, so whatever works. Christianity just isn’t for me, nor has it been for the large majority of the great thinkers and leaders that I follow.
No Julius Evola’s views don’t, but if you read his work, even his last works and interviews, it is pretty clear how he really feels. Regardless of how he FEELS about it though, he has great evaluations and historical information on the positives and negatives of Christianity which are worth reading.
The Free Masons USED to be a very positive organization with valuable traditions that offered an alternate spirituality that was under the guise of Christianity. It included some Christian themes along with many other traditions associated with other religions and traditions. It offered a lot more than spirituality obviously, and I have a very positive view of early Masonry. Unfortunately, things changed and distorting influences infiltrated many of the lodges. Over time most of these organizations became parasitic and effectively, many of the lodges became tools of Jewish influence, or mouthpieces for philosophies that benefited the overthrow of traditional Western Civilization. You can argue this was good all you want, but there is a reason the cream of the crop of WN in Europe (the New Right) and even many in America have a negative view of contemporary Masonry and Masonry in general for the last few hundred years.
To be fair, some lodges even held out as generally positive forces until around WWII but since then the “good” ones have sort of dropped off the map. This might be because we don’t have a historical view of what they’ve done, but I seriously doubt any of them are as influential as they used to be, or even remotely effective at causing a positive change. And of course none of them changed over night, some carried on good traditions for a long time. But not only are they actively working against us today, they have lost pretty much all of their previous esoteric knowledge and are just fraternities for influential people (local and national) within the liberal post-modern system.
I think we just plain disagree when it comes to our views of Free Masonry. I don’t believe any more argument on it is going to change much, just like the Christian subject. But I do think it was good that we were able to offer our arguments. In the end, these are personal decisions/value judgments people will have to make. History will show what views triumph.
It was interesting for you to call the early united states an oligarchy, which it was, though it should have been blatantly clear to anyone with foresight that this would quickly turn into a plutocracy. You always get a plutocracy with predatory/free market capitalism. As far as the “vulnerabilities” being “warped well beyond their original scope” in hindsight, that is the case with EVERY historical form of government and system, so it doesn’t give the U.S. ‘victimhood’ status in this situation.
Creativity and innovation that strengthened the enemy. Unlimited creativity and innovation that has served to weaken our people, make them lazy and degenerate our people even more into cattle. I am all for creativity and innovation, but we need to carefully decide how to introduce new things into society, weigh the benefits and disadvantages. This was never done in our system, the creativity and innovation was done at the expense of our peoples higher principles. It was largely done and motivated by pure profit, so the company (and all the way down to an individual level) can make a few more shekels. I don’t have a problem with personal profit being a PART of innovation and creativity, but when the system/culture/society makes it THE motivating factor, as it always has been in the United States with few exceptions, what you get is degeneration. You get our highly materialistic, consumerist, selfish, mass culture that is America. Again, this is not to be blamed purely on Jews (though they have CERTAINLY played the leading role), plenty of our own good white merchants have been willing to throw us under the bus for a few shiny shekels. Again, only attesting more to the fact that the merchant class is unfit to for the leadership role. That is what it all really boils down to.
Not that I have anything against you personally, and I am firmly aware we are on the same side, but I am not hopeful for a convincing demonstration on your part of why returning to a White American nation is the preferable to “other serious alternatives.” Honestly, I am nauseated at the thought of hearing another racialist, libertarian, constitutional, Ron Paul-like argument. But, since I have engaged in this much discussion with you, I will suck up and give your demonstration (whatever that may be) a fair chance.
Btw, the Sharpton quote:
“If I walk up to your pew and throw you on the floor, that’s on me. But if I come to church next Sunday and you’re still lying on the floor, that’s on YOU!””
I find HILARIOUS coming from him. Do you think he gets the irony in his statement?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment